Search the Scriptures

Pure Words

What does the Bible say about the Bible? This question sounds circular. Atheists wonder why it is asked; your feet will never touch ground walking on a tread-mill. Bible quotes cannot establish the Bible's authority. Nevertheless Catholics and other liberals raise objections on this point. For these groups, who have some remnant attachment to the sacred scriptures, as well as for the children who feed on God's word, it is worthwhile to collect those verses which speak to this point.

The Bible says that God's words are "pure:"

As we have seen, nither is this revelation above human understanding: "For we are not writing any other things to you than what you read or understand [επιγινωσκω]." (2 Corinthians 1:13 NKJV). This word means:

1) to become thoroughly acquainted with, to know thoroughly
1a) to know accurately, know well
2) to know
2a) to recognise
2a1) by sight, hearing, of certain signs, to perceive who a person is
2b) to know i.e. to perceive
2c) to know i.e. to find out, ascertain
2d) to know i.e. to understand (Online Bible Dictionary).

Modern Roman Catholics and several main-line Protestant churches routinely deny these Bible truths in the present day:

Bishop John Shelby Spong

Bishop Robinson

Therefore there has had to be a division:

Believers search the scriptures and find therein the way of life. Unbelievers scoff and find fault.

Sufficient

Is the Bible adequate on its own terms, or does it require supplementation from outside? The scriptures are given for instruction:

There is no missing piece of the puzzle:

This information is not given at random, but purposefully:

That purpose is accomplished:

God's word does not require the encircling 'protection' some have given it. The Lord has already spoken concerning that tendency:

Blind Eyes

To be sure not all see what is in front of their faces. The Catholic Church believes it is the solution to that problem, but there is no solution:

The Logos

There are many scriptures which are clearly speaking, not only of the written scroll or book we hold in our hands, but also of a Person, who is the 'Word of God.' This Person is eternal and active:

It is mystifying that Catholics perceive this as a way out of their difficulty: they can continue to express contempt for the written Word of God, compiling 'Bible contradictions' alongside the atheists, while professing reverence for the eternal Word of God. But does scripture apply the same title to both to demean the written Word of God, or to exalt it? There is a connection between these two things which is not accidental nor adventitious; you cannot lift up the one while disparaging the other.

Scripture is a treasure-house that is available for free. Sit down and sort through your jewels, all at no cost:

Unbroken

Jesus said that the "scripture cannot be broken." This is where the liberals and the Catholics part company from Him. In Jesus' world the scriptures must be "fulfilled;" things will happen a certain way, and we know this because thus they were prophesied: "How then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that so it must be done?" (Matthew 26:54). But the way liberals and Catholics read the Bible hangs on the assumption that scripture can never be "fulfilled" unless it was written after the events it describes: this is why they date the second and third parts of Isaiah to the return from the exile. Otherwise, how could Isaiah possibly know about events which did not take place during his lifetime? If Jesus is right, then their way of studying the Bible is worthless. And if Jesus is Lord, how can He be mistaken on this point?

The Doctrine of the Trinity

Roman Catholics often advance the doctrine of the Trinity in defense of their deconstruction of scripture. This doctrine, they claim, is not present in scripture nor derivable from scripture. Is their allegation true? What is the doctrine, and from whence does it come?

Biblical Proof:

The four propositions proven above: that

a.) There is only One God;
b.) The Father is God;
c.) The Son is God;
d.) The Holy Spirit is God.

-- are at the heart of the fifth-century Athanasian Creed: "So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.  And yet they are not three gods: but one God." All four are scriptural; none can be confuted or discarded without doing violence to scripture.

At this the Catholics protest, 'Yes, but there are heretics; surely there would be no Arians unless their ideas were every bit as defensible from the Bible as the ideas of the orthodox!' How defensible are their ideas, which revolve around equivocation on the census of 'the gods?' Their merit is more apparent to Roman Catholics than to Bible-believers.

To What Purpose

What is ultimately the work of the Word of God?:

From Robertson's Word Pictures:

"The implanted word (τον εμφυτον λογον). This old verbal adjective (from εμφυω to implant, to grow in), only here in N.T., meaning properly ingrown, inborn, not εμφυτευτον (engrafted). It is "the rooted word" (verse #18), sown in the heart as the soil or garden of God (#Mt 13:3-23; 15:13; 1Co 3:6)."

Verse 18 refers to the seminal word: "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures." (James 1:17-18), as Peter also says: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23).

The living Word of God is Jesus Christ. The seed the farmer sows, on rocky soil or on rich soil, is His gift and vehicle.

Tradition

In discrediting the truth, coherence and perspicuity of the Bible, modern Roman Catholics are simultaneously discrediting the testimony of the early church writers, who held a far higher view of God's word. These early writers did not stress the supposed inadequacy and need for human interpretation of God's revelation, they found it sufficient.

"But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things." (Letter to the Bishops of Egypt, Chapter 1:4, Athanasius, p. 626 ECF 2.04).

They found it without error:

Instead of finding scripture so lacking in clarity as to be worthless without an authoritative interpreter (themselves), as do modern Roman Catholics, the early writers agreed with the Bible that God's word makes wise the simple:

There are few things more obnoxious about modern Roman Catholics than the list of 'Bible Contradictions' they carry about with them. Most Bible-believers have seen a similar list — indeed, the same list — from the atheists. Did the early writers believe there were any? No more than their modern heirs:

The prevalence of liberal thought in today's Roman Catholic church is foreign, not only to the early church, but even to the medieval church. Thomas Aquinas explains why there cannot be any error in the historical sense of scripture. Error involves the divergence of two things, a.) the narrative, and b.) the underlying historical facts which form the raw material for the narrative. But both fall under the same management:

"I answer that, The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. [...] Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ." (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, P(1)-Q(1)-A(10)).

Any merely human narrator can be surprised or disappointed at how things turn out, so he must improvise and 'fix' the story to make it come out right. But if God had wanted it to come out differently, it would have come out differently because He would have made it so. Benedict XVI explains in his scholarly work on Jesus of Nazareth that 'Matthew' (some unknown person writing after 70 A.D.) had to 'fix' the story to make it conform to prophecy: "Matthew is certainly not recounting historical fact here. . .Here we may agree with Joachim Gnilka, who argues that Matthew, going beyond historical considerations, is attempting a theological etiology with which to account for the terrible fate of the people of Israel in the Jewish War, when land, city and Temple were taken from them. . ." (Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth, excerpt quoted on "Irish Catholic" web-site). But God, who is both the Narrator and also holds history in His hand, can never possibly be in that position, of fudging or trimming to make history and prophecy coincide. He writes both the story and the facts. How could they ever diverge?

An elder brother concurs with the Christians on this point: "And there are evidences of these assertions to be seen in the holy scriptures; which it is impossible should be convicted of false witness. . ." (Philo Judaeus, On Abraham, Chapter XLIV).

Those modern-day Roman Catholics who insistently impute error and contradiction to the Bible have diverged, not only from Bible-believing Christianity and the early church tradition, but also from their own 'infallible' authorities:

1. “But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. . . For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, On the Study of Holy Scripture, Section 20, Papal Encyclicals Online, November 18, 1893).



2. “These errors are being daily spread among the faithful. Lest they captivate the faithful's minds and corrupt the purity of their faith, His Holiness, Pius X, by Divine Providence, Pope, has decided that the chief errors should be noted and condemned by the Office of this Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition. . .Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.” (Error 11, Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sani, Papal Encyclicals Online, July 3, 1907, Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists).

How long can a house so far divided against itself stand?

Scripture remains the saint's criterion of truth:

Gregory of Nyssa explains why custom and tradition cannot be used to resolve theological disputes: namely, that both sides can claim its sanction. Some people accused him of heretical innovation because he used the formula 'One God in three hypostases:'

"But they now accuse us of innovation, thus formulating their charge against us because we confess three Persons [hypostases]; and they charge us with asserting one Goodness, and one Power, and one Godhead. And not without truth do they say this, for we do so assert. But they accuse and make this charge, that their custom does not contain this and Scripture does not so formulate. What then do we reply to this? We do not consider it right that the custom which prevails among them be made the law and canon of orthodox doctrine. For if custom is valid in furnishing proof of orthodoxy, it is entirely possible for us also to hold forth in our defense the custom prevailing among us. And if they reject this custom, it is not at all necessary for us, either, to follow them." (Gregory of Nyssa, Letter CLXXXIX, p. 53 Loeb edition, St. Basil, The Letters, Volume III).

In other words, what is the point of citing Origen and Dionysius? The other faction need say no more than, 'they were heretics.' So the contest comes down to God's word: