• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Are Protestants Beyond Hope?

Jacob Dahlen

New Member
Since my conversion from Evangelical Protestantism to the Orthodox Faith, I have noted a general amazement among many of those who have been raised Orthodox that a Protestant could be converted. This is not because they are uncertain about their own faith, usually they are just amazed that anything could break through a Protestants stubborn insistence on being wrong! What I have come to understand is that most Orthodox people have a confused and limited grasp of what Protestantism is, and where its adherents are coming from. Thus when "cradle Orthodox" believers have their run-ins with Protestants, even though they often use the same words, they do not generally communicate because they do not speak the same theological language — in other words, they have no common theological basis to discuss their differences. Of course when one considers the some twenty thousand plus differing Protestant groups that now exist (with only the one constant trait of each group claiming that it rightly understands the Bible), one must certainly sympathize with those that are a bit confused by them.

Despite all that stands in their way, there definitely is hope for Protestants. Protestants in search of theological sanity, of true worship, and of the ancient Christian Faith are practically beating on our Church doors (of course to those who are not paying attention, this may sound like a strange claim). They are no longer satisfied with the contradictions and the faddishness of contemporary Protestant America, but when we open the door to these inquirers we must be prepared. These people have questions! Many of these inquirers are Protestant ministers, or are among the better informed laymen; they are sincere seekers of Truth, but they have much to unlearn and it will require informed Orthodox Christians to help them work through these issues — Orthodox Christians who know where Protestants are coming from, but even more importantly, who know what they believe themselves!

Ironically (or providentially) this surge in interest in Orthodoxy among Americans from Protestant backgrounds has come even as the opening of the doors of the former Communist-block has brought upon its Orthodox people an unprecedented onslaught from every religious sect and cult. At the spearhead, American Evangelicals and Charismatics have been stumbling over each other — with each of its sects seeking to gain the prestigious boast that they too have established themselves even among the Godless Russians! So we Orthodox are now presented with a double urgency — on the one hand, there is the missionary task of presenting the Faith to Protestants here in the West; but on the other hand we must earnestly combat the spread of heresies among the Orthodox, both here and in traditionally Orthodox lands. In either case, the task at hand is to equip ourselves with sufficient knowledge and understanding of the issues that confront us.

Perhaps the most daunting feature of Protestantism — the feature which has given it a reputation of stubborn resiliency is its numerous differences and contradictions. Like the the mythical Hydra, its many heads only multiply, and though it is a worthy task to seek to understand and confront these heresies individually, this is not the key to their defeat. In order for one to understand the unique beliefs of each individual sect, it requires a knowledge of the history and development of Protestantism in general, a great deal of research into each major stripe of Protestant theology, worship, etc., as well as a lot of contemporary reading in order to understand some of the more important cross-trends that are currently at work (such as liberalism, or emotionalism). Even with all this, one could not hope to keep up with the new groups that spring up almost daily. Yet for all their differences there is one basic underlying assumption that unites the amorphous blob of these thousands of disparate groups into the general category of "Protestant." All Protestant groups (with some minor qualifications) believe that their group has rightly understood the Bible, and though they all disagree as to what the Bible says, they generally do agree on how one is to interpret the Bible — on your own! — apart from Church Tradition. If one can come to understand this belief, why it is wrong, and how one is rightly to approach the Scriptures, then any Protestant of any stripe may be engaged with understanding. Even groups as differing as the Baptists and the Jehovahs Witnesses are really not as different as they outwardly appear once you have understood this essential point — indeed if you ever have an opportunity to see a Baptist and a Jehovahs Witness argue over the Bible, you will notice that in the final analysis they simply quote different Scriptures back and forth at each other. If they are equally matched intellectually, neither will get anywhere in the discussion because they both essentially agree on their approach to the Bible, and because neither questions this underlying common assumption neither can see that their mutually flawed approach to the Scriptures is the problem. Herein lies the heart of this Hydra of heresies — pierce its heart and its many heads at once fall lifelessly to the ground.

