The Orthodox Pages

email: pater@christopherklitou.com 

TALK ON SOLA SCRIPTURA

PART 2

   13th October 2011

Homepage

 

   Back                     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last week I spoke to you about the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura and we saw some of the unbiblical ideas and doctrines, which were a direct result of this Protestant teaching. There are still many more things to be said on Protestant beliefs so today we will continue looking into these unbiblical ideas which Protestants, who claim to be “Bible only Christians: observe and believe that everything they do is supported by the Bible.

First I would like to explain what I mean by the term Protestant, because there are some groups who take offence to this term. In general we divide the Christian churches into three groups, the Orthodox Church the Roman Catholic Church and Protestants. If a certain Church does not belong to the first two groups then it is classified as Protestant, because their origins can be traced to the original Protestant reformers. Today there is a growing movement of Protestants, especially of the Reformed tradition, that reject the designation “Protestant” because of its negative “anti-catholic” connotations, and prefer to use the designation “Reformed”, “Evangelical” or even “Reformed Catholic”.  Nevertheless, their roots are Protestant and they ascribe to many of the Protestant doctrines.

Also what was said last week and what will be said today does not necessarily apply to all Protestant Churches. Being that there are so many different Protestant Churches with each believing something different from the other, it is only logical that something that applies to one church might not apply to another. With that said let move on to today’s talk.

Protestants believe that the Old Testament and the New Testament are “Inspired.”

Indeed they are inspired, but nowhere does the Bible itself tell us which books are inspired. The Bible gives us no such list. Let us take the Gospel of Mark. It’s inspired, but how do we know it is? Who told us this and why do we believe them? Mark wasn't even an apostle and the Gospel of Mark doesn't even claim it’s inspired so why believe it is? Now before I’m corrected with a quote from the second Epistle to Timothy which says “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16-17) this merely states the obvious and something we already know: that scripture is given by God, and is profitable for doctrine and instruction. As people of the Bible we would not accept anything less than Scripture that was God-inspired, but what scripture is Paul talking about? This verse is often taking out of context and used for both the Old and New Testament, but if we look closer it carries on from the previous verse which says: “And that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim 3:15) In other words you have known the sacred writings from childhood. What scriptures were those? What Scriptures did the Apostle Timothy know from childhood? Obviously only the “Old Testament.” The Apostle Paul was speaking of the Old Testament, because the New Testament hadn’t as yet been written or compiled to form the New Testament as it is today. We cannot then use this quote from the Second Epistle to Timothy to validate the Books of the New Testament as God-inspired.

So coming back to what I was saying before, who told us that the Gospel of St. Mark is God-inspired and why do we believe it is? We believe it is inspired because Christ's early Church declared it inspired. St. Athanasius in the Fourth Century proposed a list of the books for canonization where he separated the books into categories of “divinely inspired” and those “approved for reading by newcomers to the faith”. His proposal or canon was one of six canons that the Church acknowledged when finalizing the canon of the Bible during the Quinisext Ecumenical Council in 691. The Church therefore, which Protestants reject, gave us the Holy Bible as we have it today. At the same time the Church proclaimed many other books as not inspired like the “Gospel of Thomas” who was an Apostle. We know the Bible has the correct canon, (or list of inspired books) because the Church was infallible in this decision, just as the Holy Bible tells us it is. The same Holy Spirit that protects the Bible from error protects Christ's Holy Church from error. This is a concept not taught in the modern Christian churches. Christ said he would send: “the spirit of truth to guide you into all the truth.” (John 16:13) Either He did or He didn't? Either we believe Scripture or we don't? Of course Christ did this and that is why Christ's Church is infallible on such matters pertaining to faith.

All Christians have to believe the Church was infallible in this decision because if the Church was not infallible and was not “guided by the Holy Spirit” the NT Bible we embrace today could be flawed and corrupt and not the inspired and infallible written Word of God.

In fact, as far as the Old Testament is concerned the Bible used by Protestants and many English speaking Orthodox is flawed. After the Reformation of the Church in the West, the new Christian churches wanted a translation of the Bible in English.  The Orthodox Church uses the Old Testament text known as the Septuagint version written in Greek and the Roman Catholic Church uses the 4th century Latin version known as the Vulgate version, which is fairly similar. In an attempt to get back to what Protestants thought were the roots of the Old Testament text, they chose to use the Hebrew texts of the scribes and rejected the traditional use of the Septuagint and Vulgate. We have spoken many times in the past about the Septuagint. It was a translation made about 285BC from Hebrew to Greek because at that time Greek was the common language of the Roman Empire and was the most widely spoken and read language of the Empire at large. The translation was made by Jews for Jews and not by Greeks, who as yet had no interest in the religious books of the Jews. The mistake the Protestant reformers made was that the Hebrew text they used for the English translation was not the Original Hebrew, but a Hebrew translation, known as the “masoretic” text, made by the Scribes after the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70AD.  At that time, the original Hebrew was lost and the only copy of the Old Testament was the Greek Septuagint. The rabbis and scribes used the Greek Septuagint for the translation back into Hebrew, but because the New Christian religion also used the Old Testament and used the Prophecies to validate the new faith, certain books were left out and passages from the Psalms and the Prophets were deliberately doctored. 

Therefore the Bibles most commonly available in English are translations of this doctored Hebrew text of the scribes, not translations of the Septuagint which is centuries older. But if the Orthodox Church uses the Septuagint and the Roman Catholic Church uses the Vulgate which is similar to the Septuagint on what grounds do the Protestant churches claim to support their use of an incomplete bible: a bible that didn’t exist in the Christian World until the Renaissance era? 

Although both the Masoretic text and the Septuagint, are quite similar in many ways, there are significant differences. These differences can primarily be summed up by saying that the messianic prophecies (the prophecies concerning the Messiah) found throughout the Psalms and the prophetic writings are far more explicit in the Septuagint text than in the Masoretic text. A careful study of the Psalms will reveal how crucially different the Septuagint text is in these messianic portions.

The canon of the bible consists of 49 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books making a total of 76 books. The majority of Protestants blindly accept a Regulation (Canon) that includes only the 66 Books of the Holy Bible, because someone told them that those are the only Books that comprise the entire Holy Bible. But even now, when Protestants scholars acknowledge the error that was made, no effort has been made to correct it to give their followers a complete Christian Bible.

Let’s now move on to another Protestant idea. Most Protestants believe that the Eucharist, in other words, Holy Communion is just a mere symbol and not the actual presence of Jesus Christ.

Where in the Holy Bible does it say or even imply it is just a symbol? The answer is nowhere. On the contrary and in accordance to what Apostolic Christianity has always believed, Holy Communion is Jesus Christ, just as he literally said it was. Holy Communion, the Blessed Eucharist, is the actual Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, because that is what Christ said it was: “This is my body... This is my blood” ( Matt. 26:26-28; Luke 22:19-20; Mark 14:22-24); because that is what Christ said we must receive in order to have eternal life: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” ( John 6:48-52; 54-56); and because that is what the Apostles believed: “Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.” ( 1 Cor. 11:27-29).

Protestants do not believe that the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, but are simply symbols and types which represent Christ’s body and blood. If they could, they would even change the very words of our Lord, for He said “This is my body” and not this is symbolic, or a type of my body. He said “This is my blood” and not this is symbolic, or a type of my blood. Of course our eyes see bread and wine and our tongue senses the taste of bread and wine, but things are not as they appear. From the moment the Holy Spirit descended and the Sacrament was perfected, we no longer have that which we see with our eyes or taste with our tongue. We have that which we believe, worship and adore. We have the very Body and Blood of our Christ who communicates to us life and incorruptibility.

Orthodox Christians believe that Holy Communion is the actual Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ (under the appearance of bread and wine) because this is what Christ has told us and because that is what all Christians believed up to the Renaissance era. Even the first Protestants believed this. It was only latter day Protestants, specifically the Ana-Baptist sect that denied the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist. To believe it is merely symbolic is to embrace the gospel of the Ana-Baptists and not the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the whole of Orthodox Christianity including the first Protestants.

Another direct commandment of Our Lord which is rejected in most modern Christian churches, is Christ's commandment to re-enact the Last Supper. He commanded that Christians “Do this in remembrance of me.” But do what exactly in remembrance of Him? Pass out shots of grape juice and chili crackers? No Blessing? No proclamation of the sacred Words of Our Lord on Holy Thursday? No consecration of the Bread and Wine? Our Lord commands us in Luke 22:17-20 to re-enact the Last Supper as He prescribed. 

