Luther Thought Purgatory was an Open Question?

Beggars All Reformation and Aplogetics ^ | May 04, 2013 | James Swan

[boatbums]

Luther Thought Purgatory was an Open Question?

I came across this link posted on the Catholic Answers Forums: The Hope of Eternal Life. The link is ecumenical in nature, an attempt to smooth over the edges between Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism. This is the excerpt that was posted on CAF:

181. The most explicit discussion of purgatory in the Confessions comes in the 1537 Smalcald Articles, II, 2, which addressed the mass as sacrifice. Besides being itself a violation of the Gospel, the mass as sacrifice "has produced many noxious maggots and the excrement of various idolatries" (§11), the first of which is purgatory. Purgatory, "with all its pomp, requiem Masses, and transactions, is to be regarded as an apparition of the devil for it obscures the chief article..." (§12). Behind Luther's typically extreme language, however, a more nuanced understanding is elaborated. "Concerning the dead we have received neither command nor instruction. For these reasons, it may be best to abandon it [derhalben man es mocht wohl lassen], even if it were neither error nor idolatry" (§12). In a revised version of the article, Luther added a discussion of the authority of Augustine claimed for the doctrine. "When they have given up their purgatorial 'Mass fairs' (something Augustine never dreamed of), then we will discuss with them whether St. Augustine's word, lacking support from Scripture, may be tolerated and whether the dead may be commemorated at the sacrament. It will not do to formulate articles of faith on the basis of the holy Fathers' works or words" (§14f). The existence of purgatory is not dogmatically denied. Rather, 1) the existence of purgatory is not taught by Scripture and thus cannot be binding doctrine, and 2) belief in purgatory is now hopelessly bound up with unacceptable practices. A belief that could be discussed in principle is concretely objectionable because of its associations.

This excerpt is fascinating because it argues Luther believed:

-Purgatory isn't taught in Scripture, but yet may exist.
-Purgatory is only to be avoided because of its associations with "unacceptable practices."
-If these practices were removed, a proper discussion on purgatory could occur.

According to this article here is Luther's view of purgatory: "A belief that could be discussed in principle is concretely objectionable because of its associations." In other words, purgatory, for Luther, was an open question. Get rid of the abuses attached to it, and then it could be discussed.

In regard to the Smalcald Articles, LW states, "Under these circumstances the elector of Saxony instructed Luther in a letter of Dec. 11, 1536, to prepare a statement indicating the articles of faith in which concessions might be made for the sake of peace and the articles in which no concessions could be made."

Here are the two statements from the Smalcald Articles alluded to above. Read them for yourself and see if Luther is willing to make a concession on purgatory for the sake of peace:

Luther states in Article 12:

12 The first is purgatory. They were so occupied with requiem Masses, with vigils, with the weekly, monthly, and yearly celebrations of requiems, with the common week, with All Souls’ Day, and with soul-baths that the Mass was used almost exclusively for the dead although Christ instituted the sacrament for the living alone. Consequently purgatory and all the pomp, services, and business transactions associated with it are to be regarded as nothing else than illusions of the devil, for purgatory, too, is contrary to the fundamental article that Christ alone, and not the work of man, can help souls. Besides, nothing has been commanded or enjoined upon us with reference to the dead. All this may consequently be discarded, apart entirely from the fact that it is error and idolatry.

Luther states in Article 13:

13 The papists here adduce passages from Augustine and some of the Fathers who are said to have written about purgatory. They suppose that we do not understand for what purpose and to what end the authors wrote these passages. St. Augustine (tr-467) does not write that there is a purgatory, nor does he cite any passage of the Scriptures that would constrain him to adopt such an opinion. He leaves it undecided whether or not there is a purgatory and merely mentions that his mother asked that she be remembered at the altar or sacrament. Now, this is nothing but a human opinion of certain individuals and cannot establish an article of faith. That is the prerogative of God alone. 14 But our papists make use of such human opinions to make men believe their shameful, blasphemous, accursed traffic in Masses which are offered for souls in purgatory, etc. They can never demonstrate these things from Augustine. Only when they have abolished their traffic in purgatorial Masses (which St. Augustine never dreamed of) shall we be ready to discuss with them whether statements of St. Augustine are to be accepted when they are without the support of the Scriptures and whether the dead are to be commemorated in the sacrament. 15 It will not do to make articles of faith out of the holy Fathers’ words or works. Otherwise what they ate, how they dressed, and what kind of houses they lived in would have to become articles of faith — as has happened in the case of relics. This means that the Word of God shall establish articles of faith and no one else, not even an angel.

The reading given to these statements by The Hope of Eternal Life downplays the first explicit rejection of purgatory, and sees the real Luther in his willingness to discuss what Augustine meant when "purgatorial masses" are abolished. The problem as I see it, is this reading of the Smalcald Articles isolates these statements from Luther's total written corpus, particularly any writings after the Smalcald Articles.

For instance, in his later sermons on Genesis, Luther states something with similar characteristics to the Smalcald articles. Note particularly the reference to Augustine:

The pope invents four separate places for the dead.The first is the hell of the damned. The second is purgatory, and Thomas Aquinas says that hell is the middle point, so to speak. It is surrounded by purgatory. But around this there is a third circle. It is for unbaptized infants. The fourth circle is the limbo of the fathers. Here the godly dwelt before the resurrection of Christ. These are nothing but dreams and human inventions. Peter and Paul state clearly that the demons move about in the air. With regard to what Paul says see Eph. 2:2, and in 2 Peter 2:4 it is stated that “God did not spare the angels when they sinned but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment.” With these statements I rest content, and I do not inquire into things higher than those handed down by the apostles. Of purgatory there is no mention in Holy Scripture; it is a lie of the devil, in order that the papists may have some market days and snares for catching money. The sophists agree with the pope because of Thomas. But Thomas does not concern us. Augustine makes mention of purgatory somewhere, but he speaks very obscurely. Therefore I do not believe that those four separate classes really exist; for Scripture does not speak this way but testifies that the dead saints are gathered to their people, or to those who believe in the Messiah and awaited His coming, just as Adam, together with all his descendants, died in faith in Christ. But how these saints are kept in definite places, we do not know. [Luther, M. (1999, c1966). Vol. 8: Luther's works, vol. 8 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 45-50 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (8:316). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

Here again Luther explicitly denies purgatory, then mentions the obscurity of Augustine. He then goes on to deny that "four separate classes really exist." In the same volume, Luther refers to "Masses, purgatory, indulgences, and prayers to the dead" as false forms of worship (LW 8:230). Elsewhere in Luther's lectures on Genesis he states,

[P]urgatory is the greatest falsehood, because it is based on ungodliness and unbelief; for they deny that faith saves, and they maintain that satisfaction for sins is the cause of salvation. Therefore he who is in purgatory is in hell itself; for these are his thoughts: “I am a sinner and must render satisfaction for my sins; therefore I shall make a will and shall bequeath a definite amount of money for building churches and for buying prayers and sacrifices for the dead by the monks and priests.” Such people die in a faith in works and have no knowledge of Christ. Indeed, they hate Him. We die in faith in Christ, who died for our sins and rendered satisfaction for us. He is my Bosom, my Paradise, my Comfort, and my Hope. [Luther, M. (1999, c1964). Vol. 4: Luther's works, vol. 4 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 21-25 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (4:315). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

And here:

The third sphere is that of purgatory, into which neither the damned nor infants enter; it is for those who, while they believe, yet have not rendered satisfaction for their sins. The souls of these are ransomed by means of indulgences. From this source comes the hogwash of indulgences and the entire papistic religion.The fourth place is the limbo of the fathers. They say that Christ descended to this place, broke it open, and set free—not from hell but from the limbo—the fathers who were troubled by the longing and waiting for Christ but were not enduring punishment or torments. With these silly ideas the papists have filled the church and the world. We have overturned all this completely and maintain that unbaptized infants do not have such a sphere. But in what state they are or what becomes of them we commend to the goodness of God. They do not have faith or Baptism; but whether God receives them in an extraordinary manner and gives them faith is not stated in the Word, and we dare not set down anything as certain. To be deprived of the vision of God is hell itself. They admit that they have will and intellect, especially concerning the vision of God and life; but these are falsehoods. And purgatory is the greatest falsehood, because it is based on ungodliness and unbelief; for they deny that faith saves, and they maintain that satisfaction for sins is the cause of salvation. Therefore he who is in purgatory is in hell itself; for these are his thoughts: “I am a sinner and must render satisfaction for my sins; therefore I shall make a will and shall bequeath a definite amount of money for building churches and for buying prayers and sacrifices for the dead by the monks and priests.” Such people die in a faith in works and have no knowledge of Christ. Indeed, they hate Him. We die in faith in Christ, who died for our sins and rendered satisfaction for us. He is my Bosom, my Paradise, my Comfort, and my Hope. [Luther, M. (1999, c1964). Vol. 4: Luther's works, vol. 4 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 21-25 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (4:315). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

Comments from Luther similar to these could be greatly multiplied, which is why some Lutherans see any affirmation that Luther held purgatory was an "open question" as a lie of the Devil.

[vladimir998]

“If you hadn’t made an ad hominem AND a personal attack, your earlier rant wouldn’t have been deleted.”

You couldn’t be more wrong. Just post a certain historical fact and your post will be deleted. It’s just that simple.

[vladimir998]

No, actually you’re arguing against the Word of God - and common sense.

Catholics here have to argue against ignorance and watch their posts get deleted when they post historical facts.

[Luircin]

Pass. The Word is self evident and I don’t care to deal with endless ad hominems that deny God’s Word.

Take care, FRiend.

[vladimir998]

There were no ad hominems.

And I think you know that too.

what you’re avoiding - because you apparently have to:

So you’re honestly claiming stealing a 29 cent Bic disposable pen from an office is just as evil, just as sinful, as raping a child and murdering that child? Can you really be that off base? https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/january/19.65.html
https://billygraham.org/answer/are-all-sins-the-same-in-gods-eyes/

Even serious sins appear to have some that are more serious than others: John 19:11 - “For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.”

In passages that speak of greater degrees of punishment, it becomes obvious that there are varying levels of sinfulness. Evil people can become even worse (2 Tim. 3:13).

And, not surprisingly, there will be more punishment for some than others (Matthew 11:20ff; Luke 12:47-48; Hebrews 10:28-29; James 3:1; 2 Peter 2:20-21).

Numbers 15:27-31 even makes clear that there are unwitting sinful actions. This can only mean objective sins committed by people who did not know or fully understand that they were doing wrong.

And the Lord’s warning in Matthew 18:6 makes no sense if all sins are equal.

[Cronos]

The Pauline epistles are still considered holy text. So whether he was a nut or not, the words in that epistle saying "saved, but as through fire" mentioned in 1 Cor 3:15? are valid scripture.

[Cronos]

Limbo = basically saying “we don’t know” - it’s not clearly defined, so where do they go? “we don’t know”/Limbo — BUT we believe in a loving God, so we believe they must be in heaven, but what God’s plan is for that, we don’t know. And here I’m talking specifically about unbaptized innocents.

[Cronos]

I'd like to put another perspective -- NEITHER Luther nor the Church were anti-semitic in the way we see the term today. They didn't see Jews as a race, but a religion.

So Luther had no problem with a person of Jewish origin who followed Luther -- yet if they didn't listen to him, he called for fire and brimstone on them. Luther called Calvinists and Catholics the same -- essentially he was brilliant and had a massive ego (this is separate from his theological views - I'm talking about his person, and that's different from his theology) -- he basically hated anyone who didn't follow him

NO ONE until the 1800s hated Jews for their race. If a Jew converted to another faith, he was no longer a Jew

Modern day anti-semitism is based on a flawed understanding of Darwin's evolution. Various European and American people who knew a little bit of science (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing) came to the conclusion that races are "evolution" - starting from the "lowest races" such as sub-saharan Africans or Irishmen (yeah, the racist idiots considered the two equally "low") all the way up to the "Aryan superman" -- again a stupidity as "Aryans" are properly only Iranians or North Indians.

Luther wasn't an anti-semite like the Nazis and neither were Catholics in the Middle Ages. Both of these would have been appalled at the Nazi killing

[Cronos]

We accept stuff in Scripture as God’s word is Truth.

A question - why?

Why do you accept only those books in the Bible as scripture? What about the fact that the book of the Apocalypse was debated about for so long?

Also in the first century the only commonly accepted books by all Christians, from Anglia to Kodungallur were the 4 Gospels + most (but not all) of the Pauline Epistles (among the New Testament). Even among the Old Testament that was in flux which is why the Syriacs of Southern India and the Ethiopians have additional books as part of their scripture

Why do YOU consider what books you have in your collection of holy books (the Bible) as complete and that :

1. they are holy
2. there aren't others.?

[Cronos]

You wrote In Roman Catholic theology, purgatory is an intermediate state -- as you yourself quoted, it's a state of being, not a place as the Church says. The Church says 'no such place"

[Cronos]

2 Maccabees had always been disputed as canonical

well, no. If we're going to say all disputed means no, then the book of the Apocalypse was heavily disputed.

[Cronos]

The Jewish canon was closed after Christians appear, so is not valid. Remember that the Dead Sea Scrolls have other books in their canon

Also Maccabees 2 was included in the Codex Sinaiticus which dates to the 4th century. Similarly Augustine and the Synod of Hippo in the 300s considered it as canon

on what basis do you reject it and yet accept other books as canon?

You then say More importantly, Maccabees is not written to believers in Christ. Both books predate Christ’s sacrifice Joe -- well, every Old Testament book predates Christ's sacrifice

[Cronos]

For those who put their trust for salvation in Christ alone, apart from their works, every sin has already been paid for by His sacrifice.

And that is exactly what the Church has always taught -- whether praying or paying for people in the state of purgatory does not "save" them from their sins, THAT is only done and was done and is being done by and through the sacrifice of the Christ.

Purgatory as defined by the Church is

All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.

You die not completely sinless, and you enter heaven sinless (as sin cannot bear the presence of God). So you are "washed" of your sins by the blood of the Christ. THAT purification is purgatory. you can't save yourself, you can restrict the sins you do, but you'll never completely reduce this

Luircin and eagelone don't seem to get this -- that we do see that every little sin (why do I have the song "every step she takes" playing in my head when I write that? :) ) is still counted. And God cleanses us of this in the purification through the blood of The Christ

[Cronos]

Luther was a master of hyperbole - as seen in his statements against Jews. First he was conciliatory, thinking that “hey, look, I’ll be the one to convince the Jews to convert to Christ!” and then, when they didn’t get convinced, he was all “burn em until they convert!” (as I wrote above, this didn’t make him an anti-semite as we now know the term, it just made him a guy who hated people who disagreed with him)

[Cronos]

If we are washed clean by the Blood, if salvation is a free gift and not by works, if we have been perfected forever, if our sins were as crimson but now are as white as snow, then what purpose would purgatory serve? It doesn’t make sense.

And that question of yours does say that you may not know how the Church defines purgatory -- the Church defines is exactly as "being washed clean by the Blood", the Church states very clearly that "salvation is a free gift and we cannot save ourselves". The Church very clearly states that we ARE perfected by the Christ's sacrifice.

You and I have sinned in our lives and these are purified by Christ. The purification continues until we reach heaven where we are completely and utterly devoid of sin. That purification at the point of death to entering heaven is purgatory.

Purgatory is not a place, not a time (as heaven is out of place and time) but the ultimate part of the process of purification through the blood of Christ that works through us through our lives thanks to the grace of God.

[Cronos]

The prejudices against the Jews are not exclusively Catholic, nor were they.

The Early and High Middle Ages (until the Black Death) did not see pogroms against Jews in the West. Let me focus on the West first -- Up until 700 AD - Jews in Croatia to the West were tolerated except in Spain - the Visigoths from 587 forcibly baptized the children of mixed marriages between Jews and Christians. In addition there were Jewish plots to overthrow the Visigoths that were instigated by the Roman Empire in Constantinople (remember that the "Byzantines" were really the continuation of the Roman Empire)

But then the Berber and Arab invasion of Spain. And just as in Egypt and Syria, Jews along with non-orthodox Christians supported and aided Arab/Berber armies to conquer Christian lands - it is understandable why they did this - the Jews thought that the Muslims were going to help them and also that the Muslims were closer to them theologically (being of the oneness of God) than Christians -- AND THEY were/are right, Moslems are closer to Jews than either are to Christian theology

Jews in Spain guarded the cities after the Arab/Berber armies invaded, so enabling the Arab/Berber armies to have strong mobility.

This definitely created antagonism against Jews in Spain and in the Frankish lands (present day France, northern Italy and Germany)

Jews also aided Moslems in their invasions of Egypt etc. and into Sicily. While this is an understandable action on their part (we look back in hindsight based on knowledge we have and they didn't), it definitely caused antagonism

Jewish "collaboration" with the Moslem rulers ended when the Ummayyads were displaced by the Almoravids (a stricter Berber dynasty) that initiated the 1066 Grenada pogrom where 4000 Jews were killed by the Moslem authorities

But by then the linkage of Jews to "national traitors" was linked.

This simmered until the black death -- Jews conducted ritual washing which saved them from having half of their numbers killed (many still died). This was seen as 'collaboration with the devil' -- think of it, if you were a gentile at that time, it would be logical - why are these jews saved when they live exactly like us?

And the real persecution of the Jews started from the 14th century onwards WITH THE EXCEPTION of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth - and note that the black death didn't hit that country (the reason for that is another question) not even the gentiles.

I would also call this NOT anti-semitism, since the hatred was not against a "race" - but anti-judaism since the hatred was against a religion. It's a fine point but a very important point of difference.

Jews who converted to Lutheranis, to Calvinism, to Church of England, to Catholicism, to Islam, to Eastern Orthodoxy, were no longer targets of hatred, but were assimilated (I'm not justifying either reaction just giving the explanation).

One clear exception to this rule was the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth again - where you have a person writing in the 1600s "I am ...., a person of the Polish state, of the Jewish nation and of the Lutheran faith"

[Cronos]

The hatred for Jews in the lands of Eastern Orthodoxy are also varied -- there is no hatred and was no hatred for them in Bulgaria -- remember that the Bulgarians saved all of their Jews from the Nazis (even though they were Nazi allies), but there was hatred for Jews in Greece and in Russia. Why?

In Greece the hatred dates to the Islamic invasions -- as I said above Syria, Egypt fell at least partially because Oriental Christians (syriacs and Copts) and Jews both collaborated with the invading Arab armies (as an aside BOTH were correct for the first 150 years of Arab rule, under the Ummayyads - they were treated better than they were under the catholic-orthodox Byzantine rule. Things changed after the Abbassids and especially after the FAtimids came to power)

This was remembered, but the REAL, REAL source for Greek hatred of Jews was the fall of Constantinople and after that -- The Odessa pogroms of the early 1800s were a case in point. They were triggered because in 1821, during the outbreak of the Greek War for Independence, the Jews were accused of sympathizing with the Ottoman authorities and of aiding the Turks in killing the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, Gregory V, dragging his dead body through the streets and finally throwing it into the Bosphorus

According to several accounts, after Gregory's death his body, along with those of other executed prelates, was turned over to the city's (Istanbul's) Jews, who dragged it through the streets and threw it into the sea

My opinion is that the Jews of Istanbul did this to their rivals, not out of religious tension but as the Orthodox millet was their rival in business and in currying the attention of the Sublime Porte. The Greeks would do as bad things to the Jewish prelates if they got the chance.

The Russian hatred of Jews dates to the Russian gobbling up of the eastern provinces of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth.

Remember that by 1780, nearly 60% of World Jewry lived in Poland-Lithuania and the bulk of these were gobbled up by Russia

The Russians until this time had next to no Jews, so their experience was zilch and there were no prejudice

Suddenly they had an influx of Jews who were smarter than the average peasant and richer. Prejudice grew. The Jews were persecuted by the Tsars with pogroms etc. and Jews either retreated (Orthodoxy, Hassidism) or assimilated (eg. Marx's father converted) or were seduced by communism, a philosophy that preached equality for all. The last had the effect of making people think communism was a Jewish conspiracy (it is ironic that people thought both that communism was a Jewish conspiracy and yet at the same time saw the Jews as rich moneybags! But prejudice is illogical)

[Cronos]

Why do the various Methodists, Baptists, Oneness Pentacostals, Church of Assembly of God, Seventh Day Adventists, Anglicans, Mennonites, PCUSA Presbyterians, PCA Presbyterians, OPC Presbyterians, Southern Baptists, National Baptists etc. care what Luther thought?

you guys don't agree with Luther on so many things -- the Lutherans have priests, they have an episcopate (bishops, priests etc.), they believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and they also have confession to a priest.

Other western christians (with the exception of Anglicans) don't have this.

If Luther held to something, like Baptism, he said that those who don't follow it are vile. But Baptists (for one) disagree with him

Arguably the Unitarians or the Jehovah's Witnesses were the full implementation of the Reformatting. Luther, Calvin nor the Zwinglists went far enough.

[Cronos]

"semper reformanda" -- always reforming. There are new directions being found, new interpretations everyday.

Each new bunch of Reformatters reformats the old.

1. You have the first generation namely Lutheran sticking close to orthodoxy with the Lutherans holding to the True Presence in the Eucharist, to Baptismal regeneration etc.
2. Generation 2: Then you have the Calvin-Zwingli crowd rejecting these two as well as other aspects of orthodoxy
3. Generation 3: Knox and the Anglican compromise
4. Generation 4: The Unitarians like Michael Servetus who went from being Catholic to Lutheran to Reformed to denying the Trinity.
5. Generation 5: the Baptists who now rejected infant baptism (quite unlike their namesakes the Anabaptists (now called Mennonites)) and said that there was a great Apostasy in the first centuries of Christendom (Gen 1-3 took later centuries as the dates of their "Great Apostasy")
6. Generation 6: the Restorationists at the Great Awakening, like
   
   • The Millerites, to become the Seventh DayAdventists -- with Ellen G White saying that Jesus was the same as the Archangel Michael and that Satan woudl take the sins of the world at the end of time and other beauties. They came up with their own version of the Bible
   • The Unitarians and Universalists -- reborn and reinvigorated by this reformatting, they tossed out the Trinity and eventually they end up as they are today where they believe in nothing
   • Jehovah's Witnesses: they tossed out the Trinity too and came up with their own version of the Bible
   • The Mormons: they took the Trinity and made it three gods. They too came up with their own version of the Bible
7. Generation 7: Pentecostalists, the Raelians, the Branch Davidians, the Creflo-Dollar crowd, the Jesse Dupantis (I went to visit Jesus in heaven and comforted Him) etc -- one step further beyond generation 6
8. Generation 8: ... any one of the new sects formed since 1990

So, someone from a generation 8 sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sect may not agree with Luther (generation 1), so the entire debate is moot. Ultimately for the new reformatters, everything is to be tossed out.

[Cronos]

To me it is kinda funny when you debate about what is canon or not The apostles spent months and years in vrious localities relaying the truth and teaching the people (acts 18:11). They taught them how to live, how to starta a local ecclesia and how to function with it. Then, beforer moving on, they chose and ordained bishops to succeed them in the Church in that dioceses. The new church was left with the apostolic tradition and apostolic succession as the basis for their faith and the means for the transmission of the tradition to the next generation. The NEw Testament, as a corpus did not exist.

Eusebius writes in History of The Church, 3, 24 writes, "Thus they proclaimed the knowledge of the kingdom of heaven through the whole world, giving very little thought to the business of writing books" -- Note that "proclaim" is essentially an act of oral proclamation, not writing, and what they procelaimed was the "knowledge of the kingdom of God" and not just the "simple gospel"

The term "canon" was being used for the oral tradition and confessions of faith long before it was used to describe the list of accepted books.

In fact, this canon, or tradition, was an important criterion for determing which books would eventually become part of the New Testment.

This was oral tradition, passed down from one to another -- many of th fist beleivers could not read, writing material was scarce and expensive, and printing presses had not yet been invented.

you may quote 2 Tim 3:16-17 "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable forr teeaching, for reproof, forr correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.", YET, we find St. Paul writing to the Ephesians (Eph 4:11-14) using the same language: 11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

14Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. 15Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. 16From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

He uses the same language, informing his readers that the equipping and perfeting of saints is accomplished through the leaders of the Church


Where does Scripture tell us that "God's word" can and must only be in written form, typed on paper or parchment" As tudy of the phrases "word of God" and "word of the Lord" is enlightening. In most cases, this is referring to the spoken word, not the wrritten word (eg. 1 Th 2:13 "13For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.").

Our Lord himself nevere wrote anything down (othe than unknown words on the ground) , and it was not recorded that he ever commissioned his followers to wrrite everything down. HAd it been as important to him as the reformers make our, shouldn't he have made it clear for all time that only what was written down could be considered God's word?

But Jesus never promised us an authoritative book, nor did his apostles; rather, he promised us an authoritative CHURCH: Matthew 18:17 "17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. " or 1 Tim 5:17 " 16If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need. 17The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching "

Jesus' "word" was orally transmitted to the twelve apostles -- as we see in Acts 20:35 "in all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said "It is more blessed to give than to receive'" --> Do you remember those latter words related anywhere in the Gospels? They aren't. How did Paul know Jesus said them, and why did he assume his listeners were well acquainted with these words? Because of the oral tradition.

In fact, the Gospels hadn't even been written yet. The early Church woudd wait another fifty years to receive the Gospel of John. You also have examples like Jude 14Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him." or Jude 17But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. 18They said to you, "In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires."

The Apostle John tells us that if everything Jesus accomplished was written down, all the world cold not contain the books. Since Jesus spent three intimate years with his disciples, we know that the content of th eGospels is only a small fraction of what Jesus taught them. Few realise that Jesus spent forty days after the Resurrrection instrcting the Twelve apostles through the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:2-3 and also the endings of the Gospels of Mathhew, Luke and John)

The early Church depended upon the apostolic tradition.

The Apostle PAul in 1 tim 3: 14Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth --> though he gave them instructinos on how to conduct themselves, the real message was the spoken one that Paul was coming to convey to them.

And neither Jesus nor the Apostles gave us a final list of ingallible books. Neither did they promise or hand us an authoritative book.

However, Jesus promised us an authoritative Church (Matthew 18:15-20) a single, visible Church that would pass ont he trth, always carefully preserving the tradition entrusted to her.

Jude 3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

He used rabbinical terms like "binding and loosing". These rrepresented the legistlative and judicial powers of the Rabbinic office. These powers Christ now transferrred in their reality to His apostles.

Remember also Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John wrote in the 2nd century "This preaching and this faith, the Church, although scattered over the whole world, diligently observes, as if it occupied but one house, and believes as if it had but one mind, and preaches and teaches as if it had but one mouth. And although there are many dialects in the world, the meaning of the tradition is oen and the same " (Against Heresies 1,10, 2)

He also wrote "When, thereforre, we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek among others the truth which is easily obtained from The Church. For the apostles, like a rich man in a bank, deposited with her (the Church), most copiously everything which pertains to the truth; and everyone whosoever wishes draws from her the drink of life."


Remember that the early Church seemed to be in no hurry to collect all the inspired writings and authoritatively announces to Chrstians that "this is now the sole rule of faith for your individual interpretation"
The early Church was in no hurry for the truth was not to be deposited exclusively into a book, as the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura teches, but the truth, the fullness of the faith wa deposited in the Church -- to the saints once and for all.