[ May 09, 2006, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Why do you say that your Tradition is superior to the Catholic Tradition, or indeed the other Orthodox Traditions? How is one to choose between them?
 

Eric B

Active Member
Site Supporter
In the second place, if Paul meant to exclude tradition as not also being profitable, then we should wonder why Paul uses non-biblical oral tradition in this very same chapter. The names Jannes and Jambres are not found in the Old Testament, yet in II Timothy 3:8 Paul refers to them as opposing Moses. Paul is drawing upon the oral tradition that the names of the two most prominent Egyptian Magicians in the Exodus account (Ch. 7-8) were "Jannes" and "Jambres."
Maybe God gave them the names through inspiration. In any case, the names do not contradict anything found in scripture, nor do they add anything significant to them.
And this is by no means the only time that a non-biblical source is used in the New Testament — the best known instance is in the Epistle of St. Jude, which quotes from the Book of Enoch (Jude 14,15 cf. Enoch 1:9).
Once again, God, by inspiration, knows when to use these sources. We cannot just go and try to validate any teaching that has come up in the Church with them.
The Church defended itself against heretical teachings by appealing to the apostolic origins of Holy Tradition (proven by Apostolic Succession, i.e. the fact that the bishops and teachers of the Church can historically demonstrate their direct descendence from the Apostles),
This does not guarantee perfect transmission of the teachings. People do put their own spins on what was handed down to them, and unless you are claiming the postapostolic fathers were just as inspired as the apostles, they were fallible, and could get things wrong.

case in point, again:
We see it go from Ignatius' "they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ" which still leaves it open to be a metaphor (Where a "simile" is "a comparison using 'like' or 'as'"; a metaphor calls it like it is the thing it is being compared to). Then, expanding upon this, a half century later, Justin's "not as common bread and common drink do we receive these, but...the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word...is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.". That too can still be metaphorical, but now he adds to it "blessed by the prayer of His word". He mentions a "transmutation", but that appears to be referring to the "nourishment" or our own bodies (suggesting as I have been saying, that this was not cracker crumbs, or wafers especially made for the "service").
Then, in the next century, we begin to get more expounding of some "change" in the food TO "the flesh and blood". (Tertullian's example of Christ changing the bread and wine to His body still needs to answer Bob's question of how it could literally be Christ when Christ was still physically there before them).

I'm sorry, but all of this looks like a doctrinal development to me. (rather than some complete doctrine passed down wholesale, only more [previously secret, oral only] details were being revealed about it). Just as I have always described it; early fathers begin putting their oen spin on things, and then others after them continue to build on that, putting their own spin on top of that. So yes, it was all passed down from the apostles, but we see it was being changed along the way. The only response to this is "But Christ would guide them into all truth", but He said this to the apostles, and they were guided into all truth, which they wrote down in their Gospels, epistles, Acts and Revelation. That was not promised for the later leaders (when they even stopped counting 12, showing that office was finished), but instead, we do get prophecies of drastic apostasy. The defense then is The gates of Hell would never prevail over the Church, and they didn', but still, there was a lot of error that was allowed to come in, and there would always be people to correct it. The more pressing issues (the nature of Christ, etc) were addressed somewhat immediately (and continuing over time), and other things were questioned later on, when the Church began dividing over the corruption of the big powerful body.

This doctrine puts way too much control to rmen, and not even men who saw the Lord directly. Whatever they say, tney must be right. And you wonder why people look at that skeptically?

and by appealing to the universality of the Orthodox Faith (i.e. that the Orthodox faith is that same faith that Orthodox Christians have always accepted throughout its history and throughout the world). The Church defended itself against spurious and heretical books by establishing an authoritative list of sacred books that were received throughout the Church as being divinely inspired and of genuine Old Testament or apostolic origin.
If this was the case, then there are many other books which agree with the so-called "orthodox faith", and even add those "traditions" in question, such as real presence and the perpetual virginity of Mary, the vestments, etc. These should have been added, then.
One thing that is beyond serious dispute is that by the time the Church settled the Canon of Scripture it was in its faith and worship essentially indistinguishable from the Church of later periods — this is an historical certainty.
That's not true, as the church was constantly changing, with its offices gaining increasing power, among the changes. (all of this would then be read back into the scriptures and fathers, as "apostolic tradition"
Epistles were written primarily to answer specific problems that arose in various Churches; thus, things that were assumed and understood by all, and not considered problems were not generally touched upon in any detail. Doctrinal issues that were addressed were generally disputed or misunderstood doctrines,4 matters of worship were only dealt with when there were related problems (e.g. I Corinthians 11-14). Apocalyptic writings (such as Revelation) were written to show Gods ultimate triumph in history.
And all of the doctrines such as bread and wine changed into real flesh and blood by a prayer (even though it doesn't look like it), Mary veneration, etc. were never issues? Amazing how these things were so neatly omitted, or agreed upon universally. Surely, they would raise questions, as they still do. OR, maybe these things were just ASSUMED by a wholesale "if its apart of tradition, then by faith I believe it was practiced then, because tradstion can't be wrong".
Let us first note that none of these literary types present in the New Testament have worship as a primary subject, or were meant to give details about how to worship in Church. In the Old Testament there are detailed (though by no means exhaustive) treatments of the worship of the people of Israel (e.g. Leviticus, Psalms) — in the New Testament there are only meager hints of the worship of the Early Christians. Why is this? Certainly not because they had no order in their services — liturgical historians have established the fact that the early Christians continued to worship in a manner firmly based upon the patterns of Jewish worship which it inherited from the Apostles. 5 However, even the few references in the New Testament that touch upon the worship of the early Church show that, far from being a wild group of free-spirited "Charismatics," the Christians in the New Testament worshiped liturgically as did their fathers before them: they observed hours of prayer (Acts 3:1); they worshiped in the Temple (Acts 2:46, 3:1, 21:26); and they worshiped in Synagogues (Acts 18:4).
And some also still met on the Sabbath, and kept other laws the later Church and its "tradition" would later reject and even condemn, ostracize and persecute. Yet you try to use this stuff to authenticate traditions far foreign to the OT or NT. Besides, after the Temple would be destroyed, a lot of that would end, especially as Christians became more estranged from Jews.
As already stated, the New Testament gives little detail about how to worship — but this is certainly no small matter. Furthermore, the same Church that handed down to us the Holy Scriptures, and preserved them, was the very same Church from which we have received our patterns of worship. If we mistrust this Churchs faithfulness in preserving Apostolic worship, then we must also mistrust her fidelity in preserving the Scriptures.
Maybe there was so little details on worship, because worship was not some big grand mystic ritual, but was instead "in spirit and in truth" contrasting both the OT, and the ater Church which selectively copied the OT while adding completely new practices.
What is the purpose of the many Protestant study Bibles, if all that is needed is the Bible itself? Why do they hand out tracts and other material? Why do they even teach or preach at all —why not just read the Bible to people? The answer is though they usually will not admit it, Protestants instinctively know that the Bible cannot be understood alone. And in fact every Protestant sect has its own body of traditions, though again they generally will not call them what they are. It is not an accident that Jehovahs Witnesses all believe the same things, and Southern Baptists generally believe the same things, but Jehovahs Witnesses and Southern Baptists emphatically do not believe the same things. Jehovahs Witnesses and Southern Baptists do not each individually come up with their own ideas from an independent study of the Bible; rather, those in each group are all taught to believe in a certain way — from a common tradition. So then the question is not really whether we will just believe the Bible or whether we will also use tradition — the real question is which tradition will we use to interpret the Bible? Which tradition can be trusted, the Apostolic Tradition of the Orthodox Church, or the muddled, and modern, traditions of Protestantism that have no roots beyond the advent of the Protestant Reformation.
This argument is that since the Church is bigger and older than most modern sects, it claims "universality" and direct succession, respectively. But this still begs the question of how they interpret the early father they link to the Apostles.
But how can we know that the Church has preserved the Apostolic Tradition in its purity? The short answer is that God has preserved it in the Church because He has promised to do so. Christ said that He would build His Church and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). Christ Himself is the head of the Church (Ephesians 4:16), and the Church is His Body (Ephesians 1:22-23). If the Church lost the pure Apostolic Tradition, then the Truth would have to cease being the Truth — for the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth (I Timothy 3:15). The common Protestant conception of Church history, that the Church fell into apostasy from the time of Constantine until the Reformation certainly makes these and many other Scriptures meaningless. If the Church ceased to be, for even one day, then the gates of Hell prevailed against it on that day. If this were the case, when Christ described the growth of the Church in His parable of the mustard seed (Matthew 13:31-32), He should have spoken of a plant that started to grow but was squashed, and in its place a new seed sprouted later on — but instead He used the imagery of a mustard seed that begins small but steadily grows into the largest of garden plants.
