Replies

In that case we have an actual Apostle of the Apostolic Church who taught actual error

I have yet to fully understand and study the Church's position on St. Paul. I do know that his writings in the Church are not on the same level as the Gospels (when Paul's Epistles are read, the congregation sits; his writings are read by a lay person. The congregation stands when the Gospels are read; the Gospel reading is always done by a priest, and homilies [commentaries] are always made on the Gospels; the Epistles are located in a different part of the church; the Gospels are always on the altar; there is a lot of symbolism in all that).

I only established that (1) it is impossible to find a Trinitarian formula in St. Paul's writings and (2) that he refers to the "spirit of God" in a Judaic manner, as grace, and not as the third Person of the Holy Trinity.

If you want to call it an "inspired omission" or any other rationalization, it doesn't change the facts stated above. Obviously, the apostolic successors did, through divine revelation, establish the dogma of the Holy Trinity from the Holy Scriptures, indirectly. So, their authority in that respect is undisputed as far as I know by mainline Protestants. It is disputed only when it runs against Protestant innovations.

I have yet to fully understand and study the Church’s position on St. Paul. I do know that his writings in the ***Church are not on the same level as the Gospels (when Paul’s Epistles are read, the congregation sits; his writings are read by a lay person. The congregation stands when the Gospels are read; the Gospel reading is always done by a priest, and homilies [commentaries] are always made on the Gospels; the Epistles are located in a different part of the church; the Gospels are always on the altar; there is a lot of symbolism in all that).***

So it is the Word of God, but not as good as the gospels? I don’t understand that. If it is the Word of God, it is ALL equally important. How can you differentiate between them if they are ALL inspired?

(when Paul's Epistles are read, the congregation sits; his writings are read by a lay person. The congregation stands when the Gospels are read; the Gospel reading is always done by a priest, and homilies [commentaries] are always made on the Gospels; the Epistles are located in a different part of the church; the Gospels are always on the altar; there is a lot of symbolism in all that).

I agree there is a lot of symbolism in that. In our church, whenever the Pastor reads anywhere from scripture he asks us to stand, (him) saying "in honor of God's word". That is quite a difference. I'm sure it goes to our differing views on what the Bible is, where it came from, and what authority it has.

I only established that (1) it is impossible to find a Trinitarian formula in St. Paul's writings and (2) that he refers to the "spirit of God" in a Judaic manner, as grace, and not as the third Person of the Holy Trinity.

I don't see how you established these things. I see how you declared them. :) If Paul really didn't understand the personhood of Holy Spirit, then your real criticism is of Christ Himself for faulty teaching. Paul says himself that everything he teaches is not from man but from Christ directly.

Obviously, the apostolic successors did, through divine revelation, establish the dogma of the Holy Trinity from the Holy Scriptures, indirectly. So, their authority in that respect is undisputed as far as I know by mainline Protestants. It is disputed only when it runs against Protestant innovations.

I'm not sure how many Protestants recognize the authority of Apostolic successors. :) Anyone can fairly deduce the Trinity from the scriptures. IOW, I don't believe in the Trinity because anyone's Church says so, I believe it because it is supported by scriptures.