John “JC” Dirks

STREAM ANNOUNCMENT: @TheOtherPaul2 will me joining be to discuss the real authority of councils specifically Nicaea. Did Nicaea think it was infallible? Monday 6/15 at 8:30pm (CST) | Tuesday 6/16 at 12:30pm (AEST)

@orthobrohammer Can you show historically that Nicaea thought of itself as infallible?

@johncdirks Yes. Otherwise they wouldn't have anathematized people. Can you anathematize by mistake?

EOs do you think the fathers at Nicaea knew that they were an infallible council? If Nicaea did not even view itself as an infallible council why would I view it as such?

@roginkim Right, and their view of themselves makes much more sense than how Rome and the East view them today.

You are so traumatized by Rome that you presuppose their concept of infallible. That was not a concept in the pre-Schism Church. The Councils did not formulate new doctrines and declare it infallible, it looked to affirm what was passed down by the Apostles, and that affirmation was verified by the entire witness of the Church including laity.

@sinnerandrew @thaddeusthought Do you accept it on faith or do you have a rational for accepting it?

@johncdirks @thaddeusthought Your infection with the spirit of the times - quantitative science, exact measurements - is problematic when you try to theologize (speak of God).

@IFFFMEISTER And when was that for EOs?

@johncdirks For EOs it us whenever the church (meaning the canonical patriarchs) accept it. For Roman Catholics this is all the bishops in communion with the Pope. The Pope doesnt need to be present but he needs to ratify it.

@ChrisCallsIt So why should it be considered infallible? At what point in history did it become an official ecumenical council?

Multiple fallacies here: Non sequitur: “Nicaea didn’t view itself as infallible, therefore it isn’t infallible” doesn’t follow. Category error: You’re confusing a council’s authority with its self-awareness of that authority. Begging the question: You’re assuming a Protestant standard that authority must be self-authenticating rather than proving it. By that logic the Apostles would have had to say, “We’re writing infallible Scripture” before the New Testament could be inspired.

@CloserToSource Why is it binding?

@johncdirks Of course it's binding. They are the successors to the apostles: Matthew 18:18 Also the creed was formulated for every Christian to believe: hence ecumenical.

@Dauntless_Saint At what point in history did it become recognized as infallible?

@johncdirks as apostolic.

@noetic_healing I'm asking you. I know why people saw it as authoritative. It was the holiness of the fathers, persuasion of the arguments provided etc. But what do you think it was?

@johncdirks Thats a good question to ask. Start there.

@thaddeusthought At what point in history did it become infallible?

@johncdirks The council was revealed as infallible the same way the canon of Scripture was revealed. The Church (meaning everyone, not just bishops and Pope) revealed it as such, through their communion in the Spirit as the Body.

@CloserToSource This prayer shows that they knew they were fallible and were taking seriously the deliberation of scripture. So what made this council authoritative at the time? Did the Christian’s at that time believe that it was an ecumenical council, infallible and binding?

@johncdirks They truly believed they were being led by the Holy Spirit. “Pray for us all that our decisions may remain secure through almighty God and our lord Jesus Christ in the holy Spirit, to whom is the glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

@noetic_healing What made Nicaea authoritative to those who lived at that time?

@johncdirks Your question demonstrates that you have not seriously studied the councils, the theology behind them and why the church as a whole adopted them. Maybe start there.

@BarelyProt @megynkelly Comment of the century. AMEN AMEN AMEN.

@megynkelly Candace Owens does this to Charlie Kirk every day.

This is one of the most inhumane things I’ve ever seen. Pure EVIL

LOL low key true

@ChrisCallsIt Because yellow is lame

@johncdirks Why yellow?

You Protestants are lame

@NickQuient 😂

@johncdirks So … PCUSA?

Global Methodists talking to Baptists

Here is the epistemology. God exists: that’s the assumed starting point. If God chooses to speak through a text that text must be formally sufficient for its purpose. Otherwise God failed in His communication. The text must also contain marks of His divinity authoring the text. (Perspicuity, fulfilled prophecy, etc) These marks are visible to us naturally giving grounds for belief. The believers mind illuminated by the Holy Spirit would be even more able to see the divine marks. We see across history the people of God transmit and preserve the books of the canon compiling lists as they go. This is exactly what we would expect to see of Gods divine perfections like perspicuity and self authentication were at work. We read in these texts that the intended purpose of scripture is Salvation of mankind. Thus scripture is formally sufficient for assenting to the doctrine of Christ. Everything after the age of divine revelation is a minister of the logic and summary of the scriptures.

@timwmson @johncdirks I understand the ontological point. My question is the epistemological one: how do you know which books constitute that divine speech?

Catholics and EOs what is your strongest objection to Sola Scriptura? 👇🏼