TBLarimore

@TwiceBornSpirit @jdpritchett I'm genuinely curious if you considered the church of Christ before you went to EO. I would agree 100% with your basic conclusions from Mere Christianity, but we see different implications in those conclusions.

You’re conflating the use of private judgment with the possession of ultimate authority. Yes, every person must discern truth and choose what they will submit to. That has always been true. But using your judgment to recognize authority does not make *you* the authority any more than choosing a doctor makes you the authority on medicine. Orthodoxy does not teach that converts become infallible because they concluded Orthodoxy is true. It teaches that Christ established a Church with authority outside the self, and people must freely choose whether to submit to it. Your argument collapses all authority into individual cognition itself. At that point, no Church can actually possess authority beyond personal preference because “truth” is reduced to whatever the individual is currently convinced of. That is not a refutation of Orthodoxy. It is simply radical subjectivism.

I’ve read Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, and at one point it was genuinely formative for me when I was first seeking Christianity. But the more I pursued a deeper understanding of Christ, the more I started to see a problem at the foundation of the “mere Christianity” idea. I understand what it’s trying to do. It’s usually presented as a kind of neutral core, a lowest common denominator of Christian belief. But, that's the thing: there is no such thing as a neutral core in Christianity. The moment you define a “mere Christianity,” you are already deciding what is essential and what is not. And that is not neutral or purely practical. It is a theological judgment about reality. So it doesn’t escape doctrinal boundaries. It redraws them. It still says, “this is Christianity at its center,” which automatically means other claims are pushed to the margins or treated as optional or mistaken. That’s the irony. What is presented as unity is still a boundary-making act. It's still a claim for exclusivity, it just hides the fact that it is one. So the real question isn’t whether we can find overlap between Christians. We obviously can. The question is who has the authority to decide what belongs inside that “core” in the first place? If that authority is a private interpretation judgment, then the whole framework is unstable. But if Christianity is actually true in an objective, embodied sense, then it isn’t something we reduce to agreement points. It’s something we Receive in its fullness. When I saw that, it's what changed the question for me from, “what’s the minimum we can agree on?” to “where is the fullness of what Christ actually revealed actually preserved?” That’s what led me to Holy Orthodoxy. And, regardless, I do think “mere Christianity” should be examined with the same seriousness people usually reserve for stronger claims. If we’re willing to question one set of boundaries, we should be willing to question the other.

@yusss81 @SwordMasterPub @JMRJAM @Rblv73 How else can you prove infallibility? You can't just say 'we're infallible, just trust our infallible interpretation of succession passages.' You've got to demonstrate that your interpretation is, in fact, infallible by miraculous gifts.

@TBLarimore @SwordMasterPub @JMRJAM @Rblv73 Who made up this criterion? You? That's not the way to prove succession.

Who possesses the authority to definitively interpret Scripture? Did Christ leave behind a Church with authority to teach in His name, or did He leave Christianity to be reconstructed by competing private interpretations 1,500 years later?

@yusss81 @SwordMasterPub @JMRJAM @Rblv73 With respect, I'm not sure I'm the one who is confused. We don't pray for miracles. We pray for God's supernatural-nonmiraculous providence. That is very different from the miracles we read of in the Bible. What you need to prove succession are Biblical miracles.

@TBLarimore @SwordMasterPub @JMRJAM @Rblv73 You are confused. You are the one who asked for prayer for a miracle and here you say it's not the same as the biblical miracles. What is it then? Are you performing miracles of any kind in your church? I'm asking because you brought it up.

@Chris40313997 @YeFutureSaint The families of Korah and Dathan would disagree with you.

@YeFutureSaint Because we are to become more like Christ and will face consequences if we do. Just like Israel, they fell away at times and faced many hardships because they did, but they never stopped being God’s chosen people.

If salvation cannot be lost, why does Scripture repeatedly warn believers about falling away?

@yusss81 @SwordMasterPub @JMRJAM @Rblv73 Praying in a hospital for God to providentially heal a child isn't the same thing as a Biblical miracle. Yes, I hold myself to the same standard. Praying for God's supernatural/non-miraculous power (providence) is not the same thing as performing a Biblical miracle.

@TBLarimore @SwordMasterPub @JMRJAM @Rblv73 When you go to cancer hospital and you pray, anything happens there? When you go to the graveyard and pray, anything happens there? Are you holding yourself to the same standards? How can you claim to be the true church? Thousands of miracles happen in the Catholic Church.

@yusss81 @SwordMasterPub @JMRJAM @Rblv73 I'm sorry, but they do not. ...let's go to the pediatric cancer hospital. You or whoever, walk down the halls healing sick babies ... let's go to the graveyard. Let the priest tell em to get up, I'll tell em to stay down, and we'll see who speaks with the authority of Christ.

@TBLarimore @SwordMasterPub @JMRJAM @Rblv73 So you don't have a proof of your claim. Then you claim that nobody have proof. The Catholic Church have the list of popes going back to the 1st century. Miracles happen daily in the Catholic Church.

@yusss81 @SwordMasterPub @JMRJAM @Rblv73 No one does. That has to be substantiated by miraculous gifts which no one possesses today. You would have to prove that you or someone you know does, and that can't be done.

