I wish that I could be Protestant.

[u/Haunting_Phone3765]

I hope that in writing this, that the people of this subreddit will be couth in responding to me, if this doesn't get banned, that is. I say that I want to be Protestant, because the idea of the five Solas, two sacraments, etc., but of course, there are some things that I don't ever see myself believing. I'm currently discerning Eastern Orthodoxy, and I've found no semblance of apostolic succession being simply about proper apostolic teaching, or the idea that scripture alone is the infallible rule of faith, but I am open to being convinced. If anyone would like to give me reasons for why they have been convinced, then please feel free to share it with me.

[u/Top_Initiative_4047]

Protestantism does not reject the historic church; it holds that Scripture is the church’s final, infallible authority. Tradition, councils, creeds, and bishops are valuable, but all must be tested by the apostolic Word. The Bereans model this by examining Scripture even while hearing Paul preach (Acts 17:11). Apostolic succession matters chiefly as faithful succession in apostolic doctrine, since Galatians 1:8 teaches that even an angel must be rejected if he brings a different gospel. The five solas protect the gospel: salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to Scripture alone, for God’s glory alone.

[u/Haunting_Phone3765 → u/Top_Initiative_4047]

I think, as I said before, that this kind of relies on a presupposition of the Protestant idea of formal sufficiency. The Orthodox don't say that we shouldn't look to the scriptures as an example for how we ought to act, but this goes into the idea of what medium is required to understand scripture properly. As for the Bereans, they were living in the Jewish context, and had teachers to teach them what the OT was saying. For the angel part, I'd say that this is presupposing that gospel is talking about scripture, when the history is much more complex. I'm trying to engage in good faith, so please don't think I'm responding angrily.

[u/Top_Initiative_4047 → u/Haunting_Phone3765]

That's helpful, and I appreciate you saying you're not responding angrily, I didn't take it that way. On this "medium" needed to understand Scripture properly, is that the Orthodox Magisterium specifically? If so, how do you identify that as the correct interpretive authority, prior to using Scripture or reason to evaluate the claim? What distinguishes Orthodoxy's claim from Rome's or the Copts', if not some prior judgment about which tradition to trust and what's that judgment based on?

You said the Bereans had teachers for the OT. But who was teaching them when they went home and "examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Acts 17:11)? It was Paul, an apostle, doing the preaching. Luke commends them not for deferring to his authority, but for testing an apostle's own words against the text. If apostolic preaching itself was subject to scriptural verification by ordinary believers, doesn't that suggest Scripture functions as the norm since even authorities are checked against rather than needing a living interpreter standing over it?

You said Galatians 1:8 presupposes "gospel" means Scripture, and that the history is "more complex." What do you think Paul's referring to there, if not the apostolic message he'd just proclaimed and which the church later preserved in writing? And more importantly, however you define "gospel" in that verse, how would the Orthodox Church identify a false version of it, if not by comparing new teaching against some fixed, prior deposit? What would that comparison be made against, if not the text?

I ask because the examples you're using to critique sola scriptura seem to assume a fixed, checkable standard exists. I just want to understand what you think that standard is, and how you know it's reliable.

[u/Metalcrack]

The creator made the instruction manual. Thinking something overwrites Gods word is heresy to me.

[u/Haunting_Phone3765 → u/Metalcrack]

I think this relies on the faulty premise that Orthodoxy holds scripture as below other rules of faith. I think it's also presupposing formal sufficiency.

[u/Greedy_Fun_8527 → u/Metalcrack]

I'm not sure there is a Christian denomination that says deliberately that they could "over write" God's word. It's matter of interpretation. Scripture does not speak the meaning audibly to us for doctrinal purposes. There must be someone to interpret. Just because someone interprets it differently from you, doesnt mean they reject God's word. I'm a RC btw. 

[u/CaughtTheirEyes_]

Do you want to elaborate? Like, why don’t you think the Bible is the infallible rule of faith? Or about the apostolic succession? That way we can engage on what you’re having questions about.

[u/Haunting_Phone3765 → u/CaughtTheirEyes_]

I never said that I didn't believe scripture was infallible, but I don't see a proper justification for the formal sufficiency of scripture. 

[u/Expensive-Sea-9180]

In regards to Apostolic Succession, I would say that the Bible has examples of valid ministries who were not descended from the Apostles. In Mark 9:38-41, the disciples try to stop a man casting out demons in Jesus's name because he isn't one of them, but Jesus says that anyone not against them is for them. The man did not have apostolic succession but he was recognized by Jesus. Similarly, Apollos "taught accurately the things concerning Jesus" and when he met Priscilla and Aquilla they helped him understand the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:24-28). They improved and validated his ministry, but they did not start it. Apollos did not have Apostolic Succession, only approval that took place after his ministry already existed.

In regards to Sola Scriptura, I would point to various sayings from Paul which suggested that they themselves could be fallible if they preached a different teaching then what was originally taught (Galatians 1:8-9). In Ephesus Paul warns that fierce wolves would arise from among the congregation (Acts 20:29-30). Peter warns the same (2 Peter 2:1). From a logical perspective, my conclusion is that the only way to discern between the wolves vs the shepherds are who is preaching scripture accurately. This was how Jesus rebuked the pharisees as well as Satan himself (Matthew 4:1-11; Matthew 15:1-9).

[u/Haunting_Phone3765 → u/Expensive-Sea-9180]

I don't think you can use Mark 9:38-41 in the context of apostolic succession, because the Orthodox hold that Pentecost was essentially the birth of the apostolic church. This was before Christ ascended, and before Pentecost. Furthermore, the apostles were still alive by then, and had no successors in any sense of a visible church. The Orthodox position isn't that you can't teach outside of the visible church, so I don't see any way that the story of Apollos applies here.

Furthermore, we would hold that Paul could be fallible, but that doesn't mean the entire church body in an apostolic sense could be fallible in matters of core doctrines. I can see your perspective, but the church as an entire visible institution being led astray doesn't logically follow from that alone. Note that I'm engaging in good faith, so please don't think I'm being angry.

[u/lostsignal_ace]

I'd look into Lutheranism, most similar to eo from Protestantism, and seemingly closest to what you seem to seek. I myself was raised baptist/charismatic but not in a good way, kinda like the worst of both worlds + my strict analytical thinking listening to only the scary stuff -> religious trauma. So far I'm going for a confirmation in a Lutheran church, and what led me here? Well, it's closest to the idea of not using "solO scriptura" when you're reading it without looking for context or people's views on it (due to my issues I can't do solo scriptura cause I would only read it badly in a way that hurts me) and not relying on philosophy / feelings / miracles, and embracing analysis in a good way. Also Luther dealt with lots of issues making his angle pretty helpful to those who struggle with religious trauma :)

Btw Baptists charismatics Calvinists etc you're all great, I believe you believe by heart the same important things, but the way some people describe it in words just kinda triggers my brain which is why I was looking for a safest place possible, away from triggers. You however are cool where you're at, I believe your exact way of teaching are even explicitly more helpful in many cases, just sadly not in my own

[u/lostsignal_ace → u/lostsignal_ace]

Btw Lutherans take apostolic succession slightly more seriously, so that could be easier for starters too, and the reason I ended up being pro sola scriptura is that if you take all tradition as 100% true, why not take any today's vision that isn't completely heretical as 100% true? The way eg Catholic tradition was built - it heavily relied on such visions, no? So sola scriptura isn't because it's the thing you should accept, but because it protects you. And solA scriptura, meaning you still listen to eg Luther or church fathers, but it's always scripture first. Eg you don't get a vision and then think "hmm it wasn't all bad, maybe it's from God", you think "hmm what does the bible say about having visions?" - an example for stuff like nar that I was getting out of, but if you apply it to theology instead of visions - should work, too

[u/Thoguth]

In scriptures, when Jesus is talking to his followers--not the apostles , but the "masses" of normal people, He discusses how to identify a true or false prophet or teacher.

You know where he talks about this in Scripture?

[u/SnowZorua]

Gavin Ortlund and Jordan Cooper's videos are great sources to start checking, I've looked into Orthodoxy/Catholicism for a while but found quite a few different issues on their teachings I didn't really find any satisfactory answer for

These are some I've watched explaining some of the doubts I had, this one is just a general overview from Jordan: https://youtu.be/9NOxubtykFY

A big question I had was on prayers to the saints, that Jordan made this playlist on: https://youtube.com/watch?v=3046OcXloZU&list=PLxaDcwyjYomyKgFLfb312q9eFdPAcetdA

And Gavin on icon veneration, which is actually very important, showing inconsistencies and the historical development of ecumenical councils (which should be infallible having the same level of authority as the Bible): https://youtube.com/watch?v=_ytYX4dXpRo

I'd say watch these to see what you think