Where to begin....

[Etcetera]

I hope that this is the appropriate forum for this post. I would like some insights from inerrantists on their belief in inerrancy.

Inerrantists would appear to have a great starting point when approaching any ancient text. The inerrantist already knows, for example, that there are 66 particular books (and knows exactly which books those are) which contain no errors, whether historical, scientific, or theological. He or she already knows that it is possible, perhaps even likely, that any other given book will have errors in it; indeed, where such books contradict the 66, they do err, plain and simple.

There are scholars in various fields of ancient history who may put much stock in a certain ancient author (Thucydides, Polybius, and Tacitus come to mind), but I do not know of any who start their investigation with the premise that said historian is inerrant. The staunchest defender of Thucydides will still see that writer's weaknesses, blind spots, and mistakes, and will in fact strive to see why he committed such a mistake.

The claims of a particular book may come into play, for ancient historians rarely claim inerrancy for themselves. But, then, most if not all of the books of the Bible do not explicitly claim such for themselves.

So my question is this: How does one start at ground zero and come to think of the Bible as (A) limited to those particular 66 books and (B) in every way inerrant? Imagine that I am relatively well-read, but have never heard inerrancy claimed for this book that we call the Bible, and am wondering whence you, the inerrantist, might have come up with such a notion. You may begin your other investigations with the premise that the Bible is inerrant, but that kind of premise is not self-evident by any stretch, so how did you arrive at it in the first place? What made you so certain of inerrancy that it could then be presumed in other avenues?

I can see two primary routes (though if there are others fear not to mention them as well) that one could take.

1. One can use rational proofs to deduce that the Bible is both limited to certain books and, at the same time, inerrant.

2. One can take inerrancy as an article of faith.

If someone opts for the first route, then I would like to know what those proofs are. What are the mutually agreeable premises whose irresistable conclusion is that these 66 books (and especially these out of all of ancient literature, Christian or secular) are inerrant?

If someone opts for the second route, then I would like to know the origin of the article of faith. Whither does one turn to find this belief, the inerrancy of these 66 books, stated as a proposition to be taken on faith, and what is at stake? If Jesus himself labels certain books as inerrant, that is one thing. If it is Didymus the Blind who is asking this faith of us, that may be quite another.

On that first route, if the answer is that these 66 books are the word of God himself, very well, but then that just throws the proof back a step or two: Now one has to show why it is precisely these books that are indeed the word of God, and why other options (that they express the word of God, or contain it, or are inspired but not inerrant, for instance) are not viable.

Thanks in advance.

Etcetera.

[spl_cadet]

You've just exposed one of the gaping holes of Protestantism

However, if you the authority of the Body of Christ stating that there are "x books in the canon and they are inerrant" things are rather different.

[EdJones]

That's it. Its the only way to please God.

[spl_cadet]

EdJones:

That's it. Its the only way to please God.

Large sums of money in unmarked briefcases also please Him.














Wait, I'm thinking of the Godfather, not God the Father!

[Etcetera]

Ed Jones:

Greetings in the name.

You wrote that faith is the key to accepting inerrancy. If you scan my post, I did identify faith as one of two basic routes that one could take, but then asked a further question. In what or in whom am I putting faith if I decide to embrace inerrancy?

If I told you that I believe in flying purple people-eaters, and you asked me why, I could answer: "Because faith is the only way to please God." But surely your next question would query why exactly I think that this particular belief is pleasing to God. Surely it matters which things we believe, right? Or is it just that we have faith, regardless of what that faith is actually in?

So the question stands: Why is this particular belief, id est faith in inerrancy, pleasing to God, and how do we know? How do we know that God himself is asking this belief of us?

In him.

Etcetera.

[Etcetera]

SPL Cadet:

Greetings in his grace.

I am interested in your answer so far. I am not a Catholic, but do know a smattering here and there about the Catholic church.

So I would like to pursue this avenue a bit further, if you do not mind.

I appreciate that quote from Irenaeus in your signature line. It serves to remind us that the church fathers were, in fact, Catholic, whatever that may mean for us in this age of Christian fragmentation.

[Quote provided in case SPL Cadet ever changes his signature line: "But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition." --St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.2.]

