When did Scripture become "inerrant?"

[mercygate]

That’s my 50-cent question. Can anybody tell me when the first official declaration of Scriptural inerrancy was promulgated? That’s a factoid I have been unable to p(name removed by moderator)oint.

Thanks.

 

[Malachi4U]

Which version of Scripture do you refer to? The Scripture approved by the Catholic Church is ‘inerrant’ but is the KJV or the JST or the NWT or the AKJV, etc…?

As long as anyone can print books, anyone can print what they want. Martin Luther and King James proved this. Joe Smith died before he finished his great version of Scripture.

Anyway, I bet Catholic Scripture was declared inerrant in the 4th century when the cannon of Scripture was declared as 73 books. Just a guess though.

Good question.

 

[mercygate]

Good question, Malachi. I meant when did the Catholic Church make an official statement using the word (in whatever language) “inerrant” or "free from error."Is this a patristic concept? Or did it appear later?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

mercygate:

That’s my 50-cent question. Can anybody tell me when the first official declaration of Scriptural inerrancy was promulgated? That’s a factoid I have been unable to p(name removed by moderator)oint.

Thanks.

Excellent question - I would like to know how and why and when the idea got off the ground to begin with.​

 

[dominicsavio]

Peace be with you!

I thought this was an interesting question so I have been doing some research on it to find the earliest “official” teaching of the inerrancy of Scripture. So far, I have not been able to find statements very far back…but I have many more things to look through at this moment. To answer the another question brought up though…as to how this teaching came about…I think it flows very naturally from the Church’s teaching that Scripture is the Word of God. If the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, if it is the Word of God, and God is Truth…than all that He says must be truth. No error can be contained in anything spoken by God. So if the Bible is inspired it would be free of error.

Here are a few statements about the inerrancy of Scripture, however I will keep looking for earlier because I am sure there must be some. This is from Pope Leo XIII:

But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. . . . For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy 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. (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, 20, November 18, 1893).

Notice how this next quote basically assumes inerrancy in how it is written to point to the deeper truth of inspiration. This is from Vatican I, so it is a little earlier than the last one.

These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church (Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, chapter 2, paragraph 7, July 18, 1870).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

dominicsavio:

Peace be with you!

I thought this was an interesting question so I have been doing some research on it to find the earliest “official” teaching of the inerrancy of Scripture. So far, I have not been able to find statements very far back…but I have many more things to look through at this moment. To answer the another question brought up though…as to how this teaching came about…I think it flows very naturally from the Church’s teaching that Scripture is the Word of God. If the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, if it is the Word of God, and God is Truth…than all that He says must be truth. No error can be contained in anything spoken by God. So if the Bible is inspired it would be free of error.

I’m interested in how this last point is simply taken for granted - I don’t think it is in any way impossible to believe that a book can be both:​

1. Divinely inspired
2. Full of all sorts of mistakes, in history, ethics and much else.

I don’t see that belief in the Incarnation requires one to believe that Jesus had an IQ of 1 trillion, for example, or that He “must have been” always in perfect health, or far more good-looking than anyone else; but Leo XIII’s insistence on the total and universal inerrancy of the Bible seems to reveal this type of thinking: the Bible, because inspired, “must be” completely and totally perfect.

I think this applies a Greek idea of the Divine as necessarily perfect in all imaginable respects - a static idea - to the Semitic, dynamic, active, “lively” God of the Bible: I think it distorts the Bible in the process. In certain significant ways, the gods of Homer, with their bickering and rivalry and bad manners, are far closer to (certain forms of) the God of the OT than the God of Aristotle and Plato is to either. I far prefer the Semitic God Who is passionately concerned with the sins of Israel, the God who hates, repents, loves, punishes, creates, plagues, heals, preserves, to the self-absorbed and inward-looking deity of Aristotle. Aristotle’s God would never be crucified - we are not important to that God. He is far too removed from human concerns to be bothered with us - not so the God of Israel; the God of Jesus.

