Ignatius of Antioch: Who Reads Him in Context?

[SummaScriptura]

James, as a former Catholic, and current Baptist I would like to reply to you. I sense the frustration in your post. Sometimes people know what they believe and are very fuzzy as to why they believe it. I think we are alike in feeling frustrated when people do not seem concerned to discover the 'whys' of their beliefs.

Also, I am fully aware we Protestants are much more susceptible to following tradional beliefs without examining them than we would ever want to admit.

I must say I appreciate your belief in the catholic Church, (notice the small "c"). I catch nothing but flak from my co-religionists when I us the term catholic to describe the mystical body of Christ. They cannot at all get their heads around my usage of the term to describe any and all (regardless of their church affiliation) in heaven and on earth who have come to saving faith in God's Son, Jesus Christ, second person of the Trinity.

But now onto my answer. It willl not be a long one, nor will I seek to reconcile this with all the information you've presented. I merely wish to give a cogent voice to what I think is a common conviction amongst we Baptists. I have no desire to convince or convert, simply to expalin the viewpoint to further dialog. I will state this in terms common to Baptists and Evangelicals, though I'm only speaking for myself.

What matters most to the faith of a Baptist is that one's faith is not mediated by any thing or any person on earth. If I am born-again now, and I have eternal life now, I do not need any sacrament to make me right with God. When I got saved at the age of 16, I had taken the sacrament of the mass for many years. I had served as an altar-boy for 2 years. I never had an experience of salvation during that time. When at the age of 16, I committed my way to God and sought Him in prayer he flooded my soul, heart, mind and room with the liquid love of His presence quite apart from the physical trappings of the Church. No one has since been able to successfully convince me I need something else to make me right with God after that experience.

About invoking the Holy Spirit. I for one feel uncomfortable with the term "to invoke", simply becasue of that term's occult connotation. But semantics aside, I cannot speak for others but I am convinced I succeed or fail in my daily walk with Christ based upon whether I am relying upon the grace of God to uphold me through the presence of His Holy Spirit, moment by moment. You mentioned people struggling with sin, you don't honestly think we Baptists have a corner on that market do you? When we cease to struggle with sin, we are either dead or defeated, right?

Anyway, I'm not interested in recasting the ECFs to make any points. Just explaining from my point of view for what its worth.

 

[Rick Otto]

Ignatius of Antioch: Who Reads Him in Context?

I can't read in Context. I can only read in English.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I am one that agrees more with the Orthodox. There is mysteries and to have to describe to the least detail is not necessary. The bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus.

Yarddog

And becuz of that the Orthodox and RCs do not share the same supper table. Quite sad if ya ask me.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=48016916&posted=1#post48016916

quote LLOJ: Hi I do have a question.
What are the main differences between the Catholics and Orthdox concerning the Eucharist? And do they ever share communion in each others services? Thanks.

Originally Posted by resoto
Both Catholics and Orthodox believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
Both belive in the the Eucharist must be consecrated by a priest in Apostolic Sucession.
Catholics normaly try to explain the Real Presence by Transubstanciation.
Orthodox in general say that is unnecessary and that is just a Mystery.
Catholics will allow Orthodox to take communion in their Churches in a emergency.
Orthodox rarely allow that to Catholics.

 

[jamescarvin]

James, as a former Catholic, and current Baptist I would like to reply to you. I sense the frustration in your post. Sometimes people know what they believe and are very fuzzy as to why they believe it. I think we are alike in feeling frustrated when people do not seem concerned to discover the 'whys' of their beliefs.

Also, I am fully aware we Protestants are much more susceptible to following tradional beliefs without examining them than we would ever want to admit.

I must say I appreciate your belief in the catholic Church, (notice the small "c"). I catch nothing but flak from my co-religionists when I us the term catholic to describe the mystical body of Christ. They cannot at all get their heads around my usage of the term to describe any and all (regardless of their church affiliation) in heaven and on earth who have come to saving faith in God's Son, Jesus Christ, second person of the Trinity.

But now onto my answer. It willl not be a long one, nor will I seek to reconcile this with all the information you've presented. I merely wish to give a cogent voice to what I think is a common conviction amongst we Baptists. I have no desire to convince or convert, simply to expalin the viewpoint to further dialog. I will state this in terms common to Baptists and Evangelicals, though I'm only speaking for myself.

What matters most to the faith of a Baptist is that one's faith is not mediated by any thing or any person on earth. If I am born-again now, and I have eternal life now, I do not need any sacrament to make me right with God. When I got saved at the age of 16, I had taken the sacrament of the mass for many years. I had served as an altar-boy for 2 years. I never had an experience of salvation during that time. When at the age of 16, I committed my way to God and sought Him in prayer he flooded my soul, heart, mind and room with the liquid love of His presence quite apart from the physical trappings of the Church. No one has since been able to successfully convince me I need something else to make me right with God after that experience.

About invoking the Holy Spirit. I for one feel uncomfortable with the term "to invoke", simply becasue of that term's occult connotation. But semantics aside, I cannot speak for others but I am convinced I succeed or fail in my daily walk with Christ based upon whether I am relying upon the grace of God to uphold me through the presence of His Holy Spirit, moment by moment. You mentioned people struggling with sin, you don't honestly think we Baptists have a corner on that market do you? When we cease to struggle with sin, we are either dead or defeated, right?

Anyway, I'm not interested in recasting the ECFs to make any points. Just explaining from my point of view for what its worth.

I am very familiar with Baptist thinking because when I was first converted to Christ I spent much time worshiping in a Baptist Church, and went on tour with them through the South as part of the band. I also attended a non-Denom Church that is effectively Baptist for about seven years with my wife.

You say that what matters most to the faith of a Baptist is that one's faith is not mediated by any thing or any person on earth.

To me this seems reactionary. It also seems like pour ecclesiology and pneumatology, wherin the mystical body of Christ shares all that is Christ by the Spirit. You wind up with communion of saints without the saints. Sure, Christ is the only mediator. But that is the whole glory of it. He is three and one. We as church are many, and yet the one body by the same Spirit.

In my years of attendance in these Baptist settings I am continually feeling like the whole experience is flesh-driven rather than spirit driven. The Bible is treated like a handbook for Christian conduct and warfare, but the power to conquer is omitted.

The sacraments are this very power because they are Christ Himself. Christ Himself is the power you need to conquer the enemy in this world, not your commitments and convictions, which are mere reflections and fruit. Don't be afraid to call on the Holy Spirit, the One True God. And don't let paranoia about occult practices and similarities stop you from receiving the Helper and Savior who will be given if you ask for Him.

He is not a body tag seal. He is your every day life. When you speak of Grace, think of the Holy Spirit. They are one and the same. Salvation is not just a new covenant. It is a new creation. Let yourself be born again by His Grace, which is the Holy Spirit. Be baptized not just in adult water baptism as a profession of faith, but be baptized in the Holy Spirit.

That is the sacramantal life. Forget about mediatrixes. Let them follow and become part of your life born of the Spirit. Concentrate on the Spirit that Jesus sends you from the Father and you can't go wrong. In Christ you shall conquer the prince of this world. You must be born again. When your mind is renewed it is His mind that must replace/become yours as you are raised with him to the newness of life. Everything else is just head knowledge.

You say you don't need any sacrament to be made right with God. Yes you do. You have no life in you if Christ is not in you. You absolutely must have this Sacrament, Christ Himself. The Sacraments are Christ. This is what you seem to be missing. Baptism is not just a profession. It is an outward expression of the reality of the entirety of your new birth in Him until death and unto your resurrection in glory.

Confirmation/chrismation is not just a ritual for Catholics. It is the reality that the Holy Spirit renews you and becomes your new life and vivifies you so that you will have the strength I am speaking of.

Matrimony is not just a contract. It is the reality of the genuine Grace of love in Christ that expresses itself in your love for your neighbor. That is why the two truly become one. It is an eternal work of God that does not perish even when you become like an angel and are not married or given in marriage any longer, because what God creates is good, especially the bonds of love between those who are made in His image.

Holy Orders is disdained by Baptists, I know. But they are priests too because Christ is real in them if they are truly born again. It is by this new life in us that we all become mediators between God and men. The blessing of leaders in the Church simply makes official what is already common to all members, however, the roles of leadership are then called out apostolically, in the stewardship (good or bad) of the bishops who have been placed in charge with these mysteries. They stand as an outward sign of the truth for the true church and when they fill fulfill their high calling by the actions of grace of the Holy Spirit who gives them this new life, they become everything they would like to say that they are.

Restoration of the sick is a process also common to us all, even unto resurrection from the dead. It proclaims the resurrection of the body in Christ, our healer. The anointing by oil is our unity in Him and represents the action and truth of the Holy Spirit, who since He is real and not just symbolic, makes this sacrament also real and not just symbolic.

Confession of Sin is that process by which Christ saves in truth. Therefore, when the church being a nation of priests pronounce the words of absolutiong they are the words of Christ, who can make of this sacramaent something that it is hoped to be - Christ truly present, truly working by the Spirit in conviction of righteousness, judgment and sin unto redemption by the love and mercy of our Lord, which is personal, but made flesh and shared by the church.

Sure you can reject men in this process. But to take those few verses from Hebrews and then deny what is in Peter is just an incomplete view. And the sad part is what happens to your sense of the life of the Spirit and He stands in unity with His Church, the community of believers, which I am happy to accept you as, brother.

Many treat sacraments as magic. What I am talking about here is not magic, but the life in the Spirit. Sacraments are not a matter of obedience to commandments, as if by doing all the right things we could be saved. They are a matter of living out the high calling of Christ to be all in all. When you realize this you will start to see how Christ is truly present in them and you will drop your polemical arguments and opt for an incredible life of freedom and wonder in His miraculous presence in this world and in you. It is an awesome mystery to contemplate that you, a broken vessel, can be a temple of the uncontainable Living God. But what is impossible for man, is possible with God.

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>[The sacraments] are a matter of living out the high calling of Christ to be all in all. When you realize this you will start to see how Christ is truly present in them and you will drop your polemical arguments and opt for an incredible life of freedom and wonder in His miraculous presence in this world and in you.<snip>

Careful, your Baptist roots are showing. Polemical arguments? Me? Dominus vobiscum, friend, Dominus vobiscum.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Polemical arguments? Me? Dominus vobiscum, friend, Dominus vobiscum.

I knew I should have studied Chinese in school

 

[jamescarvin]

Careful, your Baptist roots are showing. Polemical arguments? Me? Dominus vobiscum, friend, Dominus vobiscum.

Sorry, I meant "you" as in "anyone." As in "to go to New York you take I-95 north." God be with you also, brother.

 

[Yarddog]

quote LLOJ: Hi I do have a question.
What are the main differences between the Catholics and Orthdox concerning the Eucharist? And do they ever share communion in each others services? Thanks.

Hello LLOJ,

This is from this link:http://htaoc.com/faith/qa_roman.html
You can find the differences between the East and West there.

Orthodox and Catholics both believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. So does Orthodoxy believe in transubstantiation? We believe in the real presence and accept it at face value, as a mystery. Western theology tends to approach theological matters via the use of reason; this is a legacy of Augustinianism and the medieval Scholastics, who applied the techniques of Greek philosophy to the investigation of theological matters. Orthodoxy believes that certain matters are beyond the use of reason, so it is presumptuous for us as limited human beings to think that we can use our reason to understand that which is beyond us. As a consequence, we Orthodox are comfortable with accepting mysteries like the Real Presence as what they are — mysteries, without feeling obliged to explain them.

Why does the Orthodox church use leavened bread and the Roman Catholic church use unleavened bread (wafers)? The differences between East and West on the use of bread in the Eucharist arose because of differences in understanding of the nature of the Last Supper (as a fellowship meal per the Gospel of John in the East, as a Passover meal per the synoptic gospels in the West), and perhaps also of the theological symbolism of leaven. The issue of leaven is one of the issues leading to the split between East and West, with the West coming to insist by the eleventh century that the East's use of leavened bread is a "heresy."

Yarddog

 

[wmssid]

Man of Sin: "who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits in the temple of God [local congregation; 1Cor 3.16], showing himself that he is God ... only he who now restrains [apostle John] will do so until he is taken out of the way [Isle of Patmos, AD 66]" - 2 Thes 2.4, 7.

1) "Continue to gather together ... that you may OBEY THE BISHOP ..." -
The Apostolic Fathers, p. 82-93.

2) "... that we must REGARD THE BISHOP as the Lord himself ..." - p. 88.

3) "... just as THE BISHOPS appointed througout the world are IN THE MIND OF CHRIST" - p. 87.

Blasphemy against apostle John:

1) "... THE BISHOP PRESIDING in the place of God ..." - p. 94.

2) "... and the presbyters IN THE PLACE of the COUNCIL OF APOSTLES ..." - P. 94.

The reply of John to blasphemy of Ignatius:

"I wrote to the called-out, but Zeus-nourishing (Diotrephes; James Strong, 1895), who loves the preeminence among them, does not receive us. Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us (apostles) with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brothers, and forbids those who wish to, putting [them] out of the called-out (ek klesia)" - 3 Jn 9-10.

Nikolaos = Ignatius:

Nikolaos was a deacon from Antioch.
Ignatius was bishop of Antioch.
Nicolaitans, "which thing I (Jesus) hate" - Rev 2.6.

"Antipas" = Sun (King) darkened (Joel 2.31; Mt 24.29; Wars of Jews 4.3.5/5; AD 66) = Day of the Lord - Rev 1.10.

wmssid

 

[simonthezealot]

bump

 

[Yarddog]

I must say that I wouldn't have seen this without Simon.
I cannot see how someone could take these verses and apply them to Ignatius.

Man of Sin: "who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits in the temple of God [local congregation; 1Cor 3.16], showing himself that he is God ... only he who now restrains [apostle John] will do so until he is taken out of the way [Isle of Patmos, AD 66]" - 2 Thes 2.4, 7.

How can you equate this verse of 2 Thess. 2:4-7, to be referring to John?
That would be the Anti-Christ wouldn't it? Anyone who has read any of Ignatius' letters, in context, can easily see that he is not anti-christ.

1) "Continue to gather together ... that you may OBEY THE BISHOP ..." -
The Apostolic Fathers, p. 82-93.

2) "... that we must REGARD THE BISHOP as the Lord himself ..." - p. 88.

3) "... just as THE BISHOPS appointed througout the world are IN THE MIND OF CHRIST" - p. 87.

Blasphemy against apostle John:

1) "... THE BISHOP PRESIDING in the place of God ..." - p. 94.

2) "... and the presbyters IN THE PLACE of the COUNCIL OF APOSTLES ..." - P. 94.

It would be helpful if you give us what Letters your quotes are from so that they can be read in context, instead of cutting out the meaning to show your opinion of it.

The reply of John to blasphemy of Ignatius:

"I wrote to the called-out, but Zeus-nourishing (Diotrephes; James Strong, 1895), who loves the preeminence among them, does not receive us. Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us (apostles) with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brothers, and forbids those who wish to, putting [them] out of the called-out (ek klesia)" - 3 Jn 9-10.

John was not talking about Ignatius, he was talking about about Diotrephes who may have been a Bishop at Laodicea. Ignatius was nothing like him.

Nikolaos = Ignatius:

Nikolaos was a deacon from Antioch.
Ignatius was bishop of Antioch.
Nicolaitans, "which thing I (Jesus) hate" - Rev 2.6.

How does Nicolas equate to the Nicolaitans? The only place we see him is in Acts 6 in Jerusalem. He was a deacon in Jerusalem and was said to be full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom. The only early writer to associate him to the sect was Hippolytus in the 3rd century. Others don't mention him when talking about the sect.

"Antipas" = Sun (King) darkened (Joel 2.31; Mt 24.29; Wars of Jews 4.3.5/5; AD 66) = Day of the Lord - Rev 1.10.

wmssid

Hmmm, I don't know what point you try and make there.