Christianity Lounge

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I already explained above why it doesn't make sense to try to separate the Bible from the traditions and history of the Church. You're literally taking the book that the Church created and trying to argue against the authority or legitimacy of the Church. Even if you could somehow win that argument, you'd just be undermining the validity of the Bible in the end. If you want to debate this point please read my other post and respond to the points I've made there.

This is what I was referring to when I said we should not read history backwards. If we can't read the history of the 1st century without reading it through a 4th century lens then neither can we read the 4th century history without reading it through a 21st century lens. I'm not "separating the Bible from the Church." I'm merely recognizing that the Scriptures are the original Church documents and will be using them as my starting point. Before any of the councils you mentioned, you have church fathers like Athanasius recognizing the Scriptures as the infallible Word of God. The earliest church father, Clement of Rome, calls Paul's letters "the true utterances of the Holy Spirit." They did not need councils to tell them this. The 4th century framework you want to impose on me would do much injustice to these earlier fathers.

The fact is, there is no council in the 1st thousand years that has the modern Orthodox canon. So this idea that "the Bible is a product of the Church and we therefore can't read it or talk about it other than through an Orthodox lens" is incredibly anachronistic. No one in the early church saw it that way. Before Eastern Orthodoxy differentiated itself as a denomination, the Bible already existed. Whether the Church was founded before the Apostles' writings is trivial, since the Church is supposed to submit to the Apostles and their writings anyway. "The Church is founded on the Prophets and Apostles, with Christ Jesus being the cornerstone." Not the other way around.

So does schism mean Apostolic succession has “failed”? No. From the Orthodox perspective, the schisms show the tragic reality of human sin and division, not the failure of God’s gift. Apostolic succession continues as the foundation of the Church’s continuity, but only where it is united with right faith and communion.

"Right faith and communion" is better criteria for determining the true church, since we agree that AS doesnt inherently preserve the Church from error. Since any bishop can go astray, we should instead look at those standards that do not change and are able to preserve us from error. What is "right faith"? Is it not the Apostolic faith? If I want the Apostolic faith, am I not to read their writings?

The Apostles ordained bishops, who ordained successors, and this unbroken line continues today.

Even the earliest genealogies of bishops, such as those given by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, are not in accordance with each other.

So when the Orthodox say the Church was “founded on the Apostles” they mean: Christ Himself is the cornerstone, but He deliberately used the Apostles as the human foundation of His visible earthly Church, and the Orthodox Church is the direct continuation of that same Apostolic body.

I will propose this, "the Church is founded on the Prophets and Apostles with Christ Jesus being the cornerstone" means that the Church is founded on the Prophet's and Apostle's writings with Christ Jesus inspiring them both. Bishops are not Apostles and AS blurs the line between those two offices so as to erase the distinction. It functionally becomes "the Church is founded on the Church's interpretation of the Prophets and Apostles."

When a Protestant says something like “the Church can’t be founded on Peter” (I don't know if you believe this or not) they’re often assuming Orthodoxy = Roman Catholicism, and that Orthodoxy claims a papal-style supremacy of Peter, but Orthodoxy doesn’t teach that. The Church isn’t built on “one man” in Rome. It’s built on Christ, confessed by the Apostles, and handed down in the life of the Church through Apostolic succession and fidelity to the truth.

I say the Church is founded on all the Prophets and Apostles, who are founded on Christ. I know that EO doesn't believe in a pope. My point is that it's inconsistent to believe that the Church is founded on Peter and not believe in the Pope.

By contrast, Protestantism is lacking this historical continuity and conciliar discernment which places the burden of interpretation on each individual or denomination.

The earliest church fathers also lacked this "historical continuity and conciliar discernment" that you point to. These things are not necessary to believe the Apostolic faith, be a member of the Church, be saved, be a disciple of Christ, etc. This Orthodox historical throughline is only necessary if you wish to be Orthodox.

Protestants often say that the Bible is enough, but they don't even fully understand it and never can, without the combined wisdom and traditions of the Orthodox Church, from which the Bible originated in the first place.

When Protestants say "the Bible is sufficient." They are saying what the Apostle Paul says, "the Scriptures are able to make you wise unto salvation." I think we both agree that the Bible is insufficient to teach you all the extra dogmas and traditions that you need to believe to be Orthodox. But for all this varied Protestant teaching, it is interesting that all the Protestants should agree on the canon of the Bible, which cannot even be said for all the Orthodox. The idea that you need the history after the Bible to understand the Bible which was written before that history is the very definition of anachronism. That history can be helpful, but it is in no way necessary.

 

[Wutang]

If a Catholic or Oriental Orthodox said that it was the Eastern Orthodox church that broke away from the original, historic church what would be the argument against that it is EOs that are in schism?

 

[Servant of Christ]

This is what I was referring to when I said we should not read history backwards. If we can't read the history of the 1st century without reading it through a 4th century lens then neither can we read the 4th century history without reading it through a 21st century lens. I'm not "separating the Bible from the Church." I'm merely recognizing that the Scriptures are the original Church documents and will be using them as my starting point. Before any of the councils you mentioned, you have church fathers like Athanasius recognizing the Scriptures as the infallible Word of God. The earliest church father, Clement of Rome, calls Paul's letters "the true utterances of the Holy Spirit." They did not need councils to tell them this. The 4th century framework you want to impose on me would do much injustice to these earlier fathers.

The fact is, there is no council in the 1st thousand years that has the modern Orthodox canon. So this idea that "the Bible is a product of the Church and we therefore can't read it or talk about it other than through an Orthodox lens" is incredibly anachronistic. No one in the early church saw it that way. Before Eastern Orthodoxy differentiated itself as a denomination, the Bible already existed. Whether the Church was founded before the Apostles' writings is trivial, since the Church is supposed to submit to the Apostles and their writings anyway. "The Church is founded on the Prophets and Apostles, with Christ Jesus being the cornerstone." Not the other way around.

