The Early Christians could not have believed in the Bible Alone

[Fidelis]

Thank you for that definition (so to speak). That was beautifully stated

But easily refuted and indefensible. See Post #37.

 

[sterryfamily]

How? Please don’t give me that “he added a word” nonsense. Only people who have never tried to translate anything could find that convincing. You have to add words in translation all the time–the idea of a literal word-for-word translation is nonsense.

As for Luther’s questions about the canon, the books he questioned were books that had historically been questioned. And as everyone who’s followed these debates at all knows, he put the books in an appendix–he didn’t take them away. He simply noted their disputed status.

Name me one book that Luther questioned that had not been questioned in the early Church.

At any rate, since Luther is in no sense the doctrinal standard for my faith, it ultimately doesn’t matter. Luther goofed plenty, just like everyone else. The burden of proof is on the Church that claims not to have goofed (doctrinally).

If you look at the patristic lists of canonical books, you’ll see that they vary around the edges quite a bit. There’s good reason to say–as a number of theologians before the Reformation said–that to prove doctrine you should appeal to those books that have not been questioned. The outright rejection by most modern Protestants of the deuterocanonical OT books is a serious mistake–even more serious, perhaps, than the “RC” mistake of giving them equal status with the books of the Hebrew canon.

Edwin

Luther was very deliberate about adding “alone” strategically. He is quoted extensively as saying he knows he did it, and intended to do it and phooey on the pope if he doesn’t like it.

As to the OT canon, Catholics, from the first centuries, always used the Septuagint because it is what Christ and the apostles used. It was fully included in the canon at Carthage in the late fourth century. Please check facts before posting.

The argument of the lack of Hebrew copies of the Deuteros was rendered moot with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls which has Hebrew copies of some.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

But easily refuted and indefensible. See Post #37.

Hi,

Im shocked that you wouldnt believe that post to be true. I am not talking about bible alone necessarily(although I do believe it)but what she/he said about Jesus and the OT and NT. I thought the CC believed in what post # 6 said.

AFH

 

[Contarini]

But if that’s the case, then the definition of Sola Scriptura is virtually rendered meaningless.

I couldn’t care less for the formula, which as you probably know wasn’t a Reformation slogan at all. Not that I care for being faithful to the Reformers either–I care for being faithful to the teachings of the Universal Church. The Reformers were asserting the ancient and Catholic truth of the supreme authority of God’s Word over against human tradition–against the overly subtle speculations of the scholastics and (more seriously) the blasphemous claims of papalist canon lawyers. But of course they misstated and overstated a great deal, and they probably did more harm than good on the whole. That, of course, is just what I think and doesn’t matter much. But I can’t think other than I do think, can I?

For example, what you’ve claimed above is essentially no different from what the Catholic Church teaches.

I’d like to think so. But there are some points of difference, it seems to me.

First of all, traditional Protestantism denies flatly that any of the original deposit did survive outside of the canon of Scripture. As I’ve said, I decline to commit myself to this, but I certainly don’t hold as a matter of faith that anything outside the canon of the Church’s Scripture is actual apostolic Tradition. I know that there are Catholics who hold to material sufficiency, so this wouldn’t have to be a point of disagreement perhaps.

The far more serious point is that Protestants refuse to accept the Church’s interpretations of that deposit as being themselves formally infallible. In some cases they might be pretty darned close–i.e., it might be pointless even to consider questioning them, because they are so important to the Faith and so well-established (the Trinity, for instance). But the deposit itself carries an authority qualitatively different from that of any interpretation or later addition.

It therefore follows that the authority given to any idea or practice is proportional to the extent to which it can be linked with that original deposit. This isn’t an either/or, which is the bane of dogmatic Protestantism and dogmatic Catholicism alike. There’s a spectrum of authority, with the Torah and the Four Gospels at one end and this post at the other.

Even in the Vatican II documents and the new Catechism, Catholicism’s insistence that everything declared by the Magisterium is absolutely binding disrupts this proper hierarchy of authority, and it trivializes important questions about the sources of various doctrines.

