A Greek Orthodox believer sent this to our email, which was going around to great applause in Greek Orthodox social media forums. This is Jeff Maples and his daughter, in hell with the Reformers.
Posted on 04/24/2017 6:45:59 PM PDT by NRx
As the owner and president of Pulpit & Pen, I feel that I need to issue a public apology to the Eastern Orthodox community in regards to my managing editor’s recent words. In a series of posts, Pulpit & Pen editor, Jeff Maples, took it upon himself to essentially anathematize the Bible Answer Man, Hank Hanegraaff, and in the process said some hurtful things about an old and revered religious tradition. I would be remiss not to clarify Jeff’s remarks and in the process, make some apologies. I pray that it is received well by all of our friends in the Eastern Orthodox community.
Firstly, we would like to apologize on behalf of Protestants everywhere for overlooking the grave and damning heresies of the Eastern Orthodox tradition, compared to our stalwart protest of Rome. This has been an oversight of Protestants, due mostly to the revival of actual Biblical orthodoxy (you might call it Protestantism) developing primarily in the West, and under the wicked authority of Rome, and not under the Eastern schismatics known by the misleading name of “Orthodox.” While we have rightly called the Bishop of Rome the “antichrist” in our Confessions of Faith, we have overlooked the many antichrists that have gone out into the world and settled in their positions as leaders in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. It was not right of us to prejudicially focus on the Western anti-christ church just because they happened to be the ones murdering us for several centuries. In the future, we will strive to explain that anyone who seeks the title of ‘priest,’ (a blasphemous title if ever there were one), lead people into idolatry, claim the sole mediary position between God and man, practice necromantic prayers to the dead, engage in corpse worship, and promote meritorious salvation is an antichrist, every bit as much as the Roman Catholic abomination. We are sorry for leaving out specific condemnations of your religion in our Confessions, as it wasn’t very inclusive of us.
Secondly, we are sorry that many Protestants have stopped protesting, sending the impression that our confessional doctrinal beliefs don’t anathematize you as not only being sub-Christian, but being anti-Christian. We are sorry that men like Albert Mohler, Paige Patterson, Russell Moore and Carl Trueman, all who should certainly know better, seem to have affirmed you in your superstitious and pagan religion. While the Intelligentsia class of evangelicalism are happy to learn about how Rod Dreher’s monasticism fetish might be a valuable tool for fleeing the culture wars, the rest of us failed to speak up loudly enough to challenge them on this, partially because the idol-factory of our hearts are quick to make our own popes out of mere men, and we don’t like to challenge our popes. The fact is, Greek Orthodox men like Rod Dreher have no part in the Kingdom of God on Earth, because they have no part of the Kingdom of God in Heaven, unless they were to recant their idolatry and believe the one, true, catholic doctrine of Sola Fide. There’s no such thing as being “kind of Christian,” and the Trinitarian ontology of the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn’t undo the fact that trusting in your merit for salvation is just as damning as being a Modalist like TD Jakes or believing in 9 divine persons like Benny Hinn. So, therefore, we apologize for our evangelical leaders who have stopped protesting, even though they call themselves Protestants. Much of your outrage (the thousands of angry, F-bomb dropping emails we have received) is due to the fact you’ve never heard a Protestant say you’re not a Christian. It’s not because Protestant doctrine doesn’t say you’re lost (it certainly does), but because we’ve become a bunch of limp-wristed milksops. Forgive our cowardice.
Thirdly, we apologize for making it seem, should you have perceived it that way, that you’re unchristian because your priests wear dresses and you burn incense. While true religion has little patience for pretentious pageantry, the issue for us concerning your doctrinal apostasy is your denial of Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, and Penal Substitution. The fact that you adorn your buildings in gaudy and sacrilegious, bedazzled idols is second to the more blatant soteriological heresies that damn your soul (although idolatry is damning enough). The fact that you believe that superstitious voodoo oil poured over someone’s head fills them with the holy spirit and brings them back from apostasy is secondary to your hope in your own righteousness for salvation. We (still-protesting Protestants) shouldn’t have focused upon your bizarre, extra-biblical rituals that resemble more seance than Biblical service of worship; we should have focused far more upon your doctrinal beliefs that oppose Jesus and the very Gospel itself.
A Greek Orthodox believer sent this to our email, which was going around to great applause in Greek Orthodox social media forums. This is Jeff Maples and his daughter, in hell with the Reformers.
Fourthly, we apologize for letting you get away with asserting your religious superiority by the age of your church. While it is true that you happen to live in a part of the world that was first affected by the Gospel, your geographical proximity to the early church does not mean that you hold to the doctrines or practices of that New Testament Church. The fact is, the heresies of Gnosticism, Antinomianism, and the Judaizers all predate the Greek Orthodox Church. In fact, the sect of the Nicolatians (founded by an Acts 6 deacon) predates your church considerably. Logic, of course, would not deduce that these groups, because they are older, are right. We apologize for not being more forward in pointing out that Jesus specifically wrote to the Ephesians Church (where there is now the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate) that he would remove the lamp stand (IE the Holy Spirit) from their church for forsaking their first love, the Gospel of Jesus. The Scripture contains a very explicit warning, directly from the dictation of Jesus, that the church that would become Eastern Orthodox would have the Holy Spirit depart it should they continue on their path of abandoning true religion. While the Eastern Orthodox church is older than, for example, churches in other parts of the world, that doesn’t make it better. It just means that the Eastern Orthodox Church has been apostate longer than most churches have existed. Big. Stinking. Deal. You don’t get brownie points for the number of centuries since the Holy Spirit left your building.
Fifthly, we apologize for not pointing out, as you rage in anger that we anathematize you, that you anathematized us first. Like the Roman Catholic apostate church, Eastern Orthodoxy has also declared Protestants to be hopelessly damned for trusting in Christ’s accomplished work alone for our salvation. While the Eastern Orthodox community has ranted and railed with lamenting and gnashing of teeth toward Pulpit & Pen in recent weeks, they seem blissfully unaware that, like many cults, official Eastern Orthodox teaching declares that only they are the one true church and more specifically, they teach that actual Christians like ourselves are damned for trusting only in Jesus. We apologize for not pointing out that your man-made tradition similarly anathematizes, only it does it wrongly. There is no moral high ground of tolerance and open-mindedness that you can confess toward outsiders without denying the official teachings of your church, a church you believe infallible based upon nothing but the amount of time it’s held to its heresies.
I pray that you, as the Eastern Orthodox Community, will receive our apologies charitably. There has been much confusion because of the inability or unwillingness to articulate what Protestants actually believe about those who deny Sola Fide and Penal Substitution. We aim to fix all that, and do better in the future.
There is no justification outside faith alone in his accomplished work. Christ’s accomplished work includes his substitionary and vicarious death in our place, being for us our propitiation.
No amount of smells and bells, chanting absurdities, or calling out the gods of Ba’al and Asherah with much incense-burning, bell-ringing pomp and circumstance will change that.
Cordially,
JD Hall
Heresy in relation to what?
At Vatican II, (though I've lost track of the America [Catholic] Magazine link that discussed this) an Orthodox speaker -- the first Orthodox speaker according to the article, if memory serves --- disavowed doctrines pertaining to so-called Purgatory, declaring quite stridently that such doctrines were not among that which had been instituted by Christ and the apostles, and as known by "traditions".
According to the formula which you just prescribed -- would that qualify that man for God to need abandon ---even send into eternal perdition? Or would it more rightfully be the other way around?
What of those Orthodox who have strikingly different views pertaining to papacy itself? Their views do significantly differ from how the Latin Church eventually got around to insisting things were intended by God to be.
What if they are more correct than is 'Rome' on that point? Would that preclude Roman Catholics from entering heaven?
Or will those imperfect Greek Orthodox be among those who are shut out for daring not agree with 'Rome'--- as for the extent of 'authority' that ecclesiastical organization (Rome) alone claims as it's sole prerogative?
I'd prefer to view the Lord as being more merciful than that. Your own views may differ. What then? Personally, I'll not be wagering my own future towards remainder(?) of eternity with Him, on what the Latin Church has to say about ~everything~.
How 'bout putting it this way; just because they are right (enough) on many things, does not equal that one ekklesia (to whatever extent it is truly ekklesia, at all) is entirely "right" regarding everything, chiefly here about themselves and what they say of their own alleged authority.
This point of view does not arise from a vacuum, nor is mine own. It seems your formula would have our own salvation rely upon what we put our faith in. If not putting our faith in the RCC (and whatever it chooses to say) equally being cast-away even from God?
It's no wonder Reformers again and again pointed to how the Latin Church, in person of it's 'Pope' figuratively ensconces itself upon throne of God (upon earth) showing itself "in the temple" as God upon earth -- fitting the description of the Anti-Christ.
