tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5834079569174373964..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Status quo appealsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-4775629642380855552017-08-06T09:09:49.397-04:002017-08-06T09:09:49.397-04:00I define heresy by what's contrary to revealed...I define heresy by what's contrary to revealed truth. If church councils define heresy by theological refinements that lack revelatory warrant, then so much the worse for church councils. Your objection begs the question because you act as if I consider that to be an unacceptable consequence. But that's not unacceptable from a Protestant standpoint.<br /><br />In addition, you miss the point–as usual. I don't have a problem with a personal perception of where the truth lies. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. You keep acting as if what's an unacceptable consequence from your viewpoint is an unacceptable consequence from my viewpoint. <br /><br />Don't keep trotting out your presuppositional appeal. I've explained to you how your appeal is fallacious. If you refuse to engage the argument, you will be banned. I don't tolerate commenters who repeat the same discredited arguments. <br /><br />Not to mention that you're a sedevacantist, so your alternative is incoherent. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57164428436634607892017-08-06T05:12:38.861-04:002017-08-06T05:12:38.861-04:00"i) Uninspired creeds and councils have no in..."i) Uninspired creeds and councils have no intrinsic authority."<br /><br />The Christological definitions of Chalcedon or Third Constantinople cannot be proven from Scripture (even though there are passages in Scripture which implicitly support them), yet Protestants accept them - but all there is to support them as binding is authority of the Councils. If the Councils have no authority, monothelitism, monoenergism etc. cannot be considered heresies and the doctrines such as two wills of Our Lord cannot be considered binding. This is especially the case with monoenergism, which was deliebrately vague in its formulation as an attempt to compromise between Chalcedonian Christians and heretics, and with its vague formulation cannot be proven to be heretical from Scripture. <br /><br />"That, however, is self-defeating, for their preference for Catholicism ultimately boils down to their personal perception of where the truth lies."<br /><br />An atheist can say the same about your belief in inspiration of the Bible - it is your mere personal perception of where the truth lies. Therefore, you could be wrong about inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. Taking your argument consistently to a logical conclusions you cannot deny that it is possible. Instead, we must simply recognize that there are final authorities which are just that - final, and believe in them is a fundamental presupposition. Can you be wrong about inspiration of the Bible? You would probably say no, because it is you final authority and thus a presupposition. Could I be wrong about the authority of the Magisterium? No, it is a presupposition, because it is the final interpretetive authority.<br /><br />"Your illogical notion that the alternative to the church fathers as authority figures is "just you and Jesus". That's so simplistic. Rather, it's a question of reason and evidence. If a church father has a good argument, then we go with the best argument, whatever the source, whether it's a church father or modern commentator."<br /><br />But how do you know who has the best argument? Again, it is merely your private judgment, which indeed reduces your epistemology to "you and Jesus". At least you are honest in rejection of Matheson's fallacious sola/solo distinction, which was just a smokescreen which reduced "authoritative tradition 1" to whatever agrees with individual's private interpretation of Scripture ("you and Jesus" with only a slight disguise).<br /><br />"However you slice it, someone is mistaken. God has not ensured uniformity in Christian belief. God allows some class of Christians to be mistaken. If Lutherans are right on some issues, then Roman Catholics are wrong, and vice versa (to take one example). (...) So the idea that there's a problem if God allows many professing Christians to be in error is unavoidable, since that's going to be the case regardless of which side you take."<br /><br />Well, of course there were and there are heretics, and those are not protected from being mistaken by God. God does not approve of everyone who self-identifies as a Christian, He approves only of His true Church, which He protects from error - everything else is heresy and schism. Arvingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03575690683878059246noreply@blogger.com