The Doctrine by which the Church stands or falls, Volume 2...

[Doubting Thomas]

And that again shows that things were changing, and that the Apostles did not found this system as it later came to be.

Things changed, Eric, by the mere fact that there were no more apostles on the scene when they died. However, before they died, the Apostles gave certain other men, for example Timothy and Titus, the authority to ordain elders just as they had done. Timothy and Titus were thus regarded in history as the first "bishops" of Ephesus and Crete respectively. The fact is we see the "monoepiscopacy"--at least in organization, if not in name--pretty much everywhere after the apostles left. And you know what? We don't have any documented protests from any church fathers against such a development. In other words, we don't have anyone saying: "Hey! you guys are deviating from the pure "biblical" congregational or presbyterian polity!"

There was no unwritten tradition on "presiding bishops" that were above other elders.

Really? How do you know this? (Since by definition this "tradition" to which you are referring--and denying!--was "unwritten")

That simply develeoped later,a s you admit.

The termininology changed, in that the term "bishop" became restricted to the chief pastor, but there was from the beginning immediately after the Apostles one leading bishop/presbyter in each location

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!)

GASP! (not the dreaded "first stage" to the Catholic "system" and Roman papacy)
Actually, historically this isn't even correct since Ignatius was addressing already existing bishops by name (including Polycarp of Smyrna) in his letters to the different churches. In otherwords, he didn't come up with the idea of "one bishop, one city"--it was already in place by the time he wrote his letters in the very early second century.

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.

Yet, the 'monoepiscopal' organization was pretty much in place universally, shortly after John finished his writings, and even before that with Clement in Rome (and his predecessors Anicletus and Linus going back to the apostles), and a good 250 years before the NT canon was finalized. And the perogatives to authoritatively ordain elders had already given given to other men--Timothy and Titus--while Paul was still alive. And let's not forget about JAMES, the Lord's brother, who historically was regarded as being, and who indeed acted as, the first bishop of Jerusalem (in the 'monoepiscopal' sense) while all the apostles were of course still living.

As you read Ignatius, you see that this was their way of trying to deal with persecution.

Except Ignatius and those bishops whom he named of the churches to which he wrote were...already...in...place. So although he certainly emphasied loyalty to the ordained bishop as a matter of maintaining unity and the truth--particularly in face of the challenges of the Judaizers and Gnostics, both of whom Ignatius warned against in his letters--this emphasis is certainly no evidence of some incidious departure from some allegedly different, apostolically sanctioned, ecclessiastical polity.

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.

And the evidence shows that's exactly what they did. :thumbs:

The problem is, it seems like you and many other revisionists want to reject anything as historical evidence simply because it's not "inspired Scripture" (forgetting that the Bible itself was written and collected in history). I suppose that gives you the creative freedom to come up with your own alternative histories--move over Dan Brown!

 

[Eliyahu]

GE

It will take years of study to go into all these points, which I am sure some have already thoroughly done. I am not conversant with these things. And they really don't matter to me. All I know that if A. taught election, he taught Scripture.
I also do know Calvin a bit - and you are really distorting his meaning with the use of the contemporary way of referencing a respected authority. Nowhere ever would Calvin have referred to Augustine as were he God. You are taken withal with your arrogance against a great and God-fearing man, Eliyahu. Augustine was a giant; you and I are non con poops.

GE,
You are greatly mistaken about Augustine.
Calvin is also another Heretic, killing the people like Servetus.
If he had stood in the place of John 8:1-11, he would have killed the adulterous woman.
You must wake up from the delusion and the leaven of RCC and her step-daughter Calvinism. You can confirm the Infant Baptism and the Baptismal Regeneration, No Salvation outside Holy Catholic church by both guys, which are ridiculous heresies.

It is the high time for the modern believers to perform the Funeral Service for the dead men, Augustine and Calvin. You may not see them in the Heaven but in the Hell.

 

[Matt Black]

No Matt, all we have is your word. It is your word looking through the rose-colored tainted revised history of the RCC vs. my word. You haven't provided any documentation for your accusations either. At least I frankly told you before I even posted that I was posting from memory and didn't have the time at that moment to do all the research. You have bombastically come on this board telling us all that it just ain't so, calling them all heretics without any supporting evidence whatsoever. So I would say that the ball is in your court, not mine.

So, in support of which doctrines and practices would you like me to adduce documentation?

Perhaps you may want to study your Bible a bit more. There a quite a few times in the Bible where the Sanhedrin is referred as "council." That is what it was. The KJV translaters themselvs often substituted the word "council" for Sanhedrin. But they never used the word "synod." It just isn't there--not even the concept.

D'uh! 'Synod' means 'council'. Synodos and syn'edrin even have the same Greek etymological root. Both are properly translated concilium in Latin and council or assembly or meeting in English.

 

[Matt Black]

Matt; from the last page of the first thread:
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.

Except there was a sufficiency of the deposit of faith by 1054 that there wasn't at the end of the first century; I'm quite content to let differences in Tradition from 1054 be adiaphora (to borrow that excellent term of Luther) eg: how Christ is Really Present in the Eucharist, whereas matters determined by Tradition prior to then eg: the Natures of the Trinity and Christ are non-negotiable.

