Apologia: The Patristics
The Irrationality of Radical Protestantism
Radical Protestantism
It is quite irrational and even misleading to suggest that Christians can simply understand the Bible in proper theological and cultural context apart from reliable scholarship and patristic tradition. I am not suggesting that all Protestants dislike patristic tradition or scholarship, but I do find these radical groups quite illogical since such tradition is what conferred to us the scriptures; in fact, New Testament scripture is a byproduct of tradition as well as is part of tradition. Oral tradition and perhaps prototypical texts solidified the composition of the Gospels, not some insane divine dictation that came from heaven. I do not wish to humiliate these radical groups but to revise and even refute their many premises.
In Response to Comments Concerning Patristics ie Ignatius
There was a personal comment that I found to be unreasonable and even demeaning towards the patristic tradition. It was discovered on a book reviews site concerning an individual who publishes books related to patristics, whom I would fundamentally disagree with. And I will refrain from naming either of these individuals to protect the identity of this user. Anyway, we’ll call this person Mike as a means to obscure the real name. I’ll somewhat paraphrase what he said:
Ignatius’ writings were corrupted by later, spurious additions and interpolations. If we can rely on the texts, he taught that we must be loyal to bishops and respect their authority, especially over communion and baptism. He also believed in transubstantiation and taught that we sacrifice Christ again on the altar, which many fathers taught. This, together with other facts indicates to me that there was an early falling away from the true faith, just as Paul, John, and other apostles had warned.
Though it is true that there are Ignatian paraphrases as well as interpolations, this doesn’t negate the validity of Ignatius’ writings since even the Gospels and John have experienced interpolations (cf. 1 John 5.7a, Johannine comma; Mark 16.18, “if they pick up serpents, they won’t be harmed” verse). As for Ignatius teaching a single bishopric view for the governance of each church community, this ecclesiastical position wasn’t universal among the churches, and Ignatius taught this view to maintain unity in the churches provided by prophetic guidance due to the forthcoming heresies that would later divide the Catholic (i.e. universal) church. It is also strange to suggest that the Church fell away shortly after the Apostles, and apparently God failed to preserve the Church for thousands of years until the Reformers relayed their own delusional theologies.
Ignatius when in reference to the Eucharist or holy communion makes no assertion of both elements becoming the actual substances of Jesus’ humanity; in fact, in reference to His blood, he asserts it really as “incorruptible love” (cf. To the Romans, Ch. 7.2). Ignatius most likely means that the flesh of Christ represents His immortality and His blood represents His incorruptible love, which to his mind could also suggest that the Eucharist contains spiritual realities that channel certain graces of God to the believer who partakes of it (cf. To the Ephesians, Ch. 20.2). This view in mind, rather than being transubstantiation (i.e. dualistic reality), could affirm both a symbolic and mystical reality simultaneously. Though, I am not here to prove this as being the case but to suggest an alternative reading for Ignatius that’s possible. While ignoring this fellow for a little bit, I came across another blogger that has a personal disdain for Ignatius’ writings as provided below:
Although they are forgeries, they do represent the views of the author in time of 250 AD. We see a clear change from the Bible pattern, from a plurality of Elders (also called bishops) , deacons and saints, to a single Bishop who ruled the congregations and under him were a plurality of elders, then deacons and saints. At this point in history, congregations were still autonomous and independent, but we also see the seeds of development for the Papal system, where one man rules over all churches world wide which first occurred in 606 AD.
Within one of the “7 genuine Ignatius letters”, is a powerful clue it is clearly a forgery from a later time. The very first historical reference to the “Catholic Church” is nestled warmly between very strong commands to obey the bishop as you would Jesus Christ and the only valid baptism or communion service is one by the bishop’s authority. We feel that is it no co-incidence that the first historical reference to the church as the “Catholic Church” is contained within one of the “7 genuine Ignatius letters”. — bible.ca/history-ignatius-forgeries-250AD.htm
First of all, Ignatius expresses a change of ecclesiastical order to maintain unity among believers despite the forthcoming heresies that prevailed around the patristic era. He did this under prophetic inspiration of the Holy Spirit to counter the schisms that were to take place among the Churches (cf. To the Philadelphians, Ch. 7.1–2). Secondly, Polycarp is one of the first to make reference to his letters, which is additional evidence that Ignatius did confer actual letters and the Church likely preserved his epistles as they did with Paul’s and John’s epistles (cf. To the Phillipians, Ch. 13.1–3). If there was some kind of Roman Catholic agenda, wouldn’t the most appealing argument and change be made towards the Pauline letters rather than Ignatius? And even Polycarp doesn’t support their ecclesiastical view as strongly suggesting a universal acceptance or practice, because in his letter, he is addressing to both presbyters and deacons rather than a sole bishopric guide, indicating that Ignatius was one of the pioneers of a single episcopate government. Thirdly, the term catholic simply means universal, which is a term shared by Eastern and Coptic Orthodox churches. The blogger even suggests that both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox groups need Ignatius to maintain their belief in their ecclesiastical structures; however, they could also appeal to other Fathers around or after Ignatius’ time. Even if the letters were genuine, there is no reason to adhere to their form of government since we must understand Ignatius was following circumstantial guidance from the Spirit. This radical Protestantism is full of premises that are desperate in nature and even ignorant of basic terminology used in the Early Church, so they feel the need to deceive themselves and act cynical towards these letters like atheists towards the Gospels and Paul’s epistles. The blogger again says:
The Ignatius forgeries clearly mark that period of history, when a single bishop ruled over a local church and was to view his authority as that of Jesus Christ. Members were to told to be “subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ … also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ”. And “bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles”. In this way a single bishop is notably above the elders, just as Christ is above his apostles. This is actually quite blasphemous and nothing like this is found within the New Testament. Only a man of depraved mind with an evil thirst for power would ever equate the authority of a bishop with Jesus Christ.
I think it’s quite blasphemous to say that the Bible is the word of God or in equal authority to Jesus’ own commands since the Bible (specifically the Old Testament) contradicts what Jesus teaches or even commands us to do; in addition, Jesus is the only person paralleled with the word of God in the Bible. In 2nd Timothy 3:16, the proper Greek formulation suggests that Paul meant “God-inspired writings” rather than conveying the idea that every plain reading of them are God-inspired, and Jesus in the Gospels expresses the idea that one of the passages of the Scriptures resulted from God’s words, not every passage as most Protestants assume. The plain reading of the Jewish Scriptures is the very reason why the Jews and Paul denied Christ as being the true messiah (Visit this other post for more clarification). Here’s a short citation of what I mean by Origen which I will clarify later in this post:
“[We] would say that we both agree that the books were written by the Spirit of God, but that we do not agree about the meaning of their contents;…we are of opinion that the literal acceptation of the laws is not that which conveys the meaning of the legislation. And we maintain, that “when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart,” because the meaning of the law of Moses has been concealed from those who have not welcomed the way which is by Jesus Christ. But we know that if one turn to the Lord (for “the Lord is that Spirit”), the veil being taken away, “he beholds, as in a mirror with unveiled face, the glory of the Lord” in those thoughts which are concealed in their literal expression, and to his own glory becomes a participator of the divine glory; the term “face” being used figuratively for the “understanding,” as one would call it without a figure, in which is the face of the “inner man,” filled with light and glory, flowing from the true comprehension of the contents of the law” (Contra Celsus Book V.60).
So a depraved man would equate the authority of a bishop with Jesus Christ, and such isn’t in the New Testament? I wonder if you have read the Gospels where Peter equates Jesus with Moses’ and Elijah’s authority, so does this render Peter as a morally evil person? I mean, you radical Protestants try to equate Moses’ writings and the Prophets in a similar level to Jesus’ teachings, so isn’t that blasphemous and synonymous to what you’re judging since the product of those things were both human and divine? Of course, Jesus was the perfect expression of God, and not Moses or Elijah, which is what Jesus was trying to show them on the Mount Transfiguration (cf. Matthew 17.1–9; John 5.19). I mean, doesn’t Paul parallel the husband as the head of the household with Christ as head of the Church concerning who takes most responsibility for material provision (cf. Ephesians 5.23–24)? Ignatius is simply following Paul’s approach but in a different manner in relation to the Church and their bishops. These critics have no consistency in their own worldview, which a few will attack others for saying that we should become like Christ in mind as relayed by Paul (cf. Phillippians 2.5). This blogger continues ranting about how these Ignatian verses relay the idea that “the power of the bishop is also absolute; these kind of statements actually paved the way for papal infallibility” as an argument against Ignatius’ letters; however, Protestants have performed a similar formula when it comes to forcing wives in treating their husbands as indisputable leaders, according to Paul’s letters. Such arguments hinge on hypocrisy more than anything. Anyway, I found an online discussion suggesting that the writer of Magnesians was someone familiar or akin to Apelles:
As for the Apellean affiliation of the author of the Ignatian letters (i.e. Peregrinus), here are a few examples of passages that betray him as an adept of Apelles:
- 1. “Do not be deceived by false doctrines or by old fables that are worthless. For if we still live according to Judaism, we avow that we have not received grace.” IgnMag. 8:1.This reference to Judaism as false doctrines and old, worthless fables is obviously not of proto-orthodox provenance. Nor is it Marcionite. Here is how Harnack summarizes Marcion’s position vis-ê-vis the Old testament: “It is highly remarkable that Marcion acknowledged the Old Testament as a self-contained whole, assumed it had no adulterations, interpolations, or such, and did not even regard the book as false; instead he believed it to be trustworthy throughout.” (Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God. Labyrinth Press, 1990, p. 58). So, if not proto-orthodox, and not Marcionite, whose view of Judaism is reflected by IgnMag. 8:1? I vote for Apelles. Without question he was acknowledged as the leading proponent in the early church of the idea that the Law and Prophets were no more than fables and falsehoods. Origen describes him as “that disciple of Marcion’s, who became the founder of a certain sect, and treated the writings of the Jews as fables.” (Against Celsus 5:54). Hippolytus writes: “He (Apelles) composed his treatises against the Law and the Prophets and attempts to abolish them as if they had spoken falsehoods.” (Refutation of All Heresies, 10:16) Likewise Pseudo-Tertullian: He (Apelles) “has his own books, which he has entitled Syllogisms, in which he seeks to prove that whatever Moses has written about God is not true, but is false.” (Against All Heresies 6)
Firstly, there is no reason to suggest that an Apellean interpolated or fabricated Ignatius’ letter to the Magnesians. In Judaism, there are certain false dogmas about God and the chosen people with His mannerisms; for example, the revival of temple sacrifices, Israel as the suffering servant, God commanding genocide and infanticide, and continual Torah observance. Because of these specific issues, the Church read these scriptural passages allegorically or pneumatically in conformity to the Christ’s incarnation and apostolic teaching. The proto-orthodox Church believed that some commands in the Old Testament weren’t literal, but oftentimes, spiritual readings according to Paul the apostle and Barnabas of Alexandria, taught that certain stories in the Old Testament weren’t always historical narratives but spiritual according to Origen of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa, taught that God never desired sacrifices in the age of Judaism according to Mathetes and Athenagoras of Athens, and even by St. Maximus the Confessor adhering to this same stream (cf. 1 Corin. 9.9–10, Barnabas 10.2–3, 9; De Prin. IV.1.15, Life of Moses 11.89–101; To Diognetus 3, Plea for Christians 13; The Responses to Thalassios 65.33).
Additionally, they saw the Hebraic scriptures inspired in a mystical sense, but not always in a plain sense, which means the O.T. scriptures symbolized Christ by types and shadows that Christ fulfilled instead of historical prophecies (cf. Colossians 2:17; Heb. 10:1). Irenaeus of Lyons expressed that Christ is hidden in the scriptures and He is the mystical fulfillment of these passages, “But Jeremiah also says, In the last days they shall understand these things. (Jeremiah 23:20) For every prophecy, before its fulfillment, is to men [full of] enigmas and ambiguities. But when the time has arrived, and the prediction has come to pass, then the prophecies have a clear and certain exposition. And for this reason, indeed, when at this present time the law is read to the Jews, it is like a fable; for they do not possess the explanation of all things pertaining to the advent of the Son of God, which took place in human nature; but when it is read by the Christians, it is a treasure, hid indeed in a field, but brought to light by the cross of Christ,…” (Against Heresies: Book IV.26.1). The mystical exposition isn’t only the inspired act of the reader, but according to them, the text becomes holistic to these kinds of interpretation, which Gregory warns Christians who are similar to literalist groups of modern times, “It seems right to some church leaders, however, to stand by the letter of the Holy Scriptures in all circumstances, and they do not agree that Scripture says anything for our profit by way of enigmas and below-the-surface meanings. For this reason, I judge it necessary first of all to defend my practice against those who thus charge us. In our earnest search for what is profitable in the inspired Scripture [2 Tim 3:16], there is nothing to be found that is unsuitable. Therefore, if there is profit even in the text taken for just what it says, we have what is sought right before us. On the other hand, if something is stated in a concealed manner by way of enigmas and below-the-surface meanings, and so is void of profit in its plain sense, such passages we turn over in our minds,..By all these different modes of speech and names for intellectual discernment, the apostle is pointing us to a single form of instruction: one ought not in every instance to remain with the letter (since the obvious sense of the words often does us harm when it comes to the virtuous life),.. This moreover is why he says, “The letter kills, but the spirit gives life” [2 Cor 3:6] — Gregory of Nyssa: Homiles on Song of Songs (preface).
Trying Clement to Origen
Mike: Clement of Rome is someone we know little about since much of the writing in his name is believed to be forged.
Justin Martyr was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, so much that he claimed that Socrates and Heraclitus were Christians. This particularly affected his views on salvation, the nature of God, and the Old Testament. He thought, for instance, that the Holy Spirit is below Jesus and the Father. He also believed in transubstantiation and in resacrificing Christ.
For Clement of Rome, Mike only offers accusations without evidence as to why his writings are only forged or mostly fabricated. Clement’s first epistle to the Corinthians is believed by scholars to be genuine, whereas all scholars would consider the second epistle to be falsely attributed to him. As for Justin Martyr, his beliefs stemmed from Greek philosophy, because Christianity was a byproduct of the Hellenization among Jewish culture. This false dichotomy between Christianity and Greek philosophy is presumptuous, and ignorant of the Hellenistic influence on where allegoresis stemmed from and right into Pauline and patristic exegesis. The Church Fathers held an inclusivist view of salvation, as did Irenaeus, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Hermas rightly understood from Matthew 25 (cf. Against Heresies: IV.XXII.2; Oration 18.6; The Shepherd, Similitudes 9.16).
Irenaeus of Lyons accepted millenarianism, which most Christians now recognize as a heresy, though Mr. Johnson might not, given his strange beliefs about Revelation. Irenaeus also had heretical views about the Trinity, and thought Jesus died as a ransom paid to Satan.
Clement of Alexandria held Gnostic views about Christ supposedly having been exempt from ordinary human desires and passions, not that Mr. Johnson wants to tell you about this. He only wants us to know what he wants us to know. Clement openly based some of his beliefs on Stoic philosophy and pagan literature.
The majority view among Christians of the 21st century would most likely be millenarianism due to either dispensationalism or some churches adhering to merely a pre/postmillennialist due to the bias of literalism. Origen for sure didn’t hold to this eschatological view, which is interesting as to how this person is simply trying to discredit them by pointing out dogmas that they disagree with. Clement of Alexandria may have derived his views from Stoicism, except Paul does the very same thing due to his experience of Jewish Hellenization, as well as appeal to the Greeks with their own literature (cf. Acts 17.28–29).
Origen was a heretic (an “adoptionist”) who taught that Jesus was divine in a lesser sense than the Father. He was also a universalist who taught that even Satan will be saved. He also taught that the resurrection will be purely spiritual. Origen’s teachings have been widely condemned by later Christians.
There is no sound evidence that Origen was an adoptionist, and this kind of accusation is akin to how Hermas’ writings are mistaken as adoptionist theology despite a flawed reading. The universalist view of hell is actually the correct dogmatic teaching from the Early Church. How would an English speaking believer accuse those who actually and intimately understand the Koine Greek language found in the apostolic Scriptures? It seems quite illogical as there are many passages that confer universalist tendencies of hell:
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…(1st PETER 3:18–21).
“Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh for the lusts of men, but for the will of God. For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles — when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries. In regard to these, they think it strange that you do not run with them in the same flood of dissipation, speaking evil of you. They will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. Indeed, for this reason was the Gospel preached also to those who are dead, so that they might be judged together with [kata] men in the flesh, but live together with God in the spirit” (Chapter 4, verses 1–6).
“And these shall go away into indefinite (aionios) chastisement, but the righteous into indefinite life” (Matt. 25.46).
“For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers” (1 Timothy 4:10).
For “God has put everything under His feet.” Now when it says that everything has been put under Him, this clearly does not include the One who put everything under Him. And when all things have been subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all” (1 Corin. 15.28).
And many scholars like David B. Hart, Fr. John Behr, and Dr. Ramelli who would that Origen wasn’t legitimately condemned, but rather a certain view known as Origenism which distorted his teachings were in mind by the 5th ecumenical council. There were many Fathers who admired Origen like Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, and many others. None of these are genuine or relevant arguments. The patristic view of hell (i.e. purgative or intercessory/hopeful universalism) was a common view in the Early Church, which some Eastern Orthodox believers affirm and good patristic scholars also believe. I hope this post clears any mistaken ideas about the Fathers.
