Review of Rod Bennett’s book, Four Witnesses, Part 2

For Part 1, see here; and be sure to sure the initial review at Amazon, if you have not read that yet.

Again, there are the seven sections of Rod Bennett’s book:

1.  Introduction

2.  Clement of Rome

3.  Ignatius of Antioch

4.  Justin Martyr

5.  Irenaeus of Lyons

6.  Afterward

7.  Ancient Catholic Teaching and Catholic Teaching Today

Here in Part 2, we will focus on the Introduction and some aspects in the section on Clement of Rome. 

Introduction:

Page 11 – Rod is wrong about the meaning of Sola Scriptura.   “Raised in a strong, Bible-believing branch of Protestant Evangelicalism, I was taught to glory in the famous Reformation rallying cry of “Sola Scriptura” – the fiery conviction that the Bible and the Bible alone constitutes the basis for Christian belief.”

This may be the sentiment and mis-understanding that Rod, in his experience, felt, and this is a very common idea about what Sola Scriptura is, but it is incorrect.  Rather “Sola Scriptura” says that the Bible is the only infallible rule for faith, doctrine, and practice for the church.  It does not say it is the “only” basis for Christian belief; rather it is the  “only infallible rule”.   So, Protestants believe in secondary authorities that are good and useful, but not infallible, such as local church elders/teacher/pastors/overseers, whose ministry is to teach the Scriptures properly and interpret the Scriptures properly(but we can never claim that any human is infallible); also consulting church history, historical theology, great writers and theologians of the past, ancient creeds, ancient councils, doctrinal statements, good exegetical commentaries. 

Page 11 – When discussing the various Evangelical groups and churches Rod was a part of, he talks about the Evangelical spirit of always seeking to base things on the pure New Testament Church.  He states,  “Not one of them had ever sent me back to any first or second-century documentation for evidence.”

Except the New Testament books –all 27 of them, are first century documents.  Maybe he should have written “any other first or second century documentation for evidence.”

“Gap Theory” of the early church – p. 12-13 – Rod’s point here is true; too many Evangelicals are ignorant of church history and think there is a great gap between the finishing of the NT and the Reformation in 1517.  Some know about Constantine in 312-313 AD and the Council of Nicea in 325 and Augustine in 400; the Crusades in 1095-1299; the Spanish Inquisition of the 1400s, and then Luther in 1517.   I have learned a lot by being challenged by Roman Catholics in early church history; and it has strengthened my faith in Jesus Christ and His written word, and in a balanced view of church history in “letting the early church be the early church.” (Dr. James White)

p. 13 – “I let the spirit of their pure and undefiled Christianity wash over me like a bath.”  -  The problem is that Rod left out a lot of material in recounting these 4 early writers, especially from 1 Clement and Irenaeus. 

p. 14 -  Seems to imply that the early church fathers were more clear than the Scriptures themselves. 

Tells his purpose on page 17 – “In so doing this my goal has been (as far as possible) to let the early church speak for herself.”

1 Clement  (pages 25-93)

page 25 – quotes from I Clement 7:4-5, but does not mention any of the actual contents of the letter of 1 Clement until page 83.

On pages 83-93 is where he actually gets into the letter of 1 Clement.  Why did he wait so long to actually get into the letter of 1 Clement?

Seems to spend pages 25-83 to try and establish historical background from other writings, like Eusebius, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, the Epistle to Diognetes, and the Didache – Rod seems to imply that the issue in 1 Clement was doctrine and Gnosticism, rather than what I Clement actually says, which is the rebellion and schism by some was from pride, arrogance, and jealousy that caused a group of younger men to rebel and depose the elders who were properly appointed as elders/overseers .  He tries to show that Gnosticism was the issue in Rome in Clement’s time, but Clement never mentions Gnosticism as the cause of the schism and rebellion in his letter.  While it seems true that Marcion went there around 140 AD, and maybe others earlier than that, that issue is not the issue that Clement is addressing.  Clement mentions the sin of jealousy numerous times at the beginning of his letter and toward the end, as the cause of the disunity and schism, but Rod does not mention the jealousy issue very much, except at the end when merely quoting 1 Clement.  Clement mentions pride and rebellion, jealousy, but not so much about fighting false doctrines of the Gnostics. 

