Protestants and their own Development of Doctrine

[Mannyfit75]

From geocities.com/aprofaith/changeab.htm

Quit often Protestants accused Catholics as developing doctrine. However, development of Doctrine also occur within Protestantism from the time of Reformation 1517 to the present.

So Protestants, next time when you accuse us of developing doctrine, look into your history. Your own doctrines were also developed.
From the Website:

CONCLUSION.

Catholics are often accused by Protestants of consenting to the Development of Doctrine - that is, allowing new doctrines to be added to those established by the Apostles and Early Fathers of the Church. This is presented by Evangelical Protestants as one of the chief corruptions of Catholicism.

In fact, when Catholics have defined supposedly “new” doctrines like the Assumption, the doctrines have not normally been new at all, but have been held by the Church since the early centuries, yet not officially defined.

However, as we have seen, far from being the strongholds of an unchanging biblical faith, as they like to present themselves, it is the Protestant Churches which have been the ones with a malleable and changeable belief system. Doctrines held as central and biblically-based by one generation, have been completely overturned and replaced by the next - often with completely new and unhistoric beliefs. This is change of a completely different order of magnitude to any so-called “Development of Doctrine” in the Catholic Church.

Fundamentalist Protestant Churches claim to follow clear Biblical doctrines discerned through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. An inescapable conclusion must therefore be drawn - either the Bible and the Holy Spirit have changed their view on these matters, which is impossible, or these Protestant Churches have been seriously and fundamentally misled on basic matters of doctrine.

In other words, if protestant “truths” are subject to such basic change, they cannot be truths.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

From geocities.com/aprofaith/changeab.htm

So Protestants, next time when you accuse us of developing doctrine, look into your history. Your own doctrines were also developed.

Yes I agree that we both have developing doctrines. Since the CC has this then I dont see it to be a problem for protestant churches either—AS LONG AS IT MATCHES BIBLICAL TRUTH of course.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Yes I agree that we both have developing doctrines. Since the CC has this then I dont see it to be a problem for protestant churches either—AS LONG AS IT MATCHES BIBLICAL TRUTH of course.

Then why do most of your Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ see that the Catholic doctrine as against Scriptural Truths?

 

[BrianH]

Then why do most of your Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ see that the Catholic doctrine as against Scriptural Truths?

I think most(the majority) Protestants are indifferent to Catholicism…personally. I have never heard Catholicism mentioned in a United Methodist church for example.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I think most(the majority) Protestants are indifferent to Catholicism…personally. I have never heard Catholicism mentioned in a United Methodist church for example.

Is that why you come here to learn what we actually believe? What have you learn so far?

 

[BrianH]

Is that why you come here to learn what we actually believe? What have you learn so far?

I learned that my tolerant view of Catholicism is not reciprocated…well depending on whether one is talking to a pre-Vatican II
Catholic or a post Vatican II Catholic.
That is why I have given serious thought to my previously tolerant view as Catholics as being similiar might be wrong and Caesar and Randy Carson might be correct.

 

[Keikiolu]

Yes I agree that we both have developing doctrines. Since the CC has this then I dont see it to be a problem for protestant churches either—AS LONG AS IT MATCHES BIBLICAL TRUTH of course.

But doctrines, as such, CAN’T be “from the bible”, as protestants (revolutionaries) are so want to say, because their not literally IN THE BIBLE…!

Havin’ your cake and eatin’ it too,… are 'ya…?!

So, here we have a “protestant” equating “IN THE BIBLE” with “MATCHES BIBLICAL TRUTH”…!

Is this a first…? Fascinating.

 

[Keikiolu]

I learned that my tolerant view of Catholicism is not reciprocated…well depending on whether one is talking to a pre-Vatican II
Catholic or a post Vatican II Catholic.
That is why I have given serious thought to my previously tolerant view as Catholics as being similiar might be wrong and Caesar and Randy Carson might be correct.

There’s no need for a “tolerant view” of catholicism.

There’s only orthodoxy toward it, or deviation from it.

It’s not that your views, or our views, need to be “tolerated”, as if they were BOTH true,… it’s that we need to understand what our own views are, and those of the “other side”.

I don’t want my views “tolerated”. I want them understood.

When we understand each other’s views, then we can respond to the objections of the “other side”.

If I can convince someone that my views are “correct”, then it’s up to them to have a conversion experience.

If I can’t, it’s STILL up to them to have a conversion experience, whatever that may mean for them.

GK Chesterton:
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions”

 

[lak611]

If I can convince someone that my views are “correct”, then it’s up to them to have a conversion experience.

If I can’t, it’s STILL up to them to have a conversion experience, whatever that may mean for them.

It really isn’t up to you or me. If they have a conversion experience, it is the Holy Spirit’s doing.

 

[BrianH]

There’s no need for a “tolerant view” of catholicism.

There’s only orthodoxy toward it, or deviation from it.

It’s not that your views, or our views, need to be “tolerated”, as if they were BOTH true,… it’s that we need to understand what our own views are, and those of the “other side”.

I don’t want my views “tolerated”. I want them understood.

When we understand each other’s views, then we can respond to the objections of the “other side”.

If I can convince someone that my views are “correct”, then it’s up to them to have a conversion experience.

If I can’t, it’s STILL up to them to have a conversion experience, whatever that may mean for them.

GK Chesterton:
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions”

Conversion experience? Indeed…

 

[ALLFORHIM]

I think most(the majority) Protestants are indifferent to Catholicism…personally. I have never heard Catholicism mentioned in a United Methodist church for example.

Yes I agree. I didnt know much until I came here. My church doesnt talk about it and neither did my baptist church or episcopal church I grew up in.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

It really isn’t up to you or me. If they have a conversion experience, it is the Holy Spirit’s doing.

AMEN SISTER:thumbsup: We can learn all we want about both sides but it will be the conviction of the HS that leads us in the direction that God Will’s for us. We just need to go along with the HS.

 

[rr1213]

I learned that my tolerant view of Catholicism is not reciprocated…well depending on whether one is talking to a pre-Vatican II
Catholic or a post Vatican II Catholic.
That is why I have given serious thought to my previously tolerant view as Catholics as being similiar might be wrong and Caesar and Randy Carson might be correct.

You too? I know what you mean…

 

[VociMike]

When I ask about the differences between what the Reformers believed and what modern Evangelicalism believes, the most common answer is that the Reformers were still “tainted” by Catholic beliefs.

The question that modern Evangelicals have to answer is, have they completely rid themselves of these “tainted” beliefs? If the Reformers were wrong, what is to say that current Protestantism isn’t still wrong? Maybe the Trinity is the next tainted Catholic belief that needs to be rejected, or the nature of Christ (both beliefs already being rejected by some segments of Protestantism). Who can say?

 

[RNRobert]

When I ask about the differences between what the Reformers believed and what modern Evangelicalism believes, the most common answer is that the Reformers were still “tainted” by Catholic beliefs.

The question that modern Evangelicals have to answer is, have they completely rid themselves of these “tainted” beliefs? If the Reformers were wrong, what is to say that current Protestantism isn’t still wrong? Maybe the Trinity is the next tainted Catholic belief that needs to be rejected, or the nature of Christ (both beliefs already being rejected by some segments of Protestantism). Who can say?

The Reformers in the 16th century considered the Catholic Church to be corrupt when they broke off. Similarly, the Mormons, JWs and SDAs in the 19th century considered the Protestant churches to be corrupt and started their respective sects. Who’s to say their interpretation of Scripture is any less correct than anyone else’s?

 

[BrianH]

The Reformers in the 16th century considered the Catholic Church to be corrupt when they broke off. Similarly, the Mormons, JWs and SDAs in the 19th century considered the Protestant churches to be corrupt and started their respective sects. Who’s to say their interpretation of Scripture is any less correct than anyone else’s?

Thats a rather odd question. Every single person makes an individual determination about the truth of their religious beliefs, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, atheist, Buddhist, Jew, Hindu, etc. Because one makes an individual determination to follow the magisterium of their particular religion(example Catholic, Jehovah Witness, heck Scientology) they still decide for themselves. Who is a Catholic to say their interpretation of Scripture(which they use to determine the truth of their belief system) is any more correct than anyone else? Every individual decides. Catholics have decided that perceived historical facts lead them to claim they are identical to the church founded by Christ is still an individual determination.

 

[ncgolf]

Thats a rather odd question. Every single person makes an individual determination about the truth of their religious beliefs, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, atheist, Buddhist, Jew, Hindu, etc. Because one makes an individual determination to follow the magisterium of their particular religion(example Catholic, Jehovah Witness, heck Scientology) they still decide for themselves. Who is a Catholic to say their interpretation of Scripture(which they use to determine the truth of their belief system) is any more correct than anyone else? Every individual decides. Catholics have decided that perceived historical facts lead them to claim they are identical to the church founded by Christ is still an individual determination.

Your statement is odd. If every individual makes their own decision then religion is relavtivistic, no one can be wrong. The whole notion of salvation through “Christ alone” only applies if you are Christian then? The non Christian is ok since that is their belief? You are actually saying quite a bit in your response on your view of Christianity. You argue for no absolute truth … I find that odd for a Christian. I am Catholic and you are not but we both agree that Christ is the only way, no but based on your statement you could not argue that since everyone can do it their own way?

 

[BrianH]

Your statement is odd. If every individual makes their own decision then religion is relavtivistic, no one can be wrong.

I never said that every religion is correct
I said that everyone makes their own decision about that truth. Their decision has eternal ramifications but rest assured, it is a choice.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Yes I agree that we both have developing doctrines. Since the CC has this then I dont see it to be a problem for protestant churches either—AS LONG AS IT MATCHES BIBLICAL TRUTH of course.

You got it!

 

[mercygate]

I think most(the majority) Protestants are indifferent to Catholicism…personally. I have never heard Catholicism mentioned in a United Methodist church for example.

Yeah, but UMs are generally good people, irenic types, fairly connected with the reality of history, and truly more interested in following Christ than in bashing Catholics.

Sometimes on this board the word “Protestant” is used to cover the whole spectrum of non-Catholic Christianity from solid mainstream to serious fundamentalism, to nut-case fringe fundamentalism.

Actually J. Vernon McGee, a fundamentalist Christian evangelist believes that current rapture “theology” represents a legitimate development of Christian doctrine: never mind that no two ‘rapturists’ come up with the same story . . . but anyway: there’s a Protestant (trained as a Presbyterian), who holds to the legitimacy of doctrinal development.