Take Purgatory, for instance. There are three possibilities that have been maintained by Christians:

1. Purgatory is actually an oral tradition handed down from the beginning. Probably very few Catholics would maintain that today, but I’ll bet some would, and certainly in the past this was a more popular view.
2. Purgatory is the correct interpretation of certain key Scriptural texts. The question then is whether it is
   a. merely plausible (apart from the authority of the Church), or
   b. the only legitimate interpretation, which it seems some on this board maintain.
3. Purgatory is a later development in the Christian Faith, fueled no doubt by reflection on Scripture (so that if it were correct then 2a would also be true), but not deriving its dogmatic authority purely from its connection to the original deposit.

For Protestants, it’s essential to know which of these things is true. If 1 is true, then Sola Scriptura would have to be abandoned–but of course Protestants see no reason to think that 1 is true.

If 2b is true, then and only then would Protestants accept Purgatory as a dogma.

Protestants generally, if not uniformly, believe 3 to be true. This means that Purgatory is a pious opinion at best. (I myself hold it as an opinion, but I don’t accept it as dogma.)

 

[Contarini]

The real issue here is that for Catholics Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Church have become the same thing. Sacred Tradition is not really some kind of historically verifiable chain of transmission, but rather whatever the Church here and now teaches. You don’t think it is important for the status of a doctrine to debate just how clealry it is found in the original deposit.

Perhaps Purgatory was a less than ideal example–the Immaculate Conception is a better and more obvious one. Either way, these are things that you hold as dogmas because of the authority of the Church, not because they are found in the original deposit, which most scholars would agree they aren’t (except in some highly nebulous form).

As I already said in this thread, Sola Scriptura, upon closer examination, really isn’t Sola Scriptura at all. It’s tradition-- that is, traditional interpretations according to Luther, or Calvin, or Knox or Armenius for example

Not really. It’s more of an attitude to tradition–a willingness to question it and compare it with the original deposit of faith. Thus, the teachings of Luther or Calvin or Wesley are also open to question–which is how I have come to hold doctrines as close to Catholicism as I do. The problem is that this process of questioning cannot reasonably lead one to abandoning the principle on which it is based. Yet this is exactly what Protestants who convert to Catholicism generally do. Not Catholicism, but Protestantism, results from being “deep in history.” Protestantism understood not as particular doctrines (and certainly not as some silly straw man of “private judgment”) but as the willingness to compare current teachings with the sources on which they are allegedly based. Newman is the prime example of a convert who kicked away the ladder by which he climbed, and he wrestled with this problem throughout his work. I think he wrestled unsuccessfully–obviously many people disagree with me!

Still, Newman’s influence did a lot to move Catholicism toward a less arrogant attitude toward the Deposit of Faith. And that in turn has set off positive shockwaves in Protestantism. Who knows where it will all end? As a Protestant, I think it highly likely that we are all wrong. Which paradoxically makes it possible for me to entertain the notion that Catholicism is true!

In short, if Sola Scriptura requires all these things to clearly understand the Scriptures, then the people who uphold some form of Sola Scriptura aren’t really talking about relying solely upon the Scriptures at all.

Who said they were? Of course the fundamentalist version of SS is untenable. I won’t argue that for a minute. And non-fundamentalist Protestants rarely if ever claim to be relying solely upon the Scriptures. You’re attacking a straw man.

Edwin

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Luther was very deliberate about adding “alone” strategically. He is quoted extensively as saying he knows he did it, and intended to do it and phooey on the pope if he doesn’t like it.

As to the OT canon, Catholics, from the first centuries, always used the Septuagint because it is what Christ and the apostles used. It was fully included in the canon at Carthage in the late fourth century. Please check facts before posting.

The argument of the lack of Hebrew copies of the Deuteros was rendered moot with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls which has Hebrew copies of some.

Hi,
Since you brought it up–Could you specifically show me Scripture where Jesus refers to the apocrypha books.I know He referred to the OT but never the apocrypha books. I have not come across any but I would like to know if there is any so I can check it out for myself.

Thanks in advance

 

[Integritus]

Perhaps Purgatory was a less than ideal example–the Immaculate Conception is a better and more obvious one. Either way, these are things that you hold as dogmas because of the authority of the Church, not because they are found in the original deposit, which most scholars would agree they aren’t (except in some highly nebulous form).

Edwin

Edwin,

Perhaps you don’t know the meaning of ‘dogma’ (at least understood in the Catholic world). Dogma is none other than the correct interpretation of Scripture, the Word. In other words, dogma is never an invention of an ecclesial figurehead or theologian, rather it’s the uncontradictory Truth of God’s revelation to be properly defined. Dogmatic proclamations have always been true, even before they are defined. For example, the Trinity. The Holy Trinity was and is true even before it was officially defined in a Church Council during the 4th Century. I hope that helped.

But I think it’s interesting that you criticize “a single Church authority” coming from the Episcopalian division… tell me, who is the supreme authority in the Anglican and Episcopalian Community? And by what eclessial power did they get that authority? Or did they?

Unified church authority is not to be feared, my separated brother. It’s a gift from God, that His Church is able to speak so clearly with one voice, one Word… not Words.

 

[Fidelis]

Hi,

Im shocked that you wouldnt believe that post to be true. I am not talking about bible alone necessarily(although I do believe it)but what she/he said about Jesus and the OT and NT. I thought the CC believed in what post # 6 said.

AFH

Actually you are right! I was objecting to an entirely different post. Thanks for pointing it out and my apologies to singinbeauty!

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Actually you are right! I was objecting to an entirely different post. Thanks for pointing it out and my apologies to singinbeauty!

Hi,
Phew, ok thank you for clearing that up.
AFH

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Who said they were? Of course the fundamentalist version of SS is untenable. I won’t argue that for a minute. And non-fundamentalist Protestants rarely if ever claim to be relying solely upon the Scriptures. You’re attacking a straw man.

Edwin

But I’m not attacking a strawman. In fact, I’m not attacking anything. I’m simply refuting something which is clearly wrong.

And as far as this position actually being a strawman, this presumes that that no one actually holds to this position to begin with. And yet you yourself admit and some people do hold this position.

In other words, start to employ a new phrase other than ‘Sola Scriptura’-- because the phrase apparently does not have a universal definition that is accepted by all. Nor does it appear to mean what you think it means.

And if you argue that there is a traditional interpretive process for one to properly employ the principles of sola scriptura within one’s exegesis, then you’re actually arguing for a tradition which is apparently in and of itself not immediately perceivable in the Scriptures to the extent necessary to state the definition with universal agreement.

Bottom line?

Sola Scriptura = Sacred Tradition regardless of how you word it.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

That, of course, is just what I think and doesn’t matter much. But I can’t think other than I do think, can I?

But it’s not really a matter of what we think, is it?

My main point which I’m getting at is that while it is necessary to understand the Scriptures and Tradition, the argument seems to have side-stepped the question of revelation almost completely.

Most often during these kinds of debates many will, after exaustively covering all topics perceived necessary, ultimately, by default, point to the belief that the Holy Spirit has somehow enabled them to understand the true sense of the The Word.

But in doing so, they will ultimately have to seek recourse to the historical witness of the Church in order to demonstrate that the Holy Spirit has been actively bringing forth this same witness.

When this happens, in my opinion, more often than not the beliefs of some seem to transform into vapors of sheer opinion when contronted with the force of the teaching clearly evident through Church history.

When confronted with the force of this historical witness, however, they seem to need to claim that the Church must have somehow strayed from the true teaching during these periods.

And how do they know this has happened?

Easy. They point to the Scriptures to verify the accuracy of their claims.

But when they do this, they undermine the claims within the Scriptures themselves which do claim that the Church will not be led into error.

