tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post6294125858718860732..comments2023-04-02T07:03:21.099-05:00Comments on Principium Unitatis: On Starting Points and ReconciliationBryan Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-85381769520668595792009-09-17T15:38:45.675-05:002009-09-17T15:38:45.675-05:00Publican Chest,
We could start at Adam and work f...Publican Chest,<br /><br />We could start at Adam and work forward. My thesis here is to back up until we are standing on common ground, and then work forward, tracing and mutually examining and evaluating the reasons for our eventual divergence. I was assuming that we were agreed about Christ and the Apostles, but if there is already disagreement at that point, then there is no principled reason why we can't start even earlier. Thanks for your comments.<br /><br />In the peace of Christ,<br /><br />- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-51417494320671306472009-09-17T15:28:50.006-05:002009-09-17T15:28:50.006-05:00Bryan-
Thanks for this blog. I have benefited fr...Bryan-<br /><br />Thanks for this blog. I have benefited from reading the discussion.<br /><br />I had a question about the starting point. My question is: why not start at the beginning of the people of God, with the Jews? Why just start at NT times? Does our starting point already have some of our conclusion in it? It seems to start at the beginning of the church would be to start with Adam, and see the development of the people of God and what it says for our current church situation.<br /><br />Just a thought along with a question. Again, thanks for having this blog.Publican_Chesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00172700391145919870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-54467554725426868272008-08-17T11:37:00.000-05:002008-08-17T11:37:00.000-05:00John,Since I have said already that I am not being...John,<BR/><BR/>Since I have said already that I am not being governed by contemporary secondary sources, I'm not terribly troubled by saying something with which Lampe disagrees. I guess I didn't make that clear. Even so, the thrust of my argument in my post does not hang on the accuracy of Hegesippus's list. <BR/><BR/>Also, I did not claim that St. Clement's letter was not "written on behalf of the entire church". In fact, I think it was. Being written by the leader of the church at Rome, and being written on behalf of the entire church at Rome, are not, in my opinion, mutually exclusive claims.<BR/><BR/><I>You are citing secondary sources as well, and assuming that they are more reliable than today's scholars.</I><BR/><BR/>If you look back at what I wrote, you'll see that I specifically said "contemporary secondary sources", and by "contemporary" I mean contemporary to us -- i.e. modern. My point there was not so much about determining the authenticity of the various writings of the fathers (i.e. whether they were in fact written by these fathers). I agree with you that modern historiography can help us determine the authenticity of these manuscripts (although I think this is still subject both to theological and philosophical presuppositions).<BR/><BR/>I am taking it as a given (on the basis of the wide acceptance in the tradition of the Clementine authorship of this epistle) that it was written by St. Clement at some point before the end of the first century. The ancient secondary sources I cite are those that give us a better understanding of what the Church of the succeeding two centuries after St. Clement thought about him and his letter.<BR/><BR/>My main focus is on the <B>content</B> of the letter. <BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-21369441335069382982008-08-17T11:09:00.000-05:002008-08-17T11:09:00.000-05:00I've looked briefly at your post on Clement above ...I've looked briefly at your post on Clement above (I am not all the way through it), but you are already stepping on two of the Lampe's conclusions: 1, that the list cited by Irenaeus (compiled by Hegesippus) is "a fictive construction" (this is not to impugn Clement in any way, but you are already putting him in a place that might be "pious fiction,") and that the Clement letter was the product of a single person in authority, and not "written on behalf of the entire church." <BR/><BR/>You are citing secondary sources as well, and assuming that they are more reliable than today's scholars.<BR/><BR/>And yet, there were "pious fictions" about Peter, placing him as "bishop of Rome" at 42 ad, and even you will agree that that is "fiction" no matter which of the early fathers cited that. <BR/><BR/>It is clear to me that there is a need for a discussion of the hermeneutic involved, before any discussion of "what Clement actually said" is discussed.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-9956696864976632082008-08-17T10:54:00.000-05:002008-08-17T10:54:00.000-05:00John,I agree; it is open to discussion. Part of my...John,<BR/><BR/>I agree; it is open to discussion. Part of my purpose of studying the fathers (in this mutual, ecumenical endeavor) is to see what they thought about this very question.<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-74200256693805743932008-08-17T10:50:00.000-05:002008-08-17T10:50:00.000-05:00"My statement is not meant to assert that first pa..."My statement is not meant to assert that first paradigm as true, but to show how your statement presumes the falsity of the first paradigm."<BR/><BR/>The truth or falseness of "that first paradigm" itself should be open to discussion.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-31692727351963848022008-08-17T10:17:00.000-05:002008-08-17T10:17:00.000-05:00John,I quoted Paul as saying, “do not let anyone j...John,<BR/><BR/><I>I quoted Paul as saying, “do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.” Then I quoted Clement saying “he has enjoined the offerings and the services to be performed, not at random or without order, but at fixed times and seasons.”<BR/><BR/>I did not out of the blue call Clement a “wolf.” I was suggesting that corruptions crept in,</I><BR/><BR/>You didn't call St. Clement a wolf. But you clearly implied it, by juxtaposing St. Paul's statement in Acts 20:29 with the alleged contradiction between St. Clement and St. Paul. (To see a more charitable reading of St. Clement that does not make him out to be contradicting St. Paul, see my latest post.) In rhetoric that's called "poisoning the well".