And what if the protestant examines history and finds that their belief/practice was either condemned as a heresy, or otherwise entirely absent in the early church?
Such as not venerating icons?
Do they still go ahead with their practices/beliefs if their conviction is that their doctrine is 'biblical'?
This is a good question, but it's also too broad of a question. To answer it, we have to make distinctions on what is essential, what is desirable, what is allowed, and what is not allowed. It also would help if we took it out of the abstract.
That being said, what's an example of a doctrine that you have in mind here so we can bring this out of the abstract. How about the nature of the Eucharist since you bring it up later?
Despite the claims of some off thousands of numbers of "different Protestant denominations," when it comes to an issue like the Eucharist, you really only have 4 options.
- Christ is not only physically and spiritually present in the Eucharist, but the host really does transform into His flesh and blood (RCC & EO: RCC explains how, EO dosen't).
- Christ is physical and spiritually present in the Eucharist, but there is no material change to the host. (Lutheran)
- Christ is spiritually present in the Eucharist, but there is no physical or material change in the host. However, the host should be approached and treated as if Christ was physically present in the host. (Reformed)
- The Eucharist is just a symbolic ritual and Christ is not present either in spirit or flesh in the host. (Zwingli & Radical Reformation)
That's about it. So much for the thousands of different interpretations.
Now, when you read the early Fathers like Ignatius, I think you'll find that of these 4, one can validly interpret what's said by fathers such as Ignatius to be any of the first 3. Why? Because regardless of how much RCC and EO folks want to prove their case, the fathers don't go this far and are not crystal clear on what is meant. It's only until later when you find the Eucharist defined with any real precision, and based on the first three definitions, we can easily make our case to be in tune with the early church using any of the first three definitions.
With this in mind, how can you say that Christians holding to any of the first three are out of line with the interpretation of the early church? Seriously, grab a copy of the Apostolic Fathers and every time you run across a Eucharist reference, ask yourself if you can determine which of the 4 views above are supported by the text. I think you'll find that your forced to admit that only Zwingli, the father of solo or nuda scriptura, is the only one who's off in left field.
Finally, let's not forget what we said earlier about "how essential" is a doctrine? Is the Eucharist really a salvational issue in the sense that if you don't have the right belief, you're out? If you assert this, you're making salvation dependent on knowing the right formula. Does perfect doctrine now save us? So, on a scale of 1 to 10, how essential is any given doctrine and practice? (I can already see the RCC, EO, and Protestant fundies all assigning 10s to everything). This might sound silly, but it's a good way to be honest about just how serious an issue is. For example, is music in church an essential? If it's not, how important on a scale of 1 to 10 is it? How about eschatology? Is it essential for us to know exactly what God's getting at in Revelation?
These are the important distinctions we would bring up when it comes to these appeals to tradition that you're making. #1, is the issue really that big of a deal? If not, who cares? #2, if it is a big deal, is it really the case that Protestants in the manner of the Magisterial Reformers are actually not able to back up their beliefs from tradition? I would suggest that this last question can be answered in the negative when it comes to every essential doctrine (i.e. I believe we absolutely can back up our views from tradition, but more importantly from Scripture). This is why you'll often hear the expression (often attributed to
Rupertus Meldenius) "in necessary things unity; in uncertain things freedom; in everything compassion."
But in the end, Protestants don't accept Nicea or Chalcedon because the church said so. We do so because we happen to agree that the doctrinal statements regarding the nature of God in these councils are in accord with the revelation of Scripture and thus, an accurate (yet not infallible) summary of the doctrine found in Scripture. Thus another expression common amongst Protestants, semper reformanda, "always reforming." We can never be content to blindly accept something simply because it's traditional. We must always make sure that our beliefs are in accord with Scripture, the final and sole source which can establish truth with absolute authority.
Hope this helps!
