The Ignatius Error

Savage Wolves. During his last visit in Ephesus, on his journey back to Jerusalem and imprisonment, Paul said this to the elders of the churches there. ”“ For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears (Acts 20:29-31).

We know now that "savage wolves” did enter into the church of Christ, although Ephesus enjoyed a relief until the passing of John. We call those "savage wolves,” "the Church Fathers.” Nicene Christianity. Paul also said this ”“ But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons {the words of the serpent in the garden}, speaking lies in fakery, having been seared in their own consciousness (1 Timothy 4:1).

Paul was speaking of what we call "the fall into Roman darkness.” By AD 311, another gospel and another Jesus had taken full control inside the minds of almost all Christians and through the darkest of centuries, a "Christian theology” was woven out of the words of the serpent in the garden, a "theology” that rules to this day, that is, Nicene Christianity. It is not possible in this short chapter to give a full account of this great departure in Christian thinking, but we will do our best to provide a clear and specific overview A Mental "Christ.”Â Ignatius, bishop of Antioch was the first of these so-called "Church Fathers,” and helps us understand the others. Ignatius was a good and godly man who loved the Lord; nonetheless, two primary elements from the serpent's words and from Adam's rebellion showed themselves early on, things that only continued to grow among Christian leaders from then on.

The first was this. When you read the writings of these men, you find them saying many good things ABOUT Christ and the Christian faith, but none of them write out from a personal knowledge of living inside of Jesus and Jesus inside of them. Rather, Jesus is far away, that is, separate, leaving the "Christ” of whom they speak nothing more than an image in the mind. Human Leaders. The second problem was "heresy.” Ignatius believed that it was his responsibility to "protect” the congregation of Antioch from "the wolves,” and thus he was the first to make himself the sole human leader over the entire church in that city, the "Bishop.”Â Â Believers in Jesus who wanted to be in good standing with the church, must acknowledge Ignatius as their overseer.

Do you see what is happening, as Jesus alive inside of us and we inside of Him vanishes into the distance, no longer known, two things take His place in the life of His body. The first is an image of "Christ,” an image that takes on "super” qualities, and a strong human leader standing in the place of Jesus in directing the lives of everyone. Power Corrupts. Now certainly, as we walk together as the Body of Christ, we submit to one another in honor and in the fear of the Lord, because we see Jesus Himself filling one another. But no victory is ever gained by telling people what to do; the victory of Christ is laying down our lives for one another

And anytime one individual takes the position of solitary "protector” over many, the fact that Jesus IS doing all things well as head of every little one who belongs to Him disappears from knowledge, and the strongest of humans, no matter how "good,” now take His place. As Lord Acton said, "Power corrupts.” That's why God will never give power to us, only authority; all power is reserved only to God's Holy Spirit. The Capable "Lead.”Â Here is the dilemma through the history of the Church. ”“ Consider your calling brothers and sisters, that not many wise according to the flesh were called, not many powerful… But the foolish things of the world, God has chosen, that He might shame the wise; and the weak things of the world, God has chosen… so that no flesh might boast in the presence of God (1 Corinthians 1:26-29). 

Not many of those who are capable in their human persons, able to present a front of "certainty” that they are able to "lead” and to convince many to "follow,” are called into the Church. But some are ”“ and those some immediately feel "called of God” to be the leaders and ministry in the Church, willing to "stand-in” for an absent "Christ.” Let It Not Be So. It's not that these men cannot be good and decent Christians; it's that they, being blind, imagine themselves capable of being "above” the congregation, in-between these weak and foolish Christians and a faraway and someday "Christ.”Â As Paul said, "Fakery.” They pretend to know something that the average Christian does not know; they pretend that they know "what it's all about and where they are going.”

Daniel Yordly

"We know now that "savage wolves” did enter into the church of Christ, although Ephesus enjoyed a relief until the passing of John. We call those "savage wolves,” "the Church Fathers.” Nicene Christianity. Paul also said this ”“ But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons {the words of the serpent in the garden}, speaking lies in fakery, having been seared in their own consciousness (1 Timothy 4:1)."

