Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread

[Rodion]

I agree that the Church helps us to the correct understanding of the canon, that is different than saying the Church is the necessary prerequisite to understanding the canon. You concede the point when you say that it comes down to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.


Pick one group and run with it, in this case, Eastern Orthodoxy. Still waiting to hear how this is a viable solution. You don't allow the Scriptures to have an objective meaning because it would undo your epistemology.


Examining Orthodox epistemology makes it abundantly clear that the Scriptures are the precondition for the Church. The errors that pervade in groups such as the Orthodox can be traced to when some parts of the Church in the early centuries did not have full access to the complete New Testament.

You do keep belaboring this point, so I will keep belaboring the point that the Orthodox Church being the precondition for it's own knowledge is viciously circular, and not what any of the Early Church Fathers believed:

https://thereformedninja.blogspot.com/2023/01/eastern-orthodox-ecclesiological.html?m=1

The article still doesn’t address the point being made and the question is still dodged. Using scripture to justify your knowledge of the true interpretation of scripture is viciously circular, because of the obvious problem which by now I hope is clear.

The Church, being according to scripture itself “the pillar and the ground of all Truth” with whom Christ himself identifies when he appears to St Paul, providing the justification is the only way to solve this, hence it being the necessary precondition. My claim that this Church is the Orthodox Church is another debate.

 

[Let God Arise]

Just remember the next time you kiss the icon, that it was the politics of 2nd Nicea, not the faith of the Bible that made that practice viable.

The fact that you PROTESTants reject or cherry-pick the Church Ecumenical Councils, the teachings of the Saints, and just make it up as you go along, does not convince me that Protestantism is better. It's just rebellion.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Using scripture to justify your knowledge of the true interpretation of scripture is viciously circular, because of the obvious problem which by now I hope is clear.

That's not what's going on. The Scriptures have an objective meaning. Just because you don't understand the Bible and rely on "the Orthodox church" (more like youtube apologists) to interpret it for you does not mean the Bible is a poor standard for the faith. It's all you would've had if you were in the 1st century. If your goal is to live out the same faith that the Apostles and their disciples did in the 1st century, why would you inject 12th century, Eastern traditions?

The Church, being according to scripture itself “the pillar and the ground of all Truth” with whom Christ himself identifies when he appears to St Paul, providing the justification is the only way to solve this, hence it being the necessary precondition.

"The pillar and ground of truth" as in the Church is not the truth itself, but what holds up the truth, that's what pillars and grounds do. So it's true that without the Apostles, there would be no New Testament that they left to hold the Church to a standard to, but before you give all the credit to men, give the credit to God instead who inspired them.

Also, you don't find it ironic that you're appealing to Scripture to establish that the Church is somehow a higher authority over Scripture?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The fact that you PROTESTants reject or cherry-pick the Church Ecumenical Councils, the teachings of the Saints, and just make it up as you go along, does not convince me that Protestantism is better. It's just rebellion.

Every tradition cherry picks which councils they consider "Ecumenical." Orthodoxy (even the different kinds), Catholicism, Protestantism, you name it. Same goes for the Church Fathers. I don't deny the cherry picking, I just dislike the hypocrisy that [insert my tradition] is above said cherry picking.

Also, the term Protestant was originally ascribed to groups that rejected the excesses of Rome, namely the indulgences, the idea that you can buy God's saving grace. You cool with that idea? Because that is something worth rebelling over.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Indeed, I always thought that Southern Baptists were supposed be the based, conservative hardcore Protestants in the USA.
Perhaps I was wrong; maybe that honour should go to those snake-handling, tongue-speaking churches in Appalachia.

The traditional denominational lines are not the best indicators of where people are at anymore. Even in your main groups of Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc, you have an overarching political spectrum that will futher categorize where people are at. For example, a conservative Presbyterian will have much more in common with a conservative Baptist than he would with a liberal Presbyterian. Within Protestantism, what is the main dividing line between the conservatives and the liberals? The doctrine of Sola Scriptura, the idea that the Bible alone is the only infallible and innerant rule of faith. Liberal Protestants don't even pretend to believe in the doctrine, rather, they contextualize away everything in the Bible that contradicts their syncretist-wokeism.

This sort of "bleed through" extends outside of Protestantism as well. I've met many a Thomist who, because they were a little weak on the sacraments, sounded very much like Calvinists.

 

[Lawrence87]

That's not what's going on. The Scriptures have an objective meaning. Just because you don't understand the Bible and rely on "the Orthodox church" (more like youtube apologists) to interpret it for you does not mean the Bible is a poor standard for the faith. It's all you would've had if you were in the 1st century. If your goal is to live out the same faith that the Apostles and their disciples did in the 1st century, why would you inject 12th century, Eastern traditions?


"The pillar and ground of truth" as in the Church is not the truth itself, but what holds up the truth, that's what pillars and grounds do. So it's true that without the Apostles, there would be no New Testament that they left to hold the Church to a standard to, but before you give all the credit to men, give the credit to God instead who inspired them.

Also, you don't find it ironic that you're appealing to Scripture to establish that the Church is somehow a higher authority over Scripture?

The Orthodox Church has an extremely high regard for Scripture. I think this often gets lost in debates like this so its important to emphasize. We have Scripture readings in every Liturgy, I would say a good 90% of said Liturgy is comprised of words from Scripture. Our clergy are admonished to study the Scriptures upon their ordination. I think this can get misunderstood in debates around Sola Scriptura, and people sometimes mischaracterize the Orthodox as having a low view of Scripture (not saying you are personally making that accusation, but I have seen it). I think the contention is always about interpretation. You have your interpretation, the Orthodox church has an interpretation, Mr. Jones down the street has a different interpretation etc. Given the differing interpretations, it is important to resolve who has the correct one. I don't think it is apparent that the Scriptures can provide their own interpretation.

Let's say I have zero understanding of Christianity. I've never heard about Christ, no history of Christianity, no theology. I am willing to learn, eager for God, and I can read and have good comprehension skills. Do you think if you handed me a Bible and said "this is what you need to understand Salvation and all other wisdom pertaining to life, theology etc..." And you left me at that, and I had no other external influences. What level of confidence would you have that if you came back 3 years later I'd have come to a Christianity that resembles your own, and wouldn't have something wildly different and perhaps completely heretical?

I think firstly tradition is inescapable. Sola Scriptura is a tradition. Protestantism is a tradition. Christianity, its history and influence on culture, the influence of prominent theologians etc. The interpretation of Scripture cannot be isolated from all of this. I think if it was the case, as in the hypothetical, someone was cut off from all this, then the chances of them arriving at orthodox (I mean that in the little o sense) Christian beliefs like the Trinity are very slim.

Secondly the understanding of Scripture sometimes requires historical context that is not provided in the text itself. These parts can be, and often are misinterpreted when mixed with ignorance about the context.

So my point would be. If the hand over of the Bible to the person with complete ignorance would need to be accompanied by instruction about interpretation, perhaps a book to look up historical context and so forth. Then I'd posit that by itself Scripture is insufficient, and then the question becomes, who has the tools, and the authority etc. to facilitate a correct interpretation and understanding

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The Orthodox Church has an extremely high regard for Scripture. I think this often gets lost in debates like this so its important to emphasize. We have Scripture readings in every Liturgy, I would say a good 90% of said Liturgy is comprised of words from Scripture. Our clergy are admonished to study the Scriptures upon their ordination. I think this can get misunderstood in debates around Sola Scriptura, and people sometimes mischaracterize the Orthodox as having a low view of Scripture (not saying you are personally making that accusation, but I have seen it). I think the contention is always about interpretation.

Fair enough. But what I will say, the Orthodox seem more content with passivly deriving their theology from the liturgy, the Reformed emphasis is designed to be a much more active grasping of the Word. This is what I was trying to convey to TrainedLogosmotion before he apostatized.

You have your interpretation, the Orthodox church has an interpretation, Mr. Jones down the street has a different interpretation etc. Given the differing interpretations, it is important to resolve who has the correct one. I don't think it is apparent that the Scriptures can provide their own interpretation.

This is where we have to disagree. I do believe that the Scriptures say what they mean and they mean what they say. For me, to believe otherwise is to seriously underestimate and short-change the Biblical testimony. I'm willing to accept a difference of opinion on issues that the Bible does not explicitly speak about (I never claimed that the Bible is exhaustive, only that it is sufficient) as audiophora. Less flexible with differences on issues that can be deduced by logical inference. Not flexible at all on issues that are explicitly stated.

Let's say I have zero understanding of Christianity. I've never heard about Christ, no history of Christianity, no theology. I am willing to learn, eager for God, and I can read and have good comprehension skills. Do you think if you handed me a Bible and said "this is what you need to understand Salvation and all other wisdom pertaining to life, theology etc..." And you left me at that, and I had no other external influences. What level of confidence would you have that if you came back 3 years later I'd have come to a Christianity that resembles your own, and wouldn't have something wildly different and perhaps completely heretical?

I wouldn't expect you to. We never come at anything as a blank slate, it's impossible. Nor are we born as blank slates. But if I were to flip your test case back on you, do you think you would come to a full throated Eastern Orthodox understanding in this scenario?

I think firstly tradition is inescapable. Sola Scriptura is a tradition. Protestantism is a tradition. Christianity, its history and influence on culture, the influence of prominent theologians etc. The interpretation of Scripture cannot be isolated from all of this. I think if it was the case, as in the hypothetical, someone was cut off from all this, then the chances of them arriving at orthodox (I mean that in the little o sense) Christian beliefs like the Trinity are very slim.

I grant all of this other than the last clause. Reformed theology can be a tradition. The question is what do we do with the tradition? Do we subject our tradition to the "more sure word of prophecy" or do we elevate our traditions to the same level as that which is God-Breathed?

So my point would be. If the hand over of the Bible to the person with complete ignorance would need to be accompanied by instruction about interpretation, perhaps a book to look up historical context and so forth. Then I'd posit that by itself Scripture is insufficient, and then the question becomes, who has the tools, and the authority etc. to facilitate a correct interpretation and understanding

What is it you are saying Scripture is insufficient to do? Is it insufficient to bring you to a saving faith in Jesus Christ? Is it insufficient to make every Christian in the world agree on every issue? What is the nature of Scriptural insufficiency?

 

[Lawrence87]

Fair enough. But what I will say, the Orthodox seem more content with passivly deriving their theology from the liturgy, the Reformed emphasis is designed to be a much more active grasping of the Word. This is what I was trying to convey to TrainedLogosmotion before he apostatized.

First off, thanks for taking the time to respond.

I think it is true that some people are passive as Orthodox and don't really study theology or Scripture, but I don't think this characterizes all of us. And I think the same could be said of some Reformed Christians, who just go to church, pray a bit and otherwise aren't that engaged in theology or the study of Scripture beyond what the pastor tells them at church on Sunday. I would posit that not devoting time to understanding your faith, or studying Scripture, as an Orthodox Christian would be something that one ought to take to confession. If you read the Holy Fathers their work is full of quotes from Scripture, much of it devoted to commentaries on it, and this applies just as much to contemporary figures like Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov as to people like Saint John Chrysostom.

You yourself have devoted yourself to an active understanding of Scripture, and whilst commendable, it is anachronistic to apply this standard to the history of Christianity because of two things. The average person, throughout most of Christendom, was illiterate, and until the invention of the printing press having a Bible was extremely expensive. So it seems like a bit of an unreasonable standard to apply for Salvation, when for most people studying and actively interpreting the Scriptures would have been impossible for a lot of history. That is not to say we should not do it now we can, but I think someone who posits a Sola Scriptura framework would have to at least concede it is anachronistic.

