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.
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 4th 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
“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)
“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)
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)
"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)
and
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:
and the various links to other books and websites in the article above.
Originally Posted by Dropkick 
Posts
