Inerrancy of Scripture

[scylla]

In another thread I asked a question about Vatican II and the Bible and the understanding of Vatican II regarding this

Here I am re-asking the question so maybe it will be addressed…
Dei Verbum is often quoted with the following “books of scripture must be acknowleged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation”
Does this discounts other statements of scripture from other councils such as Vatican I regarding the inerrancy of Scripture? What about Providentissimus Deus? (look at 20)
On a side note, this is a very clear document and proves that the Church encouraged all to study and uphold the Bible, contrary to what many assert.
This was in 1893.
(many people say that Catholics weren’t allowed to read the Bible until a little while ago.)

It seems many people use this quote to reduce Scripture to be only true in the sense that it teaches us how to be saved. Do you agree?

Does stating that this particular part of the Bible is true, discount other parts? Let me explain, let us say a council says that the Gospels are held to be Scripture, would that mean the the rest of the Bible isn’t Scripture anymore?
Does affirming one truth discount another?

In Christ
Scylla

 

[zoe_ann]

The bible is made up of all different types of books and so when debating the truth of it we must take the different types of books into account. Therefore if you read the book of wisdom as history or the book of Samuel as poety ext. you will miss the truth of the scriputes. Sorry it does not exactly answer your question.

 

[BereanRuss]

The entirety of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever. [Ps 119:160]

Man cannot discount any portion of Scripture.

 

[patg]

The problem with relying on specific church documents is that no individual text is complete in itself. The development of church teaching on scriptures is a process that can only be understood by following the progression of thought. Providentissimus Deus is an important component of that process and even though it is all the things people here have said it is, it is NOT complete and it paints things with far too wide a brush. It leaves out some very essential concepts, several of which are identified and explained in subsequent documents. Divino Afflante Spiritu, attempted to clean up some of this and Dei Verbum expounded considerably more*.*

The problem with *Providentissimus Deus *in this discussion is that it fails to clearly delineate what it means by inerrancy, truth, freedom from error, etc. and some assume that these terms have meanings beyond what they mean in the scriptures. That is why Dei Verbum is so important - it explicitly states that while the scriptures contain error free truth, the format for the presentation of that truth varies widely thoughout the writings and that one cannot assume that the truth is presented as literalistic truth or that one can understand that truth without considering that truth is presented differently in different times.

For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.

As Dei Verbum clearly states, it is wrong to blindly apply the broad brush of inerrancy literalistically to all scriptures (as Providentissimus Deus implies*)*. Everything written contains inerrant truth but that truth is not always conveyed in a literal manner, not always with historic truth or scientific truth also.

The statement "…for the sake of salvation" is important because of what it includes, not because of what it denies. It re-emphasizes that the truth is that of salvation, regardless of the form in which that truth is presented, which is not necessarily history, etc.

The Church does not required literal belief in the creation accounts, the flood, the serpent in the garden, or the infancy narratives of Jesus but it does require belief in the truth they teach. And that is why all the documents are important and incomplete in themselves. Dei Verbum isn’t the last word either, future scholars and popes will no doubt build on it.

 

[BereanRuss]

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. [2 Tim:3:16, 17]

 

[scylla]

Thank you for the responses…

BereanRuss, I agree, all Scripture is inspired and profitable, so I fully accept all 73 books of the Bible as 100% true.

Yet some people these days vary widely on this and if you read some commentaries, some seem kinda shady on their view of Scripture.

patg, thank you for the detailed response, I certainly try to look at our faith from a neutral position to accept truth and follow it wherever it leads me. You response is very helpful and I will look into this more after work. Does Dei Verbum then limit the focus of our belief in Scripture?
It seems that this is strongly pushed for the purpose of discounting Scripture, even though it seems that was not the Fathers intent of inserting the phrase "for the sake of salvation". This phrase is then used in a negative way almost exclusively, resulting in an extremely sceptical view of Scripture, as thoroughly symbolic.

What are your thoughts on this?
Scylla

 

[BereanRuss]

6​

Dei Verbum cannot contradict what the Apostle Paul by the power of the Holy Spirit wrote: All scripture is … profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The word of God is perfect and no man can limit it, change it, remove it or add to it.

 

[scylla]

6​

Dei Verbum cannot contradict what the Apostle Paul by the power of the Holy Spirit wrote: All scripture is … profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The word of God is perfect and no man can limit it, change it, remove it or add to it.

Amen, Brother!

I agree, it is perfect. We must submit to it and make sure it is not mis-represented.
These days there are some shady interpretations, and they use Dei Verbum in an erroneous manner to justify their departure from Christian belief.

