What Theological Contributions Have Protestants Made?

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, a few folks here have pointed the “baiting” out, along with a fellow Catholic. If you aren’t willing to see that, I doubt you are willing to see the contributions that have been pointed out, either.

If this is your tactic at converting people to Catholicism, I’d say you might ought to try another tack. Just my opinion, though. It comes across as arrogant and depreciating.

I am very happy that you found a home in the Catholic church.

O+

I see where numerous people assumed that I was baiting.

Please quote or refer me to any post in which I have sprung the trap allegedly set in my OP.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

Except you cannot reject the authority of the CC. the Church built, commanded, and sent by Christ. one simply can not go on building congregations in the name of Jesus when Jesus already has sent us One Church to teach and to send others to teach the Word of God to all men. Apostolic Succession.

the problem here is that people think that those who left the Church are entittled to go and build their own churches thinking they can do better than One Church Christ built. man made churches will never succeed that One which Christ built. some believe that once they leave, they take the Church with them. or even believe God will follow them instead of them following Christ. we dont come to our Lord telling Him that we have rights. we have no rights before our God. we simply obey. martin luther left the Church and claim the right to be an authority which was not given to him destroying the lives of many Catholics and Churches, and so did henry VIII, and so did many others. but the Church lives on according to the promise of our Lord. “I will be with you until the end of the time.” what a beautifull promise.

** " There are many other things which keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church – the unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here, her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests from the very seat of the Apostle Peter up to the present episcopate keeps me here and last, the very name of Catholic, which not without reason belongs to this Church alone in the face of so many heretics, so much so that although all heretics want to be called Catholic, when a stranger inquires where a Catholic Church meets, not one of the heretics would dare point out his own basilica or meeting place. The name of the Catholic Church is peculiar to the true Church." St Augustine**.

The point your missing is that it is not us that left Christs church. those that ordered the burning of human beings, those who shed innocent blood, these are the ones who left the church or who were never really apart of it. this is true whether Catholic or protestant.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hiyas Randy

After reading your explanation…I owe you an apology. I do so now. I am truly sorry

I forgive you. Peace.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That’s a pretty weak thing to say in light of the decades of sexual abuse against minor boys in your church. The Catholic church doesn’t condone abortion or divorce but there are plenty of Catholics who are guilty of those things too. Talk is cheap and everyone knows it.

Do you believe that the rates of homosexuality and pedophilia in the Catholic Church are more common, less common or about the same as in society at large?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well aree you willing to share some of these ways?

Sure.

I think that non-Catholic churches “market” themselves better…in the positive sense of the word. They get the message out.

They are willing to experiment with things like coffee bars and youth ministries and other “services” that members seem to like. Joining a non-denominational church has many of the same benefits as joining a health club - all kinds of programs for youth and singles and mothers morning out, etc. Again, I’m not saying that pejoratively. It obviously fills the pews.

Protestants tend to know the scriptures better than Catholics, and there are a variety of reasons for this. Some good, some bad. However, the net result is a plus for Non-Catholics.

Sunday School for kids and adults is a VERY GOOD THING.

How’s that for starters?

 

[O.S.Luke]

I see where numerous people assumed that I was baiting.

Please quote or refer me to any post in which I have sprung the trap allegedly set in my OP.

It’s already been done. I’ll accept that it wasn’t your intention.

Pax vobiscum,

O+

 

[izoid]

It’s smug and snarky to demean and degrade those who have clearly made great contributions to Christianity just because they are not Catholic.

I was simply pointing out that Luther, Calvin and Barth all made contradictory contributions. If that is snarky, whatever that means, then so be it. I do not tend to prescribe to relativistic attitudes as this. In my mind, if two people have opposite opinions you cannot hold them both to be making great contributions. At least one of them is just wrong.

The reality is that Calvin and Luther have lead to great division an animosity within the church. Any positive contribution MUST be evaluated in light of the damage that they have done.

 

[izoid]

That’s a pretty weak thing to say in light of the decades of sexual abuse against minor boys in your church. The Catholic church doesn’t condone abortion or divorce but there are plenty of Catholics who are guilty of those things too. Talk is cheap and everyone knows it.

