Are there any churches that reject Biblical inerrancy?

[lyrikal]

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

Again, please see the Moses example. If 50% of people accept Moses’s commandments as coming from God and another 50% disagree and only claim 3 of them came from God, then those latter 50% will set up their own church with their own rules. Does that make the former 50% wrong and non-authoritative? Again, you’re missing the bigger picture.

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.

I believe that source says 33,000 denominations. I said 20,000. You didn’t give me any numbers about how many Protestant denominations there are. One only need to go about a radius of three miles outside his house to see the many different Protestant denominations claiming to be teaching the truth yet they disagree on many doctrines. Let’s not delude ourselves.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Again, please see the Moses example. If 50% of people accept Moses’s commandments as coming from God and another 50% disagree and only claim 3 of them came from God, then those latter 50% will set up their own church with their own rules. Does that make the former 50% wrong and non-authoritative? Again, you’re missing the bigger picture.

Nope, it doesn’t make them wrong and non-authoritative. So you are definitively saying that either the Roman magesterium or the Eastern magesterium is analogous to the Moses example? Which one is right and which one is wrong?

I believe that source says 33,000 denominations. I said 20,000. You didn’t give me any numbers about how many Protestant denominations there are. One only need to go about a radius of three miles outside his house to see the many different Protestant denominations claiming to be teaching the truth yet they disagree on many doctrines. Let’s not delude ourselves.

Okay, then what’s your source for 20,000?

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

Gaelic,

Branch theory is Protestant in origin.

 

[lyrikal]

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.

You’re approaching the situation the wrong way. The question should really be: What does Scripture say about how the Church should operate? Privately interpret Scripture on your own or did God set up an authoritative magesterium? If the former, then show us where the Scriptures teach this. If the latter, then you are ridiculing the very Scriptures that you use to point to your subjective doctrines. Again, WHAT DID GOD APPOINT? That’s the question one should ask. Your questions have fallacies.

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.

Except that the Mormons can’t trace back their beliefs to early Christianity. Can you name one Church Father who held to Mormon beliefs? Didn’t think so.

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.

Again, what does the Scriptures say? That’s what one should be discussing. I gave you many passages to prove my point that there is an infallible Church instituted by Christ. Where is your proof?

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.

See the Moses example…

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

So, you want to lead me to your fallible doctrines that you are not even sure if they are 100% true or not?

Let me ask you this…Do you believe that Christ has one or two wills? If two, then show me where the Scriptures teach this. Show me where any of the Church Fathers teach this in the first 600 years of Christianity. You won’t find it anywhere. Yet, you and I both agree that Christ has two wills. Why? Because an Ecumenical Council proclaimed it to be the truth in 680 AD. What does this prove? It proves that a living and breathing authoritative Church is necessary to proclaim what is doctrine and what is not WHEN THERE ARE DISPUTES.

 

[lyrikal]

Nope, it doesn’t make them wrong and non-authoritative. So you are definitively saying that either the Roman magesterium or the Eastern magesterium is analogous to the Moses example? Which one is right and which one is wrong?

Well that one depends on who you ask. Having one being right and one being wrong does not take away from the fact that your questions that you asked are fallacious. I say the Catholic Church is right. I would then need to prove this using Scripture and Tradition. That’s the approach one should take. What do the Scriptures and Tradition teach with regards to authority? Does a baptist person living somewhere in the US have his own authority or must he submit to an authority? If he must submit to one, where is this authority found today in the world? THOSE are the questions you should focus on instead of trying to focus on trapping Catholics.

Okay, then what’s your source for 20,000?

