I agree to your request. Therefore, I won't reply to this

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5464)

this

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5465)

or this

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5467)

<<tga>, I think it would be far easier for any observers to follow our discussion if we stuck to one point at a time.>

OK then. One point at a time it is. But now I have a request. This discussion started on the topic of sola scriptura, and you seem amenable to discussing that topic. Obviously, I am also amenable, since I introduced the topic. So let us continue on the topic of sola scriptura.

Going back to what <OCF> says is the point under discussion, namely <So why is eyewitness testimony of living witnesses (which is admissible in court) acceptable to him, but the eyewitness testimony of deceased persons is not acceptable? Does the act of dying refute eyewitness testimony from the deceased? >, you have given your answers.

<Tga> does not believe that also?>

Off topic.

I am not willing to drop the discussion of sola scriptura just yet.

Not only that, I haven't even posted about Ohio's statement, so it is not accurate to imply I denied it.

Ohio's statement that <a person can be saved by picking up a Bible, reading it, and obeying it.> is in the realm of soteriology.

That isn't my position. It's your incorrect description of my position.

<<Does the act of dying refute eyewitness testimony from the deceased? >, you have given your answers.

You accept historical accounts from long ago, written by deceased persons. Why, then, do you reject the historical record that informs us how the canon of scripture was established? >

And again, your incorrect summary.

If I'm wrong about Charlemagne, I won't lose sleep over it. If I'm wrong about how God has revealed to be saved, I'm risking my eternal destiny on that error. I think I reasonably demand more verification of the latter.

<And what do you posit in replacement of the history you have rejected?>

There was an early transition period where the early church didn't have the apostolic approved writings yet. But, they had the apostles. Men who were plainly approved by God to reveal doctrine, to explain how to be saved. I accept them as eyewitnesses, vetted, cross examined, obviously credible witnesses. I think on some points we can reasonably turn to the early church to gain some understanding. I think we need to tread lightly doing so.

Even in the lifetime of the apostles, the false teachers were already at work. I've asked a question about that in several different ways, and I can tell it isn't getting home to you, but I'll try again. How do you know you're appealing to truthful agents of God, and not early heretics?

That isn't my position. It's your incorrect description of my position.>

Then why don't you explain your position?

<And again, your incorrect summary.>

Then why don't you give a correct summary?

<If I'm wrong about Charlemagne, I won't lose sleep over it. If I'm wrong about how God has revealed to be saved, I'm risking my eternal destiny on that error. I think I reasonably demand more verification of the latter.>

That's all very reasonable, but it still doesn't explain your criteria for accepting the historical account of Charlemagne, yet rejecting it for the Council of Rome (as an example). Your reasonable concern does nothing to communicate what your criteria is!

<There was an early transition period where the early church didn't have the apostolic approved writings yet. But, they had the apostles. Men who were plainly approved by God to reveal doctrine, to explain how to be saved. I accept them as eyewitnesses, vetted, cross examined, obviously credible witnesses. I think on some points we can reasonably turn to the early church to gain some understanding. I think we need to tread lightly doing so.

Even in the lifetime of the apostles, the false teachers were already at work. I've asked a question about that in several different ways, and I can tell it isn't getting home to you, but I'll try again. How do you know you're appealing to truthful agents of God, and not early heretics?>

No, I've understood you from the beginning. And I only have one answer for your question, no matter how many times you ask it.

For one, I <know> that solving doctrinal disputes in council is biblical. And I know that <elders> were active participants in the council described in Acts 15, so that too is biblical. They were not spectators.

But as for <How do you know...>, I guess my answer depends on what you mean by "know".

Do you mean "know" in the sense that you know what you had for lunch, because you made the damn lunch? Then I don't know, and cannot know, that either (1) biblical councils are part of Christ's plan for his church, or (2) that scripture is inerrant.

But if you mean "know" through faith, then I can know, because not only do I have Acts 15 in my inerrant scripture, I also have Christ's promise in my inerrant scripture that "On this rock I will build my church...".

<As for the history, I believe a person can find a Bible, read it, and understand how to be saved-with zero knowledge of what you're calling church history.>

Maybe so, but this point of yours is already resolved for me. It is the foundation of my Christian life, and now I seek to build on that foundation, not to just keep talking about the foundation. When you attend 12 years of public school, you don't attend the first grade 12 consecutive times. No, you build year by year on what you've established, by taking new classes.

