Eastern Orthodoxy

[bradfordl]

Jesus is the Word of God not the bible.

You said the bible is not the Word of God.

It flabbergasts me that you would call yourself a Christian.

 

[SaintPhotios]

You said the bible is not the Word of God.

It flabbergasts me that you would call yourself a Christian.

haha..... no dude. Whenever "Word" is used in Scripture and even in patristic literature, it is referring to the second Person of the Trinity.

He wasn't saying that Scripture isn't the word of God, but the proper noun version of "Word" does not refer to Scripture, but Christ. It has nothing to do with a written word.... go to the original Greek.

 

[buzuxi02]

So, the council of Nicea didn't become "ecumenical" until after time had passed, and a later "council" that itself had to wait to become "ecumenical" deemed it so, which had to also wait until time pass so another potential ecumencial council can declare it ecumencial, even though it has not been determined that it is ecumencial either.

Do you realize that argument is one of infinite regress?



That council stated it was ecumenical and was accepted at that time as ecumenical, just as Nicea was.

A council only clarifies right belief from wrong belief. A controversy may still persist after a council, as the arian controversy did for another 50 years after Nicea. But the right belief always prevails and the council which proclaimed right belief is recognized as the authentic Apostolic Tradition.

The Council of Constantinople was an eastern council only, while it taught the truth it was not meant for the universal Church but in time it was absorbed into all the Churches and by the council of Chalcedon in 451 a.d. it was recognized as ecumenical.
Even many protestant churches accept the Creed that came from these two councils.(granted with the western fillioque innovation which scripture condemns)

Another words the Apostolic Truth is that which was believed in all places and all times since the beginning.

When i asked a pentecostal friend where in the bible does it say that Matthew, Mark and Luke authored the gospel books attributed to them, he opened his bible to the table of contents!

The holy scriptures are divinely inspired, but none of us are infallible interpreters. This is why the West are the originators of over 40,000 denominations all claiming the same thing, that the calvinists of this forum are. But scripture teaches that the doctrines are transmitted and recieved as Jude 9 says "To contend ernestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Lets see what those same scriptures say when taken in context:

But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them. And from childhood you have known the holy scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof for correction." 1Tim 3.14-16

Notice the italics, what did Paul mean? First off Paul says Timothy has known the scripture since he was a child, this is due to the influence of his mother Eunice who learned it from her mother Eloise(Timothy's grandmother 2Tim 1.5)

Timothy also learned the truth from Paul himself:
"Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are Christ Jesus. The good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us." 2Tim1.13

And again:
"All the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will also be able to teach others also". 2 Tim2.2

The doctrine of Sola scripture and each person's interpretation of it is against the scripture they defend:

"And God has appointed these in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers...1Cor11.28

Sola scripture pre-supposes all inherit the gift of teacher. Yet 1 Cor 11.29 fights against this very fallacy, "Are all apostles?, Are all prophets?, Are all teachers?"...
Whats the point of teacher if the Holy Spirit leads every indivdual to their own personal understanding ?

I think everyone on this thread will believe what they will at this point, so for me this thread has run its course.

And i depart in obedience to the words of Paul 2Thess 3.6, "But we command you brethren in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he recieved by us."

 

[bradfordl]

But the right belief always prevails

Hence the reformation and the debunking of false shepherds such as your bozos in byzantine bonnets and their teachings. Look atcha! Even a stopped watch is right twice a day!

Notice the italics, what did Paul mean? First off Paul says Timothy has known the scripture since he was a child, this is due to the influence of his mother Eunice who learned it from her mother Eloise(Timothy's grandmother 2Tim 1.5)

Eggzactly! The scriptures. His mother and grandmother. Not bozos in bonnets touting titles as the basis of their authority.

"And God has appointed these in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers...1Cor11.28

... which none of your priesty-dudes are...

And i depart in obedience to the words of Paul 2Thess 3.6, "But we command you brethren in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he recieved by us."