My question had to do with the 66 books of the canon, and with inerrancy. My question for you now is this: Does the Catholic church officially limit itself to those 66 books, and does it officially espouse inerrancy? I ask because I am familiar with the work of a number of Catholic scholars (Meier, Brown, and Fitzmeyer, for instance) who are not inerrantists, at least not under any meaningful definition of that term. And because I seem to recall that Catholic Bibles are the most likely to contain the Apocrypha, which would extend the list of authoritative books beyond the 66 of which I spoke. Or would inerrancy not extend to "deuterocanonical" works, even if they share the same pages as the others?

In him.

Etcetera.

[EdJones]

Today @ 04:00 AM
spl_cadet:



Large sums of money in unmarked briefcases also please Him.



Wait, I'm thinking of the Godfather, not God the Father!

Yea, I know who you thinking of, the pope, he'll always take your money.


-----------------------------
Etcetera, sorry I never take the time or bother with reading anyones posts, not just yours. Most are usually too long and endless Godless dribble.

[Etcetera]

Etcetera, sorry I never take the time or bother with reading anyone's posts, not just yours. Most are usually too long and endless Godless dribble.

????

[bigsplit]

I think the reason people see a particular "book" as inerrant is because the were raised to believe such. They are taught that in order to be a "christian" they have to have faith that those 66 books are inerrant. Likewise, a muslim would believe the Quoran is inerrant. If your question is designed to spawn debate on misguided faith of inerrancy, then you will be barking up a dead tree. Those who believe in inerrancy have chosen to have faith that such is true. Anytime one has based their faith on such a premise most likely they would loss all faith without such a premise. An interesting question to ask one who believes in inerrancy would be if those 66 books where shown without repute to have some errancy would they still have faith in God.

[spl_cadet]

My question had to do with the 66 books of the canon, and with inerrancy. My question for you now is this: Does the Catholic church officially limit itself to those 66 books, and does it officially espouse inerrancy?

We have 72 books, plus parts of Esther and Daniel that the Protestants do not.

The Catholic Church does espouse inerrancy.

Dei Verbum 3:11
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

I ask because I am familiar with the work of a number of Catholic scholars (Meier, Brown, and Fitzmeyer, for instance) who are not inerrantists, at least not under any meaningful definition of that term.

They are heretics in that regard.

And because I seem to recall that Catholic Bibles are the most likely to contain the Apocrypha, which would extend the list of authoritative books beyond the 66 of which I spoke. Or would inerrancy not extend to "deuterocanonical" works, even if they share the same pages as the others?

Inerrancy applies to all Scripture.


And Ed is a KJV-onlyist troll.

[One Bad Pig]

Yesterday @ 09:12 PM post located here
Etcetera:

I hope that this is the appropriate forum for this post. I would like some insights from inerrantists on their belief in inerrancy.

Inerrantists would appear to have a great starting point when approaching any ancient text. The inerrantist already knows, for example, that there are 66 particular books (and knows exactly which books those are) which contain no errors, whether historical, scientific, or theological. He or she already knows that it is possible, perhaps even likely, that any other given book will have errors in it; indeed, where such books contradict the 66, they do err, plain and simple.

This is true. The crux of the matter, then, is why these 66 books in particular are held to be inerrant. I (and many others here) subscribe to the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy. This statement holds that the 66 books were inerrant as originally written (See Article X), and acknowledges that there have been transcription errors (See part E of the Exposition section), but no transcription errors have been severe enough to corrupt doctrine.

So my question is this: How does one start at ground zero and come to think of the Bible as (A) limited to those particular 66 books and (B) in every way inerrant? Imagine that I am relatively well-read, but have never heard inerrancy claimed for this book that we call the Bible, and am wondering whence you, the inerrantist, might have come up with such a notion. You may begin your other investigations with the premise that the Bible is inerrant, but that kind of premise is not self-evident by any stretch, so how did you arrive at it in the first place? What made you so certain of inerrancy that it could then be presumed in other avenues?

I can see two primary routes (though if there are others fear not to mention them as well) that one could take.

I'm going to deal with these in reverse order.

2. One can take inerrancy as an article of faith.

Most Christians who believe that the Bible is inerrant take this route. It's what they've been taught, and why would anyone teach them something that's false? It's not very intellectually satisfying, however, and is rather naive.

