We continue this week with our analysis of Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107 AD), or more accurately, our analysis of Mr. Joshua T. Charles’ analysis of Ignatius of Antioch. Mr. Charles, a former Protestant who converted to Roman Catholicism because Ignatius of Antioch “red pilled” him into the truth, repeatedly claims to have read “tens of thousands of pages” of the Early Church Fathers, finding Roman Catholicism “absolutely everywhere.” He was particularly surprised to find “profoundly [Roman] Catholic doctrine” in Ignatius’ letters, “point by point,” which “was apparent in just seven short letters.”

Of the 10 points he listed, we have covered six so far — the sacrifice of the Eucharist, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist in Part 2, the New Testament priesthood, Episcopal Succession and Episcopal Authority in Part 3, and Roman Primacy in Part 4.  As we showed last week, we could prove the primacy of any church we wanted using Mr. Charles’ rubric: “Ignatius speaks to X in a way that he never speaks to Y. Therefore, he must have thought X held the primacy.” Using that measuring stick, Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Philadelphia and Smyrna also held the primacy, and in fact exceeded Rome in their discernment, prayer, primacy, stability, holiness and (Ignatius’ unkindest and slanderous insult) in not praying for the Devil’s will to be done. This week we pick up with Baptismal Regeneration and  Mortal Sin, or the ability to lose one’s salvation (points 4 and 5 in Mr. Charles’ list).

Baptismal Regeneration

According to Mr. Charles, Ignatius taught that Christians are spiritually regenerated through baptism. To support this claim, Mr. Charles provides a single citation from Ignatius’ letter to Polycarp:

“… Let none of you be found a deserter. Let your baptism endure as your arms; your faith as your helmet; your love as your spear; your patience as a complete panoply. Let your works be the charge assigned to you, that you may receive a worthy recompense. Be long-suffering, therefore, with one another, in meekness, as God is towards you. May I have joy of you for ever!” (to Polycarp, 6)

From this passing reference to baptism, Mr. Charles believes he has found in Ignatius an ancient belief in baptismal regeneration. After all, what else could “Let your baptism endure” possibly mean? Honestly, we do not understand how this supports baptismal regeneration, and Mr. Charles does not elaborate. He simply listed it among many other quotes intended to show that the early Church Fathers believed in baptismal regeneration.

Although the passage has nothing to do with baptismal regeneration, it is nonetheless illustrative of the propensity of the Roman apologist to think he has found whatever he wants to find, whether he has actually found it or not. The mere mention of baptism in any context is sufficient (to him) to prove baptismal regeneration.

By this, we are reminded of Called to Communion‘s claim that they, too, had found baptismal regeneration in Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians because Ignatius said Jesus had purified the water:

“For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.” (Epistle to the Ephesians, 18)

How does this support baptismal regeneration? What Ignatius means, Called to Communion claims, is that in Jesus’ baptism, “the waters were purified for our sake, that when we are baptized … we are purified.”

We would ask Mr. Charles (and Called to Communion), If “let your baptism endure as your arms” and “that He might purify the water” support baptismal regeneration, what does Ignatius support when he says that Jesus breathes immortality into the Church through oil:

“For this end did the Lord allow the ointment to be poured upon His head, that He might breathe immortality into His Church.” (To the Ephesians, 17)

If He purifies water for baptismal regeneration by allowing water to be poured on His head, has He not also sanctified the oil for regeneration by allowing it to be poured on His head? We can conclude nothing else. Have we thus found evidence in Ignatius that he believed in confirmational regeneration, or regeneration by anointing? If not, why not? Mr. Charles does not say, though surely in his “tens of thousands of pages” he must have come across this remarkable statement.

That said, we know very well why this particular claim by Ignatius merits no mention by Joshua Charles: it does not support his position. The initiation rites of Roman Catholicism are Baptism (water), Holy Communion (bread and wine) and Confirmation (oil), but only the application of water is alleged to regenerate (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1233). Oil in the Sacrament of Confirmation is alleged to do a lot of things (guide, seal, protect, enroll, commission, etc..; CCC 1296), but it is not a “garment of immortality.” That title is reserved for baptism alone (CCC 1216). Yet for some reason, Ignatius assigns to water the attribute of purity, but to oil instrumentality of immortality. Mr. Charles makes no mention of this because it is not what Roman Catholicism teaches. Although he found Roman Catholicism “absolutely everywhere” else, for some reason, Mr. Charles did not find it here. But he has found something else. Perhaps some day soon he will announce his conversion to the One, Oily, Catholic Apostolic Church of Antioch, because he has found in Ignatius an ancient belief in the regenerative qualities of oil.

