How the churches got around errors in scripture.

[polonius]

In 1893 we were still being told by the Pope that “ Inspiration (is)Incompatible with Error�

PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCR IPTURE DECLARED THAT:

“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. “

This was essentially the Protestant teaching as well. But things changed in the 1900’s
The Protestant “Chicago Statement� declared that:

“Article X We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy.

That was a safe claim since autographic copies of scripture no longer existed.

But the CatholicChurch at Vatican II came up with still a better explanation.

“ Paragraph #11: “Since, therefore, all that the…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.�

In short, if there is an error, than the matter must not be necessary for our salvation!

New Jerome Biblical Commentary, coauthored by the late Raymond Brown and Thomas Aquinas Collins:

..."Scriptural teaching is truth without error to the extent that it conforms to the salvific purposes of God."

Elsewhere, Brown writes,
It is falsely claimed that there has been no change towards the Bible in Catholic Church thought because Pius XII and Vatican II paid homage to documents issued by Leo XIII, Pius X and Benedict XV and therefore clearly meant to reinforce the teaching of their predecessors. What really was going on was an attempt gracefully to retain what was salvageable from the past and to move in a new direction with as little friction as possible."

In sum, if you find an error in scripture, then that passage was not necessary for our salvation!

What a great solution!!!

[marco]

In sum, if you find an error in scripture, then that passage was not necessary for our salvation!

What a great solution!!!

It is indeed a great solution extracting human logic from divine confusion. It should be God's job to issue errata and not the task of poor humans. Basically if the Holy Spirit inspired, then his inspiration will shine through but perhaps not in places where he has no interest in imparting something of note.

The same logic is used when appealing to Jesus to be an infallible guide to the Church as he apparently promised. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

So if there is any misunderstanding or flaw it rests with the Lord, so perhaps should be referred upwards.

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

Yes, it's a "great solution", but of course it has its own internal logic. Scripture, according to the RCC, along with Tradition, contains the means by which the biblical deity presents as being necessary to human salvation. Therefore, that principle alone makes scripture invaluable and indispensable for humans, and particularly for believing Christians. Changing the Church's public mind on a crucial, divine teaching about the acquisition of salvation would be a glaring fly in the ecclesiastical ointment.

I am not knowledgeable enough to perform this test, but I might suggest the following stratagem:

1. Let's find a proven, venerable, agreed-upon doctrine / or a dogma or a teaching / or a personal example (a Prophet, a character like Job or Jonah or whoever) from the Bible which solely relates to the question of salvation by the biblical deity.

2. Then let's find an example from Christian doctrinal history that dismisses that crucial divine mandate as a mistake, and thus never having been necessary for our salvation.

On the principle of "one white crow", finding just one accurate, fair, objective example of "the Church" invalidating as error what was long considered to be "a truth necessary for our salvation" would provide the one white crow that would demolish the entire structure.

I doubt that, should that pesky crow having been exposed, not even the RCC's doctrine of Tradition could gainsay it - because Tradition is the very means by which the Church claims to interpret scripture ... and to judge which of it is literally true, which is symbolically true - and that which is factually erroneous. If Tradition let even one erroneous scriptural doctrine about salvation slip through, then it would invalidate Tradition itself. Bad news for this central claim of Catholic ecclesiology.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

Yes, where the Bible gets science of history wrong, those things are not necessary for our salvation.

Then again, the accuracy of science or history is not necessary to our spiritual salvation anyway.

To put it another way, the Bible is a book of spiritual guidance and inspiration, not a book of science or history and ought not to be treated as such.

[marco]

I doubt that, should that pesky crow having been exposed, not even the RCC's doctrine of Tradition could gainsay it - because Tradition is the very means by which the Church claims to interpret scripture ... and to judge which of it is literally true, which is symbolically true - and that which is factually erroneous. If Tradition let even one erroneous scriptural doctrine about salvation slip through, then it would invalidate Tradition itself. Bad news for this central claim of Catholic ecclesiology.

It's easy to recognise a white crow but investigating Scripture involves opinion. And what is opinion when placed against 2000 years of solid tradition? Mother Church can sleep soundly, I think.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

Yes, where the Bible gets science of history wrong, those things are not necessary for our salvation.

Then again, the accuracy of science or history is not necessary to our spiritual salvation anyway.

To put it another way, the Bible is a book of spiritual guidance and inspiration, not a book of science or history and ought not to be treated as such.

QUESTION: Is there any evidence of that or is it just something you think you have to believe?

Is the Koran the same?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

Yes, where the Bible gets science of history wrong, those things are not necessary for our salvation.

Then again, the accuracy of science or history is not necessary to our spiritual salvation anyway.

To put it another way, the Bible is a book of spiritual guidance and inspiration, not a book of science or history and ought not to be treated as such.

QUESTION: Is there any evidence of that or is it just something you think you have to believe?

Is the Koran the same?

Evidence of what? That the Bible is NOT a book of credible history or science? Or that the Bible IS a book of Spiritual inspiration and guidance.

If the latter, yes, the Koran is also a book of spiritual inspiration and guidance.

Because I was attempting to encapsulate the Church's latest position on the matter, does not mean that is something that I think I "have to believe".

No, I do not feel bound by what any Church teaches regarding the authority of Scripture, or it's veracity. I make these descisions on my own as the Good LORD leads me and illuminates my understanding. And yes, I could be wrong in my understanding.

[marco]

Is the Koran the same?

The Koran is regarded as the vocal effusions of God, issuing instructions and copious threats. It cannot be wrong although there is a rule that where contradiction seems to occur later verses take priority. This caters for Allah's possible change of mind.

The BIble is merely inspired. One would have thought that the inspiring Spirit would have addressed factual errors or contradictions but it's probably best to regard any errors or contradictiosn as optical illlusions - i.e. reader error.

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 5 by marco]

I doubt that the Church has any right to sleep soundly because it doesn't really have 2000 years of solid tradition, but merely 2000 years of self-manufactured opinion. It's mistaken on most of its basic premises, e.g., Jesus was not "God", Peter was not "the first pope", the Apostles were not the first priests, the Last Supper was not the first Mass, there was no Apostolic Succession in the Gentile world, but rather only a relatively brief one in Palestine, Joran and Syria which was Jewish, not Gentile, etc., not to mention what I said about its christology, which constituted a conscious abandonment of its original Jewish-monotheistic roots and which turned Jesus from Son of Man/Son of God into the Trinitarian "God the Son". Hellenistic-Gentile opinion replaced a far earlier and more authentically Jewish conception of Jesus, his Apostles, and their organization, which was a kind of synagogue within Judaism, but not a Church at all as Catholicism defines the term.

[marco]

I doubt that the Church has any right to sleep soundly because it doesn't really have 2000 years of solid tradition, but merely 2000 years of self-manufactured opinion. It's mistaken on most of its basic premises, e.g., Jesus was not "God", Peter was not "the first pope", the Apostles were not the first priests, the Last Supper was not the first Mass ......

That's a lot of wrong opinions then. The word "credo" (I believe) introduces what the Church maintains is true, starting with belief in one God. In your case you believe Jesus wasn't God, Peter wasn't the first pope, apostles held no sacerdotal role. We can argue for each of these.

Church originally meant a gathering but later, by metonymy, came to mean the building in which people gathered or a religious institition itself.


If one is asked to choose between the group that think Christ was a nice guy and the group that think he was God then it is prudent to attach oneself to the people with power. They are probably both wrong, but why not choose the group that seems to have been wrong for 2000 years rather than some other later wrong-comer? One can quote Scripture from morning till night to justify a position but the RC Church has centuries of thought, discussion, argument and anathemas to assist its case.