Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread

[GoodShepherd]

Some of the biggest evangelists of all time have been Calvinists. God has decreed the ends (those who will believe) as well as the means (the proclamation of the Gospel). There are some extremists who do not evangelize but they are so miniscule that they are inconsequential. We believe that we can have confidence in our evangelism because "as many as are appointed to eternal life" will believe, as in Acts 13. This is why Calvinists remain very conservative in their evangelizing, we do not believe we need to modify the Gospel in order to attract more followers. We believe that God always "reserves a remnant for Himself."


That's hard to give a short answer to. God has decreed the ends (the salvation of the Church) as well as the means (the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ). This creation was created with a purpose, a telos, and God has been working to bring this creation to it's intended purpose. His omniscience cannot be falsified, He knows everything that will happen because He is the one who is holding this creation together. With God, there is no rogue molecule and no contingency, "He works all things according to the counsel of His will."

Without predestination, the creation would be in a state of flux. There is no longer purpose that holds the creation together but everything in it becomes meaningless and random, it is the cosmos of the materialist and the athiest. I cannot grant this because "all things were created by Him and for Him and through Him. He is before all things and in Him all things consist (they hold together)."

But isnt that a bit of a contradiction though because if people are already predestined then why try convince them with preaching to them?

 

[GoodShepherd]

What do you mean when you say Calvin didn't believe in the Eucharist? Have you read the Institutes? He was known for having a higher sacramentology than Zwingli, not that Zwingli was wrong as he used the least amount of non-Biblical language in describing the Eucharist.

If you are equivocating the Eucharist with transubstantiation, than none of the big three Reformers, not even Luther, believed in it because it is simply not a Biblical doctrine.

The concept of transubstantiation relies on the concept of a priest, and as has been mentioned above, the Apostolic Church knew nothing of a priesthood other than the Melchizedek priesthood of Jesus Christ alone, and the priesthood of all believers.

I was actually referring to the icons and church traditiobs, do Calvanists believe that the Holy Communion is the literal body and blood of Christ or just symbols? Priests, elders and Bishops are mentioned in the Bible though?

 

[GoodShepherd]

What do you mean when you say Calvin didn't believe in the Eucharist? Have you read the Institutes? He was known for having a higher sacramentology than Zwingli, not that Zwingli was wrong as he used the least amount of non-Biblical language in describing the Eucharist.

If you are equivocating the Eucharist with transubstantiation, than none of the big three Reformers, not even Luther, believed in it because it is simply not a Biblical doctrine.

The concept of transubstantiation relies on the concept of a priest, and as has been mentioned above, the Apostolic Church knew nothing of a priesthood other than the Melchizedek priesthood of Jesus Christ alone, and the priesthood of all believers.

I was actually referring to the icons and church traditiobs, do Calvanists believe that the Holy Communion is the literal body and blood of Christ or just symbols? Priests, elders and Bishops are mentioned in the Bible though? Mel

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.


I don't believe faith is simply consent at all. It is a fruit of the regenerative work of God, it is a gift.


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.

So why will we be facing a judgement in the next life if everything we did was not our choice? Why are there rewards? We are also told to resist the devil in the scriptures, if you think about it if this kind of fatalism of predestination is true then none of this would make any sense, what about satan and the demons are they not destined for the lake of fire for their crimes they refuse to repent of? I heard one time a monk managed to turn a demon into an angel again in his cell, he trapped him inside with the sign of the cross and told him he would only let him go if he would sing the angelic songs that he once sang at the throne of God

 

[GoodShepherd]

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.

How do the Orthodox interpret the numerous verses that make reference to God's predestination of the elect? Because you can't just handwave those verses away or give them some transparently inaccurate interpretation. They're very clear in their language and meaning, and the theme is touched upon repeatedly in both the Gospels and the Epistles. Of course we can argue and speculate as to the nature of predestination/determinism vs. free will and how both concepts seem to exist simultaneously in scripture (I believe this is one of the topics that Paul refers to about us seeing through a glass darkly - such things are essentially impossible for us to understand from our human perspective and can only be reconciled in the omniscient mind of God which exists outside of space and time entirely).

But the Bible is very clear in saying that God has predestined certain individuals to salvation. Our exact understanding of how that works will assuredly remain imperfect on this side of heaven, but paradoxically, a complete understanding and internalizing of this doctrine leads one to behave in much the opposite fashion as one might expect (it instills an overwhelming degree of humility and desire to please God, rather than being a "license to sin" as some would characterize it).

