Topic: The Willful Ignorance of Protestantism

[Matthew777]

That is a complex question that deserves to be answered. Personally, I believe that the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Orthodox Churches have equal right to consider themselves Orthodox. The schism of Ephesus did not occur because the Assyrian Christians were Nestorian, that was an unfortunate misunderstanding. Furthermore, neither did the Chalcedonian schism occur due to the Oriental Orthodox Christians being Monophysite, that was another unfortunate misunderstanding.
Steps have been taken, and are still ongoing, for all Orthodox Christians to be re-united. This is not part of the ecumenical movement and should not be confused as such. This is fellow Orthodox Christians making the conscious decision to not repeat the mistakes of the past. Even when apart, we are united by the doctrinal and liturgical tradition of the faith.

Peace.

[ozgeorge]

Personally, I believe that the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Orthodox Churches have equal right to consider themselves Orthodox. The schism of Ephesus did not occur because the Assyrian Christians were Nestorian, that was an unfortunate misunderstanding. Furthermore, neither did the Chalcedonian schism occur due to the Oriental Orthodox Christians being Monophysite, that was another unfortunate misunderstanding.

So if you have come to the conclusion that the Assyrian, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox have all broken Communion with one another simply over "misunderstandings" which can be overcome by simply "honestly understanding Christian history", how come, in over 1500 years, the Fathers of these Churches did not come to the same conclusion and re-establish Communion? Aren't they "honestly" studying the same "historical Christianity"? And what makes you say that the Protestants are not?

[Tzimis]

2 Thessalonians 1

5All this is evidence that God's judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. 6God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power 10on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

You could use Scripture as evidence. Verse 7 means, that this church will be around to the end. Verse 10 shows us that the Thessalonians have the true faith.

Most of all it comes down to faith. This is clear when Christ told doughting Tomas. Blessed Is he who believes without seeing. Or in our case, without CSI type evidence.

[Elisha]

So if you have come to the conclusion that the Assyrian, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox have all broken Communion with one another simply over "misunderstandings" which can be overcome by simply "honestly understanding Christian history", how come, in over 1500 years, the Fathers of these Churches did not come to the same conclusion and re-establish Communion? Aren't they "honestly" studying the same "historical Christianity"? And what makes you say that the Protestants are not?

M777,
I'm going to *gasp*, go out on a huge limb here, but will say that ozgeorge is NOT ARGUING WITH YOU AT ALL!  He is simply trying to get you to critically think how to articulate your points better.  I sure as heck know that I have trouble doing it myself.  You keep making a ton of these broad, sweeping generalizations that smack of haughtiness, that it must be obvious to anyone who hasn't had their head in the sand.  I'm sure you mean that your statements are not this way and you mean them in a genuine and sincere way.  But the problem is that none of us here are interpreting them that way.  Please just read through what you type first before clicking on 'Post' and try to see it from another's pov.

[Ebor]

The Orthodox Church is THE Church which Christ and the Apostles founded.

You decided that that was the case *for you* and even then you are OO rather then EO or AO.  Other people have read the history and become RC.  You personally are not the "rule" of reason or intellect or right thinking.

If she had a well thought argument against the Eucharist or Apostolic Succession, perhaps I could agree with you. But if your only argument is that you don't like taking your shoes off, that's just laziness.

Or one might have a foot condition that makes it awkward or painful, or one might be embarrassed by a hole on ones sock or... I can think of other reasons that people might have.  You declare it just a matter of being "lazy".  What makes you an authority on what other people do?

Also, why would you expect another person to have the knowedge at her fingertips to a "well thought arguement" against something when she is possibly hearing about for the first time or hasn't studied in depth?

Ebor

[Ebor]

Would you agree that to understand history is [to cease] the seize being a Protestant?

No

Ebor

[Ebor]

Please elaborate. What basis in history does Protestantism have? To be Protestant, one must ignore that the Church existed for centuries before the Reformation.

And this shows you know little about believing "Protestants" (which kind btw?  Anglican? Methodist?  Presbyterian? ) or their Churches or their history.  You have decided that those who are not like you must be ignorant, are "intellectually dishonest" are "lazy" and more.    You have made up your mind and your opinion must be the only "right" one?  I'm sorry.  Many millions of real human beings do not fit your opinion or labels

Ebor 

[Ebor]

Please at least try to understand what I am saying. To have a historical basis for their faith, Protestants would need to prove that the early Christians believed and practiced as they did.

