All Comments for: Rome's Battle for the Bible | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > October (Web-only)

Christianity Today, October (Web-only), 2008 |

Theology in the News

Rome's Battle for the Bible

Synod of Bishops revisits inerrancy compromise reached at Vatican II.

Collin Hansen | posted 10/20/2008 09:08AM

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy doesn't belong only to those who cry "Sola Scriptura!" Inerrancy has emerged as a key issue in the Roman Catholic Church's Synod of Bishops, which started October 6. ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 32 comments.

Page: 1 2

Show All

destinycreature

Posted: October 30, 2008 8:55 AM

The Roman Catholic church is just on a plot to deceive people and draw them into their damnable heresies. The have not denounced many of their heresies including: 1.Apostolic Succession, 2. Temporal Power 3. Infallibility of the Pope 4. Co-Mediator status of Mary 5. Transubstantiation 6. Purgatory 7. Indulgences 8. Salvation by works 7. Veneration of Saints and Angels 8. The Assumption of Mary 9. Perpetual Virginity of Mary 10. The authority of the Mother Church 11. Authority of the Canon Law and Dogma and much more. Roman Catholicism was NEVER truly Christian from its roots. This means that they are not apostate but false. The Pope and his minions are just seeking to gain more power for themselves through any means possible. It is through their primary vehicle of Ecumenism that they are seeing to embrace all religions and created a man centered version of Christianity to damn the souls of men to the pits of hell for all eternity. Please don't be deceived by Roman Catholicism.

Charles C.

Posted: October 24, 2008 11:04 PM

As a "cradle Catholic" I was taught that the Roman Catholic Church bases the truth of its teaching on two foundations, Holy Scripture and Tradition. Since Vatican II, I have witnessed the erosion of this teaching by Modernist theologians and clergy in my Church who are engaged in the "self destruction" of Catholicism which was deplored by Pope Paul VI. (Ironically, it was this same pope who aided and abetted the self destruction.) More power to Christian scholars and leaders who are reasserting the belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. Many Catholics are fed up with the denial of the Revealed Word of God that we have endured in Sunday sermons, Catholic publications and in "Catholic" classrooms! (e.g., "Jesus didn't believe He is the Son of God"; "Jesus was the most surprised person in Jerusalem when He was resurrected"; "Jesus couldn't predict the future, despite what one reads in the Bible"; "the Bible teachings are incorrect" ).

Brian Mershon

Posted: October 24, 2008 7:41 AM

If you read the Latin original of the Vatican II documents, the English translation commonly used does not give a full account of the true meaning of the Church's understanding of inerrancy. The text can read as if it means that inerrancy is limited ONLY to matters of salvific value. Other better translations show that meaning to be a false understanding. Robert Sungenis, at www.catholicintl.com has covered this extensively for anyone who wants to read further. The Latin to English translation is corrupt.

Benn S

Posted: October 24, 2008 12:02 AM

Here is a question for the Catholic brothers and sisters, help me understand the sacrament of reconciliaiton. As I read the Bible God's reconciliation comes from Jesus' work on the cross. If this is agreeable, then why does the Catholic Church teach a need to say a number of prayers and do a good deed - If Jesus finished the work and paid the price for the sin why would extra be required once a heart felt confession was made to God with repentence of the sin all in Christ's name? I am missing something somewhere, so I hope for a sound explanation and where can I find a reference in the New Testament. Thanks.

Kenneth Macari

Posted: October 22, 2008 9:04 PM

I grew up 1950's--60's Philladelphia Roman Catholic. I enthusiastically supported the spirit of Vatican II through my Catholic high school days and into my time at St. Joseph's College. As a Theology major, I witnessed the profound compromise in many theology courses with the worst trends at that time: Marxism masked as Liberation Theology, Teilhard de Chardin, Matthew Fox and John Dominic Crossan. Those faculty members who were true Augustinians in perspective supported those of us learning from the classic Reformation masters as well as from Karl Barth and C. S. Lewis. United Presbyterian Church USA became my church destination and my eventual pastoral ordination. I commend Pope Benedict for his prophetic stand against the "junk food" of biblical distortion causing "food poisoning" throughout North American Christianity.

Frank

Posted: October 22, 2008 2:31 PM

Mr. Kresge from your study of the scriptures what conclusions do you drawn from passages such as "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and eat His blood, you have no life in you." Jn 6:53? The word used here in the Greek is trogo (transliterated) and is never used figuratively it always means to chew food. Or what about "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." James 2:24. Without the Catholic Church you would not even have your Bible. I suppose this is why Saint Peter, warned against private interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures, "which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction..." 2 Pt 3:16. What about those Christians who lived and died before the Canon was even determined. This after all was at least 400 years after the death of our Lord. It was another millenium before scriputures were widely distributed to the common man. "he who receives anyone who I send, receives Me." accept apparently Mr. Kresge who is his own authority.

Richard

Posted: October 22, 2008 12:10 PM

Denial by the seminaries of Christ's miracles leads to denial of these miracles from the pulpit. I've heard different priests deny, in their homilies, the multiplication of the loaves, the raising of Jarius' daughter, the healing of the woman with blood, and the walking on the water. I've heard others denigrate, without explicitly denying, the Resurrection and the divinity of Christ. Like everything else in the Church, once you open Pandora's box, it becomes difficult to control it. Therefore, we must return to the traditional view of inerrancy.

JP	Posted: October 22, 2008 10:29 AM

The premise of this article shows a serious historical ignorance of the actual debates during Vatican II. In short, the Catholic Church at Vatican II did not alter or massage its position on the complete inerrancy of scripture. The article is ignorant of the specific footnote from the document itself, which clarifies the ambiguity that exists in the alleged compromise. The footnote references other magiersterial teachings that support complete inerrancy. You see, Cardinal Koenig at Vatican II argued that there was factual error in scripture. This position was explicitly rejected. William Most in his book "Free From All Error" goes into this specific debate and explains both the debate and the document wrongly explained in this article. You can access this book and read a summary of the Council's debate and the explanation of its outcome at the below link -- scroll down to chapter 9 http://www.evangelizationstation.com/htm_html/Scripture/free_from_all_err or.htm

αγαπη

Posted: October 22, 2008 10:18 AM

For one to "obey it," they are necessarily interpreting it (usually with a 20st century, post-Enlightenment, western, Caucasian mindset). There's a lot of one kind of tradition there. However, the Bible is not only a Semitic text, but it is a Semitic text written NOT IN ENGLISH over thousands of years (it didn't just drop out of the sky from God's hand about 30 A.D.). We don't think the same way that Americans in 1776 were thinking, and neither do Jews in the First Century A.D. think the same way as Jews in the 6th Century B.C. were thinking. There is some theological speculation that must go into this text - note how the chronology doesn't seem to match in the first two Chapters of Genesis (are animals created before or after man...interesting question). What do you do with that and other contradictions like it without some recourse to Theology (and an assumption in the literalistic interpretation of the Bible)?

James

Posted: October 22, 2008 8:46 AM


Isn't it time to stop attacking "Truth"? You only degrade yourself.

ryan	Posted: October 22, 2008 8:01 AM

I am surprised at the interest in the Synod taking place in Rome. For Bob the Deutero-Canonicals (Apocrypha) are of of a part of the Canon. The issue of canonicity belongs soley to Rome. Don't take my word for it try R C Sproul, "we have infallible scriptures with a fallible canon." The Septuagint was the scripture for the Lord and the Apostles. They read them, they quoted them, we have older copies than the Jewish texts, they were even included in the earliest Protestant Bibles. I would also urge my brothers and sisters in Christ to not judge Catholicism by its dissidents. Is Sacred Scripture "inerrant?" Absolutely. It is about Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ is the Truth. Sacred Scripture must be read in the context in which it was written. 'A text without a context is a pretext." The truth is not a something the Truth is a somebody and He possesses us not the other way around.

Anonymous

Posted: October 22, 2008 6:30 AM


BELIEVE THE SCRIPTURE AS THE WORD OF GOD. NOTHING IN IT IS NOT TRUE

A reader

Posted: October 21, 2008 10:46 PM


A good sign indeed.

Ralph Gaily

Posted: October 21, 2008 6:09 PM

ROMAN CATHOLIC LEADERS........listen...... you are hindering the approach of many souls to their Salvation in Jesus Christ. You twist God's Word, like the pharisees of old, to conform to the error of your own minds. Fear God regarding this. Salvation is granted by God to those who, like a child, trust in the finished Work of Jesus.....His death and resurrection, completed and accepted by the Father for the sins of the world. What more need be added but this! This is God's love......this is His Justice.....this is His doing. All that believe shall be saved. All that do not shall be damned. The Father knows those who trust in His Son, and the Son knows His Bride....and the Spirit points the way. Set aside your spiritual pride and embrace the Son of God only. Then tell others!

Charles alexander

Posted: October 21, 2008 5:44 PM

How can there be such a biblical status as inerrancy when there is such variance of NT manuscripts dating back to the third and fourth centuries of the Christian Era. These manuscripts exhibit copying errors, textual changes reflecting doctrinal considerations of local and so-called orthodoxies, etc. And, look at the number of translations being marketed today. There are hundreds with subtle (and not so subtle) wording interpretations and commentary by whatever group of scholars has an overriding viewpoint to espouse. It's alarming the number of direct-marketing Bibles on our bookstore shelves. Frankly this is a trivialization of the holy text. It began hundreds of centuries ago. Sadly, it continues today.

