Posted on 07/25/2009 8:04:47 PM PDT by bdeaner
The Catholic blogosphere was recently set on fire by word of a document issued by the bishops of England, Wales, and Scotland entitled The Gift of Scripture.
The firestorm was triggered by an October 5 article in The Times of London carrying the inflammatory headline "Catholic Church no longer swears by the truth of the Bible."
The Times article contained a number of errors and distortions, but it also contained a number of quotes from the British bishops' document that were of concern to faithful Catholics.
For example, the document is quoted as saying that "we should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision" and that, while the Bible is reliable when expressing truths connected to salvation, "we should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters."
Such statements are common these days from catechists, theologians, and biblical scholars. They are trying to express something important — that there are certain things we should not expect from Scripture — but they have not used the right language in expressing these facts.
The Traditional View
Scripture presents itself to us as the very word of God, and the Christian Church has always honored it as such. Historically, Christians have held that the Bible is absolutely free of error, or inerrant.
Yet it has also been clear that there are many difficult and perplexing things in the Bible. This has led some to entertain the idea that Scripture may be protected from error in a way different than previous generations of Christians have held. Instead of being totally free of error, these thinkers have said, perhaps it is only free from error on certain matters.
For example, some have said that the Bible is meant for teaching us faith and morals, so perhaps it is inerrant on faith and morals but not on other matters. Other have suggested that Scripture is oriented toward our salvation, so maybe it is inerrant only on matters of salvation.
This might be called the limited or restricted inerrancy view, as opposed to the total or unrestricted inerrancy position.
As attractive as limited inerrancy may be, it faces significant problems.
Some Problems
It does not seem that the Bible understands itself in these terms. When the authors of Scripture quote each other, they speak in a way that suggests that every single word is authored by God.
The authors of the New Testament, for example, regularly quote the Old Testament with introductions such as "The Holy Spirit says" (Heb. 3:7), and Jesus himself said that "not an iota, not a dot" would pass away from the law of Moses before it was fulfilled (Matt. 5:18).
In the last couple of centuries the Church has weighed in on this question and rejected limited inerrancy. The First Vatican Council taught:
"These books [of the canon] the Church holds to be sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author" (De Fide Catholica 2:7).
Pope Leo XIII stated that "it is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred" and condemned "the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond" (Providentissimus Deus 20).
Pius XII stated that the Vatican I passage cited above was a "solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the 'entire books with all their parts' as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever." He repudiated those who "ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 1).
And then came Vatican II.
Vatican II
The Vatican II decree Dei Verbum taught:
"In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things that he wanted. Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth that God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation (DV 11).
The last phrase of this passage — "for the sake of salvation" — has become a sticking point, and many have argued that it restricts the scope of scriptural inerrancy to just those things that have to do with our salvation.
There was actually an intense behind-the-scenes controversy at Vatican II over this clause, which ended up being appealed to Pope Paul VI, and there is no doubt that some at the Council wanted the phrase understood as allowing restricted inerrancy. In fact, some wanted a formula that would even more clearly allow for restricted inerrancy.
But ultimately this position did not prevail. The text as it stands continues to affirm that the Bible contains all and only what God wanted written — that everything asserted by the human authors is asserted by the Holy Spirit.
There are countless instances where Scripture is clearly making an assertion that is neither of faith and morals nor connected in any direct way with our salvation. For example, the Bible clearly asserts that Andrew was the brother of Peter in some accepted first-century understanding of the word brother.
Dei Verbum thus teaches the unrestricted inerrancy of Scripture, and the "for the sake of our salvation" clause is thus most plausibly read as a statement of why God put his truth into Scripture, not a restriction on the scope of his truth.
What to Do?
That leaves us with the problem of how to explain the limits of what Scripture can be expected to do and how we can go wrong if we approach it the wrong way. How can these limitations be explained to the faithful in a way that does not charge Scripture with error?
Dei Verbum has given us an important tool for doing this. The Council spoke of those things "asserted by the inspired authors" as asserted by the Holy Spirit and thus protected from error. So we need to determine what the inspired author is trying to assert, for that is what is protected from error.
What a person asserts is not the same as what he says. Suppose someone says, "It's raining cats and dogs out there today." What he has said is perfectly obvious, but he is not asserting that cats and dogs are falling from the sky. Instead, he is asserting that it is raining hard.
His assertion may well be true. It may indeed be raining hard, and if so then he should not be charged with error.
Native English-speakers are familiar with the phrase "raining cats and dogs" and recognize what is meant. But non-native English-speakers could be perplexed by the statement. It's the same with Scripture.
The Example of Genesis
We don't come from the same culture that authored Scripture. We aren't ancient Israelites, and we don't have a native's feel for how their literature works. When people from our culture read the Bible they are particularly liable to miss symbolism that the text may be using. We know that God can do amazing, miraculous things, and if we don't know how ancient Hebrew literature worked, we can read perplexing things as miracles rather than symbols.
Throughout history many have taken the six days of creation in Genesis as six literal twenty-four-hour periods, but there are clues that this may not be what is meant. For example, the sun is not created until day four, though day and night were already in existence on day one. The ancients knew that it's the sun that causes it to be day as well as we do, and so this may mean that the passage is not to be understood literally.
By asking ourselves what it does mean — what the inspired author is asserting — then we see that he is asserting that the whole of the material world was created by God — the true God and not a bunch of pagan deities.
One could look at the passage and conclude that the inspired author is not trying to give us a scientific account of the creation of the world. The magisterium has recently favored this view (CCC 337, 283).
So would it be right to say, as The Gift of Scripture does, that "we should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy"?
Finding the Right Words
Because Genesis is not making scientific assertions, it is wrong to charge Genesis with scientific error. If someone draws erroneous scientific conclusions from a misreading of Genesis, the error belongs not to Genesis but to the person who has misread it.
Therefore we should not say that Genesis does not have "full scientific accuracy" — a statement that is bound to disturb the faithful and undermine their confidence in Scripture. Instead we should say that Genesis is not making scientific assertions and that we will draw erroneous conclusions if we treat the text as though it were.
The same applies to statements such as "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible." In fact we should, for everything asserted in Sacred Scripture is asserted by the Holy Spirit, and he does not make mistakes.
The burden is on us to recognize what the Spirit is and is not asserting, and we may stumble into error if we make a mistake in doing this.
This applies to science or history or faith or morals or salvation or any other subject. The error belongs to us as interpreters, not to the Holy Spirit and not to the Scripture that he inspired.
***How do you know the bread and wine become “body and blood?” Gnostic knowledge of some kind? ***
Did I ever say that I know? Proofs, please.
You mean you're actually consistent??? It seems kosta50 has a Catholic counterpart on this forum after all.
***While I of course as a non-Catholic don’t accept the decrees of the First Vatican Council, I find it interesting that as a Catholic, neither do you.***
Which decree do I not accept?
Evidently the one about G-d being "the author of scripture," since any such assertion is gnostic knowledge devoid of any proof.
Considering the snide hypocrisy of most Catholics on this forum ("Jewish miracles never happened but chr*stian ones did"), I think I am right to be anti-Catholic. What fuels such inconsistency other than theological anti-Semitism?
That's nice, but how do I know that? If I say there are pink unicorns on Jupiter, will you assume that I believe or know that as a matter of fact? I would say the latter, because of the way I presented it matter-of-factly, and I should be prepared to offer some proof.
The idea that God is provable is contrary to faith
Agree, but scholasticism, the backbone of the Catholic theology, rests on the premise that God is provable even though he is not conceivable.
[Hebrews ii]:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.”
The author is simply telling Hellenized Jews a neat amalgam of Jewish mythology mixed with Greek philosophy, is he not? God created the world with his word ("Let there be light"), and the world was made of atoms (uncuttable, indivisible, and invisible particles) the Greek philosophers were postulating since the 5th century BC (Indians philosophers actually beat them by a century and it's possible that this may have trickled to Greece from India).
This mixing of Hellenic and Jewish beliefs was a necessary requisite for pagan Greeks and Hellenized Jews to accept Pauline Christianity, as the Church in Israel was dying.
The word translated faith means...conviction of truth of anything...
Agreed. It is a very humble definition and anything but a matter-of-fact about it. But when I read
or
there is nothing humble or not matter of fact about these statements. I call that spiritual arrogance, especially since, as you argue correctly, God is not subject to proof, because assumptions cannot be proven.
In addition to that, with God, proof is made that much more impossible because we cannot define God. If we cannot define God, if God is "beyond everything," how can we know what is God? With another assumption?
Again, I am not interested in challenging or downplaying people's beliefs. People believe all sorts of things. I can't and won't argue over beliefs. But when stated as a matter of fact and not faith, I ask for proof because I am curious.
The wise fathers who composed the Nicene-Constantinopolean Creed (the Symnbol of Faith) made sure it started humbly with the words "We believe in one God..." and not "There is but one God..." (as the Muslims do). Where is that same humility in the quotes above regarding inerrancy of the Bible?
People forget that they believe in God, Mark. The boundry between fact and faith often becomes blurred. You are right to call it Gnostic when faith assumes a matter-of-fact character.
