Is the vatican 2 inerrancy qualification necessary?

[una_fides]

I posted 2 church fathers that make it pretty clear they were not always persuaded that every phrase no matter how minor or remote to the Chiefheads of the faith were completely inerrant. You come back with a statement from a Pope saying they all did believe that. (Contrary tot he quotes I provided) Are you claiming that this part of his encyclical is also spoken ex cathedra? I mean do I have to resort to the Augustinian outs when reading the church fathers as well? that is must I say when reading St John to say it seems to him that there is discord on minor matters in the gospels that it must be:

1. bad translation
2. Copyist error
3. I misunderstand him too?

If you are thinking that then you misunderstand ex cathedra. If we assume this statement that we must believe in the extreme inerrancy is indeed spoken ex cathedra - its still possible that the Pope’s reasoning could have been wrong. I’m just pointing out that to the extent the Pope believed all the fathers were convinced of extreme inerrancy he was wrong. Its ok popes aren’t perfect in all things and Catholics who suggest otherwise do the faith a disservice.

But anyway the SSPX fellow I quoted earlier said something like all fathers clearly expressed their adoption of extreme inerrancy. That seems very far from true. Not only did some reject it (Tertulian and St John) but it seems the majority did not find it necessary to address that question. So far we have only heard from 14 of 65 fathers.

Actually to have that many writings from Church fathers on one issue is quite remarkable. Don’t downplay what they clearly said and taught. Furthermore, why do you assume that your interpretation of two isolated statements by Church fathers is automatically correct and that you are not incorrectly interpreting those passages? I have already shown you earlier how they can be understood as not claiming Scriptures contain errors but only what seem to be errors. When these passages are correctly understood, we can only find that what they intended to communicate is truth for it had God as its primary author.

 

[una_fides]

I’m not saying people should avoid the extreme inerrncy position and indeed I myself do not reject it. (I’m not interested in really delving into every detail of the bible to assure myself I do in fact believe each and every assertion made. I’m hoping I will be saved by focusing on the chiefheads.) I am just pointing out that no one should make false claims to support a position. I think the fellow from the SSPX did that and its wrong.

Can you please stop referring to the Traditional Catholic position that the Bible does not contain errors as “extreme inerrancy.” To be honest, you are trying to insult us with such a label. I do not label the position of those that think the Bible contains errors as “extremely errant” or “the heretical view of inspiration” or “the modernist view of inspiration” though all those labels according to the most authoritative statements from popes that bind all Catholics to believe state that these labels would be true descriptions of that position. I have not read what SSPX has written regarding the inerrancy of Scripture, but I am sure that their writings likely mirror that of the majority of Catholics faithful to Tradition prior to Vatican II. SSPX thrives to maintain the teachings of the Church as they were always prior to Vatican II and into the present. Vatican II never changed any teachings of the faith and it undesputably was not a dogmatic council and did not define any dogma nor did it even invoke infallibility according to Pope Paul VI. That said, I do not try to figure out Catholic dogma by seeing what SSPX says it is; I simply go straight to the source–the dogmatic teachings from the chair of Peter.

 

[joemccarron]

Actually to have that many writings from Church fathers on one issue is quite remarkable. Don’t downplay what they clearly said and taught. Furthermore, why do you assume that your interpretation of two isolated statements by Church fathers is automatically correct and that you are not incorrectly interpreting those passages? I have already shown you earlier how they can be understood as not claiming Scriptures contain errors but only what seem to be errors. When these passages are correctly understood, we can only find that what they intended to communicate is truth for it had God as its primary author.

You keep trying to insert the word “only” to the text of what St. John said. This turns our understanding of his view on its ear. See my post 116 in this thread.
Do you see why I am expressing opposite beliefs when I say:

1. It seems the universe is older than 5000 years old.
   and
2. It only seems the universe is older than 5000 years old.

Of course St. John goes on to say why it is important that there is discord on little matters. So it’s even clearer he thinks it exists. When I read St. John and what he said in context I think I’d be kidding myself if I walked away with the idea that he believed in the inerrancy of every single phrase of the scripture regardless of its connection to the chief heads of the faith.

As to your complaint about my term “extreme inerrancy” I explained why I used that term. I meant no disrespect to Catholics who believe that no phrase anywhere in the bible can possibly be wrong. It’s just a short hand term. As I said I am not convinced extreme inerrancy is wrong. I’m just pointing out that we don’t have any evidence for claims along the lines that “all the church fathers clearly expressed their belief that” every phrase of the bible was inerrant.

