Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread

I wonder what Martin Luther would have to say about the mega modern churches of today?
Martin Luther, John Wesley, and others who created new Christian Protestant sects were great Christian men. I wonder if they would have any second thoughts about splitting the church. This decision of course was not taken lightly, but when you look at the dozens of Christ-lite churches that teach prosperity gospel or monthly sermons on "forgiveness" not to mention all the "nondenominational" churches which sprang from this split, I wonder if it has created more harm than good in the long run.

One of the biggest problems is many of these churches lead men who are trying to lead a Christian life, down a path of evil.
 
The sacraments are the normative means of receiving grace, but not the rigidly legalistic category you constantly present them as. For example, the thief on the cross would have been baptized if he had heard the preaching of the Apostles and had the same repentance and faith, but the whole being-nailed-to-a-cross-in-the-process-of-dying thing precluded that.

There are countless examples in the lives of the saints of a Christian being tortured, onlookers observing this and declaring that they too are Christians, and being immediately martyred with no opportunity for baptism. These are commemorated as saints in the services of the Church so it's hard to get much more official than that. If these people weren't killed, they would have been baptized and entered the Church in the normative way. If they had professed faith but rejected baptism when it was possible, then they would not have been Christians. It's as simple as that. For 99.9% of us, who are not facing immediate martyrdom in professing faith in Christ, baptism is the normative manner of entering the Church. Exceptions don't disprove the rule.

This is not hard to understand. And it's not a problem for Orthodoxy, it's only a problem for a logic-obsessive bean-counting mentality that can't conceive of perceiving any of this outside of its myopic arbitrary parameters.
The legalistic nature of Orthodox sacramentology reveals itself in their understanding of what makes a sacrament "valid." For the Orthodox, only their sacraments are valid, meaning only their sacraments confer saving grace. Because the Orthodox already deny justification by faith alone, the sacraments become necessary to receive saving grace. I agree that they will, inconsistently, affirm that many are saved without the sacraments and by faith alone but this only goes to show the deficiency in their sacramentology.

So in other words, if you had the misfortune of living before the printing press made owning your own copy of the Bible viable, and/or the misfortune of being an illiterate person who couldn't sit down and read the Bible and decide for yourself what it means, then you're shit outta luck. This cornerstone of Protestant epistemology could only spring from the minds of scholastic western European nerds with a crippling lack of perspective beyond the ivory towers. That's exactly why there's nothing like it before widespread and affordable printing emerged, resulting in people quickly taking universal access to the printed word as a given.
Before the printing press, only the rich and the local churches had copies of the Bible. The laity would receive the Scriptures as told through the preacher. This former lack of availability in the Scriptures doubtless led to many of the superstitions surrounding the Scriptures. When the average person got a hold of the Scriptures and could not find the doctrines that his bishops had taught him, he quickly abandoned those doctrines.

This document is probably a forgery, found under remarkably dubious circumstances, but even if we grant that it's completely authentic and this Patriarch subscribed to Calvinist notions, so what? He's not the Infallible Supreme Pontiff of Orthodoxy. He can simply be wrong, and that has no effect on the Church.
Have you watched the video? There is more to Cyril Lucaris than just the one document. He makes for an interesting case-study because he shows that Eastern Orthodoxy, as it is now expressed, not necessarily in his day, is a post-hoc reaction against the Protestant Reformation. So when you say he was wrong, who are you to say he was wrong? You are only part of the laity and he was the first among the bishops.

In other words a Calvinist can never actually know he's saved and can merely be a deluded reprobate. This places him in a far worse position than the Orthodox. For instance, upon committing an act of fornication, the Calvinist might start to ask am-I-really-elect-or-reprobate, and conclude upon constantly falling into sin that they aren't really saved and give up, that God obviously hasn't given him grace. The switch, so to speak, is either flipped to On or Off, and if empirical experience suggests it's in the Off position, then you're screwed.
There is nothing in Calvinism that makes giving up necessary. We know we are weak, but God is the one who is causing us to persevere to the end. I think everyone who has sincerely struggled with their sin has asked the question "does God really love me?" He does, and because He does, He will not forsake us.

I don't know about anybody else, but I find the latter notion a lot less bleak, and a lot more hopeful. If you scratch beneath the surface, you find that in Protestantism, especially Calvinism, you can't know that you're actually saved. You can be fervently faithful today and totally Believe In Jesus, but if in the future you fall away, your present seeming faith is total delusion.
The same book that says "you may know that in the Son of God you have eternal life" also says "they [apostates] went out from us so that it would be demonstrated that they were not truly of us." This is how to Biblically account for this seeming paradox.

Of course you're under no intrinsic obligation to study Orthodoxy in depth, and one from the Western world can't be faulted for misunderstanding Orthodoxy, as it has an outlook that is very different from that of the individualistic western mind and isn't something that will immediately be picked up, especially not just from reading about it. But if you're going to opine on what you think we believe, as you've done on a regular basis for the last several years, constantly making these kinds of erroneous statements makes you come across as a bad-faith actor with an axe to grind.
You accuse me of not understanding what you believe, but then you go on to affirm everything that I say you believe, which is where these discussions come from. Then after doing so, you suggest I am bad faith actor. I don't get it.

You are free to think of me however you want. I view these kinds of discussions as both a way to learn, and as a sparring match, or like playing chess. I would not make it out to be anything bigger than it is. I am not under the expectation that I will convince you, so I do not experience anger or disappointment when you remain unconvinced.
 
Last edited:
By legalistic, I am referring to the idea that you must earn your way into God's standing. In that regard, justification by faith alone is not legalistic at all. I do not need an Orthodox priest, Orthodox sacraments, Orthodox toll houses to be justified in God's sight. God's grace is not limited to the Orthodox church. Just as the Christians in Paul's day did not need the Jewish temple and Jewish sacraments to be justified.

Rather, God justifies the believer on the basis of His own grace and mercy.

If you're neglecting justification and only emphasizing communion, then Orthodoxy is not legal enough. Or at least not as legal as Paul. There is no koinonia without justification.

It's tricky, if we think we are earning our way, we've missed the point, but likewise, if we think we can just intellectually assent to a set of beliefs (even if they are true) we've also missed the point. The point is our relationship with Christ and that is always going to be a struggle this side of the eschaton.

Whether or not sacraments/rituals are legalism is in the perspective one takes.

For example, is it legalism if I legitimately want to do those rituals (or even naturally do them) rather than do the modern rituals like go to the movies, watch sports, shop, play video games, scan the news/social media? Some rituals aren't even bad and we just naturally do them - like a handshake. Is it legalism if we just naturally want to worship in a pattern that is oriented towards communion with Christ?

This reminds me of a quote from an Orthodox Saint I recently saw. I suppose it's more of a critique towards Roman Catholicism but I think it speaks towards this shift in perspective:

"Fear of torment is the way of a slave,
desire of a reward in the heavenly kingdom is the way of a hireling,
but God's way is that of a son,
through Love."
-St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain
 
The legalistic nature of Orthodox sacramentology reveals itself in their understanding of what makes a sacrament "valid." For the Orthodox, only their sacraments are valid, meaning only their sacraments confer saving grace. Because the Orthodox already deny justification by faith alone, the sacraments become necessary to receive saving grace. I agree that they will, inconsistently, affirm that many are saved without the sacraments and by faith alone but this only goes to show the deficiency in their sacramentology.

We have a completely different understanding of faith. Faith is not simply "consent." Faith is true belief, one that transforms the soul and converts a human into an totally new person. Hence, "faith without works is dead." Faith is experienced; someone must choose to believe, there is no predestination that humans can be aware of (only God knows). Hence free will is paramount.

Thus the sacraments are not sufficient for grace, but they are necessary insomuch as one is capable of receiving them. This may sound like a contradiction to the reductionist worldview of Prots, but Prots forget that all things are possible with God. Contradictions do not exist for God like they do for humans.

Sacraments alone cannot confer grace, but if someone is actively avoiding them it means they lack faith and will not have grace.
 
For example, is it legalism if I legitimately want to do those rituals (or even naturally do them).
Our attitude is that you get to partake of the sacraments because you have been redeemed, not that you need to do the sacraments in order to be redeemed. Do you see the contrast between Grace and Law? And so the sacraments are a means of grace. We should partake of the sacraments if we have been redeemed. They are signs and seals of our regeneration in Christ.

Faith is not simply "consent." Faith is true belief, one that transforms the soul and converts a human into an totally new person.
I don't believe faith is simply consent at all. It is a fruit of the regenerative work of God, it is a gift.

Faith is experienced; someone must choose to believe, there is no predestination that humans can be aware of (only God knows). Hence free will is paramount.
Romans 8 and 9 make us aware of predestination. To you, it looks like you are making a choice. To God, you are doing what He has already foreordained. Free will assumes a moral neutrality and innate ability that the Bible says man does not possess. Man chooses evil every time. It is only by God that man ever chooses good.
 
