protestants, please help

  • Thread starter Thread starter sirach2v4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sirach2v4

Guest
Protestants, please help.

If am a cradle Catholic, and I’m trying to understand the Protestant faith. Nothing said here is an attack on those faiths.

I’ve been reading Yaroslav Pelikan’s five-volume series of books on the history of the development of Christian doctrine. I’m up to volume 4 on the Reformation. He depicts the Reformers (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin) in ways that I cannot comprehend.
  1. If the Reformers believe that the Bible is their only authority, then why do they rely on (St.) Augustine’s writing so much? In fact, why do they rely on any of the early church fathers or councils?
  2. How do they justify their position that the Bible is their only authority? In Matthew’s gospel, the great commission, Jesus dispatches the apostles to preach to the whole world. Jesus didn’t tell them to write a book (NT books). The Reformers’ position is, that if “it” isn’t in the Bible, then it’s not important. So, why did all those guys write the NT and why should anybody believe it?
  3. With the preceding confusion in my mind, I now add a question about Jesus’s command not to call anyone “father.” In Romans 4:16-17, Paul calls Abraham the father of us all, and God calls Abraham the father of many nations. What kind of authority is this, with such conflicting direction? How do Protestants resolve this.
    These are serious questions, not intended as baiting. Serious answers would be appreciated
 
sirach2v4 said:
Protestants, please help.

If am a cradle Catholic, and I’m trying to understand the Protestant faith. Nothing said here is an attack on those faiths.

I’ve been reading Yaroslav Pelikan’s five-volume series of books on the history of the development of Christian doctrine. I’m up to volume 4 on the Reformation. He depicts the Reformers (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin) in ways that I cannot comprehend.
  1. If the Reformers believe that the Bible is their only authority, then why do they rely on (St.) Augustine’s writing so much? In fact, why do they rely on any of the early church fathers or councils?
  2. How do they justify their position that the Bible is their only authority? In Matthew’s gospel, the great commission, Jesus dispatches the apostles to preach to the whole world. Jesus didn’t tell them to write a book (NT books). The Reformers’ position is, that if “it” isn’t in the Bible, then it’s not important. So, why did all those guys write the NT and why should anybody believe it?
  3. With the preceding confusion in my mind, I now add a question about Jesus’s command not to call anyone “father.” In Romans 4:16-17, Paul calls Abraham the father of us all, and God calls Abraham the father of many nations. What kind of authority is this, with such conflicting direction? How do Protestants resolve this.
    These are serious questions, not intended as baiting. Serious answers would be appreciated
Click to expand...
I am a former Protestant, so I will try to answer them as best I can
  1. They did so probably because they genuinely believed that Augustine agreed with their beliefs regarding salvation theology. Augustine believed in an election, however he did not believe in the arbitrary election and double predestination theology of John Calvin. The Reformers believed that they had an anchor to the past, however they did not.
  2. They essentially justified it by an appeal to emotion “The Pope can’t tell me what to do” Sola Scriptura has absolutely no foundation in scripture and the reformers had no scriptural basis for it (I am a former Protestant Calvinist. As a Protestant I never heard any argument for Sola Scriptura that wasn’t an appeal to emotion)
  3. It’s a straw man argument. The reformers cherry picked scripture and took passages out of context, twisting Christ’s use of a hyperbole to illustrate the importance of humility to attack the Catholic Church. “How do Protestants resolve this” long story short: they don’t.
 
Sometimes I think it counter productive to want explanations of why Protestant theology is different from ours, when time might be better spent trying to understand the theology of our own church.

You have to hand it to 'em, by-and-large the Protestants (especially non-denoms) work their bibles far better than most Catholics!

Just think what the Church could do if the body spent more time studying the bible, along with the CCC, writings of the Church Fathers, and Church documents,

You have to admit, the old Protestant gotcha of “if you want to hide something from a Catholic, but it in the bible,” has a ring of truth in it!

Good Catholic catechesis is not just a spiritual endeavor, but an intellectual and academic endeavor too!

Peace and all good!
 
DaddyGirl said:
Hey…when people use the girl-eating-popcorn icon…does this mean you are looking forward to and are eager to read the comments to come?
Or,
That you feel it is going to be a “show” that is “entertaining” and silly but not serious?

.
Click to expand...
I am eager to see the comments to come. People have serious questions that need serious answers. I was a non- denom. Protestant who, though I tried to understand what was believed, I, unfortunately could not at least enough to explain it to anyone:blush:
 
landon13 said:
🍿

I’m a former Protestant so I’m in 😃
Click to expand...
what style of protestant were you?-
  • the nice thing about worshiping out side of the catholic demonination is that when the preacher or teacher – had no anointing – and was a poor orator – you were allowed to say so–
this is not allowed in the catholic homily system–
 
You posted this in the Traditional Catholicism Forum. Maybe you might get more bites if you posted in Non-Catholics Forum. 🤷
 
sirach2v4 said:
Protestants, please help.

If am a cradle Catholic, and I’m trying to understand the Protestant faith. Nothing said here is an attack on those faiths.

I’ve been reading Yaroslav Pelikan’s five-volume series of books on the history of the development of Christian doctrine. I’m up to volume 4 on the Reformation. He depicts the Reformers (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin) in ways that I cannot comprehend.
  1. If the Reformers believe that the Bible is their only authority, then why do they rely on (St.) Augustine’s writing so much? In fact, why do they rely on any of the early church fathers or councils?
  2. How do they justify their position that the Bible is their only authority? In Matthew’s gospel, the great commission, Jesus dispatches the apostles to preach to the whole world. Jesus didn’t tell them to write a book (NT books). The Reformers’ position is, that if “it” isn’t in the Bible, then it’s not important. So, why did all those guys write the NT and why should anybody believe it?
  3. With the preceding confusion in my mind, I now add a question about Jesus’s command not to call anyone “father.” In Romans 4:16-17, Paul calls Abraham the father of us all, and God calls Abraham the father of many nations. What kind of authority is this, with such conflicting direction? How do Protestants resolve this.
    These are serious questions, not intended as baiting. Serious answers would be appreciated
Click to expand...
The, “don’t call anyone father” argument is a weak one and easily refuted. I’ll do my best to answer the rest of your questions briefly though.

When the first reformers quote the sections that they agreed with from Augustin (my phone won’t let me add the e to the end of his name) it was because they had no one to rely on but the early fathers interpretations and their own.

Basically Protestants accept whatever the Bible says and agrees with their interpretation but nothing that isn’t explicitly revealed in the Bible.
 
sirach2v4 said:
Protestants, please help.

If am a cradle Catholic, and I’m trying to understand the Protestant faith. Nothing said here is an attack on those faiths.

I’ve been reading Yaroslav Pelikan’s five-volume series of books on the history of the development of Christian doctrine. I’m up to volume 4 on the Reformation. He depicts the Reformers (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin) in ways that I cannot comprehend.
  1. If the Reformers believe that the Bible is their only authority, then why do they rely on (St.) Augustine’s writing so much? In fact, why do they rely on any of the early church fathers or councils?
Click to expand...
In my 10 or so years as a Protestant I never ever heard the Church Fathers referred to during a sermon. I would hear vague references about Early Christians (never the term “Church Father”), and to my memory, it almost always dealt with the early persecution-- first from the Romans and then from the Roman Catholics. haha.

But I never heard a Pastor refer to the writings of the Church Fathers.

My conception of the Early Church was that it was a Protestant non-denominational Church, where people gathered together in houses and sang praise music and read from the Bible. Every house would have had its own Pastor. I had no idea that there was a hierarchy of Bishops.

But even if you bring up the Early Church to a Protestant, they may not listen to it very much. The mindset of “sola scriptura” is very much against “tradition.” In fact, if it’s not in the Bible then it’s a “tradition” which can be very dangeous. Protestants can be very fearful of “traditions.”

When I started looking more into Catholic vs Protestant discussions I eventually did hear more about the Early Church, and I also realized that Protestants would appeal to St Augustine a lot. St Augustine has some ideas that can seem Calvinist when taken out of context. But as a Protestant I thought it was strange, because if you’re going to say the Early Church was Protestant and then the Catholic Church corrupted it, why were we appealing so much to Augustine and not to other Early Church Fathers? But that’s not the Protestant mindset I’m expressing here, that was the Catholic truth creeping in.

But all in all, the Early Church Fathers were never discussed or thought much of.

I remember when I first decided to convert to Catholicism, I sent my brother some Early Church writings. He wouldn’t even read them. They were dangerous “traditions.”

I also remember when I first decided to convert to Catholicism, I ran into a Pastor with a local radio station on the street. He handed me a flier for his Protestant Church that was held in a gym. I told him thanks, but I’m converting Catholic. He was surprised and asked me why. But before I could even answer his first assumption was that I read the Church Fathers. He seemed to have a distaste for them. He didn’t like it because it was appealing to “tradition,” and Protestant often learn that “traditions” are wrong.
  1. How do they justify their position that the Bible is their only authority? In Matthew’s gospel, the great commission, Jesus dispatches the apostles to preach to the whole world. Jesus didn’t tell them to write a book (NT books). The Reformers’ position is, that if “it” isn’t in the Bible, then it’s not important. So, why did all those guys write the NT and why should anybody believe it?
Click to expand...
Yes, I thought the Jesus dispatched the Apostles. But their commission was to write the Gospels and Epistles, and then everyone after them simply spread the written word after that. Any concept of Apostleship simply ended with the death of the last Apostle. After that you had Bibles and preachers.

In fact, when I heard about Apostolic succession, I thought it was nearly blasphemous. How can some guy in funny robes claim to be equal to the Apostles???!!
  1. With the preceding confusion in my mind, I now add a question about Jesus’s command not to call anyone “father.” In Romans 4:16-17, Paul calls Abraham the father of us all, and God calls Abraham the father of many nations. What kind of authority is this, with such conflicting direction? How do Protestants resolve this.
    These are serious questions, not intended as baiting. Serious answers would be appreciated
Click to expand...
Good question. I’m not sure.
 
KEP1983 said:
In my 10 or so years as a Protestant I never ever heard the Church Fathers referred to during a sermon. I would hear vague references about Early Christians (never the term “Church Father”), and to my memory, it almost always dealt with the early persecution-- first from the Romans and then from the Roman Catholics. haha.

But I never heard a Pastor refer to the writings of the Church Fathers.

My conception of the Early Church was that it was a Protestant non-denominational Church, where people gathered together in houses and sang praise music and read from the Bible. Every house would have had its own Pastor. I had no idea that there was a hierarchy of Bishops.

But even if you bring up the Early Church to a Protestant, they may not listen to it very much. The mindset of “sola scriptura” is very much against “tradition.” In fact, if it’s not in the Bible then it’s a “tradition” which can be very dangeous. Protestants can be very fearful of “traditions.”

When I started looking more into Catholic vs Protestant discussions I eventually did hear more about the Early Church, and I also realized that Protestants would appeal to St Augustine a lot. St Augustine has some ideas that can seem Calvinist when taken out of context. But as a Protestant I thought it was strange, because if you’re going to say the Early Church was Protestant and then the Catholic Church corrupted it, why were we appealing so much to Augustine and not to other Early Church Fathers? But that’s not the Protestant mindset I’m expressing here, that was the Catholic truth creeping in.

But all in all, the Early Church Fathers were never discussed or thought much of.

I remember when I first decided to convert to Catholicism, I sent my brother some Early Church writings. He wouldn’t even read them. They were dangerous “traditions.”

I also remember when I first decided to convert to Catholicism, I ran into a Pastor with a local radio station on the street. He handed me a flier for his Protestant Church that was held in a gym. I told him thanks, but I’m converting Catholic. He was surprised and asked me why. But before I could even answer his first assumption was that I read the Church Fathers. He seemed to have a distaste for them. He didn’t like it because it was appealing to “tradition,” and Protestant often learn that “traditions” are wrong.

Yes, I thought the Jesus dispatched the Apostles. But their commission was to write the Gospels and Epistles, and then everyone after them simply spread the written word after that. Any concept of Apostleship simply ended with the death of the last Apostle. After that you had Bibles and preachers.

In fact, when I heard about Apostolic succession, I thought it was nearly blasphemous. How can some guy in funny robes claim to be equal to the Apostles???!!

Good question. I’m not sure.
Click to expand...
Thanks KEP1983, for your sincere post, it’s not often I get to read the true heart of a converted one. God bless you with Truth and His grace

Gabriel of 12
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top