Sean Patrick has put forth a bit of a challenge, with the title,
Modern Scholarship, Rome and a Challenge. This of course is based upon my writings about Peter Lampe and some of the echoes with David Waltz. I'm very pleasantly surprised to report that they're allowing me to comment.
Excellent John!
ReplyDeleteI just finished reading this up to the post # 20 - so glad it is not so long as their other articles and not up to 100 comments or more as in many others, that would be too much to try and read and keep up.
Your article to Dozie
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/06/answers-for-dozie.html
on how error crept in -
was very good also - I had not seen that before because I was out of town at the time and somehow missed it - the cumulative effect is an affective apologetic against the claims of Rome.
Press on (Philippians 3:7-14) and keep abiding in the true vine (John 15:1-16) - your efforts and demeanor are bearing much fruit.
Thanks Ken :-)
ReplyDeleteVery interesting John.
ReplyDeleteI certainly have some view or position on that as you have.
First, in your initial response to Sean Patrick, I would point out that it was very good at underscoring the anachronistic levity they have, 'only', to work from!
Let's see the logic?
Ok, there are the original ideas from Scripture that form our opinions as to "Who" is the "Head" of the Church, then and now? However, we have to go about 300 years later in history to the writings of a man and his interpretation to establish what the Scriptures don't 300 years earlier!
Hmmmmmmm?
Ok, enough of that.
Here's where I stand.
First, and only with the Scriptures, let's see with the aid of the Holy Spirit the structures of this man made problem before, during and after the ascension of Christ. History also reveals some confirmation to these truths.
With that, I offer some verses:
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.
Joh 1:8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
My point with these verses is, ironically, "John". John is a tell tell sign of the problem that the earliest disciples had continually to deal with. A problem that only John's solution could solve.
And the solution is?
Joh 3:30 He must increase, but I must decrease."
This solution presents a problem for the solution the RCC has arrived at by fraud and anachronism.
I know that there is much more that could be written in response to all this. I will add one other thing here based on my position above, a simple one, I know.
It is this and I want to focus on one Greek Word with understanding that also, in my opinion, is a deal breaker for their challenge:
Joh 1:16 And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.
The Greek word for "fullness" is:
πλήρωμα
plērōma
play'-ro-mah
From G4137; repletion or completion, that is, (subjectively) what fills (as contents, supplement, copiousness, multitude), or (objectively) what is filled (as container, performance, period): - which is put in to fill up, piece that filled up, fulfilling, full, fulness.
What is the problem and why is this word a bomb that when handled explodes it, their concept of infallibility and their faithful following the edicts of popes and people who do not have the same authority as we do from the Reformed Faith?
cont'd
continuing,
ReplyDeleteFor it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).
No, it is a matter of necessity that we get it right in the end because if we die in our sins we do not get to enjoy the fullness Christ has for us!
He also has the lake of fire for all who are anti-christ!! :(
“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?” Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).
No, but yes, the problem still persists as it did with the twelve and one of those we know was full of Satan himself when he went off and erred!
The problem, then and now, is the debate that they had then and now.
Joh 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
Joh 1:35 The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples,
Joh 1:36 and he looked at Jesus as he walked by and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!"
Joh 1:37 The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus.
Joh 1:38 Jesus turned and saw them following and said to them, "What are you seeking?" And they said to him, "Rabbi" (which means Teacher), "where are you staying?"
Joh 1:39 He said to them, "Come and you will see." So they came and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour.
Joh 1:40 One of the two who heard John speak and followed Jesus was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
So, from Scripture, we see appointments being made by the Christ confirmed by John, the greatest of the Prophets of Law Righteousness!
What unfolds is the Divine Character being introduced into the human character that says, I am in charge. I am better. You are not better than me.
Oh, we shall see:::>
Joh 1:41 He first found his own brother Simon and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which means Christ).
Joh 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter).
Nothing Jesus ever did while on the earth was done in secret or in hiding, or darkness for the purpose of defrauding the Authority of God.
Now, certainly, if you were there and heard that spoken to Peter, wouldn't you start forming some idea of the importance of Peter?
Let's continue:
Joh 1:43 The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, "Follow me."
Joh 1:44 Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
Now enter Philip.
Hmmmmm, oh, Peter and Andrew, hi guys, what's up? Oh, Jesus, hi, what?
Follow you? Why?
cont'd
John Bugay: "I'm very pleasantly surprised to report that they're allowing me to comment."
ReplyDeleteCan anyone tell me why Catholic blogs are usually moderated (eg. Called to Communion, Matthew Bellisario's blog "Catholic Champion) and why the Protestant blogs (Beggars All, TurretinFan, Triablogue) are usually not moderated? Why is that?
In fact, I participate on a blog called Evangel, a Protestant blog, which is unmoderated, that happens to be hosted on a Catholic website, First Things, and yet First Thing's Catholic blog is moderated!
(By "moderated", I mean comments have to be filtered through a moderator before it's allowed to be posted on a thread.)
Why are Protestant blogs unmoderated and Catholic blogs moderated? Does this tell me anything? If so, what?
continuing,
ReplyDeleteJoh 1:45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
Joh 1:46 Nathanael said to him, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Philip said to him, "Come and see."
Joh 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!"
Joh 1:48 Nathanael said to him, "How do you know me?" Jesus answered him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you."