Hoookay, you seem to be making the following arguments:

Scripture as prior: You claim the Bible (or at least the Apostolic writings) is logically prior to the Church because the Apostles’ writings were inspired and authoritative before councils or formal canon lists.

Church “submits” to scripture: You cite verses like Ephesians 2:20 to say the Church is built on the Apostles and Prophets (i.e. their writings).

Councils not necessary: You said early Holy Fathers already recognized scripture’s inspiration without needing Church councils to decide it.

Orthodoxy is later: You suggested that the Orthodox canon and framework are a much later development, so reading scripture “through an Orthodox lens” is anachronistic.

Is that about right?

My rebuttal is as follows:

The Church predates the New Testament:

• The Church began at Pentecost (Acts 2), but most NT writings were not yet written.
• Paul’s letters and the Gospels arose within the life of the Church, for the Church, not independently of it.

The Bible did not drop from heaven fully formed:

• The 27-book NT canon was not finalized until the 4th century (e.g. Athanasius’ Festal Letter 367 is the first time we see the exact modern NT list).
• Before that, there was much debate (Hebrews, Revelation, James, etc. were disputed).

“Scripture as Church documents”:

• Yes, the scriptures are “Church documents”, because they were written, preserved, and recognized in the context of the Church’s liturgical and teaching life. To call them “independent of the Church” is a categorical error: no Church, no scriptures as we know them.
• Every NT letter is addressed either to a local Church (Romans, Corinthians, Thessalonians, etc.) or to leaders within the Church (Timothy, Titus). These writings presuppose the existence of Christian communities, liturgy, sacraments, and teaching authority.
• Example: Paul gives instructions about the Eucharist (1 Cor 11), Bishops/Deacons (1 Tim 3), and Church discipline (Titus 1). That’s not independent; it’s embedded in church life.

Authority of councils:
Councils didn’t “make” scripture inspired, but they recognized and gave a settled canon for the sake of unity. Without the Church’s recognition, you wouldn’t have “the Bible” but just a collection of competing texts.

Anachronism charge cuts both ways:

• If it’s anachronistic to read the early fathers through a 4th-century Orthodox lens, it’s just as anachronistic to read them through a 16th–21st-century protestant sola scriptura lens.
• The early Church fathers did not conceive of “Bible vs. Church” as protestants often frame it.

The Bottom line​

• Various writings existed before the Church formally canonized them, but the writings themselves were birthed inside the Church, and only the Church’s life made their collection and preservation possible.
• The “Bible vs. Church” framework is a protestant projection onto early Christianity.

"Right faith and communion" is better criteria for determining the true church, since we agree that AS doesnt inherently preserve the Church from error. Since any bishop can go astray, we should instead look at those standards that do not change and are able to preserve us from error. What is "right faith"? Is it not the Apostolic faith? If I want the Apostolic faith, am I not to read their writings?


Even the earliest genealogies of bishops, such as those given by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, are not in accordance with each other.


I will propose this, "the Church is founded on the Prophets and Apostles with Christ Jesus being the cornerstone" means that the Church is founded on the Prophet's and Apostle's writings with Christ Jesus inspiring them both. Bishops are not Apostles and AS blurs the line between those two offices so as to erase the distinction. It functionally becomes "the Church is founded on the Church's interpretation of the Prophets and Apostles."


I say the Church is founded on all the Prophets and Apostles, who are founded on Christ. I know that EO doesn't believe in a pope. My point is that it's inconsistent to believe that the Church is founded on Peter and not believe in the Pope.


The earliest church fathers also lacked this "historical continuity and conciliar discernment" that you point to. These things are not necessary to believe the Apostolic faith, be a member of the Church, be saved, be a disciple of Christ, etc. This Orthodox historical throughline is only necessary if you wish to be Orthodox.


When Protestants say "the Bible is sufficient." They are saying what the Apostle Paul says, "the Scriptures are able to make you wise unto salvation." I think we both agree that the Bible is insufficient to teach you all the extra dogmas and traditions that you need to believe to be Orthodox. But for all this varied Protestant teaching, it is interesting that all the Protestants should agree on the canon of the Bible, which cannot even be said for all the Orthodox. The idea that you need the history after the Bible to understand the Bible which was written before that history is the very definition of anachronism. That history can be helpful, but it is in no way necessary.

Here you seem to be saying: Scripture is a self-sufficient, fixed standard; Apostolic Succession is unreliable; therefore, right faith is preserved in scripture alone, not in the Church’s succession or conciliar discernment.

However:

Apostolic Succession is not about perfection, but continuity​

• Yes, any individual Bishop can err, but Apostolic succession is not about personal infallibility; it’s about the continuity of the Apostolic college through the Bishops in communion.
• This is exactly how the early Church fought heresy; not by appealing to private reading of scripture, but by showing continuity with the Apostles’ teaching.
• Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.3.2–3) explicitly says the way to discern truth from heresy is to look to the Churches that preserve Apostolic succession, especially Rome.

Right faith (Orthodoxy) was discerned in the Church​

Your claim that “right faith = Apostolic writings” is reductionist. Scripture itself says the Apostolic faith was handed down both by word and by letter (2 Thess 2:15). Thus, the Apostolic faith is not limited to writings; it also includes oral tradition.

If writings alone were sufficient, why did Arians who quoted scripture constantly nearly take over the Church in the 4th century? It was only through councils and the Church’s conciliar discernment that Orthodoxy was preserved.

