Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread

[Northumber]

Jesus sends the Holy Spirit temporally, but He does not eternally proceed from both the Father and the Son.

John 14: the Father sends the Spirit.
John 15: the Son sends the Spirit.
Filioque: the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Anything beyond that becomes speculative very fast.

I'm going to go full autist here. Do "proceed" and "send" mean the same thing? Because they are two different words.

John 15:26: "But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me "

That sounds like Rodion's description.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

John 16:7 But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.

John 16:13 But when He, the Spirit of Truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak from Himself, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. 15All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.

Galatians 4:6 And because you are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

I share these only to show why I am convinced that the Filioque is a Biblical truth. I don't see a lot riding on it either way unless there is some hidden meaning that I am not aware of.

I have a question for you: would it be fair to say that you believe 'the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone?'

When you say the Spirit proceeds from the Father but not the Son, what does that mean to you?

 

[Samseau]

It is true, you have accused me of being a liar everytime I bring it up. But based on all the information available, I have to bring it up. The Bible was not Canonized at Nicea, the Canon of Scripture was not even a topic of conversation at Nicea, that is a common liberal misconception of Nicea.

What info? It is bad. https://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Scripture#The_Canon_of_Scripture

The problem with the NT, I think, is that since there aren't any surviving records of the cannon explicitly written down in any form, people infer there was no cannon. But among Bishops there was an agreement of which books were valid and invalid, and it must have been written somewhere. By the time of the First Council it was already agreed upon, yet there seem to be no surviving written lists of the NT until St. Athanasius, which he learned from his Bishop who had been at the First Council, so we can infer the cannon was already long accepted at that point.

As for the OT, it was always the Septuagint.

You should watch the Cyril Lucaris video I shared. It seems that the Synod is understood to be seen as an Ecumenical Council by the higher-ups. I never said it was a Council, all I've said is I've never been able to find the modern Orthodox Canon of Scripture anywhere else than in that Synod.

Understood by whom? People who've never spoken to or read anything from Orthodox Bishops? Which Orthodox sources do you quote regarding our own Synods?

If I want to understand Martin Luther, I quote Luther directly. I don't quote some guy claiming to represent Luther, right? Likewise you need Orthodox sources to understand Orthodox writings, synods, etc.

The Filioque in itself is a Biblical doctrine. Jesus sends the Holy Spirit. That's why the Church Fathers believed in it.


This is the real reason for the Schism.

Yes, the assertion of the Pope over all was the real deal breaker, but the Filioque is only a minor heresy in comparison. On the heretic scale, I think it only gets a 2 or 3 out of 10. That's why it was tolerated for centuries. Not even close as something like Arianism, Nestorianism, or many other heresies which were hell-worthy.

The Filioque is a difficult subject due to translation issues, I believe, as the words "proceed" and "send" meant very different things in Ancient Hebrew. This is why tradition is important. It's clear from reading the Early Councils of the Church that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but also comes through the Son.

Thus, because of this inherent difficulty in understanding a complex theological subject, I believe it was a quite forgivable heresy and not something schism worthy. Clergy could agree to disagree, but when there was an insistence on changing the Creed directly with no council, it was intolerable.

Had there been a Council on the subject, the Filioque would have been defeated, but many Western Churches would have continued to profess their belief in it, and yet no schism would have occurred as long as the Creed remained unchanged. People's private beliefs would have been in conflict but it would not have resulted in excommunications, which is observed since St. Augustine.

There is room for healthy disagreement in Christ's Church as long as common tenants of Liturgy are observed.

 

[scorpion]

I've honestly never understood the controversy over the Filioque. The idea that we could ever fully grasp the inner workings of the Trinity - which is itself a great mystery that scripture only alludes to indirectly - strikes me as both absurd and shockingly presumptuous. A close reading of the Biblical text would seem to suggest that the Filioque interpretation is correct, but how are we supposed to know for sure? Ultimately, it's like the old trope about arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We simply have no way of knowing the details of how the Trinity operates, and God did not deem that knowledge as being particularly important to convey to us in scripture.

Whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father or the Father and the Son ultimately makes no practical difference from the perspective of mankind - it's all the same to us, and our salvation is not impacted either way. What's important is not exactly how the Spirit proceeds from the other members of the Trinity, but that we recognize that our faith infuses us with the Holy Spirit, that He indwells within us, and that our bodies are therefore a holy temple to be used for God's glory, as Paul wrote.

 

[Northumber]

Jesus sends the Holy Spirit temporally, but He does not eternally proceed from both the Father and the Son.

Do "proceed" and "send" mean the same thing? Because they are two different words.

John 15:26: "But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me "

If I want to understand Martin Luther, I quote Luther directly. I don't quote some guy claiming to represent Luther, right? Likewise you need Orthodox sources to understand Orthodox writings, synods, etc.

I'd like to add commentary from Theophilus the Bishop of Antioch (reposed 184) on this. I have this nice Bible app that gives me many of the commentaries out there. I think someone here told me about it - Catena.

It's about as early as you can get, and I think pretty much every group Orthodox/Catholic/Protestant doesn't have much of a problem with other stuff he says:

On John 15:26:
"Elsewhere He says that the Father sends the Spirit; now He says He does: Whom I will send to you, thus declaring the equality of the Father and the Son. That He might not be thought however to be opposed to the Father, and to be another and rival source, as it were, of the Spirit, He adds, From the Father, i.e., the Father agreeing, and taking an equal part in sending Him.

When it is said that He proceeds, do not understand His procession to be an external mission, such as is given to ministering spirits, but a certain peculiar, and distinct procession, such as is true of the Holy Spirit alone. To proceed is not the same as being sent, but is the essential nature of the Holy Spirit, as coming from the Father."

- Theophilus of Antioch

 

[italianstallion9]

Link? Pew has been posting some horrible garbage polls of late, I don't trust them anymore. Need to see method for this chart.

Public Opinion on Abortion

While public support for legal abortion has fluctuated some in two decades of polling, it has remained relatively stable over the past five years.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The problem with the NT, I think, is that since there aren't any surviving records of the cannon explicitly written down in any form, people infer there was no cannon. But among Bishops there was an agreement of which books were valid and invalid, and it must have been written somewhere. By the time of the First Council it was already agreed upon, yet there seem to be no surviving written lists of the NT until St. Athanasius, which he learned from his Bishop who had been at the First Council, so we can infer the cannon was already long accepted at that point.

I can agree with most of this. The only people who struggled with the NT canon were the gnostics. Other than that, most of the canon questions were inconsequential. This is why there is no disagreement on the Canon of the NT between the Reformed, Catholics, and Orthodox. But this is why I reject the notion that Protestants somehow need a council to know the Bible. They don't, and neither did the early Church, nor did the Jews before them.

As for the OT, it was always the Septuagint.

Unless of course, you were a Hebrew believing in the Old Testament canon before the Apocrypha was written or the Septuagint was even translated.

Understood by whom? People who've never spoken to or read anything from Orthodox Bishops? Which Orthodox sources do you quote regarding our own Synods?

You can read the source for yourself in the Synod, they give a Canon of Scripture. In the video, he mentions that the 2016 Pan-Orthodox Council recognized the 1672 Synod as authoritative.

The Filioque is a difficult subject due to translation issues, I believe, as the words "proceed" and "send" meant very different things in Ancient Hebrew. This is why tradition is important. It's clear from reading the Early Councils of the Church that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but also comes through the Son.

It doesn't make much sense to us because the heretical implications on either side can only be understood in Latin and Greek. In Latin, you have danger of one heresy by not affirming it. In Greek, the danger of another by affirming it. Both heresies that neither side would admit. Such was the language barrier in the early Church.

So what is the problem with the Filioque? Theologically, nothing. A lot of the conversations that came up afterwards were post hoc reactions against the real controversy, that is the Pope trying to force the Greeks into the Latin understanding.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father or the Father and the Son ultimately makes no practical difference from the perspective of mankind - it's all the same to us, and our salvation is not impacted either way. What's important is not exactly how the Spirit proceeds from the other members of the Trinity, but that we recognize that our faith infuses us with the Holy Spirit, that He indwells within us, and that our bodies are therefore a holy temple to be used for God's glory, as Paul wrote.

I have heard the criticism that Protestants "start with soteriology first then work their way to theology and Christology later." Anyone who makes this claim has never read any of the Reformed confessions. But it is only true in the sense that the Bible speaks more on how a man is saved than it does on the ontological Trinity. Man's salvation is the operation of the Trinity played out. The Bible does not give us these deep, esoteric speculations on the Trinity. This is why I respect someone like Calvin who, while being intelligent enough to parse through it all, was humble enough to recognize that we should make an end of speaking where the Bible does.

 

[Samseau]

Public Opinion on Abortion

While public support for legal abortion has fluctuated some in two decades of polling, it has remained relatively stable over the past five years.

www.pewresearch.org

The methodology is extremely opaque and I would not trust these polls. They say they use 10K adults on a longitudinal basis, which is fine, but then for the actual poll there is no mention of how many adults are actually surveyed, what percentage belongs to which denomination, or how frequent or serious their worship is.

Also, according to their own results, the older people are far more anti-abortion than the younger, which means according to this survey all of the anti-abortion evangelicals are old Whites. Pretty bleak picture if it is to be believed, but, I seriously wonder if the people who say they are "Catholic" are just 'cultural' Catholics who give little importance to Church or worship.

Personally, based on my polling, from speaking to thousands of people working in politics in my life - you're not a real Christian unless one goes to Church. No worship = no love for God. Hence no worship means not a real Christian. Thus a lot of people may claim to be a Christian of one denomination or another, but it doesn't mean anything. That's why these polls aren't representative.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

On the Filioque

 

[scorpion]

Father Josiah Trenham lecturing with such authority and confidence on the unknowable mysteries of the Trinity is ridiculous, and is a nutshell example of the problems associated with appeals to tradition. How does he propose to know these things if they were not plainly revealed in scripture? Because the consensus of the Fathers? Well, how did they know them? It strikes me as pure hubris for any human being to speak so cavalierly about that which God deliberately chose to keep hidden from us. All we can say for sure about the Filioque is that which scripture has disclosed, which is not enough to answer the question definitively. The topic is thus fruitless, pedantic and needlessly divisive. The schism might as well have originated from a dispute over how many hairs are in Christ's beard.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

Father Josiah Trenham lecturing with such authority and confidence on the unknowable mysteries of the Trinity is ridiculous, and is a nutshell example of the problems associated with appeals to tradition. How does he propose to know these things if they were not plainly revealed in scripture? Because the consensus of the Fathers? Well, how did they know them? It strikes me as pure hubris for any human being to speak so cavalierly about that which God deliberately chose to keep hidden from us. All we can say for sure about the Filioque is that which scripture has disclosed, which is not enough to answer the question definitively. The topic is thus fruitless, pedantic and needlessly divisive. The schism might as well have originated from a dispute over how many hairs are in Christ's beard.

Fr. Trenham's Position is that of the Orthodox Church. It was the original position of The Original Church.

Any deviation from that we find to be lacking in authority.

We don't believe it to be ridiculous to hold the Nicean Doctrine pre adulteration and addition.

It's just as full of arrogance to assume that one can interpret something on Text alone with out the Context of the Church.

We don't believe it is pedantic or overly divisive.

That's the issue, Orthodox reject the argument that it's a distinction with out a difference.

We believe all splits from Orthodoxy are sects. And all sects are just attempts to separate their own unique differention and self deification from The Original Church of Jesus Christ which was established through Apostolic succession.

Eta. Fr. Trenham, like my Priest, also have multiple levels of doctorates ECT, have all written many books, so I would put their ability to quote Scripture against ANYONE here. Another Priest is an English Lit Teacher, former Church of Christ Preacher.... So the argument that somehow Orthodox Don't "know their Bible" is not going to fly either.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Father Josiah Trenham lecturing with such authority and confidence on the unknowable mysteries of the Trinity is ridiculous, and is a nutshell example of the problems associated with appeals to tradition. How does he propose to know these things if they were not plainly revealed in scripture? Because the consensus of the Fathers? Well, how did they know them? It strikes me as pure hubris for any human being to speak so cavalierly about that which God deliberately chose to keep hidden from us. All we can say for sure about the Filioque is that which scripture has disclosed, which is not enough to answer the question definitively. The topic is thus fruitless, pedantic and needlessly divisive. The schism might as well have originated from a dispute over how many hairs are in Christ's beard.

Generally, the denying of the Filioque is tied up with a Monarchian view of the Trinity, where only the Father is the true God and both the Son and the Spirit are communicated their Divine Nature from the Father alone. Thus, the Father remains the only uncaused cause.

If the Spirit is caused from the Father through the Son (as in the Filioque), then the claim is that this makes Him "subordinate to both the Father and Son." But if causation necessitates subordination, then both the Son and the Spirit are subordinates in the Monarchian Trinity.

If any of this sounds strange to you, it's because the Bible doesn't talk about any of this. It relies on extra-Biblical philosophical categories, of which both the Greeks and the Latins were importing their own.

 

[Northumber]

If any of this sounds strange to you, it's because the Bible doesn't talk about any of this. It relies on extra-Biblical philosophical categories, of which both the Greeks and the Latins were importing their own.

Or it could also sound strange because of a modern mindset that imports extra-Biblical philosophical categories.

 

[scorpion]

Fr. Trenham's Position is that of the Orthodox Church. It was the original position of The Original Church.

Any deviation from that we find to be lacking in authority.

We don't believe it to be ridiculous to hold the Nicean Doctrine pre adulteration and addition.

It's just as full of arrogance to assume that one can interpret something on Text alone with out the Context of the Church.

So how did the Orthodox church come to hold this view on the nature of the Trinity with such confidence? A view that is not revealed in scripture and which is impossible for men to determine with certainty? How does the Church claim to know the intimate mind of God the Father and the nature of His relationship to the Son and Holy Spirit absent that which has been explicitly revealed in scripture? There is simply no way for them to know these things. This is why tradition must be regarded - at best - as a secondary supplementation to the scripture. At its worst, tradition becomes an active impediment to coming to a true and full knowledge of God, a point that Christ himself made explicitly over and over to the Pharisees.

If any of this sounds strange to you, it's because the Bible doesn't talk about any of this. It relies on extra-Biblical philosophical categories, of which the both the Greeks and the Latins were importing their own.

Clearly. But this is exactly the sort of thing you'd expect when men place their traditions on par with the Word of God. Man-made religion is always and everywhere typified by self-righteousness, hubris and an emphasis on gaining God's favor through some sort of works. It always seeks to elevate man through his own efforts and understanding. True Christianity, in contrast, deeply humbles the believer in every regard, rendering him naught but a helpless sinner save for the Grace and mercy of God. Imagine a sinner presuming to lecture with authority on the unknowable mind of the all-powerful creator God and his triune nature! The mind reels.

 

[Iacobus]

Father Josiah Trenham lecturing with such authority and confidence on the unknowable mysteries of the Trinity is ridiculous, and is a nutshell example of the problems associated with appeals to tradition. How does he propose to know these things if they were not plainly revealed in scripture? Because the consensus of the Fathers? Well, how did they know them?

I don't have the chance to check Fr. Josiah's video at present but broadly speaking your point brings us back again to Holy Tradition. Scripture, according to itself, does not contain the entirety of Christ's teachings. Scripture, according to itself (and also according to common sense), does not contain the entirety of the Apostle's teachings. We believe that teachings and correct interpretations were passed down since the Apostles, we don't think they were totally lost or corrupted at some point. We also believe that the Apostles passed on the gift of the Holy Spirit that they themselves received that allowed their successors to act as authoritative teachers of Scripture and tradition, as the Apostles did. Christ sets up this model in John 15 amongst other places.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

So how did the Orthodox church come to hold this view on the nature of the Trinity with such confidence? A view that is not revealed in scripture and which is impossible for men to determine with certainty? How does the Church claim to know the intimate mind of God the Father and the nature of His relationship to the Son and Holy Spirit absent that which has been explicitly revealed in scripture? There is simply no way for them to know these things. This is why tradition must be regarded - at best - as a secondary supplementation to the scripture. At its worst, tradition becomes an active impediment to coming to a true and full knowledge of God, a point that Christ himself made explicitly over and over to the Pharisees.

