[RD] Ask a Theologian V

[timtofly]

I don't understand what you are trying to say with that last sentence. Women were purposefully excluded from positions of prominence. The mention of prophetesses falls under that, although a complementary reason was obviously that a church-based organization has little use for prophets speaking on their own authority rather than the church's. But it has also undeniably to do with the growing patriarchialism in the establishing church: women could found or lead communities or be 'diaconesses', as you say. Indeed, women played an important part in the spread of Christianity; none of this should be surprising given the attitude that Jesus himself displays towards women, as it is reported in the gospel texts. It wasn't until the 3rd century that women were forbidden all priestly functions during the eucharist. One does not forbid that which does not exist.

The office of prophet and deacon are not positions of "prominence". The term deacon means helper at it's best and servant at it's worst. Deacons were expected to carry out the menial task of the church. The Catholic Church as stands has no need for prophets either. I am not sure how any new revelation is going to change the traditions and dogma the church is entrenched in. I don't think the modern view has lumped all the terms into one office, nor does it really specialize people in certain areas. The church still has leaders and still has those people who put their energies into the church who are not considered leaders, but do what they can.

So Irenaeus and Tertullian were familiar with the concept of apostolic succession; that stands to reason, as the notion couldn't have come out of thin air. But the early Christian communities (i.e. early Christianity) were not. Which is hardly surprising, as it suggests some sort of transfer of authority. Also, Peter (who, according to a dubious gospel quote, was to be Jesus' successor) effectively did not 'succeed' Jesus; James, his brother, did, as leader of the Jerusalem community.

It would seem to me that succession was more a Jewish tradition than a church one. While it may be necessary for humans to need to have a connected authority, it seems that it leaves it up to human endeavor as opposed to having the authority straight from God. Saying that authority is passed down is based on the mistake that the church is built on a human foundation. The church is built on Christ and authority comes to each member on an equal footing through the Holy Spirit. It is not a human pyramid where authority trickles down.

Early Christianity did not have an organization until it was built up in the form as we know it today. Until that point - and quite some time after - it was effectively a sect, with all the varying opinions on what constitutes true Christianity. In spite of heresizing such opinions, they form an integral part of the history of Christianity and have ultimately led to the 260 plus official Christian churches of today.

You are partially right. There were assigned leaders and then the deacons who assisted those leaders. The Apostles themselves were not to stay in one place for too long. They anointed leaders for each local group that formed to be united in Christ. These leaders were people who accepted God and Jesus as the Christ. They were then anointed by the will of God. Each leader would then choose deacons who volunteered for the office. The majority of the NT were letters written between the churches spread over the world to keep some form of consistency. The whole point of keeping heresy out and the status quo in was the catalyst for a central authority and the move away from God centered to human centered. Structure in practice is not a bad concept. The church is supposed to act like this life is temporal and fleeting. However the church should not be so lackadaisical that it takes a strict and rigid governance to whip it into shape.

Very interesting, but rather unrelated to my comment. Jesus didn't baptize, as I'm sure you know. It's an innovation of the early church - just as 'apostolic succession', as I mentioned.

Baptism is actually an ancient Jewish tradition. Jesus went to a Jew and last prophet John to be baptized in accordance with the Law and tradition set therein. That Jesus did not baptize should be an indicator that it is not necessary, but some Jewish traditions did carry over into the church and became interwoven into it's fabric. So much so that it has become more of a deterrence than a contribution.

 

[Agent327]

I think I'll wait for Plotinus' response, if you don't mind.

 

[Gary Childress]

I don't know very much about them, unfortunately. Buddhism, Hinduism, and Daoism are certainly all quite different from Christianity in that they are not monotheistic - or at least, they're not monotheistic in the same way (I know that some forms of Hinduism come close). They're also not incarnational, at least not in the same way (again, some forms of Hinduism come close).

I think that all religions ultimately derive from fundamental features of human nature, such as our tendency to see patterns in things, our tendency to prefer intentional explanations over mechanistic ones, and so on. Everyone has these tendencies, though they do not result in religious belief among everyone. We can think of the different religions as different manifestations of these tendencies. They've developed differently from the same reason that other cultural heritages, such as language and customs, have developed differently - i.e. there's no grand explanation, it's just how things have turned out. I'm not sure what more I can say, really.

Fair answer. Thank you Plotinus. Almost all of what little I know about Hinduism, Buddhism and Daoism comes from Joseph Campbell, Huston Smith and a Japanese "Comparative Religions" professor who taught at George Mason at the time I went there. And of course, as most people, I've read a few Zen koans.

Joseph Campbell tried to sum up Eastern vs. Western religion largely in terms of Duality vs. whatever it is Eastern Religions teach. Campbell was a bit of a rebel against Catholicism, so he threw in a few slurs against the Catholics in some of his stuff which I read or saw in the Bill Moyer's interview. Interesting guy, also the inspiration for George Lucas and the whole "Star Wars" franchise.

 

[Tahuti]

What do you think of Perennial philosophy?

 

[The Strategos]

As to Strategos' reference on baptism, technically one doesn't need to be ordained to baptise, or even Christian, one just has to intend to induct one into the Church of God and conduct the rite with appropriate matter and form (fresh water over head in such a way as it flows, and "I baptise you in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the Holy spirit"). Hence women being able to baptise is a non-starter, since they can (indeed the Mortara affair was a thing because a serving woman in the household allegedly conducted an emergency baptism during a childhood illness), although ordinary practice is to have baptisms done by the clergy.

Remember to what I was responding: the claim that in the early church women did not occupy "prominent" positions. My reply was even setting aside "heretical" churches, women 1) Are known to occupy positions of apostles, prophets, patrons, monastics each which is known to represent recognized alternate spiritual authority to the formalized hierarchical structure and thus should be considered "prominent" positions; 2) Women were also accused of taking on roles that the accusers saw as reserved for clergy namely teaching and baptizing. Furthermore, the women were baptizing as a normative action. That is it was not a one-time situation such as emergency baptism that was the complaint but rather part of the regular liturgical life of the church. Anyway since I unwisely (because it wasn't my main point) mentioned the Catholic church, let me quote modern canon law here:

Can. 861.1 The ordinary minister of baptism is a Bishop, a priest or a deacon, without prejudice to the provision of can. 530, n. 1.

Can. 863 The baptism of adults, at least of those who have completed their fourteenth year, is to be referred to the Bishop, so that he himself may confer it if he judges this appropriate.

The modern Catholic critique of the practice described in the early church of women baptizing would be that women were taking upon themselves the powers of "ordinary minister of baptism" contra canon 861.1 and that women were baptizing adults contra canon 863.

Very interesting, but rather unrelated to my comment. Jesus didn't baptize, as I'm sure you know. It's an innovation of the early church - just as 'apostolic succession', as I mentioned.

Quite a few historians of Christianity think that Jesus did baptize. In the gospel of John Jesus is mentioned as baptizing 3 times: John 3.22 (and he [Jesus] spent some time there with them and baptized); John 3.26 (Rabbi [referring to John the Baptist], the one who was with you across the Jordan [Jesus], to whom you testified, here he is baptizing); and John 4.1-3 (Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John). The last reference is qualified: "although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized" but many, many scholars think that is a later addition. The question is then which more likely to be historically accurate: the earlier Synoptic gospels which do not mention Jesus baptizing or the later John account which does. One of the rules of thumb the various quests for the historical Jesus use is that if an event or words cause trouble to the author's own theology, they are unlikely to have been made up by the author. I lean towards thinking that is the case here as there seems no good reason that the author of John would make up a tradition of Jesus as baptizer while good reasons to think that the tradition causes trouble for the Christian community.

Now that said, you are correct in that baptism was not the only initiation rite in early Christianity as the New Testament betrays knowledge of several different initiation rites including hand-laying, foot-washing (debated), anointing using oil, an initiation meal, etc.

Baptism is actually an ancient Jewish tradition. Jesus went to a Jew and last prophet John to be baptized in accordance with the Law and tradition set therein. That Jesus did not baptize should be an indicator that it is not necessary, but some Jewish traditions did carry over into the church and became interwoven into it's fabric. So much so that it has become more of a deterrence than a contribution.

There is no firm evidence of "baptism" prior to John the Baptizer, which hardly makes it an "ancient Jewish tradition." There are two close rituals: 1) a Gentile conversion ritual into Judaism which has the disadvantage of our evidence for its existance being post-John the Baptist and 2) Jewish ritual washings. Now there are enough core differences between Jewish ritual washings and John's baptism that it is unlikely that they are the background for baptism: 1) Jewish ritual washings are repeated daily; baptism is a 1 time event; 2) ritual washings are for cultic purity; John's baptism is for repentance; 3) ritual washings are self-administered, baptism is administered by someone else (usually, I am aware of at least one exception); 4) the way the early church interpreted baptism is as initiation into a community, ritual washings are not for initiation.

The office of prophet and deacon are not positions of "prominence". The term deacon means helper at it's best and servant at it's worst. Deacons were expected to carry out the menial task of the church.

The Didache would be surprised to hear that the office of prophet is not a position of prominence since one of the main points of the document is to argue that the office of bishop deserved just as much respect as the office of prophet. In other words, the prophets were more respected and the Didache had to argue that bishops deserved just as much respect.

As for deacons, well when one of the titles of the bishop of Rome is "Servant of the Servants of God" (used since ~600CE) you need a stronger argument that the office isn't a position of prominence other than its name translates to servant. Indeed, when Jesus himself states that to be the greatest you need to be a "servant of all", it would seem that a title of "servant" in the church would be more of an indication of importance than the opposite. Also, I am not sure what "menial tasks" you had in mind, most sources give a prominent liturgical role to deacons and agree that they had a central part in the Christian patronage system (he who controls the purse...).

 

[Jehoshua]

Remember to what I was responding: the claim that in the early church women did not occupy "prominent" positions. My reply was even setting aside "heretical" churches, women 1) Are known to occupy positions of apostles, prophets, patrons, monastics each which is known to represent recognized alternate spiritual authority to the formalized hierarchical structure and thus should be considered "prominent" positions; 2) Women were also accused of taking on roles that the accusers saw as reserved for clergy namely teaching and baptizing. Furthermore, the women were baptizing as a normative action. That is it was not a one-time situation such as emergency baptism that was the complaint but rather part of the regular liturgical life of the church. Anyway since I unwisely (because it wasn't my main point) mentioned the Catholic church, let me quote modern canon law here:

Can. 861.1 The ordinary minister of baptism is a Bishop, a priest or a deacon, without prejudice to the provision of can. 530, n. 1.

Can. 863 The baptism of adults, at least of those who have completed their fourteenth year, is to be referred to the Bishop, so that he himself may confer it if he judges this appropriate.

The modern Catholic critique of the practice described in the early church of women baptizing would be that women were taking upon themselves the powers of "ordinary minister of baptism" contra canon 861.1 and that women were baptizing adults contra canon 863.

The term minister in the Catholic Church refers not to a clerical rank, but to rather one commissioned to perform some act on behalf of the Church. The term ordinary minister then in the 1983 code of canon law (which you are quoting) means simply that the ordained clergy are the ones who normally would conduct the sacrament, acting on behalf of the Church. It in no way contradicts what I noted regarding the fact that the sacrament of baptism can be performed by the laity (although in that circumstance it would be an extra-ordinary ministration of the sacrament). Also your point that the "modern catholic criticism would be that they are usurping the role of ordinary ministers" is nonsensical, seeing as canon law doesn't apply retroactively to prior to its institution (the current code being promulgated in 1983, with some amendments since then), and, as I noted, there is no ontological or theological impediment that bars laity, including women from baptising. Any objection during the period or since against women baptising (seeing as its never been valid at least in orthodox Christianity to say that women cannot actually baptise) would fundamentally then be associated with concerns regarding associated heresy, or actively opposing the lawful authority of the local ordinary (bishop), and not be fundamentally about the act of baptism itself.

On another point you made, namely groups forming an "alternative spiritual authority". This again is nonsensical in consideration of orthodox Christianity, by which I mean the collective of ancient churches (the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox). Authority rests in the magisterium firstly as the living voice of authority, and with sacred scripture and tradition with all three being intertwined together in terms of their relationship. Monastic establishments, have always bowed before this font of authority, and acknowledged its primacy, women monastics, laity and saints being no exception. Their preaching and doctrine (leaving aside the heretics) has always been as a presentation of the authoritative doctrine of the Church, and a reflection of the singular organic unity of the faiths spiritual life. There was no parallel authority, alternate and perhaps even rival to the magisterium as you suggest, and there remains no legitimate parallel authority in in the present in ecclesiologically. Its not for no reason that St Ignatius Loyola is alleged to have said and I paraphrase "I would believe black to be white if the hierarchical Church so defines it", he is referring to the ecclesiological underpinnings of the historical Christian conception of authority going right back to the earliest beginnings of Christianity. Ignatius of Antioch in his epistle to the smyrnaeans (c 106 ad) for example noted that "where the bishop is there let the people be, for where Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church" again speaking to the idea of authority being invested in the episcopate as the successors of the apostles. If we must refer to canon law, Ius Antiquum (ancient canon law) clearly reflects this as well, being primarily a product of evangelical councils (the pivotal exercise of magisterial authority) supplemented by papal decretals upon the ancient maxim of "Roma locuta est, causa finite est" Rome has spoken, the case is closed.

Obviously the early heretical offshoots of orthodox Christianity had their own varying, wondrous and bizarre idiosyncrasies, just as all of them have withered into extinction on the vine of their heresy. However you put them aside, as did I, seeing as they did not compose the mainstream and are thus not particularly relevant to the peripheral point (of your point) which we are discussing (seeing as I did not discuss and don't particularly want to discuss your main point. My point was that your assertion that women could not baptise is wrong, which you tacitly admit anyway in your response).

 

[timtofly]

Quite a few historians of Christianity think that Jesus did baptize. In the gospel of John Jesus is mentioned as baptizing 3 times: John 3.22 (and he [Jesus] spent some time there with them and baptized); John 3.26 (Rabbi [referring to John the Baptist], the one who was with you across the Jordan [Jesus], to whom you testified, here he is baptizing); and John 4.1-3 (Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John). The last reference is qualified: "although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized" but many, many scholars think that is a later addition. The question is then which more likely to be historically accurate: the earlier Synoptic gospels which do not mention Jesus baptizing or the later John account which does. One of the rules of thumb the various quests for the historical Jesus use is that if an event or words cause trouble to the author's own theology, they are unlikely to have been made up by the author. I lean towards thinking that is the case here as there seems no good reason that the author of John would make up a tradition of Jesus as baptizer while good reasons to think that the tradition causes trouble for the Christian community.

Now that said, you are correct in that baptism was not the only initiation rite in early Christianity as the New Testament betrays knowledge of several different initiation rites including hand-laying, foot-washing (debated), anointing using oil, an initiation meal, etc.


There is no firm evidence of "baptism" prior to John the Baptizer, which hardly makes it an "ancient Jewish tradition." There are two close rituals: 1) a Gentile conversion ritual into Judaism which has the disadvantage of our evidence for its existance being post-John the Baptist and 2) Jewish ritual washings. Now there are enough core differences between Jewish ritual washings and John's baptism that it is unlikely that they are the background for baptism: 1) Jewish ritual washings are repeated daily; baptism is a 1 time event; 2) ritual washings are for cultic purity; John's baptism is for repentance; 3) ritual washings are self-administered, baptism is administered by someone else (usually, I am aware of at least one exception); 4) the way the early church interpreted baptism is as initiation into a community, ritual washings are not for initiation.

I am not sure how you can equate the modern practice as being the same during Jesus' time. It is not stated that John baptized a person just once. The emphasis that Jesus only did it once and God was pleased does not guarantee that every person who was being baptized at that time did not refrain from doing it every time they felt the need to confess their sins. Some even practiced it twice a day as a daily ritual. While circumcision and baptism were part of an initiation rite, one did not keep getting circumcised, but they did observe baptism over and over. If it was pointed out that Jesus did not do it, but his disciples did, we cannot necessarily equate that it was always an initiation rite, but that even his disciples continuously themselves were being baptized and baptizing each other as it was a daily observance as well as an initiation rite.

Didache[/i] would be surprised to hear that the office of prophet is not a position of prominence since one of the main points of the document is to argue that the office of bishop deserved just as much respect as the office of prophet. In other words, the prophets were more respected and the Didache had to argue that bishops deserved just as much respect.

As for deacons, well when one of the titles of the bishop of Rome is "Servant of the Servants of God" (used since ~600CE) you need a stronger argument that the office isn't a position of prominence other than its name translates to servant. Indeed, when Jesus himself states that to be the greatest you need to be a "servant of all", it would seem that a title of "servant" in the church would be more of an indication of importance than the opposite. Also, I am not sure what "menial tasks" you had in mind, most sources give a prominent liturgical role to deacons and agree that they had a central part in the Christian patronage system (he who controls the purse...).

The term deacon was given to those who carried out the daily task or manual labor which included the distribution of supplies, and taking care of those people who could not take care of themselves.

Prophecy was important in the early church. Not so much after the traditions and canon was set down and not so easily changed.

 

[Gary Childress]

Sorry one correction to my most recent post above. The Japanese professor at GMU who taught the class I took was NOT a "comparative religions" professor (or at least that was not the name of the class I took with him). I believe the class was called "Eastern Religions" or something like that. I took another class on Judaism, Christianity and Islam from another professor. Strangely enough I remember more from the "Eastern Religions" class than I do the class on Christianity, Judaism and Islam. I'm sort of strange that way I guess.

 

[Agent327]

Remember to what I was responding: the claim that in the early church women did not occupy "prominent" positions. My reply was even setting aside "heretical" churches, women 1) Are known to occupy positions of apostles, prophets, patrons, monastics each which is known to represent recognized alternate spiritual authority to the formalized hierarchical structure and thus should be considered "prominent" positions; 2) Women were also accused of taking on roles that the accusers saw as reserved for clergy namely teaching and baptizing. Furthermore, the women were baptizing as a normative action. That is it was not a one-time situation such as emergency baptism that was the complaint but rather part of the regular liturgical life of the church.

Indeed.

Quite a few historians of Christianity think that Jesus did baptize. In the gospel of John Jesus is mentioned as baptizing 3 times: John 3.22 (and he [Jesus] spent some time there with them and baptized); John 3.26 (Rabbi [referring to John the Baptist], the one who was with you across the Jordan [Jesus], to whom you testified, here he is baptizing); and John 4.1-3 (Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John). The last reference is qualified: "although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized" but many, many scholars think that is a later addition. The question is then which more likely to be historically accurate: the earlier Synoptic gospels which do not mention Jesus baptizing or the later John account which does. One of the rules of thumb the various quests for the historical Jesus use is that if an event or words cause trouble to the author's own theology, they are unlikely to have been made up by the author. I lean towards thinking that is the case here as there seems no good reason that the author of John would make up a tradition of Jesus as baptizer while good reasons to think that the tradition causes trouble for the Christian community.

Now that said, you are correct in that baptism was not the only initiation rite in early Christianity as the New Testament betrays knowledge of several different initiation rites including hand-laying, foot-washing (debated), anointing using oil, an initiation meal, etc.

This is, basically, contradictory. The gospel of John diverts in more than one way from the earlier, synoptic, gospels. If Jesus did indeed baptize there are three authors who missed that. This is entirely possible of cours, but improbable. Since we can assume that the Christian tradition of baptism must have started some time, the most logical assumption would be that this occurred between the synoptic and the John gospels. This is the simplest explanation for why there is no mention on Jesus baptizing in the earlier gospels. So there is little need for John to 'make up' anything: he is merely describing a Christian practice such as it was known to him and attributing this to acts of Jesus - a common practice. (Interestingly, baptism is already mentioned in some of Paul's letters, so the practice must have started quite early.)

There is no firm evidence of "baptism" prior to John the Baptizer, which hardly makes it an "ancient Jewish tradition." There are two close rituals: 1) a Gentile conversion ritual into Judaism which has the disadvantage of our evidence for its existance being post-John the Baptist and 2) Jewish ritual washings. Now there are enough core differences between Jewish ritual washings and John's baptism that it is unlikely that they are the background for baptism: 1) Jewish ritual washings are repeated daily; baptism is a 1 time event; 2) ritual washings are for cultic purity; John's baptism is for repentance; 3) ritual washings are self-administered, baptism is administered by someone else (usually, I am aware of at least one exception); 4) the way the early church interpreted baptism is as initiation into a community, ritual washings are not for initiation.

The Judaic cultic purity element has a faint reflection in the small holy water basins used to make a cross when entering church. Of course at this point it has become wholly symbolical, whereas originally the idea was that one should clean oneself quite literally.

The Didache would be surprised to hear that the office of prophet is not a position of prominence since one of the main points of the document is to argue that the office of bishop deserved just as much respect as the office of prophet. In other words, the prophets were more respected and the Didache had to argue that bishops deserved just as much respect.

As for deacons, well when one of the titles of the bishop of Rome is "Servant of the Servants of God" (used since ~600CE) you need a stronger argument that the office isn't a position of prominence other than its name translates to servant. Indeed, when Jesus himself states that to be the greatest you need to be a "servant of all", it would seem that a title of "servant" in the church would be more of an indication of importance than the opposite. Also, I am not sure what "menial tasks" you had in mind, most sources give a prominent liturgical role to deacons and agree that they had a central part in the Christian patronage system (he who controls the purse...).

I'm afraid that people tend to 'read back' the modern meaning of a word or function into the original. It's a rather common mistake, I think.

Very enlightening comment, by the way.

 

[Plotinus]

Do you think the Bible advocates Universal Reconciliation and baptism by desire? Are the two related?

Universal salvation is suggested by a number of passages, most notably 1 Corinthians 15:22-28. Other passages suggest otherwise, though. This is why one cannot really say that "the Bible" "advocates" anything. There's no such thing as "the Bible" that can have an opinion about anything. It's a collection of texts with their own viewpoints, which aren't necessarily even consistent in themselves.

As for baptism by desire, I think that that presupposes a sacramental theology that isn't found in the Bible in the first place, so it's just an issue that doesn't arise in any biblical text one way or another.

I don't understand what you are trying to say with that last sentence.

You had claimed that the Catholic exclusion of women from the priesthood is inconsistent with early Christian practice. I was saying that it is not inconsistent with early Christian practice, because there's no indication that any women were priests in the early church (although there's certainly evidence that they held other positions).

Women were purposefully excluded from positions of prominence.

That may be true, but I'm not sure what evidence there is for it.

The mention of prophetesses falls under that, although a complementary reason was obviously that a church-based organization has little use for prophets speaking on their own authority rather than the church's. But it has also undeniably to do with the growing patriarchialism in the establishing church: women could found or lead communities or be 'diaconesses', as you say.

I think it's not so much "growing patriarchalism" as the rise of one form of church leadership over others. Remember that for the first couple of centuries there was no standard form of church organisation, and different churches seem to have used different structures and models.

Indeed, women played an important part in the spread of Christianity; none of this should be surprising given the attitude that Jesus himself displays towards women, as it is reported in the gospel texts.

That is certainly true, and is attested by pagan writers on Christianity. But I don't think it's very relevant to the claim that modern Catholicism is inconsistent with early Christianity, because there's nothing in modern Catholicism that says women can't be missionaries.

It wasn't until the 3rd century that women were forbidden all priestly functions during the eucharist. One does not forbid that which does not exist.

Do you have a reference for this?

So Irenaeus and Tertullian were familiar with the concept of apostolic succession; that stands to reason, as the notion couldn't have come out of thin air. But the early Christian communities (i.e. early Christianity) were not.

You're not defining "early Christianity" here; I'd have thought that Irenaeus and Tertullian were pretty early! If you mean the very first generation, then obviously the issue of apostolic succession wouldn't have applied, since they thought the world was about to end. However, one could arguably see the beginnings of the idea in Luke. He portrays the apostles as choosing a replacement for Judas and then establishing a church which is to exist in a new, post-ascension age.

Also, Peter (who, according to a dubious gospel quote, was to be Jesus' successor) effectively did not 'succeed' Jesus; James, his brother, did, as leader of the Jerusalem community.

I don't think anyone really "succeeded" Jesus; but in any case, the Catholic notion of apostolic succession doesn't claim that anyone did. It claims that there's an unbroken line of succession going back to the apostles, not that the apostles were the successors of Jesus.

Early Christianity did not have an organization until it was built up in the form as we know it today. Until that point - and quite some time after - it was effectively a sect, with all the varying opinions on what constitutes true Christianity. In spite of heresizing such opinions, they form an integral part of the history of Christianity and have ultimately led to the 260 plus official Christian churches of today.

I don't think this is true. The evidence suggests that the first generation was rather chaotic (e.g. 1 Corinthians 12), but even there organisation existed - e.g. in 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13, Paul instructs his readers to obey those in charge. Within a couple of generations there was indeed much clearer organisation, but it wasn't uniform. Different churches had different systems. These different systems did not map onto the distinction between "orthodox" and "heretical", even assuming that such a distinction can be applied to the first and early second centuries.

So for example, the book of Revelation and the Didache both testify to a system of "prophets" and "apostles". Revelation portrays the "apostles" as itinerant, and at least some of the "prophets" as female. The Didache makes it clear that both "prophets" and "apostles" are itinerant. So there seems to have been a largely prophetic-based ministry in the churches of Asia Minor at the end of the first century, but we don't really know how it worked. No doubt the later Montanist movement in that area developed from it in some way.

The Pastoral Epistles suggest a very different system, one where the church is run by a single "bishop" and a group of "deacons", though the relationship between them is not spelled out. There are also "elders", but it is not clear how they relate to the bishop and deacons. 1 Clement, written at the end of the first century, refers only to "elders" in the church at Corinth, a situation that seems also to be implied by 1 Peter 5:1-5.

The book of Acts, moreover, also has elders but no bishops or deacons. But 13:1-3 has "prophets and teachers" at Antioch, again with no explanation of who they are or what their role is.

So the different texts we have indicate a confusion of different systems in place in different churches. Some churches seem to have governed by a sort of council of elders or deacons. Others had a single bishop, possibly in conjunction with a group of deacons. Others had prophets, apostles, or teachers. And probably others still have elements drawn from all these different systems. And these differences were all within the "mainstream" church. Over time, they all gradually became uniform and adopted the same system of "episcopal monarchy", with each church run by a single bishop assisted by priests and deacons; but we shouldn't read the later meanings of these terms back into the earlier texts.

The large number of different Christian denominations today have nothing at all to do with this diversity of organisations in the primitive church. They split off at much later times, after the adoption by all churches of the episcopal monarchy. Modern churches which use different systems (e.g. the Presbyterians) developed those systems in modern times and there is no historical continuity with the primitive churches. They're attempts to replicate what they believe to the systems described in the Bible.

I count Jesus as healing 11 lepers. Am I wrong?

I don't know. If you mean eleven such healings occur in the New Testament, perhaps that's the case. Whether that means that Jesus really healed precisely eleven lepers in his life is obviously impossible to say.

The office of prophet and deacon are not positions of "prominence". The term deacon means helper at it's best and servant at it's worst. Deacons were expected to carry out the menial task of the church.

This isn't correct - there's no suggestion in the New Testament that this is the role of the deacons, and some churches seem to have been governed only by deacons beyond the New Testament period.

You are partially right. There were assigned leaders and then the deacons who assisted those leaders. The Apostles themselves were not to stay in one place for too long. They anointed leaders for each local group that formed to be united in Christ. These leaders were people who accepted God and Jesus as the Christ. They were then anointed by the will of God. Each leader would then choose deacons who volunteered for the office. The majority of the NT were letters written between the churches spread over the world to keep some form of consistency. The whole point of keeping heresy out and the status quo in was the catalyst for a central authority and the move away from God centered to human centered. Structure in practice is not a bad concept. The church is supposed to act like this life is temporal and fleeting. However the church should not be so lackadaisical that it takes a strict and rigid governance to whip it into shape.

As I said, I don't think it was nearly this straightforward. The church of the first century didn't have a consistent approach to organisation and different communities used different systems.

What do you think of Perennial philosophy?

I think it's really wishful thinking that ignores things like historical development in an attempt to make people agree who didn't really agree.

I am not sure how you can equate the modern practice as being the same during Jesus' time. It is not stated that John baptized a person just once. The emphasis that Jesus only did it once and God was pleased does not guarantee that every person who was being baptized at that time did not refrain from doing it every time they felt the need to confess their sins. Some even practiced it twice a day as a daily ritual. While circumcision and baptism were part of an initiation rite, one did not keep getting circumcised, but they did observe baptism over and over. If it was pointed out that Jesus did not do it, but his disciples did, we cannot necessarily equate that it was always an initiation rite, but that even his disciples continuously themselves were being baptized and baptizing each other as it was a daily observance as well as an initiation rite.

I don't know what your evidence for this is, but I've never heard of any indication that the early Christians baptised more than once.

This is, basically, contradictory. The gospel of John diverts in more than one way from the earlier, synoptic, gospels. If Jesus did indeed baptize there are three authors who missed that. This is entirely possible of cours, but improbable. Since we can assume that the Christian tradition of baptism must have started some time, the most logical assumption would be that this occurred between the synoptic and the John gospels. This is the simplest explanation for why there is no mention on Jesus baptizing in the earlier gospels. So there is little need for John to 'make up' anything: he is merely describing a Christian practice such as it was known to him and attributing this to acts of Jesus - a common practice. (Interestingly, baptism is already mentioned in some of Paul's letters, so the practice must have started quite early.)

You contradict yourself here. If baptism is mentioned by Paul, then it can't have first appeared after the Synoptics but before John, because Paul was before the Synoptics.

A more plausible explanation for Jesus baptising in John but not the Synoptics would be that John was more prone to read contemporary Christian practices back into Jesus than the Synoptic authors were. After all, baptism is a common occurrence in Acts and is also mentioned at the end of Matthew; these authors came from communities where baptism was practised, though they do not attribute it to Jesus.[/QUOTE]

 

[KevinLancaster]

I don't know what your evidence for this is, but I've never heard of any indication that the early Christians baptised more than once.

Wasn't there a debate in Early Christianity over whether or not those baptised by John the Baptist had to be baptised again?

 

[timtofly]

This isn't correct - there's no suggestion in the New Testament that this is the role of the deacons, and some churches seem to have been governed only by deacons beyond the New Testament period.

The Greek term means servant or minister. And not necessarily the same use of minister today. Even the RC recognizes the office as one just below a priest. I did not mean to imply that they could not be leaders in their own right, but the reason they were called deacons is because they served in physical task so that the apostles could devote themselves more to the spiritual leadership.

My error was in calling such work as menial. It was an important task and not really an hierarchical position, but one different in another way.

The "office" was mentioned in Acts 6 where they appointed 7 from among them to do such a task. It seems that in the NT, Christ was the head of the church and there was no one who really had any more authority than any one else. As church organization was further removed from the experiences of the Apostles it did evolve the need to find a way to pass down authority and the different offices were redefined.

I don't know what your evidence for this is, but I've never heard of any indication that the early Christians baptised more than once.

Seeing as how Jesus and his disciples at the time they were baptizing were not Christians either, the meaning of how the Jews used it and how the church implemented it would be two different things. Although this has always seemed to me to be a winless debate among Christians to this day. It is a rite that the church requires to even be a member in most cases. In some cases it is the only means of salvation.

It was a Jewish tradition and it was a daily repetitive procedure for some. John the Baptist was born into a priestly family and for whatever reason his ministry was in the wilderness. He did his ritual procedure of baptism as immersion in the river itself. It is clear that baptism was done as to "absolve'" one from their "sins". What seems to be different is that he also required repentance. The connotation of that today seems to imply that it was only needed to happen once. That the Ethiopian eunuch upon hearing of his condition asked to be baptized, was not because he was an educated Christian, but because he was well read in the Jewish OT.

John mentioned that the Christ would baptize with fire and on the day of Pentecost there was a baptism of fire. I fail to understand why the old Jewish ritual was passed on as important and the baptism of fire is hardly mentioned more than once a year.

 

[_random_]

Universal salvation is suggested by a number of passages, most notably 1 Corinthians 15:22-28. Other passages suggest otherwise, though. This is why one cannot really say that "the Bible" "advocates" anything. There's no such thing as "the Bible" that can have an opinion about anything. It's a collection of texts with their own viewpoints, which aren't necessarily even consistent in themselves.

Do you think there's a good case to be made that St. Paul was consistently universalist?

 

[timtofly]

Does universalist mean that one has no choice in the matter?

 

[_random_]

Not necessarily. I believe that's why Origen was condemned, but one could believe that everyone inevitably will freely chose to be saved.