Are you trying to tell me that a Church is guilty of the sins of it’s members? Are you implying that Anglicans never have abortions or get divorced? I am really not getting the point you are trying to make.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The point your missing is that it is not us that left Christs church. those that ordered the burning of human beings, those who shed innocent blood, these are the ones who left the church or who were never really apart of it. this is true whether Catholic or protestant.

you guys are given me gray hair.

 

[izoid]

It is not rude to point out that we, both Catholic and protestant have failed to protect children and it is not rude to insist that we must all do better in the future. this sort of thing does not stop by people being silent, silence is exactly what the abusers of children want. I think if we are willing to set aside our theological differences for a moment. this is one topic we should be strongly united on.

Amen brother!

 

[Contarini]

I find it troubling that you would list 3 men with vastly conflicting teachings as having great contributions.

I find it troubling that you think people can’t make contributions that contradict each other.

You may think that I’m just a mushy postmodernist. But in fact I think one of the most troubling consequences of postmodernism is a failure to appreciate the constructive possibilities of vigorous disagreement. My students routinely assume that vigorous argument is somehow rude and destructive. I think that this poisonous idea is endemic in our culture.

Let the arguments roll! We need Christian theologians who disagree vigorously with each other. That’s how the conversation moves forward.

Edwin

 

[izoid]

I find it troubling that you think people can’t make contributions that contradict each other.

You may think that I’m just a mushy postmodernist. But in fact I think one of the most troubling consequences of postmodernism is a failure to appreciate the constructive possibilities of vigorous disagreement. My students routinely assume that vigorous argument is somehow rude and destructive. I think that this poisonous idea is endemic in our culture.

Let the arguments roll! We need Christian theologians who disagree vigorously with each other. That’s how the conversation moves forward.

Edwin

Debate is indeed a good thing. The problem lies when all of the debaters become their own authority because they disagree with the others. You simply cannot have contradictory positions and affirm that they are both true. When one is shown to be wrong that position must be cast aside and the truth must be embraced. 2 of the 3 men we are talking about founded their own religious movements because they chose not to conform to established truths. THis is not a theological contribution, it is teaching falsehood. Calvin’s theology is a false theology and in no way is from God. It is so opposed to the apostolic beliefs that we can say with certainty that he was not being led by the Holy Spirit when he started his own religious movement.

 

[izoid]

I find it troubling that you think people can’t make contributions that contradict each other.

Edwin

You are taking my words out of context. I will give you an example of what I mean here. You and I contradict each other yet we are both contributing to this discussion. It is certainly possible for us to have conflicting ideas and yet contribute.

Now, assume you and I enter into theological debate, taking an issue that we disagree with each other on and fail to come to an agreement on the issue. Can we both continue to move forward with, teaching others, our own personal idea of truth and say that we are both making a theological contribution? I think not. In fact, I would assert that at least one of us is a false teacher and leading others astray.

We can take it a step further and look to see if there is an accepted teaching on the issue at hand. Has the issue been taught on before? If so, are either of us in agreement with that long held understanding? If not, we are both likely to be false teachers. You see, Calvin, Luther and Barth all forward new theological ideas that conflicted with 1500 years of Church teaching. The disagreed not only with each other but with the only Church that had existed for the previous 1500 years. This leads me to the conclusion that they were false teachers.

 

[peary1]

Tower of Babel.

 

[Contarini]

You are taking my words out of context. I will give you an example of what I mean here. You and I contradict each other yet we are both contributing to this discussion. It is certainly possible for us to have conflicting ideas and yet contribute.

Now, assume you and I enter into theological debate, taking an issue that we disagree with each other on and fail to come to an agreement on the issue. Can we both continue to move forward with, teaching others, our own personal idea of truth and say that we are both making a theological contribution? I think not. In fact, I would assert that at least one of us is a false teacher and leading others astray.

You are assuming that theologians can be divided into “false teachers” and people who get everything right. No theologian gets everything right.

