“Steve over at Triablogue made a post in where he tried to flip the table on us, but such a thing is extremely difficult to do when we have the Eastern Fathers and great Church Councils under our belt.”
And I have Christ, the prophets, and the apostles under my belt. So I like my odds better than his.
“How can we be an Eastern heresy if we preserved the Truth? Unlike Steve Hays, we can actually trace most of our beliefs back to the early centuries.”
One can also trace Gnosticism and Docetism back to the early centuries.
“We can actually point not only to Scripture for our beliefs, but to great men of the Faith and to Church Councils as well! This is something he can't do!”
In my limited exchanges with Jnorm, he seems like a nice guy. But, unfortunately, statements like this reflect the mindset of somebody who’s so wrapped up in play-acting that he doesn’t know it’s just an act. He plays the role that’s been assigned to him by his adopted denomination.
However, Christianity is a revealed religion. Revealed words. Revealed works. That’s the source of Christian theology. God didn’t reveal himself to the bishops or the church fathers. They only know as much or as little as they can learn from God’s revelation in Scripture–just like the rest of us.
A tiny handful of church fathers have some recollections of the 1C. That's it.
“And so whatever he says about us, he must also say about the historic Christian Faith in general. To fight against us is to fight against the great Eastern (and early Western) Church Fathers, councils, and creeds!”
Hmm. I seem to remember a guy named Jesus who was opposed by religious establishment. I seem to remember him founding a church with 120 charter members.
Given his criteria, shouldn’t Jnorm side with the Sanhedrin?
“Also, he is not even in agreement with the semi-Augustinian position of the post-2nd-Orange Christian West. And so he really doesn't have a leg to stand on.”
I stand on the sturdy legs of Isaiah, the Apostle Paul, the Apostle John, and so on and so forth. I prefer the legs I stand on to Jnorm’s mannequin legs.
“His interpretation of the doctrine of the Trinity is far from being the historic Christian one.”
Our knowledge of God is entirely dependent on God’s self-revelation. It’s not a stipulative definition, via ecclesiastical fiat. The truth of the definition must match revealed truth.
“Yes, he is trying to flip the tables on us, but to do so is to destroy any real sense of doctrinal continuity with the past.”
Continuity with the past can also include continuity in error. And, in any case, I prefer continuity with the apostles and prophets.
“For how could he embrace, in good conscience, some of the Ecumenical creeds and non-Augustinian Fathers of the past, while at the same time calling us an Eastern heresy?”
I’m selective based on what does or doesn’t correspond to Scripture.
“What in the world does he think we believe?”