Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread

[GodfatherPartTwo]

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.

I have heard the criticism that Protestants "start with soteriology first then work their way to theology and Christology later." Anyone who makes this claim has never read any of the Reformed confessions. But it is only true in the sense that the Bible speaks more on how a man is saved than it does on the ontological Trinity. Man's salvation is the operation of the Trinity played out. The Bible does not give us these deep, esoteric speculations on the Trinity. This is why I respect someone like Calvin who, while being intelligent enough to parse through it all, was humble enough to recognize that we should make an end of speaking where the Bible does.

 

[Samseau]

Public Opinion on Abortion

While public support for legal abortion has fluctuated some in two decades of polling, it has remained relatively stable over the past five years.

www.pewresearch.org

The methodology is extremely opaque and I would not trust these polls. They say they use 10K adults on a longitudinal basis, which is fine, but then for the actual poll there is no mention of how many adults are actually surveyed, what percentage belongs to which denomination, or how frequent or serious their worship is.

Also, according to their own results, the older people are far more anti-abortion than the younger, which means according to this survey all of the anti-abortion evangelicals are old Whites. Pretty bleak picture if it is to be believed, but, I seriously wonder if the people who say they are "Catholic" are just 'cultural' Catholics who give little importance to Church or worship.

Personally, based on my polling, from speaking to thousands of people working in politics in my life - you're not a real Christian unless one goes to Church. No worship = no love for God. Hence no worship means not a real Christian. Thus a lot of people may claim to be a Christian of one denomination or another, but it doesn't mean anything. That's why these polls aren't representative.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

On the Filioque

 

[scorpion]

Father Josiah Trenham lecturing with such authority and confidence on the unknowable mysteries of the Trinity is ridiculous, and is a nutshell example of the problems associated with appeals to tradition. How does he propose to know these things if they were not plainly revealed in scripture? Because the consensus of the Fathers? Well, how did they know them? It strikes me as pure hubris for any human being to speak so cavalierly about that which God deliberately chose to keep hidden from us. All we can say for sure about the Filioque is that which scripture has disclosed, which is not enough to answer the question definitively. The topic is thus fruitless, pedantic and needlessly divisive. The schism might as well have originated from a dispute over how many hairs are in Christ's beard.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

Father Josiah Trenham lecturing with such authority and confidence on the unknowable mysteries of the Trinity is ridiculous, and is a nutshell example of the problems associated with appeals to tradition. How does he propose to know these things if they were not plainly revealed in scripture? Because the consensus of the Fathers? Well, how did they know them? It strikes me as pure hubris for any human being to speak so cavalierly about that which God deliberately chose to keep hidden from us. All we can say for sure about the Filioque is that which scripture has disclosed, which is not enough to answer the question definitively. The topic is thus fruitless, pedantic and needlessly divisive. The schism might as well have originated from a dispute over how many hairs are in Christ's beard.

Fr. Trenham's Position is that of the Orthodox Church. It was the original position of The Original Church.

Any deviation from that we find to be lacking in authority.

We don't believe it to be ridiculous to hold the Nicean Doctrine pre adulteration and addition.

It's just as full of arrogance to assume that one can interpret something on Text alone with out the Context of the Church.

We don't believe it is pedantic or overly divisive.

That's the issue, Orthodox reject the argument that it's a distinction with out a difference.

We believe all splits from Orthodoxy are sects. And all sects are just attempts to separate their own unique differention and self deification from The Original Church of Jesus Christ which was established through Apostolic succession.

Eta. Fr. Trenham, like my Priest, also have multiple levels of doctorates ECT, have all written many books, so I would put their ability to quote Scripture against ANYONE here. Another Priest is an English Lit Teacher, former Church of Christ Preacher.... So the argument that somehow Orthodox Don't "know their Bible" is not going to fly either.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Father Josiah Trenham lecturing with such authority and confidence on the unknowable mysteries of the Trinity is ridiculous, and is a nutshell example of the problems associated with appeals to tradition. How does he propose to know these things if they were not plainly revealed in scripture? Because the consensus of the Fathers? Well, how did they know them? It strikes me as pure hubris for any human being to speak so cavalierly about that which God deliberately chose to keep hidden from us. All we can say for sure about the Filioque is that which scripture has disclosed, which is not enough to answer the question definitively. The topic is thus fruitless, pedantic and needlessly divisive. The schism might as well have originated from a dispute over how many hairs are in Christ's beard.

Generally, the denying of the Filioque is tied up with a Monarchian view of the Trinity, where only the Father is the true God and both the Son and the Spirit are communicated their Divine Nature from the Father alone. Thus, the Father remains the only uncaused cause.

If the Spirit is caused from the Father through the Son (as in the Filioque), then the claim is that this makes Him "subordinate to both the Father and Son." But if causation necessitates subordination, then both the Son and the Spirit are subordinates in the Monarchian Trinity.

If any of this sounds strange to you, it's because the Bible doesn't talk about any of this. It relies on extra-Biblical philosophical categories, of which both the Greeks and the Latins were importing their own.

 

[Northumber]

If any of this sounds strange to you, it's because the Bible doesn't talk about any of this. It relies on extra-Biblical philosophical categories, of which both the Greeks and the Latins were importing their own.

Or it could also sound strange because of a modern mindset that imports extra-Biblical philosophical categories.

 

[scorpion]

Fr. Trenham's Position is that of the Orthodox Church. It was the original position of The Original Church.

Any deviation from that we find to be lacking in authority.

We don't believe it to be ridiculous to hold the Nicean Doctrine pre adulteration and addition.

It's just as full of arrogance to assume that one can interpret something on Text alone with out the Context of the Church.

So how did the Orthodox church come to hold this view on the nature of the Trinity with such confidence? A view that is not revealed in scripture and which is impossible for men to determine with certainty? How does the Church claim to know the intimate mind of God the Father and the nature of His relationship to the Son and Holy Spirit absent that which has been explicitly revealed in scripture? There is simply no way for them to know these things. This is why tradition must be regarded - at best - as a secondary supplementation to the scripture. At its worst, tradition becomes an active impediment to coming to a true and full knowledge of God, a point that Christ himself made explicitly over and over to the Pharisees.

If any of this sounds strange to you, it's because the Bible doesn't talk about any of this. It relies on extra-Biblical philosophical categories, of which the both the Greeks and the Latins were importing their own.

Clearly. But this is exactly the sort of thing you'd expect when men place their traditions on par with the Word of God. Man-made religion is always and everywhere typified by self-righteousness, hubris and an emphasis on gaining God's favor through some sort of works. It always seeks to elevate man through his own efforts and understanding. True Christianity, in contrast, deeply humbles the believer in every regard, rendering him naught but a helpless sinner save for the Grace and mercy of God. Imagine a sinner presuming to lecture with authority on the unknowable mind of the all-powerful creator God and his triune nature! The mind reels.

 

[Iacobus]

Father Josiah Trenham lecturing with such authority and confidence on the unknowable mysteries of the Trinity is ridiculous, and is a nutshell example of the problems associated with appeals to tradition. How does he propose to know these things if they were not plainly revealed in scripture? Because the consensus of the Fathers? Well, how did they know them?

I don't have the chance to check Fr. Josiah's video at present but broadly speaking your point brings us back again to Holy Tradition. Scripture, according to itself, does not contain the entirety of Christ's teachings. Scripture, according to itself (and also according to common sense), does not contain the entirety of the Apostle's teachings. We believe that teachings and correct interpretations were passed down since the Apostles, we don't think they were totally lost or corrupted at some point. We also believe that the Apostles passed on the gift of the Holy Spirit that they themselves received that allowed their successors to act as authoritative teachers of Scripture and tradition, as the Apostles did. Christ sets up this model in John 15 amongst other places.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

So how did the Orthodox church come to hold this view on the nature of the Trinity with such confidence? A view that is not revealed in scripture and which is impossible for men to determine with certainty? How does the Church claim to know the intimate mind of God the Father and the nature of His relationship to the Son and Holy Spirit absent that which has been explicitly revealed in scripture? There is simply no way for them to know these things. This is why tradition must be regarded - at best - as a secondary supplementation to the scripture. At its worst, tradition becomes an active impediment to coming to a true and full knowledge of God, a point that Christ himself made explicitly over and over to the Pharisees.

Clearly. But this is exactly the sort of thing you'd expect when men place their traditions on par with the Word of God. Man-made religion is always and everywhere typified by self-righteousness, hubris and an emphasis on gaining God's favor through some sort of works. It always seeks to elevate man through his own efforts and understanding. True Christianity, in contrast, deeply humbles the believer in every regard, rendering him naught but a helpless sinner save for the Grace and mercy of God. Imagine a sinner presuming to lecture with authority on the unknowable mind of the all-powerful creator God and his triune nature! The mind reels.

I love the KJV. But the Bible wasn't written in English. So unless you are are reading the ancient texts in the ancient language....

You're already accepting a particular interpretation of the Bible when you read it now. But somehow youre assured that your particular denomination or non-denominational approach is the correct way.

Imagine the lack of humility to read a book now and Interpret on your own with out having been steeped in Greek, Latin, Church Slavonic ECT like a majority of the Arch Priests have been... And lecture others whom entrust that spiritual leadership to provide us context and understand.

Of course we all read the Bible. There's an epistle and a gospel reading every service. Generally the sermon is tied to contextualize that and give further weight and impact to explain the profundity of and geopolitical complexity occuring at that time.

 

[scorpion]

I don't have the chance to check Fr. Josiah's video at present but broadly speaking your point brings us back again to Holy Tradition. Scripture, according to itself, does not contain the entirety of Christ's teachings. Scripture, according to itself (and also according to common sense), does not contain the entirety of the Apostle's teachings. We believe that teachings and correct interpretations were passed down since the Apostles, we don't think they were totally lost or corrupted at some point. We also believe that the Apostles passed on the gift of the Holy Spirit that they themselves received that allowed their successors to act as authoritative teachers of Scripture and tradition, as the Apostles did. Christ sets up this model in John 15 amongst other places.

What do you make of the following passage?

Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes came together to Him, having come from Jerusalem. Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.

Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”

He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”

He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Does this sound to you like Christ endorsing tradition over the revealed word of God? I have no doubt the Orthodox have some argument on how their own traditions don't fall under this category. But that strikes me as a rather tortured rationalization to contradict what seems a VERY clear teaching from Christ Himself.

 

[scorpion]

But somehow youre assured that your particular denomination or non-denominational approach is the correct way.

No, I'm not, because I am not making any claims of exclusivity in regards to the Church, which I regard as invisible - its true members known only to God - and comprised of earnest believers from every denomination across the world. You and the Orthodox church are the ones claiming special exclusivity.

Imagine the lack of humility to read a book now and Interpret on your own with out having been steeped in Greek, Latin, Church Slavonic ECT like a majority of the Arch Priests have been... And lecture others whom entrust that spiritual leadership to provide us context and understand

Most of the great Protestant theologians and Bible expositors were well-versed in ancient Greek and Hebrew. That isn't special knowledge reserved exclusively for Orthodox priests. The best modern-day exegetes like John MacArthur and Dr. Robert Luginbill continue this trend.

 

[Iacobus]

What do you make of the following passage?



Does this sound to you like Christ endorsing tradition over the revealed word of God? I have no doubt the Orthodox have some argument on how their own traditions don't fall under this category. But that strikes me as a rather tortured rationalization to contradict what seems a VERY clear teaching from Christ Himself.

No Orthodox would ever say that Tradition is "over" Scripture. They harmonize.

St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians says to hold fast to the traditions they (the Apostles) passed on in word and in letter. The logical conclusion is that not all traditions are Holy and correct, but that does mean that no tradition is Holy and correct.

Furthermore, the passage you are quoting is certainly more nuanced than "tradition bad," Christ is making the explicit criticism that fixating on or exploiting the letter of the law, while refusing to obey the spirit of the law, is the crux of the issue. The case in question is Jews using the excuse of setting aside money to donate to the temple (in isolation a good practice) to avoid using their money to support their parents.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

No Orthodox would ever say that Tradition is "over" Scripture. They harmonize.

St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians says to hold fast to the traditions they (the Apostles) passed on in word and in letter. The logical conclusion is that not all traditions are Holy and correct, but that does mean that no tradition is Holy and correct.

Furthermore, the passage you are quoting is certainly more nuanced than "tradition bad," Christ is making the explicit criticism that fixating on or exploiting the letter of the law, while refusing to obey the spirit of the law, is the crux of the issue. The case in question is Jews using the excuse of setting aside money to donate to the temple (in isolation a good practice) to avoid using their money to support their parents.

Correct. No one has said Tradition Supercedes. This statement is thrown around by those either out of ignorance due to a misconception or some other motive.They are complimentary.

Your point demonstrated the issue in taking just a single quote to justify your position to compare others to the Pharasees, whilst lacking contextualized understanding. Yet implying that just the 1 sentence is sufficient to understand.

Again, when someone comes up with a NEW take on an established practice (Christianity via Orthodoxy) it's always to throw their own spin. Every single one of these Reformation founders had issues they disagree with. We don't even have to go down the rabbit hole of Muntzer or the later Anabaptists Revolt.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

While the talk of Scripture and Tradition working 50/50 sounds nice, the Apostolic view is that the Scriptures take primacy over the traditions of men. This is why the Church polity, even the Apostles themselves, are subjected to the Word of God as contained in the Scriptures. The Apostles themselves demonstrated that they were not infallible but the Scriptures, which were written by the Apostles but ultimately breathed out by God, contain no error.

A good example of someone coming up with a new take on the "Faith, once for all delivered for the saints" was in the invention of the priesthood. A tradition that even the early Church recognized as a "custom rather than Divine appointment."

Before you hold someone else to a standard, you should check if you yourself pass the same test.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

While the talk of Scripture and Tradition working 50/50 sounds nice, the Apostolic view is that the Scriptures take primacy over the traditions of men. This is why the Church polity, even the Apostles themselves, are subjected to the Word of God as contained in the Scriptures. The Apostles themselves demonstrated that they were not infallible but the Scriptures, which were written by the Apostles but ultimately breathed out by God, contain no error.

A good example of someone coming up with a new take on the "Faith, once for all delivered for the saints" was in the invention of the priesthood. A tradition that even the early Church recognized as a "custom rather than Divine appointment."

Before you hold someone else to a standard, you should check if you yourself pass the same test.

Every Priest points out that they themselves are chief among sinners. What is your point?

That priests cant be fallible? They can be. Can a Bishop/Metropolitan/Patriarch be a heretic. Yes they can.

 

[Rodion]

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.

What’s the proper interpretation and application? Why is yours correct and not the guy starting his sect down the street? Which is the authoritative interpretation?

I get a lot of world-weary responses to these simple questions, but as far as I can tel Protestantism has no answer. Everyone gets to be the invisible church of sincere believers even if they believe vastly different things.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

What’s the proper interpretation and application? Why is yours correct and not the guy starting his sect down the street? Which is the authoritative interpretation?

I've already answered this. There's no exterior standard that can be placed on top of Scripture. The best interpreter of Scripture is Scripture itself, in other words, read it according to it's own context. There are hermeneutical tools that assist in this, but even those are not to be placed over the Scriptures themselves.

What I'm also looking for is to see someone's interpretation account for the totality of Scripture, Tota Scriptura. And so when they interpret it in a way that is internally inconsistent, and makes parts of the Scripture contradict with other parts, then I know that there is something wrong with their interpretation.

That task is difficult enough already. Stacking up another Tradition on top of that and trying to make it cohere is an impossible task. And to interpret the 1st century text according to later theological traditions is absurd. Effectively, the Tradition muffles the Scriptures and only some of the Scripture gets through.

There was a serious shift in the Church's approach to Scripture throughout it's history. From Origen, the allegorical method dominated until the Reformation when the literal method was reintroduced. That is why the Church in the medieval period looked less like the Church in the 1st century and more like the Temple of the Jews in the Old Testament.

 

[Samseau]

I've slept and prayed on the issue of the Filioque, and something that popped into my head, that everyone can agree on, is that the Holy Spirit does not enter Christ until he is baptized. After Christ is baptized, then the Holy Spirit descends on Christ in the form of a dove. This is written in Matthew, Luke, and Mark, making it an unquestionable event.

After Christ's Baptism, and the transfusion of the Holy Spirit comes to Jesus, does Jesus begin to perform tons of miracles, and does the Holy Spirit flow through him towards others. But not before. I think this is the hard scriptural evidence that everyone seems to overlook which shows that the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father, and proves without a doubt that the Filioque is false.

Combined with the fact that the early Holy Fathers agreed upon the Creed in the First Council as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but not the Son, makes the Filioque unsupportable.

You've got the Holy Fathers, who unquestionably had a better understanding of scripture than we do because of translation, and you've got scripture itself, which clearly states that the Holy Spirit came unto Christ after his baptism. This logically means Jesus cannot be a source of the Holy Spirit.

Can anyone think of a serious response to this?

 

[Samseau]

There was a serious shift in the Church's approach to Scripture throughout it's history. From Origen, the allegorical method dominated until the Reformation when the literal method was reintroduced. That is why the Church in the medieval period looked less like the Church in the 1st century and more like the Temple of the Jews in the Old Testament.

You've got your history confused brother. Origen was deemed a heretic, his writings burned. He was too allegorical even for the early Church.

The Church of the medieval period that Protestants know and loathe is the Papal Church. Nothing like the Orthodox Church. The original Church had it's laws and hierarchy, but far, far more toned down than what the Papacy did.

For example, the Papacy would kill those who did not submit to their authority. By comparison, the Orthodox Church would merely excommunicate, and then strip people of citizenship. In the Byzantine Empire, membership within the Church was a requirement for citizenship. Justinian the Great made citizenship a requirement for any employment within the government, media, banking, or education. Subversives and heretics like Talmudic Jews or Arians were turned into persons non-grata, but they weren't hunted down like animals.