“Wherefore, let us leave empty and vain thoughts, and come unto the glorious and venerable rule of our holy calling,” thus Titus Flavius Clemens, or as he is better known to history, Clement of Alexandria, in his first letter to the Corinthians. what was this “rule of faith’? Irenaeus outlines it in chapter 9 of the first book of Adversus Heraesis when he writes about St John:
proclaiming one God, the Almighty, and one Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten, by whom all things were made, declares that this was the Son of God, this the Only-begotten, this the Former of all things, this the true Light who enlighteneth every man, this the Creator of the world, this He that came to His own, this He that became flesh and dwelt among us
We see it in Tertullian (c.160-225), Hippolytus (c.170-236), as well as later in St Athanasius (c.296-373) and St Augustine (c. 354-4300. It consists of a statement of early Christian teaching and communal belief which could be used, as Clement used it, to refute heresy.
The core belief was that Jesus is the Son of God, the Creator of all things, who had become man and dwelt among us, and who died on the Cross, rose from the dead, and later ascended into Heaven, and who is the Way, the Truth and the Light. These beliefs were supported in the Apostolic writings which were identified by tradition because they were the “rule of faith” by which Christians could be assured of these things. That did not stop some Christians, like Irenaeus taking a view which rested on revelation, tradition, and on the power of the Holy Spirit, or others, like Clement, taking a more philosophical view. The “rule of faith” allowed both idioms; what it did not allow was Gnostic claims that there was “another Saviour, and another Logos, the son of Monogenes, and another Christ produced for the re-establishment of the Pleroma.” This “rule of faith” we see across the Mediterranean and what we call the Middle East, it was not the product of Rome or, indeed, of any central authority, it was the common possession of the Church from the “elders” supported by the Canon.
This is expressed best by Irenaeus when he wrote:
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
This is worth quoting at length as it conveys better than any summary the way in which Bishops like Irenaeus saw themselves as receiving and passing on what had been received from the Apostles themselves, as recorded in the canonical Gospels. As Clement put it:
42:1 The Apostles received for us the gospel from our Lord Jesus Christ; our Lord Jesus Christ received it from God.
42:2 Christ, therefore, was sent out from God, and the Apostles from Christ; and both these things were done in good order, according to the will of God.
42:3 They, therefore, having received the promises, having been fully persuaded by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and having been confirmed by the word of God, with the full persuasion of the Holy Spirit, went forth preaching the good tidings that the kingdom of God was at hand.
42:4 Preaching, therefore, through the countries and cities, they appointed their firstfruits to be bishops and deacons over such as should believe, after they had proved them in the Spirit.
42:5 And this they did in no new way, for in truth it had in long past time been written concerning bishops and deacons; for the scripture, in a certain place, saith in this wise: I will establish their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.
As Irenaeus put it:
WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
These men were not part of some “orthodox” conspiracy designed to impose order on “diversity:, they were the stewards the the Gospel message which they had the duty to protect and proclaim. It is not surprising that this “rule of faith” became the origin of the Nicere Creed.
That should not be taken to mean that there were not theological developments along the way, the Trinity is one example of such a development, but it does mean that, as Larry Hurtado put it:
Well before the influence of Constantine and the councils of bishops in the fourth century and thereafter, it was clear that proto-orthodox Christianity was ascendant, and represented the emergent mainstream. Proto-orthodox devotion to Jesus of the seond century constitutes the pattern of belief and practiced that shaped Christian tradition thereafter. [L.W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity].
I would be tempted to tweak that a little after what has been outlined here and to say that the Creeds approved by the Church Fathers, like the Canon they confirmed, served as a theological continuation of inherited orthodoxy, and as its chief means of transmitting what had been inherited.
None of that is to take away from the fierce debates over heresy and the part they played in focussing the mind of the Church on subjects such as the Trinity and Christology, but it is to say that it was the Church which preserved and transmitted what it had received from the Apostles.
My thanks to those of you who have borne with me thus far, and to those who have commented. The attempt to summarise such a vast topic inevitably produces simplifications, but I hope I have reflected what I have read. I am conscious that the sources here are Western in the main, and in later posts I hope to explore other examples of the tradition.
All Along the Watchtower 
I heard a saying a long time ago – if you want to know about something, teach it. It always confused me until I became a Sunday school teacher. The research that goes into even a class for young children is far beyond what I had expected.
Chalcedon, you do a wonderful job of synthesizing really deep discourse on our Lord and the growth of the Church. Thoroughly enjoyed this series and thank you for your own scholarship, insight, and writings.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you, Audre, I much appreciate your kind words 🙏🏼
LikeLiked by 1 person
On the subject of the creeds I wrote this, which seems relevant, on my Catholic blog-
‘What we find in them is the faith of the ancient Church, that is the Apostolic faith, in summary form and without ambiguity. Thus, although it is of no little interest to know what the historical context of this or that letter of St Paul, say, might be we do not need to know it in order to deduce what he meant. Meaning of Scripture is recoverable from the Creeds because the Creeds formulate the timebound elements of the Bible into the timeless symbols of abstract and universal ideas.’
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for the link Steve, which is really most useful.
LikeLiked by 2 people
the bible says what it means and means what it says. you need look no further.
LikeLike
How sad that this is all you have to say. You actually have no reply. Why not shame the devil and admit it Bosco. For once, he honest and admit that the Bible owes its existence to the Church. You have still never told us how you know what books should be in the Bible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
hello good brother and thanks for keeping good sister jess dream alive.
i cant admit the bibles existence to the catholic church because i dont think that is true, or,…i dont know that for sure. the catholic church came to be around 410AD, not 350 AD like ppl think. i have heard, from reliable sources, that there were compilations similar to what we have now, already floating around.the OT was already in existence, and the books of the new were all written befor 70AD. the catholic church considers these early “church fathers as being catholic, so it takes credit for whatever they did.
its my firm belief that god used whom ever he wanted to compile the scriptures just like he used a donkey to make Baalim to go where he told him to go. if you want to give glory to your new found religion, well, thats nice. the bottom line is , we have a reliable book in our hot sweaty hands. by the way, the douhay reims is a sham. it changed the word pray to the term penance. it perpetuates the catholic lie that one has to do things to get or stay in gods grace. so not every book that has holy bible on the cover is reliable. the gold standard is the KJV.
LikeLike
As Jess knows, I am happy to keep her dream alive, and I hope that one day she might return.
Your history is poor. There is zero evidence to suggest that the Catholic Church dates from the fourth or fifth century. All the evidence we have suggests it descends from the first Christians. Now, if you wanted to do something like make an intelligent point you might say that the Orthodox Church says as much, and the Catholic Church would agree with you. What they also agree in is that the KJV is a late-comer to the party.
As it happens, because it is the Bible I grew up with, it is my favourite. But that does not blind me to its imperfections, and later translations, though lacking its beauty, are more accurate.
The Gold Standard is the Codex Siniaticus, the earliest complete codex. Look it up, it is online and well worth seeing.
In the end, not even Paul claimed to be “saved”, he was “running the race” and hoped he would be saved. If something has told you you are “saved” then so be it; I hope it is the Holy Spirit. But remember that the Devil prowleth seeking whom he might devour – so resist.
LikeLike
yes, well, i recently learned that constantine just made christianity legal, but some leader after him turned it into the beginnings of a roman state run religion. ill never remember his name, but you probably know.
the first christians were the apostles and those at pentacost and those that believed their words. you insist they were catholic. i know you use the word catholic to mean universal. thats a odd term for the saved. but, who cares. call them what you want. what catholic has morphed into is the roman state run religion with all the trappings. so the word catholic now means brightly colored costume holymen and gold cups rules and regulation.the catholic clergy dress came from the babylonian priests of dagon, the fish god. when babylon fell, the priests, used to living off of donations from the flock, went to greece because they heard there were lots of idolaters who buy into the costume holyman and rituals. and they had wealth. the babylonian priests credo is….follow the money. then they heard that cristianity had become legal in rome, which had even more wealthy citizens. so they ran like roaches there and took their babylon mystery religion with them where they were welcomed by the poulace as they claimed to be priests of this new god, the god of abraham. oh yes, they looked so good in their fish head hats and big robes and the conjuring god up act. the people lapped it up. and it hasnt changed one bit to this day. they wear the same dagon priest costumes, do the same conjuring act, make every claim they could think of. if you dont believe me, look at the priests now. they do the same acts and collect money from the idolaters for their upkeep. with their plentiful idyl time they indulge themselves in every perversion that fancies them. this is whats called the catholic church. how could you in good faith say the first christians were involved in this idolatry. paul said that behind every idol is a demon. the first chistians had nothing to do with statues and images. that filtered in with the babylonian priests of dagon. the saved went underground and have been ever since.
LikeLike
One of the most read posts here is mine on Dagon fish hats – the Babylon thing is nonsense Bosco, and shame on you for being so lazy.
Criticise Rome sensibly by all means, but by going to the places you go, you would undermine your credibility – if you had any.
LikeLike
good brother chalaledon you embarrass yourself. the catholic priests wear dagon fish head hats. how can you say they dont. ok, they dont have to be dagobn hats. but they are still fish head hats. what a coincidence. thats why catholicism is called mystery babylon. you embarrass yourself saying its not true. no one else wears fish head hats for their costume holy men. you fancy yourself a historian.then why do you subscribe to a babylonian pagan religion? my guess bis that you love idolatry.
LikeLike
Bosco, do yourself and me a favour, look up the post here where I demolish this nonsense.
LikeLike
i must apologize. i accused good brother chalcedon of idolatry. in reality, he has been bewitched …he has no control over his reality.
LikeLike
This sort of thing, Bosco, is why no one here takes you seriously.
LikeLike
yes, i want to say good brother chalcedon on one hand doesnt approve of idolatry and he doesnt bow befor idols, but he doesnt condemn those of his faith that do. now i am guilty of idolatry also. but the difference comes in where i dont belong to a religion that recommends that ppl bow down befor idols. that should be an easy fix. no other religion christian supplies idols to bow befor, no matter what the person is thinking. im aware the modern man doesnt intend to worship the statue. but why even need the statue. its such a worn out subject. catholic faithful are well meaning ppl and do lots of good with their charities.
now concerning who compiled the bible…..its been my belief from the beginning that the catholic organization had scribes that copied the bible without error. this kept the bible alive. even though the CC would burn one alive if it caught you with a piece of the bible, it did maintain good copies. there are no records of how the saved made copies. the saved kept to themselves as they do today. we do know of the attempts of such men as wycliff and tyndale who tried to get copies of bibles into the hands of the people and the CC hunted them down like dogs. its hilarious when catholic faithful want to give the CC credit for giving us the bible when it outlawed ppl form possessing it under pain of death. good brother chalcedon is quick to claim my version of history is always wrong. im eager to see him say how much the CC loved tyndale and wycliff and wanted to help them get bibles to the people. when its historical fact that the CC didnt want ppl having the bible. even now it tells the faithful that only their costume holymen can understand it, which keeps them from reading it and if any questions arise, the CC has the handy answer that the ppl dont understand it. then there is the the handy answer that the KJV doesnt have all the books, so it is not enough to guide one to salvation. the 7 books that arent in there are not of god. ive looked at them, satan doesnt stop there. the millions of noncatholics need false religions too. budha, krisna, mormon jehovas, new agers, 7th dayers baptists, methodists, they all trick their followers to think they are heaven bound. i grew up in congregational church and methodist. they are exactly the same. no agenda. the pastor relies on the ppl to sustain them. in turn the pastor tells them they are gods ppl.
i challenge any catholic to sit here and say that the Cc doesnt tell its flock that they cant understand the bible. yet the CC beats it chest and says it magnanimously gave us the bible., and wants us to thank them. when in fact, the CC just in the year of our lord 1964, officially unbanned the ownership of the bible to the people. the ban was in effect from 1250 til then and on the books. whooops, the CC forgot it was still there and had to unban it because the word got out. but good catholics want me to admit how nice the CC was for giving us the bible, while it strapped ppl to the stake and burned them to death for having one.
my longtime friend good brother chalcedon might want to tell me im wrong about this also….rite there in london, tomas more strapped ppl to the rack for owning bibles. for his good service the CC made him a saint, the patron saint of politicians. dont take my word for it….you can look it up.
the CC gave us the bible…..heck no. the council of toulousse, 1200 or there abouts, issued a proclamation that no citizen can own any part of the bible under pain of all sorts of punishments, which the local bishops took to mean torture and burning. dont take my word for it….look it up. yet my catholic friends want me to thank the CC for giving me the bible.
LikeLike
I did bother to read this Bosco, because, as so often, despite the lack of punctuation and poor spelling (you really ought to ask for your money back from whichever elementary school failed you), you make some reasonable points.
I will come back to More and others in a later post, but here want to say that embedded in the tares of your prose there is a point but, I fear it is one you miss.
You concede, and are right so to do, that the Church passes on the Canon it recognised from the beginning, and in so doing you move into what, for you, is dangerous ground. If, as you have conceded, the Church tells us what the Bible is, then it is illogical to suppose that it is guided only to tell us what the Bible is, but not what it means.
If the Church is guided to explain it to us, then does it not follow that it has a duty to prevent foolish men from telling us what they think it means when they are wrong? The nonsense you spout is, frankly, almost enough to explain to anyone why the Church worries about what happens when the half-educated but wholly egotistical spout forth.
Those burnt at the stake were those who were thought to be putting the immortal souls of others in peril; the Protestants did the same when they had the chance. It was another time when men behaved differently. If you wish to condemn those in the past who did not behave as twentyfirst century men do, then best of luck with that.
Has the Catholic Church behaved as people of the time did, yes, and it does so. Oddly enough Bosco it is full of men and women who behave as you do. They are no more perfect than you are.
I sense that even you are wearying of the idolatry business. You know that no one worships idols in a Catholic Church, any more than they worship icons in an Orthodox Church.
I would put this to you Bosco: “whatever is not consistent with love of God and neighbour cannot be a right interpretation of Scripture.” Meditate on that thought, pray on it and see where it gets you.
LikeLike
Chalcedon – I’ll pick you up on the point `it is illogical to suppose that it is guided only to tell us what the Bible is, but not what it means’
As I’ve said – probably too many times in the comment boxes – the Hebrews safe-guarded the Old Testament (and told us what was in it) and this was later taken up by the Masoretes in the 6th century AD – long after they had absolutely rejected what it was supposed to be all about (i.e. the basic Christian message).
The Masoretes were clearly guided in some strange way. Also – I’ve made my very negative views on Ezra clear here on a number of occasions – there was something deeply wrong with the Hebrew community that safe-guarded the Scriptures in the Old Testament times and, based on the books of Nehemiah and Ezra, I wouldn’t trust these people one inch to tell me what Scripture actually means.
This is of interest to us here, because surely we believe that we have exactly the same faith as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the patriarchs, Moses, David, Elijah, Isaiah – even though they lived before Jesus and the crucifixion.
It strongly goes against the grain if anything of the basic Christian message changed when the historical event of the crucifixion took place.
Other than that, I agree with everything you say about Bosco. As they say in Sweden, `Det är inte farten som dödar; det är smällan’ which, loosely translated into English means `It’s not the fart that kills, it’s the smell’. (more accurately, it isn’t the speed that kills, it’s the explosion).
LikeLiked by 1 person
We have to accept that most Jews did not, as we would think, get the message that we, and the first Christians found in what we call the Old Testament, so yes, you are correct not to trust here.
If we accept that Jesus founded a church on the rock that was Peter, and that seems to be the most common reading of that passage, even if there is disagreement on what that church now is, then the same Spirit which guided it to know Scripture cannot be mute when it comes to its interpretation, or at least I find it difficult to believe otherwise.
To this extent it is like Papal Infallibility, it is apophatic in nature, it prevents the Church from being wrong on matters of dogma. But the area covered by dogma is, whist critical, small.
I doubt you’ll agree, but thought it might help to expand.
LikeLike
Chalcedon – this does all boil down to what we understand by `the church’. I do see that the Spirit has been at work within `the church’ in the sense that `the church’ has produced godly people to keep us on the straight and narrow.
I take a different view on what is meant by the church founded by Jesus on the rock of Peter – my own view is that Peter had a foundational ministry and that foundations – by their nature – are not repeated, so I don’t take the view that successors of Peter necessarily had the spiritual gifts (although, from the Irenaeus piece you quoted it seems as if the succession was still pretty solid by the time of Irenaeus).
But I do see a major difference – at least with Old Testament scriptures between (a) the people entrusted with scriptures who were sanctimonious, pharisaical, the sort of people who give faith a bad name (eg Ezra) – and (b) a completely different set of people who actually seemed to be enlightened enough to communicate the message contained within the Scripture that the sanctimonious priestly class were guarding and preserving.
How did the Ethiopian eunuch reach the stage he did – where he was wondering `who is this man?’ Certainly not from Caiaphas!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are right. Foundations are not repeated. But those laid by Jesus are not abandoned either; foundations are built on.
