[Mr. Lucky]

There may be a boat load of Protestant clergy who are weak in their faith, just as there, doubtless, are a boat load of Roman Catholic clergy with that same weakness; but it doesn't stem from the fallibility of Scripture.

In a nutshell, the orthodox Protestant belief is that Scripture is infallible and any doctrine which is in conflict with Scripture is fallible. That doesn't require all Christians to share all doctrine, merely that doctrine which is in conflict with Scripture be rejected.

[D-fendr]

>>>That doesn’t require all Christians to share all doctrine, merely that doctrine which is in conflict with Scripture be rejected.

But, I think that statement contradicts itself, doesn’t it? At the least it would require agreement on that “which is in conflict with Scripture”.

[D-fendr]

I’m thinking along the lines of the article when it says: “Protestants of every stripe—from radical Episcopalians with their Mother Goddess worship and homosexual marriage to mainstream Evangelicals to Jehovah’s Witnesses all claim that their beliefs and practices are derived from and at least consistent with Scripture.”

[Mad Dawg]

Yes to any number of clerics having faith under assault. And, of course I get the 2 sides of (a)you gotta believe what's IN Scripture and (b) you don't gotta believe what is not or what can't be proved thereby. (See, just for fun, Article VI of the "Article of Religion.")

What I was trying to say was that the problem of "the Church can err," is greater for the kind of hybrid position of some Anglicans than for out and out Protestants.

While, clearly, I disagree with Protestants about some things,, that doesn't mean I don't see the admirable (if not perfect) internal consistency of some of them.