K2 brought up an interesting point about Torah observance by Christians, and asked why it wasn't seen and encouraged in the early Church. So I did just a littel digging, because I remembered from prior reading that Torah observance was widespread in early Christianty, especially the Eastern Churches.

Below is a reference to the "circumcised bishops" of Jerusalem. From the time of James until 130 AD, the bishops of Jerusalem were all circumcised, Torah observant Jews. So for one hundred years after the death of Christ the bishops in charge of the birthplace of Christianity were all Torah followers.

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.ix.v.html


I've also waxed on about the Quartodecimian controversy on several occasions. Basically this dispute was over the celebration of Passover and the resurrection of Jesus. The Western Churches wanted a Sunday observance, and the Eastern Churches wanted to use the 14th day of Nisan (the first Jewish month). K2 says this was only a disagreement on the celebration of the actual day. I disagree, and I see this as a clear disagreement between Torah observant Christians and those who were not. Moving on...


John Chrysostom was bishop of Constantinople in the late 4th century. He specifically wrote a tract titled "Against Jews" as referenced.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/chrysostom_adversus_judaeos_01_homily1.htm
In Homily 1 part 5, you can see that he mentions Christians in relation to the Jewish Festivals and High Holy Days. He says many go to observe and some participate in the Festivals with the Jews. He is appalled and speaks out vehemently against this. But it is clear evidence that even in the late 300's AD Christians were still keeping Jewish Festivals as part of Torah.
Further reading in Socrates Church History volume #6 states that Chrysostom forcibly took churches from "quartodecimian bishops," and sometimes used physical violence to accomplish this. Due to this and other actions, he was eventually deposed from his position. It seems weird to me that we still had so many Eastern bishops referred to "quartodecimian" even into the late 4th century. After all, wasn't the matter of Passover settled hundreds of years earlier? I think Chrysostom's actions and writings are further evidence of my view that "quartodecimian" was a catch-all term used to describe Torah observant Eastern believers.

As a tangent, I wanted to discuss the Nestorians. Nestorius was excommunicated for teaching that Jesus' divine and human nature were distinct and no seemlessly blended. That's not why I'm bringing him up. Nestorius spent time in both Antioch and Constantinople, and he was known to be a devout monk. After the schism of his followers from the mainline Church, it was noted that they all observed the sabbath and abstained from pork. Again, this is around 400 AD. Nestorius and his followers always maintained that their views were perfectly orthodox and never considered themselves part of a different Church. They were cut off; they didn't choose to leave. However, they were not excommunicated over sabbath or dietary practices, and there is no history anywhere that says they just decided to start doing these things after the schism. Coupled with the other practices mentioned earlier, it makes sense to me that they were already avoiding pork, keeping Sabbath (and perhaps other types of Torah observance as well) well before the schism and just continued worshipping as they always had.
http://ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol._2_No._6;_April_2011/31.pdf
(Section 5, banned practices)

Finally there are many references to sabbath keeping in early church, especially the East. In fact, as late as the late sixth century we still had popes issuing edicts trying to force Christians to work on Sabbath and rest on Sunday. As people don't make these announcements with no reason, it is fair to assume a significant number of Christians were still following Sabbath worship.
https://www.ecclesia.org/truth/sabbath-history.html
"The people of Constantinople and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria." Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, Book 7, chap. 19.
"About 590, Pope Gregory, in a letter to the Roman people, denounced as the prophets of Antichrist those who maintained that work ought not to be done on the seventh day." James T. Ringgold, The Law of Sunday, p. 267.

My opinion on the subject is that there were large numbers of Torah observant Christians throughout the first several centuries of Christianity, mostly in the East. This continued to be viewed as an acceptable form of Christian worship until the 4th century. At that time Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, the Emperors began to have direct input into Church affairs, and the Roman style of worship became the only officially sanctioned style. From that point on we see many attempts by Popes and Bishops of Constantinople to exercise their authority to "normalize" Christian worship exclusively into the Roman style, with successive edicts becoming more and more emphatic until finally Pope Gregory calls Christian Sabbath-keepers the Antichrist.