Yet many modern Christian churches never have communion or do so infrequently, and when they do there is no “breaking of the bread.” Nothing is done that Our Lord commanded. Christ's Words to us after blessing the bread and wine and proclaiming it literally to be His very Body and Blood were: “Do this in remembrance of me.” Most of the modern Christian communities disobey the Words of our Lord in His command, and simply pass out “grape juice” and “communion niblets/chili crackers,” as if this fulfils the commandment of our Lord and Saviour. Conversely, the Orthodox, the Roman Catholic (and some Lutheran/Anglican churches) are true to Our Lord and actually “Do this in remembrance of Him.” Even the first Protestants were faithful to Our Lord in doing this “in remembrance of Him.” Why are the modern Christian churches exempt from this Divine command? This is an unbiblical and anti-biblical tradition of man embraced by the modern Christian and totally unheard of in historic Christianity.

Have these sacred words of Our Saviour ever been uttered in these modern churches as Christ has commanded? And if not, why not? Where does the modern pastor find his exemption to the commands of Jesus Christ?

 “And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22:19-20)

And from the Apostle Paul's 1st letter to the Corinthians on the Lord Supper:

“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-26)

Another thing Protestant churches have abolished is the Sacrament of Confession. Christ himself, after his life-giving Resurrection from the dead, instituted the Sacrament of Confession by breathing on his apostles and saying: “Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained”. (John 20:22-23)  Here we have Christ giving the authority and power to his disciples to forgive or not to forgive sins. This was given to them before the Descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, showing that it was not part of the general gifts of the Holy Spirit that was given to all, but a special gift for the select few. This authority was then passed on to the bishops who are the ultimate spiritual fathers of a Church. Bishops then pass on this authority to certain Priests whom they deem are spiritually experienced to guide and advice the flock in spiritual matters.

Now for Christ to institute this Sacrament it means that there is a need for people to confess their sins, but also that they must confess them before a priest. The bishops and priests are the only canonical and lawful successors of the Apostles and only they have the power to grant forgiveness and remission. The Apostle Paul also speaks of this Sacrament of Reconciliation: “And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation.” (2 Cor. 5:18).   

When did a Modern church Pastor hear someone’s confession and forgive him his sins with the power that Christ commanded? Or does he not have the power to do this because he is not ordained in the Apostolic ministry? When they read the Bible, why do Protestants deliberately pass over and pay no attention to the words of our Lord with which he established this Sacrament and gave to his disciples the authority to forgive sins? Do they grant remission to themselves or do they think they are exempt from sins because as we saw last week, they believe that they have already been saved because they simply believe in Christ?

There seems to be a total absence of the “consequences of Sin” in modern Christian congregations. St. Paul says: “The wages of Sin is death.” (Romans 6:23) Either it is or it isn't. When is the last time a modern church Pastor spoke of the consequences of Sin as they applied to his congregation? Or are there no consequences of Sin to his congregation because everyone in his congregation is told they are “saved,” no matter what sin they commit? And the “consequences of Sin” only apply to those outside his church or those not saved as he defines it? Ask yourself: Is an unrepentant sinner really “walking with God.” Do modern pastors really preach the words of the Apostle Paul or Our Lord? Listen to what they have to say about who is worthy of the kingdom of God:

“For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven”. (Matt. 5:20) 

“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 7:21)

 “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor 6: 9-10)

“Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Gal 5:19-21) 

“For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” Eph 5:5 

It is clear in these passages that it is not enough to just “Believe” in Christ, for even the demons do this:

“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” (James 2:19-20)

To be saved we must also “Follow” Christ: “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Matt. 16:24). and also “Keep the commandments.” (Matt. 19:17). Our Faith must be a working faith or as the Apostle Paul tells us a: “faith that worketh by charity.” (Gal. 5 :6). Our works do not “Save” us, our faith in Jesus Christ does. But this faith must be a working faith, for “faith without works is dead” James 2:26. And bad works, or grievous sin separate us from God and as Our Lord tells us, without repentance those who commit such sins will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

Do Modern church pastors even allude to the fact that if someone in his church sins without repenting, if he turns his back to God through serious sin and refuses to repent, he will not inherit the kingdom of God? Or is everyone in the church going to Heaven no matter what heinous crime they commit against God, and the “wages of Sin,” at least for his church, is not death? How is an unrepentant sinner who continues in sin walking with God or “saved”? “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 6:23)

Many Protestants believe that the Church is not needed or that the Church is invisible or that it is not an institution, but rather the “Body of Believers”. They say this to justify their rejection of the established Church, which they say is just an organization with man-made rules. By rejecting the Church, they are free to believe whatever they wish without being constrained by rules and commandments. Indeed, when we talk about the Church, we do not mean the Church building, which serves as a place where the members of the Church can come together for communal worship. St. Paul says that the Church is the Body of Christ and that he is the Head of the body while we are its various members. Christ himself established the Church and as he is the head of the Church, he established through the Apostles a hierarchy to govern and guide this Church. The Church therefore is definitely needed, and as Christ instituted the Church it is definitely an institution and not some invisible idea. Jesus said his Church would be “the light of the world.” He then noted that “a city set on a hill cannot be hid” (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other organizations. Jesus promised, “I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return. It is the Church the Holy Bible calls: “The church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15) and the Church Our Lord promised to be with “until the end of the world”. (Matt 28:20)

Anything else would be unbiblical. The Protestant idea of what the Church is, is groundless and contradicts Holy Scripture. It is an idea that came into existence only a few hundred years ago to justify the Protestant breakaway from the established church in the west. It is definitely not what Christ established and not what the Apostles taught.

Another modern Protestant teaching is that we are all Christians, in spite of the fact that we all belong to different Churches. As such we should all be in communion with each other and that as long as we agree on the essentials we can disagree on the nonessentials.

Are then all Christians the same? If we were then the divisions that exist today would not exist. It is not enough to say that we believe in Christ therefore we are the same no matter what denomination we belong to. The fact is we are not all the same and neither do we believe in the same things. To understand this we must go back to the early Church that Christ instituted. Christ the High-priest established the church and gave spiritual authority to his Apostles. This authority was then conferred by the Apostles to others who were chosen to be ordained with the spiritual, ecclesiastical and sacramental authority. This authority is known as the Priesthood and consist of a hierarchical order of first Bishops, then Priests and then Deacons. No one can enter this priesthood by himself, a bishop must be ordained by other bishops within the same body of the Church that Christ established. This is because there is only one Christ, therefore only one church of which he is the head. If a bishop breaks away from this church he automatically forfeits the priesthood, because the Body of Christ cannot be divided. One either remains within this Body or leaves and loses the sacramental authority.

Up until 1054 the Church in the East, now known as the Orthodox Church and the Church in the West, now known as the Roman Catholic Church were in complete union because they were one Church with the same Church Fathers, the same Saints, the same doctrines, the same Sacraments but more especially the same priesthood. When The Roman Catholic Church chose to separate themselves from this union in 1054 they placed themselves outside of the Body of Christ. This means that they automatically lost the grace of the priesthood because they broke the chain of Apostolic Succession. Without the Apostolic Succession of the Priesthood, they were now in fact just ordinary laymen and had no authority either to baptize or to ordain anyone. Thus because they forfeited the priesthood they couldn’t impart the grace of the Spirit to others. There is no need to mention whether the Protestant Churches have Apostolic Succession because if the Roman Catholic Church has lost the Priesthood, then by logical reasoning the Protestant Churches which broke away from Rome definitely cannot have it.

By what I am saying I do not intentionally want to attack anyone’s faith so no-one should take offence. I am only stating historical facts and logical reasoning concerning the body of Christ which cannot be divided. If then the Roman Catholic Church and all the other Churches that have developed from the Reformation do not have the Priesthood, then all those millions of people who believe they are baptized are not truly baptized because baptism is a Sacrament and must be performed by a Priest with Apostolic Succession. All those that say they have received the gifts of the Holy Spirit, we may ask: “do they indeed have the Holy Spirit?” Who gave it to them?  The Holy Spirit was given to the Church on the day of Pentecost and The Apostles in turn, passed on the gifts of the Holy Spirit to others by the laying on of their hands upon the heads of the faithful. We read in the Acts of the Apostles: “Then laid they their hands on them, [those who were baptized] and they received the Holy Ghost” (Acts 8: 17). It also says: “And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them” (Acts 19: 6). We see then that the gifts of the Holy Spirit is given by the laying on of hands, but not just anyone’s hand, but a hand that has been ordained unto the Priesthood which has Apostolic Succession. So coming back to the question of whether all Christians are the same, the answer is a definite No. People may call themselves Christians because they believe in Jesus, but a true Christian is a person who have been baptised into his Church and received the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Christ cannot be divided therefore the Church cannot be divided and cut into 1000s of small pieces each presenting itself as the Church of Christ. St. Paul said “There is One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One God.” Eph 4:4)

Can we therefore be in communion with each other and that as long as we agree on the essentials we can just put aside the nonessentials? Nowhere in the Holy Bible do we read that parts of Christ’s Gospel are “essential” and the other parts are “nonessential.” This is confirmed by the words of the Apostle Paul who told us there was but one Gospel, not the 10s of 1000s of gospels that exist in modern Christianity today. To get this most important message across, St. Paul repeats himself saying: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Gal 1:8-9)

None of Christ’s Gospel is nonessential or up for spurious opinions of a contradictory nature. That is why it is logical to view the Protestant belief system as a “reformation” of Christ’s Church." For it teaches 1000s and 1000s of contradictory “Statements of Faith,” all under the guise of “Nonessentials.” Supposed nonessentials like the Holy Communion, Baptism, Chrismation, Confession, salvation, Sin, etc. This is just another idea modern Christians use to justify the ten’s of 1000s of contradictory gospels/statements of faith within the modern Protestant belief system of anything goes. It is unbiblical and even anti-Biblical.

Another unbiblical idea practiced by modern Christian churches is the idea of treating Our Lord Jesus Christ as if he is their “fishing buddy,” or best friend. Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, the King and Creator of the Universe, the Logos, the Almighty and Eternal God. Nowhere do we read in the Holy Bible that the Apostles or anyone else treated Jesus Christ as their buddy or best friend. The Apostles were with Jesus for three years and knew him intimately, but they always showed him the utmost respect and referred to him as “Our Lord,” or “Master.” We are created to serve and glorify God, not to delude ourselves with enough foolish pride to presume Our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ is “our buddy” or “best friend.”

We have seen many unbiblical ideas practiced by modern Christian churches and there are many more we can mention, but I want to finish today with a look at the modern churches’ preoccupation and emphasis on “entertainment”.

Most modern churches today are more concerned with entertaining their parishioners than focusing on the preaching of the Word. Most modern pastors feel they have to keep everyone entertained, or the flock will leave this church for a more entertaining one. Large screen jumbo-trons, expensive sound systems, plays, refreshments (even during the service), elaborate kids programs, constant entertainment, all of these are the norm in the modern service and are in stark contrast to the Church of the first century and the Holy Bible. This is just one side of the Protestant coin; on the other side is the manipulation of the congregation, by inducing the atmosphere and working them up into a frenzy to behave unseemly, with shaking and making strange movements with their body, with lunacies and incoherent utterances, which they claim are the signs of someone having received the gifts of the Holy Spirit. This is another form of entertainment under the guise of Christian spiritually, which has attracted many newcomers in the last few decades.   

The New Testament Church was never about entertainment and they did not operate in the fear of losing members to more entertaining churches. Because there was but One Christian faith in the first millennium, all Christian parishes taught the same Gospel, all had the same beliefs; it was truly a Universal Church.  There was no “church shopping” for a more entertaining church to “feel fed,” for all Christian parishes in the first millennium were basically identical in liturgy and message. The emphasis was not on keeping everyone entertained, it was on preaching the Word of God.

If a modern church decided to abandon all entertainment and operate in a warehouse with a wooden podium and a singe microphone, if it cut out all the amenities, the kids programs, the refreshments, the sound systems, the jumbo-trons, all the fancy bands and other paraphernalia, if it did all this would the members still attend this church? Or would they “church shop” for a more entertaining one? The emphasis put on entertainment in the modern churches is not only unbiblical, but it is damaging to the very cause and teaching of Christianity. It takes the emphasis away from worshiping Christ, and giving place to the enjoyment and satisfaction of oneself or one’s family. It is often times more about entertaining and retaining the individual and less about worshiping God. Would many of their members really attend their present church with their children in a bare warehouse stripped of all amenities?  

Protestantism, or any Protestant concept did not exist in the first millennium. This can easily be tested by anyone by comparing the Early Christian Church with the teachings of the modern churches of today. All distinctively Protestant ideas were invented from the Renaissance era and supplemented with new ideas in the last few decades. History demonstrates that not one distinctly Protestant belief was embraced by any Christian in the first millennium. And since the Apostles lived in the first millennium, they had no idea of these Protestant ideas, simply because they didn’t exist.   

Unless an idea was taught by the Apostles and subsequently written into the Holy Bible, it is by definition, not Biblical. If the Apostles did not teach it, and it was totally unknown in the first 1000 years of Christianity, it is not biblical. There was but One Christian Faith in the first millennium, not 2 and not 20,000, only One: and that faith was the Orthodox Faith. And since the Apostles lived in the first millennium, this was the Faith of the Apostles for there was no other Christian Faith.