Protestants and a Churchless Tradition: “Sola” vs. “Solo” Scriptura

[jmdrake]

TER how about joining Deb and others in going through the Bible? Seriously? I know myself that I have a lot more Bible study I need to do. Have you exhausted everything it is that you could possibly learned from the earliest church fathers, namely the apostles? If so, good for you.

As for your statement that "We can confess we are so full of the Holy Spirit to think we know better than the early martyrs and Church Fathers, but chances are unfortunately, we probably aren't." my response is this. The earliest church fathers longed for us to be so full of the Holy Spirit that we would depend upon the Holy Spirit and not them.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Christians are not supposed to be "Ever learning but never coming into the knowledge of the truth." I don't think I have "arrived" so that I am "wiser than all Christians before me". I don't know why whenever this conversation comes up that's the type of response I get. But I don't believe God is so limited in 2014 that He cannot explain His truth to His children without them having to rely on 2nd hand information. The writings in the Bible are first hand accounts of God's working through creation to the establishment of the Christian church. Writings after that are helpful for history. I like reading Josephus and he wasn't even Christian! But he is helpful for understanding history.

I wish you did read more of the Church Fathers and put more energy in studying the actual history of Christianity from the first century and after my brother, especially on how the baptized men and women in the world have labored from the beginning in order to pass down the traditions handed down by the apostles and those who succeeded them.

There is no conflict with the Scriptures and the Church. There is interpretation of the Scriptures within the Church. And not the interpretation of one man or one person, but the interpretation as deliberated and defended and clarified through the milieu of the catholic Church. Not in fantasy or in thoughtful imagination, but in concrete reality, in a blessed water of baptism, a spoken confession and creed, a written declaration or canon of Scripture, in true succession of the laying of the hands and anointing of the oil and Holy Spirit. These traditions go back in form and development for 2000 years and lead us to the life of the early Church. This is the concrete working of the Holy Spirit, not having sprung up a hundred years ago, but 2000 years ago, not starting from the day I was born or the day I thought something up or agreed to something else, but what is the historical, liturgical, and sacramentally sealed witness which has been faithfully handed down, through good times and bad, through persecution and state protection, and demonstrating the power of God and the proofs of the Holy Spirit by the lives of the saints. The tradition of the Church is the life of the Church, guided by God Himself in the Holy Spirit.

We can confess we are so full of the Holy Spirit to think we know better than the early martyrs and Church Fathers, but chances are unfortunately, we probably aren't. At least, I know that applies to me acknowledging my sinfulness and having really read their writings and studied their lives and the unimaginable circumstances and challenges they faced in order to pass down faithfully the traditions and teachings handed down by the Apostles. I wish to be in communion with those who I know indeed were 'Holy Spirit filled' saints instead of putting so much weight in my own mind's capabilities. Nor do I put my faith in people who taught completely innovative teachings 15, 17, or 19 centuries later, apart from the body of Christians who have worshiped in unity since the beginning. If Christ truly did create a Church on earth empowered by the Holy Spirit, which He promised that the gates of Hell would never overcome, then I want to find THAT Church, which can show itself through history AND through the blessed sacrament to go back to the Upper Room on the Day of Pentecost.

This is why I am an Orthodox Christian. Not because I am great, or because I am something, but because I know how badly fallible and sinful I am, and even though I can just as easily trust in myself above all and claim to be 'learning from the Holy Spirit' , I know by the way I live and the sins I do that I am only fooling myself to believe such a thing.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Right. But every time he makes these crazy statements I see Orthodox Christians defending him as if he was Orthodox. But that's tangential to my point. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Orthodox church is the "true church". (One has to ask which Orthodox church because Terry doesn't believe the Ethiopian Orthodox church is part of the Orthodox communion.) In the Western world there was not the choice between RCC and EO. So if the RCC was wrong the only choice reformers had was to try to reform it or to start something new. As for "correcting the pope" I'm not sure how someone does that. But in the dark ages that meant death. Have you ever heard of Jan Huss? He was a reformer that preceded Luther. (Luther really was not the first reformer.) His argument with the RCC? He taught that people should only follow the church if the church was following the Lord. (Paul himself said "Follow me as I follow Christ"). For this "heresy" he was burned at the stake. So was his friend Jerome. Oh, and at one point during Huss's lifetime there where 3 different men vying to be pope. Clearly two of them had to be the wrong person to follow.

Hmmm...strange...I've never seen that. As to "which Orthodox Church", the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Ethiopian Church(a type of Oriental Church) are schismatic. The Churches in communion with each other-comprising the One, Holy, Catholic (orthodox use this word in its original sense-"universal") and Apostolic Church are those in Russia, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Romania, Bulgaria, and Georgia.

 

[TER]

Right. But every time he makes these crazy statements I see Orthodox Christians defending him as if he was Orthodox. But that's tangential to my point

Have you heard any Orthodox Christian defend the Pope with regards to this current Synod in Rome? I haven't. When the Roman Catholic Pope says something which the Orthodox Church proclaims as well, then there is agreement. When he doesn't, then there is disagreement. In your experience, there may seem more agreements and defending of the other, but that is because there are signs the two great Churches are coming closer and overcoming obstacles. Trust me, there were times when because of Papal policies there was little camaraderie, such as in the Fourth Crusade. But the truth is that there is in fact much that are similar, most importantly, a common history. The goal is now to strengthen these bonds, re-establish those ancient ties, and forgive one another so that they might share together as one Body as they did for a thousand years starting from the days of the early Church.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Orthodox church is the "true church".

How I wish you did not assume, but also came to know!

(One has to ask which Orthodox church because Terry doesn't believe the Ethiopian Orthodox church is part of the Orthodox communion.)

The EO and OO have been in schism since the 4th century because of a misunderstanding of Christologic terminology. In fact, in recent interfaith conferences, it is clear that they share (depending on the terminology one uses) the exact same orthodox faith. But even still, with the span of 1700 years later, they still have the same saints of the infant Church, still have the same sacraments, still worship liturgically in almost exactly the same way, still confess the same orthodox belief of 99% of teachings. Pretty interesting, right? If you don't find that interesting or telling, then I am sorry you do not. To me, it only further confirms to me that if I want to find the true understanding of the life in Christ, in praxis and worship, I should look to the past and to the beginnings.

In the Western world there was not the choice between RCC and EO. So if the RCC was wrong the only choice reformers had was to try to reform it or to start something new.

That is not true. There was much dialogue in the 17th century between the Lutherans and the Orthodox Church.

As for "correcting the pope" I'm not sure how someone does that. But in the dark ages that meant death. Have you ever heard of Jan Huss? He was a reformer that preceded Luther. (Luther really was not the first reformer.) His argument with the RCC? He taught that people should only follow the church if the church was following the Lord. (Paul himself said "Follow me as I follow Christ"). For this "heresy" he was burned at the stake. So was his friend Jerome. Oh, and at one point during Huss's lifetime there where 3 different men vying to be pope. Clearly two of them had to be the wrong person to follow.

It is unfortunate what happened to Jan Huss. But that was in the dark ages of Papal imperialism and a symptom of larger problems because of such Papal abuse.

 

[TER]

TER how about joining Deb and others in going through the Bible? Seriously? I know myself that I have a lot more Bible study I need to do. Have you exhausted everything it is that you could possibly learned from the earliest church fathers, namely the apostles? If so, good for you.

I think that Deb's thread is a great idea. In fact, I have thought about putting the quotes of the Church Fathers who have commented about those particular verses. Their wisdom is much greater than mine. But I have not had the time because of personal reasons. I do admire those who are contributing to it and wish them well in it.

As for your statement that "We can confess we are so full of the Holy Spirit to think we know better than the early martyrs and Church Fathers, but chances are unfortunately, we probably aren't." my response is this. The earliest church fathers longed for us to be so full of the Holy Spirit that we would depend upon the Holy Spirit and not them.

Jmdrake, honest question: Have you read any complete works of the Church Fathers? What is your knowledge about the lives of the saints, what they wrote, and what they taught and confessed to be the apostolic truths? I think we must be honest if we are going to say what 'they longed for us' that we have actually read them to make such a guess. But, nevertheless, in this point, you are right! They did indeed long for us to be so full of the Holy Spirit that we would depend upon the Holy Spirit and not them. They also longed that we humble ourselves, that we don't confess heresy nor depend on our own thoughts, interpretations, and opinions which go against the orthodox teachings handed down by the saints before them (that is, the Church), so that we might enter into unity of faith and worship as one Body of Christ.

Christians are not supposed to be "Ever learning but never coming into the knowledge of the truth." I don't think I have "arrived" so that I am "wiser than all Christians before me". I don't know why whenever this conversation comes up that's the type of response I get. But I don't believe God is so limited in 2014 that He cannot explain His truth to His children without them having to rely on 2nd hand information. The writings in the Bible are first hand accounts of God's working through creation to the establishment of the Christian church. Writings after that are helpful for history. I like reading Josephus and he wasn't even Christian! But he is helpful for understanding history.

My friend, believe as you wish. I am not trying to convert you (well, maybe a little, but that is because I wish to join in full communion with you in Christ). If the Spirit has not led you to diligently read the history of the early Church and meditate and study on the writings of the early Church Fathers to find the truths of the apostolic faith (to learn what has actually been handed down continuously since the very beginning), than who am I to lead you to anything (?) since those stated things would be the first things I think (IMO) an honest seeker would do.

Josephus was a scholar and a great historian. Why not read the writings of the Christian saints as well? St. Ignatius has been revered for 2000 years because of his Christian witness to the true faith. He would be a good place to start to understand what it meant to be in the Church and in obedience to God from the beginning until now. May God bless you in your journey.

 

[Kevin007]

apparently both the RCC and EOC claim they are the authority and one true church

 

[jmdrake]

Hmmm...strange...I've never seen that.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...s-of-gays%92&p=5672272&viewfull=1#post5672272

As to "which Orthodox Church", the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Ethiopian Church(a type of Oriental Church) are schismatic. The Churches in communion with each other-comprising the One, Holy, Catholic (orthodox use this word in its original sense-"universal") and Apostolic Church are those in Russia, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Romania, Bulgaria, and Georgia.

Right. And that's my point. The Ethiopian Orthodox church is just as old as any other church. But it's not in communion with the RCC or the "Orthodox" church. So why should I or anyone else accept what your church teaches as being "scripture"? All of what I accept as authoritative scripture are what you and every other Christian accepts as authoritative scripture. That doesn't mean the Holy Spirit hasn't inspired anyone after the apostles. But there is enough already in the scripture that everybody accepts for someone to understand how to be saved without arguing over the other stuff.

 

[jmdrake]

Have you heard any Orthodox Christian defend the Pope with regards to this current Synod in Rome? I haven't.

Yep. Right on this forum. The idea that the Pope was really saying "Love the sinner hate the sin." And actually I don't know of the Pope himself said or is in agreement with that so I was careful not to say "the Pope". (I don't know enough about RCC politics to know if a synod can issue a statement like that without the Pope's personal seal of approval.) And I seem to recall EO Christians that were reinterpreting the Pope's words on "unbridled capitalism" as somehow being "against crony capitalism" when that's not what he said. The liberty movement opposes crony capitalism but not free market (unbridled) capitalism. By that was a while back.

When the Roman Catholic Pope says something which the Orthodox Church proclaims as well, then there is agreement. When he doesn't, then there is disagreement. In your experience, there may seem more agreements and defending of the other, but that is because there are signs the two great Churches are coming closer and overcoming obstacles. Trust me, there were times when because of Papal policies there was little camaraderie, such as in the Fourth Crusade. But the truth is that there is in fact much that are similar, most importantly, a common history. The goal is now to strengthen these bonds, re-establish those ancient ties, and forgive one another so that they might share together as one Body as they did for a thousand years starting from the days of the early Church.

I'm just commenting on what I saw.

How I wish you did not assume, but also came to know!

Sorry but there are too many things that I know to be true that the Orthodox church believes to be false and too many things that I know to be false that the Orthodox church believes to be true for me to be a member.

The EO and OO have been in schism since the 4th century because of a misunderstanding of Christologic terminology. In fact, in recent interfaith conferences, it is clear that they share (depending on the terminology one uses) the exact same orthodox faith. But even still, with the span of 1700 years later, they still have the same saints of the infant Church, still have the same sacraments, still worship liturgically in almost exactly the same way, still confess the same orthodox belief of 99% of teachings. Pretty interesting, right? If you don't find that interesting or telling, then I am sorry you do not. To me, it only further confirms to me that if I want to find the true understanding of the life in Christ, in praxis and worship, I should look to the past and to the beginnings.

Right. They've got a lot of things in common. All Christians have a lot of things in common. You've even got stuff in common with Kevin and you even had stuff in common with Sola_Fide. That's kind of my point. If churches as old as the Greek Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox church (I have to stop using abbreviations like EO because that could apply to both) have different views, then accepting church tradition is not some guarantee of church unity. People have different understandings of the traditions. I know the Ethiopian church accepts Enoch as an inspired book for example.

That is not true. There was much dialogue in the 17th century between the Lutherans and the Orthodox Church.

You realize that the 17th century was 100 years after Luther? For my statement to "not be true" there had to have been a viable Orthodox presence where Luther lived during his lifetime. If you have evidence of that please provide and I'll stand corrected. I just did a quick Google search and couldn't find anything myself.

It is unfortunate what happened to Jan Huss. But that was in the dark ages of Papal imperialism and a symptom of larger problems because of such Papal abuse.

True. But it didn't get that way over night. And I submit that part of the reason it got that way is because people didn't have a simple common standard that they could go to and say "This is wrong." The writings of the Old Testament and the New Testament give people a common digestible standard where people can say "This is wrong." Huss was right because accepted scripture qualifies "follow me" with "as I follow Christ." Who knows. In the annals of someone's tradition somewhere centuries later there was "tradition" that backed up what the popes were doing. In fact that's a certainty because they were laying down their own "tradition." Protestantism did not start from pride or arrogance but from a genuine recognition that what was happening was wrong.

 

[jmdrake]

Jmdrake, honest question: Have you read any complete works of the Church Fathers? What is your knowledge about the lives of the saints, what they wrote, and what they taught and confessed to be the apostolic truths? I think we must be honest if we are going to say what 'they longed for us' that we have actually read them to make such a guess. But, nevertheless, in this point, you are right! They did indeed long for us to be so full of the Holy Spirit that we would depend upon the Holy Spirit and not them. They also longed that we humble ourselves, that we don't confess heresy nor depend on our own thoughts, interpretations, and opinions which go against the orthodox teachings handed down by the saints before them (that is, the Church), so that we might enter into unity of faith and worship as one Body of Christ.

I think you missed what I was saying. The earliest church fathers were the apostles themselves. Paul said "I would that all men prophesy". I quoted John to you where he said "You have no need of a teacher because the Holy Spirit is your teacher." Paul praised the Bereans for being more noble than the Thessolinicans because they not only received his words with joy but "Studied the scriptures to see if these things were true." In Acts when congregations were found not to be full of the Holy Spirit, the apostles send emissaries to them to lay hands on them so that they would be filled with the Holy Spirit. Now I've read some work by what you are calling "church fathers". I don't think I've read a "completed work". But if they disagree with the original church fathers (the apostles) in wanting all believers to be filled with the Holy Spirit....well that's a problem.

My friend, believe as you wish. I am not trying to convert you (well, maybe a little, but that is because I wish to join in full communion with you in Christ). If the Spirit has not led you to diligently read the history of the early Church and meditate and study on the writings of the early Church Fathers to find the truths of the apostolic faith (to learn what has actually been handed down continuously since the very beginning), than who am I to lead you to anything (?) since those stated things would be the first things I think (IMO) an honest seeker would do.

Josephus was a scholar and a great historian. Why not read the writings of the Christian saints as well? St. Ignatius has been revered for 2000 years because of his Christian witness to the true faith. He would be a good place to start to understand what it meant to be in the Church and in obedience to God from the beginning until now. May God bless you in your journey.

Ummmm......was what I said really that unclear? I'm fine with reading church history written from anyone. In fact the PM I sent you recently contained church history. My question to you was were the historical quotes accurate, but you instead commented on the doctrinal conclusions. That's all well and good. I can do my own research. My point about Josephus is that he is a good reference for historical understanding. That's the same way I would look at St. Ignatius. That's not to say that Ignatius wasn't inspired. He very well could have been. But there are people who could have been inspired and have gotten something dreadfully wrong. Joan of Arc for instance. (I'll post a thread on that soon.) Anyway, I've got to get ready for church. Have a blessed day!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...s-of-gays%92&p=5672272&viewfull=1#post5672272



Right. And that's my point. The Ethiopian Orthodox church is just as old as any other church. But it's not in communion with the RCC or the "Orthodox" church. So why should I or anyone else accept what your church teaches as being "scripture"? All of what I accept as authoritative scripture are what you and every other Christian accepts as authoritative scripture. That doesn't mean the Holy Spirit hasn't inspired anyone after the apostles. But there is enough already in the scripture that everybody accepts for someone to understand how to be saved without arguing over the other stuff.

You accept the apocrypha as authoritative? Interesting. Most of the heterodox world doesn't. ~hugs~

 

[acptulsa]

You accept the apocrypha as authoritative? Interesting. Most of the heterodox world doesn't. ~hugs~

You think that's what the man said? Really?

So you not only accept the apocrypha yourself, but you think TER and 'every other Christian' does too?

 

[Kevin007]

there are no seven sacraments in the NT. Heck, I don't even think the word appears.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You think that's what the man said? Really?

IDK, which is why I asked

So you not only accept the apocrypha yourself, but you think TER and 'every other Christian' does too?

I don't know where this is coming from or what to say about it. It has almost nothing to do with the post you quoted.


ETA: You seem quite cranky today. Who threw sand in your vagina?

 

[RJB]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...s-of-gays%92&p=5672272&viewfull=1#post5672272

My "yep" in agreement with Paulbot99's post is me defending the pope like a Roman Catholic? I truly miss Eduardo.

It was actually me saying it was a non-story rather than the hysteria driven story that most of them become.

 

[fisharmor]

Thanks for this post TER. I watched an old video of Frank Schaeffer making this same argument (recorded long before he descended into apparent apostasy) and that had a lot to do with my decision to join the Orthodox Church.
He's an interesting character who fits with the conversation. His recordings on YT support Holy Tradition. I think they're still very helpful.
His later writings are troublesome to say the least. But I don't see a problem with extolling one body of work and decrying the other. He's not defining anything - he's either agreeing with it, or disagreeing. The thing he's either supporting or destroying is external to him, because he, an individual, is not the arbiter of it.
I didn't have any trouble with this, and still don't.

there are no seven sacraments in the NT. Heck, I don't even think the word appears.

Neither does "trinity". I don't know about you guys, but the point I got from the OP is that
a) you can't set yourself up as the arbiter of these things, because you end up cutting off whole limbs of Christianity
b) you can appeal to tradition with a small t to justify some of those elements that aren't strictly defined in Scripture
c) but that can't get you all the way to the fullness of the Church.

 

[jmdrake]

You accept the apocrypha as authoritative? Interesting. Most of the heterodox world doesn't. ~hugs~

Ummmm....I didn't say that. All of what I accept as scripture is what you accept as scripture. That doesn't mean that all that you accept as scripture is what I accept as scripture. All dogs (not maimed) have four legs. Not everything with four legs is a dog.

 

[jmdrake]

My "yep" in agreement with Paulbot99's post is me defending the pope like a Roman Catholic? I truly miss Eduardo.

It was actually me saying it was a non-story rather than the hysteria driven story that most of them become.

I miss Eduardo too. That said dismissing something as a "nonstory" is a type of defense. In fact you said exactly what I would have expected Eduardo to say.

 

[fisharmor]

Ummmm....I didn't say that. All of what I accept as scripture is what you accept as scripture. That doesn't mean that all that you accept as scripture is what I accept as scripture. All dogs (not maimed) have four legs. Not everything with four legs is a dog.

Well thanks for clarifying your position but technically you did say what he (and I) read.
If you had said "All of what I accept as Scripture is a subset of what you accept as Scripture" then that would have been clear.

 

[erowe1]

c) but that can't get you all the way to the fullness of the Church.

Why is adopting innovations that arose centuries after the apostles necessary in order to have the fulness of the Church?

And of all the innovative traditions that various Christians have come up with over the centuries, how does one determine which of those innovations are required for the fulness of the Church?

 

[TER]

Sola Scriptura vs. Holy Tradition: Is There a Difference?

October 6, 2014 by Gabe Martini
link HERE
​

​

I have recently—and on a few other occasions—written about the differences between the Protestant approach to authority and the Orthodox.

For Protestants, the final authority or rule is the Bible—a principle known as Sola Scriptura. And while some Protestants have written catechisms and other companion material to the scriptures themselves, these too are held in check by the proper interpretation of the Bible.

With regards to the latter, I have previously offered:

Even when Sola scriptura is given nuance to make room for creeds, confessions, and councils, the final arbiter is still a person’s interpretation of the Bible. While one might hold to a document such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, if there are doctrinal disagreements, the consistent Biblicist will come down in favor of a particular interpretation of the Bible over-and-against the Confession. This has led to some difficulties over the years for certain Protestant churches, but I believe that this nuance is—ultimately—pointless.

For example, one might confess a creed that states Jesus is a bunny rabbit. While this belief could theoretically be held by many, anyone can deny it as being contrary to the Bible (which it obviously is), rendering the creed both incorrect and unnecessary. It doesn’t really matter what creeds or confessions say, so long as the Bible is held to be the final authority.

​

In distinction from this viewpoint, I have explained that the Orthodox approach to authority is one that rests in Holy Tradition—the apostolic continuation of Christ that lives and breathes through the Body of Christ. By preserving and handing down this Tradition from one generation to the next (paradosis—the very meaning of “tradition”), the Church endures as the spotless and apostolic Bride of Christ, the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). The gates of Hades—the gates of death, schism, and division—can never prevail against her (Matt. 16:18). The so-called “source” of authority in the Orthodox Church is God himself—not clergy, institutions, documents, or relics, but the very life of God by his Spirit. This is Holy Tradition.

And while we might point to the splintering of the Western church since the sixteenth century as evidence of the rotten fruit of Sola Scriptura, a faithful Protestant could just as easily turn such judgment back upon the Orthodox Church: What about the Old Ritualists, the Old Calendarists, the Armenians, Copts, and Ethiopians? What about the five different Patriarchs of Antioch, all claiming to be heirs to the apostolic throne of Peter and Paul? What about the Nestorians and other Non-Chalcedonians? And really, what about the (Roman and otherwise) Catholics, the several churches in communion with the Vatican and the Pope of Rome? How can anyone really claim that an adherence to Holy Tradition protects the Church against schism any better than Sola Scriptura?

But there is an important difference—a distinction so significant, it underlines or even defines the entirety of this issue. This question of authority is not epistemological or theoretical, first and foremost, but is rather ontological. It’s a question of the very nature or essence of the Church herself, and not any one particular set of doctrinal beliefs, creeds, or confessions.

The Church is the Church because she is the Church. Does that sound like a circular argument to you? Well of course it is, because it isn’t an argument—it’s a matter of life.

To be a member of the Body of Christ is not a doctrinal commitment or even choice, but is rather a Personal act—an act of being and becoming after the true image and likeness of Christ. It is a transfiguring participation—if we rightly make use of it—in the deifying life and grace of God’s kingdom. The scriptures are no doubt a central part of the life and authority of the Church, but we as the Church are the most significant sacred writ of all (2 Cor. 3:2), written by the Spirit of God (v. 3).
With regards to whether or not an adherence to Holy Tradition is superior to Sola Scriptura, we must emphatically reply in the affirmative. The aforementioned schisms are not true divisions of the Church (1 John 2:19), but are rather evidence the Church’s fidelity to Holy Tradition is working as it should.

A purpose of Tradition is to show forth this continuation of Christ and his apostles by defining the difference between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. When a “corrupt member” (using St. Vincent’s terminology) of the Body appears, Tradition has worked through the life of the Church to perform “surgery” on the Body, preserving her holy and without blemish. When a Patriarch of Constantinople evidenced himself as a heretic, he was condemned and removed from office by the proper, conciliar life of the Body. When an entire Patriarchate drifted into error, the Church acted with both righteousness and discernment to remove this contagion and supplant the “infected cells.”

The difference between these conciliar acts and the splintering within Protestantism is weighty. In the former, it is a Spirit-led process that takes decades—even centuries—to work out, being an action of the entire, canonical, and conciliar Church of Christ. In the latter, it’s the result of individuals (or groups of individuals) acting independently. It is democracy or anarchy rather than conciliarity.

Estimates of the number of Protestant bodies in the world today are often grossly exaggerated, but the reality is that at some point and for some, faithful Protestants, even minor issues have resulted in not only lasting divisions but also prevented reunions. And all without the benefit of the long-established, conciliar, and traditional process as evidenced in the pages of the New Testament (Acts 15 and the first-century A.D. council of Jerusalem).

Without conciliarism, Holy Tradition, and the Ecumenical Councils, the only remaining options are either individualism or Papalism.

The preservation of Holy Tradition and the Body of Christ is ontological, not epistemological. It is a divine act of synergy that never fails us, despite our feeble, human participation.

 

[jmdrake]

Well thanks for clarifying your position but technically you did say what he (and I) read.
If you had said "All of what I accept as Scripture is a subset of what you accept as Scripture" then that would have been clear.

It might have been more clear I suppose, but what I said is exactly what I clarified. Again " All of what I accept as authoritative scripture are what you and every other Christian accepts as authoritative scripture" means exactly the same thing as "All of what I accept as Scripture is a subset of what you accept as scripture". I'll prove it mathematically.

Let A = set(1,2,3). Let B = set(2,3). Let C = set(1,2,3). Both B and C are subsets of A.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset

If you wanted to be as persnickety as you are attempting you be you should have insisted I say "All of what I accept as Scripture is a proper subset of what you accept as Scripture." And from the context it should have been clear. But just it case it wasn't or isn't, I will hammer the point home one more time. All Christians participating in this thread to my knowledge agrees that the 66 books that are in the King James Version of the Bible are authoritative scripture. In those 66 books is enough information for someone under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to come to a knowledge of salvation.