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.

Greetings:

Did you actually read Lecture 23. So now you are comparing me to the cultist, whoever they are, really, that is all you have. Ad-hominem’s are a sign of someone who deep down knows they are wrong.

Again, read Lecture 23.

Now as for Saint Cyril and the Deuterocanonicals, the principle of canonicity was multifaceted, 1), to be read in Church in the Liturgy was one criteria, one can go back and look at the Muratorian Fragment, circa 180AD, a canonical list by the Church of Rome to find that statement. 2) Another principle would it be used in Doctrine.

So Saint Cyril, who was interested in Liturgy, might have not wanted certain books to be read in Liturgy, for whatever reason. However, for teaching Doctrine, he quoted from the Story of Susanna, which in the LXX version of Daniel, he also quoted from Baruch, Wisdom and Sirach and 1 Macc.

Now, JND Kelly, the Anglican Patristic Scholar, wrote with respect to the Deuterocanonicals

“It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or Deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. .. . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries. . . the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary” (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54). “

Now again, back to Cyril, he does state that Baruch could be read in Liturgy. He doesn’t say the other 6 Deuterocanonicals should be read in Church. Why? perhaps because those books when being read in Church were being misused to set unorthodox Doctrine.

Fr. Felix Just, S.J. P.hD [http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/NT_Canon.htm] summarizes the criteria for NT canonicity as follows:

The 4 principles of canonicity were 1)Apostolic Origin [for NT], 2) Read in Liturgy, 3)Universal acceptance, and 4 Consistent Message [the books contained theology that was consistent with other revealed Doctrines, i.e. Divinity of Christ, and helped the Church form her doctrine]. So some books clearly met criteria 1 and 2 [see Muratorian Fragment for the 22 to 23 or so NT books that Rome recognized pretty quickly]. Even some NT books were questioned and at times were not allowed to be read in Church, i.e. Revelation, because even back then, somebody was misinterpreting it.

Now, the OT can’t be put into the Canon of the Christian Bible based on 1, so it had to be included based on 2, 3, or 4.

Again, Cyril believed in the practice of praying for the Dead, which is in 2 Macc. And as I stated earlier, he cited from the LXX version of Daniel [with the Sussana story and Bel and Dragon; Daniel 13:34-41, Daniel 14:36] and 1 Mac 2:58 {See Lecture 14 and 16}; He cites Wisdom 13:5 and another portion of the LXX Daniel From Chapter 3 with the Song of the 3 Children [Lecture 9 I think], he sites Sirach 3:21-22 in Lecture 6, Baruch 3:35-37 in Lecture 9.

In summary, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem’s principle of Canonicity was really only Principle of Canonicity 2 that I listed above. Cyril was serious about Liturgy, which is what Lecture 23 that I linked is all about. Now, he certainly uses the Deuterocanonicals with respect to Principle of Canonicity 4 that I listed above and used them frequently to teach Doctrine. Protestants, and the notion of “sola scriputura” is largely a based more on principle 4, is it used for Doctrine. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem used those Deuterocanonicals clearly to teach Doctrine, but other than Baruch, he did not want them read in the Liturgy.

Did you actually read Lecture 23. So now you are comparing me to the cultist, whoever they are, really, that is all you have. Ad-hominem’s are a sign of someone who deep down knows they are wrong.

I'm sorry, I just can't help but to note the desperation to try to get me to worry about the liturgy, or a thousand other issues, rather than the one at hand: Sola Scriptura. I want to note for all those reading: You want me to read Lecture 23 to learn about the Liturgy, even though I've challenged you on Sola Scriptura, and I've not said a word about the liturgy or any other issue (except for my anecdote on Cyril's canon).If you don't want to talk about it, that's fine, but don't accuse me of knowing that I'm "wrong," when, obviously, I'm right. That's the real sign of someone who "deep down knows they are wrong." They declare victory and then start throwing out distractions.

