The Inspired Word of God?


#21

Why don’t you follow what the Church officially teaches, and stop promoting heresy.

Here is a good article that deals with Dei Verbum:

arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/councils/comment21-11.htm


#22

You shouldn’t be giving him thanks, rather, you should be repudiating his heresy.

I suggest you read

newadvent.org/cathen/08045a.htm


#23

Tim?


#24

I suggest someone more knowledgeable than either of us address this.


#25

This is plainly wrong. The Catholic Church most certainly teaches that the Bible is written by God:

Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. (Empahsis added)

-Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, ch. 11, 1965

As far being without error, it follows as an immediate consequence of its Divine authorship, that they cannot err. This is what the Second Vatican Council means when it continues:

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 which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.

-Ibid.

As regards “the truth which God wanted to put into writings for the sake of our salvation”, some have asserted that this means that the Council is only restricting inerrancy to those things which pertain to dogmatic truths of the faith. But, even if this were the case, it does not follow that the previous teachings, which strongly defended the plenary inerrancy of Scripture, were contradicted. It just means that, in regards to those truths pertaining to salvation, the inerrancy of Scripture is of the faith, or proximate to faith, but in regards to the other matters, the inerrancy of Scripture is theologically certain.

But, as most faithful Catholics have pointed out, and Catholic Answers has a page on this, this is faulty interpretation. The inspired authors do not seek necessarily to give a strictly historical account or scientific account of things, so in this sense, they are said not to assert these things, but use popular idioms or literary devices to express these things. Moreover, the prior teachings of the Church, are quotes in this passage.

Pope Benedict XV, in his 1920 encyclical on Holy Scripture, explains the whole matter very well:

You will not find a page in his [St. Jerome’s] writings which does not show clearly that he, in common with the whole Catholic Church, firmly and consistently held that the Sacred Books - written as they were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - have God for their Author, and as such were delivered to the Church. Thus he asserts that the Books of the Bible were composed at the inspiration, or suggestion, or even at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; even that they were written and edited by Him. Yet he never questions but that the individual authors of these Books worked in full freedom under the Divine afflatus, each of them in accordance with his individual nature and character. Thus he [is not merely content to affirm as a general principle - what indeed pertains to all the sacred writers - that they followed the Spirit of God as they wrote, in such sort that God is the principal cause of all that Scripture means and says; but he also accurately describes what pertains to each individual writer.

-Benedict XV, *Spiritus Paraclitus

, ch. 8, 1920

The Pope continues:

Consequently it is not to the point to suggest that the Holy Spirit used men as His instruments for writing, and that therefore, while no error is referable to the primary Author, it may well be due to the inspired authors themselves. For by supernatural power the Holy Spirit so stirred them and moved them to write, so assisted them as they wrote, that their minds could rightly conceive only those and all those things which He himself bade them conceive; only such things could they faithfully commit to writing and aptly express with unerring truth; else God would not be the Author of the entirety of Sacred Scripture.

Ibid., ch. 17

The harmony between the Second Vatican Council’s teaching, and the traditional teaching is obvious.

I hope this was helpful,
Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas


#26

This is not true. The Bible certainly is a history book - it tells the history of our salvation. God is a true historical Personage, primarily as Jesus Christ, God the Son made man, but also in the actions of Moses and the Prophets.

The Second Vatican Council said:

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. (Emphasis added)

-Dei Verbum, ch. 12, 1965

The historical sense of Scripture cannot be dissented from, in many cases, without danger to the Faith.

I hope this was helpful,
Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas


#27

=firstNicholas12;13510586]Why don’t you follow what the Church officially teaches, and stop promoting heresy.

Here is a good article that deals with Dei Verbum:

arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/councils/comment21-11.htm

My dear friend in Christ,

Wecome to CAF!

As a FYI:

I have read Dei Verbum", Inter Oecumenici, and TRENT:) Albeit some years ago.

Thanks for sharing the commentary.

Might I suggest however that if your going to SLANDER me and charge me with being a Heretic, that you be so kind as to be a bit more precise and specific with evidence of your positions. These are very serious charges that render judgment on.

God Bless you,
Patrick


#28

So if the Church teaches the Bible is inerrant, then how does one explain all the inconsistencies in it?


#29

Anyone?


#30

May I refer you to the thread: Biblical (in) Errancy: A Red Herring

Post# 8

July 7, 2013


#31

Some weeks ago I had a conversation with my friends and we decided that technologies and the Internet can be and must be used for the welfare of the Christians’ life. Especially when the one has no opportunity to meet with brothers and go to church.

Nowadays there is no service that gives a chance to be in touch with the brothers, to ask for advice any time you want or to speak publicly for like-minded people.

Our idea is to create a service for Christians to stay online wherever they are and in any occasion.

We do have knowledge, a group of specialists and belief that our project will help not only the Christians in the USA, but all over the world. To bring the project to life we need money to pay programmers’ salaries, to buy a server and to maintain the working process.

We’ve put in all the money we had, borrowing from families and friends. Now we are asking you to help us to develop a project that will benefit and make our lives easier.
Our project will always be free!

Join the project helping believers all over the
world! Join christiansonline24.com !

Shares appreciated!


#32

Faith1960 #26
So if the Church teaches the Bible is inerrant, then how does one explain all the inconsistencies in it?

If you refer to post #3 you will see the answer to the imagined “inconsistencies”.

No real Catholic doubts the teaching of the Church concerning that “truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided.”


#33

You might want to proof your own sources before you cite them.

"The grace of inspiration does not exempt the writer from personal effort, nor does it insure the perfection of his work from an artistic point of view. The author of the Second Book of Machabees and St. Luke tell the reader of the pains they took to document their work (2 Maccabees 2:24-33; Luke 1:1-4). The imperfections of the work are to be attributed to the instrument. "

newadvent.org/cathen/08045a.htm

You might also want to reconsider calling people heretics with your 7th post on this site.


#34

You claim there are historical errors in the Bible; that is where your heresy lies.

“Once it is accepted that everything asserted by the inspired authors in Scripture is also asserted by the Holy Spirit, it logically follows there can be no error in any of these assertions, since God can neither deceive nor be deceived. At the insistence of more progressive bishops, the phrase “for the sake of salvation” was appended to the original statement. Consequently, they and various liberal exegetes have held that this phrase limits the scope of Biblical inerrancy. In other words, a Biblical statement about history or science might admit error if it is not related to the truths about salvation. While this restricted notion of inerrancy might make exegetes’ lives easier, it is incompatible with the basic logic expounded a couple lines earlier in Dei Verbum. Everything asserted by the inspired authors is also asserted by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can neither deceive nor be deceived, as even liberal Catholics will admit. From this it inexorably follows that everything asserted by the inspired authors is free from error, and this logic holds for historical and scientific statements no less than statements about faith and morals…:”

arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/councils/comment21-11.htm


#35

Then they should stop promoting heresy.

Extent of inspiration

The question now is not whether all the Biblical books are inspired in every part, even in the fragments called deuterocanonical: this point, which concerns the integrity of the Canon, has been solved by the Council of Trent (Denz., 784). But are we bound to admit that, in the books or parts of books which are canonical, there is absolutely nothing, either as regards the matter or the form, which does not fall under the Divine inspiration?
Inspiration of the whole subject matter

For the last three centuries there have been author-theologians, exegetes, and especially apologists — such as Holden, Rohling, Lenormant, di Bartolo, and others — who maintained, with more or less confidence, that inspiration was limited to moral and dogmatic teaching, excluding everything in the Bible relating to history and the natural sciences. They think that, in this way, a whole mass of difficulties against the inerrancy of the bible would be removed. But the Church has never ceased to protest against this attempt to restrict the inspiration of the sacred books. This is what took place when Mgr d’Hulst, Rector of the Institut Catholique of Paris, gave a sympathetic account of this opinion in “Le Correspondant” of 25 Jan., 1893. The reply was quickly forthcoming in the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus of the same year. In that Encyclical Leo XIII said:

It will never be lawful to restrict inspiration merely to certain parts of the Holy Scripture, or to grant that the sacred writer could have made a mistake. Nor may the opinion of those be tolerated, who, in order to get out of these difficulties, do not hesitate to suppose that Divine inspiration extends only to what touches faith and morals, on the false plea that the true meaning is sought for less in what God has said than in the motive for which He has said it. (Denz., 1950) 

In fact, a limited inspiration contradicts Christian tradition and theological teaching.


