In what sense is the Christian Church "one"?

A point but, perhaps not one that strikes to the heart of the issue. Aye, politics are a necessary part of determining doctrine, but I would not say that this denies the possibility that the Spirit could work through these means. The point I was making--and I do recognize that it is debatable--is that whether it be Arianism, Iconoclasm, Nestorianism, or any of a number of other heresies that have looked to triumph by political means, eventually they were refuted.

I think we, perhaps, do not disagree . I do think, however, we might have a different understanding of how the Word of God is to be interpreted--which gets to the heart of the question .

I think that such a narrow--and that by no means implies uninformed; please do not read it that way--understanding of the role of Scripture denies the presence of the Holy Spirit in the modern Church. It is the Church that has, from the earliest days of her existence, interpreted Scripture and preached sound doctrine. Though, as a result of there being one universal truth, there will inevitably be those who fall into error (even within the Church, for man is far from perfect), through the guidance of the Spirit in the Church we may be assured of adhering to truth. I would not view Tradition as an addition to the faith; I would view denying that the Church established by Christ can be guided by Scripture in its present deliberations as taking away from the faith.

In support of the authority of the Church to decide and preach sound doctrine I would refer to the following words of Christ:

Assuredly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 18: 18)

As for the nature of the way in which the Church should determine doctrine, both in the days of the Fathers as well as in modern times, I refer to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, without which neither you nor I would have the Word. This, I feel, provides a basis for the traditional understanding of the role of the Church, as well as for the development of canon law. Of course the Church, composed of imperfect men, is bound to be imperfect insofar as it refuses to heed the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Church, however, is perfect insofar as it seeks and follows the guidance of the Holy Spirit. To deny that the Church can, as a collective whole, receive the guidance of the Spirit in our modern era places a limitation on the power/energies of God.

-Akolouthos

P.S. Halevi, I will respond to your post in the other thread. Forgive me, I seem to have gotten drawn into this discussion. This, coupled with the grad work I am currently undertaking, has occupied most of my time.

Couldn't agree with you more. I do believe that the workings of the Holy Spirit are debatable, but they must be debated within the discourse in which they exist. Once again, debating from extremely different premises is a formula for confusion and, ultimately, two people babbling on to themselves. I suppose we should try not to babble then...but it's so fun .

-Akolouthos