"Inspired" vs "Protected from Eror" Need help on the difference

  • Thread starter Thread starter JRKH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JRKH

Guest
Many times when discussing the Early Church with protestants, we will wish to introduce writings that are not included in the Bible. The protestant response will usually be to dismiss such writings as being “Not the Inspired Word of God”. Our take on these writings are that, while they are not part of “revelation” they are, none the less, part of the deposit of faith and are, “Protected From Error”.

Since these writings will often illuminate, clarify or explain some theological point or other and are held as being without error, (That is protected by the Holy Spirit) why are these writings not simply considered inspired?

What is the difference between something, “Inspired by God” and something “protected from error by God”? 🤷

Peace
James
 
The teachings that are “protected from error” are based upon what is inspired, that is, being the infallable interpretation of what is inspired. But don’t get that mixed up with the Early Church Fathers, protection from error is given to the Magesterium of the Catholic Church not the Church Fathers. The Early Church Fathers are witnesses and treasures themselves, great as they may be, but not infallable.
 
COPLAND_3 said:
The teachings that are “protected from error” are based upon what is inspired, that is, being the infallable interpretation of what is inspired. But don’t get that mixed up with the Early Church Fathers, protection from error is given to the Magesterium of the Catholic Church not the Church Fathers. The Early Church Fathers are witnesses and treasures themselves, great as they may be, but not infallable.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure if this really helps me or not.
I recognize that an individual Bishop when writing a letter today is not necessarily protected from error, but we aren’t talking about just any documents here. We are talking about those letters and documents preserved by the Church as being part of the deposit of faith entrusted to the Church. These early documents are even referenced in the Catachism.

It is my understanding that the Magisterium is comprised of all of the Bishops in communioin with the Bishop in Rome.
From the Catachism:
85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” **This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. **
(bolding mine)
Click to expand...
From Wikipedia:
In the Roman Catholic Church the word “Magisterium” refers to the teaching authority of the church. This authority is understood to be embodied in the episcopacy, which is the aggregation of the current bishops of the Church, led by the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), who has authority over the bishops, individually and as a body, as well as over each and every Catholic directly.
Click to expand...
Thus when Clement of Rome or Ignatius of Antioch wrote officially they were writing under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Fact that these documents are preserved and used by the Church in explaining ealry doctrinal development as well as development of heirarchy appears to give them the stamp of “magisterial document” and thus free from error.
It then follows that if something is written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and thus is not only, “Free from error” but also inspired. IN other words the writer was inspired to write something “free from error”

I guess I’m sort of rambling - sort of thinking out loud on the keyboard you might say.

It is just frustrating when a person dismisses the writings of the “witnesses ot the witnesses” because these writings aren’t included in the canon of the Bible.
Their view seems to be that if it isn’t “inspired” it isn’t anything and can be simply dismissed out of hand.

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
Many times when discussing the Early Church with protestants, we will wish to introduce writings that are not included in the Bible. The protestant response will usually be to dismiss such writings as being “Not the Inspired Word of God”. Our take on these writings are that, while they are not part of “revelation” they are, none the less, part of the deposit of faith and are, “Protected From Error”.

Since these writings will often illuminate, clarify or explain some theological point or other and are held as being without error, (That is protected by the Holy Spirit) why are these writings not simply considered inspired?

What is the difference between something, “Inspired by God” and something “protected from error by God”? 🤷

Peace
James
Click to expand...
James,

Something you might consider is when a subject comes up, say the Eucharist, and your Protestant friend rejects John 6 and other verses, you could simply say that the Early Church Fathers confirm what was said in the Bible. I mean, if it was not the REAL Body and Blood of our Lord, why in the world would the Church be talking about it.

Early Church Fathers to me bring refinement and enlightenment to Scriptures… I just believe that someone in the 1st and 2nd century has a far greater grasp on the reality of what was going on back, than us 20 centuries removed.

I hope I made sense.
  • Michael
 
teak421 said:
James,

Something you might consider is when a subject comes up, say the Eucharist, and your Protestant friend rejects John 6 and other verses, you could simply say that the Early Church Fathers confirm what was said in the Bible. I mean, if it was not the REAL Body and Blood of our Lord, why in the world would the Church be talking about it.

Early Church Fathers to me bring refinement and enlightenment to Scriptures… I just believe that someone in the 1st and 2nd century has a far greater grasp on the reality of what was going on back, than us 20 centuries removed.

I hope I made sense.
  • Michael
Click to expand...
And the responses can range from; " you have a good point but then why aren’t they in the Bible", all the way to, "Those men were preaching a “different Gospel” and not the true Gospel of Christ.

In any event, since they are not part of the Bible, they can safely be rejected by the protestant who will gladly accept anything written by a 20th century televangelist. (Sorry for the crack but these things drive me up the wall sometimes.

peace
James
 
JRKH said:
And the responses can range from; " you have a good point but then why aren’t they in the Bible", all the way to, "Those men were preaching a “different Gospel” and not the true Gospel of Christ.

In any event, since they are not part of the Bible, they can safely be rejected by the protestant who will gladly accept anything written by a 20th century televangelist. (Sorry for the crack but these things drive me up the wall sometimes.

peace
James
Click to expand...
You “crack” is valid. because I get that. You know, I really start with Sola Scriptura before anything… As soon as they start saying we worship Mary I say, before we go into doctrines, we need to first establish if Sola Scriptura is valid.

I have yet to see a convincing case of Sola Scriptura… Once a person “gets” this (I was a former Assembly of God for 20 years and I got it, finally) than the doors are open!

Take Care!
  • Michael
 
JRKH said:
I’m not sure if this really helps me or not.
I recognize that an individual Bishop when writing a letter today is not necessarily protected from error, but we aren’t talking about just any documents here. We are talking about those letters and documents preserved by the Church as being part of the deposit of faith entrusted to the Church. These early documents are even referenced in the Catachism.

It is my understanding that the Magisterium is comprised of all of the Bishops in communioin with the Bishop in Rome.
From the Catachism:

From Wikipedia:

Thus when Clement of Rome or Ignatius of Antioch wrote officially they were writing under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Fact that these documents are preserved and used by the Church in explaining ealry doctrinal development as well as development of heirarchy appears to give them the stamp of “magisterial document” and thus free from error.
It then follows that if something is written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and thus is not only, “Free from error” but also inspired. IN other words the writer was inspired to write something “free from error”

I guess I’m sort of rambling - sort of thinking out loud on the keyboard you might say.

It is just frustrating when a person dismisses the writings of the “witnesses ot the witnesses” because these writings aren’t included in the canon of the Bible.
Their view seems to be that if it isn’t “inspired” it isn’t anything and can be simply dismissed out of hand.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying, but because the Catechism quotes a writer does not mean that the Church puts Her stamp of approval on that writer or document of the writer as being free from error, in fact the Catechism quotes Tertullian who became a heretic. But the Church has the authority to quote from any fallable document or writer and use what is error free in order to teach an infallable Doctrine. The Catechism also quotes Origen, who wrote some wonderful things but at the same time wrote some garbage too, like one of the Saints said, “When Origen wrote good, nobody wrote better, but when he wrote bad, nobody wrote worse.”

I understand your frustration because it drives me crazy too when Protestants ignore the Church Fathers, but at the same time we need to make sure that we understand correctly how the Catholic Church approaches it. The Church Fathers are witnesses to the fact that the Catholic Church was established by Christ, and the Church has taught and believed the same thing for 2000 years.
 
You “crack” is valid. because I get that. You know, I really start with Sola Scriptura before anything… As soon as they start saying we worship Mary I say, before we go into doctrines, we need to first establish if Sola Scriptura is valid.
Click to expand...
I have yet to see a convincing case of Sola Scriptura… Once a person “gets” this (I was a former Assembly of God for 20 years and I got it, finally) than the doors are open!
Click to expand...
Take Care!
Click to expand...
  • Michael
Click to expand...
I was reading this thread and this article popped into my head.

JRKH, This should help you as well although not necessarily with your specific question but with some of the concepts in play, which is ultimately sola scriptura.

What’s the Bible for. . . Really?
 
COPLAND_3 said:
I understand what you are saying, but because the Catechism quotes a writer does not mean that the Church puts Her stamp of approval on that writer or document of the writer as being free from error, in fact the Catechism quotes Tertullian who became a heretic. But the Church has the authority to quote from any fallable document or writer and use what is error free in order to teach an infallable Doctrine. The Catechism also quotes Origen, who wrote some wonderful things but at the same time wrote some garbage too, like one of the Saints said, “When Origen wrote good, nobody wrote better, but when he wrote bad, nobody wrote worse.”

I understand your frustration because it drives me crazy too when Protestants ignore the Church Fathers, but at the same time we need to make sure that we understand correctly how the Catholic Church approaches it. The Church Fathers are witnesses to the fact that the Catholic Church was established by Christ, and the Church has taught and believed the same thing for 2000 years.
Click to expand...
Well I don’t understand a lot of what you said above, but I guess that is just me.
I don’t understand how the Church can “quote from a fallible document” to teach Doctrine.
You say the document can be fallibe, but that parts are “error free”. this seems to me to fly in the face of God. For if a person is writing a document under the Protection of the Holy Spirit, the entire document would be error free.🤷
I guess I’m just not smart enough to figure this out.
Just one more reason I am glad to have the Good offices of Holy Mother Church. (and the good people here.)

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
Well I don’t understand a lot of what you said above, but I guess that is just me.
I don’t understand how the Church can “quote from a fallible document” to teach Doctrine.
You say the document can be fallibe, but that parts are “error free”. this seems to me to fly in the face of God. For if a person is writing a document under the Protection of the Holy Spirit, the entire document would be error free.🤷
I guess I’m just not smart enough to figure this out.
Just one more reason I am glad to have the Good offices of Holy Mother Church. (and the good people here.)

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Look at it this way, a broken clock is exactly correct 2 twice a day, while every other time it is wrong. Same goes for any document, there can be things within it that are exactly right while it can have errors with it at the same time. The Church has the gift to be able to decern what is correct and what is not and to be able to glean from everything and take what is good and disregard what is wrong and teach correct Doctrine. St. Thomas Aquinas was an expert at being able to glean from the Bible, Church Fathers, philosphers, poets, etc in order to teach.

The Church Fathers leave us tons of writings that are dynamic for edification, and to ignore them is foolish or just being ignorant. But something being edifying does not make it infallable.
 
Just to add my 2 cents worth, Paul quoted from Greek philosophers in his letter to the Galatians. There are other instances in both the Old and New Testaments of quotations from sources outside of Scripture (for example, I believe Hebrews references the Book of Enoch). This would be similar to a pastor using something from USA Today or a popular movie as a sermon illustration.

In regard to the ECF’s, you really need to be careful how it’s used. Did you know that Irenaeus taught that Jesus was over 50 years old when He died (he claimed it was Apostolic Tradition)? And there were some ECF’s that believed that the Rock Jesus spoke of was Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Christ, not Peter himself (and there were some who took both positions). Another thing is to be sure you give accurate quotes. For example, Athanasius is often quoted as saying, “Rome has spoken. The case is closed.” However, this is not true. Supposedly, it comes from his Sermon 131. If you can find this quote anywhere in this sermon (or any of his writings), please let me know, because I have never found it! Also, it would seem very strange for Athanasius to accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (which the quote implies), and yet defy Pope Zosimus, even when he commands them by his authority as the Bishop of Rome.

Speaking as someone who left the Catholic Church because of Sola Scriptura, I recognize that the ECF’s were human, and subject to errors, just as we all are. I would look at what they said and compare it to the Scriptures (I would hope that anyone who believes in Sola Scriptura would do the same). Keep in mind that heresies were creeping into the church even while Paul was still alive.
 
Cachonga said:
Just to add my 2 cents worth, Paul quoted from Greek philosophers in his letter to the Galatians. There are other instances in both the Old and New Testaments of quotations from sources outside of Scripture (for example, I believe Hebrews references the Book of Enoch). This would be similar to a pastor using something from USA Today or a popular movie as a sermon illustration.

