A Protestant Appeal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter OrthodoxBerean
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

OrthodoxBerean

Guest
Can a protestant ever make this appeal?

“It is not what the Church has taught”?

If they do wouldn’t that be an appeal to authority other than the Bible? Yet in order to call something a heresy one must be able to compare any teaching to what has been traditionally taught…right? Hence if the protestants could not make an appeal to a living tradition of teaching then does it not follow that they could not really say that anything is a heresy? For if they do then they are by proxy making an appeal to a living tradition.

Is that right or no?
 
Well, I think you are right in that a sola scriptura believing protestant can’t really use the “That’s not what the church teaches” argument about anything…because saying that would, in fact, imply some kind of authority other than the bible. If the protestant belongs to some church that does not believe sola scriptura, then they would be able to use that argument.

As for whether a protestant can call anything a heresy…yes I think they can. If something is contrary to what they believe the bible says, then they could call it a heresy because that something contradicts their interpretation of the bible. (note: their interpretation…not necessarily what the bible actually says…which means they themselves could be wrong)

Peace in Chris†
 
40.png
glad2Bcatholic:
As for whether a protestant can call anything a heresy…yes I think they can. If something is contrary to what they believe the bible says, then they could call it a heresy because that something contradicts their interpretation of the bible. (note: their interpretation…not necessarily what the bible actually says…which means they themselves could be wrong)

Peace in Chris†
Click to expand...
Yes, but from my understanding the very definition of heresy presupposes a “Tradition” does it not? Maybe it doesn’t it had jsut crossed my mind this afternoon and I wanted to throw it past you all to see what you thought.
 
I think people forget just who wrote the New Testament… they were Catholic’s… they forget there was no New Testament Canon for the first 325 years after Christ was crucified… they read and try their best to interpret a canon that was written by catholics for all people of the world to see, read, and believe… at Pentacost when Christ met with the Apostles and commissioned his Church, it was this Church that wrote and compiled this canon that the non-catholic faith continually tries to twist to meet their interpretation… i always wonder why these people just don’t write their own testament, then they can name their own rules instead of trying to change the rules of what has always been… Open your minds to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God… Peace… 👍
 
40.png
OrthodoxBerean:
Can a protestant ever make this appeal?

“It is not what the Church has taught”?

If they do wouldn’t that be an appeal to authority other than the Bible? Yet in order to call something a heresy one must be able to compare any teaching to what has been traditionally taught…right? Hence if the protestants could not make an appeal to a living tradition of teaching then does it not follow that they could not really say that anything is a heresy? For if they do then they are by proxy making an appeal to a living tradition.

Is that right or no?
Click to expand...
A few Protestants (fundies) will say “we have no creed but the Bible” or “we only believe what is in Scriptures.” If you came across someone from this group you could validly raise the objection you listed above.

Most Protestants, however, are more nuanced in their Biblical theology. The reason it was called the Reformation is because the early Protestants saw themselves as returning to early tradition and doctrine that had ben lost or muted by abuses in the Catholic Church. The first Reformers often quoted from the Church Fathers and appealed to supposed early traditions to “prove” their case. Modern Protestant theology follows the same path. We recognize tradition, we deny that the Catholic Church has the authority to define tradition.

The Anglican church formally codified the basis for their theology as: “scripture, reason and tradition.” Methodists (I don’t think they codified it) often say that the basis for their theology is “scripture, reason, tradition and experience.” Ordained Presbyterians take an oath to uphold “the essential doctrines of the Reformed tradition.”

Since I fall into the latter category of Protestants, if you were to “accuse” me of accepting the authority of something other than the Bible I would say “yes, I do.” The trick is to get me to accept the Catholic authority.

Hope that helps,
-C
 
40.png
Calvin:
A few Protestants (fundies) will say “we have no creed but the Bible” or “we only believe what is in Scriptures.” If you came across someone from this group you could validly raise the objection you listed above.

Most Protestants, however, are more nuanced in their Biblical theology. The reason it was called the Reformation is because the early Protestants saw themselves as returning to early tradition and doctrine that had ben lost or muted by abuses in the Catholic Church. The first Reformers often quoted from the Church Fathers and appealed to supposed early traditions to “prove” their case. Modern Protestant theology follows the same path. We recognize tradition, we deny that the Catholic Church has the authority to define tradition.

