Why Criticism of Traditional Churches is Wrong

[Wgw]

I'm not the one confused about being on the offensive against those who attack traditional churches and still holding to the teaching about not being judgmental.

On the contrary, it is not judgmental to defend the faith.

I admit outright that I am attacking traditional churches and that I am judgmental, in the context of testing every spirit. A practice supported by Scriptural teaching.

Here you confuse heresiological apologerics, which fall under the category of discernment, with opting to pronounce moral judgements upon the personal ethics of others, which you presumably feel it is alright for you to do, but not for me to do, which one might well be forgiven for regarding, ceteris paribus, as hypocritical.

Other traditions are again not Scriptural, and worse, are suspiciously unscriptural, such as the use of icons.

Of the teachings that are scriptural, how do they contribute to bringing people out of the futility of living in the world?

This sounds suspiciously Gnostic. You on the one hand challenge the incarnation implicitly by rejecting the depiction of our Lord according to His humanity, and then make a valid soteriological utterance, but one which nonetheless is one prone to Docetic or Gnostic escapist misinterpretation.

Contrast that with the teachings of Jesus, the revelation that he was the reality, of which Moses and Joshua only delivered in type. Entry into the Promised Land was not the salvation promised to Abraham. That is why there remained a rest for people of God to enter into, the rest in Christ, in whom we can truly become the blessing to the world promised to Abraham, the eternal mode of living the Jews searched scriptures for. Christ unwrapped the teaching and the words he employed motivated those who were of God's flock to follow Christ out of the world. To those who hesitated, the miracles he worked were additional confirmation of the certification he had from God that he was the one to fulfill the promise.

I agree.

The Charismatic movement FUNCTIONS RIGHT in moving people into an environment where they are exposed to God's word.

That's questionable.

How else can anyone “drink from the Rock”?

Through membership in the Body of Christ and participation in the holy sacraments.

You should tell me how enshrining “tradition” does the same.

I can address the other points if you still need me to do so, but I think this is more important.

This thread was not even intended to address Charismatic issues, so I have no inclination of going there.

 

[Wgw]

Scripture plainly rebukes that Mary gave birth to God.

Jesus existed as the 2nd Member of the Godhead before He became a man.

Verse 6 makes it clear that He was "in the form of God".

Phil 2:6
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Young's Literal Translation also says "who, being in the form of God.

Phil 2:6
6 who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God,

The NLT says "though he was God.
Phil 2:6
Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God.NLT

When Mary received the word of God spoken to her by Gabriel, she said “be it unto me according to thy word”.

Luke 1:38
And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.KJV

As soon as Mary said “be it unto me according to thy word”. “Jesus immediately left the throne room, was transported by the Power of the Holy Spirit into the tiny undefined beginnings of a human body, conceived by the spoken word of God, received by Mary.

The body Jesus was to be in was conceived in Mary's womb.

God gave the spirit, in this case the Pre-Incarnate Christ.

The problem with this argument is twofold: firstly, you reject the idea that our Lord is God incarnate; God being incarnate means that St. Mary gave birth to Him. This does not mean that He had no existence prior to His incarnation; He has always existed; in the Incarnation He assumed all aspects and properties of our human nature, including that of being born of a woman.

The next problem with your argument concerns the extremely literal interpretation or description of our Lord according to locality. In His divine nature, God is unbounded; the idea of our Lord sitting at the right hand of the Father is a metaphor. If we were to subscribe to an overly literal interpretation of that, we would wind up with dualism or polytheism, in that since God, including our Lord, has always existed, the "throne room" woukd itself have to be both uncreated and unoriginate.

 

[Wgw]

About all I could say to anyone who feels that they are being challenged, or that their denominational system is being challenged is that they need to toughen up. When it comes to the older denominations such as those who are a part of the Eastern Orthodox traditions, in most part I would agree that for many Pentecostal and Evangelical scholars and commentators that we can easily forget about the EO denominations as you are sort of off the radar.

Thus begins an offensive and off-topic assault on Eastern Christians.

This could be in part due to maybe some language or cultural issues but from my readings over the years about all that I come across regarding the EO is with your position regarding the Filioque; even here, it would still be rare to ever come across the name of an EO scholar. Here in Melbourne Australia where I live, we apparently have the largest concentration of Greeks outside of Greece, but when it comes to the adherents of the Greek Orthodox church we simply never seem to encounter them. From what I can tell, about the only reason that most Greek-Australians attend is to maintain their Greekness, where to be Greek is to be Greek Orthodox and of course the same goes for the Russian, Serbian and who knows with how many other national EO denominations.

This is a gigantic smear upon the Eastern Churches, who represent the larger portion of Christians martyred in the past century. Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is to say that the Armenians, the Pontic Greeks, the Syriacs, the Russian Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox and other Christians of the USSR, the Ethiopians under the Derg, and now once again the Syriacs, Ethiopians and the Copts of Egypt being killed by ISIL, that all of these people are dying on the basis of purely ethnic grounds? It's ridiculous, and obviously false, in that in all of these persecutions the ability to embrace Islam or Communism has existed.

One might also note that the period 1915-2015 alone saw orders of magnitude more Orthodox martyrs than there have ever been Pentecostal martyrs. This is not to say I don't appreciate the many Pentecostal Christians who have died in Islamist regimes in recent years, simply that far more of us were killed for the same reason, being Christian, and that you are basically rubbishing us in an attempt to make the case that Eastern Christianity is somehow irrelevant.

As for my own persuasion as a Pentecostal, I will always welcome any legitimate challenge to either our doctrines or practices as I know full well that any reasoned criticism will only help us to mature in the Lord.

My point in this thread is to object to illegitimate challenges posed against the Orthodox, the Anglicans, the Roman Catholics, the Lutherans, the Assyrians and other traditional churches, challenges which are based on logical fallacy or historical error, and which are simply polemical smears.

It was not intended as any sort of passive-aggressive attack on Pentecostalism; I expected most objections would come from seventh day Adventists.

 

[Meowzltov]

I can't speak to your experience, but this is the first time that I've heard of anyone making the claim that Catholics believe something, therefore it is pagan.

It's a slippery slope. It just takes a little more extremism to say that Catholicism in general is a pagan religion. I've seen enough of these statements. And I HAVE seen the extensions of "these other denominations agree with Catholics, so they are pagan too." Some Messianic groups write off ALL the Christian Churches as being Catholic/pagan.

 

[Meowzltov]

Scripture plainly rebukes that Mary gave birth to God.

Jesus existed as the 2nd Member of the Godhead before He became a man.

Jesus as God predated Mary. But Jesus was God as he was given birth by Mary, thus Mary gave birth to he who was God. It doesn't mean that Mary created Jesus. It means that she GAVE BIRTH to God.

 

[Soyeong]

It's a slippery slope. It just takes a little more extremism to say that Catholicism in general is a pagan religion. I've seen enough of these statements. And I HAVE seen the extensions of "these other denominations agree with Catholics, so they are pagan too." Some Messianic groups write off ALL the Christian Churches as being Catholic/pagan.

I see a difference between saying that someone follows a pagan religion and that everything that is believed as part of that religion is pagan. In other words, saying someone believes a false religion doesn't mean everything they believe is false and that there is no truth in it whatsoever. I have heard people describe Catholicism as pagan, but I have not heard anyone claim that everything a Catholic believes is pagan.

 

[Optimax]

The problem with this argument is twofold: firstly, you reject the idea that our Lord is God incarnate; God being incarnate means that St. Mary gave birth to Him. This does not mean that He had no existence prior to His incarnation; He has always existed; in the Incarnation He assumed all aspects and properties of our human nature, including that of being born of a woman.

