Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5297)

and this particular excerpt:

<OhioChessFan: ...

<<<tga: It is the dogma of the Christian faith. Rejecting the Nicene council and creed is rejection of Christianity itself!>>>

I believe it so far as it in accordance with the Scriptures.>

I wanted to reply to this, but at the time I didn't have the scripture citations I needed for my reply.

Now I do.

See, the Nicene creed *is* Orthodox Christianity. Every single sentence fragment that forms a complete idea is based on a minimum of one Bible verse.

They are all listed by Father George Grube in his book <The Orthodox Church A to Z>.

Now, I am in agreement with <OCF> that we need to be skeptical, to guard against the introduction of heresy into our faith. I think <OCF> has MORE THAN a healthy dose of skepticism in his approach to the non-reformed parts of the Church (i.e., the Greek and Latin Churches).

But we also need to understand Church history. Nearly all protestants are sorely lacking in knowledge of Church history (I include myself, as I was baptized into the Protestant Christian faith and have not yet been baptized into the Orthodox Christian faith.)

But I at least knew from childhood that the Nicene creed was basically a collection of verses that are scattered throughout the Old and New testaments, gathered into one short summary of Christianity.

In other words, it is the <tl;dr> version of the Bible.

I was fairly confident in this, which is why Ohio's comment <I believe it so far as it in accordance with the Scriptures.> sounded so strange to me at the time.

The Nicene creed is not "in accordance with" the Scriptures, it IS scripture!

Here are a few examples:

I believe...

"light of light": John 1:1-9

"true god of true god": John 16:27-28, John 1:1-2

etc.

So while it is good to be skeptical, we must take care not to "throw out the baby Jesus with the bathwater". Being overly suspicious of the ancient Church leads to missing out on good stuff like the Nicene creed.

Oh. 13 days later, a response. Sure you weren't running, as you accused me of?

<tga: It is the dogma of the Christian faith. Rejecting the Nicene council and creed is rejection of Christianity itself!>

<OCF: I believe it so far as it in accordance with the Scriptures.>

<tga: I wanted to reply to this, but at the time I didn't have the scripture citations I needed for my reply.

Now I do. >

Oh. 13 days later. Sure you weren't running, as you accused me of?

<See, the Nicene creed *is* Orthodox Christianity. Every single sentence fragment that forms a complete idea is based on a minimum of one Bible verse.>

If so, just give me the Bible and who needs the Creed? It's superfluous at that point.

<They are all listed by Father George Grube in his book <The Orthodox Church A to Z>>

All the Bible is listed by God in His book <The Bible>

<Now, I am in agreement with <OCF> that we need to be skeptical, to guard against the introduction of heresy into our faith. I think <OCF> has MORE THAN a healthy dose of skepticism in his approach to the non-reformed parts of the Church (i.e., the Greek and Latin Churches).>

I'm skeptical of anything besides the pure, unadulterated word of God.

<But we also need to understand Church history.>

Who says?

< Nearly all protestants are sorely lacking in knowledge of Church history (I include myself, as I was baptized into the Protestant Christian faith and have not yet been baptized into the Orthodox Christian faith.)>

I am reminded of the LDS, who encourage their adherents to pray to God to show them if it's the true faith. What an obvious a priori fallacy. Who says that we need to know the church history? The Orthodox (Or Catholics if the case may be) say we do. Oh. Well. I guess there was a period of time when there really wasn't a church history. Did those poor souls have no way of being saved?

<But I at least knew from childhood that the Nicene creed was basically a collection of verses that are scattered throughout the Old and New testaments, gathered into one short summary of Christianity.>

Me too.

<In other words, it is the <tl;dr> version of the Bible.>

Why not just stick with the Bible then? Creed or not, if you quote Bible, I'll agree with you. I am a bit puzzled why <that> should cause you any consternation whatsoever.

<I was fairly confident in this, which is why Ohio's comment <I believe it so far as it in accordance with the Scriptures.> sounded so strange to me at the time.>

If it's 100% in accordance with the Scriptures, I'm 100% believe it. See above.

<The Nicene creed is not "in accordance with" the Scriptures, it IS scripture!>

Then it's superfluous.

<Here are a few examples:

I believe...

"light of light": John 1:1-9

"true god of true god": John 16:27-28, John 1:1-2

So while it is good to be skeptical, we must take care not to "throw out the baby Jesus with the bathwater". Being overly suspicious of the ancient Church leads to missing out on good stuff like the Nicene creed.

By reciting the Nicene creed in every service (as an example), we eventually memorize an accurate summary of Christianity that we can then relate to others, as part of our Christian witness.>

Thanks for your interesting thought-provoking high-level discussion, and keep safe over the holiday period.

See ya next year

Some kind, generous soul just gifted me THREE YEARS of premium membership, so that the FREE SPEECH ZONE (Non PC) could remain open.

Dear anonymous sir, I thank you kindly and appreciate your generosity!

Before that, it was something along the line of “I accept your concession speech.”

While I appreciate the humor, I like to take a more serious tone when accepting a gift, because I genuinely appreciate it and want the person who gave me that gift to know that.

Someone gifted me a 3 pear premium membership in 2017 and now again in 2020. I think this person appreciates the Free Speech Zone (Non PC) and simply wants to keep it open.

I hope I didn't give the impression that the cost of the premium membership is a concern of mine because the cost is minimal at most. It's just that I was willing to let this forum expire since I have Offensive Truth set up and ready to go and most of the people who attend this forum have made profiles there.

On another note, I see <Optimal Play>, <OCF>, and <TGA> having fun debating religion, the scriptures, and so on, and I can't take part in it right now because I have to stay focused on business.

I can leave off-hand remarks like this because my mind doesn't get absorbed into it, but I can't do that when it comes to topics that are very important to me, like Christianity, Jesus Christ, religion, and philosophy. I quickly become completely absorbed into it and I just can't do that right now because my mind needs to stay on business at the moment.

For newcomers and lurking readers:

No topic is off limits.

You don't have to be nice to anyone including me.

You don't need to respect anyone, including me.

You can be offensive.

You can be extremely competitive in debate.

You don't have to try to get along.

Name-calling is allowed.

Trolling will get you banned - no warnings.

Posts will not be deleted as I refuse to moderate this forum.

Libs, atheists, people who support the killing of the innocent, sodomites, anti-American scum, communists, Mormons, Catholics, Muslims, and others are welcome here.

In general, we aim to have high-level discussions here and I encourage everyone to hold your opponents and yourselves to the highest levels of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.

If you engage in high-level debate and name-call your idiot opponent when called for, that is completely acceptable.

Well, I've disavowed nothing and retracted nothing in this discussion, so I am not sure why you would reply like this, other than it is your habit to do so. Same applies to your "concession speech" approach.

Sola scriptura is an important topic, deserving of a dignified discussion. This is why I have criticized your most recent comments.

As for the time delay, I thought <BP>'s forum would be permanently closed. Thus I was reluctant to devote time to a discussion that I thought would soon be permanently occluded.

Who decides that?>

Not who, but what. When something is disputed, that is when a clarification is needed.

<<<and when heresies were introduced, ecumenical councils were held in order to answer the heresies and clarify ambiguities. >>

Who had the authority to decide who was on the councils, and why did they have that authority?>

Revisiting this topic, I want to quote from the book <Rock an Sand> by Fr. Trenham:

<The denial of the infallibility of general and ecumenical councils became a standard Protestant position... It was clear to the reformers (and to the Orthodox) that post-schism Latin (RCC) councils and popes had contradicted one another...

Given (the) reality of fallible Roman councils, was there no alternative for Luther to the drastic affirmation that all general councils are fallible? ...we posit that the post-schism Latin councils are fallible because the papacy <<fell away>> from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.>

Now the reason for referencing Acts 15: <Luther's theological affirmation that all general councils are necessarily fallible is an assertion that contradicts scripture itself.>

Thus, sola scriptura is fatally flawed in that it has an internal contradiction. And that contradiction is

1. Scripture only => 2. Scripture itself teaches, in Acts 15, that the church "apostles and elders" resolve disputes in council => 3. Scripture itself contradicts sola scriptura.

Q.E.D.

Sola scriptura has another fatal flaw. We see it in the process for answering the question "What is scriptural?" The point being that the scriptural canon was decided by church council! Catholic canon was set in 382 by the Council of Rome. Protestant canon was not establish until more 1000 years later.

If these councils are fallible, then the books of scripture themselves can be the wrong books, and thus we have no way of knowing what truly is scripture.

<<So are we to believe that upon the death of St. Paul that all his oral teaching should be discarded??? And only the written part retained?->

Yes. How are we to <know> what his oral teachings were? ...>

There are <multiple> forms of communication. The 2 main forms that have been used in Jesus' church are oral and written. Your answer discards one of those two forms, and the form it discards happens to be the <dominant> form that was in use 2000 years ago.

Here's an example. I asked <wtpy> how programs in schools to build up non-whites, such as Black History Month, made white children feel, as there are no such programs for white children. I asked <wtpy> because I picked up somewhere that he was involved in behavioral health.

<wtpy> would not answer. He made a post in response talking about something else as if that somehow answered my question.

Why wouldn't he answer? Because the answer is obvious. These programs make white children feel bad and inferior. This is harmful to white children.

If he answered the question he would have to acknowledge this. He then would have to oppose these programs or support them for white children, which he clearly doesn't want to do. He obviously doesn't oppose programs that are harmful to white children. It means he either doesn't care if white children are harmed or he supports it. Either way that's evil. Since <wtpy> is not stupid that means he's evil or at least supports evil in this case.

And instead of granting I might feel the same way, you instead accused me of running. I don't care about the delay. I care about your double standard.

<Have you read Acts 15 lately? I will post something about it in due >

<tga: Not who, but what. When something is disputed, that is when a clarification is needed.>

Who decides when?

<<<tga: and when heresies were introduced, ecumenical councils were held in order to answer the heresies and clarify ambiguities. >>>

<OCF: Who had the authority to decide who was on the councils, and why did they have that authority?>

<tga: Revisiting this topic, I want to quote from the book <Rock an Sand> by Fr. Trenham:

<The denial of the infallibility of general and ecumenical councils became a standard Protestant position... It was clear to the reformers (and to the Orthodox) that post-schism Latin (RCC) councils and popes had contradicted one another...>>

Irrelevant to the discussion so far.

<Given (the) reality of fallible Roman councils, was there no alternative for Luther to the drastic affirmation that all general councils are fallible? ...we posit that the post-schism Latin councils are fallible because the papacy <<fell away>> from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.>

And again.

<Now the reason for referencing Acts 15: <Luther's theological affirmation that all general councils are necessarily fallible is an assertion that contradicts scripture itself.>>

I haven't referenced Luther. I shan't argue with your strawman.

<Thus, sola scriptura is fatally flawed in that it has an internal contradiction. And that contradiction is

1. Scripture only => <2. Scripture itself teaches, in Acts 15, that the church "apostles and elders" resolve disputes in council => <3. Scripture itself contradicts sola scriptura.

Q.E.D. >

Who says?

<Catholic canon was set in 382 by the Council of Rome. >

Again, who says. Typical RCC/Orthodox tactic of assuming a conclusion.

<Protestant canon was not establish until more 1000 years later.>

I reject Protestantism, so I have no interest in this claim.

<If these councils are fallible, then the books of scripture themselves can be the wrong books, and thus we have no way of knowing what truly is scripture.>

Typical fallacious argumentation. Assumes the conclusion, begs the question, a priori reasoning.

<<So are we to believe that upon the death of St. Paul that all his oral teaching should be discarded??? And only the written part retained?->

Yes. How are we to <know> what his oral teachings were? ...>

<There are <multiple> forms of communication. The 2 main forms that have been used in Jesus' church are oral and written. Your answer discards one of those two forms, and the form it discards happens to be the <dominant> form that was in use 2000 years ago.>

So what? God's methods change. Again, "How are we to <know> what his oral teachings were?" This is one of those rubber meets the road questions your side can't answer. I've experienced that for 20 years.

<[Note that Jesus wrote <none> of the New Testament manuscripts. He taught orally.]>

I have a MacBook Pro, not a PC, so I can answer.

<A boy says he feels like a girl and the parents and doctors start him on puberty blocking medications. Ok, so the question is this: How does a boy know what a girl feels?>

He doesn't.

Furthermore, my hypothesis is that "parents" is wrong because he is raised by a single mother. Maybe even a single mother from a single mother. If he does have "parents" in the home they might be same sex, or the father is a flaming lib Marxist.

Which segues to my next point - the boy isn't raised in a Christian home, or in a morally conservative home. Every guardian in his life is a lost, corrupt, humanist who lives life according to feelings, not reason.

As <gezafan> pointed out immediately after your post, these people are not rational. Not in the sense of being crazy, although that may be true, but in the sense of not being able to discuss an issue at a high level. Either they choose not to think in the realm of reason, or they aren't capable of it. Either way, the outcome is the same.

This is one of the reasons I decided to abandon the Rogoff forum forever - since <abdel irada> left there hasn't been a single lib who will engage me at a high level on Graham's hierarchy.

<This would seem impossible to answer or rather to answer correctly. Can someone say with certainty what a male feels like? Or a female feels like? I must have been asleep when biology turned into feelings.>

And instead of granting I might feel the same way, you instead accused me of running. I don't care about the delay. I care about your double standard.>

No, it isn't a double standard, it was a rational response to your own words! You posted:

<OhioChessFan: ... But if you don't care to respond point by point to me, as I have done for you, I will move on.>

This obviously implies that if I <did> respond point by point, and I did, you would continue.

Thus we see the reason I didn't grant that you might feel the same is because you indicated you would continue under the condition of me responding point by point.

<OhioChessFan:

Who decides when?>

Irrelevant to the topic of sola scriptura.

Not only that, is is more of an administrative question. It's analogous to having a discussion on the bill of rights and asking how is the Constitution amended?

<OhioChessFan:

Who had the authority to decide who was on the councils, and why did they have that authority?

<<tga: Revisiting this topic, I want to quote from the book <Rock an Sand> by Fr. Trenham:

<The denial of the infallibility of general and ecumenical councils became a standard Protestant position... It was clear to the reformers (and to the Orthodox) that post-schism Latin (RCC) councils and popes had contradicted one another...>>>

Irrelevant to the discussion so far.>

No, I was providing context because you need it. For example, since you are a former RC I assumed you knew the "2 miracle" rule for sainthood, but when I asked you to confirm it you had no idea what I was referring to!

Since I was going to point out the 3 options, instead of just saying option 3 is such-and-such, at the risk of you not knowing option 1 and 2, I stated them for context. I am trying to meet you at the level you display in your replies.

<OCF:

<<tga: Given (the) reality of fallible Roman councils, was there no alternative for Luther to the drastic affirmation that all general councils are fallible? ...we posit that the post-schism Latin councils are fallible because the papacy <<fell away>> from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.>>

And again.>

Flabbergasting! Are you insane? The 3 possible truths about ecumenical councils are CENTRAL to the discussion of sola scriptura.

The only other explanation to your risible replies is that you are just mailing it in. You may have forgotten in the past 2 weeks what we were talking about, or you just don't care to understand. If that is the case you should just be honest and say I don't care to discuss it anymore.

Instead, you embarrass yourself with some of the most ignorant comments I've ever read in this forum.

<OCF:

<tga: Now the reason for referencing Acts 15: <Luther's theological affirmation that all general councils are necessarily fallible is an assertion that contradicts scripture itself.>>

I haven't referenced Luther. I shan't argue with your strawman.>

This comment is both wrong and ignorant. This is not a strawman argument, it is an ASSERTION which I proceeded to PROVE. The text that followed was the actual argument.

You are flailing, man.