Ignatius and Clement in NT - effect on Reformation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JRKH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JRKH

Guest
Wasn’t sure whether to put this here or in non-Catholic religions…but here goes…

As I understand it, at the time the NT canon was set ca. 400 AD…there was considerable interest in including Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome.

If those two had been included…What might the effect have been on protestant development during and after the Protestant reformation?

Peace
James
 
Let’s see…the Eucharist:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

BIble Canon:

For this reason righteousness and peace are now far departed from you, inasmuch as every one abandons the fear of God, and has become blind in His faith, neither walks in the ordinances of His appointment, nor acts a part becoming a Christian, but walks after his own wicked lusts, resuming the practice of an unrighteous and ungodly envy, by which death itself entered into the world. Wisdom 2:24–Epistle of Clement

The blessed Judith, when her city was besieged, asked of the elders permission to go forth into the camp of the strangers; and, exposing herself to danger, she went out for the love which she bare to her country and people then besieged; and the Lord delivered Holofernes into the hands of a woman. Judith 8:30–Epistle of Clement

Obedience:

As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles,** so neither do anything without the bishop and presbyters. **Neither endeavour that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled. There is one Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is more excellent. Therefore run together as into one temple of God, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father, and is with and has gone to one.–Ignatius Epistle to the Magnesians

In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. --Ignatius Epistle to the Trallians

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. --Ignatius Epistle to Smyrnaeans
 
Yeah, I don’t think there would have been a “Reformation” lol
 
JRKH said:
Wasn’t sure whether to put this here or in non-Catholic religions…but here goes…

As I understand it, at the time the NT canon was set ca. 400 AD…there was considerable interest in including Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome.

If those two had been included…What might the effect have been on protestant development during and after the Protestant reformation?

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Tradition may have been viewed somewhat differently.
There would be more debates fruitful or not God only knows.
A few more books could have survived Or been destroyed (whether this could have worked for the Christians or non-Christians and how libraries could have ended up 🤷) or discovered quicker.
There probably could end up being more violence because of debate but hopefully peace.

Shalom
God bless
 
capablanca911 said:
Yeah, I don’t think there would have been a “Reformation” lol
Click to expand...
hhmmmm…Don’t know that I agree with this. But who knows…

I believe it would have had a greater effect on how the reformed churches developed than on their actual creation. The reformation (at least for Luther) was less about tearing down the hierarchy than it was about correcting abuses and what he saw as non-biblical teachings and practices.

My thinking was that the inclusion of these others would have greater effect on the later splits…you know the ones who say "show me “bishop” in the bible and such.

Peace
James
 
It could have, though those books may have been excluded by them just like the Deuterocanonicals were. But since the early reformers were well acquainted with the Apostolic Fathers, much more so than the Protestants today, I really have doubts that it would have made a difference.

I think that it would have worked out this way; the reformers would have excluded them out of their canon, and the Catholic doctrine that links to those writings would be considered no different to them as the Catholic Doctrine that we have from the Deuters. We have the writings from the Early Church Fathers, which are not canonical, but they are evidence that the Catholic Church has preserved the same teachings for 2000 years. When you read the Fathers of the Church it is obvious that they were Catholic. Whether or not the Fathers writings are canonical, we can still use them for apologetic purposes.
 
COPLAND_3 said:
It could have, though those books may have been excluded by them just like the Deuterocanonicals were. But since the early reformers were well acquainted with the Apostolic Fathers, much more so than the Protestants today, I really have doubts that it would have made a difference.

I think that it would have worked out this way; the reformers would have excluded them out of their canon, and the Catholic doctrine that links to those writings would be considered no different to them as the Catholic Doctrine that we have from the Deuters. We have the writings from the Early Church Fathers, which are not canonical, but they are evidence that the Catholic Church has preserved the same teachings for 2000 years. When you read the Fathers of the Church it is obvious that they were Catholic. Whether or not the Fathers writings are canonical, we can still use them for apologetic purposes.
Click to expand...
I think you are correct. The formation would not have been different. Later they would have been labeled Nicolaitans and their writings purged by congregationalists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top