Skip to comments.Did the Early Church Fathers Think That They Were Inspired Like the Apostles?
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. 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, 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. In addition the letter refers to the apostles as the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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. 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 authoritywhich is real and should be followedeven 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. 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 retrospectivethey looked back to that teaching which was delivered by the apostles.
 1 Clem. 47.1-3.
 1 Clem. 42.1-2.
 1 Clem 5.2.
 Magn. 7.
 Rom. 4.4.
 1 Apol. 39.
 Apol. 66.3.
 Haer. 3.1.1.
 Muratorian Fragment, 74.
Seems like the “Fathers” knew what was what before Rome “gave us the canon.”
I’d have a tough time taking their theology seriously if they weren’t.
The writings of the “Fathers” do not seem to reflect the ability of the Apostles both in style and substance. They are interesting in that many of them actually knew some of the Twelve. I am thinking in particular of St Polycarp who knew St. John The Divine. The story of Polycarp’s martyrdom already seems corrupted with an addition of a story of the miraculous. He really was martyred apparently in an arena before a ravening mob.
The “early church fathers” ARE the Apostles. Any guys after that are just guys.
quote “The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ”
Paul, who wrote most of the new testament never met Christ nor received any Gospel directly from him.
Mark and Luke were not original apostles...
“Paul, who wrote most of the new testament never met Christ nor received any Gospel directly from him.”
He did, it was just post-resurrection.
“11-12 The Gospel I preach to you is no human invention. No man gave it to me, no man taught it to me; it came to me as a direct revelation from Jesus Christ.
13-19 For you have heard of my past career in the Jewish religion, how I persecuted the Church of God with fanatical zeal and, in fact, did my best to destroy it. I was ahead of most of my contemporaries in the Jewish religion, and had a greater enthusiasm for the old traditions. But when the time came for God (who had chosen me from the moment of my birth, and then called me by his grace) to reveal his Son within me so that I might proclaim him to the non-Jewish world, I did not, as might have been expected, talk over the matter with any human being. I did not even go to Jerusalem to meet those who were Gods messengers before meno, I went away to Arabia and later came back to Damascus. It was not until three years later that I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and I only stayed with him just over a fortnight. I did not meet any of the other messengers, except James, the Lords brother.
20-24 All this that I am telling you is, I assure you before God, the plain truth. Later, I visited districts in Syria and Cilicia, but I was still personally unknown to the churches of Judea. All they knew of me, in fact, was the saying: The man who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy. And they thanked God for what had happened to me.”
Paul met Jesus and spoke to him when he was struck blind going to Damascus.
Read your bible. Paul met Christ on the road to Damascus, and received His Gospel by divine revelation.
Cyril of Jerusalem on Sola Scriptura:
Not even his own teachings, he teaches, if it cannot be shown out of the holy scriptures, should be accepted:
Have thou ever in your mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. (Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lecture 4, Ch. 17)
Tradition is the summarized knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testament and is not an extrabiblical invention of man:
But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to you by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it, and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper, but engraving it by the memory upon your heart , taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. I wish you also to keep this as a provision through the whole course of your life, and beside this to receive no other, neither if we ourselves should change and contradict our present teaching, nor if an adverse angel, transformed into an angel of light 2 Corinthians 11:14 should wish to lead you astray. For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that you have received, let him be to you anathema. Galatians 1:8-9 So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which you now receive, and write them on the table of your heart. (Ibid, Lecture 5, Ch. 12)
And your point?
Many think Mark wrote down what Peter preached.
Luke wrote down the accounts of the eyewitnesses.
The Apostle Paul regards Luke’s Gospel as scripture, and quotes it with equal weight with the writings of Moses.
1Ti_5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
Luk 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.
Deu_25:4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.
Who is Michael J. Kruger? A Protestant
Michael J. Kruger, President and Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC.
Interesting view. Especially when considering Christ’s words describing God the Father. Christ uses language that clearly demonstrate that the Father is superior .... yet ancient dogma, much of it influenced by dubious Emperors, has developed a super-biblical creeds through which all biblical understanding must conform.
So what RC writers hold that the writings of so-called church fathers were wholly inspired as Scripture was? And do they just the church more than the church judges them? And is God the author of infallible teachings of Rome as he is of Scripture?
Try to answer this time, rather than posting propaganda or pictures.
Many of them knew the Apostles so they got their information person to person, face to face.
I call that inspired Holy Tradition.
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; (Ephesians 2:19-20)
All of which were rebels against the magisterium, which, like Rome, thought of themselves above that which was written.
Who was it that whining about "propaganda?"
Then you have such examples of perverse reasoning and exegesis as that of no less than the Bible scholar Jerome:
The same Apostle in another place commands us to pray always. If we are to pray always, it follows that we [priests] must never be in the bondage of wedlock, for as often as I render my wife her due, I cannot pray...Now a priest must always offer sacrifices for the people: he must therefore always pray. And if he must always pray, he must always be released from the duties of marriage.
To be consistent, Jerome's logic is that a minister (which are never called priests as a distinct class) cannot wash, recreate, or engage in any like physical activity.
Yet in further seeking to use Scripture to support his skewed view of marriage, Jerome next invokes Genesis 2 and 7, arguing,
"This too we must observe, at least if we would faithfully follow the Hebrew, that while Scripture on the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days relates that, having finished the works of each, God saw that it was good, on the second day it omitted this altogether, leaving us to understand that two is not a good number because it destroys unity, and prefigures the marriage compact. Hence it was that all the animals which Noah took into the ark by pairs were unclean. Odd numbers denote cleanness. (Against Jovinianus, Book 1, Cps. 7,13,16,33; http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.I.html)
So much for sending out disciples by pairs, while having 3 -5 wives must be good.
Similarly, Augustine held a perverse view of marital relations, believing that Heb. 13:4 only means the marriage bed is not defiled if fornication and adultery or relations without the intent to procreate is avoided, and that marital intercourse could not be engaged in without sinful passions, though these were excused for Christians. In On Marriage and Concupiscence (Book I, cp. 27) he states,
Marriage is itself "honourable in all" Hebrews 13:4 the goods which properly appertain to it; but even when it has its "bed undefiled" (not only by fornication and adultery, which are damnable disgraces, but also by any of those excesses of cohabitation such as do not arise from any prevailing desire of children, but from an overbearing lust of pleasure, which are venial sins in man and wife), yet, whenever it comes to the actual process of generation, the very embrace which is lawful and honourable cannot be effected without the ardour of lust, so as to be able to accomplish that which appertains to the use of reason and not of lust....This is the carnal concupiscence, which, while it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate, yet in no case happens to nature except from sin. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm
Now, this ardour, whether following or preceding the will, does somehow, by a power of its own, move the members which cannot be moved simply by the will, and in this manner it shows itself not to be the servant of a will which commands it, but rather to be the punishment of a will which disobeys it. It shows, moreover, that it must be excited, not by a free choice, but by a certain seductive stimulus, and that on this very account it produces shame. This is the carnal concupiscence, which, while it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate, yet in no case happens to nature except from sin. It is the daughter of sin, as it were... http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xvi.v.xxvii.html
Similarly, Tertullian argued that second marriage, having been freed from the first by death,
will have to be termed no other than a species of fornication, partly based on the reasoning that such involves desiring to marry a women out of sexual ardor. (An Exhortation to Chastity, Chapter IX.Second Marriage a Species of Adultery, Marriage Itself Impugned, as Akin to Adultery; http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.vi.ix.html)
The reasoning here would easily extend to any gratification of the flesh, from eating chocolate to scratching a itch, yet, again, Scripture does not teach that the marriage bed is unclean, nor (by extension) that anything that gratifies the flesh must be sinful (cf. Col. 2)
The imbalanced tradition on marriage versus celibacy led to the belief that clergy were to be single and practice continence even if married, or single or widowed ones could never marry, yet married pastors with children was evidently the norm in the NT church, (1Tim. 3:1-7) with the only known single pastors being two traveling apostles, and who yet had the power to marry. (1Cor. 9:5)
And yet, in all our discussions, you've never once responded to simple verses like:
Isa_43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Isa_44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Sorry Teppe, but you won't find your polytheism in the scripture.
Paul spent 3 years with Jesus Christ...
Just because it took three years for Paul to reveal what had happened to him on the road to Damascus doesn't mean he spent three years living with Christ and learning from him.
I think if any such thing had happened we would have 100’s of quotes of what post resurrection Jesus said to him during those three years (while all we have are the quotes from what was said to him on the road to Damascus, which wasn't much).
But not a single direct quotation of anything Jesus personally said to Paul after the encounter on the road during that three year period is written in the bible.