AFAIK, the inerrancy of the Bible was taken for granted till recent times; it helped that that inerrancy was not too strictly defined. One sees this as late as the mid-nineteenth century, certainly in US Calvinism, and probably elsewhere too. ##

Here are a few statements about the inerrancy of Scripture, however I will keep looking for earlier because I am sure there must be some. This is from Pope Leo XIII:

Notice how this next quote basically assumes inerrancy in how it is written to point to the deeper truth of inspiration. This is from Vatican I, so it is a little earlier than the last one.

I’m intersted in anything you happen to find ​

 

[jdnation]

The inerrancy stands because since Moses and the days of the Old Testament. They recorded what God had revealed and taught them. Therefore since what they were writing were things that came directly from God to them, then God is of course always right and never errs in whatever He says, does, or has us do. Also from the point of the writers that they also recorded real history about real people and events that related to God’s people or that involved God directly. Parables are also included that are not historical or based on any factual event but might include customs and beliefs at the time. And of course the morality and laws that have come from God are of course unchangable except by God Himself. So it was taken since then as considered inerrant and truth, just no offical declaration of course… it was rather commonly held by everyone.

Of course we also consider that God would plan ahead and throguh His will preserve His Word so that future generations who turn away have no excuse for not knowing it was available. And So it is quite remarkable how well the Bible has been passed down and despite the many attempts to destroy it, it has surpassed them all and is one of the oldest and most reliable sources from the Ancient Near East Period. Through such difficulties and so nearly perfectly that one has to wonder that the providence of God had much to do with it. It is also held that God also ‘inspired’ the writers of the various Bible books to record in their own styles what He wanted them to. Lots of people have been trying to prove that God is really when you think about it, the author of the entire Bible, for example, all the various people who had something to do with the process reveal themselves at not only their best, but also at their worst, the trend is that usually an author would attempt to display themself in the best light possible. And it has been well demonstrated that nothing has ever controverted the Bible, nor has it amply been shown to ever contradict itself. In fact closer study will reveal some astounding things, such as scientific knowledge etc that no human writer could ever know at that time, if not divinely inspired or taught directly by God? Then what explanation lies behind that?

 

[mercygate]

Thanks, everyone and please keep plugging.

Does anybody have William G. Most’s old book, Free from All Error? Maybe there’s a reference to the first citation of ‘inerrancy’ in there.
I’m not all that surprised to find the 19th Century coming up here. Evolution. BIG challenge to Scriptural authority.

 

[jdnation]

mercygate:

Thanks, everyone and please keep plugging.

Does anybody have William G. Most’s old book, Free from All Error? Maybe there’s a reference to the first citation of ‘inerrancy’ in there.
I’m not all that surprised to find the 19th Century coming up here. Evolution. BIG challenge to Scriptural authority.

Well evolution was never really a BIG challenge to the authority of Scripture, they just had better marketing and the propaganda continues today.

Plus many people were WANTING to find doubt with the Bible, so then this underlying feeling would give them some kind of relief and freedom to sin, and disagree with anything they felt was wrong. Many of the supporters of evolution at the time were actually proclaimed Christians and some Jews. It met with nary any opposition because the theory was so vague that it was undisprovable just as much as it was unprovable, because at that point it was nothing but educated speculation. The funny thing is that all the so called ‘evidence’ of the time and used at the famed Scopes trial has been entirely discarded by evolutionists today in light of new findings. :whacky:

 

[Malachi4U]

jdnation:

The inerrancy stands because since Moses and the days of the Old Testament. They recorded what God had revealed and taught them.

Where is the proof?

Therefore since what they were writing were things that came directly from God to them, then God is of course always right and never errs in whatever He says, does, or has us do.

Wheres the proof?

Also from the point of the writers that they also recorded real history about real people and events that related to God’s people or that involved God directly.

So, we finally admit that humans wrote Scripture? Do humans error? How can we be sure the humans who wrote Scripture did not error since they too were human and thus commited sins and errored? Could the writters have invented the stories or could the elders that passed down the stories have made them up or white washed them to sound better or back their theology?

