It’s an absolutely fundamental question for any Christian. And surprisingly, when I’ve asked most people this question they rarely have an answer. And when they do have an answer, it is rarely sufficiently reasonable.
I think this is largely because it is something most all Christians take for granted. It’s a part of the Christian tradition. And even though we disagree on a lot of things within the denominational spectrum of divided Christianity, we assume we can all agree on the Bible. But that is far from true.
For many the Bible is the basis for their entire belief. They go by the “bible alone.” Their entire faith is based on the “bible alone” they say…well, except for the whole part that explains why they believe in the Bible in the first place!
Let’s be clear. Nowhere in the Bible does it define what the Bible is. Nowhere does it list the books that are supposed to be in this so called Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it clearly tell us how to use the Bible. And it certainly doesn’t say anywhere in it that it is the sole rule of our faith (as some Christian denominations believe).
Christians can argue all day long about what the Bible says about this or that. They point to it and say things like, “well you should do it because it’s in the Bible!” But when you ask them why that matters? Why should I believe what the Bible says? Why can I trust it? They rarely have a good answer – at least not a reasonable one. It’s usually something like “because it’s true!” Or “I’ve read it and the Holy Spirit told me so.” Or “I just get a good, warm feeling when I read it.” But these answers are inadequate.
When you ask them “How do you know the Bible is the Word of God?” – a question that their entire faith rests on – they rarely have an answer.
1) As Christians, we’ve got to do better than that.
2) How can we possibly understand how to interpret the Bible if we don’t know where it comes from? How can we be sure we are understanding it properly if we are not using it in the manner it was created to be used? And how do we know what that manner is when it’s not explained in the Bible itself?
I posted this question on my Facebook and Twitter status today to see what people thought. I got some very thoughtful answers. I got some very confusing answers. And I got some very honest answers like…”I’m not sure! I just do! But good question!”
Before we further address this question, we need to be clear about what we mean by “believing in the Bible.” Many of the answers I got were great, logical reasons to believe that what the Bible teaches historically (where it is intending to teach historically) is true. In other words, “believing in the Bible” means believing it is true. That’s fair enough. And there are lots of logical reasons that tell us the Bible is recounting historical fact. And we can use that as evidence in figuring out what we believe.
But Christians don’t just believe the Bible is “true.” We believe it is the “Inspired” Word of God Himself. Not that it is “inspiring” – but that it is actually written by God Himself using human authors as instruments – The Word of God. This is quite a different thing. And quite a jump.
Just because I write something that is true, just makes it true. It doesn’t mean God wrote it Himself through me. So historical and modern evidence that the Bible is actually true and hasn’t been proven wrong is no basis for the Christian belief in an Inspired Bible.
Additionally, some make the case that it is prophetic. But again, just because something or somebody is prophetic and predicted the future does not mean it is The Word of God necessarily.
At this point many throw their hands in the air and say, “I just believe it on faith.” But this is a cop-out. So you base your faith on the Bible? But then the reason you base your faith on the Bible is…more faith? Did you just come up with this idea of an Inspired Bible out of thin air then? It just doesn’t hold up.
So how do we know? Is there any basis for the claim that the Bible is actually the Word of God? The answer is in its origin.
So how did we get this Bible? Where did it come from? Did Jesus just drop it out of the sky during His ascension? Of course not. So where did it come from?
The Bible is a collection of a bunch of writings that were written over thousands of years in different contexts, for different purposes, to different people, in different languages, across different cultures. And some how they all ended up together in one book. Kind of daunting thinking that we can just pull quotes out of context and formulate a coherent unified faith, huh? Makes it easy to see why so many denominations who claim to go by the Bible can all disagree on so many different things!
It’s also easy to see that these writings were not written as an all inclusive “manual” to live by. In fact, nowhere does the Bible claim to be such. So let’s undo some of these previous assumptions many have made and back it up even further.
We’ve established that Jesus did not define and put together the Bible. In fact, the entirety of the New Testament was not even finished being written until at least 50-60 years after Jesus died (so the first Christians were not “bible-only” Christians). So what did they have? What did Jesus found?
He founded a Church. And it is the Church that is the “pillar and bulwark” of the Truth (1 Tim 3:15). And we can know this with certainty by studying the validity of these historical texts (biblical and otherwise) and from what we know of human nature through our natural reason. Through reason we can logically come to know that Jesus existed, that he must have rose from the dead, and is therefore what he himself claimed to be – God. Through reason we can also come to know that God Himself established a Church and gave Peter (the first Pope) the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and loose(Matthew 16:19) and gave its leaders the power to forgive sins(John 20:22-23) and to teach in His name.
With further reading of historical texts (biblical and otherwise from the early Christians) we can verify that this Church Jesus started is indeed the Catholic Church – i.e they believed in a priesthood, sacraments, Eucharist, papacy, hierarchy, teaching authority, Apostolic succession, etc. (I wrote more here on that)
It is also undisputed, historical fact that the Catholic Church set and confirmed the New Testament Canon throughout history and definitively at the end of the 4th century. They are the ones who decided which early Christian writings were “Inspired” and therefore included in the canon of the Bible and which writings were not (indeed there were many that were not).
Again, there were lots of writings out there that may have been “true.” But they didn’t make it into the Canon just for being true…they were instead left out because the Church determined them to not be “Inspired.” It was the leaders of the Catholic Church that decided all of this. They are the ones who discerned which writings truly were “The Word of God.”
So the authority of the Biblical canon – and therefore, indirectly, the Bible itself – rests on the authority of the Catholic Church. Either the Catholic Church had the authority and capacity to do this or they didn’t. We can see through history and reason that they did have this authority. Therefore, I believe the Bible is the Inspired Word of God.
So the only rational reason we can believe that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God is essentially because the Catholic Church has revealed that to us by their authority and charism given to it by Christ. And if we trust the Catholic Church to determine its canon, perhaps we should also trust it to interpret it for us. After all, that’s why God gave us a Church with the authority to do such things.
“I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church” – St. Augustine
Here’s some further reading concerning this topic if you’d like. It’s a good write up – still summarized but slightly more in depth. Thanks for everyone’s feedback and thoughts today!
Please subscribe to the Blogma by: Email | RSS | Facebook | Twitter. It's fun!
Related Posts
- Why do Catholics believe in things not in the Bible?
- Not Just Another Denomination: Part 1 of 2
- The Battle of Religious Freedom and Government Kingdom
- Saints – not Celebrities
Loading ...
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 35 comments… read them below or add one }
I believe the bible because it is so beautifully written. It has so much waiting to be analysed and so many enigmas to be solved. I’m certainly willing to see more than one purpose beside ever extract. And see it is all to our good.
Because its beutifully written?? You must be joking! Shakespeare wrote beutifully, but “Twelfth Night” or “Romeo and Juliet” are not canon! Well put Matthew! If we accept the Bible as inspired, we must also accept the authority of the Catholic Church. If we reject the authority of the Church, we must also reject the Holy Scriptures.
Here’s something to chew on: It’s true that Jesus quoted scripture a lot, but that can easily be passed down in story telling (not to mention that he’s the Son of God and knew it anyway). This, and the fact that one of my priests always says, “Jesus didn’t write a book,” leads me to think…
I wonder if Jesus knew how to read?
“I wonder if Jesus knew how to read?”
Huh??
You mean God:The Creator of the entire Universe,Almighty One,First and Last,Eternal Wisdom,Chosen Cornerstone,Breath of the Almighty,One Who Lives Forever,Good Teacher,Savior of all people,I Am Who Am,Author of life,Master of the Apostles,
Didn’t know how to read?Gee-I never thought of that.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,and the Word was God.He was with God in the beginning.All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.”
