Questions From a Protestant

Mary7 said:

It says to his 'house' which to me implies his family

Click to expand...

that's verse 16, verse 18 refers to him and not his house

Mary7 said:

What is PSA?

Click to expand...

Penal Substition(ary) Atonement

Mary7 said:

It says to his 'house' which to me implies his family

Click to expand...

16 May the Lord show mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains. 17 On the contrary, when he was in Rome, he searched hard for me until he found me. 18 May the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the Lord on that day! You know very well in how many ways he helped me in Ephesus.

I was very surprised when I reread this after I started exploring Orthodoxy. I was even more surprised when I read traditions Protestant commentaries that confirmed that Onesiphorus was dead at that point.

I do understand where you are coming from though.

ArmyMatt said:

that's verse 16, verse 18 refers to him and not his house

Click to expand...

I stand corrected on that

If you're of the mindset that you have to find everything in Scripture, then you have a full Protestant Reformation modernist mindset that will keep you from moving forward with the Truth. The Church came before Scripture. How do you accept guidance for issues not in Scripture? The full cannon of Scripture wasn't put together for centuries. The Church provided holy teaching. The mindset that everything must have a Biblical proof kicked in around the 16th Century in Germany. Before that, you followed Mother Church, the Bride of Christ on whose cornerstone the Lord Himself built the foundation of Truth.

I'm merely suggesting your search has a flawed methodology. You can't use 16th Century Protestant techniques to discover Truth that pre-existed that age by 15 centuries.

If anything was added on by man it is Protestantism. Take pews for example. Why do you not question those? Pews didn't exist in the first 15 centuries? People stood the entire time they worshiped, never sat. The temple isn't a classroom to listen to a sermon. It is a place to worship the Living God. I would question that. Why don't Protestants fast? Fasting was a huge part of the Church for 15 Centuries East and West. Why did that disappear? The Eucharist was leavened for the first 8 centuries, then the Catholic West Judaized it. Why? Bishops-Priests-Deacons were the natural organic polity of the Church for 15 centuries up until now. Protestants dropped that polity. Why? Intercession of saints was natural, organic, very central to the Church's prayer life for those 15 centuries, then men like Calvin railed at it. Why? Auricular Confession 15 centuries, then gone. Why? Veneration of icons normal and natural, then suddenly taboo. Why?

So, my approach would be the opposite of yours. I wouldn't use modern Protestant ideas to inform my exploration of the Ancients. Protestant inquirers often are concerned about the "innovations of men." I find it ironic because the Church thrived for all those centuries as a holistic entity. They are a composite of the Lord's shepherding us through so many saints. Then out of nowhere you have entire "churches" started by one man!

Martin Luther
Zwingli
Calvin
Wesley
Knox
Joseph Smith

If anything smells of man's innovation, I'd say it is modern Protestantism. But that's just my take. The "go check to see if it's in the Bible" method was a foreign concept to the ancient Christian.

Mary7 said:

That is not enough for me to base accepting everything without question. If something is in the Scriptures then I accept it. If I know for sure that something was done during the first century that could be convincing but 2nd and 3rd century.. too big a chance of that being added on by man.

Click to expand...

I'm at a fairly calm and mature point in my life with all this stuff. I actually have a sneaking admiration for Martin Luther. Let me qualify that statement.....

In the 15th and 16th centuries, the Catholic Church was a cotton-pickin' hot MESS! They were teaching false ideas like purgatory that lead to EVEN WORSE ideas like indulgences! They were corrupt, had corrupt popes, became exceedingly legalistic, and Christ got lost in the shuffle. Grace no longer was a factor. Scholasticism and odd juridical teachings were now the norm. It was a depressing, bizarre, innovative religion with a gloom about it. It was a big departure from the true Faith of Orthodoxy. Then Martin Luther had the courage to rail against the abuses, corruption, and general insanity of that age. I agree with many things he had to say. Where he went terribly wrong was his throwing out the baby with the bath water and not trying to seek union and kinship spiritually with the Orthodox faith. He created his own church really. He innovated himself and, sadly, fixed some problems while creating even worse ones! Luther risked his life and was quite bold, and sometimes correct. So, I try to stay in context with him and appreciate his convictions and passion to see Christ's grace matter again. But replacing one kind of legalism with another is never the answer. If only he had looked East.....

Your dad sounds like a wonderful guy! He is off on the 1054 thing though. The One Church kept on truckin' while the other fell off the wagon. Christ promised the gates of hell would NOT prevail against His Church. It was the fortress of all Truth and solid foundations were solidly laid down on Christ Himself. The Church cannot fall because Christ told us it cannot! Therefore, the idea that from 1054 to 1560 or so there was no Church, just an apostate mess, not buyin' it!

Kajiki said:

God is moving so strongly this past month for me tbh. My professor being Catholic for instance. It allows me to accept him as Christian something I already did but it helped to pound the nail into the coffin. This forum also aided me and my curiosity spiking about the Early Christian Church has brought me to question the Protestant movement. I told my Dad over the phone today….that I’m not simply questioning the Salvation Army…I’m questioning Protestantism. To which he replied with stuff about the Roman Catholic Church because he seems to think that the New Testament Church ended in 1054 instead of split in two.

Click to expand...

Can't call yourself Orthodox until the oil is dripping down your forehead, Kaj!

Kajiki said:

This may go a tad too far but here is how I see Protestantism currently (I am no longer gonna call myself Protestant but I’m not gonna call myself Orthodox until I attend a Divine Liturgy). Remember those people that for some reason thought microwaving phones would charge them…they took the device did not use the charger and used it in a completely different way than they should’ve thus causing said phones to bust. In this analogy the phone is the church the charger is tradition and the microwave is the idea that we all interpret scripture and yet it is only scripture by itself.

Click to expand...

I think Kaj and I are floating around in space between 2 worlds.. for now anyway.

gurneyhalleck1 said:

If you're of the mindset that you have to find everything in Scripture, then you have a full Protestant Reformation modernist mindset that will keep you from moving forward with the Truth.
I'm merely suggesting your search has a flawed methodology. You can't use 16th Century Protestant techniques to discover Truth that pre-existed that age by 15 centuries.

If anything was added on by man it is Protestantism.

If anything smells of man's innovation, I'd say it is modern Protestantism. But that's just my take. The "go check to see if it's in the Bible" method was a foreign concept to the ancient Christian.

Click to expand...

You have given me some things to think on.
I am curious.. have you always been Orthodox? RCC before that or protestant?
If not protestant then you would not have a concept of how very hard this is when your entire life has been immersed in basing everything on scripture alone.
I will take one baby step at a time and not go past my conscience

Mary7 said:

You have given me some things to think on.
I am curious.. have you always been Orthodox? RCC before that or protestant?
If not protestant then you would not have a concept of how very hard this is when your entire life has been immersed in basing everything on scripture alone.
I will take one baby step at a time and not go past my conscience

Click to expand...

he was, as were a lot of us. yes, a lot of us know how tough a nut that is to crack

ArmyMatt said:

he was, as were a lot of us. yes, a lot of us know how tough a nut that is to crack

Click to expand...

Even to this day, 10 years later, I still have things I’m working through!

For me, as a Protestant, coming to realise that the Church existed, taught and was protected by the power of the Holy Spirit centuries before Christians had the New Testament as we know it today was a bit like this scene:
Christ didn’t leave us a book; he left us the Church. Tradition is just the Holy Spirit manifesting itself in that Church over time.

Mary7 said:

You have given me some things to think on.
I am curious.. have you always been Orthodox? RCC before that or protestant?
If not protestant then you would not have a concept of how very hard this is when your entire life has been immersed in basing everything on scripture alone.
I will take one baby step at a time and not go past my conscience

Click to expand...

I can appreciate this. I was raised in Independent Baptist churches, after I moved out and onto my own I ended up Southern Baptist ~ prior to Chrismation into the Orthodox church in 2015.
Referencing scripture is not a bad thing. However there is a point of clarification that was missed in my pre-Orthodox heritage and gurneyhalleck speaks of it:

gurneyhalleck1 said:

The Church came before Scripture.

Click to expand...

Just a qualifier; that's before New Testament (NT) scripture.
This can't be underestimated because it helps us correctly understand the NT scriptures.
There were churches 15-20 years prior to the first word of the NT being written. Those churches were holding services, baptizing.. all of the stuff that churches do without the benefit of a single word of NT scripture.

Think about this;
Jesus' death, burial, resurrection and ascension is dated to roughly AD33. The church began in Jerusalem days later at Pentecost.
The first NT letter written was James' (AD46 +/-) thirteen years after the church began. The first letter from Paul is I Thessalonians and it's dated at AD52, 19 years after Pentecost. Both of these letters predate the canonical Gospels (Matt. Mark Luke, John).
I Thessalonians begins in v1, "Paul, Silas, and Timothy,To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you.
The church was already there, prior to Paul's letter. Paul was a leader in the Church, writing to a church, instruction and exhortation for the already existing Church.
This is key when it comes to understanding the role Scripture plays within Tradition.

All4Christ said:

Even to this day, 10 years later, I still have things I’m working through!

Click to expand...

yep

Kajiki said:

God is moving so strongly this past month for me tbh. My professor being Catholic for instance. It allows me to accept him as Christian something I already did but it helped to pound the nail into the coffin. This forum also aided me and my curiosity spiking about the Early Christian Church has brought me to question the Protestant movement. I told my Dad over the phone today….that I’m not simply questioning the Salvation Army…I’m questioning Protestantism. To which he replied with stuff about the Roman Catholic Church because he seems to think that the New Testament Church ended in 1054 instead of split in two.

Click to expand...

This is a normal process, and in no way am I trying to put down your dad, but many protestants refuse to actually sit down and read what us Orthodox believe from our perspective. Unfortunately, false narratives about us idolizing pictures, and ignoring scripture in favor of man-made traditions were spread without any basis in reality. These false narratives took hold of many protestant communities (not all of them, of course) and spread without anybody actually taking the time to ask us what we believe and how we interpret holy scripture. The funny thing is that when protestants from this background actually do attempt to understand the teachings of our church, they more often than not seem to end up converting to Orthodoxy! The hard part in all this is actually getting people to look past their prejudices.

GoingByzantine said:

The funny thing is that when protestants from this background actually do attempt to understand the teachings of our church, they more often than not seem to end up converting to Orthodoxy!

Click to expand...

Yes, that seems to happen much more often than not.


There is a little joke ... I offer it in gentleness and not intending to provoke.

Q: What do you call a [Seminarian, theologian, Minister, what-have-you] who starts studying the Ancient Church?

A: A catechumen!

(Which a catechumen is one who is officially studying Orthodoxy with the intention to be received into the Church)

Didn't they start referring to Oral Roberts University as the St Vladimir's of the South, due to so many theological students converting to Orthodoxy after their exposure to the excellent Patristics library on campus?

Bishop Mark, of the Antiochian diocese in Toledo was a former professor at Oral Roberts University.

prodromos said:

Didn't they start referring to Oral Roberts University as the St Vladimir's of the South, due to so many theological students converting to Orthodoxy after their exposure to the excellent Patristics library on campus?

Bishop Mark, of the Antiochian diocese in Toledo was a former professor at Oral Roberts University.

Click to expand...

Wheaton is a big one as well.