<BR/><BR/><I> You stated that “the order instituted by Christ and Apostles for the continuation and transmission of the Apostolic tradition was … divinely protected.” This statement alone is a whole mouth full of a priori presumptions.</I><BR/><BR/>Careful. What I was doing there is showing the two paradigms. One of the paradigms is that there is an order established by the Apostles for the perpetuation of their ministry, and that this order is divinely protected. The other paradigm is that either there was no such order, or that if there was, it was not divinely protected. My statement is not meant to assert that first paradigm as true, but to show how your statement presumes the falsity of the first paradigm. <BR/><BR/><I>If you are going to prevent a priori presumptions from being brought into this discussion, you should be mindful of your own a priori presumptions.</I><BR/><BR/>I hear you. :-) What concerns me is your bringing in ecclesial deism as an <I>a priori</I> assumption, based on your interpretation of Acts 20:29 and based on (what seems to me to be a less than charitable reading of St. Clement). <BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-3295215046964184392008-08-17T09:59:00.000-05:002008-08-17T09:59:00.000-05:00Bryan – I don’t think you read what I said careful...Bryan – I don’t think you read what I said carefully enough.<BR/><BR/>I quoted Paul as saying, “do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.” Then I quoted Clement saying “he has enjoined the offerings and the services to be performed, not at random or without order, but at fixed times and seasons.” <BR/><BR/>I did not out of the blue call Clement a “wolf.” I was suggesting that corruptions crept in, and that we ought not to take everything that a church father says at face value. That “there is a need for discernment.”<BR/><BR/>You said: “My point is that this verse does not give us any <I>prima facie</I> reason to doubt the credibility and orthodoxy of the fathers.<BR/><BR/>Nor did I leave that one verse as “reason to doubt the credibility and orthodoxy of the fathers.” I cited Clement as saying something quite the opposite of what Paul said. <BR/><BR/>You stated that “the order instituted by Christ and Apostles for the continuation and transmission of the Apostolic tradition was … divinely protected.”<BR/><BR/>This statement alone is a whole mouth full of <I>a priori</I> presumptions. <BR/><BR/>For example: What “order” was “instituted”? Christ said “the gates of hell would not prevail.” He did not say “there is an order instituted for the continuation and transmission of apostolic tradition.” <BR/><BR/>If you are going to prevent <I>a priori</I> presumptions from being brought into this discussion, you should be mindful of your own <I>a priori</I> presumptions.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-13115880792547465772008-08-17T09:27:00.000-05:002008-08-17T09:27:00.000-05:00Sorry, I neglected to finish a sentence in my post...Sorry, I neglected to finish a sentence in my post just above:<BR/><BR/>1. I hope to show some of the skeptics here the degree to which Lampe (and some of the other historians) are able to interact with primary documents at a degree that is just not possible that is not possible [for the rest of us.]<BR/><BR/>In the interim, it has been pointed out to me that "the distinction between primary and secondary sources isn't always all that cut-and-dried. For example, is a critical edition of the letters of Ignatius a primary source or a secondary source? It's both. A lot of secondary scholarship goes into producing a critical edition of a church father. Distinguishing genuine from pseudonymous patristic literature is an editorial judgment. Dating the material is an editorial judgment. And so on and so forth. ... How much would we really know about the church fathers apart from patrologists who do the spadework in sifting through MSS, recovering the Urtext from scribal editions, placing the writer in time and space (e.g., When did he live? Where did he live?). Likewise, it's important to know the historical context of various controversies, viz. Who were their opponents?" <BR/><BR/>The point to this would be that, especially in discussions of patristics, we are far more dependent on "secondary" sources than we are aware of.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-70242032254844665792008-08-17T09:06:00.000-05:002008-08-17T09:06:00.000-05:00John,Whenever someone appeals to Paul's statement ...John,<BR/><BR/>Whenever someone appeals to Paul's statement that "fierce wolves will come in among you" (Acts 20:29) to suggest that the Church fathers are the wolves, I always wonder how they know that it is not those who opposed the fathers that were the wolves. The verse by itself gives us no reason to doubt the credibility of the fathers, because it can understood as a warning that heretics and schismatics would arise and lead many away from the divinely established order laid down by the Apostles and continued in the fathers. We can imagine heretics and schismatics using this verse to suggest to the sheep that their [rightful] shepherds are the wolves, when in fact it is they [i.e. the heretics and schismatics] who are the wolves.<BR/><BR/>My point is that this verse does not give us any <I>prima facie</I> reason to doubt the credibility and orthodoxy of the fathers. To claim otherwise is to presume <I>a priori</I> that the order instituted by Christ and Apostles for the continuation and transmission of the Apostolic tradition was not divinely protected. And that is not a non-question-begging assumption.<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-20683810365904852162008-08-17T05:15:00.000-05:002008-08-17T05:15:00.000-05:00Oso, CD -- Both of you quoted a paragraph which su...Oso, CD -- Both of you quoted a paragraph which supposedly had me saying "He fully agrees that by about 160 you have hierarchical Bishops answerable to Rome..."<BR/><BR/>That is not what I said. Consider: "Victor (c. 189-99) was the first who, ... energetically stepped forward as monarchical bishop and <B>(at times, only because he was incited from the outside) attempted</B> to place the different groups in the city under his supervision or, where that was not possible, to draw a line by means of excommunication. (Lampe 406). This was elsewhere described further as a "weak" attempt: "an outsider, Irenaeus of Gaul incited Victor to intervene against Florinius, and to suppress his writing. Victor 'obeyed' ..." Accoring to Schatz, the "first instances [of Roman bishops to exercise authority in the late second century] encountered resistance and ended in failure." Keep in mind how "tradition" is handed on. There was no "tradition" of "obeying" a bishop of Rome. On the other hand, Victor was chastised by Irenaeus. This is expanded upon even 100 years ago by Schaff, who noted that, at the time, that church at Rome was a missionary effort off of a more well-developed church in Gaul (Lyon) at the time. <BR/><BR/>It is not true, as Oso says, that "the earliest things we have are the didadche, clement etc." We have the entire New Testament, which are exceptional history. This is not in dispute. In the case of such things as the letters of Paul, the "we" statements in Acts, and the Gospels themselves, are eyewitness accounts to Jesus, Peter, Paul, and the development of the earliest church. <BR/><BR/>Beyond that, there are other sources as well. Lampe, citing not only Biblical, but public records, secular historians, archaeology, and other sources, traces the development of Christianity in Rome:<BR/><BR/>“The beginnings of pre-Pauline Christianity in Rome are shrouded in haze. Pre-Pauline Christians are attested for <I>Rome</I> (Romans; Acts 28:15) and <I>Puteoli</I> (Acts 28:13f.). Concerning the rest of the Italian cities, silence dominates. (Lampe 1) <BR/><BR/>Continuing to cite Lampe (11 ff.) [I am going to leave out his Greek citations]:<BR/><BR/>With the events surrounding “the edict of Claudius,” (Actus 18:2; Suetonius, <I>Claud.</I>; Orosius, <I>Hist</I> 7.6.15f.; cf. Cassius Dio 60.6.6f.), urban Roman Christianity steps for the first time into the light of history. We can derive from the sources four perceptions and propose them as theses: (a) Christianity got its first foothold in one or in several synagogues of Rome; the first pre-Pauline Christians of Rome were Jews or <I>sebomenoi</I> (devout people, Godfearers) who were attached to the synagogue. (b) Their witness to Christ led to unrest in one or several synagogues. (c) The authorities expelled the key figures of the conflict. (d) The events are to be dated at the end of the 40s.<BR/><BR/>There are several points to discuss.<BR/>(1) Jewish Christians were actually involved in the unrest. The oldest notice of the “edict of Claudius,” Acts 18:2, implies that Claudius expelled all the Jews from Rome, among them also “a Jew named Aquila”. Several observations suggest that Aquila and Priscilla had been expelled from Rome as Christians and had emigrated to Corinth.<BR/><BR/>In Corinth, Paul baptized only Gaius, Crispus, and the household of Stephanas (1 Cor 1:14-16) -- not Aquila or Priscilla. The first person converted in Greece by Paul was Stephanas (1 Cor 16:15) -- not Aquila or Priscilla. That is startling, because, at the very beginning in Corinth, Paul stayed, lived, and worked not with Stephanas but with Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:3). [In a note, Lampe says, “This is reliable tradition, because (a) of agreement with 1 Cor 4:12; 9:4; 6-7, 12; 2 Cor 11:7-8; 12:13. (b) 1 Cor 16:19 also fits together with Acts 18:2-3: The married couple apparently knew the Corinthians personally. They were in Ephesus in Paul’s entourage, and could easily have gotten acquainted with him in Corinth. …] The logical conclusion is that the couple were already baptized when Paul appeared as the first Christian missionary in Corinth….<BR/><BR/>The argument [that Priscilla and Aquila of Acts 18:2-3 were already Christians] can be sharpened even further: Suetonius suggests that Priscilla and Aquila were expelled from Rome …” [Early in the second century, Suetonius wrote “Iudaeos impuslore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit.” Do we want to assume that Aquila and Priscilla, who [later] preached Christ in Corinth, were also involved in a conflict about an urban Roman troublemaker Chrestus? The more probable interpretation of the Suetonius passage is that the proclamation of Christ had caused unrest in one or in several urban Roman synagogues -- which is no different from what is attested for the synagogues in Jerusalem (Acts 6:9-15), Antioch in Pisidia (13:45, 50), Iconia (14:2, 5) Lystra (14:19), and Corinth (18:12-17). Followers of the Christ-message were therefore involved in synagogal conflict. They -- as members of synagogues -- were the first urban Roman Christians…<BR/><BR/>If the separation of Christianity from the synagogue had something to do with disputation and conflict and if we seek for something of that sort in Rome, then we are left with the events surrounding the edict of Claudius, for we know of nothing else. The most plausible solution is that in the wake of these events, urban Roman Christianity separated itself from the synagogue. The first certain datum is the letter to the Romans. By the time of its composition in the second half of the 50s at the latest, urban Roman Christianity can be seen as separated from the federation of synagogues (citing Romans 15-16). In the year 64 c.e., even the authorities distinguish between Jews and Christians (urban Roman persecution under Nero: Tacitus, ann. 15.44) (Lampe 11-12, 15-16). <BR/><BR/>* * * * * <BR/><BR/>My reason for citing this rather long selection is multi-faceted:<BR/><BR/>1. I hope to show some of the skeptics here the degree to which Lampe (and some of the other historians) are able to interact with primary documents at a degree that is just not possible <BR/><BR/>2. Someone above mentioned Lampe’s “methodology.” I would suggest that the dating of Romans at “the second half of the 50’s at the latest” would give some indication of how he measures things.<BR/><BR/>3. There is extensive “history” within the New Testament, that both supports and is supported by other sources (i.e., secular history, public records, archaeology, etc.), and that a careful study of this material as history (as well as “revealed truth”) is going to be very fruitful. <BR/><BR/>4. The witness of the New Testament (historically, doctrinally and otherwise) should and must supersede what we find in the early church fathers, and that when something written in the fathers is contradicted by something in Scripture, then what the fathers wrote must be considered to be something of a corruption regardless of the dating. <BR/><BR/>As an example of point 4, let’s consider these two statements:<BR/><BR/>Paul: When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.