Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not at all. It's more like "none of the SS denominations have valid or authorized bishops, therefore none of them are the true Church."Here is the way your side's argument goes. No two SS denominations agree on scripture interpretation, therefore, SS can not be true.
This is an appeal to popularity, which is a logical fallacy. "The majority accepts X, therefore X is true." The majority of humankind accepts that the Holy Trinity is not God, but the Holy Trinity is God, so that kind of argument is fallacious.So I will posit ro you that the ONLY common denomination accepted by ALL mainstream Christian churches is the 66 books of scripture, therefore,
This universal acceptance of the 66 books is not entirely true; for one the ACOE only accepts 22 NT books as authoritative, and they are apostolic in origin. There may be another denomination who doesn't accept the entire NT, but I don't remember...
The councils, ECFs, etc. are not infallible since they contradict themselves quite often. The scriptures, on the other hand, are indeed infallible and do not contradict themselves. The authority standard seems quite obvious to me.
Not at all. It's more like "none of the SS denominations have valid or authorized bishops, therefore none of them are the true Church."
But then that is not my argument.This is an appeal to popularity, which is a logical fallacy. "The majority accepts X, therefore X is true." The majority of humankind accepts that the Holy Trinity is not God, but the Holy Trinity is God, so that kind of argument is fallacious.
All NT churches were autonomous and governed by a plurality of elders not hierarchical. The bishop supremacy progressively crept in the church
I wrote "all mainstream churches" not "all churches". There are always oddballs out there. lol
Sure there is.There is not a single teaching in scripture that backs up your premise.
There is not a single teaching in scripture that backs up your premise. (See? I can do that too. 'Sola Scriptura!')All NT churches were autonomous and governed by a plurality of elders not hierarchical.
But you said: "So I will posit to you that the ONLY common denomination accepted by ALL mainstream Christian churches is the 66 books of scripture, therefore, since God is perfectly capable of maintaining His special revelation, then this must be the standard. The rest is just fallible man's interpretation and irrelevant to God's absolute truth."But then that is not my argument.
Yes, scripture is the most important authority among these that I listed, obviously. I'm not aware of direct contradictions in the 7 ecumenical councils, I will have to check into that further. The ECF's are important sources because they lived very close to the apostolic era (and perhaps sometimes on the edge of it). So their witness is very valuable. They are not infallible, no, but their testimony can give us very useful insight and proper understanding and interpretation of scriptures and how the Christian faith was lived after the time of the apostles by the faithful who were entrusted with the apostolic deposit.
So I agree that scripture is the most important authority, yet not the only authority for the Christian. Imo we need the 'supporting materials', if you will, to get the whole picture of the Christian faith.
Sure there is.
But you said: "So I will posit to you that the ONLY common denomination accepted by ALL mainstream Christian churches is the 66 books of scripture, therefore, since God is perfectly capable of maintaining His special revelation, then this must be the standard. The rest is just fallible man's interpretation and irrelevant to God's absolute truth."
Anyways, the RCC is the largest mainstream Christian church so that also renders your argument invalid.
O contrareNope.
Still fallacious. Ad Populum is not only applicable to 'majority' but also to 'the many'. You appeal to 'the many' when you say 'all mainstream churches' (which is wrong anyways because the RCC is mainstream.)The ad populum fallacy relates to what the majority believes proves that it is true. My argument merely states that since all mainstream churches agree on the 66 books of scripture then it should be the standard versus "T"raditions that are not accepted but by only the denomination that teaches them. See the difference.
I wrote "all mainstream churches" not "all churches". There are always oddballs out there. lol
There is not a single teaching in scripture that backs up your premise. All NT churches were autonomous and governed by a plurality of elders not hierarchical. The bishop supremacy progressively crept in the church where we start seeing a widespread office of Bishop around the middle of the second century.
Also Henry, I could also say that after the 7 ecumenical councils were laid down, they were accepted by all mainstream churches as well; they were considered to be universally binding and agreed upon across the east and west.
Surely God wouldn't allow for all (or pretty much all except for a few outliers) of the Church to fall into such grave error? It is also interesting to note that the few organized church bodies which existed that didn't participate in all the councils often informally accepted the 'spirit' of the councils, just not the letter (Oriental Orthodox, for example).
Not at all. It's more like "none of the SS denominations have valid or authorized bishops, therefore none of them are the true Church."
The Nicene Creed itself was reworked within 300 years re: Spirit "from the Father" to "from the Father and the Son" and that then finally expolded in 1054. Plus the authority of Constantinople caused consternation as they changed the order of the Sees (supposedly this contributed to OO saying byebye c455ad).
Most Catholics would argue that the filioque is semantics, and that they essentially have the same view regarding the relationship of the Trinity that the Orthodox do.
Still, As I mentioned before, OO doctrine is extremely close to that of the EO and RC during the first 1000 years of Christianity, and i think that a difference of semantics could very well be argued in this case as well.
What I'm saying is, how could the Holy Spirit basically allow the entire Church to stray so far off and fall into heresy across the board? I thought Jesus said he would be his church until the end of the age? If we take a snapshot of Christianity, say, during the council years, 4th century to 9th, surely the truth had to be taught somewhere during this period of time, no?
Again, somebody or group or church has to possess the truth revealed to them by God as to avoid belief in relativism.The ECFs and councils are indeed important but again they are not inspired nor inerrant therefore neither can have authority over what is known to be infallible and inspired. As a guide, sure, after all we all use extrabiblical materials to help us with our bible reading and study.
There is error in the "supporting materials" so one has to have a standard. The standard is the scriptures.
We should heap some stones.Not exactly. It was more the dividing of bishop/elder as interchangeable terms/office into bishop and priest separated. This corresponds to the redefinition of eucharist is thanksgiving to sacrifice. (A priest needs a sacrifice). In turn apostolic succession itself was redefined from "faithful men who will teach the same" to "valid bishop" or "genuine minister" who supposedly can trace his physical lineage backward, but teach contradictions to each other.
Clear?
Again, somebody or group or church has to possess the truth revealed to them by God as to avoid belief in relativism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?