What is the church as Jesus intended?

[Melville]

Later church fathers ascribe this letter to Clement, and he does not identify himself as bishop.

Well my issue with this is that throughout all of the churches he corresponds with, there is clear evidence of monarchical bishops with presbyters under them, and then deacons. Ignatius does not seem to be teaching anything new to these people. So my conclusion is that this hierarchical church was something handed down throuhout the early church during, or almost immediately after the Apostles.

Ignatius also writes to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who was taught by the Apostle John. Polycarp is important because he lived nearly a hundered years, and was known to Ireneaus as well. We have no evidence from him that he dissaproves of this institution in any of the several events that are recorded concerning his life.

Again, I see no scriptural writings that clearly define what the structure and hierarchy of the church should be. But I do find clear evidence from tradition for what the church should look like.

God bless,
Ut

Dear Ut,

I enjoy your posts, diligence, knowledge, love, truthfulness, freedom from slurs and staying on topic, and just plain Christian humanity, no ifs, ands, or buts.

The thing is that I can’t see how to prove that Ignatius got his teaching from Peter (was it Peter he was said to be under. I am not as well versed in church fathers as the Bible)? Or that Polycarp reflected the extension and expansion of John’s teachings. Regarding whether he never disapproved of the institution of the solo bishop, did he verbally support and advocate it?

“no scriptural writings that clearly define what the structure and hierarchy of the church should be” . . . From my end, there is multiple witness (not less than two or three to establish any fact) that leadership was plural, not singular, under Christ Himself. There are other simple hierarchies clearly defined, such as wives and husbands, submission to secular authorities, to the local leadership in the church, but not multi-layered, military chain of command church hierarchy. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, are listed as gifts from the head, Jesus Christ, but not as enlisted men and then the various levels of officers.

About what the practical life of the assembly should look like, we do have one example at least in 1 Corinthians 14, when Paul is speaking about the question of “speaking in tongues”. Here’s where he takes it, and it is not a military hierarchy. "What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has an interpretation . . . And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment . . . For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and be exhorted" But please do read the chapter.

This is participatory and it is an apostolic instruction. Paul does not introduce or refer to clergy. He is saying something about how the assembly is supposed to function, in an orderly fashion. He refers to someone receiving a revelation while an other is speaking and says not to interrupt.

There is some significant detail here. One item has been revisiting my thoughts on this over the years, and it’s that no one is to appear before the Lord empty handed. Deuteronomy 16:16. I take this as that we are meant to come before the Lord when we come together, full, with something to offer to aid others. Of course this doesn’t take anything away from those who come into our company with tremendous needs. But we’re supposed to have rivers of living water flowing through us, no?

Paul’s answer to this is “not I but Christ.” He is our sufficiency, as we abide in Him, even while we are frail and have faults . . .

Anyway, there is at least something apostolic about what a church should look like.

Yours in Christ,

Melville

 

[Melville]

Yes, but what is unclear is their relation to one another. Was there a hierarchy within their ranks? Scripture does not say. And although the terms elder and bishop seem to be used interchangeably, we do not know that they are exactly the same. I feel, and the Catholic church feels, that these questions are adequatly answered by tradition.

Hypothetically, if I were to accept your view, then from the time of Paul and Peter’s martyrdom (circa 67 or 68 AD during the reign of Nero) to Ignatius’ epistles (circa 107) and his own martyrdom, we have had a fundamental shift in church structure. That is barely 40 years. Add the fact that John was still alive up until 90 AD, and we have **only 17 years **in between the death of the last Apostle and this fundamental shift.

We also have Polycarp, who was Bishop of Smyrna. Ignatius wrote letters to his church, exhorting them to “follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God” and yet Polycarp does say a word against it in his letter to the Philippians. In fact, he attaches Ignatius’ letters to the one he himself sends to them in order that they might be taught by him as well.

He introduce his letter to them in this way “Polycarp, and the presbyters with him, to the Church of God sojourning at Philippi: Mercy to you, and peace from God Almighty, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour, be multiplied.” Polycarp was the bishop of his church, and no one else. He had presbyters with him as well, who served under him.

All of these points make me absolutly confident that this church structure was intended by the Apostles.

God bless,
Ut

Dear Ut,

Thank you for answering my questions about dates before I’d asked.

Can you please help me with something? You are versed in post-apostolic church fathers. I am not, though I have read in them, but not to have detailed knowledge. Did Polycarp, in his letter, identify himself as “bishop of Smyrna”? I don’t get that here. Who first called him singular bishop of Smyrna, as far as we know? Ignatius?

Smyrna is especially interesting because there was something particularly revealed to John about Smyrna, about what some of them would suffer, but this is a different connection.

About numbers of years, I don’t know how much that means, about which I hope to post in more detail. There was a very short time between David and Solomon, and a very short time before Rehoboam. These things were written for our instruction . . .

 

[utunumsint]

Dear Ut,

I enjoy your posts, diligence, knowledge, love, truthfulness, freedom from slurs and staying on topic, and just plain Christian humanity, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Thanks. I have to say I enjoy this dialogue with you as well.

The thing is that I can’t see how to prove that Ignatius got his teaching from Peter (was it Peter he was said to be under. I am not as well versed in church fathers as the Bible)? Or that Polycarp reflected the extension and expansion of John’s teachings. Regarding whether he never disapproved of the institution of the solo bishop, did he verbally support and advocate it?

As stated in my previous post, Polycarp sent all of the letters from Ignatius in his possession to the Phillipians. He says “The Epistles of Ignatius written by him to us, and all the rest [of his Epistles] which we have by us, we have sent to you, as you requested. They are subjoined to this Epistle, and by them you may be greatly profited; for they treat of faith and patience, and all things that tend to edification in our Lord.” Although he does not mention the office of bishop, it is pretty clear that he approves of Ignatius’ teachings.

“no scriptural writings that clearly define what the structure and hierarchy of the church should be” . . . From my end, there is multiple witness (not less than two or three to establish any fact) that leadership was plural, not singular, under Christ Himself. There are other simple hierarchies clearly defined, such as wives and husbands, submission to secular authorities, to the local leadership in the church, but not multi-layered, military chain of command church hierarchy. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, are listed as gifts from the head, Jesus Christ, but not as enlisted men and then the various levels of officers.

Again my point from the previous post is that we have no clear evidence about their interelations.

About what the practical life of the assembly should look like, we do have one example at least in 1 Corinthians 14, when Paul is speaking about the question of “speaking in tongues”. Here’s where he takes it, and it is not a military hierarchy. "What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has an interpretation . . . And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment . . . For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and be exhorted" But please do read the chapter.

This is participatory and it is an apostolic instruction. Paul does not introduce or refer to clergy. He is saying something about how the assembly is supposed to function, in an orderly fashion. He refers to someone receiving a revelation while an other is speaking and says not to interrupt.

So do you think that this prophetic example is a paradigm for how authority was shared by the church elders? I read the entire chapter, and it is a beautiful description of the gift of tongues. But when it comes to authority, I would consider Matthew 18 as more to the point.

I am sure that during the time of the Apostles, they would appeal to the Apostles, as is the case in 1 Corinthians 1:11 “For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you.” Paul authoritatively dealt with the situation. Indeed in 2 Corinthians 13:2 he says “I warned those who sinned earlier and all the others, and I warn them now while absent, as I did when present on my second visit, that if I come again I will not be lenient…” Paul is pretty much acting the part of bishop here.

There is some significant detail here. One item has been revisiting my thoughts on this over the years, and it’s that no one is to appear before the Lord empty handed. Deuteronomy 16:16. I take this as that we are meant to come before the Lord when we come together, full, with something to offer to aid others. Of course this doesn’t take anything away from those who come into our company with tremendous needs. But we’re supposed to have rivers of living water flowing through us, no?

Paul’s answer to this is “not I but Christ.” He is our sufficiency, as we abide in Him, even while we are frail and have faults . . .

Amen. I 100% agree. Christ be praised.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Dear Ut,

Thank you for answering my questions about dates before I’d asked.

Can you please help me with something? You are versed in post-apostolic church fathers. I am not, though I have read in them, but not to have detailed knowledge. Did Polycarp, in his letter, identify himself as “bishop of Smyrna”? I don’t get that here. Who first called him singular bishop of Smyrna, as far as we know? Ignatius? .

No, but Irenaeus was his disciple, and he reports an interaction between the bishop of Rome (Eleutherus) and Polycarp where he is clearly presented as the Bishop of Smyrna. His fame was due to his great wisdom and his ties with John.

Smyrna is especially interesting because there was something particularly revealed to John about Smyrna, about what some of them would suffer, but this is a different connection.

Yes. In Revelations 2:8-10

To the angel of the church in Smyrna, write this: " 'The first and the last, who once died but came to life, says this: "I know your tribulation and poverty, but you are rich. I know the slander of those who claim to be Jews and are not, but rather are members of the assembly of Satan. Do not be afraid of anything that you are going to suffer. Indeed, the devil will throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will face an ordeal for ten days. Remain faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life. " ‘“Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The victor shall not be harmed by the second death.”’

It was also well known to the church fathers that John was the bishop of Ephesus.

About numbers of years, I don’t know how much that means, about which I hope to post in more detail. There was a very short time between David and Solomon, and a very short time before Rehoboam. These things were written for our instruction . .

Good point. But each of those events were clearly recorded in the Bible, and involved great upheaval and sinfulness. I see no historical evidence of either here.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Melville]

Thanks. I have to say I enjoy this dialogue with you as well.

As stated in my previous post, Polycarp sent all of the letters from Ignatius in his possession to the Phillipians. He says “The Epistles of Ignatius written by him to us, and all the rest [of his Epistles] which we have by us, we have sent to you, as you requested. They are subjoined to this Epistle, and by them you may be greatly profited; for they treat of faith and patience, and all things that tend to edification in our Lord.” Although he does not mention the office of bishop, it is pretty clear that he approves of Ignatius’ teachings.

Again my point from the previous post is that we have no clear evidence about their interelations.

So do you think that this prophetic example is a paradigm for how authority was shared by the church elders? I read the entire chapter, and it is a beautiful description of the gift of tongues. But when it comes to authority, I would consider Matthew 18 as more to the point.

I am sure that during the time of the Apostles, they would appeal to the Apostles, as is the case in 1 Corinthians 1:11 “For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you.” Paul authoritatively dealt with the situation. Indeed in 2 Corinthians 13:2 he says “I warned those who sinned earlier and all the others, and I warn them now while absent, as I did when present on my second visit, that if I come again I will not be lenient…” Paul is pretty much acting the part of bishop here.

Amen. I 100% agree. Christ be praised.

God bless,
Ut

Somewhat going outside my hope, which is to stick with the scriptures, I found the letter of Polycarp, and thankfully, it is clear, concise, and biblical.

earlychristianwritings.com/text/polycarp-lightfoot.html

I note that the elders are plural and also married. I think someone suggested that the elders were priests, but this would not seem to be the case.

He doesn’t refer to bishops.

“The letters of Ignatius which were sent to us by him, and others as
many as we had by us, we send unto you, according as ye gave charge;
the which are subjoined to this letter; from which ye will be able to
gain great advantage. For they comprise faith and endurance and every
kind of edification, which pertaineth unto our Lord. Moreover
concerning Ignatius himself and those that were with him, if ye have
any sure tidings, certify us.”

As I read it, the Philippians had requested this material, which includes other letters from Polycarp. He thinks highly of Ignatius, this is clear. This would not have been the occasion to for him to pick out anything he might have disagreed with. I would not be able from this to be certain over what he thought about the single bishop issue. Once again this is one of those “probably” or “possibly” matters that I just have to hold as an uncertainty. I could never bank on those.

 

[Melville]

Again my point from the previous post is that we have no clear evidence about their interelations.

So do you think that this prophetic example is a paradigm for how authority was shared by the church elders? I read the entire chapter, and it is a beautiful description of the gift of tongues. But when it comes to authority, I would consider Matthew 18 as more to the point.

I am sure that during the time of the Apostles, they would appeal to the Apostles, as is the case in 1 Corinthians 1:11 “For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you.” Paul authoritatively dealt with the situation. Indeed in 2 Corinthians 13:2 he says “I warned those who sinned earlier and all the others, and I warn them now while absent, as I did when present on my second visit, that if I come again I will not be lenient…” Paul is pretty much acting the part of bishop here.

But I would say that we do have evidence of their interrelations, which is exactly what we read, no more, no less.

There was a council at Jerusalem over the circumcsion of the Gentiles, when Paul and Barnabus went to confer with the apostles and elders. This was a one time affair over a pivotal question and when it had been agreed that the Gentiles would not be under the Mosaic law, Jerusalem was not further looked to as a central authority. There was no head apostle who had the final word because of his office. So no central headquarters on earth and no man as head of the overall church. The churches are treated an autonomous under the headship of Christ in the NT.

If we read Paul closely, he didn’t posess unquestioned formal or military type authority. His authority operated in the realm of the Spirit, not “do this because I say so.”. Whether he would be acting as bishop when going back to Corinth, none of the apostles call themselves bishops and it seems safe to just stick with the teminology Paul himself uses. Overseers are the plural leadership of local churches.

My reference to the church gathering in 1 Cor. 14 was to note, for one thing, this is one of the only descriptions of how church meetings were conducted, and it was not a top-down dispensation from clergy. It was Holy Spirit led, and there was to be order to it.

About church discipline, Matthew 18 presents a model, but strictly speaking, it is not the model for what the church does but what the individual is to do. The same seems to apply also with 1 Cor 5:11 and 2 Thes 3:6. Stand off from brothers who lead an unruly life or are in open sin. In Matt 18, I don’t see the church taking any action except telling the offending individual what he did was wrong. The Lord does not say the church formally excommunicates the person but rather the individual does in a de facto sense. I have heard about excommunication most of my life, both in the Catholic sense and among non-Catholic Christians, and it is a subject I have not studied the biblical basis and limitatons of up to now. In any case, in Matt 16, it says go to the assembly and says nothing about hierarchy there.

 

[utunumsint]

Somewhat going outside my hope, which is to stick with the scriptures, I found the letter of Polycarp, and thankfully, it is clear, concise, and biblical.

earlychristianwritings.com/text/polycarp-lightfoot.html

I note that the elders are plural and also married. I think someone suggested that the elders were priests, but this would not seem to be the case.

He doesn’t refer to bishops.

“The letters of Ignatius which were sent to us by him, and others as
many as we had by us, we send unto you, according as ye gave charge;
the which are subjoined to this letter; from which ye will be able to
gain great advantage. For they comprise faith and endurance and every
kind of edification, which pertaineth unto our Lord. Moreover
concerning Ignatius himself and those that were with him, if ye have
any sure tidings, certify us.”

As I read it, the Philippians had requested this material, which includes other letters from Polycarp. He thinks highly of Ignatius, this is clear. This would not have been the occasion to for him to pick out anything he might have disagreed with. I would not be able from this to be certain over what he thought about the single bishop issue. Once again this is one of those “probably” or “possibly” matters that I just have to hold as an uncertainty. I could never bank on those.

The Smyrnias themselves call him bishop of the Catholic church in Smyrna in their letter recounting his martyrdom.

…and all the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.

God bless,
Ut

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

What is the church as Jesus intended? Perhaps we could narrow the topic to the original teachings of what the church actually is, as discussed in scripture and then expand from there.

So, what church did Jesus mean when he said, "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector?” - Mt. 18:17.

Define church here.

Actually, we can infer but never know for sure. Remember the Gospels were written at least second-hand and up to a generation after the fact.

It is hard for us to truly know what our friend intends all the time much less things that happened 2000+ years ago.

 

[Melville]

It was also well known to the church fathers that John was the bishop of Ephesus.

Good point. But each of those events were clearly recorded in the Bible, and involved great upheaval and sinfulness. I see no historical evidence of either here.

God bless,
Ut

Let me try to tie the two above points together because they are related. We can’t prove from scripture that John was bishop of Ephesus. If he was actually residing there, I wonder how long it would have been between then and the Apocalypse. There, in 2:1-7, the Lord speaks very definitely to the Ephesian church, and while there are things He commends, there was something wrong at the core that was so serious He threatened to remove their lampstand! They had left thier first love. This would probably not not apply to John, at least insofar as he wrote so much about love.

When was John said to be bishop of Ephesus? I have just read that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus, so I don’t know . . . If the practice was already to have a single bishop and if Ignatius was correct that the church should center around the bishop, then either the bishop was messed up and the church followed suit (except the fiathful who would overcome) or the bishop was ok but the church was totally out of control. I read someone on one of these threads say that the “angel” of the church was the bishop. I can’t exactly buy that, since it’s speculation and the Lord could easily have saif bishop if that’s what He really meant. But if so, this would itself be a reason against vesting everything in a single man.

In five of the seven churches there was decline and departure from what was pleasing to the Lord. We do in fact see some significant sin, e.g., fornication and eating things sacrificed to idols and practices and doctrines the Lord hates.

Have you ever looked into the word 'Nicolaitanes"? Some have suggested it was a particular sect but it would seem odd to me for the Lord to have identified something that we can’t know anything definite about, so I would just look at the word itself to see if it means anything. It does. It means those who overcome the people (the “laity”). I’ll just leave that there for the moment.

Yours in Christ,

Melville

 

[SCALCO]

We established that the apostles are bishops. As noted previously, Peter calls the apostolate the office of episkopos/episkopoi /overseer in Acts 1:20 (quoting Psalm 109:8, which refers to King David). It also had to be someone who accompanied Jesus beginning from the baptism of John until He was taken up.

 

[utunumsint]

The Smyrnias themselves call him bishop of the Catholic church in Smyrna in their letter recounting his martyrdom.

Hi Melville,

I just wanted to round off my account of Polycapr before going on to your other posts.

Here is what Irenaeus has to say about Polycarp.

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by the apostles, and acquainted with many that had seen Christ,** but was also appointed by apostles in Asia bishop of the church of Smyrna. We too saw him in our early youth; for he lived a long time, and died, when a very old man, a glorious and most illustrious martyr’s death, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, which the Church also hands down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those who, down to the present time, have succeeded Polycarp, who was a much more trustworthy and certain witness of the truth** than Valentinus and Marcion and the rest of the heretics. He also was in Rome in the time of Anicetus and caused many to turn away from the above-mentioned heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received from the apostles this one and only system of truth which has been transmitted by the Church. **And there are those that heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe in Ephesus and seeing Cerinthus within, ran out of the bath-house without bathing, crying, ‘Let us flee, lest even the bath fall, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within. And Polycarp himself, when Marcion once met him and said, ‘Knowest thou us?’ replied, ‘I know the first born of Satan.’ **Such caution did the apostles and their disciples exercise that they might not even converse with any of those who perverted the truth; as Paul also said, ‘A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

So from Irenaeus, we learn that Polycarp was appointed bishop by the apostles no less. And we also learn that if Polycarp had a problem with what Ignatius was saying, he would not have sent them on to the Philipians, but would have clearly labeled him as a “first born of Satan”.

We also have these recolections from Irenaeus.

For when I was a boy, I saw thee in lower Asia with Polycarp, moving in splendor in the royal court and endeavoring to gain his approbation. I remember the events of that time more clearly than those of recent years. For what boys learn, growing with their mind, becomes joined with it; so that I am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and the manner of his life, and his physical appearance, and his discourses to the people, **and the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord. And as he remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the ‘Word of life,’ **Polycarp related all things in harmony with the Scriptures.

High praise for Polycarp, and powerful evidence of his links to the apostles, and to John. He was probably the bishop of the church in Smyrna in Revelations 2.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

But I would say that we do have evidence of their interrelations, which is exactly what we read, no more, no less.

There was a council at Jerusalem over the circumcsion of the Gentiles, when Paul and Barnabus went to confer with the apostles and elders. This was a one time affair over a pivotal question and when it had been agreed that the Gentiles would not be under the Mosaic law, Jerusalem was not further looked to as a central authority. There was no head apostle who had the final word because of his office. So no central headquarters on earth and no man as head of the overall church. The churches are treated an autonomous under the headship of Christ in the NT.

I will have to disagree with this characterization of the events.

If we read Paul closely, he didn’t posess unquestioned formal or military type authority. His authority operated in the realm of the Spirit, not “do this because I say so.”. Whether he would be acting as bishop when going back to Corinth, none of the apostles call themselves bishops and it seems safe to just stick with the teminology Paul himself uses. Overseers are the plural leadership of local churches.

“Overseers are the plural leadership of local churches…” with the apostles at their head acting as a centralized authority figure. If you don’t want to call him a bishop, that is fine, but according to tradition, this is the model that has come down to us through the ages. Catholics do not believe that the bishop has absolute authority. He cannot ask us to commit sin. He cannot ask us to believe heresy. He cannot ask us to deny our faith. And he cannot teach us what is not contained in tradition and the Bible.

My reference to the church gathering in 1 Cor. 14 was to note, for one thing, this is one of the only descriptions of how church meetings were conducted, and it was not a top-down dispensation from clergy. It was Holy Spirit led, and there was to be order to it.

I see. Thanks for clarifying.

About church discipline, Matthew 18 presents a model, but strictly speaking, it is not the model for what the church does but what the individual is to do. The same seems to apply also with 1 Cor 5:11 and 2 Thes 3:6. Stand off from brothers who lead an unruly life or are in open sin. In Matt 18, I don’t see the church taking any action except telling the offending individual what he did was wrong. The Lord does not say the church formally excommunicates the person but rather the individual does in a de facto sense. I have heard about excommunication most of my life, both in the Catholic sense and among non-Catholic Christians, and it is a subject I have not studied the biblical basis and limitatons of up to now. In any case, in Matt 16, it says go to the assembly and says nothing about hierarchy there.

Of course, this is all determined by what you consider to be “ecclesia”, which is the very topic of discussion of this thread. For me, this clearly means the presbyters, and the bishops. For you it seems to mean some association of devout men, who are recognised as leaders of a church through popular vote. (Does this characterize your point of view?)

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Let me try to tie the two above points together because they are related. We can’t prove from scripture that John was bishop of Ephesus. If he was actually residing there, I wonder how long it would have been between then and the Apocalypse. There, in 2:1-7, the Lord speaks very definitely to the Ephesian church, and while there are things He commends, there was something wrong at the core that was so serious He threatened to remove their lampstand! They had left thier first love. This would probably not not apply to John, at least insofar as he wrote so much about love.

Err… I was mistaken. John was not considered bishop of Ephesus, but both Ireneaus and Justin Martyr have him residing in Ephesus for many years, and writing his Gospel and Epistles there until he was banished to the Island of Patmos. (It was late when I posted this )

When was John said to be bishop of Ephesus? I have just read that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus, so I don’t know . . . If the practice was already to have a single bishop and if Ignatius was correct that the church should center around the bishop, then either the bishop was messed up and the church followed suit (except the fiathful who would overcome) or the bishop was ok but the church was totally out of control. I read someone on one of these threads say that the “angel” of the church was the bishop. I can’t exactly buy that, since it’s speculation and the Lord could easily have saif bishop if that’s what He really meant. But if so, this would itself be a reason against vesting everything in a single man.

I’m not sure I follow… Can you elaborate?

In five of the seven churches there was decline and departure from what was pleasing to the Lord. We do in fact see some significant sin, e.g., fornication and eating things sacrificed to idols and practices and doctrines the Lord hates.

Agreed.

Have you ever looked into the word 'Nicolaitanes"? Some have suggested it was a particular sect but it would seem odd to me for the Lord to have identified something that we can’t know anything definite about, so I would just look at the word itself to see if it means anything. It does. It means those who overcome the people (the “laity”). I’ll just leave that there for the moment.

Can you tell you your source for this? From what I know, the earliest non Biblical source of information on the Nicolatians is from Irenaeus who says:

The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, [when they are represented] as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practise adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. Wherefore the Word has also spoken of them thus: “But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.”

God bless,
Ut

 

[Melville]

I will have to disagree with this characterization of the events.

“Overseers are the plural leadership of local churches…” with the apostles at their head acting as a centralized authority figure. If you don’t want to call him a bishop, that is fine, but according to tradition, this is the model that has come down to us through the ages. Catholics do not believe that the bishop has absolute authority. He cannot ask us to commit sin. He cannot ask us to believe heresy. He cannot ask us to deny our faith. And he cannot teach us what is not contained in tradition and the Bible.

I see. Thanks for clarifying.

Of course, this is all determined by what you consider to be “ecclesia”, which is the very topic of discussion of this thread. For me, this clearly means the presbyters, and the bishops. For you it seems to mean some association of devout men, who are recognised as leaders of a church through popular vote. (Does this characterize your point of view?)

God bless,
Ut

Dear brother Ut,

Our minds work similarly, as does PT Master’s, looking for accuracy while approaching the things from different vantage points.

Responding to the above, “with the apostles at their head acting as a centralized authority figure.” I would have to say “figures”, subject to the Lord Jesus Christ. Peter, for instance, was corrected by Paul. This apostolic authority was real, but I maintain that it ws not localized in a specific place and that it’s operative principle was spiritual and not as dispensed from an office. We seem to agree on at least part of this.

You know church history far more than me. Thanks for clarifying that “Catholics do not believe that the bishop has absolute authority.” I had thought about this, without wanting to skip around too far. It went through my mind today that kings of France and Spain had appointed bishops that they liked, during the time of the divine right of kings. I just don’t see the singular bishop as substantially established by the Lord or the original apostles. There is a problem with setting a singular office within a hierarchy that it seems to me that the original apostles avoided.

If I was to study this really carefully, I would seek to set a chronology of the church fathers and systematically catalogue the claims to successional apostolic authority, and how various ideas and practices developed over time, which are not found substantiated in the foundational scriptural documents.

But then, dear freind in Christ, I’m still sluggishly back at scripture, trying to discern what that set of documents exactly says and doesn’t say . . .

 

[Melville]

Err… I was mistaken. John was not considered bishop of Ephesus, but both Ireneaus and Justin Martyr have him residing in Ephesus for many years, and writing his Gospel and Epistles there until he was banished to the Island of Patmos. (It was late when I posted this )

I’m not sure I follow… Can you elaborate?

Agreed.

Can you tell you your source for this? From what I know, the earliest non Biblical source of information on the Nicolatians is from Irenaeus who says:

God bless,
Ut

Thanks for your reply.

If John was at Ephesus up until he was banished to Patmos then the timing would have been the very situation when the Lord said what he did about the spiritual condition of that church.

I read that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus up until either a.d. 80 or 97. The date is disputed and I don’t know how reliable the account is in any event. It struck me as curious that if one did want to place Timothy bishop of Ephesus at the time when the Lord was about to remove thier lampstand, it would not speak really well of his leadership. Or any bishop for that matter.

But there’s another way to look at this and it is that Ephesus did not have a single bishop but rather was still carrtying on the original tradition of plural leadership. They appeared to have a great deal going for them, but in all thier activity and correctness they had lost something vital at the spiritual heart of things. But they did have something the Lord strongly agreed with. They hated the deeds of the Nicolaitans.

My scriptural source for this is the two places where the word appears in Revelation 2:6,15. First there are the deeds of the Nicolaitans and then the teaching of the Nicolaitans. The only thing we have to go by here is the meaning of the word itself: those who overcome the people, the laity. It was first noted as a practice but then also as a teaching .

In the second reference, in Pergamum, the Lord had referred first to the teaching of Balaam, clearly identified as the Old Testament figure and his appearance here must be symbolic. There was not a man named Balaam there who had created a little cult. But there was something going on that was in that same spirit, where the people of God were seduced.

I would say that identifying the Nicolaitans with a cult around some alleged Nicholas is too obscure and would convey nothing to the reader. It would imply that the Lord gave us all a word in the only book of the Bible where it says blessed is he who reads, and that tampering with it in any way has the direst consequences, that conveys nothing at all. I do not beleive Jesus Christ ever speaks to no effect. He does not refer to any Nicholas and doesn’t say the Nicolaitanes were slack on adultery or ate idol sacrifices. The Balaam people did that.

What He had to say about the Nicolaitans must be contained in the meaning of the word He used: those who overcome the people. It would mean setting up two classes, the laity and those who dominate them.

This is something that happened in historic Christianity. There was gradually set up a distinction between clergy and laity. The former held the “holy things” and dispensed them to the latter in a hierachical system. This started as a practice but then turned into a systematic doctrine.

This sort of setup is not found in the apostolic church itself. It is only imagined that it was there because it was later and that is projected backward by its adherents. In the Bible itself, there is leadership, but they are not distinguished as clergy.

This is why I brouhgt up 1 Cor 14, which is where we see a church assembly described and there everyone may participate according to the leading of the Spirit. There is no officiating intermediary between the members of the Body and the head, Jesus Christ, which is what the clergy system inserts.

To go further in the church as Jesus intended we really need to look more closely at what Paul had to say, because he said quite a bit.

Yours in Christ,

Melville

 

[SCALCO]

I just don’t see the singular bishop as substantially established by the Lord or the original apostles.

I am curious why you would not consider the quote by Irenaeus about Polycarp being appointed by the apostles as the bishop of Smyrna as an establishment of the singular bishop? Because it is not in scripture?

My working knowledge of scripture and church history is not up to part here, but I recognize that this clearly shows a singular bishop by the apostles.

 

[utunumsint]

I am curious why you would not consider the quote by Irenaeus about Polycarp being appointed by the apostles as the bishop of Smyrna as an establishment of the singular bishop? Because it is not in scripture?

My working knowledge of scripture and church history is not up to part here, but I recognize that this clearly shows a singular bishop by the apostles.

Hi Scalo,

We also have it from John Chrysostom that Peter appointed Ignatius to the priesthood. We don’t know what John’s source was for this, but he was bishop of Anotioch, so he may have had access to documents proving this that we do not now have.

Hi Melville,

I will respond to your post later on tonight when I have some time.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

My scriptural source for this is the two places where the word appears in Revelation 2:6,15. First there are the deeds of the Nicolaitans and then the teaching of the Nicolaitans. The only thing we have to go by here is the meaning of the word itself: those who overcome the people, the laity. It was first noted as a practice but then also as a teaching .

This rests on your interpretation of the word Nicolaitan. I cannot find any source to coroborate your interpretation of its meaning. Can you tell me the source for this?

God bless,
Ut

 

[guanophore]

There are other simple hierarchies clearly defined, such as wives and husbands, submission to secular authorities, to the local leadership in the church, but not multi-layered, military chain of command church hierarchy. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, are listed as gifts from the head, Jesus Christ, but not as enlisted men and then the various levels of officers.

Clearly scripture states that the foundation is built upon the Apostles and Prophets, with Christ as the cornerstone.

Eph 2:19-20
you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

Peter enjoins everyone to be subject to the elders (presbyters)

1 Peter 5:1-5
5:1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. 2 Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, 3 not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory. 5 Likewise you that are younger be subject to the elders.

Heb 13:17

17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you."

The flock is in their “charge”. Peter, as an Apostle, is directing them, and reminding them that Jesus is the Head. As those placed over the flock, they are accountable. Does this not seem multilayered?

Heb 13:7

7 Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith.

This is the mustard seed from which the veneration of saints grew.

About what the practical life of the assembly should look like,

I think this is best described here:

Acts 1:14
14 All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

Acts 2:44-47
44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. "

we do have one example at least in 1 Corinthians 14, when Paul is speaking about the question of "speaking in tongues".

I think what Paul is speaking about here is liturgical practice, and not church authority. They gathered on the first day of the week and celebrated the Lord’s supper. But we must remember that they were all Jews first, and continued to attend synagogue until they were expelled from it. The earliest liturgies pattern the synagogue liturgies of the day. You can see this by comparing one today the Mass.

Paul taught the communities how to celebrate the Mass, as He had been taught by Jesus Himself.
1 Cor 11:23-26

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

This is the core of the Mass as it exists today. Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it. This is the Eucharistic Part of the Mass, where the Liturgy of the Word parallels the synagogue services.

 

[onenow1]

Hi,All

Isaiah 56:7
There was only one house of GOD in the Old Testament, the Jewish temple in Jerusalem.
“I will bring them into my holy mount, and will make them joyful in ‘my house of prayer’. Their holocausts and their victims shall please me upon my altar, for my house shall be called the house of prayer, for all nations.”

Notice that GOD said ‘my house’, not my houses. The ‘house of prayer, for all nations’ is a perfect definition for the word ‘Catholic’.

Acts 17:10-12, “The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men”

Peace and have a blessed day, OneNow1