<BR/><BR/>Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow. <BR/><BR/>Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. (Col 2:13-21)<BR/><BR/>Clement: Exploring the depths of the divine knowledge, we must methodically carry out all that the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times: namely, he has enjoined the offerings and the services to be performed, not at random or without order, but at fixed times and seasons. He himself, by his sovereign will, has determined where and by whom he wants them to be performed. Then, everything being religiously accomplished with his approval, will be acceptable to his will… (1 Clement 40).<BR/><BR/>What are we to say about this discrepancy? First of all, we know the promise that wolves would come into the flock. Second, yes, Paul urged Christians to do things “decently and in order,“ but when he wrote, there were already those who wanted to “judge” on the basis of what you eat, or with regard to religious festivals. So here is a contradiction -- Clement requiring “offerings and services to be performed… at fixed times and seasons.” In fact, you can see the beginnings of the “Catholic” flavor and practice in the early church -- possibly the church calendar. And within the New Testament itself, Paul himself cautioning against such things: “These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings.” There is a need for discernment here -- not an unquestioning assent to what Clement says as truth. <BR/><BR/>This is just one example among many that we will see. Now Oso, please do not infer from this that I am saying “Oh sure, the whole church went to hell in 100 ad.” That is not what I am saying, although I can see, based on your prior observations, that this is a conclusion to which you will likely jump. <BR/><BR/>No. What I am saying is, even the earliest church was subjected to corruptions and corrupt practices. Corruptions crept in. The Apostles wrote about corruptions and errors that were happening under their very noses. And it is very possible that these corruptions eventually became widely practiced, and that they “leavened” the entire lump of the church.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-43297481412040285572008-08-16T12:39:00.000-05:002008-08-16T12:39:00.000-05:00Oso -- It would be great if there was a plethora o...Oso --<BR/><BR/><I> It would be great if there was a plethora of primary source material from that first 100 years or so wouldn't it? The fact of the matter is that we simply don't have much evidence from that era apart from the NT itself, and it that case much wasn't written until late in the first century. The earliest things we have are the didadche, clement etc. </I><BR/><BR/>We have much more than that from the first 100 years. Our understanding of ancient Christianity has in the last 120-130 years advanced tremendously. <BR/><BR/>First off on the NT alone we've reconstructed Q and Signs. We have a better idea of Luke's early development as well (though this still rather speculative). <BR/><BR/>I've been talking about Turner's work on the Sethians where for the first time (ever) we have a good example of literary development of a Christian sect over several hundred years. With respect to other sects we've done well. For example with Marcion about 100 years ago we reconstructed the Gospel of the Lord. In this generation alone we've been able to reconstruct <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/Galatians.html" REL="nofollow">Marcion's Galatians</A>. We probably are within 20 years of having all the other books done, and thus the first "bible". Culpepper (a Catholic scholar) had done terrific work showing the development between the ideas we see in Qumran to Odes of Solomon to John. If so we are beginning to piece together another Christian community's evolution, and one that did merge successfully into Catholicism! Regardless Odes gives us an example of what a 1st century hymnal looked like. The theory of early development of 1Enoch has been confirmed. The Gospel of Truth makes it under your window of 100 years. <BR/><BR/>I could keep going. We have far far less than we would like but we are not nearly as impoverished as most people think.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-4691927875517514322008-08-16T08:19:00.000-05:002008-08-16T08:19:00.000-05:00I don't think the Sethians ever had any claim on b...<I> I don't think the Sethians ever had any claim on being the heirs of the Apostles. But I am open to considering your reasons and evidence. </I><BR/><BR/>OK. Remember I picked the Sethians mainly because we have a reasonably complete documentary record, in other words by virtue of historical accident and geography of low humidity we happen to know a lot about them. There are many many other groups as well. My point was that early 2nd century Christians are not all (or even predominantly) Catholic. <BR/><BR/>I'll grant that by selecting church fathers you can show they believed that the Catholic Church as being the sole legitimate form of Christianity. That they believed that they had a unique relationship with Jesus through Peter. And I'll even grant that they upheld a hermeneutic based on authority and tradition. <BR/><BR/>All of those things are true. But what are you really showing is that a particular Christian sect came to believe it had a unique claim to the truth based on a particular rite (laying of hands). I don't follow how that proves anything more than it would for other Christian sects who also claim particular insight based on their rites or their particular scripture. <BR/><BR/>That is problem is you have a massive selection bias in this method. I can pick different ancient Christian writers, use your method and arrive at different conclusions. <BR/><BR/>Peter vs. Enoch, or<BR/>Peter vs. Mary (other groups) helps to make the case of Peter vs. Paul more extreme. It pushes it back to the earliest day of the Christianity. But in the end it doesn't really matter whether you consider Mary the great apostle or not an apostle at all. Because for Protestants, you need to argue that Peter's authority in appointing a successor (even assuming this occurred) is greater than