 

[una_fides]

As to your complaint about my term “extreme inerrancy” I explained why I used that term. I meant no disrespect to Catholics who believe that no phrase anywhere in the bible can possibly be wrong. It’s just a short hand term. As I said I am not convinced extreme inerrancy is wrong. I’m just pointing out that we don’t have any evidence for claims along the lines that “all the church fathers clearly expressed their belief that” every phrase of the bible was inerrant.

How about calling it “complete inerrancy” vs. “partial inerrancy.” Using words such as “extreme” seems derogatory.

Regarding St. John, I will revisit the passage when I find time, and I will try to honestly examine it within its context and present some possible understandings of what he wrote.

 

[joemccarron]

I suppose I could use the term entirely inerrant but that is also ambiguous (because as to our salvation all the fathers would likely agree the bible is entirely inerrant. The term “extreme inerrancy” does seem better at getting to what I am talking about. Issues such as do rabbits chew the cud - is the mustard seed the smallest seed etc. I tend to agree with St. John and how he put things with the bible. I do agree we shouldn’t just roll over with regard to every detail that is disputed. We should indeed present arguments even on the details the scripture writers got it right more than critics realize. However, I don’t think we need to bank our whole faith on the belief that the author of Deutoronomy was not simply mistaken about rabbits chewing the cud. I’m not sure what word fits here better than extreme.

Consider that you said it is really quite extraordinary that 12 of 65 fathers mention the inerrancy in a strong fashion and only 2 dissent. However when we consider many of the claims in the Nicene Creed I bet we get much more acceptance. To think we could put rabbits chewing the cud right in there with the nicene creed seems extreme to me.

I understand Pope Leo XIIIs statements etc. and they do have allot of weight on how I view this. But the doctrine that I call extreme inerrancy just seems foreign to me.

 

[una_fides]

I suppose I could use the term entirely inerrant but that is also ambiguous (because as to our salvation all the fathers would likely agree the bible is entirely inerrant. The term “extreme inerrancy” does seem better at getting to what I am talking about. Issues such as do rabbits chew the cud - is the mustard seed the smallest seed etc.

It seems “extreme” to you because it’s foreign to your thinking, though it is the official position of the Catholic Church as defined by its highest authority and upheld by numerous popes.

I understand Pope Leo XIIIs statements etc. and they do have allot of weight on how I view this. But the doctrine that I call extreme inerrancy just seems foreign to me.

It may seem foreign but that doesn’t make it wrong. I take St. Augustine’s approach: “I would not believe the gospel except by the authority of the Catholic Church.” The Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). If the Church has authoritatively ruled on a matter, then as St. Augustine said, “the case is closed.” We can accept any teaching from the Church by faith in Christ and his promises to be with his Church and guide her until the end of time. The Church has been entrusted with infallibility and the authority of Christ himself. We can know it is true by the authority of the Church. We do not have to interpret the particular Scriptures the way you are such as that the mustard seed is literally the smallest of seeds in size or that a rabbit actually chews cud in the way that we understand a cow does. Scripture is infallible in everything it asserts to be true in the way that God intended it to be interpreted and that is not always literal and not always according to the way we think or interpret a passage. If you absolutely cannot figure out a passage to the point it could trouble you, then you are not trusting enough in the authority of the Church. Take a step back and realize that there is an answer out there even if you don’t know it and that there is always the possibility that it could have been a copyist error. God is the author of Scripture so everything that Scripture intends to communicate is without any type of error.

 

[joemccarron]

Yes I certainly agree with your view that we shouldn’t be so sure that any given passage is error. Indeed we can never be sure of even basic things we think we “know”. But I guess I wonder if every profane statement of fact in the bible must rise to same level of belief and importance that every other statement in the bible rises to. It just seems to me that some phrases in the bible are more important to believe than others. Can one believe this and be consistant with Pope Leo XIII?

He seems to draw no distinction between the sacred and profane. Why would the holy spirit be so concerned with telling us profane truths? I know we can’t know the mind of God but to put every phrase in scripture in this same boat seems odd. If we aren’t required to believe some or other phrase in the bible then why must we believe it is inerrant. Its hard to even understand how that works unless this is explicily understood as multiple miracles.

