From the world of Protestantism...

hedrick · Apr 8, 2012

FYI, here's a summary of discussions between Lutherans and Orthodox in the 16th Cent: What did the reformers think about the Eastern Orthodox Church? | Christian History. It's clear that some Lutherans actually did consider that the Orthodox would have a contribution to make. However there turned out to be too many differences. I'm afraid that Lutherans would view some Orthodox doctrines and practices as improper accretions to the Bible, even if it avoided some of the problems of Rome.

The original criticism was that Protestants operate as individuals, without any controls. I believe this has been demonstrated to be false, at least for confessional Protestants. The more recent comments would seem to be summarized as saying in effect that multiple recent traditions, while providing some control on individual speculation, still doesn't give the continuity with the Apostles or consistency that the Orthodox maintain.

I believe the modern situation is different from the 16th Cent one. In the 16th Cent I think the Reformers may have been overly optimistic about the degree of consensus one could get from sola scriptura. However in today's context, my answer would be that while the Catholic / Orthodox approach produces better agreement among members of the tradition, it has weaker protection against the tradition as a whole deviating. I think most Protestants would assess the current situation as looser agreement centered around something that's closer to the original Biblical intent.

Personally, I would say that the Orthodox tradition has changed less over time than the Catholic one. That's why many of the problems that the Reformers had with Rome were not present in Orthodoxy. However despite the stability of the Eastern tradition, I think much of the damage was done by the time the Orthodox tradition stabilized. The Gospel had already been translated into a very different culture form 1st Cent Palestine, with different concerns and different modes of thought. I don't doubt that that translation was well intended, nor that it served a useful role. But I would prefer to make current interpretations from the original rather than from a tradition that has already gone through at least one cultural translation.

I also note that methodologically there are two different types of Protestant, which I have started calling Catholic Protestants and Protestant Protestants. The Reformation was largely a result of early Renaissance critical scholarship. In moving from the Vulgate to the original languages, and using current Biblical scholarship, large problems appeared in the Western traditional interpretations. The Reformers were willing to make major changes to the tradition. However most Protestants are currently conservative. They are not willing to accept the modern version of critical scholarship. In effect they have frozen the results of 16th and 17th scholarship, developing a new tradition that is defended in nearly the identical way as the original Catholic one. "Mainline" Protestants, however, have continued to use the results of critical scholarship even as it changes, on the grounds that while the original Reformation was an improvement, there is work yet to be done. I find both the orthodox and mainline positions coherent. I find it less sensible to accept Luther's radical changes and then reject continuing application of similar methods.

KyrieEleison87 · Apr 8, 2012

hedrick said:
hedrick said:

The original criticism was that Protestants operate as individuals, without any controls. I believe this has been demonstrated to be false, at least for confessional Protestants.

Click to expand...

Not at all, from my perspective. What has been demonstrated is what I already said: more traditional Protestants will adhere more closely to the traditional confessions of their denominations, but at the end of the day, they are still not taken as totally binding, authoritative, and infallible. A Protestant can walk away from virtually any given creed and still be perfectly methodologically and theologically Protestant.

The more recent comments would seem to be summarized as saying in effect that multiple recent traditions, while providing some control on individual speculation, still doesn't give the continuity with the Apostles or consistency that the Orthodox maintain.

Click to expand...

Basically, yes.

I believe the modern situation is different from the 16th Cent one. In the 16th Cent I think the Reformers may have been overly optimistic about the degree of consensus one could get from sola scriptura. However in today's context, my answer would be that while the Catholic / Orthodox approach produces better agreement among members of the tradition, it has weaker protection against the tradition as a whole deviating.

Click to expand...

How do you figure? Stick specifically with Orthodoxy for now, since Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiologies are different. From my perspective, entire Protestant traditions have deviated all over the place. Look at the present crises going on with the Anglican/Episcopalian split, the split between mainline and conservative Lutherans, the split between mainline and conservative Presbyterians, splits over baptism (by immersion only? for kids?), splits over end times issues, the Lordship salvation controversy, Calvinism/Arminianism, on and on and on. Protestantism, looking at it historically, has provided zero protection to its own "tradition." Its tradition has schismed a thousand different ways because there IS no truly authoritative doctrinal safeguard.

I think most Protestants would assess the current situation as looser agreement centered around something that's closer to the original Biblical intent.

Click to expand...

Closer to the original Biblical intent according to whom? Again, it comes back to individuals interpreting Scripture alone by relegating Church authority and Tradition to secondary status, if not ignoring such things almost entirely.

Personally, I would say that the Orthodox tradition has changed less over time than the Catholic one.

Click to expand...

Why thank you.

That's why many of the problems that the Reformers had with Rome were not present in Orthodoxy. However despite the stability of the Eastern tradition, I think much of the damage was done by the time the Orthodox tradition stabilized. The Gospel had already been translated into a very different culture form 1st Cent Palestine, with different concerns and different modes of thought.

Click to expand...

But that's true of all the parties involved. Surely you don't think Luther's German translation of the Bible somehow captured a "first century Palestinian" spirit in a way that previous translations hadn't?

I don't doubt that that translation was well intended, nor that it served a useful role. But I would prefer to make current interpretations from the original rather than from a tradition that has already gone through at least one cultural translation.

Click to expand...

The entire point of valuing Apostolic succession the way the Orthodox do is because we believe we have a direct, continuous connection back to "the original." To suggest that Orthodox theologians and clergy don't consider "the original" of the Biblical texts when studying and teaching on it, is just flat wrong.

I also note that methodologically there are two different types of Protestant, which I have started calling Catholic Protestants and Protestant Protestants. The Reformation was largely a result of early Renaissance critical scholarship. In moving from the Vulgate to the original languages, and using current Biblical scholarship, large problems appeared in the Western traditional interpretations. The Reformers were willing to make major changes to the tradition. However most Protestants are currently conservative. They are not willing to accept the modern version of critical scholarship. In effect they have frozen the results of 16th and 17th scholarship, developing a new tradition that is defended in nearly the identical way as the original Catholic one. "Mainline" Protestants, however, have continued to use the results of critical scholarship even as it changes, on the grounds that while the original Reformation was an improvement, there is work yet to be done. I find both the orthodox and mainline positions coherent. I find it less sensible to accept Luther's radical changes and then reject continuing application of similar methods.

Click to expand...

While the mainline position may be internally coherent, it will only lead to further theological chaos, as history is already proving.

MKJ · Apr 8, 2012

KyrieEleison87 said:
Protestants acknowledge different levels of ecclesial authority, yes. But ultimately, in every form of Protestantism, at the end of the day no ecclesial authority is absolutely binding and authoritative. This is why denomination after denomination after denomination has been founded since the Reformation. Individual men and women read the Bible and thought they knew better than their churches/denominations, and so they went and started their own.

While there are nuances from group to group, Sola Scriptura is a pretty all-encompassing doctrine that Protestants share. It is the root of the problem we're addressing.

While it is true that the Reformaton occurred somewhat independently in different parts of Europe, what unites the English, Swiss, and German Reformation(s) is still the over-arching principle of Sola Scriptura. The only truly and completely binding and authoritative thing in the Christian life are the words of Scripture, and everything else is secondary...which means that one simply needs to INTERPRET the words of Scripture differently than one's church or denomination and one is fully within his or her rights in the Protestant framework to eschew that secondary authority and, if necessary, go out and found the church that will be the "true" reformation/restoration of the full truth, "straight from the Bible alone."

I don't think I would say Sola Scriptura is something all Protestants share - there are such significant differences in the way that it is understood that they are almost completely different ideas.

And there are several Protestant traditions that see authority in the Church and the Church community - including the patristic tradition - in a very similar way to Orthodoxy. Is it identical? No. Are there other good questions about those worldviews and how coherent they are? Absolutely. But the ideas expressed at the beginning of this thread are simply cartoons of a Protestant position with, as far as I can see, little or no understanding of how Protestantism has understood authority in the Church.

For what it's worth I see the claim regularly that the multiplicity within Protestantism is due to sola scriptura, but I think that is too simple an answer. Simple answers can make us feel good, but they really aren't all that helpful in the end. I think it has a lot more to do with governance myself

Knee V · Apr 8, 2012

MKJ said:
as a sort of Protestant (I would not use the term about myself but there is some historical reason to say it isn't inappropriate)

FWIW, I don't consider the Anglicans/Episcopalians to be "Protestant". Sure, both of you came from Rome, but in two very different ways. I see the Anglicans as the ecclesiastical equivalent of how the English relates to other Germanic languages. It's essentially Germanic, but it has influences from some other sources giving it a little different flavor. So I'd put you more in the world of RCC, EO, OO, etc than the Protestants, Protestant influences aside.

----------

As to the OP,

The Apostle's Creed was never all that influential in the East. I don't think that we'd really take issue with it, but it just never really took hold. But I do agree with the principle that, even though we don't really use it, there's nothing wrong with it - and who are we to change it?

But I do want to be fair to the world of Protestantism. I am no longer of the opinion that all Christian groups that are not under the umbrella of Catholic/Orthodox are necessarily "Protestant". For example, I consider that the beginning of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement was the beginning of something new that sprang out of Protestantism. They resemble Protestants, just like the original Protestants resembled the Catholic Church. But I consider those groups and their daughter groups to be in a movement of their own separate from the Protestants.

Coming from a smorgasbord Christian background with Presbyterian roots (having spent my later teen years and early young adult years in a Presbyterian Church (PCA)), I will agree that there is a certain level of ecclesiastical authority that is recognized by many of the Mainline groups. When someone consents that the Presbyterian form of church government is the most biblical, and the Reformed perspective is also the most biblical, then one tends to submit to the government and discipline of their church, as well as the doctrinal standards to which they adhere. Yes, one can move from a Presbyterian Church to a Lutheran Church, but, for those who are concerned with doing what they believe to be the right thing, there's less of a tendency to "church hop".

That being said, outside of that shrinking group (I would consider the Mainline churches to be unfortunately much less relevant than they were at this point in the previous century), I would have to agree with the criticism of "Protestantism". When there is no real sense of any kind of ecclesiastical authority, the tendencies to church-hop and call the shots as I see fit are much more prevalent. Although, from what I have experienced, unless there is a conflict of personality, and unless someone REALLY feels REALLY strongly about a certain doctrine, a lot of people will stick with a particular congregation even when they see doctrines differently, especially if that church is a little weaker on its doctrinal stances.

From what I have experienced, most of the numerous break-offs have pretty small numbers of people. You'll have a small Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church that has this particular doctrine, but a larger, more mainstream conservative Baptist Church in town, or other similar stories.

And I see a lot of independent non-denominational churches, but I wouldn't consider that a product of "splintering", per se. Most of the people who start those church don't see themselves that way. They have a very different ecclesiology than we do, to be sure. And they tend to see themselves as just starting a congregation in a place where they feel that their type of congregation should be.

Where I see most of the off-shoots (and my observations may very well be incorrect) is in the uber-conservative/fundamentalist groups, which, as I mentioned, I believe to be less significant in their numbers (numerous congregations with few people in each congregation), as well in the Charismatic-type groups. And it is in that group that I tend to see the most doctrinal development and splinter groups, especially with the proliferation of Word of Faith doctrines and other novelties that slip their way in. I think that this happens more here because, when you're "led by the Spirit", it's easier to say that God is showing you something new, and it's harder to judge a "new thing" as wrong, lest you blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

Yet I digress...

MKJ · Apr 8, 2012

KyrieEleison87 said:
Not at all, from my perspective. What has been demonstrated is what I already said: more traditional Protestants will adhere more closely to the traditional confessions of their denominations, but at the end of the day, they are still not taken as totally binding, authoritative, and infallible. A Protestant can walk away from virtually any given creed and still be perfectly methodologically and theologically Protestant.

Click to expand...

Um, anybody can do this, actually. People are free to leave any Christian group, including Orthodoxy, and set up some sort of group of their own on whatever grounds they want. And I don't know of any religious group that hasn't had such off-shoots appear.

You are simply incorrect that there are no binding authorities in Protestant groups - they exist and in some cases are very strict indeed. You are making the mistake of assuming there is some sort of overarching thing called "Protestantism" which dissidents from these groups still belong to, so they are still in the "Protestant club" somehow. But I can tell you, if you are a confessional Lutheran and decide to dissent from your confession and start your own group, you are no longer a confessional Lutheran. You are O-U-T out. Protestantism is not an entity that exists in quite the way you are asking it to - it is in some ways a designation more like "Eastern" than anything else, describing a kind of historical relation and doctrinal relation. But just like Eastern Catholics and EO members are not in the same "club", neither may be different Protestants.

MKJ · Apr 8, 2012

knee-v said:
FWIW, I don't consider the Anglicans/Episcopalians to be "Protestant". Sure, both of you came from Rome, but in two very different ways. I see the Anglicans as the ecclesiastical equivalent of how the English relates to other Germanic languages. It's essentially Germanic, but it has influences from some other sources giving it a little different flavor. So I'd put you more in the world of RCC, EO, OO, etc than the Protestants, Protestant influences aside.

----------

As to the OP,

The Apostle's Creed was never all that influential in the East. I don't think that we'd really take issue with it, but it just never really took hold. But I do agree with the principle that, even though we don't really use it, there's nothing wrong with it - and who are we to change it?

But I do want to be fair to the world of Protestantism. I am no longer of the opinion that all Christian groups that are not under the umbrella of Catholic/Orthodox are necessarily "Protestant". For example, I consider that the beginning of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement was the beginning of something new that sprang out of Protestantism. They resemble Protestants, just like the original Protestants resembled the Catholic Church. But I consider those groups and their daughter groups to be in a movement of their own separate from the Protestants.

Coming from a smorgasbord Christian background with Presbyterian roots (having spent my later teen years and early young adult years in a Presbyterian Church (PCA)), I will agree that there is a certain level of ecclesiastical authority that is recognized by many of the Mainline groups. When someone consents that the Presbyterian form of church government is the most biblical, and the Reformed perspective is also the most biblical, then one tends to submit to the government and discipline of their church, as well as the doctrinal standards to which they adhere. Yes, one can move from a Presbyterian Church to a Lutheran Church, but, for those who are concerned with doing what they believe to be the right thing, there's less of a tendency to "church hop".

That being said, outside of that shrinking group (I would consider the Mainline churches to be unfortunately much less relevant than they were at this point in the previous century), I would have to agree with the criticism of "Protestantism". When there is no real sense of any kind of ecclesiastical authority, the tendencies to church-hop and call the shots as I see fit are much more prevalent. Although, from what I have experienced, unless there is a conflict of personality, and unless someone REALLY feels REALLY strongly about a certain doctrine, a lot of people will stick with a particular congregation even when they see doctrines differently, especially if that church is a little weaker on its doctrinal stances.

From what I have experienced, most of the numerous break-offs have pretty small numbers of people. You'll have a small Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church that has this particular doctrine, but a larger, more mainstream conservative Baptist Church in town, or other similar stories.

And I see a lot of independent non-denominational churches, but I wouldn't consider that a product of "splintering", per se. Most of the people who start those church don't see themselves that way. They have a very different ecclesiology than we do, to be sure. And they tend to see themselves as just starting a congregation in a place where they feel that their type of congregation should be.

Where I see most of the off-shoots (and my observations may very well be incorrect) is in the uber-conservative/fundamentalist groups, which, as I mentioned, I believe to be less significant in their numbers (numerous congregations with few people in each congregation), as well in the Charismatic-type groups. And it is in that group that I tend to see the most doctrinal development and splinter groups, especially with the proliferation of Word of Faith doctrines and other novelties that slip their way in. I think that this happens more here because, when you're "led by the Spirit", it's easier to say that God is showing you something new, and it's harder to judge a "new thing" as wrong, lest you blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

Yet I digress...