So I am not trying to discuss with you <I believe a person can find a Bible, read it, and understand how to be saved-with zero knowledge of what you're calling church history.> I am trying to get you to move beyond that to something else.

No worries yet, but that's my experience.>

Hmm. I thought this was evident from the many posts, beginning with my video link post early last month.

I am trying to decide what church to go to, because I believe it is important for Christians to go to church and worship God communally.

1. I don't want to go to a church that doesn't condemn homosexuality as a sin, and especially one that doesn't officially condemn the ordination of homosexuals.

2. I don't want to go to a church that ordains women.

I believe these two points are true to God's word.

With that starting point, I discovered that the Orthodox church is holding fast to these principles. Many mainline Protestant denominations are not. Even the Southern Baptist Convention is becoming more and more liberal, as America is.

Why is this? Why aren't Protestant churches standing fast with God?

Is it because of sola scriptura? I think yes.

Why are the Orthodox standing fast with God? Is it because they reject sola scriptura? I think yes.

<tga: No, I've understood you from the beginning. And I only have one answer for your question, no matter how many times you ask it.

For one, I <know> that solving doctrinal disputes in council is biblical. And I know that <elders> were active participants in the council described in Acts 15, so that too is biblical. They were not spectators.>

I didn't ask if the councils were Scriptural. Again, I didn't ask if the councils were Scriptural. I asked how you know you aren't appealing to heretics. You're simply not responding to the central point of my question. I'll try it again, a different version

"How do you know the councils weren't comprised of heretics?"

I'll note we're currently in the realm of councils, although I am interested in your explanation for all of what you call church history.

<But as for <How do you know...>, I guess my answer depends on what you mean by "know".

Do you mean "know" in the sense that you know what you had for lunch, because you made the damn lunch? Then I don't know, and cannot know, that either (1) biblical councils are part of Christ's plan for his church, or (2) that scripture is inerrant.

But if you mean "know" through faith, then I can know, because not only do I have Acts 15 in my inerrant scripture, I also have Christ's promise in my inerrant scripture that "On this rock I will build my church...".>

What you don't have in the Bible is verification the people you appeal to-whether part of a council or not-are heretics or not.

<OCF: As for the history, I believe a person can find a Bible, read it, and understand how to be saved-with zero knowledge of what you're calling church history.>

<tga: Maybe so, but this point of yours is already resolved for me. It is the foundation of my Christian life, and now I seek to build on that foundation, not to just keep talking about the foundation. When you attend 12 years of public school, you don't attend the first grade 12 consecutive times. No, you build year by year on what you've established, by taking new classes.

So I am not trying to discuss with you <I believe a person can find a Bible, read it, and understand how to be saved-with zero knowledge of what you're calling church history.> I am trying to get you to move beyond that to something else.>

I don't understand this. You get to discuss what you want to discuss, but I don't? We will discuss that next, or we'll be done.

<You don't seem to want to. You just seem to want to post over and over again "that's not my position", without ever posting what <is> your position, on any of my points.>

Again, it's your poor questions. I answer what you ask and it's my fault you're not getting it? And as plainly as possible, I assert this position:

<As for the history, I believe a person can find a Bible, read it, and understand how to be saved-with zero knowledge of what you're calling church history.>

I believe these two points are true to God's word.>

So do I. <Regardless of what any man/church/council says.> So long as you keep appealing to the word of God, we're going to get along swimmingly.

<With that starting point, I discovered that the Orthodox church is holding fast to these principles. Many mainline Protestant denominations are not. Even the Southern Baptist Convention is becoming more and more liberal, as America is.>

The Orthodox have a whole lot right.

<Why is this? Why aren't Protestant churches standing fast with God?>

Because, they base doctrine on what men and councils say instead of the word of God!

<Is it because of sola scriptura? I think yes. >

I think no. My last answer was given before I read this line, and I'll stick with it.

<Why are the Orthodox standing fast with God? Is it because they reject sola scriptura? I think yes.>

They are standing fast with God so much as they are standing fast with His word.

<(And I should mention here, I've known of the selling of indulgences since studying world history in HS. That, plus other internal contradictions deter me from becoming RC. However, I enjoy RC mass more than any other service I've ever attended, including EOC.)>

I left the RCC about 40 years ago, but acknowledge how enjoyable a mass is.

