Combox for:
John Calvin's Rejection of the Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 110) and Tim Enloe's Ignorance of This Fact
[7 June 2009]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...pistles-
of.html
I posted the following in Tim's combox:
* * *
"As if the Reformers themselves never read Igantius or the other Church Fathers, . . ."
Not only did Calvin not accept what St. Ignatius taught in his epistles; he didn't even accept them as genuine. So he can hardly have incorporated the data therein into his apologetic. For him, the Ignatian corpus was entirely out of the equation of Protestant-Catholic disputation. Therefore, your statement above is shown to be a misguided non sequitur, insofar as John Calvin is concerned.
It's quite surprising that you weren't even familiar with the basic outlines of the history of the rather well-known dispute over the authenticity of the Ignatian epistles.
For more on that, see my paper:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...pistles-
of.html
"I’m already feeling weary in my bones at contemplating taking the time to write two more segments on Evangelical converts and Calvinist converts."
Yeah, I agree (for your own good) that you should immediately cease doing these psychoanalyses of Catholic converts. You're looking sillier by the day and it can only get worse. I think it'd be great fun if you continue, but alas, we must exercise Christian charity . . .
* * *
In case it is removed, here is the URL of the posting:
http://www.tgenloe.com/?p=1676#c...676#comment-
807
It went up at 6:30 PM EST on 6-7-09 (4:27 PM on his blog).
Interesting. Do many protestants still hold this? It is pretty easy to go hyper-skeptical on authorship of anything in the 1st century. We have seen that with the New Testament books. Even evidence that is excellent by historical standards can easily be dismissed if somebody wants to do so.
It is interesting to me that he felt the need to do this. Modern protestants don't. So Calvin was in some ways less inclined to simply ignore ECF's that protestants are today.
One scholar who established the authenticiity of the seven-letter Ignatian recension early on was James Ussher, the very Protestant, and indeed Calvinist anti-Catholic, Anglican Archbishoip of Armagh. Ussher was active in the early part of the 17th century and was illustrious as a scholar (if not as a theologian). Authenticity was the mainstream view among Protestants, even before the 19th century (Calvin excepted, of course).
Calvin used the Fathers the way Protestants like Bill Webster do now. He ripped isolated statements out of context if he thought they could gve some color of support to his views and then ignored the rest. That is evident in the excerpts from the Institutes that Dave is providing.
Calvin made no scholarly contributions. His opinions were influential, not his entirely derivative scholarship.
Joseph Barber Lightfoot (J B Lightfoot) did the authenticity of Ignatius Letters. Philip Schaff has a interesting take on the authenticity of the Ignatius letters. He says "A decision in the matter has not yet been reached, though it may not be so very far off.
Philip Schaff writes ""Protestant theologians (the Magdeburg Centuries, Calvin) rejected them.
I don't think anyone rejects their authenticity today. Now the game is to try to minimize the clear Catholic implications of the text.
I made another comment on Tim's site, replying to two other commenters:
* * *
The fact remains that Calvin rejected the entire corpus as then known, including all the letters that we now know to be authentic. Throw the baby out with the bathwater: a time-honored early Protestant tradition.
As time went on, thankfully both Catholics and Protestant scholars became more concerned for accuracy in such matters, not tendentious conclusions based on prior theological preference.
But Tim wants to keep the tradition of polemics over facts going, and his zeal caused him to make an unwarranted statement about the "reformers" and Ignatius. Martin Chemnitz and many Lutherans rejected them as well.
Calvin rejected the Epistles of St. Ignatius? Why be surprised? After all, Ignatius was way too “Romish”. And of course anything “Romish” simply had to go (except the epistle to the Romans!)!
Found this on the net (just blithering nonsense!):
Calvin maintains that the human heart is also led into the error of idolatry through its love of ceremony and ritual (A good study of Calvin's view of ceremonies is T.W. Street's John Calvin on Adiaphora [Ph.D. dissertation, Union Theological Seminary, New York, 1954], pp. 208-16). Calvin attacks the excessive and improper use of ceremonies by the Catholic church as a denial of spiritual worship. First, because it is an abrogation of God's commands; secondly, because it often entails the improper use of material paraphernalia; and finally because it is often taken to be some sort of automatic communication between God and man. Humanly devised ceremonies are a bold affront to God's power, honor, and freedom. Through them men attempt to worship God as they please and to bind His power to specific situations....
Sounding a bit like the Luther of the Table Talk, though somewhat more restrained, Calvin expands upon this theme by comparing idolaters to latrine cleaners:
"Just as a 'maistre Fifi' mocks those who hold their noses (in his presence), because he has handled filth for so long that he can no longer smell his own foulness; so likewise do idolaters make light of those who are offended by a stench they cannot themselves recognize. Hardened by habit, they sit in their own excrement, and yet believe they are surrounded by roses" (Excuse, CR 6.595. ['Maistre Fifi' is a sixteenth-century French slang term for a latrine or sewer cleaner.])
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/act...NLs/ blastjj.htm
EXCUSE À MESSIEURS LES NICODEMITES, 1544, Calvin’s Opera, (1867), vol. 6, p. 595 (Corpus Reformatorum, vol. 34.). http://books.google.com/books?id...+Fifi% 22+calvin
The whole reformation was just a bad case of Rome rage I'd say!
LOL.
ROFL More verbal diarrhea from Calvin . . .
LOL (again)!
And so much for Geneva being “the maist perfyt schoole of Chryst that ever was in the erth since the dayis of the Apostillis”!
See letter of John Knox to Anna Locke, December 9, 1556.
http://books.google.com/books?id...+schoole%22&
lr=
But see also vol. 1, pp. 196-199 of John Knox A Biography, Peter Hume Brown (1895).
http://books.google.com/books?
id...brr=0#PPA196,M1
____________
“Be not like these heretics, who, because they have nothing to plead in defense of their schism, attempt nothing beyond heaping up charges against the men from whom they are separated…”
St. Augustine, letter 78:8.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...ers/
1102078.htm
I'm sorry. I don't get it.
I've read Ignatius' seven epistles--repeatedly. I don't understand the problem.
1. CHURCH LEADERSHIP
Is there any doubt about the history of bishops and elders (presbyters)?
Paul and Peter used bishop and elder (episkopos and presbuteros) interchangeably of the same men and clearly established churches with multiple bishops (Acts 20:17,28; 1 Pet. 5:1-4).
This is all the more established by the fact that Clement of Rome speaks of only two offices (1 Clement 42,44), as does Polycarp's letter to Philippi. Even Ignatius' letter to Rome doesn't mention a bishop.
John's churches, on the other hand, clearly had just one bishop with its group of elders. Ignatius' letters, the comments in 3 Jn, the letters in Rev. 2 & 3, and statements by Irenaeus all make this clear.
Sometime in the early 2nd century, John's practice--not surprisingly, as it's a lot more natural--won out in virtually all churches.
All of that seems obvious enough to be undeniable.
2. SUBMISSION TO THE BISHOP
Personally, I think Ignatius over-emphasized submission to the bishop, trying to establish order that did not exist in order to get the gnostic problem under control.
Calvin, however, could be said to have wholeheartedly followed Ignatius' advice on bishops, ruling rather despotically in Geneva even if he had a council to pretend to answer to.
I don't know Calvin's history like I know early church history, but I really don't understand Calvin's problem with Ignatius' letters.
Now Calvin has a point here. Human much be careful about simply changing liturgy any way they please. But is it the Catholics who do that? They are the ones who try and pray in a way that obeys what god has revealed through tradition. Protestants feel like innovation in worship is a virtue. So they need to read Calvin's quote.
I'm sorry. I don't get it.
I've read Ignatius' seven epistles--repeatedly. I don't understand the problem.
1. CHURCH LEADERSHIP
Is there any doubt about the history of bishops and elders (presbyters)?
Lot of bravado here. You have to be a protestant. I looked at your website. You admit you are not a history scholar and that you have an anti-Catholic bias javeing rejected Catholicism as a teen. So you are hugely confident yet mostly unqualified. Good to know.
If you want a counter argument try this one:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologeti...ogetics/
a80.htm
Religion is all about "ceremonies and rituals." Without those, we just have discussion groups. Calvin had ceased to believe in sacraments; i.e., that signs could be effective.
The ancients would never have bothered with baptism and the eucharist had they thought they were empty signs. There were no rites in ancient and medieval times that were conceived of as mere words and gestures that did nothing.
The reason the Reformation was even possible was that people came to think of sacraments as activities that merely pointed to a spiritual reality rather than enacting it and making it present. The view of the sacred sign assumed by Calvin was utterly absent from any ancient or medieval mind.
Calvin had not quite arrived at the crackers and grape juice rites of modern evangelicalism. But he was already there essentially. For him, for example, baptism did not necessarily effect regeneration and so it was really just a show.
Ironic how a man who railed against supposedly empty ceremonies actually filled the world with truly empty ceremonies.
Lot of bravado here. You have to be a protestant. I looked at your website. You admit you are not a history scholar and that you have an anti-Catholic bias having rejected Catholicism as a teen. So you are hugely confident yet mostly unqualified. Good to know.
Let's stick to the argument, and not folks' motives and qualifications. No one is a scholar or theologian here. I'm certainly not, so I don't see how bringing that up is relevant. We are entitled to have opinions, even though we may not have a Ph.D.
Re: submission that didn't exist
Well, if everybody was happy with what was going on, it wasn't a matter of submission or rebellion. The bishop does his job, I do mine, everybody's happy. Same as a family.
Iggy is opining that, just as a family member would normally defer to the dad in a dad's command areas (admittedly rather wide areas in Roman tradition and law, and not much less in Jewish or Greek), even if the dad is somewhat less than agreeable or competent, so the Christian should let the bishop do his job.
It really wasn't asking much, as an early Christian bishop didn't exercise _nearly_ as much authority as a pater familias. And the pater familias lived with you, whereas the bishop lives somewhere blocks and blocks away! 
Let's stick to the argument, and not folks' motives and qualifications. No one is a scholar or theologian here. I'm certainly not, so I don't see how bringing that up is relevant. We are entitled to have opinions, even though we may not have a Ph.D.
You are missing the point. He does seem to claim his opinion carries some weight. That is why he starts the way he does. His post is more assertion than argument. So when he says something like:
Personally, I think Ignatius over-emphasized submission to the bishop, trying to establish order that did not exist in order to get the gnostic problem under control.
It matters to me whether the person knows his stuff or not. For a protestant to simply state that Ignatius is a lot more protestant in his thinking than his actual words seem to indicate. I will take that seriously if I believe he is swayed more by the evidence than by his faith tradition. I don't get that comfort level with Paul.
So perhaps scholar is not the word. I just want a sense that somebody can be fair with the data. Scholars are trained to do that but significant bias can remain.
I think there is a point to be made there, to some extent, but that it can be made in a less ""polemical" or "adversarial" way. Just some friendly advice . . .
Very fine post Dave!
I didn't know this was the case with St Ignatius, but it's very good information to know. I would have never guessed, nor would Tim (as it is clear).
The problem with Tim is that he is like James Swan. Both are good in one field, but ultimately they cannot actually defend their own theological positions. They are not 'apologists' in that regard. That's what's so ironic about Tim making this specific series, because he certainly would fall into the very position he's caricaturing right now, except in what is essentially the reverse direction of a Protestant to Rome convert.
That's why I appreciate your work, because it does approach the issues from a Scriptural, Historical, and Theological perspective, all at once. People like Tim only have the historical aspect, but without the Scriptural and Theological aspects interwoven the Historical aspect will certainly be skewed.
Well, thank you kindly.
Man, I wish Tim would defend his arguments once in a blue moon. I've always marveled at his unwillingness (or inability?) to do so.
I think it's a classic case of "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
I just came across something interesting. It appears James Swan just today posted a new article on AOMin regarding Sola Scriptura. That's the first I've seen him put up in a long time.
It should be a joy for Dave to refute. The linchpin is in Swan's "period of inscripturation" comments, a concept which is not taught in Scripture!
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/inde...php?
itemid=3319
I don't debate anti-Catholics anymore. That has been my policy for a good year-and-a-half now, after seven of them flatly refused to debate the definition of "Christianity." First things first.
I'm sure you could dismantle it. Anyone with a working knowledge of Catholic apologetics and theology could easily do so.
Sola Scriptura is not taught in scripture. The Bible does not teach what the definition Sola Scriptura is whats its not. Just more false assumptions of what they want sola scriptura to be.
An assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderence of the facts
When St. Timothy read 2 Tim 3:16 did he start believing in Sola Scriptura and start teaching it to others Christains? Or did he say wait this means Bible Alone but you have to wait to pratice this doctrine untill the death of the last Apostle?
Frank Jerry wrote
"Be that as it may, how could the Apostles teach sola scriptura while new revelation was still being given? They couldn't. That means that any verse used by Protestants today to try and justify "sola scriptura" is merely a twisting and distorting of Scripture to mean something it didn't mean at the time of Christ and the Apostles. The Bible's meaning can't change. If it wasn't taught from the very beginning and was a novel idea introduced later on, how could you possibly accept it as divine revelation?
Tim Enloe writes
Now of course it is also true that sometimes there was a gap of time between the oral giving and the written transmission--as with the several decades that elapsed between Jesus' ascension and the writing of the Gospels, and then the further decades that elapsed before the New Testament was finished. During such transitional phases, it is obviously the case that sola Scriptura was not functioning--"the Word of God" in such periods would have been partly written and partly orally-proclaimed. So what?"
