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

[erowe1]

When is the first explicit mention of bishops mentioned?

That may depend on the dating of certain books. But probably Philippians 1:1. Notice that in that probable first instance of the term it is in the plural, indicating that there were multiple bishops in Philippi. There was no single bishop over the city. This is consistent with all other uses of the term in the first century, where the labels bishop and presbyter are always synonymous, and always refer to an office that was occupied by multiple people in each city. This includes Acts, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, and 1 Clement.

 

[Sola_Fide]

When is the first explicit mention of bishops mentioned?

There is NO such office like the "bishop of Rome" in the New Testament. That is not a Biblical argument.

 

[fisharmor]

Murder should be punished by death.
...
I'm not sure what "implications for the State" this really has except perhaps that it should execute murderers. If you want to entirely replace the State with private companies that's one thing, but I'm not sure what this has to do with this. If the State insists on monopolizing government services, it should do its job and punish people for murder, should it not?

Such is your tradition. Such is the way you traditionally read Genesis 9 and Romans 13. In your tradition murder is repaid with death.
I read those verses differently. Why is my tradition wrong?
Who else besides you maintains your tradition?
Why is this tradition authortative?

I deal with each issue individually at this point. Yeah, there are a lot of things the State should have no role in, but I'm not really sure what this has to do with this situation.

Who besides you is appealing to Scripture in the tradition you're employing with respect to the role of the state? What makes this tradition authoritative?

I happen to think anarcho-capitalism has a weaker Biblical foundation than I did in the past, as for one thing I am unaware of a single Bible verse that strongly implies it. I can see how you can argue for pacifism from the Bible, but most ancap arguments I've seen are basically just pacifistic hermaneutics that aren't actually taken consistently enough, which leads to problems. I think from a Bible standpoint we sort of have to pick a side.

Glad to see you're employing the pronouns which support my argument.

Either we support minimal government as God's agent of wrath against the evildoer, or we take the pacifist position and say that violence and justice are something that should be delegated only to God himself, and that Christians should not participate in them. But, I don't think you can really have it both ways, from a Bible standpoint.

Who else follows this tradition for how you've interpreted Scripture in this matter? What makes this tradition authoritative?

Oh, and Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy leads to a viewpoint that is far more statist than what I'm advocating now. The Catholic/EO has to deal not only with Romans 13, but also with church precedent that supports the State and an authority structure which is consistent with Big Government.

You know, I'm fascinated by the history we're never taught. There's actually quite a lot of history we're not taught. Mostly because it falls squarely outside the statist narrative.... but also because for Reformed Christians, history stops recording some time around 50 AD and picks back up on October 31, 1517.

Rome regularly placed rulers under interdict in the Medieval period. This means that if a ruler was being a jackass, the pope could sent a letter to all his bishops in that kingdom saying that nobody within that kingdom could receive the Sacraments. I know it's going to be hard for you to picture how big a deal that was, since you don't practice them, but it was a BIG DEAL. The objective was to put the ruler under pressure from his subjects, because everyone's immortal soul was in jeopardy for as long as he didn't repent.

This is one of the reasons the Knights Templar became so prosperous (and also hated by rulers). They got special dispensation to administer the Sacraments during interdict. Well of course if they're the ones having Communion after six months of nothing, and they're supposed to have it every week, then donations are going to roll in afterward... making for a very wealthy order, and a very envious king.

(Look up King Philip IV of France some time... he was a real piece of work, a good example of what Earthly rulers are like.)

What does this tell us about how Roman Catholics felt about the state in the times leading up to the Reformation?
1) That they obviously thought the Church was more important than individual states.
2) That they had no problem turning subjects against their rulers.
3) That there were instances in which they would show outright scorn for the state in place.

So on the RC side, your claim does not bear scrutiny.

On the EO side.... dude, there's this tiny little detail called the USSR that you should look up some time if you want to get the EO perspective on the state.

I think you are sort of framing this debate wrong, and the goalposts need to be moved a little. You're suggesting that a massive church structure like the EO church is necessary even to justify the existence of families, and thus you find it absurd that a Reformed Baptist such as myself would support a minimal state.

I didn't exactly say it was absurd... I'm just waiting for an explanation for why the Church, something which is talked about quite a bit in Scripture, is treated with less reverence than the state.

I think there's a much better parallel to be made between small churches and small states as compared to big churches with big states.

You're claiming there is more than one Church. If there are many, which one is right? Is noncontradiction a thing or isn't it?
(Though I guess if it isn't a thing then the question is meaningless.)

But, a viewpoint that denies any governmental authority at all (or family authority) would logically have to be an ultra-low church position. Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy couldn't be more incompatible with it.

I didn't intend to go this far down this road. My point was not to probe whether statelessness can be Biblical. (Awful lot of Irishmen in hell if it isn't.) My point is to ask what the Sola Scriptura position is on the Church, the one Church, and whether you're applying the same reasoning to it as you do with the state.

