Davidic Covenant

[Ian Major]

Pastor Larry said: 'Obviously I disagree for this reason: There is no way you can read the text of the Davidic covenant and get this out of it. The text is clear. So we are left with God misrepresenting himself to David. The immediate resurrection issue is also one I dispute. I do not see any promise of immediate resurrection.'

Ian says: By the immediate resurrection I meant Christ's rising after three days, ie., that His body would not remain in the grave like ours to await Resurrection Day.

Pastor Larry said: 'I disagree that the Jewish believers in the NT saw the church as the continuation of Israel. I think Paul was explicit in Rom 11 that the church was not the continuation of Israel.'

Ian says: Paul refers both to the believing remnant and to the unbelieving majority. As the majority represent the nation as a whole, Paul can say 'Israel has not obtained what it seeks' - but he continues immediately with 'but the elect have obtained it'. v.7. The whole chapter contrasts these two sections of the nation of Israel.

Pastor Larry said: 'In short, I think all the passages you cite have more probably explanations that do not require shifting the plain meaning of the words. I think you are taking way too much liberty with the text to arrive at your conclusion.'

Ian says: I haven't looked at the articles you referred to but I hope to soon. I am familiar with the general argument. One example that suggests that a more than literal fulfilment can sometimes be expected: Malachi's prophecy of Elijah's coming to precede Messiah. Was that fulfilled in John the Baptist or not?

In His Love

Ian

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Ian,

You wrote, "Irenaeus was at the beginning of the rise of apostasy in the Church. Good men allowed their human reasoning and sinful desires to infect the Church, just as they do today in Evangelical churches. When it is allowed to bear fruit, it results in apostasy. Many a true local church today will be a synagogue of Satan in a generation or so. That is what happened to the church in Rome."

Thanks for all of this side information, and it's interesting to hear your opinions.

What did Irenaeus have to say about the Bishop of Rome?

God bless,

Carson

 

[Ian Major]

Carson said: 'What did Irenaeus have to say about the Bishop of Rome?'

Ian says: Here's something from The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Irenaeus was able then to point back to a succession of pastors of the church in Rome who had preached the same gospel that he defended. The heretics could not. Yet he lived to see wolves enter the pastoral office in Rome also - see the latter article.

AGAINST HERESIES BOOK 111
Chapter III.-A Refutation of the Heretics, from the Fact That, in the Various Churches, a Perpetual Succession of Bishops Was Kept Up.
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,(6) that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE TO IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES.