According to the Dictionary of Christianity in America [Protestant] (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1990): “As of 1980 David B. Barrett identified 20,800 Christian denominations worldwide . . .” (“Denominationalism,” page 351). I have this book, so I have seen this with my own eyes. Barrett “classified them into seven major blocs and 156 ecclesiastical traditions.” This is from the Oxford World Christian Encyclopedia (1982) of which he is the editor. Also, according to the United Nations statistics there were over 23,000 competing and often contradictory denominations worldwide (World Census of Religious Activities ). This was cited in Frank Schaeffer’s book Dancing Alone (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Press, 1994), page 4. Schaeffer is Orthodox. The 1999 Encyclopedia of Christianity has this to say: “In 1985 David Barrett could count 22,150 distinct denominations worldwide.” (edited by E. Fahlbusch, et al., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999, vol. 1, p. 800, s.v. “Denomination”). Barrett is the statistical editor. Again citing the Oxford World Christian Encyclopedia (1982): “. . . a projected 22,190 by 1985 . . . The present net increase is 270 denominations each year (five new ones a week).” (pages 15-18)

philvaz.com/apologetics/a120.htm

 

[lyrikal]

In the World Christian Encyclopedia, David Barrett breaks down the Denominations in the USA alone as such:

Catholic 1
Orthodox 60
Protestant 6,161

He breaks down the Protestant denominations in the USA as such:

Protestant 660
Anglican 1
Independent 5,100
Marginal 400

So, in the USA alone, he has 1 Catholic Church, 60 Orthodox Churches and 6,161 Protestant Churches. Does that make it all better?

 

[PRmerger]

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

Really.

How about if you answer this, briefly: have you examined all the (around 400) ancient Christian texts to apply your “evidence” as to whether they are inspired or not?

Please expound. But I am certain that you need not use 6000 words to answer.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Peter and Paul—**that church which has the tradition **
​

​

​

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

1. Wherefore it 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 certain gift 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, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismaries 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. And the heretics, indeed, who bring strange fire to the altar of God–namely, strange doctrines–shall be burned up by the fire from heaven, as were Nadab and Abiud.(6) But such as rise up in opposition to the truth, and exhort others against the Church of God, [shall] remain among those in hell (apud inferos), being swallowed up by an earthquake, even as those who were with Chore, Dathan, and Abiron.(7) But those who cleave asunder, and separate the unity of the Church, [shall] receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam did.(8)

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic,

Branch theory is Protestant in origin.

Yes, and the Orthodox consider the sister church/two lung model to be a variation on the branch theory.

 

[PRmerger]

Okay, then what’s your source for 20,000?

How about if we accept your statistic? What is the actual number of Christian denominations in the world?

Please cite your source, and I will be happy to use that number, provided it is valid.

 

[CopticChristian]

1. Wherefore it 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 certain gift 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, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismaries 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. And the heretics, indeed, who bring strange fire to the altar of God–namely, strange doctrines–shall be burned up by the fire from heaven, as were Nadab and Abiud.(6) But such as rise up in opposition to the truth, and exhort others against the Church of God, [shall] remain among those in hell (apud inferos), being swallowed up by an earthquake, even as those who were with Chore, Dathan, and Abiron.(7) But those who cleave asunder, and separate the unity of the Church, [shall] receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam did.(8)

Gaelic,

I was born in Los Angeles, my dad was a Pharmacist, my mom could sew, play a harmonica and was a reasonably good cook. I have several aunts and uncles and looking back at my family in time there were things we did on a regular basis that included certain festivities and other things.

Now I want you to stop and think a bit. Here you have people looking back in time attempting to examine what is said about a certain thing and what they believe it to mean and to describe this living, breathing organic thing we call Church.

Imagine if someone came to me and said we have been reading all the documents associated with your family and from what we read here is what your life was like. I would say…huh…that was not my life based on what you read and what you think and believe it says…why?

Because I lived it…and so it goes with the Church…until you are on the inside and understand what it is you and others like you are doing…you are trying to tell me and other Catholics what it is we live and what we experience. There is no writing to convey any of that.

 

[jmcrae]

Are there any churches or whole denominations that reject Biblical inerrancy, or at least the inerrancy of Paul’s writings?

The United Church of Canada does not hold to the inerrancy of Scripture; they interpret it as a work of human effort that contains a great many myths and fictions.

 

[CopticChristian]

How about if we accept your statistic? What is the actual number of Christian denominations in the world?

Please cite your source, and I will be happy to use that number, provided it is valid.

Merge,

I believe we do a disservice to this issue by ahdering to what others think of denominations…reality dictates streams of thought as I have outlined before.

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

These streams of thought adhere to either

Calvinism or Armeniainism
Posmillineal or Premillineal

The tragedy is that so many distant from the source of their particular tradition have no idea that they are Protestant in nature, and that would be the Evangelical groups and the Non-denominational groups…some even mix and match the -isms.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

You’re approaching the situation the wrong way. The question should really be: What does Scripture say about how the Church should operate?

Presbyters and deacons. I know it doesn’t mention a papacy.

Privately interpret Scripture on your own or did God set up an authoritative magesterium?

Yes, because of all the statements I’ve made saying that Scripture says we interpret Scripture privately on our own without any governing body that has authority within the congregation. You have some crows on that there straw man fallacy you’re setting up.

Your questions have fallacies.

Oh the irony!

You know, before you can say something has a fallacy, you have to demonstrate it has one, right?

Except that the Mormons can’t trace back their beliefs to early Christianity. Can you name one Church Father who held to Mormon beliefs? Didn’t think so.

Quite right. And you can’t either, on numerous topics of doctrinal concern.

Again, what does the Scriptures say? That’s what one should be discussing. I gave you many passages to prove my point that there is an infallible Church instituted by Christ. Where is your proof?

All based on a fallible, private interpretation of yours that you use as a club with which to swing at every Protestant and accuse of doing the same exact thing.

So, you want to lead me to your fallible doctrines that you are not even sure if they are 100% true or not?

Didn’t say that I don’t believe them to be 100% true. I said not infallible.

 

[CopticChristian]

Presbyters and deacons. I know it doesn’t mention a papacy.

Yes, because of all the statements I’ve made saying that Scripture says we interpret Scripture privately on our own without any governing body that has authority within the congregation. You have some crows on that there straw man fallacy you’re setting up.

Oh the irony!

You know, before you can say something has a fallacy, you have to demonstrate it has one, right?

Quite right. And you can’t either, on numerous topics of doctrinal concern.

All based on a fallible, private interpretation of yours that you use as a club with which to swing at every Protestant and accuse of doing the same exact thing.

Didn’t say that I don’t believe them to be 100% true. I said not infallible.

Gaelic,

What basis is there for believing that they are 100% true?

 

[PRmerger]

Merge,

I believe we do a disservice to this issue by ahdering to what others think of denominations…reality dictates streams of thought as I have outlined before.

No worries, Coptic.

I have asked this question ad nauseum to non-Catholic Christians who object to the “tens of thousands of differing Christian denominations” reference.

I say: “Tell me what’s the actual number and I will consider using it, provided you offer your source for this actual number.”

Not a single person has ever been able to give an alternate number.

At any rate, any number more than 10 is sound evidence that a central authority is required.

Actually, any number more than 1 is contrary to the will of God, no?

 

[lyrikal]

lyrikal;10235536:

Here, I will point to two Catholic scholars of Irenaeus:

“All churches must agree with it [the Roman church] on matters of doctrine because they must agree with the apostolic tradition preserved by the apostolic churches…In any event this is a striking testimony though not, in my view, as decisive as some have argued. The context of Irenaeus’ argument does not claim that the Roman Church is literally unique, the one and only in its class; rather, he argues that the Roman church is the outstanding example of its class, the class in question being apostolic sees. While he chose to speak primarily of Rome for brevity’s sake, in fact, before finishing, he also referred to Ephesus and Smyrna…The German Catholic scholar, Norbert Brox of Regensburg, has claimed that the argument is framed entirely within a western context. At first I found this argument weak, but after comparing Irenaeus’ argument to its expansion as found in Tertullian’s De praescriptione haereticorum (36), (cf. next chapter), I find Brox’s argument more convincing.” (Robert Eno, The Rise Of The Papacy [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1990], pp. 39-40)

