Protestant "New Perspective on Paul" About to Radically Change Protestantism & Promote Reunity With Catholics?

[CentralFLJames]

There seems to be a new Protestant initiative called The New Perspective on Paul that is radically challenging the traditional Protestant forensic perspective on justification (sola Fide).

This new perspective is forcing all of Christendom to re-look at Justification as less a personal forensic “event” (e.g. “I believe”) and see it more in terms of an ongoing covenantial and corporate relationship with God’s Church and People. This plays well with the Catholic view of Jesus as being inseparable from His Body and His Bride - His Church.

This pushes everything toward the Catholic theology on Justification (which does not see it as a single “forensic” event but as the first step in an ongoing sanctification process). It also let’s all faiths save face by suggesting an anachronistic shifts in semantics away from community toward individual salvation. The new thinking suggests that the semantic for the words “justified” and “salvation” are all contextually wrong in the context of contemporary Protestant understanding. In other words many Protestants are starting to say what Catholics have been saying all along:

“JUSTIFIED” ≠ “SAVED”.

Here is another article:
The New Perspective and Catholic-Protestant Debate

Based on what I am reading it seems to me that Christianity as we know it is on the threshold of a radical breath-through in understanding that will make it possible for a reunification of many Protestants with The Catholic Church.

Thoughts?

James

 

[traillius]

I think what will happen as time nears the end, is non catholic christians will do one of two things:

1. They will reunite with Rome.
2. They will keep splitting from each other, and move further from the truth.
   The first group will be part of God’s true church, which will be re-unified.
   Those in the second group will either become non-christian in all but name ( or entirely ) , or fade from existence due to spreading and dissolution.
   In the end, as mcleod says " There can be only one. " It will be the Catholic Church.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

There seems to be a new Protestant initiative called The New Perspective on Paul that is radically challenging the traditional Protestant forensic perspective on justification (sola Fide).

This new perspective is forcing all of Christendom to re-look at Justification as less a personal forensic “event” (e.g. “I believe”) and see it more in terms of an ongoing covenantial and corporate relationship with God’s Church and People. This plays well with the Catholic view of Jesus as being inseparable from His Body and His Bride - His Church.

This pushes everything toward the Catholic theology on Justification (which does not see it as a single “forensic” event but as the first step in an ongoing sanctification process). It also let’s all faiths save face by suggesting an anachronistic shifts in semantics away from community toward individual salvation. The new thinking suggests that the semantic for the words “justified” and “salvation” are all contextually wrong in the context of contemporary Protestant understanding. In other words many Protestants are starting to say what Catholics have been saying all along:

“JUSTIFIED” ≠ “SAVED”.

Here is another article:
The New Perspective and Catholic-Protestant Debate

Based on what I am reading it seems to me that Christianity as we know it is on the threshold of a radical breath-through in understanding that will make it possible for a reunification of many Protestants with The Catholic Church.

Thoughts?

James

I think you should reread your articles, expecially the second.

 

[promethius]

As I said on another thread in another sub-fora, This isn’t really a new perspective, but rather a repackaging of what the catholic church has taught for almost 2,000 years. That being said, I don’t have a problem with the movement or with the authors of the movement taking credit for longtime church understanding. If it moves protestants closer to doctrinal truth, i’m all for it.

 

[JonNC]

There seems to be a new Protestant initiative called The New Perspective on Paul that is radically challenging the traditional Protestant forensic perspective on justification (sola Fide).

This new perspective is forcing all of Christendom to re-look at Justification as less a personal forensic “event” (e.g. “I believe”) and see it more in terms of an ongoing covenantial and corporate relationship with God’s Church and People. This plays well with the Catholic view of Jesus as being inseparable from His Body and His Bride - His Church.

This pushes everything toward the Catholic theology on Justification (which does not see it as a single “forensic” event but as the first step in an ongoing sanctification process). It also let’s all faiths save face by suggesting an anachronistic shifts in semantics away from community toward individual salvation. The new thinking suggests that the semantic for the words “justified” and “salvation” are all contextually wrong in the context of contemporary Protestant understanding. In other words many Protestants are starting to say what Catholics have been saying all along:

“JUSTIFIED” ≠ “SAVED”.

