Protestant Christology

[puzzleannie]

Hello,

Protestants always assert that they are 100% about Jesus with nothing else (except the Bible, of course) and that they only need Jesus and absolutely nothing else. ?

“Protestants” do not ALWAYS assert this or any other doctrinal statement. Please do not make broad generalizations of over-simplified statements and teachings of some pastors, some reformers, some denominations.

A more helpful way to begin a discussion is:
Martin Luther says in (cite source) . . . .
Billy Graham says (cite source) . . .
The Southern Baptist Convention announced (cite source) . . . .

 

[O.S.Luke]

A reminder… not all Protestants subscribed to sola scriptura. Specifically, any of the Anglican/Methodist lineage, since they were not descendants of Luther.

A lot of misinformation here.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Church history and Patristics were required classes in seminary. You haven’t talked to that many Protestants, evidently.

I invite you to read my seminary catalog, including course descriptions: Asbury Theological Seminary catalog. I think you will find all of the things you mentioned covered, though not always using the same name that you might use to title a course.

Then you are mistaken. Or your contact with Protestants is too limited for you to be making pseudo-apodictic pronouncements about all of them based upon your own narrow experience.

Most Protestant Seminaries also teach Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic and a full course in Church History as well as Confessional Dogmatics.

You are correct that I haven’t talked to a whole host of Protestants on their education, but those I have talked to (outside of this forum that is) have given me very similar accounts. Looking at the website provided, it does require a course in Church History, but what exactly is taught in that course? Seeing that the school seems to subscribe primarily to Wesleyan-Arminian theology, I doubt that the “Trail of Blood” history believed by some Baptists is taught. But, is there a similarly skewed view of history being taught there. Do they teach that Constantine was the founder of the Catholic Church, which is a popular secular viewpoint today? I don’t know.

It is nice to see it is required to take, but the whole of Patristics is in the optional electives section. They may teach the ancient languages, but are they required? Even so, just knowing an ancient language doesn’t give one an understanding of the Catholic faith, or even the Protestant Christian faith - though it does help quite a bit in Biblical exegesis.

I see that they offer a course in both Ante-Nicene Fathers and Post-Nicene Fathers, but as Montalban asked, do they just cherry-pick them? Do they teach in-depth all the Fathers? Do they study the vast majority of works of all the Fathers, or just one or two out of context that seem to contradict Catholicism or at least not condemn Protestantism?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

The rest of this commentary sinks under its own ponderous weight of jingoism.

There is nothing in Sola Scriptura requiring on the one hand the bogeyman of “Private Interpretation” or, on the other, a necessary departure from historical moorings.

Please show how you can have Sola Scriptura without private interpretation.

You really should leave behind your comic books and step into the gallery of real history and theology.

Captain Catholic to the rescue!!

What I am saying is that for all the theological problems and debates that exist between Protestantism and Catholicism, the nature of Christ as true God and true man is not really one of them, nor has it ever really been one and your effort to make it one is ridiculous.

I have heard some really, really off the wall things from Protestants concerning Jesus. This prompts me to ask the question, who do you say that Christ is?

Here is the Christological confession of every Protestant:

Jesus Christ is 100% God and 100% man, the natures are distinct without ever being separable. He is the second Person of the Trinity which they also confess.

I challenge you to find an official Protestant document or confession that denies this.

Some have said that He wasn’t fully human, or that He wasn’t always fully God or that He gave up His divinity while on earth. Or have no understanding of the two natures. To be fair, these usually came from Evangelicals, Assembly of God, Non-Denominationals, and not necessarily from the more traditional denominations like Lutherans, Methodists, etc. But I noticed there was nothing in the confession about the two wills of Christ. If there is no mention of it in any of the confessions (not saying there isn’t) then one would assume that it isn’t part of their belief or that they are cognizant of it.

Presbyterians and Lutherans even affirm the doctrine of the Theotokos because they are so consistent in their Christology that they understand that the natures are, in the incarnation so inseparable that to say that Mary was the mother only of the man but not of God would be nonsensical.

Well that is news to me! It seems to me that Protestants are in such a rush to minimize Mary and move completely away from what they perceive as the “Mary Worship” of Catholics that they reduce her to some sinful girl who was nothing more than an incubator for Jesus. And at best, they will acknowledge her as the Mother of Jesus, in His humanity. You are the first Protestant I have seen acclaim her as the Theotokos.

Well, baby steps.

The attempt to reduce a whole group to the terms of its lowest denominator is an effort to demonize and really is an expression of a lack of charity since it reveals an effort to objectify what is really a living individual. You shouldn’t do it.

Wow! Calm down little buddy. No one is trying to demonize anyone. This thread is an effort to understand what Protestants believe. Sorry I can’t start several thousands of threads, one for each denomination out there.

