Faith & Works: Paul vs. James

For some Christians, one of the thorniest problems in the Bible is the apparent contradiction between Paul and James. It's enough to make anyone committed to complete inerrancy wither.

In Romans, 5:1-2, Paul writes, "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God."

James seems to say just the opposite, "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." This appears to be a first rate contradiction.

I have seen people twist themselves into theological pretzels trying to deal with this problem. There are a few unresolved conflicts in the Bible, but this is not one of them.

In Romans 4:1-5, Paul lays out his case for justification by faith. He goes back to the very beginning, citing Abraham as the archetype:

Paul makes two points here. First, if Abraham is justified by works, if salvation is his personal accomplishment, dependent on his effort alone, then he can brag about it. Second, any system of works makes God indebted to the one who qualifies. Salvation is not a gift, but a wage paid to the one who earns it.

Then Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 to prove that neither is the case: "Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness."

Two different terms used to illustrate Abraham's salvation. The first is "reckoned," and the second is "justified." As you will see, these are two aspects of a single act of redemption.

The word "reckoned" is a term that emphasizes an action God takes on behalf of poor sinners. To "reckon" means "to credit to the account of." God responds to our spiritual poverty with the abundant gift of righteousness. He places it into our empty bank accounts, under our names. In Paul's words, "Though [Jesus] was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich."

This transaction took place early in Abraham's life. We read in Genesis 15:6, "Then he [Abraham] believed in the Lord and He reckoned it to him as righteousness." Paul reminds us that Abraham "grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what He had promised, He was able also to perform. Therefore also it was reckoned to him as righteousness."

From that time on God saw not Abraham's spiritual poverty, but his wealth. Abraham's moral bank account was rich with God's righteousness.

"Justification," our second term, is the result of this transaction. It means "to declare free of blame; to absolve." Because God reckons righteousness to us, He declares us free from guilt, absolved, and pardoned. Reckoning, the action, leads to justification, the result. Therefore, salvation is a result of justification, which comes by faith.

Salvation must come from God and not ourselves for one very good reason: Our bank accounts are truly empty. Once, while I was discussing God's qualifications for heaven with a waitress, she said, "God will approve of me."

The question was a pivotal one, but she'd never considered it. After a long, awkward silence she offered feebly, "Well, I don't take drugs."

"That's good, but I think God is concerned about more than that," I countered. "Have you heard of the Ten Commandments?" I began to list them.

We'd only gotten through two before she began to wilt. "Now you're making me feel guilty," she complained. That's the point. We are guilty, each one of us. This is God's Law. These are God's requirements. Yet is there anyone who doesn't consistently violate every one?

Any attempt to whittle down God's requirements to make them easier is doomed. The Pharisees tried this, asking Jesus which commandment was the foremost of all. Jesus answered, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" Which of us does not violate each command hundreds of times a day?

We want to compare ourselves to other people, but that doesn't work. We may fancy ourselves law-abiding citizens, but the truth is we're a lot more like Hitler than like Jesus Christ, and His righteousness is the standard.

Saved by works? The Law gives us no hope because it has a built-in defeater to any attempt at justification by works: The Law demands perfection.

"Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law" (Galatians 5:3).

James agrees. He writes, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all" (James 2:10).

In God's view, there are only two kinds of people: innocent and guilty. One violation of the Law, one sin, makes you guilty. This is enough to silence the most noble mortal: "...that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God" (Romans 3:19).

"The Scripture," Paul concludes, "has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe" (Galatians 3:22).

There is only one hope: God's mercy. The Scripture is replete with this teaching. "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy" (Titus 3:5). "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8). "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace" (Romans 10:6). "If righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly" (Galatians 2:21).

That's why Paul states clearly, "Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies [absolves] the ungodly, his faith is reckoned [credited] as righteousness" (Romans 4:5).

But we still have a problem. Why does James contradict Paul by saying we're justified by works and not by faith alone? He even quotes Abraham for proof of his point, just as Paul did.

Whenever one encounters an apparent contradiction, it's good to keep in mind a basic rule: Always first explore the possibility of a reconciliation between the two. Not all statements that appear to contradict actually do.

Take the two statements "Napoleon was a very big man" and "Napoleon was not a big man; he was a small man." At first glance, these two sentences appear contradictory. The word "big" is equivocal, though. It can mean two different things. Napoleon was a big man regarding his impact in history, but was small in physical size.

Consult any dictionary and you'll discover that virtually every word has more than one meaning. The word "peace" could mean cessation of hostility between two parties. When a war is over and the fighting stops, there's peace. Romans 5:1 carries this sense: "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."

"Peace" could also refer to peace of mind, a freedom from anxiety or worry. This is what Paul had in mind when he promised that, after prayer, "the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, shall guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." Proper interpretation of any passage depends on a clear understanding of which meaning is in view.

The word "justify" is no different. It has two meanings, not just one. In addition to "absolve, declare free of blame," it can also mean "to demonstrate or prove to be just, right or valid; to show to be well founded." In the case of salvation, the first is the cause; the second is the effect.

This second definition is what is usually in view when we use the word "justify" in English. "Justify your position," we say. We're asking for evidence; we want proof.

The Bible frequently uses this sense of the word, too. Jesus taught that a person's true nature will be evident in his conduct:

Jesus teaches here that the man with good treasure brings forth good fruit, which "justifies" him. This external display demonstrates the quality of the man within. This is not justification in the sense of salvation. One's words don't absolve him (first definition). Rather, they bear testimony of the inner man (second definition).

Now we face a key question. Which definition did James have in mind? How do we know when he uses the word "justify," that James is not referring to salvation--as Paul clearly is--but rather is pointing to the proof of salvation?

This is remarkably simple to determine. The cause must come before the effect. Salvation must come first, before it can be evidenced in a changed life.

When Paul makes his case for justification by faith, he cites the beginning of Abraham's walk with God in Genesis 15:5-6: "And He took him outside and said, 'Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.' And He said to him, 'So shall your descendants be.' Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness."

The justification James has in mind comes much later in Abraham's life, recorded in Genesis 22:12: "And he said, 'Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.'"

Paul and James are cite two different times in Abraham's life, events separated by 25 years. They can't be referring to the same thing.

The works of Abraham that James mentions were a result of justification which came by faith a quarter of a century earlier. Abraham was not being saved again. Rather, he was showing evidence of his salvation. He was being confirmed in the justification by faith that had already been accomplished years before.

Abraham's faith was no passive, intellectual exercise. He proved his faith to God. The words of the text show this to be true: "Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." God witnessed Abraham's faith first-hand, as it were. It was demonstrated. That's why James concludes, "And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.'"

James speaks to the man who is all talk and no action. His simple message is that true salvation always proves itself. That's why he asks, "What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" The apostle John echoes the same sentiment: "The one who says, 'I have come to know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him."

James and Paul go together. Like two sides of the same coin, they don't conflict with each other; they complement each other. Both teach us something vital. Paul looks at what goes on internally; James talks about the external results. Paul says, "We're saved by faith." James says, "This is what saving faith looks like."
My own interpretive paraphrase captures the sense of it:

Christians need "justification" plus "justification." Faith alone saves, but faith that is alone is not the genuine article. It's not saving faith.

I disagree that the concept of salvation did not have a place within Judaism. Certainly, the concept was rather hazily conceived, with very little in the way of specifics. But David speaks of "salvation" constantly in the Psalms, and the idea crops up enough elsewhere in the Old Testament to see clearly that it was not unknown to the Israelites.

"Salvation" in the TaNa"KH does not refer to "salvation" as chr*stianity understands it. "Salvation" simply means rescue from a dangerous situation. Chr*stianity later spiritualized this concept as it has so many other things (Israel, Jerusalem, etc.). David praying that G-d restore "the joy of his salvation" is not a Calvinist prayer!

While Judaism does not know "salvation" in the chr*stian sense, it most certainly does not an afterlife. In fact, one of the most dogmatic concepts in Judaism is "resurrection of the dead" which is the subject of the second prayer of the `Amidah. However, an afterlife is not the same thing as "salvation." "Salvation" doesn't just mean that one goes to Heaven. It denotes (or at least connotes) that Heaven is the result of a rescue rather than anything connected with reward and punishment. And no, it is not that G-d owes man Heaven, but He rewards and punishes (in both this life and the next). In Judaism's more mystical teachings the soul actually descends from Heaven into the developing human body, so naturally at death it "reports" back to headquarters where some sort of judgment will be rendered. But the chr*stian concept of "salvation" is far more than simply an afterlife.

So, from a Christian POV, it seems fair enough to suppose that the revelation of an afterlife was very slowly manifested and with a deliberate incompleteness.

This is not the case. Unlike all other religions, Judaism is not based on "progressive revelation," ie, a revelation that begins at a very elementary, spotty, incomplete phase and then reaches a crescendo at some other time. The exact opposite is the case. In Judaism, the highest revelation comes first. The Prophets are not higher, but lower than the Torah, and the Hagiographa is lower still. In fact, the Prophets and Hagiographa will not always be publicly read as Scripture, but only until they are all fulfilled and thus served their purpose. Only the Torah (and Megillat 'Ester) will be read publicly as Scripture eternally because it serves an eternal purpose.

This means that the "absence" of teachings on the afterlife were not delayed in order to be revealed at a later time; instead these teachings are merely elucidated only in the Oral Torah (actually, all truth is alluded to in the Written Torah, but some of the allusions are buried very deep; they are explicated only in the Oral Torah). So the teachings were already there and were doubtless studied by the Israelites during their forty years in the Wilderness.

Well, again, I think part of your problem with Christianity is what you consider Biblical laxity among many of the people with whom you formerly associated. That's unfortunate, to be sure, but it doesn't follow that the Faith itself has similar official positions. Anyway, modern Judaism, if anything, has an even greater range of beliefs on the subjects of inerrancy and literalness, yet that fact doesn't stop you from allying yourself much more to their thought processes than to Christianity's. If you can get almost rabid in your disdain for most Christians, I wonder why you don't feel the same way about the legions of (effectively) apostate Jews in the world today. I guess I'm looking to understand what I see as a glaring inconsistency here.

This is a very good question. Actually, my feelings towards liberal Jews (especially the way they enjoy representing all Jews as decadent, world-weary Weimar intellectuals who divide their time between making dirty movies and organizing labor unions) could not be printed on this forum without being immediately yanked (yes, I'm lousy at mitzvat 'ahavat-Yisra'el!). However, religiously I identify only with Orthodox Jews, and believe it or not, almost all Orthodox Jews are much more literal than mainstream chr*stians are. They all believe (or at least claim to) that G-d literally wrote the Torah Himself before the world was created and then dictated it to Moses one letter at a time. They all believe (or claim to) that the Written Torah, compact as it is, in some mysterious way encompasses all truth and all reality. It's true that there are plenty of Orthodox Jewish evolutionists (mostly in Modern Orthodoxy, but some in the traditional insular world as well), but Orthodox Jewish evolutionists are very distinctive among all other "Theistic evolutionists" (they still believe G-d wrote the Torah, that the Hebrew language and alphabet was created directly by G-d and did not develop from earlier ones, and once Adam and Eve arrive on the scene they accept the historicity of everything recorded in the Torah, completely rejecting the concept of didactic mythology, much less the blasphemous assertion that the Torah was adapted from paganism). In other words, the vast majority of Orthodox Jewish "Theistic evolutionists" are only non-Fundamentalist for the first five days of Genesis One and then switch to literalism. Methuselah, Noah, the Tower of Babel--they are all accepted as literal history. Indeed, my greatest criticism of Orthodox Jewish evolutionists is the blatant inconsistency of listening to the voice of "science" for the first twenty-something verses and then refusing to listen to it any longer (since the same "science" that teaches evolution also teaches the documentary hypothesis, that the Torah contains mythology, and that the Hebrew language is a descendant of an older language). My experience is that, as obnoxious as they are ("We Jews don't believe in creationism!"), Orthodox Jewish evolutionists barely count as non-literalists at all. They are non-literal about so little that they really have no grounds to reject the literalness of any of it!

Go into any Orthodox synagogue and ask any of the men the name of Noach's wife. He'll tell you.

As for how Catholicism views this, I must admit that there is no "infallible" pronouncement on the subject beyond the fact that the Church affirms that the entirety of the Bible is the inspired Word of God. It is inerrant in the truths it seeks to convey, though it is not "required" of Catholics to believe that every word is 100% literal. The language employed in both Testaments "handicaps," if you will, the ability of God to transmit his truths in ways that humans can understand; the limits of human language cannot be stretched beyond a certain point, and the limits of man's prior knowledge (with with he makes sense of new information - in this case, revelation) are not boundless. This creates a situation, for example, where the notion that the earth is flat and supported by pillars seems legitimate according to Psalm 75:4. If one is to conclude that absolutely everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, then one is forced to conclude that the earth is sustained on pillars. Yet we know this is not so. So, is the Bible 100% literal or not? If only 99.9999%, can one suppose it's only 99.9998%?

The way to explain this is to understand that the Bible is not a science book, and God was not obliged to give us scientific knowledge of things in His creation. He left it to us to "fill the earth and subdue it" in Genesis, and, I dare say, scientific discovery through our own sweat and effort is part of "subduing" the earth. The exact methodology of how God created the heavens and the earth is way beyond the scientific and linguistic capacities of the Israelites who hear Moses' account; God described it in a way they could understand. As it is, very little of either Testament is even "eligible" to have this non-literal approach applied to it. In Revelation, for example, one can imagine the beast with seven heads and ten horns is very likely to be symbolic of something, and not literal. No one would follow such a grotesque monster if it literally looked like that. But the overwhelming majority of Scripture relates history in a credible way when taken literally, and there's no reason to suppose such history is not literal.

Ah, now we come to the crux of the matter! And thank you for providing me an excuse to discuss my views at a greater length than I usually do.

The idea of a "woodenly literal" or "word-for-word literal" or "one hundred percent literal" interpretation of the Bible is a complete red herring, since no one, including the most literalistic Fundamentalist, does such a thing. My experience is that such things as "the four corners of the earth" (figure of speech), "G-d" having a beard of sheep in Song of Songs (an allegory that doesn't even mention G-d), and anthropomorphisms/anthropopassisms are invoked dishonestly as an excuse to deny the historicity of certain episodes in which either the supernatural comes into play, or else the laws of nature are plainly not the same as they are now.

Please allow me to explain.

A "wooden" or "100% literal" interpretation of the words of the Torah at several points would imply that the penalty for certain sins is to have one's eye plucked out, hand cut off, etc. The commandments of the Torah, though spelled out at a very deep level, are simply not described on the surface of the text, and the Oral Torah is absolutely essential in order to understand them at all. I am not and have not been for a long, long time an advocate of soul competency or Scottish common sense philosophy when it comes to such matters in the Bible.

In fact the true interpretation of "eye for an eye" etc. is that the wounded party is recompensed a monetary amount equal to his eye (or hand, or foot, or wound) which the aggressor has to pay him, and this has always been the interpretation. Nevertheless, the written text, when read carefully enough, plainly alludes to this when it uses the word "give" (why would one give someone an eye which he could never use, or why would one "give" him an additional wound?). It is not merely the narrative, but the very letters themselves (along with their sizes, shapes, and names) and even the spaces between the letters that allude to these deep matters.

So the first thing to be understood is that I do not claim that anyone with "one eye and half sense" can read the Torah and then construct a tabernacle and perform the service (the Torah at various times commands that some offerings be "heaved" and others be "waved," but never says a word about how these rituals are to be carried out). What I am insisting upon, absolutely, is the accurate facticity of all the events and people mentioned. The universe was created in six days. Adam lived 930 years. The Flood, the Tower of Babel, the Exodus, the talking donkey, and the Biblical chronology of history all happened exactly as written. These are historic events, not mitzvot.

Another thing that must be kept in mind, as I said much earlier, is that the TaNa"KH contains three stages of revelation. And while there are four modes of Torah interpretation, the literal sense of the episodes of the Torah are always true and not mere parables. So if the Torah says something happened, no one should dare to say it did not (and this is what makes so many "reverent" chr*stians seem so irreverent).

But what about the rest of the TaNa"KH? And here I am going to say something very, very sensitive. Whether or not any of the other stories in the Bible actually happened is not a matter for "new knowledge" of any kind, much less that "discovered" by atheists and heretics. Only the Ancient Tradition is competent to say that a story or episode in the non-Torah part of the Bible didn't actually happen but is merely a parable. And as it happens, there is one and only one Biblical story on which there is even an opinion (either one out of nine or one out of ten) in the Talmud that it is a parable. Can you guess which one it is? It ain't Jonah (which so many chr*stian eviscerate). It ain't Esther. It ain't Ruth. It ain't Daniel (any part of it). It ain't the sun standing still for Joshua. No, the only Biblical book about which Ancient Tradition entertains such an opinion is the Book of Job (which is in verse, anyway).

And please note this very carefully: this possibility takes place within the context of discussing exactly when the events in the Book of Job actually happened. If I recall correctly, there are eight different opinions as to when the events occurred, spanning from the time of Moses to the return from Babylon. Then there is a ninth opinion that the story did not actually happen, but is a didactic parable. Now note that this is an opinion rather than a dogma, and it is only one of nine. But there is a reason for this. The non-specificity of when the events occurred, and even whether or not they actually did occur is actually part of the lesson of the Book! And that is why the Tradition preserves that opinion along with the other eight. The haziness of when or whether they events took place is itself didactic!

Once again, let me reiterate that this is ancient tradition that makes this comment. "Modern scripture scholars" are utterly incompetent to declare that "we now know" that such-and-such could not have actually happened.

And btw, the tradition is that Moses wrote the Book of Job (under Divine inspiration), and the fact that the events described may have been yet hundreds of years in the future at that time in no way whatsoever mitigates against Mosaic authorship, because that's how Divine inspiration works!

I hope that the matters I have discussed here will not only for all time demolish the "ever word literal" red herring, but maybe even the general belief that I consider myself my own highest authority in these matters.

Thank you again for this dialogue.

***Christ Almighty revealed that particular understanding to me more than a few years ago, while I simultaneously studied the Holocaust and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

If I spoke the truth, believe me, it is not my truth—not at all—but rather The Truth, which I am so blessed through the Catholic Church founded by Christ to understand.***

Christ revealed love and mercy. It is up to us to witness to it and to admit the truth. We as sinful men metaphorically crucify Christ each and every time we sin. Every time we sin, we drive another nail into Him; every time we blaspheme, we crown Him with more thorns; every time we disobey God, we thrust another spear into His side.

And He came for all men to redeem them nonetheless. Regardless of their denials and self righteousness.

Deut 31:
24
When Moses had finished writing out on a scroll the words of the law in their entirety,
25
he gave the Levites who carry the ark of the covenant of the LORD this order:
26
“Take this scroll of the law and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD, your God, that there it may be a witness against you.
27
For I already know how rebellious and stiff-necked you will be. Why, even now, while I am alive among you, you have been rebels against the LORD! How much more, then, after I am dead!
28
Therefore, assemble all your tribal elders and your officials before me, that I may speak these words for them to hear, and so may call heaven and earth to witness against them.
29
For I know that after my death you are sure to become corrupt and to turn aside from the way along which I directed you, so that evil will befall you in some future age because you have done evil in the LORD’S sight, and provoked him by your deeds.”

We are the admitted stiff necked, my friend. I cannot believe what I have done in my life, yet when I repented of it, it was done and finished.

We truly do believe in a wondrous and merciful Lord. Mayhap I will be able to emulate the tax collector a little better: Luke 18:
9
He then addressed this parable to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else.
10
“Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.
11
The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector.
12
I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’
13
But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’
14
I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

And that is a prayer that resonates throughout Catholic life:

‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’

No elite, no undeserved elect, just repentence and forgiveness.

***As we would say, “The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.” ***

Not all of the OT was in Hebrew.

***God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” ...[the Church] accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.” God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.” The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures ....***

They wrote as best as their humanity would permit them and no more. God did not dictate the NT (or the OT) to them; yet the inspiration of the Holy Spirit influenced them to write as best they could given their abilities.

Consider this:

Matthew’s Gospel was written for the Jews.
Mark’s Gospel was written under the influence of Peter.
Luke’s Gospel was written under the influence of Paul.
John’s Gospel was written under the influence of the Mother of God.

Each Gospel is different and reads different. But they are all the Gospel. There are significant differences among them. The Sermon on the Mount becomes the Sermon on the Plain and is omitted from the other two. Who went to the tomb of Jesus after He was resurrected?

Each, however, is true and must be considered true.

The interpretation is all; the words by themselves taken out of context has given rise to the thousands or millions of differing Protestant theologies.

***So you disagree with the parts of the passage that says: “ God is the author of Sacred Scripture...they have God as their author.... “? Do you happen to know the source of the passage that I quoted?***

Yes, the Catechism. I went back and read it before I answered last post.

Take the whole chapter and read it:

II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”69

“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”74

God is the author, yet it was written by fallible men. God is a perfect author using imperfect tools. There were many writings; the Church chose the ones that came closest to God’s intent.

“To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”

Now we must understand what they wrote.

“Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.