Both Alexandria and Antioch are on the Mediterranean.ozgeorge said:Which coast of the US is that?ialmisry said:We start from Pentacoast
Both Alexandria and Antioch are on the Mediterranean.ozgeorge said:Which coast of the US is that?ialmisry said:We start from Pentacoast
ialmisry said:Both Alexandria and Antioch are on the Mediterranean.ozgeorge said:Which coast of the US is that?ialmisry said:We start from Pentacoast
Not really, considering the promiscuity of most of the French kings. I think just about every French person has some royalty in them.Alveus Lacuna said:I won't take this thread anymore off track talking about my lineage, I just have to share that I found an amazing website that tracks my lineage all the way back to AD 555. I am the descendant of many French kings! Unbelievable!
I am jealous!Christianus said:I had a baptist friend, who said herself to be a descendant of a french king.I wonder why so many people claim to be descendants of French kings, if you still speak French you'll understand this, Vive le Roi.Alveus Lacuna said:I won't take this thread anymore off track talking about my lineage, I just have to share that I found an amazing website that tracks my lineage all the way back to AD 555. I am the descendant of many French kings! Unbelievable!
but that's great man, the farthest I got was to a Spanish Knightly Order, Spanish knights.
1. Never mind! My grandmother's lot used to own a castle in Scotland, and were among the first to swear fealty to the English king in the 1200s. Not sure whether that's good or bad.Christianus said:the farthest I got was to a Spanish Knightly Order, Spanish knights.
This is still an anachronism, friend. The usage of those words that you all use did not develop until you all developed it, a millennium and a half after the first century (give or take a few years). You have absolutely no basis, whatsoever, for the belief that your usage is from the first century, outside of your interpretation of the New Testament (which, again, didn't develop until hundreds of years after the New Testament). It is purely your opinion and nothing more. And, as usual, you have yet to show us any evidence whatsoever that our usage did NOT exist in the first century.David Young said:twenty centuries later, we Baptists use the words bishop, overseer or elder in the sense they had in the first century, whereas you use the word bishop in the sense which developed in the second century.
Key words in bold. What I still can't figure out is how you continue to believe this when all evidence is to the contrary.We believe that our beliefs were around in the first century and yours developed later: which is exactly what you believe the other way round. We'll probably all go to our graves thinking the same, but at least we may have gained a better understanding of each other.
Cognitive dissonance.GreekChef said:What I still can't figure out is how you continue to believe this when all evidence is to the contrary.
Quid in terra est hoc?!Alveus Lacuna said:Cognitive dissonance.
It's dashed hard to prove that something does not exist! Are you perhaps asking the impossible? It's what atheists fail to achieve, on a rather different scale. All I can say is, that I am not aware of any documentary evidence from the 1st century which substantiates your interpretation of the words (elder, overseer, bishop) or gainsays ours. I am of course influenced by the books on Church History that I read, and I believe they all give our meanings for those words at that period; and I don't read only Evangelical books on the subject: I even recently enjoyed Hans Küng's Christianity.GreekChef said:you have yet to show us any evidence whatsoever that our usage did NOT exist in the first century.
As ever, a great place to visit - you should give it a try some time -, and Saturday's splendid weather gave opportunity for a long walk in the beautiful nearby wolds. However, not being Orthodox, and thus not observing Lent, I did put on 3lb in 3 days.Hope you had a great trip to York!
Actually, as I have posted above, we do:Clement is first century, as is Igantius. In fact, to be more precise, both saints, who knew the Apostles and were set in authority by them, wrote within a half century of the first book of the NT being written for St. Clement and just over for St. Ignatius. In fact, Clement I may have been written before the last books of the NT.David Young said:It's dashed hard to prove that something does not exist! Are you perhaps asking the impossible? It's what atheists fail to achieve, on a rather different scale. All I can say is, that I am not aware of any documentary evidence from the 1st century which substantiates your interpretation of the words (elder, overseer, bishop) or gainsays ours.GreekChef said:you have yet to show us any evidence whatsoever that our usage did NOT exist in the first century.
I am of course influenced by the books on Church History that I read, and I believe they all give our meanings for those words at that period; and I don't read only Evangelical books on the subject: I even recently enjoyed Hans Küng's Christianity.