I guess Randy is a little jumpy. It's a sign of not being able to defend your position very well. Say whatever you want about me, I gave good reasons for the things I said. All you had in defense was complaints about my qualifications.
For Dave: I should have paid better attention to what I wrote. I "spoke" rather freely because I wasn't trying to disagree.
I should have thought about the fact that my very strong suggestion that the church in Rome was ruled by elders all called bishops would be offensive to Catholics.
I wasn't paying attention because I was thinking about Calvin, not Catholics. My "I don't get it" was real, and I was talking about Calvin.
Surely even Calvin had to realize that at least by the 2nd century churches were ruled by one bishop. I don't understand, then, why Ignatius, a 2nd century bishop, would have offended him.
Did Calvin deny that John's churches had on bishop as leader?
Even if he did deny it, it seems bizarre that he would be offended by monarchial leadership when he was such a monarch himself.
That's what I was trying to say even in my first post.
Btw, I read Randy's link. Mr. Bonocore states some things that I agree are just facts. John's churches were led by one bishop. Jerusalem was led by James, whether he was called a bishop or not (even when the apostles were there!!!).
He also speculates on bishops and presbyters in 1st century churches like Rome, attributing the lack of a monarchial bishop to semantics. I don't agree with his speculation. I think my reasoning's much more likely.
But that's not why I posted on this thread. I posted to address Calvin. It seemed to me like Calvin would have been able to defend presbyterian rule in Rome and even used Ignatius' letter to Rome to help defend it.
I guess Calvin didn't see it that way.
Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place....Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present....Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church."
Council of Ephesus,Session III (A.D. 431),in GILES,252
We confessed that we hold, preserve, and declare to the holy churches that confession of faith which the 318 holy Fathers more at length set forth, who were gathered together at Nice, who handed down the holy mathema or creed. Moreover, the 150 gathered together at Constantinople set forth our faith, who followed that same confession of faith and explained it. And the consent of fire 200 holy fathers gathered for the same faith in the first Council of Ephesus. And what things were defined by the 630 gathered at Chalcedon for the one and the same faith, which they both followed and taught. And all those wile from time to time have been condemned or anathematized by the Catholic Church, and by the aforesaid four Councils, we confessed that we hold them condemned and anathematized."
Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II,Sentence of the Synod(A.D. 553),in NPNF2,XIV:307
Examples there are without number: but to be brief, we will take one, and that, in preference to others, from the Apostolic See, so that it may be clearer than day to every one with how great energy, with how great zeal, with how great earnestness, the blessed successors of the blessed apostles have constantly defended the integrity of the religion which they have once received."
Vincent of Lerins,Commonitories,6:15(A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XI:135
I read Mr. Swan's puff piece over at AOMin. It is rather a shallow argument particularly when he refuses to recognize that outside of Scripture, the liturgy itself is the fullest and most meaningful expression of Catholic doctrine. It is also demonstrates most accurately what early Catholics believed.
As far as Tradition being expressed in the Scriptures, Mr. Swan might want to take a look again at Acts 20:35, a saying of Jesus that appears nowhere in the four Gospels.
I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or anyone else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they arise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church. But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation?' For this reason,--because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another, so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novation expounds it one way, Sabellius another, ... Arius ... another ... Pelagius ... another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation"
Vincent of Lerins,Commoniories,2:4,5(A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XI:132
Paul Pavao: This is all the more established by the fact that Clement of Rome speaks of only two offices (1 Clement 42,44), as does Polycarp's letter to Philippi. Even Ignatius' letter to Rome doesn't mention a bishop.
Adomnan: You're right about the two orders mentioned by Clement. However, since a bishop (episcopos) is just a kind of priest (presbyteros), that presents no difficulty to the Catholic position. If you read Clement more closely, however, you'll see that the higher of the two offices (episcopos/presbyteros) actually has a hierarchy within it.
Take a look at I Clement XL:5, where Clement is describing the hierarchy of every church -- and so, of course, of his own Roman church -- using terminology from the Old Testament:
"For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on the Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity."
"Levites" refers to "deacons," and "priests" means "episcopoi/presbyteroi." Well, you'll notice that among these priests is a high priest. This third office (a higher grade of the second) evidently corresponds to that of the so-called "monarchical bishop" or, if you prefer, "presiding presbyter." Same thing. Thus, Clement testifies to the existence, as a matter of established custom, of a high priest or monarchical bishop in Rome in his day.
As for Ignatius, it is true that he doesn't mention the bishop in his letter to Rome, but he doesn't mention the presbyters or deacons either, as he does in many of his other letters. No conclusions can be drawn from this silence. However, since Ignatius writes in his letter to the Trallians that the name "church" is not given where there is no bishop and remarks in his letter to the Ephesians that bishops are established everywhere ("to the ends of the earth"), it follows that he knew the Roman church had a monarchical bishop.
Even though I think this evidence strongly supports the existence of a monarchical bishop in Rome from Peter's time, I should point out that the reality and authority of the Petrine office (the papacy) does not depend on this. Even if Rome had a college of presbyters at some early date that lacked a head, it is only necessary that one of these presbyters, evidently a prominent one, have succeeded Peter as shepherd of the universal church. A presbyteral organization of the early Roman church would not undermine the doctrine of the papacy.
The Petrine office happens to be vested in the bishop of Rome, no doubt by God's providence. However, the office itself does not depend on oversight of the Roman church. It depends on having received the keys from Christ through Peter and his successors.
The pope has two offices: monarchical bishop of Rome and successor of Peter/vicar of Christ. They just happen to coincide. At a very early date, this need not have been the case.
Paul Pavao: Clement of Rome speaks of only two offices, as does Polycarp's letter to Philippi
Adomnan: I'd like to comment briefly on Polycarp's letter, too. Polycarp does indeed speak of only two orders in his letter to the Philippians (5:3): "It is necessary... to be subject to the presbyters and deacons." And yet, while he apparently called himself a presbyter, he also makes clear that he is set above the other presbyters. In the greeting he writes, "Polycarp and the presbyters with him..." That this was only a matter of terminology, as in I Clement, is proven by the fact that Ignatius , when he writes to Polycarp, begins "Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Polycarp, who is bishop of the Church of the Smyrnaeans." Ignatius only uses the word "bishop" of monarchical bishops. Thus, in Ignatius's view, Polycarp was in fact a monarchical bishop, even if Polycarp called himself "presbyter."
What is clear from all this is that various churches at that time used somewhat different terminology to refer to church offices, even though there was no difference in church order. Polycarp may have considered himself a presiding presbyter in a college of presbyters, while Ignatius called the same office "bishop," reserving "presbyter" to those subject to the bishop.
Rome appears to have used the same terminology as Smyrna, but the reality of church organization in Smyrna and Rome -- strong leadership by a single head of the local church -- was identical to that in the other churches Ignatius writes to, as Ignatius's letters to Polycarp and to the Smyrnaeans amply demonstrate.
Hi Jerry, I like St. Vincent of Lerins. I wonder why Mr. Swan never quotes him.
I like these ones too...
“[T]hey who are placed without the Church, cannot attain to any understanding of the divine word. For the ship exhibits a type of Church, the word of life placed and preached within which, they who are without, and lie near like barren and useless sands, cannot understand.” St. Hilary of Poitiers, On Matthew, Homily 13:1(A.D. 355).
It will not be out of place to consider the ancient, tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church, which was revealed by the Lord, proclaimed by the apostles and guarded by the fathers. For upon this faith the Church is build, and if anyone were to lapse from it, he would no longer by a Christian either in fact or in name.
St. Athanasius, First Letter to St. Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (Ep. 1 ad Serapionem 28-30: PG 26, 594-95.
I like St. Vincent of Lerins. I wonder why Mr. Swan never quotes him.
Well, probably for the same reason Protestants are uncomfortable with certain other teachings of the other Fathers, like, for example, this one from St. Augustine.
Commenting on the scriptural passage, how Lot’s wife looked back upon Sodom and was turned into a pillar of salt, 255 St. Augustine writes among other things:
“One who, by the grace of God, has vowed something greater than conjugal chastity, (i.e. continency) will be damned if he take a wife, after the vow which he promised to God, though he would not be damned if he had taken a wife previously. Why? Because he who has taken the vow of continency and nevertheless afterwards takes a wife, has looked back.
“A virgin, if she married, would not sin; a nun, if she married, shall be accounted an adulteress of Christ. She has looked back form the place to which she had come. Such is the case of those in monastic communities. Whoever goes back into the world is not held as one who never entered. He looked back. ‘Therefore let each one, as he can, fulfill his vow to God: ‘Vow ye, and pay to the Lord your God.’ Let no one look back or have delight in that which lies behind him and which he has forsaken.” 256.
There is no help for Luther and his fellows in all their sophisms. They are condemned by all antiquity.
Luther and Lutherdom, H. Denifle, pp. 117-118.
http://img25.imageshack.us/ gal.p...herdompp116.jpg
255. Gen. 19:26
256. Ennarations in Psalm 83, n. 4 (Latin): http://www.agostino-santo.it/ lat...o_102_testo.htm
For the sake of the reformers, I sincerely hope Augustine was wrong in this instance!
Adomnan: Thanks for the very reasonable response.
However ...
Clement says at least twice that the high priest he's referring to is Jesus Christ (ch. 36 & 5
.
On Polycarp's letter, the issue isn't Polycarp. Polycarp is the bishop of one of John's churches. I completely agree that he was a monarchial bishop and that this was true of all the church's John presided over, even ones like Ephesus, which were founded by Paul.
However, the Philippians are the ones I'm saying didn't have a monarchial bishop.
As for Ignatius' letter to the Romans, you're making a lot of assumptions there. I'm making some, too, because what we have is a lack of information.
However, the reason I would argue my conclusions are better is because the evidence seems to show that around A.D. 100 Paul and Peter's churches still used only two offices, bishop/elders and deacons.
You admit that, I think, in Paul and Peter's letters. That link I was given blames it on semantics but nonetheless admits it's true. So why would we be surprised that Rome--founded by Paul and Peter--was using the same semantics in A.D. 95 or A.D. 110 (when Clement and Ignatius wrote)?
My reasoning follows from what we--both you and I if you agree with that link I was sent to yesterday--know about Paul's churches in NT times.
So, I'm not using Polycarp's letter to argue that Polycarp wasn't a monarchial bishop. He was. Ignatius was. All those Asian churches had monarchial bishops, even in the 1st century, being in whatever way led by John.
It's Philippi I'm saying only had two offices. That would also explain why Polycarp didn't write: "Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, with the elders who are with him." That terminology would have been foreign to the Philippians, so he avoided it.
Paul: Clement says at least twice that the high priest he's referring to is Jesus Christ (ch. 36 & 50 )
Adomnan: Jesus Christ is only called high priest in ch. 36. In ch. 50, the reference is to the offices in the local church, as the wording makes plan. The high priest's position is paralleled to those of the priests and Levites, and a comparison is being made between the Christian liturgy and the liturgy of the Temple. You'll note that the Greek word used for ministrations here is actually "liturgies." Therefore, just as the Temple liturgy was presided over by a high priest, so the Christian liturgy is presided over by a high priest (the bishop). Only the bishop would ordinartily preside over the liturgy (i.e., the Mass) at that time. The priests just have "their proper place." The Levites (deacons) did have a more active role in the liturgy than the priests/presbyters, and so the text refers to their "proper services" (diakoniai in Greek). A priest/presbyter could preside over the liturgy when the bishop was not present, but not when he was present. This is the situation described in I Clement 50.
The whole context of this passage is liturgical. After all, Paul, someone had to preside over the liturgy, right? This is the person whom Clement calls the high priest.
Paul: However, the Philippians are the ones I'm saying didn't have a monarchial bishop.
Adomnan: The problem with your conclusion here is that Polycarp never refers to bishops at all in his letter, even when he speaks in general or of himself. Clearly, then, Polycarp was not in the habit of referring to the presiding elder as a bishop (including himself). And yet Ignatius calls him a bishop, and you admit he was a monarchical bishop. The same was true of the Philippians, to whom Polycarp writes. Polycarp refers only to "presbyters and deacons," and yet they had a de facto monarchical bishop, just as Polycarp's own church did.
"Indeed, as we've already seen, Polycarp is unquestionably the monarchical bishop of the city-church of Smyrna:
"I salute your most worthy BISHOP POLYCARP, and your venerable presbyters, and your Christ-bearing deacons, my fellow servants..." (Ignatius TO THE SMYRNEANS, Chapter XI)
And Ignatius speaks of Polycarp as a monarchical bishop again and again in the two separate epistles he sends to him (i.e., "Ignatius to the Smyrneans" and "Ignatius to Polycarp"). Yet, in the months that follow, as Polycarp corresponds with the Western (European) city-church of Philippi (in Macedonia), first to check on Ignatius' welfare and then to give them encouragement and advice, we notice a very significant change in semantics. In an Asian context Polycarp is directly called "the bishop" of Smyrna, while addressing the Western (European) Philippians, Polycarp instead identifies himself as
"Polycarp, and the presbyters with him, to the Church of God sojourning at Philippi: Mercy to you, and peace from God Almighty, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour, be multiplied." (Polycarp to the Philippians, Introduction)
This formula strongly implies a different semantic for the Philippian city-church, as well as the other city-churches of the European West. In other words, the Europeans were not yet using the term "bishop" to mean the leading presbyter of a city-church (e.g. Polycarp), but were still apparently utilizing the original, New Testament semantic, in which "bishop" and "presbyter" were interchangeable terms. And, this being the case, it is no wonder that Ignatius, Polycarp, and other contemporary (or earlier) patristic sources do not impose the Asian terminology on Rome or the other early Western city-churches.
