On the Divine Inspiration of the Bible

[Verita]

First a little background:

In April I made a decision to permanently leave my protestant faith and join the Catholic Church. With my husband, a cradle Catholic, I entered a period of intense study of the Bible, the Catechism and the Early Church Fathers. Everything I read and learned only confirmed and strengthened my decision. Since coming here I have continued to learn in a more practical setting. However, there are still some things I am unclear on and sometimes things people say only serve to increased the confusion. (We’re only human, after all, and not infallible.) I’d like to put down some of my thoughts on the subjects that I’m still uncertain of and hopefully the wise people here can help me understand the Catholic Faith better.

What does it mean that Scripture is inspired by God? Both Catholics and Protestants believe it.

As a protestant (non-denominational) I was taught nothing really specific about it. But I always had the impression, from years of sermons and Sunday school lessons, that it was God himself writing the books of the Bible through its human authors. Perhaps as if God were whispering the words in their ears. Whatever His direct role in the actual composition of the words, we believed that God had intentionally caused the books of the Bible to be written to serve future Christians as a complete guide and source of all Christian truth. It was the “Word of God”, the book he left behind specifically for us to use.

I am still unclear about what the Church teaches about the inspiration of the Bible. I know that the Church considers the Bible to be only part of the “Word of God” and that the Bible is inerrant. (My husband has pointed out to me in the past that the word infallible isn’t accurate for describing the Bible since the Bible is not an acting agent.) But what does the Church consider to be God’s role in the authorship of the Bible? How much is God and how much is the human author? Did God plan the Bible to be written, or was it our human nature that made it necessary?

My own recent thoughts on the subject are as follows:

1. Jesus no where writes his teachings down, no where speaks of writings to be a source of our faith. What He did do was choose 12 men and ordained them for the role of preaching the gospel and establishing His Church. He does speak of the Church He will build and even talks about the Church’s ultimate authority in matters of dispute.
2. Jesus, as the Word of God, is Divine Revelation. The revelation He brought as the incarnation was entrusted to the Apostles who he ordained (breathed on) as His successors.
3. The Apostles were promised the Holy Spirit for their guide who would lead them into all truth. Therefore, the Apostles were infallible. They themselves were divinely inspired when preaching the gospel and forming the Church.
4. The Bible then is inerrant and divinely inspired not because God was writing it through the authors, but because the authors themselves were passing along a message of Divine Revelation and were themselves inspired and infallible. It was the message and the men, not the letters and books.
5. The writings of these inspired men then become part of Sacred Tradition, part of the teachings handed on to us by the men God chose. They are merely in another form, written record instead of spoken instruction, and not superior to the oral teachings of the Apostles in any way. They are a tool and a resource for all Christians who are so many centuries removed from the original revelation.

Am I anywhere close to the truth? I would appreciate any thoughts to help me come to a better understanding of what the Church teaches on this subject. Apologies for the length of the post.

 

[Tom]

From:
en.wikipedia.org
The theological basis of the belief, in its simplest form, is that as God is perfect, the Bible, as the word of God, must also be perfect, thus, free from error.
Proponents of biblical inerrancy also teach that God used the “distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers” of scripture but that God’s inspiration guided them to flawlessly project his message through their own language and personality.

In a number of passages the Bible claims divine inspiration for itself. Besides the direct accounts of written revelation, such as Moses receiving the Ten Commandments, the Prophets of the Old Testament frequently claimed that their message was divine by the formula “Thus says the LORD” (for example, 1 Kgs 12:22–24; 1 Chr 17:3–4; Jer 35:13; Ezek 2:4; Zech 7:9; etc.). In the New Testament, Jesus treats the Old Testament as authoritative and says it “cannot be broken” (John 10:34–36), and the Second Epistle of Peter claims that “no prophecy of Scripture … was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet 1:20–21). That epistle also claims divine authority for the Apostles (3:2) and includes Paul’s letters as being counted with the Scriptures (3:16).

