Hard questions for Protestantism

[Atreyu]

In my 2 Maccabees thread here, I think I was trying to get the point across that Protestants *necessarily need to *claim that 2 Maccabees is simply wrong, for Protestantism to exist. I think this is a weak argument. By no means is it proof that Protestantism is wrong, but I think that it is some pretty good evidence against it.

In this thread I would like to summarise what I deem to be difficult questions for Protestants. I will try to update this post, if anybody later on adds something. But if there is something that I list that is quite contentious, I think I would prefer it that was discussed in a new thread please. Here is the list:

1. 
   *]2 Maccabees - Protestants must claim this book is utterly incorrect.
   *]Canon of the Bible - Protestants must claim that the canon of the Bible is determined according to a set of criteria (that is in itself extra-Biblical), but this still cannot explain why some books are included in the Bible and some aren’t. OR they must explain why they accept the Tradition of the Catholic Church with the New Testament, but not the Old Testament.
   *]Early Church Fathers - Protestants must claim that some (if not most) of the writings of the early church fathers are simply false. In particular, the overwhelming evidence for practices which are distinctly Catholic in nature.
   
   That should do for starters. Comments, additions? If you have a short comment on one of these items, then go ahead and discuss it here. But if it will be lengthy, new thread please!

 

[Lazerlike42]

Protestants claim that the Bible must be taken literally. This is why they take the following verses literally:

Mat 15:6 he does not have to honor his father.’ In this way, you have revoked God’s word because of your tradition.

Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Yet despite this principle of being literal, they interpret the following verses figuratively:

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Joh 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Rom 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
Rom 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life:
Rom 2:8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

There are many more examples.

 

[Atreyu]

Ahh rats, I’d forgotten that you can’t edit posts once somebody else has posted… I guess we would have:

1. Figurative/literal Interpretations - There is no way for a Protestant to know when to interpret a certain Biblical passage as figurative and when to interpret it as literal.

 

[Contarini]

Atreyu:

1. 
   *]2 Maccabees - Protestants must claim this book is utterly incorrect.
   *]Canon of the Bible - Protestants must claim that the canon of the Bible is determined according to a set of criteria (that is in itself extra-Biblical), but this still cannot explain why some books are included in the Bible and some aren’t. OR they must explain why they accept the Tradition of the Catholic Church with the New Testament, but not the Old Testament.
   *]Early Church Fathers - Protestants must claim that some (if not most) of the writings of the early church fathers are simply false. In particular, the overwhelming evidence for practices which are distinctly Catholic in nature.

1. 
   Why must Protestants claim any of these things? Many Protestants believe, with a long line of Catholic theologians before the Reformation, that the “Apocrypha” such as II Maccabees are not “simply incorrect” but rather are on a lower level than those OT books which the Church has received from the ancient Hebrews and has always accepted as fully inspired. We accept the witness of the early Church as to which books are divinely inspired and which are not. Where that witness is unanimous (the Hebrew canon, the Four Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, etc.), we do not question it. For the most part we don’t question the disputed books of the NT either, because we accept that this question was settled in the fourth century. The OT canon, however, continued to be the subject of some debate throughout the Middle Ages, and we furthermore have the witness of the Jews to complicate matters. Many of us therefore think that the line of opinion running from St. Jerome to Cardinal Cajetan (and enshrined in the Anglican 39 Articles) is the best one to adopt–these books are received by the Church for moral instruction but cannot be used to prove doctrine.
   
   As for the Fathers, we don’t think they were infallible, but neither do you.
   
   Edwin

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Many Protestants believe, with a long line of Catholic theologians before the Reformation, that the “Apocrypha” such as II Maccabees are not “simply incorrect” but rather are on a lower level than those OT books which the Church has received from the ancient Hebrews and has always accepted as fully inspired.

Which Catholic “theologians” considered the Deuterocanonicals to be “apocrypha”, especially considering that the Canon of the Bible was set forth in the 4th Century, namely at the Council of Rome?

We accept the witness of the early Church as to which books are divinely inspired and which are not. Where that witness is unanimous (the Hebrew canon, the Four Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, etc.), we do not question it. For the most part we don’t question the disputed books of the NT either, because we accept that this question was settled in the fourth century.

