Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Which branch(es) of Protestantism would you define as Biblical and Apostolic?

Biblical and Apostolic may rightly be said of any such branch that takes the Apostolic view of the Scriptures: that they are binding on the Church and not the other way around.

Of the historical branches, I am convinced that the Reformed tradition is the most consistent with the Scriptures. As all books of the Bible play a role and are held in proper balance.

 

[JCSteel]

Biblical and Apostolic may rightly be said of any such branch that takes the Apostolic view of the Scriptures: that they are binding on the Church and not the other way around.

That still leaves room for errors and misinterpretation of doctrines that aren't insignificant, even among those who revere scripture. At what point do these differences make one sect of Protestantism unrecognizable from another?

The Reformed tradition is only a part of Protestantism/Evangelicalism, and probably a small one at that.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

That still leaves room for errors and misinterpretation of doctrines that aren't insignificant, even among those who revere scripture. At what point do these differences make one sect of Protestantism unrecognizable from another?

No more difference than two Catholics or two Orthodox going to the same church. Oftentimes, the people playing up the differences in the tertiary issues could not themselves even articulate what those differences are because they are so nuanced.

The Reformed tradition is only a part of Protestantism/Evangelicalism, and probably a small one at that.

I am friends with a member of this forum who is not Reformed as I am. I have visited his church and he has visited mine, and I believe that he and his church are in God. They believe in the supremacy of Scripture, they believe that we are justified by faith alone, not seeking to establish their own righteousness, they have a Biblical view of baptism. They do not need to look exactly like me for me to not anathematize them.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

What is your weird obsession with Martin Luther? You bring him up more than any Protestant I've ever met (although obviously in a critical context rather than a laudatory one). It's like you think you're scoring some sort of points by taking digs at him, but you're kicking into an undefended goal, so to speak. You aren't remotely discrediting Protestant theology by attacking Luther, because Protestant theology is derived entirely from the Bible, not from whatever Martin Luther said.

Why must I accept this assertion that Protestant theology exists outside it's founders?

The fact is that a majority of the founders of the Protestant sects were heavily intertwined with war and rebellion.

Zwingley/Henry VIII ECT were political as much as religious figure.

I've already addressed the issue with each of the sectarian splits from the Orthodox Church (including the Catholic Church)

Like Huss, initially Luther didn't want to create his own religion. Just reform the Catholic Church and stop certain practices and advocated for removing certain books and teachings. But if you pretend that his actions didn't pave the way for further revolutionaries across the west then I think you're living in an alternate reality.

All of these sectarian leaders ultimately are creating their own take on Christianity. There isn't consensus among Protestant or Reformation movements... So how do we know which sect and which brand is correct?

The very same Hebrews that teaches Jesus Christ completed His priestly ministry, yes.
You seem to want to pin it all on Luther by casting aspersions in portraying him as a pimp or by continuously bringing up his struggle with certain Canonical books (despite the fact that he didn't "remove" any of them from the Canon, whereas the Orthodox church did add books to the Canon).


The sacraments are to be administered by a valid minister of the Gospel, the minister's validity depending on his faithfulness to the Gospel, not an extra-Biblical notion of "Apostolic Succession" (1 Corinthians 4).


I do know that the priesthood was established after the Apostles and does not have a Biblical basis, yes.


"Do this in remembrance of Me." is a command, yes. However, the legalistic understanding that Christ cannot save someone who has not received communion is both unbiblical and contrary to Scripture.

Catholics and Orthodox believe that Christ established the Priesthood through his Apostles. He is the Chief Priest

The Protestant accounting for the Scriptures lies in God's inspiration of the Scriptures. Which is how the Jews and the early Christians were able to recognize what the Scriptures were long before groups such as the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox came along. These groups, among others, claim to be the original church but all come to different conclusions on what the canon of Scripture should be, revealing that they are a later sect, anachronistically imposing their standards on what God had originally revealed.


