Purity and Preservation of Christian (Biblical) Doctrine
Has the historical Church held onto the truth once delivered to the saints?
There is the belief that the Christian Church kept the pure doctrine/teachings from the very beginning (from Christ and the Apostles) and develop them down the centuries to suit contemporary needs.
Historical records show us that doctrines were not kept in their pure original form; but were changed by local churches, organisation, at meetings and by individuals since the time of Christ.
Hegesippus (c.175) in Euseb., H.E. IV. xxii,2 - The Church of Corinth remained in the right doctrine down to the episcopate of Primus at Corinth. ...and we took comfort together in the right doctrine.
This record suggests that doctrines of the Church were deviating from what was handed down by Christ and the Apostles at a very early stage in Church history.
Very soon, few churches were thought of having the right doctrine, although there were people and ruling structure in local churches.
There is no mentioning of leaning towards the traditions/constitution of Paul.
Corinth being an assembly started by Paul would tend to be more familiar with his teachings/doctrine, yet no distinction was made between his teachings and that of Peter and others.
2 Peter 3vv 15,16:
and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, has written to you,as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which the untaught(uninstructed) and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Peter could be regarded as part of the tradition/teaching of Peter.
The writer indicates that there were people distorting scriptures even in his days in the 1st century AD.
The writer taught that Paul (hinted at the Apostle) was of the same class as himself, rather than as father to son, or late believer to a founding member of the assemblies.
Even when some of the things Paul wrote are hard to be understood, the writer taught that they are true, according to the wisdom given (God inspired) him.
Rejection of the letters of Paul or other scriptures is rejecting inspired message and heading towards destruction.As a certainty taught here, the letters of Peter, and Paul and the scriptures are regarded as inspired ( according to the wisdom given him ) and therefore true and trustworthy.
Irenaeus on Tradition and Succession (Adv. baereses, III) - And then Polycarp, besides being instructed by the Apostles and acquainted with many who had seen the Lord, was appointed by the Apostles for Asia as overseer of the church in Smyrna. ...and departed this life, having taught always the things which he had learnt from the apostles, which the Church hands down, which alone are true.
This passage indicated that Polycarp was instructed by more than one Apostles and taught from the instruction of the Apostles, rather than from John alone.
This suggests that the instruction of different Apostles are in agreement with one another.This record suggests that there were possibly others teaching things other than what the Apostles and the Church hands down, causing a need to mention what alone are true.
There were not different truths, or other tradition of truth. There was the truth that stood alone. Strife of different faction is felt.
iv. I. ... For the Apostles have lodged all that there is of the truth with her (the Church), as with a rich bank, holding back nothing. ... This is the gateway of life; all the rest are thieves and robbers. ...
This passage suggests the belief that the Apostles had delivered to the Church all the teachings needed for life, instruction and truth.
The idea that the teachings once delivered were for the contemporary only and do not suit later times, and that new doctrines are needed to explain what was given is contrary to this belief of "a rich bank, holding back nothing."
Tertullian on Tradition and Succession (De praescriptione baereticorum, xxxii) - But if any of these (heresies) are bold enough to insert themselves into the Apostolic age, in order to seem to have been handed down from the Apostles because they existed under the Apostles, we can say: let them then produce the origins of their churches; let them unroll the list of their bishops, an unbroken succession from the beginning so that that first bishop had as his precursor and the source of his authority one of the Apostles or one of the apostolic men who, though not a Apostle, continued with the Apostles. This is how the apostolic churches report their origins; thus the church of the Smyrnaeans relates that Polycarp was appointed by John, the church of Rome that Clement was ordained by Peter. ...
From this passage we see that people at early times have come to put their faith/trust in lines of origin rather than resting doctrine ( the proof of truth ) in the scriptures/ the Bible.
We also see that hereies were in existence, and believed to be held by people other than from the line/succession of ordained ministers. It was believed that the successors also have authority from the Apostles and act as continuation.
The line "This is how the apostolic churches report their origins" suggests that this is a means to demonstrate origin/source of doctrines, rather than aproving a licence to develop doctrine further.
These lines of succession do not speak of the continuation of the Truth, although it does suggest this to be the natural result.The passage shows 2 lines of succession, one of John and the other of Peter, with no indication of one line dominating the other. In fact the whole passage does not speak of the superiority of any apostolic line.
All it indicates is that of an unbroken line of ordination for succession of true teachings.
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, 248-258, De catholicae ecclesiae unitate, 4-6 expressed his view that Peter should be the head of the Church just as there is one Christ by his exposition of scripture verses. (ie: Matt xvi 18,19; Jn xx 21-23; Eph iv 4,5)
His view was not based on what he learned from the Apostles, especially Peter and the other 11, or his teacher. He was not following original apostolic practice, showing (referring to) established practices of local churches.
His words focused on origin and unity of the Church by expressing the need of one visible leader in place of Christ and then Peter. Rather than worshipping God in spirit and in truth, one human head is turned to for leadership/recognition of all churches.
We can see that his idea was not an original doctrine, as Clement of Rome was not representing the Church any more than Polycarp. Paul and other Apostles did not look to Peter for leadership, guidance and representation soon after the day of the Pentecost (Acts 2).
Julius, Bishop of Rome, 337-352: ap. Apol. c. Ar. 35 - ... Dearly beloved, the judgements of the Church are no longer according to the Gospel, but tend only to banishment and death. ... This is not in accordance with the constitutions of Paul or the directions of the traditions of the Fathers. I am informing you of the tradition handed down from the blessed Apostle Peter.
A Bishop of Rome 300 years later (after Christ) claiming he held the tradition handed down from Peter which is not in accordance with the Gospel and with teachings of Paul and other Fathers, and not known earlier to the audience he wrote to.
I wonder how, without written document he could have the preserved tradition/teachings of Peter; And all others except him were ignorant of it.
After more than a century of reported false doctrine held by local churches, this person/Bishop claimed he had the tradition handed down from Peter to be trusted by all others who did not know of such tradition earlier.
He appealed to authority outside the Gospel/scriptures without adding to scriptures.
Rather than building on canon, he built on doctrine. His words were not regarded as scriptures.This is a claim to extra-biblical doctrine, that which contradicts with teachings handed down from other Apostles/Fathers, which according to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, revealing truth to other Apostles and in turn passed down by their successors ought to be true and equally authoritative.
The Bible does not teach that any of the doctrine taught by Peter contradicts with that of other Apostles, nor does it teach preference of Peter's words.
Paul in 1 Cor 14 vv 37-38 has this to say concerning The lord's commandment:
If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment.
But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
This Bishop of Rome/Julius, if Apostolic succession has any authority even that it is not taught in scripture, was contradicting with the teaching of Paul and that of Christ (claimed by Paul and received by the local churches), which he claimed to be representing in authority and in person.
...
Just War and Love || Did Jesus speak only Aramaic? || Baptism by Immersion? ||
A Failed Prophesy on Tyre? || Another Failed Prophesy on Tyre? ||
Why 4 Gospels? || Answering Errancy Allegation ||
Hebrew Matthew and document Q || Census in Luke Ch 2 ( Anachronism? ) ||
A Christian Witness || Marrying non-believer ||
Similarity warrants Recognition and Unity? || Freewill and pre-destination ||
Dynamic Equivalence and Propitiation ||
Photography || Photo Gallery || Portrait Gallery || Architecture ||
Design Consultancy || Preacher || Herbalist || Cool Sites ||
News ||