Appealing to "the Fathers, the Creeds, and the Councils" doesn't eliminate interpretation, it just re-locates it. The Fathers disagreed frequently (on icons, atonement, free will, rebaptism, papal primacy), and multiple parties claimed their position was the consensus. The first seven councils themselves presuppose Scripture as the supreme norm they were interpreting, not replacing. Councils don't float free of exegesis.

Moreover, "once delivered" (Jude 1:3) does not mean "never rearticulated." The Trinity and Christology were developments in precision, and they were very often forged through controversy. Saying Orthodoxy hasn't "developed" is rhetorical, not historical, as icon theology, and Marian dogmas clearly evolved over time.

As for fragmentation, truth isn't validated by institutional uniformity. Rome is unified too, yet Orthodoxy rejects its claims. Scripture itself predicted false teachers; diversity of errors doesn't refute a true standard. Even Paul was dealing with such fragmentation in his epistles. The real question isn't how many groups exist, but what is the final, testable authority. Scripture can judge bishops, councils, and traditions. An appeal to "consensus" cannot judge itself.

In short: Orthodoxy borrows Scripture's authority, not vice versa, and Luther didn't create that fact.

canoso said:

---

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?

---

Luke 1:38 -

Then Mary said, "Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word." Then the angel departed from her.

Here is a short video (3:30) that better addresses your post -


Here's a longer video from Jimmy Akin who refutes an atheist about this question -

Mothra said:

---

Appealing to "the Fathers, the Creeds, and the Councils" doesn't eliminate interpretation, it just re-locates it. The Fathers disagreed frequently (on icons, atonement, free will, rebaptism, papal primacy), and multiple parties claimed their position was the consensus. The first seven councils themselves presuppose Scripture as the supreme norm they were interpreting, not replacing. Councils don't float free of exegesis.

Moreover, "once delivered" (Jude 1:3) does not mean "never rearticulated." The Trinity and Christology were developments in precision, and they were very often forged through controversy. Saying Orthodoxy hasn't "developed" is rhetorical, not historical, as icon theology, and Marian dogmas clearly evolved over time.

As for fragmentation, truth isn't validated by institutional uniformity. Rome is unified too, yet Orthodoxy rejects its claims. Scripture itself predicted false teachers; diversity of errors doesn't refute a true standard. Even Paul was dealing with such fragmentation in his epistles. The real question isn't how many groups exist, but what is the final, testable authority. Scripture can judge bishops, councils, and traditions. An appeal to "consensus" cannot judge itself.

In short: Orthodoxy borrows Scripture's authority, not vice versa, and Luther didn't create that fact.

---

Yeah my position isn't to eliminate interpretation. Its a FACT that you can't interact with scripture without an authoritative interpretation. You cannot escape the authority/interpretation problem, so you HAVE to choose a method to derive authority.

That method is laid out in scripture. Read Acts 15. when the Council of Jerusalem met, the New Testament hadn't even been fully written, let alone collected. The Church's living voice was the authority that guided the writing of the text, not the other way around.

If the office of Apostle was unique and non-transferable, they would have just left Judas's seat empty. Instead, Peter stands up and explicitly says his office (the Greek word is episkop, where we get "Episcopal" or "Bishop") must be taken by another. They transmitted authority through the laying on of hands as a sacrament.

Every ecumenical council is made up of men who can trace their apostolic lineage through the laying on of hands. Its written down, just like a family tree.

" Its a FACT that you can't interact with scripture without an authoritative interpretation"

No, it's a fact that most of Scripture can be understood by reading it. What seems difficult to understand can be resolved by comparing it to other Scripture on the subject, since God does not contradict Himself.

It is an act of hubris to claim that Scripture cannot be understood without some human with a title telling you what to believe.

Coke Bear said:

---

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.

---

Your most recent post comes across very differently from the one I responded to.

My problem with the Inquisition, and a number of other Church 'investigations', From what I have read and studied, there were many Church officials who were aware of the torture and coerced confessions by the accused, as well as the seizure of their homes, property and so on. This concerns me because even if these officials only knew what was being done, they would still be morally guilty for not stopping it.

Now having said that, I have no doubt that if the Church at that time were run by, say, Methodists or Episcopalians or Baptists, there would have been evil men among them who would have been just as guilty. So it's not about a presumed moral superiority, but the fact remains that the Inquisition is a shameful period in the Church, and no one should be making excuses for the evils done.

THAT is the relevant 'historical context'. And I did not "twist" anything, I simply and accurately observed that Herod and Caiaphas acted just the same as Church officials in that situation. It does not defame the Church, only those men who acted with evil intent.

Oldbear83 said:

---

If there was a single verse where Christ told us Mary was someone to pray to and obey, you'd be fine.

But nowhere in Scripture does anything of the kind appear. So I will always strongly oppose anyone making an idol of Mary.

---

You appear to be arguing something completely different now.

I will affirm that no one should make an idol of Mary or any other person or object. The Catholic Church is firmly against that.

The topic at hand is calling Mary the "new Eve." You've just introduced two different points about praying to or obeying.

That was not the topic at hand.
So I ask you, "why is it wrong to call Mary the 'new Eve?'"

I feel that I have sufficiently answered, the "It not 's not in the Bible" and "Mary was not Adam's mate" objections. What other objections do you have concerning this?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Appealing to "the Fathers, the Creeds, and the Councils" doesn't eliminate interpretation, it just re-locates it. The Fathers disagreed frequently (on icons, atonement, free will, rebaptism, papal primacy), and multiple parties claimed their position was the consensus. The first seven councils themselves presuppose Scripture as the supreme norm they were interpreting, not replacing. Councils don't float free of exegesis.

Moreover, "once delivered" (Jude 1:3) does not mean "never rearticulated." The Trinity and Christology were developments in precision, and they were very often forged through controversy. Saying Orthodoxy hasn't "developed" is rhetorical, not historical, as icon theology, and Marian dogmas clearly evolved over time.

As for fragmentation, truth isn't validated by institutional uniformity. Rome is unified too, yet Orthodoxy rejects its claims. Scripture itself predicted false teachers; diversity of errors doesn't refute a true standard. Even Paul was dealing with such fragmentation in his epistles. The real question isn't how many groups exist, but what is the final, testable authority. Scripture can judge bishops, councils, and traditions. An appeal to "consensus" cannot judge itself.

In short: Orthodoxy borrows Scripture's authority, not vice versa, and Luther didn't create that fact.

---

Yeah my position isn't to eliminate interpretation. Its a FACT that you can't interact with scripture without an authoritative interpretation. You cannot escape the authority/interpretation problem, so you HAVE to choose a method to derive authority.

That method is laid out in scripture. Read Acts 15. when the Council of Jerusalem met, the New Testament hadn't even been fully written, let alone collected. The Church's living voice was the authority that guided the writing of the text, not the other way around.

If the office of Apostle was unique and non-transferable, they would have just left Judas's seat empty. Instead, Peter stands up and explicitly says his office (the Greek word is episkop, where we get "Episcopal" or "Bishop") must be taken by another. They transmitted authority through the laying on of hands as a sacrament.

Every ecumenical council is made up of men who can trace their apostolic lineage through the laying on of hands. Its written down, just like a family tree.

---

Don't have time to address all of your post right now, but did want to say that the claim that "you cannot interact with Scripture without an authoritative interpretation" just isn't a true statement, much less uncontroverted fact. Yes, every reader interprets what they read. Interpretation is unavoidable. But it does not follow that interpretation therefore requires a single, infallible, external authority in order to be valid.

Scripture itself never teaches that believers must submit to a permanent institutional interpreter in order to understand God's word. Instead, it consistently assumes that Scripture can be read, understood, tested, and obeyed by ordinary believers who are responsible for how they handle it. A clear biblical example is the Berean Christians in Acts 17. They are praised for examining the Scriptures daily to see whether what Paul taught them was true. Paul was an apostle, yet his teaching was not treated as self-authenticating simply because of his office. Scripture stood above him as the standard of truth. If authoritative interpretation were required just to engage Scripture properly, then the Bereans would have been rebuked, not commended, for testing apostolic teaching by the text itself.

I will respond to the rest later.

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Its a FACT that you can't interact with scripture without an authoritative interpretation"

No, it's a fact that most of Scripture can be understood by reading it. What seems difficult to understand can be resolved by comparing it to other Scripture on the subject, since God does not contradict Himself.

It is an act of hubris to claim that Scripture cannot be understood without some human with a title telling you what to believe.

---

Indeed.

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Its a FACT that you can't interact with scripture without an authoritative interpretation"

No, it's a fact that most of Scripture can be understood by reading it. What seems difficult to understand can be resolved by comparing it to other Scripture on the subject, since God does not contradict Himself.

It is an act of hubris to claim that Scripture cannot be understood without some human with a title telling you what to believe.

---

No. You don't even believe the same things the reformers believe. Mr. Sola scriptura himself, Luther, believed in baptismal regeneration…while you don't. He reads the plain scripture to come to that conclusion.

Yall aren't even Protestants. If it was easy to understand the plain written, yall would all be on the same page. There wouldn't be multiple denominations that vary MASSIVELY on theology.

How are you gonna stop the growing tide of evangelicals affirming gay and woke nonsense? How are you going to stop Pentecostalism/Charismatics from continuing to be the fastest growing body of Christianity? They're claiming your arguments to defend their positions.

I mean there's this whole practice called Law…because written contracts aren't clear. That's why there's case law. This problem isn't exclusive to religion.

Mothra said:

---

In short: Orthodoxy borrows Scripture's authority, not vice versa, and Luther didn't create that fact.

---

It isn't even the same scripture.

Evangelicalism = The NT + the Masoretic text.

Orthodoxy = The NT + the Septuagint.

"why is it wrong to call Mary the 'new Eve?'"

Answered several times. but OK give it another try.

"The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

"But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, He took one of the man's ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib He had taken out of the man, and He brought her to the man.

"The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."

Genesis 2:18-23

This is the passage where we learn about Eve, who was clearly made FROM Adam to be his mate.

Therefore Eve proceeded from Adam, and was made to be His wife.

So when Scripture later speaks of the 'New Adam', it matters that there is no reference to a new 'Eve', and if one should exist, that would not be Mary, who neither proceeded from Christ nor was made to be His mate.

There is clear reference in Scripture to the Bride of Christ, which is The Church.

Matthew 25:10
Mark 2:19-20
Luke 5:35
John 3:29
Revelation 19:7
Revelation 21:2
Revelation 21:9
Revelation 22:17


This is why it is clear and serious error to pretend Mary is the 'New Eve'.

Once again you speak of Law.

I speak of the Lord, Who is greater than Law and His Word is greater than your tradition.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Once again you speak of Law.

I speak of the Lord, Who is greater than Law and His Word is greater than your tradition.

---

Once again? That's the first time I brought up law and it wasn't even in the context of theology…it was about syntax, logic, semantics and the structure of language.

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Appealing to "the Fathers, the Creeds, and the Councils" doesn't eliminate interpretation, it just re-locates it. The Fathers disagreed frequently (on icons, atonement, free will, rebaptism, papal primacy), and multiple parties claimed their position was the consensus. The first seven councils themselves presuppose Scripture as the supreme norm they were interpreting, not replacing. Councils don't float free of exegesis.

Moreover, "once delivered" (Jude 1:3) does not mean "never rearticulated." The Trinity and Christology were developments in precision, and they were very often forged through controversy. Saying Orthodoxy hasn't "developed" is rhetorical, not historical, as icon theology, and Marian dogmas clearly evolved over time.

As for fragmentation, truth isn't validated by institutional uniformity. Rome is unified too, yet Orthodoxy rejects its claims. Scripture itself predicted false teachers; diversity of errors doesn't refute a true standard. Even Paul was dealing with such fragmentation in his epistles. The real question isn't how many groups exist, but what is the final, testable authority. Scripture can judge bishops, councils, and traditions. An appeal to "consensus" cannot judge itself.

