Can Protestants even judge heresy?

[Link0126]

Can protestants even judge heresy when there is no standard of doctrine or belief? Sometimes, even within one denomination? Pointing to the Bible would be their response I’m sure, but the Bible requires interpretation and we’ve seen that instead of leading a standard of belief it actually does the opposite?

With this in mind how can a protestant ever judge what is heretical and what is not? They simply have no standard of comparison.

 

[mgoforth]

Can protestants even judge heresy when there is no standard of doctrine or belief? Sometimes, even within one denomination? Pointing to the Bible would be their response I’m sure, but the Bible requires interpretation and we’ve seen that instead of leading a standard of belief it actually does the opposite?

With this in mind how can a protestant ever judge what is heretical and what is not? They simply have no standard of comparison.

I guess I wasn’t aware that any protestant churches did this anyway…can you give an example?

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

Can protestants even judge heresy when there is no standard of doctrine or belief? Sometimes, even within one denomination? Pointing to the Bible would be their response I’m sure, but the Bible requires interpretation and we’ve seen that instead of leading a standard of belief it actually does the opposite?

With this in mind how can a protestant ever judge what is heretical and what is not? They simply have no standard of comparison.

Interesting question. Protestants can’t judge what is heretical and what is not, they are in no position to do so. They don’t realize, like you have stated, that they have no standard of comparison. Ultimately, its however one interprets the bible. One interprets it this way, another that way etc. For them, its whatever the bible says. But for one it says this, and for another it says that.

 

[ltwin]

Protestant churches are certainly capable of discerning and acting against false teachers. Usually, people in one denomination have the same theological point of view in terms of Biblical interpretation. So, it isn’t difficult to realize when someone is going against the theological standards of the rest of the group. Protestants do have confessions and doctrinal standards which they believe are true representations of Biblical belief and are subordinate doctrinal standards which the group is guided by. They may or may not use the term heresy.

 

[zz912]

Protestant churches are certainly capable of discerning and acting against false teachers. Usually, people in one denomination have the same theological point of view in terms of Biblical interpretation. So, it isn’t difficult to realize when someone is going against the theological standards of the rest of the group. Protestants do have confessions and doctrinal standards which they believe are true representations of Biblical belief and are subordinate doctrinal standards which the group is guided by. They may or may not use the term heresy.

That’s the thing though. Someone going against the theological standards of the rest of the group is disagreeing with a person’s opinion. Since both persons are fallible and capable of error, there is no basis for either person to state the other is being heretical or holding false teaching.

 

[Nicea325]

Protestant churches are certainly capable of discerning and acting against false teachers. Usually, people in one denomination have the same theological point of view in terms of Biblical interpretation. So, it isn’t difficult to realize when someone is going against the theological standards of the rest of the group. Protestants do have confessions and doctrinal standards which they believe are true representations of Biblical belief and are subordinate doctrinal standards which the group is guided by. They may or may not use the term heresy.

Okay but that begs the question:

Who is that one group or groups to say another group or person is going against “their” theology. What makes that one group believe they have the “correct” interpretation?

 

[Contarini]

Okay but that begs the question:

Who is that one group or groups to say another group or person is going against “their” theology. What makes that one group believe they have the “correct” interpretation?

This is a dead end, because if you go far enough back you can ask this of Catholics as well: what makes them believe that the Catholic Church has the authority they claim for it? (Never mind that Catholics do have to engage in a lot more fallible interpretation than many conservative apologists admit.)

Catholic apologists typically appeal to history. But of course, one can interpret historical evidence wrong just as one can interpret Scripture wrong. Indeed, absent theological belief about inspiration, Scripture is just another body of historical evidence.

The confessional Protestant position is that certain views are objectively contrary to Scripture, and that it is the task and duty of the institutional Church to discipline those who hold such views.

I think there are huge problems with that position. But you can’t dismiss it simply by the general question “what makes you think you have the correct interpretation”? They have specific reasons for believing this in each case, just as Catholics do!

Edwin

 

[mgoforth]

Okay but that begs the question:

Who is that one group or groups to say another group or person is going against “their” theology. What makes that one group believe they have the “correct” interpretation?

It’s really the fatal flaw with Sola Scriptura isn’t it? The founder of XYZ protestant church used his personal interpretation of scripture “guided by the Holy Spirit” to draw up the beliefs of his church (or in most cases to pick which Catholic beliefs were going to be cut out). One of the core beliefs is that the Holy Spirit will guide everyone to interpret scripture for themselves…but when a lay person disagrees with his pastor on interpretation or either of them disagree with the interpretation left by the founder of the church, who’s interpretation wins?

If a pastor’s interpretation trumps a lay person’s, or if the organization’s interpretation trumps that of an individual pastor…whoa buddy watch out! That’s dangerously close to a hierarchical authority structure like we have in the Catholic Church…

On the other hand, if both parties can have conflicting viewpoints that are equally valid…what does that even mean in terms of logic? Just throw it out the window I guess.