So, the solution is a semantic one; and there was no "later development" of the office of bishop itself. Indeed if we only possessed Polycarp's "Epistle to the Philippians," and not Ignatius' two epistles "To Smyrna" and "To Polycarp" (in which he repeatedly identifies Polycarp as the monarchical bishop of Smyrna) James White and others like him would, no doubt, try to argue that Polycarp was merely an "equal member" of the Smyrnean college of presbyters, as opposed to its presiding head. However, the naked truth is that no early city-church was ever governed by a "college of equal presbyters"; but rather, like the synagogue system that preceded the city-church, there was always a leading figure who presided as its head. And this fact becomes even more apparent when we turn to the Scriptural evidence...."
http://www.bringyou.to/apologeti...ogetics/
a80.htm
Just some food for thought on the topic.
Yours in Christ's Love,
Paul: As for Ignatius' letter to the Romans, you're making a lot of assumptions there. I'm making some, too, because what we have is a lack of information.
Adomnan: I come to the same conclusion about Ignatius's letter to the Romans as does Francis A. Sullivan, S.J. in his 2001 book "From Apostles to Bishops:" "We can draw no conclusion from the absence of any mention of a bishop of Rome in this letter, as the letter does not mention presbyters either, and it is hardly likely that Ignatius would have imagined that the church of Rome had no presbytery."
So, regardless of our assumptions, we should both be able to agree, as reasonable men, that Ignatius's failure to mention a bishop in Rome does not in any way imply that there was no bishop, despite what Protestants frequently claim.
Paul: It's Philippi I'm saying only had two offices. That would also explain why Polycarp didn't write: "Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, with the elders who are with him." That terminology would have been foreign to the Philippians, so he avoided it.
Adomnan: Paul, this doesn't make any sense. The Philippians would certainly have known that other churches had monarchical bishops, even if theirs didn't. Not only were they quite familiar with Polycarp, who you admit was a monarchical bishop, but Polycarp even sent them the letters of Ignatius along with his letter: "We send you, as you asked, the letters of Ignatius, which were sent to us by him, and others which we had by us. These are subjoined to this letter, and you will be able to benefit greatly from them."
Now, how likely is it that the terminology of monarchical episcopy would have been "foreign" to the Philippians when they were thoroughly familiar both with Ignatius and with his letters, which are saturated with the concept?
Paul: However, the reason I would argue my conclusions are better is because the evidence seems to show that around A.D. 100 Paul and Peter's churches still used only two offices, bishop/elders and deacons.
You admit that, I think, in Paul and Peter's letters. That link I was given blames it on semantics but nonetheless admits it's true. So why would we be surprised that Rome--founded by Paul and Peter--was using the same semantics in A.D. 95 or A.D. 110 (when Clement and Ignatius wrote)?
Adomnan: That excellent link provided by Dominicaniis sums up my view of the matter.
However, I'd like to add a comment to what you've written here. It may well be the case that churches with Petrine/Pauline foundations used the terms episcopos and presbyteros interchangeably. However, that does not in any way imply the non-existence of an office corresponding to that of Ignatius's monarchical bishops. In the college of presbyters in Petrine/Pauline churches, there was one presbyter who presided, as Clement proves with his reference to the "high priest." There is no real difference between a presiding presbyter and a monarchical bishop . After all, the Catholic Church has always maintained that a bishop is a kind of priest (presbyter). He's simply a priest who presides and so can ordain; that is, who possesses the fullness of priestly power.
Correction of my previous e-mail:
Pau wrote: Clement says at least twice that the high priest he's referring to is Jesus Christ (ch. 36 & 5..).
I wrote: Jesus Christ is only called high priest in ch. 36. In ch. 50, etc.....
Adomnan: I should have written "In ch. 40" here. Paul's second example of Jesus as High Priest was obscured by a typo, and I figured he was referring to ch. 40.
Didn't mean to be jumpy. I was just expressing my reaction. I did try and read some of your website. You made some comments about only Catholics would disagree with you view of history. This is OK. But then expecting me to take your “I don’t get it” seriously seemed strange. Of course you don’t get it. You have explicitly rejected the Catholic view of church history.
I should have thought about the fact that my very strong suggestion that the church in Rome was ruled by elders all called bishops would be offensive to Catholics.
I would not say offensive. But just contrary to their teachings. It is like stating you belief that Infant baptism is right in a forum where you know everyone believes in adult baptism. You can do it but don’t expect them to just accept your word and change their view.
Did Calvin deny that John's churches had on bishop as leader?
Even if he did deny it, it seems bizarre that he would be offended by monarchial leadership when he was such a monarch himself.
It is offensive because it shows a continuity between the apostles and the first bishops. If the monarchial bishops are there in the early 2nd century then how did they get there. Only the apostles had the clout to install such bishops. If they did then the early church was quite Catholic. Calvin saw this and was trying to deny it somehow.
Btw, I read Randy's link. Mr. Bonocore states some things that I agree are just facts. John's churches were led by one bishop. Jerusalem was led by James, whether he was called a bishop or not (even when the apostles were there!!!).
But this is critical. If we know there was a pattern of one bishop rule in some key places then, in the absence of contrary evidence, it is very reasonable to assume it was true everywhere. We should not jump to the conclusion that they would do things like we would. We think democracy right away. There must have been voting going on. Check and balances. That sort of thing. But the reality is monarchial bishops would have been the most natural form of church government to those people and it is the only form we know for sure did exists. The other forms are speculation.
He also speculates on bishops and presbyters in 1st century churches like Rome, attributing the lack of a monarchial bishop to semantics. I don't agree with his speculation. I think my reasoning's much more likely.
More likely because it is more protestant? Multiple bishops does not imply Presbyterian rule. Many sees have multiple bishops today. They certainly have many priests. That does not deny one is first among equals. In fact, some sort of chief executive was quite necessary.
But that's not why I posted on this thread. I posted to address Calvin. It seemed to me like Calvin would have been able to defend presbyterian rule in Rome and even used Ignatius' letter to Rome to help defend it. I guess Calvin didn't see it that way.
Calvin lived in the 16th century. Why would he see presbyterian rule and semi-democratic institutions? That is our anachronistic tendency to impose our thinking on the early church and even on Calvin. It was not so and Calvin could not imagine it for the same reason the early church did not think to explain what they were doing. It was so obvious to them. Whether they looked at secular governors or Jewish religious leadership they saw the same thing. They simply did the same thing without debate or controversy.
As the resident Anglican lurker, please allow me to chime in:
Regarding the question of the existence of a "monarchial bishop" (or "presiding presbyter", if you will) in western cities like Rome, there is some more evidence to consider. It should be noted that despite the interchangebility between the two terms as used by Irenaeus, he himself reckoned the apostolic succession back through single individuals to the Apostles.
Also, Eusebius was very specific, even with the earliest Roman "bishops" like Linus and Clement, to list the number of years of each man's episcopacy and the relation thereof to whichever Roman emperor was in power. It's highly unlikely that he invented those specific chronological details out of thin air, but instead had access to primary sources that are lost to us today (as in the case of Hegisippus and Papias among others). This specific information is a strong indicator that, despite the overlap in terminology, there did indeed exist one even in Rome who exercised the equivalent office of what was known in the Asian church's as the (monarchial) "bishop".
Actually, DT, I'd consider Irenaeus input to be the best evidence there is for a monarchial bishop in Rome in A.D. 95. However, to those that are not Roman Catholic, there's nothing reasonable about the "semantics" argument nor asking someone to just "assume" monarchial rule, so Irenaeus century old input is the only evidence there is.
Randy, the place I said that only Catholics would disagree with me was on my interpretation of apostolic succession. I didn't write that about Catholics anywhere else.
It's alright to say I'm "anti-catholic." True, basically, I am. However, if you read Protestant viewpoints into what I'm arguing, you'll be way off. I'm not faith only, and I have absolutely no reason to reject monarchial rule. I have no problem with it, and the church I'm part of runs at least somewhat that way.
I do have a problem with bishops ruling districts and countries. But that's a completely different subject.
I just like history, and I want to know what the apostles did.
Finally, Randy, now you're really throwing me. Like I said, I don't really know Calvin's history that well except in a very general way.
If Calvin wasn't defending presbyterian, equal rule, then what didn't he like about Ignatius? What was his alternative to a monarchial bishop?
If Calvin wasn't defending presbyterian, equal rule, then what didn't he like about Ignatius? What was his alternative to a monarchial bishop?
The question is not whether monarchial bishop rule was good or bad. The question is where did the early church get it? Did it come from the apostles or was it a leter development? If it came from the apostles then we can assume ti originated with Jesus. The apostles learned about the Kingdom of God from Jesus. That is why we trust the scriptures written by the apostles. If the apostles by their actions made clear they were to have successors then we can trust that as much as we trust what they wrote.
So it was not about how one should lead but about how leaders should be chosen. Can we chose whatever leader seems most biblical to us or does God choose leaders to prevent us from being decieved by false teachers?
Ignatius shows he was in the ladder camp. We must accept leadership even when it is hard and even when we disagree. Ignatius learned directly from the apostle John. So why should we believe John or Jesus were teaching something different?
Hi Mr. Hoffer, nice quotes. I like this one also.
Clement,Epistle to Corinthians
And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties."
Clement,Epistle to Corinthians,42,44(A.D. 9,in ANF,I:16,17
"We must strive therefore in common to keep the faith which has come down to us to-day, through the Apostolic Succession. "
Pope Celestine[regn A.D. 422-432],To the Council of Ephesus,Epistle 18(A.D. 431),in NPNF2,XIV:220
Paul Pavao: Actually, DT, I'd consider Irenaeus input to be the best evidence there is for a monarchial bishop in Rome in A.D. 95.
Adomnan: Good, then you concede that there is indeed strong evidence for the position we're defending.
However, I wouldn't personally consider Irenaeus's testimony, excellent as it is, to be the best evidence. The best evidence, in my view, is in I Clement 40:5, where Clement states that all local churches -- and so his own church in Rome -- have a "high priest" among the priests; that is, a presiding presbyter-bishop among presbyter-bishops.
The second-best evidence is when Ignatius writes that there are bishops everywhere throughout the world and that a church doesn't deserve the name church without a bishop. Obviously, since Rome is included in this everywhere and Rome has a church, Ignatius knew that Rome had a bishop.
Paul: However, to those that are not Roman Catholic, there's nothing reasonable about the "semantics" argument nor asking someone to just "assume" monarchial rule, so Irenaeus century old input is the only evidence there is.
Adomnan: But the semantics argument is highly reasonable and convincing for the simple reason that it proceeds directly from the ancient documents themselves; to wit, Polycarp in his own letter refers to himself as a presbyter among presbyters (albeit their leader), while his contemporary Ignatius calls him a bishop. Clearly, then, the semantic difference is present in these synchronic texts themselves and was known to Polycarp and Ignatius, and does not have to be assumed by us Catholics.
Paul: However, to those that are not Roman Catholic, there's nothing reasonable about the "semantics" argument nor asking someone to just "assume" monarchial rule, so Irenaeus century old input is the only evidence there is.
If they are not Roman Catholic why in the world would someone say this at a Council with bishops from the East and West.
Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place....Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present....Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church."
Council of Ephesus,Session III (A.D. 431),in GILES,252
Examples there are without number: but to be brief, we will take one, and that, in preference to others, from the Apostolic See, so that it may be clearer than day to every one with how great energy, with how great zeal, with how great earnestness, the blessed successors of the blessed apostles have constantly defended the integrity of the religion which they have once received."
Vincent of Lerins,Commonitories,6:15(A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XI:135
The Catholic argument about Irenaeus's testimony has been reasonable confirm.
“Nothing can be more nauseating, than the absurdities which have been published under the name of Ignatius.”
An even harsher translation:
“There is nothing more abominable than that trash which is in circulation under the name of Ignatius."
Calvin, Institutes, bk. 1, ch. 13, sec. 29.
http://books.google.com/books?
cl...nG=Search+Books
Sorry John, but you're neither learned nor smart - just a transparently dishonest and bitter human being.
But what a contrast, what a breath of fresh air, are these words of a truly learned and truly holy priest, Fr. Emil Mersch, S.J.
Let's listen now to Fr. Mersch's gentle and enlightening words on the saintly bishop of Antioch.
From Fr. Mersch’s The Whole Christ (1938 ).
Part II, The Doctrine of the Mystical Body in the Greek Fathers.
St. Ignatius of Antioch completes the doctrine. The unity of the Church, he tells us, is one with the unity of Christ Himself. In order to understand clearly the holy bishop’s teaching, we must recall the circumstances in which it was proposed. It was during the reign of Trajan, at a time when the Church of Asia Minor was menaced from every side, by persecution without, and by fomenters of schism and discord within. Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, had been arrested---the circumstances of his arrest are not known---and a band of soldiers, whom he calls ten leopards on account of their cruelty, were bringing him to Rome to be thrown to the beasts. At times the caravan was halted by forced delays, and bishops would come from nearby cities to salute the martyr in the name of their churches. Ignatius took advantage of these brief respites to send his last recommendations to the young churches of the surrounding country. We still possess these letters; their authenticity is beyond all criticism and we can still feel Ignatius’ soul vibrant in them.
At these supreme moments, he has but one thought: unity, the unity of Christ.… Pp. 216-217.
In their own way, even the heretics bore witness to this solidarity between the Head and the members. Just as they denied the physical reality of the Body and Blood of Jesus, and saw in the flesh of the Saviour merely an appearance---whence their name “Docetists”---so too did they rise in rebellion against the visible hierarchy….
