The Church And Scripture

[CatherineM]

The bible isn't a history book or a science book, it is a theology book. It is infallible in matters of faith.

God may be the author, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but he didn't sit down and write it all out. The only writing that Jesus does in the New Testament, is with his finger in the dirt. He had 30 years or so to write out anything he wanted to. He was certainly literate. He didn't for a reason. Scripture was also molded by the maturation process of the early church. We didn't receive scriptures until we needed them, and were ready for them. In some ways, we still aren't ready for them, and have a lot to learn first.

[kafka]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1689105' date='Oct 30 2008, 12:59 AM']The bible isn't a history book or a science book, it is a theology book. It is infallible in matters of faith.

God may be the author, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but he didn't sit down and write it all out. The only writing that Jesus does in the New Testament, is with his finger in the dirt. He had 30 years or so to write out anything he wanted to. He was certainly literate. He didn't for a reason. Scripture was also molded by the maturation process of the early church. We didn't receive scriptures until we needed them, and were ready for them. In some ways, we still aren't ready for them, and have a lot to learn first.[/quote]
I strongly disagree with you and my above posts give justification to my argument.

Christ did not write since men would be inclined to worship the actual documents other than the truths being expressed through them.

I am unsure what you mean by this statement:

"Scripture was also molded by the maturation process of the early church. We didn't receive scriptures until we needed them, and were ready for them. In some ways, we still aren't ready for them, and have a lot to learn first."

I will leave you with some quotes from the Saints:

St. Gregory Nazianzen: “We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, will never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazardly by those who have recorded them....”

St. Clement of Rome: “You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true and inspired by the Holy Spirit. You know that nothing contrary to justice or truth has been written in them.”

St. Justin Martyr: “But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing [that the Scriptures err]; and if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind is brought forward, and if there be a pretext [for saying] that it is contrary [to some other] since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself.”

St. Jerome: “I am not, I repeat, so ignorant as to suppose that any one of the Lord's words is either in need of correction or is not divinely inspired….”

St. Augustine: “I think it is extremely dangerous to admit that anything in the Sacred Books should be a lie.... If we once admit in that supreme authority even one polite lie, there will be nothing left of those books, because, whenever anyone finds something difficult to practice or hard to believe, he will follow this most dangerous precedent and explain it as the idea or practice of a lying author.”

St. Augustine writing to St. Jerome: “For, I admit to your Charity that it is from those book alone of the Scriptures, which are now called canonical, that I have learned to pay them such honor and respect as to believe most firmly that not one of their authors has erred in writing anything at all. If I do find anything in those books which seems contrary to truth, I decide that either the text [particular copy] is corrupt, or the translator did not follow what was really said, or that I failed to understand it.”
(Willis, The Teachings of the Church Fathers; Ignatius Press, 2002)

[CatherineM]

[quote name='kafka' post='1689111' date='Oct 30 2008, 12:08 AM']I strongly disagree with you and my above posts give justification to my argument.

Christ did not write since men would be inclined to worship the actual documents other than the truths being expressed through them.

I am unsure what you mean by this statement:

"Scripture was also molded by the maturation process of the early church. We didn't receive scriptures until we needed them, and were ready for them. In some ways, we still aren't ready for them, and have a lot to learn first."

I will leave you with some quotes from the Saints:

St. Gregory Nazianzen: “We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, will never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazardly by those who have recorded them....”

St. Clement of Rome: “You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true and inspired by the Holy Spirit. You know that nothing contrary to justice or truth has been written in them.”

St. Justin Martyr: “But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing [that the Scriptures err]; and if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind is brought forward, and if there be a pretext [for saying] that it is contrary [to some other] since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself.”

St. Jerome: “I am not, I repeat, so ignorant as to suppose that any one of the Lord's words is either in need of correction or is not divinely inspired….”

St. Augustine: “I think it is extremely dangerous to admit that anything in the Sacred Books should be a lie.... If we once admit in that supreme authority even one polite lie, there will be nothing left of those books, because, whenever anyone finds something difficult to practice or hard to believe, he will follow this most dangerous precedent and explain it as the idea or practice of a lying author.”

St. Augustine writing to St. Jerome: “For, I admit to your Charity that it is from those book alone of the Scriptures, which are now called canonical, that I have learned to pay them such honor and respect as to believe most firmly that not one of their authors has erred in writing anything at all. If I do find anything in those books which seems contrary to truth, I decide that either the text [particular copy] is corrupt, or the translator did not follow what was really said, or that I failed to understand it.”
(Willis, The Teachings of the Church Fathers; Ignatius Press, 2002)[/quote]

Nothing I said is contradicted by the quotes you posted. I'll tell you what though, I will stick my head into the office of the head of the Sacred Scriptures department at the seminary I attend this afternoon on one of my class breaks. I'll double check with him, and ask him if the bible is a history or science book. When he gets done laughing himself off his chair, I'll definitely post his response.

[kafka]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1689206' date='Oct 30 2008, 10:02 AM']Nothing I said is contradicted by the quotes you posted. I'll tell you what though, I will stick my head into the office of the head of the Sacred Scriptures department at the seminary I attend this afternoon on one of my class breaks. I'll double check with him, and ask him if the bible is a history or science book. When he gets done laughing himself off his chair, I'll definitely post his response.[/quote]
I would like to hear what your theology teacher has to say.

Maybe I have misunderstood you. What do you mean when you say the Bible is not a history or science book? It clearly teaches and asserts are more subjects than faith and morals. Therefore are you implying that the historical or scientific statements expressed in the Bible may be subject to error?

Please clarify for me.

[StColette]

Everyone should read Dei Verbum at least 25 times, lol which is what my Scripture Prof. required his class to do.

[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_council...-verbum_en.html[/url]

As for it not being a History or Science book, Catherine is correct. All of my Biblical Scripture Profs. taught this. It cannot strictly be called a History book because it of course does not give things in a strictly chronological order and it does not give every historical detail of mankind, there is of course Historical things within it but this does not make it a History book. God's revelation to man does not require that every Historical detail be in chronological order or in the Bible at all. It is not a Science book because it doesn't give scientific explanation nor should it have to give explanation for many of the different occurrences in the Bible that seem almost impossible, example all people came from Adam and Eve, try explaining that to a bunch of 2nd graders because believe me they pick up on things like that. There are scientific things in the Bible but that doesn't mean the Bible is a Science book and nor should it be read that way. The Bible is about the revelation of God, it's not about History or Science.

[kafka]

[quote name='StColette' post='1689392' date='Oct 30 2008, 05:04 PM']As for it not being a History or Science book, Catherine is correct. All of my Biblical Scripture Profs. taught this. It cannot strictly be called a History book because it of course does not give things in a strictly chronological order and it does not give every historical detail of mankind, there is of course Historical things within it but this does not make it a History book. God's revelation to man does not require that every Historical detail be in chronological order or in the Bible at all. It is not a Science book because it doesn't give scientific explanation nor should it have to give explanation for many of the different occurrences in the Bible that seem almost impossible, example all people came from Adam and Eve, try explaining that to a bunch of 2nd graders because believe me they pick up on things like that. There are scientific things in the Bible but that doesn't mean the Bible is a Science book and nor should it be read that way. The Bible is about the revelation of God, it's not about History or Science.[/quote]
now that was stating the obvious.

When I was "attempting" to make the point that the Bible is totally inspired and inerrant on all that it asserts even beyond just those things which fall into the realms of faith and morals, such as historical people and events, human nature, society, physical nature, then

Motherofpearl, and CatherineM reacted by saying that the Bible is not a science or history book. Now it is obvious that the Bible is not a hisotry or science book per se, yet to me they were implying that what the Holy Spirit inspired the human author to assert could possibly be in error if it is not a matter of faith and morals. Inspiration and inerrancy are inseperable



That is my whole point. Make sense?

Edited October 30, 2008 by kafka

[CatherineM]

[quote name='kafka' post='1689385' date='Oct 30 2008, 03:56 PM']I would like to hear what your theology teacher has to say.

Maybe I have misunderstood you. What do you mean when you say the Bible is not a history or science book? It clearly teaches and asserts are more subjects than faith and morals. Therefore are you implying that the historical or scientific statements expressed in the Bible may be subject to error?

Please clarify for me.[/quote]

The first thing he said was "oy vey," which sounded kind of cool with his French accent. The second thing he asked was if you had read the Vatican document that St. Collete linked.

Bottom line, once again, the Magisterium has told us that the bible is infallible when it comes to matters of FAITH and THEOLOGY. In other things, it can be in error. Right off the bat it lists two different creation stories. They both can't be right, historically and scientifically, but they are when it comes to the theology the creation stories teach us. An ancient scribe, given the inspiration of the Holy Spirit writes, "and God said let there be light." I can't think of a better way for a man several thousand years ago, with his limited knowledge of science in nature, to describe a picture of the big bang placed in his head by the Holy Spirit.

St. Collete and I are not pulling these ideas out of the blue. We both took the time, and expense, to obtain a proper theological education from orthodox universities. There is nothing wrong with trying to educate yourself, but there are areas of theology where it is very easy to get the wrong idea or to expose yourself to teachings that are not in keeping with the teachings of the church. Part of what the words "being in communion with" means is following the wisdom of the church in these very complicated areas.

