How to Solve the Protestant Problem?

[Oldgamer]

Does it matter how you believe in an imaginary entity? Does it change the fact that it's all much ado about nothing? I fail to understand how anyone can 'believe' in something for which there is no proof, whatsoever. And I find debating about the 'proper' way of going about 'believing' even more incomprehensive.

And you know that God is an "imaginary entity" based upon what scientific discipline? If you don't have science on your side, and you contend that God is "imaginary", then I contend that you must have the same knowledge of the Divine that is possessed by us, who are theists.

In other words, prove that He doesn't exist.

[Cluny the Scourge]

Yes, but please keep in mind that Catholics can attend either the Tridentine mass or the Vatican II mass.

That must have hurt to say.

In other words, prove that He doesn't exist.

You already know the answer to that: Prove that He does. You can't, therefore He doesn't. And it isn't a question of science, but of reason which pre-dates both science and religion - reason was there amongst the first primitive bands of early humans.

[Oldgamer]

You already know the answer to that: Prove that He does. You can't, therefore He doesn't. And it isn't a question of science, but of reason which pre-dates both science and religion - reason was there amongst the first primitive bands of early humans.

I don't have to. I believe ... have faith ... that He is.

Juggernawt says that God is an "imaginary entity". He must have access to information that proves God is imaginary. Otherwise, he is merely exercising "faith", like the rest of us ...

And there is a logical fallacy involved in implying that someone who believes in God does not employ reason. I'll leave it up to you to discover which one. I'll even give you a cupee doll if you get it right!

[Cluny the Scourge]

1) What is a cupee doll?

2) The person who believes in God employs reason, but he makes errors in reason. When these errors are pointed out he must either change his conclusion or no longer claim to be applying reason.

[Zenith Darksea]

2) The person who believes in God employs reason, but he makes errors in reason. When these errors are pointed out he must either change his conclusion or no longer claim to be applying reason.

I think his point was that it is unacceptable to categorically deny the possibility of God, not that lack of proof against God was in some way proof for God. And besides, any reasonable person can see that logic is on the side of theism, not atheism...

However, I shan't develop that point here. If you want me to, then you can start a new thread on it, because it isn't relevant to this one.

This is the point of this thread:

What Irenaeus, Tertullian, and the many other Fathers of the Church were saying is this - Scripture can be misinterpreted, and in fact even those with the best possible intentions can get it wrong. It is my solid conviction that Protestants are some of the most devout Christians in the world (and they split off from the Roman Catholics for the right reasons), but they have taken the wrong approach, the wrong intellectual paradigm. They appeal to sola scriptura ('by Scripture alone') and positively reject any tradition whatsoever. Indeed 'tradition' is a pretty dirty word among Protestants.

But why should it be?

The Scriptures themselves are in fact a part, perhaps the foundation, of the Church's tradition (a term frequently used in the Bible itself). To the uninformed person, they can be interpreted in many ways, but the Apostles had known Christ and had learned directly from him - they knew the correct way to interpret the Scriptures, and as Irenaeus and Tertullian say, they taught the correct interpretations to their disciples, who taught them to their disciples, and so on. In fact, it was thanks to this Apostolic Tradition that the Biblical canon was arranged as it is today (after all, the Bible wasn't just faxed in from Heaven), and the Church is guardian of this tradition (see 1 Timothy 6:20-21).

So when pondering problems of faith, why should you keep trying to reinvent the wheel? The Living Tradition of the Church holds the answers, and let me tell you, the Apostolic Tradition isn't difficult to find.

Our friend basics claims that Tradition is somehow an addition to Scripture. However, it's hard for that kind of claim to be justified when most Protestants can't even agree what is in Scripture, let alone what is not. Moreover, the tradition existed before the Scripture did (even in the New Testament there are numerous references to the teachings passed on by Christ to the Apostles and by them to their disciples, including an instruction to Timothy to 'guard what has been entrusted* to your care.'), and the greatest theologians of the second century, disciples of the disciples of the Apostles, were already warning against the notion of sola scriptura, which would serve as an excuse for unscrupulous men to invent beliefs such as those that our friend basics is espousing.