Does the unworthiness of the Minister invalidate the message or the sacrament? It’s very easy to see why we might suppose so. After all, as you, I think, have pointed out, Scoop is one of the greatest critics of the Catholic Church on this blog, and yet he remains a Catholic.
Do priestly castes have a habit of developing and becoming castes? Yes. But among them are men of great sanctity and wisdom. God’s ways are not our ways and His thoughts higher than ours. He alone knows the truth of it. But for me, He has a Church.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes – he has a church – we seem to disagree on what this church actually is and what it does …..
LikeLiked by 1 person
ill put my answer on the bottom. i was about to go back to sleep when i saw your answer. i woke up to get a cold water. its 105 here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can see why you needed the water. I hope you sleep.
LikeLike
Chalcedon – thank you for a very good series.
As I said under your last post – I don’t agree that the bible owes its existence to `the Church’ unless you take `the Church’ to include the Hebrews who safeguarded the Old Testament Scriptures.
From what you have written here, God entrusted the New Testament Scriptures to good people (such as Irenaeus) who followed the tradition of the Bereans
`Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and *examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true*’
and this seems to have been the style of Irenaeus and the people whom you name. They were rigorous about (a) ensuring that the books and letters which were entrusted to them really did have apostolic authority (in the sense that what they had was pretty much the work of the apostle handed down unaltered and not mucked about with by some sort of `community’) and (b) that the work did not contain heresy in the sense that they could check up the theology against that of the Old Testament scriptures.
From what we have seen of `the Church’ over the last 2000 years (any denomination) it seems to contain a tiny remnant of Godly people, but seems to be overwhelmed by the ungodly – and it is a miracle that the light shone through and that the Godly people (such as Irenaeus) succeeded in establishing the New Testament as we have it today.
I’m confused when you describe the Trinity as some sort of `development’ since I think that the Trinitarian aspect of it, was actually understood in a fundamental way right from the beginning (by which I mean the suffering of the son, the grief of the father, etc ….)
I think that later theologians lost sight of the Trinity to some extent – Aquinas (for example) following Aristotle with his `unmoved mover’ was stepping dangerously close to unitarianism (he – of course – would have denied this). But even just following your summary of the `rule of faith’ held by the ancients alone, I feel that a full understanding of the Trinity was already there.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t disagree, Jock. The first Christians treated what were called the “memoirs of the Apostles” as their forefathers had always treated Scripture. All that was new was what I have called “the rule of faith” which we find in the confession that Christ was Lord, the fulfilment of what had been prophesied.
In terms of “development “ I mean a developing understanding. It would be hard to say that in the first century the church had grasped the fullness of what St John had written, but the Spirit, moving in the Church, helped us to better grasp it. So here, I’d say that whilst everything was in Scripture, there was in time a better understanding.
Alas, in every time sinners that we are, the narrow way is hard. I rely in the end in His mercy, for He alone is the just Judge, and in Him alone do I put my trust – and as the Psalmist says “never let me be confounded.”
I am glad you enjoyed it Jock. Thank you for a good dialogue. A shame a certain person cannot follow that example.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Chalcedon – much appreciated. This has been really stimulating and really good.
I think – on the Trinity – that the understanding actually went backwards before it went forwards again. I think I was of this view before, but having just finished reading Moltmann’s `The Crucified God’, I think my view on this has been more or less reinforced ….. (for him nobody seems to have been `trinitarian’ enough – and he presents good reasons).
LikeLiked by 2 people
s o catholics maintain that it was doing us a favor by burning ppl to death for getting us the wrong bible. my question is,…who gave the CC, a petty religion, the right to tell the world what they could read, and kill you for going against their edicts? they didnt just kill you, they had red hot pokers that they shoved into the eyes of their victims. tongs to rip out the tongue, boiling oil to dip the unfortunates in. ive been to the torture chambers. and you want me to thank the CC for giving me the bible/
LikeLike
As my next post shows, Bosco, it was the same spirit that drives you to go on and on at the Church on the internet – the feeling that you are right and others wrong. Past ages burnt heretics – Protestants and Catholics did so. Nowadays, you berate us on the internet – other times other ways, but the same instinct.
I am surprised that never occurred to you.
LikeLike
ill answer you on the new post
LikeLike
By all means.
LikeLike