Proper Attitude Towards Protestant Theology

[Exporter]

FelixBlue:

I assume you mean serious protestant theology rather than protestant apologetics/popular theology?

Serious, academic Protestant Theology should be taken seriously as another Christian attempt to follow theological methods in thinking about God and related matters.

An example of this would be Hans Urs von Balthasar’s study of Karl Barth, the great Lutheran theologian of the 20th century.

You have to understand that much of Prot theology today goes far beyond the polemics of the Reformation. Thus, their contribution, if studied with prudence, can be considerable.

Having said this, most Catholics should stick to reading Catholic theology (and by the way, most of the material seen on an apologetics forum like this is not representative of what is going on in the world of Catholic Theology).

---

You gave us a responsible post…BUT, can you demonstrate that this New Protestant Theology has sifted down into the pulpits of the Protestant Churches of today?

If the answer is, “No!”, then of what practical use is it?

 

[RBushlow]

sabrinaofmn:

I have been a Protestant always, and now I am in RCIA. I was raised in Tulsa, OK, the buckle of the Bible belt, in a foot-stomping, tongues-speaking, slain-in-th-spirit kind of church. I knew nothing of Catholicism, but as I studied the Bible I drew away from the dancing in the isles kind of church. I then found my way into the Methodist church, which felt much more right, and through study of theology, I am now in RCIA. I never rejected the Catholic Church because I never knew anything about it. I couldn’t be a separated bretheren, because I never knew what a Catholic was.

They were separate from the Church in about 1540 AD.
BTW, I hope you will continue to be salin-in-the-spirit. We all need to be.

God bless and keep you.

 

[caroljm36]

Psalm45:9:

If Catholics were more educated in their faith, then there would be no need for Protestant Missionaries in Latin America and other Catholic 3rd World Countries, their “mission” would be fruitless.

We need Catholic missionaries in THIS country! Maybe even in the Church.

 

[Luke1_48]

I don’t like it, there’s this mean lady in my neigborhood, that’s telling my family we don’t know the bible. It’s very annoying!

 

[Madaglan]

Maybe I’ll start telling my friends that my church is sending missionaries to the Deep South.

 

[Luke1_48]

Madaglan:

Maybe I’ll start telling my friends that my church is sending missionaries to the Deep South.

That’s a good idea, we need to evangelize the evangelized!

 

[Binary_Paul]

Learn the Catholic faith and doctrin
e. Practice the faith charitably. Be able to defend the faith. Be open to dialogue and win them back to the Church by example and prayer. Pray for the unification of all Christian sects back into the Catholic Church.

If Catholics would do these things diligently the protestant sects would not have anything to offer because parts of their beliefs are counterfeit.

Always be charitable and patient. Telling them they are in heresy does not usually evangelize them to the truths of the gospel. Above all, ask the Holy Spirit for guidance on what to say.

They are our separated brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[RobedWithLight]

mtr01:

That sad thing is that what started as a reform of discipline from inside the Church ended up being a rejection of doctrine from outside the Church.

As for my poll response, I took the 2nd choice (heresy, but educate ourselves against it), because it was close to what I believe. I do believe it is heresy, but I also believe we should work to bring our “separated brethren” back into the fold.

Protestantism is still heresy. No doubt about it. However the Church today prefers not to call them as such in their faces in the spirit of reconciliation and ecumenism. As one old saying goes, honey attracts more flies than gall.

Gerry

 

[walter.gonzalez]

There are times that I struggle with feelings of anger and resentment when I hear protestants disrespect the Catholic church. It is particularly difficult for me to maintain a christian attitude when Jesus’s mother Mary is insulted.

Yesterday I lost my composure and told an evangelical that he was a heretic and “nuts”. Now I feel bad that I didn’t just state matter of factly that I disagreed with him. I flipped out when he appropriated the early church fathers for protestantism and dispensationalism.

 

[hlgomez]

There are some truths found in Protestant theology, but the basic doctrines such as sola scriptura and sola fide should be condemned. In other words, let’s separate the wheat from the chaff and retain the good wheat.

