total inerrancy is Catholic dogma

[joemccarron]

C. Problems With Denying Inerrancy

1. If We Deny Inerrancy, a Serious Moral Problem Confronts Us: May We
   Imitate God and Intentionally Lie in Small Matters Also? This is similar to the
   point made in response to objection #4, above, but here it applies not only to those
   who espouse objection #4 but also more broadly to all who deny inerrancy. Ephesians
   5:1 tells us to be imitators of God. But a denial of inerrancy that still claims that the
   words of Scripture are God-breathed words necessarily implies that God intentionally
   spoke falsely to us in some of the less central affirmations of Scripture. But if this is
   right for God to do, how can it be wrong for us? Such a line of reasoning would, if we
   believed it, exert strong pressure on us to begin to speak untruthfully in situations
   where that might seem to help us communicate better, and so forth. This position
   would be a slippery slope with ever-increasing negative results in our own lives.
2. **If Inerrancy Is Denied, We Begin to Wonder If We Can Really Trust God in
   Anything He Says. **Once we become convinced that God has spoken falsely to us in
   some minor matters in Scripture, then we realize that God is capable of speaking
   falsely to us. This will have a detrimental effect on our ability to take God at his word
   and trust him completely or obey him fully in the rest of Scripture. We will begin to
   disobey initially those sections of Scripture that we least wish to obey, and to distrust
   initially those sections that we are least inclined to trust. But such a procedure will
   eventually increase, to the great detriment of our spiritual lives. Of course, such a
   decline in trust and obedience to Scripture may not necessarily follow in the life of
   every individual who denies inerrancy, but this will certainly be the general pattern,
   and it will be the pattern exhibited over the course of a generation that is taught to
   deny inerrancy.
3. If We Deny Inerrancy, We Essentially Make Our Own Human Minds a
   Higher Standard of Truth Than God’s Word Itself. We use our minds to pass
   judgment on some sections of God’s Word and pronounce them to be in error. But
   this is in effect to say that we know truth more certainly and more accurately than
   God’s Word does (or than God does), at least in these areas. Such a procedure,
   making our own minds to be a higher standard of truth than God’s Word, is the root of
   all intellectual sin.
   4.** If We Deny Inerrancy, Then We Must Also Say That the Bible Is Wrong Not
   Only in Minor Details but in Some of Its Doctrines as Well.** A denial of inerrancy
   means that we say that the Bible’s teaching about the nature of Scripture and about
   the truthfulness and reliability of God’s words is also false. These are not minor
   details but are major doctrinal concerns in Scripture.

1. People who think there may be errors in the scripture do not necessarily believe “God Lied” There is a human element to the writing of scripture and those humans can make errors.(not every error is the result of a lie) The Holy spirit ensured that we would have what is necessary for salvation.
2. People who think there may be errors in scripture do not think God spoke falsely to us. They believe there is a human element involved in writing scripture.
3. People who think there may be errors in scripture are not passing judgment on God. Yes we often use the general phrase its “God’s word.” But in doing so we do not mean God actually dictated every word. People have always understood that there are some things that are more important in scripture than others.

Moreover, your argument against human reason has another problem. Some human had to use his or her mind to make any sort of statement about scripture. The very idea that the bible is completely inerrant in even the smallest detail came from a human mind. So your argument denigrating the use of human reason cuts against both sides in this debate.

1. No I don’t think that is the case. Certainly the Vatican 2 statement does not necessarily yield the result that the bible must be in error about important doctrines – even though it leaves open the possibility there may be errors regarding matters that have nothing to do with our salvation.

 

[joemccarron]

I, like St. John Chrysostom, would say that there does seem to be discordance on little matters in scripture but as to the chief heads they agree. Now it seems that some would say that there being no discordance on little matters in scripture somehow is a chief head of Catholicism. This I can’t agree with at all. St. John (although he argued many alleged minor contradictions were not really contradictions) made it clear this was not a chief head of the faith. Was St. John Chrysostom so misguided that he couldn’t even get the chiefheads of the faith right? Did the chiefheads of our faith change?

But regardless of this I am curious what motivates people to urge the church to take such a dogmatic view on this issue. To the extent the church has binding and loosing power why would anyone want to encourage the church cast out people just because they happen to think the way Saul died is contradictory, or they think luke may have made a mistake about a census. I mean Luke explains how he got the information he wrote he says:

“Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.“

He is writing the product of his own investigation. He does not say he lost control of his hand it just started writing this. Yes of course the Holy Spirit was involved to make sure we have sufficient information for our salvation. But this notion that the human author was nothing more than a recorder of the Holy Spirit’s dictation is not a chief head of our faith.

