Alec wrote: > On 25 Oct, 23:09, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>> But wasn't it Irenaeus rather than Ignatius who, according to Hodges, >> considered bishops to be a source of information and guidance?
> Bugger. You're quite right. I didn't spot that.
Irenaeus was much concerned to fight the Gnostics, who claimed to have secret knowledge from Jesus himself. He counters that the bishops were the only safe guide to doctrine and the interpretation of Scripture, and their lineage went back to the Apostles.
'Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.' Against Heresies III, 3
> >> But wasn't it Irenaeus rather than Ignatius who, according to Hodges, > >> considered bishops to be a source of information and guidance?
> > Bugger. You're quite right. I didn't spot that.
> Irenaeus was much concerned to fight the Gnostics, who claimed to have > secret knowledge from Jesus himself. He counters that the bishops were > the only safe guide to doctrine and the interpretation of Scripture, and > their lineage went back to the Apostles.
It seems to me that Ignatius and Irenaeus were combatting the same movement, but had adopted different strategies and arguments. Ignatius took a synchronic approach and pushed church unity (relying on the bishop as the core of that unity), while Irenaeus had a more diachronic style and pushed church tradition (relying on the bishop as the guarantor of that tradition). Both arguments are valid, and the fact that different defenders of catholic faith took different paths shouldn't exercise us unduly.
> It seems to me that Ignatius and Irenaeus were combatting the same > movement, but had adopted different strategies and arguments. Ignatius > took a synchronic approach and pushed church unity (relying on the > bishop as the core of that unity), while Irenaeus had a more > diachronic style and pushed church tradition (relying on the bishop as > the guarantor of that tradition). Both arguments are valid, and the > fact that different defenders of catholic faith took different paths > shouldn't exercise us unduly.
That is a nice way of summing it up. But I would still like to see more evidence that Ignatius bears witness to a definite and settled organisation of the Christian church beyond the indea of the bishop being the local big boss.
> > It seems to me that Ignatius and Irenaeus were combatting the same > > movement, but had adopted different strategies and arguments. Ignatius > > took a synchronic approach and pushed church unity (relying on the > > bishop as the core of that unity), while Irenaeus had a more > > diachronic style and pushed church tradition (relying on the bishop as > > the guarantor of that tradition). Both arguments are valid, and the > > fact that different defenders of catholic faith took different paths > > shouldn't exercise us unduly.
> That is a nice way of summing it up. But I would still like to see more > evidence that Ignatius bears witness to a definite and settled > organisation of the Christian church beyond the idea of the bishop > being the local big boss.
> Alwyn
He clearly has the three-part priesthood in place; what we don't see is anything at the supra-diocesan level, other than the bond of charity between bishops. OK, if there is a patriarch in the region it's him (in ch ix of his letter to the Roman church he calls himself the shepherd of the church in Syria, not just of the congregation in Antioch), so maybe that's why he doesn't want to make a big deal of it. But he never mentions the bishop of Rome; indeed, I think I'm right in saying that his letter to the Roman church is the only one that doesn't mention the bishop - in all the letters to the other churches he exhorts them to live the Christian life and obey their bishop. But the Romans he exhorts to one thing only: not to get in the way of his martyrdom. Maybe, having moved out of the province of which he is the chief shepherd, he no longer sees it as his place to teach this church? Anyway, it's an awkward fact that he doesn't seem to salute the bishop of Rome, and it gives some (albeit negative) support to those who think that episcopal order perhaps wasn't universal at that time.
Is there some other aspect of church organisation you think is missing from Ignatius?
>> >> But wasn't it Irenaeus rather than Ignatius who, according to Hodges, >> >> considered bishops to be a source of information and guidance?
>> > Bugger. You're quite right. I didn't spot that.
>> Irenaeus was much concerned to fight the Gnostics, who claimed to have >> secret knowledge from Jesus himself. He counters that the bishops were >> the only safe guide to doctrine and the interpretation of Scripture, and >> their lineage went back to the Apostles.
>It seems to me that Ignatius and Irenaeus were combatting the same >movement, but had adopted different strategies and arguments. Ignatius >took a synchronic approach and pushed church unity (relying on the >bishop as the core of that unity), while Irenaeus had a more >diachronic style and pushed church tradition (relying on the bishop as >the guarantor of that tradition). Both arguments are valid, and the >fact that different defenders of catholic faith took different paths >shouldn't exercise us unduly.
