The Monachical Episcopate is a pretty non-controversial idea if you are a Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Methodist, Lutheran, or Anglican. They believe a single Bishop is appointed to be the head of a specific church or region, and everyone serves below him.
Note: This article was written before the author’s conversion to Orthodoxy.
What makes the Monarchical Episcopate such an interesting case is that according to some, it is proof that the early Church broke with the earliest recorded Apostolic ecclesiology, in which the Bishop was simply an elder, and that churches had several Bishops. This is often called “the plurality of elders.”
If this is shown to be the case, then it shows that Catholic doctrines such as “the development of doctrine” simply do not develop from actual Apostolic doctrines, but rather prove to be innovations. Innovations are really good when it comes to smartphones, but bad when it comes to theology.
Recorded here is a debate between Joe Heschmeyer of Shameless Popery and myself in his comments section. When I read an article about the “development of doctrine” I replied:
I read Joe’s article and it makes sense with what Protestants believe, but it would not explain the development of the monarchical episcopacy or different doctrines that don’t explictly have Biblical warrant.
Joe replied as follows:
Joe: Who was the inventor of the monarchical episcopate?
Personally I believe it existed as early as Apostolic times. Titus appointed elders (PLURAL) in every city (Tit 1:5), but as soon as Ignatius more than a few of these cities has certain elders viewed as a singular Bishop. So, I am sure more than a few by sheer force of personality and ability rose to the top.
Joe: That’s a remarkable admission. If you’re right, and the Apostles didn’t oppose it, that certainly sounds like they consented to it…
I have no reason that they would not consent. That does not mean they viewed it as a preference, but they might have viewed the plurality of elders as preferential and several elders and one leading with a strong personality as fine and acceptable.
I am not saying that the early church was a Republic of elders. That would be an anachronism. However, a monarchical Episcopacy is different in the sense that several elders are not appointing an elder, but AN Overseer (i.e. Bishop) appoints the subsequent Bishop, and that by necessity other elders are of some sort of de jure inferior class.
My admission is that there may be have de facto monarchical Episcopacies. For example, in my Church there are two elders, but the Pastor essentially calls the shots and when it is time to replace him, he will essentially decide who takes the reins even though all the elders have to agree to it. There is a difference between de facto and de jure.
Joe: Even if you assume that the first century had varying leadership structures (which I deny, at least within orthodox Christianity), you’d have to also admit that the closer you get to the Apostles, the closer you get to a monarchical episcopal governance structure.
From the apostolic fathers, it rather seems the opposite. Polycarp, Clement, and the Didache all show a plurality of elders without there being any sense of pushback. Ignatius is the red herring. Then, as we go on in Church history, it becomes the opposite. Ignatius is the norm. Jerome did write, however, that the plurality of elders was the Biblical model. He wrote:
Before parties sprung up in the Christian administration; before such expressions as these were uttered amongst the faithful, I belong to Paul, I to Apollo, I to Cephas; the churches were governed by a common council of their presbyters [elders]. But, when it came to pass, that each individual (presbyter) looked on those whom he had baptized, to be an acquisition for himself, not for Christ; every where it was decided, that one presbyter should be chosen, and placed over the others , and that to him the care of the church at large should appertain, thereby to remove every principle of schism. These instances I have brought, to show that presbyters and bishops were, for those of old, one of the same; but that by degrees, the government was restricted to one, in order to do away the possibility of dissentions in future. As therefore, presbyters should know, that, in virtue of the church usage, they are submitted to their prelate, whosoever he may be; so let bishops understand, that they themselves are greater than presbyters, more from a usage than from the primary ordinance from the Redeemer, and it is their duty to govern their churches by joint deliberation.
Joe: That alone is enough to show that we’re not looking at a post-Apostolic innovation or corruption.
I said it led to corruption and that it is not the Biblical model. It is not by necessity bad.
Joe: Catholic claim: the early churches were governed by a single bishop and several elders (a.k.a. presbyters or priests) in communion with him.
Protestant claim: the early churches were governed by a body of presbyters/elders, and only later did a single bishop arise. (Prior to this point, all of the presbyters were considered bishops).
I am ironically claiming what Jerome is, and we have no sense in Clement (Chapters 42-44), Polycarp (writing with fellow elders in his introduction), or the Didache (where it says in chapter 15, “Appoint for yourselves Bishops and Deacons”) that the Protestant claim is ahistorical. Rather, it plainly and self-evidently is.
Joe: Showing that a city had multiple bishops would be a strong argument in your favor. But showing that a city had several elders doesn’t prove your case at all…You commit this logical fallacy several times, so to avoid excessive repetition, I’m just going to call it the “Elders Fallacy” from now on, okay?
I thought you would simply accept that Bishops are Elders and Elders are Bishops. Other than the Didache, Clement uses the term interchangably in Chapters 42-44 (this is covered later). However, let me just go straight to Acts 20–
Verse 17: “From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church.”
We know it is one church, in Ephesus. When addressing the elders Paul says in verse 28, “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you BISHOPS, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”
So, he calls all the elders BISHOPS. Clearly, Ephesus had several BISHOPS.
Philippians 1:1 says the exact same thing when writing to Philippi (a singular church, there were not several at this time)
Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the BISHOPS and deacons…
So, I do not suffer from an “Elder Fallacy,” but rather you suffer from an “Bishops are Exclusive to Elders” Fallacy. That takes too long to write, so I am not sure if I am going to keep bringing that up. I just trust that you understand my point.
Joe: You made the claim that “as soon as Ignatius more than a few of these cities has certain elders viewed as a singular Bishop. So, I am sure more than a few by sheer force of personality and ability rose to the top.“ You’re assuming your conclusion (that the bishop was just one of the elders), and then concluding your conclusion from your assumption.
I am assuming what Catholics already know to be true. All Bishops are Elders. I am not presuming what Catholics presume: Not all Elders are Bishops. Hence, because I am free from such presumptions, I am able to actually interface with the historical data. This leads me to believe that the majority practice was a plurality of elders, but it is likely that the Ignatius model de facto existed in the beginning. I certainly could not prove that, and ironically what I cannot prove is your presumption.
Joe: Ignatius pretty explicitly denies that a bishop is just an elder, so your circular reasoning is pretty directly contradicted by the evidence.
I think you are misspeaking. A Bishop IS an Elder. However, Ignatius does not believe all elders are bishops. And yes, Ignatius would favor the Monarchical model, so I am not performing circular reasoning, I already agree with that point.
Joe: Given this, you can’t jump to the reasons you assume why a single presbyter-bishop arose amongst many presbyter-bishops, because you haven’t even shown that it’s happened.
Well, I did. Philippi had BISHOPS when Paul wrote. When Ignatius wrote, Chapter 13 shows there was just one Bishop.
Why? I don’t know. I speculate by sheer force of personality and ability, one rose to the top.
What you have not shown is why the Scripture and Clement conflate the two offices. You simply ignore it because it does not fit your paradigm.
Joe: All of the evidence you’ve presented is either silent on the question, or contradicts your claim.
It certainly does not contradict my claim, and some pieces are silent on certain matters and some are not. The first piece of written evidence to contradict my viewpoint is Ignatius. The first piece of evidence to contradict yours is Philippians. I win 
Joe: You write, “Polycarp writes his letter on behalf of himself and the elders (plural) with him.” This is the Elders Fallacy again…
Only a fallacy if you by necessity accept you presupposition. But let me tell you why I adhere to the Elders=Bishops paradigm. It is the only thing that DOES NOT CONTRADICT Phil 1:1, Acts 20, and the traditional evidence in Clement, the Didache, and Polycarp. Now the Elders Fallacy contradicts the Scripture and Clement, though it can be made to work with the Didache (with some mental gymnastics) and Polycarp. Obviously it works well with Ignatius.
I take my fallacy over yours. It works with more of the evidence than yours does.
Joe: We know from Ignatius’ letter to Polycarp that Polycarp was the single bishop of Smyrna, joined by several presbyters. For example, he opens that letter, “Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnæans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop…”
That opening does not say he is the Bishop or an exclusive Bishop. It says God is His Bishop, which obviously is true.
Joe: In the sixth chapter, he offers these instructions for the faithful of Polycarp’s church:
“Give heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. My soul be for theirs that are submissive to the bishop, to the presbyters, and to the deacons, and may my portion be along with them in God!”
Chapter 6 does not say that the elders were not Bishops in Smyrnan’s eyes, however. It would be like if my Pastor read a letter written by a Bishop in the Lutheran Church. They would consider one another brothers in Christ, but the Lutheran Bishop may address the governance in my church much differently than how we would view ourselves.
What you are essentially doing is making Ignatius infallible and setting him as the standard to compare all the other evidence, instead of taking the Scripture first (the earliest record we have) and using that to evaluate the rest of the historical evidence. You went to law school, so perhaps you were a history major back in the day. So, was I. I am well aware that working with the earlier source material and adding weight to it in my analysis is a completely legitimate historical practice.
Joe: The idea that Polycarp wasn’t the sole bishop of the city at this time strikes me as obviously false.
If Ignatius was the measure that everything else is set against, of course that makes sense. However, if Phil 1 and Acts 20 is the measure, it puts everything in a whole new light.
Joe: The fact that your theory leads to misunderstanding Polycarp (“Polycarp, and the presbyters with him, to the Church of God sojourning at Philippi”) so dramatically (and so clearly) indicts the theory itself.
I see why you think this, but I think you oversstate your case because of your own fallacy.
Joe: You write, “Clement writes his letter on behalf of ‘we,’ and speaks of multiple elders in Corinth.” This is the Elders Fallacy again….
Again, it is your fallacy, the Ignatius-is-the-Measure Fallacy, that is at work. Change the measure, and it changes how you view everything.
Just so you know, that’s how I originally started. I read the Apostolic Fathers years ago and was in the Lutheran Church. In fact, a post on my own website records a time where the Catholic Church government made sense to me. The clear Biblical teaching forced me to re-evaluate Ignatius, and once I realize that Clement speaks of Bishops in chapter 42 and conflates them with Corinth’s elders in Chapter 43 and 44, it all made sense:
42: 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.
44: 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…
“Those already mentioned” are both the Bishops in Chapter 42, the Priests in 43, and the Elders in 44. He lumps them all together as fulfilling the same role. The end of Chapter 44 makes it exceedingly clear that the Apostles were correct in prophesying “that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate (i.e. the office of Bishop).” Why? Because the elders of Corinth should not be ejected from the episcopate, they are blameless, those elders who served before are blessed to have not experienced strife over the episcopate.
Joe: Polycarp speaks on behalf of himself and his clergy. Clement does the same.
Of course, the Ignatius-as-the-Measure Fallacy requires this.
Joe: Nothing in this suggests that a monarchical episcopacy isn’t true. So Clement’s letter is evidence in favor of the monarchical episcopacy.
Actually, 1 Clem 42-44 disallows the Monarchical Episcopacy, as the above shows.
Joe: Your entire argument marshaling them into your corner was fallacious (the Elders Fallacy), and good evidence exists that they were monoepiscopal bishops of their local churches.
I think I have shown conclusively the following:
1. The Scripture says there is a plurality of bishops in Phil 1:1 and Acts 20.
2. I’m not crazy because Jerome read the same evidence and came to the same conclusion.
3. 1 Clem 42-44 Bishops and elders are one of the same.
4. The Didache makes no mention of a Bishop appointing several elders, but the congregation electing a plurality of Bishops.
5. I read Polycarp in light of the preceding evidence which would lead me to believe that he was not placing himself over the elders he was writing with.
6. Therefore, because of 1-4, and 5 being completely legitimate because of 1-4, I read Ignatius as an aberration, or a well-meaning pioneer of sorts. Because all of the preceding evidence is more ancient than Ignatius, I read Ignatius in light of the preceding. I do not commit the chronological fallacy of reading the preceding in light of Ignatius.
Joe: In light of what I’ve written, do you still hold to this? Because I think I’ve shown pretty simply how every bit of patristic evidence lines up with the monoepiscopal view, and huge chunks of it (like Ignatius’ entire corpus) contradict your view.
In light of everything I have written, do you take Jerome’s position as I quoted, or do you prefer to approach the evidence chronologically backwards in a way no honest historian would, because the authority of Catholic Church demands it?
I have made my case in a historically correct, logical, and internally consistent way. I am willing to recant if the evidence is so convincing, but all you have done is made Ignatius-the-Measure. You have not confronted the Scripture or Clement, who explicitly contradict your views and precede Ignatius.
___
As a note concerning the above, the original comments are from Shameless Popery’s comment’s section. Joe was quoted ad verbatim and certain parts were removed for the sake of space and clarity. I link to it here so readers may check what was actually written and verify that what is recounted here is accurate.