[a.d. 120-202.] This history introduces us to the Church in her western outposts. We reach the banks of the Rhone, where for nearly a century Christian missions have flourished. Between Marseilles and Smyrna there seems to have been a brisk trade, and Polycarp had sent Pothinus into Celtic Gaul at an early date as its evangelist. He had fixed his see at Lyons, when Irenaeus joined him as a presbyter, having been his fellow-pupil under Polycarp. There, under the "good Aurelius," as he is miscalled (a.d. 177), arose the terrible persecution which made "the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne" so memorable. It was during this persecution that Irenaeus was sent to Rome with letters of remonstrance against the rising pestilence of heresy; and he was probably the author of the account of the sufferings of the martyrs which is appended to their testimony.(1) But he had the mortification of finding the Montanist heresy patronized by Eleutherus the Bishop of Rome; and there he met an old friend from the school of Polycarp, who had embraced the Valentinian heresy. We cannot doubt that to this visit we owe the lifelong struggle of Irenaeus against the heresies that now came in, like locusts, to devour the harvests of the Gospel. But let it be noted here, that, so far from being "the mother and mistress" of even the Western Churches, Rome herself is a mission of the Greeks;(2) Southern Gaul is evangelized from Asia Minor, and Lyons checks the heretical tendencies of the Bishop at Rome. Ante-Nicene Christianity, and indeed the Church herself, appears in Greek costume which lasts through the synodical period; and Latin Christianity, when it begins to appear, is African, and not Roman. It is strange that those who have recorded this great historical fact have so little perceived its bearings upon Roman pretensions in the Middle Ages and modern times.
Returning to Lyons, our author found that the venerable Pothinus had closed his holy career by a martyr's death; and naturally Irenaeus became his successor. When the emissaries of heresy followed him, and began to disseminate their licentious practices and-foolish doctrines by the aid of "silly women," the great work of his life began. He condescended to study these diseases of the human mind like a wise physician; and, sickening as was the process of classifying and describing them, he made this also his laborious task, that he might enable others to withstand and to overcome them. The works he has left us are monuments of his fidelity to Christ, and to the charges of St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Jude, whose solemn warnings now proved to be prophecies. No marvel that the great apostle, "night and day with tears," had forewarned the churches of "the grievous wolves" which were to make havoc of the fold.
If it shocks the young student of the virgin years of Christianity to find such a state of things, let him reflect that it was all foretold by Christ himself, and demonstrates the malice and power of the adversary. "An enemy hath done this," said the Master. The spirit that was then working "in the children of disobedience," now manifested itself. The awful visions of the Apocalypse began to be realized. It was now evident in what sense "the Prince of peace" had pronounced His mission, "not peace, but a sword." In short, it became a conspicuous fact, that the Church here on earth is "militant; "while, at the same time, there was seen to be a profound philosophy in the apostolic comment,(3) "There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest." In the divine economy of Providence it was permitted that every form of heresy which was ever to infest the Church should now exhibit its essential principle, and attract the censures of the faithful. Thus testimony to primitive truth was secured and recorded: the language of catholic orthodoxy was developed and defined, and landmarks of faith were set up for perpetual memorial to all generations. It is a striking example of this divine economy, that the see of Rome was allowed to exhibit its fallibility very conspicuously at this time, and not only to receive the rebukes of Irenaeus, but to accept them as wholesome and necessary; so that the heresy of Eleutherus, and the spirit of Diotrephes in Victor, have enabled reformers ever since, and even in the darkest days of pontifical despotism, to testify against the manifold errors patronized by Rome. Hilary and other Gallicans have been strengthened by the example of Irenaeus, and by his faithful words of reproof and exhortation, to resist Rome, even down to our own times.
That the intolerable absurdities of Gnosticism should have gained so many disciples, and proved itself an adversary to be grappled with and not despised, throws light on the condition of the human mind under heathenism, even when it professed "knowledge" and "philosophy." The task of Irenaeus was twofold: ( 1 ) to render it impossible for any one to confound Gnosticism with Christianity, and (2) to make it impossible for such a monstrous system to survive, or ever to rise again. His task was a nauseous one; but never was the spirit enjoined by Scripture more patiently exhibited, nor with more entire success.(4) If Julian had found Gnosticism just made to his hand, and powerful enough to suit his purposes, the whole history of his attempt to revive Paganism would have been widely different. Irenaeus demonstrated its essential unity with the old mythology, and with heathen systems of philosophy. If the fog and malaria that rose with the Day-star, and obscured it, were speedily dispersed, our author is largely to be identified with the radiance which flowed from the Sun of righteousness, and with the breath of the Spirit that banished them for ever.
The Episcopate of Irenaeus was distinguished by labours, "in season and out of season," for the evangelization of Southern Gaul; and he seems to have sent missionaries into other regions of what we now call France. In spite of Paganism and heresy, he rendered Lyons a Christian city; and Marcus seems to have retreated before his terrible castigation, taking himself off to regions beyond the Pyrenees. But the pacific name he bears, was rendered yet more illustrious by his interposition to compose the Easter Controversy, then threatening to impair, if not to destroy, the unity of the Church. The beautiful concordat between East and West, in which Polycarp and Anicetus had left the question, was now disturbed by Victor, Bishop of Rome, whose turbulent spirit would not accept the compromise of his predecessor. Irenaeus remonstrates with him in a catholic spirit, and overrules his impetuous temper. At the Council of Nice, the rule for the observance of Easter was finally settled by the whole Church; and the forbearing example of Irenaeus, no doubt contributed greatly to this happy result. The blessed peacemaker survived this great triumph, for a short time only, closing his life, like a true shepherd, with thousands of his flock, in the massacre (a.d. 202) stimulated by the wolfish Emperor Severus.

Ian again: It is the Word of truth which the Lord has preserved and caused to be handed down from generation to generation. By that Word new believers are raised up to keep the Church continuing. Local churches, pastors and people may fall away but the true church, the elect of God, will be kept safe for the Day of Salvation.


By His Grace

Ian

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Ian,

Thanks for the three paragraphs from Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses that I requested. Now we're getting somewhere.