Rod makes some good use of Eusebius, the Didache, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and the Epistle to Diognetus; and also I appreciated his use of Tacitus, the famous Roman historian, one of the great historical evidences for Jesus Christ outside of the New Testament writings.  (pages 73-74, Four Witnesses)

As we mentioned in Part 1 of the Review of Four Witnesses,  on page 87, Rod stops the quote of 1 Clement 44 as precisely the exact place that would show that overseers/bishops (Greek: επισκοποι - episcopoi ) is the same office as elders (Greek: πρεσβυτεροι - presbuteroi).  This is clear in the earlier New Testament writings, such as Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5-7; 1 Timothy 3, 1 Peter 5:1-5, Philippians 1:1.  Even other very early non-canonical writings confirm this, such as the Didache 15, and Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 26, no. 5.

“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. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.

Rod, used a different translation than the one above, but stopped the quote here on page 87 of his book.

You can look at the standard ccel.org translation here.

The quote continues:

“For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.  Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behavior from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honor. “ 1 Clement 44

Subtle shots against Sola Scriptura

In this section on 1 Clement, he takes several shots at Sola Scriptura by mentioning that the New Testament canon was not completely known, discerned, collected under one cover, or decided upon yet.  Yet the books already existed, being written between 48-69 AD and 80-96 AD.  Some scholars even argue that all the 27 NT books were written before 70 AD.  Sometimes, it even seems that Rod implies that the NT books and letters did not even exist until the 4^th Century. 

p. 54 – “the church had been preaching the gospel, saving souls, and founding congregations all over the Near East for at least ten years before a single line of the New Testament was written.”  While this is technically true, it seems the way it is framed is to make the reader downplay the importance of the written word.  But no Protestant Evangelical denies that anyway.  In fact we have no problem with oral preaching and the passages that speak of “tradition” – the truths that were passed down by oral teaching – 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6; 1 Corinthians 15:1-3, 1 Cor. 11:1-2, 2 Timothy 2:2, Jude 3.  Properly understood, there is no contradiction of these passages that mention "tradition" to Sola Scriptura, and there is no evidence that any of the later man-made Roman Catholic traditions were a part of these passages; none at all.  Especially when we consider that 1 and 2 Thessalonians, along with Galatians, are the earliest letters of Paul, and he obviously taught the same gospel as he later wrote down in Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, etc. and so the "tradition" that he mentions is all later written out for us in later epistles/books.  

Moreover, in the context of 2 Thessalonians 2:15, which mentions "traditions", 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, teaches us what the content of those traditions were:

"But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.  It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Interesting that the apostle teaches the doctrine of election here in verse 13 - "for salvation" and he calls it "gospel" in verse 14.  Later, he would flesh these doctrines out more in Romans chapter 9 and Ephesians chapter 1.  So much for Roman Catholic "traditions" in 2 Thessalonians 2:15!

p. 55 – “So what filled this crucial role in the first century Church – a Church where the Word of God for Christians would not be fully known for literally centuries?”  

This is also technically true; but at the time of Clement in 96 AD, the NT books were all written and existed individually.   Even the book of Revelation, most scholars believe, was probably written around this time.  (But personally, I think a good case is made that even Revelation was written before 70 AD.) 