 

[mgoforth]

This is a dead end, because if you go far enough back you can ask this of Catholics as well: what makes them believe that the Catholic Church has the authority they claim for it?

Wouldn’t that be because the Catholic Church was directly founded by Jesus Christ? He is our authority.

 

[Contarini]

Wouldn’t that be because the Catholic Church was directly founded by Jesus Christ? He is our authority.

But again, that’s your interpretation. No different from a Calvinist who thinks that the Bible directly teaches the “doctrines of grace”!

The idea that the “founding of the Catholic Church by Jesus” is some kind of indisputable, “objective,” historical fact is nonsense. You have to believe first of all that certain portions of the Gospels are historically accurate (Jesus giving Peter the keys in Matt. 16, for instance, rejecting the large number of scholars who think that this incident didn’t happen and was a theological interpolation by Matthew); then you have to argue that the Catholic Church today is identical to what Matt. 16 refers to as the “church,” which isn’t something you can prove historically, because what it means for an institution to be “the same” over time is not something for which there is an objective definition. And so on.

Catholics have lots of good arguments. Why persist in repeating the atrociously bad ones?

Edwin

 

[GlobalWolf]

As someone coming from a Protestant background, I can say that heresy has a different connotation in Protestant churches than it does in Catholicism. Probably because the Church is seen as an invisible union of all genuine Christians, heresy is seen as a break from Christianity rather than just from the visible community of believers (as it is in Catholicism). In this context, it’s easy enough to say that Protestants can discern some heresy. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and others who deny the Divinity of Christ are considered heretical. At the same time, some groups also apply unusual definitions to what constitutes Christianity, and declare pretty much everyone except for them (including, of course, Catholics) as heretical. I would say that, while Protestants are capable of discerning heresy to a certain extent, there are definite issues.

 

[mgoforth]

But again, that’s your interpretation. No different from a Calvinist who thinks that the Bible directly teaches the “doctrines of grace”!

The idea that the “founding of the Catholic Church by Jesus” is some kind of indisputable, “objective,” historical fact is nonsense. You have to believe first of all that certain portions of the Gospels are historically accurate (Jesus giving Peter the keys in Matt. 16, for instance, rejecting the large number of scholars who think that this incident didn’t happen and was a theological interpolation by Matthew); then you have to argue that the Catholic Church today is identical to what Matt. 16 refers to as the “church,” which isn’t something you can prove historically, because what it means for an institution to be “the same” over time is not something for which there is an objective definition. And so on.

Catholics have lots of good arguments. Why persist in repeating the atrociously bad ones?

Edwin

Who are the scholars specifically? And would all the doubts you mention about the historical accuracy of the Gospels happen to have surfaced after say…the sixteenth century? Can you point to something from perhaps the 15th century or earlier that questions these things? The earliest Church Fathers all agreed that Matt. 16 is accurate and means what Catholics have consistently claimed for 2000 years.

Also, how is this argument “atrociously bad”, just because you don’t agree with it?

And I think (if you’d like to get into it) that we could definitely delve into whether the Catholic Church of today is materially “the same” as the earliest Christian “Church” on record. Perhaps we’d need a new thread, but I’m up for it if you are.

 

[Newsy]

And I think (if you’d like to get into it) that we could definitely delve into whether the Catholic Church of today is materially “the same” as the earliest Christian “Church” on record. Perhaps we’d need a new thread, but I’m up for it if you are.

That is the subject of another thread, titled "The catholic church to which Ignatius belonged…? "

 

[mgoforth]

That is the subject of another thread, titled "The catholic church to which Ignatius belonged…? "

Thanks Newsy!

 

[Nicea325]

This is a dead end, because if you go far enough back you can ask this of Catholics as well: what makes them believe that the Catholic Church has the authority they claim for it? (Never mind that Catholics do have to engage in a lot more fallible interpretation than many conservative apologists admit.)

To you it is a dead end,but for not God.I do not think so. First of all,we are discussing God’s Mystical Body here,not a secular body founded 2,000 years ago. Second,the church did not make the “claim” out of it is own will;moreover, God is the author and founder of His Church with authority. No Protestant church can even possilbly say God founded our Church because only a human founder can make the “claim” he or she founded it.

Catholic apologists typically appeal to history

.

And what other empirical source should they appeal to outside of history?

But of course, one can interpret historical evidence wrong just as one can interpret Scripture wrong.

Really? So in other words, odds are high it has all been misinterpreted or misunderstood for nearly 2,000 years?

Indeed, absent theological belief about inspiration, Scripture is just another body of historical evidence.

Well sorry to burst your bubble,but the Bible is not a history book per se,but a book of faith and salvation history.

The confessional Protestant position is that certain views are objectively contrary to Scripture, and that it is the task and duty of the institutional Church to discipline those who hold such views.

One of the many strikes against Protestanism: self-centeredness.

I think there are huge problems with that position. But you can’t dismiss it simply by the general question “what makes you think you have the correct interpretation”? They have specific reasons for believing this in each case, just as Catholics do!