Disagreements on episcopal genealogies don’t negate succession​

Ancient sources sometimes differ on Bishop lists (Irenaeus vs. Eusebius, etc.), but the core point stands: the Church recognized lines of continuity from the Apostles. That some details differ doesn’t destroy the principle, any more than slight differences in Gospel details undermine the reality of Christ’s life.

Your reading of Ephesians 2:20 is incomplete​

• Paul says the Church is built on the Apostles and Prophets, with Christ as cornerstone, but he never reduces this to “their writings.”
• In the 1st century, the “foundation” of the Apostles and Prophets was primarily their living teaching and authority, not yet a compiled book.
• Bishops are not Apostles, but they are their successors. The early Church universally saw the episcopate as the means by which Apostolic authority continued (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8).

“Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the people be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or hold a love-feast apart from the Bishop; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God, so that everything you do may be assured and valid.”

Why this matters​

Direct witness to Apostolic Succession:

• Ignatius was a disciple of John the Apostle, writing around 107 AD - very early.
• He insists that communion with the Bishop equals communion with Christ and His Church.
• This undercuts the protestant claim that “scripture alone” is sufficient. For Ignatius, authority is embodied in the Bishop and the Church’s unity.

The Catholic Church was already a concept:

• He uses the phrase “Catholic Church” decades before the NT canon was settled.
• This shows the Church existed with structure and authority before “the Bible” as we know it was defined.

Sacraments tied to the Bishop:

• Baptism and the Eucharist were not valid apart from communion with the Bishop.
• This shows how alien the “Bible-only, no-Church” model is to early Christianity.

The “Bible alone” position is self-defeating​

You admit protestants disagree on “varied protestant teaching”, but still insist they all agree on the canon. That’s misleading because:

• Luther rejected James, Jude, Revelation, and Hebrews as secondary.
• Calvin questioned 2 Peter and Revelation.
• Today, protestants reject the OT Deuterocanon (Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Tobit, Judith, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees, Daniel, Esther, etc.), which was part of the Church’s Bible for centuries.
• In other words: Protestants do not universally agree on the canon without the Church’s authority. They inherit it from the very tradition they reject.

History is not optional​

You said that "history can be helpful, but it is in no way necessary", but this collapses when you realize the canon itself is history. Without the historical Church’s decisions, there is no “Bible” to appeal to - just scattered manuscripts.

To claim “I don’t need Church history to understand the Bible” is like claiming “I don’t need the U.S. government to interpret the Constitution - except I do need the government to tell me what the Constitution is.”

In summary​

• Scripture is inspired, but its recognition, preservation, and right interpretation come only through the Church.
• Apostolic succession is not about individual infallibility but corporate continuity of faith.
• Councils were necessary because heretics quoted scripture too - proving that scripture without the Church leads to chaos.
• The canon itself is proof that you cannot have the Bible without the Church.

Anyway... for what it's worth, I sincerely appreciate your well thought out and sincere arguments. I consider you a highly intelligent, respected, and valuable member of our community and it’s clear you desire to honor Christ. I thank and praise God for the faith and love I see in the way you conduct yourself. Whether or not we ultimately agree, I consider you a brother in Christ and I am honored to debate with you.

Take care & God bless.

In Christ,

SoC

PS - This popped into my feed today and I immediately thought of this discussion. I hope you don't mind me sharing. I haven't had an opportunity to watch the entire clip yet (about half) but it seemed edifying and relevant.

 

[Aboulia]

If Apostolic succession is of vital importance shouldn't a church like the Coptic Church in Egypt have a better claim to be the one true church since they are said to have been founded by St. Mark who was one of the Twelve Apostles? However they are Oriental Orthodox rather than Eastern Orthodox. What would be the argument for saying that the EOs that have a better claim to being the original church?

Antioch is the first see founded by Peter and was where we get the name Christian from (Acts 11:26) there's easily a stronger case there if we want to play that game. There are many sees and none were to be supreme over the others, but it is important for the churches to be of one mind, and to be unchanged from the start, so whenever people start to get off the rails councils are called to try to better elucidate what was always believed. The OO rejected the 4th Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon), which is why they are often termed "Monophysites" because regardless of what they claim now, they believed that Jesus' divine and human natures are combined, thus creating a new divine/human nature, and if that were true, there would be no salvation and Christ's actions would just be pageantry. To contrast, Chalcedon states that Christ has both divine and human natures without any sort of confusion.

(Didn't write this part)

Jesus had to be fully human to identify with humanity, experience temptation, suffer, and die in our place, thereby fulfilling the requirement that a human being pay for human sin.
His humanity allowed him to be a perfect representative and substitute, experiencing the fullness of human weakness and suffering without sinning, which is essential for him to sympathize with human struggles and serve as a perfect sacrifice.
The Bible affirms that he was truly human, possessing a physical body and soul, and that he grew in wisdom and stature, just like any other human.

At the same time, Jesus had to be fully divine to bear the infinite weight of God’s wrath against sin, which no finite human could endure.
His divine nature provided the infinite value necessary to satisfy God’s justice and secure eternal righteousness and life for humanity.
Only a divine being could offer a sacrifice of infinite worth and conquer death through resurrection.
The doctrine of the hypostatic union teaches that these two natures—divine and human—are united in one person, the eternal Son of God, without confusion, mixture, division, or separation.

Therefore, the necessity is not that Jesus shares the same nature as another being, but that he possesses both a divine nature and a human nature in one person. This dual nature is essential for the Christian understanding of salvation: his humanity enables him to represent and redeem humanity, while his divinity enables him to satisfy divine justice and secure eternal life.
The Council of Chalcedon affirmed that Christ is "truly God and truly man," with each nature retaining its own attributes, and that these natures are united in one person without loss of either.

