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?
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
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.)
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.
I take issue with the suggestion that I have unprincipled positions.
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).