Inspiration or Inspiration?

[Pophead]

I have read simply thousands (1000’s +) books. Yet there is a definite difference between profound human inspiriation, and the use of the word when it comes to books like Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and so on. (The Bible).

I remember reading C.S. Lewis’ Science Fiction Trilogy and later ‘Til we have faces’, and still later ‘Dark Tower’ and as a young Christian, I found them to be ‘inspired’. I listened to Johan Sebastian Bach, and found his music to be ‘inspired’. Though I am not sure many would agree but I found the music of Bob Dylan to be ‘inspired’. I read enough of St. Augustines confessions, to realize he was also ‘inspired’, and I might add Thomas Acquinas and then off into the writers that are not exclusively religious. Erich Fromm’s - Art of Loving, I found a book I could read anytime, and the work of Sadhu Sundar Singh, as well as the writings of Kahil Gibran, and I forget the name of the author who wrote about that seagull that flew higher and higher. These days we say a movie is inspired, like Lord of the Rings, or Never Ending Story, or Watership down, they are simply fantastic and we find ourselves transported into a fantasy world that has so many connections to our own finite perceptions of the omniscience of our Creator, we seem to touch the divine, and we might say, ‘That work was TRULY INSPIRED OF GOD’.

Words mean so many different things these days. Some are helpful others detract from the original meaning that they had say in the times immediately after the New Testament was written.

Lest I waffle on and someone say, ‘your words are inspired’ hehehe, my question is simple enough. According to what we know of the word, ‘inspiration’ as it relates to the writings of the Early Fathers and obviously to the Bible, what is the difference between the two. (you might want to throw in the Creeds of all faiths and Magisteriums too).

Sincerely,
Pophead.

 

[Steve40]

Lest I waffle on and someone say, ‘your words are inspired’ hehehe, my question is simple enough. According to what we know of the word, ‘inspiration’ as it relates to the writings of the Early Fathers and obviously to the Bible, what is the difference between the two. (you might want to throw in the Creeds of all faiths and Magisteriums too).

Sincerely,
Pophead.

The difference between the two is that one is declared inerrant by people who have God given authority to make this proclaimation and the other is not. Christ gives authority on earth. He gives authority to fathers and mothers over their children. In a similar way he gave authority to the Apostles and this has been handed down to the Bishops of the Catholic Church. Those in Christ given Authority have declared that the books in the Catholic Bible are the inerrant Word of God.

The Bible did not come with a table of contents. So both Catholics and Protestants depend upon tradition to determine which books belong in the Bible. For Catholics it is Sacrad Tradition that gives this information through the Holy Spirit and the Authority handed down from Christ. Since Protestants do not believe in Sacred Tradition their tradition is the tradition of men. Because of this they are missing some books.

 

[Pophead]

Since Protestants do not believe in Sacred Tradition their tradition is the tradition of men. Because of this they are missing some books.

Steve, I understand what you are saying.

I said:
According to what we know of the word, ‘inspiration’ as it relates to the writings of the Early Fathers and obviously to the Bible, what is the difference between the two. (you might want to throw in the Creeds of all faiths and Magisteriums too).

The difference between the two is that one is declared inerrant by people who have God given authority to make this proclaimation and the other is not.

How did God give them this authority ?

Those in Christ given Authority have declared that the books in the Catholic Bible are the inerrant Word of God.

What criteria did they use to establish if a book was inspired of God or not?

The Bible did not come with a table of contents.

Sure most of the books did not even have titles, verse, chapters etc. (my previous question refers)

So both Catholics and Protestants depend upon tradition to determine which books belong in the Bible.

Is the Bible not tradition ? This does not really help in determining the diffference between tradition which was more of commentary, and that which was actually the inspired word of God. (back to my question of criteria, again)

For Catholics it is Sacrad Tradition that gives this information through the Holy Spirit and the Authority handed down from Christ.

Fine, direct me to the Sacred Tradition and what criteria they used to establish what was inspired of God, and what was not?

Since Protestants do not believe in Sacred Tradition their tradition is the tradition of men.

