Late last night/early this morning (depending on the time zone), John Bugay responded at length to my opening post from yesterday’s thread:
LINK to John’s new thread
About 15 minutes ago, I attempted to post my response to John’s opening post in the combox; the post appeared for a couple of minutes, but then vanished (seems Blogger technical problems are not being fixed). Rather than contend with Blogger’s continuing anomalies, I am posting my response here at AF:
Hi John,
An interesting response to my new thread at AF; you begin with:
==David Waltz continues to press his charge of "inconsistency" against me …==
Me: Thank you for accurately representing what I actually wrote—I do not believe that you are “dishonest”, nor as the grandmaster of misrepresentation, Steve Hays, recently penned, that you are guilty of “hypocrisy”—I believe, once again, that you are sincere, yet inconsistent in your use of liberal, critical scholarship.
==William Dever is to Old Testament what Lampe is to – what? What is it that Lampe studies again? David fails to complete the connection.==
Me: My goodness, how many times do I have to repeat the common connection/element between OT/early history of Israel critical scholars and NT/early history of Christianity critical scholars; yet one more time, here is that common connection/element:
The premise/presuppostion that archeology and secular history must take precedence over Biblical historicity.
And Nick, raises another important point that is germane:
== When someone puts their stakes on one horse, they need to stick with that horse. One cannot selectively cite a scholar, especially if the scholar is liberal and you are conservative - this is precisely what the JWs are famous for (e.g. their work against the Trinity quotes from "authorities" like "The Paganism in our Christianity," which just so happens to also say the Bible is full of pagan and other errors, but this latter detail is ignored.) This is why certain of the Early Church Fathers were venerated as Saints/Doctors, since their testimony was considered genuine and reliable guide for early Christianity. When one throws away this distinction, they've made secular historians their authority rather than a living testimony of Christians led by the Spirit.== (LINK).
Me: Should one be so quick to dismiss the early bishop/presbyter lists complied by faithful Christian apologists and historians? (E.g. Hegesippus, St. Irenaeus, Eusebius, et al.) in favor of archeology and secular history? Is archeology an ‘exact’ science? Is ancient history an ‘exact’ science? More importantly, do differing presuppositions significantly effect the conclusions that one arrives at via archeology and secular history?
Sorry John, presuppositions matter, they matter significantly. Lampe believes that “the phenomenon of fractionation” among the “house communities” (i.e. house churches) had serious consequences on theology: “In Rome of the second century we find evidence of breathtaking theological diversity”; that “‘orthodoxy’ was finally victorious over the many other tendencies has, in my opinion, also social-historical reasons”; “Behind ‘orthodoxy’ stand the mass of uneducated Christian folk…The victory of orthodoxy was thus also a ‘majority decision’”; “For the mass of Christian folk, for the ‘simplices’, the ‘economic (οικονομία) Trinity and the christological usage of the Logos concept were suspect; modalistic ideas were favored by them”.
Last night before going to bed, I conducted a bit of online research, finding other works of Lampe in English that reveal some very odd conceptions of his. For instance:
“The writer of Revelation nonchalantly ignored the hierarchical structures that had also emerged in the Christian congregation by the end of the first century [as witnessed by the Pastorals]. Prophecy was the only church office he wanted to acknowledge in the earthly Christian congregation (cf. 10:7; 11:18; 19:10; 22:6, 16).” (Peter Lampe, “Early Christian House Churches: A Constructivist Approach”, in Early Christian Families in Context, ed. David L. Balch. Carolyn Osiek, p. 82.)
Anyway, sincerely hope I have helped clarify my take on the matter.
Grace and peace,
David
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
Hi Dave! When I read Lampe's book, "From Paul to Valentinus," I noticed that he wholly discounted tradition (small t) in his analysis of the early church. He seemed far too interested in showing off his smarts than treating his subject in the context that the Roman church was far more homogenous in doctrine and leadership than he would like to admit. If there were all of these independent house churches, where are the lists of bishops for them like we see in Irenaeus and Eusebeius or the Liber Pontificalis?
God bless!
Paul Hoffer, the answer is that the "tradition" (small t) was far less well defined than you might like to think.
At any rate, Robert Eno, S.S. (order of Sulpicians, who "support, guide, and teach priests and future priests") has passed along Lampe's work in his "The Rise of the Papacy."
He says, "Such a view [the leadership role in the local church of Rome was still being exercised collectively before the emergence of a monarchical bishop in Rome] is becoming increasingly widespread. The evidence here as with most subjects of this period, is fragmentary and the issue can be debated in both ways. But the evidence available seems to point predominantly if not decisively in the direction of a collective leadership. Dogmatic a priori theses should not force us into presuming or requiring something that the evidence leans against." (Robert S. Eno, S.S. "The Rise of the Papacy, Wilmington: Michael Glazier, Inc., pg 26.)
So you've got bigger fish to fry than just little ol' me.
David.
Thanks for bringing John Bugay's methods to light.
Several years ago on another blog I tried to demonstrate that John is highly selective in his application of scholarship to no avail.
In a nutshell, if scholarship appears (to John Bugay) to undermine any claim made by the Catholic Church then its as good as the gospel. It doesn't matter how the scholar got there; all that matters is the scholar’s conclusion.
On the other hand, if that same scholar uses the same method and concludes something that doesn't help the claims of Reformed Protestantism than John will tell you that the scholar is just wrong in that instance.
Further, if other scholars use different methods and come to conclusions that support the claims of the Catholic Church well those scholars are just wrong.
In previous discussions with John he has quoted scholars on one point and I’ve quoted the same scholars from the same works that say the exact opposite of what John is saying. After a few tries at getting him to see this inconsistency one simply throws their hands in the air and walks away.
Sigh.
John Bugay is good at citing a myriad of scholarship and making his research look exhaustive. To the untrained it looks impressive. But when held up to in a critical light it simply reveals itself as what it is: Apologetics.
It does sound from that John Bugay has toned down his ‘style’ in recent months. That is a good development.
Oh Blogahon, yes, you've been so instrumental in "correcting" me.
You bastion of moral uprightness.
If you like I will put up that post again in which I cited a host of Reformed brothers who took issue with your various misrepresentations? Just so we can all see your moral correctitude.
The fact is, you cannot cite any Catholic scholars who have interacted with Lampe and who have disagreed with him.
As it is, I strenuously disagree with David's assessments here, and Lord willing I will continue to write the same kinds of things that I have always written.
You all may have some fun with this one.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/09/called-to-confusion.html
John,
We’ve come full circle except I am now not the only person who has noticed the anachronistic way that you approach scholarship. At this point it is well documented. You don't like hearing it, that much is obvious, but it’s true.
So, while you are getting 'atta boys' from the same half dozen people at Beggar's All, others are noticing.
I hope that you continue to read the work of Pope Benedict 16th and benefit from it.
The good thing about you Sean, is that your posturing is so phony that most people can see through it.
John,
Not posturing. I genuinely believe that nothing but good can come out of an honest reading of the Holy Father.
God has given the Church a great teacher in Benedict 16th.
One more quick thing, John.
Can you name one piece of historical evidence that meets two conditions:
(1) it shows that there was no monarchical bishop in Rome until the second half of the second century, and;
(2) it is stronger evidence than is the list of St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3)
(Please show why it is stronger evidence than is St. Irenaeus’ list.)
What are you, Bryan Cross's lap dog?
It's not "one piece of evidence." It's the cumulative weight of the evidence.
It's very clear that Irenaeus's list is an after-the-fact reconstruction. You should read Roger Collins on this.
John.
Can you cite the evidence or are you just going to claim that it is there?
Be on the lookout on Called to Communion in a couple of days for a post that examines all of the 'evidence' that proves that there was no monarchial bishop in Rome in the 1st century. (Warning: The authors have read LAMPE!)
You wouldn't answer Bryan and now you won't answer me but I am pleased to be included in the same ball park as Bryan nonetheless.
Good luck with that.
I don't believe in luck. I believe in Grace.
I'm pretty sure you're working with the wrong definition of grace.
