Synagogue as the Model of the Apostolic Church

Synagogue Rule in First Century Palestine

The Greek word, συναγωγή (sunagogi aka synagogue), comes from the idea of gathering.  Although the King James translators aimed to avoid using the cognate word for Christian assemblies, the Greek word is used of Christian assemblies in James 2:2 (For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;).

Furthermore, we see that the early Christians continued to meet in synagogues during the time of the Sauline persecution:

Acts 22:19 And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee:

Acts 26:11 And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.

"Synagogue-Ruler"

The documentation on synagogue leadership during second temple Judaism is more limited than one might like.  There is, however, one role that stands out among others, the ἀρχισυνάγωγος (archisunagogos), usually translated in the KJV as "ruler of the synagogue."  The translation is defensible from the evident etymology from ἄρχων ("archon" or a similar word denoting source or primacy) and συναγωγή (sunagogi aka synagogue).

This "ruler of the synagogue" role is described using the term archisunagogos in five passages (two of which are synoptic):

Mark 5:21-23&35-39 

21 And when Jesus was passed over again by ship unto the other side, much people gathered unto him: and he was nigh unto the sea. 22 And, behold, there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue (ἀρχισυναγώγων), Jairus by name; and when he saw him, he fell at his feet, 23 And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: [I pray thee], come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live. [24-34 Jesus heals the woman with the issue of blood] 35 While he yet spake, there came from the ruler of the synagogue's (ἀρχισυναγώγου) [house certain] which said, Thy daughter is dead: why troublest thou the Master any further? 36 As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith unto the ruler of the synagogue (ἀρχισυναγώγῳ), Be not afraid, only believe. 37 And he suffered no man to follow him, save Peter, and James, and John the brother of James. 38 And he cometh to the house of the ruler of the synagogue (ἀρχισυναγώγου), and seeth the tumult, and them that wept and wailed greatly. 39 And when he was come in, he saith unto them, Why make ye this ado, and weep? the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth.

A small but important point is this: the phrase in English is a bit ambiguous as it seems to imply that "the synagogue" (singular) has "rulers" (plural).  Even if that's true, the Greek doesn't imply it.  The Greek is just saying that one of the archisunagogos came to Jesus.  Perhaps a more clear wording would be "one of the synagogue rulers cometh ..." or the like.  

There is no similar issue in the synoptic account in Luke:

Luke 8:40-50 

40 And it came to pass, that, when Jesus was returned, the people [gladly] received him: for they were all waiting for him. 41 And, behold, there came a man named Jairus, and he was a ruler of the synagogue (ἄρχων τῆς συναγωγῆς): and he fell down at Jesus' feet, and besought him that he would come into his house: 42 For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him. [43-48 Jesus heals the woman with the issue of blood] 49 While he yet spake, there cometh one from the ruler of the synagogue's (ἀρχισυναγώγου) [house], saying to him, Thy daughter is dead; trouble not the Master. 50 But when Jesus heard [it], he answered him, saying, Fear not: believe only, and she shall be made whole.

Luke also contains another reference, in a very different context, to this synagogue ruler position:

Luke 13:10-17 

10 And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath. 11 And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up [herself]. 12 And when Jesus saw her, he called [her to him], and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. 13 And he laid [his] hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God. 14 And the ruler of the synagogue (ἀρχισυνάγωγος) answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day. 15 The Lord then answered him, and said, [Thou] hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or [his] ass from the stall, and lead [him] away to watering? 16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day? 17 And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.

Notice carefully that this synagogue rulership role was consistent with Jesus teaching there, although this leader seems to have considered it appropriate to correct Jesus' work as a healer.

Acts 13:13-15 

13 Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem. 14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue (συναγωγὴν) on the sabbath day, and sat down. 15 And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue (ἀρχισυνάγωγοι) sent unto them, saying, [Ye] men [and] brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.

Notice that in this case there are multiple synagogue-rulers of one synagogue.  The next passage in Acts suggests the same kind of arrangement in another city:

Acts 18:7-17 

7 And he departed thence, and entered into a certain [man's] house, named Justus, [one] that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue (συναγωγῇ). 8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue (ἀρχισυνάγωγος), believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. 9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: 10 For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city. 11 And he continued [there] a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them. 12 And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat, 13 Saying, This [fellow] persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law. 14 And when Paul was now about to open [his] mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O [ye] Jews, reason would that I should bear with you: 15 But if it be a question of words and names, and [of] your law, look ye [to it]; for I will be no judge of such [matters]. 16 And he drave them from the judgment seat. 17 Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue (ἀρχισυνάγωγον), and beat [him] before the judgment seat. And Gallio cared for none of those things.

Notice that both Crispus and Sosthenes have the same title, presumably in the same Corinthians synagogue.  This, admittedly, is less clear than Acts 13, but seems to suggest the same arrangement, particularly when read after Acts 13.

"Ruler"

Returning to the account of Jairus, recorded in Mark 5 and Luke 8, Matthew also has an account. In Matthew, however, Jairus is just referred to as a "ruler" (ἄρχων) without the "synagogue" qualification:

Matthew 9:18-24 

18 While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler (ἄρχων), and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live. 19 And Jesus arose, and followed him, and [so did] his disciples. [20-22 Jesus heals the woman with the issue of blood] 23 And when Jesus came into the ruler's (ἄρχοντος) house, and saw the minstrels and the people making a noise, 24 He said unto them, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn.

Of course, not all New Testament uses of ἄρχων (archon) are necessarily shorthand for one of the ἀρχισυνάγωγοι (archisunagogoi).  For example, Βεελζεβοὺλ (Beelzeboul aka Beelzebub) is described as being the ἄρχων (archon) of the demons (Matthew 12:24 & Luke 11:15, cf. Matthew 9:34 & Mark 3:22 where he is referenced but not named).  Presumably this is the same ἄρχων (archon) of the world mentioned in John 12:31, 14:30, and 16:11. Likewise, this may be the same ἄρχοντα τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ ἀέρος (prince of the power of the air) that is mentioned in Ephesians 2:2. There is also reference to the leaders of the heathen, which I discuss below.

Focusing on the references within the Jewish word, there is reference to an ἄρχων (archon) as a judicial figure (Luke 12:58), where it seems to be a synonym for κριτής (kritis meaning judge).  

There are also several other uses of individual Israelites referred to as an ἄρχων (archon): 

Luke 14:1 And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief (ἀρχόντων) Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him.

Luke 18:18 And a certain ruler (ἄρχων) asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

John 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler (ἄρχων) of the Jews:

Acts 7:27 But he that did his neighbour wrong thrust him away, saying, Who made thee a ruler (ἄρχοντα) and a judge (δικαστὴν) over us?

Acts 7:35 This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler (ἄρχοντα) and a judge (δικαστὴν)? the same did God send to be a ruler (ἄρχοντα) and a deliverer (λυτρωτὴν) by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.

Acts 23:1-5 

1 And Paul, earnestly beholding the council (συνεδρίῳ), said, Men [and] brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. 2 And the high priest (ἀρχιερεὺς) Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. 3 Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, [thou] whited wall: for sittest thou (κάθῃ) to judge (κρίνων) me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? 4 And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest (ἀρχιερέα)? 5 Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest (ἀρχιερεύς): for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler (Ἄρχοντα) of thy people.

The main takeaway from this study is that "ruler" itself was not necessarily a synonym for the ruler of the synagogue, but could broadly encompass any kind of authority figure.  It is interesting that Paul seems to recognize that Ananias is part of the Sanhedrin but did not consider him a "ruler" until he was informed that he was an arch-priest. 

The plural references are likewise somewhat inconsistent:

Luke 23:13 And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests (ἀρχιερεῖς) and the rulers (ἄρχοντας) and the people (λαὸν),

Luke 23:35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers (ἄρχοντες) also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.

Luke 24:20 And how the chief priests (ἀρχιερεῖς) and our rulers (ἄρχοντες) delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.

John 7:26 But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers (ἄρχοντες) know indeed that this is the very Christ?