Such as?  One God? Three Persons?  The Resurrection?  Prayers and psalms and good works and Love your neighbor? Preaching and learning and reading the scriptures?

But the early Christians most certainly did not, and therefore, no person who honestly understood the early Church could remain a Protestant. An intellectually honest person, who actually understood the 2,000 year history of Christianity, would have to choose Orthodoxy over Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.

So you understand the history of Christianity better then billions of other people through 2000 years who did not do as you did?  You keep saying "intellectually honest" which suggests that those who do not go as you did are "dishonest".  You do not know them, you do not know their thoughts or what they went through.  You are labeling people with casual ease and disdain.

What good is it to believe the interpretation of Scripture of someone who broke from longstanding Apostolic Tradition?

Such as an interpretation of the Golden Rule?   

Ebor

[Matthew777]

So if you have come to the conclusion that the Assyrian, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox have all broken Communion with one another simply over "misunderstandings" which can be overcome by simply "honestly understanding Christian history", how come, in over 1500 years, the Fathers of these Churches did not come to the same conclusion and re-establish Communion? Aren't they "honestly" studying the same "historical Christianity"? And what makes you say that the Protestants are not?

If Protestants were studying the same history, they would see that the early Christians did not believe as they do. The Eucharist was never considered "just symbolic," baptism for adults only was never the norm, personal interpretation was never placed above the Church's understanding of Scripture, etc.
The Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Assyrian Orthodox Christians share enough in common that we have no reason to repeat the mistakes of our fathers.
That they did not re-establish communion long ago shows that they were only human.

Peace.

[Matthew777]

You have decided that those who are not like you must be ignorant, are "intellectually dishonest" are "lazy" and more. 

I considered myself a Protestant before converting to Orthodoxy, but felt that there was something missing from Protestantism. Only in Orthodoxy is there continuity with the earliest Christian communities, a 2,000 year liturgical and theological tradition.
The churches which began in the Reformation are flawed from the start, in that they began in the Reformation. Anybody can start his own church and claim it to be "Apostolic," but only the Orthodox Church can demonstrate itself as such.
I belong to the Indian Orthodox Church, which was established by St. Thomas the apostle in 52 A.D.

Apostolic Christianity and the 23,000 Western Churches
www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/apostolic_christianity_s_kovasevich.htm


Peace.

[Matthew777]

Also, why would you expect another person to have the knowedge at her fingertips to a "well thought arguement" against something when she is possibly hearing about for the first time or hasn't studied in depth?

The last conversation we had, we took a walk in the park with me describing the basics of the faith, such as Apostolic Succession, the Eucharist, the veneration of the Virgin Mary and the saints, etc. At the time, she said that it all made sense to her, and that she was genuinely interested in experiencing the liturgy.
The next time we discuss Orthodoxy, she's completely changed her mind without giving a reason, and insists on remaining an Evangelical Protestant.

[Ebor]

I considered myself a Protestant before converting to Orthodoxy, but felt that there was something missing from Protestantism.

What kind of "Protestant" might one ask?  To repeat, it is not all one bloc of the same thing.

Only in Orthodoxy is there continuity with the earliest Christian communities, a 2,000 year liturgical and theological tradition.

And I have have read RCs say the same about *their* church.  Just repeating yourself does not prove your point.  You are not addressing other peoples ideas or statements when you do it either.
 

The churches which began in the Reformation are flawed from the start, in that they began in the Reformation.

They did not "begin" out of whole cloth or with new ideas or denials of basic doctrines such as the Trinity or the Resurrection.  They were attached or shoots of from a stem as it were.

Anybody can start his own church and claim it to be "Apostolic," but only the Orthodox Church can demonstrate itself as such.

And how do *you* see this demonstrated with back up and not just on your own authority please?

I belong to the Indian Orthodox Church, which was established by St. Thomas the apostle in 52 A.D.

Which isn't EO, I know that.

