Have protestants put forward any new arguments?

[namer0331]

When you read the church fathers and early history, I don’t find any arguments the modern day protestants have not been addressed? None of the arguments seem new. So I’m curious are there any new arguments from protestants?

 

[DavidFilmer]

That’s an interesting question.

I presume you refer to new arguments against Catholic doctrine, and not new arguments in favor of their own beliefs.

The Early Fathers wrote both dogmatically (Against Heresies) and pastorally (Ten Homilies on John). Most writings are pastoral. We sometimes find protestant ideas refuted in pastoral writings, even though the original intent was not to refute anything. For example, modern Baptists (despite the irony of their name) believe that Baptism is a mere symbolic ceremony to commemorate a salvation event that has already taken place. Nobody in the early age of the Church ever had such an idea (there were many debates about Baptism, but nobody claimed it did nothing), so nobody back then made any deliberate attempt to refute it, but we have lots of pastoral writings that support the Catholic position that we can turn to in modern times. The same could be said for Eucharist and many other things.

But have protestants managed to come up with something completely original that nobody in the early Church had ever given a thought to? I gotta think about that.

 

[pacomius]

have things been written on recent issues like stem cell development? for instance: if God says humans are His image and likeness what about clones… or when we have a population of clones should they be considered sub-human? also we revere the Blessed Virgin Mary for numerous reasons including her virginial conception and maternity of Christ … but with invitro fertilization, that miracle can be re-enacted in the laboratory; so why should we still see it as A BIG DEAL? and thirdly on the very sensitive issue of masturbation the Catholic catechism specifically considers it a grave violation of God’s will … but just yesterday a came across a site where people were commenting on whether it is sinful and many argued that why was it never mentioned in the bible even though it already existed in biblical times (I added this third issue of masturbation because although many things have been written about it by the church, I saw I very new argument that has kept me laughing for literally 24 hours … it said IF GOD DID NOT WANT US TO MASTURBATE WHY DID HE NOT GIVE US SHORT HANDS LIKE T-REX DINOSAURS? has anything been written on these issues … including the t-rex dinosaur part?

 

[chefmomster2]

have things been written on recent issues like stem cell development? for instance: if God says humans are His image and likeness what about clones… or when we have a population of clones should they be considered sub-human? also we revere the Blessed Virgin Mary for numerous reasons including her virginial conception and maternity of Christ … but with invitro fertilization, that miracle can be re-enacted in the laboratory; so why should we still see it as A BIG DEAL? and thirdly on the very sensitive issue of masturbation the Catholic catechism specifically considers it a grave violation of God’s will … but just yesterday a came across a site where people were commenting on whether it is sinful and many argued that why was it never mentioned in the bible even though it already existed in biblical times (I added this third issue of masturbation because although many things have been written about it by the church, I saw I very new argument that has kept me laughing for literally 24 hours … it said IF GOD DID NOT WANT US TO MASTURBATE WHY DID HE NOT GIVE US SHORT HANDS LIKE T-REX DINOSAURS? has anything been written on these issues … including the t-rex dinosaur part?

I don’t believe that discussions based on these “arguments” are either helpful or “new”. There will always be scientific “breakthroughs” to address. The Church is consistent. Human life is a gift. Don’t mess with God’s plan.

Your final example is too ridiculous to require a response.

 

[chefmomster2]

I don’t believe that discussions based on these “arguments” are either helpful or “new”. There will always be scientific “breakthroughs” to address. The Church is consistent. Human life is a gift. Don’t mess with God’s plan.

Your final example is too ridiculous to require a response.

Please understand, I am not calling you ridiculous. Just the T-rex argument.

 

[mackbrislawn]

When you read the church fathers and early history, I don’t find any arguments the modern day protestants have not been addressed? None of the arguments seem new. So I’m curious are there any new arguments from protestants?

I wonder too. Coming up with arguments against Catholicism is the raison d’etre for Protestants, it is their reason for being. They are constantly searching scripture for anti-Catholic arguments. Have they come up with any new ones?

They do have weird, off-the-wall statements about Catholic beliefs, like “Catholics don’t believe in the Resurrection!” “Catholics have crucifixes which show they think Jesus is still on the cross!” Quite irrational, but they use it to convince themselves.

 

[Goya]

That’s an interesting question.

I presume you refer to new arguments against Catholic doctrine, and not new arguments in favor of their own beliefs.

The Early Fathers wrote both dogmatically (Against Heresies) and pastorally (Ten Homilies on John). Most writings are pastoral. We sometimes find protestant ideas refuted in pastoral writings, even though the original intent was not to refute anything. For example, modern Baptists (despite the irony of their name) believe that Baptism is a mere symbolic ceremony to commemorate a salvation event that has already taken place. Nobody in the early age of the Church ever had such an idea (there were many debates about Baptism, but nobody claimed it did nothing), so nobody back then made any deliberate attempt to refute it, but we have lots of pastoral writings that support the Catholic position that we can turn to in modern times. The same could be said for Eucharist and many other things.

But have protestants managed to come up with something completely original that nobody in the early Church had ever given a thought to? I gotta think about that.

Excellent answer David.

 

[Goya]

To the OP’s question:

I’d say ‘no’ in general, but ‘yes’ in particular.

That is, pretty much every protestant school of thought is addressed in one way or another by the Church Fathers–either ‘pastorally’ or ‘dogmatically’ (as David Fulmer mentioned)–or as I would characterize the latter, ‘apologetically’.

But there is simply no limit to the particulars–the ‘niches’ that protestants can come up with, in order to justify their own existence–by which I mean, the existence of the newest denomination du jure, that they may sell to other protestants, as to why they should come to their church, as opposed to another pastor’s.

Reminds me of Amway, and Multi-level marketning–if you start a whole new MLM, with your own little spin, you get a lot more ‘bang for your buck’ than if you start under someone else’s ‘network’, within an existing MLM.

(not that I would know anything about these things…that’s uh…just what I hear).