Which brings me back to my original argument, what makes Paul's God inspired revelations any different or important than the millions of other people who have had revelations from God over the ensuing 2000 years?
“Which brings me back to my original argument, what makes Paul’s God inspired revelations any different or important than the millions of other people who have had revelations from God over the ensuing 2000 years? “
Paul’s were backed with miracles and with the recognition by the People of God that Paul was an Apostle who spoke the words of God. The other millions...well, we don’t even know their names.
Believe who you want. The church of Christ recognized Paul’s letters as scripture almost as soon as they were written.
**Paul spent 3 years with Jesus Christ... **
Where is that in the Bible?
Where is that in the Bible?
That conclusively proves you don't read the bible...Apparently all you do is read the talking points your religion puts out...And they don't bother to mention that salient point in your catechism...
Where is it in the Bible that Jesus was with Paul for three years?
Jesus had ascended into heaven.
YOPIOS on your part.
What makes the Gospel writer's quotes of what Jesus said of any relevance??? You think they are telling the truth more than Paul???
Peter never said the Gospels were scripture but he did say what Paul wrote was scripture...
But maybe then Peter didn't really exist...
Paul is first mentioned in the bible in the book of Acts.
Christ had already ascended into heaven and had sent the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.
Paul/Saul did not walk with Jesus.
Exactly! Well said!
Paul/Saul did not walk with Jesus.
I really don't mean to sound disrespectful but I can not believe your ignorance of scripture...Jesus spent 3 years personally being taught by and in the presence of the RISEN LORD, Jesus Christ...
The fact that no Bible verses are posted speaks volumes to me.
Why haven't any of the obviously God inspired writings (especially of protestants) of the greatest Christians of the last 2,000 years been added?
I’ll respond to them:
**Isa_43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.**
“My SERVANT whom I have CHOSEN..”
God was (and still is) IN Christ reconciling the world unto himself.
**Isa_44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.**
Sounds like the LORD of hosts is the REDEEMER of the LORD the king of Israel.......because:
“God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost”(which proceeds from the Father)”and with power....God was with him.....Him God raised up......ordained of God to be the Judge..”.
Jesus declared God the Father to be a Spirit (Jn 4:23,24), and that the Father dwells in him, and he in the Father (Jn 14). And that they are so inseparable that they are ‘one’(Jn 10:30). He declares the Father to be “the only true God” (Jn 17:1-3).
The Father dwells in EVERY cell of Christ’s body. How else could he walk right thru a wall?
The protestant affirmative about sola scriptura skips a beat when defining the Godhead, using unscriptural phrases such as “God the Son”, or “God the Holy Spirit”.
Since trinitarians believe the Son to be God, separate and distinct of God the Father, what parts of his body (apart from God the Father dwelling in him) are God.....the mind? the soul? the flesh?
One thing is for certain, if you say the ‘flesh’ is God (apart from the Father dwelling in him), then you are indeed consenting to Mary being the ‘mother of God’, for she had a part in producing what you affirm to be ‘God the flesh’.
Acts 1:3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.
**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.**
Very true. Jesus Christ did EVERYTHING divine under the instruction and power of the Father (Spirit) in him. As the Christ, during his first visit, was the mouthpiece of God the Father, he passed that earthly power and authority to his apostles by the baptism of the Holy Ghost (which proceeds from the Father).
Everytime you log into an online world and create a character to play and interact with in that online world, you are both yourself and that character.
So it is with God and Christ.
“Why haven’t any of the obviously God inspired writings (especially of protestants) of the greatest Christians of the last 2,000 years been added? “
Because there are not any?
“why protestants in particular exclusively use a book assembled by a group of catholics”
There was no Roman Catholic Church in 200AD. It came later, but the large bulk of the New Testament was accepted as scripture before 200 AD.
There was a Roman Catholic Church in 200 AD. There was also a Catholic Church in Antioch, Alexandria, and other major cities in the Mediterranean part of the Roman Empire. Of course, given your name is “Rogers” there was no such thing as Christianity in the places where American Protestants ancestors came from, such as Scotland, Wales, England, and Scandinavia.
There was a Church at Rome going back to the earliest days of Christianity. St. Paul preached in my Ancestral homeland of Sicily as well. Saint Ignatius of Antioch in circa 107 AD speaks of the Catholic Church and he clearly indicates there was a Church at Rome that presided in Love and mentions Saints Peter and Paul as being part of the Church of Rome.
