If inerrancy is false, is Catholicism false?

[DOShea]

Strongly disagree! If the Scriptures contain even a single, provable error, how can they be trusted as reliable on ANY topic, especially salvation?

Do you see the leap of logic you are trying to make? You are taking “inerrant” to mean complete and total accuracy in ALL things; scientific, historic, grammar, sentence structure, punctuation, and whatever else you want to throw in. The CC does not agree with that as a definition of “inerrant.” It does not claim ANY inerrant quality as far as historical accuracy, scientific information, etc. ONLY that God’s revelation to us for His plan of our salvation IS inerrantly transmitted.

Sounds like you’re saying that God couldn’t (or wouldn’t) preserve His written Word from outright corruptions (which, it seems, you are at least “hinting” is what happened with Judith), and that the Church doesn’t care about historical accuracy or truth because it’s not using Judith as a history book.

You’re partially right. I’m saying that there is no need for the Holy Spirit to protect against bad spelling if it doesn’t impact the transmission of God’s message to us. In any aspect of life, we can get important information in written form - spelled badly - and it doesn’t stop us from gleaning the important information in the document. Likewise with a document that has the wrong nation attributed to a specific King. If that isn’t important in terms of the message, there is no need to protect against it. The Church isn’t trying to use the document to teach history with, so it isn’t important. You don’t seem to want to accept that truth, but instead you are trying to force fit an “all-or-nothing” standard on it when the Church itself isn’t. That makes it a doctrine of you, not a doctrine of the Church.

The problem is, the book uses names, dates and places that CAN be historically checked and PROVEN to be FALSE (even when compared with other Scripture)! Are you suggesting that it’s OK to have a contradiction in the Scriptures as long as it’s historical?

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. IF I was using it as a history text, you’d be right, it would be defective. But if I don’t use it for that purpose, what difference does that historical inaccuracy make? You are mistaking “protected from error” with “100% perfection in accuracy.” They are two different terms, and I’ve already addressed what the protection from error is concerned with.

How are the historical errors in Judith “a colloquialism”? How can they seriously be considered anything other than what they are - gross historical ERRORS?

I’m not saying they are a colloquialism; I’m saying colloquial terms are but ONE example of how a later reviewer might miss the intent of the earlier writer. Maybe there was a purpose for intentionally writing this wrong historical fact, I don’t know. All I’m saying is that in some cases where people view what appears to be an error or contradiction, they misunderstand the writer’s intent. Sometimes recognizing other factors helps put these “errors” into perspective. Case in point:
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, Lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own conceit.

These appear to be a contradiction, by the same author, one sentence apart. But they are only a contradiction if you fail to consider they might be separate pieces of good advice given to different people in different circumstances, not both at the same time. Only if you insist on them being presented simultaneously do they conflict.

While it is true that God used many people over a long space of time to put His Words into writing, God is the author of Scripture, and God knows history, and He knows what we know. Seems like you’re suggesting God picked someone that didn’t know history (which seems very strange, considering how well the Jews know their history), and/or was unable to convey the correct words to the human writer. Bottom line - either Judith is not God-breathed Scripture, or God didn’t (or couldn’t) preserve it from gross, historical errors.

Another gross assumption on your part. Your premise is that IF God can protect scripture from error, he must therefore protect it from ANY kind of error. Please explain why God is pinned to that requirement of yours?

Have you ever been in a room where someone is talking on the phone and you needed to get a certain piece of information to the person on the other end? You might say, “Oh, that’s Joe… well tell him we moved the fishing trip to the 17th instead of the weekend of the 24th.” You would obviously be very concerned with the accuracy of that information. But what if they said into the phone, “Joe… the bowling trip has changed from the weekend of the 24th to the 17th,” and you heard Joe say, “Oh, okay, tell him I’ll be there.”

Now Joe knows there is a fishing trip planned, not a bowling trip. He was able to grasp the meaning of what was conveyed even though, on it’s face, it was factually erroneous information transmitted. He understood the information you intended to convey. By your imposed standards, even though Joe got the drift, you would need to re-interject your message and correct the facts, even though Joe might say, “Yeah, I already figured that out.”

