Did Ignatius Deny Sin Nature?

[TryingToLearn]

I was reading Ignatius' letter to the Magnesians, and he made this statement:

"Seeing, then, all things have an end, and there is set before us life upon our observance [of God's precepts], but death as the result of disobedience, and every one, according to the choice he makes, shall go to his own place, let us flee from death, and make choice of life. For I remark, that two different characters are found among men-the one true coin, the other spurious. The truly devout man is the right kind of coin, stamped by God Himself. The ungodly man, again, is false coin, unlawful, spurious, counterfeit, wrought not by God, but by the devil. I do not mean to say that there are two different human natures, but that there is one humanity, sometimes belonging to God, and sometimes to the devil. If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice. The unbelieving bear the image of the prince of wickedness. The believing possess the image of their Prince, God the Father, and Jesus Christ, through whom, if we are not in readiness to die for the truth into His passion, His life is not in us."
Source: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-magnesians-longer.html

Am I correct in reading that he denied sin nature or would that be a misunderstanding?

 

[Phil D.]

It should first be noted that the highlighted remarks are from the "long version" of Ignatius' epistle, which is generally seen as spurious.

There are, in all, fifteen epistles which bear the name of Ignatius. These are the following: One to the Virgin Mary, two to the Apostle John, one to Mary of Cassobelæ, one to the Tarsians, one to the Antiochians, one to Hero, a deacon of Antioch, one to the Philippians; one to the Ephesians, one to the Magnesians, one to the Trallians, one to the Romans, one to the Philadelphians, one to the Smyrnæans, and one to Polycarp. The first three exist only in Latin: all the rest are extant also in Greek.​

​

It is now the universal opinion of critics, that the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. They bear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later age than that in which Ignatius lived. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes the least reference to them; and they are now by common consent set aside as forgeries, which were at various dates, and to serve special purposes, put forth under the name of the celebrated bishop of Antioch.​

​

But after the question has been thus simplified, it still remains sufficiently complex. Of the seven Epistles which are acknowledged by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iii. 36), we possess two Greek recensions, a shorter and a longer. It is plain that one or other of these exhibits a corrupt text, and scholars have for the most part agreed to accept the shorter form as representing the genuine letters of Ignatius. This was the opinion generally acquiesced in, from the time when critical editions of these Epistles began to be issued, down to our own day. Criticism, indeed, fluctuated a good deal as to which Epistles should be accepted and which rejected. Archp. Usher (1644), Isaac Vossius (1646), J. B. Cotelerius (1672), Dr. T. Smith (1709), and others, edited the writings ascribed to Ignatius in forms differing very considerably as to the order in which they were arranged, and the degree of authority assigned them, until at length, from about the beginning of the eighteenth century, the seven Greek Epistles, of which a translation is here given, came to be generally accepted in their shorter form as the genuine writings of Ignatius.​

(Arthur Cleveland Coxe, Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:139f.)​

 

[RamistThomist]

There are dubious letters from Ignatius, but many Greek Fathers did deny that there was a sin nature. To them it meant that sin had a positive essence, which was Manichean and Gnostic. Of course, we don't believe that. We believe that sin is a stain, a macula.

 

[arapahoepark]

This from Rev. Winzer might be pertinent

Pink on Sanctification

I'm just starting Pink on the Doctrine of Sanctification, and I came across this curious statement: On some aspects of this subject he has found the Plymouth Brethren much more helpful than the Reformers and the Puritans. Is anyone aware of any particulars in the book where this might...

www.puritanboard.com