It is more accurate to say there were no such things as Baptist, Pentecostal, Church of Church, Presbyterian churches at that time.
The Muratorian Fragment [written around 180AD], which the Protestant Scholar cites was compiled by the Church of Rome probably after the time during the time Pope Pius when he was Bishop of Rome [140 to 155 AD] as it mentions the Shepherd of Hermas as being written during that period.
The Church at Rome was Catholic and always has been since its inception.
Since your assertion is incomprehensible (how does Mormonism imagine a God of flesh and bone dwelling inside someone else?), I'll ignore it and point out that you didn't actually respond to the problem at hand: "Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."
Mormonism teaches the opposite, that before the Son was the Father, who has a physical human body, albeit "glorified," and before the Father was another Father. And after these two, you also shall be formed into "gods."
Sounds like the LORD of hosts is the REDEEMER of the LORD the king of Israel.......because:
I'm not sure what you are trying to say unless you are claiming that the Father "redeems" the Son. You and Teppe are biblical illiterates, but I shall help you. The speaker here is in fact Jesus Christ who is declaring that there is no other God beside Him. Compare with Christ's title in Revelation chapters 1 through 3, "I am the First and the Last," "Fear not, I am the first and the last, and finally:
Rev_1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. So back on topic. Christ here in Isaiah is declaring that there is no God beside Him. In fact, Christ even declares elsewhere that He is ignorant of any other God even existing:
"Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." (Isa 44:8).
This destroys Mormonism, since it teaches that there are an unlimited number of gods in the universe, and plenty are right next to him too, if you include the harem of goddesses.
“There was a Roman Catholic Church in 200 AD.”
No. There was not a church that taught what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. Even past 400 AD, the “Pope” was not thought of as Pope. Shoot, arguably the Orthodox have the real claim to continuity, with the Roman Catholics breaking off to follow their earthly leader.
Scripture gets posted here on FR by the thousands...I don't recollect you responding to much of any scripture...I can only assume you ignore scripture when it's posted...
You've got to be kidding...PolyCarp was as Protestant as they come...There wasn't a Catholic bone in his body...
We are all aware of the countless forgeries perpetrated by your religion when it comes to its written history...It's more than just a little weird when it's clear the early church fathers were scripture alone adherents and yet we see little tidbits of Catholicism thrown in to obviously gain some foothold...
You take out all the Catholic forgeries from Ignatius, he sounds pretty Protestant to me...
**I’ll ignore it**
As before, you skate right over John 17:1-3, where Jesus Christ speaks of the Father as ‘the one true God’. Again ignoring that Jesus Christ declares that he is IN the Father, and the Father IN him (because the Father is a Spirit. Jn 4:23,24).
EVERY place in the scriptures, such as Isaiah, where the Christ speaks with the authority of the ‘only true God’, it is because the Father is in him, just as he confirms it many places in the gospel of John.
Why would one person of God need to be redeemed by another person of God?
**Rev_1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.**
The Son was GIVEN all power in heaven and in earth. How...because, as the Christ said, the Father is IN him. The Almighty God dwells limitless in Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ dwells IN the limitless God.
**(how does Mormonism imagine a God of flesh and bone dwelling inside someone else?),**
That’s teppe’s problem, if he/she is mormon. Jesus Christ said that God the Father is a Spirit (Jn 4:23,24)
bonus question: Did the Son inherit his name?
So where does it say in Scripture that Jesus was with Paul for three years?
I’m not talking about possibly Paul standing in the audience while Jesus was teaching, for Paul’s name doesn’t even appear until the book of Acts.
The first pope didn't show up until around 600 AD...They didn't even know what a pope was until then...There was no single bishop in charge of all the churches...Many bishops existed...
There is no successor for Peter in the scriptures while there are successors for the apostle Paul...Peter's ministry kind of went by the wayside as far as bible history goes...
**create a character**
You answered what I’m asserting, because you have to make the visible image:
God the Father is a Spirit (Jn 4:23,24). Jesus Christ is God the Father’s firstborn of creation (Eph 1:15). God has in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, who he has appointed heir of all things. God even gave him a name, and ‘Son’ is a title, not a name.
God the Father, the Almighty God, dwells without measure (all power and authority) IN Jesus Christ, and John 14 testifies in depth of that fact.