How we know the Bible is the innerrant, inspired Word of God

[Lampo]

1. Initially, we approach the Bible as a non-inspired history book.
2. We then glean from it that Jesus instituted an infallible Church.
3. This infallible Church confirms that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

On a side bar - Is it accurate to say that the Church has infallibly interpreted all of Scripture since individual passages are interpreted in light of the Bible as a whole? This means that when someone objects to the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence for instance and asks, “Has the Catholic Church infallibly interpreted John 6?”, one could honestly respond by saying,“Yes?” I believe one could. Basically, the Church has officially interpreted the entire Bible if it interpreted just one passage. This is my line of thinking.

 

[MarcoPolo]

In a sense, you are correct, than when the Church interprets a passage, it is implied that no other verse in Scripture can contradict it. That doesn’t give affirmative interpretation of other Scriptures, but at least limits what they could say.

 

[Robbinson]

1. Initially, we approach the Bible as a non-inspired history book.
2. We then glean from it that Jesus instituted an infallible Church.
3. This infallible Church confirms that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

On a side bar - Is it accurate to say that the Church has infallibly interpreted all of Scripture since individual passages are interpreted in light of the Bible as a whole? This means that when someone objects to the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence for instance and asks, “Has the Catholic Church infallibly interpreted John 6?”, one could honestly respond by saying,“Yes?” I believe one could. Basically, the Church has officially interpreted the entire Bible if it interpreted just one passage. This is my line of thinking.

We trust in the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testatement) because Jesus quoted from them and believed them to be true (and it is the cornerstone of Judaism on which the church was built).

We trust in the NT scriptures because we trust that the Holy Spirit guided the “church” (congregation of believers unanimously agreeing) in determining which epistles were inspired, and which were not.

For those who believe in the infalliblity of the Catholic Church, in any event, the Catholic Church has not officially infallibly intepreted every verse of scripture - only a small percentage of scripture.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Verbum]

Hi Lampo,

What you propose is a circular argument. You prove the Church from the Bible, then the Bible from the Church.

There is one beginning : Christ who died and resurrected. His resurrection was the proof of his divinity and his divine mission. The apostles and other disciples were witnesses to this and so are all Christians down to us : about 65 generations, an uninterrupted chain of witnesses to the Resurrection.

The Bible is considered inspired because it was handed down as such by Christ and His apostles.

Verbum

 

[Lampo]

Hi Lampo,

What you propose is a circular argument. You prove the Church from the Bible, then the Bible from the Church.

Actually, it’s not circular because I’m not proving the Church from the Bible. The Church came first. It already existed.

The Bible is considered inspired because it was handed down as such by Christ and His apostles.

Verbum

Where did you get this notion?

 

[Verbum]

Hi Lampo,

Actually, it’s not circular because I’m not proving the Church from the Bible. The Church came first. It already existed

How do you prove its legitimacy?

Where did you get this notion?

From the Vatican II document Dei Verbum

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2revel.htm

1. And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) (4) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.

Verbum

 

[Lampo]

Hi Lampo,

Actually, it’s not circular because I’m not proving the Church from the Bible. The Church came first. It already existed

How do you prove its legitimacy?

Tradition, Magesterium and Scripture. Not solely on the Bible.

Where did you get this notion?

From the Vatican II document Dei Verbum

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2revel.htm

Verbum

Cannot argue with that. Especially the last sentence of your quote. Seems we are on the same page here. The Church authenticated Scripture.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Lampo,

The Church authenticated Scripture.

We have to be careful with the terms we use in this matter. I’m not sure “authenticate” is the right word. It might sound as if the Church passed judgment on Scripture, and said, “Yes, this sounds really inspired.” The Church** received** scripture from Christ and the apostles. It never passed judgment. Protestants, who do not recognize the authority of a Church, try to find within scripture signs of its inspiration.This is of course very subjective and unreliable. It is not the Catholic position, as you can see from reading Dei Verbum. A correct expression would be that the Church is a witness to the authenticity of Scripture*.*

Verbum

 

[Lampo]

Excellent. Thank you.

 

[distracted]

1. Initially, we approach the Bible as a non-inspired history book.
2. We then glean from it that Jesus instituted an infallible Church.
3. This infallible Church confirms that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

On a side bar - Is it accurate to say that the Church has infallibly interpreted all of Scripture since individual passages are interpreted in light of the Bible as a whole? This means that when someone objects to the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence for instance and asks, “Has the Catholic Church infallibly interpreted John 6?”, one could honestly respond by saying,“Yes?” I believe one could. Basically, the Church has officially interpreted the entire Bible if it interpreted just one passage. This is my line of thinking.

i know the Bible is the word of God because it resonates with my mind and heart… I hate to sound like a Mormon but i just know it is the Word of God. I don’t need to prove it to anyone and couldn’t if i tried… But if they would just read it themselves, they would almost have to conclude the same thing… Better yet, they could have it read to them @ Mass every day, in the Real Presence… (and from waht i have heard, even the angels & saints in Heaven participate in the Mass)…

anyway… many may not be able to relate to this next thing I’m going to say but actually, the wrath of God, written of all through the Old and even the New Testament, is what makes me a believer possibly more than anything else… because i have been the victim of a lot of “corruption”… (etc)… and seen monstrous evil in my lifetime… (plus i’ve read books about Hitler and other demonically-influenced persons)… If one just reads history, one will see the enormity of man’s evil… his cruelty to those of his own species… It is overwhelming…

anyway… the wrath of God answers this “issue” because…well, we humans who try to do right just don’t like to see injustice neglected… Of course, we kind of have to since God doesn’t always … zap evil people… make them pay NOW… In fact, sometimes i think he is sleeping (the abortion issue… )… but anyway…

It stands to reason (…if nothing else??)… that God would want a Church on Earth that all can trust(St. Mt 16:18)… that that one Church would be / could be kept from teaching error. God is quite capable of making sure that none of the members of that Church do any serious damage to the teachings… In other words, God is big enough to protect the Church on Earth from teaching false doctrines/dogmas… I heard this one story about a pope who was going to publish a false version of the bible… The cardinals & bishops told him not to, etc… but he wouldn’t listen… Well, before he was able to do it, he got soem weird disease & died… and there are other such stories of divine intervention throughout the history of the papacy… (but time does not permit…)…

anyhow…

Ok, so not everyone agrees on which is the right Church… that’s their problem …

just kidding… but in any case… only the RCC goes back to the time of the Resurrection… (earlier, actually)… so anyway, we can either trust all that that Church teaches (officially) or we can trust none of it…

i trust all…

what about you?

 

[JRKH]

Very nicely and succintly put Rob…
I just have a couple of points I would add.

We trust in the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testatement) because Jesus quoted from them and believed them to be true (and it is the cornerstone of Judaism on which the church was built).

This is very true, but of course there was not an “official canon” of OT scriptures (other than the Torah in the time of Christ. It appears that Christ may have quoted from the “Greek” old Testament and not the one later “officially” sactioned by the Jews.
Thus we have now a divergence between the OT in the Protestant Bible and the Catholic Bible.

We trust in the NT scriptures because we trust that the Holy Spirit guided the “church” (congregation of believers unanimously agreeing) in determining which epistles were inspired, and which were not.

Very True. The Holy Spirit was and is at work.
However, I think that your assertion of “unanimously agreeing” is a bit off the mark.
If I remember correctly there were some books that just bearly made the grade and others that just bearly missed inclusion. So it seems the councils were not havens of unity but that there was some considerable debate.

For those who believe in the infalliblity of the Catholic Church, in any event, the Catholic Church has not officially infallibly intepreted every verse of scripture - only a small percentage of scripture.