In short: Orthodoxy borrows Scripture's authority, not vice versa, and Luther didn't create that fact.

---

Yeah my position isn't to eliminate interpretation. Its a FACT that you can't interact with scripture without an authoritative interpretation. You cannot escape the authority/interpretation problem, so you HAVE to choose a method to derive authority.

That method is laid out in scripture. Read Acts 15. when the Council of Jerusalem met, the New Testament hadn't even been fully written, let alone collected. The Church's living voice was the authority that guided the writing of the text, not the other way around.

If the office of Apostle was unique and non-transferable, they would have just left Judas's seat empty. Instead, Peter stands up and explicitly says his office (the Greek word is episkop, where we get "Episcopal" or "Bishop") must be taken by another. They transmitted authority through the laying on of hands as a sacrament.

Every ecumenical council is made up of men who can trace their apostolic lineage through the laying on of hands. Its written down, just like a family tree.

---

Don't have time to address all of your post right now, but did want to say that the claim that "you cannot interact with Scripture without an authoritative interpretation" just isn't a true statement, much less uncontroverted fact. Yes, every reader interprets what they read. Interpretation is unavoidable. But it does not follow that interpretation therefore requires a single, infallible, external authority in order to be valid.

Scripture itself never teaches that believers must submit to a permanent institutional interpreter in order to understand God's word. Instead, it consistently assumes that Scripture can be read, understood, tested, and obeyed by ordinary believers who are responsible for how they handle it. A clear biblical example is the Berean Christians in Acts 17. They are praised for examining the Scriptures daily to see whether what Paul taught them was true. Paul was an apostle, yet his teaching was not treated as self-authenticating simply because of his office. Scripture stood above him as the standard of truth. If authoritative interpretation were required just to engage Scripture properly, then the Bereans would have been rebuked, not commended, for testing apostolic teaching by the text itself.

I will respond to the rest later.

---

The Orthodox claim isn't that interpretation requires a single external authority in order to be logically valid it's that without a norming authority, the community has no principled mechanism to adjudicate disputed interpretations. The question isn't whether an individual can interpret; it's what happens when interpretations conflict.

The Bereans were checking Paul's claims against the OT to see if Jesus was the Messiah, a historically bounded verification task, not a model for ongoing doctrinal adjudication.

The real question isn't whether you can read Scripture without a magisterium. Of course you can. The question is: what happens when you and another Spirit filled, Bible believing Christian read the same text and reach opposing conclusions on a matter the Church has always treated as essential? What is your principled mechanism for resolution? Because whatever that mechanism is ( a confession, a council, a tradition of interpretation, a denominational authority), thats your functional magisterium. Sola scriptura doesn't eliminate the norming authority.

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.

---

Exactly. Well stated.

Coke Bear said:

---

canoso said:

---

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?

---

Luke 1:38 -

Then Mary said, "Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word." Then the angel departed from her.

---

That's submission, not permission.

There's a reason it's called "The Anunciation", and not "The Proposition".

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.

---

It's so remarkable that you agree that the scriptures don't mention Mary as Eve, but you still say it's true.
How can you believe that she is so important as part of the good newsand yet no one, including Jesus, Eve mentions her or her role? Catholics believe she is co-mediator and co-Redemer and yet there is no mention of her outside of the birth of Jesus and the wedding story. This is foolish.

Jesus mentioned the Holy Spirit and then we see the apostles talk about the HS multiple times throughout Acts and teach about the Holy Spirit throughout the epistles.... but you believe that somehow the Holy Spirit forgot to inspire the apostles to write anything about the co-Mediator/co-Redemer??? Instead the HS inspired them to word that there is only ONE redeemer and only ONE mediator??? How did the Holy Spirit get it so wrong, but you get it so right? Are you smarter than God and His holy scriptures?

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:

---

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?

---

One again you Catholics are projecting.
Protestants do not put our faith in Luther. You are welcome to blast him all you want... it doesn't affect us. Just because your faith depends upon fallible men life the pope & magisterium, don't protect that heresy upon us.
We acknowledge that Luther was fallible which is why we put our faith in Christ and His written Word.

Attack Luther all you want. Christ is the head of the church, not Luther or the pope. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you will be set free.

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:

---

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?

---

One again you Catholics are projecting.
Protestants do not put our faith in Luther. You are welcome to blast him all you want... it doesn't affect us. Just because your faith depends upon fallible men life the pope & magisterium, don't protect that heresy upon us.
We acknowledge that Luther was fallible which is why we put our faith in Christ and His written Word.

Attack Luther all you want. Christ is the head of the church, not Luther or the pope. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you will be set free.

---

I'm not Catholic brother.

You have a magisterium too. If your pastor stands on stage and says, "The Greek word here actually means X, so the text is telling us Y." The congregation nods and accepts it. If a member disagrees with the pastor's interpretation on a major issue, they are usually asked to leave or they leave voluntarily. The pastor's sermon is, functionally, an ex cathedra statement for that specific local community.

Coke Bear said:

---

canoso said:

---

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?

---

Luke 1:38 -

Then Mary said, "Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word." Then the angel departed from her.

Here is a short video (3:30) that better addresses your post -


Here's a longer video from Jimmy Akin who refutes an atheist about this question -

---

God had already seen her pre-existing submission to His will, whatever it was, or would be, in her life. That's how she had already found favor with Him.

The obedience-disobedience dynamic is only operative in the face of some imperative. Since there is no imperative in the angel's announcement, it's crystal clear that God is simply letting her know what He is going to do and her part in His design. She is embracing and joyfully celebrating God's sovereignty. Nothing more, nothing less.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Appealing to "the Fathers, the Creeds, and the Councils" doesn't eliminate interpretation, it just re-locates it. The Fathers disagreed frequently (on icons, atonement, free will, rebaptism, papal primacy), and multiple parties claimed their position was the consensus. The first seven councils themselves presuppose Scripture as the supreme norm they were interpreting, not replacing. Councils don't float free of exegesis.

Moreover, "once delivered" (Jude 1:3) does not mean "never rearticulated." The Trinity and Christology were developments in precision, and they were very often forged through controversy. Saying Orthodoxy hasn't "developed" is rhetorical, not historical, as icon theology, and Marian dogmas clearly evolved over time.

As for fragmentation, truth isn't validated by institutional uniformity. Rome is unified too, yet Orthodoxy rejects its claims. Scripture itself predicted false teachers; diversity of errors doesn't refute a true standard. Even Paul was dealing with such fragmentation in his epistles. The real question isn't how many groups exist, but what is the final, testable authority. Scripture can judge bishops, councils, and traditions. An appeal to "consensus" cannot judge itself.

In short: Orthodoxy borrows Scripture's authority, not vice versa, and Luther didn't create that fact.

---

Yeah my position isn't to eliminate interpretation. Its a FACT that you can't interact with scripture without an authoritative interpretation. You cannot escape the authority/interpretation problem, so you HAVE to choose a method to derive authority.

That method is laid out in scripture. Read Acts 15. when the Council of Jerusalem met, the New Testament hadn't even been fully written, let alone collected. The Church's living voice was the authority that guided the writing of the text, not the other way around.

If the office of Apostle was unique and non-transferable, they would have just left Judas's seat empty. Instead, Peter stands up and explicitly says his office (the Greek word is episkop, where we get "Episcopal" or "Bishop") must be taken by another. They transmitted authority through the laying on of hands as a sacrament.

Every ecumenical council is made up of men who can trace their apostolic lineage through the laying on of hands. Its written down, just like a family tree.

---

Don't have time to address all of your post right now, but did want to say that the claim that "you cannot interact with Scripture without an authoritative interpretation" just isn't a true statement, much less uncontroverted fact. Yes, every reader interprets what they read. Interpretation is unavoidable. But it does not follow that interpretation therefore requires a single, infallible, external authority in order to be valid.

Scripture itself never teaches that believers must submit to a permanent institutional interpreter in order to understand God's word. Instead, it consistently assumes that Scripture can be read, understood, tested, and obeyed by ordinary believers who are responsible for how they handle it. A clear biblical example is the Berean Christians in Acts 17. They are praised for examining the Scriptures daily to see whether what Paul taught them was true. Paul was an apostle, yet his teaching was not treated as self-authenticating simply because of his office. Scripture stood above him as the standard of truth. If authoritative interpretation were required just to engage Scripture properly, then the Bereans would have been rebuked, not commended, for testing apostolic teaching by the text itself.

I will respond to the rest later.

---

The Orthodox claim isn't that interpretation requires a single external authority in order to be logically valid it's that without a norming authority, the community has no principled mechanism to adjudicate disputed interpretations. The question isn't whether an individual can interpret; it's what happens when interpretations conflict.

The Bereans were checking Paul's claims against the OT to see if Jesus was the Messiah, a historically bounded verification task, not a model for ongoing doctrinal adjudication.

The real question isn't whether you can read Scripture without a magisterium. Of course you can. The question is: what happens when you and another Spirit filled, Bible believing Christian read the same text and reach opposing conclusions on a matter the Church has always treated as essential? What is your principled mechanism for resolution? Because whatever that mechanism is ( a confession, a council, a tradition of interpretation, a denominational authority), thats your functional magisterium. Sola scriptura doesn't eliminate the norming authority.

---

I have never heard any Protestant claim that there should be no authorities at all. What we reject is the idea of an authority that cannot be corrected by Scripture. My Reformed congregation fully acknowledges church leaders, creeds, councils, and confessions. The difference is those authorities serve Scripture, they don't outrank it. Calling any use of church leadership a "magisterium" blurs a real and important difference.

Moreover, disagreement does not mean the system has failed. People disagree about doctrine everywhere, including within Orthodoxy. Even Orthodoxy has its history of internal divisions, jurisdictional conflicts, and longstanding disputes. So the claim that Orthodoxy has a clear, decisive way to resolve disagreements doesn't actually match reality. Disagreement is a human problem, not a Protestant-only one.

As for the Bereans, Scripture praises them for checking even an apostle's teaching against Scripture. That sets a principle: no teacher, council, or tradition gets a free pass from biblical examination. That principle doesn't expire once the early church period ends.

As for what happens when sincere Christians disagree on essential doctrines? Scripture never promises that error or division will instantly disappear if you have the right authority structure. Instead, it gives a process: argue from Scripture, correct error, teach clearly, discipline when necessary, and separate if needed. That approach doesn't require an infallible institution, but instead just a shared commitment to Scripture as the final standard. Moreover, Protestants don't treat tradition as useless; they treat it as helpful but accountable. Declaring an authority infallible doesn't remove fallibility from the people interpreting it.

Sola Scriptura doesn't promise perfect agreement. It claims that when disagreements happen, Scripture, not an institution that can't be challenged, remains the highest standard.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

In short: Orthodoxy borrows Scripture's authority, not vice versa, and Luther didn't create that fact.

---

It isn't even the same scripture.

Evangelicalism = The NT + the Masoretic text.

Orthodoxy = The NT + the Septuagint.

---

You're focusing on a distinction without much difference. Orthodoxy and Protestantism read the same New Testament books, based on the same Greek manuscript tradition (with minor textual variants that do not change doctrine). So Orthodox and Protestants read largely the same canon.

So, contrary to your assertions, it is indeed largely the same scripture. A more accurate statement would have been, "Orthodox and Protestant Christians largely share the New Testament, but they privilege different Old Testament textual traditions, which can result in some differences in wording and canon, though not typically in core Christian doctrine."

Doc Holliday said:

---

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:

---

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?

---

One again you Catholics are projecting.
Protestants do not put our faith in Luther. You are welcome to blast him all you want... it doesn't affect us. Just because your faith depends upon fallible men life the pope & magisterium, don't protect that heresy upon us.
We acknowledge that Luther was fallible which is why we put our faith in Christ and His written Word.

