The Stupidest Q & A Ever From Church of the Eternal Logos

David Patrick Harry, who goes by the handle Church of The Eternal Logos, is an intelligent guy who is also pretty dumb. His intelligence shines when he talks about subjects in which he is well versed such as psychedelics. His dumbness comes through when he talks about subjects in which he is not well versed such as Protestantism and the Gospel.  

During a recent livestream someone asked a rather interesting question about how the Protestants interpret the Bible.

Satan's Kingdom: History of Christian Persecution From Rome to Today (1st Half)

17:06 We also had a super chat over on Streamlabs by Storm The Cat who throws in $10 and says "Do you think modern society and Technology affects the way Evangelical Protestants interpret the Bible and theology. It is hard to explain but the way they interpret the Bible seems mechanistic and soulless whereas Orthodoxy is more in harmony with nature?" 

What the heck does this question even mean? What does it mean to interpret the Bible mechanistically and soullessly? What does it mean to interpret the Bible "more in harmony with nature?" The questioner admits "it is hard to explain" and does not even attempt an explanation. The proper immediate reaction should be to ask, "What do you mean?"

David does not do that. Listen to his answer. 

Well, my immediate response, Storm The Cat, is yeah.

Let's stop here. What is he saying yeah to? The questioner has not explained his terms which are quite vague and meaningless. How can David agree or disagree if he does not know what the question means? Already David is off to a bad start. 

I think that Evangelical or Protestantism generally speaking is uh informed by Enlightenment values and in fact when we look at the French Revolution today unfortunately many Protestants were an advocate, were advocates for the killing of various Catholics. Uh, they saw this as sort of Revenge potentially for the 30 Years War but also their belief that the pope was the Antichrist and that Catholic Church of Authority was something that needed to be undermined and destroyed in France.

What is this nonsense? Protestants advocated for the slaughter of Catholics during the French Revolution as revenge for the Thirty Years War? Citation please. How exactly is Protestantism "informed by Enlightenment values?" The Enlightenment was a rejection of all things Christian and came about two hundreds after the Protestant Reformation. One of its chief proponents was Voltaire who wished to stamp out Christianity. 

David is talking out of his butt here. He does this all the time. Because Protestants separated from the Catholic Church David thinks that means they are revolutionaries who sought to not only undermine the authority of the Catholic Church but also divorce themselves from the Church so completely as to start something brand new. That is an incorrect interpretation of the Protestant Reformation. 

And so you can't help but notice that Protestantism, especially in the western world, one, it's failed. There is no Protestant nation that is still majority Christian. I mean historically it was Northern Europe and Northern Europe is the most secular atheist places in the world and then when you look in America, America was generally considered the most Christian of the Protestant Nations but it's kind of hard to say that we're still still a Christian Nation especially given the things that people celebrate coming out of Hollywood. 

And, uh for example there's a, I just found out, that there was a Methodist minister or Pastor in the US who does his services in drag and so that's going to definitely connect with our, our website conversation on the Paris Olympics opening ceremony and the sort of Carnival and bacchanalia mixture of opposites the, again we've talked about Baphomet and I'm going to be bringing Baphomet up over on the website, this blending of opposites, this henosis the neoplatonic, uh, understanding of pure Unity, the bringing of opposites to create a sort of unified structure that we can see that this is the way in which Satan is operating. 

And so are there good Christians that are evangelicals and Protestants? Absolutely. Um, and, and they're limited in maybe their understanding of church history, their historical context whatever it may be their geography and so they you know they're, they're a Protestant to some degree and obviously we're not endorsing Protestantism it's a failed experiment as we see that it, it constantly concedes morality and concedes aspects of culture. 

And yeah it is more mechanistic it is more rationalistic. I would argue that protestantism is an ideology more so than a sacramental theology because sacraments are just symbolic within the Protestant Faith. Now, you you have high Church aspects Lutheranism and stuff like that within Anglicanism but look at the Anglican Church. Look at the high Lutheran Churches they have lesbian pastors now and so they can't really conserve anything because they don't have a true tradition. 

