At this point I want to provide a summary of my discussion with SyroMalankara so far, to help us stay on track. SyroMalankara said to me:
Arius, Nestorius and Eutachyes, et al, quoted the “Bible and the Gospels” to “prove” there heretical teachings. They were also wrong. How do you determine what’s right and wrong - don’t tell me the Holy Spirit convicts your heart and tells you individually,
because the same claim is and has been made by those on the other side of your opinion.
I then replied:
How do you know that your church’s interpretations of Scripture are true? Don’t say because they go all the way back to the apostles, because the same claim is and has been made by those in the East.
I then restated my question with a slight edit to reflect the fact that you are in the Eastern church:
How do you know that your church’s interpretations of Scripture are true? Don’t say because your church goes all the way back to the apostles, because the same claim is and has been made by those in the West.
And now your most recent response:
Both East and West have a common understanding of what makes the Church’s interpretation correct, and that there is one True, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church. Can protestants say they are “convicted” of one true church or that there is a common
understanding of what is church, or how church should come to an understanding on anything?
Some serious problems here, SyroMalankara. First, this:
“Both East and West have a common understanding of what makes the Church’s interpretation correct, …”
Impossible. They disagree about some major issues, so they cannot posibly have a common understanding of what makes an interpretation correct.
Then this:
“and that there is one True, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church.”
Well, they both make that claim, but they contradict each other on some pretty serious issues. So which one is the true church? And how did you decide?
And this:
“Can protestants say they are “convicted” of one true church or that there is a common understanding of what is church, or how church should come to an understanding on anything?”
This, of course, presumes that the East and West agree on how to come to an understanding on anything, but that is pretty far-fetched, considering that the East rejects papal infallibility as well as the primacy of the pope. They accept him as a first among
equals, but not as having supremacy. So if the pope says something they disagree with, they see themselves as not obligated to submit to what he says. That doesn’t seem to me like unity on how to come to an understanding.
Now, back to my question:
How do you know that your church’s interpretations of Scripture are true? Don’t say because your church goes all the way back to the apostles, because the same claim is and has been made by those in the West.
to which you replied:
Both East and West have a common understanding of what makes the Church’s interpretation correct, and that there is one True, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church. Can protestants say they are “convicted” of one true church or that there is a common
understanding of what is church, or how church should come to an understanding on anything?
Even if there were no problems in this reply, it actually doesn’t even answer my question. I didn’t ask you if they have a common understanding of how to interpret correctly. I asked you how
you know your church’s interpretation is correct. That’s a fair question, since you asked me how I determine what’s right and wrong. How can you look at the speck in my eye without first removing the plank from your own eye?
I’ll make my question even more specific: How do you know your church’s interpretation is correct on these issues:
- their rejection of papal infallibility
- their rejection of the Immaculate Conception
- their rejection of the supremacy of the pope
- their rejection of original sin
- the Filioque issue