:Lets say they are miracles that when people write the scripture it is without error. Must we believe in that miracle too? Is there any difference between how we see the bible and how Islam views the Quaran? (sp?)

Yes I agree that I do not have this completely thought this through. I would humbly suggest that there is allot to think through here. I would like to do that thinking with fellow Caholics. Thanks for your comments here UF. Don’t take my pig headedness for lack of appreciation. I may just have to stew on this one for a while.

If I were to say :“it seems to me there is discord in the gospels” (or otherwise trying to mirror what St. John said) would that be considered heresy?

 

[una_fides]

Yes I certainly agree with your view that we shouldn’t be so sure that any given passage is error. Indeed we can never be sure of even basic things we think we “know”. But I guess I wonder if every profane statement of fact in the bible must rise to same level of belief and importance that every other statement in the bible rises to. It just seems to me that some phrases in the bible are more important to believe than others. Can one believe this and be consistant with Pope Leo XIII?

Absolutely. You do not proscribe the degree of divine and Catholic faith to something like that “rabbits chew their cud” whereas you would concerning the Resurrection and the Ascension. Why? The difference is that Holy Mother Church has ruled that the latter two are dogmas that must be believed. Hence, she has provided us with the correct understanding of those dogmas in Scripture. Regarding the former and the less weightier matters in Scripture that do not pertain to faith and morals, the Catholic Church has not provided any statements that any such passages must be interpreted in any certain way. Thus, we are free to figure them out on our own, but our conclusions as to what they mean do not affect our salvation, as long as we are adhering to the Church’s teachings that the correct interpretation / understanding of what the original inspired text meant to communicate is without any error.

He seems to draw no distinction between the sacred and profane. Why would the holy spirit be so concerned with telling us profane truths? I know we can’t know the mind of God but to put every phrase in scripture in this same boat seems odd. If we aren’t required to believe some or other phrase in the bible then why must we believe it is inerrant. Its hard to even understand how that works unless this is explicily understood as multiple miracles.

I think you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. It’s not that the HS is particularly concerned with communicating profane truths; it is that these profane truths are incidentally being communicated as part of the important message of salvation being communicated in Scripture. Since the HS is the author of both the truths pertaining to salvation as well as the profane, then it can only make sense that the profane statements that are incidentally included in Scripture would be without error and would not contradict what we know elsewhere to be true. For God is a God of pure truth, and He cannot possibly err in what he tells us. Thus, whatever Scripture affirms to be true is most certainly true not because of the nature of the content itself but because of the perfection of the author Himself.

:Lets say they are miracles that when people write the scripture it is without error. Must we believe in that miracle too?

We must believe that Scripture is without any error because it was inspired by God. Yes, such inspiration is a special miraculous occurrence, as only the Scriptures have such a quality out of all the other writings in the world.

Is there any difference between how we see the bible and how Islam views the Quaran? (sp?)

I have not done much study on how Islam views the Koran (Quran), but from what I’ve acquired, the views are quite similar in that they both seem to view their texts of divine origin and without error. The Koran, however, did not come directly from God in the sense that God simply directly inspired the writer himself, but rather they claim the Angel Gabriel appeared to Mohamed, who then allegedly wrote down his dictation on bones, parchments, leaves, etc. We know however that his revelations were not from God for many reasons, one of which being on account of the following passage:
Galatians 1:8-12 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema[meaning literally “accursed”]. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. For I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For neither did I receive it of man: nor did I learn it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

Yes I agree that I do not have this completely thought this through. I would humbly suggest that there is allot to think through here. I would like to do that thinking with fellow Caholics. Thanks for your comments here UF. Don’t take my pig headedness for lack of appreciation. I may just have to stew on this one for a while.

If I were to say :“it seems to me there is discord in the gospels” (or otherwise trying to mirror what St. John said) would that be considered heresy?

Depends what you would mean by “discord” and “seems.” I agree that there may seem to be discord or contradictions; however, I know that they truly are not when properly understood. It would be a heresy to say 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). papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm

If you mean it to say what St. John IMHO meant by that statement: that they seem to be errors but in reality when one understands them correctly they are not errors, then there would be no problem, no heresy, no misunderstanding, no deviation from the truth.

John 17:17 “Sanctify them in Thy truth. Thy word is truth.”