In addition to this, they undermine the historical witness of the Church which has been teaching these things from the beginning-- teachings which can be demonstrated in the later thoughts of the Jewish people which came prior to Christ as well.

Nowhere do the Scriptures claim to be the binding force which causes unity amongst those who believe in Christ as Savior. But we do see that the Scriptures do claim many times that the Church will be the faifull witness of God’s will and explain the Scriptures without error.

Now take at the three options that you’ve presented below…

Contarini:

Take Purgatory, for instance. There are three possibilities that have been maintained by Christians:

1. Purgatory is actually an oral tradition handed down from the beginning. Probably very few Catholics would maintain that today, but I’ll bet some would, and certainly in the past this was a more popular view.
2. Purgatory is the correct interpretation of certain key Scriptural texts. The question then is whether it is

a. merely plausible (apart from the authority of the Church), or

b. the only legitimate interpretation, which it seems some on this board maintain.3. Purgatory is a later development in the Christian Faith, fueled no doubt by reflection on Scripture (so that if it were correct then 2a would also be true), but not deriving its dogmatic authority purely from its connection to the original deposit.

When I read this, the first thing that I have noticed is that there is no reference to the Holy Spirit being active in teaching these things through the Church which God himself has chosen to manifest his will-- which effectively amplifies and oral tradition to being a revelation from God transmitted through the Church.

There’s also no reference to the fact that a concept very similar to purgatory is known to have been taught by our Jewish brethren well before the Church came to be-- effectively reputing this idea that the concept was later developed and instead links it with Jewish teachings which did interpret certain Scriptures with a kind of soul-purging before coming into God’s presence.

In other words, all these points seem to be academic arguments either for or against purgatory. And while we should seek out these things in order to understand them within their proper context, we should also recognize that these teachings may be a motion of the Holy Spirit within the Church as well.

And if so, how do we determine whether the Holy Spirt is actively teaching this through us or not?

Contarini:

I myself hold it as an opinion, but I don’t accept it as dogma.)

Do you mind if I ask you what led you to this opinion?

 

[Lampo]

Hi,
Since you brought it up–Could you specifically show me Scripture where Jesus refers to the apocrypha books.I know He referred to the OT but never the apocrypha books. I have not come across any but I would like to know if there is any so I can check it out for myself.

Thanks in advance

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt… 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.

There are many more.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

Perhaps you don’t know the meaning of ‘dogma’ (at least understood in the Catholic world).

Sorry, I do understand but I stated the matter carelessly (I stated it as it appears to a Protestant rather than as you understand it). I should have said that you accept on the authority of the Magisterium that the dogma in question is found in the original deposit.

But I think it’s interesting that you criticize “a single Church authority” coming from the Episcopalian division…

I’m sorry, but I can’t find the place where I said this. I do not think that unified authority is bad, but until you show me the passage that gave you that impression, I can’t clarify further.

tell me, who is the supreme authority in the Anglican and Episcopalian Community?

There is no human being (other than Christ!) who bears supreme authority in Anglicanism, or in any other form of Protestantism, or in Orthodoxy. Catholicism is unique among orthodox Christian bodies in having that kind of centralized authority (which is not the same thing as unified authority).

Unified church authority is not to be feared, my separated brother. It’s a gift from God, that His Church is able to speak so clearly with one voice, one Word… not Words.

But when your particular version of “unified authority” doesn’t accomplish the things that most badly need accomplishing, and simply manages to provide a set of distilled “official teachings” that can be interpreted in such a way that they don’t conflict with each other or with Scripture, one has to wonder if it’s worth it.

I have a great respect for the institution of the Papacy. I don’t doubt for an instant that we need to be in communion with Rome. But communion with Rome is not an answer to all the problems of the Church. I look at Catholicism and I see it failing very badly in all sorts of vitally important ways. I can’t see that it is, overall, qualitatively superior to Protestantism. It’s superior in some ways and inferior in others (depending of course on the form of Protestantism we’re talking about!). The evidence, historical and contemporary, seems to support the thesis that we all have strengths and weaknesses and that no existing Christian group uniquely and fully embodies the reality of the Universal Church. You can claim that yours does only because you narrow down the parameters to things that you can actually meet.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

But I’m not attacking a strawman. In fact, I’m not attacking anything. I’m simply refuting something which is clearly wrong.

You purport to be critiquing “sola scriptura” and yet your description doesn’t match the classical, historic definitions of sola scriptura.

And as far as this position actually being a strawman, this presumes that that no one actually holds to this position to begin with.

That’s not true. If you said “radical versions of sola scriptura” I wouldn’t object. But when you use the term “sola scriptura” without qualification you are purportedly attacking mainstream, historic Protestantism, which has (rather unwisely) tended to use this term to describe its understanding of Scriptural authority.

In other words, start to employ a new phrase other than ‘Sola Scriptura’-- because the phrase apparently does not have a universal definition that is accepted by all.

I do not use “Sola Scriptura” to describe my own position precisely for this reason. You need to address this appeal to your fellow Catholics, not to me. Catholic internet apologists regularly deny that there is any meaningful distinction between the more radical “Bible-only” position (which some Protestant apologists call “solo Scriptura”) and the more mainstream, historic Protestant position which acknowledges the secondary value of tradition. This thread was begun by a Catholic who made no distinctions among different senses of “sola scriptura.”

Nor does it appear to mean what you think it means.

Why does it not? What are your sources for your definition? I’m drawing my definition from classical Protestant sources such as the Westminster Confession and Chemnitz’s Examination of the Council of Trent. When I differ from these sources (as in my openness to the possibility that some extra-scriptural apostolic tradition might have survived) I note the fact clearly.

I’m tired of being accused of redefining sola scriptura when I’m simply relaying what I have learned from studying the origins of Protestantism. You guys really do seem to think that Protestants are extremely stupid. You think it never occurred to anyone that the NT was oral proclamation before it was written down? Give me a break.

And if you argue that there is a traditional interpretive process for one to properly employ the principles of sola scriptura within one’s exegesis, then you’re actually arguing for a tradition

Of course I am. I’m completely with you on the point that everyone follows tradition. Which is why I said that SS is simply a particular attitude to tradition.

which is apparently in and of itself not immediately perceivable in the Scriptures to the extent necessary to state the definition with universal agreement.

Of course it isn’t. Why would you expect it to be, given what a confusing, messed-up world we live in generally? In a world where clergy commit horrible crimes (and no, I’m not picking on Catholics, just singling out something from which Catholics can’t claim to be more exempt than the rest of us), why would we expect revelation to be patently clear? If God was going to make things easy, he’d have made every church leader be a saint (and don’t give me the line that this would violate free will–that’s an incredibly limited, naive understanding of divine providence).

Sola Scriptura = Sacred Tradition regardless of how you word it.

I’m not arguing with that. SS is a particular understanding of the role of Scripture within the Christian tradition.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

But it’s not really a matter of what we think, is it?

This board is a place for us to say what we think, yes

My main point which I’m getting at is that while it is necessary to understand the Scriptures and Tradition, the argument seems to have side-stepped the question of revelation almost completely.

Quite the contrary. We agree, don’t we, that there is an original deposit of divine revelation which cannot be added to? How is my position side-stepping the question of revelation? My argument is precisely that the Catholic doctrine of development slurs over the key distinction between revelation and the interpretation of revelation, producing what looks an awful lot like a doctrine of continuing revelation even though that’s not what you actually teach.

Most often during these kinds of debates many will, after exaustively covering all topics perceived necessary, ultimately, by default, point to the belief that the Holy Spirit has somehow enabled them to understand the true sense of the The Word.

But since you haven’t heard me do that, this is really an irrelevant argument. I don’t believe that anyone can be counted on to hear the Holy Spirit with complete and unfailing accuracy. The Holy Spirit is guiding the Church–that is to say, all of us–but the process of hearing the Spirit’s voice is a slow and difficult one. Many Christians of all persuasions try to construct theologies that sidestep this process and correspond more closely to how they think the Spirit ought to work–but this is rather presumptuous. You might as well complain that roses have thorns.

But when they do this, they undermine the claims within the Scriptures themselves which do claim that the Church will not be led into error.

I know of no such claims. Please point out the passages you have in mind.

Nowhere do the Scriptures claim to be the binding force which causes unity amongst those who believe in Christ as Savior. But we do see that the Scriptures do claim many times that the Church will be the faifull witness of God’s will and explain the Scriptures without error.

I don’t see anything of the sort. I don’t see any promise of infallibility anywhere in the Bible.

When I read this, the first thing that I have noticed is that there is no reference to the Holy Spirit being active in teaching these things through the Church which God himself has chosen to manifest his will-- which effectively amplifies and oral tradition to being a revelation from God transmitted through the Church.

Of course the Holy Spirit is active. But it’s evident that the Holy Spirit did not guide the Church always to teach correct things about Purgatory. For instance, few today would say that Purgatory is a temporary hell in which souls are tormented by demons. But this was taught commonly in the Middle Ages and can be found in the writings of great saints like St. Thomas More. For Catholics, the Holy Spirit is “off the hook” because this understanding was never dogmatized. I frankly don’t care. I care about what actual medieval Christians thought–what they preached and heard in sermons, what they wrote and read in books, what they lived their minds by. If the Holy Spirit isn’t guiding the Church at that level, then Official Dogma is irrelevant.

Please understand me here. I’m simply not interested in arguing whether or not the Church ever taught error about Purgatory in the sense you would recognize as valid (Official Dogma). When I speak of “the Church” I mean the actual historic community of believers, not some abstract “invisible Church” in either its Protestant or Catholic forms. When I speak of “teaching” I mean the day-to-day work of preaching and writing, not some artificially limited category of Official Dogma.

The fact that ordinary people believed things about Purgatory that are incompatible with orthodox Christianity (the idea of a soul who dies in the grace of God being tormented by demons after death is flatly incompatible with orthodoxy) casts serious doubt on the idea that the Church was guided by the Spirit in defining Purgatory as a dogma. If the Church had been so guided, the Church would also have been guided to teach Purgatory in such a way as to avoid these deadly misinterpretations. This is what I mean in saying that your understanding of Church authority doesn’t work where it actually counts.

 

[Contarini]

There’s also no reference to the fact that a concept very similar to purgatory is known to have been taught by our Jewish brethren well before the Church came to be-- effectively reputing this idea that the concept was later developed and instead links it with Jewish teachings which did interpret certain Scriptures with a kind of soul-purging before coming into God’s presence.

I considered getting into that, but 2 Maccabees does not say anything about a purifying punishment. The implication of that text is that the sacrifice purifies the dead from sin–it’s much closer to the Orthodox than to the Catholic view. I’m not arguing about prayer for the dead, which is one of the things I’d put in the “possible oral apostolic tradition” category. When I speak of “Purgatory” I mean the doctrine that distinguishes Catholics from Orthodox. That I maintain is a later development. (I know that many Orthodox Jews came to believe in a kind of purgatorial punishment, but I think this was a later development among them as well. Perhaps you can prove me wrong on that point.)

And while we should seek out these things in order to understand them within their proper context, we should also recognize that these teachings may be a motion of the Holy Spirit within the Church as well.

Indeed they may. But since you grant that there is no further revelation, the Church’s guidance in interpreting the original deposit cannot be put on the same level as the deposit itself.

And if so, how do we determine whether the Holy Spirt is actively teaching this through us or not?

There is no way to be sure. The basic difference I have with dogmatists on both sides is that I don’t think the purpose of the Gospel is to bring intellectual certainty. We have to pray humbly for guidance and walk in the light we have, joyously accepting the possibility that we may turn out to be completely wrong on all sorts of points.

Do you mind if I ask you what led you to this opinion?

