Non-Catholics: Bible = Word of God - why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Racer_X
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Racer_X

Guest
I’ve posted this on some Protestants and have had not had any luck getting a straight answer. People just want to attack the Catholic position–as if a weakness in the Catholic somehow is support of their own position.

How does one come to the conclusion that the Scriptures are uniquely inspired or authored by God, that the truths therein are revelation from God, and these texts alone are to be regarded as such and no other?

Let us suppose that we have followed some apologist’s arguments leading to good reasons to believe that the books of the Bible are true. We even go so far as to admit that the Incarnation is the best explanation of the person of Jesus and the Resurrection is likeliest explanation for the origin of the early church. So we agree that the texts are historically true. Similarly let us admit that the theology, soteriology, Christology, etc. of the epistles are also true.

How do we get from that to the Bible is the “word of God”? Also, I am not even sure what “word of God” means in this context. Please elaborate.
 
More:

I’m a Catholic Christian and certainly believe the Bible to be revelation from God and a final authority (the actual meaning of the text, that is, not necessarily the very words themselves). I’ll explain the Catholic view, not as a prelude to an Catholic/Protestant argument, but simply to clarify the type of thing I am seeking to know about the non-Catholic views. That is, I am not offering the Catholic position so that we can debate the Catholic position. I am offering it so that you can clarify the analogous non-Catholic view, of which I am almost wholly ignorant.
If we begin by simply assuming that the NT texts are historically reliable, we have no reason to believe that Jesus ever wrote anything Himself or commanded any follower to write anything. What we do know is that He founded a community, the church, and that the church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

Our Lord promised that the Holy Spirit would be given to the church and that “he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” Note: to our knowledge He did not command them to quickly preserve everything He said in writing before they forgot it, but that the Spirit would keep the “remembrance” whole within the church.

Along with the teachings of Jesus, the apostles handed on their authority to the bishops by direct laying on off hands and infusion of the Spirit. (The church fathers’ writings attest to this.) Later bishops identified certain texts as being authored by God Himself. The only way (that I as a Catholic know of) that we know that these texts are inspired of God is that these men said they are. And the only reason we have for putting such confidence in those bishops is that they wielded the Holy-Spirit-guided authority given to the church.

(Clarification: I am NOT saying that the Scriptures are authoritative because the church declares them to be. I am saying that the only way we can know they are inspired is because the church declares it. It’s an epistemological statement, not an ontological statement.)

Now I am quite aware that (at least some) non-Catholics reject some of the above claims. And it’s not my purpose to argue about it. My question is, if you do reject the church’s claims of authority, then what is the substitute? How else do you arrive at the conclusion that the texts are divinely inspired.

Note also I am not debating the contents of the Canon. The question is regarding the significance of the Canon, whatever its contents may be.

Compare with something like the Koran which clearly claims to be authored by God. The texts in the NT (except Revelation) come nowhere near making such a claim. Instead all we have is a tradition handed down from a diffuse community of believers and whose origin is unclear. How do non-Catholics work that out?
 
Racer X:
I’ve posted this on some Protestants and have had not had any luck getting a straight answer. People just want to attack the Catholic position–as if a weakness in the Catholic somehow is support of their own position.

How does one come to the conclusion that the Scriptures are uniquely inspired or authored by God, that the truths therein are revelation from God, and these texts alone are to be regarded as such and no other?

Let us suppose that we have followed some apologist’s arguments leading to good reasons to believe that the books of the Bible are true. We even go so far as to admit that the Incarnation is the best explanation of the person of Jesus and the Resurrection is likeliest explanation for the origin of the early church. So we agree that the texts are historically true. Similarly let us admit that the theology, soteriology, Christology, etc. of the epistles are also true.

How do we get from that to the Bible is the “word of God”? Also, I am not even sure what “word of God” means in this context. Please elaborate.
Click to expand...
Faith
 
Racer X:
More:

. My question is, if you do reject the church’s claims of authority, then what is the substitute? How else do you arrive at the conclusion that the texts are divinely inspired.
Click to expand...
Let me have a go at this as a former evangelical (35 years). During my life as an evangelical I heard literally hundreds, maybe thousands of sermons. I sat in countless Sunday School classes and Bible studies, went to conferences, seminars, retreats, the whole nine yards.

Never once–I exaggerage not–never once did I ever hear the question raised, “How do we know that the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith?” or anything near to that. We accepted it as axiomatic. To have questioned the sufficiency of Scripture would have been like questioning the multiplication table.

The irony of all this is that while we railed at the Catholic notion of tradition, we accepted this as a tradition without question.

Only when I was beginning my pilgrimage into the Church did I begin to question this. I posed it to other evangelicals, and I can say that without exception, I was quoted 2 Timothy 3:16-17, the one about all scripture being inspired of God.

That was it. The verses themselves were never examined, simply put forth as iron-clad proof. Trouble with these verses is that while they attest to the inspiration of Scripture, they give you no hint as to what Scripture is. (Actually, St. Paul is referring to the OT Scriptures here, but that thought never occurred to me or to my evangelical colleagues, strange as that may seem.)

So I had proof of the inspiration of Scripture, but no inspired statement as to what constituted the canon. That question, too, never occurred to me until I was challenged while coming into the Church. It was just assumed.

Protestantism is notoriously ahistorical in its mindset. If just once during my 35 years as an evangelical I had heard that the canon of Scripture was the product of the Catholic Church I would either have laughed, cried, or gone and lain down until I got over it.

As Protestants we are as aware of the question of the authority of Scripture as fish are of the sea.
 
Sacret Tradition… you believe in the splitting of the atom because learned men tell you so… you don’t understand, but you accept on faith because of the credintials of the person or persons submitting the results of their hard work and experiences…

just a few little, but no less significant… no book (call it a reference if you wish) has sold as many , or in the posession of, or held to the esteem by so many people, peasant or scholar as is the Bible.

find me an alternative reference that can pass the same scrutiny as the Bible has… you won’t find it my friend… but using your Thomasonian edict… unless you can see it, wrap your mind around it you can’t or don’t want to believe it…

Bless those who believe but have not seen!.. 👍
 
Racer X:
Now I am quite aware that (at least some) non-Catholics reject some of the above claims. And it’s not my purpose to argue about it. My question is, if you do reject the church’s claims of authority, then what is the substitute? How else do you arrive at the conclusion that the texts are divinely inspired.
Click to expand...
The testimony of the church, internal and external evidences, the testimony of the spirit…

ken
 
The only proof that the Bible is inspired comes from the declaration of the Catholic Church that it is so!

Without the Catholic Church declaring the inspiration of Scripture then the Bible would be no better then the Koran, Book of Mormon, or any other book is at declaring itself inspired or inspired by religious groups backing them. It is the authority Christ gave His body, the Catholic Church, that can alone do this.

The protestant churches and denominations I attended never raised the question of how to prove inspiration, they just stated that it was inspired. This question could not be answered in them (I guess) so it was never asked. Also, if you asked such a blasphemous question, you would be chastised or looked down upon by other members for your ‘lack of faith’. Not much worse in a Baptist church then getting the cold shoulder by other members and loosing your ‘fellowship’ I might add.

A prisoner of Christ
 
I’ve opened this discussion on a few “mere” Christian boards and one anti-Catholic board and have only electronic blank stares in return or attacks on the Catholic beliefs. sola scriptura is jumping off point for all Protestant beliefs, yet no Protestant seems to be able to tell me how to get to scriptura let alone sola scriptura.

I’ve pretty much lost hope on this one. I probably won’t be checking for responses made directly to me.

Thanks.
👋
 
Racer X:
I’ve opened this discussion on a few “mere” Christian boards and one anti-Catholic board and have only electronic blank stares in return or attacks on the Catholic beliefs. sola scriptura is jumping off point for all Protestant beliefs, yet no Protestant seems to be able to tell me how to get to scriptura let alone sola scriptura.

I’ve pretty much lost hope on this one. I probably won’t be checking for responses made directly to me.

Thanks.
👋
Click to expand...
You got one anyway…

May I ask why you are spending so much time on these issues? It seems to me that you are fairly strong in your faith and no matter what answer you received would not be sufficient.

Perhaps you might find things less disheartening and more rewarding if you spent that time researching things about your own faith that you do not know that answers to…
 
Racer X:
I’ve opened this discussion on a few “mere” Christian boards and one anti-Catholic board and have only electronic blank stares in return or attacks on the Catholic beliefs. sola scriptura is jumping off point for all Protestant beliefs, yet no Protestant seems to be able to tell me how to get to scriptura let alone sola scriptura.
Click to expand...
I guess my answer wasn’t sexy enough…

gotta work out more…

ken
 
I think it’s good that we accept the Bible as the Word of God. It is a major part of what we call ‘general revelation’ which is not just a label, but also a statement that it is sufficient for salvation.