 

[CathPhilosopher]

An important consideration is that of genre. We need not say that Christ spoke falsely, if there was not an actual rich man who said “What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops? I will do this: I will pull down my barns, and build larger ones; and there I will store all my grain and my goods.” In Jesus’s words there is an indication that he speaks in a certain genre, the genre of parable.

One could, while understanding all Scripture to be the Word of God and thus inerrant, see the genre of most of the Scriptures in such a way that there would not be especial difficulty with “problematic” passages. More work needs to be done in this field by those who truly have living faith in the Word of God.

Inerrancy of Scripture

 

[joemccarron]

An important consideration is that of genre. We need not say that Christ spoke falsely, if there was not an actual rich man who said “What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops? I will do this: I will pull down my barns, and build larger ones; and there I will store all my grain and my goods.” In Jesus’s words there is an indication that he speaks in a certain genre, the genre of parable.

One could, while understanding all Scripture to be the Word of God and thus inerrant, see the genre of most of the Scriptures in such a way that there would not be especial difficulty with “problematic” passages. More work needs to be done in this field by those who truly have living faith in the Word of God.

Inerrancy of Scripture

Thanks for posting the link to that article I read through some of it but not all of it. The article is pretty one sided. For example it doesn’t address Where Jesus suggests Deuteronomy was written by Moses and not God. Nor does it address passages by Tertullian that we discussed in this thread here.

Moreover the reasoning is bad. That author tries to imply that since some fathers like St. John did argue that some minor parts of the gospel were not in error, he therefore must have felt it was impossible that they would be in error. This is bad logic.

As far as the section on reason, I haven’t finished reading it but it seems to be one logical leap after another. First he leaps from the scripture being inspired by God to it being authored by God. That’s a logical stretch. People have inspired me to write certain things but they did not author what I write.

 

[joemccarron]

If you mean it to say what St. John IMHO meant by that statement: that they seem to be errors but in reality when one understands them correctly they are not errors, then there would be no problem, no heresy, no misunderstanding, no deviation from the truth.

He said what you said up until you got to “but in reality when one understands them correctly…” He didn’t put any “but” in there at all. Indeed he confirmed the discord as proof the Gospels were not written by collusion.

As far as interpretations and use of parable I agree some things may be parables but the church does not teach that everything is a parable. I can certainly abide with the idea that I do not know any given passage has an error. Maybe I don’t understand it or there was a copy mistake etc. But when we start to add these things up I think you will find a split between the people who have actually tried to deal with inconsistencies and those who have not. Those who have never really tried to tackle the various alleged errors are quite quick to say if there is one error then it’s all a bust.

I will say this if someone 1) has actually tried to go gather up what seems error, and 2) firmly believe that if there is a single error our faith is lost. You are most likely dealing with an non-Christian. There are many Christians who do either 1 or 2 but few who do both. The internet is full of websites and stores are full of books of those who delight in telling people 2 is true and then going through what seems error and having people lose their faith.

When you inspect the language used and the style used regarding some of these seeming errors its hard to just say I don’t understand what the author means, without throwing doubt on whether we can understand anything in the bible.

Also I am not aware that the Church teaches that some miracle happened when those who wrote scripture wrote it. Moreover, its unclear if we were to find another letter from Paul we might not add it to the bible.

The line that is unclear is how direct the inspiration was. I mean on the one hand you have inspiration like I might be inspired by by Grandfather to write something. On the other extreme you have what Muslims claim happened to Muhammad. That is his body was pretty much taken over by God and God spoke through him literally. I mean that would be like if the scripture writers said they lost control of their hand and it moved regardless of their will writing the words. Its somewhere in between.

Its not like me being inspired by my grandfather because I might be in error on all sorts of issues. I would say that there is unanimity (or very close to it) in saying that what was written for the sake of salvation is without error here.

But there were those fathers, like Tertullian, St. John, and Origen, who saw no need to extend the inerrancy much beyond this.

 

[CathPhilosopher]

Thanks for posting the link to that article I read through some of it but not all of it. The article is pretty one sided. For example it doesn’t address Where Jesus suggests Deuteronomy was written by Moses and not God. Nor does it address passages by Tertullian that we discussed in this thread here.

Where does Jesus suggest Deuteronomy was written by Moses and not God? Are you setting up a dichotomy here? Assuming that if it was written by Moses, it was not written by God?

The fact that an article argues for a certain position does not make it one sided. Nor does the fact that it does not address the texts you feel are objections to the position. You repeatedly quote a text from Tertullian without showing that it implies he believed there to be errors in Scripture. And since the text does not imply that, there is not a necessity to address it, and one cannot address everything.

