My response to Laurence Vance's "Should a Christian support criminalizing prostitution"

[Christian Liberty]

Are you arguing that Christians are bound to a seventh day sabbath or that they arent bound to any sabbath?

[erowe1]

Are you arguing that Christians are bound to a seventh day sabbath or that they arent bound to any sabbath?

First of all, that's a redundant question. The 7th day sabbath is the only sabbath. There is no other one. The very passage you just quoted says that as clearly as can be.

And I am saying Christians are not bound to it.

[heavenlyboy34]

I can't speak for other Baptists, but in my case you hit the nail on the head. "Protestant" is not a good label for what I am.

I'm a Christian. Christianity has been around for 2,000 years. Protestantism has only been around for 500. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have each been around about 1,400 or so.

Orthodoxy dates itself to the day of Pentacost, FWIW.

• ca. 30-33 Holy Spirit descends on the day of Pentecost.
• 34 Apostle Peter founds See of Antioch.
• 35 Name Christian first used in Antioch.

The Great Schism and the birthday of the Roman Catholic Church is 1054, which is not controversial, AFAIK. I've seen it in secular textbooks when I took Western music history classes many, many years ago.

[Christian Liberty]

Orthodoxy dates itself to the day of Pentacost, FWIW.

• ca. 30-33 Holy Spirit descends on the day of Pentecost.
• 34 Apostle Peter founds See of Antioch.
• 35 Name Christian first used in Antioch.

The Great Schism and the birthday of the Roman Catholic Church is 1054, which is not controversial, AFAIK. I've seen it in secular textbooks when I took Western music history classes many, many years ago.

Of course its controversial, Catholics think its the opposite way around

But the real point is that the doctrines that Rome and the Orthodox teach today have not existed for 2000 years. I don't think I'd say 1400 either but it depends on which doctrines you're talking about. I'd argue that modern Rome started/apostasized with Trent though Rome was corrupt before that.

[erowe1]

Orthodoxy dates itself to the day of Pentacost, FWIW.

I realize that that's the standard propaganda you learn from EO apologists. But there's no historical basis for it that would be recognizable to any objective observer. In order for you to say that, you have to either redefine Eastern Orthodoxy so as to allow it to include churches that fail to exhibit features that today's Eastern Orthodox claim are essential to that denomination, or else you have to make believe things about history that just aren't true.

[TER]

I realize that that's the standard propaganda you learn from EO apologists. But there's no historical basis for it that would be recognizable to any objective observer. In order for you to say that, you have to either redefine Eastern Orthodoxy so as to allow it to include churches that fail to exhibit features that today's Eastern Orthodox claim are essential to that denomination, or else you have to make believe things about history that just aren't true.

Hi erowe,

You said above that the Eastern Orthodox Church has been around for 1400 years or so. What date, then, would you more specifically state it started?

[erowe1]

Hi erowe,

You said above that the Eastern Orthodox Church has been around for 1400 years or so. What date, then, would you more specifically state it started?

Like many historical things, it was a development that didn't have just one single starting point. There were a series of watershed moments that can be debated as to which were more or less significant.

If I have to pick a single event, I would pick either the Qunisext Council in the late 7th century or the Second Council of Nicaea in the 8th century. In the former case, its significance is that it's when the Pentarchy, which is a defining feature of Eastern Orthodox as it has come to be defined since then (parallel to the Pope for Roman Catholics), came about. In the latter case, I would say that, since it's the most recent council that Eastern Orthodox consider to be ecumenical, and so agreement with it must be a sine qua non of Eastern Orthodoxy, and of course it could not have been a sine qua non of Christianity before that time since it hadn't happened yet, and (as we can easily demonstrate) many earlier fathers, even among those who are revered as saints in Eastern Orthodoxy, wouldn't have accepted its dogmas.

Another way I might approach it would be to go back to when a more unified organization out of which both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy developed and went their separate ways. Looked at this way I would probably pick the tenure of Pope Gregory the Great around AD 600, since he, more than anyone else, moved the papacy toward the pretense of authority over the universal church that is such a defining feature of Roman Catholicism.

[TER]

Like many historical things, it was a development that didn't have just one single starting point. There were a series of watershed moments that can be debated as to which were more or less significant.

If I have to pick a single event, I would pick either the Qunisext Council in the late 7th century or the Second Council of Nicaea in the 8th century. In the former case, its significance is that it's when the Pentarchy, which is a defining feature of Eastern Orthodox as it has come to be defined since then (parallel to the Pope for Roman Catholics) came about. In the latter case, I would say that, since it's the most recent council that Eastern Orthodox consider to be ecumenical, and so agreement with it must be a sine qua non of Eastern Orthodoxy, and of course it could not have been a sine qua non of Christianity before that time since it hadn't happened yet, and (as we can easily demonstrate) many earlier fathers, even among those who are revered as saints in Eastern Orthodoxy, wouldn't have accepted its dogmas.

Thank you for your response. Before I address the bold above, where did the Church of the first 7 centuries go?

[Christian Liberty]

They call it "Presbyterianism"

[TER]

They call it "Presbyterianism"

Wiki is not infallible, but it says on the first sentence that "Presbyterianism is a part of the Reformed tradition within Protestantism which traces its origins to the British Isles". There is a long history before they started.

[Christian Liberty]

Wiki is not infallible, but it says on the first sentence that "Presbyterianism is a part of the Reformed tradition within Protestantism which traces its origins to the British Isles". There is a long history before they started.

In its modern form it started after the Reformation yes, but it is Biblical and thus the apostles taught it

[TER]

In its modern form it started after the Reformation yes, but it is Biblical and thus the apostles taught it

The next sentence in Wiki says: "Presbyterian churches derive their name from the presbyterian form of church government, which is governed by representative assemblies of elders."

This form of Church governance is indeed biblical and the Apostle's taught it. It was what we find in the early centuries centuries in the Bishops of the early great Christian cities and in the Holy Ecumenical Councils. This form has extended all the way down in apostolic succession in the Orthodox Church, and has not in the modern Presbyterian Church, which formed after the Reformation.

[Christian Liberty]

The next sentence in Wiki says: "Presbyterian churches derive their name from the presbyterian form of church government, which is governed by representative assemblies of elders."

This form of Church governance is indeed biblical and the Apostle's taught it. It was what we find in the early centuries centuries in the Bishops of the early great Christian cities and in the Holy Ecumenical Councils. This form has extended all the way down in apostolic succession in the Orthodox Church, and has not in the modern Presbyterian Church, which formed after the Reformation.

What is the basis for your claim that Presbyterians do not practice Presbyterial form?

[erowe1]

Thank you for your response. Before I address the bold above, where did the Church of the first 7 centuries go?

It never went anywhere. It's still here. It's comprised of everyone with saving faith in Jesus Christ, regardless what denominational organization they may belong to. Those denominations (of which Eastern Orthodoxy is just one) are many and come and go. But there is just one Church.

[erowe1]

This form of Church governance is indeed biblical and the Apostle's taught it. It was what we find in the early centuries centuries in the Bishops of the early great Christian cities and in the Holy Ecumenical Councils.

Your first sentence is true. Your second is false.

In the age of the apostles, "bishop" and "elder" were just two different words for the same thing. There was no such thing as a bishop of a city. The fact that such things are part of the essence of Eastern Orthodoxy is additional proof that the apostolic Church was not the same thing as it. And the apostles didn't give these bishop/elders the authority to get together in a small group of just a few hundred and claim that their group was a "Holy Ecumenical Council." In truth, there has never been an ecumenical council comprised of anyone other than the apostles themselves (the only Christian leaders ever to have authority over the whole universal Church), only local councils, with some being bigger than others.

[TER]

What is the basis for your claim that Presbyterians do not practice Presbyterial form?

I am not saying that the Presbyterian Church does not practice a Presbyterial form, I am stating that it lacks apostolic succession going back through the centuries to the early Church.

[TER]

It never went anywhere. It's still here. It's comprised of everyone with saving faith in Jesus Christ, regardless what denominational organization they may belong to. Those denominations (of which Eastern Orthodoxy is just one) are many and come and go. But there is just one Church.

So when did they stopped ordaining priests and bishops?

[TER]

Your first sentence is true. Your second is false.

In the age of the apostles, "bishop" and "elder" were just two different words for the same thing. There was no such thing as a bishop of a city. The fact that such things are part of the essence of Eastern Orthodoxy is additional proof that the apostolic Church was not the same thing as it. And the apostles didn't give these bishop/elders the authority to get together in a small group of just a few hundred and claim that their group was a "Holy Ecumenical Council." In truth, there has never been an ecumenical council comprised of anyone other than the apostles themselves (the only Christian leaders ever to have authority over the whole universal Church), only local councils, with some being bigger than others.

The Apostle's established a Church. Can you name me some members of this Church in the second century?

[Christian Liberty]

I am not objecting that the Presbyterian Church does not practice a Presbyterial form, I am stating that it lacks apostolic succession going back through the centuries to the early Church.