Any of these groups have a low view of the Scriptures and do not want the individual to turn to the original Biblical documents, so that they may first prejudice the individual against the Scriptures and each impose their own traditions in it's place. But wherever the Scriptures have been freely shared, Protestantism has flourished, because Protestantism does not seek to reinterpret the original documents according to it's own tradition, but understand the original documents according to their original context. Thus, it is rightly said that Protestantism is nothing more than Biblical or Apostolic Christianity.


We are being told that we should understood the 1st century text, according to one of these sects, each of which cannot trace itself until centuries after the original documents had been written.


And while God defines how the proper Church should obey the boundaries outlined in the Scriptures. Each of these sects will insist that we must understand the original documents according to their understanding.


Lastly, because the Catholic canon for Scripture does not align with the Orthodox canon of Scripture, we can see the competing anachronism of these sects, not that these are the only two sects who claim to be Apostolic, imposed onto the history of the early Church and especially the Church at it's inception, that is the Apostolic Church.

Ask yourself: did the Apostles ever say anything remotely similar to "the Church is the necessary prerequisite to Scripture?" Clearly not, and so when you are building your worldview on a different foundation than on what they have already laid, do not be surprised when it goes awry.

Did the Apostles say:
"Scripture is required for salvation"?

Isn't that inferred?

 

[Aboulia]

07:30: "the Father is the origin or the Monarch of the Trinity."
Perhaps if you were less controlled by your passions, you would be able to hear what was being said.

Perhaps if you actually were listening to what Fr Trenham was saying, you would have made your conception of "Monarchian view of the Trinity" be in accordance with what he said.

You can directly quote him all you like, it doesn't mean what you think it means. And he says things in that video which clarifies that it cannot be what you're conceiving.

Just as you cannot take a single statement out of context, theology doesn't exist in a vacuum, and neither does scripture, which is why you're incapable of accurately understanding both. You may accidentally have a proper interpretation here and there, but that's all you'll ever have if you persist in your errors.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Catholics and Orthodox believe that Christ established the Priesthood through his Apostles. He is the Chief Priest

Correct. Because neither believe that Jesus Christ actually completed His priestly ministry and that He accomplished it at the cross.

Did the Apostles say:
"Scripture is required for salvation"?

Isn't that inferred?

Romans 10:8 But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10for with the heart a person believes, leading to righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, leading to salvation. 11For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES UPON HIM WILL NOT BE PUT TO SHAME.” 12For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him, 13for “WHOEVER CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.” 14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15And how will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO PROCLAIM GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!” 16 However, they did not all heed the good news, for Isaiah says, “LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?” 17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

Someone can be saved without having ever touched the Scriptures, but he cannot be saved without believing in the word that the Scriptures preach.

 

[scorpion]

Why must I accept this assertion that Protestant theology exists outside it's founders?

The fact is that a majority of the founders of the Protestant sects were heavily intertwined with war and rebellion.

Zwingley/Henry VIII ECT were political as much as religious figure.

I've already addressed the issue with each of the sectarian splits from the Orthodox Church (including the Catholic Church)

Like Huss, initially Luther didn't want to create his own religion. Just reform the Catholic Church and stop certain practices and advocated for removing certain books and teachings. But if you pretend that his actions didn't pave the way for further revolutionaries across the west then I think you're living in an alternate reality.

All of these sectarian leaders ultimately are creating their own take on Christianity. There isn't consensus among Protestant or Reformation movements... So how do we know which sect and which brand is correct?

You're just recycling all of Trenham's critiques from Rock and Sand, which is more about character assassination than theology. In other words, it's ad hominem. If you can't attack the argument (or the theology in this case), attack the man himself. The idea that "Protestant theology doesn't exist outside of its founders" is a bizarre statement , bordering on the nonsensical. That's like saying that Mount Everest doesn't exist outside of Edmund Hillary, who first climbed it. Protestants do not revere figures like Luther or Calvin the same way that Orthodox revere the Saints and Fathers. We do not regard them as near-sinless moral paragons, we see them as flawed, sinful men like the rest of us, but do admire their faith, courage and devotion to the truth of scripture.

