After the Apostles

mindlight said:

I see a triumph of true order over heresy, division and persecution.

Click to expand...

Okay--triumph. That speaks to the end result. But that isn't the same as thinking or saying that everything was in order from the beginning forward.

A succession of true and faithful leaders distinguishes the church from all other organisations.

Click to expand...

Very well, but it doesn't come close to establishing that one particular denomination or communion was "the one."

Apostolic Succession distinguishes some churches from other church bodies, but there were and are many which have Apostolic Succession. This may be too obvious to bother reiterating except that we still do have some of them claiming that theirs is the unique church of history by pointing to Apostolic Succession.

The term is missionary which even last till today, though I see some tried to deny its effect in early churches.

It's a command from Jesus Christ Himself and an effort of all His directly disciples. History never said that missionary stopped along the death of the disciples. Someone though tried hard to sound as it is so.

Disregarding the Roman wide persecution including the burning of Christianity documents, Christianity spread steadily fast and with the sound doctrines from the original gospels, and by the great efforts from Pauline letters kept by earthly churches. Interchange of information through the various form of church missionaries and evangelism are expected to be active in building up early churches, and countering the heresies.

mindlight said:

Having spent an extra day thinking and researching about this think I can give a more concrete answer to this and really the answer I was looking for from this thread.

There are various heretics and controversies that created decision points in the crucial early ECF period. The ways in which the church responded to these controversies marked its true and straight course through the century.

1) Clement of Romes decision to overrule the high handed and unjust decision of the church of Corinth to remove various leaders who had done no moral wrongs. This decision articulated in 1 Clement asserted the bishopric of Romes authority and also affirmed hierarchies established by the apostles or successors of the apostles. Local churches were shown to be accountable to a global church and Christian argument.

2) The Epistle of Polycarp critique of Docetism in about 135-137 AD. Affirming that Jesus came in the flesh 1 John 4:3

3) The condemnation of Marcion by Rome in 144 and his heresy. This upheld the place of the OT and also affirmed that there was no discontinuity between the Jewish and Christian God

4) The selection of Anicetus as Bishop of Rome in 155 AD even though the Gnostic heretic Valentinius was a front runner for that position at the time. This could have been a disaster for the church had it gone the other way.

5) The writing of Against Heresies by Ireneas in about 180 AD denouncing the Gnosticism of Valentinius and the heresy of Marcion and affirming healthy Christian positions on the authority and teaching of the bishops, that creation was not inherently evil and would be perfected, that Jesus had a resuurection body, that the Jewish God was the same as the One that sent Jesus to us

There was also the steadfast resilience of the church in the face of Roman persecution with a great many of the bishops of Rome including Clement being martyred along with Ignatius and Polycarp. This was the time of the 5 "good" emperors when Roman power and self belief were at their greatest, but the church expanded rapidly even despite this.

Click to expand...

Have you read the Early Church Fathers?
There's also a good study on what they believed by David Bercot on youtube.

Here is a link...there are many talks like this by him.

Albion said:

Okay--triumph. That speaks to the end result. But that isn't the same as thinking or saying that everything was in order from the beginning forward.


Very well, but it doesn't come close to establishing that one particular denomination or communion was "the one."

Apostolic Succession distinguishes some churches from other church bodies, but there were and are many which have Apostolic Succession. This may be too obvious to bother reiterating except that we still do have some of them claiming that theirs is the unique church of history by pointing to Apostolic Succession.

Click to expand...

What church could possibly claim Apostolic succession besides the Catholic church or the Orthodox church??

It could be debated as to which one is the true original church,,,,but I can't think of any besides these two.

mindlight said:

The pope blessed Henry VIII with title Defender of the Faith. He ordained many of the cardinals and bishops that joined the Anglican church. Through the bishops there is an broken chain of ordination through many churches.

Click to expand...

The Anglican church doesn't even know for sure if it's Catholic or Protestant in nature...perhaps more catholic.

Anyway,,,,Henry VIII was not a pope and not a successor of the Pope that blessed him.

The Anglican church was never thought of in the same way as the Orthodox by the catholic church. The CC DOES accept priests from the anglican church, even if they are married.

The succession would be through the Pope,,,not through the bishops.
This is the problem with the Orthodox...they left the church due to a disagreement on the filoque, mainly, in about the year 1,000.

But who was right???
Those that left...
or those that remained???

