Can Orthodox Learn from Protestant Theologians?

[All Becomes New]

no, because the Tradition isn’t mine. I didn’t make it up. reasoning can be inept. many televangelists are very rational, it’s just that their premises are wonky which leads to weird conclusions.

If something is logical, it does not matter what your precious tradition (which DOES change over time BTW) says.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That's like me telling you, "I don't have a problem with your religion. Just your traditions."

I hope that single link doesn’t encapsulate all of what you believe.

 

[All Becomes New]

I hope that single link doesn’t encapsulate all of what you believe.

What a stupid thing to say...

 

[ArmyMatt]

In other words, there is nothing new that you can uncover in the scriptures. Thanks, I think I'm done.

correct, that’s what Christ said to His Apostles. we can, however, find new ways to unpack the Scriptures to defend their meaning.

 

[All Becomes New]

correct, that’s what Christ said to His Apostles. we can, however, find new ways to unpack the Scriptures to defend their meaning.

Book, chapter, and verse.

 

[ArmyMatt]

If something is logical, it does not matter what your precious tradition (which DOES change over time BTW) says.

just because something is logical, that doesn’t mean it is true

 

[ArmyMatt]

What a stupid thing to say...

I know, that was the intent

 

[All Becomes New]

just because something is logical, that doesn’t mean it is true

That does not make any sense...

P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2. The universe began to exist
C. The universe has a cause.

That's literally logic unless you deny this for some weird reason.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Book, chapter, and verse.

John 16:13, echoed in Jude 1:3. now, I should say that we personally can learn stuff new, but not in any innovative way.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That does not make any sense...

P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2. The universe began to exist
C. The universe has a cause.

That's literally logic unless you deny this for some weird reason.

P1: All circles have 360 degrees
P2: All squares have 360 degrees
C: All circles are squares

deductive arguments can be perfectly logical and erroneous because the logic can be true, but the premises might be flawed or not specific enough.

something can be logical and false, as Dr William Lane Craig points out when he defends the very argument you just made.

 

[All Becomes New]

P1: All circles have 360 degrees
P2: All squares have 360 degrees
C: All circles are squares

deductive arguments can be perfectly logical and erroneous because the logic can be true, but the premises might be flawed or not specific enough.

something can be logical and false, as Dr William Lane Craig points out when he defends the very argument you just made.

That's not logical, your example, I mean.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

I run into this a lot, actually.

I was talking with a deist and he was saying that because God is omniscient, that means He controls everything that happens. It does not follow. I tried to explain to him that knowledge (omniscience) is different than ability (omnipotence). I have since put him on ignore.

Besides, even if you are right that something can be logical and false, that does not mean something can be illogical and true.

But I am honestly starting to not really care about all this.

You want to say everything in the Church is based on tradition. You deny that the Bible is God's words. You think all matters of theology must have precedence at some point before they are made, which makes no sense to me for the same reason that the universe is not eternal while at the same time thinking your tradition does not change because if it did, then oops, I guess something can be true without prior precedence.

 

[All Becomes New]

Also, I am pretty sure that CS Lewis did not have the same view of tradition as you do. So I am not quite sure why you reject what I am saying and accept what he is saying unless you think everything CS Lewis said was already in the corpus of Orthodoxy.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That's not logical, your example, I mean.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

correct, the premises are erroneous, not the logical chain.

Besides, even if you are right that something can be logical and false, that does not mean something can be illogical and true.

agreed

You want to say everything in the Church is based on tradition. You deny that the Bible is God's words. You think all matters of theology must have precedence at some point before they are made, which makes no sense to me for the same reason that the universe is not eternal while at the same time thinking your tradition does not change because if it did, then oops, I guess something can be true without prior precedence.

I don’t deny the Bible is God’s word. I deny your interpretation of those words. I deny where you think they relate to the Church.

of course all matters of theology have a precedence, because they are all about Christ Who is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Also, I am pretty sure that CS Lewis did not have the same view of tradition as you do. So I am not quite sure why you reject what I am saying and accept what he is saying unless you think everything CS Lewis said was already in the corpus of Orthodoxy.

Lewis was an early 20th century Anglican. his view on tradition is far closer to mine. and I never said I agree with him on everything, nor have I ever said I reject everything from you. I reject what you have said on here so far, but I am sure you have more in the tank.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I was talking with a deist and he was saying that because God is omniscient, that means He controls everything that happens. It does not follow. I tried to explain to him that knowledge (omniscience) is different than ability (omnipotence). I have since put him on ignore.

correct. his was flawed because of an improper definition, which makes it illogical. my example was flawed because of an imprecise definition. so it’s logical but completely false.

 

[All Becomes New]

but I am sure you have more in the tank.

Nope. No more in the tank. Don't care anymore.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Nope. No more in the tank. Don't care anymore.

fair enough

 

[Lukaris]

I remember in the earlier 2000s the Da Vinci code fad and the “Gospel of Thomas” was also much discussed. I remember reading 2 very good books by Protestant theologians and pastors that showed how false to Christianity these things were.

Countering the Da Vinci Code was a well written, easy to read book by Anglican Pastor Michael Green titled: Books the Church Suppressed. This book covered the formation of the New Testament and what became scriptures, works that were useful but not scripture ( like the Didache) & the rejected Gnostic writings.

Amazon.com

Around 1960 Protestant authors Robert Grant and David Noel Freedman published a translation and critique of the “Gospel of Thomas” as how it was cleverly compiled, deceptive, & not orthodox. Their book is titled: The Secret Sayings of Jesus which seems to favor a gnostic tendency but the book is orthodox.

Amazon.com

So surely as Orthodox Christians, we can learn important matters from Protestant or Catholic writers.

 

[ArmyMatt]

my two favorite online apologists are Dr John Lennox and Abp Robert Barron, neither are Orthodox.

and I should add that when I said more in the tank, what I meant was there is probably more to what you think that I could chew on and learn from. it’s just not from that link or what’s been on here so far.

 

[All Becomes New]

and I should add that when I said more in the tank, what I meant was there is probably more to what you think that I could chew on and learn from. it’s just not from that link or what’s been on here so far.

It would be literally the same exact thing played over again. No point.