Thanks to both Alwyn and Alec for the various point made above.
Mike -- Michael J Davis http://www.trustsof.co.uk <>< Jesus did not die to save us from punishment He is called 'Jesus' because he came to save us from our sins. [GMcD] <><
Adam Funk wrote: > On 2009-10-25, loiner2003 wrote: >> For completeness: there was one group that could not be persuaded to >> join the union, namely that which styles itself the Wesleyan Reform >> Union. Their theology tends to be conservative evangelical, their >> spirituality broadly Methodist, and their ecclesiology more or less >> congregational! They still exist, these days on good terms with the rest >> of us, but still independent. They are to be found mainly in a few areas >> such as the area of the old York, Notts and Derby coalfield. They >> usually have pretty small congregations. In such areas lay preachers are >> often interchanged.
> I think those are the areas where I've seen "Wesleyan" on the signs.
Quite likely. When I was in Barnsley Circuit, now almost 20 years ago mind, there were perhaps 10 Wesleyan Reform Churches in the metropolitan area (about 200,000 people). In the same area there were, then, some 40 mainstream Methodist Churches. I know that our numbers have declined quite a bit since then, and I'm guessing the same is true for the WRU.
As I say, we got on with each other quite well, often sharing youth and training events, for example. The WRU had only a handful of paid ministers, and often used our lay preachers to fill their pulpits. The two denominations still co-operate nationally, especially in local preacher matters. However I have seen no suggestion of an actual merger. Some of us would be rather too liberal, or too catholic, for some WRU tastes, although I had no problem on a one to one basis - we even worked together at the time of Mission England with Billy Graham (1984/85).
Later I was in Lowestoft and I noticed a WRU church there; I never had any contact, but again I know one or two of our preachers were invited to preach there. One unofficial Methodist preacher, also an official in a Methodist Church, actually presided at Communion there - which could have caused a lot of problems if anyone had been inclined to make a fuss about it. No one was, and I turned a blind eye! (The guy was widely regarded as a bit of an oddball anyway!)
--
Revd. Eric Potts
"Faith, hope and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love."
> He clearly has the three-part priesthood in place; what we don't see > is anything at the supra-diocesan level, other than the bond of > charity between bishops.
<snip>
> Is there some other aspect of church organisation you think is missing > from Ignatius?
In Ephesians he exhorts obedience to bishop Onesimus, who is to be revered as the Lord himself. No mention of hierarchy, just the suremacy of the bishop. Loyalty to the bishop is again emphasised in Philadelphians and he adds: 'there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons'. All we can glean from this is that in Philadelphia there was one bishop and many presbyters and deacons. What was the presbyter's function, and how did it differ from that of the deacon? Ignatius does not tell us, and we must be careful, I think, not to read later ideas into what he wrote.
On 25 Oct, 23:02, Alec <alec.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 Oct, 14:19, celia <c_a_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > the man in the pew...was disenfranchised.
> What evidence do you have that the Man on the Corinth Omnibus was > franchised in the first place?
Acts chapter 6 shows the early church selecting seven men who were then presented to the apostles to have hands laid on them. The beginning of Acts 13 has the local church praying until guided by the Holy Spirit they commission Barnabas and Saul. Paul told the man on the Corinth omnibus that he was free and everything was permissible, his gripe was that they hadn't grasped the truth that they had to use their freedom fore the benefit of others.
> Acts 14:23 - "Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in > each church"
> Acts 16:4 - "As they traveled from town to town, they delivered > the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the > people to obey."
> Titus 1:5 - "The reason I left you in Crete was that you might > straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every > town, as I directed you."
> So elders were appointed from above, and the decisions of apostles and > elders were to be obeyed. Sounds like a hierarchy to me.
Sounds like the gift of administration to me. Not the only gift to receive the apostles blessing by the laying on of hands. We are assuming too readily here that elders were the equivalent of today's bishops whereas there were several elders per congregation and their function could be seen as a continuation of that of the Jewish elder. The reason this reply is a little delayed is that I tried to find out exactly what the words used would have meant in the 1st c.There is an extract from this book online, 40 Questions about Elders and Deacons By Benjamin L. Merkle I think it is reasonably fair and it leans slightly to your view but is far from conclusive.