God is omnipotent-that He is all-powerful; nothing is beyond His capability; no power stronger; superior in every way.
God is omniscient-that He is all-knowing; nothing is outside or beyond His knowledge; no mind smarter; perfect in knowledge.
Jesus read from the scroll in the synagogue, when he said the prophecy about him being the son of God was being fulfilled in their hearing
Many Protestants have faith that they took that authority with them when they broke away. Ultimately, we all take a leap of faith. If you can prove any of your beliefs, you’ve moved out of the realm of faith.
My faith starts at square one in the Catholic Church with the teaching that I am responsible for my moral choices. My faith starts with the teaching of Christ: loving God with everything I’ve got and loving my neighbor as myself are more important than anything else.
Around the world, in every religion, we believe in the same God, a God who is impossible for us to capture with words. We do our best with the symbols we are given.
Mairi McIntyre, I am very curious what it is that makes the bible so beautifully written?
Is it is the phrasing, the stories, the multi-colored texts?
i think we should believe in it not just because we were told to, but we have to give some credict to a book that’s been there for so long time inspiring so many people to do good!I was raised to be just catholic…but i like to explore other religions that helps a being to find the truth!it’s own truth.I think God is in all of us.I believe that we, and all living things were made by the essence of God.So He lives inside each human being!that’s not exactly what the bible says but…it’s my interpretation!
“The Bible is a great literary achievement!It is considered the greatest piece of literature ever written.It contains virtually ever type of literary style:drama,historical narritive,instruction,even poetry.The plots,characters and settings are timeless.The quality of writing is unparalled!”
As an outsider these are the types of questions I’m struggling with. This is a great post and has given me some food for thought. Thanks!
Good question! It is very good for us to consider the “why’s” behind our faith. The bible compels us to “study to show ourself approved, correctly analyizing the Word of truth” 2 Tim 2:15 amplified bible
How can we accomplish this if we allow others to interpret it for us and never read it ourselves and ask the Holy Spirit (who is the One who teaches EVERY person the truth of the bible, John 14:26) to give us understanding.
Jesus has granted every person access to the Most Holy Place, once only reserved for the high priest, and that only once per year. Heb 10:19
The writers of the bible were “inspired” by God, meaning He told them what to write. The same is true for the compilers of the books to be included- God told them what to include.
To imply that one demomination or one minister holds the truth is the very thing that has caused us to lose the majesty of God- we are glorifying man and not God, who is the One who gives us everything we have. 1 Cor 4:7
It is sickening to God and destroys one of the main reasons Jesus died, which was so that every person could have direct access and a personal, intimate relationship with God.
Tim – nobody is saying anyone should “never read” the Bible themselves. That misses the point. Of course we should read it ourselves! And the Catholic Church absolutely encourages this. The question is why believe that IT has any authority in the first place?
And then the next question that you hit on is why do YOU have authority to have a say on its interpretation?
I didn’t “imply” that one denomination holds the Truth. I am very clearly saying that The Catholic Church holds the fullness of Truth and has the authority to teach in Jesus’ name.
You are implying that each person has the authority to interpret the Bible for themselves because the “Holy Spirit teaches every person the truth of the Bible.”
Essentially you are saying that each person is their own Pope of their own individual Church.
I would challenge you though that your “interpretation” of all this is neither historical, scriptural, nor experiential.
Nowhere in scripture do we read Jesus telling us that when we can’t agree on something that we should each read scripture for ourselves and let the Holy Spirit tell us each individually what to believe.
Nowhere in history do we see your belief(until the protesting in the 1500s). Your thoughts would have been a very foreign idea to the apostles, the first Christians and every Christian up until the 1500s. You won’t find ANY Christians speaking in those terms until 1,500 years after Christ’s resurrection.
