From a Facebook comment:
Jamie Stober "It
doesn't bother my Lutheran mind that the Councils have the possibility of
erring. God does not fail. We do not get to order his words or works of
providence. The Father provided the Son in flesh for us because he loved us and
we needed saving, not because we decided on Christ's atonement and commanded it
from below to God on high. Historically, we can trust the Christological
Councils as faithful witnesses to the Holy Scriptures' witness about the
Incarnate Word and Holy Trinity because of the miraculous consensus among
Christians that has surrounded them. . Explain to me how 99% of Christendom
throughout history has accepted the substance of the Christological Councils'
teachings about Jesus in light of the confusion about who He was that existed
among many in the early Church on into the tumultuous times of the later
Christological Councils and the confusion of a few a heretical Christians that
has continued today. There is really no need for a few Arians', Cathars',
Socinians', Christadelphians', JWs',and Latter-Day Saints' denials, or for the
Roman Catholic apologist's need for philosophical infallibility to believe
anything concerning religion steal from Protestants the ability to believe and
teach the ancient Councils as true witnesses to Jesus Christ on the basis that
they teach what Scripture teaches and that their acceptance and validity has
been as miraculous and perspicuous to Christians on the level that Old
Testament miracles were to those who witnessed them with their own eyes and did
not require the authority of an infallible Church Magisterium to believe what
they saw was true and have their accounts later become what we know as the Old
Testament. All Protestants need in order to faithfully believe and use the
creeds of the Christological Councils is to accept that they are true on the
basis that they teach what Scripture teaches and that they were and are
providential witnesses to true faith in the Father, Son (both before and after
the Incarnation), and Holy Spirit, given from above when they could least be
expected and were most needed. express They have been believed by a miraculous
near-consensus of followers of Jesus ever since."
We've got a few problems. Firstly, the distinguishing feature of divine revelation is in fact infallibility, because God cannot err, and he cannot lie. God cannot bind us to the contents of such if we do not know what he said. Give up on it if you want, but it's a bullet-train headed for agnosticism, and I'm not going. Secondly, there is no principled reason to accept the first 2 ecumenical councils, and not all others, and to accept them on the basis in which they were put forward: as the most solemn invocation of the Church's authority. The same Church headed visibly by the successor of Peter. Thirdly, I deny that Christendom outside the Catholic Church is united in anything, save their non-Catholicism. It's an arbitrary decision, to make once-central doctrines into non-essentials, and without consent, no less.
It is in fact when we remove the bad-faith assumption from the Noltie Conundrum (that the other person lacks the Holy Spirit) that Sola Scriptura collapses very fast, because it becomes a theological problem in the strict sense. I am left with 2 possibilities: Either the Holy Spirit is lying/confused, or this is the wrong way to find out what God is saying, and has said. Gotta go with (B).
I could not account for the faith of the early Church without the authority of the Catholic Church, which means that the Catholic Church is Christ's own. In order to believe otherwise, I would have to believe that the God of Israel, the God of faithfulness, who never ceased to send true prophets, no matter the stubbornness of His people, decided--even after the coming of His Son, who promised to protect the Church and draw all men to Himself--that God gave up on this, and said essentially, "Do the best you can." I don't think so.
The beauty of it is, Christians are united...in treasures which belong to the Catholic Church. The problem with your average fundamentalist isn't that he believes in Truth; it's that he is a Church unto himself. And if you find what's true in what he says, underneath the "paint"...it's Catholic. I can respect the biblicist's desire for truth. His rude awakening is simply the fact that when he's right, he's not as original as he thinks.
Comments