Moreover the reasoning is bad. That author tries to imply that since some fathers like St. John did argue that some minor parts of the gospel were not in error, he therefore must have felt it was impossible that they would be in error. This is bad logic.

It doesn’t seem that you quite understood the arguments. First, there is an inductive argument. If an author argues that apparent errors in one place are not real errors, and in another place, and in another place… and never asserts that there are real errors, that is a valid inductive argument, concluding not with necessity, but with good probability, that he believes there are no errors.

Secondly, there is a deductive argument: (1) If it is possible that there is error in Scripture, then the most reasonable explanation of some apparently erroneous passages is that they are really erroneous; the corollary of this is that if a reasonable person believes it possible for there to be error in Scripture, then he will explain some apparently erroneous passages as really erroneous; (2) St. John, a reasonable person, does not explain apparently erroneous passages as being really erroneous. Therefore it follows that St. John does not believe it possible for there to be error in Scripture.

You may dispute the premises, but the argument is perfectly valid.

As far as the section on reason, I haven’t finished reading it but it seems to be one logical leap after another. First he leaps from the scripture being inspired by God to it being authored by God. That’s a logical stretch. People have inspired me to write certain things but they did not author what I write.

The original movement from inspiration to being authored by God is not from the author of the article (thesis), but from the Magisterium… “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 coexist 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… It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writers either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration or make God the author of such error.”

The author of the article (thesis) is there summarizing the movement of thought of Pope Leo XIII. If there were an illogical movement there, it would not be in the thesis, but in Leo XIII. The thesis does later address the position of those persons who would understand the inspiration of Scripture by God as meaning something less than God’s being the author of Scripture, those who, in the words of Leo XIII, “pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration.”

 

[joemccarron]

Where does Jesus suggest Deuteronomy was written by Moses and not God? Are you setting up a dichotomy here? Assuming that if it was written by Moses, it was not written by God?

Here is the Quote from Mark10:1-12:

"He set out from there and went into the district of Judea (and) across the Jordan. Again crowds gathered around him and, as was his custom, he again taught them. The Pharisees approached and asked, “Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?” They were testing him.
He said to them in reply, “What did Moses command you?”
They replied, “Moses permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her.”
But Jesus told them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife),
and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.
Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”
In the house the disciples again questioned him about this.
He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

In this passage Jesus is does not say God commanded this notice of divorce at all. He spoke of Moses commandment and what Moses wrote. If Jesus thought Moses was merely a microphone that made audible God’s dictation then this passage seems odd. He does seem to contrast what Moses did and what God did. For those who think there was no human aspect to authorship of the scripture this passage should cut them at the knees.

Here is the parallel passage from Mathew19 :

Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, 4 saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?” He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” [His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

Surely if it was understood Moses was merely taking dictation from God concerning this notice that would have come up don’t you think?

The fact that an article argues for a certain position does not make it one sided. Nor does the fact that it does not address the texts you feel are objections to the position. You repeatedly quote a text from Tertullian without showing that it implies he believed there to be errors in Scripture. And since the text does not imply that, there is not a necessity to address it, and one cannot address everything.

We can have different views on whether the article was one sided or not. I will agree it was far from the worse that I have seen. Yet I do think thin the piece is more of an advocacy piece than one that merely sets forth the facts. There is nothing wrong with this.

As to what Tertullian believed personally that is one thing. I obviously don’t think there is anything blameworthy believing the bible is without error. However to suggest that all the fathers thought there would be something blameworthy in thinking there was something wrong with thinking scripture was without error regarding matters of our salvation (but not necessarily beyond that is simply not true) Indeed if I were to believe myself that the bible is completely without error (my own views on this are still getting sorted out but as for right now I would have to agree with St. John that there seems to be discord on minor matters in the texts.) I certainly wouldn’t tell someone else every detail described in the bible must be accepted as true to the same extent as say Jesus death and resurrection. No indeed I would be inclined to say that same thing Tertullian taught:

“Never mind if there does occur some variation in the order of the [gospel] narratives. What matters is that there is agreement in the essential doctrine of the Faith”

What matters is the Gospels agree in the essential doctrine of the faith. I think the quote pretty much speaks for itself.

