Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread

[Aboulia]

Within Reformed theology, we recognize distinctions in the different aspects of our salvation. We first place Justification, which is the monergistic work of God's Grace (otherwise known as penal substitution/Christ dying for us on the cross). Then following Justification, we have Sanctification, which is synergistic and is only possible because of Justification, this is where we are made able to do good because of what God has already done in us. And at the end of these two, we recognize Glorification.

This is why the mantra: we have been saved (Justification) we are being saved (Sanctification) and we will be saved (Glorification) has always been a Reformed one.

In Theosis, it's more like: we hope to be saved.

Pride. In order for that to be true, all of the Reformed confession must know when they'll die and their final end. Can you tell me what day your physical death is? What do you say of the apostates of your Reformed confession?

As for Pageau, his idea that God could be "arbitrary" to create as He wills is nonsensical by definition. I do appreciate his honesty in admitting that no verse in the Bible can change his mind about these ideas that have captivated him.

ar·bi·trar·y - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

That's not his idea, you're not listening to what he says, only what you would want to hear. because you see this whole thing as an exercise of your ego. God is not arbitrary. Ideologies about God are, but not God, and like it or not, an ideology is all you have when you divorce something from it's context of how it existed and developed in the world. The Reformers thought they could have morals and God without the Church, and now we have a society which thinks it can have morals without God. The next devolution will be back to pagan society without morals at all, just pure power worship.

And Jonathan takes that position probably because he realizes that words on a page don't interpret themselves. Words themselves exist as a social construct which comes into being in a time and place.

John MacArthur states in the video you linked says at roughly 1 min in "The primary question religion attempts to answer is how can I go from being "god's" enemy to his friend. How can I make peace with God, whatever that religion espouses"

Growing up agnostic, that was never on my mind, whenever God was brought up, the response was, who cares? why should I care about God at all? why would I want to? There was all sorts of suffering around me so what help is it? If it doesn't make sense, and all the problems solved by the religion are created by the religion itself, why subscribe to the religion in the first place? If it can't connect to the heart of what man is at his core, it's arbitrary by definition. the best you can have is a seemingly sound logical box faith that stands as long as you have power to enforce it, and as long as you don't touch it's presuppositions.

Calvinism is the most arbitrary of all Protestant confessions, because of it's "Unconditional Election" in it's TULIP doctrine.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Pride. In order for that to be true, all of the Reformed confession must know when they'll die and their final end. Can you tell me what day your physical death is?

I don't know when I'll die, or how I'll die. I just know that I believe in Jesus Christ, I believe that His death atoned for sins, and I believe that He died for me. I don't think it's prideful to believe He has saved me. I think it's faithless to not believe that He has.

What do you say of the apostates of your Reformed confession?

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they were of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be manifested that they all are not of us.

Calvinism is the most arbitrary of all Protestant confessions, because of it's "Unconditional Election" in it's TULIP doctrine.

Unconditional Election is not only Biblically true, per Romans 9, it can't be arbitrary. God has the freedom to harden whom He hardens and to have mercy on whom He has mercy. There is no higher reason or authority that God has to appeal to other than His own will, thus He cannot be arbitrary.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

Unconditional Election is not only Biblically true, per Romans 9, it can't be arbitrary. God has the freedom to harden whom He hardens and to have mercy on whom He has mercy. There is no higher reason or authority that God has to appeal to other than His own will, thus He cannot be arbitrary.

Sure... If course God can do what He wants. He is God. King David is a Saint yet also did some terrible things at times.

But if we carry the theory of Predestinationthough to it's logical conclusion: An abortionist who says he's killing babies for 60 years, goes to a Presbyterian church and says that he's not in conflict with HIS understanding of the faith (and you know there are churches like this out there), is going to heaven because he is part of the Divine Elect, but simultaneously, a widowed mother who raises 3 children by herself and is also going to the same church because she isn't elect.

Well wait that's Double Predestination you say?

Well John Calvin taught double predestination. He argued this in his Institutes of Christian Religion.

This is in direct contraindications of Jesus Christ allowing us all the gift of salvation through his sacrifice and allowing us all the free will to accept salvation that has already been given to us by Christ fulfilling the sacrifice.

Calvin wrote this out of his own insecurities from what I can tell.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

But if we carry the theory of Predestinationthough to it's logical conclusion: An abortionist who says he's killing babies for 60 years, goes to a Presbyterian church and says that he's not in conflict with HIS understanding of the faith (and you know there are churches like this out there), is going to heaven because he is part of the Divine Elect, but simultaneously, a widowed mother who raises 3 children by herself and is also going to the same church because she isn't elect.

