They are authoritative because they are Church Councils. The only thing backing them is the magisterium and the pope.
But the subject was not your opinion of why Protestants were largely in agreement with Nicaea et al, but why Protestants themselves consider the doctrines of those councils true, and you cannot speak to that without referring yourself to Protestant opinion, which you do not do. I do not think you have any interest in it. Your strategy appears to be this: plant a Roman flag in anything and everything, regardless of whether the thing so claimed is truly Roman (in modern terms), and then claim we Protestants got there too late. And if I allow you to define Protestantism in purely Roman terms, as nothing more than a breach from the Roman church in the 15th Century, how can you possibly lose with such a strategy?
And that of course means you really have no need of any Protestant to opine on anything. The matter has already been decided by Rome. We are just here to capitulate to Rome, with none of our serious questions answered (infallibility, Honorius, etc.), and none of our pre-15th Century history considered.
But if you presume Rome is the answer in the formation of the question, then the question is begged, the logic circular, and nothing accomplished. We are not here to capitulate. We do have serious questions that will not go away until meaningfully answered. And our history is fully intertwined with the history of the whole church, from the beginning, for Christians who believe as we now do have been present and active in the church from its inception.
Regarding councils, you plant your Roman flag in Athanasius and then tell us the reason we accept, for example, the deity of Christ, is simply because Nicaea said so. That’s not why we accept the doctrine, and it isn’t even why Athanasius accepts it:
“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faiths sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.”Athanasius, De Synodis, 6, NPNF, II, IV:453, Migne, PG, 26:689
“Yes, it behooved, say I too; for the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources ; but the ill disposition and the versatile and crafty irreligion of Eusebius and his fellows, compelled the Bishops, as I said before, to publish more distinctly the terms which overthrew their irreligion; and what the Council did write has already been shown to have an orthodox sense, while the Arians have been shown to be corrupt in their phrases, and evil in their dispositions.”
Athanasius, De Decretis, 32, NPNF, Series II, IV:172, Migne, PG, 25:476.
There is more, but it will be enough to look at these. If Athanasius grounds his argument against the Arian with Scripture, then why is it wrong for Protestants, speaking their own mind and not the mind of Rome, to say they find not only merit in his argument, but a model for the Protestant use of Scripture? We see in Athanasius not a Roman but a Berean, for a person is what they do, not where they are from. We may rightly say of Athanasius what Spurgeon said of Bunyan, “Prick him anywhere, and he bleeds Bibline.”
“And your other, 'The Son was not before His generation,' is equivalent to saying, 'There was once when He was not,' for both the one and the other signify that there is a time before the Word. Whence then this your discovery? Why do you, as 'the heathen, rage, and imagine vain phrases against the Lord and against His Christ.' for no holy Scripture has used such language of the Saviour, but rather 'always' and 'eternal' and 'coexistent always with the Father.' For, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God John 1:1.'”Available at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm
And on and on he goes, one Scripture after another, blow after blow, till nothing of Arian’s delusions remain. I have used these same arguments in debate with modern Arians, and they are still as effective, not because of the vote in Nicaea, but because:
Heb 4:12 … the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Now I know you wish to claim Athanasius as an uncontested property of modern Rome, but Athanasius should not, by your own standards, be seen as Roman. I am sure you would consider a position on the Eucharist which deviates from the modern view of transubstantiation to be problematic, yes?
`For here also He has used both terms of Himself, flesh and spirit; and He distinguished the spirit from what is of the flesh in order that they might believe not only in what was visible in Him, but in what was invisible, and so understand that what He says is not fleshly, but spiritual. For for how many would the body suffice as food, for it to become meat even for the whole world? But this is why He mentioned the ascending of the Son of Man into heaven; namely, to draw them off from their corporeal idea, and that from thenceforth they might understand that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly from above, and spiritual meat, to be given at His hands. For `what I have said unto you,' says He, `is spirit and life;' as much as to say, `what is manifested, and to be given for the salvation of the world, is the flesh which I wear. But this, and the blood from it, shall be given to you spiritually at My hands as meat, so as to be imparted spiritually in each one, and to become for all a preservative to resurrection of life eternal.'Athanasius, ad Serap. iv. 19, concerning John 6:62-64
To which any Protestant could give a hearty Amen. Note carefully, he says “For for how many would the body suffice as food,” as though this was a problem, and you confuse me to no end when you appear here to agree, not with Jesus, but with his poor confused, materialistic audience, who are trying to figure out how Jesus means to make his body into literal, corporeal food for them:
John 6 goes on to say, “how can this man give us his flesh to eat”. So yes. Jesus wants us to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
But that is adverse to what Athanasius says above, that Christ seeks to “draw them off from their corporeal idea,” and instead to view his flesh and his blood as “spiritual meat,” “imparted spiritually in each one.” This language of distinction between the corporeal and the spiritual is perfectly conformed to the Protestant belief in the spiritual presence, but is entirely incompatible with transubstantiation as formulated by Aquinas. And Athanasius came well before Aquinas.
And here you lose me completely:
As opposed to what Luther invented? I’m sorry but Aquinas came first.
I’m sorry, but Aquinas, though he did come before Luther, came well after Jesus and John, Augustine, and Athanasius, to mention only a few, all of whom distinguish the spiritual from the corporeal, in a manner compatible with Protestant understanding.
By contrast, the entire point of transubstantiation is the opposite, to permanently and pathologically conflate the spiritual with the corporeal, in opposition to the clear words of Christ, in an amazing leap beyond anything dreamed of during the patristic period. Indeed, transubstantiation is a doctrine no one had heard of before the 9th Century AD, when Paschasius Radbertus, a monastic from Corbey, France, published his book, “On the Body and Blood of the Lord.” It would later fall to Aquinas to fine tune the theory, adding the Greek concepts of accidence and substance to explain how the elements of the Eucharist could be corporeally the body of Christ and only seem to be bread and wine.
And if you doubt my assertion that Aquinian transubstantiation is a vicious and unholy conflation of the spiritual and the corporeal, in that the corporeal swallows the spiritual whole, reflecting a materialistic rather than a spiritual mindset, consider this:
"Even though a mouse or a dog were to eat the consecrated host, the substance of Christ’s body would not cease to be under the species, so long as those species remain, and that is, so long as the substance of bread would have remained; just as if it were to be cast into the mire. Nor does this turn to any indignity regarding Christ’s body, since He willed to be crucified by sinners without detracting from His dignity; especially since the mouse or dog does not touch Christ’s body in its proper species, but only as to its sacramental species."(Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part Three, Question 80, Article 3, RO3).
So what does this mean? If Athanasius is not Aquinas on the Eucharist, is he still Roman enough for you? You roundly condemn Protestants as unfaithful to Scripture for holding positions common to Christians up till Nicaea, yet you claim these early believers, who don’t believe as you do on this critical doctrine, are proof of the antiquity of Roman doctrines of which they had never heard. It really makes no sense.
And will you also disown Augustine?
"But doth the flesh give life? Our Lord Himself, when He was speaking in praise of this same earth, said, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.”. . .It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.”. . .But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood."(Augustine, Expositions on the Psalms, Psalm 99, Section 8).
We could press on and on, but the hour is late, and I am not a young man. This will have to do for now. Suffice it to say that your arguments all alike proceed from the tacit assumption that modern Rome owns the original copyright on all the key creations of early Christianity, when in fact the Rome you think you see there in the shadows of the first three centuries did not come into being until much later, as evidenced by the late innovation of transubstantiation and other such doctrines for which there is no primary evidence from the proto-Christian era, though there is much evidence for the existence and use of the Scriptures during that same period, despite your claims to the contrary.
My point is this. I would love to keep going with you, and if I had no other obligations, I probably would. But your responses thus far have given me no hope of a conversation in which fundamental assumptions can be reached and challenged. I have been through this before. I know it can be painful. I have been an atheist, a practitioner of eastern meditation, a flagrant rebel sinner, and a prodigal son returning to his Father and finding grace. I know it is possible to talk about these things in a way that deals honestly with those assumptions. I don’t believe we are there yet. I should probably be spending my time in other pursuits. I bear you no ill will, and I have enjoyed talking with you, but I cannot spend the rest of my natural days chasing the circle of your argument for Rome. There is no profit in it. Maybe in the future.
Peace,
SR
“your arguments all alike proceed from the tacit assumption that modern Rome owns the original copyright on all the key creations of early Christianity”
It all proceeds from Apostolic Succession, from which you have relentlessly evaded. I don’t really see any need to proceed further without you addressing Apostolic Succession.
