|
meep meep -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 2:39:15 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
You mean there is no evidence of denominations with the early Church. Basically, anyone who came out of the Church were no longer part of it.
I believe there is ample evidence of "denominations" with the early Church. Up until the time of Constantine the Churches in the different parts of the world used some different "books" in their Churches (mostly the cannon we use today, but some used "Clement" or "The Sheppard of Hermes", etc.). This would certainly qualify then as different denomination. The Syriac Church would definitely qualify as a different denomination, as do the Orthodoxies.
The attempt of unification of the "Real, mother Church - read RCC" was a political move to join the RCC with politics (Constantine) and to prove to him that there was a Papal and Apostolic succession and that they (RCC) were it. It seemed to work as Constantine and successors made the RCC extremely wealthy and gave them extreme control that is never mentioned in Scripture.
This of course was done by "establishing" that Peter was the first "Pope" in Rome (no evidence) and that there was a solid succession (no evidence), but Constantine bought it and that was the goal.
Yes there have always been some "denominational" difference, and that is a good thing, not a bad thing; because it has helped keep the truth out there.
Thanks
RC
Dear RC-
If you engage in a study of the Roman Church at the dawn of Christianity, i.e. the middle of the first century, you will see that by standards of the time it was composed of wealthier individuals, although there were many poor members as well. The Roman church, battered and persecuted as it was, was still very wealthy.
But this isn't about the Roman church.
Constantine had the power - not the Church, and when he - for whatever reason and in however manner - became a Christian, he sought to enforce the pax romana by bringing the the squabbles (and there were many) of the Catholic bishops to an end. See, The Life and Times of Constantine The Great.
Constantine poured money into the Church as a whole and he sought to end schisms by the power of the sword, or by council. If one could sum him up in a few words (which one can't) it would be unity of the church. As emperor he wanted peace in the empire.
Further, it was Constantine who sought to enforce the concept of Apostolic succession, and it was not the RC which imposed it upon him.
If your read and study Constantine, extensively, you will note that HE increased public welfare, HE gave money to the Church (not just the RC), and He built incredible church buildings to show the pagan culture of the glory and power of Christianity.
As to the purpose of this thread, you with great facility dismiss the concept as having no basis - yet you refuse to document your sources. No matter, opinions are perfectly allowed as long as one doesn't pass them off as truth.
Nonetheless:
Here’s a snippet from Clement I – note when this epistle was written – 80 AD. Thus, it is contemporaneous with the Apostolic presence.
This epistle was circulated among the churches at a time when Apostles, disciples, and those appointed by them were still around. If what it is stating was not true or questionable, there were plenty of witnesses who could attest to it's "spurious" allegations.
Also note that this epistle was for a long time considered scripture in many of the churches – on par with the epistles of Paul, until the CHURCH set the NT canon and chose not to include it.
"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers.
Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" Letter to the Corinthians A.D. 80.
What does the early CHURCH historian Eusebius say?
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" Against Heresies A.D. 189.
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.
For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" see chap 3.
This was not an RC or an EO writing, and certainly not a Protestant who was writing and documenting what was already known…
But even beyond that, if one examines history with integrity and looks at all the witnesses and documentation, one will find that the Church has always proclaimed it’s unique place as holding the deposit of faith given to it by the Apostles.
Those who deviated from it’s teaching – from the beginning were deemed to be heretics.
Here’s another snippet from Eusebius written around 180 A.D; still WAY before Constantine.
"When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord"
BTW the Roman see was not the only see in existence at the time.
What does the esteemed PROTESTANT scholar Kelly say in Early Christian Doctrines?:
" where in practice was apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it"
For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’"
Meep
|
|
|
|