D
dennisknapp
Guest
Is Protestantism an innovation? Why or Why not?
Your comments, please?
Your comments, please?
- Status
R
Ruth101
Guest
Why would it be an innovation? It is the opening up of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to those who were under bondage.
De 5:29,32; 6:1-3; De 6:6-9; 11:18; 17:18; 30:14; 31:11; Jos 7:1-26Jos 1:8; Ps 1:2; 19:14; 37:30; 40:10; 119:11,15, 42-43, 97, 99; Pr 2:1-5; 3:1; Isa 59:21; Mt 12:35; Mt 7:21; 28:20; Lu 11:28;
Joh 13:17; 14:21; Eph 4:29; Col 3:16; 1Ti 4:14-16; Jas 1:22-25;
Re 22:14
De 5:29,32; 6:1-3; De 6:6-9; 11:18; 17:18; 30:14; 31:11; Jos 7:1-26Jos 1:8; Ps 1:2; 19:14; 37:30; 40:10; 119:11,15, 42-43, 97, 99; Pr 2:1-5; 3:1; Isa 59:21; Mt 12:35; Mt 7:21; 28:20; Lu 11:28;
Joh 13:17; 14:21; Eph 4:29; Col 3:16; 1Ti 4:14-16; Jas 1:22-25;
Re 22:14
M
MaggieOH
Guest
The Gospel of Jesus Christ was opened up by the Apostles and was passed down through their successors.
Yes there were innovations that have resulted from the Reformation, especially Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.
Maggie
Yes there were innovations that have resulted from the Reformation, especially Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.
Maggie
R
Ruth101
Guest
Have you never read Psalm 119? How about this?
Matthew 4:3-10 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
I honestly don’t think there have been any innovations, just a repenting of the foresaking of, and returning to, the true worship of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Word. The Reformation just gave the people back the Word of God.
2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (past tense)
Now you are wondering what prophesy? The prophesy that Messiah would come, and He did, and He is coming again.
M
mtr01
Guest
My exact sentiments. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide were unknown in the Church for 1500 years or so, until the Reformers came about. If that’s not an innovation, I don’t know what is.
S
Scullinius
Guest
From Dictionary.com:
in·no·va·tion
n.
The act of introducing something new.
Something newly introduced.
Yes, sola fide and sola scriptura were new. But I don’t see why they’re anything to brag about. Sola fide comes from Luther’s unconscionable decision to put words in St. Paul’s mouth. Sola scriptura is completely untenable on three grounds: (1) its lack of scriptural support makes it self-refuting, (2) the New Testament itself explicitly refutes sola scriptura, and (3) the Church wrote and canonized the New Testament – so by accepting the Bible at all you are recognizing the Church’s authority to define the canon of scripture. Do you think the Church didn’t know what it was doing? If you don’t, then why do you rely on the Bible at all? And if you do, then why do you think we needed a Reformation?
in·no·va·tion
n.
The act of introducing something new.
Something newly introduced.
Yes, sola fide and sola scriptura were new. But I don’t see why they’re anything to brag about. Sola fide comes from Luther’s unconscionable decision to put words in St. Paul’s mouth. Sola scriptura is completely untenable on three grounds: (1) its lack of scriptural support makes it self-refuting, (2) the New Testament itself explicitly refutes sola scriptura, and (3) the Church wrote and canonized the New Testament – so by accepting the Bible at all you are recognizing the Church’s authority to define the canon of scripture. Do you think the Church didn’t know what it was doing? If you don’t, then why do you rely on the Bible at all? And if you do, then why do you think we needed a Reformation?
C
Curious
Guest
No it wasn’t. It was the breaking away from the Catholic Church.
People were opening the gospel of Jesus Christ before the reformation ever happened.
L
Lorarose
Guest
Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are innovations
A
adnauseum
Guest
I don’t understand the question.
Was pornography an innovation in the film industry? Yeah, but what’s the point? Pornography is still a sin. What does its novelty have to do with anything?
Was pornography an innovation in the film industry? Yeah, but what’s the point? Pornography is still a sin. What does its novelty have to do with anything?
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Was Protestantism something new? If it is new why buy into it? Why not be a Mormon?
Peace
C
Contarini
Guest
I voted “maybe,” because it depends on what you mean by “innovation.” I don’t think that the line between development and innovation is as clear as Catholics (following Newman’s rather dubious categories, IMHO) tend to think. The Orthodox think the IC is an innovation, and Protestants think Sola Fide is a development. I don’t think there are clear-cut ways to resolve this historically.
I would prefer to say that Protestantism involved some innovations, and we Protestants need to question those and check them against the historic consensus of the Church. But many of the basic demands of the Protestants were solidly Traditional–communion in both kinds, for instance, or free lay access to the Scriptures. Even Sola Fide, while definitely expressed in an innovative (and hence problematic) way by Luther, was at its root a solidly evangelical and traditional teaching, and not incompatible with Catholicism. The problem was that distortions in catechesis and doctrinal development led the Protestants to overreact and use “sola fide” as a kind of hatchet to slash away practices and beliefs which they thought promoted “works righteousness.” Some of these, such as indulgences, were themselves innovations (yes, I know that will raise a storm of protest here). Others, such as the sacrificial character of the Mass, were Traditional doctrines which had been taken in some problematic directions, and the Protestant reaction was at least as damaging as the original problem they set out to correct.
Much the same could be said of sola scriptura, although sola scriptura, rightly understood (the primacy and material sufficiency of Scripture), has far more basis in the Tradition than does sola fide.
That, at least, is one Protestant’s take on it.
In Christ,
Edwin
I would prefer to say that Protestantism involved some innovations, and we Protestants need to question those and check them against the historic consensus of the Church. But many of the basic demands of the Protestants were solidly Traditional–communion in both kinds, for instance, or free lay access to the Scriptures. Even Sola Fide, while definitely expressed in an innovative (and hence problematic) way by Luther, was at its root a solidly evangelical and traditional teaching, and not incompatible with Catholicism. The problem was that distortions in catechesis and doctrinal development led the Protestants to overreact and use “sola fide” as a kind of hatchet to slash away practices and beliefs which they thought promoted “works righteousness.” Some of these, such as indulgences, were themselves innovations (yes, I know that will raise a storm of protest here). Others, such as the sacrificial character of the Mass, were Traditional doctrines which had been taken in some problematic directions, and the Protestant reaction was at least as damaging as the original problem they set out to correct.
Much the same could be said of sola scriptura, although sola scriptura, rightly understood (the primacy and material sufficiency of Scripture), has far more basis in the Tradition than does sola fide.
That, at least, is one Protestant’s take on it.
In Christ,
Edwin
C
Church_Militant
Guest
I say yes…for the same reasons that I despise “novel theory” in law because it departs from the truth. The problems w/in the Catholic Church did not warrant a split and Luther did not have that as his goal to begin with, but as civil governments became involved he was used and manipulated.
It is factually correct that Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide did not exist prior to that time and are departures from real NT Christian doctrine.
With all due respect to Ruth101 and any others who hold a similar opinion, these doctrines do not represent “a return to the word of God” or a departure from error. Protestantism is nothing more than a humanist, man-centered, rebellion against true Christianity and the Eucharist, (which CAN indeed be traced back to the immediate followers of the Apostles!) that has led millions of Christians into error and confusion and resulted in myriad divisions among Christians.
Pax vobiscum,
It is factually correct that Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide did not exist prior to that time and are departures from real NT Christian doctrine.
With all due respect to Ruth101 and any others who hold a similar opinion, these doctrines do not represent “a return to the word of God” or a departure from error. Protestantism is nothing more than a humanist, man-centered, rebellion against true Christianity and the Eucharist, (which CAN indeed be traced back to the immediate followers of the Apostles!) that has led millions of Christians into error and confusion and resulted in myriad divisions among Christians.
Pax vobiscum,
C
Cubsfan
Guest
I would have to say the Protestant reformation was inventive and not innovative. Most of the new theology was the inventions of these reformers.
Innovative means that better ways of doing things evolved; protestantism has not resulted in better worship of God just a different way of worshippoing him.
