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.
Yes, you believe G-d caused a single "big bang" after which the laws of nature took over and formed the universe without any interference from Him. And as I said, everything in the first eleven chapters (that Adam was a real individual who lived 930 years, that Cain really killed Abel, that a worldwide Flood destroyed all life except for those on (or clinging to) the Ark, that G-d instantaneously created the Seventy Languages of the World at the Tower of Babel (prior to which everyone spoke Hebrew), etc., etc., etc.
People who deny all the forgoing who suddenly become "pious illiterate peasants" when it comes to the "new testament" get my dander up, I must admit.
If they get this knowledge from reading your common "holy book," then, no I don't.
As for my Catholic schooling, I was an adult convert. I went through RCIA (with Wilhelm's book). Shoot, they didn't even explain to me that it is heretical to believe that one can ever know with certainty whether or not one is in the "state of grace." No wonder they didn't tell me I was supposed to believe in evolution!
***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.
Yes, you believe G-d caused a single “big bang” after which the laws of nature took over and formed the universe without any interference from Him.***
I do? Show me where I believe this.
***And as I said, everything in the first eleven chapters (that Adam was a real individual who lived 930 years, that Cain really killed Abel, that a worldwide Flood destroyed all life except for those on (or clinging to) the Ark, that G-d instantaneously created the Seventy Languages of the World at the Tower of Babel (prior to which everyone spoke Hebrew), etc., etc., etc.***
Why not pick out the first twenty miracles in the Bible and we can discuss them one by one; you with whatever you have, and I’ll bring the Catechism.
***People who deny all the forgoing who suddenly become “pious illiterate peasants” when it comes to the “new testament” get my dander up, I must admit.***
Perhaps your understanding is less than complete of Catholic belief.
***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?
If they get this knowledge from reading your common “holy book,” then, no I don’t.***
Gnosticism is largely extra Scriptural and its influence on Christianity came mostly after the NT was written. Therefore the NT does not explicitly address it in depth; that was left to the Church Fathers during that time. The Gnostic scriptures were discarded and the Gnostics were turned out of the Church; they resurfaced a few times but had no traction until the Reformation.
***As for my Catholic schooling, I was an adult convert. I went through RCIA (with Wilhelm’s book). Shoot, they didn’t even explain to me that it is heretical to believe that one can ever know with certainty whether or not one is in the “state of grace.”***
Your Catholic education is far from complete; yet you profess to speak as if you are well catechized.
***No wonder they didn’t tell me I was supposed to believe in evolution!***
Huh?
Yes, you believe G-d caused a single “big bang” after which the laws of nature took over and formed the universe without any interference from Him.***
I do? Show me where I believe this.
Well, thank you so very much for all the help you've been in my weekend-long argument with your co-religionist bdeaner on two different threads (here as well as this one we're on) as he loudly shoots off his bazoo that "Catholics believe in evolution" and "we now know" all sort of things that ancient Jewish and chr*stian theologians were ignorant of. You have been such a help! Really!
You and all the other Catholics who are "shocked--shocked!" at being identified with evolution and liberalism sicken me. Well that's too ding dang bad, my friend. Your co-religionists go around screaming that a belief in evolution is one of the distinguishing characteristics of a Catholic as opposed to those awful Fundamentalist Protestants, and you oh so offended types never show up. You're too busy looking at your watches or defending Mary or something you actually give a hang about (unlike Genesis). So please spare me your smarmy "innocent" routine. I've appealed to "creationist" Catholics all weekend long and they've all run for the hills like cowards.
Wideawake was the only Catholic creationist on this forum. And apparently he is no longer with us. Your loss. The rest of you are worse than useless. So don't you dare play that "where did you ever get that idea?" on me.
***Yes, you believe G-d caused a single “big bang” after which the laws of nature took over and formed the universe without any interference from Him.***
I do? Show me where I believe this.
Well, thank you so very much for all the help you’ve been in my weekend-long argument with your co-religionist bdeaner on two different threads (here as well as this one we’re on) as he loudly shoots off his bazoo that “Catholics believe in evolution” and “we now know” all sort of things that ancient Jewish and chr*stian theologians were ignorant of. You have been such a help! Really!***
Now just calm down and answer my question. You haven’t, you know.
***You and all the other Catholics who are “shocked—shocked!” at being identified with evolution and liberalism sicken me. Well that’s too ding dang bad, my friend. ***
Shocked? Where are you getting all this? Point to some hard evidence, please.
By the way, there is sufficient evidence that evolution does occur; genetic recombination by itself is evidence of it. Does that mean that God did not create the Universe? Of course not. Ding dang? Is this a new ice cream flavour?
