Artercay ♱

𝙿𝙰𝚃𝚁𝙸𝙰 𝙲𝙾𝙽𝙲𝙸𝚃𝙰 𝙵𝚄𝙻𝙼𝙸𝙽𝙰𝙽𝚃 𝙽𝙰𝚃𝙸
ᴇᴄᴄʟᴇsɪᴀ ʀᴇғᴏʀᴍᴀᴛᴀ, sᴇᴍᴘᴇʀ ʀᴇғᴏʀᴍᴀɴᴅᴀ sᴇᴄᴜɴᴅᴜᴍ ᴠᴇʀʙᴜᴍ ᴅᴇɪ

[Artercay ♱ @theWatchfulRook]

🧵Thread of Threads🧵

[Artercay ♱ @theWatchfulRook]

No.

My reference to disagreements wasn’t a proof. It was merely an observation that highlights what’s already proved.

Every repeating truth claim that can’t ground itself yes… as demonstrated.

My regress is more than off the ground my friend. It’s soaring.

You’ve deflected this entire time and have repeated the same loop. You accused me of assuming something that I didn’t, even after I granted you your position.

And now you’ve resorted to a “brute facts” type argument. Step back observe the reality of the situation, brother.

Just because you claim it’s not off the ground doesn’t make it so. This is on par with incredulity fallacy.

[Artercay ♱ @theWatchfulRook]

@DeuceBigalowEO

I do want you to understand that even if I granted that position you just posed…

That these truths obtained is purely an aspect of “Life of the Church itself” that doesn’t need any explanation to ground them… and no real authoritative interpretation is over them…

This argument becomes equative to the “brute facts” argument

[Artercay ♱ @theWatchfulRook]

*sigh*
No, incorrect.

This is just a rephrase of what you’ve already said.

You’re trying to detach the fact that at some point the knowledge the EO receives and continues has to be interpreted.

It becomes obvious in the observation that there are multiple institutions that make the exact same appeal to the exact same historical data…

using the exact argument that they received it and stand upon the exact same participatory claim…

Yet, all of you disagree. Therefore there is indeed some form of authoritative interpretation involved. The entire Schism is predicated authoritative interpretation…

[Artercay ♱ @theWatchfulRook]

I’m sorry, but no.
I granted you your “receiving and preserving” and the “not standing above revelation”

The regress is still connected to the infallible interpreter claim…

Even if you frame reception and continuity as “organic”… it doesn’t matter. What’s received and continued is predicated upon the interpretation of that reception and the defining of what is continued…

You’re caught in a loop.
You’re still deflecting by trying to assert that I’m assuming something that I’m not. Your accusation of a strawman is the strawman.

[Artercay ♱ @theWatchfulRook]

*sigh*
I’m not redefining.
I’m actually doing the opposite and granting it…

EO presents itself as the pillar and ground of truth. It presents itself as the infallible interpreter and guardian of that truth. By as you state: reception of revelation, historical continuity, and the Holy Spirit.

That presented claim of infallible authority. Even if you try to frame by receiving and preserving is still itself a truth claim… that requires validation… You see the problem??

The regress question remains unresolved… “Who interprets the truth claim of the self proclaimed interpreter?”

I’ll unpack the dilemma you stand in…
Either, you appeal to some external authority and undermine the entire EO position in the process…
Or, you self-appeal back to the EO institution and claim the Church validates its own authority via reception and Spirit lead guidance…

You won’t do the first, that’s obvious. I also don’t think it’s possible; there is no external appeal.

So you will have to self-appeal. Which demonstrates the very circularity my regression question reveals and makes you confront. This self-appeal also devolves itself into private judgement, just on an institutional level. You may still deny this, but it doesn’t work… as the claim the EO makes is the same institutional claim as Rome, the Assyrian, the Orientals etc. using the same overlapping historical data. This is the part confirms that circularity you’ve demonstrated becomes just an institutional private judgement.

This has been my argument the entire time. You’ve deflected. This last comment of yours accusing me of “begging the question” is still a deflection as I’m not. That excuse is just a tu quoque.

You may try and claim I’m redefining EO as you’ve already done. But I’m not. 🤷🏼‍♂️

[Artercay ♱ @theWatchfulRook]

Also the reason I said only “Incorrect” is because said ethe rest of the response was in the tagged comment. As you connected the two together in your prior comment in that thread.

Which was done redefining the regress objection as external critique so you could use it as a response for the Jay Dyer dialogue we have.

But it remains an internal critique as I clearly stated before you connected them.

Keep up.

[Artercay ♱ @theWatchfulRook]

Now your conflation both conversations together. Which is a mistake.

The critique of Jay Dyer thread is an external critique.

The thread that started the regress objection is an internal one.

Just because you mislabel the critique doesn’t mean I’ll fall prey to it.

It isn’t a misrepresentation. Orthodoxy claims the church as an institution has infallible interpretive authority. Catholics make the same claim with the addition of the Pope, but the infallible authority is extended to the Magisterium and the institution as a whole.

You’re trying to deflect the criticism by strawmaning the argument as merely a Catholic critique and use the pope.

My argument is precisely the institutional claim… which both old.

[Artercay ♱ @theWatchfulRook]

@DeuceBigalowEO @AL_J82 Conflating*

[Artercay ♱ @theWatchfulRook]

Still incorrect.

If the institution claims to be the infallible interpreter meaning the only way to access the truth is through submission to their authority and how they define said truth…

The definer becomes authority over that truth.

You can appeal to a historical preservation argument but it doesn’t resolve the regress objection or the tension of authority.

The historical appeal only begs the question of both. As stated, multiple institutions hold the same stance with the same historical data.

[Artercay ♱ @theWatchfulRook]

“The Catholic view is closer to a man trapped in a pit who cannot climb out by his own power. God lowers a rope to him. The man did not create the rope, earn the rope, or deserve the rope. Salvation remains entirely a gift of grace. Yet God truly enables him to take hold of the rope, and his response is not coerced. Grace comes first, empowers the response, and makes salvation possible, but it does not eliminate genuine freedom.”

This view actually supports the Reformed view more so.

[Artercay ♱ @theWatchfulRook]

Your response doesn’t refute the analogy used to demonstrate the position. It merely deflects it by trying to assert your own soteriological stance.

In doing so, the core divide in how the soteriological stances differ becomes clear, and that is the nature of the first path.

Yours: “We’re not locked into the first path, with no real alternative until God unilaterally creates one”

Mine: You are locked into the first path as that is what’s demonstrated in scripture, until a new one is given.

This is boils down to Prevenient Grace vs Total Depravity.

[Landon LeBoeuf @LandonLeBoeuf2]

There is one path of sin that we are all on by nature after the Fall. But God’s prevenient grace (grace that comes before any movement of our will) is offered to everyone. This grace enlightens the mind and strengthens the will so that we can see and choose the good; we are not locked into the first path with no real alternative until God unilaterally creates a new one only for the elect. When we freely cooperate with that grace, it becomes efficacious and leads us further along the path of salvation. We can also freely reject it at any point.

[Artercay ♱ @theWatchfulRook]

The analogy wasn’t never to position itself in the argument. I clearly posed the analogy as an explanation of the argument. So it’s clear and one would have to propose specific terms and define them leading to confusion.

I’m well aware of the Catholic argument. As I said the Prevenient Grace stance isn’t biblical It tries to be by misunderstanding common grace and downplaying the noetic effects of sin.

The verses I cited a prime example. Prevenient Grace doesn’t give a sufficient answer the present tense of reality. We are dead and already judged.

We’re already condemned. The outcome of the first path is already with us.

[Artercay ♱ @theWatchfulRook]

@DeuceBigalowEO @AL_J82 Incorrect.

[Artercay ♱ @theWatchfulRook]

“An external critique is only sound if it accurately represents the position”

Says the person defending Jay Dyer, who’s actively providing an external critique that doesn’t accurately portray the opposing position… 🤔🙃 You’ve just affirmed my point in this specific thread about Dyer…

“Orthodoxy doesn’t claim an infallible individual interpreter, so your regress objection attacks a strawman”

No, it doesn’t. You’re simply deflecting by actually creating the strawman. As my regress objection in the other thread doesn’t assert an individual as the interpreter, just states an interpreter broadly.

This was done purposefully as the interpreter becomes the institution itself. Which does align with the Orthodox position.

[Artercay ♱ @theWatchfulRook]

“An external critique is only sound if it accurately represents the position”

Says the person defending Jay Dyer, who’s actively providing an external critique that doesn’t accurately portray the opposing position… 🤔🙃 You’ve just affirmed my point in this specific thread about Dyer…

“Orthodoxy doesn’t claim an infallible individual interpreter, so your regress objection attacks a strawman”

No, it doesn’t. You’re simply deflecting by actually creating the strawman. As my regress objection in the other thread doesn’t assert an individual as the interpreter, just states an interpreter broadly.

This was done purposefully as the interpreter becomes the institution itself. Which does align with the Orthodox position.

[Artercay ♱ @theWatchfulRook]

@LandonLeBoeuf2

It isn’t. Prevenient grace isn’t biblically grounded.

When taken into account other passages across the Counsel of God.

“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already,…”
John 3:18

You’ve been judged already.

“… but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.””
John 3:36

The wrath of God is already present and remains on you.

“And you were dead in your transgressions and sins,”
Ephesians 2:1

You are already considered dead in your sin.

You’ve been judged, deemed dead, and the wrath remains presently. All of this affirms the nature of the first path as preset due to the fall.

This is in response to your deleted comment⬇️

[Artercay ♱ @theWatchfulRook]

@JamesS1922 @UTwidder @hp_1775 @riecker The person full of themselves is the person making an assertion and deflecting all responses to that assertion.

You merely don’t like the tone in my words because it is blunt. In no way I have I demonstrated to be full of myself.

Don’t play victim. It doesn’t work.

[Artercay ♱ @theWatchfulRook]

lol!😂

Deflection of the critique does remove the criticism.

“5 dollar words”

Hermeneutical Law of Witness is hermeneutical rule derived directly from the text. (Deuteronomy 19:15, Matthew 18:16)

I’m not arguing with Gabriel. I’m arguing with YOU!

Deflection does you no favors.

[Artercay ♱ @theWatchfulRook]

An external critique is just as valid. I’m not posing anything into your worldview.

The criticism Jay dryer poses isn’t even accurate to the opposing position nor the text.

It doesn’t take debate class at all to recognize this. Just simple understanding of what scripture says.

You’re just shifting.

[Artercay ♱ @theWatchfulRook]

It isn’t. This question is an internal critique. Your tu quoque doesn’t work; My position doesn’t hold that all truth requires an interpreter.

The critique doesn’t rest on asserting a single man’s interpretation in Orthodoxy. It highlights the institutional claim itself as incoherent, amid multiple claims to the same position.

Your response doesn’t resolve the regress question. Only pushes it further…

Who interprets the truth claim made to assert the self appeal to authority?

[Artercay ♱ @theWatchfulRook]

@SaulGPowell @Sacramentshow lol… the Jewish canon Origen affirm didn’t include the 7 deuterocanonical books.

He affirms the 22 books of the recognized Jewish canon. 22 books is the 39 books.

No extra 7🤦🏼‍♂️