A question for protestants...

[ialmisry]

We start from Pentacoast

Which coast of the US is that?

Both Alexandria and Antioch are on the Mediterranean.

 

[ozgeorge]

We start from Pentacoast

Which coast of the US is that?

Both Alexandria and Antioch are on the Mediterranean.

 

[ytterbiumanalyst]

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!

Not really, considering the promiscuity of most of the French kings. I think just about every French person has some royalty in them.

 

[Papist]

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 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.
but that's great man, the farthest I got was to a Spanish Knightly Order, Spanish knights.

I am jealous!

 

[David Young]

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. 

2. Thank you. The weather in York was lovely sunshine on Saturday, and heavy snow on Sunday.

3. No, my use of the word Baptist to refer to the 1st century meaning was not an anachronism: what I meant was, that today, 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. 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!)

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.

 

[GreekChef]

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.

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.  olice:

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.

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. 

Hope you had a great trip to York!  :angel:

 

[Alveus Lacuna]

What I still can't figure out is how you continue to believe this when all evidence is to the contrary.

Cognitive dissonance.

 

[David Young]

Cognitive dissonance.

Quid in terra est hoc?!

 

[David Young]

you have yet to show us any evidence whatsoever that our usage did NOT exist in the first century.   

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.

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.

Hope you had a great trip to York! 

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.  Perhaps I ought to follow your admirable example more closely in some ways.

 

[ialmisry]

Hope York was nice.

you have yet to show us any evidence whatsoever that our usage did NOT exist in the first century.   

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.

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.

As for your definition: what exactly are you arguing?  What is your present day definition of the "overseer" (I assume you won't say bishop), the source and scope of his authority?

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,

Hand Kung thinks because he says so, it is true.  But such is not the case.  At the very least you are claiming our ecclesiology and its hierarchy are an impediment to salvation.

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.

 

[katherineofdixie]

you have yet to show us any evidence whatsoever that our usage did NOT exist in the first century.   

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.

Then what about providing evidence that your interpretation of the words was the common understanding in the 1st century?
Especially since isa has supplied evidence which substantiates our understanding.

 

[tuesdayschild]

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!)

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]

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.

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.

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.

 

[katherineofdixie]

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.

Okay then, show us the evidence - that the early Christians agreed with you, and then show us where it changed.

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/worship_early_church_ext.htm

St. Ignatius, said by Eusebius to have been the second Bishop of Antioch for 40 years,  was arrested and condemned to death in the arena in Rome around 107, which puts him in the lifetime of some of the Apostles, was taken under guard to Rome, along the way he was able to receive delegations from the local churches, headed by the Bishop, and wrote them letters.

"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).
"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).

(Btw, just for kicks, what would it mean to you to find out that the Orthodox understanding of the office of the Bishop was both historic and correct?)

 

[David Young]

show us the evidence - that the early Christians agreed with you, and then show us where it changed.

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.

It is true that we do not use the English word 'bishop', because of the confusion which has grown up over its meaning; it is simpler to keep to the words 'pastor' and 'elder'. The word 'bishop' is sometimes used among us in the sense we believe 'episkopos' carried in the NT, but it is rare, and usually archaic, stiltedly formal, or humorous.

what would it mean to you to find out that the Orthodox understanding of the office of the Bishop was both historic and correct?

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?)

 

[ialmisry]

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.

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.

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).

Clement I 40-44:

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.

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.

If someone is obscuring the pure simplicity of the Gospel (IIRC from my Protestant days), that doesn't have an effect on salvation?

Btw, I'd still like a definition in your own words as to the source and extent of the overseer's authority.

 

[David Young]

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.

Reversing the order of your questions:

Like yourgoodself, I must hasten away. I think we shall have to 'agree to disagree' on what Ignatius and Clement mean by bishop, 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. 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.

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.

I don't think the having of bishops (in your current sense) 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.

 

[katherineofdixie]

I think the scriptures are plain that each church had it own overseers (episkopoi), and that they led in their own churches.

Then who were the presbyters? St. Ignatius mentions three types, if you will: bishop, presbyter and deacon.

Also still awaiting evidence that the early Christians understood the office of bishop in the Baptist way and not the Orthodox way, and when it changed.

It would seem logical that bishops became responsible for a larger geographical area as the church grew, wouldn't you agree?

But as to their apostolic and sacramental role, that was there from the beginning, as we see from the NT and Clement and Ignatius (both lived and served within the lifetime of at least some of the Apostles).

 

[David Young]

Then who were the presbyters?

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).

It would seem logical that bishops became responsible for a larger geographical area as the church grew, wouldn't you agree?

