total inerrancy is Catholic dogma

[una_fides]

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

If you read the text, Dulles was not providing his own personal interpretation, but was instead outlining the current status quo by stating that the Council’s statement “might seem” to allow for errors. Notice he does not state that the Council does nor does he state that this is his personal view. Just because he does not condemn the view does not mean he accepts it either as the nature of the writing was a summary of recent Catholic and Protestant views and not an evaluation of those views in comparison with the truth. Hope this helps.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

‘There are some whom I heard say, ‘Unless I find it in the documents, I do not believe in what is preached.’ When I said, ‘It is the written word,’ they replied, ‘That is what is in question.’ For me, Jesus Christ is the written word; His cross and death and resurrection and faith through Him make up untampered documents. Through these, with the help of your prayers, I desire to be justified’ (St Ignatius of Antioch)

‘I think it is extremely dangerous to admit that anything in the Sacred Books should be a lie…If we once admit in that supreme authority even one polite lie, there will be nothing left of those books, because, whenever anyone finds something difficult to practice, he will follow this most dangerous precedent and explain it as the idea or practice of a lying author’ (St Augustine)

 

[una_fides]

…The purpose [of Scripture] 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.

Joe, I am curious if you can prove definitively that history has demonstrated that there are errors in Scripture. I understand your reasoning that the purpose of Scripture is for salvation so therefore you might ask why would God also preserve matters of history and science from error as well in the inspired texts. The answer is that God moved the writers to write every word. We do not understand how, and it is likely that the inspired human authors themselves may have been unaware that God was moving their writings. Nevertheless, we know it to be true as a matter of faith that all of Scripture is inspired and that God cannot communicate any error even if these errors are insignificant.

The reason for the truthfulness of every word of Scripture rests in the very nature of God. Our infinite God consists of various perfections. Some would say that God is good; however, this statement lacks a certain exactness. God himself is “goodness.” He is eternal being. Because God himself is goodness, every action of God is good. God is also eternal truth. Thus everything God inspires is true and cannot possibly contain any error. To say that there are historical errors in Scripture is to say that those parts of Scripture are not inspired. However, we know from the same Church that gave us Scripture, that God inspired all of it without any exception.

If you believe that Scripture is in fact Scripture, then you correctly trust in the Church’s decision verifying the various individual books as divinely inspired. Why trust the Church’s conclusion on the canon but not trust her conclusion that all of Scripture is inspired? There can be no question. The Church has definitively ruled that all of Scripture is true and that all of Scripture is inspired without exception and that as God’s word it cannot possibly contain any error. Yes, the purpose of Scripture is for our salvation, but as a secondary effect of Scripture being God’s divine word, it is also true in everything it intends to communicate without exception.

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?

No, He would not because He did not, and there is no need to preserve Scripture from any copyist errors because these errors pertain to the mundane. God did not author the copyist errors, but He did author the original texts. Preservation and authorship are two entirely different things.

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.

Again, the purpose is for our salvation; however, because God authored Scripture by moving the human writers to write exactly what he wanted, it is totally inerrant in its original form. The fact that Scripture does not contain errors concerning the unimportant matters is not primary cause but is a secondary effect of having God as its author.

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.

Hopefully you can see from my above explanation the consistency in understanding why God inspired Scripture and the secondary implications that we thereby know to be true as a result, which are entirely separate from the purpose of authorship.

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 reason is that He authored the originals but did not author the copies. The HS gave us the Church, which gave us Scripture. He has no need to preserve the copies from error because we have faith in the Church that the Scriptures are the Scriptures and thereby we have faith in the same Church when she tells us that the originals were free from error.

The reason the Church’s teaching on total inerrancy is so essential is not because it is essential to have inerrant history for the sake of history or inerrant science for the sake of science. The original texts were free from error because they had God as their author who himself cannot possibly err in matters of salvation or any matter that he communicates to man.

 

[una_fides]

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.

The Spirit’s intention was not to protect Scripture from any error. His intention was to author a book for our salvation. Since he authored the entire book, all of its contents consequently are free from error, not because he intended to author a perfect science book or perfect history book but simply because He who is Truth itself authored the book.

I continue to repeat the fact of God’s inability to err because it is entirely essential to understanding the reasoning behind why the Church has ruled as she has.

Here is the logic:

• God is absolute truth and cannot err
• God inspired ALL of Scripture (every single word)
  Therefore: All Scripture is truth without any error

Do you disagree with this logic or do you dispute the veracity of any of these claims? If so, which one(s)?

Do you believe that only parts of Scripture are inspired, or do you believe that God, who is perfection, could author errors as long as they are not pertaining to salvation?