Apostolic Christianity and the 23,000 Western Churches
www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/apostolic_christianity_s_kovasevich.htm

23,000  It's the Barrett numbers again, I'll wager, though from what I've had a chance to see, the writer doesn't give a source for that number.  If you're going to use Barrett, his methodology of counting includes *ALL* Christian bodies, not just "Protestant" or "Western" ones, as has been discussed here before.

Ebor

Peace.
[/quote]

[Ebor]

The last conversation we had, we took a walk in the park with me describing the basics of the faith, such as Apostolic Succession, the Eucharist, the veneration of the Virgin Mary and the saints, etc. At the time, she said that it all made sense to her, and that she was genuinely interested in experiencing the liturgy.
The next time we discuss Orthodoxy, she's completely changed her mind without giving a reason, and insists on remaining an Evangelical Protestant.

Perhaps she was being polite, or didn't want to hurt your feelings by disagreeing, or she thought things over and decided that she did not agree with your points or.....

Again, there are other possible reasons why the lady did not go along with you.  But you decided that she was "lazy".  How do you *know* that? Or might that be an easy excuse that it was all on her and had nothing to do with what you might have said or not said or did or didn't do?  What if she thought she was being treated only as something to be brought around to *your* viewpoint?

People who don't agree with you or share your opinions are still Human Beings.

Ebor

[Matthew777]

People who don't agree with you or share your opinions are still Human Beings.

That is true. But human beings who don't have well thought out reasons for their beliefs may just be intellectually lazy.

[Matthew777]

Just repeating yourself does not prove your point.  You are not addressing other peoples ideas or statements when you do it either.

While the Roman Church has changed dramatically over time, the Orthodox Church has kept the Apostolic faith intact. Why should one have to defend the Orthodox faith, to Orthodox Christians, on an Orthodox forum? Dealing with the irresponsiveness of non-Orthodox Christians to the truth of the Orthodox faith is bad enough.

Peace.

[Αριστοκλής]

It's time to lock or close this thread...

[Matthew777]

It's time for the members of an Orthodox forum to recognize that the Orthodox Church is the one Apostolic and uncorrupt faith.

Peace.

[ozgeorge]

It's time for the members of an Orthodox forum to recognize that the Orthodox Church is the one Apostolic and uncorrupt faith.

And what if they don't Matthew? What are you suggesting? Should the forum be shut down? Should non-Orthodox posters be banned unless they sign a declaration to this effect?

Peace.

An 'interesting' way to end that post.

[Veniamin]

Should non-Orthodox posters be banned unless they sign a declaration to this effect?

So if we sign under pain of being banned, is it under duress, and thus void?  Or what if we disagree on which Orthodox church we're talking about.  Not all of us adhere to your version of the branch theory, you know.

[Matthew777]

Should non-Orthodox posters be banned unless they sign a declaration to this effect?

There should be a special inquirers forum for non-Orthodox Christians who choose to dispute the truth of the Orthodox faith.

[GiC]

There should be a special inquirers forum for non-Orthodox Christians who choose to dispute the truth of the Orthodox faith.

And this coming from someone who rejects 4 of the 7 Oecumencial Synods (or if he accepts him, he's in direct disobedience to the Bishops of his church).

[Matthew777]

And this coming from someone who rejects 4 of the 7 Oecumencial Synods (or if he accepts him, he's in direct disobedience to the Bishops of his church).

What about Pan-Orthodoxy?

[Elisha]

There should be a special inquirers forum for non-Orthodox Christians who choose to dispute the truth of the Orthodox faith.

Should there be a special forum also for debating the proper way to do an son then?  Really, Matthew, this topic is not so huge for a forum  Free-For-All is a fine place for it.

[Elisha]

What about Pan-Orthodoxy?

Pan-Orthodoxy usually refers to those canonical Orthodox churches in the USA...as in SCOBA members and probably ROCOR and JP as well, but not SCOOCH members (Oriental/Indian/et.).

[ozgeorge]

Pan-Orthodoxy usually refers to those canonical Orthodox churches in the USA...as in SCOBA members and probably ROCOR and JP as well, but not SCOOCH members (Oriental/Indian/et.).

Actually, Pan-Orthodox refers to Orthodox Churches in Communion with one another anywhere, (not just the USA). As in a Pan-Orthodox Synod or a Pan-Orthodox Liturgy.

[Matthew777]

Pan-Orthodoxy usually refers to those canonical Orthodox churches in the USA...as in SCOBA members and probably ROCOR and JP as well, but not SCOOCH members (Oriental/Indian/et.).

Yes, but why not consider all Orthodox Churches under the same umbrella?

[GiC]

Pan-Orthodox usually implies times when the Russians and Greeks get together and actually agree on something...it generally does not include denying the Oecumenical Synods.

[Veniamin]

Yes, but why not consider all Orthodox Churches under the same umbrella?

George just told ya why; we're not in communion.

[ozgeorge]

Yes, but why not consider all Orthodox Churches under the same umbrella?

Well, the fact is, we don't. And it seems you are disputing this. So should I move your post to a new special "inquirers" forum?

[Matthew777]

we're not in communion.

Someday, that will be changed.

[GiC]

Someday, that will be changed.

See Reply#118

[Ebor]

There should be a special inquirers forum for non-Orthodox Christians who choose to dispute the truth of the Orthodox faith.

The Eastern Orthodox Forum, as you know since you post there,  is one such place where non-EO are not supposed to post in any section except the "Inquirer's" area.  It keeps things less umm bouncy I'd quess.

I do not see how objecting to gross oversimplifications and put-downs of other people is "disputing the truth"? The dismissals and perjoratives applied to large groups of human beings are not the "truth" they are the judgements of individual posters.  Why should someone not be allowed to offer a countering idea?

Disagreeing with you personally is not the same thing as disagreeing with 'the Orthodox faith' either.  Saying that people who do not do as you do are "intellectually dishonest" is not part of any statement of faith that I know of either.  I am not EO or OO or AO and I try to behave myself here.  But I deny that your assessment of what you think "Protestants" are like has any truth in regards to my faith or my beliefs or my intellect or my knowledge of history. Your opinions (which do come across as haughty as another poster mentioned) are not in anyway related to the true state of *this* particular human being.

I'm apologize for any untoward harshness.  Would the mods please let me know if or where I should edit things?

Thank you.

Ebor

[jaderook]

That is true. But human beings who don't have well thought out reasons for their beliefs may just be intellectually lazy.

   I would love to know how you are certain this girl (or anyone else for that matter) doesn't have well thought out reasons for her (their) beliefs.  And, just because people aren't ready or willing to convert when you speak to them doesn't mean they never will.  Not everyone is even remotely interested in Orthodoxy when first confronted with it.  I certainly wasn't.  It was something like twelve years later when I decided to give it a second glance.  Everything happens in God's time and each person has to make their own choices.  I would much rather see you pray for your friends and acquaintances than tear them down on-line for being Protestant.  

[Keble]

If Protestants were studying the same history, they would see that the early Christians did not believe as they do. The Eucharist was never considered "just symbolic," baptism for adults only was never the norm, personal interpretation was never placed above the Church's understanding of Scripture, etc.

Well, that's what you say. But since not all Protestants believe each and every one of the positions you attribute to them, and indeed there are some Protestants who do not accept any of them, where does that leave us?

Only your last point is even close to some position universally accepted by Protestants, and even then only in a sort of unified rejection of the irreconsiderability that is part and parcel of Orthodox/Catholic theology. There's not much point in taking your Coluphidistic dismissal of Protestantism if you can't be bothered to actually know anything substantial about it.

[FrChris]

I'm apologize for any untoward harshness.  Would the mods please let me know if or where I should edit things?

You're fine, Ebor. Just don't allow yourself to get dragged down to the low level of the individual(s) you are debating...

[Matthew777]

Let's return to the original topic. How may we better reach Protestants, if not to convert them, than to least help them better understand why we are who we are? This can be rather hard, especially if we are dealing with individuals who have never even heard of the Orthodox faith. Given that Christianity began in the East, one would think that more Westerners would have interest in Eastern Christianity. Furthermore, if they really are all about going by the Bible, wouldn't they find the genuine New Testament Church to be a refreshing alternative?

Peace.

[ozgeorge]

Let's return to the original topic. How may we better reach Protestants, if not to convert them, than to least help them better understand why we are who we are?