So I see my style of Christian Torah observance as resurrecting a long tradition that dates from the very birth of Christianity until at least the late 6th century. I know that even then it wasn't the only form of worship or the dominant form of Christian worship, but I feel it is the most authentic and original form.

I missed this thread somehow!

Some comments/notes. The phrase "of the circumcision" means Jews. The word being translated as that is peritome. It's used often as a group title for Jewish believers. Acts 10, 11, Galations 2, all use it this way.

Galatians 2:12 NIV says "the circumcision group" but the Greek just says being afraid of "those of the circumcision" i.e., Jewish Christians.

You may say "well, those passages are talking about circumcision". Ok. How about Colossians 4:11? The NIV says "Jesus, who is called Justus, also sends greetings. These are the only Jews among my co-workers for the kingdom of God, and they have proved a comfort to me." But the KJV and NASB translate it closer -- "these are the only fellow workers for the kingdom of God who are from the circumcision."

Titus 1:10 in the NIV also makes the same problem as in "of the circumcision group". What St Paul actually says is just "For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision". Go on to the next few verses "not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled." Same old debate as Acts 11, Galatians 2, and so on: Jews versus Gentiles.

Anyway, you can see Eusebius using it this way (Jew vs Gentile) throughout his book. For example:

Book 3 Chapter 4: "And in how many provinces Peter preached Christ and taught the doctrine of the new covenant to those of the circumcision is clear from his own words in his epistle already mentioned as undisputed..."

Book 3 Chapter 35: "But when Symeon also had died in the manner described, a certain Jew by the name of Justus succeeded to the episcopal throne in Jerusalem. He was one of the many thousands of the circumcision who at that time believed in Christ. "

Book 5 Chapter 12. "We have shown that from that time first the church in Jerusalem was composed of Gentiles, after those of the circumcision, and that Marcus was the first Gentile bishop that presided over them first Gentile bishop that presided over them."

Chapter 22 :There were, moreover, various opinions in the circumcision, among the children of Israel."

Anyway, even in the same paragraph he calls them all "of Hebrew descent". The commonality here is that they were Jewish, not that they were observant.

Your letter from the Paschal controversy was also recorded by Eusebius. Eusebius was from Caesarea Maritima in modern day Israel from 314-340 AD. So, by all respects, he is an eastern Christian, instructed by Agapius of Caesarea, etc. What does Eusebius say about the Law in Church History?

Quote:

---

If any one should assert that all those who have enjoyed the testimony of righteousness, from Abraham himself back to the first man, were Christians in fact if not in name, he would not go beyond the truth...They did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we. They did not avoid certain kinds of food, neither did they regard the other distinctions which Moses first delivered to their posterity to be observed as symbols; nor do Christians of the present day do such things. But they also clearly knew the very Christ of God; for it has already been shown that he appeared unto Abraham, that he imparted revelations to Isaac, that he talked with Jacob, that he held converse with Moses and with the prophets that came after. Hence you will find those divinely favored men honored with the name of Christ, according to the passage which says of them, "Touch not my Christs, and do my prophets no harm."

---

I don't disagree that there were various shades of Law-following sects from mild to wild. The variance on these teachings extended from "tolerable" to flat heretical. From which date to celebrate Pascha to whether it's required for salvation. But should this be any surprise? Ask fifteen people today about various doctrinal questions and you'll get fifteen difference answers. The number of heresies St Irenaeus and Eusebius record are insane.

Some other information for you to consider. In Dialogue with Trypho, Trypho asks Justin specifically about torah following Christians. The answer is that the practice is not salvific, but don't pose a barrier to salvation as long as they practice as Christians do and don't try to convince others that they need to practice the Law to be saved. (Dialogue with Trypho 47)

St Irenaeus makes no distinction like St Justin does, and just calls the Ebionites heretics, as does Origen and others.

Can you explain (or link to an explanation of) your version of Torah observance? Thanks.

As for St John Chrysostom. He was from Antioch, and was a monk. He definitely doesn't fall under western Christianity, if you're trying draw that line. He was made Bishop of Constantinople against his will and was deposed for speaking out against the empress (not for deposing Judaizing bishops). He wrote against numerous heresies; it's not like sabbath keeping was a singular topic of his.