 

[una_fides]

JP

You will find that some people will try to find stretches for all of the discrepancies that to rational people simply appear to be mistakes. Check out the fundamentalist websites. If people want to believe in those stretches that is ok with me. But the idea that we have to accept them or not be considered in the Church is very hard to swallow.

In law school we were often told to be sure our arguments passed the “giggle test.” An argument wouldn’t pass the test if when you made it you caused others to chuckle or smirk. By pushing this extreme inerrancy view one is essentially pushing the view that Catholics have to believe a heck of allot of things that don’t pass the giggle test. (Either that or they should never read scripture carefully)

The tragedy is these arguments are often pointless to our salvation, and completely lose track of what Jesus wanted us to focus on.

Jesus’s claims to be God did not pass the “giggle test” nor did his statement that his flesh was really food and his blood really drink and that we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood. If anything you believe must pass such a test, certainly you will find some hostile audience somewhere which will laugh at your beliefs. This fact does not change the truth in any way.

The gospel message is not an easy one to accept nor is it one that we can to change and make into what we want it to be. The nature of divine revelation is that God revealed truth to mankind, and it is this absolute truth, which we must humbly seek to believe and understand. We must be docile to God and his truth and not try to change it to fit with what what others would more easily accept.

After Jesus explained to his disciples the necessity of eating his flesh and blood, most of his disciples left after laughing at him, and Christ afterward introduced Judas’ treachery. Our Lord explained that these people lacked faith and hence when Christ explained something that seemed contrary to natural reason their response was to laugh and leave.

The same Church that gave us the Bible has definitively pronounced that the Scriptures are without any error. What then is our response to this seemingly difficult truth?

 

[JP_Marat]

Jesus’s claims to be God did not pass the “giggle test” nor did his statement that his flesh was really food and his blood really drink and that we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood. If anything you believe must pass such a test, certainly you will find some hostile audience somewhere which will laugh at your beliefs. This fact does not change the truth in any way.

The gospel message is not an easy one to accept nor is it one that we can to change and make into what we want it to be. The nature of divine revelation is that God revealed truth to mankind, and it is this absolute truth, which we must humbly seek to believe and understand. We must be docile to God and his truth and not try to change it to fit with what what others would more easily accept.

After Jesus explained to his disciples the necessity of eating his flesh and blood, most of his disciples left after laughing at him, and Christ afterward introduced Judas’ treachery. Our Lord explained that these people lacked faith and hence when Christ explained something that seemed contrary to natural reason their response was to laugh and leave.

The same Church that gave us the Bible has definitively pronounced that the Scriptures are without any error. What then is our response to this seemingly difficult truth?

RESPONSE:

Then by observing the errors and contradictions in scripture, we can evidence the Church’s error in claiming the scripture is without any error. Simple.

But the way apologists get around these errors is by claiming all these obvious errors were really only “allegorical” after all.

 

[una_fides]

RESPONSE:

Then by observing the errors and contradictions in scripture, we can evidence the Church’s error in claiming the scripture is without any error. Simple.

But the way apologists get around these errors is by claiming all these obvious errors were really only “allegorical” after all.

Friend,
I think it depends on your perspective. You could also say that claiming the Church has erred evidences the obstinacy of some opposing the Holy Spirit and relying instead on reason alone to the exclusion of faith. If Scripture contains any errors, then that would make God the author of those errors.

There are answers to every alleged discrepancy in Scripture. You just have to seek them. Yes there are copyist errors here and there, but that is not the answer. St. Augustine wrote that God put those difficulties there so that we would seek. The question is whether you are willing to seek answers or if you are instead ready to believe that the Church is not who she claims to be and which the Scriptures explain her to be, “the pillar and foundation of truth.”

One need not stoop to the level of claiming them to be “allegory” alone. They can be verified and proven to be true if one is willing to accept the fact that he does not have all the answers and must try to figure them out with both reason and faith.

 

[JP_Marat]

Friend,
I think it depends on your perspective. You could also say that claiming the Church has erred evidences the obstinacy of some opposing the Holy Spirit and relying instead on reason alone to the exclusion of faith. If Scripture contains any errors, then that would make God the author of those errors.

There are answers to every alleged discrepancy in Scripture. You just have to seek them. Yes there are copyist errors here and there, but that is not the answer. St. Augustine wrote that God put those difficulties there so that we would seek. The question is whether you are willing to seek answers or if you are instead ready to believe that the Church is not who she claims to be and which the Scriptures explain her to be, “the pillar and foundation of truth.”