Steadfast:

Steadfast:

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

“Protestants” do not ALWAYS assert this or any other doctrinal statement. Please do not make broad generalizations of over-simplified statements and teachings of some pastors, some reformers, some denominations.

A more helpful way to begin a discussion is:
Martin Luther says in (cite source) . . . .
Billy Graham says (cite source) . . .
The Southern Baptist Convention announced (cite source) . . . .

The point I was trying to make is that Protestants focus entirely on Jesus. They don’t pray to the Saints, nor pray to Mary. They don’t really focus on the Sacraments, except maybe Baptism. They don’t focus on praying for the dead. etc.

I really wasn’t trying to make a doctrinal statement for all Protestants, just giving a general perception - that Protestants are focused on Jesus, and not at all on Mary, the Saints, those in Purgatory, Sacramentology, etc., etc.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

You are correct that I haven’t talked to a whole host of Protestants on their education, but those I have talked to (outside of this forum that is) have given me very similar accounts. Looking at the website provided, it does require a course in Church History, but what exactly is taught in that course? Seeing that the school seems to subscribe primarily to Wesleyan-Arminian theology, I doubt that the “Trail of Blood” history believed by some Baptists is taught. But, is there a similarly skewed view of history being taught there. Do they teach that Constantine was the founder of the Catholic Church, which is a popular secular viewpoint today? I don’t know.

It is nice to see it is required to take, but the whole of Patristics is in the optional electives section. They may teach the ancient languages, but are they required? Even so, just knowing an ancient language doesn’t give one an understanding of the Catholic faith, or even the Protestant Christian faith - though it does help quite a bit in Biblical exegesis.

I see that they offer a course in both Ante-Nicene Fathers and Post-Nicene Fathers, but as Montalban asked, do they just cherry-pick them? Do they teach in-depth all the Fathers? Do they study the vast majority of works of all the Fathers, or just one or two out of context that seem to contradict Catholicism or at least not condemn Protestantism?

Yes, of course they cherry pick them. As do all seminaries, Catholic included. One of the most difficult jobs at any institution is not to decide what to teach, but to decide what not to teach. There is so much ground one would like to cover and you can’t cover it all.

What I read when I read your post(s) is a sense that if any one teaches different that your beliefs as to what should be taught then they are not teaching the right thing. Now you may believe that the same teachings are taught throughout the Catholic Church at all levels and in all places. And generally that is true. But it is also true that generally Catholics and Protestants also believe the same thing, that the core beliefs of both groups are so similar that they go by the same name – Christians. Of course they are not identical in all things. There are difference. And these differences find expression in the seminaries fo the different groups. Thus you have not just Christian, but Christians of a Catholic flavor and Christians of a Protestant flavor. But before you accuse every Protestant of becoming his or her own individual denomination, aren’t you doing the same thing. In your focus on the details as you have (nothing wrong with that most of the time), you want to know if your favorite set of Church Fathers are being taught. That isn’t going to happen in even Catholic seminaries. You’re going to have to establish your own seminary (your own individual denomination) if you want that much control of what is and isn’t approved.

It seesm as if you want a school of the Wesley-Arminian tradition to teach the Catechism. You love your Catholic Church, fine. But making all protestants Catholic is an unworthy goal. Why, because we won’t become more one in Christ by becoming Catholic. Either you recognize that we already are all Christians and thus one in Christ or you don’t. The question of unity of disunity is not in the action of protestants to separate from the governance of the Catholic Church, but in the attitude of individual Catholics to see non-Catholic Christians as their brothers and sisters in Christ. You see we are whether people recognize it or not. So, any lack of unity in the family is the result of poor attitudes toward one another and nothing else.

Herein lies a failing of Catholic Christology, to truly understand the nature of the body of Christ as inclusive of all who belong to Christ, not just all who belong to the Catholic Church. And if the Catholic Church does recognize this, then it needs to teach the practice of it better so that it is experienced more fully in places like this forum, for I am not sensing it here.

 

[Steadfast]

JMJ,

Let’s boil it down:

1. Your experience of individual Protestants doesn’t mean much. What you really should be doing is interacting with the official doctrinal positions of denominations. For every example of a messed up Protestant a similar example of a messed up Catholic can be shown as well.
2. I am not sure which confessions you’ve reviewed but inasmuch as Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, etc. all affirm Nicaea and Chalcedon, no reinvention of the wheel is necessary. Confessions are not usually systematic theology texts, they are elucidations of controversial points.
3. Protestantism isn’t monolithic. You just can’t extrapolate from a single example to the whole. There are common points of convergence between Protestant churches but then there are also many points of dissimilarity. One of the points where they converge though, at least in the case of the vast majority is in this matter of Christology.

It just isn’t really a problem unless it’s a problem of catechesis, which would explain examples of poorly educated Protestants, but again, and I am sure you’ll agree, Protestants aren’t the only ones with this particular problem.

1. As to my own Christology: I confess what the Pope confesses which happens to be exactly what the overwhelming majority of Protestants confess as well.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Yes, of course they cherry pick them. As do all seminaries, Catholic included. One of the most difficult jobs at any institution is not to decide what to teach, but to decide what not to teach. There is so much ground one would like to cover and you can’t cover it all.

I can’t tell exactly what is taught in those two courses on the Fathers by just the course description, but from my observation of what Protestants know of the Fathers, either what is being taught in such courses is very limited, or very few students take them.

As for what Catholics are taught, it depends on the field one is studying. Every seminary student will get a taste of the Fathers, but if they study more towards Pastoral and Canon Law, it may not go beyond that. If they are focusing on Theology or Church History or even Biblical studies, then they are going to be exposed to considerably more.

My personal view is, the Orthodox get the most education in the Church Fathers than anyone.

What I read when I read your post(s) is a sense that if any one teaches different that your beliefs as to what should be taught then they are not teaching the right thing. Now you may believe that the same teachings are taught throughout the Catholic Church at all levels and in all places. And generally that is true. But it is also true that generally Catholics and Protestants also believe the same thing, that the core beliefs of both groups are so similar that they go by the same name – Christians. Of course they are not identical in all things. There are difference. And these differences find expression in the seminaries fo the different groups. Thus you have not just Christian, but Christians of a Catholic flavor and Christians of a Protestant flavor. But before you accuse every Protestant of becoming his or her own individual denomination, aren’t you doing the same thing. In your focus on the details as you have (nothing wrong with that most of the time), you want to know if your favorite set of Church Fathers are being taught. That isn’t going to happen in even Catholic seminaries. You’re going to have to establish your own seminary (your own individual denomination) if you want that much control of what is and isn’t approved.

It seesm as if you want a school of the Wesley-Arminian tradition to teach the Catechism. You love your Catholic Church, fine. But making all protestants Catholic is an unworthy goal. Why, because we won’t become more one in Christ by becoming Catholic. Either you recognize that we already are all Christians and thus one in Christ or you don’t. The question of unity of disunity is not in the action of protestants to separate from the governance of the Catholic Church, but in the attitude of individual Catholics to see non-Catholic Christians as their brothers and sisters in Christ. You see we are whether people recognize it or not. So, any lack of unity in the family is the result of poor attitudes toward one another and nothing else.

This seems to fundamentally ask the question - do you think that Catholicism is the one and only one true faith? And simply, my answer is yes. But this is beyond the scope of this thread.

Herein lies a failing of Catholic Christology, to truly understand the nature of the body of Christ as inclusive of all who belong to Christ, not just all who belong to the Catholic Church. And if the Catholic Church does recognize this, then it needs to teach the practice of it better so that it is experienced more fully in places like this forum, for I am not sensing it here.

Again, this is beyond the scope of this thread. But simply my thought, succinctly, is that all those baptized using the Triune formula with the proper intention are members of the one Catholic Church.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

1. Your experience of individual Protestants doesn’t mean much. What you really should be doing is interacting with the official doctrinal positions of denominations. For every example of a messed up Protestant a similar example of a messed up Catholic can be shown as well.

That is fairly easy enough with the more traditional denominations, like the Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc., even when they have maybe three or four different versions of themselves (i.e. Lutherans of the Missouri Synod, Evangelical Lutherans in America, etc.). With a little effort, their beliefs can be learned.

It becomes increasingly difficult when you start to encounter the newer and less traditional denominations. What is different between the 2nd Street Church of Jesus Christ and Happytown Community Christian Church - each a separate denomination consisting of just one church building. In these, it seems that individual beliefs fraction the congregations so much that a the drop of a hat some members will leave to start their own denomination.

1. I am not sure which confessions you’ve reviewed but inasmuch as Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, etc. all affirm Nicaea and Chalcedon, no reinvention of the wheel is necessary. Confessions are not usually systematic theology texts, they are elucidations of controversial points.

By confessions, do you mean texts like Luther’s Ausburg Confessions?

1. Protestantism isn’t monolithic. You just can’t extrapolate from a single example to the whole. There are common points of convergence between Protestant churches but then there are also many points of dissimilarity. One of the points where they converge though, at least in the case of the vast majority is in this matter of Christology.

It just isn’t really a problem unless it’s a problem of catechesis, which would explain examples of poorly educated Protestants, but again, and I am sure you’ll agree, Protestants aren’t the only ones with this particular problem.

Do not get me started on the problems of modern Catholic catechetics!

1. As to my own Christology: I confess what the Pope confesses which happens to be exactly what the overwhelming majority of Protestants confess as well.

Check out the new book by Pope Benedict XVI on Jesus of Nazareth.