The Gnostic Context of Ignatius

What Mr. Charles is missing in his analysis, of course, is the central focus of Ignatius’ letters. Ignatius was responding to the proliferation of Gnostic teaching in the region and was correcting that error, particularly the teachings in the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter. The Gnostics of his era did not believe the incarnation was possible because pure spirit and defiled matter could never be joined. The true Jesus, therefore, would never have become man because matter can only defile the spiritual, and the spiritual cannot purify the matter. As Irenæus would later explain, the Gnostics believed that pure spiritual beings “do not come in contact with any of those things which belong to creation” (Against Heresies, Book 2.15.1). Thus, there was no way an incarnated Christ could save anyone, because He Himself would have been defiled by coming into contact with us.

That same philosophy was threatening the young congregations of Ignatius’ day. According to the Apocalypse of Peter, creatures of matter could neither be purified, nor made immortal, and an incarnated Christ was not only unable to save created matter, but He would only defile it all the more:

“And they will cleave to the name of a dead man, thinking that they will become pure. But they will become greatly defiled …” (Apocalypse of Peter)

“…not every soul is of the truth, nor of immortality. For every soul of these ages has death assigned to it in our view, because it is always a slave, since it is created for its desires and their eternal destruction, in which they are and from which they are. They love the creatures of the matter which came forth with them.” (Apocalypse of Peter)

As Irenæus later demonstrated, the best response to the Gnostics was to show that Jesus did indeed come in contact with the created matter He came to save. For example, Jesus “availed Himself of those kinds of food which are derived from the earth” to show that He possessed a body of “flesh which had been derived from the earth” (Against Heresies, Book 3.22.2). Created matter had not defiled Him, and by faith He saves created men.

Ignatius’ approach to the Gnostics was similar. He claimed not only that Jesus “is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made” (to the Ephesians, 7), but also that He was in fact willing to come in contact with created matter. Responding to the Gnostic “who corrupts by wicked doctrine the faith of God” (to the Ephesians, 16), Ignatius showed from Scripture that Jesus was indeed willing to come into contact with creation:

“For this end did the Lord allow the ointment to be poured upon His head, that He might breathe immortality into His Church.” (to the Ephesians, 17)

“He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.” (to the Ephesians, 18)

These are not passages about regeneration by oil, or regeneration by water, but are simple proofs of the spiritual coming in contact with matter — the very same proof Irenæus would offer less than a century hence: namely, that Jesus was willing to come into contact with creation to save it. Thus, Ignatius concluded his argument (just as Irenæus soon would) by reaffirming the incarnation: “God Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life” (to the Ephesians, 19). Jesus’ contact with created oil and created water had not prevented His mission, but rather proved that it was successful. He had indeed purified His people and made them immortal — exactly what the Apocalypse of Peter had denied.

At no point in this argument on Jesus coming into contact with oil and with water does Ignatius even hint at anything other than what any typical Protestant would affirm today: that life comes by “knowledge of God, which is Jesus Christ” (to the Ephesians, 17) and that “salvation and life eternal” is by “the cross, which is a stumbling-block to those that do not believe” (to the Ephesians, 18). He says nothing of baptismal or confirmational regeneration because his only point was that Jesus had willingly and successfully come in contact with created matter to save it. That is all.

The Indomitable,  Metaphorical Ignatius

Ignatius’ focus on the Gnostic error gives lie to Mr. Charles’ claim that he has found Roman Catholicism “absolutely everywhere” in his “tens of thousands of pages.” He has not. What he discovered rather is the Roman Catholic method of quote harvesting from the early writers to find support for his novelties. Anything that can even remotely support him is extracted from its native context and pressed into service to support his claims of antiquity, but anything that does not is dismissed or ignored.

In any case, Mr. Charles’ attempt at quote harvesting from Ignatius falls flat when Ignatius is read as Ignatius. Returning now to Mr. Charles’ citation, “Let your baptism endure…,” we observe that it is taken from a section of his letter to Polycarp where he imitates Paul’s famous “whole armor of God” narrative (Ephesians 6:10-20). It is a call to arms, applying to the Christian life the metaphor of weaponry and an army arrayed in battle formation. Ignatius was simply imploring the people of Smyrna to be good soldiers, as a contextual reading shows:

“Labour together with one another; strive in company together; run together; suffer together; sleep together; and awake together, as the stewards, and associates, and servants of God. Please Him under whom you fight, and from whom you receive your wages. Let none of you be found a deserter. Let your baptism endure as your arms; …” (to Polycarp, 6)

Christians are to strive, run, suffer, sleep, and wake together as soldiers do on deployment, because this is war. “Please Him under whom you fight… ,” Who pays your “wages” is a what paid soldiers do. This is not a discourse on baptismal regeneration, but a battle metaphor to encourage a noble army to press on to a sure victory. As we observed in a previous post, Ignatius loved to imitate Paul’s literary style, and this is just one more occasion of it. We would no more find baptismal regeneration in “Let your baptism endure” than we would find sola fide in Paul’s “breastplate of righteousness” and “shield of faith.” There are plenty of passages from which to make such arguments, but highly metaphorical battle cries are not among them. If Mr. Charles were truly familiar with Ignatius, he would know such things. But he is not, so he does not.

Losing One’s Salvation

Mr. Charles provides no support from Ignatius to show he believed that Christians can forfeit their salvation. For his other points, we were able to find which citations from Ignatius were alleged by Mr. Charles to favor his position. In this case, we are left guessing. (If we find more explicit arguments we will revisit this topic and try to address them).

Ignatius’ Belief in Election & Perseverance

Ignatius held to what Reformed Protestants today would call “the perseverance of the saints.” It refers to a faith that produces fruit and endures to the end. A faith that does not “persevere,” is not authentic, saving faith. In his letter to the Ephesians, Ignatius makes this very point:

“No man [truly] making a profession of faith sins; nor does he that possesses love hate any one. The tree is made manifest by its fruit; so those that profess themselves to be Christians shall be recognised by their conduct.” (to the Ephesians, 14)

“For there is not now a demand for mere profession, but that a man be found continuing in the power of faith to the end.” (to the Ephesians, 14)

Here, Ignatius distinguishes between “mere profession” that is fruitless, and a faith that endures “to the end.” In the same letter, Ignatius continues on the theme of the fruit of real faith: “Faith cannot do the works of unbelief, nor unbelief the works of faith” (to the Ephesians, 8). Here, he appears to be relying on Paul’s warning to Titus about false professions:

Paul: “They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.” (Titus 1:16)

Following Paul’s example in Ephesians 1:5, Ignatius addressed the Ephesians as “predestinated” and “elected” according to the will of God:

Paul: “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will…” (Ephesians 1:5)

Ignatius: “predestinated before the ages of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father” (to the Ephesians, greeting)

To the Magnesians, he alludes to the same concept, using a coin as an illustration. If we do not possess a persevering faith, “His life is not in us”:

“For as there are two kinds of coins, the one of God, the other of the world, and each of these has its special character stamped upon it. The unbelieving are of this world; but the believing have, in love, the character of God the Father by Jesus Christ, by whom, if we are not in readiness to die into His passion, His life is not in us.” (to the Magnesians, 5)

Here, the blank coin is either stamped with the character of God, or the character of the world. Again, we note that a “belief” that does not endure to the end, is an empty belief that does not persevere, and therefore is not a “coin” with God’s special character stamped upon it. In the same letter, he continues, indicating that to be “deceived with strange doctrines” is not to lose one’s salvation, but rather is proof that one was never saved in the first place:

“Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace.” (to the Magnesians, 8)

In his letters to the Trallians and the Romans, Ignatius again distinguishes between a false profession that does not persevere, and a true profession that does:

“And also pray for me, who have need of your love, along with the mercy of God, that I may be worthy of the lot for which I am destined, and that I may not be found reprobate.” (to the Trallians, 12)

“Only request in my behalf both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but [truly] will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. For if I be truly found [a Christian], I may also be called one, and be then deemed faithful, when I shall no longer appear to the world.” (to the Romans, 3)

Here Ignatius’ request is prayer for his own perseverance. He is not concerned that he might lose his salvation, but rather that he might be discovered never to have truly believed. Saving faith perseveres.

In his letter to the Philadelphians, he reminds the sheep that they were saved by believing the Gospel proclaimed beforehand by the prophets. In his letter to the Smyrnæans, he writes that the gnostics have not received the prophets’ testimony. Notably, Ignatius says those who have denied Christ, first “have been denied by Him”:

“And let us also love the prophets, because they too have proclaimed the Gospel, and placed their hope in Him, and waited for Him; in whom also believing, they were saved, through union to Jesus Christ, … being reckoned along with [us] in the Gospel of the common hope.” (to the Philadelphians 5)

“Some ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being the 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.” (to the Smyrnæans, 5)

The contrast is striking: either a man believes the Gospel unto salvation, or has been denied by Christ, and therefore does not believe the Gospel. This is resonant of Christ’s words to the Pharisees — “ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep” (John 10:26). The elect believe. The reprobate do not.