Blessings,

Brian

Nor have any Protestant Churches infallably interpreted any Scripture
Sorry - couldn’t resist that.

There is no great need for the Church to infallably interpret every verse. The Church views the Bible as a whole, building Church teachings upon the totality of Scripture in light of revelation, and the needs of the fiathful at a given time. This is why Church doctrine has developed slowly and deliberately over the centuries.

The other point that one should remember about the relationship of the Church and the Scriptures. The Church was around for about nearly 400 years before the Bible was offcially assembled. Before that some of the Church communities accepted and used certain books while others used different books.
Now it seems logical that we should accept that those who orally taught the faith as well as those who recorded itwere protected by the Holy Spirit. In other words that the Holy Spirit was protecting the Church, not just through writing but through instruction and apostolic succession of Bishops. Therefore, when the Bishops met to determine the Bible canon, they already were functioning under a Spirit protection in ALL that they were teaching which would include interpretations of the various Bible passages.

Just to give an Idea of just how long the Church was around before the Bible, Let us assume that Jesus was born on Independance day - July 4th 1776. That would mean that he died in the year 1809 and Pentacost occurred shortly thereafter. That would make this year of 2009 equivelant to the year 233 AD.
So right now - Today - Christianity is still illegal in the Empire, the NT has not been assembled and won’t be assembled for another 167 years (give or take). This is not to say that we didn’t have the writings that comprise the NT, but rather that we had these and many more which were used for liturgy and teaching.

Finally - When we speak of the Authority of the Church and the Holy Spirit protecting the writings, doesn’t it make sense that in this “year” of 233 AD (2009) the Holy spirit is protecting the people teaching the faithful from, not just the NT books, but also from the others that are regionally accepted?
If the Holy Spirit protected the Church under these circumstances, why would anyone think the Church is not Authoritative?

Peace
James

 

[Robbinson]

Thanks - some reactions to a couple of your comments below:

This is very true, but of course there was not an “official canon” of OT scriptures (other than the Torah in the time of Christ. It appears that Christ may have quoted from the “Greek” old Testament and not the one later “officially” sactioned by the Jews.
Thus we have now a divergence between the OT in the Protestant Bible and the Catholic Bible.

Indeed - I agree. However, there is no disagreement that every verse in the Old Testament quoted to by Jesus and the apostles in the NT is true and on those verses, there is no substantive distinction between teh Septuagent and the later accepted “palestinian cannon”. As to the DC books - they are not directly quoted to in the NT. That being said, I suscribe to the view that they are of great value to us and include many truths including some striking forshadowing of the passion (see wisdom chapter 2) and the Eucharist (see the book of Sirach).

Nor have any Protestant Churches infallably interpreted any Scripture
Sorry - couldn’t resist that.

No problem. I agree with you - I don’t think any of us are capable of infallibly interpreting scripture But guided by the Holy Spirit and following accepted methods of scriptural interpretation (scripture can’t contravene itself) we can test anyone’s preaching against scripture (as the Bereens did as recorded in Acts).

The other point that one should remember about the relationship of the Church and the Scriptures. The Church was around for about nearly 400 years before the Bible was offcially assembled. Before that some of the Church communities accepted and used certain books while others used different books.
Now it seems logical that we should accept that those who orally taught the faith as well as those who recorded itwere protected by the Holy Spirit. In other words that the Holy Spirit was protecting the Church, not just through writing but through instruction and apostolic succession of Bishops. Therefore, when the Bishops met to determine the Bible canon, they already were functioning under a Spirit protection in ALL that they were teaching which would include interpretations of the various Bible passages.

