The Bible is full of tensions. Tensions between law and grace, justification and sanctification, and the eschatological tension between this age and the age to come serve as a few examples. Another tension that seems to come up is that of the authority of the historical church and that of Scripture. I personally think that the beliefs of the early church is less significant than most reformed folk, mainly because (as a conditionalist) I see how quickly the pagan beliefs of the Greeks mixed with Christianity. Another reason is the idea that the church is maturing. If Christ is conforming the church to his image, there must be things in today’s church that more accurately reflect the truths contained in the Bible than there were in the early post-apostalic church (by “apostalic” I mean during the lives of the writers of the New Testament just in case it has another meaning to some).
A good example is the prebyterian form of government. Many claim that the episcopal form is the oldest, therefore making it the correct form. However, the church’s maturity in our trinitarian faith as well as maturing to a better ability of understanding the Bible (all by the grace of the Holy Spirit working in the saints before us) has given birth to the more biblical Presbyterian form. All of this relates to the Hebrew understanding of truth over time and the biblical understanding of maturity as the means of attaining immortality.
0 Responses to “Maturity and Church History”