Are there any churches that reject Biblical inerrancy?

[lyrikal]

Firstly, I didn’t bring Irenaeus into the equation of defining tradition as an extra-biblical source of “sacred tradition.”

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

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.

Can you refer to a time after new, public revelation ceased (which Rome also says it does), and point to another authority that is ever called theopneustos?

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.

Through fallible prayer and study, of course. Which, by the way, every Christian does when they decide what doctrines they will confess publicly. It just that many of them, after doing so, don’t decide to belittle everyone who disagrees with them and say “huzzah! My beliefs are infallible!”

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.

Well, unfortunately, the second option also produced at least 1.6 billion Christians who disagree with each other, by being obedient to their respective authorities which deny the truth of those who are obedient to their respective authorities. Forget denomination numbers (which yours aren’t accurate anyway, but forget the fact that this has been pointed out to you guys for the last 20 years and you still use it)…the number of Christians who disagree among the churches which have “sacred apostolic traditions” dwarfs Protestantism.

 

[lyrikal]

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.

Except one side is lead to ONE truth by the Holy Spirit while your side is lead to thousands of truths by the Holy Spirit. This is where your argument falters and is extremely lacking. Whether or not other churches make the same claim doesn’t matter just like the 50% of people who reject Moses’ authority and go start their own church don’t matter. The truth is found in Moses during his days. The truth is found in the Catholic Church during ours because she has passed down this truth faithfully. If you want to disagree, that’s fine. We can debate that if you’d like. But don’t pretend like another church claiming the same authority makes void the Catholic Church’s authority. You are missing the bigger picture.

 

[lyrikal]

Can you refer to a time after new, public revelation ceased (which Rome also says it does), and point to another authority that is ever called theopneustos?

Who said anything about new revelation? Another authority? Sure, it’s called the Church to which Christ gave authority to in Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 and what St. Paul calls the pillar and foundation of Truth. Is it theopneustos the same way the Scriptures are? No. No one says it is. It’s duty is to guard the Word of God and teach it to the faithful accurately. Whether or not they do that is another question.

Through fallible prayer and study, of course. Which, by the way, every Christian does when they decide what doctrines they will confess publicly. It just that many of them, after doing so, don’t decide to belittle everyone who disagrees with them and say “huzzah! My beliefs are infallible!”

So we both start off subjective but one of us (me) ends up with an objective truth while you still end up with a subjective truth. The difference is the end result, not the beginning result. Unless you want to tell me that I MUST believe everything you believe which seems to be contrary to your belief. If so, then why lead me to your subjective truth? Your end result is subjective and you cannot claim to be infallible so why lead me to your fallible truth? My end result is objective truth and I am claiming to lead you to objective and infallible truth. You must think God is so weak that He cannot keep a Church infallible after He promised that He would (Matthew 16).

Well, unfortunately, the second option also produced at least 1.6 billion Christians who disagree with each other, by being obedient to their respective authorities which deny the truth of those who are obedient to their respective authorities.

I have already addressed this. You keep missing the point.

Forget denomination numbers (which yours aren’t accurate anyway, but forget the fact that this has been pointed out to you guys for the last 20 years and you still use it)…the number of Christians who disagree among the churches which have “sacred apostolic traditions” dwarfs Protestantism.

Oh ok…Please show me numbers then that are accurate and cite a reliable and non-biased source. I have already said that not all Catholics are obedient to the fullness of truth. That doesn’t negate the authority of the Church. See the Moses example.

Again, you keep proving that you are missing the point and the bigger picture.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic Bard;10235125:

I never said you did.

And you believe that this is ALL he means by Tradition? This should be fun…

So according to you, Irenaeus doesn’t believe that Baptism is a Christian Tradition given to us by Christ and the Apostles since he doesn’t list it under his “definition of what Tradition is”. I guess he also didn’t regard the Eucharist and being saved by Grace as a Tradition since he doesn’t list those either. I don’t think your realize what you’re saying…

No, that isn’t what I said. Please re-read the post. My statement was that the quotes under consideration indicate that that is what Irenaeus was referred to, when it was used by another poster to indicate that Irenaeus believed doctrine not contained in Scripture, but only in a separate body of tradition.

How about Apostolic Succession? How about Rome being the authority that all Churches must submit to? How about the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ and not just a symbol. How about Baptism being more than just a mere symbol of faith? How about being submissive to Church authority? Submitting to Bishops that are appointed? How about the Church being the interpreter of Scripture? Do you believe those things are all found in the Scriptures? If so, then good. If not, then why does St. Irenaeus believe these things?

Sure, we can discuss those things. Though this probably isn’t the thread for it.

If we believed that Tradition was “Everything that St. Irenaeus wrote” then you’d have a point. Unfortunately for you, we don’t believe that. We don’t expect St. Irenaeus to write down every single belief that the Church held do. He’s not in the business of producing doctrinal works of what the Church believed. He is writing against heresies and addressing their error, not yours.

Now if only we could determine what Irenaeus believed about the things you believe by referring to something he didn’t write down. Don’t you think that exercise might require a bit of conjecture?

I believe I have proven that he distinguishes between what Tradition is and what Scripture is. If so, then to him, they are not the same EXACT thing. That one contains more information (that doesn’t contradict) than the other revelation.

When?

No. But he does say that he used Scripture to prove the heretics wrong and they did not accept it. When they didn’t accept it, he used Tradition. If they are the SAME EXACT THING (as you claim they are) then why would he use Tradition AFTER they didn’t accept the Scriptures?

Nope…because the heretics couldn’t demonstrate that their own churches received their doctrine from the apostles, whereas orthodox churches could. Remember that the heretics (like the gnostics) also claimed to have their own version of “apostolic succession.” So why wouldn’t Irenaeus reference the fact that gnostic tradition and apostolic tradition are not the same thing? The gnostics were saying, “we have Scripture and the secret gnosis of the apostles.” Irenaeus was countering this.

Then please answer as to why he uses Tradition after the heretics did not accept Scripture? IF THEY ARE THE SAME, then why use one after the other? Why not just use one?

You’re arguing against a phantom opinion of tradition that I don’t hold to. The unspoken assumption behind your question is that I don’t believe tradition exists at all. I’ve never enunciated this. Since I hold that the content of tradition is the same as Scripture, then of course it makes perfect sense for Irenaeus to argue using tradition. Why? Because the gnostics’ claim to having Scripture on their side is proven false because their view contradicts apostolic tradition, thus proving their claim to have Scripture bogus, because apostolic tradition and Scripture are the SAME. Scripture and gnostic tradition were DIFFERENT

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Oh ok…Please show me numbers then that are accurate and cite a reliable and non-biased source. I have already said that not all Catholics are obedient to the fullness of truth. That doesn’t negate the authority of the Church. See the Moses example.

Again, you keep proving that you are missing the point and the bigger picture.

I am not talking about Catholics who disagree with the Catholic magesterium. I’m referring to different magesterium’s altogether!

As to the source, your numbers (and everyone elses inflated numbers) come from a Cyclopedia that lists them. It’s a faulty numbering system because it takes denominations by geographic region as opposed to doctrinal beliefs. An example is the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod and the Lutheran Church - Canada…both churches are in fellowship with each other and believe the exact same thing, but because one is Canadian and the other American, it lists them as two distinct denominations. How does it treat the Latin rite of the Catholic Church? It lists it as 250 some denominations. Do you believe that? It also includes denominations that aren’t even remotely orthodox or Christian.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

So we both start off subjective but one of us (me) ends up with an objective truth while you still end up with a subjective truth. The difference is the end result, not the beginning result.

No…because your objective truth is still an institution of fallible men who can only demonstrate that they subjectively believe themselves to be infallible when speaking on faith and morals…since they only have their subjective opinions of Scripture to go by. That they claim infallibility is not objective. It isn’t any more objective than when the prophets of the Mormon church have said they’re infallible. Now, if an independent witness, say, like God, deigned to say “The Roman Church is infallible on faith and morals” that would be objective. However, He hasn’t. The only reason you believe He has is because you believe the fallible men who say they’ve infallibly interpreted that He has.

Which by the way, another group of guys in the Eastern church who also say they’re infallible, infallibly say that God hasn’t done that in Matthew 16.

Unless you want to tell me that I MUST believe everything you believe which seems to be contrary to your belief.

Since I believe what I believe, why wouldn’t I think you should believe it, too?

 

[PRmerger]

I am not talking about Catholics who disagree with the Catholic magesterium. I’m referring to different magesterium’s altogether!

As to the source, your numbers (and everyone elses inflated numbers) come from a Cyclopedia that lists them. It’s a faulty numbering system because it takes denominations by geographic region as opposed to doctrinal beliefs. An example is the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod and the Lutheran Church - Canada…both churches are in fellowship with each other and believe the exact same thing, but because one is Canadian and the other American, it lists them as two distinct denominations. How does it treat the Latin rite of the Catholic Church? It lists it as 250 some denominations. Do you believe that? It also includes denominations that aren’t even remotely orthodox or Christian.

And yet they also don’t (can’t) include churches like these, springing up, even as we speak:

http://thinkchristian.net/images/articles/cathedral.jpg

So, it’s pretty fair to say that even if we discount the 250 miscounted Catholic denominations, there’s absolutely no doubt that there’s tens of thousands of different Christian denominations.

 

[CopticChristian]

No…because your objective truth is still an institution of fallible men who can only demonstrate that they subjectively believe themselves to be infallible when speaking on faith and morals…since they only have their subjective opinions of Scripture to go by. That they claim infallibility is not objective. It isn’t any more objective than when the prophets of the Mormon church have said they’re infallible. Now, if an independent witness, say, like God, deigned to say “The Roman Church is infallible on faith and morals” that would be objective. However, He hasn’t. The only reason you believe He has is because you believe the fallible men who say they’ve infallibly interpreted that He has.

Which by the way, another group of guys in the Eastern church who also say they’re infallible, infallibly say that God hasn’t done that in Matthew 16.

Since I believe what I believe, why wouldn’t I think you should believe it, too?

Gaelic,

EO and Latins both claim infallibility. EO claim certain councils as infallible however to say that there is this goup of guys and that group of guys should cause you to ask the question for yourself. You don’t claim infallibility. Apostolic Christians claim infallibility by one way or the other. Those that claim infallibility agree on 7 sacraments and ordering of teaching based on Scripture and Tradition. What you claim is based on anyone’s interpretation whether it be…

Anglican Tradition to include…Methodist…Holiness…AOG…Pentacostal
Lutheran tradition…Lutheran Norwegian…Evangelical Free
Presbyterian Reformed tradition
Baptist tradition of varying types that incoporporate Calvin and the like
Anabaptist tradition…Menonite…Amish…

Someone out there is posting that they are a Gnostic Christian however I won’t even dare to include that as a viable alternative tradition.

These are Protestant streams of thought…and your beliefs are based on these traditions…

 

[pablope]

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.

Okay…is the Bible able to speak, does it have a voice?

Then, how is the Bible able to convey to you when you are in error or not? And how can you tell which is the correct viewpoint or not?

Do you decide that for yourself? If you do…then you are making your own judgements…as to what is correct or not…as which is error or not. And if you…and you are not infallible…than how can you be sure you are making the correct judgement?

I do not believe that Scripture is the most incoherent form of communication ever put to paper, as is apparently the view of some.

 

[pablope]

That which accords with Scripture, yes.

.

And are you the one to tell, to say…which is in accord with Scripture and which is not? Are you able to make such judgements? And are you infallible when you make such judgements? Otherwise…why should your judgement be believed?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Okay…is the Bible able to speak, does it have a voice?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

And are you the one to tell, to say…which is in accord with Scripture and which is not? Are you able to make such judgements? And are you infallible when you make such judgements? Otherwise…why should your judgement be believed?

See above how such fuzzy questions effectively end any form of constructive conversation by implicitly stating that words are meaningless and truth is unknowable.

 

[PRmerger]

Gaelic Bard, can you please answer the question that’s been posed quite a few pages ago, and repeated:

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

Have you examined all of the ancient Christian texts and applied this alleged “evidence” to discard these texts?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic Bard, can you please answer the question that’s been posed quite a few pages ago, and repeated:

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

Have you examined all of the ancient Christian texts and applied this alleged “evidence” to discard these texts?

PR, I will. It would need a 6000 word essay, which I don’t have the time for right now

 

[CopticChristian]

pablope;10235448:

Another example of when it comes to the communicative speech of God, Catholic apologists become postmodern agnostics.

When you decide that the Roman Catholic Church is right, and the Eastern Orthodox church is wrong…Do you decide that for yourself? If you do…then you are making your own judgements…as to what is correct or not…as which is error or not. And if you…and you are not infallible…than how can you be sure you are making the correct judgement?

Gaelic,

You have generalized yourself into a corner.

All humans are fallible. Fact.

All humans make decisions. Fact.

We believe in God. Fact/based on Reason/Faith

We believe that Jesus was God/man and that he founded a Church. Fact/Faith

We believe that there is a book that is part of Divine Revelation. Fact/Faith.

There are two groups that claim to have the deposit of Faith based on Apostolic Tradition. You point out EO/Latin…or Orthodox and Catholic

You ask which is wrong?

This is the incorrect question. There has been agreement that these are Sister Churches or two lungs of the same Church…so to ask which is wrong is not correct. The correct question is which family do you want to join to sojourn with that Sister or which lung do you choose to live with. It is not a matter or right or wrong…the decision as to unity makes it difficult but either sister or lung will bring you into the family and give you life.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

You ask which is wrong?

This is the incorrect question. There has been agreement that these are Sister Churches or two lungs of the same Church…so to ask which is wrong is not correct. The correct question is which family do you want to join to sojourn with that Sister or which lung do you choose to live with. It is not a matter or right or wrong…the decision as to unity makes it difficult but either sister or lung will bring you into the family and give you life.

Have you asked the Orthodox what they think about the sister church, two lung theory thing?

oca.org/questions/history/orthodox-christianity-and-the-branch-theory

So yes, the question which is in error is wholly appropriate to ask.

 

[pablope]

pablope;10235448:

Another example of when it comes to the communicative speech of God, Catholic apologists become postmodern agnostics.

?

What?

I merely asked questions for you to explain further your claim her…

Originally Posted by Gaelic Bard
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.

So…how is the Scripture able to convey what you claim? Please explain…or you do not have an explanation…then your claim is false?

When you decide that the Roman Catholic Church is right, and the Eastern Orthodox church is wrong…Do you decide that for yourself?

Where did I claim that? Seems you are changing the subject…what does my question for further explanation have anything to do with the EOC?

If you do…then you are making your own judgements…as to what is correct or not…as which is error or not. And if you…and you are not infallible…than how can you be sure you are making the correct judgement

But where have I made judgements of such? When you said this statement about Ireneus…“That which accords with Scripture, yes.”…are you not making a claim to determine which is scriptural and which is not…correct?

 

[lyrikal]

lyrikal;10235307:

No, that isn’t what I said. Please re-read the post. My statement was that the quotes under consideration indicate that that is what Irenaeus was referred to, when it was used by another poster to indicate that Irenaeus believed doctrine not contained in Scripture, but only in a separate body of tradition.

Sure, we can discuss those things. Though this probably isn’t the thread for it.

Now if only we could determine what Irenaeus believed about the things you believe by referring to something he didn’t write down. Don’t you think that exercise might require a bit of conjecture?

When?

Nope…because the heretics couldn’t demonstrate that their own churches received their doctrine from the apostles, whereas orthodox churches could. Remember that the heretics (like the gnostics) also claimed to have their own version of “apostolic succession.” So why wouldn’t Irenaeus reference the fact that gnostic tradition and apostolic tradition are not the same thing? The gnostics were saying, “we have Scripture and the secret gnosis of the apostles.” Irenaeus was countering this.

You’re arguing against a phantom opinion of tradition that I don’t hold to. The unspoken assumption behind your question is that I don’t believe tradition exists at all. I’ve never enunciated this. Since I hold that the content of tradition is the same as Scripture, then of course it makes perfect sense for Irenaeus to argue using tradition. Why? *Because the gnostics’ claim to having Scripture on their side is proven false because their view contradicts apostolic tradition, thus proving their claim to have Scripture bogus, because apostolic tradition and Scripture are the SAME. Scripture and gnostic tradition were DIFFERENT

Alright. You’re not understanding my point and none of what you’re replying is addressing my points. Let me take another route. Are you claiming that Irenaeus believed Tradition to be the same revelation as Scripture?

Then take a look at what he says about Rome being authoritative.

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—**that church which has the tradition **and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2)

And take a look at what he says about infallibility…

“*t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, **together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible ***charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (ibid., 4:26:2).

Please show me where those beliefs of Irenaeus are found in the Scriptures. If they are, then good. If not, then you’re wrong about his viewpoint as to what Tradition is. Good luck.

 

[pablope]

See above how such fuzzy questions effectively end any form of constructive conversation by implicitly stating that words are meaningless and truth is unknowable.

I merely asked…Originally Posted by pablope
And are you the one to tell, to say…which is in accord with Scripture and which is not? Are you able to make such judgements? And are you infallible when you make such judgements? Otherwise…why should your judgement be believed?

When you claimed this…[SIGN]Originally Posted by Gaelic Bard
That which accords with Scripture, yes.[/SIGN]

They are simple enough questions:

Are you the one to tell? Yes or no?

If no…then who?

If yes…why are you “able to make judgements” such as you claimed?

And are you infallible when you make such judgements? Otherwise…why should your judgement be believed?

So…what is fuzzy asking questions…or you do not want to face the answer…since you generalized yourself into a corner?

Or let us make it a simpler question…how are you able to tell or distinguish between the spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood?