Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry"Infallible in some statements." said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Could provide evidence, don't see the point.

I reject sola scriptura because it's historically unsupported and logically incoherent.

---

I understand those are the Catholic talking points against sola scriptura. But I'm asking you to think for yourself - how can you reject sola scriptura, if you 1) believe Scripture is infallible, and 2) you acknowledge the church is NOT?

This would mean that Scripture is the sole infallible authority over the church, i.e. sola scriptura, correct?

---

The Church has approved thousands of documents. A few of them are considered infallible, including but not limited to the Scriptures.

---

Your church has also approved the ecumenical councils, which you acknowledged is fallible. By definition that makes the church fallible. And therefore sola scriptura would be true.

---

No, the ecumenical councils are infallible when they speak in that capacity.

---

When did they declare the anathemas to the rejection of icon veneration to be fallible?

---

They didn't.

---

Then how do you know its fallible, as you've acknowledged?

---

It isn't, and I haven't. You must have misread one of my posts in some way.

---

How do you know it isn't fallible, if they haven't declared it so?

---

They have.

---

How do you know they were speaking "in that capacity" to where they are infallible? When are they NOT speaking "in that capacity"? Who decided it? When?

---

A definitive teaching on faith and morals is infallible when made by the bishops, in union with the pope, and intended to bind the universal church. It's decided when the statement is made, and it's typically indicated by the language of solemn declaration or anathema.

---

Which is saying that your church declares as "infallible" the anathemas against the beliefs that were the overwhelming and universal beliefs of the early church - which means your church is neither apostolic nor infallible.

We can keep going in your circle of intellectual dishonesty, or you can just decide to face the facts. The choice is yours.

Still waiting on an honest Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christian to address the issue:

How can your church be the same "apostolic" church that has existed since the beginning, and how can your councils be infallible, if an ecumenical council anathematized the very beliefs that were the overwhelming and universal beliefs of the early church regarding icon veneration?

And if this makes you recognize that your ecumenical councils are NOT infallible, how can you then reject sola scriptura, since Scripture would remain as the only infallible source of authority?

Someone has already tried denial of facts and dancing around the issue. Does that really suffice for your consciences? If this is all that can be offered... then don't you guys really have something to think about?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry"Infallible in some statements." said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Could provide evidence, don't see the point.

I reject sola scriptura because it's historically unsupported and logically incoherent.

---

I understand those are the Catholic talking points against sola scriptura. But I'm asking you to think for yourself - how can you reject sola scriptura, if you 1) believe Scripture is infallible, and 2) you acknowledge the church is NOT?

This would mean that Scripture is the sole infallible authority over the church, i.e. sola scriptura, correct?

---

The Church has approved thousands of documents. A few of them are considered infallible, including but not limited to the Scriptures.

---

Your church has also approved the ecumenical councils, which you acknowledged is fallible. By definition that makes the church fallible. And therefore sola scriptura would be true.

---

No, the ecumenical councils are infallible when they speak in that capacity.

---

When did they declare the anathemas to the rejection of icon veneration to be fallible?

---

They didn't.

---

Then how do you know its fallible, as you've acknowledged?

---

It isn't, and I haven't. You must have misread one of my posts in some way.

---

How do you know it isn't fallible, if they haven't declared it so?

---

They have.

---

How do you know they were speaking "in that capacity" to where they are infallible? When are they NOT speaking "in that capacity"? Who decided it? When?

---

A definitive teaching on faith and morals is infallible when made by the bishops, in union with the pope, and intended to bind the universal church. It's decided when the statement is made, and it's typically indicated by the language of solemn declaration or anathema.

---

Which is saying that your church declares as "infallible" the anathemas against the beliefs that were the overwhelming and universal beliefs of the early church - which means your church is neither apostolic nor infallible.

We can keep going in your circle of intellectual dishonesty, or you can just decide to face the facts. The choice is yours.

---

We're going in a circle because you keep asking how we can accept your premise without accepting your conclusion. This is not the logical slam dunk you apparently think it is.

Sam, if you look behind you at your tracks, you are very much running in circles yourself, with no better logic than 'Rome says so'.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam, if you look behind you at your tracks, you are very much running in circles yourself, with no better logic than 'Rome says so'.

---

We all rely on some authority. The difference is that I know and admit it.