> On 25 Oct, 23:02, Alec <alec.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 25 Oct, 14:19, celia <c_a_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > the man in the pew...was disenfranchised.
> > What evidence do you have that the Man on the Corinth Omnibus was > > franchised in the first place?
> Acts chapter 6 shows the early church selecting seven men who were > then presented to the apostles to have hands laid on them. > The beginning of Acts 13 has the local church praying until guided by > the Holy Spirit they commission Barnabas and Saul. > Paul told the man on the Corinth omnibus that he was free and > everything was permissible, his gripe was that they hadn't grasped the > truth that they had to use their freedom fore the benefit of others.
> > Acts 14:23 - "Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in > > each church"
> > Acts 16:4 - "As they traveled from town to town, they delivered > > the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the > > people to obey."
> > Titus 1:5 - "The reason I left you in Crete was that you might > > straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every > > town, as I directed you."
> > So elders were appointed from above, and the decisions of apostles and > > elders were to be obeyed. Sounds like a hierarchy to me.
> Sounds like the gift of administration to me. > Not the only gift to receive the apostles blessing by the laying on of > hands.
I don't think we're disagreeing fundamentally.
> We are assuming too readily here that elders were the equivalent of > today's bishops whereas there were several elders per congregation and > their function could be seen as a continuation of that of the Jewish > elder.
No, I'm not assuming that at all. Elders are usually referred to in the plural, both in Jewish and in Christian usage. I don't think Christian elders are exactly the same as Jewish elders, but they have a lot in common. The synagogue doesn't have sacraments, so that's going to make a difference in the functions of their officers.
I'm happy to accept that the modern episcopal system crystallised out of an earlier, undifferentiated, state over several decades. But once it started to appear it was Ice Nine.
> The reason this reply is a little delayed is that I tried to find out > exactly what the words used would have meant in the 1st c.There is an > extract from this book online, > 40 Questions about Elders and Deacons By Benjamin L. Merkle > I think it is reasonably fair and it leans slightly to your view but > is far from conclusive.
On 26 Oct, 21:38, Alec <alec.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The reason this reply is a little delayed is that I tried to find out > > exactly what the words used would have meant in the 1st c.There is an > > extract from this book online, > > 40 Questions about Elders and Deacons By Benjamin L. Merkle > > I think it is reasonably fair and it leans slightly to your view but > > is far from conclusive.
> Do you have a url for that?
Yes, it's well worth reading but I didn't give the url because I'm well aware that everyone here is more computer literate than I am and will groan at the length of it and know cunning ways to make it shorter. Anyway here it is, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_gwhxUVH3OAC&pg=PT1&lpg=PT1&dq=40+...
> On 26 Oct, 21:38, Alec <alec.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The reason this reply is a little delayed is that I tried to find out > > > exactly what the words used would have meant in the 1st c.There is an > > > extract from this book online, > > > 40 Questions about Elders and Deacons By Benjamin L. Merkle > > > I think it is reasonably fair and it leans slightly to your view but > > > is far from conclusive.
> > Do you have a url for that?
> Yes, it's well worth reading but I didn't give the url because I'm > well aware that everyone here is more computer literate than I am and > will groan at the length of it and know cunning ways to make it > shorter. Anyway here it is,http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_gwhxUVH3OAC&pg=PT1&lpg=PT1&dq=40+...
> Celia
That's nice, thank you. I can't help thinking that "Elders and Deacons" must be the next Dan Brown novel :-)
Merkle (from my perspective) brings his expectations to the scriptural and post-scriptural data, possibly even as much as I do. He is on top of the facts, way more than I am; but there are still ambiguities, which I naturally resolve in a Catholic sense and he resolves in a Baptist sense. In the end I don't think there can be a decisive argument that will show us the right way of doing this - all such attempts to come to a final conclusion will themselves have ambiguities, which I will resolve in a...well, you get the point.
> On 26 Oct, 22:19, celia <c_a_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 26 Oct, 21:38, Alec <alec.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The reason this reply is a little delayed is that I tried to find out > > > > exactly what the words used would have meant in the 1st c.There is an > > > > extract from this book online, > > > > 40 Questions about Elders and Deacons By Benjamin L. Merkle > > > > I think it is reasonably fair and it leans slightly to your view but > > > > is far from conclusive.
> > > Do you have a url for that?