Joh 1:49 Nathanael answered him, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!"
Now, what do we see? One, Andrew, one of John's disciples, the brother of Peter, with the other disciple of John, hear him say of Jesus:
Joh 1:35 The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples,
Joh 1:36 and he looked at Jesus as he walked by and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!"
Joh 1:37 The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus.
They go to Jesus and He begins appointing from among them, disciples, who will, at the end of His days, will be sent the Holy Spirit, and begin, in Jerusalem, calling forth the Word of the New Covenant among their own.
What we also know from Scripture is God's authority at that time was being governed by Rome not Jerusalem. Rome of course was a very repressive brutal beast wherever she went. She was sent to bring judgment upon Israel for their failings!
The climate of their day in Israel was one of seeking for a solution to their problem. It was seeking for freedom from the laws of Rome as well as from the law of sin and death in their flesh that got them in the situation they were in with Rome ruling over them!
They were hoping Jesus would become their solution as they were battling on the two fronts; the natural man and the spiritual man!
Well, certainly we all have good news, He is our solution!!
Jesus' answer there to Nathanael is the only solution to both battles mankind faces:
Joh 1:50 Jesus answered him, "Because I said to you, 'I saw you under the fig tree,' do you believe? You will see greater things than these."
Joh 1:51 And he said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."
I would underscore the two battles which are not far from any one of us today by these verses as well:
cont'd
Why are Protestant blogs unmoderated and Catholic blogs moderated? Does this tell me anything? If so, what?
ReplyDeleteHi TUAD,
I suspect its a genetic thing. We should remember the recent history of the Roman church, its censorship of dissenting opinions made manifest in the Index of Forbidden books.
Its a long tradition of only allowing daylight to hit officially sanctioned opinion.
Unfortunately, it has the effect of stifling innovation and creativity.
Peace.
continuing,
ReplyDeleteLuk 22:23 And they began to question one another, which of them it could be who was going to do this.
Luk 22:24 A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.
Luk 22:25 And he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors.
Luk 22:26 But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.
Luk 22:27 For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.
Luk 22:28 "You are those who have stayed with me in my trials,
Luk 22:29 and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom,
Luk 22:30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Luk 22:31 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat,
Luk 22:32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers."
Here in these verses, what do we see?
Among other things, consider what these buffoons focused on at verses 23-4!
Is not this one issue one of the main issues these twelve fought over continually during their ministerial training with the Master and them afterwards as we see developed both in the Book of Acts and the Epistles?
"Who is going to be head of this organization? Who is the greatest??" "Follow me"!
Isn't it simply the same sort of argument coming from across the Tiber these days, too?
cont'd
Natamllc, it's fascinating that you bring up "fullness of grace" because God's grace is at the center of all of this, and I'm convinced they misunderstand it (just as Torrance notes that Clement misunderstood it from the beginning).
ReplyDeleteLots more along these lines. It's a holiday weekend though, and I've just got other things to do!
continuing,
ReplyDeleteI would end with some more verses just to refute the citation from the blog, Called to Communion, I cite over here from there:
[we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.
First, these verses:
Luk 24:44 Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
Luk 24:45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
Luk 24:46 and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,
Luk 24:47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Luk 24:48 You are witnesses of these things.
Luk 24:49 And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high."
Note verse 47 from Luke 24.
Also, not these verses:
Act 26:19 "Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision,
Act 26:20 but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.
Act 26:21 For this reason the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me.
Act 26:22 To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass:
Act 26:23 that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles."
Note verse 20 from Acts 26.
Now we are heading to the finish line with these verses:
Act 16:5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily.
Act 16:6 And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia.
Act 16:7 And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them.
Act 16:8 So, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas.
Notice that Paul must have had a thick head seeing it took both the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Jesus to not go forward into the region and territory of Asia, particularly
Bithynia.
cont'd
continuing,
ReplyDeleteWhy is this significant?
Well, consider the places God assigned to Peter, here:
1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
What role did Rome play in the early Church? We know both Paul and Peter were witnesses and servants to those places indicated above.
Rome was the central governing body for the civil world they ruled.
All major civil issues of such importance were dealt with there. When it came to spiritual issues of Christ's Body, they were dealt with at Jerusalem as we see at Acts 15 or we see also happening at Antioch. Or Rome, if it was something to be debated within the local Church there.
Needless to say to one who is Reformed though, those across the Tiber have taken upon themselves to much "headship" authority of the True Church here on earth then and now that is not established from Scripture! The defenders of the RCC have to resort to fraud and anachronism to win the day!
I leave off with one point about the "Church", now.
Consider the arguments of Rome and the church they say is the True Church in light of this fact of Scripture, here:
Act 11:19 Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews.
Act 11:20 But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Hellenists also, preaching the Lord Jesus.
Act 11:21 And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord.
Act 11:22 The report of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch.
Act 11:23 When he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad, and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose,
Act 11:24 for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord.
Act 11:25 So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul,
Act 11:26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.
I would note two verses in those cited above from Acts 11.
Consider that in none of these verses is anyone "joined" to "the Church at Rome"!
Act 11:21 And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord.
Act 11:24 for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord.
Who is the Church?