You can directly quote him all you like, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

This is a weird one. "You can quote him, but he doesn't actually mean what he's saying!"

 

[Aboulia]

This is a weird one. "You can quote him, but he doesn't actually mean what he's saying!"

Do you too wish to separate words from their context? He's trying to conflate technical vocabulary with general vocabulary and insisting he's correct, in addition to ignoring part of the speech in which limitations are explicitly said, which he ignores when he promotes his conception of the "Monarchian Trinity".

Let's use an example Protestants will understand, as generally speaking, you accept that there are different meanings for the word "love" (agape, philios, eros etc.). What makes you think Fr. Trenham is using "origin" or "monarch" in colloquial terms?

The idea that "Protestant theology doesn't exist outside of its founders" is a bizarre statement , bordering on the nonsensical. That's like saying that Mount Everest doesn't exist outside of Edmund Hillary, who first climbed it.

That's a terrible analogy, as Choppa is referring to ideas. You cannot conflate that he's saying a physical place wouldn't exist unless someone first interacted with it's physical heights. (I'm using "exist" as it's used in everyday terms) Marxism wouldn't exist without Karl Marx. Freudian psychology wouldn't exist without Sigmund Freud. Calvinism wouldn't exist without John Calvin.

 

[scorpion]

Let's use an example Protestants will understand, as generally speaking, you accept that there are different meanings for the word "love" (agape, philios, eros etc.). What makes you think Fr. Trenham is using "origin" or "monarch" in colloquial terms?

Then, if you would, go ahead and explain the alternate definitions for those terms from a theological versus a colloquial understanding, that we might better understand his meaning.

That's a terrible analogy, as Choppa is referring to ideas. You cannot conflate that he's saying a physical place wouldn't exist unless someone first interacted with it's physical heights. (I'm using "exist" as it's used in everyday terms) Marxism wouldn't exist without Karl Marx. Freudian psychology wouldn't exist without Sigmund Freud. Calvinism wouldn't exist without John Calvin.

The analogy is actually quite apt, because Protestants don't view their theology as having been invented by Luther, Calvin or others. We view the Reformers as having essentially just mapped out and clarified what already existed as written in the Bible, much in the same way an explorer would map out previously uncharted terrain. There really isn't "Protestant theology" in that sense. Rather it's just, "Biblical theology".

 

[Get2choppaaa]

You're just recycling all of Trenham's critiques from Rock and Sand, which is more about character assassination than theology. In other words, it's ad hominem. If you can't attack the argument (or the theology in this case), attack the man himself. The idea that "Protestant theology doesn't exist outside of its founders" is a bizarre statement , bordering on the nonsensical. That's like saying that Mount Everest doesn't exist outside of Edmund Hillary, who first climbed it. Protestants do not revere figures like Luther or Calvin the same way that Orthodox revere the Saints and Fathers. We do not regard them as near-sinless moral paragons, we see them as flawed, sinful men like the rest of us, but do admire their faith, courage and devotion to the truth of scripture.

This is a weird one. "You can quote him, but he doesn't actually mean what he's saying!"

Really... Have you read the book? I would not say it's about character assassination at all. And he's my much more charitable in historical analysis that I am. In fact Fr. Trenham is pretty laudatory about elements of the Protestant evangelism and ability to outreach, something we often do not do well in ethnic focused Orthodox Churches.

Protestant theology is defined by the teachings of it's foundational sectarian leadership.
If their ideas were not so strong that they decided to break form the Church body at that time, there would be no Reformation. Other philosophers bolster those beliefs and a smattering of other historical writings also. But to imply that the protestant theological beliefs are not a result of their leaders beliefs is simply incorrect and is infact nonsense.

Again, there's no real way to refute the fact that all of these reformed theologies are just a much a result of political infighting as they are attempts to reform the body of the organized church at the time.