The next problem with your argument concerns the extremely literal interpretation or description of our Lord according to locality. In His divine nature, God is unbounded; the idea of our Lord sitting at the right hand of the Father is a metaphor. If we were to subscribe to an overly literal interpretation of that, we would wind up with dualism or polytheism, in that since God, including our Lord, has always existed, the "throne room" woukd itself have to be both uncreated and unoriginate.

Incarnate means "having a human body"
1
incarnate
play
adjective in·car·nate \in-ˈkär-nət, -ˌnāt\
Simple Definition of incarnate
Popularity: Top 30% of words

• : having a human body

before Jesus was conceived by the word of God received by Mary he was in the form of God, He was/is God.

By a miracle that only God could do the 2nd Member of the Godhead emptied Himself of all His Godly attributes and became a God/man.

Your arguments are not based on scripture but on "logic" you learned from others who do not know scripture.

It is one thing to argue about church history and who did what or said what.

It is another thing to discuss issues based on what scriptures say and not what some "eminent theologian" says, having never studied scripture bot only what other "eminent theologians" said.

They are experts on what "they" said, but completely lacking in the truths of scripture.

 

[Job8]

I see a difference between saying that someone follows a pagan religion and that everything that is believed as part of that religion is pagan. In other words, saying someone believes a false religion doesn't mean everything they believe is false and that there is no truth in it whatsoever. I have heard people describe Catholicism as pagan, but I have not heard anyone claim that everything a Catholic believes is pagan.

If Jesus is THE TRUTH and He is absent from a religion, then isn't the whole religion a lie? If Mary is the centre of devotion and not Jesus, then what does that do to someone's Christianity? They say "Keep Christ in Christmas". How about "Keep Christ in Christianity"?

While "criticism" may not be the appropriate term, exposure of false doctrine is an obligation on Christians. Sugar-coating is not recommended.

 

[Albion]

Incarnate means "having a human body"
1
incarnate
play
adjective in·car·nate \in-ˈkär-nət, -ˌnāt\
Simple Definition of incarnate
Popularity: Top 30% of words

• : having a human body

before Jesus was conceived by the word of God received by Mary he was in the form of God, He was/is God.

By a miracle that only God could do the 2nd Member of the Godhead emptied Himself of all His Godly attributes and became a God/man.

Your arguments are not based on scripture but on "logic" you learned from others who do not know scripture.

It is one thing to argue about church history and who did what or said what.

It is another thing to discuss issues based on what scriptures say and not what some "eminent theologian" says, having never studied scripture bot only what other "eminent theologians" said.

They are experts on what "they" said, but completely lacking in the truths of scripture.

The guesswork about "who said" aside, what's your disagreement with Wgw--that Jesus remained God while assuming a human nature?

 

[thecolorsblend]

In closing, I propose that this criticism is wrong, as it is based on false premises, a false dichotomy, and a spirit which lacks proper respect for other Christians, particularly those Christians from centuries past who defended the faith against all odds.

My main gripe with it is so little of it has any basis in reality. Some guy who went to "Bible college" tells his followers that the traditional Christians are wrong about something because nobody involved has any understanding or nuance or analysis.

With especially the evangelical Protestants, it's all or nothing. A zero-sum game. Either Our Lord has the entire pie or else He has to share the pie with others (saints, popes, Our Lady, etc)... which takes away from Our Lord somehow. If the saints are important, that somehow subtracts something from Our Lord.

What they fail to recognize is the way traditional Christianity views the matter isn't giving all or taking all. It's more like multiplication. Our Lady's soul magnifies the Lord (her words, not mine). The saints, the popes, et al, do likewise. It's multiplication. Their participation increases the pie rather than take away from it.

The other thing is a strange, creeping neo-gnosticism at play in a lot of evangelicalism where there's nothing sacred in the world except for Sacred Scripture. The world is viewed as inherently evil and corrupt in spite of the fact that it's as much a creation of God as they themselves are and it's therefore of value to God just like they themselves are.

Just bizarre...

 

[Fireinfolding]

This sounds suspiciously Gnostic. You on the one hand challenge the incarnation implicitly by rejecting the depiction of our Lord according to His humanity, and then make a valid soteriological utterance, but one which nonetheless is one prone to Docetic or Gnostic escapist misinterpretation.

What?! (nevermind)

I am not getting how the Word made flesh is somehow being rejected by him, simply because he does not believe in depicting Jesus Christ according to the flesh (in silly putty, play dough, cement, canvas or some other medium) in order to behold such figures of Jesus out of the same. The best anyone can do in any of that type of stuff is attempt to capture the outside of what Jesus might have looked like (after the flesh) appearance wise through the workmanship of a mans hands so that they might behold him (in that fashion) in order to know him (even after the same). Most of these (when crafted) all look like different men, at least they would be considered such if you placed them side by side in a police line up. Which is probably more right on anyway seeing that Jesus appeared to them again in a different form (His outward one). Thats all you will get (the rest depends on the craftsmen). But even when he appeared in a different form (in the flesh) in person they couldn't discern him (or who he was) after the same.

2 Cr 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh:
yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh,
yet now henceforth know we him no more.

Jesus Christ come in the flesh is not Jesus Christ manifest in play dough, the best play dough can do is try and mimic Christ after the flesh (in one form or another) if even you have that right.

 

[Meowzltov]

I see a difference between saying that someone follows a pagan religion and that everything that is believed as part of that religion is pagan. In other words, saying someone believes a false religion doesn't mean everything they believe is false and that there is no truth in it whatsoever. I have heard people describe Catholicism as pagan, but I have not heard anyone claim that everything a Catholic believes is pagan.

In my experience, most fundamentalists are not rational when they discuss Catholicism at all. I try and try and try to be logical with them but it's just hitting my head against a wall. The idea that Catholicism "is paganism" despite the fact that we preach the gospel is one example.

 

[Soyeong]

In my experience, most fundamentalists are not rational when they discuss Catholicism at all. I try and try and try to be logical with them but it's just hitting my head against a wall. The idea that Catholicism "is paganism" despite the fact that we preach the gospel is one example.

Preaching the gospel would be the first reason why I would disagree that someone is pagan just because Catholics believe it, but suppose someone preached the gospel, but everything else they followed came straight out of paganism. Would you classify that is a pagan religion?

 

[Meowzltov]

Preaching the gospel would be the first reason why I would disagree that someone is pagan just because Catholics believe it, but suppose someone preached the gospel, but everything else they followed came straight out of paganism. Would you classify that is a pagan religion?

If the CORE of their faith is the gospel, then I wouldn't call them pagan. But at any rate, I don't know of any case where someone preaches the gospel and EVERYTHING else about them is pagan. Remember that there is a lot of basic Christianity apart from the simple gospel message, things like the Trinity, the nature of Christ, Original Sin, etc., that have been hammered out over time by Christian Theologians and Ecumenical Councils. I can even thing of syncretistic cults like Santa Muerte that blend indigenous pagan religion with Christianity, (Santa Muerte has been condemned by the Church), and even there, not everything else besides the gospel is pagan.

 

[Soyeong]

If the CORE of their faith is the gospel, then I wouldn't call them pagan. But at any rate, I don't know of any case where someone preaches the gospel and EVERYTHING else about them is pagan. Remember that there is a lot of basic Christianity apart from the simple gospel message, things like the Trinity, the nature of Christ, Original Sin, etc., that have been hammered out over time by Christian Theologians and Ecumenical Councils. I can even thing of syncretistic cults like Santa Muerte that blend indigenous pagan religion with Christianity, (Santa Muerte has been condemned by the Church), and even there, not everything else besides the gospel is pagan.

I wasn't saying there was anyone like that, I was just trying to establish a baseline. If you won't call it a pagan religion even if all of their other beliefs are pagan, then you and the the critics of Catholicism have different understandings of the term.

 

[Wgw]

I wasn't saying there was anyone like that, I was just trying to establish a baseline. If you won't call it a pagan religion even if all of their other beliefs are pagan, then you and the the critics of Catholicism have different understandings of the term.

There is nothing specifically Pagan about Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy or the other traditional churches.

 

[Biblicist]

Thus begins an offensive and off-topic assault on Eastern Christians.

Maybe you are being a bit overly sensitive, particularly as you are the one who started this thread in the first place.

The point that I was making was that it is extremely rare (almost never seems to occurr) where a Pentecostal or Evangelical scholar critiques a specific Eastern Orthodox doctrine. Now I know that it must occurr but for most Western Pentecostals and Evangelicals, as it is rare that we engage with Eastern Orthodox Believers, then except for places such as this forum the EO really do seem to be off the radar; which I agree is unfair but maybe the various EO scholars might need to speak up a bit more.

As I said, is this a language or a cultural thing, where I know full well that there are many superb scholars in non-English speaking countries who are rarely referred to as we cannot engage with them due to the almost insurmountable language barrier; the more fortunate ones may have their books translated into English by a friendly English scholar or publisher.

This is a gigantic smear upon the Eastern Churches, who represent the larger portion of Christians martyred in the past century. Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is to say that the Armenians, the Pontic Greeks, the Syriacs, the Russian Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox and other Christians of the USSR, the Ethiopians under the Derg, and now once again the Syriacs, Ethiopians and the Copts of Egypt being killed by ISIL, that all of these people are dying on the basis of purely ethnic grounds? It's ridiculous, and obviously false, in that in all of these persecutions the ability to embrace Islam or Communism has existed.

One might also note that the period 1915-2015 alone saw orders of magnitude more Orthodox martyrs than there have ever been Pentecostal martyrs. This is not to say I don't appreciate the many Pentecostal Christians who have died in Islamist regimes in recent years, simply that far more of us were killed for the same reason, being Christian, and that you are basically rubbishing us in an attempt to make the case that Eastern Christianity is somehow irrelevant.

As for my observations, that are from within the Australian context, where my very multicultural city of 4.5 million has the largest Greek population of any city outside of Greece, my point was more than valid as we simply never seem to encounter a Greek Orthodox Believer who will be open about their faith. There are certainly many Greeks who have joined either a Pentecostal or Evangelical congregation, and ever here, they will freely admit that for most Greeks, being Greek means being Greek Orthodox and little more.

As for the sad situation in places such as Iraq and Syria, where the intervention of the US and its allies has allowed for the virtual decimation of the various Christian communities, as many Australians, be they Christian or non-Christian probably view them as being cultural entities where it becomes a cultural rather than a religious issue, this will add to the problem that many in the West are impassive to their plight.

My point in this thread is to object to illegitimate challenges posed against the Orthodox, the Anglicans, the Roman Catholics, the Lutherans, the Assyrians and other traditional churches, challenges which are based on logical fallacy or historical error, and which are simply polemical smears.

It was not intended as any sort of passive-aggressive attack on Pentecostalism; I expected most objections would come from seventh day Adventists.

You probably should not include Roman Catholics and Anglicans as these two communions and their scholars are heavily involved with ecumenical discussions. As for the Anglicans, they have and continue to have many theologians that are deemed to be some of the best within the Evangelical community.

 

[Wgw]

Maybe you are being a bit overly sensitive, particularly as you are the one who started this thread in the first place.

The point that I was making was that it is extremely rare (almost never seems to occurr) where a Pentecostal or Evangelical scholar critiques a specific Eastern Orthodox doctrine. Now I know that it must occurr but for most Western Pentecostals and Evangelicals, as it is rare that we engage with Eastern Orthodox Believers, then except for places such as this forum the EO really do seem to be off the radar; which I agree is unfair but maybe the various EO scholars might need to speak up a bit more.

Indeed so, however, this thread isn't about scholarly objections to Eastern theology, but rather about a vocal minority of non-traditional members of this forum engaging in half-baked rants and mindless polemics against not just the Orthodox, but Roman Catholics and traditional mainstream Protestants. For example, the endless series of posts accusing ourselves, RCs, Lutherans, and so on, of idolatry and/or paganism.

You probably should not include Roman Catholics and Anglicans as these two communions and their scholars are heavily involved with ecumenical discussions. As for the Anglicans, they have and continue to have many theologians that are deemed to be some of the best within the Evangelical community.

The Orthodox are also heavily involved in the ecumenical movement (and the major Orthodox churches are, with a few exceptions, full members of the WCC, whereas Rome is not formally a member but an observer) It doesn't matter, however; the point of this thread is that there are people who bash all traditional Christians, including Anglicans, accusing us of idolatry, paganism, complicity in the Inquisiton, et cetera, and I for one am tired of it.

 

[Biblicist]

Indeed so, however, this thread isn't about scholarly objections to Eastern theology, but rather about a vocal minority of non-traditional members of this forum engaging in half-baked rants and mindless polemics against not just the Orthodox, but Roman Catholics and traditional mainstream Protestants. For example, the endless series of posts accusing ourselves, RCs, Lutherans, and so on, of idolatry and/or paganism.

Now I see! In that case I can probably sign off from this particular thread. Though I really would like to come across the occassional EO Believer in my wanderings who enjoys sharing about their relationship with the Lord and with their denominations views.

By the way, my favourite scholar is probably the Anglican Anthony C. Thiselton.

 

[farout]

I have to confess, I am growing weary of threads criticizing the doctrines, praxis and liturgical rites of the traditional and in some cases ancient churches: the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Assyrians, and traditional Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and so on.

These arguments tend to take the form of an attack on some practice which is incorrectly regarded as being of Pagan origin. In many cases, they take the form of an argument against Roman Catholicism, predicated on the fallacious oremise that Catholics believe X, therefore X is Pagan/wrong/evil, traditional Protestants believe also believe X, therefore traditional Protestants are either Pagan/wrong/evil or lukewarm.

That structure od the argument is particularly annoying in light of the existence of the Eastern chuches: EO, OO and Assyrian, which were never Roman Catholic, and which provides what amounts to an independent validation of the legitimacy of Catholic and traditional Protestant faith, practice and worship.

Such arguments are also contrary to ecumenical reconciliation, which, contrary to popular belief, is not a diabolical conspiracy to create a one world religion of the anti-Christ, although I would be the first to criticize the Ecumenical Movement in general, and the WCC in particular for occasional excesses, self-defeating acts and outright silliness, for example, the risible Re-Imagining Conference in the early 1990s.

Attacks on the traditional faith also come from the liberal, postmodern, modernist and progressive approaches to theology, which tend to want to bash the traditional Christian faith as being Patriarchal, legalistic, misogynistic, sexually oppressive, and so on, to an extent that is either untrue or reflects a confusion about Christian morality. To some extent, the reactionary sort of chaps who attack traditional Christianity on the basis of extreme hostility to Roman Catholics play into this, by creating a caricature of traditional Christianity which people outside of the Body of Christ confuse with the "real thing." A particularly extreme and unpleasant example of this would be the notorious Westboro Baptist Church.

In closing, I propose that this criticism is wrong, as it is based on false premises, a false dichotomy, and a spirit which lacks proper respect for other Christians, particularly those Christians from centuries past who defended the faith against all odds.

First let me say you are perhaps the most intelligent fluent writer of English that I have encountered in years. As an older person I remember the warnings my pastor gave in 1955, of the dangers of the World Council of Churches, and the National Council of Churches. I have very seldom heard this mentioned from then to now. I am very leery of anything associated with the WCC, or the NCC. Recently I bought an English Standard Version, Bible. The Copyright page says;

"The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All Rights reserved.

What do you think about the ESV in relationship with either or both the NCC or the WCC. I an deeply concerned as many Baptist Churches seem so eagerly accepting of the ESV over the NASB. I thank you for any thoughts your are willing to share. Merry Christmas. Peace He is the Lamb without spot or blemish.