Did the Early Church Fathers Think That They Were Inspired Like the Apostles?

A number of years ago, Albert Sundberg wrote a well-known article arguing that the early church fathers did not see inspiration as something that was uniquely true of canonical books.[1] Why? Because, according to Sundberg, the early Church Fathers saw their own writings as inspired. Ever since Sundberg, a number of scholars have repeated this claim, insisting that the early fathers saw nothing distinctive about the NT writings as compared to writings being produced in their own time period.

However, upon closer examination, this claim proves to be highly problematic. Let us consider several factors.

First, the early church fathers repeatedly express that the apostles had a distinctive authority that was higher and separate from their own. So, regardless of whether they viewed themselves as “inspired” in some sense, we have to acknowledge that they still viewed the inspiration/authority of the apostles as somehow different.

A few examples should help. The book of 1 Clement not only encourages its readers to “Take up the epistle of that blessed apostle, Paul,”[2] but also offers a clear reason why: “The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus the Christ was sent from God. The Christ therefore is from God and the Apostles from the Christ.”[3] In addition the letter refers to the apostles as “the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church.”[4]

Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, also recognizes the unique role of the apostles as the mouthpiece of Christ, “The Lord did nothing apart from the Father…neither on his own nor through the apostles.”[5] Here Ignatius indicates that the apostles were a distinct historical group and the agents through which Christ worked. Thus, Ignatius goes out of his way to distinguish own authority as a bishop from the authority of the apostles, “I am not enjoining [commanding] you as Peter and Paul did. They were apostles, I am condemned.”[6]

Justin Martyr displays the same appreciation for the distinct authority of the apostles, “For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number…by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God.”[7] Moreover, he views the gospels as the written embodiment of apostolic tradition, “For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them.”[8]

Likewise, Irenaeus views all the New Testament Scriptures as the embodiment of apostolic teaching: “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”[9] Although this is only a sampling of patristic writers (and more could be added), the point is clear. The authoritative role of the apostles was woven into the fabric of Christianity from its very earliest stages.

Second, there is no indication that the early church fathers, as a whole, believed that writings produced in their own time were of the same authority as the apostolic writings and thus could genuinely be contenders for a spot in the NT canon. On the contrary, books were regarded as authoritative precisely because they were deemed to have originated fom the apostolic time period.

A couple of examples should help. The canonical status of the Shepherd of Hermas was rejected by the Muratorian fragment (c.180) on the grounds that was produced “very recently, in our own times.”[10] This is a clear indication that early Christians did not see recently produced works as viable canonical books.

Dionysius of Corinth (c.170) goes to great lengths to distinguish his own letters from the “Scriptures of the Lord” lest anyone get the impression he is composing new canonical books (Hist. eccl. 4.23.12). But why would this concern him if Christians in his own day (presumably including himself) were equally inspired as the apostles and could produce new Scriptures?

The anonymous critic of Montanism (c.196), recorded by Eusebius, shares this same sentiment when he expresses his hesitancy to produce new written documents out of fear that “I might seem to some to be adding to the writings or injunctions of the word of the new covenant” (Hist. eccl. 5.16.3). It is hard to avoid the sense that he thinks newly published books are not equally authoritative as those written by apostles.

Third, and finally, Sundberg does not seem to recognize that inspiration-like language can be used to describe ecclesiastical authority—which is real and should be followed—even though that authority is subordinate to the apostles. For instance, the writer of 1 Clement refers to his own letters to the churches as being written “through the Holy Spirit.”[11] While such language certainly could be referring to inspiration like the apostles, such language could also be referring to ecclesiastical authority which Christians believe is also guided by the Holy Spirit (though in a different manner).

How do we know which is meant by Clement? When we look to the overall context of his writings (some of which we quoted above), it is unmistakenly clear that he puts the apostles in distinct (and higher) category than his own. We must use this larger context to interpret his words about his own authority. Either Clement is contradicting himself, or he sees his own office as somehow distinct from the apostles.

In sum, we have very little patristic evidence that the early church fathers saw their own “inspiration” or authority as on par with that of the apostles. When they wanted definitive teaching about Jesus their approach was always retrospective—they looked back to that teaching which was delivered by the apostles.

If you want to discuss theological differences, lets look at the differences between the RC and EO and you can explain to me how one pope condemns them ex cathedra and others don't but consider them in communion with the Catholic church.

St. Ambrose, "Expl. of Luke: "The Lord severed the Jewish people from His kingdom, and heretics and schismatics are also severed from the kingdom of God and from the Church. Our Lord makes it perfectly clear that every assembly of heretics and schismatics belongs not to God, but to the unclean spirit." — St. Ambrose, "Expl. of Luke", ch.7, 91-95; PL 15; SS, vol. II, p. 85, (quoted in The Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 4: "The Book of Christians", Chapter 2: "Those Who Reject Christ's Church are Anti-Christian").http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/6480/catholics/apostolic4chp2.html

Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam sanctam (1302): "We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her' (Canticle of Canticles 6:8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

— Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) "If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. " http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” "If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. " — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence: "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart `into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”— Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council), Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), [considered infallible by some]

The Eastern Orthodox differ with Roman Catholicism on these issues:

The Holy Spirit (the filioque)

In EO - The third person of the Trinity, proceeding from the Father alone as in the original Nicene Creed. The Father sends the Spirit at the intercession of the Son. The Son is therefore an agent only in the procession of the Spirit.

In RC - 'When the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, He is not separated from the Father, He is not separated from the Son'.

Mary - Assumption and Immaculate conception of

EO - The Assumption is accepted and it is agreed that Mary experienced physical death, but the Immaculate conception is rejected. Orthodox belief is that the guilt of original sin is not transmitted from one generation to the next, thus obviating the need for Mary to be sinless.

RC - Both are dogmas of the church. The church has not as yet decided whether Mary actually experienced Physical death. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary, was at conception 'preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin' and should not be confused with the virgin birth.

Pope - Authority of

EO - As the Bishop of Rome, he has a primacy of honour when Orthodox, not of jurisdiction. At present, his primacy is not effective as the papacy needs to be reformed in accordance with Orthodoxy. His authority is thus no greater or lesser than any of his fellow Bishops in the church.

RC - The Pope is the 'Vicar of Christ' i.e. the visible head of the church on earth and spiritual successor of St. Peter. He has supreme authority (including that over church councils) within Christendom (The Power of the keys).

Pope - Infallibility of

EO - Papal Infallibility is rejected. The Holy Spirit acts to guide the church into truth through (for example) ecumenical councils. This Orthodoxy recognises the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787) as being infallible.

RC - The Pope is infallible when, through the Holy Spirit, he defines a doctrine on faith and morals that is to be held by the whole church. This is a dogma and is therefore a required belief within Catholicism.

Purgatory

EO - An intermediate state between earth and heaven is recognised, but cleansing and purification occur in this life, not the next.

RC - A place of cleansing and preparation for heaven. Also a place where the punishment due to unremitted venial sins may be expiated.

I'd say these were the "biggies", but other differences also exist. These are explained

HERE :http://christianityinview.com/comparison.html

Like I said, I am sitting back eating popcorn and watching the “Sola scriptura” tit for tat between a self described Reform Protestant and self described “Oneness Pentecostal” both are appealing to the plain text of scripture that they are reading and interpreting yet we have this sola scriptura tit for tat.

It's no different from watching the RC traditionalists having at it with the V2 people.

There's tremendous disagreement within Catholicism on things that are not considered necessary to believe for salvation.

Yet Catholics, in their hypocrisy, do not allow for others what they allow for themselves.

They demand absolute lockstep agreement on every least little issue among Protestants of hold it up as an example of the weakness and disunity that sola Scriptura leads to.

And yet, *Sacred* Tradition*, and an *infallible* magisterium, don't do any more to ensure unity of belief amongst Catholics.

Heck, the magisterium, which is supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit, isn't even required to be unanimous in its decisions. If the Holy Spirit is really leading them, they would be, just as Catholics demand that Protestants are when they say they are lead by the Holy Spirit.

Every single last criticism that Catholics level at Protestantism to build a case against it and tout the superiority of Catholicism as a religions body, can be said of the Catholic church.

Every. Last. Thing.

If you're going to start talking smack, you need to ping the people you are talking about to your post. I shouldn't have to find out from someone elses ping.

As for the Jehovah's Witness or Oneness Pentecostal, whatever he is, they also believe that they are saved by their works. IOW, they're just like Papists, just they've replaced the Magisterium with whatever their stupid denomination teaches. Though this particular guy can't tell which cult leader he needs to be emulating.

I haven't been paying much attention to what else is going on in the thread. It is not wise to tempt me to join in. Papism is a house of cards, easily toppled.

As for Sola Scriptura, I am only following tradition:

Cyril of Jerusalem on Sola Scriptura:

Not even his own teachings, he teaches, if it cannot be shown out of the holy scriptures, should be accepted:

“Have thou ever in your mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lecture 4, Ch. 17)

Tradition is the summarized knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testament, not that which is invented by man, transmitted by word of mouth to the illiterate:

“But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to you by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it, and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper, but engraving it by the memory upon your heart , taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. I wish you also to keep this as a provision through the whole course of your life, and beside this to receive no other, neither if we ourselves should change and contradict our present teaching, nor if an adverse angel, transformed into an angel of light 2 Corinthians 11:14 should wish to lead you astray. For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that you have received, let him be to you anathema. Galatians 1:8-9 So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which you now receive, and write them on the table of your heart.” (Ibid, Lecture 5, Ch. 12)

The Protestant interpretation here means figuratively, Paul did not see his ministry at all as a Priest.

That is not all necessary. Paul is doing what all believers do, offering their bodies, and praise and works to God to His glory. Soli Deo gloria = Glory to God alone. Nothing uniquely sacrificial to a pastor here.

But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God. (Php 4:18)

Thus all believers are called an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (1Pe 2:5)

The Holy Spirit is both careful to state that, but not once title pastors distinctively priests, leaving Caths to do what He failed to for them.

And why not, after all men like St. Alphonsus Ligouri, whose writings were declared free from anything meriting censure by Pope Gregory XVL (1839) in the bull of his canonization, asserted,

The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating...Indeed, it is equal to that of Jesus Christ... Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary [who is said to be all but almighty herself]...The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command. - http://www.archive.org/stream/alphonsusworks12liguuoft/alphonsusworks12liguuoft_djvu.txt Vol. 12, p. 2

You obviously decided to chime in on post that was not directed to you

And why not, since you are attacking Protestants as a whole, which would include even Unitarians, thus metmom would be included. Likewise do not rejects RCs pinging others to posts of mine. They often could use some help.

I am sitting back eating popcorn and watching the “Sola scriptura” tit for tat between a self described Reform Protestant and self described “Oneness Pentecostal”

In which the Oneness Pentecostal is the minority position, and the contention by the reformed (Greetings_Puny_Humans) is consistent with the historical contention for core truths you and i both assent to, as well as against the historical revisionism Rome herself publishes , and her inventions like prayer to a distinct class of believers called "saints" in Heaven.

But which evang. contention actually attests to a strong degree of unity, not disunity, and likewise Catholics must hold to certain core truths, while the things they can disagree on to varying degrees is quite extensive . Thus under Sola Ecclesia, the alternative to SS, there is both schism, sects and debates.

Sometimes the issue is so debatable and the debate is so intense even within Rome that the only thing the pope did was call a truce

Moreover, the limited unity of Rome is much on paper, while what one really believes is Scripturally determined by what they do and effect, (Mt. 7:20; Ja. 2;18) and in which Rome partly shows what she believes in treating even prosodomite murderers as members in life and in death, and fosters a majority of members who are far more liberal and less unified in basic Biblical beliefs than her those who hold most strongly to the supremacy of Scripture.

both are appealing to the plain text of scripture that they are reading and interpreting yet we have this sola scriptura tit for tat.

Which is what the Lord did with the devil, (Mt. 4) and Sadducess and Pharisees, (Mt. 22) and Paul did with the Jews. (Acts 28:23) None of them did as Rome, in which the premise of her assured veracity means that Scripture is and means only what she says in any conflict. And presumes that assurance of Truth, including what writings are Scripture and what they mean, requires a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium.

What RCs defend is actually contrary to how the church began. Meanwhile, what we are missing is manifestly God-ordained apostles whose authority and teaching was powerfully established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, under which the NT church had its power.

Rome presumes this, but utterly fails of both the requirements and attestation of Biblical apostles, while the greater the claim, then the greater the corespondent attestation is warranted, and she claims to declare Truth by fiat, with her papal assured infallibility not even resting upon the premise that the supporting reasons being them are themselves infallible.

In reality, as often said, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

Quite the system.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.