The visible unity of the Church, says St. Ignatius, is as necessary as the visible flesh of Christ. The faithful must pray together, round the same altar, breaking the same bread, professing the same beliefs, remaining in concord, and above all by submitting to the same head, in order that they may be united with the Lord. This last is the most essential. The visible and “corporal” unity of the Church is incarnated in the clergy, and primarily in the bishop. P. 218.
Cont….
For the remission of sins, as for the Eucharist, one must be in communion with the bishop. Baptism requires his intervention, and even marriages are not to be celebrated without his approval. All priests and deacons as well as the faithful, must obey him. And they must love him. In a word, the sacramental life of the community and the visible unity of the Church are centered in the bishop. Even in these early times, the relations of the bishop with his flock were determined by a set of regulations which may be termed the first draft of a canon law.
But one must hear how Ignatius promulgates this nascent canon law. It has nothing of the usual dryness of human codes; it is formulated in sentences of fervent, even exalted love. Ignatius uses ho hash or crude figures to describe the order that he requires; he speaks rather of music and of harmony, of voices blending in the unity of a single hymn. Is there not question of members that are grafted into the unity of a single body? Pp. 218-219.
Several features of the doctrine of St. Ignatius remind one of the Pauline Epistles in general. There is the same frequent mention of the “body”, the same fondness for the phrase “in Christ”, the same exuberance of expression; but of especial significance here is the fact that Ignatius manifests the same solicitude for ecclesiastical organization which the Apostle shows in his pastoral Epistles. In these last letters, St. Paul seems to be concerned exclusively with this organization; he feels that his own course is run, and in writing to the young bishops who are to be his successors, he hastens to instruct them in their office and duties. He appears to have forgotten his doctrine of the Mystical Body; if he refers to it at all, he does so only in passing. It has ceased to be the center to which all else is directed.
Implicitly, however, it still remains the soul of all. This Ignatius shows us when he explains what St. Paul says on the subject of the hierarchy in the light of St. John’s doctrine of unity. The function of the hierarchy, he tells us, is precisely to produce and to incarnate unity; it is through the hierarchy that the union of the faithful among themselves and with Christ is established and maintained. P. 221.
The Whole Christ: Part II: Chapter One.
http://www.romanforum.org/ mystic...lechrist_12.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id...t%22&lr=& pgis=1
Topic 1:
Am I so unclear, or is my question not important to y'all. This blog says that Calvin didn't like what Ignatius wrote. I really am asking if someone can please tell me why Calvin rejected all of Ignatius' letters.
Why did he feel Ignatius' letters couldn't possibly be authentic?
If you're not answering because the question because you don't care about the answer--even though it's the main topic of the blog we're commenting on--then you can leave it unanswered. I'll find the answers eventually, I'm sure.
Topic 2:
Jerry--you misunderstood what I wrote. I meant, the argument that the presbyter-bishop things is just semantics doesn't carry any weight with those of us who are not Roman Catholics.
Topic 3
Adomnan: I applaud your attempts to argue your point; you're both polite and forceful.
However, I wish you could put yourself in my shoes--or anyone else like me who sees no point in a hierarchy above the local church. The semantics argument y'all have presented goes like this: "The fact that in Paul and Peter's churches presbyter and bishop were the same office is pure semantics. One of those presbyter/bishops MUST HAVE BEEN a head bishop or elder."
There's nothing to back up that supposition, and it doesn't seem at all obvious or necessary to me. Just a wild guess to defend a Catholic notion. You say you have "ancient documents" to back that up, but you appeal to Ignatius and Polycarp, two monarchial bishops from John's churches.
Anyway, it all doesn't matter because I don't see any real application of any of it. You are Catholic, and you need a monarchial bishop in Rome to receive Peter's keys, and that's really the reason you believe the semantics argument.
Me, I judge a teaching based on its fruit, since that's what Jesus said to do. The fruit of Catholic apostolic succession is worse than bad. It's about as antichrist as anything in history.
If there were a good, godly Catholic bishop with good, godly Christians following him, giving up everything for Christ, sharing their possessions with the poor and with one another in my local area, I would join them.
There's not. In fact, in most American cities there's no group of people like that, period, Catholic or otherwise.
There is one in our city, however, so I'm a part of it. It's very sad that I had to move 300 miles to find it, but if God will show us mercy, hopefully this incredibly powerful and righteousness-producing Gospel we preach will spread to other cities. Then the next person like me won't have to move in order to be a part of the family of God.
I've read the early fathers. The 2nd century ones I've read again and again. They would agree with me. Giving up what I've got for collective unrighteousness in a system with earthly succession and organization but no succession of faith would be foolish.
McGrath on justification and regeneration Iustitia Dei, Vol. 1
p. 182 "Although Luther regarded justification as an essentially unitary process, he nevertheless introduced a decisive break with the western theological tradition as a whole by insisting that, through his justification, man is intrinsically sinful yet extrinsically righteous."
p. 184 "The significance of the Protestant distinction between justification and regeneration is that a fundamental discontinuity has been introduced into the western theological tradition where none had existed before. Despite the astonishingly theological diversity of the late medieval period, a consensus relating to the nature of justification was maintained throughout. The Protestant understanding of the nature represents a theological novum, whereas its understanding of its mode does not."
p. 36 "Augustine demonstrates of iustitia, effected only through man's justification, demonstrates how the doctrine of justification encompasses the whole of Christian existence from the first moment of faith through the increase in righteousness before God and man, to the final perfection of that righteousness in the eschatological city. Justification is about being made just."
p. 185 "The medieval period was astonishingly faithful to the teaching of Augustine on the question of the nature of justification, where the reformers departed from it."
p. 186 "The essential feature of the Reformation doctrines of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration. Although it must be emphasized that this distinction is purely notional, in that it is impossible to separate the two within the context of the ordo sautis,the Essential point is that a notional distinction is made where none had BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. A FUNDAMENTAL DISCONTINUITY WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE WESTERN THEOLOGICAL TRADITION WHERE NONE HAD EVER EXISTED, OR EVER BEEN CONTEMPLATED BEFORE. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification - as opposed to its mode - must be regarded as a genuine theological novum."
p. 182 " Although Luther regarded justification as an essentially unitary process, he nevertheless introduced a decisive break with the western theological tradition as a whole by insisting that, through his justification, man is intrinsically sinful yet extrinsically righteous."
Topic 1: "With regard to what they pretend as to Ignatius, if they would have it to be of the least importance, let them prove that the apostles enacted laws concerning Lent, and other corruptions. Nothing can be more nauseating, than the absurdities which have been published under the name of Ignatius; and therefore, the conduct of those who provide themselves with such masks for deception is the less entitled to toleration." (Institutes I, Chapter 13)
In brief: Calvin believed them to be spurious.
Topic 2: Semantics matter, no matter what one's faith is, as long as one is reading in English and interested in ascertaining the historical view of Christianity.
Topic 3: I'll let Adomnan deal with that, since it is addressed to him.
However, you said: I've read the early fathers. The 2nd century ones I've read again and again. They would agree with me.
Do you believe in the Eucharist as really being Christ's Body and Blood? They did:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com...tml#tradition-
I
Is there complete agreement, then?
As for Giving up what I've got for collective unrighteousness in a system with earthly succession and organization but no succession of faith would be foolish., that appears to be predicated on your rash judgment of the Catholic Church and, as such, is no sound basis for a faith judgment of any sort. Just because you cannot perceive that the Catholic Church's Apostolic succession is authentic does not make it invalid. In fact, the ECFs believed there was such succession, and that it was transferred by ordination:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com...tml#tradition-
I
http://www.scripturecatholic.com...ml#tradition-
II
Do you agree with them on those points? Or do your views diverge from theirs?
Yours in Christ's Love,
Why did he feel Ignatius' letters couldn't possibly be authentic?
As someone has already stated, because in his day there were non-authentic letters mixed in with the entire corpus, and so he threw the baby out with the bathwater.
According to Presbyterian W.D. Killen, whom I cited in the post:
"[I]t is no mean proof of the sagacity of the great Calvin that upwards of three centuries ago he passed a sweeping condemnation on these Ignatian epistles. . . . Calvin knew that an apostolic man must be acquainted with apostolic doctrine, and he saw that these letters must have been the production of an age when the pure light of Christianity was greatly obscured. Hence he denounced them so emphatically; and time has verified his deliverance."
(cited in Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, John McClintock, pp. 492-493)
http://books.google.com/books?
id...brr=3#PPA492,M1
Personally, I suspect it was a combination of both things. Many commentators have noted that religious affiliation highly colored how one would approach the Ignatian epistles. Hence (at least in part because of this; one's prior ecclesiology in particular), the Lutheran Magdeburg Centuriators and Martin Chemnitz rejected them as well.
Paul Pavao: However, I wish you could put yourself in my shoes--or anyone else like me who sees no point in a hierarchy above the local church.
Adomnan: That's hard to do, because the church is built on the foundation of the Apostles, and the Apostles were both universal (catholic) and local. They were all united to each other in a hierarchy, with Peter the leader.
Paul: The semantics argument y'all have presented goes like this: "The fact that in Paul and Peter's churches presbyter and bishop were the same office is pure semantics. One of those presbyter/bishops MUST HAVE BEEN a head bishop or elder."
Adomnan: No, that's a caricature of our argument. Our argumernt is this: "The fact that Polycarp represents himself in his only extant letter as a presbyter among presbyters, while Ignatius calls him a (single) bishop, proves that the monarchical bshop can be called a presbyter in some churches or in some circumstances. So the fact that some churches used the terms bishop and presbyter more or less interchangeably and others reserved "bishop" for the presiding presbyter was a matter of semantics at that early period." You see. We don't just assert. We supply proof.
(Actually, I do think there's a distincition between the use of the terms bishop and presbyter even in what you call Pauline/Petrine churches. But this is not really relevant to our discussion, and so I won't go into it.)
Paul: There's nothing to back up that supposition,
Adomnan: There's the fact I just mentioned for, I don't know, the third time, but that you ignore; namely, the different terminology used by Polycarp and Ignatius, even though they're describing the same reality: monarchical episcopacy. I guess that's now the fourth time I've said this, but I have no problem repeating a fact until it registers.
Paul: and it doesn't seem at all obvious or necessary to me. Just a wild guess to defend a Catholic notion.
Adomnan: And your wild guess is what? That early churches in Rome and Philiippi and Corinth were run by a committee of equals with no leader? That would the first and last time in history that ever happened. Can you give me another example of an organization with no leader? I've never run into one, outside of, maybe, a book club.
Paul: You say you have "ancient documents" to back that up, but you appeal to Ignatius and Polycarp, two monarchial bishops from John's churches.
Adomnan: Ignatius was the third in line from St. Peter as bishop of Antioch: Peter, Evodius, Ignatius. So, Antioch was a Petrine church, not a Johannine church. According to you, Petrine churches have no monarchical bishops. Well, what about Antioch?
In fact, I'm not at all sure there were any Johannine churches. The Johannine current was present in many local churches, but not the foundation of any of them. It was something like an early form of monasticism (although perhaps with some married members, not including John).
Paul,
As far as choosing a church goes, you need to decide what is more important, grace or works. You seem to have chosen a church based on works. For the moment it seems like a righteous church. How righteous is it really? How long will it stay righteous? You can't really know that. The truth is that no church is truly holy in terms of it's works.
But God can make a church holy by His grace. If Jesus intended the apostles and their successors to lead such a church then we need to be obedient to that. The grace He gave the apostles to write the scriptures is clear. Did he give them more graces that were passed on to the early church bishops? The fathers believed so. In terms of sacraments, in terms of discerning doctrine, in terms of good governance. There was a legitimate blessing passed to them through the laying on of hands. It does not make them perfect. But it makes the church holy.
Dave: Thank you. There were several things said about why Calvin would reject Ignatius' letters, and a couple of them seemed contradictory to me. Sorry for asking repeatedly, but I really was confused.
Randy: I think churches are holy because of works. Jesus didn't address doctrine when he wrote the seven churches in Rev. 2 & 3. He addressed works.
Dominicanis: Thank you for your post. Your questions are legitimate. My answer is that I believe in real presence in the bread and wine, specifically because the fathers said so. I understand that mystically, not physically.
I really am a believer in tradition, but only tradition that can be shown to come from the apostles. I'm quite willing to listen to arguments from Ignatius, Polycarp, and even Tertullian if others agree with him for what those traditions are. However, if a tradition can't be shown to be apostolic, then I'm no more interested in it that Tertullian was.
On apostolic succession, you can see my response at http://www.christian-history.org...-
tradition.html. I think it's apparent to the unbiased reader that apostolic succession to Irenaeus and Tertullian was an argument that the catholic churches ("the church that is one") held to apostolic truth.
That argument was powerful and valid in A.D. 185 and 210. It's of no value whatsoever in A.D. 2009.
That argument was powerful and valid in A.D. 185 and 210. It's of no value whatsoever in A.D. 2009.
By what chain of reasoning does one arrive at such a conclusion? Please help me to understand. Apostolic succession worked in 210, but through the years it somehow became invalid and no longer applicable? What year did that happen, pray tell (or even a span of 10 or 20 years would be helpful to know)?
Paul Pavao: There is one in our city, however, so I'm a part of it.
Adomnan: How nice for you. You shouldn't be so starry-eyed, though, especially at your age and with a family to support. Don't give all your money to that charismatic leader. (Paul: "I have absolutely no reason to reject monarchial rule. I have no problem with it, and the church I'm part of runs at least somewhat that way.")