 

[Eric B]

Things changed, Eric, by the mere fact that there were no more apostles on the scene when they died. However, before they died, the Apostles gave certain other men, for example Timothy and Titus, the authority to ordain elders just as they had done. Timothy and Titus were thus regarded in history as the first "bishops" of Ephesus and Crete respectively. The fact is we see the "monoepiscopacy"--at least in organization, if not in name--pretty much everywhere after the apostles left.

The termininology changed, in that the term "bishop" became restricted to the chief pastor, but there was from the beginning immediately after the Apostles one leading bishop/presbyter in each location

GASP! (not the dreaded "first stage" to the Catholic "system" and Roman papacy)
Actually, historically this isn't even correct since Ignatius was addressing already existing bishops by name (including Polycarp of Smyrna) in his letters to the different churches. In otherwords, he didn't come up with the idea of "one bishop, one city"--it was already in place by the time he wrote his letters in the very early second century.

Yet, the 'monoepiscopal' organization was pretty much in place universally, shortly after John finished his writings, and even before that with Clement in Rome (and his predecessors Anicletus and Linus going back to the apostles), and a good 250 years before the NT canon was finalized. And the perogatives to authoritatively ordain elders had already given given to other men--Timothy and Titus--while Paul was still alive. And let's not forget about JAMES, the Lord's brother, who historically was regarded as being, and who indeed acted as, the first bishop of Jerusalem (in the 'monoepiscopal' sense) while all the apostles were of course still living.

Except Ignatius and those bishops whom he named of the churches to which he wrote were...already...in...place. So although he certainly emphasied loyalty to the ordained bishop as a matter of maintaining unity and the truth--particularly in face of the challenges of the Judaizers and Gnostics, both of whom Ignatius warned against in his letters--this emphasis is certainly no evidence of some incidious departure from some allegedly different, apostolically sanctioned, ecclessiastical polity.

The problem is, it seems like you and many other revisionists want to reject anything as historical evidence simply because it's not "inspired Scripture" (forgetting that the Bible itself was written and collected in history). I suppose that gives you the creative freedom to come up with your own alternative histories--move over Dan Brown!

First of all, "monoepiscopacy" means "ONE" bishop over the WHOLE Church. I was not rejecting the notion of overseers over cities, but rather the offices becoming glorified professional POWER bases (under the Empire, eventually, even). Yes, there overseers watching multiple fellowships in various cities, i(n addition to individual flock shepherds); were in place by the time of Ignatius. But it was his rhetoric that paved the way for them to rise to earthly power over the people, with the one in Rome over all (which even you do not accept). Even the other four "patriARCHs" (father-kings) were not set up at this time. Of course, the later Church would try to read it back into James in Jerusalem. (I like how Agnus even tried to suggest all five were in place from the apostles.)
And one branch of the Church using the same logic does the same thing with Peter as ruler over the entire Church.

This is why your Vincentian logic doesn't work. Even if we no loner argue over interpretation of scripture; we STILL face different interpretations of the traditions and even historical data you appeal to. That is why we are not convinced. Some "rewriting" was done a LONG time before us1

Come on, you can not even have a fellowship meeting, or baptize someone without one of these exalted "bishops" present?
(BTW, in Clement's usage, episkopos and presbyteros were still interchangeable)

And the evidence shows that's exactly what they did.

Not in this form!

Really? How do you know this? (Since by definition this "tradition" to which you are referring--and denying!--was "unwritten")

Because you continue to acknowldge it did change. You even denied the later leaders were "apostles"!

And you know what? We don't have any documented protests from any church fathers against such a development. In other words, we don't have anyone saying: "Hey! you guys are deviating from the pure "biblical" congregational or presbyterian polity!"

Who would protest? The leaders were the ones doing the communicating, and they were the ones gaining the power. And in the face of tough times, it seemed to make sense, so even the people would go along with it.

In Romans 2 Paul says "it is not the hearers of the Law that are JUST but the DOERS of the LAW will be JUSTIFIED".

In Romans 3 Paul says "Do WE then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith??? God forbid!! We ESTABLISH the Law of God!"

in Romans 7 Paul states "the LAW is HOLY Just and GOOD" and that in his mind he CHOOSES to SERVE the LAW of God!

in Romans 8 Paul states that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the unconverted heart to submit in obedience to the Law of God.

Rom 8
5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the Law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8 and those who are [b]in the flesh cannot please God[/b].

That's true. and that includes those without Christ who think they can reach God by keeping the Law. They are just as much "in the flesh".

On the contrary Paul IS writing to Christians in Romans 2 and 3 and 7 and 8. His point is that IF they are putting to death the deads of the FLESH THEN and only THEN are they the children of God. Simply calling themselves Christians does not cut it.

So does that mean we fall out of "the Spirit" and revert to "the flesh" (and thus lose salvation and need to be born again, again) the minute we sin? Or is it five sins? Ten sins? A month of sins? A year or more? That was my point. Nobody is putting down the Law, for you to quote all of that regarding the Law. Precisely the point; the Law demands PERFECTION, not simply "trying to do better", or however you attempt to "put to death" the "deeds of the flesh".
So if we are trying to justify ourselves by it without Christ; all it does is EXPOSE the sins we all STILL DO commit. This is why those who reject Christ are said to be "in the flesh". The way to mortify the deeds of the flesh is to trust Christ.
What Paul tells Christians is "you ARE NOT in the flesh" --so ACT like it. If we LOVE Him, we keep His commandments; not to pay rent for a future spot in Heaven.

