Are there any churches that reject Biblical inerrancy?

[Gaelic_Bard]

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?

My presupposition is that the text of Scripture, being God’s creative speech and all, is capable of correcting me when I am errant in my viewpoint. I do not believe that Scripture is the most incoherent form of communication ever put to paper, as is apparently the view of some. I believe that words have meaning, context has meaning, and most importantly, that God is able to use His word to correct, reproof, and train me in righteousness. I stand with Chrysostom who said, “All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain.”

My question to you is how do you know when the church is inerrant? And what determines whether it is in error or not? That does not involve reference to the church itself, which would be circular ad absurdum.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic Bard;10234920:

pablope;10233008:

Gaelic,

I don’t agree with the practice, no. At the same time, of course, I realize it’s an old custom and many evangelicals, such as Presbyterians and Lutherans, practice it.

 

[CopticChristian]

My presupposition is that the text of Scripture, being God’s creative speech and all, is capable of correcting me when I am errant in my viewpoint. I do not believe that Scripture is the most incoherent form of communication ever put to paper, as is apparently the view of some. I believe that words have meaning, context has meaning, and most importantly, that I stand with Chrysostom who said, “All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain.”

My question to you is how do you know when the church is inerrant? And what determines whether it is in error or not? That does not involve reference to the church itself, which would be circular ad absurdum.

Gaelic,

Do you embrace all the Chrysosotom taught or just this statement?

Where did you grab Chrysosotoms quote from?

The Church is inerrant on Faith and Morals and has not defined but a few passages of the Bible as definitive and there is as I understand it no definitive list.

When you say this, it appears that you have pulled this from Timothy that only refers to the OT.

God is able to use His word to correct, reproof, and train me in righteousness.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic,

Do you embrace all the Chrysosotom taught or just this statement?

That which accords with Scripture, yes.

Where did you grab Chrysosotoms quote from?

From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (ed. Schaff), Series 1, Vol XIII, Sermons of St Chrysostom on Galatians, Ephesians etc., Sermon III on 2 Thessalonians 1:9-10, para 388.

When you say this, it appears that you have pulled this from Timothy that only refers to the OT.

Prima faciae argument. You’re correct that in Paul’s mind, he is most likely thinking of the OT. However, since I believe God is also it’s author, I know that God means “all Scripture.” Which de facto means everything that God inspired.

 

[Indifferently]

Many Protestants think the Bible fell out of the sky with gold gilded edges and wide margins. They are very afraid to even admit the Church councils had anything to do with the canon

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.

I thought it was the Orthodox church What compiled it.

You are assuming that the early undivided church and the modern RC Church are the same thing.

 

[lyrikal]

Pablope, you left out those sayings from Irenaeus where he defines what the content of that tradition is. Of course, I will give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you do know that those sections that you’re quoting do contain his definition of apostolic tradition is, yes?

“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1).

Which he follows with…

“To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendor, shall come in glory, the Savior of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent.” (3:4:2)

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

Hello Gaelic Bard,

You mentioned that St. Irenaeus’s understanding of Tradition is that which is handed down from the Scriptures. That the Scriptures and the Tradition are the same exact thing. That the Tradition does not contain anything that the Scriptures have and vise versa. Do I understand you correctly?

If so, I will attempt to address the “issue” you’ve raised up here. You claim that St. Irenaeus is defining what he means by Tradition. Are you holding the position that this is all what he means Tradition is? Nothing more and nothing less? Where does he mention baptism in there? Where does he mention what the Eucharist is? Where does he mention how we are to be saved? Where does he mention that we are saved by Grace? Do you really believe that he was giving us the whole list of what is contained in Tradition? If not, then can we safely assume that he believed Tradition was more than just what you quoted him saying? And if you are going to add that St. Irenaeus believed that we are saved by Grace and that baptism is a Christian Tradition, etc. then why stop there? Could it be possible that he believed more about Tradition than what he lists? There is no doubt that he did.

Now, let’s quote from St. Irenaeus and see if he believes that the Scriptures are exactly the same as Tradition. But before we do that, let me just address something. As Catholics, we do NOT believe that anything in Tradition contradicts anything in Scripture. Therefore, the list that St. Irenaeus has with regards to “what Tradition is”, does not contradict Scripture simply because Tradition does not contradict Scripture. What do we believe Scripture is? It is WRITTEN Tradition. What do we believe Tradition is when we speak of Tradition? The WHOLE revelation of the faith passed down by the Apostles Orally. The faith was preached orally first IN TOTALITY. After, SOME of what was preached can be found in the WRITTEN Tradition (Scriptures).

Now, the question is, does St. Irenaeus ever distinguish between Scripture and Tradition? Does he ever separate the two or are they the same exact revelation to him? Let’s have him do the talking…

“Though none others know we the disposition of our salvation, than those through whom the Gospel came to us, first heralding it, then by the will of God delivering us the Scriptures, which were to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. …But when the heretics use Scriptures, as if they were wrong and unauthoritative, and we variable, and the truth could not be extracted from them by those who were IGNORANT OF TRADITION. And when we challenge them in turn with that TRADITION, which is FROM THE APOSTLES, which is guarded by the succession of presbyters in the churches, they oppose themselves to TRADITION, saying they are wiser, not only than those presbyters but even than the Apostles! The TRADITION OF THE APOSTLES manifested, on the contrary, in the whole world, is open in every church to all who seeks the truth …And since it is a long matter in a work like this to enumerate these successions, we will confute them by pointing to the TRADITION of the greatest and most ancient and universally-known Church founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, a TRADITION which she has had and a faith which she proclaims to all men FROM THOSE APOSTLES.” (Against the Heresies 3:1-3)

What do you notice here? That there are two distinct revelations that St. Irenaeus says were used to refute the heretics. If Scripture and Tradition are the same exact revelation, then why would St. Irenaeus use Tradition after the heretics did not accept the Scriptures as proof? Please address this directly.

Also, elsewhere, he writes…

“It comes to this, therefore, these men do not consent to either Scripture **nor **TRADITION.” (Against the Heresies 3:2:2).

I highly encourage you to read that in context since it gives more evidence to what I am presenting. Why does he distinguish between the two revelations if they are the same thing?

Do you even want to get into what St. Irenaeus believed about private interpretation vs. the Church’s authority? He is not your friend by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[CopticChristian]

That which accords with Scripture, yes.

From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (ed. Schaff), Series 1, Vol XIII, Sermons of St Chrysostom on Galatians, Ephesians etc., Sermon III on 2 Thessalonians 1:9-10, para 388.

Prima faciae argument. You’re correct that in Paul’s mind, he is most likely thinking of the OT. However, since I believe God is also it’s author, I know that God means “all Scripture.” Which de facto means everything that God inspired.

Gaelic,

You pulled one sentence out that conforms to your thinking not realizing that what you have done is pulled out a sentence from an explanation of what Scripture means to Chrysosotom and what he teaches. So when do you know when Crysostom is teaching correctly in accordance to Scripture?

You believe you can read Paul’s mind. I know what Paul says. He says recall what you learned as a child. This is the OT. How can you suggest that all Scripture is evident by this statement of Paul when in fact there was no compiled NT Scripture as we know it today. It was not compiled for several hundred years later. Are you going to future think every other passage of Scripture you read to justify a point of view?

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian;10234940:

Gaelic Bard;10234920:

pablope;10233008:

I don’t agree with the practice, no. At the same time, of course, I realize it’s an old custom and many evangelicals, such as Presbyterians and Lutherans, practice it.

Gaelic,

Differentiate an old custom from a Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

I thought it was the Orthodox church What compiled it.

I’m find with that. Either way, it’s a Church that you submit authority to, as do I.

And we will then both acknowledge that it’s not by the Bible Alone that we understand God’s revelation.

And we will then both acknowledge that there is such a thing as the charism of infallibility given to a Church.

You are assuming that the early undivided church and the modern RC Church are the same thing.

Sure.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Fair enough.

What are the other “evidences” that you use to discern whether something is theopneustos?

And does that mean you have applied these other “evidences” to all of the other ancient Christian texts?

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.

Were there tens of thousands of differing opinions about what God revealed to the Israelites?

 

[lyrikal]

My presupposition is that the text of Scripture, being God’s creative speech and all, is capable of correcting me when I am errant in my viewpoint. I do not believe that Scripture is the most incoherent form of communication ever put to paper, as is apparently the view of some. I believe that words have meaning, context has meaning, and most importantly, that God is able to use His word to correct, reproof, and train me in righteousness. I stand with Chrysostom who said, “All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain.”

.

‘So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by our epistle of ours’. Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition seek no farther." John Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Thessalonians (c. A.D. 392).

I’m glad you stand with St. Chrysostom.

 

[CopticChristian]

‘So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by our epistle of ours’. Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition seek no farther." John Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Thessalonians (c. A.D. 392).

I’m glad you stand with St. Chrysostom.

Lyrikal,

Please, when you cite Chrysostom, which part?

Homily 4 2:6-9

Chap. iii. 1. Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may run and be glorified, even as also it is with you.

He indeed had prayed for them, that they might be established; and now he asks of them, entreating them to pray for him, not that he may not incur danger, for to this he was appointed, but that the word of the Lord may run and be glorified, even as also it is with you. And the request is accompanied with commendation. Even as also it is with you.

Ver. 2. And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and evil men; for all have not faith.

This is the manner of one showing also his dangers as to which especially he besought them. From unreasonable and evil men, he says, for all have not faith. Thus he is speaking of those who contradict the Preaching, who oppose and contend against the doctrines. For this he has intimated by saying, For all men have not faith. And here he seems to me not to glance at dangers, but at the men who contradicted and hindered his word, as did Alexander the copper-smith. For he says, he greatly withstood our words. 2 Timothy 4:15 That is, there are some to whom it is given. As if he were speaking of a paternal inheritance, that it is not for all to serve in the Palace. And at the same time he also excites them, as already having such ground of confidence as to be able both to deliver their Teacher from dangers, and to facilitate his preaching.

Chrysosotom say whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

They contradict the Scripture and oppose the teaching by no means he says…

They contradict the preaching/words/Oral Tradition and THEY oppose the doctrines…now brotha John I be wid ya…

 

[lyrikal]

Lyrikal,

**Please, when you cite Chrysostom, which part?

Homily 4 2:6-9**

Chap. iii. 1. Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may run and be glorified, even as also it is with you.

Ver. 2. And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and evil men; for all have not faith.

Chrysosotom say whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

They contradict the Scripture and oppose the teaching by no means he says…

They contradict the preaching/words/Oral Tradition and THEY oppose the doctrines…now brotha John I be wid ya…

Thanks!

 

[Indifferently]

I’m find with that. Either way, it’s a Church that you submit authority to, as do I.

And we will then both acknowledge that it’s not by the Bible Alone that we understand God’s revelation.

And we will then both acknowledge that there is such a thing as the charism of infallibility given to a Church.

Sure.

Wrong. I state in this very thread that I do not think the Bible is necessarily infallible.

 

[PRmerger]

If that is all of what Roman Catholics meant by tradition, I wouldn’t have an issue with it. But it’s not.

Perhaps you could give an example of what it is that you object to, regarding the CC’s understanding of Sacred Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

“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.

Or, we could both proclaim what we have proclaimed here:

In accordance with our apostolic traditions transmitted to our Churches and preserved therein, and in conformity with the early three ecumenical councils, we confess one faith in the One Triune God, the divinity of the Only Begotten Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Word of God, the effulgence of His glory and the express image of His substance, who for us was incarnate, assuming for Himself a real body with a rational soul, and who shared with us our humanity but without sin. We confess that our Lord and God and Saviour and King of us all, Jesus Christ, is perfect God with respect to His Divinity, perfect man with respect to His humanity. In Him His divinity is united with His humanity in a real, perfect union without mingling, without commixtion, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation. His divinity did not separate from His humanity for an instant, not for the twinkling of an eye. He who is God eternal and invisible became visible in the flesh, and took upon Himself the form of a servant. In Him are preserved all the properties of the divinity and all the properties of the humanity, together in a real, perfect, indivisible and inseparable union.

 

[PRmerger]

My question to you is how do you know when the church is inerrant?

When the Church has declared a teaching to be infallibly revealed by God we can trust that she is inerrant.

And what determines whether it is in error or not?

We have the assurance of Christ himself that the Church will not be led into error.

That does not involve reference to the church itself, which would be circular ad absurdum.

Indeed.

But this is how we argue for the infallibility of the Church:

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is prevented from teaching error in matters of faith and morals by God Himself. I provide questions below each verse to illustrate why it is applicable to our understanding of infallibility.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, would that suggest that Jesus did not remain with the Church “always”?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that mean that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that imply that Jesus actually did leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: If the Church fell into error despite this promise, would that mean the Holy Spirit failed to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Could the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth - or allow the Church to fall into error - if Jesus promised otherwise?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible for the Church to fall into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history or that the Church is fallible.

Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”–originally posted by Randy Carson

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Hello Gaelic Bard,

You mentioned that St. Irenaeus’s understanding of Tradition is that which is handed down from the Scriptures. That the Scriptures and the Tradition are the same exact thing. That the Tradition does not contain anything that the Scriptures have and vise versa. Do I understand you correctly?

If so, I will attempt to address the “issue” you’ve raised up here. You claim that St. Irenaeus is defining what he means by Tradition. Are you holding the position that this is all what he means Tradition is? Nothing more and nothing less? Where does he mention baptism in there? Where does he mention what the Eucharist is? Where does he mention how we are to be saved? Where does he mention that we are saved by Grace? Do you really believe that he was giving us the whole list of what is contained in Tradition? If not, then can we safely assume that he believed Tradition was more than just what you quoted him saying? And if you are going to add that St. Irenaeus believed that we are saved by Grace and that baptism is a Christian Tradition, etc. then why stop there? Could it be possible that he believed more about Tradition than what he lists? There is no doubt that he did.

Firstly, I didn’t bring Irenaeus into the equation of defining tradition as an extra-biblical source of “sacred tradition.” The reason I quoted his definition of what tradition is, is because in the sections that were brought up by the Catholic poster, he defines what he is referring to in context of the aforementioned quote. No, I am sure that his list is not ALL of what he meant by tradition, but it’s what he was referring to in other sections of the same passage that weren’t quoted by the Catholic.

Baptism? The eucharist? Being justified by grace? These things aren’t mentioned in the New Testament? To prove your argumentation on this, you’d have to bring forth something by Irenaeus that is not mentioned in the New Testament that he considers to be apostolic tradition. So, you can bring forth all those quotes by Irenaeus on the assumption of Mary, papal infallibility, purgatory etc., and we can talk.

“Though none others know we the disposition of our salvation, than those through whom the Gospel came to us, first heralding it, then by the will of God delivering us the Scriptures, which were to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. …But when the heretics use Scriptures, as if they were wrong and unauthoritative, and we variable, and the truth could not be extracted from them by those who were IGNORANT OF TRADITION. **And **when we challenge them in turn with that TRADITION, which is FROM THE APOSTLES, which is guarded by the succession of presbyters in the churches, they oppose themselves to TRADITION, saying they are wiser, not only than those presbyters but even than the Apostles! The TRADITION OF THE APOSTLES manifested, on the contrary, in the whole world, is open in every church to all who seeks the truth …And since it is a long matter in a work like this to enumerate these successions, we will confute them by pointing to the TRADITION of the greatest and most ancient and universally-known Church founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, a TRADITION which she has had and a faith which she proclaims to all men FROM THOSE APOSTLES.” (Against the Heresies 3:1-3)

Again, please demonstrate from the writings of Irenaeus that he considered tradition to be anything different IN CONTENT than what is contained in the writings of the New Testament. Does Irenaeus here say that anything contained in tradition is different in substance than what is contained in the apostolic writings? Why does he bring tradition into his discussion of what the heretics were doing with Scripture? In order to demonstrate that heretical churches could not be apostolic because they held teachings which were against those that were received by the church from the apostles. This doesn’t prove that the tradition received by orthodox churches is any different than what is in the apostolic writings. At best, this reference proves that doctrine was received orally. Who is disputing that? Not I.

 

[PRmerger]

Wrong. I state in this very thread that I do not think the Bible is necessarily infallible.

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?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic,

You pulled one sentence out that conforms to your thinking not realizing that what you have done is pulled out a sentence from an explanation of what Scripture means to Chrysosotom and what he teaches. So when do you know when Crysostom is teaching correctly in accordance to Scripture?

When what he teaches is confirmed in Scripture. I didn’t “pull one sentence out.” Aside from giving you the source, it bears it out in context. People were coming to Chrysostom to hear his much-lauded homilies on the Scriptures. Chrysostom rebukes them because they don’t need to hear his great preaching for the purposes of pleasure; Scripture is plain.

You believe you can read Paul’s mind. I know what Paul says. He says recall what you learned as a child. This is the OT.

For the sake of argument, I already granted that.

How can you suggest that all Scripture is evident by this statement of Paul when in fact there was no compiled NT Scripture as we know it today. It was not compiled for several hundred years later. Are you going to future think every other passage of Scripture you read to justify a point of view?

Oh, I dunno…because God is the author of 2 Tim. 3:16, and God knew from before time began every single book that He was going to inspire and which ones He wasn’t?