So do I. <Regardless of what any man/church/council says.> So long as you keep appealing to the word of God, we're going to get along swimmingly. >

Is <Regardless of what any man/church/council says.> supposed to be a quote from one of my posts, or are you trying to emphasize it?

"How do you know the councils weren't comprised of heretics?">

Again, I have answered this, and you rejected the answer. But further down in this post, I will remind you of my answer.

The big-picture summary of the current state of our discussion is in this sequence:

1. I answer your questions, then you reject my answer for one reason or another.

2. Then I ask you to explain your position.

3. You ignore my request to explain your position.

<OCF: I'll note we're currently in the realm of councils, although I am interested in your explanation for all of what you call church history.

What you don't have in the Bible is verification the people you appeal to-whether part of a council or not-are heretics or not.>

And why do you think that is? It's because God's scriptural revelation is deemed complete. Yet the church lives on. The only way church elders from later times could be in the bible is to keep adding to the bible.

What, then, is the church to do when heresy is introduced after all the apostles died and canon is established, and we can no longer add to scripture? The church is to use the biblical method for resolving disputes BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER WAY.

And as time passes, the only way that biblical method can <continue> to be available is if councils can continue to be used to resolve disputes after the apostles have died.

Which requires admitting new elders in church leadership as time goes by. This is one of the main points of having succession in a direct line from the apostles and elders.

At the risk of oversimplification, it works like this:

1. First generation of apostles and church elders resolve dispute in council. And we know from Acts 15 that elders participate in the council. The bible specifically says that. They are not there just to hear the apostles' verdict, as you incorrectly claimed.

2. What you have to keep in mind is, these people were bishops in various churches. They weren't laity, nor junior members of the priesthood. Note that after discussion was wrapped up, ("After they had become silent...") it was James who issued the final judgement of the council (Acts 15:13-21), using the words "Therefore I judge..." Why did James judge, and not Peter or Paul or someone else? Because James was Bishop of Jerusalem at the time, and so was in the role of highest authority.

3. The first generation of Bishops, who were apostles and elders, are the same church leaders who appointed the next generation of Bishops, both for newly founded churches and existing ones.

So it is the first generation, whom you accept as authorities, who appointed the second generation of Bishops. Apostles vetted the second generation!

4. Over the following 2 millennia, this is how the process worked for each subsequent generation of Bishops, all new Bishops being vetted to ensure they weren't heretics. This highlights the importance of direct succession of authority - it needs to be traced in an unbroken line of bishops, all the way back to the beginning.

So there you have it. Using my previous analogy, I can't <know> they aren't heretics by means of making the lunch. I can only know through faith, the evidence of things unseen.

And, I will point out, this is the <same way> you <know> scripture is an authority to which you can appeal. If scripture can be an authority, so can councils.

<OCF:

<<<tga: I am not trying to discuss with you <I believe a person can find a Bible, read it, and understand how to be saved-with zero knowledge of what you're calling church history.> I am trying to get you to move beyond that to something else.>>>

I don't understand this. You get to discuss what you want to discuss, but I don't? We will discuss that next, or we'll be done.>

Again, I already answered this! You yourself engaged in the discussion. If you want to walk away without finishing the discussion, that's on you. Don't blame me for your decision to join and/or leave the discussion. I threw down the gauntlet and you picked it up. Are you going to quit the field or continue?

<OCF:

<<tga: You don't seem to want to. You just seem to want to post over and over again "that's not my position", without ever posting what <is> your position, on any of my points.>>

Again, it's your poor questions. I answer what you ask and it's my fault you're not getting it?>

Which is why I replied:

Then why don't you explain your position? ... Then why don't you give a correct summary?

This is an invitation for you to explain <your> position in <your own> words! If the Council of Rome didn't establish the scriptural canon, then who did? And how did they decide?

And if you don't recognize the authority of councils to resolve disputes, then what is the right way?

Because, they base doctrine on what men and councils say instead of the word of God!>

Wrong! The original protestants INVENTED sola scriptura. You've said before that you don't care about Luther. I believe you, because if you knew anything about Luther, you would know you just embarrassed yourself with a huge error that is the opposite of the truth.

<I think no. My last answer was given before I read this line, and I'll stick with it.>

Stand by your complete misunderstanding of the Reformation! LOL

<OCF:

<<<tga: Why are the Orthodox standing fast with God? Is it because they reject sola scriptura? I think yes.>>>

They are standing fast with God so much as they are standing fast with His word.>

Including His word that gives us a process for resolving disputes, in Acts 15.

<I attend a church of Christ. I began going 40 years ago when I started reading the Bible. I quickly realized I had to choose to believe the RCC or the Bible. I chose the Bible.>

Yes, and the EOC church made the same choice in 1054, walking away from the Latin church.

<I deny we are Protestant. I deny our roots are in the Reformation.>

Wow. Hold the press!

The great leadership of the free world has a solution: To have everyone masked! That's the great... "plan "?

3. You ignore my request to explain your position.>

Okay, that's your take. Here's mine:

1. You can't answer a straight forward question in one or two sentences and clutter this page with verbiage.

2. I challenge your repeated claims that something(s) is the only possible. option for some point you're trying to make. You respond that I have to provide an alternative to your unsubstantiated claim.

<OCF: I'll note we're currently in the realm of councils, although I am interested in your explanation for all of what you call church history.

What you don't have in the Bible is verification the people you appeal to-whether part of a council or not-are heretics or not.>

<tga: And why do you think that is? It's because God's scriptural revelation is deemed complete. >

Exactly!

<Yet the church lives on. The only way church elders from later times could be in the bible is to keep adding to the bible.>

Exactly!

<What, then, is the church to do when heresy is introduced after all the apostles died and canon is established, and we can no longer add to scripture? The church is to use the biblical method for resolving disputes BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER WAY.>

Sigh. Who says? And since you repeatedly refuse to answer this challenge, I'll offer another way. LOOK TO THE COMPLETE SCRIPTURES AND USE THEM! There, your claim there is no other way is refuted.

<And as time passes, the only way that biblical method can <continue> to be available is if councils can continue to be used to resolve disputes after the apostles have died.>

See above.

<Which requires admitting new elders in church leadership as time goes by. This is one of the main points of having succession in a direct line from the apostles and elders.>

See above.

<At the risk of oversimplification, it works like this:

1. First generation of apostles and church elders resolve dispute in council. And we know from Acts 15 that elders participate in the council. The bible specifically says that. They are not there just to hear the apostles' verdict, as you incorrectly claimed.>

I was sloppy flippant there. James at least was clearly a participant. But a crucial point you ignore: At that time, they didn't have the complete Scriptures. I affirm that what may have been necessary then isn't necessary today.

<2. What you have to keep in mind is, these people were bishops in various churches. They weren't laity, nor junior members of the priesthood. Note that after discussion was wrapped up, ("After they had become silent...") it was James who issued the final judgement of the council (Acts 15:13-21), using the words "Therefore I judge..." Why did James judge, and not Peter or Paul or someone else? Because James was Bishop of Jerusalem at the time, and so was in the role of highest authority.>

Who says he was the highest authority? I offer the alternative(and there are other alternatives) that Peter and Paul allowed the local guy the final word for the sake of his reputation locally. I don't know. And neither do you. Regardless, they didn't have the complete Scriptures to turn to. We do. I conclude then, your appeal is to a time frame that has passed on.

<3. The first generation of Bishops, who were apostles and elders, are the same church leaders who appointed the next generation of Bishops, both for newly founded churches and existing ones. you accept as authorities, who appointed the second generation of Bishops. Apostles vetted the second generation!>

See above.

<4. Over the following 2 millennia, this is how the process worked for each subsequent generation of Bishops, all new Bishops being vetted to ensure they weren't heretics. This highlights the importance of direct succession of authority - it needs to be traced in an unbroken line of bishops, all the way back to the beginning.

So there you have it. Using my previous analogy, I can't <know> they aren't heretics by means of making the lunch. I can only know through faith, the evidence of things unseen.

And, I will point out, this is the <same way> you <know> scripture is an authority to which you can appeal. If scripture can be an authority, so can councils.