I mean if Chrysostom could believe that there seemed to be discordance in the scripture, why is it all of a sudden so important that people who think that now be considered out of communion with the church? More importantly why would anyone want the church to react this way?

I mean from time to time people will find this or that minor point in scripture that seems to be mistaken. Now ok maybe it was a copyist error or maybe Saul was struck by the enemy arrow that would have killed him so he fell on his own sword to end it but before he died of that wound and then a friend seeing him in pain killed him quicker. Maybe a certain Christian can believe that. But then again maybe a Christian says no…I’m thinking there might have been some misunderstanding on this matter. Why should heaven or hell hang in the balance?

John J Farren thanks for the post which included how the Catholic Church interprets Augustine and Aquinas’s view on this matter.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Joe and I had a rather extensive debate about what John Chrysostom actually said beginning here. After reading post 176, you’ll want to jump forward to post 196 and then come back to post 177. I posted them out of order by accident.

Welcome back, Joe! I’ll be returning to this disputation at some point in the future. In the meantime, you may want to read, Chrysostom, A Study in the History of Biblical Interpretation, by Frederic Chase. You can read the whole book here. Pages 115-150 cover our present concern. On pages 118-119 he writes,

On the other hand in this true agreement, the proof and pledge of its perfect honesty, there is divergence. “Had there been a minute agreement among the Evangelists, even in matters of date and place and details of language, their enemies would never have believed that they did not meet together, and thus in accordance with some merely human compact compose their histories. Such agreement as this would not be consistent with candour”… At the same time “variation in statement must be distinguished from contradiction…”

With love in the LORD,
Pete

 

[JP_Marat]

Error and contradictions in scripture are accounted for in any one of three possible ways.

The first is the traditional approach regarding alleged divine inspiration (and inerrancy) of scripture and perhaps can be first found in a letter of Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) to Jerome, “…none of their writers has fallen into any error.” This kind of thinking continued through the First Council of the Vatican (1896-1870), Providentissimus deus (1893)”…”apt words with infallible truth…”, Spiritus paracletus (1920), and finally Pope Pius XII’s Divine Affante Spiritu (1943).

The basic argument is that error by God is impossible so there can be no errors in divinely inspired writings. As a result, apologists have spent many generations attempting to harmonize vastly contradictory passages of scripture. More recently, the approach they are taking is to argue that the contradictory passages are only “symbolic” or “metaphoric” and thus “inspired” even though contradictory or in error given the plain meaning of words. So evidently we should not, for example, regard Matthew’s claim that Jesus was born before the death of King Herod the great in 4 BC and Luke’s claim of Jesus’ birth during the 6 AD census of Quirinius, nor Matthew’s account of Jesus’ riding into Jerusalem on two animals to “fulfill “ Zec 9:9 as compared with Mark’s, Luke’s, and John’s one animal similar report as in any way contradictory.

Despite the rationalizations of apologists, the principle of contradiction hasn’t changed since the time of Aristotle. “In logic, the Principle of contradiction (principium contradictionis in Latin) is the second of the so-called three classic laws of thought. The oldest statement of the law is that contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true, e.g. the two propositions A is B and A is not B are mutually exclusive.”

The second approach is that of limited inspiration claiming that some passages of scripture are inspired by God and others are merely of human construct. Interestingly, this approach can be found in Tertullian’s (c 200 AD) “Against Maricon IV.2” and found its fullest expression in Dei Verbum’s 11’s very ambiguous statement that “… the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” What a loophole this created, arguments to the contrary not withstanding.

The third approach is to acknowledge that scripture is **not divinely inspired **but a collection of very human writings recounting long standing oral traditions in which accounts were more than likely aggrandized in their many retellings. In short, they are folklore but probably contain a small germ of historical truth. As one writer puts it. the accounts contain “much legend, myth, historical and scientific inaccuracies, religious propaganda, etc.”

 

[joemccarron]

Hi Pete I hope all is well for you.
Thanks for putting up the links to our previous discussions on this matter.

The translation you posted is slightly different, then the one we discussed, but I think the point is the same. St. John thinks the authors disagree in minute matters of “date and place and details of language” Again I think your interpretation wishes he left out the “date and place” part of this quote and only said they disagree about details of language. It seems however that St. John does indeed indicate he believes there are disagreement not just about “details of language” but also about times and places.

Now I of course agree that “variation in statement must be distinguished from contradiction” but “disagreement about times and places” is not the same as mere “variation of statement.” Nor is “disagreement about times and places” the same as disagreement about “details of language.” If two people disagree about the time or place of an event then there is indeed contradiction. People can’t disagree about where or when the same event happened and both be correct.