Hi Paul,
What a pleasant surprise to see you back at AF. Sincerely hope that you and your family are being blessed. You posted:
>>Hi Dave! When I read Lampe's book, "From Paul to Valentinus," I noticed that he wholly discounted tradition (small t) in his analysis of the early church. He seemed far too interested in showing off his smarts than treating his subject in the context that the Roman church was far more homogenous in doctrine and leadership than he would like to admit. If there were all of these independent house churches, where are the lists of bishops for them like we see in Irenaeus and Eusebeius or the Liber Pontificalis?>>
Me: I noticed the same; that Lampe discounts the bishop lists of Hegesippus and Irenaeus, essentially maintaining that they were fabrications, is very troubling to me (but I guess such assessments should be expected from one who believes the Pastorals were forgeries, and the author of the Book of Revelation was “a wandering prophet”).
For a treatment of the early bishops lists by a Protestant who is not as radical as Lampe, I would like to suggest Robert Lee Williams, Bishops Lists.
Take care and God bless,
David
So, I guess you aren't going to actually give us any evidence that there was no monarchical bishop in Rome until the second half of the second century?
No matter. I know the 'evidence' that Lampe and others give.
I'll send you a note via Beggars All when the post is up and sincerly hope that you interact with it.
David.
Hegesippus and Irenaeus, essentially maintaining that they were fabrications, is very troubling to me.
Indeed. Any approach that assumes that the champions against heresies were lying is troubling. I wonder what else they could have been lying about?
It is also interesting that none of their peers spoke up about the huge lie they invented isn’t it?
They are not deliberately lying; they just could have been mistaken and didn't know that the early church practice for local churches was a plurality of elders; and assumed that the earliest churches went by "one bishop" rule, since that became the practice later. That an episcopal/overseer who was the more gifted preacher/speaker/administrator(as in Ignatius) became the more dominant one as history developed is understandable. (hard to gather the elders together fast for church disciple issues, etc.)
As Christianity grew, it makes "management sense" to have a bishop over several churches in each city or area, but it is not an infallible Biblical kind of a thing.
Problem is that Hegessipus comes to us from Eusibius, 2 centuries later; and Irenaeus did write some goofy things about Jesus being an old man and 50+ years old; and the lists of the bishops going back to Peter differ from Tertullian’s list.
All three of these guys were great against Gnostics and Marcion, etc. and defended the Trinity and Deity of Christ, but the Scripture passages on local church government are infallible and inerrant, and they are not, and they came 1 or 2 Centuries later. So Scripture is above the “bishop lists”.
Furthermore, as I wrote in the combox about Lampe and Bugay,
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/08/john-bugay-and-german-critical-scholar.html
etc. and adding about Dever also:
Dever on the OT undermines the OT.
Lampe on Rome in church history does not undermine the NT. (because the issue is about subsequent archeology and history, not the Biblical text - don't you see the difference?
Dever is using archeology to say God does not exist; or the the God of the Bible is not the true God, monotheism and theism is not true, etc.
Lampe, even thought he is liberal on the details of Romans 16 and 2 Tim. 4 and the pastorals, his archeology of the issues of the "plurality of elders" from AD 70 forward, vs. "mono-episcopate bishop" do not undermine the NT on that issue , because the NT actually affirms the plurality of elders as the proper local church government, not a mono-episcopate. ( Titus 1:5-7; Acts 14:23; Acts 20:17, 28; I Timothy 4:14)
Also,
I Clement (paragraph 44) (96 AD) shows that elder (presbuteros) and bishop (episcopate) was inter-changable and the same office/person; and he writes for the church of Rome (preface, verse 1 and following), and never calls himself bishop - he was one of a group of elders - this confirms Lampe on Rome and the Bible on the proper church leadership- a plurality of elders/pastors/teachers/overseers (all the same office) - Acts 20:17, 28; 14:23; Titus 1:5-7.
Hi Ken,
Still need to get to your comments in the other threads, but with so many posts, and the Blogger problems, I just have not had the time; you are not forgotten, but can’t promise as to exactly when I will get to them. With that said I would like to respond to the following:
>> They are not deliberately lying; they just could have been mistaken and didn't know that the early church practice for local churches was a plurality of elders; and assumed that the earliest churches went by "one bishop" rule, since that became the practice later. That an episcopal/overseer who was the more gifted preacher/speaker/administrator(as in Ignatius) became the more dominant one as history developed is understandable. (hard to gather the elders together fast for church disciple issues, etc.)>>
Me: I disagree Ken; Hegesippus actually visited Rome before he made his list. So, he was either incredible stupid, forged the list knowing it was not historically accurate, or there were monarchial bishops (catholic) in Rome—take your pick.
