Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

[Trento]

Okay.

"It may be also understood in this way: 'The poor ye will have always with you, but me ye will not have always.' The good may take it also as addressed to themselves, but not so as to be any source of anxiety; for He was speaking of His bodily presence. For in respect of His majesty, His providence, His ineffable and invisible grace, His own words are fulfilled, 'Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world.' But in respect of the flesh He assumed as the Word, in respect of that which He was as the son of the Virgin, of that wherein He was seized by the Jews, nailed to the tree, let down from the cross, enveloped in a shroud, laid in the sepulchre, and manifested in His resurrection, 'ye will not have Him always.' And why? Because in respect of His bodily presence He associated for forty days with His disciples, and then, having brought them forth for the purpose of beholding and not of following Him, He ascended into heaven and is no longer here. He is there, indeed, sitting at the right hand of the Father; and He is here also, having never withdrawn the presence of His glory. In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, 'Me ye will not have always.' In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes." (Augustine, Lectures on the Gospel of John, 50:13)

"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

"Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: 'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle." - Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 1:6)

you can't get much more explicit than those citations.
[/i]

Yup just like the other Churches started by Apostles.Orthodox and Orential Orthodox. The same 3rd-century Church whose judgment you are prepared to rely on unreservedly when it comes to the canon of Scripture which was developed back then by the same Fathers already exhibited quite explicitly the Catholic doctrines of the Euchrist which you are rejecting.
Now if these Fathers believed that this doctrine did not come from the Apostles they would have surly faught against the practice? Theologian and Basil the Great could fight for the full divinity of the Holy Spirit, then certainly they would have commented on the error of the intercession and invocation of the saints. It was practiced by the defenders and promoters of the Nicene Creed: the Fathers who had suffered, struggled, and died for the doctrine of the Trinity, the full divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Why suppose that the Holy Spirit should have guaranteed an accurate discernment of the canon to this Church, while withholding from it the grace to discern and correct all these other "abuses" and "corruptions"?


Protestant Scholar JND Kelly's Summary of the Ante-Nicene Fathers

"....the eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian SACRIFICE from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier. Malachi's prediction (1,10f) that the Lord would reject the Jewish sacrifices and instead would have 'a pure offering' made to Him by the Gentiles in every place was early seized upon by Christians [Did 14,3; Justin dial 41,2f; Irenaeus ad haer 4,17,5] as a prophecy of the eucharist....It was natural for early Christians to think of the eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper....Ignatius roundly declares [Smyrn 6,2] that 'the eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised'. The bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup His blood [Rom 7,3]. CLEARLY he intends this realism to be taken STRICTLY, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists' DENIAL of the REALITY of Christ's body....Justin actually refers to the CHANGE [1 Apol 66,2]....So Irenaeus teaches [Haer 4,17,5; 4,18,4; 5,2,3] that the bread and wine are REALLY the Lord's body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more IMPRESSIVE because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic REJECTION of the Lord's real humanity. Like Justin, too, he seems to postulate a CHANGE [Haer 4,18,5].....The eucharist was also, of course, the great act of worship of Christians, their SACRIFICE. The writers and liturgies of the period are UNANIMOUS in recognizing it as such." (Early Christian Doctrines, page 196-198, 214 emphasis added)

​

ST. ATHANASIUS (c. 295 - 373 A.D.) First to list the NT scriptures
You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ....Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine -- and thus is His Body confected. (Sermon to the Newly Baptized, from Eutyches)

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

SOLO Scripturally speaking the eating of the Lord as our bread of life is in our spirit (John 6:57). Even the words of the Scripture should not be considered merely as doctrines to teach our mind but as food to nourish our spirit (Matt. 4:4; Heb. 5:12-14).In Revelations 2:7 the Lord promised to give the overcomer to eat of the tree of life. This points back to Gen. 2:8-9, 16, which concerns the matter of eating ordained by God.
To the church in Pergamos, the Lord promised the overcomer that he would eat of the hidden manna (Rev 2:17), which refers to the eating of manna by the children of Israel in the wilderness (Exo. 16:14-16, 31). To the church in Laodicea, the Lord promised to dine with the one who opens the door to Him. This is all seen in the spirtual eating and enjoyment of the Lord.