Hence it seems on this translation as well, St. John not only accepts that there are minute disagreements about times and places, but he thinks this actually demonstrates the reliability of the gospels. I happen to agree with him.

Be that as it may let me ask if you would at the very least concede that this passage makes it clear that St. John did not think total inerrancy was a chief head of the Church’s teaching.

 

[Pete_Holter]

The second approach is that of limited inspiration claiming that some passages of scripture are inspired by God and others are merely of human construct. Interestingly, this approach can be found in Tertullian’s (c 200 AD) “Against Maricon IV.2”

For an examination of Tertullian’s view, see this, this, and this.

Tertullian: “The statements… of holy Scripture will never be discordant with truth” (, Ch 21A Treatise on the Soul).

With the love of Christ,
Pete

 

[joemccarron]

JP
I don’t hink that third approach has ever been endorsed by any church father or church authority.

There are reasons why the first view has been expressed more often in the past than the second view. (And no it is not due to advancements in science.) This is so even if the second view has been the predominant view of Catholics since the time that scriptures were being written.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Hence it seems on this translation as well, St. John not only accepts that there are minute disagreements about times and places, but he thinks this actually demonstrates the reliability of the gospels. I happen to agree with him.

I have to seize upon what you’ve said here, because it illustrates a discontinuity in your apprehension of what he’s actually saying. On the one hand, you want to have John saying that these “minute disagreements” demonstrate the reliability of the Gospels (I’m sure we agree that demonstrating the reliability of the Gospels would draw people to the church). On the other hand, you want him to not point these disagreements out because, as you said,

I explained why we don’t see fathers going out of their way to point out nitpicky disagreements in this Post 161. Doing that would not serve their purposes of drawing people to the church. So no its not the case that any father would have any reason to point out a disagreement even if they thought they existed.

I submit that we can’t have it both ways, especially in light of the fact that John said that he was going to do this very thing: he’s going to point these disagreements out to us over the course of his homilies on Matthew in order to demonstrate that “if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said” (Homily 1 on Matthew). And how does he prove this lack of injury? By establishing harmony in example after example. His procedure is unanimously applied. And, by the way, it would not be “going out of his way” for him to point out “nitpicky disagreements” and show how the gospel authors are in contradiction. He points out many “nitpicky disagreements;” and, in every case, he shows how they resolve into agreement.

I’d rather we continue our discussion about Chrysostom on the other thread, but I’ll follow your lead.

 

[JP_Marat]

JP
I don’t hink that third approach has ever been endorsed by any church father or church authority.

There are reasons why the first view has been expressed more often in the past than the second view. (And no it is not due to advancements in science.) This is so even if the second view has been the predominant view of Catholics since the time that scriptures were being written.

RESPONSE:

The second view evolved when the pretence that there were absolutely no errors in scripture was recognized as being untenable even by apologists.

Nonetheless, conservative Catholic apologists still try to argue for the first view, “all scripture is inspired.” But they have dropped the claim of inerrancy since there are so many errors. Still, some attempt the prove that obviously conflicting passages, “if viewed in context” or "metaphorically, or as “allegory” etc. allows them to say the direct opposite of what they actually say. But if the first sense of a passage is literal, and historical, than it is historical, not metaphorical.

Did Jesus really die on the cross? Did all those people Matthew claimed rose from the dead at the time of the crucifixion really rise from the dead? How can one be historical and the other (a chapter earlier) be only “metaphorical”? What about both historical or neither historical? Do we get to choose?

 

[joemccarron]

Pete I agree with you that I do not have much more to say on this than what was said in our first thread regarding Chrysostom’s view. I recognize you disagree with my “interpretation” but I do think his view is pretty clearly stated. Indeed I do not think I was doing any interpreting but really just quoting the Saint with a long enough quote so that the context was clear. I was then explaining why your interpretations were materially changing what he said.

When you quote him saying “if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said” you do not mention that the “the truth” that doesn’t get injured is “the truth” of the chiefheads. It is clear from the context that is what he meant. We go through this in the thread so I won’t go through it again here.

As far as whether minute differences help or hurt the credibility of a set of witnesses, opinions vary. It also depends on the particular inconsistency. But my own opinion is that sometimes they help sometimes they hurt. People who do investigative work get a sense of this. It’s not easy to give the precise rules on what makes a difference here.

The type of inconsistencies that happen in the Gospels are the type that happen when honest people are trying to give the truth about what happened but will sometimes misremember minor things. If you ever gave a detailed recorded statement as to what had occurred – be it a crime or something else – and then listened to that statement a year or 2 later you might be surprised about some of the details you misremember. But the important parts of what you are trying to convey i.e., there was a crime committed and who did it and why you though that person did it – will not change.

