Why the bible is vague -- my theory

[VociMike]

We all know that many things are either missing from the bible (e.g. the Assumption) or are much more vague than some people would like (Protestants could name a dozen Catholic beliefs they would put into this category). Of course, God could have made His written word much more plain – nobody can honestly claim that the bible is clear in every important area. He could have written, for example, “I desire that you pray to the saints in heaven”. So why did God make the bible so vague (for it has to be vague by His design, not by His error or inability)?

My theory is that He did so deliberately. A bible that explained everything clearly and clinically would lead to a much greater temptation for people to become bible-only believers. God made the bible as vague as it is to fight against bible-only believism, and to strengthen the claim and authority of the Church as the only organization which can interpret it without error. God made the bible vague so that bible-only believers would inevitably descend into a chaos of conflicting beliefs, which would stand in stark contrast to the one teaching of the Church. Remember that every heresy has offered (and offers to this day) scriptural support for itself.

 

[PeterC]

MT: 13:10:13

And his disciples came and said to him: Why speakest thou to them in parables?

Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given. For he that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall abound: but he that hath not, from him shall be taken away that also which he hath. Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

 

[awalt]

I think this is true, I also think that God wants us to CHOOSE him. We all know God could create such a glorified presence on the earth, TODAY, that 99% of the world would believe. He could come down here, unite all countries, end all famine and war, and rule.

Why hasn’t He?

Because He wants us to choose Him. If he put every last word in the Bible so the story was 100% clear (which frankly I think only God could do, have you ever tried explaining something perfectly, without room for interpretation basedon culture, experience, education, etc.?), our choice wouldn’t be the same.

Re: my parenthetical comment, I believe I read somewhere the Bibkle is written on a 6th grade education level. Making it very very spefici and clear, and removing all redundancy, would IMHO take the Bible out of the comprehension realm of many people. If it read like St. Aquinas’ Summa would as many people understand it?

 

[John_Colean]

VociMike:

My theory is that He did so deliberately. A bible that explained everything clearly and clinically would lead to a much greater temptation for people to become bible-only believers. God made the bible as vague as it is to fight against bible-only believism, and to strengthen the claim and authority of the Church as the only organization which can interpret it without error. God made the bible vague so that bible-only believers would inevitably descend into a chaos of conflicting beliefs, which would stand in stark contrast to the one teaching of the Church. Remember that every heresy has offered (and offers to this day) scriptural support for itself.

 I do not believe God made the Scripture vague so that people would be mislead by His word.  As the old saying goes, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."  It makes no sense that God would intentionally make His word vague so that the Catholic Church could teach whatever it desired.  The Scripture was provided by the Holy Spirit and it is not up to the Church to approve that Scripture, but rather we hope that the Holy Spirit approves the Church and its teachings.  The Father has always been very comfortable with the truth and we trust that our Church leadership will only support teachings that have a basis in Scripture.
 Actually, the language of the Scripture is not vague, although we do have questions about specific passages.  Regardless of how specific the Scriptural authors attempted to make their points, there could always be room for interpretations.  We criticize the legal profession for the use of legalese, but it is their attempt to remove all questions from their writings, but even so, loop holes can always be found.

 

[VociMike]

I do not believe God made the Scripture vague so that people would be mislead by His word.

Do you think that people who have “wrong” interpretations of scripture have been deceived by God or His word? Or is it something else that has deceived them? The tower of Babel shows that God visits confusion on those with excess pride, and there’s nothing more prideful than bible-only believism, belief that the Holy Spirit will personally guide one into all truth (nevermind that everybody who holds different beliefs claims the same guidance!).

It makes no sense that God would intentionally make His word vague so that the Catholic Church could teach whatever it desired.

Teach whatever it desired? You don’t understand the Church or its teachings at all, do you?

Actually, the language of the Scripture is not vague, although we do have questions about specific passages.

If the language is not vague, why are there multiple understandings of every single important doctrine taught in scripture? You can’t deny that this is the case. Why, for example, was a book written in the early years of the Reformation outlining some 200 different interpretations of the nature of the Eucharist? IMO, to claim that scripture is not often vague, very vague, is to bury one’s head in the sand.

 

[Della]

Do you folks really believe the things you are writing here?

Do you really not know enough about the Bible and its history and what its place is within the life of the Church?

The Bible isn’t “vague” on purpose nor by accident nor anything other definition you can give it. The Bible is a LIBRARY of holy writings NOT a theological treatise.

There are very few books of the Bible that actually set forth any systematic from of theology. I think Romans and Hebrews are the only ones that do.

You have to remember that Jesus NEVER commissioned the NT. The word of God given to the Apostles was spread by ORAL preaching and teaching.

Also, the Bible was ever NEVER intended to be a prooftext for theological theories or truths. It is a WITNESS to what God did in the OT and a WITNESS to Christ’s ministry and the forming of the Church in the NT.