They might not call it ‘Sacred’, but they certainly have their scholars that have a very high view of Scripture. The books that are in their Bibles are also in yours and at one stage the King James Bible had the missing books. The reason they were not included is because they were regarded as historically useful, but not inspired of God. Perhaps you should ask them why? I am not one so this let’s me off the hook, but you still have to show how your sacred traditions arrived at the criteria, or rather the particular criteria they used to establish a book or writings as inspired of God. Hence, my original explanation that there is a neccessary difference between that which is inspired in an anointed sense, but not in the innerant/infallible inspired word of GOD, sense? How do finite beings decide what is infallible/inerrant unless they are shown by God directly. (As I believe they were, and well before the end of the 2nd Century).

Sincerely,
Pophead.

 

[Pophead]

Steve,

You say:

…handed down from Christ.

I say:

Peter explains that it was the Spirit of Christ in the prophets that pointed to the Messiah and what he would do. The NT. writers declare that Jesus explained to the two men on the road that what was written in Moses and the prophets concerning what had just happened. The writers of the New Testament admit that their accounts, especially Luke is made up from numerous other accounts, it is just that the writer of Luke gave a properly ordered writing about the Word who became flesh. I think it might be true to say that the Scriptures NT pretty much protected itself against the heretical stuff that would come along. Where the writings denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh etc. The idea is from what I understand a fine toothcombing out all the erroneous and extra biblical stuff, ie: Jesus made birds out of clay and breathed in them. There was apparently quite a lot of that stuff. Christ never handed anything down to them, he simply taught them, they were the one’s who wrote and handed over, and copies were made and so it was handed on down to us. Simple.

It is a pity you have brought the ‘missing books’ idea into this for I was more interested in learning what sort of criteria is used by anyone with a High view of Scripture to understand what is inspired God (infallable/inerrant), and that which is inspiring and perhaps quite edifying but not the actually inspired word of God?

I am really struggling to explain myself clearly. I hope you understand.

Peace,
Pophead.

 

[Pophead]

Additional: (add to OP)

From what I understand of the RCC position and in particular the early fathers is that they said, ‘the Scripture was uniquely innerant’. Though Jerome and others; refer to the writing of the Church Fathers as being ‘inspired’ it is in a much boarder sense.

This is how I understand the difference between what is inspired of God (Scripture) and what is inspired in a broader sense by God(Early Fathers). The word inspiration carries with it the term ‘uniquely’. One of a kind. I know this goes against the current trends, but it is something that originated and formed the framework for a proper understanding of the term ‘inspiration’ in relation to writings of men of God, and writings of God.

Not being a Catholic or a Protestant (I am too young for either hehehe), I am really interested to learn which of Jerome and Augustine’s writings make this distinction between something that is uniquely inspired of God (Scripture), and that which is simply referred to as being inspired; as in Magisterium, Canon, Creed, or say a sermon, or a song etc.

It is interesting to me that the term Sacred attatched to Traditions can be very misunderstood to mean; much more than what it in fact is. It is not unique inspiration (as with Scripture), but instead simply inspired in a much broader sense; in the sense that it may have a degree of profundity, but is not really what is commonly understood to be infallible/innerant, which would certainly explain to me why so many of the writings of the Early Fathers cannot be taken as authoritative in a final sense, but need to be verified in terms of that which is uniquely innerant (namely the Scriptures).

I am almost positive this was the position of the Apostles and the Early Fathers, but it has diminished in clarity as time has brought in so many different ideas about the authority of the Bible.

I am interested to read the thoughts of others on this matter.

Sincerely,
Pophead.

 

[MariaG]

It is interesting to me that the term Sacred attatched to Traditions can be very misunderstood to mean; much more than what it in fact is. It is not unique inspiration (as with Scripture), but instead simply inspired in a much broader sense; in the sense that it may have a degree of profundity, but is not really what is commonly understood to be infallible/innerant, which would certainly explain to me why so many of the writings of the Early Fathers cannot be taken as authoritative in a final sense, but need to be verified in terms of that which is uniquely innerant (namely the Scriptures).

I am almost positive this was the position of the Apostles and the Early Fathers, but it has diminished in clarity as time has brought in so many different ideas about the authority of the Bible.

I am interested to read the thoughts of others on this matter.

Sincerely,
Pophead.

And who verifies that your interpretation of scripture is correct?

That is the true sticking point.