 

[DHK]

So, in support of which doctrines and practices would you like me to adduce documentation?

See your previous post and the few words that you did say about the Waldenses, Albigenses, and Montanists, a couple pages back. All the accusations were untrue. Why post untruths unless you can back up what you say with reliable unbiased sources.

 

[Matt Black]

Ask and ye shall receive:

Montanism:

For Montanus spoke, saying, 'I am the father, and the son and the paraclete.

- from Didymus (313-398), de Trinitate, 3:41,1

Behold, a man is like a lyre and I pluck his strings like a pick; the man sleeps, but I am awake. Behold, it is the Lord, who is changing the hearts of men and giving new hearts to them [said Montanus]...the charism [of prophecy] is not inoperative in the church. Quite the opposite. . . . The holy church of God welcomes the same [charisms] as the Montanists, but ours are real charisms, authenticated for the church by the Holy Spirit

- Epiphanius (c.315-403AD), Pan. 48:4,1

He [Montanus] began to be ecstatic and to speak and to talk strangely

- Apollinarius, cited in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. 5:16,7, 4th century.

John MacArthur, who seems to be cited on these boards more often than not with approval, cites the Montanists as proto-charismatics in Charismatic Chaos.

As for the Waldensians, we have already discussed at length here on another thread about the Confessio of Peter Waldo, and his confession is one of a reforming Catholic much like St Francis but a few decades earlier rather than some kind of proto-Baptist.

And the Cathars/Albigensians, their heresies are well-documented. A modern work containing much primary source material from the early 14th century is the painstakingly-researched Montaillou by Emmanuel LeRoy Ladurie.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

First of all, "monoepiscopacy" means "ONE" bishop over the WHOLE Church.

Not really. It means one bishop over each LOCAL church (particularly the Church in each CITY)

I was not rejecting the notion of overseers over cities...

Well, good--at least we seemingly agree on something.

...but rather the offices becoming glorified professional POWER bases (under the Empire, eventually, even).

Yet, this problem is not uniquely confined to the episocopacy. Calvin used his church's polity as a "professional power base", and many mega-church pastors do the same today, just to give a few examples.

Yes, there overseers watching multiple fellowships in various cities, i(n addition to individual flock shepherds); were in place by the time of Ignatius.

Exactly my point--nothing more, nothing less.

But it was his rhetoric that paved the way for them to rise to earthly power over the people, with the one in Rome over all (which even you do not accept).

I don't see how that necessarily and inevitably follows at all. Ignatius in his emphasis on the authority of the local bishop still considers his fellow bishops (in other cities) as brothers and equals: Polycarp of Smyrna, Onesimus of Ephesus, Polybius of Tralles, and Damas of Magnesia (the four he mentioned by name)

Even the other four "patriARCHs" (father-kings) were not set up at this time.

True. It was only with time that the bishops of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople began to be referred to as "patriarchs".

Of course, the later Church would try to read it back into James in Jerusalem.

Read WHAT back into James? The "patriarchate" or the "episcopate"?

And one branch of the Church using the same logic does the same thing with Peter as ruler over the entire Church.

This is why your Vincentian logic doesn't work.

Not really...the key is in what you describe as "one branch of the Church" adopting a set of teachings related to Peter in the Papacy that's different from that of other branches. Vincent himself describe what to do in this type of situation in his Commonitory:

"What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.
But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation."

Come on, you can not even have a fellowship meeting, or baptize someone without one of these exalted "bishops" present?

At the time Ignatius wrote this letter the local church wasn't as spread out as it later became (through multiple parishes in one 'diocese'). The presbyters could in practice baptize and administer the Eucharist on behalf of the bishop when the bishop couldn't be present.

(BTW, in Clement's usage, episkopos and presbyteros were still interchangeable)

The terms were, yes; but not the office itself. Historically, Clement was the specific successor to Anencletus, and before that, Linus who was ordained by the Apostles.

Here's what Eusebius has to say about this particular succession in Rome (from Paul Maier's translation):

"After the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, the first to be appointed bishop of Rome was Linus" (Eccl Hist 3:2)

"When Vespasian had reigned for ten years, his son Titus succeeded him as emperor. In the second year of Titus's reign, Linus, the bishop of Rome, yielded his office to Anencletus after holding it for twelve years." (Eccl His 3:13)

"In the twelth year of the same reign [that of Domitian], Clement succeeded Anencletus after twelve years as bishop of Rome." (Eccl Hist 3:15)

"In the third year of Trajan's reign, Clement turned over the ministry of bishops of Rome to Evarestus and departed this life, having supervised the teaching of the divine Word for nine years." (Eccl Hist 3:34)

So although Eusebius does use the term "bishop" in it's latter restricted sense, he does describe the succession of specific individual men as chief pastor (ie the presiding bishop/presbyter) in Rome going back to the Apostles.

I had then in response mentioned that the historical evidence pointed to the fact that the episcopal church polity is what the Apostles set up in the churches. You responded with...

Not in this form!

What "form" do you think I'm talking about? (You already agreed that there was specific individual overseers over each city church.) I'm merely pointing out that from the beginning, after the transition from the apostolic period, there was basically the distinction in practice of the chief pastor/overseer (monoepiscopacy) from the rest of the pastors/overseers/elders ('college' of presbyters) in the local city churches, even if the uniform distinction in terminology took a little more time.

