10andBOUNCE said:

---

Is the belief that Rome (and EO) is completely inerrant in their interpretation of the Bible?

---

Basically… the understanding, not interpretation, has been the same since we collected the books and built the Bible.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Is the belief that Rome (and EO) is completely inerrant in their interpretation of the Bible?

---

Don't Reformed theologians believe their interpretation is correct? They may not use the word innerent but guys like MacArthur (RIP) are pretty firm on their beliefs. In fact, most do not consider Catholics to be "real" Christians. I don't see the big difference except Reformed folks like their theology better than Catholic theology.

The Catholic Church has not infallibly defined or interpreted every single verse of the Bible.

However, the Church's teaching is that the Magisterium (the Pope and the bishops in communion with him) cannot bind the faithful to something false when it teaches definitively on matters of faith and morals. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13), and He gave the Church the authority to "bind and loose" on earth what is bound and loosed in heaven (Matthew 16:18-19; 18:18). This means the Church is protected from error in her definitive doctrinal teachings, otherwise the gates of Hell would prevail against her (Matthew 16:18), and she could not be the one true Church founded by Christ.

This does not mean every statement from a pope, bishop, or cardinal is infallible. The scope is much more limited than many people (including many Catholics) realize. Infallibility applies only under specific conditions, as explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (especially CCC 889-892).

"the same" is not the same as being inerrant

10andBOUNCE said:

---

"the same" is not the same as being inerrant

---

Listen man, I would expect somebody who believes that everybody gets to interpret the Bible personally would say exactly what you said.

I'm not going to have that argument with you as I believe you are 100% wrong in your opinion, and I'm sure that you feel about the same about mine.

You asked a question simply to immediately turn that into an argument and I am not interested.

It would be pointless to have this conversation and create conflict where none need exist.

I was simply asking a clarifying question. Just trying to understand where we are all coming from.

Does your Orthodox tradition claim they are inerrant in all they do?

I will be happy with a yes/no and have no planned follow-ups

Scripture is considered the highest and most authoritative component of Holy Tradition.

That said… it cannot be separated from the rest of that tradition including the writings of the Holy Father's, ecumenical councils etc…

I don't know that any sane logical Orthodox person is ever going to say that we have not misunderstood in any way possible. I personally don't believe as humans that is an achievable goal.

That said it is far and away the very best of what Christianity has to offer. The most rooted in the understandings and writings of the time and combination with Church Tradition (which can basically be read as history of knowledge from the times).

I do feel very confident in the Orthodox understanding of scriptures to the extent that this is not even a conversation in Orthodox circles.

I very much so think that should count for quite a lot when there are a half billion people who just don't disagree and do not suffer from division over the scriptures.

If I was forced to say it, I would say that the orthodox are 99.99% understanding of the scriptures.

The problem on the Protestant Sola Sciptura side is that the number can pretty much go from 0 to 99%.

I would just say the 99% is rare because error compounds with error.

I don't mind the reply or the discussion, but I'm doing my best to try and not be combative on the forum.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Is the belief that Rome (and EO) is completely inerrant in their interpretation of the Bible?

---

Don't Reformed theologians believe their interpretation is correct? They may not use the word innerent but guys like MacArthur (RIP) are pretty firm on their beliefs. In fact, most do not consider Catholics to be "real" Christians. I don't see the big difference except Reformed folks like their theology better than Catholic theology.

---

Of course....anyone who teaches genuinely has to believe what they are teaching is correct. Otherwise, what are we doing?

The difference is that guys I listen to have most definitely appealed to the fact that nobody's theology is 100% correct and we are all going to find that out one day in glory.

To me, it seems arrogant, prideful, and unsubstantiated that a certain tradition has and will always interpret perfectly.

---

Never heard MacArthur once say he might be wrong. And I believe the Pope is only considered infallible when he is ex cathedra. And that has I believe only occurred twice in centuries and not for a long time. With all due respect, you may have a skewed view of what Catholics believe and how they believe.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Is the belief that Rome (and EO) is completely inerrant in their interpretation of the Bible?

---

Don't Reformed theologians believe their interpretation is correct? They may not use the word innerent but guys like MacArthur (RIP) are pretty firm on their beliefs. In fact, most do not consider Catholics to be "real" Christians. I don't see the big difference except Reformed folks like their theology better than Catholic theology.

---

Of course....anyone who teaches genuinely has to believe what they are teaching is correct. Otherwise, what are we doing?

The difference is that guys I listen to have most definitely appealed to the fact that nobody's theology is 100% correct and we are all going to find that out one day in glory.

To me, it seems arrogant, prideful, and unsubstantiated that a certain tradition has and will always interpret perfectly.