Further, there was quite a bit of travel even in the ancient world. Men like St John Cassian was born in Romania, was a monk in Palestine and Egypt, made a deacon by St John Chrysostom in Constantinople, was received by the Roman Pope Innocent I and was invited to found an Egyptian style monastery in Marseilles. His monastic writings were the foundation for St Benedict. If the standard in the east was keeping Torah, we would see evidence of it.

It's the exception, small sects and holdouts,confused folks and those taken advantage of by poor teachers of the scriptures. This is why they called them Ebionites - poverty stricken, poor in their understanding.

St Epiphanius also wrote on heresies. He was born in 310 30 miles south of Jerusalem, was a monk in Egypt, was an eastern Christian. In his Panarion (medicine chest) Against Heresies (the venom) he addressed Judaism as follows.

Quote:

---

[The Jewish canon of] sacred books taught Judaism and Law's observances until the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And the Jews would have been all right under the Law's tutelage if they had accepted the Christ whom their pedagogue, I mean the Law, foretold and prophesied to them so as to learn, not of the Law's destruction but of its fulfillment, by accepting Christ's divinity and incarnation. For the types were in the Law, but the truth is in the Gospel.

• The Law provides for physical circumcision. This served for a time until the great circumcision, baptism, which cuts us off from our sins and has sealed us in God's name.
• The Law had a sabbath to keep us for the great Sabbath, the rest of Christ, so that in Christ we might enjoy a Sabbath-rest from sins.
• And in the Law a lamb, a dumb animal, was sacrificed to guide us to the great, heavenly Lamb, slain for us and 'for the whole world.'
• And the Law ensured tithing, to keep us from overlooking the 'iota,' the ten, the initial letter of the name of Jesus.

Now since the Jews were guided by the type and did not reach the fulfillment which is proclaimed by the Law, by the prophets and others, and by every book (in scripture), they were put off the estate. And the gentiles came on, since Jews can no longer be saved unless they return to the grace of the Gospel. For every ordinance has been violated by them as each text says, in every scripture.

But briefly, with one text, I shall state the inevitability and unalterability of the declaration against them. Their sentence is plain to see as Scripture says, 'Whatsoever soul will not hearken unto that prophet shall be cut off from his tribe, and from Israel, and from under the heavens.'

In other words the Lord is to give a final, saving confirmation of the truths he has imparted mystically through the Law, and a person who does not listen to him, and refuses to, cannot be saved even though he keeps the Law. For the Law cannot perfect the man, since the ordinances in it have been written physically and their real fulfillment is in Christ.

So much for JudaismI did mention a few points, so as not to omit all the facts about them, but to give them in part. For the subject of the Jews, and the refutation of them, is known beforehand, as we might say, to everyone.

---

The whole point of his work was to help people address heresies. How to refute the following of the Law was considered blase, "known beforehand to everyone".

If these teachings were so obvious, widespread, and consistent, then why can't we get a consistent message from the Church Fathers on this?

Is it as Justin Martyr says: that following the Torah is acceptable but not necessary or beneficial?

Or it is as John Chrystostom says: That following Torah negates the sacrifice of Christ?

Or is it as Pope Gregory says: That sabbath keepers are the anti-christ?

Or were the ancient Torah keeping Christians just all poor, superstitous, and uninformed? They would have stopped if they just knew better?

You claim the refutation is so basic, widespread and consistent that it doesn't even bear mentioning in the histories. Yet we have varying claims on why this is wrong and how wrong it is. I've also offered evidence that bishops (bishops!) were following Torah, and yet you still claim that this was "only the poor"/"heretics"/"the uneducated". Which I guess the heretic claim was eventually made true by papal proclamation, especially regarding Sabbath-keepers.


Finally, John Chrysostom's punishment came from 2 different Synods and was confirmed by the Emperor. The voting in the synods was done by other clergy, and Socrates clearly states that some of them were upset at his violent treatment of sects that include the Quartodecimians.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26016.htm

Furthermore as on the 30th of September, in the last-mentioned consulate, there was an extraordinary fall of hail of immense size at Constantinople and its suburbs, it also was declared to be an expression of Divine indignation on account of Chrysostom's unjust deposition: and the death of the empress tended to give increased credibility to these reports, for it took place four days after the hail-storm. Others, however, asserted that John had been deservedly deposed, because of the violence he had exercised in Asia and Lydia, in depriving the Novatians and Quartodecimans of many of their churches, when he went to Ephesus and ordained Heraclides. But whether John's deposition was just, as his enemies declare, or Cyrinus suffered in chastisement for his slanderous revilings; whether the hail fell, or the empress died on John's account, or whether these things happened for other reasons, or for these in connection with others, God only knows, who is the discerner of secrets, and the just judge of truth itself. I have simply recorded the reports which were current at that time.

