Was The Ante-Nicene Church "Protestant" In Nature?

All4Christ said:

Lol lots of information I know!

Try starting with either Clement, Polycarp or Ignatius

Click to expand...

Working on Clement.....

civilwarbuff said:

Which means they are probably not online and certainly not in English. Would have been interesting to get a peek behind the scenes so to speak.

Click to expand...

no there is much that we have that is unfortunately not in English. we do have a lot, but not all of it.

Man_With_A_Plan said:

The minutes of Nicaea are not known to exist. Either you're lying, mistaken, or you have something in your possession that historians would love to check out.

Click to expand...

many have them, it's how we know St Nicholas punched Arius. we know a lot about the goings on of that council, we know what St Constantine did to preside. so I am not lying at all, they are referenced in a lot of my Church history stuff, and many of my professors referenced them.

Man_With_A_Plan said:

Between the lies about possessing a secret copy of the minutes of Nicaea and the patronization by accusing me of "being my own god" because I refuse to interpret history in an anachronistic and biased fashion, I'm tired of this thread.

Click to expand...

no one is lying here, and I was not patronizing. you admitted that you throw out Scripture as you see fit because you are not bound by any theological intellectual restraints. unlike me, although one could make the argument that I have merely come to a conclusion and have chosen to follow it. the one who started the patronizing, was you. so you are biased, based on your own reason.

Man_With_A_Plan said:

Take care.

Click to expand...

will do

Man_With_A_Plan said:

It would be awesome if you could just type a tiny fraction of the minutes of Nicaea. Not all of us have access to ancient mystical libraries.

Click to expand...

aside from referencing its how we know the altercation between St Nicholas and Arius, and that he was temporarily punished for it. I don't have to. you are the guest who came on here so the burden of proof rests with you, and not me.

Man_With_A_Plan said:

The minutes of Nicaea are not known to exist. Either you're lying, mistaken, or you have something in your possession that historians would love to check out.

Click to expand...

Most of what is available in English has been translated from the Latin. There is a huge amount of works in Greek which have not been translated. For example, only about one third of St John Chrysostom's works are available in English.

Man_With_A_Plan said:

Ignatius was writing shortly after the New Testament was written and to churches of great geographical distance from one another, and yet he acknowledges the bishop/priest/deacon structure. I find it hard to imagine that churches in both Rome and Asia Minor would suddenly and consistently fall into the same "error." The more likely scenario is that this three-fold ecclesiastical situation in the churches was there from the beginning. There's also a tradition that Ignatius knew the Apostle John. If so, then John seemed accepting of the way churches used bishops, priests and deacons.

Revelation was written in the 90s, shortly before Ignatius' letters, and in that book Christ doesn't seem to have a problem with the way those churches are set up.

I think it's the Protestants who like to believe that it wasn't the case, but all the evidence suggests that it is the case.

Click to expand...

The NT evidence contradicts what you have put forth, and since it is the only written record of apostolic teaching, it must have precedence. It is a fact that in the NT, the words "bishop", "pastor", "elder", "presbyter", and "overseer" are used interchangeably as synonyms for one and the same office. The threefold ministry developed gradually after the NT, apostolic era and was fully in place by the late second century. Since the NT, apostolic teaching and practice was two orders of ministry and not three, who had the authority to change this? Now before I get accused of being a "sola scriptura" person, this is not so, as I have said here several times. I think tradition has its place and can be considered a secondary authority. I don't even think it is necessarily wrong to have "bishops" as a third order of ministry; it depends on how the position is used. I think it can be acceptable, but I certainly don't think it is required or necessary, and there is certainly no third order of ministry of "bishop" in the NT.

ArmyMatt said:

yes, and the role of the bishop today is as an overseeing priest. the primary function of the bishop is as the priest. priests are an extension of that ministry. if they were the same order in all ways, they would not make the distinction of an elder and an overseer.



if we defined our bishops like that, then yes, you would be correct. but we don't. our bishops are not monarchial

Click to expand...

Matt, you have said that a few times. Can you explain further?

Man_With_A_Plan said:

There are no minutes from Nicea, as far as I know.

The closest thing I can find to the "visible" church is St. Ignatius' definition. The fact there are at least a couple of dozen distinct bodies with apostolic succession all claiming to be the true visible church, and the fact that they can all make a compelling argument, sort of proves that there is no visible church, at least from where I'm standing.