I question the claim that Presbyterians lack apostolic succession. Certainly Presbyterian pastors have a line of ordination tracing back to the earliest Reformed churches, which would trace back through the older Catholic Church and ultimately through the apostles. This isn't something I'm an expert on, but Presbyterians don't just ordain people in their local church without the imput of the broader church like baptists and congregationalists sometimes do.

[TER]

I question the claim that Presbyterians lack apostolic succession. Certainly Presbyterian pastors have a line of ordination tracing back to the earliest Reformed churches, which would trace back through the older Catholic Church and ultimately through the apostles. This isn't something I'm an expert on, but Presbyterians don't just ordain people in their local church without the imput of the broader church like baptists and congregationalists sometimes do.

When Presbyterianism was created after the Reformation in the British Isles, there existed other ancient cities whose Bishops were from the One, Holy, Catholic Church as called by the First Ecumenical Council, and ordained in a direct line of succession from the Apostles, around a common faith and sacramental unity. These are the cities of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Serbia, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine, Athens, Corinth, Thessalonica, Ephesus, etc etc etc (it was quite widely spread due to the missionary vigor and blood of the Saints.) Indeed, in the first millenium, it was this same Church which existed in the British Isles. These local churches claimed to be One Church, spanning nations and different empires, and shared one Holy Eucharist and could trace their sacramental unity back to the early Church via the mystery of holy ordination. I am simply saying that these Presbyterians you allude to were not in sacramental communion with this ancient Church NOT because of their form of presbyterial church governance, but because of their doctrines which the ancient Church professed to be heretical and impediments to sacramental and spiritual communion and unity.

[erowe1]

I am not saying that the Presbyterian Church does not practice a Presbyterial form, I am stating that it lacks apostolic succession going back through the centuries to the early Church.

In the only sense that any apostolic succession can actually reliably be asserted, all Christians have it. Everyone alive today who believes the Gospel learned it from someone who learned it from someone who learned it from someone, eventually going back to the apostles.

On the other hand, in the sense you mean, that the there is an unbroken chain of bishops ordained by bishops ordained by bishops, going back to bishops who were ordained by the apostles, the problem is not that such a thing doesn't exist. It probably does. And I see no reason to deny that it really does apply to many elders in today's Presbyterian churches. The problem is, it can never be demonstrated. Nobody can ever say that any given bishop has this succession or doesn't. There do not exist reliable lists of these chains of ordination going all the way back to the apostles. Those who claim to have such lists always end up relying on unreliable lists comprised no earlier than the mid-second century, by church historians like Hegesippus, who (provided they weren't being outright dishonest) mistakenly assumed that the models of church leadership of earlier generations had to be the same as what they experienced in their own days, which we can prove not to be the case.

Even in the apostles' own age, churches were starting up all over the world, faster than the apostles and elder/bishops ordained by them could keep up with. The apostles had no requirement that these elder/bishops had to have been ordained by apostles or by a chain of elder/bishops going back to the apostles, in order to be legitimate or to go on to ordain other elder/bishops themselves.

[erowe1]

So when did they stopped ordaining priests and bishops?

Never. That still happens.

Understand, though, that according to the apostolic model what you are calling priests and bishops are just two names for one office. Those words come from transliteration of presbyteros and episkopos. But if we translated them instead of transliterating them, they just mean elder and overseer. Another word that the apostles used for that same office was poimenos, which means shepherd or pastor.

I don't know of any churches that don't have these offices in some form.

[erowe1]

The Apostle's established a Church. Can you name me some members of this Church in the second century?

I can't look into their hearts and say who had genuine saving faith, thus belonging to the universal invisible Church that the apostles established. But sure, I can name some people who outwardly aligned themselves with the visible Church. Whether any given one of these people were genuine members of the Church is something only God knows, and I leave it to him to say.

[TER]

In the only sense that any apostolic succession can actually reliably be asserted, all Christians have it. Everyone alive today who believes the Gospel learned it from someone who learned it from someone who learned it from someone, eventually going back to the apostles.

On the other hand, in the sense you mean, that the there is an unbroken chain of bishops ordained by bishops ordained by bishops, going back to bishops who were ordained by the apostles, the problem is not that such a thing doesn't exist. It probably does. And I see no reason to deny that it really does apply to many elders in today's Presbyterian churches. The problem is, it can never be demonstrated. Nobody can ever say that any given bishop has this succession or doesn't. There do not exist reliable lists of these chains of ordination going all the way back to the apostles. Those who claim to have such lists always end up relying on unreliable lists comprised no earlier than the mid-second century, by church historians like Hegesippus, who (provided they weren't being outright dishonest) mistakenly assumed that the models of church leadership of earlier generations had to be the same as what they experienced in their own days, which we can prove not to be the case.