Yeah, I'd say I pretty much agree with everything here. And I think your observation that in cases of groups like non-denominationals the plethora of supposedly different groups is very misleading is very true. In a lot of ways their ecclesiology is very similar to an Orthodox or Anglican approach if you imagine what it would look like without bishops. Very much a vision of a congregation as the universal Church in a particular location and time. (Which is, I think, a really great connection to make when discussing ecclesiology with such people.)

KyrieEleison87 · Apr 8, 2012

MKJ said:
I don't think I would say Sola Scriptura is something all Protestants share - there are such significant differences in the way that it is understood that they are almost completely different ideas.

Like I said, while I definitely understand that Sola Scriptura can be understood in different ways (which is one of the reasons why it can be frustrating to talk to Protestants at all, because they can't even agree on a concept that they all ostensibly adhere to), ultimately regardless of the view one takes within the Sola Scriptura umbrella, they all logically reduce to the same problem. For some, it just takes longer to get there.

And there are several Protestant traditions that see authority in the Church and the Church community - including the patristic tradition - in a very similar way to Orthodoxy.

As the article that hedrick linked to pointed out, I think Protestants have always really WANTED their view to be similar to Orthodoxy, so that they could feel more legitimately connected to Christian history and have an ally against Rome. But ultimately, the areas of ostensible agreement usually end up being more limited than the Protestant hopes. There certainly are areas of agreement (you have areas of agreement with Catholicism, too, of course), but I think "very similar" is optimistic. You're an Anglican, so of all Protestant perspectives yours is probably most likely to find higher levels of agreement.

Is it identical? No. Are there other good questions about those worldviews and how coherent they are? Absolutely. But the ideas expressed at the beginning of this thread are simply cartoons of a Protestant position with, as far as I can see, little or no understanding of how Protestantism has understood authority in the Church.

Again, I disagree. This is always the claim of Protestants when Catholics or Orthodox criticize Sola Scriptura; even when we abide by the definitions given by Protestants for their own position, Protestants inevitably say, "That's a strawman! You just don't understand!" While I admit there may be levels of nuance, especially among the high church folks like yourself, I think that objection is mostly an excuse to distract from getting down the brass tax of the problem with the Protestant position.

For what it's worth I see the claim regularly that the multiplicity within Protestantism is due to sola scriptura, but I think that is too simple an answer. Simple answers can make us feel good, but they really aren't all that helpful in the end. I think it has a lot more to do with governance myself

How so? Not to poke you in the eye, so to speak, but from what I understand your church is in the fall-out of a pretty big schism. How do you propose that should be fixed? Or perhaps to follow your train of thought, how could that have been prevented?

Knee V · Apr 8, 2012

I would also add that I have observed relationships to be a considerably strong glue that holds people to a church. Yeah, many stay for doctrine, but many also stay because they have developed strong friendships with people there. When I was younger I went to one church for about 6 weeks. I liked what they were about and liked a lot of their doctrinal stances. But in those 6 weeks the only people that talked to me were the greeter and the pastor. I went to another church across town, and, although they were less definitive in their doctrine, I was welcomed immediately and made some good friends, many of whom are still good friends of mine.

MKJ · Apr 8, 2012

KyrieEleison87 said:
Like I said, while I definitely understand that Sola Scriptura can be understood in different ways (which is one of the reasons why it can be frustrating to talk to Protestants at all, because they can't even agree on a concept that they all ostensibly adhere to), ultimately regardless of the view one takes within the Sola Scriptura umbrella, they all logically reduce to the same problem. For some, it just takes longer to get there.

As the article that hedrick linked to pointed out, I think Protestants have always really WANTED their view to be similar to Orthodoxy, so that they could feel more legitimately connected to Christian history and have an ally against Rome. But ultimately, the areas of ostensible agreement usually end up being more limited than the Protestant hopes. There certainly are areas of agreement (you have areas of agreement with Catholicism, too, of course), but I think "very similar" is optimistic. You're an Anglican, so of all Protestant perspectives yours is probably most likely to find higher levels of agreement.

Again, I disagree. This is always the claim of Protestants when Catholics or Orthodox criticize Sola Scriptura; even when we abide by the definitions given by Protestants for their own position, Protestants inevitably say, "That's a strawman! You just don't understand!" While I admit there may be levels of nuance, especially among the high church folks like yourself, I think that objection is mostly an excuse to distract from getting down the brass tax of the problem with the Protestant position.

As far as the bolded, I'd have to ask on what basis you could say that, since you don't really know what the nuances are? Even if true, it isn't knowledge until you have examined the thing - it's just opinion - even if it's true opinion.

I really can't say this enough, but it is really really impossible to talk about "Protestantism" this way. If you try and understand it as one thing, you will never get hold of it. It is like trying to understand the CC, OC, and OO as one thing. You may get the gist of them in a general way, but would you be surprised if someone said that they could not really make sense of "orthodox catholic Christianity" and would you consider it a fair critisism? Or would you feel comfortable with the picture of Orthodoxy that came out of that analysis?

