Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread

the vast majority of the Bible can be fully understood by most believers with a modest degree of effort and study, because the Holy Spirit guides the understanding of Christians.
But clearly that's not what happened. If it was so easy to understand the Bible, we wouldn't have a thousand different denominations today. Some of them, as others here pointed out, espousing the most ridiculous views and claiming to be "Biblical".
The church did not create scripture, the church recognized - through God's ordained divine providence - the scripture that was written by His chosen men under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. God created scripture.
Perhaps "create" was not the right choice of word since Scripture is the inspired word of God, but it was written by men. The New Testament was written by the apostles, who were the first bishops of the Orthodox Church. The Church came into being years before St. Paul even wrote his first epistle. Many other writings were written by early Christians that were not accepted into the Bible. The Church selected those that are considered Holy Scripture.
This is a ridiculous statement given that there are plenty of scriptural interpretations on which Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox have unanimous agreement.
Sure, Catholics and Protestants can get much of it right. They retained a lot of the correct doctrines because they split from Orthodoxy originally. But they will not be able to come to the fullness of the truth.
You see how each separation further distances itself from the truth. The Latin church retains perhaps 90% of it. 500 years later Lutherans retain maybe 80%. Then come along the Baptists around 70%. And finally it culminated with the woke modern churches, who have more in common with the Democratic party than they do with real Christianity.
 
Still waiting on your defense of the Divine Elect...
I didn't see you attack the doctrine. What is there to defend about the Elect? Both the Old and New Testaments talk about God's chosen ones.

You have no answer on my reverend Wright argument other than the "No True Scotsman" fallacy... Which of course is all you can do given the absurdity of the position.
You would give me the same thing if I pressed you on why there are so many branches of "Apostolic" Christianity. The difference is the guys you cited don't even pretend to be coming from the same place I'm coming from. That's why I asked you, you think these guys are preaching Sola Scriptura and the perpiscuity of Scripture?

So do you go to somewhere and have communion?
I am a member of a local church, yes.

As far as other churches splitting from Orthodoxy, the Catholic and Orthodox split, while terrible, is a wholly different view than the Chasm of Schism that is found in the whole of the Protestant denominations.
The difference is you don't see Protestants damning each other to hell by anathematizing everyone outside of their denomination. Their invisible church doctrine makes it hard for them to do that.

anyway... Best of luck.
Thanks. You too.
 
The Czechs I've met say their man Jan Hus was the originator of the first major breakaway from the Catholic church in the west, prior to Martin Luther. This is chronologically verifiable. What do you modern Protestants think of the Hussites? I think the first reformer was the English John Wycliffe, whose Bible is a very interesting read. Old English is a bit insufferable to read for modern eyes, but I can see the evolution of the words from then until now.
 
The Czechs I've met say their man Jan Hus was the originator of the first major breakaway from the Catholic church in the west, prior to Martin Luther. This is chronologically verifiable. What do you modern Protestants think of the Hussites? I think the first reformer was the English John Wycliffe, whose Bible is a very interesting read. Old English is a bit insufferable to read for modern eyes, but I can see the evolution of the words from then until now.
I approve of this message.
 
White evangelical Protestants are the only major group in America against abortion:

View attachment 8359
The saddest part of this chart is how many Black Protestants are in favor of abortion. Some of the strongest defenders of abortion that I've met have been black men. I ask them, "don't you know that abortion was initially started in order to kill blacks?" Doesn't matter to them. To that end, abortion has been very successful.
 
The more I see this question, the less innocent it looks, but more like feigned ignorance. Do what Athanasius said, devote yourself to the study of the Scriptures and the meaning will be made plain to you. Are you telling me that you do not know what the Scriptures say?

The fact that people can interpret scripture very differently, while claiming the same standard surely suggests that the meaning isn’t always self-evident?

Having scripture as the highest authority surely gives you no recourse to prevent someone from claiming that standard, while interpreting scripture in their own way and preaching heresy? You have to just let them be, which seems to muddy the waters somewhat.
 
White evangelical Protestants are the only major group in America against abortion:

View attachment 8359
Interesting chart.

Blacks are doing this thing now where they punch the stomach of pregnant girls to induce fetal miscarriages / abortions. There are videos of it on gab. Sickening. Anything to avoid that $800 abortion fee, let alone a lifetime of child support payments. I don't think Christians are the majority doing this, but there are millions of Christians in name only who behave diametrically opposite to any sort of Christian morality, and many black Christians suffer greatly from vices of the flesh which seems to be their racial Achilles heel that the alphabet agencies exploited to terrible effect.