The ancient churches had no way of "pronouncing dogma" until the ecumenical council was invented.

For me, as an inbaptized outsider, it seems as if St. Ignatius makes the most sense. I could enter into any community that has apostolic succession and I would become a member of the true church. I don't see why any one particular apostolic church has more of a claim over the others.

Click to expand...

That disenfranchises all Christians who are not part of these churches. Further, true apostolic succession is adherence to apostolic teaching and practice, so any person who is in that position is in the "true church". Any who do not are not, no matter which outward organization they are a member of. That is my belief, anyway.

I do want to tell you that I enjoy your contributions.

I hope you all know that even when I disagree with you, I still like all of you and have learned from both our agreements and disagreements. I have no ill will toward anyone, and I wish all here the best.

CelticRebel said:

Matt, you have said that a few times. Can you explain further?

Click to expand...

Go to a liturgy with a bishop, and you will see that he serves as the presiding priest, surrounded by his other elders

ArmyMatt said:

Go to a liturgy with a bishop, and you will see that he serves as the presiding priest, surrounded by his other elders

Click to expand...

But in Orthodoxy, the office of bishop is still that of a third order of ministry, as in the RCC and Anglicanism, although I know that the concept of a bishop in Orthodoxy is different from the RCC. I'd like to see this discussed more.

CelticRebel said:

But in Orthodoxy, the office of bishop is still that of a third order of ministry, as in the RCC and Anglicanism, although I know that the concept of a bishop in Orthodoxy is different from the RCC. I'd like to see this discussed more.

Click to expand...

And in Scripture, you see bishops, priests, and deacons. The presiding priest is a differing function than other priests. If it were not, there would be no need to make any distinction at all.

ArmyMatt said:

And in Scripture, you see bishops, priests, and deacons. The presiding priest is a differing function than other priests. If it were not, there would be no need to make any distinction at all.

Click to expand...

He was a presiding presbyter in antiquity, but now the priests are delegates or representatives of the bishops. And the validity of the clergy depends upon the line of succession of the bishops, not anyone else.

ArmyMatt said:

And in Scripture, you see bishops, priests, and deacons. The presiding priest is a differing function than other priests. If it were not, there would be no need to make any distinction at all.

Click to expand...

As I have pointed out, there is no distinction in scripture between "bishop" and "elder", "presbyter", "pastor", "overseer". These were synonymous for one and the same office.

Albion said:

He was a presiding presbyter in antiquity, but now the priests are delegates or representatives of the bishops. And the validity of the clergy depends upon the line of succession of the bishops, not anyone else.

Click to expand...

I know, the point was that the bishop's primary function has always been as a priest

CelticRebel said:

As I have pointed out, there is no distinction in scripture between "bishop" and "elder", "presbyter", "pastor", "overseer". These were synonymous for one and the same office.

Click to expand...

If that were true, there would not be any distinction in any way between the overseers and the elders. Scripture, while not going into any real detail, does mention them both. If they were merely total synonyms with no distinction in any way, they would not have made any

ArmyMatt said:

I know, the point was that the bishop's primary function has always been as a priest

Click to expand...

OK, it's good that you put it that way. The bishop is inherently a pastor and a priest, yes. That the NT speaks of presbyters and bishops as one can be misunderstood because it doesn't actually say they are identical, just of the same order, unlike, for example, deacons.

Man_With_A_Plan said:

I have to disagree about Arians being objectively heretical. Arius and those who held similar views made up a significant chunk of the Christian world, and they, like all the various fractions, considered everyone else a heretic. Arians saw their beliefs as ancient and apostolic, as did the trinitarians.

Click to expand...

Most of what you hear about Arianism is through the prism of the modern era. The various heresies were close to the one and same truth. Today many of the ancient heresies would not even be argued over, that how subtle the differences were.. The best evidence for this is between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental (Coptic) churches where today its just assumed that the schism is over a matter of semantics and slight misunderstandings in terminology. This would mean they were not some loose confederation of churches with a wild variation in dogma, just different emphasises and variations in expressing things .

