Ok, I'll rephrase.
Is he not representing and defending the teachings of his church to the best of his abilities?
Yes he is, and I have every right to challenge that teaching, which is what I am doing.
How does that differ from you? Or me?
Because the tradition I defend is the original tradition.
When a new teaching arrives, something radically different than what had gone before, then the tradition has every right to challenge it. Therefore the onus is upon the latter to demonstrate that the former tradition is wrong, and likewise the onus is open me, as representing the former, to defend it.
Is the entire basis of our churches fact or thesis?
Well there's an issue: Does one regard Revelation, that is a Divine Disclosure, as a fact, or a thesis?
To me the Incarnation and its implication for humanity — salvation — it is not a thesis, it is a fact, but then I would argue I believe in what the original Christian community believed. A Greek Orthodox, say, would argue the same, so would an Oriental Orthodox, although we dispute with each other on matters of detail. On examination, we could agree that the dispute lies in the area of theological interpretation of the one doctrine — so the doctrine is fact, but we now have different theological positions. It is entirely possible however, for those positions to co-exist, if each can accommodate the other, without contradicting each other, or the original doctrine ... such is the case between Rome and Egypt, for example.
The big problem arises when a new 'thesis' contradicts the doctrine, as did the Reformation, and as do the American denominations. So we then ask on what basis is the thesis put forward ...
Thomas
