tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post2613522158774728223..comments2024-03-16T02:22:18.475-07:00Comments on Articuli Fidei: Monepiscopacy and the early ChurchDavid Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-13807483237586272682016-09-20T16:40:04.685-07:002016-09-20T16:40:04.685-07:00Hi E. Reyes,
Thanks much for taking the time to p...Hi E. Reyes,<br /><br />Thanks much for taking the time to post your thoughts. I pretty much agree with everything you wrote.<br /><br />BTW, I have pointed out a number of times to Ken that he is quite inconsistent to allow for the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, while rejecting development for other doctrines and ecclesiastical issues. <br /><br />Will be looking for further contributions from your pen in the near future.<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />David<br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-79407300019497603102016-09-20T05:48:09.275-07:002016-09-20T05:48:09.275-07:00I can not leave this blog without making this comm...I can not leave this blog without making this comment. I do understand this is a blog a year old but I have to comment for the use of people who might read it after. Ken said on Feb 16 answering the 1st question of Rory from Feb 15: What makes you think his ecclesiology begins with the letters he wrote? and Ken's answer was "Because everything before that indicates that each local church has a plurality of elders (presbuteroi)" <br />I would have to ask, if this was the first time this topic was ever address, and never known about before, why does Ignatius himself in his letter to the Magnesians says "through Damas your most worthy Bishop" and ends with Polycarp, the Bishop of the Smyrneans?" It seems to me that there were bishops all over by them. I do not think this could have happen all of a sudden. They did not go to sleep one night and the next morning woke up and decided to order Bishops over all the regions. This must have developed throughout the time, and by the time of Ignatius it was very clearly stablished. Of course, it was not already in place by the time of the Apostles, and therefore when the Scriptures of the N.T. were written they could not have been presented in that way, even if by the time when they were actually written, the offices of Bishop, Presbyter and Deacons were already stablished. If they were writing books about what happened during the time f Jesus and the early Church they had to write them as they developed. This does not mean that what they describe of the early Church, in the N.T., was not the beginning of what we now know as the offices of the Church, it just means it was not developed as of yet, in its entirety. Neither was the dogma of the Trinity. John talked in the beginning of his Gospel about the word that was at the beginning of creation with God and that was God and without whom nothing would have been created, but he never mentions the word Trinity. Trinity is not mentioned any were in the Bible at all. Does this make the Dogma of Trinity untruth? No, they new that Jesus was God, but they did not know how to explain it, they were still developing the theology behind it. The same thing happened with the offices, they were forming and been defined until they became what we know today. All we have to do is let the Holy Spirit guide the Church as Jesus promised he would, and we follow it, because Jesus will never break his promises, let us just believe in his promise "I will be with you until the end of times", He is in the Church, he has proved it over and over again through out the centuries, why do we doubt Him so much?E. Reyeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10237269386037677537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-63655992587398314312015-02-16T17:02:10.797-08:002015-02-16T17:02:10.797-08:00Hi Ken,
A bit earlier today you wrote:
== You st...Hi Ken,<br /><br />A bit earlier today you wrote:<br /><br />== You still don't deal with Acts 14:23 and don't comment on the other verses either. <br /><br />You just ignore them, and build your case on the fact that the Apostles are the high office, but later ceased (agreed).<br /><br />Answer the question - Why did they appoint elders for each church in Acts 14:23 ?? (and no mention of mono-episcopacy)==<br /><br />If you had read my posts a bit more carefully you would have discerned that I have answered the import of your question. I pointed out that in the time period of Acts 14:23 three primary offices existed: apostles, elders/bishops and deacons. The monespicopacy, apart from James (the Just) in Jerusalem, did not yet exist. There was yet no need to appoint apostolic successors, for the ministry of the apostles was still in full swing. As such, the apostles Barnabas and Paul, appointed elders in each of the various cities mentioned in Acts 14. And further, just as the Church at Antioch was composed of numerous house churches, so too the other cities mentioned in Acts 14. So, each of the house churches in each city Church had an elder appointed, which, of course, means that each city Church had multiple elders appointed by Barnabas and Paul; and all those elders appointed by them, were under their authority. <br /><br />But, as the apostles began to pass off of the scene, successors were being appointed to overseer the house church elders of each city Church, with the Church at Jerusalem, serving as the model. James (the Just) was not an apostle appointed by Jesus Christ, nor was he a mere elder of a house church. His was in a position below 'the Twelve' but above the elders of the house churches. No precise name for this position is given in the NT, that came later.<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />David<br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-3113065789904391252015-02-16T14:34:45.858-08:002015-02-16T14:34:45.858-08:00You still never deal with Acts 14:23 or any of the...You still never deal with Acts 14:23 or any of the other verses I put forth.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-40303085684865278892015-02-16T09:41:32.169-08:002015-02-16T09:41:32.169-08:00Good morning Rory,