 

[VociMike]

I really can’t claim to represent what the Church has taught on this question, but I think your summary is spot on. God didn’t need to whisper the words of the New Testament into the ears of the authors, because He had already “whispered into their ears” the entire truth of the faith. They had received it all. They knew what was true. So they just wrote down aspects of the truth that they thought would be useful to certain people and local churches in certain circumstances. They never intended to write a manual of the faith, because the Church is the manual of faith.

I think that, having been given the truth by God and protected by Him from teaching error, the authors were pretty much on their own, just as Councils and Popes are on their own as to the particular wording and emphases they introduce into their own infallible documents. Like all of God’s work through/with humans, Scripture is a true partnership.

 

[rwoehmke]

It was the “Word of God”, the book he left behind specifically for us to use.

The “Word” of God is appropriate as it is carried in the words of the human authors. The words of the Bible were not dictated or whispered in the ears of the authors. They were “inspired” to use their own words and literary forms to transmit the “Word” of God.

1. Jesus no where writes his teachings down, no where speaks of writings to be a source of our faith. What He did do was choose 12 men and ordained them for the role of preaching the gospel and establishing His Church. He does speak of the Church He will build and even talks about the Church’s ultimate authority in matters of dispute.

Yes, The Catholic Church depends on Sacred Tradition (oral teaching), the parts of oral teaching that was written down to form the Bible, and the Magisterium or teaching authority that has the ultimate responsibility to interpret what those teachings mean for us. This has been described by some as a three legged stool that supports our Faith; Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium…

1. Jesus, as the Word of God, is Divine Revelation. The revelation He brought as the incarnation was entrusted to the Apostles who he ordained (breathed on) as His successors.

Exactly, Jesus is the Word of God mentioned in the prologue of John’s Gospel.

1. The Apostles were promised the Holy Spirit for their guide who would lead them into all truth. Therefore, the Apostles were infallible. They themselves were divinely inspired when preaching the gospel and forming the Church.

Only infallible when they were in agreement with Peter. Just as we say today, that the Pope when he teaches on matters of Faith and Morals, under certain conditions, is infallible. The Bishops, as successors to the Apostles, also teach infallibly in Council when the Pope, successor to Peter is in agreement with them. Recall that “The
Keys to the Kingdom”, authority over all, were given to Peter.

1. The Bible then is inerrant and divinely inspired not because God was writing it through the authors, but because the authors themselves were passing along a message of Divine Revelation and were themselves inspired and infallible. It was the message and the men, not the letters and books.

Inerrant in what is necessary to our Faith and Morals. There may be errors in matters of history and science. The historicity of the New Testament is considered quite accurate. Miracles real etc.

1. The writings of these inspired men then become part of Sacred Tradition, part of the teachings handed on to us by the men God chose. They are merely in another form, written record instead of spoken instruction, and not superior to the oral teachings of the Apostles in any way. They are a tool and a resource for all Christians who are so many centuries removed from the original revelation.

Not all of Tradition is found written down in Scripture. Scripture and Tradition cannot be in conflict, but not all that is in one will necessarily be found in the other.

 

[Verita]

From:
en.wikipedia.org
The theological basis of the belief, in its simplest form, is that as God is perfect, the Bible, as the word of God, must also be perfect, thus, free from error.
Proponents of biblical inerrancy also teach that God used the “distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers” of scripture but that God’s inspiration guided them to flawlessly project his message through their own language and personality.

Wikipedia… that font of knowledge.

Respectfully, I disagree. I do not believe that the Bible is perfect. Nor that the authors “flawlessly” projected the message of God. Peter talks about Paul’s writings being confusing and I agree with him. And frankly, it’s impossible for the Bible to be perfect after being in the hands of humans for 2000 years. Translations are ALWAYS flawed. There’s just no way to express certain things adequately from one language to another. Just a look around the world at the various interpretations that come from sincere and intelligent people will tell you that the Bible is an imperfect method of guidance. It is incomplete without an interpretation.

