Initially, as I discussed previously, my interest in Orthodoxy sprang from a frustration with the hollowness of the worship I experienced at church and the weak teaching. It also came from the gradual dissolution of friendships that had cemented me to my church regardless of its failings. Once those bonds faded, the restlessness I was experiencing was able to push me forwad to look for something else, something more.
I was a religious studies major at a state university and one of my classes was "Formation of the Christian Tradition." It was a fascinating class for someone who had never looked into the history of his faith. The teacher was dynamic, friendly and a member of the Jesus Seminar. He was challenging, but not atagonistic and his lectures frequently left a fair portion of the class (mostly evangelicals or devout Catholics) sputteringly mad. I enjoyed the class as a kind of mental joust, pushing myself to counter his arguments as best I could. I adamantly refused to just learn it, regurgitate it on the test and then forget it as happens with so many classes. From this class, I had gained the perspective that much of modern, Protestant Christianity is actually a significant departure from the faith & practice of the early church. At the time, I did not see the questions this should have produced. As I began to explore Orthodoxy, however, the tensions this reality creates started coming to the fore.
What is the significance of this departure from the historic form of Christianity?
It is entirely possible to answer this with "nothing." It is possible that the early church's form & praxis were merely the results of convention, culture and pragmatism and have no significance for our forms & praxis which are, similarly, the results of a different set of convention, culture and pragmatism. However, this answer glosses over some very important matters. First, the early church, and by that I typically mean the church of the first 2 centuries, saw neither its theology nor its ecclesiology as arbitrary. An exploration of the role of the bishop will serve as an example. St Ignatius, in his epistle to the Ephesians:
Hence it is fitting for you to set yourselves in harmony with the mind of the bishop, as indeed you do. For your noble presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted to the bishop, as the strings to a harp. And thus by means of your accord and harmonious love Jesus Christ is sung.And:
The bishop then we ought plainly to regard as the Lord Himself.
There are 2 typical Protestant responses to this. One is that this is the result of an error that crept in to the church. The other, that this view represents only that of St Ignatius' community. Other local church communities did not hold similar views of the bishop. The former raises some difficult problems that I will address shortly, while the latter is demonstrably false.
From the 1st Epistle of Clement, ch 42:
The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe. And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith.From Clement we see the orderly appointment flow of authority. God sent Christ, Christ sent the Apostles, the Apostles appointed their bishops. The bishops represent, and derive their authority from, the Apostles. The Apostles represent, and derive their authority from, Christ. While the language does not match precisely, the deep similiarity is readily apparent.
I believe this brief exploration shows that the early church did not regard its form as arbitrary responses dictated by culture and their immediate needs. Indeed, how could this be the case if the bishop is representative of Christ and the office was foretold in scripture? This leaves modern Protestants with the duty of presenting a compelling case as to why it is permissible to abandon these forms and I have yet to see any such thing. (Though I'd definitely be interested in hearing one.) Which brings me back to the charge of error.
What other questions and problems does the view that error crept into the church prior to the close of the 1st century raise?
