Ignatius and the Eucharist (1)

Intro

A good question has recently been posed to me by a highly respected Eastern Orthodox friend. He asked about the Eucharist, which those that were outside of the Church in Ignatius’ time were not to partake of since they did not believe it to be the body and blood of Christ. This seemed to mirror the situation of the Protestants who were outside of the Eastern Orthodox Church and did not partake for the same reasons.

Unfortunately, due to a time limit I was not able to give a complete answer. I will try and do so here without going into every issue the Ignatius passages bring out (such as whether Protestants really ought to follow the “bishop”). Still, perhaps there will be an upcoming post on the subject once I complete some posts on Melito and one on Qumran.

The passage at the center of this question is the following: “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered four our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes” (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Symrnaeans Ch. VII).

Some would claim Protestants are in trouble according to Ignatius. After all, they do not accept the Eucharist to be the literal body and blood of Christ. Still, I think there are several things that need to be taken into consideration within the cultural context, the passage itself, and most importantly, Scripture.

First, it is necessary to remind readers that there is a larger framework to consider. At this time, there is no idea of a separation between the outward sign and its meaning. The two were tied together. For example, the question of whether or not one could be “saved” and not be baptized never occurred to these people. If one refused baptism, it most likely meant they did not want to be converted. Throughout Acts, we constantly see the two together whether or not the people were filled with the Holy Spirit before or after baptism. My point in all of this is to say that we are asking a question that would not have occurred to Ignatius. We must consider his context.

Second, Ignatius is existing in a context where those outside of the Church are actually denying Christ. The East and West have not split yet- further dissolving Christian unity and bringing about the Reformation. There are not people outside of fellowship who affirm Jesus came in the flesh, died and was resurrected. This is not a reality. Those outside are outside because they deny these things.

When speaking about the bishop and Church unity in him Ignatius adds, “and indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you, Nor, indeed, do ye hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth” (Ignatius to the Ephesians). Ignatius isn’t speaking of some Protestant sect but of the heretics who have now successfully infiltrated the Church.

Third, it is key to know what the Eucharist meant to Ignatius. While it certainly stood at the center of Church unity, why was this? Because Christ stands at the center of the Church. He is what makes the Church the Church. In the passage cited above, Ignatius described the body of Christ. We see the essential tenants. Christ “suffered for our sins,” and “the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” The heretics deny this. In chapter V. of his epistle, Ignatius says of them:

“some ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being advocates of death rather than of the truth. These persons neither have the prophets persuaded, nor the law of Moses, nor the Gospel even to this day, nor the sufferings we have individually endured. For they think also the same thing regarding us. For what does anyone profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death. I have not, however, thought good to write the names of such persons, inasmuch as they are unbelievers. Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to [a true belief in] Christ’s passion, which is our resurrection” [emphasis mine].

The heretics were not merely denying the Eucharist because they were not so sure it was actually the body and blood of Christ. They completely denied Jesus came in the flesh! This came out of a true denial of His passion and resurrection. As Ignatius reported in the other quote, they are the ones who abstained from the Eucharist and prayer and for this very reason. They denied the center of the faith- Christ. Since they did this, they denied the Eucharist as well.

Additional Passages to Wrestle With:

“Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses (Mat_18:19) such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, “God resisteth the proud” (Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians Ch.V).

Also, “It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect18 has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do ye hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth” (Ch. VI).

A Biblical Argument For Sola Scriptura

(This article was originally posted by Nate Taylor at Reason From Scripture).

Often times Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists object to the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura on the grounds that it is not found in scripture. That is, they argue that this is a self-refuting proposition because the phrase “scripture alone” is itself not in scripture. In this blog post I plan to give a correct definition of Sola Scriptura that avoids these misunderstandings and then I intend on giving Biblical arguments for this definition of Sola Scriptura.


This is what Sola Scriptura means According to Protestant Reformed scholar Dr. W. Robert Godfrey:

“The Protestant position, and my position, is that all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand.”

We can see by this definition that there is no contradiction here because the Bible clearly teaches this proposition in 1 Timothy 3:16:

“16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

This verse teaches the sufficiency of scripture for faith and practice. It also seems implicit within this text that if scripture can by itself equip every person for every good action then it seems that we would have to individually understand it. This is not the only text that teaches Sola Scriptura, there are two other texts that I believe imply this doctrine.

1 Corinthians 4:6 6 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.

Paul is teaching that the Corinthians not ought to be judgmental and puff themselves with arrogant pride rather they are to be submissive to what is written and not to go beyond it. If this holds true when Paul is saying this to a church in the first century when the Holy Apostles were alive, then how much more should we follow this principle when there is no more living apostles? This is what Reformed Theologian Michael Horton has argued in his class lectures. If Paul is arguing not to go beyond what is written then it is clear that Scripture is necessary for all things pertaining to our salvation, practicing our faith and he is also presupposing in this that we can understand what is written in Holy Scripture.

Acts 17:11 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

In this text, Luke is saying that it was a noble thing that the individual believers were themselves examining the scripture to see if what Paul the Apostle had been saying was true. This shows that it is a noble task to even check the scriptures even against a Holy Apostle. If that was true then, then it would be true today when there are no more Apostles. This shows that individual believer can sufficiently understand and interpret the things in scripture because Luke says this is a noble task if they were getting everything wrong by their individual interpretations then it certainly would not be noble.

Conclusion:

Therefore, I believe to have shown two things from this post: 1) The definition of Sola Scriptura is coherent contra Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologist and 2) this definition is biblical derived.

Works Cited:

http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Godfrey.html

Problems With Eastern Orthodox: The Person/Nature distinction

In Eastern Orthodox theology there is a distinction between a person and a nature. A nature in this view would be a thing that has instantiated properties. A person is not a nature nor is it an instantiation of a nature. The reason this is so is to avoid Christological heresies such as Nestorianism. For if a person is an instantiation of a nature or is a nature itself then you have two persons in the incarnation which would be Nestorianism. I do not think one has to buy this distinction to avoid Christological Heresies, but nonetheless their motivation is a good one. The problem with this position is that it leads to pure nominalism:

P1: Nominalism is the view that general predications of individual things are merely names and not instances of universals.

P2: The Person is not a instantiation of a universal

C: All predications of a person are nominalistic

If a person does not instantiate any universals then what is predicated of the person is merely a fictional title or a title based on names alone. This is significant because the Eastern Orthodox often accuse Protestants of being nominalists because of their view of legal justification by faith alone (as if nominalism in all respects were irrational or theoretically deficient). But here it seems that the Eastern Orthodox reasoning on this point is inconsistent and arbitrary since with regards to persons they have no problem with being nominalistic. Thus, this shows two things 1) the eastern view of person is nominalistic, 2) Eastern Orthodox no longer has a philosophical critique about the Protestant view of Justification on the basis that it is nominalistic.

The Spoken Traditions

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
- II Thessalonians 2:15

This verse has been used several times in the course of discussions on this blog as a kind of "proof text" showing that there were unwritten Apostolic traditions (i.e. traditions not recorded in the Bible). These authoritative traditions were handed down by word of mouth within the Christian churches. Thus it would seem that even the Bible admits to the falsity of Sola Scriptura, since it admits to the existence of extra-biblical authoritative traditions. But is this really the case? I believe that there are passages elsewhere in II Thess. itself that call this line of reasoning into question.

Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?
- II Thessalonians 2:5

For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.
- II Thessalonians 3:10

In both of these verses Paul refers to a teaching that he had already given orally to the Thessalonian church. Yet he finds reason to repeat his teachings in writing. What is the significance of this? Well, for starters, it means that II Thess. 2:15 cannot necessarily be referring to oral traditions that were never written down as Scripture. Moreover, because we have a precedence for Paul repeating important teachings in Scripture, it is not at all unreasonable for the Protestant to assume 2 things, one weak and one strong. The weak assumption being that Paul also wrote down other oral teachings in Scripture, and the stronger assumption being that all oral teachings that were/are necessary to salvation, as well as church piety and practice, were also recorded as Scripture. Note, I have not argued that these verses in II Thess. actually prove this Protestant assumption correct, but they do make it reasonable (especially in light of other passages that deal with the place and purpose of Scripture itself), and they also refute the Catholic/Orthodox argument that the oral teachings Paul refers to must be teachings that are not included in Scripture.

Finally, I should mention that upon examination of II Thess. 2:15 itself, without reference to either 2:5 or 3:10, there is actually no indication given by Paul that when he says, "either by our spoken word or by our letter" he is referring to different teachings. Such a reading must be imposed on the text.

Understanding of the Church and Canon (2)

Argument “Against” the Eastern Canon
There is good indication that the Christian should accept as Scripture the books agreed by the majority to be canonical. These include the whole New Testament and all of the content of the Old Testament acknowledged by all of the churches. Beyond these, I eagerly acknowledge (as many Church father’s did) what Protestants call Apocryphal books of the Old Testament to be of high value within the Church but not of the same authority.

I approach the canonical question from what is held in common and defend what is held in common. From there I request evidence for and respond to those who would argue that other books have the same authority as those already universally held. The overall case for books held in common can be found in previous posts. My current understanding of what ought to be in the Christian Old Testament operates on the idea that we inherited our OT from the Jews before the New Covenant era. This content was and is more or less known. I am willing to altar this view if it can be shown that the Jews (majority in Palestine) accepted certain apocryphal books as Scripture in the Old Testament era or that the apostles believed them to be.

Some ideas as to why we should accept the additional books into our canon have been addressed in previous posts. Here I will mention a few I have found in the past to be most weighty and only briefly voice my objections to each.

1) The apostles frequently used apocryphal books in the NT
-This is certainly true and for this reason it is a great benefit to have a copy on hand when reading the Scriptures. However, use does not equal Scripture. There are instances where pagan sources are also used and those are certainly not to be regarded as Scripture.
-I do not see that the apocryphal books are used as Scripture by the apostles. Still, admittedly lingering questions remain in regards to 1 Enoch. This however, is not accepted by the majority of the Christian churches.

2)The LXX was the Churches’ Bible.
-The LXX manuscripts are diverse and are a collection of books from different places from different times and the lists of apocryphal books within the collections differ. There was not one translation circulating around. Beyond this, the historical context of its use must be considered along with my reasons for accepting the books not under question.

3) Some Church Fathers quoted parts of the apocrypha as Scripture
-I reject some of the beliefs of the Church fathers on the canon because I look at what was considered canonical by the majority of the Jews in Palestine before the resurrection and operate on the assumption that the apostles followed that pattern unless indication can be given otherwise. Beyond this, a pattern of canonical confusion in the Church that is not found among the Jews becomes evident as the Gentile Church becomes larger. The confusion is evident internally and is also acknowledged as many sought the East for guidance (it is the Eastern Church that showed more concern in this regard).

4)More books are found at Qumran
-The Jews at Qumran were an extreme exception and should be treated according to their wishes. They disassociated themselves from the rest of the Jewish community thinking the temple was corrupt. Many of the books they used were not regarded as Scripture by the Jews in Palestine. Beyond this, they included books from their own communities that were certainly not accepted by the Christian Church at any time and did not have others such as: Judith, Wisdom, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, 1 and 2 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh and 3 and 4 Maccabees.
-There is no way to tell (at least according to Daniel J. Harrington, S.J.) whether the fragments of Proverbs, Qohelet, Sirach, Tobit, Letter of Jeremiah and Psalm 151 are “regarded as authoritative or canonical in any sense.”

In sum, I do not approach the question of canon forcing a Protestant perspective (though that is where I initially started having known nothing of the canon and only knowing the books in ours) and wanting to destroy the Eastern Orthodox canon(s). I now start with what seemed to be the case with the Jews (by extension the apostles) and approach other books on a case by case basis and so far, it seems only the Ethiopian Orthodox might potentially be pleased with one of my findings.

Understanding of the Church and Canon (1)

Unity in Christ
I have been asked to spell out my argument against the Orthodox view of the canon in an upcoming post and will do so here. Before I begin, some clarity is in order for my thoughts and purpose for doing these posts:

It is important to recognize that both East and West have the same New Testament books which attest to our one faith centered on the truth of the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and in Him our love for one another. This is where our unity is found, and on this account we are brothers and sisters.

With that said, while presently I have Protestant convictions in many respects my loyalty is to Jesus Christ and His Church. God does not change but one’s perception of how He works in human history might and if compelling evidence pulls us towards a particular setup then we must take it. I do not find myself locked in any particular denomination and am willing to change in accordance with the evidence or in more minor ways for the sake of fellowship.

Why the Canon
My present motivations for studying and sharing research on the canon are 1) the joy of discovering the process God used to bring about His Word in writing, 2) understanding the conditions and ideas in the early Church, 3) understanding my brothers and sisters in the past and present, 4) fellowship and 5) correction and challenging my own understanding. While I do believe the content of the Old Testament found in Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches is not ideal, my intent here is not so much one of zealously attacking and destroying a particular view as it is of understanding, questioning, adjusting and informing in hopes of good feedback. My aim lies in learning and ultimately teaching the truth as I trust it is with several reading these blogs as well.

Melito and the Eastern Canon (1)

When questions arise over what books were considered canonical in the Christian Church Melito, bishop of Sardis is a good place to go. His OT list, as preserved by Eusebius, is the earliest within the Christian Church. Interestingly, the content of this list is curiously close to the Protestant and Hebrew canon. The presence of the apocryphal books found in the LXX are absent, and only in later lists do we begin to see the addition of recensions to Jeremiah-Lamentations and then later on the addition of the apocryphal books.

The content of this and later lists coupled with earlier indications of what the majority of Jews thought to be canonical help illuminate the earliest tradition of the Old Testament canon in relation to the Christian Church. If a good case for the inclusion of the apocryphal books in the Old Testament canon is lacking in early Christian (NT) and Jewish sources, then the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church is not following the earliest canonical tradition. Assuming the evidence for the Hebrew canon provided elsewhere stands, it is the Jews and Protestants who have been true to the earlier tradition in this regard.

Melito's list and the conditions surrounding it not only give us a window into the minds of those in the Church after the NT but also the Jews. What if Melito’s list did contain what Protestants call an “apocryphal” book? This would not only mean that the earliest Christian list of canonical books of the Old Testament contained one, but that the Jewish canon Melito was influenced by did as well which could potential lead us to consider a wider Jewish canon than first thought. Scholars such as De Wette, Lake and McDonald seem to think the Wisdom of Solomon is included in Melito’s list.

Disagreements center on a phrase in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 4.26.14 where some scholars take the Wisdom of Solomon to be included and others think “his Wisdom” is just another name for Proverbs. After much consideration I have concluded that the Wisdom of Solomon is an unlikely interpretation (though not impossible) and that Proverbs “the All-Virtuous Wisdom” is what is being referred to here. In the upcoming posts I will do my best to present the argument for the Wisdom of Solomon and why the other translation is a better one.

*This does not pose as great of a problem for the Roman Catholic Church who believes her canon to be established by the infallible Church (though there are problems once one questions her infallibility). It does however pose a problem for Eastern Orthodox Christians wanting canonical stability since their canon is not established in any Ecumenical council except maybe in Athanasius’ list- a great disappointment for those hoping to make a case for apocryphal books in their canon.

*I will tie this series of posts together into a response in the future aimed at an argument that was put forward with the intention of scaring the Protestant into the Eastern Orthodox Church based off of canonical considerations.

*"Melito and the Eastern Canon (1)" has had a few additions made to it for clarity.