Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread

[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.

 

[Rodion]

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 its own context. There are hermeneutical tools that assist in this, but even those are not to be placed over the Scriptures themselves.

Multiple people with differing interpretations can claim to be doing this though?

 

[scorpion]

Multiple people with differing interpretations can claim to be doing this though?

But can they all defend their interpretations? The reality is that, almost without exception, none of the grossly distorted and often outright heretical interpretations of scripture can withstand even the barest amount of scrutiny. The false teachers who distort the scriptures for their own ends are relying on the ignorance of their followers. The issue is not that the Bible makes a poor standard for the faith, it's that even most so-called Christians have little to no idea what it actually says.

 

[Rodion]

But can they all defend their interpretations? The reality is that, almost without exception, none of the grossly distorted and often outright heretical interpretations of scripture can withstand even the barest amount of scrutiny. The false teachers who distort the scriptures for their own ends are relying on the ignorance of their followers. The issue is not that the Bible makes a poor standard for the faith, it's that even most so-called Christians have little to no idea what it actually says.

Yes, but that’s not entirely the point. The problem is having no recourse to excommunicate these people and declare their interpretation anathema when you’ve removed the authority of a body of people to interpret and enforce that text. They can just go down the street or start their own sect.

If the Church is the invisible body of sincere believers, then there can’t really be any enforcement or proclamation of an authoritative interpretation of scripture

 

[Iacobus]

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.

Scripture itself tells us that we require instruction in interpretation. The Ethiopian Eunuch is presented as a model convert. He is highly educated for his day, both possessing Scripture & able to read it. He humbly understands that he cannot interpret Scripture himself, and St. Philip doesn't tell him that Scripture interprets itself, rather the Ethiopian invites him to join him and teach him the meaning. Similarly, many of the well-read Jews could recite any piece of Scripture verbatim from the top of their head, but they could not interpret it to understand that Christ fulfilled the prophecies.

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.

The Church at its foundation literally gathered and worshipped in the Temple until the Jews kicked them out and started persecuting them as documented in Acts.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

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.

I would say that this is good evidence that the Scripture does not rigorously follow our dainty Trinitarian formulas. The Trinitarian formula that is traditionally what we maintain is this: from the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit. But the Scripture does not rigorously maintain any such formula. Sometimes, things are said to be of the Son, without reference to the Father. Galatians 4, The Spirit is said to be of the Son, just as Matthew 10 says that the Spirit is of the Father. This is why it is foolish to place an enormous weight on any one such formula.

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.

It doesn't say that. It doesn't say "from the Father alone" or "from the Father, but not the Son." It simply said "from the Father." If the Spirit is said to be "of the Son" such as it does in Galatians 4 and Romans 8, then the first two views couldn't be rigorously true on a Scriptural basis:

Romans 8:9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

When we receive the Holy Spirit, we do not believe that the Father acted alone but that the Spirit also came through the Son to us.

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

Though he was deemed a heretic, he had a lasting influence on the Church for centuries, even to this present day. No different from Tertullian, who also was deemed a heretic, but he remains an influence on us. Even when we use the term 'Trinity' we are showing Tertullian's influence.

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.

https://byzantium-blogger.blog/2019...crime-punishment-heresy-and-medical-practice/

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Yes, but that’s not entirely the point. The problem is having no recourse to excommunicate these people and declare their interpretation anathema when you’ve removed the authority of a body of people to interpret and enforce that text. They can just go down the street or start their own sect.

They can do this in an Orthodox church too. So what?

If the Church is the invisible body of sincere believers,

It's not a question of if, it is. The membership of the New Covenant is known only to God. Whoever walks into your church on Sunday morning may or may not be a member of that Covenant.

then there can’t really be any enforcement or proclamation of an authoritative interpretation of scripture

Any visible church, including yours, can only discipline someone if that someone is willingly subjecting themselves to it's authority.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

They can do this in an Orthodox church too. So what?


It's not a question of if, it is. The membership of the New Covenant is known only to God. Whoever walks into your church on Sunday morning may or may not be a member of that Covenant.


Any visible church, including yours, can only discipline someone if that someone is willingly subjecting themselves to it's authority.

No. When a schismatic group in the Orthodox Church develops.... They do so with out blessings of the Bishop or the Patriarch. This they cut themselves off from the remaining body of Christ until they correct the schismatic elements of their beliefs.

All structure and authority comes from the vesting of that authority through the laying of hands as Christ did to his Apostles, and they then did to new members of thier flock as they grew The Church.

As far as discipline....We deny them communion or Anathematize them. This removes their ability to participate in sacraments and thus cuts them off from the body of The Church.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

All structure and authority comes from the vesting of that authority through the laying of hands as Christ did to his Apostles, and they then did to new members of thier flock as they grew The Church.

If no bishop alive today meets the qualifications for the Apostolic office, that the Apostles themselves drafted, then how can they be said to be successors of the Apostolic office in any way?

When a schismatic group in the Orthodox Church develops.... They do so with out blessings of the Bishop or the Patriarch. This they cut themselves off from the remaining body of Christ until they correct the schismatic elements of their beliefs.

That only means something if the schismatic thinks it means something. To everyone outside of your communion, your anathema is like a badge of honor.

 

[Samseau]

I would say that this is good evidence that the Scripture does not rigorously follow our dainty Trinitarian formulas. The Trinitarian formula that is traditionally what we maintain is this: from the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit. But the Scripture does not rigorously maintain any such formula. Sometimes, things are said to be of the Son, without reference to the Father. Galatians 4, The Spirit is said to be of the Son, just as Matthew 10 says that the Spirit is of the Father. This is why it is foolish to place an enormous weight on any one such formula.


It doesn't say that. It doesn't say "from the Father alone" or "from the Father, but not the Son." It simply said "from the Father." If the Spirit is said to be "of the Son" such as it does in Galatians 4 and Romans 8, then the first two views couldn't be rigorously true on a Scriptural basis:

When we receive the Holy Spirit, we do not believe that the Father acted alone but that the Spirit also came through the Son to us.

But this is all false, because the Spirit only comes to the Son after His baptism. Hence any other reference to the Spirit coming to Christ occurs after it proceeded from the Father, which blessed it onto his Son through the sacrament of Baptism.

Ignoring chronology of events is Unscriptural.

Though he was deemed a heretic, he had a lasting influence on the Church for centuries, even to this present day. No different from Tertullian, who also was deemed a heretic, but he remains an influence on us. Even when we use the term 'Trinity' we are showing Tertullian's influence.

We have no idea who influenced who, but none of Origen's works survive so it's impossible to know. We have no idea if it was Tertullian or Tertullian's teacher who taught the trinity. All we know is that early heretics were rejected.

https://byzantium-blogger.blog/2019...crime-punishment-heresy-and-medical-practice/

This isn't a religious practice, this was standard Roman crime and punishments that were typical of the era, and predated the Byzantine era, including in surrounding countries. If anything, the introduction of Christianity significantly softened the punishments of criminals in Ancient Rome. Byzantine punishments, while harsh by today's standards, were far more lax compared to Ancient Rome's on many levels. People weren't being fed to lions because they stole something. Merely losing a hand was a big step up for thieves.

I'm talking about the policies specific to the Church - the main way the theocracy was enforced was through the mechanism of citizenship, not by killing anyone who merely did not want to belong to the Church. For the rest of punishments of that time, you have to keep things relative to their context, which was the Ancient Roman world - a savage world.

If you spoke out against the Church in a blasphemous way, sure, you could get punished, because you were also speaking out against the state, but that was exactly the same in the Pagan Roman era that preceded it. Compare apples to apples.

The Papacy used war to enforce their own theological dictates, because they could not strip someone of citizenship. The state model broke down in the middle ages, and calling crusades on heretics was the only card the Papacy had left. In the Byzantine era, people were exiled for heresy generally, it was far more humane by comparison.

 

[GoodShepherd]

White evangelical Protestants are the only major group in America against abortion:

View attachment 8359

just to let you know that if you openly support abortion in the Orthodox church and the priest finds out about it he can withold holy communion from you are father Josiah Trenham once mentioned

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

none of Origen's works survive so it's impossible to know.

A lot of his works still survive, there are so many that they all haven't even been translated into English yet.

Ignoring chronology of events is Unscriptural.

I don't understand the argument you're trying to make. Are you saying God anointed Jesus with the Spirit after His baptism? OK, no one's denying this, how is this a slam-dunk argument against the filioque?

As for baptism, the legalistic understanding that baptism is required for the Holy Spirit to regenerate a person (the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration) is also an unbiblical novelty:

Acts 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these things, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the word. 45And all the circumcised believers who came with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and magnifying God. Then Peter answered, 47“Can anyone refuse water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did?” 48And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for a few days.

 

[JCSteel]

You guys are great debaters, and that's the problem, since I see good points on both sides. For someone stuck hopelessly between Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy, this thread is becoming soul crushing.

 

[scorpion]

Our most dedicated female member @starlight PMed me with this info in response to @Get2choppaaa in regard to the Martin Luther pimping allegations, and I told her I would post it in this thread for her:

One of Luther's arguments in his "95 Theses" was against required celibacy for priests, nuns, and monks. He believed that celibacy was unnatural and that celibacy in these realms should be optional, simply put.

During that same time period, convents were occasionally used like an orphanage for young girls. A family might send a young daughter there because they couldn't afford another child, didn't have enough money for a dowery, had too many daughters already... any number of reasons. So it wasn't unusual for a young girl, elementary school age (some as young as six), to be sent to a convent by her parents. These girls would eventually be forced to take the veil (some as young as eleven) against their will because they legitimately had no other choice. If a nun chose to leave, there was a very real risk of being burnt at the stake for these women...

So what actually happened, regarding Luther, was that a group of women who had been given to their convent at a young age didn't desire the celibate life and wanted marriage/family life. Luther's thoughts on this issue made its way around and eventually to the convent at Nimbschen (spelling is probably wrong, recalling from memory). A group of women who had been sent to the convent very young (against their will) sent a letter to Luther beseeching him to help them escape. And Luther, being an outlaw already, committed to help them. Each woman that wanted to escape was hidden in a beer barrel on the eve of Easter, no less.

Luther helped arrange marriages for each one of these women. The last one that no one wanted, he married her himself out of charity.