Well wait that's Double Predestination you say?

Well John Calvin taught double predestination. He argued this in his Institutes of Christian Religion.

I don't follow your test case. Obviously, a murderer who is regenerated by the Spirit is going to repent. I may know if the Spirit has regenerated him if he repents and believes.

Well wait that's Double Predestination you say?

Well John Calvin taught double predestination. He argued this in his Institutes of Christian Religion.

If by double predestination, you mean that God has always known whom He was going to have mercy on based on His grace, and whom He was going to judge based on His justice, then absolutely. That's Romans 9. Why one and not the other? "Not because of him who wills or him who runs but God who has mercy."

If by double predestination you mean equal ultimacy, where God causes the sinner to be evil against his will, then we've always rejected that.

This is in direct contraindications of Jesus Christ allowing us all the gift of salvation through his sacrifice and allowing us all the free will to accept salvation that has already been given to us by Christ fulfilling the sacrifice.

I don't see the Gospel described as an offer, rather, 1 John 3 describes it as a command. A command that we are not able to do, because of our sinfulness, unless the Spirit regenerates us:

1 John 3:23 And this is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He gave a commandment to us. 24And the one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He gave us.

John 6:43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Stop grumbling among yourselves. 44No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 45It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT BY GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

I don't follow your test case. Obviously, a murderer who is regenerated by the Spirit is going to repent. I may know if the Spirit has regenerated him if he repents and believes.


If by double predestination, you mean that God has always known whom He was going to have mercy on based on His grace, and whom He was going to judge based on His justice, then absolutely. That's Romans 9. Why one and not the other? "Not because of him who wills or him who runs but God who has mercy."

If by double predestination you mean equal ultimacy, where God causes the sinner to be evil against his will, then we've always rejected that.


I don't see the Gospel described as an offer, rather, 1 John 3 describes it as a command. A command that we are not able to do, because of our sinfulness, unless the Spirit regenerates us:

No.

Calvin believed: Double predestination as the idea that not only does God choose some to be saved, he also creates some people who will be damned.

Some modern Calvinists respond to the ethical dilemma of double predestination by explaining that God's active predestination is only for the elect. God provides grace to the elect causing salvation, but for the damned God withholds salvific grace.

Calvinists teach that God remains just and fair in creating persons he predestines to damnation because although God unilaterally works in the elect producing regeneration, God does not actively force the damned to sin.

Double predestination may not be the view of any of the Reformed confessions, which speak of God passing over rather than actively reprobating the damned.

However.... Calvin rejected such a position, stating: "This they do ignorantly and childishly since there could be no election without its opposite reprobation ... whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children.

Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion

Again, if God created all men in his image, sent his son to die for us through the God Man Christ.... How does this concept make sense except to create further esoteric definitions of who is and isn't saved and who can and can't be part of the club.

Restated: God created some of us specifically to be saved and some specifically to be punished?

That does not align with Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

He created all of us to be saved. Yet many chose, through their rejection of Him and through rejecting the sacraments and living a life in pursuit of salvation, to be castigated from the fires of hell through our own free will. That is different than God prescribing hell for some and heaven for others in a preordained manner.

The sort of thought is what lead to the Anabaptists sex death cult on Germany. Feel free to look up their beliefs and see that they shared many of Calvin's.

This is ultimately the issue with Protestant Theology. There is so much sectarian beliefs built from one person to another that after 300 + years, the approach is a combination of Catholic legalism, and Western individualism to establish what is and is not true Christianity..

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Calvin believed: Double predestination as the idea that not only does God choose some to be saved, he also creates some people who will be damned.

So what are you arguing, that God didn't create anyone who will be damned?

However.... Calvin rejected such a position, stating: "This they do ignorantly and childishly since there could be no election without its opposite reprobation ... whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children.

Calvin wasn't responding to the Reformed confessions, which came after him, as your post made it seem. His argument is against people who concede Election but deny Reprobation. Both Biblical doctrines.

Regarding Equal Ultimacy, Calvin recognized the distinction between the reprobate sinning according to his fallen nature and will, and the elect being regenerated despite his fallen nature and will, which the Reformed confessions go on to affirm.

Again, if God created all men in his image, sent his son to die for us through the God Man Christ.... How does this concept make sense except to create further esoteric definitions of who is and isn't saved and who can and can't be part of the club.

You'll have to take it up with Paul. He wrote Romans, not Calvin.

