Protestants and Church Fathers

[TertiumQuid]

Why do Protestants have little or no regard for the writings of the Church Fathers?

I am a Protestant, and Ienjoy reading the fathers, and I use and cite them as need be. I must agree with someone earlier in this thread who pointed out that a large majority of Catholics also don’t know or read the Fathers. In my real-life-non-cyber-space-encounters with Catholics, I have met none who have read the Fathers (so far). It really has a lot to do with the dumbing down of religion and theology, in both Catholic and protestant bodies.

Overall, I strongly agree with Luther:

Indeed, the writings of all the holy fathers should be read only for a time so that through them we may be led into the Scriptures. As it is, however, we only read them these days to avoid going any further and getting into the Bible. We are like men who read the sign posts and never travel the road they indicate. Our dear fathers wanted to lead us to the Scriptures by their writings, but we use their works to get away from the Scriptures. Nevertheless, the Scripture alone is our vineyard in which we must all labor and toil.

Luther, M. (1999, c1966). Vol. 44: Luther’s works, vol. 44 : The Christian in Society I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther’s Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

 

[BradW]

Archbishop 10-K:

However, from my observations, Protestants don’t hold the words of Church Fathers in high regard. I do, personally, since they would know much better than us, the intentions of the Apostles.

I think it’s because they aren’t inspired Scripture. To a Protestant, there’s three levels of authority:

1. 66 books of Inspired Scripture. Inerrant.
2. Books by modern authors, which everyone else is reading and gushing over, and either written by or endorsed by James Dobson or Tim LaHaye. Nearly inerrant.
3. Everything else. Probably wrong.

Ok, I’m exagerating, but not by much.

But the general attitude is, if I have x minutes to read, why waste it reading un-inspired writings by Old People who can’t possibly be relevant to modern stress-filled life?

One thing that’s really odd to me now, I spent several years in college at a Christian Church. That’s a very loosely-associated denomination whose model and goal is to go back to the New Testament church. But even there, I never was exposed to the Church Fathers, who lived the New Testament Church!

 

[DennisS]

TertiumQuid:

…a large majority of Catholics also don’t know or read the Fathers. In my real-life-non-cyber-space-encounters with Catholics, I have met none who have read the Fathers (so far). It really has a lot to do with the dumbing down of religion and theology, in both Catholic and protestant bodies.

You said it well - great post. You even provided the source for your quote. Excellent.

I studied church fathers and church history as part of a bachelor’s degree. I rarely speak with anyone who has more than a vague idea about church fathers.

 

[DennisS]

BradW:

To a Protestant, there’s three levels of authority:

1. 66 books of Inspired Scripture. Inerrant.
2. Books by modern authors, which everyone else is reading and gushing over, and either written by or endorsed by James Dobson or Tim LaHaye. Nearly inerrant.
3. Everything else. Probably wrong.

Ok, I’m exagerating, but not by much.

But the general attitude is, if I have x minutes to read, why waste it reading un-inspired writings by Old People who can’t possibly be relevant to modern stress-filled life?

You’re not even close to where informed Protestants are coming from. LaHaye and Dobson are errant in their theology. Three levels of authority? That sounds like a hierarchy, and Protestants aren’t going to go for it. How many levels of inspiration do Protestants say there are? How can you even suggest you have a read on how non-Catholics chose what to read? Is this your way of choosing, or are you jealous that you don’t have freedom to choose? Are you sure that Catholics and Protestants are not mostly worldly, buying whatever others tell them is worth reading? I don’t see your comments as even slightly helpful to the conversation on this topic.

 

[flameburns623]

As a Protestant I would note that:

1. A-historicity is a common trait of virtually all Americans: we are prone to be largely ignorant of most stuff which happened before our time. I was born in 1960. I was reflecting recently upon the presidency of Ronald Reagan and how short a time ago it seemed to have been since he was first elected. I realized that he was elected 24 years ago and left office some 16 or so years ago–and that I had been born a mere 15 years after that ‘ancient conflict’, World War II. Yet WWII seems as ancient to me as cowboys on the Great Plains or Redcoats from the Revolutionary War or Pilgrims on the Mayflower. I think most of my peers perceive things just so as well. So neither Catholic nor Protestant is as familiar with the ‘old things’ of the Christian Faith as we had ought to be.
2. Protestant Evangelicals from American-based denominations are particularly anti-intellectual and myopic about historical events previous to the founding of their own denominations, and most Baptists or Pentecostals might be pretty cloudy about even that. Evangelicals are focused more upon the simple and plain truths of the Gospel and less upon history. Let a Baptist cite a revered Evangelical luminary in support of a doctrine–Matthew Henry’s commentary, say, or the writings of John Bunyan, or Foxe’s Book of Martyrs–on a forum such as this. He or she might well risk a firestorm of criticism for lending greater criticism to human sources than to Scripture. How much greater might be the trepidation to cite a ‘Catholic’ source such as the ‘church fathers’.
3. Bear in mind that most such Evangelicals advocate a ‘trail of blood’ view of Christian history–the Church as an institution in continual flight and exile, facing perpetual persecution and hatred. Such Evangelicals don’t expect much more than the merest hint of where the Church has been in the past. I believe it is assumed that even if the ‘church fathers’ were themselves “christian” in any true sense of the word, their extant writings were not under the same protection from tampering as is the Scripture, and so nothing in them is to be presumed free from taint and tampering.
4. On the other hand I have seen more than a few exceptions to this in more academic or intellectually challenging books. Protestants debating church structure and polity or the merits of Arminianism versus Calvinism or of a-millieniallism versus pre-milleniallism versus post milleniallism will sometimes cite patristic sources for their views.
5. Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed, and Anglicans see themselves as part of a ‘continuing church’ to a greater degree and read the church ‘fathers’ more consistently. However. most large Lutheran/Presbyterian/Reformed/Anglican bodies are currently under siege by great waves of liberalism in their ranks. One would have to find a schismatic variant of these to find people who are looking more deeply into Christian roots.

Hope this helps.

 

[Cat]

Cat’s husband here, as she promised.

I haven’t read Faith Alone by Sproul. I’ve listened to his radio show whenever I had the chance, and find him to be one of the most thinking Christians on the radio.

While I was attending the Catholic Apologetics class and realizing (with some fear) that this was making sense and I was going to have to decide whether this was the fullness of faith or not (if it was, I had no choice but to follow it!), I heard on the radio part of a series on Mary (it was shortly before Christmas). At the end the announcer also said there was a 5-hour tape series on the Roman Catholic Church as well.

I figured if anyone could convince me that this wasn’t true, it was Sproul. So I ordered the tapes and listened to:
– 5 1-hour lectures on the Roman Catholic Church
– 3 1/2-hour shows on Mary
– 2 1/2-hour shows on the Origin of the Protestant Reformation.

The reason I have to defend him, is that he’s the only protestant I’ve heard that in all those tapes, didn’t make any (that I could find) factual errors about the Church history or belief. He disagreed with the implications of some of them, but always stated them the same as in the Catholic apologetics class I was taking at the time (not an RCIA class).

For Mary, for instance, he was very precise in describing the difference between worship (latria) and veneration (dulia), and that the Church says they venerate Mary, not worship her. But in the end, he thinks a lot of Catholic individuals don’t appreciate that distinction and do worshp Mary, and that the Church is at fault for allowing that.

All in all, I ended up learning some of my Catholic doctrine first from his tapes, and later had them confirmed by the Catholic apologetics and then RCIA classes. I can’t say that about any other protestant speaking about the Catholic Church.

But yeah, I can also believe that he would have said that about Catholics not being saved.

 

[Zski01]

p90:

Anger and resentment? Do you have documentation of such from the text of Faith Alone?

Matt, a good portion of his book slams the Church and puts Catholic theology in the same boat as the LDS Church, claims that Protestants who signed the ECT with Catholics are “selling out” on Reformation theology, and in the end of course says the Catholic Church is a false Church and all “Christians” in the Catholic Church must break communion at once. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’d call that some serious resentment of the Church. Maybe you have another word for that, but resentment comes to my mind.

p90:

Have you read chapter five?

Yes I have, and I maintain that he disregards any sort of reconciliation of theological principles in his very obvoius conclusion.

p90:

Can you cite examples from the book that demonstrate his misuse of the documents from Trent, Vatican II, etc.? That would be much more helpful in determining if the work is really “bigoted.”

Matt, he totally disregards Catholic doctrine’s true context. One prominent example is the way he interprets the statement from Trent which he says “condemns” faith alone. He doesn’t even attempt to look into the context and understand what the Church actually said there. His use of Catholic theology is sparse at best (it’s hard to demonstrate that on this forum, but that is my opinion). In the end, no I don’t think he accurately reflected the position of the Catholic Church, especially in asserting we Catholics aren’t Christians.

p90:

Why would Sproul have to address such writings in his work, especially since he engages the central texts–Trent, etc.–themselves?

Matt, I could take a lot of Protestant theology out of context and use it to “prove” Protestants aren’t Christians. I’d be presenting a pretty biased, and in the end, untrue case. I could, instead, refer to contemporary authors who expound upon Protestant theological statements and maybe try to understand as opposed to assuming they are wrong, then going from there to prove my point.

p90:

Are you arguing that people who don’t address writings that are contrary to their position in their works are bigoted?

Based upon that one fact alone, no, but they are not presenting a true argument. If he’s going to write his definitive proof of the fallacy of the 2000-year old Catholic Christian Church, yes I think he should have cited a lot more Catholic doctrine (in context) and apologetic works. The fundamental premise is that the Catholic Church and its members are not Christians. It is the exact opposite of a chartiable or ecumenical attitude towards other Christians. If a Catholic wrote such a book about your faith, I guarantee you would be somewhat offended and might be able to point out a few points of his logic. Sorry if I am somewhat critical of his book, but I don’t think you can expect any Catholics to sit back and let books like that slide by without some sort of a response.

You’re upset I call him a bigot in his assertions, but I truly feel he is prejudiced against the Church, like many other non-Catholic Christians that I’ve met or read of. You can defend that perspective, but in the end, anyone who calls my Church a false one is going to have to do a little more than cite a few pieces of “doctrine,” piece together his own conclusions with disregard for ample Catholic theological consideration, and then conclude the 2000-year old Catholic Christian Church is false.

 

[p90]

Zski01:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’d call that some serious resentment of the Church. Maybe you have another word for that, but resentment comes to my mind.

Such things can be said in a way that is not reflective of “resentment.” I am open to your criticism of Sproul, but I would appreciate more documentation than what you have provided. Do you have any quote(s) from his book to document this anger and resentment (not just resentment)?

Yes I have, and I maintain that he disregards any sort of reconciliation of theological principles in his very obvoius conclusion.

You originally said that he didn’t address the differences between the Protestant and Catholic definitions of justification. He does that in chapter five. What does your response here have to do with that?

Matt, he totally disregards Catholic doctrine’s true context. One prominent example is the way he interprets the statement from Trent which he says “condemns” faith alone. He doesn’t even attempt to look into the context and understand what the Church actually said there.

Yes, I am aware of your opinion of Sproul’s work. Do you have any documentation from the book of such misuse? I would certainly be interested in any correction you could provide regarding his misrepresentations.

The fundamental premise is that the Catholic Church and its members are not Christians. It is the exact opposite of a chartiable or ecumenical attitude towards other Christians.

I do not believe attitude and content should be confused. For example, surely you would agree that there are serious issues to be raised with mislead Christians who support the right to have and administer abortions? Now there are many ways to approach dialogue with them, but is it inherently “the exact opposite of a charitable or ecumenical attitude” (toward any group in this case) to raise the issues from your perspective? I hope you would agree that the attitude by which those issues are raised determines the level of charity.

Now you may have meant that Sproul didn’t present his case in a charitable manner, rather than meaning it was uncharitable to even suggest the conclusions he does in his work. If that is the case, then hopefully your answers to my documentation requests will be answered and discussion may proceed.

Sorry if I am somewhat critical of his book, but I don’t think you can expect any Catholics to sit back and let books like that slide by without some sort of a response.

It’s not an issue of making a response; you are certainly welcome (and I hope would be willing, since dialogue can be quite useful in resolving differences) to make a response to Sproul’s work. The problem is in the type of response given. I disagree with a lot of apologists from the Roman Catholic Church, but I do not call them bigots for their opinions about Protestant churches not containing the full truth, promoting dangerous or anti-intellectual doctrines, being anti-historical, etc. In short, I am only desiring that you forward the spirit of charity toward Sproul that you expect of him. I may be mistaken, but calling a respected Protestant theologian a “bigot” does not help meet that goal.

~Matt

 

[Zski01]

p90:

For example, surely you would agree that there are serious issues to be raised with mislead Christians who support the right to have and administer abortions?