Attack Luther all you want. Christ is the head of the church, not Luther or the pope. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you will be set free.

---

I'm not Catholic brother

---

You can forgive him for misunderstanding since you regularly defend Catholicism and its beliefs.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

If there was a single verse where Christ told us Mary was someone to pray to and obey, you'd be fine.

But nowhere in Scripture does anything of the kind appear. So I will always strongly oppose anyone making an idol of Mary.

---

So I ask you, "why is it wrong to call Mary the 'new Eve?'"

---

I don't know if it's wrong as much as it is inaccurate and completely irrelevant.

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Appealing to "the Fathers, the Creeds, and the Councils" doesn't eliminate interpretation, it just re-locates it. The Fathers disagreed frequently (on icons, atonement, free will, rebaptism, papal primacy), and multiple parties claimed their position was the consensus. The first seven councils themselves presuppose Scripture as the supreme norm they were interpreting, not replacing. Councils don't float free of exegesis.

Moreover, "once delivered" (Jude 1:3) does not mean "never rearticulated." The Trinity and Christology were developments in precision, and they were very often forged through controversy. Saying Orthodoxy hasn't "developed" is rhetorical, not historical, as icon theology, and Marian dogmas clearly evolved over time.

As for fragmentation, truth isn't validated by institutional uniformity. Rome is unified too, yet Orthodoxy rejects its claims. Scripture itself predicted false teachers; diversity of errors doesn't refute a true standard. Even Paul was dealing with such fragmentation in his epistles. The real question isn't how many groups exist, but what is the final, testable authority. Scripture can judge bishops, councils, and traditions. An appeal to "consensus" cannot judge itself.

In short: Orthodoxy borrows Scripture's authority, not vice versa, and Luther didn't create that fact.

---

Yeah my position isn't to eliminate interpretation. Its a FACT that you can't interact with scripture without an authoritative interpretation. You cannot escape the authority/interpretation problem, so you HAVE to choose a method to derive authority.

That method is laid out in scripture. Read Acts 15. when the Council of Jerusalem met, the New Testament hadn't even been fully written, let alone collected. The Church's living voice was the authority that guided the writing of the text, not the other way around.

If the office of Apostle was unique and non-transferable, they would have just left Judas's seat empty. Instead, Peter stands up and explicitly says his office (the Greek word is episkop, where we get "Episcopal" or "Bishop") must be taken by another. They transmitted authority through the laying on of hands as a sacrament.

Every ecumenical council is made up of men who can trace their apostolic lineage through the laying on of hands. Its written down, just like a family tree.

---

Don't have time to address all of your post right now, but did want to say that the claim that "you cannot interact with Scripture without an authoritative interpretation" just isn't a true statement, much less uncontroverted fact. Yes, every reader interprets what they read. Interpretation is unavoidable. But it does not follow that interpretation therefore requires a single, infallible, external authority in order to be valid.

Scripture itself never teaches that believers must submit to a permanent institutional interpreter in order to understand God's word. Instead, it consistently assumes that Scripture can be read, understood, tested, and obeyed by ordinary believers who are responsible for how they handle it. A clear biblical example is the Berean Christians in Acts 17. They are praised for examining the Scriptures daily to see whether what Paul taught them was true. Paul was an apostle, yet his teaching was not treated as self-authenticating simply because of his office. Scripture stood above him as the standard of truth. If authoritative interpretation were required just to engage Scripture properly, then the Bereans would have been rebuked, not commended, for testing apostolic teaching by the text itself.

I will respond to the rest later.

---

The Orthodox claim isn't that interpretation requires a single external authority in order to be logically valid it's that without a norming authority, the community has no principled mechanism to adjudicate disputed interpretations. The question isn't whether an individual can interpret; it's what happens when interpretations conflict.

The Bereans were checking Paul's claims against the OT to see if Jesus was the Messiah, a historically bounded verification task, not a model for ongoing doctrinal adjudication.

The real question isn't whether you can read Scripture without a magisterium. Of course you can. The question is: what happens when you and another Spirit filled, Bible believing Christian read the same text and reach opposing conclusions on a matter the Church has always treated as essential? What is your principled mechanism for resolution? Because whatever that mechanism is ( a confession, a council, a tradition of interpretation, a denominational authority), thats your functional magisterium. Sola scriptura doesn't eliminate the norming authority.

---

I have never heard any Protestant claim that there should be no authorities at all. What we reject is the idea of an authority that cannot be corrected by Scripture. My Reformed congregation fully acknowledges church leaders, creeds, councils, and confessions. The difference is those authorities serve Scripture, they don't outrank it. Calling any use of church leadership a "magisterium" blurs a real and important difference.

Moreover, disagreement does not mean the system has failed. People disagree about doctrine everywhere, including within Orthodoxy. Even Orthodoxy has its history of internal divisions, jurisdictional conflicts, and longstanding disputes. So the claim that Orthodoxy has a clear, decisive way to resolve disagreements doesn't actually match reality. Disagreement is a human problem, not a Protestant-only one.

As for the Bereans, Scripture praises them for checking even an apostle's teaching against Scripture. That sets a principle: no teacher, council, or tradition gets a free pass from biblical examination. That principle doesn't expire once the early church period ends.

As for what happens when sincere Christians disagree on essential doctrines? Scripture never promises that error or division will instantly disappear if you have the right authority structure. Instead, it gives a process: argue from Scripture, correct error, teach clearly, discipline when necessary, and separate if needed. That approach doesn't require an infallible institution, but instead just a shared commitment to Scripture as the final standard. Moreover, Protestants don't treat tradition as useless; they treat it as helpful but accountable. Declaring an authority infallible doesn't remove fallibility from the people interpreting it.

Sola Scriptura doesn't promise perfect agreement. It claims that when disagreements happen, Scripture, not an institution that can't be challenged, remains the highest standard.

---

This sounds great on paper, but it is a functional impossibility. When a Protestant says "Scripture corrects the confession," what they actually mean is, "An individual's new interpretation of Scripture corrects the old confession."