Even in the apostles' own age, churches were starting up all over the world, faster than the apostles and elder/bishops ordained by them could keep up with. The apostles had no requirement that these elder/bishops had to have been ordained by apostles or by a chain of elder/bishops going back to the apostles, in order to be legitimate or to go on to ordain other elder/bishops themselves.

Erowe, can you name me a Christian of the second century?

Also, we have discussed before the ancient writings, including the Holy Bible, which demonstrates that God's grace is active in ordination. Indeed, as Christians, we know it is the Holy Spirit which is transferred, which are explicitly said to happen in writings of the first centuries.

Now, if you can name some the Christians who followed after the Apostle's, then we might be able to learn what Bishop and presbyters and deacon meant to mean to the Christian Church at that early time.

[TER]

I can't look into their hearts and say who had genuine saving faith, thus belonging to the universal invisible Church that the apostles established. But sure, I can name some people who outwardly aligned themselves with the visible Church. Whether any given one of these people were genuine members of the Church is something only God knows, and I leave it to him to say.

Please, name them. Would you like to discuss St. Ignatius? I think he says some things which contradicts what you have written above.

Or St. Ireneaus? St. Cyril?

Who is the model you look for to what the Church believed and practiced in the second and third centuries?

[erowe1]

Indeed, in the first millenium, it was this same Church which existed in the British Isles.

This is a great example. It was Patrick of Ireland who brought Christianity there, and he ordained elders. But he himself didn't have apostolic succession. His calling to that ministry came (at least as he understood it) directly from Jesus through a spiritual encounter. Contemporary with him, Pope Celestine sent Palladius as an ordained bishop to Ireland, and he found a population that was already Christian, complete with elders, who opposed him and did not want to come under his leadership. Irish Christianity developed from the ministry of Patrick, not Palladius, and it took centuries for Rome to get control over it.

[TER]

This is a great example. It was Patrick of Ireland who brought Christianity there, and he ordained elders. But he himself didn't have apostolic succession. His calling to that ministry came (at least as he understood it) directly from Jesus through a spiritual encounter. Contemporary with him, Pope Celestine sent Palladius as an ordained bishop to Ireland, and he found a population that was already Christian, complete with elders, who opposed him and did not want to come under his leadership. Irish Christianity developed from the ministry of Patrick, not Palladius, and it took centuries for Rome to get control over it.

Actually, St. Patrick was ordained by the Church in Rome which was part of the One Church at that time (there was a Pentarchy of Patriarchates, and Rome was one of them).

[erowe1]

Please, name them. Would you like to discuss St. Ignatius? I think he says some things which contradicts what you have written above.

Or St. Ireneaus? St. Cyril?

Who is the model you look for to what the Church believed and practiced in the second and third centuries?

You say "name them" as if you would expect me to name all of them.

Yes, Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Cyril were professing Christians.

The true model for churches isn't from the second century, but from the first. And historically speaking there is no one single model of second-century Christian churches. Christianity at that time was very diverse, and its churches fit many different models, some conforming more closely to the tradition of the apostles than others.

I should also say that I don't think the apostles set forth a very strict single model of church organization that all churches must follow. Their dictates left room for variation.

But we do know that they didn't ordain any bishops over whole cities. Their own writings show this. And when Ignatius wrote his letters in the early second century, we can see from them that the monarchical bishop model he favored was apparently a relatively new thing that was not very widely accepted, and he had his work cut out for him helping to establish it. It's clear from his tendentiousness that alongside those believers that recognized the city-wide authority of the bishops he endorsed were many others who did not. Incidentally, in his arguing for the special position to be held by the monarchical bishops in Asia Minor that he endorsed, he never once pretended that this model went back to the apostles. Nor did he appeal to apostolic succession for the bishops whom he endorsed, nor did he claim it for himself.

[erowe1]

Actually, St. Patrick was ordained by the Church in Rome which was part of the One Church at that time (there was a Pentarchy of Patriarchates, and Rome was one of them).

Actually, no, he wasn't. And we have his own writings to consult on that matter.

[TER]

Actually, no, he wasn't. And we have his own writings to consult on that matter.

You can chose your sources, and I can chose mine!

Let's go back to the second century saints as I think it will help shed light on what Christians mean by 'Apostolic succession' and the ecclesiastical structure of the growing Church in the first centuries.