Frank C

Posted: October 21, 2008 10:55 AM


I'd like to comment on Pope Benedict's book," Jesus Of Nazareth." This book is the best book on Jesus I have ever read and is a must read for any Christian, Catholic or Protestant. It's just plain truth with no doctrinal arguements. I've read it twice and will probably read it again. The Pope is a great writer.

Sara	Posted: October 21, 2008 9:03 AM

"Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ." -- St. Jerome I grew up in a protestant tradition and was recently welcomed into the Catholic Church. I have never been in a more biblical setting. Most of my protestant friends tell me that they want to "save me" and are "praying for my soul", and all they can do is spout off Bible verses and expect me to "come back" to their "side". I know in my heart of hearts that God lives in scripture, and that mass is absolutely ROOTED in scripture. I know my bible well and I hear it every Sunday at mass. I don't need people to quip verses to me to "prove" that Catholicism is wrong. Even the Devil can recite scripture.

Frank

Posted: October 21, 2008 8:42 AM


† Mt 23:9 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

Bob	Posted: October 21, 2008 6:37 AM


The Catholic Church's perspective on the inspiration of the Bible is clouded by the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the Biblical text. If these books are included on an equal footing with the rest of scripture it must be concluded that the Bible is not 100% inspired.

John Funk

Posted: October 21, 2008 6:19 AM

The Rock God's Word to us forever stands, Prepared for us with loving hands. His words so pure inscribed in stone Shall always ever stand alone. Man's own wisdom his very best Is like the of grass of summer passed, It cannot stand the test of time, Nor can compare with God sublime. God's will for all unchanging stance, There is no change in His commands. The humble still with contrite heart, Have found it true right from the start. The last words in the Bible say You shall not add nor take away. Remember Adam Eve as well; There is a heaven but also hell. God's word the Rock of time and space, Don't try alter or replace. But let it lead you to the cross, Or it will grind you into dust. So do not fear what man may say, But humbly kneel to God and pray For grace to do His blessed will, Praise God he's God and then be still.

Galen

Posted: October 20, 2008 8:38 PM


What does it mean to interpret the Bible theologically? Read one's theology into the Bible? It seems all traditions have done so. More importantly, to my mind, is what we do with what we learn from the Bible. Classify it? Theologise with it? Believe it? Affirm it? Proclaim it? What about... obey it?

Maryann

Posted: October 20, 2008 8:09 PM

If you want a clear picture of how distinctly Catholics are connected to the holy scriptures, just attend a Catholic liturgy or find a copy of the mass to read. From beginning to end, it's filled with verses and passages from the Old and New Testaments, and one part of the mass, the Liturgy of the Word, includes readings from the Old and New Testaments, responses from the scriptures, then the proclamation of the gospel--ultimate bible, for sure! The words for the consecration are taken from the Last Supper passages in the gospels. Even most of the songs used in the mass are scripturally based with lyrics right out of the Old and New Testaments. Check a Catholic hymnal for this. Furthermore, the Hail Mary (never part of mass) is from Luke 2, when the angel visits Mary, then Mary visits Elizabeth: "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus." How much more scriptural can you get?

John	Posted: October 20, 2008 6:54 PM


"In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, but as what it really is, the word of God. In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them." - Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 104.

Mike	Posted: October 20, 2008 5:59 PM

The first commenter's remarksa are both inaccurate and ignorant. Stick to what you know of your tradition instead of offering simplistic characatures of what you do not know. The would be no bible were it not for Catholicism - historical fact. It is also integral to all worship and Sacraments in the Church. Lectio divina has been practiced for centuries and is the contemplative aspect of praying Sacred Scripture. Catholics all over the world pray the "Liturgy of the Hours" five times a day. It is filled with both OT and NT Scripture. The tradition cherishes the Bible, individual Catholics may be lazy or disinterested, but the Church is always fostering devotion to the Bible as the Word of God.

Nora Charles

Posted: October 20, 2008 5:56 PM

Perhaps I've got the wrong end of the stick but I do believe in the inerrancy of scripture, but that also needs to be understood within the context of sorting out the literal, the figuraturive and the illustrative syntax of various books of the Bible. To read Songs of Solomon for instance in the same way as the biography of the Prophets or the straight history of Kings and Chronicles would be a mistake. I don't understand what the issue is.

Page: 1 2

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment