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.

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.

To my knowledge PolyCarp never used the word priest...And doing a little research of some of the church fathers I find this from Clement regarding your Eucharist...

But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock? And to this meaning we may secondly accommodate the expression, "I have given you milk to drink, and not given you food, for you are not yet able," regarding the meat not as something different from the milk, but the same in substance. For the very same Word is fluid and mild as milk, or solid and compact as meat. And entertaining this view, we may regard the proclamation of the Gospel, which is universally diffused, as milk; and as meat, faith, which from instruction is compacted into a foundation, which, being more substantial than hearing, is likened to meat, and assimilates to the soul itself nourishment of this kind. Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;" John 6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both—of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood.

"Eat my flesh," He says, "and drink my blood." John 6:53-54 Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children's growth. O amazing mystery! We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Saviour in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.

But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes— the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food— that is, the Lord Jesus— that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified.

here

Chapter 40. Let Us Preserve in the Church the Order Appointed by God.

These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behooves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times. He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things, being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable unto Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.

Chapter 41. Continuation of the Same Subject.

Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him. Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death. You see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed.

That's a pretty strange thing there...Clement is speaking to Jews who are under the law...There are priests, daily animal sacrifices...And yet it is addressed to the church...However, Jesus is not mentioned...And their ministrations 'devolve' on the Levites???

Gotta admit I don't get it unless someone other than Clement stuck this in there to justify a priesthood in the church...And then there's this:

Chapter 42. The Order of Ministers in the Church.

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."

What a contrast...Here, we have what one would expect...Jesus is mentioned...Talks about pro-resurrection...Discusses bishops, deacons and not a single mention of priests...

Looks like Clement wasn't so Catholic after all...

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.

Wrong. Hiereus simply is not there. Nor do i see it as the root for G2418 hierourgeō (and beware of both the etymological as well as the root word fallacy), and it is not the literal translation. It is not even translated "priestly" in RC Bibles that I have checked.

However, i would allow that it it can be, yet that is irrelevant, since once again this does not show a NT pastor distinctively engaging in the uniquely sacrificial and primary function of priests.

And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: (Hebrews 10:11)

All believers offer sacrifices, but the idea that presbuteros uniquely engage in such then as said , that is what it came to be used for NT pastors.

"When the eucharist began to be thought of as a sacrifice, the person assigned to preside at the eucharist (bishop and later presbyter) would soon be called a priest, since priests were involved with sacrifice." — Raymond Brown (Sulpician Father and a prominent Biblical scholar), Q 95 Questions and Answers on the Bible, p. 125, with Imprimatur.

Cultic??? Really, that is where you are going with this.

They is where you have already gone under sola ecclesia, in which your basis for assurance is not the weight of Scriptural substantiation, as that would be evangelical, but it is based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome. Who 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. Cults basically presume likewise.

Thus such statements by Catholic writers as i have referenced on FR before : "The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour," (Manning) This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers." (John H. Stapleton) “The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;” “He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” (“Henry G. Graham)

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,

No you cannot and no he did not, as unlike the pope or Smith and his "living prophets" and other cultic equivalents, we cannot presume assured veracity, but are to rely on persuading souls by "manifestation of the truth," (2Cor. 4:2) with the Scriptures being the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, as they are abundantly evidenced to be. And upon which basis the church began.

Your theology is the “Doctrine of your own head”

That is simply unsubstantiated bombast.

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,

That figure is absurd, while apostates to Islam, etc. also reject the many historical Scriptural Truths we both concur on. Defection does not equate to doctrinal correctness, while what Rome really believes is manifest by what she effects and does, (Mt. 7:20; Ja. 2:18) which is seen by the majority membership of liberals which she fosters, in contrast to evangelicalism.

but one thing they never leave behind is their anti Roman polemics. Oh yes, that must be it, and which explains what those who only knew Orthodoxy engage in the same , and you have RCs doing likewise toward the EOs. (http://www.waragainstbeing.com/partiii)

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..

