Is Protestantism an innovation? Why or Why not?

[Axion]

The key to this is quite simple.

Were the key distinctive doctrines being taught by protestants today taught by any Christians between the 1st Century and the 14th Century? Is rthere any evidence of this?

The answer is a big NO. While honour for Mary, the existence of one visible church, the authority of scripture and tradition, the real presence, the heirarchy etc, can be proven to have been taught through all ages. The protestant doctrines of Faith Alone and Scripture Alone, the abandonment of Apostolic succession and visible church authority are not found anywhere before the late Middle Ages.

They are demonstrably innovations, invented around 500 years ago. Attempts to “back-originate” them to selected interpretations of selected bible texts avails nothing, since for 1400 years no Christians ever believed or taught such interpretations of those passages.

 

[dennisknapp]

Axion:

The key to this is quite simple.

Were the key distinctive doctrines being taught by protestants today taught by any Christians between the 1st Century and the 14th Century? Is rthere any evidence of this?

The answer is a big NO. While honour for Mary, the existence of one visible church, the authority of scripture and tradition, the real presence, the heirarchy etc, can be proven to have been taught through all ages. The protestant doctrines of Faith Alone and Scripture Alone, the abandonment of Apostolic succession and visible church authority are not found anywhere before the late Middle Ages.

They are demonstrably innovations, invented around 500 years ago. Attempts to “back-originate” them to selected interpretations of selected bible texts avails nothing, since for 1400 years no Christians ever believed or taught such interpretations of those passages.

I fully agree. Ozzie has never dealt with this historical fact. He chooses to think that all before the “reformation” were horribly decieved, and awaiting the coming of Luther, Calvin, Zwingly and Ozzie to put things right.

Peace

 

[Ozzie]

Axion:

The key to this is quite simple.

Were the key distinctive doctrines being taught by protestants today taught by any Christians between the 1st Century and the 14th Century? Is rthere any evidence of this?

This is not the issue in respect to “innovations.” What I listed were all post-Apostolic teachings by men. Hence, innovations of men. Pure and simple.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Ozzie:

This is not the issue in respect to “innovations.” What I listed were all post-Apostolic teachings by men. Hence, innovations of men. Pure and simple.

You haven’t demonstrated that these teachings were post-Apostolic. You merely assert they are. Why should I take your word for it? PROVE IT, or stop saying it.

 

[Ozzie]

Scott_Lafrance:

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.

Sorry, but I haven’t read these guys. But I have studied the Scriptures.

Can you honestly say this thead isn’t anti-“Protestant” jargon and Dennis is your leader? :yup:

 

[dennisknapp]

Ozzie:

Sorry, but I haven’t read these guys. But I have studied the Scriptures.

Can you honestly say this thead isn’t anti-“Protestant” jargon and Dennis is your leader? :yup:

Ozzie,

Nice Ad Hominem.

Please remove the plank in your own eye before trying to remove the splinter in mine, thanks.

We are trying to deal with historical facts here, my friend. Facts that you seem to ignore for some reason. You seem to want to interpret Scripture in a Protestant vacuum, in total disregard for history and continuity.

Peace

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Ozzie:

Sorry, but I haven’t read these guys. But I have studied the Scriptures.

Can you honestly say this thead isn’t anti-“Protestant” jargon and Dennis is your leader? :yup:

Other than a few scattered postings I’ve read, I really don’t know who Dennis is. I have studied the scripture and I haven’t seen an innovative anti-Catholic arguement in at least a hundred years. Everything, including your posts, are just a rehashing of the same tired old arguements. You aren’t even the first person to post them here. I would say, you are probably about the 14th or 15th staunch anti-Catholic who has submitted this stuff here.

 

[MaggieOH]

Scott_Lafrance:

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.

 

[MaggieOH]

Ozzie:

Sorry, but I haven’t read these guys. But I have studied the Scriptures.

Can you honestly say this thead isn’t anti-“Protestant” jargon and Dennis is your leader? :yup:

You could have fooled me that you have read the Scriptures. I see some extremely poor interpretations but nothing that shows a true understanding of God’s Mercy and Salvation.

 

[Mickey]

Ozzie,

Can you say?..**Sacred Tradition! :yup: **

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Mickey:

Ozzie,

Can you say?..**Sacred Tradition! :yup: **

Only under duress.

 

[romeishome]

I believe that protestantism is an innovation! Being a former protestant myself I understand the “innovations” of the protestant movement! I mean if you call 900 different protestants into a room and ask them about 1 doctrinal question you will get 900 different answers, because each and every protestant church is an “island unto itself” and each church self proclaimes its authority to interpret scripture.

While catholics may not agree in every aspect, when asked to make a judgement on doctrine, and faith you can ask 900 different catholics and you will get only 1 answer, as long as those answering are faithful to the Church!

Thank God for a CHURCH that was founded upon the Apostles and Prophets!

God Bless you and Mary keep you,

Cody

 

[Lorarose]

There are good compilations of early church writings that all christians ought to examine closely.
One online source is here…

newadvent.org/fathers

You will not see the principles of Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura in the teachings of the early church.

 

[Contarini]

dennisknapp:

What do you mean by Newman’s “rather dubious categories?”

For one thing, his distinction between development and corruption, which he seems to think applies to both true and false ideas. This is based on his notion of basic, discernable principles and ideas (between which he makes a distinction that I think I grasp, but it’s tricky), which again he claims to be able to discern in what he regards as false systems (such as Calvinism) as well as in Catholicism. Thus, he argues that Unitarianism, if not exactly a development, isn’t really a corruption of Calvinism, because it remains faithful to Calvinism’s basic principle. To which the obvious response is: where does Newman get the right to declare what the basic principle is of a religious tradition which he doesn’t believe in?

Was he not a Protestant when he started to write that essay? Why would would his categories be dubious?

Peace

First of all, why on earth do you think Protestants never regard other Protestants’ categories as dubious? Isn’t it common knowledge among Internet Catholics that Protestants are split into thousands of quarreling sects who can’t agree on anything?

More to the point, Newman would have considered himself not to be a Protestant when he wrote the Essay, but an “Anglican,” which in his definition was something quite distinct from Protestantism. Furthermore, the whole point of the Essay is to debunk this “Anglican” position (which Newman had essentially invented in the first place, using older Anglican materials as building blocks, admittedly) in favor of Catholicism. The Essay is quoted ad nauseam by Catholic apologists on the Internet. That’s fair enough–it’s one of the most interesting pieces of 19th-century theology, and IMHO it’s one of those books everyone interested in theology should try to read at some point. But that’s why I’m singling it out for attack, because it’s given many Catholic apologists a pretext for using a double standard, invoking “development” to avoid facing the tough historical questions while denying Protestants any right to claim that their doctrines are developments.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[romano]

dennisknapp:

Is Protestantism an innovation? Why or Why not?

Your comments, please?

Read Hilaire Belloc. Protestantism was financed by those who wished to destroy the unity of the Church and seize its property.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

romano:

Read Hilaire Belloc. Protestantism was financed by those who wished to destroy the unity of the Church and seize its property.

Another point that alot of people miss and Hillaire Belloc brings out is, how far would the “Reformation Movement” gone if Europe wasn’t about to be overrun by the Ottoman Turks? The Church and her allies were far too busy trying to save Europe from being Muhammedized than stopping the patent heresy going on in Germany and Switzerland. Once the turned back the Turks, it was essentially too late, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli got their claws dug into their respective cultures and weren’t about to let go.

 

[Contarini]

romano:

Read Hilaire Belloc.

Or alternatively, read someone who is a better historian and a less determined propagandist. Euan Cameron, say.

Edwin

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Please do us all a favor and substantiate this claim.

Contarini:

Or alternatively, read someone who is a better historian and a less determined propagandist. Euan Cameron, say.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Substantiate what claim? That Euan Cameron is a better historian? Well, by any objective standard he’s certainly more eminent as a historian than Belloc was. Belloc got a history degree from Oxford but didn’t pursue an academic career. His work was not written to be read and reviewed by fellow historians but to persuade the general public. Which is not a bad thing at all, just different. And if you want a fair, balanced approach, then you should read someone who is a professional first–without neglecting the propagandists either, especially those as talented as Belloc. I’m just tired of Belloc being cited as if he was the great authority on the Reformation, which he isn’t. Read people who specialize in studying the Reformation, if you really want to understand it.

But really the only way to substantiate the claim is for you to read Cameron’s The European Reformation and judge for yourself. I’m giving an opinion based on having read both. It’s not something for which there are objective standards except in terms of acceptance and accolades by the guild of historians. As I’ve said, Belloc doesn’t come off very well on that score, but that shouldn’t be the decisive factor. The important thing is that he is simply unfair and distorted in his treatment of the Reformation. He consistently downplays the role of theology in the Reformation and misunderstands that theology. He simply isn’t a very good source if you want to understand the Reformation rather than simply pat yourselves on the back for not being like those evil Protestants.

As a comic poet, now, he’s unsurpassed . . . .

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Wildgraywolf]

MaggieOH:

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

Wow, short and sweet… One thing we should thank our Protestant brothers & sisters for… pews…