So brother, you are saying that all of the early church fathers were savage wolves. Check out what many of them had to say about "scripture alone being the final authority."

Early Church Fathers' Quotes on Scripture Alone is final Authority:

Scripture Alone is final Authority
Irenaeus, (130-202), "We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the gospel came to us; which gospel they truly preached; but afterward, by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith,” (Adv. H. 3:1).
Clement of Alexandria (150?-213?), "They that are ready to spend their time in the best things will not give over seeking for truth until they have found the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves,” (Stromata 7:16:3).
Origen (185?-252), "No man ought, for the confirmation of doctrines, to use books which are not canonized Scriptures,” (Tract. 26 in Matt.).
St. Cyprian of Carthage (200?-258), "Whence comes this tradition? Does it descend from the Lord’s authority, or from the commands and epistles of the apostles? For those things are to be done which are there written . . . If it be commanded in the gospels or the epistles and Acts of the Apostles, then let this holy tradition be observed,” (Cyprian of Carthage, Ep. 74 ad Pompeium).
Athanasius (300?-375),
"The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.) The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear anything in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written,” (Athanasius, Exhort. ad Monachas).
"5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz., of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John. 6 These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, 'Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.' And He reproved the Jews, saying, 'Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.' " (Athanasius, Festal Letter 39:5-6).
"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture." (Athanasius, De Synodis, 6).
Ambrose (340?-396), "How can we use those things which we do not find in the Holy Scriptures?” (Ambr. Offic., 1:23).
Cyril of Jerusalem (315?-386), "Not even the least of the divine and holy mysteries of the faith ought to be handed down without the divine Scriptures. Do not simply give faith to me speaking these things to you except you have the proof of what I say from the divine Scriptures. For the security and preservation of our faith are not supported by ingenuity of speech, but by the proofs of the divine Scriptures,” (Cat. 4).
Jerome (342?-420), "Those things which they make and find, as it were, by apostolical tradition, without the authority and testimony of Scripture, the word of God smites. (ad Aggai 1) As we deny not those things that are written, so we refuse those things that are not written. That God was born of a virgin we believe, because we read it; that Mary did marry after she was delivered we believe not, because we do not read it,” (Adv. Helvidium).
Scripture Alone is not final Authority
Athanasius (300?-375), "But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept." (Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28).
Basil (330-379), "Now I accept no newer creed written for me by other men, nor do I venture to propound the outcome of my own intelligence, lest I make the words of true religion merely human words; but what I have been taught by the holy Fathers, that I announce to all who question me. In my Church the creed written by the holy Fathers in synod at Nicea is in use." (To the Church of Antioch, Epistle 140:2).
Ambrose (340?-396), "Wherefore all other generations are strangers to truth; all the generations of heretics hold not the truth: the church alone, with pious affection, is in possession of the truth," (Commentary of Psalm 118,19).
Cyril of Jerusalem (315?-386), "But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures . . . Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12 (A.D. 350).
Gregory of Nyssa (330-394), "And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our Fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them," (Against Eunomius, 4:6).

https://carm.org/early-church-fathers-scripture

I did not write this but agree with this.

"When you read the writings of these men, you find them saying many good things ABOUT Christ and the Christian faith, but none of them write out from a personal knowledge of living inside of Jesus and Jesus inside of them. Rather, Jesus is far away, that is, separate, leaving the "Christ” of whom they speak nothing more than an image in the mind. Human Leaders. The second problem was "heresy.” Ignatius believed that it was his responsibility to "protect” the congregation of Antioch from "the wolves,” and thus he was the first to make himself the sole human leader over the entire church in that city, the "Bishop.” Believers in Jesus who wanted to be in good standing with the church, must acknowledge Ignatius as their overseer."

I do not see anything in this article about starting house churches.

I read the book and found it quite edifying. It is definitely not inspired, but undoubtly in the category of good Christian literature.

Ignatius stressed several thing in his letters:
1) The importance of the Lord's Supper.

2) Submission to church leaders, especially bishops.

3) The iminant expectation of martyrdom.

I do not find fault with any of them, however, I can imagine that if you take these highlighted truths to further extremes you can end up with a clergical hierarchy and transubstantiation of the elements - which eventually happened.

However, I think it is unfair to attribute the errors of the romish papal system to Ignatius and his contemporaries. On the contrary, we should rather learn from our forefathers who fought the good fight before us and joined the cloud of witnesses.

These 3 doctrines are lacking today in our church:

1) The Lord's Supper must be an integral part of our fellowship. I usually lead communion in our small church and each time I discover new aspects of the effacy of sharing the elements among us. Any misconception or contempt of this sacrament harms the body of Christ. Proper use of the elements contributes greatly to the health of the body of Christ.

2) We should appoint the godliest men in our midst, who fulfill the criterias outlaid in 1 Timothy as elders, deacons end bishops and submit to them as we submit to Christ, not as mediators but as sheep to undershepheards who themselves are sheep.

In those days they only had one church and no denominations, and there were bishops in cities that oversaw all the house-based fellowships. I think this was the situation in all the churches that were addressed in the New Testament. There was only one church in every city though they met in several locations, usually homes.

3) Imminent possibility of martyrdom.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians in Ch 15
verses:0-31 (KJV)
30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? 31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

The imminent possibility of martyrdom is an incentive to crucify the desires of the flesh and the world.
Living is living for Christ and dying is only gain.

This godly view of our live on earth is sorely missing today but I am sure, it will be crucial for our spiritual live in the near future. It will make us overcomers, not mere survivors, that try to sustain only their bodies during times of tribulation.

These were the things I gleaned from this book.

When you read the writings of these men, you find them saying many good things ABOUT Christ and the Christian faith, but none of them write out from a personal knowledge of living inside of Jesus and Jesus inside of them.

Such a claim is easy to make but there is no substantiation offered. There is little to nothing known about the personal life of this man in particular. How is it that you can pass judgment on his personal knowledge of Christ?

In Christ,

Brother Greg,

I haven't read your book. I did read your response in this post and I've seen some other comments that lead me to ask a question. Having house churches ( which I whole heartedly endorse but not as some sort of law ) and maintaining authority in the church ( Biblical ), both of which you seem to advocate strongly, begs the question of what that looks like in practice with a group of 20-30 gathering in small groups weekly.

Do you advocate or support apostolic leadership models or bishopric models for leadership? If so, how are these leadership structures established and who decides who has been called to positions of authority?

Knowing your support of KP Yohannan, maybe you could address what he supports or advocates for the churches he oversees. Zac Poonen as well if you know. Early church fathers also if you are aware.

I'm just looking for some clarity because we seem to be skirting around the issues that house churches and authority in the church raise in application.

Thank you Brother Greg for your answers. As always, one answer to essential questions leads to others. Could you please describe the nature and extent of the authority involved in apostolic and bishopric model . Is the authority more doctrinal in nature (Jerusalem Council) or more ecclesiastical? Also, is apostolic model more of a local body’s tacit recognition of gifting and voluntary submission by that body of believers? Or, are apostles recognized and approved by other apostles? Is the bishopric model more of an institution with ecclesiastical succession ?

I would humbly like to offer a counter-article from the Gospel Coalition:

http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/come-to-the-father-ignatius-of-antioch-and-his-calling-to-be-a-martyr

It is well documented and not based upon merely the presuppositions of its author.

When I thought about these issues in the past it was helpful for me to see how the apostles responded or treated false apostles, prophets and teachers in the Scriptures. It is at least noteworthy that they did not disavow these imposters on the basis of anything other than their motives or doctrines. None of the writers asserted that such men were not ordained, affirmed or failed to be commissioned by other leaders, churches or apostles. It would have been very easy for the writers to merely have said this guy or that guy isn’t a part of the apostolic chain or on the "ordained” list. I’m not being argumentative but Scripturally, I think it may be somewhat instructive to note how the original apostles considered apostolic authority. Have you considered this before? Again, when it comes to authority especially, being led by Scripture is far more preferable than traditions.

Brother Greg,

I understand what you've said. I have a couple of issues and maybe concerns. First, and most important, do you mean that apostolic tradition "upholds Scripture"? I thought apostolic doctrine was Scripture. Which "church" doctrines do you consider apostolic that aren't in Scripture? My thinking has always been that the original and only apostolic doctrine was from those who were taught directly by Jesus. There are other apostles who probably never saw the resurrected Christ or were taught by Him in the Scripture, but I'm referencing only the "apostolic doctrine".

Second, I'm not sure at all that Paul is an example of a church appointed apostle. I've seen many great teachers try to use the Antioch commissioning as a basis for local body ordination and it just doesn't fit the facts at all.

Paul entered into his apostolic calling long before the Antioch church prophets and teachers were used by the Holy Spirit to commission Paul for his first missionary journey. In fact, Paul had been appointed directly face to face by Jesus as an apostle in Jesus own words. Further, the Spirit through Ananias (not an apostle and they were around to do it if God desired it) commissioned Paul and then Paul was taught directly by Jesus for many years prior to his Antioch missionary commissioning. I wouldn't characterize his Antioch experience as an appointment or ordination but rather as a commissioning. Many people who have advocated Paul as an example of church ordination or even used him as an example of apostolic authority for today have failed to fully take into account all that means. For example, Paul is very clear when making the case for his apostolic credentials with the churches he served when he was battling false apostles in those churches that he based his authority as coming from the fact that he had seen the resurrected Christ and had been called to be an apostle directly by Christ and then backs up this claim by saying he was taught by no man, even the other apostles, and then points to the signs and wonders he did ( apostolic evidence ), to his motives (faithfulness to Jesus and a fatherly love for the people as opposed to the false apostles ) and finally to his doctrine. This is how Paul and the Spirit directly persuade the churches of Paul's apostolic authority. This is direct Scriptural God given justification for Paul's apostolic authority. Not once does he point to an ordination in his arguments to the churches other than to point out that the other apostles affirmed the accuracy of his gospel message.

There is a great deal of discussion by Paul in the Epistles of what his authority involved and how it was established. If Paul becomes or is used as an example or for Scriptural support for a system, then his example simply does not support many proffered patterns for apostolic appointment, credentials or authority.

Finally, Paul did tell Timothy and Titus to go appoint elders in all the churches. As you say, these men who were to become elders were already approved as leaders by the local bodies and the word used in Acts concerning their appointment is fundamentally a word for voting by the body ( ie., a show of hands ) Timothy and Titus were sent it seems to affirm a leadership already in place. That really doesn't rise to the level of ordination, at least as ordination is used in current practice.

Again, the issue of authority in the local and larger church is huge. Authority and submission to it is a major part of God's natural and spiritual creation and order. The question of authority shouldn't be resolved by a resort to traditions for such a critical issue in the Kingdom. Traditions are fallible and when we use fallible interpretations concerning critical issues we should be extremely careful as Jesus railed against the traditions of men that usurped or created a system not in line with the will of God. I'm not suggesting insincerity on anyone's part or an intention to thwart God's will. Good men have gone astray trying to use weak or non existent Scriptural support to back their ideas of the proper spiritual authority in the Church.