Blessings in Christ,

Pio

 

[Contarini]

:BUT, can you demonstrate that this New Protestant Theology has sifted down into the pulpits of the Protestant Churches of today?:

Yes. Not just Barth (who was Reformed, not Lutheran), but more moderate and ecumenical approaches generally have radically transformed Protestantism. Of course, it all depends what kind of Protestants we’re talking about. Liberal Protestants have adopted a kind of “new theology” that threatens to take them outside the Christian faith altogether. Fundamentalists and some hardline “confessional Protestants” (conservative Lutherans, for instance) cling on to the sharp positions of earlier centuries. But moderate evangelicals and conservative-to-moderate “mainliners” are very interested in dialogue with Catholics. That some of you are not willing to reciprocate is your loss almost as much as ours.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

walter.gonzalez:

There are times that I struggle with feelings of anger and resentment when I hear protestants disrespect the Catholic church. It is particularly difficult for me to maintain a christian attitude when Jesus’s mother Mary is insulted.

Yesterday I lost my composure and told an evangelical that he was a heretic and “nuts”. Now I feel bad that I didn’t just state matter of factly that I disagreed with him. I flipped out when he appropriated the early church fathers for protestantism and dispensationalism.

IMO the Fathers “belong” as much to Protestants as to Catholics. Other Christians are as much the inheritors of the pre-Reformation period as we are, because it is part of their past, just as it is part of ours.​

Protestants have done a great deal of work editing them, translating them, and helping to spead knowledge of their works. It’s an immense pity that Catholics appear not to know this

If Catholics and Protestants read each others books more, they might understand each other better. They certainly won’t come to an understanding of each other by building defences against each other

Protestants laid the foundations of modern Biblical scholarship; of the textual criticism of the New Testament; of Biblical archaeology. They have been very prominent in the study of the liturgy. ##

 

[FelixBlue]

**************************************************************************
You gave us a responsible post…BUT, can you demonstrate that this New Protestant Theology has sifted down into the pulpits of the Protestant Churches of today?

If the answer is, “No!”, then of what practical use is it?

Practical use? I guess you would have to define what you mean. Much of theology (even Catholic) is not of much “practical use.” In fact, most. I’m not quite sure the language of utility is appropriate to most (speculative anyway) theology.

Nevertheless, I would argue that it is natural to man to speculate on the nature of God and all those questions that arise relating to God (whether transcendant or immanent). Does this speculation have a “payoff”? Perhaps not. But does reading Plato have a payoff?

So, to answer your question, I’m not interested in demonstrating the “sifting down” to pulpits. My simple point is that prostestants do have interesting and worthwhile thoughts at times.

Do you ever read philosophy other than Catholic philosophy? If so, I see no reason to bar the prots.

 

[walter.gonzalez]

## IMO the Fathers “belong” as much to Protestants as to Catholics. Other Christians are as much the inheritors of the pre-Reformation period as we are, because it is part of their past, just as it is part of ours.

Protestants have done a great deal of work editing them, translating them, and helping to spead knowledge of their works. It’s an immense pity that Catholics appear not to know this

If Catholics and Protestants read each others books more, they might understand each other better. They certainly won’t come to an understanding of each other by building defences against each other

Protestants laid the foundations of modern Biblical scholarship; of the textual criticism of the New Testament; of Biblical archaeology. They have been very prominent in the study of the liturgy. ##

That is exactly my point. The church fathers were not protestant fathers, they belong just as much to the catholic church.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

walter.gonzalez:

That is exactly my point. The church fathers were not protestant fathers, they belong just as much to the catholic church.

They weren’t RC or Protestant, AFAICS, or Orthodox , or [insert name of other church as required] - they were Catholic (or catholic - “Catholic” is a name claimed by Orthodox and Romans and others).​

They belong to all, equally, whose tradition (= history, and faith) is continuous with theirs - so no one Church can appropriate them to itself ##

 

[excatholic]

Madaglan:

I know that the proper way to address Protestants is as “departed brethren.” However, although I recognize that Protestants share with Catholics many beliefs, I cannot help but recognize that Protestants are very hostile to Catholic beliefs.

In the first few centuries the Church showed little respect towards those who were not Christians who followed the apostolic faith. St. Polycarp, when asked by the heretic Marcion whether or not he recognized him, responded: “Of course I recognize the offspring of Satan.” A famous story tells of Peter fleeing a bathhouse when he finds out that the heretic Cerinthus is inside. In fleeing, Peter is recorded to have said, “Let us flee lest the roof fall in…for within is Cerinthus, enemy of the truth.”