Romans 8 and 9 make us aware of predestination. To you, it looks like you are making a choice. To God, you are doing what He has already foreordained. Free will assumes a moral neutrality and innate ability that the Bible says man does not possess. Man chooses evil every time. It is only by God that man ever chooses good.

Not you, I, or anyone else has the slightest clue as to what God is seeing. To claim otherwise is Prelest (a dangerous delusion). God is so far outside of our understanding that is impossible to describe how far beyond us He is.

That's why predestination is completely worthless on a day to day, basic decision making level. Tells us nothing of how to be saved, or who is being saved.
 
Calvinism is such a dark and bleak view of God's creation. It essentially boils humanity down to sockpuppets or automatons that God is toying with. What a thing to believe. Never mind the fact the pretty much the entirety of the Gospel is instructions on how to exercise our will toward God. Crazy how Christ spent so much time preaching and teaching something that is apparently impossible!
 
Not you, I, or anyone else has the slightest clue as to what God is seeing.
On the face of it, this is true. This is why we look to the Scriptures to make our experience intelligible to us. We're going astray when we define the divinely-revealed truths based on our experience. The God's eye-view is the objective truth.

That's why predestination is completely worthless on a day to day, basic decision making level. Tells us nothing of how to be saved, or who is being saved.
If this were true, then the Bible would not speak of it.

Calvinism is such a dark and bleak view of God's creation. It essentially boils humanity down to sockpuppets or automatons that God is toying with. What a thing to believe. Never mind the fact the pretty much the entirety of the Gospel is instructions on how to exercise our will toward God. Crazy how Christ spent so much time preaching and teaching something that is apparently impossible!
John 6: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day."
 
If this were true, then the Bible would not speak of it.

The Bible doesn't speak of it. The Bible speaks of making huge effort to save oneself and climb the ladder to salvation. Those who think they are saved are usually the most damned, being pulled down by their pride into the gaping maw of Satan.

The_Ladder_of_Divine_Ascent_Monastery_of_St_Catherine_Sinai_12th_century.jpg


What this 6th century icon shows us that many of these monks are being pulled down into hell by their own prayer ropes. Those who believe they are righteous are among the most damned.

Hence why Christ says "blessed are the poor of spirit," and why many Pauline Epistles stress humility because we cannot know the ways of the Lord. Even Paul claimed he was unworthy, and did not presume himself as automatically saved.

Paul stressed by staying faithful, he could be saved through grace, but, it was only on the condition of him staying true to the faith and that even if he deviated from it to ignore him! Paul stressed humility to an extreme degree and Paul never considered himself automatically saved; that his entire life was a penance to repent from his earlier wicked ways.
 
The Bible doesn't speak of it.
Romans 8:27 He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. 28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose. 29Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers; 30and those whom He predestined, He also called; and those whom He called, He also justified; and those whom He justified, He also glorified.

The Bible speaks of making huge effort to save oneself and climb the ladder to salvation.
We do not save ourselves. Christ Jesus is the one who saves us. And because He has saved us, we should walk in the same manner as He walked.

Paul stressed by staying faithful, he could be saved through grace, but, it was only on the condition of him staying true to the faith and that even if he deviated from it to ignore him!
Romans 9: "It is not up to the one who wills or the one who runs but on God who has mercy."

Our humility comes from recognizing that we cannot save ourselves. Even our faith in Him is not of ourselves, that too is the gift of God.
 
We do not save ourselves. Christ Jesus is the one who saves us. And because He has saved us, we should walk in the same manner as He walked.

Yet according to your theology, it is impossible for man to choose to walk in the manner that Christ walked (despite Christ constantly teaching as if we have the ability to make a choice to do so or not do so). So it is self-contradictory for you to say that we "should" walk in the same manner He walked. There is no "should" in your worldview when it comes to choosing God or not.
 
We do not save ourselves. Christ Jesus is the one who saves us. And because He has saved us, we should walk in the same manner as He walked.


Romans 9: "It is not up to the one who wills or the one who runs but on God who has mercy."

Our humility comes from recognizing that we cannot save ourselves. Even our faith in Him is not of ourselves, that too is the gift of God.

You are confusing several things.

Your effort comes from your will, which comes from God. Simply because God enables our wills does not mean we do not have free will. Paul in Romans 8:27 is talking about how this process works; he is not denying the importance of free will or individual effort. He is saying that God enables us to follow Him through our wills, and on a divine level it looks as such:

"And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose. 29Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers; 30and those whom He predestined, He also called; and those whom He called, He also justified; and those whom He justified, He also glorified."