Excellent post !!! Your questi...Good morning Rory,<br /><br />Excellent post !!! Your questions and reasoning are spot-on. The only "answer" for the congregationalist is to maintain that the early Christian Church underwent an almost universal apostasy concerning ecclesiology (Gnostics were probably congregationalists) by the middle of the second century. Such a take on history is not a position I would like to defend...<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />David<br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-32533434380603375402015-02-16T09:39:36.357-08:002015-02-16T09:39:36.357-08:001) What makes you think his ecclesiology begins wi...<i>1) What makes you think his ecclesiology begins with the first letters he wrote? </i><br /><br />Because everything before that indicates that each local church has a plurality of elders (presbuteroi) <br /><br />Acts 14:23<br />When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.<br /><br />χειροτονήσαντες δὲ αὐτοῖς πρεσβυτέρους κατ᾽ ἐκκλησίαν προσευξάμενοι μετὰ νηστειῶν παρέθεντο αὐτοὺς τῷ κυρίῳ εἰς ὃν πεπιστεύκεισαν<br /><br />πρεσβυτέρους (accusative plural- object of the verb in Aorist active, "they appointed") , "they appointed") κατ᾽ ἐκκλησίαν (literally, "according to each church") <br /><br />All the other earlier passages are consistent with this:<br /><br />Acts 20:17 - called the elders (plural)<br /><br />Acts 20:28 - tells the elders that the Holy Spirit has also made them overseers (all the elders are also overseers - uses plural there) and they are to do the work of pastoring (verbal form - to pastor, shepherd, feed and guard the flock)<br /><br />Titus 1:5-7 - appoint elders (Plural) and verse 7 shows the elder is same as overseer, "for the overseer" - the Greek word "for" ( γαρ) proves this.<br /><br />1 Peter 5:1-4<br />Again, he speaks to "the elders" (plural)<br />and says that their job is <br />to shepherd the flock (1 Peter 5:2)<br />and<br />exercise oversight (verbal form related to episkopos; episkopeo = επισκοπεω<br /><br />and I Clement 42 and 44 show the elders are the same office as overseer or bishop.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-40687753689212716142015-02-15T16:11:42.878-08:002015-02-15T16:11:42.878-08:00I am glad that our adversaries acknowledge that St...I am glad that our adversaries acknowledge that St. Ignatius of Antioch represents a certain exhortation to the dreaded monoepiscopate. Given the date of his writings, at the beginning of the second century, this means that it appeared and quickly predominated over Christendom throughout the era in which the faith of Christians and the blood of the martyrs vanquished Pagan Rome without any ideas at all of congregational ecclesiology.<br /><br />107 AD, as many scholars place the date for the martyrdom of St. Ignatius is early anyway. The Apostle John nearly outlived Ignatius. But the point I would raise is that it is incredible to suggest that what Ignatius proposed over and over, to each of the seven churches to which he addressed himself as he journeyed to Rome to face death for his testimony of Christ, is that he was promoting a novelty.<br /><br />Picture yourself as Baptist in a congregational setting as required by the Apostles who some of the congregation, even maybe yourself remembered meeting. You know how they intended the churches to be governed. Then out of nowhere you get some letter from some old man claiming to be the pastor of an entire major city, Antioch, who is telling you about your duties to obey some fictional overseer office of the whole province in which you live. Maybe they didn't call it Alzheimer's, but old folks went nuts in post Apostolic days too. I have to ask why Ignatius' writings were so well received, if they were so utterly contrary to the Apostolic doctrines? He emphasized one theme in every one of his letters, and that had to do with obeying the bishop of the province. How do you explain the ready reception of such a strange novelty coming from some delusional old man? It doesn't make any sense to say that monoepiscopates started with Ignatius in the early 2nd Century. He knew that those to whom he was writing had long established ecclesiastical customs that were compatible with his admonitions.<br /><br />According to the introductory notes of the anti-Catholic editors of Ignatius series of letters translated into English and pubplished by Hendriksen Publishers in 1994, Ignatius was a venerable figure to the Christians both because of his age and his reputation: <i>"The seductive myth which represents this Father as the little child whom the Lord placed in the midst of his apostles indicates at least the period when he may be supposed to have been born."</i><br /><br />Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 1, p.45<br /><br />So Ignatius was around 80 years old as some kind of leader at one of the congregational churches in Antioch when he was brought to the attention of authorities who decided to make an example of him. <br /><br />I have a few questions questions to those who hold that this old man opposed apostolic doctrine as it relates to ecclesiology in his writings.<br /><br />1) What makes you think his ecclesiology begins with the first letters he wrote? <br /><br />2) Does it seem plausible that he would write to disciples in other cities, full well knowing that they wouldn't be able to relate to his admonitions?<br /><br />3) Considering this as a second century novelty, how do you explain the apparently ready reception of his message. Instead of being held up for ridicule as a some senile kook, as would be more appropriate if you were correct about him, he is held up for admiration, with legendary stories about him being held in the very arms of Jesus!<br /><br />Can you not see why it makes no sense to cite Ignatius in the second century as the first appearance of monoepiscopacy? It seems impossible to believe that Ignatius' writings would have been acceptable to disciples of Christ who had been accustomed to an apostolic tradition that requires congregational ecclesiology. Reformed Baptists today have no difficulty disagreeing with Ignatian ecclesiology. <br /><br />What was the deal in Reformed Baptist congregations from Ephesus to Smyrna to Rome that made letters from this condemned old man acceptable when they were completely at odds with all of their previous church experience? <br /> <br />Rory<br /> Roryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17383598087147416757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-72376517022979847472015-02-13T11:31:33.473-08:002015-02-13T11:31:33.473-08:00Hi Ken,
Rather than try to respond to your commen...Hi Ken,<br /><br />Rather than try to respond to your comments here in the combox (it would have taken at least 3 separate posts), I did so in a new thread (<a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2015/02/james-just-leader-of-church-at-jerusalem.html" rel="nofollow">link</a>).<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />David<br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-69111015759782906952015-02-12T05:11:36.079-08:002015-02-12T05:11:36.079-08:00James Swan had to put the blog on moderation mode ...James Swan had to put the blog on moderation mode because of a couple of bad commentors, both of whom are Roman Catholic. He has an article up about that now.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-81369002524954943132015-02-11T19:28:36.896-08:002015-02-11T19:28:36.896-08:00Hi Ken,
Thanks much for taking to time to comment...Hi Ken,<br /><br />Thanks much for taking to time to comment; and also a big thanks for publishing my post over at BA. (BTW, when did you guys start moderating comments?)<br /><br />I have been out of town today, and got back about 20 minutes ago. Do not have the time this evening to do justice to what you touched on in this morning's post. Tomorrow (the Lord willing) I will start work on a new thread dedicated to James' monarchical leadership--there has been a good number of authors who have written on this topic, which has been published in histories, commentaries, and, of course, books devoted to James (the Just/Righteous).<br /><br />In the meantime, please feel free to comment on the other issues I mentioned in the opening post.<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />David<br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-76476576165087215932015-02-11T08:35:24.438-08:002015-02-11T08:35:24.438-08:00Hi David,
Thanks for your bold critique.
I skimme...Hi David,<br />Thanks for your bold critique.<br /><br />I skimmed over your article and don't have time right now to get into all the details; yet I hope to study it all more in depth and make more comments later.<br /><br />Off the top of my head, on the main issue - it seems your main argument is that James was the mono-episcopate (one bishop over a college of elders) at Jerusalem. And the later church records seem to read mono-episcopasy back into the earliest decades. (Eusebius, Irenaeus, etc.) Acts, Titus, 1 Timothy, I Peter 5, I Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache are all earlier (60s-125 AD) and don't jive with the bishop's lists of 200-325 AD.<br /><br />Why doesn't Acts 15 say that? Acts 15 does not call James a "bishop/overseer, who is one over the college of elders" in authority. Both he and Peter stand up and give their opinions/judgments and quote Scripture. <br /><br />It says that Paul and Barnabas came there and reported to "the apostles and elders" (Acts 15:4; and 15:6; 15:22 and "with the whole church").<br /><br />James, the brother of Jesus is called an apostle in Galatians 1:19 and 1 Cor. 15:7. <br /><br />What about Acts 14:23 where it says that the apostles appointed elders for every church?<br /><br />Regarding Peter Lampe and liberal scholarship, we discussed that issue before and I don't recall everything; but I don't see how liberal views of the Pastorals or authorship of Ephesians relates to the issue of mono-episcopacy, since I am conservative and believe that Paul wrote I Tim. and Titus between 62-65 AD after he was released from house arrest in Acts 28; and 2 Timothy around 66-67 AD in prison in Rome before his execution by Nero. The issues are completely separate- the earliest churches had a plurality of elders issue is completely separate from the liberalism issue. (just as your point about mono-episcopasy does not necessarily prove any kind of Papacy. That is what Anglicanism/ Episcopal church structure is all about, right?) <br /><br />It seems to me that from Ignatius onward, and especially Irenaeus, the mono-episcopacy is read back into the earlier decades. The earlier records don't agree with what Irenaeus, Eusebius, Hegessipus suppossedly say. <br /><br />There are many other things we can get into, but I have to go to an appointment. I hope to interact with the other material as I have time.<br /><br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.com