Thank God for Protestantism

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’m not sure if it was part of His plan, but I am absolutely certain that God is the source of all good, and so he can certainly can bring good out of the Reformation which, I believe, was rooted at some level in sincere and well-intentioned Christians who saw a need for legitimate (not doctrinal) reform but did not foresee the long-term consequences of their break with the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

The author does a good job of explaining that the Reformation did not begin with Luther. There was a general perception, at the time, that the CC had become corrupt and needed reforming. It was almost an accident of history that Luther split from the church.

Could the CC have reformed itself? Could a reformed CC have made the same impact on human society that an independent Protestantism ultimatley did?

What’s intereting to note is that none of the benefits of Protestantism I cited in the OP are contrary to CC dogma. The CC was able to reconcile itself to each of them, to embrace them, ultimately. Even the prohibition on usary was merely Canon law, not an infallible dogma.

But that’s not the same as claiming that without Protestantism the same discoveries would have been made.

So was it necessary to break with CC dogma in order to make discoveries that were not contrary to CC dogma?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Um… I guess it was easy for Protestants to build off of the 1500 years of progress the Catholic Church made. This includes inventing the college stystem, the scientific method and preserving ancient texts just for the tip of the ice burg.

This is absolutely correct, of course, but then the CC church built on what came before it as well (Israel, Rome, Greece, etc.). That’s just the way the world works.

And note, also, that nothing prevents the CC from bulding on what Protestantism has given us. As I noted in a previous post, nothing in the discoveries listed in the OP are contrary to CC dogma.

But there remains the question: can Catholics societies leap ahead of Protestant societies? Is Catholicism a social benefit or relative liability with regard to the progress of mankind? (I hate to think the latter but that’s what history suggests so far.)

As far as leaping ahead, it is hard to say because you really cannot seperate it from the gains that came before. Where I live (in the Northeast) most of our greatest business owners and public servants have Irish or Italian heritages and are Catholic or at least had Catholic families up until the last generation or so… so you can’t really chalk things up to a “protestant” work ethic.

To be sure, there were Catholic businessmen before the Protestants but capitalism was a radical departure from what came before it and remains distinct from both authoritarianism, on the one hand, and anarchy, on the other. Capitalism rests on the sanctity of the human being as a choice maker. It’s not so much that Catholics cannot be capitalists, they can of course, but rather the simple observation that Catholics did not lead the transformation of human society and that Catholic-dominated countries remain behind Protestant ones on these measures. (Why, for example, is Latin America poorer than North America?)

 

[josie_L]

This is absolutely correct, of course, but then the CC church built on what came before it as well (Israel, Rome, Greece, etc.). That’s just the way the world works.

And note, also, that nothing prevents the CC from bulding on what Protestantism has given us. As I noted in a previous post, nothing in the discoveries listed in the OP are contrary to CC dogma.

But there remains the question: can Catholics societies leap ahead of Protestant societies? Is Catholicism a social benefit or relative liability with regard to the progress of mankind? (I hate to think the latter but that’s what history suggests so far.)

To be sure, there were Catholic businessmen before the Protestants but capitalism was a radical departure from what came before it and remains distinct from both authoritarianism, on the one hand, and anarchy, on the other. Capitalism rests on the sanctity of the human being as a choice maker. It’s not so much that Catholics cannot be capitalists, they can of course, but rather the simple observation that Catholics did not lead the transformation of human society and that Catholic-dominated countries remain behind Protestant ones on these measures. (Why, for example, is Latin America poorer than North America?)

Excuse me, what history? And how can you say that Catholics did not lead the transformation of human society, I mean how are we even to evaluate the contribution individual Catholics have made throughout time (especially post reformation)? Furthermore, these remarks you’re making are too simplistic and only focus on capitalism as a means of addressing progress. I understand in part what you’re trying to say with the protestant work ethic, but remember, if the puritans had dominated society we’d be living in a pretty dull world. And I rather think moreover that there are many rich Catholic countries like Austria, Ireland, Italy, France, Belgium, Luxembourg . . . etc. that are/have contributed greatly to society especially in fields of science, fashion, aesthetics, food, computer soft ware (Ireland) . . etc.

Here are the top ten richest countries:

Luxembourg 80,800
Qatar 75,900
Bermuda 69,900
Norway 55,600
Kuwait 55,300
UAE 55,200
Singapore 48,900
USA 46,000
Ireland 45,600
Equatorial Guinea 44,100

p.s. The amounts represent GDP per capita.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Protestantism is a very loosly related set of, dare we say, heresies. The two main ones are:

• sola scriptura, and
• priesthood of all believers.

Protestants themselves very early on realized that these two principles led to a third:

• heterodoxy.

