How do protestants explain history

[Kamui_Senketsu]

I thought the proselytising rule was for non-catholics to catholics, in that this forum can’t be used to try and turn catholics away from their faith. Catholic answers is about the defence of the (catholic) faith - the book is a defence of the catholic faith? I’m not catholic and even I can see that. This isn’t a general religious forum, it is a catholic forum…defending the catholic faith, if non catholics (or even catholics) don’t like books which defend the catholic faith being advertised, they shouldn’t be here.

Catholic answers are the publishers of the book…so how they are not supposed to advertise it I’m not sure!

Yes, while it is true that Catholic Answers purpose is to defend Catholicism which I’ll admit as an Orthodox Christian, I use this site as an “Introduction” before researching more about a certain topics such as the Real Presence. The Book perhaps is to defend Catholicism but however, it should be kept in mind that non Catholics like me come here to learn, socialize, befriend and perhaps engage in meaningful discussion with the majority of Catholics here. You don’t expect to tell a Protestant that he/she must convert to Catholicism if he/she comments on a thread in this forum, you clear up misconceptions and engage in meaningful and fruitful discussion with him/her.

Yes, I know that they are publishers for the book but they could’ve advertise it on their FB page or their main website, not the Forum itself. Of course, my personal opinion should not be taken seriously as it is not my intent to force Catholic Answers into not advertising their book, they can and I don’t mind but from a Protestant’s point of view, it may be…offending and may even make him/her reluctant to share his/her opinion. Again, my mere two cents. Catholic Answers are free to do whatever they like, this Book wouldn’t reduce their credibility and it may even have good content.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Yes, while it is true that Catholic Answers purpose is to defend Catholicism which I’ll admit as an Orthodox Christian, I use this site as an “Introduction” before researching more about a certain topics such as the Real Presence. The Book perhaps is to defend Catholicism but however, it should be kept in mind that non Catholics like me come here to learn, socialize, befriend and perhaps engage in meaningful discussion with the majority of Catholics here. You don’t expect to tell a Protestant that he/she must convert to Catholicism if he/she comments on a thread in this forum, you clear up misconceptions and engage in meaningful and fruitful discussion with him/her.

Yes, I know that they are publishers for the book but they could’ve advertise it on their FB page or their main website, not the Forum itself. Of course, my personal opinion should not be taken seriously as it is not my intent to force Catholic Answers into not advertising their book, they can and I don’t mind but from a Protestant’s point of view, it may be…offending and may even make him/her reluctant to share his/her opinion. Again, my mere two cents. Catholic Answers are free to do whatever they like, this Book wouldn’t reduce their credibility and it may even have good content.

This isn’t really the thread to discuss this, but the forums is part of their main website…they aren’t different websites, it’s all just sub sections. I don’t think anyone (even the book) is forcing the Protestant to convert…I’m not catholic, have read the book and certainly doesn’t make me feel forced into being converted. It just outlines the catholics point of view in a very clear and interesting way. It obviously doesn’t agree with Protestantism or else it wouldn’t be catholic? same way you can come here to learn about Catholicism but you obviously don’t agree or else you would be catholic?

Same way the OP of this thread is wondering how Protestants can look at history and not see the catholic perspective. It is a valid question? The early church fathers did seem to believe in what catholics believe and Protestants either don’t know this or they do and for whatever reason decide it doesn’t meant they are catholic, or they were wrong, or any other reason?

 

[Kamui_Senketsu]

This isn’t really the thread to discuss this, but the forums is part of their main website…they aren’t different websites, it’s all just sub sections. I don’t think anyone (even the book) is forcing the Protestant to convert…I’m not catholic, have read the book and certainly doesn’t make me feel forced into being converted. It just outlines the catholics point of view in a very clear and interesting way. It obviously doesn’t agree with Protestantism or else it wouldn’t be catholic? same way you can come here to learn about Catholicism but you obviously don’t agree or else you would be catholic?

Fair enough I suppose if that’s your opinion. While I agree there would be tracts against Protestant doctrines such as Sola Scriptura as this is a Catholic website perhaps regarding the book, I might be misinformed about it. Overall, I suppose that your point is correct here

.

Same way the OP of this thread is wondering how Protestants can look at history and not see the catholic perspective. It is a valid question? The early church fathers did seem to believe in what catholics believe and Protestants either don’t know this or they do and for whatever reason decide it doesn’t meant they are catholic, or they were wrong, or any other reason?

Well check out JND Kelly, Darwell Stone and Philip Schaff, they all present History that is in support with Catholicism and they are all Protestants. Just to note, Philip Schaff have some bias against Catholicism in his writings so it is important to keep that in mind when reading his writings. As for JND Kelly and Darwell Stone, they both present in their books “Early Christian Doctrines” and “A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist” views that support the Catholic view on the Church Fathers. Come to think about it, many books regarding Early Christianity that I read are largely written by Anglicans from Oxford University and are not Catholic or Orthodox.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

So for 1,500 years all Christianity either was Roman Catholic or closely resembled it in all corners of the earth from Goa India to Ethiopia and no where did it resemble modern day american evangelicalism. I can see a Lutheran’s, a conservative Anglican’s or a Eastern Orthodox point of view but it completely puzzles me how anyone can believe like a American evangelical and sincerely have studied Christianity.

Below is some answers I have got gotten from evangelicals

“With technology we can be closer to god and understand him more”

“I believe in the bible not history”

“Well what is important is we both believe in jesus as our savior I just like a different type of worship”

I see it the opposite way.

When I read the ECFS and church history, I see more of high church Protestantism in there than Roman Catholicism. I could see Orthodoxy as well. I see Roman Catholicism as highly developed, with many of its teachings not present in the early church. I think “development of doctrine” is a rationale for why that’s so.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Fair enough I suppose if that’s your opinion. While I agree there would be tracts against Protestant doctrines such as Sola Scriptura as this is a Catholic website perhaps regarding the book, I might be misinformed about it. Overall, I suppose that your point is correct here

Well check out JND Kelly, Darwell Stone and Philip Schaff, they all present History that is in support with Catholicism and they are all Protestants. Just to note, Philip Schaff have some bias against Catholicism in his writings so it is important to keep that in mind when reading his writings. As for JND Kelly and Darwell Stone, they both present in their books “Early Christian Doctrines” and “A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist” views that support the Catholic view on the Church Fathers. Come to think about it, many books regarding Early Christianity that I read are largely written by Anglicans from Oxford University and are not Catholic or Orthodox.

So if they accept that the early church fathers were catholic (which I think is what you are saying)…why aren’t the authors of the books catholic? Which is similar to the question in the OP

 

[Adamski]

I see it the opposite way.

When I read the ECFS and church history, I see more of high church Protestantism in there than Roman Catholicism. I could see Orthodoxy as well. I see Roman Catholicism as highly developed, with many of its teachings not present in the early church. I think “development of doctrine” is a rationale for why that’s so.

I am really trying to talk about American evangelicals because their version of Protestantism is very very distant from how early Christianity was

 

[Kamui_Senketsu]

So if they accept that the early church fathers were catholic (which I think is what you are saying)…why aren’t the authors of the books catholic? Which is similar to the question in the OP

Yes, you could say that but in my point of view, Catholic in this case refers to the combination and unity of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Regarding why these scholars aren’t Catholic, that I don’t know, it could be due to the legalistic system of the Catholic Church or their reluctance to submit to the Authority of the Bishop of Rome/Pope. I mean there’s a Muslim that wrote a book about Jesus called Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, yet weirdly, the Author of the Book is a former Evangelical. So why doesn’t the Author convert to Christianity after writing the book?

 

[Kamui_Senketsu]

I see it the opposite way.

When I read the ECFS and church history, I see more of high church Protestantism in there than Roman Catholicism. I could see Orthodoxy as well. I see Roman Catholicism as highly developed, with many of its teachings not present in the early church. I think “development of doctrine” is a rationale for why that’s so.

Generally, I see a combination of the three in their writings which is Catholicism, High Church Protestantism(Anglican and Lutheran[there could be know but these are all I know]) and Orthodoxy. Of course as for the Evangelical Protestants of today, I can hardly find a trace to be honest here.

 

[dronald]

Fair enough I suppose if that’s your opinion. While I agree there would be tracts against Protestant doctrines such as Sola Scriptura as this is a Catholic website perhaps regarding the book, I might be misinformed about it. Overall, I suppose that your point is correct here

Well check out JND Kelly, Darwell Stone and Philip Schaff, they all present History that is in support with Catholicism and they are all Protestants. Just to note, Philip Schaff have some bias against Catholicism in his writings so it is important to keep that in mind when reading his writings. As for JND Kelly and Darwell Stone, they both present in their books “Early Christian Doctrines” and “A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist” views that support the Catholic view on the Church Fathers. Come to think about it, many books regarding Early Christianity that I read are largely written by Anglicans from Oxford University and are not Catholic or Orthodox.

I’ll also throw in, “A Readers Lexicon of the Apostolic Fathers” by Daniel B Wallace.

danielbwallace.com/2013/10/03/readers-lexicon-of-the-apostolic-fathers/

Interesting that no one in the world has done more for textual criticism than this Evangelical.

 

[Darryl_B]

I have a friend who is Episcopalian who considers herself a good Christian and every once in a while I itch to ask her how she feels about the origins of her church with it’s murderous past and the fact that for 250 her church literally outlawed Catholicism in her country and persecuted Catholics in all her colonies as well. That means it was illegal to be Catholic in English Colonies folks. Yeppers - here in the good ole USA until we were a Nation freed from Colonial oppression, if you were Catholic you were an illegal person. There is lots to think about there.

I haven’t yet asked her how her church explains what they did to Catholics when they started but it would be interesting to hear. I don’t think our friendship would remain if I asked her.

Glenda

The irony in that is that Episcopalian is actually Anglican, but they couldn’t use the name Anglican because the Americans were a little bit sensitive having gone through a battle of independence.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Your average Protestant person knows as much of Church history probably as much as the average Catholic person, lol. It’s funny and sad at the same time.

The average Catholic, however, is more aware of the legacy of the Church through the lives of the saints. Active Catholics are very devout people and they love to learn about the lives of the saints and to hear people’s histories of God’s grace in their lives. So Church history is of a devotional nature as opposed to an apologetic nature.

As for Protestant historians, I need to vouch for them even if I don’t fully agree with them. Some of them have a very twisted view of history - while others have a more cautious approach.

Personally, I have been blessed to have engaged with Protestant scholars that are very honest and great students of Church history and they present some very valid arguments in their reasoning for not joining Catholic or Orthodox Churches. And during my discernment years, they were all very charitable and honest and all insisted that I should not discard Catholicism in spite of my own personal doubts. What a blessing!

Most of the Protestants I talk to daily, they want to ignore history or discard it because it’s not the Bible. They would rather believe a false interpretation of Scriptures than a true historical fact… mind boggling…

 

[benjohnson]

I am really trying to talk about American evangelicals because their version of Protestantism is very very distant from how early Christianity was

I know what you’re saying - especially on theology.

But oddly enough, when you see house churches in hostile places like China you can see echoes of what you find in the Didache, especially in the community that builds up around the church.

In my opinion, the strength of evangelicals lies in the creation of a comprehensive community centered around the church. Frankly (and this is really meant for me) some of us “high-church” types need to understand that the conclusion of God’s Service isn’t the end of the church for the week.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

This is an interesting viewpoint, coming from an Orthodox Christian. At the time of the Reformation, Orthodoxy had considered Rome in schism, maybe heresy, for close to 500 years.
If we look at two major points of divergence the Lutheran Reformers had at the time, they were justification, and the power and primacy of the pope. But connected to and wrapped up in these two issues are practices such as indulgences, private masses, etc.

