Under the name “Ex Calvinist”, I had commented on the inadequacies of Tim K’s post on Ignatius of Antioch. This series showcases the discussion with Tim K that I had for viewers to see.
Here, the topic involves Ignatius’ view of the Eucharist or whether or not he taken it to be the body and blood of Christ in the case of the change in the elements.
My first comment (April 10, 2016 at 5:10 pm)
This has to be one of the most ridiculous articles I ever read disproving the Real Presence in Ignatius. Every scholarly work on the early church I had read pretty much shows and affirms that the overall view of the Eucharist is Realist in nature. Even Schaff himself thought that Ignatius is realist in his view to the point that it is to him akin to the tendency of the High Church.
McGowan in Ancient Christian Worship notes the same to regarding Ignatius’ view of the Eucharist and this is of modern scholarship in contrast to Schaff. He even wrote that most writings of the 2nd century manifest a realist viewpoint of the Eucharist.
Granted, some scholars do indeed see Ignatius use of the Eucharist to signify unity rather than to spell out any theology of it. But this only means that he cannot be used at all to support the Catholic or Protestant position on this issue since he doesn’t give us any answer. Nevertheless, scholarship such as in Schaff, JND Kelly, Mcgowan, Henry Chadwick and Rordorf all view Ignatius as having a “realist” view. Even Everett Ferguson who tries to downplay the realist view ends up creating an impression that the Eucharist is seen as something that becomes powerful given how he warns about the ancient conception between the symbol and that which is symbolized, pointing out a close connection between the two in the Oxford Handbook of Sacramental Theology.
If any, this article simply fails to even address how Ignatius denies the Real Presence. Just because he sees it as a sign of unity does it entail that he views it as Zwingli does. That’s simply the fallacy of the false dilemma
Tim K’s response(April 10, 2016 at 5:37 pm )
Dear Ex Calvinist, you wrote,
“If any, this article simply fails to even address how Ignatius denies the Real Presence.”
Indeed! In short, it fails to address something that it did not claim to address. I do not deny it. However, you have made the same mistake as Timothy P, who imputed an imagined purpose to the article, and then criticized the article for failing to live up to his imagined purpose. Were I to adopt your approach I might criticize your response for failing to address the early church’s rejection of the immaculacy of Mary. But I digress.
My point in the article is, as I have noted in the article itself, that Ignatius’ penchant for metaphor calls into question how literally we may take his Eucharistic metaphors. But if you wish to object that the article does not satisfy its promise to show how Ignatius denied the Real Presence (a wish I will not begrudge you), at least start by showing that was the stated intent of the article.
You wrote,
“Nevertheless, scholarship such as in Schaff, JND Kelly, Mcgowan, Henry Chadwick and Rordorf all view Ignatius as having a “realist” view.”
I was not aware that all scholarship on Ignatius ceased with Schaff, Kelly, McGowan, Chadwick, Rordorf and Ferguson. Since you clearly believe that it did, why did you express your opinion rather than cut and past from scholarly sources? Pardon my frankness, but your response supposes that all scholarship on Ignatius is exhausted, and there can be no more. I reject that supposition.
You concluded,
“Just because he sees it as a sign of unity does it entail that he views it as Zwingli does[?] That’s simply the fallacy of the false dilemma.”
I suppose it would be, if I had even constructed that dilemma. Where did I do that?
In any case, just because he uses the Eucharist metaphorically to support his opposition to the gnostics does not mean that he views the Eucharist as Rome does. Agreed?
Thank you,
Tim
My rebuttal (April 10, 2016 at 6:03 pm )
In your own response to Timothy P, you claimed that,
“Ken wrote that the article “shows that Ignatius DID NOT teach the ‘real presence’” (which is true), and I wrote, that Ignatius “is alleged to be the first witness in the sub-apostolic era for Transubstantiation and the ‘real presence’ … [but] Upon closer inspection, Roman Catholic reliance on Ignatius falls apart.” (which is also true). ”
So are you contradicting yourself? At one moment you are saying that your intent is to show how Ignatius did not teach the Real Presence doctrine. Then suddenly you said that it isn’t the case. If your claim here is as you claim then your purpose is only simply to show that Catholics are guilty of taking him out of context rather than to show that Ignatius did not teach a doctrine of a “Real Presence” since we cannot infer whether he did or did not, leaving this an open question.
My mention of scholars is a reminder that this article’s intentions is really one that is misguided and inadequate. Even the very scholar referenced agrees with the Catholic viewpoint as he explains here,
But of course somehow magically it presupposes that all scholarship on Ignatius has ceased which I never mentioned at all. I even noted how there are indeed views that prefer to see Ignatius as focusing on unity rather than formulating a theology of the Eucharist. I guess this somehow slipped past your mind. Regardless, more weight is placed on the view that Ignatius is indeed referring to a realist perspective with regards to the Eucharist. The scholars I had mentioned cover a broad spectrum of time with Schaff being the earliest and Mcgowan and Ferguson being of the present day.
Now I had already agreed that assuming that Ignatius never really meant a Realist view on his statement that the Docetists rejected the Eucharist as the “flesh of Christ” then yes, it entails that Rome cannot use this to support its claim that he indeed take a Realist view. But it also entails that nothing regarding his beliefs and teachings on the Eucharistic presence can be discerned since no statement of denial is given by him.
Tim K’s Response(April 10, 2016 at 6:26 pm )
Saying “Ignatius of Antioch did not explicitly teach the Real Presence” is not the same as saying “Ignatius of Antioch explicitly denied the Real Presence.” Neither I, nor Ken Temple said the article shows how Ignatius denied the Real Presence. Thus, agreeing with Ken Temple that the article “shows that Ignatius DID NOT teach the ‘real presence’” and my own statement that it was not my intent to show that Ignatius denied the Real Presence, is not a contradiction. If you believe it is, then I fear that you may not understand the meaning of the word “contradiction.”
You wrote, “My mention of scholars is a reminder that this article’s intentions is really one that is misguided and inadequate.” Yet you still are unable to verbalize the article’s intention. How then can you know that the article’s intentions are misguided if you cannot clearly express the article’s stated intention?
You also wrote, “Even the very scholar referenced agrees with the Catholic viewpoint…”. Do you understand that I invoked Schaff solely to support my statements on the history of the Ignatian epistles, and not to support my view of the contents? Your criticism on this point is a non sequitur.
You concluded, “But it also entails that nothing regarding his beliefs and teachings on the Eucharistic presence can be discerned since no statement of denial is given by him.”
Indeed. Thus, Ignatius is of no use to the Church of Rome in proving an early doctrine of Transubstantiation. As I said, “Ignatius is of no help to them.”
What are you disagreeing with?
Thank you,
Tim
My Rebuttal (April 10, 2016 at 6:48 pm )
For you to even make the claim that Ignatius did not teach the Real Presence doctrine is ridiculous given that this implies that you know something from Ignatius that shows that he doesn’t espouse or teach it. My point is that it is uncertain and thus no claim can be made regarding his stance.
This means that your claim that it isn’t the intent of your article to show that Ignatius denied the Real Presence is contradictory to your explicit claim that Ignatius did not teach it.
Only uncertainty is given if we are to agree with what you are presently telling me.
The intention of this article is to refute the notion that Ignatius’ mention of the Eucharist doesn’t entail the Real Presence view or Catholic use of it to support such. My mention of scholars and link to Schaff’s “History of the Christian Church” on Google books is to show how the article fails at this given its failure to live up to scholarship. When there’s a huge disparity between scholarship spanning decades and your own article’s attempt to discredit Rome’s use of Ignatius to support the Real Presence belief, it becomes clear that something’s wrong with your article.
Even Klawiter, who is usually cited to warn against taking Ignatius’ statements about the Eucharist as entailing a realist view notes that Ignatius believed that the “risen crucified humanity of Christ is present in the Eucharist” as Spinks cites in “Do this in Remembrance of me: The Eucharist from the Early Church to the Present Day” on pg 38
The view that Klawiter describes of Ignatius certainly opposes that of your rejection of the Real Presence given its direct opposition to the Reformed view of it.
I also find amusing how you magically think that my mention of Schaff’s view that Ignatius’ conception of the Eucharist is realist made me ignore your purpose of citing him in the first place.
Tim K (April 10, 2016 at 8:30 pm)
Ok. Interesting exchange. Thank you.
Tim
The discussion on Ignatius ends here.
Debunking Deceit 
Debunking deceit definitely serves a purpose in assessing Timothy Kaufman’s blog. When I was debating Timothy K he claimed that his church mixed wine with water for their Eucharistic service and then tried to equate the mixing of water with grape must in the manufacturing process of wine (which is illegal in some countries) with the ancient practice of mixing wine with water. I knew I was in trouble when I was threatened to be kicked off the blog for wanting to supply the definition of grape must and when I repeatedly asked him for the brand of wine that they used in their communion service so we could check if any water was used in the manufacturing process.
I have been debating Protestant apologist like Timothy Kaufman and Brian Culliton for 20 years and in a public debate once they realize they are losing the debate they ban you from their site. There are so many points that can be debated but I noticed with both Timothy K and Brian Culliton that when I asked them what would happen in their current churches if the preacher would start claiming that the Bread and Wine actually became the Body and Blood of Christ, not just symbols, they both refused to answer the question. Obviously they know what would happen, there would be a great debate and many in the Church would leave. But that never happened in the early Church! We know what debates occurred in the early Church and there was never a debate over the real presence. What is even more ridiculous is that Brian claims that the many quotes from the Church Fathers showing their belief in the real presence are all taken out of context. He then tries to twist what the Father has said to support his theology. When I asked for a list of quotes from the Church Fathers denying the real presence in the Eucharist taken IN CONTEXT I got booted off his site again.
If either Timothy K and Brian wish to engage me in a debate again I am always available. Actually it’s really a matter of who you believe. There are three questions I would like to ask them which I would suspect they would refuse to answer but which put the whole religious debate in perspective. First, Did Christ establish a visible Church with teaching authority? Second, Does that Church still exist and is so which Church is it? And third , if that Church is no longer present when did it cease to exist?
LikeLike