Ensign Article on Apostolic Fathers

[Tannhauser_1509]

I’d like everyone’s thoughts on this article from Ensign Magazine, an LDS publication, talking about Polycarp, Clement of Rome, and Ignatius of Antioch. A particularly interesting quote comes from the second paragraph:
Anyone arguing for Christian continuity has little evidence from the decades after the second century began, even though by the end of that century …] a rich literature pours from Christian apologists, administrators, scholars, and historians. Doctrine during this time was chaotic, and would not stabilize until the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 crystallized Christian orthodoxy with the arm of secular tyranny. The pre-Nicene church visibly shows the shock of losing apostolic leadership; the earlier the writing, the deeper that shock.

P.S. Please don’t post a reply unless you’ve actually read the article, at least most of it.

 

[Tarquin]

I remember reading the article when it first came out. I thought it was pretty good then. I’ve learned a lot since then, naturally.

I think doctrine during the time discussed was *not *as chaotic as the author seems to believe.

I think it odd to say “the … .critical years when nonapostolic church government was first fashioned,” since I am not aware of a time when the Church lacked “apostles,” but then the author also has a mistaken view about “bishops” and the use and meaning of the words translated “apostles,” “elder,” and “bishop,” which is common among non-Catholics. It is of some interest that the Mormon movement went through some critical years when church government lacked a prophet. There was chaos then, with many rival claimants to the mantle of prophet. Brigham Young eventually staked his claim, too. He was not the most popular, but when the most popular one died, most of his followers, and many others, migrated to Utah.

I also think: “Clementism!”
Although some Mormons often present an apocryphal book as authoritative, they make no effort to include it in their canon of Scripture. I understand why most churches do not formally canonize the writings of Clement and Ignatius. Mormons, however, pride themselves on having an open canon. They reject the substantive writings of Clement and Ignatius, but include the virtual books of Omni, Amaron, Chemish, Abinadom, no more than 4 flat verses each, in the Book of Mormon.

What are your thoughts on the article, Gavin_Doughty, and why did you pick one from that long ago?

 

[Tannhauser_1509]

I remember reading the article when it first came out. I thought it was pretty good then. I’ve learned a lot since then, naturally.

I think doctrine during the time discussed was *not *as chaotic as the author seems to believe.

I think it odd to say “the … .critical years when nonapostolic church government was first fashioned,” since I am not aware of a time when the Church lacked “apostles,” but then the author also has a mistaken view about “bishops” and the use and meaning of the words translated “apostles,” “elder,” and “bishop,” which is common among non-Catholics. It is of some interest that the Mormon movement went through some critical years when church government lacked a prophet. There was chaos then, with many rival claimants to the mantle of prophet. Brigham Young eventually staked his claim, too. He was not the most popular, but when the most popular one died, most of his followers, and many others, migrated to Utah.

I also think: “Clementism!”
Although some Mormons often present an apocryphal book as authoritative, they make no effort to include it in their canon of Scripture. I understand why most churches do not formally canonize the writings of Clement and Ignatius. Mormons, however, pride themselves on having an open canon. They reject the substantive writings of Clement and Ignatius, but include the virtual books of Omni, Amaron, Chemish, Abinadom, no more than 4 flat verses each, in the Book of Mormon.

What are your thoughts on the article, Gavin_Doughty, and why did you pick one from that long ago?

I am fascinated particularly where the author claims:
Doctrine during this time was chaotic, and would not stabilize until the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 crystallized Christian orthodoxy with the arm of secular tyranny. The pre-Nicene church visibly shows the shock of losing apostolic leadership; the earlier the writing, the deeper that shock. [Bold added.]

The author seems to imply that imperial pressure on the Church to formulate enforceable doctrine was somehow the definitive end of any last remnant of truth in the Church. But I wonder how Professor Anderson would explain his own Church’s bowing to secular powers when it came to the issue of polygamy. Was Wilford Woodruff’s Manifesto a sign of the second Great Apostasy and the end of apostolic authority in the faith once again?