I can't speak for Mark, but I would venture to say he believes it.
I think there is a subtle difference between knowing and believeing that is often lost in translation...
That's not what he asked you. He asked you for a proof, and now you are trying to wiggle out of your assumption changing the subject.
MarkBsrn: Which decree do I not accept? ZC: Evidently the one about G-d being "the author of scripture," since any such assertion is gnostic knowledge devoid of any proof.
Well, can you provide the proof that God is the author of scripture?
Which Catholics deny (believeing) Jewish miracles?
What fuels such inconsistency other than theological anti-Semitism?
Is there any way to dismiss anything the Jews believe in without being labled anti-Semitic?
“Where is that same humility in the quotes above regarding inerrancy of the Bible?”
I can’t speak for Catholic doctrine. For Protestants, the truth of scripture is something that must be revealed to you. The individual chooses to believe it or not.
During the debate about canon, Catholics claim their church gave the Bible as true. bdeaner posted an article some time back where they claim the scriptures belong to them, to do with as they wish.
Along with most Protestants, I say the councils were RATIFYING what their individual churches and church members believed. Almost all of the Christians of the time accepted the gospels and pauline letters, and 1 Peter and some others, as scripture equal to the Old Testament - although there was debate on whether to accept the Jewish Canon or add some to it.
Other books, like 2 Peter and Hebrews, took longer. They had not been as well circulated, and the churches - individuals and individual congregations - hadn’t completely accepted them by consensus. With greater exposure to them, they did.
Calvin argued YOU determine Scripture. If you accept Catholic doctrine, then you must accept their list. If not, then you have to determine on your own what books are God-breathed. The vast majority of Christians today accept what the churches decided 1600-1900 years ago.
In discussions here between Protestants and Catholics, you’ve seen the difference. A Catholic will quote from the Apocrypha and 8 Church Fathers, and the Protestant will reply, “So what?” When I debated Mormons years ago, we could debate based on the Bible, which they SORT OF accepted, or we could not debate, since I didn’t recognize the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price etc as scripture.
“If I say there are pink unicorns on Jupiter, will you assume that I believe or know that as a matter of fact? I would say the latter, because of the way I presented it matter-of-factly, and I should be prepared to offer some proof.”
Depends on what you mean by proof. Proof in a mathematical sense, no. Proof in the sense of ‘Is it probable or plausible?’, yes. Proof means different things in mathematics, biology, criminal court and civil court.
How are you using it?
You know, I once attended an 'Aish HaTorah Discovery Seminar. The speaker said "Faith is wrong." The reason is that the Torah commands Israel to know these things.
Well, can you provide the proof that God is the author of scripture?
This argument about "believing" vs. "knowing" whether or not G-d is the author of Scripture is a bit silly considering that you don't even "believe" that G-d is the author. Shoot, you may not even "believe" that G-d exists since the "authentic chr*stianity" to which you subscribe is by your own admission a "fourth century" construct whose "truth" lies exclusively in the fact that it "changes lives."
However, it can be (and has been) proven statistically that the author of the Torah is not a human being but had supernatural knowledge of the future from the references encoded in it at ELS's of which are statistically far beyond mere coincidence.
Which Catholics deny (believeing) Jewish miracles?
Every Catholic who insists that "new testament" miracles "really happened" while "old testament" ones are mythology. A bit dishonest on your part since you don't believe in miracles at all.
Knowldge by command, hmmm. The book says so. It must be true.
This argument about "believing" vs. "knowing" whether or not G-d is the author of Scripture is a bit silly considering that you don't even "believe" that G-d is the author
It's not an argument. If you say you believe it, that's fine with me. I can't argue with people's beliefs any more than I can argue with their tastes. But if they claim they know something for a fact, then I ask for proof.
The burden is not on me. The burden is on the one making extraordinary claims. priori assumed as something objectively real is irrelevant.
However, it can be (and has been) proven statistically that the author of the Torah is not a human being but had supernatural knowledge of the future from the references encoded in it at ELS's of which are statistically far beyond mere coincidence
Well, apparently, that too is not something we cite as proof very often is it? because there are flaws in that proof, right? It's not like a proof of gravity (that no one doubts), is it?
Every Catholic who insists that "new testament" miracles "really happened" while "old testament" ones are mythology
I have never met a devout Catholic (or any other Christian) who doubted any of the alleged miracles in the Old Testament. In fact, most of the prophesies believed true in the New Testament are stitched together from various parts of the Old Testament. So, I am not sure where you are getting this notion from.
Based on what?
During the debate about canon, Catholics claim their church gave the Bible as true. bdeaner posted an article some time back where they claim the scriptures belong to them, to do with as they wish
Again, the books accepted by the Church reflected what the Church already believed. This is like going to a book store with the intent of finding books of your favorite hobby, as you see it. You will selectively accept and reject books that either show what you want to see, or reject those that don't. The Bible was assembled based on that a priori belief, in a biased and exclusive manner, based on human interpretation.
And since we do not know a human who is perfect and does not err (excluding the belief in Christ's humanity), we will be hard pressed to "prove" that this process of choosing biblical canon was somehow God-inspired. In fact, the Bible diversity in itself suggests that no such divine intervention took place, or else the canon would have been set long before and remained unchanged. After all, isn't perfection also changelessness—unless of course we assume that the Bible is subject to corruption as well?
Along with most Protestants, I say the councils were RATIFYING what their individual churches and church members believed. Almost all of the Christians of the time accepted the gospels and pauline letters, and 1 Peter and some others, as scripture equal to the Old Testament - although there was debate on whether to accept the Jewish Canon or add some to it
It wasn't just blanket ratification, because if it were there would have been no need for canonization. They were arguing and horse trading with each other. And, while by the end of the 4th century, with thee Ecumenical Councils already establishing official Christian teachings behind them, the North African Council agreed on which books to INCLUDE and, more imortantrly, which books to EXCLUDE from various church canons, because many Churches that agreed on Gospels and epistles and deuterocanonicals also included many commonly used books that did not survive this 'ratification' (i.e. the Book of Enoch, the Epistle of Barnabas, the the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc.).
Christianity was in the process of becoming "orthodox" in a long process from the first century heterodoxy in its origins. The canon therefore represents the Catholic 'choice' for the lack of a better term, which all Protestants accept save for the OT deuterocanonicals. But regardless of who makes the canon it is always based on human beliefs, convictions and absolutely void of any objective truth—the Bible is a man-made book.
Other books, like 2 Peter and Hebrews, took longer. They had not been as well circulated, and the churches - individuals and individual congregations - hadn’t completely accepted them by consensus. With greater exposure to them, they did.
I don't buy that. There were not that many churches. They were in Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antrioch, Rome and later in Constantinople. We really don't know how many local churches existed and they were all under bishops of the four/five apostolic sees.
The Greek Church, for example held Revelation as 'questionable' until the 9th century, and even to this day never reads liturgically from that book.
Calvin argued YOU determine Scripture.
That's consistent with the Protestant approach, denying the authority of the Church (a bunch of men and their tradition), while accepting her authority when it comes to the Bible, and making yourself the pope and vicar of Christ on earth, as if that is not of men and tradition of men! Was he that stupid to know it's the same thing? Or just plain egotistical?
In discussions here between Protestants and Catholics, you’ve seen the difference. A Catholic will quote from the Apocrypha and 8 Church Fathers, and the Protestant will reply, “So what?” When I debated Mormons years ago, we could debate based on the Bible, which they SORT OF accepted, or we could not debate, since I didn’t recognize the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price etc as scripture.
But these disagreements are simply based on a man's a priori assumptions treated as objective and absolute (!) truths. Seems pretty silly, doesn't it? Might as well argue how many angles can be fitted on the head of a pin!
Depends on what you mean by proof. Proof in a mathematical sense, no. Proof in the sense of ‘Is it probable or plausible?’, yes. Proof means different things in mathematics, biology, criminal court and civil court. How are you using it?
Proof removes all doubt. Something probable or plausible does not. Proof establishes something as undeniably true, and objectively real. It is universal. No other possibilities exist. Accepting something on an a priori assumption may lead one to believe there is no other possibility, but it is not a proof. Proof requires definition. What are we proving?
If we want to prove that God exists, how do we define God? There is no universal consensus what God is. Humanity as a whole does not know what God is and therefore cannot prove God. We can't prove something if we don't know what it is. On a train from Tokyo to Hiroshima, I asked a lady next to me (who spoke fluent English) what is God, and she said "Nature." And when I asked her who/what created nature, she said no one, "it was always there".
I then asked her "how do you know that." And she just shrugged her shoulders and said "I don't know." But it sure "made sense" to her or else she would not have believed it.
Well, it is a religion of mitzvot rather than "faith," and it is a mitzvah to believe in G-d.
It's not an argument. If you say you believe it, that's fine with me. I can't argue with people's beliefs any more than I can argue with their tastes. But if they claim they know something for a fact, then I ask for proof.
Here's a riddle for you (one with a correct answer). There are two sections in the Torah that list the species of animals that Jews may and may not eat. Chickens are not mentioned in either list as either permitted or prohibited. Yet Jews know (not "believe") that they are permitted to eat chicken. How do they know this?
