How do we know that scripture is Inspired?

[Lucy107]

Have you ever read Numbers, Leviticus and Deuteronomy? Most of what’s written there is nothing but the Mosaic Law, especially in Leviticus. Do you really get inspired by reading law books? If so, more power to you. But I daresay most people do not. So if I’m not “moved” by a section of Scripture, how do I know what I’m reading is Scripture?

Well, that would depend on who is asking this question and to whose satisfaction you are trying to answer it.
It doesn’t occur to me to ask myself that question, and if someone were to ask me, I would probably first focus on the context of the conversation, because it seems such an odd question to me.

Now we’ve gone from, “you can’t prove it apart from feeling inspired” to, “we can reasonably conclude the Catholic Church is the One, True Church.”

Why do you reject reason being part of the equation for determining Scripture to be inspired, but then accept it for determining which church is the True Church?

Because it’s not the same kind of notion of “reason” that we’re operating with.

I don’t see reason as something separate from God; as something with which we could somehow independently prove God’s existence.

And we’re back to accepting personal, subjective feelings over logic and reason?

I’ve addressed the issue of reason above.
Logic is simply a matter of how premises are strung together. On its own, logic doesn’t say anything; it all comes down to the premises we try to put in some kind of relationship with eachother.

Are you familiar with William James’ heuristics for beliefs that he worked out in his “Will to Believe”?

Be careful speaking for others, especially people you don’t know. I believe the reason many apologists place more emphasis on logic and reason is because they are trying to convince a world that rejects things it can’t arrive at without logic.

Everyone uses logic. The only difference is in the premises they feed into the system of logic.

We live in a world that is becoming increasingly secular and believes religion is at odds with it. We can’t convince of the truth by appealing to our subjective feelings. We have to demonstrate Truth with the thing they hold sacred: logic.

The subjective “burning in the bosom” is not contrary to logic.
Unless a person’s notions of “logic” are informed by Spock, and not by philosophy.

Think about it another way: If I’m going to debate a protestant about a Catholic belief, and my goal is to convince this person of the truth of my belief, how successful will an appeal to Sacred Tradition, which he/she rejects as divine revelation, be?

Really, that’s your goal?
Last I heard it was the Holy Spirit’s job to convince people, not random Catholics’.

God wants us to be in relationship with Him, and He tries to reveal Himself to us through the world around us. He wants us to be sure, so He gave us the ability to reason. Using that very gift He gave us, we can be reasonably sure of His existence.

And you know this how? I’m pretty sure you know this by that burning in your bosom.

Now if you want absolute, 100 percent, no doubt of any kind proof…no, that we won’t have. But we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists.

I am sure people can be worn out and frustrated to the point where they believe they are beyond reasonable doubt …

Because as I’ve already stated several times in this post, we are rational creatures. Especially living in today’s world where logic is supposed to be the supreme god, it is important to have reasons for continuing to believe and to live your life by the code of that belief system.

Only if secularism is your god.

Reasons or justifications for believing things are determined as valid or invalid by whoever one is trying to convince or justify oneself to.

Not exactly. 2+2 still equals 4 regardless of whether the other person wants to accept it.

How does this address what I said?

Again, there is a reason apologists build their case with “secular” reasoning. We live in a world that worships logic and reason, so modern apologists are going to build a case based on those “gods” to show people there really is a God.

I don’t find such a method truthful.

Logic and reason are nothing to be feared. I fear the person who’s faith ignores logic and reason, because feelings can change with the wind.

I fear the person whose ideas of “logic” and “reason” are shaped by popular culture.

 

[Mystophilus]

How oft people forget that preaching to the choir won’t convert the unchurched.

 

[Lucy107]

My concern is that the secularization of preaching is betraying the audience by promising them “the real thing,” and then delivering only a dumbed down and worldly product. So it’s no surprise they’re not convinced.

 

[Lucy107]

For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”
Rom 2:24

 

[Mystophilus]

My concern is that the secularization of preaching is betraying the audience by promising them “the real thing,” and then delivering only a dumbed down and worldly product. So it’s no surprise they’re not convinced.

What do you mean by the secularisation of preaching?

 

[CatholicHockey7]

My concern is that the secularization of preaching is betraying the audience by promising them “the real thing,” and then delivering only a dumbed down and worldly product. So it’s no surprise they’re not convinced.

Really, that’s your goal?
Last I heard it was the Holy Spirit’s job to convince people, not random Catholics’.

Sure, just ignore everything I said about the process and focus on the idea of a goal…

You’re right that only the Holy Spirit can carry people across the threshold, but we still have a responsibility to try and bring people to the doorway, to make them open to the Holy Spirit. This is what I meant by “my goal” in that example.

And you know this how? I’m pretty sure you know this by that burning in your bosom.

There are several reasons I know this. Yes, part of it is subjective. It is also because I see it in Scripture, and I trust Scripture because I trust the Church, and I trust the Church because of the empirical, objective evidence of historical records (including the NT).

I don’t find such a method truthful.

Why not?

I fear the person whose ideas of “logic” and “reason” are shaped by popular culture.

So do I. The reality is we cannot build a reasoned argument based on subjectives like feelings or popular culture. Doing so leads to relativism - what’s true for you is what’s true for you and what’s true for me is what’s true for me. Relativism stands directly at odds with Truth.

Truth is not relative. It is not subject to our own personal feelings or to popular opinion.

 

[Lucy107]

What do you mean by the secularisation of preaching?

Giving mundane, worldly “reasons” and “justifications” for the supramundane, for the divine.

For example:
“There are some old documents and some archeological findings that confirm some of the events mentioned in the Bible, therefore, (the Bible is true, and therefore,) Jesus indeed died for our sins and we should all believe in him.”

Although probably nobody actually spells it out like this (because when put in such blunt terms, it’s just too absurd), but this is what justification from historiography comes down to.

 

[Lucy107]

You’re right that only the Holy Spirit can carry people across the threshold, but we still have a responsibility to try and bring people to the doorway, to make them open to the Holy Spirit. This is what I meant by “my goal” in that example.

And you should do it in such a way that “the name of God won’t be blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”

Why not?

Already addressed this.

So do I. The reality is we cannot build a reasoned argument based on subjectives like feelings or popular culture. Doing so leads to relativism - what’s true for you is what’s true for you and what’s true for me is what’s true for me. Relativism stands directly at odds with Truth.

Truth is not relative. It is not subject to our own personal feelings or to popular opinion.

You seem to see rather few options.

What’s wrong with expository preaching, for example?

 

[Mystophilus]

Giving mundane, worldly “reasons” and “justifications” for the supramundane, for the divine.

For example:
“There are some old documents and some archeological findings that confirm some of the events mentioned in the Bible, therefore, (the Bible is true, and therefore,) Jesus indeed died for our sins and we should all believe in him.”

Although probably nobody actually spells it out like this (because when put in such blunt terms, it’s just too absurd), but this is what justification from historiography looks like.

I have yet to hear a sermon in which anyone uses historical or archaeological findings to prove the truth of the Bible, whereas I have heard many which use them to support its historicity in general terms, and a few which use them to defend its historicity against (generally-naïve) attacks upon it. On this basis, and in consideration of the fact that the nature and operation of other people’s faith differs from the nature and operation of my own, I am wary of condemning such expressions.

 

[Lucy107]

I have yet to hear a sermon in which anyone uses historical or archaeological findings to prove the truth of the Bible, whereas I have heard many which use them to support its historicity in general terms, and a few which use them to defend its historicity against (generally-naïve) attacks upon it.

On this basis, and in consideration of the fact that the nature and operation of other people’s faith differs from the nature and operation of my own, I am wary of condemning such expressions.

Do you mean that some people’s faith actually operates in a way that historicity matters to them?
I suppose that’s possible.

Personally, I feel dismayed when a Catholic (or other Christian) approaches me, putting forward some argument from historicity, and then expects me to be convinced by it, and when I don’t comply, he judges me severely for not complying with it.
As if disagreement with a particular Catholic’s line of reasoning = opposition to God.
And as if belief in God is valid only if it is arrived at by a path proposed by a particular Catholic.

 

[Mystophilus]

Do you mean that some people’s faith actually operates in a way that historicity matters to them?

