Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
OK. The Catholic Encyclopedia includes ideas rejected by the RCC. That's more or less the nature of such comprehensive reference works.Which is interesting, because the Library of Latin Christian thought often drawn on by Protestant scholars and theologians also includes works containing ideas rejected by most Protestants.
Not in the least. It happens all the time. Keep in mind that a 'Reformed (whatever)' is, by definition, retaining what's correct about the entity in question while correcting the parts which went wrong. And if we are speaking of church history in particular, the church of the first millennium is the common ancestor of almost every one of today's denominations.For example if I belong to one church and write twenty five books outlining theology that pertains to my church in various nuanced aspects, and then 500 years later a guy comes along who breaks ties with my beloved church on the grounds that it is corrupt or teaching lies, and he uses my theological writings to elaborate upon and back up his ideas, wouldn't that be kind of weird?
Not in the least.
Like, if my church taught a, b, c, d, e, and f, and a huge bulk of my theological works were dedicated to defending and explaining these ideas, and a later theologian rejecting my church for teaching a, b, c, d, and e uses my books or ideas to elaborate on his personal beliefs regarding f, that doesn't strike you as bizarre or hypocritical?
It's commonplace. Why should everyone necessarily agree with 100% of someone else's thinking in order to agree with some of it? St. Augustine and Origen are cited by many churchmen, Catholic and otherwise, and yet they are both admired and rejected, depending on which writings of those men are in question.
I know. There's nothing unusual about it. Not unless, hypothetically speaking, he were to misrepresent what that earlier person believed.But I'm talking about a situation in which a-f are taught by a church as essential doctrines and in which one thinker condemning said church for teaching a bulk of these doctrines feels free to quote selectively from thinkers fully in line with a-f to back his own novel ideas or beliefs on the one point he personally considers valid.
I'm not trying to be disagreeable, but in actual practice, it is rarely completely accurate or even fair to describe "Protestants" as a group in regard to very many questions. We all do it (myself included) so I'm not criticizing, just trying to give a partial answer.Is it also entirely possible to describe Protestants, theologically, as rebellious Catholics? Because many Protestants feel completely comfortable and justified quoting theologians who are basically pillars of Catholic thought (like Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Aquinas) and even saints. So the foundation of thought is very similar, minus faith plus works and minus other doctrines viewed as excessive or incorrect, and minus submission to the Pontiff. But plenty of other stuff is arguably quite similar.
I'm not trying to be disagreeable, but in actual practice, it is rarely completely accurate or even fair to describe "Protestants" as a group in regard to very many questions. We all do it (myself included) so I'm not criticizing, just trying to give a partial answer.
But generally speaking, you could find major disagreements from members of various denominations if you tried to link them together - say Lutherans and Full Gospel, Presbyterians and charismatics, or Baptists and Pentecostals.
I kind of wish we had better language to discuss this. I've tried, but I find people disagree with my designations or divisions, even when I think I'm using well-established ones.
Albion's statement seems accurate to the degree that all Protestants appear to have Catholicism within their pedigree, and have disagreements with the Catholics (and in many cases with intervening "generations" of "parent denominations" as well (leading to their own creation - whoever they are).
I know. There's nothing unusual about it. Not unless, hypothetically speaking, he were to misrepresent what that earlier person believed.
Thank you, Ma'am it's good to be disagreed with, too! You are right about the vastness of Protestantism, and the differences. Some Pentecostals are non-Trinitarians, and some Anabaptists historically rejected Original Sin.
But if most of those who describe themselves as Protestants also accept a number of theologies and ideas that are not necessarily immediately obvious based on Scripture (E.g. God existing as One Godhead in Three Persons), and feel comfortable quoting Catholic theologians, to some extent, wouldn't that kind of make Protestantism close to Catholicism than anything else?
Thank you for your graciousness.
Perhaps various Protestants may agree with Catholics on more things than they realize, as well as the fact that they misunderstand various doctrines.
Depending on which Church Fathers they are quoting, you could also say that makes them closer to Orthodox.
The evolution and comparison of theology is a fascinating and also vast volume of information. I've been working on assimilating and understanding it for a few years. I've added to my own knowledge, but I doubt my lifetime will be sufficient to fully understand.
Btw, if you are interested in such (not quite sure if you are?), Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick's Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy is a good overview. He basically compares and contrasts everything else with the Orthodox Church, but because of the order, a lot of the process of theological development can be seen. He's not always gentle, though - very straightforward, but not terribly diplomatic. He does at times praise the truth found in various denominations, and pretty much lays it all out, from an Orthodox point of view.
Personally, I tend to view Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants rather like a Venn diagram of three circles arranged like the points of a triangle. There are overlaps between all three - much of the core of Christianity. And because the Catholics shared 1000 years of history with the Orthodox, we have much in common. But we also have 1000 years of separation, resulting in teaching within Catholicism that Orthodox do not share. Then we have the Reformation, when the new Protestants rejected what they saw as Catholic errors, but obviously kept much of the faith as well, resulting in an overlap between Catholic and Protestant, but also uniquely Protestant doctrines. From the Orthodox point of view, they correctly identified some things as error, which gave them overlap and moved them closer to Orthodoxy on some doctrines. But some things they rejected but should not have, and other things they created wrongly (from our point of view), creating uniquely Protestant doctrines that overlap neither Catholic nor Orthodox.