As for the Canon, this also will be my overwhelming win:

(JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54). “

JND Kelly is either negligent or being misquoted. Irenaeus also quoted from the Shepard of Hermes and called it scripture, and, as a matter of fact, many church writers quoted from books that Rome does not consider canonical, or did not quote from books that were considered canonical. A failure to note this distorts the issue, and makes it seem as if the apocrypha were regarded as scripture and used for doctrine. The issue isn't as muddled as you make it out to be, as will be shown shortly.

The vast majority of church fathers held to a multi-tiered view of scripture absolutely hostile to Catholic views of today. They believed in some books as being scripture "for the edification of morals," never to be used for doctrine, and others for the establishment or defense of doctrines:

Athanasius on the apocrypha:

“But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former [New and Old testament], my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read.” (Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, A.D. 367.)

Rufinus on the Apocrypha:

“But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not ‘Canonical’ but ‘Ecclesiastical:’ that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas (and that) which is called the Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named ‘Apocrypha.’ These they would not have read in the Churches. These are the traditions which the Fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken” (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), Rufinus, Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed 36, p. 557-558.).

Jerome on the Apocrypha

“These instances have been just touched upon by me (the limits of a letter forbid a more discursive treatment of them) to convince you that in the holy scriptures you can make no progress unless you have a guide to shew you the way...Genesis ... Exodus ... Leviticus ... Numbers ... Deuteronomy ... Job ... Jesus the son of Nave ... Judges ... Ruth ... Samuel ... The third and fourth books of Kings ... The twelve prophets whose writings are compressed within the narrow limits of a single volume: Hosea ... Joel ... Amos ... Obadiah ... Jonah ... Micah ... Nahum ... Habakkuk ... Zephaniah ... Haggai ... Zechariah ... Malachi ... Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel ... Jeremiah also goes four times through the alphabet in different metres (Lamentations)... David...sings of Christ to his lyre; and on a psaltry with ten strings (Psalms) ... Solomon, a lover of peace and of the Lord, corrects morals, teaches nature (Proverbs and Ecclesiastes), unites Christ and the church, and sings a sweet marriage song to celebrate that holy bridal (Song of Songs) ... Esther ... Ezra and Nehemiah.

You see how, carried away by my love of the scriptures, I have exceeded the limits of a letter...The New Testament I will briefly deal with. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ... The apostle Paul writes to seven churches (for the eighth epistle - that to the Hebrews - is not generally counted in with the others) ... The Acts of the Apostles ... The apostles James, Peter, John and Jude have published seven epistles ... The apocalypse of John ...I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books, to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, Volume VI, St. Jerome, Letter LIII.6-10).

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Eccesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church...I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon...(Ibid., Volume VI, Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome’s Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel, pp. 492-493).

Let her treasures be not silks or gems but manuscripts of the holy scriptures...Let her begin by learning the psalter, and then let her gather rules of life out of the proverbs of Solomon...Let her follow the example set in Job of virtue and patience. Then let her pass on to the gospels...the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles...let her commit to memory the prophets, the heptateuch, the books of Kings and of Chronicles, the rolls also of Ezra and Esther. When she has done all these she may safely read the Song of Songs...Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, and if she is led to read such not by the truth of the doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the miracles contained in them; let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt (Ibid., Letter CVII.12).

What the Savior declares was written down was certainly written down. Where is it written down? The Septuagint does not have it, and the Church does not recognize the Apocrypha. Therefore we must go back to the book of the Hebrews, which is the source of the statements quoted by the Lord, as well as the examples cited by the disciples...But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant...The apostolic men use the Hebrew Scripture. It is clear that the apostles themselves and the evangelists did likewise. The Lord and Savior, whenever He refers to ancient Scripture, quotes examples from the Hebrew volumes...We do not say this because we wish to rebuke the Septuagint translators, but because the authority of the apostles and of Christ is greater...”(The Fathers of the Church (Washington: Catholic University, 1965), Volume 53, Saint Jerome, Against Rufinus, Book II.27, 33, pp. 151, 158-160).

Cardinal Cajetan calls them not “canonical for the confirmation of the faith,” but “canonical” only in a certain sense for the “edification of the faithful.”

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” (Cardinal Cajetan, “Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament,” cited by William Whitaker in “A Disputation on Holy Scripture,” Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)

Official prefaces to Latin translations, endorsed by Popes, of the scripture making the same distinction:

“At the dawn of the Reformation the great Romanist scholars remained faithful to the judgment of the Canon which Jerome had followed in his translation. And Cardinal Ximenes in the preface to his magnificent Polyglott Biblia Complutensia-the lasting monument of the University which he founded at Complutum or Alcala, and the great glory of the Spanish press-separates the Apocrypha from the Canonical books. The books, he writes, which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double translation.” ( B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), pp. 470-471.)

Greetings:

And yet, Saint Jerome, a loyal Son of Rome and Pope Damasus’ secretary and Bible scholar listed to the authority of the Church and translated the 7 Deuterocanonicals into the Vulgate.

And, in addition, there is no desperation. Cyril’s Liturgical Lecture 23 is 100% orthodox Catholic. In addition, the Lectures that I cited shows he quoted from the Deuterocanonicals numerous times.

There was one incorrect site in my previous post. Cyril cited Baruch in Lecture 11:15, not Lecture 9:15, but he cites it none the less. Again, the links to Saint Cyril’s Lectures, as translated by P. Scaff. You can easily find the quotes from the Deuterocanonicals that he cited over and over again.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.toc.html

And you cited Cyril as a proponent of Sola Scriptura as it was articulated by Luther and Calvin. He does no such thing. Lecture 23 shows that. You said he rejected the Deuterocanonicals. Not true, he only said that they [6 of them should not be read in the Liturgy]. Again, for what reason, most likely because when people heard them, they were misusing them.

On the other hand, as I stated, he used them extensively in his Lectures on Doctrine. The links to the ccel site are there. And I agree, there were some that viewed the Shepherd as Canonical. There were some that viewed Clement of Rome’s letter as canonical given he was most likely co-worker of Saint Paul [the Church at Corinth was reading it in Liturgy well into the 2nd century.] So what you have is an uneven recognition of the canon till the 4th century.

All you are doing is telling me what I already new, the Canon was uneven in terms of agreement and there was no “Universal acceptance” [Principle of canonicity point 4 that I talked about earlier] well in the 4th century for some books.

And in the end, Jerome’s Vulgate included the 46 OT that Catholics retain till this day. It seems on this issue, Saint Augustines’ influence and Jerome’s loyalty to the Pope and the Church’s authority won out over his personal opinion. Later in his life, he would cite them in doctrinal disputes [I think I remember that correctly, but I don’t have the sites on this to corroborate that last statement at this point].

And yet, Saint Jerome, a loyal Son of Rome and Pope Damasus’ secretary and Bible scholar listed to the authority of the Church and translated the 7 Deuterocanonicals into the Vulgate.

I can play that game too! The church, listening to the authority of Jerome, included his prefaces in copies of the holy scripture identifying those books as apocryphal (and, hence, I can quote them at you to the modern day)!

And, in addition, there is no desperation. Cyril’s Liturgical Lecture 23 is 100% orthodox Catholic.

Again, more of the culty behavior? When I called you desperate... was it over the liturgy, or was it over Sola scriptura? and didn't I directly accuse you of distracting with the liturgy, which I have expressed no interest in it whatsoever? So why are you doing the same thing again, talking about the liturgy... when I was talking about Sola Scriptura?

No matter what you throw out there. Transubstantiation, liturgy, or befuddling his views on the canon, we are still left with Sola Scriptura, a view which destroys you completely... as a denial of sola scriptura is the mainstay of the Romish church. Not anything else.

Want to do something more interesting? After you're done squirming on Cyril's Sola Scriptura and the canon, want to talk about transubstantiation next? I have good material on it.

In addition, the Lectures that I cited shows he quoted from the Deuterocanonicals numerous times.

Absolutely irrelevant: MANY quoted from the "Deuterocanonicals," (others shunned them completely) used them in their teachings, and even called them "scripture," (some of them did) and, in some cases, from books that are not even recognized by Rome. The fact still remains though that the majority in the West held to the distinction that all of the books you hold to today "they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine."

This is important since such a distinction in authority is absolutely alien to the modern view of the Papists who depend on these books (though, even this, not very well) for the "confirmation of doctrine."

Again, for what reason, most likely because when people heard them, they were misusing them.

Why speculate when you can just read Jerome and learn why he and others actually refused to have these books used for the confirmation of doctrine? Well, Rufinus even blamed it on "tradition" for why he rejected those books, while Jerome based it on the canon of the Jews. The latter is more logical, though the former damages you too, as it means that Rufinus received "tradition" that is different from the tradition that Rome "received" or, anyway, invented, a little more than a thousand years later.

It seems on this issue, Saint Augustines’ influence and Jerome’s loyalty to the Pope and the Church’s authority won out over his personal opinion.

Careful with citing Augustine on the matter, as he himself lacks confidence in their authority, for example, in his retractions:

“Moreover, I do not seem to have correctly called prophetic the words in this passage: “Why is earth and ashes proud?” [Sirach 10:9] for the book in which this is read is not the work of one whom we can be certain that he should be called a prophet.” (Augustine, Retractions, Section 3 of the Retractions regarding On Genesis Against the Manicheans, p. 43, The Fathers of the Church, Volume 60, Sister M. Inez Bogan, R.S.M. translator.)

I'll also add that the definition of "Church" was different back then, which is also very important to discuss. For example, starting with his view on the "rock" in Matthew, beginning with his explanation in his Retractions:

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. — The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.

"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. — John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327

"Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt. 16:18). — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48.

"For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.cxxv.html)

"And Peter, one speaking for the rest of them, one for all, said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:15-16)...And I tell you: you are Peter; because I am the rock, you are Rocky, Peter-I mean, rock doesn't come from Rocky, but Rocky from rock, just as Christ doesn't come from Christian, but Christian from Christ; and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:17-18); not upon Peter, or Rocky, which is what you are, but upon the rock which you have confessed. I will build my Church though; I will build you, because in this answer of yours you represent the Church. — John Rotelle, O.S.A. Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289

Next, Augustine's views of church authority, which is run, not by the decree of the Pope, but by decisions brought forward by the whole church, or by a majority. For example, in the controversy over Cyprian, when the Romans condemned him:

“There are great proofs of this existing on the part of the blessed martyr Cyprian, in his letters,-to come at last to him of whose authority they carnally flatter themselves they are possessed, whilst by his love they are spiritually overthrown. For at that time, before the consent of the whole Church had declared authoritatively, by the decree of a plenary Council, what practice should be followed in this matter, it seemed to him, in common with about eighty of his fellow bishops of the African churches, that every man who had been baptized outside the communion of the Catholic Church should, on joining the Church, be baptized anew.” (Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists Book I)

And in his mode for determining whether a book is canonical:

“But let us now go back to consider the third step here mentioned, for it is about it that I have set myself to speak and reason as the Lord shall grant me wisdom. The most skillful interpreter of the sacred writings, then, will be he who in the first place has read them all and retained them in his knowledge, if not yet with full understanding, still with such knowledge as reading gives,—those of them, at least, that arc called canonical. For he will read the others with greater safety when built up in the belief of the truth, so that they will not take first possession of a weak mind, nor, cheating it with dangerous falsehoods and delusions, fill it with prejudices adverse to a sound understanding. Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.” (Augustine, NPNF1: Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 8. See also John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 1, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., De Doctrina Christiana, Book II, Chapter 8 (New York: New City Press, 1996), p. 134.)

Later in his life, he would cite them in doctrinal disputes [I think I remember that correctly, but I don’t have the sites on this to corroborate that last statement at this point].

You're free to provide your evidence whenever you're ready!

... super-biblical creeds ...

Here is MORMONism's own creed:

Articles of Faith

The Articles of Faith outline 13 basic points of belief of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The Prophet Joseph Smith first wrote them in a letter to John Wentworth, a newspaper editor,
in response to Mr. Wentworth's request to know what members of the Church believed.
They were subsequently published in Church periodicals.
They are now regarded as scripture and included in the Pearl of Great Price.

THE ARTICLES OF FAITH
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
History of the Church, Vol. 4, pp. 535—541

We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.
We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Joseph Smith

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.

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

Articles of Faith