 

[Eric B]

Not really. It means one bishop over each LOCAL church (particularly the Church in each CITY)

OK, you're right on that one. I had read it as referring to the papacy. (technically, then, it should be henoepiscopacy).

What "form" do you think I'm talking about? (You already agreed that there was specific individual overseers over each city church.) I'm merely pointing out that from the beginning, after the transition from the apostolic period, there was basically the distinction in practice of the chief pastor/overseer (monoepiscopacy) from the rest of the pastors/overseers/elders ('college' of presbyters) in the local city churches, even if the uniform distinction in terminology took a little more time.

Well; I'm looking at how it developed beyond that; both in the new offices that would rule over even the overseers, and even the original overseers themselves also becoming a professional "class" above a "laity".

Yet, this problem is not uniquely confined to the episocopacy. Calvin used his church's polity as a "professional power base", and many mega-church pastors do the same today, just to give a few examples.

And I don't agree with that either. All of that is the problem, with much of the Church today. All the stuff that happens under them; in both examples; should show the problem with institutionalized Christianity.

I don't see how that necessarily and inevitably follows at all. Ignatius in his emphasis on the authority of the local bishop still considers his fellow bishops (in other cities) as brothers and equals: Polycarp of Smyrna, Onesimus of Ephesus, Polybius of Tralles, and Damas of Magnesia (the four he mentioned by name)

Again, he may have been sincere, and not planned it that way, but that is clearly what developed afterward, from placing so much emphasis on them (which we did not see in the NT).

True. It was only with time that the bishops of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople began to be referred to as "patriarchs".

And our point is that this developed, and was not a "tradition" passed down from the apostles. The apostles set up offices, and later leaders put their own spin on them, turning them into power bases.

Read WHAT back into James? The "patriarchate" or the "episcopate"?

Patriarch. Which is basically an overextension of an episcopate. There clearly was no such incarnation of the office in the NT or immediately after.

Not really...the key is in what you describe as "one branch of the Church" adopting a set of teachings related to Peter in the Papacy that's different from that of other branches. Vincent himself describe what to do in this type of situation in his Commonitory:

"What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.
But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation."

But again; they will claim the same criteria; somehow read it back to the NT, and there's your "antiquity". Hence, Peter was the first Pope. There was even basic consent on it, before the split of 1054. The East may not have liked it, but as they did not excommunicate the West as soon as they exalted the Roman bishop above the others, so they did apparently tolerate and go along with it, until a bunch of other straws finally broke the camel's back.

At the time Ignatius wrote this letter the local church wasn't as spread out as it later became (through multiple parishes in one 'diocese'). The presbyters could in practice baptize and administer the Eucharist on behalf of the bishop when the bishop couldn't be present.

And where did "diocese" come from? That wasn't by the Apostles either. (It's basically a copy of state government, as it means "a governor's jurisdiction" or "province"). Now if you say the Church changed to all of this because it "spread" and got too big to maintain the original apostolic system; I can understand that, but nevertheless; it is no longer the same thing the apostles established. It adapted to the changing circumstance, according to the discretion of the later leaders. (Understandable, yes, but The Gospel wasn't about multiplying offices and increasing their power over more and more "sheep"; they were guides, and the "sheep" were to grow and become teachers themselves-Heb.5:12). Again; you may claim organic continuity, but it split into two completely different Church structures, developed from this "professional heirarchy"; both claiming this same "antique", "universal", "agreed on" apostolic tradition. The traditions and history are simply interpreted differently. Rejecting Sola Scriptura simply pushes the same problem elsewhere.

The terms were, yes; but not the office itself. Historically, Clement was the specific successor to Anencletus, and before that, Linus who was ordained by the Apostles.

Here's what Eusebius has to say about this particular succession in Rome (from Paul Maier's translation):

"After the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, the first to be appointed bishop of Rome was Linus" (Eccl Hist 3:2)

"When Vespasian had reigned for ten years, his son Titus succeeded him as emperor. In the second year of Titus's reign, Linus, the bishop of Rome, yielded his office to Anencletus after holding it for twelve years." (Eccl His 3:13)

"In the twelth year of the same reign [that of Domitian], Clement succeeded Anencletus after twelve years as bishop of Rome." (Eccl Hist 3:15)

"In the third year of Trajan's reign, Clement turned over the ministry of bishops of Rome to Evarestus and departed this life, having supervised the teaching of the divine Word for nine years." (Eccl Hist 3:34)

So although Eusebius does use the term "bishop" in it's latter restricted sense, he does describe the succession of specific individual men as chief pastor (ie the presiding bishop/presbyter) in Rome going back to the Apostles.

Is this suggesting that this new "bishop of Rome" replaced both Peter and Paul? Where does it even say Linus was appointed by "the apostles"? He's only mentioned once in the NT. The Apostles may have appointed overseers, but where do the apostles even say there should be a continuous, and formal "succession"? This type of thing is obviously what Rome uses to substantiate their system.
Again, this seems to be to at least some extent projecting a retrospective view back to the early centuries. Someone must have, even back then, for there to be different versions of the same "succession".

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I had said...

Yet, this problem is not uniquely confined to the episocopacy. Calvin used his church's polity as a "professional power base", and many mega-church pastors do the same today, just to give a few examples.

You replied...

And I don't agree with that either. All of that is the problem, with much of the Church today. All the stuff that happens under them; in both examples; should show the problem with institutionalized Christianity.

