Orthodox wants us to know that it would be “just plain wrong” to think that the apostles allowed some freedom in some matters of church government, such as allowing churches to not have a monarchical episcopate. He writes:
“If you were going to allow freedom in something, issues related to the community and power would be the worst possible choice, as it is an issue you simply can't agree to disagree on and still have unity. Besides which we know the apostles set up churches and thus they must have had some polity. It would be just plain wrong to state they didn't decide these things one way or the other.”
But, as the Eastern Orthodox patristic scholar John McGuckin notes, there were differences in church government among the apostolic and patristic sources:
“The very earliest structures of the Christian ministerial offices are shrouded in obscurity, but by the second century there emerged a triadic form of episkopos-bishop, presbyteros-elder (which was rendered by the Old English ‘Priest’), and diakonos-deacon. This more and more replaced a range of other offices that had characterized the earliest church (such as apostolic missionaries, wandering prophets, exorcists, and didaskaloi-teachers) and became established by the end of the second century as a common pattern in most Christian communities….Although Jerome can still protest in the fourth century that the bishop and presbyter are really the same thing (and there is some ground to think this may have been so originally as the terms are interchangeable in the New Testament: Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1-4; Titus 1:5-7; and Clement of Rome uses the term in the plural [1 Clement 42; 44] to refer to the clergy of Rome), nevertheless his argument was already falling on deaf ears by his day….From that time [end of first century] onward election seems to have been an important element in the choice of all new bishops. The right of election already features in Didache chapter 15. Such communal power dwindled in Byzantine times to a mere consultation of the people (often they were expected to ‘acclaim’ the new leader), but even so there were many instances of a bishop being unable to assume duties because of the hostility of a local church who felt their wishes had been overlooked (such as the case of Proclus of Constantinople)….For all Cyprian’s insistence on his right to single episcopal authority, his own church wavered greatly over whether he, or the assembled presbyters, or the confessors had the higher standing….After the fourth century the Christian emperors increasingly honored the episcopate, and a tension can be noticed between its original conception as an office of liturgical president and teacher and its new functions as magistrate and administrator for a large diocesan area. The bishops of powerful cities in the empire came to have a greater influence than their colleagues from small towns, although the primitive principle of the equality of all bishops as icons of Christ was maintained. Even so, the bishops of the large cities came to rank as ‘metropolitans’ and commanded the governance of larger matters such as episcopal ordinations and the care of synods. The really great cities, after the time of Justinian, claimed the title patriarch (Jerusalem was added for honor’s sake) and a Pentarchy of Patriarchates was thus evolved (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) whose bishops enjoyed particular respect in international affairs.” (The Westminster Handbook To Patristic Theology [Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004], pp. 120-122)
John McGuckin again huh?
ReplyDeleteFunny how all these discussions revolve around this or that scholar and few primary sources.
There's no milage to be found in Clement. Bishops of Rome have always used the plural, a kind of royal we to refer to themselves.
Different forms of election? Nobody disputed that.
Nothing to see here, move along move along.
I suppose I should point out for completeness that some Orthodox do consider the division between bishop and priest to be a development, but not in the way protestants imagine. In this viewpoint, in the beginning there was just a bishop of a church. As a church grew too big for just one bishop deputy bishops were appointed. Over time the nomenclature changed so that the deputies aquired the "presbyter" name, and the main bishop aquired the name "episkopos".
ReplyDeleteNone of this refutes the monarchial episcopate. It's not a development that has any theological significance, just a development in naming, that is all.
Orthodox writes:
ReplyDelete"Bishops of Rome have always used the plural, a kind of royal we to refer to themselves."
That's an assertion you'll need to demonstrate. First Clement is written in the name of the Roman church, not in the name of Clement. Read the opening of the letter. And would you document your suggestion that the word "bishops" would be put in the plural in order to communicate a "royal we"? You're not giving us any reason to agree with you. You're just making an assertion.
You write:
"Different forms of election? Nobody disputed that."
You said that it would be unacceptable to allow freedom on matters of church government in general. I quoted your own words in my post. But now you're telling us that freedom is acceptable on some issues, but not others. And you give us no reason to agree with your judgment about where freedom is allowed.
>>"Bishops of Rome have always used the plural, a
ReplyDelete>>kind of royal we to refer to themselves."
>
>That's an assertion you'll need to demonstrate.
Read some letters from early popes. e.g.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.i.html
He uses the same term "we", just like Clement. Now explain that however you like, but don't try and tell me there wasn't a monarchial episcopate in Pope Leo's or Pope Gregory's time.
>First Clement is written in the name of the
>Roman church, not in the name of Clement.
I see no great significance in this. He welcomes an entire church in the name of his church. By your argument there are no leaders in Rome at all because the entire Church writes to Corinth.
>And would you document your suggestion that
>the word "bishops" would be put in the plural in
>order to communicate a "royal we"?
I don't know what you're referring to.
>You're not giving us any reason to agree with
>you. You're just making an assertion.
Nonsense. When Clement speaks in the exact same manner as Popes who were clearly monarchial, there is a very large burden of proof on you to prove something different was going on.
>You said that it would be unacceptable to allow
>freedom on matters of church government in
>general. I quoted your own words in my post. But
>now you're telling us that freedom is acceptable
>on some issues, but not others. And you give us
>no reason to agree with your judgment about
>where freedom is allowed.
Where there is freedom and where there isn't is a matter of Tradition. It's not my problem whether you accept it or not. I might also add that it is a matter for the authority of the Church. It's not where you can just up and say you don't like this ecclesiology so you're going to start a new church with you as president.
Orthodox wrote:
ReplyDelete"Read some letters from early popes. e.g. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.i.html"
You're citing a fifth century Roman bishop and assuming that all earlier Roman bishops held the same view. That's a dubious procedure in itself. It becomes even more dubious when we read First Clement and see that the letter opens itself in the name of the church of Rome. There's no way for you to know that the plural is a "royal we" when the plural could be referring to nothing more than the "we" of the Roman church.
If we're supposed to assume that first century Roman bishops agreed with fifth century Roman bishops even on issues as minor as their use of language, then should we assume that first century Roman bishops believed that they had the sort of papal authority claimed by fifth century Roman bishops? Do you, as an Eastern Orthodox, believe that first century Roman bishops viewed themselves as Popes? Why not, if your reasoning quoted above is valid?
You write:
"He uses the same term 'we', just like Clement. Now explain that however you like, but don't try and tell me there wasn't a monarchial episcopate in Pope Leo's or Pope Gregory's time."
Go back and reread what I cited from John McGuckin. He wasn't addressing the use of the word "we". He was addressing the use of the word "bishops".
You write:
"By your argument there are no leaders in Rome at all because the entire Church writes to Corinth."
How does that conclusion follow from my reasoning? It doesn't. A letter from a church doesn't have to be written in the name of that church's leaders in order for us to conclude that the church had leaders.
You write:
"I don't know what you're referring to."
As I suspected. You don't even understand what John McGuckin was referring to. And you probably don't know much about the issues surrounding the early history of the monarchical epsicopate. You're highly ignorant of these matters, yet you keep commenting on them. You've misread McGuckin, and instead of learning what you ought to learn from this experience, you'll probably continue making the same sort of mistakes over and over again. That's what you've done in previous discussions.
You write:
"Where there is freedom and where there isn't is a matter of Tradition."
You've given us no reason to agree with your definition of "Tradition". And your initial claim was that there can't be freedom on matters of church government. Now you tell us that there can be freedom as long as your denomination allows it. You keep contradicting yourself.
We follow the apostles, whereas you don't. We allow freedom where the apostles allow it, not where your corrupt denomination allows it.
>You're citing a fifth century Roman bishop and
ReplyDelete>assuming that all earlier Roman bishops held the
>same view. That's a dubious procedure in itself.
It's more valid to assume things didn't change than to assume a-priori that they did.
>It becomes even more dubious when we read First
>Clement and see that the letter opens itself in the
>name of the church of Rome.
Inconsistency again. If this is the foundation of your interpretation then you can't say is is from some plurality of elders, you must assume it is from all the laity.
>Do you, as an Eastern Orthodox, believe that first
>century Roman bishops viewed themselves as
>Popes? Why not, if your reasoning quoted above
>is valid?
Yes they were "Popes", which is merely a Latin title for the Patriarch of Rome. Did 1st century bishops claim the same prejorgatives as 5th century ones? My answer is yes, unless there is compelling explicit evidence to suggest otherwise.
>Go back and reread what I cited from John
>McGuckin. He wasn't addressing the use of the
>word "we". He was addressing the use of the
>word "bishops".
So why are you arguing tooth and nail for something that now apparently isn't your argument at all?
McGuckin is mistaken, there is nothing in Clement that refer's to Rome having multiple bishops. He merely talks about bishops in general.
>A letter from a church doesn't have to be written
>in the name of that church's leaders in order for
>us to conclude that the church had leaders.
Really? By ESP? How do you conclude it had leaders as opposed to a single leader?
>And your initial claim was that there can't be
>freedom on matters of church government. Now
>you tell us that there can be freedom as long as
>your denomination allows it. You keep
>contradicting yourself.
You've misunderstood again. There can't be freedom within a single church, because you can't have one group electing a leader one way, and another group another way, or you would have two groups of leaders. If the apostles allowed different election in different churches, then those churches can use those methods. It doesn't follow that it is open slather to do anything at all.
>We follow the apostles, whereas you don't. We
>allow freedom where the apostles allow it, not
>where your corrupt denomination allows it.
How do you know when the apostles offered freedom? You already conceeded in the other thread that you don't know if all the traditions are wrong, thus you don't know if it was an area of freedom.
Corrupt denomination? Why do you choose a thread about an area that supposedly has freedom to accuse us of being corrupt? How can we be corrupt in acting in an area that is totally free?
And how can you say with such surety we are corrupt when you cannot even prove that the apostles offered freedom to allow your own polity?
You write:
ReplyDelete"It's more valid to assume things didn't change than to assume a-priori that they did."
Since such linguistic conventions are known to change often, and we have no reason to believe that the Roman church would want to maintain the pattern of language you're referring to, it doesn't make sense to assume that there would be no change in a period of a few hundred years. There were many Roman bishops between Clement and Leo, and they don't always speak of themselves as "we" (for example, the Roman bishop Cornelius in Cyprian's Letter 47, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050647.htm).
You write:
"Inconsistency again. If this is the foundation of your interpretation then you can't say is is from some plurality of elders, you must assume it is from all the laity."
The problem isn't that I'm being inconsistent. The problem is that you aren't following the argument. I'm not citing the opening of First Clement to argue for any form of church government. Rather, I'm citing it as an explanation for why the term "we" would be used. Why should we assume a "royal we" when the plurality involved in one church writing to another church would sufficiently explain the "we"?
You write:
"Yes they were 'Popes', which is merely a Latin title for the Patriarch of Rome. Did 1st century bishops claim the same prejorgatives as 5th century ones? My answer is yes, unless there is compelling explicit evidence to suggest otherwise."
I know what sort of authority Leo claimed for himself. Instead of allowing yourself an "unless" exception, why don't you tell us whether you think that Clement viewed himself as Leo viewed himself?
You write:
"So why are you arguing tooth and nail for something that now apparently isn't your argument at all?"
Again, I wasn't discussing First Clement's use of "we" because I base my argument for church government on it. Rather, I was addressing the issue in response to what you (incorrectly) said about it.
You write:
"McGuckin is mistaken, there is nothing in Clement that refer's to Rome having multiple bishops. He merely talks about bishops in general."
You're assuming that the multiple bishops Clement refers to were for multiple churches. You've given us no reason to agree with that conclusion. Given the rest of the context in the passages McGuckin cites, it makes more sense to interpret Clement as referring to multiple bishops in a single church. Clement only refers to bishops and deacons, not the three-fold division Ignatius of Antioch refers to, and Clement parallels "bishops" and "presbyters" in chapter 44. Furthermore, Clement is addressing a specific context, the context of what happened to some church leaders in Corinth. He repeatedly specifies that multiple men are involved. He refers to them as being of the office of "bishop", once again suggesting that there were multiple bishops.
Even if McGuckin had been wrong in such a detail, I would still agree with him regarding the larger fact that the monarchical episcopate wasn't used in every early church. The evidence he mentions in the quote at the beginning of this thread is just a portion of the data involved. Your disagreements with McGuckin are further examples of Eastern Orthodox disunity, but they don't give us any reason to agree with your conclusions.
You write:
"Really? By ESP? How do you conclude it had leaders as opposed to a single leader?"
You're missing the point again, as you so often do. I wasn't addressing the issue of how many bishops a church had. In the comment you quoted, I was only addressing the more general issue of whether the opening of a letter, in which that letter is said to be from a church, should lead us to the conclusion that the church in question had no leaders of any type (whether bishops, deacons, or others). You've distorted what I said by interpreting it as an argument for multiple bishops. It wasn't such an argument. Rather, it was a response to your erroneous reasoning about the manner in which First Clement opens.
You write:
"There can't be freedom within a single church, because you can't have one group electing a leader one way, and another group another way, or you would have two groups of leaders. If the apostles allowed different election in different churches, then those churches can use those methods. It doesn't follow that it is open slather to do anything at all."
That's not what you initially said. You're adding qualifiers you didn't mention or even suggest earlier. And your latest reformulation of your argument doesn't make sense in light of what you were responding to. You were responding to what I said about different churches having different forms of government. You responded to what I said by arguing that the sort of freedom I referred to would be unacceptable. Since I wasn't referring to a church disagreeing within itself about church government, your latest reformulation of your argument doesn't make sense. You didn't argue that something like a plurality of bishops would be acceptable in some churches, but not in others. Rather, you argued that it's unacceptable in all churches.
You write:
"How do you know when the apostles offered freedom?"
If we have no command from the apostles on an issue, why would we conclude that they did give us a command on the issue? When we, furthermore, see that the earliest churches seem to have held a variety of forms of church government (including not having a monarchical episcopate), then we have further confirmation that it's not necessary for every church to have a monarchical episcopate, for example.
You write:
"Corrupt denomination? Why do you choose a thread about an area that supposedly has freedom to accuse us of being corrupt? How can we be corrupt in acting in an area that is totally free?"
This isn't the only thread in which I've referred to your denomination as corrupt. Even if it had been the only thread in which I'd made such a comment, it wouldn't therefore follow that church government must be the reason why I conclude that your denomination is corrupt.
>Since such linguistic conventions are known to
ReplyDelete>change often, and we have no reason to believe
>that the Roman church would want to maintain
>the pattern of language you're referring to, it
>doesn't make sense to assume that there would
>be no change in a period of a few hundred years
It didn't change for more than a thousand years, why is it reasonable to assume it would change in a few hundred?? This is the problem with a lot of your arguments. Nothing demonstratably changed in Orthodoxy for 1650 years, why is it so hard to believe we kept the faith for the other 300?
>There were many Roman bishops between
>Clement and Leo, and they don't always speak of
>themselves as "we" (for example, the Roman
>bishop Cornelius in Cyprian's Letter 47
And yet in other letters from Cornelius to Cyprian he also uses "we". I hope you're not arguing there was no monarchial episcopate in Cornelius' time...
1. Cornelius to Cyprian his brother, greeting. In proportion to the solicitude and anxiety that we sustained in respect of
those confessors who had been circumvented and almost deceived and alienated from the Church by the craft and
malice of that wily and subtle man, was the joy with which we were affected, and the thanks which we gave to Almighty
God and to our Lord Christ.
>I know what sort of authority Leo claimed for
>himself. Instead of allowing yourself an "unless"
>exception, why don't you tell us whether you
>think that Clement viewed himself as Leo viewed
>himself?
In every detail? Surely not, since popes are not infallible.
>You're assuming that the multiple bishops
>Clement refers to were for multiple churches.
Or else the same church at different times.
>You've given us no reason to agree with that
>conclusion
I see nothing in the text specific enough to reach a conclusion.
>Given the rest of the context in the passages
>McGuckin cites, it makes more sense to interpret
>Clement as referring to multiple bishops in a
>single church.
I disagree.
>Clement only refers to bishops and deacons, not
>the three-fold division Ignatius of Antioch refers
>to.
Thus the explanation I have already presented you with. The idea of a single leading bishop already existed, but the naming scheme of distinguishing them by episkopos and presbyter hadn't yet evolved in Rome. i.e. it's just a terminology issue.
>Clement parallels "bishops" and "presbyters" in
>chapter 44
I don't think needn be a parallel, he could be just expanding the scope of his next statement to all presbyters, not just the episcopal ones. But if you think it is a parallel, see above.
>Clement is addressing a specific context, the
>context of what happened to some church
>leaders in Corinth. He repeatedly specifies that
>multiple men are involved. He refers to them as
>being of the office of "bishop", once again
>suggesting that there were multiple bishops.
Didn't we already agree from Ignatius that the monarchial episcopate existed in the East already? Or was Clement just ignorant? It's easier to believe in a difference in terminology than just assume Clement was ignorant. And anyway, it looks to me that when he is talking about men he is already talking about presbyters rather than episkopos. So there's two explanations there without resorting to assuming Clement was ignorant.
>The evidence he mentions in the quote at the
>beginning of this thread is just a portion of the
>data involved.
How good could it be if you havn't bothered throwing it in the ring?
>If we have no command from the apostles on an
>issue, why would we conclude that they did give
>us a command on the issue?
Obviously, because it is the Apostolic Tradition and it is a command. It was always done this way. James in Acts is the single leader of the Jerusalem church.
>When we, furthermore, see that the earliest
>churches seem to have held a variety of forms of
>church government
We have seen no such thing at all.
>This isn't the only thread in which I've referred to
>your denomination as corrupt.
And what pray tell is your criteria for a "corrupt denomination" ??
Orthodox said:
ReplyDelete"It didn't change for more than a thousand years, why is it reasonable to assume it would change in a few hundred?? This is the problem with a lot of your arguments. Nothing demonstratably changed in Orthodoxy for 1650 years, why is it so hard to believe we kept the faith for the other 300?"
You're choosing a date (1650 years ago) without justification for that date, you aren't telling us what would constitute a "demonstrable change" in Eastern Orthodoxy, and you're assuming that a lack of change in Eastern Orthodoxy during one timeframe implies a lack of change in the use of language by Roman bishops during another period of time. What's the alleged connection between the two? The reason why we can know what happened more than 1650 years ago is because we have thousands of pages of documents from that earlier timeframe, and we have data relevant to that period from other sources. Whether there have been "demonstrable changes" in Eastern Orthodoxy since that time would depend on how you're defining Eastern Orthodoxy and "demonstrable changes", yet even Eastern Orthodox disagree with each other over what is Tradition and what isn't. Would a change in scripture interpretation qualify? What about disagreements in how to number the sacraments or contradictions between a council opposed to the veneration of images and a council supporting it? If you can dismiss such disagreements and changes as not representing Eastern Orthodoxy, then members of other groups could dismiss their alleged inconsistencies in the same manner and thus claim that they were always consistent as well.