The NT books just were not brought together under one “book cover” yet.  In fact, books as we know them today, with a binding, did not even exist at that time.  Each book and letter of the NT were individual separate rolled up scrolls.  The codex form (sheets bound together) only started coming into being in the second century, and many scholars argue that it was the Christians in the second and third centuries that made the codex form in more wide usage.  There were plenty of canonical lists consisting of the four gospels and Paul’s letters beginning around 160 AD.  The Muratorian Canon consisted of the four gospels, Acts, all 13 of Paul’s letters, the book of Revelation, 1 – 2 John and Jude.  Only James, Hebrews and 1 and 2 Peter are not mentioned.  Clement mentions 1 Corinthians in his letter – 1 Clement 47 – “take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul . . . “  (Rod quotes this on page 88 of his book).  Even then, Clement exhorts the Corinthians to read the inspired letter to the Corinthians where Paul discusses the disunity issue and the groups that were fighting over whose teacher they liked better, whether Paul, or Peter, or Apollos, or even Christ.  (1 Corinthians chapters 1-4)  In the very context of the problem of disunity and which teacher certain groups followed, the inspired apostle models Sola Scriptura in principle as the way to solve the problem of arrogance, pride, competition and a spirit of jealousy over teachers, with the words, “do not go beyond what is written” in 1 Corinthians 4:6; and Clement seems to agree. 

Again, on page 55 – “What kept the body of Christ from falling into doctrinal chaos in a world where most (if not all) believers lived their entire lives without even knowing what the New Testament was?”  Again, Clement quotes from OT and NT passages, and the emphasis is on jealousy, pride, disunity, and rebellion as the cause of the problem he is addressing in 1 Clement.  A protestant would agree that that group of young men had no right to depose the duly appointed elders from their office.  There is just no contradiction between Protestantism and 1 Clement on the matter of church government and leadership. 

p. 61- “Eventually, these Apostles will commit the commands of the Lord and Savior to writing, in their letters, in books, and in strange accounts of their prophetic dreams and revelations.”  But Rod had just quoted 2 Peter 3:2 – “remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandments of the Lord and Savior through your apostles.”  2 Peter had to have been written around 66-67 AD, before Peter was executed by Nero in 67 AD.  Maybe Peter dictated it to a disciple of his from prison just before he was executed.  In that letter, Peter calls “all of Paul’s letters, “Scripture” – 2 Peter 3:16.  So all of Paul’s letters and for sure the 3 synoptic gospels and Acts were already written by this time, along with 1 Peter.  These are almost 30 years before Clement. 

p. 62 – “Yet even now, with the Bible still an unfinished symphony for years to come, the holy gospel of Jesus abides safely just where Jesus Himself deposited it – in the hearts of the men He called friends.”    This again is the true in the sense of the books being collected together and put together in one binding, but it is not true as to their existence.  Rod seems to emphasize that Clement had nothing to go by except the claim that he was taught by Peter himself and everything was all oral and in their memories and hearts. 

Rod emphasizes Simon Magnus and Gnosticism, by using Irenaeus’ and Justin Martyr's (pages 49-56) statements about Simon Magnus, but Clement makes no mention of this issue at all. 

p. 62 – “. . . the proud city of Rome must learn to look where Clement looked – to the simple man to whom the Good Shepherd said, “Feed My sheep.”   Rod is trying to build the case that the deposit of correct doctrine was in the person of Peter, in his office as bishop of Rome or "Pope", in Rome, passed on to Clement, and that that was the solution to the problem of disunity and Gnosticism at the time of 1 Clement.  Rod seems to imply that Clement is a "living voice" of authority and can solve the disunity problems by commanding obedience.  

This is somehow supposed to imply some kind of Papacy and apostolic succession, it seems, in Rod’s understanding.  Of course, Protestants agree with Peter’s doctrine and faith, as it is expressed in Matthew 16:16 ("You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God"), 1 and 2 Peter, the gospel of Mark, and in his preaching and actions in the book of Acts.  There is nothing in these records that indicate Peter appointed a one bishop ruler, that would have a higher jurisdiction of authority than the other bishops and presbyters, or that He was infallible or “the first Pope” or even “the bishop of Rome”.  Peter may have come in and out of Rome, as a traveling evangelist/missionary/apostle, and was probably martyred there around 66-67 AD by Nero, but He was an apostle and called himself “a fellow elder” in 1 Peter 5:1.  That shows that he viewed himself as equal to other elders in a local church and is another evidence the early church government was a plurality of elders/overseers for each local church.  (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5-7) 

