Are there any churches that reject Biblical inerrancy?

[JonNC]

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.

Just for clarity, Lutherans are neither Calvinist nor Arminian, and neither postmillenneal nor premillenneal.

Carry on.

Jon

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

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

Of course, or they wouldn’t be elders and deacons.

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

Ridicule? No. And because you are claiming your authority is infallible.

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.

Well, there go half the arguments against Martin Luther.

I never said the “fathers” were bound to them. Mentioning them might be nice though.

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?

I am not infallible.

 

[pablope]

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.

 

[lyrikal]

lyrikal;10235664:

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

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.

I did but you won’t accept it. Show me where the Scriptures has Rome as a Church being a Church that every other Church must agree to. Even if it is only to do with how ancient it is, still…show me where…If you can’t, then we have something “new”.

Do you believe Scripture teaches Infant Baptism? St. Irenaeus sure does…

“For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).

“Born Again” for St. Irenaeus means baptism. He interprets John 3 to be about Baptism and he believes it to be necessary for salvation and that it washes away our sins…Unless you want to show me where he says it’s only a mere symbol.

" ‘And dipped himself,’ says [the Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’" Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190).

And I suppose you would also agree to allude to Mary as the New Eve and the “Cause of salvation”?

“In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.’ But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise ‘they were both naked, and were not ashamed,’ inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty… Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22 (A.D. 180).

“For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1 (A.D. 180).

I’m glad we can both agree that

1.) Those are all scriptural
or
2.) St. Ireneaus has more in mind about what Tradition is than you think…

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Well…are your interpretations the same thing? You use them to hammer catholics too…don’t you?

 

[lyrikal]

Of course, or they wouldn’t be elders and deacons.

Alright.

Ridicule? No. And because you are claiming your authority is infallible.

Doesn’t saint Paul say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth? Obviously there has to be an infallible Church today lead by the Holy Spirit. What is wrong with claiming that the Holy Spirit is capable of leading an authoritative Church to all truth? What about all the verses in John where Christ talks about sending the Holy Spirit which is to lead us to ALL truth? What about Matthew 16? What about Matthew 18? Your problem is not with us but with the Scriptures. Can you show me where the Scripture states that the authoritative Church is fallible?

Well, there go half the arguments against Martin Luther.

Martin Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception and had a great devotion to Mary.

I never said the “fathers” were bound to them. Mentioning them might be nice though.

Some did and some didn’t. Those that didn’t, didn’t have to. They were not defined doctrines yet.

I am not infallible.

So again…you are leading people to fallible truth? Yes or no?

And how do you know the 27 books of the New Testament are the right ones? If the Church is fallible, then is there a chance that they got it wrong? So is there a chance that you are reverencing a book that may or may not be the Word of God? So there is a chance that you are committing idolatry? Your beliefs have backed you into ridiculous claims.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic Bard;10235679:

I did but you won’t accept it. Show me where the Scriptures has Rome as a Church being a Church that every other Church must agree to. Even if it is only to do with how ancient it is, still…show me where…If you can’t, then we have something “new”.

It stands to reason that if the church in Rome is orthodox, then every other church must agree with what the church in Rome teaches, yes? He says the same about the church in Smyrna and Ephesus, too. I don’t see you arguing for Smyrnean primacy.

Do you believe Scripture teaches Infant Baptism? St. Irenaeus sure does…

“For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).

No, I don’t believe Scripture teaches infant baptism, and I don’t believe Irenaeus to be arguing for infant baptism there. I, too, believe infants, children, boys, youths and old men can be born again.

“Born Again” for St. Irenaeus means baptism. He interprets John 3 to be about Baptism and he believes it to be necessary for salvation and that it washes away our sins…Unless you want to show me where he says it’s only a mere symbol.

Yes, he does argue for baptismal regeneration. He also argues that infants are innocent. I don’t believe infants are innocent, do you? Your second statement assumes I believe baptism to be a “mere symbol.”

And I suppose you would also agree to allude to Mary as the New Eve and the “Cause of salvation”?

“In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.’ But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise ‘they were both naked, and were not ashamed,’ inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty… Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22 (A.D. 180).

“For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1 (A.D. 180).

I’m glad we can both agree that

1.) Those are all scriptural
or
2.) St. Ireneaus has more in mind about what Tradition is than you think…

Well I may or may not agree with Irenaeus’ comparisons between Mary and Eve, no, you won’t find me running around saying that “Anyone who calls Mary the New Eve is a heretic!”

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Doesn’t saint Paul say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth? Obviously there has to be an infallible Church today lead by the Holy Spirit. What is wrong with claiming that the Holy Spirit is capable of leading an authoritative Church to all truth?

Because it leads to an authoritative body that cannot be corrected by either Scripture or Tradition, since Scripture or Tradition are whatever the current teaching authority of the church says they are.

Can you show me where the Scripture states that the authoritative Church is fallible?

You’d have to define the extent of this infallibility of the authoritative church. Was the church in Galatia and Corinth infallible?

So again…you are leading people to fallible truth? Yes or no?

God’s truth is infallible. I, however, am not. If it can be demonstrated that what I believe is exegetically false, using the apostolic writings, then I will stand corrected. I am open to being corrected by God’s word. Self-professed infallible churches are not.