 

[Contarini]

Lets consider the passage from Leviticus with this important qualification in mind. Moses (or whoever the author might be) is explaining why hares should be considered an unclean food. “‘Likewise, the rock badger, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you; 6 the rabbit also, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you.”

These are my thoughts feel free to offer any better information you might have.
Ok so I don’t think anyone can say the author is meaning rabbits symbolically or figuratively. It seems he does indeed mean to literally say the rabbit has these qualities therefore don’t eat them. In other words we are not reading the book of revelation with 7 headed dragons, we are reading a dietary code that was to be taken literally.

Is it literally true? Well if you google something like “do rabbits chew the cud” you will get a wide variety of responses. Mostly it will be debates between fundamentalists and atheists. The crux seems to be that the fundamentalists claim that since Rabbits eat their own excrement – a pellet - they do “chew cud.” They argue this could possibly be what the author meant by the Hebrew word cud. I tend to think that’s a stretch but would be willing to grant it I suppose. The problem with this whole line of thought is that rabbits don’t chew this pellet. They apparently just swallow it.

My Catholic Study bible (1990 NAB Oxford university press) basically states that the rock badger and hare appear to chew their cud but they don’t and it was based on this appearance that classification was made.

First of all, you seem to think that animals that chew the cud were forbidden. The reverse is true. Animals that chewed the cud and had cloven hooves were edible. The rabbit or whatever it was is being ruled out even though it appears to chew the cud. So one could make a good argument from an inerrantist point of view that in fact the passage is making a valid scientific point: rabbits and similar animals may seem to treat their food in a way similar to ruminants, but they aren’t in fact ruminants.

A standard principle of inerrantist Biblical interpretation (see the Old Princetonians like the Hodges, Warfield, and Machen) is that the Bible describes physical phenomena by how they appear. We do this all the time in normal speech: we talk about the sun “rising,” for instance. It would be absurd to impose on Scripture a standard that differs so radically from the one we apply to any other non-technical discourse. The question here is whether the scientific argument being made is sound: and since the argument is that rabbits aren’t ruminants (which they aren’t), I don’t see this as a problem for the inerrantist.

Admittedly, the fact that I’m a historian and not a scientist affects my view on these things. I disagree with inerrancy largely because of the silly games it forces historians to play. (One example that came up in another thread recently is the reference in Matthew 23 to Zechariah son of Berekiah, which seems to be a mistaken identification of two people called Zechariah. There are a number of such apparent mistakes and confusions in Matthew. He treats his OT sources quite loosely, and any theory of inspiration that forces us to ignore or explain this away is a flawed one.) Perhaps a scientist would see the Leviticus passage in a different light.

Edwin

 

[joemccarron]

It doesn’t seem that you quite understood the arguments. First, there is an inductive argument. If an author argues that apparent errors in one place are not real errors, and in another place, and in another place… and never asserts that there are real errors, that is a valid inductive argument, concluding not with necessity, but with good probability, that he believes there are no errors.

Secondly, there is a deductive argument: (1) If it is possible that there is error in Scripture, then the most reasonable explanation of some apparently erroneous passages is that they are really erroneous; the corollary of this is that if a reasonable person believes it possible for there to be error in Scripture, then he will explain some apparently erroneous passages as really erroneous; (2) St. John, a reasonable person, does not explain apparently erroneous passages as being really erroneous. Therefore it follows that St. John does not believe it possible for there to be error in Scripture.

You may dispute the premises, but the argument is perfectly valid.

What you call induction is a formal logical fallacy (Affirmation of the consequent) not a valid induction. Just because someone argues that certain passages are not in error does not mean they believe all passages are without error. To not understand this is simply to ignore logic. Let me explain:

1. If St. John believed no part of the bible has error then he would believe Parts XY and Z do not have error.
2. St John argued that parts X,Y and Z do not have error
   Conclusion: Therefore St. John believed no part of the bible has error.

Although this may sound ok it is a demonstration of a formal logical fallacy - Affirming the consequent.

In any event when we read what St. John wrote we see St. John affirmatively states that minor points of the Gospels seem to be in discord. At that point I think we can take him at his word that he really believes what he says. But lets say we don’t. When we read the rest of what he says we surely understand that the chief heads are much more important to him than the minor points.

As for your deductive argument well its not really valid either.
In order to have a deductive argument you should have at least 2 premises and a conclusion - not one premise and a conclusion. If we tried to put what the author of your article said in logically valid form it would look like this:

Premise 1) If a person believes that it is possible for an error to exist in a scripture he will always chalk up every apparent error as truly being an error.