---

It is incredibly prideful and arrogant for a man or men to claim that they, in their human capacity, are capable of perfectly interpreting scriptrue. This is why every single heretic going back to the 2nd century is accused of being prideful, arrogant, etc. Luther was told the same and he basically owned it. In his commentary on Galatians, he admits his doctrine of justification is not found in any of the church fathers, although Augustine was close.

Now how has the Church handled heretics of the past? By imploring them to return to the faith that is guarded by the Church. The promise of infallibility in teachings on faith and morals is not created by humans, nor contained in a person or persons. The promise comes from Jesus and it's fulfilled by the Holy Spirit in the Church. The Bride of Christ is given that protection. The myriad cases of individuals inside that Church seeking to change it's definitive teachings and failing to do so over and over again would be a part of how I substantiate that claim. From the trinity to the hypostatic union to morality and so much more, the Church has been protected.

Because of this, we don't have any personal pride in saying that our sacred tradition has been protected. It's a gift we're blessed to have received, and boasting about it would mean one doesn't understand it all.

Thanks, appreciate the time and response.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Is the belief that Rome (and EO) is completely inerrant in their interpretation of the Bible?

---

Don't Reformed theologians believe their interpretation is correct? They may not use the word innerent but guys like MacArthur (RIP) are pretty firm on their beliefs. In fact, most do not consider Catholics to be "real" Christians. I don't see the big difference except Reformed folks like their theology better than Catholic theology.

---

Of course....anyone who teaches genuinely has to believe what they are teaching is correct. Otherwise, what are we doing?

The difference is that guys I listen to have most definitely appealed to the fact that nobody's theology is 100% correct and we are all going to find that out one day in glory.

To me, it seems arrogant, prideful, and unsubstantiated that a certain tradition has and will always interpret perfectly.

---

Never heard MacArthur once say he might be wrong. And I believe the Pope is only considered infallible when he is ex cathedra. And that has I believe only occurred twice in centuries and not for a long time. With all due respect, you may have a skewed view of what Catholics believe and how they believe.

---

JMac would often appeal that "he didn't know" how certain things worked, especially in his church's Q&A sessions they would host.

As usual on these threads there is a ton of misconceptions from both sides.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Is the belief that Rome (and EO) is completely inerrant in their interpretation of the Bible?

---

Don't Reformed theologians believe their interpretation is correct? They may not use the word innerent but guys like MacArthur (RIP) are pretty firm on their beliefs. In fact, most do not consider Catholics to be "real" Christians. I don't see the big difference except Reformed folks like their theology better than Catholic theology.

---

Of course....anyone who teaches genuinely has to believe what they are teaching is correct. Otherwise, what are we doing?

The difference is that guys I listen to have most definitely appealed to the fact that nobody's theology is 100% correct and we are all going to find that out one day in glory.

To me, it seems arrogant, prideful, and unsubstantiated that a certain tradition has and will always interpret perfectly.

---

Never heard MacArthur once say he might be wrong. And I believe the Pope is only considered infallible when he is ex cathedra. And that has I believe only occurred twice in centuries and not for a long time. With all due respect, you may have a skewed view of what Catholics believe and how they believe.

---

JMac would often appeal that "he didn't know" how certain things worked, especially in his church's Q&A sessions they would host.

---

So do Catholic priests if you talk to them. JMac was pretty dogmatic on most issues like spousal abuse, the Catholic Church, role of women, etc

That would be the main purpose of the discussion, in my mind.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That would be the main purpose of the discussion, in my mind.

---

Sorry but I don't understand the response.

Sorry, your comment about misconceptions, which I agree with. The purpose would be to better understand.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Sorry, your comment about misconceptions, which I agree with. The purpose would be to better understand.

---

Got it and agree. I was taught a lot of stuff about Catholics growing up that was not true. And my Catholic friends were taught a lot of stuff about Protestants that was not true.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Thanks, appreciate the time and response.

---

Yessir. Appreciate the convo.

The bible says that the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth, not you, and not Pastor Bob. The Church that was around at the that time was the Catholic Church...

By Catholic do you mean Roman, Universal, or both?

Thaddeus73 said:

---

The bible says that the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth, not you, and not Pastor Bob. The Church that was around at the that time was the Catholic Church...

---

I don't believe it was the Roman Cwtholic church as we know it today.

Just another reminder that the "Roman" in front of Catholic Church is a protestant slur from the 16th century that has entered into modern lexicon as if it were the official title of the Church. The official title is simply The Catholic Church. Rome happens to be the earthly headquarters. After the reformation, it was used against people living in other countries to show that their allegiance was to some foreigner and not their country's Church.

The only time the Church officially uses the term "Roman Catholic Church" is in very few instance where it's being used to define the church's location geographically. Like the Roman Church speaking to the German Church over their nonsense recently. It's still One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, but internally there are sometimes a need to define where the messages are coming from versus where they are sent.

The Banned said:

---

Just another reminder that the "Roman" in front of Catholic Church is a protestant slur from the 16th century that has entered into modern lexicon as if it were the official title of the Church. The official title is simply The Catholic Church. Rome happens to be the earthly headquarters. After the reformation, it was used against people living in other countries to show that their allegiance was to some foreigner and not their country's Church.

The only time the Church officially uses the term "Roman Catholic Church" is in very few instance where it's being used to define the church's location geographically. Like the Roman Church speaking to the German Church over their nonsense recently. It's still One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, but internally there are sometimes a need to define where the messages are coming from versus where they are sent.

---

I certainly did not mean it as a slur.

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Just another reminder that the "Roman" in front of Catholic Church is a protestant slur from the 16th century that has entered into modern lexicon as if it were the official title of the Church. The official title is simply The Catholic Church. Rome happens to be the earthly headquarters. After the reformation, it was used against people living in other countries to show that their allegiance was to some foreigner and not their country's Church.

The only time the Church officially uses the term "Roman Catholic Church" is in very few instance where it's being used to define the church's location geographically. Like the Roman Church speaking to the German Church over their nonsense recently. It's still One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, but internally there are sometimes a need to define where the messages are coming from versus where they are sent.

---

I certainly did not mean it as a slur.

---

I'm sure you didn't. I just want people to know why the term is used historically, and it is not used to gain clarity. The Catholic Church today is still the Catholic Church of yesteryear. Inserting that "Roman" part was used to cast doubt. Again, historically. Not saying you're doing that

The reformation would have never been needed if Rome and Constantinople weren't acting like children to see who was the most important in all of Christendom.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The reformation would have never been needed if Rome and Constantinople weren't acting like children to see who was the most important in all of Christendom.

---

True. Reform was needed in my opinion. The problem was when theology that had been present for centuries was abruptly changed. Predestination and election come to mind.

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Just another reminder that the "Roman" in front of Catholic Church is a protestant slur from the 16th century that has entered into modern lexicon as if it were the official title of the Church. The official title is simply The Catholic Church. Rome happens to be the earthly headquarters. After the reformation, it was used against people living in other countries to show that their allegiance was to some foreigner and not their country's Church.

The only time the Church officially uses the term "Roman Catholic Church" is in very few instance where it's being used to define the church's location geographically. Like the Roman Church speaking to the German Church over their nonsense recently. It's still One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, but internally there are sometimes a need to define where the messages are coming from versus where they are sent.

---

I certainly did not mean it as a slur.

---

I'm sure you didn't. I just want people to know why the term is used historically, and it is not used to gain clarity. The Catholic Church today is still the Catholic Church of yesteryear. Inserting that "Roman" part was used to cast doubt. Again, historically. Not saying you're doing that

---

'Catholic' is a generic term now; the copyright expired. You can keep telling us the history if you want, but your right up there with Kleenex.

dermdoc said:

---

As usual on these threads there is a ton of misconceptions from both sides.

---

Agree. Romans 14 addresses this very topic. We are brothers, and should have unity, not try to "gotcha" each other.

Rex Racer said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

As usual on these threads there is a ton of misconceptions from both sides.

---

Agree. Romans 14 addresses this very topic. We are brothers, and should have unity, not try to "gotcha" each other.

---

We are all on the same team.

I think that's true but have heard mixed messages on this forum, especially when it comes to the Eucharist and potentially your fate if you're not partaking of it properly. Could be a misunderstanding.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I think that's true but have heard mixed messages on this forum, especially when it comes to the Eucharist and potentially your fate if you're not partaking of it properly. Could be a misunderstanding.

---

I know a ton of Catholics including priests and bishops.Never heard that and we freely share our faith.My best friend is a devout Catholic and we talk about our faith all the time. Never heard it from him either. Maybe I am missing posts stating this.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I think that's true but have heard mixed messages on this forum, especially when it comes to the Eucharist and potentially your fate if you're not partaking of it properly. Could be a misunderstanding.

---

I know a ton of Catholics including priests and bishops.Never heard that and we freely share our faith.My best friend is a devout Catholic and we talk about our faith all the time. Never heard it from him either. Maybe I am missing posts stating this.

---

They teach it early. Had a second grader at our school tell another student his sacrament wasn't valid. Sure it's tempered as adults but by avoiding it.