Multiple people with differing interpretations can claim to be doing this though?
Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread
- Thread starter GodfatherPartTwo
- Start date
Multiple people with differing interpretations can claim to be doing this though?
But can they all defend their interpretations? The reality is that, almost without exception, none of the grossly distorted and often outright heretical interpretations of scripture can withstand even the barest amount of scrutiny. The false teachers who distort the scriptures for their own ends are relying on the ignorance of their followers. The issue is not that the Bible makes a poor standard for the faith, it's that even most so-called Christians have little to no idea what it actually says.
Yes, but that’s not entirely the point. The problem is having no recourse to excommunicate these people and declare their interpretation anathema when you’ve removed the authority of a body of people to interpret and enforce that text. They can just go down the street or start their own sect.
If the Church is the invisible body of sincere believers, then there can’t really be any enforcement or proclamation of an authoritative interpretation of scripture
Scripture itself tells us that we require instruction in interpretation. The Ethiopian Eunuch is presented as a model convert. He is highly educated for his day, both possessing Scripture & able to read it. He humbly understands that he cannot interpret Scripture himself, and St. Philip doesn't tell him that Scripture interprets itself, rather the Ethiopian invites him to join him and teach him the meaning. Similarly, many of the well-read Jews could recite any piece of Scripture verbatim from the top of their head, but they could not interpret it to understand that Christ fulfilled the prophecies.
The Church at its foundation literally gathered and worshipped in the Temple until the Jews kicked them out and started persecuting them as documented in Acts.
I would say that this is good evidence that the Scripture does not rigorously follow our dainty Trinitarian formulas. The Trinitarian formula that is traditionally what we maintain is this: from the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit. But the Scripture does not rigorously maintain any such formula. Sometimes, things are said to be of the Son, without reference to the Father. Galatians 4, The Spirit is said to be of the Son, just as Matthew 10 says that the Spirit is of the Father. This is why it is foolish to place an enormous weight on any one such formula.
It doesn't say that. It doesn't say "from the Father alone" or "from the Father, but not the Son." It simply said "from the Father." If the Spirit is said to be "of the Son" such as it does in Galatians 4 and Romans 8, then the first two views couldn't be rigorously true on a Scriptural basis:
When we receive the Holy Spirit, we do not believe that the Father acted alone but that the Spirit also came through the Son to us.
Though he was deemed a heretic, he had a lasting influence on the Church for centuries, even to this present day. No different from Tertullian, who also was deemed a heretic, but he remains an influence on us. Even when we use the term 'Trinity' we are showing Tertullian's influence.
https://byzantium-blogger.blog/2019...crime-punishment-heresy-and-medical-practice/
Last edited:
They can do this in an Orthodox church too. So what?
It's not a question of if, it is. The membership of the New Covenant is known only to God. Whoever walks into your church on Sunday morning may or may not be a member of that Covenant.
Any visible church, including yours, can only discipline someone if that someone is willingly subjecting themselves to it's authority.
No. When a schismatic group in the Orthodox Church develops.... They do so with out blessings of the Bishop or the Patriarch. This they cut themselves off from the remaining body of Christ until they correct the schismatic elements of their beliefs.
All structure and authority comes from the vesting of that authority through the laying of hands as Christ did to his Apostles, and they then did to new members of thier flock as they grew The Church.
As far as discipline....We deny them communion or Anathematize them. This removes their ability to participate in sacraments and thus cuts them off from the body of The Church.
If no bishop alive today meets the qualifications for the Apostolic office, that the Apostles themselves drafted, then how can they be said to be successors of the Apostolic office in any way?
That only means something if the schismatic thinks it means something. To everyone outside of your communion, your anathema is like a badge of honor.
But this is all false, because the Spirit only comes to the Son after His baptism. Hence any other reference to the Spirit coming to Christ occurs after it proceeded from the Father, which blessed it onto his Son through the sacrament of Baptism.
Ignoring chronology of events is Unscriptural.
We have no idea who influenced who, but none of Origen's works survive so it's impossible to know. We have no idea if it was Tertullian or Tertullian's teacher who taught the trinity. All we know is that early heretics were rejected.
This isn't a religious practice, this was standard Roman crime and punishments that were typical of the era, and predated the Byzantine era, including in surrounding countries. If anything, the introduction of Christianity significantly softened the punishments of criminals in Ancient Rome. Byzantine punishments, while harsh by today's standards, were far more lax compared to Ancient Rome's on many levels. People weren't being fed to lions because they stole something. Merely losing a hand was a big step up for thieves.
I'm talking about the policies specific to the Church - the main way the theocracy was enforced was through the mechanism of citizenship, not by killing anyone who merely did not want to belong to the Church. For the rest of punishments of that time, you have to keep things relative to their context, which was the Ancient Roman world - a savage world.
If you spoke out against the Church in a blasphemous way, sure, you could get punished, because you were also speaking out against the state, but that was exactly the same in the Pagan Roman era that preceded it. Compare apples to apples.
The Papacy used war to enforce their own theological dictates, because they could not strip someone of citizenship. The state model broke down in the middle ages, and calling crusades on heretics was the only card the Papacy had left. In the Byzantine era, people were exiled for heresy generally, it was far more humane by comparison.
just to let you know that if you openly support abortion in the Orthodox church and the priest finds out about it he can withold holy communion from you are father Josiah Trenham once mentioned
A lot of his works still survive, there are so many that they all haven't even been translated into English yet.
I don't understand the argument you're trying to make. Are you saying God anointed Jesus with the Spirit after His baptism? OK, no one's denying this, how is this a slam-dunk argument against the filioque?
As for baptism, the legalistic understanding that baptism is required for the Holy Spirit to regenerate a person (the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration) is also an unbiblical novelty:
Last edited:
Our most dedicated female member @starlight PMed me with this info in response to @Get2choppaaa in regard to the Martin Luther pimping allegations, and I told her I would post it in this thread for her:
starlight said:
Not if they want to remain Orthodox.
Still not an answer to the problem of discerning who has the correct interpretation of scripture among them, or the problem of how to discipline or correct anybody and safeguard against heresy. Protestantism has no answer to this, I’m not sure if this problem is even understood at this point tbh.
You guys are great debaters, and that's the problem, since I see good points on both sides. For someone stuck hopelessly between Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy, this thread is becoming soul crushing.
View attachment 8437
Ignore the slightly cringe intro, this is a good video.
EDIT: this is also very strong, Reader Paul Trinca - fatal epistemology and the evisceration of Protestantism
Last edited:
It shows that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and not the Son. It comes through the Son, but it proceeded from the Father. Hence the filioque is false.
The word regenerate is questionable here; no one is saying that Baptism is necessary for one to feel or receive the Holy Spirit. But without Baptism, one will lack Christ, which is the only way to know God the Father. The Holy Spirit moves around all those with faith regardless of their situation, provided they have faith, and leads people to Christ and his Church, so that they can know God.
The schismatic would not care about remaining Orthodox if he was the one who left the church. Basically, you're asking me "how do you bind men's consciences?" You can't. A Reformed church can't and the Orthodox church can't. Only the Word of God can do that. When someone loses faith in the Orthodox church after seeing it for what it is then he is going to leave. The excommunications and anathemas only mean something to someone who is already believing in the Orthodox church, that's why they can't bind their conscience. The only consciences that they do bind are the people who are already believing and subjecting themselves to the Orthodox church.
The Scriptures are plainly understood. The Reformers taught so. The Early Church Fathers taught so. Only groups such as the Orthodox, Catholics, Mormons, JWs, teach against this doctrine. This is because they want you to have low confidence in the Scriptures so that you may place your confidence in [insert whatever sect here]. The problem is not the Bible. The problem is your group. Orthodoxy has no answer for this other than to say "whatever the Orthodox church says." Protestantism does not go for the easy answer of 'pick a sect and run with it', which is the answer you're looking for.
Last edited:
Who has the Father sent the Spirit from in Galatians 4:6?
This is a roundabout way of saying that baptism is necessary to be saved. Did the thief on the cross "lack Christ"?
That's certainly an apologetic take over what happened.
An alternative view is that he leveraged young nuns as a marriage opportunity to gather support for his cause and create political allies.
It's easier to keep your cool if you don't actually care about Truth. St Nicolas probably would have given him a backhand by now. Hermetic Seal nailed it earlier in the thread.
He'll reference church fathers when it suits him, and disregard others like St Ignatius, even though he was a disciple of St John the Theologion. He doesn't actually care about what they say unless he can shoehorn it into a defence of his beliefs. He's like King Zedekiah, who ignored Jeremiah's advice even though he knew everything he had prophesied had come to pass. The truth is there for anyone to see, and it's their choice whether to ignore it or not.
You don't play chess, or spar to come to the truth, it's an ideological battle taking one side of the fence, which is entirely missing the purpose of the scriptures, but in the same vein, it's behaving in a similar manner as the Jews have. The Jews being around longer as a group just have more cohesiveness using the laws of Moses and their tradition of abrogating those laws through the Talmud their idol, whereas Protestants have very little unity and cohesiveness, and can just put themselves as the center (just as the Jews have), and have words on a page as in idol. Because whether Protestants like it or not, words on a page do not interpret themselves. Just as the Filioque Clause isn't immediately obvious in it's meaning, it requires elaboration, yet the lack of awareness is clear as no cognitive dissonance is triggered.
Although one good thing he's done is given an excellent illustration of why St. Paul says what he does in Titus 3:9-11. By discussing with him, all you're going to do is make a obstinate heretic more clever in his argumentation.
And what you call a "Monarchian view" has nothing to do with Orthodoxy. Anyone persistently and obstinately promoting such a view would be tossed out and deemed a heretic as many have been in the past. Even Roman Catholics would disagree with that view of the Trinity. Stop talking carelessly about things that you're either talking about in bad faith, or that you don't understand.
As you referenced Mark 7:1-14 If Christ came to abolish all traditions, why do you think he obeyed the customs, like paying the temple tax? Or telling others to observe what they say, but not what they do? Certainly the Pharisees were only rebuked because while they observed the forms of outward cleanness, and it is indeed important to be clean while coming to share communal food, but to be truly in communion with others, it is more important to be inwardly clean, than outwardly clean so you can actually share a meal together while loving one another.