Tract By Polar_bear

[phatcatholic]

[b]Biblical Inerrancy[/b]

From the beginning, the Church has believed and taught that the Sacred Scriptures are the inspired Word of God. As such, they are completely and in all their parts, without error. As Pope Leo XIII stated in Providentissimus Deus:

[quote]so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects is as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.[/quote]

Pope Leo XIII, as well as Popes Benedict XV and Pius XI, have completely rejected the efforts of modern scholars to limit the inspiration of Holy Scripture to only matters of faith and morals or to only certain parts. Given that these Popes also encouraged systematic, scholarly study (including historical critical methods), it can hardly be said that the consistent approval of the current Magisterium for these methods indicates any denial of the inerrancy of Scripture as laid out by these Pontiffs.

In order to understand what the Church teaches regarding the inerrancy of Scripture, we must first understand what the Church teaches about Divine Revelation in general as well as the nature of Sacred Scripture.

In the Church’s study of divine revelation, the focus is not so much on what so much as who is revealed. In divine revelation, God reveals himself to man. The words of revelation give voice to the deeds of God in the world. The deeds in turn give proof to the words. Both the words and the deeds of divine revelation show forth the person, will, and mission of God himself. The purpose is not just to give a history or a set of rules by which to govern one’s life, but to give men knowledge of God beyond the reach of human wisdom and draw them into the divine life. God’s revelation is a self-donation of himself to man; as such it calls for a reciprocal response from man.

Because divine revelation is God coming down to meet man, it is necessarily incarnational. In order to meet man where he is, God must, in a way, limit his infinity so as to be comprehensible to man. God must reveal himself slowly and in a manner that allows man to grasp, if only partially, what is being revealed. Jesus, the Living Word of God, became man so as to communicate himself to us, bring us salvation, and offer us a share in the divine life. In the same way, in Scripture is the written Word of God communicated in human language so as to allow God to reveal himself to his people, carry on his plan of salvation, and draw his people into his divine life. Therefore, while truly coming from God divine revelation, including Scripture, has a very real human character.

Understanding the Catholic view of Scripture necessitates understanding the dual authorship of Scripture. A true understanding of the meaning of Scripture is based first on a proper understanding of the nature of Scripture. Scripture is more transcendent than a merely human work, literary or historical. It is also more incarnational than divine dictation. Because both God and man are true authors, it is inherently both human and divine. Neither aspect can be legitimately disregarded when interpreting a passage of Scripture.

God has always been understood to be the true author of all Scripture. Scripture is the Word of God in human language, not the word of man with divine influence. God was intimately involved in every aspect of the production of the text. This, however, does not mean that the human authors are inconsequential in the outcome of the text; they are also true authors. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of Sacred Scripture. This inspiration is understood as a divine influence, not divine possession or divine dictation. They wrote all that God wanted to be expressed and nothing he didn’t, but the manner in which God’s message was expressed was significantly affected by the culture, history, language, and worldview of the human authors.

In the discovering the literal sense, what we are doing in discovering the intent of the human sacred author. We are trying to figure out what the sacred author intended to express. It is this that is inerrant. For example, if the sacred author is using a poetic or literary device, we need not interpret it literalistically, as many fundamentalists would. In addition, if the author is not trying to give a true history, such as with the mytho-poetic language of Genesis 1-11, one need not interpret is as history in the way we think of history (note: this does not mean that it is not true, it’s just that we need to interpret it as it was intended). Regarding scientific matters, Leo XIII stated:

[quote]we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Spirit "who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."  Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances were daily used at this day, even by the most eminent men of science.  Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the say way the sacred writers--as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us--"went by what sensibly appeared," or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to (citations omitted).[/quote]

Because the divine pedagogy involves words and deeds in history and is progressive, it is not only faith and morals that are “profitable unto salvation.” Because the sacred authors were consigned to “writing everything and only those things which [God] wanted” (Dei Verbum, 11) everything the sacred authors intended to express must be understood as profitable unto salvation.

For more information, read Leo XIII’s [i]Providentissimus Deus[/i], Benedict XV’s [i]Spiritus Paraclitus[/i], Pius XII’ [i]Divino Afflante Spiritus[/i], Vatican II’s [i]Dei Verbum[/i], and the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s [i]Interpretation of the Bible in the Church[/i].


[i][b]written by pOlar_bear[/b][/i]

Edited August 25, 2004 by phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

[b]Biblical Inerrancy: The Longer Version[/b]

Catholic vs. Fundamentalist Views on Biblical Inerrancy

“The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord….For in the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven meets his children with great love and speaks with them” (DV §21). The Scriptures are God coming down to meet man in human language. The Bible tells a divine love story of God giving himself to man in love and patiently desiring man to respond in reciprocal love. The Church, therefore, earnestly seeks to properly understand it so as to draw deeply from its riches and respond rightly.

Because it gives knowledge that comes from God, Sacred Scripture is considered divine revelation. However, unlike many modern denominations, the Catholic Church has never held Scripture to be the sole source of this knowledge. From the beginning the Church has held that both Sacred Scripture and the Living Tradition of the Church emanate from God and constitute divine revelation. Seeing both as equally legitimate modes of revelation, the Church does not hold one above the other in discerning the will of God. Scripture is that divine revelation which is secured in writing. Tradition is that divine revelation flowing from the authority of the apostles and handed down to their successors. As part of this apostolic authority, the Church holds a unique position in relation to divine revelation; she stands as its authentic interpreter. Scripture and Tradition stand together as divine revelation, which is authentically interpreted by the Church. Therefore, to understand the Church’s teachings regarding Scripture, one must first look to her teaching regarding divine revelation as a whole.

In the Church’s study of divine revelation, the focus is not so much on what so much as who is revealed. In divine revelation, God reveals himself to man. The words of revelation give voice to the deeds of God in the world. The deeds in turn give proof to the words. Both the words and the deeds of divine revelation show forth the person, will, and mission of God himself. The purpose is not just to give a history or a set of rules by which to govern one’s life, but to give men knowledge of God beyond the reach of human wisdom and draw them into the divine life. God’s revelation is a self-donation of himself to man; as such it calls for a reciprocal response from man.

Because divine revelation is God coming down to meet man, it is necessarily incarnational. In order to meet man where he is, God must, in a way, limit his infinity so as to be comprehensible to man. God must reveal himself slowly and in a manner that allows man to grasp, if only partially, what is being revealed. Jesus, the Living Word of God, became man so as to communicate himself to us, bring us salvation, and offer us a share in the divine life. In the same way, in Scripture is the written Word of God communicated in human language so as to allow God to reveal himself to his people, carry on his plan of salvation, and draw his people into his divine life. Therefore, while truly coming from God divine revelation, including Scripture, has a very real human character.

God’s desire to communicate in a manner intelligible to men does not end in this incarnational aspect. Recognizing man’s need to learn and for growing understanding, God’s self-revelation is progressive and developmental. He did not reveal himself fully from the beginning, but built revelation upon revelation so that in due course he revealed the whole. The history of the Israel is a history of God bringing salvation to his people. Beginning with creation, he showed himself piece by piece, building on the knowledge that his people had already acquired by his previous works, until the culmination of revelation in Jesus Christ.

Given this understanding of divine revelation, one can now better understand the Church’s view of Sacred Scripture. Understanding revelation as a self-revelation of God which shows his desire for an intimate relationship with man allows the reader to approach Scripture with the proper disposition. Recognizing the developmental nature of revelation puts each part in its proper context. Understanding Scripture as a cooperation of human and divine is key to being able to fully and properly study it.

Scripture itself demonstrates the progressive and developmental nature of divine revelation. Scripture, particularly the Jewish Scriptures, passes on a history. It is not just a history of the Jewish people; it is a history of God acting in time to reveal himself and draw all men to himself. From the moment he cast Adam and Eve from the garden, God promised to bring man back into communion with him. He called first a man, then a people who he made nation, Israel. He later brought forth from this people his Son. Through his Son and his disciples, God was shown to be the God not of a particular people but of all men.

This development of God calling people to himself has an effect on how God reveals himself to each progressive group. Just as he did not reveal himself as the God of every people to Abraham, he did not reveal the fullness of his will to Moses in the law. God revealed himself slowly, in stages, foreshadowing in the history of the Jewish people what he would do for the whole world through Jesus Christ. Themes of prophesy and fulfillment, building and culmination, foreshadowing, and typology can be seen throughout the whole of Scripture. Understanding the Word of God in light of these themes requires a diachronic study of Scripture, that is, a study that takes into account the passage of time. This is not to say that synchronic readings are not useful or legitimate. Methods of study that take the text as a whole as it is now are legitimate because they show the unity within Scripture and enables the reader to view Scripture as a cohesive whole. Neither type of study alone can offer full understanding of what is being revealed; both methods must be employed.

The Church understands the incarnational character of Scripture, in part, in the dual authorship of the texts. God has always been understood to be the true author of all Scripture. This, however, does not mean that the human authors are inconsequential in the outcome of the text; they are also true authors. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of Sacred Scripture. This inspiration is understood as a divine influence, not divine possession or divine dictation. They wrote all that God wanted to be expressed and nothing he didn’t, but the manner in which God’s message was expressed was significantly affected by the culture, history, language, and worldview of the human authors.

Discussion on the nature of inspiration and the roles of God and man in the production of Scripture has gone on for centuries. The Church has never explicitly defined the dogmas on the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, though she has held both from the beginning. The Church has, however, spoken out against explanations she judges to be inadequate or in error. The Church maintains that both God and the human authors are true authors. Therefore, the authors were not mere scribes putting in writing the direct dictation of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, the text is not the result of human industry alone or given editorial approval by God. The Holy Spirit’s role in the production of the Scriptures was a positive and pervasive role. The human authors were not mere dictaphones, parroting the Word of God on paper, but rather true authors. Just as in Jesus, the Living Word, the divine and human natures do not contradict but rather complement each other, so too with the written Word of God. The human language and expression make intelligible the works and nature of God, and God gives his power, authority, and inerrancy to the words of men.

Given the human aspect of Scripture, it is right and indeed necessary to study the texts of Scripture in light of the human author. This means that use of historical, anthropological, sociological, literary, and linguistic methods of textual study are not only legitimate but also required to gain a full understanding of Scripture and the message contained therein. Understanding socio-cultural norms, common usage of language, literary techniques, and the historical development of the text give insight into the literal meaning of the text as intended by the human author and the divine.

The study of Scripture, however, cannot end with these methods, valuable though they are. The scientific study of Scripture must be coupled with faith in the living God who inspired the texts. There must be a recognition that these works are not merely the works of man, but truly the word of God transmitted through men and in human language. As the Word of God, Scripture contains mysteries beyond the reason of man and, therefore, must be read in faith and by the light of the Spirit who inspired it. The legitimate recognition of the human must not exclude or deny the divine. God must be affirmed as the true author of all Sacred Scripture.

Because Scripture does not stand as the lone Word of God, the sole source of divine revelation, there exists a standard by which to judge the interpretation of Scripture. St. Irenaeus submitted various interpretations to “the rule of faith.” That rule or standard exists more completely today in the living Tradition within the Church. The Magisterium of the Church is the authentic interpreter of divine revelation in both Scripture and Tradition. That does not mean that there is only one way to interpret any given passage of Scripture. As the divine Word of God, Scripture has meanings beyond the obvious or literal meaning. The literal meaning is vital and all other meanings flow from it; however, there are also deeper, spiritual and fuller meanings of Scripture. Understanding all the literal meaning as well as the others requires training and guidance (see Acts 8:28). The Church also recognizes the validity of a personal, meditative reading of Scripture (lectio divina). Neither does the authority to interpret Scripture mean that the Church dictates the sole meaning of every passage of the Bible. This authority is primarily exercised in the rejection of interpretations not in keeping with the message of Christ and of divine revelation as a whole.

The understanding of Sacred Scripture and of divine revelation worked out and held by the Church stands in opposition to many currents of thought popular in different circles today. One such current of thought is the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Named after a phrase coined at a conference held in the US in 1895, this approach to the Bible is characterized by a strict, literalistic reading of Scripture. This interpretation is based, in part, on “sola scriptura,” a belief that holds Scripture as the sole source of divine revelation and instruction. Fundamentalism also denies the legitimacy of Tradition and the Magisterium; interpretation therefore becomes individualistic. This approach also necessitates a synchronic reading of Scripture. These all show this interpretation as incompatible with the Catholic understanding of divine revelation.

Because fundamentalism maintains Scripture is the only method by which God can communicate to man, Scripture and a given interpretation of Scripture become absolute. Scripture, therefore, becomes divine to the exclusion of the human. If it is open to a variety of interpretations due to its incarnational nature, it cannot be absolute in the same manner as if it were dictated verbatim by God. Denying the necessarily incarnational nature of Scripture, fundamentalist interpretation follows a dictation theory of inspiration, making the human authors mere scribes. This theory also rules out a progressive view of divine revelation and, thereby, any diachronic reading of Scripture. As the sole Word of God dictated in human language, Scripture is seen by this interpretation as timeless to the extreme of not being even remotely related to time. Scripture must, thereby, be read solely as it is presented now to the person reading it. Furthermore, the literalistic reading that characterizes this approach puts the focus on the letter of the text rather than the meaning. Scripture, then, goes from being a revelation of God to man to being a rulebook. Finally, the denial of the legitimacy of the Magisterium leads to an individualistic reading not in keeping with the communal nature of revelation and the people of God.

In its synchronic reading, fundamentalism offers a Bible that provides answers to every problem, issue, and situation that exists today. It also presents a simplistic interpretation that can be attractive in the face of so many conflicting views. By advocating an individualistic interpretations, fundamentalism gives the power of full understanding to everyone. All of these aspects can be very attractive. However, because fundamentalism denies that which necessarily belongs to divine revelation, it must be rejected as a method of biblical interpretation.