Since the papacy is a doctrine that's been held for a long time, should we assume that it must have been believed all along? What if Roman Catholics assert that we should only be concerned with whether the papacy was believed since date X, hundreds of years after the time of the apostles, claiming that the earlier evidence is "obscure" (as you've done with Eastern Orthodoxy)? Would you consider that a convincing argument for the papacy?
You write:
"And yet in other letters from Cornelius to Cyprian he also uses 'we'."
How is that relevant? You quoted a letter without giving us any source for it. Were you hoping that nobody would look it up? Why should we believe that Cornelius wasn't referring to his church collectively?
Regardless, you've given us no reason to believe that First Clement is using a "royal we". The letter opens in the name of the church of Rome, which sufficiently explains the plural without appealing to a "royal we", thus making your speculation unnecessary. You misread John McGuckin, and you misread what I wrote. You then proceeded to make a ridiculous appeal to a fifth century Roman bishop in an attempt to justify an alternative to an argument that was never made by McGuckin or me. Your suggested alternative resulted in a ridiculous reading of First Clement that's made unnecessary by the opening of the letter itself. These are further examples of how careless you are. You do this sort of thing frequently.
You write:
"Thus the explanation I have already presented you with. The idea of a single leading bishop already existed, but the naming scheme of distinguishing them by episkopos and presbyter hadn't yet evolved in Rome. i.e. it's just a terminology issue."
Your response doesn't explain what Clement said. Again, why would Clement only refer to two offices if he believed in three offices? If the first of the three sometimes went by a different name, then such a fact would only be relevant to what name Clement used for that office. It does nothing to explain why he mentioned only two offices.
You write:
"I don't think needn be a parallel, he could be just expanding the scope of his next statement to all presbyters, not just the episcopal ones."
Assuming an expansion of his comments is a less natural reading. He was addressing the bishop's office, so assuming that he then shifted to a discussion of a lower office in the next sentence is an unlikely reading.
You write:
"Didn't we already agree from Ignatius that the monarchial episcopate existed in the East already?"
No, what was agreed was that Ignatius himself held the view and advocated it among most of the churches he wrote to. I went on to say that his lack of references to it in his letter to the Romans probably was because there was no monarchical episcopate in Rome yet, as other documents likewise suggest. And if you want to appeal to Ignatius in order to interpret Clement, then I can appeal to other documents that would support my reading of Clement.
You write:
"And anyway, it looks to me that when he is talking about men he is already talking about presbyters rather than episkopos."
Again, Clement repeatedly mentions only two offices, not three (42). And he criticizes those who have dishonored "the bishop's office" (44).
You write:
"How good could it be if you havn't bothered throwing it in the ring?"
I didn't have to cite all evidence relevant to the monarchical episcopate in order to demonstrate that your initial claim was false. If you're ignorant of the other evidence related to the monarchical episcopate, then that's your problem, not mine. Given how often I've had to correct you already in this thread, it seems unlikely that you know much about the subject. That's why you initially responded with your ridiculous comments about the "royal we".
You write:
"Obviously, because it is the Apostolic Tradition and it is a command. It was always done this way. James in Acts is the single leader of the Jerusalem church."
Again, where is this "Apostolic Tradition"? And since you argued earlier that Protestants can't make a historical argument for the authority of the apostles, then why should we be concerned with what the apostles taught? Even if we assume your assertion about James, why should we believe that every church had a monarchical episcopate and was required to have one? Why were later sources, like Jerome, ignorant of such an alleged requirement? If they were Eastern Orthodox, as you've claimed, how could they have been ignorant of such an "Apostolic Tradition"?
You write:
"And what pray tell is your criteria for a 'corrupt denomination' ??"
One that adds works to the gospel, for example. See our previous discussions about the doctrine of justification. You repeatedly left those discussions without interacting with what I'd said.
>You're choosing a date (1650 years ago) without
ReplyDelete>justification for that date
Since you're all hung up about icons, I picked a date where icons are frequently referred to. If you dispute all the tenets of Orthodoxy were established by the mid 4th century, I'd like to hear that argument.
>you aren't telling us what would constitute a
>"demonstrable change" in Eastern Orthodoxy,
Since there are none, I don't know what it would look like either :-)
>yet even Eastern Orthodox disagree with each
>other over what is Tradition and what isn't
Why do you keep referring to this? If I mentioned Luther's objections to the NT canon, would it prove you have the wrong canon?
>What about disagreements in how to number the
>sacraments
There is no limit to the number of sacraments. Everything is a sacrament.
>or contradictions between a council opposed to
>the veneration of images and a council
>supporting it
Nope, it wouldn't be good enough.
Does evidence that conflicts with the canonicity a book in your canon show that you have no sure rule of faith?
>If you can dismiss such disagreements and
>changes as not representing Eastern Orthodoxy,
>then members of other groups could dismiss
>their alleged inconsistencies in the same manner
>and thus claim that they were always consistent
>as well.
What "other groups"?
>Since the papacy is a doctrine that's been held
>for a long time, should we assume that it must
>have been believed all along?
Sure, there has been a papacy since the 1st century.
>Why should we believe that Cornelius wasn't
>referring to his church collectively?
Why should we believe Cornelius was doing something different than Clement?
>The letter opens in the name of the church of
>Rome, which sufficiently explains the plural
>without appealing to a "royal we", thus making
>your speculation unnecessary.
Oh well, pick your own explanation. The facts that Popes through the ages did it means it doesn't help your case.
>You then proceeded to make a ridiculous appeal
>to a fifth century Roman bishop in an attempt to
>justify an alternative to an argument that was
>never made by McGuckin or me.
You're doing a good immitation of someone trying to defend that argument.
>Your suggested alternative resulted in a
>ridiculous reading of First Clement that's made
>unnecessary by the opening of the letter itself.
And the opening of the letter is unnecessary as an explanation when we have a consistent practice in the Church. Whatever, you obviously aren't interested in any evidence that doesn't support your a-priori position.
>Your response doesn't explain what Clement
>said. Again, why would Clement only refer to two
>offices if he believed in three offices? If the first
>of the three sometimes went by a different name,
>then such a fact would only be relevant to what
>name Clement used for that office. It does
>nothing to explain why he mentioned only two
>offices.
Because Jason, Bishop and Presbyter are not two offices. They are the same office with one person holding the ruling position. It is analogous (though not identical) to a Westminster governmental system where there are many people holding the office of "minister", but one is entitled "prime minister" who rules the rest. (Don't push the analogy too far). There is no fundamental difference in office between bishop and presbyter except that one is the ruling presbyter.