 

[Dorothea]

So, what are you saying that this 'book' is Gospel? That it is infallible? You think people are intentionally "lying" about these faiths to you to mislead and deceive you?

No, I think they just don't have the correct interpretations because they are disconnected from the Church and the original, correct interpretations of the Scriptures.

 

[Trento]

Okay.

"It may be also understood in this way: 'The poor ye will have always with you, but me ye will not have always.' The good may take it also as addressed to themselves, but not so as to be any source of anxiety; for He was speaking of His bodily presence. For in respect of His majesty, His providence, His ineffable and invisible grace, His own words are fulfilled, 'Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world.' But in respect of the flesh He assumed as the Word, in respect of that which He was as the son of the Virgin, of that wherein He was seized by the Jews, nailed to the tree, let down from the cross, enveloped in a shroud, laid in the sepulchre, and manifested in His resurrection, 'ye will not have Him always.' And why? Because in respect of His bodily presence He associated for forty days with His disciples, and then, having brought them forth for the purpose of beholding and not of following Him, He ascended into heaven and is no longer here. He is there, indeed, sitting at the right hand of the Father; and He is here also, having never withdrawn the presence of His glory. In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, 'Me ye will not have always.' In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes." (Augustine, Lectures on the Gospel of John, 50:13)

"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

"Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: 'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle." - Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 1:6)

you can't get much more explicit than those citations.
[/i]
FYI, I never said that NONE of the ECFs adhered to a "literal" interpretaion of the Eucharist.

ST. AUGUSTINE (c. 354 - 430 A.D.)

"That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Sermons 227)


"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)


"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272)


"How this ['And he was carried in his own hands'] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (Psalms 33:1:10)


"Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED." (Letters 98:9)


"Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him." (City of God 10:20)



"By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof." (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)



"Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is OFFERED for them, or when alms are given in the church." (Ench Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)



"But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death." (Sermons 172:2)



"...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (Psalms 98:9)


St. Augustine gives us the fallowing evidence from his writings.


The bread having been sanctified "IS THE BODY OF CHRIST


The wine having been sanctified "IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST


When Christ said "THIS IS MY BODY" He carried "HIS OWN BODY" in "HIS OWN HANDS


Christ is "IMMOLATED" (sacrificed in an unbloody manner) in the Eucharist every day (this is not a re-crucifixion but a re-presentation or "making present" before the Father for our benefit and application of His one and only Sacrifice


Christ is Priest and Victim OFFERING Himself and in the daily Sacrifice His Body the Church OFFERS herself through/with Him.


All who wish to have eternal life must take as food and drink the Blood of Christ's Sacrifice in Holy Communion


The WHOLE Church observes this practice handed down from the Fathers -- the prayers of the Holy Church, the salvific Sacrifice, and alms and works of piety and mercy are offered for those who have died "in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ" so that the Lord might deal more mercifully with their sins.


Christ gave us His own flesh "to be eaten unto salvation" and no one eats that flesh unless He ADORES (worships) it in the Holy Eucharist since Christ is truly present and took flesh in the Incarnation.
​

 

[racer]

OF course you can.

Once again you are misrepresenting Augustine's opinion. In addition, Clement does not dispute the real presence, but offers us a spiritual understanding as well.

Those citations are explicit. To say that Augustine believed differently is to say he contradicted himself.

St. Augustine:


Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body. {Ibid., 234, 2; on p.31}

What is your point? How does this rule out metaphorical usage? How does it refute his other teachings? ​

​

The bread which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the body of Christ; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, is, sanctified by the word of God, the blood of Christ.{Sermo 227; on p.377}

So, was Augustine just confused or self-conflicted? Why is it you choose to believe that he is speaking "literally" here instead of metaphorically as he explicitly did in other passages?

Christ bore Himself in His hands, when He offered His body saying: "this is my body." {Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p.377}

So, what rules out the fact that Augustine was as capable of using metaphorical speech as was Jesus? Nothing in this quote or the others excludes metaphorical language. In fact, we can safely infer that he is speaking metaphorically, because he explicitly stated this passage was metaphorical. He explicitly stated that Jesus was not here in the flesh, phyiscally, literally anymore. He explicitly stated--as the citations I've provided show you that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Tahter in HEAVEN. Therefore, we know Augustine is speaking metaphorically.

Merely citing quotations that appear to refute the explcit statements made by him does not disprove my argument or substantiate yours. It only damages the credibility of Augustine and any believable argument you may have provided. You must show why your citations trump mine.

The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side. {Sermo iii. 1-2; on p.62}

Hmmm? Recognize in the BREAD!!!! Get it? It's bread.

The Blood they had previously shed they afterwards drank. {Mai 26, 2; 86, 3; on p.64}

This is so out of context who know to what it's referring. The blood "who" shed? Who drank it?

Eat Christ, then; though eaten He yet lives, for when slain He rose from the dead. Nor do we divide Him into parts when we eat Him: though indeed this is done in the Sacrament, as the faithful well know when they eat the Flesh of Christ, for each receives his part, hence are those parts called graces. Yet though thus eaten in parts He remains whole and entire; eaten in parts in the Sacrament, He remains whole and entire in Heaven. {Mai 129, 1; cf. Sermon 131; on p.65}

Still wondering why you assert metaphorical language is ruled out. Or, whatever your argument may be, why you assume these citations trump the ones I've provided.

"The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.",

-"The Instructor of the Children". [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,​

You miissed this part: Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man.

 

[racer]

No, I think they just don't have the correct interpretations because they are disconnected from the Church and the original, correct interpretations of the Scriptures.

We simply believe differently. We're not out here purposefully lying to each other to lead each other astray.

 

[chestertonrules]

[/size]



You miissed this part: Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man.

I didn't miss it, I posted it.

During the consecration of the eucharist a drop of water is mixed with the wine.

You have been refuted.

Why not just admit that you disagree with the early Church fathers and move on?

 

[racer]

A fuller comparison for each ECF should be used; all that they wrote on the Eucharist should be included. For example, here is Clement of Alexandria again:

On the first quote (given by Racer):
Note his use of the word "metaphor", where he then discusses shared attributes (as in the definition I gave for metaphor). Reconsider his use of the term symbol, per the ancient (versus modern) understanding.

The quotes I gave above demonstrate a consistency with "real presence".

EDIT:
on metaphor and symbol:

So, explain, how do you reconcile what they say to come to a conclusion that they believed any particular thing. You showing that they may have said something that appears to contradict what I show you they say does not affirm your argument. There is no reason to believe that they didn't mean what they so explicitly said in the citations I provided, but did mean what you have inferred from some vague statements.

This argumentation is based upon a refusal for those who believe in the Real Presence to accept that this was not unanimously taught among the ECFs. You showing comments that appear to contradict the comments I've quoted only makes them look confused, senile, self-conflicted, or merely covering all their bases as never to be proved wrong.

 

[racer]

I didn't miss it, I posted it.

During the consecration of the eucharist a drop of water is mixed with the wine.

You have been refuted.

Why not just admit that you disagree with the early Church fathers and move on?

So, you admit it's wine and not blood?

 

[Thekla]

"The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.",

Note again the ancient understanding of "metaphor" and "symbol".

​

 

[chestertonrules]

This argumentation is based upon a refusal for those who believe in the Real Presence to accept that this was not unanimously taught among the ECFs. You showing comments that appear to contradict the comments I've quoted only makes them look confused, senile, self-conflicted, or merely covering all their bases as never to be proved wrong.

What I said is that if you can find one quote that refutes belief in the real presence, I can find 25 that support it.

So far, you haven't found one.

 

[racer]

You have been refuted.

LOL!!!! You're delusional.

Why not just admit that you disagree with the early Church fathers and move on?

Because that's not accurate. You are the one who has been soundly refuted . . I face no dilemma. My faith is not shakily balanced upon what I believe some of the ECFs to have said. It is not my point to convince anybody that they (the ECFs) believe in anyway with what I believe, but merely doing you a service of showing that there was no unanimous consent among the ECFs as you so desperately believe that there was. I understand, because your faith has cornered itself so securely, if one tenet is proven wrong the whole facade crumbles. That's sad. Truly sad.

 

[Thekla]

So, explain, how do you reconcile what they say to come to a conclusion that they believed any particular thing. You showing that they may have said something that appears to contradict what I show you they say does not affirm your argument. There is no reason to believe that they didn't mean what they so explicitly said in the citations I provided, but did mean what you have inferred from some vague statements.

This argumentation is based upon a refusal for those who believe in the Real Presence to accept that this was not unanimously taught among the ECFs. You showing comments that appear to contradict the comments I've quoted only makes them look confused, senile, self-conflicted, or merely covering all their bases as never to be proved wrong.

Not if you understand the terminology in the non-modern understanding, but as it was understood at the time.

There are two 'natures' (created, the bread and wine) and spiritual. The spiritual penetrates the created (symbolon) conferring a spiritual food.

I stated that ECFs who later were recognised as orthodox do believe in the real presence. It requires reading more than selected quotes; one should read the body of works and suspend the modern understanding. One must do this when reading anything from a different era; the meaning of words change over time and cultural context. For example, what we call "humor" now is a far cry from the Medieval understanding of "humor".

 

[racer]

What I said is that if you can find one quote that refutes belief in the real presence,

And, I found more than one, and there are even more. The fact that even one refutes the belief destroys the whole doctrine. My faith is not based upon some elusive unanimous consent of early church fathers or theologians.

I can find 25 that support it.

So. 25 is not unaimous, though is it.

So far, you haven't found one.

then, it is as I have begun to suspect, you can't read . . . Because the quotes I've provided require not special interprative skills. They are clear and explict.

 

[chestertonrules]

And, I found more than one, and there are even more. The fact that even one refutes the belief destroys the whole doctrine. My faith is not based upon some elusive unanimous consent of early church fathers or theologians.

You found zero, as we have demonstrated.

 

[Thekla]

"The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.",
​

Note again the ancient understanding of "metaphor" and "symbol".

​

thought this got lost --

But note again the concept of interpenetration highlighted in blue; this is symbolon in the ancient sense.

 

[racer]

Not if you understand the terminology in the non-modern understanding, but as it was understood at the time./quote]
and, it is assumed by or asserted by those who agree that those who don't agree just don't understand. That's ridiculous. There is no room for discussion when taking into account some the very explicit statements provided.

There are two 'natures' (created, the bread and wine) and spiritual. The spiritual penetrates the created (symbolon) conferring a spiritual food.

Which does not imply or affirm the "Real Presence," unless you concede that Spiritual is as real as Physical and the Real Presence is a "spiritual" presence and not corporeal.

I stated that ECFs who later were recognised as orthodox do believe in the real presence.

Simply stating this does not make it fact. There are people much more knowledgeable and intelligent than I who have drawn the same conclusions as have I. So, implying that disagreement results from ignorance or lack of understanding is not a sufficient argument.

It requires reading more than selected quotes; one should read the body of works and suspend the modern understanding.

So, what you presume I take the texts of the fathers and skim through, point my finger and magically find these comments? No, I found them by reading what the fathers wrote in context. Just because this is all I post, that does not mean that's all I've read.

One must do this when reading anything from a different era; the meaning of words change over time and cultural context. For example, what we call "humor" now is a far cry from the Medieval understanding of "humor".

 

[racer]

thought this got lost --

But note again the concept of interpenetration highlighted in blue; this is symbolon in the ancient sense.

Not getting your point.

 

[Dorothea]

No, I think they just don't have the correct interpretations because they are disconnected from the Church and the original, correct interpretations of the Scriptures.

I take that back, sorta. There are some Evangelical Protestants who do deceive their fellow Orthodox Christians in other countries when they go there to evangelize and because of language and different understands and forms of wording for their Christian beliefs, sometimes they convince these life-long Orthodox that they haven't been "saved" and end up converting them. So, deception does happen, I'm afraid.

 

[racer]

You found zero, as we have demonstrated.

Believe what you want. You're delusional as I have demonstrated.