> > Yes, it's well worth reading but I didn't give the url because I'm > > well aware that everyone here is more computer literate than I am and > > will groan at the length of it and know cunning ways to make it > > shorter. Anyway here it is,http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_gwhxUVH3OAC&pg=PT1&lpg=PT1&dq=40+...
> > Celia
> That's nice, thank you. I can't help thinking that "Elders and > Deacons" must be the next Dan Brown novel :-)
> Merkle (from my perspective) brings his expectations to the scriptural > and post-scriptural data, possibly even as much as I do. He is on top > of the facts, way more than I am; but there are still ambiguities, > which I naturally resolve in a Catholic sense and he resolves in a > Baptist sense. In the end I don't think there can be a decisive > argument that will show us the right way of doing this - all such > attempts to come to a final conclusion will themselves have > ambiguities, which I will resolve in a...well, you get the point.
Exactly, a fair summing up. I've enjoyed watching you discuss with Alwyn, so refreshing to get a civilised and informed conversation that brings something new to the table.
On 26 Oct, 23:44, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2009-10-25, Alec wrote: > > Very true. I was raised as a Roman Catholic, and converted to Roman > > Catholicism in my late teens.
> As I read that, I think there's an implied phase in the middle?
Unreflective teenage atheism while maintaining the outward forms for the sake of a quiet life. Then one day I started to think about something the priest had said in his sermon (about how people who didn't really believe would be better off not going to Mass) and it lit a blue touch-paper. In one way I don't think it much mattered what he'd said, it just upset a couple of my assumptions about 'conventional religion'. It was like a firecracker storm going off in my brain, and when the smoke cleared it had burned away all the unexamined prejudices that had clogged my thinking. I was a convinced RC, and (apart from a brief and disappointing flirtation with Marxism in my late twenties) have remained so ever since.
Alec Brady wrote: > In one way I don't think it much mattered what > he'd said, it just upset a couple of my assumptions about > 'conventional religion'. It was like a firecracker storm going off in > my brain, and when the smoke cleared it had burned away all the > unexamined prejudices that had clogged my thinking.
All of them? How can you tell?
(I am quite sure that I have unexamined prejudices that have never been burned away. It must be a blessed state indeed to have none.)
On 3 Nov, 01:00, Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaug...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Alec Brady wrote: > > In one way I don't think it much mattered what > > he'd said, it just upset a couple of my assumptions about > > 'conventional religion'. It was like a firecracker storm going off in > > my brain, and when the smoke cleared it had burned away all the > > unexamined prejudices that had clogged my thinking.
> All of them? How can you tell?
> (I am quite sure that I have unexamined prejudices that have never > been burned away. It must be a blessed state indeed to have none.)
> --
I've just finished reading two history books, one went out of its way to show no bias; the other was unashamedly from the author's viewpoint. The unbiased book was so bland and boring as to be almost unreadable whereas although I didn't share the view of the opinionated author his enthusiasm made it a darn good read. Could it be that prejudice combined with respect for others can also be a blessed state ?
"celia" wrote: > On 3 Nov, 01:00, Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaug...@pobox.com> wrote: >> Alec Brady wrote: >>> In one way I don't think it much mattered what >>> he'd said, it just upset a couple of my assumptions about >>> 'conventional religion'. It was like a firecracker storm going off in >>> my brain, and when the smoke cleared it had burned away all the >>> unexamined prejudices that had clogged my thinking.
>> All of them? How can you tell?
>> (I am quite sure that I have unexamined prejudices that have never >> been burned away. It must be a blessed state indeed to have none.)
>> -- > I've just finished reading two history books, one went out of its way > to show no bias; the other was unashamedly from the author's > viewpoint. > The unbiased book was so bland and boring as to be almost unreadable > whereas although I didn't share the view of the opinionated author his > enthusiasm made it a darn good read. > Could it be that prejudice combined with respect for others can also > be a blessed state ?
It's quite possible that known and acknowledged prejudice can be harmless or even beneficial (because motivating). But Alec was talking about *unexamined* prejudices. I can't think why anyone would want any of those, but alas I'm sure we all have plenty.
> He's only offering to take the chauvinists and the homophobes.
He's offering sanctuary to those who would feel more comfortable in the Church of Rome. I do not believe they are so many.
> Williams will probably be glad and certainly be lucky to see the back > of them.
