Doubting Thomas said:
*And, yes, the terms "overseer" (bishop) and "elder" (presbyter) were used somewhat interchangeably in Scriptures and some of the earliest sub-apostolic writings (the Apostle Peter even refers to himself as a "fellow elder"--1 Peter 5:1). However, the evidence is that immediately after the Apostles left the seen, the local Churches were ruled by a presiding elder/bishop, and fairly quickly (by early 2nd century in Asia Minor--SEE the Letters of Ignatius where he names the presiding bishops of some of these Churches, including Polycarp of Smyrna) the term "bishop" began to be exclusively applied to this presiding pastor and the term "presbyter", to his associate "pastors". This is evident in the fact that the succession in Rome as early as mid-second centruy is listed through individuals--with Linus, Anicletus, and Clement being the first three presiding bishops there after the apostles. Likewise, historically Titus is considered the first bishop (in this sense) of Crete; Timothy, of Ephesus. Also, Polycarp and Ignatius were the presiding bishops over their respective local flocks at Smyrna and Antioch respectively.
I guess you can't pass up an opportunity to beat up on the RCC bogeyman. Let me point out to you that when Irenaeus was listing the episcopal successors in Rome (and no he didn't call them "popes") he was writing a good century and a half before Constantine allegedly invented the RCC.
And that again shows that things were
changing, and that the Apostles did not
found this system
as it later came to be. There was no unwritten tradition on "presiding bishops" that were above other elders. That simply develeoped later,a s you admit.
And Ignatius is widely acknowledged as the first major
stage in the development of the Catholic system and ultimately, the monoepiscopacy (i.e. the Roman papacy!)
Here is Smyrnaeans chaper 8:
8:1 [But] shun divisions, as the beginning of evils.
Do ye all follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ followed
the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; and to
the deacons pay respect, as to God's commandment. Let
no man do aught of things pertaining to the Church
apart from the bishop. Let that be held a valid
eucharist which is under the bishop or one to whom he
shall have committed it.
8:2 Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let
the people be; even as where Jesus may be, there is
the universal Church.
It is not lawful apart from the
bishop either to baptize or to hold a love-feast; but
whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also
to God; that everything which ye do may be sure and
valid.
He clearly is exalting that one office beyond what the Apostles did-as the end all and be all of the Church. Just quoting a scripture on them
appointing them does not prove they were to be what the later system made them. As you read Ignatius, you see that this was their way of trying to deal with persecution. I like the way the 7th Day Church of God leaders C.O.Dodd/A.N.Dugger in
A History of the True Religion put it: "after the death of the Apostles Paul; Peter and John, history of the early Church is confined to the writings of the Church Fathers,so called, who penned their religious epistles perhaps
in sincerity, but not under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit". It worked, as Karen Armstrong points out, by the third century, it became a
"microcosm of the empire" that impressed Constantine. So no; it did not
begin with him, but it gradually
grew to that state, and then fit right in as the bride of the empire. You can try to appeal to the "organic continuity", but if the Apostles wanted this system, they could have just directly set it up themselves.
BobRyan said:
1. While it is true that you can not "save yourself" by law-keeping as Paul points out in Romans 3 and in Gal 3 -- that is NOT the point he is making in Romans 2 (or Romans 6 or Romans 8 or Romans 11). In other words each chapter has it's own subject to address -- no way to wash over all chapters with one subject.
2. There is no exegetically sound way to retranslate "walking in the flesh" as statement that only applies to Jews who are hoping for national inheritance. The stretch and bend of the text required for such a goal is abuse beyond what the text can possibly tolerate.
Paul's concept of "flesh vs spirit" as well as salvation by grace and not Law is a THEME that does run through his epistles; especially Romans. In ch. 8, what he is talking about, regarding "flesh", is the Law.(i.e. INHERITANCE OR WORKS-JUSTIFICATION; not calling the Law itself bad)
Of course, it is not just for Jews, but Gentiles who reject Christ and live in the world are living in the flesh as well. Anyone not covered by the Blood is. So in that sense, it would basically agree with the common understanding of "flesh" as "living in sin". But the point is, that term is not to be thrown at a Christian the minute he sins, or we think he is committing too many sins.
Matt; from the last page of the first thread:
Except that this is the whole problem with regard to the debate about the Canon: either we trust that Christ in His providence established - at least for the first 1000 years or so of its existence - a Church - His Body - which was blessed with and possessed of the charism of infallible or at least indefectable guidance when it came to matters such as the determination of which were the correct books to go into the OT and NT, amongst other things and that that guidance was given in particular to the successors of the Apostles who met together in Council to determine these things...or it comes down to the writ of an individual such as Wycliffe, Luther, you or me to decide such matters, which to my mind is putting an individual in a position of authority over God's Holy Word, and I for one am not willing to assume that awesome responsibility
This still raises the question of why God would guide the church indefectably for only 1000 years, and then basically let it unravel after that. If the promise to guide the Church did not carry after 1000 years, then perhaps it did not go beyond the original apostles, who penned the NT. I would say that God guided the Church in selecting the NT books, but this obviously does not mean that
everything else they did was indefectable. As we see, again, the doctrine and polity was
changing into the later corrupt system that did eventually splinter.
) Please produce evidence of actual Christians from contemporaneous primary source documents who organised their congregations like you claim