For example: The Real Presence of Christ. Catholics and many Protestants believe that scripture clearly speaks of the Real Presence of Christ in communion. Some non-Catholics disagree.

So whose interpretation of Scripture should we rely on? It is not a question of looking to scripture at all, but really whose INTERPRETATION of scripture you choose to believe.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[Pophead]

And who verifies that your interpretation of scripture is correct?

What?

This thread is NOT about my interpretation of Scripture. It is about the definition of ‘inspiration’ as it relates to:

1. Scripture
2. The writings of the Church Fathers

Further it was established by the Early Fathers that there was a distinct difference between what they wrote and what is declared to be Scripture. The difference was contained in the word, **‘uniquely’ **- inspired. It is they who admitted that the writings of the Fathers were inspired, but in a broader sense than the Scriptures, which they confessed were 'uniquely inspired.'

Maria, interpretation of Scripture is something entirely different, from ‘inspiration’ as it relates to Scripture and other writings. (Perhaps you would like to start another thread dealing with interpretation of Scripture?)

Once again, what I am interested to learn is this: ‘what the Early Fathers said about ‘inspiration’ as it relates specifically to their writings and the Bible.’ (which I understand they regarded as being ‘UNIQUELY’ inspired.)

Often people confuse ‘inspiration’ with ‘interpretation’, but please try to stay on topic.

Love,
Pophead.

 

[Wolseley]

This thread is NOT about my interpretation of Scripture. It is about the definition of ‘inspiration’ as it relates to:

1. Scripture
2. The writings of the Church Fathers

Easy enough.

The inspired Word of God comes down to us in two forms:

1. The written Word of God, called “Holy Scripture”;
2. The spoken Word of God, called “Apostolic Tradition”.

Much of Apostolic Tradition is recorded in the writings of the Early Church Fathers; the writings of the Fathers themselves are not inspired, but the Apostolic Traditions recorded in them are.

Now, you will say, “How do you know that the stuff written in the writings of the Early Church Fathers is really the Word of God?”

To which I will reply, “How do you know that the stuff written down in your Bible is really the Word of God?”

The answer to both questions is the same: Faith.

 

[MariaG]

Additional: (add to OP)

From what I understand of the RCC position and in particular the early fathers is that they said, ‘the Scripture was uniquely innerant’. Though Jerome and others; refer to the writing of the Church Fathers as being ‘inspired’ it is in a much boarder sense.

This is how I understand the difference between what is inspired of God (Scripture) and what is inspired in a broader sense by God(Early Fathers). The word inspiration carries with it the term ‘uniquely’. One of a kind. I know this goes against the current trends, but it is something that originated and formed the framework for a proper understanding of the term ‘inspiration’ in relation to writings of men of God, and writings of God.

Not being a Catholic or a Protestant (I am too young for either hehehe), I am really interested to learn which of Jerome and Augustine’s writings make this distinction between something that is uniquely inspired of God (Scripture), and that which is simply referred to as being inspired; as in Magisterium, Canon, Creed, or say a sermon, or a song etc.

It is interesting to me that the term Sacred attatched to Traditions can be very misunderstood to mean; much more than what it in fact is. It is not unique inspiration (as with Scripture), but instead simply inspired in a much broader sense; in the sense that it may have a degree of profundity, but is not really what is commonly understood to be infallible/innerant, which would certainly explain to me why so many of the writings of the Early **Fathers cannot be taken as authoritative in a final sense, but need to be verified in terms of that which is uniquely innerant (**namely the Scriptures).

I am almost positive this was the position of the Apostles and the Early Fathers, but it has diminished in clarity as time has brought in so many different ideas about the authority of the Bible.

I am interested to read the thoughts of others on this matter.

Sincerely,
Pophead.

What?

This thread is NOT about my interpretation of Scripture. It is about the definition of ‘inspiration’ as it relates to:

1. Scripture
2. The writings of the Church Fathers

Further it was established by the Early Fathers that there was a distinct difference between what they wrote and what is declared to be Scripture. The difference was contained in the word, **‘uniquely’ **- inspired. It is they who admitted that the writings of the Fathers were inspired, but in a broader sense than the Scriptures, which they confessed were 'uniquely inspired.'

Maria, interpretation of Scripture is something entirely different, from ‘inspiration’ as it relates to Scripture and other writings. (Perhaps you would like to start another thread dealing with interpretation of Scripture?)

Once again, what I am interested to learn is this: ‘what the Early Fathers said about ‘inspiration’ as it relates specifically to their writings and the Bible.’ (which I understand they regarded as being ‘UNIQUELY’ inspired.)

Often people confuse ‘inspiration’ with ‘interpretation’, but please try to stay on topic.

Love,
Pophead.

Respectfully, my post is completely on topic or least specifically addresses the concept that one must “verify with scripture” the writings of the ECF.

It has already been established that the ECF are not uniquely inspired as scripture is. To say that one must “verify” the writings of the Fathers against scripture is true in certain respects but has already been done so long ago by Christ’s Church.

I do agree however that many confuse inspired and interpretation. Many non-Catholics presume to take their interpretation of God’s inspired word and think that their interpretation is inspired even when it contradicts the writings of the ECF,which have been found to be an authentic interpretation of God’s inspired word.

So when you say that the ECF need to be “**verified in terms of that which is uniquely innerant (namely the Scriptures)” **I would say to you this has already been done. Those who feel the ECF writings are incorrect or contradict Scripture, then it is not the ECF who are incorrect but an incorrect interpretation of God’s inspired word.

So while the ECF are not inspired as God’s word is, they are certainly reliable, and much more reliable than the writings of those who have chosen to divorce themselves from the historic interpretation of Scripture.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Pophead]

So while the ECF are not inspired as God’s word is, they are certainly reliable, and much more reliable than the writings of those who have chosen to divorce themselves from the historic interpretation of Scripture.

God Bless,
Maria

Thank-you for your reply.

When I fly to the UK in January, I will most certainly be taking ‘the uniquely inspired writings’. I feel at liberty to share something that happened to me some years back which will probably be an indirect response to what Wolesley wrote. (thanks btw.) I few years ago, while I was recording (tape to tape), the Gospel of the Apostle John and entertaining guests in the next room; I forgot what I was taping. Somehow I was convinced that it was Romans (senility…hehehe), well as I listened to bits and pieces, intermittently checking to see everyone was happily watching the movie, I suddenly came to a startling conclusion…this is what I thought…‘WOW! Paul speaks with such AUTHORITY!’ < I realize this is subjective…but when finally I heard the words, ‘Jesus said’, I was completely BLOWN AWAY.

It was like being on the shores of Galilee listening to Jesus first hand. It was I am sure a similar experience that people got when they were listening to the ‘Sermon of the Mount’, they were ASTONISHED at his teaching. In this book that is so ‘uniquely inspired’, it is not suprising that God condescends to grasp our tiny hearts by His Spirit and convince us most definitely of this fact. It was most certainly the experience of all who share a HIGH VIEW of Scripture.

In my studies in Hebrew (which are coming along really slowly), due to studies in the WORD, I found that they also have marvellous writings by their Rabbis that help immensely with clarity. I am not sure if you are aware of John Gill, but he continuely refers to the writings that relate in this matter.

There are so many good books on this topic and once I am settled in the UK, I am going to go try and read them all…hehehe…starters will be John D. Woodbridge’s - ‘Biblical Authority’ - This is the best life.

Shalom,
Pophead.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I have read simply thousands (1000’s +) books. Yet there is a definite difference between profound human inspiriation, and the use of the word when it comes to books like Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and so on. (The Bible).

I remember reading C.S. Lewis’ Science Fiction Trilogy and later ‘Til we have faces’, and still later ‘Dark Tower’ and as a young Christian, I found them to be ‘inspired’. I listened to Johan Sebastian Bach, and found his music to be ‘inspired’. Though I am not sure many would agree but I found the music of Bob Dylan to be ‘inspired’. I read enough of St. Augustines confessions, to realize he was also ‘inspired’, and I might add Thomas Acquinas and then off into the writers that are not exclusively religious. Erich Fromm’s - Art of Loving, I found a book I could read anytime, and the work of Sadhu Sundar Singh, as well as the writings of Kahil Gibran, and I forget the name of the author who wrote about that seagull that flew higher and higher. These days we say a movie is inspired, like Lord of the Rings, or Never Ending Story, or Watership down, they are simply fantastic and we find ourselves transported into a fantasy world that has so many connections to our own finite perceptions of the omniscience of our Creator, we seem to touch the divine, and we might say, ‘That work was TRULY INSPIRED OF GOD’.

Words mean so many different things these days. Some are helpful others detract from the original meaning that they had say in the times immediately after the New Testament was written.

Lest I waffle on and someone say, ‘your words are inspired’ hehehe, my question is simple enough. According to what we know of the word, ‘inspiration’ as it relates to the writings of the Early Fathers and obviously to the Bible, what is the difference between the two. (you might want to throw in the Creeds of all faiths and Magisteriums too).

Sincerely,
Pophead.

Bob Dylan ​

This is an interesting question At the risk of seeming evasive - again - ISTM that the distinction between:

• the Biblical texts
• the Fathers, Councils etc.
• the inspiration of great artists

• is in certain respects within a single continuum. The specifically theological sorts can’t be studied in isolation from the others.

The issue of authority can’t be ignored - because it too is of many kinds, of which the authority of great art is one, that of scientific vision another, that of the Magisterium another, that of the theologian another. They are all different authorities, yet are related, & none can be reduced to that of any other. All are from God, all are forms of His creative power, each has its own “vocation”.

And that is only the beginning - the issue of the inspiration of the Bible is far too rich & varied to allow of one single description; there is is work here for the dogmatic theologian, the philosopher, the artist, the exegete & the historian, and others.

St.Thomas Aquinas & Leo XIII ought to be read on this matter - the Pope’s words are of especial value, because his analysis of inspiration allows for others than the Biblical inspiration which was the subject of his teaching; there is room for them too in the Thomist model he employs.

Have you read “The Authority of the Bible” by C.H. Dodd ?

 

[MariaG]

Thank-you for your reply.

When I fly to the UK in January, I will most certainly be taking ‘the uniquely inspired writings’. I feel at liberty to share something that happened to me some years back which will probably be an indirect response to what Wolesley wrote. (thanks btw.) I few years ago, while I was recording (tape to tape), the Gospel of the Apostle John and entertaining guests in the next room; I forgot what I was taping. Somehow I was convinced that it was Romans (senility…hehehe), well as I listened to bits and pieces, intermittently checking to see everyone was happily watching the movie, I suddenly came to a startling conclusion…this is what I thought…‘WOW! Paul speaks with such AUTHORITY!’ < I realize this is subjective…but when finally I heard the words, ‘Jesus said’, I was completely BLOWN AWAY.

It was like being on the shores of Galilee listening to Jesus first hand. It was I am sure a similar experience that people got when they were listening to the ‘Sermon of the Mount’, they were ASTONISHED at his teaching. In this book that is so ‘uniquely inspired’, it is not suprising that God condescends to grasp our tiny hearts by His Spirit and convince us most definitely of this fact. It was most certainly the experience of all who share a HIGH VIEW of Scripture.

In my studies in Hebrew (which are coming along really slowly), due to studies in the WORD, I found that they also have marvellous writings by their Rabbis that help immensely with clarity. I am not sure if you are aware of John Gill, but he continuely refers to the writings that relate in this matter.

There are so many good books on this topic and once I am settled in the UK, I am going to go try and read them all…hehehe…starters will be John D. Woodbridge’s - ‘Biblical Authority’ - This is the best life.

Shalom,
Pophead.

Thank you for sharing your personal story. And I do know that the Holy Spirit is very capable of revealing His truth to us without any help at all. Paul is a wonderful biblical example of this. And I frequently tell people that I came to the Catholic Church through scripture alone and the leading of the Holy Spirit, realizing the complete irony of this.

However, again the problem arises when we THINK we have been given revelation from God. If our new understanding contradicts the authentic teaching of the Church, which is the pillar and foundation truth according to scripture, then we are deceiving ourselves. Scripture warns that this can happen.

But scripture also tells us where to look and who to trust. The Church.

So again, to say that you must “verify” it against scripture, I say to you that in fact, this has been done long ago, and today, we need to verify our interpretation of scripture, even when we believe it to be revealed to us by the Holy Spirit, with the teachings of the Early Church whom we know is the pillar and foundation of truth since God’s inspired word tells us so.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Pophead]

But scripture also tells us where to look and who to trust. The Church.

The Bible covers many topics. However, the Bible of itself is no more than a book with words and pages and can tell us nothing actually. Topics or criteria (ie: Church, Christ, God, Sin, Judgment etc) can be uncovered from the Summa Theologica, or Finney’s Systematic Theology, or from a reasonable study of the ECF’s, however in and of itself it tells us NOTHING, and though one might have a corner of truth, sooner or later you will discover that the Bible points outside itself. Personal encounter not with the Church but with…yes. GOD through the Lord Jesus Christ.

Being uniquely inspired, means that it needs a unique inspiration to touch our lives, for even the most brilliant of scholars with a grasp of history, culture and excellent exegesis; will eventually find that this ‘two edged sword’, makes demands and exposes gaping holes in them and their inspired thoughts or writings. It has not been uncommon to read of men who started out intentionally to break up that which ‘cannot be broken’ and found that they were the one’s who were being broken apart.

The Father must first draw one to the Word of Life (Jesus Christ), before we are placed in the ‘body of Christ’, the term church is so easily misunderstood to be, this or that denomination, or religion. Whereas the authentic body which one needs to be born into, is not something one gets from Mom and Dad, or from going to Church, or being a really good Christian, or Catholic or whatever, it has to come from God first.

Though I admit that ‘inspired writings’ are helpful to some degree, they are only bitty, bit steps to the ‘uniquely inspired writings’, which are uniquely God breathed. To understand the unique character of the Scriptures, and the inspired writings of any man, is to begin to realize that we are dealing with something much bigger than our own lives. etc. etc. etc. I think you get my point.

Pophead.

 

[Pophead]

Have you read “The Authority of the Bible” by C.H. Dodd ?

I have read most on the Authority of the Bible, including BB Warfield, but the one I am still heading to read is John Woodbridge. For now I am going to breakaway and let others explore this topic. Thanks for your questions, I hope I got them in my reply to Maria.

Peace,
Pophead.

 

[MariaG]

The Bible covers many topics. However, the Bible of itself is no more than a book with words and pages and can tell us nothing actually. Topics or criteria (ie: Church, Christ, God, Sin, Judgment etc) can be uncovered from the Summa Theologica, or Finney’s Systematic Theology, or from a reasonable study of the ECF’s, however in and of itself it tells us NOTHING, and though one might have a corner of truth, sooner or later you will discover that the Bible points outside itself. Personal encounter not with the Church but with…yes. GOD through the Lord Jesus Christ.

Sooner or later? I already have had and continue to have a personal encounter with the Church.

You seem to put the Church, the pillar and foundation of Truth at odds with Christ, and this is not only not true, it is not biblical.

Being uniquely inspired, means that it needs a unique inspiration to touch our lives, for even the most brilliant of scholars with a grasp of history, culture and excellent exegesis; will eventually find that this ‘two edged sword’, makes demands and exposes gaping holes in them and their inspired thoughts or writings. It has not been uncommon to read of men who started out intentionally to break up that which ‘cannot be broken’ and found that they were the one’s who were being broken apart.

Very true.

The Father must first draw one to the Word of Life (Jesus Christ), before we are placed in the ‘body of Christ’, the term church is so easily misunderstood to be, this or that denomination, or religion. Whereas the authentic body which one needs to be born into, is not something one gets from Mom and Dad, or from going to Church, or being a really good Christian, or Catholic or whatever, it has to come from God first.

Again, you make incorrect assumptions, apparently just because I am a Catholic Christian.

One actually needs to be born again, not born into, which is a free gift from God and is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Though I admit that ‘inspired writings’ are helpful to some degree, they are only bitty, bit steps to the ‘uniquely inspired writings’, which are uniquely God breathed. To understand the unique character of the Scriptures, and the inspired writings of any man, is to begin to realize that we are dealing with something much bigger than our own lives. etc. etc. etc. I think you get my point.

Pophead

Yes, I do get your point, whether you realize what you point is or not. You feel your personal interpretation of is being led by the Holy Spirit and I disagree, at least where that interpretation strays from apostolic teaching.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Steve40]

Steve, I understand what you are saying.

I said:
According to what we know of the word, ‘inspiration’ as it relates to the writings of the Early Fathers and obviously to the Bible, what is the difference between the two. (you might want to throw in the Creeds of all faiths and Magisteriums too).

How did God give them this authority ?

What criteria did they use to establish if a book was inspired of God or not?

Sure most of the books did not even have titles, verse, chapters etc. (my previous question refers)

Is the Bible not tradition ? This does not really help in determining the diffference between tradition which was more of commentary, and that which was actually the inspired word of God. (back to my question of criteria, again)

Fine, direct me to the Sacred Tradition and what criteria they used to establish what was inspired of God, and what was not?

They might not call it ‘Sacred’, but they certainly have their scholars that have a very high view of Scripture. The books that are in their Bibles are also in yours and at one stage the King James Bible had the missing books. The reason they were not included is because they were regarded as historically useful, but not inspired of God. Perhaps you should ask them why? I am not one so this let’s me off the hook, but you still have to show how your sacred traditions arrived at the criteria, or rather the particular criteria they used to establish a book or writings as inspired of God. Hence, my original explanation that there is a neccessary difference between that which is inspired in an anointed sense, but not in the innerant/infallible inspired word of GOD, sense? How do finite beings decide what is infallible/inerrant unless they are shown by God directly. (As I believe they were, and well before the end of the 2nd Century).

Sincerely,
Pophead.

I’m not familiar with the criteria used to determine what is inspired by God and what is not as defined by the Church but that’s the beauty of it. I don’t have to know I can trust them. I know it’s lazy but often we first look for an expert and then we trust them. The Question is how do you know you have the right expert or the right person in authority. The authority handed down to Bishops is through the Sacrament of Ordination. The Sacrements are very physical and Ordination is no different. With the Apostles Jesus appointed them and He breathed on them. With bishops making other bishops they put their hands on their head and say the word of ordination with the correct intention and the authority is passed down. I find it facinating that we can trace every Bishop by touch back to Jesus. No other religion has a physical connection going back that far in history. Even the Jews have lost the line of Aron, which was very important in the Old Testement. Similarly the line of Bishops and the priesthood is very important in the New Testiment.

God can speak to people directly and He has spoken to many of the saints. But, as Catholics we are not required to believe private revalations. Personally, I believe in the private revelations of Padre Pio including his professey of the three day of darkness.

 

[Steve40]

Steve,

You say:

…handed down from Christ.

I say:

Peter explains that it was the Spirit of Christ in the prophets that pointed to the Messiah and what he would do. The NT. writers declare that Jesus explained to the two men on the road that what was written in Moses and the prophets concerning what had just happened. The writers of the New Testament admit that their accounts, especially Luke is made up from numerous other accounts, it is just that the writer of Luke gave a properly ordered writing about the Word who became flesh. I think it might be true to say that the Scriptures NT pretty much protected itself against the heretical stuff that would come along. Where the writings denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh etc. The idea is from what I understand a fine toothcombing out all the erroneous and extra biblical stuff, ie: Jesus made birds out of clay and breathed in them. There was apparently quite a lot of that stuff. Christ never handed anything down to them, he simply taught them, they were the one’s who wrote and handed over, and copies were made and so it was handed on down to us. Simple.

It is a pity you have brought the ‘missing books’ idea into this for I was more interested in learning what sort of criteria is used by anyone with a High view of Scripture to understand what is inspired God (infallable/inerrant), and that which is inspiring and perhaps quite edifying but not the actually inspired word of God?

I am really struggling to explain myself clearly. I hope you understand.

Peace,
Pophead.

Maybe I take more on faith because I don’t want to work as hard as you do to justify it to myself. You are on a road to deeper understanding. Perhaps you could look at it this way. The Church is defined as the Saints in Heaven, the souls in Purgatory and the faithful here on earth united the same Faith, the same Sacrfice and the Sacrements under and in communion with the Holy Pontif, That which the Church makes a declareation on helps to give us unity and is for the sake of our salvation. Personal revelations either about the past life of Christ or the present life of Christ may have very personl spirtual value to individuals but it is not necessary to be shared as a whole. The Church in Her humanity has limitations and is often very slow to determine if something is of God or of men. In spite of our human frailty and inability to communicate God’s Grace is sufficient.