 |  |
epistle to Timothy. At the same time it should be noted that Ignatius does not teach an
apostolic succession of bishops. This was unknown to him and was a later
misconception.
It is sometimes said that in I Timothy we have the church in its rule, whereas in
II Timothy we have the church in ruin, with the forsaking of Paul and the truth given
through him. From this we must not deduce that after the Apostle's time, local churches
ceased to exist. The reverse is the truth, as church history makes clear. It may be that
Ignatius knew of Paul's first letter to Timothy, but it is obvious that he had got it all out
of focus. For him, the guarding of the truth was to keep united to local assembly and its
bishop; in other words we have a doctrine of union with Christ through the visible
church, and from this logically follows the idea that repentance, spiritual life and growth
can only be experienced in the same way:
"Now the Lord forgives all who repent, if in repentance they turn in union with God
and the council of the bishop" (Philad.8:1).
"For all who belong to God and Jesus Christ are with the bishop . . . . . if anyone
follows a schismatic, he cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (Philad.3:2,3).
For Ignatius, a `schismatic' was anyone who had separated himself from the local
church. If we search his writings for a clear conception of salvation by grace, apart from
works, we shall search in vain. He is fond of using the expression `reaching the presence
of God' as the hope of the believer and the culmination of salvation, but this is to be
attained by faithfulness and endurance. In other words, it is by works and merit:
". . . . . the Father. In union with Him, if we endure the ill-treatment of the evil genius
of this world and escape, we will reach God" (Magnes.1:2).
"If you endure everything for His (God's) sake, you will reach His presence" (Smyrna9:2).
". . . in order that, through your prayers, I may reach the presence of God" (Smyrna11:1).
". . . . . if only, through suffering, I may reach the presence of God" (Poly.7:1).
This explains why Ignatius forbad anyone trying to get his release and escape from
martyrdom. He believed that only by suffering and faithfulness to death would he ever
reach God's presence and so, rather than seeking to escape from the wild beasts at Rome,
he seemed to welcome it:
"Let me be eaten by the wild beasts, through whom I can reach the presence of God. I
am God's wheat, and I am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, so that I may be found
pure bread of Christ . . . . . If I suffer, I shall be freed by Jesus Christ and I will rise in
Him free . . . . . Fire and cross, and struggles with wild beasts, crushing of bones,
mangling of limbs, grinding of my whole body, wicked torments of the devil, let them
come upon me, only let me reach the presence of Jesus Christ" (Rom.4:1,2; 5:1-3).
These are the words of a brave man, who, as a believer, experienced this cruel death at
Rome. How utterly pathetic that he apparently did not rejoice in the knowledge of the
forgiveness of sins by grace alone, and the free gift and assurance of eternal life in Christ!
As with all the Apostolic fathers, he confused salvation by faith in Christ, apart from
works, with prize and reward for faithful service. In other words, he never learned the
N.T. teaching regarding the position of good works. He wrote to the Magnesians: