COMPREHENSIVES, I-AB THEOLOGY

Proposed Answers
LAAP1998

Item 1: The Bible is the sole source and authority for God’s revelation.
1. Introduction
1.1. God had revealed Godself in humanity through inchoatively in a progressive manner.
1.2. The progress found its climax in the person of Jesus Christ, the very fulness of revelation.
1.3. And from Jesus Christ shall the Church find her origin.
1.4. And from the Church, the Bible shall be compiled.

2. Body
2.1. This means that the Bible, the Catholic Canon of the Sacred Scriptures inspired and authored by God
through human means, cannot fully hold the singular source and authority of God’s Revelation in its
entirety.
2.2. CCC 108 tells us that the “Church is not a religion of a book.”
2.2.1.The CCC through the lips of St Bernard, likewise emphasizes that the Church is rather built
upon the WORD of GOD that is not “written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate
and living.”
2.2.2.The Church therefore has the consciousness that the Bible as a book cannot encapsulate the
ever-dynamic and adapting realities of the Church.
2.3. With this, the Church considers the Bible—the Sacred Scriptures—as part of the Deposit of Faith which
also includes the Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.
2.4. The Deposit of Faith is the official fountain source of the Catholic Teaching from which the fulness of
Divine Revelation is present.

3. Conclusion
3.1. Fundamentalists are wrong in treating the bible as the apex and sole source of God’s revelation. Such
errancy brings about a wrong perspective of literally interpreting the bible without considering
underlying exegeses.
3.2. The bible cannot hold the fulness of the Divine Revelation. Rather, the bible still must be considered as a
part of the whole Deposit of Faith. that together with the other elements of Faith, the objective truth of
the Gospel.

Item 2: The meaning and teaching of the Bible is self-evident.

1. Introduction
1.1. Fundamentalists argue that the Bible in its own could support itself in all terms of all truths. Thus, they
assert that Bible is self-evident.
1.2. Being self-evident means that the Scriptures hold all the answers to human inquiries.
1.3. And such claim results to literally interpreting the Bible and its texts without considering all the dynamic
factors such as:
1.3.1.World of the Text—the Literary Approach; in this lens, we are given glimpse on the picture of the
text, its content, and various literary features and elements.
 1.3.2.World of the Writer—the Historical Approach; through this approach, we are able to look into the
past and situate ourselves in the shoes of the author, his/her/their reasons and other underlying
factors why they wrote the texts as such.
1.3.3.World of the Reader—the Hermeneutic Approach; through this approach, the reader of the text
interprets the texts and situates the meaning of the texts into his/her life.
1.4. The Bible being self-evident means disregarding the mentioned worlds of the texts and to simply resort
to the literal interpretation of the Scriptures.

2. Body
2.1. First Response: The Bible does not hold all the answers for human inquiry.
2.1.1.The Sacred Scriptures (SS), unlike the claims of Muslims for their Quran, was not handed down
directly from heaven (or dictated word by word to a writer). Therefore, the SS had been compiled
and synthesized by different writers for thousands of years.
2.1.1.1. For instance, it took almost a thousand years in order to form the OT as we see today.
2.1.1.2. In another instance, the Fourfold Gospels (Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn) according to textual and
redaction criticism are all written not by the names upon whom the gospels were written. In
fact, there could be more than one person that would have written the gospels.
2.1.2.These sample instances bring us to the conclusion that there in an undeniably human intervention in
the formation of the Sacred Scriptures.
2.1.3.Upon understanding the inevitable human interventions in the formation of the biblical texts, we
therefore conclude the limitedness of the Bible as it is.
2.1.3.1. “Although I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink; instead, I
hope to come to you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete” (2 Jn
1:12).
2.1.3.2. “I have much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; instead, I
hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face” (3 Jn 13-14).
2.1.3.3. “But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written
down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” (Jn
21:25).
2.1.3.4. In Acts 1:3, we read how the Risen Lord stayed with on earth for forty days in order to
preach to the disciples, convincing them through proofs and proclaiming the Kingdom of God.
But still, with the disciples having experienced themselves the first-hand teaching of Christ in
its fulness, what Christianity holds in the present-day through the Bible is only a brief and
sketchy account of these.
2.1.3.5. St. Paul in his letter to the Thessalonians even recognized the presence of oral teachings,
not only written means:
2.1.3.5.1. “As to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to
him, we beg you, brothers and sisters, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed,
either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us, to the effect that the day of the
Lord is already here.” 2 Thess 2:1-2
2.1.3.5.2. “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you
were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.” 2 Thess 2:15

2.2. Second Response: The Church today condemns Biblical Fundamentalism that promotes treating the
Bible as self-evident.
 2.2.1.In fact, the Church has already recognized the different factors that are essential in interpreting the
bible in the current age (such as history, linguistics, science, etc.). The Church recognizes that Bible
is not self-evident.
2.2.2.The Church promotes in the present-day the different worlds of the texts as presented by H.
Gadamer.
3. Conclusion
3.1. We therefore conclude that the Bible cannot be self-evident.
3.2. The Sacred Scriptures contains the salvific truth of God but still cannot fully par the very truth of God
Godself. This is such for few reasons:
3.2.1.The Bible is written under Divine Inspiration and human influence.
3.2.2.The Church recognizes the limitations of the Church that she herself promotes study of the
scriptures thru whatever positive human means we have.
3.2.3.The Bible itself cites its own limitedness and recognizes Tradition as part and parcel of its
understanding

Item 3: Inspiration assures us that the Bible is written with infallible accuracy.
1. Introduction
1.1. On Etymology
1.1.1.Inspiration comes from the Latin word Inspirare which means “to breathe out.”
1.1.2.The imagery comes from the creation narrative of Genesis where God breathed upon Adam
bringing him and Eve, his wife, into life.
1.1.3.This bring Christians into belief that all scriptures is “God-breathed.” The bible is undoubtedly a
manifestation of the work of the Holy Spirit.
1.2. On General notion of Inspiration
1.2.1.The notion of inspiration is borrowed from ancient Jewish convictions on the Tanakh (the Torah,
the Prophets, and the Writings).
1.2.2.The same sense of inspiration of the Tanakh is seen in the two fundamental NT verses on biblical
inspiration:
1.2.2.1. “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction,
and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient,
equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17).
1.2.2.2. “So, we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be
attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star
rises in your hearts. First of all, you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a
matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men
and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pt 1:19-21).

2. Body
2.1. There are in fact numerous Theories on Biblical Inspiration.
2.1.1.On Verbal Inspiration. This focus greatly on the biblical text itself and the divine influence on the
production of biblical texts. This is divided into two categories:
2.1.1.1. Limited Verbal Inspiration. This affirms that while God is the principal cause of the
scriptures, God make use of secondary or instrumental causes to put down and compile all
written texts as we see it now today.
 2.1.1.1.1. Instrumental causes take the identity of the different prophets of old, writers,
poets, historians, and all other personages essential to the formation of the Sacred
Scriptures.
2.1.1.1.2. Hence, this category recognizes the inevitable human intervention that limits the
scriptures in terms of historical and/or scientific matters.
2.1.1.1.3. However, given this limitation, adherents of this category maintains that the
Bible is fully inerrant in terms of, and only of, Divine Revelation.
2.1.1.1.4. Ex cursus: This Category fits well that of Vatican II’s shifts on biblical
emphases. However, modern scholars warn that this holds a weakness of a person being
unable to distinguish biblical contents as either divine revelation or questions of history
or science.
2.1.1.2. Strict Verbal Inspiration. This poses that the Bible being the Word of God means the
Bible being the “words of God.” A number Christian adherents believe that the Bible holds the
literal truth word-for-word which can be likened to a matter of Spiritual Dictation.
2.1.1.2.1. This is the exact notion on inspiration as believed by Muslims. They adhere that
the Quran is dictated by Angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammed himself. They
extremely adhere to this notion that not only would they treat the Quran the literal truth
written but also prohibit all translations on the texts of Muhammed as such would mar
the purity of their scriptures.
2.1.1.2.2. Some Christians go this far in seeing the bible. They believe that upon the
formation of the Scriptures, although the sacred authors employed different styles and
limitations due to their unique particular backgrounds, God nevertheless guides them as
if instructing them (consciously or not) to put down into writing whatever they are
instructed to write. Through such, the scripture would attain strict verbal inspiration.
2.1.1.2.3. It simply means total and complete inerrancy of the Bible in all matters. That is,
the perfection of the Bible inside-out, in all aspects: science, history, culture, and (most
importantly) the religious truths.
2.1.2.Non-Verbal or Content Inspiration. These other categories of inspiration focus on the following:
2.1.2.1. Inspiration of Ideas and Persons. This position argues that God has made possible all
inspiration not through words dictated but through ideas or insights to the sacred writer. Thus,
Inspiration in this view focus more not on the biblical texts themselves but on the underlying
religious experience that influenced/shaped the author’s writing.
2.1.2.2. Inspiration on the Community or Social Inspiration. Unlike the previous inspiration
models that delve on the inspiration on particular person/s, this model poses that inspiration is
rather on a communal level. For K. Rahner, inspiration had already been within the life of the
early Christian community. In other words, it is the focus on the Sprit’s movement within the
whole community.

2.2. The Thesis statement mentioned, “Inspiration assures us that the Bible is written with infallible
accuracy,” falls under the category of strict verbal inspiration; a clear-cut adherence that the bible in
itself is inerrant and, thus, infallible in all matters of truth.
2.2.1.Biblical Fundamentalists adhere that the Bible contains all-truths making it infallibly accurate in all
disciplines, forms, and aspects.
2.2.2.Strict verbal inspiration might pose a strong literal bond between numbers of biblical verses but it
nevertheless possesses a great weakness: its incapacity to view a wider perspective that can only be
aided by Christian Tradition and by the God-given authority to pastors.
 2.3. Response: Debunking the notion of Biblical Inerrancy in the lens of Vatican II.
2.3.1.[According to Gaillardetz,] The early version of the schema on divine revelation proposed the
doctrine of “total inerrancy” holding that the Scriptures in its entirety is completely without error
regarding all truths re religiosa et profana.
2.3.2.Bishops at the council posited that the notion of biblical inerrancy would emphasize greater the
divine aspect of the scriptures. At its extreme, this shall eat away the very human nature of the
scriptures, absorbing it into total divine authorship.
2.3.3.Treating the whole scriptures perfect inside and out could lead into several errors (given the fact that
there is an undeniably human intervention and authorship present) such as:
2.3.3.1. The danger of enclosing the truth of God within the boundaries of the bible
2.3.3.2. The danger of literally interpreting the text regardless of contexts
2.3.3.3. The danger of disregarding genuine Christian Tradition
2.3.3.4. The danger of unjust skepticism to the Magisterium
2.3.3.5. The danger of regarding historical and scientific inconsistencies as facts

3. Conclusion
3.1. We never deny that there are but many models of biblical inspiration and one of which is Strict Verbal
Inspiration under which this thesis statement falls.
3.2. However, we adhere to the truth that such a fundamentalist claim blinds one to the wider panorama of
truth by leading him/her to the literal interpretation of the text.
3.3. For this reason, this claim is never plausible and, thus, a false statement.

Item 4: Only Factual History is reliable Truth

1. Introduction
1.1. Fundamentalists adhere that the whole Scriptures is fully divinely inspired that there is actually no room
for error. It is a perfect work inside-out from the factual to religious and transcendental truths.
1.2. With this argument in mind, they believe the scriptures to be equally valid. As an implication, it is a must
that not one part, even the minutest detail, shall be a false claim for being such, the whole scriptures shall
be challenged and undermined.

2. Body
2.1. First Response: The Church condemns Biblical Fundamentalism and its major implication—
historicization of all texts.
2.1.1.At the advent of the modern means of studying the scriptures, bishops of the Vatican II does not
deny the numbers of historical inconsistencies in the Bible.
2.1.2.According to Pontifical Biblical Commission under the pontificate of John Paul II [and I quote], “It
often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical
everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary
account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning” [end of quote].
2.1.3.Let us take few verses as an example:
2.1.3.1. Mark 2:26. In this pericope, David is recounted to be entering the house of God under the
high priest Abiathar according to 1 Samuel 21:1ff while in fact, it was not under Abiathar but
under his father Abimelech.
2.1.3.2. In OT for instance, Gen 7:4 talks about the great flood that lasted 40 days and 40 nights
while Gen 8:3 explains it to have lasted 150 days.
 2.1.3.3. In Matthew 16:17, Peter’s confession on Jesus is a fruit of heavenly revelation while in
John 1:40-41, it was Andrew who recognized the Messiah and told it to Peter.
2.1.3.4. During the Crucifixion of Jesus, in Mark 15:32, both of the thieves crucified mocked
Jesus but in Luke 23:43, one mocked Jesus while the other defended him.
2.2. Second Response: Fundamentalists argue that only factual history is reliable truth while in fact they are
already considering the whole scriptures to be a fully-historical corpus. Ergo, it nevertheless “buttress”
their primary claim that the whole Scriptures to be literally interpreted.
2.2.1.It must be noted that the Bible claims historicity but not “scientific historicity.”
2.2.1.1. There are two sorts of historicity in the Scriptures.
2.2.1.1.1. SCIENTIFIC HISTORICITY~ which conforms as closely as possible to the
event considered in itself and for itself. Scientific Historicity possess only relative truth
and is faced with an absolute that it can never achieve.
2.2.1.1.2. EMPIRIC HISTORICITY ~ aka. Popular Historicity which conforms to an
aspect of the event considered to the relative point of view to which the writer confines
himself. This historicity might be limited by the author’s own claims yet it is where the
essential existence of an absolute truth is and must be present.
2.2.1.2. This is the historicity of the Bible. We see that there is no factual history in the bible
written for its own sake, Don Celestin Charlier explains that historical data in the bible were
presented by the sacred writers in order to support a higher religious truth or claim.
2.2.1.3. Moreover, historical data were written by sacred writers not because they want to explain
the “how” of things—the detailed processes underlying all humanly realities—but the “why”
of things—to answer the question of purpose that each one of us longs to answer.
2.3. Third Response: Fundamentalist Historicization disregards the diverse literary genre of the bible.
2.3.1.Genre is the defined as the literary “form” or “category of a text”. The bible contained various
literary genres such as History, Poetry, Genealogies, Wisdom Literature, Proverbs, Prophecy,
Prayers/ laments, Didactic Fiction, Myths, Gospel, Letters and Apocalypse.
2.3.2.The writer of a particular genre has a specific intention in mind. Poetry for example expresses
experiences in language designed to evoke emotional response in the reader.
2.3.3.Let’s take these books as general samples:
2.3.3.1. The Court History Books ~ Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, though based on court
records and oftentimes penetrating analysis are seen in connection with God; thus, events are
to be interpreted theologically and not factual.
2.3.3.2. The Folk History Book ~ Judges. Written to teach values to readers. It is an expression
of something originating from the people or particular group of people typically reflecting
their lifestyle.
2.3.3.3. The Epic History Book ~ Exodus. though based on historical events focuses on the
historical drama of the experience rather than the details of events.
2.3.3.4. Myth ~ Genesis. It does not mean that it is false but
2.3.3.5. it communicates the truth of the fears, values and principles expressed by the author.
Thought it does not account for the scientific evolution of Creation but it does not mean that it
is not true. It still holds a reliable truth for it expresses the intention of the author to present
God as the maker of Creation - both heaven and earth and everything begins in Him.
2.3.4.Therefore, taking only Fundamentalist Historicist lens would undermine the validity and creativity
of other literary genres in order to feed the biased notion of literal interpretation that nullifies itself
of any deep theological reflection and exegeses.
3. Conclusion
3.1. Opening ourselves up to the Scriptures, we see that there are different: (a) inconsistencies of historical
data upon literal interpretation and (b) factors to its formation.
3.2. Therefore, we conclude that the thesis claim is false. Not only factual history is reliable truth but the
unchanging theocentric and salvific truth of the scriptures written in human language.

Item 5: Biblical prophecy is meant to speak about events for our day and prepare us for the end of time.
1. Introduction
1.1. Fundamentalists see much of the Bible as a matter of prophecy and fulfillment.
1.2. They consider it essential to determine how prophecy is fulfilled through events in the world today.
1.3. This roots from their literalist interpretation of the texts bridging the actual present moment (which is
actually narrowed with their contexts) with the actual and literal biblical passage. Thus, the lens of
prophecy and fulfillment is drawn.
1.4. As an implication, they are not so concerned with trying to understand what the passage might have
meant at the time it was written. They disregard the world of the sacred authors to give emphasis on their
present personal interpretation.
1.5. Thus, seeing the bible as a perfect work inside-out, they tend to conclude that even the vast human
inquiries the bible must be able to give answer. This extends their panorama to the end-of-times scenario.
1.6. Yet, this end-of-world mentality actually has no firm basis in the scriptures.

2. Body
2.1. First Response: Fundamentalists actually believe in a wrong notion of Biblical Prophecy.
2.1.1.Fundamentalists believe that biblical prophecies were written in order to communicate with the
present-day humanity through written signs and symbols.
2.1.2.However, according to Felix Just, SJ, Biblical Prophecy is primarily not about predicting the future
or finding clues in the Bible that correspond to people or events in our own day and age.
2.1.3.According to Just [and I quote], “The prophets of Ancient Israel did not look into some kind of
crystal ball and see events happening thousands of years after their own lifetimes. The books they
wrote do not contain hidden coded messages for people living in the 20th or 21st centuries!”
2.1.4.Rather, Biblical Prophets were mainly speaking to and writing for the people of their own life time.
They were actually communicating to their own world: to remain faithful to God and repent and
turn back to God whenever they went astray.
2.2. Second Response: Consider always the intention of the sacred author who wrote the texts.
2.2.1.The contemporary study of the Scriptures calls this the Historical-Critical Method.
2.2.1.1. Historic - for this method gives importance to the past and consider all possible
underlying historical processes which give rise to how the texts are formed as it is. It also sees
how the original recipients of the texts handed over or redacted the received texts.
2.2.1.2. Critical – for the scriptural studies of today takes consideration the scientific criteria to be
as objective as possible.
2.2.1.3. Given these, contemporary scriptural study is analytical for the scriptures must be treated
as something ancient and must be evaluated as such.
2.2.2.Therefore, in the light of sacred authors’ intention towards writing the texts, a reader would be able
to see the text always in the context of the authors’ time and would prevent a budding
fundamentalist to literally interprets the text without regarding a wider perspective of study
 2.3. Conclusion
2.3.1.At first sight there would be no wrong seeing the biblical prophecy speaking with the events of
today and preparing us to face the end times…
2.3.2.…yet it has missed much more important views:
2.3.2.1. First the biblical prophecy speaking about the events of today might be true but it must
better be seen that before biblical texts find their relevance in the contemporary world, it must
be considered all the more that biblical prophecy is written for the world of the authors, their
time, their significance.
2.3.2.1.1. Biblical prophecy might find its relevance (that is a somewhat significance in the
present) but it must save us from treating that biblical prophecy is meant for today, or
biblical prophecy as written for today, that is for 20 th and 21st centuries. Rather than
seeing Biblical prophecy as something mean for today, one must see his/her relevance in
the biblical prophecy always in connection with the past experiences of the authors, their
background, and their contexts.
2.3.2.1.2. This must also save us from thinking that Biblical prophecy is the heart of the
Scriptures. It is Jesus who is the heart of the scriptures, the Eternal Word made flesh.
2.3.2.2. Second, relying too much on the fulfilment of the biblical prophecy as something written
in the context today brings one to a wrong perspective of too much emphasis on the end time,
the doomsday, the rapture (as taught by Protestants).
2.3.2.2.1. Rather than emphasis on the doom of end times, the bible actually tells us of
salvation that is brought about by developing virtues and humbly following the
commandments of the Lord.
2.3.2.2.2. Too much literalist focus on the biblical prophecy without contextual
considerations shall only bring a legalist view on even the minutest detail of the
scriptures so as to be considered saved on the end times. Catholic Faith deviates from
this focus and gives more emphasis on the grace of salvation for all peoples borne and
accepted by all out of free loving; not about unhealthy emphasis on a fearful doomsday.

Item 6: Bible offers secure and certain answers in the midst of life’s complexities.
1. Introduction
1.1. This is considered one of the greatest dangers in literally interpreting the biblical texts.
1.2. Fundamentalism adheres to the literalist approach in seeing the Sacred Scriptures. As implication, as
fundamentalist would never deny the minutest detail of the texts putting his/her faith into whatever the
bible indicates blindly obeying and accenting his/her faith without so much considerations on different
factors that would bring a text into fuller color, a wider panorama.
2. Body
2.1. First Response: The Sacred Authors did not consider the lives of all humanity on all future generations as
they wrote the extant texts.
2.1.1.This brings us towards the light of the sacred authors writing and redacting the texts.
2.1.2.One must consider that the bible as written for a specific purpose and for a specific audience does
not claim to have bearing the answers in all humanity’s life complexities.
2.1.3.That is, for instance, when the Psalmists write the psalms, they did not consider my existence in
order to formulate the words.
 2.1.4.One must see within the vantage point of the sacred writers. For whom did they write? Why did
they write the texts? What were the different social, psychological, emotional, and/or religious
factors that inspired them to write the texts?
2.2. Second Response: Biblical Inspiration does not mean Biblical Inerrancy.
2.2.1.Seeing bible as holding the perfect texts as answers to all human inquiry is a dangerous implication
of the notion of Biblical Inerrancy.
2.2.2.In order to debunk this notion, proper definition of Biblical Inspiration must be presented.
2.2.3.The Vatican II itself leaves the notion of Biblical Inerrancy into oblivion. In short, biblical inerrancy
is invalid.
2.2.4.Bible as inspired does not mean that all texts are somehow written by God Godself and must be
therefore concluded as perfect solution to our imperfect earthly life; this is the misconceived notion
of biblical inspiration.
2.2.5.We never deny Biblical inspiration; we deny the claim that biblical inspiration validates the literal
meaning of all texts—we deny that biblical inspiration is biblical inerrancy.
2.2.6.Rather than seeing Divine Inspiration as medium of literal validation of all bible, Divine Inspiration
must be seen as God’s Spirit upholding the living salvific truth in the spirit of the texts; that is, Jesus
Christ and his message of the Kingdom of God.
2.3. Third Response: Biblical Text is not meant to dictate what we must do or not; rather it must be a channel
through which our Intellect and Will flourish in knowing God deeper.
2.3.1.To