Are there any churches that reject Biblical inerrancy?

[lyrikal]

It’s on point, so there’s no need to start a new topic. Show me which Church Fathers only looked to Scripture and not Sacred Tradition.

 

[pablope]

Try again…

Those passages don’t even remotely speak to an infallible church.

How do you know? Did you decide that for yourself and are you the authority to make such a declaration?

How about your own church-is it infallible or not?

If it is not…then how can you tell when your church is in error or not?

 

[pablope]

Yes, I can show you many Church Father’s who looked only to Scripture as the “infallible” rule of faith for the Church.

So that we don’t continue to stray off topic here feel free to begin a new thread and I’ll join you there.

As in what…quote mining…taking qoute out of context?

 

[pablope]

So how is asking probing questions…somehow triumphalistic? Or is it…you do not have an answer/

No. Inerrant.

How can an interpretation be inerrant?

And how do you know your interpretation is inerrant or not? Who decides-you or someone else?

If you-then are you infallible?

If someone else…is he infallibel and why do you believe that someone else?

 

[pablope]

God’s truth is infallible. I, however, am not. If it can be demonstrated that what I believe is exegetically false, using the apostolic writings, then I will stand corrected. I am open to being corrected by God’s word.

 

[pablope]

Can you show me one Church Father who lived within the first five centuries after Mary’s death that had *even heard *of her alleged assumption? Didn’t think so…

?

A writing on the Assumption…or Dormition of the BVM…written around AD 150 or so…one of the early Christian writings in circulation:

newadvent.org/fathers/0832.htm

So the Church Fathers who considered the canon in the councils of Rome, Carthage, Hippo…heard about this account.

 

[lyrikal]

lyrikal;10235704:

It stands to reason that if the church in Rome is orthodox, then every other church must agree with what the church in Rome teaches, yes? He says the same about the church in Smyrna and Ephesus, too. I don’t see you arguing for Smyrnean primacy.

Smyrna and Ephesus are also infallible churches if they agree with Rome. This is what St. Irenaeus is saying…He makes it pretty clear actually when he says that every Church should agree with Rome.

Now show me where he says that every Church must agree with Smyrna and Ephesus.

No, I don’t believe Scripture teaches infant baptism, and I don’t believe Irenaeus to be arguing for infant baptism there.

To St. Ireneaus, being “born again” means to be baptized which is also how the early Church understood that passage. I’m sorry that you can’t come to grips with reality. I have already shown you how he interprets “Born Again” in another passage. I am showing you what HE believes and not what you think he believes.

I’ll quote the context of the passage…

1. Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. **For He came to save all through means of Himself— all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. **

The Fathers interpreted “Born Again” to refer to baptism.

catholic.com/tracts/born-again-in-baptism << In case you wanted proof.

This is the danger of interpreting the Fathers through your tradition rather than the Tradition of the Church.

I, too, believe infants, children, boys, youths and old men can be born again.

We’re discussing what Irenaeus’s Tradition is with accordance to his time rather than what your tradition is today.

Yes, he does argue for baptismal regeneration.

Do you believe this is Biblical?

He also argues that infants are innocent. I don’t believe infants are innocent, do you?

No.

Your second statement assumes I believe baptism to be a “mere symbol.”

I assumed it sine your religion says “Baptist” and I thought all Baptist believed it was a mere symbol. Silly me to believe that a protestant denomination can be united with regards to a doctrine. My apologies.

Well I may or may not agree with Irenaeus’ comparisons between Mary and Eve, no, you won’t find me running around saying that “Anyone who calls Mary the New Eve is a heretic!”

We’re not discussing what you may or may not agree. We are discussing what Irenaeus meant by Tradition and I am pointing out to you that his idea of Tradition is more than just what is stated in Scripture.

 

[pablope]

Yes, I can show you many Church Father’s who looked only to Scripture as the “infallible” rule of faith for the Church.

So that we don’t continue to stray off topic here feel free to begin a new thread and I’ll join you there.

I have another suggestion instead…why don’t you instead, prove the Scripture as in the infallible rule of faith…where is this stated? Who is with authority to declare it so?

 

[lyrikal]

Because it leads to an authoritative body that cannot be corrected by either Scripture or Tradition, since Scripture or Tradition are whatever the current teaching authority of the church says they are.

You do realize that it was the Church who wrote the New Testament, don’t you? The Church came before the New Testament and before the fullness of revelation was revealed. This Church that has authority wrote Scripture inspired by God. This Church is lead by the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture and Tradition. The part you seem to be missing is…“LEAD BY THE HOLY SPIRIT”. Now tell me what is wrong with believing that the Holy Spirit can lead an authoritative Church to ALL truth without any blemish of error.

You’d have to define the extent of this infallibility of the authoritative church. Was the church in Galatia and Corinth infallible?

Let me quote the Catechism which should also answer your question with regards to Galatia and Corinth…

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

Thank you for asking.

What I mean about infallibility is: Teaching doctrines and proclaiming them as true doctrines that are passed down by the Apostles without error.

God’s truth is infallible.

Agreed. He can also lead His Church to infallibility if He wanted. The question is…Does He? I mean, why wouldn’t He?

I, however, am not.

Then how do you know that the Scriptures are inspired by God and how do you know which books belong in the Bible?

If it can be demonstrated that what I believe is exegetically false, using the apostolic writings, then I will stand corrected.

What qualifies as apostolic writings to you? I’m sincerely asking to get a better understanding on what you mean.

I am open to being corrected by God’s word.

I honor your humbleness and your acknowledgment that you are willing to be corrected.

My question is…How do you know what God’s Word is? How do you know you are interpreting God’s word correctly?

Self-professed infallible churches are not.

Self-professed is a huge assumption since I have shown Scripture showing that Christ established an infallible Church with authority. To a Catholic, to say that the Church can err on matters of faith and morals is to say that the Holy Spirit failed to preserve the truth. Our HOPE and TRUST is in the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth and NOT in a pope with a hat. You presume that we are putting our hope and trust in a man but we’re not. We have faith that the Holy Spirit will lead the pope into all truth when it is necessary to define a doctrine.

 

[Porknpie]

It’s on point, so there’s no need to start a new topic. Show me which Church Fathers only looked to Scripture and not Sacred Tradition.

Stew, I know of a bible quote that says to hold fast to both what has been spoken and that which has been written. If the bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God, why is the first part of the sentence ignored? Now that could be a new thread…

I’d line to know the answer of your question too…which ECFs?

 

[lyrikal]

Those passages don’t even remotely speak to an infallible church.

I notice that in your signature, you quote St. Basil and St. Augustine as proponents of Sola Scriptura and that the Church is not infallible. How cute. : )

Here is St. Basil speaking strongly about Scripture AND Tradition:

“Of the dogmas and kergymas preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in manners ecclesiastical.** Indeed, were we to try to reject the unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce kergyma to a mere term.**”
Holy Spirt 27:66

Can’t get anymore straightforward than that.

And what about St. Augustine?

“But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things.”
Augustine,On Christian Doctrine,3,2:2(A.D. 397),in NPNF1,II:557

And…

“But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason,** no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church.**”
Augustine,On the Trinity,4,6:10(A.D. 416),in NPNF1,III:75

If you want to read on St. Augustine and the Papacy, here is something you might find interesting… cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_aug.htm

God bless.

 

[Blacksword]

Presbyters and deacons. I know it doesn’t mention a papacy.

Quite right. And you can’t either, on numerous topics of doctrinal concern.

.

You are wrong here Gaelic, sorry but flat wrong as a matter of historical fact. Every doctrine of the Catholic Church is well attested in the writings of the early fathers as well as archeological sources. Papal authority is none other than the primacy of Peter. You need to read St. Ignatius, his letters alone address this, the Eucharist as having the real presence, and much else of pertinent, common dispute among evangelical protestants in Catholic doctrine. It’s all there within the first and second centuries A.D. The Church has added nothing materially new over time.

 

[Indifferently]

What about the canon of the NT?

Do you think that there is some error in this table of contents? For example, do you believe Revelation should be excluded and, say, the letter of Clement included?

I never said there was any specific error, merely that I thought it fairly likely that bits might have been missing that should be in there, and bits in there that shouldn’t be.

What I’m saying is that it does not terribly matter to me . The Bible is not a Christian Koran. It is compiled of many sources over a great many years and, in many ways, is a wonderful gift from God. I am merely saying that I don’t think it is necessary to affirm the Bibles infallibility, and that some passages therein, and the selection of accounts given, might have included prejudices on the point of the authors.

We cannot possibly know.

 

[PRmerger]

I never said there was any specific error, merely that I thought it fairly likely that bits might have been missing that should be in there, and bits in there that shouldn’t be.

What I’m saying is that it does not terribly matter to me . The Bible is not a Christian Koran. It is compiled of many sources over a great many years and, in many ways, is a wonderful gift from God. I am merely saying that I don’t think it is necessary to affirm the Bibles infallibility, and that some passages therein, and the selection of accounts given, might have included prejudices on the point of the authors.

We cannot possibly know.

Fair enough.

This, of course, prompts the question: how do you know what’s true and what’s not? Perhaps you say that it really doesn’t matter if *any *of it’s true? Is that your position?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yes, I can show you many Church Father’s who looked only to Scripture as the “infallible” rule of faith for the Church.

 

[adf417]

Man cannot live by popcorn alone! You may be there a while…