One is a member of Christ first. When one turns to the Lord from any nation, kindred, tribe or people group by the power of God they are "joined" to Christ first, then one is a member of Christ's Body, the Church subject to that local governing body of elders!
You do not join the Roman Catholic Church to become a part of Christ's Body? No, you become a member of Christ's body first, then "added" to His Church where He wills, not man!
Gents,
ReplyDeleteRe:Moderation....
Called to Communion gets many comments and a lot of spam. Anybody can comment if they follow the posting guidelines which are basically rules which aim to keep any conversation on topic and we also wish to promote charity on the site.
It should be no surprise. I've been censored and/or banned on Reformed blogs before so the 'only Catholics moderate comments' idea is lost on me, at least.
Incidentally, since we've started CtC we've had about 10,000 comments and only a handful (under 100 by my count) have not been approved and many of those were made by Catholics. In case you are wondering, the most common reason for a comment not being approved are ad homs and comments not related to the topic.
ReplyDeleteSean Patrick opens with:
ReplyDeleteWithin the Reformed blogosphere there has lately been put forth some pretty bold claims regarding the structure of the church in the first century, particularly the structure of the Roman Church.
Well, using the Scriptures of the First Century, I have shown that the structure those defenders of their church across the Tiber is a weeee bit different than our bold claims!
We see from Scriptures of the First Century that the Gospel first went forth from Jesus' own lips while gathered with the Disciples, both men and women, in an upper room in downtown Jerusalem. There He exhorts by the Power of God and His Own Will and Authority and Words:
Luk 24:44 Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
Luk 24:45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
Luk 24:46 and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,
Luk 24:47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Beginning "from" Jerusalem repentance was proclaimed!
It was without fear this was done!
Consider where these disciples went too, after the ascension, here:
Luk 24:52 And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy,
Luk 24:53 and were continually in the temple blessing God.
Hmmmmmm? Now isn't it this very Temple from which Christ was driven out and then subsequently arrested and found guilty of Loving God with His whole Heart, Soul, Mind and Strength then crucified?
Going back to that Temple, huh? It is like what we read about the Apostle Paul when, after being stoned to death and dragged out of town, after being surrounded and prayed for by the Christians there, he rises up and goes right back into the very town of people who stoned him!
We also see that after Saul of Tarsus was touched by the Lord becoming Paul the Apostle that he goes into Damascus and it is from there first, he begins his public proclamations of the same things the Disciples were proclaiming in Jerusalem.
It is interesting to note this verse that highlights God's Sovereign Hand in all this establishing of His authority through men:
Act 8:1 And Saul approved of his execution. And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.
Act 26:19 "Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision,
Act 26:20 but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.
So, we see, first from Jerusalem, then from Damascus, then from Antioch and then to Rome the proclamation of Truth goes forth to all nations.
Nowhere in these verses from the First Century are we taught that the Church at Rome is the central focus of the Christ from where all else find's its authority to preach and teach the Word!
Well, from where then does the authority come from for us in our place to preach and teach the Gospel of the Kingdom to all nations and then the end shall come?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs for the moderation, it is quite amusing that the Prots here think it is a Catholic conspiracy to keep the geniuses from over here from commenting. Quite simply, I got tired of deleting the chinese ( or whatever oriental language it is) spam comments that linked to undesirable websites that people should not have to put up with. I usually check it once a day to post comments, so quit with lame attacks and excuses for not coming up with good arguments. Its not like we don't post your comments.
ReplyDeleteHmmm, I suggest the readers should read the entire story and comments posted at:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/09/modern-scholarship-rome-and-a-challenge/
My gosh what a forgery was that of Apostolic succession, practically that covers the entirety of Christendom from 2nd (3rd your cut-off date?) to 16th century only with the rise of great, holy men of the reformation that saved the christian church. (No need to have Ecumenical Councils for that - just James White would do.)
What a wonderful story - in fact very cunningly clever :D
Matthew Bellisario: "Quite simply, I got tired of deleting the chinese ( or whatever oriental language it is) spam comments that linked to undesirable websites that people should not have to put up with."
ReplyDelete#1. Protestant blogs also get spam. It's not as if it's only Catholic blogs that get spam. Yet Protestant blogs remain unmoderated.
#2. What's the time difference between deleting spam comments and reading spam comments and not allowing them to be posted? Isn't it neglible?
"I usually check it once a day to post comments, so quit with lame attacks and excuses for not coming up with good arguments. Its not like we don't post your comments."
This is a rather unintelligent statement. For it really fails to see the benefits of an unmoderated blog. An unmoderated blog allows a real-time discussion to develop unfettered without the heavy fist of a moderator delaying, interfering, and squashing the free flow of discussion.
Go John! I'm praying for you over at Called to Communion. I'm trying to follow the conversation, but I'm having a little trouble following the philosophical reasonings of the Catholics. You're doing great!
ReplyDeleteEphesians 6:10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14 Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; 18 praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints— 19 and for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.
Thanks Jennie, I can't tell you how much your encouragement means to me!
ReplyDeleteI'll try to address some of that "philosophical stuff" back here once the thread has cycled through.
It seemed like to me that the other reasons for being not accepted was not fitting into their philosophical funnel; almost anything is deemed "not related" if does not fit the high philosophical categories that regular guys like me don't understand.
