Posted on 05/17/2014 4:31:22 PM PDT by Gamecock
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.
Make that: Try reading Galatians chapter 1. Paul speaks of receiving revelation directly from Jesus Christ and not from any man. It wasn't until three years later, that he went to meet with Peter and the other Apostles.
* [1:18] After three years: two years and more, since Paul’s call. To confer with Cephas may mean simply “pay a visit” or more specifically “get information from” him about Jesus, over a two-week period. Cephas: Aramaic name of Simon (Peter); cf. Mt 16:16–18 and the notes there.
It’s all part of the Roman Catholic defense protocol!
1. Impune the author of the if the posted article. (No matter what their credentials may be. )
2. Change the topic of the thread. (Attack Protestants, after all, ut us really their fault anyway. Drag Luther or Calvin into the discussion.)
3. Call the OP a hater or an antiCatholic bigot. (Right out of the 0bama playbook)
“And as another convert (former SBC) to EO states,
“The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional.” — .” Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135; And Pelikan is not alone in faulting Trent:
Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of “doctrinal development.” Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an “original deposit” of faith, a “seed,” which grew and matured through the centuries ...
On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of “papal infallibility” and “the immaculate conception” of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation.
- http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html “
That’s a keeper for future reference.....
When you can’t handle the message, attack the messenger.
It’s easier to discredit, disparage, or slander the messenger than it is to present a valid defense of why he’s wrong.
Then in the future, all you have to do is refer back to that.
It’s the lazy way out.
There is no need of a priesthood to offer sacrifices anymore anyway.
We believers are all part of the priesthood of believers who can make intercession for others, but since Jesus death was done and completed, there is no need to offer any more sacrifices so no more need for an office of priest.
And you know that how?
What's the chapter and verse to show that Paul needed more information about Jesus and that's WHY he paid Peter that visit?
Paul experienced something unique among the Apostles. His entire relationship and revelation came fro Christ after his exaltation and glorification. Christ revealed his Gospel directly to Paul.
Later, after physical death, the other Apostles also met Christ in glory.
For the record, why is it you have a list of FR bible thumbers from the FR protestant brigades too long for my screen. You and I are done, move on with the rest of your young earth society.
The word priest is there in Romans 15:16 [hiereus] is the root word used and the literally translation is priestly service for the Gospel or acting as a priest for the Gospel.
Cultic??? Really, that is where you are going with this. I could just as easily say you are no different that Smith of the Mormons, who of course from his “plain reading of scripture” came up with Mormonism, I can make say you are different than the founders of the JW’s and Adventist and Oneness Pentecostals, who of course, from the “plain reading of scripture” came up with their groups, etc, etc.
Your theology is the “Doctrine of your own head” nothing more and nothing less. You make you the Pope, Church Council, etc of reading the Bible. That is what you and most every other FR fundamentalist Protestant on this site.
As for evangelicals that convert to Orthodoxy, many of them embrace 99% of what they once rejected as fundamentalist protestants, which is in the Catholic Church, but one thing they never leave behind is their anti Roman polemics. They can just now do it in a Church that has Bishops, Sacraments, Liturgical worship, similar doctrine of Justification, Scripture and Tradition and Church Councils, and even about the Virgin Mary [Just don’t dogmatically define it with precise terms].
The entire Church was told to celebrate the Eucharist but only the Apostles where there when it was celebrated. They were the Ministers of the Eucharistic celebration, not everyone. You are reading into the text what you want to read, No Church Father starting with Clement of Rome [90AD], The Didache [80-100AD], Igntius of Antioch 107AD, Polycarp and his Letters 140-150 AD] and Justin Martyr [155AD], all speak of Eucharist, Bishops, Presbters or Deacons [some all 4] understand those Eucharistic texts the way you as a self appointed Free Republic Protestant internet theologian interprets them.
Again, your view??????????????????????? on the matter or the constant witness of the Patristics.
I am well aware the title Overseer and Presbyter at times were used interchangeably, I have read the 27 books of the NT and have numerous commentaries on them as well as have read, many of the Church Fathers commentaries or Homilies on them. All Bishops/Overseers are presbyters, but not all presbyters are overseers. There are ample Church Father commentaries on the Pauline Epistles that point that out and Ignatius Letters clearly point that out much earlier than say Saint John Chrystostem’s commentaries/Homilies on the Pauline Epistles.
“For the record, why is it you have a list of FR bible thumbers from the FR protestant brigades too long for my screen.”
I don’t, but neither do I consider ‘bible thumper’ derogatory. It is what the Catholic Church needed to be doing, and what it abandoned around 200 AD, when it devoted itself to man instead of God’s Word.
However, I was responding to a point made by a post that went to 7 other people, and I included all of them in my response. That is my normal habit, and it seems polite to me.
“You and I are done, move on with the rest of your young earth society.”
When you are done, be done. Don’t post. I will feel free to respond to any point that interests me. And I couldn’t help notice the claim that the writers of the NT were trying to separate themselves from the Jews, and thus chose not to use the word priest, although priest is what they ‘really’ meant. That claim seemed ludicrous to me, since the writers boasted of their Jewish heritage and made it clear the Gentiles were late-comers.
I guess some Bibles don’t have footnotes. Sad.
Mr. Rogers:
I don’t find it in polite when I get pinged along with a litany of your FR protestant brigade cohorts. I don’t ping other Catholics here just because they may have commented. If they want to say something to me about what I post, then they can. You guys here sometimes act like a pack of wolves. So in the future, if there is a topic that you want to discuss with me, discuss it with me. For the record, there are some in your list that I have no desire [at all] to correspond with.
I was done discussing the entire Bishop, Presbyter Deacon issue. That was the context of the statement. We have gone thru that already. Again, you guys read the scriptures and say here is what I think it means. That method means nothing to me, unless your reading is in line with orthodox doctrine.
Let’s go back to the Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon issue one last time without playing scripture tag. The NT epistles use those terms, but you can’t get a formal doctrine of those terms from a mere reading of those texts just as you can’t get a formal clear doctrine of the Person of Christ, the Trinity, etc. The foundations for those doctrines are there but not explicitly.
So in the context of the terms Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon, a view held by and Early Church Father on those words is going to have more credence with me than both of your views, and my own for that matter as well. If several Church Fathers have written on those terms [which they have], then if there is a growing consensus on the meaning of the terms Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon and what their ministries entailed, then that will have more weight than only 1 Church Father righting on those terms. If there is a Church Council that spoke on those terms, then that, along with the consensus of the Church Fathers, will have the most weight.
So, in the context of the NT epistles use of Bishop/Presbyter/Deacon, we have starting from Saint Clement of Rome, Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Saint Polycarp, all before 150AD [in Clement’s case before 100AD] writing on these terms. We have Numerous Fathers in the late 2nd and 3rd century writing on these terms [Saint Ireneaus of Lyons, Saint Hippolytus of Rome, Origen, Saint Cyprian of Carthage, and the consensus theological development and writings on Bishop/Presbyter/Deacon are there. Then, by 325 AD, at the Council of Nicea, in addition to defining the Creed to formally define the Person of Christ and his relationship with The Father, and start to formally define the Trinity, we also see in that same Council numerous decrees/canons/ regarding Bishops/Presbyters/Deacons, and those canons use theology in line with the Catholic understanding of those terms and the ministries that those offices performed.
So since that is the Catholic Faith, it is my belief as I am Catholic. For me to reject the clear and constant teachings of the those orthodox Church Fathers and the COuncil of Nicea’s teachings would akin to sin of “pride” which was the cause of the fall man due to Satan’s pride causing Adam and Eve to act as if “you will be like God” [as recorded in Genesis].
So when you guys sit here and start to post scripture after scripture and offer your views on it, well, that is nice, but those are your views or are the views of what your local Pastor believes. Sorry, that will never hold water for me. For me the Council of Nicea is the “Definitive dogmatic teaching” on the Trinity, the Person of Christ, and sets fundamental doctrinal statements on the Church, Baptism, the Resurrection of the Dead, and Christ 2nd coming. So when Mr. Rogers states [and I am summarizing his views, not an exact quote that for the most part he can care less about the Council of Nicea’s teaching on Bishops/Presbyters/Deacons and while he thinks the Creed is ok, for the most part, the line “One Baptism for the forgiveness of sins” seems to him as being the Sacrament of Baptism using water and the Trinitarian formula [he deduced correctly], makes him view it [Creed] not totally favorable, then we are totally apart.
daniell212, when you used the term “Cult” that is BS! I am Catholic and I go to a large parish and for the most part, I know probably less than 5% of the people in the parish. Away from Mass, my social life does not revolve around doing everything with folks from my parish. My hobbies of golf, college football, comic book collecting, theology, work, having dinner with friends, seldom, if ever, involves folks from my parish. That type of behavior or culture is more associated with protestant fundamentalist churches were each member of the congregation’s life in its totality involves somebody from his or her local church. That term is loaded and is nonsense.
Every Man[Woman] and the Bible alone is responsible for every heresy known to History. Now, some heresies are worse than others. The Mormons and Smith, the JW’s, the Adventist, the Oneness Pentecostals, are outright heretical when it comes to Trinitarian and Christological Doctrine. All of those groups started because some guy read the bible and came up with yippie, an doctrinal view of their own mind that started heretical movement.
Now I am objective enough to realize that the confessional protestants, Anglican [39 articles], Lutherans [Augsburg Confession] and Reformed/Calvinist [Westminister] retained the orthodox understanding of the Trinity and Christ, which means they, while putting the Creeds and Councils as secondary to the Sola Scriptura, still, implicitly recognized that without those Councils and Creeds, erroneous doctrines of the Trinity and Christ would happen. So whether they publicly admitted it or not, they realized, but accepting those Councils and Creeds regarding Christ, the Trinity, etc, they were recognizing that the NT Gospels and Letters did not have language and a theological preciseness to formally define an orthodox doctrine of Christ and the Trinity. Again, the NT seeds and foundation for those doctrines were there, but the Church via reflection by the Church Father theologians, reflection on the Liturgy and eventually the Councils were the ones to define Doctrine on those questions.
Still, on the issues of sacraments and ministry, Luther and Calvin would reject those same Councils via sola scriptura.
As a Catholic, as I stated earlier, teaching of a Church Council on a subject is going to hold weight with me. So, the same Council of Nicea that defined the Creed and rejected heretical notions of Christ and the Trinity also spoke about Bishops/Presbyters/Deacons and defined their roles the Leaders of Divine Liturgy and the appropriate ministers of the sacraments and the language used connotes priestly function.
Or vice versa. These steps are taken against Catholics too.
“Let’s go back to the Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon issue one last time without playing scripture tag.”
Let’s not. I don’t believe in dismissing scripture, nor do I think the Apostles wrote in a deceiving manner. They used bishop and presbyter interchangeably, so I do as well.
“So in the context of the terms Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon, a view held by and Early Church Father on those words is going to have more credence with me than both of your views, and my own for that matter as well.”
This is why we need to agree to disagree. I find the “church fathers” to be all over the board on most issues, and I find their fascination with philosophy instead of revelation deeply disturbing. They excommunicated each other often enough, and Jerome & Augustine never did agree on the status of the Apocrypha - and the Council of Trent punted as well.
I simply see nothing authoritative about the church fathers. I see no reason to heed them and ignore the clear writings of the Apostles.
Paul wrote, “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
So I will “thump” the Bible, and you will “thump” the church fathers, and we won’t agree because the church fathers couldn’t agree with themselves, let alone with the Apostles. I’d as soon go to the VFW Post and take a survey of the guys at the bar than seek consensus among the church fathers.
As an example, here is one of the canons of Nicea:
“18. precedence of bishops and presbyters before deacons in receiving the Eucharist (Holy Communion)”
These bishops and priests ought to have read:
“When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.”
They should have delighted in a chance to serve instead of arguing over who is the greatest. If they couldn’t get THAT right, why would I care about their other opinions?
I am well aware of the Washing of the Feet in John’s Gospel, it is read every Holy Thursday in the Catholic Liturgy. Again, it is a model of service to the Faithful that the Apostles are model. Christ humbles himself to lay down his life, the Apostles are to model his actions. As Christ the High priest offered himself as priest and victim, the Last Supper which is accounted for in the Synoptics and 1 Corinthians is now to be modeled by the Apostles. John puts this story at the last supper to suggest that the Apostles are to model Christ and not only his words, but his actions. The Last Supper was a Liturgical Rite with priestly connotations.
Jerome and Augustine did have differing opinions on the Deuterocanonicals, but in the end, Jerome submitted his opinion to the authority of the Church and those 7 books were translated into the Vulgate. So that is not an issue, Jerome did not elevate his personal opinion over the authority of a Church Council and the Bishop of Rome, of which his writings show a deep conviction of the role of the Bishop of Rome as having the role of primacy.
So you continue to say, you see no need to heed the Church Fathers, if an individual Father makes a theological statement that never was formally defined, then it is theological opinion. If it eventually is codified by a Church Council, then it has more weight. I clearly stated 1 Father, is just 1, if more than 1 have a similar view, that has more credence, if a Council defines their terminology, then that has more weight.
Again, you keep going back to citing what Paul wrote. Ok, but implicitly you are saying here is what Paul wrote and here is what “I take from the text.” I don’t share that approach and never will.
The text you cite again from John 13 is for the Apostles to not quarrel among themselves and to model Christ in their actions. There is ample commentary on this passage from the Church Fathers.
http://www.veritasbible.com/commentary/catena-aurea/John_13:12-20
Still, as Saint Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 12:28, the Apostles are First. Later in John’s Gospel, Christ prayed that all may be one. He called for the Apostles to be One, just has God is One. In Ephesians 4:11, Paul again writes Christ gave himself the Apostles, the prophets, the evangelist, the pastors, and teachers. Again the listing suggest some order of who is in charge. In 1 Timothy 5:17, let the Presbyters who rule be counted worthy of double honor [these Presbyters were likely also Bishops/Overseers]
So I agree, they should not argue with each other, all were Apostles and should stay united with Peter as the First among them, but his role was to strengthen the brethren [Luke 22:32] and feed Christ Lambs and Sheep [John 21:16-17]. These 2 directives, along with Christ statement to Saint Peter in Matthew 16, do indicate Peter had a special role to serve his fellow Apostles and keep the Apostolic community and faith unified.
Indeed. And so should we!
Galatians 1:
11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
Paul did receive revelation from The Risen Christ:
Galatians 1:
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.
11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
13 For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; 14 and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. 15 But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.
18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20 (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; 23 but only, they kept hearing, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they were glorifying God because of me.
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.