However, Ignatius does not rule out the possibility that some of the heretics may repent, but only if the Lord causes their repentance. He does not leave it to their own free will to repent, but to the power of Christ to bring it about:

“you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power (ἐξουσίαν) of [effecting] this” (to the Smyrnæans, 4 [Migne, PG 5, 709])

That word ἐξουσίαν (exousian) in Biblical Greek, means “the right to control or govern”. Jesus has the right and the power and the authority to cause the heretics to repent. Either He has elected them unto salvation and causes them to repent, or they do not repent because He has not elected them. Those are not the words of a man who believes Jesus lets men choose for themselves, alternating between salvation and damnation according to their free will. They are the words of a man who believed that Jesus brings about the salvation of His predestinated elect, and does not bring about the salvation of the reprobate.

Ignatius’ Hortatory Language

That said, Ignatius also included exhortations, admonitions and warnings not to stumble into error. He invokes 1 Peter 5:5, “God resisteth the proud” as he warns the sheep to “submit yourselves unto the elder (presbyter)”:

“He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned (διέκρινεν) himself. For it is written, ‘God resists the proud.’ Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God. (to the Ephesians, 5 [Migne PG 5, 649])

There is nothing to see here except a call to humility. What is translated as “condemned” is διέκρινεν (diekrinen), a Biblical word for making a difference or a distinction. It is not a word that speaks inherently of eternal damnation.

He warns of false teachers (to the Ephesians, 16) and their false doctrines (to the Ephesians, 17), turning the language of the Gnostics against them. The Apocalypse of Peter said the Christians are “defiled” by their incarnate Savior while it is they, the Gnostics, who become “imperishable” through “wisdom” and “knowledge.” Ignatius responded that it is not we Christians who are “defiled” but the ones who listen to the Gnostic teachings; it is not we, but they, who lack “knowledge” and “wisdom” and it is they, not we, who “perish”:

“Such an one becoming defiled [in this way], shall go away into everlasting fire, and so shall every one that hearkens unto him.” (to the Ephesians, 16)

“And why are we not all prudent [φρονιμοι γινομεθα, i.e., become wise], since we have received the knowledge [γνωσιν; gnosin] of God, which is Jesus Christ? Why do we foolishly perish, not recognising the gift which the Lord has of a truth sent to us?” (to the Ephesians, 17 [Migne PG 5, 657])

Here he is responding to the Gnostics and their errors. It is clear in his polemical style that he is not claiming that “we” Christians perish through lack of wisdom and knowledge, but we men, that is, we created men, the Gnostics. As he had observed earlier, these men had heard the truth, and it had no effect on them: “These persons neither have the prophets persuaded, nor the law of Moses, nor the Gospel even to this day” (to the Smyrnæans, 5). Those who follow after their errors do not lose their salvation, as we saw from Ignatius, above, but rather show that they never truly believed. He thus warns the flock: “Do not err, my brethren. Those that corrupt families shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (to the Ephesians, 16). Here he appears to be appealing to Titus 1:11, Paul’s warning that “vain talkers and deceivers … who subvert whole houses.” Their “mouths must be stopped,” Paul says, and Ignatius agrees. They are not people who lost their salvation. They are people who “profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate” (Titus 1:16).

To the Magnesians, Ignatius warned about those who turn aside, but in true New Testament style (Philippians 1:6; Hebrews 6:9) he is persuaded of better things regarding them:

“I desire to guard you beforehand, that you fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that you attain to full assurance in regard to the birth, and passion, and resurrection which took place in the time of the government of Pontius Pilate, being truly and certainly accomplished by Jesus Christ, who is our hope, from which may no one of you ever be turned aside.” (to the Magnesians, 11)

He says he himself may “perish through boasting” of his “great knowledge in God” (to the Magnesians, 4) but is clearly chiding the Gnostics who really have perished in their boasting of knowledge. He warns the Trallians to flee from false doctrines, but is clearly making an allusion to the Garden in which Satan offered to Eve the forbidden fruit:

“Flee, therefore, those evil offshoots [of Satan], which produce death-bearing fruit, whereof if any one tastes, he instantly dies.” (to the Trallians, 11)

But he has already said, if we receive these strange doctrines, “we acknowledge that we have not received grace” and were never saved to begin with  (to the Magnesians, 8).