Most of those Catholics who agree with abortion are Novus Ordo secularists in disguise, who are fond of Church tradition "changing" to keep up with the times. Some have been guilty of either race-mixing (not even in a Church-approved marriage) and philandering in general, and aborting their unwanted sins before marrying later. Catholic White American girls (and some Europeans) unfortunately are some of the most corrupted women on the Earth, morally speaking. There is a high susceptibility for them to betray their family at the onset of puberty (and God ultimately) unless they are in a more exclusive sect of Catholicism, like Opus Dei or some Jesuit-ran schools. There's just something about the way the schools are structured that has the exact opposite effect of the morals it teaches. There's something about humans selfishness desiring to eat their cake overriding natural morals.

I would not know what it is like to hang out with a bunch of Protestants at a 20th century high-school party, but I do know how the Catholics used to throw them. Fights and sex and alcohol and oftentimes drugs, nobody ever got shot or stabbed like we see every day now, but the corrupting influence that seemed harmless to these kids certainly affected many of their lives negatively down the road. I've even heard of one or two becoming a tranny in their 30s, which was not long ago. All that effort from parents to raise a child only for it to become a tool of the devil. So much waste.

The WASPs are honest people in the lower financial echelons of society. The higher up they go, the more likely they are to Osteenize and replace more Church history with jewish versions and other scriptural corruptions and pursue those goals. Money corrupts. Though there are exceptions to every demographic. It seems the difference between evangelical and nonevangelical in that chart can be summed up to modern interpretations of politics on the spectrum, with nonevangelical embodying a more liberal assessment and evangelical embodying a conservative one, hence why the latter is lower on abortions.
 
If you are Orthodox, then the Bible wasn't Canonized until the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672.

I've seen you repeat this lie many times, and I've refuted it to you directly many times, why do you keep repeating it? It's such a blatant lie that even a simple Wikipedia search contradicts it, but the Bible was 100% canonized with the First Council of Nicaea. No idea why you keep believing in this falsehood.

Additionally, you keep confusing synods with councils. They are not the same thing, not even close.

I've been meaning to get this for a while now. If he had a digital copy, I would've gotten it already. Here is former Orthodox priest Joshua Schooping who offers a rebuttal to many of the claims that Trenham made in his book:
https://thereformedninja.blogspot.com/2021/07/of-rock-and-sand-critique-of-josiah.html
He mentions that the Filioque was affirmed for centuries prior to the Schism, for example. The rest of his site provides a good response too.

The fact that this guy defends the Filioque shows he has no idea what he is talking about. The Filioque is not part of any of the Ecumenical Councils, which shows he clearly has no idea what is going on. Filioque is 100% heresy that started in Spain and gradually was accepted in Rome in violation of the rest of the Church. Then the Pope declared himself Dictator and said the Filioque was to be part of the creed, in direct violation of the Councils, which is why the rest of the Church excommunicated the heretics.

After that, Rome ceased to have valid Apostolic succession.
 
Having scripture as the highest authority surely gives you no recourse to prevent someone from claiming that standard, while interpreting scripture in their own way and preaching heresy? You have to just let them be, which seems to muddy the waters somewhat.
That part where "you have to just let them be" is unavoidable no matter what you do, you can't bind men's consciences. The Orthodox church can only discipline someone in so far as someone is willing to subject themselves to it's authority. We believe that God holds us accountable to the Scriptures so we take it's proper interpretation and application very seriously.

I've seen you repeat this lie many times, and I've refuted it to you directly many times, why do you keep repeating it? It's such a blatant lie that even a simple Wikipedia search contradicts it, but the Bible was 100% canonized with the First Council of Nicaea. No idea why you keep believing in this falsehood.
It is true, you have accused me of being a liar everytime I bring it up. But based on all the information available, I have to bring it up. The Bible was not Canonized at Nicea, the Canon of Scripture was not even a topic of conversation at Nicea, that is a common liberal misconception of Nicea.

Additionally, you keep confusing synods with councils. They are not the same thing, not even close.
You should watch the Cyril Lucaris video I shared. It seems that the Synod is understood to be seen as an Ecumenical Council by the higher-ups. I never said it was a Council, all I've said is I've never been able to find the modern Orthodox Canon of Scripture anywhere else than in that Synod.

