What happens when they disagree?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

What happens when they disagree?

---

When the fathers do, or when modern laity does?

CrackerJackAg said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Quote:

---

Rome has taught heresy. Rome has taught error.

---

Kenneth Copeland, Jesse Duplantis, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Swaggart, Al Sharpton, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Benny Hinn...

---

So Rome has good company? I'm not sure I understand the point?

This is why apostolic tradition is not tied to a specific group. Most of the heresy that Christianity has had to deal with started within the Christian church. Not outside of it.

---

You know this is not an honest argument to even attempt to make.

It's anti-Christian, anti-Church drivel. You sound like an atheist.

---

I'm assuming sarcasm right?

Quote:

---

I've granted your view of "sola". Scripture is the only infallible authority, not the only authority for you

---

Then why did you make this claim?

Quote:

---

quote" his sounds like "and", not "alone"

---

These statements from you seem contradictory? What am I missing?

Quote:

---

What groups have resolved what?

---

Christianity pre-exists the modern Roman Catholic Church. How did we deal with Arianism? Gnosticism? No infallible ruler necessary. It happened through honest discussion and debate of what the Scriptures said. I will full acknowledge that nowadays it's a lot tougher because all sides are really dug in, but that's a different issue.

Quote:

---

What does this have to do with anything? Did God promise to the Jewish high priests that He would lead their church into all truth as Jesus did with the apostles in John 16? Or that everything they bind on earth will be bound in Heaven? There are parallels in the OT and NT, but nowhere is it stated there always has to be a perfect 1:1 conversion

---

It has everything to do with it.

God saw no need for a claimed infallible decider for centuries. The majority of our Scriptures were written, passed down, and accepted as the Word of God without the necessity of an infallible decider.

John 16 is about the Holy Spirit, not a specific infallible decider. So not relevant to the discussion.

The keys of the kingdom were given to the entire church (Matthew 18). Not just Peter.

Both irrelevant to the discussion.

So we are left back at the start. Rome has made a claim. History, Tradition, and Scripture do not support that claim. It's on you to justify it. I don't believe you have.

Quote:

---

This is not true. They have their councils and their tradition that they believe can teach infallibly, just like us.

---

I'm always reminded of a discussion/debate that occurred between Fr. Stephen DeYoung and Gavin Ortlund. I don't remember the specific topic being discussed, but the big conversation was on the flaws of Nicaea 2. Gavin posed a question to the effect of "Given we know the historical basis used to justify Icons was in error and not accurate, what does that say about this council?"

DeYoung's response boiled down to, "in spite of that, we know the council's decision is correct (guided by the Holy Spirit) because the EO accept it and God would not let His Church fall into error."

I believe a similar point has been made in the past about Florence.

So no, the argument of some infallible decider being the same appears to be very different than what the EO say is their "methodology" for accepting something.

Quote:

---

This is incredibly false. The Catholic Church admits there have been heretics in the Church (have since it's inception), but nowhere has the Church said it magisterially taught heresy.

---

We know, for a fact, that popes taught heresy. It's not disputed.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Quote:

---

Rome has taught heresy. Rome has taught error.

---

Kenneth Copeland, Jesse Duplantis, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Swaggart, Al Sharpton, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Benny Hinn...

---

So Rome has good company? I'm not sure I understand the point?

This is why apostolic tradition is not tied to a specific group. Most of the heresy that Christianity has had to deal with started within the Christian church. Not outside of it.

---

You know this is not an honest argument to even attempt to make.

It's anti-Christian, anti-Church drivel. You sound like an atheist.

---

There is a reason why Protestantism was berthed around the same time as the enlightenment. D'Holbach, Diderot, Helvetius all major enlightenment thinkers and rabid atheists.

Protestantism is the Enlightenment dressed in a Church costume.

Quote:

---

Then why did you make this claim?

---

Because this was the context. I said:

Quote:

---

I ask again: if tradition is fallible, how do we know that the staying in the traditional Lutheranism is right, and the S Koreans are wrong? I know you say you still appeal to tradition, and I am acknowledging that. But if your group is parsing out which tradition were aligned with scripture and which ones weren't, how do we evaluate your group's decision vs another claiming to do the same thing? They don't see themselves as departing from the faith.

---

You said:

Quote:

---

Because Tradition is also tested against Scripture. So Tradition, coupled with Scripture makes it clear.

---

You're saying that Tradition is helping you to infallibly decide who is interpreting the bible correctly. I said it sounds like "and" because you have a second infallible authority you're appealing to here. If Tradition isn't an infallible authority, then again I ask the question: How do you know you are for sure interpreting it correctly and they aren't?

Quote:

---

Christianity pre-exists the modern Roman Catholic Church. How did we deal with Arianism? Gnosticism? No infallible ruler necessary. It happened through honest discussion and debate of what the Scriptures said. I will full acknowledge that nowadays it's a lot tougher because all sides are really dug in, but that's a different issue.

---

So you appeal to the infallible teaching of councils to sort out issues as an example of not needing an infallible interpreter? That's another "and". Infallible Councils (recognized by the infallible Church) AND Infallible Scripture. If the Church/Council isn't teaching this infallibly, we have no real way of knowing if Arius's interpretation of Scripture, or the Oriental Orthodox, or any other number of possibilities were right all along.

Quote:

---

God saw no need for a claimed infallible decider for centuries. The majority of our Scriptures were written, passed down, and accepted as the Word of God without the necessity of an infallible decider.

---

Dude. Right there in Acts 15 we see the apostles gather to determine how to handle a divisive situation. The only Scripture cited is a verse saying God will pick gentiles too. So what do we do about this circumcison thing? We're going to say they don't have to. They determined how to handle that situation, and it's infallible. There was an infallible decider from the very beginning. If they didn't infallibly decide that, then maybe the gentiles did need to be circumcised after all.

Quote:

---

So we are left back at the start. Rome has made a claim. History, Tradition, and Scripture do not support that claim. It's on you to justify it. I don't believe you have.

---

Can you give me a clear summary of what you think we claim? Based on much of what you are saying, I don't think you know what we claim.

Quote:

---

So no, the argument of some infallible decider being the same appears to be very different than what the EO say is their "methodology" for accepting something.

---

I've already acknowledged their methodology differs, but they still claim infallible teaching authority in addition to the bible. Two infallibles. You claimed they didn't.

Quote:

---

We know, for a fact, that popes taught heresy. It's not disputed.

---

Then give the examples. I assume it will be the same tired list of personal beliefs of certain pope's and nothing they taught formally.

Quote:

---

There is a reason why Protestantism was berthed around the same time as the enlightenment. D'Holbach, Diderot, Helvetius all major enlightenment thinkers and rabid atheists.

---

A 150+ year gap is not "around the same time".

I will grant you, however, that both probably found their roots in a common revulsion to the pervasive corruption of the Roman Catholic Church that existed during the entire Middle Ages.

KingofHazor said:

---

Quote:

---

There is a reason why Protestantism was berthed around the same time as the enlightenment. D'Holbach, Diderot, Helvetius all major enlightenment thinkers and rabid atheists.

---

A 150+ year gap is not "around the same time".

I will grant you, however, that both probably found their roots in a common revulsion to the pervasive corruption of the Roman Catholic Church that existed during the entire Middle Ages.

---

The enlightenment wasn't a lightning bolt, it developed over centuries. Much like with Satan's original rebellion over proper authority, Protestants uttered "non serviam" and then splintered into a bajillion different groups whenever they had an eisegetical revelation.

For example I think our resident prot know it all '06 hails from a sect of Lutheranism that formed in the 1980's at a council in Guatemala and boasts of 6 million adherents.

Truly, the church Christ created

CrackerJackAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Always a pleasure when you stop by for a chat

---

For starters, I don't think I did anything different than you did. The original poster was trying to engage a conversation and you provided a link without any actual discussion.

I replied to your link without discussion and stated that it did not help.

Actual discussion:

I did not say a lot because there really isn't a lot to say

You (the link you provided) are attempting to defend a strange belief system that traditional Christianity outright rejects.

Right away 2/3 of the Christian world thinks the five solas is ridiculous

Amongst protestants, this is a belief system that maybe only half of you guys accept

Should you be surprised when people want to outright reject a strange religious philosophy

---

"because its not historical" and seems "strange" doesn't make it wrong.

AginKS said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Always a pleasure when you stop by for a chat

---

For starters, I don't think I did anything different than you did. The original poster was trying to engage a conversation and you provided a link without any actual discussion.

I replied to your link without discussion and stated that it did not help.

Actual discussion:

I did not say a lot because there really isn't a lot to say

You (the link you provided) are attempting to defend a strange belief system that traditional Christianity outright rejects.

Right away 2/3 of the Christian world thinks the five solas is ridiculous

Amongst protestants, this is a belief system that maybe only half of you guys accept

Should you be surprised when people want to outright reject a strange religious philosophy

---

"because its not historical" and seems "strange" doesn't make it wrong.

---

Yet… it is.