And while it is certainly interesting to discuss the validity of these ideas, what is most interesting is how they led to the above-mentioned innovations in human society.

Which raises the inevitable question: was Protestantism part of God’s plan?

God is sovereign, so all that comes to pass is part of God’s plan, even though we may not understand it on this side of glory. Why do you consider the Protestant belief of “priesthood of believers” to be heresy? You do believe that there will be Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians in Heaven, right… where theological distinctives will disappear.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’m just about finished with Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution–A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First (amazon.com/Christianitys-Dangerous-Idea-Revolution-Twenty-First/dp/0061436860)

The author, Alister Mcgrath, has been remarkably even handed between Catholicism and Protestantism. The book consists of three main parts: the history of the protestant reformation, the ideas of protestant reformation and various protestant beliefs that arose from it, and where it is heading now.

My purpose in this thread is to explore some ideas that are not exactly new but not well accepted either.

Namely, that we can all thank Protestantism for:

• civil society,
• capitalism, and
• modern science.

Though the author does not include it, I would add a fourth:

• modern democracy.

I’ll address each of these separately in subsequent posts.

For now let me simply note that this thread is not an argument for Protetant theology in its various forms, though that is far from irrelevant here. Protestantism is a very loosly related set of, dare we say, heresies. The two main ones are:

• sola scriptura, and
• priesthood of all believers.

Protestants themselves very early on realized that these two principles led to a third:

• heterodoxy.

And while it is certainly interesting to discuss the validity of these ideas, what is most interesting is how they led to the above-mentioned innovations in human society.

Which raises the inevitable question: was Protestantism part of God’s plan?

Christian belief in a doctrine of Divine Providence necessarily leads to the conclusion that everything created is “part of God’s plan” - in what way or ways, is a separate question.​

Ony if God is not almighty, not omni-XYZ in some way, can Providence be either non-existent or incomplete. But that God would not be the Deity of Judaeo-Christian theism. A Mormon Deity, or the God of Open Theism or of Process Theology, or the God of Stoicism, or a hundred other kinds of deity, are examples of the non-Providential or incompletely Providential God.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Christian belief in a doctrine of Divine Providence necessarily leads to the conclusion that everything created is “part of God’s plan” - in what way or ways, is a separate question.​

Ony if God is not almighty, not omni-XYZ in some way, can Providence be either non-existent or incomplete. But that God would not be the Deity of Judaeo-Christian theism.

Do Catholics believe God is immutable? If we can change God’s mind, how does that change the sovereignty of God as a divine attribute of the Most High??

 

[Convert66]

It’s certainly an interesting notion. As with most (or all) things in the world I would venture to say that the Reformation was a double-edged sword.

Alexis de Toqueville also said that the natural spiritual tendency of democracy would be pantheism—which is in effect, in my opinion, when we look at polls suggesting that 85+% of Americans say they believe in God, while this belief seems to run on as an anti-establishment effect in society overall—that is, as a protestant effect. The desacralization of society–as heirarchy in Catholic countries pre-Reformation—has led to democratic values, but then it can also be said to have led to relativism, at least to the extent that Enlightenment philosophy informed protestant theology (especially negatively as secularism, and in those segments of American Protestantism qua reactionary fundamentalism).

A. de Toqueville also predicted that within several generations of his writing (I wanna say 1850’s) Americans would either be Catholics, pantheists or practical atheists. Of course, I believe he was Catholic, so he may have been a little bit of a homer, too.

I also don’t think there’s much in Adam Smith’s formulation of “enlightened self-interest” that qualifies as identifiably Protestant, or even Christian–although, possibly secularized-puritanism isn’t a bad descriptor.

I’ll be lurking to see what others have to say . . .

 

[raumzeitmc2]

I recommend the following works:

The Popes and Science: The History of the Papal Relations to Science During the Middle Ages and Down to Our Own Time, James Joseph Walsh (1865–1942) , Fordham University Press, 1908.

The Thirteenth, Greatest of Centuries, James Joseph Walsh, New York, Catholic Summer School Press. 1907. Also at the Internet Archive.

And these articles:

The Protestant Inquisition: “Reformation” Intolerance and Persecution, by Dave Armstrong. Proves the Protestant Reformers were anything but champions of freedom and democracy.

A Brief History of No-Popery On the distortions of Catholic history by the Centuriators .

 

[greggy53]

God is sovereign, so all that comes to pass is part of God’s plan, even though we may not understand it on this side of glory. Why do you consider the Protestant belief of “priesthood of believers” to be heresy? You do believe that there will be Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians in Heaven, right… where theological distinctives will disappear.