 

[TER]

That may depend on the dating of certain books. But probably Philippians 1:1. Notice that in that probable first instance of the term it is in the plural, indicating that there were multiple bishops in Philippi. There was no single bishop over the city. This is consistent with all other uses of the term in the first century, where the labels bishop and presbyter are always synonymous, and always refer to an office that was occupied by multiple people in each city. This includes Acts, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, and 1 Clement.

Uh huh. And how about with regards to St Ignatius' writings circa 100 AD?

 

[erowe1]

Uh huh. And how about with regards to St Ignatius' writings circa 100 AD?

Oh, you were thinking that Ignatius's writings ca. 110 were the earliest mention of bishops? Oops.

No. All the writings I listed, by at least 4 different authors reflecting the situation in a wide variety of geographic locales, were clearly earlier, and they clearly show exactly what I pointed out, which I notice you don't even try to dispute.

Ignatius's letters are the earliest evidence we have of the existence of any single bishops over whole cities. This situation only apparently existed in the churches he wrote to in Asia Minor, and did not apply to those in Rome, to whom he also wrote a letter without mention of any bishop there. And these letters reveal that as of that time it was a new development that Ignatius was still trying to convince believers in those cities to adopt. Furthermore, Ignatius does not intimate in any way whatsoever that the model he advocates is the traditional one that the apostles followed.

So, to get back to what I said in post 118, it indisputably remains the case that "in the Church that Jesus built on the foundation of the apostles, bishops as you mean that label, monarchical bishops over entire cities, didn't even exist."

 

[TER]

Oh, you were thinking that Ignatius's writings ca. 110 were the earliest mention of bishops? Oops.

No. All the writings I listed, by at least 4 different authors reflecting the situation in a wide variety of geographic locales, were clearly earlier, and they clearly show exactly what I pointed out, which I notice you don't even try to dispute.

Ignatius's letters are the earliest evidence we have of the existence of any single bishops over whole cities. This situation only apparently existed in the churches he wrote to in Asia Minor, and did not apply to those in Rome, to whom he also wrote a letter without mention of any bishop there. And these letters reveal that as of that time it was a new development that Ignatius was still trying to convince believers in those cities to adopt. Furthermore, Ignatius does not intimate in any way whatsoever that the model he advocates is the traditional one that the apostles followed.

So, to get back to what I said in post 118, it indisputably remains the case that "in the Church that Jesus built on the foundation of the apostles, bishops as you mean that label, monarchical bishops over entire cities, didn't even exist."

No erowe. No oops. I am familiar that the mention of bishops was in the NT. I am trying to take this slowly for you so that up you can understand. Let us try this again...

You state that Ignatius' writings were the first to introduce bishops over a city/region. Correct?

 

[TER]

I hope I didn't lose you here, erowe. But perhaps I slowed it down too much and for that I apologize!

You state in your earlier post that the first evidence of a bishop over a city is found in St. Ignatius' writings circa 110 AD. You are correct. This is the first written evidence of it. In fact, it is pretty clear to be the case in his writings from Antioch (which was one of the great centers of the Christian world at the time, with the greatest amount of Christians). In his writings, he mentions and even adresses other Bishops who are in similar form (monarchical). You claim this was only found in Asia Minor. Of course, you have no proof to say that, but let us assume that is the case. What is your earliest estimation that such a development would have occurred then? Certainly not 110 AD, for it was already established in at least Asia Minor. So, as an educated person, what is your educated guess that this may have developed in the Church?

 

[Ronin Truth]

Well, it really is a waste of time responding to you. You have never shown any semblance of being a person who is willing to learn. Seems like you think you already have it figured out. I don't think you do, but hey, I am just as fallible as you.

Learn from you? You are correct. I really don't care much for your style or agenda. From my perspective you have much more to learn, than you do to teach. You confuse the vessel with the content.

Try this on for size.

A plethora of scriptural evidence exists to confirm the above conclusion that Satan is in control of human governments and all worldly authority. For starters:

1 John 5:19: We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of Satan.

According to John, the world is under the control of Satan, just as Satan himself claimed during Jesus’ temptation.

A constant theme throughout the New Testament is the warning against becoming too involved with Satan’s world.

The earthly world is identified as Satan’s realm, while Christians are called to reject the world and follow God. The following are just a couple of such passages:

James 4:4-7: You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God?

Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God… Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

1 John 2:15-17: Do not love the world or anything in the world… For everything in the world… comes not from the Father but from the world…

Rather than following earthly authority, that authority which comes from Satan, Christians are called upon to follow God’s authority, and the authority of the teachings of God’s son, Jesus.

 

[TER]

Learn from you? You are correct. I really don't care much for your style or agenda. From my perspective you have much more to learn, than you do to teach. You confuse the vessel with the content.

Try this on for size.

And what is my agenda, o wise Ronin?

 

[Ronin Truth]

And what is my agenda, o wise Ronin?

Well for starters, from what I've seen, you push church much more than Jesus.