 

[timtofly]

The point of Origen's heresy was that he allegedly taught that all souls were created before the earth was formed and that they would all find their way back to God. That would be different from the teachings of Paul that salvation was provided for all. There is no mention that it was the way back for all the lost souls. The point of re-incarnation is just that. A soul is guaranteed multiple times at life until it is restored to God. It is hard to say that Origin actually believed in re-incarnation, but stating that all souls were created before the fall and that their bodies did not matter would be similar.

I am not sure that Paul ever taught that souls were pre-created. The books left out of the OT talk about the pre-existence of souls and Paul may have been influenced by the Hellenistic views that Origen was taught, but even if Paul was taught those things, he does not seem to pass on that he accepted such teachings. It was the choice of Adam that brought sin into the world, not that souls were pre-created and then incorporated throughout human history. Paul did say that Christ brought into the world the ability to be made alive. In fact he even mentioned that all would be made alive. The point about it being a choice though is that he qualifies the all as being in Christ. In chapter 6 he clearly points out that those who are not in Christ will not enjoy the universal application of salvation. The act of choice seems to be implied. It also seems that he encouraged people to stay dedicated to Christ, and that returning to the old ways would not toss you out of Christ, but it would lower one's reward later. He never wrote that after death one would have the ability to choose.


The reason I asked about the choice is because I wondered if universalist thought the choice was automatic and universal. That would seem to be where Paul's universalism differed. Christ died for all, but only those in Christ would be made alive. Those who do not accept Christ would remain in their condition.

 

[Plotinus]

The Greek term means servant or minister. And not necessarily the same use of minister today. Even the RC recognizes the office as one just below a priest. I did not mean to imply that they could not be leaders in their own right, but the reason they were called deacons is because they served in physical task so that the apostles could devote themselves more to the spiritual leadership.

My error was in calling such work as menial. It was an important task and not really an hierarchical position, but one different in another way.

The "office" was mentioned in Acts 6 where they appointed 7 from among them to do such a task. It seems that in the NT, Christ was the head of the church and there was no one who really had any more authority than any one else. As church organization was further removed from the experiences of the Apostles it did evolve the need to find a way to pass down authority and the different offices were redefined.

I don't believe that Acts 6 mentions the term "deacon". The seven people appointed in that passage aren't given a title.

Deacons today - and from antiquity - are indeed lower down the hierarchy than a priest. But my point was that originally they seem to have been a separate kind of organisation. When the diaconate and the priesthood came together, the priests ended up higher than the deacons.

Do you think there's a good case to be made that St. Paul was consistently universalist?

I don't think he says enough about it to be considered consistently universalist. Romans 5:18 and 11:32 are other texts that seem to support it. But Romans 11:22 and 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 (assuming Paul wrote that) seem to contradict it.

Does universalist mean that one has no choice in the matter?

Not at all. A universalist may believe merely that everyone will, eventually, choose Christ. This is what Origen seems to have believed. He pointed out that good is infinite while evil is finite. Therefore, it is impossible to choose evil permanently; eventually, everyone, no matter how wicked, would eventually choose good. However, it is uncertain whether Origen was actually a universalist.

Not necessarily. I believe that's why Origen was condemned, but one could believe that everyone inevitably will freely chose to be saved.

Origen was never condemned. Origenism was condemned at the fifth ecumenical council, but not Origen himself; and what was condemned was mainly a series of teachings about the resurrection, not all of which can be found in Origen's extant works. It wasn't his views on salvation that were at issue.

Also, Origen was a strong believer in the freedom of the will, so if he was a universalist he certainly thought that everyone will freely choose what is right, not have it forced upon them.

The point of Origen's heresy was that he allegedly taught that all souls were created before the earth was formed and that they would all find their way back to God. That would be different from the teachings of Paul that salvation was provided for all. There is no mention that it was the way back for all the lost souls. The point of re-incarnation is just that. A soul is guaranteed multiple times at life until it is restored to God. It is hard to say that Origin actually believed in re-incarnation, but stating that all souls were created before the fall and that their bodies did not matter would be similar.

If you take seriously what Origen seems to say in On First Principles then he certainly did believe in the pre-existence and migration of souls, and that they would all eventually be reunited with God; but that book exists in such a sadly tattered state that no-one can be confident exactly what Origen said and what it meant.

But, again, Origen wasn't a heretic. The views for which he was considered controversial in his day and for the couple of centuries afterwards were his views on the resurrection of believers, in which he seemed to deny its true physicality and make out that the body is only temporary. Note that Gregory of Nyssa taught universalism far more clearly and consistently than Origen ever did, and he never got into any trouble for it - on the contrary, he's one of the most important saints in the Orthodox churches.

I am not sure that Paul ever taught that souls were pre-created. The books left out of the OT talk about the pre-existence of souls and Paul may have been influenced by the Hellenistic views that Origen was taught, but even if Paul was taught those things, he does not seem to pass on that he accepted such teachings. It was the choice of Adam that brought sin into the world, not that souls were pre-created and then incorporated throughout human history. Paul did say that Christ brought into the world the ability to be made alive. In fact he even mentioned that all would be made alive. The point about it being a choice though is that he qualifies the all as being in Christ. In chapter 6 he clearly points out that those who are not in Christ will not enjoy the universal application of salvation. The act of choice seems to be implied. It also seems that he encouraged people to stay dedicated to Christ, and that returning to the old ways would not toss you out of Christ, but it would lower one's reward later. He never wrote that after death one would have the ability to choose.

I think this is correct, but clearly one doesn't have to believe in the pre-existence of souls to be a universalist - again, Gregory of Nyssa didn't.

 

[Agent327]

You had claimed that the Catholic exclusion of women from the priesthood is inconsistent with early Christian practice. I was saying that it is not inconsistent with early Christian practice, because there's no indication that any women were priests in the early church (although there's certainly evidence that they held other positions).

I'm not sure what else you would call women leading a Christian community. Bishops? Or did I misread your affirmation that women did play leading roles, whereas within a few centuries they did not?

That may be true, but I'm not sure what evidence there is for it.

The fact that for centuries there have not been any female priests? Or bishops? I would call that a mount of evidence. With the development of a clearly organized church (keeping in mind the 'chaotic' situation that existed in early Christianity) went together the reservation of all positions of prominence to males.

As Strategos just mentioned:

Remember to what I was responding: the claim that in the early church women did not occupy "prominent" positions. My reply was even setting aside "heretical" churches, women 1) Are known to occupy positions of apostles, prophets, patrons, monastics each which is known to represent recognized alternate spiritual authority to the formalized hierarchical structure and thus should be considered "prominent" positions; 2) Women were also accused of taking on roles that the accusers saw as reserved for clergy namely teaching and baptizing. Furthermore, the women were baptizing as a normative action. That is it was not a one-time situation such as emergency baptism that was the complaint but rather part of the regular liturgical life of the church.

I think it's not so much "growing patriarchalism" as the rise of one form of church leadership over others. Remember that for the first couple of centuries there was no standard form of church organisation, and different churches seem to have used different structures and models.

Really? You are unaware of a growing mysogyny in early Christianity? I don't think one can relegate the removal of women from all position of prominence simply to a matter of church organisation. That, for one, does not explain why all leading position should be exclusively male. One might, possibly, argue that it is a matter of growing conformism on the part of the church towards society in general. That is, if it weren't accompanied by Christian writers being, shall we say, unkind towards the female sex. which was coincidentally also the case. Of course one might still claim that these are entirely different and unrelated developments. But that would then be the least probable conclusion. Not impossible, but unlikely. Especially considering that patriarchalism has never really left the church thereafter.

That is certainly true, and is attested by pagan writers on Christianity. But I don't think it's very relevant to the claim that modern Catholicism is inconsistent with early Christianity, because there's nothing in modern Catholicism that says women can't be missionaries.

I don't quite see what changing attitudes in modern Catholicism have to with changing church attitude towards women in antiquity.

Do you have a reference for this?

H. Preisker, Christentum und Ehe in den ersten 3 Jahrhunderten, 1927, p. 184. (I don't know if there exists an English translation.)

You're not defining "early Christianity" here; I'd have thought that Irenaeus and Tertullian were pretty early! If you mean the very first generation, then obviously the issue of apostolic succession wouldn't have applied, since they thought the world was about to end. However, one could arguably see the beginnings of the idea in Luke. He portrays the apostles as choosing a replacement for Judas and then establishing a church which is to exist in a new, post-ascension age.

I'm not sure if (and how) that relates to apostolic succession. I can see your point, but I would think that "early Christianity" starts with the death of Jesus. Irenaeus was a 2nd century bishop, Tertullian a Christian writer (theologian?) from Carthage of slightly later date (who, as I understand, also first mentioned the Trinity). So at this point there would already have been Christian communities in Roman Africa and Gaul. Perhaps I should have said earliest Christianity?

I don't think anyone really "succeeded" Jesus; but in any case, the Catholic notion of apostolic succession doesn't claim that anyone did. It claims that there's an unbroken line of succession going back to the apostles, not that the apostles were the successors of Jesus.

An unbroken line of succession linking the popes to Peter in particular. For which they made a neat chronological list of bishops of Rome. But when Peter visited Rome, according to the stories, there was already a community there. Moreover at this point there would have been no bishops (in Rome or anywhere else).

I don't know. If you mean eleven such healings occur in the New Testament, perhaps that's the case. Whether that means that Jesus really healed precisely eleven lepers in his life is obviously impossible to say.

Indeed, as attributing wonders is common to hagiographies, and not exclusively Christian ones either. The number of people healed differ per gospel, which would seem more accurate an observation than simply adding all healings up.

You contradict yourself here. If baptism is mentioned by Paul, then it can't have first appeared after the Synoptics but before John, because Paul was before the Synoptics.

A more plausible explanation for Jesus baptising in John but not the Synoptics would be that John was more prone to read contemporary Christian practices back into Jesus than the Synoptic authors were. After all, baptism is a common occurrence in Acts and is also mentioned at the end of Matthew; these authors came from communities where baptism was practised, though they do not attribute it to Jesus.

[/QUOTE]

That would be a paradox, not a contradiction, because although Paul's letters predate the gospels, it is generally assumed that the gospels rely on an older source, whereas Paul's letters obviously do not - nor do Acts, as far as I'm aware.

None of this contradicts the assertion that Jesus did not practice baptism, as reference to this only occurs later. Which was my general assertion, because it seems the logical conclusion, seeing as 2 gospels don't mention it at all, Luke once, and John several times. So, even if assuming that Jesus did baptize (which seems unlikely at best), it can either not have been of great importance to him or the importance of it escaped Marc and Matthew (again, not entirely impossible, but unlikely). So, in conclusion, one might say that Jesus probably didn't, but possibly did baptize - but in either case he did not lay great importance on it and it wasn't a customary ritual.

 

[Kyriakos]

Speaking of 'Thessalonians'...

Anyone know why the original acts of the Apostles accurate name of the two letters to the people of this glorious city ( ) was maimed in English?

Epistles to the Thessalonicians doesn't particularly sound that more alien, and would have been far closer to the original.

(Original titles would be Προς Θεσσαλονικείς Α',Β').

 

[Arakhor]

Everyone knows that the 1611 KJV was directly handed to humans by God. Why else would it be in English?