<OCF:

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

1. If "scripture only" is true, then we must accept the teaching in Acts 15.
2. Acts 15 teaches that the church "apostles and elders" resolve disputes in council.
3. Thus scripture itself contradicts sola scriptura.
4. Since we must accept scripture, we must reject "sola scriptura".

Q.E.D. >>

Find me some apostles today and I'll concede the point.>

Yup, you aren't even trying and so you are embarrassing yourself. My argument doesn't require apostles, just "scripture only".

But since you asked, I will point out that St. Luke, author of Acts, is an apostle. Time to concede.

<Q.E.D.>

Who decides when?>

<tga: Irrelevant to the topic of sola scriptura. >

Who says?>

Now you've gone full-on delusional. My "statement in question" is, in fact, the historical record! You can even read details of the proceedings, which are extant.

If you thus permit yourself to reject the historical record on nothing more than a whim, then you have no justification to believe ANYTHING written about the past, including the Bible.

You may as well assume the world started when your grandparents were born, and that they and all of your school teachers just made everything up to fool you.

In other words, the logical conclusion of your assertion is that no one knows anything (literally) about any time or place when/where they were not physically present and in possession of their faculties. Think it through (I have).

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

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

See above reply.

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

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

You obviously don't understand what Protestantism is. There are only 3 options in Christianity. Either you are in the Latin Church (RCC), the Orthodox Church, or you are a Protestant.

I can only guess that you meant you are not a "main line" Protestant. But even if you belong to a non-denominational church, that church is a product of the Reformation.

See, this is why it pays to understand church history. Evidently, you know even less about it than I do. In fact, I'd say you know *nothing* of it, outside of what you read in the New Testament.

I am gaining a good understanding of your world view, which can be summed up as follows:

<OCF> knowledge of church history:

1. <Everything> recorded in the N.T. from A.D. 1 to 110~120 (completion of NT)
2 <NOTHING> from A.D. 110~120 to circa 1970 (it's all lies!)

<OCF:

<<<tga: 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.>

It's only fallacious if you can disprove the historical record! No reputable scholar or historian disputes the reality of the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.! Not only that, I've never met a person IRL who disputes the history of the church, including the establishment of canon at various councils, with one exception - you!

The worst part about your argument is that YOU are the one who is engaged in circular reasoning, yet you can't see it. How? The only way to refute my argument is to reject recorded history. So you MUST start by rejecting history! That's right, in order for you to refute my argument, you are required to accept a premise that NO ONE else accepts or would even entertain, because your premise is risible.

It is now clear what the answer to your question is. You ask "who says?" that canon was established at a council in 382. The answer is "Every Orthodox Christian, every Roman Catholic Christian, every historian, every Protestant Christian, and every educated person in the world, either now living or departed.

So what? God's methods change.>

Well, to me that shows a lack of understanding of the consistent methods of God's revelations to us, from Genesis to the book of Revelation. However, since that is my opinion and I am not a Biblical scholar myself, I will leave it at that.

<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.>

Baloney! I have answered this. But it merits more detail, so I will provide that.

First of all, think about how do you know who your ancestors were, if they were deceased before your birth? Your parents tell you. And since most sane people love and cherish their family elders, and were in close contact with their living elders on a regular basis, you can trust what they tell you.

If Great Great Grandma who died in 1931 was named Gertrude, they won't tell you her name was Molly.

With this example in mind, we can see the same thing in the Christian Church. The Apostles were taught by Christ himself. Even Saint Paul, who was converted after the Ascension, studied for years before beginning his itinerant evangelism.

Then the Apostles taught the next generation of priests and bishops, handing down the oral knowledge with great care. And since this knowledge is stuff like how to serve the divine liturgy, the eucharest, other sacraments, etc., it was knowledge that they were putting into practice daily.

