“There was … no individual, committee or council of leaders within the Christian movement that could pronounce on which beliefs and practices were acceptable and which were not. This was particularly true of Rome with its numerous small groups of believers. Different Christian teachers and organizers of house-churches offered a variety of interpretations of the faith and attracted particular followings, rather in the way that modern denominations provide choice for worshipers looking for practices that particularly appeal to them on emotional, intellectual, aesthetic or other grounds (15-16).
This is not an esoteric or a “liberal” interpretation of history. This is a mainstream historical position.
That is why, for the first time, the Vatican changed its story from “permanent” and “immediately given” to “we are conscious of development of the papacy” in 1996. They are trying to salvage the sinking “barque of Peter.” The papacy is built on a foundation of quicksand — of less than that — its foundation is nonexistent. It will go down; and thanks to the speed of the Internet, it may go down faster than anyone expects.
Thursday, August 11, 2016
“The Nonexistent Early Papacy”
Here is a brief overview that I've written in the past on historical literature on the earliest papacy:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would say that more than the internet Pope Francis' decentralizing reforms and giving full power to national episcopal conferences will lead to full schism and the collapse of the central papal hierarchy. Pope Francis will cause the papacy to go down quicker than any historical scholarship and internet research.
ReplyDeleteVincent -- I tend to agree with you -- "Pope Francis" is "the gift that keeps on giving" (as I saw in one discussion of Reformed believers). I'm waiting for Hans Kung or some of his associates to open the discussion on papal infallibility. May "Pope Francis" live long and prosper.
DeleteBut in the same way that the printing press helped fuel the Reformation, I think the Internet has the ability to spread information much more thoroughly than that.
Comment has been blocked.
You fail to take into account the authority of the Ecumenical Councils.
DeleteRome actually ignored actual conciliar declarations -- even though they were favorable toward Rome ("first among equals") because they wanted more. That is not only "failing to take into account the authority of the Ecumenical councils", but it is pure arrogance.
Roman Catholics tend to undermine their authority because they detract from the supposed unique authority of the papacy.
They not only "detract from", they challenged it, and Rome's ongoing arrogance caused harmful schisms in the church.
It occurred to me that if Protestants had any clear link to the early church the rest of us would never hear the end of it.
Protestants do have a clear link, and that clear link is highly visible in their doctrines and practices.
Another myth that modern scholarship has demolished is that the Reformers were 'restoring' Christianity some kind of pristine Biblical model.
This is simply not the case. Calvin and the Presbyterians restored the New Testament model of church government. All Protestants stripped away centuries-worth of Roman abuses and accretions. "Modern scholarship", in conservative hands, has gone to great lengths to restore what is biblical. Search out "George Eldon Ladd" here to get a taste of it.
While Pope Francis might be promoting a kinder/ gentler papacy ...
If by "kinder/gentler" you mean "the kind of modernism that Rome in earlier generations condemned in the harshest terms", then I see what you mean.
the popes won't give up their power or claims as easily as your post suggests.
Of course they won't give up their "claims". But what is taken away from them de facto is going to be massive.
Demographic data suggests Roman Catholicism continues to grow while mainstream Protestants are declining.
The "demographic trends" are diverging from the papacy. The increases are coming in the southern hemisphere, which in Africa are largely conservative, and in Latin America are becoming more supertitious. While the papacy under "Francis" and the hierarchy are becoming more and more modernist in their leanings. Those trends are only going to increase the tensions that already exist.
Comment has been blocked.
You are missing some fine distinctions and in the process you are changing the goalposts. The first question was whether "Protestants had any clear link to the early church", and of course they do. They did so by stripping away any number of Roman and Medieval accretions. A second question was whether "modern scholarship" has demolished the notion that the Reformers were 'restoring' Christianity some kind of pristine Biblical model".