How can you prove Scripture is inerrant and from God? I know millions of Moselums (sp?) that would say the Bible is full of errors and only the Koran is from God. Did Joe Smith error in writting the Book of Mormon or was it truly from golden plates given to him by Moronie (sp?) How can you prove the BOM or Koran false and then declare the Bible inspired and inerrant? Just an opinion? I can show you a 10 different versions of the Bible I own and they condridict each other at various points. (Not the Catholic approved ones of course) Which Bible version is inspired or are they all correct? Can you write a Bible and declare it inerrant? King James did and so did Joe Smith and Luther and the JW’s, etc…:whacky:

Sorry, I’m just being the devils advocate here and trying to add some food for thought. We need proof and dates.

 

[mercygate]

Malachi4U:

Sorry, I’m just being the devils advocate here and trying to add some food for thought. We need proof and dates.

Whoa! Indeed. The question is:

When was the concept of inerrancy first articulated and/or promulgated and by whom?

 

[Malachi4U]

Mercy, I’ve looked up and down for this answer and I must admit it is tough. Here is a great lead though. In the 4th -5th century St. Augustine of Hippo wrote The Harmony of the Gospels . In this he said that Scripture was valid basically “the most reliable intimations and the most trustworthy testimonies”. Why did he say this? He made comments like these based on the fact that the Catholic Church said so based on Tradition! Thats right, at the turn of the 4th century thay had already established as fact the Tradition of the Catholic Church as proof solid.

So if the Catholic Church teachings led to St. Augustine of Hippo stating this fact then the issue of the teaching authority of the Pope and the Church he leads till Jesus returns must have already been well established.

Next point of interest. I went to this protestant site: reformedperspectives.org/

They also talked about how St. Augustine of Hippo wrote about the inerrancy of the Bible as early *** 400 A.D. Strange though typical of the RE-formers, they accept St. Augustine of Hippo’s remarks on the Bible as proof but deny his proof of the Catholic Church as from Gods authority? Will the double standards of the RE-formers ever end? We’ll take his opinion on this as fact but his opinion on that is wrong. It’s fact if it supports them and erroneous if they disagree with it?:whacky:

I’ll stick with Jesus and His one true holy and apostolic Catholic Church!

 

[mercygate]

Malachi4U:

Mercy, I’ve looked up and down for this answer and I must admit it is tough. Here is a great lead though. In the 4th -5th century St. Augustine of Hippo wrote The Harmony of the Gospels . In this he said that Scripture was valid basically “the most reliable intimations and the most trustworthy testimonies”. Why did he say this? He made comments like these based on the fact that the Catholic Church said so based on Tradition! Thats right, at the turn of the 4th century thay had already established as fact the Tradition of the Catholic Church as proof solid.

So if the Catholic Church teachings led to St. Augustine of Hippo stating this fact then the issue of the teaching authority of the Pope and the Church he leads till Jesus returns must have already been well established.

Next point of interest. I went to this protestant site: reformedperspectives.org/

They also talked about how St. Augustine of Hippo wrote about the inerrancy of the Bible as early *** 400 A.D.

Malachi: do you get dressed in a phone booth? This is fantastic. I think this provides tremendous ballast for the assertion I was hoping to substantiate – that the notion of “inerrancy” not only originated with the Church but is OLD. I speculated, however, that a definite statement on this might not have arisen before the Reformation.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

From Jurgen’s *Faith of the Early Fathers, *Vol 1, doctrinal index:

"27. No error can be found in the Sacred Scritpures"

The first passages cited by Jurgens is from the 1st Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. St. Clement was the third pope after St. Peter.

St. Clement of Rome, First Letter to the Corinthians (ca. AD 80):

Brethren, be contentious and zealous for the things which lead to salvation! You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true and are of the Holy Spirit. You well know that nothing unjust or fraudulent is written in them. [45,1]

Next, he cites from St. Justin Martyr’s *Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, *(ca AD 155):

[That the Scriptures contradict each other] – I will not have the effrontery at any time either to suppose or to say such a thing. If a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and there be a pretext for regarding it as contradictory, since I am totally convinced that no Scripture is contradictory to another, I shall admit instead that I do not understand what is spoken of, and shall strive to persuade those who assume that the Scritpures are contradictory to be rather of the same opinion as myself." [65]

From St. Irenaeus’ *Against Heresies *(ca. AD 180/199):

If, however, we are not able to find explanations for all those passages of Scripture which are investigated, we ought not on that account seek for another God besides Him who exists. This would indeed be the greatest impiety. Things of that kind we must leave to God, the One who made us, knowing full well that the Scriptures are certainly perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and by His Spirit. [2, 28, 2]

St. Hippolytus of Rome, *Commentary on Daniel *(ca. AD 204):

Neither does Scripture falsify anything, nor does the Holy Spirit deceive His servants, the prophets, through whom He is pleased to announce to men the will of God. [4,6]

That’s just for starters.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I don’t have my Jurgen’s on hand, but I also found this on the web…

St. Augustine

For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most !firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the Ms. is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. (Ltr LXXXII. (A.D. 405.), reply to St. Jerome’s letters LXXII., LXXV., and LXXXI.)

I believe Augustine echoes the authentic undertanding of St. Clement from AD 80… “the Holy Scriptures … are true and are of the Holy Spirit.”

If every word is ‘of the Holy Spirit,’ as is taught, then every word is true.

What some say is “error” is more an error in understanding what the author intended, not an error by the author.

From Vatican II peritus Cardinal Augustin Bea, the authentic understanding is made clear: "In fact, we declare in general that there is no limit set to this inerrancy, and that it applies to all that the inspired writer, and therefore all that the Holy Spirit by his means, affirms"

Now, determining what the writer affirms, that can be and always has been quite a mystery in some instances. I am allowed to say “I dunno” but to infer that because we “fail to understand it,” therefore, the the writer must have erred??? Such a conclusion has always been contrary to Catholic doctrine.

 

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

As I tell my CCD students. There are Bible translations more numerous to be mentioned, but only one Catechism. As it is clearly stated in Ephesians 3:7-12, please read it for yourselves, verses 9 & 10 state:

“…and to make everyone see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; so that through the church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.” NRSV

Christian Fundamentalists will often quote Eph 3:7 claiming to be servants of the gospel. They need to finish Paul’s point with where the true authority lies.

The epistles are loaded with references to false gospels, false teachers, false messiahs, and false churches.

We are called to look to Jesus’ church built on “this rock,” the church of the Apostles that Jesus said “the gates of Hades would not prevail against it.” Mt 16:18 NRSV

The only correct way to read the Holy Scriptures is through the eyes of Jesus’ Church by the power of the Holy Spirit crying “Abba” “Father!”

 

[mercygate]

itsjustdave1988:

I don’t have my Jurgen’s on hand, but I also found this on the web…

St. Augustine . . .
. . .
From Vatican II peritus Cardinal Augustin Bea, the authentic understanding is made clear: "In fact, we declare in general that there is no limit set to this inerrancy, and that it applies to all that the inspired writer, and therefore all that the Holy Spirit by his means, affirms"

Now, determining what the writer affirms, that can be and always has been quite a mystery in some instances. I am allowed to say “I dunno” but to infer that because we “fail to understand it,” therefore, the the writer must have erred??? Such a conclusion has always been contrary to Catholic doctrine.

Dave, these contributions are absolutely OUTSTANDING! Thank you for your efforts. I have copied these posts and am filing them for future reference.

 

[RBushlow]

itsjustdave1988:

From Jurgen’s *Faith of the Early Fathers, *Vol 1, doctrinal index:

"27. No error can be found in the Sacred Scritpures"

The first passages cited by Jurgens is from the 1st Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. St. Clement was the third pope after St. Peter.

St. Clement of Rome, First Letter to the Corinthians (ca. AD 80):
Next, he cites from St. Justin Martyr’s *Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, *(ca AD 155):
From St. Irenaeus’ *Against Heresies *(ca. AD 180/199):
St. Hippolytus of Rome, *Commentary on Daniel *(ca. AD 204):
That’s just for starters.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Mercygate,

Here’s another from St. Augustine:

“If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood.”
Augustine,Reply to Faustus the Manichean,11:5(A.D. 400),in NPNF1,IV:180

Taken from this source, which has many others you can put into your apologetics toolbox.

**Free from all Error **
cin.org/users/jgallegos/noerror.htm

 

[Malachi4U]

mercygate:

Malachi: do you get dressed in a phone booth?..

Not since I got arrested for indecent exposure!

Have you tried to find a phone booth lately?