When did Scripture become "inerrant?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter mercygate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Mercygate,

Here’s another from St. Augustine:
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
Click to expand...
Nice little reference, Dave. Thanks much. I’ll be giving this to my fundamentalist friends.
 
40.png
mercygate:
Whoa! Indeed. The question is:

When was the concept of inerrancy first articulated and/or promulgated and by whom?
Click to expand...

To which these can profitably be added:​

  1. How far have assertions of inerrancy been connected with or reliant upon methods of interpretation ?
  2. How far has inerrancy been a belief “in possession” rather than a belief which has been tested against the detail of the texts ? To what extent have people affirmed inerrancy while acknowledging the weuight of arguments it?
  3. How far are ideas about inspiration logically connected with ideas affirming inerrancy ?
IOW, attitudes to claims about inerrancy & the Bible imply a lot of attitudes to other things, such as:
  • what inspiration is
  • its effect on the will and other faculties of man
  • whether it is compatible with being a conscious & intelligent agent
  • whether God inspires concepts only, or words as well
  • how it is related to how and what one knows (that is, to epistemology)
  • how far (if at all) it differs from revelation
  • how it is related to literary creativity
  • the literary character of the books of the Bible
  • the distinction of types of literature in the Bible
  • in what sense or senses the Bible is or is not “the Word of God”
  • how one deals with the problem of the Hebrew vowel points, which were not added until after 600 AD or so.
  • and many more questions of the same kind. For example: in what sense is God the author of the blasphemies and lies in the Bible ? How are they to be accounted for ? Is the devil the author of those parts, or what ? Are those parts affirmed by God; affirmed by the author whose writing contains them; or are they merely stated by God and/or the inspired author without being affirmed by either or both ?
God condemns Job’s three friends for speaking wrongly of Him, unlike Job; so what becomes of the Book of Job which contains their speeches and the condemnation of their speeches ? St. Paul quotes a passage taken from one of those very speeches (see 1 Corinthians - “He takes the wise in their own craftiness” is from a speech of Eliphaz the Temanite in Job, and is applied by St. Paul in his discourse on the “folly” of the Cross.)

Any detailed consideration of inerrancy has to take account of inspiration too, and of these questions and many more. ##
 
Gottle of Geer said:
## To which these can profitably be added:
  1. How far have assertions of inerrancy been connected with or reliant upon methods of interpretation ?
  2. How far has inerrancy been a belief “in possession” rather than a belief which has been tested against the detail of the texts ? To what extent have people affirmed inerrancy while acknowledging the weuight of arguments it?
  3. How far are ideas about inspiration logically connected with ideas affirming inerrancy ?
IOW, attitudes to claims about inerrancy & the Bible imply a lot of attitudes to other things, such as:
  • what inspiration is
  • its effect on the will and other faculties of man
  • whether it is compatible with being a conscious & intelligent agent
  • whether God inspires concepts only, or words as well
  • how it is related to how and what one knows (that is, to epistemology)
  • how far (if at all) it differs from revelation
  • how it is related to literary creativity
  • the literary character of the books of the Bible
  • the distinction of types of literature in the Bible
  • in what sense or senses the Bible is or is not “the Word of God”
  • how one deals with the problem of the Hebrew vowel points, which were not added until after 600 AD or so.
  • and many more questions of the same kind. For example: in what sense is God the author of the blasphemies and lies in the Bible ? How are they to be accounted for ? Is the devil the author of those parts, or what ? Are those parts affirmed by God; affirmed by the author whose writing contains them; or are they merely stated by God and/or the inspired author without being affirmed by either or both ?
God condemns Job’s three friends for speaking wrongly of Him, unlike Job; so what becomes of the Book of Job which contains their speeches and the condemnation of their speeches ? St. Paul quotes a passage taken from one of those very speeches (see 1 Corinthians - “He takes the wise in their own craftiness” is from a speech of Eliphaz the Temanite in Job, and is applied by St. Paul in his discourse on the “folly” of the Cross.)

Any detailed consideration of inerrancy has to take account of inspiration too, and of these questions and many more. ##
Click to expand...

JMJ

GoG,

Where have you been? These things are Great! Wish I knew or asked them long ago.

A prisoner of Christ,
 
40.png
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!
Click to expand...
Malachi4U I think I’ll take your role and play devils advocate. You ask if the Protestant “double-standards” will ever end. I think the same could be said about Catholics who like St. Thomas except when he speaks on the conception of Mary.

I like your last line though.
 
JLove,
I think the same could be said about Catholics who like St. Thomas except when he speaks on the conception of Mary.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm… me thinks you haven’t read enough from Aquinas to know what you are talking about.

What you *think *Aquinas asserted regarding Mary’s conception depends upon which works you are reading. Aquinas asserted in his Commentary on the Book of Sentences:
"Purity is constituted by a recession from impurity, and therefore it is possible to find some creature purer than all the rest, namely one not contaminated by any taint of sin; such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was immune from original and actual sin, yet under God, inasmuch as there was in her the potentiality of sin.
Click to expand...
No contradiction, as I think he got it right here. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif
 
  1. How far have assertions of inerrancy been connected with or reliant upon methods of interpretation ?
Click to expand...
Inerrancy is true Catholic doctrine, not because of any clever arugment or method of interpretation, but solely because it is the unambiguoius universal ordinary teaching of the Catholic Church, which is infallible according to Catholicism.

As St. Augustine put it,
“It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true” (Sermon 117:6)

“Wherever this tradition comes from, we must believe that the Church has not believed in vain, even though the express authority of the canonical scriptures is not brought forward for it” (Letter 164 to Evodius of Uzalis)

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
“To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you” (C. Cresconius I:33)
Click to expand...
Of course, this is Catholic teaching, in contrast to that which is asserted by the Westminster Confession of Faith, or any other such protestant notions. 😉
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
JLove,
Hmmmm… me thinks you haven’t read enough from Aquinas to know what you are talking about.