Fine. But the key word in that verse is "brother", which cannot apply to idolators. So I'll say tata to you on the basis of a more appropriate verse:

Tit 3:10-11 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; (11) Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

 

[Rick Otto]

buzuxi02;A council only clarifies right belief from wrong belief. A controversy may still persist after a council, as the arian controversy did for another 50 years after Nicea. But the right belief always prevails and the council which proclaimed right belief is recognized as the authentic Apostolic Tradition.

"Is recognized as ~"
...but not universaly recognized as pronounced.

Another words the Apostolic Truth is that which was believed in all places and all times since the beginning.

As is recognized by us to be so...

When i asked a pentecostal friend where in the bible does it say that Matthew, Mark and Luke authored the gospel books attributed to them, he opened his bible to the table of contents!

I guess he showed you!

The holy scriptures are divinely inspired, but none of us are infallible interpreters.

So then the Pope & The Magesterium are not one or any, of "us"?

This is why the West are the originators of over 40,000 denominations all claiming the same thing, that the calvinists of this forum are.

... Would only that be true, God willing!

But scripture teaches that the doctrines are transmitted and recieved as Jude 9 says "To contend ernestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Pending Council Approval...

Lets see what those same scriptures say when taken in context:

But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them. And from childhood you have known the holy scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof for correction." 1Tim 3.14-16

Notice the italics, what did Paul mean? First off Paul says Timothy has known the scripture since he was a child, this is due to the influence of his mother Eunice who learned it from her mother Eloise(Timothy's grandmother 2Tim 1.5)

Timothy also learned the truth from Paul himself:
"Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are Christ Jesus. The good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us." 2Tim1.13

And again:
"All the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will also be able to teach others also". 2 Tim2.2

We see it is all the same stuff, nothin' new, no bells & whistles...

The doctrine of Sola scripture and each person's interpretation of it is against the scripture they defend:

Nice pirohuette!

"And God has appointed these in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers...1Cor11.28

Sola scripture pre-supposes all inherit the gift of teacher.

Now yer trippin' dude. SS only holds scripture to be the tool we use to calibrate the truth of everything else.

Yet 1 Cor 11.29 fights against this very fallacy, "Are all apostles?, Are all prophets?, Are all teachers?"...

This is a nice little Punch & Judy show ya got goin', but it has nothin' to do with reality.

Whats the point of teacher if the Holy Spirit leads every indivdual to their own personal understanding ?

What's the point of saying you believe anything about something if you don't even understand what it is your talking about?

And i depart...

 

[wnwall]

The 'WORD" of your Redeemer is the Logos the second person of the Trinity who came down from heaven and was incarnate and assumed our humanity to save us. This one and same Jesus Christ both Perfect God and Perfect Man is whom I worship.

Jesus is the Word of God not the bible.

Jesus referred to scripture as the word of God. Not only that but he did it while addressing the error the Pharisees made in placing tradition above the scriptures.

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat." He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' But you say, 'If anyone tells his father or his mother, "What you would have gained from me is given to God," he need not honor his father.' So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

"'This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'" (Matthew 15).
​

 

[jckstraw72]

Now yer trippin' dude. SS only holds scripture to be the tool we use to calibrate the truth of everything else.

yeah thats waht ppl say, but somehow it always rears its head as "the Bible doesnt say that!!" thats a whole 'nother thing -- only believing whats written as compared to using it as a standard guideline

 

[Ceridwen]

babbling bozos in byzantine bonnets

 

[orthedoxy]

Calvinism is really John Mcartherism. Calvinist today wouldn’t accept Calvin today as Christian. John Calvin believed God so loved everyone that he sent his son, he also believed in infant baptism and receiving the holy spirit at baptism among other things.
You guys claim that you are the only true Christian. You religion is not orthodox, there were no church that ever believed like you do today. orthodox means the established religion. To be a Calvinist you would have to believe Jesus lied when he said gates of hell couldn’t overcome the Church. You also have to believe your church didn’t have pillar and foundation for 1900 years.
You think you can reach God by bible only. This is what the people thought when they build the tower of Babel and all their languages were confused. You guys claim you have the right interpretation of the bible well so does every single Christian and Christian cults.
You claim you believe in bible only but the bible doesn’t teach that. We do believe the bible is the word of God but the words of God can be twisted to suit what you want to believe. God didn’t only give us a book and say whoever interprets it right will be saved. During the time of the bible Paul says hold on to my oral teaching. This means they didn’t believe in bible only.
You claim you believe in bible only but you can’t find anywhere in the bible where it says which books to accept. You have to rely on Church Fathers or I don’t know what else to show that God have reviled his infallible truth from outside the bible. You just don’t want to admit it was The Church (the one that rejected your gospel) and Church council that determined which book should be included in the bible. When you can’t rely on Church fathers and councils then you can’t rely on the bible.
You guys have to realize the gospel of Calvinism is a new gospel.

 

[Rick Otto]

orthedoxy;Calvinism is really John Mcartherism. Calvinist today wouldn’t accept Calvin today as Christian. John Calvin believed God so loved everyone that he sent his son, he also believed in infant baptism and receiving the holy spirit at baptism among other things.

Arguable, but... whatever...

You guys claim that you are the only true Christian.

Only some of us. All y'all make that claim, not us generaly. Personaly, I think most Protestant churches have reverted to Catholic soteriology.

You religion is not orthodox, there were no church that ever believed like you do today.

We base our beliefs on scripture, not on somebody's idea of who "the church" is, and what somebody tries to represent them as saying they believe anything.

orthodox means the established religion.

Ya mean like the one Jesus came out of and was killed by?

To be a Calvinist you would have to believe Jesus lied when he said gates of hell couldn’t overcome the Church.

Or have a more mature understanding of what "Church" means.

You also have to believe your church didn’t have pillar and foundation for 1900 years.

Wrong.

You think you can reach God by bible only.

Wrong again.
You are so wrong it appears you don't even care that you might be wrong, you so love spewing anti-Prot malice.

This is what the people thought when they build the tower of Babel and all their languages were confused.

You are confused.

You guys claim you have the right interpretation of the bible well so does every single Christian and Christian cults.

I don't call the RCC a cult when they make that claim.

You claim you believe in bible only but the bible doesn’t teach that.

No we don't. You either haven't been paying attention, you're misled,somebody lied to you, or you are just trying to stir trouble by lying outright.

We do believe the bible is the word of God but the words of God can be twisted to suit what you want to believe.

And we are trying to tell you not to do that anymore.

God didn’t only give us a book and say whoever interprets it right will be saved. During the time of the bible Paul says hold on to my oral teaching. This means they didn’t believe in bible only.

No it doesn't. It means the oral was the same as the written.

You claim you believe in bible only but you can’t find anywhere in the bible where it says which books to accept.

It says to accept truth.
You can't find anywhere in the Bible where it says make a Bible.

You have to rely on Church Fathers or I don’t know what else to show that God have reviled his infallible truth from outside the bible.

Interesting typo.
Yes, you don't have a clue what else, I'm sure.

You just don’t want to admit it was The Church (the one that rejected your gospel) and Church council that determined which book should be included in the bible.

I don't have a problem with that. It was their rejecting the truth that annoys me.

When you can’t rely on Church fathers and councils then you can’t rely on the bible.

I rely on God.
I don't give His glory to anyone else.

You guys have to realize the gospel of Calvinism is a new gospel.

The truth is only new to you, because you weren't shown where what you think is legitimate authority, realy isn't. Authority is in Truth. You have been taught that the truth is in authority.

 

[wnwall]

Calvinism is really John Mcartherism. Calvinist today wouldn’t accept Calvin today as Christian. John Calvin believed God so loved everyone that he sent his son, he also believed in infant baptism and receiving the holy spirit at baptism among other things.