Further, Robert Lee Williams (a Baptist) in his book, “Bishops Lists” (linked to above), disagrees with Lampe on some crucial historical issues, one of which Lampe is for sure mistaken—i.e. that Irenaeus was the first to persuade “a Roman bishop to curtail tolerance” of the theological diversity in Rome (hope to create a new post soon to document this).
As for the Biblical record concerning church leadership, a three-leveled hierarchy is in place quite early—at least as early as Acts 15. Though this three-leveled hierarchy is clearly in place in the NT record, the terms used to describe the offices of the three levels were often used interchangeably.
>> Dever on the OT undermines the OT.
Lampe on Rome in church history does not undermine the NT. (because the issue is about subsequent archeology and history, not the Biblical text - don't you see the difference?>>
Me: NT scholars like Lampe do undermine the NT; if Paul did not write the Pastorals, then the author who did is a boldfaced liar, and if the author of the Pastorals is a boldfaced lair, then the letters are not “God-breathed”, and should not be in the canon. (Further, Lampe contends that there are at least two historical errors in the Pastorals.)
If we cannot trust Lampe on such a simple issue, and if Williams is correct concerning Lampe’s post-NT historical errors (which he is), then why on earth should we put our trust in the guy?
Grace and peace,
David
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/09/best-of-breed-new-testament-scholarship.html
John answered some of your stuff. More later.
David wrote:
Me: I disagree Ken; Hegesippus actually visited Rome before he made his list. So, he was either incredible stupid, forged the list knowing it was not historically accurate, or there were monarchial bishops (catholic) in Rome—take your pick.
He may have visited Rome in 155-160 AD -- and if he is accurate, it still could only mean that he only listed one elder-bishop, but there were more in a college of elders. (Since by the time of Eusebius, they had developed that practice of the mono-episcopate and emphasized a hierarchical government.
But,
You are still putting Hegessipus, who came much later, and is not "God-breathed" (and neither is Eusebius) and it comes to us through Eusebius, writing much later than that in 326 AD (Ecclesiastical History) - over clear Scripture - the Scriptures are clear that the first local church government was a plurality of elders for each church - Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5-7; Acts 20:17, 28, and that episcopas and presbuteros are the same office, as is the "pastor-teachers", as the ministry of all the episcopi/presbuteroi was to "shepherd/pastor" and teach the flock. I Tim. 3:1 ff
I don't see where you have shown the specific detail of Lampe's liberalism on 2 Tim. 4:19 overthrowing the issue of the earliest sources showing that the local churches had a plurality of elders/overseers/pastor-teachers, as these are all the same office.
Lampe, even thought he is liberal on some details as in 2 Tim. 4:19, and the authorship of the pastorals, his archeology of the issues of the "plurality of elders" from AD 70 forward, vs. "mono-episcopate bishop" do not undermine the NT on that issue , because the NT actually affirms the plurality of elders as the proper local church government, not a mono-episcopate. ( Titus 1:5-7; Acts 14:23; Acts 20:17, 28; I Timothy 4:14) - his point about Revelation may indicate that it was also written pre-70 AD. But we believe firmly that it was written by the apostle John himself.
I Clement (paragraph 44) (96 AD) shows that elder (presbuteros) and bishop (episcopate) was inter-changable and the same office/person; and he writes for the church of Rome (preface, verse 1 and following), and never calls himself bishop - he was one of a group of elders - this confirms Lampe on Rome and the Bible on the proper church leadership- a plurality of elders/pastors/teachers/overseers (all the same office) - Acts 20:17, 28; 14:23; Titus 1:5-7.
Ken,
It goes without saying that there exists disagreement on your gloss of the biblical and historical data.
I might direct you to this article, specifically part III, "There is a distinction between the Orders."
Quote, There isn’t any good evidence in the New Testament for the egalitarian theory of ecclesial government, but on the other hand, there are two strong pieces of evidence that the monepiscopacy was already present in early form among the first Christian churches. The first is Titus 1:5-9, wherein St. Paul speaks to St. Titus, clearly a bishop, and instructs him to appoint elders in every town. Verses 6 and 7 show that there is already some distinction between the terms ‘elder’ and ‘overseer,’ because St. Paul lists them both. If they were identical in St. Paul’s mind, then the reference in verse 7 would be redundant. This passage also shows that, as the Church has always believed, the fundamental distinction in power between a presbyter and bishop is that only the latter could ordain. The second piece of strong evidence in favor of the first century monepiscopacy is that St. James presided as the bishop of Jerusalem.76 Even many scholars who consider the monepsicopacy to be a second century development agree that St. James, whether or not he was referred to as such, presided as the sole residential bishop of the Jerusalem church.