It's not at all like lazy laity of the 20th and 21st century, who go to church on Easter and Christmas and couldn't recite the Nicene Creed if their lives depended on it. No, it is passed down by church leaders who have performed the sacraments and liturgies hundreds of times per year for their entire adult lives.

And, on top of all this finely honed experience of professional, career leadership, you have the promise Jesus Christ himself, WHICH I HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN IN REPLY TO YOU!

So kindly refrain from saying I haven't answered this question. Also, apologists for the Orthodox church have answered as well. You just AVOID those answers.

It is rather disingenuous of you to say "No thanks." when I suggest a book or video on the subject, and then turn around and claim the Orthodox can't answer. Yes, they can, you just refuse to hear or read the answer.

Excuse me, who said that was the topic?>

I did:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5273)

And then engaged and agreed:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5274)

Then <BP> thanked us for getting the conversation started:

Who decides when?>

<tga: Irrelevant to the topic of sola scriptura.>

I'll address my objection to this point at some point. Forging ahead with the rest. And will try to address all of what you've set forth. It's getting a bit messy here.

<tga in regards to "Who decides when" in context of "Councils being called": 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...>>>

OCF: 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!>

I know all about it. Why do you think otherwise? I'm more than a little tired of your repeated claims here about what I don't know. Anyway, thanks for educating me about what I know, though off topic

<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.>

Ditto.

<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.>

Ummmmmmm. I don't care a whit about the ecumenical councils. I know all about Sola Scriptura. I don't agree that those are the 3 (and only 3) possible truths, and don't care anyway.

<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.

End part I.>

Q.E.D. >>

<OCF: Find me some apostles today and I'll concede the point.>

<tga: Yup, you aren't even trying and so you are embarrassing yourself. My argument doesn't require apostles, just "scripture only".>

MY response demands apostles. You appeal to "apostles and elders". But your argument is "elders". I rightly call on you to produce the "apostles" part of the "apostles and elders" formulation you appeal to. And I'm the one who's missing the point? Whew.

<But since you asked, I will point out that St. Luke, author of Acts, is an apostle. Time to concede.>

Hey, thanks for the update about Luke. I'd have never known otherwise. In any event, the apostles were alive and well and in fact per Paul, in daily contact with Luke. They, in particular Paul, would have called out Luke for any false teaching.

<<Q.E.D.>

You used Q.E.D. wrong.>

Who says?>

<tga: Now you've gone full-on delusional. My "statement in question" is, in fact, the historical record! You can even read details of the proceedings, which are extant.>

"The historical record" = "The record of the people in the councils who said they had the authority to hold the councils". Wow, real persuasive. The victors write the histories, don't they? Want to guess what "the historical record" in North Korea has to say about Kim Jong-Un? That is my point, and it's totally going over your head. To look at it another way, I don't trust the history you appeal to. Prove me wrong.

<If you thus permit yourself to reject the historical record on nothing more than a whim, then you have no justification to believe ANYTHING written about the past, including the Bible.>

Bunhhhhhhhh. The apostles could raise the dead. If any of your church council members could do that, I'd believe them. Next?

<You may as well assume the world started when your grandparents were born, and that they and all of your school teachers just made everything up to fool you.>

Hello, didn't the apostles repeatedly warn that false teachers would in fact slip in and fool people?!

<In other words, the logical conclusion of your assertion is that no one knows anything (literally) about any time or place when/where they were not physically present and in possession of their faculties. Think it through (I have).>

That's not logical. I could sit on a jury and in good conscience condemn a man do death for an act he committed outside of my physical presence. Next?

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

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

<See above reply.>

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

<tga: You obviously don't understand what Protestantism is. There are only 3 options in Christianity. Either you are in the Latin Church (RCC), the Orthodox Church, or you are a Protestant.>

Who says?

<I can only guess that you meant you are not a "main line" Protestant. But even if you belong to a non-denominational church, that church is a product of the Reformation.>

Who says? I deny my church is a product of the Reformation. Prove me wrong.

