Church documents for Protestants?

  • Thread starter Thread starter matthew1624
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

matthew1624

Guest
I was wondering if there are any church documents (besides scripture) that protestants point to to explain or base their beliefs. For example, as catholics we are blessed with the Holy Fathers writings (encyclicals). Do protestants have an equivalent?

Just recently I asked a non-denom christian where I can find info on the canon of scripture and this person suggested that I visit CRI (Hank Hannegraff’s web site) for guidance.

Thanks in advance for your help…

God Bless…
 
Ask 30,000 Protestants and you’ll get 30,000 different answers. Some ascribe to a creed or a confession, some say that creeds are from the Devil. If you ask one why Protestants believe such and such, they will say “Well I don’t believe that!” The whole point of being a Protestant is that one believes in the Bible alone, or at least how they are led to interpret it.
 
Many of the “mainline” reformed/Protestant churches are credal in that they follow the Apostles’ Creed. The Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) has a Book of Order (rules, constitution, something like that) and a Book of Confessions containing their creed(s). The main creed for them is called the Westminster Confession. For more on that, see The Westminster Confession of Faith . I don’t know how many other Protestant denominations use this as well, or even how many have standards of this kind. I only know about this because my mother is Presbyterian and we’ve discussed it many times.
 
Well yeah there is no one stop for protestants Hank Hannegraff’s webiste is popular for evangelicals but lets say your anglican it wouldn’t represent your faith too well.
Some protestants such as Seventh day adventist have writings they would in comparsion put on par with a pope’s encyniclals. Ellen G. White writings are considered inspired in some way she has passed away but her writings are given theolgocial weight today in that denom. Of course they don’t think the pope’s writtings are binding in anyway. It’s just the closest comparision I can think of.
Its importatn to remeber no one speaks for protestantism. Even Luther’s defintion of sola fide and sola scriptura have been altered by other denominations. And many of Luther’s beleifs are not binding on his own denomination today.
 
As a Protestant I espoused sola scriptura, and yet I’d immediately allow guys like Luthor, Calvin, or Swindoll (who never penned a tittle of holy writ) to tell me what scripture meant.

Go figure.
 
As a Reformed Presbyterian, my church holds to the WMCOF and it’s Larger and Shorter Catechisms.

A few Baptists, mainly Reformed Baptists use the London Baptist Confession of 1629 (date?). It’s very similar to the WMCOF, except for some details (sprinkling vs. immersion and adults and infants vs. adults only). You know, things that Catholics love to bring up in discussions about unity.

I know there’s more. Oh, yeah, like, some denominations use part of the confession of faith, and ignore other parts. I guess that’s legitimate…? Why would they not use some parts unless they disagreed with it? Yeah, many (most) Protestant groups cut themselves off from their own history.
I’m Presbyterian, I’ll not say much else, but what I’ve said may show why sticking to creeds and confessions is important yet difficult.

I think Anglicans have (had) what’s called the “32 Articles of Religion”. John Knox probably made something for Scottish Presbyterians.
Matthew1624, why do you ask?
 
  • Arguments over the nature of Christ went on for centuries. Heresies such as Docetism, Gnosticism, Adoptionism, Monarchianism, Arianism, Sabellianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Monphysitism and Monotheletism were all connected to the nature of Jesus. If Protestants believe the Holy Spirit kept the early Catholic Church from falling into error during those times of heresy, then why can’t they accept the other doctrines that were decided using the same procedures to combat the heresies? Why do they pick and choose now what doctrines to believe? And who are they to pick and choose now what all Christendom had previously agreed upon?
  • The whole concept of Protestantism rests on Sola Scriptura. But in the councils convened to discuss the heresies listed above, all sides argued from Scripture to prove their point! Is it not obvious that there needs to be some governing authority in Christianity that can decide which interpretation is to be held? Would God leave us in a state where we could not know with certainty what truths we are to hold?
  • In fact, Protestantism itself can exist now only because the Catholic Church has successfully defined so much of Christian doctrine for Protestants to borrow from. There is much less doctrine for the Protestants to argue about. If the Church had to use the Protestant model from her inception, she would have disintegrated into a meaningless morass of confused doctrines with no means to pull herself out of the muck and mire. It only took 500 years for Protestantism to disintegrate into 28,000 denominations. Imagine if the Protestant model had existed for 2,000 years?
  • It is ironic that most Protestants now deny almost all of the articles of faith that historic Christians held! How would any religious organization that claims to be historic deny the previously held historic beliefs and then invent new doctrines that the historic Church had either never held or previously rejected! The historic Church had rejected doctrines like Sola Scriptura, Salvation by Faith Alone, and Eternal Security. In what sense, then, can Protestants claim to be “historic”?
Let us also examine these points about Catholicism:
  • Luther protested against the practices of the Church and introduced a new doctrine of justification. The Catholic Church accepted his criticism about the practices and changed them. But they denied his new doctrines were sound, because they were against the “tradition of deposit of faith”.
  • The Church arrived at her decision against Luther’s doctrines in the exact same way it had fought Arianism and other heresies. (i.e., through councils, discussion, study of Scripture, earlier council decisions, early church father’s writings, prayer, vote and St. Peter’s ratification). So when Luther did not “submit to the doctrine and discipline of Christ as he mediates his prophetic, priestly, kingly ministry in the visible church…” (to quote from Dr. Horton), then he became another of “the heretical and schismatic sects that have plagued Christian unity throughout the ages”.
 