p. 79 – After recounting the traditions of the death of the apostles, especially Peter being crucified upside down by Nero around 66-67 AD, Rod states, “Clearly this was a crucial moment in Church History.  Her living links with Jesus were passing away, and she was still without a complete, authoritative Bible.”   Interesting that Peter in his second letter, written from prison most likely, did not mention his successors or any kind of Papacy or him appointing a one man “mono-episcopate” and Peter did not say – “listen to my successor bishop of Rome” in his letter.  Instead Peter kept saying, in 2 Peter 1:12-18 and 2 Peter 3:1,  “this is the second letter I am writing to You” and “by doing this, by writing this letter, I am being diligent so that after I am gone, you will have something that can stir up your sincere minds and remember the truth.  I have written about this principle several times before.  

This, 2 Peter 1:12-18 and 3:1, is clear evidence against any kind of Papacy or Roman Catholic sense of a successor in a mono-episcopate from Peter himself in the church in Rome, or any kind of infallibility doctrine, or any kind of superior jurisdiction of leadership of Peter being passed on. 

p. 11 – working from a wrong definition of “Sola Scriptura”, he seeks to build his case based on this mis-understanding, the whole rest of the way throughout his book.

p. 14 – says the early church is clear and unambiguous.  He seems to imply that the Scriptures are less clear.

p. 29 – “how can they know?” (the truth) –  from pages 27 to page 32 – It seems that Rod seeks to establish that Peter is the key on how the disciples would know the truth after Christ is gone by Jesus’ statement – “feed My sheep” in John 21:15-17. (page 27)

Roman Catholics seem to imply that Clement taught their version of apostolic succession in his time.  This is not correct. 

“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. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behavior from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honor. “ 1 Clement 44

Jason Engwer commented on 1 Clement 44:

“Why would Evangelicals disagree with such a concept of apostolic succession? Clement was writing to the church of Corinth in a context in which the leaders being opposed hadn't done anything wrong. Who would deny that there should be an ongoing succession of church leaders in such a context? He isn't addressing what should happen if the leaders would become corrupt, though his comments suggest that he would allow exceptions if corruption was involved. And the fact that some churches, such as Corinth, were founded by apostles doesn't imply that every church must have a line of bishops going back to the apostles. The only way to make this passage in Clement of Rome inconsistent with Evangelicalism is by reading assumptions into the text that neither the text nor the context implies.

And it should be noted that the Roman church at the time of Clement probably didn't have a monarchical episcopate. See here and here, for example. Just after what I've quoted from Clement above, he refers to those who hold "the episcopate" as "presbyters", and earlier he had referred to only two offices, bishops and deacons (First Clement, 42).”

“The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”  (1 Clement 42) 

 The last quote that Clement makes is from the LXX translation of Isaiah 60:17.  Interestingly, the two offices of bishops and deacons are mentioned in The Didache 15, another very early non-canonical document (usually dated between 70-120 AD), and shows the earliest local church government was a 2 office leadership, not three.  Namely, overseers/bishops and deacons.  Philippians 1:1 also says the same thing:  overseers (επισκοποις - episcopois - plural) and deacons. 

So, it is very interesting that 1 Clement is one of the earliest, if not the earliest (96 AD) (if the Didache was written after 96 AD) non-canonical document and teaches:

1.  That local church government has 2 offices, not three, and that elders (presbuterous) is the same office as overseers or “bishops” (episkopois) (1 Clement 42, 44)

2.  I Clement has a passage that teaches that justification is by faith alone, and goes against seeing justification being based on one’s own righteousness.  (1 Clement 32)  (more on that in part 3)

Indeed, in regard to local church government in the early church,

James White wrote some time ago,

“For example, Roman Catholic scholar Joseph F. Kelly wrote in The Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity (1992, p. 2), “The word ‘pope’ was not used exclusively of the bishop of Rome until the ninth century, and it is likely that in the earliest Roman community a college of presbyters rather than a single bishop provided the leadership.”  This is echoed by Protestant church historian J.N.D. Kelly who wrote:“In the late 2nd or early 3rd cent. the tradition identified Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This was a natural development once the monarchical episcopate, i.e., government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid-2nd cent. “  (J. N. D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 6).“When speaking of Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Telesphorus, and Hyginus (to A.D. 142), Kelly consistently notes the same thing: there was no monarchical episcopate in Rome at this time.
“When Ignatius wrote to the church at Rome, did he address this monarchical bishop?  No.  In fact, his letter to the Romans is the only one where he does not address the bishop by name.  This is considered strong testimony by most scholars in support of what J.N.D. Kelly said above.” (James White, Exegetica: Roman Catholic Apologists Practice Eisegesis in Scripture and Patristics – Vintage, re-blogged, January 6, 2013)
 

