I can only say you believe it in principle even if not using that expression.
The problem you are left if you deny inerrancy in any form, you can then no longer rely on any tradition (because it is human witness and action), you cannot rely on scripture (or Gods action through authors and councils that decide canons- or so you say - and I disagree), and you cannot rely on authority because both forms of authority are human forms, councils and papacy. All are God acting through people.
In short you would have no dogma at all!,
You would discount the lot as in error, you would therefor have no sacraments, or anything else.
But you hold all these true, and if you do hold your dogma as true (almost all the same as ours) , you must accept God acted through people in tradition, and/or scripture and/or councils .
The reality is many early fathers spoke of inerrancy without using the word.
Justin Martyr, Clement, Iraneus all made statements on scripture (although it could be argued that some of what they referred was OT) and later Augustine said it explicitly, with many others in between. So heralding the defined new testament.
Just as importantly - Nowhere (that I can find) amongst church fathers does a voice speak out AGAINST inerrancy of scripture. Tell me if there was. What the early fathers do not say is as revealing as what they do say.
So In a church that was hot on heresy, in which some spoke of the concept of inerrancy, even though not using the word, the same fathers said nothing against inerrancy of scripture such as gospels. You also accepted the outcome of such as Hippo on the canon, which is also accepting Augustines View!
For sure, orthodox rightly questions translations and interpretations - which is to say the scripture itself is Gods word, but only if it is copied, translated and interpreted correctly! And so do we...
My view of orthodox is the same on all matters.
They prefer to leave unsaid what they believe and we instead define.
They believe in purgation - but leave the how as a mystery, so oppose the definition of a process (or place) called purgatory (about which even RCC has little to say, other than acknowledging the state before purification allows entry to heaven, and that prayers for the dead are efficacious
.
Orthodox believe in real presence - but prefer not to comment on the process, again leaving the how or what as a mystery rather than as we do declaring transubstantiation. They hold in reverence just the same.
And in this case they believe in the preservation of the true faith by inerrancy of tradition, later scripture. But again they prefer to comment on how the faith has remained inerrant despite the reliance on Gods human agents in all of the means of transmission of dogma, be it tradition, scripture or auhtority/ councils, so Orthodox believe in Inerrancy in practice.
I can understand why those opposed to primacy, would want to play down a dogman of inerrancy! it weakens their case of doing their own thing.
You prefer leaving as mystery . But You accept the reality.
Indeed before you split off to do your own thing, which the more I read of it, was personal pride getting in the way of allowing subordination and primacy elsewhere, you believed much as we did.
We do not believe in the infallibility of scripture or the new testament.
Where do you get the idea that we do? Can you quote a council or a canon?
I believe you're thinking of RC.
Forgive me...