>And since you argued earlier that Protestants
>can't make a historical argument for the
>authority of the apostles, then why should we be
>concerned with what the apostles taught?
??? So you are doubting this now?
>Even if we assume your assertion about James,
>why should we believe that every church had a
>monarchical episcopate and was required to have
>one?
Pick anything written to a church by an apostle. Can we ignore it because maybe it was just for that church?
>Why were later sources, like Jerome, ignorant of
>such an alleged requirement?
I see no such ignorance in Jerome.
>>"And what pray tell is your criteria for a 'corrupt
>>denomination' ??"
>
>One that adds works to the gospel, for example.
So your gospel doesn't advocate works. Interesting.
>See our previous discussions about the doctrine
>of justification. You repeatedly left those
>discussions without interacting with what I'd
>said.
I don't know what you're referring to. Once a blog entry drops off the bottom of my reader, it's gone.
Orthodox writes:
ReplyDelete"Since you're all hung up about icons, I picked a date where icons are frequently referred to."
The veneration of images is frequently disputed in the fourth century and later. And the veneration of images is widely opposed prior to the fourth century. I've cited patristic sources on the subject, I've cited the comments of non-Christian sources, and I've cited non-Protestant scholars acknowledging these facts. You've repeatedly failed to interact with that evidence and have, instead, dismissed hundreds of years of church history as "obscure" on the subject. But when you initially thought, mistakenly, that you could cite Clement of Alexandria, for example, in support of your position, you didn't think that he or the ante-Nicene sources in general were "obscure". Once I demonstrated that you were mistaken about the ante-Nicene data, you then told us that we should look to later sources instead and dismissed the ante-Nicene era as indiscernible. Your exemption of the earliest centuries of church history is dubious in itself. It becomes even more dubious when we consider that you've appealed to ante-Nicene sources yourself (Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, etc.), only to turn around and dismiss the ante-Nicene era as indiscernible when its sources contradict your position on an issue.
Regarding inconsistencies from the middle of the fourth century onward, see Steve Hays' post last month that mentions some examples, such as councils that contradicted each other, including councils initially considered ecumenical:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/in-search-of-true-church.html
See, also, the comments of George Dragas in the Encyclopedia Of Early Christianity, Everett Ferguson, ed. (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999), pp. 359-360. He gives further examples of councils being rejected, then accepted or accepted, then rejected.
You've erroneously claimed that the church historically understood Acts 15 the way you understand it, yet you only cited one source to support that assertion (John Chrysostom). I demonstrated that you were wrong about Chrysostom, in a thread you left without responding to me. The Eastern Orthodox patristic scholar John McGuckin explains:
"It is often said that the meeting of the apostles (Acts 15) to discuss whether circumcision was required of Gentile converts was the primary model of the church's practice of leaders' meetings for debate and resolution of problems, but the example of the 'Council of Jerusalem' is not alluded to in patristic writing until the fifth century. It is more likely that the Hellenistic world (organized as a chain of cities in dependence on the emperor) provided a ready example of the necessity of provincial leaders to establish common policies by meetings of town councils and occasions when delegates could represent the town to the provincial governor concerning regular fiscal and political affairs." (The Westminster Handbook To Patristic Theology [Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004], p. 77)
McGuckin is referring to using Acts 15 in a manner like you've used it. He isn't denying that people knew of the passage and commented on it in other contexts prior to the fifth century.
If you want to dismiss examples such as the ones mentioned above as in some way unofficial or insignificant, then, as I said before, other groups could claim consistency in the same manner. Why should we think much of such an alleged consistency? If you have to dismiss so many widespread changes and contradictions as somehow unofficial or insignificant, then why should we think that such a heavily qualified "consistency" from the middle of the fourth century onward gives us reason to assume that earlier Christians didn't also widely differ from what you believe?
You write:
"Why do you keep referring to this? If I mentioned Luther's objections to the NT canon, would it prove you have the wrong canon?"
I haven't been saying that disagreements over the extent of a rule of faith make that rule of faith unacceptable. You, on the other hand, have been using that argument.
And I'm not a Lutheran. If you're going to associate me with everything done by any Protestant, then should I associate you with everything done by any Eastern Christian, even if the person isn't Eastern Orthodox?
And Luther lived hundreds of years ago. The disagreements among Eastern Orthodox concerning what is and what isn't Tradition are ongoing and are more widespread.
You write:
"Does evidence that conflicts with the canonicity a book in your canon show that you have no sure rule of faith?"
As we've explained to you many times, we don't make claims about the canon comparable to the claims you've made about your denomination and its alleged history.
You write:
"Sure, there has been a papacy since the 1st century."
I was referring to the Roman Catholic concept of a universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome. Telling us that there was "a papacy" in a lesser Eastern Orthodox sense is an evasion of the issue. The fact that you chose such an evasive response suggests that you're aware that your argument is erroneous. Again, since the papacy (as defined by me above) is a doctrine that's been held for a long time, should we assume that it must have been believed all along? Should we assume the same about Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc.?
You write:
"And the opening of the letter is unnecessary as an explanation when we have a consistent practice in the Church."
Later Roman bishops are more relevant to interpreting First Clement than the opening words of First Clement itself? That's absurd.
You write:
"Because Jason, Bishop and Presbyter are not two offices. They are the same office with one person holding the ruling position."
You initially cited Ignatius as representative of how all churches viewed church government. When I cited Clement of Rome as an example of a different view, you initially demonstrated that you didn't even understand the issue by making an argument about the "royal we". After I corrected you and explained to you what you need to address in First Clement, you eventually changed your argument to the one above. But Clement doesn't make the distinctions you're making. Ignatius, the model you gave us, refers to three offices, not two. And he doesn't call presbyters "bishops". You've given us no reason to assume that Clement called presbyters "bishops" while considering one bishop above the others. Your assertion isn't enough to prove your argument.
You write:
"So you are doubting this now?"
When you asked me about evidence for the apostleship of Paul (which you ignored after I gave it to you), were you doubting his apostleship? If you can ask me for evidence for something you agree with me about, then I can do the same. Again, since you argued earlier that Protestants can't make a historical argument for the authority of the apostles, then why should we be concerned with what the apostles taught? If you're going to appeal to "the church", then why should we be concerned with what the church taught?
You write:
"Pick anything written to a church by an apostle. Can we ignore it because maybe it was just for that church?"