Premise 2) St. John did not always chalk up every apparent error in scripture as truly being an error.

Conclusion: Therefore St. John did not believe that it is possible for an error to exist in scripture.

This is a “valid” argument. However the first Premise is so obviously untrue, its a howler. Hence the argument is not sound.

 

[joemccarron]

The author of the article (thesis) is there summarizing the movement of thought of Pope Leo XIII. If there were an illogical movement there, it would not be in the thesis, but in Leo XIII. The thesis does later address the position of those persons who would understand the inspiration of Scripture by God as meaning something less than God’s being the author of Scripture, those who, in the words of Leo XIII, “pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration.”

I still haven’t finished reading the article. Despite my disagreements with parts I do not think it’s a bad article.

However as to the point I made the author had a whole section on “authority” where he quoted Pope Leo XIII extensively. If he wants to simply repeat those quotes in a section called reason that’s fine but it doesn’t really add anything.

 

[joemccarron]

First of all, you seem to think that animals that chew the cud were forbidden. The reverse is true. Animals that chewed the cud and had cloven hooves were edible. The rabbit or whatever it was is being ruled out even though it appears to chew the cud. So one could make a good argument from an inerrantist point of view that in fact the passage is making a valid scientific point: rabbits and similar animals may seem to treat their food in a way similar to ruminants, but they aren’t in fact ruminants.

A standard principle of inerrantist Biblical interpretation (see the Old Princetonians like the Hodges, Warfield, and Machen) is that the Bible describes physical phenomena by how they appear. We do this all the time in normal speech: we talk about the sun “rising,” for instance. It would be absurd to impose on Scripture a standard that differs so radically from the one we apply to any other non-technical discourse. The question here is whether the scientific argument being made is sound: and since the argument is that rabbits aren’t ruminants (which they aren’t), I don’t see this as a problem for the inerrantist.

Admittedly, the fact that I’m a historian and not a scientist affects my view on these things. I disagree with inerrancy largely because of the silly games it forces historians to play. (One example that came up in another thread recently is the reference in Matthew 23 to Zechariah son of Berekiah, which seems to be a mistaken identification of two people called Zechariah. There are a number of such apparent mistakes and confusions in Matthew. He treats his OT sources quite loosely, and any theory of inspiration that forces us to ignore or explain this away is a flawed one.) Perhaps a scientist would see the Leviticus passage in a different light.

Edwin

Hi Edwin thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

BTW: I did understand that being a cud chewer tended to put the animal on the menu rather than off the menu.

After discussing this passage on these pages I too am not overly concerned with it. (Although this would be an example of where we have to do some fancy footwork where I think it’s unnecessary to be a Christian) However I can’t agree more with your overall view. It’s just making believers go through too many mental gymnastics over issues that seem far removed from Christ’s message. When we really start to go through all the seeming discord we will definitely give the impression to non-believers that we are completely incapable of looking at things objectively.

 

[CathPhilosopher]

In order to have a deductive argument you should have at least 2 premises and a conclusion - not one premise and a conclusion. If we tried to put what the author of your article said in logically valid form it would look like this:

Premise 1) If a person believes that it is possible for an error to exist in a scripture he will always chalk up every apparent error as truly being an error.

Premise 2) St. John did not always chalk up every apparent error in scripture as truly being an error.

Conclusion: Therefore St. John did not believe that it is possible for an error to exist in scripture.

This is a “valid” argument. However the first Premise is so obviously untrue, its a howler. Hence the argument is not sound.

My phrasing of the deductive argument had two premises and a conclusion. The exact wording (with “reasonable” in parenthesis to help align them with yours) was:
Premise 1. if a (reasonable) person believes it possible for there to be error in Scripture, then he will explain some apparently erroneous passages as really erroneous

Premise 2. St. John (a reasonable person) does not explain [ANY] apparently erroneous passages as being really erroneous.

Conclusion:
Therefore it follows that St. John does not believe it possible for there to be error in Scripture.

I should have added the word ANY to the second premise to make it clearer. The universal premise wasn’t the first, but the second.

This is the argument of Thomas Bolin (the author of the thesis). You have the right idea, that one of the premises would have to be universal, but you took the wrong one as universal.