John 7:48 Have any of the rulers (ἀρχόντων) or of the Pharisees believed on him?

John 12:42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers (ἀρχόντων) also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue (ἀποσυνάγωγοι):

Acts 3:17 And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers (ἄρχοντες). 

Acts 4:1-8 

1 And as they spake unto the people (λαὸν), the priests (ἱερεῖς), and the captain of the temple (στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ), and the Sadducees, came upon them, 2 Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead. 3 And they laid hands on them, and put [them] in hold unto the next day: for it was now eventide. 4 Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand. 5 And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers (ἄρχοντας), and elders (πρεσβυτέρους), and scribes (γραμματεῖς), 6 And Annas the high priest (ἀρχιερεὺς), and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest (ἀρχιερατικοῦ), were gathered together at Jerusalem. 7 And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this? 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers (Ἄρχοντες) of the people (λαοῦ), and elders (πρεσβύτεροι) of Israel,

Acts 4:26 The kings (βασιλεῖς) of the earth stood up, and the rulers (ἄρχοντες) were gathered together against the Lord (Κυρίου), and against his Christ (Χριστοῦ).

Acts 13:27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers (ἄρχοντες), because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.

One observation comes from John 12:42, where people are identified as rulers but nevertheless are worried about being de-synagogued, a concept discussed further below. This implies that the leadership they exercised was not monarchical but either democratic (through consent of the people) or more likely synodal/presbyterian (as Jesus was popular among the people, but less so among the elite).

Another observation is that in some places there seems to be a line drawn between the archpriests and rulers and a second line between those two groups and the people.  

A further observation is the fact that Peter seems to use "rulers of the people" and "elders" in parallel.  It's hard to be dogmatic about whether he's using them distinctively or a rhetorical piling on.

As promised above, there are some references that are not necessarily to Israelites.  For example, there is a reference to rulers in Acts 14:5, which seems to be contextually ambiguous as to whether it means the specifically Jewish rulers or the rulers of Iconium.  There are some further references to the heathen rulers with the same word (with some additional discussion in the comparison to Christianity section farther below): 

Acts 16:19 And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and drew them into the marketplace unto the rulers (ἄρχοντας), 

Romans 13:3 For rulers (ἄρχοντες) are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

There is also a case where presumably both Heathen and Israelites were intended:

1 Corinthians 2:6-8 

6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes (ἀρχόντων) of this world (αἰῶνος), that come to nought: 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes (ἀρχόντων) of this world (αἰῶνος) knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

I interpret this as saying that the wisdom of God was hidden from the Great Sanhedrin as well as Herod and Pontius Pilate, perhaps also intending to include Beelzebub among their number.

"De-Synagogued"

The term, ἀποσυνάγωγος (aposunagogos), which means to be expelled from the synagogue, is used thrice in John:

John 9:22 These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed (συνετέθειντο) already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue (ἀποσυνάγωγος). 

John 12:42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue (ἀποσυνάγωγοι): 

John 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues (ἀποσυναγώγους): yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

This expulsion from the synagogue was a negative consequence that even ordinary people like the blind man's parents (in John 9:22) were worried about.  It was something that the rulers themselves feared (John 12:42).  It was serious to the point that it was mentioned in the same breath with martyrdom (John 16:2).  To the focus of this study, though, what is notable is that it seems to have been an exercise of authority by agreement, not monarchy.

"Captain of the Temple" 

Luke (in Luke and Acts) uses the term στρατηγός (strategos), which is a technical term for general or governor.   For example, without "of the temple," the term is used for the colonial leaders of Philippi:

Act 16:19-40 

19 And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and drew [them] into the marketplace unto the rulers (ἄρχοντας), 20 And brought them to the magistrates (στρατηγοῖς), saying, These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city, 21 And teach customs, which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans. 22 And the multitude rose up together against them: and the magistrates (στρατηγοὶ) rent off their clothes, and commanded to beat [them]. 23 And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast [them] into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely: 24 Who, having received such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks. [25-34 Philippian jailor conversion] 35 And when it was day, the magistrates (στρατηγοὶ) sent the serjeants (ῥαβδούχους), saying, Let those men go. 36 And the keeper of the prison told this saying to Paul, The magistrates (στρατηγοὶ) have sent to let you go: now therefore depart, and go in peace. 37 But Paul said unto them, They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast [us] into prison; and now do they thrust us out privily? nay verily; but let them come themselves and fetch us out. 38 And the serjeants (ῥαβδοῦχοι) told these words unto the magistrates (στρατηγοῖς): and they feared, when they heard that they were Romans. 39 And they came and besought them, and brought [them] out, and desired [them] to depart out of the city. 40 And they went out of the prison, and entered into [the house of] Lydia: and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them, and departed.

In this context, the strategois (governors/magistrates) seem to be a more specific designation for the archontas (rulers).

In the other three passages, the references are to the captain(s) of the temple:

Luke 22:4&52 And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests (ἀρχιερεῦσιν) and captains (στρατηγοῖς), how he might betray him unto them. ... Then Jesus said unto the chief priests (ἀρχιερεῖς), and captains of the temple (στρατηγοὺς τοῦ ἱεροῦ), and the elders (πρεσβυτέρους), which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?

Acts 4:1 And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple (στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ), and the Sadducees, came upon them,

[Act 5:24-26 KJV] 24 Now when the high priest and the captain of the temple (στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ) and the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them whereunto this would grow. 25 Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people. 26 Then went the captain (στρατηγὸς) with the officers (ὑπηρέταις), and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned.

From the context, it seems that the "captain of the temple" is essentially a leader of physical security for the temple.  The "officers" seem to represent a subordinate role.    

"Officer"

The word ὑπηρέτης (huperetes), often translated as "officer," is portrayed as being a subordinate official in a variety of passages.  This makes sense from the etymology of "under" and "to row."  

In the majority of the passages, it refers to a subordinate military-type person (the terms "thugs," "henchmen," or "goons" would be too pejorative, while "police officer" would be too formal and limited):

Matthew 5:25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, (ὑπηρέτῃ) and thou be cast into prison.

Matthew 26:58 But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest's palace, and went in, and sat with the servants (ὑπηρετῶν), to see the end.

Mark 14:54&65 And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest: and he sat with the servants (ὑπηρετῶν ), and warmed himself at the fire. ... And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants (ὑπηρέται) did strike him with the palms of their hands.

John 7:32&45-46 The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers (ὑπηρέτας ) to take him. ... 45 Then came the officers (ὑπηρέται) to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? 46 The officers (ὑπηρέται) answered, Never man spake like this man.

John 18:3, 12, 18, 22, and 36 

3 Judas then, having received a band [of men] and officers (ὑπηρέτας) from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. ... 12 Then the band and the captain and officers (ὑπηρέται) of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him, ... 18 And the servants (δοῦλοι) and officers (ὑπηρέται) stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself. ... 22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers (ὑπηρετῶν) which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? ... 36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants (ὑπηρέται) fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

John 19:6 When the chief priests therefore and officers (ὑπηρέται) saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify [him], crucify [him]. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify [him]: for I find no fault in him.

Act 5:22&26 But when the officers (ὑπηρέται) came, and found them not in the prison, they returned, and told, ... Then went the captain with the officers (ὑπηρέταις), and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned.

As you can see from this summary, the "officers" were the one who, when push came to shove, were expected to do the pushing and shoving.  They were of a sufficiently low social class to be associating with the slaves in John 18:18.  Moreover, they were the ones entrusted with moving convicts from the judge to the jail, presumably at the judge's order.

Within the context of the synagogue, however, there was a different connotation or use of the word.  This sense is translated by the KJV translators as "minister," though presumably something like "assistant" might capture the sense well.  This use (unlike the preceding ones) seems to have spilled across into Christianity.

We can see this in five passages, one of which is from the Jewish synagogue:

Luke 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers (ὑπηρέται) of the word;

Luke 4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave [it] again to the minister (ὑπηρέτῃ), and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

Acts 13:5 And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to [their] minister (ὑπηρέτην).