In my mind, this view is untenable for orthodox Christianity for several reasons, but let me start by quoting Jaroslav Pelikan:
For the doctrine of the Trinity was not as such a teaching of the New Testament, but it emerged from the life and worship, the reflection and controversy, of the church as, in the judgment of Christian orthodoxy, the only way the church could be faithful to the teaching of the New Testament. It did so after centuries of study and speculation, during which many solutions to the dilemma of the Three and the One had surfaced, each with some passage or theme of Scripture to commend it. The final normative formulation of the dogma of the Trinity by the first ecumenical council of the church, held at Nicaea in 325, took as its basic outline the biblical outline of the so-called great commission of Christ to the disciples just before his ascension. . . But into the framework of that New Testament formula the Nicene Creed had packed many other biblical motifs, as well as the portentous and non-biblical technical term for which it became known. . . . “one in being with the Father [homoousios toi patri].”...If the Protestant churches acknowledged the validity of the development of doctrine when it moved from the great commission of the Gospel of Matthew to produce the Nicene Creed, as all of the mainline Protestant churches did and do, on what grounds could they reject development as it had moved from other lapidary passages of the Bible to lead to other doctrines? (emphasis mine - read the entire passage here)
Though definitions vary, I believe orthodox Christianity would likely coincide with what CS Lewis called "mere Christianity." To me, this is Trinitarian, holds scripture to be inspired & authoritative and exclusivist in terms of salvation. This is not meant to be a precise definition, but from it, one can produce some useful analyses - Mormons aren't Christian because they aren't Trinitarian and don't hold to the authority of the Bible; various forms of universalism aren't Christian because they aren't exclusivist - you get my drift. Evangelical Christianity is orthodox by this definition and can only remain in some degree of continuity with the church established by Christ in the New Testament as long as it stays this way. However, it is clear that modern Protestantism in general, and evangelicalism in particular, does not match the form & belief of the early church. It is not hierarchical (as I explored above) and it positively rejects liturgy, sacrament and the authority of Apostolic tradition. As I said before, some dismiss these differences as meaningless, but I hope I have shown that this really is not possible. Or, at the very least, requires a great deal of justification and explanation. Others, however, dismiss these forms of the early church as error. Some would go so far as to say they were errors introduced by the devil, others only that they were wrong but not evil. There seems to be a tacit assumption amont most evangelical and conservative Christians that the church went seriously astray at some point and was only recovered at the Reformation. I don't think there is a universally agreed upon date for the church's falling away, but in my experience, it would appear most don't think the church survived past the end of the 2nd century. Some go later, some much earlier, but that is the average as I've encountered it. And however it is dated, most seem to assume the church started stumbling badly long before finally hitting the ground. But if this is the case, modern Christians are left with 2 glaring problems; the doctrine of the Trinity and the canon.
(cont)
13 comments:
Nathan, excellent post!
Yup, yup, yup!
Nathan,
Thanks for the read. Here are my thoughts:
1. Your departure from evagelicalism (where I think you would place the church in Phoenix) to Orthodoxy apparently came from factors very similar to the ones which led me from pragmatic, man-centered worship to a more reformed understanding of faith. I can empathize with you on those points.
2. Here is why I can't accept Apostolic succession through the Biships:
(1) The scriptures indicate that Christ is the "chief cornerstone" of the Church with the Apostles serving as the "foundation." (Eph. 2:20 is the clearest articulation of this, other passages could probably be cited but would also likely be debated) I can't find anything in the Canon that indicates this foundation would be continued through the Bishops.
(2) The Bishops themselves contradict one another. The Biship @ Antioch declared himself the greater authority, The Bishop of Ephesus did the same. Going through Jerusalem, Rome, Constantinople one sees the same mutually exclusive claims to greater authority. I realize that the Bishop of Rome eventually won out through (what I believe to be) coincidence. However, how do you choose one Bishop over the other when they all have Apostolic succession regarding their office?
3. Also, I don't think the Canon and doctrine of the Trinity can be brought in to favor a more Catholic understanding of the church. As you and I have discussed already, I don't understand the Church councils to have produced those doctrines ex nihlo but rather recognized the truth that had already been presented and handed down by the Apostles through their writings, not through the Bishops.
I hope this gives a clear enough presentation of my position to encourage greater discussion.
Jeff -
I suppose my church in Phoenix would be considered evangelical, to a relatively large degree. I do wonder, though, if seeker-sensitive churches ever really do fall into that grouping. Evangelicalism seems to entail certain ideas & commitments that many seeker churches just don't live up to. Reformed theology is definitely not man-focused, but neither is it the historical understanding of the faith. Aside from a few writers, such as St Augustine, it received no widespread acceptance until the Reformation.
"...I can't find anything in the Canon that indicates this foundation would be continued through the Bishops."
I think you'd agree that the building analogy would include a continuation of some kind (see verses 21&22) - a foundation by itself is pretty useless. Given the obvious historical development of the church and the Apostolic appointment of the leaders of the early church, I think the office of bishop is that continuation. This is particularly so in light of the clear scriptural teaching on the qualifications of the men who will hold that office.
