This is just the latest comment with John the Eastern Orthodox from the Mirror target practice thread, but I just had so much fun with this one that I wanted to set aside a post for it.
God hasn't told me everything he has ever done. (John 21:25). We know the things we need to know in our time.
Yes, and the Jews had the same. YOU'RE the one who posited extra revelation I don't know about. But b/c it strikes against your position, you alluvasudden think they had sthg else, sthg you can't prove and have no idea existed.
I might as well say the same about the CFs - their writings that have not survived and come down to us described in detail the Reformed position. Irenæus was a 5-point Calvinist. His non-extant writings prove it!
that's what Paul did.
1) Weren't you just telling me you were inerrantist? This doesn't match.
2) Did he weasel out? No, of course not - he explained how the NT FULFILLS the OT's foreshadows, thanks to the coming of Messiah. Did Philo have that explanation available to him? No, he was Jewish after Messiah's coming.
I asked: "How do we know what traditions are traditions of MEN?"
You answer: By carefully staying in tune with the mind of the Church as a whole. The Vincentian canon.
You're begging the question. Again. And I was hoping you'd say that, just like all the other EOx.
So what you're telling me is that you know which traditions are traditions of men by looking at traditions that are not merely traditions of men?
How do you know which is which? And "believed by all, everywhere, always" is not a live option - it's disproved by the very existence of these traditions of men! You have one corpus of writings - tradition. Then in accord with what you believe NOW, you pick and choose which ones agree, and those magically become Sacred Apostolic Tradition. But you're supposed to be proving your position by appeal to Sacred Apostolic Tradition! Yet all you can do is a posteriori read your position into the corpus of tradition and then draw out the ones that agree and then jump around and point - "See? Tradition proves us right!!!" But all you did was point to the writings that support you, and you left the ones that don't support you in the dust.
No, this is far from objective and far from intellectually honest.
Further, Jesus did not do this, it hardly needs to be said.
The original denominations are in sad shape. The new ones build success from flashy shows and good coffee.
1) I don't like the flashy shows and good coffee approach.
2) And I couldn't care much less how numerous we are. Numbers aren't the goal; even less are they a proof of truth. As long as we're being faithful, we trust God for sufficiency in numbers and all that.
3) The older denoms are largely in bad shape b/c of their courtship of liberalism. EOC is hardly a bastion of conservatism, by the way, on that count. So I'd hesitate to bring that up if I were you.
I said that burial and death doesn't sound related to spirit baptism. You quoted verses about death and themes in the Christian life. I said they have no relation to spirit baptism.
Now you need to deal with my last point, since it counters your statement about death and burial related to Spirit baptism.
The point is they both can stand.
1) Quite an admission for a guy who just tried to bully me using the bogus Vincentian Canon.
2) For that one psg, yes. So if I'm trying to decide between the two positions, looks like I'll have to look elsewhere. And the rest of the NT doesn't permit the bap reg view.
But if both can stand, then scripture has failed as an authority in the church.
1) Both can stand, given tradition as well. I guess your model fails.
2) I don't make human agreement the standard of truth. This is a fundamental difference between us, and clear demarcation of your man-centered view.
3) You were criticising me just recently about being "me and my Bible under a tree", and here you're committing a similar bad practice - "this verse and this verse only!"
Do you see Orthodox arguing over baptismal regeneration? Nope.
1) Did I originally claim that?
2) And yes you do; on your view early Church writers were Orthodox. And they didn't agree. So there you go - yes you do see them arguing.
3) And EOx argue about all sorts of other things; I don't need to show them arguing about bap reg.
Seriously, the early church was baptising people in water everywhere,
My church baptises ppl in water all the time too. So what? It's a PICTURE of death and burial with Christ and of resurrection thru Him. That's what the NT teaches, so we practice it thus.
the Church HAS the interpretive skills of all God's people.
On that we can agree! We stand on the shoulders of giants. Without lending them some bogus and selective idea of infallibility.