Paul's, that is Paul should only be ultimately read and understood in terms of system that Peter established. And here there are huge numbers of ancient Christian writers that reject that notion. Protestants can just as easily turn to those. <BR/><BR/>To stick with the Sethians (of the late 2nd century when everyone is not friends anymore) they contest all of your key points:<BR/><BR/>1) There is no such thing as a unique relationship with Jesus via. the apostles. (Solus Christus, Soli Deo gloria)<BR/><BR/>2) There is no institution established by Jesus because institutions are by their nature corrupted. The point is to have a new perfect sacrifice in a heavenly temple not to create a better earthly temple. To die to Adam (flesh) and be reborn in Christ (spirit). (sola fide)<BR/><BR/>3) It is the revelation of Jesus that forms the essential of the faith (sola scriptura)<BR/><BR/>4) Because we are bound to flesh rites help us to experience the word of spirit. But they are not magic and spirit is what transforms spirit (sola gratia). <BR/><BR/>That's a primitive version of the 5 solas. The only major disagreement is on the issue of canon. And Luther himself had serious questions about the canon, that had been arrived at historically. Now you've written vaguely about this idea elsewhere on the blog so you are aware of the fact that which ancient church authorities you choose determine your attitude towards the events of the 16th century. <BR/><BR/>This post is getting long enough.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-71776360060966674102008-08-16T08:07:00.000-05:002008-08-16T08:07:00.000-05:00He's fully agrees that by about 160 you have hiera...<I>He's fully agrees that by about 160 you have hierarchical Bishops answerable to Rome. His disagreement is over the 130 years between that and when Peter became head of the church in your view</I><BR/><BR/>It would be great if there was a plethora of primary source material from that first 100 years or so wouldn't it? The fact of the matter is that we simply don't have much evidence from that era apart from the NT itself, and it that case much wasn't written until late in the first century. The earliest things we have are the didadche, clement etc.Oso Famosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08414344918379243324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-63967255225946335092008-08-15T21:49:00.000-05:002008-08-15T21:49:00.000-05:00Mike,Thanks for your irenic comments, and also for...Mike,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your irenic comments, and also for raising your concerns. Regarding your first concern, I do think that true unity includes agreeing about what the gospel is. In other words, I don't think we can have true unity if we disagree fundamentally about what is the gospel. There are many points of agreement (between Reformed soteriology and Catholic soteriology). And some of the disagreements, in my opinion, are rooted in different semantics (i.e. the conceptions associated with terms) in some ways that makes it hard to compare the two soteriologies, because the terms (and thus conceptual frameworks) are not exactly commensurable. But, unfortunately, there are also some points of substantive (i.e. not merely semantic) disagreement, as you know. In cases where we can't both be right, then at least one side must be wrong. (That's just logic.) I think we have to admit that, rather than adopting some kind of pluralism (i.e. many different contrary positions are 'valid' or 'legitimate' etc.), which, in my opinion, is a form of skepticism or relativism.<BR/><BR/>Your second concern, if I understand it correctly, is that if I am strongly committed to the Catholic position, then my appeal to the fathers is question-begging. The term 'question-begging', as I am using the term in this post, means "assuming from the outset [in the premises] what I am trying to prove [in the conclusion]". The term can also apply to a methodology, namely, a methodology that loads the conclusion into the very method itself. But in this second concern of yours, you are using the term 'question-begging' to refer to my degree of open-mindedness. I'm supposedly guilty of question-begging because I allegedly have my mind made up. But see how that is a different sense of the term 'question-begging'. It is actually a subtle 'ad hominem' (i.e. a criticism of a person) rather than a criticism of an argument or methodology. Having one's mind made up is not incompatible with presenting an argument or case in good faith. Otherwise Jesus would have been engaged in question-begging in everything He said during His ministry. I'm convinced that there is a continuity of doctrine and practice from the Apostles through the fathers and all the way up to the contemporary Catholic Church. But that doesn't mean I can't honestly and sincerely and openly consider objections to my position, or that I can't in good faith and sincerity ask my Protestant brothers and sisters to consider the Church fathers with me in an effort to work out what keeps us apart. Also, it is true that I am bound in a certain sense by the Church's dogmas, but that leaves me quite open with regard to Church history and interpreting the fathers. I am free, for example, to conclude from reading a certain father that he taught something contrary to what the Catholic Church presently teaches. <BR/><BR/>Regarding your third concern, I agree. I'm not equipped do any sort of historical theology, especially at an academic level. I am hoping that even what can be done at the simple level can be helpful for providing a non-question-begging common ground for the ecumenical task. I see no promising alternative (besides praying really hard) to finding common ground for the ecumenical task than something like what I have proposed in this post. So, even if we are going to be over-simplifying, it is better than nothing. Besides, there are enough internet critics around that I'm sure they'll correct us. :-)<BR/><BR/>Regarding your fourth concern, I agree that virtual discussions are so hard, especially because of our inability to see and read body language, tone, etc. I can't give you any assurances about that here. I try to work hard always to maintain a high level of respect and cordiality here. I expect that from those who post here, whether they agree with my positions or not. I try to set the standard here myself, in the way I speak to those who disagree with me. Tom Brown (Thos) of Ecumenicity outdoes me in this respect -- he's more charitable and gracious than I am. (And I've been impressed with Jason's way of handling things on his blog.) If we establish a good tone, and a clear desire to work toward unity, I think it can help people be more gracious and charitable in the way they present their criticisms. It is so easy to criticize. It is much harder to do something positive and constructive toward unity. So that's the challenge here, to step beyond the level of the quick-criticism, to the level of working positively toward real unity with each other. <BR/><BR/>I really believe it can happen. The world needs Christians to be united, because it needs our unified witness of Christ's love and the power of the Spirit to overcome the evil and darkness of our present age. One of the reasons why our unity shows forth Christ's love is because it takes love to achieve unity, just as it takes love to achieve the unity of a lasting marriage. And the Church is a kind of family, so it takes a labor of love to overcome the divisions which now separate us, and the suspicions and wounds that still linger from centuries of animosity and even violence. There is a great opportunity for us here (in our time) to be large-hearted, heroic in charity, forgiving, meek, peacemakers who will be called "sons of God". And in no way do we need to leave truth to do it. Love never demands a departure from the truth. (False ecumenicism, in my opinion, is that which seeks a pseudo-unity by setting aside the question of truth, and sweeping disagreements under the rug.) We never have to choose between truth and love. Love allows us to find the truth -- and truth teaches us to love. If we abide in love, then we will walk in the truth. And if we seek the truth in earnest, we will see that the truth is found in love. <BR/><BR/>So as we speak the truth in love, we can, I believe, make progress toward unity, really making a difference for the next generation, who are often now made cynical by our divisions and fragmentation. That's my hope, my prayer, and my vision. I wish to God that it would spread all over the world.<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-58447982795512706272008-08-15T20:24:00.000-05:002008-08-15T20:24:00.000-05:00Collin,I am glad to learn your opinion about the d...Collin,<BR/><BR/>I am glad to learn your opinion about the development / corruption of the Church in the first three centuries. I don't share your opinion on this matter. But, perhaps we can consider each other's positions as we work through the fathers. I don't think the Sethians ever had any claim on being the heirs of the Apostles. But I am open to considering your reasons and evidence.<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-5792250343024165222008-08-15T18:41:00.000-05:002008-08-15T18:41:00.000-05:00Hi Bryan, I just want to say that I respect what y...Hi Bryan, <BR/><BR/>I just want to say that I respect what you are proposing and the goal that you want to achieve…I REALLY do, honestly and genuinely. You seem to have a great desire to see Christ’s church unified, and that is exemplified, if in nothing else, by your consistent charitable tone. <BR/><BR/>I am intrigued by your proposal, and, like Jason, I am not closed-minded either about the early fathers “smelling” more Catholic than Protestant, but, if you are at all interested, I will just tell you my hang-ups with it as a confessional Protestant: <BR/><BR/>1. The first thing that I simply cannot escape is the thought (and this could just be my cynicism) that unity for you means me recanting Sola Fide and the Three Forms of Unity, embracing Trent, and converting to Roman Catholicism. Is it possible for us, in your mind, to be unified if we confess different gospels, so to speak (i.e. you what is articulated about justification in Trent and me what is articulated in the Three Forms of Unity)? I am honestly asking what you think about that. <BR/><BR/>2. It is very hard for me not to see this as more question-begging, as Jason alluded to. It seems that, no matter what, you as a Catholic in good conscience will not deviate from anything that Rome officially teaches about the fathers, and that your reading of the fathers must be correct since it is in agreement with Rome.<BR/> <BR/>3. The discipline of historical theology is a lot more complex than simply reading the fathers as a biblicist would his Bible, viz., only primary source. It seems way too simplistic of an approach.<BR/><BR/>4. I don’t have much confidence that we could do this profitably over virtual chat. It is often difficult to determine one’s tone of voice in a text or avoid misreading implications and/or overreacting to posts. We have hit several cul-de-sacs on Jason’s blog. How could we avoid this? <BR/><BR/>I just throw these things out there to you so that you know that I, FWIW, read your post and did not dismiss it. I too hope and pray for true unity as well. <BR/><BR/>Best, <BR/>MikeMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03951086546098236208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-66362795480211249172008-08-15T15:43:00.000-05:002008-08-15T15:43:00.000-05:00Bryan --Well if you are asking my personal opinion...Bryan --<BR/><BR/>Well if you are asking my personal opinion rather than representing Protestantism and Luther.... I do think what you see in the Sethians, what you see in the proto-Catholicism and what you see in dozens of other sects are equally valid expressions of early 2nd century Christianity. I don't think either side is corrupted at this point. And more importantly they are dialoguing and co-creating what will become Christianity in the centuries to come. So yeah I guess I'd say the early to mid 2nd century is the high point of Christianity. Within a generation after this people are starting to build institutional churches and that creates a tension. You start getting politicians and not just holy men. <BR/><BR/>The Bar Kochba war (130-4) undercuts Judaism and isolates the Christian community. So around 140-180 the philosophically the scene, at least within the "church fathers" (Catholicism) has changed. They are rejectionist and are starting to pervert history and doctrine to strengthen their position. In and of itself this wouldn't have been so terrible and might have self corrected but around 235 Roman decay puts a lot of pressure on the churches and so the political unification is succesful. <BR/><BR/>Its hard to pick any point in time since there are trends and counter trends and all sorts of nuances but if you want a date 235 is a good one for saying that the ancient church is essentially dead and the church of later Roman empire born. <BR/><BR/>And I think "corrupted" is much too strong a term for what I object to here. Evolved into a different type of religion is probably more a term I would agree with. Then of course within 100 years the church gets it first taste of state power and rather than building unity organically makes use of state terror to enforce their views. Behavior changes belief and so the religion has to alter to one supportive of state terror and then this becomes an addiction and here is where on balance it becomes a force of evil. I'm not saying it didn't do a lot of good but its hard to look at the church from 4th century on as anything other than a corruption of God's will. That church I would call corrupted. Now those were bad times and the problems in the church were still fixable. But it is hard to look upon that church as godly. During the dark ages the church is on balance a force for good but a mixed bag. <BR/><BR/>And then as the we enter the 2nd millennium the problems just gets worse. Gregory VII compounds the problem and by Innocent III, well I don't want to use flame language but that man is as godly in his leadership as Stalin. The church becomes not only dependent on violence but a major cause and instrument of violence under his leadership. Even if nothing theological justifies schism that sort of evil demands it. I'm sorry to be harsh but you asked for my opinion. Whatever laying on of hands Peter may or may not have done doesn't come close to justifying what was happening. Even if I assume this happened, the Prophets speak about about the wicked kings of Israel and the need to stop the wickedness. I see the situation as analogous. <BR/><BR/>Catharism is unsuccessful attempt to save Christianity from what its become. Catherism dies in battle but gives birth to an unsuccessful internal reform movement and that movement gives birth to Reformation. And the Reformation checks the spread of church violence. Theologically it is rather questionable but it has some good points. And more importantly it works. It brings the terror to an end. I don't think the reformers are saints but they are able to marshal armies and create a balance of power. This causes some evaluation and Catholicism starts to heal from its addiction. I wish it would heal faster but I have to give the reformation the credit for starting the processes. <BR/><BR/>The Beguine movement which emerges about the same time is as the Cathars offers a legitimate Christian counter movement. And that is one I can fully get behind. It was not going to be strong enough to stop the military machine but if offers a version of Christianity that can and is carring Christianity back to its high point: The Beguine/Beghards become the early members of the Brothers and sisters of the Free Spirit who end up founding groups like the Waldenses, and I assume everyone know the history from there. <BR/><BR/>Their ecclesiology is a simple one and yes it is the one that Barna and Viola and pushing (though their history of where these ideas came from is wrong). All Christians are the body of Christ and the church is the collection of all assemblies within the body. There you go, that's not the hypothetical that is the real opinion. <BR/><BR/>But that opinion isn't alterable by looking at the early fathers. It was what I was trying to address earlier regarding institutional and structural flaws.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-90123333341490546762008-08-15T14:14:00.000-05:002008-08-15T14:14:00.000-05:00I, for one, wish we could all sit down in a room (...I, for one, wish we could all sit down in a room (brick-and-mortar, not virtual-chat) and actually open the books and dig in. Whoever flies to Seattle, the coffee or ale will be on me. We brew really good beverages here....Jason Stellmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13835477947831128077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-19139886605776298232008-08-15T13:53:00.000-05:002008-08-15T13:53:00.000-05:00Bryan, I'm willing to give it a look. When you say...Bryan, I'm willing to give it a look. When you say "a single universal church," my point was that I would not even want to start with any presuppositions about what that meant at the time. I don't know if "visible/invisible" is precisely the right question. I know that may be asking a lot, but I think, too, it is the right way to do a historical study.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-81654073729570603032008-08-15T13:45:00.000-05:002008-08-15T13:45:00.000-05:00John,I'm surprised you're letting me get away with...John,<BR/><BR/>I'm surprised you're letting me get away with putting "St" in front of Clement's name. (Just kidding!) But seriously, sure, I'm specifically trying not to beg any questions in this exercise, and that includes the title of "Pope". I'm not entirely sure that all question-begging can be avoided, but I'll do my best.<BR/><BR/>The idea of the Church (or "church") is more difficult. I'm not sure what difference (in your mind) the small 'c' is making. I'm hoping we (all) can agree (in our starting point) that Christ founded a single universal Church, as described explicitly in Matt 16. Whether that Church that Christ founded is visible or "not visible" is another question. I have written about this question (just click on the 'ecclesiology' label on the left side of my blog, if you're interested). I haven't approached the question from a "what do the fathers say about it" perspective, and I'm hoping we can get a sense of what the fathers thought about this question. Does that address your concern?<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-89154314213780943642008-08-15T13:24:00.000-05:002008-08-15T13:24:00.000-05:00Jason,Thanks. I basically agree with what you said...Jason,<BR/><BR/>Thanks. I basically agree with what you said about secondary sources. And regarding the RC sources John cites, one thing that sometimes surprises Protestants about the Catholic Church is that it is a lot more lenient toward liberal Catholic academics than conservative Presbyterians are. Catholic professors can seemingly say and write just about whatever they want, even if it is heretical or anti-Catholic in significant respects. The Church generally does not go after such people and discipline them, unless they make a public scandal of some sort. So that's one of the reasons why I always take "Catholic historian Joe Blow says X" with a grain of salt.