For example those that believed in chiliasm believed it because of chapter 20 of Revelation. The majority of the church on the other hand rejected Revelation altogether as uncanonical. Some rejected it precisely because it taught chiliasm, others found it spurious and since spurious works were rarely read in church, that alone was enough to reject chiliasm, and a small minority accepted Revelation yet still rejected chiliasm Alexndrian church).

Now back to the Arians. The Arians still done everything in an Orthodox manner. They baptised in the same Trinitarian formula using triple immersion. Thats why the canon of Constantinople did not require their rebaptism, they only had a distorted view of the Trinity but still performed everything as handed down. The liturgy was all the same but they interpreted things in unfamiliar manner. There isn't even any solid evidence they denied the eternity of Christ. Instead they adopted a slogan from Terullian who said, "There was a time the Son was not'. In Terullian's context it meant that before the Incarnation and virgin birth the Logos could not be called a son and hence God was not a Father.

The original Arians seemed to have taken this a bit further more literal, but how much more literal is unclear. What is a fact is that this heresy arose out of Lucian's school of Antioch at around 290-300AD, so its not a teaching of antiquity it was very modern that arose from alumni from this school. This is why they called themselves Co-Lucianists (Synloukianistoi). So it definately was not apostolic even though they could claim their slogan back to Tetullian. (They even rejected that Christ had a human nous.)

At Nicea most condemned this form of Arianism, but in the aftermath of the council many were uneasy with the nicene word homoousios (consubstantial) and so rejected the creed over this one word, but the overwhelming majority agreed that Arius was teaching heresy and had to go.

Since many who agreed with anathemizing Arianism still rejected aspects of Nicene theology, there arose other subgroups which today are all labeled as 'arians'.
There were I believe 3 or 4 semi-arian groups each one had their own substitute word they prefered to describe that one divinity that the Son shared with God. We call them today arian or semi-arian, but obviously they didnt call themselves that. Basil of Ancyra was the leader of the moderate arian party who were refered to as "homoiousians" (of like substance). Basil held a council in his diocese in Ancyra where he condemned the extreme arian subgroups and also condemned the Nicene party. After this Ancyran council, St Athanasius wrote an epistle saying this group should not be labeled as "ariomaniacs" and the Nicene party should continue to talk with them because they have the same essential faith. Athansius explains that while this group rejects the word homoousios, they confess that 'the Son is from the essence of the Father and not from another subsistence, and neither is he a creature nor work'.
Another famous 'moderate semi arian' (early on atleast), was the great St Cyril of Jerusalem. He disliked the word for many reasons, such as the Sabelians used it, it was not clearly spelled out in scripture, and he still prefered an emphasis on the subordinate rank of order (not rank in divinity) of the Son to the Father.

So when we speak of arians today most likely is not the obscure initial teachings of Arius and Asterius the Sophist and their ilk. This is seen in the Orthodox council of Antioch in Encaenis held in 341 AD. This was a council of semi-arians that the church received as Orthodox. Its also a council which makes clear that the dating for Easter formulated at Nicea is binding on all. Many of the semi-arian groups only rejected one aspect of Nicea, that is the word homoousios but retained everything else.

Albion said:

OK, it's good that you put it that way. The bishop is inherently a pastor and a priest, yes. That the NT speaks of presbyters and bishops as one can be misunderstood because it doesn't actually say they are identical, just of the same order, unlike, for example, deacons.

Click to expand...

right, and the bishop and priest are both to minister the sacraments and the teaching, and the priest is the function of a bishop when he cannot be at one of his parishes. so at St Tikhon's, the Church itself is under Metropolitan Tikhon, so it is his parish. the priests who serve when Metropolitan Tikhon cannot be around, only do so at his blessing. and when he does serve, his reason for being there is to teach the Word and minister the sacraments, exactly like the priests.

ArmyMatt said:

right, and the bishop and priest are both to minister the sacraments and the teaching, and the priest is the function of a bishop when he cannot be at one of his parishes.

Click to expand...

That's a good way of putting it.

ArmyMatt said:

If that were true, there would not be any distinction in any way between the overseers and the elders. Scripture, while not going into any real detail, does mention them both. If they were merely total synonyms with no distinction in any way, they would not have made any

Click to expand...

In scripture, there is no distinction. Humans introduced a distinction after the NT era. I am not here taking a position as to the validity of this occurrence, just stating what the scriptural record is.