 

[Aboulia]

The analogy is actually quite apt, because Protestants don't view their theology as having been invented by Luther, Calvin or others. We view the Reformers as having essentially just mapped out and clarified what already existed as written in the Bible, much in the same way an explorer would map out previously uncharted terrain. There really isn't "Protestant theology" in that sense. It's just, "Biblical theology".

Taking the bible out of it's context and creating a new meaning for it (or in some instances reviving old heresies), is no different than a fully grown man claiming to identify as a 6 year old girl. One separates writings from their normative historical context, and the other separates himself from the normative social fabric in society. Just the levels of separation from a shared reality is greater. Christ did not write anything down (except in the sand) for good reason. He had already given Israel the "Law", what more could he write in order to bring them to understanding? Christ wants to bring us as close as possible to Him as He can, He always desires for His creation to repent. And how could He conceive of bringing us any closer to Himself, than by taking on our nature, and giving us a shared stable reality in this world of death. (the Church).

(KJV) Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

To assume the Church of Christ became corrupted right after the apostles is to assume God made a mistake when he chose to become incarnate when he did in Greek speaking Decapolis.

 

[Samseau]

Who has the Father sent the Spirit from in Galatians 4:6?

A spirit from Christ that came long after his baptism. Luke 1 makes this clear; John the Baptist was carrying the Holy Spirit since conception, specifically the spirit of Elijah, and Christ did not receive the Holy Spirit until he was baptized by John.

I'm going with pure scripture here; no tradition needed to refute the filioque.

This is a roundabout way of saying that baptism is necessary to be saved. Did the thief on the cross "lack Christ"?

The thief was right next to Christ so he did not lack Christ; but baptism is almost always necessary.

 

[JCSteel]

This video isn't about Protestantism but it acknowledges potential Protestant objections to some Orthodox arguments.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

This video isn't about Protestantism but it acknowledges potential Protestant objections to some Orthodox arguments.

I appreciated his point that Orthodox should not downplay or handwave the wrath of God away. Every Protestant denomination that has done this, that has downplayed the authority of the Scriptures, the Sovereignty of God, the deadness of man in sin has inevitably gone liberal.

Here is a video that fairly sums up how Reformed Christians understand the wrath of God and what must be done to propitiate it:

 

[Aboulia]

For a constrast, compare Penal Substitution with Theosis.



Or if you prefer a Jay Dyer breakdown.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

For a constrast, compare Penal Substitution with Theosis.



Or if you prefer a Jay Dyer breakdown.

Theosis is one of the biggest errors of Orthodox theology. In it, every aspect of our salvation is flattened out into one big synergistic, works-based salvation model.

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.

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.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

It's not Augustine you hold to, it's an extreme way of reading into his position, some of his writings were to correct the error of Pelagianism, and so he overstated some things using rhetoric which is common among Church Fathers when addressing others in sermons/letters.

This is the danger when you take one Church Father and exalt him and his writings over all others.

It is not, therefore, true, as some affirm that we say, and as that correspondent of yours ventures moreover to write, that " all are forced into sin, " as if they were unwilling, " by the necessity of their flesh; " but if they are already of the age to use the choice of their own mind, they are both retained in sin by their own will, and by their own will are hurried along from sin to sin. For even he who persuades and deceives does not act in them, except that they may commit sin by their will, either by ignorance of the truth or by delight in iniquity, or by both evils—as well of blindness as of weakness. But this will, which is free in evil things because it takes pleasure in evil, is not free in good things, for the reason that it has not been made free. Nor can a man will any good thing unless he is aided by Him who cannot will evil—that is, by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. For " everything which is not of faith is sin. " [ Romans 14:23 ] And thus the good will which withdraws itself from sin is faithful, because the just lives by faith. [ Habakkuk 2:4 ] And it pertains to faith to believe in Christ. And no man can believe in Christ— that is, come to Him— unless it be given to him. [ Romans 1:17 ] No man, therefore, can have a righteous will, unless, with no foregoing merits, he has received the true, that is, the gratuitous grace from above.

Here is Augustine, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians: Book 1, Chapter 8. I want to know where you think Augustine was speaking "rhetorically."

 

[Rodion]

The Protestant accounting for the Scriptures lies in God's inspiration of the Scriptures. Which is how the Jews and the early Christians were able to recognize what the Scriptures were long before groups such as the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox came along. These groups, among others, claim to be the original church but all come to different conclusions on what the canon of Scripture should be, revealing that they are a later sect, anachronistically imposing their standards on what God had originally revealed.

Again, not the point. When Marcion forms his canon of scripture and rejects certain texts, we know the true God-inspired texts because the church came together and authoritatively declared which texts were God-inspired, part of the criteria for which was their liturgical usage in the Church and tradition. I would agree that this is the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but again, the lived experience and authority of the Church as a prerequisite helps determine true vs false claims of inspiration.

Any of these groups have a low view of the Scriptures and do not want the individual to turn to the original Biblical documents, so that they may first prejudice the individual against the Scriptures and each impose their own traditions in it's place. But wherever the Scriptures have been freely shared, Protestantism has flourished, because Protestantism does not seek to reinterpret the original documents according to it's own tradition, but understand the original documents according to their original context. Thus, it is rightly said that Protestantism is nothing more than Biblical or Apostolic Christianity.

Again, one group claims to be understanding the scriptures in their original context, whilst disagreeing on doctrine with another sect claiming the same standard while quoting scripture to debate each other. What do?

I appreciate that I keep belabouring this point, but Protestants frequently cite the scriptures to criticise Catholicism and Orthodoxy, while giving no justification for their own interpretations other than “it is what scripture plainly says” when we can say “no it isn’t, scripture says this.”

We are being told that we should understood the 1st century text, according to one of these sects, each of which cannot trace itself until centuries after the original documents had been written.

And while God defines how the proper Church should obey the boundaries outlined in the Scriptures. Each of these sects will insist that we must understand the original documents according to their understanding.

Lastly, because the Catholic canon for Scripture does not align with the Orthodox canon of Scripture, we can see the competing anachronism of these sects, not that these are the only two sects who claim to be Apostolic, imposed onto the history of the early Church and especially the Church at it's inception, that is the Apostolic Church.

Ask yourself: did the Apostles ever say anything remotely similar to "the Church is the necessary prerequisite to Scripture?" Clearly not, and so when you are building your worldview on a different foundation than on what they have already laid, do not be surprised when it goes awry.

“Keep to the traditions you have been taught, whether by our Epistle or word of mouth” would attest to there being an oral tradition of great importance. The scriptures don’t directly say the Church is the prerequisite, but examining Protestant epistemology makes it abundantly clear. As do the early centuries when no Churches had access to a complete New Testament, yet still lived a life in Christ

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Again, not the point. When Marcion forms his canon of scripture and rejects certain texts, we know the true God-inspired texts because the church came together and authoritatively declared which texts were God-inspired, part of the criteria for which was their liturgical usage in the Church and tradition. I would agree that this is the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but again, the lived experience and authority of the Church as a prerequisite helps determine true vs false claims of inspiration.

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.

Again, one group claims to be understanding the scriptures in their original context, whilst disagreeing on doctrine with another sect claiming the same standard while quoting scripture to debate each other. What do?

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.

“Keep to the traditions you have been taught, whether by our Epistle or word of mouth” would attest to there being an oral tradition of great importance. The scriptures don’t directly say the Church is the prerequisite, but examining Protestant epistemology makes it abundantly clear. As do the early centuries when no Churches had access to a complete New Testament, yet still lived a life in Christ

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

 

[Samseau]

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 continue with this falsehood? I've already shown you that the New Testament itself is the product of the Early Church. In other words, the "cannon" of the New Testament was created sometime in the early 100s and was in use for centuries before being acknowledged as a "cannon" later on in the 300's.

We just had this discussion a few pages ago.