Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread

[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.

 

[Samseau]

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

Of course not none of the Patriarchs were there, Christianity is represented by the disciples of the Apostles.

ecumenical

Interesting that the etymological dictionary does not have the meaning, I will have to find additional resources. It is an old word.

ecumenical | Etymology of ecumenical by etymonline

"representing the entire (Christian) world," formed in English as an ecclesiastical word,… See origin and meaning of ecumenical.

www.etymonline.com

The key is oikoumenos = "that which is inhabited," and where was the habitation of the oikoumenos? The emperor's house. Hence, "of the emperor."

But, it appears the word was taken by Rome or late stage Constantinople for other purposes, and became a word for "universal Christianity," when it never meant that originally.

 

[Rodion]

How about "what the Apostles wrote?"

It’s a relief nobody has ever disagreed about this

 

[Raskolnikov]

which has the least historical pedigree of all the modern Biblical Canons?

As I predicted, you cite weird extra-traditional standards. How many heretics and heterodox make other claims about the canon or its meaning is completely irrelevant when determining its validity. You do get that right? Is that argument too complicated for you?

You cannot cite Church Fathers (coherently), because the epistemic criteria for the evaluation of any Church Father, or who even is a Church Father, rests with the historical Church. Who you cite is irrelevant. I can appeal to Church authority, because I am a part of the visible historical Church. You deny that Church, so whoever you think you can cite and exegete is literally irrelevant, as you are not able to give an account for why that would even be authoritative. Both the determination of authority as well as the interpretation of Church Fathers is a privilege of the Church in whose context those texts were created and transmitted.

You cannot reject the Church and at the same time refer to what you think is authoritative for us. Doesn't work that way, never did. You have zero authority you could refer to.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

You cannot reject the Church and at the same time refer to what you think is authoritative for us. Doesn't work that way, never did. You have zero authority you could refer to.

The purpose for appealing to the Church Fathers and the Bible is simply to demonstrate that they were not Eastern Orthodox.

What groups like the Eastern Orthodox do, is start with themselves, and reinterpret all of the Church Fathers going back to the Bible according to their modern church. Doesn't matter how much I demonstrate they weren't Eastern Orthodox, you will insist they were. This is known as anachronism.

The logical way would be to start where it all began, which is with Jesus and the Apostles. The Scriptures. Going from the Scriptures to the modern time, we may see which tradition started where and for what reason.

 

[Raskolnikov]

The logical way would be to start where it all began, which is with Jesus and the Apostles. The Scriptures. Going from the Scriptures to the modern time, we may see which tradition started where and for what reason.

What would be your exegetical standard for this very logical approach?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

What would be your exegetical standard for this very logical approach?

Because there is no standard higher than the Scriptures themselves, as they are the Word of God, there is no higher standard that I can subject them to, they are interpreted according to their own context. The reason groups such as the Orthodox, Catholics, Mormons, JWs, etc, teach against Sola Scriptura and against the perpiscuity of Scripture is because they wish to prejudice the mind against the Scriptures so that they may instead fill it with their own traditions.

The Protestant Reformers and the Early Church Fathers were unique in that they believed with one accord the perpiscuity of Scripture:
https://jamesattebury.wordpress.com/2018/10/27/the-perspicuity-of-scripture-in-the-early-church/

 

[Get2choppaaa]

Because there is no standard higher than the Scriptures themselves, as they are the Word of God, there is nothing that I can subject them to. They are interpreted according to their own context. The reason groups such as the Orthodox, Catholics, Mormons, JWs, etc, teach against Sola Scriptura and against the perpiscuity of Scripture is because they wish to prejudice the mind against the Scriptures so that they may instead fill it with their own traditions.

The Protestant Reformers and the Early Church Fathers were unique in that they believed with one accord the perpiscuity of Scripture:
https://jamesattebury.wordpress.com/2018/10/27/the-perspicuity-of-scripture-in-the-early-church/

but which books and how did they get determined as divinely inspired vs not?

as in who codified the bible? which books were included and why?

Why don't we accept the Golden Plates discussed in Mormonism as biblical?