Are there any churches that reject Biblical inerrancy?

[CopticChristian]

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.

Merge,

I just noticed something. What you have posted is in accordance with “our Tradition”…and when I look at the Lutheran Joint Declaration…

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

I see…

2.For the Lutheran tradition, the doctrine of justification has retained its special status. Consequently it has also from the beginning occupied an important place in the official Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue.

If we are to agree on anything, then I believe we must do as we are taught and accept and acknowledge what would be called for this posting…

A Baptist Tradition.

For Gaelic this would be a commencement of dialogue…

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

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

That it contains doctrine that is not written by the apostles; and thus, has no way to be verified as coming from the apostles. And in some cases is contradicted by the apostles.

 

[SteveVH]

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.

The liturgy of the Mass is one very important thing that is not set out explicitly in Sacred Scripture. Although it is there. Christ celebrated the first Mass after his resurrection on the road to Emmaus. The Scriptures were read and then explained by Jesus (liturgy of the word). Then they sat down and broke the bread and ate it (liturgy of the Eucharist) and only then did they recognize Christ, who at once vanished from their site. You cannot separate Scritpure from Tradition because they are the same truth. The New Testament is that part of Sacred Tradition commited to writing.

Now in the example I gave above, Jesus explained the Scriptures to the two disciples. Do you imagine that these guys just went off and kept the greatest bible study of all time to themselves? The Scripture doesn’t tell us anything of what Jesus said to them. These are things that exist in Sacred Tradition, in the very life of the Church; in its prayers, in its sacraments, in its liturgies, in its works of charity. So I would hope that we would never find anything in Sacred Tradition that is “separate” from Sacred Scripture as they both speak to the one Truth.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

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.

Great…I can do the same thing with a Presbyterian, a Lutheran, a Methodist, and an Anglican. But of course, when we do those things, we’re still guilty of “doctrinal chaos.” So, considering you posted this, I suspect you’ll be going to your local Coptic church and receiving communion with them?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic Bard;10234920:

pablope;10233008:

The liturgy of the Mass is one very important thing that is not set out explicitly in Sacred Scripture. Although it is there. Christ celebrated the first Mass after his resurrection on the road to Emmaus. The Scriptures were read and then explained by Jesus (liturgy of the word). Then they sat down and broke the bread and ate it (liturgy of the Eucharist) and only then did they recognize Christ, who at once vanished from their site. You cannot separate Scritpure from Tradition because they are the same truth. The New Testament is that part of Sacred Tradition commited to writing.

I don’t consider the liturgical forms of the church, in and of themselves, to contradict apostolic teachings. The Roman, Lutheran, Anglican, EO liturgies are all very nice and quite gospel centered.

 

[PRmerger]

Merge,

I just noticed something. What you have posted is in accordance with “our Tradition”…and when I look at the Lutheran Joint Declaration…

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

I see…

If we are to agree on anything, then I believe we must do as we are taught and accept and acknowledge what would be called for this posting…

A Baptist Tradition.

For Gaelic this would be a commencement of dialogue…

I think there is a misuse of the word “Tradition” here. In some cases it means “custom”, and yet in other cases we mean “the Word of God”.

 

[PRmerger]

Great…I can do the same thing with a Presbyterian, a Lutheran, a Methodist, and an Anglican.

Absolutely. To the degree that what they proclaim is consonant with the* kerygm*a, we give them a hearty “amen!”

But of course, when we do those things, we’re still guilty of “doctrinal chaos.” So, considering you posted this, I suspect you’ll be going to your local Coptic church and receiving communion with them?

If I am on vacay and cannot receive at a Catholic Church, sure.

 

[PRmerger]

That it contains doctrine that is not written by the apostles; and thus, has no way to be verified as coming from the apostles. And in some cases is contradicted by the apostles.

Example?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

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

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

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?

or d) the church has never been overcome, and continues to this very day in the regenerated hearts, minds, and souls of those who confess “thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” The only reason you import this passage to apply specifically to the RC papal institution is because the infallible RC papal institution says so. and since you believe that we can’t even know that Matthew 16:18 is inspired without the infallible church telling you so, again, circular logic.

Q: When the RC church says that the Pope is the vicar of Christ and the infallible head of the entire Christian church on earth, and the Orthodox don’t, does this mean one or both churches fell into error and thus, proves Satan overcame the church? He either overcome Rome, or he overcame the East. Which was it? And how do you infallibly know which?

As to the rest of the verses you mention, since you are fallible interpreter and it’s all your private opinion, why should I believe anything you say about what they mean?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

If I am on vacay and cannot receive at a Catholic Church, sure.

Ask dzheremi about that one…

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

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

Only because it says so. Circular.

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

Except when the other churches that say the exact same thing disagree with yours.

