Protestants and a Churchless Tradition: “Sola” vs. “Solo” Scriptura

[TER]

I don't need to envision it. The book of Acts tells us about it, Acts 11:19-20.

Uh huh. That is a very good start. Now, when did that take place about, according to modern scholarship?

 

[TER]

Edit.

Scratch my last answer if you already read it. I see that I misread this. Notice that you refer to Ignatius as "St. Antioch," which confused me.

I don't doubt that Ignatius was a legitimate bishop in the sense that all other bishops/presbyters were throughout the decades leading up to his time, being one among many in Antioch, who distinguished himself among his peers. We don't have specific evidence, so we can only speculate how he distinguished himself. But it isn't difficult to imagine plausible scenarios. Most likely he and other like minded bishops/presbyters in Antioch recognized the need to present a united front against teachers they disagreed with, and provide clear boundaries between the churches in communion with themselves, and those outside that communion (notice that this, too, is a major concern for Ignatius in his letters, and is closely related to his insistence on bishops having the authority he wants them to have). In carrying this out as a college of bishops/presbyters in that city, they had to meet together as a group and work together in an organized way. As organizations generally require officers of some kind out of shear practicality, this college of bishops/presbyters selected Ignatius to fill a role that put him in a position of preeminence among them, perhaps as a presiding officer or spokesman. In fact, a development like this may have even happened before the time that Ignatius took such a position. Initially, this person would not have even been called "the bishop of Antioch." It is only after accruing more power to that office that it would be so distinguished, such that only that person would be the bishop, with the others being the presbyters.

We see something similar in the letter that is traditionally called 1 Clement, written perhaps 10-15 years earlier than Ignatius's letters. The letter only claims as its author "the Church in Rome," and as its addressee, "the Church in Corinth." It is traditionally thought that its specific author was Clement, whom later bishop lists call one of Rome's early bishops. But at the time the letter was written, it is clear that nobody was "the bishop of Rome," nor anybody, "the bishop of Corinth." But whoever wrote this letter from the Church in Rome to the Church in Corinth was, it was probably one of the bishops/presbyters in Rome, who was distinguished among his peers as the appropriate spokesman to write such a letter (and I don't doubt that this individual, indeed, was Clement). At this point in time (and even later when Ignatius wrote his letter to the church in Rome), the leadership in the church in Rome had not yet developed to the point of having a single bishop the way the churches in several cities in Asia Minor would soon have in Ignatius's day. But it had some of the circumstances in place that would make such a development possible. When Ignatius writes his letters to other churches in several major cities in Asia Minor (though not his letter to those in Rome), he is still laboring to persuade them to accept the authority of these singular bishops in those cities, as apparently they were undergoing the same process at that time as the churches in Antioch, most likely in an organized way under the efforts of Ignatius and his cohorts in those cities as a result of labors that must have been ongoing in the years leading up to his writing of his letters.

It is also important to recognize that the evidence we have from Ignatius's letters is his perspective on things. Out of all the Christians and churches in Antioch, we don't know how many recognized him as their bishop. Likewise with the churches in the cities to whom he addresses his letters, there's no telling how many Christians and churches there were in those cities who did not regard the individuals whom he calls the bishops of those cities as their bishops. In Ignatius's mind, those outside the authority of himself and the other individuals he calls "bishops," were not part of the true catholic church. But according to the Gospel of the apostles, he had no authority to say such a thing.

Just saw your edit..

That was a very well written answer erowe and I thank you for it. Your vision can very well be plausable. I would not agree with everything you have written, but nonetheless, I think you make some very poignant and thoughtful points.

Now, putting out there that I object to some of your speculations, I will take your opinion as being the correct one for the sake of this discussion and the point I am trying to make. So please bear with me a little longer....

When the Holy Spirit descended on Pentecost and filled the Apostles and the Mother of God who was also present there with power from on high, were there any bishops in Antioch?

 

[erowe1]

]
When the Holy Spirit descended upon Pentecost and filled the Apostles and the Mother of God who was also present there with power from on high, were there any bishops in Antioch?

No.

 

[TER]

No.

Why not?

 

[Sola_Fide]

When the Holy Spirit descended on Pentecost and filled the Apostles and the Mother of God who was also present there with power from on high, were there any bishops in Antioch?

...what?

 

[erowe1]

Why not?

Because there were no bishops anywhere.

 

[TER]

Because there were no bishops anywhere.

So there was a time that there were no bishops. We can agree.

We learn that these bishops who were eventually chosen were from amongst the baptized, known to be faithful men, lovers of Christ and followers of the Way.

What differentiated these men from other, that is, what process or ritual was performed in order to elevate them to the bishop as leader of the community?

 

[erowe1]

What differentiated these men from other, that is, what process or ritual was performed in order to elevate them to the bishop as leader of the community?

There were a variety of processes. Some bishops/presbyters were appointed directly by apostles. Others were appointed by their churches, such as is mentioned in Didache 15:1.

 

[TER]

There were a variety of processes. Some bishops/presbyters were appointed directly by apostles. Others were appointed by their churches, such as is mentioned in Didache 15:1.

Okay, when you say they were appointed by their churches, what do you mean by the word 'appointed'? The Biblical term is 'cheirothesia'. How do you understand this word to mean?

 

[erowe1]

Okay, when you say they were appointed by their churches, what do you mean by the word 'appointed'?

We don't know how. The evidence is sparse. Didache doesn't say. Apparently its audience knew already. That it involved literal laying on of hands is probable. But here it wasn't done by apostles, nor by existing bishops. It was the laity of the churches appointing those who would be their leaders.

Undoubtedly this had to be the norm in the first century (and probably the second and third too), rather than the exception, since the Christian faith spread much faster than the movements of the apostles or anyone delegated by them to establish churches and bishops. This is clear in the book of Acts and other writings of the New Testament.

 

[TER]

We don't know how. The evidence is sparse. Didache doesn't say. Apparently its audience knew already. That it involved literal laying on of hands is probable. But here it wasn't done by apostles, nor by existing bishops. It was the laity of the churches appointing those who would be their leaders.

Okay, we know in the Scriptures it has EVERYTHING to do with laying of the hands which is the very English translation for the Greek work cheirothesia. The Scriptures go on further to say that this mysteriously (or in Latin, sacramentally) transferred the Holy Spirit to the one who was 'layed hands on', or 'ordained'.

The example you bring up from the Didache uses the word Χειροτονήσατε, which too means to 'lay hands on'. So there were no various processes as you suggest, but a standard process of the laying of the hands, both in the Scriptures and in the earliest Christian writings.

Now your next speculation that it was the laity of the churches laying hands and transferring the Holy Spirit has no historical basis, at least not in the Scriptures or in any of the Christian writings of the first 1600 years. You are assuming that the laity laid hands to appoint bishops, but all of the evidence we have does not state that. Rather, this is your educated guess, which I respect, but which I must point out is without merit.

Undoubtedly this had to be the norm in the first century (and probably the second and third too), rather than the exception, since the Christian faith spread much faster than the movements of the apostles or anyone delegated by them to establish churches and bishops. This is clear in the book of Acts and other writings of the New Testament.

Now again, this paragraph is dependent upon your previous assertion that the laity appointed bishops, which has no historical merit to it. So I think I can confidently say that you are making a speculation which happens to be against the historical records and the tradition of the Church.

Have you followed me so far?

 

[TER]

One thing that is frustrating is waiting for replies! If you and I erowe were sitting down over coffee (though I have started to cut down on that and drink more tea), we would have come to the point I am trying to make in 10 minutes, but to get there on an internet discussion forum can take HOURS if not DAYS!!! And I still have not gotten to the original point I have been trying to get to since this morning! lol

But anyway, this was an unsubtle hint to give quick replies cause I have a crap load of work I need to get finished before bed tonight !!!! I promise I will do the same.

 

[erowe1]

Okay, we know in the Scriptures it has EVERYTHING to do with laying of the hands which is the very English translation for the Greek work cheirothesia. The Scriptures go on further to say that this mysteriously (or in Latin, sacramentally) transferred the Holy Spirit to the one who was 'layed hands on', or 'ordained'.

This is false. You're mixing together various different things. There are cases where the Holy Spirit was conferred by a laying on of hands. There are cases where healings are performed by laying on hands. There is a case of a spiritual gift being conferred by the laying of hands. It's possible that there were elders appointed by the laying of hands, although the New Testament doesn't explicitly say so. These are different things. Also, you are incorrect about this being the word cheirothesia. I don't know if that word is used in Greek Orthodoxy. It's a fine Greek word to coin for the laying on of hands. But it is not used in the New Testament.

In the verse of the Didache I mentioned, it uses the word cheirotoneo, which can as easily refer to electing someone by the raising of hands in a vote as it can refer to a laying on of hands. It is used for appointing people to tasks not only in Christian literature, but also in ordinary documents in koine Greek. See the similar usage of the word in 2 Corinthians 8:19, where a congregation as a group had appointed someone to send as a companion to Paul.

Now your next speculation that it was the laity of the churches

In the case of the Didache it's not speculation. That's what it says. And it's impossible that this was anything less than very normal.

 

[erowe1]

But unfortunately this hasn't been completely clarified yet, so please, stay tuned.

Well, hopefully, as this discussion continues with erowe, it will become clear why I cannot ascribe to your point of view. In the meanwhile, you are certainly welcome to answer the last question I posted for erowe.

Just be a little careful here, Sola. Erowe makes statements which are speculation and calls it conclusive proof. Please stay tuned. This will hopefully be made clear very soon.

