Formalism or not?

RandyPNW · May 14, 2025

Liturgical worship--sacramentalism or genuine?
I don't think anybody would deny that repetitious statements of love and worship for God is a bad thing. If for no other reason, repetition fixes an idea in our minds--something we need to do in our worship of God.

But can repetition lead to an excess? Can form displace substance in our liturgical worship? Of course it can!

If we, for example, wish to show our love for our wife by opening a door for her, repeating this exercise isn't any less "loving" or "real" if we do it for the thousandth time! But if in our heart we lose love for our wife, and simply open the door for her out of a formality, out of fear of social pressure, then obviously repetition does not reinforce love at all.

In our worship, our love for God should have an element of spontaneity, if our love is genuine. We don't have to be told how to perform, or cued as to when to be polite or friendly. Out of love and respect for our God we always defer to Him, humble ourselves before Him, and ask His help on all matters in order to please Him.

Obviously, in our public worship, we have to have order in order to show our love for God together with other worshipers. For this we need help from a liturgy or some kind of form that puts us all on the same page. And it helps us to steer clear of errors, reinforcing in our minds what is proper in our worship and beliefs.

RandyPNW · May 14, 2025

I would add to this that I'm not here advocating for any particular form or liturgy for a church service. I'm just trying to "keep it real."

I think the biggest problem in what I'm calling "Formalism" or "Sacramentalism" is in how the particular set of worshipers, or church, views God Himself. If He is viewed as distant, in almost an agnostic sense, then our worship is from afar, and likely to be an almost empty kind of formalism, a mere "mystical" kind of ritual that draws upon its form for beauty, awe, contemplation, and perhaps even entertainment.

A purely mystical, almost-agnostic kind of worship is practiced by those who have not been living in close proximity to God, not keeping His Word, or practicing actively the Faith. Such a lifestyle is certain to remove God from the picture, making Him the object of worship so very far away, so transcendent that the worshiper is only left admiring Him or the thought of Him, or perhaps even the beauty of His creation.

I'm advocating instead for a close connection with God, through obedience, faith, and the emulation of His character, and in this way maintaining a sense of Him as a certainty and a Father figure who is intimately aware of all our needs and wants. This kind of worship needs less prompting, and less religious mandate to "attend church" or engage in some neglected ritual.

Liturgies then take on life and excitement, particularly as a congregation joins together in mutual admiration for their God and for their religion. Such majesty can attain heights far above that of a stadium celebrating a superbowl victory.

jas3 · May 14, 2025

RandyPNW said:
Liturgical worship--sacramentalism or genuine?

The sacraments are genuine.

RandyPNW said:
I don't think anybody would deny that repetitious statements of love and worship for God is a bad thing.

Did you mean to say nobody would argue?

RandyPNW said:
Obviously, in our public worship, we have to have order in order to show our love for God together with other worshipers. For this we need help from a liturgy or some kind of form that puts us all on the same page. And it helps us to steer clear of errors, reinforcing in our minds what is proper in our worship and beliefs.

Fully agreed. We don't have to reinvent the wheel - and in fact are most likely to fail if we try - in worship. In fact, the liturgy forms us and elevates us. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

RandyPNW said:
I think the biggest problem in what I'm calling "Formalism" or "Sacramentalism" is in how the particular set of worshipers, or church, views God Himself. If He is viewed as distant, in almost an agnostic sense, then our worship is from afar, and likely to be an almost empty kind of formalism

There is also a danger in the opposite, an overly familiar and casual, almost pantheistic, attitude toward God that results in irreverence and even contempt for holy things.

RandyPNW said:
a mere "mystical" kind of ritual that draws upon its form for beauty, awe, contemplation, and perhaps even entertainment.

On the contrary, it's the "modern worship" movement that lends itself to becoming religious entertainment, while liturgical worship is more likely dismissed as boring or lacking opportunities for participation.

RandyPNW said:
A purely mystical, almost-agnostic kind of worship is practiced by those who have not been living in close proximity to God, not keeping His Word, or practicing actively the Faith. Such a lifestyle is certain to remove God from the picture, making Him the object of worship so very far away, so transcendent that the worshiper is only left admiring Him or the thought of Him, or perhaps even the beauty of His creation.

This is a sharp departure from the tone of the rest of your post, and I have to say it comes across as judgmental and extremely ignorant of what mysticism actually is.

RandyPNW said:
I'm advocating instead for a close connection with God, through obedience, faith, and the emulation of His character, and in this way maintaining a sense of Him as a certainty and a Father figure who is intimately aware of all our needs and wants.

Properly understood, this is just advocating for the same thing as mystical theology. But the intimate awareness of God doesn't involve interacting with Him casually or irreverently, as often happens in "spontaneous worship."

RandyPNW said:
This kind of worship needs less prompting, and less religious mandate to "attend church" or engage in some neglected ritual.

No, that would be neglecting "obedience, faith, and the emulation of His character." Even in regular church attendance, prayer, and observance of feasts, fasts, etc., we fall far short of what we should be doing in recognition of God's glory. How can we then decide to do even less?

RandyPNW · May 14, 2025

jas3 said:
The sacraments are genuine.
Did you mean to say nobody would argue?
Fully agreed. We don't have to reinvent the wheel - and in fact are most likely to fail if we try - in worship. In fact, the liturgy forms us and elevates us. Lex orandi, lex credendi.
There is also a danger in the opposite, an overly familiar and casual, almost pantheistic, attitude toward God that results in irreverence and even contempt for holy things.
On the contrary, it's the "modern worship" movement that lends itself to becoming religious entertainment, while liturgical worship is more likely dismissed as boring or lacking opportunities for participation.
This is a sharp departure from the tone of the rest of your post, and I have to say it comes across as judgmental and extremely ignorant of what mysticism actually is.
Properly understood, this is just advocating for the same thing as mystical theology. But the intimate awareness of God doesn't involve interacting with Him casually or irreverently, as often happens in "spontaneous worship."
No, that would be neglecting "obedience, faith, and the emulation of His character." Even in regular church attendance, prayer, and observance of feasts, fasts, etc., we fall far short of what we should be doing in recognition of God's glory. How can we then decide to do even less?

I do appreciate the comments/opinion etc. even though it's on the "negative" side. You appear to be protesting how you understand the language I chose to use?

The problem may be that in my circles the language of "mysticism" is, in fact, a negative, because it implies, something like in Eastern religion a view of God that is less personal than the Christian God. In the popular movies associated with "Star Wars" you'll remember, perhaps, the "Force?"

I'm no expert in Eastern Religion, but I think secularism has caused some to declare God "dead," or at best "asleep?" Pantheistic thought ties God virtually together with Nature, which is quite an impersonal God.

I grew up in a very liturgical, half-dead, half-alive Lutheran church. It is where my faith journey began, but also the launching pad for my teen experimentations, looking for something more lively perhaps.

I still have an affection for some of the liturgies I grew up with--the hymns, the congregational responses to the pastor's readings, etc. The religious form was actually quite beautiful, if the spirit itself had not seemed so dry and half-dead.

I felt that many people attending were only half-there, and perhaps didn't even live the Christian life. I know most all of my peers as teenagers left following Confirmation.

Anyway, sorry you feel the way you do about my message.

NewLifeInChristJesus · May 14, 2025

RandyPNW said:
Liturgical worship--sacramentalism or genuine?
I don't think anybody would deny that repetitious statements of love and worship for God is a bad thing. If for no other reason, repetition fixes an idea in our minds--something we need to do in our worship of God.

But can repetition lead to an excess? Can form displace substance in our liturgical worship? Of course it can!

If we, for example, wish to show our love for our wife by opening a door for her, repeating this exercise isn't any less "loving" or "real" if we do it for the thousandth time! But if in our heart we lose love for our wife, and simply open the door for her out of a formality, out of fear of social pressure, then obviously repetition does not reinforce love at all.

In our worship, our love for God should have an element of spontaneity, if our love is genuine. We don't have to be told how to perform, or cued as to when to be polite or friendly. Out of love and respect for our God we always defer to Him, humble ourselves before Him, and ask His help on all matters in order to please Him.