Yes, you can carry on a charitable dialogue, or proclaim them damned to hell and write a book about how they espouse the second unforgiveable sin: disagreeing with your theology. Mr. Sproul lays out an equation for salvation:
faith = works + salvation

The truth is that he espouses a totally different one:
faith + believing in sola fide = works + salvation + not being a Catholic

We’re not talking about dialogue, but a foregone conclusion that all Catholics are damned to hell because they don’t believe in Mr. Sproul’s equation of justification. Now, you may see me as wrong for disagreeing in the manner in which he presents his arguments, and that’s fine. I do believe his arguments to be inconclusive (see below).

p90:

I disagree with a lot of apologists from the Roman Catholic Church, but I do not call them bigots for their opinions about Protestant churches not containing the full truth, promoting dangerous or anti-intellectual doctrines, being anti-historical, etc.

And how many of those apologists asserted you were a non-Christian because you disagreed with them on certain issues? If there was a Catholic theologic unwavering to understand that although Protestants espouse sola fide, they understand a faith without works is dead, and still asserted you all were unsaved, I would call that “intolerant” and unwaivering to truth. I call that bigotry.

p90:

In short, I am only desiring that you forward the spirit of charity toward Sproul that you expect of him. I may be mistaken, but calling a respected Protestant theologian a “bigot” does not help meet that goal.

I agree that I should. As I have said before, I have nothing against him, but I do not agree with his work in any way.
I would also ask you understand the book you are defending. If you do defend it, then I assume you would agree with it, and you hold Catholics to be damned to hell because we don’t subscribe to sola fide* (ironically, we are all saying the same thing though).

I believe that his work is intolerant of Catholic Theology based upon a large bias againts us. I’ve defended this view in my earlier posts, so I won’t restate my entire position as you have asked.

I’ve been insulted by enough Protestants who “know” so much about why the Catholic Church is false to know this prejudice is very real and prevalent in the world today (but not all hold this view obviously). I do see the former view as uncharitable, especially since the Catholic Church has reconciled the theological semantics and reached out a hand of brotherhood (something many Protestants are unwilling to do) and differences to understand that we are all saying one thing: Christ is Lord and we are all saved by grace alone through a faith working in love. Anyone willing to look at that basic summary of Catholic theology and still assert we are “damned,” in my opinion, is bigoted. Catholics believe in Christ, yet we are still damned to hell by many Protestant theologians who know our hearts better than we apparently do. I call that bigotry. You can say I’m wrong for holding that view, but I see bigotry (intolerance) as exactly what I have just described, and exactly what I read in Faith Alone.

I have nothing against Mr. Sproul as a person, or you if you agree that Catholics are not Christians, but I would ask any Protestant who has such a view to really do some homework on the Church. Undoubtedly if they open their eyes to what they are reading, they will be surprised. Why are you so supportive of this book? Do you really believe Catholics to be non-Christians?

 

[p90]

Zski01:

I believe that his work is intolerant of Catholic Theology based upon a large bias againts us. I’ve defended this view in my earlier posts, so I won’t restate my entire position as you have asked.

I haven’t asked you to restate your position. I’ve asked you to make your position and substantiate it with quotations so that I can possibly change my mind about the work. Since you’ve made some serious claims about the book and the nature of its author, why haven’t you backed up your claims?

Anyone willing to look at that basic summary of Catholic theology and still assert we are “damned,” in my opinion, is bigoted.

The same response could be said of your denomination, that saying that anyone who knowingly and fully rejects the Roman Catholic Church after being in full communion with it is going to Hell is bigoted. I think the issue you have with the book is that it dare say someone who believes a false gospel will go to Hell. You may disagree as to nature of the gospel, but even your church states that there are conditions where people will go to Hell. I don’t see how it’s “bigoted” any more than what your denomination teaches.

~Matt

 

[Zski01]

p90:

Since you’ve made some serious claims about the book and the nature of its author, why haven’t you backed up your claims?

We can tango all day on this, I believe I have over and over shown the theological disparities in every post about the general logic that is used to show Catholics are non Christians. I’m not sure if you have read it or just read over it because I never put quotes around anything, but I feel I have made my position abundantly clear how the logic fails in asserting Catholics are non-Christians. Besides going line by line through the reasoning, I’m not sure what more I can do. Circumstance on my end prevents much more time to be spent on this issue

P90:

The same response could be said of your denomination, that saying that anyone who knowingly and fully rejects the Roman Catholic Church after being in full communion with it is going to Hell is bigoted.