You've got a lot of bad information from whatever Calvinists you're referring to. A lot of the people on this board are Presbyterians, and Presbyterians practice infant baptism. I, myself, was baptized as an infant. John Calvin did not believe in baptismal regeneration. Calvinists baptize infants for a completely different reason from the Orthodox Church. We would certainly accept Calvin as a Christian today and agree with most of what he taught.

You guys claim that you are the only true Christian.

We do not claim Calvinists are the only true Christians, but we do claim the true gospel stands on justification by grace alone through faith alone and that justification of sinners was made possible by Christ becoming the propitiation for our sin. Anyone who teaches otherwise, as the Orthodox do, do not teach the true gospel, but 5 point Calvinists aren't the only people who hold to the true gospel.

You religion is not orthodox, there were no church that ever believed like you do today.

That's funny because we teach the same thing the apostles taught, as is evidence by the books they left us. So your statement cannot be true.

To be a Calvinist you would have to believe Jesus lied when he said gates of hell couldn’t overcome the Church.

There is a true church and a visible, outward church. The true bride of Christ will never be overcome because God sovereignly preserves his elect. The outward, visible church is subject to corruption.

You also have to believe your church didn’t have pillar and foundation for 1900 years.

??? I don't even know what you're trying to say here. We believe no such thing. We believe the true church has always existed and Christ has always been faithful to his bride. But as it was in the days of the prophets, and as it was in the days of Jesus, so it is today. Wicked people love prestige and places of honor, and they are able to fool others with outward deeds in order to obtain places of honor in the church, so the visible church becomes corrupted, just as the synagogues were corrupt in Jesus' day.

When you can’t rely on Church fathers and councils then you can’t rely on the bible.

That's a pretty rash statement. What if Peter had said that to Jesus when he defended his positions against the Pharisees with scripture? "If you can't rely on Pharisees and the writings of the rabbis then you can't rely on scripture." I think Jesus' reply would have been something like, "Get behind me, Satan." God's word stands firm when men fail.

 

[SaintPhotios]

Oh, I see. The use of a capital letter has changed the meaning.

No.... the differing Greek is what changed the meaning. The use of a capital letter is because it's referring to God.

Sort of like how you EO's use the word "orthodox" to mean the title of the heresy taught by your babbling bozos in byzantine bonnets, right?

It appears the chip on your shoulder is growing as we speak. Disrespect won't get you anywhere in what's supposed to be healthy debate... people will simply quit listening.

You can keep your "patristic" literature to yourself.

Calvin himself quoted Church Fathers when he felt it suited his case. And even in my experience, Calvinist circles have no problem quoting St. Augustine. Is this your disdain for Church Fathers? or something in your particular circle of Calvinists?

Hence the reformation and the debunking of false shepherds such as your bozos in byzantine bonnets and their teachings. Look atcha! Even a stopped watch is right twice a day!

You're suggesting that the Reformation is evidence that right belief prevails? If you'd like to make this about numbers, Eastern Orthodoxy outnumbers Reformed Churches by about 200,000 members. Numbers don't ultimately matter, but it makes no sense to cite the Reformation in this case. In any case, Calvin broke away from Roman Catholicism, not Eastern Orthodoxy. Rome left Orthodoxy 500 years earlier, so the two events are completely unrelated.

I guess he showed you!

That simply shows his ignorance... he's putting his faith in Nelson Publishing or whoever the publisher of his Bible is... neither God nor the Apostles ever listed a canon. What if you found a Bible with the Gospel of Judas in it? or what you call the Apocrypha? How would you know which canon was correct? What authority did Luther and Calvin have to remove books from the canon? And how can you trust their judgement?

..... Seriously guys, consider the logical consequences of adhering to total depravity on one hand, holding sola scriptura on the other... and then somehow coming to the conclusion that you have any amount of certainty whatsoever about the doctrines you espouse. If you truly adhere to total depravity, without some authority by which to infallibly interpret Scripture, then the infallibility of Scripture is of no effect to you. Because while Scripture may be infallible, all you have is the end result of inerrant Scripture after it has been filtered through your totally depraved judgement, which in turn takes away both any effect of its infallibility as well as any certainty on your part as to what it actually means.