So what about other things unanimously agreed upon by the early Fathers, such as the Real Presence?

 

[Contarini]

ComradeAndrei:

Which Catholic “theologians” considered the Deuterocanonicals to be “apocrypha”, especially considering that the Canon of the Bible was set forth in the 4th Century, namely at the Council of Rome?

Jerome for one, though as he so often did he seems to have backtracked later. Hugh of St. Victor for another. And the last such theologian of whom I know is Cardinal Cajetan in the 16th century. Apparently the pre-Reformation tradition did not give the Council of Rome the same weight you do. (I’ve heard other names cited, but these three appear with some regularity and I have some confidence that they did hold this view.)

ComradeAndrei:

So what about other things unanimously agreed upon by the early Fathers, such as the Real Presence?

I certainly believe in the Real Presence. I’m a lot looser about just what it means than orthodox Catholics are comfortable with–but the same is true of the Fathers. As I’m sure you know, Augustine said a number of things about the Real Presence that have given aid and comfort to a Reformed interpretation. Even Zwingli claimed to have Augustine on his side, I believe, though that’s really stretching it. And Augustine clearly didn’t think that what he was saying conflicted with the more realistic language of St. Ambrose. So I’m not claiming that Augustine held a Protestant view, only that he and others used language that indicates that the Fathers’ conception of the Real Presence was a lot broader than is possible for modern Catholics.

Edwin

 

[Atreyu]

Why must Protestants claim any of these things? Many Protestants believe, with a long line of Catholic theologians before the Reformation, that the “Apocrypha” such as II Maccabees are not “simply incorrect” but rather are on a lower level than those OT books which the Church has received from the ancient Hebrews and has always accepted as fully inspired.

The reason I use 2 Maccabees as an example is because it contains a pretty clear reference to praying to the dead and hence purgatory. Does not purgatory clearly contradict sola fide? What about imputed righteousness? This was the point I was trying to make, but if I have it wrong then please correct me

 

[O.S.Luke]

Protestants claim that the Bible must be taken literally. This is why they take the following verses literally…

More incorrect and broad-brushed statements about Protestants. Anglicans and Methodists do not claim that the Bible must be taken literally.

O+

 

[Atreyu]

See my post, #3, Luke.

 

[O.S.Luke]

1. Early Church Fathers - Protestants must claim that some (if not most) of the writings of the early church fathers are simply false. In particular, the overwhelming evidence for practices which are distinctly Catholic in nature.

That’s not true either. John Wesley quoted the Early Church Fathers at length. And Catholics don’t hold a monopoly on Christian practices.

O+

 

[Atreyu]

Luke I should probably have formally excluded Anglicans from my definition of “Protestant”. Perhaps I should have entitled the thread, “hard questions for sola scripturists”.

As for John Wesley, well I don’t know a whole lot about him. But how does he get by the writings of the early church fathers that talk about the unity of the Catholic Church (note my use of caps)? Even if he references the early church fathers at length, my statement was that Protestants (well, sola scripturists) must reject some of the writings of the early church fathers.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Atreyu:

Luke I should probably have formally excluded Anglicans from my definition of “Protestant”. Perhaps I should have entitled the thread, “hard questions for sola scripturists”.

As for John Wesley, well I don’t know a whole lot about him. But how does he get by the writings of the early church fathers that talk about the unity of the Catholic Church (note my use of caps)? Even if he references the early church fathers at length, my statement was that Protestants (well, sola scripturists) must reject some of the writings of the early church fathers.

Wesley had very little various with either the Early Church Fathers or the Seven Ecumenical Councils. As far as the word “catholic,” Wesley defined catholic as many Anglicans did and do: in the broader sense of the word, hence, his sermon, “Catholic Spirit” (which can be read here).

Wesley read the Early Church Fathers (Ante Nicene, Nicene, and Post Nicene) very avidly, quoted them (especially Macarius and Ephraem Syrus), and sought that the Methodist movement - at that time within Anglicanism - reflect the purity, simplicity, and communal power of the early church. His followers joined him in this, taking especially the apostolic church of Acts as their model. The emergence of a new denomination was an accident at best; Wesley died while remaining an Anglican priest.