And it is quite obviously not experiential. [...contd]
Look at the division within the Church SINCE your protestant idea of us each individually interpreting the Bible by our own authority outside of the Church took root in the 1500s. We have tens of thousands of “denominations” who ALL disagree on some matter of faith or moral. And almost ALL of them claim to be led by the Holy Spirit. How can that be? It can’t. The Holy Spirit does not contradict itself.
Do you truly think God would give us a Church and give us no practical way to figure out what it teaches?
ON THE OTHER HAND – what I’m claiming is indeed experiential, historical, and scriptural.
In scripture Jesus founded a Church, led by his apostles, and gave them the authority to “teach in his name.” He also gave them (MEN) the power to forgive AND retain sins(John 20:21–23). He gave Peter the “Keys to the kingdom” and the power to bind and to loose in Heaven(Matt. 16:18-19). When there were disputes they took matters “to the Church” (Mat 18:17). Which meant they took it to the Apostles(MEN) and their successors(Bishops).
An honest look at history shows that this was the Catholic Church of today. And a reading of history and the early Christians shows a continuation of this recognition of the authority of this Church. History shows that the apostles passed on their authority and responsibility in leading the Church. An authority given by Jesus.
Finally, it’s experiential. The Catholic Church is the largest, unified Church in the entire world by a mile.
Further, as I already noted in the post…it is THIS Church that set the canon of the Bible. It is ONLY because they have this authority in the first place that we can logically believe the Bible to be inspired by God.
Why is it that you arbitrarily believe the Holy Spirit guided them in setting your canon of Scripture and defining the Bible but you DON’T believe the Holy Spirit guided them in their interpretation of it? Even their interpretation of it at that very moment?! (Which was explicitly the teachings of today’s Catholic Church by the way).
I wrote another post on a similar topic if you’re interested. Would love to know what you think if you read both parts of it: http://www.fallibleblogma.com/index.php/2008/08/16/not-just-another-denomination-part-1-of-2/
God bless ya and thank you for your comments!
Matthew, this was not meant to be a poke at anyone in particular or you personally, but this I see as a state of the church as a whole. I devoutly believe in the church gathering. I believe I should sit under teachers to glean the revelation given to them by God. And I am FAR from touting myself as having the full revelation of God. Things I believed 10 years ago have changed as God reveals.
The bible says “we see through a glass dimly” in 1 Cor 13. Paul there says “I (us as well) know in part” until perfection comes. This was not a reference to his day because he says that knowledge will be one of the things that will pass away when perfection comes. No one man knows the full revelation of the scriptures or of God, if that were the case then what reason is there for God?
You quoted in John 20 that man can forgive sins. All I can say about that scripture is every commentator I read attributes that to the gospel being preached bringing salvation. When there is doubt, confirm by other scriptures. There is no other scripture in the bible that confirms your interpretation, anywhere!! Furthermore you do not see any instance anywhere in the bible where Peter or any other apostle forgave a man his sins. If this were given to them would it not have been used?
We can disagree over many issues and not lose our salvation, but this is a deal breaker! If you attribute to man the qualities of God then you reject the God of the bible.
I will try to read your other post soon. God bless.
Tim, you build no basis for why you even believe in the Bible in the first place…much less why I should believe your fallible interpretation of it.
Didn’t say one man knew everything about God. Attribute to man the qualities of God? Fully understanding God’s revelation means there is no need for God? You’re losing me.
Are you saying that if God decided to work through man in a mysterious way to forgive sins that He couldn’t do it? Certainly you are not limiting God?
I’m not trying to get sidetracked on other issues – would be happy to discuss another time. The point here is that God created a Church and gave it authority. I encourage you to read the early Christians and see what they believed and did.
The problem is that you are reading the wrong commentators. Whatever happened to reading it for yourself and letting the Holy Spirit tell you the truth? Why the need for a commentator when you have the holy spirit?
On the one hand if some random commentator that you probably never met tells you a scripture passage means one thing…then you believe it. But if the Church that Jesus founded, the same Church that you trust to define the Bible (the very thing you base your entire faith on), suggests an interpretation of it you reject it?
Sounds a little bit inconsistent don’t you think?
And in all of this explaining away you’re doing of things I never claimed, you still can’t give me a solid reason for why you believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God?
Why I believe:
1) The Holy Spirit bears witness to me the bible is true.
2) Many of the prophecies within the bible have been proven to be true while not one has been proven false, although atheists have tried desperately.
3) The knowledge of the writers about things that could not have been known in their day without God’s leading , such as a round earth, microscopic bacteria, earth revolving around the sun, etc
4) With dozens of writers spread over a few thousand years, different cultures, different education- the entirety of the bible is in perfect harmony without one single contradiction.
This is strong evidence.
Of course man can interpret scripture as God reveals it, we are not in disagreement over this. The point is man cannot interpret scripture infallibly. You attribute this to man as well as the ability to forgive sins. This is the attributes of God I mentioned.
The commentaries were only one factor I mentioned. Pharisees said “only God can forgive sins” and Jesus did not correct them, but proved He was able as God. Peter never forgave sins. Peter waffled back and forth with eating with gentiles (which was after the gospels), which proves his infallibility to interpret scripture. In Acts 8:22 Peter says “pray to the Lord, perhaps He will forgive you”. Never does he accept the ability to forgive sins himself.
Speaking of God together should be a great joy. Let not our comments become personal and sarcastic or us become offended. And may we recognize that we are always learning and growing and that everything we know should be open for debate because things we held fast to in the past have given way to today as God has given us more wisdom. Should we not reason that this will continue to happen as we grow forward?
Tim – thanks for your continued discussion. And I do enjoy the conversation. I pray that it brings us both closer to Christ as we do so and learn from each other.
But all of those reasons you give for believing in the bible only point to the Bible being TRUE. They do not give a reason to believe that the Bible is literally the Inspired, Word of God. And, as I noted in the post above, these are two VERY different things.
Second, you debate with the premise that everything we need to know as Christians is explicitly written in the Bible. Where does it say that in the Bible? The answer is no where.
Third, none of the teachings of the Church (while YOU may not be able to find every one of them explicitly written in there) contradict scripture.
Fourth, you are incorrect in your final statement. No dogma of the Catholic Church has EVER “given way to today”. We learn and we grow, yes. But it’s never been contradicted and changed. Truth can not contradict truth. If what Christ’s church taught at the beginning was true (which it was) then it is still true today. And if you look at early Christianity you will see the Catholic Church (i.e. you will see confession through men, Eucharist, etc.).
By your logic, u are saying u are open 2 the Bible itself changing? So we could add new books 2 the bible? Or take away old ones? Right? I mean, if “everything we know should be open to debate”? You have no way of determining that because you’ve rejected the authority God gave his church.
Tim – let’s start with one issue that has come up here. Please approach this with an open mind and hopefully it will help you see where I’m coming from.
Forgiveness of Sins and Confession. It seems you’ve repeatedly shown a misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church actually teaches on it.
Here is a great link (down below) explaining it and I’d love to know what you think. Try approaching it this way: When God started his Church and the apostles all went out started spreading the good news, what did they do?
Yes, we have some of this recorded in the Bible. But many others recorded history as well. Even from scripture we see that the apostles appointed Bishops and told them to hold fast to the traditions taught by them (by word of mouth and by letter)[2 Thes 2:15].
We have historical record of what these people did. I would encourage you to read that record.
What you find is that they believed in what the Catholic Church teaches (that’s, afterall, why the Catholic Church has taught it for 2000 years). If you believe that the early Christians did not believe what the Catholic Church teaches…you would need to point to a spot in history where it changed? But no such point exists. History is very consistent on the matter.
Further, there is no evidence of protest from any Christian communities that would have surely occurred had the Church suddenly changed and said “now we’re going to allow God to forgive sins through bishops/priests.” Nothing.
I invite you to read this link on The Forgiveness of Sins: http://catholic.com/library/Forgiveness_of_Sins.asp
And here are a lot of quotes from the earliest Christian leaders regarding confession: http://catholic.com/library/Confession.asp
Keep in mind confession was normally done “publicly” in front of the Bishop AND the congregation, rather than privately just to the Bishop/priest. But that’s simply a change in practice, not teaching.
I hope you find it interesting. If anything, it will give you some more things to incorporate into your current denomination, if you haven’t already, since you are aiming to model yourselves after the early Church. I commend you for doing so, by the way. It shows a great deal more thoughtfulness than most Christians these days. God bless you!
Tim,
You seem to have a clear understanding of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. The Church teaches that each of us is ultimately responsible for moral discernment. The Church teaches authentically but only very rarely infallibly. (Matt disagrees on this, but I’m going with what priests and theologians say.)
And the Church does evolve, as it should since we are here to learn and grow spiritually. Creation is never stagnant but continues to enrich and be enriched. One of many examples of teachings changing in the Church: Priests routinely married and had children during the first thousand years of the church. But then the teaching changed.
What does God do all day?
“From all eternity God lies on a maternity bed giving birth. The essence of God is birthing. We are all meant to be mothers of God. ” ~ Meister Eckhart
Tim, unfortunately, we have an entire generation of Catholics that have been VERY poorly catechized to the point that they confuse something as fundamental to Catholic understanding as the difference between a discipline or practice (like married vs. celibate priests) with actual dogma and doctrine of the Church.
And if one can’t get that straight, then I don’t see any way they can have a sound understanding of the universal magisterium of the Church, authentic teachings, infallible teachings, etc.
Tim, I’m sorry for so many Catholics that don’t know their faith. It’s hard to place any blame at all on non-Catholics for not knowing what the Church teaches when so many Catholics are out there misinforming you of what the Church teaches. And I have no doubt that Catholics like Kimi are most often very sincere. They are just really missing the boat.
So many Catholics lean on such statements like “ultimately it is each individual’s responsibility for moral discernment.” Well of course it is. But there is a premise to that teaching that has been left out for decades. Yes, we must follow our own conscience. But the prerequisite for that is that we have formed our conscience PROPERLY. And a properly formed conscience is not a relative, subjective thing. It means we’ve formed our conscience in accordance with the objective Truths revealed in our Catholic faith through the Church.
Tim – one of the awesome things about the Catholic Church is that we can have that assurance of truth. That’s why Christ gave it to us. He didn’t just leave us with a bunch of riddles, worries, and uncertainties that “everything should always be open for debate.” That’s no way to live as a Christian. Christ gave us objective truths and left us a Church to guide, protect, and apply those for us so that we COULD know our faith (and therefore Him) with some kind of certainty.
In fact, we can know God to a degree with certainty from reason alone. God made us to reason and discover real, objective truths. But he also gave us divine revelation through the apostles, handed down and protected by His Church. He didn’t leave us here to endlessly debate questions without any way to come to a conclusion with certainty. He said to take it to the Church (Mat 18:17).
I invite you to explore with an open mind just even the possibility that the Catholic Church is that Church. If you want to learn what the Church TRULY teaches on something, read the Catholic catechism. I think you would be surprised at what it says.
Also, http://www.Catholic.com is a great resource for particular questions you may have. Just go to their “Library.”
Someone asked me the other day why I believe the Bible is real. I think that the biggest proof of the Bible and of Jesus being true and real – is how He (Jesus) and it (the word of God) has completely changed my personal life.
Other than that, the Jewish people are a pretty big indication that the Bible is true. Look at all the prophecies that have come true already, and the ones that are still coming true!
As far as I know, EVERYTHING that the Bible has prophesied about Jesus and about the Jews and about the state of the world has already happened, is happening – or hasn’t happened yet (we’ll see if it does) but so far, the Bible has a pretty good track record =>
Kirei, Thanks for the thoughts. I think those are good points. However, they don’t fully get us there.
First, as noted in the post, there is a big difference between something being “true and real” and something being the “Inspired, Word of God Himself.”
Second, just because parts of this compilation of books may seem to be “true and real” how can you be sure that the other books and writings that have been historically included in the canon of the Bible are also true? Just because one paragraph prophecies something that comes to pass does not mean that the next paragraph (much less some other book of the Bible) can be trusted when it says that God became a man and died for your sins.
I don’t see how that kind of reasoning suffices for accepting the totality of scripture (or any bit of it actually) as the Inspired, Word of God. The only way is if you have something with authority (either God or something with God-given authority) reveal this Truth to us. And that’s exactly what the Catholic Church does.
I should reword what I said to be more concise. I believe there are certain aspects of the faith that are established and will never be open for debate- virgin birth, sinless life of Christ, resurrection, etc. My understanding of how God chooses to operate in my life though and the revelation of scripture that the Holy Spirit suddenly reveals to me after having read it a number of times- this is what I mean by open to debate. I am continually learning more about Him and how He operates. Outside of the above mentioned items I recognize that my knowledge is a dim shadow of His greatness, which is what makes Jesus so fascinating.
As far as establishing the authority of the bible how do you know the Catholic church was the one who decided what books would be included in the bible? Why do you think Peter was the first pope? You accept these things because of something that was written in a book and passed down. This seems to me to be circular reasoning.
You are choosing to validate the authority of the bible by using another writing. What validates that historical account that it is true thereby validating the authority of the bible. This begins an endless cycle of rationalization.
I understand your point about proving one scripture does not prove the next and I think that is a very insightful thought, but I believe your initial argument cannot be used. This is why I say the best evidence is the witness of the Holy Spirit and the enduring truthfulness of the scriptures.
I am confused. You mean there was a Catholic church and Pope in the 4th Century and College of Cardinals, etc
My Name – yes, there was a Catholic Church and a Pope. I don’t think the “college of cardinals” came in until a later date – at least by that name. But that’s more of a difference in administrative process for electing a pope…which has varied throughout history. But the apostle Peter was the first pope. And the Catholic Church traces its founding to Jesus…who founded One Church. The Catholic Church is that one Church. If you want to read more on why I believe that, check out some of my other posts. This might be one of interest. Thanks for reading! God bless you!
the reader of the bible must have certain religious convictions before having a meaningful encunter with the bible ?!!
1. History tells me that the Bible is credible. Events in the Bible are documented in other contemporary sources.
2. The biblical story, from Genesis to Revelation, is remarkably consistent for a set of documents written over the space of almost a thousand years.
3. I’ve never seen a believable refutation of the Bible as a historical document. I have seen some sorry attempts to refute it, but none that were persuasive.
People have no difficulty believing that the Iliad (for example) is a historically-based account of bronze-age warfare, in spite of the absence of historical corroboration. (We can deal with the gods and godesses separately — that’s actually pretty easy to do.) People have no difficulty believing the accounts of Thucydides, or Julius Caesar, or any of dozens of other ancient documents, however thin or nonexistent the contemporary corroboration.
The Bible — all of the books of it individually and all of them collectively — is a unique document. There is nothing like it in any of history, even taken apart from the God who is the central figure and who inspired it. That alone makes it something you can believe in. And if you believe the story, you will believe in God. If you read the story the right way, illuminated by tradition and authentic teaching, you will be Catholic. Period. We are hearing more and more conversion stories, of atheists, agnostics, pagans, and non-Catholic believers who read the book and did not harden their hearts.
The only reason skeptics question it is because the Bible deals with God and his people and the plan God has for our salvation. Some of them, perhaps, simply don’t believe that God could do what God does (which is a pretty shallow way of denying His existence). And if those skeptics were willing to use reason they would no longer be skeptics.
