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

[Lampo]

As a matter of fact we know for certain that the Papacy did use forged documents to support some of its claims in the Middle Ages. Whether any Pope ever knew that the documents were forged is questionable (I am quite willing to give the Popes the benefit of the doubt). But obviously a forgery was involved at some point and on some level, and the Holy Spirit did not see fit to clear up the error until the Renaissance. Of course you will assume based on your dogmatic presuppositions that this is completely irrelevant because a formal definition of dogma was involved. But this is not how anyone not already committed to your presuppositions would see the matter.

Edwin

Your bolded statement is correct. Show me the Encyclical or Dogmatic Constitution one of those Popes wrote, that “supported some of those claims”, including the phrase, "I declare and define … ".

Otherwise, we have men who were not impeccable (without sin), but who, as near as we can tell, remained infallible (without error in their teaching ministry).

 

[Lampo]

Nonsense. I make mistakes all the time and they aren’t lies. A lie is a deliberate falsehood. You’re playing games with language.

According to this definition it doesn’t have to be deliberate.

 

[Contarini]

According to this definition it doesn’t have to be deliberate.

In the sense in which Satan is the “father of lies” it certainly does. Are you seriously suggesting that every error is Satanic?

This is just ridiculous, and you are distracting from the real issue, which is your indefensible OP. If you could defend it, wouldn’t you be doing so instead of picking a silly fight over the definition of “lie”?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Your bolded statement is correct. Show me the Encyclical or Dogmatic Constitution one of those Popes wrote, that “supported some of those claims”, including the phrase, "I declare and define … ".

Otherwise, we have men who were not impeccable (without sin), but who, as near as we can tell, remained infallible (without error in their teaching ministry).

That works well if you assume Catholic dogma from the start. But you’re supposedly engaging in apologetics. And to no non-Catholic does it seem obvious that the phrase “I declare and define” has such earth-shaking significance. If papal canon lawyers forge documents, and popes use them for centuries as the basis for lofty claims, that to most people looks a lot more like the “gates of hell prevailing” than a formal definition that happens to be in error on some abstruse point of doctrine.

Similarly with the obvious sins and abuses of the institutional Church. The only way you can see this as less of a “gates of hell prevailing” than doctrinal error is that you start out with that assumption. It even looks from a non-Catholic perspective as if Catholics invented this emphasis on formal dogma precisely because it’s much harder to prove doctrinal error than it is to prove that people have been corrupt at times.

This is, again, a distraction from the fact that your OP cannot be defended. Why aren’t you even trying? But your arguments are all of a piece. Over and over you start out with the assumption that Catholicism is correct, claim to be proving that it is correct, and when challenged fall back on the assumption as if only an idiot would question it. This just won’t work.

Please note, to avoid misunderstanding, that I don’t think that the abuses of the Church show that the gates of hell have prevailed against the See of Rome. I think that the abuses prove that it takes a lot more for the “gates of hell” to prevail than you think, and that in fact a few mistaken doctrines are small potatoes compared to the obvious problems the historic Church (in all its forms) has faced.

Edwin

 

[Lampo]

Are you seriously suggesting that every error is Satanic?

I’m suggesting that the evil one is the father of lies. An error is not the same as a lie.

This is just ridiculous, and you are distracting from the real issue, which is your indefensible OP. If you could defend it, wouldn’t you be doing so instead of picking a silly fight over the definition of “lie”?

Edwin

I think it is pertinent to my OP. If the Church isn’t teaching the absolute truth, it is teaching a lie.

 

[Contarini]

I’m suggesting that the evil one is the father of lies. An error is not the same as a lie.

Precisely. So your earlier statement was wrong. The Church may teach error without teaching lies.

I think it is pertinent to my OP. If the Church isn’t teaching the absolute truth, it is teaching a lie.

I deny this. It’s a matter of definition, but it’s another of these points that only someone already committed to your extremely conservative brand of Catholicism (or deeply hungering for the kind of absolute certainly it can allegedly provide) is going to find convincing.

And no, it’s not relevant to the OP. The OP argued that purely historical means could demonstrate that Jesus established an infallible Church. I have shown several times now in some detail that by normal historical methods this is completely untenable. Do you have any response?

Edwin

 

[Lampo]

What other way, other than my OP, is there to determine the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God?

 

[Lampo]

I have shown several times now in some detail that by normal historical methods this is completely untenable. Do you have any response?
Edwin

It most definitely is not untenable. How else do we know the Bible is the Word of God? Because the Bible tells us so?

 

[Contarini]

It most definitely is not untenable. How else do we know the Bible is the Word of God? Because the Bible tells us so?

Are you seriously suggesting that you can make a bad argument good by arguing that it is needed? If your argument doesn’t hold together (and I have explained the reasons why it doesn’t), then it doesn’t hold together, and the consequences have to be faced.

However, I don’t think we are as dependent on the wisdom of Old Princeton funneled through Mr. Keating as you believe. Christians believed in the Bible before there even was a Princeton.

The short answer as to why we believe in the Bible is because the Church tells us to. Not that there aren’t some independent reasons for believing in the Bible, but apart from the Church I for one would only believe in parts of the Bible if that. That’s one reason why Keating’s argument is so strange. One can see why the Old Princetonians needed this kind of argument, because they were sola scriptura Protestants. But Keating’s adaptation of their argument reverses the historical Catholic position that we believe in the Bible because of the Church rather than the other way round. It accepts one of the most foolish and untenable Protestant premises and tries to use it for Catholic apologetics.

The larger point is that we don’t need one single knock-down proof to justify our belief in Christianity. That is not how the justification of our beliefs normally works. We believe what we believe on the basis of a number of factors working together.

With that caveat, I would actually make almost the reverse of Keating’s argument. I would start with the Church as a historical reality, move from there to the Bible as the Church’s book, and from there back to the Church on the basis of the Bible’s teaching about the Body of Christ (and the passages that you and others have cited in this thread about God’s providential care for the Church).

But first and foremost I would start with my own situation. I am not an Archimedean lever floating out in space. I’m a human being who learned about truth and beauty and goodness from my parents and grandparents. They pointed me to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and they pointed me to the Bible as the Word of God. As I grew up I found that many of the things they had taught me did not hold up, but I found (to my delight and surprise) that over and over again the wisest and best and most beautiful things I encountered in the world pointed me back to Jesus Christ and the Scriptures. I discovered that the writers who had most of value to say tended to be Christian; that while the arguments for Christianity were often flimsy, the arguments against it were generally even worse. Negatively but importantly, I found nothing that could take the place of Christianity as an explanation of the human condition and the existence of the world, and as a source of value.

But here came the big surprise: I discovered that whereas I’d been told that the story of the institutional Church was one of constant corruption and decay (with periodic revivals due to the work of the Spirit), in fact the same witnesses that pointed me to Jesus and the Scriptures pointed me to the historic Church. I read Bede’s Ecclesiastical History and recognized him as a fellow believer, and wondered why I hadn’t been taught to venerate saints and the Eucharist as he did. I read the work of Henry Suso (a late medieval mystic whom I’d been taught to regard as a Protestant before his time) and felt the rank stench of medieval piety in my nostrils. If I am going to be a Christian–and for all of my doubts I have still not found an alternative–I must be a Christian in company with this historic body of witnesses, who in the midst of their sins and errors and corruptions have been the source of so much that is good and true and beautiful in the history of the world.

And so we come to my “reverse Keating” argument, complicated by the fact that I was taught the errors of sola scriptura and the invisible Church growing up. The above is what I am talking about when I say that I begin with the Church. I look at it as historical reality and I recognize it as a tradition with which I want to be associated. And being part of the Church means that I accept Scripture as God’s Word. The fact that I was taught to love Scripture and find much of it enthrallingly beautiful certainly helps, but logically my reason for accepting the canon as a whole is the authority of the Church. And I accept the Church because I must choose to believe something (even choosing not to believe is still a choice), and this is the best thing I have found to believe in.

You have been misled into accepting a brittle and narrow conception of rational argument which bears no resemblance to how people normally make important decisions. Two books I would recommend which have helped crystallize my views on this subject are William Abraham’s Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion and William James’ The Will to Believe.

Edwin

 

[heiscominginthe]

Now it certainly seems obvious that The Church, which had been teaching orally under the guidance of the Holy Spirit for so long, would have a really good idea of what the proper meanings are of the various passages in the Bible texts. So the Sola Scriptura notion that one can seperate the Bible from the Church is a false one.

I am not clear as to your meaning that the church taught orally. For when revelation did come by way of the unction of the Holy Spirit orally, it was imediately discerned and then written for the benefit of the entire body of Christ which was spread over great distances. In this way they could all be in once accord, each church having that same teaching from the Holy Spirit.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not if you are seriously defending the OP. The argument set forth there is that the infallibility of the Church can be established from the Bible treated as just another ancient historical text and *not *as the Word of God. If you really agree with this, you need to argue accordingly. Your reflexive use of the phrase “Word of God” shows just how counterintuitive and indeed unnatural this entire way of proceeding is for any devout Christian when considering matters of Christian theology.

Actually, I think the basis of the argument is that you can begin with the Bible as a purely historical document, conclude from it that Jesus is God and that He built an infallible Church that will exist until the second coming. That infallible Church then tells us infallibly that the Bible is the Word of God and not just a reliable historical document. The Bible was inspired all along, of course, but we could not know that without an infallible Church to tell us so.

But it is far from certain that Jesus said these words. Even many devout Christians (including Catholic scholars) think that this is a theological interpretation by Matthew and not a word-for-word transcript of what Jesus said. I don’t think you could find a single secular scholar who thinks that Jesus said these words. The primary argument is that this is not found in the Marcan version of the story (Mark 8:27-30). Given that most scholars think that Mark was written first and Matthew used Mark as a source, the most likely possibility is that Matthew elaborated the story for his own theological reasons. It is of course possible that Matthew knew more details from some other source, but this isn’t the most likely alternative if we are looking at this as just another ancient text. Bear in mind that to refute the OP I don’t need to prove that this is an elaboration by Matthew, but only to show that there is reasonable doubt on the subject. The OP does not say that it’s possible that Jesus established an “infallible” Church… It claims to be able to prove that he did. I will not repeat these points in each instance below, but they apply throughout.

Once you go down this slippery slope, I am done. I have no time for those who want to argue what we do and do not know about the Bible. Whether Jesus said the words or not is immaterial; the Holy Spirit inspired them, so they must be what God wanted us to know. End of story. Oh, one more point, I have about a dozen quotes from Protestant scholars who declared that Peter really is the rock. That is pretty much the end of that debate, I’m happy to say.

You’re fudging by inserting the word “total.” Infallibility doesn’t just exclude “total” error (that would be “indefectibility,” which most Christians believe in, though not necessarily ascribing it to the See of Rome). It excludes any error in the Church’s official teaching. Therefore, by your own tacit admission this text does not teach infallibility but only indefectibility.

Actually, don’t read too much into my use of the word “total”; this was a typographical error because I was recycling a document that I use when debating Mormons who believe in the “total apostasy” of the Church. I tried to remove the word from each instance that it appeared in the Mormon document, but I obviously missed one. No tacit admission exists, and I stand by my position if you will correct that sentence.

Again, it’s notable that this is found only in Matthew. This is not very solid historical evidence that Jesus actually said these words. Most scholars would conclude instead that this is something added by Matthew.

Why not? You are assuming that Jesus will not be present with the Church if it teaches any error at all in its official teaching. This does not seem like a reasonable assumption.

