Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread
- Thread starter Lawrence87
- Start date
We have the advantage of taking disciplinary action when needed, priests can be censured and defrocked if they cross the line, but the congregation is preserved- you don't have to walk away to look for something else, at least that's the design.
I went to a mass celebrated by a charismatic priest once. After the service he was laying hands on people's heads praying that the Holy Spirit descend on them, without euphoria. Some would fall back and lay still on the floor for a minute or so, some would just drop to their seats, most of us including me remained standing without totally losing ourselves in it all. No rock concert feel- we weren't as energized and revved up like in that video.
Unless they're staying under the radar, the Church always investigates these matters and cautions the people. Mystics face scrutiny and are always treated with suspicion, there have been many declared false mystics. Those in good standing have been vetted and the faithful should have no reservations about them. People do visit mystics to ask for prayers and counsel but it's not a public spectacle, even though there may be crowds and a lot of attention on their persons. To Protestants it's all fakery from start to finish of course.
This is what I had suspected. I believe it also applies to icons, crosses, and Christian symbols. Before that, people had to keep any such items out of the view of nosy neighbors for fear of denunciation. And then the Church sprang up from the underground with full force.
In the Catholic Church every Sunday is really Easter Sunday. Every priest is also required to celebrate mass every day- the charismatic priest I mentioned said the daily attendance is about 1.5 million people in the US, iirc. The Easter Sunday mass actually lasts three days- from Thursday to Sunday, excluding Good Friday since that's when Jesus died, and therefore no celebrations.
It's what's in your heart in the end. A Christian must meditate on and remember the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus every day. The Catholic Church has her liturgical calendar with special focus on different holy-days, strong faith brought it into existence but even lukewarm believers get a chance to learn what the faith is about.
I don't really worry about the commercial aspect too much, those who care know what to do, nobody has to play along, small kids want more fun than theology so it can be combined, it's up to each person and family to set the tone for how they observe Christmas in their homes. Rejoice with the rejoicing, cry with those who weep.
Last edited:
couple of points I pulled out. I haven't listened to the whole thing yet.
I think we can all agree Mormons and Jehohova Witnesses aren't Christian.
I take a slight issue with the statement that Protestants have a different God in their mind. Maybe. That's difficult to say. I think it's extremely difficult to explain/understand subtle concepts of theology and most Christians have no idea in their own mind beyond: "I love Jesus". I actually think that's probably fine, with a caveat.
And that brings me to the next point he brought up:
"You are not saved when you say that you are saved."
This is the caveat to me saying "it's probably fine most Christians have no idea about theology"
Father Moses statement seems true to me. Jesus is the judge. Seems like none of us will really know until the end. I might have all the theological correct ideas, I might say I believe in Jesus, have faith in Jesus, and love Jesus, but where is my heart, really. Seems like a lifetime ordeal. Personally, I'm fine with not knowing. I actually think it's kinda weak "needing assurances" about salvation. In fact, I think the assurance stuff is the origin of pretty terrible ideas that are damaging to the soul.
I think what he was getting at is that there is an inconsistent conception of God amongst the numerous Protestant sects, specifically this idea of predestination versus free will as stated.
yeah, that specific one is very hard for me to wrap my head around, sometimes it seems like these subtle explanations of each merge. I should probably listen to the rest of the video.
Listened to the rest of it.
What he is saying is pretty hardcore. Basically that who Protestants think is God is not really God. I'd assume he'd say it happens even within Orthodox Christians.
I take slight issue with his criticism of "I heard God say to me". I've thought I've heard/perceived things from God sometimes. I know this can totally go overboard. And yes, maybe I was just spiritually deluded.
Maybe an Orthodox person can speak up here but I thought a person's conscience could be formed to align with Christ and in that way one could hear/perceive God's will.
I'll have to re-listen to what he said about faith. It sounded like walking in a way where you are willing to make decisions and possible mistakes.
I agree with his point about many Protestants reading scripture through the lens of Martin Luther, or Calvin, or whomever. This is true of all of us. Catholics see scripture through the lens of the Magisterium, most older Protestants see scripture through the lens of their various Confessional texts, and modern Protestants/Evangelical/other Christians see scripture through the lens of a patchwork of modern and various notable older Christians.
What he didn't say is that we also see through the lenses of our worldview, which is harder to pin down because much of that we simply inherit unquestioned from the culture we live in. It's difficult for us to see because it's like a fish trying to perceive water it's swimming in. Things like: "Occam's razor is just assumed to be true".
That being said, Orthodox also have a lens. Their lens is the church fathers, the early ecumenical councils, and the continuation of fathers and saints. I wish he would have mentioned that because I think this is the crux of the issue. Which lens do you trust?
Or, do you think there is no such thing as a lens. I think a lot of modern Protestants just believe they are in a direct line when they read scripture. No lens. (And that "other Christian" is simply an idiot he can't read such an obvious thing.)
What he is saying is pretty hardcore. Basically that who Protestants think is God is not really God. I'd assume he'd say it happens even within Orthodox Christians.
I take slight issue with his criticism of "I heard God say to me". I've thought I've heard/perceived things from God sometimes. I know this can totally go overboard. And yes, maybe I was just spiritually deluded.
Maybe an Orthodox person can speak up here but I thought a person's conscience could be formed to align with Christ and in that way one could hear/perceive God's will.
I'll have to re-listen to what he said about faith. It sounded like walking in a way where you are willing to make decisions and possible mistakes.
I agree with his point about many Protestants reading scripture through the lens of Martin Luther, or Calvin, or whomever. This is true of all of us. Catholics see scripture through the lens of the Magisterium, most older Protestants see scripture through the lens of their various Confessional texts, and modern Protestants/Evangelical/other Christians see scripture through the lens of a patchwork of modern and various notable older Christians.
What he didn't say is that we also see through the lenses of our worldview, which is harder to pin down because much of that we simply inherit unquestioned from the culture we live in. It's difficult for us to see because it's like a fish trying to perceive water it's swimming in. Things like: "Occam's razor is just assumed to be true".
That being said, Orthodox also have a lens. Their lens is the church fathers, the early ecumenical councils, and the continuation of fathers and saints. I wish he would have mentioned that because I think this is the crux of the issue. Which lens do you trust?
Or, do you think there is no such thing as a lens. I think a lot of modern Protestants just believe they are in a direct line when they read scripture. No lens. (And that "other Christian" is simply an idiot he can't read such an obvious thing.)
Assurance is not a Protestant bug, but a Biblical feature:
God wants us to know that He loves us. We aren't meant to be in the dark about that. When Protestants talk about assurance, they are talking about drawing confidence in God's love for them based on who He shows Himself to be in the Scriptures, a good and loving Father towards them. If it is weak to need that then we are all weak. We are weak so God can be strong for us.
Scripture is the lens for everything else.
There is always a lens. If you’re going to put it in that context, I’d say Protestantism as a whole is like someone took a pair of glasses and smashed them on the ground, and there are a dozen people picking up the shards trying to piece them back together to make sense of the images before them. Perhaps some have better shards than others, but there is no cohesive vision. I would trust someone who had seen through the lens before it was broken, if that answers your question. And perhaps mine.
Last edited:
Agreed but this too requires an explanation and guidance from a consistent and reliable source.
Scripture is the consistent and reliable source. Why do you assume Scripture is unintelligible but that all of these auxiliary sources are intelligible? See that trick for what it is.
^ because we have verses like "this is my body ... this is my blood" where people can't even decide when "is" means "is".
You also have verses like "I am the door" "I am the vine." Anyone can recognize figurative language when they read it in it's own context. If they import an external context, such as their church forces them to do, they will miss it.
If you believe you are not importing an external context to arrive at your interpretation that is where I'd disagree with you. I'm claiming if we are honest with ourselves, we all import external context.
Sure. Everyone has their own presuppositions they bring along with them (that's a Reformed concept by the way). The difference is that we do not elevate our presuppositions onto the level of Scripture. The Scripture is meant to correct our presuppositions, not the other way around. This is why the Reformed do not elevate their confessions to the same authority as Scripture. None of the confessions claim to be infallible.
If you have "infallible" dogmas and councils that tell you what to see in Scripture, then you can never interpret Scripture according to it's original context, but only according to the context of said dogmas and councils.
Aren't the writings of the church fathers subject to the same difficulty?
I'm not sure if the Fathers questioned that the body and blood were just that (although I don't know specifics, and I'm biased as my heritage is Lutheran). But I have been recently reading commentary from various Fathers and they are absolutely addressing people who would have had similar ideas as some Protestants today. Like Jerome and Chrysostom explaining why the verse about Mary being a virgin "until" Jesus birth doesn't mean she wasn't a virgin after too. So, people were asking that question at the time.
Jerome in particular was known for being an apologist for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. His main opponent was a man named Helvidius, none of who's writings are extant. Since Jerome was an ascetic, this is to be expected.
Jerome was one of the two prominent church fathers who knew both Greek and Hebrew. He used the Hebrew Old Testament for his Latin translation of the Bible, meaning he did not consider the Apocrypha to be canon and that he held to the Protestant canon of the Bible, even arguing for it against Augustine.
He is also known for pointing out that the three-tiered office of the church that Catholics and Orthodox have is not the original system of church government that the Apostles established and that the Scriptures present. He pointed out that the Apostles used a two-office government of Bishops and Deacons, the same that Protestants use today.
Penitent, take the time to read this:
The Perspicuity of Scripture in the Early Church
I have written before on sola Scriptura in the early church, but now I want to give you some quotations on the perspicuity or clarity of Scripture in the writings of the early church fathers in con…
jamesattebury.wordpress.com
The guys you are listening to, and the line you're falling for, is the imperspicuity of Scripture. No one in the early Church believed the Scriptures were unclear. Just the opposite, they all believed the Scriptures are indeed clear. This is one proof among many that the guys you're listening to are not the guys "who were there before the lens broke" nor are they a "consistent and reliable source."
Here's a guy who was actually there "before the lens broke" saying the opposite of what you're saying above:
Penitent, take the time to read this:
The Perspicuity of Scripture in the Early Church
I have written before on sola Scriptura in the early church, but now I want to give you some quotations on the perspicuity or clarity of Scripture in the writings of the early church fathers in con…
The guys you are listening to, and the line you're falling for, is the imperspicuity of Scripture. No one in the early Church believed the Scriptures were unclear. Just the opposite, they all believed the Scriptures are indeed clear. This is one proof among many that the guys you're listening to are not the guys "who were there before the lens broke" nor are they a "consistent and reliable source."
Here's a guy who was actually there "before the lens broke" saying the opposite of what you're saying above:
I can point to scripture that states otherwise. In Acts chapter 8 the Ethiopian tells Philip that he can’t understand scripture unless someone explains it to him. I’m sure you can point out scripture that supports your position. That is the problem with Sola Scriptura. What did Christ leave us when he ascended into heaven? A Bible or a Church? The Orthodox by no means have a diminished view of the scriptures. Everything we do is based on them. A significant portion of our services are the scriptures.