ReplyDeleteNot just "ad homimen" and "not related to the subject", but also, if the person is not smart in those philosophical categories, they are also rejected; it seemed to me.
I got tired of that game - it was exhausting and frustrating. Colossians 2:8 - the called to communion guys seem to put philosophy before Scripture.
Ken, I know what you are saying.
ReplyDeleteBut I am grateful they are allowing John's comments to go through.
ReplyDeleteJohn must be very smart and being able to "fit into their philosophical funnel" so far. It is very tight and narrow.
Let's see how far it goes.
Not just "ad homimen" and "not related to the subject", but also, if the person is not smart in those philosophical categories, they are also rejected; it seemed to me.
ReplyDeleteKen.
You would be wrong. I am moderating as we speak. When I say something is 'off topic' I mean it is REALLY off topic.
Further, a huge portion of what we present has very little to do with 'philosophical categories.'
Jennie. I encourage you to spend some time on Called to Communion by checking out the lead articles.
Blogahon,
ReplyDeleteI have been on Called to Communion and have read some of the articles. I've commented a few times, but I'm not a philosopher, just someone who loves God's word. I see things often, especially in the comments, that seem like alot of boloney and distraction from the simple truth of God's word. Half the time it seems that their 'refutations' are just asserting some vague rule of what's allowed in a philosophical discussion. I couldn't care less about that. Smart doesn't equal wise.
Jennie,
ReplyDeleteNo, smart does not equal wise. But we should not be scared of philosophy.
The truth is that each of us have been where you are now. We were all committed Reformed Presbyterians (assuming you are one). In my case it was scripture that moved me closer to the Catholic Church than the Fathers or any philosophical argument. In fact, most converts that I have encountered were not swayed by arguments from philosophy alone.
Besides, John here is relying on the conclusions of a handful of scholars for his argument against the Papacy. Some smart men…but smart is not wise. And further, the current post has proven that these men are drawing their conclusions on pure speculation alone. A future post will provide evidence from different scholars, also smart men, who disagree with the smart men that John keeps trumpeting.
Blogahon,
ReplyDeleteno I'm not reformed Presbyterian. I'm non-reformed and non-traditional Baptist.
Bellicosario said:
ReplyDeleteIts not like we don't post your comments.
Yes it is precisely like that. I posted a comment at your blog some weeks ago. Never saw the light of day.
FYI I know of a Christian, non-Catholic blogger (She doesn't consider herself a Protestant either - just a bible-believing Christian) who moderates her comments to such an extent that nary a disagreeable word or peep of dissension makes it on. And if she does allow such a comment, many times she radically alters it so that it is not what the writer meant to convey at all!
ReplyDeleteIt was so bad that I started my own blog in response to hers as did several others.
Hi Elena, welcome to Beggars All. Thanks for joining the discussion.
ReplyDeleteTurht Unites says, "#1. Protestant blogs also get spam. It's not as if it's only Catholic blogs that get spam. Yet Protestant blogs remain unmoderated."
ReplyDeleteSo what. Catholics do not want those links on their sites.
Truth Unites says, "What's the time difference between deleting spam comments and reading spam comments and not allowing them to be posted? Isn't it neglible?"
No its not negligible. Unlike you, Catholics do not take having links to sites like those as being no big deal. I don't want those sites on my blog for up to a day. If you can't get that then I feel sorry for you.
MB,
ReplyDeleteSean Patrick made a challenge that we show from First Century writings there was no monarchical Bishop in Rome until the later part of the Second Century.
What say you? Is the Scripture, the Bible, that we Reformed read, not a finished "First Century" set of historical evidences?
It is plain that those who followed St. Peter in Rome were his successors, and they filled the role of the head bishop of Rome. It does not matter if there were several bishops in Rome at any given time who presided over separate communities at the same time in Rome.
ReplyDeleteWhat written documents do you have that proves that otherwise? We have the testimonies of many writers of the Church in the early centuries who say that there were successors to St. Peter, and that there were head bishops in Rome.
MB
ReplyDeleteyou must have missed my point?
Problem was, there were no "bishops" in Rome -- they were pastor/elders in small house churches. To have asserted, as Vatican I did, that any one of these individuals (or bundles of chains of them) had "universal jurisdiction" was just plain out of the question.
ReplyDeleteNot true Bugay. Pope Clement I wrote in the first century the following, which buries your argument.
ReplyDelete"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." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).
He used the terms "bishops" and "presbyters" interchangeably.
ReplyDeleteBesides, the format of Clement (a) states internally and (b) fits the format externally that it is a "symbouleutic" letter -- that is, a rhetorical form whose purpose is to persuade, not to command.
The writer(s) of this letter were aware of their own limitations.
MB
ReplyDeletebesides, setting aside my question, how does that from Clement persuade the challenge?
Rather, it seems to me to underscore the necessity of the Will of God that we have no "head" as the RCC wants us to have, in the form of a human being, subject to none but Him?
Bugay says, "He used the terms "bishops" and "presbyters" interchangeably."
ReplyDeletePresbyter merely means one who leads, and is in no way a conflict to the word bishop as it is understood in Catholicism. The Greek word or synonym for presbyter "episkopos" is the root of the word bishop. Tertullian even writes later that Clement was a bishop ordained by St. Peter himself.
