Were The Early Church Fathers Divinely Inspired?

[AJB4]

I'm just wondering, how available do the Orthodox believe the NT to be, in the early times of Christianity. I believe to be very limited availability because of illiteracy, and lack of mass-production, so it would have made sense that in a time of great need (if it had not have been for spirit-guided church fathers, hand-picked and taught by the 12 Apostles, the teachings and traditions of the early church would not have survived for very long at all). Until the canon was decided in the 3rd century or so, and methods of mass-production were available, the NT would not have been very available AT ALL.

I'll copy and paste a post I made on RM about this:

1) Back then, as they had the word-of-mouth from the Apostles and Jesus himself, and there was not as much need for the Bible as they had the sources living at that time readily available to teach them things. On the other hand, after Jesus and the Apostles died, as the Bible would not have been largely available to most of the Christian world (until methods of easy mass-production were invented). Another interesting observation made by an article I read on an Orthodox website was that a good lot of the people at that time were uneducated, and were illiterate. Only a select few people were actually able to read. Now, as the direct sources had died, there would have to have been something to preserve the teachings that would have been lost before too long if something wasn't done. It would have made sense to me that the spirit guided certain men handpicked by the Apostles to preserve the teachings and traditions of the early church, because it was a time of great need, as the NT would have been largely unavailable for people to read after word-of-mouth from Jesus and the Apostles had expired because:

A) The circulation of the NT would have been extremely limited, because there was no mass-production, and everything would have to have been painfully written out by hand to cater to the many, many churches that would have been established by the time both Jesus and the Apostles had died.

B) Since most people were probably illiterate and unable to read, they would have needed word-of-mouth from the Apostles and Jesus to know what to do anyway. Only wealthy people back then got an education (if I remember correctly). There were no schools or anything that taught literacy back then.

And so, the spirit, in a time of extremely limited knowledge of the truth, and a crucial time in the growth of Christianity, the spirit guides certain men (the early church fathers), hand-picked and taught by the Apostles, to carry on the traditions and teachings of the early church, until the time when the Bible was able to be mass-produced, so people could read the truth for themselves. It makes perfect sense to me.

Also, though recognized by Christ as a disciple of his, Paul was not one of the spirit-guided 12 Apostles anyway. The 12 Apostles were Peter, Andrew, James, John, Phillip, Thomas, Matthew, Bartholomew, James (the less), Simon, Theddeus, and Judas (Matthias took Judas' place). They would have been the spirit-guided ones. Paul was a Christian, a disciple, but not a spirit-guided Apostles. It makes sense that the church in Galatians did not stop their apostacy at his bidding (not that there's any evidence that they didn't.)

I'd appreciate your views.

 

[repentant]

The Father's who kept with the teachings, yes.

 

[buzuxi02]

I agree with the above poster Repentant. And to add my two cents:

The Apostolic Traditions is what are divinely inspired as presented in Scripture, the Creed, Dogmas defined in the Ecumenical Councils, Canonical Iconography, the 7 Sacraments etc.

Why is scripture (NT) divinely inspired? Because the Church Fathers in Laodicea in 363 a.d. accepted them as authentic accounts.

Why did they accept those books and not others?

Because those were the books that the bishops at the council agreed with. While Alexandria may have considered the gospel to the egyptians as canonical, a bishop from Antioch may have found certain parts of its contents to be spurious or never taught by them, this would make it inappropriate for the universal church.

Only those books that agreed with the teachings of ALL the bishops of apostolic churches became our modern day new testament.
The NT had to bear witness to the traditions taught by the bishops spread thru out the world not the other way around. If a book taught something that the majority of bishops did not recognize, that book was labeled apocrypha (hidden) another words ,it may have been true but even if it was true, then its an unrevealed truth and inappropriate, best kept as a pious opinion, if the Holy Spirit wants it revealed to the rest of the church it will do so and be gladly accepted. If its heresy and does not die out then the Holy Spirit will guide Her Church in a council where the false belief will be condemned and right belief established and clarified if neccesary.

 

[Dewi Sant]

Was Paul divinely inspired?

precisely

 

[MichaelNZ]

The Didache (the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) was actually considered for inclusion in the New Testament. It's worth a read.

 

[Dewi Sant]

It is a wonderful read, though, it is somewhat different in genre from the epistles.

Still, if it had been added, would the church be fragmented?

 

[gorion]

I always reserve the right to be wrong.

With that said I have a problem with the logic that the Spirit of God moved certain men because of the lack of education and mass printing. I would suppose then there would be no need for the Spirit to continue his work. After all education is prevelant and certainly there are no shortages of bibles that I am aware of.

I believe the Spirit of God continues to fill and inspire people to this very day.

 

[AJB4]

I always reserve the right to be wrong.

With that said I have a problem with the logic that the Spirit of God moved certain men because of the lack of education and mass printing. I would suppose then there would be no need for the Spirit to continue his work. After all education is prevelant and certainly there are no shortages of bibles that I am aware of.

I believe the Spirit of God continues to fill and inspire people to this very day.

Of course there's be no need today, because there's mass-production. Back then, it's impossible they were largely available. Lack of education, no mass-production. I don't think that the Holy Spirit would leave people out on their own in a time when it wouldn't have been available. Had it not been for the early church fathers, today, we would all be Hindu's probably, and Christianity would be considered a first-century cult that died out quickly after it's initial followers had died.