Acts 26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister (ὑπηρέτην) and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

1 Corinthians 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers (ὑπηρέτας) of Christ, and stewards (οἰκονόμους) of the mysteries of God.

Like the role of deacon (servant), the role of "minister" is akin to that of a steward.  It's not a position of absolutely no authority or importance, in fact in the case of the minister in Luke 4:20, he seems to have been entrusted with the physical care of the Isaiah scroll.

"Scribes"

There are so many references to one or more scribe (γραμματεύς grammateus) in the New Testament, that it would be hard to discuss them all in detail.  The role was one associated with wisdom, erudition, and study.  For example, Paul says:

1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise (σοφός)? where is the scribe (γραμματεύς)? where is the disputer (συζητητὴς) of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

That, however, is the lone use of the word after Acts 23.  

"Elders"

The role of elder (πρεσβύτερος presbuteros) is referenced numerous times with reference to the Jewish order.  The "tradition of the elders" (Matthew 15:2; Mark 7:3&5) and "For by it the elders obtained a good report" (Hebrews 11:2) seem to be exceptional uses of meaning something like "men of old times."  Likewise, "elder son" in Luke 15:25 just means older son and "old men" in Acts 2:17 is just to distinguish from young men (probably the same is intended by Peter at 1 Peter 5:5 and 1 Timothy 5:1-2).  (I omit the otherwise exceptional usage at John 8:9 as not original.)  

In the Jewish system, the elders are consistently mentioned alongside the archpriests and/or scribes (Matthew 16:21, 21:23, 26:3,47,57,59, 27:1,3,12,&20, 28:11-12, Mark 8:31, 11:27, 14:43&53, 15:1, Luke 9:22, 20:1, 22:52, Acts 4:5,8&23, 6:12, Acts 23:14, 24:1, 25:15). Perhaps the lone exception to this principle is Luke 7:3, where a centurion sends to the "elders of the Jews" a request to heal his dying servant. The elders then asked Jesus to fulfil this request because the centurion loved Israel and had built a synagogue for them. 

In Acts, we see a transition to references to Christian elders, now usually alongside Apostles and always in the plural:

Acts 11:30 Which also they did, and sent it to the elders (πρεσβυτέρους) by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.

Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders (πρεσβυτέρους) in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22-23 

2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders (πρεσβυτέρους) about this question. ... 4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and [of] the apostles and elders,(πρεσβυτέρων) and they declared all things that God had done with them. ... 6 And the apostles and elders (πρεσβύτεροι) came together for to consider of this matter. ... 22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders (πρεσβυτέροις), with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: 23 And they wrote [letters] by them after this manner; The apostles and elders (πρεσβύτεροι) and brethren [send] greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

Acts 16:4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders (πρεσβυτέρων) which were at Jerusalem.

Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders (πρεσβυτέρους) of the church.

Acts 21:18 And the [day] following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders (πρεσβύτεροι) were present.

This pattern is consistent with Paul's James' and Peter's epistles:

1 Timothy 5:17, 19 Let the elders (πρεσβύτεροι) that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. ... Against an elder (πρεσβυτέρου) receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

Titus 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders (πρεσβυτέρους) in every city, as I had appointed thee:

James 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders (πρεσβυτέρους) of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

1 Peter 5:1 The elders (Πρεσβυτέρους) which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder (συμπρεσβύτερος), and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

Notice that the one time Paul refers to an elder in the singular it is in the context of charging him.  Likewise, Peter refers to himself as a co-elder.  John likewise appears to refer to himself either as an elder:

2 John 1:1 The elder (ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΣ) unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;

3 John 1:1 The elder (ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΣ) unto the wellbeloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth.

Finally, there are the twenty-four elders referred to (usually collectively) at Revelation 4:4,10, 5:5,6,8,11&14, 7:11,13&16, 14:3, and 19:4.

"Chief-Seats"

The New Testament also references the concept of a "chief seat" (πρωτοκαθεδρία) four times (three are synoptic parallel accounts).  All four references are to chief-seats (plural).  All four references are negative.

Matthew 23:1-12 

1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' (Μωϋσέως) seat (καθέδρας): 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay [them] on men's shoulders; but they [themselves] will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats (πρωτοκαθεδρίας) in the synagogues (συναγωγαῖς), 7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ. 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

The other synoptic accounts are terser:

Mark 12:38-40 

38 And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and [love] salutations in the marketplaces, 39 And the chief seats (πρωτοκαθεδρίας) in the synagogues (συναγωγαῖς), and the uppermost rooms at feasts: 40 Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.

Luke is quite similar:

Luke 20:45-47 

45 Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples, 46 Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats (πρωτοκαθεδρίας) in the synagogues (συναγωγαῖς), and the chief rooms at feasts; 47 Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation.

Luke has one further mention of the chief-seats:

Luke 11:42-44 

42 But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 43 Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love the uppermost seats (πρωτοκαθεδρίαν) in the synagogues (συναγωγαῖς), and greetings in the markets. 44 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over [them] are not aware [of them].

By Contrast, First Century Christianity

Within the Christian community, ἄρχων (archon) is used only of Christ:

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince (ἄρχων) of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Jesus disparaged Christian leadership from being archon-ic with comments like those found in Matthew 20:24-28.

Matthew 20:24-28

24 And when the ten heard [it], they were moved with indignation against the two brethren. 25 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes (ἄρχοντες) of the Gentiles exercise dominion over (κατακυριεύουσιν) them, and they that are great exercise authority upon (κατεξουσιάζουσιν) them. 26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great (μέγας) among you, let him be your minister (διάκονος); 27 And whosoever will be chief (πρῶτος) among you, let him be your servant (δοῦλος): 28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

There is a slightly different wording, with the same general sense, in Mark:

Mark 10:41-45 

41 And when the ten heard [it], they began to be much displeased with James and John. 42 But Jesus called them [to him], and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted (δοκοῦντες) to rule over (ἄρχειν) the Gentiles exercise lordship over (κατακυριεύουσιν) them; and their great ones (μεγάλοι) exercise authority upon (κατεξουσιάζουσιν) them. 43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great (μέγας) among you, shall be your minister (διάκονος): 44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest (πρῶτος), shall be servant (δοῦλος) of all. 45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Peter himself reiterates the Lord's point in describing the presbyters who "bishop" the flock of God:

1 Peter 5:1-4 

1 The elders (Πρεσβυτέρους) which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder (συμπρεσβύτερος), and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof] (ἐπισκοποῦντες), not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3 Neither as being lords over (κατακυριεύοντες) [God's] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

Likewise, Paul only uses ἄρχω (archo) to refer to Christ's rule:

Romans 15:12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over (ἄρχειν)  the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

Instead, Peter and Paul use terms like "minister" (see above) and "steward" (οἰκονόμος oikonomos).  The primary authoritative title after Apostle in the New Testament is "elder," which is used interchangeably with bishop (see my previous post). 

When did Roman Catholicism Begin?

Over at Greenbaggins, Scott asked:

TF, when, exactly, do you believe Roman Catholicism began?

I answer:

If Roman Catholicism is defined by her (supposedly) infallibly defined dogmas, her birthday is November 1, 1950, which is when her pope defined the fiction of the bodily assumption. If she is defined by the last (supposedly) ecumenical council she accepts, she's even younger (December 8, 1965), the date of conclusion of the Second Vatican Council. If she is defined by her canon laws, the most recent major edition was January 28, 1983. If she's defined by her current pope, then she's newborn.

But if she's simply vaguely defined as a movement, it's hard to provide a fixed date. Benedict XVI treated Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) as the father of Roman Catholicism - despite the fact that Thomas Aquinas' views would place him outside the RCC today.

Perhaps better dates would be the dates of the councils of Constance (1418), Florence (1445) and Trent (1563), where certain strands of scholastic theology gained ecclesiastical dominance over other strands. Then again, a lot of Tridentine RCism has been undermined in contemporary RCism.