This does not mean we have any inkling of how God predestines the world, nor does it mean that any of us at any time can consider ourselves saved. Salvation is a never-ending process that only comes from humility and effort. God has predestined which of us will remain humble and hard-working towards the Kingdom until the end of our lives, but that does not mean we know which of us is worthy.
 
Yet according to your theology, it is impossible for man to choose to walk in the manner that Christ walked (despite Christ constantly teaching as if we have the ability to make a choice to do so or not do so).
On his own, yes. The natural man cannot do so. He must be born again.
Having been regenerated, we can and should walk in the same manner that Christ walked. If we sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

There is no "should" in your worldview when it comes to choosing God or not.
Everyone should choose God. But they choose to sin instead. They need to be born again by the Holy Spirit.
 
On his own, yes. The natural man cannot do so. He must be born again.
Having been regenerated, we can and should walk in the same manner that Christ walked. If we sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.


Everyone should choose God. But they choose to sin instead. They need to be born again by the Holy Spirit.

According to you, we have no choice of whether we are regenerated/born again or not. So my point stands.
 
According to you, we have no choice of whether we are regenerated/born again or not. So my point stands.
In John 3, Jesus describes regeneration as the work of the Spirit. It is not of the flesh. Indeed, He does not present the work of the Spirit as something that the flesh has control over.

So your point is only true if you're talking about man in his fallen state. It does not stand with respect to the new man who has been regenerated by the Spirit.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6That which has been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which has been born of the Spirit is spirit. 7Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8The wind blows where it wishes and you hear its sound, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who has been born of the Spirit.” 9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?” 10Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things? 11Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and bear witness of what we have seen, and you do not accept our witness. 12If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
 
Our attitude is that you get to partake of the sacraments because you have been redeemed, not that you need to do the sacraments in order to be redeemed.

What I'm suggesting is that what if we get to the point where we don't even need that kind of motivation of "knowing that I've been redeemed" so now I get to partake and get to do something. What if someone can just do something out of love for Christ because they love him. Look, I'm not saying I'm to that point in my heart in my motivations but I think this is what Christ is cultivating in us.
 
In John 3, Jesus describes regeneration as the work of the Spirit. It is not of the flesh. Indeed, He does not present the work of the Spirit as something that the flesh has control over.

So your point is only true if you're talking about man in his fallen state. It does not stand with respect to the new man who has been regenerated by the Spirit.

Right, and man is in his fallen state prior to being in his regenerated state. And we cannot choose to enter into that regenerated state, according to you.
 
What if someone can just do something out of love for Christ because they love him. Look, I'm not saying I'm to that point in my heart in my motivations but I think this is what Christ is cultivating in us.
We should do things out of love for Christ. Not to earn anything with Him but to present our lives as a sacrifice of thanksgiving for what He has done for us. Our motivations, passions, and fleshly desires get in the way of doing this as we ought, so we must die to ourselves and embrace the Spirit. Christ absolutely does cultivate this Spirit in us.

Right, and man is in his fallen state prior to being in his regenerated state. And we cannot choose to enter into that regenerated state, according to you.
The fallen man cannot regenerate himself nor does he desire to be born again. Regeneration is the work of the Spirit.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
2 Corinthians 4:3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4in whose case the god of this age [the devil] has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
It takes the supernatural work of God to make us born again and to see His kingdom.
Knowing that those who believe in Christ, which includes us, are saved is not prelest. There is no greater prelest, spiritual delusion, than to not believe in the Gospel and the power of God to save.
 
We should do things out of love for Christ. Not to earn anything with Him but to present our lives as a sacrifice of thanksgiving for what He has done for us. Our motivations, passions, and fleshly desires get in the way of doing this as we ought, so we must die to ourselves and embrace the Spirit. Christ absolutely does cultivate this Spirit in us.


The fallen man cannot regenerate himself nor does he desire to be born again. Regeneration is the work of the Spirit.



It takes the supernatural work of God to make us born again and to see His kingdom.
Knowing that those who believe in Christ, which includes us, are saved is not prelest. There is no greater prelest, spiritual delusion, than to not believe in the Gospel and the power of God to save.

Yeah so you're spending a lot of words and rhetoric to admit that I'm right and my point stands:

You have an enormous book full of Christ teaching us sinners how to move our will toward God and yet you maintain that movement of the will toward God is impossible.
 
Yeah so you're spending a lot of words and rhetoric to admit that I'm right and my point stands:

You have an enormous book full of Christ teaching us sinners how to move our will toward God and yet you maintain that movement of the will toward God is impossible.
John 6:63 The Spirit is the One who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”
 
Back
Top