[Crimian]

I've been reading about the formation of the canon lately, and have been unable to find any good sources on what the early church fathers thought "divine inspiration" implied. If anyone could provide me with any information about that, whether its a link or a book suggestion or anything in between, it would be greatly appreciated.

[Pixel_bro]

I imagine it was more to do with what went in line with their view (which established the basis of the canon, and they justified by calling it "divine inspiration" (regardless of whether they believed that or not)) and from there simply anything that went inline with that and didn't contradict it/them.

Unfortunately, they were very politically motivated times.

This post has been edited by Pixel_bro: 23 September 2009 - 04:44 PM

[Crimian]

Well, I've been looking into the formation of the canon, and the general guidelines they used, and have so far found that "divine inspiration" was a requirement for something to be considered canonical, but not an assurance that it would be. That brought up the question in my mind over how, exactly, they defined "divine inspiration" for themselves (and I doubt they all had the same definition). Regardless of their motivations for proclaiming something to be divinely inspired, I'm more interested in finding out what they meant (or, at the very least, claimed to mean) by that.

[Pixel_bro]

Directly inspired by God (or perhaps even indirectly), having to deal with God's nature, I would imagine.

This post has been edited by Pixel_bro: 23 September 2009 - 06:12 PM

[JadesFire]

"Would imagine" is not a valid explanation in an historical inquiry.

Unfortunately, I don't recall coming across anything on the subject in the readings I've done in the patristic era. When I get a chance, I'll check through my books and let you know if I find something relevant. Have you come across Athanasius' festal letter? I know that in there he lists the canon, but I don't know if he made any definitions in it (I've never read it). You also might want to check into Jerome's argument with Augustine over the apocrypha (Jerome wanted it excluded because it wasn't part of the Palestinian texts, only the Hellenic ones.)

[Crimian]

Thanks for keeping an eye out for it, JadesFire.

[JadesFire]

The thing is this, in ye olden days, that Scripture is divinely inspired was basically taken for granted. It was assumed. As a result, I'm not sure how many explicit discussions of what is meant by that you will be able to find. I dug this up this evening, and maybe you can chase down the references for more details:

The actual writings of the Old and New Testaments are seen to derive from the Holy Spirit and therefore carry the divine message. Nor is this merely a general inspiration; it extends to the detailed phraseology of the Bible in accordance with the saying of Christ in Matthew 5:18. Thus Clement of Alexandria tells us that not one jot nor tittle can pass because all has been spoken by the mouth of the Lord (Protrepticus, IX, 82, 1); and Gregory Nazianzus writes that even the smallest lines in Scripture are due to the minute care of the Holy Spirit, so that we must pay careful attention to every slightest shade of meaning (Orat., 2, 105). In order to emphasize the perfection and authority of the Bible, Irenaeus can say that they are actually spoken by God himself through his Word and Spirit (C.O.H., II, 28, 2). What the authors say is really said by God himself, and must be received and studied not merely or primarily as the word of man but as the Word of God. This emphasis on the divine inspiration of the Bible is obviously reflected again in the many statements in the Fathers which refer to the supreme authority of the Bible in the Church, as in the dictum of Augustine quoted in Cranmer's Confutation of Unwritten Verities: "For I do not account Cyprian's writings as canonical, but weigh them by the canonical scriptures; and that in them which agreeth with canonical I allow to his praise; but that that agreeth not, by his favour I refuse" (Parker Society ed., II, p. 33).

(Geoffrey W. Bromiley, "The Church Doctrine of Inspiration," Carl F.H. Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible. Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958 / London: The Tyndale Press, 1959. pp.205-217)

ETA: I was browsing on another forum this afternoon, and somebody asked where the language of inerrancy comes from. One of the replies included a lengthy list of patristic quotations on the subject -- it might give further insight.

This post has been edited by JadesFire: 24 September 2009 - 08:07 PM

[Pixel_bro]

Quote

is not a valid explanation in an historical inquiry.

Which is great and all, except for the fact that it wasn't in the first place. "Would imagine" was nothing but a personal statement indicating it as my own personal conclusion derived from the evidence, and to put forward the notion that there isn't really much of any other way you can take it. By all means the answer should be obvious.

If you'd like to provide a definition that contradicts mine and is supported by objective evidence, fine; I would like to see you try.

Furthermore, a very slight amount of digging will bring you to this page:
http://dictionary.re...ine+inspiration
and this:
http://en.wikipedia....ine_inspiration

Quite simply, it means what it says - 'Divine inspiration'. A spiritual revelation, epiphany, a percieved channeling of God's essence and will into your own, inspiring you and compelling you to channel and enact his will. In the discussed instance, passage of his word through man.

This post has been edited by Pixel_bro: 25 September 2009 - 05:09 AM

[Crimian]

Thank you for that last link, JadesFire. I've only had time to read a bit of the information there, so far, but it looks to be exactly what I was looking for.

[JadesFire]

Pixel_bro, on 24 September 2009 - 09:13 PM, said:

Which is great and all, except for the fact that it wasn't in the first place. "Would imagine" was nothing but a personal statement indicating it as my own personal conclusion derived from the evidence, and to put forward the notion that there isn't really much of any other way you can take it. By all means the answer should be obvious.

If you'd like to provide a definition that contradicts mine and is supported by objective evidence, fine; I would like to see you try.

Furthermore, a very slight amount of digging will bring you to this page:
http://dictionary.re...ine+inspiration
and this:
http://en.wikipedia....ine_inspiration

Quite simply, it means what it says - 'Divine inspiration'. A spiritual revelation, epiphany, a percieved channeling of God's essence and will into your own, inspiring you and compelling you to channel and enact his will. In the discussed instance, passage of his word through man.

You're just proving that you simply don't know what you're on about. Crimian very clearly asked how the church fathers defined "divine inspiration". You responded with what you think it means. Thus, you demonstrated your ignorance on the fact that divine inspiration has meant different things to different people in different times. Some people have believed (and do believe) that it means that the Bible was dictated to the writers. Others believe in plenary inspiration, but not verbal inspiration. The Princeton definition of divine inspiration is a very nuanced one that was developed in the 19th and early 20th centuries by Reformed theologians -- no one else has quite our view of Providence, so no one else is going to hold exactly to our definition of inspiration. To inquire how the church fathers defined divine inspiration is to make an historical inquiry, not to make a systematics inquiry. In other words, it is a question of historical theology, not systematic theology.

I'm a grad student in this field, for crying out loud; I think I know the difference between a systematic inquiry and an historical one. Actually, I'm quite certain of that fact, and even if I weren't, asking for the opinion of ancient authors is a really big clue in that direction.

Crimian, on 26 September 2009 - 12:06 PM, said:

Thank you for that last link, JadesFire. I've only had time to read a bit of the information there, so far, but it looks to be exactly what I was looking for.

No worries. BTW, in rereading the link I gave you, I found some abbreviations you might not be familiar with. ANF = Ante-Nicene Fathers. NPNF = Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers. They're a collection of translated patristic writings, and they can be found here.

[Pixel_bro]

I'm not even going to bother responding to the majority of that post, forgive me but its nothing but dribble based upon misunderstanding.

Quote

Thus, you demonstrated your ignorance on the fact that divine inspiration has meant different things to different people in different times.

I appreciate you calling me ignorant, I really do; particularly when it isn't true. You misunderstand what I meant completely. I said, not what I thought it meant, but rather, what the evidence has lead me to believe they thought. You completely missed the meaning behind the words.

Quote

I'm a grad student in this field, for crying out loud

That explains your arrogant and condescending demeanor. And if you have a problem with what I said here, and how, keep in mind the fact that my tone is a direct result of your own tone.


EDIT: Apparently! I need to clarify what I meant by "dribble based upon misunderstanding". I was referring to context of it being a response to my post, and that his understanding of my post was incorrect; meaning that everything in response to my post was, as quoted "dribble based upon misunderstanding". I was not saying "HEH. Silly christians. Im so smug and right, I know everything about this subject".

This post has been edited by Pixel_bro: 27 September 2009 - 02:31 AM

[bertuzzifan]

You know what a good example of millennial entitlement is? When somebody who knows nothing about a given subject (save for what a quick wikipedia/google search told them) gets offended when somebody else who's spent the better part of this decade studying this subject pulls rank.

Ignorant? Darn right you're ignorant on the subject. You should have searched dictionary.com for that word while you were at it. I'm pretty sure that you qualify as "lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact." There's nothing wrong with being ignorant on the subject... I myself am pretty ignorant on Renaissance art history.

Oh, and simmer down. I appreciate your last line trying to make it seem like it's the fault of others that you're choosing to behave this way... but it's not. Just stop. Now.

[Pixel_bro]

Quote

You know what a good example of millennial entitlement is? When somebody who knows nothing about a given subject (save for what a quick wikipedia/google search told them) gets offended when somebody else who's spent the better part of this decade studying this subject pulls rank.

You assume too much about me without the proper understanding, evidence or context. A common trait among the forum-goers here, I see.

Quote

Ignorant? Darn right you're ignorant on the subject. You should have searched dictionary.com for that word while you were at it. I'm pretty sure that you qualify as "lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact."

I'm hardly ignorant of the subject. My knowledge may not be as extensive or in-depth as someone who has a "Grad Degree" on the subject (although it hardly needs to be, as at that level (from my "alien" perspective) it just begins to devolve into subjective bickering and semantics with no clearly definable , objective answer within the current confines of present evidence), but that does not mean it is nonexistant or that I am nearly as ignorant of the subject as you would like to believe I am.

Quote

I myself am pretty ignorant on Renaissance art history.

dawg thats not cool, look it up its pretty neat

[DS-181-5]

Man I learned all sorts of cool things in high school.

If you wear a ballcap sideways, it means you're in a gang.

[Pixel_bro]

dawg that is absolutely true, i learned that in high school too

when I was in high school i also learned that the god of the horses and the sea in geek mythology is Broseiden

and that when a dilute gas reaches a temperature very close to absolute zero, it becomes a Bros-Einstein Condensate (which is awesome).

This post has been edited by Pixel_bro: 27 September 2009 - 04:27 AM

[Luinnar]

Back on topic please.