Are the church fathers divinely inspired? How much authority do they have vis-à-vis the original apostles?

Is anyone going to interact with my post?

I think they all have you on Ignore.

Just didn't see it before. No, they're not inspired, but they are some of the best interpreters of the meaning of apostolic teaching.

Which particular church fathers are you enquiring about vinny213 ?

doesn't matter... none of them were

Or are now!

true...if they weren't then, how could they be now... we don't look to them as if they are...but as Father says, who better to know and understand apostolic teaching than those who were with them or had very little time pass between the apostolic era and their existence

I would certainly grant more weight to the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyon, Origen and their other contemporaries than I ever would such as the likes of Finnis Jennings Dake.

We are, of course. There is a significant advantage in having their words in writing so you can study what they actually said. Besides, there's a lot of evidence in the NT itself that the people the apostles directly taught made lots of mistakes. 1 and 2 Corinthians is full of Paul reexplaining things. In Galatians Paul is absolutely shocked that churches would so quickly abandon the truth. I think that's rather telling. You all act as if you'd be SHOCKED for the CFs to get it wrong. But we have precedent for that already. Likewise, Colossians is written to correct basic errors. And what about both Thessalonians? Probably some of the earliest letters. What were they mistakes those churches were making? They were confused about the second coming of Christ, and what is more fundamental than that (well, the crucifixion and resurrection, but we'll get to that in just a second). So Paul had to remind them of those very basic truths. Well maybe they had it figured out by the end of his ministry, right? All three of the pastoral epistles have Paul insisting on the need to fight heresy. But where does all this heresy come from? The whole assumption here is that those closest to the apostles have the purer gospel. So what gives?

Maybe it was just Paul being a poor teacher, ya know? Surely Peter himself would have done better. And yet in the account Paul gives us Peter denied the gospel along with the rest of the Judaizers until Paul called him on to the carpet (and it wasn't just Peter. Even Barnabas got carried away with it.) Now, really, if the apostles themselves couldn't keep it straight and let themselves fall into error, then why should we expect the CFs to have it so much easier?!? But that was just a fluke right? We can only wish. Sadly, 1 and 2 Peter aren't exactly written as encouragement and praise for all the things the churches are doing right. Once again, Peter is having to correct the churches against false doctrine. But, again, this shouldn't really surprise us. I mean, Paul talked over everybody's head being too brilliant and Peter had permanent foot-in-mouth-disease. The real author we should be looking at is John. Surely his churches and his disciples got it right!

Right . . . so basically he spends all of his letters fighting protognosticism. The ideas that he was facing are ridiculous . . . that Christians don't have any sin, that Jesus didn't come in the flesh after all and so didn't die (btw, that reminds me of the error Paul had to deal with about the very resurrection itself in 1 Cor 15!), and so on. I mean, really. These people can't even get the incarnation and crucifixion of Jesus right. But they had a face-to-face relationship with John. Yet even though they "were with [him]or had very little time pass between the apostolic era and their existence," they made some of the worst possible mistakes.

And that takes us to the Revelation. I mean, maybe all of those were just problem churches. We don't hear about how everybody got it right because we only got the letters about those who got it wrong! Only when you look at the seven letters to the seven churches, Jesus condemns all but one of them were in trouble for either outright heresy or failing to live out their apostolic faith (which in turn points to a misunderstanding of it on some level).

So on every level, I just don't see any truth to the claim that the first interpreters closest to the apostles would have been the best interpreters. On the contrary, I see lots of evidence against the claim the in text itself. And then there's just regular human history and my own experience. I've been misunderstood a time or two, as I bet you have, and that by my students. I've misunderstood others. Human history is filled with students misinterpreting or misapplying their teacher's words. And yet, despite all that, and despite all the problems of the first century church when the apostles were actually on the scene to correct the mistakes (and when they themselves were making some of those mistakes!), you honest expect me to accept the claim that suddenly in the second through fourth centuries that things suddenly just got better? That people starting getting it right? Really? Sorry, that just strains credulity.

I'd rather just take the text as it is written rather than what someone says it means, especially when what they say it means directly contradicts the actual words that the apostles themselves wrote.

isn't that the problem with protestantism though...they place so much store in what they believe the text says as it is written (placing their own bias in that reading) that they obscure the real meaning... John 6, John 20 and any of the gospels with the Words of Consecration in them should necessarily be enough for all protestants to convert to the True Church of our Lord ... somehow it doesn't work that way... wonder why?

Of course that isn't the problem. Go to any bank or court and use that line to try to argue why you shouldn't have to pay your mortgage, that the text of your contract doesn't actually mean what it says. It's such a ridiculous claim. But beyond that, your defense, such as it is, both begs the question (by assuming "the real meaning") and puts forward a self-defeating claim (that reading the text as it is written is to place your own bias in it) regardless and so really isn't much of counter-argument, anyway.

As far as why John 6 and John 20 don't work to convert Protestants to your church, there are two reasons:

1. Those texts don't say what you say they do; and
2. The issue isn't with the interpretation of those texts regardless. Even if I believed in transubstantiation, I still wouldn't and couldn't be Catholic because the fundamental claim of your church is self-defeating (you impugn reason by reason and ask us by reason to accept what your church says, but what your church says can only be accepted and understood by this same impugned reason).

In short, I reject the authority of your church on biblical grounds (your church teaches things in direct violation of Scripture), philosophical grounds (your church makes self-refuting claims about its authority), and historical grounds (heresy was in the church from the earliest days proving that proximity to the apostles was no guarantee of purity, and in fact, once the apostles left the scene, we see in the development of your church the very legalistic and judaising tendencies we see Paul opposing in the NT texts).

On the other hand, given the eisogetical nature of your church's claims, I COULD ask "isn't that the problem with Catholicism though...they place so much store in what they believe the text says as the church interprets it (placing their own bias in that reading) that they obscure the real meaning... John 3:16, John 6:47, John 20:31 and any of the gospels with the promise that whoever believes has everlasting life in them should necessarily be enough for all Catholics to convert to the True Church of our Lord ... somehow it doesn't work that way... wonder why?"



Actually, I'm more interested in your take on the fact that you seem to think that those earliest to the apostles should have been the best interpreters when the NT itself shows that they were actually pretty bad at it, and in light of that, why I ought to trust even later interpreters who didn't have the apostles around to keep pointing them back to what they actually said . . .

How do you know this? On what do you base your opinion/belief/claim that they are some of the best interpreters of the meaning of apostolic teaching? By what standards are you making that judgment? Is your claim not tautological?

They articulated many beliefs that the Church holds to be true. The Holy Trinity for one, a doctrine that was voraciously challenged in the Church back then, and still is by some odd splinter groups today. I'll leave more extensive answers to the professionals.

The reason why John 3:16, 6:47, 20:31 doesn't affirm protestant interpretation is because the word "alone" is conspicuously absent, and that there are as many verses which describe additional things by which we obtain everlasting life (which of course presuppposes the act of believing) and by which ignoring them and/or jettisoning them makes the act of believing itself pointless and fruitless.

As for your "grounds" for rejecting the Church's authority I don't see reasons as much as I see rationalizations. There are at least as many people who are certainly scholars of all of the disciplines you mention and who are at least your equal in both knowledge and intellect. Yet they profess to be sons and daughters of God and the Church.

So what makes your opinion greater or carry more weight than theirs?

The word "alone" isn't necessary when making categorical propositions.

"All the X are Y" means just that. All the X are Y. If there is an X that is not Y, then you don't get to claim that the sentence is still true because it didn't have the word "alone" in it.

Beyond that, I'm not terribly interested in appeals to authority. Although I appreciate your irony of trying to go that route.

Are you really challenging the notion that your friends and even family members know more about you and what you said and what you mean by what you've written than someone who comes along 2000 years after the fact?



By just about every standard of historical and theological scholarship.

A better question is how do you suppose that someone who lives during the 21st century has better or more special knowledge of the Apostles than those who sat at the Apostles feet?

I do when you're trying to make the claim that the "act of believing" is the only thing within the set known as "X" when there are certainly other things within "X" which your theology arbitrarily excludes.




But that's all that you have done in that your entire objection of the Church hinges on an appeal to authority, namely your presumed authority.

So I ask again, what makes your opinion greater or carry more weight than theirs?

What makes your opinion greater or carry more weight than the Church Fathers?

Time may be a factor in that Scripture says eventually there will come a time when every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Or the statue in the Book of Daniel that is slowly replaced by the mountain ... But as for time improving or hindering the ministry of the HS on an individual basis... I dont see the correlation. Judas was at ground zero. He didnt get it. Same with the Pharisees/ Sanhedrin/ Roman Govt in Jerusalem and most of the Jews in Jerusalem. ("Jerusalem oh Jerusalem") Jesus taught that the sower goes out to sew the seed. It is the condition of the soil that affects the growth. Paul did his assigned job in his generation, just as sowers do in every generation. It is the receivers that facilitate or hinder the growth.

Proverbs 8: 1 Does not wisdom call, And understanding lift up her voice? 2 On top of the heights beside the way, Where the paths meet, she takes her stand.

That which affects/ moves truth to respond is focus in the exercising of faith. That strategy works effectively no matter the time/ generation. Brother Lawrence of the Resurrection practiced it as well as John the Apostle could have ever instructed ...and Brother Lawrence achieved his relationship simply by listening to the HS as he instructed Brother Lawrence in his heart...nothing more. In fact Brother Lawrence said that outside influences only served to hinder his communion with the HS. God is no respecter of persons in any generation. If the desire and focused commitment of the heart is there... The Spirit of God will nurture and honor and reward that heart.

The Jack wrote:



"But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." 1Tim2:15

It would seem that women are not saved by faith alone