Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread

So you agree that the Council of Hieria which banned the use of icons is Ecumenical?

Of course not none of the Patriarchs were there, Christianity is represented by the disciples of the Apostles.

ecumenical

Interesting that the etymological dictionary does not have the meaning, I will have to find additional resources. It is an old word.


The key is oikoumenos = "that which is inhabited," and where was the habitation of the oikoumenos? The emperor's house. Hence, "of the emperor."

But, it appears the word was taken by Rome or late stage Constantinople for other purposes, and became a word for "universal Christianity," when it never meant that originally.
 
which has the least historical pedigree of all the modern Biblical Canons?
As I predicted, you cite weird extra-traditional standards. How many heretics and heterodox make other claims about the canon or its meaning is completely irrelevant when determining its validity. You do get that right? Is that argument too complicated for you?

You cannot cite Church Fathers (coherently), because the epistemic criteria for the evaluation of any Church Father, or who even is a Church Father, rests with the historical Church. Who you cite is irrelevant. I can appeal to Church authority, because I am a part of the visible historical Church. You deny that Church, so whoever you think you can cite and exegete is literally irrelevant, as you are not able to give an account for why that would even be authoritative. Both the determination of authority as well as the interpretation of Church Fathers is a privilege of the Church in whose context those texts were created and transmitted.

You cannot reject the Church and at the same time refer to what you think is authoritative for us. Doesn't work that way, never did. You have zero authority you could refer to.
 
You cannot reject the Church and at the same time refer to what you think is authoritative for us. Doesn't work that way, never did. You have zero authority you could refer to.
The purpose for appealing to the Church Fathers and the Bible is simply to demonstrate that they were not Eastern Orthodox.

What groups like the Eastern Orthodox do, is start with themselves, and reinterpret all of the Church Fathers going back to the Bible according to their modern church. Doesn't matter how much I demonstrate they weren't Eastern Orthodox, you will insist they were. This is known as anachronism.

The logical way would be to start where it all began, which is with Jesus and the Apostles. The Scriptures. Going from the Scriptures to the modern time, we may see which tradition started where and for what reason.
 
The logical way would be to start where it all began, which is with Jesus and the Apostles. The Scriptures. Going from the Scriptures to the modern time, we may see which tradition started where and for what reason.
What would be your exegetical standard for this very logical approach?
 
What would be your exegetical standard for this very logical approach?
Because there is no standard higher than the Scriptures themselves, as they are the Word of God, there is no higher standard that I can subject them to, they are interpreted according to their own context. The reason groups such as the Orthodox, Catholics, Mormons, JWs, etc, teach against Sola Scriptura and against the perpiscuity of Scripture is because they wish to prejudice the mind against the Scriptures so that they may instead fill it with their own traditions.

The Protestant Reformers and the Early Church Fathers were unique in that they believed with one accord the perpiscuity of Scripture:
https://jamesattebury.wordpress.com/2018/10/27/the-perspicuity-of-scripture-in-the-early-church/
 
Last edited:
Because there is no standard higher than the Scriptures themselves, as they are the Word of God, there is nothing that I can subject them to. They are interpreted according to their own context. The reason groups such as the Orthodox, Catholics, Mormons, JWs, etc, teach against Sola Scriptura and against the perpiscuity of Scripture is because they wish to prejudice the mind against the Scriptures so that they may instead fill it with their own traditions.

The Protestant Reformers and the Early Church Fathers were unique in that they believed with one accord the perpiscuity of Scripture:
https://jamesattebury.wordpress.com/2018/10/27/the-perspicuity-of-scripture-in-the-early-church/
but which books and how did they get determined as divinely inspired vs not?

as in who codified the bible? which books were included and why?

Why don't we accept the Golden Plates discussed in Mormonism as biblical?
 
Why don't we accept the Golden Plates discussed in Mormonism as biblical?
Because God did not Breathe them.

as in who codified the bible? which books were included and why?
If you are Orthodox, then the Bible wasn't Canonized until the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672. You would have to read their thought process for why they added the books that they did, if any such literature exists.

If you are Catholic, then the Bible wasn't Canonized until the Council of Trent in 1545, the Catholics do give their reason for why they consider those few extra books (less than the Orthodox) Canonical.

but which books and how did they get determined as divinely inspired vs not?
But ultimately the canonicity, the authority of the Scriptures comes from God Himself. They were authoritative for the Apostolic Church from the moment they were written down. We do not decide if they are Scripture, we either believe the Apostolic witness or not.
 
Because God did not Breathe them.


If you are Orthodox, then the Bible wasn't Canonized until the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672. You would have to read their thought process for why they added the books that they did, if any such literature exists.

If you are Catholic, then the Bible wasn't Canonized until the Council of Trent in 1545, the Catholics do give their reason for why they consider those few extra books (less than the Orthodox) Canonical.


But ultimately the canonicity, the authority of the Scriptures comes from God Himself. They were authoritative for the Apostolic Church from the moment they were written down. We do not decide if they are Scripture, we either believe the Apostolic witness or not.
You're missing my point. Those Canonized versions of the bible (depending on which authority) were determined by men and a Church Tradition.

Minus of course the Pimp Martin Luther, who wanted to remove elements of the New Testament because they didnt align with his particular views. If memory serves me right he didnt care for Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Book of Revelation.

Luther is of course the father of the sects that eventually developed the Solo Scriptora mentality.
 
Iv been in the Orthodox church for 2 years and read quite a few books and gone into their teachings and I havent found them teaching predestination like this.

What about the book of revelations, its full of instructions for us to not be deceived and to ensure until the end etc
I believe that the significant difficulties we have in accepting and even understanding God's predestination lie mostly in our inability to think outside of our linear spacetime. In other words, as physical creatures inhabiting a created universe, we lack the capacity to even construct a mental model of what the universe looks like from God's omniscient perspective, which is not subject to all of the constraints which limit us. These constraints extend to things we usually don't even recognize, such as being itself (i.e. I am scorpion, therefore I cannot also be Samseau. But God is not constrained by being, as he is both the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit simultaneously). Similarly, God is not constrained by causality - from His perspective, there is no contradiction or incompatibility between predestination and human free will to exercise faith. The problem lies in our extremely limited human perspective, which can only process information through sensory input and which is trapped in linear spacetime. In contrast, God's omniscient understanding transcends space, time and the physical universe we perceive as reality itself. This why the Bible wisely teaches us to walk by faith, not by sight, because the limited capacities of human perception and reason cannot even begin to unravel the mind of God absent whatever He explicitly chooses to reveal to us. And he has revealed to us repeatedly in scripture that predestination plays a large role in his redemptive plan for believers.
You quoted Scorpion and I both, and I'd like to see his take as well.
How's that for a take?
We need the Holy Spirit's guidance, through our bishops and priests, to properly understand the Bible.
While the guidance of a priest or elder is certainly advantageous in most cases, the vast majority of the Bible can be fully understood by most believers with a modest degree of effort and study, because the Holy Spirit guides the understanding of Christians. Paul writes that after receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we literally have "the mind of Christ" within us (1 Corinthians 2:14-16). However, this obviously doesn't mean that every Christian is equally gifted in discernment, understanding and capacity for understanding and interpreting scripture, however. But those who have been gifted with those qualities should help instruct their brothers. This is not a role required to be performed by a priest.
Remember that a Church creates Scripture, Scripture cannot create a Church.
The church did not create scripture, the church recognized - through God's ordained divine providence - the scripture that was written by His chosen men under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. God created scripture.
Everything aside from Orthodoxy is a separation from Christ's original church and will never come to the right interpretation because without God it is impossible.
This is a ridiculous statement given that there are plenty of scriptural interpretations on which Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox have unanimous agreement.
 
You do get that right? Is that argument too complicated for you?

Minus of course the Pimp Martin Luther

Let me save y'all some time: the Scriptures are the Scriptures because they're the Scriptures. QED.
This is not the level of discourse appropriate for a thread of this type. Don't post with snark or insults. If you can't engage in good faith theological discussions without getting annoyed or being overcome by your temper, then abstain entirely from posting in these threads.
 
BTW despite my vehement disagreements and occasional frustration I gotta give it up to Godfather for patiently and civilly engaging without tire, I don't have a chance talk to knowledgeable Protestants in depth in my day to day life so it's been quite interesting and led me to grow in patience and spend more time studying the Epistles I wasn't so familiar with.

This is not the level of discourse appropriate for a thread of this type. Don't post with snark or insults. If you can't engage in good faith theological discussions without getting annoyed or being overcome by your temper, then abstain entirely from posting in these threads.

Me and Godfather spent pages hashing this out a while back and that's what it actually boiled down to. Open to be corrected.
 
You're missing my point. Those Canonized versions of the bible (depending on which authority) were determined by men and a Church Tradition.
I recognize your point. What I'm saying is that it doesn't account for the history preceding it. For example, how can Clement of Rome (1st century) recognize Paul's letters as "the true utterances of the Holy Spirit" before there were any such councils or traditions to appeal to?

This is why understanding the Canon primarily as a historic artifact, rather than a theological one, is problematic, or at least not backwards-compatible.

Minus of course the Pimp Martin Luther, who wanted to remove elements of the New Testament because they didnt align with his particular views. If memory serves me right he didnt care for Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Book of Revelation.
He had his reasons for his struggle with those books. Historically, he was not the only one to question the canonicity of Hebrews, Jude, Revelation. I won't defend his understanding of James but I am thankful that he was talked back to his senses by his fellow Reformers.

Your ultimate question is epistemological. And at the root of any epistemology is unavoidable circularity as there can only be one ultimate authority that everything else must appeal to (which is also an evidence of God). But whereas I cash that out in the Scriptures, you cash it out in the Orthodox Church. Because of the difference in presuppositions, what you or I are willing to accept as valid evidence is not 1:1.
 
Me and Godfather spent pages hashing this out a while back and that's what it actually boiled down to. Open to be corrected.
The tone is needlessly condescending. I would say the same thing to Godfather if he had posted something like, "Let me save you the trouble in understanding Orthodoxy: just do whatever the bearded guy in the robe tells you to do."

It is especially important to engage with one another respectfully in these cross-denominational threads, as passions are easily stirred on both sides. If you believe that your interlocutor errs in his thinking or beliefs, be prepared to patiently point out his his error (as you perceive it) in the spirit of brotherhood. Otherwise, do not participate. I'm not going to tolerate low-quality posts that mock or denigrate any of our three major Christian denominations. This is not an Orthodox forum, nor is it a Catholic forum or a Protestant forum. It is a forum for all who earnestly declare that Christ is King, and for the good of the community we must interact with each other in the spirit of mutual encouragement and edification, particularly in areas where we have theological disagreements.
 
This is not the level of discourse appropriate for a thread of this type. Don't post with snark or insults. If you can't engage in good faith theological discussions without getting annoyed or being overcome by your temper, then abstain entirely from posting in these threads.

Respectfully, some are not familiar with the accusation of Luther as a pimp to nuns.... but he was.

He married a nun, and married off several other nuns. that is why I called him a pimp.

This is significant in understanding the leader of that sectarian movement and why I said it.

That's only devisive if you don't have respect for a vow of chastity.
 
Respectfully, some are not familiar with the accusation of Luther as a pimp to nuns.... but he was.
Respectfully, you are posting in the, "Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread", not the "Martin Luther was a pimp" thread. If you want to start a thread about allegations of Martin Luther pimping out nuns, I won't stop you. But the conversation here is focused on respectful, high-level theological discourse, not slanderous 500 year-old gossip or any other low-quality posting.
 
I recognize your point. What I'm saying is that it doesn't account for the history preceding it. For example, how can Clement of Rome (1st century) recognize Paul's letters as "the true utterances of the Holy Spirit" before there were any such councils or traditions to appeal to?

This is why understanding the Canon primarily as a historic artifact, rather than a theological one, is problematic, or at least not backwards-compatible.


He had his reasons for his struggle with those books. Historically, he was not the only one to question the canonicity of Hebrews, Jude, Revelation. I won't defend his understanding of James but I am thankful that he was talked back to his senses by his fellow Reformers.

Your ultimate question is epistemological. And at the root of any epistemology is unavoidable circularity as there can only be one ultimate authority that everything else must appeal to (which is also an evidence of God). But whereas I cash that out in the Scriptures, you cash it out in the Orthodox Church. Because of the difference in presuppositions, what you or I are willing to accept as valid evidence is not 1:1.
Respectfully, you are posting in the, "Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread", not the "Martin Luther was a pimp" thread. If you want to start a thread about allegations of Martin Luther pimping out nuns, I won't stop you. But the conversation here is focused on respectful, high-level theological discourse, not slanderous 500 year-old gossip or any other low-quality posting.

My critique is the following, after which, unless I'm asked to elaborate, I've said my peace..

Sola scriptura was one of the main theological beliefs that Martin Luther proclaimed against the Catholic Church during the Protestant Reformation. He is integral to the Reformation obviously. Martin Luther wanted to remove certain books of the Bible that conflicted with his particular beleifss. It's not slander to point out the fact that Martin Luther encouraged nuns to break their vow of Chastity. That fact may not dissuade many from their current state of beliefs... but just like I dont buy suits from homosexuals, I chose not to get my theological and religious beliefs from people that have adulterated the original process and steps.

Protestantism developed out of Martin Luther, then Henry VIII and the looting of the Church, to then Calvin, the Zwingley. All protestant sects are splits from Apostolic Succession without valid sacraments.

People want to believe what they believe is THE TRUTH, but the more you go digging, the more rationalization and self justification you have to get into as you deviate from The Church as it was immediately after Christ. That Church was the Orthodox Church.

Feel free to believe whatever you want... but as someone whose been a Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Catholic Catechumen, then Orthodox Convert.... this is the assumption and

All one has to do is look at the book Rock and Sand to understand the histories of these different Sectarian Leaders that involved themselves in revolutions and religious disputes and be dissuaded from continuing that road.

ETA: For those Protestants reading, forgive me if my direct commentary is received as judgement on you as an individual. that's not my intention. Purely a theological disagreement.
 
Last edited:
I know this doesn't necessarily represent Godfather or Scorpion's specific individual churches, but I thought it was funny and somewhat appropriate to put on this thread. We can lighten things up a bit. Private interpretation of Sacred Scripture as the only authority and eternal security (where nothing can take away your salvation) can lead to anything (and has lead to the craziest things beyond any founder of Protestantism's imagining):
 
Last edited:
All one has to do is look at the book Rock and Sand to understand the histories of these different Sectarian Leaders that involved themselves in revolutions and religious disputes and be dissuaded from continuing that road.
I've been meaning to get this for a while now. If he had a digital copy, I would've gotten it already. Here is former Orthodox priest Joshua Schooping who offers a rebuttal to many of the claims that Trenham made in his book:
https://thereformedninja.blogspot.com/2021/07/of-rock-and-sand-critique-of-josiah.html
He mentions that the Filioque was affirmed for centuries prior to the Schism, for example. The rest of his site provides a good response too.

People want to believe what they believe is THE TRUTH, but the more you go digging, the more rationalization and self justification you have to get into as you deviate from The Church as it was immediately after Christ. That Church was the Orthodox Church.
The Church immediately after Christ is the Apostolic Church in Acts. There's a long way to go before you get to the Hesychasts in the medieval period, and even further still if you wish to achieve full Orthodoxy.

All protestant sects are splits from Apostolic Succession without valid sacraments.
I do not see the phrases "Apostolic Succession" or "Valid Sacraments" in my Bible.
 
Back
Top