Innovative means that better ways of doing things evolved; protestantism has not resulted in better worship of God just a different way of worshippoing him.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
**## Where does St. Paul write about the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, Mary as Co-Redemptrix, the lawfulness of holy images, the Assumption of Mary… ? **
**He doesn’t
****So the Reformers are not the only people who have to answer questions about innovation. So do most Churches - perhaps all. **
**ISTM that Protestantism is as valid as Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and that all three of them can appeal to the NT with equal justification - just, not about all of the same things. It merely happened that the Protestant impulses in mediaeval Christianity, Catholic or otherwise, had not taken institutional form, so Protestantism can looks like more of an innovation than it is. But the spirit was there. **
The Protestant movement would still be valid and real, even if there were no non-Protestants in the world - because Protestantism is not just a protest against certain things; it is also a bearing witness to certain other things. Unfortunately, the former part of it - a** part that is not essential to the Protestant impulse, that could have happened otherwise than it did - the part that is against something, is often the only aspect of the Protestant impulse or movement that people notice or remember. Which leads to a lot of misunderstanding of what Protestantism is. Which is not much good for us who are not Protestants. ##
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:**## Where does St. Paul write about the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, Mary as Co-Redemptrix, the lawfulness of holy images, the Assumption of Mary… ? **
**He doesn’t
So the Reformers are not the only people who have to answer questions about innovation. So do most Churches - perhaps all.
**ISTM that Protestantism is as valid as Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and that all three of them can appeal to the NT with equal justification - just, not about all of the same things. It merely happened that the Protestant impulses in mediaeval Christianity, Catholic or otherwise, had not taken institutional form, so Protestantism can looks like more of an innovation than it is. But the spirit was there. **
The Protestant movement would still be valid and real, even if there were no non-Protestants in the world - because Protestantism is not just a protest against certain things; it is also a bearing witness to certain other things. Unfortunately, the former part of it - a** part that is not *essential ***to the Protestant impulse, that could have happened otherwise than it did - the part that is against something, is often the only aspect of the Protestant impulse or movement that people notice or remember. Which leads to a lot of misunderstanding of what Protestantism is. Which is not much good for us who are not Protestants. ##
I would agree with you regarding the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, but will have to part ways regarding Protestantism.
There is early historical support for both the Orthodox and Catholic positions. For the Protestant there is very late support, and what support there is contradicts what came before. Therefore, Protestantism in an innovation in that it taught something new; somethings that were unknown to the previous generations of Christians.
Peace
D
dennisknapp
Guest
What do you mean by Newman’s “rather dubious categories?” Was he not a Protestant when he started to write that essay? Why would would his categories be dubious?
Peace
O
Ozzie
Guest
It makes no sense to call it an “innovation.” The perpetual virginity of Mary is an innovation. Her so-called Immaculate conception is an innovation. Her assumption into Heaven is an innovation. The teaching that she’s Queen of Heaven is an innovation. The “Magisterium” is an innovation. The doctrine that it’s infallible is an innovation. Prayer to deceased “saints” is an innovation. “Purgatory” is an innovation. Transubstantiation is an innovation. The sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation is an innovation. The Pope as “vicar of Christ on earth” is an innovation. That the church of Rome is the Church that Christ “founded” is an innovation. That the Roman Bishops are the seccessors of the Apostles is an innovation. That the Roman church (that ANY church, for that matter) is the new Israel is an innovation. Sacrificial nature of the “Mass” is an innovation.
Why? Because none of the above are are found in God’s immutable, written Word. Conclusion: Man’s innovations.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
No, these things were beleived and taught by the Apostles and their successors.
Nope, these things were all started by Jesus Christ Himself. Can you prove that these are all innovations, or are you just good at regurgitating Fundamentalist poo?
Bzzzzzz, next contestant.
Considering you use an abridged version of Scripture, I would say that you are attempting to breach this arguement not armed with all the facts. Go get a complete bible, and do a little more research.
O
Ozzie
Guest
Proof? Which Apostle taught the Marian doctrines?
Can you give me documentation for Christ teaching, for instance, the Marian doctrines or that the Bishop of Rome is His vicar on earth?
I can prove to you that they all lack Biblical support. If the Apostles didn’t teach them, nor did Christ, then by definition they are men’s innovations.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
You still haven’t proven anything. You seem to be perfect at reciting the anti-Catholic Fundamentalistic jargon that has been debunked for over a hundred years. Maybe you should find a better source of information than Lorraine Boettner or Jack Chick.
- Status