Did Early Christians Believe the Bible was Inspired, Inerrant, and Authoritative?

Therefore, whatever He [Christ] wanted us to read concerning His words and deeds, He commanded the disciples, His hands, to write. Hence, one cannot but receive what he reads in the Gospels, though written by the disciples, as though it were written by the very hand of the Lord Himself….For it seems to me that most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books.(7)

​If we are perplexed by any apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, the author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. (8)

Daniel Hawkins

8/8/2017 06:15:03 pm

Hi,

I just have a couple of points regarding the Church Fathers’ view of inspiration.

That they viewed the scriptures (although what they viewed as scripture may vary from Father to Father due to the continuing formation of the canon in the first few centuries of Christianity) as inspired is something we can wholeheartedly agree on. However, they also viewed things outside the scriptures as inspired.

For example, Clement of Rome, whom you cite, writes in 1 Clement 59:1, “But if certain persons should be disobedient unto the words spoken by Him through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger;” Here Clement is implicating that his writings too are inspired and are authoritative, although you will not find the writings of Clement in the biblical canon today. He writes again in 1 Clement 63:2, “For ye will give us great joy and gladness, if ye render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, and root out the unrighteous anger of your jealousy, according to the entreaty which we have made for peace and concord in this letter.” In this citation Clement explicitly states that what he (as part of the us) is writing is written through the Holy Spirit.

Clement of Alexandria also writes in Stromata 6.17.157, “the thoughts of virtuous men are produced through the inspiration of God,” which is similar to other statements he makes regarding the orthodox statements of philosophers on the existence of only one God.
Gregory of Nyssa, in Apologia in Hexaemeron (PG 44:61), describes his brother Basil’s commentary on Genesis as “an inspired exposition…[admired] no less than the words composed by Moses himself.” What is even more interesting about this example is that Gregory specifically uses the greek word theopneuston, the same used in 2 Timothy 3:16 as the core of the modern evangelical doctrine of inspiration. This word was also used to describe the inscription on the tomb of bishop Abercius Marcellus which he composed before his death (Life of Abercius 76), indicating that this word was not solely reserved for only the canonical documents.
Augustine wrote in Epist. 82.2 that Jerome writes under the command of the Holy Spirit, with his wisdom and insight supplied by God in order to aid those dealing with theological issues.

As a result, the issue is not the inspiration of the scriptures, which is agreed upon by the Fathers, but rather what the scope of inspiration. While the scriptures are inspired, what is inspired is not necessarily limited to the scriptures (nor is what they viewed as scriptures necessarily limited to the canon we have today, but that is another discussion for another day). So in some ways, while a belief in the inspiration of scripture is indeed not something new, the way it is often portrayed by evangelicals is. Inspiration is often viewed as the sole reason the documents we have in the canon are seen as authoritative, when in reality the formation of the canon was a much more dynamic process that involved a writing’s apostolic origins, orthodoxy, antiquity, and widespread use. Scripture’s authority does not merely rest on its inspiration, but also on the canonization process that recognized the importance of certain documents to the universal church.

I can wholeheartedly agree with your final statement regarding the Fathers’ deep love and admiration for Scripture. However, they did not have so narrow a view of inspiration as many modern evangelicals seem to have.

I can only recommend reading “A High View of Scripture?” by Dr. Craig Allert who discusses the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy as well as the formation of the canon in relation to the Church Fathers if you are interested in learning more.

Alisa Childers

8/8/2017 07:54:15 pm

Hi Daniel, thanks for your comments. In reference to their own works, both Clements were speaking of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that is common among all believers. In fact, the Fathers were continually differentiating themselves from the Apostles. Many stated outright that they were not Apostles, and should not be thought of on that same level.

Regarding the formation of the canon, even though it wasn’t officially recognized until later, there was already a limited canon by the time of Clement of Rome, with Paul’s letters being referred to authoritatively. I’ll refer you to the work of Dr. Michael Kruger for more on this…

Daniel Hawkins

8/8/2017 08:25:34 pm

In some regard I would agree with your first point. The Fathers did hold to the inspiration of all believers. However, in the example I cited from 1 Clement 62.2, Clement is not simply referring to this inspiration of all believers. He is making the same claim about his current letter to the Corinthians being inspired as he did of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians in 1 Clement 47.3.

Indeed, the Fathers did often deny that they were apostles, such as Ignatius who states, “I do not order you as did Peter and Paul; they were Apostles, I am a convict.” (To the Romans 4.3) However, later in that same letter, he writes “I write to you not according to the flesh, but according to the mind of God.” (To the Romans 8.3) To summarize the importance of this I will quote Dr. Allert in his book:

“Even though Ignatius sets the apostles apart from himself as a bishop, he can still make the authoritative appeal to having the ‘mind of God’ (gnomen theou) in what he writes. Thus, even though Ignatius plays down his authority in some places he still expects his readers to accept what he writes as authoritative.” (A High View of Scripture?, p. 62)

Finally, while there were certainly authoritative writings by the time of Clement of Rome, as was demonstrated above, many scholars would highlight that speaking of a canon prior to the second half of the fourth century is anachronistic, as it was only in the fourth century when a clear attempt emerged to limit the New Testament and explicitly call it canonical. Much of the confusion surrounding this point also comes when we begin to equate canon and scripture. There were many documents used by the early church that were considered “scripture,” but did not make it into the canon later for various reasons such as lack of antiquity or widespread use in the church (even though they were seen as inspired).

I guess what I am getting at is that inspiration is not a possession of the canonical books alone, but in the early church was highly synonymous with orthodoxy.

I will look into the work of Dr. Kruger.

Alisa Childers

8/8/2017 09:45:04 pm

I think you’ll like Kruger. His model of canon is the one I hold to as well. His Canon class is available online for free here: http://subsplash.com/reformtheosem/s/xjduvb5

Also, here’s a little article I wrote that certainly isn’t exhaustive, but outlines a bit of the general approach:

http://www.alisachilders.com/blog/when-was-the-new-testament-considered-scripture-5-facts-that-point-to-an-early-canon

Thanks for your comments!

David

8/15/2017 10:06:16 pm

First of all, I’d like to say that you remind me very much of Ravi Zacharias in the way you construct your assertions and identify the philosophical underpinnings. Please keep your posts and podcasts coming – they are full of wisdom.

One point worth noting – and I don’t intend this as a criticism – is that Origen is associated strongly with universalism. He may have gotten other doctrines correct, but his teaching about salvation unfortunately represents a horrific departure from truth. It serves as an example of the principle that a church father, or any church leader, is only correct insofar as the doctrine is consistent with Scripture. I suspect the church fathers you mentioned, except for Origen, would agree.

Alexa Cramer

7/22/2020 03:34:00 pm