What is wrong with Protestantism as a Christian denomination according to Orthodoxy?

Cleotis

 
Banned
Orthodox Inquirer
The most retarded statement I have possibly ever seen in any Christian forum online. Or a joke. I am going to assume you're joking.

What with the abysmal level of papal apologetics these days, I wouldn't put it past a papist to say something that stupid, whilst thinking he's being oh-so-clever.
 

vraph

 
Banned
Other Christian

Cleotis

 
Banned
Orthodox Inquirer
Short answer: the Church didn’t start in 1517, or with Martin Luther.

The Church started with Jesus Christ, who is the sole Head of the Church.
Strawman. Not one single Protestant believes or has ever believed that “the Church” started in 1517 with Martin Luther. And they ALL emphatically claim that “Jesus Christ is the sole Head of the Church”.
 

EndlessGravity

Pelican
Protestant
Strawman. Not one single Protestant believes or has ever believed that “the Church” started in 1517 with Martin Luther. And they ALL emphatically claim that “Jesus Christ is the sole Head of the Church”.

It's also a bit of a non sequitur. It says a lot to me that Orthodox members have to resort to such weak or false arguments to make their case.
 

Hermetic Seal

Pelican
Orthodox
Gold Member
I realized that nobody exactly answered the OP's question. While the references given to watch this video or that are good suggestions, to put it in a nutshell, the Orthodox objection to protestantism is that it is disconnected from the Church and emerged in the 16th century with new doctrines not found in Apostolic Christianity, and that protestantism is really a reactionary movement to an already schismatic body.

While the reformers had some valid issues with Rome, and their new doctrines like Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are logical responses to contemporary Latin issues like indulgences, legalism, and the Pope, they are still innovations not taught by the Fathers, and often rest upon the unconscious biases of legalistic and rationalistic assumptions of medieval Latin theology (which characterize disputes over the nature of justification, the sacraments, and so on.) It is unfortunate that the reformers rejected certain Latin presuppositions while retaining others, such as the scholasticism and rationalism of Anselm and Aquinas.

The reformers did not have apostolic succession or authority beyond themselves to set up a Church, and from the Orthodox perspective the congregations they set up cannot be properly considered as part of the Church and were more a reflection of their own ideas of what Christianity should like look. Further, the individual does not have the authority to decide what the Bible means by themselves. In Orthodoxy, we are all encouraged to read Scripture ourselves, but we have to interpret it according to the Fathers, not according to our subjective impression. We are skeptical when we hear the Holy Spirit "led" an individual to a particular belief because we believe that the Holy Spirit primarily directs the Church corporately, through consensus, following the pattern of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

Though (mostly) well intentioned, this has only led to discord, starting with Luther and Zwingli's dispute over the Real Presence, and continuing over the centuries to the present, where there is little unity between protestants in belief or practice, even in a single congregation. If the reformers had achieved a theologically united Reformed Church with a more or less single, consistent interpretation, I'd be a bit more inclined to take their claims seriously, but the outcome was anything but. I don't care to cite 30,000+ denominations since some of these are based on jurisdiction or internal politics rather than theology, but nonetheless, there is vast disagreement amongst protestants about creationism, determinism, soteriology, perseverance of the saints, spiritual gifts, sexuality, social activism, baptism, the Eucharist, worship, ecclesiology, tithing/giving, eschatology, even the intrinsic morality of drinking alcohol, amongst other issues.

It is an objective, historical fact that this sort of internal discord simply didn't exist before the reformation, and still doesn't exist in Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Non-Chalcedonian churches. That's not to say there's never any sort of internal controversy about anything in Orthodoxy, but the scope is quite miniscule in comparison because an obligation to follow the Holy Tradition - the teachings and practice of the Christian faith, handed down by the Apostles, and interpretation of the Scriptures as expounded by the Fathers - is the most powerful safeguard against theological liberalism and innovation. The protestant hermeneutic has not achieved the same results and seems rather to be in centuries-long theological stalemate, with arbitrary and subjective distinctions between "essential" and "nonessential" beliefs.
 

tractor

Woodpecker
Orthodox
06104b3b3ba3414a.jpeg
 

Cavalier

Kingfisher
Orthodox
Or claim Christ is the sole Head of the Church” while also believing in a divinely established visible hierarchy.
What is hard to believe that after 1000 years of Church unity and equality amongst all those who were part of the Apostolic Succession, that one man with an outsized sense of Satanic pride decided he not Christ was the head of the Church and the sole representative of God on Earth.
 

Cleotis

 
Banned
Orthodox Inquirer
What is hard to believe that after 1000 years of Church unity and equality amongst all those who were part of the Apostolic Succession, that one man with an outsized sense of Satanic pride decided he not Christ was the head of the Church and the sole representative of God on Earth.
It’s hard to believe for me, because I actually know a thing or two about Scripture, history, and theology.
 

MichaelWitcoff

Hummingbird
Orthodox
Can you explain what you mean? This also feels disingenuous. Luther was ordained.
He was ordained by a group that had been in schism for half a millennium. He had more of a claim to “priesthood” than Calvin did at least.

St. Augustine was a canonical bishop and monk with no parallels to Martin Luther or any of the Reformers.
 
Top