First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians

Are you sure? I'm not a a bible scholar no have I even smelled a seminary however the next part of the writing after his statement about the Rule of our Tradition is this:

Then he does pull out scripture using the greek from the LXX

Isaiah 60:17

So is it traditions such as those passed on like the Eucharist or Scriptures and if scriptures what would be included? These are questions I ask myself.

 

Except that very early on there was a three-fold distinction among the offices of bishop (the presiding bishop/presbyter), the presbyters (the assisting bishops/presbyters) and deacons. If you notice, in every early list of the episcopal succession in Rome (even where/when the terms "bishop" and "presbyter" were still somewhat interchangeable) the succession lists one individual at a time, with Clement being third from the apostles. In the eastern church, the distinction between the terms was crystallized very early as evidenced by the letters of Ignatius who often mentions the name of the leading (single) bishop of the particulary church to whom he wrote.

Again, we have the example of Titus who was not an apostle himself yet who had the authority to appoint elders in every city. Historically, Titus was considered the first 'bishop' (in the monarchial episcopal sense) of Crete.

 

We are skipping foward 100 years all of a sudden when you discuss these lists. Absolutely he lists one individual and one interesting thing is the differing lists from different sources. Like so many, I think the lists are fanciful; I do not believe we have a monarchial bishop for the vast majority of the church. I think there was one exception to that rule early on and that is Jerusalem.
If we go off, Clement, the Didache, Polycarp, and the NT we are looking at one thing. IF we go off Ignatius and Irenaues; we are talking something else. Ignatius does not mention a bishop in Rome and he is the exception IF his letters, even the short recession are authentic. IF. The letters were tampered with obviously in the longer recessions; everyone admits that. For some reason they believe the copies they have from 600 years later were not.
I think we can talk the totality of patristic evidence and the scholars who actually think we have a monarchial bishop are few and far between.
I do not believe that Clement supports a head elder. Its not there.

 

I find it ironic (to say the least) that you say that you "think the lists are fanciful" and that you "do not believe" we have a monarchial bishop for the vast majority of the church" yet you mention Jerusalem--the mother church, so to speak--as being "one exception to the the rule early on". What good evidence can you give from primary sources that Jerusalem, led by James (succeeded by Simeon), is the "exception to the rule early on" rather than the pattern that other churches subsequently followed? Particularly when we have the evidence of Ignatius (whose naming of the Bishops in the churches, including Polycarp, are found in what scholars consider to be his authentic epistles)?

Many would disagree. In fact, I've yet to read anything other than mere assertions that the monarchial bishops "were few and far between". I've also read the different lists of the episcopal succesion in Rome, and with some minor exceptions, there is substantial agreement in who is listed and in what order. I therefore doubt that the early sources pulled these names out of thin air. In addition to that, Eusebius goes in great detail listing the names, duration of their episcopate in years, and who was the corresponding Roman emperor (etc) of at least the first three bishops of Rome (Linus through Clement)--I suppose he just fancifully just pulled all of these details out of thin air as well.

 

There is every indication that the Jersualem Church was an exception based upon the fact that the Lord's family maintained its leadership.
If you asserting that Monarchial bishops are the norm in the early church you are in a minority. The NT, Clement, the Didache, and Polycarp are generally used to defend elder or presbyter rule. There are conflicting lists and the evidence is not substantial at all to indicate agreement. You are relying on the same man who asserts what? Paul and Peter founded Rome. Care to defend that? Paul says otherwise in Romans and even tradition (conflicting as usual) has Peter arrriving after Antioch.

Here are lists used:

“Linus, Cletus, Clemens (Hegesippus, ap. Epiphanium, Canon of Mass).
Linus, Anencletus, Clemens (Irenaeus, Africanus ap. Eusebium).
Linus, Anacletus, Clemens (Jerome).
Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, Clemens (Poem against Marcion),
Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus [Hippolytus (?), "Liberian Catal."- "Liber. Pont."].
Linus, Clemens, Anacletus (Optatus, Augustine). “

Ignatius is tenious evidence to say the least. He is never quoted in this regards by anyone else. We already know he was tampered with. The majority of the evidence indicates elder rule and congregational rule. I will resist rolling my eyes; I thought we were having a civil conversation.

 

Mine is online; it smells like where ever I am!

 

Good I'm not alone.

 

Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.
Does the Reformed Seminary have a residential component?

 

I'm not in semenary. Though I think I would enjoy it. I have a Graduate Degree in business management from Eastern University. But I don't think that counts. I minored in bible for my undergrad. Does that count?

 

yes, although when you do distance learning what is going on in Virginia does not usually come to your attention.
The exception being the classes on DVD; all the DVDs(and not all classes have videos) are so far taught from Liberty faculty. The instructors themselves have not been Liberty except for one exception.
congratulations on your studies and good luck

 

The presidency may have been plural but it certainly was there