 

[Verita]

I really can’t claim to represent what the Church has taught on this question, but I think your summary is spot on. God didn’t need to whisper the words of the New Testament into the ears of the authors, because He had already “whispered into their ears” the entire truth of the faith. They had received it all. They knew what was true. So they just wrote down aspects of the truth that they thought would be useful to certain people and local churches in certain circumstances. They never intended to write a manual of the faith, because the Church is the manual of faith.

I think that, having been given the truth by God and protected by Him from teaching error, the authors were pretty much on their own, just as Councils and Popes are on their own as to the particular wording and emphases they introduce into their own infallible documents. Like all of God’s work through/with humans, Scripture is a true partnership.

Thanks. That’s pretty much what I think. But I’ve wondered if it was just an extreme reaction to my former protestantism and if I was going to far. It makes me feel much better to be in agreement with someone whose posts I so admire.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…

What does it mean that Scripture is inspired by God? Both Catholics and Protestants believe it.

As a protestant (non-denominational) I was taught nothing really specific about it. But I always had the impression, from years of sermons and Sunday school lessons, that it was God himself writing the books of the Bible through its human authors. Perhaps as if God were whispering the words in their ears. Whatever His direct role in the actual composition of the words, we believed that God had intentionally caused the books of the Bible to be written to serve future Christians as a complete guide and source of all Christian truth. It was the “Word of God”, the book he left behind specifically for us to use.

I am still unclear about what the Church teaches about the inspiration of the Bible. I know that the Church considers the Bible to be only part of the “Word of God” and that the Bible is inerrant. (My husband has pointed out to me in the past that the word infallible isn’t accurate for describing the Bible since the Bible is not an acting agent.) But what does the Church consider to be God’s role in the authorship of the Bible? How much is God and how much is the human author? Did God plan the Bible to be written, or was it our human nature that made it necessary?

My own recent thoughts on the subject are as follows:

1. Jesus no where writes his teachings down, no where speaks of writings to be a source of our faith. What He did do was choose 12 men and ordained them for the role of preaching the gospel and establishing His Church. He does speak of the Church He will build and even talks about the Church’s ultimate authority in matters of dispute.
2. Jesus, as the Word of God, is Divine Revelation. The revelation He brought as the incarnation was entrusted to the Apostles who he ordained (breathed on) as His successors.
3. The Apostles were promised the Holy Spirit for their guide who would lead them into all truth. Therefore, the Apostles were infallible. They themselves were divinely inspired when preaching the gospel and forming the Church.
4. The Bible then is inerrant and divinely inspired not because God was writing it through the authors, but because the authors themselves were passing along a message of Divine Revelation and were themselves inspired and infallible. It was the message and the men, not the letters and books.
5. The writings of these inspired men then become part of Sacred Tradition, part of the teachings handed on to us by the men God chose. They are merely in another form, written record instead of spoken instruction, and not superior to the oral teachings of the Apostles in any way. They are a tool and a resource for all Christians who are so many centuries removed from the original revelation.

Am I anywhere close to the truth? I would appreciate any thoughts to help me come to a better understanding of what the Church teaches on this subject. Apologies for the length of the post.

I’ll bet you can really write if cranked up!
how about this newadvent.org/cathen/08045a.htm

 

[thistle]

Wikipedia… that font of knowledge.

Respectfully, I disagree. I do not believe that the Bible is perfect. Nor that the authors “flawlessly” projected the message of God. Peter talks about Paul’s writings being confusing and I agree with him. And frankly, it’s impossible for the Bible to be perfect after being in the hands of humans for 2000 years. Translations are ALWAYS flawed. There’s just no way to express certain things adequately from one language to another. Just a look around the world at the various interpretations that come from sincere and intelligent people will tell you that the Bible is an imperfect method of guidance. It is incomplete without an interpretation.

CCC 107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”