Where does that leave us?

Dr. Horton can choose to join or reject the Catholic Church, but he cannot claim Protestantism has any connection to historical Christianity. In fact, for Dr. Horton to feel the need to write to his fellow Protestants and assure them that they are connected to historic Christianity begs the point that Protestants today do not feel they are part of historic Christianity. It is absolutely clear that Luther broke with the historic doctrines of the faith and created his own doctrines.

Luther did have many debates with clerics and theologians. He certainly did not “overwhelm their opponents with citations from the Church Fathers as well as from scriptures.” In fact, Luther tried to remove the Epistle of St. James, Revelation, and the Epistle to the Hebrews from the New Testament canon because he felt they were at odds with his interpretation of Scripture.

Cardinal John Henry Newman was a prominent 18th century Anglican bishop who also grappled with the problems between Protestantism and historical Christianity. Unlike Dr. Horton, he did not try to rewrite Church history. Instead he saw the fallacies Protestantism is built on, and converted to Catholicism. He wrote:

“And this one thing is certain…the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If there ever were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism has ever felt it so… This is shown in the determination…of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put [historical Christianity] aside, unless they had despaired of it… To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

Today, Protestants are continuing to come to the Catholic Church as they read the early Church fathers for themselves. We respectfully request Dr. Horton to do the same.

**ACKNOWLEDGEMENT **Marty Rothwell. “Catholics, Protestants, and History.” *Petersnet *September 4, 2002.:blessyou:
 
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut so far. One other question that came to mind…

What about their commentaries? Who writes them and is there a popular choice among protestants? (It’s funny how this non-denom friend of mine believes in sola-scriptura but yet points me to commentaries when I have a question on scripture. :confused: )

God Bless…
 
Reformed Rob:
As a Reformed Presbyterian, my church holds to the WMCOF and it’s Larger and Shorter Catechisms.

A few Baptists, mainly Reformed Baptists use the London Baptist Confession of 1629 (date?). It’s very similar to the WMCOF, except for some details (sprinkling vs. immersion and adults and infants vs. adults only). You know, things that Catholics love to bring up in discussions about unity.

I know there’s more. Oh, yeah, like, some denominations use part of the confession of faith, and ignore other parts. I guess that’s legitimate…? Why would they not use some parts unless they disagreed with it? Yeah, many (most) Protestant groups cut themselves off from their own history.
I’m Presbyterian, I’ll not say much else, but what I’ve said may show why sticking to creeds and confessions is important yet difficult.

I think Anglicans have (had) what’s called the “32 Articles of Religion”. John Knox probably made something for Scottish Presbyterians.
Matthew1624, why do you ask?
Click to expand...
Reformed Rob, thanks for your contribution to my post, I really appreciate it. The reason I ask is because I have been reading quite a few of the catholic church’s encyclicals (i.e. humanae vitae, humani generis, familiaris consortio, salivici doloris - spelling?) and they have literally blown me away. I began to wonder if any other church besides catholic had a similar collection of writings.

God Bless…
 
In the Westminster Confession, Protestants claim St. Anasthasius as their own, as he is mentioned by name. What?? Is this same guy who believed that a Christian could lose his salvation through mortal sin (cf. Discourses Against the Arians 3, 25)?
The Athanasius who venerated Mary as “the Mother of God” (Greek: theotokos; cf. Treatise on the Incarnation of the Word, 8)?
The Athanasius who believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity (cf. Discourses Against the Arians II, 70)?
The Athanasius who believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Sermon to the Newly Baptized)?

If indeed Athanasius can be called a Protestant, then the word “Protestant” has no meaning at all.
taken in part from envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.4/coverstory.html

kepha
 
40.png
kepha1:
In the Westminster Confession, Protestants claim St. Anasthasius as their own, as he is mentioned by name. What?? Is this same guy who believed that a Christian could lose his salvation through mortal sin (cf. Discourses Against the Arians 3, 25)?
The Athanasius who venerated Mary as “the Mother of God” (Greek: theotokos; cf. Treatise on the Incarnation of the Word, 8)?
The Athanasius who believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity (cf. Discourses Against the Arians II, 70)?
The Athanasius who believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Sermon to the Newly Baptized)?

If indeed Athanasius can be called a Protestant, then the word “Protestant” has no meaning at all.
taken in part from envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.4/coverstory.html

kepha
Click to expand...
Kepha,

That’s some interesting information. Thanks for sharing. I’ll have to save that into my library. By the way, why did you deny Christ three times? 😃 (JK)

God Bless…
 
I didn’t.

I denied Him as a human, as my questioners were not asking me if I was a follower of the Son of God, but the Rabbi from Nazareth. But I never denied his Divinity. When He was with Me, I was brave, and I attacked a temple guard. When He was not with me, I was a coward, and afraid for my life.

When we are not with Him, we tend to deny the humanity of our priests who fill in as other Christs (alter Christus), and we may complain about them, say bad things about them, deny them. Jesus shows His love for us through the sacraments that we receive from our beloved priests, who are human, but hold a sacred office.

When we are with Him, we are brave, and by being in communion with our priests and with each other, and by receiving the sacraments as often as possible, we become filled with grace, and able to withstand the trials of life, without the false delusions of the escape from suffering that I had that cold dark night.

kepha1;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top