Obviously, in our public worship, we have to have order in order to show our love for God together with other worshipers. For this we need help from a liturgy or some kind of form that puts us all on the same page. And it helps us to steer clear of errors, reinforcing in our minds what is proper in our worship and beliefs.

RandyPNW said:
I would add to this that I'm not here advocating for any particular form or liturgy for a church service. I'm just trying to "keep it real."

I think the biggest problem in what I'm calling "Formalism" or "Sacramentalism" is in how the particular set of worshipers, or church, views God Himself. If He is viewed as distant, in almost an agnostic sense, then our worship is from afar, and likely to be an almost empty kind of formalism, a mere "mystical" kind of ritual that draws upon its form for beauty, awe, contemplation, and perhaps even entertainment.

A purely mystical, almost-agnostic kind of worship is practiced by those who have not been living in close proximity to God, not keeping His Word, or practicing actively the Faith. Such a lifestyle is certain to remove God from the picture, making Him the object of worship so very far away, so transcendent that the worshiper is only left admiring Him or the thought of Him, or perhaps even the beauty of His creation.

I'm advocating instead for a close connection with God, through obedience, faith, and the emulation of His character, and in this way maintaining a sense of Him as a certainty and a Father figure who is intimately aware of all our needs and wants. This kind of worship needs less prompting, and less religious mandate to "attend church" or engage in some neglected ritual.

Liturgies then take on life and excitement, particularly as a congregation joins together in mutual admiration for their God and for their religion. Such majesty can attain heights far above that of a stadium celebrating a superbowl victory.

I Just don't know what to make of this OP. Maybe a succinct summary would help. Actually, your latest post as follows helps explain a lot...

RandyPNW said:
I do appreciate the comments/opinion etc. even though it's on the "negative" side. You appear to be protesting how you understand the language I chose to use?

The problem may be that in my circles the language of "mysticism" is, in fact, a negative, because it implies, something like in Eastern religion a view of God that is less personal than the Christian God. In the popular movies associated with "Star Wars" you'll remember, perhaps, the "Force?"

I'm no expert in Eastern Religion, but I think secularism has caused some to declare God "dead," or at best "asleep?" Pantheistic thought ties God virtually together with Nature, which is quite an impersonal God.

I grew up in a very liturgical, half-dead, half-alive Lutheran church. It is where my faith journey began, but also the launching pad for my teen experimentations, looking for something more lively perhaps.

I still have an affection for some of the liturgies I grew up with--the hymns, the congregational responses to the pastor's readings, etc. The religious form was actually quite beautiful, if the spirit itself had not seemed so dry and half-dead.

I felt that many people attending were only half-there, and perhaps didn't even live the Christian life. I know most all of my peers as teenagers left following Confirmation.

Anyway, sorry you feel the way you do about my message.

RandyPNW · May 14, 2025

NewLifeInChristJesus said:
I Just don't know what to make of this OP. Maybe a succinct summary would help. Actually, your latest post as follows helps explain a lot...

Ja3's comments are true, that there are problems with the opposite of "too-liturgical" emphases in worship. It can be too irreverent, entertaining, and familiar, and lacking opportunity for participation.

I've experienced both extremes, but grew up with the half-dead liturgical-emphasis kind of worship. It drove me out into the world to experiment and look for greater meaning where there were more "free spirits." I began to adopt those who seemed to be lacking in "spiritual meaning" and yet unsatisfied in their lives--sometimes even from broken home experiences.

In the end I returned to my roots, but ended up in the other extreme, lacking cohesion and participation, a disorganized overly-impromtu kind of worship. I accept both kinds without their short-comings. But I'm also realistic--we're not perfect.

I cannot make a succinct point in this. It it's a life-experience more than a philosophy or form that "works." The mix in a congregation determines how "alive" the worship is, regardless of the form. If the people in the congregation lack faith and true devotion, or even fail to live by good Christian standards, the worship will be weak, regardless of the form.

I will add this, because it may help you understand me as I write this. I grew up in a church originating with "state churches." The RCC and Lutheran church denominations originated and grew up as State churches, as did the Orthodox church.

These churches tend to almost indiscriminately invite all citizenry to attend, with the result being a mix of both "hot" and "cold." The more separatistic kind of churches I came to attend later were allegedly consisting mostly of pure believing, and practicing, Christians. They did not assume that all citizens who attend are, by definition, believing and practicing Christians.

These more "separatistic churches" tend to be hostile to my sense of inclusiveness that comes from my upbringing in the "state church" types. They want more of a pedigree of faith, displayed in a "born again" experience (Methodist), "Spirit Baptized" experience (Pentecostal), or some kind of extreme legal practice indicating one is truly "obedient to the faith."

This really limits who is being invited. On the other hand, I believe that once all citizenry is made welcome to attend, those who live the opposite of Christian standards should be discouraged from attending, to avoid spiritual contamination. This is what causes, I believe, the "half-dead half-alive" experience I've had in my upbringing in the Lutheran church.

NewLifeInChristJesus · May 15, 2025

RandyPNW said:
Ja3's comments are true, that there are problems with the opposite of "too-liturgical" emphases in worship. It can be too irreverent, entertaining, and familiar, and lacking opportunity for participation.

I've experienced both extremes, but grew up with the half-dead liturgical-emphasis kind of worship. It drove me out into the world to experiment and look for greater meaning where there were more "free spirits." I began to adopt those who seemed to be lacking in "spiritual meaning" and yet unsatisfied in their lives--sometimes even from broken home experiences.

In the end I returned to my roots, but ended up in the other extreme, lacking cohesion and participation, a disorganized overly-impromtu kind of worship. I accept both kinds without their short-comings. But I'm also realistic--we're not perfect.

I cannot make a succinct point in this. It it's a life-experience more than a philosophy or form that "works." The mix in a congregation determines how "alive" the worship is, regardless of the form. If the people in the congregation lack faith and true devotion, or even fail to live by good Christian standards, the worship will be weak, regardless of the form.

I will add this, because it may help you understand me as I write this. I grew up in a church originating with "state churches." The RCC and Lutheran church denominations originated and grew up as State churches, as did the Orthodox church.

These churches tend to almost indiscriminately invite all citizenry to attend, with the result being a mix of both "hot" and "cold." The more separatistic kind of churches I came to attend later were allegedly consisting mostly of pure believing, and practicing, Christians. They did not assume that all citizens who attend are, by definition, believing and practicing Christians.

These more "separatistic churches" tend to be hostile to my sense of inclusiveness that comes from my upbringing in the "state church" types. They want more of a pedigree of faith, displayed in a "born again" experience (Methodist), "Spirit Baptized" experience (Pentecostal), or some kind of extreme legal practice indicating one is truly "obedient to the faith."

This really limits who is being invited. On the other hand, I believe that once all citizenry is made welcome to attend, those who live the opposite of Christian standards should be discouraged from attending, to avoid spiritual contamination. This is what causes, I believe, the "half-dead half-alive" experience I've had in my upbringing in the Lutheran church.

Thanks. This helps me understand even better. Your experiences are far different than mine. The churches that I have attended (mostly Southern Baptist) most often follow the same pattern. The organist or pianist will play a song or two while people come into the auditorium from sunday school. Then the music minister will lead us in singing songs usually oriented to the theme of the sermon. Songs may be corporate (everyone sings) or may be by a choir, or even a soloist. Nowadays there is usually a band that plays modern Christian music (as opposed to songs from the Baptist Hymnal). After the songs, the preacher will preach his sermon. During the sermon, the congregation is usually quiet, but on occasion the preacher will receive some sort of feedback like "Amen" or on rare occasions clapping. At the end of the sermon the preacher usually gives an invitation for those who want to be saved or need prayer to come forward for counselling. All this is fit into a roughly 75 minute church service.

Most baptists nowadays refer to the singing portion of the service as the "worship" portion of the service, though the whole thing is often referred to as the "worship service". The regular routine is sometimes changed to include the Lord's Supper, baptism, or some other special event (like ordination of deacons, etc). Sunday morning services, Sunday evening services, and Wednesday evening services follow roughly the same pattern. Of late, Sunday evening and Wednesday evening services have become more rare.

Baptists don't see ourselves as "seperatists" or "protesters" of the State churches as you call them. We see ourselves as having been followers of Christ from the beginning. That being said, I do see our style of church service to be more consistent with the "seperatists" than with the "state" churches. It is curious to me that the "state churches" seem to follow ancient Israel's pattern with hierarchical leadership, robes and tassles and headdresses for leadership, rites and rituals accompanied by incense and banners, etc. I only rarely have seen those things in the "seperatist" churches that I have attended in the past. It makes me wonder if the "state" churches developed from the Jewish wing of the early church and adopted many of their traditions while the "seperatists" came from the gentile wing and saw no need for many of those traditions.

jas3 · May 15, 2025

RandyPNW said:
The problem may be that in my circles the language of "mysticism" is, in fact, a negative, because it implies, something like in Eastern religion a view of God that is less personal than the Christian God. In the popular movies associated with "Star Wars" you'll remember, perhaps, the "Force?"

Since you were referring to Christian worship, I assumed you meant mysticism in a Christian context. I agree that there are many pop culture depictions of mysticism that would imply an impersonal god, but those are distinct from Christian mysticism.

jas3 · May 15, 2025

NewLifeInChristJesus said:
Baptists don't see ourselves as "seperatists" or "protesters" of the State churches as you call them. We see ourselves as having been followers of Christ from the beginning.

Are you a landmark Baptist? I'm not aware of any others who claim continuity back to the Apostolic Age.

RandyPNW · May 15, 2025

NewLifeInChristJesus said:
Thanks. This helps me understand even better. Your experiences are far different than mine. The churches that I have attended (mostly Southern Baptist) most often follow the same pattern. The organist or pianist will play a song or two while people come into the auditorium from sunday school. Then the music minister will lead us in singing songs usually oriented to the theme of the sermon. Songs may be corporate (everyone sings) or may be by a choir, or even a soloist. Nowadays there is usually a band that plays modern Christian music (as opposed to songs from the Baptist Hymnal). After the songs, the preacher will preach his sermon. During the sermon, the congregation is usually quiet, but on occasion the preacher will receive some sort of feedback like "Amen" or on rare occasions clapping. At the end of the sermon the preacher usually gives an invitation for those who want to be saved or need prayer to come forward for counselling. All this is fit into a roughly 75 minute church service.

Most baptists nowadays refer to the singing portion of the service as the "worship" portion of the service, though the whole thing is often referred to as the "worship service". The regular routine is sometimes changed to include the Lord's Supper, baptism, or some other special event (like ordination of deacons, etc). Sunday morning services, Sunday evening services, and Wednesday evening services follow roughly the same pattern. Of late, Sunday evening and Wednesday evening services have become more rare.

Baptists don't see ourselves as "seperatists" or "protesters" of the State churches as you call them. We see ourselves as having been followers of Christ from the beginning. That being said, I do see our style of church service to be more consistent with the "seperatists" than with the "state" churches. It is curious to me that the "state churches" seem to follow ancient Israel's pattern with hierarchical leadership, robes and tassles and headdresses for leadership, rites and rituals accompanied by incense and banners, etc. I only rarely have seen those things in the "seperatist" churches that I have attended in the past. It makes me wonder if the "state" churches developed from the Jewish wing of the early church and adopted many of their traditions while the "seperatists" came from the gentile wing and saw no need for many of those traditions.

I appreciate that. You're showing a full understanding of where I was coming from. My experience in my AoG church is very much like your Baptist experience.

However, the COVID thing has just about "killed" my appreciation for our style of service. It's brought out all of the deficiencies of a "low church" experience. But I'm still trying to nagivate through all this and come up with a "final position" for myself on it.

RandyPNW · May 15, 2025

jas3 said:
Since you were referring to Christian worship, I assumed you meant mysticism in a Christian context. I agree that there are many pop culture depictions of mysticism that would imply an impersonal god, but those are distinct from Christian mysticism.

I'm aware that Christians use the word "mystical" in two opposite senses. Your sense of "mystical" is fine--mine is not because it reduces God to a "feeling."

NewLifeInChristJesus · May 15, 2025

jas3 said:
Are you a landmark Baptist?

Southern Baptist. Never heard of landmark Baptists. Are they the ones associated with "The Trail of Blood"? I have heard of that.

jas3 said:
I'm not aware of any others who claim continuity back to the Apostolic Age.

I meant to speak of our views about where we came from. It was never taught in any church I was a member of that we came from out of the "state" church wing of Christianity. Whenever the topic came up, the position held was that we were not (and are not) protesting against anything, but upholding our long-standing Christian beliefs.

RandyPNW · May 15, 2025

NewLifeInChristJesus said:
Southern Baptist. Never heard of landmark Baptists. Are they the ones associated with "The Trail of Blood"? I have heard of that.

I meant to speak of our views about where we came from. It was never taught in any church I was a member of that we came from out of the "state" church wing of Christianity. Whenever the topic came up, the position held was that we were not (and are not) protesting against anything, but upholding our long-standing Christian beliefs.

Yes, that is sort of the standard justification among historical separatist-type churches. Following in the wake of the Protestant movement and some earlier independent movements the Separatists went back, like Luther, to the original Apostles and the Scriptures for their authority and form of worship.

It wouldn't mean that there is a direct stream of succession from the early apostles, such as Catholics have a succession of Roman bishops. It just recalls the Early Church organization and the tradition of reliance upon apostolic authority, before Catholics added the element of Roman Tradition.

jas3 · May 15, 2025

NewLifeInChristJesus said:
Southern Baptist. Never heard of landmark Baptists. Are they the ones associated with "The Trail of Blood"? I have heard of that.

Yes, although there's not a denomination called "landmark Baptists." The movement died out for the most part as people became more aware of the actual beliefs of the sects named in The Trail of Blood as Baptist predecessors. But there are still churches around with the name "Landmark Baptist" that were founded when the idea was popular.

NewLifeInChristJesus · May 15, 2025

RandyPNW said:
Yes, that is sort of the standard justification among historical separatist-type churches. Following in the wake of the Protestant movement and some earlier independent movements the Separatists went back, like Luther, to the original Apostles and the Scriptures for their authority and form of worship.

It wouldn't mean that there is a direct stream of succession from the early apostles, such as Catholics have a succession of Roman bishops. It just recalls the Early Church organization and the tradition of reliance upon apostolic authority, before Catholics added the element of Roman Tradition.

The Trail of Blood does seek to establish an unbroken line back to the beginning. I identify with that notion more than thinking we are just skipping over the Catholics tradition back to the Bible for our tradition. But it really doesn't much matter to me which version actually happened. What matters more to me is where we find ourselves today.

Lukaris · May 15, 2025

I believe as long as your personal faith is sound in spirit and informed in the mind, then you should be able to realize whether liturgical or more charismatic is the mode that works for you.

RandyPNW · May 15, 2025

NewLifeInChristJesus said:
The Trail of Blood does seek to establish an unbroken line back to the beginning. I identify with that notion more than thinking we are just skipping over the Catholics tradition back to the Bible for our tradition. But it really doesn't much matter to me which version actually happened. What matters more to me is where we find ourselves today.

I don't think anybody but the Catholics and the Orthodox can claim to go back in unbroken succession to the beginning. But using the Scriptures and the Apostles as our baseline is in effect going back to the original authority structure, bypassing the authority resident in the Catholic tradition.

Lukaris · May 15, 2025

There is a line of valid apostolic succession to the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. The earliest surviving post apostolic writings are just a few years after the final New Testament books of the Gospel of John and Revelation.

Early letters like those of Bishop Ignatius are valuable; for ex. Ignatius testifies that he does not write as an apostle. Writing from divine revelation was over:

do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: they were free,(3) while I am, even until now, a servant. But when I suffer, I shall be the freedman of Jesus, and shall rise again emancipated in Him. And now, being a prisoner, I learn not to desire anything worldly or vain.

Library : The Seven Epistles Of St. Ignatius Of Antioch

The Seven Epistles Of St. Ignatius Of Antioch This file contains: The shorter and longer versions of the seven epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch: 1. To the Ephesians, 2. To the Magnesians, 3. To the Trallians, 4. To the Romans, 5. To the Philadelpians, 6. To the Smyrnaeans, 7. To Polycarp

www.catholicculture.org

Bishop Ignatius must have known Revelation 22:18-19. The above quote is in his letter to the Romans and concerns his pending execution by pagan authorities.

The earliest lists and scripture references testify to us the books of the Bible. While one source may not have everything another has what the other is missing. For ex. a letter of Clement of Rome from about 100 AD has references to the epistles of 1 Peter, James, & Hebrews that are missing from a later 2nd century Muratorian list.

Per Clement:

Commonly cited writings include Matthew, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and James.

Scripture in 1 Clement: Composite Citation of the Gospels (Part I)

This post is part of an ongoing series examining the function and use of scripture in the early Christian writing known as 1 Clement. Clement’s relationship with written Christian texts remains far…

pursuingveritas.com

Per the Muratorian canon does not include Peter, James, & Hebrews ( they may not have had them or were not sure of them etc plus keeping it all together during persecution etc).

Muratorian fragment - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

RandyPNW · May 15, 2025

Lukaris said:
There is a line of valid apostolic succession to the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. The earliest surviving post apostolic writings are just a few years after the final New Testament books of the Gospel of John and Revelation.

Early letters like those of Bishop Ignatius are valuable; for ex. Ignatius testifies that he does not write as an apostle. Writing from divine revelation was over:

do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: they were free,(3) while I am, even until now, a servant. But when I suffer, I shall be the freedman of Jesus, and shall rise again emancipated in Him. And now, being a prisoner, I learn not to desire anything worldly or vain.

Library : The Seven Epistles Of St. Ignatius Of Antioch

The Seven Epistles Of St. Ignatius Of Antioch This file contains: The shorter and longer versions of the seven epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch: 1. To the Ephesians, 2. To the Magnesians, 3. To the Trallians, 4. To the Romans, 5. To the Philadelpians, 6. To the Smyrnaeans, 7. To Polycarp

www.catholicculture.org

Bishop Ignatius must have known Revelation 22:18-19. The above quote is in his letter to the Romans and concerns his pending execution by pagan authorities.

The earliest lists and scripture references testify to us the books of the Bible. While one source may not have everything another has what the other is missing. For ex. a letter of Clement of Rome from about 100 AD has references to the epistles of 1 Peter, James, & Hebrews that are missing from a later 2nd century Muratorian list.

Per Clement:

Commonly cited writings include Matthew, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and James.

Scripture in 1 Clement: Composite Citation of the Gospels (Part I)

This post is part of an ongoing series examining the function and use of scripture in the early Christian writing known as 1 Clement. Clement’s relationship with written Christian texts remains far…

pursuingveritas.com

Per the Muratorian canon does not include Peter, James, & Hebrews ( they may not have had them or were not sure of them etc plus keeping it all together during persecution etc).

Muratorian fragment - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

We certainly know that Jesus entrusted vital, cardinal truths for the Church, to preserve its orthodoxy, by taking to himself 12 Disciples for a period of at least 3.5 years. This ensured they were all on the same page in transferring this information, correctly, to the future Church. This role of the original Apostles is unquestionably limited, leaving future offices to follow them, and not replace them, or improve on them.

They were the sources of Scriptural authority, therefore, which began a tradition of looking to them for authority from the very start. I can't say there was an essential line of succession, although it would make sense for the purpose of continuity, at least initially.

Once, leaders began to fail, however, there would have to be a change in succession. If the church itself began to fail, then the whole process of continuity would be disrupted, and reformers would be needed.

jas3 · May 15, 2025

RandyPNW said:
I can't say there was an essential line of succession, although it would make sense for the purpose of continuity, at least initially.

This succession is spoken of in Acts, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus, at least.

Formalism or not?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Orthodox Christian

Well-Known Member

Orthodox Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads