St. Singularis was a member of the true church. Needless to say, there was only one true church.
The true church was a rock-hewn church located somewhere in Nubia. The exact location was a closely guarded secret. Only a true member of the true church was allowed to know its location.
No one took more seriously than St. Singularis the motto: nulla salus extra ecclesiam. That’s why it was so important to be a member of the true church.
There were certain marks of the true church. For example, the true church only used communion wine with 18% alcohol content.
There was another monolithic church just down the canyon that served communion wine with 17.5% alcohol content. Such were the perennial dangers of apostasy.
The true church also used communion bread baked by vestal virgins. If the communion bread was accidentally baked by a married woman, then that rendered the Eucharist invalid.
At one time, the true church consisted of two members—St. Singularis and his twin-brother Unicitas. However, Singularis once caught his brother crossing himself with his left hand. (That’s because Unicitas was left-handed.)
Needless to say, the only way to make the true sign of the cross was with the right hand. So Singularis excommunicated his heretical brother.
It was an onerous duty, but someone had to perform it. Otherwise, chaos would ensue. Utter chaos!
St. Singularis used to write encyclicals to himself because…well…because there was no one else to write them to.
After St. Singularis died, there was no one left to sweep the dust, and the true church was eventually engulfed in a sand dune.
But let me reassure you that the true church still exists. The true church is still there—buried beneath that pile of sand, just waiting to be excavated so that you, too, can become a member of the one and only true church on earth.
How ironic for a blog that has declared Eastern Orthodoxy outside the true church, even though Orthodoxy is multiples in size compared to his favoured reformed churches.
ReplyDeleteAnd speaking of the "true church being buried beneath a pile of sand", again irony of ironies because Steve thinks the church went apostate in the 4th century or earlier, and presumably was buried in the sand waiting for Luther to dig it up.
Amazing.
My stated position, as I've explained to Blosser among others, is that there has always been a godly remnant during all phases of church history. Pity that Orthodox is too dim-witted to retain elementary information.
ReplyDelete>My stated position, as I've explained to Blosser
ReplyDelete>among others, is that there has always been a godly >remnant during all phases of church history.
The Baptist "Trail of Blood" LOL
http://www.fbinstitute.com/trail/index.htm
If you'll believe that you'll believe anything.
orthodox said:
ReplyDeleteThe Baptist "Trail of Blood" LOL
http://www.fbinstitute.com/trail/index.htm
If you'll believe that you'll believe anything.
*******************************************
It's fine with me if you want to keep making a public fool of yourself as well as your cause.
This link is irrelevant to my stated position.
“My stated position, as I've explained to Blosser among others, is that there has always been a godly remnant during all phases of church history. Pity that Orthodox is too dim-witted to retain elementary information.”
ReplyDeleteSo a continuous succession of sorts is necessary in your mind, much like Orthodox would claim? Why? More specifically, why couldn’t the “truth” have been lost for a time, only to have been found later (specifically, at the time of the Reformation)?
That the remnant achieved unbroken constancy throughout history is not a well established historical fact, is it? It is conjecture, right? Why do you hold to it? Is there solid evidence for it, on a par w/ the historical evidence for the constancy of Orthodoxy and/or Romanism?
My impression is not that the Reformation gained momentum by borrowing from the teachings of a pre-existing remnant, but that Luther et al. came to their beliefs quite independent of outside influence from any such remnant. My impression, also, is that the supposed Godly remnant has no clear presence in the historical record, at least not as an organized, as opposed to an individual (and quite sporadic) force for change.
More to the point, that God would allow heresy to silence the truth from (most of) the world for nearly a millennium seems implausible. Sure, it is not impossible, but, then, nothing is impossible.
For me the “brass tacks” question is what criteria establishes sola scripture as the starting point for elucidating final truth versus a God appointed Church w/ ultimate, infallible and binding authority? And what makes said criteria (if, indeed, it can be explicated) the *right*criteria?
It seems one could go either way (or neither) w/o violating any universal principle(s) of warrant. Doesn’t the question go beyond mere “coherence” and into the realm of pure faith?
