[grip_daddy]

Inflammability is the inability to err. According to many Theists, God cannot err.

The concept of God never erring has been transposed into His word, that according to Christians, is Himself expressed.

The man representing God therefore has been endowed with powers never to err. This man in the person of the Pope never committed any error, neither by commission nor omission, during the days when secular scientists were persecuted for lying against the truth. The papacy still holds to the doctrine of the pope's inflammability though they have dropped that of Biblical inflammability.

The protestants on the other hand, still hold that the Bible as an express word from God is Inflammable. SDAs still frontier this dogma to greater heights, maintaining that the Bible is the only rule of faith.

My question is, which is better? Papal inflammability or Biblical?

[reggie_woic]

muahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

[lavidanor]

Daddy, you must have meant "Infallibility" and its variants eg. infallible.
Inflammable (Inflammability) is something that is burnable (that which can easily be set on fire).

Regie_woc, what was your point?

My answer is that the reality speaks for itself. The pope is never infallible. The Bible on the other hand is infallible.

[grip_daddy]

Originally Posted by lavidanor

Daddy, you must have meant "Infallibility" and its variants eg. infallible.
Inflammable (Inflammability) is something that is burnable (that which can easily be set on fire).

My bad. Thanks.

My answer is that the reality speaks for itself. The pope is never infallible. The Bible on the other hand is infallible.

The bible contains obvious Chronological contradictions e.g. the blood line of Christ in Matthew and Luke. Conceptual errors also exist, so what's the extent?

[reggie_woic]

papal infallibility to the lay man sounds laughable - with good reason.
but there are strict conditions for it to apply.

we've dropped biblical infallibility? where did you get that from?

p.s grip...its not too late to edit the post
*stiffled laughter*
i'm so immature

[grip_daddy]

p.s grip...its not too late to edit the post
*stiffled laughter*
i'm so immature

No need. It's taken care of pretty well!

[ndigila]

I'm somewhere in between (or maybe not).

The only thing that destroys the idea of Biblical infallibility is the fact that there are many contradictory interpretations of it. It's like 2 people saying "M.J. is the greatest" although one of them is talking about Michael Jordan and the other is talking about Magic Johnson. Besides, the Bible points to the church as the authority.

The problem with Papal infallibility is apart from historical evidence of abuses of authority, it makes the Church councils pretty much useless if the Pope had the final word. Besides, the Patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox church was referred to as Pope long before the Patriarch of the Roman church.

Scriptures and the testaments of early Christians point towards infallibility of the Church.

[grip_daddy]

Scriptures and the testaments of early Christians point towards infallibility of the Church.

In this regard, we cant trust the scriptures because the clause interpretated by you to mean Church's infallibility could be interpretated differently by another. Early Christian testaments could be subject to same errors that maybe apparent in the New Testament of the Bible.

[Simbi-Nyaima]

In catholic dogma the doctrine of papal infallibility is largely derived from the statement that Jesus made to his disciples, i think in Mathews that 'Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven'.

I however believe that is not the correct interpretation of the scripture

[grip_daddy]

I however believe that is not the correct interpretation of the scripture

Should scriptures be interpretated in any way other than the direct literal wordings? Everyone claims misinterpretation of scriptures whenever another frontier doctrines they do not agree with.