I hate to break it to you but the Church was 'institutional' from the beginning. Christ appointed His apostles giving them the authority to bind and loose and saying that those who heard them, heard Him. They were the visible leaders and visible founders of visible fellowships. He didn't give folks the option of starting their own group outside of the communion of the visible, organized churches established by the apostles. And the apostles commissioned certain men and not others with the authority to ordain elders to (gasp!) lead the visible churches. That some individuals in positions of power are corrupt doesn't give us the license to go do our "own thing" and invent our own preferred brand of "christianity". Paul gave Timothy (for instance) specific guidelines, however, about handling accusations against elders (1 Tim 5:19-20).


I had then said...

Not really...the key is in what you describe as "one branch of the Church" adopting a set of teachings related to Peter in the Papacy that's different from that of other branches. Vincent himself describe what to do in this type of situation in his Commonitory:

"What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.
But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation."

You replied...

But again; they will claim the same criteria; somehow read it back to the NT, and there's your "antiquity". Hence, Peter was the first Pope. There was even basic consent on it, before the split of 1054. The East may not have liked it, but as they did not excommunicate the West as soon as they exalted the Roman bishop above the others, so they did apparently tolerate and go along with it, until a bunch of other straws finally broke the camel's back.

They may claim it, but only by cherry-picking their quotes from the ECFs (eg their comments on Matt 16) and the facts of history (eg ignoring the actual relationship of popes to councils, etc)...and overlooking the other Scriptures regarding the power to bind and loose given to all the Apostles (Matt 18) and the Church being built on all the apostles (Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14). So right there in antiquity, the ideas of Peter being the only one who had the power bind and lose and being the only one on whom the Church is built is debunked.

The earliest reference to the importance of agreeing with Rome (in Irenaeus) was not because it's bishop was the alleged sole successor of Peter, but because the Roman Church was founded by Peter and Paul, and because of the orthodoxy strenghtened there by the many Christians going to and from the city ("the tradition of the Apostles has been preserved by those who are of all countries") In addition, when one collates all the ECF comments on Matthew 16 with Peter and the rock, it's only the minority of these which identify the rock only with Peter--the vast majority identify the Rock with Christ, Peter's confession, or mulitple meanings such as Peter, his confession, and Christ (I tend to agree with this latter interpretation). I'm sure I can spend pages documenting this, but since neither you nor I are papalists, I'd just be preaching to the choir.

At the time Ignatius wrote this letter the local church wasn't as spread out as it later became (through multiple parishes in one 'diocese'). The presbyters could in practice baptize and administer the Eucharist on behalf of the bishop when the bishop couldn't be present.

And where did "diocese" come from? That wasn't by the Apostles either.

You know what? This can almost turn into a reductio ad absurdum. I can point out that anything that took place organizationally in the church after the apostles died--including nations and cities that were evangelized by those other than the apostles--has no legitimacy whatsoever and thus causes a "break" or "disruption" in the contiuity of the Church itself. Such, of course, would be "absurd".

Now if you say the Church changed to all of this because it "spread" and got too big to maintain the original apostolic system; I can understand that,

Well that's a relief.

but nevertheless; it is no longer the same thing the apostles established.

But it is the same Church, and as much as it pains you to read this, this later Church--with the same three fold order of bishop(chief pastor)/presbyter (pastors)/deacon--was in fact in 'organic continuity' with that established by the apostles. You think that if bishops exercise their perogatives to make organizational decisions of their churches then they automatically cut themselves off from the Apostolic Church? No, the bishops really did not in fact lose their ordinations simply by deciding make certain organizational changes as their local church expanded.

It adapted to the changing circumstance, according to the discretion of the later leaders.

Good for them! You see, not all such "adaptation" is bad nor a distortion of the apostolic polity.

(Understandable, yes, but The Gospel wasn't about multiplying offices

"Multiplying offices"? The enlargement of the the 'diocese' was due to an expansion in numbers of Christians which outpaced the "multiplying" of offices. That's why there was a delegation of the presbyters by the bishop to outlying local parishes with expansion, rather than a "mulitiplication" of bishops.

and increasing their power over more and more "sheep"

Yeah, that's it. The local churches were just adding more and more converts for the sole purpose of increasing the "power" of those corrupt, "institutional" bishops. :BangHead:

they were guides, and the "sheep" were to grow and become teachers themselves-Heb.5:12).

So all the "sheep" were supposed to become at some point bishops and elders in the Church? Is that what you suppose Hebrew 5:12 is implying?
Does Paul's instructions to Titus and Timothy regarding the qualifications of elders and bishops really suggest to you that everyone was qualified, let alone called to such leadership positions?

Again; you may claim organic continuity, but it split into two completely different Church structures

Completely different? The last I checked both West and East have the same type of structure of bishops, presbyters, and deacons going back to the apostles. It was this structure that was bequeathed by the apostles, not the patriarchate ("pentarchy") or papacy (whatever the organizational beneifts these latter developments may have at times conferred) The reason for the 'split' was not from a difference in the basic apostolic structure, but was mainly (but not only) due to the conflicts (sadly, mainly political) among the 'patriarchs' particularly regarding the 'papacy', both of which as you correctly point out were later nonessential developments. And even this 'split' was not an immediate occurance, conveniently dated to 1054. Despite the mutually excommunications of that year, most in East and West still regarded each as being in the same Church for at least a few centuries later (this is described in Bishop Kallistos Ware's book The Orthodox Church)

.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

(continuing..)

I then said...

The terms were, yes; but not the office itself. Historically, Clement was the specific successor to Anencletus, and before that, Linus who was ordained by the Apostles.

Here's what Eusebius has to say about this particular succession in Rome (from Paul Maier's translation):

"After the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, the first to be appointed bishop of Rome was Linus" (Eccl Hist 3:2)

"When Vespasian had reigned for ten years, his son Titus succeeded him as emperor. In the second year of Titus's reign, Linus, the bishop of Rome, yielded his office to Anencletus after holding it for twelve years." (Eccl His 3:13)

"In the twelth year of the same reign [that of Domitian], Clement succeeded Anencletus after twelve years as bishop of Rome." (Eccl Hist 3:15)

"In the third year of Trajan's reign, Clement turned over the ministry of bishops of Rome to Evarestus and departed this life, having supervised the teaching of the divine Word for nine years." (Eccl Hist 3:34)

So although Eusebius does use the term "bishop" in it's latter restricted sense, he does describe the succession of specific individual men as chief pastor (ie the presiding bishop/presbyter) in Rome going back to the Apostles.

To which you replied...

Is this suggesting that this new "bishop of Rome" replaced both Peter and Paul?

Is he suggesting that Linus was appointed to "succeed" Peter and Paul by becoming the chief pastor ("bishop")? Yes.

Where does it even say Linus was appointed by "the apostles"?

Here Eusebius quotes Irenaus (Adv Her 3:3):
"When the blessed apostles had founded and built the church, they conferred the episcopal office on Linus, who is mentioned by Paul in his letter to Timothy" (Eccl Hist 5:6)

He's only mentioned once in the NT.

And? Is this one mention in the NT the extent of everything that ever happened in the life of the historical Linus? But I suppose that if a detail is not mentioned in Scripture, that means it can't be historical, right?
(Nevermind that bothersome fact that the Apostles didn't record every single thing they did nor every person they commissioned in establishing the Churches)

The Apostles may have appointed overseers, but where do the apostles even say there should be a continuous, and formal "succession"?

Where do they say there should not be? What--after the men the apostles appointed as overseers died, and after the men folks like Timothy and Titus appointed died, do you suppose the apostles wanted the Church to become an amorphous group of people devoid of overseers? If so, where is that written?

This type of thing is obviously what Rome uses to substantiate their system.

So I guess we just throw out the historical evidence for episcopal succession just because Rome uses it "to substantiate their system"?

Again, this seems to be to at least some extent projecting a retrospective view back to the early centuries.

What is your positive evidence (from primary historical sources) for this assertion? Eusebius is very specific about the duration of these men's "episocopates" and their timing in relation to the contemporary Roman emperors. Did he just make all this up out of thin air? (Oh, I guess he must have, because if it's not specifically mentioned in the Bible, then it must not have any historical merit...)

Someone must have, even back then, for there to be different versions of the same "succession".

Really, what are the other "versions"? Other than some slight spelling differences and perhaps an isolated omission, I haven't seen any substantially different "versions" of this early Roman succession

 

[BobRyan]

Notice that in Acts 15 there is no one person leading the entire church -- they needed the Jewish Christians to hold the Jerusalem "council" to determine the answer to the dispute. Otherwise they simply could have written to James for his pontifical opinion.

Also notice that down through the ages the "successors" were chosen by assassination and mob violence when not chosen by nepotism or bribery.

Then there was the "bad news" where you had 20 competing claims at the same time - each trying to slay the others.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
in Romans 8 Paul states that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the unconverted heart to submit in obedience to the Law of God.

Rom 8
5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the Law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8 and those who are [b]in the flesh cannot please God[/b].

Eric said -
That's true

.

Bob said

On the contrary Paul IS writing to Christians in Romans 2 and 3 and 7 and 8. His point is that IF they are putting to death the deads of the FLESH THEN and only THEN are they the children of God. Simply calling themselves Christians does not cut it.

Eric said

So does that mean we fall out of "the Spirit" and revert to "the flesh"

Let's ask Paul - Read Rom 8:5-16 -- tell me what you find there.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

Bob, you cut everything else out and missed the point. At what point does a person cross back into "the flesh"?

I hate to break it to you but the Church was 'institutional' from the beginning. Christ appointed His apostles giving them the authority to bind and loose and saying that those who heard them, heard Him. They were the visible leaders and visible founders of visible fellowships. And the apostles commissioned certain men and not others with the authority to ordain elders to (gasp!) lead the visible churches.

That alone is not "institutional" in the sense I'm referring to. As I've been referring; I'm talking about worldly POWER bases. Becoming a "microcosm of the [Roman] Empire", and then becoming WED to it! The offices becoming kingly "professions", often lavished.
(And Christ never said the power to bind and loose was to extend beyond those men He was speaking to. They may have appointed others after them, but we do not see them transferring all the same power. Only they were in direct contact with Christ. Again; even you admitted the other day that the successors were not "apostles" anymore).

They may claim it, but only by cherry-picking their quotes from the ECFs

My point there is you are doing the same thing. Cherry picking and drawing non [necessitas] sequiturs and overgeneralities from the same evidence. So Rome can take it further than you.

Yeah, that's it. The local churches were just adding more and more converts for the sole purpose of increasing the "power" of those corrupt, "institutional" bishops.

That's not what I said. However, while it wasn't originally intended that way, it did develop that way, as leaders took advantage of the growth.

So all the "sheep" were supposed to become at some point bishops and elders in the Church?
Does Paul's instructions to Titus and Timothy regarding the qualifications of elders and bishops really suggest to you that everyone was qualified, let alone called to such leadership positions?

...after the men the apostles appointed...died, do you suppose the apostles wanted the Church to become an amorphous group of people devoid of overseers?

They were supposed to be GROWing, and yes, become qualified to spread the Gospel or at least guide others. (Like the apostles, and as there would always be people teaching others, it would not be "devoid" of overseers). Those who were ready, were appointed. Those who were not, were not. The apostles were not arbitrarily appointing a religious class system by "choosing one and not another". There was no permanent "clergy-laity" system set up. This is what has led to the watering down of the Church to just a "cultural" icon as people just came and watched the leaders perform, while they fell into complacency. The appointment of offices was to get the Church started and guard the fledgling Gospel message from error. Not to become a mini Roman Empire ruling over the masses! If that's what Christ wanted all along; He could have just overthrown pagan Rome then and set up the complete "Holy Roman Empire" system, pentarchy included.
And there are plenty of small Christian groups in hostile areas where Christianity was not able to organize like that. No paid, professional leaders, often! Do you deny they are part of the Church?

That some individuals in positions of power are corrupt…

So I guess we just throw out the historical evidence for episcopal succession just because Rome uses it "to substantiate their system"?

Well, that shows that in practice, its fruits were rotten. It's not even like just a few leaders here and there were bad, and the Church quickly stepped in and cleaned them out. The whole SYSTEM was bad and condoned all of that stuff. And realize this is the natural occurrence whenever MEN are given THAT much power! They were essentially no different from any other institution that gained power. So the choice is to either accept EVERYTHING they did as either "oral apostolic tradition", or no; it is a later practice sanctioned by "organic continuity"/"authority to bind and loose". Or you realize that the system's fruits were not of Christ; and therefore these proof texts are being read wrong.

But it is the same Church, and as much as it pains you to read this, this later Church--with the same three fold order of bishop(chief pastor)/presbyter (pastors)/deacon--was in fact in 'organic continuity' with that established by the apostles. You think that if bishops exercise their perogatives to make organizational decisions of their churches then they automatically cut themselves off from the Apostolic Church? No, the bishops really did not in fact lose their ordinations simply by deciding make certain organizational changes as their local church expanded.

You see, not all such "adaptation" is bad nor a distortion of the apostolic polity.

So basically; the "antiquity" criterion, regarding "apostolicity" goes right out the window. These leaders had unlimited power to innovate and add all the stuff I mentioned above. This, BTW is why persecution eventually became OK, for instance.

The problem is, the original claim has been the "undivided" Church, supposedly most embodied in the East, today, was IDENTICAL to the Church of the apostles, and anything you couldn't find written in the NT was an "oral tradition". Now, you keep admitting that things changed and were added, using this other criteria of "organic continuity", or "binding".

Is this one mention in the NT the extent of everything that ever happened in the life of the historical Linus? But I suppose that if a detail is not mentioned in Scripture, that means it can't be historical, right?
(Nevermind that bothersome fact that the Apostles didn't record every single thing they did nor every person they commissioned in establishing the Churches)

(Oh, I guess he must have, because if it's not specifically mentioned in the Bible, then it must not have any historical merit...)

(I see now we have gone back to the "there was NO change; it just wasn't written" premise).

Really, what are the other "versions"? Other than some slight spelling differences and perhaps an isolated omission, I haven't seen any substantially different "versions" of this early Roman succession

Completely different? The last I checked both West and East have the same type of structure of bishops, presbyters, and deacons going back to the apostles. It was this structure that was bequeathed by the apostles, not the patriarchate ("pentarchy") or papacy (whatever the organizational benefits these latter developments may have at times conferred) The reason for the 'split' was not from a difference in the basic apostolic structure, but was mainly (but not only) due to the conflicts (sadly, mainly political) among the 'patriarchs' particularly regarding the 'papacy', both of which as you correctly point out were later nonessential developments.

OK, if all you're arguing for is bishops, presbyters and deacons; that in itself is not what I am arguing against. I'm against what they became after the apostolic age. So you admit all the "patriarchs" and stuff were "nonessential developments". Good. But it has been justified using the logic you are relaying here. (oral tradition/successional authority). That's the only reason there is any debate here on my part.

…doesn't give us the license to go do our "own thing" and invent our own preferred brand of "christianity".

He didn't give folks the option of starting their own group outside of the communion of the visible, organized churches established by the apostles.

But you are now in a later "group" that broke off, (and look at the reasons for it!)
So in any case, you don't even insist on the EOC anymore, and you admit the pentarchy was a later development, and you are thus not really in communion [institutionally] with them, then there is no reason for me to keep arguing this stuff. (I was still fired up from when you were an EOC catechumen, and all those other EOC's and RCC's were here spouting that rhetoric)

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Since this thread is in its 26th page, and since this is the second thread on this topic, this thread will be closed no later than 12:00 PM CST tomorrow.

 

[Eliyahu]

John MacArthur, who seems to be cited on these boards more often than not with approval, cites the Montanists as proto-charismatics in Charismatic Chaos.

As for the Waldensians, we have already discussed at length here on another thread about the Confessio of Peter Waldo, and his confession is one of a reforming Catholic much like St Francis but a few decades earlier rather than some kind of proto-Baptist.

And the Cathars/Albigensians, their heresies are well-documented. A modern work containing much primary source material from the early 14th century is the painstakingly-researched Montaillou by Emmanuel LeRoy Ladurie.

John MacArthur - a horrible Calvinist. The God of Augustine and Calvin is totally different from the God of the Mercy and Love in the Bible.
These people believe that their God predestined the Unbelievers eternity past ago , not to believe in Jesus and thereby to go to the Hell.
Their god doesn't want All to be saved, but only the elect to be saved.

The Confession of Peter Waldo around 1179 doesn't reflect his faith correctly, because he was so much changed after 1180, after he was turned down by the Rome.

Cathari and Albigenes were the true believers as shown in the Report by the RCC Inquisitor Reinerius, as follows:

First They say that the Romish Church, is not the Church of Jesus Christ, but a church of malignants and that it apostatized under Sylvester, when the poison of temporalities was infused into the h. And they say, that they are the church of Christ, because they observe both in word, and deed, the doctrine of Christ, of the Gospel, and of the Apostles.
Their second error is that all vices and sins are in the church( Roman Church), and that they alone live righteously.
That scarcely anyone in the church, but themselves, preserves the evangelical doctrine.
That they are the true poor in spirit, and suffer persecution for righteousness and faith.
That they are the Church of Jesus Christ.
That the Church of Rome is the Harlot in the Apocalypse, on account of its superfluous decoration which the Eastern Church does not regard.
That they despise all the statutes of the Church, because they are heavy and numerous.
That the Pope is the head of all errors.
That the Prelates are Scribes; and the Monks, Pharisees.
That the Pope and all Bishops, are homicides on account of wars.
That we are not to obey Prelates; but only God.
That no one is greater than another in the church. Matt. 23. "All of you are brethren."
That no one ought to bow the knee before a priest. Rev. ii. where the Angel says tojohn "See thou do it not."
That tithes are not to be given, because first fruits were not given to the church.
That the clergy ought not to have possessions; Dent. xviii. "The Priests and all the tribe of Levi, shall not have part and inheritance with the people of Israel, because they eat the sacrifices, and they shall receive nothing else."
That the clergy, and monks, ought not to have Prebends.( land of church)
That the Bishops and Abbots ought not to have royal rights.
That the land, and the people, are not to be divided into parts.
That it is a bad thing to found and endow churches and monasteries.
That wills are not to be made in favor of Churches( but for the poor)-also, that no one ought to be a tenant of the church-also, they condemn all the clergy for idleness, saying that they ought to work with their hands as the Apostles did-also ( 2 Thess 3:8-12)
, they reprobate titles of dignity such as Pope, Bishops, etc.( they denied Clergy system, Papacy)
-also, that no one is to be forced into belief-also( This is the style of God's working since the Creation), that they make no account of all ecclesiastical offices ( No clergy system according to 1 Pet 2:5-9, Re 1:6)-also, that they care nothing for ecclesiastical privileges-also, they despise the immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons and things-also, they condemn Councils, Synods, and Assemblies( No human organization)-also, they say that all parochial rights are invention-also, they say that monastic rules are the traditions of the Pharisees. ( They condemned the human tradition)


Heretics cannot confess such Great Faith at all.

The above proves they are true Believers !

 

[BobRyan]

What character witnesses do we have for the humble Cathars of history -- coming from some source other than the criminals that tortured and murdered them?

But as Eliyahu points out -- sometimes the very institution corrupt enough to murder and torture them -- can be caught in an honest moment declaring some tiny part of their victim's character accurately.

 

[Matt Black]

So, is it the mark of 'true believers' to believe in two gods, insist on vegetarianism, divide members of their sect into two hierarchies, and fast to the death?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

GE,
You are greatly mistaken about Augustine.
Calvin is also another Heretic, killing the people like Servetus.
If he had stood in the place of John 8:1-11, he would have killed the adulterous woman.
You must wake up from the delusion and the leaven of RCC and her step-daughter Calvinism. You can confirm the Infant Baptism and the Baptismal Regeneration, No Salvation outside Holy Catholic church by both guys, which are ridiculous heresies.

It is the high time for the modern believers to perform the Funeral Service for the dead men, Augustine and Calvin. You may not see them in the Heaven but in the Hell.

GE

Eliyahu, I am a Calvinist and no RC. Also you have simply NO idea about Calvin and the RCC! You h-a-v-e NO, knowledge man. Go read his Institutes. If ever their ever has been a true Christian warrior against the RC-antichrist, it's Calvin!

But you, Eliyahu, who so wars against the doctrine of Election and for the doctrines of Pelagius and Arminius, you fight side by side and for and WITH Rome against Protestantism; WITH Rome whose arch-heresy always has been and this day more than ever is the very doctrines of Pelagius and Arminius!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Eliyahu
"Cathari and Albigenes were the true believers as shown in the Report by the RCC Inquisitor Reinerius, "

GE

I'm not for the RCC as you should know - but tell me, what from that list of accusations against Rome and denials of belief, makes you think the "Cathari and Albigenes were the true believers"?
Have you got one positive Confession of Faith from them wherein they do anything else than denounce the RCC? If you could show me one, then we could talk further about the purity of their Faith.