“Rome you think you see there in the shadows of the first three centuries did not come into being until much later”
Again. Not so. I am making the argument that there exists an unbroken chain of bishops extending from St. Peter onwards. It would be great if you would address my actual arguments, and not the strawmen you prefer.
“as evidenced by the late innovation of transubstantiation”
As opposed to the real presence which is what you are actually talking about? You’ve denied the Real Presence, and the two are not the same thing. You’ve actually said nothing on transubstantiation, demonstrating that the issue isn’t the actual doctrine, but the fact that the way you use the terms is not the same way as the Catholic church uses them.
“no primary evidence from the proto-Christian era”
You argued that there exists a bible from this era which is the forerunner for the Protestant bibles which emerge 1200 years later, and yet isn’t the forerunner to the Vulgate, et al. When pressed for evidence that said bible exists, you cite that there is a fragment of a verse dating to the first century. Which proves just the opposite, that we do not have a ‘protobible’ per se - and you assuming that it just magically justifies the much later bible is not something we can actually show from the data that we do have.
The more sensible (and logical position), is that the Catholic church used these early bibles in the production of the Vulgate and the protestant bibles were developed from the Vulgate. Which is what actually happened. Rather then being independent from Rome - they are very much dependent upon Rome for the texts that they do have.
“there is much evidence for the existence and use of the Scriptures during that same period, despite your claims to the contrary.”
A fragment is not a bible. Something like Codex Vaticanus is what I am looking for here. Do you have it? No? Then the evidence isn’t there to support the conclusions you are drawing.
Now for the rest of it.
“why Protestants themselves consider the doctrines of those councils true, and you cannot speak to that without referring yourself to Protestant opinion”
They wish to have the Councils without the Church, the Bible without the Church, and the magisterium and the priesthood without the Church, the sacraments without the Church, and we’re supposed to take at face value that they are not in fact dependent upon the Catholic church for significant doctrine? Nonsense.
I would argue that at least with the traditional protestants, something around 75-80 percent of the total doctrine is no different between Catholics and these traditional protestants. Less so in more recent times, where the more modern ones would be around 40 or so. Yes, that’s right, there is actually greater diversity of doctrine between individual protestant denominations then between the traditional protestants (evangelicals et al), and Rome.
“as nothing more than a breach from the Roman church in the 15th Century, how can you possibly lose with such a strategy?”
That is the historical reality. The protestants have more in common with Arius than with Athanasius, and are just one of many churches that all make the same argument. They believe that Chalcedon is wrong. Or Nicaea is wrong and they break away from the Church based on their disagreement with that particular council, and go their own way.
“you plant your Roman flag in Athanasius”. Do you not think that Athanasius would examine which churches have abandoned Christ for homosexuality and abortion and draw different opinions here? If the Protestant churches are really the original deal - why then have they fallen away? Christ himself promises that the “Gates of Hell shall not prevail against his Church”, and yet you would have me believe that with the ELCA, the Anglicans, etc that indeed, the gates of Hell have prevailed?
“then why is it wrong for Protestants, speaking their own mind and not the mind of Rome, to say they find not only merit in his argument, but a model for the Protestant use of Scripture?”
Because you’ve chosen the Lutheran tradition. That is why. The scripture that Athanasius is using is not the same as what you use, ergo, the conclusions that you draw from that scripture are untrustworthy, for the same reasons as the constitutional lawyer sans the 2nd and 10th amendments.
“that they might believe not only in what was visible in Him, but in what was invisible”.
Yet you, yourself, insisted that ‘transubstantiation has never truly been proven to occur’. By what means? Empirical investigation? You see the visible yet refuse to acknowledge the spiritual, that His body and Blood are the wafer and the wine.
Remember how Jesus multiplied the loaves? Were not the loaves nourishing? If Jesus could multiply the loaves, why then would he have difficulty supplying us his true body and blood through the working of the same Holy Spirit as before? Are you arguing that Jesus would be limited in how much he could provide? Or is it that Jesus’s spirit is one with his flesh?
as for Aquinas:
“the substance of Christ’s body would not cease to be under the species...”
You realize what he is saying here? He is saying that Christ is truly present in the bread and in the wine. Do you accept this to be true or do you reject it with all the other Romanisms that for whatever reason you resent.