According to tradition, Clement of Rome knew some of the Apostles. And there’s no particular reason to doubt that he may have known one or more of the Apostles.
Now, according to Catholic and Orthodox apologetics, if a subapostolic father knew one or more of the Apostles, then this creates the presumption that his teaching preserves and passes along Apostolic doctrine. He’s a custodian and a conduit of Apostolic tradition. We may safely assume that he’s repeating what he heard from the lips of an Apostle.
But I can’t help noticing that this pious presumption comes to an abrupt and premature halt when we arrive at the science of Clementine ornithology:
“Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.”
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-roberts.html
Are you willing to apply the same standard to your own Scriptures? Here is a bunch of scientific problems with the Bible:
ReplyDeletethe bat is a bird (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);
Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);
Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);
Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);
Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5);
Camels don't divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4);
The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV);
The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);
The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30);
A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7);
The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine (Gen. 9:13);
A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV);
Turtles have voices (Song of Sol. 2:12);
The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);
The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);
Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21);
The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9)
A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44).
The moon is a light source like the sun (Gen 1:16)
source: http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/The_Bible_and_Science
The Bible makes references to mythical creatures, such as in Numbers 21:6 where it speaks of "fiery serpents".
ReplyDeleteLet's see:
ReplyDelete1. The Bible is not a science textbook.
2. The Bible makes use of metaphors.
Anything else you're still confused about?
The writtings of the Early Church fathers are not science text books either.
ReplyDeleteJNORM888
I'm confused. I have been reading this blog now, for about 10 days and have enjoyed and benefitted from so much of the discussion but you just lost me here. What point are you trying to make? What does Clement's passing on a legend have to do with anything?
ReplyDeleteTacitus also passes on legends he has heard about far off places yet we still assume that he knows something about the events he writes about. How is Clement different, particularly with regard to the teachings of any apostles he actually knew?
Maggie,
ReplyDeleteThe reason for Steve's post is in the first two paragraphs.
Peter Pike,
ReplyDeleteThere is a difference between personaly oppinion and what the Church believes.
But at anycase, they were way more trustworthy than John Calvin & friends.
For this is what it comes down to. "Apostolic Tradition" vs the "Reformed Tradition".
Which one did Jesus pass down? And which one should we trust in regards to scriptural interpretation?
I am also including the church councils in "Apostolic Tradition". The Apostles showed the Church what to do when disputes pop up.
And in regards to the issue at hand. The topic of the Trinity...The Reformed tradition is straight wrong. It is at odds with both the Church Fathers and Nicea.
JNORM888
For this is what it comes down to. "Apostolic Tradition" vs the "Reformed Tradition".
ReplyDeleteWhich one did Jesus pass down? And which one should we trust in regards to scriptural interpretation?
Given your multiple choice, constantly shifting argument for what constitutes "Apostolic Tradition" how are you in any position to know the Reformed tradition is not "Apostolic?"
You constantly beg the question for Orthodoxy, as you constantly prove on this blog. Good job.
I am also including the church councils in "Apostolic Tradition". The Apostles showed the Church what to do when disputes pop up.
1. But according to you, only certain councils are truly authoritative. So, it's not merely the convening of a council you have in mind, but certain sorts of councils, namely the ones you deem "ecumenical."
Let's apply that standard to the Jerusalem Council. It consisted some Apostles - not all of them are named, and not all of them were present, for we know for a fact at least one was dead.
It consisted of the eldership of the Jerusalem Church.
It consisted of Barnabas and Paul, sent from Antioch and "some others."
Judas and Silas were there.
The opposition was there.
It consisted of "all the people" and "the brethren." Commentators differ on whether this refers to the general audience, the list of persons previously given, or layperons who also participated.
Your fellow Orthodox apparatchik, Lvka has informed as a few times now that an "ecumenical" council is "Empire-wide." It is composed of people from all the churches around the Empire, etc.
So, by your own standards, the Jerusalem Council is disanalogous, for, having occurred after the first missionary journey and the expansion to Samaria, there is no indication in the text that representatives from all of those other churches were there present.
Indeed, the Synod of Dort is more like the Jerusalem Council than an ecumenical council. The Synod included the opposition. It included representatives from the Reformed churches all over the Continent and England. So, who here is really following the model, assuming the text is establishing a model for every generation to follow?
And in regards to the issue at hand. The topic of the Trinity...The Reformed tradition is straight wrong. It is at odds with both the Church Fathers and Nicea
How do you know Nicea was right?
You're leveling accusations that non-Protestant theologians of Calvin's own time did not level. Indeed, they explicitly said that his formulation was within the bounds of orthodoxy. That's a fact of history. So, you're pounding the judicial gavel where others have dared not tread.
Not every theologian within the Reformed tradition follows the view of Calvin. Some adhere to Nicene formulation. Your accusation against "the Reformed tradition" has no historical foundation, for, one more time, JNorm, we do not follow John Calvin. Here's a thought, actually read the literature on this. It's found in Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics by Richard Muller. There's an entire volume devoted to The Trinity.
Maggie wrote:
ReplyDelete"Tacitus also passes on legends he has heard about far off places yet we still assume that he knows something about the events he writes about. How is Clement different, particularly with regard to the teachings of any apostles he actually knew?"
Given our recent interactions with Jnorm888, I think what Steve had in mind was the assumption that if patristic sources address a subject, such as a Trinitarian doctrine, they must be repeating what the apostles taught them. But the fact that patristic sources discuss a subject, even discuss it widely and widely agree about it, doesn't, by itself, lead to the conclusion that those patristic sources received their information from the apostles. It could have come from some other source, such as a common desire to further develop what the apostles taught. If the apostles taught Trinitarian doctrine X, then several patristic sources may have thought, correctly or incorrectly, that Trinitarian doctrine X implies Trinitarian doctrine Y. It would be erroneous to conclude that Trinitarian doctrine Y must have been directly taught by the apostles. Rather, the patristic sources in question thought that the apostolic teaching on X implied Y. And when Clement of Rome uses the phoenix as an illustration of the resurrection, we don't assume that both the belief in resurrection and the phoenix illustration must have come from the apostles. It's easy to imagine how the former could be apostolic without the latter having been so. We have to make case-by-case judgments. In other words, judging whether a patristic belief came from the apostles isn't as simple as people like Jnorm888 have made it out to be.
Yes, Clement is generally reliable, like Tacitus. I doubt that Steve meant to suggest otherwise. I think that he was trying to illustrate the need to exercise more discernment than some Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox practice.
JNORM888 SAID:
ReplyDelete“There is a difference between personaly oppinion and what the Church believes.”
But you originally said things like:
“If the people who learned from the Apostles feet were wrong, then the Apostles were wrong.”
Are you now claiming that Clement’s statement about the immortality of the phoenix is merely his personal opinion rather than apostolic tradition?
And suppose Clement said that Jn 6 teaches the real presence? Would that be apostolic tradition or just his personal opinion?
You originally implied that we can infer apostolic doctrine for what their successors taught, on the grounds that their successors were repeating what they heard from the lips of the Apostles.
(Of course, even this claim would only be directly applicable to a subset of the apostolic fathers.)
If, however, you’re going to drive a wedge between apostolic tradition and the private opinion of a subapostolic father, then you can no longer draw that inference.
And if you fall back on “the church” (i.e. ecumenical councils?), then you’ve mooted the appeal to apostolic succession.
“But at anycase, they were way more trustworthy than John Calvin & friends.”
How are they way more trustworthy if they may only be expressing their personal opinion?
“For this is what it comes down to. ‘Apostolic Tradition’ vs the ‘Reformed Tradition’.____Which one did Jesus pass down?”
Actually, Jesus wasn’t in the business of handing down tradition. Rather, he was in the business of handing down the Holy Spirit so that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John could commit his teaching to writing.
“And which one should we trust in regards to scriptural interpretation?”
The Reformed tradition, since Jesus taught TULIP.
“I am also including the church councils in ‘Apostolic Tradition’. The Apostles showed the Church what to do when disputes pop up.”
That’s a very selective and one-side example. The Apostles didn’t convene a council every time a dispute arose. If you bother to read the NT letters, you’ll see that they usually took it upon themselves, individually, to deal with the dispute.
“And in regards to the issue at hand. The topic of the Trinity...The Reformed tradition is straight wrong. It is at odds with both the Church Fathers and Nicea.”
The Reformed tradition is wrong because it’s at odds with the Orthodox tradition. What a convincing claim! Who could fail to be persuaded by such a wonderfully tendentious appeal?
The problem here is Christology, not ornithology. To interpret things typologically is part of the Apostolic depository. To use what comes at hand is also in line with Apostolic usage. (Acts 17:23) This should also answer the frequently made assertions of both Nihilists, as well as die-hard Protestants, that we "borrowed from Paganism": we eisegeted what came at hand to preach Christ to them.
ReplyDeleteThe problem here is Christology, not ornithology.
ReplyDeleteNo, the problem here is a rationalitic theology on your part on the one hand (for Christology functions a central plank and lens for your views - but where's the justification for that?) and on the other hand your inconistent appeals to the Fathers. You agree with them on some things, and deny them on others. That's the issue.
To interpret things typologically is part of the Apostolic depository. The GHM allows for both typology and intextuality.
But you regularly conflate allegory and typology.
To use what comes at hand is also in line with Apostolic usage. (Acts 17:23) The problem isn't "using what is at hand" to illustrate or as a jumping off point, a common ground, but the borrowing of concepts not to be found in the Word of God itself, not to explain something, but as actual dogmatic expressions.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/08/orthodox-platonism.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/08/platonic-orthodoxy.html
By the way, where does Scripture teach libertarian free will or is it something derivative more of secular philosophy?
we eisegeted what came at hand to preach Christ to them.
This one is just too good to pass up.
Yes, Lvka, we agree, you do a marvelous work eiegeting Scripture.
You keep saying you don't follow John Calvin, yet you follow his interpretations over that of the early Church Fathers and church councils.
ReplyDeleteWhy can't you admit like this dude that you follow John Calvin?
JNORM888
JNORM888 SAID:
ReplyDelete“You keep saying you don't follow John Calvin, yet you follow his interpretations over that of the early Church Fathers and church councils.”
I can’t think of a single time, in all my years of blogging, that I quoted from a commentary of Calvin’s to justify my interpretation. I consult modern commentaries, and other reference works, on exegetical issues. And most of the commentaries (and other reference works) I consult aren’t authored by Calvinists.
Just as you have an armchair version of NT church history, you also have an armchair version of where I get my interpretations.
Apropos allegorically-rich and typologically-laden, mystically-hidden and meaning-filled secretive references, guys: here's my favorite worship song! :) King Solomon, don't be jealous now! :)
ReplyDelete"according to Catholic and Orthodox apologetics, if a subapostolic father knew one or more of the Apostles, then this creates the presumption that his teaching preserves and passes along Apostolic doctrine"
ReplyDeleteThis is absolutely and patently false about both Catholic and Orthodox teaching. Perhaps someone, somewhere said such a thing. However, every Church has its crazies. :) Irenaeus very clearly lays out the doctrine of apostalic succession: "For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree ... inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [bishops] who exist everywhere." Knowing an apostle gets you nothing if you have not maintained the apostolic faith. Further, you are only authortative inasmuch as you speak about the apostalic faith. Ornithology is CLEARLY outside the scope of apostolic succession.
NPMCCALLUM SAID:
ReplyDelete“This is absolutely and patently false about both Catholic and Orthodox teaching.”
Your denial is absolutely and patently false about both Catholic and Orthodox teaching.
However, I’m glad to hear that you repudiate this argument. You need to correct your fellow high churchmen.
“Perhaps someone, somewhere said such a thing.”
I run across this appeal all the time in dealing with Catholics and Orthodox.
“However, every Church has its crazies. :)”
Do you classify Clement of Rome as one of the “crazies”?
“Irenaeus very clearly lays out the doctrine of apostalic succession.”
I didn’t deny that you can find a doctrine of apostolic succession in the church fathers. So what?
“Knowing an apostle gets you nothing if you have not maintained the apostolic faith.”
Viciously circular reasoning since high churchmen typically appeal to apostolic succession to identify and verify what constitutes the apostolic faith in the first place.
“Further, you are only authortative inasmuch as you speak about the apostalic faith. Ornithology is CLEARLY outside the scope of apostolic succession.”
Begs the question of whether the Apostles used the resurrection of the phoenix to prove the resurrection of Christ.
A high churchman is in no position to dictate the scope of apostolic succession in advance of their actual teaching. That’s something you could only learn from apostolic successors themselves (if you buy into the argument at all).