Was Ignatius of Antioch Roman Catholic?

He's been discussed a lot lately by various Catholics. See this recent video by Cameron Bertuzzi, for example. And Ignatius has often been cited in support of Catholicism and against Protestantism for many years. It's not just a recent development. It's been popular for a long time in Catholic circles to cite Ignatius as a major problem for Protestants, because of comments he makes about issues like the monarchical episcopate and how the eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ.

But some Protestants believe in the monarchical episcopate and a bodily presence of Christ in the eucharist. And the sort of language Ignatius uses about the eucharist is also used by him in other contexts that aren't interpreted by anybody the way advocates of a bodily presence of Christ in the eucharist are interpreting his eucharistic comments. See my discussion here. And here are some other examples not discussed in that thread I just linked:

Interacting With The Dead

Greg Koukl addressed the issue of interacting with the dead on a recent podcast. Start listening at 50:16 here. He was responding to a Christian caller whose parents have recently been having some allegedly paranormal experiences that they've interpreted as contact from their deceased daughter. I suspect ninety-some percent of the Evangelicals who would typically listen to a program like Greg's would agree with the answer he provides. But I want to address some problems with it. In addition to addressing what Greg and the caller said, I want to talk about some other misconceptions I suspect many people have about these issues.

How John's High Christology Is Connected To Other Historical Events

I've argued elsewhere that Jesus' high claims about himself in the fourth gospel can't be dismissed as easily as critics often suggest. I've argued for the historicity of Jesus' "I am" statements in general. I've argued especially for the historicity of John 8:12, such as how it's connected to so many aspects of the surrounding context in John's gospel and material outside John, meaning that removing 8:12 would cause a ripple effect that would go beyond that one verse. See my comments on 8:12 in the post linked above and my lengthier treatments of the subject here and here, for example.

Another example of that kind of thing is John 11:8. Jesus' disciples refer to how there had just been an attempt to stone him. That occurred in 10:31, in response to Jesus' high claim about himself in 10:30. So, removing 10:30 would affect 10:31 and 11:8, meaning that 10:30 doesn't exist in isolation. Even in the distinct context of 11:8, involving a different sequence of events in a different location, 10:30 is treated as historical.

Seth Kasten's Video Series Against The Invocation Of Saints

I've mentioned Seth Kasten's book against prayer to saints in the past. He started a video series on the topic at Scholastic Lutherans in 2023, but it hasn't been updated in a while. I was going to wait until the whole series was out to link it, but I'll go ahead and link what's already available: part one, part two, and part three.

How much were the Zeitoun Marian apparitions associated with Coptic Christianity?

The subject is important not only because of the use of Zeitoun by Roman Catholics, but also because of how positively other non-Copts view the apparitions. Given the closeness of Coptic Christianity and the Zeitoun apparitions, how do non-Copts reconcile an acceptance of the apparitions as Marian with their rejection of Coptic Christianity?

The Resurrection Debate Between Alex O'Connor And Trent Horn

You can watch it here. Trent made some good points against Alex's position during the debate, but I want to supplement what he said with some of my own responses to Alex. And I want to respond to Trent to some extent. I've responded to Alex on resurrection issues in the past, and some of what he said in his discussion with Trent covers the same ground. I'll link to some of my previous responses to Alex, since what he said in this recent discussion doesn't advance his side of the argument in any significant way. I also want to add some further comments to what I said in response to him in the past.

Following The Chain Of Joy

"Now, if you love what He made, what must He be who made it? If the world is beautiful, what must be the Author of the world?" (unknown source, in Mary Magdeleine Mueller, trans., St. Caesarius: Sermons, Volume I [1-80] [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2004], Sermon 21:5, p. 110)

Problems With Roman Catholic Apparitions Of Mary

Fatima has been getting an unusual amount of attention lately, largely because of a recent debate on the subject between Ethan Muse and Sean Luke. The Zeitoun apparitions got a lot of attention last year. I don't know enough about Fatima to address it as much as I have Zeitoun. But I want to discuss some of the factors involved in evaluating Marian apparitions in general.

Prayer to saints and angels in Revelation 5:8 and 8:4?

Because prayer to angels and saints is so absent from and contradicted by the Biblical sources and the earliest extrabiblical ones, advocates of the practice resort to unverifiable appeals to passages like Revelation 5:8 and 8:4. Neither passage suggests prayer to angels or saints, just as the angels' carrying bowls of wrath elsewhere in Revelation doesn't lead us to conclude that the angels are the recipients of that wrath. And the earliest interpreters of those passages in Revelation refer to how the prayers are directed to God. There's no mention of praying to angels or saints. For some documentation of that fact, as well as a discussion of the Biblical evidence against the abuse of Revelation 5:8 and 8:4 to support prayer to angels and saints, see here.

I came across another example while reading Tom Schmidt's translation of Anonymous Greek Scholia On The Apocalypse. In a passage about Revelation 5:8 that seems to have come from Origen, we read:

"Somewhere it is said, 'Let my prayer be directed as incense before you [God].' [Psalm 141:2] Bowls full of these incenses are the guides of those who genuinely pray to Christ." (Francis Gumerlock, et al., translators, Cassiodorus, St, Gregory The Great, And Anonymous Greek Scholia: Writings On The Apocalypse [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2022], 131)

Psalm 141:2, which is about praying to God, is cited, followed by a reference to those who "pray to Christ". Origen makes similar comments, including the citation of Psalm 141:2, in section 8:17 of Against Celsus.