Here is another article:
The New Perspective and Catholic-Protestant Debate

Based on what I am reading it seems to me that Christianity as we know it is on the threshold of a radical breath-through in understanding that will make it possible for a reunification of many Protestants with The Catholic Church.

Thoughts?

James

Yes, James, a couple.
In my own journey, I have wrestled with the beliefs regarding justification, and had come to the conclusion quite a while back that there is some central ground - **not a compromise **- between sola Fide and “faith and works”. And on that central ground, many of us in the Western Church can come to reconciliation on, guided by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps this is it, though I’ll want to read more.

Thanks,
Jon

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think what will happen as time nears the end, is non catholic christians will do one of two things:

1. They will reunite with Rome.
2. They will keep splitting from each other, and move further from the truth.
   The first group will be part of God’s true church, which will be re-unified.
   Those in the second group will either become non-christian in all but name ( or entirely ) , or fade from existence due to spreading and dissolution.
   In the end, as mcleod says " There can be only one. " It will be the Catholic Church.

Nice “Highlander” reference. Got any Kurgan quotes? How many folks in here do you think recognize “Highlander?” lol:thumbsup:

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yes, James, a couple.
In my own journey, I have wrestled with the beliefs regarding justification, and had come to the conclusion quite a while back that there is some central ground - **not a compromise **- between sola Fide and “faith and works”. And on that central ground, many of us in the Western Church can come to reconciliation on, guided by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps this is it, though I’ll want to read more.

Thanks,
Jon

Hey Jon,

What conclusions did you come to regarding justification, sola fide, and the Catholic sanctification perspective? I’d really like to hear your perspective. This is a subject with which I’ve wrestled for quite a while myself.

Scott

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon,

What conclusions did you come to regarding justification, sola fide, and the Catholic sanctification perspective? I’d really like to hear your perspective. This is a subject with which I’ve wrestled for quite a while myself.

Scott

Hi Scott,
That justification is the work of grace, soley through faith in Christ. But that in our growth in grace (sanctification) following the commands of Christ - good works,etc. - are so critical, that faith cannot be a live faith without works. So, while initially, justification in monergistic, it is reliant on the synergism of sanctification to continue.
Scripturally, (and not from St. Paul)
“For God to so loved the world… that whosoever believes in him will not perish, but have eternal life.”
“He that believes and is Baptized, shall be saved.”

**Faith alone. But! followed by **

“Take up your cross…”
“…if you have done this to the least of these, my children…”

Faith cannot be alone - sanctification must follow.
Nothing I do merits salvation, but a live and true faith (which does save) requires my good works.

Does any of that make sense? Does it sound Lutheran? or Catholic? or both? or neither?

Jon

 

[CentralFLJames]

I think you should reread your articles, expecially the second.

Well, I read and reread the article. Did you see something particularly glaring or wrong with any of the Protestant author’s statements SM? I think he was very clear to say that in forming the debates The Reformers anachronistically compared apples with oranges with respect to what Paul’s social context says he was intending. This is always the danger when one does not have an apostolic tradition to give a teaching context. Social context was not used by the Reformers, Reformational “sola fide” all came out of a literal scriptural read (in isolation to other verses). It was a concept devoid of any real period history or context.

With all this new debate in the Protestant camp and all the new techo-babble theology coming out every few months I have to chuckle at the Protestant complaint that Catholics are too scholastic. We Catholics believe we know what the truth is - even if its not all defined in crisp semantics that those outside of The Catholic tradition can independently understand given their own reformed doctrinal biases.

Did you see a problem with any of these statements?

*From: The New Perspective and Catholic-Protestant Debate by Edward L. Hamilton
…
Whereas Catholics, on balance, may be quite enthusiastic about the prospects of returning to the debate under those conditions, Reformational Prostestants will be far more daunted. Indeed, the fact that the most stringent opposition to the new perspective is from the Reformed camp suggests that this recalculation of the odds in the soteriological battlefield is understood as recalculating the odds rather heavily in favor of Rome.
…

If justification is defined in the way that Paul would have wanted, then the Protestant motto “sola fide” is entirely correct. We are assured of our future vindication as members of the covenant community on the basis of faith, not on the practice of some specific ritual form. If justification is defined in the (inaccurate) way that most Catholics and Protestants use it today, on the other hand, then the Catholics may very well be entirely correct. The Ordo Salutis [ed: Latin for “the order of salvation”] perhaps does extend beyond a single initial event, and post-baptismal stages may very well involve an important role for works which cannot be disentangled from true faith. Catholics, if they so desire, can go on insisting all true faith must yield corroborating deeds, and Protestants, if they so desire, can go on objecting.

