Are there any churches that reject Biblical inerrancy?

[Arizona_Samson]

Again, I don’t believe in Papal infallibility or in Church infallibility.…which, being a Catholic, has created a lot of problems for myself, especially on these forums.

Don’t feel bad, the early church didn’t either.

 

[katholikos12]

Don’t feel bad, the early church didn’t either.

You clearly have a misunderstanding of what the Church means by infallibility.

It is actually very rare for the Pope or Church to make an infallible statement.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

This is a Protestant paradigm and the CC does not take verses and give “infallible interpretations.”

Rather, Scripture is to be interpreted in light of the entirety of God’s revelation, that is, through the lens of Sacred Tradition.

As such, we understand that Matthew 16 is instituting apostolic primacy in Blessed Peter.

Except that the lens of “sacred tradition” for the Orthodox is different than the lens of Rome. Do how do you as a fallible individual determine which lens is right?

 

[PRmerger]

Except that the lens of “sacred tradition” for the Orthodox is different than the lens of Rome.

Perhaps you could give some examples of this difference? I can’t think of any, save papal supremacy.

Do how do you as a fallible individual determine which lens is right?

The same way that you do.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Answers to 2-4: Because we interpret the Scriptures through the lens of Tradition, which gave us these Scriptures.

Just like you accept Tradition each and every time you quote, say, 3 John, as being inspired.

You don’t have to trust what I say. You have already trusted what the Catholic Church says, at least when it comes to defining what’s inspired and what’s not.

You trust that the Church got it right in keeping Revelation in the canon, and excluding the Didache.

You have no other reason to believe that Revelation is inspired…

except that the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, told you it was.

So when you study history to determine that Rome is the purveyor of tradition, yiur examination is infallible? Your private interpretation of scripture, history and tradition is infallible?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That describes the primary quality of sacred scripture, but not of all scripture. Scripture is simply writing. But, where is the definition of sacred scripture? It’s not in the bible. As well, just where did the sacred table of contents come from?

Hard to say not all when the verse includes all… lol.

But more to the point: What does Paul understood as all scripture in his day and at the time of his writing?

A: The Septuagint.

Obviously, we have no evidence of Paul having been given revelation as to what the New Testament would be (And not an index he would be so kind to include, he probably relied on the Church for that ). As such, reasonably, Paul was not referring to the New Testament as we know it.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

So when you study history to determine that Rome is the purveyor of tradition, yiur examination is infallible? Your private interpretation of scripture, history and tradition is infallible?

No. But the millions of witnesses and defenders of the Faith from the time of Jesus and the Apostles does.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Perhaps you could give some examples of this difference? I can’t think of any, save papal supremacy.

The same way that you do.

Some examples of the differences…ok. Name a doctrine that has been promulgated by Rome since the schism that is accepted as de fide dogma by the EO? Papal supremacy, purgatory, the immaculate conception?

 

[Arizona_Samson]

This is a Protestant paradigm and the CC does not take verses and give “infallible interpretations.”

Quite the contrary, this is a quandry for the CC since it claims to be the sole “infallible interpreter” of Holy Writ.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

No. But the millions of witnesses and defenders of the Faith from the time of Jesus and the Apostles does.

Unless you’re Eastern, in which case those millions of witneeses testify to the EO lens of sacred tradition

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Unless you’re Eastern, in which case those millions of witneeses testify to the EO lens of sacred tradition

Until 1054, they were One. And still we agree on most matters of the Faith

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Until 1054, they were One. And still we agree on most matters of the Faith

That’s reductionism. I agree on “most matters of the faith” with 90% of other Christians, too. Ask the EO sometime if they share the same opinion of the Roman See. Apparentky, Scripture, tradition, and magesterium are insufficient to maintain the unity of 2/3rds of the Christian population.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

So you are not absolutely certain of your salvation? This seems odd in light of your Baptist identification.

I am not infallibly certain of anything. I will gladly allow God to be the only Being who is infallible. Inerrancy is a different matter, however.

 

[PRmerger]

So when you study history to determine that Rome is the purveyor of tradition, yiur examination is infallible? Your private interpretation of scripture, history and tradition is infallible?

Not at all. That’s why I trust in the infallible Church, the Body of Christ.

The same as you.

 

[PRmerger]

Some examples of the differences…ok. Name a doctrine that has been promulgated by Rome since the schism that is accepted as de fide dogma by the EO? Papal supremacy, purgatory, the immaculate conception?

Those are excellent examples. Plus transubstantiation.

The EO believe and proclaim all of these, in essentially the same manner as the CC does.

 

[pablope]

I am not infallibly certain of anything. I will gladly allow God to be the only Being who is infallible. Inerrancy is a different matter, however.

Hmm…so how does God convey His infallibility and infallible truth to the world?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

You can’t.

That’s why there’s tens of thousands of Christian denominations, each claiming that their fallible interpretations of Scripture are the correct ones.

Yes yes…we’ve heardcthis umpteen times. You have at least 3 (and more) church bodies that claim sacred apostolic tradition and dont agree on crucial matters. According to your theory, thats enough to make it an insufficient source.

Why do Catholics become postmodern liberals when Scripture is in view?

You can, and do. Each and every time you proclaim something that is consonant with the teachings of the Apostles, given once for all, as revealed in the Catholic Church, you have infallibly interpreted Jesus’ revelation.

Inerrantly not infallibly.

By giving your full acknowledgement of this Church’s authority…rather than just the partial one you give when you quote from, say, Philemon.

Well, you can ex out the Sedevacantists and the latter groups, for they have divorced themselves from the faith of the Apostles.

If you simply submit to any of the first 3 you’ll have submitted to the same infallible teachings, for there is no difference in dogmas in any of those Churches, save the primacy of Peter. And I’ll let you slide on that one, should you choose to submit to the EO or OO on that.

See above.

Ask them about those differences The Coptic view of the natures of Christ is not a major difference?

 

[pablope]

So when you study history to determine that Rome is the purveyor of tradition, yiur examination is infallible? Your private interpretation of scripture, history and tradition is infallible?

From St. Ireneus…But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition…

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about

 

[PRmerger]

Quite the contrary, this is a quandry for the CC since it claims to be the sole “infallible interpreter” of Holy Writ.

Where is the quandary?

 

[pablope]

Yes yes…

Inerrantly not infallibly.