I'm not really sure what you're talking about as far as it regards the second half of point 2. It is true there was some debate as to which see should be considered primary, but it really wasn't a debate about authority, per se, at least not as it came to be defined by Rome. It was about the first place of honor, not universal jurisdiction. Even now, Orthodoxy would happily give primacy to Rome as a first among equals, but not as the infallible, universal primate. We certainly both agree, as does Orthodoxy, in rejection of modern papal claims. In that sense, it cannot be said that "Rome eventually won out" because it only "won" in the Christian West, not the entire Christian world. Because of this, there is no need to pick one Apostolic See over any other - 4 of the 5 ancient sees are in communion with each other (or were while they still existed) and the 5th has clearly (to me, anyways) departed from the historic understanding of the bishop's authority.
I'll be addressing the issues of the Trinity and the canon in my next post - hopefully coming up tomorrow.
Reformed theology is definitely not man-focused, but neither is it the historical understanding of the faith. Aside from a few writers, such as St Augustine, it received no widespread acceptance until the Reformation.
Of course you are right - by definition "reformed" faith must have begun at the time of the reformation.
However, just because that label was applied at that point doesn't mean it isn't the closest tradition to the belief and practice of the early church, which I believe it to be (considering it's conformity to the pattern of the NT)
I think you'd agree that the building analogy would include a continuation of some kind (see verses 21&22) - a foundation by itself is pretty useless. Given the obvious historical development of the church and the Apostolic appointment of the leaders of the early church, I think the office of bishop is that continuation. This is particularly so in light of the clear scriptural teaching on the qualifications of the men who will hold that office.
The continuation is found in those verses as well. Paul writes "You are the household of God..." He's writing to the church, not Bishops in particular. The conclusion is pretty straightforward for me: Christ - Apostles - Believers. It fits that text (as I believe it does other texts that address the issue.)
I can't buy in to the development of the bishopric as a valid apologetic for the practice. Heresey developed as well. Not all the latter developments of the church indicate God's supernatural care/guidance...only the ones that conform to the commands and patterns of the NT.
Thanks for the reply. Looking forward to the next post.
Christian Century
May 18, 2004
Those Lucky Orthodox
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_10_121/ai_n6146631
THOSE LUCKY ORTHODOX: There are good reasons why Western Christians have difficulty communicating with Orthodox Christians, says Ellen Charry(http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3664/is_200404/ai_n9348839). The East had no Pelagian controversy, so the Orthodox could pursue the perfection of monasticism unhindered; theology never became scholasticized there, so they don't have the West's preoccupation with theological method: they experienced no reformation, so doctrinal differences are not for them the engine that drives institutional maintenance; and they never had to confront modernity, so doubt about God never shook their theological verities. Salvation for the Orthodox was never seen as an individualistic escape from hell, but as participation in God's restoration of the world, just as it had been understood in the patristic era. Orthodox theology is not captive to the academy; it is directed toward the life of the church, especially prayer and worship. Without having gone through the Enlightenment, the Orthodox are more confident about the human possibility of knowing and obeying God, and of God's restoration of the world
(Theology Today, April 2004).
Jeff,
At the risk of engaging in apologetics…
Even if one granted some fluidity in the model of Church polity described in St Paul’s letters, let’s recognize that even in the NT there is such a role as Episkopos, there is such a thing as the laying on of hands for the ordination to certain roles within the Church, and there is such a thing as an envisioned succession of teachers or leaders –of whatever name- within the Church (e.g. St Paul to St Timothy to those he would appoint after him to pass on the guidance and care of the community).
As I said, grant a certain measure of NT textual fluidity in the names and exact functions of those roles within the Church, if based on textual analysis alone. But then jump forward 30 or 40 years to the time when those whom the Apostles had raised up to lead the Church were older men. Take St Clement the bishop of Rome in his first epistle to the Corinthians, for example. Take St Ignatius the bishop of Antioch as another example, in the letters he sent to the churches of Asia minor and Rome as he went in chains to martyrdom. These were men who knew the Apostles. St Clement is mentioned in the NT. St Ignatius was a disciple of St John. In fact, during the time of St Clement’s letter, St John the Evangelist was still alive. When St Ignatius wrote his letters, St John had not been gone long. These leaders of the Church and Fathers in the faith describe Apostolic succession explicitly (Clement especially) and a Church polity that could be described as nothing less than monepiscopal (Ignatius especially). Jump forward another generation to St Irenaeus of Lyon who was a disciple of St Ignatius and St Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (who also had been a disciple of the Apostles) and he appeals explicitly to the Apostolic succession and passing on of Holy Tradition as the key to proper understanding of Scripture and the safeguard against the false claims and heresies of the Gnostics.
You basically have two options: Either these were expressing and upholding an understanding of Church polity that was consistent with Apostolic authority – or no one else got Church polity right or really understood what the Apostles were trying to pass on to us (whether through scripture or living tradition) until 1500 years later when the Calvinists came along.
Personally, I’m mystified how a Reformed could believe his faith and practice to more precisely coincide with the early Church –even the Church of Acts- than the faith and practice of those churches founded the Apostles and left in the care of their successors in the years immediately following the writing of the NT.
For some great reading on these and related topics, I highly recommend some essays drafted by a friend, Clifton Healy, that he wrote while pursuing the historic faith. Clifton is a professor of philosophy in Chicago and in process of becoming Orthodox:
http://www.geocities.com/chealy5/Learned.htm
One more note: your comments about bishops being in conflict with one another or being in error are certainly accurate, but they aren’t germane to the discussion. Why should it be impossible for any believers (bishops or not) to be in contact with one another or to be in error? When it comes to critiquing Orthodox polity specifically, you fall short here. Perhaps you have a Roman Catholic model more in mind. In Orthodox understanding, it is not necessary that bishops (or a specific bishop, as with Rome) be infallible (far from it). And just because someone can fill an Apostolic office badly doesn’t mean that one throws out the Apostolic office: it means that your bishop needs your prayers, and it may mean that you need a better man to fill the position, and may God provide if that is the case. In Orthodox understanding, the Church is not defined primarily by bishops, though they play an absolutely essential role, but each believer is responsible for the whole of the faith, all true obedience takes its value and power and force from our primary obedience to Christ, and it is the Church that is preserved as a pillar and ground of truth (as per St Paul) through the abiding presence of the Spirit, and not necessarily we (or bishops) as individuals that are so preserved.
-Doug
Doug, excellent comment. I learned a bit from it, too. I'm not all that well educated about the early church.
"Doug, excellent comment. I learned a bit from it, too."
Doug is good like that and I wish he'd start up his own blog again! (hint, hint Doug)
Chase -
"Sweeping general statements. Bad. Bad. Bad. I will post a response i made to Nathan on Jared Moore's blog concerning this."
It was actually on Jeff's blog, but who's counting? :) I had replied to your comment, but at that time, you were only able to respond to part of my reply. So I'll repost most of it here so you can respond if you have time. (My words are in italics, yours in quotes.)
While I will grant the importance of scripture, you are importing a Protestant standards into this debate - that in and of itself is ahistorical. The early church was not sola scriptura! This was especially so prior to the final formulation of the canon in the 4th century. The early church enjoyed the double gift of both scripture (definitively the OT, the 4 gospels and a fair amount of the rest of the NT that was generally accepted) and the oral tradition of the Apostles. We have to take the historical reality of the church into account and let that inform our intepretation of the Bible, granting that the Apostles provided teaching that was not wholly contained or communicated in their writings. You cannot start with the Bible and then reject history if you don’t know everything that the Apostles actually taught.
“Now regardless of the testimony of church history, it can be shown very clearly that the NT form of government was plurality of leadership in which the titles elder and bishop are interchangeable. Episcopos, which is translated bishop/overseer, refers to the duty of the office. Presbuteros, which is translated elder, refers to the dignity of that office. ”
Yes, the Bible uses elder & bishop interchangeably. However, it is not clear that bishop refers to the office and elder to the dignity of that office. Taking historical analysis into account, the monepiscopal office that we see starting in the 2nd century is largely presumed to be an outgrowth of the position of president in a council of elders. This president had specific liturgical functions & responsibilities as it regards the Eucharist. Given the centrality of the Eucharistic celebration to the worship of the early church, it is clear that such a position would carry with it certain distinctions, honors and authorities. The hierarchical nature of the church’s government is obvious and the very scriptures you presented bear this out. You’ll note that Titus, as an emissary of Paul, was set to appoint elders by extension of Paul’s authority. There was no voting, no congregational government - all decisions were made by the clergy and were final. This is what I meant by hierarchical and it is a historical fact largely unreflected in modern Protestant churches. There are some that do flirt with it, at least on an operational level, but it is clear that today’s Protestant clergy do not exercise the same spiritual authority that the elders/bishops of the early church did. To someone who rejects God’s continued guidance of the church after the Apostolic age, I’m sure the gradual defining of the office of bishop must seem like a corruption, but then again, such a view poses its own problems about the formulation of the canon and the doctrine of the Trinity in particular.
“Very early on there is clearly evidence of a NT and apostolic form of government; a government of a plurality of elder/bishops which was chosen by the local church body.”
As the verses you yourself demonstrated, the latter statement is incorrect. There may be instances wherein local church bodies appointed their own bishops/elders, but you have not convincingly demonstrated that this was the norm. You have one writing, the Didache, which seems to indicate this, while a host of historical & scriptural evidence points in the opposite direction. Clement’s epistle clearly references the appointment being done by “other eminent men”, not the local congregation. And the phrase “with the consent of the whole Church” need not refer only to the local congregation. Taken contextually, it is clear that Clement is speaking of the entire Body of Christ as represented by the specific bishops of local churches/regions, and those other bishops not present, but with whom they are in communion. Further, Clement references these individuals caring for the “flock of Christ” - not “their flocks” or “his flock” - a general statement about the church in her entirety. Thus, the “consent of the whole Church” is embodied in the consent of her bishops and does not refer solely to the local congregation.
“Even if your statement were in fact true, it would have no weight against the NT, which reveals the authorized structure of the local church body.”
And which reveals it to be hierarchical - you didn’t see too many people challenging the Apostles, did you? Does it follow that, after the Apostles’ deaths, the local congregations would reject the elders appointed by the Apostles and endowed with their authority?
Now I have to add something in regards to your statement on how Clement viewed the offices of bishop and elder - that he held them to be interchangeable. I will quote from "The Orthodox Liturgy" by Hugh Wybrew, who quotes 1 Clement 40 & 41: (Wybrew in bolded italics, Clement in bold)
Writing at the end of the first century Clement, Bishop of the Church in Rome, speaks in this way of the Eucharist, comparing some of the church's officials with the ministers of the sanctuary under the old covenant: To the high priest (i.e. the bishop) his special liturgies have been appointed, and to the priests (i.e. presbyters) their special place is assigned, and on the Levites (i.e. the deacons) their special services are imposed; the layman is bound by the ordinances of the laity...
So we can see quite clearly that Clement did not use the terms interchangeable, and indeed, saw a distinct difference in their roles. Of course, to equate the bishop to the high priest is a very significant thing since he was the highest religious official in Judaism's temple worship. What does this imply about the authority and position of the bishop among his flock?
Chase -
"More clearly, I am not trying to argue against a heirarchy of elders and congregation as much as I am arguing against a heirarchy of bishops and elders."
Actually, over on Jeff's blog you took issue with my statement that the early church was hierarchical in any form. I have already granted that the role of the bishop was not explicitly defined in scripture. However, once you admit that the verses of the NT aren't in total agreement on the form & function of church government, you must turn to history to help inform your thinking. It is clear from very early on that the church was hierarchical and most scholars that I've read believe the council of elders was presided over by a president with special liturgical functions. This role developed into the episcopal office we see starting in the 2nd century where the role of the bishop is much more clearly defined. Now, as I see it, this development was the result of the guidance of the Spirit responding to the needs of the Church on the ground. When the movement was small and the believers more localized in any given geographic region, the authority of a bishop was likely not required. As the Church spread, however, the need for such leadership became more important. Now, you may reject that development on the basis that it is not explicitly found in the NT, but then you are squarely in the horns of a dilemma - neither is the doctrine of the Trinity. How can you accept the Trinity, which was not explicitly formulated until the 4th century, but reject the episcopacy which was clearly present by the 2nd? On what basis do you so discriminate between these 2 doctrines?
"What does this imply? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. While I see Clement as benificial reading, as I said in my response, the NT is first-order."
This is nothing but a dodge and you know it. It implies a great deal about the church's understanding of the bishop and demonstrates that understanding was present much earlier than you'd like to admit. Particularly as Clement is believed to have been a disciple of an Apostle. For Clement to use this kind of language, regardless of whether or not such language is present in the NT, implies a great deal about how the church viewed the bishop and when. Further, as I pointed out before, you are eisegeting your Protestant ideals into this discussion. The early church was not sola scriptura and thus you are not able to import that ideal into 1st and 2nd century thinking. Clement did not believe he was bound solely by the writings of the NT, particularly as he was discipled by an Apostle and moreso because the canon was not yet. For you to import your ahistorical understandings onto Clement's writings in order to dismiss the obvious challenge they pose to your argument is, to use your words, "Bad. Bad. Bad."
I'll have to respond to your second point later - I have a test to study for.
Chase -
"That's clearly begging the question. Your arguing from an unproved assumption that consensus among a group somehow reveals the verity of a groups teaching."
Were I speaking of some other discipline, such as psychology, then yes, I would be begging the question. We cannot look at the theoretical diversity of pscyhology, sociology, economics, etc, as proof that the entire discipline or thought-area is falsifiable. We are not, however, speaking of such things. I am not working from unproved assumptions. Rather, I am working from the words of our God and Savior (His prayer for the unity of His Body in John 17, for example), the words of His disciples (Ephesians 4, 1 John 1) and the testimony of the church they planted in His name. The distinct lack of unity among Protestant groups evidences an undeniable problem - such disunity is contrary to the Gospel. I will grant that disunity will exist in any church body due to our fallen humanity, but when it pervades as thoroughly as it does in Protestantism, it is clear that systemic failure has occurred. And since what separates Protestant groups is precisely their doctrinal positions, whether formally stated or not, then there must be something wrong with Protestant doctrine in general. This does not prove that all of Protestantism is false or that all should be discarded, but it reveals its ultimate failure. And we must ask ourselves - what other errors does this unity-error introduce? What other problems might there be? You speak of the Reformed churches as if they were immune to such things, but this is clearly not the case. There are many Reformed denominations - if you all believe the same thing, why aren't you unified? And we cannot separate the "true" Reformed churches from the rest of Protestantism - they are part and parcel of the whole.
"First, you commit the proof-text fallacy by arguing that since there is no explicit proof-text for the Trinity in Scripture, it is proven that the doctrine is not found in Scripture and therefore we need church tradition."
This is a straw-man of my argument. As you admitted above:
"Does this mean persons can twist the Scriptures however they wish? Maybe not so easily within a reformation church....outside reformed christianity it is surely easier."
Indeed, it was very easy for Arius to "twist the Scriptures" as he wished. The problem, though, is that he wasn't twisting them, not really. His reading of the Bible was legitimate, as is that of almost every arch-heretic in history. Most read the Bible quite well and exegeted it based on their own hermeneutical principles. That the Trinity is the proper hermeneutical lens is not an automatic given in Scripture! Thus there is no proof-text fallacy, as you admit when you allow that Scripture might be twisted by virtually anyone and as history demonstrates. Does the Bible support the Nicene formulation? Absolutely. Is that the only possible reading of Scripture as it regards the nature of the God-head? Absolutely not. Without an authoritative tradition telling us otherwise, we really could not prove the Trinity against the threat of the heretics. The Church successfully staved off Arius' attack by falling back on the Apostolic Tradition, which included the Scriptures but was not limited to them. It was that Tradition that said "Trinity" not subordinationalism, adoptionism, modalism, etc. It was that Tradition which provided the proper hermeneutic for understanding the Bible. You are putting the cart before the horse in a major way.
