Forgive me but....What does this have to do with anything?
Receiving the Scriptures according to their own context is exactly what I want you to do. You can't do this if you are anachronistically subjecting them to 4th century, 8th century, 17th century councils. Not sure how the "Talmudic squabbling over interpretation" is any worse than the Greco-Roman-Ethiopian-Armenian-Assyrian-Calendarist squabbling over which church is the real church.
Don't you claim that the true meaning of the Bible is obscure and that you need Orthodox priests to clear it up for you? How is this any different from the Gnostics who invented the tactic?
All I did was cite Jerome, who said that. He was right to say that it's human custom and not divine ordinance. I happen to agree with Jerome based on the evidence.
For something like this you would be better off pointing to the confessions that the Reformed churches are built around, since Reformed theology doesn't live or die with John Calvin.
It's partially in response to the video and the comments toward it. It also has to do with the idea that "Protestantism" caused thousands of religions which isn't true.
Well frankly it is.
There are multiple churches that allegedly have Apostolic Succession and church hierarchy. How does one tell which of those is the one true church, as they all claim to be?
Orthodox and Catholics do. You can get into some debate around the Schism but both are considered as having continuity in apostolic succession. As far as Anglican/Episcopalian, I am not aware this is still considered as in line with this... Maybe someone can correct me.
Not just Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. Even on our forum, we have members of two different "Orthodox" churches. So that makes 3 churches that each claim apostolic succession, church heirarchy, and to be the "one true church." There's even more than these but I think the point is already demonstrated, simply claiming to be the one true church isn't enough. You need an objective standard of reference to verify the claim, otherwise it's an inescapably relativistic claim.
Latter Day Saints deny Sola Scriptura. They also claim to be the only true church. It's a category error to lump them in with Protestants. They bear more resemblance to the churches I cited above than they do a Protestant church.
I think youre confusing being in Schism with Apostolic Succession. Oriental Orthodox are not in Communion just like the Catholic Church is not in Communion. However their tradition of tracing through their bishops the priesthood all the way back to the Apostles remains unchanged.
I'm being a bit tongue and cheek, but... Why?
Only since you brought it up ... Didn't the Church Fathers convene multiple conferences on what is and isn't Canon and didn't they also issue tons of edicts on what is and isn't accepted with in the church.
No, what it did was remove absolute oppression regarding differing Christian beliefs, which we know were many and were quelled by total annihilation of those people by the government of the time.
Sure. The Protestant on Protestant English Civil War ( Anglican vs Puritans ) was a good example of what you're talking about.
Who argued that?
Always, in Christian history, those deemed heretical were exiled or executed. The Thirty Years War was between Catholics and "Protestants" in the 1600s and was the catalyst for Freedom of Religion.
A false parallel? Just stating what would (and did) happen in "the old days."
I'm not. I'm pointing out that Apostolic Succession is not an objective barometer to gauge which is the one true church because multiple schismatic churches claim it. The fact that multiple schismatic churches claim it also shows that it is ineffective at preventing schism. In short, it is little more than a circular or self-affirming argument.
Indeed. You disagree on which church is the one true church. This is the issue we need an objective standard to solve. Since Apostolic Succession doesn't cut it, what does?
Sure, but this is not an area that you really want to go. Not a single one of those councils reflects the Canon that the Eastern Orthodox use today. As for the councils themselves, they were primarily called by the Emperor to establish political unity in the empire. In reality, they led to further schisms and the empire itself is no more.
Since the Church Fathers were not a monolith, and neither do they uniformly fit into our modern categories, everyone "cherry picks" them. However, on this issue of Scripture having the ultimate authority (Sola Scriptura) I do not have to cherry pick them since they all believed it. They did not believe themselves or the Ecumenical councils to have such authority as Scripture, to believe otherwise would be anachronistic: https://blog-tms-edu.cdn.ampproject...tms.edu/sola-scriptura-and-the-church-fathers
Haven't forgot about these good interrogatories.. I will provide a thorough response to this, but...might take a couple days. I'm on holiday for next week and then a hunting trip and would like to provide a thoughtful response once I've had a minute step away from the family/activities.
