Are there any churches that reject Biblical inerrancy?

[PRmerger]

“As a result of the unity of both natures-the Divine and the human-inside the
Virgin’s womb, one nature was formed out of both: “The One Nature of God the
Incarnate Logos” as St. Cyril called it.” Pope Shenouda, “The Nature of Christ.”

Do you accept this, PR? Or do you hold to the Chalcedonian Creed?

Sure, as long as it is understood with some nuance.

As a Coptic Christian CAFs member has stated: "Basically, what it boils down to is this: Christ is both divine and human, but is the union of the two natures into one indivisible nature at the incarnation, or are the natures still separate/separatable? We believe that they are made one and indivisible, while the Chalcedonians believe that they are separatable, at least “in theoria”

That sounds pretty Catholic to me.

 

[PRmerger]

Now, where is that tradition any different than what is recorded for us in sacred Scripture?

Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Sure, as long as it is understood with some nuance.

As a Coptic Christian CAFs member has stated: "Basically, what it boils down to is this: Christ is both divine and human, but is the union of the two natures into one indivisible nature at the incarnation, or are the natures still separate/separatable? We believe that they are made one and indivisible, while the Chalcedonians believe that they are separatable, at least “in theoria”

That sounds pretty Catholic to me.

Really? Lol. So Rome doesnt consider monophysitism and monothelitism to be heresies anymore?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione.

“Neither tradition nor Scripture contains the whole apostolic tradition. Scripture is materially (i.e., in content) insufficient, requiring oral tradition as a complement to be true to the whole divine revelation” New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) Vol 14, p. 228

 

[pablope]

You pointed it out…I was not changing the subject.

No where does Irenaeus say that the content of the tradition he is referring to is anything different than what we have in the New Testament.

Where does he say it is totally contained in the NT? Besides, the point is …it is properly preserved by the…" which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches"…not handing out Bibles to everyone and letting you go on your own.

And from Clement, before Ireneus:

Then, Clement of Rome writes this in his Epistle to Corinth…in accordance with the passages above…
earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html

57:1 Do ye, therefore, that have laid the foundation of the sedition submit yourselves to the presbyters, and be chastised to repentance, bending the knees of your hearts.

Clement says submit to the presbyter…not the Bible.

59:1 But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger,

And he says do not be disobedient to the " the things spoken by him through us"…not the Bible.

The oral tradition and the written tradition is thr same and both are clear. No partim partim here

Again, where is it written that the oral has been completely handed down in written form?

And if both are so clear…how come there are those who believe in the RP and those who do not?

How come there are those who deny sprinkling baptism and only say the valid one is immersion?

And if so clear…how can someone come up with the OSAS belief, which did not originate from the Apostles?

And this is just for starters…

 

[PRmerger]

Really? Lol. So Rome doesnt consider monophysitism and monothelitism to be heresies anymore?

That’s why it needs to be understood with nuance.

 

[PRmerger]

“Neither tradition nor Scripture contains the whole apostolic tradition. Scripture is materially (i.e., in content) insufficient, requiring oral tradition as a complement to be true to the whole divine revelation” New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) Vol 14, p. 228

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Where does he say it is totally contained in the NT? Besides, the point is …it is properly preserved by the…" which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches"…not handing out Bibles to everyone and letting you go on your own.

You’re missing the point, pablope. WHAT is that which is “preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches”?

“The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickedness,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory. (Against Heresies 1:10:1)”

If this were all Roman Catholics meant by “tradition,” we wouldn’t have an issue. We have an issue with those things wherein it cannot be demonstrated to be apostolic! None of which Irenaeus mentions as being a part of tradition “preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches.”

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

That’s why it needs to be understood with nuance.

So please demonstrate the nuance of the Roman Catholic Church’s position on monophyisitism that excludes the Copts, the Church of Alexandria, etc. from being condemned as heretics?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

That doesn’t exactly demonstrate that you believe that everything that is in Scripture is in tradition. Or were you not saying that?

 

[andrewstx]

Really I associate innerency with fundamental Protestants nearly exclusively, not Catholics.
When I left the fundamentalist "church of Christ’ for the Episcopal then Catholic church I persoannaly left innerency and literalism behind.

People keep mentioning truth and there is a difference between truth and fact. For example the parables teach truth but noone thinks of them as factual.

 

[pablope]

Ah…Ok…look at post 159 and link to Sacred Tradition.

If this were all Roman Catholics meant by “tradition,” we wouldn’t have an issue. We have an issue with those things wherein it cannot be demonstrated to be apostolic! None of which Irenaeus mentions as being a part of tradition "preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches.

There is a difference between Tradition…with a Big T…which we mean here…or Sacred Tradition…small 't" traditions…disciplines, practices…which are non binding. It is explained also in the link at post 159.

Let me give you an example…the Church has the Advent season as a preparation for Christmas…out of this Advent season…grew customs, traditions, practices in other areas…to enhance the preparation for Advent. An example is the Misa de Gallo in the Phil…(ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misa_de_Gallo)…9 straight masses at dawn…attended by lots of catholics, making the sacrifice to wake up at dawn at 4am to attend these masses. The tradition is not apostolic…do you think it is wrong to have and attend these, is it wrong to make the sacrifice to wake up at dawn to attend these?

There are also protestant churches that have wednesday services…this is not apostolic, as far as I can tell. Are these wednesday services wrong? Are those pastors committing heresy for having wednesday services?

And another…it was from Tradition, early christians…who broke bread everyday…and which is still done in Catholic churches…daily celebration of breaking of the bread. As far as I can tell…no protestant churches celebrate daily worship…so are these protestant churches wrong for not having daily breaking of bread?

 

[pablope]

That doesn’t exactly demonstrate that you believe that everything that is in Scripture is in tradition. Or were you not saying that?

I would like your answer to this question too…GB…from post 140:

So how can you tell when you are inerrant? And who determines whether you are in error or not?

 

[PRmerger]

Are you not also relying on the infallibility of the Church…?

No.

Absolutely you are. You must rely on the authority of the CC to tell you what is inspired and what is not.

Unless you want to tell us that you examined all of the ancient texts and devised a list of criteria for determining what was* theopneustos* and what was not…

So going back to this topic, Gaelic Bard.

Could you please tell us if you use some other authority to tell you what is inspired and what is not? Or do you acknowledge that it is only through the authority of the CC that you can know that Hebrews, Titus, Philemon are inspired?

And have you examined all of the other ancient Christian texts to discern whether you consider them to be theopneustos? Or do you defer to the authority of someone/something else and simply trust that they got it right?

And, please note: if you do acknowledge that it was the Catholic Church that discerned this for you, and that you submit to her authority here…do you then not see how it is a tacit acknowledgement of her infallibility?

And a tacit acknowledgement that you are not a Bible-Alone Christian?

 

[PRmerger]

That doesn’t exactly demonstrate that you believe that everything that is in Scripture is in tradition. Or were you not saying that?

No.

 

[PRmerger]

So please demonstrate the nuance of the Roman Catholic Church’s position on monophyisitism that excludes the Copts, the Church of Alexandria, etc. from being condemned as heretics?

I think this is best addressed here.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Yes, I know the distinction between the customs and between supposed “apostolic tradition.” I am not here arguing against crossing oneself, having images of Christ, genuflecting, etc. or pews. I am arguing directly against any apostolic tradition that is revelation separate from, and not mentioned in the apostolic writings themselves. When you refer to Irenaeus, for example, there is not a whit of evidence in all of Against Heresies where he argues for a tradition received from the apostles with doctrine that is not found in the New Testament writings. He argues for tradition which is coterminus with the teaching of the apostles in their writings, but oral instead of written. If that is all of what Roman Catholics meant by tradition, I wouldn’t have an issue with it. But it’s not.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I think this is best addressed here.

“Dialogue” between church bodies is great. Rome does it with Lutherans, too. However, for there to be unity, either the OO churches would have to renounce their non-Chalcedonian views, or Rome would have to accept them.

Either way “sacred apostolic tradition” either says that Christ is two natures in one person, or it doesn’t. How do you know infallibly know which?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

So going back to this topic, Gaelic Bard.

Could you please tell us if you use some other authority to tell you what is inspired and what is not? Or do you acknowledge that it is only through the authority of the CC that you can know that Hebrews, Titus, Philemon are inspired?

And have you examined all of the other ancient Christian texts to discern whether you consider them to be theopneustos? Or do you defer to the authority of someone/something else and simply trust that they got it right?

And, please note: if you do acknowledge that it was the Catholic Church that discerned this for you, and that you submit to her authority here…do you then not see how it is a tacit acknowledgement of her infallibility?

And a tacit acknowledgement that you are not a Bible-Alone Christian?

The church is one of the evidences for the legitimacy of the canon. I’ve stated this numerous times. It is not, however, the only one, as you maintain. To be one of the evidences, also does not require it to be infallible.

It must be my crazy notion that God is sovereign, and without the necessity of an infallible participation by man, can reveal His will to His people as He did in the OT, without an infallible priesthood or sanhedrin.

 

[CopticChristian]

pablope;10233008:

Gaelic,

We have always baptized babies for the remission of sins, because this is what was said and practiced and exists today. Do you have an issue with that?