That is not true. You’re wrong about Catholic Theology here. I urge you to read the Catechism and what it holds on the salvation of non-Catholic Christians. Unfortunately, people like to pick and choose from Catholic theology and take it out of context, which I believe I have shown to be the case already with this book, and even what you have written here. The Church does not claim that Catholics who leave the Church for another Christian denomination are condemned. The Catholic Church claims there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and the Catechism defines the catholic [universal] Church as all Christians (Catholics and non-Catholics). I believe I have said this before…the Catholic Church views all non-Catholic Christian Churches as part of the Church in an “imperfect communion.”

p90:

I think the issue you have with the book is that it dare say someone who believes a false gospel will go to Hell.

Not true, my issue, as I have stated over and over, as that Catholics do believe in the true Gospel (since the Catholic Church canonized the 4 gospels, I’m not sure how one could assert otherwise), and yet people still assert Catholics are non-Christians (see earlier post). I would urge you to read my past posts in the logical flaws made in asserting Catholics are non-Christians. I’ve made this point in my earlier posts and I get the impression you have either not read or chosen not to respond to the plain disparities in claiming the lack of Salvation in the Catholic Church.

Either way, I’m sorry if you feel that I have not supported my claims, but I feel I have. I would ask you to re-read what I have written. I have also asked you some specific questions and made some points that I believe you have not addressed that you may want to look over and you may see what I am saying.

At any rate, I’m not going to continue this discussion because I think we are not making any progress. God Bless. You’re obviously well read in Protestant theology and a passionate Christian, and I respect that. Keep it up and I pray for your well being. I’m sure we’ll talk again on another forum.

 

[Ashton]

To address your question. I think there probably isn’t just one answer, but the right answer certainly isn’t–as some have said–that in reading the fathers one would come away with the impression that the early churches were Roman Catholic. Newman’s statement is right, that to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant; but that is a far cry from saying that to be deep in history is to be Roman Catholic. Many or most of the early church fathers (before 300) opposed private confession to a priest, allowed penance and absolution for capital sins only once in a lifetime, opposed the veneration of images of Christ, did not venerate Mary, and so forth. One cannot jump from the writings of the fathers to the validity of Rome without assuming, as Newman did, a theory of doctrinal development tied to a belief in Roman infallibility. So I don’t think that’s why Protestants avoid the fathers.

In the first place, Calvin cited the fathers frequently. You can see this clearly in his treatise On the Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Being a Response to Pighius. I think that as time developed and Protestantism began to refine its notion of sola scriptura, though, any appeal to the fathers eventually became superfluous. In the early days it was necessary to appeal to the father to combat Roman Catholics, but as time went on that common ground was no longer needed or desired. (That, at least, is my impression.) Once the idea that the Holy Spirit directly imparted to the Bible reader an understanding of the words was embraced in its fullness, any appeal to extrabiblical tradition was unnecessary. A further contribution was probably that Protestantism became more a religion of the heart and affections because of influences by pietism in the 1700s. Once this was emphasized, the ritualistic faith of the fathers was probably downplayed. The idea of the doctrinal deposit being mediated historically by a church handing on a tradition of faith and practice was replaced by a religion of spontaneous affection in response to the alleged work of the Holy Spirit acting directly upon the human subject through scriptural meditation. Moreover, I suspect the development of the discipline of historical-critical biblical study especially in the 1800s diverted attention from the fathers. When we come to the 20th century, the onset of Fundamentalism–itself a response to historical criticism–emphasized biblical primacy and downplayed the intellectualism necessary to handle the fathers.

I am not a historian, but this is the distinct impression I get in my reading.

• Ashton

 

[Zski01]

p90:

I haven’t asked you to restate your position. I’ve asked you to make your position and substantiate it with quotations so that I can possibly change my mind about the work. Since you’ve made some serious claims about the book and the nature of its author, why haven’t you backed up your claims?

One last note…I have never attacked the “nature” of the author, but only his intolerance of the Church. I attaked his work and his theological disposition, not him (reread my original post). I think you have me out as hating him, which I have said repeatedly I do not. I have backed that claim of his intolerance, yet you refuse to acknowledge my “backing.” In the nature of your repeated questions, I’m not sure how much of my arguments you have really read.

I have presented many arguments that you have chosen to not address. So from that I have to assume one of 3 things:

1. you agree with me – but I don’t think that is the case
2. you disagree with me – you have yet to answer or refute any of my arguments
3. you have not really read my arguments (which back my claim) yet continue to ask me to back my claims

I have presented my arguments before almost redundantly and yet you assert I have not “backed my claims.” From this, I can only conclude that you are not reading what I have been writing, and that is why I think we are not getting anywhere. So I think it’s best if we discontinue this discussion. Peace be with you.

 

[hlgomez]

For Mary, for instance, he was very precise in describing the difference between worship (latria) and veneration (dulia), and that the Church says they venerate Mary, not worship her. But in the end, he thinks a lot of Catholic individuals don’t appreciate that distinction and do worshp Mary, and that the Church is at fault for allowing that.

Cat,

I firmly believe Sproul is trying to put his finger on the mouth of every Catholics. His outright judgement for us Catholics is flawed from its core. That’s his own view of how Catholics regard Mary.

First and the most important of it all is the question: Who is Mary for Catholics? Do we regard her as God? Now, if we regard her as God, then Sproul could be right. But do we say “yes” for an answer? Certainly not! That’s the whole picture of it all!

With regards to devotion to Mary by Catholics, Sproul has misinterpreted it. We Catholics loves and honor Mary, and regard her as our Mother. We asks for her intercession always for we trust that Mary will let her Son know our prayers and will handle it the way She handles the problem in the wedding feast at Cana. She is a powerful intercessor indeed! My question for Sproul is this-- can’t we honor the Mother of God the way the Son honors her in a perfect way than any other human beings?

Pio

 

[p90]

Zski01:

We can tango all day on this, I believe I have over and over shown the theological disparities in every post about the general logic that is used to show Catholics are non Christians. I’m not sure if you have read it or just read over it because I never put quotes around anything, but I feel I have made my position abundantly clear how the logic fails in asserting Catholics are non-Christians.

You haven’t quoted from Sproul’s work. You haven’t cited official Catholic documents on the nature of justification in comparision to Sproul’s arguments. You haven’t even cited page numbers to check your work and arguments. There isn’t anything for you to explain.

That is not true. You’re wrong about Catholic Theology here.

I though I would argue differently, it’s irrelevant whether or not I have it correct. The point is that there are conditions that exist whereby a person will go to Hell. Is it bigoted for your denomination to proclaim and uphold such beliefs? If it is not, then it is not bigoted for Sproul to have a standard of what does and does not determine whether or not someone will go to Hell.

Not true, my issue, as I have stated over and over, as that Catholics do believe in the true Gospel…and yet people still assert Catholics are non-Christians (see earlier post).

In other words, Sproul’s work is “bigoted” because he disagrees with your conclusions. You have read his work, disagreed with his logic, and now you have degraded his work as “bigoted” because it doesn’t agree with your reasoning.

Either way, I’m sorry if you feel that I have not supported my claims, but I feel I have. I would ask you to re-read what I have written. I have also asked you some specific questions and made some points that I believe you have not addressed that you may want to look over and you may see what I am saying.

I’m asking for documentation. When you provide it, there can be serious discussion. As I said before, I’m open to your criticisms of Sproul’s work.

You also mentioned that I didn’t respond to a lot of what you wrote. That is true and I acknowledged such; I’m not going to respond to material that is irrelevant to the discussion (making a list of essential doctrines, how much Sproul quoted Scripture vs. Calvin and Luther, whether or not I’m a Protestant, why I am defending Sproul, etc.). The issue is whether Sproul’s work is bigoted, whether or not he misrepresented Catholic theology, and whether or not he is angry and resentful toward the Roman Catholic Church. When you start to quote from the text with quotes, page numbers, and/or even chapter references, we can begin discussion. Until then, it seems that you’re simply upset that someone would dare say that Roman Catholicism preaches a false gospel and repeating that complaint instead of engaging Sproul’s work in a meaningful manner.

~Matt

 

[mercygate]

Zski01:

R.C. Sproul wrote an entire book on how the Catholic Church is false, non-Christian, etc. It’s called Faith Alone. It’s eye-watering, bigoted, and one-sided to say the least.

I read an interview by him where he claimed “Catholics, if they believe the doctrines of their Church, are not saved.” I’ve read other books and articles by him and listened to a few radio shows. He’s not shy about giving his opinion about the Church and how opposed to it he is. An anti-Catholic is someone who is against the Church and considers us non-Christians. I consider him one.QUOTE]

:bigyikes: Yikes! Breaking my bubble here! I have listened to R.C. Sproul on the radio and have considered him an A-one Protestant apologist of great integrity. I have actually heard him defend the Catholic Church and her teaching! Have him on the top of my prayer list: C’mon, Lord, go get him! He’s already got one foot on this side of the Tiber, bring him on home!

Breaking my heart. Breaking my heart. :crying:

 

[mercygate]

Cat:

My husband claims that Sproul does not make any incorrect statements about Catholics, which is what many of the “anti-Catholic” teachers do. (He does draw some incorrect conclusions.)

Sproul actually agrees with much of Catholicism.

Rev. Sproul is deservedly known as an “intellectual” among Christian teachers today. He really digs deep into the Word of God and takes the high road. If you are a Protestant, you will do well do listen to Rev. Sproul.

I concur with all of this. He is always spot-on when delineating a Catholic doctrine and arguing against it (and surprisingly, sometimes FOR it!). I have immense respect for him.

 

[flameburns623]

Most Anglicans are about as aware of the Church Fathers as are most Roman Catholics. I note that on the local Lutheran station, Issues Etcetera and similar Lutheran apologetics shows have people on who cite early Church Fathers rather frequently. I actually have two books which contain witings of the pseudipigraphica and the early Church Cathers, plus Augustine’s Autobiography. And I have a link in my Yahoo favorites to a great many church fathers, though reading long heavy tomes online gives me a headache. Some day I’ll pick up some additional collections of the patristic fathers.

Bear in mind that the principle of sola scriptura suggests that the only ‘reliable’ source of authentic Christian teaching is Scripture. Tradition is only trusted so far as it affirms what Scripture already clearly says. For the Reformational Churches–Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian–the Church Fathers are given at least some measure of credence and studied in seminary at least briefly. I actually heard a Lutheran scholar indicate a few weeks ago that while the Catholic Church was at one time part of the Church, it apostatised from Christianity by it’s formal condemnation of such teachngs as Sola Fida, Sola Scriptura, etcetera at the Council of Trent.

For the smaller, largely American-based churches, the historical theory of ecclesiolyg which dominates is the ‘trail of blood’ theory: the Church is not a visible institutition as Catholics would ordinarily understand the attribute of visibility to mean. The Christian Church is ‘visible’ only insofar as one can say that the Christian Church exists ‘wherever two or three’ Christian believers gather together in Christ’s Name. There will not be ‘many wise, many ighty, many noble’ among the members of the True Church. Only the Scriptures are guaranteed Divine protection from being lost. The very fact that the writings of Clement, Ignatius, Iraneaus, etcetera survive at all suggests they are not Christians at all but proponents or apolgists for the Great Whore of Babylon. Hope this helps!

 

[Exporter]

If any of you want to know how Protestants think…go to this address.
churchofchristdiscussions.com/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=outside

Go to a thread that has the word “Exporter” in it. I am Exporter.
I am restricted to the section called Questions for nonChurch of Christ and Exporter.:tiphat:

Just mention Sola Scriptura and watch the sparks fly.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Tradition is only trusted so far as it affirms what Scripture already clearly says.

Can someone tell me why this isn’t absurd? If A is the only “trusted” authority, but B is trusted *only *in so far as it clearly agrees with A, then doesn’t that make B irrelevant?

Didn’t the early Church Fathers themselves have a different view of Scripture and Tradition, a Catholic & Orthodox vice a Protestant view?

According to non-Catholic church historian Ellen Flessman-Van Leer:

“Irenaeus and Tertullian point to the church tradition as the authoritative locus of the unadulterated teaching of the apostles, they cannot longer appeal to the immediate memory, as could the earliest writers. Instead they lay stress on the affirmation that this teaching has been transmitted faithfully from generation to generation. One could say that in their thinking, apostolic succession occupies ****same place that is held by the living memory in the Apostolic Fathers.” (Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church, p.188)

Likewise, Protestant patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly states:

“It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness” (Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 47-48)