@TBLarimore @SwordMasterPub @JMRJAM @Rblv73 That's not a proof. You don't have a line of succession from the time of apostles till today.

@YeFutureSaint The books everyone agrees on demonstrate a) God's providential power, and b) His desire to speak to His creation via the written page. The logical conclusion is that the agreed upon books are thus so for a reason, and the contested ones are contested for a reason.

If Scripture alone is the only infallible final authority, how do you infallibly know which books belong in the Bible?

@yusss81 @SwordMasterPub @JMRJAM @Rblv73 We follow what was established in Acts 2 in structure, leadership, entrance, and doctrine. The proof is already in the text. We just do that. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

@TBLarimore @SwordMasterPub @JMRJAM @Rblv73 You claim your church goes back to the apostles time. Give your proof.

@yusss81 @SwordMasterPub @JMRJAM @Rblv73 How can I help? What kind of proof do you need?

@TBLarimore @SwordMasterPub @JMRJAM @Rblv73 Anyone can make claims like this. But we need proof to believe that your church goes back to the apostles time as you claim.

@yusss81 @SwordMasterPub @JMRJAM @Rblv73 What sort of proof are you looking for? There was a church to which the Lord was adding those being saved (Acts 2:47). That's the one I'm a member of. What do you need me to provide?

@TBLarimore @SwordMasterPub @JMRJAM @Rblv73 And it wasn't yours. You have no proof of your claim, unlike the Catholics and Orthodoxy who have historical proof.

@yusss81 @SwordMasterPub @JMRJAM @Rblv73 Indeed. The church of which I am a member began before Eastern Orthodox, before Catholicism, and before Protestantism. The brethren in Acts 2 were added to a church (Acts 2:47). Which church was that? It was neither of the 3 in the above list.

@TBLarimore @SwordMasterPub @JMRJAM @Rblv73 Aren't you protesting against the Catholic Church?

@yusss81 @SwordMasterPub @JMRJAM @Rblv73 I couldn't agree more. Protestantism cannot be true. I'm not a Protestant. I was added by the Lord to the same church that began on the first Pentecost following the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2:47).

@TBLarimore @SwordMasterPub @JMRJAM @Rblv73 I'm sure their interpretation is correct. Because Christ promised that the gates of hell won't prevail against His Church. And protestantism is 500 years old so it cannot be true.

@The_Idol_Killer @SwordMasterPub 9/ laboratory environment, and expose it to the elements of the proof of life test. Does it work? If not, why not? What if the EO interpretations of the "succession" passages are wrong? What if their claims to possess miraculous gifts are false? (same questions apply to others).

How do you know which communities, bishops, councils, manuscripts & theological traditions God providentially preserved if the visible Church rapidly fell into fundamental error? Corinth & the seven churches prove local corruption can happen. They do not prove the universal Church lost the apostolic faith while somehow still infallibly preserving the canon, Trinitarian theology, Christology, sacramental practice, episcopal succession & the transmission of Scripture itself. Once you sever providence from historical continuity, “God preserved it” becomes an unfalsifiable assertion that can justify virtually any reconstruction of Christianity. The issue isn’t whether God could preserve truth through a failing Church. Of course He could. The issue is whether you still have a coherent historical basis for identifying where that preserved apostolic faith actually is.

It's possible that Prots, Roamin' Cats & EO are all equally valid Churches. It's not possible for the 1st two to be valid but not EO. Learn a little Church History and stop such foolishness.

@The_Idol_Killer @SwordMasterPub 8/ people are looking for a theological easy button. But there's just no substitute for you, your Bible, a comfortable chair, an open mind, and a good cup of coffee. Except no cheap imitations. And, be willing to let a finely crafted theological position out of the academic...

@The_Idol_Killer @SwordMasterPub 7/ I don't think I gave you a complete answer for your 3d paragraph. And this may not scratch the itch, but I'll try. It's a variation of the following: 'why are there so many churches?' 'these things have been debated for centuries'. The trouble seem to be...

@yusss81 @SwordMasterPub @JMRJAM @Rblv73 "But the magisterium told me this!" "But the Bishops told me that!" isn't going to work on the DoJ. You'd better be sure their interpretation is correct. You'd better be sure their interpretation of "succession" passages is correct. But how are you going to know?

@TBLarimore @SwordMasterPub @JMRJAM @Rblv73 You saying this is the truth doesn't make it so. Only protestants stand alone and make up things as they go along without any historical backing. One cannot reinvent the faith and claim it's the truth.

@yusss81 @SwordMasterPub @JMRJAM @Rblv73 The common 'people have been debating this for centuries' argument. It is meant to shut down conversation. We each will stand alone on the DoJ, the magisterium or counsel won't be with us. It matters not if the whole of "Christendom" agrees, it matters if I locate and obey truth.

@SwordMasterPub @JMRJAM @Rblv73 Really? The disagreement will resolve itself? It's been 500 years since the reformation and the splintering is getting deeper and wider. When will the disagreement resolve itself?

@BraddaDus @The_Idol_Killer @SwordMasterPub Which part of my response?

@TBLarimore @The_Idol_Killer @SwordMasterPub It's quite clear from your response, you still don't grasp the issue.