By the way, we have a policy on this board that is pretty well adhered to. When we use someone else's commentary or writing, we give a reference so as 1. not to plagiarize, and 2. it's always good to know the source.

Let's look at what Irenaeus has to tell us, and I hope that you pay attention to what he has to say here.. avoiding the tendency to skip his timeless witness:

IRENAEUS: "It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about."

Irenaeus says that everyone is able to clearly see the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world. Every Christian Church has bishops who were appointed by the apostles or succeed the apostles. This sounds like Roman Catholicism.. just without Roman primacy.

IRENAEUS: "For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity."

The apostles committed the Churches to these bishops as their successors. In the same way that the apostles governed, so should these men. This office is so real and important that if the bishops discharge their duties well, it will bless the church, but if they fail, calamity will be the result for the Church.

IRENAEUS: "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops."

Every church has succession from the apostles, and that's what makes the churches ecclesia. Those who organize in unauthorized meetings are put to confusion by the presentation of the clear fact that all Churches exist with authority, governed by bishops, who are the sucessors of the Apostles, as we have seen above.

IRENAEUS: "For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."

Every Church should agree with the Roman Church because of its pre-eminent authority. How does a Church get authority? By the handing down of the episcopate and the giving of apostolic authority as we have seen above.

IRENAEUS: "The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicletus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate."

Irenaeus gives a clear accounting (he's in Gaul - modern day France - this accounting is known throughout the universal Church) of the succession of the episcopate from Linus to Eleutherius, the 12th successor in this bishopric, who holds the inheritance of the episcopate. Irenaeus, you're beginning to sound a little Roman Catholic here.

IRENAEUS: "In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth."

Remember what you said, Ian?

1. "Peter has no connection to the impostors who claim his office today"

2. "the Spirit of Christ within a true Christian will draw him/her to the infallible words the apostles left us and will cause us to reject as demonic the traditions and institutions of men who have turned away from the Truth."

3. "If the Roman Catholic Church is the true church then our bible is worth no more to us."

Irenaeus confounds you, Ian.

God bless,

Carson

[ April 07, 2002, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Why the infatuation with Irenaus? Did God die and leave him in charge? His opinion is just another opinion, as valid as yours and mine when it is based on truth and invalid as yours and mine when it is not. His words, like everyone else, must be tried by Scripture. Where they are found wanting, we reject them.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Larry,

You ask, "Did God die and leave him in charge?"

Actually, yes *grin*.. God died on a cross, and left his apostles in charge; Irenaeus, a bishop with rightful succession to the Apostles, has charge.

You wrote, "His opinion is just another opinion, as valid as yours and mine when it is based on truth and invalid as yours and mine when it is not."

Irenaeus' writings are evidence, not opinion. They evince the status of the Church in his time, and because the the universal Church based itself upon the principle of apostolic authority, you have good reason to minimalize or shrink this evidence to opinion.

You wrote, "His words, like everyone else, must be tried by Scripture. Where they are found wanting, we reject them."

Absolutely. Though, your statement evokes the question, "Who sets the standards for what is wanting and what is not wanting?"

God bless,

Carson

[ April 07, 2002, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Actually, yes *grin*.. God died on a cross, and left his apostles in charge; Irenaeus, a bishop with rightful succession to the Apostles, has charge.

Actually God did not die on the cross; Christ did. God is eternal; he never dies. However, Irenaeus was was a follower of the apostles to some extent but it is a huge jump from there to succession, since no one has yet shown any Scripture to prove apostolic succession.

Irenaeus' writings are evidence, not opinion.

The same as my writings are evidence, and anyone else's writings are evidence. It is true to the degree that it reflects the state of reality and false otherwise. His writings have no authority because they are no apostolic writings. I have no desire to minimalize or shrink his writings. But I have hard time exalting to more of a status than they observe. It is true that the true church is based on apostolic authority. But Ireneaus did not have that authority and so it becomes a moot point.

Though, your statement evokes the question, "Who sets the standards for what is wanting and what is not wanting?"

God in Scripture.

 

[Ian Major]

Hi, Carson.

You said: 'By the way, we have a policy on this board that is pretty well adhered to. When we use someone else's commentary or writing, we give a reference so as 1. not to plagiarize, and 2. it's always good to know the source.'

I say: Apologies for that. You can check it out if you follow through on this: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/TOC.htm

You said: 'Irenaeus says that everyone is able to clearly see the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world. Every Christian Church has bishops who were appointed by the apostles or succeed the apostles. This sounds like Roman Catholicism.. just without Roman primacy.'