And so when you're talking about Orthodoxy seems to be more in harmonious alignment with nature and creation I would say that's because it's the tradition of the Apostles. It's the tradition of saints and Witnesses and Protestantism just doesn't have that and Protestantism from its get-go was a was part of the sort of revolutionary spirit I would argue. Now, did they did they have, uh, accurate criticisms of the Catholic churches and the selling of indulgences and all this stuff? Absolutely. But then that revolutionary Spirit of divorcing itself from Apostolic succession and and creating new interpretations and hermeneutics and Theological understandings of scripture I mean this is a revolutionary spirit and so you can't help but notice that communism, socialism, Nazism, whatever ISM that you want to apply to it, um, I think these are in a way sort of outgrowth of the collapsing of protestant Faith. So that's my general take maybe you guys have a different opinion that's fine but I want to thank Storm The Cat for the $10 Super Chat. Really appreciate that my man.

The question was about the interpretation of the Bible and David does not even touch on that subject. Instead he links Protestantism to communism, socialism, Nazism, the French Revolution, the acceptance of homosexuality, and the Spirit of Revolution. What a load of malarkey. At no time did Protestants seek to subvert either the authority of the Roman Catholic Church or the Crown. They did seek to separate themselves from both to worship in peace. For instance when English Protestants were persecuted by Mary Queen of Scots they fled to the Netherlands and Switzerland. French and English Protestants both fled to the New World to avoid persecution. 

To say Protestantism is informed by Enlightenment values and the Spirit of Revolution is completely a-historic and without foundation. This argument has been making the rounds by people like David Patrick Harry, Jay Dyer, and Rebecca Wilson who claims feminism, Satanism, and basically doing one's own thing is an outgrowth of Protestantism. As if the men who claimed we are saved by faith alone through the grace of Jesus Christ alone would condone Satanism, feminism, or the French Revolution. Such a claim is quite a stretch. A much firmer connection would be between the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. 

David also claims that Protestants don't even have a sacramental theology because the sacraments for them are merely symbolic. That couldn't be further from the truth. 

The Westminster Confession says the following about the sacraments. 

1. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him:  as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word.

2. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and the effects of the one are attributed to the other.

3. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

https://www.apuritansmind.com/westminster-standards/chapter-27/

The Heidelberg Catechism says the following about the sacraments. 

Q & A 65

Q. It is through faith alone that we share in Christ and all his benefits: where then does that faith come from?

A. The Holy Spirit produces it in our hearts by the preaching of the holy gospel, and confirms it by the use of the holy sacraments.

Q & A 66

Q. What are sacraments?

A. Sacraments are visible, holy signs and seals.They were instituted by God so that by our use of them he might make us understand more clearly the promise of the gospel, and seal that promise. And this is God’s gospel promise: to grant us forgiveness of sins and eternal life by grace because of Christ’s one sacrifice accomplished on the cross.

https://www.heidelberg-catechism.com/en/lords-days/25.html

Does that sounds like Protestants teach the sacraments are empty symbols? Of course not. It is mind boggling that anti-Protestants such as David Patrick Harry never look at the confessions when discussing what Protestants allegedly believe. Instead they make it up as they go. 

David should never have answered the question. Instead he should have tried to figure what the question meant. Is he aware that Protestants practically invented Patristsics? This notion that Protestants rejected "the tradition of the Apostles" and divorced themselves "from Apostolic succession" and created "new interpretations and hermeneutics and Theological understandings of scripture" is pure, unadulterated horse manure and betrays a total ignorance of Protestant Biblical exegesis. Read the writings of Protestants and you will see a litany of citations from the Church Fathers. Protestants have never conceived of themselves in the caricature of "me and my Bible alone."

The question should have been rejected from the start. Not only is it loaded but the terms given are undefined. If you cannot explain your own question because its to hard to explain then you are not asking a question, you are expressing a feeling.