The burden is not on me. The burden is on the one making extraordinary claims. priori assumed as something objectively real is irrelevant.
If you say so . . . soliton.
I have never met a devout Catholic (or any other Christian) who doubted any of the alleged miracles in the Old Testament.
So you don't consider yourself a chr*stian? What's your word for yourself?
In fact, most of the prophesies believed true in the New Testament are stitched together from various parts of the Old Testament.
Yeah, agreed. The whole NT's a rip-off.
So, I am not sure where you are getting this notion from.
From all the chr*stians on this forum who are denying the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and then getting on their little child-like knees to believe every miracle of chr*stianity, natch! I've been arguing with you lot for years.
******How do you know the bread and wine become “body and blood?” Gnostic knowledge of some kind? ***
Did I ever say that I know? Proofs, please.
You mean you’re actually consistent??? It seems kosta50 has a Catholic counterpart on this forum after all. ***
ZC; we have spoken before and I have always made it quite plain that I believe. Why would I be inconsistent?
***
***While I of course as a non-Catholic don’t accept the decrees of the First Vatican Council, I find it interesting that as a Catholic, neither do you.***
Which decree do I not accept?
Evidently the one about G-d being “the author of scripture,” since any such assertion is gnostic knowledge devoid of any proof.***
Go a step further and see what that ‘authorship’ actually means. Luke says it in the first words of his Gospel.
***Given your posts here, would you not say anti Catholic?
Considering the snide hypocrisy of most Catholics on this forum (”Jewish miracles never happened but chr*stian ones did”), I think I am right to be anti-Catholic.***
Which Jewish miracles do Catholics not believe?
Everything in the first eleven chapters of Genesis to start with. And probably Balaam's she-ass speaking as well.
This being the case, perhaps you should refrain from accusing Fundamentalist Protestants of "gnosticism" because they also believe something . . . even if it is something that you do not.
***I can’t speak for Mark, but I would venture to say he believes it.
I think there is a subtle difference between knowing and believeing that is often lost in translation...***
And I thank you for an accurate response. It is indeed that I believe. I am a believer in Christ. It is a reason, too that I recite the Creeds, in order to stay faithful to the Faith of the Church, and not going wandering far afield, as Origen, Tertullian, and even Augustine (for a while). Along with the Reformers and their successors.
“roof establishes something as undeniably true, and objectively real. It is universal. No other possibilities exist. “
There is the problem. Proof such as you desire exists in mathematics. It is NOT the standard used in court. It is also not the standard you use for any of your decisions. Nor have I ever met anyone who thinks God or any religious belief can be proven like that. There is a reason religions are called ‘faiths’.
So we get back to our discussion on a previous thread - you ask for proof, and I’m telling you that you cannot have it. End of discussion.
***Which Jewish miracles do Catholics not believe?
Everything in the first eleven chapters of Genesis to start with.***
Everything? Last time I looked, we strongly believe that God created the heavens and the earth and everything in it on and on it. Quite a sweeping statement. How about picking out the first 20 and we’ll compare your beliefs to the Catholic ones.
***And probably Balaam’s she-ass speaking as well.***
There are lots of her descendents in politics in the United States today.
***ZC; we have spoken before and I have always made it quite plain that I believe. Why would I be inconsistent?
This being the case, perhaps you should refrain from accusing Fundamentalist Protestants of “gnosticism” because they also believe something . . . even if it is something that you do not.***
Your Catholic schooling was even more remiss than I had thought. I think that an understanding of Gnosticism might be in order. I don’t think that you’re using the term correctly.
Gnosticism
Comments
Email This
Printer-Friendly
The doctrine of salvation by knowledge. This definition, based on the etymology of the word ( gnosis “knowledge”, gnostikos , “good at knowing”), is correct as far as it goes, but it gives only one, though perhaps the predominant, characteristic of Gnostic systems of thought. Whereas Judaism and Christianity, and almost all pagan systems, hold that the soul attains its proper end by obedience of mind and will to the Supreme Power, i.e. by faith and works, it is markedly peculiar to Gnosticism that it places the salvation of the soul merely in the possession of a quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of magic formulae indicative of that knowledge. Gnostics were “people who knew “, and their knowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings, whose present and future status was essentially different from that of those who, for whatever reason, did not know.
from http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5209
Therefore your statement about me is incorrect. I do not accuse those who claim belief of Gnosticism. I accuse those who claim quasi-intuitive knowledge as the driving force, the means or the path to their personal salvation as Gnostic. Do you see the difference?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.