<See, this is why it pays to understand church history. Evidently, you know even less about it than I do. In fact, I'd say you know *nothing* of it, outside of what you read in the New Testament.>

You'd be massively wrong. What you refer to as "Protestant" and in regards to that movement's being a product of the Reformation is a valid point, and <I've> made it with Protestants.

<I am gaining a good understanding of your world view, which can be summed up as follows:

<OCF> knowledge of church history:

1. <Everything> recorded in the N.T. from A.D. 1 to 110~120 (completion of NT) 2 <NOTHING> from A.D. 110~120 to circa 1970 (it's all lies!)>

Not much better than name calling, but I'll get over it.

<<<tga: 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.>>>

<OCF: Typical fallacious argumentation. Assumes the conclusion, begs the question, a priori reasoning.>

<It's only fallacious if you can disprove the historical record!>

This is interesting. You think the default position, as I said before, your paradigm, is that the councils were approved by God. Therefore, ergo, I have to disprove them! Sorry, the burden of proof is on you.

< No reputable scholar or historian disputes the reality of the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.! Not only that, I've never met a person IRL who disputes the history of the church, including the establishment of canon at various councils, with one exception - you!>

Appeal to authority. Appeal to personal experience. Very low grade argumentation.

<The worst part about your argument is that YOU are the one who is engaged in circular reasoning, yet you can't see it. How? The only way to refute my argument is to reject recorded history. >

Who wrote the history? The people who had a vested interest in presenting their view to the world. Do you know there are people in North Korea who reject the recorded history?!

<So you MUST start by rejecting history! That's right, in order for you to refute my argument, you are required to accept a premise that NO ONE else accepts or would even entertain, because your premise is risible.>

Your paradigm is leaving you a repetitious mess.

<It is now clear what the answer to your question is. You ask "who says?" that canon was established at a council in 382. The answer is "Every Orthodox Christian, every Roman Catholic Christian, every historian, every Protestant Christian, and every educated person in the world, either now living or departed.>

I know that's not true.

<In short, everyone on earth but you and primitive indigenous tribes. Astounding.>

<tga: Well, to me that shows a lack of understanding of the consistent methods of God's revelations to us, from Genesis to the book of Revelation. However, since that is my opinion and I am not a Biblical scholar myself, I will leave it at that.>

Okay.

<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.>

<Baloney! I have answered this. But it merits more detail, so I will provide that.

First of all, think about how do you know who your ancestors were, if they were deceased before your birth? Your parents tell you. And since most sane people love and cherish their family elders, and were in close contact with their living elders on a regular basis, you can trust what they tell you.>

Okay.

<If Great Great Grandma who died in 1931 was named Gertrude, they won't tell you her name was Molly.>

True. But they wouldn't gain much money or power by doing so. Unlike false teachers in the world of Christianity. So the analogy fails a bit there, but no matter.

<With this example in mind, we can see the same thing in the Christian Church. The Apostles were taught by Christ himself. Even Saint Paul, who was converted after the Ascension, studied for years before beginning his itinerant evangelism.>

Okay.

<Then the Apostles taught the next generation of priests and bishops, handing down the oral knowledge with great care. And since this knowledge is stuff like how to serve the divine liturgy, the eucharest, other sacraments, etc., it was knowledge that they were putting into practice daily.>

Okay. I sure hope they did what they were supposed to. I mean, it took Aaron a few days to start making a golden calf. I suppose if you were a Jew wandering 40 years, you'd appeal to the first high priest Aaron making a golden calf to prove that all Jews should make golden calves. Right? If not, please explain why not, without destroying your already stated position. Hint: You can't.

<It's not at all like lazy laity of the 20th and 21st century, who go to church on Easter and Christmas and couldn't recite the Nicene Creed if their lives depended on it. No, it is passed down by church leaders who have performed the sacraments and liturgies hundreds of times per year for their entire adult lives.>

Okay. I note that they got around to <writing it down>. Let me say that again. They got around to <writing it down>. Why? Because, just like the proverbial game of telephone, even with the best of intentions, oral transmission of truth becomes muddled extremely quickly. With bad intentions, look out below.

<And, on top of all this finely honed experience of professional, career leadership, you have the promise Jesus Christ himself, WHICH I HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN IN REPLY TO YOU!>

I'm aware of all of Jesus' promises to me.

<So kindly refrain from saying I haven't answered this question. >

You haven't answered the question. Here it is again:

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

FWIW, not every early leader agreed what the oral teachings were. Uhoh. How do we <know> which were right? How do we <know> that men from among the Ephesian elders didn't lie about what Jesus said? How do we <know> that well meaning people didn't mess up the oral history? Why is it so important to get things in writing?

<Also, apologists for the Orthodox church have answered as well. You just AVOID those answers.>

See above. The question as posed hasn't been close to answered.

<It is rather disingenuous of you to say "No thanks." when I suggest a book or video on the subject, and then turn around and claim the Orthodox can't answer. Yes, they can, you just refuse to hear or read the answer.>

I reject the answer, and acknowledge it's driven by the pardigm.

<Now that I have taken my sledgehammer to your eggshell disputations, I will say no more to you unless you can do better than just posting your own misunderstandings and confusion.>

<OhioChessFan: ...

<<tga: 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!>>

I know all about it. Why do you think otherwise?>

Because you indicated confusion about it here:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5297)

Clearly, I was talking about venerated saints in the RCC and EOC, which both have processes for venerating saints. But you wrote

<<<<tga: Isn't a 2-miracle-minimum one of them?>>>

Not according to the Bible.>

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5425)

I answered this already! Here:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5409)

Weeks ago, you were claiming to accept what the apostles wrote in scripture, yet you reject Acts 15 teaching.

Now, I already started replying to your second post yesterday, with my first post today. Continuing on with replies to your second post:

<OCF: Ummmmmmm. I don't care a whit about the ecumenical councils. I know all about Sola Scriptura. I don't agree that those are the 3 (and only 3) possible truths, and don't care anyway.>

OK, no reply needed here.

<<<<OCF: 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.

End part I.>

<OCF: Again, I didn't reference Luther.>

I never said you did!!! This - THIS! - is how you are flailing!

My comment was clearly a reply your <strawman> claim! That's why I used the very term "strawman" in my reply. So you would know what I was referring to! Yet, it didn't work. Despite the fact that I specifically used "strawman" in my reply, you somehow think I am talking about your "I haven't referenced Luther" comment? How can you think that?

Please tell me how many times I have to type "strawman" for you to realize I am talking about your "strawman" claim, and not Luther?

<OCF: You think <I'm> flailing? Where.>

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5427)

Essentially your response is a claim that once all the apostles died, the church was prohibited from having councils to resolve disputes.

So suddenly the elders can't know anything? As soon as the last apostle died, Christ cut his church loose to flail without the wisdom and understanding of elders?

Then why were there elders at the council to begin with, if they can't be trusted once the last apostle dies?

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5428)

<OCF: "The historical record" = "The record of the people in the councils who said they had the authority to hold the councils". Wow, real persuasive. The victors write the histories, don't they?>

I've already addressed the problems with this kind of "thinking":

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5421)

<OCF: That is my point, and it's totally going over your head. To look at it another way, I don't trust the history you appeal to. Prove me wrong.>

No, it's not going over my head. You pick and choose which history you trust, but based on a premise that invalidates ALL history, including that which you choose to accept.

The only one of us who needs to prove something is you. Namely, if the biblical canon was not compiled at the Council of Rome in 382 AD, where did it come from, and who compiled it? Rejecting the historical record does not answer these questions, it merely leaves you with no knowledge at all.

<OCF: The apostles could raise the dead.>

How do you know? You started with <The victors write the histories, don't they?>. So I will agree with this and point out the victors wrote the history that you appeal to when you claim the apostles could raise the dead.

<If any of your church council members could do that, I'd believe them. Next?>

Next? Not yet. You are contradicting yourself. You don't believe whoever the author or authors were, who wrote about ecumenical councils, but now you are saying if they wrote about miracles such as raising the dead, you would believe them? I am calling BS on you.

There are hundreds of venerated saints in church history, with many many miracles attributed to them, yet you reject these accounts categorically. You are telling me both "I accept A" and "I don't accept A".

<<<<tga: You may as well assume the world started when your grandparents were born, and that they and all of your school teachers just made everything up to fool you.>>>

OCF: Hello, didn't the apostles repeatedly warn that false teachers would in fact slip in and fool people?!>

LOL, this sounds like agreement.

<<<<tga: In other words, the logical conclusion of your assertion is that no one knows anything (literally) about any time or place when/where they were not physically present and in possession of their faculties. Think it through (I have).>>>

That's not logical. I could sit on a jury and in good conscience condemn a man do death for an act he committed outside of my physical presence.>

The requirement for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "certitude". But my point was that you couldn't <know> anything, meaning you couldn't have certitude. My logic is sound.

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

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

Then how did it come into being? Who compiled it? Seems strange that the ONLY thing you trust, scripture, is something of unknown (to you) origin! If that isn't the craziest thing I've ever heard, I don't know what is.

<You have a paradigm (that I reject) that the early church councils were approved of by God.>

Since it was Jesus Christ himself who founded the Church, I would say "church councils were "founded" by Christ." (not "approved")

<You can't see where that leads you. Everything I say about the matter, you run through your paradigm, and spit out the same conclusion. The awful circularity of it drives me insane.>

It is only circular <to you>, because you pick and choose which history to accept, and which to reject.

My point is that once the apostles died, with their Scripturally approved oversight, the proof of which was in the signs of an apostle, raising the dead among others, we could no longer trust such councils to carry Godly approved authority regarding new doctrinal teaching. They could hold a council, sure. Why should anyone agree their teachings carry as much divine authority as the apostles?

<So suddenly the elders can't know anything?>

They can know what the apostles taught. At first, by word of mouth, later by their writings.

< As soon as the last apostle died, Christ cut his church loose to flail without the wisdom and understanding of elders?>

The church had the written words of the apostles, the foundation of the church. The elders needed to study those written words to show themselves approved.

<Then why were there elders at the council to begin with, if they can't be trusted once the last apostle dies?>

Why was anyone there? To hear what the apostles decided.

<Sorry, I am going to stick with the teaching of Acts 15, which is that it is biblical to have elders in council to resolve disputes.>

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5429)

<<<<tga: You obviously don't understand what Protestantism is. There are only 3 options in Christianity. Either you are in the Latin Church (RCC), the Orthodox Church, or you are a Protestant.>>>

Who says?>

Name a fourth option.

<<<<tga: I can only guess that you meant you are not a "main line" Protestant. But even if you belong to a non-denominational church, that church is a product of the Reformation.>>>

Who says? I deny my church is a product of the Reformation. Prove me wrong.>

When you permit yourself to reject any history that displeases you, you cannot be reasoned with. So your request for proof becomes a <de facto> rejection *in advance* of any and all arguments.

You've made up your own religion, and permitted yourself all kinds of irregularities when it comes to evidence. And somehow you think this makes you right. It's weird, man.

When discussing the past, the ONLY evidence available is the historical record. Saying "prove me wrong" is basically defrauding your interlocutor, because you have *already* decided that any historical evidence in contradiction to your POV is false, and any historical evidence in agreement with your POV is true.

<<<<See, this is why it pays to understand church history. Evidently, you know even less about it than I do. In fact, I'd say you know *nothing* of it, outside of what you read in the New Testament.>>>

OCF: You'd be massively wrong.>

OK

<OCF: This is interesting. You think the default position, as I said before, your paradigm, is that the councils were approved by God. Therefore, ergo, I have to disprove them! Sorry, the burden of proof is on you.>

By that standard, the burden of proof is on you to prove that biblical history is trustworthy. After all, it was written by the victors, as you said. Then why can we trust biblical history written by victors, when we must reject post-biblical history written by the victors?

<<<<tga: No reputable scholar or historian disputes the reality of the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.! Not only that, I've never met a person IRL who disputes the history of the church, including the establishment of canon at various councils, with one exception - you!>>>

Appeal to authority. Appeal to personal experience. Very low grade argumentation.>

Just how do you think anyone has any knowledge of history? It doesn't float into your brain from the atmosphere. ALL the history that you reject, AND ALL the history you accept, was compiled by an expert on the topic!

And once that sinks in, you are STILL left with a problem. If the history you reject is truly wrong, be it from 382 AD or any other year, then what ACTUALLY happened? And why should we believe YOUR version of what happened in 382, instead of what was recorded at the time? You think you understand 382 better than someone who was alive then?

<OCF: Who wrote the history? The people who had a vested interest in presenting their view to the world.>

Then explain what actually happened.

<Your paradigm is leaving you a repetitious mess.>

Likewise.

<<<<The answer is "Every Orthodox Christian, every Roman Catholic Christian, every historian, every Protestant Christian, and every educated person in the world, either now living or departed.>>>

I know that's not true.>

Close enough.

<<<<In short, everyone on earth but you and primitive indigenous tribes. Astounding.>>>

Again, I know that's not true.>

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5430)

< OhioChessFan:

<<<If Great Great Grandma who died in 1931 was named Gertrude, they won't tell you her name was Molly.>>>

True. But they wouldn't gain much money or power by doing so. Unlike false teachers in the world of Christianity. So the analogy fails a bit there, but no matter.>

You write as if every Christian is corrupt and greedy. For someone so invested in sola scriptura, you sure do ignore the scripture where Jesus said the gates of Hell would not prevail against his church.

<<<<Then the Apostles taught the next generation of priests and bishops, handing down the oral knowledge with great care. And since this knowledge is stuff like how to serve the divine liturgy, the eucharest, other sacraments, etc., it was knowledge that they were putting into practice daily.>>>

Okay. I sure hope they did what they were supposed to. I mean, it took Aaron a few days to start making a golden calf. I suppose if you were a Jew wandering 40 years, you'd appeal to the first high priest Aaron making a golden calf to prove that all Jews should make golden calves. Right?>

Bad analogy. First of all, making a golden calf and serving the divine liturgy are not the same level of difficulty.

Second of all, I am fairly certain Aaron didn't make a golden calf several days a week for his entire adult life. Try again.

<If not, please explain why not, without destroying your already stated position. Hint: You can't.>

This is moot, since your analogy was false.

<<<<It's not at all like lazy laity of the 20th and 21st century, who go to church on Easter and Christmas and couldn't recite the Nicene Creed if their lives depended on it. No, it is passed down by church leaders who have performed the sacraments and liturgies hundreds of times per year for their entire adult lives.>>>

Okay. I note that they got around to <writing it down>. Let me say that again. They got around to <writing it down>. Why? Because, just like the proverbial game of telephone, even with the best of intentions, oral transmission of truth becomes muddled extremely quickly. With bad intentions, look out below.>

So are you claiming that no one wrote down how to give the sacraments, or how to perform the divine liturgy? Or the Nicene creed? Because you are going to lose that one, trust me. The crux of the matter isn't that things weren't written down, it's that you reject what was written down, because it was written by "victors".

<<<<So kindly refrain from saying I haven't answered this question. >>>

You haven't answered the question.> Yes, I have. The problem is not with the answers, the problem is with your rather whimsical criteria for determining what you believe.

<FWIW, not every early leader agreed what the oral teachings were. Uhoh. How do we <know> which were right? How do we <know> that men from among the Ephesian elders didn't lie about what Jesus said? How do we <know> that well meaning people didn't mess up the oral history? Why is it so important to get things in writing?>

Again, the theme of your entire conception is internal inconsistency. Here we have you asking <Why is it so important to get things in writing?>, yet you reject all the WRITTEN THINGS of history if you don't like them.

The church had the written words of the apostles, the foundation of the church. The elders needed to study those written words to show themselves approved.>

Yes, an that's what the Protestants had, after the reformation. And the movement fractured immediately, even while Luther was alive. They could not agree amongst themselves the meaning of scripture.

Today there are tens of thousands of Protestant church types. We have a term for this: Epic Fail.

<<<<Then why were there elders at the council to begin with, if they can't be trusted once the last apostle dies?>>>

Why was anyone there? To hear what the apostles decided.>

OK, I see now. You think the elders were there to be an audience. That's quite an interpretation! It ignores Acts 15:6, which clearly states the elders were there in the same role as the apostles:

<Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.>

Not. An. Audience.

I think it helps to keep the <central point> in focus.

There needs to be a "why."

The "why" helps us stay in touch with the central point.

What tends to happen in debates is that both sides argue over a <central point> and then bring <supporting arguments and evidence> to the debate.

So far so good.

But then what happens is we end up arguing over the supporting points, as we should (if they are bad points, then it undermines the <central point>, but we get so involved in them and forget to continually link them to the <central point>, and then we might even go off on to rabbit trails from those supporting points, arguing indefinitely about minutia found only in the rabbit hole.

Since the whole debate can't be seen in one scrolling, we lose track of just "why" these points are even <relevant> to the central point.

That seems to be the case here.

This is good, profitable discussion, but its value is lost without an overview, an understanding, of how these points directly relate to the <central point>, and how, if your supporting points are correct, it implies that your take on the <central point> is correct also.

Ease up on the 1960s victimhood. I will take WW2 survivors as more worthy of sympathy, over 60s survivors, every day of the week. Twice on Sundays.

Did you storm the beaches of Tarawa?

No, you didn't. And you don't even ever appreciate those who died doing so, despite the fact you owe your Commie privilege to those men who died. And they would turn in their graves if they saw how casually you threw away what they fought for. What do I mean?

You basked in the glory of the liberty and peace that was secured by the generation before you. And you threw it away to embrace the Commie secularist evil of the kind practiced in the Soviet Union. And now America is failing because of your ilk, from your generation.

Times are getting very dark, "thanks" to your fellow travelers.

What should I say in reply? "Gee, thanks!"? I don't think so.

<anterograde Cultural Marxist like me to get my head around some of these theological arguments. (I don't know what any of the above classifications really mean but I have been told if I want to see a good example of them I should look in the mirror.) Anyway, I lose track of where your arguments are coming from. As they used to say in baseball, you can't tell a player without a scorecard. For example, playing left field and batting cleanup for the Cardinals of Rome-- Optimal Play.

My dilemma is particularly murky when TGA and OCF debate.>

The discussion that <OCF> and I are engaged in is not central to soteriology, so please don't put the cart before the horse!

Seek God first. I promise, if you seek him with sincerity, He <will> reveal himself to you.

<Aren't both you guys Protestants? That is at least in the same league, right?>

As for OCF, I get the idea that he thinks he isn't a Protestant, yet he is also not Orthodox, and he is a <former> Roman Catholic. I asked him to name a fourth option and as yet he hasn't answered.

I am technically a Protestant, but am in the process of rejecting Protestantism, and will most likely become Orthodox. Remains to be seen...

<I get arguing with Optimal Play: his team has been around longer and of course don't believe in the theological equivalent of the Designated Hitter.>