The Narrow Path Ministries

There are 15 letters from Ignatius but only seven are generally considered genuine by scholars although some even consider all 15 as frauds. I was watching EWTN a RCC channel and they were interviewing a fellow who converted from being with the Assemblies of God to Catholicism. One of the reasons he gave was the content of Ignatius's letters which strongly support the power and authority of bishops over the congregation plus he suggests the eucharist to be the real body and blood of Christ. What seems to give credence to Ignatius is that he probably knew John the Apostle so therefore you can conclude that Ignatius received his understanding from John.
So is anyone familar with Ignatius's letters with regards to their authenticity and credibility because his letters are considered almost gospel by the RCC, yet they seem to contradict the NT with regards to the structure of the church.

Doesn't it just boggle the mind how people choose bondage over freedom?

Allyn, I guess what you and i see as bondage others see as structure and certainty, after all God made us all unique.

I have read some of the letters of Ignatius. There is both a shorter and longer recension of each letter considered by some as genuine.

Although I think Ignatius wrote these letters, I think they were heavily interpolated by later writers. They make an elder-overseer distinction, which the NT does not, and ask the churches to whom they were written to do all things the overseer commands, and to regard him as they would Jesus Christ Himself.

I wish we had the genuine words of such an early writer, but unhappily, although there is much good instruction in the extant writings of Ignatius, there seems to be so much interpolation, that I think we cannot make any firm decisions from it concerning Christian practice and belief as it was in his day.

I've been wanting to study this question more for a long time. There is a book, written by a Presbyterian scholar named Killen, called The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious. I want to read it, though it seems that most scholars accept either the shorter recension (though acknowledging that it has been interpolated) or the even shorter Syriac version as best representing the original Greek copies.
Church government by bishops is found very early on, and not just in Ignatius but in Tertullian, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, the selections of early writers found in Eusebius, and other writers - and these all trace it quite consistently to the apostolic age. Looking at the letters to Timothy and Titus, I see Paul passing on his authority to chosen men; I don't see him writing to congregations or to the elders of churches instructing them how to appoint and discipline elders and deacons, but I see him writing to an individual. If we deny that episcopal government has an apostolic origin, I think we have a historical dilemna that goes beyond whether we have Ignatius' epistles or not.

If we deny that episcopal government has an apostolic origin, I think we have a historical dilemna that goes beyond whether we have Ignatius' epistles or not.

Thanks for your response, but the idea of episcopal government is really not found in the NT as far as i know so should the structure of the church go beyond the NT guideline?

STEVE7150 wrote:If we deny that episcopal government has an apostolic origin, I think we have a historical dilemna that goes beyond whether we have Ignatius' epistles or not.

Thanks for your response, but the idea of episcopal government is really not found in the NT as far as i know so should the structure of the church go beyond the NT guideline?

Hi, I don't believe we should go beyond the NT guideline. In fact I think it's every other system of church government that goes beyond NT guidelines. There are some indications that what were called 'bishops' were originally considered to be apostles, in direct succession from the original generation of apostles. That is what I believe the bishops were - people excercising a continuing apostolic ministry. We learn both in the NT and in other early writings that when the original apostles were getting ready to move on to the next world, that they chose men who would do their work after their departure. It was this expanded apostolic ministry that became what we call bishops.
The don't see any other way of interpreting the letters to Timothy and Titus than that Paul was conferring his authority on other individuals. And historically, episcopacy was universal and is attested very early on - I can't see how such a change could have been brought in, without even a trace of controversy.

I agree with Dean that the overseers (literal meaning of "episkopos") governed the CHURCH from the beginning. The CHURCH never had a democratic expression in the early days.

1 Timothy 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in expression and teaching;

Where the writings ascribed to Ignatius swerve from the early practice was to consider elders and overseers as two separate positions in the church. The early church and the NT writers do not distinguish the two.