The first father to teach "Apostolic Succession" was Irenaeus, who taught it over a century after the Apostles as a way to discredit the Valentinian Gnostics. While it may have worked against the Gnostics,

Not true, St Ignatius (the boy in Matthew 18) already wrote about it.

Edit: If you want to see the parts of his epistles I quoted, you have to go back to my original post.

@GodfatherPartTwo @scorpion

You guys have probably never come across this, but have you read the Epistles of St Ignatius the God-Bearer (Tradition says he's given that name because he was the boy whom Christ was referring to in Matthew 18:4) St Ignatius was a disciple of St John (who wrote the Gospel).







Keep in mind he's writing about Christians in his day, Christians nowadays are rarely exposed to writings like this, and we can only act in good conscience in accordance with what we know, but after we know things, it's to our own detriment if we ignore them.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Is that about right?

All true.

The Church predates the New Testament:

• The Church began at Pentecost (Acts 2), but most NT writings were not yet written.
• Paul’s letters and the Gospels arose within the life of the Church, for the Church, not independently of it.

Even so, the Scriptures were given to correct errors in the original Apostolic Church. People believed in Platonism before the Church was founded. Did not the Scripture have authority to correct the gnostic traditions (which were derived from Platonism) that people carried into the Church? What about the Jewish traditions that predated the Church and were present since it was founded? Does not the Scripture have authority to correct these? When you mitigate the authority of Scripture, you are mitigating the authority of the Apostles, rather, the authority of God since "no man spoke from his private interpretation, but spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." This argument that "the Church existed prior to Scripture, therefore Scripture can't correct the Church" is un-Apostolic.

The Bible did not drop from heaven fully formed:

• The 27-book NT canon was not finalized until the 4th century (e.g. Athanasius’ Festal Letter 367 is the first time we see the exact modern NT list).
• Before that, there was debate (Hebrews, Revelation, James, etc. were disputed).

This doesn't really go one way or the other. Like I said, Athanasius was able to give the NT canon without a council telling him which books should be in the NT, and no one thinks the Bible dropped out of the sky.

Scripture as Church documents”:

• Yes, the scriptures are “Church documents”, because they were written, preserved, and recognized in the context of the Church’s liturgical and teaching life. To call them “independent of the Church” is a categorical error: no Church, no scriptures as we know them.
• Every NT letter is addressed either to a local Church (Romans, Corinthians, Thessalonians, etc.) or to leaders within the Church (Timothy, Titus). These writings presuppose the existence of Christian communities, liturgy, sacraments, and teaching authority.
• Example: Paul gives instructions about the Eucharist (1 Cor 11), Bishops/Deacons (1 Tim 3), and Church discipline (Titus 1). That’s not independent; it’s embedded in church life.

1. The Scriptures are Church documents because they were written by the Apostles, the men who planted the churches. Whether or not they were "liturgically used" by some churches a century later or not doesn't obscure that original fact.

2. Exactly. The churches were already planted and the Apostles wrote their letters (the Scriptures) to lead and correct the churches anyway. If an incorrect tradition was embedded in the Church (and some were), the Scriptures were given to root them out.

Authority of councils:
Councils didn’t “make” scripture inspired, but they recognized and gave a settled canon for the sake of unity. Without the Church’s recognition, you wouldn’t have “the Bible” but just a collection of competing texts.

Can you cite which council gave this "settled canon"?

The early Church fathers did not conceive of “Bible vs. Church” as Protestants often frame it.

The early church fathers saw the Scripture as the highest authority, which is the position of the Protestants. They didn't consider themselves, councils, etc, to be on the same authority as Scripture because they understood that the Apostles wrote the Scriptures.

• Paul says the Church is built on the Apostles and Prophets, with Christ as cornerstone, but he never reduces this to “their writings.”
• In the 1st century, the “foundation” of the Apostles and Prophets was primarily their living teaching and authority, not yet a compiled book.
• Bishops are not Apostles, but they are their successors. The early Church universally saw the episcopate as the means by which Apostolic authority continued (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8).

Neither does he exclude their writings. If you want to know what the Prophets wrote, you read the Old Testament. If you want to know what the Apostles wrote, you read the New. It is on these that the Church is founded.
The Scriptures were written in the 1st century to correct and administrate over the 1st century churches.
Ignatius, a bishop, wrote that the Apostles were greater than he. He didn't consider himself to have the same authority as them simply because he was "a successor."

Luther rejected James, Jude, Revelation, and Hebrews as secondary.

• Calvin questioned 2 Peter and Revelation.
• Today, protestants reject the OT Deuterocanon (Wisdom, Sirach, Maccabees, etc.), which was part of the Church’s Bible for centuries.
• In other words: Protestants do not universally agree on the canon without the Church’s authority. They inherit it from the very tradition they reject.

Both Luther's German Bible and Calvin's Geneva Bible contained all the same books. Nothing was removed or rejected. You could point out that they had questions over certain books (as did the early church) but they presented the full canon as the Word of God, excluding the Apocrypha (even though they included the Apocrypha in their Bibles). The Protestant confessions that came after also all have the same canon.
Protestants do not "inherit" their canon from Catholic or Orthodox(s) traditions. The canons are not the same.

You said that "history can be helpful, but it is in no way necessary", but this collapses when you realize the canon itself is history. Without the historical Church’s decisions, there is no “Bible” to appeal to - just scattered manuscripts.

To claim “I don’t need Church history to understand the Bible” is like claiming “I don’t need the U.S. government to interpret the Constitution - except I do need the government to tell me what the Constitution is.”

