My November 8, 2025 thread—The 'Great Apostasy' and Ignatius of Antioch—(link) saw renewed interest in March via some interesting and informative comments posted by two knowledgeable members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Errol and TOm). Their comments and responses from Rory and myself produced 23 new posts in the thread. In this post, I want to emphasize a point that was not adequately addressed in the November thread: Ignatius of Antioch as an early and definitive witness to the end of the apostolic age.
Errol in his March 2, 2026-7:23 PM post (link) wrote:
>>Typically when Latter-day Saints refer to a particular date on which "the Apostasy" occurred they're referring specifically to the loss of Apostolic authority. And while this is certainly a significant milestone in the gradual process which would be the Apostasy there are various other contributing factors such as the subsequent loss of lesser priesthood keys and etcetera. Indeed, Ignatius, for all of his emphasis on Bishops in the 2nd century, arguably didn't imagine that the bishopric was equal in authority to Apostleship:
“I do not command you as Peter and Paul did. They were Apostles; I am a condemned man.” (Ignatius, ca. 107, To the Romans 4, in Fathers of the Church 1:109-110)>>
I concur with Errol's assessment that, "Bishops in the 2nd century, arguably didn't imagine that the bishopric was equal in authority to Apostleship".
In addition to Errol's above quote from Ignatius's letter to the Romans, we also read the following from his letter to the Trallians:
3.3 Because Ι love you Ι am sparing you, though Ι could write more sharply on his behalf. But Ι did not think myself qualified for this, that Ι, a convict, should give you orders as though Ι were an apostle. (Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers, 2007, p. 217)
The Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and High Anglican understanding of ‘Apostolic Succession’ also agrees with Errol—i.e. bishops are not ‘equal in authority’ to the Apostles. Bishops are not actual eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus Christ, they do not perform Apostolic ‘wonders and signs’, and they do not write Scripture. However, they have received authority from the Apostles to preach to the Gospel, to administer the sacraments, to appoint and ordain presbyters and deacons, and to teach ‘the faith which was once delivered unto the Saints’ (Jude 3).
Now to the main point of this post that I would like to make: in Ignatius’ seven authentic epistles we are given no evidence that any Apostles are still alive. We also have no indication that living Apostles were expected to be a continuing office that Christians could turn to. What we do find in Ignatius’ epistles is an adamant appeal to Christians that they are to look to and obey their local bishop, presbyters and deacons. All this indicates to me that the Apostolic office of the first century was foundational in nature, a foundation that succeeding generations of Christians would build upon, and not an office that was to be perpetuated.
Grace and peace,
David
5 comments:
Hello David,
I did wait to respond in part because I had hoped “the Lord would be willing” to let you continue.
Let me offer two perspectives. As I become more reflective in my dialogue, I can acknowledge that I cannot demand that the second perspective is the one that must be embraced when all the data is absorbed. But, I do think it is a valid perspective. I was about to say something about if God was leading His Church, He could have shut the door on the second interpretation. But … there are many things that I might like God to shut the door upon and He doesn’t seem to lead us like I sometimes think He might ought to lead us!
1st Perspective: Ignatius is very clear that one must follow the Bishop. He is also clear that he (a Bishop) does not command as the apostles do. 1st Clement points to the fact that Bishops come from Apostles and that other men will be selected to succeed. If we link the two, we have the ability to command and a linkage to the apostles and to succession. Irenaeus is one of the first places we have a Bishops list and the suggestion that Christians must follow the valid Bishop who exists in a succession from the apostles. Cyprian gets much closer to the reason the Bishop can command is that he sits in the chair of Peter (BTW, this is the chair of Peter that many Bishop could sit in not the chair of Peter that ONLY the Bishop of Rome can sit in). In the 5th century Pope Innocence I and then Pope Leo I are fairly clear that they command because they have the apostolic authority. In this perspective, Ignatius says that one must follow the Bishop and he surely knows that the Bishop was selected by the apostles. He doesn’t command as the apostles for perhaps a few reasons. One he is being a little humble. Two he is not commanding his church he is pointing other churches to their bishops. Three he like the most powerful Pope to ever conceive of himself as one who could command, still is not a FOUNDATIONAL Apostle. All the pieces of- the puzzle are left behind and have early evidence. It just needed to be put together.
2nd Perspective: Ignatius is a good Bishop and he does want Christians to follow Christ and his teachings (and even his church), but he is not an apostle and lacks the worldwide authority to command as the apostles. He knows this and doesn’t pretend otherwise. Over time the apostolic authority is claimed by Bishops and then by the Bishop of Rome. There are many good purposes for this and it did create an important structure. But this structure was not the permanent never-ending foundation of God’s church just like Christ’s birth around 0 AD was not the coming of the conquering king who would usher in God’s kingdom on earth. False documents were created to explain where the authority came from (like the Pseudo-Clementine literature -Epistula Clementis- that claims Peter selected Clement to be his successor). Bishop lists in the most important Catholic see (Rome) claim Clement was the first Pope after Peter and others claim Linus. Struggles between Rome and Constantinople AND between the church and pollical leaders created power structures Ignatius wouldn’t recognize that became entrench to this day. The documents we have show this and were preserved by the folks who claim to possess the authority. The authority grew in ways that men typically grow authority. God allows things for good and ill, but even the evidence that survives to this day makes it clear that there is no restoration precluding permanence to this structure. It served an important and valid purpose. One that supports the restoration, not one that makes a restoration impossible.
cont...