Again, the vast majority of scholars do not think that the speeches ascribed to Jesus in John are transcripts of what He actually said. (In fact, there are practically no scholars, even conservative Christian ones, who deny that John contains a great deal of later theological interpretation both in the narratives and the speeches). Some would deny John any historical value at all; others would say that John can be used as a historical source but with great caution and awareness that most of the long speeches are later creations.This of course applies to all the Johannine passages you cite.

See above. You continue to assume an unreasonable ecclesiological perfectionism for which you provide no argument (you apparently think it’s self-evident; it isn’t).

Yeah. Most of this is just your personal skepticism about what is and is not reliable regarding the Word of God.

Thanks, but this type of speculation is not my cup of tea.

I will say this, however: if John represents LATER theological development (and I concur from my limited understanding of the timelines), then John only strengthens distinctly Catholic doctrines such as the real presence in the Eucharist (cf. John 6) and the papacy (cf. John 21:15-18).

After all, if John had wanted to correct any FALSE understanding that he observed creeping into Church teaching, he could have done so. Instead, it appears he supported the ideas that Catholics have believed for 2,000 years.

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Randy_Carson]

huh???

i didn’t even mention 3 Jn in my post… or the Didache or Clement’s letter…

No, you didn’t. However, you seemed to suggest that you don’t need to rely on the Catholic Church to tell you that the collection of ancient writings in your hand are God-breathed scripture; God has revealed this to you completely independently of any “church”.

Therefore, I was merely asking how this occurred, what drew you in your spirit to 3 John (which does not reference Jesus at all) such that you knew with certainty that it was inspired while repelling you from great works like that of Clement (which was regarded as theopneustos for many centuries before finally being rejected as scripture).

That’s all.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Church may teach error without teaching lies.

No.

By the grace and action of God, the Catholic Church is protected from formally teaching error in matters of faith and morals.

 

[JRKH]

I am not clear as to your meaning that the church taught orally. For when revelation did come by way of the unction of the Holy Spirit orally, it was imediately discerned and then written for the benefit of the entire body of Christ which was spread over great distances. In this way they could all be in once accord, each church having that same teaching from the Holy Spirit.

Since this is off topic on this particular thread, I am taking the opportunity to move this to the other “inerrant” thread as I did with an earlier post.

Please look there for my response.

 

[severntofall]

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.

Are you serious with this? Let me see if I understand what you’re saying.

1. From the bible, one can kinda sorta infer that Jesus is establishing an infallible church on earth (truth be told the passage you’re referring to was almost certainly added after the fact for theological reasons).
2. The church, whose validity is kinda sorta inferred from a passage in the bible (again a most likely fraudulent entry…very common at the time), validates the validity of the text from which is earned its own validity.
3. thus both the bible and church are valid.

If you can think of a better example of circular reasoning then I’d love to hear it.

 

[Lampo]

Are you serious with this? Let me see if I understand what you’re saying.

1. From the bible, one can kinda sorta infer that Jesus is establishing an infallible church on earth (truth be told the passage you’re referring to was almost certainly added after the fact for theological reasons).
2. The church, whose validity is kinda sorta inferred from a passage in the bible (again a most likely fraudulent entry…very common at the time), validates the validity of the text from which is earned its own validity.
3. thus both the bible and church are valid.

If you can think of a better example of circular reasoning then I’d love to hear it.

It isn’t circular reasoning. Why do you believe that we can only “kinda sorta” infer? It is very definite that we can infer from the Bible that Jesus founded an infallible Church. Please see post #14 in this thread.

 

[Contarini]

No.

By the grace and action of God, the Catholic Church is protected from formally teaching error in matters of faith and morals.

Randy, the second sentence is not an argument supporting your denial. It is just an affirmation of your Communion’s teaching. I understand that teaching. I’m not even sure that it’s false. I’m simply pointing out that even if the Church were to teach some error in its formal teaching that would not obviously and self-evidently constitute the gates of hell prevailing against the Church. It is not at all obvious to someone not already committed to orthodox Roman Catholicism (I’m using the adjective “Roman” deliberately and with good reason in this context and will not apologize for it, so don’t bother protesting it) that small errors in formal doctrinal teaching are worse than huge sins and errors and corruptions of other kinds. Most of us find the corruption of the “pornocracy” or the Renaissance papacy, or the Church’s long love affair with coercive power, much more scandalous than the possibility that the Pope was wrong in defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

You don’t refute this simply by reiterating the Catholic position. This should be obvious to you, if you are serious about defending the Catholic Church and are not just playing a game to reinforce your own beliefs to yourself and others who already agree with you.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Actually, I think the basis of the argument is that you can begin with the Bible as a purely historical document

Which you and Lampo refuse to do in practice. You say that this is what you are doing, but when I take you at your word you are horrified.

Once you go down this slippery slope, I am done. I have no time for those who want to argue what we do and do not know about the Bible.

Then you have no time for actually examining the Bible as a “purely historical document.” Because the first thing one asks about a purely historical document is what we do or do not know about it. You are playing a game here. You don’t really mean to treat the Bible as a purely historical document at all, and you are mad at me because I am calling your bluff. Dishonesty does not serve the Faith.

Whether Jesus said the words or not is immaterial

Not if you are making a historical claim about what Jesus said and did, as the OP is allegedly doing.

Actually, don’t read too much into my use of the word “total”

Well shucks, you’re less reasonable than I thought. It’s just bizarre to claim that any error constitutes the gates of hell prevailing, given some of the things that are historically documentable about the Church (and I’m not picking on your Communion here–I’m talking about historic Christianity in general to which I adhere).

Now we can agree to disagree about this. But the fact that we do disagree, and that I am far from alone in finding your position just weird, is enough to debunk your argument–unless you are constructing the argument purely for your own benefit. You may think it’s self-evident that all kinds of abuses and corruptions and errors in non-formal teaching don’t constitute the gates of hell prevailing, while a single wrong definition by a Pope or Council does. But you can’t count on this if you are serious about doing apologetics. You wind up constructing an argument that only works with those who already accept your premises.

Yeah. Most of this is just your personal skepticism about what is and is not reliable regarding the Word of God.

No, it’s what you would find actual NT scholars (including Catholics) saying if you would bother to read them.

You can’t say “I’m going to treat the Bible like another historical document” and then completely ignore all the people who study the Bible as a historical document. What you really mean by “treating the Bible like another historical document” is taking it with implicit trust at face value. But no reasonable and thoughtful person treats historical documents this way. That’s why your position is self-contradictory and (objectively) dishonest (I recognize that you aren’t being deliberately dishonest–you’re just unwilling to think clearly and logically about the implications of the argument you’re endorsing.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

By the way: in the unlikely possibility that anyone cares, two other books that have shaped my thinking but which I didn’t mention in #49 above are
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn, and
Three Rival Versions of Moral Inquiry, by Alasdair McIntyre

Catholics might be particularly interested in the latter source, since McIntyre is a convert to Catholicism. In fact, that is probably the one book I should have mentioned first, since his account of why traditions are important to truth is probably the best explanation of why I find Lampo’s approach just as unnecessary as it is unworkable.

Edwin

 

[Lampo]

Which you and Lampo refuse to do in practice. You say that this is what you are doing, but when I take you at your word you are horrified.

I did not say that is what I am doing. I said that is how the Church approaches the Bible. Why would we need to continue do that “in practice” if it was already done? And I’m not in the least horrified. Sorry I gave that impression.

On a side note addressing your referral to the Catholic Church as the “Roman” Catholic Church. In any official Vatican document, how does the Church refer to herself? Wouldn’t it be more honest of you to refer to the Catholic Church the way the Catholic Church refers to herself?