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.

as to their ... sacramental role, that was there from the beginning,

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.

(I do not mean that baptism and the Lord's Supper are not sacraments; I mean that your view of the sacraments, and of the "bishops, presbyters, priests, overseers, elders" who administered those sacraments is different from our view. There are long posts on this from your side and ours on other threads.)

 

[katherineofdixie]

Then who were the presbyters?

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).

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?
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?

 

[FatherGiryus]

Then who were the presbyters?

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).

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?
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?

I don't think you can make the argument that they are synonyms from a Scriptural perspective. 

First of all, you need to look at the usage.  When 'presbyter' is used not to describe one's age, it is more frequently used in the plural, such as an assembly of presbyters in a given location.

Whereas 'episcopos' is used, with one exception, in the singular.  One can infer that there were a lot fewer bishops than presbyters just by the singular/plural usage.  If they were the same group, one would assume that the singular/plural ratio would be the same.

St. Paul calls himself a 'presbyter' which is in keeping with the Church's teaching that Bishops arise from the Presbytery, which is natural considering that a Bishop ought to arise fom the 'elders' of a community.

 

[David Young]

St. Ignatius refers to three: bishops, presbyters and deacons. How do you account for that,

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]

St. Ignatius refers to three: bishops, presbyters and deacons. How do you account for that,

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.

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?

Such a thing is still common to this day, only they tend to be called pastors, elders and deacons.

How can it be common if they are called something else?
So you could really say of pastors, elders and deacons today: "All of you follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles..." or "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 "?

 

[ialmisry]

St. Ignatius refers to three: bishops, presbyters and deacons. How do you account for that,

By Ignatius's time,

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.

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, 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.

Is the number of bishops per city (or are you counting per congregation?) at the core of your "first century definition?"  It doesn't seem all that important in the context of the spreading out of the Church. In the days of St. Innnocent of Alaska, when he was just a parish missionary priest (and married!), he travelled all the way from the Aleutians to San Francisco to pastor the Orthodox in the New World. St. Innocent was ordained bishop only because his wife passed away. His duties didn't change all that much.  There were areas in the first century (and every century in between) where similar conditions prevailed (e.g. Ireland).  In the highly settled, densely populated and urban Roman empire, the hiearchy fanned out from the metropolises.

As far as the hierarchy is concerned, the presbytery was derived from the episcopacy (although now bishops are taken from among the priests), like the deaconate was derived from the royal priesthood.  We see that already in scripture, and we see it today, as Fr. Girguis stated: rubrics, for instance, call for "the elder," which in the presence of the bishop means him, in his absence the priest or the senior priest.  The only difference between "bishop" in the second and in the first century is only one of circumstances, not substance.  Which is evident by SS. Clement and Ignatius,as they lived their office out in not only the first century, but the first half century, of the Church.

For some reason I am reminded of an incident a few years ago, when a Baptist pastor (or would you say "overseer") tried to bring his congregation into Orthoodxy.  When they balked (and dragged up old and estranged members IIRC for the vote), he said he was going anyway, and some of the congregation came by us.  He is now an Orthodox priest, and they now are an Orthodox parish.

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.

Reversing the order of your questions:

Like yourgoodself, I must hasten away. I think we shall have to 'agree to disagree' on what Ignatius and Clement mean by bishop,

No, we don't.  They are quite clear.  Neither will support the congregationalist model I augur you hold (correct me if I misunderstand).

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.

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):

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.

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.

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.

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.

Indeed.  It also shows that the Apostles at Antioch were under the Apostles of Jerusalem (hence the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15).

I don't think the having of bishops (in your current sense)

LOL. You mean the 1st century sense in the 21st century?

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.

Without that essence of the episcopacy, there are no bishops, no authority, no jurisdiction. And for that matter, no Gospel.

 

[FatherGiryus]

St. Ignatius refers to three: bishops, presbyters and deacons. How do you account for that,

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.

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.

We have all been edified by the letters of St. Paul to St. Timothy, and I think now may be a good time to return to them:

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ,
who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove,
rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound
doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves
teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be
turned unto fables.
But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of
an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. (2 Timothy 4:1-5)

I wonder how much different the office of the Bishop today differs from this model?  Reading through St. Paul's other admonishments:

This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we
trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of
those that believe.
These things command and teach.
Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the
believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in
purity. (1 Timothy 4:9-12)

St. Paul tells St. Timothy to 'command and teach' as a Bishop.  He gives him several imperatives to do so, and goes on a bit about how to exercise the authority which, to this day, Orthodox Bishops continue to do.  St. Timothy is even advised on the correct way to admonish the Presbyters, thus showing that the episcopacy extended over the 'elders' (i.e. presbyters) who participated in his consecration by St. Paul:

Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.  (1 Timothy 5:1-2)

Here, St. Paul advises St. Timothy not to be harsh on the elders in his work, which he would not have to do if Bishops did not reign over the Presbyters.  He's giving advice to a young man who must supervise those older than him.  Such advice would not be necessary if he was not expected to be a supervisor.