Happily from our point of view, one's salvation does not depend on one's ecclesiology,
so having or not having bishops in apostolic succession is not important to us as it is to you, as we have discussed at length when exploring whether Baptist ordinances (or sacraments: some prefer one word, some the other) are valid means of grace.
Then what about providing evidence that your interpretation of the words was the common understanding in the 1st century?David Young said:It's dashed hard to prove that something does not exist! Are you perhaps asking the impossible? It's what atheists fail to achieve, on a rather different scale. All I can say is, that I am not aware of any documentary evidence from the 1st century which substantiates your interpretation of the words (elder, overseer, bishop) or gainsays ours.GreekChef said:you have yet to show us any evidence whatsoever that our usage did NOT exist in the first century.
In the Baptist church of my youth (we didn't call ourselves Particular Baptists, but our denomination developed from that group), I was taught a something similar to what that pamphlet argued. By God's mercy, I saw the folly of it and eventually became Orthodox. So, no, you would not persuade me. But I am genuinely glad you're here discussing these things.David Young said:I was not suggesting we could trace our history back to the first century - though I did once read a pamphlet which argued that, in the early church period, all churches were Strict and Particular Baptist. (But I shan't argue for that: I wouldn't persuade you anyway!)
1 and 2. I know they used the words. I am saying that the word bishop or overseer in the NT means more like a local pastor or elder in one church, without wider jurisdiction; that the idea of a bishop with a see and authority over a number of churches in a wide area is a later development. We could discuss whether the first glimmers of the new meaning appears in Clement and Ignatius, if you give me chapter and verse for me to look up and think about.ialmisry said:1. Clement is first century, as is Igantius.
2. what exactly are you arguing?
3. you are claiming our ecclesiology and its hierarchy are an impediment to salvation.
Okay then, show us the evidence - that the early Christians agreed with you, and then show us where it changed.David Young said:I know they used the words. I am saying that the word bishop or overseer in the NT means more like a local pastor or elder in one church, without wider jurisdiction; that the idea of a bishop with a see and authority over a number of churches in a wide area is a later development. We could discuss whether the first glimmers of the new meaning appears in Clement and Ignatius, if you give me chapter and verse for me to look up and think about.
I fear I am losing track of whether we are discussing Church History or Semantics. We could probably argue for ever by exchanging posts along the lines of "The NT means 'episkopos' in our sense"; "No, it doesn't: it means it in our sense." None of your quotes from Ignatius of Antioch shows his meaning either way - the bishop (i.e. overseer) of one local church (as we say), or the bishop with a diocese embracing many churches (as you say). I have been commenting only on the extent of a bishop's jurisdiction. The NT says that bishops should be ordained "in every church". Individual churches are addressed in various epistles, and each has its own complement of bishops or elders. They are attached to local churches, and preside only over their own church. That is all I am saying.katherineofdixie said:show us the evidence - that the early Christians agreed with you, and then show us where it changed.
It would presumably mean that the only known and sure channel of grace was the episcopacy, and its duly ordained priesthood, within apostolic succession. I might be generous enough to say things like, "I know where God's grace is: I do not know where it is not"; or I might end up more rigorous (converts often do) and say there is no salvation outside the church. (Was it Cyprian who coined that slogan?)what would it mean to you to find out that the Orthodox understanding of the office of the Bishop was both historic and correct?
I have to be quick right now: for one thing, the fact that both SS Clement and Ignatius write to cities and bishops not within the city limits of their capital, but within their patriarchates (hence why St. Ignatios' tone to Rome is not the same as the rest of the epistles: Rome is not in Antioch's jurisdiction).David Young said:1 and 2. I know they used the words. I am saying that the word bishop or overseer in the NT means more like a local pastor or elder in one church, without wider jurisdiction; that the idea of a bishop with a see and authority over a number of churches in a wide area is a later development. We could discuss whether the first glimmers of the new meaning appears in Clement and Ignatius, if you give me chapter and verse for me to look up and think about.ialmisry said:1. Clement is first century, as is Igantius.
2. what exactly are you arguing?
3. you are claiming our ecclesiology and its hierarchy are an impediment to salvation.
These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behooves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times. He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things, being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable unto Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.
Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him. Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death. You see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed.
The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. 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 says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.
And what wonder is it if those in Christ who were entrusted with such a duty by God, appointed those [ministers] before mentioned, when the blessed Moses also, a faithful servant in all his house, noted down in the sacred books all the injunctions which were given him, and when the other prophets also followed him, bearing witness with one consent to the ordinances which he had appointed? For, when rivalry arose concerning the priesthood, and the tribes were contending among themselves as to which of them should be adorned with that glorious title, he commanded the twelve princes of the tribes to bring him their rods, each one being inscribed with the name of the tribe. And he took them and bound them [together], and sealed them with the rings of the princes of the tribes, and laid them up in the tabernacle of witness on the table of God. And having shut the doors of the tabernacle, he sealed the keys, as he had done the rods, and said to them, Men and brethren, the tribe whose rod shall blossom has God chosen to fulfil the office of the priesthood, and to minister unto Him. And when the morning had come, he assembled all Israel, six hundred thousand men, and showed the seals to the princes of the tribes, and opened the tabernacle of witness, and brought forth the rods. And the rod of Aaron was found not only to have blossomed, but to bear fruit upon it. What think ye, beloved? Did not Moses know beforehand that this would happen? Undoubtedly he knew; but he acted thus, that there might be no sedition in Israel, and that the name of the true and only God might be glorified; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that 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. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.
If someone is obscuring the pure simplicity of the Gospel (IIRC from my Protestant days), that doesn't have an effect on salvation?3. No I'm not; if anything, I'm saying the opposite - that (in our view) it is a matter which does not affect, and certainly does not effect, salvation - that, as regards one's relationship with the Lord, it is not an important issue.
Reversing the order of your questions:ialmisry said:If someone is obscuring the pure simplicity of the Gospel ... that doesn't have an effect on salvation?
I'd still like a definition in your own words as to the source and extent of the overseer's authority.
Then who were the presbyters? St. Ignatius mentions three types, if you will: bishop, presbyter and deacon.David Young said:I think the scriptures are plain that each church had it own overseers (episkopoi), and that they led in their own churches.
As far as I am aware - but you'd really need to ask someone familiar with NT Greek - the two are synonymous, each Greek word being attached to one aspect or another of their role. A bishop or presbyter was the same man (not woman).katherineofdixie said:Then who were the presbyters?
I believe that is what happened. And the name developed with them, so that the word also widened its geographical meaning. This is what I've been saying.It would seem logical that bishops became responsible for a larger geographical area as the church grew, wouldn't you agree?
That, of course, is where we disagree, and is far more deeply important than whether they wielded authority over one or several churches. But we have explored the matter at great length elsewhere.as to their ... sacramental role, that was there from the beginning,
But St. Ignatius refers to three: bishops, presbyters and deacons. How do you account for that, if the bishop/presbyter was always the same man?David Young said:As far as I am aware - but you'd really need to ask someone familiar with NT Greek - the two are synonymous, each Greek word being attached to one aspect or another of their role. A bishop or presbyter was the same man (not woman).katherineofdixie said:Then who were the presbyters?
I don't think you can make the argument that they are synonyms from a Scriptural perspective.katherineofdixie said:But St. Ignatius refers to three: bishops, presbyters and deacons. How do you account for that, if the bishop/presbyter was always the same man?David Young said:As far as I am aware - but you'd really need to ask someone familiar with NT Greek - the two are synonymous, each Greek word being attached to one aspect or another of their role. A bishop or presbyter was the same man (not woman).katherineofdixie said:Then who were the presbyters?
Three orders and apostolic role of bishop:"All of you follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; respect the deacons as the ordinance of God."(Letter to the Smyrnaeans).
Sacramental, and three orders:"Take great care to keep one Eucharist. For there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup to unite us by His Blood; one sanctuary, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow-servants. Thus all your acts may be done accordingly to God's will."(Letter to the Philadelphians).
"Let no one do anything that pertains to the Church apart from the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is under the bishop or one whom he has delegated. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be; just as wherever Jesus Christ may be, there is the catholic Church ."(Letter to the Smyrnaeans).
Still waiting for some kind of evidence that early Christians understood the office of bishop the way modern Baptists do, also when it changed?