DeleteLadd is a "modern scholar" and he certainly went to great lengths in his "Theology of the New Testament" to use modern scholarship to confirm what "a pristine Biblical model" was. He did so apart from "Calvin and the Presbyterians" restoring "the New Testament model of church government". But he confirmed very much of what Calvin and the Reformed identified as what the New Testament church government was like in his "Theology of the New Testament". I've written about it here, but to simplify, he said:
“The Kingdom of God” [as referred to in the New Testament, or it's Matthean usage, "The Kingdom of Heaven"] is “never to be identified with the church”. “The Kingdom is primarily the dynamic reign or kingly rule of God, and derivatively, the sphere in which the rule is experienced. In biblical idiom, the Kingdom is not identified with its subjects..."
Ladd goes on to cite five different ways in which “the church is not the Kingdom”, and he does so exegetically:
1. “The New Testament does not equate believers with the Kingdom”.
2. “The Kingdom Creates the Church”.
3. “The Church Witnesses to the Kingdom”.
4. “The Church is the Instrument of the Kingdom.”
5. The Church is the Custodian of the Kingdom”.
Ladd shattered "the notion that God put Peter in charge and that the “government” of the church would have the same government in place for all of history. In truth, God is the “government” and if Peter had the keys, they were for a specific task, a specific purpose. There is no concept that keys would be handed on. There is no sense that “thrones” would be handed on. Roman (and other bishops) made that assumption. But God [Himself!] is the Authority. God is the Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory."
That is reflected in the Presbyterian form of church government. I've given you snippets here, but I'd encourage you to read the whole thing.
Comment has been blocked.
John,
DeleteYou didn't answer my question.
Your question is nonsensical. Are you following NT Christianity? As a Byzantine, clearly not.
And I’m less concerned that Ladd is not Reformed, than I am that he provides extremely sound exegesis. What’s wrong with Ladd’s exegesis regarding the Kingdom? There’s no subjectivity there except for yours. Tell me what’s wrong with his analysis of “the Kingdom”. You probably can’t. You’re just emoting.
Aside from that, there is no rule in Christianity that “everybody has to agree on everything”. Where is that rule, if you know if it? At a level that I think you would understand, Rome and the EOs do not agree on the Trinity. That’s pretty foundational. Who’s right about it? Someone is clearly wrong. Maybe both.
I had said: Calvin and the Presbyterians restored the New Testament model of church government. All Protestants stripped away centuries-worth of Roman abuses and accretions.
You seem to have mistranslated this and added some ad hominem when you say “You seem to be living in a fantasy world when you claim that bishop are 'Roman and Medieval accretions'.” That is not what I claimed.
In what way is Ignatius of Antioch Roman or Medieval?
He is neither, but since you asked, it is very clear that he’s using the word “bishop” in a sense that’s different from what later Roman accretions attributed to it.
When I mean that Protestants had no link to the early church I was talking about a living continuity.
You are talking about an authority structure, not a living faith. It is very clear that the earliest Protestants and very many of their descendants have a living faith that’s far more vibrant than the religious structure that was imposed upon people with the imposition of mandatory Christianity, for example.
You have as much connection as the Arians, Gnostics, Montanists etc.
This is clearly false and even your own Roman authority calls Protestants “separated brethren” and not heretics. But it seems that you’re just wanting to protest here, and you’re not much concerned about truth or accuracy.
Anything that is distinctively Protestant is simply not found in the undivided church of the 7 Ecumenical Councils.
It’s evident that “the church of the 7 councils” pretty much came unhinged after the first one, when in the second, the east characterized the papacy in a way that wasn’t the way that Rome wanted to be characterized, the third council when about two thirds of the church split off (and I wouldn’t deny that they stopped being “church”), it went downhill from there, as “the church of the seven councils” that was left fought for hundreds of years over papacy and trinity before finally parting the ways.
Any, if Calvin has restored the authentic NT ministry why do the majority of Protestants not follow it?
Most Protestants do observe variations of either presbyterial or congregational church governments (“authority structures”) where the danger of there being either “popes” or “monarchical bishops” is seriously limited.
Comment has been blocked.
It seems to me that you can hardly know what New Testament Christianity is because the person you cited (George Eldon Ladd) disagrees with you about baptism and sotiriology (and probably much more). If Protestants can't even agree on what New Testament Christianity actually was then how can they claim to agree with it. You are all just engaging in a lot of subjectivism.
DeleteYou don't seem to get it. I can be Reformed without insisting that everybody be Reformed. Ladd could hold his
The key is "persuasion" vs "claim-the-authority-to-make-everyone-do-it-my-way". And by "persuasion", I mean, taking the time to get into the nitty-gritty of the Scriptures, to make the best effort to understand what the text actually says, and then to make an argument that makes sense to people in the context of other such arguments.
I could cite N.T. Wright's book 'Justification' which amply demonstrates (only using the Bible of course) that the Reformation understanding of Paul and Justification is way off. There are lots of examples like this.
And in doing so, you show how you have failed to keep up with what other scholars are saying in response to Wright, how they are showing that Luther really did understand Paul, that Wright really didn't understand Luther, that E.P. Sanders was working with outlier fragments and not mainstream 2nd Temple Judaism, and that Dunn and Wright were working with novelties when they articulated their grand (and self-aggrandizing) theories.
For your information I am not a Roman Catholic so I'm comfortable calling you a heretic (thanks for asking).
From the things you are saying, I had surmised that you are a Byzantine Catholic -- but in any event, you hide in the shadows under a fake name -- it doesn't really concern me who you are -- only that you are too cowardly to appear with your own name.
I recently read the results of a survey in the United States that found that 50% of Evangelicals don't believe in the eternal generation of the son. I should have been surprised!
How is this pertinent to the current discussion? The intial statement was "You fail to take into account the authority of the Ecumenical Councils." Seriously ... you fail to address my comment that the councils really didn't settle a lot of things, and the councils precipitated huge schisms within Christianity, which you, in your Orthodoxy, fail to take into account. This is not a Protestant problem -- it is a problem endemic in all of Christianity. The Protestants are being most consistent in pegging their doctrines not to the whims of every crackpot early church writer, nor the councils, which never really arrived at agreements, but on the Scripture, which never fails.
There are plenty of Orthodox scholars who have shown our fidelity to the New Testament. You just haven't bothered to read them. We actually believe the whole thing and not just the verses we are told to underline.
I read enough to know that, when leaving Rome, I did not want to head into Orthodoxy, which is based far less on the New Testament than it is on the neo-Platonic view of "theosis".
And of course, we don't believe all that rubbish about the corruption of the church after the death of the last apostle.
I have not even hinted that that is the case.
Continued
DeleteBishops are the natural progression of the ministry of the apostles.
No they are not. The Apostles are unique, with unique qualifications, not least of which is having seen the Lord in the flesh and was a witness to his resurrection.
Sorry to say, Presbyterianism and Congregationalism are two different systems of church government. Lumping them together is just your way of trying to minimise the point that Protestants simply can't agree on what New Testament church governance actually was.
They agree in this: “πρεσβυτέροι” and “ἐπισκοποι” are the same thing in the New Testaent that your Orthodox scholars seem to have not shown fidelity to. Lutherans don't really have "bishops" either (until later), and as for Anglicans -- there were unique political reasons in England at the time that argued for the retention of bishops.
I would like to cite the case of Jaroslav Pelikan and his conversion to Orthodoxy as an example of how an honest and knowledge Protestant scholar can see that Byzantine Christianity is New Testament Christianity.
He was from Yale, strongly influenced by soft-headed liberals throughout his career.
You'll have to show me in Pelikan's writings that "Byzantine Christianity is New Testament Christianity". Otherwise, I'll continue to think that you're just making that up, as you have fabricated so many other things in this discussion.
Most Protestants are not so intellectually honest.
I disagree that Pelikan was "intellectually honest", but the Reformers and their heirs for 200 years were among the most intellectually honest (and brilliant) scholars who ever lived. One thing that Pelikan did say that has merit is "Take what you have inherited from your fathers and work to make it your own." We should understand their example so that we can make it our own.
