The Apostle John's student

[freespiritchurch]

The blessed apostles Peter and Paul having founded and built up the church of Rome, they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus.[ Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. ... To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate of Rome has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (ibid., 3, 3, 3).

Protestant Historian comments :


Protestant J.B. Lightfoot Church historian--

'It may perhaps seem strange to describe this noble remonstrance as the first step towards papal dominion. And yet undoubtedly this is the case'​

St. Clement of Rome, pg 698.​

Harnack another Protestant exegete/historian remarks,

'This letter to the Corinthians proves already at the end of the first century the Roman Church ... kept watch with the maternal care for the distant churches, and that at that date she knew how to utter the word that is an expression of duty, of love and authority at the same time'​

History of Dogma​

Citing Protestant Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church on Clement
"...it can hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the Corinthians] reveals a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome." (Schaff, page 158)

Why don't you post a Protestant historian who's written in the 20th century?

 

[Rightglory]

Otto,

sense enough disdain to discourage any rebuttal, of which i have plenty.
Dare I say even contempt. I am not worthy.

Only if the shoe fits. I always am amazed that protestants invaribly will say that they cannot trust human beings to get things right, then promptly, submit their opinion of what scripture might mean. Not only are they human beings, but they are removed by 2000 years, and are not a member of that Church of 2000 years ago, to portray that they know better than say Ignatius, or Clement, all the while totally ignoring the Tradition which gave us the Bible in the first place.

 

[Rick Otto]

How 'bout you just keep the shoe outta my face altogether.
If you have a problem with me, I can deal with that. If you have a problem with a whole bunch of people, fine, but I am not them, and prefacing any constructive comment with your problem is self-defeating.

I am amazed at a bunch of stuff Catholics say, men they trust, and all they ignore, but I don't let it poison my conversation on specifics, nor do I wave it in their faces while trying to discuss something else. We have hindsight, which none of the ECF had.
Please don't project all your problems with others on me.

 

[Rightglory]

Otto,

How 'bout you just keep the shoe outta my face altogether.
If you have a problem with me, I can deal with that. If you have a problem with a whole bunch of people, fine, but I am not them, and prefacing any constructive comment with your problem is self-defeating.
I am amazed at a bunch of stuff Catholics say, men they trust, and all they ignore, but I don't let it poison my conversation on specifics, nor do I wave it in their faces while trying to discuss something else. We have hindsight, which none of the ECF had.
Please don't project all your problems with others on me.

I don't have the problem. I fully trust in what the Apostles taught, believed and established a very long time ago. That the generations including those of the very first century understood what they taught and recorded for us everything they taught, not just what eventually got written down.
ECF has much more hindsight than we do. They lived and experienced it first hand from the Apostles.
Now, what I stated, is that it amazes me that people living today, 2000 years removed from the reality of those living in the first century and sometime beyond, can know and understand what the Apostles might have meant, notwithstanding all the historical evidence to the contrary. That they actually base it on a partial gospel, and the fact they clearly indicate a total mistrust of human beings, yet that is what they are giving their human interpretation.
Now, if they simply admitted that it is their personal interpretation, based solely on scripture I could understand that. To claim that a view is apostolic and it has no evidence in the history of the Church of any single individual, let alone churchs, even regions, and the entire Christian Church has no record of that belief is what is amazing.
Now, that brings it back to your source, Gill. It is purely his personal opinion and does not even rely on facts, historical facts of what it has meant. In spite of that, as I stated, he describes some it it quite accurately. He should have brought in some support of Church Fathers to give it credibility. But lo, for most, Church Fathers are men and their "interpretations" are not reliable.
You reacted as if you were Gill. Why? Do you have some connection to Gill?

If you want to accept that view, I have no problem whatsoever. But I would have a problem if you claimed it was what was always believed, that it is apostolic, that is what the text means historically. At this point, you have not stated this. Mostly, your interpretation of Scripture does not lead you to accept Apostolic Succession, nor the laying on of hands, functions of the bishops etc. That was the discussion we were having.

 

[Rick Otto]

It is "apostolic", but not what was always believed.
'Always' there was an monopolistic agenda promoted from the inside. The myth of doctrinal purity & unity is not the unity of faith that Christ desired.
Mischaracterizing & disparaging Sola Scriptura as a "total mistrust of men" is either sloppy thinking, borderline slander, or both.
I accept Apostolic Succession, the laying on of hands, & the function of bishops, but not a grandiose proprietary caste.
I have less connection to Gill than you do the pope, & yet it is a better connection, I'm sure.

I fully trust in what the Apostles taught, not what somebody else says they taught. The scriptures don't need the ECF for affirmation, rather the reverse. Gill has not erred on that point.
You're attempt to redefine the discussion is embarrassing.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

I am amazed at the incredible arrogance those who think they, who have apparently done virtually no scholarship at all, know more 2000 years after the fact than the ones who learned at the very feet of the Apostles. The same Apostles who were commissioned by Jesus Christ Himself to teach it. On what basis do they think they know more than those that received it directly from the Apostles? Such hubris is really beyond belief.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Amazing how an historian today can claim to know more about John the Apostle and Chrisitanity then Polycarp or Ignatius who lived with and learned from John himself.

Even more amazing is that people that teach Sola Scriptura based on modern english translations without the history of the church, think they know more than Ignatius or Polycarp.