<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't describe the conclusions I draw from studying the fathers as secondary sources. I'm not appealing to my own conclusions, and so I'm not treating my own conclusions as sources. I do agree that we can read the Bible and get its basic message. So, in that sense, I believe in the perspicuity of Scripture. But some things in Scripture are very complicated, such as the relation of faith and works and grace and election and covenant, etc. My grandmother would have a hard time figuring stuff like that out on her own, even reading the Bible continually for sixty years. Peter tells us that Paul's writings can be hard to understand, and can be misunderstood. So while I believe that the basic message of the Bible can be understood, I also think it is very easy to misunderstand many of the more difficult aspects of Scripture. <BR/><BR/>And I think this is true of the fathers as well, namely, that in reading them we can get the basic idea, but that it is also easy to misunderstand them when they are talking about more complicated things. But I think we can make a lot of headway (in terms of finding common ground regarding our shared history) just from the basic and explicit teachings in the fathers. Also, I'm not proposing an individualistic approach to the fathers, but a kind of ecumenical (Catholic-Protestant) *communal* reading and discussion of the fathers, as a way of trying to understand together our mutual history and also as a way of (eventually) seeing how to get back to unity.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I really appreciate your open and charitable attitude. It gives me hope that we can make progress toward reconciliation and reunion.<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-70206146032786073222008-08-15T12:57:00.000-05:002008-08-15T12:57:00.000-05:00Collin,I don't think that ideas and persons can ev...Collin,<BR/><BR/>I don't think that ideas and persons can ever be fully separated. All dialogue is between persons, and it involves the character of the participants. The more I know about you, the more I can determine your credibility, your sincerity, your authenticity, and likewise the same is true the more you know about me. For principled reasons, I am not a fan of anonymous internet debate. It artificially separates persons from ideas and arguments, and in this way it assumes a false anthropology, as if we are mere intellects, and not embodied beings with feelings and biases and emotions, character, histories, etc.<BR/><BR/>I'm not going to play any hypothetical games. What I am looking for is common ground. If you don't think the Sethites were founded by the Apostles, then there is just no reason for us (you and I) to start with the Sethites or any other gnostic group. Moreover, I haven't said anything about papal primacy. That's completely beyond the scope of what I'm proposing here at this point. I'm aware of what Barna and Viola say. I'm not sure why you bring them up unless you agree with them. I'm not talking with them; I'm talking with you. Do you think the Church became "substantially corrupted" by the mid-second century? If not, then let's try to understand what these early fathers taught about ecclesiology and apostolic succession. But if you do think that the Church became substantially corrupted [in doctrine and ecclesiology] by the mid-second century, then why do you think that? In other words, how do you know that whatever differences you see between the second century Church and the New Testament writings are not Holy Spirit guided development?<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-68018581077192461142008-08-15T12:37:00.000-05:002008-08-15T12:37:00.000-05:00Bryan, I think your approach has some merit, and I...Bryan, I think your approach has some merit, and I would very much like to see what Jason has to say in this type of forum. I would hope, though, that if someone starts saying "Pope St. Clement" (I am quoting Bishop Wuerl here), that you would at least cast a stern eye on it. <BR/><BR/>To begin with, I think that your goal of finding "which is the Church that Christ founded" should be expanded to include a definition of "church" (not "Church") that encompasses Reformed and even Reformed Baptist conceptions of the early church. Because I think that an argument could be made that the earliest church, scattered about Asia and Europe and Africa was not more than a loose collection of congregations that had Apostolic (or sub-Apostolic) teaching and rudimentary collections of Scriptures (LXX, and eventually Gospels, Paul's letters, with no question at all about "canon" or the "authority" to determine such).John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-83557747970740514602008-08-15T12:32:00.000-05:002008-08-15T12:32:00.000-05:00Bryan,Don't get me wrong, I do think your proposal...Bryan,<BR/><BR/>Don't get me wrong, I do think your proposal is helpful, and one I hadn't thought of to be perfectly honest. And I'm not even closed-minded about being convinced that the early fathers "smell" more Catholic than Protestant.<BR/><BR/>But I think that secondary sources need to be brought in to the discussion at some point, especially since they are able to see a good chunk of the big picture, being removed from it by some time. And as far as baggage goes, most of John's sources were RC, meaning that their own dogmatic interests would not be served by simply dismissing apostolic succession the way you seemed to dismiss their conclusions about apostolic succession.<BR/><BR/>And finally, the moment you read the fathers and conclude something, that conclusion becomes a secondary source, does it not? Sometimes I wonder whether our "hermeneutic of suspicion" has clouded the entire issue. Like, what if we <I>could</I> actually read the Bible and get its basic message (or or that matter, the fathers)?Jason Stellmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13835477947831128077noreply@blogger.com