They are locked into a deluded paradime like you of some supposed lapse that was 'fixed' over a thousand years later.
It is the human condition, shaped by sin, in which individuals from every confession adopt deluded paradigms.
You don't seem to take the Holy Spirit or Jesus' promises about Him very seriously.
On the contrary, I take those things very seriously. Seriously enough not to impute the motives of Rome or Constantinople back into the New Testament.
As a friend of mine said, you believe in BOBO ( the Holy Spirit blinking off and blinking on in history). I can't think of anything less true to the New Testament.
Again, you show that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Comment has been blocked.
Whoopdee doo.
DeleteComment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
You have a hard time reading, at the very least. I didn't call Pelikan "liberal" (so much as influnced by them), and I don't have to call Wright "mistaken" because others have done so, critical of various aspects of Wright's program, including the Lutheran Stephen Westerholm, J.V. Fesko in his work on Justification, and a number of writers in Volume 2 of the D.A. Carson edited piece, "Justification and Variegated Nomism". It should be enough to cite Peter O'Brien's summary here:
DeleteAn investigation of Dr Wright's approach to justification in Paul, which was presented within a broad covenantal framework of the hope of israel, concluded that both the righteousness of God and justification had been redefined [by Wright -- and the work of Charles Lee Irons goes to great lengths to cite Hebrew and other sources where Wright is "wrong"] ... with serious ramifications for his interpretation of the apostle's thought. ... [the NPP model of "covenantal nomism" upon which Wright relies] now requires so many qualifications and ajustments that it seems to have collapsed under its own weight. On the basis that it seems to have collapsed under its own weight. On the basis of our present inquir, this paradigm ... does not fit Paul's teaching on salvation..."
Calvin has rarely "misunderstood" anything. He did not have the best sources available in his day, and if by manipulation, you mean "citing paraphrases", then he could be held to be guilty of that. But Lane's overall perspective is to call Calvin "rightly regarded as one of the great commentators of all time".
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.
Regarding my comment that Eastern Orthodoxy is heavily neo-Platonic, there's this, for example:
Deletehttps://bayouhuguenot.wordpress.com/2013/12/24/the-reason-i-focus-on-eastern-orthodoxy/
Participation Ontologies
Their Platonic metaphysics is simply beautiful. When I listen to ... lectures on Nyssa, Eurigena, and Logos-theology, I am simply in awe. However, beautiful though it might be, it simply cannot mesh 100% with Scripture. Eschatology and Federalism offer a better ontology.
Eschatology is the locus of a federal ontology. It is an announcement of the good news from afar off (Isaiah 52:7ff). Participation (realist?) ontologies, by contrast, struggle with the concept of good news. Horton writes, “It is unclear how the gospel as good news would figure into his [John Milbank, but also any Dionysian construction–OA] account of redemption, since ‘news’ implies an extrinsic annoucnement of something new, something that does not simply derive from the nature of things (169). What he means is that those who who hold to participationist ontologies–chain of being–see a continuum between God and man. Any saving that happens to man happens within that continuum. The announcement of good news, by contrast, comes from without. To borrow Horton’s delightful phrase, a federal ontology is meeting a stranger, whereas a participationist ontology is overcoming estrangement.
FWIW Byzas, I didn't block you, it was a team decision based on some of the other identities that are found at your IP address.
DeleteSecond, I wouldn't expect Calvin to be anything but a polemicist, given the environment he was in. Don't forget that he was working with poor translations. Again, a product of the times. Finally, I don't have to rely on my friend Jacob for information about "theosis". I have several works on the history and theology of theosis, and I was grabbing something consonant with what's in those works in order to save time in a response.
My email address is listed in my profile. If you'd like to "engage" with me "in a reasonable dialog", feel free to email me. But, the multiple names that appear at your IP address suggest that you are a troll, with a history that we are aware of.
Comment has been blocked.
Comment has been blocked.