***Your co-religionists go around screaming that a belief in evolution is one of the distinguishing characteristics of a Catholic as opposed to those awful Fundamentalist Protestants, and you oh so offended types never show up.***
Show me where I am oh so offended.
***You’re too busy looking at your watches or defending Mary or something you actually give a hang about (unlike Genesis). ***
You accuse me of not caring about Genesis? Proofs, please.
***So please spare me your smarmy “innocent” routine.***
Are you reading my mind and understanding my motives once again?
***I’ve appealed to “creationist” Catholics all weekend long and they’ve all run for the hills like cowards***
It’s Monday. What do you mean by ‘creationist’? If you mean a belief that God created all, then I am a creationist.
***Wideawake was the only Catholic creationist on this forum. ***
Define creationism according to ZC.
***The rest of you are worse than useless.***
What do you define use as, and what standards do you apply to it?
***So don’t you dare play that “where did you ever get that idea?” on me.***
If you stick around long enough and pay enough attention, I can guide you through the Faith, which apparently you didn’t get whatsoever the first time around.
Then go and dispute with your co-religionist bdeaner. Otherwise, cry me a river.
PS: If you take the trouble to follow the debate between myself and my opponent on that other thread you will see how I define "creationism."
You accuse me of not caring about Genesis? Proofs, please.
Then go and dispute with your co-religionist bdeaner. Otherwise, cry me a river.
Please excuse me. I see now that you have already been speaking with bdeaner on this thread in order to agree with him. Since you share his belief that evolutionism is an important part of Catholic belief, your protestations of innocence are revealed as smarmier than ever.
I recall one thing from my pathetic "cathechesis." Unlike Protestantism, I was told, Catholicism rejects fideism. But according to you and your friend kosta50 (whom, as you know, isn't even sure that J*sus actually ever existed), anything other than fideism is gnosticism and arrogance.
No wonder your church is going down the . . . ahem . . . tubes.
Duh. Post #88 was meant for you.
***You accuse me of not caring about Genesis? Proofs, please.
Then go and dispute with your co-religionist bdeaner. Otherwise, cry me a river.***
I am not disputing bdeaner. I am debating you. However, I will have enough decorum to ping him. I asked you for proofs about me. You and I have debated in the past. I am not bdeaner. And I have asked you for proofs of things that you accuse me of.
***PS: If you take the trouble to follow the debate between myself and my opponent on that other thread you will see how I define “creationism.”***
Interesting. You expect me to trail you around FR in the hopes that I can appreciate the dribblings from your lips? I don’t care about that other thread in which you debate somebody else in the context of this thread. I asked you for an answer in good faith. Are you prepared to honor that or not?
***You accuse me of not caring about Genesis? Proofs, please.
Then go and dispute with your co-religionist bdeaner. Otherwise, cry me a river.
Please excuse me. I see now that you have already been speaking with bdeaner on this thread in order to agree with him. Since you share his belief that evolutionism is an important part of Catholic belief, your protestations of innocence are revealed as smarmier than ever.***
I have never protested innocence. I do however will not let you label me. I urge you to answer my questions without staging a scene.
***I recall one thing from my pathetic “cathechesis.” Unlike Protestantism, I was told, Catholicism rejects fideism. But according to you and your friend kosta50 (whom, as you know, isn’t even sure that J*sus actually ever existed), anything other than fideism is gnosticism and arrogance. ***
There is a difference between belief and knowledge. Which do you claim?
***No wonder your church is going down the . . . ahem . . . tubes.***
Not my Church. It’s the Church of Jesus Christ. I just get to participate and follow Him. Sorry to disappoint. Down the tubes? However do you mean?
***Duh. Post #88 was meant for you.***
Wow, more fine language. I congratulate you sir.
Because you agree with him, which is what I said to begin with. There's the proof that you regard the first eleven chapters of Genesis as non-historical.
Interesting. You expect me to trail you around FR in the hopes that I can appreciate the dribblings from your lips?
No. I expect people who throw out their chests and claim there is "no proof" that they believe so-and-so to act like they don't believe the so-and-so I have allegedly falsely accused them of believing. If you're going to deny the first eleven chapters of Genesis then don't act so hurt when somebody calls you on it.
Your choosing to argue with me and agree with bdeaner is proof that you share his beliefs about Genesis 1-11. Debate over.
My bad. I thought that fideism and agnosticism were "Protestant" things.
I'll tell you how I know what I know by asking you the same question I asked your friend kosta50:
There are two sections in the Torah that list kosher and non-kosher species. Chickens are not listed in either category in either section. Yet Jews know that chicken is kosher. How do they know this?
It's not that hard.
The "duh" was directed at myself for my error in posting to myself. How in the world did you interpret it as directed to you?
How do you know that the mitzvot are God's commandments? And which mitzvah says you must believe in God?
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?
I don't have a clue. If I had to guess it would be because they are not mammals and don't ruminate, and they are not carnivorous. But the answer is still dependent on assumption that the Bible is truly God's word.
So you don't consider yourself a chr*stian? What's your word for yourself?
I am who I am (and I don't mean God, so don't jump to nay conclusions). I have no label.
Mr. Rogers: There is the problem. Proof such as you desire exists in mathematics. It is NOT the standard used in court.
Beyond the shadow of a doubt is not the standard in the court?
It is also not the standard you use for any of your decisions.
I use it all the time. I do not touch hot stove tops. I do not jump off tall buildings. I do not stick my fingers into electrical outlets, etc. These are all fact-based decisions. It's called being in touch with reality. Something religion is not. The world of religion is a magical world where donkeys talk sensibly and where people live inside a fish for days, where diseases are cause by 'demons' and where cure for every ill is driving those 'demons' out!
Nor have I ever met anyone who thinks God or any religious belief can be proven like that.
Then why do they believe what cannot be proven? And why do they speak and act as if what they believe in is a fact?
For Noachides it's the prohibition of idolatry. For Jews it's 'Anokhi HaShem 'Eloqeykha 'asher hotze'tikha me'Eretz Mitzrayim, mibet `avadim ("I am HaShem your G-d Who brought you up out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage")--the first of the Ten Utterances at Mt. Sinai.
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?
I don't have a clue. If I had to guess it would be because they are not mammals and don't ruminate, and they are not carnivorous. But the answer is still dependent on assumption that the Bible is truly God's word.
You didn't understand my question, perhaps because you are not familiar with the text. Both sections dealing with kosher and non-kosher species have a paragraph dealing with birds. Birds don't have a hard-and-fast rule like mammals and fish do. All both sections do is simply list a number of birds that are not kosher. Now . . . chickens aren't mentioned at all, one way or another. Neither do we know from other places in the Torah that they are kosher, as we do with doves and partridges. Yet Jews know that chickens are committed. Now, having restated this, try one more time. If you can't do it this time I'll tell you.
So you don't consider yourself a chr*stian? What's your word for yourself?
I am who I am
So is everyone else, yet you don't cut the people you disagree with any slack.
(and I don't mean God, so don't jump to nay conclusions). I have no label.
Yet you hang out here and pretend to be Eastern Orthodox, beating your chest about how it is "real chr*stianity" even though you don't even know that J*sus ever existed. (You really enjoy driving rednecks crazy, don't you? I'll bet you really went to town with magnifying glasses and ants when you were a kid.) And if somebody calls you on it you back up and say "now wait a minute, I didn't actually say I was Eastern Orthodox, did I?" And the "real" Eastern Orthodox on this forum play along with you because twanging rednecks are such an embarrassment to the "glorious chr*stian religion" and need to be put in their place.
BTW, though I doubt you're interested, I have a few labels for you.
***I am not disputing bdeaner.
Because you agree with him, which is what I said to begin with.***
I agree with the Catechism. If bdeaner differs, then I differ with him. If he agrees, then I agree with him.
***There’s the proof that you regard the first eleven chapters of Genesis as non-historical.***
That is not proof. Show me the proof in my postings.
***Interesting. You expect me to trail you around FR in the hopes that I can appreciate the dribblings from your lips?
No. I expect people who throw out their chests and claim there is “no proof” that they believe so-and-so to act like they don’t believe the so-and-so I have allegedly falsely accused them of believing.***
If you accuse me of something, then have the temerity to prove it with evidence.
***Your choosing to argue with me and agree with bdeaner is proof that you share his beliefs about Genesis 1-11. Debate over.***
Debate over? Are you taking on the role of Hamilton Burger?
***There is a difference between belief and knowledge. Which do you claim?
My bad. I thought that fideism and agnosticism were “Protestant” things. ***
Explain.
***I’ll tell you how I know what I know by asking you the same question I asked your friend kosta50:
There are two sections in the Torah that list kosher and non-kosher species. Chickens are not listed in either category in either section. Yet Jews know that chicken is kosher. How do they know this?***
How about you tell me?
***It’s not that hard.***
Sometimes it is. God would have all men be saved. Yet men get their backs up and rebel. The whole OT is the history of the Jewish nation rebelling against God. It’s okay; you can be Catholic again. God still loves all men.
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.