In regard to the ECF’s, you really need to be careful how it’s used. Did you know that Irenaeus taught that Jesus was over 50 years old when He died (he claimed it was Apostolic Tradition)? And there were some ECF’s that believed that the Rock Jesus spoke of was Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Christ, not Peter himself (and there were some who took both positions). Another thing is to be sure you give accurate quotes. For example, Athanasius is often quoted as saying, “Rome has spoken. The case is closed.” However, this is not true. Supposedly, it comes from his Sermon 131. If you can find this quote anywhere in this sermon (or any of his writings), please let me know, because I have never found it! Also, it would seem very strange for Athanasius to accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (which the quote implies), and yet defy Pope Zosimus, even when he commands them by his authority as the Bishop of Rome.

Speaking as someone who left the Catholic Church because of Sola Scriptura, I recognize that the ECF’s were human, and subject to errors, just as we all are. I would look at what they said and compare it to the Scriptures (I would hope that anyone who believes in Sola Scriptura would do the same). Keep in mind that heresies were creeping into the church even while Paul was still alive.
Click to expand...
Whoa! You left the Church because you believe in Sola Scriptura? That is a first! (at least in my little world). What tipped you over the edge? The large amount of support in scripture and historical evidence dating back to the Early Church Fathers?
  • Michael
 
Cachonga said:
Just to add my 2 cents worth, Paul quoted from Greek philosophers in his letter to the Galatians. There are other instances in both the Old and New Testaments of quotations from sources outside of Scripture (for example, I believe Hebrews references the Book of Enoch). This would be similar to a pastor using something from USA Today or a popular movie as a sermon illustration.

In regard to the ECF’s, you really need to be careful how it’s used. Did you know that Irenaeus taught that Jesus was over 50 years old when He died (he claimed it was Apostolic Tradition)? And there were some ECF’s that believed that the Rock Jesus spoke of was Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Christ, not Peter himself (and there were some who took both positions). Another thing is to be sure you give accurate quotes. For example, Athanasius is often quoted as saying, “Rome has spoken. The case is closed.” However, this is not true. Supposedly, it comes from his Sermon 131. If you can find this quote anywhere in this sermon (or any of his writings), please let me know, because I have never found it! Also, it would seem very strange for Athanasius to accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (which the quote implies), and yet defy Pope Zosimus, even when he commands them by his authority as the Bishop of Rome.

Speaking as someone who left the Catholic Church because of Sola Scriptura, I recognize that the ECF’s were human, and subject to errors, just as we all are. I would look at what they said and compare it to the Scriptures (I would hope that anyone who believes in Sola Scriptura would do the same). Keep in mind that heresies were creeping into the church even while Paul was still alive.
Click to expand...
Great points concerning the OP, other than I take a different position concerning Sola Scriptura.
 
Cachonga said:
Just to add my 2 cents worth, Paul quoted from Greek philosophers in his letter to the Galatians. There are other instances in both the Old and New Testaments of quotations from sources outside of Scripture (for example, I believe Hebrews references the Book of Enoch). This would be similar to a pastor using something from USA Today or a popular movie as a sermon illustration.

In regard to the ECF’s, you really need to be careful how it’s used. Did you know that Irenaeus taught that Jesus was over 50 years old when He died (he claimed it was Apostolic Tradition)? And there were some ECF’s that believed that the Rock Jesus spoke of was Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Christ, not Peter himself (and there were some who took both positions). Another thing is to be sure you give accurate quotes. For example, Athanasius is often quoted as saying, “Rome has spoken. The case is closed.” However, this is not true. Supposedly, it comes from his Sermon 131. If you can find this quote anywhere in this sermon (or any of his writings), please let me know, because I have never found it! Also, it would seem very strange for Athanasius to accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (which the quote implies), and yet defy Pope Zosimus, even when he commands them by his authority as the Bishop of Rome.

Speaking as someone who left the Catholic Church because of Sola Scriptura, I recognize that the ECF’s were human, and subject to errors, just as we all are. I would look at what they said and compare it to the Scriptures (I would hope that anyone who believes in Sola Scriptura would do the same). Keep in mind that heresies were creeping into the church even while Paul was still alive.
Click to expand...
Consider reviewing an excellent article 21 reasons why Sola Scriptura is wrong… Its very good… geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html

And, if you have any neat things that point the other way, please post here, would like to read.
  • Michael
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top