As I told you before, the fact that something happened historically among the apostles wouldn't prove that the apostles were commanding that other people do it. In the book of Acts, for example, the apostles spoke in tongues, healed people, etc. Do you conclude that all of those things must be done by us today, then? No, you don't. Similarly, if James had been a monarchical bishop, it wouldn't therefore follow that all churches must have a monarchical episcopate. But you haven't even demonstrated that James was a monarchical bishop. He was an apostle (Galatians 1:19), an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ, and a close relative of Jesus, so any prominence he had could be a result of one or more of those factors. You can't just assume that his prominence must have been a result of a monarchical episcopate.
You write:
"I see no such ignorance in Jerome."
Jerome said that bishops and presbyters were initially the same office. He says that a change occurred. You, in contrast, said that "It was always done this way", referring to the monarchical episcopate. Similarly, modern Eastern Orthodox scholars, such as John McGuckin, don't agree with you that all churches were required to have a monarchical episcopate "always". That's why they refer to the monarchical episcopate as not existing everywhere. Are such Eastern Orthodox scholars ignorant of what your denomination allegedly "always" held as a "Tradition"?
You write:
"So your gospel doesn't advocate works. Interesting."
That depends on what you mean by "advocates works".
You write:
"I don't know what you're referring to. Once a blog entry drops off the bottom of my reader, it's gone."
That's your problem, not mine. I discussed the doctrine of justification with you more than once, and you repeatedly left the discussions. It's not my responsibility to keep repeating myself.
>You've repeatedly failed to interact with that
ReplyDelete>evidence and have, instead, dismissed hundreds of
>years of church history as "obscure" on the subject.
>But when you initially thought, mistakenly, that you
>could cite Clement of Alexandria, for example, in
>support of your position, you didn't think that he or
>the ante-Nicene sources in general were "obscure".
Well you keep claiming to have cited a lot of stuff, but unless I'm reading the wrong blog, I've never seen it. All I've seen cited is Elvira and a couple of ECFs.
But let's give you the benefit of the doubt that this stuff is "out there somewhere". Am I going to change my faith based on this minor thing? If I'm going to be looking for the true church, I'm going to make a list of issues that seem major to me, and I'm going to make mental checklists of how the early church compares on all these points. For the sake of argument I could have three columns, Orthodox, Protestants and Other. (Assuming that protestantism were monolithic, which it isn't)
Now firstly, I have no idea why I would even put icon issues on the list at all. It doesn't seem important enough to bother. But assuming I did put it on, and assuming again that these phantom citations are "out there somewhere" and the protestant column scored well on this one subitem, why would I change faiths because of that? I contend that the overall picture of the early church is very much Orthodox. If protestants were to get a few points on one it could be for any number of reasons.
a) Nobody can claim that history preserves everything equally well. We should EXPECT holes in some areas. If that area is icons, so be it. It doesn't materially change the overall picture.
b) Maybe the church matured in its overall understanding. Nothing wrong with that either.
c) Maybe the history we have is not overall representative. It is the dissenters that often leave a bigger mark on history than the status quo.
d) Maybe the minority view was the correct one, and the church recognized it over time. Nothing wrong with that either.
The issue is the OVERALL view. You on the other hand want smorgasboard Christianity where you can pick and choose your religion. I already pointed out the major problems you have there.
>Regarding inconsistencies from the middle of the
>fourth century onward, see Steve Hays' post last
>month that mentions some examples, such as
>councils that contradicted each other, including
>councils initially considered ecumenical:
You still don't understand Orthodoxy? Councils, ecumenical or otherwise, don't have any authority in themselves unless the Church grants it. That some people hoped or felt that a council ought to be ecumenical is just that - a hope. It isn't a fact until the Church has accepted it as such. This is elementary Orthodox ecclesiology. You have nothing.
>See, also, the comments of George Dragas in the
>Encyclopedia Of Early Christianity, Everett
>Ferguson, ed. (New York: Garland Publishing,
>Inc., 1999), pp. 359-360. He gives further
>examples of councils being rejected, then
>accepted or accepted, then rejected.
Acceptance by the whole church and reconition of that takes time. What he is probably saying is that major players in these controversies accepted then rejected theme etc. But the acceptance of high profile church leaders in the historical record is not the same as Church acceptance.
>You've erroneously claimed that the church
>historically understood Acts 15 the way you
>understand it, yet you only cited one source to
>support that assertion (John Chrysostom).
I thought the question I cited Chrysostom about was slightly different.
Assuming you are right, and I don't have time to research that at the moment, it doesn't matter that much. The earliest fathers had little cause to relate Acts 15 to ecumenical councils when there was not opportunity and/or no cause for holding one. An ecumenical council is really only a special case of the authority of the catholic Church. Because it involves a gathering of a large number of bishops it is more likely to provide an edifying and infallible statement of the faith, but it isn't a necessary vehicle for doing so. The Church can agree on the faith without any council. Whether in or out of a council there are plenty of ECFs to attest to that.
"It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about... ." Irenaeus against Heresies III
"Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us "in a mystery" by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay; — no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more." St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 27
"As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, e.g. the annual commemoration, by special solemnities, of the Lord's passion, resurrection, and ascension, and of the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven, and whatever else is in like manner observed by the whole Church wherever it has been established." St. Augustine’s Letter to Januarius
>I haven't been saying that disagreements over
>the extent of a rule of faith make that rule of
>faith unacceptable.
But you ought to, because no rule is a rule unless it is agreed.
>And I'm not a Lutheran. If you're going to
>associate me with everything done by any
>Protestant, then should I associate you with
>everything done by any Eastern Christian, even if
>the person isn't Eastern Orthodox?
Interesting that you are not willing to own major deficiencies in the theology of the one who started your general movement.
>The disagreements among Eastern Orthodox >concerning what is and what isn't Tradition are
>ongoing and are more widespread.
More widespread than what protestants think scripture is and teaches? I don't think so.
>As we've explained to you many times, we don't
>make claims about the canon comparable to the
>claims you've made about your denomination
>and its alleged history.
You keep saying this, but it is in response to a straw man picture of what our claims are. We don't need to claim history is neat and tidy as you seem to think we claim.
>I was referring to the Roman Catholic concept of
>a universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome.
>Telling us that there was "a papacy" in a lesser
>Eastern Orthodox sense is an evasion of the
>issue. The fact that you chose such an evasive
>response suggests that you're aware that your
>argument is erroneous.
I havn't got ESP as to what you're talking about. Don't blame me that you didn't say what you meant.