Most of all, I think it should be emphasized that no Reformed/Calvinist Christian believes in predestination simply because they prefer that doctrine or because they're looking for some kind of easy road to salvation. They believe it because it's very plainly what the Bible says. In other words, the interpretation of scripture does not follow the pre-existing doctrine, rather the doctrine is itself entirely derived from the clear teaching of scripture. Predestination did not spring out of Calvin's head sui generis. Augustine wrote about it, and it's a doctrine/theme referenced repeatedly in both the Old and New Testaments. So portraying it as some kind of wacky Protestant heresy pulled out of thin air is simply absurd.

A topic like this is where we as Christians would go back and see whats the interpritation of the Church, the fathers and the saints, the church is the custodian of the truth not the individual although the individual can read thw scriptures whenever he wants he cant have a private intepretation, Iv been in the Orthodox church for 2 years and read quite a few books and gone into their teachings and I havent found them teaching predestination like this.

What about the book of revelations, its full of instructions for us to not be deceived and to ensure until the end etc

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

But isnt that a bit of a contradiction though because if people are already predestined then why try convince them with preaching to them?

Because God has ordained the ends as well as the means. Our preaching to them is just as ordained as their belief in it. If they are appointed to eternal life they will believe, as Acts says.

I was actually referring to the icons and church traditiobs, do Calvanists believe that the Holy Communion is the literal body and blood of Christ or just symbols?

Here is what Calvin said about the Eucharist:

It is a Father who testifies, "That the substance of bread and wine in the Eucharist does not cease but remains, just as the nature and substance of man remains united to the Godhead in the Lord Jesus Christ." This boundary they [Catholics] pass in pretending that, as soon as the words of our Lord are pronounced, the substance of bread and wine ceases, and is transubstantiated into body and blood.

He emphasizes the reality that the Eucharist, as a sign, points to, which is the crucifixion of Jesus Christ applied to the believer.

The Reformed believe that Christ died to save you and that He gives you the sacrament as a sign of what He has already accomplished. We don't believe Christ died to give you a sacrament that may or may not save you.

Priests, elders and Bishops are mentioned in the Bible though?

Biblically, Elders and Bishops refer to the same office. There is no priest other than Jesus Christ.

So why will we be facing a judgement in the next life if everything we did was not our choice?

You are making a choice, you are choosing to sin. If you do choose God, it is because the Holy Spirit has granted it to you. Romans 9 answers this very question:

Romans 9:18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? WILL THE THING MOLDED SAY TO THE MOLDER, “WHY DID YOU MAKE ME LIKE THIS”? 21Or does not the potter have authority over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22And what if God, wanting to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath having been prepared for destruction, 23and in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles?

A lot of people don't like this passage, but it is sinful and unfaithful to censure it. Instead, we should pray for the faith to accept it.

Iv been in the Orthodox church for 2 years and read quite a few books and gone into their teachings and I havent found them teaching predestination like this.

What about the book of revelations, its full of instructions for us to not be deceived and to ensure until the end etc

You quoted Scorpion and I both, and I'd like to see his take as well.

Predestination is a kill-shot for any works-based system, so no one is going to emphasize it other than people who are really big on Faith and Grace. We do not set God's moral imperatives He gives us against the higher theological truths that He reveals to us. We do not have a legalistic understanding of His commandments as it was in the days of the Old Testament. Rather, God has regenerated us, justified us, and empowered us to walk in the ways that please Him.

 

[GoodShepherd]

Because God has ordained the ends as well as the means. Our preaching to them is just as ordained as their belief in it. If they are appointed to eternal life they will believe, as Acts says.


Here is what Calvin said about the Eucharist:

He emphasizes the reality that the Eucharist, as a sign, points to, which is the crucifixion of Jesus Christ applied to the believer.

The Reformed believe that Christ died to save you and that He gives you the sacrament as a sign of what He has already accomplished. We don't believe Christ died to give you a sacrament that may or may not save you.


Biblically, Elders and Bishops refer to the same office. There is no priest other than Jesus Christ.


You are making a choice, you are choosing to sin. If you do choose God, it is because the Holy Spirit has granted it to you. Romans 9 answers this very question:

A lot of people don't like this passage, but it is sinful and unfaithful to censure it. Instead, we should pray for the faith to accept it.


You quoted Scorpion and I both, and I'd like to see his take as well.

Predestination is a kill-shot for any works-based system, so no one is going to emphasize it other than people who are really big on Faith and Grace. We do not set God's moral imperatives He gives us against the higher theological truths that He reveals to us. We do not have a legalistic understanding of His commandments as it was in the days of the Old Testament. Rather, God has regenerated us, justified us, and empowered us to walk in the ways that please Him.