#36

Deacon, this is too hard for me to understand but are there errors in the Bible or not? If not, how do you explain the inconsistencies?
Thanks in advance.


#37

What about what he said about Dei Verbum and Providentissimus Deus? Neither are within my reading ability to comprehend so I’m asking you. Do they tell us there are no errors or inconsistencies in Scripture?


#38

I’m sorry such a vociferous debate has raged here.

As to your question, there’s no one way to resolve difficulties in Scripture. Sometimes departing from the plain sense is justified; other times not. Sometimes re-evaluating our knowledge of the natural world is justified (and seldom done); other times not. This is the job of faithful Catholic exegets. The inerrancy of Scripture is an axiom, not conclusion, of orthodox biblical scholarship.

I hope this is helpful,
Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas


#39

Scripture is entirely inerrant with respect to all matters that the Holy Spirit inspired the human writers of the various books of the bible to convey. However those human writers were neither impeccable, nor omniscient. Their writings with respect to the world around them are generally limited by their personal knowledge. There are only “inconsistencies” if one fails to understand the cultural context in which those human writers were living and the literary forms and devices that were common among the people of their time and culture. Even Christ employed many of these devices in His own teaching. For example, is it error when Christ instructed His disciples to “cut off their hand” or “pluck out their eye” if they cause them to sin? Clearly this is “inconsistent” with the teachings of the Church forbidding self mutilation. In fact Christ was employing a common literary device of His time known as “hyperbole” to make a point. Parables are another example of this type of literary device that was common among the ancient Jewish people, and their are many others. It is the job of biblical exigists to identify and explain these uses to us. Those who would ignore valid exigesis risk being overly rigid in their interpretations or fall into an interpretation that relies on virtually everything being only “symbolic”. Both paths lead to error.

Those who take either: 1. individual passages of scripture; or 2. non-infallible writings of Popes, bishops, or theologians, out of context and LITERALISTICALLY, and attempt to interpret them according to a more modern secular, cultural, scientific or literary understanding now applicable in our world, are incapable of resolving these “seeming” errors or inconsistencies, but simply rely on rote repetition of those passages or works in an attempt to prove a point that the authors never intended to make.

There are no “errors or inconsistencies” in Scripture if one understands: 1. the context of each passage; and 2. the literary form being used by the human writer. That is the proper understanding of both Dei Verbum and Providentissimus Deus.

. . . and for the record, yes, that is what they “taught me in theological formation” over five (5) years of seminary. Also for the record, those who “taught me” were recognized scripture scholars with several advanced degrees in scripture studies, and not mere amateur (and often arrogant and uncharitable if I may say) apologists on an internet web forum.


#40

[1 Samuel 13]

{13:1} Filius unius anni erat Saul cum regnare cœpisset, duobus autem annis regnavit super Israel.
{13:1} When he began to reign, Saul was the son of one year, and he reigned over Israel for two years.

The expression “son of …” is a common idiomatic expression in Hebrew. Examples: son of death, a dead body; son of perdition, one who is lost; sons of adulterers, these ‘sons’ are not the children of persons who have committed adultery, but rather it is the sons themselves who have committed adultery, behaving as if they are sons of adultery personified.

Saul was appointed king by the people one year after he was anointed king by Samuel, that is, one year after the Spirit of the Lord came to him, so that he became a new man with a new heart, as explained in chapter ten. That is why Sacred Scripture says figuratively that Saul was the son of one year when his reign began.

When people propose various alleged errors in Scripture, they generally argue as if each of these points must be an error, if they cannot think of a way that it could be true. Instead, we should have faith in the Word of God, and suppose that, if a verse expresses what seems to be an error, that it only seems that way to our limited understanding.

Pope Pius XII: “they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.” (Humani Generis, n. 22).


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.