Development of Theology for protestants is a trap.

[chet]

I just realized the development of Theology for protestants is very much a trap. If they stick with what is only in the Bible it can’t develop. If they follow what the reformers actually taught then they find it’s either too Catholic; or it doesn’t fit in with what the fullness of scripture reveals. If they try to incorporate Early Church Fathers they have to navigate a land mine field of Catholic ideas. Finally they run the risk of developing either truly heretical ideas that are not from the Holy Spirit; Or worse they develop theology and in site that they later discover the Catholic Church had for centuries.

 

[drafdog]

Are you advocating that Protastants not do theology or are you worried that Protestantism will disappear into Catholicism? What is the point of this thread? You are confused, I think.
As a side note, it was largely Protestant scholarship that developed the historical critical techniques of scripture study and analysis that the Church now embraces.

Matthew

 

[chet]

Are you advocating that Protestants not do theology or are you worried that Protestantism will disappear into Catholicism? What is the point of this thread? You are confused, I think.
As a side note, it was largely Protestant scholarship that developed the historical critical techniques of scripture study and analysis that the Church now embraces.

Matthew

So your saying that none of the Early Church Fathers didn’t use any critical techniques of scripture study and analysis? As far as being confused,I am just making an observation that seems to be echoed by converts to Catholicism such as Scott Hahn, Cardinal Newman, and others.I myself was raised Catholic.

 

[O.S.Luke]

This has to be, without a doubt, the most misinformed and bigoted post yet at CAF.

Bravo, Chet.

 

[Harpazo]

This has to be, without a doubt, the most misinformed and bigoted post yet at CAF.

Bravo, Chet.

How so? A lot of what he says isn’t very far from the truth. Even Wesley’s ideas caused eventual schism from Anglicanism, and his ideas caused the Methodist movement to divide. Correct me if I’m wrong, but none of the Wesleyan or Methodist churches are in union with one another. He himself was apparently influenced by Luther when he read his commentary on St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, and by the Moravians. Didn’t he also “ordain” ministers by his own doing? Just curious and checking if what I read was correct.

Even though he did many good things with his life, he still divided Christianity more, and so did those that came after him. You don’t have to go any farther than the phone book to see.

To further what Chet said, Protestants don’t totally use the Bible alone, even though they may claim to. It’s impossible, because they actually add things to it to come up with “Bible alone theology”. Though, Chet, some will deny this type of theology, it’s extremely prevalent in Protestantism and hasn’t produced any lasting effects other than further division…

Pace e Bene
Andrew

 

[Contarini]

How so? A lot of what he says isn’t very far from the truth. Even Wesley’s ideas caused eventual schism from Anglicanism, and his ideas caused the Methodist movement to divide. Correct me if I’m wrong, but none of the Wesleyan or Methodist churches are in union with one another.

That’s a rather weird circular argument. If you are defining “churches” as “separate groups” obviously they aren’t in union with each other insofar as they are separate. However, there are various federations and agreements among various Wesleyan bodies. It depends on what group you are talking about.

To further what Chet said, Protestants don’t totally use the Bible alone, even though they may claim to.

What Protestant here is claiming such a thing? You’re arguing with a straw man.

Particularly funny is Chet’s conclusion that a “worse” result for Protestants is to rediscover Catholic teaching. Surely Chet doesn’t think that is bad. Why does he/she assume Protestants would think it was bad? From what perspective is it “worse” than the other alternatives?

Finally, it is clearly true that on various matters of theology and liturgy Protestants have developed and/or defended insights that are now being recovered by Catholics (communion in both kinds, for instance, or the practice of small Bible study groups, or an emphasis on justification by grace through faith–see Fr. Cantalamessa’s Lenten sermons on the subject from a couple of years ago). It is not true that Protestant doctrinal development leads only to further heresy or back toward what Catholics have always said. Sometimes it leads to insights that are fully compatible with the development of Catholic orthodoxy.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[O.S.Luke]

How so?

Theology is the study of God. It is always incomplete, since man will never become God.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but none of the Wesleyan or Methodist churches are in union with one another.

You are incorrect. The World Methodist Council is made up of 75 million Methodists. Pan-Methodists are made up of 5 Methodist denominations. Anglicans and British Methodists have been in covenant commitment since 2003. And United Methodists are currently in an Interim Eucharist Sharing agreement with both the Episcopal Church and the ELCA. Parish “swaps” between United Methodists and British Methodists are fairly common.

To further what Chet said, Protestants don’t totally use the Bible alone, even though they may claim to.

But not all Protestants claim to use the Bible alone. Most notably Anglicans and Methodists.

This is why this statement is all the more misinformed and bigoted, in my opinion.

 

[chet]

That’s a rather weird circular argument. If you are defining “churches” as “separate groups” obviously they aren’t in union with each other insofar as they are separate. However, there are various federations and agreements among various Wesleyan bodies. It depends on what group you are talking about.

What Protestant here is claiming such a thing? You’re arguing with a straw man.

Particularly funny is Chet’s conclusion that a “worse” result for Protestants is to rediscover Catholic teaching. Surely Chet doesn’t think that is bad. Why does he/she assume Protestants would think it was bad? From what perspective is it “worse” than the other alternatives?