Orthodox Christian Theology 
Good job, Craig!
I enjoyed reading this and your other two articles on Tradition and Apostolic succession.
I just discovered your blog after seeing your combox discussion with Joe H. over at Shameless Popery. I had not looked at Shameless Popery in a while – I did a while back and discussed in some of the comment boxes.
I saw your discussion because Shameless Popery was mentioned at the Roman Catholic site “Called to Communion”- on an article I was reading there. It is a massive site of massive articles that take me a lot of time to work through. Joe H. and you are easier to read and understand. Bryan Cross over at Called to Communion is hard for me to understand – his philosophical jargon, mathematical formulas, and extensive use of Latin are challenging.
What is the book reference of the “google book” paragraph of the quote from Jerome?
Another source that cites this is James White in his response to an Anglican contributor (see below) and Dr. White contributed a chapter on church government in
“Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity” (see pages 251-252 for the quote by Jerome, which I think, is the same one you have linked to in a book. (the wording is different; I suppose from different translations of the original Latin)
Dr. White cites it as “Commentariorum In Epistolam Ad Titum, PL 26:562-563”. Commentary on the Epistle to Titus. PL = Joseph Migne’s Patrologia Latina – the corpus of extant Latin works of the early fathers. Some of this has yet to be translated into English yet.
Thanks Ken! Can you link me to the conversation?
Here’s the original link: https://books.google.com/books?id=qKYCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA341&lpg=PA341&dq=Before+parties+sprung+up+in+the+Christian+administration;+before+such+expressions+as+these+were+uttered+amongst+the+faithful,+I+belong+to+Paul,+I+to+Apollo,+I+to+Cephas&source=bl&ots=qMB_6ETeCY&sig=SX75Z423sTm0fJVfkCD4aeTsLw4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjd5dnq2JHKAhUIcj4KHSXXC5UQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=Before%20parties%20sprung%20up%20in%20the%20Christian%20administration%3B%20before%20such%20expressions%20as%20these%20were%20uttered%20amongst%20the%20faithful%2C%20I%20belong%20to%20Paul%2C%20I%20to%20Apollo%2C%20I%20to%20Cephas&f=false
It’s a Catholic book from 1812 by J. Bernard Clinch. The citation appears to be “Hitron in Cap I Paul ad Tituni.”
God bless,
Craig
Bryan Cross’ comment # 126 here linked to Joe Heschemeyer’s blog post on Tertullian (about baptism), and after I went there, I saw his post on the Meme of false prophets and then saw your comments in the comment box.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/the-church-fathers-on-baptismal-regeneration/#comment-135169
Thanks!
Craig,
To put things in context, your debate with Joe began with your assertion that “the development of the monarchical Episcopate is a second century mistake which resulted in churches with landed estate, politicking, sacralism, and the like…”
My question is this: How is this a mistake? On what objective grounds do you base this assertion?
An outcome or result can only be described a mistake if it does not correspond to what should be the ideal outcome or result. Thus, if ME is a mistake, then that is not how Church government should have turned into. It should be something else. But what should that ideal outcome be?
Unfortunately, your arguments with Joe on ME does not show what the ideal outcome for the Church should be. You have not established that ME is an error. In fact, the very quote you cited from St. Jerome to show that Bishops and Presbyters are the same also explains why a single Bishop who rules over other presbyters is NOT a mistake.
Rico,
“My question is this: How is this a mistake? On what objective grounds do you base this assertion?”
In the article you are responding to I write:
“What makes the Monarchical Episcopate such an interesting case is that according to some, it is proof that the early Church broke with the earliest recorded Apostolic ecclesiology….If this is shown to be the case, then it shows that Catholic doctrines such as “the development of doctrine” simply do not develop from actual Apostolic doctrines, but rather prove to be innovations. Innovations are really good when it comes to smartphones, but bad when it comes to theology.”
So, it is a mistake to make NEW doctrines, because Christians believe in an Apostolic religion. The Apostles knew God personally. We want to stick with what they knew to be the true religion, because they knew the risen Lord.
“An outcome or result can only be described a mistake if it does not correspond to what should be the ideal outcome or result.”
This is only true if the only thing we care about are practical results in the way the world thinks about them. I define Christian success as living according to the will of God. We do this by following the Apostolic example faithfully, not “improving” upon it.
“Thus, if ME is a mistake, then that is not how Church government should have turned into.”
You presuppose that because the Catholic Church is inherently correct, then by default the Monarchical Episcopate cannot be a mistake. Given this premise, I agree with you 100%. Take away that obviously circular premise, then your logic does not hold up.
“It should be something else. But what should that ideal outcome be?”
What I find interesting about yours and CK’s (or was it AK’s) response on SHameless Popery is that it concedes to me the argument–no one is denying that historically, I am presenting the stronger position. So your counterargument is, “but the Biblical example did not work as well!” Okay, according to who? Practical considerations perhaps?
The ideal outcome to me is if we live in accordance with God’s will with n regard to practical outcomes.
” In fact, the very quote you cited from St. Jerome to show that Bishops and Presbyters are the same also explains why a single Bishop who rules over other presbyters is NOT a mistake.”
It still concedes to me that historically, my position is stronger. And so, then what is your ideal? What has proved to be a good, enduring system; or purity in regards to what the Apostles intended the system to be?
God bless,
Craig
Craig,
If ME is a new doctrine, and if it is a mistake to make new doctrines (and I don’t agree with this last premise. This is begging the question.), then you have a problem. When Joe asked you who invented ME, you conceded that it existed during Apostolic times. Therefore ME is not new, therefore it is not a mistake.
As I have argued, a mistake is an outcome that fails to reach an ideal standard. I am not talking of an outcome that is practical. I am talking of the ideal, ie, how things “ought to be.” When I use the word “mistake” I really mean the common meaning of mistake. Let me give you some examples:
Suppose I am trying to identify the name of the color that describes a sunflower. If I spell it as “yelow” then that is a mistake. Likewise, if I spell it “yelllow”. There is no such thing as a practical way of spelling “yellow”. There is only one accepted standard of spelling it.
Suppose I assert: “The 2001 US invasion of Iraq promoted by the Bush administration was a mistake”. By what ideal standard do we measure that? Well, if you have been following Bush’s casus belli for going to war, ie, to prevent Saddam from using WMDs, then the war was a mistake. As it turned out, Saddam had no such weapons. Thus, the war prevented nothing. Practicality here is out of the question. It doesn’t matter even if the US practically won the war. All the people killed in it were killed for no reason. Therefore, it is a tragic mistake.
Now go back to your assertion that ME was 2nd century mistake. Tell me, by what standard do you measure it so we can both agree that indeed it failed, and became a mistake? Honestly, I cannot see one right now.
You replied: “What makes the Monarchical Episcopate such an interesting case is that according to some, it is proof that the early Church broke with the earliest recorded Apostolic ecclesiology…” According to some, it is proof; while according to some, it is not proof. Where is the objective standard I’m asking you about?
And what is the standard Apostolic ecclesiology that the Church is not supposed to deviate from? I cannot see this from your answers. In the early churches, if Bishops were Elders and Elders were Bishops, is this a situation that the Church is not supposed to change? Is this meant to be static?
You also replied: “The ideal outcome to me is if we live in accordance with God’s will with n regard to practical outcomes.” Okay, if so, then what is God’s will when it comes to the episcopate? Does he allow ME or does he prohibit it? This is exactly what I need to find out from you. Because if ME is prohibited, then the Catholic Church committed a mistake in taking that path. It strayed from God’s will.
You ask: “And so, then what is your ideal? What has proved to be a good, enduring system; or purity in regards to what the Apostles intended the system to be?” Well, in my study of the New Testament, there is an ideal standard there that I can identify. However, I will hold back for now on the answer. I’d like to hear if you still have answers to my questions above. If none, I will answer that next time.
development is illegitimate.
“Okay, if so, then what is God’s will when it comes to the episcopate?”
To follow what the Apostles taught.
“Does he allow ME or does he prohibit it?”
He allows for the Plurality Model and gives no charge for ME. So, even if we take the lack of prohibition as permission to do it (a Tenth Amendment of sorts), it DEFINITELY does not allow for the banning of the actual Apostolic model in favor of another model that is not explicitly prohibited.
“Because if ME is prohibited, then the Catholic Church committed a mistake in taking that path. It strayed from God’s will.”
More accurately, the mistake was disallowing for the actual Apostolic practice. If some churches had it one way and others the other way, which they did into the second century, then at the very least the ME exists for practical considerations. But to have it replace the Plurality Model entirely is to actually make Apostolic practice null and void, which is obviously dangerous and leads to various heresies.
“Well, in my study of the New Testament, there is an ideal standard there that I can identify.”
Please identify this for us 🙂
God bless,
Craig
Craig,
If you now assert that “development is illegitimate”, please recall that your original assertion was “Monarchichal Episcopate is a mistake.” Illegitimacy and error are two different animals. What is illegitimate is not necessarily a mistake. Conversely, whatever is erroneous is not always illegitimate. Legitimacy is only in the eyes of the one who has authority to declare and enforce laws.
You say: “He allows for the Plurality Model and gives no charge for ME. So, even if we take the lack of prohibition as permission to do it (a Tenth Amendment of sorts), it DEFINITELY does not allow for the banning of the actual Apostolic model in favor of another model that is not explicitly prohibited.”
I can similarly argue that in the OT, the practice of polygamy was also allowed, and in the NT, there is no specific commandment that condemns it. And Jesus only condemns divorce and remarriage. Therefore, as long as I don’t divorce the women I marry, I should be allowed to practice polygamy. Right? Well…actually, wrong. This is where an appeal to the scriptures alone will not work.
The Plurality Model (or PM) you are pointing out, is this the standard Apostolic ecclesiology that the Church “ought not to deviate from”? If so, then the Catholic Church is mistaken for taking a different track. But I argue otherwise. PM is not the standard. Now whether the PM was actually disallowed to favor the ME, I have not seen your evidence for this. I think the PM was abandoned because it proved inadequate for the needs of the Church in the history context of those times.
With the PM, you speak of a short moment in Church history when Bishops were Elders, and Elders where Bishops. This was a time shortly after the death of the Apostles. The Apostles it seems didn’t ordain other apostles to succeed them in guiding the Bishops and Elders. Why? Because they anticipated the imminence of the Second Coming. The urgency was on preaching the gospel and baptizing converts to prepare a people ready for Christ’s return. Less emphasis was given on how the Christians were to be governed as a people.
But when the Eschaton didn’t arrive as anticipated, and heresies began to infect and divide the Church, the PM could not handle the onslaught of the violent forces that threatened the Church. Your PM had to eventually give way to the ME, not because the Church disallowed it, but because it could not defend the Church.
Remember that this earthly realm is ruled by Satan, the prince of this world. Christ came to destroy the works of the Devil (1 John 3:8). John the Baptist announced the coming of the kingdom of heaven and pointed men to Christ. If Jesus came to destroy the works of Satan, then what we have is an epic war between the kingdom of heaven and the prince of this world.
The Church subsists within the Kingdom of Heaven, and if the Kingdom of Heaven is a monarchy, then the Church must be governed as a monarchy. This is the New Testament standard. Christ will reign until he puts all his enemies under his feet (1 Corinthians 15:25). The Church cannot be governed by a committee. It is essentially a one-man rule.
There is only “One Fold and One Shepherd” (John 10:16). There is only “One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism” (Ephesians 4:5). Christ is not divided (1 Corinthians 1:13). Christ set apostles in the Church to bring men to a unity of the Faith (Ephesians 4:11-13). Christ is the Head of the Church (Colossians 1:18).
A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand (Matthew 12:25). A kingdom cannot have two kings ruling at the same time. It will divide the kingdom. And if that kingdom is at war with an enemy kingdom, it will soon be defeated. Thus, if the Church must fight Satan, it cannot afford to divide itself by having a plurality of leadership.
When Paul called for the Elders of the Church and called them Bishops, the PM you see in the text is just an illusion. This was the Church in infancy, so naturally, those who demonstrated maturity in the faith (“Elders”) were called to be supervisors (“Bishops”). Nothing extraordinary here. We see this in the business world as well where those who demonstrate mature work habits and attitudes are called to supervise their fellows.
But Paul was considered a spiritual father among those whom he wrote his epistles (1 Corinthians 4:15). The Bishops and Elders look up to him for guidance and comfort. The Church indeed is a family that needs a father to guide it just as a kingdom needs a king to rule it. Although Paul did not explicitly call himself a king in the church, he acted as a father to the Bishops he summoned. He alone fed them with spiritual food. Thus, even as the books of the NT were being written, there is no PM. What we see is nothing but the ME.
Now according to your speculation, the ME came about “by sheer force of personality and ability, one rose to the top.” This sounds like Darwinian theory applied to Church history. I disagree. In its early beginnings, the Church saw itself as a monarchy. It will only behave as monarchies do. God sent his Son to establish the Church. Jesus called Paul to conversion. Paul preached and baptized converts. When the things that really matter come from above and goes down, one can hardly rise to the top by sheer force of personality.
When the apostles died and the Eschaton did not arrive, the infant Church found itself having to defend itself against Satan without leaders of the caliber of the apostles. As a monarchy, the Church would naturally tend towards the rule of one leader. This is its essence. Faced with a crisis, the Church cannot afford to divide itself. This is the context that you must read the words of St. Jerome you cited above:
“…But, when it came to pass, that each individual (presbyter) looked on those whom he had baptized, to be an acquisition for himself, not for Christ; every where it was decided, that one presbyter should be chosen, and placed over the others , and that to him the care of the church at large should appertain, thereby to remove every principle of schism.”
“These instances I have brought, to show that presbyters and bishops were, for those of old, one of the same; but that by degrees, the government was restricted to one, in order to do away the possibility of dissentions in future.”
Because the Church is at war with Satan, it cannot divide itself. Therefore, Unity trumps everything else. Therefore, the ME is the only way to go.
Rico,
“If you now assert that “development is illegitimate”, please recall that your original assertion was “Monarchichal Episcopate is a mistake.””
My sincere apologies, my previous reply was truncated so it simply started with “it is illigitimate” out of nowhere. I think I was replying to the following:
“When Joe asked you who invented ME, you conceded that it existed during Apostolic times. Therefore ME is not new, therefore it is not a mistake.”
My response essentially was that it was not the legitimate, or specified, form of governance by the Apostles. The speculation that it is probable, but by no means proven, that ME was De Facto in some churches is a long shot from proven that the Apostles considered it good, let alone that they would approve of it replacing the Plurality Model.
In Romans 14, we have evidence that Paul accepted Christians that still followed the Jewish Law (they considered some days holier than the next, they didn’t eat meat because of the uncertainty that it was sacrificed to idols). He taught the toleration of these people. Yet, in Colossians 3, he teaches that Christians should not hold one day above the next. Hence, we have evidence that the Apostles were willing to accept certain things that they considered less than ideal as long as they were not considered sinful.
Hence, you cannot really prove one way or the other that this would also be true of ME. The only thing that we do know is that ME was not specified in several passages, but PM was. We have early tradition that shows this was understood.
If we can just go about ignoring what the Apostles taught, then what safeuard do we have against heresy?
Further, Joe argued that orthodox developments contain a Biblical seed. If you already concede that in the Scripture, the seed does not exist and in fact, a different ecclesiology is endorsed, then isn’t the development logically not orthodox?
“Illegitimacy and error are two different animals. What is illegitimate is not necessarily a mistake. Conversely, whatever is erroneous is not always illegitimate. Legitimacy is only in the eyes of the one who has authority to declare and enforce laws.”
Now you are talking like a lawyer. Let’s have a regular conversation, if you have to resort to the tactic of carefully parsing words like this, you have already conceded that your point cannot stand on its own.
I deal with this stuff all day at my job when it comes to government regulations. I recognize it when I see it 🙂
We are speaking about what is ‘more correct,” what God would approve of more so. Neither of us are saying that ME is bad, I never once said that. I am saying that PM is Apostolic and that as a matter of practice, sticking with Apostolic doctrine prevents heresy. You appear to have no counterpoint to this.
“I can similarly argue that in the OT, the practice of polygamy was also allowed…”
Not true. The Law is unequivocal when speaking of kings:
” He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away…” (Deut 17:17).
So, just because God obviously will accept something He does not like (i.e. in David and a plethora of other OT figures) that does not mean God prefers it. So, even if you can demonstrate that God accepts ME, which you can’t because the Apostles never wrote about it, you additionally cannot prove that God would prefer it over PM, which He actually specified He wanted through the Apostles.
“Now whether the PM was actually disallowed to favor the ME, I have not seen your evidence for this.”
Joe said only unorthodox churches had the PM. Do you disagree with Joe?
“I think the PM was abandoned because it proved inadequate for the needs of the Church in the history context of those times.”
Maybe, that’s a reasonable enough conjecture. That’s what I contend as well. But I cannot prove it. Further, and more importantly, the practical “needs” of the Church should never be prioritized over our need to stay true to what the Apostles taught. If not, we have no safeguard against heresy.
“The Apostles it seems didn’t ordain other apostles to succeed them…”
To be an Apostle, you need to have seen the risen Lord.
“Your PM had to eventually give way to the ME, not because the Church disallowed it, but because it could not defend the Church.”
The Catholic Church does not allow it today. By doing so, they are abrogating Apostolic teaching which then creates a discontinuity between this present church and the Apostles themselves.
“Remember that this earthly realm is ruled by Satan……Although Paul did not explicitly call himself a king in the church, he acted as a father to the Bishops he summoned. He alone fed them with spiritual food. Thus, even as the books of the NT were being written, there is no PM. What we see is nothing but the ME.”
Did you see what you did in this long stretch of Biblical exegesis? You abrogated the explicit teaching of the Apostles in favor of your own personal exegesis. This is the sort of antics that Protestants get criticized for? You can’t have it both ways.
My stance is consistent: the Apostolic doctrines must be preserved. To not do this is to open the Church up to chaos.
“Now according to your speculation, the ME came about “by sheer force of personality and ability, one rose to the top.” This sounds like Darwinian theory applied to Church history. I disagree. In its early beginnings, the Church saw itself as a monarchy.”
So now we are just weighing speculation against speculation. This does not seem to be very compelling as to what the Truth really is.
God bless,
Craig
Craig,
The PM you assert to be existing in the scriptures is an illusion. There is no PM there. Let’s take a closer look at your evidence in Acts 20:
In Miletus, Paul summoned the Elders of Ephesus whom he recognized as the Bishops of the Ephesian flock. Here, Paul acts the way a Father/ Shepherd/ Ruler would act towards his Children/ Sheep/ Subjects. If Paul was their coequal in the Episcopate, why would they come to him seeing he was in a hurry to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost, and he decided to bypass Ephesus along the way? If I was a Bishop in Ephesus, and Paul was my coequal, I would send him an epistle and tell him to take care in his journeys. “Best wishes Paul! Say hi to our friends in Jerusalem”. The only reason you see the PM here is because you ignore Paul’s position and actions.
Paul is the “Principle of Unity” in the Ephesian flock. That is why he warns his Bishops that once he leaves, certain wolves from among their ranks would rise and attack the fold not sparing the flock. In Miletus, Paul wasn’t talking to the entire Ephesian flock, but only to their shepherds. And it was among the ranks of these shepherds where the wolves would come from. If Paul was not a “Principle of Unity” recognized by the Ephesian Bishops, if he did not possess authority over them, how could he say that some of them would turn into wolves? They would denounce him as a coequal. Therefore, there is no plurality model at work here.
Paul acting alone summoned the Ephesian Bishops. This is how a monarchy operates. This is not rule by a plurality of equals. The only way it will look like the PM you are seeing is if you ignore Paul and his status in the picture.
Let’s now go to Paul’s epistle to the Philippians. It begins with “Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus”. Here, you could argue that a duo of rulers are sending out rules for their subjects to follow. Unfortunately, in 2:19-23, Paul sends out Timothy to the Philippian Church, and tells them how Timothy has served him well “as a son with a father”. Clearly, this is not the PM you wish to see here. There is no plurality rule. Rather, this is how a single ruler and his subjects act towards each other. As with the Acts, so with Philippians. In both accounts, Paul is the principle of unity.
Rather than ask me if I disagree with Joe, why not ask me if I agree with you? I don’t dispute that in both Acts 20 and Philippians 1, the term “Elders” and “Bishops” mean the same. But you see ghosts where there are none. You see the PM when the actions of the people clearly show one-man rule at work.
You don’t need ME to be explicitly spelled out and commanded because Paul and his disciples took it for granted. They breathed monarchy wherever they went, whether in the Church or out of it. One-man rule was everywhere the normal practice. It would take more faith to believe your claim that they practiced an egalitarian PM than to believe the Bible which actually shows them living out the ME.
When the apostles died and left the churches without successors in the apostleship, what we have are Elders and Bishops of equal rank leading the churches. This is where your PM begins to exist. Had the Eschaton arrived at this point, PM would be just be fine. With Christ alone ruling the churches on earth, things would naturally go back to monarchy. Unfortunately, the Eschaton did not arrive as expected.
Absent both apostles and the Eschaton, this is the PM era, as Paul prophesied in Acts 20, when Bishops turned to wolves and devoured their flock. Here is where you find Elders and Bishops of equal authority who no longer recognized any principle of unity above them. A cursory glance at the history of heresies shows that no major heresy ever succeeded in damaging the Church if it were not supported by Bishops.
“Everywhere it was decided…” reports St. Jerome on what the churches did to address the many schisms that wracked Church unity. The decision did not come from above, there was no above. The churches everywhere seem to have naturally arrived on their own at the conclusion that having the PM was what really produced heresies and schisms, and broke unity among them.
This is why St. Jerome points out the reasons why a Bishop had to elevated to preside over the Elders, and one-man government was established:
1. “to remove every principle of schism.”
2. “to do away the possibility of dissentions in future.”
Unity trumps everything. If you read the Bible, and fail to find this message, you have read it wrong. God desires all creation to be one with his Son. This was explicitly laid out by Jesus in John 17. The whole creation cannot unite with Christ unless the Church demonstrates this unity. The people sitting in darkness will only come to the Light if they see this light of unity lived out in the Church.
PS:
You say: “Now you are talking like a lawyer.”
Me says: Ad hominem! …. 🙂
You say: “I deal with this stuff all day at my job when it comes to government regulations.”
Me says: Aha! Mad hominem!!!…. The govt is a crazy Beast. To deal with all day it requires a certain degree of madness. 🙂
Rico,
“The PM you assert to be existing in the scriptures is an illusion. There is no PM there.”
Sure, let’s look at this.
“If Paul was their coequal in the Episcopate, why would they come to him seeing he was in a hurry to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost…”
Paul was not a co-equal. He was an Apostle, which was a spiritual gift given to the Church which was temporary.
“And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ” (Eph 4:11-12).
The Bishops who met Paul appeared to be Pastors of the flock. Obviously, the Apostle’s office carries greater authority than the Bishop, though on may still call them a
“fellow elder,” as Peter described himself (1 Pet 5:1).
“Paul is the “Principle of Unity” in the Ephesian flock……This is not rule by a plurality of equals. The only way it will look like the PM you are seeing is if you ignore Paul and his status in the picture.”
It that whole response, you essentially ignored the obvious and pushed your own idea. The Elders were called Bishops. The Bishops were not Apostles. Further, Paul was their spiritual father in the sense that he started their church. Let’s use our common sense, Rico! I paid for your house out of the goodness of my heart and I was passing through your town on my way to somewhere, wouldn’t you want to come see me?
Of course. There really is zero need to go through all of your speculation. It is a non-sequitur. It defies common sense like the above, as well as ignores the explicit teaching of the Scripture. Each of those Elders were called Bishops.
“Let’s now go to Paul’s epistle to the Philippians.”
Let’s do it.
“It begins with “Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus”. Here, you could argue that a duo of rulers are sending out rules for their subjects to follow…000 Unfortunately, in 2:19-23, Paul sends out Timothy to the Philippian Church, and tells them how Timothy has served him well “as a son with a father”.”
You might have your point on the tip of your tongue but you did not make one here. Paul called the leaders of Philippi Bishops. How does this specifically not show that there was a plurality of Bishops? What does Timothy’s existence have to do with it?
“Rather, this is how a single ruler and his subjects act towards each other.”
Of course the less experienced will defer to the more experienced and able. But I never denied this point. If I was one of the Bishops of Rome and then Peter comes off the boat and lives with us, obviously Peter will have pre-eminence because of his office as Apostle. So, even if he is a fellow elder, a fellow Bishop, there will be pre-eminence because of his Apostleship. What we do not see is pre-eminence among non-apostles, which is ironic, because among all the non-apostles they are referred essentially as equals.
“Rather than ask me if I disagree with Joe, why not ask me if I agree with you?”
You just circumnavigated the question. You just conceded one reply ago that PM existed and was replaced because it proved to be deficient. Joe said it never existed in orthodox circles. You and him are contradictin each other. Do you wish to disavow what you said or admit that you do not agree with Joe’s point (which, after all, was the one I was actually responding to. I cannot forsee your points in the future and responded to them then.)
“You see the PM when the actions of the people clearly show one-man rule at work.”
The obvious weakness in your exegesis is that you ignore that being an “Apostle” was a spiritual gift given to the Church, so you conflate these men as archbishops when they were not referred to or viewed as such, they were Apostles whose preeminence stemmed from the fact that they were apostles.
Further, as I have demonstrated, we saw Clement and the Didache explicitly use the language of a plurality of Bishops, which proves I am not seeing ghosts, but rather, you are not seeing the forest from the trees.
“You don’t need ME to be explicitly spelled out and commanded because Paul and his disciples took it for granted.”
Sorry, that does not work here. Remember how this whole conversation started? Joe’s article on Development of Doctrine. He said there must be a legitimate, demonstrable Apostolic seed of a teaching. The development can be seen as legitimate when we can define its roots in the teaching of the Apostles.
What you are saying is that in your speculation, ME was real and they just didn’t feel like talking about it. That’s like me saying using grape juice in place of wine was real, but they just did not feel like talking about it. Where do we stop? I can make an infinite amount of claims and say that they relate to legitimate teachings of the Apostles. This is why your argument from silence does not work.
“It would take more faith to believe your claim that they practiced an egalitarian PM than to believe the Bible which actually shows them living out the ME.”
Why would it even take faith? Faith requires believing what is not seen. So sure, you have faith in ME because it is not seen. I see with my very own eyes the word “Bishop” with the letter “s” on the end. That turns a singular word into a plural. So, to say that there was a plurality of Bishops does not require a leap of faith. Rather, it requires elementary school level reading comprehension.
And I know very well that you have this. I mean no personal disrespect, but because you have a monolithic tradition to defend, it is causing you to ignore something so elementary and obvious, which is why you would even say thinking there was a plurality of bishops is some leap of faith. That’s crazy, there WAS a plurality of Bishops, it is undeniable.
“When the apostles died and left the churches without successors in the apostleship, what we have are Elders and Bishops of equal rank leading the churches.”
This is what Clement said in 1 Clem 42-44.
“This is where your PM begins to exist.”
Apostles being Apostles does not make the Biblical model ME. You are misunderstanding the difference between the office of an Apostle and a Bishop.
“This is why St. Jerome points out the reasons why a Bishop had to elevated to preside over the Elders, and one-man government was established:
1. “to remove every principle of schism.”
2. “to do away the possibility of dissentions in future.”
Unity trumps everything.”
Incorrect. Truth trumps everything. Truth is the most important principle. I am sure Athanasius was told that unity trumps everything, but it doesn’t.
“If you read the Bible, and fail to find this message, you have read it wrong.”
Ditto 🙂
“Me says: Aha! Mad hominem!!!…. The govt is a crazy Beast. To deal with all day it requires a certain degree of madness. :-)”
Perhaps, but I hope you understand where I am coming from. It appears that you do 🙂 When people are so careful to parse words and carry on the charade that the truth of a given statement is dependent upon technicalities in the parsing of words, they essentially become lawyers.
This is why we have cases such as baseball players saying, “I never received a banned substance from Joe Blow” in their defense against accusations of being hooked up with drugs from the man. They make such statements because they will say, “Well, what’s the definition of banned? And of substance? How about received? And Jack Blow was the one delivering it, not Joe…” Yet, to any honest observer, if Joe Blow used his brother to hand you prescriptions to go to a pharmacy to pick up said drugs, he hooked you up. But, according to the law, he really didn’t. Hence, the careful parsing of words actually denies what everyone already knows is true.
I’d like to avoid that here!
Craig,
When Joe asked you who invented the ME (since you claimed that it was 2nd-century mistake) this was your exact answer:
“Personally I believe it existed as early as Apostolic times. Titus appointed elders (PLURAL) in every city (Tit 1:5), but as soon as Ignatius more than a few of these cities has certain elders viewed as a singular Bishop. So, I am sure more than a few by sheer force of personality and ability rose to the top.”
If you concede that the ME existed since Apostolic times, then it is not new doctrine at all. If it “appeared” in the 2nd century, then it is not the appearance of a new doctrine.
Unfortunately, you also asserted that teaching new doctrines is a mistake. This assertion is debatable. But even if we accept this assertion, the ME will still not be a mistake. Why? Because you already conceded that it is Apostolic! Therefore it is not new. The only way out of this hole is to argue that the ME is not Apostolic. That will show it is a new doctrine.
The interesting part of your answer above is the last sentence where you theorize that from a “Plurality of Elders” (or PM), a few singular Bishops rose to the top and began dominating over ther fellow Elders. You ascribe their rising through “sheer force of ability and personality.” To me, this is Darwinism applied to early Church history.
But St Jerome, being ignorant of Darwinian theory, tells us exactly why a single Bishop was elevated over his fellow “Bishop-Elders”, and why one-man government was adopted. (Let me divide his explanation into verses for better referencing):
“1. But, when it came to pass, that each individual (presbyter) looked on those whom he had baptized, to be an acquisition for himself, not for Christ;
2. every where it was decided, that one presbyter should be chosen, and placed over the others, and that to him the care of the church at large should appertain, thereby to remove every principle of schism.
3. These instances I have brought, to show that presbyters and bishops were, for those of old, one of the same;
4. but that by degrees, the government was restricted to one, in order to do away the possibility of dissentions in the future.
5. As therefore, presbyters should know, that, in virtue of the church usage, they are submitted to their prelate, whosoever he may be..”
In verse 1, he reports a time when presbyters began to misbehave by looking at the converts they baptized as “personal acquisitions” instead of “acquisitions for Christ”. Now when did this happen? The answer is in verse 3, when “presbyters and bishops were, for those of old, one and the same…” In other words, during the era of your PM, when the Church was ruled by an egalitarian council of Presbyters.
In verse 2, he reports that the churches “decided everywhere” to elevate singular Bishops to rule over their fellow “Bishop-Elders”. This was adopted slowly “by degrees” (v.4). This means that the decision did not come from higher authorities, there were no higher authorities during the era of your PM above the egalitarian council of Presbyters.
If the PM was working fine and ain’t broke, why would the churches “by degrees” try to fix it? The problem was it wasn’t working. It was causing divisions (see verses 2 and 4.) Just as egalitarianism failed in the the 19th and 20th centuries, an egalitarian model for governing the Church led to disastrous schisms and dissensions in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
Had Orwell been born in that era, he would have told them that:
“All Bishops are equal to Elders.
But some Bishops are more equal than other Elders.”
Actually, in verse 3, St Jerome pointed out that Bishops and Elders were the same in the beginning. And I don’t dispute this point at all. This is because I am not loaded with presuppositions. The PM initially worked fine when an apostle like Paul can call the shots and tell the “Bishop-Elders” what to do. But the PM without a “principle of unity” above it was doomed to fail. And it did.
Because you were loaded with Protestant presuppositions, you were blindsided, and ended up with a Darwinian-laced theory on the rise of the ME. You failed to perceive what St Jerome was actually reporting about. The PM led to schisms, and schisms broke the unity of the Church. Unlike Protestants today who hardly care that the Church is wounded with all these endless sectarian divisions, the Christians in Jerome’s era were not Protestants. They cared much about not breaking the Church unity. That is why they abandoned the PM and chose the ME.
Jesus is the Truth. The only way to arrive at the truth is to unite with Jesus. Unity is not another object that you can pit against the truth. Unity is an action that you must do to reach the truth. Remember, the sin in Eden broke unity with God. That is why Unity trumps everything else.
Rico,
It looks like we went backwards in this conversation. I will try to reply to what is relevant and informative.
“When Joe asked you who invented the ME (since you claimed that it was 2nd-century mistake) this was your exact answer…”
You got me right between the eyes! Well, not really, in the article you are replying to I offer my rationale, so I think you are replying to something without actually having read it.
But, in short, my answer is there is a difference between De Facto ME with De Jure PM and De Jure ME and no PM, as Catholics contend. My contention is the former, and history and the Scripture bear out the former, but not the latter.
“Unfortunately, you also asserted that teaching new doctrines is a mistake.”
My reasoning was that it conformed too much to Roman society and was too conducive to worldly success, which led to corruption.
“…the ME will still not be a mistake. Why? Because you already conceded that it is Apostolic!”
You need to re-read what I wrote.
“You ascribe their rising through “sheer force of ability and personality.” To me, this is Darwinism applied to early Church history…”
Didn’t we already address this? Look at my previous replies.
“In verse 2, he reports that the churches “decided everywhere” to elevate singular Bishops to rule over their fellow “Bishop-Elders”. This was adopted slowly “by degrees” (v.4). This means that the decision did not come from higher authorities, there were no higher authorities during the era of your PM above the egalitarian council of Presbyters.”
…wait, doesn’t this concede my whole point?!?
“If the PM was working fine and ain’t broke, why would the churches “by degrees” try to fix it?”
Obvious practical considerations that existed after the age of Apostles.
“…an egalitarian model for governing the Church led to disastrous schisms and dissensions in the 1st and 2nd centuries.”
Again, if your argument is that unity trumps purity of doctrine, then really what you are saying is that the church that is the most successful pleases God the most. I just do not see the Biblical warrant for this assumption.
“The PM initially worked fine when an apostle like Paul can call the shots and tell the “Bishop-Elders” what to do. But the PM without a “principle of unity” above it was doomed to fail. And it did.”
Again, this is all our speculation, as the historical records never explain this.
“Because you were loaded with Protestant presuppositions, you were blindsided, and ended up with a Darwinian-laced theory on the rise of the ME.”
Actually, being that the historical record is silent, all we have is speculation. I can argue that my speculation is better than yours, but I do not really think that is what this debate is about.
Again, I will repeat, to change a doctrine that the Apostles taught is to permit men to change any doctrine. And this is the basis of heresies.
“You failed to perceive what St Jerome was actually reporting about.”
Rico, I was not commenting on what he was talking about, I was merely observing that Jerome understood that the PM actually existed, something that Joe denied.
“The PM led to schisms…”
We can only presume, we do not know for sure.
“…and schisms broke the unity of the Church. Unlike Protestants today who hardly care that the Church is wounded with all these endless sectarian divisions…”
Schisms are a terrible wound. Why? The Apostles taught that is so. Paul says, ” I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor 1:10).
Now, if I go about and ignore other things that the Apostles taught, like different ecclesiology than PM, then I merely multiply the wounds.
Every deviation in Apostolic teaching is another wound in the Body of Christ.
“Remember, the sin in Eden broke unity with God. That is why Unity trumps everything else.”
Again, these are all logical speculations in your mind, but the Scripture never makes this statement, or anything remotely close to it. It is a platitude you made up yourself to justify the fact that you believe in a religion that is demonstrably not Apostolic.
God bless,
Craig
Craig,
This is how your arguments look to me:
1. Teaching new doctrines is a mistake.
2. The ME is new doctrine.
3. Therefore, the ME is a mistake.
As I have said previously, premiss #1 is debatable. I don’t agree with it. But to keep this conversation from straying out of topic, I will accept it.
But premiss #2 is problematic. You conceded already that ME is apostolic. Are you now backing off from that position by saying that you argue for a “de facto ME with a de jure PM”? To you, your explanation is clear, but to me its muddled. I do try my best to understand you, but once you bring in other people’s arguments, you muddle your explanations.
Here is what you need to affirm clearly: Is a “de facto ME with a de jure PM” (the one you’re arguing for) apostolic teaching? If it is, then premiss #2 is false. The conclusion in #3 is then false. You cannot say that plain vanilla ME is new doctrine while the “de facto ME with de jure PM” is apostolic. That’s absurd and here’s why:
1. The Kingdom of Heaven is a monarchy
2. The Church subsists within the Kingdom of Heaven
3. Therefore, the Church is a monarchy.
4. A monarchy is meant is to be ruled by a single “principle of unity”
5. The Monarchical Episcopate (ME) rules with a single “principle of unity”
6. Therefore, from #3 and #4, the ME is the ideal rule for the Church.
In contrast
7. The Plurality of Elders (PM) rules without a single “principle of unity”
8. Therefore, if #3 and #4 are true, the PM is a mistake, a deviation from the ideal rule of the Church.
Is my conclusion in #8 historically verifiable? Yes. St Jerome points it out in the very same source you were arguing for the PM! In those areas where the PM alone ruled, where there was no “principle of unity”, dissensions and schisms plagued the churches. These awful consequences forced them to adopt the ME.
Now that we see schisms are the reason for the ME, can you continue speculating that ME evolved because of the “sheer force of personality and ability” by some Bishops? This is no longer a dispute between my speculation versus your speculation, but St Jerome’s word against your phantasy. 🙂
Remember also, that in elevating a single Bishop to rule other “Presbyter Bishops” nothing apostolic was disallowed as you were claiming. The “Presbyter Bishops” continued to rule. Otherwise, the historical records will be full of complaining Bishops who were disallowed from ruling.
Rico,
“This is how your arguments look to me:
1. Teaching new doctrines is a mistake.
2. The ME is new doctrine.
3. Therefore, the ME is a mistake.”
I think that is pretty accurate.
“But premiss #2 is problematic. You conceded already that ME is apostolic. ”
Again, premise 2 is discussed in my response to Job, I recommend you read the article 🙂
“Are you now backing off from that position by saying that you argue for a “de facto ME with a de jure PM”?”
Not really, that was my original position.
“you muddle your explanations.”
Again, please read my reply to Job. I explain how it would work in a church like mine own.
“Here is what you need to affirm clearly: Is a “de facto ME with a de jure PM” (the one you’re arguing for) apostolic teaching?”
No. De Facto was accepted, but not taught to be the actual practice of the Church. Even Peter was a “fellow elder.”
“1. The Kingdom of Heaven is a monarchy”
Yes, God is the King. But even monarchies can have underlings that are not in a monarchic autocrats. So, God is the Autocrat, but the underlings are plural. No contradiction.
“3. Therefore, the Church is a monarchy.”
Your presupposition is that in a monarchy, every one below the king exists in a rigid hierarchy. Even in ancient Israel, Judah was led by “elders” who were below David. That’s a plural. Some leaders were above and below others, so I do not think we can say that Israel is a rigid analogue of what the New Testament church organization is, but I suppose you can try to make that case, but it would be at the expense of ignoring explicit New Testament teachings in favor of your inferences.
“5. The Monarchical Episcopate (ME) rules with a single “principle of unity””
It doesn’t if Christ is not the head. Christ is the Autocrat. If a church is not obedient to what He wills the Church;s ecclesiology to be, then they forfeit their claim to be ruling in submission under Him because they aren’t submitting to Him.
” St Jerome points it out in the very same source you were arguing for the PM!”
I cite Jerome to show that he concedes thee was a Plural Bishopric during Apostolic times. His speculation as to how it changes does not have explicit Biblical warrant.
“St Jerome’s word against your phantasy. :-)”
Or his fantasy, versus my fantasy. Again, I am not here to argue I know for a fact how ME came to be. But I know for a fact that ME once was not.
” Otherwise, the historical records will be full of complaining Bishops who were disallowed from ruling.”
Ancient historical records are always scanty. Only so much can survive time.
GOd bless,
Craig
PS:
You say: “…wait, doesn’t this concede my whole point?!?”
Me says: What?!?…. You didn’t know?!?…. No wonder, the conversation went backwards 🙂
Craig,
I really try my best to understand you but it seems you are shooting from the hips everywhere. I cannot follow your logic because it doesn’t look like it has any coherent structure. Let me illustrate:
At the start, you said:
“Personally I believe it existed as early as Apostolic times. Titus appointed elders (PLURAL) in every city (Tit 1:5), but as soon as Ignatius more than a few of these cities has certain elders viewed as a singular Bishop. So, I AM SURE more than a few by sheer force of personality and ability rose to the top.”
But later you also said:
“Why? I don’t know. I SPECULATE by sheer force of personality and ability, one rose to the top.”
If we let X = your theory (by sheer for of personality and ability, one Bishop rose to the top). You cannot say “I am SURE about X” and at then later say “I SPECULATE about X”. You cannot be darn sure while sheepishly speculating at the same time. Therefore, you contradict yourself.
Let’s have another example:
1. “So, it is a mistake to make NEW doctrines, because Christians believe in an Apostolic religion. The Apostles knew God personally. We want to stick with what they knew to be the true religion, because they knew the risen Lord.”
2. “If we can just go about ignoring what the Apostles taught, then what safeuard do we have against heresy?
3. “Again, I will repeat, to change a doctrine that the Apostles taught is to permit men to change any doctrine. And this is the basis of heresies.
These three statements with appear consistent with each other until we get this:
4. “But, in short, my answer is there is a difference between De Facto ME with De Jure PM and De Jure ME and no PM, as Catholics contend. My contention is the former, and history and the Scripture bear out the former, but not the latter.”
So you are contending for the former, not the latter. This is why I had to ask:
“Is a “de facto ME with a de jure PM” (the one you’re arguing for) apostolic teaching?”
To which you answered:
“NO. De Facto was accepted, but not taught to be the actual practice of the Church. Even Peter was a “fellow elder.”
You were previously asserting that non-apostolic teachings are mistakes and cannot protect against heresies. But here you admit that “de facto ME with de jure PM” (THE ONE YOU ARE ARGUING FOR) is not apostolic. If it is not, then from your arguments in 1 to 3, you’re actually defending a mistake, a heresy. Now why would you do that?
Is it any wonder why you don’t make sense to me?
Now, instead of me re-reading your posts, I think it best that you re-read them yourself? 🙂
Rico, I did not forget about you but life is getting in the way. GOd willing, I shall return. I think if you look up the differences between De Facto and De Jure, your confusion would dissipate. It really is not complicated.
God bless,
Craig
Rico,
“If we let X = your theory (by sheer for of personality and ability, one Bishop rose to the top). You cannot say “I am SURE about X” and at then later say “I SPECULATE about X”. You cannot be darn sure while sheepishly speculating at the same time. Therefore, you contradict yourself.”
I’ll concede to you the point that when I said “I am sure by sheer force of personality” that the word “sure” is not the best word to chose when you are making a speculation. I always said that I had no evidence of any ME, De Facto, or otherwise. However, I think simply understanding human nature and how things work in my own church, that I do not see any other plausible way for the development to occur. So, it’s as sure of a speculation as I can make.
“…you’re actually defending a mistake, a heresy. Now why would you do that?”
You sound very confused. Nothing in the quoted statements can be construed to contradict one another. I said it is a major mistake to deviate from Apostolic teaching and I asserted that ME was not Apostolic teaching. My speculation, that the Apostles allowed for PMs to function like MEs in all but name, cannot be construed to mean that they approved of ME. It just means they would allow for PMs to have a dominant member, but that he can be “vetoed” if necessary and he could not single-handily choose successors without the approval of other Elders. As I said clearly before, my own church works like a De Facto ME…it’s much different than how the Anglican or Catholic Church works.
In the end Rico, the Scripture and history are against you, which is why you are resorting to trying to attack my argumentation on the parsing of words. I am not impressed. Make a real argument, based upon the same data, that does not contradict itself, or show how my interpretation contradicts myself. Hinging your whole argument on my speculation of de facto ME, which is not something in the historical data, makes your position look very weak.
God bless,
Craig
Craig,
Do I sound confused? I am 🙂 … Because your arguments are based on presuppositions made out of thin air. Take a look at your treatment of St Jerome’s explanation as to why the ME was adopted by the churches. You ignore the fact of schisms and dissensions as the true cause.
In other words, St Jerome is accepted as authorititative when he said that Bishops and Presbyters were previously the same, but the same St. Jerome is rejected when he points to schisms as the cause for adopting the ME. And all within the same paragraph!
You know, this is what cherry-picking is all about 🙂
How is it then that I can accept “Bishops are Presbyters” but you cannot accept that “When Bishops are Presbyters, they lead to schisms”? That is a strong indication that neither scripture nor history is on your side.
When the See of Rome was established by St Peter, it was organized as a ME. Bishop Clement later became its Chief Presbyter. The same Bishop Clement told the schismatics in Corinth to bend their knees in subjection to their Presbyters and receive correction. The Presbyters who rule Corinth were subjects under Bishop Clement. That is why he commands their subjection.
St. Jerome and St. Clement are the witnesses you quote for your non-ME arguments and yet a closer examination shows that they hardly agree with you.
Here are my counter-arguments. Sorry, but I have to repeat them because they have not been demolished.
1. The Kingdom of Heaven is a monarchy
2. The Church subsists within the Kingdom of Heaven
3. Therefore, the Church is a monarchy.
4. A monarchy is meant is to be ruled by a single “principle of unity”
5. The Monarchical Episcopate (ME) rules with a single “principle of unity”
6. Therefore, from #3 and #4, the ME is the ideal rule for the Church.
In contrast
7. The Plurality of Elders (PM) rules without a single “principle of unity”
8. Therefore, if #3 and #4 are true, the PM is a mistake, a deviation from the ideal rule of the Church.
If you want to prevent the conclusions in 6 and 8, try demolishing any one of my arguments from 1 to 5. That’s right. You only need one to do it.
Craig,
While life was getting in your way, I did some reading on Clement of Rome. 🙂 Here’s what I found in his first epistle to the Corinthians:
“First Clement” is acknowledged to be the earliest Christian writing outside the NT canon. As such, it gives us a unique glimpse into the mind of the Christians who lived immediately after the apostolic age. Clement of Rome is traditionally known as one of the earliest bishops of the See of Rome, ordained by its first bishop, the Apostle Peter himself. Personally, I found it interesting that the subject of the epistle is the schism in the Corinthian Church. For this alone, it should be required reading for any schismatic. 🙂
The epistle begins with the greeting “The church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the church of God sojourning at Corinth,…” Throughout the letter, it appears that this is a message from one church to another church. But it’s more than that. It’s a rebuke from a superior church to an inferior one!
Here’s some examples (chap 46):
“Why are there strifes, and tumults, and divisions, and schisms, and wars among you? Have we not [all] one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us? And have we not one calling in Christ? Why do we divide and tear in pieces the members of Christ, and raise up strife against our own body, and have reached such a height of madness as to forget that we are members one of another? ”
…
“Your schism has subverted [the faith of] many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. And still your sedition continues.”
“Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you.” (Chap 47)
“It is disgraceful, beloved, yea, highly disgraceful, and unworthy of your Christian profession, that such a thing should be heard of as that the most steadfast and ancient church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its presbyters.”
Sedition! Madness! Schism! Disgrace! (Ouch!)
And here’s what the Church of Rome commanded the Church of Corinth to do:
“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…”
The command is unmistakeable: “Submit and receive correction!”
Now why would the Church of Rome tell the seditionists in the Church of Corinth what to do if they were not under the rule of Clement, the Bishop of Rome?
This is a quick one to reply to. There is nothing in the letter where Clement corrects Corinth as a superior correcting an inferior. Rather, he warns them not to revolt against their own leadership, as the idea of him having leadership over them is not mentioned. Ironically, in the very quotes you wrote, he warns them not to revolt against their Elders, yet in chapter 44 states that they are fighting over the Episcopate…this would mean the Elders were part of the Episcopate, i.e. Bishops. Hence, you disprove your own ecclesiology in one fell swoop.
God bless,
Craig
Craig,
When a command is given, the person issuing the command presumes the authority to do so. This is plain common sense. When his command is obeyed, that is an acknowledgement that the issuer does have authority.
Let me give examples: Suppose you were in a bank doing normal banking transactions when a group of armed men barged in and started shooting in the air. They shout “Everyone, drop to the floor… Hands on your heads!”
Now anyone in that bank knows they don’t have any authority over anyone to issue commands. But these armed thugs PRESUME that they do. That’s the reason for their guns. Yet would anyone resist their order? If everyone else in the bank obeys, it’s an acknowledgement that in fact those thugs do have authority. Now you can choose to refuse them to show you don’t recognize their presumptions, but I just don’t know how long your refusal can last.
Here’s another: When your wife tells you to take the garbage out at night, do you need an explicitly written memo from her to do it? No, I don’t think so. When your wife tells you to do something, she presumes authority over you. And when you comply, it’s a concession to her that she does. Even if it only lasts for two minutes.
Same with Bishop Clement, why do you need to see in the text an explicit statement from his epistle that he has rule over the Corinthian Church? When he commands someone, he presumes rule over him. He commands schismatics, that means he has rule over them. This is simple common sense. Right?
If he were commanding schismatics, and if both Rome and Corinth knew he had no such authority, he would be laughed at. They would view him with contempt. This is exactly what we would have if your imaginary PM was how the churches were ruled.
Again, if Pope Francis were to tell your chief pastor not to teach sola scriptura, would anyone in your church obey him? You know the answer. The Pope has no rule over you, that’s why he never commands your church. And he doesn’t presume he has.
Just curious: Why is it that in the case of St Jerome, when he EXPLICITLY points to schism as the cause for adopting ME, you go BLIND and refuse to acknowledge the cause of the ME? But when Bishop Clement issues orders, you demand his text first show explicitly that he has authority to command others.