Hi Ken,
Thanks for responding; you wrote:
>> He may have visited Rome in 155-160 AD -- and if he is accurate, it still could only mean that he only listed one elder-bishop, but there were more in a college of elders. (Since by the time of Eusebius, they had developed that practice of the mono-episcopate and emphasized a hierarchical government.>>
Me: Hmmmm…”may have visited Rome in 155-160 AD” (should read 155-166 AD)? Do you have any concrete data to doubt that he did? Why the skepticism? Dr. Williams expresses no doubt that he did, nor the famous Dr. Lightfoot who wrote:
“ ‘I drew up a list of (the Episcopal) succession.’ He says that originally his list had ended with the then bishop Anicetus, and accordingly he now supplements is with the names of the two bishops next in order, Soter, and Eleutherus, thus bringing it down to the time he writes these ‘Memoirs.’” (Apostolic Fathers, 1,154 - Baker Book House 1981 reprint.)
And the church at Rome was not the only succession list of bishops that Hegesippus compiled; Hegesippus also refers to the succession of bishops in Corinth up to Primus, and that, “on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and he received the same doctrine from all”, and that this “true doctrine” was in “every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.”
>> But,
You are still putting Hegessipus, who came much later, and is not "God-breathed" (and neither is Eusebius) and it comes to us through Eusebius, writing much later than that in 326 AD (Ecclesiastical History) - over clear Scripture - the Scriptures are clear that the first local church government was a plurality of elders for each church - Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5-7; Acts 20:17, 28, and that episcopas and presbuteros are the same office, as is the "pastor-teachers", as the ministry of all the episcopi/presbuteroi was to "shepherd/pastor" and teach the flock. I Tim. 3:1 ff>>
Me: You are assuming (incorrectly I believe) that the “office” of bishop/elder had no “office” between it and the “apostles”, which is contrary to the view of a number of scholars, and (IMO), the Bible itself. Between the office of “apostle” and bishop/elder there existed a group of men like Timothy and Titus who have the authority to appoint/ordain bishops/elders. There is also the case of James, the brother of our Lord, who (as a good many scholars affirm) was the head of the bishops/elders of the church at Jerusalem. So, in addition to apostles, there is a level/office (call it what you may) that derives their authority from the apostles and has the authority to appoint bishops/elders. Further, as I touched on earlier, the Greek terms for apostle, bishop/elder, and deacon (too lazy to type the Greek right now), are used interchangeably for different offices and/or functions in the NT, and only later did such terms take on strict ecclesiastical meanings.
cont’d
cont’d
>> Lampe, even thought he is liberal on some details as in 2 Tim. 4:19, and the authorship of the pastorals, his archeology of the issues of the "plurality of elders" from AD 70 forward, vs. "mono-episcopate bishop" do not undermine the NT on that issue , because the NT actually affirms the plurality of elders as the proper local church government, not a mono-episcopate. ( Titus 1:5-7; Acts 14:23; Acts 20:17, 28; I Timothy 4:14) - his point about Revelation may indicate that it was also written pre-70 AD. But we believe firmly that it was written by the apostle John himself.>>
Me: Lampe's liberalism is not confined merely to 2 Tim. 4:19 and the authorship of the pastorals. He also denies that Timothy remained behind in Ephesus after Paul’s departure, contra 1 Tim. 1:3; and that all the Jews were expelled from Rome by Claudius, contra Acts 18:2.
Now, a question for you: what archeological evidence provided by Lampe (or anyone else) PROVES that there did not exist a monarchial bishop in Rome prior to the middle of the 2nd century?
Grace and peace,
David
David.
Now, a question for you: what archeological evidence provided by Lampe (or anyone else) PROVES that there did not exist a monarchial bishop in Rome prior to the middle of the 2nd century?
Uh, I can help with that. There is NO such archeological evidence nor any extant historical evidence.
None. Ziltch. Nada.
Just conclusions of some historians who are trying to fill in their ideas into what they perceive as gaps.
Earlier in the thread I asked John:
ICan you name one piece of historical evidence that meets two conditions:
(1) it shows that there was no monarchical bishop in Rome until the second half of the second century, and;
(2) it is stronger evidence than is the list of St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3)
(Please show why it is stronger evidence than is St. Irenaeus’ list.)
Notice how he refused to engage the question.
Archeological and Biblical evidence that is stronger for our position: The Scriptural evidence is also archeological, being historical and founded by ancient manuscripts.
9 points, both archeological and Biblical arguments, that are stronger for the “plurality of elders” position:
1. I Clement – from the church of Rome, 96 AD – much earlier than Hegessipus and Eusebius. (and Tertullian and Irenaeus. I Clement states, “the church of God which sojourns in Rome to the church of God which sojourns in Corinth”. (1:1)
2. Ignatius’ letters – died, circa, 107-108 AD, much earlier than Hegessipus and Eusebius. In six of the seven letters, except for his epistle to the Romans, he exhorts the Ephesians, Smyrneans, Trallians, Magnesians, Philadelphians, and to Polycap, bishop of Smyrna – each one he names the bishop and tells the church to follow their bishop – except for his letter to the Romans. In the letter to the Romans, no bishop is named nor even the concept of a mono-episcopate is discussed there. Very interesting that all the others have that, but Rome does not!
3. Acts 20:17, 28 – “verse 17 – “elders at Ephesus” – v. 28 – they are also overseers and are to shepherd the flock of God.
4. Acts 14:23 – plurality of elders. Acts was written about 61 AD, much earlier than Hegessipus or Eusebius or Tertullian or Irenaeus.
continued
5. I Peter 5:1-5 – Peter himself, whom the RCC claims is the “first pope” is fellow elder – not a bishop and not a “pope” for sure, writes and calls himself, “fellow elder” (presbuteros). Exhorts them as elders to shepherd the flock of God and to be overseers. More interchangeability of terms for the same office, different functions by the same person/office in a local church. I Peter written around 63-64 AD.
6. Scriptural evidence – this assumes that Peter himself wrote 2 Peter and was written before he died, even though this letter was questioned and we have less evidence of it being in existence in the early decades than other books. 2 Peter 3:8 is quoted by the “Epistle to Barnabas” (written around 70 – 132 AD ?) in 15:4. 2 Peter – 67 AD before being executed by Nero. If the whole papacy thing was legitimate, Peter would have written about it in I Peter 5:1, or for sure in 2 Peter. He knows he’s going to die soon in 2 Peter 1:12-18, and he says it is second letter he is writing (2 Peter 3:1) and he is exhorting them, telling them that he by writing this Scripture, it will serve to stir up their minds to remember the truth, after he is dead and gone. He doesn’t say, “You have your bishop, follow him; he will be a living voice to help you interpret difficult passages after I am gone”. No, he says, in effect, “I am writing, being diligent to stir up your minds in the truth so that after I am gone, you will have something that you can read and stir your sincere minds up to the truth and remember the truth.” This is what is “more sure” – the Scriptures.
7. Titus 1:5-7 – elders and overseers are the same. “appoint elders for each city, namely (NASB) or “if anyone is above reproach . . . “ and then he repeats with concept with , “for the overseer much be above reproach . . . “ – the structure shows they are the same office; the connectors “namely”/or “if anyone” and “for” show that is the same office. Titus written somewhere after Paul’s release in AD 61/62 from Rome at the end of Acts 28; and before 2 Tim. Before his execution by Nero in 67 AD. Again, much earlier than Hegessipus, Eusebius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian and their lists of bishops.
Continued
8. James in Acts 15 – although he is there, and speaks, the text does not say he is the bishop or mono-episcopate. He is called an apostle in other places, such as Galatians 1:19 and I Cor. 15:7. He was a strong leader, for sure. That does not mean he was the “mono-episcopate” for Jerusalem. Two offices are there in Acts 15, “apostles and elders”. The office of apostle ceased when the apostles died.
