Davidius
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
This question has to do with ecclesiastical authority and the power of what I'll call "pre-Roman Catholic" conciliar pronouncements.
As Martin Luther said, popes and councils have erred. Since scripture is the only infallible Christian authority, and our understanding of doctrine develops over time, and various Church or so-called Church bodies have erred grievously in times past, is it theoretically possible that we could decide at some point in the future that Arius' interpretation of scripture was right? If not, why not? How can we be sure that opinion with respect to any systematic doctrinal formulation will not flip-flop at some point? To put it another way: how we can we know that Nicene and Chalcedonian orthodoxy are in fact orthodox?
If someone denies an aspect of either of those creeds, on what authority do we tell him that he is mistaken, if he is making his argument from scripture? Did Nicea have some kind of special protection against error which Trent lacked?
As Martin Luther said, popes and councils have erred. Since scripture is the only infallible Christian authority, and our understanding of doctrine develops over time, and various Church or so-called Church bodies have erred grievously in times past, is it theoretically possible that we could decide at some point in the future that Arius' interpretation of scripture was right? If not, why not? How can we be sure that opinion with respect to any systematic doctrinal formulation will not flip-flop at some point? To put it another way: how we can we know that Nicene and Chalcedonian orthodoxy are in fact orthodox?
If someone denies an aspect of either of those creeds, on what authority do we tell him that he is mistaken, if he is making his argument from scripture? Did Nicea have some kind of special protection against error which Trent lacked?