Why isn't inerrancy Docetism?

[sharpag]

I have been trying to comprehend the Catholic notion of biblical inerrancy and I cannot help but think it sounds similar to Docetism (fyi Docetism was a heretical belief that claimed Jesus’ to not have a true humanity or to have it overtaken by his divinity). I understand the Bible is considered to be inspired and that they Holy Spirit plays a role in the formation of the texts. However, I do not understand how the Bible can be said to be free of any and all error (both Trent and Providentissimus Deus make the claim) if any human element is to remain. Of course the writing styles differ in the Bible and I suppose that could be claimed as the “human” element but it still seems less than fully human in that the writers could not even make inconsequential errors. I don’t think their humanity is lessened in writing about faith and morals as proper understanding rests with God alone but I do think it is if they cannot err in even the smallest occurrence (again, this was made clear at Trent regardless of the ambiguity introduced at Vatican II on inerrancy). Without discussing whether or not there are inconsequential errors in the Bible (I think there are, others do not, and these debates have a tendency to stray from charitable discourse), can someone explain how inerrancy is not like Docetism? Because if the authors of the Bible were not free from Original Sin in the manner in which Christ was I have a hard time fathoming how they could act without error in the writing of the Bible without losing their humanity. Thanks.

 

[seagal]

If the Bible erred even in the smallest, inconsequential way, how would you know it didn’t err in larger much more consequential ways?

 

[red85]

The Bible is the word of God, free from error. We individuals might error in our interpretation of it. The Catholic Church (the pope and the bishops in union with him), attuned to the Holy Spirit, can read it and explain it correctly.

 

[SonCatcher]

I have been trying to comprehend the Catholic notion of biblical inerrancy and I cannot help but think it sounds similar to Docetism (fyi Docetism was a heretical belief that claimed Jesus’ to not have a true humanity or to have it overtaken by his divinity). I understand the Bible is considered to be inspired and that they Holy Spirit plays a role in the formation of the texts. However, I do not understand how the Bible can be said to be free of any and all error (both Trent and Providentissimus Deus make the claim) if any human element is to remain. Of course the writing styles differ in the Bible and I suppose that could be claimed as the “human” element but it still seems less than fully human in that the writers could not even make inconsequential errors. I don’t think their humanity is lessened in writing about faith and morals as proper understanding rests with God alone but I do think it is if they cannot err in even the smallest occurrence (again, this was made clear at Trent regardless of the ambiguity introduced at Vatican II on inerrancy). Without discussing whether or not there are inconsequential errors in the Bible (I think there are, others do not, and these debates have a tendency to stray from charitable discourse), can someone explain how inerrancy is not like Docetism? Because if the authors of the Bible were not free from Original Sin in the manner in which Christ was I have a hard time fathoming how they could act without error in the writing of the Bible without losing their humanity. Thanks.

I fail to see the connection between Docetism and Biblical Inerrancy. However, I can address how the Biblical authors were preserved from error in matters of Faith and Morals. Jesus promised us that the Holy Spirit would be the teacher:

John 14:26
“The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name—he will teach you everything and remind you of all that * told you.”

John 15:26-27
“When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me. And you also testify, because you have been with me from the beginning."

Understandably, it seems circular to point to a statement in Scripture as evidence of its inerrancy. However, we only accept this as scripture because the Authority of the Church, guided by the Spirit, tells us so. Further, we do not accept the authority of the Church based on Scripture (though scripture does attest to this authority) but because the Church was established by Christ.*

 

[fred_conty]

The thoughts in the bible come from … God … all truth … no error.
It it were said that the bible has error, then God is making mistakes.
Everything in the bible is true and free of error, tho our understanding may not see it that way at times.

The question begs “how do we know it was interpreted/translated correctly, or that humans copied it correctly, or that nothing was added or subtracted from it being passed down?”

But that is a different topic.