The fact that Protestants are slightly different than the Gnostics may be the reason that we should call them “departed brethren” instead of “enemies of the truth,” as the early Christians called the dissenters in the early Church. Ok, my big question is somewhat connected with all this: If Protestants are simply our “departed brethren,” how should we view Protestant theology? When I say Protestant theology, I mean mostly the ideas that are not shared by the Catholic Church in any way: sola scriptura, sola fide, invisible church, only symbolic (as opposed to sacraficial) Eucharist, premillenialism, dispensationalism, etc.

The Roman Catholic Church was legally recognized by the Roman Emperor Constantine, and, in 380 it became the official religion of the Roman Empire.The RCC makes the claim that the early church in Rome (prior to the 313 date) was called the Roman Catholic Church when in fact it was not. The Church in Rome was an extension of the Jerusalem church westward. When Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313C.E. Rome expressed toleration for the Christian church and eventually it became a state religion by the year 380. This state religion was not and is not the same as what the Jerusalem church taught. I can’t believe we still argue about this. The RCC makes it a habit of venerating which would cause anything in history that ever happened in the Christian faith to be a Catholic event. The RCC effectively uses the spin that “catholic means universal” when we know it to mean the “Roman Catholic Church” hence RCC. Jesus was not a Catholic; he was and is a Jew. His disciples were not Catholic either, they were also Jewish. Paul was not Catholic either, he was a Jew from the tribe of Benjamin. Are we starting to see a pattern here, could it be possible that the first Christiansin Rome were not Catholic either? I would say it is good bet they were not seeing as the term Catholic was not even used until 110 C.E. Just because the RCC claims the first church was Catholic does not make it right or true. God bless you friend.

 

[Contarini]

:The RCC makes the claim that the early church in Rome (prior to the 313 date) was called the Roman Catholic Church:

No, the RCC makes no such claim. Actually, many Catholics don’t like the term “Roman Catholic Church.” It really isn’t an appropriate term until after the Reformation, or at the very earliest the Middle Ages. Why are you fixated on terminology? That is not the point. The phrase “Catholic Church” was used by the second century. You’re inventing the Constantine connection out of whole cloth. Constantine’s recognition of Christianity did bring changes, but the term “Catholic Church” was much older and the term “Roman Catholic Church” was not later. You’re completely wrong here. Check any reputable church history, from any perspective.

: when in fact it was not. The Church in Rome was an extension of the Jerusalem church westward.:

Inasmuch as all Christianity stemmed from Jerusalem. But Paul’s letter to the Romans shows that there was a church at Rome very early, with no direct allegiance to Jerusalem of the kind you seem to imply. Ignatius and Irenaeus show great deference to Rome without reference to Jerusalem. Clement writes in the name of the church of Rome and does not indicate that he is somehow subject to Jerusalem. Again, you appear to be either making this up out of whole cloth or (more likely) following uncritically an unfounded theory. Please read more good, professional church history and less propaganda. Justo Gonzalez (a Methodist) is a good place to start. W. H. C. Frend, Peter Brown, J. N. D. Kelly, and Henry Chadwick are all authors who have written good books about the early Church, and none of them are Catholic (though Chadwick and Kelly are definitely Anglican, and Brown is probably Anglican if he’s anything–Frend’s affiliation I don’t know). Among older Protestant histories, Philip Schaff (German Reformed) is a good choice (19th century).

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[michaelp]

Hey all, this looks like a good conversation.

I have to agree with the last post. The word “catholic” is a theological term used very early to describe the nature of the Body of Christ–the church. The Body of Christ is “universal” (i.e. not limited to a particular race, sex, or nation). Protestants should not be afraid of the term. In fact, we should embrace it. It carries a rich history to which Protestants would identify with until the Reformation.

BTW: Protestant do not like the name “Protestant” any more than Roman Catholics like the name “Roman Cathlic” (seeing as how the name itself is an oxymoron). We, Protestants, still see ourselves as catholic Christians since we are part of the universal Body of Christ. It might be better if we were called evangelicals since this is another theological term used to discribe a group. This would describe the activity of the group and catholic would describe the nature of the group. So in this sense, Protestants are evangelical catholics! Or at least that is how we see ourselves–even if you disagree .

 

[montanaman]

Catholics don’t like being called “Roman Catholic?” That’s a new one. I’m proud of it.

 

[Contarini]

And I don’t mind the term “Protestant,” even though I don’t really line up as Protestant in any classic theological sense!

Edwin