When did Scripture become "inerrant?"

[Ignatius]

RehLlits:

Paul knew what he was writing

RehLlits, you list your faith as “etc.”. Just curious; what does that mean?

.

 

[mercygate]

itsjustdave1988:

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.

Dave, you always make everything so clear. Thanks. This is indeed what I meant by asking “when.”

 

[Malachi4U]

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.

Some good study of history will do you wonders. I suggest you start with when was the Bible written, each book written, by whom, when was it cannonized, when was it declared inspired, who requsted the books be bound together in a book called a Bible, how many gospels and letters and other writtings were there to exam to narrow down what we have now, etc…

PS, if you new history you would know that the authority of the Bishop of Rome comes from Jesus.

 

[mercygate]

RehLlits:

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.

I would be intrigued if you could delineate for me how Paul knew that he was writing “scripture.” Can one canonize one’s own writing, even if one is an apostle? You remind us that it is Peter who refers to Paul’s writings were equivalent to “other scriptures” was Peter. When Peter speaks, Catholics listen.

The Church did not decide what inspired word of God was. God decided what inspired word of God would be.

How did God let the Church know his decision?

. . . 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.

It did not take until the 4th century for “false teachers” to appear. Paul warns of them – not as a future possibility but as a clear and present danger. Catholics would agree with you that God defined the Scriptures and that they are inerrant. But there were a lot of writings circulating that laid claim to apostolic authority. Catholics would say that it was the Holy Spirit working through the Church that made the discernment possible. Moreover, the Church maintained a credible chain of custody for the undisputed NT books. However you look at it, without the Church, we would not have the New Testament.

My whole point is that the Church always knew Scripture was inerrant both OT and NT (at least what they had at the time).

Since the Church did not “always” know which books were to be included in the canon, it could not “always” have known which books were inerrant.

Christ gave authority

Yes. He gave authority to Peter and to the Apostles.

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.

What you are stating here is essentially the Catholic position except that you’re tangled up in circular logic. That is common. Catholics do not say that Scripture has authority just because the Church says so and that the Church has authority because Scripture says so. The case is built upon the corroboration of history as well. We would not much value an “authority” that authorized itself – especially if that authority were speaking in the Name of God. Jesus told the Pharisees to judge the works.

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.

You’re almost there. But “Scripture” is, by definition, “written down.” What you are referring to is what we call “Tradition” (capital “T”). When you can approach Scripture as a complete agnostic, even a skeptic, and then by the weight of the manuscript evidence, of history, reason, and the testimony of the Scriptures themselves conclude – based on no supernatural presupposition – that there is validity to the claim that Scripture contains some fundamental truth, **then **you are in a position to think about whether it is divinely inspired and inerrant.

 

[The_Cub]

There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus ever wrote anything down. He proclaimed the Good News ORALLY. Ergo, the spoken word existed prior to the written word.

"He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 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. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church [n.b. one singular church], and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 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." **… (Cf. Matthew 16:15-19)

Note: In the passage above, Jesus changed Simon Bar-Jona’s name to ‘Peter’. The word “peter” means “rock”. He gave charge (i.e. the keys) of His Church on Earth to Peter. The Bishop of Rome has always been the Pope, who is also the head of the Roman Catholic Church. Pope St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and his tomb lies beneath the altar in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, Italy. **To the Apostles (the first Roman Catholic Bishops) he said: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” **(Cf. Luke 10:16).

Pope St. Peter was the first Pope. Therefore the Pope and his infalliblity (only when teaching ex cathedra) preceded the written word.

Furthermore, nowhere is there any evidence that Jesus told the Apostles and/or their scribes to write anything down. There is ample evidence of him telling them to go preach…and preach means to spread the word orally.

To be sure, Holy Scripture is the inspired word of God…my point is that Jesus did not command it to be written while on Earth (to our knowledge) and my point is that Holy Scripture came after the Church and the establishment of the Pope as His Vicar of His Church on Earth.

 

[Redbandito]

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.

It’s clear that the Church has always taught that Scripture is inerrant. However, I believe the question when it was made official. Try the Council of Trent. I am not sure, but I seem to recall questions over the canon coming into play. I would not doubt that this would be the time. Although, clearly Hippo and Carthage I and II addressed the canon as what it is, it might have been Trent or Florence where it was declared “inerrant” officially. I could be wrong. So don’t jump on me if I am. Just trying to help.

 

[Redbandito]

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.

It’s clear that the Church has always taught that Scripture is inerrant. However, I believe the question when it was made official. Try the Council of Trent. I am not sure, but I seem to recall questions over the canon coming into play. I would not doubt that this would be the time. Although, clearly Hippo and Carthage I and II addressed the canon as what it is, it might have been Trent or Florence where it was declared “inerrant” officially. I could be wrong. So don’t jump on me if I am. Just trying to help.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The first ecumencial council to explicilty state that Scripture, in all it’s parts is inspired and therefore is without error, was Vatican II (Dei Verbum 11).

In the vernacular of dogmatic theology, its doesn’t appear to have ever been de fide definita, but more *fides ecclesiastica, *based upon the teachings of the universal ordinary magisterium, which is also infallible.

The most recent source I could find is from Cardinal Ratzinger, where he places Biblical inerrancy among infallible Catholic dogma to which we owe our assent of faith:

**DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI**Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
June 29, 1998

1. The first paragraph states: “With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.” The object taught in this paragraph is constituted by all those ***doctrines of divine and catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable.***11

These doctrines are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and defined with a solemn judgment as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra,’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

These doctrines require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law.12 …

1. Examples. Without any intention of completeness or exhaustiveness, some examples of doctrines relative to the three paragraphs described above can be recalled.
   To the truths of the first paragraph belong the articles of faith of the Creed, the various Christological dogmas21 and Marian dogmas;22 the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace;23 the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist24 and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration;25 the foundation of the Church by the will of Christ;26 the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff;27 the doctrine on the existence of original sin;28 the doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate recompense after death;29 the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts;30 [Dei Verbum 11] the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being.31

 

[sparkle]

The Cub:

There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus ever wrote anything down. He proclaimed the Good News ORALLY. Ergo, the spoken word existed prior to the written word.

**"He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 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. And I tell you, **you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church [n.b. one singular church], and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, andwhatever you bind on earth.**shall be bound in heaven, and whatever **you loose.on earthshall be loosed in heaven.” …(Cf. Matthew 16:15-19)

Note: In the passage above, Jesus changed Simon Bar-Jona’s name to ‘Peter’. The word “peter” means “rock”. He gave charge (i.e. the keys) of His Church on Earth to Peter. The Bishop of Rome has always been the Pope, who is also the head of the Roman Catholic Church. Pope St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and his tomb lies beneath the altar in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, Italy. **To the Apostles (the first Roman Catholic Bishops) he said: **“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Cf. Luke 10:16).

Pope St. Peter was the first Pope. Therefore the Pope and his infalliblity (only when teaching ex cathedra) preceded the written word.

Furthermore, nowhere is there any evidence that Jesus told the Apostles and/or their scribes to write anything down. There is ample evidence of him telling them to go preach…and preach means to spread the word orally.

To be sure, Holy Scripture is the inspired word of God…my point is that Jesus did not command it to be written while on Earth (to our knowledge) and my point is that Holy Scripture came after the Church and the establishment of the Pope as His Vicar of His Church on Earth.

Your post is AWESOME!!!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Ignatius:

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.

The Church can do no more than recognise an inspiration already present in the books - the same holds for inerrancy (assuming for the sake of argument that it is a reality).​

The Church cannot confer inspiration on the books if they do not have it already, nor inerrancy. Anymore than she can confer holiness on someone not a saint - canonisation does not confer, but recognise, holiness. Recognition of action by God is involved - no conferring of anything by the Church is involved.

The alternatives are not:

• the Church preceded Scripture
• and (by implication) Scripture preceded the Church -

for neither is worth anything without the Spirit of God. It is the Spirit of Holiness Who inspires, sanctifies, teaches truth: not man - as the Veni Sancte Spiritus points out. It is sheer materialism to attribute any good or ability to man without God. To stop at authority on earth is to stop too soon. That is not what the Church needs in order to be filled with grace and power. The authority of God is what is important - that of the Church and churchmen is entirely secondary and subordinate to that.