Biblical inerrancy

[farouk]

The whole concept of biblical inerrancy and infallibility are recent inventions - the Patristic Fathers had no need for such ideas.

Inerrancy grew out of the Enlightenment and the Reformation - just as education and the printing press were beginning to make texts and books available to increasing numbers of the population - well, in the West at least.

But education brings with it dangers. People inevitable start asking questions. And it was questions that bought about the increase use of doctrine a means of silencing the questioner - a process of 'killing softly'. The same tactic is used by the Taliban where the recent shooting of a teenage girl in the Swat Vally highlighted the dangers of that a desire for education can bring.

Thus the doctrine and inerrancy and infallibility - not the same thing - were born. Only the Church could accurately explain the biblical texts.

So, how then do we, who can both read and reason, 'explain' that which we read? The process comes down to hermeneutics - the art or science of interpreting the Bible.

Hermeneutics is not exegesis - which is an elaboration on some text i.e sermons. But one cannot do exegesis without hermeneutics. And we all use hermeneutics whether we know it or not. We all apply some aspect by which we can interpret that which we read.

Hermeneutics, unlike inerrancy, was used by the Patristic Fathers which lead to different 'schools' of thought. The main ones centered on Alexander, which adopted a allegorical reading of text, and Antioch which developed a literal reading.

But we have come a long way since then. There are any number of recognized hermeneutical methods. The point I wish to establish is that to claim biblical inerrancy one must forego hermeneutics and accept what the Church tells us to accept. If we accept that the biblical texts are the revelation of God - the unveiling of that which was otherwise hidden - then we perhaps might accept that there is really nothing 'natural' about theology - revelation it is not readily explainable.

I don't accept this view of what inerrancy is, as being how the word is supposedly used universally.

 

[rrowell]

Hermeneutics is not exegesis - which is an elaboration on some text i.e sermons. But one cannot do exegesis without hermeneutics. And we all use hermeneutics whether we know it or not. We all apply some aspect by which we can interpret that which we read.

Your right, they are not the same, but you have it backwards, one cannot do proper Hermeneutics without doing proper exegesis of the text one elaborates on.

 

[cupid dave]

The misnomer, inerrancy, is really diametrically opposed to Truth which requires free speech in order that two or three can come together in the name of truth, and through open commentary, come to see the different perspectives on scripture so we can choose what actually has been written and what it really means.

When the inerrancy of a Pope means he will TELL us what it means, or a minister will ask you to leave his congregation or shut up, or a moderator here finds a perspective intolerable in contrast to his own private church interpretation we are really talking about censorship, the work of the devils who opposed Jesus speaking out.

 

[farouk]

c d: I think you are thinking of the term 'infallibility', often (wrongly) applied to the popes, rather than 'inerrancy', which is usually linked with the Bible.

 

[dadof10]

The whole concept of biblical inerrancy and infallibility are recent inventions - the Patristic Fathers had no need for such ideas.

This is simply untrue.

Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215): But we, who have heard by the Scriptures that self-determining choice and refusal have been given by the Lord to men, rest in the infallible criterion of faith, manifesting a willing spirit, since we have chosen life and believe God through His voice. And he who has believed the Word knows the matter to be true; for the Word is truth. But he who has disbelieved Him that speaks, has disbelieved God. ANF: Vol. II, The Stromata, Book II, Chapter IV.—Faith the Foundation of All Knowledge.

Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215): It will naturally fall after these, after a cursory view of theology, to discuss the opinions handed down respecting prophecy; so that, having demonstrated that the Scriptures which we believe are valid from their omnipotent authority, we shall be able to go over them consecutively, and to show thence to all the heresies one God and Omnipotent Lord to be truly preached by the law and the prophets, and besides by the blessed Gospel. Many contradictions against the heterodox await us while we attempt, in writing, to do away with the force of the allegations made by them, and to persuade them against their will, proving by the Scriptures themselves. ANF: Vol. II, The Stromata, Book IV, Chapter 1.

Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215): But if from any creature they received in any way whatever the seeds of the Truth, they did not nourish them; but committing them to a barren and rainless soil, they choked them with weeds, as the Pharisees revolted from the Law, by introducing human teachings, — the cause of these being not the Teacher, but those who choose to disobey. But those of them who believed the Lord’s advent and the plain teaching of the Scriptures, attain to the knowledge of the law; as also those addicted to philosophy, by the teaching of the Lord, are introduced into the knowledge of the true philosophy: “For the oracles of the Lord are pure oracles, melted in the fire, tried in the earth, purified seven times.†Just as silver often purified, so is the just man brought to the test, becoming the Lord’s coin and receiving the royal image. ANF: Vol. II, The Stromata, Book VI, Chapter VII.

Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220) while speaking of the heretics: What sort of truth is that which they patronize, when they commend it to us with a lie? Well, but they actually treat of the Scriptures and recommend (their opinions) out of the Scriptures! To be sure they do. From what other source could they derive arguments concerning the things of the faith, except from the records of the faith? ANF: Vol. III, The Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 14.

Jerome (347-420): The error, neither of parents nor ancestors, is to be followed; but the authority of the Scriptures, and the government of God as our teacher. Goode, Vol. 3, p. 151.
Latin text: Ergo nec parentum nec majorum error sequendus est: sed auctoritas Scripturarum, et Dei docentis imperium. Commentariorum in Jeremiam, Liber Secundus, Cap. IX, v. 12, PL 24:743.

Augustine (354-430): For it cannot be remotely possible that the authority of the Scriptures should be fallacious at any point. FC, Vol. 20, Saint Augustine Letters, 147. Augustine to the noble lady Paulina, greeting, Chapter 14 (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1953), p. 181.

These quotes could be multiplied. Since there were "patristic fathers" who thought Scripture was inerrant, certainly you can find quotes that counter these? There must have been debate or at lease writings that disagree with these Fathers? Where are they?

 

[wayseer]

This is simply untrue.

Please read a little more deeply and not just the bits that serve your agenda.

The doctrine of inerrancy and infallibility arose primarily with the Reformation where the Church took on the certitude of authority - although a Papal Bull in 1279 set the train in motion.

You quotes are from the Father who were battling various heresies and should be read in that context. In order to maintain the rage against the heresiologists the Fathers had need to draw on wide sources, the canon was not yet finalized, in order to develop their arguments. The fact that there were so many heresies demonstrates that there was no doctrine of infallibility or inerrancy operating at the time - there were many Christianities. The problem the Patristic Fathers faced was sorting out which Christianity was the real thing.

 

[dadof10]

Please read a little more deeply and not just the bits that serve your agenda.

Why do you assume ignorance if someone disagrees with you? What "agenda? I'm simply reading what the Church Fathers wrote. You are not. Who has the agenda?

The doctrine of inerrancy and infallibility arose primarily with the Reformation where the Church took on the certitude of authority - although a Papal Bull in 1279 set the train in motion.

You quotes are from the Father who were battling various heresies and should be read in that context.

If they were "battling heresies", wouldn't they also battle the heresy of biblical inerrancy, IF it were a heresy? So, where are all the counter arguments to the quotes I posted?

In order to maintain the rage against the heresiologists...

"Maintain the rage"? This tells a lot about your "agenda".

...the Fathers had need to draw on wide sources, the canon was not yet finalized, in order to develop their arguments.

So what? What does a closed Canon have to do with the inerrancy of the Books they recognized to be inspired? I don't get the connection. Are you saying the only way they could have believed in Biblical inerrancy was if they knew ALL the inspired books?

The fact that there were so many heresies demonstrates that there was no doctrine of infallibility or inerrancy operating at the time - there were many Christianities.

This is an odd statement. There are the doctrines of both inerrancy and infallibility NOW, yet many denominations. There are always going to be dissenters, no matter how many people hold the doctrines of Biblical inerrancy and infallibility. The Truth walked the earth, yet people still crucified him. The mere fact that there are or were dissenters doesn't speak to the subject, although the Fathers' WORDS DO. They tell us what they believed, which is that the Bible is inerrant.

 

[wayseer]

Why do you assume ignorance if someone disagrees with you?

Well, I guess if someone's response is 'that is simply untrue' then I have little option.

On the other hand you could show where just where the Patristic Fathers developed a doctrine on infallibility and inerrancy. I have made a study of in this area and I have failed to find any such doctrine.

If they were "battling heresies", wouldn't they also battle the heresy of biblical inerrancy

Why. It was not an issue so there was no 'battle' with what didn't exist.

So, where are all the counter arguments to the quotes I posted?

There are none because it was not an issue - which is what at said in the first place. The whole doctrine on inerrancy and infallibility come much later and for different reasons.

"Maintain the rage"? This tells a lot about your "agenda".

My agenda is hopefully to point you in the right direction. The arguments which were present at the various councils were about countering divergent views of what it meant to be a Christian. What is meant to be a Christian was the what important and it was this matter to which the Fathers directed their attention.

One of the biggest was against Marcion who maintained a 'literal' interpretation of the biblical texts and in doing so claimed that Jesus could not have had anything to do with the the God of the Jews.

