inerrancy of scripture

[Ron_Conte]

Resorting to threats (excommunication,…damnation etc…) hardly contributes to a rational discussion.Would you handle the inconsistency in scripture as a" Mystery Of Faith" ?
And to those who challenge us to defend the inerancy of Scripture, would you merely assert the principle:
“Any inconsistency in Scripture , by the very reason that it is in Scripture
cannot be an inconsistency…” ???

The Church has clear and definitive teachings on what constitutes a heresy. Certain teachings must be believed with the full assent of faith. The above quotes from several Popes show that inerrancy is one of these beliefs that are required of all Catholics. Therefore, we cannot hold that there are any false assertions made by Sacred Scripture.

An inconsistency is not necessarily a false assertion. For example, the Gospel writers chose to arrange their material in different orders; this does not constitute an assertion that the events occurred in that order. Or in the Old Testament there are accounts with dialogue, and when the account is repeated, the dialogue has a different wording. This is because, in ancient times, quotes were not exact word for word quotes, but merely a description of what was meant.

 

[QuickCat]

Genesis 1:31 is before the fall - obviously our Lord Jesus Christ, in John, is speaking of man after the fall. Simple! Huh?

 

[pipper]

Words have different meanings in different contexts.

Only God is good in the fullest sense of the word: God is Goodness itself. His Goodness is exactly the same as His existence. And He is infinite Goodness. So the statement that only God is good is true.

All that God has created is good in a lesser sense, which is finite goodness, and which is a weak reflection of His infinite goodness.

The full assent of faith (divine and catholic faith) is required of all Catholics for the teaching that Sacred Scripture is inerrant.

Whoever denies or obstinately doubts the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture commits at least material heresy. Whoever does so knowingly and deliberately commits formal heresy.

To be really honest here I think it all comes down to how one interprets the word “inerrent”. I am a convert from a very fundamental Protestant sect. And I do not buy the fundamental interpretation of “innerrent” at all.

They taught that God himself wrote the literal words of the Bible, and the bible therefore is to be taken at face value, literally interpretted for everything. As a text-book in science, history and so-on.

If that is the Catholic meaning of inerrant you will have to count me out, call me a heretic if you will. But I think and hope my erstwhile fundamental brothers were wrong and the Catholic church does not mean the same thing by innerant as do they.

 

[o_mlly]

In the gospels there is the quote attributed to Christ: “ No one is good but God…alone” (Mk10:18). Now the concept of “good” is so basic in all human languages, that it really cannot be defined. Yet it is used universally, without hesitation , and as such is understood by all. In fact to attempt to delete its usage would be useless.

Hence the quote is suspect, especially when it  contrasted with Genesis,  (1:31)

where in pondering the results of his creative activity “God saw that all he had made was good.”

This difficulty may be a paradox, but on the face of it, it seems to be a contradiction with only two viable  explanations:

1.Christ ,never really spoke those words of Mk 10:18

2.Christ being God , is correcting Genesis !:38

I.e. one of the quotes is  an error. And this poses serious questions about the  inerrancy  of Scripture .

I see no contradiction in the citations. In fact, Catholics affirm the truth of both citations in Eucharistic Prayer IV at Mass, “… our holy and living God…Fountain of life and source of all goodness …”

To be good God the Father creates (Genesis) and in order to do good the Holy Spirit initiates (Mark). If you see a good act, know that the person performing the good act is complying with a fracturable impulse from the Holy Spirit to do good. A compliant will perfects the Holy Spirit’s initiative (grace) and good works result. All goodness comes from God alone. All praise for goodness rightly goes to God alone. “…all praise and thanks be yours, Creator God, now and for ever” (Eucharistic Prayer III).

In doing good, we are but an effect, a willing assistant, to God’s goodness. In contrast, when we do evil we fracture God’s impulse to do good/avoid evil and reject His grace and are the sole cause of evil.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[Ron_Conte]

To be really honest here I think it all comes down to how one interprets the word “inerrent”.
They taught that God himself wrote the literal words of the Bible, and the bible therefore is to be taken at face value, literally interpretted for everything. As a text-book in science, history and so-on.

St. Thomas Aquinas: “The parabolical sense is contained in the literal, for by words things are signified properly and figuratively. Nor is the figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal sense. When Scripture speaks of God’s arm, the literal sense is not that God has such a member, but only what is signified by this member, namely operative power. Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.”
(Summa Theologica, I, 1, 10.)

St. Thomas Aquinas: It is unlawful to hold that any false assertion is contained either in the Gospel or in any canonical Scripture, or that the writers thereof have told untruths, because faith would be deprived of its certitude which is based on the authority of Holy Writ. (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 110, A. 3).

The literal level of meaning includes figures of speech, so we need not hold that every verse is literal (i.e. not figurative) in order to hold that Scripture is inerrant.

It is a required belief that Sacred Scripture is entirely inspired and entirely inerrant.
Whoever rejects the inerrancy of Scripture commits at least material heresy.

 

[PJM]

=Axman;5688465]In the gospels there is the quote attributed to Christ: “ No one is good but God…alone” (Mk10:18). Now the concept of “good” is so basic in all human languages, that it really cannot be defined. Yet it is used universally, without hesitation , and as such is understood by all. In fact to attempt to delete its usage would be useless.

Hence the quote is suspect, especially when it contrasted with Genesis, (1:31)
where in pondering the results of his creative activity “God saw that all he had made was good.”

This difficulty may be a paradox, but on the face of it, it seems to be a contradiction with only two viable explanations:

1.Christ ,never really spoke those words of Mk 10:18

2.Christ being God , is correcting Genesis !:38

I.e. one of the quotes is an error. And this poses serious questions about the inerrancy of Scripture .

**Or **

The word has a different meaning. From Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon search:

"36 ‘Abiytuwb ab-ee-toob’ from 1 and 2898; father of goodness (i.e. good); Abitub, an Israelite:–Abitub.

376 'iysh eesh contracted for 582 (or perhaps rather from an unused root meaning to be extant); a man as an individual or a male person; often used as an adjunct to a more definite term (and in such cases frequently not expressed in translation):–also, another, any (man), a certain, + champion, consent, each, every (one), fellow, (foot-, husband-)man, (good-, great, mighty) man, he, high (degree), him (that is), husband, man(-kind), + none, one, people, person, + steward, what (man) soever, whoso(-ever), worthy. Compare 802.

It actually means in today’s English:“perfect.”

From Haydock’s Catholic Comentary: “Ver. 18. None is good. Of himself, entirely and essentially, but God alone: men may be good also, but only by a participation of God’s goodness”

We can know this from the above and understanding that no one part of the Bible can contradict another. Clearly and logically, this does not deny biblical TRUTH.

Love and prayers,