By Ignatius's time, there were churches where the new meaning of 'bishop' had begun to be in use; it had begun to happen that a church had one bishop - a new development - whose role was in some senses above that of elders and deacons. Such a thing is still common to this day, only they tend to be called pastors, elders and deacons.katherineofdixie said:St. Ignatius refers to three: bishops, presbyters and deacons. How do you account for that,
so you date this "new" development (which, if you read St. Ignatius, he is not speaking of a "new" development, but rather established practice) to within the lifetime of some of the Apostles?David Young said:By Ignatius's time, there were churches where the new meaning of 'bishop' had begun to be in use; it had begun to happen that a church had one bishop - a new development - whose role was in some senses above that of elders and deacons.katherineofdixie said:St. Ignatius refers to three: bishops, presbyters and deacons. How do you account for that,
How can it be common if they are called something else?Such a thing is still common to this day, only they tend to be called pastors, elders and deacons.
LOL. You mean the time of the Apostles? Perhaps you don't, but that (St. Ignatius being ordained by St. Peter and all) was what it was.David Young said:By Ignatius's time,katherineofdixie said:St. Ignatius refers to three: bishops, presbyters and deacons. How do you account for that,
No, they tend to be Synods of Bishops, priests and deacons today. Your "still" is misplaced: even if we presume your set up for the first century, we don't find it in the intervening plus millenium.there were churches where the new meaning of 'bishop' had begun to be in use; it had begun to happen that a church had one bishop - a new development - whose role was in some senses above that of elders and deacons. Such a thing is still common to this day, only they tend to be called pastors, elders and deacons.
No, we don't. They are quite clear. Neither will support the congregationalist model I augur you hold (correct me if I misunderstand).David Young said:Reversing the order of your questions:ialmisry said:If someone is obscuring the pure simplicity of the Gospel ... that doesn't have an effect on salvation?
I'd still like a definition in your own words as to the source and extent of the overseer's authority.
Like yourgoodself, I must hasten away. I think we shall have to 'agree to disagree' on what Ignatius and Clement mean by bishop,
No, he expects to be obeyed. Hence his comparison of Congregationalism to the rebellion of Korah, and the proof of the authority of the priesthood being enshrined in the Ark itself. He makes it clear that he is not making suggestions for their consideration, but commads with consequences (56-65):for both your meaning and ours make perfect sense in the context you give. Clement wrote his word of brotherly and ministerial exhoration to the church in Corinth, but it does not imply that he had authority over that church: one may exhort, counsel, urge, encourage from a position other than authority.
Let us then also pray for those who have fallen into any sin, that meekness and humility may be given to them, so that they may submit, not unto us, but to the will of God. For in this way they shall secure a fruitful and perfect remembrance from us, with sympathy for them, both in our prayers to God, and our mention of them to the saints....You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. For it is better for you that you should occupy a humble but honourable place in the flock of Christ, than that, being highly exalted, you should be cast out from the hope of His people....Let us, therefore, flee from the warning threats pronounced by Wisdom on the disobedient, and yield submission to His all-holy and glorious name, that we may stay our trust upon the most hallowed name of His majesty. Receive our counsel, and you shall be without repentance. For, as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost live—both the faith and hope of the elect, he who in lowliness of mind, with instant gentleness, and without repentance has observed the ordinances and appointments given by God— the same shall obtain a place and name in the number of those who are being saved through Jesus Christ, through whom is glory to Him for ever and ever. Amen....If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin, and, instant in prayer and supplication, shall desire that the Creator of all preserve unbroken the computed number of His elect in the whole world through His beloved Son Jesus Christ, through whom He called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to knowledge of the glory of His name, our hope resting on Your name which is primal cause of every creature—having opened the eyes of our heart to the knowledge of You, who alone rests highest among the highest, holy among the holy, Isaiah 57:15 who layest low the insolence of the haughty, Isaiah 13:11...Right is it, therefore, to approach examples so good and so many, and submit the neck and fulfil the part of obedience, in order that, undisturbed by vain sedition, we may attain unto the goal set before us in truth wholly free from blame. Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter. We have sent men faithful and discreet, whose conversation from youth to old age has been blameless among us—the same shall be witnesses between you and us. This we have done, that you may know that our whole concern has been and is that you may be speedily at peace....Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus; that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you.
No, he is quite clear that he expects to be obeyed too, and e.g. gives instructions to the young bishop St. Polycarp as St. Paul did to St. Timothy.Similarly Ignatius in his epistles to various churches - though I doubt not that he felt that his journey to martyrdom gave him some moral authority.
Indeed. It also shows that the Apostles at Antioch were under the Apostles of Jerusalem (hence the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15).I think the scriptures are plain that each church had it own overseers (episkopoi), and that they led in their own churches. The NT gives quite a lot of information about their qualifications, roles and duties, which you know as well as I, I'm sure.
LOL. You mean the 1st century sense in the 21st century?I don't think the having of bishops (in your current sense)
Without that essence of the episcopacy, there are no bishops, no authority, no jurisdiction. And for that matter, no Gospel.obscures the simplicity of the gospel, if we are considering only the geographical extent of their jurisdiction and the system of organisation they represent. The important thing is that each church should have its duly appointed overseers. Both your system and ours (and all others - Methodist, Presbyterian etc) are operated by fallen human beings, redeemed but not yet made perfect, and while this age lasts all systems will malfunction for that reason, from time to time. There are competent, gifted Baptist pastors under whom the churches thrive, and I suspect there are competent, gifted Orthodox priests under whom the churches thrive. Likewise, there are men in the wrong place, duly appointed in terms of the organisation but unsuited to be ministers of the Word, lacking both grace and gifts. There are most certainly such men in Baptist pastorates, and I doubt not that there are Orthodox churches in similar plights. What matters is the divine and human qualities of the local pastor/overseer/elder/'priest', and if an unsuitable one gets through the system and is appointed, either by a bishop in your case, or by a local church in ours, it is a disaster. But it is not the means of his appointment that obscures the simplicity of the Gospel.
My desire and prayer is that your bishops and our churches will be given divine grace and wisdom to discover and appoint godly, gifted men to lead the local churches.
If you mean - which we were not actually discussing - that the nature of the episcopacy (leading to priesthood, and sacraments as understood among Orthodox, and other matters passed on by the bishops as part of Holy Tradition), then Yes, we do believe this obscures the simplicity of the Gospel: but we have discussed that at length on a number of threads when exploring whether the Orthodox have added accretions to pure Christianity, or whether Protestants have pared away genuine aspects of the Faith. I suggest we do not go down that line again, as the relevant threads are open for review, and I think we have all disburdened our souls on those matters.
Others have made the very important point that it is virtually impossible to separate St. Ignatius from the Apostolic period (I say 'virtually' because there is no accouting for the extremes some people will go to in making stretches, something even I have donre from time to time, though I hope not here). However, I would like to make a point regarding the office of the Bishop in the Scriptures.David Young said:By Ignatius's time, there were churches where the new meaning of 'bishop' had begun to be in use; it had begun to happen that a church had one bishop - a new development - whose role was in some senses above that of elders and deacons. Such a thing is still common to this day, only they tend to be called pastors, elders and deacons.katherineofdixie said:St. Ignatius refers to three: bishops, presbyters and deacons. How do you account for that,
Cognitive dissonance.David Young said:I have to confess it is not a matter I see as carrying any fundamental religious or spiritual significance: if they had one church (as we say) or several (as you say), it makes little difference, if any at all (as far as I can see), to how a man or woman relates to God in Christ.
From an Orthodox perspective, the role of the Bishop is critical to the life of the believer. It is the Bishop who is charged with caring for the believer, teaching the believer and correcting the believer. Again, if such a role was optional, the Scriptures would say so. They say the opposite, which is why these epistles were included in the canon.David Young said:As I said a few posts back, I suspect there is no value left in continuing this particular line of discussion - i.e. how many churches a bishop had under him in the mid first century - as both you and we will almost certainly continue believing what we have set out in our posts.
I have to confess it is not a matter I see as carrying any fundamental religious or spiritual significance: if they had one church (as we say) or several (as you say), it makes little difference, if any at all (as far as I can see), to how a man or woman relates to God in Christ.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me in such careful and comprehensive details.