One need not stoop to the level of claiming them to be “allegory” alone. They can be verified and proven to be true if one is willing to accept the fact that he does not have all the answers and must try to figure them out with both reason and faith.

RESPONSE:

“If Scripture contains any errors, then that would make God the author of those errors.”

No. BUt follow your own argument to its logical conclusion.

This is evidence that scripture, becasue it contains error, isn’t really inspired at all, but is of purely human origin.

“They can be verified and proven to be true if one is willing to accept the fact that he does not have all the answers…”

But what of the answers one clearly does have? For example, that Jesus wasn’t born before 4 BC (Matthew) and then again in 6 AD (Luke). Or sent for an rode one animal into Jerusalem (Mark, Luke, John) , or sent for and rode two animals into Jerusalem (to fulfill a prophecy, of Matthew). Or was buried for three nights (John) or only two nights (Matthew, Mark, Luke. (There goes the prophecy of Jonah.) Etc., etc., etc…

 

[una_fides]

RESPONSE:

“If Scripture contains any errors, then that would make God the author of those errors.”

No. BUt follow your own argument to its logical conclusion.

This is evidence that scripture, becasue it contains error, isn’t really inspired at all, but is of purely human origin.

“They can be verified and proven to be true if one is willing to accept the fact that he does not have all the answers…”

But what of the answers one clearly does have? For example, that Jesus wasn’t born before 4 BC (Matthew) and then again in 6 AD (Luke). Or sent for an rode one animal into Jerusalem (Mark, Luke, John) , or sent for and rode two animals into Jerusalem (to fulfill a prophecy, of Matthew). Or was buried for three nights (John) or only two nights (Matthew, Mark, Luke. (There goes the prophecy of Jonah.) Etc., etc., etc…

The problem is your assumption that these are errors. These same texts have been around since the early Church fathers, yet the leaders of the Church, well aware of these apparent contradictions, have definitively ruled that there can be no errors in the text. What do we make of this? Are the successors to the apostles, who are being led by the Holy Spirit, just a bunch of complete idiots who never read the Bible? These people have dedicated their entire lives to serving God and studying these matters to a much greater extent than you or I, so it takes a certain amount of pride on our part to assume them to be wrong and it takes an absurd amount of naivety to think they were oblivious to these passages. These things have answers, whether it be a copyist error throughout the centuries or whether it be a lack of information or study on the part of the person who believes them to be contradictory.
Here is a link to an explanation of the donkey passage: apologeticspress.org/articles/595
I believe the date of Jesus’ birth has already been addressed on this thread. I haven’t read the whole thread, so other passages you have trouble reconciling may have been addressed as well.
Can I ask you, are you truly seeking answers or have you determined your will to write off the Bible entirely as a human book full of errors? If it’s the former, feel free to send me a PM, and I’d be happy to discuss some of these discrepancies with you.

Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

The problem is your assumption that these are errors. These same texts have been around since the early Church fathers, yet the leaders of the Church, well aware of these apparent contradictions, have definitively ruled that there can be no errors in the text. What do we make of this?

What do I make of this?

• The leaders of the Church doubted their private interpretation.
• They looked for authority outside private interpretation.

 

[una_fides]

What do I make of this?

• The leaders of the Church doubted their private interpretation.
• They looked for authority outside private interpretation.

Their “private interpretation” concerning the inerrancy of Scripture? Are you saying that two General Councils and many solemn Magisterial pronouncements and 2000 years of constant teaching are all merely “private interpretations” or am I misunderstanding you here?

And what do you mean by “they looked for authority outside private interpretation”? What authority did the pillar and foundation of truth look to? Are you saying the Church has officially changed its position? If so please show me a solemn papal declaration stating such; otherwise, the highest authority has ruled on this matter and settled it already. But again I may be missing what you are trying to say here so if you could elaborate, that would be great.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Their “private interpretation” concerning the inerrancy of Scripture? Are you saying that two General Councils and many solemn Magisterial pronouncements and 2000 years of constant teaching are all merely “private interpretations” or am I misunderstanding you here?
And what do you mean by “they looked for authority outside private interpretation”? What authority did the pillar and foundation of truth look to? Are you saying the Church has officially changed its position? If so please show me a solemn papal declaration stating such; otherwise, the highest authority has ruled on this matter and settled it already. But again I may be missing what you are trying to say here so if you could elaborate, that would be great.

Misunderstanding me? 'Fraid so.

Elaborating:

‘The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth, propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful’ (De Fide)

 

[Bengoshi]

RESPONSE:

Are you seriously claiming that both Matthew’s story of Jesus sending for and riding two animals of different sizes into Jerusalem is the same as Mark’s, Luke’s, and John’s story of Jesus sending for and riding only one animal? Or is one version an error, or written in by some later interpolator?

