Eddie

[Eddie @electroninfused]

@Unapologetiblog @TheOtherPaul2 You'd need to demonstrate that the DRPJ is logically entailed by the idea of fallible council, not just state it. As to your question, authority works without infallibility. Judges misinterpret the constitution all the time and yet the decisions of the court are binding

[Eddie @electroninfused]

@Unapologetiblog @TheOtherPaul2 Since Protestants don't accept the councils, they're already irrelevant to a critique of Protestantism. I have no burden of proof here. For the sake of our discussion, we can pretend there were no councils. You’d still hold to the DRPJ.

[Eddie @electroninfused]

@Unapologetiblog @TheOtherPaul2 No. Let's review. You stated you had written against Perry's arguments about DRPJ. I responded and you sent your blog post which covers many topics. As I have stated more than twice, I am only addressing your (+Hays) defense against Perry's critique of Protestantism.

[Eddie @electroninfused]

@Unapologetiblog @TheOtherPaul2 You didn't specify how I wasn't clear. Anyway, I think I'll be done here, unless you will rebut the idea that the DRPJ entails that the individual has a higher degree of authority than the church, without just critiquing a different position altogether. Have a nice day.

[Eddie @electroninfused]

@Unapologetiblog @TheOtherPaul2 If you read the top post of this thread, you will see that the topic is DRPJ. Not critiques of EO. This behavior is why you get meme responses from Sorin. You are not engaging the arguments presented, you are only trying to "gotcha" by changing subject to councils

[Eddie @electroninfused]

@Unapologetiblog @TheOtherPaul2 No, my point was that your argument doesn't answer that question. Pointing to WCF only affirms Perry's position about the DRPJ. The protestant answer is: your conscience.

[Eddie @electroninfused]

@Unapologetiblog @TheOtherPaul2 Yes and yes, but for the sake of argument, the councils only need to be more reliable than any individual protestant.
Again, I'm not here to argue about councils. If you genuinely want an answer re: irreconcilabilities, I'm sure any EO apologist can give you one if you ask nicely

[Eddie @electroninfused]

@Unapologetiblog @TheOtherPaul2 Unconvinced isn't the same as not understanding. And more words do not necessarily mean a better argument. If my original replies showing how you and Hays have not answered Perry's argument aren't clear, then please ask and I can clarify. But you haven't addressed those

[Eddie @electroninfused]

@Unapologetiblog @TheOtherPaul2 Well I'm not complaining about character limits. I demonstrated my point sufficiently and you have not answered it.

[Eddie @electroninfused]

@Unapologetiblog @TheOtherPaul2 Won't cut what? I simply mentioned it as relevant but if you'd like for Protestantism to be proved wrong again I'd be happy to refer you to Mr. Robinson's material on the subject. To answer. no, only God is infallible, but he could speak through councils

[Eddie @electroninfused]

@Unapologetiblog @TheOtherPaul2 Also I am specifically not addressing your critiques of orthodoxy. You need to address the critique of protestantism on the table, not change the subject

[Eddie @electroninfused]

@Unapologetiblog @TheOtherPaul2 Any fallible or infallible authority has limits. Infallible scriptures don't dictate if I should drive a van or truck. I don't really see your point. I don't know what you mean by distinguished vs divorced.

[Eddie @electroninfused]

@Unapologetiblog @TheOtherPaul2 I didn't ask any questions. WCF 34 states the DRPJ: "if consonant to the Word of God"
You're not helping your case.

[Eddie @electroninfused]

@Unapologetiblog @TheOtherPaul2 5/ Finally, I do appreciate your writing on the topic at least. I grew up PCA but when I started seeing irreconcilable differences between denominations I realized something must be wrong with Protestantism. Become Orthodox.

[Eddie @electroninfused]

@Unapologetiblog @TheOtherPaul2 4/ I don't see that your example of spheres of authority illustrates the difference between authority and epistemology well. Fathers and elders have authority because God gave it to them. I could go on about Apostolic succession…

[Eddie @electroninfused]

@Unapologetiblog @TheOtherPaul2 3/ That's why Perry sees this as a concession of the argument. Remember his illustration of lawyer vs judge. The lawyer can know the truth as well as the judge, but his judgment doesn't carry the force of law (doesn't obligate). Hays' comments vi and vii miss this distinction

[Eddie @electroninfused]

@Unapologetiblog @TheOtherPaul2 2/ Hays says “We are obligated to believe a true interpretation of Scripture, whether or not we perceive it to be true.” This doesn't address who or what has the authority to obligate. The scriptures don't render judgments about situations or practices.

[Eddie @electroninfused]

@Unapologetiblog @TheOtherPaul2 Thanks.
1/ I think you and Hays are still mixing up epistemic and normative. Hays asks "By what authority does Perry determine which candidates for ecumenical councils are legitimate?" But this is about determination (knowledge), not obligation, so it doesn't address the argument

[Eddie @electroninfused]

@Unapologetiblog @TheOtherPaul2 All I'm seeing is tu quoque. Do you have an actual argument that addresses Perry's point?

[Eddie @electroninfused]

@kenkohpilot Do we expect a pullback from here to accumulate (or leverage) more? I exited my long position way too early and I want to get back in