You’re assertion is that without that extra corrective step, Joe would be down at the bowling alley on the 17th instead of down at the lake. I content it is quite possible for Joe to get the message you intended and leave his house with his pole and tackle box on the 17th without that extra “100 percent accurate in all things” protection.

 

[rcjones]

So, my essential question is… If the Bible has ONE error in it, does that prove that Catholicism is false (including the eucharist, the saints, etc.)?

I hesitate to jump in here because of the lengthy discussion, but the the question of the OP is logically absurd.

If A is true, it is true whether you believe it or not, whether you state it or not, and whether you use good logic or fallacious logic to prove it. Truth stands alone. So If A is true and B is claimed to be true but it is really false, the fact that B is false has nothing to do with the truthfulness of A no matter how much A and B are tied together by claims, logical proofs or sophistry.

The Bible ultimately is absolutely true in the way that God intended it to be absolutely true. Whenever we think it is untrue, we are best served by examining our understanding of what Truth is.

God is not a liar, but he concealed the truth of Christ from the Jews by speaking in prophecy, and riddles. He had a reason to conceal the details until Christ was revealed. We speak of reading poetry as poetry and history as history. God also says he speaks in riddles, but we are largely unpracticed in the discerning of riddles and solving them.

A riddle, to a skeptic always looks like a lie. King Uzziah is called Azariah. It is not a mistake, but a perfect picture of Christ in riddle. Uzziah did everything according to his father even as Christ had perfect obedience. He offered incense symbolizing Christs total devotion. He was made leprous,as Christ bore our sin. He was cast out, even as Christ was taken outside the camp. He was called Azariah, the name of the high priest, since Jesus then became our high priest in his resurrection.

It surely is on the list of factual errors on someone’s atheist site. But if God intended to paint a picture of Christ, then it has accomplished exactly what He intended and is not an error. Even if the Human author didn’t know Uzziah’s real name, God used his lack to perfectly write what He wanted written. It is more likely that the human author used the name to mock the king as the one who played high priest. And so the name was used as a mocking title rather than a statement of what his name was. If that, then human author, also was historically accurate, but we don’t have the cultural context to see the mocking and misinterpret it if we think the author intended to use his real name.

Can it be proven? The historical part can’t be. But we know that the purpose of the Bible is to speak of Christ, therefor we can conclude that riddle which speaks of Christ is intentional.

 

[KShaft]

There was a time when many secular historians thought they had nailed Luke on historical inaccuracies. Things that they ‘knew’ to be incorrect later proved to be subtle differences in definitions of governors vs kings that Luke had a much more accurate account than the general ones they had. Now, Roman historians take the writings of Luke for granted.

The same can be said of Daniel with saying the son of Nebuchadnezzar ruled rather than he himself and historians saying this is inaccurate. There has been documentation found lately that Daniel was correct, because of a more specified decree saying the son was in power, but the father still respected kind of like King Lear should have been. Basically Daniel had inside information that people outside a certain circle wouldn’t have known about. So according to secular historians, Daniel was wrong, when in fact he wasnt (or shouldn’t be at least from a historically-critical POV, but this is still not fully accepted in the secular community). Liberal historians cite Daniel at 163 CE (not A.D. because they are commies). So to them, Daniel is not prophetic in the sense of predicting the rise and falls of the empires. Do you take their word for that too, or only the things which fit your dogma such as refuting Judith? How quickly we are to side with the atheists to try to go against the original Church which was 1500 years before the heretics who decided individually do things how ever they saw fit and created thousands of cults of Christianity. Its disgusting. Seriously, your idea of a ‘mass’ is nothing more than a bible study with some hymns. There’s nothing sacred or holy about it. Its clear that schismers try to imitate the true Mass but fall short in that they put their own prejudices against the Eucharist and dumbing things down in other areas to take the sanctity out of the gathering.

Not to mention your constant harping on scripture, who discerned what was actually Creator inspired scripture in the first place? It wasn’t baptists or Lutherans. It was the Roman Catholic Church.