What happened in the following centuries, though, is tremendously complex and varied. So my characterization of "Protestantism" here is not exactly accurate, because it has and continues to change.
That's my little theory and way of understanding it anyway.
aps various Protestants may agree with Catholics on more things than they realize, as well as the fact that they misunderstand various doctrines.
Depending on which Church Fathers they are quoting, you could also say that makes them closer to Orthodox.
The evolution and comparison of theology is a fascinating and also vast volume of information. I've been working on assimilating and understanding it for a few years. I've added to my own knowledge, but I doubt my lifetime will be sufficient to fully understand.
Btw, if you are interested in such (not quite sure if you are?), Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick's Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy is a good overview. He basically compares and contrasts everything else with the Orthodox Church, but because of the order, a lot of the process of theological development can be seen. He's not always gentle, though - very straightforward, but not terribly diplomatic. He does at times praise the truth found in various denominations, and pretty much lays it all out, from an Orthodox point of view.
Personally, I tend to view Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants rather like a Venn diagram of three circles arranged like the points of a triangle. There are overlaps between all three - much of the core of Christianity. And because the Catholics shared 1000 years of history with the Orthodox, we have much in common. But we also have 1000 years of separation, resulting in teaching within Catholicism that Orthodox do not share. Then we have the Reformation, when the new Protestants rejected what they saw as Catholic errors, but obviously kept much of the faith as well, resulting in an overlap between Catholic and Protestant, but also uniquely Protestant doctrines. From the Orthodox point of view, they correctly identified some things as error, which gave them overlap and moved them closer to Orthodoxy on some doctrines. But some things they rejected but should not have, and other things they created wrongly (from our point of view), creating uniquely Protestant doctrines that overlap neither Catholic nor Orthodox.
What happened in the following centuries, though, is tremendously complex and varied. So my characterization of "Protestantism" here is not exactly accurate, because it has and conti
That's my little theory and way of understanding it anyway.
That's a pretty fascinating, charitable, and scholarly understanding. Please forgive me if my overview of Protestant thought can be a bit uncharitable or abrupt. I know it can be. Or general.
Your venn diagram idea is neat. Sounds about right, too. I would love to read that book some day. But my life is kind of in transition right now. We recently broke ties with a very dear group of Plain Anabaptists, and part of me feels a bit lost and saddened to have not been able to join them. They were amazing folks and *so* close to my husband's and mine convictions on holiness, obedience, and marriage standards, save for things like clothing rules and music (homemade dresses and white bonnets only and only Acapella singing in church, which felt odd to my raised-Anglican husband.)
Perhaps in time. Thank you for your answers, responses, and kindness. You rock.
Thankyou and you're welcome.
And I'm sorry for the disappointment in having to separate yourself from a community. That is always traumatic, I think. May God guide you to a new community.
It's actually a podcast, btw, on Ancient Faith Radio. (In many parts though, it's altogether quite a few hours' worth - I listened three times through over the past few years on long drives and commutes).
I was very interested in an Anabaptist community several years ago. They most especially impressed me with their real convictions to actually LIVE their faith, and I found them delightful folks. There were many in our area, and a certain dairy farmer gave me lots of helpful advice for my own farm, and a certain grocer was very helpful too. One of my best friends and neighbors was part of the community. There were a few doctrines at the time that bothered me. The thing I find quite ironic is that they are close to the Orthodox on many points, and it was an Orthodox doctrine that kept me from the Anabaptist community.Ah well. I am very blessed in how things eventually worked out.
Overall it's a very fascinating thing to look into though (the way theology develops and is shared between groups).
God be with you.
Well ...Badiya (wonderful), as my husband would say. Thank you, Anastasia. Might I ask, what Orthodox doctrine kept you from joining the Anabaptists?
That's a complete misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura.So as of right now, I'm coming to the conclusion that Sola Scriptura is basically impossible. Protestants, while claiming Scripture Alone, are informed theologically by a massive library of very diverse theologians, authors, TV personalities, radio personalities, and pastors as diverse as John Calvin and Joyce Meyer who basically tell their audience what the Bible says, what it means, and how to live it out.
You need to learn what Sola Scriptura actually means.What's the difference between this and Tradition interpreting Scripture? Because the points of Calvinism are no where spelled out point by point in Scripture, line by line, yet Christians adhering to Reformed Soteriology interpret the Bible through the thoughts and writings of Calvin and others.
And you say this in spite of numerous verses that explicitly indicate that we are saved by faith alone apart from our works. But works do matter, if you are speaking of the works of Christ.Likewise Protestants generally interpret the Scriptures through the lens of Sola Fide, in spite of numerous verses that seem to indicate that our works in Christ *do* determine where we go when we die.
It's because Protestants recognize the scriptures as the ultimate authority for defining and regulating doctrine and practice, not just one authority among several.So in light of all this, why get upset by Catholics and Orthodox who interpret Scripture through their Tradition, when Protestants do the exact same thing, essentially? Thoughts?
That's a complete misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura.
You need to learn what Sola Scriptura actually means.
And you say this in spite of numerous verses that explicitly indicate that we are saved by faith alone apart from our works. But works do matter, if you are speaking of the works of Christ.
It's because Protestants recognize the scriptures as the ultimate authority for defining and regulating doctrine and practice, not just one authority among several.
This OP is almost completely one big straw man. If you would like to discuss Sola Scriptura, you need to begin with the actual concept as it is revealed in scripture, not a fabrication and a misconception of the idea.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?