That's my advice anyway. Best of luck.
That argument was powerful and valid in A.D. 185 and 210. It's of no value whatsoever in A.D. 2009.
So when did it stop being valid?
The Church at Rome, according to the Word of God.
“First, I give thanks to my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is heralded throughout the world.” Romans 1:8
Thus the Roman faith is the universal faith. The Catholic faith is thus the Roman faith!
“I myself am convinced about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to admonish one another.” Rom. 15:14
As the Roman Church is "full of goodness, filled with all knowledge," she is therefore possessed of the fullness of the Apostolic teaching.
“All the churches of Christ greet you [the Roman Church].” Rom. 16:16.
The Roman Church is thus recognized and held in honor by all the Churches of Christ.
But of course, "that argument was powerful and valid in [ A.D. 65]. It's of no value whatsoever in A.D. 2009."
LOL!
It was also vaild in the year 400 A.D
Saint Augustine writes
"
"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !' The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of 'mountain men,' or Cutzupits, by which they were known."
To Generosus, Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400), in NPNF1,I:298
St Augustine "Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail."
Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51
Hi Dave.
Hmmm. I have to guess that you've never heard or considered my position.
Apostolic succession was an argument that the churches in Irenaeus' and Tertullian's times had preserved truth.
It's a good argument. Per Tertullian, but in my own words: "Y'all (the gnostics) can't show a lineage back to the apostles. We can. Not only that, but we can show that all our various churches--having rolls going back to the apostles--are all still holding to the same faith.
"How'd that happen? It could only have happen by those churches maintaining faithfully the tradition they preserved since apostolic times. If they were in error, they'd have gone into many contradicting errors, not one."
Now, I'm paraphrasing, but that's Tertullian's argument. That argument doesn't make much sense if apostolic succession proved everyone needed to agree with whatever Rome dictated. It carries no force. Many churches can go astray into one error if they all have to answer to one authority.
His argument only makes sense if each church had to preserve truth on their own.
In fact, he adds that even if one of the catholic churches couldn't show a roll back to the apostles, they were still apostolic because of unity in doctrine. Meanwhile, if a gnostic church contrived a roll back to the apostles, they were still false, because of their "diversity and contrariety of doctrine."
All of that is in "The Prescription Against Heretics."
Apostolic succession, to Irenaeus and Tertullian, was evidence of the preservation of apostolic truth from bishop to bishop and elder to elder.
That argument's valid if only a short time has passed. If 2,000 years pass, there's a lot of time for tradition to get lost. Not only that, but those 2,000 years show lots of evidence of the loss of apostolic truth.
There's just nothing effective about arguing you've preserved truth by having one bishop hand it to another for 2,000 years, especially when some of those bishops have condemned previous bishops as not even being Christian.
Here's some comments from Irenaeus to the effect that the issue was preservation of truth not the passing down of authority:
"In this order and by this succession the ecclesiastical tradition and the preaching of the truth have come down to us. And this is THE MOST ABUNDANT PROOF THAT THERE IS ONE AND THE SAME LIFE-GIVING FAITH WHICH HAS BEEN PRESERVED IN THE CHURCH FROM THE APOSTLES UNTIL NOW AND HANDED DOWN IN TRUTH.
Sorry for the caps. I wasn't sure if html bolding would work.
"Then again, the church in Ephesus, founded by Paul and having John remaining among them until the times of Trajan, is A TRUE WITNESS OF THE TRADITION OF THE APOSTLES."
That's from Against Heresies III:3:3-4
He concludes those arguments by saying:
"Since we have such PROOFS, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church, since the apostles, like a rich man in the bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth."
Apostolic succession was EVIDENCE of the preservation of apostolic truth, nothing more. It's good evidence 100 years down the line, less good evidence 200 years down the line, and worthless evidence once the emperor starts appointing and removing bishops, when some bishops are evil, and when one bishop can dictate doctrine to the others.
I think that answers Randy, too.
Ben, sorry; I just consider your interpretations of Romans very unlikely. You're never going to get someone who doesn't already hold to your views to hold to such interpretations.
Dave, this is your blog. Y'all are discussing this with me, so I'm answering. If you ever want me to stop, you can just tell me. I don't want to be a troll.
It's not trolling if you are making an argument cordially. I'm big on free speech and dialogue.
"Apostolic succession was EVIDENCE of the preservation of apostolic truth, nothing more. It's good evidence 100 years down the line, less good evidence 200 years down the line, and worthless evidence once the emperor starts appointing and removing bishops, when some bishops are evil, and when one bishop can dictate doctrine to the others."
That not only begs the question, it also appears to assume that Christ could not keep the promises made to Peter and the Twelve until the end of time, when He returns. It also makes God's Gospel dependent on human holiness for its permanence, a teaching that the Apostles themselves would reject, for God can work through even the most sinful man (Caiphas prophesying is an example; he was wicked but because he was high priest that year, he could still speak God's truth.). Irenaeus does not support such a view, nor do the fathers in the ensuing centuries.
Your insistence that Apostolic succession became worthless by the actions of wicked men somehow seems to make the case that man's actions can nullify Christ's promises, rendering them worthless. You are also stating that the Holy Spirit was evidently asleep at the switch when all of the evil shenanigans yanked Apostolic succession out of the picture by the actions of mere men, who no matter how clever or evil in their thoughts and actions, are simply incapable of removing what Christ established on Peter and the Twelve. At the very least, you are implying that your interpretation of the historical data is true and possibly infallible.
This sounds, no offense, very similar to the line of reasoning used by Luther, Mohammed and Joseph Smith, and many, many others, who rose in their day to say the Catholic Church got it all wrong, but all will be well as soon as they put it right. The Church, meanwhile, still kept preaching the Gospel and baptizing sinners and children of sinners, and somehow has managed to survive as a single recognizable entity for almost two thousand years.
Yours in Christ's Love,
Paul Pavao: Here's some comments from Irenaeus to the effect that the issue was preservation of truth not the passing down of authority:
Adomnan: You mean that Irenaeus (and Tertullian) thought there was a succession of true teachers, but these teachers had no authority? That seems absurd on the face of it.
You may have to revise your argument to make it comprehensible, if it can survive the revision.
Thanks for the comment Paul. I like it when we can keep these discussion going past the common slogans.
I think you give a false choice when you say preservation of truth or authority. Why can't it be both. Indeed it has to do both if it does either. False teaching cannot command authority.
When you say the significance of apostolic succession slowly petered out, would you agree that most Christians through the first 15 centuries did not see it that way? Rather than being considered worthless that the concept continued to be more and more firmly believed and more and more fully developed?
Do you believe that all the catholic doctrines that protestants reject originated AFTER this first few centuries when the church still had the faith?
If the church lost the faith why do you believe they ever got it back? Sure it could be buried somewhere in the many opinions about what scripture really means. But isn't any certainty about what the gospel is unrecoverable unless we get some new revelation?
But Paul teaches the authority is the Pillar and Foundation that up holds the truth. The authority is pass down from generation to generation.
Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church."
Cyprian, To Florentius,Epistle 68[66]:8(A.D. 254),in ANF,V:375
And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties."
Clement,Epistle to Corinthians,42,44(A.D. 9,in ANF,I:16,17
Paul Pavao,
Ben, sorry; I just consider your interpretations of Romans very unlikely. You're never going to get someone who doesn't already hold to your views to hold to such interpretations.
Well, Paul, FYI, these are not my interpretations, but rather how the early Church understood - and lived - St. Paul's words. But let’s look at his words again.
St Paul explicitly teaches that the Roman faith is “heralded throughout the world.” Romans 1:8
This is a tremendous statement! What does “heralded throughout the world” mean in your opinion?
Look carefully at those words again. Think carefully before you respond:
“Heralded throughout the world” or “proclaimed throughout the whole world.”
Now what else can these Sacred Words possibly mean but that the Roman faith was, in fact, the universal faith of all Christendom? What other possible interpretation would you have placed on these Sacred Words???
And again, St. Paul explicitly says the Roman Church is "full of goodness, filled with all knowledge."
What, in your opinion, do the Sacred Words, "Full of goodness, filled with all knowledge" mean? That Rome was some sort of hell-hole of heresy like Wittenberg or Geneva???
Finally, at the conclusion of his pro-Rome epistle, St. Paul tells us that, “All the churches of Christ greet you [the Roman Church].” Rom. 16:16.
These too are inspired and Sacred Words. What do they mean? Why has the sovereign God arranged events so that “all the churches of Christ” should send greetings to the Roman Church? Why is this important for us to know? What is so special about Rome?
Also, you might note that the inspired phrase “all the churches” is simply another way of saying “catholic” or universal? And that the idea of “catholic” is here again associated only with the Church of Rome! Thus right here in New Testament, clear as the light of day, we see the Roman faith proclaimed as the authentic, catholic faith, and vice versa! The New Testament never associates the concept of "catholic" with any other church but Rome.
Sola Roma you might say!
What's more, no other church in the history of the world can claim the above tremendous distinctions which it has pleased God to bestow only upon the Roman Church!
So, sorry Paul, but with all due respect, you’ll have to do better than just dismissing the Sacred Word of God by saying my “interpretations” are "unlikely." No, you’ll have to offer a credible alternative interpretation to the holy apostle’s words, and one consistent with what the early Church actually believed and lived.
God bless.
Paul, I know you have a zillion things to respond to. But I do want to reply to one thing you said a while back and I ignored.
Randy: I think churches are holy because of works. Jesus didn't address doctrine when he wrote the seven churches in Rev. 2 & 3. He addressed works.
First, I would disagree that Jesus never addressed doctrine in those letters. He refered to the teachings of the Nicolatians. Even comments about works have doctinal components. We rationalize bad behaviour and the moment we do any sin becomes a doctrinal issue.
Secondly, would you join a mormon church if the mormons were doing the best works of charity that you were aware of? What about a buddist temple? Is there any point at which you say this group has great morals but they simply don't have the connection with Jesus that I am looking for? I am guessing there is.
My feeling is chruch is all about connecting with Jesus. Sure they should be doing good works. If they are not you need to change that. But can it give me what I need to support me and sustain me as I run the race? The next question is whether I am even able to judge that. Is the church that looks impressive to me going to be the one to give me what I truly need? There are groups like the Nicolatians out there that Jesus hates but who's teachings impress men. How can I insure I don't end up in a group like that?
Luther too had some shots at the fathers.Check out these comments from his table talks:
"When God's Word is by the Fathers expounded, construed, and glossed, then, in my judgment, it is even as when one strains milk through a coal-sack, which must needs spoil and make the milk black; God's Word of itself is pure, clean, bright and clear; but, through the doctrines, books, and writings of the Fathers, it is darkened, falsified, and spoiled."[DXIX].
"Behold what great darkness is in the books of the Fathers concerning faith; yet if the article of justification be darkened, it is impossible to smother the grossest errors of mankind. St Jerome, indeed, wrote upon Matthew, upon the Epistles to Galatians and Titus; but, alas! very coldly. Ambrose wrote six books upon the first book of Moses, but they are very poor. Augustine wrote nothing to the purpose concerning faith; for he was first roused up and made a man by the Pelagians, in striving against them. I can find no exposition upon the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, wherein anything is taught pure and aright. O what a happy time have we now in regard to the purity of the doctrine; but alas! we little esteem it. After the Fathers came the pope, and with his mischievous traditions and human ordinances, like a breaking water-cloud and deluge, overflowed the church, snared consciences, touching eating of meat, friars hoods, masses, etc., so that daily he brought abominable errors into the church of Christ; and to serve his own turn, took hold on St Augustine's sentence, where he says, Evangelio non crederem, etc. The asses could not see what occasioned Augustine to utter that sentence, whereas he spoke it against the Manicheans, as much as to say: I believe you not, for ye are damned heretics, but I believe and hold with the church, the spouse of Christ, which cannot err"[DXXXVI].
"The more I read the books of the Fathers, the more I find myself offended; for they were but men, and, to speak the truth, with all their repute and authority, undervalued the books and writings of the sacred apostles of Christ. The papists were not ashamed to say, What is the Scripture? we must read the holy Fathers and teachers, for they drew and sucked the honey out of the Scripture. As if God's Word were to be understood and conceived by none but by themselves, whereas the heavenly Father says: "Him shall ye hear," who in the gospel taught most plainly in parables and similitudes"[DXXX.].
"Augustine was the ablest and purest of all the doctors, but he could not of himself bring back things to their original condition, and he often complains that the bishops, with their traditions and ordinances, troubled the church more than did the Jews with their laws"[DXXXI]
"Jerome should not be numbered among the teachers of the church, for he was a heretic; yet I believe that he is saved through faith in Christ. He speaks not of Christ, but merely carries his name in his mouth"[DXXXV].
The f
Contd:
"Jerome should not be numbered among the teachers of the church, for he was a heretic; yet I believe that he is saved through faith in Christ. He speaks not of Christ, but merely carries his name in his mouth"[DXXXV].
The fact is that the Reformers knew that the whole of antiquity was against their[the reformers] new doctrines and novel idea.So they had no other choice but to condemn the works of the fathers and to try and diminish their value.
Indeed. But they still try to play the game that the fathers were on their side, too
Hi Chaka
Which Jerome are you talking about?do you mean St Jerome,who is also a doctor of the church?if you mean this Jerome,how can you say that he was a heretic?
What is strange indeed is that all there studies leads to is that the Early Fathers were not Catholic and also not Protestant. Sort like a Agnosticism view the Church Fathers. Because they know if they hold the same standers to there church as they do with the Catholic Church with its historcal pedigree they would not have a foundation to stand on in would be crush the the same very agruments they put forth against the Catholic Church historcal pedigree.
Luther indeed said some mighty strange things about the Fathers, and about Christ, and really, just about practically everyone! Some examples from his Table Talk:
More Learning in Aesop Than in Jerome. Early in the year 1533. No. 445.
“I think Jerome has somehow been saved by his faith in Christ. But God forgive him for the harm he has done through his teaching! I know very well that he has done me much harm. He scolded women and gossiped abut other women who were not present. I wish he had had a wife, for then he would have written many things differently. It’s a wonder that in so many books of his there isn’t a word about Christ, although he censures this in his sixth book. 245
“I know no doctor whom I hate so much, although I once loved him ardently and read him voraciously. Surely there’s more learning in Aesop 246 than in all of Jerome. If only Jerome had encouraged the works of faith and the fruits of the gospel! But he spoke only of fasting, etc. My dear Staupitz 247 once said, ‘I’d like to know how that man was saved!’ And his predecessor Dr. Proles 248 said, ‘I should not like to have had St. Jerome as my prior!’” (p.72 ).
Notes (p. 72):
245. Jerome, Epistles, 133 (to Ctesiphon).
246. Luther had so high an opinion of Aesop’s Fables that he published a German version. Cf. in this volume, No. 3490, and John W. Doberstein, “Luther and the Fables of Aesop,” The Lutheran Church Quarterly, XIII (1940), 69-74.
247. John Staupitz. Cf. No. 94, n. 14.
248. Andrew Proles was vicar-general of the Augustinian Observantist in Germany before John Staupitz.
http://books.google.com/books?id...xy_is=& as_brr=0
Do not Debate with Satan When Alone. Spring, 1533. No. 469.
“Almost every night when I wake up the devil is there and wants to dispute with me. I have come to the conclusion: When the argument that the Christian is without the law and above the law doesn’t help, I instantly chase him away with a fart. The rouge wants to dispute about righteousness although he is himself a knave, for he kicked God out of heaven and crucified his Son. No man should be alone when he opposes Satan. The church and the ministry of the Word were instituted for this purpose, that hands may be joined together and one may help another. If the prayer of one doesn’t help, the prayer of another will.” (p. 78 ).
http://books.google.com/books?id...+with+me%22& lr=
Luther’s Works, Theodore G. Tappert, ed., Table Talk (Tischreden), vol. 54, ISBN 0800603540
Cont…
Nobody Knows Distinction Between Law and Gospel. Before December 14, 1531. No. 1234. Recorded by John Schlaginhaufen (c. 1498-1560. Latinized name: Turbicida).
“There’s no man living on earth who knows how to distinguish between the law and the gospel. We may think we understand it when we are listening to a sermon, but we’re far from it. Only the Holy Spirit knows this. Even the man Christ was so wanting in understanding when he was in the vineyard that an angel had to console him [John 12:27-29]; though he was a doctor from heaven he was strengthened by the angel. Because I’ve been writing so much and so long about it, you’d think I’d know the distinction, but when a crisis comes I recognize very well that I am far, far from understanding. So God alone should and must be our holy master.” (p. 127).
http://books.google.com/books?hl...F-8&sa=N& tab=wp
Luther Taught to Prefer Fathers to Scriptures. Before December 14, 1531. No. 1240.
“Dr. Unsingen, 2 my teacher, said to me when I love the Scriptures so much, ‘What is the Bible? One must read the ancient doctors, for they sucked the truth out of the Bible. The Bible is the cause of all sedition.’ Psalm 2 [:10] says, ‘Now therefore, O kings, be wise,’ but they say No. So be it! They are ruined like reckless tipplers.” (p. 128 ).
Note. 2 (on p. 127): Bartholomew Arnoldi of Usingen (ca. 1465-1533) taught philosophy in Erfurt University when Luther was a student there.
Moses and Luther at the Last Judgment. Before December 14, 1531. No. 1242.
“I won’t tolerate Moses because he is an enemy of Christ. If he appears with me before the judgment I’ll turn him away in the name of the devil and say, ‘Here stands Christ.’
“In the last judgment Moses will look at me and say, ‘You have known and understood me correctly,’ and he will be favorably disposed to me.” (p. 128 ).
Luther’s Works, Table Talk (Tischreden), vol. 54, ISBN 0800603540
….ok, just a bit more from the Table Talk and other sources … (couldn’t resist!)
Luther Abandoned Early Allegorization. Summer or Fall, 1532. No. 335. Recorded by Veit Dietrich (1506-1549).
“Jerome and Origen contributed to the practice of searching only for allegories. God forgive them. In all of Origen there is not one word about Christ.” (p. 47).
________
Forgiveness of Sins is Hard to Believe. Early in the year 1533. No. 437.
“You object that we are always sinning, and where there are sins the Holy Spirit does not dwell; therefore we are not saints because the Spirit sanctifies. I reply: The text says, ‘The Spirit will glorify me’ [John 16:13, 14]. Therefore, where Christ is, there is the Holy Spirit also. Besides, sins do not separate Christ from sinners who believe.” (p. 70).
http:// www.holytrinitynewrochell...ourti16728.html
“Here I am proud, move about as a very god, and judge the greatest powers on earth, such as the pope, emperor, Turks, and all heretics. I am seeking honor for the sake of the Lord Christ, whose Word I am preaching. So every Christian must be proud, but especially a preacher…”
Luther in What Luther Says, by Ewald M. Plass vol. 3, p. 1371.
http://books.google.com/books?as..._isbn=& as_issn=
“I herewith let you know that henceforth I will no longer confer the honor on you of condescending to let you or even an angel from heaven sit in judgment or cross-examination on my doctrine. At Worms enough of this foolish humility has now been shown …” Ibid.
http://books.google.com/books?id...as_brr=0& pgis=1
http://www.amazon.com/gp/ product...DN95E7QE4WEHE6B
OTOH, Luther did, from time to time, actually say things which made sense:
“Blessed is the man that hath not walked in the counsel of the Zwinglians, nor stood in the way of the Sacramentarians, nor sat in the seat of the Zurickers!”
The Church Review, 1878, Edward Brenton Boggs, ed., vol. XXX, pp. 68-69.
http://books.google.com/books?id...inglians%22& lr=
OK, I've done my mischief! - now I'm gone (matter of fact, I'm "Already Gone!").
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y...h? v=y8kvDq9qHXc
LOL!
It is because the founding fathers of the protestant reformation[Luther,Calvin,and co] and their followers were aware that the whole of antiquity was against their[the reformers] new doctrines and novel idea that was why they resorted to the argument that there was a great apostasy immediately after the death of the apostles,and try to explain away those NT passages which are in support of several distinctive Catholic doctrines.But can anyone who has really studied the historical data charge the christains of,lets say,the first there centuries of apostasy.The first three centuries was the age of the martyrs,the age where christains were ready to die for the love of Christ rather than worship or sacrifice to the gods of pagan nations,the age where men who were taught by the apostles themselves[St.Clement,St.Ignatius,St.Polycarp,and many others whose names are not known o us] or who were taught by men who were taught by the apostles themselves[e.g St.Iraenaus]lived.Yet it is in this age that we find almost all the distinctive catholic doctrines and practices[infant baptism,prayers for the dead,sign of the cross,Real presence,apostolic succession,Devotion to the saints,Papal primacy,Baptismal regeneration,the Church's power of forgiveness,Divinity of Christ,Divinity of the Holy Ghost,Divine marternity of Mary,Perpetual virginity of Marye.t.c] being accepted,without challenge,by all who was within the fold of the one Church.
Not only that but its very interesting that the church in Rome today, which is the biggest in the world (its on city state) is the Catholic Church.
Then what interesting this church is built on the Apostles St.Peter
The traditional story goes on to say that Peter's remains were buried just outside the Circus, on the Mons Vaticanus across the Via Cornelia from the Circus, less than 150 metres (490 ft) from his place of death. The Via Cornelia (which may have been known by another name to the ancient Romans) was a road which ran east-to-west along the north wall of the Circus on land now covered by the southern portions of the Basilica and Saint Peter's Square. Peter's grave was initially marked simply by a red rock, symbolic of his name, but meaningless to non-Christians. A shrine was built on this site some years later. Almost three hundred years later, Old Saint Peter's Basilica was constructed over this site.
On December 23, 1950, in his pre-Christmas radio broadcast to the world, Pope Pius XII announced the discovery of Saint Peter's tomb.[10] This was the culmination of 10 years of archaeological research under the crypt of the basilica, an area inaccessible since the 9th century. The burial place appears to have been an underground vault, with a structure above it believed to have been built by Pope Anacletus in the 1st century. Human remains were discovered, but it could not be determined if they were, in fact, the bones of the Apostle Peter. Indeed, the area now covered by the Vatican City had been a cemetery for some years before the Circus of Nero was built. It was a burial ground for the numerous executions in the Circus and for many years after the burial of Saint Peter many Christians chose to be buried near him. It is likely that any excavation anywhere on the Vatican grounds would discover human remains.
A good book on the subject is called
The Bones of St. Peter
The First Full Account of the Search for the Apostle's Body
by John Evangelist Walsh
© 1982, Doubleday & Co
Hello, Mr. Armstrong, I have a question to ask of you.
I was wondering if you could find the time to dialogue with me concerning religion, as my thought is very nuanced, and you have proven yourself numerous times to be more than capable of understanding the complexity of human belief.
Thank you.
Thanks for your kind words.
Possibly. What is your own theological position? I don't dialogue with anti-Catholics (those who consider the Catholic belief-system to not be Christian).
Do you have a website or blog? And what would you like to dialogue about?
I am a weak agnostic by default, yet always willing to defend the Church whenever she is under attack by the misinformed, ignorant and hostile, and/or hypothetically assuming the truth of the Christian kerygma in general. In fact, you have responded to my questions on the CHNI forums where I'm a member and helper (which, in turn, is a case in point of the foregoing statements). I was raised and baptized a Catholic, and so to that extent am an aspiring apologist like yourself, as well as a lay religious researcher for twelve years now. Socrates was always my favorite philosopher, and you are indeed today's ''Christian Socrates'', which is why i am so eager to debate you. I'd like to save the rest of my history and/or views for our dialogue should it occur. For now, thank you for responding.
Addition to above: I do not have a website or blog, but would like to dialogue about the truth of Christianity's central claims (e.g., the reliability of the canonical Gospels, the Resurrection, pagan savior-figures and gods, etc.).
Thanks.
I thought the "name" was familiar! So you suspect Catholicism / Christianity is true, would like to believe it, etc., do not want it to be untrue, yet you find yourself having a lack of confidence in its complete truthfulness, based on various intellectual issues?
Some more preliminaries: What was your major in college? What are some of the works you have been reading (if any in this regard) that have stirred up doubts in you?
Perhaps I can help, but due to time limitations, it would probably mostly be off the top of my head, and maybe a good deal of "playing Socrates" in order to challenge your premises, where they are, IMO, false. I can't promise to do in-depth research on everything you might bring up (though I may want to do some).
I'd also want to post it on the CHNI forum. You can be anonymous if you like. But if I put a lot of time into it, there has to be some tie-in to CHNI.
What first topic would you like to explore?
well, sir, sure. In fact, that's what I was aiming for; getting you to post this on your site. Call it ''coming out'', if you will. My research has been almost entirely out of school, having begun in '97 with my introduction to it in high school and becoming monstrous since then, LOL! I also love ancient to Enligtenment history, philosophy, and apologetics (of various faiths), as well as mythology and legend. I'm an objectivist a-around, so there is no argument there. But what has led me to greatly doubt the Christian faith is the fact of the ''Pagan Christs' and ''mystery religions'' of late antiquity, which seem much too similar in their narratives/ceremonies to Jesus and Christianity to be dismissed with the blanket response that ''Jesus is just different'', which is all I've been getting from non-Catholic apologists who try their hands at this.
all-around*
C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton already dealt with that particular thing. In fact, it was key to Lewis's own conversion:
Myth-as-Truth, J.R.R. Tolkien, and the Conversion of C.S. Lewis
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...olkien-
and.html
C.S. Lewis on Pagan Parallels to Christianity
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...rallels-
to.html
For Lewis, parallels were, -- far from a disproof --, a proof of Christianity, and verification of the emphasis in Christianity of accepting whatever is true in other belief-systems and "baptizing" them.
You'd want to read his Surprised by Joy, which details how his own paganism and Romanticism led him to Christianity as a "true myth." Tolkien played a key role in persuading him of that.
Chesterton's Everlasting Man (Lewis's own favorite book) is also entirely along these lines, demonstrating in brilliant prose how Christianity built upon what man already knew. You can read that online.
My own conversion to evangelicalism (back in '77 has some similarities to Lewis's, since I was a virtual pagan, a Romantic, nature mystic, and highly interested in the occult (I still am a Romantic and lover of nature; very much so). See my paper:
Romanticism, Wagner, C.S. Lewis, Christianity, and Me
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...r-cs-
lewis.html
Also, a related paper of mine:
Is Catholicism Half-Pagan?
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...half-
pagan.html
So I have some good answers, I think, to this first difficulty of yours. Whether you think they are sufficient replies, of course, remains to be seen.
This might also be of interest to Jmartyr:
http://www.bringyou.to/
apologeti...fiedSaviors.htm
Also this: Then Paul stood up at the Areopagus and said: "You Athenians, I see that in every respect you are very religious. For as I walked around looking carefully at your shrines, I even discovered an altar inscribed, 'To an Unknown God.' What therefore you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you....[Acts:17: 22-32]
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/a...acts/
acts17.htm
From the CCC: 843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332
844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:
Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333
845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.334
Yours in Christ's Love,
What you are really saying throughout all these papers is just that. ''Jesus was fully real, the others were as a whole false, and only POINTED to Jesus whenever they did get some things right''. You did offer scholarly analysis, but the authors were all Christians and only made ASSERTIONS, with no nontheistic or independent analysis for support or any reason that I should trust their claims. Are there any leading nontheistic scholars who've reached similar conclusions?
P.S. I know about the true date of Jesus' alleged birth and have no problem believing that he would've been born at that time if it were proven that he did exist (which I lean toward, unlike most nontheists).
What you are really saying throughout all these papers is just that. ''Jesus was fully real, the others were as a whole false, and only POINTED to Jesus whenever they did get some things right''.
Well, of course a Christian can accept no other gods. But much in non-Christian religion is true, just as in the example Dominicanis gave of Paul in Athens (that I often use myself).
If you think these other gods are true, then tell us why. I'd love to see the reasoning. If there is no such reasoning, then why is it an issue at all?
You did offer scholarly analysis, but the authors were all Christians and only made ASSERTIONS, with no nontheistic or independent analysis for support or any reason that I should trust their claims.
Obviously, it takes a Christian scholar to argue in defense of specifically Christian claims. How could it be otherwise. Others can verify factual claims, such as NT manuscript evidence or Jesus' Resurrecion, but they can'
t prove that a person ought to have faith in a particular thing, because it is just that: faith, and it goes beyond mere reason.
Are there any leading nontheistic scholars who've reached similar conclusions?
I don't know myself. I imagine there must be some who studied the history of religions, that would see all these parallels.
You can appeal to non-Christian scholars all day if you like, but ifd you really want to understand the depth of the Christian reasoning on this, you have to read something like Everlasting Man. Get inside the head of the Christian Mind; not just the skeptical, Enlightenment mind, and take your pick: which seems more plausible and believable. I think it is no contest, myself.
Something has caused a crisis of faith in you, to bring about doubt and confusion. If we continue to dialogue this needs to be identified and directly dealt with.
Ralph Woodrow wrote a book called "Babylon Mystery Religion: Ancient & Modern" about mixture of paganism into Christianity.
Then years later he wrote "The Babylon Connection?" where he recants his first book in this one.
I also think the foundation to all conversion is serious prayer. You can read a million books, get Ph.Ds from all fields of study and still want convert. I suggest praying the rosary, going to Mass, Eucharistic Adoration. Reading the lifes of the Saints. Ralph Martin is a Catholic speaker and has some good cds of Carmelite spirituality. With this it will help you understand the stages of conversion with Saint Teresa of Avila with her classic book "The Interior Castle"Also has a good cd on St John of the Cross. Thats just my 2 cents
God bless
Jerry
Remember Scott Hahn once said that there was some great Catholic scholars that lost there faith and he said these men stop praying, praying the Rosary. That all they did was study and read books.
Very good book also to read is
Faith and Certitude by Thomas Dubay,,,this book is a excellent overview of the causes of unbelief
another book is Authenticity: A Biblical Theology of Discernment by Thomas Dubay
another book by Frank Sheed called "Theology and Sanity
In order to help avoid misunderstanding, how do you define "nontheistic"? Is it atheism, agnosticism, Buddhism, Hinduism, humanism, Christian existentialism, the Quakers, or any combination or all of these(and any others of the plethora that I missed)?
Proving Jesus Christ existed isn't difficult; He is found even in non-Christian writings of that era, as well as unfavorably mentioned by the Jews in some versions (though not all) of their Talmud. It is rather "proving" Him Divine that seems more likely the problem here. One cannot prove an article of faith; though Christianity is rational, it is not rationalistic nor can its tenets be reduced to simple human comprehension. Even God Himself isn't provable as to Who and What He is; the best we can do apart from His Revelation is realize Who or What He isn't. If we can't take Him at His Word (no pun intended) then we are left to rely on human efforts alone, which are very dim in comparison to the Divine Intellect and Will of God.
In other words, though Thomas Aquinas provided five ways in which it can be concluded that God does indeed exist, faith is still a gift from Him and not something we can grasp by human(istic) efforts alone. (I am sorry if that seems unhelpful to what you seek.) Pagans searched in the darkness left after the fall of man from grace, and sometimes came closer to the truth. The Catholic Church recognizes when this occurs; we as individuals cannot rely solely on our personal judgment in this area.
You seem willing to accept the historical reality of the Christ of Christianity up to a point. Is this acceptance the same as you grant to Buddha, Mohammed, Dionysus, or any other "holy man" or pagan god? If you cannot accept Christ beyond the limits you set for accepting these, then this indicates a possible lapse into latitudinarian indifferentism, which is a heresy that is a common product of modernism.
"Theology and Sanity" by Frank Sheed is a great book to understand how belief in a personal God is necessary, and how Catholicism most perfectly addresses that need. It may, however, be not quite the right time for that title. I suggest you start with The Everlasting Man as Mr. Armstrong recommended. You may also want to read the series "The Pillars of Unbelief" by Peter Kreeft, in which he examines the architects of modern errors in Christian (and non-Christian) thinking:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/
topic...machiavelli.htm
Yours in Christ's Love,
Mr. Armstrong, good day. I understand all that the Church teaches about faith and reason, justification, other Christian and non-Christian groups, and the like. It's something I will always deeply respect, admire, and defend her for, and so you misunderstand, with all due respect. My point is simply that a nontheistic scholar who is adequately unbiased in his/her research and is able to point out the historical facts supporting these things to any degree in the affirmative is much more likely to be credible, having less of a reason for dishonesty. Also, I noted above my objectivism, and am simply saying that you've given me no MORE or LESS reason to accept Christianity's claims than Mithraism's the Kore mysteries, etc.
BTW, my definition of nontheism meets any or all of the above categories, and I greet and thank everyone kindly for the above links.
My point is simply that a nontheistic scholar who is adequately unbiased in his/her research
Why would someone who does not believe in God be less biased than someone who does believe. I do think many scholars come from different back grounds. You have liberal or nominal Christians, conservative Christians, Jews, and various other groups. They all have different biases in different directions. To say that the small minority of people who reject the notion of God are the only ones capable of good research seems illogical.
My advise would be to read these scholars before you dismiss them. They might be consumed by bias but they can also make points that need to be addressed. You never know. They might surprise you and make arguments that convince you of the truth of their position. That is something we should not be afraid of as rational people.
My point is simply that a nontheistic scholar who is adequately unbiased in his/her research and is able to point out the historical facts supporting these things to any degree in the affirmative is much more likely to be credible, having less of a reason for dishonesty.
I agree with Randy. That makes no sense, because the nontheistic scholar starts from the assumption that there is no God or even spirit as opposed to matter. That rules out all the different options of religion altogether, so the discussion ends right there. In a sense, it is an utterly closed-minded stance. It is the equivalent of trying to do natural science with a belief that there is no matter that can be objectively studied and observed in the first place. If we consider that an absurd scenario, why wouldn't we also think it is a foolish for an atheist to analyze religion, with the premises he brings to the table from the outset?
To the extent that an atheist studies comparative religion, it is simply a positivistic, sociological, anthropological approach, which doesn't take religion seriously. Often, there is a patronizing sort of psychoanalysis of religious phenemoena too. How that is an advance from a theistic scholar is a mystery to me.
Also, I noted above my objectivism, and am simply saying that you've given me no MORE or LESS reason to accept Christianity's claims than Mithraism's the Kore mysteries, etc.
It's not that simple. This discussion has barely begun. I'm familiar with the apologetic for Christianity. I know next to nothing about Mithraism, etc. If you think these things can give Christianity a run for its money, then start presenting the evidences in favor of it (them), and we'll do a comparison with Christianity and determine which is more plausible and worthy of belief. Assuming that there is some sort of equivalence without going through a point-by-point comparison settles or proves little or nothing.
Listen, I'm not saying that they don't have biases, I'm saying that would make the weight of the argument more acceptable generally, Christian or non-Christian. Here's an example: One of the links someone above referred me to quoted Richard Carrier admitting that Kersey Graves was ''full of (solid bodily waste)'' and said something to the effect that depending on the date the influence in the pagan stories may be going in ''the other direction''. This would give me some pause as to whether there was a consensus among genuinely objective scholars, regardless of their personal beliefs, regarding the truth behind a given narrative's extent. In other words, it is possible for a given scholar to give his readers/hearers honest information independently of their views. If all I have are accounts from theistic writers arguing the truth of Christian claims, with no independent parties supporting them, there is little if anything that separates honest research from ''scholarly'' homilies, that's all.
I agree with the universality of bias. What I object to is to say that a Christian must be seen as non-objective about religious-related matters, while the "non-theist" is supposedly objective. I reject that utterly. I say that both of those positions have bias. If the Christian has it in favor of Christian suppositions, then the atheist has it against Christian suppositions. But the atheist is in no way, shape, matter, or form, more objective because he has no particular religious belief coming in.
Personally, I think the atheist is less objective, for the reasons I gave last time, but to be as hypothetically "neutral" as I can be, at the very least, there is an equivalence of bias in both directions, so that it is a wash, and thus irrelevant to a larger analysis.
Alright, Mr. Arstrong, here are two examples. Mithras was believed during the 1st century AD to have risen from the dead, walked and talked, given his followers divine life during their mysteries through a meal (a LITERAL share in his body and blood; sound familiar?) the earliest Christians claimed the exact same things. Let's say I were a 1st century skeptic (modern sense), but was invited to the Mithraic mysteries. Upon leaving, something seriously makes me wonder why people believe these nutty ideas? Suddenly up ahead comes a traveler from some Greek city called Corinth, telling me that hat he is a (Catholic) Christian whose savior Iesous gives eternal life through water baptism to his followers (I just witnessed blood baptism, remember), was once a man in Palestine, performed miracles, resurrected (as did Mithras) and, the most glorious thing of all, he gives us himself, in his body and blood, literally. Another one?! This time Jewish; what the heck is wrong with these people?
I didn't say nontheistic scholars weren't biased Mr. Armstrong; see my post on that once again, please, and read it carefully.
But you are saying that for the outside observer, they would more readily accept the nontheist opinions because they would not be as (perceived) "dishonest" as the Christians. You can't have it both ways. You can nuance it all you want, but in the final analysis you're claiming that the Christian scholars are less trustworthy or pragmatically effective simply because they are Christians and have that natural bias.
And please call me Dave . . . do you have a real name, too?
Okay, great. Now give me the historical corroborating evidence for this Mithras to have supposedly risen from the dead? Why should anyone take the account seriously or think it is remotely as attested by solid historical legal-type evidence as Jesus' Resurrection is?
As far as Mithras goes, you need to make sense of the evidence. There seem to be some similarities. There are a few ways to explain it.
1. Mithrasism copied from Catholicism and claimed to have gotten it as revelation from Mithras
2. Catholicism copied from Mithrasism and claimed to have gotten it as revelation from Jesus
3. One is a true revelation of God and one is a counterfiet by Satan.
4. People trying to attack the Catholic faith exagerate and fabricate many of the similarities when the two religions were quite different.
Of these 4 only #2 actually poses a problem for the catholic faith. But #2 is not that easy to believe because of the nature of the early church. If you read the debates they had with gnostics and arians you can hardly imagine the church universally and uncritically embracing something from Mithras. Guys like Ignatius, Polycarp, and Irenaeus were focused on preserving the faith and not on embracing funky new ideas.
"Mithras was believed during the 1st century AD to have risen from the dead, walked and talked, given his followers divine life during their mysteries through a meal (a LITERAL share in his body and blood; sound familiar?) the earliest Christians claimed the exact same things."
"...the entire discussion is largely unhistorical. To raise the issue of a competition between the two religions is to assume that Christians and Mithraists had the same aims. Such a view exaggerates the missionary zeal -- itself a Christian idea -- of the other mystery cults. None of them aimed to become the sole legitimate religion of the Roman empire, because they offered an entirely individual and personal salvation. The alternative 'Mithras or Christ?' is wrongly framed, because it postulates a competitive situation which, in the eyes of Mithraists, simply did not exist....We should not simply transpose Christian views and terms in this area onto other mystery cults. Most of the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity are part of the common currency of all mystery cults or can be traced back to common origins in the Graeco-oriental culture of the Hellenistic world. The similarities do not at all suggest mutual influence....there are more substantial parallels at the ritual level, particularly the ritual meal...." (Clauss, The Roman Cult of Mithras, page 168-169)
"The Mithraists evidently believed that they were reborn through the consumption of bread and wine. The food was of course not simply actual or literal food, but also food in the metaphorical sense, which nourished souls after death: the meal was the guarantee of their ascension into the undying light. In the case of these analogies, there can be no question of imitation in either direction. The offering of bread and wine is known in virtually all ancient cultures, and the meal as a means of binding the faithful together and uniting them to the deity was a feature common to many religions. It represented one of the oldest means of manifesting unification with the spiritual, and the appropriation of spiritual qualities....In the ritual meal, Mithras' victory over the bull was celebrated and reproduced. There can be no doubt that the Christian apologists were quite right about its importance for the cult of Mithras as a whole....The ritual meal was probably simply a component of regular common meals. Such meals have always been an essential part of religious assembly; eating and drinking together creates community and renders visible the fact that those who take part are members of one and the same group." (Ibid. pages 109, 112-113)
http://www.bringyou.to/
apologeti...ors.htm#Mithras
Note the similarities between Christ and Mithras are few, and the bread and wine at their meal was not considered Mithras's literal body and blood.
Yours in Christ's Love,
Dave, my nickname (which I prefer) is Pito. As for the historicity of the resurrection and other claims, all of the known sources record the EXISTENCE of Christians in the Roman Empire and their BELIEFS (Tacitus, Pliny The Younger), and Josephus' report on Jesus (the TF) only appears in the 2nd edition of the ''Antiquities'', interrupts the text's flow, making it illogical and sudden, and is commonly regarded as a later Christian interpolation by scholars, theistic and nontheistic alike. The only ''evidence'' left is Josephus' statement on James, of which similar things are said. We have no 1st-century corroboration for this outside of the NT, nor for Mithras
We don't necessarily need outside sources. All we need to do is show that Scripture is historically reliable for recording events.
Once that is established (and the evidence is overwhelming that the Bible can be trusted for basic historical accuracy) then the analysis can be made of what we know with regard to Roman guards, purported eyewitness testimony (folks seeing Jesus risen again); of the subsequent behavior of the eyewitnesses and early Christians, etc.It becomes a very strong case, but of course a prior hostility to the possibility of a resurrection or any supernatural occurrence tries to explain away all of this.
Then we get ludicrous alternate theories such as the swoon theory, Passover Plot, stolen body, etc. None of those are remotely plausible, once all things are properly considered.
Lots of good books and articles on these things.
We have no 1st-century corroboration for this outside of the NT, nor for Mithras
So what you are really saying is the best documented evidence of Jesus' life is collected in the New Testament and the best documented evidence for Mithras' life... well there just isn't any in the same league. Somehow you arrive at an equivalence. That if you ignore all the evidence for Jesus that proves how unbiased you are because you also ignore the lack of evidence for Mithras. Good thing you non-theists are so fair-minded.
Randy, he hasn't said he is a non-theist. He is trying to work through some issues by discussing them, which is fine.
How interesting that even yourself, who I thought would refrain from such things, have resorted to such tactics as not really referring to the documents I named, not telling me how the outside observer KNOWS that the NT is historically reliable, why the Swoon, SBP PP theories are ''ridiculous'', what alternate theories ARE ''plausible'', why two Roman gaurds wouldn't immediately run off and tell Caesar that they had seen a man just get up and walk out of his grave after having died in everyone's presence (IN an independent source) ,why we should believe ''purported'' testimony, etc. And may I see those articles, please?
guards*
Thank you, Dave.
''ludicrous''*
Randy, he hasn't said he is a non-theist. He is trying to work through some issues by discussing them, which is fine.
Sorry, I didn't catch that. My apologies if I misrepresented your position Pito.
It's fine, Randy. Good evening, Dave and all, I'll be off for the night. But I will continue this discussion with you all tomorrow. Bye!
Looks to me like the dialogue is rapidly sinking into the usual polemics and losing any constructive potential I thought it had. Why would it be assumed that I have to thoroughly defend every statement I make, as soon as I make it?
Did I not state at the outset?:
"Perhaps I can help, but due to time limitations, it would probably mostly be off the top of my head, and maybe a good deal of "playing Socrates" in order to challenge your premises, where they are, IMO, false. I can't promise to do in-depth research on everything you might bring up (though I may want to do some)."
[see above:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
src=hsr#178401
And now you've already taken to lecturing me about "such tactics" and not doing what I specifically said I didn't have time to do (but certainly could do if I had the time, and have done so in the past)?
Moreover, you're already making excessive demands whereas you give yourself a pass in terms of defending a position other than the standard Christian one.
This is not a good sign, and these sorts of things sour me to continuing "dialogue." If charity and common sense have already departed in one day, in all likelihood it'll further descend to the usual Internet nonsense.
I can see the signs of that happening a million miles away, from my experience of 30 years of theological dialogues and over 500 of them online over the last dozen years. In a constructive, open-minded, totally cordial dialogue, this sort of garbage never even begins.
This is what I think Protestants do ""giveing excessivse demands on the Catholic Church but giving there selfs a pass defending there historical pedigree of there church.
Some good books I am reading on basic Christain arguments and history.
(1)What's So Great about Christianity by Dinesh D'Souza
(2)How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods Jr
William Lane Craig can defend the Resurrection,,,in fact he crush Richard Carrier in a debate over the Resurrection.
Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity) (Hardcover)
by William Lane Craig
Part of it is just the different language. Somebody who has read many thinks highly skeptical of the historicity of early Christianity is going to think you are going a million miles an hour. There are books that try and start from scratch and go step by step. This is why you can't just dismiss the New Testament. This is why it is unlikely that the church radically changed its teaching shortly after Pentecost. So many books gloss over these problems. These things will take time to sink in. You need to give Christianity a chance. Like Chesterton said, in trying to be fair to it he grew to be fond of it.
It takes some time and it takes an open heart. Many people have emotional reasons for rejecting Christianity before they start. These truths have huge implications for how we live our lives. We can see how that distorts the logic of others but we can't see it easily in ourselves.
You also need only reasonable evidence for Christianity claims. Arguments for the Christan Faith are only to clear the road blocks out of the away so the Holy Spirit can give you the gift of Faith and Grace. Even haveing the desire to ask for this gift is grace.
Saint Thomas Aquinas
To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.
Saint Thomas Aquinas
Three things are necessary for the salvation of man: to know what he ought to believe; to know what he ought to desire; and to know what he ought to do
Heinemann prize winner Robert Griffiths:
If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn’t much use.
Robert Jastrow:
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been waiting there for centuries.
"How interesting that even yourself, who I thought would refrain from such things, have resorted to such tactics as not really referring to the documents I named, not telling me how the outside observer KNOWS that the NT is historically reliable, why the Swoon, SBP PP theories are ''ridiculous'', what alternate theories ARE ''plausible''..."
What "tactics" are referenced above, Pito? As far as I can see, you've been taken reasonably and seriously and treated with charity and kindness. You state your position is "nuanced" but then paint those who disagree with you with a broad brush and dismiss Christian witness as "biased", which of course it is. So is non-theistic witness, as far as that goes. In any event, you seem to be expecting others to do the legwork for you in finding the materials you seek. That's not what apologists do and nobody owes you his time beyond a certain reasonable amount.
"... why two Roman gaurds wouldn't immediately run off and tell Caesar that they had seen a man just get up and walk out of his grave after having died in everyone's presence (IN an independent source) ,why we should believe ''purported'' testimony, etc."
Dereliction of duty was punishable by death in that era for Roman soldiers set on guard duty. They most likely would have been ridiculed by their superiors and then executed. The story of Christ being stolen from the tomb originated with the Jewish authorities and was not contradicted by the soldiers. This is scarcely compelling enough to shake my faith in the NT accounts by one iota.
As for "purported" testimony, there were many Christian men and women who were martyred rather than deny Christ. A few might be willing to die for a madman, more might be willing to die for a good man, but there were so many that their sacrificed lives become a testimony that they truly believed that Christ was Who He and His Apostles claimed Him to be: The Son of God; the only Son of God.
"And may I see those articles, please?"
If you don't have basic research skills, it may be time to develop some. It's never too late. Expecting someone else to do your homework for you is inappropriate for someone with nuances to his position. If there is access to Enlightenment materials, there is no doubt access to others as well. You have my prayers for a successful search.
Yours in Christ's Love,
Good morning all; my apologies for any rudeness on my part. I only mean that no other Christian apologist has ever defended sources such as the TF AND Tacitus and other sources referenced above adequately enough to me. I'm sure Dave can as well as any other person. I've been living my life studying religion for 12 years as I've stated above, so I'm familiar with all of these arguments and sources. As for the details of my position, they can't be summed up in any multiple soundbites, and must be dealt w/ in all their aspects. I don't have time to give you my detailed biography. But my ''name'' can be considered a hint at it, along w/ my membership and position as helper at CHNI. The rest will have to be dealt w/ another time. Dave has written himself on the difficulty of answering every argument or detailing his beliefs in a roomful of people and/or opponents. I ask you all to keep this in mind, please.
Why is it that you are a helper at CHNI, trying to assist people to become Catholics, if you are so confused about what you believe?
I think Marcus and Jim over there would want to know if one of their helpers is in such a state of mind, don't you? How can someone lead someone else down the right path if they're not sure which one it is in the first place?
Dave, when assuming the truth of the Tradition , I'm aware that the Fathers were all Catholic, as well as the established Church in general. Moreover, there is nothing wrong w/ correcting misinformation and misconceptions about her teachings and beliefs. In other words, the facts are the facts. Furthermore, helpers are helpees for fellowship as well. What's wrong w/ friendship?
I don't know what Mr. Grodi and others would say had I told them the truth; on that note, I beg your discretion and that of everyone in the room, please.
I only mean that no other Christian apologist has ever defended sources such as the TF AND Tacitus and other sources referenced above adequately enough to me
I am confused here. My understanding is most Christian apologists use these very much as secondary sources. They are as reliable as historians say they are. Some Christians might have tries to "improve" the historical record by messing with documents. But there is no evidence for a widespread conspiracy to falsify the historical record. So, at worst, you throw out a few documents that have some questionable historicity. But the main documents continue to be the New Testament books themselves. They were widely copied and frequently quoted. So the tampering issues you talk about don't apply there.
Don't you think, though, that the right thing to do would be for you to inform them of these things? I'm not trying to run you down. To me it is a simple matter of truthfulness, if you're working with an organization that has certain goals, and your own odyssey (or conflicts or whatever) may not be totally in line with the organization.
are assigned helpees* Also I've already written on my respect for the Church's teaching on reason and her penchant for intellectualism and other things, as well as my being raised Catholic, so I am not so much confused as willing to stand up for her when I can; she is the only branch of Christianity in which I see the above things present.
Well, b/c of the above things, I won't stand in anyone's way who makes the decision to join the Church, and will even help and befriend them. I'm afraid that they'll remove me from the list, refer my intended helpee to someone else, see things in black and white or become confused were they to know, etc. This is why I don't ''come out'' as it were.
I don't question your motives or your self-report. I'm just suggesting that it may be a matter of "duty" or whatever to let it be known, or (perhaps better) simply cease being a helper without revealing any of this, so you don't wind up in some big controversy, or have to be greatly misunderstood.
Of course, I believe (as you would expect) that the difficulties you are having (whatever they are, and I'm still not sure of many particulars) can be resolved. But it looks like it'll be tough to persuade you.
Well, Dave, I've always wanted to try my hand at defending the faith from the Christian pesrpective and see CHNI as my best bet; I don't know where else to go in order to do anything like that.
So what exactly is it that you have doubts about? We need to step back a bit and get down to the premises under discussion (that in your mind are not yet certain).
Okay, Dave, let's take the Tradition for example. It's a fact that the early (established) Church, headed by the Roman bishop (modern pope, believed to be Peter's successor) looked for guidance to Scripture, Tradition, and the Church's teaching authority to clarify and illumine both of these. But since everything in the (canonical) NT is a reflection of the oral Tradition which came before it/during its' transmission, how does the outside observer know that he can trust its content? It's known that in the ancient world, oral teachings were tested and checked and rehearsed for accuracy, but this probably refers to the teachings in and of themselves, not necessarily to the to the honesty of their ultimate sources, so how does anyone know he/she isn't being swindled in accepting this?
never mind the extra ''to the''
Hi, Pito,
You may find this article helpful in understanding the Middle Eastern concept of "oral tradition"; it covers a researcher's study of the culture, in which he lived for three decades.
Excerpt: We have seen some of the reasons that scholars reject oral tradition as being an accurate transmission of the facts. First, we saw Bultmann write that history was not important to those who relied on oral tradition. Their main concern was the Post Easter faith, and legends were created to support that faith. The other scholars mentioned likewise asserted that historical accuracy was not important to the transmitters of the kerygma. On the contrary, Bailey’s study showed that in the Middle East, those things that were important to the community, found their identification in their origins. Foundational facts were not allowed to be changed. The Christian community was founded by Jesus Christ, and thus the whole community’s basis was in the person of Jesus Christ and the things that he did. The culture would not allow such changes as imagined by Bultmann, Sanders, etc. Sanders’ theory that denigrated memorization is refuted by both the study of Hogg and the ancient Lebanese Christian community, both past and present.
Definitely related to the issue above is the method of transmission of the above data about Christ. Bultmann, Sanders, etc., believe the tradition that transmitted the theology and history of Jesus was informal and uncontrolled. There was no leadership that controlled this tradition of the stories of Jesus, and thus was informal. The stories about Jesus were easily shaped to the transmitters need and were uncontrolled. They trumpeted that there was no history of scholarly control of this tradition. Bailey’s study showed that this Western idea of oral tradition was out of step with the tradition of the communities of the Middle East. In the villages, recitation of the very types of stories that are found in the Synoptic Gospels were practiced, and all participated....
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/
o...ltradition.html
Yours in Christ's Love,
Thanks, Dave, I'll be right back
Hmmm... definitely something to think about.
Sorry, Dave, I was reading your papers. Thanks and I'll see you at CHNI.
how does the outside observer know that he can trust its content?
The Republic by Plato has about 7 source of copies, which the oldest copie we have about 1000 years after Plato death.
The New Testament has about 24000 to 25000 copies. Also you can also get most of the New Testament from reading the quotes NT from the Early Church Fathers.
just one example
Commenting by HaloScan