As an Orthodox Christian you of course think, and even assume that there is a problem with the Protestant position - and I don't mean that in a bad way at all. But you can't, based on that, try and look on it as it exists today and hope to find some general thread that runs through it all that is the flaw in it. If you put your finger on it it by that method it will be mostly through luck - and that is assuming there is one flaw that is common to all Protestantism, which is a mighty big assumption. Perhaps there are more than one, or different ones, or some that have escaped such issues? It would be like trying to figure out whyy a city is failing - full of crime or in economic crisis or whatever - only looking at it as a whole (statistics, planning diagrams, whatever) but without ever actually looking at the parts, the streets and neighbourhoods and the people who live in them. Not only will it be hard to get a good picture, you won't even be able to see that the picture you develop is inadequate.

I'd suggest, if you wanted to spend time looking at it - which is not a requirement at all, the best way would be to start with the actual reformers rather than beginning in the present.

How so? Not to poke you in the eye, so to speak, but from what I understand your church is in the fall-out of a pretty big schism. How do you propose that should be fixed? Or perhaps to follow your train of thought, how could that have been prevented?

THis is a big question obviously, and one which I can't answer completely. In some ways the problems in Anglicanism are from other sources entirely than anything being discussed here. (I'm afraid it's a bit long).

I don't know how much you know about Anglicanism, but in concept the structure of governance is very similar to Orthodoxy, with bishops as the kind of structural supports and a Church that is both local and universal. It has seen itself as being part of a living tradition which includes the whole Church in the present but also Tradition - the Church in the past.

I think there have been a few serious problems though in the way that has been practiced. I think for one thing there has been a tendency from the Elizabethan settlement to be too broad. At the time this was done to prevent civil war, and it is really an artifact of the control the monarch had over the English Church at that time. I think that has created a tendency to be really hesitant to call out those - especially bishops - who have stepped over the line in theology and practice. In fact, there really has never been a good way to do this, or a set of less and then more formal ways to deal with parts of the Communion that are going astray in order to lead them back in. People pretty much have to declare themselves out - there is no clear way for even the rest of the Communion together to do this.

Still they managed to hold this together for some time. More recently I can think of two major blows that exposed this weakness. One is the gutting of the liturgy and the idea of the liturgy. The other is the predations of secular culture. While all Christian groups have had this among the laity to some extent, in the Anglican world it was allowed to enter into the priesthood, and it corresponded to a general and rapid decline in theological training and thought.

What that means really is an almost total loss of recognition for the authority of Tradition. But that was able to be so serious because of the way it was allowed into the seminaries - and I'm not really sure why or how that happened. But it was, I suspect, people being slow to recognize the significance, hesitant to call others out on it, and finally the lack of a way to resolve the problem in the structure of governance that was the key problem.

In relation to this, I have suspicions about the consolidation of power around bishops being a factor, but I can't quite say how it fits in.

KyrieEleison87 · Apr 8, 2012

MKJ said:
Um, anybody can do this, actually. People are free to leave any Christian group, including Orthodoxy, and set up some sort of group of their own on whatever grounds they want. And I don't know of any religious group that hasn't had such off-shoots appear.

Two things: first, you don't see how it's VASTLY more prolific a phenomenon in Protestantism? Do you think that's just coincidence? It has nothing to do with the nature of Protestantism?
Second, what you're saying here is self-evident, and I agree, but it's not directly my point. My point is that Protestantism BREEDS off-shoots because of the nature of its theology and epistemology. If a Protestant reads the Bible on his/her own, studies the Fathers and Church history on his/her own, and comes to different conclusions that his/her particular denomination, what reason can Protestantism offer for why that person SHOULDN'T split and form their own group? They're utilizing the same basic methodology that all the Reformers used to split from the Catholic Church to arrive at what they believed to be the "complete" truth. Catholicism and Orthodoxy at least have an ANSWER to that question which internally resolves the issue. Yes a dissident can still of course leave Catholicism/Orthodoxy, but in doing so they are no longer being true to the way in which Catholicism/Orthodoxy arrive at theological truth. The same cannot be said of dissident Protestants.

You are simply incorrect that there are no binding authorities in Protestant groups - they exist and in some cases are very strict indeed. You are making the mistake of assuming there is some sort of overarching thing called "Protestantism" which dissidents from these groups still belong to, so they are still in the "Protestant club" somehow.

So the word "Protestantism" has no meaning to you? We should take it out of the dictionary?

But I can tell you, if you are a confessional Lutheran and decide to dissent from your confession and start your own group, you are no longer a confessional Lutheran. You are O-U-T out.

Oh sure, you're no longer a "confessional" Lutheran, but you can still be considered perfectly within the Lutheran tradition in terms of the way you approach theology and determining what is truth and what is heresy. That is the point. While in-group members of these denominations may consider the confessions, etc. of their group binding in the sense that they would never dream of opposing them, they are still not regarded as infallible. Their authority is secondary to Scripture.

Protestantism is not an entity that exists in quite the way you are asking it to - it is in some ways a designation more like "Eastern" than anything else, describing a kind of historical relation and doctrinal relation. But just like Eastern Catholics and EO members are not in the same "club", neither may be different Protestants.

Ironically, the very diversity of thought you're using to defend "Protestantism" from critique is the very diversity of thought that non-Protestants are trying to point out is the PROBLEM with that theological tradition. The reason Protestantism is spread so wide theologically is because of the NATURE of Protestantism itself. It breeds dissention and schism. This is the problem we have been addressing from the beginning of the thread.

