Zenn,
I apologize for the delay. But, alas, here is my response:
Technically, the text states:
When he had said this, he breathed (G1720) on them; and he said to them: Receive (G2983) ye the Holy Ghost. (Joh 20:22 DRB)
It does not read, "he breathed on them and they received the Holy Ghost." Granted, such is implied, but not directly stated that this was the actual event where the Holy Ghost was received.
In addition, instructions for such receiving of the Holy Ghost are given in Acts chapter 1.
But you shall receive (G2983) the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth.(Act 1:8 DRB)
Followed by a description of the event.
And they were all filled (G4130) with the Holy Ghost: and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak.(Act 2:4 DRB)
Shall I presume at this point you place the account of John after the ascension as described in Acts? Yet Act 1:11 rather seems to place a definitive end on any further Jesus sightings. And it's curious that the author would exclude the account in John, presenting instead, a differing account that the 'receiving' (yes I know he used the word "filled") took place without Jesus being there - or at best Didn't Even Give an Account of the Receiving.
I was paraphrasing. But I would readily state that I agree with the accounts rendered in the Gospel and Acts.
jsan, I don't see anything in your post that answers the question I asked:
Where in the New Testament is it stated that the Apostles are inerrant when writing things down?
I have no problem with accepting this position, but ... Where in the New Testament (outside of the Apocalypse of John - cf. Rev. 1:11, Rev. 1:19) is it stated that any Apostle was guided by the Holy Spirit to write things down? And technically, the author of the Apocalypse says he was commanded by Jesus, not the Holy Spirit.
I concede that nowhere in the New Testament is it stated that the Apostles are inerrant, nor does the word inerrant even appear, to my knowledge.
I would say, that through belief in Jesus, we would trust in what He declared. Therefore, when declarations are made, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (which could include writing), that the declarations are free from error.
Then one should "further extrapolate" this into their actions. But you yourself realize this isn't true. If one cannot extrapolate into their actions, then how can one justify an extrapolation into their writings? So... I hear... NO, without some illogical extrapolation, what the apostles write isn't inerrant.
If I were to write down "I woke up today. You woke up today," I would have been inerrant in my writing. After all, both pieces of information are true, therefore, "inerrant."
So, accurate and precise record of facts would surely be considered "inerrant." Now, if one trusts that Jesus spoke Truth and that the Holy Spirit is infallible/inerrant, then we should logically infer that any declaration, be it oral or transcribed, while guided by Jesus/Holy Spirit, is free from error.
Essentially, it is a long line of trusting in Truth, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and lastly the Apostles. If one believes that each of these sources are speaking accurate and precise truths/facts, then the term "inerrant" can be applied.
Yes, unless the claim was bogus, or there actually wasn't a claim of writing "under the guidance of the Holy Spirit," or such guidance would be limited to the passages covered by such claims ... and this would be in essence, the same thing as what is claimed for the Pope today. But we're back to the question...
I would agree. (You seem to misunderstand the claim for papal infallibility, but that is another topic and unrelated)
Where in the NT is any passage specifically claimed to be written "under the guidance of the Holy Spirit"? Just because a book got listed and published in the NT? I'm sure you wouldn't deny that pseudepigrapha exists. Just because some author slapped the name "Paul" on the writing doesn't mean it was really written by Paul, and we need look no further than 3rd Corinthians as the perfect example of this.
Here, we begin to rely on Apostolic authority and succession. If one trust the Apostles, then one can trust that which they declared.
The writings of several NT books contain therein quotes about declarations of inspiration, by God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. Works of Peter and Paul both reference the Spirit and its relation to Scripture (such as 2 Timothy, 1 Corinthians, Hebrews which in turn references the Gospels, and especially 1 Peter). At this point, we would have to discuss internal and external evidence that points to various authorship of NT works, which would point back to the Apostles and the truth in their authority/succession. This is not a circular argument, rather, one that begins with trust, uses evidence and logic to progress, and in the end, relies on the conclusions made. If any piece of that falters, then the entire structure collapses, including the initial trust.
I think you are basing your views on the position "if it's in the New Testament it must have been authored by the Holy Spirit" and therefore by extrapolation (i.e. by definition) must be inerrant. And there is a further presupposition that your Bishops selected the right books. Hence, infallibility is not based upon "it was authored by the Holy Spirit" or that the book says "it was authored by the Holy Spirit" but upon, "My Bishops say it was authored by the Holy Spirit."
My view is based on trust in Jesus, which must then continue down the line to the declaration of the Scriptures.
And I agree that I must trust the selection made by various Bishops; as must all who even read the Scriptures (this is the paradox within the sola scriptura doctrine, and any doctrine which relies on anything other than Church Authority). I am not saying that Church Authority overrules Scripture, for that is not true. Both must possess authority, and should support and sustain each other. They are independent, yet co-exist.
So, if one does not believe in the divine inspiration of those who selected the Scriptures (which is Church Authority, attained by Apostolic Succession), then how can one rely
at all on the Scriptures? After all, it was the Church that declared them "Inspired" and even "Inerrant." So, any argument against this authority, must logically rely on sources outside of Scripture, as the very nature of Scripture (Inspiration and Inerrant) are doctrines first declared by the Church, which were accepted by all.
The simple contradiction in the synoptics with Jairus' daughter would make your whole argument fold. An error exists, hence the text cannot be inerrant.
What contradiction?
Thank you for the following quotations. I appreciate it.
Sure.
The above two declarations are different and not harmonious. By your earlier assertion that a declaration of any apostle must be inerrant, something's wrong here. One of these two declarations is Not inerrant. In essence, though, James won, and Peter lost. In addition, while the written notice sent out by this convocation said that such was approved by the Holy Ghost (Act 15:28), there is nothing in the account that actually indicates this happened, unlike in Act 13:2.
And as they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. (Act 13:2 DRB)
How is there disagreement between Peter and James? I may be just overlooking it, but I see Peter speaking, then James reiterating that which Peter spoke.
Thank you for the reply, and your patience waiting for my own.