That wasn't the original topic.
The original topic and title of this thread, as started by yourself , was your accusation of "The Willful Ignorance of Protestants" and their problem in not being "open to new knowledge and perspectives". Here is your opening Post in case you've forgotten:

Have you ever noticed how most Protestants, no matter how you address the truth of the Orthodox faith, refuse to listen? It's quite bothersome. Since when is closedmindedness a tenet of the Bible?
I have no anger nor hatred against our Protestant neighbors, but I hope they could be more open to new knowledge and perspectives. And it's not just me, I've spoken with Orthodox clergymen about how, in their own experiences, Protestants can be almost completely unreachable. What's the deal?

Peace.

So it seems that people have in fact been responding to this and kept the discussion on track. Now it seems you wish to send this thread in a direction of an unrelated topic about Orthodox Christians missioning to Protestants. If you wish to do so, you must start a new thread with a title related to what you want to put up for discussion.

[Matthew777]

There really wouldn't be a point to starting a thread like this if it weren't to find a solution. It's not like I'm into Protestant-bashing just for the fun of it. If more Protestants were informed of Orthodox Christianity, we wouldn't encounter the problems that arise when they are completely clueless of who we are and what we believe. How can we help make them more open to new knowledge and a new perspective?

Peace.

[ozgeorge]

There really wouldn't be a point to starting a thread like this if it weren't to find a solution.

That's assuming that your original assesment of Protestants in this thread is correct. Until you establish this, you cannot shift the focus of this thread to finding a "solution" to a "problem" that not everyone who has contributed to this thread believes exists. This would be completely unrelated to the topic of this thread.

[ozgeorge]

Moderation:
I have split a response posted by Matthew on the subject of "Missioning to Protestants" into a new thread entitled:
"Matthew777's Question About Missioning to Protestants".
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,10089.msg137303.html#msg137303
Any responses to it should go there.

Please keep this thread on topic. This thread is already long enough without having to include any more sub-topics.
In short, therefore, THIS THREAD discusses the topic "The Willful Ignorance of Protestants" and whether that is a valid assesment or not.
The OTHER THREAD is where those who wish to answer Matthew777's Question About Missioning to Protestants may do so.

George

[Matthew777]

Do you see the dilemma that I've presented? Liberal Protestants are turned off by Orthodoxy due to our adherence to tradition, while conservatives are turned off from our not adhering to Sola Scriptura. I turned to Orthodoxy, originally, because I was desperate, due to my dissatisfaction with both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Over time, I became very grateful of the faith which I had found.

Peace.

[ozgeorge]

Liberal Protestants are turned off by Orthodoxy due to our adherence to tradition, while conservatives are turned off from our not adhering to Sola Scriptura.

Exactly how often am I going to have to repeat this?
Anglo-Catholics are Conservative Protestants who are not "Sola Scriptura". Your premise is false.

[Matthew777]

Anglo-Catholics are Conservative Protestants who are not "Sola Scriptura". Your premise is false.

That depends on whether one is an Evangelical Anglican, or a supporter of the Oxford Movement. There is such diversity and disagreement within Anglicanism as to demostrate it as not the Apostolic faith.

Peace.

[ozgeorge]

That depends on whether one is an Evangelical Anglican, or a supporter of the Oxford Movement. There is such diversity and disagreement within Anglicanism as to demostrate it as not the Apostolic faith.

Peace.

And on that premise, what does the diversity and disagreement between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy demonstrate?

You've been asked this before. We are going in circles now.

[Matthew777]

And on that premise, what does the diversity and disagreement between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy demonstrate?

It is rather scary that a church which claims to have Apostolic Succession would allow female priests and yoga meditation within its walls. Anglicanism, in placing human reason and personal interpretation over the patristic witness, is flawed from the start.
The case is much different for the Oriental Orthodox Churches. We have a 2,000-year-old theological, liturgical, and ecclesiological tradition. We are not anti-Chalcedonian but pre-Chalcedonian.
It's hard enough keeping the Orthodox faith strong and growing in the Western world, why not have all Orthodox Christians unite? Our hierarchs have not always been right on every decision, why not realize that the schism of Chalcedon was an unfortunate mistake? Love and our common faith should matter more than whatever may have divided us in the past.

Peace.