“It is indeed understandable how this passage has baffled scholars for centuries! Those who were wont to find in it a verification of the Roman primacy were able to interpret it in that fashion. However, there is so much ambiguity here that one has to be careful of over-reading the evidence…Karl Baus’ interpretation [that Irenaeus wasn’t referring to a papacy] seems to be the one that is more faithful to the text and does not presume to read into it a meaning which might not be there. Hence, it neither overstates nor understates Irenaeus’ position. For him [Irenaeus], it is those churches of apostolic foundation that have the greater claim to authentic teaching and doctrine. Among those, Rome, with its two apostolic founders, certainly holds an important place. However, all of the apostolic churches enjoy what he terms ‘preeminent authority’ in doctrinal matters.” (William La Due, The Chair Of Saint Peter [Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999], p. 28)

Outside of these statements regarding primacy, he frequently addressed issues of authority, repeatedly appealing to the authority of the apostles, the authority of those who knew the apostles, the authority of scripture, etc. He never appeals to papal authority, nor does he ever even mention it. So why does he mention the Roman church? It’s ancient, closely associated with the apostles, with Scripture (Romans) and with being the center of the Western empire; could the gnostics claim anything like this? Remember, that’s who he is arguing against, primarily.

About infallibility, well, Hmmm…Well, this would be good, if of course, by saying the episcopacy has received the certain gift of truth meant what Roman Catholics mean by it today. But what is the certain gift of truth?

CHAP. XXVI.–THE TREASURE HID IN THE SCRIPTURES IS CHRIST; THE TRUE EXPOSITION OF THE SCRIPTURES IS TO BE FOUND IN THE CHURCH ALONE.

1. If any one, therefore, reads the Scriptures with attention…

continued…

Two Catholic scholars saying something doesn’t make your point any better than me quoting other scholars who contradict your scholars…

With regards to the second part, what’s your point? That the elders use Scripture to preach the infallible truth? Well, I’m glad you’re finally starting to see the Catholic point of view. Please understand that these elders aren’t going around quoting Scripture to people. This isn’t how they preach. They interpret the Scriptures ACCORDING to the living Tradition of the Church.

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the **knowledge **of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).

You’ve proven nothing.

 

[lyrikal]

Presbyters and deacons. I know it doesn’t mention a papacy.

Alright and do these presbyters and deacons have authority or does it belong to everyone?

Yes, because of all the statements I’ve made saying that Scripture says we interpret Scripture privately on our own without any governing body that has authority within the congregation. You have some crows on that there straw man fallacy you’re setting up.

So is there or isn’t there an authoritative Church? If there is, then why are you ridiculing our claims?

Oh the irony!

Oh there is none!..

You know, before you can say something has a fallacy, you have to demonstrate it has one, right?

I have numerous times. I’m tired of having to repeat myself.

Quite right. And you can’t either, on numerous topics of doctrinal concern.

You do realize that none of the Fathers are bound to doctrines unless they are proclaimed dogmatic in a council, right? Like the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary…You’ve only demonstrated that you have very little knowledge about Catholicism.

All based on a fallible, private interpretation of yours that you use as a club with which to swing at every Protestant and accuse of doing the same exact thing.

Back to this? Boy you’re something else. Please see my previous points on the types of questions one should ask…Is there or isn’t there authority today? If so, where? If not, then are we to interpret privately? Those are more sincere questions to ask rather than trying to trap Catholics in which you have only succeeded to trap yourself.

Didn’t say that I don’t believe them to be 100% true. I said not infallible.

So let me get the straight. You believe your doctrines to be 100% true but they are not infallible? So why should I believe your fallible doctrines? Why are you trying to lead people to fallible doctrines? Are you out of your mind?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic Bard;10235610:

Two Catholic scholars saying something doesn’t make your point any better than me quoting other scholars who contradict your scholars…

Never said that it did. I just used them to enunciate my view on what Irenaeus is saying.

With regards to the second part, what’s your point? That the elders use Scripture to preach the infallible truth? Well, I’m glad you’re finally starting to see the Catholic point of view. Please understand that these elders aren’t going around quoting Scripture to people. This isn’t how they preach. They interpret the Scriptures ACCORDING to the living Tradition of the Church.

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church

, call in question the **knowledge **of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).

You’ve proven nothing.

Great…now demonstrate that anything in the tradition referred to is fundamentally new information than that which is found in the writings of the apostles themselves.