I am the one reading into the text?! The text nowhere says the apostles were the "Ministers of the Eucharistic celebration," but instead all the Holy Spirit tells us is that they eat and drink , and did not even tell us what the Lord said in blessing, while based upon the "only the Apostles where there" logic then only they were to preach the gospel, as nowhere is anyone else shown being commissioned by them to do so first, but that the whole church except the apostles was the first to go "went every where preaching the word." (Acts 8:4)

Nor was anyone ordained to be a Eucharistic minister, and presbuteros are never shown doing so, nor instructed in in the epistles, or even in letters to ministers, all of which are interpretive of gospel descriptions, nor is eating the Lord's supper shown to be the means of obtaining spiritual and eternal life, or otherwise being treated as solution to spiritual deficiency and the source and summit of the Christian life, around which all else revolves.

Instead, as said and substantiated, faith in the gospel appropriates life, (Eph. 1:13; Acts 15:7-9) and preaching is set forth as nourishment, (Acts 20:32; 1Tim. 4:6) with doing God's will and work being "meat" and how to live, (Mt. 44; Jn. 4:34) while the Lord's supper is only manifestly described once, in which the church is the body of Christ which shows, declares, His death by how they partake of the communal meal.

And you think i am reading things into Scripture, while it is you who wrest frequent flier mileage out of silence.

All Bishops/Overseers are presbyters, but not all presbyters are overseers.

Of course not, as the word can refer to an aged, but as shown, as ordained presbuteros they have a job description, and are episkopos, and the latter are the former, but neither are ever titled hiereus.

There are ample Church Father commentaries on the Pauline Epistles

And in which they have variant views, but why should heed such men over Scripture who, if pious, make marriage into adultery due to it of necessity having carnal desire (Tertullian) , or marital relations as being of necessity sin, if venial (Augustine), and that Genesis 1 teaches that 2 is an unclean number relating to marriage, since God did not say all was good after that day, and priest cannot be married since he could not then pray always (Jerome)?

You guys here sometimes act like a pack of wolves.

Actually, it is RCs who are always using posting a plethora of pages in servitude to Rome, using FR as a advertising and or promotional news and apologetics service for an elitist church. And a fools mouth calls for strikes (Prv. 18:6) so such arrogance calls for reproof.

Let’s go back to the Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon issue one last time without playing scripture tag.

Meaning since the Holy Spirit nowhere titles NT pastors "priests," out of 150 times hiereus occurs, or shows them engaging in any uniquely sacrificial function, then you must resort to extraBiblical traditions of men.

If several Church Fathers have written on those terms

As i said. Men presuming them know better than God.

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”

Fatal error. According this logic, the magisterium must always be correct and followed, which effectively nukes the church and replaces it with one not of Scripture. Holding to Scripture, evangelicals have defended most strongly the fundamental truth we both agree on with Nicea, but which basis also requires contention against those which are not.

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

Your reasoning here also is fallacious, since it supposes that since a source/body is correct on one or more things then it must be correct on other or even all things.

This standard RC argumentation, but the logic behind it would have constrained the first century souls to submit to those who sat in the seat of Moses in all their conclusions. And even a broken clock...

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.

That should not be a problem, but supposing that the act itself brings regeneration, even for a soul who cannot obey the requirements for baptism; And in which one is formally justified by his own personal holiness, if "by grace," and thus typically ends up in purgatory in order to become good enough (and atone for sins) to enter Heaven, is a problem. On your end.

daniell212, when you used the term “Cult” that is BS! I am Catholic

No it is not, as quite soberly your latter statement refers to membership in a cultic system in which, as explained, you are not to examine the Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching, but instead a faithful RC has one duty, which is to simply submit to leadership. Which as said, is not how the church began, and which can be explained further if desired.

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.

We only wish it were more like that. I was raised devout RC, and became manifestly born again while being a weekly mass-going RC, and remained therein for 6 years seeking to serve God (i was a CCD teacher and lector) and others who had realized the profound difference in my heart and life, which was very rare. But have been an evangelical for much longer, and know well the difference btwn institutionalized religion and living faith, and yet today evangelicalism, while far more conservative and unified in basic core beliefs than Catholics, is also overall becoming more like the world in this latter day declension. May God give is grace to repent.

But by "cultic i am not referring to scope of psychological control exemplified in the Watchtower Society, but the fundamental premise for assurance of Truth. Which for RCs cannot be the weight of Scriptural substantiation.

Every Man[Woman] and the Bible alone is responsible for every heresy known to History.

Not so, as most cults actually operate under the Roman model of one person or office being the supreme infallible type authority, whose interpretation of Scripture and history alone is assuredly correct. Rome interprets these to support her, and the Mormons interpret them to support the LDS.

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.

Against which and due to a shared doctrinal unity to fundamentals, the modern evangelical movement arose in opposition to as being unScriptural, and thus likewise against traditions of men, despite their own disagreements under SS, but which Catholicism under sola ecclesia also has, existing in schism and sects, while really being quite liberal in belief.

And in fact, under sola ecclesia you have the most fundamental heresies, as seen by such cults as you named. All based upon men thinking of themselves above that which written, (cf.1Cor. 4:6) being more akin to the pope than Reformers, as the former can autocratically "infallibly" decree Truth by fiat, and if so doing cannot be invalidated by anyone they say, or disposed without his consent. The Reformers, having precedent in those before them whom God raised up in the past from without the magisterium to correct it and preserve faith, reproved the presumptions of Rome. In so doing they appealed to both Scripture and the past, but in response to which the specious "we gave you the Bible, we know what it means" polemic is invoked, meaning that Scripture and the past is whatever we say it is. Which is where the cultic kinship comes in, contrary to the NT church.

**From Alister McGrath's [Irish theologian, pastor, intellectual historian and Christian apologist, currently Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at Kings College London] The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism: Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. — James R. Payton, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings”

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.

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.

And whether RCs publicly admit it or not, that does not contradict the supremacy or sufficiency of Scripture, for it was due to the Scriptural substantiation such doctrines had that they affirmed them, conversely, it was due to the lack of which that they contended against both cults who deny such as well as teaching traditions of men as doctrines of God.

In addition, Scripture materially provides for the church and the magisterial office and function, and thus Westminster affirms this, but not as possessing perpetually infallibility.

As a Catholic, as I stated earlier, teaching of a Church Council on a subject is going to hold weight with me.

And with that mindset, you would have rejected a holy man in the desert who ate insects, and an itinerant Jewish Preacher who was rejected by those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, whom this unsanctioned Preacher reproved by Scripture as supreme. (Mk. 7:2-16) In contrast to the Roman model for assurance of Truth, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation, (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34) following an itinerant Preacher who reproved them by Scripture, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

And instead they followed this itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, but who established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

**This is no help, you are quoting passages and are hoping to goad me into doing the hard work of explaining .............. and then I shall educate you. But only until then.**

You were very easy to correct, concerning the ‘what name are you even referring to’ question. And you certainly know how to spin, dodge, and weave, AND not answer my questions. Long rants of your supposed superior knowledge

Do you even realize that God the Father is a Spirit (Jn 4:23,24), that no man hath seen him? (the only BEGOTTEN Son, he hath declared him). The Christ is the image of the INVISIBLE God.

Paul, while on Mars hill made it plain that God is ‘not far from any one of us’. David declared that no matter where he would be, the highest heights or the deepest depths, “Thou art there”.

Paul again, saying: “One God (no comma) and Father of ALL, who is above ALL, and through ALL, and in you ALL”. Eph. 3:6

God is IN Christ. The Son declares it, as do the apostles and prophets. Jesus Christ is the audio and visual expression of God the Father (’the express image of the invisible God’). So much so, that the Son could say to Thomas: “from henceforth ye know him, and HAVE SEEN HIM”; and to Philip: “He that hath SEEN me, hath SEEN the Father”.

If you want the flesh of the Son to be God, then you should be praying to Mary, ‘the mother of God’ (maybe you do, although I thought you were a Calvinist).

**Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.**

The Son (remember, the one that God has ‘made both Lord and Christ’) was raised by the ‘glory of the Father’ (Rom. 6:4).
In these last days God speaks to us by his Son. The ‘I AM’, the ‘redeemer’, the ‘only true God’ is IN the Son.

**That makes no difference whether one receives the “Comforter” in time, who, by the way, you must acknowledge as God if you say it this way (you seem to deny this later in the post).**

The Comforter is the Holy Ghost, which PROCEEDETH FROM the Father. That’s why it’s called the Spirit of God, not God the Spirit. You go on and say you can produce verses all day that agree with the unscriptural ‘phrases ‘God the Son’ and ‘God the Holy Ghost’, yet only produce John 1:1, which is a declaration showing the source of the Word (the Christ expressing those words perfectly, because ‘he is in the Father, and the Father in him.

You brought up John 1:4, and I answer it with the Christ’s own explanation (”For as the Father hath LIFE in himself; SO hath he GIVEN to the SON to have LIFE in himself; and hath GIVEN him authority...”. John 5:26,27), to which you spin, and dodge.

You can’t separate the Father from his Word, no more than you can separate yourself from the words that you speak.

Jesus Christ declared throughout the book of John that EVERY single thing divine is sourced back to the Father. THE CHALLENGE IS FOR YOU: SHOW ME WHERE HE POSSESSSED ONE SINGLE DIVINE ATTRIBUTE THAT DID NOT COME FROM THE FATHER. SHOW ME ONE SINGLE DIVINE ATTRIBUTE THAT THE FATHER RECEIVED FROM THE SON.

It’s so simple, as Peter said: “God hath MADE this same Jesus both Lord and Christ”. God is the Father, who dwells in the Son without limit, which is how the Son of God has been given all power in heaven and in earth.

I’m convinced that you really don’t know who God the Father is. Ever learning, yet unable to answer these simple questions:
In the scriptures, neither Jesus Christ, nor the apostles ever used the phrase ‘God the Son’, only the ‘Son of God’. True or false?

The Almighty God is IN Jesus Christ without measure. That’s what he, and his apostles and prophets declare. True or False?

So, in John 17:1-3, when Jesus Christ calls the Father ‘the only true God’ is he speaking the truth?

When the Christ said that the Father is in him doing the works (Jn 14:10), was he telling the truth?

When Paul said in 1 Cor. 8:6: “But to us there is but one God, the Father, OF whom are all things, and we in him;(semi-colon) and one Lord Jesus Christ, BY whom are all things, and we by him.”, was he telling the truth?

“Actually, it is RCs who are always using posting a plethora of pages in servitude to Rome, using FR as a advertising and or promotional news and apologetics service for an elitist church. And a fools mouth calls for strikes (Prv. 18:6) so such arrogance calls for reproof. “

The context of my use of pack of wolves is the litany of FR bible thumbers that get listed in a post to me. I have never posted anything, there is just as much protestant stuff posted here except you guys have hundreds of divergent sects.

You wrote:

“Meaning since the Holy Spirit nowhere titles NT pastors “priests,” out of 150 times hiereus occurs, or shows them engaging in any uniquely sacrificial function, then you must resort to extraBiblical traditions of men.
As i said. Men presuming them know better than God. “

No, men who know a heck of lot more than you do. When you say, know better than God, that implies you read the Bible and you know what God says. That is the of sola scriptura married to sola my own ego!!! What exact Protestant sect do you belong to? My guess, it is one of 2 basic groups[the Calvinist or Arminians [spelling?]. On a related note, those 2 go at each other almost as bad as each go after the Catholics.

You wrote:

“Fatal error. According this logic, the magisterium must always be correct and followed, which effectively nukes the church and replaces it with one not of Scripture. Holding to Scripture, evangelicals have defended most strongly the fundamental truth we both agree on with Nicea, but which basis also requires contention against those which are not.”

I do accept the magisterium as the having the teaching authority. The Alternative is for me to list to who, you???? or maybe some redneck Pastor where I live???? Good grief.

You wrote:

” No it is not, as quite soberly your latter statement refers to membership in a cultic system in which, as explained, you are not to examine the Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching, but instead a faithful RC has one duty, which is to simply submit to leadership. Which as said, is not how the church began, and which can be explained further if desired. “

Yes it is. So we can play that game all night, You say No, I say yes, should we make a Beatles tune out of this?? Sort of like You say No and I say Yes {you say Hello and I say Goodbye]....Well, your view of cultic is your view, I reject it ex ante, I will not repeat what I already said on the subject,

As for heresies, again, every heresy starts with someone who thinks they Know better and it starts with someone thinking the Holy Spirit inspired them to interpret the Bible correctly. Every last one of them. From 16th Century, Protestantism at the “corporate level” so to speak has continued to fragment, and fragment, and fragment, and it will continue to do so.

Now to come back to Romans 15:16,my Catholic NAB, RSV and Navarre Bible, all translate it as “priestly service for the Gospel” . The Navarre Bible has Jerome’s Latin translation along with it and word used there is “oblatio” which is associated with a solemn offering to God in the context of a Liturgical service. The English word “Oblation” which was directly derived from Oblatio refers to an offering or sacrificial offering and the term refers to the gift to be offered and the act of offering at Mass. So, the “oblatio” [Preperation of the Gifts in modern English Catholic usage] would be the oblation which the priest presents to God, in his name and on behalf of the entire Church; these gifts [bread and wine] are which upon accepting them, God will give to us as the perfect oblation, Jesus Christ his son [taken from the Our Sunday Vistor’s New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 722, 1998 edition]

So Romans 15:16 in every Catholic Bible I have uses “priestly service of the Gospel” The Douah-Rheims uses “oblation” but I have already covered that given this translation is directly from Saint Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, which used “oblatio” which again is connected to a priest making an offering to God.

Paul again, saying: “One God (no comma) and Father of ALL, who is above ALL, and through ALL, and in you ALL”. Eph. 3:6

You are quoting Ephesians 4:6, you incompetent, nor is it speaking of the Father alone, but of "God." Your mistake is that you, who accuse me of separating the Godhead, are in fact the one separating the Godhead. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all the same God, not three different Gods. This same language is used of the Son, and also from Father to Son:

From 2 verses below the one you poorly cited:

Eph 4:10 He (Christ) that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.

Col 3:11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.

"But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions." And, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end." (Heb 1:8-12)

Notice that the Father not only calls Him God, but continues by declaring "You, Lord," that is, the Son whom He is still speaking with, "laid the foundations of the Earth..."

So much so, that the Son could say to Thomas: “from henceforth ye know him, and HAVE SEEN HIM”; and to Philip: “He that hath SEEN me, hath SEEN the Father”.... The Comforter is the Holy Ghost, which PROCEEDETH FROM the Father. That’s why it’s called the Spirit of God, not God the Spirit.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all coequal and living. The relationship is thusly: The Father begs from eternity; the Son is eternally begotten; the Holy Spirit proceeds from both. None are created, but all exist in this way from eternity.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made that was made." (John 1)

1Co 1:24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

There was never a time in which the Father did not have His wisdom and power, which is Christ Jesus.

The Father begets the Son from eternity, and in salvation He elects men from eternity, which the Son redeems in time. The Son is not the Father, nor does He claim to be the Father, but is always a distinct individual:

Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; 6:23; Phil. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1, 2; 1 Tim. 1:1, 2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Tit. 1:4; Phm. 3; James 1:1; 2 Peter 1:2; 2 John 3.

These are two persons, though one being. Not one being and person, and two objects with no will or personhood of their own. Christ declares that when you have seen me, you have seen the Father, because He is, as you confess, the image of the Father. However, the image of the Father is also God, His power, His wisdom, and His only begotten, uncreated: Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1; Titus 2:13; Acts 20:28; Rom 9:5; Heb 1:8; 2 Pet 1:8; 1 John 5:20; Heb 1:10 compared with Psalm 102; 1 Peter 2:3 compared with Psalm 34; 1 Pet 3:14-15 compared with Isaiah 8:12-13; Rev. 1:17, 22:13 compared with Isa. 44:6; 1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16; John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 3:14; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3; There has never been a time that the Father has not had a Son. The Son is not merely an "audio-visual" representation, but is the second member of the Trinity, hence He is both "with" God, and is God, and is in this role from the very beginning, hence He is eternal, and uncreated. The Holy Spirit is not an inanimate object, but is the third member of the trinity, proceeding from both the Father and Son. Hence the Spirit is called both the Spirit of God and of Christ:

Rom_8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Note again: The Holy Spirit is called both the Spirit of God and of Christ, because they are the same.

All three are active, performing their own unique roles in salvation, not one of them being an "it" or a mere "visual":

2Co_13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

And we are commanded to baptize in the name of all three, confirming their equality and personhood:

Mat_28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

If the Son and Holy Spirit are mere created beings, or even just objects, they would not be called God, nor would any one be baptized in their names in all equality.

Do you even realize that God the Father is a Spirit (Jn 4:23,24), that no man hath seen him?

And yet, the scripture explicitly declares that He has been seen, even in human form:

Gen 16:13; Gen 32:30; Exo 24:10-11, Exo 33:14, Exo 33:19-23; Num 12:8; Deu 5:24, Deu 34:10; Jdg 6:22-23, Jdg 13:21-22; Isa 6:5; Joh 1:18; 2Co 3:18, 2Co 4:6; Gal 1:6; Eph 1:17; Col 1:15; 2Ti 1:10; Heb 11:27.

The one seen in all these instances, therefore, must be the Son, who is the same God, while the Father remains invisible.

"He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." (Hebrews 1:3) Not only does the Father call the Son "God," but He is the visible representation of all His glory, and the Son "upholds the universe by the word of His power." Paul, while on Mars hill made it plain that God is ‘not far from any one of us’. David declared that no matter where he would be, the highest heights or the deepest depths, “Thou art there”.

This is a pointless statement. Christ is omnipresent, as the scripture teaches:

Matt. 18:20; 28:20; John 3:13; Eph. 1:23; 4:10; Col. 3:11

Consequently, this also makes Him God, as omnipresence is a divine attribute.

The Son (remember, the one that God has ‘made both Lord and Christ’) was raised by the ‘glory of the Father’ (Rom. 6:4).

This is in reference to Christ as man, who is made "both Lord and Christ." The Word is made flesh, but the Word is from the beginning, and is therefore eternal (John chapter 1). When Christ is risen up and placed above all things, He is returning to where He was before:

Joh_17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Christ is speaking of the power and authority He received from the Father as man in the giving of eternal life, not of that life and authority that He has as the "Almighty", who was "made flesh, and dwelt among us."

Christ is the "power and wisdom of God," and was with the Father "before the world was," and from "the beginning," and so, all things are indeed made by Him and through Him. Not only does this make Christ uncreated (He made all things, and nothing was made without Him), this also makes Christ God, since He is the creator.

In the scriptures, neither Jesus Christ, nor the apostles ever used the phrase ‘God the Son’, only the ‘Son of God’. True or false?

False, since Christ isn't just called the "Son of God," though the Pharisees understood this as declaring equality with God.

Joh_5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

My other verses I've listed reveal a great many things that Christ is called, including "The Mighty God," "The Word was God," and so on and so forth.

The Almighty God is IN Jesus Christ without measure. That’s what he, and his apostles and prophets declare. True or False?

More technically, the Holy Spirit is in Christ:

Luk_4:1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

But the Spirit is called the Spirit of God and Christ, if you recall.

So, in John 17:1-3, when Jesus Christ calls the Father ‘the only true God’ is he speaking the truth?

Christ also declares that only God is good:

Luk_18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

Is Christ good, true or false?

When the Christ said that the Father is in him doing the works (Jn 14:10), was he telling the truth?

Dr. Gill notes that the phrase is "expressive of the sameness of nature in the Father and the Son; of the Son's perfect equality with the Father, since the Son is as much in the Father, as the Father is in the Son."

Is the Son in the Father, true or false?

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.