How did the generation immediately following Apostles know that their writings were Divinely Inspired?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholic1seeks

Guest
I used “Apostles” as a catch-all for the first Christian generation, since Apostles are not the only writers of the New Testament documents.

So anyway, how would their followers have known that the documents were actually inspired?

For example, did Matthew pass along his gospel with the caveat “Y’all, I wrote this. But I’m pretty sure the Holy Spirit inspired me.”

You get the idea.
 
Last edited:
ALSO: Yes, it’s ultimately the (Catholic) Church that determined and canonized the New Testament. But I don’t want this to be a Catholic-Protestant debate about authority and canon.

Instead, I’m talking about something different: Why did the Church even think there would be inspired and inerrant New Testament writings, in the first place?

Like, how did they discern that scriptural inspiration was even a thing for these writings — and not just highly valuable documents (like Clement of Rome or other works).
 
Last edited:
Eyewitness accounts are powerful. These things were written down and retold countless times.
 
Miracles too.
Not all of the Bible is simply inspiration. Much of it is recorded TRUTH.
People in those days were not near as skeptical as we are. They needed a Messiah.
They were praying for one.
People today pretty take God for granted.
 
Your question implies that the only reason people believe is because it’s written in a book,.
It’s much more than that, this is what I an trying to say. We all know people can wrongly interpret Scripture.
The lives and the martyrdom of the Apostles had FAR more to do with the spreading of the faith, than reading Scripture. Indeed, almost no one had seen the scrolls.
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
So anyway, how would their followers have known that the documents were actually inspired?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t have seen that as a very important question if I had lived back then. All I would have needed to know is that Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to teach in His name and bound all believers to accept them as his representatives.
 
I think you are right. It’s more about the larger context. Like, obviously the earliest church had a great tangible connection with the movement of the Holy Spirit — there were miracles and prophesy still.

So it makes sense that scripture would happen in this context.

I guess I just don’t really get how people KNEW that the writings were inspired, unless the Apostle said “Hey you guys, God told me all this”
 
I agree.

But at some point, the church thought it important to declare the NT writings as actually divinely-inspired Scripture.

I’m just looking for that link.
 
Yes, that’s true.
But remember, not many lay people were even aware of Councils and Church discussions. Their faith was alive in their hearts.
God bless.
 
I mean for me personally, I don’t get much out of the teaching that the Scriptures are divinely inspired and therefore without error.

To me, actually the teaching sometimes interrupts my faith because I have to figure out how to reconcile when the Bible seems to be in error and so forth.
 
There is nothing in the Bible that is not a truth. A spiritual truth of God.
You want facts? Go to the history books. But everything in there, every genre, every story, teaches us a truth about God, life, and the next life.
Getting hung up on the delivery by definition will be unproductive.
Faith absorbs truth and lives it.
Don’t allow yourself to be befuddled by fantastic stories that are meant to teach people. Remember the times.
Remember their worldview. Remember their vocabulary. Remember they were seeking.
Remember what they FOUND.
 
Last edited:
Well, if you closely look at the reasons for natives of third world countries converting to Christianity when the whiteman came it reveals a lot.

In China the missionariers spoke of the 1st generation of converts as “rice Catholics”.
But once the 2nd generation is born into Church culture “brainwashing” (I don’t mean that pejoratively) is likely they key to acceptance of many things that independent minds would look askance upon.

You can also see it operating in poor immigrants to a new “Christian” first world country. They convert as a way of making quick social and business contacts and entry into the new culture. European Catholic lawyers and doctors etc are the godparents they carefully pick for their newborns. I am one such godparent myself. I am glad to help them integrate.

None of this is conscious deception. Its just life for desperately poor and insecure peoples. Why would they question any teaching they are asked to believe as a price for all these advantages. Its their children that often question and leave…but then they are already well established and educated in the new country aren’t they. They see no advantage in remaining Christian with its boring old fashioned communal liturgical and belief systems.

There is a reason the 2nd generation Christians were more Gentiles than Jews despite Jesus only coming for the lost children of Israel. Don’t you think?
 
Last edited:
The people of the early church revered the Gospel accounts and letters because they were all that they had after the authors died. I dont think inerrant was a concern. The writings “inspired” them to hear them.
 
In hindsight, we tend to think well obviously, they must have known they needed a New Testament, because the NT seems so indispensable to us now. But remember the Jews never had a book they called “the Old Testament”.

The early Church - the Magisterium - had to develop the idea not only that there needed to be a New Testament, but also the concept of an “Old Testament”, and its relationship to the NT.

The early writers may have known something about the importance of their writings - Peter (2 Peter 3:15) made reference to the importance of Paul’s writings, and how they are sometimes misinterpreted; so Peter must have known his own writings might be considered important. But I think it was long after the apostles, that the Magisterium made the decision that some “inspired” writings, such as the Epistle to the Hebrews, were inspired scripture, while other perhaps-inspired writings, such as the Didache or Shepherd of Hermas, were not - though still wise guides. Sort of inspired, but not the level of certainty as scripture.
 
Last edited:
Right, but eventually it did become a concern for the Church.

So I’m wondering where/when/how the Church got the idea that these certain canonical writings had to be “divinely inspired”

Peter in his epistle seems to indicate that already in his day, Christians regarded certain Pauline letters as inspired. So it seems to have some apostolic source.
Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. -2 Peter 3:16
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top