When the source text explicitly say something, you refuse to see. But when the text doesn’t say the thing you want it to say, you refuse to believe, even when it is implicit. Why do you do this? You are living by the spirit of the letter, while leaving out the meaning of the letters.
You’re straining out gnats, Craig, while swallowing camels… 🙂
Craig,
You say: “There is nothing in the letter where Clement corrects Corinth as a superior correcting an inferior. Rather, he warns them not to revolt against their own leadership, as the idea of him having leadership over them is not mentioned.”
This is a classic example of how to argue from nothing. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is the weakest form of argumentation next to ad hominem. The text does not have to say “Here is Clement, he has authority, see?” The mere fact that he tells the seditionists to subject themselves to their presbyters “bending the knees of their hearts” is proof enough that St Clement presumes authority to command them.
It would be incredulous to think that Clement had no authority even as he commands others. Do you want to argue this? Go ahead, and destroy St Clement. He is your witness.
You say: “Ironically, in the very quotes you wrote, he warns them not to revolt against their Elders, yet in chapter 44 states that they are fighting over the Episcopate…this would mean the Elders were part of the Episcopate, i.e. Bishops. Hence, you disprove your own ecclesiology in one fell swoop.”
I already conceded long ago that Bishops are Presbyters. You’re not paying attention. The old Catholic Encyclopedia says in explaining the term “Bishop”:
“The historical origin of the episcopate is much controverted: very diverse hypotheses have been proposed to explain the texts of the inspired writings and of the Apostolic Fathers relating to the primitive ecclesiastical hierarchy…
The following facts may be regarded as fully established:
– To some extent, in this early period, the words bishop and priest episkopos and presbyteros) are synonymous (See the article: APOSTOLIC COLLEGE.)
– These terms may designate either simple priests (A. Michiels, Les origines de l’épiscopat. Louvain, 1900, 218 sqq.) or bishops possessing the full powers of their order. (Batiffol. Etudes d’histoire et de théologie positive, Paris, 1902, 266 sqq.: Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l’église. Paris. 1906, 94.)
This encyclopedia is more than 100 years old, and it says that the words bishop, priest, episkopos, and presbyteros are all synonymous. What you’re arguing is really non-controversial to Catholics even a century ago.
Your argument is really one big fallacious straw man 🙂
Craig,
Is there nothing in the First Epistle of Clement to indicate that Bishop Clement had no rule or jurisdiction over the Church of Corinth?
Obviously, if one just cherry-picks texts in order to prooftext, one will definitely fail to see St Clement’s authority, especially if the goal of prooftexting is to show that he doesn’t. But if the goal is to understand the epistle in all its depths, then St Clement’s rule will naturally show itself.
In my response above, I gave you several quotes from the epistle, all of which indicate the tone and language of someone of authority talking to his subjects. You have not been able to refute any of the quotes. In fact, you have not been to explain the quotes to fit your thesis. So let me give you more:
“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…” (Chap 58)
If Bishop Clement had no rule over these schismatics, why would he tell them to YIELD SUBMISSION to God by RECEIVING THEIR (ie, Bishop Clement and the Church of Rome) COUNSEL? Give me an alternate explanation that fits your pet thesis.
“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…” (Chap 57)
Again, why would Bishop Clement tell the schismatics to “submit yourselves” and “learn to be subject” if he had no rule over these schismatics? What is the theological basis for him to command their subjection? Give me an alternate explanation, not some puny denial of the facts.
“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…” (Chap 59)
Here is a serious warning against the schismatics. If they DISOBEY the word of God SPOKEN THROUGH BISHOP CLEMENT, they will commit a serious offense. Now this assertion by St Clement is either true or false. If he has no rule over the Church in Corinth, then obedience to him is optional. To ignore him will incur no penalty from heaven. But if God truly spoke through Bishop Clement, then disobedience is not an option. He who disobeys Bishop Clement disobeys God. If he had no such mandate from Heaven, why would he say this? He would be a liar.
And why does he say he will be “innocent of this sin”? If he fails to warn them, why would he be culpable and liable of the transgression if he had NO JURISDICTION to warn them? The implication is clear: Bishop Clement had an EPISCOPAL duty to warn schismatics or else he too would be guilty of the transgression.
But why would that be his duty? Corinth is so much nearer to Ephesus. At the time of the writing of the epistle, St John the Revelator was still alive at or near Ephesus. The Corinthian Church could have sought the Apostle’s judgement instead. Why did this problem go all the way to Rome? Isn’t there anyone in Corinth, Ephesus, or Asia Minor who could have told the warring factions to stop their madness? Isn’t there a “plurality of elders” in the area who could do the job?
Give me an explanation in which the sedition could better be handled by the imaginary PM you are arguing for. Don’t just ignore the texts, and pretend to be blind.
Or else, that blindness may become permanent… 🙂
Rico,
You have very long, meandering replies, I will do my best given the time crunch.
“When a command is given, the person issuing the command presumes the authority to do so…[Long meandering examples]…Same with Bishop Clement, why do you need to see in the text an explicit statement from his epistle that he has rule over the Corinthian Church?”
Because your examples are not applicable. People all the time write and give advice and opinions to one another. Here’s one, Rico. Rico, I think it is evil that anyone reject the Gospel, which is that through faith in God all that trust in Jesus Christ may escape judgment for their sins. Repent and be saved!
Now, did I just assume authority over you? Of course not. Neither did Clement. He wrote to them that, “Bros, your church is messed up and what you are doing is sinful and embarrassing. The elders and I are hearing about it even in Rome! This is what you should do…”
Your reading of the situation is so extremely eisegeitical, that it would not even require a response if it weren’t for a fact that it is necessary given the tenets of the world’s largest faith. So by sheer numbers of adherents to such argumentation it requires response, but not by its merits. Its merits are ridiculous, no one would read any letter on any topic addressed in the same way and draw the conclusions that you do that the writer presupposes authority.
“Again, if Pope Francis were to tell your chief pastor not to teach sola scriptura, would anyone in your church obey him? You know the answer. The Pope has no rule over you, that’s why he never commands your church. And he doesn’t presume he has.”
However, if R.C. Sproul wrote a personal letter to my Pastor on a subject, convincing him of a topic, he may follow it…not because he has an authority, but by virtue of his position people give a hearing to such people.
“Just curious: Why is it that in the case of St Jerome, when he EXPLICITLY points to schism as the cause for adopting ME, you go BLIND and refuse to acknowledge the cause of the ME? ”
Because the cause of ME is not the issue of debate. The issue is whether it was Apostolic, which Jerome’s reading is that it is not. SO, I am quoting Jerome to bolster the case I am making, not to pass comment on how ME possibly developed, which is a matter of speculation between Jeorme, me, you, or whomever.
“This is a classic example of how to argue from nothing. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
Actually, what you are doing is an argument from silence, but not even a good one. A good argument from silence makes sense when an option is not given for something. For example, the Apostles never writer about there being a single elder. In several passages they wrote about there being several elders per church. Hence, I can safely conclude that because all of the passages say that there are several elders, and no passages say there was only one, that each church had more than one elder; or at the very least this was a normative practice.
Your argument from silence is, “Uh, Clement wrote stuff and people probably listened to him. That must mean he explicitly had authority over him! It’s not like people listened because they merely respected him, or they were convinced by him, or because factions in the church already presupposed his reasoning and this bolstered their arguments, or a plethora of other plausible reasons.”
“This is the weakest form of argumentation next to ad hominem. The text does not have to say “Here is Clement, he has authority, see?” The mere fact that he tells the seditionists to subject themselves to their presbyters “bending the knees of their hearts” is proof enough that St Clement presumes authority to command them.”
No. Again, if I am telling you are wrong and you need to re-read Clement, am I now presupposing I have authority over you? Your argument makes no sense. Clement was calling the men in Corinth out of being wrong and breaking Apostolic practice. If an important religious leader was privy of the goings on of another church and wrote to them, of course people listen to what he has to say even though he exercises no authority over them.
I mean, just look at Ignatius. He was Bishop over only Antioch, but he wrote to six churches where he gave them commands about their Bishops. His language was much more authoritative than Clement’s. Yet, we know he DID NOT exercise authority over those churches. And, of course, you don’t presuppose this with your arguments from silence simply because Ignatius was never called a Pope. So, this just reveals a glaring inconsistency in your reasoning.
As I said before, if your contention wasn’t made by the largest Christian denomination there ever was, it would not even merit response because intellectually it does not hold any water.
“I already conceded long ago that Bishops are Presbyters…”
And you also conceded churches had several Bishops initially as well. So, you have conceded to all the points I have set out to prove. What you keep writing about, I am not quite sure.
“This encyclopedia is more than 100 years old, and it says that the words bishop, priest, episkopos, and presbyteros are all synonymous. What you’re arguing is really non-controversial to Catholics even a century ago.”
It is not my problem that Catholics are inconsistent (i.e. ME is supposedul Apostolic on one hand, concede that PM was the norm on the other). I am just calling them as I see them. Thanks for the citation though.
“Is there nothing in the First Epistle of Clement to indicate that Bishop Clement had no rule or jurisdiction over the Church of Corinth?”
I think the fact that he says he and the elders from Rome are one church and he asks the Corinthians to submit to THEIR elders suffices.
“But if the goal is to understand the epistle in all its depths, then St Clement’s rule will naturally show itself.”
Not really. For the reasons ^^^
“In my response above, I gave you several quotes from the epistle, all of which indicate the tone and language of someone of authority talking to his subjects. You have not been able to refute any of the quotes.”
Go quote them again, go quote “bending the knee of your heart,” they have nothing to do with your contention.
“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…” (Chap 58)
Submission to whom? TO CLement and his authority? No, to God!
“If Bishop Clement had no rule over these schismatics, why would he tell them to YIELD SUBMISSION to God by RECEIVING THEIR (ie, Bishop Clement and the Church of Rome) COUNSEL? Give me an alternate explanation that fits your pet thesis.”
Easy. Here’s my counsel to you: Submit to God and what He reveals in His Scriptures! Repent of your sins and trust in Jesus Christ, and Him alone, for your salvation. Do not add any works to your faith, as if works can save then Christ died for nothing.
Am I now an authority over you?
“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…” (Chap 57)
Oh, you got me, he just said “submit to the Bishop of Rome…” Wait a second! He said to their own Presbyters! Phew, I thought I had to recant my whole position.
“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…” (Chap 59)
Clement was quoting Scripture throughout the letter. It would be like me warning a couple not to divorce and quoting the Scripture in my warning. Again, you need to shoehorn your presupposition in just to even have your reading begin making sense.
“And why does he say he will be “innocent of this sin”? If he fails to warn them, why would he be culpable and liable of the transgression if he had NO JURISDICTION to warn them?”
Read Ezekiel. The blood is on the gatekeeper’s head if he does not warn the people, but if they fail to repent and he warned them, it’s on their heads and not his. Clement had this in mind, he knew his Bible.
“The implication is clear: Bishop Clement had an EPISCOPAL duty to warn schismatics or else he too would be guilty of the transgression.”
No, he had a duty as a Christian to help other Christians, just like Ignatius did when he wrote to many churches.
“Why did this problem go all the way to Rome?”
All roads led to Rome in those days. Why did all those church’s problems go to Ignatius a little later on? Clement and Ignatius took an interest in the affairs of other churches, there is nothing wrong with that.
“Give me an explanation in which the sedition could better be handled by the imaginary PM you are arguing for.”
Honestly, PM works bad with curtailing sedition, because it gives rise to factionalism. People follow personalities. Give them one personality, and at least you get rid of the problem of factionalism (but not the problem of that personality, perhaps!)
However, we have now gone full circle. My argument always was that PM was not necessarily practical, which is why De Facto ME PROBABLY always existed. My point is what is eminently practical is not what is best. We have to be obedient to God and submit to Him, and let Him sort out the details. So if He wants what seems to us a less effective form of Church government, then so be it. He can do all things.
May God bless you and give you wisdom pertaining to this issue, but also the issue of the Gospel,
Craig
Craig,
When armed thugs hit a bank and tell everyone to drop to the floor, and everyone in there obeys, who is in charge? Who is the authority? You ignored this example because it demolishes your idea of authority.
When your wife tells you to take out the garbage at night and you comply, you do so because of your marital relationship. And that bond demands you respect her authority towards you. You also ignored this example.
When you quote scriptures and tell me to repent, do you have authority over me? No. You just imagine you have, but in reality there’s none. You are a schismatic. You don’t value the unity of the Church above everything else. Moreover, even devils know how to quote scriptures. The sheep hears the voice of its Shepherd, and in seeing you distort the texts you read, I don’t hear the voice of my Shepherd.
But when I call you to repent of your schismatic ideas, I do so because it is not the Catholics that broke unity, but Protestants in their obsession for doctrinal purity. We did not leave the fold, you did. And after 500 years of Protestantism, we both know that the only game in your town is schism, not doctrinal purity.
What else are you trying to do when arguing for the PM but justify Protestant schism? Therefore, as a Catholic, I have more claims of authority over you than you over me.
It’s good you pointed out Ezekiel and that it is the GATEKEEPER who will be accountable if he fails to warn others. If so, then you concede St Clement is indeed the gatekeeper, and not some plurality of elders in Ephesus or the nearby churches in Asia Minor. Because then, it will not make sense for him to claim liability for Corinth’s trangression if he wasn’t the gatekeeper there and had no jurisdiction.
I see a terrible defect in the way you read texts. If an account reports a John Doe boarded the cockpit of an airplane, and flew it by himself from New York to Paris, do you have to see explicitly written in the text that he is a pilot? Isn’t his actions a good sign that he is? Aren’t actions supposed to speak louder than words?
But no, if we go by your reading rules, John is not a pilot because it doesn’t say so in the text!
Likewise, Bishop Clement, who has read Ezekiel and the accountable gatekeeper, is not Corinth’s gatekeeper even though he said:
“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…” (Chap 59)
My… What absurdities! 🙂
Rico,
Again let me thank you for your time and for considering these issues. Onto your reply:
“When armed thugs hit a bank and tell everyone to drop to the floor, and everyone in there obeys, who is in charge? Who is the authority?”
So, if someone smacks a woman over the head and rapes her, he is by definition an authority according to you? This idea of yours is weirder than the Twilight Zone. Being that Clement did nothing in which to exert control, even by your strange definition, there is no semblance of him acting as an authority in an institutional sense.
“You ignored this example because it demolishes your idea of authority.”
I think you flatter yourself 🙂
“When you quote scriptures and tell me to repent, do you have authority over me? No. You just imagine you have, but in reality there’s none.”
You’re onto something. Mere expression of having authority does not make one an authority.
“What else are you trying to do when arguing for the PM but justify Protestant schism?”
Have an honest discussion of proper ecclesiology? In the article you are replying to, I link to an article I wrote 1.5 years ago where I defended Catholic ecclesiology. My views have changed, but hardly can you accuse me of adopting a view merely out of convenience which you are essentially doing.
“If so, then you concede St Clement is indeed the gatekeeper, and not some plurality of elders in Ephesus or the nearby churches in Asia Minor.”
All Christians are gatekeepers for other Christians. We are to send out the warning, just as Clement did when it is within our power to do so. I would like to hope that you bother writing to me for your concern for me. Hence, showing concern and trying to correct me does not make you an authority over me.
“I see a terrible defect in the way you read texts.”
Actually, that’s you. I mean, just consider the merits of what you are saying. If the Corinthians are overthrowing their Bishops and not really caring about it, are they recognizing their authority? So, in what sense would they recognize Clement’s supposed authority?
However, if they are committing wrong doing unknowingly and are guilted into repenting, well, that sort of reading actually makes sense. Not surprisingly, this is probably the truth instead of the sort of presupposition you are reading into the text.
God bless,
Craig
Craig,
There are many fatal defects in your thesis regarding the ME. Perhaps the primary and most problematic of all is what you said at the very start:
“What makes the Monarchical Episcopate such an interesting case is that according to some, it is proof that the early Church broke with the earliest recorded Apostolic ecclesiology,..”
Here is where you have painted yourself in a corner for which there is no prospect of extricating yourself. Your aim is to show that the ME is proof that “the early church broke” away from apostolic teaching. Having such preconceived conclusion at the start, it would be nearly impossible to dissuade you with inconvenient facts that contradict your aim. You are then left to refute by using underhanded tactics.
For example, how many silly times do I need to point out that “Bishop are Elders” is a non-issue, not a point of dispute? Yet somehow, this does not sink in. Why? Because by ignoring it, you can go on knocking strawmen. I think you just want to win silly points in a debate.
And how many silly times have you characterized my arguments as arguing for practicality? Yet, not a single argument of mine defends practicality. My whole counter-argument starts with the assertion that “the Kingdom of Heaven is a monarchy” and from there it logically concludes with “the Monarchical Episcopate is the IDEAL rule for the Church”. Where is the argument from practicality there?
I can give a long list of more bad examples, whether it be knocking down strawmen, cherry-picking or misreading text, dismissing or ignoring inconvenient facts. But those are all sad symptoms of a deeper problem. They all stem from the logical consequence of starting a thesis with a preconceived conclusion. It is an unfortunate trap which has entangled you.
When you do that, you make yourself blind and deaf to everything else. That’s unfortunate.
PEOPLE DON’T ALWAYS OBEY AUTHORITY WILLINGLY
There are two signs that point out who is in charge: (1) when a command is given and (2) when the command is obeyed. This does not presuppose that those obeying the command must do so willingly. That is wholly out of the question.
In your example, a woman is assaulted with rape. If she is resisting, then that is a sign she does NOT acknowledge the authority of the attacker who is subduing her. In this case, the presumption of authority does not apply because there is no obedience.
But when your wife tells you to take the garbage out at night, and you comply, that establishes her authority over you. Even if you loudly protest, it does not matter as long as you comply. The principle is established by (1) command and (2) obedience to the command.
The Southern States decided in the 1860s that they have had enough of the Union. They want secession, so they did. But the Northern States invaded them and won. This prevented Southern secession. So who is finally in charge? Who said the South cannot secede? And was this command wilingly followed? Is the South today disobeying the one in charge?
Hawaii was an island monarchy for several centuries until the United States invaded her, overthrew the monarchy in 1893, and annexed the islands to the US in 1898. Who is finally in charge? Who says the US cannot do this? And is the will of the US being obeyed right now in Hawaii or not?
I can go on and on with many other historical examples. I hope you don’t dispute this as it would reveal more about you than my arguments. But the principle of authority is clear: when (1) someone commands, and (2) his commands are obeyed, then (3) that tells us who the boss is. That is the presumption of authority. It doesn’t matter if those obeying do it grudgingly.
If you cannot understand this simple principle, I cannot help you anymore… 😦
This brings us back to St Clement. Did he (1) issue commands to the Church in Corinth? And (2) was he obeyed? You don’t want to hear these question answered because they are inconvenient to your thesis. You prefer to be deaf.
ST CLEMENT IS NOT A LIAR
There are two facts we learn from St Clement: (1) he claims that God spoke through him to tell what the seditionists in Corinth must do and (2) if they don’t obey him, they will fall into serious transgression. These are very extraordinary claims. These are not made by ordinary people without authority. On these two, he is either lying or telling the truth.
Yet these two claims are the very things you cannot tell me if you want me to repent of my errors. (1) You cannot tell me God just spoke to you, and (2) you can’t tell me that if I disobey you, that it will be a serious transgression. These claims are too extraordinary to be claimed by schismatic Protestants. If you assert these, I will only laugh at you to show you have no authority over me.
That’s the stark difference between St Clement and you. He can make extraordinary claims because he has authority. If he were lying about his claims, then he is useless to you as a witness against the ME. We both cannot trust him. But if he is not lying, then you must accept his EXPLICIT authority over Corinth, and that demolishes your thesis.
In short, whether he is lying or not, St Clement is useless to your purposes.
ST IRENAEUS EXPLAINS ST CLEMENT
To understand St Clement, we look through the eyes of St Ireneaus because he lived closer to him than you or anyone else living in the present. St Irenaeus spoke of St Clement’s letter from Rome to address the sedition in Corinth:
“In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace… From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood…” (Against Heresies, book 3, chap 3)
Anyone can write letters to the Church in Corinth to tell them to knock off their rebellious ways. St John the Revelator was still alive in Ephesus when the sedition broke out. Corinth was much nearer to any of the churches around Asia Minor, so why did the problem go all the way to Rome?
According to you, “All roads lead to Rome”. But according to St Ireneaus:
“…we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority…” (Against Heresies, book 3, chap 3).
There are several facts here to note: (1) the very great, very ancient, and universally known Church (2) founded and organized at ROME by the glorious apostles Peter and Paul (3) bears preeminent authority over the other churches. Therefore, (4) it is NECESSARY for every Church to agree with the Church in ROME. Those are the plain facts.
Between you and St Ireneaus, there is no compelling reason to believe your silly theory “all roads lead to Rome.” St John the Revelator could have written a letter himself to Corinth. If not him, any “plurality of elders” in the churches nearby could do it. But none of them can because it is not a simple problem of writing letters.
St Ireneaus puts it bluntly: all other churches MUST AGREE with the Church in Rome. That is why the problem went all the way there. Only the Church of Rome could tell Corinth to knock it off. No other Church in Asia Minor could do it. It is a problem of preeminence, and therefore, of final authority.
And the Church of Corinth obeyed!
But the thing that really sets St Irenaeus a world apart from you is this: He does not view St Clement from the perspective of a 500-year old schismatic Protestantism. You do, and that makes your view on St Clement truly questionable.
This brings us back to your important question: What safeguard do we have against heresy? Answer: By agreeing with the Church in Rome. I know that no Protestant likes this inconvenient answer. Unfortunately, that’s why I know St Irenaeus is no Protestant.
But these facts are inconvenient because you have set out to show from the very start that the Church in Rome has broken away from apostolic teaching. This presupposes that you are a higher and more final authority than the Church in Rome. You appoint yourself as a judge over her, instead of you being subject to her. That’s sad. Because when you do this, you dig a hole to bury yourself.
[more on St Clement later…. when I have more time]
Craig,
At the start of your debate with John H, you brought out texts from the NT to prove your plurality of elders model (PM). The interpretation of those texts presupposes that you know better than the mind of the Roman Catholic Church which inherited the mantle of the apostles. But as always, there is no compelling reason to believe why your understanding of the NT texts is better, especially when compared with St Clement.
The stark difference between St Clement and you is that his view of apostolic teaching is not distorted by 500-years of schismatic Protestantism. That’s a fact, and no matter how inconvenient it is to you, it has to be stated. You are loaded with biases that are completely non-existent among the Early Church Fathers. Having said that, we dive into St Clement’s teachings:
APOSTOLIC TEACHING AS INHERITED BY ST. CLEMENT
Chapter 37. Christ is Our Leader, and We His Soldiers.
“Let us then, men and brethren, with all energy act the part of soldiers, in accordance with His holy commandments. Let us consider those who serve under our generals, with what order, obedience, and submissiveness they perform the things which are commanded them. All are not prefects, nor commanders of a thousand, nor of a hundred, nor of fifty, nor the like, but each one in his own rank performs the things commanded by the king and the generals. … But all work harmoniously together, and are under one common rule for the preservation of the whole body.”
The inconvenient facts in this chapter show that there is (1) the King (2) and his generals and (3) the rest are soldiers. Not everyone is (4) a prefect or commander of thousands, hundreds, nor fifties. Each is to (5) perform the COMMANDMENTS given him according to his RANK. All should work (6) harmoniously under ONE COMMON RULE (7) for the PRESERVATION OF THE BODY.
St Clement sees the Church as a HIERARCHY of soldiers of different RANKS. The Church is literally an army. This is a picture I brought out at the start of this discussion. Every soldier obeys his commander, the highest being the King and his Generals. This is not the picture you see in schismatic Protestantism. There is not one common rule in it. Each man is for himself. Sola scriptura is the poisonous doctrine that gives license to every nutcase who can quote the Bible to start a church.
As a Catholic, I am subject to my parish priest, who is subject to his Bishop, who is subject to the Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis himself. If my parish priest thinks his Bishop is nuts, he cannot just breakaway and start a new church. That is the picture of the Church as St Clement sees it. There is one common rule.
Therefore, St Clement exhorts Christians to obey a principle impossible under schismatic Protestantism:
“Let our whole body, then, be preserved in Christ Jesus; and let every one be SUBJECT to his neighbour, according to the special gift bestowed upon him. (chap 38)
Once we see that St Clement sees every Christian as being subject to one another according to their special gift or calling, or rank or position in the Church, we know that your PM is in trouble.
And we have only just begun….
(To be continued… when I have more time)
Rico,
“At the start of your debate with John H…”
I am sure you mean Joe.
“The interpretation of those texts presupposes that you know better than the mind of the Roman Catholic Church which inherited the mantle of the apostles.”
No, the modern Roman Catholic Church presupposes they know better than the men who wrote Clement, Didache, Polycarp, and Ignatius who actually did inherit the mantle of the Apostles. Only Polycarp shares their view. Clement and Didache explicitly are against it.
“But as always, there is no compelling reason to believe why your understanding of the NT texts is better, especially when compared with St Clement.”
But he agrees with me, so this is a confusing statement. Your reading of Clement is that by offering brotherly advice he was assuming control over the Corinthians. I think I will stick to my non-major leap of the imagination interpretation.
“The stark difference between St Clement and you is that his view of apostolic teaching is not distorted by 500-years of schismatic Protestantism.”
Maybe your teaching is distorted by 1900 years of time as well.
“The inconvenient facts in this chapter show that there is (1) the King (2) and his generals and (3) the rest are soldiers. Not everyone is (4) a prefect or commander of thousands, hundreds, nor fifties. Each is to (5) perform the COMMANDMENTS given him according to his RANK. All should work (6) harmoniously under ONE COMMON RULE (7) for the PRESERVATION OF THE BODY.”
Read the chapter before. The head is Christ, not a Pope. So if Christ is the King, an the Generals are his Apostles/Bishops, and the rest are soldiers (laity), your metaphor just broke down and disproved your whole contention.
“As a Catholic, I am subject to my parish priest, who is subject to his Bishop, who is subject to the Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis himself.”
But Clement said there were “Generals” and the King of Christ, so the above does not work.
“Once we see that St Clement sees every Christian as being subject to one another according to their special gift or calling, or rank or position in the Church, we know that your PM is in trouble. ”
I very much appreciate your interest, but I suggest you read Clement from beginning to end as a piece of joy reading, and not simply trying to grab sections out of context to try to prove your point because you are bungling Clement very badly.
God bless,
Craig
Craig,
There is nothing in my arguments to imply that the Pope is the King in the Church. In fact, to assert such nonsense is not Catholic doctrine. Therefore, this is another example of a strawman you’re trying to knock down.
When I asserted the principle of “One Common Rule” that exists in the RCC, a hierarchical principle explicitly described by St Clement, why didn’t you mention if your Protestantism is also dictated by “One Common Rule”? Do you actually have one? If so, where is it? Instead of one united army fighting a common enemy, perhaps Protestantism is nothing but a large collection of lost units shooting each other in the battlefield. Say it isn’t so…
In refuting the ancient heresies, St Ireneaus asserts that all the churches must agree with the Church in Rome. This he said in the same book and chapter where he mentioned St Clement’s “most powerful” letter that addressed the large sedition in Corinth. Does your church agree with the Church in Rome? Or do you refuse to be subject to it? Explain why.
These are the meaty topics you ought to be tackling, and not nitpick on the typo between “John H” and “Joe H”. That’s called straining out gnats, while swallowing camels… 🙂
Hey Rico, give me a little bit…Don’t forget Joe’s name in the meantime 🙂
“If there is a chapter that proves why St Clement is not agreeable to the Plurality of Elders (PM) you are advocating, it would be chapter 40.”
How so? Clement writes, “it behooves us to do all things in [their proper] order.” What;s the proper order? How do you know this standard? You will find yourself using a different standard that Clement himself uses in the letter, and thereby refute yourself.
“Clement referring to by calling them High Priest, Priest, and Levite? When this epistle was written, it’s been some 30 years since the Romans destroyed the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD.”
I disagree. The letter was clearly written not long after 70AD at the very latest. Please see http://christianreformedtheology.com/2014/09/28/historical-context-behind-1-clement/
“The whole chapter makes no sense unless we concede that St Clement is talking of the (1) Bishop as the High Priest, (2) the Presbyters as the Priests, and (3) the Deacons as the Levites.”
I assert that the High Priest is Christ, the Priests are Bishops/Elders, and the deacons are levites.
My evidence is that nowhere in the letter are Bishops equated to a high priest. The term high priest is used 5 times. In chapters 36, 61 and 64 Jesus is called the High Priest. In chapter 40-41, the Jewish high priest is mentioned. Your presupposition leads to you as believing the high priest in 40 and 41 is the Bishop. However, if you actually go by the text, Jesus is the better answer.
Further, you got into this whole non sequitur because you have been dating that “internal evidence” in 1 Clement shows he had authority over Corinth. I don’t see where you are going with this.
“There is no such thing as a Plurality of Elders. A council of Elders without a Bishop to act as a Chief Elder is an anomaly.”
According to you. Yet, according to Clement in 1 Clem 42, the Corinthians were rebelling against the Episcopate by kicking out their elders. This clearly conflates the two.
“And St Ireneaus says all the Churches are to agree with the Church in Rome.”
Again, because of the preservation of doctrine, not because of there being an eternally preserved successor to the Apostles there.
“It is to torture the texts until they confess what the torturer wants to hear.”
Ironically, that is exactly how your reading sounds to me. You read metaphors where and how you want to, but you actually neglect how Clement uses the metaphor himself. I don’t consider this intellectually respectable.
“There is nothing in my arguments to imply that the Pope is the King in the Church.”
Your whole point in the following does not make sense without that implication:
“The inconvenient facts in this chapter show that there is (1) the King (2) and his generals and (3) the rest are soldiers…St Clement sees the Church as a HIERARCHY of soldiers of different RANKS…This is a picture I brought out at the start of this discussion. Every soldier obeys his commander, the highest being the King and his Generals…As a Catholic, I am subject to my parish priest, who is subject to his Bishop, who is subject to the Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis himself.”
Your point in the above was confusing–now I know you meant to say Bishops->Deacons->Laity. Your reference to Pope Francis, a singular Bishop, seemed to imply he is king.
“When I asserted the principle of “One Common Rule” that exists in the RCC, a hierarchical principle explicitly described by St Clement, why didn’t you mention if your Protestantism is also dictated by “One Common Rule”? Do you actually have one?”
Of course. God -> Elders/Bishops of their respective churches -> Laity. All are under God, GOd reveals Himself in the Scripture. Pretty simple, actually.
“In refuting the ancient heresies, St Ireneaus asserts that all the churches must agree with the Church in Rome…”
In doctrine. And, he didn’t pass comment on the idea that Rome is the eternal preserver of doctrine. That’s something you just presume.
“Does your church agree with the Church in Rome? Or do you refuse to be subject to it? Explain why.”
Because your church of Rome contradicts the teachings of the church of Rome when Clement wrote his letter to Corinth. This is why I ask you to actually read the letter.
God bless
Craig
Craig,
If there is a chapter that proves why St Clement is not agreeable to the Plurality of Elders (PM) you are advocating, it would be chapter 40. This reminds me of a debate between Christian philosopher William Lane Craig and militant atheist Richard Carrier. In a post-debate analysis, Craig shows why no one should believe Carrier in his readings of the historical source texts he uses. Carrier can read the NT and “prove” that the Apostle Paul is an atheist. You and Carrier exhibit the same reading skills.
Here’s why:
“Chapter 40. Let Us Preserve in the Church the Order Appointed by God.
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’s gather the facts from above:
According to St Clement, the Lord himself commanded (1) that offerings should performed in their proper order, at the (2) appointed times and hours, at the (3) appointed place, and by the (4) appointed person. He fixed this according to his own (5) Supreme Will. Let’s pause at this point and do a quick Bible quiz:
Where in the NT did the Lord Jesus fix the exact order of offering sacrifices, the appointed times, place, and persons who may offer it? If you have studied the NT a bit more deeply, you should know the book, chapter, verse to this question.
It should be reasonable to expect that after 500-years of sola scriptura Protestantism, the answer should have been found centuries ago.
While you’re searching for that, let’s get more facts:
According to St Clement, (1) those who follow the accepted order of presenting offerings are accepted and blessed by God. These services involved peculiar assignments unique to the (2) HIGH PRIEST, to (3) PRIESTS, (4) and LEVITES. The LAYMAN (5) is bound by the rules according to laymen.
Leaving out the laymen from this discussion, which persons are St Clement referring to by calling them High Priest, Priest, and Levite? When this epistle was written, it’s been some 30 years since the Romans destroyed the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD. Most definitely, he is not talking about the ancient rituals of the OT. If there is no visible temple, where are these high priests, priests, and levites going to present offerings at the appointed times and place that the Lord Jesus himself affixed?
The whole chapter makes no sense unless we concede that St Clement is talking of the (1) Bishop as the High Priest, (2) the Presbyters as the Priests, and (3) the Deacons as the Levites. The offering is of course no other than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that Catholics commemorate. No other explanation will make sense.
And just as the ancient High Priest of the OT is really a Levitical priest appointed and elevated to enter the Holy of Holies, the Christian Bishop is really a Presbyter. An OT High Priest is a Chief Priest, while a NT Bishop is a Chief Presbyter.
There is no such thing as a Plurality of Elders. A council of Elders without a Bishop to act as a Chief Elder is an anomaly. The PM is the mistake, not the ME.
But if you disagree, give an alternate explanation as to who the High Priest, Priests, and Levites are in the Christian Church. Tell me how an ecclesiastical order with a hierarchical ranking as St Clement describes the Church can fit your imaginary PM. I assure you, it will not.
As I have shown here, the entire concept of an order instituted by the Lord Jesus himself permeates St Clement’s whole epistle. There is one common rule. There is the King, his Generals, the different commanders of thousands, hundreds, fifties, the entire army obeying their King. There is hierarchy, and everyone is commanded to be subject according to their rank. The seditionists are told to yield to their commanders. And St Clement claims that this is God’s word spoken through him for which disobedience is a serious sin.
And St Ireneaus says all the Churches are to agree with the Church in Rome.
Therefore to use St Clement as a witness to a phantom PM is to do a Richard Carrier. It is to torture the texts until they confess what the torturer wants to hear.
(Next we read St Paul through the eyes of St Clement… to be continued)
Hi Craig,
I don’t know if this thread is still open.
When do you think the Single Bishop became a Single Ruling Bishop?
Jerome letter #146 seems to state that the Single Bishop was not a ruling Bishop at that point in time. Do you agree? Have you addressed this?
Thanks.
Three-quarters of the evidence could be argued both ways, but in any event it does seem clear that early churches either had several Bishops or that they were training Bishop to be sent out to other churches
Thanks. But when do you think bishops became “single ruling bishops” with significantly more power than the elders?
I also wonder why Jerome sounds so presbyterian while Ignatius sounds like a Pope from the Middle Ages.
In retrospect I think Jerome it’s just speculating cuz what he says is mentioned by nobody else in church history
Jerome was writing several centuries after the fact
If I had to guess it would be that certain churches did have several bishops but those men did not stay in the city but went founded other churches. After the age of the Apostles and the oncoming persecutions the rate of growth probably decreased and so churches rarely had more than one Bishop outside of a city and growth was concentrated with ina City
If that is the case Ignatius would have had reason to warn people to submit to the chief Bishop in their City
This is all speculation it’s the Presbyterian model does have credibility in light of the Greek in the scriptures and in the first letter of Clement
BTW, I appreciate your blog. You seem very reasonable and open to all the evidence. Willing to take it wherever it leads.
Your post on the Syriac recension of Ignatius is great. Where do you come out? An Orthodox friend of mine thinks it is unreasonable to harbor any doubts about the Greek short recension.
In light of Jerome, I have my questions about Ignatius.
Thanks.
I think as the post makes clear the jury is out. One thing I can say however which is said in the post that I wrote as a Protestant and that is the ecclesiology that is that question in the Greek tradition is also found in the syriac just in much less words.
As I recall, the Syriac only supports a single bishop, but says nothing about his power or role in comparison to the presbyteroi. It is relatively easy to reconcile with Jerome.
The Greek recension has very strong language (“the Bishop presiding in the place of God” and the presbyteroi like the apostles). This is much stronger support for a powerful bishop.
This language is hard to reconcile with what Jerome has to say 300 years later.
I don’t remember than when reading the syriac, both appear to support the monarchic episcopacy.
That was in your original post, some of which is pasted below. After reading your post, I did some further checking. Magnesians is not in the Syriac, and that contains the strongest language.
________
“The Syriac letters do not read as sloppy abridgments. They flow very naturally, if not more naturally than the Greek versions which weirdly remind every single church to submit to a Bishop at every single turn of phrase. In the Greek letters, the reader may surmise that there was a general insurrection going on against Bishops in the near east at this time! In the Syriac version, there is not a hint of this.
The Syriac also lacks the formulation “do nothing apart from the Bishop,” which is used in nearly all the Greek letters. While politicians and ad execs will repeat slogans over and over, this is not common in ancient letter writing. Rather, it would appear that a forger took older epistles and added the same jargon over and over, as he had limited creativity.”