Bugay writes, "Besides, the format of Clement (a) states internally and (b) fits the format externally that it is a "symbouleutic" letter -- that is, a rhetorical form whose purpose is to persuade, not to command."
This is sheer presumption here, and quite a stretch if I must say. It is quite clear St. Clement is speaking not only to persuade, but as an authority. Have you read the entire letter or are you just getting commentary from one of your Prot sources?
Bugay writes, "The writer(s) of this letter were aware of their own limitations."
Too bad you are not aware of your own.
The "episkopoi" were overseeing house churches. Tertullian was wrong. I have read the entire letter, several times, and I'm not afraid to consult commentaries, which represent the collected wisdom of various documents over the ages.
ReplyDeleteBugay says, "The "episkopoi" were overseeing house churches. Tertullian was wrong."
ReplyDeleteYou have no idea if they were only overseeing house churches in isolated communities. Obviously the Church was underground at this point, so it would be much harder to have the function of a single bishop or head to run everything as was done later. This still does not prove there was not a head. It is plain form Scripture that St. Peter was the head of the apostles, and it is plain that he had successors that took his place of authority as bishop.
As far as Tertullian goes, you miss the point. Whether or not his fact is correct, he tells us plainly that he believed that St. Peter had successors in the form of bishops. This disproves your theory.
Peter stepped down as the head of the church to become an itinerant missionary. I posted that yesterday at CTC.
ReplyDeleteIf your theory about Tertullian is correct, that sort of wipes out "Pope Linus" and "Pope Anacletus" (or Pope Cletus" -- the early lists were confused, and a few of them thought that Cletus and Anacletus were two different people, and listed them that way!)
Such was the certitude of the early Roman Church!
MB: This still does not prove there was not a head. It is plain form Scripture that St. Peter was the head of the apostles, and it is plain that he had successors that took his place of authority as bishop.
ReplyDeleteOk, which verses are you referring to that establish Peter was head of the apostles?
Bugay writes, "Peter stepped down as the head of the church to become an itinerant missionary."
ReplyDeleteSt. Peter never stepped down, are you joking?
Bugay writes, "If your theory about Tertullian is correct, that sort of wipes out "Pope Linus" and "Pope Anacletus" (or Pope Cletus" -- the early lists were confused, and a few of them thought that Cletus and Anacletus were two different people, and listed them that way!)"
Again you miss the point. Again, it makes no difference if he is accurate about his ordination of Clement. The fact you are ignoring is that Tertiullion believes St. Peter had successors,which were bishops, which you keep denying.
MB: ".... The fact you are ignoring is that Tertiullion believes ...."
ReplyDeleteHmmmmm, sounds familiar!
me: What say you? Is the Scripture, the Bible, that we Reformed read, not a finished "First Century" set of historical evidences?
besides, setting aside my question, how does that from Clement persuade the challenge?
MB, you are good at ignoring when it necessitates it. :)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteBellisario: "Its not like we don't post your comments."
ReplyDeleteRhology: "Yes it is precisely like that. I posted a comment at your blog some weeks ago. Never saw the light of day."
Bellisario, do you acknowledge that this happened? Or do you deny it?
"Bellisario, do you acknowledge that this happened? Or do you deny it?"
ReplyDeleteI don't remember deleting his comment.
I only delete spam or extremely vulgar language.
ReplyDeleteWhere did I read that Clement 1 may have been a messenger from the elders of a church in Rome who delivered a message to a church in Corinth? So Clement's epistle to Corinth may not have been written by him, but delivered by him. So he wouldn't have been a pope at all, or even an elder, possibly. Was that on TurretinFan's blog or did you write about that, John?
ReplyDeleteHi Jennie -- Shepherd of Hermas gives this line:
ReplyDeleteAnd you will write two books, and send one to Clement and one to Grapte. Clement will send it to the foreign cities, because it is permitted to him so to do, but Grapte will admonish the widows and orphans.
Roger Collins notes that Clement's name may have gotten attached to 1 Clement for that reason.
I may have published something like this.
I went to Matthew Bellisario's blog, the Catholic Champion, and many of his posts have 0 comments.
ReplyDeleteI went to Matthew Bellisario's blog, the Catholic Champion, and many of his posts have 0 comments
ReplyDeleteNo doubt that's because of his charming disposition.
John,
ReplyDeleteall I want to know is this, are my questions directed to MB out of line?
Natmamllc, your questions are fine. I don't think it's hard to find verses that suggest Peter is an important person. The real question involves the nature of that importance, and the scope of it. That is, what did it mean that he was "first" in the list in Matthew 10? He has a lot of mentions. He speaks first in Acts 2, and in Acts 10 he opens the door to the Gentiles.
ReplyDeleteI found a quote from Hegesippus yesterday at the CTC thread. Keep in mind that they want to give Hegesippus "the benefit of the doubt" and say that there were "bishops lists" extant before he got to Rome. (When he really says he "drew up" the list).
I also cited Oscar Cullmann, who cites another Hegesippus quote:
The original Church was led by [Peter], and he led it only in its earliest period. For as soon as the foundation for this leadership is laid, Peter will give it up. Another, James, will take it over in Jerusalem, while Peter will concentrate entirely on his missionary work and will do so, indeed, in a subordinate role under James.
This later subordination of Peter under James is a fact important in every respect. It confirms first of all that the leadership of the Church by Peter also has its significance for us chiefly as a starting point. [This is a point that Cullman has been making throughout: the fact that Peter is "first" is a unique fact. There is no "successor" to Peter. Any leadership role that was given to Peter, any primacy, was completed by this time. It was non-continuing in any way.].
James is the actual head of the Church from the moment that Peter dedicates himself completely to missionary work. The memory of that fact was steadily retained in the whole of Jewish Christianity, which took an interest in the ancient traditions. According to Hegesippus, “The brother of the Lord, James, takes over the leadership of the Church with the Apostles. (Citing Eusebius E.H. II, 3, 4).
Particularly important is the fact that the Pseudo-Clementina, which are friendly to Peter, clearly subordinate Peter to James. Peter has to “give an accounting” to James, “the bishop of the holy Church.” To him Peter sends his public addresses, and [Pseudo-]Clement calls him [James] “Bishop of Bishops,” “leader of the holy church of the Hebrews and of the churches founded everywhere by God’s providence. [Pseudo-]Clement traces Peter’s commission to him [Clement] back to a commission that James gave to Peter. These late reports thus agree with what we can learn concerning James from the letters of Paul and the book of Acts.
It will not do, however, to make some such objection as that Peter went to Rome just at that time in order to “transfer” the primacy from Jerusalem to that place. In reality Peter does not leave Jerusalem in order to transfer the primacy elsewhere; he leaves rather to spread the Gospel. But the significant thing, as said, is that in relation to the new leadership at Jersusalem he does not continue in some superior position, as though James were only his substitute, or were only Bishop of the church at Jerusalem, already sunk to the position of a local church. He rather subordinates himself to the authority of James as the central government. (Cullman, “Peter,” 224-226).
This is very telling.
Yes John,
ReplyDeletewhat also is telling is MB cites Clement 1 as though it was settled who he was and when he wrote and of what authority? Was it the last decades of the First Century or later in the Second Century that his work and ministry thrived?
It is sad.
There is real Life in Jesus Christ right now and the fount is full and flowing and the refreshing Presence of the Holy Spirit is witness to this Truth; as is written by John, here:
1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life--
1Jn 1:2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us--
1Jn 1:3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1Jn 1:4 And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.
My only consolation in all this is I have been set free and delivered from my own deceptions!
I clear see the fight!
The Apostle Paul says it best for me, ironically Peter, though having trouble with the Wisdom of God Paul wrote with, came around and agreed, too:::>
Rom 7:20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
Rom 7:21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,
Rom 7:23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.
Rom 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
Rom 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
Rom 8:4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
We must be gentle with all men. We don't have to accept them though!
Mr. John Bugay,
ReplyDeleteI think you have to give credit where credit is due.
MB wrote: "Again you miss the point. Again, it makes no difference if he is accurate about his ordination of Clement. The fact you are ignoring is that Tertiullion believes St. Peter had successors,which were bishops, which you keep denying."
You see, you just have to try to ignore all of the evidence pointing away from Rome's claim and only consider the miniscule fragments that, when taken out of that context of the weight of the evidence appear to support his claim.
Like, for example, every time you see Clement or Tertullian or Paul refer to a "bishop," just read into that word exactly what Rome means by the word "bishop" today, ignoring the actual historical context or the meaning the word had to the original authors.
That, as MB has so eloquently demonstrated for us, is his point. We should thank him for pointing out his hermeneutic of heavy filtering, and move on.
-TurretinFan
"You see, you just have to try to ignore all of the evidence pointing away from Rome's claim and only consider the miniscule fragments that, when taken out of that context of the weight of the evidence appear to support his claim."
ReplyDeleteYou keep ignoring the reminders that you have no evidence. If you have the evidence, John Bugay could really use some now at Called to Communion. In case you do not know, Mr. Bugay has been challenged to produce evidence that "shows that there was no monarchical bishop in Rome until the second half of the second century". More than 70 comments later, he is still struggling and could use your help.
FYI - I have closed the comments for now. It was really getting off topic and getting into covered ground.
ReplyDeleteJohn, because you involved I'll let you have your final response there if you wish.
"...there was no monarchical Bishop in Rome until the later part of the Second Century."
ReplyDeleteMy gosh, if this was indeed heretical issue with this magnitude WHY in the world did the Ecumenical councils of the first 500 years of christianity (listed below) have somehow "overlooked" and failed to address this very significant issue in Christendom? Hmmm. Move over Arius, Nestorius, Macedonius because they have a bigger fish to fry.
Oh, the Councils for the first 500 years didn't recognize the divine institution of the successor of Peter, what???? hmmmm, ONE BIG PROBLEM with these FACTS:
1. First Ecumenical Council — Nicaea I A.D. 325 - presided by Pope: St. Sylvester I, 314-335
2. Ecumenical Council — ConstantinopleA.D. 381 - presided by Pope: St. Damasus I, 367-384
3. Ecumenical Council — Ephesus A.D. 431 - presided by Pope: St. Celestine I, 423-432
4. Ecumenical Council — Chalcedon A.D. 451 - presided by Pope: Saint Leo I, the Great, 440-461.
I guess the Councils were wondering who was that guy wearing white robe in the center?
Jae:
ReplyDeleteYou may be surprised to learn that the Council of Nicaea was called by Emperor Constantine and was presided over by Alexander of Alexandria (Athanasius' boss at the time).
And, of course, the council of Nicaea was held at the beginning of the fourth century, by which time a more monarchical model had emerged, closer to what the Eastern Orthodox have today.
-TurretinFan
Dozie,
ReplyDeleteLooks like my response will need to be made on my own blog (and/or here). But, Lord willing, I'll provide a response.
-TurretinFan
"Looks like my response will need to be made on my own blog (and/or here). But, Lord willing, I'll provide a response."
ReplyDeleteWe needed your response when and where it mattered; engaging in a soliloquy will not be very helpful.
More than 70 comments later, he is still struggling and could use your help.
ReplyDeleteDozie, I've not struggled at all. If you think I've struggled there in any way, please point out to me some of the specifics.
If anything, my time has been constrained there by work and family. But I do plan, and have already begun, to put some context around the entire discussion, and I will respond to some of the specific comments that I wasn't able to address because of time constraints brought on by work and family.
Out of the 77 comments, many of whom were Roman Catholics, I provided about 20 of the comments.
Francis Beckwith, a poster child of the Catholic convert movement, made a complete fool of himself and failed to show up.
Bryan Cross tangled with me over Hegesippus, but his view of Hegisippus forced him to "pick and choose" just what it is, and what it is not that he will accept about his testimony. All in all, he made up a scenario that has no support that I am aware of among all the writers who are writing about such things.
(In fact, as I've noted in my most recent post, popes of the first millennium felt it was necessary to confirm their own "succession," supposedly from Peter, through James, who really was the leader of the church after Peter stepped down to become a missionary and, following Paul, to simply "preach the gospel." It is a tangled story, but one that I hope to sort through on a future occasion.)
I haven't responded to Michael Liccona, but I plan to do so, and meanwhile, Steve Hays has responded quite effectively at Triablogue.
Meanwhile, Sean himself has noted that the comments were getting off topic and closed them.
I fail to see how you consider that "struggling".
Dozie, I agree with John and think he is answering the questions very well. I'm sure he will catch up on the ones he hasn't gotten to yet. I do wish more people with knowledge about history had joined in.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure I'm missing some fine point somewhere, but other Christian historians, like Philipp Schaff, have written about the early church structure, and how it wasn't monarchical at first but consisted of local churches with a plurality of equal elders. I think that relates closely to the question about Rome's structure.
@ John Bugay you said, "Francis Beckwith, a poster child of the Catholic convert movement, made a complete fool of himself and failed to show up."
ReplyDeleteOh man, John please, you are not even remotely close to the academic achievements of this guy, he's just being nice to you....for christian decorum's sake.
His points are right on the mark... why the Ecumenical Councils for the first 500 years of christianity with your point taken seemed to have "failed" to address this monstrosity of Apostolic succession in the first and second century? Well, they have dealed with every heretical teachings threatening the church viz. Arius, Nestorius, Macedonius and why not the "monarchial Bishop of Rome"?
Furthermore, your assertion that, "Councils for the first 500 years didn't recognize the divine institution of the successor of Peter". This idea is really a compounded hearsay not supported by facts.
Beckwith's academic achievements (and good job to him for achieving them) aren't in history.
ReplyDelete-TurretinFan
Jae: Not sure if you saw the screechy, sarcastic tone that he resorted to; the straw men that he stood up. I'll go back through and post some of that.
ReplyDeleteBut really, the only one of the first four councils that had a pope anywhere near it was Leo I at Chalcedon -- and even that council (a) hacked up his "Tome" and (b) attributed Rome's position to political factors (the "old capital").
"Oh man, John please, you are not even remotely close to the academic achievements of this guy,"
ReplyDeleteThe overwhelming majority of Heaven-bound Christians aren't even remotely close to the academic achievements of Stephen Hawking. And what the achievement-less Christians have to say about God are far better than what uber-brilliant Hawking says about God.
Am I the only one finding it ironic of JAE's list of the first 500 years of Christianity to begin this way?
ReplyDeleteOh, the Councils for the first 500 years didn't recognize the divine institution of the successor of Peter, what???? hmmmm, ONE BIG PROBLEM with these FACTS:
1. First Ecumenical Council — Nicaea I A.D. 325 - presided by Pope: St. Sylvester I, 314-335
Hmmmmm?
First Century: 0-99
Second Century: 100-199
Third Century: 200-299
Fourth Century, First Ecumenical Council....!
And when does a "straight" line start becoming crooked?
Here is a Biblical History straight line the way I think:
0-----------------------2010-----------------end of the world.
Here is another straight line as others think:
0---------------A.D. 325____-----_____----////))))_____----- and counting 'til the next Cardinal is voted to be the next Pope to be installed!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Dozie, I've not struggled at all. If you think I've struggled there in any way, please point out to me some of the specifics."
ReplyDeleteYou struggled and will continue to do so. The challenge for you to show "that there was no monarchical bishop in Rome until the second half of the second century" was put to you and you still have nothing to “show”. Besides, TurretinFan has offered to show the evidence on his own blog, suggesting thereby that he is at least not satisfied with whatever you produced. Otherwise, and out of respect for you, he would have said: "go and review xyz evidence that John Bugay produced". Also, no one else who took part in that exercise (at Called to Communion) thought you answered the challenge.
We continue to press. What is the foundation of Protestant beliefs? Is it the shifting sand of theological discoveries and revisions? When will the things you belief now about anything undergo a major revision/reversion?
I love the Catholic Church, mater et magistra, and above all, imbued with wisdom and guided by the Spirit. We’ll be home when you return from fad hunting.
Ken wrote: . . . but also, if the person is not smart in those philosophical categories, they are also rejected; it seemed to me.
ReplyDeleteBlogahon wrote: (in response to above)
"You would be wrong. I am moderating as we speak. When I say something is 'off topic' I mean it is REALLY off topic.
Further, a huge portion of what we present has very little to do with 'philosophical categories.' "
I was not talking your current post; I was referring to my past experience in trying to post on different subjects. It was probably other moderators. I was happy John was getting through. I meant that my experience was not just "off topic" or "ad hominem", but things were deemed "not related" on other posts, because they did not fit into the "philosophical funnel/terminology/categories" that one has to, in order to be approved. That is the way it honestly seemed to me.
@ John, I would cite MB coz it sums up my reply, "It is plain that those who followed St. Peter in Rome were his successors, and they filled the role of the head bishop of Rome. It does not matter if there were several bishops in Rome at any given time who presided over separate communities at the same time in Rome.
ReplyDeleteWhat written documents do you have that proves that otherwise? We have the testimonies of many writers of the Church in the early centuries who say that there were successors to St. Peter, and that there were head bishops in Rome."
So the written documents - Look at the DATES:
The earliest Fathers recognized the primacy of Rome (or what might be called "priority") and Orthodox scholars generally concede this:
ST. CLEMENT OF ROME (circa. 96 AD)
"Let us turn to the facts. We know that the Church of Rome took over the position of CHURCH WITH PRIORITY at the end of the first century. That was about the time at which her star ascended into the firmament of history in its brightest splendor...Even as early as the Epistle to the Romans, Rome seems to have stood out among all the churches as very important. Paul bears witness that the faith of the Romans was proclaimed throughout the whole world (Rom 1:8)....we have a document which gives us our earliest reliable evidence that the Church of Rome stood in an exceptional position of authority in this period. This is the epistle of Clement of Rome...We know that Clement was "PRESIDENT" of the Roman Church...." (page 124)
"The epistle is couched in very measured terms, in the form of an exhortation; but at the same time it clearly shows that the Church of Rome was aware of the decisive weight, in the Church of Corinth's eyes, that must attach to its witness about the events in Corinth. So the Church of Rome, at the THE END OF THE FIRST CENTURY, exhibits a marked sense of its OWN PRIORITY, in point of witness about events in other churches. Note also that the Roman Church did not feel obliged to make a case, however argued, to justify its authoritative pronouncements on what we should now call the internal concerns of other churches. There is nothing said about the grounds of this priority....Apparently Rome had no doubt that its PRIORITY would be accepted without argument." (page 125-126)
Cont:
Dozie
ReplyDeleteyou are utterly deceived!
Here is the first part of Sean's challenge:
Can you name one piece of historical evidence that meets these two conditions:
Here are your own words:
We continue to press. What is the foundation of Protestant beliefs? Is it the shifting sand of theological discoveries and revisions?
How about the Bible? That is about as sound and unchanging a Historical evidence from the First Century one could use to build on.
Here is a warning for you Dozie directly from powerful unchanging Words written during the First Century, that are just as powerful now in this century as when My Savior uttered them to the likes of such as you:
Luk 20:16 He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others." When they heard this, they said, "Surely not!"
Luk 20:17 But he looked directly at them and said, "What then is this that is written: "'The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone'?
Luk 20:18 Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him."
Or, how about these powerful Words, too:
Jud 1:11 Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error and perished in Korah's rebellion.
Jud 1:12 These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted;
Jud 1:13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.
JAE
ReplyDeleteas I protested with Matthew's use of St. Clement, I do with you now.
There is uncertainty as to who and when Clement wrote and why and by whose authority. From writings of Johannes Quasten:
Loisy maintains that the author of 1 Clement was a distinguished Roman elder who flourished 130-140 and that this Clement was named in the Shepherd of Hermas (Vision, 8:3), which is also to be dated to the mid second century. Notably, a writing is mentioned in 1 Clement 23:3 in which the challenge is quoted, "These things we did hear in the days of our fathers also, and behold we have grown old, and none of these things hath befallen us." Because this source document for 1 Clement must have been written when the hope of the imminent parousia was waning, and because 1 Clement itself must have dealt with the same issue, the document can scarcely be dated to the time of the first Christian generation. Other indications of lateness include the tradition in chapter 5 that Paul traveled to the extremities of the west (i.e., Spain) and the emphasis on the appointment of "bishops and deacons" (42:1-5). Most notably, there is stated to be "a rule of succession" for bishops and deacons who have "fallen asleep" (44:2). This suggests a second century date for 1 Clement.
"Besides, TurretinFan has offered to show the evidence on his own blog, suggesting thereby that he is at least not satisfied with whatever you produced."
ReplyDeleteYour inference is incorrect. I simply have not found the time to go over to Called to Communion to see what others are posting.
- TurretinFan