So, which of these do you think the Lutheran Reformers were wrong about. Justification?
Fine. Perhaps, then, Orthodoxy has no cause for division, since you agree with the Vatican on everything else. Yes?

Jon

The differences between the Lutheran and orthodox go beyond justification. I would note there really isn’t a wholly defined system of describing salvation in the orthodox church like that found in protestant traditions/councils or Catholic catechism/councils. Its not fair as well, to say we agree with the Vatican on everything else either, for there are certainty a lot of differences if I am forced to mention them but surely you know of them (if not I’ll pm you some examples I consider appropriate).

But I doubt the Lutheran church could consider any church to be the true church before the reformation, at least within the time frame of the middle ages. Nicaea 2 which Lutherans (I believe) deny accepts the veneration of icons and justifies their use and has had a strong impact in eastern Christendom, going so far as to have a day called the victory of Orthodoxy. There is of course the strong emphasis by the orthodox it is wrong to have the creed with the filliqoue and not only with the changed creed but the doctrine itself, something Lutherans accept fully.

I will rephrase my initial point about history and how a Lutheran (I think) should see it. First and foremost scripture the is the object by which true faith is revealed. Secondly Lutherans have right divided and interpreted the word. Thirdly no other group in history before them has come to such a definition of the faith. Fourthly, if no one has been coming to the same conclusions as the Lutherans who have the true understanding that means no one has been reading scripture correctly. Fifth, if no one has been understanding scripture then there has been no true church for a period of time.

Where was the church during the middle ages for the Lutheran? I don’t see where it could be anywhere myself from what I see of the Lutheran position.

 

[benjohnson]

T Nicaea 2 which Lutherans (I believe) deny accepts the veneration of icons and justifies their use and has had a strong impact in eastern Christendom.

I don’t think we’ve rejected the Second Council of Nicaea at all.

From the Lutheran standpoint, veneration is fine, worship isn’t. If we’ve accused our Catholic and Orthodox friends of worship - then it probably was our mistake, though to be fair at some points in the western church’s history it was probably an easy mistake to make.

One Lutheran church I go to for Vespers counts these icons as one of it’s most precious treasures - they were commissioned and given in steadfast love by the local Orthodox church to their Lutheran church friends.

 

[benjohnson]

.

But I doubt the Lutheran church could consider any church to be the true church before the reformation, at least within the time frame of the middle ages.

Not to pick on you, but from the Lutheran stand point this is completely the opposite of how we understand our church - as we profess the church as per the creeds.

We view ourselves as a valid continuation of the western church, as begun in Pentecost. At no point did we ‘split’ or ‘found’ a new church - if we did, our church would be a mockery of Christ’s commands.

The idea that the Lutheran church is just another modern wackadoo (no slight intended on real wackadoos) church founded on some random dude and not Christ is something that we find shocking. Of course, we have to accept that our church needs to get it’s affairs in order so that no-one would look at us and think that.

 

[AbideWithMe]

So for 1,500 years all Christianity either was Roman Catholic or closely resembled it in all corners of the earth from Goa India to Ethiopia and no where did it resemble modern day american evangelicalism. I can see a Lutheran’s, a conservative Anglican’s or a Eastern Orthodox point of view but it completely puzzles me how anyone can believe like a American evangelical and sincerely have studied Christianity.

Below is some answers I have got gotten from evangelicals

“With technology we can be closer to god and understand him more”

“I believe in the bible not history”

“Well what is important is we both believe in jesus as our savior I just like a different type of worship”

I am really trying to talk about American evangelicals because their version of Protestantism is very very distant from how early Christianity was

Adamski–To get answers, you really need to specify which particular lineage of Evangelicals you want to hear from: Evangelical Methodists, Evangelical Anglicans, Baptists, Reformed, Evangelical Presbyterians, or who do you have in mind? We’re all Evangelicals, but our post-Reformation roots largely influence our beliefs regarding Scripture, traditions, and sacraments.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Thank you to Kamui, Isaiah (José), and Ben for your even-handed comments.

