Protestants: How do you determine which denomination holds the truth?

[Jon_S_1]

It has nothing to do with what I do or don’t understand. It has to do with what the Orthodox believe about the sacrament of holy orders. They do not believe that the sacramental grace of orders remains after being removed from the priesthood. The person is no longer a priest in any sense of the term.

There is a difference between receiving sacramental grace in ordination that leaves a mark on your soul between you and God and working and serving as a priest. That is the difference I would like you to think about.

 

[Per_Crucem]

There is a difference between receiving sacramental grace in ordination that leaves a mark on your soul between you and God and working and serving as a priest. That is the difference I would like you to think about.

For the Orthodox, there is no indelible mark. I understand that there is in the Catholic view, but we were discussing the Eastern.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Yes, yes; I get it. Evangelicals are in huge danger for not including certain books but Catholics are cool with closing their Canon never to be opened again even in the midst of there being other books that could be inspired and are thought to be by many in Orthodoxy.

Really the difference i wish to point out is the how. The Orthodox have the same canon as us with a couple variable additions that are based in Apostolic Tradition.

In Protestantism it is not based on any historical tradition. It is based on Luther giving the Jewish canon more authority than the Christian one as well as errors in printing.

That’s a huge difference. I know you are intellectually honest, and so you must acknowledge that if Luther had successfully removed Hebrews, James, and Revelation and that became part of Protestant tradition you would vehemently defend not having those books in the New Testament,and you would claim you have searched and reasoned that they don’t belong.

Many ministries and apologists would formulate arguments for why they are not inspired.

I agree completely. And I also believe the Catholic Church does a great job understanding that Scientists will come to many conclusions, and yet still maintain that God is the author. This is especially true in regards to Catholics on evolution/creationism; I have great respect for the Church in this regard, and for many other reasons.

I agree with everything you have stated. Again, the Scriptures bind; I don’t think pointing to Mormons, JW’s or some anti-Paulists is a convincing argument.

It shows that sincere people get different inspiration from the Holy Spirit…or the Holy Spirit doesn’t work how he says you work.

The major sects of Islam have the Hadith, which is in it’s self tradition. Seeing as such writings were written long, long after Muhammad’s death; Sahih Bukhari approximately 256 years after Muhammad died being the earliest. The largest sect of Islam (Sunni Muslims) accept the six main Hadith the latest probably compiled around 303 years after Muhammad’s death, but still considered authentic to Muslims.

And yes, they fight over their oral tradition all the time. Did Muhammad say that? Is it a weak Hadith? Chain of naration, etc.

The idea that the Qur’an is the only authority is rejected by almost all of Islam. They have their traditions like how Catholics do.

Thanks , I know you are knowledgeable about this. It remains that Protestantism is very unique in its rejection of tradition and it’s emphasis on a book that has been shown to say whatever one wants it to is problematic. All other religions have living voices of authority of some kind.

 

[marywarfield]

For the Orthodox, there is no indelible mark. I understand that there is in the Catholic view, but we were discussing the Eastern.

I believe there are three indelible marks in Orthodoxy-
Baptism, Chrismation, and Holy Orders.
But what Orthodox put forth as “indelible” does not
necessarily follow the same line of reasoning as our
Thomistic view.

But most definitely in Eastern Orthodox the mark
of Holy Orders is received only once, cannot be repeated
even in the case of an apostate priest returning to Orthodoxy.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I believe there are three indelible marks in Orthodoxy-
Baptism, Chrismation, and Holy Orders.
But what Orthodox put forth as “indelible” does not
necessarily follow the same line of reasoning as our
Thomistic view.

Exactly! Indelible mark does not have to equal"always a priest" just as the indelible mark of baptism does not equal “always saved”

 

[dronald]

Really the difference i wish to point out is the how. The Orthodox have the same canon as us with a couple variable additions that are based in Apostolic Tradition.

In Protestantism it is not based on any historical tradition. It is based on Luther giving the Jewish canon more authority than the Christian one as well as errors in printing.

That’s a huge difference. I know you are intellectually honest, and so you must acknowledge that if Luther had successfully removed Hebrews, James, and Revelation and that became part of Protestant tradition you would vehemently defend not having those books in the New Testament,and you would claim you have searched and reasoned that they don’t belong.

To be fair Jon; saying that Luther was fixated on removing those books would be equal to saying the Early Church was fixated on removing those books for the sole purpose that those books were questioned. In the end, neither Luther nor the CC removed those books or decided they ought to.

Most Protestants (and if we’re sticking with Lutherans) will admit that all of the old books are beneficial to read while Catholics have completely closed their Canon forever. There can now be no wiggle room with the Orthodox on the even larger Canon.

It shows that sincere people get different inspiration from the Holy Spirit…or the Holy Spirit doesn’t work how he says you work.

To change or create new writings outside of the Apostles and claim it to be true is far different from what the rest of us do. We can basically say we’re under the umbrella of, “Christian” because we all agree with the Scriptures as they are now.

I could read the RSV and it would not change my theology one bit, while you could read the ESV and not have much issue with it either. These books are written by scholars, staying as true to the original as possible. I’ll state again; it’s the faith in those books, written by those who knew Jesus or had a close relationship with those who knew Him that bind us.

Thanks , I know you are knowledgeable about this. It remains that Protestantism is very unique in its rejection of tradition and it’s emphasis on a book that has been shown to say whatever one wants it to is problematic. All other religions have living voices of authority of some kind.

Like the witnesses and the Mormons

I’ll stick with my Scripture; thanks. Who wants to be like other Religions anyways?

 

[Jon_S_1]

When the Orthodox and Catholics reunite, the canon of scripture will not be an issue to overcome. No need to make it one now.

I never said Luther was fixated, simply postulated that if he had, you would be born and raised in a tradition that believed those books are uninspired and it would taint your objective ness.

The issue I present is not do much Mormons adding books, although there is nothing stopping them, but Christians removing books they deem uninspired. It should be perfectly acceptable for them to do do based on your arguments.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Exactly! Indelible mark does not have to equal"always a priest" just as the indelible mark of baptism does not equal “always saved”

True, but in Roman Catholic theology it does mean always a priest, just not one with faculties. If they confected the sacrament it would be valid but illicit. In Orthodoxy, it would be neither licit nor valid.

 

[JonNC]

When the Orthodox and Catholics reunite, the canon of scripture will not be an issue to overcome. No need to make it one now.

**I never said Luther was fixated, simply postulated that if he had, you would be born and raised in a tradition that believed those books are uninspired and it would taint your objective ness. **

The issue I present is not do much Mormons adding books, although there is nothing stopping them, but Christians removing books they deem uninspired. It should be perfectly acceptable for them to do do based on your arguments.

I don’t believe Luther’s view of the canon bears this out.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

For me, it was easy to determine the correct Christian communion - whatever my rather pretty wife-to-be was.

That said, knowing what I know now - I’m satisfied that my communion is valid. It’s actually quite disturbing how filled our hurch is with God’s grace given how much we bumble and intentionally screw things up.

 

[Jon_S_1]

True, but in Roman Catholic theology it does mean always a priest, just not one with faculties. If they confected the sacrament it would be valid but illicit. In Orthodoxy, it would be neither licit nor valid.

Ok…so…I see no problem with this

 

[Jon_S_1]

I don’t believe Luther’s view of the canon bears this out.

Jon

Are you saying that if history was different and a smaller New Testament canon became just as popular as Sola Scriptura, that my hypothetical is not plausible?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Ok…so…I see no problem with this

Only if you don’t have a problem with contradicting understandings of the sacrament. Which one is right Tradition, vis a vie the understanding of Holy Orders?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Only if you don’t have a problem with contradicting understandings of the sacrament. Which one is right Tradition, vis a vie the understanding of Holy Orders?

There is no contradiction. I know you desperately desire there to be one , but there is not. This is not an issue that will keep us separated.

 

[JonNC]

Are you saying that if history was different and a smaller New Testament canon became just as popular as Sola Scriptura, that my hypothetical is not plausible?

What I’m saying is that a smaller NT would not plausibly come from what Luther thought of the canon, even if he had been more focused on the issue. Luther’s view of the canon was strongly tied to its history, and what people historically said about individual books, whether they were universally attested, disputed, or rejected.

Jon

 

[Per_Crucem]

There is no contradiction. I know you desperately desire there to be one , but there is not. This is not an issue that will keep us separated.

And I know you want to pretend there isn’t. The Orthodox think there is…in fact, they consider the Catholic view heterodox.

So the view that one is always a priest, and the view that one is not always a priest is not a contradiction?

 

[dronald]

When the Orthodox and Catholics reunite, the canon of scripture will not be an issue to overcome. No need to make it one now.

You underestimate the power of stubbornness.

The issue I present is not do much Mormons adding books, although there is nothing stopping them, but Christians removing books they deem uninspired. It should be perfectly acceptable for them to do do based on your arguments.

Not really. Based on my arguments our NT Canon is unquestionable.

 

[benjohnson]

And I know you want to pretend there isn’t. The Orthodox think there is…in fact, they consider the Catholic view heterodox.

There’s does seems to be lot of discounting Orthodox teaching among our Catholic friends.

If I had to guess, it’s as if their Eastern Catholic church experience has caused it to look as if the Orthodox were just a differing rite.

For me, the more I look into the Orthodox, the more I appreciate them, but the more I realize that there are meaningful divisions between East and West.

 

[marywarfield]

And I know you want to pretend there isn’t. The Orthodox think there is…in fact, they consider the Catholic view heterodox.

So the view that one is always a priest, and the view that one is not always a priest is not a contradiction?

This is a misconception. There is a world of difference
between saying one has received the indelible mark
of Holy Orders and one can rightfully function as a
priest.

In the church “once a priest always a priest”
is tantamount to saying onmce a catholic always
a catholic.

One will die with that identifying mark whether he
is worthy or not worthy. The same in Orthodoxy.
In Catholicism there are situations in which the priest
can function validly but illicitly and then situations
in which they can’t function at all.

Yes the MARK on the soul of Holy Orders is permanent
can’t be repeated. However just as with any laity
who apostates, when they die they don’t die as something
else but as an apostate Catholic no matter where they go
and what they do.

You are confusing the person with the action.
So yes when anapostate Orthodox priest dies he
remains an apostate Orthodox priest. He is still a
priest although he can’t function as one.

Just an excommunicated Cagholic cannot receive
the Eucharist- they remain Catholic but cannot participate.

 

[Per_Crucem]

This is a misconception. There is a world of difference
between saying one has received the indelible mark
of Holy Orders and one can rightfully function as a
priest.

In the church “once a priest always a priest”
is tantamount to saying onmce a catholic always
a catholic.

One will die with that identifying mark whether he
is worthy or not worthy. The same in Orthodoxy.
In Catholicism there are situations in which the priest
can function validly but illicitly and then situations
in which they can’t function at all.

Yes the MARK on the soul of Holy Orders is permanent
can’t be repeated. However just as with any laity
who apostates, when they die they don’t die as something
else but as an apostate Catholic no matter where they go
and what they do.

Can you cite a source for this, Mary. The source I cited directly contradicts everything you said vis a vie Orthodoxy.

Mary, if a bishop in the Catholic Church is deposed for whatever reason, are the ordinations he performs valid? If an Eastern Orthodox bishop is deposed, are the ordinations he peforms valid?