inerrancy of scripture

[Axman]

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 .

 

[Cachonga]

Axman:

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.

In Gen 1:38, God describes His work as good. However, in Mark 10:18, Jesus points out that fallen man is not good. Where is the contradiction?

I would add that “good” is a relative term. We all know people who are “good” (we even consider ourselves to be “good”), but when we compare the best person to God’s standard of holiness, what sinful human being can claim to still be good?

 

[CWBetts]

In Gen 1:38, God describes His work as good. However, in Mark 10:18, Jesus points out that fallen man is not good. Where is the contradiction?

I would add that “good” is a relative term. We all know people who are “good” (we even consider ourselves to be “good”), but when we compare the best person to God’s standard of holiness, what sinful human being can claim to still be good?

I am going to have to side with you on this one. Creation before the fall, yes, can ONLY be defined as good. However, Jesus is talking about the state of creation after the fall to not be good. One can see by reading Genesis that corruption spread very rapidly. So both suppositions, that one of the passages is wrong, or that Jesus id “correcting” Genesis are both faulty premises.

 

[Dan_Parker]

It is interesting how the ECF considered Jesus’ words. In their view it it was only the Father who was good. The sense of good seems to be more that of the source of good things, the Father:

NJB James 1:17 all that is good, all that is perfect, is given us from above; it comes down from the Father of all light; with him there is no such thing as alteration, no shadow caused by change.

I am not sure if there are textual variants at work here or if it betrays the belief of the Fathers that God is a title of the God and Father of Jesus.

Here are some quotes you might find illuminating:
**
Clement of Alexandria Strom. V. 10.63 (c. 260 CE)**
"And if, the Creator above all is confessed to be just, and the Lord to be the Son of the Creator; then the Lord is the Son of Him who is just. Wherefore also Paul says, “But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested; " and again, that you may better conceive of God, “even the righteousness of God by the faith of Jesus Christ upon all that believe; for there is no difference.” And, witnessing further to the truth, he adds after a little, “through the forbearance of God, in order to show that He is just, and that Jesus is the justifier of him who is of faith.” And that he knows that what is just is good, appears by his saying, “So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good,” using both names to denote the same power. But “no one is good,” except His Father.” hEIS AGAQOS, hO PATHR ]
**
Hippolytus - haer. V.7.25 (pre-222 CE)**
‘They affirm, then, concerning the substance of the seed which is a cause of all existent things, that it is none of these, but that it produces and forms all things that are made, expressing themselves thus: “I become what I wish, and I am what I am: on account of this I say, that what puts all things in motion is itself unmoved. For what exists remains forming all things, and nought of existing things is made.” He says that this (one) alone is good, and that what is spoken by the Saviour is declared concerning this (one): “Why do you say that am good? One is good, my Father which is in the heavens , [hEIS ESTIN AGAQOS, hO [COLOR=“Red”]PATHR EN TOIS OURANOIS] who causeth His sun to rise upon the just and unjust, and sendeth rain upon saints and sinners.”’

Justin Martyr - Dial. 101.2 (c. 150 CE)
“Then what follows of the Psalm is this, in which He says: Our fathers trusted in Thee; they trusted, and Thou didst deliver them. They cried unto Thee, and were not confounded. But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people; 'which show that He admits them to be His fathers, who trusted in God and were saved by Him, who also were the fathers of the Virgin, by whom He was born and became man; and He foretells that He shall be saved by the same God, but boasts not in accomplishing anything through His own will or might. For when on earth He acted in the very same manner, and answered to one who addressed Him as Good Master: ‘`Why callest thou me good? One is good, my Father who is in heaven.’ (Luke xviii. 18 f.)”

the Pseudo-Clementine Homiles XVI.3.4 (c. 260 CE)
"AT break of day, when Peter went forth to discourse, Simon anticipated him, and said: “When I went away yesterday, I promised to you to return to-day, and in a discussion show that he who flamed the world is not the highest God, but that the highest God is another who alone is good, and who has remained unknown up to this time. At once, then, state to me whether you maintain that the framer of the world is the same as the lawgiver or not? If, then, he is the lawgiver, he is just; but if he is just, he is not good. But if he is not good, then it was another that Jesus proclaimed, when he said, `Do not call me good; for one is good, the Father who is in the heavens.’” [hO GAR AGAQOS hEIS ESTIN, hO [COLOR=“Red”]PATHR hO EN TOIS OURANOIS]

In the work “What text can NT Textual Criticism ultimately Reach?”
[William L. Peterson – New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis, and Early Church History, a Discussion of Methods, page 142, edited by Barbara Aland and Joel Delobel] some of these are repeated and a few new ones are added:

**Justin, Dial. 101.2 **
hEIS ESTIN AGAQOS, hO PATHR MOU hO EN TOIS OURANOIS - “**One is good, my Father in the heavens.” **

Taitian Diatessaron (c. 172 CE), as per Ephrem Syrus, Comm. on the Diatessaron, XV,9 (Syr & Arm]
“Unus est bonus, Pater, qui in caelo [est].”

**Irenaeus, haer. I.210.2 (pre-185 CE) **
“hEIS ESTIN AGAQOS, hO PATHR EN TOIS OURANOIS”

**Hippolytus, haer. V.7.25 (pre-222 CE) **
“hEIS ESTIN AGAQOS, hO PATHR EN TOIS OURANOIS”

**Clement of Alexandria, Strom. V.10.63 (c. 207 CE) **
“hEIS AGAQOS, hO PATHR”

**the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies XVI.3.4 (c. 260 CE) **
“hO GAR AGAQOS hEIS ESTIN, hO PATHR hO EN TOIS OURANOIS”

**Vetus Latina MS e (apud Matthew; V cent) **
“Unus est bonus, pater.”

**Vetus Latina MS d (apud Luke; V cent) **
“Nemo bonus misi unus Deus pater.”

 

[Cachonga]

Dan Parker:

It is interesting how the ECF considered Jesus’ words. In their view it it was only the Father who was good. The sense of good seems to be more that of the source of good things, the Father:

And how is this relevant to the discussion of the inerrancy of scriptures (which is the topic of this thread)?

 

[Dan_Parker]

And how is this relevant to the discussion of the inerrancy of scriptures (which is the topic of this thread)?

It demonstrates how Jesus’ words can be harmonized with James in a way that eliminates any potential contradiction.

 

[Cachonga]

Dan Parker:

It demonstrates how Jesus’ words can be harmonized with James in a way that eliminates any potential contradiction.

OK, but there was no question about any contradiction with James 1:17 and Mark 10:18 (or Gen 1:38).

Now, if you’re trying to “prove” that Jesus is not God (which seems likely by your change of topic heading in your original post), please take that to another thread with that topic.

 

[po18guy]

In Gen 1:38, God describes His work as good. However, in Mark 10:18, Jesus points out that fallen man is not good. Where is the contradiction?

I would add that “good” is a relative term. We all know people who are “good” (we even consider ourselves to be “good”), but when we compare the best person to God’s standard of holiness, what sinful human being can claim to still be good?

Right you are. Jesus here was replying to a Pharisee addressing Him as “good teacher”. Now, this was a test, to see if the pharisee recognized who he was talking to, right? “Why do you call me good teacher. No one is good, but God alone”.

But, he was not recognized for Who He was.

 

[Dan_Parker]

OK, but there was no question about any contradiction with James 1:17 and Mark 10:18 (or Gen 1:38).

Now, if you’re trying to “prove” that Jesus is not God (which seems likely by your change of topic heading in your original post), please take that to another thread with that topic.

The original poster had a seeming difficulty with the use of the word “good” as being something that is only predicated on God and Genesis which said what God created was good. The word good is being used in two different senses here, there is not a contradiction in the bible.

I compared the word good in Mark and James to show that Jesus was speaking of the beneficent quality of God, that he is the source of all things good. The quotes from the ECF reinforces that Jesus was thought to have been speaking of the Father when he said only God was good just as James said all good things come from the Father.

Many times when there is a supposed contradiction in the bible it is an unintentional equivocation in terms, in this case the word “good” in two different contexts and with two different (but related) senses.

 

[Roman_Army]

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 do not intend to be insulting or anything, but to be quite honest that is just about the most stupidest Liberal claim about a supposed “contradiction” in the Bible I’ve ever heard. Surely, you can do better than that as many supposed scholars have tried and failed. Clearly, the Bible was using “good” in different senses in both passages. In the beginning there was an imperfect unfinished good and at the the end there is a perfect finished good. Although at the beginning God created things to be good, because of its autonomy it was still unfinished in the sense that it was capable of committing grave evil and corrupting itself by rejecting God. In the end this ability to commit evil and the corruption associated with it would be eradicated by being made one with God. So, at present, the only truly good thing (in the perfect finished sense of the word) is indeed God for he is incapable of committing evil and corrupting himself. Evil by its very definition is the rejection of God. In the end those who have accepted and embraced God, their decision to embrace him would be permanent. So, there would be no more repetitive cycle of sin and reconciliation.

 

[Dan_Parker]

I do not intend to be insulting or anything, but to be quite honest that is just about the most stupidest Liberal claim about a supposed “contradiction” in the Bible I’ve ever heard. Surely, you can do better than that as many supposed scholars have tried and failed. Clearly, the Bible was using “good” in different senses in both passages. In the beginning there was an imperfect unfinished good and at the the end there is a perfect finished good. Although at the beginning God created things to be good, because of its autonomy it was still unfinished in the sense that it was capable of committing grave evil and corrupting itself by rejecting God. In the end this ability to commit evil and the corruption associated with it would be eradicated by being made one with God. So, at present, the only truly good thing (in the perfect finished sense of the word) is indeed God for he is incapable of committing evil and corrupting himself. Evil by its very definition is the rejection of God. In the end those who have accepted and embraced God, their decision to embrace him would be permanent. So, there would be no more repetitive cycle of sin and reconciliation.

In my experience, calling someone stupid (or even their argument) never does any good

 

[Ron_Conte]

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.

“St. Jerome’s teaching on this point serves to confirm and illustrate what our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, **declared to be the ancient and traditional belief of the Church **touching the absolute immunity of Scripture from error: So far is it from being the case that error can be compatible with inspiration, that, on the contrary, it not only of its very nature precludes the presence of error, but as necessarily excludes it and forbids it as God, the Supreme Truth, necessarily cannot be the Author of error.” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 16)

“But although these words of our predecessor leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church - nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning - who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point.” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 18 )

“Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text…” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 21)

“…they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 22).

Pope Pius X published a Syllabus of Errors, in which he condemned the idea that “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.” (Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, n. 11).

“But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred… For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

 

[Axman]

In Gen 1:38, God describes His work as good. However, in Mark 10:18, Jesus points out that fallen man is not good. Where is the contradiction?

God says that all his work is good
Christ says: no, some of your work (Man ) is non-good

This is a contradiction, plain and simple.

---

Jesus is talking about the state of creation after the fall to not be good

The mind of another person is usually revealed by his words. That is why we use words. In this context ( Mk 10 , what words of Christ show this is what he meant? The concept that ALL creation is corrupt is highly dubious. ( how can an electron or proton be “corrupt “ ?) Again, even corrupt things can contain some good: a rotten apple can still have some edible portions…) Even further, is the consequent implication that God in subsequent creations creates things which are not good . (?).

The problem seems to be with the term: “ only .”of Mk 10:18 . As used here an, and as used by God, it admits no exception, i.e. a categorical/ generalization. Hence we can infer that Christ is saying that as only God is good, that no one should use that word for anything else, and to do otherwise may be blasphemous!! Words have meaning and consequences.

Hence the premises still hold, the question still remains: is it really likely that Christ spoke the words of Mk10:38 ?

 

[Cachonga]

Axman:

God says that all his work is good
Christ says: no, some of your work (Man ) is non-good

This is a contradiction, plain and simple.

When God created the Earth, plants, animals, man, etc…, He created everything without sin, therefore man (Adam and Eve) were able to meet Gods standard of good. After Adam sinned, however, God put a curse on the Earth and man (see Gen 3). Because of this, everyone who is a descendant of Adam is corrupt and under a curse.

If you are getting hung up by the use of the word “only” in Mark 10:18, here’s what is says in the Greek, “ὁ δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ Θεός”. You may not be able to read Greek (and I’m still learning), but the word “only” is not there. I have looked at other translations of this verse, and the word “only” is not used at all! However, I did find the word “alone” used 3 times in 19 different English versions (RSV, NAS and SV). In answer to your question, I would say that Jesus spoke the words of Mark 10:18, as recorded in the Greek text, and suggest that you compare your translation against that.

Just curious, is this something you heard and are looking for a response to it, or is it something you believe and just want to justify yourself?

 

[Axman]

. In the beginning there was an imperfect unfinished good and at the the end there is a perfect finished good. Although at the beginning God created things to be good, because of its autonomy it was still unfinished in the sense that it was capable of committing grave evil and corrupting itself by rejecting God.

Not clear at all… What do the phrases imperfect unfinished good and finished perfect good. mean? How do you derive the concept?

Please explain how trees, oceans , stars, atoms, etc can commit grave evil and become corrupt? Anthropomorphic answers are here insufficient because they ignore the universal generalization of the problem word “ only” i.e. **all **creation is non-good,
( please note the restriction of my terminology to non-good, evil is not even considered)

 

[Axman]

ὁ δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ Θεός

". You may not be able to read Greek (and I’m still learning), but the word “only” is not there. I have looked at other translations of this verse, and the word “only” is not used at all! However, I did find the word “alone” used 3 times in 19 different English versions (RSV, NAS and SV). In answer to your question, I would say that Jesus spoke the words of Mark 10:18, as recorded in the Greek text, and suggest that you compare your translation against that.

Just curious, is this something you heard and are looking for a response to it, or is it something you believe and just want to justify yourself?

You are quite right. That word “only” disturbs me in its exclusivness, and while your reference to the Greek translation and the use of “alone”,helps somewhat,t it still seems to be as exclussive and universal. As far as the inerancy of Scripture I “believe but don’t understand…” Here I am playing the devil’s advovate, hoping the inconsistancy can be resolved,but doing my best to answer the answers given, for surely if I can see the problem,others will and eventually must be answered,.

 

[Axman]

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…” ???

 

[Cachonga]

Axman:

You are quite right. That word “only” disturbs me in its exclusivness, and while your reference to the Greek translation and the use of “alone”,helps somewhat,t it still seems to be as exclussive and universal. As far as the inerancy of Scripture I “believe but don’t understand…” Here I am playing the devil’s advovate, hoping the inconsistancy can be resolved,but doing my best to answer the answers given, for surely if I can see the problem,others will and eventually must be answered,.

As I pointed out, the word “only” is not in any translation I looked at. What version of Scripture are you getting this from? In order to try and help clarify your question, going back to Genesis, God declares that all He made was good. The curse came with the fall of man, and man, therefore, could no longer be considered “good” by God’s standard. Looking at the way “good” is used in Mark, it is address to and about human beings and God, not all of creation (“good master” was addressed to Jesus (from a man to another man), Jesus asked "Why do you call me good? (Jesus, who is God AND man, is good) Jesus then says, “None is good but one, that is God.” DR). It should be clear that Jesus is speaking of human beings, not all of creation.

Hope this helps!

 

[Axman]

As I pointed out, the word “only” is not in any translation I looked at. What version of Scripture are you getting this from? In order to try and help clarify your question, going back to Genesis, God declares that all He made was good. The curse came with the fall of man, and man, therefore, could no longer be considered “good” by God’s standard. Looking at the way “good” is used in Mark, it is address to and about human beings and God, not all of creation (“good master” was addressed to Jesus (from a man to another man), Jesus asked "Why do you call me good? (Jesus, who is God AND man, is good) Jesus then says, “None is good but one, that is God.” DR). It should be clear that Jesus is speaking of human beings, not all of creation.

Hope this helps!

Yes, you’apparently have hit the target!
My translations on hand are from my old college Challoner-Rheims version translated from the Latin Vulgate. (1950) The other is the Confraternity text of 1958. But both version have the same quote “ **No one is good but only God **”. My original quote of Mt 10:18 came from a bible to which I no longer have access.

But more importantly the words : “**no one”, **would seem to confirm your contention that Christ is referring only to the human condition and not to the rest of creation. Hence the “inconsistency’ is resolved as a matter of translation Thank you

 

[Cachonga]

No problem.