I'm big into independent study, but the closest you'll probably find is Keith Johnson. He's a Methodist minister who got big into the Hebrew Roots movement. Here's his website:

https://bfainternational.com/

Fair warning, he was heavily influence by Nehemiah Gordon, a Karaite Jew. Karaites are like sola scriptura Jews for the most part, and they don't follow much, if any, oral tradition.

Anyway, the overall idea is to do what the Torah says to the best of your ability based on a simple reading of the text in the context of the situation and culture. Hope that answers the question.

Quote:

---

Anyway, even in the same paragraph he calls them all "of Hebrew descent". The commonality here is that they were Jewish, not that they were observant.

---

Is your contention that the Bishops of Jerusalem of Hebrew descent that were called "of the circumcision" were not circumcised Torah Keepers? James the Just was a Nazarite who was universally respected by Jews of all sects for his piety, asceticism, and knowledge of the Torah. He was likely of the priestly line (Elizabeth's side ot he family) and worshipped regularly in the Temple before being martyred. And yet your conclusion is the his Hebrew descended successors in Jerusalem at some point over the next few decades decided to stop following the Torah, because it wasn't important anymore? We're both spitting in the wind here, but to my mind that position has no support whatsoever.

Man, we did receive a straightforward teaching. St Justin said if a person wants to keep the law he can, but don't believe it brings salvation or convince any others of that. St Irenaeus is talking about Ebionites, of which there were two kinds. The one type denied Christ's divinity, the other said salvation required following the law. Both would not meet St Justin's criteria: hence, they were heretical. Whether Trypho's hypothetical Jewish convert was an ebionite or not is a moot point.

The quartodecimian controversy was "bad" but not a heresy - as you can see by Polycarp visiting Ancetus and them not agreeing but communing together.

You haven't offered evidence that bishops were following Torah. You've offered evidence that bishops were celebrating Pascha on the Jewish date instead of the one agreed to by the Church and then made

Note that St John deposed bishops from the Novatian schism as well, but you don't seem to mind his judgment there.

There is a clear teaching in several ways:
1. The council of Jerusalem in Acts is clear.
2. The epistles of St. Paul are clear.
3. The witness of several fathers are clear.
4. There are no records of controversy about following the law outside of the initial controversy recorded in Acts and the council of Jerusalem.
5. The writings of several fathers who served both in the east and west makes no mention of what would be a MAJOR gap in doctrine and theology.
6. The collective tradition of the entire church does not support this.

St Justin (Rome AD 150) and Eusebius (Palestine AD 330) and St Epiphanius (Palestine, Egypt, Cyprus AD 350ish) are almost verbatim on the subject of following the sabbath, circumcision, dietary restrictions, and festivals. Never mind the force of St Johns polemic against the Jews (not for being Jewish but for denying Christ).

This seems black and white to me.

I'll put it back another way. Find me an answer opposite of St John, St Irenaeus, St Epiphanius, Eusebius, St Justin saying it's good and worthwhile . I'm sure there are more, I didn't do an exhaustive search at all. Just find me a single one..?

No, I just mean that when eusebius uses the phase "of the circumcision" he just means Israelites, Hebrews, of the Judaic race. He means Jews. Anything more is being read in.

I don't doubt that the Hebrew Jews continued to practice as well as they could, until Christ's words were true and they were put out of the synagogue. St James was thrown from the temple. They were imprisoned, stoned, beaten, martyred. Then the Temple was destroyed. I don't think it's a stretch that they stopped.

Quote:

---

Man, we did receive a straightforward teaching.

---

Justin Martyr: it's not necessary, but do your thing

John Chrysostom: If you celebrate a Feast day you have sinned and are seriously "ill" for following the practices of evil Jews

Pope Gregory: Sabbath keepers are prophets of the anti-christ

I don't see a whole lot of consistency here. I'll get back to you on your request.

The key is in the details. With the Jews is the detail you're missing. Justin said he should be in fellowship with the Church and if he keeps Torah by his own conscience so be it. St John is talking about worshipping with the Jews, in the synagogues. People objected to him and said the synagogues were holy because they had the scriptures and St. John said that was completely false.

I am confident the sabbath keepers Pope Gregory wrote about weren't just not working on Saturday. Can you link to that so I can read up?

I mean, how can you suggest dietary restrictions are binding on Gentile believers when St Paul says "If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience' sake...

Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved."

Even if the meet wasn't offered to an idol, it certainly wouldn't have been likely to have slaughtered per kosher. What would be the occasion for offense given to Jews if keeping Torah was a requirement or common practice that St Paul taught?

St Paul gives plenty of things that are hard and fast requirements. I doubt he would have said "feel free to worship in pagan temples if your conscience allows it".

Also - the witness of the Didache (1st century Syrian likely authored) is a clue to how early Jewish Christians worshipped. They fasted Wednesday and Friday - unlike the Jews. Friday fasting implies not keeping Saturday sabbath, because Friday was the day of preparation.

Thanks.

Or fasting Friday means they kept Sabbath, because no one fasts on the Sabbath. The Didache also talks about "keeping the commandments you received without adding or taking away" and to watch for "lawlessness". Both of those are Torah concepts

I also don't follow with why the Bishops of Jerusalem would stop following Torah after destruction of the Temple and antagonism with Jews. The Torah from the Jews; it's directly from God. The Jews have built their identity around it, but they don't own it. It's like saying that going to war with Canada and then destroying the Stanley Cup means no American can ever play hockey again.

If Rome started persecuting the East would you change your worship style because it was too Roman?

I also never said Torah was a "requirement" per se. As I've said before, I feel Torah observance is the most original and authentic form of Christian worship. It's the broad outline from God on how to love Him and each other.

I think many other people have led lives pleasing to God without following all Torah precepts. I've mentioned Billy Graham, Mother Teresa, and any number of martyrs before. If someone competely dedicates every moment of their life and death to love and service to God, then who wants to quibble over tassels and shellfish? Unfortunately that description applies to only a small percentage of Christians. For those like me, the commandments help me keep God first in every aspect of my life.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Or fasting Friday means they kept Sabbath, because no one fasts on the Sabbath.

I also don't follow with the Bishops of Jerusalem would stop following Torah after destruction of the Temple and antagonism with Jews. The Torah from the Jews; it's directly from God. The Jews have built their identity around it, but they don't own it. It's like saying that going to war with Canada and then destroying the Stanley Cup means no American can ever play hockey again.

If Rome started persecuting the East would you change your worship style because it was too Roman?

---

Fasting Friday was in direct opposition to the practices of the Jews. The Didache makes it clear they are to fast differently than the Jewish custom. If you fast on Friday you can't prepare for the Sabbath. This is why the Jews fasted on Monday and Thursday.

The Didache also says "On the Lord's Day, break bread and hold Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions that your offering may be pure."

The first bishop of Jerusalem stopped following Torah because they threw him off of the roof of the temple, and when that failed to kill him they clubbed him to death. Hard to follow Torah without a temple and without a synagogue, without a Sanhedrin.

A closer question would be - if Christ returned, would I continue to go to church? The new came. "When He said, "A new," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear."

The apostle to the Gentiles and the council at Acts taught the Gentile converts they were under no obligation to continue Torah. The Pharisees said it is necessary for them to be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses. They debated, and St Peter said:

"Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?"

What could he be possibly talking about other than the Mosaic Law?

Here's the words of the council's letter. I consider this binding to all Christians as an ecumenical council of the apostles.

"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell."

I don't think it's bad for you to do that as long as you are practicing your Christian faith and it doesn't interfere.

I'm not sure you can say that's the original authentic Christianity, unless you consider that requirement to be like the Apostles. They were the only "generation" of Christians who were all Jews. And -- Jesus even witnessed to Gentiles, so even in the 0th generation there were Jews and Gentiles. I consider myself practicing the authentic apostolic faith as delivered to my spiritual ancestors, who were Gentiles.