Who decides when a confession has failed to serve Scripture?

We're not the same:

There is a massive structural difference between jurisdictional infighting (Orthodoxy) and doctrinal fragmentation (Protestantism). When Orthodox bishops argue over jurisdictions (like Ukraine or Estonia), they are arguing over who has authority in a specific territory. They are not rewriting the Nicene Creed, changing the nature of the sacraments, or redefining salvation. They share the exact same faith, dogmas, and liturgy.

When Protestants disagree, the system shatters. One group decides baptism is essential for salvation; another decides it's just an optional symbol. One decides Christ is truly present in the bread; another says it's just grape juice. They don't just have "disagreements"they form entirely new denominations that cannot commune with one another.

If a fallible human reading an infallible Church is a problem, how is a fallible human reading an infallible Book any better?

You're openly admitting that the ultimate fruit of your authority structure is schism.

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

If there was a single verse where Christ told us Mary was someone to pray to and obey, you'd be fine.

But nowhere in Scripture does anything of the kind appear. So I will always strongly oppose anyone making an idol of Mary.

---

So I ask you, "why is it wrong to call Mary the 'new Eve?'"

---

I don't know if it's wrong as much as it is inaccurate and completely irrelevant.

---

I know why it's wrong. We're seeing it play out in the Roman Catholic Church today. It's a pretext to elevate Mary to the same or near level as Jesus. It lays the theological foundation to "venerate" her as the "Mother" of all Christians in the same way that Eve was the mother of mankind, to the point of worshiping her. And then, you have the return of the ancient pagan mother goddess, now in a Christian veneer.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Appealing to "the Fathers, the Creeds, and the Councils" doesn't eliminate interpretation, it just re-locates it. The Fathers disagreed frequently (on icons, atonement, free will, rebaptism, papal primacy), and multiple parties claimed their position was the consensus. The first seven councils themselves presuppose Scripture as the supreme norm they were interpreting, not replacing. Councils don't float free of exegesis.

Moreover, "once delivered" (Jude 1:3) does not mean "never rearticulated." The Trinity and Christology were developments in precision, and they were very often forged through controversy. Saying Orthodoxy hasn't "developed" is rhetorical, not historical, as icon theology, and Marian dogmas clearly evolved over time.

As for fragmentation, truth isn't validated by institutional uniformity. Rome is unified too, yet Orthodoxy rejects its claims. Scripture itself predicted false teachers; diversity of errors doesn't refute a true standard. Even Paul was dealing with such fragmentation in his epistles. The real question isn't how many groups exist, but what is the final, testable authority. Scripture can judge bishops, councils, and traditions. An appeal to "consensus" cannot judge itself.

In short: Orthodoxy borrows Scripture's authority, not vice versa, and Luther didn't create that fact.

---

Yeah my position isn't to eliminate interpretation. Its a FACT that you can't interact with scripture without an authoritative interpretation. You cannot escape the authority/interpretation problem, so you HAVE to choose a method to derive authority.

That method is laid out in scripture. Read Acts 15. when the Council of Jerusalem met, the New Testament hadn't even been fully written, let alone collected. The Church's living voice was the authority that guided the writing of the text, not the other way around.

If the office of Apostle was unique and non-transferable, they would have just left Judas's seat empty. Instead, Peter stands up and explicitly says his office (the Greek word is episkop, where we get "Episcopal" or "Bishop") must be taken by another. They transmitted authority through the laying on of hands as a sacrament.

Every ecumenical council is made up of men who can trace their apostolic lineage through the laying on of hands. Its written down, just like a family tree.

---

Don't have time to address all of your post right now, but did want to say that the claim that "you cannot interact with Scripture without an authoritative interpretation" just isn't a true statement, much less uncontroverted fact. Yes, every reader interprets what they read. Interpretation is unavoidable. But it does not follow that interpretation therefore requires a single, infallible, external authority in order to be valid.

Scripture itself never teaches that believers must submit to a permanent institutional interpreter in order to understand God's word. Instead, it consistently assumes that Scripture can be read, understood, tested, and obeyed by ordinary believers who are responsible for how they handle it. A clear biblical example is the Berean Christians in Acts 17. They are praised for examining the Scriptures daily to see whether what Paul taught them was true. Paul was an apostle, yet his teaching was not treated as self-authenticating simply because of his office. Scripture stood above him as the standard of truth. If authoritative interpretation were required just to engage Scripture properly, then the Bereans would have been rebuked, not commended, for testing apostolic teaching by the text itself.

I will respond to the rest later.

---

The Orthodox claim isn't that interpretation requires a single external authority in order to be logically valid it's that without a norming authority, the community has no principled mechanism to adjudicate disputed interpretations. The question isn't whether an individual can interpret; it's what happens when interpretations conflict.

The Bereans were checking Paul's claims against the OT to see if Jesus was the Messiah, a historically bounded verification task, not a model for ongoing doctrinal adjudication.

The real question isn't whether you can read Scripture without a magisterium. Of course you can. The question is: what happens when you and another Spirit filled, Bible believing Christian read the same text and reach opposing conclusions on a matter the Church has always treated as essential? What is your principled mechanism for resolution? Because whatever that mechanism is ( a confession, a council, a tradition of interpretation, a denominational authority), thats your functional magisterium. Sola scriptura doesn't eliminate the norming authority.

---

I have never heard any Protestant claim that there should be no authorities at all. What we reject is the idea of an authority that cannot be corrected by Scripture. My Reformed congregation fully acknowledges church leaders, creeds, councils, and confessions. The difference is those authorities serve Scripture, they don't outrank it. Calling any use of church leadership a "magisterium" blurs a real and important difference.

Moreover, disagreement does not mean the system has failed. People disagree about doctrine everywhere, including within Orthodoxy. Even Orthodoxy has its history of internal divisions, jurisdictional conflicts, and longstanding disputes. So the claim that Orthodoxy has a clear, decisive way to resolve disagreements doesn't actually match reality. Disagreement is a human problem, not a Protestant-only one.