Just as the 1778 Constitution was understood by the Americans in that day, so too were the 1st century Scriptures understood by the first Christians. They didn't need the traditions that wouldn't develop until centuries later to understand what was written in their day. This would be like saying someone can't read the Bill of Rights without first reading Obergefell. It's anachronistic, reading things into a period of history when they did not exist yet.

For what it's worth, I sincerely appreciate your well thought out and sincere points, and I consider you a highly respected and valuable member of our community. Whether or not we ultimately agree or not, I consider you a brother in Christ and I am honored to debate with you.

Take care & God bless.

In Christ,

SoC

Well I appreciate that and I want to thank you for being a good steward of the forum. I also respect your willingness to engage and stand up for what you believe in. I also consider you to be a brother in Christ and a man after God's own heart. Take care.

 

[Servant of Christ]

Even so, the Scriptures were given to correct errors in the original Apostolic Church. People believed in Platonism before the Church was founded. Did not the Scripture have authority to correct the the gnostic traditions (which were derived from Platonism) that people carried into the Church? What about the Jewish traditions that predated the Church and were present since it was founded? Does not the Scripture have authority to correct these? When you mitigate the authority of Scripture, you are mitigating the authority of the Apostles, rather, the authority of God since "no man spoke from his private interpretation, but spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." This argument that "the Church existed prior to Scripture, therefore Scripture can't correct the Church" is un-Apostolic.

Not trying to mitigate.. just that you can't separate it from the Church for all the reasons I listed.

This doesn't really go one way or the other. Like I said, Athanasius was able to give the NT canon without a council telling him which books should be in the NT, and no one thinks the Bible dropped out of the sky.

1. The Scriptures are Church documents because they were written by the Apostles, the men who planted the churches. Whether or not they were "liturgically used" by some churches a century later or not doesn't obscure that original fact.

2. Exactly. The churches were already planted and the Apostles wrote their letters (the Scriptures) to lead and correct the churches anyway. If an incorrect tradition was embedded in the Church (and some were), the Scriptures were given to root them out.

No one is saying the scriptures aren't super important.

Can you cite which council gave this "settled canon"?

The short answer is that no single ecumenical council gave the canon once-and-for-all, but several important local councils (later received by the wider Church) did.

Key moments in canon formation​

Athanasius’ Festal Letter (367 AD): First time the 27 NT books we have today are listed exactly as such. He also includes the OT with the Deuterocanon, but this was a Bishop’s letter, not a council.
Council of Laodicea (c. 363 AD): Gave a list of canonical books (though some manuscripts differ on Revelation).
Council of Hippo (393 AD): Local North African council, first to ratify the canon including the Deuterocanon + 27 NT books.
Council of Carthage (397 AD; reaffirmed in 419 AD): Gave the same canon list as Hippo, and explicitly asked the Church of Rome for confirmation.
Quinisext Council (Council in Trullo, 692 AD): A pan-Orthodox council that affirmed earlier canonical lists, including Carthage.

The canon emerged within the life of the Church, through use in liturgy, preaching, and teaching. Local councils in the 4th–5th centuries gave practical “settled” lists, later received universally. There was never a moment where the Bible “just existed” apart from the Church.

The early church fathers saw the Scripture as the highest authority, which is the position of the Protestants. They didn't consider themselves, councils, etc, to be on the same authority as Scripture because they understood that the Apostles wrote the Scriptures.

Neither does he exclude their writings. If you want to know what the Prophets wrote, you read the Old Testament. If you want to know what the Apostles wrote, you read the New. It is on these that the Church is founded.
The Scriptures were written in the 1st century to correct and administrate over the 1st century churches.
Ignatius, a bishop, wrote that the Apostles were greater than he. He didn't consider himself to have the same authority as them simply because he was "a successor."

Both Luther's German Bible and Calvin's Geneva Bible contained all the same books. Nothing was removed or rejected. You could point out that they had questions over certain books (as did the early church) but they presented the full canon as the Word of God, excluding the Apocrypha (even though they included the Apocrypha in their Bibles). The Protestant confessions that came after also all have the same canon.
Protestants do not "inherit" their canon from Catholic or Orthodox(s) traditions. The canons are not the same.

Just as the 1778 Constitution was understood by the Americans in that day, so too were the 1st century Scriptures understood by the first Christians. They didn't need the traditions that wouldn't develop until centuries later to understand what was written in their day. This would be like saying someone can't read the Bill of Rights without first reading Obergefell. It's anachronistic, reading things into a period of history when they did not exist yet.

The Holy Fathers never separated scripture from the Church; they read and preserved it in the Church’s life. If the canon were self-evident from the 1st century, the disputes over Hebrews, Revelation, and others would never have lasted for centuries. Protestants only know which books are in the Bible because they inherited the canon from the very Church they now reject.

The New Testament list was fixed in the 4th-5th century by the undivided Church, long before there was protestantism. The only reason Luther and Calvin knew which 27 NT books to translate is because they received that canon through Orthodox tradition. The fact that they later dropped the Deuterocanon only proves they altered what the historic Church had already handed down.

In Christ,

SoC

 

[Servant of Christ]

I was listening to YouTube in the background this evening and another wonderful video popped up which I would like to share.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Not true, St Ignatius (the boy in Matthew 18) already wrote about it.

Edit: If you want to see the parts of his epistles I quoted, you have to go back to my original post.

Ignatius writes about the ordination of bishops which is not the later full-throated doctrine of "Apostolic Succession."

If you want the long answer, I'll share this article: https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/03/ignatius-did-not-believe-in-apostolic.html?m=1

If you want the short answer, it's that Ignatius did not consider the authority of the bishop to be equal to that of the Apostles. He recognized that the offices are different.

