Protestants and a Churchless Tradition: “Sola” vs. “Solo” Scriptura

[Eagles' Wings]

In the Church, we know him very well.

In fact, we pray with him every Divine Liturgy.

Yes, many in the church know and love Ignatius and Augustine and Polycarp. We do not raise them to the heights you do, however. So be it. We will not end this tension in our lifetime for sure.

 

[Sola_Fide]

In the Church, we know him very well.

In fact, we pray with him every Divine Liturgy.

Do you pray to him or pray to an icon of him?

 

[TER]

Ignatius was a holy, holy leader in the early Christian church. He gave his life as a martyr, telling all who would listen who Christ truly is, according to the writings of the apostles. I spent over a year studying his ways of prayer and dedication to Christ. I would have loved to have known Ignatius.

I would just add to what is bolded above. Not only according to their writings, Louise, but from the words of their very mouths, breathing the same air with them and drinking from the same cup.

 

[TER]

Do you pray to him or pray to an icon of him?

I pray to him for help. Can you pray for me as well, Sola?

 

[jmdrake]

Jmdrake, I will respond to your post when I can, later. I want to finish my current discussion with erowe first if you don't mind. Thanks for understanding.

No worries. I've never known you to ignore me and I'm in no rush.

 

[TER]

Yes, many in the church know and love Ignatius and Augustine and Polycarp. We do not raise them to the heights you do, however. So be it. We will not end this tension in our lifetime for sure.

We Orthodox do raise them up to greater heights than you. That is true.

 

[TER]

No worries. I've never known you to ignore me and I'm in no rush.

Thank you jmdrake. I should be finishing up school work right now, but erowe's interest has perked mine as well. I hope we hear from him soon.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I pray to him for help. Can you pray for me as well, Sola?

Did you know that prayer is an act of worship? Why do you perform acts of worship to anything other than God?

 

[TER]

Yes, many in the church know and love Ignatius and Augustine and Polycarp. We do not raise them to the heights you do, however. So be it. We will not end this tension in our lifetime for sure.

Another thing while we wait... Many in the church you are describing don't know or love Sts. Ignatius, Augustine and Polycarb. In fact, there are some lurking the liberty forest who have called them vile names. Some even who have posted in this thread. Be careful out there!

 

[TER]

Did you know that prayer is an act of worship? Why do you perform acts of worship to anything other than God?

There is prayer for worship, and there is prayer that is a solemn request. Pray tell, do you understand the difference?

 

[Eagles' Wings]

Another thing while we wait... Many in the church you are describing don't know or love Sts. Ignatius, Augustine and Polycarb. In fact, there are some lurking the liberty forest who have called them vile names. Some even who have posted in this thread. Be careful out there!

They would be the first to say that all manner of treachery could be brought to their names, but surely not to their Lord, Jesus Christ.

 

[TER]

They would be the first to say that all manner of treachery could be brought to their names, but surely not to their Lord, Jesus Christ.

Actually, its the very life of St. Ignatius, what he accomplished and his writings, which they ascribe as is his treachery. And in dishonoring him, they too dishonor the Holy Spirit Who guided him. So you see, it is a very serious problem. Please be careful.

 

[erowe1]

I am showing disrespect to St. Ignatius the Godbearer?

I didn't say that you did.

But anyone who claims that he claimed to say his prescriptions for bishops had been passed down from the apostles, when he didn't does.

Don't you agree?

Let's hope that you don't disrespect him.

 

[TER]

Here is a beautiful drawing rendition of the martyr of St. Antioch.

 

[erowe1]

How do you envision St. Ignatius the third Bishop of Antioch gained his sole power over the entire Church in Antioch and was the spiritual leader of the baptized Christians there in the year 110 AD, keeping in mind some of these Christians were already born and live when Christ walked the earth?

BTW, according to the Church, St. Ignatius became the third Bishop of Antioch in the late 60's AD. But I am giving your conservative view that he did not become this until the year 110 AD.

Ignatius wasn't the third bishop of Antioch. He was surely the first. Your belief that he was the third, no doubt, comes from the later evidence of writers like Hegesippus who came another 30-40 years later and who assumed that the earlier generations of the Church had the same model of church leadership they knew in their day, and so composed bishop lists going back to the apostles. The fact that they had to compose those lists, and that they didn't exist until then, supports my claims.

You say that your view is "according to the Church," but it is not. It is according to certain individuals. It is not according to Ignatius himself. Nor is it according to the apostles, who tell us in their writings that whenever they appointed bishops, it was multiple bishops in every city, and never a single one over a whole city. So when you say, "according to the Church," all you're doing is taking the evidence that you agree with, and calling it "the Church," while discounting the evidence you disagree with, no matter who it is, even when it's the apostles themselves, as something else.

 

[erowe1]

Here is a beautiful drawing rendition of the martyr of St. Antioch.

No doubt made by an eye witness to the event in your thinking.

 

[TER]

I didn't say that you did.

But anyone who claims that he claimed to say his prescriptions for bishops had been passed down from the apostles, when he didn't does.

Don't you agree?

Let's hope that you don't.

You must have missed the question I asked you. Let me ask it again, and then you will know the answer to the question you now pose to me.

How do you envision St. Antioch became the Bishop of Antioch, the largest congregation of Christians in the world at that time, which was filled with Christian who actually moved there from Jerusalem during the destruction by Titus?

 

[TER]

No doubt made by an eye witness to the event in your thinking.

You shouldn't speak like that. Louise is gonna call you out on it.

 

[TER]

Ignatius wasn't the third bishop of Antioch. He was surely the first. Your belief that he was the third, no doubt, comes from the later evidence of writers like Hegesippus who came another 30-40 years later and who assumed that the earlier generations of the Church had the same model of church leadership they knew in their day, and so composed bishop lists going back to the apostles. The fact that they had to compose those lists, and that they didn't exist until then, supports my claims.

You say that your view is "according to the Church," but it is not. It is according to certain individuals. It is not according to Ignatius himself. Nor is it according to the apostles, who tell us in their writings that whenever they appointed bishops, it was multiple bishops in every city, and never a single one over a whole city. So when you say, "according to the Church," all you're doing is taking the evidence that you agree with, and calling it "the Church," while discounting the evidence you disagree with, no matter who it is, even when it's the apostles themselves, as something else.

All your points will be addressed in time. Forgive me for taking the long winded way, but it is important for clarity sake. Thanks!

 

[erowe1]

How do you envision St. Antioch became the Bishop of Antioch, the largest congregation of Christians in the world at that time, which was filled with Christian who actually moved there from Jerusalem during the destruction by Titus?

Edit.

Scratch my last answer if you already read it. I see that I misread this. Notice that you refer to Ignatius as "St. Antioch," which confused me.

I don't doubt that Ignatius was a legitimate bishop in the sense that all other bishops/presbyters were throughout the decades leading up to his time, being one among many in Antioch, who distinguished himself among his peers. We don't have specific evidence, so we can only speculate how he distinguished himself. But it isn't difficult to imagine plausible scenarios. Most likely he and other like minded bishops/presbyters in Antioch recognized the need to present a united front against teachers they disagreed with, and provide clear boundaries between the churches in communion with themselves, and those outside that communion (notice that this, too, is a major concern for Ignatius in his letters, and is closely related to his insistence on bishops having the authority he wants them to have). In carrying this out as a college of bishops/presbyters in that city, they had to meet together as a group and work together in an organized way. As organizations generally require officers of some kind out of shear practicality, this college of bishops/presbyters selected Ignatius to fill a role that put him in a position of preeminence among them, perhaps as a presiding officer or spokesman. In fact, a development like this may have even happened before the time that Ignatius took such a position. Initially, this person would not have even been called "the bishop of Antioch." It is only after accruing more power to that office that it would be so distinguished, such that only that person would be the bishop, with the others being the presbyters.

We see something similar in the letter that is traditionally called 1 Clement, written perhaps 10-15 years earlier than Ignatius's letters. The letter only claims as its author "the Church in Rome," and as its addressee, "the Church in Corinth." It is traditionally thought that its specific author was Clement, whom later bishop lists call one of Rome's early bishops. But at the time the letter was written, it is clear that nobody was "the bishop of Rome," nor anybody, "the bishop of Corinth." But whoever wrote this letter from the Church in Rome to the Church in Corinth was, it was probably one of the bishops/presbyters in Rome, who was distinguished among his peers as the appropriate spokesman to write such a letter (and I don't doubt that this individual, indeed, was Clement). At this point in time (and even later when Ignatius wrote his letter to the church in Rome), the leadership in the church in Rome had not yet developed to the point of having a single bishop the way the churches in several cities in Asia Minor would soon have in Ignatius's day. But it had some of the circumstances in place that would make such a development possible. When Ignatius writes his letters to other churches in several major cities in Asia Minor (though not his letter to those in Rome), he is still laboring to persuade them to accept the authority of these singular bishops in those cities, as apparently they were undergoing the same process at that time as the churches in Antioch, most likely in an organized way under the efforts of Ignatius and his cohorts in those cities as a result of labors that must have been ongoing in the years leading up to his writing of his letters.

It is also important to recognize that the evidence we have from Ignatius's letters is his perspective on things. Out of all the Christians and churches in Antioch, we don't know how many recognized him as their bishop. Likewise with the churches in the cities to whom he addresses his letters, there's no telling how many Christians and churches there were in those cities who did not regard the individuals whom he calls the bishops of those cities as their bishops. In Ignatius's mind, those outside the authority of himself and the other individuals he calls "bishops," were not part of the true catholic church. But according to the Gospel of the apostles, he had no authority to say such a thing.