But Akinola and his lot will still be around to cause trouble. There is little danger of Evangelicals defecting to Rome, though Nazir Ali, who has something of a Catholic background, has said he'd consider it.
On 3 Nov, 01:00, Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaug...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Alec Brady wrote: > > In one way I don't think it much mattered what > > he'd said, it just upset a couple of my assumptions about > > 'conventional religion'. It was like a firecracker storm going off in > > my brain, and when the smoke cleared it had burned away all the > > unexamined prejudices that had clogged my thinking.
> All of them? How can you tell?
> (I am quite sure that I have unexamined prejudices that have never > been burned away. It must be a blessed state indeed to have none.)
OK, clever clogs :-p. Not all, not even most. Just a big tranche. I plead guilty to the charge of rhetoric ;-)
On 4 Nov, 22:06, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> Ian wrote:
> > He's only offering to take the chauvinists and the homophobes.
> He's offering sanctuary to those who would feel more comfortable in the > Church of Rome. I do not believe they are so many.
But what seems odd is that the only criterion appears to be "not liking the idea of women priests or gay people". Do these considerations really override all th eother doctrinal differences.
I agree with you that there probably won't be many. Those who are doctrinally closest to Rome, the Anglo-Catholics, are traditionally very tolerant of gay people - to put it mildly - and the evangelicals who hold the strongest views about gays and women are doctrinally miles away.
> > Williams will probably be glad and certainly be lucky to see the back > > of them.
> But Akinola and his lot will still be around to cause trouble. There is > little danger of Evangelicals defecting to Rome, though Nazir Ali, who > has something of a Catholic background, has said he'd consider it.
Although it seems clear that Williams wants to maintain the communion if at all possible, I think he might be better just to let the evangelicals go and form their own little church. I suspect that the hardliners who have taken over parishes would take few of the parishioners with them. A bit of grumbling about guitars is one thing: actually leaving the C of E is quite another.
The evangelicals know this, of course, which is why there tactic is to create as much trouble as they can without the rest of the communion turning round and telling them where to go.
> On 4 Nov, 22:06, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote: >> Ian wrote:
>> > He's only offering to take the chauvinists and the homophobes.
>> He's offering sanctuary to those who would feel more comfortable in the >> Church of Rome. I do not believe they are so many.
> But what seems odd is that the only criterion appears to be "not > liking the idea of women priests or gay people". Do these > considerations really override all th eother doctrinal differences.
OK so not wanting the church to condone and support wickedness and sin is not a good reason?
What the hell do you think would be a good reason?
> On 4 Nov, 22:06, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote: >> Ian wrote:
>> > He's only offering to take the chauvinists and the homophobes.
>> He's offering sanctuary to those who would feel more comfortable in the >> Church of Rome. I do not believe they are so many.
> But what seems odd is that the only criterion appears to be "not > liking the idea of women priests or gay people". Do these > considerations really override all th eother doctrinal differences.
> I agree with you that there probably won't be many. Those who are > doctrinally closest to Rome, the Anglo-Catholics, are traditionally > very tolerant of gay people - to put it mildly - and the evangelicals > who hold the strongest views about gays and women are doctrinally > miles away.
>> > Williams will probably be glad and certainly be lucky to see the back >> > of them.
>> But Akinola and his lot will still be around to cause trouble. There is >> little danger of Evangelicals defecting to Rome, though Nazir Ali, who >> has something of a Catholic background, has said he'd consider it.
> Although it seems clear that Williams wants to maintain the communion > if at all possible, I think he might be better just to let the > evangelicals go and form their own little church. I suspect that the > hardliners who have taken over parishes would take few of the > parishioners with them. A bit of grumbling about guitars is one thing: > actually leaving the C of E is quite another.
> The evangelicals know this, of course, which is why there tactic is to > create as much trouble as they can without the rest of the communion > turning round and telling them where to go.
Ian <ubergeek...@googlemail.com> writes: > I agree with you that there probably won't be many. Those who are > doctrinally closest to Rome, the Anglo-Catholics, are traditionally > very tolerant of gay people - to put it mildly - and the evangelicals > who hold the strongest views about gays and women are doctrinally > miles away.
The Church Crimes was reporting on a Forward in Faith meeting that seemed to be quite keen on heading Rome-wards.
Matthew
-- "My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No-one will snatch them out of my hand". John 10 27-28 http://www.pick.ucam.org/
|