I think I could write a similar 1st and 2nd Perspective for the idea that Revelation was COMPLETED with the coming of Christ or that such a concept was part of the structure God allowed but in no way would this preclude the restoration and supernatural public revelation coming from God to His prophet again.
So, part of me wants to suggest that when I look to the 1st few Christian centuries, I don’t see the strong claim of “apostolic authority” like I see when Catholics tell Protestants why they should be Catholic. Since I don’t see this, surely this means apostasy. If God wanted there to be no room for remotely reflective people to reject Catholic truth claims, He should have inspired Apostles to teach Catholic truth claims such that Ignatius is MUCH closer to Pope Innocence. There is a PROBLEM with telling God He aught to have done it a different way. And surely the Catholic might say that if God wanted us to embrace the Book of Mormon He should have caused an ancient sign to survive in Mesopotamia that says, “This way to Zarahemla.” Maybe the answer is to pray about it!
Charity, TOm
Hi Tom,
Thanks much for taking the time to share some interesting thoughts concerning ecclesiastical development after the Apostolic age. If I have understood you correctly, the primary difficulty you have with this historical development is that bishops began to exercise authority that exceeded what given to the bishops by the apostles, and especially so with the Bishop of Rome. I am quite sure that you have read John Henry Newman's superb arguments in his An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine that support the idea this development was a divinely assisted growth in the understanding of the original apostolic deposit of faith, the New Testament (see chapter 4, section 3 'The Papal Supremacy', pp. 148-165 in the 1878 edition). Concerning Ignatius, Newman wrote:
>>For instance, it is true, St. Ignatius is silent in his Epistles on the subject of the Pope's authority; but if in fact that authority could not be in active operation then, such silence is not so difficult to account for as the silence of Seneca or Plutarch about Christianity itself, or of Lucian about the Roman people. St. Ignatius directed his doctrine according to the need. While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope. When the Apostles were taken away, Christianity did not at once break into portions; yet separate localities might begin to be the scene of internal dissensions, and a local arbiter in consequence would be wanted. Christians at home did not yet quarrel with Christians abroad; they quarrelled at home among themselves. St. Ignatius applied the fitting remedy.>> (Page 149)
And two pages later:
>>When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops, and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred. It is not a greater difficulty that St. Ignatius does not write to the Asian Greeks about Popes, than that St. Paul does not write to the Corinthians about Bishops. And it is a less difficulty that the Papal supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is violated. (Page 151)
In ending this comment, I would like to once again point out:
>>...in Ignatius’ seven authentic epistles we are given no evidence that any Apostles are still alive. We also have no indication that living Apostles were expected to be a continuing office that Christians could turn to. What we do find in Ignatius’ epistles is an adamant appeal to Christians that they are to look to and obey their local bishop, presbyters and deacons. All this indicates to me that the Apostolic office of the first century was foundational in nature, a foundation that succeeding generations of Christians would build upon, and not an office that was to be perpetuated.>>
Grace and peace,
David
Greetings David,
I was recently asked to prepare material for presentation in a podcast in order to help missionaries and lay members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to better understand the historicity of the Apostasy, which I think dovetails nicely with this timely blog post. It's safe to say that the lack of the office of Apostleship proper in the 2nd century is fairly uncontested. And while the function of a college of bishops worked well enough in the immediate wake of the Apostles I think it could be perhaps boldly stated that history demonstrates to us that this was unsustainable. Newman settled upon Roman Catholicism's papal office as a solution in the form of consolidated leadership. Even the Eastern Orthodox have developed a hierarchal structure with metropolitans and such; nine patriarchs ultimately entrusted to settle any potentially schismatic disputes. But lay members and apologists for these traditions often attempt to justify their positions over those of other traditions by reading them back into the pre-Nicene Church right down to the Apostles themselves which I would posit as being historically indefensible. Such difficulties pose no issue for the Latter-day Saints precisely because they acknowledge an apostasy of the corporate Church, and look to the reestablishment of the Apostleship as the means to both restore and maintain what the primitive Church started. I must prepare for my day-job now, but I'll likely find time in the near future to share what I've started to organize regarding how the lack of Apostles and Prophets negatively impacted the Church in the late 2nd and especially 3rd century (to say nothing of the events and shifts which transpired in the 4th).
Hi Errol,
Sounds like an interesting project you are working on—thanks much for bringing it to my attention. As you are probably aware of, this is a topic that I have great interest in; as such, I am looking forward to reading your research when you have the time to post it.
Question: have you read Hugh Nibley’s, Apostles and Bishops in the Early Christianity? If not, I think you would find it helpful for your ongoing research into the topic at hand. In addition to my hard copy, I have it in PDF and could email it to you if you are interested.
Grace and peace,
David
Post a Comment