In the debate you said you believe you hold to the same traditions as the Church held for the first 70 years, before things "ran off the rails." I would respond that you in no way have enough evidence to know this. Because, the writings we do have from that era are (a) scant and (b) very inconclusive.
It's the only evidence we have. By the time of Ignatius, we are already so far away from the time of Scripture, if what he had written was much different there would be good reason to believe that enough time has passed for enough little things to be wrong that they can become big things.
You are too intelligent to believe if someone invokes a "belief" or "tradition" that cannot be found in Scripture more than 150 years after the time of Jesus, that this belief or tradition is not only extra-biblical, but possible an
innovation. The word "innovation" is important. Clearly, given enough time, tons of innovations can enter the mix. And, those innovations can become aged and respected enough that it becomes hard to part.
One example, from the Roman Catholic tradition, is the "existence" of St. Christopher. Even though that church officially says now he is not even a saint, people will still hold onto St. Christopher pendants and such. What about all the innovations that an official church body has not reversed itself on?
Your assumption that silence on certain matters equals "nobody believed it until then" is just that...and assumption. I would ask you to justify that this assumption is reasonable.
Because the Bible is not short. There is a lot of detail to get a pretty firm understanding of what was believed in the first century. Then, logically, the orthodox writings of the first century don't stray to far from it. Even the extant quotations of Papias, with some out there stuff is not way out there. But given more time, you start getting stuff from Origen and others that is just way out there. So, with the passage of time, an
unsurprising trend is easily visible.
Let's take an easy issue: was Paul married?
Ignatius says he was.
Clement of Alexandria thought Paul had a wife that was still alive during his ministry, saying: "Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his consort. The only reason why he did not take her about with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for his ministry. Accordingly he says in a letter: "Have we not a right to take about with us a wife that is a sister like the other apostles?""
What does Paul say about himself?
"But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I" (1 Cor 7:8).
So, we don't like saying stuff like this about church fathers, but Clement of Alexandria, who wrote a mere 150 years after Christ's time, was totally off his rocker on this. He clearly made up a belief based upon an incomplete understanding of Scripture.
Now, 70 years before him (a mere 80 years or so after Christ) we see Ignatius saying something similar. But was Ignatius making the same claim? A different claim (i.e. Paul could have been a widower)? We don't know. Even then, Ignatius could have simply been wrong.
So, why should I trust these guys' innovations? I have no problem reading what they have to say about Scripture. Even Clement of Alexandria based his opinion about Paul's marriage on Scripture. But, because I have Scripture, I can disregard his obvious mistake.
What it seems like you would want to deny me is my ability to fact check the church fathers!
And then tell me why I shouldn't assume that, since nobody really addressed the topic of justification in great detail until the Reformation debates in the 16th Century, I should not likewise assume that it was the Reformers who went off the rails?
They might have. Time to start fact checking, let's break out our Bibles!