What you *think *Aquinas asserted regarding Mary’s conception depends upon which works you are reading. Aquinas asserted in his Commentary on the Book of Sentences:
No contradiction, as I think he got it right here. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif
Click to expand...
itsjustdave1988,

Hmmmm…me thinks too, but it hurts.

You’re right I’m no Thomist, but let me ask this. When did he write his Commentary on the Book of Sentences? Before or after the Summa?
 
40.png
JLove:
Malachi4U I think I’ll take your role and play devils advocate. You ask if the Protestant “double-standards” will ever end. I think the same could be said about Catholics who like St. Thomas except when he speaks on the conception of Mary.

I like your last line though.
Click to expand...
JMJ

:hmmm: Uhm???
 
40.png
JLove:
itsjustdave1988,

Hmmmm…me thinks too, but it hurts.

You’re right I’m no Thomist, but let me ask this. When did he write his Commentary on the Book of Sentences? Before or after the Summa?
Click to expand...
His commentary on the Book of Sentences was an immediate forerunner to his Summa Theologica. Yet, its doubtful that he changed his mind, and more probable that he remained uncommitted on the doctrine. It’s safe to say, given his teaching on obedience to one’s superiors, that if he were to have lived after the doctrine was decreed definitively, that he would have no longer been uncommitted.
 
Holy Scripture became inerrant by and as a result of the Decree of Pope St. Damasus 1 at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.

See:
home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm

Why? because of Matthew 16:15-19
Mat 16:15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

Mat 16:16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Mat 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

Mat 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Also see:
call2holiness.org/ScriptureAlone/ScriptureAlone.htm
 
The Cub:
Holy Scripture became inerrant by and as a result of the Decree of Pope St. Damasus 1 at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.

See:
home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm

Why? because of Matthew 16:15-19
Mat 16:15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

Mat 16:16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Mat 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

Mat 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Also see:
call2holiness.org/ScriptureAlone/ScriptureAlone.htm
Click to expand...
Outstanding! This is really fine work, well done.
 
So because a man said Scripture is inerrant you believe him? When that man got his authority from Scripture! How ironic is that to all the teaching that devoloped after Christ and the apostles.
 
So it was not inerrant before that? Because the Pope gets authority from the Scriptures not the other way around. It is the word of God it was always inerrant and always will be and it was recognized as inerrant before the Pope.
 
Christ's friend:
So it was not inerrant before that? Because the Pope gets authority from the Scriptures not the other way around. It is the word of God it was always inerrant and always will be and it was recognized as inerrant before the Pope.
Click to expand...
Friend, this thread is not about the authority of the Pope. The question related to learning when the Church first understood the need for Scripture to be inerrant. Paul, for example, when writing the letter to Philemon, probably wasn’t thinking to himself, “I’m writing the Bible.” Since the Church decided what was the inspired Word of God and therefore belonged in the New Testament, I wanted to know when the corollary point of inerrancy was defined by the Church.

You have put the egg before the chicken.
 
Christ's friend:
So it was not inerrant before that? Because the Pope gets authority from the Scriptures not the other way around. It is the word of God it was always inerrant and always will be and it was recognized as inerrant before the Pope.
Click to expand...
Since the papacy and Church were instituted by Christ (Mt. 16:18, Acts 2) before the New Testament was written (otherwise how could those events be recorded in the NT?), and since the Church determined from among hundreds of holy writings which ones belonged in the New Testament, how could the New Testament, which did not yet exist, give authority to the papacy? :whacky:

The Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, produced NT Scripture, both via the inspired writers themselves, and through the inspiration given to the Church to determine which writings should be placed in the canon.
 
I sort of disagree with you mercygate.

Paul knew what he was writing, and it was called Scripture by Peter before the Church recognized as being inerrant and the churches knew that it was Scripture; that is why they held on to the epistles.

The Church did not decide what inspired word of God was. God decided what inspired word of God would be. The Church had to recognize it; that is why there are so many warnings in Paul’s epistles about false teachers that are already among you. Because those false teachers would write book and letters that were not inspired and the Church would have to deal with them. Those false teachers would teach gospels that were “not gospels at all” (like Paul wrote).
I wanted to know when the corollary point of inerrancy was defined by the Church.
Click to expand...
God defined the Scriptures inerrant because it was the Word of God which had no mistakes in it, and if the Church figured that out in the 4th century that Scripture was inerrant then that leaves a lot of room for false teachers.

My whole point is that the Church always knew Scripture was inerrant both OT and NT (at least what they had at the time).
how could the New Testament, which did not yet exist, give authority to the papacy
Click to expand...
Christ gave authority which was then written in inspired Scripture. Which still means Church gets authority from Scripture because it was an oral tradition that became a written one later.
The Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, produced NT Scripture, both via the inspired writers themselves, and through the inspiration given to the Church to determine which writings should be placed in the canon.
Click to expand...
Amen. God inspired the apostles like he promised and sent the Holy Spirit to help the Church with recognizing inspired Scripture which they did right away. So the church still got its authority from Scripture that was already said orally then written down later.
 
Scripture became inerrant when Scripture came to be through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. St. Damasus I canonically and authoritatively recognized that which was already inspired and inerrant.
 
Christ's friend:
So it was not inerrant before that? Because the Pope gets authority from the Scriptures not the other way around.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Pope got his authority from Jesus Christ This occured prior to the New Testament scriptures being written; so, you see, the authority preceeded the scriptures, not the other way around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top