Filioque is 100% heresy that started in Spain and gradually was accepted in Rome in violation of the rest of the Church.
The Filioque in itself is a Biblical doctrine. Jesus sends the Holy Spirit. That's why the Church Fathers believed in it.

Then the Pope declared himself Dictator and said the Filioque was to be part of the creed, in direct violation of the Councils, which is why the rest of the Church excommunicated the heretics.
This is the real reason for the Schism.
 
Jesus sends the Holy Spirit temporally, but He does not eternally proceed from both the Father and the Son. That’s the issue with the Filioque controversy
John 14: the Father sends the Spirit.
John 15: the Son sends the Spirit.
Filioque: the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Anything beyond that becomes speculative very fast. We do not view procession as necessarily subordinating because we maintain that the Son and the Sprit are both autotheos. So for us, it is not an issue to affirm the filioque.

My only critique back at you would be this: if you say that the Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son makes Him subordinate, than how can it not be said that both the Son and the Spirit are subordinates of the Father in the Monarchical view of the Trinity?

In order words, because neither of us are equating procession with subordination then I don't see how "the Filioque leads to the subordinating of the Spirit" is a valid criticism.
 
Last edited:
Jesus sends the Holy Spirit temporally, but He does not eternally proceed from both the Father and the Son.


John 14: the Father sends the Spirit.
John 15: the Son sends the Spirit.
Filioque: the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Anything beyond that becomes speculative very fast.

I'm going to go full autist here. Do "proceed" and "send" mean the same thing? Because they are two different words.

John 15:26: "But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me "

That sounds like Rodion's description.
 
John 16:7 But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.
John 16:13 But when He, the Spirit of Truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak from Himself, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. 15All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.
Galatians 4:6 And because you are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”
I share these only to show why I am convinced that the Filioque is a Biblical truth. I don't see a lot riding on it either way unless there is some hidden meaning that I am not aware of.

I have a question for you: would it be fair to say that you believe 'the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone?'

When you say the Spirit proceeds from the Father but not the Son, what does that mean to you?
 
Last edited:
It is true, you have accused me of being a liar everytime I bring it up. But based on all the information available, I have to bring it up. The Bible was not Canonized at Nicea, the Canon of Scripture was not even a topic of conversation at Nicea, that is a common liberal misconception of Nicea.
What info? It is bad. https://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Scripture#The_Canon_of_Scripture

The problem with the NT, I think, is that since there aren't any surviving records of the cannon explicitly written down in any form, people infer there was no cannon. But among Bishops there was an agreement of which books were valid and invalid, and it must have been written somewhere. By the time of the First Council it was already agreed upon, yet there seem to be no surviving written lists of the NT until St. Athanasius, which he learned from his Bishop who had been at the First Council, so we can infer the cannon was already long accepted at that point.

As for the OT, it was always the Septuagint.

You should watch the Cyril Lucaris video I shared. It seems that the Synod is understood to be seen as an Ecumenical Council by the higher-ups. I never said it was a Council, all I've said is I've never been able to find the modern Orthodox Canon of Scripture anywhere else than in that Synod.

Understood by whom? People who've never spoken to or read anything from Orthodox Bishops? Which Orthodox sources do you quote regarding our own Synods?

If I want to understand Martin Luther, I quote Luther directly. I don't quote some guy claiming to represent Luther, right? Likewise you need Orthodox sources to understand Orthodox writings, synods, etc.

The Filioque in itself is a Biblical doctrine. Jesus sends the Holy Spirit. That's why the Church Fathers believed in it.


This is the real reason for the Schism.

Yes, the assertion of the Pope over all was the real deal breaker, but the Filioque is only a minor heresy in comparison. On the heretic scale, I think it only gets a 2 or 3 out of 10. That's why it was tolerated for centuries. Not even close as something like Arianism, Nestorianism, or many other heresies which were hell-worthy.

The Filioque is a difficult subject due to translation issues, I believe, as the words "proceed" and "send" meant very different things in Ancient Hebrew. This is why tradition is important. It's clear from reading the Early Councils of the Church that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but also comes through the Son.

Thus, because of this inherent difficulty in understanding a complex theological subject, I believe it was a quite forgivable heresy and not something schism worthy. Clergy could agree to disagree, but when there was an insistence on changing the Creed directly with no council, it was intolerable.

Had there been a Council on the subject, the Filioque would have been defeated, but many Western Churches would have continued to profess their belief in it, and yet no schism would have occurred as long as the Creed remained unchanged. People's private beliefs would have been in conflict but it would not have resulted in excommunications, which is observed since St. Augustine.

There is room for healthy disagreement in Christ's Church as long as common tenants of Liturgy are observed.
 
Last edited:
I've honestly never understood the controversy over the Filioque. The idea that we could ever fully grasp the inner workings of the Trinity - which is itself a great mystery that scripture only alludes to indirectly - strikes me as both absurd and shockingly presumptuous. A close reading of the Biblical text would seem to suggest that the Filioque interpretation is correct, but how are we supposed to know for sure? Ultimately, it's like the old trope about arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We simply have no way of knowing the details of how the Trinity operates, and God did not deem that knowledge as being particularly important to convey to us in scripture.

Whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father or the Father and the Son ultimately makes no practical difference from the perspective of mankind - it's all the same to us, and our salvation is not impacted either way. What's important is not exactly how the Spirit proceeds from the other members of the Trinity, but that we recognize that our faith infuses us with the Holy Spirit, that He indwells within us, and that our bodies are therefore a holy temple to be used for God's glory, as Paul wrote.
 
Jesus sends the Holy Spirit temporally, but He does not eternally proceed from both the Father and the Son.

Do "proceed" and "send" mean the same thing? Because they are two different words.

John 15:26: "But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me "

If I want to understand Martin Luther, I quote Luther directly. I don't quote some guy claiming to represent Luther, right? Likewise you need Orthodox sources to understand Orthodox writings, synods, etc.

I'd like to add commentary from Theophilus the Bishop of Antioch (reposed 184) on this. I have this nice Bible app that gives me many of the commentaries out there. I think someone here told me about it - Catena.

It's about as early as you can get, and I think pretty much every group Orthodox/Catholic/Protestant doesn't have much of a problem with other stuff he says:

On John 15:26:
"Elsewhere He says that the Father sends the Spirit; now He says He does: Whom I will send to you, thus declaring the equality of the Father and the Son. That He might not be thought however to be opposed to the Father, and to be another and rival source, as it were, of the Spirit, He adds, From the Father, i.e., the Father agreeing, and taking an equal part in sending Him.

When it is said that He proceeds, do not understand His procession to be an external mission, such as is given to ministering spirits, but a certain peculiar, and distinct procession, such as is true of the Holy Spirit alone. To proceed is not the same as being sent, but is the essential nature of the Holy Spirit, as coming from the Father."

- Theophilus of Antioch
 
The problem with the NT, I think, is that since there aren't any surviving records of the cannon explicitly written down in any form, people infer there was no cannon. But among Bishops there was an agreement of which books were valid and invalid, and it must have been written somewhere. By the time of the First Council it was already agreed upon, yet there seem to be no surviving written lists of the NT until St. Athanasius, which he learned from his Bishop who had been at the First Council, so we can infer the cannon was already long accepted at that point.
I can agree with most of this. The only people who struggled with the NT canon were the gnostics. Other than that, most of the canon questions were inconsequential. This is why there is no disagreement on the Canon of the NT between the Reformed, Catholics, and Orthodox. But this is why I reject the notion that Protestants somehow need a council to know the Bible. They don't, and neither did the early Church, nor did the Jews before them.

As for the OT, it was always the Septuagint.
Unless of course, you were a Hebrew believing in the Old Testament canon before the Apocrypha was written or the Septuagint was even translated.

Understood by whom? People who've never spoken to or read anything from Orthodox Bishops? Which Orthodox sources do you quote regarding our own Synods?
You can read the source for yourself in the Synod, they give a Canon of Scripture. In the video, he mentions that the 2016 Pan-Orthodox Council recognized the 1672 Synod as authoritative.

The Filioque is a difficult subject due to translation issues, I believe, as the words "proceed" and "send" meant very different things in Ancient Hebrew. This is why tradition is important. It's clear from reading the Early Councils of the Church that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but also comes through the Son.
It doesn't make much sense to us because the heretical implications on either side can only be understood in Latin and Greek. In Latin, you have danger of one heresy by not affirming it. In Greek, the danger of another by affirming it. Both heresies that neither side would admit. Such was the language barrier in the early Church.

So what is the problem with the Filioque? Theologically, nothing. A lot of the conversations that came up afterwards were post hoc reactions against the real controversy, that is the Pope trying to force the Greeks into the Latin understanding.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top