total inerrancy is Catholic dogma

[Roman_Army]

JP Marat:

This is in reply to your Message 156:

In regards to your quote of St. Augustine, he was simply stating the fact that the Sacred Author of scripture did not intend to reveal to us the detailed inner workings of the cosmos and nature which is the task of Scientists. The natural sciences is not necessary for our salvation, but the consistency and inerrancy of the history of our salvation certainly is.

In regards to your quote of Thomas Bokenkotter, he does not speak for the Church. I’m not sure of what he meant since I don’t see the context. But, there’s nothing wrong with saying that the ambiguous wording of Dei Verbum has led people to mistakenly think that there can be error in scripture. I readily admit of the fact that the wording leads to misinterpretation. But, if people actually bothered to refer to the footnotes and understand Tradition then they would understand it more clearly.

In regards to Cardinal Avery Dulles’ quote, again I am not aware of the context, though certainly there is nothing wrong with saying that there maybe errors in the existing copies of the scriptures which would have to be carefully examined in individual cases. But, it cannot be asserted that there are errors in the original. Cardinal Dulles’ interpretation of the Council is clearly erroneous however.

In regards to Fr. Raymond Brown, you very well know that his book “The New Jerome Commentary” is heretical and that he was the one who gave himself the nihil obstat. His methods have been criticized by Pope Benedict XVI while Cardinal and as Pope in the last general Synod of bishops.

I would say that Fr. Raymond Brown would fall under formal heresy. I’m not sure of Dulles’ and Bokenkotter’s level of culpability however.

 

[Roman_Army]

JP Marat:

This is in reply to your Message # 155.

No amount of me explaining the scriptures to you is going to change your mind. If the God himself through the Scriptures, the apostles, fathers, Popes, and Councils cannot persuade you, then certainly neither can I. But, I will say that Saul as a human being and King would not have an unlimited vast readily available memory of everything. Even I myself tend to forget people’s names and I’m no famous politician. In Sam. 16:14-23, it is clear that Saul’s servants and messengers were the ones that were tasked with fetching for David and bringing word to his father. In Sam. 17:55-58, it is clear that Saul himself (not a messenger nor servant) was merely asking for the name of David’s father since he could not readily recall it from memory. So, this would solve your distortion.

 

[Roman_Army]

JP Marat:

This is in reply to your Message 156:

In regards to your quote of St. Augustine, he was simply stating the fact that the Sacred Author of scripture did not intend to reveal to us the detailed inner workings of the cosmos and nature which is the task of Scientists. Therefore, it follows that a clearly non-scientific book that is the Scriptures should not be charged with scientific error. The natural sciences is not necessary for our salvation, but the consistency and inerrancy of the history of our salvation certainly is.

In regards to your quote of Thomas Bokenkotter, he does not speak for the Church. I’m not sure of what he meant since I don’t see the context. But, there’s nothing wrong with saying that the ambiguous wording of Dei Verbum has led people to mistakenly think that there can be error in scripture. I readily admit of the fact that the wording leads to misinterpretation. But, if people actually bothered to refer to the footnotes and understand Tradition then they would understand it more clearly.

In regards to Cardinal Avery Dulles’ quote, again I am not aware of the context, though certainly there is nothing wrong with saying that there maybe errors in the existing copies of the scriptures which would have to be carefully examined in individual cases. But, it cannot be asserted that there are errors in the original. Cardinal Dulles’ interpretation of the Council is clearly erroneous however.

In regards to Fr. Raymond Brown, you very well know that his book the very infamous “New Jerome Commentary” is heretical and that he was the one who gave himself the nihil obstat. His methods have been criticized by Pope Benedict XVI while Cardinal and as Pope in the last general Synod of bishops.

I would say that Fr. Raymond Brown would perhaps fall under formal heresy, though I am unaware whether he had full knowledge and deliberate consent. I’m not sure of the context of Dulles’ and Bokenkotter’s fallible personal opinions.

 

[Roman_Army]

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.<<

I agree with the condemnation of theses # 33 in Exsurge Domine. To suggest that the execution of heretics that disturb the peace of society is against the will of the Spirit is to suggest the Old Testament executions were against the will of the Holy Spirit. Certainly, if the heretics are very hostile and present a threat to the very peace of society and there is no effective way to deter and contain them through bloodless means, then the death penalty would be justified. Or do you propose that if a heresy similar to that of the destructive Heaven’s Gate, Wacko, and etc. cults had become a widespread problem in the middle ages the civil authorities should have done nothing? But, if the heretics be peaceful, non-destructive, and tolerant, then the death penalty could not be used. Such peaceful heretics should be tolerated and evangelized with love.

 

[David_Zampino]

In regards to Cardinal Avery Dulles’ quote, again I am not aware of the context, though certainly there is nothing wrong with saying that there maybe errors in the existing copies of the scriptures which would have to be carefully examined in individual cases. But, it cannot be asserted that there are errors in the original. Cardinal Dulles’ interpretation of the Council is clearly erroneous however.

Forgive my asking, Roman_Army, but by what authority to you declare Cardinal Dulles’ interpretation of the Council to be “clearly erroneous”?

 

[David_Zampino]

In regards to Fr. Raymond Brown, you very well know that his book the very infamous “New Jerome Commentary” is heretical and that he was the one who gave himself the nihil obstat. His methods have been criticized by Pope Benedict XVI while Cardinal and as Pope in the last general Synod of bishops.

I would say that Fr. Raymond Brown would perhaps fall under formal heresy, though I am unaware whether he had full knowledge and deliberate consent. I’m not sure of the context of Dulles’ and Bokenkotter’s fallible personal opinions.

Oh, my!

By what authority do you, at the tender age of 23, suggest that Fr. Brown would perhaps fall under FORMAL HERESY???

I’ll agree that, in my personal, albeit informed, opinion, that the original “Jerome Commentary” was superior to the “New Jerome Commentary”, calling the latter heretical is rather a bit of a stretch. Honestly, it takes certain critical tools and methodologies further than where I would feel comfortable – but it remains within the mainstream of Catholic Biblical scholarship, even if rather to the left. If you’ve ever taken a look at Fr. Brown’s “Introduction to the New Testament”, it is clearly more centrist than the “New Jerome Commentary” – and certainly well within the mainstream.

A few posts ago, you seemed to be suggesting that one of our fellow posters was in danger of excommunication. Now, you’re suggesting that Fr. Brown may have been in “formal heresy” and that Avery Cardinal Dulles – so named by Servant of God Pope John Paul II was “clearly erroneous”.

Thanks – but I’d prefer to rely on Pope John Paul’s judgment.

BTW, as an aside, other than snippets taken out of context, have you ever read a substantial amount of Cardinal Dulles? Or Fr. Brown, for that matter? I think that you might be surprised.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Roman_Army:

In regards to Cardinal Avery Dulles’ quote, again I am not aware of the context, though certainly there is nothing wrong with saying that there maybe errors in the existing copies of the scriptures which would have to be carefully examined in individual cases. But, it cannot be asserted that there are errors in the original. Cardinal Dulles’ interpretation of the Council is clearly erroneous however.

Pay close attention to JP Marat’s use of out of context quotes! I don’t think you have to worry about anything Cardinal Dulles says. But if you notice the actual quote wasn’t given, nor was the exact text given upon which he was making the statement. JP Marat is infamous for his convenient out-of-context statements.

 

[Roman_Army]

Pay close attention to JP Marat’s use of out of context quotes! I don’t think you have to worry about anything Cardinal Dulles says. But if you notice the actual quote wasn’t given, nor was the exact text given upon which he was making the statement. JP Marat is infamous for his convenient out-of-context statements.

Thank you for the heads up, yes, I was commenting only on JP Marat’s interpretation of it. I had acknowledged that I was unaware of the proper context of what he said and whether or not he had reformed or clarified it later.

 

[Roman_Army]

Oh, my!

By what authority do you, at the tender age of 23, suggest that Fr. Brown would perhaps fall under FORMAL HERESY???

Okay, I said that I was uncertain whether or not he had sufficient knowledge and deliberate consent, if he was then it would be formal heresy. It could very well be that he simply was innocently mistaken about the interpretation of the Council and the ancient and constant teaching of the Church.

I’ll agree that, in my personal, albeit informed, opinion, that the original “Jerome Commentary” was superior to the “New Jerome Commentary”, calling the latter heretical is rather a bit of a stretch. Honestly, it takes certain critical tools and methodologies further than where I would feel comfortable – but it remains within the mainstream of Catholic Biblical scholarship, even if rather to the left.

If it is contrary to the principles outlined by the Church as was evident in Providentissiums Deus, then it is completely erroneous since it would be using heretical assumptions.

A few posts ago, you seemed to be suggesting that one of our fellow posters was in danger of excommunication. Now, you’re suggesting that Fr. Brown may have been in “formal heresy” and that Avery Cardinal Dulles – so named by Servant of God Pope John Paul II was “clearly erroneous”.

Thanks – but I’d prefer to rely on Pope John Paul’s judgment.

BTW, as an aside, other than snippets taken out of context, have you ever read a substantial amount of Cardinal Dulles? Or Fr. Brown, for that matter? I think that you might be surprised.

If JP Marat and those who share his views are obstinately rejecting Church teaching, then what does that make them? They would certainly not be in good standing with the Church.

Now, I have already stated that I was unaware of the context of Avery Dulles’ comment. I was only commenting on JP Marat’s interpretation of his comment. It could very well be that he was quoted out of context and was expressing something orthodox. Now, bear in mind that Pope John Paul II’s declaring him Cardinal does not mean he is free of error.

As for Fr. Brown, I admit that I have not personally read his comments nor books. But, if it is true what other orthodox Catholics more experienced than I who have read them say, then obviously it would be contrary to Church teaching.

May God bless you

 

[JP_Marat]

I agree with the condemnation of theses # 33 in Exsurge Domine. To suggest that the execution of heretics that disturb the peace of society is against the will of the Spirit is to suggest the Old Testament executions were against the will of the Holy Spirit. Certainly, if the heretics are very hostile and present a threat to the very peace of society and there is no effective way to deter and contain them through bloodless means, then the death penalty would be justified. Or do you propose that if a heresy similar to that of the destructive Heaven’s Gate, Wacko, and etc. cults had become a widespread problem in the middle ages the civil authorities should have done nothing? But, if the heretics be peaceful, non-destructive, and tolerant, then the death penalty could not be used. Such peaceful heretics should be tolerated and evangelized with love.

RESPONSE:

So you think that God wants us to burn all heretics at the stake? Do you really expect to be taken seriously?

 

[JP_Marat]

Pay close attention to JP Marat’s use of out of context quotes! I don’t think you have to worry about anything Cardinal Dulles says. But if you notice the actual quote wasn’t given, nor was the exact text given upon which he was making the statement. JP Marat is infamous for his convenient out-of-context statements.

RESPONSE:

Once again, here is the reference so you can look it up and read Dulles’ entire writing.

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

theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1980/v37-1-article1.htm

 

[Pete_Holter]

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?

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.

Hi Joe!

Actually, he is disputing with the person who asserts that the evangelists are “in many places… convicted of discordance.” And what is John’s response?

“[T]hat they are not opposed to each other, this we will endeavor to prove, throughout the whole work. And thou, in accusing them of disagreement, art doing just the same as if thou were to insist upon their using the same words and forms of speech” (Homily 1 on Matthew).

“And this many of the simpler sort, not understanding, have said there is a discordance; because Luke says it was Mary to whom he declared the good tidings (cf. Luke 1:26-38), but Matthew, that it was Joseph (cf. Matthew 1:20-22); not knowing that both took place. And this sort of thing it is necessary to bear in mind throughout the whole history; for in this way we shall solve many seeming discordances” (Homily 4 on Matthew).

Over and over again he says things like, “this is not a contradiction… that is nothing contrary to this… what follows is completely among the controverted points… not stating what is contrary to history…” Who said it was? This is the language of controversy.

Are you saying that an analysis of the meaning of the words “taste” and “not drink,” concern over whether the cock crowed once or twice, whether Abiathar was high priest when David ate the bread of the presence, the manner in which Judas died, reconciling the six or eight days to the transfiguration, etc. are not the minor details that he has in mind in Homily 1?

If saying “these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out” does not mean that he will be providing us with examples throughout his homilies, then what does it mean? I have to press you on this point… John said that “these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out.” And yet you say that “we would not expect to see occurrences of him giving examples.” The two cannot both be true. I hope this next paragraph is helpful.

In Homily 1 on Matthew, John says that “if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together.” What Chrysostom is saying here is that they do not have agreement “μετά ακριβείας,” that is, “with accuracy.” This gets lost in the translation, but this is one of the reasons why I think you have to give fuller attention to the parallel appraisal that he gives of the Gospels in his commentary on Galatians. In Galatians he says that Matthew and Luke do not differ “in the signification of their contents, and in their doctrinal accuracy.” In other words, he holds the Gospel writers to have the same signification of their universal contents, and he then moves on to assert their “δογμάτων ἀκρίβειαν,” their “doctrinal accuracy.” ἀκρίβειαν. We see the same word being used and I think this is key. In the Homily on Matthew, he says that the Gospel writers do not have ακριβείας as it pertains to the small details of time, place, and to the very words, and he moves on to say that they have fuller agreement on the chief heads of the faith, leading us to think that he must be talking about them having the very thing that these other little matters lack: ακριβείας. We are confirmed in this suspicion when we come to Galatians, and he says that, yes, they do have ἀκρίβειαν as it pertains to doctrine; he also says that, although the other parts may lack ἀκρίβειαν, they have something less that is common to all that they’ve written: they have the same δύναμιν, the same signification or meaning. You want them to be in conflict with each other on the little matters; John has them in agreement, yet without the same level of accuracy as doctrine. So when one writer says 6 days and another says 8, John sees them saying the same thing, or, in another instance, he sees one writer narrating something more accurately and the other with greater brevity. This has nothing to do with error or contradiction.

Again, in Homily 1 he says, in the person of the antagonist, “in many places [the evangelists] are convicted of discordance.” And at the end of the paragraph he mentions “discordance which seems to exist.” Seems to whom? Well, we have this same pattern of discourse occurring in the 4th homily where people of “the simpler sort” accuse the evangelists of discordance. And what does John do? He shows us what he means by “discordance which seems to exist” by telling us that by employing his present approach to Scripture “we shall solve many seeming discordances.” Now a seeming discordance can only be resolved into harmony if it is discordant in mere appearance, and this is enough for us to understand his meaning when he uses the words “seem” and “discordance” together in Homily 1. To see something else is to throw John into conflict with himself; and to stumble over the “seeming discordances” into accusations of error and contradiction, is to play the role of “the simpler sort.” Since the Gospels “are one and the same, let them cease being senseless and pretending to be ignorant of these things which are plain to the very children” (Commentary on Galatians 1:7).

I hope this serves to clarify John Chrysostom’s position for you.

 

[Pete_Holter]

You mentioned the census in Luke’s Gospel, and our late Pope identified it as a historical fact in Redemptoris Custos:

Origen gives a good description of the theological significance, by no means marginal, of this historical fact: “Since the first census of the whole world took place under Caesar Augustus, and among all the others Joseph too went to register together with Mary his wife, who was with child, and since Jesus was born before the census was completed: to the person who makes a careful examination it will appear that a kind of mystery is expressed in the fact that at the time when all people in the world presented themselves to be counted, Christ too should be counted. By being registered with everyone, he could sanctify everyone; inscribed with the whole world in the census, he offered to the world communion with himself, and after presenting himself he wrote all the people of the world in the book of the living, so that as many as believed in him could then be written in heaven with the saints of God, to whom be glory and power for ever and ever, Amen.”

You mentioned the differing accounts of Judas’ death, and our Saint John Chrysostom handled the discrepancy without missing a step: “This sight [of silver or gold coin], which (as you said) does good to the eyes, suffered not the wretched Judas to hearken unto the Lord’s voice, but led him even to the halter (cf. Matthew 27:5), made him burst asunder in the midst (cf. Acts 1:18); and, after all that, conducted him on to hell” (Homily 9 on Matthew).

You wrote,

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

And yet, where did he do this? It is nice of you to encourage a brother, but what he did was to quote a few sentences from Aquinas’ work (cited by Dei Verbum) and then proceed to give his own understanding of it.

It is the entire multiple page article from Aquinas that is cited by Dei Verbum, so quoting a few sentences does not give us indication as to how the Catholic Church interprets either Aquinas or Augustine. The article from Aquinas is titled, “Does prophecy deal with conclusions which can be known scientifically?” In his typical fashion, Aquinas raises objections to be answered and it is in the objections themselves that we find the “No” in answer to this question. Aquinas, on the other hand, answers, Yes.

After asserting that prophecy pertains only to those things necessary for salvation, and using Augustine to substantiate his meaning, he goes on to explain that “many things which are proved in the sciences can be useful for this… Hence, we find that mention of these is made in Holy Scripture.” In other words, the reason that we find scientific material in Scripture is that it is useful for salvation. Aquinas gives an example of how conclusions of the sciences relate to salvation, as when our consideration of the creature prompts us to “admiration of the divine wisdom and power.” And since the conclusions of science are in Scripture, they have been prophesied, although they “do not belong to prophecy simply, but with reference to men of this type.” That is, with reference to men of scientific expertise. Due to this shared field of knowledge, the language of the prophets, which is at times difficult to understand, is fleshed out by the true demonstrations of science.

If we’re still not sure what Aquinas is saying, we can look at what else he has written about the nature of Sacred Scripture. He tells us in the Summa that denying the historical facts related by Scripture involves heresy because it is a denial of inerrancy:

“Anything is of faith in two ways; directly, where any truth comes to us principally as divinely taught, as the trinity and unity of God, the Incarnation of the Son, and the like; and concerning these truths a false opinion of itself involves heresy, especially if it be held obstinately. A thing is of faith, indirectly, if the denial of it involves as a consequence something against faith; as for instance if anyone said that Samuel was not the son of Elcana, for it follows that the divine Scripture would be false” (, First Part, Question 32, Article 4, “I answer that…”Summa Theologica).

He also shares these other thoughts on inspiration and inerrancy:

“For whatever Scripture tells us about paradise is set down as matter of history; and wherever Scripture makes use of this method, we must hold to the historical truth of the narrative as a foundation of whatever spiritual explanation we may offer” (, First Part, Question 102, Article 1, “I answer that…”Summa Theologica).

“It is unlawful to hold that any false assertion is contained either in the Gospel or in any canonical Scripture, or that the writers thereof have told untruths, because faith would be deprived of its certitude which is based on the authority of Holy Writ” (, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 110, Article 3, “Reply to Objection 1”Summa Theologica).

“[P]rophecy is a kind of knowledge impressed under the form of teaching on the prophet’s intellect, by Divine revelation. Now the truth of knowledge is the same in disciple and teacher since the knowledge of the disciple is a likeness of the knowledge of the teacher, even as in natural things the form of the thing generated is a likeness of the form of the generator. Jerome speaks in this sense when he says *Comment. in Daniel 2:10] that ‘prophecy is the seal of the Divine foreknowledge.’ Consequently the same truth must needs be in prophetic knowledge and utterances, as in the Divine knowledge, under which nothing false can possibly come, as stated in I, 16, 8. Therefore nothing false can come under prophecy” (, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 171, Article 6, “I answer that…”Summa Theologica).

“The author of Holy Writ is God …] it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ” (, First Part, Question 1, Article 10, “I answer that…” & “Reply to Objection 3”Summa Theologica).