 

[JonNC]

=IgnatianPhilo;11721293]The differences between the Lutheran and orthodox go beyond justification. I would note there really isn’t a wholly defined system of describing salvation in the orthodox church like that found in protestant traditions/councils or Catholic catechism/councils. Its not fair as well, to say we agree with the Vatican on everything else either, for there are certainty a lot of differences if I am forced to mention them but surely you know of them (if not I’ll pm you some examples I consider appropriate).

No. I understand what you are saying. In fact, your point about the differences between Holy Orthodoxy and Catholicism was exactly my point.

But I doubt the Lutheran church could consider any church to be the true church before the reformation, at least within the time frame of the middle ages. Nicaea 2 which Lutherans (I believe) deny accepts the veneration of icons and justifies their use and has had a strong impact in eastern Christendom, going so far as to have a day called the victory of Orthodoxy.

Lutheranism was vocally opposed to the iconoclasm that occurred during the Reformation era, and has always supported Nicea 2 and the use of iconography.

There is of course the strong emphasis by the orthodox it is wrong to have the creed with the filliqoue and not only with the changed creed but the doctrine itself, something Lutherans accept fully.

Admittedly, the irony about our use of the Filioque is that we often speak out about the CC doing things without a truly ecumenical council, which of course is the case of Filioque. Sometimes our western-ness overcomes us.

I will rephrase my initial point about history and how a Lutheran (I think) should see it. First and foremost scripture the is the object by which true faith is revealed. Secondly Lutherans have right divided and interpreted the word. Thirdly no other group in history before them has come to such a definition of the faith. Fourthly, if no one has been coming to the same conclusions as the Lutherans who have the true understanding that means no one has been reading scripture correctly. Fifth, if no one has been understanding scripture then there has been no true church for a period of time.

And here you would be wrong. While we believe scripture to be inerrant, we do not believe any other writing, regardless of its source, is equal to scripture in that way. That doesn’t mean we reject other writings. The very first section in our confessional Book of Concord consists of the Three early Creeds, and we pledge ourselves to them. We actually believe that the early Church had it right, and most of our disagreements with the Catholic Church have to do with doctrines that have developed since the Schism. But that doesn’t mean that they Church is not found in the Vatican, or with those who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. The Church is indeed found there, and has always been found there, for the Church is the congregation of believers where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. And just as the real presence is not excluded because of an evil priest being the celebrant, the Church is no less the Church even if there are errors in teaching of a given communion.
Do I believe our teaching to be apostolic and true? Yes. Does that make Lutheranism the only place His grace is found in word and sacrament? Of course not.

Where was the church during the middle ages for the Lutheran? I don’t see where it could be anywhere myself from what I see of the Lutheran position.

Perhaps what I have said here helps you see that your conclusions are mistaken.

Jon

 

[Memaw]

Generally, I see a combination of the three in their writings which is Catholicism, High Church Protestantism(Anglican and Lutheran[there could be know but these are all I know]) and Orthodoxy. Of course as for the Evangelical Protestants of today, I can hardly find a trace to be honest here.

Can you trace thier beginings all the way back to Jesus Christ like the Catholic Church can? God Bless, Memaw

 

[JonNC]

Can you trace thier beginings all the way back to Jesus Christ like the Catholic Church can? God Bless, Memaw

Lutherans and Anglicans both can, if you are implying Apostolic Succession. While not all Lutheran pastors have AS (not all Catholic priests have had it, either), many do, through undeniable lines.

So, yes, we trace our beginnings in the Church Catholic which dates back to Pentecost.

Jon