Answer none: the Apostles were busy founding them. The handoff of Acts 22 didn't happedn until 58: St. Paul's letter to Titus tells us Titus was in authority of every city in Crete.David Young said:As I said a few posts back, I suspect there is no value left in continuing this particular line of discussion - i.e. how many churches a bishop had under him in the mid first century -
Did I miss something? The number of Churches a bishop had has been the only difference you have pointed out between your definition and ours, let alone the difference between your definition and that of the 1st century bishops themselves.as both you and we will almost certainly continue believing what we have set out in our posts.
If the bishop has one or thousands of Churches, it makes no difference, neither today nor in the 1st century. The presence or absence of a bishop makes a great of difference. To confess otherwise is to admit the Muslim's relationship to God in Christ.I have to confess it is not a matter I see as carrying any fundamental religious or spiritual significance: if they had one church (as we say) or several (as you say), it makes little difference, if any at all (as far as I can see), to how a man or woman relates to God in Christ.
If you have posted your definition of an overseer, please direct.Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me in such careful and comprehensive details.
David, honey, you are perfectly free to say whatever you want, of course, but where is your evidence? That's all I (and I think the others here) want to see. We have provided ours, but all we have seen from you is opinion/interpretation.David Young said:from an Evangelical viewpoint, bishophood puts a man only in an organisational capacity in church hierarchy, as we do not believe in apostolic succession (either in the sense that it is real, or in the sense that it matters even if it is historically real)
...I don't want to discuss any of this, as we have done so at great length on various threads, and I have nothing more to add. But I hope that helps to clarify what I believe Cleopas and I (and of course many others sadly not participating on the forum) would say.
As I said before, in reply to our esteemed GreekChef, it is hard to provide evidence for the absence of something. We simply see no reference to, or presence of, the concept of priesthood (apart of course from references to Jewish priests) in the NT, nor to the intention of a Church organised through the decades and centuries on the basis Apostolic Succession with the laying-on of hands in an unbroken line, nor even to a stratum of church organisation such as is currently filled by bishops in the modern sense of the word.katherineofdixie said:bishophood ... church hierarchy ... apostolic succession
But that's not your problem. Your problem is that bishophood/Church hierarchy/apostolic succession are quite clearly taught by SS. Clement and Ignatius and that before the close of the 1st century, within the first half century of after the first of the NT was written and before the last book was finished, and by those who knew the Apostles (and the appeal to scripture isn't going to solve your problem, as you depend on those who held SS Clement and Igantius. Otherewise you could have ended up with the Gospel of Thomas). St. Paul specifically tells St. Titus to install the bishops/presbyters, and tells St. Timothy not to neglect the charism he received when hands were laid on him. SS. Clement and Igantius are but the continuation of that dogma.David Young said:As I said before, in reply to our esteemed GreekChef, it is hard to provide evidence for the absence of something.katherineofdixie said:bishophood ... church hierarchy ... apostolic succession
Before I analyze this, just for a moment consider the absurdity that some cabal could form a hierarchy which has continued to govern the Church uninterrupted from the 2nd century to this day whereas you are claiming that the governance of the Church against which the gates of Hell it is promised will not prevail, went defunct in less than a century and was only revived over a millenium and a half later.We simply see no reference to, or presence of, the concept of priesthood (apart of course from references to Jewish priests) in the NT, nor to the intention of a Church organised through the decades and centuries on the basis Apostolic Succession with the laying-on of hands in an unbroken line, nor even to a stratum of church organisation such as is currently filled by bishops in the modern sense of the word.
We say (and have said since the time of Apostles) that the episcopacy is a necessary thing of the Church, derived from the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, Christ Himself (I Peter 2:25). Either those to whom the Apostels entrusted the Church erected that hinderance, or you have taken away a necessary element of the Church. Either Christ is insane, or He is the Son of God: the Gospel does not give the "good philosopher" as a valid choice. Either the Holy Spirit and Christ work through the episcopacy or the episcopacy has interjected itself as a hinderance between Christ and the Church.I am not saying this form of organisation is a hindrance to the Gospel or to spirituality, any more than any other structure which has developed in different times and places among the people of God, all of which can be operated by people filled with the Holy Ghost and be a blessing to men, or by ambitious men and women who wangle a position they have no divine calling or gift for. I am not saying the stratum of bishops should be abolished and every denomination should be run on Baptist lines (that is, autonomous local churches linked in voluntary, equal fellowship).
It's not that hard.I am aware that certain words were used in the NT, but I suspect that neither of us has the time or inclination to list every occurrence in the NT of the words priest, bishop, presbyter, elder, pastor and perhaps related words, and to debate the meaning of each in the light of its literary and historical context.
That's your first problem, because without Holy Tradition, how do you justify not using the Gospel of Thomas? Marcion's Gospel? Why do you not accept the Epistle of Clement as Scripture (as was by many in the Church, and in the early codeces), which would easily settle the issue sola scriptura?I am also aware that we can jump ahead into the following century and see that, in some places at least, the modern sense of the words had begun to develop or was already in place. But I am not qualified to prove (which is what you ask) that your meaning is absent in every case, or that ours must be the only possible sense in every case. But detaching the NT from Holy Tradition, I do think that our understanding of the words and roles form a coherent and consistent whole.
The historical fact that those upon which you depend for your Bible have seen, from the 1st century on, the unbroken succession of bishops as a necessary thing gives it spiritual importance.I am not saying that your claim to unbroken historical succession of bishops is false (though neither do I see it as proven). What I have said is, that it is not in our view a biblical concept, and thus even if it is a historical fact, it has no spiritual importance.
No one in the NT goes out without being sent. Even St. Paul received the laying on of hands, as we see in Acts. He was called to be an Apostle but that calling also directed him to go to St. Ananias, ie. the Church. As Timothy I shows, a gift of prophecy comes with the laying on of hands, such that St. Paul tells him not to neglect the charism and not to lay hands hastily lest it be conferred to the unworthy. Not organization functions, but charism.katherineofdixie said:David, honey, you are perfectly free to say whatever you want, of course, but where is your evidence? That's all I (and I think the others here) want to see. We have provided ours, but all we have seen from you is opinion/interpretation.David Young said:from an Evangelical viewpoint, bishophood puts a man only in an organisational capacity in church hierarchy, as we do not believe in apostolic succession (either in the sense that it is real, or in the sense that it matters even if it is historically real)
...I don't want to discuss any of this, as we have done so at great length on various threads, and I have nothing more to add. But I hope that helps to clarify what I believe Cleopas and I (and of course many others sadly not participating on the forum) would say.
Of course you cannot, because it would represent a departure from the witness of Scripture, both in terms of Acts (i.e. the role of the Synod of Apostles in Jerusalem) and the Epistles of St. Paul (where he describes variously his authority over the churches and the various charisms, especially that of the episcopacy).David Young said:<snip>I am not saying the stratum of bishops should be abolished and every denomination should be run on Baptist lines (that is, autonomous local churches linked in voluntary, equal fellowship).</snip>
Thank you, Father.FatherGiryus said:...it would represent a departure from the witness of Scripture, both in terms of Acts (i.e. the role of the Synod of Apostles in Jerusalem) and the Epistles of St. Paul (where he describes variously his authority over the churches and the various charisms, especially that of the episcopacy).
...I have yet to see a scholar take on the topic and prove definitively that the Orthodox Church's modern practices are of recent invention or represent a significant departure from ancient Tradition.
Dear Katherine,katherineofdixie said:Thank you, Father.FatherGiryus said:...it would represent a departure from the witness of Scripture, both in terms of Acts (i.e. the role of the Synod of Apostles in Jerusalem) and the Epistles of St. Paul (where he describes variously his authority over the churches and the various charisms, especially that of the episcopacy).
...I have yet to see a scholar take on the topic and prove definitively that the Orthodox Church's modern practices are of recent invention or represent a significant departure from ancient Tradition.
See, David, that's all I'm asking for: present your evidence, as others have here from Scripture and the early Church, and let's take a look at it.
