Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread

[scorpion]

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):

It's rather astounding you had the gall to post this stupid video after I literally just made it very clear such low-quality posting would not be tolerated in this thread:

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.

I'm very close to tossing out thread bans at this point. This is NOT a thread to mock Protestants. It is a thread for polite critique and debate.

This is not the RVF. You do not have carte blanche to bully or otherwise disparage non-Orthodox Christians or their beliefs, especially in a thread dedicated to productive cross-denominational dialogue.

If you think I'm talking to you with this warning, I probably am. If you want to try me on this, don't.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

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.

I am not sure how you thinks this source would be one that I would find credible.... I am hardly inclinded to take the word of a man who left the Priesthood in disillusionments as an authority any more than I would accept Martin Luther's teachings. I dont know him, I dont know his reasons, and I cannot read his work with credibility without examining the author's motives...

I've made my point. People can read the book themselves and ascertain its validity. Dont take my word , or your word (whose never read it) or the word of a former priest who gave up his vows....yet apparently is lecturing Orthodox on correctness or incorrectness.

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.


I do not see the phrases "Apostolic Succession" or "Valid Sacraments" in my Bible.

Yes, Yes,.. there are tons of phrases that are not found in the bible that different protestant groups do....There are things that some protestant churches believe that are in conflict with other protestant churches.... who decides who is right? and where does the authority come from?

I guess it comes from any random person who professes to be a Christian? Thats the issue. There's no authority. The authority claimed by Joel Olestein is no different than anyone else, what establishes anyone as a pastor? Thats why Apostolic Succession exists. Jesus told his disciples to spread the word and be fishers of men.... and they passed that on ect.

Where in the Bible does it say that "Only the Word" is needed for Salvation?

You wont find "Scripture alone" anywhere.... In fact.... to my knowledge.... the only place you'll see "faith alone" is the opposite of the common protestant argument.

James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Makes sense why Luther wanted to get rid of it? Now doesnt it?

Some Protestants reject Lent because its not "in the bible".

I'm not going to convince you, and my message wasn't really meant to persuade you in particular.... just those interested in a different perspective.
As I've said, these are the criticisms as I see them. I'm not looking to mock you either. I just think its a series of trying to rationalize and over-intellectually argue faith from a conclusion that is built on circular logic.

And this is without me getting into Calvinism and the divine elect nonsense. Which as a Presbyterian I could never understand given it made the notion of Christ's sacrifice for us a mystery as to whom might or might not be worthy...almost as if 'why try? Some of is are screwed and some aren't so it sort of doesn't matter'

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I am not sure how you thinks this source would be one that I would find credible....

I posted it for the impartial reader.

Dont take my word , or your word (whose never read it) or the word of a former priest who gave up his vows....yet apparently is lecturing Orthodox on correctness or incorrectness.

Just take Trenham's word, right? His misrepresentation of Reformed soteriology compared to the WCF, as Schooping demonstrates in his article, is quite telling.

I guess it comes from any random person who professes to be a Christian? Thats the issue. There's no authority.

There is authority, it's in the Word of God. We will all, including your priests, be held accountable to what God has spoken to us in His Word. Therefore, we should take His Word very seriously.

You wont find "Scripture alone" anywhere.

It says something even better, "All Scripture is God-Breathed." It doesn't say that about Tradition.

James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

You are correct in that the exact formula "Faith alone" only occurs in the Bible once. When Protestants say it, they mean nothing more than what passages such as this one in Titus says and what Paul says elsewhere, numerous times. We don't believe James is contradicting Paul.

I just think its a series of trying to rationalize and over-intellectually argue faith from a conclusion that is built on circular logic.

I don't think you grasped my point on epistemology.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

I posted it for the impartial reader.


Just take Trenham's word, right? His misrepresentation of Reformed soteriology compared to the WCF, as Schooping demonstrates in his article, is quite telling.


There is authority, it's in the Word of God. We will all, including your priests, be held accountable to what God has spoken to us in His Word. Therefore, we should take His Word very seriously.

Where was it said that anyone shouldnt take the Word seriously? Given that there a significantly less books in the Protestant Bible, might someone make the argument that in rejecting certain books...the person making that claim is in violation of that concept?

Separately....You're not responding here to a lot of my criticisms because you can't.

Again. Who provides authority for what is and isn't accepted? Which interpretation of Scripture is correct

Why isn't Black Reparations Preachers like Jeremiah Wright correct vs Prosperity Gospel Preachers like Joel Olestein?

If they are both citing scripture and yet contradicting themselves who is correct and why?

There is no chain of custody on authority and that is why there are so many denominations and so much division with in the Christian faith in America.

Again, if that's how you want to make your omelette, go ahead enjoy... But I'm making mine with as many ingredients just like they did with the recipe passed down for nearly 2 thousand years, and it's very hard from the outside, having tried both.... To give up the full experience over a newer recipe.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Where was it said that anyone shouldnt take the Word seriously?

So are you ready to take the Second Commandment seriously? Or that we should not prostrate to the Apostles and Angels as taught in Acts and Revelation? Or that Jesus Christ is the only Priest as taught in Hebrews? Or that God saves according to His grace and not according to our works? Or that the Scriptures outrank bishops and even Apostles? We should take all of those seriously.

Given that there a significantly less books in the Protestant Bible, might someone make the argument that in rejecting certain books...the person making that claim is in violation of that concept?

It is also a precept to not add books to His Word.

Again. Who provides authority for what is and isn't accepted? Which interpretation of Scripture is correct

God does through His Word. He will hold you, me, and your priests accountable to it.

Which interpretation of Scripture is correct

The more I see this question, the less innocent it looks, but more like feigned ignorance. Do what Athanasius said, devote yourself to the study of the Scriptures and the meaning will be made plain to you. Are you telling me that you do not know what the Scriptures say?

Why isn't Black Reparations Preachers like Jeremiah Wright correct vs Prosperity Gospel Preachers like Joel Olestein?

If they are both citing scripture and yet contradicting themselves who is correct and why?

You think these guys believe in Sola Scriptura and the perpiscuity of Scripture? I bet if you asked them if they did, they'd say "Sola what?"

There is no chain of custody on authority and that is why there are so many denominations and so much division with in the Christian faith in America.

OK, but even if your theory is true, that the Orthodox Church is the original church, then it's chain of custody and tradition was not sufficient to keep all of the other denominations from breaking away. So what? The difference is you put the blame on the Bible for being "unclear."

But I'm making mine with as many ingredients just like they did with the recipe passed down for nearly 2 thousand years, and it's very hard from the outside, having tried both.... To give up the full experience over a newer recipe.

Looks like a lot of new ingredients. I would check the label.

 

[GoodShepherd]

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.

How's that for a take?

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.

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.

This is a ridiculous statement given that there are plenty of scriptural interpretations on which Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox have unanimous agreement.

Having the mind of Christ doesnt mean every thought we think are Gods thoughts many of our thoughts and dreams can also come from the evil one, nor does it mean that we can tell who is predestined or not, look at Judas he was a diciple, look at what happened to Ananais and Saphira in the book of Acts how they were both part of the church and died on the spot when the apostel pointed out to them that they jad withheld money back when joining the monestic community, everyone sold their property and possesions and then lived together, many scriptures are not very clear and its done that way on purpose because divine revelation is needed to understand it, the book of revelations is an example of that

 

[Get2choppaaa]

So are you ready to take the Second Commandment seriously? Or that we should not prostrate to the Apostles and Angels as taught in Acts and Revelation? Or that Jesus Christ is the only Priest as taught in Hebrews? Or that God saves according to His grace and not according to our works? Or that the Scriptures outrank bishops and even Apostles? We should take all of those seriously.


It is also a precept to not add books to His Word.


God does through His Word. He will hold you, me, and your priests accountable to it.


The more I see this question, the less innocent it looks, but more like feigned ignorance. Do what Athanasius said, devote yourself to the study of the Scriptures and the meaning will be made plain to you. Are you telling me that you do not know what the Scriptures say?


You think these guys believe in Sola Scriptura and the perpiscuity of Scripture? I bet if you asked them if they did, they'd say "Sola what?"


OK, but even if your theory is true, that the Orthodox Church is the original church, then it's chain of custody and tradition was not sufficient to keep all of the other denominations from breaking away. So what? The difference is you put the blame on the Bible for being "unclear."


Looks like a lot of new ingredients. I would check the label.

Still waiting on your defense of the Divine Elect...

You have no answer on my reverend Wright argument other than the "No True Scotsman" fallacy... Which of course is all you can do given the absurdity of the position.

The difference again, is that you seem to believe that by merely studying the Bible, you're able to ascertain everything in completeness.

If that's all it takes then anyone can make quite the Bible in any capacity and have bad understanding yet argue their position in correctness.

So do you go to somewhere and have communion?

As far as other churches splitting from Orthodoxy, the Catholic and Orthodox split, while terrible, is a wholly different view than the Chasm of Schism that is found in the whole of the Protestant denominations.