This is ultimately the issue with Protestant Theology. There is so much sectarian beliefs built from one person to another that after 300 years, the approach is a combination of Catholic legalism, and Western individualism to establish what is and is not true Christianity...

As if the Orthodox Church is not sectarian?

We use terms like 'justification, imputation, condemnation,' which are all legal terms, only because the Bible uses these terms.

 

[JCSteel]

Calvinists be like:

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Restated: God created some of us specifically to be saved and some specifically to be punished?

Proverbs 16:4 Yahweh has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil.

You tell me.

That does not align with Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

Only if you see Christ's sacrifice as a provision, not a sacrifice that actually atones for sin.

Hebrews 10:11 And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13waiting from that time UNTIL HIS ENEMIES ARE PUT AS A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

He created all of us to be saved.

Are you ever going to try to defend your beliefs from the Bible or are you going to continue to dance around what the Bible actually says and instead give a presentation of what you think the Bible should say?

 

[JCSteel]

Ezekiel says God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his ways and live; and 1 Timothy says God wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Why God draws some to himself while leaves other to be filled with their own ways is a mystery.

Hell was prepared for the devil not man, and Adam was created to live in paradise with God.

Jesus's death was for all men since all men sin, and God's mercy to extended to all; it atones for all who ask God for forgiveness on the basis of it.

 

[Samseau]

There is no higher reason or authority that God has to appeal to other than His own will, thus He cannot be arbitrary.

And you, or I, will not, and cannot, ever know this Will. Protestantism fails utterly at the epistemological level.

God's Will is so far beyond human understanding, that it's basically trivial to even speak of predestination, other than to encourage people through their sufferings ("Your suffering has a purpose, God has ordained it so that we may be saved"), which is exactly how Paul spoke about predestination.

The idea that any mere human could know God's Will is absurd.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Ezekiel says God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his ways and live; and 1 Timothy says God wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Why God draws some to himself while leaves other to be filled with their own ways is a mystery.

So far so good.

Hell was prepared for the devil not man, and Adam was created to live in paradise with God.

But you acknowledge that Adam fell, and that ungodly men will be condemned to Hell, yes?

Jesus's death was for all men since all men sin,

Do you recognize any particularity in the atonement such as Isaiah saying "He bore the sins of many" or John saying He "lays down His life for the sheep" or Revelation saying He "ransomed by His blood for God people from every tribe and tongue and nation."? Or are you saying Christ died for every single individual?

it atones for all who ask God for forgiveness on the basis of it.

Who does this according to the Bible? Is it not those whom the Father draws to the Son?

 

[Let God Arise]

Methodists just had a huge schism over LGBT, looks like it's the Baptists turn over female pastors.

This is what happens when faith and theology is left to "democratic vote", politics, and whims ju jour. So glad I left this behind long ago.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

This is what happens when faith and theology is left to "democratic vote", politics, and whims ju jour. So glad I left this behind long ago.

Just remember the next time you kiss the icon, that it was the politics of 2nd Nicea, not the faith of the Bible that made that practice viable.

 

[Rodion]

I agree that the Church helps us to the correct understanding of the canon, that is different than saying the Church is the necessary prerequisite to understanding the canon. You concede the point when you say that it comes down to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.


Pick one group and run with it, in this case, Eastern Orthodoxy. Still waiting to hear how this is a viable solution. You don't allow the Scriptures to have an objective meaning because it would undo your epistemology.


Examining Orthodox epistemology makes it abundantly clear that the Scriptures are the precondition for the Church. The errors that pervade in groups such as the Orthodox can be traced to when some parts of the Church in the early centuries did not have full access to the complete New Testament.

You do keep belaboring this point, so I will keep belaboring the point that the Orthodox Church being the precondition for it's own knowledge is viciously circular, and not what any of the Early Church Fathers believed:

https://thereformedninja.blogspot.com/2023/01/eastern-orthodox-ecclesiological.html?m=1

The article still doesn’t address the point being made and the question is still dodged. Using scripture to justify your knowledge of the true interpretation of scripture is viciously circular, because of the obvious problem which by now I hope is clear.

The Church, being according to scripture itself “the pillar and the ground of all Truth” with whom Christ himself identifies when he appears to St Paul, providing the justification is the only way to solve this, hence it being the necessary precondition. My claim that this Church is the Orthodox Church is another debate.

 

[Let God Arise]

Just remember the next time you kiss the icon, that it was the politics of 2nd Nicea, not the faith of the Bible that made that practice viable.

