Post by rgrove on May 9, 2005 15:59:04 GMT -5
First Apology of Justin Martyr
I have been enjoying reading from Justin Martyr's first apology lately. I highly recommend it. This is one of the first apologetics written for the Christian faith against pagan religions of the second century. Justin lived from 110 - 165 when he was beheaded for the faith. This is a very, very early and significant writing for the church. Justin was a very interested in philosophy and the religions of the day. This meant he was extremely well equiped after his conversion to write apologetic works. I have regarded his conversion story as one of my most favorite for a few years. It's found in his "Dialog with Trypho" and even if you don't read that book, I believe reading his testimony will benefit you greatly. It may be found here:
Ch III - Justin Narrates the Manner of his Conversion
The First Apology is an extraordinary example of weaving prophecy into your approach to pagan religion. The high points of Justin's apology in my opinion are as follows.
1) Defends Christian's rights in the Roman Empire against unjust persecution soley for the reason of being a Christian. He does this by making many comparisons to how other religions with similar characteristics are not persecuted. He also points to the extraordinary moral character of Christians as reasons why they are good citizens and not a threat to anyone.
2) Defends Jesus claim to be Messiah by introducing the OT to his readers (though the document is addressed to the emperor). Obviously they may not be familiar with OT writings since he's writing to Gentiles. After this he goex extensively into prophecy from the OT to authenticate the claim that Jesus is indeed the Messiah that was predicted. It's very impressive and shows a very good knowledge of the OT.
3) If you are interested in reading early church segments that address the sovereignty of God and the will of man, he addresses this from a very libertarian free will point of view in Ch XLIII (43) "Responsibility Asserted". In this he defends Christianity from charges of fatalism (introduced by his heavy use of prophecy in his apologetic) using a classic free will defense.
4) Ch LXI (61) is a very interesting statement on Baptism. As usual, much argument over what he says and doesn't say here. But it's an extremely important early testimony to Baptism in the early church that should be read by every Christian IMO.
5) Chapter LXVI (66) is an very important testimony to the practice of communion in the early church. Almost everyone finds reason to believe that Justin represents their view. I would tend to agree with Stander and Louw that the language is ambiguous and not precise enough for anyone to claim. As I've read this and other statements I think it's important to divorce ourselves from our beliefs and try to understand what they meant at the time and when I do that, I don't believe many early fathers address any of the later distinctions. They just didn't "define" communion like Rome has forced everyone to do (IMO) through it's unbiblical, but dogmatic anathemas against all who deny their definition of transsubstantiation.
6) Chapter LXVII (67) on weekly worship services is also extremely interesting. I find the reading of scripture "as long as time permits" to be a very interesting aspect and would love to see this practice returned to. In our Reformed Baptist services much more scripture is read than at most. We read the first part of a Psalm in the first service and the second part at the call to worship of the second service. After another hymn is sung and then the passage(s) to be preached upon are read which is sometimes a full chapter, and sometimes only a few verses. In my mind this is an excellent early church practice worthy of our returning to.
In Summary, this is an extremely important book defending the Christian faith in it's earliest stages. Thoroughly orthodox from any theological perspective I should expect.
Yours In Christ,
Ron
*Added later - As I was thinking about this apologetic, I would also point out that the defense is very trinitarian as well. This is important in an age where some are equivocating on the vital doctrine of the trinity inside the church and those from outside in the form of the "Da Vinci Code" and modern gnosticism. Is it really an accident that the very first controversy God brought about in the church was that of the Trinity? In my view, absolutely not. It's a vital part of God's plan of salvation for His people.
I have been enjoying reading from Justin Martyr's first apology lately. I highly recommend it. This is one of the first apologetics written for the Christian faith against pagan religions of the second century. Justin lived from 110 - 165 when he was beheaded for the faith. This is a very, very early and significant writing for the church. Justin was a very interested in philosophy and the religions of the day. This meant he was extremely well equiped after his conversion to write apologetic works. I have regarded his conversion story as one of my most favorite for a few years. It's found in his "Dialog with Trypho" and even if you don't read that book, I believe reading his testimony will benefit you greatly. It may be found here:
Ch III - Justin Narrates the Manner of his Conversion
The First Apology is an extraordinary example of weaving prophecy into your approach to pagan religion. The high points of Justin's apology in my opinion are as follows.
1) Defends Christian's rights in the Roman Empire against unjust persecution soley for the reason of being a Christian. He does this by making many comparisons to how other religions with similar characteristics are not persecuted. He also points to the extraordinary moral character of Christians as reasons why they are good citizens and not a threat to anyone.
2) Defends Jesus claim to be Messiah by introducing the OT to his readers (though the document is addressed to the emperor). Obviously they may not be familiar with OT writings since he's writing to Gentiles. After this he goex extensively into prophecy from the OT to authenticate the claim that Jesus is indeed the Messiah that was predicted. It's very impressive and shows a very good knowledge of the OT.
3) If you are interested in reading early church segments that address the sovereignty of God and the will of man, he addresses this from a very libertarian free will point of view in Ch XLIII (43) "Responsibility Asserted". In this he defends Christianity from charges of fatalism (introduced by his heavy use of prophecy in his apologetic) using a classic free will defense.
4) Ch LXI (61) is a very interesting statement on Baptism. As usual, much argument over what he says and doesn't say here. But it's an extremely important early testimony to Baptism in the early church that should be read by every Christian IMO.
5) Chapter LXVI (66) is an very important testimony to the practice of communion in the early church. Almost everyone finds reason to believe that Justin represents their view. I would tend to agree with Stander and Louw that the language is ambiguous and not precise enough for anyone to claim. As I've read this and other statements I think it's important to divorce ourselves from our beliefs and try to understand what they meant at the time and when I do that, I don't believe many early fathers address any of the later distinctions. They just didn't "define" communion like Rome has forced everyone to do (IMO) through it's unbiblical, but dogmatic anathemas against all who deny their definition of transsubstantiation.
6) Chapter LXVII (67) on weekly worship services is also extremely interesting. I find the reading of scripture "as long as time permits" to be a very interesting aspect and would love to see this practice returned to. In our Reformed Baptist services much more scripture is read than at most. We read the first part of a Psalm in the first service and the second part at the call to worship of the second service. After another hymn is sung and then the passage(s) to be preached upon are read which is sometimes a full chapter, and sometimes only a few verses. In my mind this is an excellent early church practice worthy of our returning to.
In Summary, this is an extremely important book defending the Christian faith in it's earliest stages. Thoroughly orthodox from any theological perspective I should expect.
Yours In Christ,
Ron
*Added later - As I was thinking about this apologetic, I would also point out that the defense is very trinitarian as well. This is important in an age where some are equivocating on the vital doctrine of the trinity inside the church and those from outside in the form of the "Da Vinci Code" and modern gnosticism. Is it really an accident that the very first controversy God brought about in the church was that of the Trinity? In my view, absolutely not. It's a vital part of God's plan of salvation for His people.