Catholic Teaching on the Inerrancy of Scripture - Bruce Sullivan - Deep in History
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 тра 2018
- In a talk from the 2010 Deep in History Conference, former Church of Christ pastor Bruce Sullivan (now a Catholic layman) tackles the question of Biblical inerrancy. Bruce looks at what the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Second Vatican Council say about the role of Scripture in the life of a believer, and addresses modern doubts as to whether the Bible can be trusted beyond its ability to teach in the areas of faith and morals. For those curious about what the Catholic Church teaches regarding the authority of the Scriptures, this is a highly informative watch!
![Lp. Последняя Реальность #107 РОДНОЙ ДОМ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IK3QKzKUlHM/mqdefault.jpg)
Too good brother in Christ I enjoy it to listening to your testimony keep the faith to the end 🙏 Amen ♥️
39:53 thru 44:11
Discussion of the Original Scripture as compared to a translation.
44:32, 45:14, 45:32, 45:38 thru 45:50
46:00 thru 47:16 discussion of modernism.
48:28 thru 49:38 discussion of Church authority, continued proposition why the Bible is inherent.
Blessed Be the Eternal Word Of GOD
Thank you sir for this very informative teaching. God bless you.
This videos are other level! Thanks
I can only say “God bless you Bruce Suillivan”
Glad to see Mr. Sullivan defending the best part within "Campbellism," its emphasis on the greatness and centrality of Scripture, in the fullness of faith. This doesn't deal with every hard question (each of those merits an investigation in itself) about the contents of the Bible, but it makes the Church's traditional position clear.
Congratulations, I saw that you are now a Catholic Deacon. Wonderful!
Excellent!!!
Wonderful teaching!
If the inerrant originals no longer exist, why do we continue to say that the Scriptures are inerrant?
This topic has always had me confused. Because I'd always heard that only the originals were "inerrant". But not the copies. As I listened to Mr. Sullivan, I was getting more and more excited because I want to believe that the Catholic Church Teaches that the Scriptures are protected from error, somewhat as the Church herself is guided by the Holy Spirit and protected from error in Doctrine.
But, at 30:06, Mr. Sullivan went and used the word "originals". And that threw me for a loop again. If only the originals are without error. And we no longer have them. As I understand, they no longer exist because they were written on perishable materials. Therefore, if this is true, isn't it more truthful to say that "the Scriptures used to be inerrant."
As for me, I'm Catholic. And I believe that the Catholic Church is infallible. Therefore, it makes no difference to me whether the Scriptures themselves are without error, because I believe that the Catholic Church, guided by Christ and the Holy Spirit, can harmonize the various, apparently thousands, of scraps and fragments of manuscripts and pull out a version of Scripture that Teaches the truths that God wants us to know in order to be saved. Because, these are the same Truths that Jesus Christ commanded the Church to Teach. So, my question remains:
If the inerrant originals no longer exist, why do we continue to say that the Scriptures are inerrant?
Hi, De Maria!
As you noted only the originals were inerrant and not the copies. But as we'll see this shouldn't bother us much. For example suppose a book written today happens to be accidentaly free from all factual errors, not because it is inspired but just out of luck. Then the original book would be error-free, but it is possible that upon publishing, some editions would contain some typos or some copies of the book would even miss a page or two. We still would have no problem determining the original text the author wrote. Similarly copies of the scriptures aren't guaranteed to be inerrant just by being copies, but this in practice doesn't mean much more than that it is possible for a monk to miscopy something small and another to miscopy something other small thing, but just as we can imagine someone setting their clock to the wrong time, we don't expect that at some point everyone set their clock to the exact same wrong time.
So the originals are inerrant by virtue of them being inspired and copies are inerrant inasmuch as they are faithful copies and not by their very nature.
Just by the sheer number of copies and the care taken ensures that the difference between what we have and the originals is insignificant, and that's only if we wouldn't even consider the Church to be guided by the Holy Spirit. The New Testament could be virtually fully reconstructed just from Church Fathers quotations from it alone for example.
The variations to which the original is confined is incredibly narrow and strict. So much so that to say that the copies we have now aren't inerrant is meaningless nitpicking.
Hope this helps,
God bless.
What human arrogance to think that any of our institutions (and the church is the people who constitute it) is or can be infallible!
This young man is not a theological scholar. He's a former Church of Christ minister, a recent convert from Protesantism, and is evidently still strongly influenced by the fundamentalism of American evangelicals, by what may fairly be termed the idolatry of the text. I see no reason to take his views as even close to as authoritative as those of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC).
If you first assume it's true and convince yourself whatever it says overrules all other information showing it to be wrong, you'll find it to be true! Shocking!
This statement basically said nothing at all.
That means my single sentence summarised this nearly hour-long talk to a tee. Thanks!
The video is about clarifying catholic teaching. Is not and is not meant to be a proof of said teaching. To say that the video is bad apologetics material makes as much sense as saying your comment is bad poetry. Yeah, so, who cares?
Yes, and "our dogma is true and makes sense if you first assume our dogma is true and makes sense" would've been an adequate summary that saved everyone 54 minutes.
@@noneofyourbusiness7055 Dude, stop, that's horrible poetry. My ear is hurting from reading it out in my head, it doesn't even rhyme, and the rythm, horrible!
Exactly how inspired is inspired? Are we to believe that God inspired each and every word of the Bible to the point of becoming a writer? In that case, the Bible would be vulnerable to the same criticisms as the Qu'ran. Look, what makes the Qu'ran so unworthy of belief are not the morally repugnant passages, nor the self-serving passages, nor the erroneous passage, of which there are many. But the abysmal writing style. If God were to become a writer, he'd do a far better job that the Qu'ran. Now, what about the Bible? Yes, there are many beautiful passages. But as a whole it is not so beautifully written that I would be able to believe that God wrote each word. Did he inspire the underlying message of the Bible? Absolutely. But at the end of the day, the words were set down with human faults and failings, shortcomings, and limited human perception. This is what puts the Bible ahead of the Qu'ran. The Qu'ran has the seeds of its own destruction sown right in. Not so for the Bible I'd hope.
God only preserve the writers from errors. There is no wrong information contained in the Bible. This does not mean that the style of the writers isn't present or that the information might be presented in allegorical ways...
@@PedroAntonioLea-PlazaPuig "God only preserve the writers from errors. There is no wrong information contained in the Bible."
Nonsense! A single error disproves this claim. And there are several errors found in those books.
@@petercarlson811 Give some examples
@@PedroAntonioLea-PlazaPuig Genesis talks about a firmament that does not exist. And it also talks about a worldwide flood that never happened. Elsewhere is claimed that stars will fall down on earth. Not possible. There you have three examples.
The Bible is a Book of books. Each contain different genres of books which promote truth and, hence, Truth.
There are many moments of history, which are confirmed and boldly declared.
There are many things of the Bible that can be measured and quantified, literally being held by archeologists and archivists.
As for books such as Genesis, the Creation story can be applied poetically and, in some instances, can be measured tangibly.
Inerrancy of Scripture unless it conflicts with science you mean.
As in the discrepancy of Adam being formed from the slime of the earth and God breathed life "a soul" into him. This doesn't fit in with science so the Council of Trent and the Baltimore Catechism #3 question 324 is not relevant because "science' says that Adam was an ape prior to becoming a man at least this is what theistic evolution states. (maybe believing in the Bible is Optional Choice?)
Theistic Evolutionists always, and yes always quote Humani Generis paragraph# 36 BUT no one states that Pope Pius XII calls this way of thinking erroneous a number of times and warns in paragraph # 28. These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science. To them, We are compelled with grief to repeat once again truths already well known, and to point out with solicitude clear errors and dangers of error.
And this would make Jesus "human nature" that of a beast.
Then in paragraph #35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.
Not only would it make Our Lord's human nature from a beast, if the New Testament mirrors the Old this would make Our Lady a mirror image of a beast....It would also make Our Heavenly Mother the Immaculate Bride of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity the Mother of God a liar at Lourdes when she said "I AM the Immaculate conception" because she knew that Darwin's theory of evolution was going to be brought out exactly one year to the day which would undermind this Dogmatic Truth.
Please read the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creaton's website for further truths from the Church Doctors and Fathers.
This is how you read myths? Literally?! As historical reports?! 😅
A book of fiction free from error? Quess it depends how much your into fantasy.
Another glorious example of why I have left the church.
Quotes from my strongly Catholic ancestors: “You can’t believe everything that’s in there.” “There was no manna... the Red Sea didn’t part.” “Only a priest can interpret the Bible.”I go to church just in case it’s true.”
I was saved in 1977 in The Jesus Movement.
It's hard to believe that your ancestors were even Catholic, never mind "...strongly..."
@@alhilford2345 Oh ye of little faith!
Does he really know what he is talking about.....maybe he should be the next pope!