For some people, it is very important: when such ideas as empiricism are important to their worldview, taking a metaphysical position which is coherent with, or at the very least not contradicted by historical record also becomes important. This should not be taken for a modern phoenomenon, either, because it is quite visible in the distant past.

Personally, I feel dismayed when a Catholic (or other Christian) approaches me, putting forward some argument from historicity, and then expects me to be convinced by it, and when I don’t comply, he judges me severely for not complying with it.
As if disagreement with a particular Catholic’s line of reasoning = opposition to God.
And as if belief in God is valid only if it is arrived at by a path proposed by a particular Catholic.

Please, believe me when I say that I know exactly what you mean, but we have to be careful to avoid attributing to malice what is adequately explainable by folly, don’t we?

Those who are very insecure may feel that any disagreement with them is effectively a challenge to their own reasoning, to their own intellectual capacity, and thus to their self-worth.

Those who are very naïve may imagine that there is only one way of looking at something.

Those who are very partisan may believe that everyone who is not entirely on their side is effectively their enemy, whether the other is conscious of that or not.

Those who are very prideful may think that “winning” the argument, even by making the other person walk away in disgust, makes themselves cleverer, more correct, more important, etc (especially when congratulated by like-minded people).

To quote Alexander Pope, “To err is human, to forgive divine.”

 

[mdcpensive1]

Getting back to the challenge of there being no written evidence to support the 500 witnesses, I find it interesting that we have to coroborate the coroborators. We have to prove the proofs.

To claim the truth of the faith we have written evidence (scripture) spiritual evidence (the continuation of the Church despite failings and challenges), witnesses (500 and the apostles) and personal beliefs in the giving of lives for the faith. If more written proof is needed then the disciples of the apostles might be able to add some as they wrote about what the faith is and what they were told, albeit without lie detectors.

I say there is much proof that is not recorded on video which can even be altered.

Am I missing something ??

 

[Lucy107]

For some people, it is very important: when such ideas as empiricism are important to their worldview, taking a metaphysical position which is coherent with, or at the very least not contradicted by historical record also becomes important. This should not be taken for a modern phoenomenon, either, because it is quite visible in the distant past.

Indeed, secular attempts to justify divinity seem to go way back.
But there seems to be a new wave of them, will all the “How modern physics proves the existence of God” and such.

Please, believe me when I say that I know exactly what you mean, but we have to be careful to avoid attributing to malice what is adequately explainable by folly, don’t we?

I wouldn’t say they do it out of malice.
I do not think though that the default attitude that preachers have to the preached is love, but usually, it is hostility or contempt, and that this hostility or contempt is somehow doctrinally justified, and that those who are being preached to just have to accept this hostility and contempt. (“You’re such a bad person because you haven’t yet accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior.”)

If a preacher would spit into my face, throw a shoe at me, or hit me with a baseball bat, or shoot me or whatever, I wouldn’t be surprised, as that would simply be a physical manifestation of their hostile or contemping attitude.

To quote Alexander Pope, “To err is human, to forgive divine.”

Anything can be forgiven, but not everything can be reconciled.

When even official theologians propose secular justifications for belief in the divine, this bewilders me. Because this means that in oder to become a member of that religion, one has to subscribe to those secular justifications. But what if one doesn’t subscribe to those secular justifications??

 

[Mystophilus]

But what if one doesn’t subscribe to those secular justifications??

Then one is a mystic, part of a long line of people who have believed in ways which other people do not (perhaps cannot, and quite probably should not) follow.

If you have not yet read them yet, you might well appreciate the Desert Fathers (also here, in a different collection), Lady Julian of Norwich, or John of the Cross.

Mysticism is special, in pretty much all of the senses of that word.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

I wouldn’t say they do it out of malice.
I do not think though that the default attitude that preachers have to the preached is love, but usually, it is hostility or contempt, and that this hostility or contempt is somehow doctrinally justified, and that those who are being preached to just have to accept this hostility and contempt. (“You’re such a bad person because you haven’t yet accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior.”)

If a preacher would spit into my face, throw a shoe at me, or hit me with a baseball bat, or shoot me or whatever, I wouldn’t be surprised, as that would simply be a physical manifestation of their hostile or contemping attitude.