It is reasonable to conclude that there is some process to get us from the imperfect state in which we die to the state of complete holiness which alone could enjoy full union with God. Since this is a widespread view among Christians (and among Jews, as you note), it is a highly plausible opinion. But no more than that.

Edwin

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

This board is a place for us to say what we think, yes

True. But if we’re trying to get to the heart of the matter, then in the end we’re not really dwelling upon an intellectual exercise in denominational logistics.

We’re ultimately asking along with Pilate, “What is truth?”

Contarini:

Quite the contrary. We agree, don’t we, that there is an original deposit of divine revelation which cannot be added to?

Yes. But I think we have a different outlook on how this deposit was given.

For example, when I picture an original deposit of divine revelation which cannot be added to, I’m picturing the church being given the answer to a very deep mathematical question and also being given the knowledge to figure out the answer to that question.

So while the answer may already be given, and while we have the skill and knowledge to calculate the answer, there still remains much work to do in order to explain how we actually get from the original question to the answer.

In this sense, no error will occur as far as the final answer is concerned-- because we already know the answer given by God.

Likewise, we do have the skills necessary to calculate the answer-- but we might not always be completely accurate when explaining how we arrive at this answer.

wfu.edu/~ekh/maple/taylorf/images/remainex.jpg

In other words, the answer is infalliably correct. But our explanation of how this answer is reached using the skills we have available to us may not be complete to the point that when we explain it beyond what we honestly understand the explanation does in fact confuse others from what’s actually going on.

Your example of St. Thomas More’s thoughts on purgatory are possibly an excellent example of this. Tertullian had thoughts similar to this too. And yet we are now more aware of what’s going on.

Jimmy Akin does a really good job of explaining the refinement of the Catholic explanation of this refinement process that is believed to occur during the soul’s transition through purgatory…
James Akin:

The final purification may take place in the immediate presence of God (to the extent that God’s presence may be described in spatial terms). In fact, in his book on eschatology, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger describes purgatory as a fiery, transforming encounter with Christ and his love:

"Purgatory is not, as Tertullian thought, some kind of supra-worldly concentration camp where one is forced to undergo punishments in a more or less arbitrary fashion. Rather it is the inwardly necessary process of transformation in which a person becomes capable of Christ, capable of God * and thus capable of unity with the whole communion of saints. Simply to look at people with any degree of realism at all is to grasp the necessity of such a process. It does not replace grace by works, but allows the former to achieve its full victory precisely as grace. What actually saves is the full assent of faith. But in most of us, that basic option is buried under a great deal of wood, hay and straw. Only with difficulty can it peer out from behind the latticework of an egoism we are powerless to pull down with our own hands. Man is the recipient of the divine mercy, yet this does not exonerate him from the need to be transformed. Encounter with the Lord is* this transformation. It is the fire that burns away our dross and re-forms us to be vessels of eternal joy."Thus according to Ratzinger’s way of explaining the doctrine, as we are drawn out of this life and into direct union with Jesus, his fiery love and holiness burns away all the dross and impurities in our souls and makes us fit for life in the glorious, overwhelming light of God’s presence and holiness.

We now know Ratzinger as his holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

Anyway, I digress.

Do you see what I mean though?

The final deposit has been given. So too have we been given the tools to calculate the answer. But our explanation of the answer may not always be precise-- which is the reason why we have authoritive ecumenical councils to refine these ideas throughout church history.

This is a fairly simple explanation that I would like to expand upon further in regards to the question of the original deposit of divine revelation which cannot be added to.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I know of no such claims. Please point out the passages you have in mind. I don’t see anything of the sort. I don’t see any promise of infallibility anywhere in the Bible.

The Scriptures on numerous occasions teach that Christ will never leave us. They also indicate that those who listen to his chosen people will know the truth about God.

And like I said before in another thread, it needs to be asked that if the Scriptures do not explicitly state that the Scriptures themselves are the most trustworthy way of knowing God’s will, then what do the Scriptures actually say in regards to those who were entrusted to correctly carry the Word of God?

In other words, how do we know the Spirit of Truth?

We know that John 4:24 clearly states that God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.

We also know that John 14:17 clearly states that he, the Spirit of truth, will be known by us-- for he will live with us and is in us.

In addition to this, we also know that John 16:13 clearly states that Spirit of truth will guide us into all truth. The Scriptures even proclaim that he will not speak on his own-- he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell us what is yet to come.

According to John 18:37, when Jesus was facing off against Pilate, Jesus clearly stated:

You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me

.

Later, according to, 1 John 4:6, we hear an echo of the Spirit from Jesus’s own apostles’ restating the same exact message:

We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth

and the spirit of falsehood.

In Luke 10:16 we see this very same message being formulated:

He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued.

The Scriptures also clearly indicate that we will be instructed in truth and knowledge too.
Romans 15:14:

I myself am convinced, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, complete in knowledge and competent to instruct one another.

2 Peter 1:3:

His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge

of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.
1 Corinthians 1:4-6:

I always thank God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. For in him you have been enriched in every way—in all your speaking and in all your knowledge— because our testimony about Christ was confirmed in you.

2 Corinthians 8:7:

But just as you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in complete earnestness and in your love for us —see that you also excel in this grace of giving.

2 Corinthians 10:5:

We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

And even if one doesn’t believe that Christ was speaking directly to Peter, when one adds to these the passages where Christ says that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church, and when one adds to this list that 1 Thessalonians 2:3 clearly states that the appeal they make does not spring from error or impure motives (nor are they trying to trick us), it becomes even clearer to me that God is powerfully at work within his church, a church that most certainly must be error free if she is able to explain the Scriptures for us and proclaim God’s will clearly to the world.

This isn’t simply quote-mining. This is a clear message running clear and quite visibly all throughout the Christian Scriptures regarding those whom God has chosen and authentically given the authority to spread his word.

To be honest, based solely on the Scriptures, I’m not sure how anyone could argue otherwise. In fact, it’s exactly what I’d expect to find within the Scriptures-- God’s seal of approval upon the Church that he himself sent to spead his message.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Hmmm…I thought a little bit more about the question of errors creeping into the Church. So I decided to search even further into this question. I was actually rather surprised to come along some other passages and read them within their entire context.

For example, when I read 2 Corinthians 13:1-10, I read, in context, something rather remarkable about what Paul is claiming regarding his authority as an apostle…

This will be my third visit to you.

**Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.**I already gave you a warning when I was with you the second time. I now repeat it while absent:On my return I will not spare those who sinned earlier or any of the others, since you are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you.

For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God’s power. Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God’s power we will live with him to serve you.

Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves.

Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?

And I trust that you will discover that we have not failed the test.

Now we pray to God that you will not do anything wrong. Not that people will see that we have stood the test but that you will do what is right even though we may seem to have failed.

For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.

We are glad whenever we are weak but you are strong; and our prayer is for your perfection.

This is why I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority—the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down.

I dunno…

This sounds very much like a God-given, God-authorized, and God-guided eccleistical authority to me. It sounds remarkably similar to the Catholic understanding of the Church in our modern day to be perfectly honest-- and I’m not reading these words out context either.

Furthermore, there are clear Scriptural references to people needing people of authority to explain the meaning of the Scriptures to others.

Christ himself spoke the word to people in many parables, as much as they could understand. In fact, he did not say anything to them without using a parable.

However, when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything. Later, after his resurrection but before the breaking of the bread, beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. Indeed, after the breaking of the bread, they said…
**Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?**We see a similar things in Acts 8:30-32, Acts 17:2-4, and even in Acts 18: 24-28 where Apollos, even though he only had John’s baptism, was still nonetheless clearly instructed in the way of the Lord. And even Acts 28:22-24 clearly demonstrates this necessity of having the Scriptures explained properly.

It is true that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

But how, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in?

And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?

And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?

And how can they preach unless they are sent?

As it is written…
How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!