Finally, it is clearly true that on various matters of theology and liturgy Protestants have developed and/or defended insights that are now being recovered by Catholics (communion in both kinds, for instance, or the practice of small Bible study groups, or an emphasis on justification by grace through faith–see Fr. Cantalamessa’s Lenten sermons on the subject from a couple of years ago). It is not true that Protestant doctrinal development leads only to further heresy or back toward what Catholics have always said. Sometimes it leads to insights that are fully compatible with the development of Catholic orthodoxy.

In Christ,

Edwin

Thanks for the balance Edwin.I do like to here what you have to say.

Particularly funny is Chet’s conclusion that a “worse” result for Protestants is to rediscover Catholic teaching. Surely Chet doesn’t think that is bad. Why does he/she assume Protestants would think it was bad? From what perspective is it “worse” than the other alternatives?

Your right I think it’s fantastic…But I have heard some converts that have come from particularly Anti-Catholic backgrounds; describe dismay at discovering the church they had believed to be so wrong,Whore of Babylon,ect.,Was in fact not only correct,but it is the Church founded by Christ. And ultimately their home. Jesus did say he came to bring fire and devision; But it wasn’t suppose to be among his own! He prayed we would be one! John17:21

 

[Harpazo]

Theology is the study of God. It is always incomplete, since man will never become God.

You are incorrect. The World Methodist Council is made up of 75 million Methodists. Pan-Methodists are made up of 5 Methodist denominations. Anglicans and British Methodists have been in covenant commitment since 2003. And United Methodists are currently in an Interim Eucharist Sharing agreement with both the Episcopal Church and the ELCA. Parish “swaps” between United Methodists and British Methodists are fairly common.

So, AME, Evangelical Methodist, Church of Nazarene , Pentecostals (all which derived from Weslyan theology) et al. are all in communion?

But not all Protestants claim to use the Bible alone. Most notably Anglicans and Methodists.

This is why this statement is all the more misinformed and bigoted, in my opinion.

What about the Wesleyan Quadrilateral? Albert Outler was a Weslyan Scholar who advocated this and claimed the Methodist movement advocated it as well: Scripture, Church Tradition, Reason, and Personal Experience. Part of this states that “the Bible was the sole foundational source of theological or doctrinal development.”

That has tones of sola scriptura to me. The last part of the Quadrilateral makes me nervous though. That sounds very “Mormon-ish” in my opinion.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

 

[O.S.Luke]

So, AME, Evangelical Methodist, Church of Nazarene , Pentecostals (all which derived from Weslyan theology) et al. are all in communion?

Ministers from each of those traditions can serve in each other’s churches and members of those churches can receive communion in other churches.

What about the Wesleyan Quadrilateral? Albert Outler was a Weslyan Scholar who advocated this and claimed the Methodist movement advocated it as well: Scripture, Church Tradition, Reason, and Personal Experience. Part of this states that “the Bible was the sole foundational source of theological or doctrinal development.”

Outler’s “Quadrilateral” is a lot like Luther’s “Consubstantiation.” It was never a term either coined.

That has tones of sola scriptura to me. The last part of the Quadrilateral makes me nervous though. That sounds very “Mormon-ish” in my opinion.

Why would you worry about it - you’re no longer Methodist? And it sounds like you weren’t a very well-catechized Methodist.

Anglican/Methodist theology and doctrine would be more in line with the 3-legged stool of scripture, tradition, and reason. Experience is more related to tradition/reason. As far as resembling Mormonism - hogwash. That’s just a jab - and I won’t bite anymore.

Pax,

O+

 

[chet]

To start out there was Luther,Calvin-- who said the Catholic Church was wrong…But to what degree and exactly what they couldn’t agree among themselves.That was in the latter part of the 1500’s…flash forward it’s 2007 and there are how many protestant denominations? I’ll be happy to take your most conservative figure as fact! All who claim to be teaching the truth! And what is necessary for Salvation! Many have great passion;Many have great gifts;Many have much Truth! But we should all be sharing the fullness of Jesus’ Truth,Gifts,and each others passion and commitment to Christ!

 

[O.S.Luke]

Wesley lived in the 1700’s - came from Anglican rootage. Different line from Luther and Calvin.

 

[chet]

Wesley lived in the 1700’s - came from Anglican root age. Different line from Luther and Calvin.

Forgive me.Thank you for the correction! Any other thoughts you’d like to share on the topic?

 

[O.S.Luke]

Forgive me.Thank you for the correction! Any other thoughts you’d like to share on the topic?

Your claim of experience being 'Mormonish" could apply to the Early Church Fathers and other Divines throughout the history of the Church. Do you really believe that?

The return of Christian apologetics is a good thing - to a point. When “winning” an argument, however, comes at the expense of the loss of a soul, it is a dubious win, Chet. I’m not talking about myself, but the thousands of other folks who never post here and just read… and possibly wonder.

I’m not a Mormon. I am a disciple of Jesus Christ. Separated brethern I may be… but still brethern we are - if you embrace the Catechism, that is.

O+