Their is no Salvation outside of the Catholic Church. That being said many believe that the true Christians of the Protestant churches will be given the opportunity to repent in Purgatory. Others who are not Christian at all, or have ever heard the Gospel may well be given that chance too. God in his infinite mercy looks into the heart of each one of us.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I recommend the following works:…

Thanks for the links. I plan to go through these books. I am curoius, though, whether it is your contention that these books will contradict the OP. (It is not the claim of the OP or the book I cited in it, that the CC and Catholic society made no contributions to human civilization.)

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It’s certainly an interesting notion. As with most (or all) things in the world I would venture to say that the Reformation was a double-edged sword…The desacralization of society–as heirarchy in Catholic countries pre-Reformation—has led to democratic values, but then it can also be said to have led to relativism, at least to the extent that Enlightenment philosophy informed protestant theology (especially negatively as secularism, and in those segments of American Protestantism qua reactionary fundamentalism).

This is undoubtedly true. What is also certianly true is that not all Protestant branches have been equal contributors.

So I guess my challenge is this: is it conceivable that Catholicism could do better? Could we have our cake and eat it too? Or was indulgence of heresy necessary to achieving non-heretical ends?

I also don’t think there’s much in Adam Smith’s formulation of “enlightened self-interest” that qualifies as identifiably Protestant, or even Christian–although, possibly secularized-puritanism isn’t a bad descriptor.

What many Catholics forget is that Christianity (Catholicism) disenchanted the ancient worldview. Christians were less superstitious than their pagan peers. Protestantism took this further and atheists to it’s “logical” conclusion (or perhaps to reducio ad absurdum).

It is possible, then, that denying Catholic dogmas could lead to discoveries of truth even if those truths do not, themselves, contradict Catholic dogma?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Christian belief in a doctrine of Divine Providence necessarily leads to the conclusion that everything created is “part of God’s plan” - in what way or ways, is a separate question. Ony if God is not almighty, not omni-XYZ in some way, can Providence be either non-existent or incomplete. But that God would not be the Deity of Judaeo-Christian theism. A Mormon Deity, or the God of Open Theism or of Process Theology, or the God of Stoicism, or a hundred other kinds of deity, are examples of the non-Providential or incompletely Providential God.​

This is a tricky question, as I’m sure you are aware. I don’t want to go offtopic on this but do we not pray that “God’s will be done?” Why would we pray for what is certain? What if God wills that we should each have a very small slice of providence of our own? Suffice it to say that free will introduces complications to a fatalistic view of God’s will.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Excuse me, what history? And how can you say that Catholics did not lead the transformation of human society, I mean how are we even to evaluate the contribution individual Catholics have made throughout time (especially post reformation)?

For a meaningful comparison we can only look at a post reformation comparison. And what has Catholicism give human civilization since then? What have (predominantly) Catholic societies achieved in the last 400 years?

Furthermore, these remarks you’re making are too simplistic and only focus on capitalism as a means of addressing progress.

I’m not sure which remarks you’re referring to but in the OP I cite four main areas of which capitalism is but one (the others being civil society, science, and democracy).

I understand in part what you’re trying to say with the protestant work ethic, but remember, if the puritans had dominated society we’d be living in a pretty dull world. And I rather think moreover that there are many rich Catholic countries like Austria, Ireland, Italy, France, Belgium, Luxembourg . . . etc. that are/have contributed greatly to society especially in fields of science, fashion, aesthetics, food, computer soft ware (Ireland) . . etc.

I’m not saying that Catholics have earned a big fat zero. But I’m pretty confident that if you take a regression (weighted by population) of GDP you would find that Protestantism would be a strong predictor of higher income, less crime, more civil institutions, and more nobel prizes.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Why do you consider the Protestant belief of “priesthood of believers” to be heresy?

You do believe that there will be Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians in Heaven, right… where theological distinctives will disappear.

Nobody (with any sense) makes predictions about who goes to heaven (I pray that even atheists and pagans can find their way). But remember heresy means simply a departure from dogma, those things that are held to be true by orthodoxy. For example, Protestants hold that the belief that Jesus was just a wise philosopher is a heresy.

Luther’s claim about the “priesthood of believers” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_of_all_believers) is a pretty direct denial of the Catholic priesthood which, needless to say, is a matter of Catholic orthodoxy and dogma.

What is important for this discussion, however, is to note that tearing down the wall between the spiritual and the temporal led to great discoveries.

 

[jimmy]

Max Weber is credited with putting forward the theory that capitalism was a result of the “protestant work ethic” and while people have attacked his theory, and while the author himself pokes a few holes in it, nevertheless, it seeks to explain an observation that few dispute. Not long after the rise of Calvinism, Protestant nations leaped ahead of Catholic nations economically and the gap has not closed since.

Think of North vs. South America or think of Germany vs. Italy or Britain vs. Spain.

First of all, what is the protestant work ethic? In short, it is the belief that earning income is Godly while consumptive spending is not. Success in business is a sign of God’s favor (of election, perhaps), but even those who earn a comfortable living are encouraged to be thrifty. This, naturally enoufh, leads to an accumulation of capital.

The second major change was Calvin’s baptism of usuary. Catholics at that time held that any interest demanded on a loan was usuary and a grave sin. Calvin reinterpreted scripture to allow it which enabled the Swiss to more efficiently reallocate the capital accumulating from the protestant work ethic. This interpretation of usary then spread to other Protestant countries and Catholicism only much later redefining it as demanding excessive interest.

It is a double edged sword. Yes, the reformation led to the enlightenment and consequently to the industrial revolution and modern society. But at the same time it led to relativization of moral values and subjectivism.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

*]capitalism

Sure, they gave us capitalism, but what good has capitalism done us?

*]modern democracy.

Same for modern democracy.

What good have they done us? Surely they are not inherently wrong yet at the same time they are surely not the paragon of goodness.

But there remains the question: can Catholics societies leap ahead of Protestant societies? Is Catholicism a social benefit or relative liability with regard to the progress of mankind? (I hate to think the latter but that’s what history suggests so far.)

“Progress” is not all it’s kicked up today especially if it means we’re running around in circles forever.

For a meaningful comparison we can only look at a post reformation comparison. And what has Catholicism give human civilization since then? What have (predominantly) Catholic societies achieved in the last 400 years?

Well, Catholicism gave us Franco in Spain. While not perfect, it was overall a good era for Spain in relation to what was before and what came after. The same with Mussolini in Italy. Also, Naples was one of the highest peaks of civilization before the anti-clerical Garibaldi destroyed the rich patrimony and Catholicism of Southern Italy. Portugal and Spain spread Catholicism in the Orient. In addition the Inquisitions were a major leap forward in the justice system.

Pax.

 

[PaulDupre]

Bluegoat:
Bluegoat,
Completely off-topic, but I just want to say God Bless You for bringing another life into the world. And remember, there is nothing more beautiful than a woman who is “with child”. May the Holy Spirit, “the Lord and giver of life”, be with you throughout your pregnancy and at the birth of your child.
Paul

 

[PaulDupre]

I’m not sure that God is pleased about division among Christians… I personally believe that the Reformation was not a good thing. It lead many away from the Church, and continues to do so. I believe God wants us all to be one again: in the Church…

It’s true that Jesus wants us all to be one in Him. He said so (John 17:21). But remember also that “all things work together for good to them that love God” (Romans 8:28). God uses all things, including the Protestant rebellion, for His own purposes and will use it for the good of all who love Him, Catholics and Protestants alike.
Paul

 

[LilyM]

For a meaningful comparison we can only look at a post reformation comparison. And what has Catholicism give human civilization since then? What have (predominantly) Catholic societies achieved in the last 400 years?

The Englightenment? Rights of Man? Both ideas were heavily influenced by philosophical thought in the very Catholic country of France (philosophers such as Voltaire, Rousseau and their companions) who among others spread their ideas to America.

France was the very first country to assert the rights of slaves - it gave self-determination to the African slaves of Haiti, a good 20 years before Britain did the same and at least 50 years before the American Civil War.

I’m not sure which remarks you’re referring to but in the OP I cite four main areas of which capitalism is but one (the others being civil society, science, and democracy).

I’m not saying that Catholics have earned a big fat zero. But I’m pretty confident that if you take a regression (weighted by population) of GDP you would find that Protestantism would be a strong predictor of higher income, less crime, more civil institutions, and more nobel prizes.

Says who? As we’ve seen, GDP per capita is high in Catholic or Muslim - or Asian - countries as much (possibly more so) as Protestant.

More Nobel Prizes? Don’t know.

Less crime? You’ve got to compare apples with apples and not with bananas in that regard, and realise that many factors apart from religion affect crime rate.

Accurate analysis can be done by taking comparable nations where the only significant difference is religion. Say Catholic v Protestant members of the European Union. Their crime rates are comparable, no discernible difference. There should be a discernible difference if religion impacts crime rate.

More civil institutions? What the heck does that even mean? You mean more of the over-government and over-regulation so many Americans (and Europeans, AND Australians, AND Britons) whine about?

 

[Jon_Hus]

At His trial, Jesus told the Represenitive of the Roman government that His kingdom is not of this world. The Roman Catholic Church forgot this and at the time of the reformation was involved in all sorts of civil government activities. The reformation changed that and brought at least some of the church back to His kingdom and out of the civil kingdom.