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.
“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.
Mr Rogers:
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**
That’s convenient.
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.
You're entitled to your opinion.
I found his letter to the Phillipians. It's brief, but reflects sound doctrine. There is mention of presbyters (priests) and deacons, if you're looking for something particularly Catholic.
Matthew, chapter 16
Peter’s Confession about Jesus.*
13h When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi* he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
14i They replied, “Some say John the Baptist,* others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16* j Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood* has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18k And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19l I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
20* m Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.
CHAPTER 16
The Commissioning of the Eleven.
14h [But] later, as the eleven were at table, he appeared to them and rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they had not believed those who saw him after he had been raised.
15i He said to them, “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature.
16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.
17These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons, they will speak new languages. 18They will pick up serpents [with their hands], and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them. They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”j
John, chapter 21
« Acts »
CHAPTER 21
Jesus and Peter.*
15When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter,* “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”* He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
16He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
17He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” [Jesus] said to him, “Feed my sheep.i
18* Amen, amen, I say to you,j when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.”
19He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.”
About Catholics and scripture:
There ARE sucessors for ALL of the apostles, including Peter.
Catholics meanwhile were discouraged from reading Scripture.
Finally...A Catholic publication willing to be honest enough to admit that Catholics were taught to avoid the bible...
I am glad to see that position changing...
Not in the scriptures, there aren't...
Wouldn't it seem to you that if Peter was the top dog, a successor for him would have been named in the scriptures??? Why does Paul have successors but not Peter???
Proves I am RIGHT!
I didn't "skate" over them. They don't prove that Jesus isn't God at all, and they do not negate the passages that show that Jesus is God and that your Mormon polytheism is ruled out.
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.
This is merely your assertion. None of your passages explicitly say this, while my passages explicitly call Christ "Almighty" or the "First and the Last," and it is stupid to claim that there can be two "Almighties" or two "First and Lasts." When you find a passage that explicitly says "Christ is only worshipped as God, is only called almighty like God, is only called God, and only speaks as God, because He's not really God but has God in Him (like all of us do)" then you may bleat about it. Until then, you've got nothing to offer.
By the way, are you actually Mormon? Your arguments are different than theirs. FR has many different cults operating.
Read it...Far, far more times that you, I'd bet...
I don't know what you think you see in those scriptures you posted but there is absolutely nothing there that indicates Peter was a pope, or the leader of anything...
In the history of Bible studies among Catholics?
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.