 

[gorion]

Of course there's be no need today, because there's mass-production. Back then, it's impossible they were largely available. Lack of education, no mass-production. I don't think that the Holy Spirit would leave people out on their own in a time when it wouldn't have been available. Had it not been for the early church fathers, today, we would all be Hindu's probably, and Christianity would be considered a first-century cult that died out quickly after it's initial followers had died.

I'm sorry but the logic makes no sense. Which bible is the inspired infallible word of God? RSV, NIV, KJV, The Message etc. etc.?

They all neither contain the same number of verses nor the same number of books and do not even agree on the same verses they do contain. The spirit continues to lead us into all truth, preserves the faith in his church and inspires people to write invaluable works until this day. If we were left only to our bibles without the Spirit of God doing what he does we would have a ton of churches preaching different messages and no established truth.

 

[choirfiend]

It is the ENTIRE Church which is responsible for the preservation of Christianity in its true form because CHrist is the Head and the Holy Spirit leads it. ECFs are just one portion of the Church.

 

[Protoevangel]

Which bible is the inspired infallible word of God? RSV, NIV, KJV, The Message etc. etc.?

You are not suggesting that Holy Scripture is not the inspired infallible word of God, are you?

Is it not our subjective interpretations of Holy Scripture, which Christ Himself called God's word (Mark 7:13, John 10:35), that is neither inspired nor infallible? However bad my translation or interpretation, however I may number the verses, that takes not a bit away from either God, nor from His word. Equally, if Joe does not recognize Tobit, that takes nothing away from Isaiah, nor in truth, does it take a thing away from Tobit). I would suggest that Holy Scripture is indeed the word of God, and both inspired and infallible as interpreted by the Church - which is truly the Body of Christ, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Headship of Christ Himself.

Agreed, that we must distance ourselves from the "Biblical fundamentalist" error, which truly, is neither Biblical nor fundamental... But we must also ensure that we do not go too far when denouncing that error, and thereby endorse another equally erroneous position.

Then again, if I misunderstood you, please forgive my presumption. I should be here to learn, not to lecture.

 

[Michael G]

The Didache (the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) was actually considered for inclusion in the New Testament. It's worth a read.

As were the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch.

 

[gorion]

To clarify the scriptures are indeed the inspired word of God. No doubt about it.

However, lately that is applied to all of today's translations of the scriptures. Which simply cannot be true unless God is schizophrenic. If you have ever read "the message" you will know exactly what I mean. If I just read that to someone and not tell them what I was reading they would never guess it was teh bible. It is also this idea that has created the Buffet of churches that are available today. Just grab an amplified bible and you can have the scriptures say whatever you like.

So the idea that God through his Spirit only inspired people to write until we had a printing press and public education seems a little far fetched to me. There are writings throughout the entire history of the church up until even today that certainly can be considered inspired.

 

[repentant]

As were the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch.

I can just imagine if both the Didache and letter's of St. Ignatius were in SCripture..I wonder if things would be different now...? But who knows, maybe the Protestants would have thrown those books out to, just like they did the Septuagint..

 

[Protoevangel]

To clarify the scriptures are indeed the inspired word of God. No doubt about it.

Cool. Just checking.

 

[Knowledge3]

In my personal view,for a person converting to EO, knowledge the ECF's is crucial to developing a non-heretic view of the God and the Holy Trinity. Who did the ECF's point to? The Orthodox/Catholic Holy Fathers, who did the Holy Fathers point to? The Apostles, and the Apostles to Christ.

St. Gregory Palamaas, an Orthodox Saint who developed the heyschastic tradition within Orthodoxy and considers solitary and noetic heyschasm to be of utmost importance in reaching the final stage of theosis.

 

[AJB4]

In my personal view,for a person converting to EO, knowledge the ECF's is crucial to developing a non-heretic view of the God and the Holy Trinity. Who did the ECF's point to? The Orthodox/Catholic Holy Fathers, who did the Holy Fathers point to? The Apostles, and the Apostles to Christ.

St. Gregory Palamaas, an Orthodox Saint who developed the heyschastic tradition within Orthodoxy and considers solitary and noetic heyschasm to be of utmost importance in reaching the final stage of theosis.

I thought the Catholic/Orthodox Fathers and the ECF's were the same people.

 

[choirfiend]

Yea, they kinda are. Its just a general term to describe the writings of the members/clergy of the Church from the first century onward.

 

[Akathist]

The Father's who kept with the teachings, yes.

would we actually call them Father's of the Church if they did not keep to the teachings of the Church?

 

[Akathist]

Christ is the Word of God. The bible is teachings about God (which of course includes the teachings of Christ). We greatly honor the Bible in that it contains the Truth about those teachings. As an Orthodox Christian, I read the bible, but I literally consume Christ.

However, we do not honor just any bible. I agree that paraphrased "bibles" such as "The Message" and other "translations" have teachings that are so completely against the Traditions of the Orthodox Church and contradict earlier more origional translations of the Bible. Therefore, I do not believe that these translations or paraphrases are "inspired" by God.

That said, my own bibles are the "Revised Standard" (earlier version), "New King James" and the "Jerusalem Bible" (earlier version as well.) All of these are later translations then the ECF's used. I rely upon the assistance of my Priest and the writings of Orthodox authors who have studied the Early Church Father's but who also come from the perspective of what the EO Church as a whole maintains to be the interpretation of scripture.

The Church is the fullness of faith, the deposit of faith which ever you prefer. It is the body of the Church that maintains our beliefs and I strongly believe that the Holy Spirit works best within this larger group of people then just within individuals.