Here is Gregory's entire epistle

http://biblelight.net/gregory1.htm

One other thing. I don't know you or where / how you worship, but I was taught this and I think it's valuable. The Church has added hymns, fasting guidance, common prayers, and so on to increase her wealth to offer to the members of the body over the centuries. We are continuing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; Christ Himself leads the Church today. If the Church has a clear rule on something that has evolved (and I'm not talking about theological changes i.e., changes to orthodoxy, but practice, orthopraxy) this should be encouragement -- because the Church has found success here. The Church is in the practice of ministering to souls -- she is a hospital for the sick. Her methods work, because the medicine is Divine.

If you practice a faith of maximalism in Orthodoxy, I don't think you'll have time to worry about anything else.

Further, if the Church teaches the fullness of Truth (and I believe it does), then practicing anything other than what she prescribes is a bit like going to a doctor, then choosing home brew solutions instead. Or practicing alchemy instead of chemistry. Alchemy may produce results, haphazardly -- or even for certain things, consistently. But the underlying principles are not correct, and it will not be as reliable or beneficial for the practitioner. I think following the Law is at best neutral, at worst incredibly dangerous to your faith. It cannot bring you righteousness! (Gal 2:21) If that is the case, then why do it?

Ok. So I read that, I don't really see any problem with it.

The fear here is clear - Judaizers seek "to bring back the outward rite of the law" and thus are preachers of Antichrist.

St Gregory the Great teaches the if you want to follow the law, you have to follow the whole law -- including sacrifices (so taught St Paul in Gal 5, and St James in James 2:10).

I guess I don't understand the objection here? People were preaching observation of the Law to them. This is the exact same litmus test as proposed by St Justin Martyr "[if they] yet choose to live with the Christians and the faithful, as I said before, not inducing them either to be circumcised like themselves, or to keep the Sabbath, or to observe any other such ceremonies, then I hold that we ought to join ourselves to such, and associate with them in all things as kinsmen and brethren. But if, Trypho, some of your race, who say they believe in this Christ, compel those Gentiles who believe in this Christ to live in all respects according to the law given by Moses, or choose not to associate so intimately with them, I in like manner do not approve of them."

Not a Church Father expert by any means, but ran across this from Clement of Alexandria

Quote:

---

When we hear, 'Your faith has saved you,' we do not understand the Lord to say simply that they will be saved who have believed in whatever manner, even if works have not followed. To begin with, it was to the Jews alone that he spoke this phrase, who had lived in accord with the law and blamelessly and who had lacked only faith in the Lord (Stromateis or Miscellanies 6:14:108:4 [post A.D. 202]).

---

This seems to outright state that living according to the law leaves only faith lacking.

You clearly believe that your Church is given to us by God for guidance. I have the same belief in regards to Torah. The thought that something given to us by God and followed in loving faith could be harmful is somewhat ridiculous to me

St Clement:

instruction leads to faith, and faith with baptism is trained by the Holy Spirit. For that faith is the one universal salvation of humanity, and that there is the same equality before the righteous and loving God, and the same fellowship between Him and all, the apostle most clearly showed, speaking to the following effect: "Before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed, so that the law became our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith; but after that faith has come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." Do you not hear that we are no longer under that law which was accompanied with fear, but under the Word, the master of free choice?

And if by faith someone freely chooses to worship according to the Law?

Same Chapter by St Clement:

With the greatest clearness the blessed Paul has solved for us this question in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, writing thus: Brethren, be not children in understanding; howbeit in malice be children, but in understanding be men. 1 Corinthians 14:20 And the expression, When I was a child, I thought as a child, I spoke as a child, points out his mode of life according to the law, according to which, thinking childish things, he persecuted, and speaking childish things he blasphemed the Word, not as having yet attained to the simplicity of childhood, but as being in its folly; for the word has two meanings. When I became a man, again Paul says, I put away childish things. 1 Corinthians 13:11 It is not incomplete size of stature, nor a definite measure of time, nor additional secret teachings in things that are manly and more perfect, that the apostle, who himself professes to be a preacher of childishness, alludes to when he sends it, as it were, into banishment; but he applies the name children to those who are under the law, who are terrified by fear as children are by bugbears; and men to us who are obedient to the Word and masters of ourselves, who have believed, and are saved by voluntary choice, and are rationally, not irrationally, frightened by terror. Of this the apostle himself shall testify, calling as he does the Jews heirs according to the first covenant, and us heirs according to promise: Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he differs nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors, till the time appointed by the father. So also we, when we were children, were in bondage under the rudiments of the world: but when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons Galatians 4:1-5 by Him. See how He has admitted those to be children who are under fear and sins; but has conferred manhood on those who are under faith, by calling them sons, in contradistinction from the children that are under the law: For you are no more a servant, he says, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God. Galatians 4:7 What, then, is lacking to the son after inheritance? Wherefore the expression, When I was a child, may be elegantly expounded thus: that is, when I was a Jew (for he was a Hebrew by extraction) I thought as a child, when I followed the law; but after becoming a man, I no longer entertain the sentiments of a child, that is, of the law, but of a man, that is, of Christ, whom alone the Scripture calls man, as we have said before. I put away childish things. But the childhood which is in Christ is maturity, as compared with the law.

Here is St Clement, echoing the sentiments my bishop taught me (or perhaps my bishop echoing him.. or both echoing Christ?):

And as there is one mode of training for philosophers, another for orators, and another for athletes; so is there a generous disposition, suitable to the choice that is set upon moral loveliness, resulting from the training of Christ...Thus, therefore, the Word has been called also the Saviour, seeing He has found out for men those rational medicines which produce vigour of the senses and salvation; and devotes Himself to watching for the favourable moment, reproving evil, exposing the causes of evil affections, and striking at the roots of irrational lusts, pointing out what we ought to abstain from, and supplying all the antidotes of salvation to those who are diseased. For the greatest and most regal work of God is the salvation of humanity.

As to danger of following the Law - I quoted this on a thread the other day.

'The letter kills,' says Scripture, 'but the Spirit gives life'. Consequently the letter whose nature it is to kill must be killed by the life-giving Spirit. For what is material in the Law and what is divine -- namely, the letter and the Spirit -- cannot co-exist, nor can what destroys life be reconciled with that which by nature bestows life.
...
Thus it is necessary that the one who seeks after God in a religious way never holds fast to the letter lest he mistakenly understand things said about God for God Himself. In this case we unwisely are satisfied with the words of Scripture in the place of the Word, and the Word slips out of the mind while we thought by holding onto this garment we could possess the incorporeal Word. In a similar way did the Egyptian woman lay hold not of Joseph but of his clothing, and the men of old who remained permanently in the beauty of visible things and mistakenly worshipped the creature instead of the Creator.
...
God did not order the sabbath, the new moons and the feasts to be honored because He wanted men to honor the days themselves: this would have been tantamount to decreeing by the Law that man should worship creation rather than the Creator (cf. Romans 1:25), and should regard the days as holy in themselves and therefore to be venerated. On the contrary, He indicated that He Himself was to be honored symbolically through the days.
For He is the sabbath, as the soul's repose after its exertions in the flesh, and as the cessations of its sufferings in the cause of righteousness.
He is the Passover, as the liberator of those held in the bitter slavery of sin.
He is the Pentecost, as the origin and consummation of all created beings, and as the principle through which all things by nature exist.
Thus the Law destroys those who apprehend it in a literal or outward way, leading them to worship creation rather than the Creator, and to regard as holy in themselves things that were brought into existence for man's sake; for they remain ignorant of Him on whose account they were created.

-St Maximos 1

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

Justin Martyr: it's not necessary, but do your thing

---

John Chrysostom: If you celebrate a Feast day you have sinned and are seriously "ill" for following the practices of evil Jews

Pope Gregory: Sabbath keepers are prophets of the anti-christ

I don't see a whole lot of consistency here. I'll get back to you on your request.

---

One of my pet peeves in all these debates is providing soundbites and note understanding the Context. Note: I do it also, many times it is a time issue, or laziness

Below is the full quote from Pope Gregory- and it goes back to Council of 50AD, it goes back to St. Paul battling the Judiaziers. YOU DON"T NEED TO FOLLOW ALL OF THE 613 LAWS- NO CIRCUMCISION - PHYSICAL CUTTING OF SKIN

Pope Gregory I "It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath day.
What else can I call these [men] but preachers of Antichrist, who when he comes will cause the Sabbath day as well as the Lord's day to be kept free from all work.

For because he [the Antichrist] pretends to die and rise again, he wishes the Lord's day to be held in reverence; and because he compels the people to Judaize that he may bring back the outward rite of the law, and subject the perfidy of the Jews to himself, he wishes the Sabbath to be observed.

For this which is said by the prophet, 'You shall bring in no burden through your gates on the Sabbath day' [Jer. 17:24] could be held to as long as it was lawful for the law to be observed according to the letter. But after that the grace of almighty God, our Lord Jesus Christ, has appeared, the commandments of the law which were spoken figuratively cannot be kept according to the letter. For if anyone says that this about the Sabbath is to be kept, he must needs say that carnal sacrifices are to be offered. He must say too that the commandment about the circumcision of the body is still to be retained. But let him hear the apostle Paul saying in opposition to him: 'If you be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing' [Gal. 5:2]" (Letters 13:1 [A.D. 597]).

K2,

I would site that quote as another piece of evidence for the athority of the Pope, that the Pope existed and claimed authority. Over 400 years before the split.

Note: we also see not everyone agreed with him, just like not everyone agreed with Jesus - Gospel John 6 when they reject teaching of Jesus (Eucharist), we see otherrs reject the teaching of apostles and Paul- Galatians.

Note: I already know what your response will be- he was a bishop and just showed his authority as the bishop. Does not show his authority over all the other bishops.

The letter is addressed "To the Roman citizens". Hardly a universal letter.

k2aggie07 said:

---

The letter is addressed "To the Roman citizens". Hardly a universal letter.

---

1) Fair enough- "this statement- preachers of antichrist" letter shows authority over his people as Bishop. We both agree he speaks with authority.

2) Add to that statement above we see Gregory- acting as Pope- outside of his boundary in Rome. Acting globally Sending missionaries dealing with items outside of his territory. We see a man who did not want to be pope, become pope and recognize the unique authority of Peter's chair. His words below

Your most sweet holiness [Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria] has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair off St. Perter, prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy. I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter's chair, who occupies Peter's chair. And though special honor to myself in no way delights me who can be ignorant that the holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Peter, from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the truth, "To you I will give the keys to the kingdom of heaven" [Mt 16:19]. And again it is said to him, " And when you are converted strengthen your brethren" [LK 22:32] And once more, " Simon, son of John, do you love me? Feed my sheep [Jn 21:17] [Letters 7:40 A.D 597]

3) Background on Pope Gregory I one of the great popes- When Pope Pelagius II (r. 579-590) died, Gregory was elected pope and greeted the news by writing a letter to the emperor begging him to repudiate the election. When the emperor refused, Gregory fled Rome and hid in a cave for three days in the hope that his absence would compel the election of another. It was not to be, and Gregory accepted his papal election.

As pope, Gregory defended the Church and the papacy from incursions by secular rulers. He reinforced papal primacy and restored prestige and respect to the office. While pope he retained his humble monastic lifestyle and spent considerable time and money on caring for the poor of Rome. He adopted the title Servus Servorum Dei (Servant of the Servants of God), reformed the liturgy, preserved the tombs of saints, and wrote theological treatises. Gregory is considered one of the "great" popes due to his defense of papal primacy, his theological writings (he wrote a work entitled Pastoral Care, on the role and duty of bishops) and his support for missionaries, who succeeded in spreading the Faith in Britain.

K2,

I know you will dispute, saying it is out of context in some way. But what is not out of context- is the chair of Peter, the authority of Peter's chair. The special role this had from the beginning, through the centuries from various regions of the Christian kingdom- we see the confirmation of this.

We agree- not everyone agreed with what the popes say. As noted before not everyone agreed with Jesus and St. Paul and apostles.

Note: the bishops are all brothers in Christ, they are on the same team, working together, trying to do so in harmony. But at certain times we see the squabbles and disagreements rise.