Clearly. But this is exactly the sort of thing you'd expect when men place their traditions on par with the Word of God. Man-made religion is always and everywhere typified by self-righteousness, hubris and an emphasis on gaining God's favor through some sort of works. It always seeks to elevate man through his own efforts and understanding. True Christianity, in contrast, deeply humbles the believer in every regard, rendering him naught but a helpless sinner save for the Grace and mercy of God. Imagine a sinner presuming to lecture with authority on the unknowable mind of the all-powerful creator God and his triune nature! The mind reels.

I love the KJV. But the Bible wasn't written in English. So unless you are are reading the ancient texts in the ancient language....

You're already accepting a particular interpretation of the Bible when you read it now. But somehow youre assured that your particular denomination or non-denominational approach is the correct way.

Imagine the lack of humility to read a book now and Interpret on your own with out having been steeped in Greek, Latin, Church Slavonic ECT like a majority of the Arch Priests have been... And lecture others whom entrust that spiritual leadership to provide us context and understand.

Of course we all read the Bible. There's an epistle and a gospel reading every service. Generally the sermon is tied to contextualize that and give further weight and impact to explain the profundity of and geopolitical complexity occuring at that time.

 

[scorpion]

I don't have the chance to check Fr. Josiah's video at present but broadly speaking your point brings us back again to Holy Tradition. Scripture, according to itself, does not contain the entirety of Christ's teachings. Scripture, according to itself (and also according to common sense), does not contain the entirety of the Apostle's teachings. We believe that teachings and correct interpretations were passed down since the Apostles, we don't think they were totally lost or corrupted at some point. We also believe that the Apostles passed on the gift of the Holy Spirit that they themselves received that allowed their successors to act as authoritative teachers of Scripture and tradition, as the Apostles did. Christ sets up this model in John 15 amongst other places.

What do you make of the following passage?

Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes came together to Him, having come from Jerusalem. Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.

Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”

He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”

He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Does this sound to you like Christ endorsing tradition over the revealed word of God? I have no doubt the Orthodox have some argument on how their own traditions don't fall under this category. But that strikes me as a rather tortured rationalization to contradict what seems a VERY clear teaching from Christ Himself.

 

[scorpion]

But somehow youre assured that your particular denomination or non-denominational approach is the correct way.

No, I'm not, because I am not making any claims of exclusivity in regards to the Church, which I regard as invisible - its true members known only to God - and comprised of earnest believers from every denomination across the world. You and the Orthodox church are the ones claiming special exclusivity.

Imagine the lack of humility to read a book now and Interpret on your own with out having been steeped in Greek, Latin, Church Slavonic ECT like a majority of the Arch Priests have been... And lecture others whom entrust that spiritual leadership to provide us context and understand

Most of the great Protestant theologians and Bible expositors were well-versed in ancient Greek and Hebrew. That isn't special knowledge reserved exclusively for Orthodox priests. The best modern-day exegetes like John MacArthur and Dr. Robert Luginbill continue this trend.

 

[Iacobus]

What do you make of the following passage?



Does this sound to you like Christ endorsing tradition over the revealed word of God? I have no doubt the Orthodox have some argument on how their own traditions don't fall under this category. But that strikes me as a rather tortured rationalization to contradict what seems a VERY clear teaching from Christ Himself.

No Orthodox would ever say that Tradition is "over" Scripture. They harmonize.

St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians says to hold fast to the traditions they (the Apostles) passed on in word and in letter. The logical conclusion is that not all traditions are Holy and correct, but that does mean that no tradition is Holy and correct.

Furthermore, the passage you are quoting is certainly more nuanced than "tradition bad," Christ is making the explicit criticism that fixating on or exploiting the letter of the law, while refusing to obey the spirit of the law, is the crux of the issue. The case in question is Jews using the excuse of setting aside money to donate to the temple (in isolation a good practice) to avoid using their money to support their parents.