 

[Servant of Christ]

It is true that Ignatius never claimed Bishops were equal in authority to the Apostles. The Apostles were unique eyewitnesses of Christ, and their authority was foundational. So in that narrow sense, @GodfatherPartTwo is correct that Bishops are "not the same” as Apostles.

However, Ignatius absolutely taught Apostolic succession and insisted that the Bishop is the center of unity and authority in the Church:

• “Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; just as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church” (Smyrnaeans 8).
• “It is fitting to obey the Bishop and the presbyters with an undivided mind” (Ephesians 20).
• Ignatius explicitly says ordination and sacraments outside the Bishop are invalid (Smyrnaeans 8).

This is the core of Apostolic Succession: the Bishop as successor and guarantor of Apostolic teaching and communion.

I would argue that GFPT mis-frames the issue because:

• It’s not about Bishops are the same as Apostles (they’re not).
• It’s about Bishops as successors to the Apostles’ authority in the Church.

Ignatius, writing c. 107 AD, already witnesses to this decades before any “later development.” The Holy Fathers after him (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian) consistently confirm this understanding. It is simply incorrect to deny that Ignatius taught succession, or that Bishops did not have authority. He clearly did - Bishops hold authority because they stand in continuity with the Apostles, and communion with them is communion with Christ, and outside of this or the Church there is no validity.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The necessity of a Bishop in the church is not the slam dunk argument you think it is. He is essentially saying that every church needs a pastor to be a church. Without the pastor, there is no church. You won't find Ignatius talking about "charism of infallibility" or any of the other developments that come from believing in AS. I'm not "misframing the issue" to point out that Ignatius did not consider Bishops to have jurisdiction or authority outside of their local congregation, and thus, not having the same authority as the Apostles. What is a misframing of the issue is to say that "bishops are successors of the apostles, therefore they have the same authority" when Ignatius, a bishop, denies this.

Moreover, Ignatius does already present a theological development with the Monarchical Episcopate. The sources earlier than Ignatius, such as the Didache, Clement of Rome, and the Scriptures, present a plurality of Elders, not a Monarchical Episcopate, as the form of church government.

 

[Servant of Christ]

Ignatius clearly ties the Church’s existence to the Bishop. That is far more than “every church needs a pastor”. His letters to multiple Churches show Bishops carried real supra-local authority, not just local oversight. Clement of Rome (earlier still) also intervened in Corinth which is proof of Apostolic succession and wider episcopal authority.

Orthodoxy doesn’t claim Bishops are individually infallible. They preserve Apostolic faith in communion with one another. Ignatius embodies this succession as a disciple of John and Bishop of Antioch. Early texts show fluidity (elders, Bishops, Deacons), but by Ignatius’ time the structure had matured into the threefold hierarchy. That’s organic growth, not corruption.

The new testament never establishes “pastor” as an office. The Church knew only Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, with the Bishop as the center of unity and succession. “Pastor” is a post-reformation invention, collapsing Bishop/Presbyter into a role without Apostolic succession, sacraments, or liturgy. In Orthodox terms, a protestant "pastor" is simply a layman acting as preacher.

Protestant claims ignore this and substitute a man-made office for the Apostolic order. Let's be real here - the term "pastor" is the literal equivalent of the term "gender", in a Biblical sense. In the case of "gender" someone just made it up and pretends it means something, in order to push an agenda and confuse people, but in reality it diverges from the reality of biological sex and all real meaning is lost.

So I again ask you plainly - where is your Bishop? If you have none, how can you claim to be a member of the Church?

In Christ,

SoC

 

[Servant of Christ]

Since I am pretty sure you are going to disagree with me on the word "pastor" here is a pre-emptive follow up.

• The Greek word often translated pastor is ποιμήν (poimēn), which literally means shepherd.
• In the New Testament, it is used most often of Christ Himself (John 10:11, “I am the good shepherd”; 1 Peter 2:25, “the Shepherd of your souls”).
• Only once is it applied in connection with Church ministry, in Ephesians 4:11, where Paul says Christ gave some as “Apostles, Prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers” - but the text does not describe pastor as a separate, distinct office. Most scholars read “pastors and teachers” as one combined role.
• The early Church never developed “pastor” into an official title or office. At most, it was a function carried out by Bishops and Presbyters. The established terms or offices were Bishop (episkopos), Presbyter (presbyteros), and Deacon (diakonos).

The bottom line is the protestant office or role of “pastor” as we know it today is a reformation-era invention. It took the biblical metaphor of “shepherd”, collapsed it with presbyteral functions, and turned it into a new church role without Apostolic succession, sacramental authority, or liturgical grounding. We can agree it means "teacher", which is fine, but that holds no Apostolic authority or special meaning otherwise.

In Christ,

SoC

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Early texts show fluidity (elders, Bishops, Deacons), but by Ignatius’ time the structure had matured into the threefold hierarchy. That’s organic growth, not corruption.

Early texts (the Scriptures, the Didache, Clement's letter) show a plurality of Elders as the Apostolic Church government. This is not "fluidity." This was the Church government as instituted by the Apostles. The Monarchical Episcopate is a novum, a theological development. You won't find someone before Ignatius talk about it, it simply didn't exist. You place central weight on something that the Apostles did not even institute.

The new testament never establishes “pastor” as an office. The Church knew only Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, with the Bishop as the center of unity and succession. “Pastor” is a post-reformation invention, collapsing Bishop/Presbyter into a role without Apostolic succession, sacraments, or liturgy. In Orthodox terms, a protestant "pastor" is simply a layman acting as preacher.

Pastor is just another way of saying bishop. There are only two offices in the Apostolic Church, Bishops and Deacons. Unlike Apostolic Succession, you can find "pastor" in the Bible, and you cited it in Ephesians 4:11. So why are you saying the Reformation "made it up"?

So I again ask you plainly - where is your Bishop? If you have none, how can you claim to be a member of the Church?

The plurality of Elders in my church. Do not impose your un-Apostolic standard on me.

 

[Servant of Christ]

Early texts (the Scriptures, the Didache, Clement's letter) show a plurality of Elders as the Apostolic Church government. This is not "fluidity." This was the Church government as instituted by the Apostles. The Monarchical Episcopate is a novum, a theological development. You won't find someone before Ignatius talk about it, it simply didn't exist. You place central weight on something that the Apostles did not even institute.

The NT uses Bishop and Presbyter interchangeably (Acts 20, Titus 1), showing overlap, not the absence of Bishops. Clement of Rome (before Ignatius) already speaks of Apostolic succession and even intervenes in Corinth which is proof of supra-local authority. The Didache shows a transitional stage with Bishops, Deacons, and traveling prophets, but by Ignatius’ time the threefold ministry had stabilized. That’s not corruption but natural maturation. If the Apostles intended only a flat plurality of elders, why did the whole Church, within one generation, universally embrace episcopacy?

Pastor is just another way of saying bishop. There are only two offices in the Apostolic Church, Bishops and Deacons. Unlike Apostolic Succession, you can find "pastor" in the Bible, and you cited it in Ephesians 4:11. So why are you saying the Reformation "made it up"?

The plurality of Elders in my church. Do not impose your un-Apostolic standard on me.

I intend no dis-repect, but saying "pastor is just another way of saying bishop" is so wrong and mis-guided it deserves really special attention.

For example, it's like saying “doctor” is just another word for “surgeon”. One is a general description, the other is a specific office with particular training, lineage, and authority.

It’s like saying “captain” and “sailor” are the same thing because both work on a ship. The title of captain carries a unique office and authority that “sailor” does not.

Or like saying “king” is just another word for “father.” A king may act fatherly, but “father” is not the formal office.

Again, “pastor” (poimēn) is never an office in the NT. It’s a metaphor for Christ and only once for ministers (Eph. 4:11). The real offices are Bishop (episkopos), Presbyter, and Deacon. Clement already speaks of Apostolic succession with Bishops and Deacons, and by Ignatius the threefold order is universal. Early plurality of presbyters doesn’t erase Bishops; the roles were fluid initially but matured quickly.

And at the risk of being redundant, I think this needs to be emphasized:
The “plurality of elders” in scripture isn’t proof against Bishops. In the NT, Presbyter (elder) and Episkopos (Bishop/Overseer) are often used interchangeably (Acts 20:17,28; Titus 1:5–7). What you’re calling “elders” were precisely those who later came to be distinguished as Presbyters under the authority of a Bishop. Clement (c. 96) already shows succession through Bishops and Deacons, and Ignatius (c. 107) speaks everywhere of a single Bishop surrounded by Presbyters and Deacons.

So in other words, your “plurality of elders” was never an alternative to Bishops. It was the seed form of the episcopate that matured almost immediately after the Apostles. Your own claims earlier in this thread support me on this. And even if “pastor” really equals “Bishop”, which it clearly doesn't, Ignatius’ words still stand: ‘Where the Bishop is, there is the Church.’ So I ask again, where is your Bishop in Apostolic succession?

And frankly, whatever word you want to call it, pastor, elder, minister, captain kangaroo, the point is you don't have Apostolic succession, or sacraments, or the liturgy, or a real Bishop, or Deacons, or Priests, or any other real claim to the Holy traditions or body of Christ. It doesn't mean you don't love Christ or wish to seek him out, which I accept you do without question, and it doesn't mean you won't ultimately be saved, because noone but God knows that, but you're essentially wandering around lost without a compass when you should be in His Church. And you're arguing with the person who wants to help you and give you a map.

Take care & God bless my brother.

In Christ,

SoC

 

[Servant of Christ]

For what it is worth I don't enjoy telling someone they are wrong, but I feel an obligation to fight for the truth. Christ said in Matthew 10:34–36, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword… a man against his father, a daughter against her mother.” He wasn’t calling for violence, but showing that His truth inevitably divides. The Holy Fathers explain this “sword” as the Word of God itself, cutting between truth and falsehood, light and darkness.

That is what’s happening here. This debate isn’t about pride, bur rather it’s about fidelity to the Apostolic Church. Any way you want to spin it, however sincere you may be, the heterodox are in error because they have cut themselves off from the very order and succession the Apostles left behind. The division we feel is exactly what Christ warned of: real unity only exists in the fullness of His Body, not in man-made substitutes.

I don't know your background and it's none of my business anyway, but in my experience a lot of people are taught or raised a certain way and that is what they know and that creates an incredibly strong bias to defend it. It's like in the matrix when morpheus explains how people will fight to prevent being freed from it, because their belief in it is so strong. Maybe that is you and maybe it isn't, but from my point of view I came at this from a fresh perspective without any pre-conceived ideas and just researched the information for a long time, prayed a lot, and let the truth lead me where it may. Whatever God's plan is for you my friend I pray you will get there and find true theosis and salvation.

In Christ,

SoC

 

[Wutang]

And frankly, whatever word you want to call it, pastor, elder, minister, captain kangaroo, the point is you don't have Apostolic succession, or sacraments, or the liturgy, or a real Bishop, or Deacons, or Priests, or any other real claim to the Holy traditions or body of Christ.

This could also be an argument for becoming a Catholic or Oriental Orthodox instead. I asked before why someone would choose Eastern Orthodoxy over the other two churches instead and the answer I was given is that it was the Catholics and OO that have broken off from the true church. However, that's the exact same answer that a Catholic or OO would give. What would be the argument that would settle the issue over which church is the original and which two are the ones that broke off and are in schism?