More evidence that bishop and presbyter were originally one and the same church office:

Jason Engwer wrote:

“Roger Beckwith comments:

"Other fourth-century writers, besides Jerome, who continue to recognize that bishop and presbyter were originally one, include Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia." (Elders In Every City [Waynesboro, Georgia: Paternoster Press, 2003], n. 13 on p. 24)”

"When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself." (Jerome, Letter 146:1)

In that same blog article, Jason Engwer provides two quotes by Jerome that are really telling as to the issue of presbyters and bishops being the same office.  These were supplied by David King, co-author, with William Webster, of the 3 volume set, Holy Scripture:  The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith.

"A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop, and before dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the peoples, ‘I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas,’ Churches were governed by a common council of presbyters; afterwards, when everyone thought that those whom he had baptised were his own, and not Christ’s, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen out of the presbyters should be placed over the rest, and to whom all care of the Church should belong, that the seeds of schisms might be plucked up. Whosoever thinks that there is no proof from Scripture, but that this is my opinion, that a presbyter and bishop are the same, and that one is a title of age, the other of office, let him read the words of the apostle to the Philippians, saying, ‘Paul and Timotheus, servants of Christ to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons.’" (Commentariorum In Epistolam Ad Titum, “Commentary on the Epistle to Titus”, PL 26:562-563)

And:

"Therefore, as we have shown, among the ancients presbyters were the same as bishops; but by degrees, that the plants of dissension might be rooted up, all responsibility was transferred to one person. Therefore, as the presbyters know that it is by the custom of the Church that they are to be subject to him who is placed over them so let the bishops know that they are above presbyters rather by custom than by Divine appointment, and ought to rule the Church in common, following the example of Moses, who, when he alone had power to preside over the people Israel, chose seventy, with the assistance of whom he might judge the people. We see therefore what kind of presbyter or bishop should be ordained." (Commentariorum In Epistolam Ad Titum, PL 26:563)

Dr. White cited these Jerome passages in his response to Paul F. M. Zahl, who argued for the Anglican-Episcopal -mono-episcopate church government.  (Perspectives on Church Government:  Five Views of Church Polity, Edited by Chad Owen Brand and R. Stanton Norman; Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2004, p.251-252)

John Bugay has done some excellentwork in his articles at Triablogue on the non-existant Papacy 

and 

Brandon Addison has an extensive review of Lampe’s work on the early evidence for no mono-episcopacy in Rome.   

Moreover, Clement himself never claims that he is a "mono-episcopate" - a one man authority of a bishop over the church at Rome.  In his letter, he clearly states, "The church of God . . . at Rome, to the church of God sojourning at Corinth".  This is fully compatible with Protestant ecclesiology, but not with Roman Catholic ecclesiology. 

"The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied."  1 Clement, 1:1

So, overall, Rod makes a very weak case for Roman Catholicism from the letter of 1 Clement.  

For anyone considering reading Rod Bennett's book, or any other Roman Catholic book on early church history and the early church fathers, one should at least avail themselves of these resources:

The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, William Webster

Canon Revisited, by Michael J. Kruger

See also Dr. Kruger's blog:  Canon Fodder

Holy Scipture:  The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, by David King and William Webster

Scripture Alone, by James White

Sola Scriptura, edited by Don Kistler

Historical Theology, by Gregg Allison

History of the Christian Church, by Philip Schaff  (online at www.ccel.org) 

Oxford Dictionary of Popes, by J. N. D. Kelly 

and the various links to other books and websites in the article above.