KyrieEleison87 · Apr 8, 2012

MKJ said:
As far as the bolded, I'd have to ask on what basis you could say that, since you don't really know what the nuances are?

How do you know I don't know, I might ask? I can say what I said because a) I was raised as a Protestant, so I have first-hand knowledge, and b) I've had LOTS of conversations with Protestants of various stripes. There's always more to learn, obviously, and I'm certainly open to that. My background is also low-church, so you'd probably be right to say I know less, for example, about the Anglican tradition than I do about the Baptist tradition. But I've really never heard a Protestant of any stripe coherently explain how they escape the problems raised in this thread. If you'd like to give it a shot, go for it.

As an Orthodox Christian you of course think, and even assume that there is a problem with the Protestant position - and I don't mean that in a bad way at all.

I only think it because I have experienced it myself and have spoken to many Protestants about it.

But you can't, based on that, try and look on it as it exists today and hope to find some general thread that runs through it all that is the flaw in it. If you put your finger on it it by that method it will be mostly through luck - and that is assuming there is one flaw that is common to all Protestantism, which is a mighty big assumption. Perhaps there are more than one, or different ones, or some that have escaped such issues? It would be like trying to figure out whyy a city is failing - full of crime or in economic crisis or whatever - only looking at it as a whole (statistics, planning diagrams, whatever) but without ever actually looking at the parts, the streets and neighbourhoods and the people who live in them. Not only will it be hard to get a good picture, you won't even be able to see that the picture you develop is inadequate.

While I see your point that there is nuance involved and that different Protestants believe different things (that's part of the whole problem that the Catholics/Orthodox are pointing out all the time), I think it's being evasive to say that there is no way of addressing Protestantism in any general terms whatsoever. Pick up a history book on the history of Christianity and you will see historians making general statements about Protestantism all over the place. Obviously they address the nuances and differences between various groups as well, but that doesn't stop them from making NO general comments about the Protestant theological tradition whatsoever. See, for example, Anglican historian Philip Schaff's discussion of the nature of Protestantism in his work, Creeds of Christendom, Volume I (the 5th chapter, specifically).

Now, as knee-v already pointed out, as an Anglican you occupy a fairly unique position in that you are, I suppose, technically Protestant, though your theological approach is quite different from the rest. So I realize that your church affiliation may color your sense that "Protestantism" is an inaccurate term, since your church doesn't fall neatly into the category.

I'd suggest, if you wanted to spend time looking at it - which is not a requirement at all, the best way would be to start with the actual reformers rather than beginning in the present.

Agreed. I've certainly read portions of the works of Luther, Calvin, etc, though there's always more to be read. And btw, the Reformers were worried quite early on about the possibility of schism within their own ranks. So this is certainly not a "new" or modern Protestant problem I'm proposing; it's been the issue from day one.

THis is a big question obviously, and one which I can't answer completely. In some ways the problems in Anglicanism are from other sources entirely than anything being discussed here. (I'm afraid it's a bit long).

I don't know how much you know about Anglicanism, but in concept the structure of governance is very similar to Orthodoxy, with bishops as the kind of structural supports and a Church that is both local and universal. It has seen itself as being part of a living tradition which includes the whole Church in the present but also Tradition - the Church in the past.

I think there have been a few serious problems though in the way that has been practiced. I think for one thing there has been a tendency from the Elizabethan settlement to be too broad. At the time this was done to prevent civil war, and it is really an artifact of the control the monarch had over the English Church at that time. I think that has created a tendency to be really hesitant to call out those - especially bishops - who have stepped over the line in theology and practice. In fact, there really has never been a good way to do this, or a set of less and then more formal ways to deal with parts of the Communion that are going astray in order to lead them back in. People pretty much have to declare themselves out - there is no clear way for even the rest of the Communion together to do this.

Still they managed to hold this together for some time. More recently I can think of two major blows that exposed this weakness. One is the gutting of the liturgy and the idea of the liturgy. The other is the predations of secular culture. While all Christian groups have had this among the laity to some extent, in the Anglican world it was allowed to enter into the priesthood, and it corresponded to a general and rapid decline in theological training and thought.

What that means really is an almost total loss of recognition for the authority of Tradition. But that was able to be so serious because of the way it was allowed into the seminaries - and I'm not really sure why or how that happened. But it was, I suspect, people being slow to recognize the significance, hesitant to call others out on it, and finally the lack of a way to resolve the problem in the structure of governance that was the key problem.

In relation to this, I have suspicions about the consolidation of power around bishops being a factor, but I can't quite say how it fits in.

Well thank you for your thoughts on the matter; it is certainly food for thought.

GratiaCorpusChristi · Apr 9, 2012

KyrieEleison87 said:
Second, what you're saying here is self-evident, and I agree, but it's not directly my point. My point is that Protestantism BREEDS off-shoots because of the nature of its theology and epistemology. If a Protestant reads the Bible on his/her own, studies the Fathers and Church history on his/her own, and comes to different conclusions that his/her particular denomination, what reason can Protestantism offer for why that person SHOULDN'T split and form their own group?

I've already answered this- because we have binding confessions.

Allow me to introduce you to some terms used among Lutherans that I hope will clarify the issue.

Norma normans is a term that means "the norming norm." It is the rule (norm) that regulates our confession document. This is our understanding of the Bible.

Norma normata is the term for "the normed norm." It is the rule (norm) that has been regulated: the Book of Concord. So our confessional document is a norm.

Is it binding?

Yes. Because we also make a distinction between forms of subscription to the Book of Concord. There are those who subscribe to the norma normata (the Book of Concord) merely inasmuch as (quatenus) it conforms to the norma normans (Scripture), but the historic practice of Lutheranism is to subscribe to the Book of Concord totally, because (quia) it totally conforms to the Scriptures.

So yes, our historic practice has always been total subscription to our confessions as an infallible rule of faith. When Lutherans change their opinion on this matter, they cease to be Evangelical Catholics (our preferred self-designation) and become Protestants, just as when various groups broke away from Orthodoxy they ceased to be genuinely Orthodox and instead became schismatics in the Eastern tradition.

Protestantism is not something native to Lutheranism. It is an infection from the outside, just as it is for Orthodox.

You might say that this doesn't change the facts about Protestantism, because we're not Protestant. Well, sure. I just want to make it clear that your critique doesn't apply to us.

GratiaCorpusChristi · Apr 9, 2012

I would also like to note that the history of American Lutheranism has been characterized by denominational mergers rather than by schism. American Lutherans began with at least fifteen church bodies formed by settlements of German and Scandinavian settlers and through a process of ethnic reconciliation and mutual doctrinal recognition our original settlements have merged into three denominations major (only two of which, I must admit, hold to the understanding of confessionalism outlined above). That's fewer branches of Lutheranism in America than Orthodoxy.

So there's the empirical evidence to back up the theoretical system outlined above.

MKJ · Apr 9, 2012

KyrieEleison87 said:
Two things: first, you don't see how it's VASTLY more prolific a phenomenon in Protestantism? Do you think that's just coincidence? It has nothing to do with the nature of Protestantism?

It could, but I wouldn't say necessarily, no. I suspect it might have more to do with the nature of later Catholicism, if anything.

Second, what you're saying here is self-evident, and I agree, but it's not directly my point. My point is that Protestantism BREEDS off-shoots because of the nature of its theology and epistemology. If a Protestant reads the Bible on his/her own, studies the Fathers and Church history on his/her own, and comes to different conclusions that his/her particular denomination, what reason can Protestantism offer for why that person SHOULDN'T split and form their own group? They're utilizing the same basic methodology that all the Reformers used to split from the Catholic Church to arrive at what they believed to be the "complete" truth. Catholicism and Orthodoxy at least have an ANSWER to that question which internally resolves the issue. Yes a dissident can still of course leave Catholicism/Orthodoxy, but in doing so they are no longer being true to the way in which Catholicism/Orthodoxy arrive at theological truth. The same cannot be said of dissident Protestants. [/QUOTE]

I don't know - it seems to me that as soon as there was a split between any two bodies in the Christian world, the potential for what you are describing happened - so maybe the split between the OO and EO. After all, I think any honest person would say that if someone, or a group, has very good reason for thinking that there has been significant corruption or failing in their Church body, it could be appropriate to leave that body. When there is more than one body that can make the plausible claim to be the "real Church" even with a clearly defined orthodox-type understanding of what that means, it puts the whole question into a different perspective because then we have to choose which part of the Tradition is authentic.

Of course that doesn't mean that logically there isn't one body that is, in fact, the Church, and their tradition is the correct one and always will be. But it does create a necessity for individuals to judge somehow what is inside and outside the Tradition.

It is entirely possible, I think, that other factors have a very large part to play in the increasing number of Christian groups around as time wore on.

But yes, lots of Protestants - and by no means just from my tradition or even Lutheranism - would give a very good reason why a person should not split in that way - because they will then be placing themselves outside the Church and possibly be dammed. You can see that among some Lutherans, Calvinists, anabaptists... It can actually be significantly more harsh than what one typically hears from Orthodoxy (these days).

So the word "Protestantism" has no meaning to you? We should take it out of the dictionary?

Yes it has meaning, but largely historical meaning - as in, Christian groups that in some way came out of the Reformation period. Some are connected, others not. Originally they all came to be under similar historical circumstances, and that has shaped them in some ways that are similar. But it isn't accurate to say that because someone remains in the "protestant tradition" after splitting from some group that it means every group has a smooshy understanding of the boundaries of the Church.

Oh sure, you're no longer a "confessional" Lutheran, but you can still be considered perfectly within the Lutheran tradition in terms of the way you approach theology and determining what is truth and what is heresy. That is the point. While in-group members of these denominations may consider the confessions, etc. of their group binding in the sense that they would never dream of opposing them, they are still not regarded as infallible. Their authority is secondary to Scripture.

The Lutherans, during the Reformation, considered that they were the Church, in much the same way the CC or OC does. Confessional Lutherans don't always use the same language today, but in a real sense yes, they do consider those documents binding in just that way.

It is true that they might still be, in a way, in the Lutheran tradition. In the same way that Catholic or Orthodox schismatics are in the Catholic and Orthodox tradition - they are not going to be in the Protestant tradition! You would say that they are outside the Church, and presumably they have rejected fundamental parts of the Orthodox Tradition, but the tradition they themselves recognize and draw on would still be from Orthodoxy.

Ironically, the very diversity of thought you're using to defend "Protestantism" from critique is the very diversity of thought that non-Protestants are trying to point out is the PROBLEM with that theological tradition. The reason Protestantism is spread so wide theologically is because of the NATURE of Protestantism itself. It breeds dissention and schism. This is the problem we have been addressing from the beginning of the thread.