The NT in particular is a snapshot of the very early Church and was never meant to contain ALL of the teachings of the Church.

Let us Catholics not talk about the Bible like ill-informed Protestants or obstinate ones. It is the Church’s book which only the Magisterium of the Church has the authority and right to say what has to be believed within its pages. And the Church has made such interpretations down through the centuries as various issues were brought up or Church teaching challenged.

Exalting the Bible above its place or expecting from it what it was never written and compiled to do only leads to grave theological and spiritual difficulties, as we have all seen with the thousands of Protestant denominations, groups, and sects who believe in Sola Scriptura.

 

[VociMike]

Della:

Do you folks really believe the things you are writing here?

I really do!

The Bible isn’t “vague” on purpose nor by accident nor anything other definition you can give it. The Bible is a LIBRARY of holy writings NOT a theological treatise.

Well, you could argue with my language. You could say that it appears vague when misapplied and used as the source of all doctrine. The fact is, people look a the same bible and attempt to derive doctrine from it, and they derive conflicting doctrine, and this happens in every important doctrinal area. I don’t think this is an accident. My theory is that God knew the confusion that would result from such misuse of the bible (and rejection of the Church’s teaching authority) and He willed that confusion.

It has been said that every heresy has offered scripture in defense of itself. Contrast that with the Church. Have any heresies offered Church teaching to support themselves? I can’t imagine how such a thing could happen. People can wrongly assert “the bible teaches X” and the bible can’t agree or disagree, but if somebody were to wrongly assert “the Church teaches X”, the Church can easily and simply respond “no it doesn’t” and that ends the matter.

 

[adnauseum]

I wonder if what you are identifying is a common feature of all symbolic experssion, all forms of communication?

Open up the instructions for installing your DVD player or whatever. One would think they would be precise and self-evident because the manufacturer wants to please the customer.

Yet instructions can’t just extract themselves, or interpret themselves, no matter how clearly they have been written. They require a certain level of education, some life experience, and even a certain miracle of cognition whereas a human being, by virtue of the active intellect, grasps the link between the map and the territory.

Bottom line: the scriptures assume an active, organizing intellect that sincerely seeks the truth. This is the meaning of expressions such as “seek and you will find” and “knock and the door will be opened to you.”

Anyway, this is my reaction to what you asked. I’m sure there are better answers.

 

[John_Colean]

I do not believe God made the Scripture vague so that people would be mislead by His word.

Do you think that people who have “wrong” interpretations of scripture have been deceived by God or His word? Or is it something else that has deceived them? The tower of Babel shows that God visits confusion on those with excess pride, and there’s nothing more prideful than bible-only believism, belief that the Holy Spirit will personally guide one into all truth (nevermind that everybody who holds different beliefs claims the same guidance!).

It makes no sense that God would intentionally make His word vague so that the Catholic Church could teach whatever it desired.

Teach whatever it desired? You don’t understand the Church or its teachings at all, do you?

Actually, the language of the Scripture is not vague, although we do have questions about specific passages.

If the language is not vague, why are there multiple understandings of every single important doctrine taught in scripture? You can’t deny that this is the case. Why, for example, was a book written in the early years of the Reformation outlining some 200 different interpretations of the nature of the Eucharist? IMO, to claim that scripture is not often vague, very vague, is to bury one’s head in the sand.

Sir,

My comments were in response to your somewhat rediculous theory. Wake Up and come out of the dark ages and into and enlightened world. Any one who says “A bible that explained everything clearly and clinically would lead to a much greater temptation for people to become bible-only believers.” Ye Gads man, how can you make this statement and then assert that “I do not understand the Church or its teachings.” Do you not know that Scripture is the Word of God and should be the basis for our Doctrines and beliefs.

God made the bible as vague as it is to fight against bible-only believism, and to strengthen the claim and authority of the Church as the only organization which can interpret it without error.

If you truly believe this statement as written, you certainly do not give the Father much credit with entrusting His word to the common man for edification.

There are numerous understandings of God’s word, but that is our fault and not the fault of Holy Scripture.

John

 

[VociMike]

John Colean:

Sir,

My comments were in response to your somewhat rediculous theory. Wake Up and come out of the dark ages and into and enlightened world.

You mean move from a time when all Christians knew the basics of the Deposit of Faith, to a time when a great many are wrong on a great many of those basics? Sorry, not convincing!

Any one who says “A bible that explained everything clearly and clinically would lead to a much greater temptation for people to become bible-only believers.” Ye Gads man, how can you make this statement and then assert that “I do not understand the Church or its teachings.” Do you not know that Scripture is the Word of God and should be the basis for our Doctrines and beliefs.

Actually, Jesus is the Word of God. Scripture is that portion of the Deposit of Faith which God chose to be written down. It is the entire Deposit of Faith, properly understood, that should be the basis for our Doctrines and beliefs.

God made the bible as vague as it is to fight against bible-only believism, and to strengthen the claim and authority of the Church as the only organization which can interpret it without error.

If you truly believe this statement as written, you certainly do not give the Father much credit with entrusting His word to the common man for edification.

I give God all the credit, for providing a living supernatural organism, the Sacrament of Salvation, within which the common man (and woman) can reach the fullness of their spiritual lives.

There are numerous understandings of God’s word, but that is our fault and not the fault of Holy Scripture.

It is our fault in assuming we can perfectly understand Scripture outside of the light of the Church. That fault shows no sign of abating in some circles.

But I do thank you for joining in the discussion. I think it’s a fascinating subject.

 

[JOE_OBERR]

John Colean:

Sir,

“… Do you not know that Scripture is the Word of God and should be the basis for our Doctrines and beliefs.”

John

John, please give the book, chapter and verse from Scripture that says “Scripture is the Word of God and should be the basis for our Doctrines and beliefs”.

Joe

 

[JOE_OBERR]

"Do you folks really believe the things you are writing here?

… The Bible is a LIBRARY of holy writings NOT a theological treatise…

Also, the Bible was ever NEVER intended to be a prooftext for theological theories or truths. It is a WITNESS to what God did in the OT and a WITNESS to Christ’s ministry and the forming of the Church in the NT."

Very good. Just as the Catechism of the CC says (pg 4) Scripture attests to and illumines the Church’s faith and doctrine. It is NOT the source of faith and doctrine. Another way of putting it is that the bible is a narrative of salvation history. It is not a catechism. It was never intended to be a catechism.

The oral Word of God (the Creed, Sacraments, commandments and prayer) is how the Gospel was spread. Pg 81 of the CCC says:

“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.”

So the Church teaches the fullness of the Word of God can be found in Apostolic Tradition (oral Word of God). It does NOT say the same for the written Word of God.

Jesus didn’t tell his apostles to go write and evangelize by passing out Bibles.He told his apostles to in Mk 16:16 to go out and preach “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”

So the “Church, the pillar and foundation of truth” 1 Tim 3:15, was commissioned to spread the gospel by preaching the oral Word of God. Without the oral Word of God as located in the magisterium of the Church no one in creation would know what the written Word of God is, i.e., what ancient texts are inspired or not.

Let us all thank Jesus for establishing his Church so we can know the truth.

Joe

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi VociMike, ( Della )

I think your theory is interesting; as I read the the replies I see a couple of points of confusion

I think the Apostles and bishops are the basis of doctrine, but since the bible is a faithful recording of some of Jesus’ teaching one could argue (synectically) that the bible is a basis for doctrine. (Although, as Della points out, it mostly isn’t meant to be a Theological treatise … except , Hebrews, * )

In your theory, you use express God’s plan for the bible as ‘intentionally … vague’. (at least with respect to some of it).
And you draw out the meaning of your theory with respect to heresy.

But the problem lies in the opposite idea – clearness.
Wouldn’t this be a slightly clearer statement that could have been written in the bible?

(hypothetically)“Peter you are rock, and on this rock I will build my church. You will be a father (which will translates as papa or Pope). And when you come to paradise, you will live on in spirit in those who succeed you, forever guiding my church.”


Or how about:“And as the spirit reminds you and leads you into all truth, you and your successors will teach and guide all those who twist my words what they really mean.”


Now, even a small increase in ‘clarity’ could be sufficient to stop bible only believers in their tracks. So, I don’t think vagueness, by itself, is a good answer. For your theory to hold any weight I would need examples of how this vagueness stops heresy where clearness could not. The reason is that you speak of the ‘vagueness’ as an intention of God, where I tend to think of it as an unavoidable consequence of God’s consistency.

God is all powerful – translates as God can do anything which is doable. – some things are not doable –

I tend to think Della is on the right track.

 

[JimG]

adnauseum:

Yet instructions can’t just extract themselves, or interpret themselves, no matter how clearly they have been written. They require a certain level of education, some life experience, and even a certain miracle of cognition whereas a human being, by virtue of the active intellect, grasps the link between the map and the territory.

I agree, and this applies to the bible as well as any other writing. Consider that the inspired books of the bible were written over many centuries by a variety of authors in several ancient languages, following some years of being handed on by oral tradition. Writings that may have been perfectly clear to one culture would not be to another. Perfectly clear physics books written today would not be at all clear to Aristotle or Cicero. And the writings of Thomas Aquinas, which seem perfectly clear to those trained in his philosophicall ideas, seem turgid and murky to the modern student.

 

[Pace]

JOE OBERR:

Another way of putting it is that the bible is a narrative of salvation history.

“The history of the world in phone numbers.”

The movie Mulholland Drive reminds us what the Word of God is. It also reminds us what ‘sacrament’ means. Frankly, it is God this time slithering into the garden of our collective sub-conscious (“the movies”) to ‘tempt’ us with Love. The devil rules in this new Eden.