Yet people believe in the gospel and at the same time people can also fall away, the great apostacy is a good example, we are also capable of falling into sin thats why confession is in the new testament to repent when we fail,regarding the Eucharist for the first 1500 years of Christianity all Christians believed that the holy communion is the literal body and blood of Christ just like it says so in the scriptures, Neither Christ nor the diciples called it bread and wine but my body and blood, its like the reverse of the tree of knowledge of good and evil which man fell by eating now we are restored by eating the Eucharist, some people have had visions into the spiritual world and have even seen angels taking a baby and cutting the child up in pieces and the people at church eating the child, thats Christ.

Priest is mentioned in the new testament, so do the calvanists have bishops over them? I think the one you are saying that is used interchangebly is the word presbeter and priest, we also have the word deacon there is a clear heirachy, for example Christ had 70-72 diciples thats the same number of elders Moses had under him to govern the people its the same thing as the old testament and in the opd testament there were temples priests and sacrements too and candles inside the temple and a priest to minister the sacrifices just like in Orthodoxy and they had vestments too and images and relics inside the temple, we obviously dont sacrifice animals those were shadows, types and symbols of Christ we partake of the Eucharist, if we look at the very old churches we see them full of iconography too, there is a monestary in Greece with a chapel inside where its said apostle Paul converted the greeks and you should have a look at the old icons painted on the walls.

it was in the 7th century where some Christians were getting this idea that icons were idolatry and king Leo banned them and killed people over it and destroyed relics, the 7th Eucumenical church council defended the icons

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Yet people believe in the gospel and at the same time people can also fall away.

Yes, because the Spirit of God does not abide in them. Never has, never will.

Eucharist for the first 1500 years of Christianity all Christians believed that the holy communion is the literal body and blood of Christ

I just gave you a quote from Calvin referencing a Church Father showing this isn't true.

Neither Christ nor the diciples called it bread and wine but my body and blood

Matthew 26:29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

Jesus still called it wine after the Supper was over.

Priest is mentioned in the new testament,

Hebrews 10:22 so much more Jesus also has become the guarantee of a better covenant. 23 And the former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, 24but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently.

Jesus Christ hold His priesthood permanently, He does not give it up to many priests who are prevented by death from continuing.

so do the calvanists have bishops over them?

Yes. Because Titus tells us that Presbyters are the same thing as Episcopates, we have Elders/Bishops. The Monarchical Episcopacy is neither in the Bible nor in the early Church Fathers until Ignatius.

we also have the word deacon there is a clear heirachy,

There are Elders and Deacons in the Apostolic Church. The Priest is a theological development that comes later, it is a man-made tradition.

I think the one you are saying that is used interchangebly is the word presbeter and priest,

The Book of Acts proves this is false. There is a Greek word for Priest, and it isn't Presbyteros.

if we look at the very old churches we see them full of iconography too

The veneration of icons was almost universally condemned by the Early Church Fathers. The iconography was later added to earlier sites.

it was in the 7th century where some Christians were getting this idea that icons were idolatry and king Leo banned them and killed people over it and destroyed relics, the 7th Eucumenical church council defended the icons

Why the Council of Hieria is not considered Ecumenical, but 2nd Nicea is, reveals the completely arbitrary nature of what makes a council "Ecumenical." 2nd Nicea is a farcry away from 1st Nicea.

 

[analyst_green]

Is there anything in Acts that teaches us to pray to icons or that there was such as thing as a priesthood in the Apostle's church government? Because the Church in Acts didn't do those things.

Yes, Acts 14:23: "So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed."

Elders are priests, and they are appointed by the apostles who are the first bishops.

Icons are mentioned several times in the Old testament, including the angelic sculptures made by Moses. The Church has always made the final decision on controversies like icons through councils, as I cited earlier in Acts 15. What we don't do is separate from the very Church guided by the Holy Spirit since it's inception at Pentecost, as through the councils He guides us to the right decision.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Yes, Acts 14:23: "So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed."

The reason even your Bible translation renders presbyteros as elder, is because presbyteros means elder. It does not mean priest.

If you want to see priest in Acts, then the only priesthood mentioned is the priesthood of the Jews:

Acts 6:7 Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

The word here for priest is hierion, not presbyteros.

Icons are mentioned several times in the Old testament, including the angelic sculptures made by Moses.

I asked for Icons from the Book of Acts for proof that the Apostolic Church venerated them. Not an Origen-inspired allegorical reading of the Old Testament.

The Church has always made the final decision on controversies like icons through councils, as I cited earlier in Acts 15. What we don't do is separate from the very Church guided by the Holy Spirit since it's inception at Pentecost, as through the councils He guides us to the right decision.

This is pretty much the final recourse for Orthodoxy. You have to believe that your church has the ability to reinterpret and redefine the Bible. The Bible becomes a wax nose to suit the tradition. What's really happening is you are separating yourselves from the Apostolic Church by contradicting the Apostolic Doctrine.

 

[analyst_green]

This is pretty much the final recourse for Orthodoxy. You have to believe that your church has the ability to reinterpret and redefine the Bible. The Bible becomes a wax nose to suit the tradition. What's really happening is you are separating yourselves from the Apostolic Church by contradicting the Apostolic Doctrine.

EVERY reading of the Bible is an interpretation. Get two random people to read a passage and they will come away with two different ideas. I'd rather have my interpretation come from the apostolic church as you yourself admit, which is the Orthodox Church.

We need the Holy Spirit's guidance, through our bishops and priests, to properly understand the Bible. Remember that a Church creates Scripture, Scripture cannot create a Church. Everything aside from Orthodoxy is a separation from Christ's original church and will never come to the right interpretation because without God it is impossible.

 

[Raskolnikov]

I asked for Icons from the Book of Acts for proof that the Apostolic Church venerated them. Not an Origen-inspired allegorical reading of the Old Testament.

That's mighty big talk for someone who has zero institutional connection to the Ancient Church.

"Well yeah, it might seem like that to your institution that has the tradition, but not from my personal point of view where I claim that the meaning of the text is evident in arbitrary regards by arbitrary standards that I can decide ad hoc and underpin using sources that I choose myself."

 

[Samseau]

Why the Council of Hieria is not considered Ecumenical, but 2nd Nicea is, reveals the completely arbitrary nature of what makes a council "Ecumenical." 2nd Nicea is a farcry away from 1st Nicea.

Yes it was, the 1st coucil was by defintion Ecumenical, since Ecumenical is simply Greek for "of the Emperor."

The Emperor, Constantine, was present at the 1st council, and was the one who called for the council, which means it was "of the Emperor" aka Ecumenical by definition.

 

[Samseau]

I asked for Icons from the Book of Acts for proof that the Apostolic Church venerated them. Not an Origen-inspired allegorical reading of the Old Testament.

You don't need proof for icons anymore than you need proof to make a TV show about Jesus.

People like images. It helps them focus and pray, which is the basis for worship. It's not any more complex than that.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I'd rather have my interpretation come from the apostolic church as you yourself admit, which is the Orthodox Church.

I obviously don't grant this.

We've gone through the gamut on some issues:
The Orthodox soteriology is not Biblical.
It's ecclesiology is not Biblical.
It's sacramentology is not Biblical.
In every one of these cases, you can pretty much refute the Orthodox position just by citing the Bible.
How is it Apostolic?

Yes it was, the 1st coucil was by defintion Ecumenical, since Ecumenical is simply Greek for "of the Emperor."

The Emperor, Constantine, was present at the 1st council, and was the one who called for the council, which means it was "of the Emperor" aka Ecumenical by definition.

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

You don't need proof for icons anymore than you need proof to make a TV show about Jesus.

Both are problems, I agree. The false image has a way of pulling away from the true Word.

 

[Raskolnikov]

The Orthodox soteriology is not Biblical.
It's ecclesiology is not Biblical.
It's sacramentology is not Biblical.

You cannot define "Biblical". That's an evidentialist reading of the text you have yet to justify. Your personal and isolated interpretation of Bible verses is irrelevant. The Bible Canon was created by the Church because the scriptures included were important for how the faith was taught, within a superstructure of liturgy and hierarchy.

The Bible was never meant to be a book for individual interpretation and exegesis. The point of Christianity is communion between humanity and God, as defined by the community of believers created by God.

If we were to challenge you on the "apparent meaning" of the text, you would inevitably cite textual criticism from sources that have nothing to do with any historical idea of what the faith is supposed to be.

 

[GoodShepherd]

Yes, because the Spirit of God does not abide in them. Never has, never will.


I just gave you a quote from Calvin referencing a Church Father showing this isn't true.



Jesus still called it wine after the Supper was over.



Jesus Christ hold His priesthood permanently, He does not give it up to many priests who are prevented by death from continuing.


Yes. Because Titus tells us that Presbyters are the same thing as Episcopates, we have Elders/Bishops. The Monarchical Episcopacy is neither in the Bible nor in the early Church Fathers until Ignatius.


There are Elders and Deacons in the Apostolic Church. The Priest is a theological development that comes later, it is a man-made tradition.


