Hi Jon,
Thanks for your response.
I don’t know about impossible, since nothing is impossible for God. Of course, for a Lutheran, there is no “right” of individual interpretation when it comes to doctrine, but all that said, the divisions in the Church prior to the Reformation are at least twice as long in duration, so we all have that sin to confess.
It is odd to me that according to the Lutheran church ‘there is no right of individual interpretation when it comes to doctrine’, because that is exactly the ‘right’ that Luther used to begin his Rebellion. Exactly. If you deny Luther’s PI, then you admitting that the ‘means’ that he used to Revolt against the Church was wrong.
Now you can say that ‘we all have that sin to confess’, but that does not apply to those who are still in communion with the Church. It might apply to the EOC, but it does not apply to Roman Catholics.
Furthermore, there is also the degree to which the various schisms have departed from the Truth. I would suggest to you that the degree of departure from the Truth within various sects can be measured statistically and also that denominalization is a direct result of the lack of truth that was taken from the historic Church to use in the ‘new church’. After all, falsehoods only lead to more of the same. The less truth a schism starts with (Truth from the Church that Christ founded of course), then the faster denominilization will occur.
As an example, in about a thousand years, the EOC has fractured into (I think) 17 different doctrinally autonomous communions. On the other hand, in less than 500 years, Protestantism has ruptured into an almost uncountable number of denominations. (I hesitate to offer a number because people always take the opportunity to challenge the number, thereby pretending to address the point.) I would suggest that the reason that the EOC is tremendously ‘fracture proof’ compared to Protestantism, is that it did NOT begin with Sola Scriptura or it’s evil twin, the Right to Private Interpretation (SS+PI), BOTH of which are creations of Martin Luther.
Certainly I would agree that an ecumenical council is, and should be considered authoritative.
You say that Jon, but I would suggest that, at this point, neither the EOC nor the Lutherans will follow an Ecumenical Council. You will not follow Trent, and you will not follow many of the pre-Reformation Ecumenical Councils. Remember, in order for this to work, everyone who attends would have to leave their egos at the door, and agree to follow the decisions of the Council.
As with all Councils, the attendees would pray to the Holy Spirit to guide them such that they are precluded from teaching error. Of course this presumes that the Holy Spirit could and would provide such guidance. Do you think that the Spirit can and would provide this guidance for the Council?
Do you think that Lutherans would agree to such a thing and be willing to attend? If not, do you think they should be willing to?
Understand, of course, that some protestant groups would not attend under any circumstances, that would complicate things.
Let me see here, the CC has 51% of the vote - convenient?
First of all, there will always be heresy because there will always be those who are unwilling to even consider the views of ‘the other’. Do you think ANY Protestant groups would be willing to attend?
Are you suggesting that the Lutheran’s should have more than 3 of the 100 votes?
Are you suggesting that the Catholics should have less than 51?
Those numbers would guarantee that Christians would be represented proportional to their numbers. What other way would there be to do it?
This isn’t a new idea, Tim, and I’d be all for it. In fact, veteran members here at CAF will tell you that, for this Lutheran, even if the EO and CC agreed and came into unity, that would be enough for me. I also think it would put pressure on other particularly liturgical, sacramental communions to reconsider the necessity of staying outside of such a dramatic union.
Jon, of course this is not a new idea. This in fact is an almost 2000 year old idea. This is the way that doctrinal disputes were settled for almost a thousand years. It breaks down when people refuse to attend or refuse to abide by the decisions of the Councils.
God Bless You Jon, Topper