Where have you been going to church?

The only time I’ve felt preachers had an attitude of hostility or contempt it was either blatant Catholic-bashing, Westboro Baptist protests getting TV coverage, or Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton ranting about another “unjust” killing in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Even the most fire-breathing evangelical preacher I ever met wasn’t hostile. He was challenging and antagonized several people, sure (side note: my favorite was watching the Methodists and Baptists preparing to lynch him for saying Mother Teresa and JPII were in Hell because of Catholic belief in the Real Presence, myself and the other Catholics just laughed), but if you paid attention you realized he wasn’t doing any of it out of hostility or hatred, but out of love and concern for his fellow man.

When I’ve gone to services at various protestant churches with my family, I’ve never felt the preacher looked down on us. I’ve definitely never felt that at Mass.

I’m sorry if you’ve had a bad experience, but if that is the case please don’t judge the rest of preachers by the few bad apples you’ve encountered.

 

[Lucy107]

Then one is a mystic, part of a long line of people who have believed in ways which other people do not (perhaps cannot, and quite probably should not) follow.

If you have not yet read them yet, you might well appreciate the Desert Fathers (also here, in a different collection), Lady Julian of Norwich, or John of the Cross.

Mysticism is special, in pretty much all of the senses of that word.

Interesting. I only have a cursory knowledge of the Desert Fathers. I’ve read some passages from St. John of the Cross quoted in other texts and they have made a lot of sense to me.
I’ve downloaded some of the books you mentioned that were avaialble, and checked my local libraries if they have them.

I do seem to have an inborn tendency toward ascetisism, austerity. I’ve always felt very comfortable about Buddhist and Hindu monks, also Catholic monks and nuns.

Thank you for the suggestions! I will devote time to them, so I probably won’t post here much. I apologize if I leave any replies to me unanswered.

 

[ericc]

It’s not clear how it would be possible to know that it is inspired.

It is only possible if someone who you believe or have reasons to believe has the authority to proclaim it. You can’t tell by listening to it or reading it on your own because you can not elevate your own discernment level from a lower level to a higher level. You can not give yourself authority that you don’t have from the start.

Example: I can not award myself a degree by reading the same books or doing the assignments on my own without someone of authority proclaiming it. Another person with a much higher qualification than my professors but not affiliated with my program or university also can not award the degree to me. Not because he is less capable, but because he is not in a position of authority to grant it.

As a Catholic, we know from history that Christ established His Church on the Rock of Peter AND CHARGING him to take care of HIS business, feed, tend his lamb and sheep. It really doesn’t matter whether other Apostles or late comers agree or not. From Peter’s point of view, he has been given that mandate by Christ. It is his job to discharge that responsibility. He doesn’t need opinion polls, democratic vote does NOT remove from him that responsibility. He is answerable to Christ, period.

The question then is this. Did Peter believed that his mandate last as long as his natural life or did he like every other apostle did, ensure that the Good News must be preached to all nations, to all corners of the earth? If one were to assume that his job were to last till the end of his natural life, then one has to charge Christ with really really bad management. How can the Good News be preached in time to all nations if the apostles’ responsibility were to last till their death? A total mismatch of objectives and resources. But we know God don’t do things that way.

The only reasonable conclusion is that Jesus intended Peter and the other apostles to continue with his entrusted work to their successors so that the gospel will be preached to all nations and in order that will happen, Jesus guaranteed that he will be with them always and that the Holy Spirit will guide them into all truths.

And this is done through the Church with the Chief Shepard in charge. Jesus does not leave his Church rudderless even though many of his Chief Shepherds met with untimely end during the early years.

The Church is the foundation and pillar of truth. She is the Bride of Christ. Disputes to be settled there, not outside of it. The process flow has been given. Circumcision issue with the Gentiles? The Church settled it. Heresies? Took awhile, but settled and done. Which books to go into the Bible? Settled.

So how do I know that a particular scripture is inspired? The Church told me so. All properly authorized and signed off. We have the keys, we have the binding and loosing capability, and we have history and so-called apostolic blue blood.