This is where we have to disagree. I do believe that the Scriptures say what they mean and they mean what they say. For me, to believe otherwise is to seriously underestimate and short-change the Biblical testimony. I'm willing to accept a difference of opinion on issues that the Bible does not explicitly speak about (I never claimed that the Bible is exhaustive, only that it is sufficient) as audiophora. Less flexible with differences on issues that can be deduced by logical inference. Not flexible at all on issues that are explicitly stated.

There still necessarily has to be a framework of interpretation. If you handed the hypothetical ignorant person a Bible and said nothing about how it is to be interpreted, maybe they would come to a completely symbolic understanding, where they decide everything has some coded symbolic meaning and come to some strange ideas based on that (as many people have done). So even at the level of 'is it symbolic, or literal, or both?' is not always clear.

I wouldn't expect you to. We never come at anything as a blank slate, it's impossible. Nor are we born as blank slates. But if I were to flip your test case back on you, do you think you would come to a full throated Eastern Orthodox understanding in this scenario?

That is kinda the point I was making. I wouldn't expect anything other than for them to come up with something that maybe resembles Christianity a bit, but who knows where it might vary from Orthodoxy and why. This is consistent with what I'd expect because I don't think one's own understanding of Scripture is sufficient.

I also would say that a lot of the things that people say are un-Biblical about Orthodoxy are actually pretty well founded in Scripture. But that's probably for another day... Even then though, I wouldn't expect people to arrive at it by themselves based off their own reasoning.

What is it you are saying Scripture is insufficient to do? Is it insufficient to bring you to a saving faith in Jesus Christ? Is it insufficient to make every Christian in the world agree on every issue? What is the nature of Scriptural insufficiency?

It is insufficient because it necessarily requires interpretation, and self directed interpretation can lead one to all kinds of conclusions, whatever you may say about them on an individual basis, you must agree that people can, and do often go off into wild territory based on their understanding of the Bible alone. You may say that their interpretation is wrong, but that comes to my point, there is a correct interpretation, and an interpretation is required. So the question is who has that interpretation? I am sure you would say you are at least close to having the right interpretation, but so would someone else who has totally different theology. So how do we determine who is right, when both are pulling up Scriptures in support of their view?

 

[Samseau]

Just remember the next time you kiss the icon, that it was the politics of 2nd Nicea, not the faith of the Bible that made that practice viable.

Yes, because the Bishops at Nicea had less of an understanding of the Bible than you do.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Yes, because the Bishops at Nicea had less of an understanding of the Bible than you do.

Having read the Biblical eisegesis behind 2nd Nicea, I would put money that everyone on this forum understands the Bible more than they did.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The average person, throughout most of Christendom, was illiterate, and until the invention of the printing press having a Bible was extremely expensive. So it seems like a bit of an unreasonable standard to apply for Salvation, when for most people studying and actively interpreting the Scriptures would have been impossible for a lot of history. That is not to say we should not do it now we can, but I think someone who posits a Sola Scriptura framework would have to at least concede it is anachronistic.

I'm not saying that you have to know the Bible in and out in order to be saved. I just reject that the clergy has authority over the Bible, before and after the printing press.

There still necessarily has to be a framework of interpretation. If you handed the hypothetical ignorant person a Bible and said nothing about how it is to be interpreted, maybe they would come to a completely symbolic understanding, where they decide everything has some coded symbolic meaning and come to some strange ideas based on that (as many people have done). So even at the level of 'is it symbolic, or literal, or both?' is not always clear.

Historically, the symbolic or allegorical method of interpretation dominated Christendom ever since Origen and until the Reformation which repopularized the literal method. The Biblical authors even go out of their way to stress that what they saw really happened.

It is insufficient because it necessarily requires interpretation, and self directed interpretation can lead one to all kinds of conclusions, whatever you may say about them on an individual basis, you must agree that people can, and do often go off into wild territory based on their understanding of the Bible alone.

OK, but what is it insufficient to do? Insufficient for what? What is it that the Bible is not able to do?

Is it unable to bring you to a saving faith in Jesus Christ? Is it unable to make every Christian agree on every issue?

So how do we determine who is right, when both are pulling up Scriptures in support of their view?

What I'm looking for is if someone's interpretation would cause the Scriptures to contradict themselves in some way and if their interpretation accounts for the totality of Scripture, Tota Scriptura. When you introduce an external standard, all of these contentions you are raising would now be applied to that standard; and so it becomes another question if someone is willing to accept that external standard.

Thanks for taking the time. It's good conversation.

 

[Lawrence87]

I'm not saying that you have to know the Bible in and out in order to be saved. I just reject that the clergy has authority over the Bible, before and after the printing press.

I think the Orthodox position is more nuanced than clergy having authority over the Bible. Because the Church is more mystical than that. That might sound like a cop out but I shall try to explain what I mean. Let's say there is a hypothetical Patriarch who decides 'I want to propose a radically different interpretation of Scripture, and I want to force it as the standard in the Church' - he does have authority in the Church, but it is not without limit. The likely result is that the Church as a body would say 'hang out a second, this new interpretation is nothing like the Patristic interpretation, it has no precedence and we are not going to go along with it.' And the Patriarch would ultimately either have to rescind their proposal, or push it forcefully and ultimately cause some kind of schism. The same applies for an individual priest. If they start preaching weird interpretations, people will likely contact the Bishop with their concerns and the Bishop will admonish them to stop, and if the issue continues they will defrock them. So whilst the Church has an authoritative interpretation of Scripture, it cannot change it arbitrarily, because the interpretation of Scripture is essentially the distillation of centuries worth of Saints studying, praying and reflecting over Scripture. So its not something that can be changed willy-nilly. So its not that clergy have authority to interpret Scripture however they want, but the Church as a whole has an authority that is not localized in any one person or group of people.

Historically, the symbolic or allegorical method of interpretation dominated Christendom ever since Origen and until the Reformation which repopularized the literal method. The Biblical authors even go out of their way to stress that what they saw really happened.

As I understand it there are many Church Fathers who took a 'both and' approach to whether the Scriptures are literal or allegorical. For example when Christ curses the fig tree, this is interpreted as something that He actually did in a literal sense. But also it is symbolic, because as tradition at that time held, the tree in the Garden of Eden was a fig tree (due to Adam and Eve making their clothes from fig leaves after the transgression, leading many to suppose the tree itself was a fig tree) and the cursing of the tree was not so much Christ being annoyed at a plant for not bearing fruit when it was out of season, but the cursing represented Christ breaking the curse that was wrought through a tree in the Garden. There are also interpretations that say the fig tree represents Israel, and its being cursed for not bearing fruit, is pretty self explanatory. It is my understanding that the Orthodox Church would accept that the event happened for real as a literal event, but it also simultaneously had a deeply symbolic nature. Indeed when taken literally (as many atheists do to mock Christianity) it almost takes on an absurd character, whereby Christ merely curses a tree for not bearing fruit out of season, which seems a bit odd.

OK, but what is it insufficient to do? Insufficient for what? What is it that the Bible is not able to do?

Is it unable to bring you to a saving faith in Jesus Christ? Is it unable to make every Christian agree on every issue?

It is a good question. I would say by itself it is unable to bring Salvation. But I am not sure what it means. For example a lot depends on the person, someone can read the Bible 50 times and if they would rather mock and blaspheme it than take it seriously then no it cannot help them at all. But someone else might be open to it's message and it might put them on the path to Salvation.

I think it is evident that it is unable to make all Christians agree just by the fact that there are thousands of Churches that all will claim to teach THE Biblical Christianity, and they simply cannot agree. If it was sufficient for doing this then surely the outcome would be agreement would it not?

I would say that the Church is what is sufficient for Salvation, and that is not to be conflated with the clergy. The clergy are a part of the Church but as I said, the Church is the mystical Body of Christ. It's authority cannot easily be localized or pinpointed it a rationalistic way. This is important because it is not putting men above Scripture as is often mischaracterized. When people say the Church they are not just diverting authority to some dudes with beards in robes. It is much more than that. Orthodox Ecclesiology is, like a lot of it's theology, quite mystical, and again this might sound like a cop out, but I hope you will at least take from this that the Orthodox Church does not divert all of its authority to the men who currently comprise the upper ranks of the clergy, but that it is a bit more nuanced than that.

What I'm looking for is if someone's interpretation would cause the Scriptures to contradict themselves in some way and if their interpretation accounts for the totality of Scripture, Tota Scriptura. When you introduce an external standard, all of these contentions you are raising would now be applied to that standard; and so it becomes another question if someone is willing to accept that external standard.

The Church doesn't propose that the Scriptures can contradict themselves either. The resolution to the apparent contradictions is a good point to raise, because having some familiarity with Orthodox commentaries on the Gospels they do point out apparent contradictions and explain them in a way that resolves it. A classic example would be the apparent contradiction between the placing of the casting out of the money changers from the Temple in the Gospel of Saint John, versus the other Gospels. The Orthodox Church accepts that this did in fact occur twice, St John records the first time, and the other Gospels record the time that Christ did it again shortly before the Crucifixion.

I am sure we both agree that all apparent contradictions are only that; apparent. But it does raise an interesting point; some of these supposed contradictions are not so obvious to resolve just by looking at the text itself. Indeed some of them, for those who cannot find sufficient answers, prove to undermine their faith entirely. So how one resolves apparent contradictions is actually quite a good case for the necessity of some kind of means of interpretation. The Orthodox position is always going to come back to 'from whence does the source of that interpretation come?'

Thanks for taking the time. It's good conversation.

I appreciate it also. And thanks for your responses and your time. I know sometimes discussions like this can take on a mean spirited tone at times, but I feel, although I am unlikely to convince you, it is still good practice for me to put my thoughts on these things into writing. Wishing you a blessed day.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

So whilst the Church has an authoritative interpretation of Scripture, it cannot change it arbitrarily, because the interpretation of Scripture is essentially the distillation of centuries worth of Saints studying, praying and reflecting over Scripture. So its not something that can be changed willy-nilly. So its not that clergy have authority to interpret Scripture however they want, but the Church as a whole has an authority that is not localized in any one person or group of people.

My pushback on this is that it can be demonstrated where the Church was willing to pick up foreign objects along the way. Oftentimes, the Church even recognized if something was not genuinely Apostolic, but was so out of custom. For example, see Jerome on the priesthood. There are other examples but that one is a clear case. At other times, the Church could fall victim to forged letters or anachronism. You first have to accept that the Church has the authority to update or change the Apostolic model.

There are also interpretations that say the fig tree represents Israel, and its being cursed for not bearing fruit, is pretty self explanatory. It is my understanding that the Orthodox Church would accept that the event happened for real as a literal event, but it also simultaneously had a deeply symbolic nature. Indeed when taken literally (as many atheists do to mock Christianity) it almost takes on an absurd character, whereby Christ merely curses a tree for not bearing fruit out of season, which seems a bit odd.

Even both of these interpretations I would call literal. Literal is not the same as literalistic. The kind of allegory that I warned about extends far beyond this realm of interpretation. This is where you see some Fathers going into numerology and other strange stuff that will leave you scratching your head afterwards. To sum it up, if the text is meant to be understood poetically, then the literal interpretation is to understand it poetically.

The text itself basically tells us what the meaning of the fig tree is through one of the parables, the parables themselves finding their meaning in Christ and His relation to Israel.

It is a good question. I would say by itself it is unable to bring Salvation. But I am not sure the question makes sense. For example a lot depends on the person, someone can read the Bible 50 times and if they would rather mock and blaspheme it than take it seriously then no it cannot help them at all. But someone else might be open to it's message and it might put them on the path to Salvation.

The very terms 'sufficiency' and 'insufficiency' imply a goal. And so I do believe that the Scriptures are sufficient to bring you to a saving faith, should the Holy Spirit grant it to you. Why do I believe that? Because that's exactly what Paul says the Scriptures are able to do in 2 Timothy 3:15: they are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

I'm not arguing that they are exhaustive, and therefore, they will not make us agree on every issue, but I won't deny that they are sufficient for the cause that they are given, to bring us to a saving faith in Jesus Christ. This is where I think you go too far in your denial of Scriptural sufficiency.

I think it is evident that it is unable to make all Christians agree just by the fact that there are thousands of Churches that all will claim to teach THE Biblical Christianity, and they simply cannot agree. If it was sufficient for doing this then surely the outcome would be agreement would it not?

I grant that, but then, using the same standard, it is clear that the Church (whichever Church you want to point to) is also not able to make every Christian agree on every issue. That's why I don't see any validity in denying Scriptural sufficiency. If the Bible does not do this, then surely nothing else does?

I would say that the Church is what is sufficient for Salvation, and that is not to be conflated with the clergy. The clergy are a part of the Church but as I said, the Church is the mystical Body of Christ. It's authority cannot easily be localized or pinpointed it a rationalistic way. This is important because it is not putting men above Scripture as is often mischaracterized. When people say the Church they are not just diverting authority to some dudes with beards in robes. It is much more than that. Orthodox Ecclesiology is, like a lot of it's theology, quite mystical, and again this might sound like a cop out, but I hope you will at least take from this that the Orthodox Church does not divert all of its authority to the men who currently comprise the upper ranks of the clergy, but that it is a bit more nuanced than that.

It sounds to me like you recognize the necessity of the invisible Church and it's distinction from the visible Church. The thing is, whenever Protestants bring it up, they are shamed for believing that there is an invisible, mystical side to the Church. We are used to hearing that there is only a visible Church.

I appreciate it also. And thanks for your responses and your time. I know sometimes discussions like this can take on a mean spirited tone at times, but I feel, although I am unlikely to convince you, it is still good practice for me to put my thoughts on these things into writing. Wishing you a blessed day.

It's a good opportunity to formulate your thoughts, if you have the humility to let it serve you, even though the temptation to pride is very powerful. A blessed day to you as well.

 

[Hermetic Seal]

Liberal Protestants don't even pretend to believe in the doctrine, rather, they contextualize away everything in the Bible that contradicts their syncretist-wokeism.

In my experience in evangelicalism in the last decade I often saw people claiming to believe in Scriptural inerrancy make sophisticated arguments in favor of whatever Current Year thing they advocated, whether female clergy on the milder end, or homosexual unions on the other. So it was quite different from the older mainline liberalism where libs basically didn’t even think the Bible is true beyond vague moral instruction. This is why formerly conservative Evangelicalism has tilted rapidly leftward in the last 15 years or so. They haven’t really had to change their presuppositions to embrace the Current Year.

What’s to stop someone from deploying Context-jutsu and Scripture-fu, with maybe some The Spirit Led Me mixed in, to come up with basically whatever interpretation they feel like? At some point you have to lean upon the tradition of what Christians have always believed and practiced, or else the inevitable result is endless revisionism.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

What’s to stop someone from deploying Context-jutsu and Scripture-fu, with maybe some The Spirit Led Me mixed in, to come up with basically whatever interpretation they feel like? At some point, you have to lean upon the tradition of what Christians have always believed and practiced, or else the inevitable result is endless revisionism.

For this discussion, liberal Protestants are very honest about their belief in Scriptural insufficiency. Have you seen what guys like Andy Stanley have had to say about the Bible?

The Bible prohibits women pastors. But they have women pastors because reasons.

The Bible prohibits making images of God and bowing to images. But you have icons because reasons.

Again, it's not that the Bible is unclear. But it's so clear that its authority has to be contextualized away in order to make room for the non-Biblical doctrines.

 

[analyst_green]

For this discussion, liberal Protestants are very honest about their belief in Scriptural insufficiency. Have you seen what guys like Andy Stanley have had to say about the Bible?

The Bible prohibits women pastors. But they have women pastors because reasons.

The Bible prohibits making images of God and bowing to images. But you have icons because reasons.

Again, it's not that the Bible is unclear. But it's so clear that its authority has to be contextualized away in order to make room for the non-Biblical doctrines.

The Bible clearly prohibits worshiping images of idols only. If the Protestant interpretation of the second commandment were true, then all artistic depictions of anything at all would be forbidden.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The Bible clearly prohibits worshiping images of idols only. If the Protestant interpretation of the second commandment were true, then all artistic depictions of anything at all would be forbidden.

Not true.

Exodus 32:1 Then the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain. So the people assembled about Aaron and said to him, “Arise, make us gods who will go before us; as for this Moses, the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.” 2And Aaron said to them, “Tear off the gold rings which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me.” 3Then all the people tore off the gold rings which were in their ears and brought them to Aaron. 4And he took this from their hand and fashioned it with a graving tool and made it into a molten calf; and they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.” 5And Aaron looked and built an altar before it; and Aaron made a proclamation and said, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to Yahweh.” 6So the next day they rose early and offered burnt offerings and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink and rose up to play.

The golden calf is a false image of God, it is still an idol.

 

[analyst_green]

Not true.

The golden calf is a false image of God, it is still an idol.

The golden calf is an idol because they worshiped and made burnt offerings to it instead of God. But what about the cherubim, the oxen, the lions, and the serpent God commanded his people to make? Clearly these are not idols, unless people later start making idols of them as in the case of the serpent. If you are not worshiping a graven image then it is not idolatry to make and venerate it.

https://www.saintjohnchurch.org/does-the-second-commandment-forbid-icons/

 

[KulturedKaveman]

The golden calf is an idol because they worshiped and made burnt offerings to it instead of God. But what about the cherubim, the oxen, the lions, and the serpent God commanded his people to make? Clearly these are not idols, unless people later start making idols of them as in the case of the serpent. If you are not worshiping a graven image then it is not idolatry to make and venerate it.

https://www.saintjohnchurch.org/does-the-second-commandment-forbid-icons/

You need to understand two things to get the golden calf. The pagan world view and the difference between an icon an idol.

Colossians tells us everything is an icon of God so we can depict them and decorate the place with them. Think about the days when everyone was illiterate and unwashed. The pictures would be how you teach theology.

In the pagan world an idol is different than an icon. An idol if you talk to the Greeks, Romans, Germanics, Canaanites, they’d tell you the spirit of the gods actually inhabit the statue or painting. It’s a vessel not a window. The fathers vessel is the incarnation. So a golden calf can not be worshiped like a pagan god. Also I watched an interesting bit about the composition of the Torah. Turns out archeology shows the Northern Kingdom in Kings was using bull imagery, and the Torah was a rolling book until the Babylonian exile. Maybe someone wanted to get a call out on the northern kingdom in there.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The golden calf is an idol because they worshiped and made burnt offerings to it instead of God.

The golden calf was an image of God. They identify it with the God who brought them out of Egypt. It is idolatrous because it is a false image of God, it's improper worship.

But what about the cherubim, the oxen, the lions,

I don't see in those texts a license to venerate icons. Nor do I see evidence that the Israelites viewed those as objects of veneration the same way an iconodule would, either in the Old or New Testament.

and the serpent God commanded his people to make?

The bronze serpent (Nehushtan) is an interesting case study because it shows that something that God gives sacramentally can be turned into an idol due to improper worship. It is destroyed in 2 Kings 18 because people began to burn incense to it.

If you are not worshiping a graven image then it is not idolatry to make and venerate it.

What do you do with passages in Acts and Revelation where the Apostles and an Angel do not allow themselves to be venerated?