Interesting question.

mindlight said:

Men and women of faith had difficult decisions to make. Decisions that had no precedence. But they had the teaching and training given them by the apostles and they had the scriptures theyhad written. Theyhad been given enough to face each challenge as it came and the church grew in quantity and quality through that time.




I was born an Anglican to a Catholic mum and now mainly worship in a German Lutheran church. All of these claim the apostolic succession and a continuity with the early church. Personally I love the pope but will quite happily take communion with Baptists or Pentecostals also. We do not follow names but rather only Christ. There is a direct chain of ordinations which through the bishops goes back to Christ. But so also there is the unbroken testimony and teaching of the apostles handed down to us and directly affirmed by Gods Spirit in our lives. Whatever denomination we are in we have the Christians of the second century to thank for the scriptures passed down, the unbroken chain of leaders who very often paid the ultimate price for their faith and the fact that when Christ comes back he may yet find the faithful waiting for Him.

Click to expand...

And yet I hear many claim that the ECFs are of no important because they were not INSPIRED. As if Luther and Calvin were.

mindlight said:

Polycarp , Bishop of Smyrna and Ignatius Bishop of Antioch were almost definitely ordained and commissioned by John who discipled them. Ireneaus came from Polycarps church. So 3 of the big 4 ECFs were not ordained by a pope. The apostolic succession runs through the bishops. It is clear that the bishop of Rome established a priority in the church and was like Peter first among the apostles but the apostolic succession like the blessing of God on believers in most denominations was not exclusive to the Catholics.

Click to expand...

Polycarp.....good. Disciple of John.
Ignatius of Antioch....Disciple of Peter...friend of John.
Ireneaus of Lyon.....Disciple of Polycarp

There was no Pope in their time...I had a post on this at the beginning of this thread.

I'm sorry,,,yes, the succession runs through the Bishops...

mindlight said:

After the death of John in around 100AD there were no more of the original apostles to inform and guide the church. That must have felt like a bit of a vacuum to many in the church. But the second century was a crucial stage in the formation of the church and it grew through that period.

I am interested in how the church met the challenges of heresy (e.g. Gnostics and Marcionites) and persecution (e.g. Trajan and Marcus Aurelius), agreed in practice on a canon for scripture and on basic doctrines, continued to spread the good news and built the hierarchies and institutional structures that have survived to this day e.g. the papacy, the bishops

What were the crucial moments in the decisions about which scriptures were authoritative and which not from this period?

How were the debates about who Jesus was resolved?

What doctrines were broadly agreed by this time e.g. apostles creed?

Who were the crucial personalities involved and which do you think had the biggest impact. For instance who made the most significant impact out of Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smynra, Ireneaus of Lyons?

EDIT: changed key heresy from Ebionite to Marcionite

Click to expand...

Setst RE: I will not be able to go into detail with all of your questions, but what I will summarize here could legitimately be used to understand the most likely answers to the rest of your questions.

I do not doubt that there are those in the Church who would of felt like there was a bit of a vacuum after all the Apostles died. I am sure I would have felt the same way, despite all the great Early Church Fathers and Defenders of the Faith that came afterward.

After the Apostles were gone, the Early Church Fathers within Christianity were more concerned with belief in Jesus and the core doctrines of the Christian faith called “the rule of faith,” and the worship of the one God, all of which were founded on the teaching of the original Apostles – especially the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and many of Paul’s Epistles to the Churches, which were all available with manuscripts being copied distributed at an ever increasing rate.

The Rule of Faith affirms divine action in history – what God has done, and what God will do through the person of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as was first faithfully recorded in the Old Testament Scriptures and the New Testament Apostolic Writings. Therefore, the Rule of Faith is a chronological description of the central Bible story line from OT to NT (creation, the fall, redemption, consummation of all things/2nd coming of Christ.

Rules of Faith vs Personal Saving Faith

The Rule of Faith did not really deal with defining the personal faith that saves as taught by Lord Jesus and the Apostles, although many examples of that true personal faith are extant within historic documents – especially all those early Christians who were willing to remain poor, and persecuted, suffering and dying for their faith rather than recant their Faith in Jesus. Nevertheless, this lack of defining personal faith within the early Church later led to the heresy regarding the Faith within the Church.

Later on within the 2nd Century, Books of Scripture most familiar to the Church that were formed into a more complex Canon, but that Canon was not exhaustive, because not all of the Apostolic Letters to the Churches were widely copied and distributed at that early date.