Who else is authorized to do that? No one. Not the Reformers, not the Rabbis, not any late comers. Why one may ask? Not Christ authorized. Period.

 

[Contarini]

It is only possible if someone who you believe or have reasons to believe has the authority to proclaim it. You can’t tell by listening to it or reading it on your own because you can not elevate your own discernment level from a lower level to a higher level. You can not give yourself authority that you don’t have from the start.

Example: I can not award myself a degree by reading the same books or doing the assignments on my own without someone of authority proclaiming it. Another person with a much higher qualification than my professors but not affiliated with my program or university also can not award the degree to me. Not because he is less capable, but because he is not in a position of authority to grant it.

I think the idea that you would equate a relative trivality like an academic degree with divine inspiration explains quite well why Lucy and I find this whole line of approach to be “secular” and even blasphemous.

I have come to realize that this is my fundamental disagreement with Catholicism, at least in its traditional, conservative form. I just don’t believe that grace or spiritual authority work that way. I believe in apostolic succession as a means through which Christ has acted to preserve continuity with the original, historic Faith. But I don’t believe for a minute that we poor lay mortals are just supposed to run through some kind of historical exercise which will enable us to put all our trust in some allegedly trustworthy authority. That’s a morally and spiritually bankrupt approach.

Also, as I have shown above (and as usual on this topic people ignore or deflect my points rather than dealing with them), it just doesn’t work historically in the first place.

As a Catholic, we know from history that Christ established His Church on the Rock of Peter

No, you don’t know this from history. You accept it by faith. No historical analysis, using standard historical/literary methods, will lead you to any confidence that Jesus actually said those words about establishing the Church. These words are not found in what most scholars consider the earlier version of the story (Mark 8), but only in Matthew’s version. Matthew is in fact the only Gospel writer to use the word “church” at all. If you compare Matthew and Mark, you see that over and over again Mark has a more developed, elaborate theological explanation of what Mark describes cryptically and succinctly. The most reasonable explanation of this, by normal historical methods, is that Matthew was written later and that whoever wrote it (unlikely to be the apostle Matthew, at least in the form in which we have the book) added theological commentary into the text. The “you are Peter” passage from Matt. 16 is one of the best examples of this, but it’s part of a pervasive pattern.

That is what honest historical inquiry generally leads one to conclude. Now historical methods are far from certain. Sure, it’s possible that Matthew records a fuller version of what happened which Mark abridged for some reason. It’s possible that Matthew was really written first.

But for the spiral argument to work you need something much more than possibility. You need certainty. And you don’t even have the balance of probability. Hence, the argument fails miserably at its most crucial point.

The question then is this. Did Peter believed that his mandate last as long as his natural life or did he like every other apostle did, ensure that the Good News must be preached to all nations, to all corners of the earth? If one were to assume that his job were to last till the end of his natural life, then one has to charge Christ with really really bad management. How can the Good News be preached in time to all nations if the apostles’ responsibility were to last till their death? A total mismatch of objectives and resources. But we know God don’t do things that way.

You know a lot about how God does things, apparently. If anything is obvious to me about God, it’s that God does things the exact opposite of how we would expect most of the time. Hence, such an argument is less than worthless–it actually casts suspicion on any position it’s used to support. (Yes, this is paradoxical–if God usually does things the opposite of how we expect, then sometimes that might mean that God does things in the way we expect, because that’s the opposite of how we expect. And yes, I know that pushing it to this point is silly.)

I do not in fact believe that the mission of the apostles ended with their deaths. But I do not reach that conclusion based on history alone. I reach it because I trust the Church. You simply can’t establish all this without first appealing to the authority of the Church. In other words, you can’t establish the authority of the Church by history alone, although you can use historical methods to argue for the probability of the Catholic position and to refute objections.

Edwin

 

[mdcpensive1]

I think the idea that you would equate a relative trivality like an academic degree with divine inspiration explains quite well why Lucy and I find this whole line of approach to be “secular” and even blasphemous.

I have come to realize that this is my fundamental disagreement with Catholicism, at least in its traditional, conservative form. I just don’t believe that grace or spiritual authority work that way. I believe in apostolic succession as a means through which Christ has acted to preserve continuity with the original, historic Faith. But I don’t believe for a minute that we poor lay mortals are just supposed to run through some kind of historical exercise which will enable us to put all our trust in some allegedly trustworthy authority. That’s a morally and spiritually bankrupt approach.

