Plurality of Elders: but one over them all?

[Guest]

What happened already in the 1st century I posted earlier, with Clement of Rome writing to the Corinthians to discipline them for rebuking their overseers. He did settle the dispute, as they recognized his hierarchical position. (as a bishop)

Since you have brought this up several times, Liseux, I think it is about time it was addressed.

I have read Clemen't letter to the Corinthians (written shortly after the death of Paul and Peter) several times. How privileged we are to have access to such an early letter written by such an early overseer in the Church, a man who is likely to have been the fellow-helper of the apostle Paul whom Paul mentions in Philippians 4:3! This letter does not seem to contain material interpolated by later writers such as the letters purported to have been those of Ignatius apparently have.

Clement didn't write the letter to "discipline them". The problem was not merely that the people of the Church at Corinth "rebuked" their overseers. They wanted to remove them from their overseership.

Clement appeals to them to consider what they are doing. He shows how God dealt with people in the past who rebelled against the leaders whom God had set. He asks them to take up that letter of the blessed Paul and reread it. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, their partialities were for renowned men such as Peter or John or one of the other apostles. Now they were for the young upstarts who wanted to bring down the overseers and become overseers themselves.

I don't see this letter as showing that Clement had some special authority as an early "pope".

The Corinthian church did not repent when Paul rebuked them for their divisions and partiality. Rather, by the time Clement wrote to them, they had gone from bad to worse.

I don't know how they responded to Clement. Do you have any historical evidence that they repented, and supported the existing overseers? If so, I would be interested in this evidence as well as your source.

[Guest]

Hello Steve,

Great to interact with you!

I am quite familiar with the Church split that Henry VIII brought on, as St. Thomas More is one of my favorite saints. His feast day my family and I celebrated just Friday! A great man...

As you know perhaps, until 1054 the Christian Church, the Catholic Church, was of one faith, when the Orthodox split from the Catholic Church. Heretical groups did crop up, but did not last long.

Until Martin Luther, there were two main apostolic Churches. Yes, heretical movements were underway before Luther, some you might agree with and others would be off base for you. After Luther, the Body of Christ has been split thousands of times.

Surely, you can't agree with continual church splits, or as some see them, congregational "divorces."

I'm not saying that the Church didn't need reform at anytime, but one can reform the Church and not revolt from it. The Church has always need reforming, since Judas, Peter, and all the apostles except John betrayed our Lord to varying degrees.

St. Francis is an example of this reforming the Church without divorcing from the Church. He heard from God, "Francis, rebuild my Church."

Francis at first thought that God meant for him to rebuild the chapel rock by rock at San Damiano. Francis did this, but God kept after him, until Francis knew that he was to start an order of friars who would, by their example, rebuild and reform the universal Church. The Franciscans are still at it today.

I think the plurality of "truths" out there does great harm to the Christian message. Methodists disagree with other Methodists about salvation, Lutherans disagree with Baptists about Baptism, and so on.

Without a hierarchy, without the chief steward given the keys to the kingdom, (Matthew 16:19) we end up with the cacophany of Christian messages we have since Henry VIII took it upon himself to be the "authority" of his Church. (BTW, look what's happened to it doctrinally!)

His personal need for a divorce was passed on to his new denomination. Whenever one has a difference of opinion, create your own truth, create your own authority, and have church split after church split.

It ain't the way it's supposed to be...

[Guest]

Hello Paidon,

Although I did bring up Clement as a bishop to demonstrate his authority, I didn't focus on the fact that he was the Bishop of Rome (pope), or that he appeared to be throwing his weight around as the holder of the See of Rome. Rick asked explicitly to avoid the ol' Catholic versus Protestant argument, so I was not going there.

I don't think I ever used the "P" word (....pope....)! However, in my last post, I did allude to it, with a mentioning of Matthew 16:19.


Clement info. again, as I posted this source in an earlier post on Clement. He's my general source for Clementine data.

From Stephen K. Ray's book, Upon This Rock, St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church, p. 122:

"The Christians in Corinth were experiencing serious problems. Unity was being attacked by several who had arrogantly taken charge and opposed the ordained clergy.... Clement wrote a lengthy letter castigating the offenders and exhorting the Church to unity. Irenaeus writes, 'In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which is had lately received from the apostles.' 16 Clement's exhortation was well received. Corinth did not protest the epistle, nor did they challenge the tone of the authority woven throughout. We know from later writers that it accomplished the intended goal and was read in the Corinthian Church for centuries, and in many other Churches as well. 17"

16 Against Heresies 3, 3, 3, ANF 1:416
17 Eusebius, Church History 3, 16 NPNF2, 147

(These are Stephen Ray's footnotes in his book. All emphases mine.)

I use Clements letter not necessarily to show a pope's leadership, but to show an early bishop's successful efforts to maintain unity. I know this is walking a fine line, but I'll do it for Rick.

Steve brings up what value a Methodist bishop, and Lutheran bishop, and an Anglican bishop would have. If from the beginning they had remained faithful to the teachings of the apostles and not jumped ship, then we would not have to be concerned about who is heretical and who isn't. And they would not be those respective bishops anyway, but Catholic bishops.

Anyway, Paidon, thanks for the questions and the points brought up.

God bless,
Liseux

[Guest]

Thank you, Liseux, for that quote from Eusebius indicating that the Corinthians accepted Clement's admonition.

As you know perhaps, until 1054 the Christian Church, the Catholic Church, was of one faith, when the Orthodox split from the Catholic Church. Heretical groups did crop up, but did not last long.

Well... The Orthodox Church claims that it continued to be the true Church as it was from the beginning, but the Romanists were the ones who split off.

How do you justify your claim that it was the Orthodox who split from the true Church, and not the Romanists?

[Guest]

Hi Liseux,

I quite admire Sir Thomas More's principled position he took against Henry, though his (alleged) torturing of protestants in his basement leaves much to be disired. The portrayal of Sir Thomas in "A Man For All Seasons" is inspiring indeed.

You wrote:

"After Luther, the Body of Christ has been split thousands of times. Surely, you can't agree with continual church splits, or as some see them, congregational 'divorces.'"

I am not opposed to church "splits" if they are of the nature of cell mitosis, where it is mere multiplication of congregations. However, this should not be over matters of doctrinal incompatibility (as most church splits have been) and certainly should have none of the character of a "divorce."

When Christians do not agree with one another's interpretation of scripture, they should not split into separate internally-agreeing groups, where no further dialogue (and, hence, no further growth) can take place. Open dialogue among the brethren is a means of refining one another's understanding of scriptural truth. If Christians love each other, and maintain the "unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace"(Eph.4:3), this interaction can be "good and pleasant" (Ps.133). If they do not love each other, they are not Christians (John 13:35). Most churches split because people love their opinions more than they love each other.

You wrote:

"I'm not saying that the Church didn't need reform at anytime, but one can reform the Church and not revolt from it."

This is a great concept. In fact, it was exactly what Luther (and Hus before him) had in mind. If the church had not burned the one and ex-communicated the other, we might have one big, happy family today. It is clear that the divisive parties in the reformation were those who viewed biblical correction as a threat, and felt it easier to expel those who challenged them than to love them. The first Protestant denomination was not created by Luther, but by the church that forced him out.

"Steve brings up what value a Methodist bishop, and Lutheran bishop, and an Anglican bishop would have. If from the beginning they had remained faithful to the teachings of the apostles and not jumped ship, then we would not have to be concerned about who is heretical and who isn't."

If the Catholic Church had "remained faithful to the teachings of the apostles," the reformers would have never dreamed of jumping ship. In fact, it was not their idea to do so, even in light of the Church's drift from its original beliefs.

[Guest]

Thank you, Liseux, for that quote from Eusebius indicating that the Corinthians accepted Clement's admonition.

As you know perhaps, until 1054 the Christian Church, the Catholic Church, was of one faith, when the Orthodox split from the Catholic Church. Heretical groups did crop up, but did not last long.

Well... The Orthodox Church claims that it continued to be the true Church as it was from the beginning, but the Romanists were the ones who split off.

How do you justify your claim that it was the Orthodox who split from the true Church, and not the Romanists?

Hello Paidon,

I don't think that Catholics have that great a beef with the Orthodox to this day, as we still are quite close in doctrine. It is a shame that they have evolved into so many "national" churches, but JPII and Benedict XVI are just the latest of the popes who have made sincere and heartfelt efforts to reunite us. Keep an eye out. It can happen.

I believe the whole episode was a sad event.

Catholics believe that the Orthdox have apostolic succession. If they want to claim they have the true Church, I think they have a good horse. But I happen to think that our horses are equally fast and will run into each other in the future and pull the Body of Christ together.

Liseux

[Guest]

Hello Steve,

Thanks for a lively discussion.

You state about St. Thomas More:

"his (alleged) torturing of protestants in his basement leaves much to be disired."

What? I have never heard this of the supremely virtuous Lord Chancellor. Could this be something that the English made up to make him look like the villain? I truly will look into this.

I am glad that you are opposed primarily to church splits when they occur over doctrine. But notice, Steve, that before the mid 1500s we had ONE split. Since the 1540s we have had THOUSANDS of splits.

This is not the biblical way to solve conflicts. Come on elders... we can do a better job than this! Paul tells us in Phillipians 2:2 that we should be of same mind, united in heart, thinking one thing. Bringing in new doctrine after 1500 years is not being of one heart, one faith, or one baptism... it's starting your own traditions of men. This is what Luther did.

Terullian wrote in 197 a.d., "We are a society with a single religious feeling, a single unity of discipline, a single bond of hope." Apology 39, 1

Rending the Body of Christ does not bring us to the truth in perfection (John 17:23), but leaves us splintered.

I am sincerely sorry that Jon Hus was burned. I am also sorry for all the Catholics that were pressed to death, burned at the stake, hung, drawn and quartered by their equally vicious Protestant counterparts. These people were barbaric to each other. Doesn't excuse it at all. I'm glad we can do better today.

As for Luther being excommunicated.... well, he deserved it. It's not a death sentence.

He wasn't just a poor reformer who was misunderstood by the mean bishops above him- the guy was starting traditions of men, which continue to this day.

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are non-scriptural, (except for where he added the word "alone" to his translation of "faith" in Acts). Luther didn't get kicked out of the Church as an innocent. He was starting doctrines that he believed in and had not existed before. (Won't this open up a bit of a discussion!)

Evangelical historian Karl Meissinger made some significant remarks in his essay on "Luther's Day": "If Luther returned today... he would find to his astonishment a Roman Church which he would have never have attacked in her present aspect.... Above all he would see... that not one of the abuses which were the actual occasion of his break with Rome remains in existence." Roots of the Reformation 2000 by Karl Adam, p. 49

Luther, very unbiblically, chose to create his own Church instead of reforming within the one (or two) Churches. Unity is from God, division over truth is not.

In fact, it was not their idea to do so, even in light of the Church's drift from its original beliefs.

Which do you have in mind? I know of no drift in major doctrinal issues to which the Church has succumbed.

God bless,

Liseux