WeOrthodox
EN UA

Why 'Scripture Alone' Falls Apart Without the Early Church

What the video says

A speaker answers a commenter who asks why the early church should be treated as an infallible authority when its members were ordinary people filled with the same Holy Spirit. He responds that Christ promised to lead and guide his church, and that in the first century that church was the Orthodox Catholic Church, a fact he calls historically undeniable.

He traces the schisms: the West split from the Orthodox Church a thousand years after the church's establishment, Protestants split from the Catholics 500 years later, and another split 200 to 300 years after that produced non-denominational and Baptist type churches. Anyone in those groups, he argues, is outside the body the promise was made to, so they can make correct inferences from Scripture but never have certitude unless they rejoin the Orthodox Church.

He cites John 17, the high priestly prayer where Jesus prays that they may be one, and Acts 2, verses 42 through 46, as the fulfillment of that unity. He adds that a Protestant may hold correct teachings like monarchical Trinitarianism, but has no way to ground them, and if he appeals to the early church he is picking and choosing.

Key moments

  1. 0:00 A commenter asks why the early church should be an infallible authority when its members were people like us, filled with the same Holy Spirit.
  2. 1:07 The speaker answers that Christ promised to lead and guide his church, and in the first century that church was the Orthodox Catholic Church, which he calls a historically undeniable fact.
  3. 1:07 He lists the schisms: the West split from the Orthodox Church 1000 years after the church's founding, Protestants split from Catholics 500 years later, and 200 to 300 years after that non-denominational and Baptist type churches emerged.
  4. 1:42 Anyone in those schismed groups is not part of the body the promise was made to, so they can make correct inferences from Scripture but never have certitude unless they rejoin the Orthodox Church.
  5. 2:17 He cites John 17, the high priestly prayer where Jesus prays that they may be one, and Acts 2 verses 42 through 46 as the fulfillment of that unity.
  6. 2:47 A Protestant may hold correct teachings like monarchical Trinitarianism, but cannot ground them, and appealing to the early church while rejecting other teachings is picking and choosing.

A speaker answers a commenter who asks why the early church should be treated as an infallible authority when its members were ordinary people filled with the same Holy Spirit. He responds that Christ promised to lead and guide his church, and that in the first century that church was the Orthodox Catholic Church, which he calls a historically undeniable fact.

He then traces the sequence of schisms: the West split from the Orthodox Church a thousand years after the church's establishment, Protestants split from the Catholics 500 years later, and another split 200 to 300 years after that produced non-denominational and Baptist type churches. Anyone in those groups, he argues, stands outside the body to whom the promise was made, so they can make correct inferences from Scripture but never reach certitude unless they rejoin the Orthodox Church.

He cites John 17, the high priestly prayer where Jesus prays that they may be one, and Acts 2, verses 42 through 46, as the fulfillment of that unity. He adds that a Protestant may hold correct teachings, such as monarchical Trinitarianism, but has no way to ground them. If such a person appeals to the early church while rejecting other early teachings, he is picking and choosing.

The discussion turns on whether authority rests in Scripture read privately or in the church that Christ promised to guide, and what it would take for someone outside the Orthodox Church to have certainty in doctrine.

Main points

  • A commenter asks why the early church should be an infallible authority when its members were ordinary people filled with the same Holy Spirit.
  • The speaker answers that Christ promised to guide his church, and in the first century that church was the Orthodox Catholic Church.
  • He lists the schisms: the West split 1000 years after the church's founding, Protestants 500 years later, and non-denominational and Baptist type churches 200 to 300 years after that.
  • Those outside the Orthodox Church can make correct inferences from Scripture but never have certitude unless they rejoin it.
  • He cites John 17 and Acts 2:42-46 as the prayer for unity and its fulfillment, and says Protestants who appeal to the early church are picking and choosing.
7 opinions in the discussion 6 participants, 5 replies to each other The opinion with the most support Well explained, but I don't get it. If you agree it's the "Orthodox" Catholic Church, why leave out the Orthodox part and be vague about whether you mean the Universal Catholic Church? Read the discussion
14 comments at the source Original on Instagram

Discussion · 7

Opinions are anonymous retellings of real comments from the original discussion. The same colour marks the same participant.

Log in Log in or sign up to join the discussion.

  • opinion#1719

    Well explained, but I don't get it. If you agree it's the "Orthodox" Catholic Church, why leave out the Orthodox part and be vague about whether you mean the Universal Catholic Church?

    • opinion#1721

      I get it, it can be confusing. Take a church founded here in the US, the American Orthodox Catholic Church. They use both Catholic and Orthodox in their name but have no connection to the two canonical Churches, the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox. "Catholic" works as a noun or an adjective depending on context. In the Nicene Creed, whether you recite it the Roman Catholic way or the Orthodox way, we both say "I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." There those four words are adjectives describing the one Church.

  • opinion#1720

    Your argument holds up well, but it rests on one premise I don't accept: that the early church was "Orthodox".

    • opinion#1722

      Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) is the clearest early proof that the early church didn't care whether Rome signed off on a council's decision before the whole church accepted it.

    • opinion#1723

      Is this like a hung jury, where the whole church and its bishops can't approve something the Holy Spirit wills just because one bishop refuses? Does consensus not matter? Because if every church agrees but one bishop won't, isn't that still God the Holy Spirit leading the church into truth?

    • opinion#1724

      He doesn't know, and this is the new "refutation" they use. They used to dismiss historical writings outside Scripture. Now that there are countless ones, and the totality of them supports Orthodoxy, they have to cherry-pick which writings count and invent some conclusion that the early church was Protestant, or just as Protestant as it was Orthodox.

    • opinion#1725

      Lol, but seriously, I don't see them as either. There are things an Archbishop, even one considered a saint, concluded in his time that weren't controversial then but would be rejected in Orthodoxy today. That's just one example. Same goes for a Reformed Baptist church, or even a Roman Catholic one.