PTom_FSW

Why the straw man, Alex? Anyone who has followed my recent discussions on EOism, or who has followed my teachings on church history for decades, knows you are being dishonest. Why don't you guys care about balance, accuracy, and restraint? It's a pretty bad look, unless all you are concerned about is clicks, and those from the peanut gallery. Unlike you, I examine said councils in the context of history, not in the context of submitting to an authority granted to them centuries after they took place. I do not have to practice anachronism so as to read back into the patristic period beliefs and practices that my current religious authority demands I find there. And I have taught people to engage in that kind of historical study for decades as well. You are simply being dishonest, Alex. Why? Anyone knows I do NOT say "I read the Bible MY way!" I have entire books that demonstrate the dishonesty of such a statement. I lay out sound hermeneutical practice and teach rigorous exegetical discipline. I teach Greek and Hebrew not so that I can read the Bible "MY" way but so that I can honor it as written, and honor the Author first and foremost. Yes, Nicea 2 is not binding on me. No question. I am not subject to Byzantine State Religion, and Nicea 2 was the expression of that governmental authority. It began by anathematizing one of the two positions that even prompted the calling of the council to begin with. There was no serious debate. It was a rubber stamp party for Empress Irene. Nothing more. I notice that your dishonest rhetoric likewise ignored Basil's own words. That is pretty common amongst the Orthobros, too. I hope you will consider why you have to behave as you do, sir. It might get you applauded by your followers but for those concerned about truthfulness, well, you have a ways to go.