What do Protestants think of the ancient Church's?

[hedrick]

Thank you, Hedrick. It has been largely through your explanations that I have become more precise than I was. I still think maybe I shouldn't speak too much about Protestants as groups if I risk upsetting folks.

One thing I don't understand though - you said that the mainline denominations are considered to be liberal by CF standards, because they accept modern scholarship. It seems to me that the largest group(s) who would be opposed to putting much weight there were be Orthodox. And CF is not an Orthodox site specifically so ... why is this so?

Is it a matter of a spectrum of acceptance of scholarship? Or a spectrum of modernness? Or something else?

CF is a conservative site, both by rules and by the people who post here. Its standards are are basically consistent with evangelical and traditional Catholic and Orthodox thought (not necessarily current Catholic thought in the US and Europe). Allowances are made for differences between these traditional views.

When you get specific, evangelical and traditional Catholic thought differ in standards, but often not in results. That is, traditional evangelicalism (which is what you see here) has Scripture as its standard, but it is Scripture understood as (1) inerrant, (2) an instruction book for life, (3) read through 16th Cent Protestant tradition. Catholics, of course, are less committed to inerrancy in the Protestant sense, and their Tradition is somewhat different. But their commitment to Tradition tends to produce the same results for ethics. You might think it would produce different theology, but evangelical thought understands Scripture though traditional interpretations that agree with Catholic theology on major issues such as the Trinity and Christology. They differ primarily in some aspects of soteriology, ecclesiology, and sacramental theology.

Mainline Protestants, and de facto US Catholic theology, use critical approaches to Scripture and tradition, thus seeing Scripture more as establishing principles than as an instruction book, being more willing to modify tradition in light of current knowledge and culture. Both communities have come to similar conclusions on major ethical issues (though this isn't so visible for Catholics because they are committed to obeying traditional standards, even where their scholars and theologians don't agree with them), and largely I think also in theology. This isn't surprising, since the methodologies are similar, and they interact with each other.

It's my impression that Orthodox are closer to traditional Catholicism than to current Catholic thought in the US and Europe, although there is certainly a liberal wing of Orthodoxy.

 

[Willie T]

My point with seeing "Catholic" is that, for all intents and purposes, to a Protestant looking on and evaluating all the pomp and circumstance, the ornate pageantry, and profuse implementation of mechanical paraphernalia, et al, there is almost no difference between EO, OO, GO, and Catholicism. Then we are told of all the things you adhere to that you study to learn from the pages of an esoterically oriented "official" big book each group developed.... replete with all the substitution of foreign nomenclature descriptive of each belief or action, and to almost any Protestant, it spells just more of the same stuff that comes out of the RCC — only with a different name attached to it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

My point with seeing "Catholic" is that, for all intents and purposes, to a Protestant looking on and evaluating all the pomp and circumstance, the ornate pageantry, and profuse implementation of mechanical paraphernalia, et al, there is almost no difference between EO, OO, GO, and Catholicism. Then we are told of all the things you adhere to that you study to learn from the pages of an esoterically oriented "official" big book each group developed.... replete with all the substitution of foreign nomenclature descriptive of each belief or action, and to almost any Protestant, it spells just more of the same stuff that comes out of the RCC — only with a different name attached to it.

Thanks for clarifying.

It's often the externals that lead to such an analysis and I get that. Ironically it was such a service at a Methodist fellowship that first brought me to appreciate and long for a sense of sacredness and reverence.

(By the way, if you mean the catechism, Orthodoxy doesn't have one in the sense that Catholicism does. I used to think it was a strength of Catholicism but I understand now why we don't try to encode everything - but we do have some pretty thick - or thinner as the case may be - books that set forth theology.)

Thanks again for explaining. God be with you.

 

[W2L]

I dont attend a church simply because its old. That would be unwise. I instead seek believers who follow love and truth.

2 Corinthians 3 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you? 2 You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3 being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, [a]cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human heart.

 

[~Anastasia~]

CF is a conservative site, both by rules and by the people who post here. Its standards are are basically consistent with evangelical and traditional Catholic and Orthodox thought (not necessarily current Catholic thought in the US and Europe). Allowances are made for differences between these traditional views.

When you get specific, evangelical and traditional Catholic thought differ in standards, but often not in results. That is, traditional evangelicalism (which is what you see here) has Scripture as its standard, but it is Scripture understood as (1) inerrant, (2) an instruction book for life, (3) read through 16th Cent Protestant tradition. Catholics, of course, are less committed to inerrancy in the Protestant sense, and their Tradition is somewhat different. But their commitment to Tradition tends to produce the same results for ethics. You might think it would produce different theology, but evangelical thought understands Scripture though traditional interpretations that agree with Catholic theology on major issues such as the Trinity and Christology. They differ primarily in some aspects of soteriology, ecclesiology, and sacramental theology.

Mainline Protestants, and de facto US Catholic theology, use critical approaches to Scripture and tradition, thus seeing Scripture more as establishing principles than as an instruction book, being more willing to modify tradition in light of current knowledge and culture. Both communities have come to similar conclusions on major ethical issues (though this isn't so visible for Catholics because they are committed to obeying traditional standards, even where their scholars and theologians don't agree with them), and largely I think also in theology. This isn't surprising, since the methodologies are similar, and they interact with each other.

It's my impression that Orthodox are closer to traditional Catholicism than to current Catholic thought in the US and Europe, although there is certainly a liberal wing of Orthodoxy.

And thank you for explaining as well.

FWIW, Orthodoxy is probably closer to traditional Catholicism than to some current Catholic thought I've heard brought up. Probably closer to traditional overall. But if Catholics rescinded the ban on married clergy they would agree with us on that. Sometimes they move closer to us over the centuries.

 

[Willie T]

Thanks for clarifying.

It's often the externals that lead to such an analysis and I get that. Ironically it was such a service at a Methodist fellowship that first brought me to appreciate and long for a sense of sacredness and reverence.

(By the way, if you mean the catechism, Orthodoxy doesn't have one in the sense that Catholicism does. I used to think it was a strength of Catholicism but I understand now why we don't try to encode everything - but we do have some pretty thick - or thinner as the case may be - books that set forth theology.)

Thanks again for explaining. God be with you.

Oh well, as our Catholic friends might say, "Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis."

 

[~Anastasia~]

Oh well, as our Catholic friends might say, "Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis."

One hopes for the best ...

 

[GingerBeer]

What do Protestants think of the ancient Church's?
Does it matter? It very likely does not matter to those who are in an ancient church.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

What do Protestants think of the ancient Church's?
Does it matter? It very likely does not matter to those who are in an ancient church.

Since Protestants are a new church/movement/theology, they ought to reckon with the existence of ancient Churches, still around to this day, that do not buy the articles of the reformation.

If the Protestant has not examined this question, I suggest they ought.

 

[GingerBeer]

Since Protestants are a new church/movement/theology, they ought to reckon with the existence of ancient Churches, still around to this day, that do not buy the articles of the reformation.

If the Protestant has not examined this question, I suggest they ought.

A more pertinent question than the one used as a title for this discussion is:
What do the ancient Churches think of Protestantism?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

A more pertinent question than the one used as a title for this discussion is:
What do the ancient Churches think of Protestantism?

Depends on who you ask but generally the ancient Churches do not consider the existence of Protestantism legitimate since they deviate from the ancient norms of the Church, invent new ones and apply new standards and doctrines which they make mandatory for Christians to accept. (Example being Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, which are mandatory Protestant articles of faith).

This shouldn't be surprising. The Protestants are a new and innovative group, fractious within even themselves. The established historic Churches are not going to accept conclusions of Protestantism which challenges the very nature of the historic Churches (with regards to authority and salvation).

I would also suggest is encumbant on those us of who belong to ancient Churches predating the reformation deal with the reformation's criticism of the Historic Church even those of us not in Rome. Protestantism's critique of ecclesiastical authority is not limited to Rome but also Constantinople and Alexandria.

 

[GingerBeer]

Depends on who you ask but generally the ancient Churches do not consider the existence of Protestantism legitimate since they deviate from the ancient norms of the Church, invent new ones and apply new standards and doctrines which they make mandatory for Christians to accept. (Example being Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, which are mandatory Protestant articles of faith).

This shouldn't be surprising. The Protestants are a new and innovative group, fractious within even themselves. The established historic Churches are not going to accept conclusions of Protestantism which challenges the very nature of the historic Churches (with regards to authority and salvation).

I would also suggest is encumbant on those us of who belong to ancient Churches predating the reformation deal with the reformation's criticism of the Historic Church even those of us not in Rome. Protestantism's critique of ecclesiastical authority is not limited to Rome but also Constantinople and Alexandria.

The critique of authority has already had an effect. Priests and bishops command some respect now but not what was once the case. But the diminishing authority and respect which the congregations accede to the priest and bishop may be more a cultural and societal symptom than a specifically Protestant thing. The enlightenment, as it is called, made western thinkers discount religious authority of every kind. Its critique is applied to the ancient churches and to the protestant churches without much discrimination.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The critique of authority has already had an effect. Priests and bishops command some respect now but not what was once the case. But the diminishing authority and respect which the congregations accede to the priest and bishop may be more a cultural and societal symptom than a specifically Protestant thing. The enlightenment, as it is called, made western thinkers discount religious authority of every kind. It's critique is applied to the ancient churches and to the protestant churches without much discrimination.

I agree with you about the enlightenment but suggest Protestantism, with it's insistence on the Authority of Scripture (and thus the authority of the individual to read an interpret scripture for themselves apart from clergy) was what accelerated the movement to enlightenment ideals.

Still though. Would you agree with my initial response that Protestants do have to reckon with the existence of ancient Churches that predate and reject them?

 

[GingerBeer]

I agree with you about the enlightenment but suggest Protestantism, with it's insistence on the Authority of Scripture (and thus the authority of the individual to read an interpret scripture for themselves apart from clergy) was what accelerated the movement to enlightenment ideals.

