ShooterTX said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Which men handed us the canon? Fallible ones.
Which men translated the Bible? Fallible ones.
Which men taught us the hermeneutical principles by which you read? Fallible ones.

We're all standing on a tower of fallible men, if your go to is to tell others not to trust fallible men…then you can't trust anything. If the mere fact of human fallibility disqualifies a transmission chain from conveying reliable truth, then you cannot trust a single damn thing.

---

Even Peter, Paul, James and John were fallible men. This is why Paul corrected his followers to be followers of Christ, not followers of Paul or Apollos or any other fallible man or group of men.

---

Not exactly. He corrected all of the groups and their separate rallying cries, whether for Paul, Apollo, Cephas, or Christ.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Doc Holliday: "Eve did not crush the serpent... she was defeated by him. Her offspring (Cain) murdered his brother. St. Paul calls Jesus the "New Adam" (1 Cor 15:45). If there is a New Adam who succeeds where the first Adam failed, logic dictates there must be a "New Eve" who succeeds where the first Eve failed."

The key mistake you made there, is that The Church is the Bride of Christ. There is no 'New Eve' for that role.

It's also vital to understand that Christ serves many purposes and missions. His exemplar for what Humanity may hope for is just one dimension.


Doc Holliday: "Do infants who die at birth sin? Does a person with severe cognitive disabilities commit personal sin? If not, then "all" refers to the mass of humanity, not a literal census of every soul.

If Mary isn't sinless, then sin is an essential part of being human. But if Mary is sinless, it proves that sin is a disease, not a requirement. It shows us that through Christ, we can actually be healed. If even the Mother of God couldn't be kept from sin, what hope do we have of 'becoming partakers of the divine nature' (2 Peter 1:4)?"

Mary absolutely was born into the same sinful nature all Humanity has. In the first place, consider that we are made 'in the image of God'. That's not a physical description, but describes our creation as entities who are capable of making decisions of consequence. Adam and Eve created their consequence through their decision, as did Abraham (don't forget the same man who pleased God and received the Covenant from Him is responsible for Ishmael and his descendants) and David (God was very pleased with David but the guy did commit both Adultery and Murder). All humans are born with a sinful nature, and denying it is the road to much folly.

If it were that God just allowed someone to be born sinless aside from His Son, then it would create an unjust system that forced many to live with a sinful nature and a few allowed to escape that condition through no merit of their own. It would also mock the Atonement of Christ, if you think about it. More on that point if you wish to discuss it.

It also matters that we all have that sinful nature. The Angels who rebelled cannot be forgiven, specifically because they understood what they were doing, while the soldiers who nailed Christ to the cross were forgiven because they did not understand the consequence of their actions. We are able to ask for forgiveness in part due to being shielded from a terrible knowledge we may not understand at the time we make decisions.

And of course, in the end we depend on Scripture. Scripture makes plain that Mary pleased the Lord, but no where does it ever say she was sinless.

---

Why should your 21st century theological reasoning overturn the unanimous judgment of the men who received the faith from the apostles?

---

The claim that Orthodox Christians received their faith directly from the apostles assumes a continuous, uniform, and controlled transmission of doctrine from the first generation of Jesus's followers to later Christian communities. Historical evidence, however, simply doesn't support this assumption. Instead, early Christianity was a diverse, decentralized movement shaped by multiple individuals.

The apostles were a small group operating within a narrow geographical and temporal window. Most were active for only a few decades in the midfirst century and could not have personally instructed the vast majority of Christians who emerged across the Mediterranean by the end of that century. By around 100 CE, Christian communities existed in Rome, Egypt, Asia Minor, Syria, and North Africa - well beyond any plausible reach of direct apostolic teaching. Even the New Testament itself acknowledges that the movement spread largely through secondary missionaries and local leaders rather than the apostles alone.

Even the earliest Christian sources themselves attest to major doctrinal disagreements on issues such as adherence to Jewish law, the nature of Jesus, salvation, and authority. Paul's letters reveal disputes not only with other missionaries but also with leaders associated with Jerusalem. This suggests that even during the apostles' lifetimes, there was no unified teaching consistently received "directly" from them

So, the idea that there was some "unanimous judgment" by the apostles or early church that the verses in question refer to Mary just isn't a historical reality.

---

If your claims are true then it's not just that Orthodox apostolic succession is doubtful, but that no Christian tradition can claim authentic apostolic teaching.

If the diversity and decentralization of early Christianity invalidates Orthodox claims, it equally invalidates every Protestant appeal to "biblical Christianity" or "the faith once delivered".

You guys can deny apostolic succession all you want, but it's CLEARLY outlined in scripture. Irenaeus around 180 CE can name the succession chains in Rome and other churches. This isn't a later invention retrofitted backward. Ignatius of Antioch wrote about it around 107 CE. It's not made up.

Apostolic faith was never claimed to be a magical telepathic download to every Christian simultaneously. It was entrusted to specific men, who appointed specific successors, who produced a recognizable and traceable tradition.

That Christianity spread beyond the apostles direct personal presence through secondary missionaries is not evidence against apostolic coherence. That was the mechanism by which apostolic succession operated and its clearly shown in scripture. The New Testament itself testifies to an intentional and structured transmission of authority: Paul appointed elders in the communities he founded. Titus was explicitly charged with appointing elders throughout Crete. Timothy received a solemn commission to guard the deposit of faith and entrust it to faithful men who would in turn teach others (2 Timothy 2:2). The Pastoral Epistles do not merely hint at this structure, they describe it with deliberate juridical precision.

Acts 15 shows the first council and they settled a dispute…and here you guys are saying that's a nonsensical structure of authority.

---

Your post seems to assume that a historical line of church leaders automatically guarantees correct teaching. However, that is simply not a true statement in any way, shape or form. You can have continuity of office without continuity of truth. See the Catholic Church. The New Testament itself warns that elders, bishops, and even whole churches can fall into error. Paul tells church leaders that false teachers will arise from among them. Indeed, we have examples in scripture of entire churches founded by apostles that have been rebuked for abandoning the faith. So the existence of succession does not remove fallibility.

You seem to believe that "if Orthodoxy fails, all Christianity fails. However, that is false equivalency. While Orthodoxy ties doctrinal certainty to an ongoing chain of "tradition," Protestantism, by and large, ties it to apostolic teaching preserved in Scripture. Saying succession doesn't guarantee truth does not mean apostolic teaching cannot be preserved at all; it means it must be preserved in a way that can correct leaders when they go wrong. The New Testament already models this by correcting churches and leaders through written teaching rather than appeals to lineage and tradition.

In short, your post presents a false equivalency, in large part based on your assumptions and biases as an adherent to Orthodoxy. Contrary to your insinuations, an unbroken chain of bishops simply does not ensure doctrinal correctness.

---

Who interprets Scripture when leaders disagree? You've only pushed the fallibility problem back one level. If bishops can err, so can individual interpreters…and demonstrably have, producing thousands of Protestant denominations all claiming scriptural fidelity.

Yes, Paul warns that false teachers will arise from within. Yes, churches are rebuked in Revelation. Orthodox theology has never claimed succession confers impeccability. The claim is that the Church as a whole, guided by the Holy Spirit, will not formally and permanently define heresy as orthodoxy. Individual bishops can err. Councils can be rejected as fraudulent, and were. The reception of councils by the whole Church is itself part of the discernment mechanism. This is far more sophisticated than "bishops automatically guarantee truth," which is a caricature, not the actual position.

The Orthodox critique of Rome is precisely that Rome departed from conciliar ecclesiology by overcentralizing authority in a single bishop…which is itself a betrayal of the apostolic succession model, not a vindication of it.
If a man with a valid ordination teaches heresy, Orthodoxy says his teaching is rejected, not that succession is therefore meaningless. The existence of corruption within a succession doesn't prove the principle of succession false any more than a corrupt judge proves the legal system is fictional.

Y'all need to seriously learn the understanding of this rather than just assuming really basic and elementary things about Orthodoxy and history.

---

Saying "the Church as a whole won't permanently teach heresy" immediately raises a new question: how do we know when the Church as a whole has spoken? If bishops can be wrong, councils can be rejected, and entire jurisdictions can split, then someone still has to decide which side represents "the whole Church." That decision itself is made by fallible people, appealing to history and interpretation, which is exactly the problem Orthodoxy says Protestantism has.

Appealing to "reception" doesn't solve this either. Reception only becomes clear after decades or centuries, once history has settled. That doesn't help ordinary believers trying to know what's true now.

You also overstate the Protestant-denominations argument. Many Protestant disagreements are about secondary issues, not the core doctrines defined by the early councils that Orthodoxy itself accepts. And Orthodoxy isn't free from division either. We know that is has likewise split on several occasions.

As for your attempt to analogize this to the legal system, yes, a corrupt judge doesn't abolish law. But the existence of a legal system doesn't guarantee that any given ruling is correct. So the issue remains: all doctrinal judgment - whether by bishops, councils, or churches - still passes through fallible human interpretation. Orthodoxy doesn't escape the basic fact. As the Catholic Church has proven, truth certainty isn't guaranteed simply by moving interpretation from individuals to institutions.

---

You're creating your own problem with this argument then...because if it applies to councils, then it applies to you. The problem with this 'fallible interpretation' argument is that it's a double-edged sword. If you claim councils are just fallible people interpreting history, then you have to admit your own reading of Scripture is just a fallible person interpreting a text.

The common response to that is "scripture is the final authority". Scripture doesn't read itself. You're either following the Church's interpretation or your own. It doesn't actually give you the authority of God, it gives you the authority of the reader. It's not "the Bible says," it's "I say the Bible says.".

Protestant disagreements are not just secondary issues. That's nonsense. There are protestants that adhere to penal substitutionary atonement and those that don't: that's a completely different view of the gospel and radically changes how one approaches prayer, scripture, repentance and behavior.
If Protestant disagreements are just 'secondary,' why did the Reformers kill each other over them? You don't execute people over 'non-essential' music styles or pews. They killed each other over Baptism, the Eucharist, and the Trinity...the very 'core' things you claim the Bible makes clear.

---

Yes, everyone is fallible. All protestants I know already agree with that. That's not a problem for sola scriptura; it's part of it. Admitting "I might be mistaken" does not undermine scripture. Claiming that "this council cannot be mistaken" is the extra claim that needs proof.

Of course scripture must be interpreted. But interpreting something does not make you its authority. Just as reading a law doesn't give you the power to rewrite the law, interpreting Scripture doesn't turn your opinion into God's voice.

With respect to the creeds and councils, protestants don't reject creeds or councils. They accept them because they summarize scripture well, not because they're automatically errorproof. Authority comes from scripture to the church's teaching, not the other way around. Moreover, councils don't eliminate interpretation. You still have to decide 1) which councils count; 2) when councils contradict, which one wins; and 3) whether a council actually taught what people say it taught. That is still a human judgment.

As for Protestant disagreements, you continue to exaggerate. Protestants overwhelmingly agree on the core: 1) the trinity: 2) Christ's divinity and resurrection; 3) salvation by grace; and 4) authority of scripture. I would submit real disagreement exists just as much within Catholic and Orthodox theology; it's just kept under one institutional roof.

---

The question was never whether individuals are fallible. The question is: what is the mechanism for resolving disputes when fallible interpreters disagree on something essential? It's not "better exegesis"…that just produces another fallible interpreter.

You're requiring proof for conciliar authority but treating your own interpretive conclusions as the default. Why? Both require justification.

The Orthodox claim is not that councils are mechanically infallible but that the Holy Spirit preserves the Church from formally defining error. That's a claim with direct scriptural warrant in John 16:13 and Matthew 16:18.

Who taught you what Scripture says well enough to evaluate whether the council summarized it correctly?

Is baptismal regeneration core? Is the Lord's Supper merely symbolic? Is justification forensic or transformative? Is predestination essential?

Orthodoxy has a mechanism for adjudicating disputes that doesn't produce permanent fragmentation.

If sola scriptura is a workable epistemology, give me a concrete procedure, not a principle, a procedure, for resolving a genuine dispute between two Spirit-filled, Scripture-saturated, exegetically serious Christians who have reached contradictory conclusions on a salvation relevant doctrine.

---

Councils don't magically avoid interpretation. They are groups of people arguing about Scripture, just like individuals. So appealing to councils doesn't remove fallibility; it just hides it behind an institution.

The Bible promises that the Church won't fail, not that every official statement will be perfectly correct. If councils were guaranteed to settle doctrine without error, Orthodoxy wouldn't still have real disagreements today but it does.

Sola Scriptura doesn't claim everyone will always agree. It gives a clear way forward: go back to Scripture, use good reasoning, listen to the church through history, make accountable decisions, and be willing to be corrected by God's Word.

In the end, Orthodoxy still asks you to make a personal judgment that its Church and councils are the protected ones. That choice isn't any less interpretive than reading the Bible yourself. So the real issue isn't fallibility, everyone has that. The issue is where final authority lives: in a human institution that must be interpreted, or in Scripture, which stands above all human interpreters.