This Calvinistic system of authority is one logical fallacy after another. It may take the Holy Spirit to know truth, but it only takes an ounce of reason to know when your system has more holes in it than the Titanic.

 

[heymikey80]

yeah thats waht ppl say, but somehow it always rears its head as "the Bible doesnt say that!!" thats a whole 'nother thing -- only believing whats written as compared to using it as a standard guideline

If you're willing to let anything in that someone can kinda halfway shoehorn into consistency with the text of Scripture, then yeah, I'm more than willing to assert where "The Bible doesn't say that!" The Reformed have well experienced what happens to such churches.

Councils have failed in the past, they continue to fail, they will continue to fail. The Church is not infallible, be it in popes, bishops, elders or councils or just the progress of history. And obviously if it takes the progress of history, the Church is always fallible at any particular spot in that progress. Some of your tradition are simply flights of fancy or wishful thinking.

Where it can be confirmed historically I've no qualms about it informing and from that standpoint, reforming the Reformed. "Semper Reformanda." But don't expect it to attract the Reformed to your side. Because they'll never get beyond the simple realization that a bunch of fallible people does not an infallible Church (or Church tradition) make.

Again I say, we have the advantage here. Because we don't see the Church as you do. You want to assail Scripture? You're assailing yourself. Your Church declared it Apostolic, whom they held as authorities over the entire Church. Why aren't you listening to Scripture as authoritative over the Church, and protecting the Church from people who misinterpret it and lead the Church astray?

But for us the Church carries a mass of sin. But She's our Mother, and I'll work with Her and defend Her as I ever can. Christ will cleanse Her, not Church history. And doesn't that mean She needs cleansing from sin.

 

[Rick Otto]

. If you truly adhere to total depravity, without some authority by which to infallibly interpret Scripture, then the infallibility of Scripture is of no effect to you.

I know the concept is probably foreign to you, but truth is authoritative. And it is not all of it completely indecipherable without a priest.

Because while Scripture may be infallible, all you have is the end result of inerrant Scripture after it has been filtered through your totally depraved judgement, which in turn takes away both any effect of its infallibility as well as any certainty on your part as to what it actually means.

Regeneration relieves us of Total Depravity and The Holy Spirit isn't impotent in His leading & teaching simply because you have replaced Him with a catechism.

 

[wnwall]

Calvin himself quoted Church Fathers when he felt it suited his case. And even in my experience, Calvinist circles have no problem quoting St. Augustine.

Correction, Calvin quoted church fathers when they agreed with scripture. We're not anti-theologians. We have many theologians of our own and recognize many past theologians, such as Augustine, as being helpful in expounding the scriptures. But no theologian is infallible. Augustine was very wrong on his understanding of marriage and sexuality, as can be seen clearly in scripture. Calvin said no one is more than 8% right in his theology. That's the approach we take to theologians. We come willing to be taught and always hoping to hear them expound scripture faithfully, but if they depart from scripture, we reject their teachings because the scriptures are what God has given us to test the validity of other's teachings. The scriptures are authoritative. And EO isn't faithful to scripture.

 

[colinlindsay]

< < < Calvin said no one is more than 8% right in his theology. That's the approach we take to theologians. > >

This I really don't understand. In this case any theolginas could be 92% slightly off the mark or 91 % dodgy and 1% heretical or 46% herteical etc etc. This is FAR worse a scenario than N T Wright saying that he
accepts that 25% of what believes at the moment is probably wrong. He got a lot of stick on these boards amongst fundamentalists for that.

If this is true for theologians what chance is there for the amateur posters on these boards?
Surely it would be better to hold counsel, especially when attempting to disagree with Church Fathers who were so much closer to the apostles . You should logically have NO confidence that you are reading the Bible aright.
But of course this all comes back to my point earlier. To have confidence in our interpretation of a scripture we all inevitably DON'T believe in Sola Scriptura. We throw our lot in with a favourite teacher, system of theology or set of presuppositional passages.

 

[wnwall]

I don't know where the 8% thing came from, I have only heard someone else quote it, and at the time the impression I got was not that he meant only 8% of what we claim to be true is true and the rest is false, but that no theologian knows more than 8% of what God has revealed. In other words, we've all got a lot to learn. My rendition of it was probably not put in the best way. Forgive me, Calvin.

 

[Alchemist]

I know the concept is probably foreign to you, but truth is authoritative. And it is not all of it completely indecipherable without a priest.

Of course . The question is, how do you know you are being guided by the Holy Spirit and not being deceived when you read the Bible? Because the Bible says so? The circular logic in that argument aside, Scripture is pretty clear:

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."
St. John 16:13
​

"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
1 Timothy 3:15
​

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
2 Thessalonians 2:15
​

"Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."
- 1 Corinthians 11:2
​

"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand."
- 2 Thessalonians 2:15
​

"And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him."
- Acts 8:30-31
​

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
- St. Matthew 16:18

​

Catechism is the way we are to know the truth; that is what the Bible says. The Church is the ground of truth, not individual interpretations of Scripture; that is what the Bible says. The gates of Hell did not prevail against the Church, only to be "rebuilt" at the Reformation, for it is guided by the Holy Spirit to all truth, and will never fall, regardless of how sinful we may be; that is what the Bible says.

So when I want to know what the Bible is, I can read it myself. But I would be a fool to think that just because I think the Bible says something that it actually does, unless it is accepted as true by the Church whom Christ and St. Paul are talking about. That is what the Bible says. And there is only one church around which fits that description .

Peace,
Nick

 

[SaintPhotios]

I know the concept is probably foreign to you, but truth is authoritative.

First of all, no... it's not foreign to me, because I was a Calvinist for several years. And secondly, you're going in circles. We both agree the truth (by that, I think we both mean Scripture) is authoritative.... but the problem is that Scripture being authoritative is of no effect in the Calvinist worldview. You can say that Scripture is infallible.... but the only access we have to the truth contained within Scripture is interpretation. In Calvinistic theology, the interpretation of Scripture is individualistic... meaning no man has any more authority than than the next to interpret, so it is to each one's individual interpretation that you must rely on. And therein the problem lies. If your theology suggests that each individual is responsible for interpretation (which according sola scriptura, is essential), then infallible understanding of scripture is impossible without infallible interpretation. And fallible interpretation is at the heart of sola scriptura.

And you can't say that Scripture is totally "self-evident". It's infallibility may be, but not the meaning contained within it. If this were actually true, then 1.) satan could not lead us astray nor would the holy spirit be required for proper interpretation, because something that is self-evident does not require interpretation. and 2.) if it were truly self-evident, the existence of varying denominations all subscribing to the same Scriptures would be logically impossible.

Regeneration relieves us of Total Depravity and The Holy Spirit isn't impotent in His leading & teaching simply because you have replaced Him with a catechism.

but it has not relieved you of fallibility.... and that's the point here. you cannot have infallible teaching which relies on fallible interpretation. If your ultimate authority of interpretation is a fallilble authority (in the case of Calvinism, individual interpretion), then your result is fallible. Therefore, for you to make the claim that you are infallibly certain that Christ is the Son of God betrays your own theological system. You can accuse Eastern Orthodoxy of having a fallible authority as well. Okay... we'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say our authority is actually fallible, and we just don't realize it. But our system at leasts assumes an infallible authority, which makes it at the very least possible, according to our theological system, that infallible truths such as the Divinity of Christ, can be held. You're theological system doesn't even make that possible. So even if we're wrong, it's because somewhere in our authority there is an unknown mistake. But your Calvinistic theological system doesn't even ALLOW for infallible truths. Holding infallible truths is utterly inconsistent with your fallibilistic system. This means that even if we are wrong, we are infinitely closer than your fallibilistic Calvinist theological system due to our system which at least allows for those infallible truths to be held (which means, in these case, whether or not we are right or wrong becomes irrelevant).

Correction, Calvin quoted church fathers when they agreed with scripture. We're not anti-theologians.

I was responding to someone who told me to "keep my patristics to myself"..... you may not be anti-patristic, be he apparently was.

 

[Rick Otto]

SaintPhotios;
You can say that Scripture is infallible.... but the only access we have to the truth contained within Scripture is interpretation.

We also have revelation of those truths by the Holy Spirit, but scripture is self-referential and verifies itself, thus our "interpretations" aren't without verification.

In Calvinistic theology, the interpretation of Scripture is individualistic... meaning no man has any more authority than than the next to interpret,

The man with more authority is the man with more truth.

so it is to each one's individual interpretation that you must rely on.

We are individualy esponsible in many ways. We each have a conscience. Even with a superstructure of people with assumed authority & assumed Holy Spirit guidance, what we personaly decide to believe is still subject to our individual interpretation of its meaning.

And therein the problem lies. If your theology suggests that each individual is responsible for interpretation (which according sola scriptura, is essential), then infallible understanding of scripture is impossible without infallible interpretation. And fallible interpretation is at the heart of sola scriptura.

Infallable interpretation isn't any more difficult for the individual than it is for the clergy, providing for adequate study.

And you can't say that Scripture is totally "self-evident".

I wouldn't attempt to.

It's infallibility may be, but not the meaning contained within it. If this were actually true, then 1.) satan could not lead us astray nor would the holy spirit be required for proper interpretation, because something that is self-evident does not require interpretation. and 2.) if it were truly self-evident, the existence of varying denominations all subscribing to the same Scriptures would be logically impossible.

Regenerated selves find evident what reprobate minds don't.

but it has not relieved you of fallibility.... and that's the point here.

Fallibility is the human condition. We get relieved from it, but not of it.

you cannot have infallible teaching which relies on fallible interpretation.

That's why we reserve the adjective "infallable" for divine personages only.

If your ultimate authority of interpretation is a fallilble authority (in the case of Calvinism, individual interpretion), then your result is fallible.

Authority rests on truth, not on fallible people.

Therefore, for you to make the claim that you are infallibly certain that Christ is the Son of God betrays your own theological system

.
Isn't that much "self-evident" from scripture?

You can accuse Eastern Orthodoxy of having a fallible authority as well. Okay... we'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say our authority is actually fallible, and we just don't realize it. But our system at leasts assumes an infallible authority, which makes it at the very least possible, according to our theological system, that infallible truths such as the Divinity of Christ, can be held.

Scripture is our infallable authority. Problem solved.
Even an infallable authority has to be interpreted by the people it assumes authority over. Some guy having the infallible truth is no guarantee his audience will 'get it'.
Your human authority is the oppopsite of scapegoating - placing all the responsibility on one pair of shoulders in order to relieve your own sense of vulnerability.

You're theological system doesn't even make that possible. So even if we're wrong, it's because somewhere in our authority there is an unknown mistake.

So then your system is no better, admitting that possibility. The vulnerability/responsibility of the individual remains.

But your Calvinistic theological system doesn't even ALLOW for infallible truths.

Sure it does. We call it "scripture".

Holding infallible truths is utterly inconsistent with your fallibilistic system.

Total fantasy trip, that one.

This means that even if we are wrong, we are infinitely closer than your fallibilistic Calvinist theological system due to our system which at least allows for those infallible truths to be held (which means, in these case, whether or not we are right or wrong becomes irrelevant).

Being wrong is never irrelevant or closer to the truth.

I was responding to someone who told me to "keep my patristics to myself"..... you may not be anti-patristic, be he apparently was.

Actualy, neither of us is "anti-Patristic". What we object to is the unnatural reverence given them simply because of their historical proximity to Jesus & the apostles.
Judas was an apostle & personal aquaintence of Jesus, too. Peter was constantly screwing up big time.
So the calibration of truth rests on scripture, not on time, place, or acquaintence.