OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 23, 2014, 05:49:26 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: I can effectively debunk Protestantism in one sentence.  (Read 3286 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« on: February 11, 2011, 10:06:21 PM »

It's God's Word yet it's up to man's interpretation of it. Logical fallacy. police
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,198


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2011, 10:55:14 PM »

This reminds me of a de-motivational picture I saw once...

Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2011, 10:56:48 PM »

Thanks for killing my Eureka! moment, but yes agreed 100%
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,198


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2011, 10:59:27 PM »

Sorry, I did not mean to lessen your profound statement above, rather add to...
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
Jason.Wike
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,046


« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2011, 02:04:33 AM »

If the church Jesus founded was, as Protestants claim, overtaken by pagans and corrupted in 2 generations, and not re-founded until the Reformation, they are also claiming that God did not protect his church, and that those supposed corrupting pagans founded a church that lasted 100 times longer than His. Shocked
Logged
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2011, 03:18:55 AM »

If the church Jesus founded was, as Protestants claim, overtaken by pagans and corrupted in 2 generations, and not re-founded until the Reformation, they are also claiming that God did not protect his church, and that those supposed corrupting pagans founded a church that lasted 100 times longer than His. Shocked

Check out the book The Reformers and Their Stepchildren by Leonard Verduin. The Protestant explanation, at least at the academic level, is more nuanced.

But, let me give you a fair warning; the book will make you angry as Verduin makes multiple mistakes in tracing the history of Protestant thinking. It's horrible scholarship, but for whatever reason the book keeps popping up in academic Protestant circles.
Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,798



« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2011, 05:37:11 PM »

If the church Jesus founded was, as Protestants claim, overtaken by pagans and corrupted in 2 generations, and not re-founded until the Reformation, they are also claiming that God did not protect his church, and that those supposed corrupting pagans founded a church that lasted 100 times longer than His. Shocked

They are also saying that Christ was lying when He said that the Gates of Hades would never prevail against it.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2011, 06:01:35 PM »

They would argue that the church consists of a group of people who loosely confess Jesus to be the Christ. They would maintain that since this group still exists, that hades had not prevailed over the church.
Logged
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,198


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2011, 06:02:30 PM »

If the church Jesus founded was, as Protestants claim, overtaken by pagans and corrupted in 2 generations, and not re-founded until the Reformation, they are also claiming that God did not protect his church, and that those supposed corrupting pagans founded a church that lasted 100 times longer than His. Shocked

I would like to point out that many Protestant groups claim that when "Christianity" (as they would put it) was made legal that real Christians saw the threat of a pagan overthrow and went under ground until the Reformation (sounds like heretic groups to me...).
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #9 on: February 12, 2011, 06:29:54 PM »

If the church Jesus founded was, as Protestants claim, overtaken by pagans and corrupted in 2 generations, and not re-founded until the Reformation, they are also claiming that God did not protect his church, and that those supposed corrupting pagans founded a church that lasted 100 times longer than His. Shocked

I would like to point out that many Protestant groups claim that when "Christianity" (as they would put it) was made legal that real Christians saw the threat of a pagan overthrow and went under ground until the Reformation (sounds like heretic groups to me...).



Martin Luther comes above ground for a look around...and apparently doesn't notice his shadow! Wink
Logged
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,198


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 12, 2011, 07:04:24 PM »






Martin Luther comes above ground for a look around...and apparently doesn't notice his shadow! Wink

I laughed... hard
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,367



« Reply #11 on: February 13, 2011, 12:10:50 AM »

All of this is very nice if you are talking about restorationists, but most Protestants aren't restorationists. The Lutherans for example are not.
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,786



« Reply #12 on: February 13, 2011, 12:29:37 AM »

All of this is very nice if you are talking about restorationists, but most Protestants aren't restorationists. The Lutherans for example are not.

So say the talking heads, but the strictly confessional Lutherans believe that they are maintaining Christian life and doctrine as it has always been taught and believed in all places, and yet concepts like Sola Fide are categorized as such when it is absolutely not the case. So while they might not see it as a recovery in the same way that Restorationists do, they do seek to restore pure belief and practice by gutting certain elements. So while they might not be rebuilding the Church, they were doing some pretty extensive remodeling. The real question is, how much altering can take place before it becomes a different building altogether?

The ground is just as shaky for the magisterial reformers as the radical ones. I don't know why you still refuse to admit this.
Logged
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 678


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #13 on: February 13, 2011, 09:29:47 AM »

If the church Jesus founded was, as Protestants claim, overtaken by pagans and corrupted in 2 generations, and not re-founded until the Reformation, they are also claiming that God did not protect his church, and that those supposed corrupting pagans founded a church that lasted 100 times longer than His. Shocked
What? Don't you know that the Baptists trace their lineage to John the Baptist, and that they are the REAL church? If you don't believe them just read JM Carroll's "Trail of Blood" and it will prove their case Roll Eyes
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 678


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #14 on: February 13, 2011, 09:36:30 AM »

All of this is very nice if you are talking about restorationists, but most Protestants aren't restorationists. The Lutherans for example are not.

So say the talking heads, but the strictly confessional Lutherans believe that they are maintaining Christian life and doctrine as it has always been taught and believed in all places, and yet concepts like Sola Fide are categorized as such when it is absolutely not the case. So while they might not see it as a recovery in the same way that Restorationists do, they do seek to restore pure belief and practice by gutting certain elements. So while they might not be rebuilding the Church, they were doing some pretty extensive remodeling. The real question is, how much altering can take place before it becomes a different building altogether?

The ground is just as shaky for the magisterial reformers as the radical ones. I don't know why you still refuse to admit this.

Is it possible though that Luther had a point with his Bondage of the Will? I more often than not agree with the standard Protestant belief that to be truly saved one must respond to Christ, and Christ is revealed through the Gospel, of which the Holy Mysteries are a part.
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,144


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #15 on: February 13, 2011, 06:18:32 PM »


What? Don't you know that the Baptists trace their lineage to John the Baptist, and that they are the REAL church? If you don't believe them just read JM Carroll's "Trail of Blood" and it will prove their case Roll Eyes

Reinventing the wheel, I'm afraid. The Mandean sect which has its origins in the 7th century, claims John the Baptist as the Messiah.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,367



« Reply #16 on: February 14, 2011, 01:13:08 PM »

All of this is very nice if you are talking about restorationists, but most Protestants aren't restorationists. The Lutherans for example are not.

So say the talking heads, but the strictly confessional Lutherans believe that they are maintaining Christian life and doctrine as it has always been taught and believed in all places, and yet concepts like Sola Fide are categorized as such when it is absolutely not the case. So while they might not see it as a recovery in the same way that Restorationists do, they do seek to restore pure belief and practice by gutting certain elements. So while they might not be rebuilding the Church, they were doing some pretty extensive remodeling. The real question is, how much altering can take place before it becomes a different building altogether?

Well, that depends of course upon your ecclesiology. An Anglican would say that, yes, the continuity of the church is necessary sacramentally, but we also hold that things do get off track and have to be corrected. A Baptist and I believe most Calvinists would not think the same way about the continuity of the church.

"We're only teaching the doctrine of the Apostles" is a common sales pitch but it isn't really true of anyone. Doctrinal development is essential, and that's what sets off the "humans doing the talking" problem. There's an important difference between the restorationists, who basically talk as if they were skipping fifteen hundred years of church history, and the main body of Protestants, who are conscious of standing within the history of theology even when they are reacting against it. It's not the extent of the remodelling that matters, except that one believes that it is necessary or unneeded or wrong-headed. The problem with the restorationists is that they think they are simply rewinding, when they aren't. It really is necessary to confront the development of doctrine even when one disagrees with some element of it; otherwise the tendency is to repeat old mistakes; they are thus subject to the old criticisms. And if you look at the Protestant mainstream (leaving out the Baptists for the moment) you will see that when they talk about heresies they are in general agreed with the ancients that Arianism and so forth are heresies.

The mainline view is mostly about pruning: cutting away a lot of the development in doctrine and practice (especially the latter). I suppose one can argue that this is different only in degree from restorationism but I would hold that the historical consciousness of the mainline does make a difference. At any rate none of this leads to a refutation; it simple leads to outlining some of the principal differences. People who claim that they can do without the history of theology are wrong, because they are the products of that history. But the mainline doesn't do that, and at that point the issue becomes the process of theological development. One can criticism and reject some developments without having to reject institutions to the degree that the restorationists do.

Logged
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,198


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 14, 2011, 01:55:57 PM »

All of this is very nice if you are talking about restorationists, but most Protestants aren't restorationists. The Lutherans for example are not.

So say the talking heads, but the strictly confessional Lutherans believe that they are maintaining Christian life and doctrine as it has always been taught and believed in all places, and yet concepts like Sola Fide are categorized as such when it is absolutely not the case. So while they might not see it as a recovery in the same way that Restorationists do, they do seek to restore pure belief and practice by gutting certain elements. So while they might not be rebuilding the Church, they were doing some pretty extensive remodeling. The real question is, how much altering can take place before it becomes a different building altogether?

Well, that depends of course upon your ecclesiology. An Anglican would say that, yes, the continuity of the church is necessary sacramentally, but we also hold that things do get off track and have to be corrected. A Baptist and I believe most Calvinists would not think the same way about the continuity of the church.

"We're only teaching the doctrine of the Apostles" is a common sales pitch but it isn't really true of anyone. Doctrinal development is essential, and that's what sets off the "humans doing the talking" problem. There's an important difference between the restorationists, who basically talk as if they were skipping fifteen hundred years of church history, and the main body of Protestants, who are conscious of standing within the history of theology even when they are reacting against it. It's not the extent of the remodelling that matters, except that one believes that it is necessary or unneeded or wrong-headed. The problem with the restorationists is that they think they are simply rewinding, when they aren't. It really is necessary to confront the development of doctrine even when one disagrees with some element of it; otherwise the tendency is to repeat old mistakes; they are thus subject to the old criticisms. And if you look at the Protestant mainstream (leaving out the Baptists for the moment) you will see that when they talk about heresies they are in general agreed with the ancients that Arianism and so forth are heresies.

The mainline view is mostly about pruning: cutting away a lot of the development in doctrine and practice (especially the latter). I suppose one can argue that this is different only in degree from restorationism but I would hold that the historical consciousness of the mainline does make a difference. At any rate none of this leads to a refutation; it simple leads to outlining some of the principal differences. People who claim that they can do without the history of theology are wrong, because they are the products of that history. But the mainline doesn't do that, and at that point the issue becomes the process of theological development. One can criticism and reject some developments without having to reject institutions to the degree that the restorationists do.



I am going to have to disagree, slightly if at all.

Most of the Protestant groups I have been in contact with believe themselves to be a part of some kind of restoration movement. Remember that there are 20,000 + Protestant groups. From what my own personal experience tells me they believe that the Church of old (read Apostolic or Orthodox if you will) died out or went underground after Christianity became legal. They claim a lapse in the Apostolic succession, if not right after the Apostles then after a few of the Early Fathers.

Even Luther can be seen as a type of restorationist as he left the RCC because of the problems he encountered. He sought to restore the Church. Early Lutherans even had contact with the Orthodox Church but their theology was not accepted and as such contact was broken. This tells me that even when faced with the true Church the Lutherans still saw something that needed to be restored or fixed.

Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,799


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #18 on: February 14, 2011, 03:38:04 PM »

It's God's Word yet it's up to man's interpretation of it. Logical fallacy.

That's two sentences. Three if you regard it as your sentence following a trial of Protestantism.  Wink
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #19 on: February 14, 2011, 03:45:34 PM »

It's God's Word yet it's up to man's interpretation of it. Logical fallacy.

That's two sentences. Three if you regard it as your sentence following a trial of Protestantism.  Wink

Not to mention it is complete FAIL.

Trollish thread topic. Unthoughtful. And little attention garnered.

tee-ball internets.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
UniversalistGuy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Posts: 90


« Reply #20 on: February 14, 2011, 04:27:01 PM »

It's God's Word yet it's up to man's interpretation of it. Logical fallacy. police

Blessed are the logical.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,235


« Reply #21 on: May 20, 2011, 06:13:45 PM »

I detected misunderstandings in this thread that were so strong that they attracted me to it months after the last post had been made.
Logged
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #22 on: May 20, 2011, 06:44:30 PM »

I detected misunderstandings in this thread that were so strong that they attracted me to it months after the last post had been made.

Is the investigation still ongoing or can you reveal to us your findings?

(Bucktoothed grin)

†IC XC†
†NI KA†
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,235


« Reply #23 on: May 20, 2011, 06:47:44 PM »

I detected misunderstandings in this thread that were so strong that they attracted me to it months after the last post had been made.

Is the investigation still ongoing or can you reveal to us your findings?

(Bucktoothed grin)

†IC XC†
†NI KA†

My research was abandoned because of a lack of funding. However, my final report suggests setting up warning beacons so that no one stumbles upon this thread in the future.
Logged
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #24 on: May 20, 2011, 06:53:56 PM »

I detected misunderstandings in this thread that were so strong that they attracted me to it months after the last post had been made.

Is the investigation still ongoing or can you reveal to us your findings?

(Bucktoothed grin)

†IC XC†
†NI KA†

My research was abandoned because of a lack of funding. However, my final report suggests setting up warning beacons so that no one stumbles upon this thread in the future.

Done.



†IC XC†
†NI KA†
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #25 on: May 23, 2011, 04:33:48 PM »

I detected misunderstandings in this thread that were so strong that they attracted me to it months after the last post had been made.

Is the investigation still ongoing or can you reveal to us your findings?

(Bucktoothed grin)

†IC XC†
†NI KA†

My research was abandoned because of a lack of funding. However, my final report suggests setting up warning beacons so that no one stumbles upon this thread in the future.

Done.



†IC XC†
†NI KA†


DOH! Stumbled on to this thread without warning.  The beacons must not work.
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,088


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #26 on: May 23, 2011, 09:30:04 PM »

It's God's Word yet it's up to man's interpretation of it. Logical fallacy. police

That's if you believe man's votes who "vote God's will" are not man's interpretation.

But I assure you of something, Jesus did not teach to kiss icons.  Somebody did.

Was it God's will or mans?  It may be an unsolvable mystery.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,652


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 23, 2011, 09:42:54 PM »

But you and I are made in the "image and likeness of God." Guess what the word for "image" is?

"Eikon."

Jesus didn't teach how to drive a car, either, but I bet most people don't have a theological crisis over that, either.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,215



« Reply #28 on: May 23, 2011, 10:12:40 PM »

It's God's Word yet it's up to man's interpretation of it. Logical fallacy. police

That's if you believe man's votes who "vote God's will" are not man's interpretation.

But I assure you of something, Jesus did not teach to kiss icons.  Somebody did.

Was it God's will or mans?  It may be an unsolvable mystery.
Did Jesus teach you to drive an automobile or use a computer or send a text message??? Shoo, man if you be doin those things you be listening to evil men instead of Jesus! Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.109 seconds with 56 queries.