I hope this helps to clarify Aquinas’ view.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Augustine’s view of Sacred Scripture is undoubted. Here again is the section cited by Dei Verbum:

“It is also frequently asked what our belief must be about the form and shape of heaven according to Sacred Scripture. Many scholars engage in lengthy discussions on these matters, but the sacred writers with their deeper wisdom have omitted them. Such subjects are of no profit for those who seek beatitude, and what is worse, they take up very precious time that ought to be given to what is spiritually beneficial. What concern is it of mine whether heaven is like a sphere and the earth is enclosed by it and suspended in the middle of the universe, or whether heaven like a disk above the earth covers it over on one side? But the credibility of Scripture is at stake, and as I have indicated more than once, there is danger that a man uninstructed in divine revelation, discovering something in Scripture or hearing from it something that seems to be at variance with the knowledge he has acquired, may resolutely withhold his assent in other matters where Scripture presents useful admonitions, narratives, or declarations. Hence, I must say briefly that in the matter of the shape of heaven the sacred writers knew the truth, but that the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these facts that would be of no avail for their salvation” (, Bk. 2, 9:20On the Literal Meaning of Genesis).

It is not just the concluding sentence that is cited by Dei Verbum. It is all of 9:20. The clear meaning of his words is that the authors of Scripture omitted those things that were not useful for salvation before they wrote. He continues with his thought from the previous section cited by the council…

“But someone may ask: ‘Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin?’ (Psalms 104:2). Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false. The truth is rather in what God reveals than in what groping men surmise. But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions. If it were, it would be opposed also to Sacred Scripture itself in another passage where it says that heaven is suspended like a vault (cf. Isaiah 40:22). For what can be so different and contradictory as a skin stretched out flat and the curved shape of a vault? But if it is necessary, as it surely is, to interpret these two passages so that they are shown not to be contradictory but to be reconcilable, it is also necessary that both of these passages should not contradict the theories that may be supported by true evidence, by which heaven is said to be curved on all sides in the shape of a sphere, provided only that this is proved” (, Bk. 2, 9:21On the Literal Meaning of Genesis).

With the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Pete

 

[JP_Marat]

Peter Holter posted:​

You mentioned the census in Luke’s Gospel, and our late Pope identified it as a historical fact in Redemptoris Custos:

Origen gives a good description of the theological significance, by no means marginal, of this historical fact: “Since the first census of the whole world took place under Caesar Augustus, and among all the others Joseph too went to register together with Mary his wife, who was with child, and since Jesus was born before the census was completed: to the person who makes a careful examination it will appear that a kind of mystery is expressed in the fact that at the time when all people in the world presented themselves to be counted, Christ too should be counted. By being registered with everyone, he could sanctify everyone; inscribed with the whole world in the census, he offered to the world communion with himself, and after presenting himself he wrote all the people of the world in the book of the living, so that as many as believed in him could then be written in heaven with the saints of God, to whom be glory and power for ever and ever, Amen.”

RESPONSE

With all due respect to the Pope, lets look at some of his errors.

(1) There is no claim besides Luke’s Gospel that Augustus conducted a census of the whole world at the time of Jesus’ birth. This would **not **have been the first such census.

New American Bible:
“Although universal registrations of Roman citizens are attested in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14 and enrollments in individual provinces of those who are not Roman citizens are also attested, such a universal census of the Roman world under Caesar Augustus is unknown outside the New Testament.”

(2) Luke 2:2 “This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria.”
Quirinius became governor of Syria with jurisciction over Judea when Herod’s son was exiled in 6. AD.

(3) Quirinius had jurisdiction over Judea, not Galilee, which remained under the rul of Herod Antipas. Thus Joseph and Mary, as residents of Nazareth in Galilee would not have had to register.

(4) The problem is that Matthew’s birth narravtive has Jesus born while King Herod the Great is still alive (died in 4 BC), but Luke has Jesus born during the 6 AD census under Quirinius, a ten year chronological difference making the Slaughter of the Innocent chronologically impossible since Herod was long since dead.

“as a historical fact in Redemptoris Custos:”??? Hardly.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Hi JP!