As for the Bereans, Scripture praises them for checking even an apostle's teaching against Scripture. That sets a principle: no teacher, council, or tradition gets a free pass from biblical examination. That principle doesn't expire once the early church period ends.

As for what happens when sincere Christians disagree on essential doctrines? Scripture never promises that error or division will instantly disappear if you have the right authority structure. Instead, it gives a process: argue from Scripture, correct error, teach clearly, discipline when necessary, and separate if needed. That approach doesn't require an infallible institution, but instead just a shared commitment to Scripture as the final standard. Moreover, Protestants don't treat tradition as useless; they treat it as helpful but accountable. Declaring an authority infallible doesn't remove fallibility from the people interpreting it.

Sola Scriptura doesn't promise perfect agreement. It claims that when disagreements happen, Scripture, not an institution that can't be challenged, remains the highest standard.

---

This sounds great on paper, but it is a functional impossibility. When a Protestant says "Scripture corrects the confession," what they actually mean is, "An individual's new interpretation of Scripture corrects the old confession."

Who decides when a confession has failed to serve Scripture?

We're not the same:

There is a massive structural difference between jurisdictional infighting (Orthodoxy) and doctrinal fragmentation (Protestantism). When Orthodox bishops argue over jurisdictions (like Ukraine or Estonia), they are arguing over who has authority in a specific territory. They are not rewriting the Nicene Creed, changing the nature of the sacraments, or redefining salvation. They share the exact same faith, dogmas, and liturgy.

When Protestants disagree, the system shatters. One group decides baptism is essential for salvation; another decides it's just an optional symbol. One decides Christ is truly present in the bread; another says it's just grape juice. They don't just have "disagreements"they form entirely new denominations that cannot commune with one another.

If a fallible human reading an infallible Church is a problem, how is a fallible human reading an infallible Book any better?

You're openly admitting that the ultimate fruit of your authority structure is schism.

---

Confessions are corporate documents, created and upheld by churches acting together. They exist precisely to restrain individual interpretation, not encourage it. When they are revised or rejected, it happens through sustained teaching, debate, and collective judgment, not through private whim.

When you ask, "Who decides when a confession has failed Scripture?", the honest answer is: the same kinds of bodies that created the confession in the first place - church leaders, synods, councils, and assemblies. Humans are deciding in both Protestant and Orthodox systems. The difference is not that Protestants lack authority structures; it's that Protestantism openly admits those structures are fallible. Orthodoxy claims certain decisions are beyond correction, even though history shows that reinterpretation, selective reception, or quiet revision still happens.

The idea that Protestantism is a "system" that shatters through disagreement is an erroneous position based on faulty assumptions. Protestantism is not a system. It is a set of different Christian sects, sometimes very different, that adhere to basic core beliefs. It is true that Protestants disagree on issues like baptism and communion, but disagreement on secondary doctrines does not equal theological collapse. The early Church itself debated these matters extensively. Protestants argue that Scripture speaks with varying levels of clarity: very clearly on core doctrines like the Trinity, the identity of Christ, and salvation by grace, and less precisely on other questions. Unity among Protestants has historically been centered on these essentials, not on uniformity in every theological detail. That simply is not necessary.
.
The comparison between a fallible person reading an infallible Church and a fallible person reading an infallible Bible also misses the point. Claiming an authority is infallible does not remove the need for interpretation; it simply declares the debate closed while interpretation continues in practice. In Orthodoxy, believers must still decide what the Church has truly taught, which councils are ecumenical, what consensus looks like, and how to interpret the fathers. Protestantism does not pretend interpretation ever ends. It maintains that interpretation continues, but Scripture remains the highest authority against which all interpretations are judged.

Finally, as I have pointed out numerous times before, your critiques ignores an important reality: Protestantism is not a single, monolithic movement. Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, and Methodist traditions differ in structure, confession, and theology. Treating all Protestant denominations as if they share one authority model or represent the same doctrinal instability is inaccurate. Protestantism does not promise perfect unity or doctrinal stasis. It promises that no church, confession, or tradition stands above correction by Scripture.

Hey Doc, are you ever going to respond to my question?

What was the "authority" that decided the canon for the Jews, the canon which Jesus personally validated as being correct, and did this mean that this authority was also infallible in their teaching and interpretation of Scripture?

Oldbear83 said:

---

"why is it wrong to call Mary the 'new Eve?'"

Answered several times. but OK give it another try.

"The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

"But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, He took one of the man's ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib He had taken out of the man, and He brought her to the man.

"The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."

Genesis 2:18-23

This is the passage where we learn about Eve, who was clearly made FROM Adam to be his mate.

Therefore Eve proceeded from Adam, and was made to be His wife.

So when Scripture later speaks of the 'New Adam', it matters that there is no reference to a new 'Eve', and if one should exist, that would not be Mary, who neither proceeded from Christ nor was made to be His mate.

There is clear reference in Scripture to the Bride of Christ, which is The Church.

Matthew 25:10
Mark 2:19-20
Luke 5:35
John 3:29
Revelation 19:7
Revelation 21:2
Revelation 21:9
Revelation 22:17


This is why it is clear and serious error to pretend Mary is the 'New Eve'.

---

I've never claimed that Mary is the Bride of Christ. You've gone off on another tangent. This concept has nothing to do with being the spouse of Adam/Christ.

Sadly, I'm doing a poor job of helping you understand typology and what God did in reverse the death that our first parents brought into the world.

I've demonstrated this using the Protoevangelium in Genesis and that a few EARLY Church fathers believed this as well. It's a concept that is older than the hypostatic union.

You don't accept it. But it's not an error.

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

If there was a single verse where Christ told us Mary was someone to pray to and obey, you'd be fine.

But nowhere in Scripture does anything of the kind appear. So I will always strongly oppose anyone making an idol of Mary.

---

So I ask you, "why is it wrong to call Mary the 'new Eve?'"

---

I don't know if it's wrong as much as it is inaccurate and completely irrelevant.

---

Why?

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

If there was a single verse where Christ told us Mary was someone to pray to and obey, you'd be fine.

But nowhere in Scripture does anything of the kind appear. So I will always strongly oppose anyone making an idol of Mary.

---

So I ask you, "why is it wrong to call Mary the 'new Eve?'"

---

I don't know if it's wrong as much as it is inaccurate and completely irrelevant.

---

Why?

---

I think the arguments for why the position is inaccurate have been sufficiently briefed above. There just isn't any scriptural support at all for the position.

As for irrelevant, whether Mary is a new eve has no theological significance. Mary doesn't save. Christ does.

ShooterTX said:

---

It's so remarkable that you agree that the scriptures don't mention Mary as Eve, but you still say it's true.
How can you believe that she is so important as part of the good newsand yet no one, including Jesus, Eve mentions her or her role? Catholics believe she is co-mediator and co-Redemer and yet there is no mention of her outside of the birth of Jesus and the wedding story. This is foolish.


Jesus mentioned the Holy Spirit and then we see the apostles talk about the HS multiple times throughout Acts and teach about the Holy Spirit throughout the epistles.... but you believe that somehow the Holy Spirit forgot to inspire the apostles to write anything about the co-Mediator/co-Redemer??? Instead the HS inspired them to word that there is only ONE redeemer and only ONE mediator??? How did the Holy Spirit get it so wrong, but you get it so right? Are you smarter than God and His holy scriptures?

---

The terms Co- Mediator and Co-Redemptrix are confusing to modern ears so the Church has moved away from the terms, but not the concept.

First, in the theological Latin tradition, "co" means "with" not equal to, but cooperating with, subordinate to, and participating in.

It means Mary cooperates with Christ, under Christ, through Christ, and entirely dependent on Christ in both His mediation and His redemption. This is the same participatory logic established in the mediation question. The prefix "co" here denotes cooperation, not competition.

I would hope that you would agree that Mary played a significant role in Christ and his life.

Co-Redemptrix refers to Mary's unique and singular participation in the redemptive work of Christ not as an equal to Christ, but as the one human being whose cooperation was most intimately united to His saving work.

We see a Biblical foundation with this in:

• Genesis 3:15 Protoevangelium
• Luke 1:38 Mary's fiat
• Luke 2:35 the sword that pierce Mary
• John 19:25-27 Standing with Jesus at the Cross

Co-Mediatrix refers to Mary's ongoing role as the channel through whom graces flow from Christ to humanity. Again not equal to Christ, not independent of Christ, but the privileged instrument God chose to dispense the graces won by Christ.

I assume that you didn't have a "Road to Damascus" where Jesus spoke to you and someone introduced you to God and Christianity. These persons (maybe your parents) had a role in bringing you to God. They were, in a way mediators, for you to God. This doesn't diminish Jesus' role in mediation, because they could only do that through Him.

We see a Biblical foundation with this in:

• John 2:1-11 The Wedding at Cana
• John 19:27 "Behold, your mother"
• Revelation 12:17 Mother of the Church

As you can see, there is MUCH more "mention of her outside of the birth of Jesus and the wedding story." Imagine what isn't mentioned in the Bible. Mary nursed our Savior for three years. She taught him to walk, talk, play, pray, etc. She was with him for the first 30 years of his life. Just because those things are mentioned, it doesn't mean that they aren't important.

Using titles for Mary like the "new Eve" doesn't reduce what Jesus did. It glorifies Him because it shows what He did for her. These titles are all about Jesus' glory, not Mary's.

I can fully appreciate how this sounds foreign to a protestant's ears, but please know we see these titles as a proclamation of how great Jesus is.

Mothra said:

---

I think the arguments for why the position is inaccurate have been sufficiently briefed above. There just isn't any scriptural support at all for the position.

---

We'll have to agree to disagree. I've shown how the protoevangelium links the two. I've also listed Church fathers that mention this. This concept pre-dates the protestant church by more than 1000 years. I'll stand with the Church on this one.

Mothra said:

---

As for irrelevant, whether Mary is a new eve has no theological significance. Mary doesn't save. Christ does.

---

What does theological significance mean?

The Church would agree that Mary doesn't save like Jesus. But it doesn't diminish her role in salvation history. As I stated in the previous post, calling her the "new Eve" glorifies Jesus.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I think the arguments for why the position is inaccurate have been sufficiently briefed above. There just isn't any scriptural support at all for the position.

---

We'll have to agree to disagree. I've shown how the protoevangelium links the two. I've also listed Church fathers that mention this. This concept pre-dates the protestant church by more than 1000 years. I'll stand with the Church on this one.

Mothra said:

---

As for irrelevant, whether Mary is a new eve has no theological significance. Mary doesn't save. Christ does.

---

What does theological significance mean?

The Church would agree that Mary doesn't save like Jesus. But it doesn't diminish her role in salvation history. As I stated in the previous post, calling her the "new Eve" glorifies Jesus.

---

You said: "We'll have to agree to disagree. I've shown how the protoevangelium links the two. I've also listed Church fathers that mention this. This concept pre-dates the protestant church by more than 1000 years. I'll stand with the Church on this one."

Response: The protoevangelium has likewise provided no scriptural support for the belief, which is why I said it is more a theological argument than a scriptural argument for Catholics and the Orthodox. It is an objectively true statement that Genesis 3 does not refer to Mary, nor do any verses referencing Genesis 3 claim it is referencing Mary.

As for who predates whom, my position isn't based on "Protestantism," but scripture, which predates this idea by a pretty good stretch.

You said: "What does theological significance mean?

The Church would agree that Mary doesn't save like Jesus. But it doesn't diminish her role in salvation history. As I stated in the previous post, calling her the "new Eve" glorifies Jesus."

Response: It means what I said in the sentences that followed. The belief is unnecessary and plays not part in salvation.

As for the claim that calling Mary the new Eve "glorifies Jesus," respectfully, I find that position doesn't make a lick of sense.