>what criteria establishes sola scripture as the s
ReplyDelete>starting point for elucidating final truth versus a >God appointed Church
Except that there is a real genuine problem knowing what scripture is without relying on a church.
anonymous said...
ReplyDelete“So a continuous succession of sorts is necessary in your mind, much like Orthodox would claim? Why?”
I never made the claim that recognition of the truth is dependent on the diachronic continuity of the elect. I was simply rebutting Orthodox’s misrepresentation of my position.
“More specifically, why couldn’t the ‘truth’ have been lost for a time, only to have been found later (specifically, at the time of the Reformation)?”
All other things being equal, that would, in principle, be possible. The truth could be lost, rediscovered, and recognized for what it is.
However, that’s inconsistent with historical precedent in God’s preservation of a godly remnant throughout the ages. And it’s also inconsistent with his promises to the church.
“That the remnant achieved unbroken constancy throughout history is not a well established historical fact, is it?”
Actually, I think there is evidence to support this claim in Bible history and church history. But I’ll leave that to others since it isn’t central to my own argument. I’m merely correcting a false imputation.
“It is conjecture, right? Why do you hold to it?”
On theological grounds.
“Is there solid evidence for it, on a par w/ the historical evidence for the constancy of Orthodoxy and/or Romanism?”
That’s a trick question since it presupposes the historical identity of Orthodoxy and/or Romanism over time.
“My impression is not that the Reformation gained momentum by borrowing from the teachings of a pre-existing remnant, but that Luther et al. came to their beliefs quite independent of outside influence from any such remnant.”
The Reformed tradition is, among other things, an offshoot of the Augustinian tradition.
“My impression, also, is that the supposed Godly remnant has no clear presence in the historical record, at least not as an organized, as opposed to an individual (and quite sporadic) force for change.”
It varies in time and place. But, once again, that’s not central to my argument.
“More to the point, that God would allow heresy to silence the truth from (most of) the world for nearly a millennium seems implausible. Sure, it is not impossible, but, then, nothing is impossible.”
i) You’re reverting to the same caricature of my position as Orthodox.
ii) As to prior possibilities, consider the national apostasy of ancient Israel. Or consider the fact that of the maybe 2 million refugees among the Exodus generation, only two were faithful (Joshua, Caleb).
iii) Error varies in scope. The Medieval church could be wrong about some things without being wrong about everything.
iv) I don’t judge theological truth-claims by the conjectural assignment of prior probabilities. We have a revelation. That’s the yardstick.
“For me the ‘brass tacks’ question is what criteria establishes sola scripture as the starting point for elucidating final truth versus a God appointed Church w/ ultimate, infallible and binding authority? And what makes said criteria (if, indeed, it can be explicated) the *right*criteria?”
I’ve answered that question most recently in my reply to Blosser.
“It seems one could go either way (or neither) w/o violating any universal principle(s) of warrant. Doesn’t the question go beyond mere ‘coherence’ and into the realm of pure faith?”
There’s a misplaced faith and a well-placed faith. We can trust a trustworthy source. But we need to establish its trustworthy character.
anonymous said...
ReplyDelete“So a continuous succession of sorts is necessary in your mind, much like Orthodox would claim? Why?”
I never made the claim that recognition of the truth is dependent on the diachronic continuity of the elect. I was simply rebutting Orthodox’s misrepresentation of my position.
“More specifically, why couldn’t the ‘truth’ have been lost for a time, only to have been found later (specifically, at the time of the Reformation)?”
All other things being equal, that would, in principle, be possible. The truth could be lost, rediscovered, and recognized for what it is.
However, that’s inconsistent with historical precedent in God’s preservation of a godly remnant throughout the ages. And it’s also inconsistent with his promises to the church.
--
If that were God’s promise, wouldn’t Orthodoxy or Romanism be a better candidate (than Protestantism), since their presence in the historical record is far better attested? Few scholars would disagree that Orthodoxy or Romanism that we speak of today lacks historical continuity w/ the Church of, say, the 4th century. Protestantism’s pedigree is far sketchier.