We do respect authority, just we follow the Lord through Scripture, not what some men in Rome want.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Still waiting on an honest Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christian to address the issue:

How can your church be the same "apostolic" church that has existed since the beginning, and how can your councils be infallible, if an ecumenical council anathematized the very beliefs that were the overwhelming and universal beliefs of the early church regarding icon veneration?

And if this makes you recognize that your ecumenical councils are NOT infallible, how can you then reject sola scriptura, since Scripture would remain as the only infallible source of authority?

Someone has already tried denial of facts and dancing around the issue. Does that really suffice for your consciences? If this is all that can be offered... then don't you guys really have something to think about?

---

No ecumenical council ever anathematized the "overwhelming and universal belief of the early Church" regarding icons.

The Second Council of Nicaea did not invent icon veneration, it defined it precisely, distinguishing veneration (proskynesis) from worship (latreia) in continuity with the Incarnation. Development is not contradiction.

The jump from "councils aren't infallible" to sola scriptura is a non sequitur. Scripture doesn't identify itself as the only infallible authority, doesn't define its own canon, and doesn't interpret itself.

If sola scriptura is the only infallible rule of faith, why does it produce mutually exclusive doctrines of salvation, all claiming to follow the same Bible?

Reformed theology teaches perseverance of the saints, meaning salvation cannot be lost.
Arminians argue that a true believer can fall away and be lost.
Free Grace theology claims that a single act of belief guarantees salvation regardless of how one lives afterward.
Wesleyans maintain that ongoing holiness is required in order to remain saved.

These positions cannot all be true at the same time because they contradict one another, yet each appeals to Scripture alone as its authority and even claims the Holy Spirit is guiding them. This is a FATAL problem. People new to the faith are completely lost trying to figure out which theology is correct, and these aren't minor disagreements. They are massive contradictions that directly shape how someone lives, how they understand salvation, and how they see God Himself.

If Scripture alone were meant to function as a self-interpreting rule of faith, it would not leave sincere believers choosing between contradictory gospels with no authoritative way to resolve them.

Cool graphic.

Now apply that critical thought to "tradition" which builds it's credibility solely on ... more tradition.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Cool graphic.

Now apply that critical thought to "tradition" which builds its credibility solely on ... more tradition.

---

Credibility on apostolic succession which is how we fought against gnostics, Arianism and nestorianism.

Without an authority, we have chaos. Imagine where we're headed in the next 200 years with all the higher criticism and woke nonsense that's accepted by more denominations than rejected. We need authority rooted in tradition and the early church and that solely exists within Orthodoxy.

Jesus never said 'do what the guys in Rome tell you'.

He quoted Scripture a lot.

Personally, I'm gonna copy Jesus as much as possible. Good luck with your Rome knows best plan.

Pretending Scripture played no role is kind of dishonest, Sam.

Sam LowryA definitive teaching on faith and morals is infallible when made by the bishops, in union with the pope, and intended to bind the universal church. It's decided when the statement is made, and it's typically indicated by the language of solemn declaration or anathema. said:

---

Quote:

---

Which is saying that your church declares as "infallible" the anathemas against the beliefs that were the overwhelming and universal beliefs of the early church - which means your church is neither apostolic nor infallible.

We can keep going in your circle of intellectual dishonesty, or you can just decide to face the facts. The choice is yours.

---

We're going in a circle because you keep asking how we can accept your premise without accepting your conclusion. This is not the logical slam dunk you apparently think it is.

---

If my argument isn't a logical slam dunk, how come the only response to it has been you playing your pathetic games that you always employ when you've lost the argument?

No, you're going in a circle, because you're not an honest person and you're denying facts, and you're dancing around the issue, not dealing with it head on. Tell you what - I'll give you another chance to explain how my premise and/or conclusion are wrong:

• how can your church be "apostolic" or "infallible" when you've anathematized (damned to Hell) the overwhelming and universal beliefs of the early church and the rejection of a practice found NOWHERE in Scripture?

1) You're in denial of facts if you claim that the early church did not universally and overwhelmingly reject icon veneration and that it's even close to being supported in Scripture;
2) You balked when asked to give one shred of evidence that the early church ever supported it;
3) You flatly denied that there were "positive" requirements in the anathema, and were confronted with clear evidence that there was, and then completely dodged the point;
4) You first suggested that the council's anathema against the rejection of icon veneration was NOT considered infallible by your church... but then went in a circle to finally admit that it is.

So, go ahead and explain how your church "infallibly" binding believers upon the penalty of Hell to a practice found nowhere in Scripture and fully rejected by the early church makes your church "apostolic" or "infallible".