Katherine, honey (to use your kind phrasekatherineofdixie said:all I'm asking for: present your evidence,
If so that really puts the damper on any discussion. If all we are doing is fortifying our own positions, why are we wasting our time on this forum?David Young said:- I think all we would end up doing is each of us would become more entrenched in his own position, because by writing it all down carefully we would convince ourselves more strongly
Of course, we could all do Ph.d dissertations on it, but as you say, it would take time. But a normal discussion, using common resources at our disposal would surely not be that onerous. We have of course kindly provided you with evidence already.- to do it properly would entail discussing every instance of all the related words, which would consume a huge amount of time, and we all have other commitments
See answer above. If all discussion is futile, why bother? Also it may be cynical of me but I've observed that people can have integrity and all those other attributes, and still be mistaken, or uninformed on a particular subject.- I'm fairly sure neither of us would convince the other, for it must be possible to hold either position with integrity and seriousness, otherwise there wouldn't be so many Baptists and so many Orthodox in the world, all intelligent, thinking, and theologically alert
The point of it, dear david, is not that the office of Bishop is important to the Orthodox, although it is, the point is that it was important to the early Christians, as we have shown you from Scripture and history. So if it is not an important concern to the Baptists, you should be able quite easily to show us why, and how the Baptists decided to change it.- although the function of bishops is important to you Orthodox
You are exactly right, and I absolutely agree with you. If you were to accept one part of all this as Scriptural and an integral part of the Christian faith, as revealed by history and the early Fathers, you would have some serious decisions to make. Because if the Bishops are true then all the rest of it is also.- I am quite aware that one can't approach Orthodoxy like a buffet, from your point of view: it is all or nothing; so even if you convinced me of your view of bishops, it would be insufficient without convincing me also of all the accretions you have added to the Faith (or we have removed from the Faith), like prayer to the saints, prayer for the dead, priestly robes, seven sacraments and so on: one thing leads to another,
I disagree with your characterization of the discussion as wrangling, but as to the edification of such a discussion, see answer above.-I do not really believe that it would edify either you or me (or others who read the posts) to wrangle over the function of bishops in the period, say 30-160 AD.
Then it wouldn't really be so time-consuming to discuss it, since we've already done much of the heavy lifting?-I suspect we have all studied this matter fairly thoroughly already at some time, for our own conviction, and come to the understanding we have of scripture (or Tradition)
I got lost somewhere in that sentence but if you don't think, how can you "sum"? And anyway, don't be silly, we already think that you're your own pope!some of you would only dub me my own pope. If I think, I remain a Baptist but am considered suipapal, and if I don't think I can't give thought to your position. What would have happened to cogito ergo sum?
Thank you again, Father.FatherGiryus said:... what I said ought not to be taken as some sort of 'Orthodox Triumphalism' at a personal level, as in 'I am right and you are wrong.' It is, rather, that the Church is right and we (all humanity) are wrong.
The Tradition is not something that I chose, but I believe I was led to and forced to accept based on the overwhelming evidence presented to me that caused me, as a convert, to repent. It has been difficult to accept, and the burden of obedience has been a cause for me, in my own weakness, to complain bitterly over its relatively light load. I have complained against the hierarchy and the clergy, and even disobeyed at times with a feeling of supreme self-righteousness. I have also had to repent of all this because, in the end, I am wrong and God is right.
Nearly within a year of my reception, when in an Orthodox Church in Egypt, when someone pointed to the icon of the Theotokos and referred to her as "Our Mother" I shot out "NOT my mother."katherineofdixie said:Thank you again, Father.FatherGiryus said:... what I said ought not to be taken as some sort of 'Orthodox Triumphalism' at a personal level, as in 'I am right and you are wrong.' It is, rather, that the Church is right and we (all humanity) are wrong.
The Tradition is not something that I chose, but I believe I was led to and forced to accept based on the overwhelming evidence presented to me that caused me, as a convert, to repent. It has been difficult to accept, and the burden of obedience has been a cause for me, in my own weakness, to complain bitterly over its relatively light load. I have complained against the hierarchy and the clergy, and even disobeyed at times with a feeling of supreme self-righteousness. I have also had to repent of all this because, in the end, I am wrong and God is right.
This being Lent, I want to assure you, and David also, that I am not the cheerleader for some sort of Orthodox triumphalism.
I was probably one of the most reluctant converts in the history of the Church. I was dragged kicking and screaming - or rather, more accurately: pouting, whining and complaining. I did not want to become Orthodox - it was too difficult, too alien, and I looked for every reason and loophole I could find. In the end, trapped like a rat, by the "inexorableness" of Holy Tradition, I surrendered.
And I thank God every day for it.