9. Timothy and Titus appointed by Paul to appoint elders/overseers. This is a pretty good point, except that the Scriptures that are “God-breathed” written to them don’t tell us that they are some kind of extra office between the apostles and elders/overseers that also must keep succeeding after they are gone. Timothy is in an apostolic position, Paul also included him in the 2 letters of Thessalonians as from “Paul, Timothy, and Silas” – seems pretty close to apostolic authority. Neither I Timothy nor Titus says, “appoint one person” who will then appoint more elders, so that after you are gone, the church will go on. No, they are acting in apostolic authority and as pioneer missionary church planters, and appointing a plurality of elders, and it is written in such a way that we understand this is the pattern for local church government after the apostles and their pastoral representatives/ church –planters (Tim. And Titus) are gone.
These 9 points are stronger for our position, than yours.
Ken -
1) How does Clement 1, "“the church of God which sojourns in Rome to the church of God which sojourns in Corinth” say anything about a plurality of ruling bishops?
Clement 1 puts Peter's death in Rome. Do you agree with that?
Because Clement also says that after death the apostles appointed men to 'succeed' them in their ministry.
"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).
Would it not stand to reason that Peter, who was in Rome, appointed a successor?
2) Is the argument that only ROME was ruled by a plurality and not the other Sees? Further, it is Ignatius who gives a very early and clear understanding that the offices of bishop, presbyter and deacon are different. Why wouldn't Rome have a bishop? Further, naming the bishop in a letter may have been dangerous. In summary, this is an argument from silence and I am certain that there is much in Ignatius that does not jive with a sense of Presbyterian polity.
3-9: Please read the article I quoted and also see here for a listing of biblical data that supports the Catholic position.
Blogahon wrote:
"1) How does Clement 1, "“the church of God which sojourns in Rome to the church of God which sojourns in Corinth” say anything about a plurality of ruling bishops?"
Because he says it is from the church, doesn't say he is the bishop in a mono-episcopate sense, and used presbuteros and episcopas interchangably in I Clement 44. Since I Clement is earlier than Ignatius, and is closer to the evidence in the earlier Biblical texts ( Acts 20:17, 28; I Peter 5:1-5; Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5-7); the combination of these things points to a "plurality of elders/overseers/pastor-teachers".
Clement 1 puts Peter's death in Rome. Do you agree with that?
You mean I Clement 5-6? I have no problem with accepting the tradition that Peter was there in Rome at the end of his life and was executed by Nero, as was Paul. I have not seen how agreeing with that goes against anything else that the Protestant position for a plurality of Elders makes.
Because Clement also says that after death the apostles appointed men to 'succeed' them in their ministry.
Yes, they did that in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5-7. That is Biblical - train leaders. 2 Timothy 2:2. But that does not mean "apostolic succession", the way the RCC sees it, and 2 Peter 1:12-21 shows Peter's emphasis was on the written Scripture after he will die, not any kind of infallible authority or a CEO type of "one man show- heirarchical-bishop" or pope.
I Clement 42 and 44 does not promote any kind of later developed apostolic succession or hierarchical mono-episcopate kind of thing.
1."overseers" (also known as elders/pastors/teachers) and 2. deacons"(servants, ministers) - 2 offices - "Overseers"(episcopas)/elders (presbuteros)/pastor-teachers - these three terms are the same office.
So, there is not conflict here with plurality of elders.
2 Peter 1:12-21 still exhorts them all, after the apostle Peter died, the next appointed leaders/pastors/elders of the next generation to submit and pay attention to the Scriptures, not to a any infallible pope or bishop in the RCC sense.
Ignatius is very good on most things; and even his writings do not promote an infallible bishop who "rules over" the presbyters. If they do, then he was wrong and his writings must yield to the infallible Scriptures.
They (the elders/overseers/pastors) were to be a college of equals who would encourage one another and keep each other accountable; and not have ultimate unilateral power - as the RCC claims for itself.
Blogahon - in the article you link to, none of the Scriptural supposed "evidence" promotes any RCC idea or doctrine or dogma. Zilch. Nada. Zero
This statement is the worst one of all, and actually contradicts the clear text of I Peter 5:1:
"1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church. "
Now hear the Spirit of God speaking in the text of Scripture of I Peter 5:1 --
"So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed"
I guess you guys hope people don't go back and look at the Bible for themselves, the infallible God-breathed text, that is able to guide them, and test what your "infallible Church and magisterium" has to say.
Post a Comment