However, Cachonga at least believes in scripture as THE WORD of the LORD. Some of you “Catholics” here seem to be not so convinced. He is right. You seem to want to believe more in evolution than HIS word. Why is this? because your cool college professor who was probably an atheist socialist(just like the NAZIs) said it was so? You are worried what people will think of you if you profess your faith and go against what is popular? If you could give me a scientific reason to believe in evolution I could understand, but Im sure you can’t. I don’t want to get into the joke of evolution, but I will tell you its whole existence as a hypothesis is to disprove a Creator is necessary for complex life, ergo making a Creator false or unnecessary. If you don’t believe me just read what Darwin says about such things or other Victorian or Modernist writers before you go to bed with them.

 

[NotWorthy]

Cachonga, my brother, I missed you at Mass today.

God Bless.

 

[Vincent9]

I hesitate to jump in here because of the lengthy discussion, but the the question of the OP is logically absurd.

If A is true, it is true whether you believe it or not, whether you state it or not, and whether you use good logic or fallacious logic to prove it. Truth stands alone. So If A is true and B is claimed to be true but it is really false, the fact that B is false has nothing to do with the truthfulness of A no matter how much A and B are tied together by claims, logical proofs or sophistry.

I’m not quite sure what you mean here, or why you think my question is logically absurd.

I wasn’t suggesting that if Catholicism is false, then the Bible is in error (I think this is what you meant). I was asking, “If there is error in the Bible, does that make Catholicism false?” My reasoning is this…

Catholicism has made certain dogmatic statements about scripture. As far as I know, one of these statements is that the Bible is, in some sense, without error. So if the Bible has an error that shows that dogmatic statement to be false, then it shows that the Catholic Church’s dogma can err.

I don’t know what about this is sophistry. Could you clarify?

 

[rcjones]

I’m not quite sure what you mean here, or why you think my question is logically absurd.

I wasn’t suggesting that if Catholicism is false, then the Bible is in error (I think this is what you meant). I was asking, “If there is error in the Bible, does that make Catholicism false?” My reasoning is this…

Catholicism has made certain dogmatic statements about scripture. As far as I know, one of these statements is that the Bible is, in some sense, without error. So if the Bible has an error that shows that dogmatic statement to be false, then it shows that the Catholic Church’s dogma can err.

I don’t know what about this is sophistry. Could you clarify?

Thanks for asking.

Let’s presume the fact that the Bible has an error just to simplify the arguement, not to concede the point.:

The church says the Bible is without error.
The Bible has an error.
Therefor what the church says in error.

It seems simple enough to support your position, but it misses the implied dilemma with the two propositions:
'The Bible must either have no error or have error.

This is a false dilemma. A false dilemma is when a third proposition exists and has not been falsified. The third proposition is that the Bible has error and does not have error simultaneously. On the face this looks like nonsense, but not when you consider the flexibility of language. By insisting that it is either or, you force the definition of what an error is upon the discussion to be whatever you want it to be.

It is a fact that the sky is blue and that the sky is not blue. It has no color being clear yet every kindergartner knows to paint it blue.

Such is the flexibility of language. Ignoring this in a logical debate by trying to simplify the arguement the way you have is pure sophistry.

It is a fact that Jesus is a thief yet is not guilty of stealing. (He is the thief in the night that comes for us).

The existence of the third option is sufficient proof to show a false dilemma.

But you were unaware of the third option, which demonstrates, in a practical way, what I call universal ignorance. You can never know what you don’t know that you don’t know. Therefor you can never know that your implied dilemmas in Greek logic are not false dilemmas. And therefore you can have no confidence in any conclusion derived from such practices.

So if you ignore what the church says about the Bible being without error and impose your own definition of error, you have a straw man argument. If you do not define terms in a complex issue, you have semantic fallacies. If you do not acknowledge spiritual fulfillment and insist upon hyper-literalisms, this is also a straw man arguement missing the meaning that the church derives from the passage. If you insist that science disproves it, you have the fallacy of an appeal to authority.

You have not defined the argument sufficiently to produce anything but sophistry.

The Bible is a Hebrew book, and Greek logic is a poor choice of tools to understand it.

Ps 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

Taste and See!? How does one see by tasting, the Greek asks. The Hebrew just does it. It is perfect logic, in Hebrew to hold two apparent contradictory positions from the Bible as being true simultaneously. They are interpreted as a riddle inviting meditation upon the truths contained therein.

Answer the fool… and don’t answer the fool. Not a contradiction. A riddle. Let your light shine before men, but don’t let your left hand know what your right is doing… another riddle. Uzziah called Azariah… yep, another riddle which paints a perfect picture of Christ.

Hope this helps.

 

[Vincent9]

rcjones,

If I understand you correctly, then we agree on alo. We need to define our terms carefully before we can get to the bottom of the matter.

I also agree that we have to take into account the literary genre and culture of the Bible. I also agree that two seemingly contradictory statements are not necessarily contradictory. I also agree (per your sky example) that the Bible uses phenomenological, metaphorical, and allegorical language. I also agree that some parts of the Bible can be interpreted spiritually. Finally, I agree that we must see what the Church actually says before saying it is wrong.

I didn’t mention all that, but I wasn’t planning to take all issues into account in this one question.

But if we have done all of the above, and truly given the Bible a fair reading in its proper cultural context, and truly understood what the Church means when it declares the Bible as the “Word of God”, then I think my question is perfectly legitimate.

Even with all the above considerations, it is still possible for the Bible to have an error that cannot be reconciled. So my question is if there is an error that CANNOT be reconciled, and the error is of such a kind that it contradicts the Church’s dogmatic statements about Scripture, does that make all of Catholicism false? I hope the further explanation of what kind of error I’m talking about clears things up.

I’m not saying there are errors, that’s a discussion for another time.

 

[rcjones]

How would one ever determine that there is an error that CANNOT be reconciled?

Simply because you or I do not know the answer does not mean that an answer does not exist. Universal ignorance hits us again. You can’t know what you don’t know you don’t know.

The question can only exist in the hypothetical. Though I am certain your intention is not to have a discussions on the merits of every alleged discrepancy, it is a common question as a lead in to such discussions to bait the participants into such lengthy discussions. And often with the intent of using such sophistry to unseat the faith of others.

If there is a practical reason for the question, I am certainly missing it. Sorry.

The proposition, as stated is to discuss if the Catholic church is false using the issue of inerrancy. The church is not a propositional truth. It is a relationship between men and each other and God.

It is just as illogical to say, if inerrancy is false, are all the relationships within the church false relationships. The single defining truth of Christianity is Christ who said “IAM the Truth”

Many men have written lies about Christ and it does not make Him Not the Truth. So if someone’s record of Christ isn’t perfect in someone else’s eyes, it doesn’t make Christ untrue, nor the relationships that he has with men, or men among themselves.

Also, until you address the issue of universal ignorance as mentioned previously, one can have no confidence in the result obtained using your methods.

I hope the further explanation of what kind of error I’m talking about clears things up.

I’m not saying there are errors,

it is still possible for the Bible to have an error that cannot be reconciled.

OK, you are going to tell is that there are not errors but there possibly are, and tell us what KIND of error is possible that will show the Catholic church to be false.

Lets simplify the discussion by separating the issues:
You have a kind of evidence you think shows the Bible is not inerrant. Show it.

I’m not even Catholic, I don’t need to even discuss it’s ramifications on the Catholic church. Let’s get away from the rhetorical games and look at your evidence.

 

[Major_Minor]

To me the question itself is more of a sign of modern mans lack of insight than “problems with the Bible” It is a loaded question that is “stacking the deck” in its own favor.
A sort of “look how clever I am by how little I am investing in genuinely trying to understand it” approach.

As someone mentioned earlier there are sections that are historical and sections that are poetic etc. etc. each needs to be read in its own context. There is also the whole question of “literal” vs. “literalist” way of reading the texts

 

[Contarini]

Does that prove Catholicism is false?

When I was evangelical, I was aware that there were many problems with Biblical inerrancy. I believed it, but I read other evangelicals who said that, even if the Bible had errors in it, Christianity could still be true.

However, from what I understand, if the Bible has errors in it, than that proves that the Church is not guided by God, because she said the Bible was without errors in ecumenical councils.

Which ecumenical councils? Where? What kinds of errors?

Most Catholic scholars and theologians do not believe in inerrancy in the sense most Protestants use it (applying to every historical detail, etc.). It seems to me that what most mainstream Catholic theologians (and I’m talking about conservative ones like the Pope) mean by inerrancy–if they use the term at all–is more like what evangelical Protestants mean by infallibility. That is to say, Scripture is authoritative on matters of Christian faith and practice, and free from any error that would prevent its message from coming through. Admittedly, that is my own view, so I may be reading it into Catholic theologians more than the evidence warrants.