I say: No, just normal practice of 2 Tim. 2:2. 'And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.' The 'bishops' were not men in funny robes and fish-hats, but elders of local churches. They were appointed by the apostles or their delegates and when the apostolic band no longer lived, these men passed on the word to other faithful men, and so on to today. In every place today, Christians to whom the word was committed pass it on. The NT knows nothing of bishops who rule over many churches, nor does it accord to any pastor the infallible teaching gift of the apostles. The teaching office was committed to faithful men, not the infallibility. The teaching of pastors is to be tested by the infallible Word written down for us by the apostles.

You said: 'The apostles committed the Churches to these bishops as their successors. In the same way that the apostles governed, so should these men. This office is so real and important that if the bishops discharge their duties well, it will bless the church, but if they fail, calamity will be the result for the Church.'

I say: Couldn't agree more. When pastors err or even turn out to be wolves in disguise, then great harm is done to the flock. If the flock doesn't flee from this wolf, they go down to perdition with him. But the true sheep will not forever follow the voice of a false shepherd. The slide into error of the church in rome is an object lesson for every believer. If we tolerate error, it grows and eventually the very essentials of the gospel are distorted or covered over with the commandments of men. Irenaeus lived to see wolves rise up from among the elders, just as Paul had warned the Ephesian elders would occur with them.

You said: 'Every church has succession from the apostles, and that's what makes the churches ecclesia. Those who organize in unauthorized meetings are put to confusion by the presentation of the clear fact that all Churches exist with authority, governed by bishops, who are the sucessors of the Apostles, as we have seen above.'

I say: What Irenaeus did not forsee when he wrote this was the apostasy of bishops, who would bring their churches down with them. He should have been aware of the possibility, for Christ himself had threatened to remove the candlestick of Asian churches where error was tolerated. Would he have called a church that expelled a wolf from the pastorate an 'unauthorised' gathering? No, the authority comes from the apostolic word that was passed on from faithful men to others like them. Where no faithful pastor exists, God raises up such men from among the flock.

You said: 'Every Church should agree with the Roman Church because of its pre-eminent authority. How does a Church get authority? By the handing down of the episcopate and the giving of apostolic authority as we have seen above.'

I say: Irenaeus assumed too much here; that the church in Rome would remain faithful. He had no reason to make this assumption, as warnings of both Christ and the apostles make clear. the very place of the church in the capitol of worldly power would be a danger he should have foreseen. It was very soon after that the lust for power and dominance over the other churches exerted itself.
You said: 'Irenaeus gives a clear accounting (he's in Gaul - modern day France - this accounting is known throughout the universal Church) of the succession of the episcopate from Linus to Eleutherius, the 12th successor in this bishopric, who holds the inheritance of the episcopate. Irenaeus, you're beginning to sound a little Roman Catholic here.'

I say: He's being a bit careless by giving too much significance to this genealogy. Its presence proved against the heretics, but its absence would not necessarily have told against apostolic inheritance.

You said; 'Remember what you said, Ian?

1. "Peter has no connection to the impostors who claim his office today"

2. "the Spirit of Christ within a true Christian will draw him/her to the infallible words the apostles left us and will cause us to reject as demonic the traditions and institutions of men who have turned away from the Truth."

3. "If the Roman Catholic Church is the true church then our bible is worth no more to us."

Irenaeus confounds you, Ian.'

I say: Remember his final clause in this passage: 'And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth." HANDED DOWN IN TRUTH - this is sure proof that the Roman catholic Church is not the inheritors of the faith of the apostles. Our Lord Himself told the pharisees, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham."

Pastor Larry's subsequent comment on the relative importance of the opinions of men is also crucial. Brother Irenaeus was a dear brother, but just like the rest of us in our need to beware of error and to follow after holiness.

By his Grace

Ian

IRENAEUS: "In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth."

Remember what you said, Ian?

1. "Peter has no connection to the impostors who claim his office today"

2. "the Spirit of Christ within a true Christian will draw him/her to the infallible words the apostles left us and will cause us to reject as demonic the traditions and institutions of men who have turned away from the Truth."

3. "If the Roman Catholic Church is the true church then our bible is worth no more to us."

Irenaeus confounds you, Ian.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Larry,

You wrote, "Actually God did not die on the cross; Christ did. God is eternal"

Are you a Nestorian: one who rejects the communicatio idiomatum or have you fallen back into Arianism?

Christ is God. Christ died on the cross. God died on the cross. If God didn't die on the cross, then you are still muddling around in your sin, and there has been no redemption.

You wrote, "The same as my writings are evidence, and anyone else's writings are evidence."

Larry, were you born around 125 A.D. in one of those maritime provinces of Asia Minor where the memory of the apostles was still cherished? Were you influenced by St. Polycarp who had known the apostles, especially that of St. John the Evangelist?

Really, enough nonsense. Irenaeus testifies not only to the received doctrine of the apostles, but to the universal condition of the Christian church at the time.. a condition antithetical to your Baptist model and representative of Roman Catholicism.

You wrote, "His writings have no authority because they are no apostolic writings."

Of course they don't have authority for you. You adhere to Sola Scriptura (which is a doctrine that can't be adhered to in the strict sense b/c of the logical fallacies involved). Your only authority is Scripture (and whatever Tradition you accept, implicitly - e.g. Trinity, Canon, Natures of Christ, etc. - this makes Sola Scriptura "able" to work under its false title), and you'll only adhere to whatever doctrines 1. you personally agree with and 2. can be found in Scripture. If a doctrine is in Scripture and you don't personally agree with it, then it's subjectively false. You are your own authority in this realm of subjectivity.

You wrote, "I have no desire to minimalize or shrink his writings. But I have hard time exalting to more of a status than they observe."

You're granting more with words than you will with action. Irenaeus evinces to the status of the universal Christian Church left by the Apostles' preaching, teaching, and practice. This is the status Irenaeus demands. When this evidence disagrees with your Baptist paradigm, it's quickly ignored as "fallible testimony by a fallible man," void of honesty.

You wrote, "It is true that the true church is based on apostolic authority. But Ireneaus did not have that authority and so it becomes a moot point."

Irenaeus is a bishop of the Church; therefore, he does have teaching authority. Bishops, appointed by the apostles in union with the See of Peter, have authority, and Baptist pastors in the 21st century do not.

Where your evidence-dodging places you in a tight situation is when we come to the canon of the New Testament. Since a list of the books of the New Testament cannot be found in Scripture, you have to rely upon evidence or authority outside of the New Testament.

Eusebius wrote in his "History of the Church 3:3:1, 3:25:3 in 324 A.D.

"One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon . . . Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name."

If 2 Peter was rejected by churches and figures such as Eusebius of Caesarea as late as 324 A.D., then your acceptance of such an epistle as the very Word of God rests somewhere.. on evidence outside of the NT before Eusebius' statement was made or an authoritative decision after Eusebius' declaration.

You wrote in another post, "The authority by which the church recognized the canon was the internal witness of the Spirit."

This "internal witness of the Spirit" is not credible, except to a couple of young Mormon missionary friends of mine. It's especially untenable when we look at the history of the canon.. we come to 324 A.D. and 2 Peter is rejected by the prominent figure Eusebius, who speaks for a number churches.

If this was the case, then how did Christianity come to reject these and accept those epistles definitively? Why is there no longer a dispute over the inspiration of 2 Peter like there was in Eusebius' day?

A fallible council of fallible men, guided by an infallible Spirit made a pronouncement. No, they did not inspire the Scriptures. No, they did not write the Scriptures. They did determine which epistles were authentic Scriptures and which were not, but how? By gathering the evidence available (Tradition plays a part here) and making a decision, all the while led by the Spirit of Christ (Let's hope; if not, then we assuredly have a bad NT canon). They bound and they loosed, practicing the apostolic authority the teaching office of the Church was given by Christ, and you rely upon this office and its decision. This is the honest historical answer, and it cannot be denied without committing oneself to public dishonesty.

Why do you accept the canon, yet you won't accept Irenaeus' testimony, which is dated over 2 centuries before the canon was settled? Both aren't in Scripture, yet one is fundamental to the very edifice of your life's work, lest you say to your congregation, "Today, we'll be reading from God's word in 2 Peter 1.. I think.."

God bless,

Carson

[ April 09, 2002, 01:04 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Are you a Nestorian: one who rejects the communicatio idiomatum or have you fallen back into Arianism?

No. I am saying that the Logos who is eternal did not die. A divine death would not satisy the debt of sin. Christ became flesh because only a human death could pay for sin (Heb 2:14ff). However, this is but a minor distinction; I don't think you and I disagree on this point.

Really, enough nonsense. Irenaeus testifies not only to the received doctrine of the apostles, but to the universal condition of the Christian church at the time.. a condition antithetical to your Baptist model and representative of Roman Catholicism.

Antithetical? Hardly. I believe is you were to be in the first century, the church you would see would be essentially the same as a baptist church. That is what the NT evidence suggests.

More than that however, Irenaeus testifies to some things to be sure. But he was not inspired nor inerrant. There were many false teachers, even before Irenaeus, who learned at the feet of the apostles and taught falsely anyway. Consider Hymaneaus and Alexander, Diotrophes, and other that the NT names by names, as well as those who are not named by name. Learning at the feet of the apostles is no guarantee of orthodoxy. Irenaeus was a man who gave an opinion as to what he saw.

Of course they don't have authority for you. You adhere to Sola Scriptura (which is a doctrine that can't be adhered to in the strict sense b/c of the logical fallacies involved). Your only authority is Scripture (and whatever Tradition you accept, implicitly - e.g. Trinity, Canon, Natures of Christ, etc. - this makes Sola Scriptura "able" to work under its false title), and you'll only adhere to whatever doctrines 1. you personally agree with and 2. can be found in Scripture. If a doctrine is in Scripture and you don't personally agree with it, then it's subjectively false. You are your own authority in this realm of subjectivity.

Fallacious line of reasoning. Sola Scriptura is not circular; it is presuppositional. But in this vein, you too are your own authority. You have decided to submit to the RCC and at any time you could walk away by your own authority.

You're granting more with words than you will with action. Irenaeus evinces to the status of the universal Christian Church left by the Apostles' preaching, teaching, and practice. This is the status Irenaeus demands. When this evidence disagrees with your Baptist paradigm, it's quickly ignored as "fallible testimony by a fallible man," void of honesty.

We do not reject it when it contradicts a Baptist paradigm. We reject it when it contradicts Scripture. Irenaeus does not demand anything. His writings are not authoritative by any stretch. What about all the other early writers? Why don't you listen to them? Because they contradict your paradigm?

Irenaeus is a bishop of the Church; therefore, he does have teaching authority. Bishops, appointed by the apostles in union with the See of Peter, have authority, and Baptist pastors in the 21st century do not.

Baptist pastors have the same authority that bishops do ... the authority that comes from Scripture. To say that Baptist pastors do not have authority is a tremendous jump in logic that comes only from your paradigm of theology.

Since a list of the books of the New Testament cannot be found in Scripture, you have to rely upon evidence or authority outside of the New Testament.

A fallacious reasoning about canonicity. We have a canon because God inspired the books. The authority for teh canon did not come from men; it came from the inspired nature of the books.

This "internal witness of the Spirit" is not credible, except to a couple of young Mormon missionary friends of mine. It's especially untenable when we look at the history of the canon.. we come to 324 A.D. and 2 Peter is rejected by the prominent figure Eusebius, who speaks for a number churches.

I find it very tenable. You find it untenable because of your authority structure in the church. The canon is a matter of interesting discussion but one that we can't get into here. The essential truth is that Scripture is self-attesting.

The point that all of this illustrates between you and I is that our differences are one of authority. I do not see any NT evidence for the authority of the RCC. I see multiple occasions and incidents throughout the RCC that contradict Scripture and that bring reproach on the truth. There is a continuing authority but it is never in Scripture attributed to the RCC.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Larry,

You easily maneuvered around the logic trap I placed you in by refusing to reason the matter out. But, no amount of dodging will satisfy the gaping, dishonest hole your response left.

When you reference New Testament Scripture as the Word of God (notably in 2 Pt, Jm, Jd, 2/3 Jn, Rv), you accept the authority of a decision made by a council of bishops to definitively tell us that 2 Peter is inspired and Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans is not.. when these churches over here rejected 2 Peter and those churches over there accepted 2 Peter as late as 324 A.D.!

Yet, you deny the existence of this authority, while all the while relying upon it. This presentation of mine is a far cry from "a fallacious reasoning about canonicity"; you find the situation unanswerable and you have given no answer. But, I didn't expect an answer when one can't be given (apart from the honest recognition of apostolic authority).

God bless,

Carson

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
You easily maneuvered around the logic trap I placed you in by refusing to reason the matter out. But, no amount of dodging will satisfy the gaping, dishonest hole your response left.

I have been dishonest about nothing. The question you won't deal with is why did these people pick these books as the canon. They were not the first to identify them this way. Others had before them. Furthermore, in your tradition, they didn't do a very good job because 1100 years later they added some.

The fact is that they picked these books becasue they were inspired. There is nothing magical about this. It was commonly recognized. Even in the first century when Peter wrote, there were already some type of recognition of Paul's works that didn't any council of bishops to establish. Books are not in the canon because men chose them. They are in the canon because God inspired them and led his church to recognize their canonicity.

There have been people all through history who have rejected various portions of the canon. They still do so today. So what?

Yet, you deny the existence of this authority, while all the while relying upon it. This presentation of mine is a far cry from "a fallacious reasoning about canonicity"; you find the situation unanswerable and you have given no answer. But, I didn't expect an answer when one can't be given (apart from the honest recognition of apostolic authority).

I do not deny the existence of authority. We differ on what that authority is. You believe what your church tells you. I do not hold your church to be an authority for various reasons. The canon stands with or without your church. This question is certainly no unanswerable and indeed has been answered many times in many places in many languages. YOu simply find the answers inadequate because of your presuppositions about authority.

Don't accuse me of being dishonest or of dodging because you don't like my answer. I knew when I gave it you weren't going to like it. I always knew that you weren't going to study the resources and writings that would support my position so I am not going to belabor the point. We disagree on authority and until that issue is resolved we are not going to agree on much.

God bless,

Carson[/QB][/QUOTE]

 

[jmbertrand]

My apologies for jumping in mid-stream, but the discussion of Irenaeus sparked my interest.

If I read him correctly, Irenaeus refers to a fixed tradition that has been preserved, not a living, organic, growing tradition whose innovations are justified by authority derived from the apostles. In fact, if he had argued for such a continuing source of revelation supplementing the preserved tradition, the Gnostics might have found common cause with him.

But he is arguing against the Gnostics, who assert that there is a separate, extra-biblical revelation available to their followers, a revelation even the apostles did not enjoy. Irenaeus uses the correspondence between the apostolic tradition and Scripture to refute this claim -- and to validate the tradition, he must first establish its origin.

But he doesn't stop there. In Chapter 4 he gives a thumbnail sketch of the tradition in question:

"To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent."

The evangelical Christian can, I think, accept this tradition as the substance of what is taught in Scripture. However, the tradition does not go far enough to sustain a specifically Roman Catholic view of theology and authority.

For Irenaeus, the preeminence of the Roman church is derived from its faithful preservation of the tradition; it isn't the tradition that is validated because it originates from the Roman church. I think all modern believers would admit that the Vatican speaks truly to the extent that it affirms this tradition; but where it makes claims unsupported by tradition, are they to be considered apostolic anyway?

Mark

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Larry,

You wrote, "The fact is that they picked these books becasue they were inspired."

But of course! they picked, as you say, and you rely upon this picking. You rely upon the Spirit's guidance of fallible men to pick out just those texts that are inspired and those that aren't. That's the nature of divine authority. It's divinely affirmed, Spirit guided, and trustworthy.

"whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Jesus)

You wrote, "Books are not in the canon because men chose them. They are in the canon because God inspired them and led his church to recognize their canonicity."

I would have to agree. Men didn't choose in some arbitrary fallible manner. God lead them in their choice. But why did he lead these men specifically and who are these men? When God leads one group of men apart from another group, how do you know this group is led and this group isn't?

What do you mean "God .. lead his church to recognize their canonicity," if God's church is invisible, composed of all true believers in Christ? This is senseless if the Church isn't a visible communion apart from another visible communion that isn't the Church.

Why don't you accept Mileto of Sardis' canon? Or Marcion's NT canon? Or Eusebius' canon? (Answer: Because you follow the canon approved by Pope St. Innocent I in 405 A.D. to whom Christ's words to bind/loose are addressed - *feel free to use this answer*)

As I've shown, in 324 A.D., Eusebius, the early Church historian, tells us that 2 Peter isn't inspired. Why do you accept it as inspired? You still haven't answered this question.

You wrote, "There have been people all through history who have rejected various portions of the canon. They still do so today. So what?"

These individuals don't adhere to the bishops' authoritative decision, and they're honest in their position. They stand apart from the Magisterium and the Tradition, and they admit their position in their honesty. You stand on the shoulders of the Magisterium and the Tradition, yet deny it.

You wrote, "The canon stands with or without your church."

Stands on what? Where's the inspired table of contents upon which the canon stands? Why aren't the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles (Didache), the Apostolic Constitutions, the Gospel According to the Hebrews, Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans, the Epistle of Clement, III Corinthians, the Apocalypse of St Peter, or the Acts of St Paul in this canon? All of these were recognized as inspired and canonical Scripture at one point in time by authentic Christian communities. Be honest.

God bless,

Carson

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi J. Mark,

You wrote, "If I read him correctly, Irenaeus refers to a fixed tradition that has been preserved, not a living, organic, growing tradition whose innovations are justified by authority derived from the apostles."

Yes, this is precisely what he is referring to. The discussion at hand concerns the fixed revelation concerning the canon of the Bible. The living, organic, growing Tradition (development of doctrine) does not build upon new extra-Biblical revelation, but is a natural outgrowth of the faith once and for all delivered unto the saints. The Trinity and Christology are perfect examples where development of doctrine are accepted by both Protestants and Catholics (Protestants b/c they rely upon the Catholic development/definition).

You wrote, "In fact, if he had argued for such a continuing source of revelation supplementing the preserved tradition, the Gnostics might have found common cause with him."

Revelation does not continue in Catholic Tradition. It ended with the death of the last apostle (even this doctrine isn't found in Scripture, but is derived from this self-same Tradition).

You quoted, "carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent."

Irenaeus expounds upon some of the Tradition; he is not evincing the sum total of the Church's Tradition (which cannot be contained to pen and ink). This is like asking a team of psychologists, sociologists, videographers, photographers, anthropologists, etc. to monitor the life of the Church from every angle and to somehow codify the Church's life, which is animated by the Holy Spirit.

You wrote, "For Irenaeus, the preeminence of the Roman church is derived from its faithful preservation of the tradition; it isn't the tradition that is validated because it originates from the Roman church."

To requote Irenaeus: "For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."

This pre-eminent authority stands on its own above every other Church, which preserve the apostolical tradition continuously.

Irenaeus' words are not Tradition. They witness to Tradition. Tradition is animated by the Spirit just as Scripture is inspired by the Spirit, and it doesn't die.. just as the true canon never died. The Church is alive, ever young, and the Spirit is the life principle within her.

God bless,

Carson

[ April 10, 2002, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[jmbertrand]

"inasmuch"

Mark

 

[GraceSaves]

Out of curiosity's sake, can someone tell me what was the last book of the Bible to be written (chronologically)?

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi J. Mark,

I met a nice young girl at the university the other day named "Jennifer" who's earning her MA in education. She has her BA in education from U of H.

Hi GraceSaves,

If I'm not mistaken, the Book of Revelation.

God bless,

Carson

 

[GraceSaves]

Pastor Larry,

Okay, I'm going to base this on the notion that Revelation is the last book of the Bible that was written. After this, the canon of Scripture was closed. Divine public revelation was closed.

Where in Revelation does it state that? Please give me a verse or chapter.

I'm not going to lead you on or lay a trap here; I'll lay it out now. If you cannot provide a verse, on what basis are you stating that divine revelation is closed, other than the authority of the church?

If you can provide me with explicit verses, I will retract this and apologize.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Pastor Larry,

Okay, I'm going to base this on the notion that Revelation is the last book of the Bible that was written. After this, the canon of Scripture was closed. Divine public revelation was closed.

Where in Revelation does it state that? Please give me a verse or chapter.

I'm not going to lead you on or lay a trap here; I'll lay it out now. If you cannot provide a verse, on what basis are you stating that divine revelation is closed, other than the authority of the church?

If you can provide me with explicit verses, I will retract this and apologize.

You want explicit verses for this but you don't accept the authority of Scripture. When I have given you explicit verses for things in the past, you have opted for your church's interpretation of them. Were I to provide a specific verse, you would explain it away by appealing to the teaching magesterium.

The answer to your question is addressed by the teaching of the NT about itself. Christ was clear that authority to write the NT was given to the apostles (John 14, 16). John, being the last living apostle, was of necessity the close of divine revelation.