So, what are your thoughts on this subject?

* The Greek verb paradidomi derives from the noun paradosis, which of course translates as 'a handing down' - the Latin traditio and the English 'tradition'.

[Dracula]

"Our friend" basics should be enclosed in a certain place with security regime .

[Earl of Rochester]

To a non-Christian, one explanation would no doubt be that the Bible had no internal coherence and so could be used to produce so many different interpretations. But I am a Christian, and besides, the argument that the Bible is incoherent is basically flawed and untenable. The men who wrote and later established the Biblical canon did actually realise what they were doing and did have a specific purpose. In fact, when you consider that debates over the meaning of Holy Scripture didn't really surface until the 1500s or thereabout (and also the fact that it was entirely focused around North-Western Europe), it becomes clear that this is a cultural issue, based on an intellectual paradigm. In other words, Protestants began to think about the Bible in a different way - this was the rise of sola scriptura and the needless stigmatism of the past.

There were plenty of debates over scripture before Luther. The Catholic Church was just rather efficient at stomping these out. Huss and Wycliffe are more notable of such, but of course there were numerous others.

So when pondering problems of faith, why should you keep trying to reinvent the wheel? The Living Tradition of the Church holds the answers, and let me tell you, the Apostolic Tradition isn't difficult to find.

You teach someone something, then they teach someone something, and let this continue one hundred times. Do you really think the message will be the same?

[Zenith Darksea]

There were plenty of debates over scripture before Luther. The Catholic Church was just rather efficient at stomping these out. Huss and Wycliffe are more notable of such, but of course there were numerous others.

Actually, I do refer to this point later on in the first post. As I said,

Were debates over Scripture really a novel thing?

Well to be honest, no. However, divisions over Scripture were a novel thing. There was debate even in the time of the Apostles (see Acts 15), however the interesting thing is that, over time, they resolved the debate.

Fortunately, I'm not Roman Catholic, I'm Orthodox (as you've probably gathered by now), so I don't really have to worry about men like Wycliffe or Huss. And besides, I was deliberately vague in the time period that I mentioned ('the 1500s or thereabout').

You teach someone something, then they teach someone something, and let this continue one hundred times. Do you really think the message will be the same?

Well in the case of Orthodox Christian Tradition, yes, I do. Certainly all the available historical evidence (which stretches back at least into the 2nd century) suggests that at its heart it has remained the same. Of course that Tradition isn't static - it does have to be updated for changing times (for example, the spread of Christianity necessitated a better organised hierarchy, evangelism of new communities required the use of new languages and styles, and the appearance of some heresies required official proclamations by Oecumenical Councils, and so on), but nonetheless the message has stayed the same, it seems.

Besides, if you are a Christian, you are obliged to believe that the Church maintains the Apostolic Tradition (as Christ Himself promises this), which is one point that basics has not been taking into account...

[Earl of Rochester]

wever the interesting thing is that, over time, they resolved the debate.

They resolved the debate or heresy sprung up.

Fortunately, I'm not Roman Catholic, I'm Orthodox (as you've probably gathered by now), so I don't really have to worry about men like Wycliffe or Huss.

There are Orthodox equivalents im sure

And besides, I was deliberately vague in the time period that I mentioned ('the 1500s or thereabout').

Fine forget Huss and Wycliffe.

How about Arius? Or Apollinaris? Or a host of others.

Besides, if you are a Christian, you are obliged to believe that the Church maintains the Apostolic Tradition (as Christ Himself promises this), which is one point that basics has not been taking into account...

Well I am not, I do go to a Protestant Church though, but that is because it is a place through which I can do good deeds, not because I agree with the religious doctrine.

[Zenith Darksea]

They resolved the debate or heresy sprung up.

Well the heresies never lasted.

There are Orthodox equivalents im sure

Oh yeah? Name some.

How about Arius? Or Apollinaris? Or a host of others.

Yes - and what happened to their doctrines? They're in the dustbin of history, of course. Like I said, the debates were resolved. And in those cases where a person wasn't won over to the Apostolic teachings, well, the Church didn't endorse their doctrines, did it?

[Earl of Rochester]

Well the heresies never lasted.

Yes - and what happened to their doctrines? They're in the dustbin of history, of course. Like I said, the debates were resolved. And in those cases where a person wasn't won over to the Apostolic teachings, well, the Church didn't endorse their doctrines, did it?

Your missing the point. Doctrinal debates arose and sometimes don't get resolved. So what happens? The mainstream kicks out the dissenter and labels them a heresy. There is a social stigma to being a heretic so hereseys remain small until the Protestant Reformation, when disagreeing with the One Church finally becomes acceptable in some cultures.

So how is this any different than Protestantism? The only difference is instead of black listing those who disagree with you, in Protestantism you just form your own sect and it is socially acceptable.

So your point about scriptural debates getting resolved is rather moot. Shoving them under the rug and any who follow them isn't really resolving anything.

Name some.

Well both Arius and Apollinaris came from before the great Schism so they work for now.

[Zenith Darksea]

So how is this any different than Protestantism? The only difference is instead of black listing those who disagree with you, in Protestantism you just form your own sect and it is socially acceptable.

The difference is that in this case the Orthodox recognise the fact that the Church is united and can only uphold one doctrine (the correct one). Again, if you're a Christian then you will recognise this at least in the Scriptures (again, I noted this in my opening post). People can go off and form their own sects if they like, but they shouldn't try to claim that they can correctly interpret Scripture without looking for the consensus in the Apostolic tradition, nor that the Church can represent more than one doctrine.

Well both Arius and Apollinaris came from before the great Schism so they work for now.

Well they didn't effect any changes in the Church's doctrine, nor did they form lasting splinter groups.

Just to get this straight, what exact comparison are you trying to draw between the Orthodox and men like Huss and Wycliffe?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Just so happens of course that Zenith has been born into the correct sect.

[Earl of Rochester]

he difference is that in this case the Orthodox recognise the fact that the Church is united and can only uphold one doctrine (the correct one). Again, if you're a Christian then you will recognise this at least in the Scriptures (again, I noted this in my opening post). People can go off and form their own sects if they like, but they shouldn't try to claim that they can correctly interpret Scripture without looking for the consensus in the Apostolic tradition, nor that the Church can represent more than one doctrine.

Why does one Church mean one Doctrine? Protestant Churches very often refer to the one family of God(the Church). As they see all Churches ultimately as part of the same family. Do you have scripture that shows one Church must mean one way of viewing things?

Well they didn't effect any changes in the Church's doctrine, nor did they form lasting splinter groups.

Because they were stuffed out by the Church

Just to get this straight, what exact comparison are you trying to draw between the Orthodox and men like Huss and Wycliffe?

Your saying you Don't have to worry about them because your Orthodox, all I was saying is there were plenty of Orthodox Heretics as well.

[Thanatos]

Just so happens of course that Zenith has been born into the correct sect.

I thought Zenith once said he was a convert?

It's not like it matters, though.

[Oldgamer]

1) What is a cupee doll?

A cupee doll is a small, inexpensive prize, usually given to a young man who performs a feat of derring-do on the Midway, at a county fair. He then gives the prize to his date, who coos appreciatively, and they both head for Lover's Lane ...

2) The person who believes in God employs reason, but he makes errors in reason. When these errors are pointed out he must either change his conclusion or no longer claim to be applying reason.

The person who believes in God employs reason. He does not make errors in reason.

The person who does not believe in God employs reason, but misuses it in an intellectually dishonest manner, seeking to encourage others to become atheists ... like him ... by pointing out the inadequacies of the the people he detests.

Shall I be roasted in my own juices? As the Duke would say, a disapproving look flashing across his face, "Not hardly."

[Zenith Darksea]

Just so happens of course that Zenith has been born into the correct sect.

No it doesn't. I converted a year ago from the Church of Scotland, and you can't get much more austerely Protestant than that.

Why does one Church mean one Doctrine?

Actually, I'm getting to quite enjoy quoting my earlier posts now. It saves a lot of time!

In fact, this is one point of the Bible that must be clear to any Christian:

I, therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you... to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you also were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, Who is over all, and through all, and in you all.
Ephesians 1:4-6

...if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
1 Timothy 3:15

And God placed all things under his [Christ's] feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the Church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.
Ephesians 1:22-23

Now there can only be one truth, and Christ only has one body (the members of which must act in unity) - hence the visible Church can only proclaim one doctrine. But you should read through my first post properly to get a fuller account of things.

Because they were stuffed out by the Church

Quite so. However, what I do very much want to emphasise is the fact that the Orthodox never had a reformation or a protestant movement - even the iconoclasts vanished into the mists of history.

[kev-o]

You know Chirstianity means universal. So what is wrong to accept different interpretations. And those letters were writen by Paul. Had he lived in the time of the Protestent Reformation, he would be shocked to the level the Catholic Church was at.

[Zenith Darksea]

You know Chirstianity means universal. So what is wrong to accept different interpretations.

Actually, 'Christianity' refers to the concept of the beliefs and dogmas espoused by 'Christ'. Are you referring to the word 'Catholic'? Technically of course 'Catholic' literally means (at least in Greek) 'according to the whole'. However, I've already demonstrated what is wrong with the Church accepting different interpretations - if you disagree, then please read what I have said and make your own positive arguments as to why it is wrong.

And those letters were writen by Paul. Had he lived in the time of the Protestent Reformation, he would be shocked to the level the Catholic Church was at.

Those letters were written by Paul, and I'm sure that if he saw the Catholic Church at the reformation he would be disappointed with many of its members just as he was disappointed with many of its members in the 1st century (a lot of his Epistles concern telling Churches to get their acts together and stay on the path of Christ). However, it's not my purpose here to provide excuses for the Roman Catholic Church of the reformation - like I say, I am not Roman Catholic, I am Orthodox.

On a side note, why is it that this point always comes up? One starts a conversation about problems in Protestant intellectual paradigms, and someone always says, "Well, the Roman Catholics at the time of the reformation did bad things."

Guess what - as an Orthodox, I actually agree with you! I think that the Protestants were right to have a problem with the Roman Catholic Church at that time! My point (for the umpteenth time) has nothing to do with that - my point is that the Protestants proceeded in the wrong way. They ought to have appealed to the Church's Apostolic Tradition in an attempt to correct the Roman Patriarchate, or if that was impossible they ought to have gone into communion with the Orthodox.

[Oldgamer]

On a side note, why is it that this point always comes up? One starts a conversation about problems in Protestant intellectual paradigms, and someone always says, "Well, the Roman Catholics at the time of the reformation did bad things."

Guess what - as an Orthodox, I actually agree with you! I think that the Protestants were right to have a problem with the Roman Catholic Church at that time! My point (for the umpteenth time) has nothing to do with that - my point is that the Protestants proceeded in the wrong way. They ought to have appealed to the Church's Apostolic Tradition in an attempt to correct the Roman Patriarchate, or if that was impossible they ought to have gone into communion with the Orthodox.

Protestants did not proceed in the "wrong way", Zenith. They proceeded in their own way, which was largely based upon the same Confessions of Faith and Scriptural Canon as the RCC and the Orthodox.

Not wishing to exchange the Latin Mass for the Greek, they can perhaps be excused for not taking the alternate route of Greek Orthodoxy. For one thing, they'd have to learn a whole new set of hymns ...

Luther's "Theses" were an attempt to appeal to the Church's "Apostolic Tradition". He had no intention of starting a new tradition, that much is sure. However, the hierarchy of that "Tradition" decided in favor of forcing him to obey, rather than allowing him the freedom to question. Being a German, he decided to continue questioning.

As for myself, I will bow only to the Leader of the One, Holy, and True tradition, that is, Jesus Christ Himself. As a Protestant, I venerate ... do not pray to, but am thankful for ... the Apostles who passed on a clear understanding of Christ's Teachings to succeeding generations. I am thankful for the Catholic and Orthodox traditions who settled upon the Canon of Holy Scripture, and took Christ's Teachings and codified them. And I am thankful to God for Martin Luther, who knew when to "cut his losses" (as it were), and bring the Christian faith onward to new generations of Christians ... people who are just as Christian as their Catholic and Orthodox brethren.