The Word of God and the Sacred Tradition of the Church are sufficient for salvation.

We must not rest and we must not succomb to mere expert opinions. I accept the Bible as preserved and passed down by the Church and I have found endless comfort and truth in reading it, and I hope others do, also. Like the previous writer stated, “Faith”
 
Let me ask the question in a different way.

As a Catholic Christian I too get great comfort from reading the inspired word of God. How do I know it is inspired? Because of the promises in the Bible about His Church. The Catholic Church under Holy Spirits guidance decided which Scripture is inspired.

So how can someone who is not Catholic accept as inspired the Scripture the Catholic Church says is inspired but reject the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church is in error, the Biblical promises about His church cannot be true.
Is 9:6-7
Lk 1:32-33
Mt 7:24
Mt 16:18
All these verses refer to the enduring capacity of God’s Church.

How can the Bible be true if God cannot keep the Church established by Christ free from error? If the Catholic Church is in error, how can you accept as the NT as inspired works of God if the Church that put it together is in error? How can you decide what is error and what is truth if those who put together that truth, are, in your opinion, wrong? If you say the Holy Spirit told you, they also told my neighbor to become a JW, and another friend to become Morman. Whose Holy Spirit, and whose interpretation of that can a person trust if the Church Christ Himself established while He walked on this earth is wrong?

God Bless
 
The authority of Scripture comes from Heaven, not the church. Does the eternal and inviolable truth of God depend upon the decision of men? What will happen to miserable consciences seeking firm assurance of eternal life if all promises of it consist in and depend solely upon the judgment of men? Are the writings attributed to the prophets and apostles in doubt until decided by the church? Without Scripture, and the acceptance of it, the church itself would never have existed – it preceded the church. It is vain to pretend that the power of judging Scripture so lies with the church that its certainty depends upon churchly assent.

Scripture exhibits fully as clear evidence of its own truth as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and better things do of their taste.
 
The highest proof of Scripture derives in general from the fact that God in person speaks in it. The testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason. The Word will not find acceptance in our hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. Those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated.
 
I disagree, but thanks for sharing your position.

question: If Scripture preceded the church, did no church exist until after 400 ad? I thought the church was “born” during pentecost after Jesus rose from the dead. There was no Scripture except OT then, not even epistles.
 
Have you read the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, authorized by Pope Paul VI during Vatican II?
 
Maria - God’s Word is eternal. The church on earth is not eternal - it has a beginning and an end. The Word of the Lord will never pass away. Are you suggesting that the OT is not Scripture, that there is not continuity with God’s Word from OT to NT? I don’t think you believe that, but perhaps you will understand why I pose the rhetorical question.

David - No, I haven’t read it. Would it possibly be posted online, and could you direct people to the portions to which you think are pertinent to this discussion?
 
Dennis,

You are correct. I am not suggesting OT is not Scripture. But the New Testament has the revealed teachings of Christ. How can the Church, the followers of Christ whose teachings are specifically contained in the NT, come from the the NT, when nothing was written down until at least 60ad.

It appeared to me the Scripture you were refering to, the Scripture that was in question was the NT writings. For only in the NT will you find the OT fully revealed.
So the way I see it, there was at least 60 years of Oral teaching and preaching before the followers of Christ even wrote one inspired word. Therefore, I can’t see how written Scripture preceded the Church.
God Bless
 
40.png
DennisS:
Maria - God’s Word is eternal. The
Click to expand...
Yes, God’s Word–the Logos–is eternal. But how do you equate that with the Bible? Bible=God’s Word : why? That’s the topic.

Do a search on an online Bible for the phrase “word of God” and “word of the Lord”. Do you see any verses which explicitly equate scripture with the “word of God”?

When we (Catholics) say the Bible is the Word of God, we really mean it more in the sense of “I’m watching Jay Leno.” I’m really watching a **television set **and Leno is made present to me through the television. When I read the Word of God, I am reading a book through which the Word is made manifest. But the Word of God is not a book. It is He “through whom all things were made.” God didn’t create the universe through a book.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top