Creating unity in the body should be sought, cherished and loved. However, it can't be achieved by everyone agreeing to follow a pattern and structure of authority that compels or impels people to spiritually fall in line behind it unless God has specifically outlined that pattern. Just because really good men with really good intentions come up with a pattern that seems historically or practically to instill or even impose unity doesn't make something more right than Scripture would dictate. It might make some sense and believe me I would love to see a lot more unity in the Protestant faith, but nonetheless, the self imposed solution for good reasons may still be wrong in the sense it is not Jesus' will for His bride. I'm not saying one pattern is evil and another is not. But, the plumb line for an especially important even critical doctrine like authority must be Scripture only it seems to me. I think I am in alignment in what I'm saying on the Biblical treatment of apostolic authority but am very open to better instruction.

Thank you for those responses Brother Greg. Was I off base to point to the arguments Paul used to defend his apostleship?

We know that Timothy was an Evangelist and part of Paul’s apostolic teamfrom direct Scripture statements.

Wouldn’t you agree that Paul’s laying on of hands over Timothy ( arguably for imparting gifting) and the approval/appointing of elders in all the churches is a Scripturally tenuous thread to hang current church structures on ? I personally believe Scripture supports apostolic five fold ministries ,however the ecclesiastical and authoritative elements that many five fold ministries draw from the example of Paul are unwarranted given Paul’s own defenses and arguments he gives for his apostleship and authority. Many of the current apostolic models go further than Scripture and the Holy Spirit Himself spoke of.

The bishopric model that many support seems to have even more tenuous Biblical support and one must resort to the evolution and development of "tradition” to justify it. I’m not against such structures if they can be justified by full treatment in Scripture but that is not present. Again, spiritual authority is such a vital and crucial element of the Kingdom and to justify a model or system of rule, law or regulation in this regard is really really sensitive and requires great Biblical support which I find very lacking in the arguments I’ve read for it.

Wouldn’t you agree that Paul’s laying on of hands over Timothy ( arguably for imparting gifting) and the approval/appointing of elders in all the churches is a Scripturally tenuous thread to hang current church structures on ? I personally believe Scripture supports apostolic five fold ministries ,however the ecclesiastical and authoritative elements that many five fold ministries draw from the example of Paul are unwarranted given Paul’s own defenses and arguments he gives for his apostleship and authority. Many of the current apostolic models go further than Scripture and the Holy Spirit Himself spoke of.

The bishopric model that many support seems to have even more tenuous Biblical support and one must resort to the evolution and development of "tradition” to justify it. I’m not against such structures if they can be justified by full treatment in Scripture but that is not present. Again, spiritual authority is such a vital and crucial element of the Kingdom and to justify a model or system of rule, law or regulation in this regard is really really sensitive and requires great Biblical support which I find very lacking in the arguments I’ve read for it.

Robert: I think this is well said. The issue is not necessarily the particular method we use, but the spiritual men involved in the method. I do think there is a pattern in the NT that is almost without exception that is the best. In the NT men who are existing leaders are moved on by the Holy Spirit to separate men to the work to which they are called and ordain them. This ordination might be to one of the five fold giftings (Apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher) or it might be to the office of an overseer in the body (Bishop / Elder for in the NT these words are synonymous.)

The problem comes when we deviate from spiritual leadership and begin to seek these positions in the flesh. I do not believe that men can aspire to be apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, or teachers in the body. These are callings of God on their lives. These callings will begin to emerge as these people mature, and existing, mature leadership will recognize by the Holy Spirit these callings and know when to set these gifts in order by ordination.

Bishops / Elders are different, and an area where I have some issue with the system of bishopric that began with some of the antenicene church fathers. Nowhere in the NT do we find any Biblical example of a bishop presiding over other leadership in any sort of hierarchical structure. In fact, nowhere in the NT do we find a hierarchical structure at all. These structures lead to error and corruption. We find leaders submitted to God and to other leaders in the Spirit. A bishop is a local overseer that helps to tend and feed the flock scripturally. We have changed the definition of this term and set up a system in which men in their carnality seek to gain the next level of leadership. Paul dealt with this mindset very firmly and without ambiguity.

I do see this mindset creeping slowly into the church in early church period. The fruit of this mindset is evident when we look at the abuses and errors that have happened in the religious systems that were built out of this mindset.