No, you don’t know this from history. You accept it by faith. No historical analysis, using standard historical/literary methods, will lead you to any confidence that Jesus actually said those words about establishing the Church. These words are not found in what most scholars consider the earlier version of the story (Mark 8), but only in Matthew’s version. Matthew is in fact the only Gospel writer to use the word “church” at all. If you compare Matthew and Mark, you see that over and over again Mark has a more developed, elaborate theological explanation of what Mark describes cryptically and succinctly. The most reasonable explanation of this, by normal historical methods, is that Matthew was written later and that whoever wrote it (unlikely to be the apostle Matthew, at least in the form in which we have the book) added theological commentary into the text. The “you are Peter” passage from Matt. 16 is one of the best examples of this, but it’s part of a pervasive pattern.

That is what honest historical inquiry generally leads one to conclude. Now historical methods are far from certain. Sure, it’s possible that Matthew records a fuller version of what happened which Mark abridged for some reason. It’s possible that Matthew was really written first.

But for the spiral argument to work you need something much more than possibility. You need certainty. And you don’t even have the balance of probability. Hence, the argument fails miserably at its most crucial point.

You know a lot about how God does things, apparently. If anything is obvious to me about God, it’s that God does things the exact opposite of how we would expect most of the time. Hence, such an argument is less than worthless–it actually casts suspicion on any position it’s used to support. (Yes, this is paradoxical–if God usually does things the opposite of how we expect, then sometimes that might mean that God does things in the way we expect, because that’s the opposite of how we expect. And yes, I know that pushing it to this point is silly.)

I do not in fact believe that the mission of the apostles ended with their deaths. But I do not reach that conclusion based on history alone. I reach it because I trust the Church. You simply can’t establish all this without first appealing to the authority of the Church. In other words, you can’t establish the authority of the Church by history alone, although you can use historical methods to argue for the probability of the Catholic position and to refute objections.

Edwin

You might want to hear this lecture by Dr. Lawrence Feingold. It may answer some questions or add to the knowledge you have concerning your question.
It could be a life changer, you never know?

hebrewcatholic.net/12-07-motives-of-credibility-for-faith/

 

[ynotzap]

Why would I take it up with Catholic Answers? They are an organization institutionally committed to a certain kind of apologetics, which I regard as inherently corrupt. They are answering bad fundamentalist arguments with slightly less bad Catholic arguments, and that’s between them and the fundamentalists. I have no relationship with them and there is no reason for them to listen to me.

Speaking of “inherently corrupt” Isn’t that one of the main reasons Christ came to redeem mankind from, inherent corruption? Isn’t it understood that corruption is endemic? Doesn’t this corruption even effect man’s thinking and reasoning? Aren’t all men fallible, the most intelligent philosophers, scientists, and even conscientious historians? So to limit inherently corrupt to a certain kind of apologetics would not appear to be just in it’s application. And if that’s enough to cut off relationships with those who use this inherently corrupt apologetics is that truly representing the truth of Christianity.

I also know of a spiritual condition called “self righteousness” a person thinks he is right because he is convinced in his own mind that he is right with employing all his mental accumen. It’s a condition that affects all humanity. St.Paul is a very good example. There is no personal accusation being made by my statements, but things I have to consider in my own thoughts and actions, and I have to test myself. I sometimes think that being historically accurate, with the discipline involved, and the mental energies expended can be an obstacle to the Faith if the same approach is made towards Faith Reason can not give us the gift of Faith, but it can dispose us to receiving it. When received we experience that it does not oppose reason but might , or does reinforce it, and also supersedes it, for who has known the mind of the Lord? God does confound the wise, and exalts the humble. How much of ourselves are we willing to give? It’s always a challenge. I would think that one who studies history conscientiously would discover how weak and ignorant and fallible human nature really is, and if one is truthful to one’s self, how he suffers the same condition. This should correct our approach to our neighbors no matter how corrupt what they do appears, and it is the greatest challenge to charity.