Here is what the English Standard Version Study Bible says:

According to Josephus, Quirinius was governor of Syria A.D. 6–7 and conducted a census in A.D. 6 (which Luke is aware of and mentions in Acts 5:37). But this cannot be the census Luke is referencing here, since it occurred after the death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C., and it is known that Jesus was born during Herod’s reign (cf. Matt. 2:1; Luke 1:5). Various plausible solutions have been proposed. Some interpreters believe that because “governor” (participle of Gk. hēgemoneuō) was a very general term for “ruler,” it may be that Quirinius was the administrator of the census, but not the governor proper. Another solution is to translate the verse, “This was the registration before Quirinius was governor of Syria” (see ESV footnote), which is grammatically possible (taking Gk. prōtos as “before” rather than “first”; the Greek construction is somewhat unusual on any reading). This would make sense because Luke would then be clarifying that this was before the well-known, troublesome census of A.D. 6 (Acts 5:37). (One additional proposal is that Quirinius was governor for two separate terms, though this lacks confirming historical evidence.) Though the year cannot be determined with complete certainty, there are several reasonable possibilities which correspond well to Luke’s carefully researched investigation (Luke 1:3–4) and to the historical and geographical accuracy evidenced throughout Luke and Acts. The most reasonable date is late in the year of 6 B.C. or early 5.

And here is a fuller treatment in The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible.

Thanks to the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia article provided earlier by Roman Army, I was able to find Was Christ Born in Bethlehem? I’ve started reading it and I invite you to join me!

 

[joemccarron]

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!

Yes I did look at your links and I agree you did an excellent job garnering support for your view and I would encourage people to read it. As far as what you say above you seem to say they were not mechanically controlled or just taking dictation on the one hand. But then you seem to say there would be no error even if the issue had absolutely nothing to do with our salvation. I think this view loses track of why the Holy Spirit guided the writing of scriptures. The purpose was not to give us history or science. It was to give us salvation. There is no reason to think the Holy Spirit’s involvement would extend beyond this purpose and indeed history has demonstrated it doesn’t.

We see that the Holy Spirit has allowed certain copy/translation errors to enter the texts which lead to errors in the text. Now I agree these have little if anything to do with our salvation. However, if the Holy Spirit was concerned with everything in our scripture being true, wouldn’t he have guarded against this as well? Was the Holy Spirit only concerned with the authors and their contemporaries? I don’t think so. The purpose of the scripture is indeed to help us living today as well as in Augustine’s time,(when there were also translation errors and copy errors) to gain salvation. If the Holy Spirit’s intent was to guard against any error so that Christians would always know they had a text with no errors then it would have guarded against these sorts of mistakes. Or we have to say the purpose of the scripture for the original authors and their contemporaries was different than it was for us.

But we know these sorts of mistakes happened. So I would suggest your position about what the Holy Spirit’s purpose was in inspiring these texts is inconsistent.

Where as the view I support does not have the Holy Spirit acting inconsistently. According to that view, the Holy Spirit preserved from error those truths recorded for the sake of our salvation. Those truths which were recorded for the sake of our salvation have been handed down to all Christians who have received copies of these scriptures. This has been accomplished even though some of the copies - such as the one Augustine might have used - likely contained some translational or copyist errors. The Holy Spirit had a purpose as our counselor and he fulfilled that purpose (ie teaching us what we need to know for salvation) in a consistent way.

If the Holy Spirit’s purpose was to ensure no error entered the text even as to things that have nothing to do with our salvation, then in light of copyist errors and translational errors, it would seem he did not really do a good job.

Now you may say well the Holy Spirit was only involved with making sure the original text was accurate and without any sort of error. But that is an odd view. The purpose of scripture is to help many people who have lived for decades and centuries after the gospel was written to achieve salvation. Why would it be important that the originals (that will be lost for the majority of Christians) supposedly be completely without error yet seem to have no concern that the copies and translations that the majority of Christians would have access to are completely accurate? Was the Holy Spirit more concerned for the authors and their contemporaries than with us or the majority of Christians that have lived after?

The purpose of the Holy Spirit’s inspiration was to help us to salvation. The purpose was not to protect the text from errors that have nothing to do with that. The Holy Spirit has succeeded in giving us and other Christians a text that accomplishes the former. If The Holy Spirit’s purpose was the latter he failed. This is another reason why I can not accept your view of the Holy Spirit’s inspiration.

 

[joemccarron]

Hi Joe!

Actually, he is disputing with the person who asserts that the evangelists are “in many places… convicted of discordance.” And what is John’s response?

“[T]hat they are not opposed to each other, this we will endeavor to prove, throughout the whole work. And thou, in accusing them of disagreement, art doing just the same as if thou were to insist upon their using the same words and forms of speech” (Homily 1 on Matthew).

“And this many of the simpler sort, not understanding, have said there is a discordance; because Luke says it was Mary to whom he declared the good tidings (cf. Luke 1:26-38), but Matthew, that it was Joseph (cf. Matthew 1:20-22); not knowing that both took place. And this sort of thing it is necessary to bear in mind throughout the whole history; for in this way we shall solve many seeming discordances” (Homily 4 on Matthew).

No that was not John’s response. You are pulling quotes from different areas where he is addressing different specific issues. Here is where the issue of this thread is put to him point blank and his response:

"“What then? Was not one evangelist sufficient to tell all?” One indeed was sufficient; but if there be four that write, not at the same times, nor in the same places, neither after having met together, and conversed one with another, and then they speak all things as it were out of one mouth, this becomes a very great demonstration of the truth.
6. “But the contrary,” it may be said, “has come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance.” Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this comes not of simplicity. But now even that discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the writers.

But if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said. And these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out; requiring you, together with what we have mentioned, to observe, that in the chief heads, those which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little.

But what are these points? Such as follow: That God became man, that He wrought miracles, that He was crucified, that He was buried, that He rose again, that He ascended, that He will judge, that He has given commandments tending to salvation, that He has brought in a law not contrary to the Old Testament, that He is a Son, that He is only-begotten, that He is a true Son, that He is of the same substance with the Father, and as many things as are like these; for touching these we shall find that there is in them a full agreement.

And if among the miracles they have not all of them mentioned all, but one these, the other those, let not this trouble you. For if on the one hand one had spoken of all, the number of the rest would have been superfluous; and if again all had written fresh things, and different one from another, the proof of their agreement would not have been manifest. For this cause they have both treated of many in common, and each of them has also received and declared something of his own; that, on the one hand, he might not seem superfluous, and cast on the heap to no purpose; on the other, he might make our test of the truth of their affirmations perfect. "

Here John addresses the question of this post head on and gives his answer. I do not need to “interpret” it because anyone who wants to read it carefully can understand what he is saying.

 

[joemccarron]

I agree with the condemnation of theses # 33 in Exsurge Domine. To suggest that the execution of heretics that disturb the peace of society is against the will of the Spirit is to suggest the Old Testament executions were against the will of the Holy Spirit. Certainly, if the heretics are very hostile and present a threat to the very peace of society and there is no effective way to deter and contain them through bloodless means, then the death penalty would be justified. Or do you propose that if a heresy similar to that of the destructive Heaven’s Gate, Wacko, and etc. cults had become a widespread problem in the middle ages the civil authorities should have done nothing? But, if the heretics be peaceful, non-destructive, and tolerant, then the death penalty could not be used. Such peaceful heretics should be tolerated and evangelized with love.

The thesis drew no distinction between peacefully and destructive heretics. It said this:

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

You seem to want to change what he said. You want to add in an additional condition of their being destructive as well as heretics. Where did that come from?

It’s like if I say “redheads should be burned.” And you then say “yes I agree with Joe. Redheads who murder and rape should be put to death.”

 

[JohnJFarren]

JMJ / MMM 091124 Tuesday
Hello Everyone – but especially Pete Holler –
Thank you for your posting of 16 Oct. I appreciate your several quotes from Aquinas. However, Aquinas was mistaken about the Immaculate conception and is, of course, not unliable to error.
I will print off your posting 16 Oct and examine it carefully.
I do believe strongly that the inspiration of Scripture applies only to matters pertaining to our salvation.
I do realize there are quotes from papal encyclicals that seem (clearly) contrary to my position. However, in this matter I’m interested moreso in so-called INFALLIBLE pronouncements like the Divinity of Christ and the Immaculate Conception.
Give me time – maybe more than a week, I don’t know. But I’ll be back.
John (JohnJFarren)