Noone is saying that the church ceased to be. But the problem is, is that this argument is looking on the Church as a visible ORGANIZATIONS with its offices turned into power bases, bu the body of christ he said would not fail is not a human organization, but a spiritual fellowship of those who have placed their faith in Christ. In fact, this whole string of arguments, including "all the thousands of Protestant Sects" is all looking at visible organizations. The faith of some of them is in line with Biblical Gospel, some are not, and are unanimously rejected by the body of "biblically orthodox" believers, moreso than the overhyped minor disagreements they have among themselves. Some, have maintained the basic gospel, but added other teachings to it, some of which are not as important as they may argue But just following one single organization is not the solution to this. This is just an attempt to gain control over everyone, and is not the mission the true Church has been entrusted with.
The kingdom has spread, but centuries of trying to centralize control of it through an organization (that has often gotten mixed up with the kingdoms of the world and their politics) has done more to stifle its growth, and is what in fact has helped more than anything else lead to all of this fracturing into schisms. Nobody trust anybody, because power was so abused for all those centuries.
APPROACH # 2
The Holy Spirit provides the correct understanding.
When presented with the numerous groups that arose under the banner of the Reformation that could not agree on their interpretations of the Scriptures, no doubt the second solution to the problem was the assertion that the Holy Spirit would guide the pious Protestant to interpret the Scriptures rightly. Of course everyone who disagreed with you could not possibly be guided by the same Spirit. The result was that each Protestant group de-Christianized all those that differed from them. Now if this approach were a valid one, that would only leave history with one group of Protestants that had rightly interpreted the Scriptures. But which of the thousands of denominations could it be? Of course the answer depends on which Protestant you are speaking to. One thing we can be sure of — he or she probably thinks his or her group is it.
This is EXACTLY what you based the answer to "how can we know that the Church has preserved the Apostolic Tradition in its purity?" on above. Everyone says this same thing, the Spirit guides us into all truth, and as you said, they still come up with different interpretations. Your is but one more, and you just use a different amd unique criteria for your claim to be the true one than they: "We are the oldest" [of currently visible groups, that is!] and your only adva ntage is seniority. But that too is fallible. However, the Spirit has guided peopel into basic truths, and if they add stuff onto that, that is their own addition, but it does not mean you have to follow what some priest in long robes with a long beard says as if God spoke it directly to you, and regardless of what can be read in scripture.
So how did they know the Gospel, the life and teachings of Christ, how to worship, what to believe about the nature of Christ, etc? They had only the Oral Tradition handed down from the Apostles. Sure, many in the early Church heard these things directly from the Apostles themselves, but many more did not, especially with the passing of the First Century and the Apostles with it. Later generations had access to the writings of the Apostles through the New Testament, but the early Church depended on Oral Tradition almost entirely for its knowledge of the Christian faith.
Its source is Christ, it was delivered personally by Him to the Apostles through all that He said and did, which if it all were all written down, "the world itself could not contain the books that should be written" (John 21:25). The Apostles delivered this knowldge to the entire Church, and the Church, being the repository of this treasure thus became "the pillar and ground of the Truth" (I Timothy 3:15).
But not only is the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura not taught in the Scriptures — it is in fact specifically contradicted by the Scriptures (which we have already discussed) that teach that Holy Tradition is also binding to Christians (II Thessalonians 2:15; I Corinthians 11:2).
And there is no reason to conclude that these were anything other than what we see elsewhere preserved in scripture. This is proven by the fact that one of them is mentioned right here in one of the texts(2 Thess. 3:6): "keep away from any brother who is living in idleness". "living in idleness" is what is contrasted with "the traditions". And other scriptures speak against this as well. No later "Catholic" doctrines or practices there! All "Tradition" means is that it is a principle the apostles hold, and many who people who did not get an epistle had only heard about it orally. It is not an entire separate body of teaching and practice! This argument is truly ironic, in that it uses scriupture just enough to override itself, and supplant itself with a body of "tradition" totally foreign to it, rather than as being aligned with it. So it is this notion of "tradition" that is contradicted by the true apostolic tradition!
Thus as long as we refrain from worshiping the false gods of Individualism, Modernity, and Academic Vainglory, and as long as we recognize the assumptions at work and use those things that truly shed historical or linguistic light upon the Scriptures, then we will understand the Tradition more perfectly. But to the degree that Protestant scholarship speculates beyond the canonical texts, and projects foreign ideas upon the Scriptures — to the degree that they disagree with the Holy Tradition, the "always and everywhere" faith of the Church, they are wrong.
And that is exactly what is being done here in the name of "tradition". In fact, it is the tradition that is being speculated on more than the actual historical evidence allows.
 

JackRUS

New Member
Do you people actually think that this Jacob guy is here for a debate?

He never replies to any of his cut & paste spam jobs.

But just in case he ever changes his mind, only God performs a conversion. 2 Cor. 5:17
 

Eric B

Active Member
Site Supporter
The question Protestants will ask at this point is who is to say that the Orthodox Tradition is the correct tradition, or that there even is a correct tradition? First, Protestants need to study the history of the Church. They will find that there is only one Church. This has always been the faith of the Church from its beginning. The Nicene Creed makes this point clearly, "I believe in... one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." This statement, which almost every
Protestant denomination still claims to accept as true, was never interpreted to refer to some fuzzy, pluralistic invisible "church" that cannot agree on anything doctrinally. The councils that canonized the Creed (as well as the Scriptures) also anathematized those who were outside the Church, whether they were heretics, such as the Montanists, or schismatics like the Donatists. They did not say, "well we cant agree with the Montanists doctrinally but they are just as much a part of the Church as we are." Rather they were excluded from the communion of the Church until they returned to the Church and were received into the Church through Holy Baptism and Chrismation (in the case of heretics) or simply Chrismation (in the case of schismatics) [Second Ecumenical Council, Canon VII]. To even join in prayer with those outside the Church was, and still is, forbidden [Canons of the Holy Apostles, canons XLV, XLVI]. Unlike Protestants, who make heros of those who break away from another group and start their own, in the early Church this was considered among the most damnable sins. As St. Ignatius of Antioch [a disciple of the Apostle John] warned, "Make no mistake brethren, no one who follows another into a schism will inherit the Kingdom of God, no one who follows heretical doctrines is on the side of the passion" [to the Philadelphians 5:3].
Obviously, one of three statements is true: either (1) there is no correct Tradition and the gates of hell did prevail against the Church, and thus both the Gospels and the Nicene Creed are in error; or (2) the true Faith is to be found in Papism, with its ever-growing and changing dogmas defined by the infallible "vicar of Christ;" or (3) the Orthodox Church is the one Church founded by Christ and has faithfully preserved the Apostolic Tradition. So the choice for Protestants is clear: relativism, Romanism, or Orthodoxy.
This is a straw man. A fourth option is to stop looking at Christ's spiritual body in terms of corporations or state backed Church governments, then it won't seem so "fuzzy" and "in disagreement".
If Protestants should think this arrogant or naive, let them first consider the arrogance and naivete of those scholars who think that they are qualified to override (and more usually, totally ignore) two thousand years of Christian teaching. Does the acquisition of a Ph.D. give one greater insight into the mysteries of God than the total wisdom of millions upon millions of faithful believers and the Fathers and Mothers of the Church who faithfully served God, who endured horrible tortures and martyrdom, mockings, and imprisonments, for the faith? Is Christianity learned in the comfort of ones study, or as one carries his cross to be killed on it? The arrogance lies in those who, without even taking the time to learn what the Holy Tradition really is, decide that they know better, that only now has someone come along who has rightly understood what the Scriptures really mean.
This does not prove truth. In fact, the same Church persecuted those whom they accused of "heresy". Especially after it gained power from the state. Those advocating "persecuted small groups" are the holders of the truth use this. Are they right, then?