The Anglican church formally codified the basis for their theology as: “scripture, reason and tradition.” Methodists (I don’t think they codified it) often say that the basis for their theology is “scripture, reason, tradition and experience.” Ordained Presbyterians take an oath to uphold “the essential doctrines of the Reformed tradition.”

Since I fall into the latter category of Protestants, if you were to “accuse” me of accepting the authority of something other than the Bible I would say “yes, I do.” The trick is to get me to accept the Catholic authority.

Hope that helps,
-C
Click to expand...
Yes, that does thanks. I was hoping a protestant would chime in here.
 
40.png
Calvin:
A few Protestants (fundies) will say “we have no creed but the Bible” or “we only believe what is in Scriptures.” If you came across someone from this group you could validly raise the objection you listed above.

Most Protestants, however, are more nuanced in their Biblical theology. The reason it was called the Reformation is because the early Protestants saw themselves as returning to early tradition and doctrine that had ben lost or muted by abuses in the Catholic Church. The first Reformers often quoted from the Church Fathers and appealed to supposed early traditions to “prove” their case. Modern Protestant theology follows the same path. We recognize tradition, we deny that the Catholic Church has the authority to define tradition.

The Anglican church formally codified the basis for their theology as: “scripture, reason and tradition.” Methodists (I don’t think they codified it) often say that the basis for their theology is “scripture, reason, tradition and experience.” Ordained Presbyterians take an oath to uphold “the essential doctrines of the Reformed tradition.”

Since I fall into the latter category of Protestants, if you were to “accuse” me of accepting the authority of something other than the Bible I would say “yes, I do.” The trick is to get me to accept the Catholic authority.

Hope that helps,
-C
Click to expand...
I understand your line of thinking, but I don’t nessarily agree. Many of the early writings of the Fathers that we now have were found after the Reformation. The truth is that many of the traditions from the Reformation are in fact traditions that began at the Reformation and do not got back to the earliest christians, as do the Catholic Sacred Traditions. Catholics did not lose or mute any Sacred Traditions because that would be going against Jesus direct promise that it wouldn’t happen. Just out of curiousity, can you prove any non-catholic doctrines or Traditions that go back to the apostles or earliest christians, because all of the writings seem to support Cathoic Tradition and doctrine.
 
40.png
germys9:
I understand your line of thinking, but I don’t nessarily agree. Many of the early writings of the Fathers that we now have were found after the Reformation. The truth is that many of the traditions from the Reformation are in fact traditions that began at the Reformation and do not got back to the earliest christians, as do the Catholic Sacred Traditions. Catholics did not lose or mute any Sacred Traditions because that would be going against Jesus direct promise that it wouldn’t happen. Just out of curiousity, can you prove any non-catholic doctrines or Traditions that go back to the apostles or earliest christians, because all of the writings seem to support Cathoic Tradition and doctrine.
Click to expand...
We don’t disagree.

Note that I wrote “…early Protestants saw themselves as returning to early tradition and doctrine…” I didn’t make a statement on whether they actually did return to an earlier tradition or doctrine. I was just pointing out the rhetoric they used to justify their actions. All I wanted to show was how Protestants saw (see) themselves.

I’m going to decline to aswer your challenge on proving any non-Catholic traditions go back to the apostles because I’m here to learn about Catholocism not defend Protestantism. It is a valid question, however, and you should ask it to Protestants who reject Catholocism. My hunch is that all the “good” Protestant traditions are, indeed, directly derived from Catholic traditions.

-C
 
That was a really good response. I didn’t mean to try to put you on the defensive. When listening to tapes on the Early Church Fathers, I found it interesting that many writings (which prove Catholic doctrine) were not even available, or discovered yet, at the time of the reformation. I encourage you on your journey. Just search for truth with an open mind and heart and lots of prayers and you will do fine.
 
40.png
germys9:
That was a really good response. I didn’t mean to try to put you on the defensive. When listening to tapes on the Early Church Fathers, I found it interesting that many writings (which prove Catholic doctrine) were not even available, or discovered yet, at the time of the reformation. I encourage you on your journey. Just search for truth with an open mind and heart and lots of prayers and you will do fine.
Click to expand...
In fact you will note in my first post I even referred to “supposed early traditions.” Some Protestant I am…

-C
 
40.png
Malachi4U:
So, we have a chance?😉
Click to expand...
Of course. I think my last “objection” really comes down to a question of “is the Pope who Catholics say he is?” If I answer that in the affirmative, my choice is clear.

-C
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top