As regards induction, we may have simply had different things in mind. You apparently had in mind an enumeration of all cases, which leads to a conclusion with certainty. I had in mind an enumeration of a representative sampling of cases, which leads to a conclusion with a degree of probability, according to how representative the sampling is.

 

[CathPhilosopher]

In this passage Jesus is does not say God commanded this notice of divorce at all. He spoke of Moses commandment and what Moses wrote. If Jesus thought Moses was merely a microphone that made audible God’s dictation then this passage seems odd. He does seem to contrast what Moses did and what God did. For those who think there was no human aspect to authorship of the scripture this passage should cut them at the knees.

I thought you were probably referring to the permission of divorce. Note, however, that it’s a question of the law itself, not of the text of the five books of the Pentateuch. The books of the Pentateuch are recording previously existing laws. The question of the authorship of those laws is quite distinct from the question of the authorship of the books of the Pentateuch.

“Never mind if there does occur some variation in the order of the [gospel] narratives. What matters is that there is agreement in the essential doctrine of the Faith”

What matters is the Gospels agree in the essential doctrine of the faith. I think the quote pretty much speaks for itself.

The following are two different propositions: (1) What matters is the agreement of the Gospels on the essential doctrine of the faith.
(2) There is real conflict concerning things other than the essential doctrine of the faith.

The quote does speak for itself as regards the first proposition. It does not speak for itself as regards the second. And it seems on this thread you quote this text of Tertullian as though it asserted or at least presupposed this second proposition, and that is not at all obvious.

 

[joemccarron]

My phrasing of the deductive argument had two premises and a conclusion. The exact wording (with “reasonable” in parenthesis to help align them with yours) was:
Premise 1. if a (reasonable) person believes it possible for there to be error in Scripture, then he will explain some apparently erroneous passages as really erroneous

Premise 2. St. John (a reasonable person) does not explain [ANY] apparently erroneous passages as being really erroneous.

Conclusion:
Therefore it follows that St. John does not believe it possible for there to be error in Scripture.

I should have added the word ANY to the second premise to make it clearer. The universal premise wasn’t the first, but the second.

This is the argument of Thomas Bolin (the author of the thesis). You have the right idea, that one of the premises would have to be universal, but you took the wrong one as universal.

As regards induction, we may have simply had different things in mind. You apparently had in mind an enumeration of all cases, which leads to a conclusion with certainty. I had in mind an enumeration of a representative sampling of cases, which leads to a conclusion with a degree of probability, according to how representative the sampling is.

Ok we agree that is a deductively valid argument. (or certainly close enough) I think you can switch it to an inductively valid argument by changing the wording a bit and using words like Probably or likely. I appreciate what you have done. (I do think the author does indeed employ the fallacy of affirming the consequent but that doesn’t really matter – your argument does not.)

I think Premise one is clearly false. I think its possible that just about any book has errors yet I have explained the errors in very very few of them. Indeed if I consider all the books that I thought possibly contained errors it would likely be less than .0001% that I actually did explain an error in. Now its possible that I am not “reasonable” but then I say ask yourself:

1. How many books do you think possibly have errors?
2. In what percent of those books have you actually explained some of the errors?

So Premise one is a proposition that is not reasonably swallowed.

But beside this I think there is an important point. The fathers of the Church were very often doing apologetics work. Thus although they may have thought there might be some minor errors it would typically not serve their purpose to point them out. Its only when he sees that it will help people come to the faith that St. John concedes that there seems to be discord in the Gospels. However I would not nor would any good apologist go out of his way to try point out every picky thing they may find as error. So given the purpose of much of St. Johns writings - to bring people closer to God we should not be surprised at all that he does not try to prove any particular piece of the scripture as error.

So not only is premise one not true but it is especially untrue when we are dealing with the fathers of the church in reference to scripture. This is why I think many people are mislead. They see many fathers did believe the Scriptures were without error and many other fathers didn’t say one way or another. Thus they think the fathers agreed. Given the purposes that the Fathers were trying to serve by their writings this is bad reasoning.

Indeed I think the opposite would be reasonable.

1. That a set of books could not possibly contain an error would be so rare, that if someone believed that about a set of books that they talked about often, we would expect them to say that somewhere.
2. Most of the fathers do not say the books of scripture are completely without error.
   Therefore most fathers likely did not believe that most books are completely without error.

This is an inductive valid argument.

I will get to your other points when time allows. Thank you for looking at this logically.