Nice cherry.
The Bible authors are not at odds.
I don’t stress anything.
I quote Scripture.
I don't believe that at all. There are a billion Catholics in the world…I fear a very large percentage of them will go to hell. And that may even (heaven forbid) include me. I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling, to quote St. Paul.
And as I've said repeatedly here, where there is no will, there is no sin. This is a bedrock principle of moral theology. So while I can condemn Luther for the sin of heresy, my Lutheran friend is not necessarily guilty of that same sin. He may *become* guilty of it by internalizing and agreeing with it in the face of a known truth, but that'd be his choice.
Say me and my brother have a huge fight, refuse to see each other. We might be guilty of breaking the family apart. After years, our kids may be caught up in it, they may hear lies we tell about the other person and then come to dislike the other side of the family. But can they be held responsible for how they were raised?
Use your reason. Do your best. God will not expect any more of you, so neither will I. But what keeps me up at night--and should every Christian--is have I really done my best? Have I strived to find these answers to the best of my ability? Or have I been content to just go along to get along and muddle through while presuming on my own salvation?
For my part, I have determined that the ekklesia of which you speak is in fact the Catholic Church. So yes, I am absolutely delighted to follow wherever she leads.
That's what I said.
That also would mean that Paul's writings are not subject to being overwhelmed by James' touching upon faith being a living thing, one that must go beyond mere assent and intellectual agreement towards producing not just any "works" but good works (fruit)? Of that there is no real argument against coming from so-called Protestants.
Is there anything I said in reply #37 that was in your own view, in error? Not getting argument, I'll need assume generally not, there was no significant disagreement. Why anything (and everything?) along those lines was withheld -- I'm left to guess at also.
In the context of the conversation(s), right at the point which you "quoted Scripture" what was your intended meaning then? Surely there was one?
That was fairly well discerned, and addressed too. Was it not? If not, then feel free to explain why.
You have still not shown why it should be assumed this JD Hall person was as you said, ignorant of "the following" Scriptures that you had posted in response to what was said in comment #30. That was left for people to guess at.
Why no comment as towards that aspect?
I can't speak for Orthodoxy, but at least one devout Orthodox has repeatedly said on here that he doesn't stay up at night worrying about our salvation.
Oh, and you asked heresy in relation to what--in relation to the Catholic faith, as defined by the ancient creeds and the teaching of the Church down the centuries.
I’m pointing to the facts Hall ignores, which is the root of “ignorance”.
“Believe” means something beyond checking a square.
The verses I quoted make clear that if your stated beliefs don’t show up in the way you live your life, then your claim of belief is void.
Speaking of “out of context”
“Salvation is the gift of God and not of works, lest ANYONE should boast.”
Why do you omit verse 10?
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— 9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.
You seem to have entirely missed the point of that question.
If that question was returned to as you've re-stated/adjusted it above, it could be yet further asked -- WHICH Church "down through the centuries", being as the Orthodox do not subscribe to the things I did make mention of? In ending results arguably enough leaves either ekklesia carrying taint of "heresy".
The subject had been heresy, and how that could according to you...lead to.... not getting to heaven, as you had more or less said (and I had quoted):
Both the Orthodox, and the Latin Church cannot be right at the same time ---not when they disagree on those points of "teaching of the Church" that I had touched upon.
Or else, to deny that the Bishopric of Rome be sole (or only chief) "successor to Peter", and to deny there be such a thing as Purgatory not matter hardly at all---such disagreements not be heresy. So, what now? An attempt to put the best face on the Orthodox Church's view towards Romish claims for singular papacy?
If read closely enough, one fairly recent statement (signed off on by only a relative few Orthodox, and since then criticized by far more others) it's plain to me those who had agreed to a particular wording were endeavoring to be polite, and were also under great pressure to submit to the claims Rome makes for itself.
Here on this forum I've seen how that kind of high pressure tactic can play out. I've had that particular stunt pulled on me (the attempt to pull that stunt, anyway, and with less on the table being as I speak chiefly only of and FOR myself) hundreds of times over. I can say that without trace of exaggeration.
Is it any wonder so many have turned their backs on the whole mess altogether? I know for a certainty I would have, if God had not responded to my own prayer that it be Himself who proved to me -- well, Himself.
Did I not ask you already -- on what basis does one make that claim?
I do not speak for him, but it is my guess the man would likely enough agree with that statement. So? And?
How would you know about that?
Do you some personal knowledge about this writer that none other here appear to have? Did he confess to you about himself having committed some horrific sin? He must not be Christian, for having written about what in his own view constitutes being a Christian, and what in comparison does not? Are you not doing very much that same thing, in regards to that one man, but doing so going by arguably less than he has, in his own criticisms of Catholicism (and of the Coptics)?
How does anyone find forgiveness among Roman Catholics? From so-called "priests" only, huh?
Being he likely has not availed himself of those hirelings' tender mercies, then although some of those individuals who are 'priests' may forgive the man, it appears to me that you most certainly do not.
Instead, you have become the prosecutor condemning him on basis of your own assumptions about what he allegedly is "ignorant" of, and the way you assume he "lives his life".
If that's the way the Lord truly would have us all be, then boil me in oil, and call me a buttered biscuit. Careful though. I may fight back. The hot oil could be spilt, or the wrong persons (in your own opinion) end up headfirst in the vats instead of me, or the critic that you more than criticize, but have already judged.
you have become the prosecutor condemning me on basis of your own assumptions
Making the claim of faith alone is an admission of ignorance of the relevance of the Scripture I cited.
and
John 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."
and JPII's catechism does reference the Vatican II decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio which does in fact discuss the other churches and that Christ uses them as means of salvation.
Save the Orthodox and Coptic churches, I don’t believe there are any Post-Vatican II documents that refer to any other Christian community as a “church” because they don’t have valid Holy Orders. I believe they are called “Christian communities” or “ecclesiastical communities” in every official Church document since Vatican II. I could be wrong of course.
In other words, the Orthodox have valid Orders and thus are appropriately called a “church”. Other Protestants do not have valid Orders so they are not churches. By the Church’s definition at least.
That falls under the doctrine of “Perseverance of the Saints.” No Reformed believer has any problem with those texts.
except those arguing with me here....
It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
Prior to Vatican II, the Catholic Church never taught that these other churches, communities, religions were "means of salvation".
I think this "crew" would find it difficult to defend their assertions that all "Protestants" lie when their own false claims are exposed. Perhaps our time would be better spent in defending the gospel instead of our personal honor - which we already have experienced will be trashed regardless? That will then make their fight against God and we already know how futile it is to fight against Him.
That's okay. I don't really care if Catholics consider non-Catholics Christians ("Protestants", if you will). What matters is how GOD sees us. We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all and it is HIS blood which makes us holy - not the rites and rituals men invent to achieve their own righteousness.
For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes. (Romans 10:2-4)
So now it turns on the word "relevance"? The argument being one of interpretation and application? If so, in regard to the latter, you are still operating on strength of your own assumptions of just how the writer JD Hall would himself understand and apply those passages.
When faith is of the kind that is mere mental assent, mere agreement in principle, yet not of the type of faith (and depth of that) that informs one's own worldview to extents that it be part of each decision, and become basis for action (perhaps even sole basis for some actions), then yes.
On the other hand, if this "faith" not be of the superficial and shallow kind, but be after the mold of Abraham (whom as Paul wrote, was justified by faith) then where does that leave the assumptions you are obviously enough making regarding not only this one writer (JD Hall, whom I assume is Baptist) but generally most all Protestants? Have you become the prosecutor, and one operating on a set of assumptions about others that may not properly at all apply in any number of cases?
Why do you assume the worst when it comes to this writer we've been discussing? I asked you what was the basis for that, and now you have supplied it.
You have assumed that he had exhibited an alleged "ignorance of the relevance" of a portion of Scripture you chose to bring into discussion. You have no genuine evidence for that, and so have been operating on your own flawed assumptions regarding how some portions of Scripture can only be understood, and applied.
But thank you for revealing what you really think about not only JD Hall, but 'Protestants' more widely. In instance of some of them, at the least -- you could not be more wrong (yet still are condemning them on basis of your own assumptions).
John 22 ...
The Lord has breathed His Spirit upon myself, and I have had it confirmed to me that He has done so for many other, 'other than Roman Catholic' Christians. Would you like to give confession so that you may be forgiven?
Meanwhile, regardless of the writer JD Hall's own views (or anyone's views for that matter) towards what most properly makes one be Christian, my own faith is that regardless if the Coptics whom were slaughtered by Mohammedans were indeed imperfect (in being Christians -- even to being "not" Christians just as the first Christians precisely were) they most certainly were identified as being Christians when they were being killed, and so had died for the Lord's very own name's sake. That is something I do have faith the Lord not take lightly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.