Furthermore, I’m not sure how theologians who are now dead (one of whom lived centuries after the others) can possibly “move on.” It is for *us, *the living, to move on, building on what was solid in their contributions and discerning and rejecting what was false. The point is that all of the theologians named have made contributions to the ongoing dialogue which need to be taken into account by contemporary theologians. And good Catholic theologians do just that. Some, like Peter Molnar, go so far as to see a Protestant theologian (Barth) as the needed corrective to dominant post-Vatican-II Catholic theology. (Molnar is an extreme case, and there are problems with his project–but he’s a thoughtful, serious theologian who is himself making valuable contributions.)

We can take it a step further and look to see if there is an accepted teaching on the issue at hand. Has the issue been taught on before? If so, are either of us in agreement with that long held understanding? If not, we are both likely to be false teachers. You see, Calvin, Luther and Barth all forward new theological ideas that conflicted with 1500 years of Church teaching.

It’s not that simple, both because Church teaching is not as monolithic and static as you claim and because many of their ideas did not contradict Church teaching but raised new questions.

The disagreed not only with each other but with the only Church that had existed for the previous 1500 years.

No less than three historic Eastern Christian communions, all of them out of communion with each other and with the Western Church by the time of the Reformation, would beg to differ with this historically outrageous claim (even before we get into the various dissenting churches that had popped up from time to time–and no, I am not making anything like a “Trail of Blood” claim here, just pointing out that there had always been more than one Christian church since at least the rise of the Montanists in the late second century).

Edwin

 

[mmmcounts]

Actually, there are some ways in which Protestants have us hopelessly outclassed.

I saw how the obvious questions were asked and answered (ie., What?), which you answered.

If I’m only going to come back to this thread “every once in a while”, then that should be evidence that A) there was no "set up from the beginning’ as some have alleged, and B) that I was not planning on demonstrating anything.

I think the combination of Post #1 and Post #3 was what did it for most people. I think quite a few people saw that and imagined this going through your head: “If none of these people can come up with any type of answer, they’re all rather foolish. And if they do attempt to dissuade me from the conclusions that I just hinted at (Post 3), I can tell them they’re foolish.”

There was no Catholic in my life to convince me of the truth of Catholicism; I came to this conclusion by reasoning some things out on my own by the grace and mercy of God.

No way! Based on this extremely limited description, it almost sounds like it was just you and your Bible. I’m a little curious now, but I’m trying to make it somewhat relevant to the OP. Let’s see, how can I do this…

Ok, I’ll try this. Five of the most well-known contributions of Protestantism are the Five Solas. You’ve come to the conclusion that these contributions are not so great. Can I inquire about the timing and circumstances of this conclusion? Did you really do this without any convincing from some Catholic source? Also, how did your progression on the pro-Catholic gradient interact with your anti-Solas gradient?

However, I am curious as to what you might say are less “unfortunate ways to conver/revert in either direction”? IOW, what would be a legitimate reason for someone to become a Catholic in your opinion?

I’ll take a page out of Beckwith’s book in saying I’d discourage people from diving into the river with the goal of standing on the other shore and flipping the bird to the place you came from.
Ok, he didn’t say it like that. It had more to do with avoiding the notion that in going from one side to the other, you somehow typify a triumph of one part of Christ’s Body over another.

If, however, a Protestant is compelled by a need to love God more, experience God’s love, and live it out all the time, I wouldn’t want to stop anyone from leaving a Protestant church that isn’t letting that happen. And if the Catholic Church is the place where it does happen (or Orthodox, as has been more in keeping with what I’ve seen around me lately), good for them. I hope you could say something similar of ex-Catholics?

I am somewhat familiar with Beckwith’s story (along with those of Koons and numerous other high-profile converts in the past few years). However, I have printed out this article, and I will read it carefully. I will also look at the links to Castaldo’s book. Thanks for these.

Thanks for taking a look. If you do wind up reading Return to Rome, I think Castaldo’s book works as a pretty good companion read. I did a little more poking around, too, and Castaldo’s got a review out there on Return to Rome.
chriscastaldo.com/resources/Castaldo%20Beckwith%20Review.pdf

 

[jmtosh]

What contributons have Protestants made to Theology.