 

[PRmerger]

Only because it says so. Circular.

Tu quoque.

You only say that Hebrews is inspired “because it says so”.

So not sure why you are objecting to this?

 

[PRmerger]

Q: When the RC church says that the Pope is the vicar of Christ and the infallible head of the entire Christian church on earth, and the Orthodox don’t, does this mean one or both churches fell into error and thus, proves Satan overcame the church? He either overcome Rome, or he overcame the East. Which was it? And how do you infallibly know which?

As to the rest of the verses you mention, since you are fallible interpreter and it’s all your private opinion, why should I believe anything you say about what they mean?

If this is the only objection you have (and it seems that it is), then you ought to be either EO or Catholic.

Either one is fine with me.

Come join us at the table, Gaelic!

 

[lyrikal]

1. What is the infallible interpretation of Matt 16:18?
2. How do you know it’s infallible?
3. How can I know infallibly that the way you know it’s infallible is infallible?
4. How do YOU know infallibly that what the infallible interpreter says is infallible?
5. Since you’re not infallible how can I trust what you say?
6. Since I’m not infallible, how can I interpret infallibly what the infallible interpreter said?
7. If I am somehow able to interpret the words of the infallible interpreter correctly, why is it that I can’t do so with the words of Jesus?
8. If I can do neither, how am I ever going to reap the advantages of the infallible interpreter?
9. How do I infallibly know which competing infallible interpreter is the actual infallible one - Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Sedevacantists, Pope Michaelists, Old Catholics, PNCC?
10. How do I infallibly determine which of the above groups is the possesor of infallible apostolic tradition?

1. What is the infallible interpretation of Matt 16:18? That the Church is built on Peter and his confession…
2. How do you know it’s infallible? Because the Church says that it is and the Scripture says this about the Church:

if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

-1 Timothy 3:15

1. How can I know infallibly that the way you know it’s infallible is infallible? We call it the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit leads us to this truth.
2. How do YOU know infallibly that what the infallible interpreter says is infallible? See answer 3.
3. Since you’re not infallible how can I trust what you say? Because the Holy Spirit leads the Body of believers to ONE truth. If protestantism does not have a living and breathing authority, it will never have unity. In order for unity to be obtained, authority must exist as a living and breathing “organism” (Magesterium). To be frankly honest, you are asking the wrong questions but I am entertaining you with responses that are most likely unsatisfactory for you. In order to understand what I’m saying, you have to step outside of your little box and look at Christianity as a bigger picture.
4. Since I’m not infallible, how can I interpret infallibly what the infallible interpreter said? Holy Spirit…
5. If I am somehow able to interpret the words of the infallible interpreter correctly, why is it that I can’t do so with the words of Jesus?

[28] And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.
[29] Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?
[30] Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?

-1 Cor 12:28-30

And…

[1] I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called,
[2] with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love,
[3] eager to maintain the **unity **of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
[4] There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,
[5] one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
[6] one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.
[7] But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.
[8] Therefore it is said, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men.”
[9] (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth?
[10] He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)
[11] **And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, **
[12] to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
[13] until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;
[14] **so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. **
[15] Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,
[16] from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.

-Ephesians 4:1-16

Continued…

 

[lyrikal]

1. If I can do neither, how am I ever going to reap the advantages of the infallible interpreter? You do realize that you are arguing against the Scriptures when you argue against authority, don’t you?

[15] “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
[16] But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
[17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
[18] Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
[19] Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.
[20] For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

-Matthew 18:15-20

Did the Apostles not pass down the faith and appoint elders? What if those elders said, “Gee…I don’t know if I should believe you since I am not infallible in determining if you are right or wrong.”? I guess we wouldn’t have Christianity today. Your questions are misleading but again, I am entertaining your “traps”. All you’re really showing is that you do not see things as a bigger picture. By “trapping” us, you have trapped yourself. The early Church operated with authority. What happened when there was a dispute about circumcision? A council was held in Jerusalem in Acts 15. What happened after? The Apostles and elders went and preached what was established as truth in Acts 15. So now what? None of this matters since the people they preached to weren’t infallible, right? You have attempted to trap us with your questions but I hope you realize that you’ve trapped yourself.

1. How do I infallibly know which competing infallible interpreter is the actual infallible one - Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Sedevacantists, Pope Michaelists, Old Catholics, PNCC? That’s the million dollar question. Through prayer and study, one can come to a conclusion. We do know that your baptist church wasn’t around passing down the Traditions of the apostles…So we at least know that much.
2. How do I infallibly determine which of the above groups is the possesor of infallible apostolic tradition? See above.

Now let me go ahead and show you the bigger picture. In the Scriptures, we have men who have authority to teach as I have demonstrated above. The Church is given this authority and it is not for everyone to have. Jesus passes down the truth to the Apostles. The Apostles appoint elders and pass down that same truth to them. The elders appoint other elders and pass down that same truth to them. This is what we call Apostolic Succession.

[12] Let no one despise your youth, but set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.
[13] Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching.
[14] Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you.

-1 Tim 4

And…

[2] and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

-2 Tim 2:2

So, we have the truth being passed down. This truth is held by the elders and these elders are to preach this truth to the people. This was the custom in the early Church. This truth is still passed down today. It is held by an authoritative Church. This Church teaches this truth to the people…

Let’s look at it like this. We both agree that the Holy Spirit leads people to the truth. Now, there are two options. The Holy Spirit leads FALLIBLE people to the truth. We both agree with this too. The two options are:

1.) The Holy Spirit leads individuals to the truth privately
2.) The Holy Spirit leads individuals to ONE authoritative Church

The first option has created divisions of over 20,000 protestant denominations. It is also not the practice of the Patristics AND nothing in Scripture gives us the right to freely interpret the Scriptures on our own as we see fit.

The second option promotes unity IF WE ARE OBEDIENT to that authority. Do all Catholics agree on doctrine? No. Who’s fault is that though? When God gave the 10 commandments to Moses, Moses gave it to the people. If 50% of those people said, “I only believe in 3 of the commandments! The other 7 are bogus!” What can we conclude from this? That Moses’s authority is wrong? No. That these people are wrong. The other 50% are in union with the true faith because THEY ARE OBEDIENT to the truth. This is the only way that unity can be attained. There has to be a living, breathing and authoritative Church lead by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Tu quoque.

You only say that Hebrews is inspired “because it says so”.

So not sure why you are objecting to this?

Really? When did I say that?

 

[PRmerger]

Really? When did I say that?

Well, here you quoted from Hebrews, so I assume that you believe it to be inspired? Yes?

So, what “evidence” do you have to give us that it is inspired, except that you give your tacit submission to the authority of the CC (or EO–whatever).

And can you tell us if you’ve examined all of the other ancient Christian texts and applied your “evidence” to these texts to rule them out?

 

[PRmerger]

Tu quoque.

You only say that Hebrews is inspired “because it says so”.

So not sure why you are objecting to this?

And please note, the antecedent for “it” is “the Catholic Church”.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I appreciate you taking the time to answer these.

1. What is the infallible interpretation of Matt 16:18? That the Church is built on Peter and his confession…

1. How do you know it’s infallible? Because the Church says that it is and the Scripture says this about the Church:

if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

-1 Timothy 3:15

Because the church says it is, is no less circular than my saying the word of God is the word of God because the word of God says so.

1. How can I know infallibly that the way you know it’s infallible is infallible? We call it the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit leads us to this truth.

1. How do YOU know infallibly that what the infallible interpreter says is infallible? See answer 3.

So the Holy Spirit has made you personally infallible when you submitted to the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 that is put forward by Rome?

1. Since you’re not infallible how can I trust what you say? Because the Holy Spirit leads the Body of believers to ONE truth. If protestantism does not have a living and breathing authority, it will never have unity. In order for unity to be obtained, authority must exist as a living and breathing “organism” (Magesterium). To be frankly honest, you are asking the wrong questions but I am entertaining you with responses that are most likely unsatisfactory for you. In order to understand what I’m saying, you have to step outside of your little box and look at Christianity as a bigger picture.

And all those churches that make the same exact claims as you made above…vis a vie the Holy Spirit leading the true church into all truth…say that another church communion that also makes the same claim has fallen into error and not holding to the one truth. So how do I infallibly know which one that is?

Or you could drop the triumphalism and just say that you, as an individual, made the subjective, fallible decision to put your trust in one church body that you’ve been convinced is Scripturally, historically, and logically most faithful to your own views of those topics, like every other Christian does.

 

[CopticChristian]

I appreciate you taking the time to answer these.

Because the church says it is, is no less circular than my saying the word of God is the word of God because the word of God says so.

So the Holy Spirit has made you personally infallible when you submitted to the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 that is put forward by Rome?

And all those churches that make the same exact claims as you made above…vis a vie the Holy Spirit leading the true church into all truth…say that another church communion that also makes the same claim has fallen into error and not holding to the one truth. So how do I infallibly know which one that is?

Or you could drop the triumphalism and just say that you, as an individual, made the subjective, fallible decision to put your trust in one church body that you’ve been convinced is Scripturally, historically, and logically most faithful to your own views of those topics, like every other Christian does.

Gaelic,

Let’s get serious here. Let us compare and contrast the Baptist position in lets say the year 800 with that same Baptist position in lets say 1200…has there been consistent Baptist teaching in that time frame as compared to what you are espousing now?