Still though. Would you agree with my initial response that Protestants do have to reckon with the existence of ancient Churches that predate and reject them?

They do but they refuse to. Protestantism has an ahistorical view of Christianity so it sees church history as a 500 year story with the dark ages before it and an idealised (absurd) view of "the early church". It is not in the self interest of Protestants to think seriously about the centuries before 1517 except as a moral lesson on corruption and "the traditions of men".

 

[PloverWing]

They do but they refuse to. Protestantism has an ahistorical view of Christianity so it sees church history as a 500 year story with the dark ages before it and an idealised (absurd) view of "the early church". It is not in the self interest of Protestants to think seriously about the centuries before 1517 except as a moral lesson on corruption and "the traditions of men".

This depends on which branch of Protestantism you're looking at. I've certainly seen the approach you describe -- sometimes without even an interest in going back to the Reformers. But other branches of Protestantism value the history we grew out of. My tradition is one of those. The philosophy of Anglicanism is to keep as much as possible of the tradition we grew out of, changing only that handful of things that needed reforming.

 

[GingerBeer]

This depends on which branch of Protestantism you're looking at. I've certainly seen the approach you describe -- sometimes without even an interest in going back to the Reformers. But other branches of Protestantism value the history we grew out of. My tradition is one of those. The philosophy of Anglicanism is to keep as much as possible of the tradition we grew out of, changing only that handful of things that needed reforming.

Do Anglicans think of themselves as Protestants?

 

[hedrick]

I'm Presbyterian. I'm pretty well read in theology. I don't see mentions of every period of Church history equally. 2000 years is a long time. But periods that are often dealt with include those during which key doctrines such as the Trinity and Incarnation were formulated, Augustine (because he's the background for a lot of Reformed theology), and Aquinas. Of course the serious Reformation treatments all make it clear that in order to understand the Reformation you need to understand what was going on during the late Medieval period. Even after the Reformation, focus differs. Mainline Reformed churches tend to refer more to Calvin than to later Reformed writers, and then to follow liberal theology and its precursors. Conservative Reformed are more likely to look at Reformed scholasticism, the Puritans, and other later Reformed writers.

It's true that there tends to be a gap in knowledge among Protestants, including much of the medieval period, but knowledge of people like Athanasius and Augustine is pretty common among mainline Christians and its conservative offshoots. (The term conservatives of this sort would most commonly use for themselves is confessional Protestants.) Some evangelicals are ahistorical, but there's a fair amount of evangelical scholarship, which is not.

Please be fair in making comparisons. If you pick random church members of any denomination, you're likely to find their knowledge spotty. Don't compare active and well-educated Catholics with your clueless Protestant acquaintances.

 

[PloverWing]

Do Anglicans think of themselves as Protestants?

We sit on the Protestant-Catholic boundary, as you probably know. But since our lineage is through the Western church, rather than the Eastern, and we don't see ourselves as being under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, that makes us technically Protestant.

 

[PloverWing]

I used my own Anglican tradition as an example in my earlier post, because I'm more comfortable speaking for my own church than speaking for others. But, as hedrick has pointed out, the Anglicans are not the only Protestants with a strong connection to history. The Lutheran and Reformed traditions are also both deeply rooted in history. At the Reformation, the Lutherans changed a few more things than the Anglicans, and the Reformed community changed more things than the Lutherans, but none of these communities takes a "me and my Bible alone" approach to theology.

Again, I'm speaking of the theologians and well-educated lay people in these churches. The average Jane and Joe in the pew often have... unpredictable approaches to theology.

 

[GingerBeer]

I'm Presbyterian. I'm pretty well read in theology. I don't see mentions of every period of Church history equally. 2000 years is a long time. But periods that are often dealt with include those during which key doctrines such as the Trinity and Incarnation were formulated, Augustine (because he's the background for a lot of Reformed theology), and Aquinas. Of course the serious Reformation treatments all make it clear that in order to understand the Reformation you need to understand what was going on during the late Medieval period. Even after the Reformation, focus differs. Mainline Reformed churches tend to refer more to Calvin than to later Reformed writers, and then to follow liberal theology and its precursors. Conservative Reformed are more likely to look at Reformed scholasticism, the Puritans, and other later Reformed writers.

It's true that there tends to be a gap in knowledge among Protestants, including much of the medieval period, but knowledge of people like Athanasius and Augustine is pretty common among mainline Christians and its conservative offshoots. (The term conservatives of this sort would most commonly use for themselves is confessional Protestants.) Some evangelicals are ahistorical, but there's a fair amount of evangelical scholarship, which is not.

Please be fair in making comparisons. If you pick random church members of any denomination, you're likely to find their knowledge spotty. Don't compare active and well-educated Catholics with your clueless Protestant acquaintances.

Orthodox and Catholic alike see 2000 years of church history with highs and lows. Protestants can't help but see the last 500 years as a high compared the preceding 1,300 years in the west and mostly see nothing in the east after the fall of Rome in the west.