That St. Paul and scripture are not infallible, that's a pretty wide spread and probably majority (though not universal) Orthodox view. As for actually criticizing Paul and the Scripture and taking the jump from 'not-infallible' to 'plain-wrong', well that's a GIC thing with only minimal support elsewhere in Orthodoxy. The Church claims no responsibility for my personal actions and opinions.
The general view of the Orthodox in relation to scripture and synods is that they are 'sufficient' or 'authoritative', but not infallible. Infallibility is a divine attribute derived from omniscience that can't even be shared by the Church (right up there with omnipotence...when the Synods, Saints, or Pope can start creating worlds out of nothing, they can start claiming infallibility).
Sounds like one of those infomercial - the following is a paid announcement and do not necessarily reflect the views of this station (SO DON"T SUE US!)
But to claim that Scriptures are not infallible (whether you view them as plain wrong or not) seems wrought with troubles. As Dei Verbum
11. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16)
, holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chap. 2 "On Revelation:" Denzinger 1787 (3006); Biblical Commission, Decree of June 18,1915: Denzinger 2180 (3629): EB 420; Holy Office, Epistle of Dec. 22, 1923: EB 499.)
In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (cf. Pius XII, encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu," Sept. 30, 1943: A.A.S. 35 (1943) p. 314; Enchiridion Bible. (EB) 556.)
they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, ("In" and "for" man: cf. Heb. 1, and 4, 7; ("in"): 2 Sm. 23,2; Matt.1:22 and various places; ("for"): First Vatican Council, Schema on Catholic Doctrine, note 9: Coll. Lac. VII, 522.)
they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (Leo XIII, encyclical "Providentissimus Deus," Nov. 18, 1893: Denzinger 1952 (3293); EB 125.)
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (cf. St. Augustine, "Gen. ad Litt." 2, 9, 20:PL 34, 270-271; Epistle 82, 3: PL 33, 277: CSEL 34, 2, p. 354. St. Thomas, "On Truth," Q. 12, A. 2, C.Council of Trent, session IV, Scriptural Canons: Denzinger 783 (1501). Leo XIII, encyclical "Providentissimus Deus:" EB 121, 124, 126-127. Pius XII, encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu:" EB 539.)
for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text)
Perhaps it's just the small minority, who are willing to discuss such matters at length, that hold those views?
And if they break his commandments, you are culpable in following them (I'm starting to sound like an Old Calendarist now, yikes). I guess, in the end, we're each responsible for our own beliefs and actions, you can't point fingers on the day of judgement (assuming such a literal thing and an eternal hell exist, which is an entirely different matter for one of the several threads where we've already discussed this ).
I think that the topic of obedience also deserves it own thread.