Skip to main content
5 Thoughts For Today

5. Since the Church is made up of fallible human beings, I guess Arius was right. I mean, "councils may err," right? I happen to think his interpretation adheres most closely to Scripture. (I'm not serious; I'm making a point.)

4. I guess when you "tell it to the church," we'll have to have an endless exegetical debate, because of course an ecumenical council can't settle it. Obviously, the Church wanted the freedom of idiosyncratic hacks preserved for all time.

3. Didn't you hear? The apostles replaced Judas because they got a great deal on a hotel for vacation. Group rate, and all that.

2. I'm so glad God doesn't protect the Church through her actual institutions. Instead, he sends a scrupulous, angry monk and a lawyer when no one is looking.

1. Of course, Nicea and Chalcedon were correct, and all the others were false. Haven't you ever played Calvinball?

Comments

Timothy R. Butler said…
5.) Language doesn't allow Arius's position to be right. The council answered him, but why did the council answer the way they did? I'd assert because it was clear from Scripture and thus the Lord didn't permit the heresy. If it isn't clear from Scripture, was Arius OK until the council said otherwise?

4.) I think that pretty much means the local church. What good does it do to take a case of interpersonal sin to Rome? That makes no sense in the context of the passage and what it is dealing with.

3.) Not sure what the point is here.

2.) So why did he use such means in the Old Testament? He frequently sent misfits to correct the Leadership. Why change in the NT?

1.) What if we take 7 and agree with the Orthodox?

Here's a suggestion: bring your editor in and have him debate you on this. Some of your points assume positions no serious, theologically minded Protestant would ever take. Why argue against straw men? (That's always been my complaint with CTC -- not that I want to revisit that debate, I just don't read CTC anymore so that my blood pressure stays low -- but you're above that, brother.)
3:25 PM
Jason said…
CtC annoys you because it takes away your unprincipled middle positions with respect to the historical data. But I'll let CtC speak for themselves. This is not CtC. If you think they don't argue something fairly, leave a comment there.

There's no point in taking 7 until you identify the basis for accepting the Councils. If it doesn't match the Council's own self-understanding, you're just claiming their authority falsely.
1:39 PM
Timothy R. Butler said…
Actually I have quite a bit of historical data, it just doesn't agree with CtC's historical data. My problem is that one can win an argument simply by volume of words. As much as I wish I had all day to debate every subject, I simply don't have time to debate everything CtC posts, particularly when it requires reading four or five previous CtC posts of similar length. I find it intriguing, but if I am going to read that much at a given time, there are other things I find far my fruitful to read. And, seriously, it was bad for my blood pressure, because I was disturbed by things, but when I'd speak up I'd be challenged to read a series of additional articles.

I take issue with the suggestion that I have unprincipled positions.
7:56 PM
Jason said…
OK, what is the consistent principle by which you determine the truth or falsehood of a Council? By what authority do you judge that? And what makes your decisions any less ad hoc than anyone else's? Simple questions. No articles. I don't think you're being fair to CtC or to Dr. Cross, but that's just me.
11:24 AM
Timothy R. Butler said…
1.) Conformity to Scripture based on generally accepted, literary critical approaches to the text that would be accepted for any other text and bounded by the borders of what has been historically said somewhere within orthodox Christianity (this isn't unlike, once again, the standard we would hold other texts to and while not everyone may agree on how to interpret, say, Josephus, we can come to a good deal of consensus). Naturally, believers should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but I think much of our disagreement in different denominations isn't that interpretive theory doesn't work but that most people don't use it.

2.) On many issues, it is hard to argue with cold, hard grammar. On the issues where it is possible, they are rarely things held essential. After the seventh council, half the church would protest that the other half acted on improper authority, so it's pretty easy to cut things off there as a starting point.

3.) Historical continuity with the OT. Everything you argue for concerning authority is precisely the opposite of what happened with religious authorities in the Bible. I would expect clear cut Scripture-level revelation of a change if there were a change. Matthew 16 doesn't seem like a clear declaration of such a change, incidentally. We do have clear declarations of changes concerning food laws, other laws concerning the Gentiles, circumcision, etc. Why not church government?

But, no one could ever be convinced to change theological positions because of these things, right? Nope. I did (again, not leaving out the Holy Spirit's guidance, but I see the Spirit guiding me to good, solid teachers who helped me learn about these concepts).
6:12 PM
Jason said…
I disagree. I can easily find people well-trained in the same methods who disagree quite profoundly. And that's the point of the Noltie Conundrum. It either ends in veiled accusations of infidelity, or in dogmatic agnosticism. (which ends in relativism)
11:47 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con
17 comments
Read more

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Post a Comment
Read more
My wheelchair was nearly destroyed by a car last night. That's a bit melodramatic, I suppose, because it is intact and undamaged. But we'd left my power chair ("Red Sam" in the official designation) in-between the maze of cars parked out front of Chris Yee's house for Bible Study. [Isn't that a Protestant Bible study?--ed.] They are good friends, and it is not under any official auspices. [Not BSF?--ed.] They're BSF guys, but it's not a BSF study. Anyway, I wasn't worried; I made a joke about calling the vendor the next day: "What seems to be the problem, sir?" 'Well, it was destroyed by a car.' As it happened, a guy bumped into it at slow speed. His car got the worst of it. And this only reinforces what I've said for a solid 13 years [Quickie commercial coming] If you want a power wheelchair that lasts, get a Quickie. They're fast, obviously, and they're tanks. Heck, my old one still would work, but the batteries ar
13 comments
Read more