Is the Bible Inerrant?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Randy_Carson

Guest
I’m going to argue that the Catholic Church has consistently taught that it is.

**Part 1

**A review of several official Church documents will shed some light on the official position of the Catholic Church concerning the inerrancy of Scripture.

Providentissimus Deus**, Pope Leo XIII, 1893**

“21. 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 the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond…this system cannot be tolerated….It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration or make God the author of such error….all the Fathers and Doctors [of the Church] agreed that the divine writings, as left by the [sacred authors], are free from all error, [and] they labored earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance…St. Augustine writing to St. Jerome may sum up what they taught: ‘On my own part I confess… that it is only to those books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honor and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth I shall not hesitate to conclude that the text is faulty [due to copyist error] or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand.’ ”

Divino Afflante Spiritu**, Pope Pius XII, 1943**

“1. …not merely because [the books of the canon] contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author…When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the ‘entire books with all their parts’ as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, [when these Catholic writers] ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals…Leo XIII…justly and rightly condemned these errors.”

“3. Finally, it is absolutely wrong and forbidden ‘either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred’…”

“37. For as the substantial Word of God became like to men in all things, ‘except sin,’ so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect, except error.”

Humani Generis**, Pope Pius XII, 1950**

“22. …For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council’s definition [Vatican Council I] that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and 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.”

(cont.)
 
Part 2

Vatican** Council II, Dei Verbum, 1965**

“9. Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

“11. 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 which God wanted put into the sacred writings5 for the sake of our salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994

107. The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

+++

Footnote 72 from the CCC references Dei Verbum, Paragraph 11 which in turn references both Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu in footnote 5. These latter two documents specifically teach that the Bible contains no errors. Therefore, not only is there a clear link between all of these documents illustrating the consistency and uniformity of the Church’s teaching on this matter, but also it would make no sense for the CCC and Dei Verbum to reference these older works if, in fact, the Church was signaling a change in its position on this issue as is alleged by some. Any understanding to the contrary is a grave error.

Additionally, paragraph 107 specifically states that “all that the inspired authors affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit”. The contention of Frs. Brown and Fitzmyer that scripture can possibly contain errors on matters that do not relate to our salvation is in direct contradiction to the word, “all” and puts the Holy Spirit in the position of having inspired and affirmed error as was noted in the passage from Providentissimus Deus quoted above.

Sadly, these and other theologians may have looked for this single phrase, “for the sake of our salvation,” – which is found in a single paragraph of a single document from Vatican II – to open a door for their own pet ideas (ordination of women, acceptance of contraception, etc.), but this interpretation is out of sync with the historical teaching of the Church.

Consequently, I reject any argument from Protestant apologists hostile to the Catholic Church which suggests that the opinions of these Catholic theologians on this matter, regardless of their prominence, is evidence of confusion concerning the teaching of the Catholic Church on the inerrancy of the Bible, or that, as a result of the expression of these opinions, a lack of unity has been created among the Catholic faithful to the same degree and manner as is seen in Protestant denominationalism.
 
I see the bible as ‘the manual’ to the Church, whose manual it is.

The Church is the authority. The bible only a ‘service users’ guide.
 
The Church existed before the New Testament Scriptures. The Hebrew Scriptures we inherited from our Jewish roots and therefore, the Hebrew Scriptures pre-date the “Christian” church.

The Christian Church preserved the Hebrew Scriptures for use in Christian worship [maintaining the Liturgy of the Word we received from the Jewish religious practice and adding the distinctive Christian writings]. The Church wrote the Christian Texts, determined those which it authoritatively pronounced as Inerrant and Divinely inspired by God, compiled the books and bound them together as the New Testament.

We have the Church’s testimony that the book we call the “Bible” is inerrant and inspired. That testimony comes from the authority that the Church has been entrusted. And historically that Church is the institution that is recognizable today as the Catholic Church. The 'Bible" is the Church’s book, the Canon [where canon means, criteria, benchmark, norm, orthodox, belief of etc not the army device] of the Catholic Church.
 
Good post Randy, really fleshed out the true teaching of the Church regarding Sacred Scripture. To add a little, I thought this bit from *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma *by Dr. Ludwig Ott (first published 1955) would help:

P. 92- God the Creator, Section 2

The Divine Work of Creation, Chapter 1

Revealed Doctrine concerning Material Things, i.e., Christian Cosmology
  1. The Biblical Hexahemeron (The Six Days of Creation)
  2. General Principles
a) Even though all Holy Writ is inspired and is the Word of God, still, following St. Thomas, a distinction must be made between that which is inspired per se, and that which is inspired per accidens. As the truths of Revelation laid down in Holy Writ are designed to serve the end of religious and moral teaching, inspiration per se extends only to the religious and moral truths. The profane facts of natural science and history contained in Holy Writ are not inspired per se, but only per accidens, that is, by virtue of their relation to the religious-moral truths. The data inspired per accidens is also the Word of God, and consequently without error. However, as the hagiographers in profane things make use of a popular, that is, a non-scientific form of exposition suitable to the mental perception of their times, a more liberal interpretation, is possible here.
 
Sixtus said:
What came first the bible or the Church?

I rest my case 👍
Click to expand...
I don’t think Randy is trying to deny that the Church has the authority to interpret Sacred Scripture, rather, I think he is simply re-iterating the Church’s constant teaching on the Bible-it is completely inerrant, versus those who say that only those parts dealing with faith and morals are inerrant.
 
Fredricks said:
That is hard to answer.
2/3’s of scripture came first…
Click to expand...
That depends on how you define the Church. It is certainly possible to define the Church that the Jews before Christ were part of it. The Greek word ekklesia which means church or gathering is equivalent to the Hebrew word qahal which means gathering. God had a great qahal at Sinai and He had a great qahal in the new testament with Christ. So in a sense you could say that the whole of scripture is part of the Church.
 
jimmy said:
That depends on how you define the Church. It is certainly possible to define the Church that the Jews before Christ were part of it. The Greek word ekklesia which means church or gathering is equivalent to the Hebrew word qahal which means gathering. God had a great qahal at Sinai and He had a great qahal in the new testament with Christ. So in a sense you could say that the whole of scripture is part of the Church.
Click to expand...
Yes. You understand from my perpective that when people claim they came first and started it all, it at best ignores, and at worst demeans God’ people prior to Christ?
 
However, as the hagiographers in profane things make use of a popular, that is, a non-scientific form of exposition suitable to the mental perception of their times, a more liberal interpretation, is possible here
Click to expand...
So, the Biblical six days of creation could mean the millions of years of evolutionary theory.
 
Cadellin said:
So, the Biblical six days of creation could mean the millions of years of evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...
You cannot have original sin without the original sinners, Adam and Eve. I believe the CC teaches they were literal.
 
Hebrew Scriptures and Christian Scriptures both represent wriiten texts that flow out of a faith community for the benefit of the faith community.

The Hebrew people [Jewish worshipers and Jewish worship of the One God] pre-existed their scriptures in the same way that the Christian Church pre-dates the Christian writings that resulted from belief in Christ. Not all hebrew writings were accepted as worthy of being inspired [and not all of the jewish sects agreed which ones were]. Similarly, not all early Christian writings were incorporated into the Canon of the Church. The Church made that decision.

And it is the Church that defines what is meant by “inspired” and “inerrant” If you, as a Christian, revere the New Testament as God’s Word you owe a debt to the catholic Church.
 
Fredricks said:
Im rather busy. You are a good summarizer CM. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
I’ve heard the talk.

The Catholic Church canonized the individual books of the Old Testament and New Testament into that “book” we now call the Bible.

The Catholic Church existed before the Bible. Catholics wrote it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

And lest you take umbrage with that statement, consider that Ignatius of Antioch referred to the “Catholic Church” in a letter dated from A.D. 107. His reference does not indicate that he is introducing the name to his audience thus suggesting that the name had been in circulation from a much earlier date. Thus, the Church would have been called “Catholic” possibly before the death of the last Apostle.

Making noises about the Jewish sciptures is obfuscation in this context.
 
The Bible is not as straightforward and linear as a checklist for the launch sequence of a nuclear missile. Many evangelicals act like it is. ( I was evangelical 25 years)

There is allegory, ambiguity and nuance to the scriptures. So the term “inerrant” really has little practical value.
 
The Catholic Church existed before the Bible.
Click to expand...
Not the first 2/3rd…which our NT writers quoted all the time. Do you think they considered it obfuscation?
 
Fredricks said:
Not the first 2/3rd…which our NT writers quoted all the time. Do you think they considered it obfuscation?
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. Since our Eucharistic beliefs are identical to those both of the New Testament and to the ECF (See Ignatius letter to Smyrna Chapters 7 & 8). I’d say that those churches who do not hold those beliefs would be the ones to have departed from the faith of the apostles and the real early church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top