When you consider that Martin Luther, by nailing his 95 theses to his Church door, qestioned and protested against the errors and extravagances that had corrupted the Roman Church, then I say that they contributed much by championing the return to the Holy Scriptures as the standard of faith and to the pure doctrines of Christ.
There was no doubt even among Roman Catholics that the Church was in a desperate state and in urgent need of reform and that Luther should have remained in the Church.

The Priests and monks were the sole custodians of the Holy Scriptures. They preached to the people what they deemed fit to preach and the scriptures, the liturgy and masses were in Latin. I know that you will vigorously deny this but History bears it out. Indulgences, pilgrimages and relic worship dominated the Church. Religious worship was shrouded in an aura of mysticism and superstition.

***They made the scriptures and the expository preaching thereof available to the common people. Luther was a Scholar of the scriptures and as such was convicted to bring the neglected truths of scripture to the people. ***

In England,Wycliff before Luther, circa 1380, translated the Holy Scriptures into th common tongue. He as a learned scholar of scripture at Oxford University came under conviction to give the unadulterated gospel of Christ to the people. His books and Bibles were burned and his followers driven into hiding. In the reign of King Henry IV to appease the Roman Cathoplic Church the Heresy Laws were passed and Lollards as Wycliffs followers were known were hounded and burnt at the stake for professing faith in Jesu Christ and His atonement according to Holy Scripture.

In Bohemia about this time, Jan Hus held the same convictions and was matyred for his faith in Christ and his refutation of the mass as a blasphemous mockery of Christ’s once or all sacrifice on the cross.

So, ***the Protestanti rendered the Holy Scriptures and therefore the free gospel of Christ available to the common people (laity) in their own common tongues and won freedom of faith and conscience. ***

One need only read the Canterbury Tales of Geoffry Chaucer to see the contempt with which the Church and the greed and moral corruption of the priesthood were held in England at this time.

Tyndale and Coverdale took over the work of Wycliff translating the scriptures from the orginal tongues into English and Tyndale pad for his life for this and was burnt at the stake for his faith.

Before this the Waldenses, right back into the times of Constantine were persecuted for bringing the pure gospel and the Holy Scriptures to men.

There is no denying that the knowledge of the truth of the Word of God spread under the Protestant Reformation.

With the Reformation came the Renaissance. Men everywhere were questioning the jealous Absolutism of the Church and new ideas in the realms of science, art and literature were flourishing. Think of how Da Vinci, Galileo and others were censured by the Roman Catholic Church for their work. Or perhaps the earth is flat after all!

So Protestants opened the door for a new fresh breath of air into the Church. Indeed they were the conscience of the Church. A return to biblcal truth and its exposition freely to all.

 

[jmtosh]

We can take it a step further and look to see if there is an accepted teaching on the issue at hand. Has the issue been taught on before? If so, are either of us in agreement with that long held understanding? If not, we are both likely to be false teachers. You see, Calvin, Luther and Barth all forward new theological ideas that conflicted with 1500 years of Church teaching. The disagreed not only with each other but with the only Church that had existed for the previous 1500 years. This leads me to the conclusion that they were false teachers.

Surely it is erroneous to state that the Roman Catholic Church was the only Church that existed for 1500 years. Even more erroneous to believe that it has taught the same doctrines for 1500 years.

What of the Arian Visigothic churches of the 4th century? What of the Eastern Orthodox Church and its Patriarch? What of the fact that the Roman Catholic Church only claimed supremacy in the late 500s, arly 600s? The fact that at one time in the 13th Century there were two Popes claiming to be the successor of St, Peter?

The doctrine of Transubstantiation was promulgated in the 1200s. The Council of Trent affirmed it in the 1570s. The doctrines of the oman Cathoplic Church are progressive and evolved over a long time. The Roman Catholic Church claims authority and precedence over all others and this is quite frankly unacceptable both historically and scriptually.

The Church of Christ is Universal and mystically his, it is not a visible entity but consists of all those joined to Christ by faith in Him.

 

[wisdomseeker]

What contributons have Protestants made to Theology.

When you consider that Martin Luther, by nailing his 95 theses to his Church door, qestioned and protested against the errors and extravagances that had corrupted the Roman Church, then I say that they contributed much by championing the return to the Holy Scriptures as the standard of faith and to the pure doctrines of Christ.
There was no doubt even among Roman Catholics that the Church was in a desperate state and in urgent need of reform and that Luther should have remained in the Church.

The Priests and monks were the sole custodians of the Holy Scriptures. They preached to the people what they deemed fit to preach and the scriptures, the liturgy and masses were in Latin. I know that you will vigorously deny this but History bears it out. Indulgences, pilgrimages and relic worship dominated the Church. Religious worship was shrouded in an aura of mysticism and superstition.

***They made the scriptures and the expository preaching thereof available to the common people. Luther was a Scholar of the scriptures and as such was convicted to bring the neglected truths of scripture to the people. ***

In England,Wycliff before Luther, circa 1380, translated the Holy Scriptures into th common tongue. He as a learned scholar of scripture at Oxford University came under conviction to give the unadulterated gospel of Christ to the people. His books and Bibles were burned and his followers driven into hiding. In the reign of King Henry IV to appease the Roman Cathoplic Church the Heresy Laws were passed and Lollards as Wycliffs followers were known were hounded and burnt at the stake for professing faith in Jesu Christ and His atonement according to Holy Scripture.

In Bohemia about this time, Jan Hus held the same convictions and was matyred for his faith in Christ and his refutation of the mass as a blasphemous mockery of Christ’s once or all sacrifice on the cross.

So, ***the Protestanti rendered the Holy Scriptures and therefore the free gospel of Christ available to the common people (laity) in their own common tongues and won freedom of faith and conscience. ***

One need only read the Canterbury Tales of Geoffry Chaucer to see the contempt with which the Church and the greed and moral corruption of the priesthood were held in England at this time.

Tyndale and Coverdale took over the work of Wycliff translating the scriptures from the orginal tongues into English and Tyndale pad for his life for this and was burnt at the stake for his faith.

Before this the Waldenses, right back into the times of Constantine were persecuted for bringing the pure gospel and the Holy Scriptures to men.

There is no denying that the knowledge of the truth of the Word of God spread under the Protestant Reformation.

With the Reformation came the Renaissance. Men everywhere were questioning the jealous Absolutism of the Church and new ideas in the realms of science, art and literature were flourishing. Think of how Da Vinci, Galileo and others were censured by the Roman Catholic Church for their work. Or perhaps the earth is flat after all!

So Protestants opened the door for a new fresh breath of air into the Church. Indeed they were the conscience of the Church. A return to biblcal truth and its exposition freely to all.

So, we see the fruits of protestantism today. it doesnt look very good.

i am not going to even bother to answer such a nonsense. i just say to you seek the Truth where the Truth is and not where you think it is.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Surely it is erroneous to state that the Roman Catholic Church was the only Church that existed for 1500 years. Even more erroneous to believe that it has taught the same doctrines for 1500 years.

What of the Arian Visigothic churches of the 4th century? What of the Eastern Orthodox Church and its Patriarch? What of the fact that the Roman Catholic Church only claimed supremacy in the late 500s, arly 600s? The fact that at one time in the 13th Century there were two Popes claiming to be the successor of St, Peter?

The doctrine of Transubstantiation was promulgated in the 1200s. The Council of Trent affirmed it in the 1570s. The doctrines of the oman Cathoplic Church are progressive and evolved over a long time. The Roman Catholic Church claims authority and precedence over all others and this is quite frankly unacceptable both historically and scriptually.

The Church of Christ is Universal and mystically his, it is not a visible entity but consists of all those joined to Christ by faith in Him.

you point out Doctrines that the CC made up over the years. i ask you when did the invisible church idea started? tell me where did you get the idea of invisible church? tell me who tought you that the Church is invisible? did you make this up by yourself?