I will go with the latter.

---

What does it mean for the Church to not fail if every definition it has ever produced remains permanently open to revision by any individual with a Bible and sufficient confidence in his own reasoning?

You're right that joining Orthodoxy requires a personal judgment. But there is a categorical difference between a one-time judgment that this community is the Spirit-guided custodian of apostolic teaching, after which you submit your private interpretation to its authority, and a system that requires you to personally adjudicate every disputed doctrinal question indefinitely with no final court of appeal beyond your own exegesis. The first is a judgment that ends private judgment. The second permanently enshrines it.

You say final authority lives in Scripture, which stands above all human interpreters. That is precisely the Orthodox position. The Church does not claim to stand above Scripture. It claims to be Scripture's Spirit-guided custodian and authentic interpreter

The question you haven't answered is the only one that matters: when Scripture has been misinterpreted by people call claiming the Holy Spirit guides them, and you agree it can be, what did God actually provide to correct that error?

---

I will answer your question...

God provided the entirety of the scriptures. In almost every case of misinterpreted scripture the individual is taking a single verse or passage out of context and creating a bad doctrine as a result. Example, the Catholics misinterpret Matthew 16: 17-19 to mean that Peter was the first pope, even though a few verses later we see Jesus rebuking Peter and caking him "Satan". We also see the rest of the scriptures that Peter was never considered the head of the church or the pope or anything llike that. Peter calls himself "an apostle" and "a fellow elder" but never as the primary leader or the head of the church.

So what did God provide... God provided His scriptures and His Holy Spirit.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Which men handed us the canon? Fallible ones.
Which men translated the Bible? Fallible ones.
Which men taught us the hermeneutical principles by which you read? Fallible ones.

We're all standing on a tower of fallible men, if your go to is to tell others not to trust fallible men…then you can't trust anything. If the mere fact of human fallibility disqualifies a transmission chain from conveying reliable truth, then you cannot trust a single damn thing.

---

Even Peter, Paul, James and John were fallible men. This is why Paul corrected his followers to be followers of Christ, not followers of Paul or Apollos or any other fallible man or group of men.

---

Not exactly. He corrected all of the groups and their separate rallying cries, whether for Paul, Apollo, Cephas, or Christ.

---

1 Corinthians 3:4-9 NIV
[4] For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere human beings? [5] What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believeas the Lord has assigned to each his task. [6] I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. [7] So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. [8] The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. [9] For we are co-workers in God's service; you are God's field, God's building.
So you read this passage and you don't see Paul correcting them and telling them to follow God?? Really??

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Which men handed us the canon? Fallible ones.
Which men translated the Bible? Fallible ones.
Which men taught us the hermeneutical principles by which you read? Fallible ones.

We're all standing on a tower of fallible men, if your go to is to tell others not to trust fallible men…then you can't trust anything. If the mere fact of human fallibility disqualifies a transmission chain from conveying reliable truth, then you cannot trust a single damn thing.

---

Even Peter, Paul, James and John were fallible men. This is why Paul corrected his followers to be followers of Christ, not followers of Paul or Apollos or any other fallible man or group of men.

---

Not exactly. He corrected all of the groups and their separate rallying cries, whether for Paul, Apollo, Cephas, or Christ.

---

1 Corinthians 3:4-9 NIV
[4] For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere human beings? [5] What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believeas the Lord has assigned to each his task. [6] I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. [7] So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. [8] The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. [9] For we are co-workers in God's service; you are God's field, God's building.
So you read this passage and you don't see Paul correcting them and telling them to follow God?? Really??

---

I'm looking at 1 Corinthians 1:10-12. "Each of you has a cry of his own, I am for Paul, I am for Apollo, I am for Cephas, I am for Christ."

Of course he's telling them to follow God. He's also saying, "There must be no divisions among you; you must be restored to unity of mind and purpose." Divisions include not only those who set Peter against Paul, but also those who would set Christ against the church he established. To declare that you follow "Christ alone," as if to make yourself the final arbiter of his message, is another form of division and rebellion based on pride.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Which men handed us the canon? Fallible ones.
Which men translated the Bible? Fallible ones.
Which men taught us the hermeneutical principles by which you read? Fallible ones.

We're all standing on a tower of fallible men, if your go to is to tell others not to trust fallible men…then you can't trust anything. If the mere fact of human fallibility disqualifies a transmission chain from conveying reliable truth, then you cannot trust a single damn thing.

---

Even Peter, Paul, James and John were fallible men. This is why Paul corrected his followers to be followers of Christ, not followers of Paul or Apollos or any other fallible man or group of men.

---

Not exactly. He corrected all of the groups and their separate rallying cries, whether for Paul, Apollo, Cephas, or Christ.

---

1 Corinthians 3:4-9 NIV
[4] For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere human beings? [5] What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believeas the Lord has assigned to each his task. [6] I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. [7] So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. [8] The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. [9] For we are co-workers in God's service; you are God's field, God's building.
So you read this passage and you don't see Paul correcting them and telling them to follow God?? Really??

---

I'm looking at 1 Corinthians 1:10-12. "Each of you has a cry of his own, I am for Paul, I am for Apollo, I am for Cephas, I am for Christ."

Of course he's telling them to follow God. He's also saying, "There must be no divisions among you; you must be restored to unity of mind and purpose." Divisions include not only those who set Peter against Paul, but also those who would set Christ against the church he established. To declare that you follow "Christ alone," as if to make yourself the final arbiter of his message, is another form of division and rebellion based on pride.

---

Something the Holy Spirit also says through the apostle is recorded in 1 Cor 11:19.

canoso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Which men handed us the canon? Fallible ones.
Which men translated the Bible? Fallible ones.
Which men taught us the hermeneutical principles by which you read? Fallible ones.

We're all standing on a tower of fallible men, if your go to is to tell others not to trust fallible men…then you can't trust anything. If the mere fact of human fallibility disqualifies a transmission chain from conveying reliable truth, then you cannot trust a single damn thing.

---

Even Peter, Paul, James and John were fallible men. This is why Paul corrected his followers to be followers of Christ, not followers of Paul or Apollos or any other fallible man or group of men.

---

Not exactly. He corrected all of the groups and their separate rallying cries, whether for Paul, Apollo, Cephas, or Christ.

---

1 Corinthians 3:4-9 NIV
[4] For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere human beings? [5] What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believeas the Lord has assigned to each his task. [6] I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. [7] So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. [8] The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. [9] For we are co-workers in God's service; you are God's field, God's building.
So you read this passage and you don't see Paul correcting them and telling them to follow God?? Really??

---

I'm looking at 1 Corinthians 1:10-12. "Each of you has a cry of his own, I am for Paul, I am for Apollo, I am for Cephas, I am for Christ."

Of course he's telling them to follow God. He's also saying, "There must be no divisions among you; you must be restored to unity of mind and purpose." Divisions include not only those who set Peter against Paul, but also those who would set Christ against the church he established. To declare that you follow "Christ alone," as if to make yourself the final arbiter of his message, is another form of division and rebellion based on pride.

---

Something the Holy Spirit also says through the apostle is recorded in 1 Cor 11:19.

---

Same idea with a dash of sarcasm.

Sam Lowry said:

---

canoso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Which men handed us the canon? Fallible ones.
Which men translated the Bible? Fallible ones.
Which men taught us the hermeneutical principles by which you read? Fallible ones.

We're all standing on a tower of fallible men, if your go to is to tell others not to trust fallible men…then you can't trust anything. If the mere fact of human fallibility disqualifies a transmission chain from conveying reliable truth, then you cannot trust a single damn thing.

---

Even Peter, Paul, James and John were fallible men. This is why Paul corrected his followers to be followers of Christ, not followers of Paul or Apollos or any other fallible man or group of men.

---

Not exactly. He corrected all of the groups and their separate rallying cries, whether for Paul, Apollo, Cephas, or Christ.

---

1 Corinthians 3:4-9 NIV
[4] For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere human beings? [5] What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believeas the Lord has assigned to each his task. [6] I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. [7] So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. [8] The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. [9] For we are co-workers in God's service; you are God's field, God's building.
So you read this passage and you don't see Paul correcting them and telling them to follow God?? Really??

---

I'm looking at 1 Corinthians 1:10-12. "Each of you has a cry of his own, I am for Paul, I am for Apollo, I am for Cephas, I am for Christ."

Of course he's telling them to follow God. He's also saying, "There must be no divisions among you; you must be restored to unity of mind and purpose." Divisions include not only those who set Peter against Paul, but also those who would set Christ against the church he established. To declare that you follow "Christ alone," as if to make yourself the final arbiter of his message, is another form of division and rebellion based on pride.

---

Something the Holy Spirit also says through the apostle is recorded in 1 Cor 11:19.

---

Same idea with a dash of sarcasm.

---

And yet the Holy Spirit gives a perfectly good explanation there of what is the very necessary function of the factions--to show who's approved by God and who isn't. It's His word, not Paul's.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Which men handed us the canon? Fallible ones.
Which men translated the Bible? Fallible ones.
Which men taught us the hermeneutical principles by which you read? Fallible ones.

We're all standing on a tower of fallible men, if your go to is to tell others not to trust fallible men…then you can't trust anything. If the mere fact of human fallibility disqualifies a transmission chain from conveying reliable truth, then you cannot trust a single damn thing.

---

Even Peter, Paul, James and John were fallible men. This is why Paul corrected his followers to be followers of Christ, not followers of Paul or Apollos or any other fallible man or group of men.

---

Not exactly. He corrected all of the groups and their separate rallying cries, whether for Paul, Apollo, Cephas, or Christ.

---

1 Corinthians 3:4-9 NIV
[4] For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere human beings? [5] What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believeas the Lord has assigned to each his task. [6] I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. [7] So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. [8] The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. [9] For we are co-workers in God's service; you are God's field, God's building.
So you read this passage and you don't see Paul correcting them and telling them to follow God?? Really??

---

I'm looking at 1 Corinthians 1:10-12. "Each of you has a cry of his own, I am for Paul, I am for Apollo, I am for Cephas, I am for Christ."

Of course he's telling them to follow God. He's also saying, "There must be no divisions among you; you must be restored to unity of mind and purpose." Divisions include not only those who set Peter against Paul, but also those who would set Christ against the church he established. To declare that you follow "Christ alone," as if to make yourself the final arbiter of his message, is another form of division and rebellion based on pride.

---

Yes, he wants them to be unified but he also makes it clear that the only way to be unified is to be unified as followers of Christ, not followers of men.

I'm not the final arbiter of his message, the scriptures are the final arbiter.... not the pope or the magisterium... the scriptures alone.

canoso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

canoso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Which men handed us the canon? Fallible ones.
Which men translated the Bible? Fallible ones.
Which men taught us the hermeneutical principles by which you read? Fallible ones.

We're all standing on a tower of fallible men, if your go to is to tell others not to trust fallible men…then you can't trust anything. If the mere fact of human fallibility disqualifies a transmission chain from conveying reliable truth, then you cannot trust a single damn thing.

---

Even Peter, Paul, James and John were fallible men. This is why Paul corrected his followers to be followers of Christ, not followers of Paul or Apollos or any other fallible man or group of men.

---

Not exactly. He corrected all of the groups and their separate rallying cries, whether for Paul, Apollo, Cephas, or Christ.

---

1 Corinthians 3:4-9 NIV
[4] For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere human beings? [5] What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believeas the Lord has assigned to each his task. [6] I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. [7] So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. [8] The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. [9] For we are co-workers in God's service; you are God's field, God's building.
So you read this passage and you don't see Paul correcting them and telling them to follow God?? Really??

---

I'm looking at 1 Corinthians 1:10-12. "Each of you has a cry of his own, I am for Paul, I am for Apollo, I am for Cephas, I am for Christ."

Of course he's telling them to follow God. He's also saying, "There must be no divisions among you; you must be restored to unity of mind and purpose." Divisions include not only those who set Peter against Paul, but also those who would set Christ against the church he established. To declare that you follow "Christ alone," as if to make yourself the final arbiter of his message, is another form of division and rebellion based on pride.

---

Something the Holy Spirit also says through the apostle is recorded in 1 Cor 11:19.

---

Same idea with a dash of sarcasm.

---

And yet the Holy Spirit gives a perfectly good explanation there of what is the very necessary function of the factions--to show who's approved by God and who isn't. It's His word, not Paul's.

---

"Necessary" for those who hold their assemblies in a way that does harm, not good.

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Which men handed us the canon? Fallible ones.
Which men translated the Bible? Fallible ones.
Which men taught us the hermeneutical principles by which you read? Fallible ones.

We're all standing on a tower of fallible men, if your go to is to tell others not to trust fallible men…then you can't trust anything. If the mere fact of human fallibility disqualifies a transmission chain from conveying reliable truth, then you cannot trust a single damn thing.

---

Even Peter, Paul, James and John were fallible men. This is why Paul corrected his followers to be followers of Christ, not followers of Paul or Apollos or any other fallible man or group of men.