The Book of Acts proves this is false. There is a Greek word for Priest, and it isn't Presbyteros.


The veneration of icons was almost universally condemned by the Early Church Fathers. The iconography was later added to earlier sites.


Why the Council of Hieria is not considered Ecumenical, but 2nd Nicea is, reveals the completely arbitrary nature of what makes a council "Ecumenical." 2nd Nicea is a farcry away from 1st Nicea.

So how do you know the spirit of God dwells in you but not others?

Thats not true Jesus called the bread and wine His body and blood and every time the church had holy communion in the Bible they also called it the Lords body, in the gospels Christ lost many of the 70 diciples because of this saying and they couldnt bare it.

Yes Jesus is the priest according to Melchizedeck in heaven and He never dies and He has priests under Him here on earth just as it says in the Bible and we also have Bishops just as mentioned in the bible, Eusabius he gives all the names of the bishops from the very first one in Jerusalem which was James the Lords "brother" all the way until emperor Constantine.

The Church could not have rejectes icons because icons and relics were an old testament thing and they went to the temple and if thats the case how did John Calvin miraculously come to that conclusion in the 1500's, the Roman Catholics had some artwork that had changed from the original Christian artwork like when Michael Angelo came around for example so just because that art work wasnt kosher didnt mean the original artwork wasnt, we are not Muslims we can have images, nobody knew what God looked like before Christ so He couldnt be depicted but now that Christ had come in the flesh He can be depicted, a picture is also a message without words that even people who cant read can see and understand, a picture speaks a thousand words.

 

[GoodShepherd]

I obviously don't grant this.

We've gone through the gamut on some issues:
The Orthodox soteriology is not Biblical.
It's ecclesiology is not Biblical.
It's sacramentology is not Biblical.
In every one of these cases, you can pretty much refute the Orthodox position just by citing the Bible.
How is it Apostolic?


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


Both are problems, I agree. The false image has a way of pulling away from the true Word.

"Faith without works is dead" is a direct quote from the Bible from the book of James, what do you have to say about that?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

You cannot define "Biblical".

How about "what the Apostles wrote?"

Your personal and isolated interpretation of Bible verses is irrelevant.

Which opinions are relevant? When a Church Father or Council disagrees with your interpretation, is his opinion irrelevant too?

The Bible Canon was created by the Church because the scriptures included were important for how the faith was taught, within a superstructure of liturgy and hierarchy.

I assume you're referring to the Orthodox Canon, which has the least historical pedigree of all the modern Biblical Canons?

If we were to challenge you on the "apparent meaning" of the text, you would inevitably cite textual criticism from sources that have nothing to do with any historical idea of what the faith is supposed to be.

Jerome recognized in the 4th century that there is no distinction Biblically between Presbyteros and Episcopos. Don't shoot the messenger.
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/jerome-on-church-officers.4772/

"Faith without works is dead" is a direct quote from the Bible from the book of James, what do you have to say about that?

Everything James says is true, true faith produces good works. He is not contradicting Paul who says that God justifies by faith without works.

 

[GoodShepherd]

If there is no distinction between the word presbeyter and episcopos then why were these two seperate words used by the writers of the bible and not just one word for both? Makes no sense to me I dont buy it.

So then its not by faith alone you wont find that phrase justified by faith alone in the scriptures it goes hand in hand with the works faith produces we have to take all of the teachings of the bible not just sections of it.

Here is a list of some of the canonized bible books that queen Elizabeth removed from the Bible in the 1500's, I havent yet read these books but I will go through them with time.
Tobit
judith
wisdom of sirach
wisdom of solomon
first ezra
baruch
epistle of jeremiah
the 3 books of maccabees

I heard that in the book of Maccabees we have an account of a general praying foe the dead, he found tokens of idols on some of his dead soldiers so he began praying for their souls which is something very beautiful we do at church for the dead since we know that they are alive somewhere in the afterlife theu dont cease to exist and we continue to love them and pray for them just as the saints are doing for us in the heavenly kingdom of God.

 

[Thomas More]

Yes it was, the 1st coucil was by defintion Ecumenical, since Ecumenical is simply Greek for "of the Emperor."

The Emperor, Constantine, was present at the 1st council, and was the one who called for the council, which means it was "of the Emperor" aka Ecumenical by definition.

I'm not finding your definition of ecumenical. I looked up the etymology of the word and found this:

The original Greek root word, oikos, means "house," and that grew into the word oikoumenikós, which means "the entire world." Today it most often refers to bringing people of diverse Christian religions together; however, an ecumenical service might bring Christians, Jews, and Muslims together under one roof.