St Ephiphanius (315-403) wrote "It is needful also to make use of tradition; for not everything can be gotten from Sacred Scripture. The holy Apostles handed down some things int he Scriptures, other things in Tradition" (Panarion)

St. Augustine wote "I believe that this practise comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices not found in their writings nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are ept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commended and handed down by the Apostles themselves" (De Baptis. contra Donat)

If you read Paul's Epistles, he seems to be all fire and ire, rebuking, but yet these were incidental, sent to corrct a problem, remind the readers of the oral tradition, or to supplement the preaching of the gospel.

The New Testament is the "child" or product of The Church. It is the collected and inspired writings of the apostles and their immediate followerrs. It is not, however, the sum total of all their teachings and traditions

If you read Papias (c 60-130), Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, disciple of Apostle John and a companion of Polycarp who said "I used to inquire what had been said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, of by Thomas or James or by John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and what Aristion and the Elder John, the disciples of the Lod, werere saying. For books to read do not profit me so much as the living voice clearly sounding up to the present day in the persons of their authors"

================================

This was the CANON of the Church, not just a book, but the fullness of Christ's message.

================================

You must note that The Church has always taught that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. There can be no additional public revelation. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only divinely isnpired wrtings of God given to His Chuch. They are infallible and inerrant. There is no conflict here with Protestants. The conflict occured only when the word sola was put in front of the word Scriptura. Sola Scriptura has never been tuaght by the apostles, the athers or the Church. It is never taught in Scirpture and the error of this Reformation teaching cut off the followers of Luthere fromo the fullness of God's truth which was deposited in His Church

Also, do not misrepresent Church teaching. In Dei Verbum the Church said "The Christian dispensation as the new and definitive covenant will enver pass away, and we now await no futher new public revelation before the glorious manifectation of our Lord Jesus Christ"

in section 10 it says "This teaching office {The Magisterium} is not above the Word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commision and with the help of The Holy Spirit"

In contrast, Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul in Essential truths fo the Christian Faith admits that the Protestant position can at best claim "a fallible collection of infallible books" --> not very reassuring. how do you know that a fallible book did not slip in to the collection? You can also be sure if you acknowledge that this was collected in The tradition of The Church.

The Protestants say they trust the 27 books of the NT because they are inspired. Yes, but how DO we know they are inspired?

There were many writings passign from hand to hand like The Gospel of Thomas, the shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, the Epistle of Clement, the Acts of Peter, the Acts of John, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Secret Gospel of Mark, the Protoevangelium of James and many more.

Who decided which ones were inspired and which were not? To say ti was the Holy Spirit, not men, who chose, is to sidestep the real question. The Holy SPirit was also the primary author of the bible, but he used men to write it. Likewise, He also used men, the Church, to collect and to close the canon.

The Reformers couldn't agree -- Luther said that if Christ is preached in a document, it is therefore inspired: but this falls quickly as certain portoins of the NT (like James) speak of Christ sparsely if at all, while the Gospel of Thomas speaks a lot of Christ!

Calvin wrote in "Institutes of the Christian Religion" that the knowledge of what is Scripture comes ot each individual from "heaenly revelation" -- using Calvin's principles, each person woudl have the authority to determine his own canon of Scripture. thsi is the means used by Mormons fo verify the inspiration of the Book of Mormon -- they claim to know it is tre and inspired by God, becuase, when they read it, the get a "burning in the bosom", which is an internal witness (according to Calvin) to verify the inspiration.

Some other reformers felt that documents were inspired if they were inspiring to the reader. But, is Leviticus, Philemon or 3 John so inspiring?

Another criterion used by Protestants is that something is inspired if it was written by an apostle. However, Mark and Luke were not apostles

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“If Luther held to something, like Baptism, he said that those who don’t follow it are vile. But Baptists (for one) disagree with him”

God used blessed saint Luther to recover the Gospel of Grace and so much more.

That doesn’t mean he was infallible.