Another thing while we wait... Many in the church you are describing don't know or love Sts. Ignatius, Augustine and Polycarb. In fact, there are some lurking the liberty forest who have called them vile names. Some even who have posted in this thread. Be careful out there!

All your points will be addressed in time. Forgive me for taking the long winded way, but it is important for clarity sake. Thanks!

And then....

One thing that is frustrating is waiting for replies! If you and I erowe were sitting down over coffee (though I have started to cut down on that and drink more tea), we would have come to the point I am trying to make in 10 minutes, but to get there on an internet discussion forum can take HOURS if not DAYS!!! And I still have not gotten to the original point I have been trying to get to since this morning! lol

But anyway, this was an unsubtle hint to give quick replies cause I have a crap load of work I need to get finished before bed tonight !!!! I promise I will do the same.

Good grief. If you had a point to make you could have made it back when you first started telling us to stay tuned.

All of your dancing around just obfuscates the indisputable fact that we're still left with, which is that in the apostolic church, the titles bishop and presbyter were synonyms, and referred to an office that was always occupied by multiple people in a city, and never just one. The apostles did not appoint anyone as the bishop of Antioch, or the bishop or Rome, or the bishop of any other city anywhere. Their own writings tell us this. And all the evidence we have, including the letters of Ignatius, corroborates it.

 

[erowe1]

I take back what I said about cheirtoneo.

It is not the case that it can as easily refer to laying of hands as it can raising hands in a vote. It is much more likely to refer to the latter, or simply to appoint in general without respect to the method.

See here:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper...ic+letter=*x:entry+group=16:entry=xeirotone/w

 

[TER]

This is false. You're mixing together various different things. There are cases where the Holy Spirit was conferred by a laying on of hands. There are cases where healings are performed by laying on hands. There is a case of a spiritual gift being conferred by the laying of hands. It's possible that there were elders appointed by the laying of hands, although the New Testament doesn't explicitly say so. These are different things. Also, you are incorrect about this being the word cheirothesia. I don't know if that word is used in Greek Orthodoxy. It's a fine Greek word to coin for the laying on of hands. But it is not used in the New Testament.

Can you please tell us then what is the word used for 'appointing' in ordination in the original Koine Greek Bible? Because as far as I understand, the word mean literally 'laying of the hands'. Of course, I am not arguing that the laying of the hands did not occur for other purposes as well, such as healing and entrance into the Church after baptism. I am just focusing on the ordination of the clergy. You make the claim that there were 'various process', even ascribing that this was done by the laity, but so far you have not provided any evidence or proof for that. You have provided conjecture based on your speculations.

You state that the word used in the Didache 'can be easily refer to electing someone by the raising of hands in a vote as it can refer to a laying on of hands'. Well, maybe for you, but just because you think it can easily refer to a vote call and not be in accordance to the original understand (let alone literal term for the word used) is again mere conjecture on your part and speculation. These are educated guesses which have no definite proof. Can we at least agree to that so that we can move on? I am not fighting you in this regard, I am merely pointing out that you are taking an educated guess on these things with no definitive proof.

 

[TER]

And then....



Good grief. If you had a point to make you could have made it back when you first started telling us to stay tuned.

Getting closer now. Just need you to start admitting that some of the things you are basing your answers on are speculation and educated guesses, then we can get closer to the point.

 

[TER]

I take back what I said about cheirtoneo.

It is not the case that it can as easily refer to laying of hands as it can raising hands in a vote. It is much more likely to refer to the latter, or simply to appoint in general without respect to the method.

See here:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper...ic+letter=*x:entry+group=16:entry=xeirotone/w

Actually, no, erowe. It is not more likely to mean the latter. It is actually much more likely to refer to the previous, considering that was the practice in the beginning by the Apostles and has been carried down and described in this way in every Christian writing since. You are taking a verse from the Didache and putting in the definition you want. But you have no proof you are right, but rather that it is your guess.

 

[erowe1]

Actually, no, erowe. It is not more likely to mean the latter. It is actually much more likely to refer to the previous, considering that was the practice in the beginning by the Apostles and has been carried down and described in this way in every Christian writing since.

That is precisely the point of contention. And the evidence available says you're wrong.

You are taking a verse from the Didache and putting in the definition you want. But you have no proof you are right, but rather that it is your guess.

I just showed you the proof. Did you click the link? That wasn't me guessing. That was a compilation of usages of the word cheirotoneo in ancient Greek literature in the preeminent lexicon made by the world's best lexicographers.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Actually, no, erowe. It is not more likely to mean the latter. It is actually much more likely to refer to the previous, considering that was the practice in the beginning by the Apostles and has been carried down and described in this way in every Christian writing since. You are taking a verse from the Didache and putting in the definition you want. But you have no proof you are right, but rather that it is your guess.

So you like to argue with the lexicons and make the Greek mean anything you want it to, like Jehovah's Witnesses do?