Much of the ‘anti-popery’ of his day was anti-catholic rhetoric. While he occasionally was guilty of it himself, he was more often conciliatory and unifying than he was prejudiced.

Anglicans and Methodists aren’t “sola scripturists” per se. Scripture is read/interpreted through the lenses of experience, tradition, and reason.

O+

 

[Contarini]

Atreyu:

The reason I use 2 Maccabees as an example is because it contains a pretty clear reference to praying to the dead and hence purgatory. Does not purgatory clearly contradict sola fide? What about imputed righteousness? This was the point I was trying to make, but if I have it wrong then please correct me

First of all, prayer for the dead does not necessarily imply purgatory. Purgatory is a doctrinal development that arose from the ancient practice of prayer for the dead, but the Orthodox (and Anglicans too, these days) pray for the dead without necessarily believing in Purgatory.

Second, the references to an “expiatory sacrifice” are of course OT references, and no one denies that expiatory sacrifices were part of OT religion. The claim that the Apocrypha teach “works righteousness” in a sense that other OT books (and arguably some NT books, but of course they won’t admit this) don’t is a highly dubious bit of polemic on the part of hardline Protestants.

Third, Protestants are not of one mind in exactly what “sola fide” mean. Lutherans and Reformed insist that this is the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls, but they don’t speak for all Protestants. I’ve explained in another thread what I understand to be the Wesleyan (my own tradition of origin) understanding of sola fide to be, and I can repeat it if you like. Suffice it to say that in my view the two places where Wesleyans differ from Catholics on salvation are our belief that you can’t have supernatural faith without charity (in other words, while we all agree that unformed faith can’t save, you think it is a gift of God while we think it is just a human opinion), and our belief that one can have assurance of salvation (though since we think this is an assurance of present salvation I’m not sure this is really a huge difference). Neither of these issues is really relevant to II Maccabees.

Finally, I can’t see that purgatory is relevant to the sola fide issue at all, since anyone in purgatory has already been accepted by God. However, those who hold to hardline versions of sola fide tend to disagree, and who am I to tell them what to believe? Furthermore, as I pointed out, II Maccabees isn’t talking about purgatory per se but an expiatory sacrifice for the dead in order to gain them forgiveness. This is no doubt foreign to Protestant understandings of sola fide–the question is whether it’s any more so than other OT passages.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

O.S. Luke:

Wesley had very little various with either the Early Church Fathers or the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Make that six. Wesley certainly didn’t accept the teachings of II Nicea.
O.S. Luke:

As far as the word “catholic,” Wesley defined catholic as many Anglicans did and do: in the broader sense of the word, hence, his sermon, “Catholic Spirit” (which can be read here).

He had a highly spiritualized view of the unity of the Church.
O.S. Luke:

Wesley read the Early Church Fathers (Ante Nicene, Nicene, and Post Nicene) very avidly, quoted them (especially Macarius and Ephraem Syrus),

Indeed, he explicitly says in one letter that these two Fathers (actually what he thought was “Macarius” wasn’t really Macarius) are the exceptions to the generally inferior nature of post-Nicene Christianity. Wesley, in his later years at least, was pretty much an Anti-Nicene kind of guy (though he had no problem with the idea of a state church per se).
O.S. Luke:

Much of the ‘anti-popery’ of his day was anti-catholic rhetoric. While he occasionally was guilty of it himself, he was more often conciliatory and unifying than he was prejudiced.

By the standards of 18th-century English Protestantism (or Catholicism either, on the other side, for that matter), he wasn’t too bad, that’s for sure.
O.S. Luke:

Anglicans and Methodists aren’t “sola scripturists” per se. Scripture is read/interpreted through the lenses of experience, tradition, and reason.

It depends on what you mean by “sola scriptura.” Wesley certainly said many things that sound like a claim of “sola scriptura,” and he was very suspicious of most Christian tradition after Constantine. The “Wesleyan quadrilateral” is essentially a modern Methodist invention read back into Wesley. Still, he certainly had a more moderate understanding of “sola scriptura” than many other Protestants, and Methodists today make the most of this (quite rightly).

I don’t think we differ much on what we think Methodism ought to be. But as a historian, I want to be careful not to present an overly wishful view of Wesley to Catholics.

Edwin