“So the only rational reason we can believe that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God is essentially because the Catholic Church has revealed that to us by their authority and charism given to it by Christ.”
I work at an Episcopal church. I attend a bible study for the staff (consisting of some episcopalians, baptists, and two Catholics) every Wednesday. It is led by one member of the clergy at the church. He repeatedly states that they can all thank [my] the Catholic Church for giving us the Bible and preserving it for us. I always wonder how he can believe that, teach that AND still believe in the episcopal church because, just as you went on to say, “if we trust the Catholic Church to determine its canon, perhaps we should also trust it to interpret it for us.” Makes perfect sense to me.
BTW, I pray for his conversion every day. Perhaps you can add him to your prayer list, too?
Well, I’m kind of floored by all the responses. I grew up Catholic and was born-again by the age of 18. My family is all Catholic and I am the only Evangelical-Protestant Christian in my family. I’ve attended Bible college and am in awe by the difference I see the Catholics on these posts and the ones in Miami. I can only praise God for such a theological discussion.
I believe the answer to the question at hand does require faith as well as strong irrefutable facts. Any form of knowledge requires, as stated by Descartes; true justified belief, and of course Aristotle’s first principals. Meaning, to have a philosophical view, which this is, our first statements or principals have to be true.
The Old Testament(Covenant) was written and compiled by the Jews. Some were kings, some were farmers, cup bearers and so on. Yet, even though they were written hundred years apart by different men in different regions, all attributed to God the qualities we know of God now. All said the same thing about God.
Jesus was a fulfillment of over 333 prophecies an mathematically impossible anyone to accomplish. For those who had an ear, they heard, and those who eyes, they saw.
By the time the letters(epistles and gospels) were in circulation we had first hand witnesses and thier disciples. If any of these doctrines or gospels were incorrect, they were plenty of folks to say so.
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:8-10 (NKJV)
14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:
“How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”
Romans 10:14-15 (NKJV)
You guys are awesome. God bless.
Here are two great resources for dealing with the original question Matt posted over a year ago. These are good basic Bible references, useful to any Christian who is challenged to defend the truth of the Bible. However, be aware that discussions about the inerrancy of the Bible are not simple, there are few if any “one-liners”, and if you are discussing matters with a non-believer, you can’t start by assuming the inerrancy of the Bible. In other words, it can be a tough row to hoe, as my dad used to say. It is actually quicker and simpler (not easier) to demonstrate that God exists.
Anyway, the books:
Free From All Error: Authorship, inerrancy, historicity of scripture, church teaching, and modern scripture scholars. Fr. William G. Most. 2009. Marytown Press.
Handbook of Catholic Apologetics: Reasoned answers to questions of faith. Peter J. Kreeft and Fr. Ronald K. Tacelli. 2009. Ignatius Press. I recommend Chapter 9, “The Bible: Myth or History?” for the purposes of this kind of discussion.
Benny, stick around. You’ll learn a lot from Matt. He (and others here) can draw on 2000 years of experience in defending what we believe in. In my 64 years, I have never heard a question that somebody hadn’t already asked in 2000 years, and there are powerful answers to all of those questions, thanks to the Holy Spirit giving Catholics insights, wisdom, and words over the centuries to deal with objections, errors, hate, and ignorance.
I think bethanne is on to the heart of it. The revelation of Jesus comes to us through the apostles and is preserved by their successors. The New Testament is the clearest example of guarantee the Holy Spirit gives the Magisterium to preserve the truth of Jesus Christ so that future generations can know Him and love Him.
None of this comes to us outside of the authority and power given to the apostles by Jesus himself, which they in turn handed on. The authority of the Church guarantees the Bible is true, and that’s why the Church also has the authority to interpret it for current events. God did not leave us orphans and he did not leave us without a way of interpreting the signs of the times and knowing truth for our situation and time.