Catholic Evidence Guild Catholics are often accused of arguing in a “vicious circle,” proving the Bible by the Church, and the Church by the Bible. We must be careful to avoid this by explaining that we put the Church before the Bible because the Church existed first and wrote and compiled the Bible. The authority of the Bible depends on that of the Church. Then we use the Bible to prove the Church; we use it not as an inspired volume, but merely as a historical document. From the Gospels as historical documents we learn that Christ founded a Church, but the authority of the Gospels as inspired writings rests on the word of the Church.
We can define the Bible as “a collection of writings, which the Church of God has solemnly recognized as inspired” (Catholic Encyclopedia). What is the non-Catholic's definition? Paul says, indeed: “All Scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). But he gives no list of Scriptures nor any method for discerning which they are.
The Scriptures themselves assert that they are incomplete and send us to the Church. “Many other signs also did Jesus ... which are not written.” (John 20:30). “Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?” . . . . “How can I, unless some man show me” (Acts 8:30, 31).
It is impossible to get unanimity of impression in different ages and countries. Books appeal to one date and country, not to another: The Epistle of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, and several gospels at first thought inspired were rejected by the Church. On the other hand, the Books of Kings, Chronicles, and Ecclesiastes are disputed by modem critics as not containing “ heavenly matter,” yet are accepted by the Church as part of the organic whole — for the Bible is an organic whole, and many parts lose their meaning if severed. Each age and nation and temperament, by their interpretation, would (and in Protestantism do) practically make a different Bible, when, leaving ancient authority, they test each part by their subjective feelings.
No internal evidence could prove inspiration, because inspiration is essentially a supernatural fact. It is objective, not subjective. It is simply that God said this thing in this way. It may not appeal to me personally — parts of it may not be meant especially for me — but God wished to say it for some person or time. Therefore the inspiration can only be known upon some authority sent from God. The only possible competent authority would be either Christ or his apostles or the successors of the apostles — that is to say, Christ's Church. All Christians appeal in fact to some authority behind the Bible (e.g., Luther claimed to alter the canon of Scripture, and Lutherans accepted this on his authority). Christ nowhere told men to go to a book to learn his doctrine. He himself wrote nothing down. But he did say to Peter: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18); and to Peter and the rest of the apostles: “Go ye teaching therefore all nations” (Matt. 28:19). “He that hears you, hears me, he that despises you, despises me, he that despises me despises him that sent me” (Luke 10: 16). The apostles went forth and taught according to Christ's command. They ordained others to succeed them. Much of his teaching they handed down in their tradition only that divinely protected living memory of the Church. Much they committed to writing and collected together by degrees.
Please, continue reading at New Covenant Journal.
- Read also Beginning to Read the Bible by someone I know well.