This question remains open to all Roman Catholics and Orthodoxy. What do you think about this, guys? CokeBear? Doc? FLBear? Reality? Freedom? Why are you guys so quiet? Is the only response to this Sam's intellectual dishonesty? Certainly you can't continue believing that your church is apostolic and infallible if you have no answer for this, can you?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jesus never said 'do what the guys in Rome tell you'.

He quoted Scripture a lot.

Personally, I'm gonna copy Jesus as much as possible. Good luck with your Rome knows best plan.

---

I agree that Jesus never said to follow Rome or the papacy…that's why Orthodoxy rejects Roman Catholicism.

The apostles setup the Orthodox Church, it's not even a denomination, it's been the same Church since.

This Protestant apologist just came to Orthodoxy and publicly announced it yesterday. Many of the reasons he lists are the same things I've been pointing out.

Doc Holliday said:

---

If sola scriptura is the only infallible rule of faith, why does it produce mutually exclusive doctrines of salvation, all claiming to follow the same Bible?

Reformed theology teaches perseverance of the saints, meaning salvation cannot be lost.
Arminians argue that a true believer can fall away and be lost.
Free Grace theology claims that a single act of belief guarantees salvation regardless of how one lives afterward.
Wesleyans maintain that ongoing holiness is required in order to remain saved.

These positions cannot all be true at the same time because they contradict one another, yet each appeals to Scripture alone as its authority and even claims the Holy Spirit is guiding them. This is a FATAL problem. People new to the faith are completely lost trying to figure out which theology is correct, and these aren't minor disagreements. They are massive contradictions that directly shape how someone lives, how they understand salvation, and how they see God Himself.

If Scripture alone were meant to function as a self-interpreting rule of faith, it would not leave sincere believers choosing between contradictory gospels with no authoritative way to resolve them.

---

What's ironic about your defense of tradition is tradition led to current Catholic doctrine, which based on your comments, you completely disagree with.

Hate to break it to you, but you have more in common with a reformed Christian than a Catholic.

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

If sola scriptura is the only infallible rule of faith, why does it produce mutually exclusive doctrines of salvation, all claiming to follow the same Bible?

Reformed theology teaches perseverance of the saints, meaning salvation cannot be lost.
Arminians argue that a true believer can fall away and be lost.
Free Grace theology claims that a single act of belief guarantees salvation regardless of how one lives afterward.
Wesleyans maintain that ongoing holiness is required in order to remain saved.

These positions cannot all be true at the same time because they contradict one another, yet each appeals to Scripture alone as its authority and even claims the Holy Spirit is guiding them. This is a FATAL problem. People new to the faith are completely lost trying to figure out which theology is correct, and these aren't minor disagreements. They are massive contradictions that directly shape how someone lives, how they understand salvation, and how they see God Himself.

If Scripture alone were meant to function as a self-interpreting rule of faith, it would not leave sincere believers choosing between contradictory gospels with no authoritative way to resolve them.

---

What's ironic about your defense of tradition is tradition led to current Catholic doctrine, which based on your comments, you completely disagree with.

Hate to break it to you, but you have more in common with a reformed Christian than a Catholic.

---

Tradition isn't tradition generating authority. It's the faithful transmission of what was received: the apostolic faith, worship, and sacramental life.

When later formulations arise, they're judged against what came before, not legitimated simply because they're later. The west tried to claim papacy and Orthodoxy found that it didn't hold up to Apostolic Christianity. The west didn't like that and became schismatic in 1054, creating their own doctrines over the years and eventually abuses (indulgences) that created Protestants.

Orthodoxy never changed.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jesus never said 'do what the guys in Rome tell you'.

He quoted Scripture a lot.

Personally, I'm gonna copy Jesus as much as possible. Good luck with your Rome knows best plan.

---

I agree that Jesus never said to follow Rome or the papacy…that's why Orthodoxy rejects Roman Catholicism.

The apostles setup the Orthodox Church, it's not even a denomination, it's been the same Church since.

---

You can replace 'Rome' with 'Constantinople', 'Dallas' or whatever.

Point remains the same: Follow God through Scripture, do not trust human efforts alone.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jesus never said 'do what the guys in Rome tell you'.

He quoted Scripture a lot.

Personally, I'm gonna copy Jesus as much as possible. Good luck with your Rome knows best plan.

---

I agree that Jesus never said to follow Rome or the papacy…that's why Orthodoxy rejects Roman Catholicism.

The apostles setup the Orthodox Church, it's not even a denomination, it's been the same Church since.

---

You can replace 'Rome' with 'Constantinople', 'Dallas' or whatever.

Point remains the same: Follow God through Scripture, do not trust human efforts alone.

---

Not possible.

Authority is ever-present. Either it's your own interpretation, your denomination, your pastor, Rome or Orthodox. You can't separate hermeneutics from scripture or any text: it must be interpreted.

So you put Man above God.

That way is evil. Surely the last thousand years tells you that.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Cool graphic.

Now apply that critical thought to "tradition" which builds it's credibility solely on ... more tradition.

---

The difference is that Catholic tradition does interpret itself, in a sense. When new doubts or questions arise, the magisterium can address and explain them authoritatively.

I did not suggest that the anathema was fallible. It did not create a positive requirement to venerate icons. You are once again reading for what you want to see instead of what was intended.

Oldbear83 said:

---

So you put Man above God.

That way is evil. Surely the last thousand years tells you that.

---

In 1 Corinthians 1:12-13, Paul condemns exactly the slogan "I am of Christ" when it's used to reject the Church and apostolic unity. The problem isn't devotion to Christ, it's isolating Christ from the body He established.

Paul doesn't respond by saying, "Good, forget the Church, just follow Christ." He responds by asking, "Is Christ divided?" The implied answer is no, because Christ is not a private possession. To claim Christ while rejecting His body is to divide what God has united.

Cute word salad.

The Church depends on the Holy Spirit and perseverance of the saints.

Not the egos of the men holding titles.

Sam Lowry said:

---

I did not suggest that the anathema was fallible. It did not create a positive requirement to venerate icons. You are once again reading for what you want to see instead of what was intended.

---

"Those who DO NOT kiss the icons, anathema!"

Can you really be this blind and/or dishonest??

And you're still avoiding the ultimate issue - your church anathematized the overwhelming and universal beliefs of the early church, thus it can't be apostolic nor infallible.

Doc Holliday said:

---

If sola scriptura is the only infallible rule of faith, why does it produce mutually exclusive doctrines of salvation, all claiming to follow the same Bible?

---

This is a fallacy. Scripture being the sole, infallible rule of faith does NOT mean there won't be differences in interpretation. Sola scriptura has nothing to do with interpretation. Fallible interpretation does not mean Scripture isn't the sole infallible authority.

By this reasoning, one can argue, "If Tradition is an infallible rule of faith, then why did it produce mutually exclusive doctrines between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, which share the same tradition?"

I'm just at a loss to explain how after all this time and repeatedly correcting everyone's conceptual mistakes on sola scriptura, that you guys are STILL getting it wrong.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

If sola scriptura is the only infallible rule of faith, why does it produce mutually exclusive doctrines of salvation, all claiming to follow the same Bible?

Reformed theology teaches perseverance of the saints, meaning salvation cannot be lost.
Arminians argue that a true believer can fall away and be lost.
Free Grace theology claims that a single act of belief guarantees salvation regardless of how one lives afterward.
Wesleyans maintain that ongoing holiness is required in order to remain saved.

These positions cannot all be true at the same time because they contradict one another, yet each appeals to Scripture alone as its authority and even claims the Holy Spirit is guiding them. This is a FATAL problem. People new to the faith are completely lost trying to figure out which theology is correct, and these aren't minor disagreements. They are massive contradictions that directly shape how someone lives, how they understand salvation, and how they see God Himself.

If Scripture alone were meant to function as a self-interpreting rule of faith, it would not leave sincere believers choosing between contradictory gospels with no authoritative way to resolve them.

---

What's ironic about your defense of tradition is tradition led to current Catholic doctrine, which based on your comments, you completely disagree with.

Hate to break it to you, but you have more in common with a reformed Christian than a Catholic.

---

Tradition isn't tradition generating authority. It's the faithful transmission of what was received: the apostolic faith, worship, and sacramental life.

When later formulations arise, they're judged against what came before, not legitimated simply because they're later. The west tried to claim papacy and Orthodoxy found that it didn't hold up to Apostolic Christianity. The west didn't like that and became schismatic in 1054, creating their own doctrines over the years and eventually abuses (indulgences) that created Protestants.

Orthodoxy never changed.

---

I don't know if you're reading other threads, but this is exactly what I challenged you guys on:

How can your church be the "unchanged" apostolic church, and how can your church be "infallible" in its councils, if an ecumenical council ANATHEMATIZED, i.e. damned to Hell, beliefs that were the overwhelming and universal beliefs of the early church regarding icon veneration, not to mention completely absent in Scripture?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I did not suggest that the anathema was fallible. It did not create a positive requirement to venerate icons. You are once again reading for what you want to see instead of what was intended.

---

"Those who DO NOT kiss the icons, anathema!"

Can you really be this blind and/or dishonest??

And you're still avoiding the ultimate issue - your church anathematized the overwhelming and universal beliefs of the early church, thus it can't be apostolic nor infallible.

---

The anathemas concerning icons were directed against iconoclasm which is the denial of the Incarnation's implications, not against people who struggle, hesitate, or don't understand. They condemn the doctrinal rejection that matter can be a bearer of divine grace, because that rejection is a denial that the Word truly became flesh.

If you apply your standard consistently, it doesn't just hit icons, it collapses the doctrine of the Holy Trinity itself. If a belief has to be universally articulated explicitly and formally from the beginning to be legitimate or explicitly stated in scripture then Nicaea becomes suspect and the Trinity becomes a post-biblical construct.

You absolutely affirm the Nicene Creed, you confess the Trinity as defined there, and you accept its authority..,even though it was articulated and enforced by bishops you claim are Godless pagans. Then you conveniently reject everything else defined at the council of Nicea.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I did not suggest that the anathema was fallible. It did not create a positive requirement to venerate icons. You are once again reading for what you want to see instead of what was intended.

---

"Those who DO NOT kiss the icons, anathema!"

Can you really be this blind and/or dishonest??

And you're still avoiding the ultimate issue - your church anathematized the overwhelming and universal beliefs of the early church, thus it can't be apostolic nor infallible.

---

The anathemas concerning icons were directed against iconoclasm which is the denial of the Incarnation's implications, not against people who struggle, hesitate, or don't understand. They condemn the doctrinal rejection that matter can be a bearer of divine grace, because that rejection is a denial that the Word truly became flesh.

---

And so you're saying that they anathematized the very beliefs of the early church, which overwhelmingly and universally rejected icon veneration. You simply can not reject this fact.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

If sola scriptura is the only infallible rule of faith, why does it produce mutually exclusive doctrines of salvation, all claiming to follow the same Bible?

---

This is a fallacy. Scripture being the sole, infallible rule of faith does NOT mean there won't be differences in interpretation. Sola scriptura has nothing to do with interpretation. Fallible interpretation does not mean Scripture isn't the sole infallible authority.

By this reasoning, one can argue, "If Tradition is an infallible rule of faith, then why did it produce mutually exclusive doctrines between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, which share the same tradition?"

I'm just at a loss to explain how after all this time and repeatedly correcting everyone's conceptual mistakes on sola scriptura, that you guys are STILL getting it wrong.

---

No one is confusing sola scriptura with "no differences in interpretation." That's a strawman. Everyone agrees interpretation is fallible. The issue is what adjudicates interpretation when disagreement arises?

You're left with an infallible text that can only ever be accessed through fallible, competing judgments…with no infallible mechanism to say which interpretation faithfully reflects apostolic teaching. That's FATAL.

Rome and Orthodoxy don't share the same interpretive authority. They diverge precisely at the level of authority:
papal supremacy, the filioque, magisterial scope, etc. Their disagreements are intelligible because they disagree about who has the right to define doctrine.

Under sola scriptura, everyone agrees on the authority (Scripture) but has no shared authority to resolve interpretation. That's why your current denomination has already split and will continue to splinter. It's not over little things either, you don't have small differences, they're massive.

You don't affirm hardly anything the original reformers believed. You'd have to call them pagans by what you've already accused us of.

Where do you think this ends man? All of the high church original Protestant churches affirm lgbt, abortion and woke nonsense. The charismatics are flopping around on the ground and "speaking in tongues". Baptists are becoming more and more secular. I can't even imagine what it will be like in 50 years or 200 years.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I did not suggest that the anathema was fallible. It did not create a positive requirement to venerate icons. You are once again reading for what you want to see instead of what was intended.

---

"Those who DO NOT kiss the icons, anathema!"

Can you really be this blind and/or dishonest??

And you're still avoiding the ultimate issue - your church anathematized the overwhelming and universal beliefs of the early church, thus it can't be apostolic nor infallible.

---

The anathemas concerning icons were directed against iconoclasm which is the denial of the Incarnation's implications, not against people who struggle, hesitate, or don't understand. They condemn the doctrinal rejection that matter can be a bearer of divine grace, because that rejection is a denial that the Word truly became flesh.

---

And so you're saying that they anathematized the very beliefs of the early church, which overwhelmingly and universally rejected icon veneration. You simply can not reject this fact.

---

"You have to agree with me BECAUSE I'M RIGHT!"

*mic drop*

Funny how you broad-brush all Protestant churches, while ignoring the rot in some of your own.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

If sola scriptura is the only infallible rule of faith, why does it produce mutually exclusive doctrines of salvation, all claiming to follow the same Bible?

---

This is a fallacy. Scripture being the sole, infallible rule of faith does NOT mean there won't be differences in interpretation. Sola scriptura has nothing to do with interpretation. Fallible interpretation does not mean Scripture isn't the sole infallible authority.

By this reasoning, one can argue, "If Tradition is an infallible rule of faith, then why did it produce mutually exclusive doctrines between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, which share the same tradition?"

I'm just at a loss to explain how after all this time and repeatedly correcting everyone's conceptual mistakes on sola scriptura, that you guys are STILL getting it wrong.

---

No one is confusing sola scriptura with "no differences in interpretation." That's a strawman. Everyone agrees interpretation is fallible. The issue is what adjudicates interpretation when disagreement arises?

You're left with an infallible text that can only ever be accessed through fallible, competing judgments…with no infallible mechanism to say which interpretation faithfully reflects apostolic teaching. That's FATAL.

Rome and Orthodoxy don't share the same interpretive authority. They diverge precisely at the level of authority:
papal supremacy, the filioque, magisterial scope, etc. Their disagreements are intelligible because they disagree about who has the right to define doctrine.

Under sola scriptura, everyone agrees on the authority (Scripture) but has no shared authority to resolve interpretation. That's why your current denomination has already split and will continue to splinter. It's not over little things either, you don't have small differences, they're massive.

You don't affirm hardly anything the original reformers believed. You'd have to call them pagans by what you've already accused us of.

Where do you think this ends man? All of the high church original Protestant churches affirm lgbt, abortion and woke nonsense. The charismatics are flopping around on the ground and "speaking in tongues". Baptists are becoming more and more secular. I can't even imagine what it will be like in 50 years or 200 years.

---

"No one is confusing sola scriptura with "no differences in interpretation."" - Yes, YOU are confusing sola scriptura with interpretation. Can you truly not see this in your comment I was referencing above? You literally were asking, "if sola scriptura is true.. then why are there different interpretations?"

And then you did the SAME THING again in your comment about Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy "not having the same interpretive authority". The point was that you have the same TRADITION, yet you both ended up with different interpretations. So does that mean Tradition isn't an infallible authority either? That's the point you're trying to make with sola scriptura. Obviously, an infallible rule of authority does not preclude there being division based on interpretation of that authority. So your question "if scripture is the only infallible rule of faith, why are there different interpretations?" is only illustrating your confusing those concepts.

Good grief.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I did not suggest that the anathema was fallible. It did not create a positive requirement to venerate icons. You are once again reading for what you want to see instead of what was intended.

---

"Those who DO NOT kiss the icons, anathema!"

Can you really be this blind and/or dishonest??

And you're still avoiding the ultimate issue - your church anathematized the overwhelming and universal beliefs of the early church, thus it can't be apostolic nor infallible.

---

The anathemas concerning icons were directed against iconoclasm which is the denial of the Incarnation's implications, not against people who struggle, hesitate, or don't understand. They condemn the doctrinal rejection that matter can be a bearer of divine grace, because that rejection is a denial that the Word truly became flesh.

---

And so you're saying that they anathematized the very beliefs of the early church, which overwhelmingly and universally rejected icon veneration. You simply can not reject this fact.

---

"You have to agree with me BECAUSE I'M RIGHT!"

*mic drop*

---

You have to agree with objective FACT.

But I understand your desperation to run away from it, and try to paint it as being merely my opinion that I'm asserting on everyone. Apparently, this is all you've got left. If this is where you going, I guess your only recourse is to block me like Reality did.

When you hear "let those who do not kiss icons be anathema," you assume it means every single person must venerate icons or be lost. Can you think of any other possible interpretation?