BUT, sola scriptura folks disagree with you.
1) Oh no! I never realised before that other holders-to of Sola Scrip might disagree! Never occurred to me! My faith is now in shambles. I hope you're happy. I think I'll write an atheist memoir and then off myself.
2) The rule of faith in EOC is Sola Ecclesia - the church alone.
Any question of authority, interpretation, hermeneutic, etc, comes down to What The Church Says®.
As opposed to the rule of faith to which I hold, where any question of authority, interpretation, hermeneutic, etc, comes down to What The Scripture Says (Sola Scriptura).
One of the problems in being a holder of Sola Ecclesia is that EOC is not the only group w/in Sola Ecclesiaists. RCC, Coptic Orthodoxy, other non-Chalcedonian Orthodox groups, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons are also holders of Sola Ecclesia.
By contrast, there aren't very many holders of Sola Scriptura, and the doctrinal variation among the denominations is FAR narrower than those who hold to Sola Ecclesia, the Infallible Interpreter model.
If you don't like being lumped in w/ the cults and schismatics, maybe you should change your rule of faith. My church would welcome you!
Titus 3:5-7 - 5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior
Colossians 2:10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
The problem is, Protestants make all the church fathers out to be always inconsistent with themselves, even within a few sentences of each other.
"All"? "Always"? I suppose you can back that universal generalisation up?
Now no doubt Fathers can be inconsistent with other ones on occasion, and even on the odd occasion a father can be occasionally inconsistent with himself.
Thank you for the rare (for an EOx) concession. So we shouldn't very well base our faith on them, should we? Shouldn't think of them as infallible, now should we?
Maybe there's some way out there by which God HAS spoken w/o inconsistency, w/o garbling... Hmmm, what could that be?
And two sentences earlier Athanasius said that "Nicea is sufficient".
Maybe b/c Nicæa correctly expressed biblical doctrine? Now who's failing to harmonise?
I want to let the Fathers be who they are, not force them into being what they are not.
Sure you do, you who quoted the Vincentian Canon just a few sentences ago. Uh oh, you were inconsistent with yourself within a few minutes, a few sentences! Alarm bells.
BTW, that's MY line - letting the Fathers be who they are. So, when they're being who they are, yet you appeal to them to establish the correctness and authority of your church, how do you know which ones of their statements to accept? (That's a rhetorical question; I just want to see you repeat your a posteriori "we see which statements agree with us and then pick those to be Sacred Apostolic Tradition, and leave the rest aside" statements.)
in the catechism class I have on video, the teaching is that all the apostolic traditions have equal authority
Except when they disagree with EOC.
Was there any scripture in the process of being written during the events of Acts?
1) Yes, probably Mark and the early epistles like 1 Cor. Acts covers the events of some years, you know.
2) And they always had the OT - the OT was sufficient for salvation (2 Tim 3:15) and to verify the Gospel msg (Acts 17 Bereans).
When the apostle picks up his pen, sola scriptura ends, and when he puts it down it begins again?
No, SS is in effect during the normative state of the church. When the church has the Scripture. Apostolic revelation was/is as good as Scr; indeed Scr depends on the gift and authority of apostolicity.
But they didn't say "When we're gone, all scripture will be sufficient
Excuse me, but yes they did - 2 Tim 3-4.
The church is the pillar and ground of the truth.
1) Yes, the pillar and ground hold something else up - the truth. Of the Scripture.
2) Irenæus said:
But it is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. ...since the "pillar and ground" of the church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars...From this fact, it is evident that the Logos, the fashioner (demiourgos) of all, he that sits on the cherubim and holds all things together, when he was manifested to humanity, gave us the gospel under four forms but bound together by one spirit. (Against Heresies 3.11.8)
If the Church hasn't dogmatically spoken on these topics, why would my taking a side prove anything?
Um, what does "dogmatically" spoken mean? Isn't that Roman language?