Understanding Strict Inerrancy

[Mountie]

Hi all! I am currently in a theology class at a Catholic university. My professor is a priest. On the first day of class, we discussed Scripture. My prof claimed that Catholics, Orthodox, and Mainline Protestants believe that Scripture is not inerrant and that only truths that matter to salvation are inerrant. I have always been taught the contrary position that Scripture is inerrant and have cited sources such as Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Raymond Brown, EWTN, and even Catholic Answers. Currently, we are reading Dei Verbum and I believe that my professor cites this as evidence of strict inerrancy. My question is, what is true regarding what my professor says and what should I do/say in a situation like this? Thanks!

 

[RKS89]

Just a slight word of caution, Fr. Brown has some…less than uh…orthodox work floating around out there.

 

[guanophore]

My question is, what is true regarding what my professor says and what should I do/say in a situation like this?

Scripture is inerrant. That being said, the purpose of Scripture is not to provide science or history. It’s purpose is to reveal God’s plan of salvation to the world.

As far as what you should do, the answer to that is do whatever is necessary to pass the class, and excel in it if that is your desire. Regurgitate whatever opinions the professor wants to hear. You will be in a much better position to address these matters if you are a graduate.

 

[Hereiam]

My prof claimed that Catholics, Orthodox, and Mainline Protestants believe that Scripture is not inerrant and that only truths that matter to salvation are inerrant. I have always been taught the contrary position that Scripture is inerrant

I think your professor is a wise man, and you have to keep what he said in context. You are studying theology. The study of Theology is an academic pursuit, and not a spiritual pursuit. The development of doctrine is a spiritual pursuit which draws on the findings of theology.

The academic theologian often poses questions to stimulate thought. That being said, when studying theology, the issues brought forward should both inspire and anger, or calm and agitate, or sadden and delight. Theology is a lot like literature and art…if it doesn’t move you, its not literature or art, whether you like the story or the image is not important, the underlying goal of it is to solicit thought and reaction.

Okay, now back to what the professor said:

“Scripture” is multifaceted. There is a literal sense, and a spiritual sense (see CCC 115-119).

The literal sense of scripture (not to be confused with “taking scripture literally”) is quite capable of being errant, because the literal sense is what allows for the spiritual sense to come forth. And when considering the anagogical aspect of the spiritual sense in isolation, then we can make the claim that “Scripture is inerrant”.

So, to recap, I would conclude that the literal sense of scripture can be errant, but the spiritual sense (especially the anagogical sense) is inerrant.

Enjoy you studies!

 

[Genesis315]

Dei Verbum teaches strict inerrancy, but it can be a little ambiguous (at least in the English translation, the Latin is less so). This is the passage in question:

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 (5) for the sake of salvation.

Some say only the things “for the sake of salvation” are without error and other stuff in the Bible is not. But if we look at the context, it says the entirety of Scripture is given for our salvation and the human authors only wrote what the Holy Spirit intended. Error is not compatible with the Holy Spirit. Here is what precedes the passage above:

1. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. 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)

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

The ambiguity is definitively cleared up by checking the footnotes, which all teach the inerrancy of the whole Bible (properly understood of course). For example, see this passage cited by Dei Verbum from the papal encyclical Providentissius Deus, one of the most important Church documents on Scripture:

It was too long to include in this post, but see paragraphs 20 to 22 here:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xi...-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html

 

[Gorgias]

My prof claimed that Catholics, Orthodox, and Mainline Protestants believe that Scripture is not inerrant and that only truths that matter to salvation are inerrant.

@Genesis315 provides a thorough answer for you, @Mountie. What your prof is recapitulating for you is one of the arguments that arose in response to Verbum Dei. The historical situation that gave rise to this discussion is fascinating, and deserves study on its own merits!

There’s a whole arc that this question traveled, from strict literalistic inerrancy to nearly no literal accuracy. Misunderstandings of what the Church teaches have led some to pooh-pooh the Bible entirely as an authoritative and God-given source!

Your prof’s take on it can hardly be said to be the position of all Catholics, Orthodox, and Mainline Protestants, although I’m certain that there are some in each of these groups who hold the claim that he makes. One interesting source (whose title I can’t recall at the moment) contains descriptions of the discussions held during 2nd Vatican Council, as the assembled bishops discussed this precise question. Reading that description, one really gets a feel for what’s at stake in this context!

To your question, though: what should you do and say? Well… you’re taking a class from him, so it might be wise to “learn” what he’s “teaching” so that you can test highly and receive a good grade. The undergrad experience is, to a certain extent, all about learning how to learn and think, so… listen to what he says, accept it as one viewpoint out there, and decide (after the class is complete) whether you agree with what he says. Just because he teaches it, doesn’t mean you have to conclude that he’s correct.

 

[thistle]

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

 

[Mary888]

Maybe it refers to reading the Scriptures literally - as in for example when Jesus tells us to look at the flowers how they grow straight under the sun and do not twist. If Scripture is taken as inerrant then some may consider:

• human beings are like flowers - we have common genetics and all that;
• we must never bend nor twist our body Jesus forbids it;
• we grow from babies to adults with sunlight and water;
• faith and sunlight are connected.
  We know none of this are Catholic teaching, Orthodox or historical Protestant.
  In the teacher’s defense Jesus himself said that one day He will no longer speak in metaphors to the Apostles. So from this it means He was speaking in metaphors.
  You know about the time Jesus said He came to bring the sword between us. Imagine this being taken as inerrant teaching.
  Or when Jesus said follow Him and bring your cross - some might say He asks us to crucify ourselves literally or that death by crucifixion is necessary to salvation.

 

[Gorgias]

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

Of course, but… the $64,000 question is how to interpret that statement.

 

[fhansen]

thistle:

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

Of course, but… the $64,000 question is how to interpret that statement.

In my understanding, FWIW, this means that Scripture can possibly error on irrelevant or minor details: times, dates, places, scientific details-but not on those details that pertain to faith/salvation. The exact timing of the Resurrection is irrelevant compared to the fact of the Resurrection. An eyewitness could get the former wrong while never erring in regards to the latter.

 

[Kei]

Chock this up to ambiguous wording.

It says something like, “For the purposes of our salvation, Scripture is protected from error” or something.
So you can see there’s multiple ways to interpret it, in both a traditional way and a more liberal way.

 

[Gorgias]

Chock this up to ambiguous wording.

Hmm… shouldn’t that have been “chock this up to deliberately ambiguous wording”…?

 

[edwest211]

From Catholic Answers:

Is the Bible's inerrancy limited to matters pertaining to salvation? | Catholic Answers Q&A

 

[fhansen]

From Catholic Answers:

Is the Bible's inerrancy limited to matters pertaining to salvation? | Catholic Answers

At the end of that article it seemed to take away with the left hand what the right hand wrote. And why bother with the qualifier “as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation”, unless they were trying to limit the scope of what the term inerrancy implies there?

 

[edwest211]

No. There are historical facts in the Bible like Jesus Christ and certain other people like Caesar.

 

[RedFan]

Consider the prologue to Luke’s gospel, which refers in Luke 1:3 to his “investigating everything carefully from the very first” (NRSV). The oral and written accounts of decades-old events that he gathered before putting pen to parchment are thus declared to be his source material; he makes no claim that his gospel is based in any way on the Holy Spirit telling him what had happened. Taking Luke at his word, this type of research-based recounting makes his account only as accurate as the sources he consulted, some of them second-hand (the visitation of Gabriel to Zechariah, for example). Such hearsay evidence is generally a recipe for human error. How can we be confident that Luke got everything right, down to the last detail? I don’t think we can.

But the theological message in Luke’s story would surely be inerrant, despite possible error in the historical details. So, here’s the question when considering “inerrancy”: are you looking for historical accuracy or theological accuracy?

 

[Genesis315]

And why bother with the qualifier “as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation”

I don’t see that as limiting the scope, but of declaring that it is all for the sake of our salvation–it gives further emphasis that it is all important and without error. God does not do things that are superfluous. The first part of the sentence says: “everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit.”

Everything affirmed in Scripture must be held to be asserted by God. A sentence prior makes this point again when it says “they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.”

The human authors wrote what God wanted them to write–nothing more and nothing less.

And then the part you quote says therefore that everything God has asserted is without error and for our salvation. Since the human authors only wrote what God has asserted, therefore everything they assert is without error.

Falsehood and error is incompatible with God, the author of truth who neither deceives nor can be deceived. Of course, the Bible is a library of 73 texts written in various styles of communication human beings use to convey truth and so that is where critical analysis is helpful.

 

[fhansen]

Consider the prologue to Luke’s gospel, which refers in Luke 1:3 to his “investigating everything carefully from the very first” (NRSV). The oral and written accounts of decades-old events that he gathered before putting pen to parchment are thus declared to be his source material; he makes no claim that his gospel is based in any way on the Holy Spirit telling him what had happened. Taking Luke at his word, this type of research-based recounting makes his account only as accurate as the sources he consulted, some of them second-hand (the visitation of Gabriel to Zechariah, for example). Such hearsay evidence is generally a recipe for human error. How can we be confident that Luke got everything right, down to the last detail? I don’t think we can.

But the theological message in Luke’s story would surely be inerrant, despite possible error in the historical details. So, here’s the question when considering “inerrancy”: are you looking for historical accuracy or theological accuracy?

God could still ensure that Luke got it all right. It just depends on His will regarding whether or not every non-essential detail must be accurate.

 

[fhansen]

Some historical facts are relevant while others aren’t. For myself, certain kinds of human errors involving peripheral details such as exactly when an event took place or how many people were standing around at the time only serve to underscore the fact that collusion between the authors was highly improbable.

The writers of Scripture we’re, generally speaking, inspired by experiences of their contact with God in some manner or another, or instructed by those who had them. Those experiences, that revelation, is what drove them to write; it’s a syncretistic project/effort between man and God. They needed, they were compelled, to record the life-altering events they were privileged to observe and know. Humans can easily get the minutiae wrong while getting the big stuff right though. It’s up to God whether or not those details matter.

 

[edwest211]

The Church compiled the books of the Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Only the Church can properly interpret Scripture. It has heard lots of questions over the years and is always vigilant about stopping erroneous interpretations of this or that passage before it spreads.