The fact that you PROTESTants reject or cherry-pick the Church Ecumenical Councils, the teachings of the Saints, and just make it up as you go along, does not convince me that Protestantism is better. It's just rebellion.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Using scripture to justify your knowledge of the true interpretation of scripture is viciously circular, because of the obvious problem which by now I hope is clear.

That's not what's going on. The Scriptures have an objective meaning. Just because you don't understand the Bible and rely on "the Orthodox church" (more like youtube apologists) to interpret it for you does not mean the Bible is a poor standard for the faith. It's all you would've had if you were in the 1st century. If your goal is to live out the same faith that the Apostles and their disciples did in the 1st century, why would you inject 12th century, Eastern traditions?

The Church, being according to scripture itself “the pillar and the ground of all Truth” with whom Christ himself identifies when he appears to St Paul, providing the justification is the only way to solve this, hence it being the necessary precondition.

"The pillar and ground of truth" as in the Church is not the truth itself, but what holds up the truth, that's what pillars and grounds do. So it's true that without the Apostles, there would be no New Testament that they left to hold the Church to a standard to, but before you give all the credit to men, give the credit to God instead who inspired them.

Also, you don't find it ironic that you're appealing to Scripture to establish that the Church is somehow a higher authority over Scripture?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The fact that you PROTESTants reject or cherry-pick the Church Ecumenical Councils, the teachings of the Saints, and just make it up as you go along, does not convince me that Protestantism is better. It's just rebellion.

Every tradition cherry picks which councils they consider "Ecumenical." Orthodoxy (even the different kinds), Catholicism, Protestantism, you name it. Same goes for the Church Fathers. I don't deny the cherry picking, I just dislike the hypocrisy that [insert my tradition] is above said cherry picking.

Also, the term Protestant was originally ascribed to groups that rejected the excesses of Rome, namely the indulgences, the idea that you can buy God's saving grace. You cool with that idea? Because that is something worth rebelling over.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Indeed, I always thought that Southern Baptists were supposed be the based, conservative hardcore Protestants in the USA.
Perhaps I was wrong; maybe that honour should go to those snake-handling, tongue-speaking churches in Appalachia.

The traditional denominational lines are not the best indicators of where people are at anymore. Even in your main groups of Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc, you have an overarching political spectrum that will futher categorize where people are at. For example, a conservative Presbyterian will have much more in common with a conservative Baptist than he would with a liberal Presbyterian. Within Protestantism, what is the main dividing line between the conservatives and the liberals? The doctrine of Sola Scriptura, the idea that the Bible alone is the only infallible and innerant rule of faith. Liberal Protestants don't even pretend to believe in the doctrine, rather, they contextualize away everything in the Bible that contradicts their syncretist-wokeism.

This sort of "bleed through" extends outside of Protestantism as well. I've met many a Thomist who, because they were a little weak on the sacraments, sounded very much like Calvinists.

 

[Lawrence87]

That's not what's going on. The Scriptures have an objective meaning. Just because you don't understand the Bible and rely on "the Orthodox church" (more like youtube apologists) to interpret it for you does not mean the Bible is a poor standard for the faith. It's all you would've had if you were in the 1st century. If your goal is to live out the same faith that the Apostles and their disciples did in the 1st century, why would you inject 12th century, Eastern traditions?


"The pillar and ground of truth" as in the Church is not the truth itself, but what holds up the truth, that's what pillars and grounds do. So it's true that without the Apostles, there would be no New Testament that they left to hold the Church to a standard to, but before you give all the credit to men, give the credit to God instead who inspired them.

Also, you don't find it ironic that you're appealing to Scripture to establish that the Church is somehow a higher authority over Scripture?

The Orthodox Church has an extremely high regard for Scripture. I think this often gets lost in debates like this so its important to emphasize. We have Scripture readings in every Liturgy, I would say a good 90% of said Liturgy is comprised of words from Scripture. Our clergy are admonished to study the Scriptures upon their ordination. I think this can get misunderstood in debates around Sola Scriptura, and people sometimes mischaracterize the Orthodox as having a low view of Scripture (not saying you are personally making that accusation, but I have seen it). I think the contention is always about interpretation. You have your interpretation, the Orthodox church has an interpretation, Mr. Jones down the street has a different interpretation etc. Given the differing interpretations, it is important to resolve who has the correct one. I don't think it is apparent that the Scriptures can provide their own interpretation.

