Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
Ignatius' views concerning the authority vested in the bishop were no doubt radical for his time and helped to set the stage for Rome's later dominance under the "Bishop of Rome." Here is another even more shocking quote from Ignatius, written at the same time, on the eve of his martyrdom.
These kinds of teachings, especially the final words of an aged Christian of such respect traveling to the Coliseum to meet His Maker, have fueled the abuses of evil men for thousands of years. This is why we cling to the scriptures and not the church fathers, whether they be Ignatius or Athanasius.
|
At this point in history, we assume Ignatius and other who gave rise the RCC are wrong. Are they? If so, based on what scriptural principals? And then, once we embrace those scriptural principals, how far do we take them?
MacDuff, it seems to me, has taken those scriptural principals to their logical conclusion - as radical as his stance might seem. If we should reject Ignatius and the RCC derived from his arguments, then what is the scriptural basis for stopping the argument for that rejection?
Igzy has argued
practicality, but I haven't seen a scriptural argument that isn't also an argument to support
Ignatius.
I'm not saying its wrong. But you have to make an argument that negates Ignatius but ALSO negates MacDuff. I haven't heard it yet. At least not one based in Scripture.
Peter
P.S. Ohio, your post prompted this, but when I say "you" in this post, I don't mean "you."