So what? What does a closed Canon have to do with the inerrancy of the Books they recognized to be inspired? I don't get the connection.

Again we can thank Marcion for the the canon. Marcion chose certain texts to support his christology. This forced the orthodox to start thinking about which texts were important and why. Out of this came a collection of texts to which claims could be made for 'authority' - which is what the word 'canon' essential means. It is only to this 'canon' can one turn to develop doctrine. And the canon was not completed until the Council of Trent in 1546.

Are you saying the only way they could have believed in Biblical inerrancy was if they knew ALL the inspired books?

We are not talking about 'inspiration' we are talking about 'authority'.

The problem was - what was the basis for 'authority' of Christianity - how were the Church Fathers to arrive at any decision if there was no authority to which to turn. Marcion had his own 'canon' - the church had none.

This is an odd statement.

Not really given the theological fog in which early Christianity was wrapped. There were many brands of Christianity - not to be confused with 'denominations'. The problem for the Fathers was how to work out the genuine from the the chaff. Unfortunately this aspect of Christian history is not taught so we in the 21st century think that the whole thing fell out of the sky open for all to read. Not so. You might benefit froma read through W.H.C. Frend's The Early Church to get some idea of the history of your faith.

There are the doctrines of both inerrancy and infallibility NOW, yet many denominations

Sure is. And as I have indicated all this came out of the reformation.

There are always going to be dissenters, no matter how many people hold the doctrines of Biblical inerrancy and infallibility. The Truth walked the earth, yet people still crucified him. The mere fact that there are or were dissenters doesn't speak to the subject, although the Fathers' WORDS DO. They tell us what they believed, which is that the Bible is inerrant.

You can keep repeating your belief but that does not alter history. But you are welcome to make the journey yourself - I encourage you. But be aware that there was more going on in those early centuries than you can imagine.

 

[dadof10]

Well, I guess if someone's response is 'that is simply untrue' then I have little option.

What followed that response backed it up, quotes from Fathers that prove they ASSUMED Biblical inerrancy. How does actual proof from the sources themselves equate to ignorance in your mind?

On the other hand you could show where just where the Patristic Fathers developed a doctrine on infallibility and inerrancy. I have made a study of in this area and I have failed to find any such doctrine.

Did you "study" their EXACT words, or come into your study with a bias? Seems like the latter because their EXACT WORDS disprove your conclusion.

Why. It was not an issue so there was no 'battle' with what didn't exist.

There are none because it was not an issue - which is what at said in the first place. The whole doctrine on inerrancy and infallibility come much later and for different reasons.

Huh? There are quotes from the Fathers that assume Biblical inerrancy in their arguments. If there was any doubt from ANYONE, either orthodox or heretic, that Scripture was inerrant, don't you think they would have brought it up in their arguments?

My agenda is hopefully to point you in the right direction.

Then just post the quotes from the Fathers that prove your point. You have made the claim that the Fathers didn't believe in Scriptural inerrancy. Because you have "studied" something may be all the proof you, personally need, but we mere humans need a little more. Can you provide it?

The arguments which were present at the various councils were about countering divergent views of what it meant to be a Christian. What is meant to be a Christian was the what important and it was this matter to which the Fathers directed their attention.

That's not the point. The Fathers were ARGUING from Tradition and SCRIPTURE and they assumed inerrancy in their arguments. Both sides appealed to Scripture.

One of the biggest was against Marcion who maintained a 'literal' interpretation of the biblical texts and in doing so claimed that Jesus could not have had anything to do with the the God of the Jews.

Marcion REJECTED the entire OT. How is rejecting interpreting?

Again we can thank Marcion for the the canon. Marcion chose certain texts to support his christology. This forced the orthodox to start thinking about which texts were important and why. Out of this came a collection of texts to which claims could be made for 'authority' - which is what the word 'canon' essential means. It is only to this 'canon' can one turn to develop doctrine. And the canon was not completed until the Council of Trent in 1546.

The canon was settled at the council of Carthage in 397 AD. This is simply fact. I can post many links that back this up. Let me know if you would like to see them. Maybe it will "point you in the right direction".

We are not talking about 'inspiration' we are talking about 'authority'.

The problem was - what was the basis for 'authority' of Christianity - how were the Church Fathers to arrive at any decision if there was no authority to which to turn. Marcion had his own 'canon' - the church had none.

The Church had the entire OT, which Marcion rejected. There are plenty of quotes from the Fathers that mention the AUTHORITY of the magisterium (bishops in union with the pope). I can post those to if you would like. There was an authority, it was the Church, who's teachings Marcion rejected also. Sola-scriptura wasn't taught by ANYONE until the 15th century.

Not really given the theological fog in which early Christianity was wrapped. There were many brands of Christianity - not to be confused with 'denominations'.

What's the difference?

The problem for the Fathers was how to work out the genuine from the the chaff. Unfortunately this aspect of Christian history is not taught so we in the 21st century think that the whole thing fell out of the sky open for all to read. Not so. You might benefit froma read through W.H.C. Frend's The Early Church to get some idea of the history of your faith.

It was not taught, or was it? How could I benefit from reading Prof. Frend's work if this aspect was not taught? I have read other works that speak of the development of the canon and the authority of the Church. Do I have to read Prof. Frend's work only?

You can keep repeating your belief but that does not alter history. But you are welcome to make the journey yourself - I encourage you. But be aware that there was more going on in those early centuries than you can imagine.

Again, I don't have to "imagine" anything, I have the Father's actual words. Any "study" that does not rely heavily upon what they actually said, is specious at best.

 

[wayseer]

What followed that response backed it up, quotes from Fathers that prove they ASSUMED Biblical inerrancy. How does actual proof from the sources themselves equate to ignorance in your mind?

You have selected words to support your own ideas.

As yet you have not demonstrated anything about a doctrine of inerrancy or infallibility. You have taken a few texts were these matters are mentioned but you have made no reference to where any doctrine of inerrancy was even discussed let alone settled. And the reason for that is rather simple - there was no need or even any urgency to discuss these matters - more important issues were at hand - like heresies. I have given you examples. It was a time when the Father were trying to work out exactly what it meant to be a Christian and what was the person of Jesus Christ (christology) exactly.

 

[Grazer]

It was a time when the Father were trying to work out exactly what it meant to be a Christian and what was the person of Jesus Christ (christology) exactly.

A journey I think every Christian takes at some stage. I think some, including me, will always be on that journey and it will only come to an end when God calls me back home

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[dadof10]

You have selected words to support your own ideas.

Of course I have. If you had any words from the Fathers that supported your view, you would use them too. Problem is, you don't.

As yet you have not demonstrated anything about a doctrine of inerrancy or infallibility. You have taken a few texts were these matters are mentioned but you have made no reference to where any doctrine of inerrancy was even discussed let alone settled.

It was never "settled" because there was no disagreement. ALL Christians (orthodox and heretics) recognized that Scripture was inerrant. That's what the quotes say and that's what I've been saying. Inerrancy was simply ASSUMED by all.

And the reason for that is rather simple - there was no need or even any urgency to discuss these matters - more important issues were at hand - like heresies. I have given you examples. It was a time when the Father were trying to work out exactly what it meant to be a Christian and what was the person of Jesus Christ (christology) exactly.

I agree. There was no need to bring the subject up because there was no controversy. Everyone agreed and this view came through in their writings, while they were discussing Christology and all the other disputes. That's the point of my posting the above quotes. Inerrancy was assumed by all the players. There were no disagreements.

 

[By Grace]

Perhaps a more basic question needs to be asked. What do we mean by inerrancy?

Skimming through this thread, I see that you finally asked the right question!

Properly understood, inerrancy refers to the autogtapha. That is the original manuscripts of the Apostles, and the the others who wrote Scripture.

There were extremely stringent rules concerning the way that the ancient scribes copied the Scriptures. (Scholars are able to determine where one scribe began the copying, and another left off. ) Some of the rules were that when two strings were crossed in an X diagonally across the pages, the same letter had to be in the center of the X. If not, the entire sheet was thrown away. There were also counts as to the number of consonants used (vowels were added later). Despite their best efforts, variations did creep in, Those are well known, and well documented. One such variation is the different pronunciation for the Tetragrammaton YHWH (transliterated) word for the name of God that He told Moses, "I am who I am" That was to be pronounced "addonai". But since Moses did not write that, it is a variation, and does not alter one of the verses significantly in the OT.

In the NT, the Scriptures were transcribed orally, so there more variations due to some hearing impaired scribes. (joke). Due to the more "hands in the pot" there are more variations among the various codices and fragments that are existent. They are all listed in the Nestle-Aland New Testament, and they appear on the bottom of pages wherein the variations are found.

Scholars have been able to determine that this noun was changed to that noun in this particular "family " of manuscripts. So in this simple example, they list all the names of the places where the "this" noun was written. Then they list all the places where the "that' noun was written. After that, they rate on an A, B, C, D basis, A being the most likely and best, ergo closest to the original manuscript noun that goes in that place. the name for that is "Critical Apparatus" because it allows the students and later pastors to see what the most reliable word(s) are for that verse. Not every verse has a variation; most in fact do not.

It is somewhat technical, and is covered in seminary with the students all reading from their Greek New Testaments, so it can seem as tedious as it is arcane. HOWEVER, and here is the good news: With that Critical Apparatus, scholars are able to go to that book, and are able to reconstruct 99% or greater of what the autographa says.

Yes, there are verses that we will never know for sure what the authors meant, but that is really not that important. There are two reasons for that:

1) We are able to compare Scripture with Scripture. If one Scripture says it is OK to do A, and two other Scriptures say do not so A, we can see where the stronger emphasis is, and adopt that as correct.

2) There is a doctrine in the translation of the Scripture that says the simplest verse is the most often the correct. Students of logic know it as "Occams Razor". We find that most apparent in the "johannine comma" in John 8 where some verses are either omitted, or placed with a marginal note saying "the latest and most accurate manuscripts do not have these verses. the same thing can be seen in Mark 16 at the end. Kinda rules out snake handling.
​

All the comments are good I read, especially the ones that focus on the view of Jesus in John 17, and His "not one jot or tittle" statement. To me, those make up prime evidence that Jesus Christ was an inerrantist.

For a more complete understanding, I refer the readers to the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy

If I seemed to be pedantic, and boring with this please excuse me; I am an inerrantist, and I take the subject seriously enough to judge any church I attend by that statement.

 

[Vanguard]

Inerrancy literally means without error, or exemption from error. Let's start there...

Is God's message without error (notice I said message and not word)? Absolutely!

Is the Bible error free? Absolutely not.

I can break this down further with reasoning if you like, or will at least explain my position on it.

 

[By Grace]

Is the Bible error free? Absolutely not.

Could be so kind as to point out an error?
BTW do you not realize that you are essentially calling Jesus a liar when he said in His High Priestly Prayer, "Thy Word is truth"?

I can break this down further with reasoning if you like, or will at least explain my position on it.

For a more complete understanding, I refer the reader to the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy

We need to deal with facts, supported by Scripture. The link has both.

 

[Vanguard]

Could be so kind as to point out an error?
BTW do you not realize that you are essentially calling Jesus a liar when he said in His High Priestly Prayer, "Thy Word is truth"? We need to deal with facts...

First let me say that I am a Christian, I do believe in God, I read scripture every day, and I am not trying to start a fight. What I do, I do in the name of exploration of scripture, gaining knowledge and understanding, and often times assuming the role of devil's advocate in order for people to consider an alternate view. It is in that capacity that I continue.

Now, do you want a translation error or are you looking for a contradictory error from God/Jesus? Allow me to give both.

Translation errors are easy and numerous. Just compare the KJV to the NASB and you'll see what I mean (www.biblegateway.com for fast comparisons). In particular check out Isaiah 14:12 and pay attention to which MAJOR word has been omitted.

As for the other...

My source will be the NASB:

Genesis 32:30 - So Jacob named the place [a]Peniel, for he said, “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved.”
John 1:18 - No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Which is it? Has God been seen or not? Contradiction and error.

2 Samuel 6:23 - Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.
2 Samuel 21:8 - So the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, Armoni and Mephibosheth whom she had borne to Saul, and the five sons of [a]Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she had borne to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.

Footnote [a] the name Michal in this verse has been changed to Merab in modern revisions, because scholars discovered the discrepancy and worked to correct the error.

Matthew 1:16 - Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called [a]the Messiah.
[Edit - supposed to be Luke, not Matthew. Type-o, I am human after all.]
Luke 3:23 - When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli [a]

Footnote [a] the name Eli is also written as Heli.

So who exactly was Joseph's father? Was it Eli or Jacob?


The list goes on. To think that a book as large as the Bible is error free, even though it was written by human beings, is pure drivel.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Drivel?

It sounds like to are trying to tear apart Christianity to me.

 

[Grazer]

Drivel?

It sounds like to are trying to tear apart Christianity to me.

I don't think they are. They've highlighted differences in the text. Differences, contrary to what some will say, exist in the bible. The question for me is, what do we do with them? I don't think they're there to be harmonised for our benefit.

Christianity does not stand or fall on the bible being contradictory and error free.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Vanguard]

Drivel?

It sounds like to are trying to tear apart Christianity to me.

I did not write or translate the Bible, I only study it. Those that think it is error free are basing that position on an old doctrine that is unnecessary. Errors exist. Revisions are made. Accept that humans make mistakes and move on.

 

[Vanguard]

Christianity does not stand or fall on the bible being contradictory and error free.

This.