---

Not exactly. He corrected all of the groups and their separate rallying cries, whether for Paul, Apollo, Cephas, or Christ.

---

1 Corinthians 3:4-9 NIV
[4] For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere human beings? [5] What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believeas the Lord has assigned to each his task. [6] I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. [7] So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. [8] The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. [9] For we are co-workers in God's service; you are God's field, God's building.
So you read this passage and you don't see Paul correcting them and telling them to follow God?? Really??

---

I'm looking at 1 Corinthians 1:10-12. "Each of you has a cry of his own, I am for Paul, I am for Apollo, I am for Cephas, I am for Christ."

Of course he's telling them to follow God. He's also saying, "There must be no divisions among you; you must be restored to unity of mind and purpose." Divisions include not only those who set Peter against Paul, but also those who would set Christ against the church he established. To declare that you follow "Christ alone," as if to make yourself the final arbiter of his message, is another form of division and rebellion based on pride.

---

Yes, he wants them to be unified but he also makes it clear that the only way to be unified is to be unified as followers of Christ, not followers of men.

I'm not the final arbiter of his message, the scriptures are the final arbiter.... not the pope or the magisterium... the scriptures alone.

---

A text can be authoritative, but it can't be an arbiter. Instead of a judge, try setting a book of statutes on the bench in a courtroom and letting the opposing parties decide what it's telling them. That's sola scriptura in a nutshell.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Which men handed us the canon? Fallible ones.
Which men translated the Bible? Fallible ones.
Which men taught us the hermeneutical principles by which you read? Fallible ones.

We're all standing on a tower of fallible men, if your go to is to tell others not to trust fallible men…then you can't trust anything. If the mere fact of human fallibility disqualifies a transmission chain from conveying reliable truth, then you cannot trust a single damn thing.

---

Even Peter, Paul, James and John were fallible men. This is why Paul corrected his followers to be followers of Christ, not followers of Paul or Apollos or any other fallible man or group of men.

---

Not exactly. He corrected all of the groups and their separate rallying cries, whether for Paul, Apollo, Cephas, or Christ.

---

1 Corinthians 3:4-9 NIV
[4] For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere human beings? [5] What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believeas the Lord has assigned to each his task. [6] I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. [7] So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. [8] The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. [9] For we are co-workers in God's service; you are God's field, God's building.
So you read this passage and you don't see Paul correcting them and telling them to follow God?? Really??

---

I'm looking at 1 Corinthians 1:10-12. "Each of you has a cry of his own, I am for Paul, I am for Apollo, I am for Cephas, I am for Christ."

Of course he's telling them to follow God. He's also saying, "There must be no divisions among you; you must be restored to unity of mind and purpose." Divisions include not only those who set Peter against Paul, but also those who would set Christ against the church he established. To declare that you follow "Christ alone," as if to make yourself the final arbiter of his message, is another form of division and rebellion based on pride.

---

Yes, he wants them to be unified but he also makes it clear that the only way to be unified is to be unified as followers of Christ, not followers of men.

I'm not the final arbiter of his message, the scriptures are the final arbiter.... not the pope or the magisterium... the scriptures alone.

---

A text can be authoritative, but it can't be an arbiter. Instead of a judge, try setting a book of statutes on the bench in a courtroom and letting the opposing parties decide what it's telling them. That's sola scriptura in a nutshell.

---

That's not sola scriptura AT ALL.

You Roman Catholics just can't grasp the concept for the lives of you.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Which men handed us the canon? Fallible ones.
Which men translated the Bible? Fallible ones.
Which men taught us the hermeneutical principles by which you read? Fallible ones.

We're all standing on a tower of fallible men, if your go to is to tell others not to trust fallible men…then you can't trust anything. If the mere fact of human fallibility disqualifies a transmission chain from conveying reliable truth, then you cannot trust a single damn thing.

---

Even Peter, Paul, James and John were fallible men. This is why Paul corrected his followers to be followers of Christ, not followers of Paul or Apollos or any other fallible man or group of men.

---

Not exactly. He corrected all of the groups and their separate rallying cries, whether for Paul, Apollo, Cephas, or Christ.

---

1 Corinthians 3:4-9 NIV
[4] For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere human beings? [5] What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believeas the Lord has assigned to each his task. [6] I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. [7] So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. [8] The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. [9] For we are co-workers in God's service; you are God's field, God's building.
So you read this passage and you don't see Paul correcting them and telling them to follow God?? Really??

---

I'm looking at 1 Corinthians 1:10-12. "Each of you has a cry of his own, I am for Paul, I am for Apollo, I am for Cephas, I am for Christ."

Of course he's telling them to follow God. He's also saying, "There must be no divisions among you; you must be restored to unity of mind and purpose." Divisions include not only those who set Peter against Paul, but also those who would set Christ against the church he established. To declare that you follow "Christ alone," as if to make yourself the final arbiter of his message, is another form of division and rebellion based on pride.

---

Yes, he wants them to be unified but he also makes it clear that the only way to be unified is to be unified as followers of Christ, not followers of men.

I'm not the final arbiter of his message, the scriptures are the final arbiter.... not the pope or the magisterium... the scriptures alone.

---

A text can be authoritative, but it can't be an arbiter. Instead of a judge, try setting a book of statutes on the bench in a courtroom and letting the opposing parties decide what it's telling them. That's sola scriptura in a nutshell.

---

Only a Pharisee would imagine the Word of God is essentially nothing more than statutes and rules.

Jesus is the only "pope" any Christian needs. His universal Church, which is all believers everywhere not one group led by a corrupt politician, is called the "Bride of Christ" in Revelation.

God is the final arbiter and scripture is the word of God. It's infallible and inerrant.

ShooterTX said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Doc Holliday: "Eve did not crush the serpent... she was defeated by him. Her offspring (Cain) murdered his brother. St. Paul calls Jesus the "New Adam" (1 Cor 15:45). If there is a New Adam who succeeds where the first Adam failed, logic dictates there must be a "New Eve" who succeeds where the first Eve failed."

The key mistake you made there, is that The Church is the Bride of Christ. There is no 'New Eve' for that role.

It's also vital to understand that Christ serves many purposes and missions. His exemplar for what Humanity may hope for is just one dimension.


Doc Holliday: "Do infants who die at birth sin? Does a person with severe cognitive disabilities commit personal sin? If not, then "all" refers to the mass of humanity, not a literal census of every soul.

If Mary isn't sinless, then sin is an essential part of being human. But if Mary is sinless, it proves that sin is a disease, not a requirement. It shows us that through Christ, we can actually be healed. If even the Mother of God couldn't be kept from sin, what hope do we have of 'becoming partakers of the divine nature' (2 Peter 1:4)?"

Mary absolutely was born into the same sinful nature all Humanity has. In the first place, consider that we are made 'in the image of God'. That's not a physical description, but describes our creation as entities who are capable of making decisions of consequence. Adam and Eve created their consequence through their decision, as did Abraham (don't forget the same man who pleased God and received the Covenant from Him is responsible for Ishmael and his descendants) and David (God was very pleased with David but the guy did commit both Adultery and Murder). All humans are born with a sinful nature, and denying it is the road to much folly.

If it were that God just allowed someone to be born sinless aside from His Son, then it would create an unjust system that forced many to live with a sinful nature and a few allowed to escape that condition through no merit of their own. It would also mock the Atonement of Christ, if you think about it. More on that point if you wish to discuss it.

It also matters that we all have that sinful nature. The Angels who rebelled cannot be forgiven, specifically because they understood what they were doing, while the soldiers who nailed Christ to the cross were forgiven because they did not understand the consequence of their actions. We are able to ask for forgiveness in part due to being shielded from a terrible knowledge we may not understand at the time we make decisions.

And of course, in the end we depend on Scripture. Scripture makes plain that Mary pleased the Lord, but no where does it ever say she was sinless.

---

Why should your 21st century theological reasoning overturn the unanimous judgment of the men who received the faith from the apostles?

---

The claim that Orthodox Christians received their faith directly from the apostles assumes a continuous, uniform, and controlled transmission of doctrine from the first generation of Jesus's followers to later Christian communities. Historical evidence, however, simply doesn't support this assumption. Instead, early Christianity was a diverse, decentralized movement shaped by multiple individuals.

The apostles were a small group operating within a narrow geographical and temporal window. Most were active for only a few decades in the midfirst century and could not have personally instructed the vast majority of Christians who emerged across the Mediterranean by the end of that century. By around 100 CE, Christian communities existed in Rome, Egypt, Asia Minor, Syria, and North Africa - well beyond any plausible reach of direct apostolic teaching. Even the New Testament itself acknowledges that the movement spread largely through secondary missionaries and local leaders rather than the apostles alone.

Even the earliest Christian sources themselves attest to major doctrinal disagreements on issues such as adherence to Jewish law, the nature of Jesus, salvation, and authority. Paul's letters reveal disputes not only with other missionaries but also with leaders associated with Jerusalem. This suggests that even during the apostles' lifetimes, there was no unified teaching consistently received "directly" from them

So, the idea that there was some "unanimous judgment" by the apostles or early church that the verses in question refer to Mary just isn't a historical reality.

---

If your claims are true then it's not just that Orthodox apostolic succession is doubtful, but that no Christian tradition can claim authentic apostolic teaching.

If the diversity and decentralization of early Christianity invalidates Orthodox claims, it equally invalidates every Protestant appeal to "biblical Christianity" or "the faith once delivered".

You guys can deny apostolic succession all you want, but it's CLEARLY outlined in scripture. Irenaeus around 180 CE can name the succession chains in Rome and other churches. This isn't a later invention retrofitted backward. Ignatius of Antioch wrote about it around 107 CE. It's not made up.

Apostolic faith was never claimed to be a magical telepathic download to every Christian simultaneously. It was entrusted to specific men, who appointed specific successors, who produced a recognizable and traceable tradition.

That Christianity spread beyond the apostles direct personal presence through secondary missionaries is not evidence against apostolic coherence. That was the mechanism by which apostolic succession operated and its clearly shown in scripture. The New Testament itself testifies to an intentional and structured transmission of authority: Paul appointed elders in the communities he founded. Titus was explicitly charged with appointing elders throughout Crete. Timothy received a solemn commission to guard the deposit of faith and entrust it to faithful men who would in turn teach others (2 Timothy 2:2). The Pastoral Epistles do not merely hint at this structure, they describe it with deliberate juridical precision.

Acts 15 shows the first council and they settled a dispute…and here you guys are saying that's a nonsensical structure of authority.

---

Your post seems to assume that a historical line of church leaders automatically guarantees correct teaching. However, that is simply not a true statement in any way, shape or form. You can have continuity of office without continuity of truth. See the Catholic Church. The New Testament itself warns that elders, bishops, and even whole churches can fall into error. Paul tells church leaders that false teachers will arise from among them. Indeed, we have examples in scripture of entire churches founded by apostles that have been rebuked for abandoning the faith. So the existence of succession does not remove fallibility.

You seem to believe that "if Orthodoxy fails, all Christianity fails. However, that is false equivalency. While Orthodoxy ties doctrinal certainty to an ongoing chain of "tradition," Protestantism, by and large, ties it to apostolic teaching preserved in Scripture. Saying succession doesn't guarantee truth does not mean apostolic teaching cannot be preserved at all; it means it must be preserved in a way that can correct leaders when they go wrong. The New Testament already models this by correcting churches and leaders through written teaching rather than appeals to lineage and tradition.

In short, your post presents a false equivalency, in large part based on your assumptions and biases as an adherent to Orthodoxy. Contrary to your insinuations, an unbroken chain of bishops simply does not ensure doctrinal correctness.

---

Who interprets Scripture when leaders disagree? You've only pushed the fallibility problem back one level. If bishops can err, so can individual interpreters…and demonstrably have, producing thousands of Protestant denominations all claiming scriptural fidelity.

Yes, Paul warns that false teachers will arise from within. Yes, churches are rebuked in Revelation. Orthodox theology has never claimed succession confers impeccability. The claim is that the Church as a whole, guided by the Holy Spirit, will not formally and permanently define heresy as orthodoxy. Individual bishops can err. Councils can be rejected as fraudulent, and were. The reception of councils by the whole Church is itself part of the discernment mechanism. This is far more sophisticated than "bishops automatically guarantee truth," which is a caricature, not the actual position.

The Orthodox critique of Rome is precisely that Rome departed from conciliar ecclesiology by overcentralizing authority in a single bishop…which is itself a betrayal of the apostolic succession model, not a vindication of it.
If a man with a valid ordination teaches heresy, Orthodoxy says his teaching is rejected, not that succession is therefore meaningless. The existence of corruption within a succession doesn't prove the principle of succession false any more than a corrupt judge proves the legal system is fictional.

Y'all need to seriously learn the understanding of this rather than just assuming really basic and elementary things about Orthodoxy and history.

---

Saying "the Church as a whole won't permanently teach heresy" immediately raises a new question: how do we know when the Church as a whole has spoken? If bishops can be wrong, councils can be rejected, and entire jurisdictions can split, then someone still has to decide which side represents "the whole Church." That decision itself is made by fallible people, appealing to history and interpretation, which is exactly the problem Orthodoxy says Protestantism has.

Appealing to "reception" doesn't solve this either. Reception only becomes clear after decades or centuries, once history has settled. That doesn't help ordinary believers trying to know what's true now.

You also overstate the Protestant-denominations argument. Many Protestant disagreements are about secondary issues, not the core doctrines defined by the early councils that Orthodoxy itself accepts. And Orthodoxy isn't free from division either. We know that is has likewise split on several occasions.

As for your attempt to analogize this to the legal system, yes, a corrupt judge doesn't abolish law. But the existence of a legal system doesn't guarantee that any given ruling is correct. So the issue remains: all doctrinal judgment - whether by bishops, councils, or churches - still passes through fallible human interpretation. Orthodoxy doesn't escape the basic fact. As the Catholic Church has proven, truth certainty isn't guaranteed simply by moving interpretation from individuals to institutions.

---

You're creating your own problem with this argument then...because if it applies to councils, then it applies to you. The problem with this 'fallible interpretation' argument is that it's a double-edged sword. If you claim councils are just fallible people interpreting history, then you have to admit your own reading of Scripture is just a fallible person interpreting a text.

The common response to that is "scripture is the final authority". Scripture doesn't read itself. You're either following the Church's interpretation or your own. It doesn't actually give you the authority of God, it gives you the authority of the reader. It's not "the Bible says," it's "I say the Bible says.".

Protestant disagreements are not just secondary issues. That's nonsense. There are protestants that adhere to penal substitutionary atonement and those that don't: that's a completely different view of the gospel and radically changes how one approaches prayer, scripture, repentance and behavior.
If Protestant disagreements are just 'secondary,' why did the Reformers kill each other over them? You don't execute people over 'non-essential' music styles or pews. They killed each other over Baptism, the Eucharist, and the Trinity...the very 'core' things you claim the Bible makes clear.

---

Yes, everyone is fallible. All protestants I know already agree with that. That's not a problem for sola scriptura; it's part of it. Admitting "I might be mistaken" does not undermine scripture. Claiming that "this council cannot be mistaken" is the extra claim that needs proof.

Of course scripture must be interpreted. But interpreting something does not make you its authority. Just as reading a law doesn't give you the power to rewrite the law, interpreting Scripture doesn't turn your opinion into God's voice.

With respect to the creeds and councils, protestants don't reject creeds or councils. They accept them because they summarize scripture well, not because they're automatically errorproof. Authority comes from scripture to the church's teaching, not the other way around. Moreover, councils don't eliminate interpretation. You still have to decide 1) which councils count; 2) when councils contradict, which one wins; and 3) whether a council actually taught what people say it taught. That is still a human judgment.

As for Protestant disagreements, you continue to exaggerate. Protestants overwhelmingly agree on the core: 1) the trinity: 2) Christ's divinity and resurrection; 3) salvation by grace; and 4) authority of scripture. I would submit real disagreement exists just as much within Catholic and Orthodox theology; it's just kept under one institutional roof.

---

The question was never whether individuals are fallible. The question is: what is the mechanism for resolving disputes when fallible interpreters disagree on something essential? It's not "better exegesis"…that just produces another fallible interpreter.

You're requiring proof for conciliar authority but treating your own interpretive conclusions as the default. Why? Both require justification.

The Orthodox claim is not that councils are mechanically infallible but that the Holy Spirit preserves the Church from formally defining error. That's a claim with direct scriptural warrant in John 16:13 and Matthew 16:18.

Who taught you what Scripture says well enough to evaluate whether the council summarized it correctly?

Is baptismal regeneration core? Is the Lord's Supper merely symbolic? Is justification forensic or transformative? Is predestination essential?

Orthodoxy has a mechanism for adjudicating disputes that doesn't produce permanent fragmentation.

If sola scriptura is a workable epistemology, give me a concrete procedure, not a principle, a procedure, for resolving a genuine dispute between two Spirit-filled, Scripture-saturated, exegetically serious Christians who have reached contradictory conclusions on a salvation relevant doctrine.

---

Councils don't magically avoid interpretation. They are groups of people arguing about Scripture, just like individuals. So appealing to councils doesn't remove fallibility; it just hides it behind an institution.

The Bible promises that the Church won't fail, not that every official statement will be perfectly correct. If councils were guaranteed to settle doctrine without error, Orthodoxy wouldn't still have real disagreements today but it does.

Sola Scriptura doesn't claim everyone will always agree. It gives a clear way forward: go back to Scripture, use good reasoning, listen to the church through history, make accountable decisions, and be willing to be corrected by God's Word.

In the end, Orthodoxy still asks you to make a personal judgment that its Church and councils are the protected ones. That choice isn't any less interpretive than reading the Bible yourself. So the real issue isn't fallibility, everyone has that. The issue is where final authority lives: in a human institution that must be interpreted, or in Scripture, which stands above all human interpreters.

I will go with the latter.

---

What does it mean for the Church to not fail if every definition it has ever produced remains permanently open to revision by any individual with a Bible and sufficient confidence in his own reasoning?

You're right that joining Orthodoxy requires a personal judgment. But there is a categorical difference between a one-time judgment that this community is the Spirit-guided custodian of apostolic teaching, after which you submit your private interpretation to its authority, and a system that requires you to personally adjudicate every disputed doctrinal question indefinitely with no final court of appeal beyond your own exegesis. The first is a judgment that ends private judgment. The second permanently enshrines it.

You say final authority lives in Scripture, which stands above all human interpreters. That is precisely the Orthodox position. The Church does not claim to stand above Scripture. It claims to be Scripture's Spirit-guided custodian and authentic interpreter

The question you haven't answered is the only one that matters: when Scripture has been misinterpreted by people call claiming the Holy Spirit guides them, and you agree it can be, what did God actually provide to correct that error?

---

I will answer your question...

God provided the entirety of the scriptures. In almost every case of misinterpreted scripture the individual is taking a single verse or passage out of context and creating a bad doctrine as a result. Example, the Catholics misinterpret Matthew 16: 17-19 to mean that Peter was the first pope, even though a few verses later we see Jesus rebuking Peter and caking him "Satan". We also see the rest of the scriptures that Peter was never considered the head of the church or the pope or anything llike that. Peter calls himself "an apostle" and "a fellow elder" but never as the primary leader or the head of the church.

So what did God provide... God provided His scriptures and His Holy Spirit.

---

You haven't answered the question, you've restated the problem in different words.
Your answer is: God provided Scripture and the Holy Spirit. But the person misinterpreting Scripture was also using Scripture and also claiming the Holy Spirit. Your corrective is identical in form to the error.

You say the broader scriptural witness refutes Catholic papal claims. Catholics and Orthodox have read that same broader witness for centuries and disagree with your reading. So now we have Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox, all appealing to Scripture, all claiming Spirit guidance, all reaching irreconcilable conclusions.

You've described the disease, not the cure.
The question remains unanswered: what did God actually provide that functions as a corrective when Spirit-claiming, Scripture reading people reach contradictory conclusions?

Jesus is the Word of God. John 1 establishes this with no ambiguity. The Logos is the second person of the Trinity, a divine hypostasis, not ink on parchment. When Jesus confronts the Pharisees in John 5:39, he says "you search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life, and it is they that bear witness about me." He distinguishes himself from the written text. The texts point to him. He's not identical to them. If you wrote me a letter, I could learn things about you from it. But you're not your letter.

Now go to Paul. In 1 Thessalonians 2:13 he writes: "when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it actually is, the word of God." His oral preaching is explicitly called the word of God. Not a supplement to it. Not a pointer toward it. The word of God itself. Then in 2 Timothy 1:13 he tells Timothy to follow "the pattern of sound words that you heard from me." In 2 Timothy 2:2 he commands him to pass that same deposit on to faithful men who will teach others. He's not telling Timothy to distribute copies of his letters. He's perpetuating an oral catechetical tradition through apostolic succession.

Peter says the same thing. In 1 Peter 1:23-25 he quotes Isaiah: "the word of the Lord endures forever," and then immediately identifies this enduring word as "the good news that was preached to you." The proclaimed, oral gospel is what endures.
So you have Jesus, Paul, and Peter all using "word of God" language for something that is not the written text.

The Reformed move here is to say all of that oral tradition eventually got written down and became the New Testament. But that is an assertion, not an argument. Where is the list? John 21:25 explicitly says everything Jesus did could not be contained in books. Paul taught at Ephesus for three years, day and night. The letter to Timothy does not capture three years of apostolic catechesis.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Jesus is the Word of God. John 1 establishes this with no ambiguity. The Logos is the second person of the Trinity, a divine hypostasis, not ink on parchment. When Jesus confronts the Pharisees in John 5:39, he says "you search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life, and it is they that bear witness about me." He distinguishes himself from the written text. The texts point to him. He's not identical to them. If you wrote me a letter, I could learn things about you from it. But you're not your letter.

Now go to Paul. In 1 Thessalonians 2:13 he writes: "when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it actually is, the word of God." His oral preaching is explicitly called the word of God. Not a supplement to it. Not a pointer toward it. The word of God itself. Then in 2 Timothy 1:13 he tells Timothy to follow "the pattern of sound words that you heard from me." In 2 Timothy 2:2 he commands him to pass that same deposit on to faithful men who will teach others. He's not telling Timothy to distribute copies of his letters. He's perpetuating an oral catechetical tradition through apostolic succession.

---

^^^^ But how could we know if the succeeding apostles were truly "following the pattern heard" from Paul and the original apostles?

If only there were a way we could do that, you know, if we had the record of what the original apostles taught, we could verify whether these new apostles were following the original teaching given to them. Hmmm....

Quote:

---

The Reformed move here is to say all of that oral tradition eventually got written down and became the New Testament. But that is an assertion, not an argument. Where is the list? John 21:25 explicitly says everything Jesus did could not be contained in books. Paul taught at Ephesus for three years, day and night. The letter to Timothy does not capture three years of apostolic catechesis.

---

No, the "Reformed move" is NOT to say that ALL of the oral tradition from the original apostles got written down. It's saying that the ONLY record we have today of what they taught, oral or written, is written in Scripture and nowhere else. That is NOT just an "assertion" that is without evidence. The evidence is that you nor anyone else has been able to produce an oral tradition that we know came from the original apostles that is NOT IN SCRIPTURE. And neither you nor anyone else has been able to provide that.

You are consistently being sloppy with these concepts and misrepresenting positions.

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm not the final arbiter of his message, the scriptures are the final arbiter.... not the pope or the magisterium... the scriptures alone.

---

Baptists say scripture alone. Charismatics/Pentecostals say scripture alone.

Yet Baptists say that Charismatics are faking their apostolic gifts. Charismatics/Pentecostals say Baptists are rejecting the Holy Spirit.

These are probably the two biggest groups in the broader tent of Evangelicalism today even if a lot of them have intentionally debranded.

One of these groups is on the wrong side of Matthew 12:31. Which one is it?

Realitybites said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm not the final arbiter of his message, the scriptures are the final arbiter.... not the pope or the magisterium... the scriptures alone.

---

Baptists say scripture alone. Charismatics/Pentecostals say scripture alone.

Yet Baptists say that Charismatics are faking their apostolic gifts. Charismatics/Pentecostals say Baptists are rejecting the Holy Spirit.

These are probably the two biggest groups in the broader tent of Evangelicalism today even if a lot of them have intentionally debranded.

One of these groups is on the wrong side of Matthew 12:31. Which one is it?

---

some are faking the gifts and will hear depart from me, others arent and have the spirit in them

Anyone rejecting the gifts are failing to walk in the power and authority given to them. Gifts manifest when the flesh is given up to the spirit.

Matthew 1231 goes to say that attributing the gifts of the spirit to Satan is the line that you should not cross. It may be a line that Baptists or others cross when they proclaim that the charismatics/Pentecostals are faking it or that the devil has got them.

The biggest problem lies in discernment, because there are those that fake the gifts because they grew up in faith that they're supposed to have them. They act out of religious requirement instead of being guided by the spirit. And others fake because they were taught to fake by fake leaders/preachers

canoso said:

---

Speaking of killing people over religious disagreements, can we get a comment on the Inquisition? I mean, since we want to talk about history, and all.

---

I noticed that you dodged the question that he proposed using a to quoque fallacy as an attack on the Catholic Church.

Based on the way you attempted to use your post, I will assume that you only possess "Monty Python's" level of understanding and have fallen victim to the protestant misrepresentations of what the Inquisitions actually were.

Do you even know why the Spanish Inquisitions happened or who asked for them?

The Spanish fought for 700 years to rid the Iberian Peninsula of Muslims. So in 1478, King Ferdinand II and Queen Isabella requested Pope Sixtus IV to authorize the inquisition to help maintain Catholic orthodoxy. The state, Spanish monarchy, wanted to ensure that residents in their country were no longer practicing or even hidden Muslims or Jews. Their goal was to root out heresy.

Who conducted the Inquisitions?
They were conducted by an ecclesial court. They were systematic and bureaucratic. They kept the accused isolated and ignorant of their accusers or their specific charge.

Yes, they did employ torture to obtain confessions of heresy. They often used a pulley (to hoist the accused into air), the rack to dislocate limbs, or waterboarding (similar to what our government did in Guantanamo Bay.

They were only allowed to interrogate accused for 15 minutes.

The jails that they were held were much nicer than Spanish government jails. Many times, criminal would "confess" to heresy so that they could be held with the Church waiting to be interrogated.

So, I guess you believe that the "Church killed hundreds of thousands or even millions"?

In total, approximately 3000 people were executed for heresy during the 300+ year reign of the Spanish Inquisition. While that averages about 10 per year, in reality, about 2000 were killed during the first 40 years.

The Church never "killed" anyone. The Church "interrogated" the accused and the State would issue the punishment, whether it be burning at the stake, sentenced to imprisonment or to work galley slavery.

This was a dark period during of the Catholic Church, which the Church owns and accepts. While it is understandable why the Spanish government wanted to keep their country Catholic, the methods they used were unacceptable.

The Catholic Church expressly condemns torture in CCC 2298 (Catechism of the Catholic Church).

" The Church "interrogated" the accused and the State would issue the punishment,"

Learned that from Caiaphas and Pilate, did you?

"Over the course of the Inquisition, the Church prosecuted an estimated 150,000 people for various offences during the period. Of these, the Church's Inquisitors executed an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 victims, particularly in the initial 50 years, mostly by burning at the stake. Other punishments included penance and public flogging, exile, enslavement on galleys, and prison terms ranging from several years to life imprisonment. An important aspect of many of these punishments was the profit motive confiscation of all the victims' property."

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" If one cannot tie Eve in the OT to Mary the new Eve and the NT, you're frankly missing something woven between the old and new convenants ad nauseam in the Bible. Is this something most protestant Christians dont know about or understand ?"

It's a lot more that people understand that Eve was Adam's mate, so Mary would not be the "New Eve" if one existed ... and absolutely no where in Scripture is the phrase 'New Eve' written.

---

No where in Scripture is the phrase 'sola Scriptura' written to be fair.

---

Sola Scriptural is not my argument, but I did notice your evasion on the point.

---

I'll answer your point, but first, to clarify, everything that Christians believe is not found in the bible. This has been pointed out numerous times, but protestants still make this false claim time and time again here.

Paul refers to Jesus as the "last Adam" in 1 Corinthians 15:4547. When Catholics call Mary the "new Eve" it is obviously not about her being last "Adam's mate". You are thinking sexually, not biblically.

Just as Eve came from Adam, now the "last Adam" comes from the "new Eve." God reversed what our first parents broke. Eve said "yes" to a (fallen) angel, while Mary said "yes" to the angel Gaberiel.

God had this planned out long ago as it's mentioned in the Protoevangelium Genesis 3:15

And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."

This is a direct link with Adam and Eve with Mary and Jesus.

Oldbear83 said:

---

" The Church "interrogated" the accused and the State would issue the punishment,"

Learned that from Caiaphas and Pilate, did you?

---

By your comment, I assume that you really didn't understand anything that I wrote.

I'll try to type more slowly next time.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" If one cannot tie Eve in the OT to Mary the new Eve and the NT, you're frankly missing something woven between the old and new convenants ad nauseam in the Bible. Is this something most protestant Christians dont know about or understand ?"

It's a lot more that people understand that Eve was Adam's mate, so Mary would not be the "New Eve" if one existed ... and absolutely no where in Scripture is the phrase 'New Eve' written.

---

No where in Scripture is the phrase 'sola Scriptura' written to be fair.

---

Sola Scriptural is not my argument, but I did notice your evasion on the point.

---

I'll answer your point, but first, to clarify, everything that Christians believe is not found in the bible. This has been pointed out numerous times, but protestants still make this false claim time and time again here.

Paul refers to Jesus as the "last Adam" in 1 Corinthians 15:4547. When Catholics call Mary the "new Eve" it is obviously not about her being last "Adam's mate". You are thinking sexually, not biblically.

Just as Eve came from Adam, now the "last Adam" comes from the "new Eve." God reversed what our first parents broke. Eve said "yes" to a (fallen) angel, while Mary said "yes" to the angel Gaberiel.

God had this planned out long ago as it's mentioned in the Protoevangelium Genesis 3:15

And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."

This is a direct link with Adam and Eve with Mary and Jesus.

---

And I will again remind you that Eve was Adam's mate, not mom.

You keep demanding the square peg will fit the round hole if you pound hard enough.

Coke Bear:: " I'll try to type more slowly next time."

You resorted to a snide insult rather quickly there.

Really think that's the Holy Spirit moving you to choose those words?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" If one cannot tie Eve in the OT to Mary the new Eve and the NT, you're frankly missing something woven between the old and new convenants ad nauseam in the Bible. Is this something most protestant Christians dont know about or understand ?"

It's a lot more that people understand that Eve was Adam's mate, so Mary would not be the "New Eve" if one existed ... and absolutely no where in Scripture is the phrase 'New Eve' written.

---

No where in Scripture is the phrase 'sola Scriptura' written to be fair.

---

Sola Scriptural is not my argument, but I did notice your evasion on the point.

---

I'll answer your point, but first, to clarify, everything that Christians believe is not found in the bible. This has been pointed out numerous times, but protestants still make this false claim time and time again here.

Paul refers to Jesus as the "last Adam" in 1 Corinthians 15:4547. When Catholics call Mary the "new Eve" it is obviously not about her being last "Adam's mate". You are thinking sexually, not biblically.

Just as Eve came from Adam, now the "last Adam" comes from the "new Eve." God reversed what our first parents broke. Eve said "yes" to a (fallen) angel, while Mary said "yes" to the angel Gaberiel.

God had this planned out long ago as it's mentioned in the Protoevangelium Genesis 3:15

And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."

This is a direct link with Adam and Eve with Mary and Jesus.

---

And I will again remind you that Eve was Adam's mate, not mom.

You keep demanding the square peg will fit the round hole if you pound hard enough.

---

I'm not asking you to accept this. I'm merely asking you to understand this.

Did Eve come from Adam? Yes, from his side.
Did Jesus come from Mary? Yes, she gave birth to him.

The comparison is NOT a marital or spousal comparison. It is about God reversing what man ruined.

The Church fathers discuss this concept VERY early in the life of the Church -

Justin Martyr - (Dialogue with Trypho, 100, A.D. 160)
[Jesus] became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death.

But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to your word.'

St. Irenaeus of Lyon - (Against Heresies, V.19.1, A.D. 180)
For just as [Eve] was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did [Mary], by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness of the virgin Eve.

And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience.

St Jerome - 4th century
Death came through Eve, but life has come through Mary.

I could list several others, but that's not the point. I have listed these to demonstrate that this is not something that was made up a few hundred years ago to "give Mary more honor" or "to take glory away from Jesus." It is a point that the earliest men in the Church saw the comparison of how God corrected humanity in the reverse order that it was broken. The God's symmetry is perfect.

If some protestants would get over their "Mary hang-ups", they would be able to understand God's plan in much more color.

Realitybites said:

---

"Over the course of the Inquisition, the Church prosecuted an estimated 150,000 people for various offences during the period. Of these, the Church's Inquisitors executed an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 victims, particularly in the initial 50 years, mostly by burning at the stake. Other punishments included penance and public flogging, exile, enslavement on galleys, and prison terms ranging from several years to life imprisonment. An important aspect of many of these punishments was the profit motive confiscation of all the victims' property."

---

It's wild to learn the underlying protestant frameworks and assumptions, and you can clearly see the connection to medieval roman Catholicism. Its why PSA is such a harsh and crazy theological development.

I apologize for my snarky response.

In fairness, I'll ask if you feel that the Holy Spirit moved your response, "Learned that from Caiaphas and Pilate, did you?" was merited when that obviously wasn't a point of my post?

Using actual history, I responded to a quip demeaning the Catholic faith. I never claimed that the Spanish Inquisition was prudent or acceptable. I never said that the Church was free from any culpability.

I provided historical context to a grave misunderstanding this is used to propagate falsehoods about the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, you twisted my response into another dig at the Church.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I keep hearing this claim that Scripture alone can give you a perfect definition of the Holy Trinity as defined by Nicea and Chalcedon which most Protestants affirm.

Thats absolute nonsense.

Aries made his case to deny the Trinity with texts like Proverbs 8:22 ("the Lord created me at the beginning of his work"), John 14:28 ("the Father is greater than I"), Colossians 1:15 ("firstborn of all creation"), and Mark 13:32 (the Son not knowing the day or hour).

The Trinity was not settled by a better proof text. It was settled by a council with binding authority. Which is the problem. You can't affirm Nicaea and Chalcedon as settled Christianity, but then reject other conclusions from that same tradition and that same authority. You cannot selectively invoke conciliar authority when it suits you and discard it when it doesn't or you have no way to bind everyone.

Nobody actually relies on scripture alone either. Yall need to cut out that nonsense. Total bs. When a Reformed Protestant settles a disputed question by appealing to Calvin, or a Lutheran defers to Luther's exegesis, or a Baptist cites the Second London Confession, they are functionally doing exactly what they accuse Catholics and Orthodox of doing: grounding theological conclusions in the authority of post biblical teachers and confessional documents rather than scripture alone.

---

You realize that you're arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

And the concept of the Trinity is fully derivable from Scripture, as I had already demonstrated to you. Besides, if it wasn't, how could have the councils come to that conclusion? Did they create a concept out of whole cloth?

Here's a question for you, as well as for everyone else: is the belief in the Trinity necessary for one's salvation?

---

If the Trinity were simply derivable from Scripture by careful reading, Arius would not have been a serious theological threat requiring an ecumenical council to resolve.

Councils have the authority of the sacrament of apostolic succession. That gives them guidance by the Holy Spirit.

Mainline prots wouldn't be gay and secular. People interpret text multiple ways. You interpret debt and slavery language in a 21st century lens vs me who took time to understand how Jews viewed what those concepts meant in their time.

Yes, Trinitarian faith is necessary.

Have you ever questioned your denomination? Is there anything you think your church is doing wrong?
Do you know that there are numerous Protestant pastors that have become Orthodox?

---

- so, you agree that you were arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

- I never said the Trinity was "simply" derivable. That's you adding words so you can validate your argument. It takes very careful reading and long, diligent study to derive the Trinity from Scripture. Therefore, it is not surprising that Christians, even true, saved Christians, would not be able to draw it from a simple reading. Arianism, on the other hand, is completely different. It says that Jesus is a created being, and therefore not God. However, Scripture CLEARLY indicates that Jesus is God. And therefore, no church council is needed to know that Arianism is false.

- So, you believe that a belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation? You believe that if someone hears the gospel and believes and trusts in Jesus for their salvation, and they believe Jesus is God.... but they don't believe the Holy Spirit is God, but rather a kind of subordinate entity "sent" by God - then that means they are not saved? Does salvation depend on having a correct theology, especially one that is not explicitly taught in Scripture? And when did Jesus or his apostles every teach that?

- Look at what you're saying here: you're saying that the Trinity, which is 1) NOT derivable from Scripture but can only be known by the utterances of a council of men, and 2) is necessary for salvation - which is ultimately saying that the word of God is insufficient for our salvation!! Is this truly what you believe?

- I belong to no denomination. I'm simply a bible-believing Christian. Yes, there are things I question about certain teachings coming from various Protestant churches, and it's based on what Scripture says (the word of God), not based on what a council of men declared (the Tradition of men). I don't know how many Protestant pastors became Orthodox, but I'm sure it happens the other way around too. I will say that if a Protestant pastor becomes Roman Catholic or Orthodox, then something is really, really wrong with their faith if they are turning to a church that teaches a different gospel than the Bible and actively promotes and even requires the practice and belief in rank heresy and idolatry. Again, if they are okay with bowing and praying to images and saying "Mary is the salvation of my soul", then it's quite possible that they never really were a true Christian.

---

If you die and learn that Orthodoxy was the true visible church...are you going to be mad at God?

No you cannot derive the Nicean/Chalcedon understanding of the Holy Trinity from scripture alone. Impossible. The word homoousias (of the same substance), is the entire linchpin of Nicene Trinitarianism and appears nowhere in scripture. The Council of Nicaea took a non-biblical Greek philosophical term and made it the binding theological test of Orthodoxy. That non scriptural vocabulary binds all Christians sotereologically: who authorized it to do so? A COUNCIL.

Every major Christian confession in history, including your own, explicitly requires Trinitarian faith: the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, Belic Confession and every reformed document every written. Do you understand that the ' Jesus Only' position, held by Oneness Pentecostals is classified by every single reformed confession as heresy?.

Jehova's witnesses believe Jesus is a god, but not THE GOD. Are they saved?

Christology is important. Stop making the case that it isn't. You have no faith that Christ was capable of setting up a VISIBLE church. Your theology forces you to believe that the true church is invisible, that most of history people are left in the dark and only a few elect individuals can be saved. You also have no idea how CLOSE your theology is to medieval roman Catholicism. Your faith is derived from Latin assumptions. You wouldn't have PSA without nominalist medieval roman catholics already creating a PSA foundation that only ever appeared in history after the 1000s.

You claim you're trying to argue for sola scriptura, but not solo, while simultaneously claiming man made tradition is a secondary interpretative authority...then you claim Orthodox theology is off limits because its "Man made tradition". Your logic isn't consistent.

---

Oh thanks for clarifying...

Truth is only true if a council declares it to be true? NO
The truth is true regardless of what any human had to say or think about it. The truth exists on its own.
Jesus declared himself to be "the truth". He doesn't need a council to approve of that statement.
Likewise the Trinity is very clearly described in scriptures. The word "trinity" doesn't need to be used in scripture for the basic concept of the Trinity to be understood.

Some of the early councils recognized and affirmed the truth, they did NOT create it. Later councils created nonsense like the ever sinless ever virgin and the infallible pope.

The Nicea council leaned heavily on the scriptures from the apostolic era... they did not create doctrine, they clarified and confirmed it.

---

By what principled criterion do you distinguish a council that "recognized truth" from one that "invented nonsense"?

You can't claim scripture because it's only possible to claim your interpretation of scripture. You're using your interpretation of scripture to validate the councils you like and invalidate the ones you don't, which means scripture isn't actually your authority, YOUR INTERPRETATION is.

1 Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6, and Acts 14:23 all show the laying on of hands as the mechanism of authoritative transmission. Titus 1:5 shows Titus appointing elders by Paul's authority. This is a chain of transmitted authority, not an invisible spiritual succession. Jesus established a visible Church.

---

It's not that hard to understand if you actually read the Bible.

The councils that recognized the truth are the ones who took truth directly from the scriptures. The nonsense is the stuff that had no scriptural basis. Example: the Marian dogma.

The Bible never says that Mary was without sin. In fact it says the opposite. Romans 3:23 NIV
[23] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Romans 3:10 NIV
[10] As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

The Bible never says that Mary was a forever virgin, in fact it says the opposite. Matthew 12:46 NIV
[46] While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Matthew 13:55-56 NIV
[55] "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? [56] Aren't all his sisters with us?"

The Bible never says that Mary is co-Redemer or co-Mediator or in any way involved in our salvation, in fact it says the opposite. 1 Timothy 2:5 NIV
[5] For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, John 14:6-7 NIV
[6] Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. [7] If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Acts 4:11-12 NIV
[11] Jesus is " 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.' [12] Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved." 1 John 2:1-2 NIV
[1] My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the FatherJesus Christ, the Righteous One. [2] He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Most of the scriptures are very clear. They don't require a magisterium to be understood.

---

On Romans 3:23, does "all have sinned" include Christ? By your own reading it must, since the text says "all" without exception. You obviously don't believe that, which means you are already doing interpretive work to exclude someone from the universal. The question is not whether exceptions exist, you already grant one. The question is who has the authority to identify them?

On the brothers of Jesus, "adelphos" in the Septuagint describes Lot's relationship to Abraham in Genesis 13:8. Lot was his nephew. The word does not require biological siblings. Jerome, Athanasius, Augustine, and Cyril all held perpetual virginity. The position you are calling obviously biblical was considered the novel one in the patristic period.

If no human being can in any sense participate in bringing others before God, then asking your fellow Christian to pray for you is also forbidden. You don't actually believe that. What the verse excludes is a rival savior, not the prayers of those alive in Christ.

You have 45,000 Protestant denominations with the same Bible who cannot agree on baptism, the Lord's Supper, or predestination. The Arian crisis was resolved not by a better proof text but by a council speaking with binding authority.

---

We know that Paul wasn't referring to Christ in Romans 3:23 because he has already told us Christ was without sin in 2 Corinthians 5. So it's clear he wasn't referring to Christ in those verses - nor would it make sense for him to do so since he acknowledged Christ was a deity and not a mere mortal man.

Did Paul or anyone else make similar proclamations about Mary? Did Paul say Mary was without sin? No. You and I both know he did not.

As for Christ's siblings, the Greek word adelphoi (brothers) in these contexts most naturally refers to children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus. There really is no disputing this.

Can I ask you a question? Why is it important for you to try and maintain the narrative that Mary was a sinless virgin?

---

I'm not maintaining a narrative, its a fact and it's important because of what she reveals about Christ and the nature of God's grace.

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." Genesis 3:15. The Fathers read this as the first announcement of redemption in scripture, and the woman here is understood typologically as Mary. The enmity God places between the woman and the serpent is total and absolute. Not partial. Not intermittent. Complete hostility between her and the devil. Sin is the serpent's domain and instrument. If Mary ever fell under the power of sin, even momentarily, under the dominion of the one she is placed in total enmity against, then the enmity God declares would be compromised. Its right there in Genesis man.

Scripture uses words like "blameless" (Job 1:1) and "righteous" (Luke 1:6, regarding Elizabeth and Zechariah) to describe humans. If Job can be "blameless" in a fallen world, the concept of a human being preserved from sin by God's grace is not a scriptural impossibility. Mary's sinlessness isn't a display of her own power, but the ultimate display of God's power.

This all goes back to your view of salvation. You might think "if she's sinless then why does she need salvation?". From a protestant framework, that would be a fair question, but the protestant framework doesn't understand salvation the way the early church/eastern orthodoxy does.

What did salvation mean for Adam before the fall? You probably think he didn't need to be saved. He wasn't created perfectly. If he was, he couldn't have fallen. If we define salvation as Theosis (becoming partakers of the divine nature), then even an unfallen Adam was on a journey toward a deeper union with God. Adam was made for the purpose to choose God and commune with Him.

The reason the reformers got off track from the early church and church fathers who all share the Orthodox view, is because this doesn't jive with Calvinism. You're looking at Mary through the lens of 'Total Depravity,' where God's glory depends on us being as fallen as possible. But the earlier view, the one held by the Church for 1,500 years, was that God's glory is shown by His ability to actually heal and preserve a human being perfectly, making Mary the first 'finished product' of the Gospel.

---

In the plain, narrative context of Genesis, the woman is Eve. She is the only woman present in the story. The verse follows God's judgment on the serpent after the Fall. Her "offspring" refers to her descendants - humanity who will live in ongoing conflict with the serpent and evil. The idea that it's Mary does not make any logical sense, regardless of what the "Fathers" of your church believed, unless once again you are trying to perpetuate a narrative - a false one, at that.

As for Job, I mean, if you read Job you know he wasn't without sin. He admits as much in the last few chapters. The idea that any human, outside of Christ, led a sinless life is just not supported by the great weight of scripture.

Paul was clear that "all have sinned." The overarching narrative of the NT is likewise that all have sinned. Mary, Job, Elizabeth - there simply is no scriptural support for the idea that any of them lived a sinless life. Nor is any of this relevant to our walk or salvation.

---

If one cannot tie Eve in the OT to Mary the new Eve and the NT, you're frankly missing something woven between the old and new convenants ad nauseam in the Bible. Is this something most protestant Christians dont know about or understand ?

And yes let's ignore the writings of people that walked with Christ or with the people that walked with Christ. Im sure the brilliant Sola Script Tourists of our day have better insights as their own popes.

---

I am not sure what you are even talking about. It's pretty easy to read the plain and logical language of Genesis 3 and understand the verses are talking about Eve.

Also have no clue what you mean when you say "ignore the writings of people that walked with Christ." Who and what are you referring to?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Doc Holliday: "Eve did not crush the serpent... she was defeated by him. Her offspring (Cain) murdered his brother. St. Paul calls Jesus the "New Adam" (1 Cor 15:45). If there is a New Adam who succeeds where the first Adam failed, logic dictates there must be a "New Eve" who succeeds where the first Eve failed."

The key mistake you made there, is that The Church is the Bride of Christ. There is no 'New Eve' for that role.

It's also vital to understand that Christ serves many purposes and missions. His exemplar for what Humanity may hope for is just one dimension.


Doc Holliday: "Do infants who die at birth sin? Does a person with severe cognitive disabilities commit personal sin? If not, then "all" refers to the mass of humanity, not a literal census of every soul.

If Mary isn't sinless, then sin is an essential part of being human. But if Mary is sinless, it proves that sin is a disease, not a requirement. It shows us that through Christ, we can actually be healed. If even the Mother of God couldn't be kept from sin, what hope do we have of 'becoming partakers of the divine nature' (2 Peter 1:4)?"

Mary absolutely was born into the same sinful nature all Humanity has. In the first place, consider that we are made 'in the image of God'. That's not a physical description, but describes our creation as entities who are capable of making decisions of consequence. Adam and Eve created their consequence through their decision, as did Abraham (don't forget the same man who pleased God and received the Covenant from Him is responsible for Ishmael and his descendants) and David (God was very pleased with David but the guy did commit both Adultery and Murder). All humans are born with a sinful nature, and denying it is the road to much folly.

If it were that God just allowed someone to be born sinless aside from His Son, then it would create an unjust system that forced many to live with a sinful nature and a few allowed to escape that condition through no merit of their own. It would also mock the Atonement of Christ, if you think about it. More on that point if you wish to discuss it.

It also matters that we all have that sinful nature. The Angels who rebelled cannot be forgiven, specifically because they understood what they were doing, while the soldiers who nailed Christ to the cross were forgiven because they did not understand the consequence of their actions. We are able to ask for forgiveness in part due to being shielded from a terrible knowledge we may not understand at the time we make decisions.

And of course, in the end we depend on Scripture. Scripture makes plain that Mary pleased the Lord, but no where does it ever say she was sinless.

---

Why should your 21st century theological reasoning overturn the unanimous judgment of the men who received the faith from the apostles?

---

The claim that Orthodox Christians received their faith directly from the apostles assumes a continuous, uniform, and controlled transmission of doctrine from the first generation of Jesus's followers to later Christian communities. Historical evidence, however, simply doesn't support this assumption. Instead, early Christianity was a diverse, decentralized movement shaped by multiple individuals.

The apostles were a small group operating within a narrow geographical and temporal window. Most were active for only a few decades in the midfirst century and could not have personally instructed the vast majority of Christians who emerged across the Mediterranean by the end of that century. By around 100 CE, Christian communities existed in Rome, Egypt, Asia Minor, Syria, and North Africa - well beyond any plausible reach of direct apostolic teaching. Even the New Testament itself acknowledges that the movement spread largely through secondary missionaries and local leaders rather than the apostles alone.

Even the earliest Christian sources themselves attest to major doctrinal disagreements on issues such as adherence to Jewish law, the nature of Jesus, salvation, and authority. Paul's letters reveal disputes not only with other missionaries but also with leaders associated with Jerusalem. This suggests that even during the apostles' lifetimes, there was no unified teaching consistently received "directly" from them

So, the idea that there was some "unanimous judgment" by the apostles or early church that the verses in question refer to Mary just isn't a historical reality.

---

If your claims are true then it's not just that Orthodox apostolic succession is doubtful, but that no Christian tradition can claim authentic apostolic teaching.

If the diversity and decentralization of early Christianity invalidates Orthodox claims, it equally invalidates every Protestant appeal to "biblical Christianity" or "the faith once delivered".

You guys can deny apostolic succession all you want, but it's CLEARLY outlined in scripture. Irenaeus around 180 CE can name the succession chains in Rome and other churches. This isn't a later invention retrofitted backward. Ignatius of Antioch wrote about it around 107 CE. It's not made up.

Apostolic faith was never claimed to be a magical telepathic download to every Christian simultaneously. It was entrusted to specific men, who appointed specific successors, who produced a recognizable and traceable tradition.

That Christianity spread beyond the apostles direct personal presence through secondary missionaries is not evidence against apostolic coherence. That was the mechanism by which apostolic succession operated and its clearly shown in scripture. The New Testament itself testifies to an intentional and structured transmission of authority: Paul appointed elders in the communities he founded. Titus was explicitly charged with appointing elders throughout Crete. Timothy received a solemn commission to guard the deposit of faith and entrust it to faithful men who would in turn teach others (2 Timothy 2:2). The Pastoral Epistles do not merely hint at this structure, they describe it with deliberate juridical precision.

Acts 15 shows the first council and they settled a dispute…and here you guys are saying that's a nonsensical structure of authority.

---

Your post seems to assume that a historical line of church leaders automatically guarantees correct teaching. However, that is simply not a true statement in any way, shape or form. You can have continuity of office without continuity of truth. See the Catholic Church. The New Testament itself warns that elders, bishops, and even whole churches can fall into error. Paul tells church leaders that false teachers will arise from among them. Indeed, we have examples in scripture of entire churches founded by apostles that have been rebuked for abandoning the faith. So the existence of succession does not remove fallibility.

You seem to believe that "if Orthodoxy fails, all Christianity fails. However, that is false equivalency. While Orthodoxy ties doctrinal certainty to an ongoing chain of "tradition," Protestantism, by and large, ties it to apostolic teaching preserved in Scripture. Saying succession doesn't guarantee truth does not mean apostolic teaching cannot be preserved at all; it means it must be preserved in a way that can correct leaders when they go wrong. The New Testament already models this by correcting churches and leaders through written teaching rather than appeals to lineage and tradition.

In short, your post presents a false equivalency, in large part based on your assumptions and biases as an adherent to Orthodoxy. Contrary to your insinuations, an unbroken chain of bishops simply does not ensure doctrinal correctness.

---

Who interprets Scripture when leaders disagree? You've only pushed the fallibility problem back one level. If bishops can err, so can individual interpreters…and demonstrably have, producing thousands of Protestant denominations all claiming scriptural fidelity.

Yes, Paul warns that false teachers will arise from within. Yes, churches are rebuked in Revelation. Orthodox theology has never claimed succession confers impeccability. The claim is that the Church as a whole, guided by the Holy Spirit, will not formally and permanently define heresy as orthodoxy. Individual bishops can err. Councils can be rejected as fraudulent, and were. The reception of councils by the whole Church is itself part of the discernment mechanism. This is far more sophisticated than "bishops automatically guarantee truth," which is a caricature, not the actual position.

The Orthodox critique of Rome is precisely that Rome departed from conciliar ecclesiology by overcentralizing authority in a single bishop…which is itself a betrayal of the apostolic succession model, not a vindication of it.
If a man with a valid ordination teaches heresy, Orthodoxy says his teaching is rejected, not that succession is therefore meaningless. The existence of corruption within a succession doesn't prove the principle of succession false any more than a corrupt judge proves the legal system is fictional.

Y'all need to seriously learn the understanding of this rather than just assuming really basic and elementary things about Orthodoxy and history.

---

Saying "the Church as a whole won't permanently teach heresy" immediately raises a new question: how do we know when the Church as a whole has spoken? If bishops can be wrong, councils can be rejected, and entire jurisdictions can split, then someone still has to decide which side represents "the whole Church." That decision itself is made by fallible people, appealing to history and interpretation, which is exactly the problem Orthodoxy says Protestantism has.

Appealing to "reception" doesn't solve this either. Reception only becomes clear after decades or centuries, once history has settled. That doesn't help ordinary believers trying to know what's true now.

You also overstate the Protestant-denominations argument. Many Protestant disagreements are about secondary issues, not the core doctrines defined by the early councils that Orthodoxy itself accepts. And Orthodoxy isn't free from division either. We know that is has likewise split on several occasions.

As for your attempt to analogize this to the legal system, yes, a corrupt judge doesn't abolish law. But the existence of a legal system doesn't guarantee that any given ruling is correct. So the issue remains: all doctrinal judgment - whether by bishops, councils, or churches - still passes through fallible human interpretation. Orthodoxy doesn't escape the basic fact. As the Catholic Church has proven, truth certainty isn't guaranteed simply by moving interpretation from individuals to institutions.

---

You're creating your own problem with this argument then...because if it applies to councils, then it applies to you. The problem with this 'fallible interpretation' argument is that it's a double-edged sword. If you claim councils are just fallible people interpreting history, then you have to admit your own reading of Scripture is just a fallible person interpreting a text.

The common response to that is "scripture is the final authority". Scripture doesn't read itself. You're either following the Church's interpretation or your own. It doesn't actually give you the authority of God, it gives you the authority of the reader. It's not "the Bible says," it's "I say the Bible says.".

Protestant disagreements are not just secondary issues. That's nonsense. There are protestants that adhere to penal substitutionary atonement and those that don't: that's a completely different view of the gospel and radically changes how one approaches prayer, scripture, repentance and behavior.
If Protestant disagreements are just 'secondary,' why did the Reformers kill each other over them? You don't execute people over 'non-essential' music styles or pews. They killed each other over Baptism, the Eucharist, and the Trinity...the very 'core' things you claim the Bible makes clear.

---

Yes, everyone is fallible. All protestants I know already agree with that. That's not a problem for sola scriptura; it's part of it. Admitting "I might be mistaken" does not undermine scripture. Claiming that "this council cannot be mistaken" is the extra claim that needs proof.

Of course scripture must be interpreted. But interpreting something does not make you its authority. Just as reading a law doesn't give you the power to rewrite the law, interpreting Scripture doesn't turn your opinion into God's voice.

With respect to the creeds and councils, protestants don't reject creeds or councils. They accept them because they summarize scripture well, not because they're automatically errorproof. Authority comes from scripture to the church's teaching, not the other way around. Moreover, councils don't eliminate interpretation. You still have to decide 1) which councils count; 2) when councils contradict, which one wins; and 3) whether a council actually taught what people say it taught. That is still a human judgment.

As for Protestant disagreements, you continue to exaggerate. Protestants overwhelmingly agree on the core: 1) the trinity: 2) Christ's divinity and resurrection; 3) salvation by grace; and 4) authority of scripture. I would submit real disagreement exists just as much within Catholic and Orthodox theology; it's just kept under one institutional roof.

---

The question was never whether individuals are fallible. The question is: what is the mechanism for resolving disputes when fallible interpreters disagree on something essential? It's not "better exegesis"…that just produces another fallible interpreter.

You're requiring proof for conciliar authority but treating your own interpretive conclusions as the default. Why? Both require justification.

The Orthodox claim is not that councils are mechanically infallible but that the Holy Spirit preserves the Church from formally defining error. That's a claim with direct scriptural warrant in John 16:13 and Matthew 16:18.

Who taught you what Scripture says well enough to evaluate whether the council summarized it correctly?

Is baptismal regeneration core? Is the Lord's Supper merely symbolic? Is justification forensic or transformative? Is predestination essential?

Orthodoxy has a mechanism for adjudicating disputes that doesn't produce permanent fragmentation.

If sola scriptura is a workable epistemology, give me a concrete procedure, not a principle, a procedure, for resolving a genuine dispute between two Spirit-filled, Scripture-saturated, exegetically serious Christians who have reached contradictory conclusions on a salvation relevant doctrine.

---

Councils don't magically avoid interpretation. They are groups of people arguing about Scripture, just like individuals. So appealing to councils doesn't remove fallibility; it just hides it behind an institution.

The Bible promises that the Church won't fail, not that every official statement will be perfectly correct. If councils were guaranteed to settle doctrine without error, Orthodoxy wouldn't still have real disagreements today but it does.

Sola Scriptura doesn't claim everyone will always agree. It gives a clear way forward: go back to Scripture, use good reasoning, listen to the church through history, make accountable decisions, and be willing to be corrected by God's Word.

In the end, Orthodoxy still asks you to make a personal judgment that its Church and councils are the protected ones. That choice isn't any less interpretive than reading the Bible yourself. So the real issue isn't fallibility, everyone has that. The issue is where final authority lives: in a human institution that must be interpreted, or in Scripture, which stands above all human interpreters.

I will go with the latter.

---

What does it mean for the Church to not fail if every definition it has ever produced remains permanently open to revision by any individual with a Bible and sufficient confidence in his own reasoning?

You're right that joining Orthodoxy requires a personal judgment. But there is a categorical difference between a one-time judgment that this community is the Spirit-guided custodian of apostolic teaching, after which you submit your private interpretation to its authority, and a system that requires you to personally adjudicate every disputed doctrinal question indefinitely with no final court of appeal beyond your own exegesis. The first is a judgment that ends private judgment. The second permanently enshrines it.

You say final authority lives in Scripture, which stands above all human interpreters. That is precisely the Orthodox position. The Church does not claim to stand above Scripture. It claims to be Scripture's Spirit-guided custodian and authentic interpreter

The question you haven't answered is the only one that matters: when Scripture has been misinterpreted by people call claiming the Holy Spirit guides them, and you agree it can be, what did God actually provide to correct that error?

---

The claim that Orthodoxy requires a single, onetime judgment that then "ends private judgment" does not survive contact with reality. In practice, private judgment never ends. Orthodox believers must continually decide which councils are authoritative when tensions exist, whose interpretation of the Fathers is correct when bishops or theologians disagree, and what the Church truly teaches in areas where no dogmatic definition exists, which is often. Because there is no standing, universally recognized body that can issue binding doctrinal judgments today, individuals remain responsible for adjudicating disputes. As I suggested previously, private judgment is not eliminated; it is simply relocated and left largely unacknowledged.

Calling the Church an "authentic interpreter of Scripture" also fails to function as a true final authority if its interpretations can always be contested without resolution. When bishops disagree with bishops, saints with saints, and synods with other synods, the believer must still decide whom to follow. An authority that can be indefinitely appealed or reinterpreted is not a final court of appeal.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You seem to believe that "if Orthodoxy fails, all Christianity fails. However, that is false equivalency. While Orthodoxy ties doctrinal certainty to an ongoing chain of "tradition," Protestantism, by and large, ties it to apostolic teaching preserved in Scripture. Saying succession doesn't guarantee truth does not mean apostolic teaching cannot be preserved at all; it means it must be preserved in a way that can correct leaders when they go wrong.

---

Orthodoxy ties doctrine to scripture and tradition. This achieves exactly what you propose, preserving apostolic teaching in a way in which leaders can be corrected if they stray.

On the other hand, protestantism attempts to reverse engineer apostolic teaching from scripture alone, and this is why you end up with thousands of conflicting opinions about what that apostolic teaching is within that body of churches.

There's a difference between preserving apostolic teaching with scriptural guardrails and attempting to recreate it ex-nihilo.

---

The claim that Orthodoxy "preserves" apostolic teaching while Protestantism recreates it ex nihilo is a false contrast. Protestantism does not invent doctrine from nothing; it submits all doctrine to the only universally accessible apostolic authority God left to the Church: Scripture. Appealing to Scripture against later developments is not reconstruction, but accountability to the apostolic witness itself.

Appealing to Scripture and tradition does not solve the problem Orthodoxy claims to solve. Tradition must be interpreted, and Orthodox bishops, theologians, and jurisdictions often disagree about what it teaches. When disputes arise, there is no universally recognized, present authority capable of definitively resolving them. Appeals to "the Fathers" or "Holy Tradition" simply relocate disagreement rather than resolve it, leaving the individual believer to decide which interpretation is faithful.

The appeal to Protestant disagreement mistakes human fallibility for doctrinal failure. Disagreement exists wherever fallible people interpret revelation. The real question is where error can be finally challenged. Protestantism admits fallible teachers and insists Scripture stands above all of them. Orthodoxy claims preserved unity, yet lacks a clear mechanism to correct error today.

Tradition can preserve, but it can also drift unless Scripture remains the final judge. Protestantism does not deny history or continuity, it denies that tradition is immune from correction. Orthodoxy does not eliminate private judgment; it obscures it. Scripture, normed reform, is not a weakness but instead the only effective safeguard against doctrinal decay.

I can't find a single imperative or request in Luke's gospel as the Holy Spirit directs him in the narrative of the angel's announcement to Mary, in any English translation, including the Catholic Bible. Can anyone else?

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Doc Holliday: "Eve did not crush the serpent... she was defeated by him. Her offspring (Cain) murdered his brother. St. Paul calls Jesus the "New Adam" (1 Cor 15:45). If there is a New Adam who succeeds where the first Adam failed, logic dictates there must be a "New Eve" who succeeds where the first Eve failed."

The key mistake you made there, is that The Church is the Bride of Christ. There is no 'New Eve' for that role.

It's also vital to understand that Christ serves many purposes and missions. His exemplar for what Humanity may hope for is just one dimension.


Doc Holliday: "Do infants who die at birth sin? Does a person with severe cognitive disabilities commit personal sin? If not, then "all" refers to the mass of humanity, not a literal census of every soul.

If Mary isn't sinless, then sin is an essential part of being human. But if Mary is sinless, it proves that sin is a disease, not a requirement. It shows us that through Christ, we can actually be healed. If even the Mother of God couldn't be kept from sin, what hope do we have of 'becoming partakers of the divine nature' (2 Peter 1:4)?"

Mary absolutely was born into the same sinful nature all Humanity has. In the first place, consider that we are made 'in the image of God'. That's not a physical description, but describes our creation as entities who are capable of making decisions of consequence. Adam and Eve created their consequence through their decision, as did Abraham (don't forget the same man who pleased God and received the Covenant from Him is responsible for Ishmael and his descendants) and David (God was very pleased with David but the guy did commit both Adultery and Murder). All humans are born with a sinful nature, and denying it is the road to much folly.

If it were that God just allowed someone to be born sinless aside from His Son, then it would create an unjust system that forced many to live with a sinful nature and a few allowed to escape that condition through no merit of their own. It would also mock the Atonement of Christ, if you think about it. More on that point if you wish to discuss it.

It also matters that we all have that sinful nature. The Angels who rebelled cannot be forgiven, specifically because they understood what they were doing, while the soldiers who nailed Christ to the cross were forgiven because they did not understand the consequence of their actions. We are able to ask for forgiveness in part due to being shielded from a terrible knowledge we may not understand at the time we make decisions.

And of course, in the end we depend on Scripture. Scripture makes plain that Mary pleased the Lord, but no where does it ever say she was sinless.

---

Why should your 21st century theological reasoning overturn the unanimous judgment of the men who received the faith from the apostles?

---

The claim that Orthodox Christians received their faith directly from the apostles assumes a continuous, uniform, and controlled transmission of doctrine from the first generation of Jesus's followers to later Christian communities. Historical evidence, however, simply doesn't support this assumption. Instead, early Christianity was a diverse, decentralized movement shaped by multiple individuals.

The apostles were a small group operating within a narrow geographical and temporal window. Most were active for only a few decades in the midfirst century and could not have personally instructed the vast majority of Christians who emerged across the Mediterranean by the end of that century. By around 100 CE, Christian communities existed in Rome, Egypt, Asia Minor, Syria, and North Africa - well beyond any plausible reach of direct apostolic teaching. Even the New Testament itself acknowledges that the movement spread largely through secondary missionaries and local leaders rather than the apostles alone.

Even the earliest Christian sources themselves attest to major doctrinal disagreements on issues such as adherence to Jewish law, the nature of Jesus, salvation, and authority. Paul's letters reveal disputes not only with other missionaries but also with leaders associated with Jerusalem. This suggests that even during the apostles' lifetimes, there was no unified teaching consistently received "directly" from them

So, the idea that there was some "unanimous judgment" by the apostles or early church that the verses in question refer to Mary just isn't a historical reality.

---

If your claims are true then it's not just that Orthodox apostolic succession is doubtful, but that no Christian tradition can claim authentic apostolic teaching.

If the diversity and decentralization of early Christianity invalidates Orthodox claims, it equally invalidates every Protestant appeal to "biblical Christianity" or "the faith once delivered".

You guys can deny apostolic succession all you want, but it's CLEARLY outlined in scripture. Irenaeus around 180 CE can name the succession chains in Rome and other churches. This isn't a later invention retrofitted backward. Ignatius of Antioch wrote about it around 107 CE. It's not made up.

Apostolic faith was never claimed to be a magical telepathic download to every Christian simultaneously. It was entrusted to specific men, who appointed specific successors, who produced a recognizable and traceable tradition.

That Christianity spread beyond the apostles direct personal presence through secondary missionaries is not evidence against apostolic coherence. That was the mechanism by which apostolic succession operated and its clearly shown in scripture. The New Testament itself testifies to an intentional and structured transmission of authority: Paul appointed elders in the communities he founded. Titus was explicitly charged with appointing elders throughout Crete. Timothy received a solemn commission to guard the deposit of faith and entrust it to faithful men who would in turn teach others (2 Timothy 2:2). The Pastoral Epistles do not merely hint at this structure, they describe it with deliberate juridical precision.

Acts 15 shows the first council and they settled a dispute…and here you guys are saying that's a nonsensical structure of authority.

---

Your post seems to assume that a historical line of church leaders automatically guarantees correct teaching. However, that is simply not a true statement in any way, shape or form. You can have continuity of office without continuity of truth. See the Catholic Church. The New Testament itself warns that elders, bishops, and even whole churches can fall into error. Paul tells church leaders that false teachers will arise from among them. Indeed, we have examples in scripture of entire churches founded by apostles that have been rebuked for abandoning the faith. So the existence of succession does not remove fallibility.

You seem to believe that "if Orthodoxy fails, all Christianity fails. However, that is false equivalency. While Orthodoxy ties doctrinal certainty to an ongoing chain of "tradition," Protestantism, by and large, ties it to apostolic teaching preserved in Scripture. Saying succession doesn't guarantee truth does not mean apostolic teaching cannot be preserved at all; it means it must be preserved in a way that can correct leaders when they go wrong. The New Testament already models this by correcting churches and leaders through written teaching rather than appeals to lineage and tradition.

In short, your post presents a false equivalency, in large part based on your assumptions and biases as an adherent to Orthodoxy. Contrary to your insinuations, an unbroken chain of bishops simply does not ensure doctrinal correctness.

---

Who interprets Scripture when leaders disagree? You've only pushed the fallibility problem back one level. If bishops can err, so can individual interpreters…and demonstrably have, producing thousands of Protestant denominations all claiming scriptural fidelity.

Yes, Paul warns that false teachers will arise from within. Yes, churches are rebuked in Revelation. Orthodox theology has never claimed succession confers impeccability. The claim is that the Church as a whole, guided by the Holy Spirit, will not formally and permanently define heresy as orthodoxy. Individual bishops can err. Councils can be rejected as fraudulent, and were. The reception of councils by the whole Church is itself part of the discernment mechanism. This is far more sophisticated than "bishops automatically guarantee truth," which is a caricature, not the actual position.

The Orthodox critique of Rome is precisely that Rome departed from conciliar ecclesiology by overcentralizing authority in a single bishop…which is itself a betrayal of the apostolic succession model, not a vindication of it.
If a man with a valid ordination teaches heresy, Orthodoxy says his teaching is rejected, not that succession is therefore meaningless. The existence of corruption within a succession doesn't prove the principle of succession false any more than a corrupt judge proves the legal system is fictional.

Y'all need to seriously learn the understanding of this rather than just assuming really basic and elementary things about Orthodoxy and history.

---

Saying "the Church as a whole won't permanently teach heresy" immediately raises a new question: how do we know when the Church as a whole has spoken? If bishops can be wrong, councils can be rejected, and entire jurisdictions can split, then someone still has to decide which side represents "the whole Church." That decision itself is made by fallible people, appealing to history and interpretation, which is exactly the problem Orthodoxy says Protestantism has.

Appealing to "reception" doesn't solve this either. Reception only becomes clear after decades or centuries, once history has settled. That doesn't help ordinary believers trying to know what's true now.

You also overstate the Protestant-denominations argument. Many Protestant disagreements are about secondary issues, not the core doctrines defined by the early councils that Orthodoxy itself accepts. And Orthodoxy isn't free from division either. We know that is has likewise split on several occasions.

As for your attempt to analogize this to the legal system, yes, a corrupt judge doesn't abolish law. But the existence of a legal system doesn't guarantee that any given ruling is correct. So the issue remains: all doctrinal judgment - whether by bishops, councils, or churches - still passes through fallible human interpretation. Orthodoxy doesn't escape the basic fact. As the Catholic Church has proven, truth certainty isn't guaranteed simply by moving interpretation from individuals to institutions.

---

You're creating your own problem with this argument then...because if it applies to councils, then it applies to you. The problem with this 'fallible interpretation' argument is that it's a double-edged sword. If you claim councils are just fallible people interpreting history, then you have to admit your own reading of Scripture is just a fallible person interpreting a text.

The common response to that is "scripture is the final authority". Scripture doesn't read itself. You're either following the Church's interpretation or your own. It doesn't actually give you the authority of God, it gives you the authority of the reader. It's not "the Bible says," it's "I say the Bible says.".

Protestant disagreements are not just secondary issues. That's nonsense. There are protestants that adhere to penal substitutionary atonement and those that don't: that's a completely different view of the gospel and radically changes how one approaches prayer, scripture, repentance and behavior.
If Protestant disagreements are just 'secondary,' why did the Reformers kill each other over them? You don't execute people over 'non-essential' music styles or pews. They killed each other over Baptism, the Eucharist, and the Trinity...the very 'core' things you claim the Bible makes clear.

---

Yes, everyone is fallible. All protestants I know already agree with that. That's not a problem for sola scriptura; it's part of it. Admitting "I might be mistaken" does not undermine scripture. Claiming that "this council cannot be mistaken" is the extra claim that needs proof.

Of course scripture must be interpreted. But interpreting something does not make you its authority. Just as reading a law doesn't give you the power to rewrite the law, interpreting Scripture doesn't turn your opinion into God's voice.

With respect to the creeds and councils, protestants don't reject creeds or councils. They accept them because they summarize scripture well, not because they're automatically errorproof. Authority comes from scripture to the church's teaching, not the other way around. Moreover, councils don't eliminate interpretation. You still have to decide 1) which councils count; 2) when councils contradict, which one wins; and 3) whether a council actually taught what people say it taught. That is still a human judgment.

As for Protestant disagreements, you continue to exaggerate. Protestants overwhelmingly agree on the core: 1) the trinity: 2) Christ's divinity and resurrection; 3) salvation by grace; and 4) authority of scripture. I would submit real disagreement exists just as much within Catholic and Orthodox theology; it's just kept under one institutional roof.

---

The question was never whether individuals are fallible. The question is: what is the mechanism for resolving disputes when fallible interpreters disagree on something essential? It's not "better exegesis"…that just produces another fallible interpreter.

You're requiring proof for conciliar authority but treating your own interpretive conclusions as the default. Why? Both require justification.

The Orthodox claim is not that councils are mechanically infallible but that the Holy Spirit preserves the Church from formally defining error. That's a claim with direct scriptural warrant in John 16:13 and Matthew 16:18.

Who taught you what Scripture says well enough to evaluate whether the council summarized it correctly?

Is baptismal regeneration core? Is the Lord's Supper merely symbolic? Is justification forensic or transformative? Is predestination essential?

Orthodoxy has a mechanism for adjudicating disputes that doesn't produce permanent fragmentation.

If sola scriptura is a workable epistemology, give me a concrete procedure, not a principle, a procedure, for resolving a genuine dispute between two Spirit-filled, Scripture-saturated, exegetically serious Christians who have reached contradictory conclusions on a salvation relevant doctrine.

---

Councils don't magically avoid interpretation. They are groups of people arguing about Scripture, just like individuals. So appealing to councils doesn't remove fallibility; it just hides it behind an institution.

The Bible promises that the Church won't fail, not that every official statement will be perfectly correct. If councils were guaranteed to settle doctrine without error, Orthodoxy wouldn't still have real disagreements today but it does.

Sola Scriptura doesn't claim everyone will always agree. It gives a clear way forward: go back to Scripture, use good reasoning, listen to the church through history, make accountable decisions, and be willing to be corrected by God's Word.

In the end, Orthodoxy still asks you to make a personal judgment that its Church and councils are the protected ones. That choice isn't any less interpretive than reading the Bible yourself. So the real issue isn't fallibility, everyone has that. The issue is where final authority lives: in a human institution that must be interpreted, or in Scripture, which stands above all human interpreters.

I will go with the latter.

---

What does it mean for the Church to not fail if every definition it has ever produced remains permanently open to revision by any individual with a Bible and sufficient confidence in his own reasoning?

You're right that joining Orthodoxy requires a personal judgment. But there is a categorical difference between a one-time judgment that this community is the Spirit-guided custodian of apostolic teaching, after which you submit your private interpretation to its authority, and a system that requires you to personally adjudicate every disputed doctrinal question indefinitely with no final court of appeal beyond your own exegesis. The first is a judgment that ends private judgment. The second permanently enshrines it.

You say final authority lives in Scripture, which stands above all human interpreters. That is precisely the Orthodox position. The Church does not claim to stand above Scripture. It claims to be Scripture's Spirit-guided custodian and authentic interpreter

The question you haven't answered is the only one that matters: when Scripture has been misinterpreted by people call claiming the Holy Spirit guides them, and you agree it can be, what did God actually provide to correct that error?

---

The claim that Orthodoxy requires a single, onetime judgment that then "ends private judgment" does not survive contact with reality. In practice, private judgment never ends. Orthodox believers must continually decide which councils are authoritative when tensions exist, whose interpretation of the Fathers is correct when bishops or theologians disagree, and what the Church truly teaches in areas where no dogmatic definition exists, which is often. Because there is no standing, universally recognized body that can issue binding doctrinal judgments today, individuals remain responsible for adjudicating disputes. As I suggested previously, private judgment is not eliminated; it is simply relocated and left largely unacknowledged.

Calling the Church an "authentic interpreter of Scripture" also fails to function as a true final authority if its interpretations can always be contested without resolution. When bishops disagree with bishops, saints with saints, and synods with other synods, the believer must still decide whom to follow. An authority that can be indefinitely appealed or reinterpreted is not a final court of appeal.

---

You have no reason to trust the Trinity or the Bible by your own standards. Your boy Luther wanted to remove several books from the NT and damn near did. They appealed to councils and history to keep them. We all know why he wanted to remove them...because they don't jive with sola fide or the other solas. Luther famously called James an "epistle of straw" because James 2:24 ("a person is justified by works and not by faith alone") was a direct, linguistic torpedo to Luther's theology. He even suggested in his preface that it was not written by an Apostle. He developed the foundation of your faith...


You say we have to 'decide' which side to follow when bishops disagree, but we don't. We follow the Liturgy, the Creeds, and the Consensus of the Fathers which haven't moved an inch since the beginning. We follow the first seven ecumenical councils up to 787AD. Orthodoxy hasn't developed past that in any major way. Christ is the Head of the Church. We don't need a "Living Voice" to constantly tweak the Faith because the Faith is "once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3).

If your system of 'Scripture Alone' is so superior, why has it fractured into thousands of pieces while Orthodoxy remains one single, unbroken body?