When we speak of infallibility there is no need to differentiate the two, since infallibility—by necessity—encompasses inerrancy. That which is infallible (incapable of error) is also inerrant (free from any error).
Have either of you read C.S. Lewis, especially The Great Divorce? It may not be "Orthodox", but perhaps it might (if nothing else) show you something a little different than you're used to seeing from "the West".
As Kolo observed, it is a western way of conveying what "dying unto oneself" is, forsaking the world and all its riches which we cannot take with us. I would also agree with Kolo vis-a-vis his comment about Anglicans being the closest (spiritually) to the Orthodox, although some Catholic monastics are too.
Thanks for sharing that. I always enjoy reading Lewis, as I find in him a very recognizable mind set expressed in a "foreign" language. :)
In fact, if taken seriously, it [doubt] shows us just how little we actually know, and demonstrates the necessity of faith
No, it doesn't follow that doubt demonstrates the necessity of faith. Faith and doubt are mutually exclusive.
If that were true in full generality, then why did Christ speak of punishment at all? Why wasn't He gentler when He rebuked the Pharisees, when He told the parable of the talents, or when he talked about the goats and the sheep?
He threatened and rebuked ordinary, insignificant Pharisees, and small money changers. Why didn't He threaten Ponitus Pilate and the Sanhendrin? Do you think God would engage in small talk with local zealots? And where is "love those who hate you" in "your father is the devil," or "you don't know the scripture and the power of God?" Where is compassion? Is it really plausible that this is one and the same Jesus speaking? I doubt it.
+Mark is not a witness, but a follower of +Peter. He is re-telling what he heard. +Matthew and +Luke copy from +Mark, chapter by chapter, verbatim in most cases, and sometimes adding to them their own details (remember that +Luke is also not a witness, but a follower of +Paul, neither of whom knew Christ personally). +Matthew and +Luke also share what they borrowed from another source (the "Q"), which are narratives (popular myths) about Jesus' ministry.
So, when Christ is quoted as saying something, the quotes are not necessarily His words. We have no way of knowing what was said and what was made up and filled in 40 years after Christ's death by the writers of the Synoptic Gospels.
We can judge, however, the behavior of the Church in the earliest days and we realize that it completely rejected any violence, even self-defense. Christians who were in the army had to lay down their arms and get out. The nascent Church was as pacifist as it gets, imitating Christ's final days. If the core of their belief was on Christ making threats, they would have followed His example by imitating that behavior. The complete absence of any violence or resistance among early Christians indicates that the early Gospels did not teach a threatening Christ, but a humble one.
I'll buy that. But I still think it's useful to differentiate speakers/writers from the statements themselves, as the article on NewAdvent did (whether or not one buys the claim that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers to write infallibly is another matter entirely).
Thanks for sharing that. I always enjoy reading Lewis, as I find in him a very recognizable mind set expressed in a "foreign" language. :)
I enjoy reading Lewis, too. I've also been enjoying reading +John Chrysostom. One of my favorites is apparently a letter he wrote to a deaconess in Constantinople (St. Olympias) when he was in exile during the last years of his life. Despite his tribulations, he insisted that in truth No one can harm the man who does not harm himself. This was a common theme in his earlier homilies, and is also a major theme in Lewis' book.
No, it doesn't follow that doubt demonstrates the necessity of faith. Faith and doubt are mutually exclusive.
Only if you equate faith with certainty. But faith is a belief in things unseen, of which we can be not at all certain (at least not in a logical or empirical sense). When we understand that we don't see or know everything about everything (a very humbling realization that in fact, despite all the advances in science and technology, what we do see is very little) then that demonstrates the necessity of faith. Now the object of that faith can be, of course, a point of great contention...
He threatened and rebuked ordinary, insignificant Pharisees, and small money changers. Why didn't He threaten Ponitus Pilate and the Sanhendrin? Do you think God would engage in small talk with local zealots? And where is "love those who hate you" in "your father is the devil," or "you don't know the scripture and the power of God?" Where is compassion? Is it really plausible that this is one and the same Jesus speaking? I doubt it.
The Fathers preached and wrote extensively on the Gospels, and many of those writings have been preserved. I'm sure they'll be able to provide much better and more articulate answers than I could. :)