I was tempted to believe this, but cant get there as the writings of the early Church fathers shows us, even amongst themselves they held (and wrote about) varying views and understandings of scripture. I believe God protected the truth by guiding us with the Holy Spirit to preserve the “correct” teachings of the apostles and disciples in the scriptures/cannon as we now have it. Just as there were many “errant” books/epistles written (albeit sincerely), so there were many errant oral teachings and traditions.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[JRKH]

Thanks - some reactions to a couple of your comments below:

Indeed - I agree. However, there is no disagreement that every verse in the Old Testament quoted to by Jesus and the apostles in the NT is true and on those verses, there is no substantive distinction between teh Septuagent and the later accepted “palestinian cannon”. As to the DC books - they are not directly quoted to in the NT. That being said, I suscribe to the view that they are of great value to us and include many truths including some striking forshadowing of the passion (see wisdom chapter 2) and the Eucharist (see the book of Sirach).

My main problem with the whole Protestant/Catholic OT difference is simply this.
If the One - United - Christian Church put together the canon in 400 AD, with the DC’s, then that is the Canon of Holy Scriptures. If one wishes to dispute the DC’s then one must assume that the council erred origonally and thus the entire canon comes into question and not just the DC’s.

No problem. I agree with you - I don’t think any of us are capable of infallibly interpreting scripture But guided by the Holy Spirit and following accepted methods of scriptural interpretation (scripture can’t contravene itself) we can test anyone’s preaching against scripture (as the Bereens did as recorded in Acts).

Yes we, as individuals must be careful aboutr interpreting. That is why I am glad we have the nearly 2000 year history of the Church’s writing and teaching to help out. It’s great to see that we don’t have to “Re-invent the Wheel” so to speak. We have that great lineage to fall back on.

I was tempted to believe this, but cant get there as the writings of the early Church fathers shows us, even amongst themselves they held (and wrote about) varying views and understandings of scripture. I believe God protected the truth by guiding us with the Holy Spirit to preserve the “correct” teachings of the apostles and disciples in the scriptures/cannon as we now have it. Just as there were many “errant” books/epistles written (albeit sincerely), so there were many errant oral teachings and traditions.

So if one believes that God protected the individuals teaching ans spreading the faith before and during the canonization of the Bible, doesn’t it make sense that those same people, as well as those who followed, were also protected in their “interpretations”.

Blessings,

Brian

Blessings to you as well

Peace
James

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Lampo,

What you propose is a circular argument. You prove the Church from the Bible, then the Bible from the Church.

No, this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument!

What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.

This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Lampo,

The Church authenticated Scripture.

We have to be careful with the terms we use in this matter. I’m not sure “authenticate” is the right word. It might sound as if the Church passed judgment on Scripture, and said, “Yes, this sounds really inspired.” The Church** received** scripture from Christ and the apostles. It never passed judgment. Protestants, who do not recognize the authority of a Church, try to find within scripture signs of its inspiration.This is of course very subjective and unreliable. It is not the Catholic position, as you can see from reading Dei Verbum. A correct expression would be that the Church is a witness to the authenticity of Scripture*.*

Verbum

Hmmm…it seems to me that the Church did make judgments…this book is inspired, that book is not.

Maybe it’s just semantics, but could you explain more fully how the Church did not have to judge which books were and were not inspired? “Witness” sounds good, but isn’t it really just another way of saying the same thing?

 

[Randy_Carson]

i know the Bible is the word of God because it resonates with my mind and heart… I hate to sound like a Mormon but i just know it is the Word of God. I don’t need to prove it to anyone and couldn’t if i tried… But if they would just read it themselves, they would almost have to conclude the same thing… Better yet, they could have it read to them @ Mass every day, in the Real Presence… (and from waht i have heard, even the angels & saints in Heaven participate in the Mass)…

anyway… many may not be able to relate to this next thing I’m going to say but actually, the wrath of God, written of all through the Old and even the New Testament, is what makes me a believer possibly more than anything else… because i have been the victim of a lot of “corruption”… (etc)… and seen monstrous evil in my lifetime… (plus i’ve read books about Hitler and other demonically-influenced persons)… If one just reads history, one will see the enormity of man’s evil… his cruelty to those of his own species… It is overwhelming…

anyway… the wrath of God answers this “issue” because…well, we humans who try to do right just don’t like to see injustice neglected… Of course, we kind of have to since God doesn’t always … zap evil people… make them pay NOW… In fact, sometimes i think he is sleeping (the abortion issue… )… but anyway…

It stands to reason (…if nothing else??)… that God would want a Church on Earth that all can trust(St. Mt 16:18)… that that one Church would be / could be kept from teaching error. God is quite capable of making sure that none of the members of that Church do any serious damage to the teachings… In other words, God is big enough to protect the Church on Earth from teaching false doctrines/dogmas… I heard this one story about a pope who was going to publish a false version of the bible… The cardinals & bishops told him not to, etc… but he wouldn’t listen… Well, before he was able to do it, he got soem weird disease & died… and there are other such stories of divine intervention throughout the history of the papacy… (but time does not permit…)…

anyhow…

Ok, so not everyone agrees on which is the right Church… that’s their problem …

just kidding… but in any case… only the RCC goes back to the time of the Resurrection… (earlier, actually)… so anyway, we can either trust all that that Church teaches (officially) or we can trust none of it…

i trust all…

what about you?

Not to put too fine a point on this, but could you tell us precisely when God impressed upon you that each of the individual books were truly inspired?

Did He give you the complete list all at once or one book at a time?

And what exactly is it about 3 John that you find so compelling? Jesus is never even mentioned in the entire epistle, so I’m curious why that book struck you as inspired whereas the Didache or Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians did not.

 

[Contarini]

1. Initially, we approach the Bible as a non-inspired history book.
2. We then glean from it that Jesus instituted an infallible Church.

But this approach makes no sense, because scholars who approach the Bible in this way do not conclude that Jesus instituted an infallible Church. Matt. 16, for instance, is almost universally regarded by NT scholars as reflecting the theological emphases of Matthew and not as a literal transcript of what Jesus said (note that the parallel passage in Mark does not contain the key words allegedly giving “infallible” power to Peter–never mind that most scholars also don’t think that Matt. 16 is talking about infallibility).

This is Karl Keating’s adaptation of a Protestant apologetics argument invented by the “Old Princeton” school in the late 19th century. It was a bad argument when they invented it, and Keating’s Catholicization of it doesn’t help.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.

And how do you do that? To make the next step you have to assume a degree of historical accuracy that no historian would ascribe to any ancient text whatsoever, and you have to ignore what historians would normally see as evidence of editorializing such as the difference between the Matthaean and Marcan versions of Peter’s confession. In other words, you will never get there by simply treating the Bible as a history book. Contrary to the OP, you do in fact have to assume inspiration in order to have any reason to ascribe such remarkable accuracy to the Bible.

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

But this approach makes no sense, because scholars who approach the Bible in this way do not conclude that Jesus instituted an infallible Church. Matt. 16, for instance, is almost universally regarded by NT scholars as reflecting the theological emphases of Matthew and not as a literal transcript of what Jesus said (note that the parallel passage in Mark does not contain the key words allegedly giving “infallible” power to Peter–never mind that most scholars also don’t think that Matt. 16 is talking about infallibility).

Let’s consider the logic of your position in light of the Word of God, shall we?

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into total doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the nearly 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus not give the Counselor or did the Counselor simply fail to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
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.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

And how do you do that? To make the next step you have to assume a degree of historical accuracy that no historian would ascribe to any ancient text whatsoever, and you have to ignore what historians would normally see as evidence of editorializing such as the difference between the Matthaean and Marcan versions of Peter’s confession. In other words, you will never get there by simply treating the Bible as a history book. Contrary to the OP, you do in fact have to assume inspiration in order to have any reason to ascribe such remarkable accuracy to the Bible.

Edwin

Please clarify this for me.

Are you saying that the Bible is not historically accurate or that we do not know with certainty that the text which we have is reliable.

Two different things…