This is an extremely conservative website, and the Catholics here are much more likely to hold to a strict version of inerrancy than most Catholics. The folks here often condemn Catholic scholars like Raymond Brown as heretical–but as far as I know the Magisterium has never condemned Brown or censured mainstream works of Catholic biblical scholarship like the New Jerome Commentary (correct me if I’m wrong). I think there’s a lot more “give” in the Catholic position than converts from conservative evangelicalism often recognize. But hey–I’m a heretical Episcopalian!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

No problem. I was always taught there are 2 things you never talk about in mixed company - religion and politics.

I have always wondered why people who hold to this rule do not die of boredom. But that’s off-topic.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Strongly disagree! If the Scriptures contain even a single, provable error, how can they be trusted as reliable on ANY topic, especially salvation?

I don’t know how to answer such a question, because it sounds like a non sequitur.

It’s like saying, “if your wife sometimes makes a mistake in balancing the checkbook, how can you trust her not to commit adultery?”

If God inspired Scripture for particular purposes, why would He override the normal processes of human authorship in ways not required for those purposes?

Sounds like you’re saying that God couldn’t (or wouldn’t) preserve His written Word from outright corruptions

Depends what you mean by “corruptions.” That isn’t the word I’d use. But to use it in one technical sense: it’s clear that the Biblical *text *has not been preserved from all “corruptions.” Hence, most conservative scholars argue for an inerrant “original monograph.” If that’s your position, then I think your challenge turns back and bites you. If you hold to the view that there is an inerrant text that has been preserved throughout the centuries, then there are other problems with your position–but since that’s a minority view I won’t try to refute it until I know you hold it.

(which, it seems, you are at least “hinting” is what happened with Judith), and that the Church doesn’t care about historical accuracy or truth because it’s not using Judith as a history book. The problem is, the book uses names, dates and places that CAN be historically checked and PROVEN to be FALSE (even when compared with other Scripture)! Are you suggesting that it’s OK to have a contradiction in the Scriptures as long as it’s historical?

As long as it doesn’t hinder the book from fulfilling the purpose for which God inspired, it, sure.

By the way: I’m an Anglican, not a Roman Catholic, and I am not committed to the view that the deuterocanonical books are inspired in the way the rest of Scripture is. I do not think they should be cast out from the canon, but I am willing to reserve judgment on them. But there are plenty of historical problems with undisputed books of the canon (Daniel’s apparent confusion of Cyrus and Darius, for instance). One can perhaps explain these away somewhat more easily than the errors in Judith, but I for one find the explanations given by conservative Christians highly unconvincing in these cases (i.e., the apparent discrepancies that do not touch the purpose for which the Church primarily uses the books in question–the questions raised by skeptics about basic events of salvation history such as the Exodus, the Virgin Birth, or the Resurrection are another matter entirely).

Your position is a desperate one and demonstrates the problems with “sola scriptura” (which is why I find it baffling that some Catholics adopt your view). Since you don’t explicitly and formally hold to the Rule of Faith (aka Sacred Tradition) you feel yourself to be without a reliable guide telling you which parts of Scripture need to be taken literally as reliable history. But this is a particular problem with your Protestant position, not with Christianity as a whole.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

patg - I believe the original writings were inerrant. Variations have crept in over the years, but there is not a single doctrine of faith that hinges on a textual variant (for example, the doctrine of the Trinity is not dependent upon a variant found in one particular manuscript).

Ah–this answers the question I raised in my other post.

Don’t you see that when it comes to the very important practical question of whether we have a divinely inspired, reliable text available to us *now, *you are in exactly the same boat as those of us who don’t believe in inerrancy? You fall back on the fact that the basic doctrines taught in Scripture are not compromised by textual variations. Well and good–but why isn’t that good enough for you with regard to the original autographs as well? Perhaps because you consider it unworthy of God to inspire texts containing any errors. But God does a lot of things that human reason might judge to be unworthy (Muslims think that the Incarnation is completely unworthy of God), and as you pointed out in a later post, one can ask why God wouldn’t *preserve *Scripture from errors (which applies just as much to textual variations as to the original autographs).

Edwin

 

[Vincent9]

Rcjones,

How would one ever determine that there is an error that CANNOT be reconciled?

Simply because you or I do not know the answer does not mean that an answer does not exist. Universal ignorance hits us again. You can’t know what you don’t know you don’t know.

The question can only exist in the hypothetical. Though I am certain your intention is not to have a discussions on the merits of every alleged discrepancy, it is a common question as a lead in to such discussions to bait the participants into such lengthy discussions. And often with the intent of using such sophistry to unseat the faith of others.

If there is a practical reason for the question, I am certainly missing it. Sorry.

Ah, very true. One cannot prove that there is an error 100% without a doubt (I don’t know if anything can be proved with that much certainty). One could only show that an error is probable (at best).

If you need background to understand my practical reasons… I’m a doubting Catholic. There are two doctrines that I have trouble with the most: Hell and inerrancy. I want to know what the stakes are for the Catholic Church in the battle for inerrancy. Although, thanks to your questioning (I really do appreciate it), I have realized that another question I should be asking is about Church Infallibility. I’ll probably start a thread on that soon. In any case, whether the Bible is inerrant or not is important to know in my search. I am trying to set a foundation for my understanding of later threads, but I’m not purposefully trying to damage anyone’s faith. As far as I can tell, I am trying to seek truth.

The proposition, as stated is to discuss if the Catholic church is false using the issue of inerrancy. The church is not a propositional truth. It is a relationship between men and each other and God.

It is just as illogical to say, if inerrancy is false, are all the relationships within the church false relationships. The single defining truth of Christianity is Christ who said “IAM the Truth”

Many men have written lies about Christ and it does not make Him Not the Truth. So if someone’s record of Christ isn’t perfect in someone else’s eyes, it doesn’t make Christ untrue, nor the relationships that he has with men, or men among themselves.

The difficulty here is that we are using the term “church” to mean two different things. I’m not saying that, if inerrancy is false, Christianity is false. I’m mainly asking about the Catholic Church right now. I realize that Biblical inerrancy isn’t required for Christianity to be true.

Also, until you address the issue of universal ignorance as mentioned previously, one can have no confidence in the result obtained using your methods.

I agree that there will always be things we don’t know and we can’t know what we don’t know. There’s always going to be something we miss. We can only deal with probabilities here, not with absolute proof (I think this is true for almost all things in life).

Quote:
I hope the further explanation of what kind of error I’m talking about clears things up.
Quote:
I’m not saying there are errors,
Quote:
it is still possible for the Bible to have an error that cannot be reconciled.

OK, you are going to tell is that there are not errors but there possibly are, and tell us what KIND of error is possible that will show the Catholic church to be false.

I didn’t say that there are not errors. I said that I’m not saying there are errors. The verdict, for me, is still out on that question. I think there are definitely possible errors, but I need to look into them more.

Lets simplify the discussion by separating the issues:
You have a kind of evidence you think shows the Bible is not inerrant. Show it.

I’m not even Catholic, I don’t need to even discuss it’s ramifications on the Catholic church. Let’s get away from the rhetorical games and look at your evidence.

That’s the thing, though. My question is primarily about the ramifications for the Catholic Church. I want to know if the Catholic position on the Bible is tenable. If it isn’t, that doesn’t mean Christianity is false as a whole, but it would eliminate Catholicism as an option. On the other hand, if the Catholic Church’s position on the Bible is defensible, that would greatly strengthen my faith.

I’m trying to set some foundations for my later thinking on this matter right now. I do intend to start some threads where I can ask questions about certain alleged problems later, but not yet.

 

[Vincent9]

To me the question itself is more of a sign of modern mans lack of insight than “problems with the Bible” It is a loaded question that is “stacking the deck” in its own favor.
A sort of “look how clever I am by how little I am investing in genuinely trying to understand it” approach.

As someone mentioned earlier there are sections that are historical and sections that are poetic etc. etc. each needs to be read in its own context. There is also the whole question of “literal” vs. “literalist” way of reading the texts

To your second paragraph, I agree. Your first section seems like a rather unfair and sweeping statement of what I’m trying to do. If you feel that the question is unfair, can you tell me what question you think would be fair? What would be a better foundation for my later studies of the Catholic Church and the inspiration of Scripture?

 

[Vincent9]

Which ecumenical councils? Where? What kinds of errors?

Most Catholic scholars and theologians do not believe in inerrancy in the sense most Protestants use it (applying to every historical detail, etc.). It seems to me that what most mainstream Catholic theologians (and I’m talking about conservative ones like the Pope) mean by inerrancy–if they use the term at all–is more like what evangelical Protestants mean by infallibility. That is to say, Scripture is authoritative on matters of Christian faith and practice, and free from any error that would prevent its message from coming through. Admittedly, that is my own view, so I may be reading it into Catholic theologians more than the evidence warrants.

This is an extremely conservative website, and the Catholics here are much more likely to hold to a strict version of inerrancy than most Catholics. The folks here often condemn Catholic scholars like Raymond Brown as heretical–but as far as I know the Magisterium has never condemned Brown or censured mainstream works of Catholic biblical scholarship like the New Jerome Commentary (correct me if I’m wrong). I think there’s a lot more “give” in the Catholic position than converts from conservative evangelicalism often recognize. But hey–I’m a heretical Episcopalian!

Edwin

I hope you’re right about the “give”. I guess we’ll see. This article by Jimmy akin gives the main quotes that I’m thinking of, along with his understanding of the Church’s teaching on the subject.

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512bt.asp

Most important is the quote from Dei Verbum. It says…

“In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things that he wanted. Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth that God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation (DV 11).”

Although I’ve heard that there are different ways to interpret this section, so I might have to take that into consideration as well.

 

[rcjones]

I want to know what the stakes are for the Catholic Church in the battle for inerrancy.

Perhaps I can short cut it then. The official statements of the church are bland enough that no alleged error concerning inerrancy will stick. I am more inerrantist than the statements of the church.

Here is a very brief introduction to what I am finding: sensusplenior.net/?p=829

Search the forum for “sensus plenior” and see what I am finding in the scriptures. Sensus plenior, if my observations are correct, verifiable and reproducible, prove the divine origin of the Bible.

I am here hoping to find further validation of it in the corporate memory of the church.

How does this affect you? If the source is truly divine, rather than merely human authors, then it must be inerrant in the way God intended it to be inerrant.

Ah, very true. One cannot prove that there is an error 100% without a doubt (I don’t know if anything can be proved with that much certainty). One could only show that an error is probable (at best).

And this is the nature of faith. Though nothing can be proven, we can be certain. If you know the one behind the scriptures, you know the veracity of the scriptures.

Greek logic is a sham in this. Until you find a logical resolution to universal ignorance, you can only pretend to seek truth using it. It is a tool to use to make others think you are rational when you do what you want.

How do you assign probability to truth? Can’t be done in the face of universal ignorance. So the probabilities are adjusted in the fallacious arguments until the desired result is obtained.

When you were a teenager, there was a time when, rather than blindly accept what your parents said, you had to figure it out for yourself. You were able to rationalize anything in order to do what you wanted.

It sounds like you are going through the same thing concerning the authority of the church in your life. The rational approach is to recognize it and deal with it directly.

In this, I can’t help since the church is not an authority in my life. Here the choice is whether I freely accept is as an authority or not. For me it would be an added burden of the law similar to the Greeks having to become Jewish before they could be Christian.

There is no sin in eating meat on Friday outside of the church. By accepting the authority of the church I would have to accept the church’s ruling on such matters. It would become a venial sin if I accidentally ate it, and a mortal sin if I intentionally ate it. No one has answered why I should accept this additional burden of law and sin when Christ has set me free from the law of sin and death. “I am alive without the law”.

But if you are under authority already, the scriptures deal with it differently.

Back to inerrancy. It will be difficult to argue that any book showing the fingerprints of God in sensus plenior is in error.

If you wish to discuss inerrancy with me I will be happy to do it. But it it would be illogical and tacky for me to address if the Catholic church were true. The apostles had their falling outs with each other, but they reconciled. It would have been wrong to choose sides between them.

I wish you the best in your journey.

 

[simspt]

How would one ever determine that there is an error that CANNOT be reconciled?
Simply because you or I do not know the answer does not mean that an answer does not exist. Universal ignorance hits us again. You can’t know what you don’t know you don’t know.
The question can only exist in the hypothetical. Though I am certain your intention is not to have a discussions on the merits of every alleged discrepancy, it is a common question as a lead in to such discussions to bait the participants into such lengthy discussions. And often with the intent of using such sophistry to unseat the faith of others.

If there is a practical reason for the question, I am certainly missing it. Sorry.

The proposition, as stated is to discuss if the Catholic church is false using the issue of inerrancy. The church is not a propositional truth. It is a relationship between men and each other and God.

It is just as illogical to say, if inerrancy is false, are all the relationships within the church false relationships. The single defining truth of Christianity is Christ who said “IAM the Truth”

Many men have written lies about Christ and it does not make Him Not the Truth. So if someone’s record of Christ isn’t perfect in someone else’s eyes, it doesn’t make Christ untrue, nor the relationships that he has with men, or men among themselves.

Also, until you address the issue of universal ignorance as mentioned previously, one can have no confidence in the result obtained using your methods.

OK, you are going to tell is that there are not errors but there possibly are, and tell us what KIND of error is possible that will show the Catholic church to be false.

Lets simplify the discussion by separating the issues:
You have a kind of evidence you think shows the Bible is not inerrant. Show it.

I’m not even Catholic, I don’t need to even discuss it’s ramifications on the Catholic church. Let’s get away from the rhetorical games and look at your evidence.

Are you arguing against the possibility of errors in the Bible based on ignorance ie a philosophical framework rooted in scepticism? r u saying for anyone who makes the proposition that an error exists in the bible that person has to be in such a strong epistemic position in respect to that proposition that it would be impossible for anyone else to ever be better positioned with respect to any matter than that person with respect to the matter in question? It seems “universal ignorance” can be a double edged sword.

 

[rcjones]

“Universal Ignorance” is used specifically addressing the issue of the false dilemma.

Since it is the basis of Greek logic, logic cannot produce truth. This should not be new to anyone who has studied logic. Logic is designed to speak to the validity of a narrowly defined Greek way of thinking. Not to determine truth. One may use all the best argument, but things presumed to be true which are false still result in error.

As previously stated, is is the wrong tool to use against a Hebrew book.

In other words, I am not arguing the issue of errors in the Bible at all. I argued against the method proposed to determine errors.

So, no. I am not a skeptic. There is truth and it can be known.

Let me argue from the Hebrew point of view,… “Let God be true and all men be liars” …
You are a man therefore I trust God first.

This is good Hebrew logic. Hebrew logic begins with the knowledge of God and proceeds from there. When there are apparent contradictions, they are interpreted as a riddle designed to reveal truth, rather than as contradictions.

The statement that Jesus is the truth is not a fallacy of an appeal to authority. It would only be a fallacy if he were not in fact the authority.

So the Greek is stuck with universal ignorance and tries to discover truth. The Hebrew, and consequently the Christian, starts with revealed truth, Christ.

 

[Contarini]

I hope you’re right about the “give”. I guess we’ll see. This article by Jimmy akin gives the main quotes that I’m thinking of, along with his understanding of the Church’s teaching on the subject.

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512bt.asp

Most important is the quote from Dei Verbum. It says…

“In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things that he wanted. Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth that God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation (DV 11).”

Although I’ve heard that there are different ways to interpret this section, so I might have to take that into consideration as well.

Akin, like a lot of contemporary American apologists, borrows heavily from conservative Calvinist approaches when doing apologetics (one spectacularly misguided example is Karl Keating’s adaptation of the Old Princeton argument for Biblical authority). Akin, like Scott Hahn, used to be a conservative Presbyterian. I think that these folks bring valuable insights (Akin’s “Tiptoe through TULIP” is very helpful in showing just how close a Catholic can legitimately go to Calvinism) and have been a good counterbalance to the mushiness of much post-Vatican-II American Catholicism. However, they do not simply represent *the *Catholic position, but a particular interpretation thereof.

Generally you will find that mainstream Catholic scholars and theologians disagree with the view expressed by Akin. Indeed, note that Akin’s article is directed against a statement issued by the Catholic bishops of England and Wales, and that he admits that such statements are commonly made by “catechists, theologians, and biblical scholars.”

Edwin