And that position in itself is subjective. Anyone and their grandmother can read all the laws of the U.S. and decide what it means to him or her. However,in the end does not matter,the general public does not decide,the government decides.

 

[Nicea325]

It’s really the fatal flaw with Sola Scriptura isn’t it? The founder of XYZ protestant church used his personal interpretation of scripture “guided by the Holy Spirit” to draw up the beliefs of his church (or in most cases to pick which Catholic beliefs were going to be cut out). One of the core beliefs is that the Holy Spirit will guide everyone to interpret scripture for themselves…but when a lay person disagrees with his pastor on interpretation or either of them disagree with the interpretation left by the founder of the church, who’s interpretation wins?

If a pastor’s interpretation trumps a lay person’s, or if the organization’s interpretation trumps that of an individual pastor…whoa buddy watch out! That’s dangerously close to a hierarchical authority structure like we have in the Catholic Church…

On the other hand, if both parties can have conflicting viewpoints that are equally valid…what does that even mean in terms of logic? Just throw it out the window I guess.

Indeed! And the end results: thousands of denominations.

 

[Newsy]

I started a thread similar to this one about 4 months ago.

To sum up what I learned, many don’t examine heresy because, their opinion is as worthy as yours: essentially you believe your way and I’ll believe mine.

Heresy is a term seldom used in protestant circles. Some churches, like the ones I was a part of, accept the creeds and use them as a general rule. The church I belonged to, has fallen into deep ravines of heresy and I doubt they will find their way out despite losing many members.

Many churches pick and choose which issues to use Early Churches decisions. They reject many of the CC’s reasons and rulings on an issue, but agree with the outcome. They see the evil of a heresy, but use different reasons to oppose it.

I never saw anyone approached about believing contrary to the church, but I am sure it happens, probably more in smaller church bodies. I think the pastor of the church plays a major part in deciding how heresy is dealt with.

With so many different denominations, there is no rule.

 

[Nicea325]

I started a thread similar to this one about 4 months ago.

To sum up what I learned, many don’t examine heresy because, their opinion is as worthy as yours: essentially you believe your way and I’ll believe mine.

Heresy is a term seldom used in protestant circles. Some churches, like the ones I was a part of, accept the creeds and use them as a general rule. The church I belonged to, has fallen into deep ravines of heresy and I doubt they will find their way out despite losing many members.

Many churches pick and choose which issues to use Early Churches decisions. They reject many of the CC’s reasons and rulings on an issue, but agree with the outcome. They see the evil of a heresy, but use different reasons to oppose it.

I never saw anyone approached about believing contrary to the church, but I am sure it happens, probably more in smaller church bodies. I think the pastor of the church plays a major part in deciding how heresy is dealt with.

With so many different denominations, there is no rule.

Precisely…with so many denominations,who truly decides?

 

[lutherlic]

This is a dead end, because if you go far enough back you can ask this of Catholics as well: what makes them believe that the Catholic Church has the authority they claim for it? (Never mind that Catholics do have to engage in a lot more fallible interpretation than many conservative apologists admit.)

Not really. When looking at this community or that community, one need only ask WHO are they in schism with? In the case of the Catholic Church, the answer is no one – although there are many in schism with us.

Another question, when was your community founded, by whom and where is that recorded? For us it was around 33AD, by Christ and is recorded in the Holy Bible. For most of the others, it was people like Martin Luther, Henry VIII, John Wesley, John Calvin, John Smyth, etc. 1,500 years later and recorded in whatever founding documents they cherish.

 

[mgoforth]

I started a thread similar to this one about 4 months ago.

To sum up what I learned, many don’t examine heresy because, their opinion is as worthy as yours: essentially you believe your way and I’ll believe mine.

Heresy is a term seldom used in protestant circles. Some churches, like the ones I was a part of, accept the creeds and use them as a general rule. The church I belonged to, has fallen into deep ravines of heresy and I doubt they will find their way out despite losing many members.

Many churches pick and choose which issues to use Early Churches decisions. They reject many of the CC’s reasons and rulings on an issue, but agree with the outcome. They see the evil of a heresy, but use different reasons to oppose it.

I never saw anyone approached about believing contrary to the church, but I am sure it happens, probably more in smaller church bodies. I think the pastor of the church plays a major part in deciding how heresy is dealt with.

With so many different denominations, there is no rule.

I should mention that I was raised as a Methodist myself. Not that it gives me any authority to speak for Methodists or Protestants in general…but what drew me to the Catholic Church as an adult (other than my Catholic wife ) was the consistency of core Catholic teachings. I’ve never been able to find any core belief that has been changed (although many have been expanded or refined) within the Catholic Church since the time of Christ. The 2000 year track record was a major selling point for me and I suspect for many others as well.

Conversely, I’ve noticed many cradle Catholics who complain about this same thing…the Church isn’t “flexible” enough, or “modern” enough to suit their wishes.