1. One can use rational proofs to deduce that the Bible is both limited to certain books and, at the same time, inerrant

If someone opts for the first route, then I would like to know what those proofs are. What are the mutually agreeable premises whose irresistable conclusion is that these 66 books (and especially these out of all of ancient literature, Christian or secular) are inerrant?.

Religious literature is far more likely to have claims of inerrancy associated with it, because its source is held to be divine/perfect. Any polytheistic literature is unlikely to be inerrant, because some trickster god/goddess is always around to blame mistakes on. The Koran makes claims that are not true (Mohammed is not found in the Bible), and says false things about Christianity (it confuses Mary and the Holy Spirit, and claims that Jesus did not die on the cross). It was also written six centuries after the New Testament was completed. Because it was written after the NT and contradicts it, it cannot be accepted by Christians as false. Once a set of books is considered inerrant, nothing that contradicts them can be considered inerrant.

I have found several pertinent articles online that could help to answer your question:

The first site only deals with the NT canon, and is IMHO poorly laid out. However, the Tables in particular help to illustrate what the early Christians thought of the books now included in the canon vs. those considered apocryphal.

The second site is an exhaustive, but as of yet incomplete, study on the formation of the canon.

JP Holding, a literature specialist, has an article on the OT canon and the NT canon.

Hope this helps!

OBP

[Etcetera]

BigSplit:

Greetings.

I think the reason people see a particular "book" as inerrant is because the were raised to believe such. They are taught that in order to be a "christian" they have to have faith that those 66 books are inerrant. Likewise, a muslim would believe the Quoran is inerrant.

I suspect that you are correct on how most people come to a belief in inerrancy. If, however, that is the end of the issue, then there is literally no actual reason to believe a book inerrant. If the origin of the creed, for me, is my parents, or my grandparents, or the Sunday School class I attended when I was seven, then the Bible is no more or less important or likely to be actually inerrant than my political party of choice, which I may also have inherited from my background.

Furthermore, if such is the case, then entire theological systems, denominations, seminaries, and controversies have been founded upon a notion that was thought up for no particular reason, or at least for no reason better than that someone's grandfather had a daydream.

I think that inerrancy is a little bit dearer to some than a mere grandfather clause.

If your question is designed to spawn debate on misguided faith of inerrancy....

Discussion, hopefully, not debate.

Those who believe in inerrancy have chosen to have faith that such is true. Anytime one has based their faith on such a premise most likely they would loss all faith without such a premise.

My original post holds out the question to any who are in that position: Whence then the very idea for faith in inerrancy? Recall my example of the flying purple people-eater. If I were to found an entire denomination or seminary on the belief in flying purple people-eaters, and invite others to join my belief-system, it just might occur to someone on the outside to ask why he or she is supposed to be believing in flying purple people-eaters. That is my question of the inerrantist. Why should I believe in inerrancy? If it is because of rational arguments, show me the arguments. If it is because of faith, tell me who is requiring this faith of me.

An interesting question to ask one who believes in inerrancy would be if those 66 books where shown without repute to have some errancy would they still have faith in God.

That very question may indeed arise.

Thanks for you input.

Etcetera.

[Etcetera]

SPL Cadet:

All right, you claim that...:

The Catholic Church does espouse inerrancy.

...and you cite as evidence (emphasis mine):

Dei Verbum 3:11: Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

That, my friend, is not the inerrancy of which I speak. That is infallibility.

Before I explain what I mean, let me assure you that I do not expect you or anyone else to have already been intimately familiar with this distinction, and I really ought to have mentioned it in my first post.

I was reared by and with folks who were (and are) very picky about inerrancy and infallibility. Inerrancy is defined as complete and utter lack of error in all biblical matters, whether they be theological, soteriological, historical, archaeological, scientific, or what have you. Infallibility is defined as the lack of error in doctrinal, theological, and especially soteriological matters, but not necessarily scientific or historical or the like.

The quote that you provided very pointedly limits, as it were, the scope of inerrancy to "that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation," truths, in other words, of a soteriological nature. I can easily see Brown, Meier, and Fitzmeyer agreeing with every word of that quote. Yet they do not believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

If you have another quote that broadens the scope a bit, then I am all ears. I am not trying to prejudice the discussion or claim, without full knowledge of the matter, that the Catholic church espouses infallibility (as defined for me by churches in my background) over and against inerrancy. Simply pointing out the difference between the two, so far as I am concerned, at any rate.

Cheers.

Etcetera.

[spl_cadet]

Common mistake. Dei Verbum wasn't written too well.

since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit
Cross-reference that with Hebrew 6:18

Also:
PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS
21. 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.

[Etcetera]

One Bad Pig:

Greetings.

(Interesting nickname, by the way.)

Thank you for the links. Let me discuss them briefly in reverse order.

I have already read J. P. Holding's work on the canon, though when you linked to those pages I used the opportunity to refresh my memory of what he wrote. I would say that I agree with more than fifty percent of what Holding writes on the development of the canon (which is pretty good for me!).

It must be noted, however, that Holding's articles trace the historical development of the canon, but do not really give logical reasons for accepting every wrinkle in the story (well, he does at one point, but I happen to disagree with his reasoning). I am not at all saying that he should have done so. He set out to cover a certain patch of ground, and he covered it. Most of his articles seem to have only hardened skeptics in mind (Jesus-mythers, canonical-conspiracy theorists, and such), not dissenting Christians, such as myself.

As an analogy, you could easily read a history of the development of the Whig party in early America, and agree with most of what was written, without ever once regarding yourself as a Whig. Likewise, it is quite possible to mostly agree with Holding's tracing of the canonical trends without agreeing with every trend itself. To say that Josephus accepted 22 books of scripture does not mean that I have to accept those same 22 books.

The spot at which Holding does give a reason for accepting certain books over others is his assessment of literary quality. Literary quality... just about as subjective a criterion as could be devised. It is easy enough to simply disagree with a given assessment. I happen to regard certain apocryphal books as of better literary quality than certain canonical books. Am I right? Am I wrong? With a subjective topic such as this it is every man for himself.

On to the next-to-last site, Glenn Miller's ThinkTank. Again, I am quite familiar with this site. Miller can really frustrate me. So often he will exhaustively discuss every aspect of a biblical topic... only to hang his argument on a non-sequitur or leap in logic.

I have, in fact, read some, perhaps most, of Miller's work on the canon before, but quite some time ago, and, given that I am the one inquiring and you were kind enough to provide a link, I will go through it again in the next couple of days and get back to you if something stands out. Fair?

The next site up is the N. T. Canon site. Once more, I am familiar with it. I do think that many of the alleged citations of N. T. books in the various fathers do not have to be citations at all...:

From Ignatius' epistle to the Magnesians, 5.1: Yes, everything is coming to and end, and we stand before this choice, death or life, and everyone will go to his own place [citing Acts?].

...but it is nice to have the resource nonetheless. Again, however, to trace the development of the canon does not necessarily entail accepting the end result.

Finally, your first link was to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. I had heard of this statement, but had never laid eyes on it till you provided the link, so thank you.

I have read the statement through exactly once so far, and what struck me the most as I read through it was how little of it was actually grounded on anything. Just a brief summary, a list of affirmations (and corresponding negations), and a doctrinal exposition, not even of the Bible itself (only two verses are explicitly quoted, and of those only one for actual doctrinal content), but rather of other doctrinal expositions.

The closest thing to a reason for accepting inerrancy given in the statement appears to be:

From article XIX: We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.

If this is a reason for embracing inerrancy, the reasoning is that inerrancy is true because of where rejecting it might lead. If this is not a reason, then I cannot find a reason in the entire statement.

So far, then, the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy invites me to accept inerrancy, but offers no reason to accept the invitation beyond the bare fact that a convocation of very smart people officially accepted it at the Chicago Hyatt Regency in 1978.

One last point. You wrote:

Because [the Koran] was written after the NT and contradicts it, it cannot be accepted by Christians as false. Once a set of books is considered inerrant, nothing that contradicts them can be considered inerrant.

I can agree with that. But the question, of course, is how one arrives at the first set of inerrant scriptures.

Again, thanks for the links and the discussion.

Etcetera.