Except for the Four Gospels, Acts and Paul’s letters which were at times included together, the Muratorian Canon is believed to be the first Canon to include other Epistles that were circulated and read within 2nd century orthodox Christianity…

Muratorian canon (C. 170 AD perhaps in response to Marcion's "Apostilikon"):

• The Four Gospels,
• Acts,
• 13 Paul's epistles,
• Jude,
• 2 John,
• Apocalypse of John (Revelation)
• Apocalypse of Peter
• Wisdom of Solomon.

Basic Elements of the Rule of Faith for the 2nd Century

When we consider these examples of the Rule of Faith in the 2nd century, and the Early Apostolic Letters that clearly were the authentic historically, we can discern a summary of elements of that Rule of which the early Church was dedicated to, and has its origins in, the 1st century Apostolic writings contained in our the New Testament today:

1. There is one God, the creator of heaven and earth.
2. This same God spoke through the prophets of the OT regarding the coming Messiah.
3. Jesus is the Son of God, the Word of God made flesh, born from the seed of David in Bethlehem, through the virgin Mary
4. All things were created through Jesus, who came into the world, God in the flesh.
5. Jesus came to bring salvation and redemption for those who believe in him.
6. Jesus physically suffered and was crucified under Pontius Pilot, raised bodily from the dead, and exalted to the right hand of God the Father.
7. Jesus will return again to judge the world.

We find nothing in the 2nd century rule of faith summaries that diverge from the NT writings.

The Apostle's Creed

Besides the Four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s Epistles and the Muratorian Canon, and lists of the Rule of Faith by the Early Church Fathers, it may be that the Apostles Creed, at least in an early form, was first published in the 2nd century.

2nd Century Diversity within Christianity

2nd century Christian doctrine was diverse in various non-core beliefs and traditions, but core doctrines were firmly defended as the rule of faith throughout Christianity against what were clearly heretical groups that popped up in the 1st and 2nd centuries when compared to those core beliefs.

In particular, the four Gospels, Acts, and the letters of Paul were unanimously and universally foundational for the 1st and 2nd century church in setting the rule of faith. Early leadership, literature, NT manuscripts, and rhetoric all favor a predominantly orthodox Christianity against heretical offshoots within the known world. Every new offshoot calling itself “Christian” was judged as being heretical or orthodox based on that well established Rule of Faith.

Champions of the Faith – Those who upheld the Rule of Faith

As eluded to earlier, within the Church, shortly after the Apostles, existed true champions of the Apostolic Faith. These Church Fathers include recognized authorities within the church, true successors of the Apostles. These were the early apologists and polemists.

Among these early Church fathers of the late 1st to 2nd centuries include: Dionysius of Corinth, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Origin, and of course the 4 Gospels, Acts, and the letters of Paul to the Churches as the foundation. All these witnesses to the true faith were clearly recognized as representing the true authorities within the early Orthodox Church in defending the non-negotiable essentials, The Rule of Faith, against heresies for the 2nd century church. Almost every Christian apologist was also a bishop.

In particular, these leaders were instrumental in defending the faith against the following 2nd century heresies that sprouted up in the 2nd century, although some, such as the Gnostics, have their origins in the first century, of which the Apostle John warned about in his epistles:

• Ebionites
• Marcionites
• Gnosticism, which includes teaches of Cerinthus, Basilides, Valentinus, Ptolemy, Heracleon, and Theodotus

Therefore the early Church definitely was unified as to essential doctrines of the faith even though these Churches existed in many locations.

Orthodox vs Heresy: Easy to Distinguish

Archaeology has found that Orthodox Christian documents outnumber Gnostic or heretical documents by about 6 to 1. Not only that, but the orthodox Christian apologists only site the orthodox texts as contained in the Apostolic Writings and their companions. No heretical writings were quoted in defending the faith. In addition, the Orthodox churches and writings far outnumbered those of the heretical groups.

The Apostolic Rule of Faith was clearly founded on the legitimate writings of the Apostolic era. And this Rule of Faith made it possible to clearly articulate church doctrine in response to heretical arguments from heretical leaders as previously listed.

The Churches cooperated with one another, just as they did in the Apostolic Churches in the 1st century through the Apostles – mainly through trusted couriers.