My original reply was too long, so there will be a part 2.>

<OCF:I don't understand this. You get to discuss what you want to discuss, but I don't? We will discuss that next, or we'll be done.>

<tga: Again, I already answered this! You yourself engaged in the discussion. If you want to walk away without finishing the discussion, that's on you. Don't blame me for your decision to join and/or leave the discussion. I threw down the gauntlet and you picked it up. Are you going to quit the field or continue?>

Yes or no. Do you agree with my statement:

A few thousand well chosen words to essentially answer "I can't." I'm glad you got there, (following is for emphasis) <because that's the point I've been making.> I'll get back to this in a future-and dispute even this concession-post if I can dodge the elephants.>

This is not a concession. This is me explaining to you that there are at least 2 ways we can know things (aside from a miraculous revelation), and one of those ways is knowing the councils aren't heretical <in the exact same way> I know I can trust scripture! The standard for both is identical.

That's the crux of the argument: I use the SAME standard of acceptance for both scripture and councils. If I can trust scripture because of faith, I can trust the Council of Rome by faith. It's not possible for me to trust scripture by the act of having made it, because I didn't. We can only "know" by means of the 2nd option, "faith".

In fact, I really should start calling it the first option, because believers are called to faith as the <primary> way of having evidence of things unseen.

And, I will add, YOU are in the same boat. You don't trust in scripture as the author of it, since you're NOT the author. You trust in scripture because you have faith it is God's revealed word. The only difference is, I acknowledge this and you don't.

<A few thousand well chosen words>

1. You can't answer a straight forward question in one or two sentences and clutter this page with verbiage.>

Yes, I usually produce an argument in support of my assertions. What's wrong with that?

<2. I challenge your repeated claims that something(s) is the only possible. option for some point you're trying to make. You respond that I have to provide an alternative to your unsubstantiated claim.>

That is the reality of universal negatives. They are inherently that way. Not liking that reality in no way negates it (pun intended).

<3. I respond to your claims and instead of addressing my central point, you go full gonzo and say I'm the only person in the world to hold that view blah blah blah.>

Sigh. Who says? And since you repeatedly refuse to answer this challenge, I'll offer another way. LOOK TO THE COMPLETE SCRIPTURES AND USE THEM! There, your claim there is no other way is refuted.>

Later epistles don't instruct anyone to stop resolving disputes in council.

Instead of allowing the church itself to be a witness to later generations, regarding how to operate, you want to throw out what was done in the beginning, during the apostles' time, and replace it with a doctrine that didn't come along until the 1500s!

And you pick and choose what history to accept, and what to reject, in an inconsistent manor. Or, if it IS consistent, how am I to know, since you won't discuss your reasoning?

You've set yourself as the prosecutor of the early church, as well as judge, since you alone decide what evidence is admissible to you.

<Who says he was the highest authority?>

That's how the church organized itself! And, again, see above.

<LOOK TO THE COMPLETE SCRIPTURES AND USE THEM!>

This is sola scriptura in one sentence. Nice summary.

Now I will note sola scriptura has an unbroken record of failing to resolve disputes for 500 years! It fractured the Latin church, and right away, while the first reformers were still alive, it fractured the Protestants into a myriad of different denominations, and that fracture continues to this day.

It. Does. Not. Work!! Thus, instead of refuting my claim, sola scriptura bolsters my claim with its 500-year record of failing to resolve disputes, of failing to maintain unity in what is supposed to be ONE church.

<I believe a person can find a Bible, read it, and understand how to be saved-with zero knowledge of what you're calling church history.>>

Your request for a yes or no answer diminishes Christianity from its fullness, so I will expound on my answer to your question, which is:

Yes.

But that is not the end goal. That is the beginning, the starting line. Saint Paul likened Christianity to running a race, and salvation gets you in the race at the starting line.

Although Ohio's earlier dearth of exposition is, IMO, regrettable, at least he has most recently offered enough to move the conversation forward. I appreciate his time and efforts in this regard.

My conclusion is, I don't see the need for any additional argumentation on my part. I've made my case and the reader will judge as he pleases.

Also, <OCF>'s case for sola scriptura is clear, although I deem the doctrine an utter failure at resolving church disputes.

<OCF>, if you still want to make an attempt at convincing me to concede, it would only take 2 things:

1. Follow your own council and <LOOK TO THE COMPLETE SCRIPTURES AND USE THEM> to show where the church was instructed to stop using councils to resolve disputes; i.e., chapter and verse.

2. Since you remain skeptical of the historical account of how scriptural canon was established (namely, the 382 AD Council of Rome), give an alternative account of who actually did establish canon, and how. The explanation must be more plausible than the historical explanation, if you wish to convince me.