The universal jurisdiction of the papacy?
I have the councils saying that all bishops should stick to their own jurisdiction. Again, I look to the overall picture of when the church was one church. The church is one, and it is the body of Christ. I identify where the church is and what it agreed on.
>Should we assume the same about Purgatory, the
>Immaculate Conception, etc.?
Again, I look to the church when it was one church. Did it have consensus about these things? If not, then they are highly questionable.
>Later Roman bishops are more relevant to
>interpreting First Clement than the opening
>words of First Clement itself? That's absurd.
Really. So in coming to an understanding of a pope who wrote in the 20th century and his use of the plural, you would totally ignore 2000 years of practice. Interesting. Also absurd.
>You initially cited Ignatius as representative of
>how all churches viewed church government.
>When I cited Clement of Rome as an example of
>a different view, you initially demonstrated that
>you didn't even understand the issue by making
>an argument about the "royal we". After I
>corrected you and explained to you what you
>need to address in First Clement, you eventually
>changed your argument to the one above. But
>Clement doesn't make the distinctions you're
>making. Ignatius, the model you gave us, refers
>to three offices, not two. And he doesn't call
>presbyters "bishops". You've given us no reason
>to assume that Clement called presbyters
>"bishops" while considering one bishop above
>the others. Your assertion isn't enough to prove
>your argument.
What I said right at the beginning is that there is no firm argument that shows that the monarchial episcopate hasn't always been practiced. I said at the beginning some people have tried to draw inferences, but that's all they are. You make this inference based on Clement, thus assuming that the folks there didn't know what was going on elsewhere. That's an inference at best, and I would argue a poor one.
>for example, the apostles spoke in tongues,
>healed people, etc. Do you conclude that all of
>those things must be done by us today, then?
>No, you don't.
What I conclude about such things is what the Church teaches me to conclude. But if I practiced sola scripture I would have to conclude that there must be tongues in the church and also prophesy. Something tells me you don't practice them, contrary to what scripture says. By abandoning these things, you open the door to open slather. Do you approve of churches that practice prophesy and tongues?
>But you haven't even demonstrated that James
>was a monarchical bishop. He was an apostle
>(Galatians 1:19)
We discussed this already. Galatians says he was not an apostle.
>Jerome said that bishops and presbyters were
>initially the same office. He says that a change
>occurred.
All Jerome comments on is the naming. It doesn't help you at all.
>Similarly, modern Eastern Orthodox scholars,
>such as John McGuckin, don't agree with you that
>all churches were required to have a monarchical
>episcopate "always".
I don't see him saying that. He didn't say that. I think you're reading more into what he said than is there.
>>"So your gospel doesn't advocate works.
>>Interesting."
>
>That depends on what you mean by "advocates
>works".
Equivocation. One minute you are soundly condemning a gospel that advocates works as scandalous. Now you are saying that maybe your gospel has it too.
Orthodox writes:
ReplyDelete"Well you keep claiming to have cited a lot of stuff, but unless I'm reading the wrong blog, I've never seen it. All I've seen cited is Elvira and a couple of ECFs."
I repeatedly linked you to material I had written on the ante-Nicene sources. You repeatedly failed to interact with what I'd written.
You write:
"Am I going to change my faith based on this minor thing? If I'm going to be looking for the true church, I'm going to make a list of issues that seem major to me, and I'm going to make mental checklists of how the early church compares on all these points."
If the veneration of images is "minor", then why was an ecumenical council held on the matter, and why did that council speak in such high terms about the significance of the issue? What about the implications the issue has for the reliability of what you call "the church", how that entity leads the people who follow it, etc.? Are all of these issues "minor"?
You write:
"Nobody can claim that history preserves everything equally well. We should EXPECT holes in some areas. If that area is icons, so be it. It doesn't materially change the overall picture."
You haven't made the case that there are "holes" with regard to the veneration of icons, prayer to the deceased, or the other issues you dismiss with arguments like the one quoted above. You assert that the historical record might be misleading on such subjects, but you never give us any reason to conclude that it's so. You just assert that it's possible. I've given multiple reasons to conclude the opposite, and you've failed to interact with those reasons.
You write:
"Maybe the church matured in its overall understanding. Nothing wrong with that either....Maybe the minority view was the correct one, and the church recognized it over time. Nothing wrong with that either."
Again, see the following thread in which I refuted your appeal to such "maturing":
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/unreasonable-contradictory-eastern.html
You write:
"The issue is the OVERALL view."
You said, earlier, that a later consensus can't overturn an earlier one. So, if an earlier consensus establishes a position, then how can we wait for later evidence in order to get an "overall" view? Should we suspend judgment throughout church history? What if the veneration of images will be rejected three hundred years from now and onward? Should we wait to see what happens and refrain from accepting the veneration of images until then?
You write:
"You still don't understand Orthodoxy? Councils, ecumenical or otherwise, don't have any authority in themselves unless the Church grants it. That some people hoped or felt that a council ought to be ecumenical is just that - a hope. It isn't a fact until the Church has accepted it as such. This is elementary Orthodox ecclesiology. You have nothing."
See what I said in my last post regarding such qualifications. Any group can claim consistency if they're allowed to exempt all contradictions by means of the sort of qualifications that you're appealing to. As I said in my last post, why should such post-Nicene "consistency" lead us to conclude that the ante-Nicene Christians couldn't have widely disagreed with your denomination on an issue?
You write:
"Acceptance by the whole church and reconition of that takes time. What he is probably saying is that major players in these controversies accepted then rejected theme etc. But the acceptance of high profile church leaders in the historical record is not the same as Church acceptance."
I cited two sources, one of them an article by Steve Hays, in which he cites Eastern Orthodox scholarship. Why don't you consult those sources instead of guessing at what they "probably" say? And how can you appeal to "acceptance by the whole church and recognition of that" if popular opinion can be wrong? You've told us that a minority can be correct, even a small one like a 10% minority. How do you define "the whole church" and "recognition"? Why should we believe that such factors have the significance you claim they have? You keep making assertions without any supporting argumentation.
You write:
"Assuming you are right, and I don't have time to research that at the moment, it doesn't matter that much. The earliest fathers had little cause to relate Acts 15 to ecumenical councils when there was not opportunity and/or no cause for holding one. An ecumenical council is really only a special case of the authority of the catholic Church."
If the early church had "little cause" to discuss Acts 15 and ecumenical councils, as you claim, then such a situation doesn't change the fact that something like your use of the passage didn't arise until after the timeframe you cited earlier in this thread. Yet, you've told us that there were no "changes". But now you speak of "maturing", growing "recognition", "holes" in the historical record, etc.
Concerning whether these things "matter that much", see what I said in my last post about dismissing such issues as insignificant. Any group, such as Roman Catholicism, can dismiss its historical problems in the sort of manner in which you're dismissing yours.
And changing the subject to "the authority of the catholic Church" doesn't address the subject I raised. Quoting a source like Irenaeus or Basil of Caesarea referring to "the church" or "tradition", for example, doesn't prove that they would agree with your use of Acts 15, that they agreed with everything you believe about the church and tradition, or that they were Eastern Orthodox.
You write:
"But you ought to, because no rule is a rule unless it is agreed."
You keep contradicting yourself. If all people who claim to follow a rule of faith have to agree on the extent of it in order for that rule to be acceptable, then the Eastern Orthodox rule of faith is unacceptable. Eastern Orthodox disagree with each other about what is Tradition and what isn't. Your argument is unreasonable and self-defeating.
You write:
"You keep saying this, but it is in response to a straw man picture of what our claims are. We don't need to claim history is neat and tidy as you seem to think we claim."
You keep using vague terminology to defend your arguments when more specificity is needed. Telling us that your view of church history doesn't need to be "neat and tidy" doesn't address the specific problems I and others have mentioned to you. You made a lot of specific claims about church history, and comments like the ones quoted above aren't a sufficient defense of those specific claims. See, for example:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/unreasonable-contradictory-eastern.html
You write:
"Again, I look to the church when it was one church. Did it have consensus about these things? If not, then they are highly questionable."
You've given us no reason to accept that standard. You just assert it. And since the ante-Nicene era is part of the period you identify as the time when "the church was one", then how can you know that there was consensus during that timeframe if you dismiss the ante-Nicene era as "obscure"?
You write:
"So in coming to an understanding of a pope who wrote in the 20th century and his use of the plural, you would totally ignore 2000 years of practice."
We were discussing Clement of Rome and First Clement. There is no "2000 years of practice" before him. And the opening of his letter explains the use of "we" without any need to appeal to a "royal we". You've suggested that we should ignore the opening of the letter and interpret First Clement in light of what another Roman bishop wrote in the fifth century instead. That's absurd.
You write:
"You make this inference based on Clement, thus assuming that the folks there didn't know what was going on elsewhere. That's an inference at best, and I would argue a poor one."
You aren't interacting with what I said. Instead, you're appealing to what existed "elsewhere" at the time Clement wrote. But the fact that the monarchical episcopate existed in some churches in the early second century doesn't prove that it must have existed everywhere when Clement wrote in the first century. Scholars from your own denomination acknowledge this fact. As I said before, are we to believe that your own denomination's scholars are ignorant of the alleged fact that the apostles commanded all churches to have a monarchical episcopate "always" (the word you used)?
You write:
"What I conclude about such things is what the Church teaches me to conclude. But if I practiced sola scripture I would have to conclude that there must be tongues in the church and also prophesy."
Where has "the Church" taught you what to believe about everything the apostles did in Acts and elsewhere? And how does the fact that the apostles healed people, for example, logically lead to the conclusion that we today must heal people? If your denomination uses the Greek language in an ecumenical council, do you therefore assume that you must communicate in Greek as well unless your denomination specifically issues a ruling saying otherwise? If some of the leaders of your denomination in the past are thought to have performed miracles, do you assume that today's Eastern Orthodox must perform miracles as well unless your denomination specifically issues a ruling saying otherwise? You keep using self-defeating arguments. The concept that advocates of sola scriptura can't discern what's commanded by the apostles and what isn't is ridiculous, and that argument would defeat your own belief system if you applied it consistently. But you aren't consistent.
You write:
"We discussed this already. Galatians says he was not an apostle."
We did discuss the issue earlier. And you left the thread without interacting with my last response, which included documentation of John Chrysostom contradicting you on the subject (though you yourself had cited him). Here's the URL, if any readers are interested:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/unity-of-one-true-church.html
You write:
"All Jerome comments on is the naming. It doesn't help you at all."
You're mistaken. And I've cited an example of an Eastern Orthodox patristic scholar agreeing with me on this point (John McGuckin). Jerome tells the person he's writing to:
"Do you ask for proof of what I say?" (Letter 146:1)
As John McGuckin notes in my citation at the beginning of this thread, Jerome was arguing for something that had been largely neglected in his day. He wasn't just addressing a matter of terminology that "Tradition" had always recognized. Jerome goes on to comment:
"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." (Letter 146:1)
He argues that the sort of situation you're referring to was a "subsequent" development.
Roger Beckwith notes that other patristic sources recognized that a change occurred:
"Other fourth-century writers, besides Jerome, who continue to recognise 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)
Furthermore, you're contradicting what you argued earlier. You now claim to agree with Jerome, but earlier you acknowledged that he agreed with me. Here's how you tried to dismiss Jerome previously:
"Jerome doesn't 'attest' to anything other than a monarchial episcopate. He gives an opinion it wasn't always so, but he gives no reason to believe he has any inside knowledge that we don't have....I've seen no evidence cited against the monarchial episcopate apart from a theory Jerome had." (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/orthodox-admits-that-his-historical.html)
You keep contradicting yourself.
You write:
"I don't see him saying that. He didn't say that. I think you're reading more into what he said than is there."
McGuckin says that "by the second century there emerged a triadic form of episkopos-bishop, presbyteros-elder (which was rendered by the Old English ‘Priest’), and diakonos-deacon". He's not just referring to terminology. He's referring to "form". He goes on to refer to how "This more and more replaced a range of other offices that had characterized the earliest church". In other words, the three-fold form you've cited from Ignatius is something that McGuckin thinks only gradually developed and spread. He goes on to refer to how some churches continued to have a different form even in the second century, and he refers to how, in the third century, "his [Cyprian's] own church wavered greatly over whether he, or the assembled presbyters, or the confessors had the higher standing". When referring to Jerome, McGuckin comments that he "protested" something rather than just agreeing with a Tradition that had always been held by the church. You aren't giving us any reason to think that McGuckin agrees with you.
You write:
"Equivocation. One minute you are soundly condemning a gospel that advocates works as scandalous. Now you are saying that maybe your gospel has it too."
I said that whether I agree with the term you used depends on how you were defining the words. Are you suggesting that terminology can never have more than one meaning?