Touchstone, addressing an anonymous commenter, said:
and please note that I am answering your questions directly, off topic or no -- keep this in mind when you look at how T-Bloggers generally (don't) respond.Yes, let's please keep this mind.
Now, just a few direct questions for Touchstone please:
1. Touchstone said:
Don't know much about Gene, but you Patrick entertain a good number of God-dishonoring ideas and doctrines.Would Touchstone care to cite which specific God-dishonoring doctrines he has in mind?
2. Touchstone said:
No. The Trinity has always been a Truth, even before the world was created, but it was not orthodox teaching until it was affirmed by the episcopate.a. Let's take an example. Would Touchstone propose that the deity of Christ is "not orthodox," say c. 5 AD, prior to any credal or confessional affirmation of his deity by an episcopate?
b. If a truth does not become orthodox teaching until it is affirmed by an episcopate, then Touchstone is suggesting that the episcopate is the final arbiter of orthodoxy. My question is, which episcopate(s)? And why not others?
3. Touchstone said:
It [doctrine] isn't orthodox because of it's age or historical status, but, as I've said several times now, because it represents the formal consensus of the catholic episcopate.a. What happens when various church councils let alone churches themselves (as Peter points out in the post) disagree on a particular doctrine? Which council would Touchstone say is the "orthodox" one? Based on what?
b. In Touchstone's view, is what the Council of Trent decided for Christendom orthodox? Why or why not?