To the Philadelphians, he warns about the errors of the Gnostics. If they repent, they shall live, but if they continue in their errors, they shall not “inherit the kingdom.” These are all true statements, but none speak of Christians losing their salvation:

“And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.]” (to the Philadelphians, 3)

Ignatius has already indicated that those who follow after error, denying Christ, were never truly saved in the first place, and were reprobate. Nevertheless, the Philadelphians are implored to pray for those heretics that they be brought to repentance, if the Lord should grant to them repentance unto life. The schism to which he refers here is the error of the heretics who deny the incarnation and therefore the cross.

It will be instructional here to point out that Ignatius has not said what Mr. Charles and the translators have suggested. The English translation from Schaff’s series on the Early Church Fathers reads, “If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church,” but neither Ignatius’ original Greek nor the Latin translation support that reading. He wrote,

Greek: Μη πλανασθε αδελφοι, μου ει τις σχιζοντι ακολουθει, βασιλειζν Θεου ου κληρονομει [Migne PG 5, 700).

Latin Translation: Si quis schisma facientem sectatur, regni dvini hæreditatem non consequitur. [Migne PG 5, 699).

English Translation: If any man follows him that makes a schism, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

In other words, if any man follows after strange doctrines that are contrary to the Gospel, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. We agree, but Ignatius does not claim by this that salvation can by lost by disagreeing with the Bishop or by separating from Roman Catholicism. Our point here is simply that Ignatius’ concern was over a false Gospel, those who teach it, and those who deny the incarnation and follow after them. It was not about fraternal, collegial and even hostile disagreements within the body. If that were true, then both Paul and Barnabas are damned for their “sharp contention” (Acts 15:39), as are all we who have succumbed to Paul’s “strange opinions” and the “schismatic errors” of the Gospel of Mark.

We do not say this to justify or downplay division in the Church. Rather we merely highlight Mr. Charles’ eagerness to make Ignatius say things that are pleasing to his ears. Taking the intentional mistranslation, loading Ignatius with Roman Catholic doctrines, accusing Protestants of making a “schism in the Church,” he concludes that Ignatius really meant that people can lose their salvation by separating from Rome. But Ignatius did not say that. He said those who follow after the errors of the Gnostics have separated from the Church by denying the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the reality of His incarnation and Passion. What does he say of them? That they are unbelievers and had never believed:

“And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be [Christians].” (to the Smyrnæans, 2)

“Some ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being the advocates of death rather than of the truth. … For what does any one 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.” (to the Smyrnæans, 5)

The Real Schism is Roman Catholicism

Having evaluated Ignatius’ references to baptism, we find no evidence of baptismal regeneration. Rather we find a militant and godly hostility to the Gnostics who claimed that Christ could not have come in contact with created matter or save created beings. And we find a bishop eager to imitate Paul’s metaphorical flourish. Evaluating his soteriology, we find that Ignatius held to what may fairly be called the perseverance of the saints—those who stumble into error never believed, and those who truly believe do not stumble into the gnostic error of denying the incarnation and Christ’s true passion. Gnostic heretics and unbelievers may be saved if Christ, in His sovereign election, grants repentance to them. If not, they clearly are not marked with the stamp of the character of God. Given the Gnostic context, the Protestant mind is offended by none of this. It is Rome, not Protestantism, that has departed into the error against which Ignatius wrote.

If Mr. Charles is so worried about following after gnostic error and schism, we invite him to read Removing Jesus, an examination of the Roman Catholic desire to eliminate Jesus’ incarnation, flesh, blood and suffering from the mode of Salvation. It is Roman Catholicism, not Protestantism, that has sought to remove Christ’s passion from the economy of salvation, going out of its way to diminish the Cross, minimize His incarnation, and keep Him from being defiled by sinners. In their wildest dreams, the Gnostics could not have wished for better than what Rome has accomplished! With her lips Rome confesses the incarnation, but in her works she denies it, concerned that Jesus might be defiled by the sinners He came to save, and just as resentful as Peter that the Savior should have to endure the humiliations of the Cross (Matthew 16:22). In Roman Catholicism the chief end of Gnosticism is  truly realized, and it is against just such nonsense that Ignatius fought to his death.

We shall address Mr. Charles’ final two points next week.