Posted on 07/15/2015 5:31:40 AM PDT by Gamecock
There is a (seemingly) never-ending debate amongst theologians and pastors about the proper form of government for the church. For generations, Christians have disagreed about what leadership structure the church ought to use. From the bishop-led Anglicans to the informal Brethren churches, there is great diversity.
And one of the fundamental flash points in this debate is the practice of the early church. What form of government did the earliest Christians have? Of course, early Christian polity is a vast and complex subject with many different issues in play. But, I want to focus in upon a narrow one: Were the earliest churches ruled by a plurality of elders or a single bishop?
Now it needs to be noted from the outset that by the end of the second century, most churches were ruled by a single bishop. For whatever set of reasons, monepiscopacy had won the day. Many scholars attribute this development to Ignatius.
But, what about earlier? Was there a single-bishop structure in the first and early second century?
The New Testament evidence itself seems to favor a plurality of elders as the standard model. The book of Acts tells us that as the apostles planted churches, they appointed “elders” (from the Greek term πρεσβυτέρος) to oversee them (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2; 20:17). Likewise, Titus is told to “appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5).
A very similar word, ἐπι,σκoπος (“bishop” or “overseer”), is used in other contexts to describe what appears to be the same ruling office (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-7). The overlap between these two terms is evident in Acts 20:28 when Paul, while addressing the Ephesian “elders” (πρεσβυτέρους), declares that “The Holy Spirit has made you overseers (ἐπισκόπους).” Thus, the New Testament writings indicate that the office of elder/bishop is functionally one and the same.
But, what about the church after the New Testament? Did they maintain the model of multiple elders? Three quick examples suggest they maintained this structure at least for a little while:
1. At one point, the Didache addresses the issue of church government directly, “And so, elect for yourselves bishops (ἐπισκόπους) and deacons who are worthy of the Lord, gentle men who are not fond of money, who are true and approved” (15.1). It is noteworthy that the author mentions plural bishops—not a single ruling bishop—and that he places these bishops alongside the office of deacon, as Paul himself does (e.g., Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-13). Thus, as noted above, it appears that the bishops described here are essentially equivalent to the office of “elder.”
2. A letter known as 1 Clement (c.96) also has much to say about early church governance. This letter is attributed to a “Clement”—whose identity remains uncertain—who represents the church in Rome and writes to the church at Corinth to deal with the fallout of a recent turnover in leadership. The author is writing to convince (not command) the Corinthians to reinstate its bishops (elders) who were wrongly deposed. The letter affirms the testimony of the book of Acts when it tells us that the apostles initially appointed “bishops (ἐπισκόπους) and deacons” in the various churches they visited (42.4). After the time of the apostles, bishops were appointed “by other reputable men with the entire church giving its approval” (44.3). This is an echo of the Didache which indicated that bishops were elected by the church.
3. The Shepherd of Hermas (c.150) provides another confirmation of this governance structure in the second century. After Hermas writes down the angelic vision in a book, he is told, “you will read yours in this city, with the presbyters who lead the church” (Vis. 8.3).Here we are told that the church leadership structure is a plurality of “presbyters” (πρεσβυτέρων) or elders. The author also uses the term “bishop,” but always in the plural and often alongside the office of deacon (Vis. 13.1; Sim. 104.2).
In sum, the NT texts and texts from the early second century indicate that a plurality of elders was the standard structure in the earliest stages. But, as noted above, the idea of a singular bishop began to dominate by the end of the second century.
What led to this transition? Most scholars argue that it was the heretical battles fought by the church in the second century that led them to turn to key leaders to defend and represent the church.
This transition is described remarkably well by Jerome himself:
The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead of leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. . . Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord (Comm. Tit. 1.7).
Jerome’s comments provide a great summary of this debate. While the single-bishop model might have developed for practical reasons, the plurality of elders model seems to go back to the very beginning.
Actually, no.
Given all the evidence it is more clear that he (if the quotation attributed to him could be trusted) was saying church membership should follow the lead of bishops (those guardians of Liturgy?) wherever those may be found. Not just one monarchical type, who then in turn presided over other bishops, etc.
He wasn't speaking of the bishop "of" Rome at that point.
The RC view of the quotation is more purely an anachronistic imposition of later developing concept (in Rome, Alone) such as you asserted was the case --- than anything else.
As the Greeks are our witnesses, your "friends" are correct, enough as for this one consideration, and more than a few others. But this one is easy to see proof of.
See how far off the real reservation, RC apologetic can be?
It's a thing of wonder to behold, and in this regard (the issue of "papacy" as that developed in the Church of Rome) is reverse-engineerable through study of history, theological developments, and today's practices --- all in light of Scripture too, one should add.
No singular popey-dopey in the first many centuries...period, dot.
I agree that +Ignatius most certainly was not talking about a single, monarchial bishop, but rather bishops, plural. For us, +Ignatius is describing what became dioceses. We believe the fullness of The Church is found within a single diocese. The Latin view for some centuries now has been that the fullness of The Church is found only in the worldwide grouping of the dioceses in communion with the Bishop of Rome. In other words, for the Latins, the fullness of The Church is not found in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston but for the Orthodox it is found in the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston.
I wish I could say that this is a distiction without a difference, but I can’t.
That was the original hoped for ideal, I'd think. And then collegiality, one family, all of brethren (and sistern? lol) among themselves.
It's too bad that 'popa' word crept in to the mix, and people began to take that word too seriously, even as it was for a time (many centuries) widely applied to most any bishop.
One group, took off running with it? ... or was it more like slithering with it..?
It’s a fallen world, BD. History and cultures do what they do in that fallen world. The hope is that we can all so die to the self that we can fulfill our created purpose to become like God. That’s why God became man. If we even come close to that purpose/state, fallen creation around us changes. In the Christian East, most especially in monasteries, there are examples of this even in today’s evil times.
:)
Yes.
And anyone who has experienced such times, where the Holy Spirit truly leads, and no man controls, NEVER forgets such times - watching a miraculous anointing go from one person to another to another, truly glorifying only the Lord Jesus - where visitors/newcomers indeed say, “God is in your midst!”
Or, a comment I hear even more often is, “For the first time in my life, I feel like I’ve seen (and/or experienced) what the church REALLY is...”
Because of 2 things: only Jesus Christ is glorified, and second - the body of Christ is truly edified (”built up”).......
For those who have never experienced this, you have no idea of how glorious this is, how wonderful.
Not unusual for all to fall on their faces prostrate in worship of the glorious Head.......
Continuing to use the city of Boston as the example: You have stated that it is one diocese. Are all the orthodox churches within Boston of that one diocese? Are they considered satellites, extensions, or separate churches? (Not an argumentative question, but an information seeking question.)
We have an anomolous situation here in No. America. Canonically, all Orthodox Churches in a diocese or metropolis should be part of one diocese/metropolis under one hierarch. The situation here because of immigration is uncanonical with various ethnic churches have their own overlapping dioceses. All of the Greek Orthodox parishes in Boston (and virtually all the rest of New England) are part of the Metropolis (diocese) Of Boston, the Russian ones are part of a Russian diocese, the Antiochians an Antiochian one, the Serbs another etc. etc. Each one, however, represents the fullness of The Church and the bishops/metropolitans are all in communion with each other. The proper canonical set up is one bishop per geographical area. We might get there someday.
The there was no Roman Catholic church when the scriptures were written ... the writings were preserved by later christians... but to assume they would recognize what one calls the "One holy, apostolic church " one deludes themselves..
There was no Roman Catholic church before 300 ad.. when Constantine add the pagan practices that RC’s embrace today
Thanks, Kolo
Apparently Rome wasn't one of them.
Got to disagree with that, Momof7. The Creed adopted at the 1st Ecumenical Council in 324 proclaimed in closing:
"Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, ὅτι ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, [ἢ κτιστόν,] τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, [τούτους] ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ [καὶ ἀποστολικὴ] ἐκκλησία."
"But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church"
And at the 2nd Ecumenical Council in 381, it was proclaimed that:
"Πιστεύομεν...Εἰς μίαν, ἁγίαν, καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν· ὁμολογοῦμεν ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν· προσδοκοῦμεν ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν, καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος. Ἀμήν."
"We believe...In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."
BTW, don't get too hung up on the word "catholic". In these contexts the word means "universal". It has nothing to do with Rome (or Alexandria or Moscow or Constantinople). Finally, the 381 version is the one we recite, in Greek, at every Divine Liturgy. For me it's neat to pray in the exact words my people have been using for almost 1700 years.
There is no salvation outside of Christ and the Church is the body of Christ.
Acts 2:47.
Getting history from Dan Brown again I see.
Constantine didn’t do anything to the Church except stop persecuting it. Christians now and then rejoice in that, as it allowed the Gospel to be proclaimed in open and to more people. I am not surprised some think that was a bad thing. I am sure the devil was none to pleased.
So the Bible rests on word of mouth?
No wonder Catholics don’t take it seriously.
bttt
Well said.
Constantine was a politician who wanted peace in Rome.. and so to achieve it he “blended” pagan practices “ into the church to achieve Today’s Roman Catholics just accept them as “tradition “
http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html
Yea..they wrote it so they can edit it...and even add to it. < /sarcasm >
Explain to me on what basis you accept 27 books as Scripture. There is no revelation from God telling us what is Scripture and what is not, so how do you personally decide?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.