As far as the structure of Church authority, it was Orthodox bishops together in various councils who settled the question of the Canon — and so it is to this day in the Orthodox Church when any question of doctrine or discipline has to be settled.
And this begs a question I have kept forgetting to ask. Another post said that the EOC is "the Church of the 7 councils", and the Roman Church, as well as some of the Protestants alco claim to go by these councils. But I notice we see the first Church council, in Jerusalem, right in the New Testament book of Acts; presided over by actual first generation apostles; you know; the ones who saw Jesus alive, dead, and risen again! This council was used to help set an important standard for Church practice in a very important and controversial issue: gentiles and the Law of Moses.
Why is this uimportant foundational council not considered the first of the "Universal/Catholic/Ecumenical councils" -- but rather Nicea; the one nearly three centuries later, convened by the pagan Emperor who saw the cross as a sign to "conquer" in, --why is that considered the first? Ald the other six after it all having the same worldly state power behind them, granted with that first one?
If the later Seven had been considered as the succession beginning with the Jerusalem council, you would have a better argument for being the true sucessors. But the favt that you start with Nicea seems to be an admission that "the Church" as the organization we know of today, rather then being a true successor to the Apostles, is really identified as the state run power base of the fourth century and later a that we have come to know. Whether Roman or Easter, it was all the same, and often used that state power to persecute. This to me is the biggest proof against apostolic sucession. the only recourse is to try to authenticate itself by reading its traditions back into the Scriptures through the fathers. But even that does not have enough support.

For the EOC to be coming out all agressively like this now, it actually joins in the very thing it criticizes: One more voice in the midst of "all the thousands of sects claiming to be the truth"; using all the same basic argumentative tactics. This adds nothing constructive to the dilemma, and only furthers the confusion. That page read pretty much like a fundamentalist diatribe, or a JW, or Church of Christ, or Sabbatarian treatise on how everyone else is in error. I'm sorry, but this body has to simply take its place among all of the other groups, whom it is behaving exactly like; as fallible men who must answer to God, who has left one solid body of teaching from the inspired apostles, and that is the written word. If all the disagreeing groups couldn't even get that right, how much better do you think men could handle oral teachings. Of if the Holy Spirit guided them, then anyone else can claim the same thing. The only thing you have over any of them is being "older". And that only identifies your group with the errors of the "Dark ages". All of the jargon putting down the Enlightenment, rationalism, reason, individuality, modernity, etc. is the same as every other group who tries to control everyone (and therefore must stifle reason and independant thought), from the fundies, to the cults. You are no different. It's all the same tactics, and "every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive". (Eph.4:14)
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
According to Jack - Jacob's rule is "never post on a thread that you start if someone else has posted there as well"

Let's see if that holds up.
 

music4Him

New Member
I'm not beyond hope!

My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly trust in Jesus’ Name.

1Peter 1:13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
 

Melanie

Active Member
Site Supporter
I hate these provocative threads....it is very presumptive. Only the Lord God can know the heart of the individual whether he/she be Baptist, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran or Callathumpian.

If you believe in God and worship according to your devout belief then surely God can sort out his servants.
 
Top