And frankly, that's probably the best way to date the movement - to the "late medieval" period - 15th or 16th century, although there were undoubtedly doctrinal roots that go back earlier, even while recognizing that RCism continues to change even today.

That doesn't mean that no one before 1054 held to any views in common with Roman Catholics, and it doesn't mean that things like the Edict of Milan or the forged "Donation of Constantine" were insignificant factors in producing what eventually came to be RCism. Still, calling anyone in the late patristic or early medieval period "Roman Catholic" is anachronistic.

-TurretinFan

Robert Godfrey - The Inventions of Rome

I don't know about you, but I wish Jason Stellman had paid more attention to Dr. Robert Godfrey's church history class. Here is some material that, presumably, he missed:

If you subscribe to Modern Reformation, you can get the related article here (link). It would be nice if the article were made freely available, because it needs to have a broader audience. Nevertheless, of course, it's their right to receive payment for the article.

-TurretinFan

Early Muslim/Christian Debate - a Proto Two Kingdoms Apologetic

The Letter of Mor Yuhannon [John] (d. 649), the Patriarch, Concerning the discussion which he had with the Amir of the Mhaggraye, provides for us one of the earliest records of debates between Christians and Muslims. A complete translation can be found at the following link (link). It's worth noting that in the discussion Mor Yuhannon distinguishes the "orthodox" from the "Chalcedonians." My point is not to enter into the question of the orthodoxy of Mor Yuhannon, only to point out that he advocated the Christian side of the discussion, with the Emir representing the Mulsim side of the discussion.

Of particular interest are the following:

I) The blessed Patriarch, the Father of the community, was questioned by him: "Whether the Gospel is one, and whether it is the same, without differences, which all Christians in the world hold to?" The blessed one answered that it is one and the same among the Greeks, the Romans, the Syrians, the Copts, the Cushites, the Indians, the Armenians, the Persians, and the rest of all peoples and tongues.

It is interesting to note this late Patristic era response. The places identified go significantly beyond the scope of any of the so-called Ecumenical councils. They include India and Ethiopia (Cush), which were not - as far as I can tell - included in the discussions at any of the seven ECs.

And we may add that we agree with the Patriarch. The gospel is one and the same throughout the world.

II) Again he asked, "Since the Gospel is one, why is the faith different?" The Blessed one responded, "Just as the Torah is one and the same and it is accepted by us Christians and by you Mhaggraye, and by the Jews and by the Samaritans, and each is distinct in belief; likewise concerning faith in the Gospel, each heretical group understands and interprets it differently, and not like us [the Orthodox].

It is interesting to note the fact that the Patriarch believes that the Muslims accept the Torah. One assumes that this is because the Muslims tell him that they accept the Torah.

Likewise, the Patriarch's answer regarding the reason for the different views is not because each has a different document, but because there are different understandings of the documents.

III) Again he asked, "whom do you say Christ is? Is he God or not?" And our Father answered, "He is God; and the Word, who was born from God the Father, who is eternal and without beginning. At the end of time, for the salvation of mankind, He became flesh and was inhominated from the Holy Spirit and from the holy Virgin Mary, the mother of God, and became man."

This is an astute answer. I'm not fond of the term "mother of God," because it can be easily misunderstood, but this answer seems to provide the necessary qualifications. It is also interesting because despite distinguishing himself from the Chalcedonians, this patriarch is quite willing to use the "mother of God" terminology.

IV) And the glorious Amir asked him this: "When Christ was in the womb of Mary, the one you say is God, who was carrying and ruling the Heaven and earth?" Our blessed father argued with him concerning the question: "When God came down to Mount Sinai and spoke with Moses for forty days and forty nights, who was carrying and ruling the Heaven and earth; as long as you claim that you accept Moses and his books." The Amir said, "He is God and He rules the Heaven and earth." Immediately, he heard this from our Father: "Likewise Christ [who is] God when he was in the womb of the virgin, he was carrying and ruling the Heaven and earth, and everything which is in them as Almighty God."

Again, note that the Patriarch relies on the Old Testament, believing that the Emir accepts it. Moreover, the Emir's answer seems to presuppose that the Emir does accept it.

V) Again the glorious Amir asked, "What kind of belief and faith did Abraham and Moses hold?" Our blessed Father answered, "It is the belief and faith of Christians that they held: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, the rest of the prophets, all the just and righteous ones."

The Amir said, "Why did they not write clearly and make it known concerning Christ?" Our blessed father replied, "As sharers of the mysteries and intimate ones they knew it, but [because of] the infancy and innocence of the people at the time, who were inclined to worship many gods [polytheism] and cling to them, to such an extent that they regarded wood, stones and many other things as gods, they made idols, they worshipped them and sacrificed to them. [For this reason] the holy ones did not want to give the erroneous ones a pretext that they might depart from the Living God and follow error, but prudently proclaimed the truth: "Hear, Israel, the Lord God is One Lord" for they truly knew that there is only One God, and one Godhead, that of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Thus they spoke and wrote symbolically concerning God that He is One in divinity and three hypostases and persons; there neither is nor do we confess three gods or three deities; there are neither gods nor deities; for the Godhead of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is One, as we have said, and from the Father is the Son and the Holy Spirit. If you want, I am ready and prepared to confirm this from the holy Books."

I'm not sure whether I would follow the reasoning of the Patriarch on this point. I wouldn't think that it was only the most ancient peoples who were inclined to idolatry and polytheism. Nevertheless, the Patriarch's emphasis on the common monotheism of the Old and New Testaments is important.

VI) Again, when the Amir heard all of these, he requested only "if Christ is God, and was born from Mary, and if there is a Son for God, let that be proved literally and from the Torah." The blessed one said that not only Moses, but also all of the holy prophets previously prophesied and wrote this concerning the Christ: One [of the prophets] had written concerning His birth from a virgin, another that He would be born in Bethlehem, another concerning His baptism; all of them, so to say, [wrote] concerning His saving passion, His vivifying death, and His glorious resurrection from the dead after three days. He [the blessed one] brought evidences, and began to confirm this from all of the prophets, and from Moses, according to their writings.

Notice that the Patriarch initially interprets "Torah," here as referring generally to the Old Testament. He then begins to demonstrate each point that the Emir had requested from the Old Testament as a whole, including Isaiah (regarding the virgin birth, for example).

VII) The glorious Amir did not accept these [proofs] from the prophets, instead, he demanded proof from Moses that Christ is God. The blessed one, therefore, cited Moses in many things (verses), e.g., that "the Lord let fire and sulfur come down from the Lord on Sodom and on Gomorrah." The glorious Amir demanded that this be shown in the book. Immediately, our father showed it in the complete Greek and Syriac texts.

At the same place, there were some Mhaggraye with us, and they attentively saw the passages and the glorious Name of the Lords, and the Lord. The Amir called a Jew, who was there, and he was considered by them to be knowledgeable in the Scriptures, and asked him if it was literally so in the Torah; and he answered, "I do not know exactly."

Notice that the Emir wants to see it in the books of Moses, rather than the Old Testament more broadly. This already seems to clarify that when the Emir said, "Torah," he meant the Pentateuch, not all the inspired Hebrew books.

Also, notice the disbelief by the Emir when confronted with the contents of the book. He wants to see it actually in the books, and the Patriarch shows it to him both in Syriac and Greek.

But even that leaves the Emir wondering if it is just something inserted by a Christian translator. So, he asks a Jew to confirm that the translation is literal, and the Jew does not deny it, but simply tries to defer.

VIII) At this point the Amir moved to ask him concerning the laws of the Christians: "what and how are they, and whether they are written in the Gospel or not?" Again [he asked], "if a man die and leave behind boys or girls and a wife and a mother and a sister and a cousin, how would his possessions be divided among them?" Then our holy father said that the Gospel is divine, it instructs heavenly teaching and commands vivifying commandments; it despises all sin and wickedness, and it teaches virtue and righteousness. Many other related issues were brought up.

It is interesting to note that the Emir has the expectation that the Christian books should specify every aspect of Christian life.

The answer the Patriarch gives is a very "two kingdoms" sounding. He points out that the laws of the Gospel are divine and spiritual. They are not intended to provide for every detail of human governance, such as how exactly an estate is supposed to pass from father to son, and so on.

IX) And the glorious Amir said, "I ask you [Plural] to do one of three things: either show me your laws written in the Gospel and conduct yourselves accordingly, or follow [or submit to] the law of the Mhaggraye. Then our Father replied that we Christians have laws, which are just and right, and we follow [submit to] the teaching and the commandments of the Gospel and the rules of the Apostles and the laws of the Church.
In this manner the assembly of the first day was dismissed. And we have not yet been interviewed again by him.

Notice that the two-kingdoms answer doesn't really seem acceptable to the Emir. He is basically willing to allow the Christians to live by a sort of Gospel Sharia if there is one, but if there is not one, he expects them to obey the Islamic Sharia. The question from the Emir is not whether the laws are reasonable and just, but whether they have divine authority.

-TurretinFan

Don't Sweat that History Stuff ...

Carl Trueman expresses his frustration with attempts to force Roman apologists to confront history:

Thus, as all sides need to face empirical facts and the challenges they raise, here are a few we might want to consider, along with what seem to me (as a Protestant outsider) to be the usual Roman Catholic responses:

Empirical fact: The Papacy as an authoritative institution was not there in the early centuries.
Never mind. Put together a doctrine of development whereby Christians - or at least some of them, those of whom we choose to approve in retrospect on the grounds we agree with what they say - eventually come to see the Pope as uniquely authoritative.

Empirical fact: The Papacy was corrupt in the later Middle Ages, building its power and status on political antics, forged documents and other similar scams.
Ignore it, excuse it as a momentary aberration and perhaps, if pressed, even offer a quick apology. Then move swiftly on to assure everyone it is all sorted out now and start talking about John Paul II or Benedict XVI. Whatever you do, there is no need to allow this fact to have any significance for how one understands the theory of papal power in the abstract or in the present.

Empirical fact: The Papacy was in such a mess at the beginning of the fifteenth century that it needed a council to decide who of the multiple claimants to Peter's seat was the legitimate pope.
Again, this was merely a momentary aberration but it has no significance for the understanding of papal authority. After all, it was so long ago and so far away.

Empirical fact: The church failed (once again) to put its administrative, pastoral, moral and doctrinal house in order at the Fifth Lateran Council at the start of the sixteenth century.
Forget it. Emphasise instead the vibrant piety of the late medieval church and then blame the ungodly Protestants for their inexplicable protests and thus for the collapse of the medieval social, political and theological structure of Europe.

(complete post here)

Sadly, I've seen these or similar responses myself. Moreover, we can continue a lot of these empirical facts (mutatis mutandis) down to the present time.

One other point. Trueman says:

I am confident that my previous writings on Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholics indicate that I am no reincarnation of a nineteenth century 'No popery!' rabble-rouser. I have always tried to write with respect and forbearance on such matters, to the extent that I have even been berated at times by other, hotter sorts of Protestants for being too pacific.

"Berated" may be a strong term, but I have been among those who have criticized him for being too soft on Rome. Thus, I was particularly happy to see this post from him.

-TurretinFan

Insulting My Idol-Worshiping Ancestors

Some of my ancestors were idol-worshipers. It's pretty much a sure thing that at least some of your ancestors were too. After all, idol-worship was widespread throughout most religions other than the worship of Jehovah. Being Jewish won't help you escape either, because even if you were purely Jewish, chances are you would be descended from Laban (whose daughters Rachel and Leah were married to Jacob) whose gods/images Rachel stole from him when she left with Jacob. Furthermore, the people of Israel habitually fell into idolatry, many worshiping the golden calf and others worshiping the various idols of Canaan.

The fact then that these ancestors of ours worshiped idols is simply a sad fact. What is even more disappointing is to hear folks insulting our mutual ancestors. Perhaps I should be more specific. The specific insult that I hear comes up when I point out that certain folks, by make and worshiping images purporting to be of the Son of God are doing what is prohibited in Scripture: "... keep yourselves from idols." (I John 5:21)

The insult comes in this form: we're not worshiping the statue, crucifix, or icon: we're worshiping the one who is represented by the statue, crucifix, or icon, and consequently we are not engaging in idolatry.

How foolish and insulting!

Who honestly thinks that any of our mutual ancestors thought that what they had just carved from wood was the deity itself? Who thinks they were that stupid. Of course most idolators don't think that way. If you asked the Greeks if the statue of Zeus was actually Zeus, they'd laugh at you - or perhaps treat you as a madman. They were clear that Zeus dwelt on Mt. Olympus, not in their temples - these are just representations of their gods, not the gods themselves.  In some cases, they would even go so far as to claim that even Zeus the arch-type of the statue was merely symbolic of something greater (Augustine addresses this view, as I've discussed elsewhere).

But God does not wish to be worshiped that way. Stephen recounted among Israel's failures that "... they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands ... " (Acts 7:41). Paul makes the same criticism more explicit: "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things..." (Acts 17:24-25).

Thus, the Synod of Elvira in 305-06 promulgated the following:

Canon 36: Ne picturae in eclessia fiant.
Placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur. (It has seemed good that images should not be in churches so that what is venerated and worshiped not be painted on the walls.)

Later, Gregory the Great (bishop of Rome from 590 - 604) wrote to Serenus, Bishop of Massilia (who had destroyed the local images).  Gregory defended the images, not for worship but just for education: "Aliud est enim pieturam adorare, aliud per picturam historiam quid sit adorandum addiscere." (For to adore a picture is one thing but to learn through the story of a picture what is to be adored is another.)

Calling itself the 7th Ecumenical Council, a large council was convened in Constantinople in 754 and forbade the worshiping of images:

THE DEFINITION OF THE HOLY, GREAT, AND ECUMENICAL SEVENTH SYNOD.

The holy and Ecumenical synod, which by the grace of God and most pious command of the God-beloved and orthodox Emperors, Constantine and Leo, now assembled in the imperial residence city, in the temple of the holy and inviolate Mother of God and Virgin Mary, surnamed in Blachernae, have decreed as follows.

Satan misguided men, so that they worshipped the creature instead of the Creator. The Mosaic law and the prophets cooperated to undo this ruin; but in order to save mankind thoroughly, God sent his own Son, who turned us away from error and the worshipping of idols, and taught us the worshipping of God in spirit and in truth. As messengers of his saving doctrine, he left us his Apostles and disciples, and these adorned the Church, his Bride, with his glorious doctrines. This ornament of the Church the holy Fathers and the six Ecumenical Councils have preserved inviolate. But the before-mentioned demi-urgos of wickedness could not endure the sight of this adornment, and gradually brought back idolatry under the appearance of Christianity. As then Christ armed his Apostles against the ancient idolatry with the power of the Holy Spirit, and sent them out into all the world, so has he awakened against the new idolatry his servants our faithful Emperors, and endowed them with the same wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Impelled by the Holy Spirit they could no longer be witnesses of the Church being laid waste by the deception of demons, and summoned the sanctified assembly of the God-beloved bishops, that they might institute at a synod a scriptural examination into the deceitful colouring of the pictures ( omoiwmatwn ) which draws down the spirit of man from the lofty adoration ( latreias ) of God to the low and material adoration ( latreian ) of the creature, and that they, under divine guidance, might express their view on the subject.

Our holy synod therefore assembled, and we, its 338 members, follow the older synodal decrees, and accept and proclaim joyfully the dogmas handed down, principally those of the six holy Ecumenical Synods. In the first place the holy and ecumenical great synod assembled at Nice, etc.

After we had carefully examined their decrees under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we found that the unlawful art of painting living creatures blasphemed the fundamental doctrine of our salvation--namely, the Incarnation of Christ, and contradicted the six holy synods. These condemned Nestorius because he divided the one Son and Word of God into two sons, and on the other side, Arius, Dioscorus, Eutyches, and Severus, because they maintained a mingling of the two natures of the one Christ.

Wherefore we thought it right, to shew forth with all accuracy, in our present definition the error of such as make and venerate these, for it is the unanimous doctrine of all the holy Fathers and of the six Ecumenical Synods, that no one may imagine any kind of separation or mingling in opposition to the unsearchable, unspeakable, and incomprehensible union of the two natures in the one hypostasis or person. What avails, then, the folly of the painter, who from sinful love of gain depicts that which should not be depicted--that is, with his polluted hands he tries to fashion that which should only be believed in the heart and confessed with the mouth? He makes an image and calls it Christ. The name Christ signifies God and man. Consequently it is an image of God and man, and consequently he has in his foolish mind, in his representation of the created flesh, depicted the Godhead which cannot be represented, and thus mingled what should not be mingled. Thus he is guilty of a double blasphemy--the one in making an image of the Godhead, and the other by mingling the Godhead and manhood. Those fall into the same blasphemy who venerate the image, and the same woe rests upon both, because they err with Arius, Dioscorus, and Eutyches, and with the heresy of the Acephali. When, however, they are blamed for undertaking to depict the divine nature of Christ, which should not be depicted, they take refuge in the excuse: We represent only the flesh of Christ which we have seen and handled. But that is a Nestorian error. For it should be considered that that flesh was also the flesh of God the Word, without any separation, perfectly assumed by the divine nature and made wholly divine. How could it now be separated and represented apart? So is it wish the human soul of Christ which mediates between the Godhead of the Son and the dulness of the flesh. As the human flesh is at the same time flesh of God the Word, so is the human soul also soul of God the Word, and both at the same time, the soul being deified as well as the body, and the Godhead remained undivided even in the separation of the soul from the body in his voluntary passion. For where the soul of Christ is, there is also his Godhead; and where the body of Christ is, there too is his Godhead. If then in his passion the divinity remained inseparable from these, how do the fools venture to separate the flesh from the Godhead, and represent it by itself as the image of a mere man? They fall into the abyss of impiety, since they separate the flesh from the Godhead, ascribe to it a subsistence of its own, a personality of its own, which they depict, and thus introduce a fourth person into the Trinity. Moreover, they represent as not being made divine, that which has been made divine by being assumed by the Godhead. Whoever, then, makes an image of Christ, either depicts the Godhead which cannot be depicted, and mingles it with the manhood (like the Monophysites), or he represents the body of Christ as not made divine and separate and as a person apart, like the Nestorians.

The only admissible figure of the humanity of Christ, however, is bread and wine in the holy Supper. This and no other form, this and no other type, has he chosen to represent his incarnation. Bread he ordered to be brought, but not a representation of the human form, so that idolatry might not arise. And as the body of Christ is made divine, so also this figure of the body of Christ, the bread, is made divine by the descent of the Holy Spirit; it becomes the divine body of Christ by the mediation of the priest who, separating the oblation from that which is common, sanctifies it.

The evil custom of assigning names to the images does not come down from Christ and the Apostles and the holy Fathers; nor have these left behind then, any prayer by which an image should be hallowed or made anything else than ordinary matter.

If, however, some say, we might be right in regard to the images of Christ, on account of the mysterious union of the two natures, but it is not right for us to forbid also the images of the altogether spotless and ever-glorious Mother of God, of the prophets, apostles, and martyrs, who were mere men and did not consist of two natures; we may reply, first of all: If those fall away, there is no longer need of these. But we will also consider what may be said against these in particular. Christianity has rejected the whole of heathenism, and so not merely heathen sacrifices, but also the heathen worship of images. The Saints live on eternally with God, although they have died. If anyone thinks to call them back again to life by a dead art, discovered by the heathen, he makes himself guilty of blasphemy. Who dares attempt with heathenish art to paint the Mother of God, who is exalted above all heavens and the Saints? It is not permitted to Christians, who have the hope of the resurrection, to imitate the customs of demon-worshippers, and to insult the Saints, who shine in so great glory, by common dead matter.

Moreover, we can prove our view by Holy Scripture and the Fathers. In the former it is said: "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth;" and: "Thou shall not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath;" on which account God spoke to the Israelites on the Mount, from the midst of the fire, but showed them no image. Further: "They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,... and served the creature more than the Creator." ...

The same is taught also by the holy Fathers. ...

Supported by the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers, we declare unanimously, in the name of the Holy Trinity, that there shall be rejected and removed and cursed one of the Christian Church every likeness which is made out of any material and colour whatever by the evil art of painters.

...

(8) If anyone ventures to represent the divine image ( karakthr ) of the Word after the Incarnation with material colours, let him be anathema!

(9) If anyone ventures to represent in human figures, by means of material colours, by reason of the incarnation, the substance or person (ousia or hypostasis) of the Word, which cannot be depicted, and does not rather confess that even after the Incarnation he cannot be depicted, let him be anathema!

(10) If anyone ventures to represent the hypostatic union of the two natures in a picture, and calls it Christ, and fires falsely represents a union of the two natures, etc.!

(11) If anyone separates the flesh united with the person of the Word from it, and endeavours to represent it separately in a picture, etc.!

(12) If anyone separates the one Christ into two persons, and endeavours to represent Him who was born of the Virgin separately, and thus accepts only a relative ( sketikh ) union of the natures, etc.

(13) If anyone represents in a picture the flesh deified by its union with the Word, and thus separates it from the Godhead, etc.

(14) If anyone endeavours to represent by material colours, God the Word as a mere man, who, although bearing the form of God, yet has assumed the form of a servant in his own person, and thus endeavours to separate him from his inseparable Godhead, so that he thereby introduces a quaternity into the Holy Trinity, etc.

(15) If anyone shall not confess the holy ever-virgin Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God, to be higher than every creature whether visible or invisible, and does not with sincere faith seek her intercessions as of one having confidence in her access to our God, since she bare him, etc.

(16) If anyone shall endeavour to represent the forms of the Saints in lifeless pictures with material colours which are of no value (for this notion is vain and introduced by the devil), and does not rather represent their virtues as living images in himself, etc.

(17) If anyone denies the profit of the invocation of Saints, etc.

(18) If anyone denies the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment, and the condign retribution to everyone, endless torment and endless bliss, etc.

(19) If anyone does not accept this our Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Synod, let him be anathema from the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and from the seven holy Ecumenical Synods!

...

The holy synod cried out: Thus we all believe, we all are of the same mind. We have all with one voice and voluntarily subscribed. This is the faith of the Apostles. Many years to the Emperors! They are the light of orthodoxy! Many years to the orthodox Emperors! God preserve your Empire! You have now more firmly proclaimed the inseparability of the two natures of Christ! You have banished all idolatry! You have destroyed the heresies of Germanus [of Constantinople], George and Mansur [ mansour , John Damascene]. Anathema to Germanus, the double-minded, and worshipper of wood! Anathema to George, his associate, to the falsifier of the doctrine of the Fathers! Anathema to Mansur, who has an evil name and Saracen opinions! To the betrayer of Christ and the enemy of the Empire, to the teacher of impiety, the perverter of Scripture, Mansur, anathema! The Trinity has deposed these three!

Sadly, another council was held in Constaninople only a few decades later, in 787, and condemned this council and institutionalized iconography in the churches. This council was at first opposed in the West, but ultimately came to be accepted. One of the aspects of the Reformation was casting off this error of idolatry.

But note that the ancients who opposed idolatry were not ignorant of what their errant professing Christan colleagues were doing. They rejected the idolatry that they saw, even while understanding that the idols were not the things themselves, but representations of the things. While they called those who worshiped with icons "worshipers of wood," and justly so, it was not because they thought that the icons' entire significance came from the material object.

We are in the same boat as they are. Based on Scripture, we reject the use of images for worship, and particularly we reject all making of any representational likeness purporting to be of the incarnation. The only authorized icon of the Incarnation is the bread and cup.

-TurretinFan

Who Cares about Historical Theology?

Jason Stellman has posted an article in which he says:

It seems to me that all this effort on the part of Catholics to prove that the fathers are on their team, and (especially) all the effort on the part of Protestants to demolish these claims, is beside the point and can be a distraction from the real issue, which is what the Bible actually teaches.

