"Such statements as "I established incontrovertibly" end up only derailing debates, because then the subject of debate becomes the authority you purport to have to make such final statements. Now, what outside evidence can you provide that your interpretation of the Scriptures is correct?"
Perhaps you are correct, if we Orthodox give our complete assent to the rule of dogmatic skepticism and eternal doubt. To argue something to be "established incontrovertibly" (perhaps like, "We hold these truths to be self-evident?) is to become a modern heretic
against the "incontrovertible" logic of reason which sets forth that everything must be eternally left open to skepticism and doubt since someone (or somemany), if not in this present time perhaps in the unknowable and uncertain future, may yet disagree and "disagreement is the incontrovertible evidence alone which proves the statement "I established incontrovertibly" to be nothing more than one person's opinion (whether intelligent or otherwise).
(And to perhaps to further derail...)
Therefore, in the court of Public Opinion which accepts and establishes truth to be only knowable as a relative statement of propositions; my dogmatic statement/argument is without doubt unreasonable and heretical, and who in their Western frame of mind dares to doubt such reason? Do we not demand as Pilate evidence for "What is TRUTH," while yet like Pilate we also remain doubtful that any reasonable answer to his question is possible? Like Pilate, we may ourselves be convinced beyond a reasonable certainty of our own doubt as to the falsity of any charges brought against TRUTH and the certainty of TRUTH's innocence, yet, again like Pilate, we are willing to submit TRUTH to the judgment of the masses who in their prejudices could not accept TRUTH as a PERSON.
Thus, as the Metropolitan in the previous cited article correctly observed about Western Man (in general) and Western Christianity (in particular) we do not accept TRUTH AS REVELATION of the ONE PERSON(AL) THEANTHROPOS (HYPOSTASIS). For Western Man/Christianity/and its disciples THERE IS NO INCONTROVERTIBLE JUSTIFICATION FOR CONVERSION TO CHRISTIANITY. There remains only RELATIVE TRUTHS
, which are mere propositions for philosophical debate, and conversion to anything deemed to be TRUTH is merely personal opinion. MARS HILL IS THE BIRTH PLACE OF MODERN WESTERN MAN, and HIS (no sexism intended) CHRISTIANITY. (Is that to dogmatic?)
All this above is not to avoid the question of the prosecution, i.e., "what outside evidence can you provide that your interpretation of the Scriptures is correct?" rather it is to establish that any and all evidence I might afterwords submit can only be accepted by those whose minds are not prejudicial against the TRUTH. For such, the weakness of my "evidence" which may fail to answer Pilate's question will not be proof for cause of doubt and skepticism, even if that same evidence fails to acquit me of the charge of heresy (which is always implied as possible if not probable in the words "your interpretation of Scriptures.").
Furthermore, the statement "your interpretation of Scriptures" is much to broad to answer and defend without first establishing precisely which Scripture(s) is/are the foundation of the argument upon which the words "established incontrovertibly" refer. Therefore, to restate the dogmatic proposition which occasioned the cause for questioning I now quote "the concept of profit and interest are inescapably established within the Divine Creation, i.e., God Loves INCREASE and has ordained INCREASE in Every thing but SIN."
So, as my first witness I produce from the Scripture itself these words, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Words which we as Orthodox universally accept as having Divine Inspiration (though words to which some influenced by Western skepticism may demur; also see the Metropolitan's own characterisation and summarizing of these in his closing argument within the article of previous posted hyperlink).
And that is my first stated argument of evidence for my dogmatic proposition. I do indeed believe it to be wholly sufficient within and of itself, but we Orthodox are want to demand our own proof for dogmatic propositions to which we are unfamiliar or inexperienced. Of a certainty, the text does not state all that can and should be said (if in fact anything should be said at all) and questions breed questions like money breeds money (
), or if it weren't for talkin', some of us wouldn't have anything to say.