Bible Carries Word of God instead of Being the Word

[BigTurkey]

Hey guys,

In my studying of Catholicism, I have been talking to several friend (including two of my philosophy professors) about the things I am reading. The main issue I am studying and thinking about right now is the issue of authority. It does seem that it is hard to hold the bible as the authoritative Word of God without accepting the authority of the church. It seems though that one of my professors takes the view that the bible is not inspired in the orthodox sense and that the canon is a human ‘creation’. A few of my friends are taking this view, and I have to admit that it is a tempting view. It is the view of C. S. Lewis - the Bible isn’t the Word of God, but instead carries the Word of God. So, not everything in there is infallible.

Have any of you struggled with this? If so, what are your thoughts?

I know that my question is vague, but I am trying not to make it too complex so that I ask several questions at once. If any of you would like me to state my question more precisely, then I will try.

Thanks,

Micah

 

[Church_Militant]

Hi BT!

Have you ever wondered if Jesus meant that we should literally pluck out our eyes and cut of our hands in Matthew 5?

29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.

Or was Jesus making a very important point?

The CCC has A LOT to say about The Word of God, and I’ve got it for you right HERE. See if that helps you my friend.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

BigTurkey:

So, not everything in there is infallible.

Just for clarification, we teach the bible is inerrant, not infallible.

Scott

 

[BigTurkey]

Scott Waddell:

Just for clarification, we teach the bible is inerrant, not infallible.

Scott

What difference does this make in how a Catholic view the Bible?

-Micah

 

[RobNY]

BigTurkey:

What difference does this make in how a Catholic view the Bible?

-Micah

I think it just has more to do with the nature of a document vs. the nature of the actions of people. A person’s actions can be infallible, a document can be inerrant.

It does seem that it is hard to hold the bible as the authoritative Word of God without accepting the authority of the church. It seems though that one of my professors takes the view that the bible is not inspired in the orthodox sense and that the canon is a human ‘creation’. A few of my friends are taking this view, and I have to admit that it is a tempting view. It is the view of C. S. Lewis - the Bible isn’t the Word of God, but instead carries the Word of God. So, not everything in there is infallible.

Does C.S. Lewis really think the bible isn’t inerrant? I find that hard to believe, but I’ve only read two of his books.

Yes, the Bible isn’t the Word of God… Christ is the Word of God, but the bible is the word of God. And God, as the author, does not err.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Church Militant:

Hi BT!

Have you ever wondered if Jesus meant that we should literally pluck out our eyes and cut of our hands in Matthew 5?

Or was Jesus making a very important point?

The CCC has A LOT to say about The Word of God, and I’ve got it for you right HERE. See if that helps you my friend.

Hi C. M. Maybe there would be more people entering into the kingdom if people did remove their parts that caused them to sin. They would be restored in heaven anyways. God Bless

 

[BigTurkey]

How do the Catholics think the bible was inspired? Is their idea different from the Fundamentalist idea? Is there even an official doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures?

Micah

 

[RobNY]

BigTurkey:

How do the Catholics think the bible was inspired? Is their idea different from the Fundamentalist idea? Is there even an official doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures?

Micah

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

**105 **God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

**106 **God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

**107 **The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

**108 **Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

I recommend going to the citations and starting to read.

 

[BigTurkey]

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

**105 **God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

**106 **God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

**107 **The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

**108 **Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

I recommend going to the citations and starting to read.

Yeah, I read those once before. The inerrant versus infallibility question was one I was confused on. However, what makes one sure that God guided the canon? Trust? Have any of you struggled with this? In other words, what reasons do you have for accepting the Catholic view of Scripture instead of a view that the Bible can be wrong in some places about faith and morals, that the gospel writers diagreed, etc.?

Micah

 

[Jim95437]

BigTurkey:

Yeah, I read those once before. The inerrant versus infallibility question was one I was confused on. However, what makes one sure that God guided the canon? Trust? Have any of you struggled with this? In other words, what reasons do you have for accepting the Catholic view of Scripture instead of a view that the Bible can be wrong in some places about faith and morals, that the gospel writers diagreed, etc.?

Micah

I believe that God can neither deceive nor be deceived, and that what He handed on to us, in Scripture, through apostolic succession, is inspired by the Holy Spirit and inerrant. I also believe that those who find error in places about faith and morals, have found them through some ulterior motive, and not actually in seeking the will of God.

 

[BigTurkey]

RobNY:

I think it just has more to do with the nature of a document vs. the nature of the actions of people. A person’s actions can be infallible, a document can be inerrant.

Does C.S. Lewis really think the bible isn’t inerrant? I find that hard to believe, but I’ve only read two of his books.

Yes, the Bible isn’t the Word of God… Christ is the Word of God, but the bible is the word of God. And God, as the author, does not err.

I think I made a mistake in tying Lewis in with the view that I was trying to describe. I’m not exactly sure what Lewis believed, but I’m not too sure that anyone really does. There is a good analysis of his view in C. S. Lewis & Francis Schaeffer by Burson and Walls. Also, he devotes a section to it in his Reflection on the Psalms. Lewis didn’t take a fundamentalist approach; I guess that was why I was tempted to tie him in with what I was trying to describe. So, forget that I made the Lewis comparison. Also, a good book on Lewis that sheds light upon this view on Scriptures (mainly in the context of his view of literature as a whole) is Paul Holmer’s C. S. Lewis: The Shape of His Faith, Lewis, as Burson and Walls points out, never lays out a systematic treatise on the Bible. He often relegated Biblical inerrancy to the periphial of apologetics. He resisted the extremes: neither a fundamentalist nor a liberal. He was willing to categorize Biblical stories as nonhistorical, but nonetheless he resisted the mindset of approaching the stories as if they could not really happen. He decided the historicity of stories on other things besides whether or not he thought miracles really happened (which he did). I know his approach to Scripture was that one should strive to immerse oneself in it to gather its essence and its spirit. It is not systemized, it is not an encyclical or an encyclopedia, so we shouldn’t treat it like that. So, sorry about throwing Lewis in with the view I am questioning.

Micah

 

[BigTurkey]

Jim95437:

I believe that God can neither deceive nor be deceived, and that what He handed on to us, in Scripture, through apostolic succession, is inspired by the Holy Spirit and inerrant. I also believe that those who find error in places about faith and morals, have found them through some ulterior motive, and not actually in seeking the will of God.

Why do you believe it is inspired by the Holy Spirit? Is it just a matter of faith or do you think that is the most tenable position?

Micah

p.s. please recognize that I am not challenging or attempting to destroy anyone’s view of Scripture; I view Scripture as inerrant and authoritative, but I am merely trying to see the opinions and thoughts of others on this issue. I hope you do not find my questioning annoying. This issue is central to my journey to the Catholic faith, for it is a cornerstone of the authority issue.

 

[scylla]

Maybe I can give you a slightly different way of answering this.

The Bible is not infallible as infallibility would be a clear teaching that is proclaimed and 100% true, yet people who read the Bible come up with different interpretations therefore not arriving at the truth even though it is there.

It is inerrant when understood from the proper understanding. Since the faith is not just the Bible it preceded the Bible the Bible can be understood in error when not understood from the understanding of the apostles. It can be misunderstood such as the case with Charles Taze Russel among others.

I personally don’t believe that the Bible is the basis for salvation, (Jesus is) as people were saved way before any of the New Testament was written (St Stephen), yet it truly contains the Word of God and is revered and used in worship. That is pretty much why it was put together, to know what we can read at Mass.

The Word of God is not just the Bible but the understanding of it also. The many things Jesus said and gave an understanding of the faith to the apostles was the Word of God. This is the context in which we should understand the Bible. Not just from a medieval cultural understanding or a modern cultural understanding.

I believe that one of the fruits of the Church is the Bible it is one of the many things the Church has preserved for us.

Maybe I kinda strayed a little off topic, yet I also wanted to give a little bit of a surrounding feel to how I understand this as a Catholic.

In Christ,
Scylla

 

[BigTurkey]

In my opinion, although I am still a Protestant, it is hard to remain a Protestant and keep the view of Scripture that Protestants have; for if one studies the formation of the canon and things like that then it is tough not to end up at the Catholic position that God is working through the Church to preserve truth (such as his Sacred Scriptures). If you think that the canon was guided into existence by God, then it seems like the end destination is Catholicism. However, my professor (who attends a conservative fundamentalist church, but nonetheless is progressive on some issues) dropped the idea that the canon is divinely guided, and I believe that this was due to the fact that both Protestants and Catholics believe it was guided yet end up in different positions as far as authority. (I believed he dropped it due to Ramsey’s maxim, which says if you have to arguments which end up at contradictory conclusions yet same an identical premise, then the identical premise is the suspect premise in both arguments). So, I don’t know how to respond to his assertion, which is gaining grounds among other friends, and to defend my belief that God is the author of the Scriptures and the former of the canon (I’m not denying the human elements in Scriptures though, I just believe that there was Divine pressure on the writing of Scirptures).