Dei Verbum affirms that all Scripture is inspired and we must submit to it.

I think the issue is interpretation.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[patg]

Does Dei Verbum then limit the focus of our belief in Scripture?

Dei Verbum emphasizes that it is all *true - *with the clarification that the truth can be conveyed in many different forms. The focus is on truth. Fiction, myth, legend, and poetry are thus perfectly valid mechanisms for presenting the truths of revelation. Dei Verbum frees us from being slaves to a fundamentalist and literalistic reading of scripture. Whether or not Jonah was really in the belly of a large fish is not relevant to one’s salvation but the truth of the story is. We don’t even have to discuss historical, biological, or scientific discrepancies in the text because the text isn’t a mechanism for teaching those subjects - it is a mechanism for teaching the truths of revelation as they apply to “…the sake of salvation”.

 

[BereanRuss]

9​

We don’t even have to discuss historical, biological, or scientific discrepancies in the text because the text isn’t a mechanism for teaching those subjects.

This is a very slipper slope IMO. It is impossible for God to lie and God is all-knowing. Therefore, the word of God must be perfect or it is not the word of God.

Jesus affirmed the validity of Jonah. If Jonah was not swallowed by a great fish, then Jesus looks like a fool when He say, “As Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the fish…” We cannot give this type of ammo to those who oppose Christianity.

This is not to say that there are not various types of writings in the Bible. It is to say that we do not have the authority to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are true when the context is very clear. For example, the flood of Noah is clearly recorded as “historical narrative.” The style of writing is no different than the story of Abraham or David or Jesus. We do not have the authority to change the clear meaning of God’s word.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Greetings in the Name of the King, Scylla!

I’ve been posting about this issue here. I left the thread for a while and came back here. You may find the last few posts that I added the other day particularly helpful.

I’ll warn you… I accidentally omitted a post. So if you end up reading this thread, you’ll want to read Post 196 after Post 176, and then come back for Post 177.

Have a blessed night!

In Christ,
Pete

 

[patg]

This is a very slipper slope IMO. It is impossible for God to lie and God is all-knowing. Therefore, the word of God must be perfect or it is not the word of God.

Teaching the truth with fiction is not lying. Writing in the context of one’s contemporary and imperfect knowledge is not lying. Dei Verbum assures us of this. The word of God can be expressed perfectly in fiction,

Jesus affirmed the validity of Jonah. If Jonah was not swallowed by a great fish, then Jesus looks like a fool when He say, “As Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the fish…” We cannot give this type of ammo to those who oppose Christianity.

That is totally untrue - Jesus is perfectly normal to reference a fictional story as an example in his teaching. Doing so in no way defines the referenced story as fact or fiction.

This is not to say that there are not various types of writings in the Bible. It is to say that we do not have the authority to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are true when the context is very clear.

No, we don’t. As I said, it is all true, some of just teaches truth using fiction,

For example, the flood of Noah is clearly recorded as “historical narrative.” The style of writing is no different than the story of Abraham or David or Jesus. We do not have the authority to change the clear meaning of God’s word.

Saying that a story, such as the flood, is mostly fiction with some possible historic core does change the clear meaning in any way.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Good evening, BereanRuss!

patg and I had a pretty involved exchange on Jonah. It starts here if you’re interested.

I hope you can find your way into the Catholic Church!

In Christ,
Pete

“He brings forward the type, that the truth may be believed. For tell me, was Jonah in the whale’s belly a mere appearance? Nay, you can not say so. Therefore neither was Christ in the heart of the earth such. For surely the type is not in truth, and the truth in mere appearance” (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 43 on Matthew).

 

[scylla]

Thanks Pete, Greetings to you in the name of the King!

I have read a bit of your posts just now in that thread and will read more. I am intrigued by this as I do see a bit of discontinuity in the faith by those who think that Vatican II changed the faith and those who don’t.

The Christian faith is perfect, it need not change unless Jesus taught us improperly and we know better now. Yet it is ever new and can always be presented in more effective ways, I am aware of that and seek to understand Vatican II properly.

Thank you all for your contributions to this thread.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[BereanRuss]

Teaching the truth with fiction is not lying. Writing in the context of one’s contemporary and imperfect knowledge is not lying. Dei Verbum assures us of this. The word of God can be expressed perfectly in fiction…

Pat,

I am honestly very sorry for you that you cannot trust the word of your God.

If you look at every Godly person in the Bible you will notice that they all have one thing in common – They believed God’s word. David put it this way:

The entirety of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever.

Jesus prayed to the Father, “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.”