No, it isn't ironic particularly, because to me you really haven't shown your contention that it i s the "nature of Protestantism" to do anything. In fact I am not sure Protestantism has even been defined in any clear way. Are Lutherans out? What beliefs are fundamental to Protestantism, or are shared by all Protestantism? If you define it only historically, how do you know when to draw the line?

But in any case, my original objection stands, which was the idea that Protestantism, as an entity, teaches that individuals have the authority to interpret Scripture themselves. That is simply, and factually, untrue. It is not much better than saying Catholics worship Mary. And it bugs me, because I see it a lot, presented as if it is or should be obvious to everyone. You can make an argument that some common feature of Protestantism comes down to the same thing, or even just say "some feature common to all Protestantism means it tends to result in individuals seeing only themselves as the arbiters of Scripture.truth/whatever, but that is not quite the same thing as saying that is what Protestantism teaches or believes.

Searching_for_Christ · Apr 9, 2012

I'm just surprised this came from John piper.

MKJ · Apr 9, 2012

KyrieEleison87 said:
How do you know I don't know, I might ask? I can say what I said because a) I was raised as a Protestant, so I have first-hand knowledge, and b) I've had LOTS of conversations with Protestants of various stripes. There's always more to learn, obviously, and I'm certainly open to that. My background is also low-church, so you'd probably be right to say I know less, for example, about the Anglican tradition than I do about the Baptist tradition. But I've really never heard a Protestant of any stripe coherently explain how they escape the problems raised in this thread. If you'd like to give it a shot, go for it.

As fot your last question: How about this. As a convert to another sort of Christian Tradition, what authority did you use to determine which Tradition was in fact authentic? There is simply no escaping making a judgement as an individual, or choosing not to make a judgement. You, I assume, chose Orthodoxy because you thought it made a good case - enough that it was the responsible thing to do.

To me it is an inescapable problem - and I don't think those who come from places that require consensus of Tradition for change to happen really manage to escape that.

I think this kind of supposition is actually asking entirely the wrong question. It doesn't matter if Orthodoxy has clearly defined authority if it is wrong. Lots of groups have created their own legitimacy by defining dissenters as not part of the whole and so not counting. It doesn't matter if the "nature" of Protestantism creates some sort of multiplicity if it is right. If, in fact, what counts as Tradition is not always crystal clear, or if somehow it became fractured at some point, that has to be dealt with. Denial makes no difference.

I only think it because I have experienced it myself and have spoken to many Protestants about it.

Obviously we have different experiences. I would say my observation is generally that American Protestantism is particularly marked in the way you describe.

While I see your point that there is nuance involved and that different Protestants believe different things (that's part of the whole problem that the Catholics/Orthodox are pointing out all the time), I think it's being evasive to say that there is no way of addressing Protestantism in any general terms whatsoever. Pick up a history book on the history of Christianity and you will see historians making general statements about Protestantism all over the place. Obviously they address the nuances and differences between various groups as well, but that doesn't stop them from making NO general comments about the Protestant theological tradition whatsoever. See, for example, Anglican historian Philip Schaff's discussion of the nature of Protestantism in his work, Creeds of Christendom, Volume I (the 5th chapter, specifically).

Actually, I don't think it's impossible to address it generally. Scholars who do it well do it from a position of actually knowing the parts before making a judgement on the whole. Otherwise you are doing what in my army days we called "situating the estimate" - interpreting the information to fit into the picture you already have formed about the whole, rather than allowing the information to drive your analysis. Often done unconsciously. The nature of the comments that I originally objected to seemed pretty indicative to me that probably isn't the case that there was clear knowledge of the individual parts that make up the whole..

Now, as knee-v already pointed out, as an Anglican you occupy a fairly unique position in that you are, I suppose, technically Protestant, though your theological approach is quite different from the rest. So I realize that your church affiliation may color your sense that "Protestantism" is an inaccurate term, since your church doesn't fall neatly into the category.

I'm not sure that is entirely true as far as the question of individual authority for interpretation. There are actually some pretty intense Calvinist and anabaptist groups that have quite a clear vision of what there authority is and what happens if you move outside of that.

Agreed. I've certainly read portions of the works of Luther, Calvin, etc, though there's always more to be read. And btw, the Reformers were worried quite early on about the possibility of schism within their own ranks. So this is certainly not a "new" or modern Protestant problem I'm proposing; it's been the issue from day one.

I'm not sure that wasn't a problem of the historical situation as much as anything. A modern example of that is in some ways similar is a conversation I had once with my grandmother. She grew up in the 30's in a small English village. Religiously, the options were CofE, and possibly Catholic. People who were in any way spiritually inclined went there, and they didn't spend time thinking about the other possibilities. Their religious Tradition was clear and really quite unified. It really isn't possible for someone in that same place to have that luxury today - there are a multiplicity of traditions, and one would have to be dense not to be aware of them. Individuals have to make decisions because there are decisions to be made.
[/quote]

From the world of Protestantism...

Senior Veteran

Orthodox Catechumen

Contributor

It's phonetic.

Contributor

Contributor

Orthodox Catechumen

It's phonetic.

Contributor

Orthodox Catechumen

Orthodox Catechumen

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest

Contributor

simul justus et peccator

Contributor

Similar threads