 

[Servant of Christ]

This could also be an argument for becoming a Catholic or Oriental Orthodox instead. I asked before why someone would choose Eastern Orthodoxy over the other two churches instead and the answer I was given is that it was the Catholics and OO that have broken off from the true church. However, that's the exact same answer that a Catholic or OO would give. What would be the argument that would settle the issue over which church is the original and which two are the ones that broke off and are in schism?

That is a totally fair question. I answered it in one of my earlier replies and I would ask that you please go re-read it if you haven't done so, but I'll try to give a short explanation here:

Council of Chalcedon (451) - The Coptic/Oriental Schism​

• Attendance: 500-600 bishops (modern scholarship usually says about 520).
• Decision: The Chalcedonian definition of Christ’s two natures was upheld overwhelmingly.
• Who rejected?: A minority, mostly from Egypt (Alexandria) and parts of Syria/Armenia. Estimates are a few dozen Bishops at most.
• Outcome: The majority of the Church (hundreds of bishops across Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.) upheld Chalcedon. The Copts and their allies walked away from the council’s decisions.

So it was not a 50/50 split. It was a small minority leaving the consensus of the whole.

Great Schism (1054) - Rome’s Separation​

• By the 11th century, there were five ancient patriarchates (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem).
• Rome stood alone in pushing papal supremacy and the Filioque. The other four patriarchates (the overwhelming majority of the ancient Church) remained united in the Orthodox faith.
• At that time, the Orthodox East represented the bulk of Christianity geographically (Byzantine Empire, the Middle East, Slavic lands, etc.). Rome was one patriarchate that separated from the rest.

Again, we have a large majority holding firm with tradition and a small minority ended up splitting off. Also it is important to remember the Great Schism was driven less by faith and more by politics, unlike the earlier split with the Copts. Under pressure from Frankish emperors and western rulers, Rome pushed the filioque and papal supremacy to consolidate power. The pope became a pawn of state ambition while the east refused these innovations and remained faithful to the Apostolic tradition.

In Christ,

SoC

 

[Servant of Christ]

Just adding some historical context for the last post.

Charlemagne (crowned in 800) was central in setting the stage for the Schism:

• Political Rivalry: He wanted to create a western “Roman Empire” to rival Byzantium. For that, he needed a distinct theology and a compliant papacy.
• Filioque Push: His court theologians promoted the Filioque, not from Apostolic tradition, but to mark western identity and claim theological superiority over the Greeks. At the Council of Aachen (809), his Bishops insisted on it.
• Papal Pressure: Pope Leo III resisted altering the Creed officially, even engraving the original text in Latin and Greek on silver plaques in Rome, but politically the papacy became dependent on Charlemagne’s protection and later fell in line.
• Result: This set the precedent for Rome using theological innovations (filioque, papal supremacy) as political tools. By the 11th century, the breach with the east was formalized.

In Christ,

SoC

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The NT uses Bishop and Presbyter interchangeably (Acts 20, Titus 1), showing overlap, not the absence of Bishops.

You're misunderstanding my argument. No one is arguing against having Bishops. The Apostles instituted Bishops. Every church should have them. What's being argued against is Ignatius' separation of Bishop from Presbyter, and his Monarchical Episcopate (One Bishop over Presbyters). The reason it's being argued against is because it's not the form of church government that the Apostles instituted.

If the Apostles intended only a flat plurality of elders, why did the whole Church, within one generation, universally embrace episcopacy?

"The whole Church" didn't. There were churches both during and after Ignatius' time that still had not embraced the Monoepiscopacy. What churches do a century or two later does not reflect back on the Apostle's intentions.

The reason the Monoepiscopacy was embraced was due to administrative purposes, not theological. The early church father, Jerome, recognized this: going so far as to call it a "man-made custom" and "not by divine ordination."

Clement of Rome (before Ignatius) already speaks of Apostolic succession and even intervenes in Corinth which is proof of supra-local authority.

Clement does not speak of "Apostolic Succession" at all. He also does not issue commands to the Corinthians as if he had authority over them. He was telling the Corinthians that they should bring back their Bishops (who they kicked out) because the Bishops were ordained in an orderly way. Apostle's ordaining Bishops ≠ Apostolic Succession. AS depends on "unbroken lines" of succession. The earliest lines given by the earliest fathers were all broken. None of the lines agreed with each other.

The Didache shows a transitional stage with Bishops, Deacons, and traveling prophets, but by Ignatius’ time the threefold ministry had stabilized.

There's nothing "transitional" in the Didache. What it says is "Elect for yourselves Bishops and Deacons." That's it. There is no three-fold ministry to be read implicitly there. The text presents a two-fold office.

Again, “pastor” (poimēn) is never an office in the NT. It’s a metaphor for Christ and only once for ministers (Eph. 4:11). The real offices are Bishop (episkopos), Presbyter, and Deacon.

In Acts 20:28, Paul tells the Bishops to be Shepherds (Pastors) over the flock of God. "Pastor" and "Bishop" and "Presbyter" refer to the same office.

Does the Bible teach the office of pastor? | GotQuestions.org

Does the Bible teach the office of pastor? Is the office of pastor the same as the office of elder/bishop?

www.gotquestions.org

And frankly, whatever word you want to call it, pastor, elder, minister, captain kangaroo, the point is you don't have Apostolic succession, or sacraments, or the liturgy, or a real Bishop, or Deacons, or Priests, or any other real claim to the Holy traditions or body of Christ.

You are drawing theological conclusions from an administrative wrinkle.

 

[Northumber]

Result: This set the precedent for Rome using theological innovations (filioque, papal supremacy) as political tools

Innovation. Funny to think that now this is a very positive word to our modern world.