--
“That the remnant achieved unbroken constancy throughout history is not a well established historical fact, is it?”
Actually, I think there is evidence to support this claim in Bible history and church history. But I’ll leave that to others since it isn’t central to my own argument. I’m merely correcting a false imputation.
--
No one (and I mean no one) disputes the existence of Orthodoxy throughout the ages. An historical remnant is far less plausible (though, to be sure, not impossible).
--
“It is conjecture, right? Why do you hold to it?”
On theological grounds.
--
So theology is prior to historiography? That is the same argument Orthodox would embrace. Question is, why is yours better than his (theology, that is)? It is, in my view, an assessment based on some criteria that you’ve yet to explicate. Is it GHM? GHM not only begs the question, it also doesn’t automatically do the “spade work” you’d claim since there are plenty of equally intelligent scholars who disagree with you and who do so on the basis of there own assessment of the data (as filtered by the GHM).
--
“Is there solid evidence for it, on a par w/ the historical evidence for the constancy of Orthodoxy and/or Romanism?”
That’s a trick question since it presupposes the historical identity of Orthodoxy and/or Romanism over time.
--
If historical evidence alone is our guide, then there is far more evidence for the continuity of Romanism and Orthodoxy then there is for Protestantism. If, on the other hand, the argument is one that answers primarily to theological considerations, then what established theological criterion makes your position superior? And does the theological criterion have a *clear* basis in sola scripture?
--
“My impression is not that the Reformation gained momentum by borrowing from the teachings of a pre-existing remnant, but that Luther et al. came to their beliefs quite independent of outside influence from any such remnant.”
The Reformed tradition is, among other things, an offshoot of the Augustinian tradition.
--
How does that help to establish the existence of a “faithful remnant”? So what if there are commonalities with Augustine. There are (as I’m sure you’d admit) plenty of substantive differences as well. How is this answer supposed to clarify anything?
--
“My impression, also, is that the supposed Godly remnant has no clear presence in the historical record, at least not as an organized, as opposed to an individual (and quite sporadic) force for change.”
It varies in time and place. But, once again, that’s not central to my argument.
--
Your argument thus far seems to be no more than that Orthodox’s epistemological vantage point is no better than yours.
--
“More to the point, that God would allow heresy to silence the truth from (most of) the world for nearly a millennium seems implausible. Sure, it is not impossible, but, then, nothing is impossible.”
i) You’re reverting to the same caricature of my position as Orthodox.
ii) As to prior possibilities, consider the national apostasy of ancient Israel. Or consider the fact that of the maybe 2 million refugees among the Exodus generation, only two were faithful (Joshua, Caleb).
iii) Error varies in scope. The Medieval church could be wrong about some things without being wrong about everything.
iv) I don’t judge theological truth-claims by the conjectural assignment of prior probabilities. We have a revelation. That’s the yardstick.
--
Again, why is your assessment of revelation better than that of Orthodoxy or Romanism? You could be right, you could be wrong. Same for Orthodox. What makes your position better? An independent yardstick is what I’m after, but none seems forthcoming. You have *your* assessment, Orthodox has his. What guaranteed criterion makes your arguments better? Please give me a guiding principle that avoids question begging.
--
“For me the ‘brass tacks’ question is what criteria establishes sola scripture as the starting point for elucidating final truth versus a God appointed Church w/ ultimate, infallible and binding authority? And what makes said criteria (if, indeed, it can be explicated) the *right*criteria?”
I’ve answered that question most recently in my reply to Blosser.
--
You’ve not made it clear to your readers what evidentiary standards you are holding to. Again, what overarching epistemological standard are we to uphold?
“It seems one could go either way (or neither) w/o violating any universal principle(s) of warrant. Doesn’t the question go beyond mere ‘coherence’ and into the realm of pure faith?”
There’s a misplaced faith and a well-placed faith. We can trust a trustworthy source. But we need to establish its trustworthy character.
--
Establish it on what basis? What basis finds it’s imperative in sola scripture? Also, is this basis prior to sola scripture, and if so, of what value is sola scripture?
--