(link to article)

While I agree that what the Scriptures have to say about any subject is infinitely more important than what the fathers, or Calvin, or anyone else had to say about the subject, there's still importance in historical theology. Likewise, I agree that focus on what the fathers taught can be a distraction from the real issue, namely what Scripture teaches.

On the other hand, the study of what the fathers and the Reformers and others taught can be important. It can be important for several reasons.

1. One way to help Roman Catholics see that they are following a church that is lying to them is to expose Roman Catholics to the historical record. When we examine the historical record, we see that doctrines like the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, the bodily assumption of Mary, papal infallibility, and Purgatory are innovations, not doctrines handed from the apostles. Thus, the study of the patristic literature can serve as a tool for the evangelism of Roman Catholics, by helping to liberate them from the false gospel that requires their unjustified trust in Rome.

2. A second, defensive, use is also important. Frequently, Roman Catholics make claims that the core doctrines of the Reformation are themselves historical novelties. While, in principle, this doesn't matter to us (since Scripture, not history, is our rule of faith), these lies about the historical record can be discouraging to Christians. In particular, Roman apologists try to suggest to those unfamiliar with history that by following Reformed doctrine one is saying that "the whole church went off the rails almost from the earliest time," or something like that.

3. Historical theology is not our ultimate rule of faith, but it is a helpful guide. We do not believe that a universal apostasy happened or will ever happen, even if there are great falling away periods in church history. Moreover, we value the teaching of our spiritual ancestors, even those who made many mistakes. I suspect that Pastor Stellman realizes the value of historical theology, because I've noticed that his recent book, Dual Citizens, makes use of human authors. He does not rely exclusively on the Bible, nor should he!

I do think it is foolish to simply say "who cares," to the historical record. Sometimes we will simply have to disagree with the errors of our predecessors, but we should do so carefully, not recklessly.

Pastor Stellman writes:

Rather than get into a patristic prooftext war—especially if we may very well lose it—wouldn’t it be wiser to shift the locus of the battle to Scripture, the place where we claim to believe all controversies of religion are to be solved?

Well, of course, we've already won the battle on the grounds of Scripture. There may be a tiny handful of Roman Catholic apologists that think they can prove their doctrines from Scripture, but those folks are easily shown to be wrong.

The problem is that Rome has persuaded many people to accept an additional rule of faith - one that in effect supercedes Scripture. It is useful to help Roman Catholics see that this additional rule of faith is one that doesn't work, that cannot stand up to historical scrutiny, indeed one that is both established and maintained on lies and forgeries.

And don't worry, Pastor Stellman, we won't "lose" the analysis of the patristic writings, because we have nothing to lose. We're interested in the truth of what happened in the early church, not transforming the early church fathers into a PCA presbytery in Greece. We "win" simply by letting the fathers be the fathers, because history is our friend.

That means we admit that certain departures from the purity of the apostolic teachings happened very early, while other departures happened much later. Precisely because Scripture is our rule of faith, we cannot "lose" a battle over whether Bernard taught the immaculate conception (answer: he definitely did not) or whether Bernard taught the personal sinlessness of Mary (answer: it seems he did). In one case we can point out that Bernard's testimony is one voice among many against the idea the the dogma of the immaculate conception was really handed down in some kind of oral tradition format, in the other case we can acknowledge Bernard's mistake.

All that said, all the historical knowledge in the world won't save someone. One may be able to persuade a rational person that Rome is not who she claims to be, but unless that person trusts in Christ alone for salvation, they will be no better off in eternity. Mere knowledge of the truth is not enough.

-TurretinFan

Roman Catholics and History

One of the problems facing Roman Catholic apologetics generally is history. History demonstrates that many of Rome's dogmas are not apostolic, coming into being long after the apostolic era. There have been a variety of ways that Roman Catholic apologists have attempted to deal with this problem (from simple denials of the historical fact, to more nuanced responses such as Newman's development hypothesis). However, many who have read presentations on history from a Roman Catholic perspective are unaware of what some of Rome's servants have viewed as their role with respect to history. In the article I've linked below, John Bugay has provided some evidence of what we might conveniently refer to as "historical eisegeis." (link)

Who is Barabbas?

All four of the gospels refer to Jesus' fellow prisoner, Barabbas, by name. First, I'll present the four accounts and then some commentary:

Matthew 17:15-26:

Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would. And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, "Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?" For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.
When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, "Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him."
But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.
The governor answered and said unto them, "Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you?"
They said, "Barabbas."
Pilate saith unto them, "What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?"
They all say unto him, "Let him be crucified."
And the governor said, "Why, what evil hath he done?"
But they cried out the more, saying, "Let him be crucified."
When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, "I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it."
Then answered all the people, and said, "His blood be on us, and on our children."
Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

Mark similarly provides an account.
Mark 15:6-15:

Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired. And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection. And the multitude crying aloud began to desire him to do as he had ever done unto them.
But Pilate answered them, saying, "Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?" For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy.
But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.
And Pilate answered and said again unto them, "What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?"
And they cried out again, "Crucify him."
Then Pilate said unto them, "Why, what evil hath he done?"
And they cried out the more exceedingly, "Crucify him."
And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.

Luke also has an account.
Luke 23:13-25:

And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, said unto them, "Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him: no, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him, and release him." (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)
And they cried out all at once, saying, "Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas:" (Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.)
Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them.
But they cried, saying, "Crucify him, crucify him."
And he said unto them the third time, "Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go."
And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed. And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required. And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will.

Finally, John also has the account.
John 18:38-19:16
Pilate saith unto him, "What is truth?" And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, "I find in him no fault at all. But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?"
Then cried they all again, saying, "Not this man, but Barabbas." Now Barabbas was a robber.
Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe, and said, "Hail, King of the Jews!" and they smote him with their hands.
Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, "Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him."
Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, "Behold the man!"
When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, "Crucify him, crucify him."
Pilate saith unto them, "Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him."
The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God."
When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid; and went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, "Whence art thou?"
But Jesus gave him no answer.
Then saith Pilate unto him, "Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?"
Jesus answered, "Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin."
And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, "If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar."
When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, "Behold your King!"
But they cried out, "Away with him, away with him, crucify him."
Pilate saith unto them, "Shall I crucify your King?"
The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar."
Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.There are no further references to Barabbas in the text of the New Testament.

So, who was Barabbas? He was a robber (John's account), a notable prisoner (Matthew's account), someone who had (with others who were also imprisoned) made an insurrection/sedition and committed murder in the insurrection (Mark's and Luke's accounts). So, this man was a true brigand and a captain of them. His name appears to be taken from "bar abba" meaning "son of the father" (although some have suggested "bar rabbi" meaning "son of the teacher."

I scanned through the early church writers to see if there were any interesting legends about him. I mostly came up empty. Tertullian describes him as "the most abandoned criminal" (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 4, Chapter 42)
Cyril of Alexandria describes him as "a notorious robber" and "a dangerous and brutal criminal, [who was] not free from blood-guiltiness" (Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, at John 18:40) Augustine calls him "the robber," "the murderer," and "the destroyer [of life]"(Augustine, Tractate 116 on John's Gospel, at John 19:1) Even Faustus (whom Augustine opposed) called him "the notorious robber" (Faustus quoted in Augustine's Reply to Faustus, Book 14, Section 1) Chrysostom provides a characteristically colorful description:

For which was right? to let go the acknowledged criminal, or Him about whose guilt there was a question? For, if in the case of acknowledged offenders it was fit there should be a liberation, much more in those of whom there was a doubt. For surely this man did not seem to them worse than acknowledged murderers. For on this account, it is not merely said they had a robber; but one noted, that is, who was infamous in wickedness, who had perpetrated countless murders.

- Chrysostom, Homily 86 on Matthew, Section 2, at Matthew 27:11-12

On the whole, though, the early church basically leaves Barabbas alone. A couple (Origen and Rabanius) describe him as figuring the Devil, while Pseudo-Jerome goes so far as to associate him with the scapegoat which was freed. I'm told the the "Gospel According to the Hebrews" is an apocryphal work that takes the "son of the teacher" interpretation as opposed to "son of the father," but generally the apocryphal works also pretty much leave him alone or simply parrot the canonical accounts.

Gill provides similar comments, and adds:

The Ethiopic version adds, "the prince", or "chief of robbers, and all knew him"; and the Arabic, instead of a "prisoner", reads, a "thief", as he was.

He also points out that this name was a common name among the Jews, providing various citations to folks by that name. There does not seem to be much more out there on him.

Thus, I was a little surprised to see a rather bizarre comment in my comment box attempting to promote a novel view:

"Anathema" continues even unto this very day... to wit, 'Christian's' regard towards "Jesus Barabbas" (originally written in the Greek Gospel according or attributed to Matthew (27:17). But is such regard justified?

Is the depiction, contained only in the Holy Gospels, of "Jesus Barabbas" accurate or true?

Standing on the stage of ecclesiastical history's most dramatic and celebrated hour, like a potted plant of poison ivy, Jesus Barabbas said nothing whatsoever to anybody (nobody said anything to Him), -yet He is incongruently released (because Pontius Pilate honored a Jewish 'custom' -of releasing one prisoner during the Passover, -never before or since exercised).
Nevertheless, He is described as being "notorious"... to whom?
Where did He come from? Where did He go? Supposedly, He participated in the 'insurrection', -what "insurrection"? The "insurrection" wherein fanatically 'religious' Jews sought to overthrow Herod's Roman supported 'secular' governance -in an unsuccessful attempt to re-establish the ancient 'theocratic' form of governance as was instituted by David' (after the Lord rebuked the 'anointed' king Saul and replaced him with David?

I'm sure young Saul of Tarsus had something to say (and do) when 'the messiah' came riding on an ass into Jerusalem that fateful day...

It certainly wasn't "Jesus Barabbas", -which, by the way, "Jesus" was His 'name', -"Barabbas" is what He was 'called'. 'Barabbas' is not a surname (any more than is "Christ"), it is, rather, an Aramaic appellation, the meaning of which is: Bar = Son + Abba = Father (as in the Father of us all or 'God').

Whoa.

Roland, a reluctant iconoclast.

There are numerous errors in this comment. First, the name is just Barabbas (not "Jesus Barabbas"). Second, the fact that we don't have any historical record to which to tie this particular notorious criminal is hardly surprising: we don't have any significant records of the crimes of the day - so treating historical silence as significant is an error. Third, the whole comment is riddled with misplaced sarcasm and innuendo, compounding those errors through what seems to be some sort of iconoclastic pride. I have no idea who Roland is (or why he was using the handle "Barabbas126" to post the comment, but I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has encountered this same deviant view anywhere else.

UPDATE: I've tried to clarify the list of errors above. I found the information on textual data interesting. There are several variant spellings of the name: some manuscripts double the rho (leading to the "son of the master" interpretation) and some make the doubled betas single. Also, some manuscripts to add the name "Jesus," which is doubtless the basis for Roland's claim. However, neither the earliest nor the majority of manuscripts have this reading.

-TurretinFan

Non-English Reformation-Era Bibles - Index Page

The Reformation in the British isles was quite remarkable. In fact, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that other nations and tongues in Europe also experienced the Reformation. That said, I thought I'd try to track down some Reformation-era Bibles in other languages than English and provide those to the interested reader.

Olivetan (French) (Google Books - 1616 Printing)

Diodati (Italian) (Google Books - 1877 printing)(New Testament - 1665 Printing)

Reina (Spanish)

Luther's Bible of 1545 (German) (Modern Letter Version)

Dutch Authorized Version - 1637

- TurretinFan

The Importance of Irenaeus

An anonymous reader asked: Why are the witings of St. Irenaeus now so suddenly important[?] I thought that his relics were sacked by the Calvinists becaused he was alleged to be a heretic, ie., he is a proponent of Free Will and that his other writings do not support TULIP.

The importance of Irenaeus is merely historical. In many ways, Irenaeus is notable more for what he did not say, than for what he did say. Of course, we have only a limited amount of what he wrote and said, but what we find in those writings is some amount of evidence as to what was believed and held in his day. The process of preserving his writings has not been unbiased, and has been subject to some serious "selection" concerns. Nevertheless, considered with the appropriate caveats, Irenaeus gives us a picture into the mind of some Christians of the late 2nd century.

It (Irenaeus' writings) is not infallible, and it is not our rule of faith, but it is interesting - just as the writings of Calvin and Aquinas are interesting but not the rule of faith.

Irenaeus' alleged remains disappeared when Calvinists destroyed a shrine where they were supposedly held. Whether they were actually there or not, we cannot know with certainty. Why the shrine was destroyed is better assigned to the fact that Calvinists oppose the veneration of the dead, more than any antipathy for the teachings of Ireneaus on any particular point. Unfotunately, as far as I know, the details are sparse as to any stated reason for the shrine's destruction, and no information regarding what happened to the interred remains has come to light in subsequent years.

One would not be surprised if the Calvinists simply buried Irenaeus' remains in an unmarked grave to prevent further idolatry, just as the bronze serpent was piously destroyed by Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:4) because people had come to venerate it.

-TurretinFan

Can Papists Properly Call Reformed Churches, Churches?

Mr. Paul Hoffer referred to Reformed churches by the rather modernist/pluralist terminology of "faith communities. Mr. Mike Burgess has come to Mr. Hoffer's aid by suggesting that Mr. Hoffer is just being proper, and that properly Reformed churches cannot be said to be churches because they are not part of the true Church. We deny.

In opposition to this error, I present several arguments:

1. Pius XI, even while distinguishing them from the "true" church, referred to the reformed churches as such.

24. In his Controversies, although the holy Doctor made large use of the polemical literature of the past, he exhibits nevertheless a controversial method quite peculiarly his own. In the first place, he proves that no authority can be said to exist in the Church of Christ unless it had been bestowed on her by an authoritative mandate, which mandate the ministers of heretical beliefs in no way can be said to possess. After having pointed out the errors of these latter concerning the nature of the Church, he outlines the notes of the true Church and proves that they are not to be found in the reformed churches, but in the Catholic Church alone. He also explains in a sound manner the Rule of Faith and demonstrates that it is broken by heretics, while on the other hand it is kept in its entirety by Catholics. In conclusion, he discusses several special topics, but only those leaflets which treat of the Sacraments and of Purgatory are not extant. In truth, the many explanations of doctrine and the arguments which he has marshaled in orderly array, are worthy of all praise. With these arguments, to which must be added a subtle and polished irony that characterizes his controversial manner, he easily met his adversaries and defeated all their lies and fallacies.

(source)

2. "Faith Communities" appears to be a term born out of attempted ecumenical dialog with Judaism. Example (link) (Cardinal Kasper states: "I am committed to work together with you for the reconciliation of our two faith communities, on the basis of a total mutual respect for our respective traditions and convictions.") While it may be viewed as a valid super-category for Church and Synagogue, it is not a "more proper" term for "heretical" and/or "schismatic" churches. If I were a betting man, I'd bet that no one could find a pope using the expression "faith communities" before Vatican II.

3. Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 speak of the "synagogue of Satan." If "false Jews" can be said to be of a synagogue (even Satan's synagogue), then "false Christians" could be said to be of a church. Moreover, as Mr. Burgess admits, the claim today is not even that the Reformed churches are full of false Christians, just separated brethren.

On these three points, I'd respectfully disagree with Mr. Burgess' attempted buttressing of Mr. Hoffer on this issue of nomenclature. I can appreciate that Mr. Hoffer's choice of words may have been made with total innocence of any derogatory ring, aiming instead to use the language of ecumenicism (it should be noted that the Vatican now uses "faith communities" to refer not only to Jewish synagogues and the church of Rome, but also to "Protestant" churches, such as the Methodists).

To that, however, I'd add that the Reformed churches are part of the true church, while the Vatican is not. What are the marks of a true church?

See the Real Turretin's comments on this subject.


-TurretinFan