For a collection of resources on the evidence against prayer to saints and angels, see here.

Why is the discussion starting here?

One of the most important steps you can take in evaluating the issues that come up in life is to ask what assumptions are being made at the beginning of a discussion. Is the conversation starting where it ought to? Are people beginning their reasoning with some false assumptions, in terms of a false concept of what happened in a certain historical context, false priorities, or whatever else?

For example, when critics of Christianity try to cast doubt on something like the authorship of the gospels or their genre, and they object to how few sources Christians are citing in support of their position or how late the sources are, how does the critic's position compare? How many and how late are the sources supporting his position? If there's an assumption that the skeptic shouldn't be expected to show any support for his positions among the ancient sources, is that a valid assumption?

Or when there's a controversy surrounding a Marian apparition or a paranormal case of some other type, what explanatory options are people starting with? Are they taking the relevant factors into account?

Or when an advocate of baptismal regeneration begins a discussion with a large number of exceptions in mind to the rule of baptismal regeneration that he's advocating (people who lived in the Old Testament era, people who lived during Jesus' public ministry, Cornelius, martyrs who died without being baptized, catechumens who died without being baptized, etc.), should those exceptions be granted without supporting arguments? If supporting arguments are offered, are they adequate? Even if it's popular to allow the advocate of baptismal regeneration to assume a lot of exceptions to the rule without arguing for them, should you be going along with that popular practice?

It's important to think through issues like these. Be cautious about how discussions are framed and how they proceed.

Where are the laborers?

One of the issues I've often discussed here over the years is who we should pray to. Should we pray to saints and angels or only pray to God? And I've sometimes mentioned that the issue of who we should pray to is unusually difficult to discuss, because advocates of praying to saints and angels so often behave so poorly (category confusions, the use of forgeries, poor handling of the dating of sources, etc.). You can find a discussion of some examples here.

But another problem that makes the situation even worse is how apathetic, ignorant, misinformed, and uninvolved the large majority of opponents of prayer to saints and angels are. The people on that side of the argument who even come close to handling it well are few and far between. The neglect of the issue has never made sense to me.

And there are similar circumstances in a lot of other contexts. For example, advocates of baptismal regeneration and opponents of eternal security can make highly inaccurate claims about the historical theology relevant to those doctrines, as they often do, and rarely get much of a response from the other side.

The few people who handle the issues well shouldn't be expected to do more and more. There ought to be more people doing the work.

"The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest." (Matthew 9:37-38)

"Here am I. Send me!" (Isaiah 6:8)

Neglected Evidence For The Authorship Of The Fourth Gospel

A neglected line of evidence for the fourth gospel's authorship is how closely John 19:35, 20:31, and 21:24 align with what Jesus said about the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the work of the apostles, and other issues in John 14-17. What the author of the document says in the passages I cited from John 19-21 seems to allude to Jesus' earlier comments in chapters 14-17. The implication is that the author of the fourth gospel is fulfilling what Jesus predicted. He's suggesting that he's one of the apostles Jesus was addressing in chapters 14-17.

What should we make of John 19:35 and the third-person language of the gospels?

Not every part of the gospels (and Acts, which is a continuation of one of the gospels) is written in the third person (e.g., Luke 1:1-3, Acts 16:10, John 1:14, 21:24-25). But most of the language is third person. Why the third-person language if some of the authors were eyewitnesses?

Acts' Corroboration Of Thomas' Place In John

I want to add a lesser point to what I discussed in my last post. Thomas doesn't have the prominence Philip does in the lists of Jesus' disciples in the Synoptics and Acts. But there is something unusual in Acts that adds some small corroboration to Thomas' somewhat prominent role in the fourth gospel. Notice that Thomas is mentioned sixth, just after Philip, in Acts 1:13. So, there's some pairing of Philip and Thomas outside of John's gospel. They're the two disciples given the most additional attention when moving from the Synoptics to John, and they speak one right after the other in John 14:5-8. We shouldn't expect the lists of the disciples to always have every disciple in the same order. Different ones will come to mind in different orders and in different associations on different occasions. The lists in the Synoptics and Acts have some consistencies, but also some inconsistencies, which is common with lists of names and other kinds of lists in other contexts in life. Still, Acts 1:13 provides an example of not only Philip being somewhat prominent, but also his being remembered alongside Thomas.

Synoptic Corroboration Of Philip's Prominence In John

Some of Jesus' disciples who never speak as individuals in the Synoptics do so one or more times in the fourth gospel. Or they're more prominent in John than in the Synoptics in some other way. And that can be used as an argument against the historicity of the Synoptics or John, typically against John's historicity.

It's not much of an objection, given how selective authors have to be, especially when they're covering as much ground as the gospels do. And we have many examples of such selectivity in other contexts in life in which the historicity of the sources involved is widely accepted. Even in the Synoptics/John context, we know John gave little attention to some themes he surely had heard about and accepted (e.g., Jesus' statements about the kingdom of God, his exorcisms).

But there's a neglected line of evidence in the Synoptics (and Acts) that corroborates the material in John that I'm focused on in this post. All of the lists of the disciples give Philip a somewhat prominent place, just after the foremost disciples (Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13). He's always listed fifth. That aligns well with Philip's place in John, where he isn't at the level of Peter or John, but there are a few contexts in which he's prominent.