[mortify]

Peace Catherine,

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1689468' date='Oct 30 2008, 07:19 PM']Bottom line, once again, the Magisterium has told us that the bible is infallible when it comes to matters of FAITH and THEOLOGY. In other things, it can be in error. Right off the bat it lists two different creation stories. They both can't be right, historically and scientifically, but they are when it comes to the theology the creation stories teach us.[/quote]

[b]Read this carefully:[/b]

[b][size=3][color="#FF0000"]“...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.”[/color][/size] [/b]
(Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 22).

The Magesterium has condemned the notion that the inerrancy of scripture is limited. Your opinion is mistaken and if a teacher ever taught you that the Scripture contains error then they too were mistaken. Apparent difficulties in scripture are nothing new, the Medievals were aware of them, however in our time it is more common to say scripture is in error than find error in our own understanding. A sign of the times no doubt.

St Thomas already identified a certain distinction in the inspired text back in the 12th century: Religious and moral truth contained in the scripture are [i]inspired per se[/i], but the historical and profane facts of natural sciences are [i]inspired per accidens[/i], meaning they are inspired because of their relation to what is inspired per se. These historical and natural science statements are therefore also inspired and immune from error. However, since God revealed these truths in a non-scientific manner that ordinary men of a particular time could understand, the statements inspired per accidens can be interpreted more liberally. Therefore, we can accept 6 days of Creation in a figurative sense without declaring Scripture in scientific error.


God bless,
Mortify

Edited October 31, 2008 by mortify

[kafka]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1689468' date='Oct 30 2008, 08:19 PM']Bottom line, once again, the Magisterium has told us that the bible is infallible when it comes to matters of FAITH and THEOLOGY. In other things, it can be in error. Right off the bat it lists two different creation stories. They both can't be right, historically and scientifically, but they are when it comes to the theology the creation stories teach us. An ancient scribe, given the inspiration of the Holy Spirit writes, "and God said let there be light." I can't think of a better way for a man several thousand years ago, with his limited knowledge of science in nature, to describe a picture of the big bang placed in his head by the Holy Spirit.[/quote]
Holy cow I am at the point of giving up here. I have read Dei Verbum and it clearly states that Sacred Scripture is:

11. 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 [b]in their entirety, with all their parts,[/b] are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, [b]they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.[/b]

~ Notice Dei Verbum "in all their parts" that includes all passages, and everything being asserted not just faith and morals. If God is the author of the Bible, how could he possibly inspire the writer to record something erroneous on any subject matter? If this were the case then that would undermine the integrity of God and the infallibility of Sacred Scripture.

(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)

~ "only those things which He wanted." How could God desire the human author to write down anything that would be in error? This would go against His Divine Nature.

Therefore, since [b]everything[/b] 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 (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

The phrase “which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation” has been used by some theologians in order to attempt to narrow inspiration and inerrancy only to those assertions pertaining to faith and morals, or to salvation (or to some other scheme). But this passage from Dei Verbum, taken in its entirety, clearly does not narrow inspiration or inerrancy. The phrase “for the sake of our salvation” refers to the purpose that God had in mind for Sacred Scripture. The claim that this phrase narrows inspiration and inerrancy, or that it implies error in Sacred Scripture on subjects other than faith and morals, or other than salvation, is unsupportable.

You are seperating inspiration from inerrancy. Whatever the Holy Spirit inspires the human author to assert in writing is inerrant. The two creation stories are inerrant, theologically, scientifically, and historically. Where they seem to contradict each other, it is because either they are written in figures of speech are being used or own own limited finite minds cannot fully comprehend the passages.

And btw, I am not self-educating myself. I have had and do have teachers in my life. I choose not to share who they are and what my background is. Besides modern errors are spread even in Orthodox universities.

If Sacred Scripture only infallibly asserted truths on faith and morals then who is to say which ones pertain to faith and morals and which do not? Everyone would disagree as to which ones do pertain to salvation and which do not. There would be no way for the Magisterium to specify which assertions of Sacred Scripture pertain to salvation, and which do not, other than to teach definitively on the meaning of each and every verse, and whether or not the assertions of that verse are true or false which is absurd.


I could go on and on and illistrate examples but it doesnt seem to be fruitful at this point.

Edited October 31, 2008 by kafka

[CatherineM]

Mortify-Peace be with your spirit as well.

Dei Verbum from Vatican II (and I know many on Phatmass don’t accept VATII): "...we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

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

You are missing the Indian Jones clause. Both of these quotes make it clear the bible is inerrant about the truth of salvation. No one is contesting that. There is a big difference between the truth, and the facts. Facts we learn in history and science class. We study the truth in philosophy and theology. I serve in the real world, and deal with real people with real problems. If I attempt to try to convince people that the world is only 5-6000 years old when it clearly is not, I won’t have an audience for the real truth about a living savior, and Christ is the message they need to hear. Our church was handed scripture and tradition to preserve for the good of the Body of Christ. I can quote Catholic theologians until I’m exhausted, and I know that will not change anyone’s mind that has a fundamentalist view of scripture, so you guys go on without me, because you’re going a direction that I can’t follow. I follow my teachers, my pastor, my bishop, and my pope, and not a Protestant view.

[mortify]

Peace with your spirit as well,

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1689545' date='Oct 30 2008, 09:27 PM']I follow my teachers, my pastor, my bishop, and my pope, and not a Protestant view.[/quote]

Frankly this is offensive because you're suggesting the Magesterium has taught that the Bible contains error, which is not true, and then imply we are not being obedient to the Magesterium because we believe Scripture is immune from error. You have actually projected something into Dei Verbum which isn't there, never does it say the Scriptures contain error. It simply reaffirms what we have already agreed upon, that theological and moral truth is inspired per se and without error. This is not a limiting factor nor is it meant to exclude what is inspired per accidens (i.e. what is called historical or the profane facts of natural science.)

The bible was not revealed as a science or history book per se and so we can't project what we modern people understand to be strict history and science into it. So when the Bible says the WORLD was flooded, we can't use our modern understanding to say that literally the whole world was flooded and that since science doesn't support this scripture is wrong. The reality is what those early people understood the "world" to be is very different from what we understand it to be, and therefore we can say that "world" figuratively reflects the entire world as the early Jewish descendants understood it. This understanding puts things into perspective and doesn't require us to say the scripture is in error, the fact is that God inspired the phrase "the world was flooded" and therefore by virtue it is immune from error. The error is in how we understand this revealed phrase.

I think you are the one that needs to re evaluate your stance with the Magesterium in this regard.


God bless,
Mortify

Edited October 31, 2008 by mortify

[kafka]

There are facts stated in the Bible, as well as figures of speech, such as metaphors, symbols, parables which do not directly pertain to faith and morals or salvation for example Nazareth, the location where Jesus grew up, or how long Alexander the Great reigned, or where certain battles were fought, or what certain customs in society were at the time, etc.

If these facts not pertaining to salvation could possibly be in error, then God could not have inspired the human author to assert them in his writing.

The Inspiration and Inerrancy of Sacred Scripture are inseperable.

Edited October 31, 2008 by kafka

[mortify]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1689545' date='Oct 30 2008, 09:27 PM']You are missing the Indian Jones clause. Both of these quotes make it clear the bible is inerrant about the truth of salvation. No one is contesting that. There is a big difference between the truth, and the facts. Facts we learn in history and science class.[/quote]

You have to understand the "two Genesis accounts" are inspired and exist exactly the way God wanted them to appear in scripture. It's not like He permitted error to enter sacred scripture. The error is in how we interpret them. Saying God literally created the world in six 24-hour blocks contradicts what contemporary science understands of world, but it doesn't contradict scripture because scripture doesn't say "six 24-hour blocks" nor does it necessarily imply that. That is an [b]interpretation outside of scripture[/b], and such an interpretation can be said to be in error, but never can we say Scripture is in error.

Just trying to clarify, I know my own unfortunate limitations in explaining things.


God bless,
Mort

[mortify]

Last clarification for the night, I promise!

Seems to me like there needs to be a distinction between Scripture and interpretation. Error in interpretation doesn't mean there is an error in Scripture.

Edited October 31, 2008 by mortify

[kafka]

[quote name='mortify' post='1689622' date='Oct 30 2008, 11:28 PM']Last clarification for the night, I promise!

Seems to me like there needs to be a distinction between Scripture and interpretation. Error in interpretation doesn't mean there is an error in Scripture.[/quote]
Exactly, if one's interpretation disagrees with that which Scripture is asserting then that person's interpretation is null and void.

If a theologian or biblical scholar, based on his research of history, archaeology, etc. comes to an interpretation or conclusion which contradicts that which God, any given verse of Scripture, is asserting; it is the theologian/scholar who is error and his interpretation is null and void.

One disagrees with a given verse of the Bible,
all the verses of Sacred Scripture are inspired by God;
therefore, it is the limited mind of the reader who has failed to grasp that truth which God is asserting.