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

CelticRebel said:

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.

Click to expand...

There has to be some difference or else the NT would not mention them separately. We know that they did function differently in the first century, but if we go just by what the Bible states, bishops and presbyters are recognized as being different. If they were not so, they wouldn't be separated in the wording.

Albion said:

There has to be some difference or else the NT would not mention them separately. We know that they did function differently in the first century, but if we go just by what the Bible states, bishops and presbyters are recognized as being different. If they were not so, they wouldn't be separated in the wording.

Click to expand...

The terms were used synonymously for one and the same office. That's a scholarly-recognized fact, not my conclusion.

CelticRebel said:

The terms were used synonymously for one and the same office. That's a scholarly-recognized fact, not my conclusion.

Click to expand...

They are of the same ORDER ("Office," you'd say), but they are not the same in all ways. That's a 'scholarly-recognized' fact.

one cannot be an overseer, unless there are those that one is overseeing which is a distinction. in the military, an NCO oversees the junior enlisted. the NCO is a soldier, the junior enlisted is a soldier, the junior enlisted is not an NCO. the ideals for both is the same, and yet there is distinction between the two.

Albion said:

They are of the same ORDER ("Office," you'd say), but they are not the same in all ways. That's a 'scholarly-recognized' fact.

Click to expand...

And such fact is that in the NT there were not three orders or offices of bishop/overseer, elder/pastor/presbyter, and deacon, the office of bishop and elder being two distinct orders or offices, but only two orders or offices -- that of bishop/elder/overseer/presbyter/pastor, and deacon. The words bishop/elder/overseer/presbyter/pastor were synonymous -- used interchangeably -- for one and the same office.

Now those churches which consider tradition an authority, even a secondary authority, have some "legitimate" basis for making these two distinct and separate orders or offices -- bishop/overseer and presbyter/elder/pastor -- but this cannot be done on the basis of the NT.

Sure it can, the Church that brought the Bible together saw the distinction, as did the direct spiritual children of the Apostles.

ArmyMatt said:

Sure it can, the Church that brought the Bible together saw the distinction, as did the direct spiritual children of the Apostles.

Click to expand...

But for that to be true, the premise (highlighted) has to be true, and I don't believe it is. No disrespect of your beliefs intended.

CelticRebel said:

But for that to be true, the premise (highlighted) has to be true, and I don't believe it is. No disrespect of your beliefs intended.

Click to expand...

And I would ask what evidence do you have to question the bonded part

And no offense taken, you're a good man Charlie Brown

ArmyMatt said:

And I would ask what evidence do you have to question the bonded part

And no offense taken, you're a good man Charlie Brown

Click to expand...

Thanks, AM.

I have searched diligently, but I have not found any Body like the EOC in the NT, the churches of the first century, or early second century.

CelticRebel said:

Thanks, AM.

I have searched diligently, but I have not found any Body like the EOC in the NT, the churches of the first century, or early second century.

Click to expand...

Then I gotta ask where the differences in theology and worship are. Because I searched to disprove Orthodoxy, and could not find them. The more I look, the more clear it is.

So I gotta ask what these differences are?

ArmyMatt said:

Then I gotta ask where the differences in theology and worship are. Because I searched to disprove Orthodoxy, and could not find them. The more I look, the more clear it is.

So I gotta ask what these differences are?

Click to expand...

Well, I don't want to offend, but there is no threefold order of ministry -- bishop, priest, deacon -- in the first century churches. There were two orders or offices. There is no "Mariology" in the first century churches. There is no infant baptism there. There are no rules about ministers' marriage or remarriage, such as is found in the EOC. Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiology is not found in the first century churches.

Those are some of the main differences that I have found. If I could find those things there, it might be possible for me to be Orthodox.

CelticRebel said:

Well, I don't want to offend, but there is no threefold order of ministry -- bishop, priest, deacon -- in the first century churches. There were two orders or offices. There is no "Mariology" in the first century churches. There is no infant baptism there. There are no rules about ministers' marriage or remarriage, such as is found in the EOC. Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiology is not found in the first century churches.

Those are some of the main differences that I have found. If I could find those things there, it might be possible for me to be Orthodox.

Click to expand...

Where is the "theology" in the above?
Also, can you find any Church from the second century onwards without the threefold order of ministry, that wasn't in some kind of heresy?

CelticRebel said:

Well, I don't want to offend, but there is no threefold order of ministry -- bishop, priest, deacon -- in the first century churches. There were two orders or offices.

Click to expand...

No, that's demonstrably untrue. But the problem sometimes is compounded by the terminology we use. An "order" and an "office" are seen differently by different churches. Thus, presbyters and bishops are seen as one order but not one office. Most people don't even pay attention to the wording, though.

There is no "Mariology" in the first century churches.

Click to expand...

That appears to be incorrect. There are legends of the Virgin that date from the first century, but that doesn't mean that such Roman Catholic dogmas that have been built upon them (for example, the Assumption), are that old.

There is no infant baptism there.

Click to expand...

The evidence is about 50-50 on that one, and there is a Scriptural basis for infant baptism.

There are no rules about ministers' marriage or remarriage, such as is found in the EOC. Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiology is not found in the first century churches.

Click to expand...

Which one are you interested in? Roman Catholic priests have not been married for about the last thousand years but were married before that. Orthodox "ecclesiology" just about demands that candidates for ordination get married, although they cannot do so after ordination.

CelticRebel said:

Well, I don't want to offend, but there is no threefold order of ministry -- bishop, priest, deacon -- in the first century churches. There were two orders or offices.

Click to expand...

well, there are three. bishop, priest, and deacon are mentioned in Scripture. bishops and priests have the same qualifications because the bishop, first and foremost, is the priest. the elders were an extension of his ministry because he could not be at all of his parishes. the local Church is the diocese, not the individual parish. so again, the bishop is what he always was, the presiding and overseeing priest.

CelticRebel said:

There is no "Mariology" in the first century churches.

Click to expand...

yeah there are, it is just not clearly hashed out in Scripture because that was not the point of Scripture. however, there are early frescoes of her with her Son in the catacomb Church, and there is one from the 2nd century under St. Peter's in Rome. not to mention, when the Church came up from being underground, Marian devotions came with them. as soon as it was legal for Christians to worship, her veneration was clear. and this means that her devotions would have been prior to 313, and again, her in iconography is from the first centuries as well. we still have two icons by St Luke, and both of them being of Mary and Christ.

CelticRebel said:

There is no infant baptism there.

Click to expand...

yes it is, in the Bible when it says that whole households were baptized, it would have included children. to say that there is no infant baptism is to say that there is no Trinity.

CelticRebel said:

There are no rules about ministers' marriage or remarriage, such as is found in the EOC.

Click to expand...

nowhere does the Bible actually say that one can remarry and remain a priest. and again, there is no mention of the term Trinity until Tertullian. you are reading your opinion into places where it is merely silent.

CelticRebel said:

Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiology is not found in the first century churches.

Click to expand...

Orthodox ecclesiology is, our ecclesiology is still based on that first century model, where the bishop is the chief priest, who served with his elders, assisted by the deacons, all with and for the laity.