Certainly in general it’s ok and indeed good if there is some minor variation/contradiction on matters that don’t deal with the main point. Especially if we are talking about memories that are stretching back years or even decades. If there weren’t then I would have to reach the conclusion that there was collusion. In the same token it’s not really helpful in arguing for the credibility of a group of witnesses by going out of your way to focus in on any particular discrepancy in their testimony.

So yes I have come across non-Christians who claim that the 4 gospel writers just got together and colluded to write this story out. What did I do to convince them that was not the case? I told them to read the Gospels and they would see that, given the differences regarding minor matters, that is a very very hard theory to swallow.

But do I ever really find that in order to demonstrate the reliability of the Gospels I must point out particular discrepancies like whether Jesus died on Thursday night or Friday night, or whether Mathew might have been mistaken about Jesus’ mode of transportation when he entered Jerusalem? No I never find that I have to go out of my way to try to prove this or that is inconsistency. It’s usually the person I am arguing with who does more than his or her fair share of finding alleged inconsistencies that help me make my point. This hasn’t changed from John Chrysostom’s time.
Moreover there isn’t necessarily any particular passage that I say “Ahah! this one must be wrong!” It’s just that there are so many cases where it seems so probable that the authors made a mistake that it is impossible to believe they never did.

I mean for any given passage we may say well it’s possible that it happened just so …(fill in whatever you want to try to explain away what appears to be an inconsistency) and then that would save the relevant passages.

For example, Ok maybe one Gospel writer decided to leave out completely that Judas hung himself and decided only to report that he fell and burst open. Whereas the other gospel writer left out the falling and bursting open and only reported that he hung himself. Neither one ever said anything about a rope breaking. (and let’s entirely set aside how one falls “headlong” when a hanging rope breaks.) Alright let’s say this isn’t theoretically impossible, but it is certainly an odd way to report this. In other words it’s what we call a stretch. Well you get enough of these “stretches” and pretty soon, unless you have thrown reason out the door, you come to the conclusion that Chrysostom came to. Namely, there seems to be discordance regarding little matters in scripture. Its not necessarily any particular one. But, on the whole, it seems there is discordance on some minor matters.

I think it would be absurd to say that because you reach this conclusion you are no longer a Christian or should be excommunicated from the Catholic Church. What does the mode of Judas’s death, or the date of a census, really have to do with being a Christian? Yet that seems to be the way you would have us understand this. What is even more odd to me is that you seem to want it to be the case, that if someone reaches the conclusion that there seems to be some discord on little matters in scripture that they should be excommunicated. I guess I don’t understand what is driving this.

I certainly don’t think people who disagree with me on this should be excommunicated. You and others may disagree with my view that there seems to be minor inconsistencies in the scripture. You might say no nay never is there any error. Well that wouldn’t cause me to say because you fail to recognize this truth you should be excommunicated.

I really think your overarching concern that those who disagree on these small matters should feel separated from the church is misguided. Being a good Catholic – even in Chrysostom’s day was hard enough. Let’s not push our church to use its binding and loosing authority to make it even harder.

 

[joemccarron]

RESPONSE:

The second view evolved when the pretence that there were absolutely no errors in scripture was recognized as being untenable even by apologists.

Well Chrysostom seemed to have had a handle on it when he wrote so it must have evolved fast.

Nonetheless, conservative Catholic apologists still try to argue for the first view, “all scripture is inspired.” But they have dropped the claim of inerrancy since there are so many errors. Still, some attempt the prove that obviously conflicting passages, “if viewed in context” or "metaphorically, or as “allegory” etc. allows them to say the direct opposite of what they actually say. But if the first sense of a passage is literal, and historical, than it is historical, not metaphorical.

Did Jesus really die on the cross? Did all those people Matthew claimed rose from the dead at the time of the crucifixion really rise from the dead? How can one be historical and the other (a chapter earlier) be only “metaphorical”? What about both historical or neither historical? Do we get to choose?

We don’t get to choose the truth. But if you want an easy way to tell allegory from history there is no easy 5 step procedure. You have to look at the context and history among other things.

Some want God to tell them precisely what we need to believe and do in very clear language - like a recipe. But, in some ways, God makes it fuzzy and forces us to search out truths and form our beliefs and conscience as best we can. But we should have faith in God. Specifically we should trust that if we search to learn what he expects from us in an open manner, we can find out. For my part, learning isn’t half the challenge. Acting on what I learned is harder. But I have found that by acting on what little I have learned I learn more and my conscience becomes molded in more refined ways. At least that is what I think is happening.

 

[Pete_Holter]

When you quote him saying “if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said” you do not mention that the “the truth” that doesn’t get injured is “the truth” of the chiefheads. It is clear from the context that is what he meant. We go through this in the thread so I won’t go through it again here.

Hey Joe,

I don’t try to proclaim the truth so that other people get excommunicated or to propagate reasons why people go to hell. I proclaim the truth so that I and others can cling ever closer to God. And this is something that you should consider very carefully because there is a non Catholic Christian on this thread who believes in inerrancy and you’ve just disputed with him, basically telling him he’s wrong. If you admit that total inerrancy is a possible Catholic position, then you should be promoting this view amongst those non Catholics who believe this, becoming all things to all men in order that you might save some. As it is, in promoting your own opinion, you’ve just pushed him further away from the grace and truth of Jesus Christ that comes to us through the Catholic Church.

If your interpretation of John’s statement is correct, then we should have occurrences where John shows that, “yes, they’ve wrongly spoken as to time or place in this passage, but this is immaterial to the Christian faith, and here’s how…” I don’t understand how you get around this when he said that “these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out” (Homily 1 on Matthew). Where does he point out what you are saying?

With love,
Pete

 

[Roman_Army]

Despite the rationalizations of apologists, the principle of contradiction hasn’t changed since the time of Aristotle. “In logic, the Principle of contradiction (principium contradictionis in Latin) is the second of the so-called three classic laws of thought. The oldest statement of the law is that contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true, e.g. the two propositions A is B and A is not B are mutually exclusive.”

The supposed “contradictions” many cite are only contradictions in the minds of those readers, but not a contradiction in the mind of the original author. Example of a supposed “contradiction” would be how in two gospel passages Jesus says “he who is not with me is against me and he who does not gather with me scatters” (Matt. 12:30, Luke 11:23) and then in another two passages says “…he that is not against us(/you) is for us(/you)” (Mk. 9:40; Lk. 9:50). This is not a contradiction, it is one thing to explicitly refuse to be in friendship with a stranger and quite another to be friendly to that stranger without knowing them well enough to be in an actual friendship with them.

The second approach is that of limited inspiration claiming that some passages of scripture are inspired by God and others are merely of human construct. Interestingly, this approach can be found in Tertullian’s (c 200 AD) “Against Maricon IV.2” and found its fullest expression in Dei Verbum’s 11’s very ambiguous statement that “… the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” What a loophole this created, arguments to the contrary not withstanding.

Dei Verbum taught no such thing, in fact quite the opposite.

**From Dei Verbum 11 (Emphasis Mines): **

“For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted… (4)”

Footnotes (Very Important):

1. cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chap. 2 “On Revelation:” Denzinger 1787 (3006); Biblical Commission, Decree of June 18,1915: Denzinger 2180 (3629): EB 420; Holy Office, Epistle of Dec. 22, 1923: EB 499.

1. cf. Pius XII, encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu,” Sept. 30, 1943: A.A.S. 35 (1943) p. 314; Enchiridion Bible. (EB) 556.

1. “In” and “for” man: cf. Heb. 1, and 4, 7; (“in”): 2 Sm. 23,2; Matt.1:22 and various places; (“for”): First Vatican Council, Schema on Catholic Doctrine, note 9: Coll. Lac. VII, 522.

1. Leo XIII, encyclical “Providentissimus Deus,” Nov. 18, 1893: Denzinger 1952 (3293); EB 125.

1. cf. St. Augustine, “Gen. ad Litt.” 2, 9, 20L 34, 270-271; Epistle 82, 3: PL 33, 277: CSEL 34, 2, p. 354. St. Thomas, “On Truth,” Q. 12, A. 2, C.Council of Trent, session IV, Scriptural Canons: Denzinger 783 (1501). Leo XIII, encyclical “Providentissimus Deus:” EB 121, 124, 126-127. Pius XII, encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu:” EB 539.
   ____________________________________________________

From Dei Verbum 12:

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out…

Footnote (Very Important Again):

9. cf. Benedict XV, encyclical “Spiritus Paraclitus” Sept. 15, 1920:EB 469. St. Jerome, "In Galatians’ 5, 19-20: PL 26, 417 A.