In later centuries, in response to heresies of those times, the Church was forced, not only to clearly and doctrinally define those essential doctrines of the Orthodox Church (The Rule of Faith), but also to create formal lists of those Writings the Church deemed Sacred. The four major creeds representing that Rule of Faith in order to defend against heresy are as follows:

• Apostle’s Creed (Middle of the 3rd Century, but some say: 120 AD to 250 AD)
• The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381 A.D.)
• The Chalcedonian (Creed) Definition (Adopted in 451 AD)
• Athanasian Creed (apprx. 500 AD)

The Papacy came much later. I will say that, as time went on, there was a body of leaders within what today is the Roman Catholic Church, that began to form and include tradition, other than the Rule of Faith, as actual Church Doctrine despite that fact that such traditions were never taught by the Apostles or the 1st and 2nd century Church Fathers. This also is a form of heresy.

Blessings
setst

GodsGrace101 said:

What church could possibly claim Apostolic succession besides the Catholic church or the Orthodox church??

It could be debated as to which one is the true original church,,,,but I can't think of any besides these two.

Click to expand...

All the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Old Catholic churches, the various Anglican churches, a number of Independent Catholic churches, the national Lutheran churches of Scandinavia, and the largest of the Lutheran denominations in the USA, among others.

GodsGrace101 said:

The Anglican church doesn't even know for sure if it's Catholic or Protestant in nature...perhaps more catholic.

Click to expand...

More correctly, it is both Catholic and Protestant. Most Anglicans know that and more or less take it for granted.

Anyway,,,,Henry VIII was not a pope and not a successor of the Pope that blessed him.

Click to expand...

True, but neither did he found the Anglican churches or any other church body. People often aren't well informed on that score.

The Anglican church was never thought of in the same way as the Orthodox by the catholic church.

Click to expand...

Not by the RCC. So what?

The succession would be through the Pope,,,not through the bishops.

Click to expand...

That idea is just fundamentally wrong. All lines of succession come through bishops. Some churches with Apostolic Succession (the smaller ones) may have broken from the Roman Church's jurisdiction at some point in the past, but that doesn't make the line of succession be "through the Pope."

What I'm reading here seems to be a view that is formed entirely through Roman Catholic sources and contentions, not actual history. I didn't perceive the earlier posts as being of that sort, but if it's so I am sorry that the discussion has run into this impasse.

mindlight said:

I was born an Anglican to a Catholic mum and now mainly worship in a German Lutheran church. All of these claim the apostolic succession and a continuity with the early church.

Click to expand...

That's true.

Personally I love the pope but will quite happily take communion with Baptists or Pentecostals also. We do not follow names but rather only Christ. There is a direct chain of ordinations which through the bishops goes back to Christ.

Click to expand...

Which denomination would that be?

But so also there is the unbroken testimony and teaching of the apostles handed down to us and directly affirmed by Gods Spirit in our lives. Whatever denomination we are in we have the Christians of the second century to thank for the scriptures passed down, the unbroken chain of leaders who very often paid the ultimate price for their faith and the fact that when Christ comes back he may yet find the faithful waiting for Him.

Click to expand...

GodsGrace101 said:

This is the problem with the Orthodox...they left the church due to a disagreement on the filoque, mainly, in about the year 1,000.

But who was right???
Those that left...
or those that remained???

Interesting question.

Click to expand...

At Nicea, all five church jurisdictions explicitly agreed that none of them would ever change the creed without the agreement of all the others. Then the church at Rome up and unilaterally changed it. Does that answer your question?

mindlight said:

After the death of John in around 100AD there were no more of the original apostles to inform and guide the church. That must have felt like a bit of a vacuum to many in the church. But the second century was a crucial stage in the formation of the church and it grew through that period.

I am interested in how the church met the challenges of heresy (e.g. Gnostics and Marcionites) and persecution (e.g. Trajan and Marcus Aurelius), agreed in practice on a canon for scripture and on basic doctrines, continued to spread the good news and built the hierarchies and institutional structures that have survived to this day e.g. the papacy, the bishops

What were the crucial moments in the decisions about which scriptures were authoritative and which not from this period?

How were the debates about who Jesus was resolved?

What doctrines were broadly agreed by this time e.g. apostles creed?

Who were the crucial personalities involved and which do you think had the biggest impact. For instance who made the most significant impact out of Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smynra, Ireneaus of Lyons?

EDIT: changed key heresy from Ebionite to Marcionite

Click to expand...

My dad is a church history professor and nearing his doctoral degree and I will be interviewing him soon answering many of these questions on my podcast Christian Stuff Podcast. He focuses on the reformation here which came later but hits some of the early church stuff too. I’m not going to give the link to the podcast because it’s unreleased but I’ll put it on the CF forum once it’s ready. Enjoy!

mindlight said:

I regard myself as an Anglican but I have worshipped in a Vineyard church and International Baptists churches also which may very well be unable to claim the apostolic succession as reckoned by an unbroken chain of bishops ordinations. Rather they would claim a direct encounter with God via the Spirit , via scripture and via their personal commitments to Him. To be honest they seem just as Christian to me as dyed in the wool Catholics and Orthodox though of course they have a very different approach. Maybe there is a similarity between Montanism and many in these house churches for instance.

Click to expand...

Yes, the RC and the Orthodox traditions feel it’s important to establish a succession of men who succeeded from the apostles, and Protestants feel its important for every Christian to have direct access to God through Christ and therefore don’t look to genealogies and succession as a point of value.

mindlight said:

It took me a while to work through your post which was quite long. One of the first things that struck me was the different names you came up with.

Very little is known at all about Dionysius of Corinth (171 AD bishop of Corinth) so I was not sure why you chose him.

Clement of Alexandria seemed also a rather dubious choice given the influence of PLatonism and Stoicism on his thought. He had some rather strange beliefs in reincarnation and cosmic cycles that predated the world for instance.

Origen of Alexandria (184-253) was not really a second century influence at all though I grant you he is one of the greats

Hippolytus of Rome 170-235 AD was also in his hey day outside the period of the second century. Though his later Refutation of heresies and works on prophecy are quite interesting

Justin Martyr lies inside the period of consideration (100-160AD). MOst likely of Greek - Roman heritage from Flavius neapolis in Samaria he wrote the First Apology in defence of Christian morality. He was definitely a part of the challenge to Greek Roman culture and was beheaded during the Marcus Aurelius persecution in about 160. But not sure he was in the same league as the four I mentioned earlier.

The one from your list which was a definite addition to the second century Premier League of ECFs was Tertullian of Carthage (155 -240) who in many ways is regarded as the founder of Western theology coining the use of the word Trinity, apologetics against Paganism and Judaism and one who came up with the phrase the "rule of faith" which he saw as revolving around scriptures, more clearly established mainstream doctrines and traditions and the apostolic succession. He wrote extensively against Marcionism but maybe even he had Montanist tendencies.

Ireneaus and Tertullian were instrumental in overthrowing the Ebionite heresy along with Justin Martyr but on a global empire scale I am not sure how important this Judaising sect with their limited understanding of who Jesus was and their rejection of the writings of Paul was. They did not threaten what was by this point a mainly Gentile church.

Thanks for raising the Muratorian canon (170 AD) which like the writings of the ECFs ,already mentioned, affirms most of the NT canon by the second century including all the gospels, Acts and the writings of Paul.

So as you say with these ECFs and an in practice recognised canon of scriptures the church already had a rule of faith to distinguish true from false and orthodox from heretic.

As you say it was the bishops through whom church order was maintained in this time and across a wide ranging area rather than a singular focus in the bishop of Rome though clearly Rome was at the heart of the church even by this point. There was a succession in place for the bishops of Rome from which the papacy would grow but the papacy as we know it today did not exist at this point.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your reply and comments.

I chose Dionysius of Corinth because, although we don't have much at all of all his writings in our modern era, he was someone well respected within the Church at that time, not only as bishop but as a defender of the faith. Eusebius, Who did have access to far more writings of Dionysius had only good things to say about Dionysius, and how he was instrumental in defending the faith. Dionysius writings were highly valued by the Early Church.

All the others were chosen, not because of their differences, which many had differences since doctrinal development was in its infancy; rather, they were all defenders of the Faith and were leaders within the Church around the 2nd century. All of them were looked up to within the Church of that day. Even so, I am not saying there were not disagreements. Even the best of the Early Church Fathers did not have total acceptance in all of their beliefs by others within the Church.

True, some had unorthodox views, as did Clement, however, especially at that early date, no one was perfect, and there was still much to be worked out regarding doctrine. As time progressed, doctrine was hammered out and constructed in order to more clearly understand the Faith against heresy. As of the 2nd century, however, those that I have named were Church Fathers and defenders of the Faith as far as they understood it at that time.

I agree regarding the Papacy.

Blessings