 

[TER]

Well for starters, from what I've seen, you push church much more than Jesus.

Have I? I'm sorry you see it that way. We have a fundamental difference in idea of what Church is and Who Christ is, so perhaps that is why you think this way.

 

[erowe1]

You state that Ignatius' writings were the first to introduce bishops over a city/region. Correct?

Correct.

I don't just state it, I provided the facts that prove it. Throughout the first century no such office existed in Christianity. The title "bishop" was synonymous with the title "presbyter," and always referred to an office that was held by multiple people in a city.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Have I? I'm sorry you see it that way. We have a fundamental difference in idea of what Church is and Who Christ is, so perhaps that is why you think this way.

I just follow the evidence to where it leads. Church is a human institution, in a world controlled by Satan. Church is the vessel. Jesus is (or should be) the content. Yeah, our differences are more than fundamental.

 

[Sola_Fide]

So, to get back to what I said in post 118, it indisputably remains the case that "in the Church that Jesus built on the foundation of the apostles, bishops as you mean that label, monarchical bishops over entire cities, didn't even exist."

Exactly.

 

[TER]

Correct.

I don't just state it, I provided the facts that prove it. Throughout the first century no such office existed in Christianity. The title "bishop" was synonymous with the title "presbyter," and always referred to an office that was held by multiple people in a city.

Well, not really. You cannot say 'Throughout the first century no such office existed in Christianity.' What you can say is that of the writings we have in the canonized Scriptures which make reference to bishops, the formation of the Church at the time which they are witnessing to had episkopoi within cities, meaning more than one leader within a city. Correct?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Correct.

I don't just state it, I provided the facts that prove it. Throughout the first century no such office existed in Christianity. The title "bishop" was synonymous with the title "presbyter," and always referred to an office that was held by multiple people in a city.

Yes.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Well, not really. You cannot say 'Throughout the first century no such office existed in Christianity.' What you can say is that of the writings we have in the canonized Scriptures which make reference to bishops, the formation of the Church at the time which they are witnessing to had episkopoi within cities, meaning more than one leaders within a city. Correct?

Yes, and therefore your extra-biblical (i.e. unbiblical) invented church hierarchy is not what Christians should be a part of.

 

[TER]

I just follow the evidence to where it leads. Church is a human institution, in a world controlled by Satan. Church is the vessel. Jesus is (or should be) the content. Yeah, our differences are more than fundamental.

The Church is the Body of Christ. That has always been the teaching, from the very days of the Apostles. The Church being the Body of Christ, in His image and likeness, is both a divine and human organism, just as Christ is both human and divine. Christ is the Head and the those Baptized in the Holy Trinity are the members of His Body. That is one of our fundamental differences in understanding what the Church is. I am using the understanding held fast and passed down from the first century. You saying the Church is a mere 'human institution' to me and to every true follower of Christ would be incomplete. At least to any Christian that wrote anything of importance in the first 2000 years of the history of Christianity. So there's that.

The next fundamental difference we have is when you say it is just a 'vessel', it is not. It is actually the presence of Christ amongst us, in His Holy Spirit which deifies this organism called the Church. You have a very low opinion and incomplete understanding of what the Church is. You see the works of Satan within it (because he hates the Church and everything good about it) and then change the very fundamental understanding of what the Church is and called to be. The Church is the work of the royal priesthood of Christ called to bless the world and offer it up to Him in thanksgiving, love, and faith. This has been done through the divine energies of God working in the Church in the Holy Spirit AND through the faith, blood, tears, and sweat of those who the Church call Saints. Those who have died in Christ through Baptism so that they may live as a member of His Body, and united with Him through the Holy Spirit.

So there are differences in our opinion. Big differences. I agree.

 

[TER]

Yes, and therefore your extra-biblical (i.e. unbiblical) invented church hierarchy is not what Christians should be a part of.

Thank you Sola. I wonder what erowe thinks...

 

[Ronin Truth]

The Church is the Body of Christ. That has always been the teaching, from the very days of the Apostles. The Church being the Body of Christ, in His image and likeness, is both a divine and human organism, just as Christ is both human and divine. That is one of our fundamental differences in understanding what the Church is. I am using the understanding held fast and passed down from the first century. You saying the Church is a 'human institution' to me and to every follower of true follower of Christ would be incomplete. So there's that.

The next fundamental difference we have is when you say it is just a 'vessel', it is not. It is actually the presence of Christ amongst us, in His Holy Spirit which deifies this organism called the Church. You have a very low opinion and incomplete understanding of what the Church is. You see the works of Satan within it (because He hates the Church and everything good about it) and then change the very fundamental understanding of what the Church is to be and can be through the faith, blood, tears, and sweat of those who have died in Christ through Baptism so that they may live as a member of His Body, and united with Him through the Holy Spirit.

So there are differences in our opinion. Big differences. I agree.

You may now safely return to your ecclesiastical mumbo-jumbo and gobbledy-gook.

Jesus loves you.