"Second, upon that fallacy, you build a false generalization that the early church's teaching of the Trinity and the hierarchy of bishops and elders are identical matters."
I don't believe they are identical matters, but they are clearly related.
"The separate offices of bishop and elder, while formulated in the tradition of the early church, has no grounding in the NT."
I'd say the grounding is limited, but not non-existent. Moreover, you are again importing sola scriptura into the early church - a doctrine it did not hold, and indeed, could not hold without a clearly defined canon. The fact remains that the NT actually doesn't tell us too much about church governance. We have the obvious authority (or is it tyranny?) of the Apostles, their appointment of leaders and the qualifications that those appointments should use in making their own appointments. Aside from prayer for the sick and teaching the flock, we don't really have much of any information on the specifics of their roles, how they functioned together & separately, how the various local church bodies interacted with each other, how they viewed the authority of the Apostles and the list goes on. With that dearth of information, you cannot definitely state that 1) the Bible precludes any such distinction and 2) that such distinctions were later developments and therefore non-Apostolic. What information we do have points to the adoption of the episcopacy very early and within the Apostolic age. You may dismiss this historical evidence as unbiblical, but then again, the central tenet of your faith, sola scriptura, isn't biblical either.
"So, don't generalize these two teachings as being so similar that one must believe both or neither at all based on the assumption that since the Trinity does not have one proof-text it is not found in Scripture, therefore hanging on early church tradition just as much as the separation of the offices of bishop and elder."
But it does. You have so internalized the Trinitarian understanding of God that you automatically see it as you read the Bible. To you it is a "clear teaching inferred from Scripture" but to our friend Keith over on Jared's blog it certainly wasn't. Nor is it to Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons and any other fringe Protestant groups. Since you think it is so clear, why don't you prove it to me? Give me your verses (at least some of them) and I will show you that, in fact, many of them can easily be read in a different way.
"So am I dodging the issue? No! I would be if your link between episcopacy and the Trinity were sound. Though when fully examined, your argument is not sound."
My argument is sound, especially as it becomes clearer that you are trying to impose modern Protestant standards on the early church. The fact of the matter is that no Protestant can definitely declare the whole of the Apostolic witness - they cannot delimit what is authentic and what is not based on Scripture alone because the early church did not have the canon and thus relied a great deal on Apostolic tradition which can only be accessed in her life and practice. For you to draw a hard & fast line between the NT and the history of the church that preceded it, defined it and authoritatively interpreted it, is obviously wrong.
Chase:
You make several unwarranted historical assumptions with regard to the reality of episcopal polity prior to A.D. 200.
At the risk of directing readers away from Nathan's excellent blog, but for the sake of brevity, let me point you to the following post on my own blog which deals quite specifically with the reality of bishops in the first century Church.
Eric Jay, “From Presbyter-Bishops to Bishops and Presbyters”: A review and response
My post is a review of Eric Jay's classical article on the development (he claims) from first century Presbyter-Bishops to late-second-/early-third century Presbyters and Bishops.
The problem with Jay's article--and this reveals the problems with your own account--is that Jay, and those with him, want to define a first century reality in terms of a second-/third-century reality. This is clearly fallacious.
But in point of fact, Jay himself cannot but admit in his own article that the four key characteristics of late-second-/early-third-century bishops existed in the first century, and we have evidence that they existed no later than the A.D. 90s. Those four characteristics are:
* the focus of the church's unity (Ignatios)
* the overseer of baptisms and eucharistic worship (Ignatios)
* the responsibility of implementing pastoral and disciplinary decisions of the presbytery (Clement)
* the important duty of communicating and maintaining good relations with other churches (Clement)
Now Jay, and others, want to call this single individual not a bishop but the president of the presbytery. I say, call it want you want, the fact remains: the reality is we have first-century bishops.
Post a Comment