…

Justification is by faith alone. But salvation (possibly, or even probably) isn’t. Justification is not salvation itself, but rather an (ecclesiologically relevant) metadoctrine about one (important) dimension of Jewish eschatology. Reformational Protestants definitely **have the right language **-- for the wrong reasons and with the wrong interpretation. **Catholics might have the right substance **-- but have been fighting an ill-conceived battle for centuries, in which they have misunderstood a collection of specialized texts nearly as much as Protestants have. That could be a basis for humility and irenicism on both sides.
*

Again the concept that is starting to form in the various Protestant theologians minds is that:

**FAITH ≠ SALVATION. **

Rather, faith is associated with membership within the Christian covenantal relationship but it is NOT necessarily the same thing as personal salvation.

Personally speaking, I like the author’s observations that Paul had no intention whatsoever for condescending ritual and tradition as obstacles to faith if one was not hypocritical in their practices and their sincerity. Rather, Paul was really saying that these rituals were not necessary for Gentiles to take up (who were often all too eager to emulate the Jewish practices) and conform to them since they are not necessary within the context of the new universal Christian covenant extended to all humanity. But I note here that at the same time Paul still embraced his Jewish heritage and customs when in the company of fellow Jews. I also note that some of what Protestants call “rituals” in the Catholic faith are not rituals in the same sense of the Jewish traditions but are in fact “doing” what Christ commanded.

The author is also “dead on” correct in noting that Paul had no intention to ever imply that faith (taken as belief in Jesus) was a forensic “one time event” that could be had outside the context of the new covenant promise. An individual could not say he had faith while at the same time separating himself from the One community of believers. In other words “faith” is always paired and taken in the context of “God’s People”. An essential marker for God’s people is unity, love and charity. So, Faith is by definition covenantal and it is a SHARED faith that does not stand alone and seperate in stark isolation as an exclusively personal faith. In other words orthodoxy of belief matters and The Church matters.

James

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Hi Scott,
That justification is the work of grace, soley through faith in Christ. But that in our growth in grace (sanctification) following the commands of Christ - good works,etc. - are so critical, that faith cannot be a live faith without works. So, while initially, justification in monergistic, it is reliant on the synergism of sanctification to continue.
Scripturally, (and not from St. Paul)
“For God to so loved the world… that whosoever believes in him will not perish, but have eternal life.”
“He that believes and is Baptized, shall be saved.”

**Faith alone. But! followed by **

“Take up your cross…”
“…if you have done this to the least of these, my children…”

Faith cannot be alone - sanctification must follow.
Nothing I do merits salvation, but a live and true faith (which does save) requires my good works.

Does any of that make sense? Does it sound Lutheran? or Catholic? or both? or neither?

Jon

Jon, I think you have stated what is essentially the position of Marcus Borg and J. Dominic Crossan. Both make the case that we have complicated justification terribly. Remember that he sent Phoebe with the letter to the Romans, and it would have been her job to explain the contents to the various churches within Rome itself. Albeit she was a deacon, and thus well versed, Borg and Crossan have likened the complexity we have dumped on justification to requiring her to be Augustine, Aquinas, and a few others rolled into one.

I think their analysis is correct myself. Justification is through faith alone, but we must accept that grace, and we do so by the works we do. A living grace is works.

I don’t know what that makes you. Crossan is Roman Catholic, Borg, I’m not sure, though he teaches at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral and Oregon State U.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Well, I read and reread the article. Did you see something particularly glaring or wrong with any of the Protestant author’s statements SM? I think he was very clear to say that in forming the debates The Reformers anachronistically compared apples with oranges with respect to what Paul’s social context says he was intending. This is always the danger when one does not have an apostolic tradition to give a teaching context. Social context was not used by the Reformers, Reformational “sola fide” all came out of a literal scriptural read (in isolation to other verses). It was a concept devoid of any real period history or context.

With all this new debate in the Protestant camp and all the new techo-babble theology coming out every few months I have to chuckle at the Protestant complaint that Catholics are too scholastic. We Catholics believe we know what the truth is - even if its not all defined in crisp semantics that those outside of The Catholic tradition can independently understand given their own reformed doctrinal biases.

Did you see a problem with any of these statements?

From: The New Perspective and Catholic-Protestant Debate by Edward L. Hamilton
…
Whereas Catholics, on balance, may be quite enthusiastic about the prospects of returning to the debate under those conditions, Reformational Prostestants will be far more daunted. Indeed, the fact that the most stringent opposition to the new perspective is from the Reformed camp suggests that this recalculation of the odds in the soteriological battlefield is understood as recalculating the odds rather heavily in favor of Rome.
…

If justification is defined in the way that Paul would have wanted, then the Protestant motto “sola fide” is entirely correct. We are assured of our future vindication as members of the covenant community on the basis of faith, not on the practice of some specific ritual form. If justification is defined in the (inaccurate) way that most Catholics and Protestants use it today, on the other hand, then the Catholics may very well be entirely correct. The Ordo Salutis [ed: Latin for “the order of salvation”] perhaps does extend beyond a single initial event, and post-baptismal stages may very well involve an important role for works which cannot be disentangled from true faith. Catholics, if they so desire, can go on insisting all true faith must yield corroborating deeds, and Protestants, if they so desire, can go on objecting.

…

Justification is by faith alone. But salvation (possibly, or even probably) isn’t. Justification is not salvation itself, but rather an (ecclesiologically relevant) metadoctrine about one (important) dimension of Jewish eschatology. Reformational Protestants definitely **have the right language **-- for the wrong reasons and with the wrong interpretation. **Catholics might have the right substance **-- but have been fighting an ill-conceived battle for centuries, in which they have misunderstood a collection of specialized texts nearly as much as Protestants have. That could be a basis for humility and irenicism on both sides.

Again the concept that is starting to form in the various Protestant theologians minds is that:

**FAITH ≠ **SALVATION.

Rather, faith is associated with membership within the Christian covenantal relationship but it is NOT necessarily the same thing as personal salvation.

Personally speaking, I like the author’s observations that Paul had no intention whatsoever for condescending ritual and tradition as obstacles to faith if one was not hypocritical in their practices and their sincerity. Rather, Paul was really saying that these rituals were not necessary for Gentiles to take up (who were often all too eager to emulate the Jewish practices) and conform to them since they are not necessary within the context of the new universal Christian covenant extended to all humanity. But I note here that at the same time Paul still embraced his Jewish heritage and customs when in the company of fellow Jews. I also note that some of what Protestants call “rituals” in the Catholic faith are not rituals in the same sense of the Jewish traditions but are in fact “doing” what Christ commanded.

The author is also “dead on” correct in noting that Paul had no intention to ever imply that faith (taken as belief in Jesus) was a forensic “one time event” that could be had outside the context of the new covenant promise. An individual could not say he had faith while at the same time separating himself from the One community of believers. In other words “faith” is always paired and taken in the context of “God’s People”. An essential marker for God’s people is unity, love and charity. So, Faith is by definition covenantal and it is a SHARED faith that does not stand alone and seperate in stark isolation as an exclusively personal faith. In other words orthodoxy of belief matters and The Church matters.

James

I tend to agree with what Jon said James. I don’t think its moving to Rome’s position, at least as I understood it, so much as it carves a new ground between the two. Again, I don’t know as I’m terribly versed in this, so you may be more right. The second article seemed to suggest that both sides were right, in their respective areas, and that the compromise seemed in moving toward the middle for both.

I have just secured N.T. Wright’s latest book “Justification” for review purposes. I’ll let you know, if you like, what he says, or at least point you to my review of it. Perhaps I’m a bit too much of a novice on this subject still. It’s never been a huge issue to me.

 

[JonNC]

=CentralFLJames;5349619] This is always the danger when one does not have an apostolic tradition to give a teaching context. Social context was not used by the Reformers, Reformational “sola fide” all came out of a literal scriptural read (in isolation to other verses). It was a concept devoid of any real period history or context.

Hello James,
I wouldn’t necessarily sign off on that decription of the roots of sola fide. But then, you wouldn’t expect me to.

With all this new debate in the Protestant camp and all the new techo-babble theology coming out every few months I have to chuckle at the Protestant complaint that Catholics are too scholastic.

Apparrently, this new perspective is less new than I first thought. Also, what on earth is techno-babble theology. Guess I’ve been under that Missouri Synod rock too long.

I]
Indeed, the fact that the most stringent opposition to the new perspective is from the Reformed camp suggests that this recalculation of the odds in the soteriological battlefield is understood as recalculating the odds rather heavily in favor of Rome.

…

But continue on here: Do you see anything wrong in this statement?

On the other hand, the new perspective offers some challenges to the Catholic camp as well. Protestants definitely have some measure of faith – no one seriously disputes that these days – and that faith does establish them as children of Abraham. I think that Sanders, Dunn and Wright would disagree strongly with Rome’s policy of a closed communion table and a “canonical” standardization of the boundaries of the Church, and argue that this is precisely the sort of behavior that Paul was harshly criticizing.

If justification is defined in the way that Paul would have wanted, then the Protestant motto “sola fide” is entirely correct. We are assured of our future vindication as members of the covenant community on the basis of faith, not on the practice of some specific ritual form. If justification is defined in the (inaccurate) way that most Catholics and Protestants use it today, on the other hand, then the Catholics may very well be entirely correct. The Ordo Salutis [ed: Latin for “the order of salvation”] perhaps does extend beyond a single initial event, and post-baptismal stages may very well involve an important role for works which cannot be disentangled from true faith.
Justification is by faith alone. But salvation (possibly, or even probably) isn’t. Justification is not salvation itself, but rather an (ecclesiologically relevant) metadoctrine about one (important) dimension of Jewish eschatology. Reformational Protestants definitely **have the right language **-- for the wrong reasons and with the wrong interpretation. **Catholics might have the right substance **-- but have been fighting an ill-conceived battle for centuries, in which they have misunderstood a collection of specialized texts nearly as much as Protestants have. That could be a basis for humility and irenicism on both sides.

Humility and irenicism on both sides. What a capital idea!

Again the concept that is starting to form in the various Protestant theologians minds is that:

**FAITH ≠ **SALVATION.

At least not faith as only intellectual. Lutherans, for example, have always acknowledged, following the passive faith that results in justification (monergism), the importance of faith being a live, active faith, that complies with the commands of Christ.

Rather, faith is associated with membership within the Christian covenantal relationship but it is NOT necessarily the same thing as personal salvation.

But you will agree they are closely linked?

… not necessary within the context of the new universal Christian covenant extended to all humanity. But I note here that at the same time Paul still embraced his Jewish heritage and customs when in the company of fellow Jews. **I also note that some of what Protestants call “rituals” in the Catholic faith are not rituals in the same sense of the Jewish traditions but are in fact “doing” what Christ commanded. **

Perhaps you can distingush what you would consider rituals, and which are not, based on the command of Christ. For me, at least, the Eucharist is not, neither is Confession/Absolution, nor Orders.
Is the mass a ritual ? What about various marion devotions?

The author is also “dead on” correct in noting that Paul had no intention to ever imply that faith (taken as belief in Jesus) was a forensic “one time event” that could be had outside the context of the new covenant promise. An individual could not say he had faith while at the same time separating himself from the One community of believers. In other words “faith” is always paired and taken in the context of “God’s People”. An essential marker for God’s people is unity, love and charity. So, Faith is by definition covenantal and it is a SHARED faith that does not stand alone and seperate in stark isolation as an exclusively personal faith. In other words orthodoxy of belief matters and The Church matters.

An active faith that saves certainly is.

Jon

 

[CentralFLJames]

Hello James,
I wouldn’t necessarily sign off on that decription of the roots of sola fide. But then, you wouldn’t expect me to.

No I probably wouldn’t expect you would. But it was the Protestant “new perspective” theologians who are admitting that the reformers did not take into consideration Paul’s social context nor his physchology and intentions.

But continue on here: Do you see anything wrong in this statement?

*I think that Sanders, Dunn and Wright would disagree strongly with Rome’s policy of a closed communion table and a “canonical” standardization of the boundaries of the Church, and argue that this is precisely the sort of behavior that Paul was harshly criticizing. *

Yes I completely disagree with the Protestant new perspective theologians here. I believe that Paul made it clear that Orthodoxy is a virtue:

*Galatians 1:9 As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed! *

An open range, “roam where-ever the grass seems greener” Christianity is NOT what Paul had in mind. There is a fence line and beyond it the wolves devour the lone-ranger sheep…

Humility and irenicism on both sides. What a capital idea!

Though I never saw Jesus as passive and as puddin-n-pie “nice” as the modernist would like to portray Him when it comes to dealing with direct and open challenges to orthodoxy:

Jesus speaks sternly to the healed leper, he castigates the Pharisees, he rebukes Peter, he drives the money changers from the temple, he tells us he is ready for the world to be ablaze in the revolution of his zeal for God and he tells us over and over again that those who do not do the will of the father will NOT enter His kingdom.

No, I don’t put much faith in irenicism as being the sort of medicine necessary to get us much healing - healing is always painful. Where there is an abundance of grace there is always suffering - and its rarely quiet and in a vacuum. No, it will take the lessons of much suffering to get people out of their theology towers and out of their books and back on their knees accepting the apostolic authority that is passed down to us through the Catholic Church. Reason taken alone in the quite solitude of contemplation is not sufficient and will not bear too much fruit – most people are afterall fairly ignorant and like to be sold on what they want to hear.

I personally expect no profound changes coming out of the scholasticism of modern theology. What I know must happen is God one day (and I suspect fairly soon) saying “Enough”. I won’t elaborate further. It is ordained that there will be only one people professing one faith and giving one perfect worship.

At least not faith as only intellectual. Lutherans, for example, have always acknowledged, following the passive faith that results in justification (monergism), the importance of faith being a live, active faith, that complies with the commands of Christ.

Faith and reason are linked but it was never intended to be rooted in complex theology - the apostles afterall were simple fishermen. Monergism is one of those 10 penny words I was talking about earlier as the new tower of babel. Faith is simple as is obedience. Obedience is by nature active - active in doing God’s will or active in avoiding evil works or the near occasion to sin (run from it).

But you will agree they are closely linked?

Sure they are linked just as a baby is linked to its mother in gestation by the umbilical and in obligation to honor and love as an adult. Mother Church baby! No one found outside the Arc (Barque of Peter) is going to get to the promised land when the floods come…

[continuing - out of text space]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Perhaps you can distinguish what you would consider rituals, and which are not, based on the command of Christ. For me, at least, the Eucharist is not, neither is Confession/Absolution, nor Orders.
Is the mass a ritual ? What about various Marian devotions?

There really are no rituals in the Catholic Church per say - at least not in the negative connotation that some Protestants would make claim to. There are “ecclesial expressions” that are styles derived from our ancient 2,000 year old traditions - which are in turn derived on perfections of ancient Jewish traditions. But the underlying acts and expressions are all richly symbolic as well as functional with respect to obeying Christ’s various command. The Holy Mass is perhaps the one that non-Catholics would call “ritualistic” but its really just a liturgy - a framework of prayers - sometimes spoken - other times sung but always directed in worship of God and in “doing this in memory of me” during the Liturgy of the Eucharist - the highlight of the mass. Candles and occasional use of incense are all richly symbolic and in keeping with the ancient customs of The Church - but it is not a thing in and of itself to be held remarkable by those who would desire to point to that as the same thing Paul was speaking about. There is never hypocrisy in honoring God with a sincere intention to give Him our best - and we do just that - we give Him the perfect same one sacrifice of Jesus His Son as our offering.

Marian devotions are not rituals. They are nothing more than the discipline of simple prayers - prayers said at home or after the worship of God in the mass on an extra day of the week (First Saturdays - the original sabbath) before the tabernacle where Christ is present in the Eucharist. They are not worship of Mary but are petitions for her intercessions which are hopeful of special promises for her help to bring us deeper into a relationship with Christ.

Orders, Penance, Eucharist are all consistent with what Jesus gave the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. These are the same gifts that were always present in the Early Church and passed on to us. No serious Church historian doubts that the Early Church did not do these things since they are all mentioned in the ECF writings and are handed down to us. Catholics did not invent these out of thin air by one day sitting down and just deciding “hey let’s invent something new called sacraments”. No - The Church always had these - but those who do not know history nor the church traditions have either forgotten them or never knew them. I find it peculiar how modern day Protestants all forget that Luther, Calvin and the original reformers were Catholics who all believed in these sacraments. Then just a few hundred years after they died and were dust of the earth their errant children forgot who their grandparents were and how they used to be Catholic but left “to go to their own place”.

James