This one’s easy! Just because Mark, Luke and John did not mention the other donkey does it mean that Matthew was incorrect. That is why we have four Gospel accounts and not just one. To fill out what is lacking in each of them. Not one Gospel tells it all that is necessary, hence the four Gospel accounts.

[/quote]

The Hebrew counting of days is not the same way that we count it now. It depends on the reference point used by the Gospel writer. The Jews count a day from sunset to sunset, meaning from 6PM-5:59PM the following day. Correct me if I’m wrong on this as I am not an expert in Hebrew. There are always good explanations out there by scholars, you just have to search for it. For as long as we have faith that God is perfect and cannot commit a mistake, then the answers will definitely come to us.
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

JP Marat;5980026:

RESPONSE:

Are you seriously claiming that both Matthew’s story of Jesus sending for and riding two animals of different sizes into Jerusalem is the same as Mark’s, Luke’s, and John’s story of Jesus sending for and riding only one animal? Or is one version an error, or written in by some later interpolator?

Jesus could have ridden on 2 donkeys at the same time if the donkey he rode on was pregnant

 

[Bengoshi]

Bengoshi;5983438:

JP Marat;5980026:

RESPONSE:

Are you seriously claiming that both Matthew’s story of Jesus sending for and riding two animals of different sizes into Jerusalem is the same as Mark’s, Luke’s, and John’s story of Jesus sending for and riding only one animal? Or is one version an error, or written in by some later interpolator?

Jesus could have ridden on 2 donkeys at the same time if the donkey he rode on was pregnant

Hahahahaha!

 

[JP_Marat]

Originally Posted by JP Marat
Did Jesus spend two nights in the tomb (Matt, Mark, Luke) or three nights (John) to fulfil the Jonah prophecy? Or did somebody just write that in?

Etc, etc., etc.

The Hebrew **counting of days **is not the same way that we count it now. It depends on the reference point used by the Gospel writer. The Jews count a day from sunset to sunset, meaning from 6PM-5:59PM the following day. Correct me if I’m wrong on this as I am not an expert in Hebrew. There are always good explanations out there by scholars, you just have to search for it. For as long as we have faith that God is perfect and cannot commit a mistake, then the answers will definitely come to us. <<

---

RESPONSE:

You are correct about the counting of days. However, we are talking about nights not days. The Jews counted nights the same as we do, ie, when it gets dark.

So, if Jesus was crucified on Good Friday and remained in the tomb until Sunday, he would only have been in the tomb for two nights(Friday and Saturday), not three.

So he did not fulfil Matthew’s claim of the prophecy of Jonah.

 

[JP_Marat]

Bengoshi

RESPONSE:

Are you seriously claiming that both Matthew’s story of Jesus sending for and riding two animals of different sizes into Jerusalem is the same as Mark’s, Luke’s, and John’s story of Jesus sending for and riding only one animal? Or is one version an error, or written in by some later interpolator?

This one’s easy! Just because Mark, Luke and John did not mention the other donkey does it mean that Matthew was incorrect. That is why we have four Gospel accounts and not just one. To fill out what is lacking in each of them. Not one Gospel tells it all that is necessary, hence the four Gospel accounts.

 

[JP_Marat]

Bengoshi posted:

quote=JP Marat;5980026]How about Jesus’ birth before 4 BC during the reign of King Herod the Great (Matthew) and Jesus’ birth during the census of Quirinius in 6 AD (Luke)? That’s a ten year difference. Are you saying that they are both correct accounts or are you saying that someone added the second version?

This requires some research which I do not have the time right now. I think I already mentioned a good book on Bible difficulties. Check out “The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties” by Dr. Gleason Archer.

RESPONSE:

I don’t think your “research” will make the facts any different. According to Luke, Jesus must have been the first “born again” Christian.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Personally I like the contradictions, the so called “errors in the text.” For me it makes it personally authentic. If all the stories were identical it would appear as some kind of conspiracy; look at all the stories we witness every day - each person seeing them from perhaps a different viewpoint, a different take on it, and reporting them in a different way. Basically we can see in the stories something has taken place, and by entering into the stories we can get some idea of what took place.

How do we know the soldiers watching over the tomb of Christ were not telling the truth? They all came up with the same story.

 

[una_fides]

RESPONSE:

Yes it does. And somebody’s not inspired either. Perhaps you’ve overlooked why Matthew has Jesus sending for and riding two animals.

Have you read this yet? Once you have, I’d be interested in your comments.