Let's say I have zero understanding of Christianity. I've never heard about Christ, no history of Christianity, no theology. I am willing to learn, eager for God, and I can read and have good comprehension skills. Do you think if you handed me a Bible and said "this is what you need to understand Salvation and all other wisdom pertaining to life, theology etc..." And you left me at that, and I had no other external influences. What level of confidence would you have that if you came back 3 years later I'd have come to a Christianity that resembles your own, and wouldn't have something wildly different and perhaps completely heretical?

I think firstly tradition is inescapable. Sola Scriptura is a tradition. Protestantism is a tradition. Christianity, its history and influence on culture, the influence of prominent theologians etc. The interpretation of Scripture cannot be isolated from all of this. I think if it was the case, as in the hypothetical, someone was cut off from all this, then the chances of them arriving at orthodox (I mean that in the little o sense) Christian beliefs like the Trinity are very slim.

Secondly the understanding of Scripture sometimes requires historical context that is not provided in the text itself. These parts can be, and often are misinterpreted when mixed with ignorance about the context.

So my point would be. If the hand over of the Bible to the person with complete ignorance would need to be accompanied by instruction about interpretation, perhaps a book to look up historical context and so forth. Then I'd posit that by itself Scripture is insufficient, and then the question becomes, who has the tools, and the authority etc. to facilitate a correct interpretation and understanding

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The Orthodox Church has an extremely high regard for Scripture. I think this often gets lost in debates like this so its important to emphasize. We have Scripture readings in every Liturgy, I would say a good 90% of said Liturgy is comprised of words from Scripture. Our clergy are admonished to study the Scriptures upon their ordination. I think this can get misunderstood in debates around Sola Scriptura, and people sometimes mischaracterize the Orthodox as having a low view of Scripture (not saying you are personally making that accusation, but I have seen it). I think the contention is always about interpretation.

Fair enough. But what I will say, the Orthodox seem more content with passivly deriving their theology from the liturgy, the Reformed emphasis is designed to be a much more active grasping of the Word. This is what I was trying to convey to TrainedLogosmotion before he apostatized.

You have your interpretation, the Orthodox church has an interpretation, Mr. Jones down the street has a different interpretation etc. Given the differing interpretations, it is important to resolve who has the correct one. I don't think it is apparent that the Scriptures can provide their own interpretation.

This is where we have to disagree. I do believe that the Scriptures say what they mean and they mean what they say. For me, to believe otherwise is to seriously underestimate and short-change the Biblical testimony. I'm willing to accept a difference of opinion on issues that the Bible does not explicitly speak about (I never claimed that the Bible is exhaustive, only that it is sufficient) as audiophora. Less flexible with differences on issues that can be deduced by logical inference. Not flexible at all on issues that are explicitly stated.

Let's say I have zero understanding of Christianity. I've never heard about Christ, no history of Christianity, no theology. I am willing to learn, eager for God, and I can read and have good comprehension skills. Do you think if you handed me a Bible and said "this is what you need to understand Salvation and all other wisdom pertaining to life, theology etc..." And you left me at that, and I had no other external influences. What level of confidence would you have that if you came back 3 years later I'd have come to a Christianity that resembles your own, and wouldn't have something wildly different and perhaps completely heretical?

I wouldn't expect you to. We never come at anything as a blank slate, it's impossible. Nor are we born as blank slates. But if I were to flip your test case back on you, do you think you would come to a full throated Eastern Orthodox understanding in this scenario?

I think firstly tradition is inescapable. Sola Scriptura is a tradition. Protestantism is a tradition. Christianity, its history and influence on culture, the influence of prominent theologians etc. The interpretation of Scripture cannot be isolated from all of this. I think if it was the case, as in the hypothetical, someone was cut off from all this, then the chances of them arriving at orthodox (I mean that in the little o sense) Christian beliefs like the Trinity are very slim.

I grant all of this other than the last clause. Reformed theology can be a tradition. The question is what do we do with the tradition? Do we subject our tradition to the "more sure word of prophecy" or do we elevate our traditions to the same level as that which is God-Breathed?

So my point would be. If the hand over of the Bible to the person with complete ignorance would need to be accompanied by instruction about interpretation, perhaps a book to look up historical context and so forth. Then I'd posit that by itself Scripture is insufficient, and then the question becomes, who has the tools, and the authority etc. to facilitate a correct interpretation and understanding

What is it you are saying Scripture is insufficient to do? Is it insufficient to bring you to a saving faith in Jesus Christ? Is it insufficient to make every Christian in the world agree on every issue? What is the nature of Scriptural insufficiency?