The authority and practice of the Orthodox episcopacy goes back to the Scriptures.  Sure, there are slightly different vestment and more elaborate practices, but they are inseparable from this ancient and Apostolic Tradition.

It does not require in-depth knowledge of Greek here to see what St. Paul is trying to teach the young Bishop.  St. Ignatius falls into line with these passages, as does the rest of the Tradition.

 

[David Young]

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.

 

[Alveus Lacuna]

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.

Cognitive dissonance.

 

[FatherGiryus]

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.

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.

It becomes profoundly more obvious in moments of conflict, the examples of which are too many to catalog.

We relate to God through the Body of Christ, which St. Paul tells us is administered by those in rightful authority (i.e. Apostles, Bishops, etc.).  You can't have the Gospel unless the Church first shares it with you, and the invention of the printing press does not invalidate the Truth of the Church.  Just because you can buy a Bible does not mean it is yours or mine to interpret in a singular manner.

Rather, most of us have notions of the Scriptures given to us long before we make the effort to read it carefully.  We hope that those teachings are true in such cases, but that does not absolve us of the necessity to search and find what it says.

Frankly, and I say this with Christian love and care, you simply can't say that none of this means anything to the believer when St. Paul so explicitly says otherwise.  We may argue over the meaning of this passage or that, but I don't think that you can honestly read the Scriptures and find that St. Paul is 'agnostic' about the role of the Bishop, or the Apostle, or the Teacher, etc.

I do apologize if I am coming off a bit terse, but it is difficult to make this point without potentially treading on some toes.

 

[ialmisry]

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 -

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.

as both you and we will almost certainly continue believing what we have set out in our posts.

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.

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 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.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me in such careful and comprehensive details.

If you have posted your definition of an overseer, please direct.

 

[David Young]

Let me put it like this. I was asked to give a lecture on Evangelical Christianity to an audience of 100+ three years in a row in Gjilan, which some of you may prefer to call Gnjilane. Probably the audience was 100% Moslem. After each lecture came a question session, and one question asked what the difference is between a priest and a pastor. By 'priest' I assumed that Orthodox or Catholic was meant; by 'pastor' probably a man fulfilling a similar role (in Moslem eyes) in an Evangelical or Pentecostal church. Corresponding with you good people, and reading Orthodox literature, has enabled me (I hope) to give an answer to that kind of question, with honesty and respect as well as some accuracy, that is, about what Orthodox mean by 'priest'; I contrasted it with our 'pastor' explaining that he is no different from any other man other than in the duties or tasks he fulfils in church: praying for his flock, teaching them the Faith, visiting them, exhorting, advising, comforting them, leading them, whilst having no 'priestly' or 'sacramental' power different from other men. Bishops didn't come into the questioning, presumably because they observed that there are no Evangelical or Pentecostal bishops in their country; nonetheless, had they asked, I dare say I would have said something like this: that, 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). (An Anglican Evangelical might of course give a different reply, but I am not in a position to know.)

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.

 

[katherineofdixie]

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.

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]

bishophood ... church hierarchy ... apostolic succession

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.

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).

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. 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.

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.

 

[ialmisry]

bishophood ... church hierarchy ... apostolic succession

As I said before, in reply to our esteemed GreekChef, it is hard to provide evidence for the absence of something.

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.

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.

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.

The NT is quite clear: there is a charism giving in the laying on of hands as we are told in Timothy, which is to be perpetuated as we are told in Titus. There is the office of bishop, to which the Apostles in St. Paul gave the Church over to in Acts 20 (having laid down the continuation of the episcopacy in Acts 1).   The Samaritans do not receive the Holy Spirit, as the Apostles have not laid hands on them, and the Church of Jerusalem exercises its jurisdiction by sending SS John and Peter. The Holy Spirit and the Church of Jerusalem don't make helpful suggestions to the Church of Antioch but "lay upon [them] necessary things." All these practices, btw, have precedence in how the Hebrews were practicing the Old Covenan in the 1st century (e.g. the transmittal of authority by semikha). And the epistle to the Hebrews (which we read during Lent) deals a lot with the High Priesthood of Christ.  If you aren't seeing priesthood in the NT I'm afraid you are either a) not looking, b) not understanding what you are seeing (I'm betting on the second).

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).

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 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.

It's not that hard.

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.

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?

But besides that, I see no evidence for your meaning fullfilling the references in the NT.  Antioch and Samaria are not autonoous from Jerusalem, nor her equal. Nor were their association voluntary, except that they did not want to be schismatic nor heretical.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

As for Apostolic succession, Acts 1, 20, and Titus 1 show that the Apostles were of a different mind on this matter.

 

[FatherGiryus]

<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>

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).

While we can all acknowledge many if not all Baptists are as sincere about their faith as anyone else, what must be acknowledged is that the movement itself is an attempt to 'reconstruct' a Church they assumed was destroyed by the Church of Rome in the West.

The abolition of the episcopacy in the Protestant movement was in protest to Roman 'abuses' as promulgated by Luther.  While Luther did not eliminate the episcopacy, he opened to the door for the Anabaptists and other movements that did.  The Baptist model was in reaction to Rome, but can't really appeal to the actual Tradition found in the Scriptures and the earliest texts of the Church.

The Orthodox Church had no role in the Western controversies, and so I don't think you can advocate a Baptist model in the face of an unbroken Apostolic Tradition of the episcopacy found in the Orthodox Church.

Also, you can't out-of-hand dismiss the importance of Tradition:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. (2 Th 2:15)
...
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. (2 Th 3:6)

The Orthodox Church bears this Tradition, both in Scripture and in word/practice.  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.  In fact, we are mostly criticized over the fact that we do not mold to the times.

Anyway, that's just a few things to think about.

 

[katherineofdixie]

...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. 

Thank you, Father.
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.

 

[FatherGiryus]

...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. 

Thank you, Father.
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.

Dear Katherine,

You are welcome, but I would like to add to my rather hasty reply that 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.

Sometimes this system is frustratingly inefficient and even seems to harbor opportunities for abuse.  But, as our friend points out, no system is perfect.  So long as we have humans, we will have opportunity for sin.  The difference is whether we are following the will of God or self-will.

To abandon the Tradition for whatever reason is to abandon the will of God, beause the Tradition is how we learned about the will of God to begin with.  We heard the Gospel out of the Tradition that protects and preaches and teaches it.  Without the Tradition, there is no Gospel and there is no opportunity to truly know God.  If divine revelation was accessible without the Tradition, then all mankind would be automatically saved via the self-will.  There would be no need for religion or counseling or structure.  We would be born knowing God.

The problem is we don't.  Therefore, a human opinion (and believe me when I say that I have more than my fair share!) is next to worthless, because it is, at best, a guess.  We do not peer into the mind of God or even the heavenly regions.  God reveals Himself.  He moves downward to us and draws us up.  We do not have the natural ability to access Him, and yet He desires to draw us in.

The first step is one of humility, when we bow the knee of our hearts and and bodies, and begin to accept the idea that we humans need God.  Then, we bow down again to receive the Tradition.  We repent and are taught the Tradition, then are Baptized into the Heavenly Kingdom.  Every time we bow down, we are repenting.  We are changing direction and manner.

A gentleman like David, who is certainly eloquent and well-educated, may take offense to our approach to Tradition because it is so alien.  At times, it can even seem like we are engaging in a battle of 'who-is-the-smartest.' 

I want to assure you, David, I am certain you are a better man than I am.  I do not deserve what I have, and I certainly do not possess the Tradition.  Rather, it possesses me. 

 

[David Young]

all I'm asking for: present your evidence,

Katherine, honey (to use your kind phrase  ), I have been trying to say gently and courteously that I feel disinclined to undertake this, and that for a number of reasons:

- 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
- 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
- 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
- although the function of bishops is important to you Orthodox, to us it is not an important concern, and doesn't really engage my cafeteria mentality (that is, the desire to learn what I can of the Lord from the riches of Orthodoxy and benefit from it)
- 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, and we have probably explored them all over the months
-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.
-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)
- If I really took the large chunks of time to exegete each use of the range of words and concepts under discussion, and still disagreed with you, 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?

 

[katherineofdixie]

- 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

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?

- 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

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.

- 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

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.

- although the function of bishops is important to you Orthodox

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.

- 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,

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 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.

I disagree with your characterization of the discussion as wrangling, but as to the edification of such a discussion, see answer above.

-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)

Then it wouldn't really be so time-consuming to discuss it, since we've already done much of the heavy lifting?

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?

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!

 

[katherineofdixie]

... 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.

Thank you again, Father.
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.

 

[ialmisry]

... 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.

Thank you again, Father.
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.

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."
And I burned icons.