**Source: **http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

It is clear that the Second Vatican Council did NOT teach that certain parts of Scripture are “uninspired” by God. But, that every single thing in Scripture is of God including those things which you reject as not inspired from God. It is also clear from the footnotes that the teachings of Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII, Pope Benedict XV, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, the old Magisterial decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (when it used to have magisterial authority) and the Holy Office, and etc. are all still in effect and are to be used to understand what the Council was trying to say. Everything in Scripture with all its parts is Sacred and Canonical and is inspired by God for the sake of our salvation. Every single number, consonant, vowel, syllabel, word, name, space, punctuation mark, sentence, paragraph, page, pages, book, set of books, etc. and etc. contained in it is inspired by God and inerrant for it is impossible for God as the principle author to utter that which is untrue or erroneous. It is clear from Dei Verbum that exegetes must pay serious attention to the CONTENT and UNITY of the WHOLE Scriptures when interpreting a particular passage, which is to say that one must harmonize all the different passages because of its unity. It is clear that your erroneous “third approach” of understanding the scripture has been infallibly and irreformably forever condemned by the Church as a formal heresy. Do you want to persist in this heresy? God forbid! For if so doing you automatically cast yourself outside the Church and outside of Christ’s friendship through a latae sententiae excommunication.

 

[joemccarron]

Hey Joe,

I don’t try to proclaim the truth so that other people get excommunicated or to propagate reasons why people go to hell. I proclaim the truth so that I and others can cling ever closer to God. And this is something that you should consider very carefully because there is a non Catholic Christian on this thread who believes in inerrancy and you’ve just disputed with him, basically telling him he’s wrong. If you admit that total inerrancy is a possible Catholic position, then you should be promoting this view amongst those non Catholics who believe this, becoming all things to all men in order that you might save some. As it is, in promoting your own opinion, you’ve just pushed him further away from the grace and truth of Jesus Christ that comes to us through the Catholic Church.

Pete I apologize coming off that way. You did indicate that you wrote to a Vatican official encouraging them to pronounce your view on total inerrancy. I guess I’m not really sure what motivates you to do that. Like I said being Catholic is hard enough.

As far as the points I made in this thread and whether they pushed someone further from the Catholic Church, I’m not sure why that would be. I’m not saying people who do believe in extreme inerrancy should be rejected from the church. I simply explained why IMO certain arguments for inerrancy that we often see (and he stated) are flawed. If the arguments are flawed then they provide shaky foundations for becoming a Catholic.

If you think allot of people will only embrace the church if it requires people to go through the mental gymnastics of resolving the considerable number of difficulties in scripture, then I suppose that could be legitimate motivation for your actions. Do you think more people will be inside the church if it makes it clear that those who don’t/can’t honestly do these mental gymnastics are not in communion?

Certainly I would agree the church should condemn certain views that constitute heresy. But each view should be evaluated on its own as being important before people are thrown out of the church for holding them. The ancient church had creeds that gave us what all Christians needed to believe. That creed did not involved reciting the bible cover to cover. Nor did any creed require people to avow that they think scripture is completely without the possibility of error down to the most remote and insignificant detail. This was never part of the ancient churches essential teachings why the push to make this essential in the last one and a half centuries?

To say that someone should be cast out of the church because they harbor a belief that perhaps Luke got it wrong on the census, or the mode of Judas’s death, seems anything but loving to me. In fact it seems headstrong and unnecessarily hurtful. That’s my opinion. I know we both hope that the church leaders are guided by a love of their congregation so I know your opinion is different. I don’t question that about you, but I will nevertheless state my own view.

If your interpretation of John’s statement is correct, then we should have occurrences where John shows that, “yes, they’ve wrongly spoken as to time or place in this passage, but this is immaterial to the Christian faith, and here’s how…” I don’t understand how you get around this when he said that “these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out” (Homily 1 on Matthew). Where does he point out what you are saying?

With love,
Pete

No, we would not expect to see occurrences of him giving examples. The people he argued with apparently didn’t dispute that there may be inconsistencies so why would he need to give examples? In our other thread I have explained other reasons why I believe your insistence on this point is misplaced. The Saint said there seems to be discordance in little matters of time and place and I think we can take him at his word. Just because he didn’t go into more detail about what the discordant details were, that should not lead one to think he didn’t believe what he wrote.

 

[JP_Marat]

The supposed “contradictions” many cite are only contradictions in the minds of those readers, but not a contradiction in the mind of the original author. Example of a supposed “contradiction” would be how in two gospel passages Jesus says “he who is not with me is against me and he who does not gather with me scatters” (Matt. 12:30, Luke 11:23) and then in another two passages says “…he that is not against us(/you) is for us(/you)” (Mk. 9:40; Lk. 9:50). This is not a contradiction, it is one thing to explicitly refuse to be in friendship with a stranger and quite another to be friendly to that stranger without knowing them well enough to be in an actual friendship with them.

Dei Verbum taught no such thing, in fact quite the opposite.

It is clear that the Second Vatican Council did NOT teach that certain parts of Scripture are “uninspired” by God. But, that every single thing in Scripture is of God including those things which you reject as not inspired from God. It is also clear from the footnotes that the teachings of Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII, Pope Benedict XV, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, the old Magisterial decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (when it used to have magisterial authority) and the Holy Office, and etc. are all still in effect and are to be used to understand what the Council was trying to say. Everything in Scripture with all its parts is Sacred and Canonical and is inspired by God for the sake of our salvation. Every single number, consonant, vowel, syllabel, word, name, space, punctuation mark, sentence, paragraph, page, pages, book, set of books, etc. and etc. contained in it is inspired by God and inerrant for it is impossible for God as the principle author to utter that which is untrue or erroneous. It is clear from Dei Verbum that exegetes must pay serious attention to the CONTENT and UNITY of the WHOLE Scriptures when interpreting a particular passage, which is to say that one must harmonize all the different passages because of its unity. It is clear that your erroneous “third approach” of understanding the scripture has been infallibly and irreformably forever condemned by the Church as a formal heresy. Do you want to persist in this heresy? God forbid! For if so doing you automatically cast yourself outside the Church and outside of Christ’s friendship through a latae sententiae excommunication.

RESPONSE:

Not exactly.

But before we begin, are you claiming that Dei Verbum endorsed the position of complete inerrancy in scripture?

“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 Ghost; 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.” (Providentissimus deus,20)

 

[Roman_Army]

RESPONSE:

Not exactly.

But before we begin, are you claiming that Dei Verbum endorsed the position of complete inerrancy in scripture?

“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 Ghost; 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.” (Providentissimus deus,20)

“Endorse” would not be the proper word here because it implies an optional recommendation than of something that is obligatory and infallible. I would say that Dei Verbum simply re-affirmed the ancient and unchanging teaching of the Church on the matter (as expressed by Pope Leo XIII, other Popes and their representatives in the Roman Curia, Councils, and Church Fathers), though they employed a different and more positive tone in a way that can be more attractive to modern man. They chose to put more emphasis on the “yes” side of the ancient teaching of the Church as in that it is divinely inspired, sacred, in complete harmony, and can be used with complete absolute certainty. The “no’s” of Pope Leo XIII, Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XII, the Holy office, the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and etc. only exist to protect the good “yes” that is the sacredness and perfection of God’s Word expressed in human language.

 

[JP_Marat]

ROMAN ARMY posted:

Originally Posted by JP Marat
"Despite the rationalizations of apologists, the principle of contradiction hasn’t changed since the time of Aristotle. “In logic, the Principle of contradiction (principium contradictionis in Latin) is the second of the so-called three classic laws of thought. The oldest statement of the law is that contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true, e.g. the two propositions A is B and A is not B are mutually exclusive.”

The supposed “contradictions” many cite are only contradictions in the minds of those readers, but not a contradiction in the mind of the original author.<<

RESPONSE:

Really?

First, Saul was well acquainted with David. But after David killed Goliath, neither Saul nor any of his follower knew who David was.

1 Sam 16:18-22 “A servant spoke up to say: “I have observed that one of the sons of Jesse of Bethlehem is a skillful harpist. He is also a stalwart soldier, besides being an able speaker, and handsome. Moreover, the LORD is with him.” Accordingly, Saul dispatched messengers to ask Jesse to send him his son David, who was with the flock. Then Jesse took five loaves of bread, a skin of wine, and a kid, and sent them to Saul by his son David. Thus David came to Saul and entered his service. Saul became very fond of him, made him his armor-bearer, and sent Jesse the message, “Allow David to remain in my service, for he meets with my approval.”

But,

1 Sam 17:54-58 “David took the head of the Philistine and brought it to Jerusalem; but he kept Goliath’s armor in his own tent. (When Saul saw David go out to meet the Philistine, he asked his general Abner, “Abner, whose son is that youth?” Abner replied, “As truly as your majesty is alive,** I have no idea**.” And the king said, “Find out whose son the lad is.” So when David returned from slaying the Philistine, Abner took him and presented him to Saul. David was still holding the Philistine’s head. Saul then asked him, “Whose son are you, young man?” David replied, “I am the son of your servant Jesse of Bethlehem.” (NAB)

Is this contradiction **only in the mind of the reader **too? Or are both passages “inspired” and “inerrant” ?