Anyway, this is the essence of my OP, so for those of you who found it confusing, I’m sorry. I’m a confused person

Micah

 

[BigTurkey]

scylla:

Maybe I can give you a slightly different way of answering this.

The Bible is not infallible as infallibility would be a clear teaching that is proclaimed and 100% true, yet people who read the Bible come up with different interpretations therefore not arriving at the truth even though it is there.

It is inerrant when understood from the proper understanding. Since the faith is not just the Bible it preceded the Bible the Bible can be understood in error when not understood from the understanding of the apostles. It can be misunderstood such as the case with Charles Taze Russel among others.

I personally don’t believe that the Bible is the basis for salvation, (Jesus is) as people were saved way before any of the New Testament was written (St Stephen), yet it truly contains the Word of God and is revered and used in worship. That is pretty much why it was put together, to know what we can read at Mass.

The Word of God is not just the Bible but the understanding of it also. The many things Jesus said and gave an understanding of the faith to the apostles was the Word of God. This is the context in which we should understand the Bible. Not just from a medieval cultural understanding or a modern cultural understanding.

I believe that one of the fruits of the Church is the Bible it is one of the many things the Church has preserved for us.

Maybe I kinda strayed a little off topic, yet I also wanted to give a little bit of a surrounding feel to how I understand this as a Catholic.

In Christ,
Scylla

Yeah, that’s some really helpful info. Thanks so much for the trouble. This definitely sheds some light on my questions.

Micah

p.s. Does anyone know if Peter Kreeft (he’s a Catholic, right?) has a book that touches upon his view of Scriptures? He’s a philosophy professor so his defense of the Catholic view of Scripture will be helpful since the people I am discussing this issue with are philosophy majors/professors.

 

[Church_Militant]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi C. M. Maybe there would be more people entering into the kingdom if people did remove their parts that caused them to sin. They would be restored in heaven anyways. God Bless

You first then? :ehh:

 

[Matt16_18]

BigTurkey:

… what makes one sure that God guided the canon?

If God didn’t guide his Church when she declared the canon of sacred scriptures, then God left us with no way of knowing what belongs in the Bible.

What good is it to claim the Bible is inerrant if no one can know for sure what books belong in the Bible? Did Martin Luther discard the right number of books when he declared his canon of scriptures? Should Luther have added some books that the Catholic bishops left out of the Bible?

The Jesus Seminar wants to add the Gospel of Thomas to the canon of the NT – why not? Why should anyone recognize Martin Luther as an authority on anything, less yet an authority that everyone must accept on what belongs in the canon of scriptures?

 

[mercygate]

BigTurkey:

Yeah, I read those once before. The inerrant versus infallibility question was one I was confused on. However, what makes one sure that God guided the canon? Trust? Have any of you struggled with this? In other words, what reasons do you have for accepting the Catholic view of Scripture instead of a view that the Bible can be wrong in some places about faith and morals, that the gospel writers diagreed, etc.?

Micah

Micah – read posts 13 & 14 in this thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=48008&highlight=lunn

Every convert struggles with this question, and ultimately, it is what made me Catholic. What you ask is not about the Catholilc Church; it is about the whole Christian enterprise. A Catholic can be sure God guided the canon because he promised to guide the church into all truth.

 

[Strider]

BigTurkey:

Yeah, I read those once before. The inerrant versus infallibility question was one I was confused on. However, what makes one sure that God guided the canon? Trust? Have any of you struggled with this? In other words, what reasons do you have for accepting the Catholic view of Scripture instead of a view that the Bible can be wrong in some places about faith and morals, that the gospel writers diagreed, etc.?

Micah

Mt 16:18 and Mt 18:18
It’s all about authority and THAT’S the authority of the Catholic Church - right from Christ. It applies to the canon of Scripture and to all Catholic dogma and doctrine.
Keep asking questions, BT. We’ll do our best to keep answering.