As far as man's desire to split from the tradition and way... That's only a reflection of our fallen state and not a reflection of the Correctness of Orthodoxy. But again, one always finds justifications once one's arguing from a conclusion retroactively.

anyway... Best of luck.

 

[analyst_green]

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.

But clearly that's not what happened. If it was so easy to understand the Bible, we wouldn't have a thousand different denominations today. Some of them, as others here pointed out, espousing the most ridiculous views and claiming to be "Biblical".

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.

Perhaps "create" was not the right choice of word since Scripture is the inspired word of God, but it was written by men. The New Testament was written by the apostles, who were the first bishops of the Orthodox Church. The Church came into being years before St. Paul even wrote his first epistle. Many other writings were written by early Christians that were not accepted into the Bible. The Church selected those that are considered Holy Scripture.

This is a ridiculous statement given that there are plenty of scriptural interpretations on which Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox have unanimous agreement.

Sure, Catholics and Protestants can get much of it right. They retained a lot of the correct doctrines because they split from Orthodoxy originally. But they will not be able to come to the fullness of the truth.
You see how each separation further distances itself from the truth. The Latin church retains perhaps 90% of it. 500 years later Lutherans retain maybe 80%. Then come along the Baptists around 70%. And finally it culminated with the woke modern churches, who have more in common with the Democratic party than they do with real Christianity.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Still waiting on your defense of the Divine Elect...

I didn't see you attack the doctrine. What is there to defend about the Elect? Both the Old and New Testaments talk about God's chosen ones.

You have no answer on my reverend Wright argument other than the "No True Scotsman" fallacy... Which of course is all you can do given the absurdity of the position.

You would give me the same thing if I pressed you on why there are so many branches of "Apostolic" Christianity. The difference is the guys you cited don't even pretend to be coming from the same place I'm coming from. That's why I asked you, you think these guys are preaching Sola Scriptura and the perpiscuity of Scripture?

So do you go to somewhere and have communion?

I am a member of a local church, yes.

As far as other churches splitting from Orthodoxy, the Catholic and Orthodox split, while terrible, is a wholly different view than the Chasm of Schism that is found in the whole of the Protestant denominations.

The difference is you don't see Protestants damning each other to hell by anathematizing everyone outside of their denomination. Their invisible church doctrine makes it hard for them to do that.

anyway... Best of luck.

Thanks. You too.

 

[MusicForThePiano]

The Czechs I've met say their man Jan Hus was the originator of the first major breakaway from the Catholic church in the west, prior to Martin Luther. This is chronologically verifiable. What do you modern Protestants think of the Hussites? I think the first reformer was the English John Wycliffe, whose Bible is a very interesting read. Old English is a bit insufferable to read for modern eyes, but I can see the evolution of the words from then until now.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The Czechs I've met say their man Jan Hus was the originator of the first major breakaway from the Catholic church in the west, prior to Martin Luther. This is chronologically verifiable. What do you modern Protestants think of the Hussites? I think the first reformer was the English John Wycliffe, whose Bible is a very interesting read. Old English is a bit insufferable to read for modern eyes, but I can see the evolution of the words from then until now.

I approve of this message.

 

[italianstallion9]

White evangelical Protestants are the only major group in America against abortion:

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

White evangelical Protestants are the only major group in America against abortion:

View attachment 8359

The saddest part of this chart is how many Black Protestants are in favor of abortion. Some of the strongest defenders of abortion that I've met have been black men. I ask them, "don't you know that abortion was initially started in order to kill blacks?" Doesn't matter to them. To that end, abortion has been very successful.

 

[Rodion]

The more I see this question, the less innocent it looks, but more like feigned ignorance. Do what Athanasius said, devote yourself to the study of the Scriptures and the meaning will be made plain to you. Are you telling me that you do not know what the Scriptures say?

The fact that people can interpret scripture very differently, while claiming the same standard surely suggests that the meaning isn’t always self-evident?

Having scripture as the highest authority surely gives you no recourse to prevent someone from claiming that standard, while interpreting scripture in their own way and preaching heresy? You have to just let them be, which seems to muddy the waters somewhat.

 

[MusicForThePiano]

White evangelical Protestants are the only major group in America against abortion:

View attachment 8359

Interesting chart.

Blacks are doing this thing now where they punch the stomach of pregnant girls to induce fetal miscarriages / abortions. There are videos of it on gab. Sickening. Anything to avoid that $800 abortion fee, let alone a lifetime of child support payments. I don't think Christians are the majority doing this, but there are millions of Christians in name only who behave diametrically opposite to any sort of Christian morality, and many black Christians suffer greatly from vices of the flesh which seems to be their racial Achilles heel that the alphabet agencies exploited to terrible effect.