 

[jmcrae]

You’d have to define the extent of this infallibility of the authoritative church. Was the church in Galatia and Corinth infallible?

There are different uses of the word “church.”

When we speak of Christ’s Church, we are speaking of one body of believers, which is shepherded on earth by Peter’s Successor in Rome.

The churches of Galatia and Corinth have never been distinct from the Church as a whole - they are part of it - they are Dioceses within the Church.

A Diocese is a “particular church” - a member in communion with the Church that Christ established on Peter.

The Diocese is headed by a Bishop who is in full communion with the Bishop of Rome; thus, St. Ignatius of Antioch could write to the Smyrneans, in 110 AD, “Where the Bishop is, there is Jesus Christ and His Church.”

 

[Arizona_Samson]

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.

Can you show me one Church Father who lived within the first five centuries after Mary’s death that had *even heard *of her alleged assumption? Didn’t think so…

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?

I’ve read your posts in the last several pages of this thread and haven’t read a single word of God that points to an “infallible” church. Where is your proof?

 

[stewstew03]

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

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

Baptists used to dialogue with “Rome” as well.

 

[jmcrae]

Can you show me one Church Father that lived within the first five centuries after Mary’s death who had *even heard *of her alleged assumption? Didn’t think so…

Origen …

I’ve read your posts in the last several pages of this thread and haven’t read a single word of God that points to an “infallible” church. Where is your proof?

Matthew 16:18-19. Note: “thou” refers to one individual; not to a whole group.

 

[stewstew03]

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.

Your bible’s Table of Contents.

 

[stewstew03]

Can you show me one Church Father who lived within the first five centuries after Mary’s death that had *even heard *of her alleged assumption? Didn’t think so…

Can you show me one Church Father who preached Sola Scriptura…? Didn’t think so…

:bible1:

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Origen …

Try again…

Matthew 16:18-19. Note: “thou” refers to one individual; not to a whole group.

Those passages don’t even remotely speak to an infallible church.

 

[PRmerger]

And because you are claiming your authority is infallible.

As do you, Gaelic Bard. As do you.

Each and every time you quote from Hebrews, Philemon, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc etc etc…you are giving tacit acknowledgement to the infallible authority of the CC.

Unless you can tell us that you use some other sort of evidence for discerning that these books are inspired but that the other (over 400) ancient Christan texts are not.

So far you have provided nothing except some nebulous reference to “evidence” that you have used to discern that the NT books are inspired.

[SIGN1]What is this evidence and why is it so hard to explain? [/SIGN1]

It ought to be quite simple to discern whether a book is inspired or not, no?

 

[PRmerger]

Well, that’s nothing more and nothing less than what the CC proclaims about our Magisterium. Her teachings are infallible. They are not.

That is, the infallibility is a function of the office, not the man.

Do you have any objection to this?

ARIZONA SAMSON: I see you are online now. Can you please respond to the above post? Thanks.

 

[lyrikal]

Hi Arizona Samson,

Can you show me one Church Father who lived within the first five centuries after Mary’s death that had *even heard *of her alleged assumption? Didn’t think so…

Pseudo – Melito

If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: “Be it done according to your will” (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17 [A.D. 300]).

Timothy of Jerusalem

Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).

John the Theologian

The Lord said to his Mother, “Let your heart rejoice and be glad. For every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens”. . . And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise (The Dormition of Mary [A.D. 400]).

Can you show me anything from first 5 centuries of Christianity that says that Christ has two wills?

I’ve read your posts in the last several pages of this thread and haven’t read a single word of God that points to an “infallible” church. Where is your proof?

I believe I quoted Matthew 16, Matthew 18 and 1 Timothy 3:15. In addition, I will add:

John 14:16-17 And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.

John 15:26 But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;

John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

The Holy Spirit will lead people to ALL TRUTH only if there is an infallible Church on earth. Actually, there are two ways this can be done.

1.) Holy Spirit leads ALL Christians privately to ALL Truth and all Christians come to the same conclusion about doctrine. With this method, there is no infallible Church needed.
2.) Holy Spirit inspires the Church that Christ established to have authority and infallibility and leads ALL Christians to this Church where they will all come to the same truth.

The first one proposes many issues with regards to divisions. We know that the method doesn’t work since we have over 20,000 protestant denominations all claiming to be lead by the Holy Spirit and yet disagreeing with each other on essential doctrines.

The second one seems to make the most sense as far keeping unity, preservation of the faith, and having the Holy Spirit leading the bishops into truth so that the bishops can teach the people. What’s the problem with believing that the Holy Spirit is powerful enough to lead the Church into ALL truth?

Grace and peace.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

Can you show me one Church Father who preached Sola Scriptura…? Didn’t think so…

:bible1:

Yes, I can show you many Church Father’s who looked only to Scripture as the “infallible” rule of faith for the Church.

So that we don’t continue to stray off topic here feel free to begin a new thread and I’ll join you there.

 

[stewstew03]

Yes, I can show you many Church Father’s who looked only to Scripture as the “infallible” rule of faith for the Church.

So that we don’t continue to stray off topic here feel free to begin a new thread and I’ll join you there.

It’s on point, so there’s no need to start a new topic. Show me which Church Fathers only looked to Scripture and not Sacred Tradition.