 

[raikou]

Did Trent and providentissimus Deus really claim that the authors of the books of the Bible cannot make any sort of “error” at all? I thought this inerrancy applied to the message of the books, not necessarily the literal factual content.

I don’t really know if there are factual errors in the Bible, but I think it will be necessary to distinguish between factual error resulting from the author’s misjudgment on facts and APPARENT factual errors (literal content seems not to conform with actual facts) resulting from the author intending to use figurative language. After all, a writer can modify the literal details not to describe the actual facts but to drive home another point. In this case, there’s really no error here, and any perceived error is merely apparent (because of misinterpretation). So did Trent and PD also claim that the authors cannot make misjudgments on actual facts?

I don’t see why inerrancy on the Bible or Papal infallibility should connote docetism. Christ is perfect God and perfect man. He couldn’t make the human errors so common with humans stained by original sin. Being free from error doesn’t necessarily mean that you are not a man.

Biblical inspiration and infallibility are also special gifts and priveleges valid only for a specific purpose (teaching truth for the benefit of the Church). Its subjects are made temporarily free from error by divine assistance. In other instances, they could make mistakes. This assistance doesn’t really make them superhuman, the same way believing in their teachings (and thus likewise free from error in matters of faith in morals) wont make US listeners superhuman.

 

[Gorgias]

I have been trying to comprehend the Catholic notion of biblical inerrancy and I cannot help but think it sounds similar to Docetism (fyi Docetism was a heretical belief that claimed Jesus’ to not have a true humanity or to have it overtaken by his divinity).

Docetism claimed that Christ only seemed to be human (but wasn’t really human). I’m guessing that you mean to ask how the Catholic belief in Scriptural inerrancy appears to you to be saying that the Bible only seems to be inerrant, but isn’t actually so?

However, I do not understand how the Bible can be said to be free of any and all error (both Trent and Providentissimus Deus make the claim) if any human element is to remain.

People like to interpret Providentissimus Deus as if it makes the claim of inerrancy down to the very letter; this interpretation, then, leads to exactly the kind of incredulity that you’re expressing. However, I don’t think that this is the most accurate interpretation of PD. Let me give you two examples:

We’ll often see Leo quoting Augustine:

“Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so.”

However, we rarely see anyone quoting how Leo framed up the quote from Augustine (emphases mine):

There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines. … If dissension should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: "Whatever they can really demonstrate…

Two important points follow: first, apparent discrepancies arise only when theologians attempt to deal with physics theologically, or physicists deal with theology as if it were physics. In other words, the disciplines should not attempt to over-reach their natural boundaries, or else the appearance of discrepancy may develop.

Second, the ‘rule’ Leo appeals to, isn’t for the physicist – it’s for the theologian! And, it’s meant not to show that Scripture necessarily trumps physics or attempts to refute it. Rather, a less burdensome goal is appropriate: all that is necessary is to demonstrate that the two disciplines’ assertions are reconciliable.

Yet, how is that possible? For example, doesn’t the Bible teach a strict six-day creation, and physics asserts a Big Bang followed by billions of years of development? Some would say that Leo has only two responses: either assert that the scientific claim is theory, not fact; or, if fact, remind the scientist that much that has been ‘proven’ as fact has later been questioned and subsequently rejected. However, rarely do people quote Leo (in PD) as offering a third possibility:

we must remember… that the … Holy Ghost “Who spoke by [the sacred writers], did not intend to teach men … the essential nature of the things of the visible universe, things in no way profitable unto salvation.”[S. Aug. De Gen. ad litt. ii., 9, 20.]

Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time. … Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

In other words, in Providentissimus Deus, Leo asserts exactly what Vatican II asserts – that the Bible isn’t a science text, but inerrantly expresses Divine Revelation through the common speech of the contemporaries of its human writers.

I’ve gone on a bit long in responding to your post, without addressing the core question. Let me continue in a second post, then…

 

[Gorgias]

Sharpag:

it still seems less than fully human in that the writers could not even make inconsequential errors.

I would assert that the Catholic Church doesn’t say that there aren’t “even inconsequential errors” in Scripture; rather, the human writers, using the idioms and understandings of the day, wrote in a way that would be comprehensible to their readers. If their readers had a certain (mistaken) understanding of science and history, then the writers used that (mistaken) understanding in pursuit of the greater goal of expressing inerrant divinely inspired truth. The truth is not to be found (necessarily) in the ‘penetration of the secrets of nature’, but rather, in the penetration of truths of salvation.

I don’t think their humanity is lessened in writing about faith and morals as proper understanding rests with God alone but I do think it is if they cannot err in even the smallest occurrence (again, this was made clear at Trent regardless of the ambiguity introduced at Vatican II on inerrancy).

Perhaps there’s a specific quotation from Trent that you’re thinking of, that we might discuss? It’s difficult to address your contention if there’s no particular passage to which you’re pointing…

can someone explain how inerrancy is not like Docetism? Because if the authors of the Bible were not free from Original Sin in the manner in which Christ was I have a hard time fathoming how they could act without error in the writing of the Bible without losing their humanity. Thanks.

I think that there are two types of replies, both of which are valid. First, the comments I made above, themselves, speak to one reply: inerrancy, as taught by the Church, doesn’t mean that every jot and tittle are inerrant. Therefore, there’s no problem with the humanity of the human writers of Scripture.

The second reply can either stand on its own or proceed from the first. Whether or not you hold for inerrancy down to the letter, you realize that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of Scripture in order to put into words God’s self-revelation. Does a preacher ‘lose his humanity’ when he is inspired to preach the truth of God’s word? Did the apostles ‘lose their humanity’ when they preached and taught? Did Peter and the apostles ‘lose their humanity’ on Pentecost when, inspired by the Spirit, they spoke in tongues and Peter preached and converted 3000?

I would say that the answer is clearly “no, they didn’t lose their humanity”, and I would think that you would be inclined to agree. If they didn’t lose their humanity in these expressions of the inspiration of the Spirit, why would we suggest that the human writers of Scripture lost their humanity when they were inspired?

 

[fred_conty]

Did Trent and providentissimus Deus really claim that the authors of the books of the Bible cannot make any sort of “error” at all? I thought this inerrancy applied to the message of the books, not necessarily the literal factual content.

I don’t really know if there are factual errors in the Bible, but I think it will be necessary to distinguish between factual error resulting from the author’s misjudgment on facts and APPARENT factual errors (literal content seems not to conform with actual facts) resulting from the author intending to use figurative language. After all, a writer can modify the literal details not to describe the actual facts but to drive home another point. In this case, there’s really no error here, and any perceived error is merely apparent (because of misinterpretation). So did Trent and PD also claim that the authors cannot make misjudgments on actual facts?

I don’t see why inerrancy on the Bible or Papal infallibility should connote docetism. Christ is perfect God and perfect man. He couldn’t make the human errors so common with humans stained by original sin. Being free from error doesn’t necessarily mean that you are not a man.

Biblical inspiration and infallibility are also special gifts and priveleges valid only for a specific purpose (teaching truth for the benefit of the Church). Its subjects are made temporarily free from error by divine assistance. In other instances, they could make mistakes. This assistance doesn’t really make them superhuman, the same way believing in their teachings (and thus likewise free from error in matters of faith in morals) wont make US listeners superhuman.

Now that you bring this up, you may be right. It seems to me, but again I might be wrong, the pope said something to this effect at one time. But here is a helpful article. And thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-everything-in-the-bible-true

 

[Jennifer_Gritt]

This is an important topic for reflection. For those who believe that the bible is error free, they must first contend with the problem of translation. If adherents believe that the English-language Bible does not have one single error in it, then how do they reconcile the different translations that exist. Then there is the issue of Old Testament versus New Testament and interpreting the Old Testament through the New Testament. If adherents believe that every single word in that Bible is the word of God that must be respected and obeyed, then Catholics and Christians should be adhering to Jewish food laws and celebrating the Sabbath on Saturdays rather than Sundays, making animal sacrifices, etc., etc.

As for the Pope and the Catholic Church being the only earthly means through which the Bible is correctly interpreted, this brings up the specter of human fallibility among Popes and Bishops and the rest of the clergy. Are adherents really supposed to believe that these individuals are without sin, without ego, without hubris? The very real, documented instances of political corruption within the Catholic Church simply can not be ignored because they make the faithful uncomfortable.

For me, the real focus is not on the actual, literal words that exist in the Bible being the Word(s) of God, but the doctrinal theology that is revealed through the scriptures with the Old Testament standing as a foundation for the New (i.e., that was the old covenant, this is the new covenant). This is the wisdom or Logos of the faith, and factual details (such as who was actually there to discover the empty tomb) that differ in the Gospels and throughout the Bible does nothing to tarnish or dismantle the revealed truth (i.e., Christ rose from the dead in fulfillment of the scriptures). And this has remained so even throughout the instances of human fallibility and corruption of the Catholic Church and the individuals who make up the Church–the theology that has been revealed through the Bible has not changed or altered despite the words and actions of men and women.

Inerrancy in the theology and doctrinal foundations of Catholicism? Yes. Inerrancy in the actual written words and human language that conveys that theology and created the doctrinal foundations? No. The translations from Hebrew and Greek alone will be a cause for error.

 

[Gorgias]

This is an important topic for reflection. For those who believe that the bible is error free, they must first contend with the problem of translation.

Jennifer,

I’m guessing that you’re talking about KJV-only Christians, not about Catholics, right? After all, the Catholic Church teaches that inerrancy does not speak to any arbitrary translation(s), per se.

If adherents believe that the English-language Bible does not have one single error in it, then how do they reconcile the different translations that exist.

Are you asking us, or pointing out a potential problem that some (Catholics and non-Catholics) may have?

Then there is the issue of Old Testament versus New Testament and interpreting the Old Testament through the New Testament. If adherents believe that every single word in that Bible is the word of God that must be respected and obeyed, then Catholics and Christians should be adhering to Jewish food laws and celebrating the Sabbath on Saturdays rather than Sundays, making animal sacrifices, etc., etc.

Hmm… hold on a second. You’ve moved the goal posts: there’s a difference between “the inerrancy of Scripture” and “every single word in the Bible… must be respected and obeyed”! After all, if I’m talking to a group of high schoolers, and I tell them, “no alcohol!”… then that’s completely true! However, that doesn’t imply that this truth applies to all people at all times.

As for the Pope and the Catholic Church being the only earthly means through which the Bible is correctly interpreted, this brings up the specter of human fallibility among Popes and Bishops and the rest of the clergy. Are adherents really supposed to believe that these individuals are without sin, without ego, without hubris?

Again… goal posts, Jennifer! There’s a difference between the Church’s teaching of magisterial infallibility and the notion that individuals are sinful, egotistical, and prideful! The teaching of infallibility does not mean that popes and bishops have no sin, no ego, and no pride! However, the fact that they are human doesn’t void the notion of infallibility…

The very real, documented instances of political corruption within the Catholic Church simply can not be ignored because they make the faithful uncomfortable.

Agreed. Yet, these instances are examples of things that stand apart from the idea of magisterial infallibility. They might, for example, point out that a particular person’s ability to lead has been compromised and that corrective steps are in order; however, they do not prove that those who are leading are incapable of exercising the charisms of the Church.

Inerrancy in the theology and doctrinal foundations of Catholicism? Yes.

Can I nit-pick? What you’re talking about here speaks to infallibility in Church teaching, not inerrancy. (I know, I’m being picky. But words are important. )

Inerrancy in the actual written words and human language that conveys that theology and created the doctrinal foundations? No.

Again, we’re not talking about ‘inerrancy’ since we’re no longer talking about Scripture. Inerrancy applies to Scripture; infallibility applies to particular Church teachings.

Church teaching develops, and later statements can be made to help explain teaching more fully. This doesn’t mean, though, that the earlier statements were in error. The Church teaches that there is such a thing as indefectibility: that is, God preserves the Church from error in teaching the Gospel.

The translations from Hebrew and Greek alone will be a cause for error.

Perhaps – but that’s what I alluded to, above. The Church is not saying that inerrancy exists in any given translation. Therefore, we cannot say that inerrancy is absent because a variety of translations exist.

 

[SonCatcher]

This is an important topic for reflection. For those who believe that the bible is error free, they must first contend with the problem of translation. If adherents believe that the English-language Bible does not have one single error in it, then how do they reconcile the different translations that exist. Then there is the issue of Old Testament versus New Testament and interpreting the Old Testament through the New Testament. If adherents believe that every single word in that Bible is the word of God that must be respected and obeyed, then Catholics and Christians should be adhering to Jewish food laws and celebrating the Sabbath on Saturdays rather than Sundays, making animal sacrifices, etc., etc.

As for the Pope and the Catholic Church being the only earthly means through which the Bible is correctly interpreted, this brings up the specter of human fallibility among Popes and Bishops and the rest of the clergy. Are adherents really supposed to believe that these individuals are without sin, without ego, without hubris? The very real, documented instances of political corruption within the Catholic Church simply can not be ignored because they make the faithful uncomfortable.

For me, the real focus is not on the actual, literal words that exist in the Bible being the Word(s) of God, but the doctrinal theology that is revealed through the scriptures with the Old Testament standing as a foundation for the New (i.e., that was the old covenant, this is the new covenant). This is the wisdom or Logos of the faith, and factual details (such as who was actually there to discover the empty tomb) that differ in the Gospels and throughout the Bible does nothing to tarnish or dismantle the revealed truth (i.e., Christ rose from the dead in fulfillment of the scriptures). And this has remained so even throughout the instances of human fallibility and corruption of the Catholic Church and the individuals who make up the Church–the theology that has been revealed through the Bible has not changed or altered despite the words and actions of men and women.

Inerrancy in the theology and doctrinal foundations of Catholicism? Yes. Inerrancy in the actual written words and human language that conveys that theology and created the doctrinal foundations? No. The translations from Hebrew and Greek alone will be a cause for error.

Fortunately, the issues you raise really aren’t a hinderence for the dogma of biblical inerrancy.

The doctrine only applies to the original languages (although the Vulgate was declared to be free of doctrinal error after centuries of scrutiny, that is not the same as the dogma of inerrancy). Translations are not covered.

We do see the Pope and those bishops in communion with him to be fallible humans (susceptible to sin, egotism, etc) but that the Holy Spirit preserves them from error in interpreting scripture. There is a caveat in that, like scripture itself, their interpretations are subject to the language and style in use at the time.

I have heard one priest put it thus: “If the Pope happens to be a rotten person, he will lead the Church exactly as it needs to be led through his pontificate and when he dies, he’ll retire in Hell.” This is only possible because of the Holy Spirit’s protection on the Church.

 

[sharpag]

Thanks for all the responses but it seems I should clarify a few things.

I fail to see the connection between Docetism and Biblical Inerrancy.

Docetism claimed that Christ only seemed to be human (but wasn’t really human). I’m guessing that you mean to ask how the Catholic belief in Scriptural inerrancy appears to you to be saying that the Bible only seems to be inerrant, but isn’t actually so?

Docetists claimed Christ was only divine and not human at all. My point is if the Bible is to be written by God to the point that the writers of the scriptures could not make inconsequential errors then it seems the Bible only appears to have any human interaction. I think the idea of Biblical Inerrancy could be similar to Docetism because it denies human freedom. I do think, however, that the Pope is a separate issue because he does not claim inerrancy but infallibility.

Perhaps there’s a specific quotation from Trent that you’re thinking of, that we might discuss? It’s difficult to address your contention if there’s no particular passage to which you’re pointing…

I think PD is more explicit in illustrating my problem (but if you’re interested here is the link to the 4th session of the Council of Trent which very briefly touches on the issue history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html Here is the link to Providentissimus Deus. My main issues are with the following excerpts from PD:

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, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last: “The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author.”(57) Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write-He was so present to them-that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture.

It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error.

I find the second quote troubling because, again, I feel that it is denying the authors of the Bible their humanity and seems almost… Protestant by claiming there are no errors whatsoever (though I am not claiming this to be fundamentalism or any KJV-only nonsense).

 

[Gorgias]

Thanks for all the responses but it seems I should clarify a few things.

Docetists claimed Christ was only divine and not human at all. My point is if the Bible is to be written by God to the point that the writers of the scriptures could not make inconsequential errors then it seems the Bible only appears to have any human interaction.

Hmm… so, I’m not sure that you’re really claiming ‘docetism’, per se, but riffing on the notion of ‘appearance’: that is, that inasmuch as docetism claimed that Christ only appeared to be human, you assert that Scriptural inerrancy seems to claim that human writers of Scripture only ‘appear’ to be human (since, if they were really human, they would err). Yet, I think that my replies address the problems with that approach. Perhaps, then, you might respond to my discussion of your question?

I think the idea of Biblical Inerrancy could be similar to Docetism because it denies human freedom.

No… inerrancy doesn’t deny human freedom. Perhaps you might demonstrate where it does, rather than just simply claim that this is so?

I think PD is more explicit in illustrating my problem

Perhaps. Yet, I’ve provided you with a refutation of your assertion, grounded in the words of PD itself. Would you mind replying to my assertions, if you find them groundless?

(but if you’re interested here is the link to the 4th session of the Council of Trent which very briefly touches on the issue history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html

Umm… yes, this link provides the text that asserts that the Bible is the Bible, and that we all need to recognize that it’s the Bible. Yet, it doesn’t address the assertions that you’re making. Perhaps you might point out what it’s saying that you say supports your points?

My main issues are with the following excerpts from PD:

Hmm. I’ll grant that PD says what you quote. Yet, you seem to be sloughing off other things that PD says, which I have pointed out. If PD says what you say it does, and yet says what I say it does (after all, we’re pulling from the same source, right?), can’t we interpret PD in terms of everything it says? In other words, inerrancy is the claim of the Catholic Church; however, inerrancy isn’t only what this paragraph might be interpreted as having said…

It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error.

I find the second quote troubling because, again, I feel that it is denying the authors of the Bible their humanity and seems almost… Protestant by claiming there are no errors whatsoever (though I am not claiming this to be fundamentalism or any KJV-only nonsense).

No. There’s a difference between purported ‘error’ and a particular sense of Scripture that interprets every word as necessarily historically ‘true’. In other words, I can claim that the truth of Scripture doesn’t hinge on any one particular historical fact, without “maintain[ing] that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings” or “pervert[ing] the Catholic notion of inspiration”.

 

[kepha1]

I’ve read most of Dei Verbum and it does not use “inerrancy” to describe the written mode of Divine Revelation all by itself. If Catholics accepted sola scriptura we would end up with the same Docetic errors as…well…not mentioning any names.

CHAPTER III
13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous “condescension” of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, “that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature.” (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men. ibid.

 

[Gorgias]

I’ve read most of Dei Verbum and it does not use “inerrancy” to describe the written mode of Divine Revelation all by itself. If Catholics accepted sola scriptura

:banghead: Erm… ‘inerrancy’ and ‘sola scriptura’ are not synonyms…