Most of those Catholics who agree with abortion are Novus Ordo secularists in disguise, who are fond of Church tradition "changing" to keep up with the times. Some have been guilty of either race-mixing (not even in a Church-approved marriage) and philandering in general, and aborting their unwanted sins before marrying later. Catholic White American girls (and some Europeans) unfortunately are some of the most corrupted women on the Earth, morally speaking. There is a high susceptibility for them to betray their family at the onset of puberty (and God ultimately) unless they are in a more exclusive sect of Catholicism, like Opus Dei or some Jesuit-ran schools. There's just something about the way the schools are structured that has the exact opposite effect of the morals it teaches. There's something about humans selfishness desiring to eat their cake overriding natural morals.

I would not know what it is like to hang out with a bunch of Protestants at a 20th century high-school party, but I do know how the Catholics used to throw them. Fights and sex and alcohol and oftentimes drugs, nobody ever got shot or stabbed like we see every day now, but the corrupting influence that seemed harmless to these kids certainly affected many of their lives negatively down the road. I've even heard of one or two becoming a tranny in their 30s, which was not long ago. All that effort from parents to raise a child only for it to become a tool of the devil. So much waste.

The WASPs are honest people in the lower financial echelons of society. The higher up they go, the more likely they are to Osteenize and replace more Church history with jewish versions and other scriptural corruptions and pursue those goals. Money corrupts. Though there are exceptions to every demographic. It seems the difference between evangelical and nonevangelical in that chart can be summed up to modern interpretations of politics on the spectrum, with nonevangelical embodying a more liberal assessment and evangelical embodying a conservative one, hence why the latter is lower on abortions.

 

[Samseau]

If you are Orthodox, then the Bible wasn't Canonized until the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672.

I've seen you repeat this lie many times, and I've refuted it to you directly many times, why do you keep repeating it? It's such a blatant lie that even a simple Wikipedia search contradicts it, but the Bible was 100% canonized with the First Council of Nicaea. No idea why you keep believing in this falsehood.

Additionally, you keep confusing synods with councils. They are not the same thing, not even close.

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.

The fact that this guy defends the Filioque shows he has no idea what he is talking about. The Filioque is not part of any of the Ecumenical Councils, which shows he clearly has no idea what is going on. Filioque is 100% heresy that started in Spain and gradually was accepted in Rome in violation of the rest of the Church. Then the Pope declared himself Dictator and said the Filioque was to be part of the creed, in direct violation of the Councils, which is why the rest of the Church excommunicated the heretics.

After that, Rome ceased to have valid Apostolic succession.

 

[Samseau]

White evangelical Protestants are the only major group in America against abortion:

View attachment 8359

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

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Having scripture as the highest authority surely gives you no recourse to prevent someone from claiming that standard, while interpreting scripture in their own way and preaching heresy? You have to just let them be, which seems to muddy the waters somewhat.

That part where "you have to just let them be" is unavoidable no matter what you do, you can't bind men's consciences. The Orthodox church can only discipline someone in so far as someone is willing to subject themselves to it's authority. We believe that God holds us accountable to the Scriptures so we take it's proper interpretation and application very seriously.

I've seen you repeat this lie many times, and I've refuted it to you directly many times, why do you keep repeating it? It's such a blatant lie that even a simple Wikipedia search contradicts it, but the Bible was 100% canonized with the First Council of Nicaea. No idea why you keep believing in this falsehood.

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.

Additionally, you keep confusing synods with councils. They are not the same thing, not even close.

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.

Filioque is 100% heresy that started in Spain and gradually was accepted in Rome in violation of the rest of the Church.

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

Then the Pope declared himself Dictator and said the Filioque was to be part of the creed, in direct violation of the Councils, which is why the rest of the Church excommunicated the heretics.

This is the real reason for the Schism.

 

[Rodion]

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

Jesus sends the Holy Spirit temporally, but He does not eternally proceed from both the Father and the Son. That’s the issue with the Filioque controversy

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Jesus sends the Holy Spirit temporally, but He does not eternally proceed from both the Father and the Son. That’s the issue with the Filioque controversy

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. We do not view procession as necessarily subordinating because we maintain that the Son and the Sprit are both autotheos. So for us, it is not an issue to affirm the filioque.

My only critique back at you would be this: if you say that the Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son makes Him subordinate, than how can it not be said that both the Son and the Spirit are subordinates of the Father in the Monarchical view of the Trinity?

In order words, because neither of us are equating procession with subordination then I don't see how "the Filioque leads to the subordinating of the Spirit" is a valid criticism.