 

[JP_Marat]

ROMAN ARMY posted:

Originally Posted by JP Marat
“The second approach is that of limited inspiration claiming that some passages of scripture are inspired by God and others are merely of human construct. Interestingly, this approach can be found in Tertullian’s (c 200 AD) “Against Maricon IV.2” and found its fullest expression in Dei Verbum’s 11’s very ambiguous statement that “… the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” What a loophole this created, arguments to the contrary not withstanding.”

Dei Verbum taught no such thing, in fact quite the opposite. <<<

RESPONSE

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 sacred writings for the sake of salvation. (Dei Verbum,11)
Really? Lets see what major scripture scholars say.

“Although our authors knew what shape heaven is, [the spirit] wants to speak through them only that which is** useful for salvation**.” (Augustine) josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/QDdeVer12.htm

Thomas Bokenkotter goes a bit further in his assessment that Dei Verbum 11 “leaves room for the more liberal-minded to** admit error in the Bible where this does not affect its essential message.” Thomas Bokenkotter**, Essential Catholicism: Dynamics of Faith and Belief (New York: Doubleday & Company, 1985) 32.

While some commentators interpret this sentence as excluding all error from the Bible, it may be read as asserting that, while there may be erroneous statements here or there, they are corrected elsewhere or do not affect the meaning of the whole. Further, the Council’s statement might seem to allow for errors in matters **without importance for our salvation.” ** Cardinal Avery Dulles, “Scripture: Recent Protestant and Catholic Views,” Theology Today, Vol. 37, No. 1, April 1980

. The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Fr. Raymond Brown, pp. 8-9,
In the last hundred years we have moved from an understanding wherein inspiration guaranteed that the Bible was totally inerrant to an understanding wherein inerrancy is limited to the Bible’s teaching of ‘that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.’ In this long journey of thought the concept of inerrancy was not rejected but was seriously modified to fit the evidence of biblical criticism which showed that the Bible was not inerrant in questions of science, of history, and even of time-conditioned religious beliefs

Do you think St. Augustine, Fr. Bokenkotter, Cardinal Dullas, and Fr. Raymond Brown are all excommunicated???

 

[Bengoshi]

1. People who think there may be errors in the scripture do not necessarily believe “God Lied” There is a human element to the writing of scripture and those humans can make errors.(not every error is the result of a lie) The Holy spirit ensured that we would have what is necessary for salvation.
2. People who think there may be errors in scripture do not think God spoke falsely to us. They believe there is a human element involved in writing scripture.
3. People who think there may be errors in scripture are not passing judgment on God. Yes we often use the general phrase its “God’s word.” But in doing so we do not mean God actually dictated every word. People have always understood that there are some things that are more important in scripture than others.

Moreover, your argument against human reason has another problem. Some human had to use his or her mind to make any sort of statement about scripture. The very idea that the bible is completely inerrant in even the smallest detail came from a human mind. So your argument denigrating the use of human reason cuts against both sides in this debate.

1. No I don’t think that is the case. Certainly the Vatican 2 statement does not necessarily yield the result that the bible must be in error about important doctrines – even though it leaves open the possibility there may be errors regarding matters that have nothing to do with our salvation.

Hi there!

You seem to misinterpret what I am (and Dr. Grudem, as I quoted from his book) saying. We do not teach that the biblical writers were just mechanically controlled by the Holy Spirit (HS) nor were they just like secretaries or stenographers taking dictation from God. Instead, we recognize that the Scriptures had human authors. However, because they were under the guidance and inspiration of the HS, their writings were preserve by God from any error. If what you said above were true, then it logically follows that God also erred. Remember, THEY WERE GUIDED BY THE HS. God would not allow any errors in His written Word. I posted a link to several links about biblical inerrancy somewhere here. I suggest that you look for it and check it out. A LOT of materials have been referenced there. Enjoy!

 

[JP_Marat]

Roman Army posted:

It is clear that your erroneous “third approach” of understanding the scripture has been infallibly and irreformably forever condemned by the Church as a formal heresy. Do you want to persist in this heresy? God forbid! For if so doing you automatically cast yourself outside the Church and outside of Christ’s friendship through a latae sententiae excommunication.<<

RESPONSE:

Ah! Playing the excommunication card,eh? But it won’t work, because most Catholics don’t really believe that it is the will of God that (Lutheran) heretics be burned at the stake. So we’re all already “excommunicated.”

Exsurge Domine, Pope Leo X:

“With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected….We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…”

Condemned theses# 33. “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”

So if you don’t believe that it is the will of God that heretics be burned at the stake, you are excommunicated automatically!

Exsurge is still on the books and it meets the requirements for a papal ex cathedra infallible decree.