What Theological Contributions Have Protestants Made?

[wisdomseeker]

First of all renewal of the mind IS about experience. If you only worship God though complication and ritual you have totally missed the point of Christianity. Christianity is at its very core a simple faith; WE are the ones who go out and add to it to make it hard and complex. Maybe a course in basic New Testament Greek would allow you to see St. Paul’s words in clearer light.
Jesus said very SIMPLY, “If I be lited up, I will draw all men unto me.” Kindly tell me how this requires the great theological debates, and complications to reach the masses as you seem to be advocating. Jesus also said, “By this all will know you are my disciples if you have love for one another.” This statement also sounds very simple and non complex. There is nothing “strange” or “deep” about the Gospel unless you make it so in order that a person cannot come to Christ but by YOUR standards.

blessings father.

Jesus did say we must love one another. i think He was talking about the people in the Church. His Church. now, i dont mean to say that we dont love others, we do but not to the point of follow those in err.

draw all men into His Church, if His Curch has any importance in this God’s earth.

the problem is that we decided to Worship God by our own standards. we have gotten away from the Apostles and the Saints who gave the proper Worship to God and it was passed to us. what has changed? is it not God the same yesterday today and forever.

the spirit of today’s world as that God only get what we want to give Him. and not what He wants from us. we must not forget, first comes God.

we have lost the sense of Sacred and Mistic. we learn that what really maters is us. it is all about what we want. we know better than those of the old. we have become more educated and better people when in reality we all look foolish before God.

we have put ourselves above God. we must regonize who we are and who God is all over again. and give Him the best Worship, all that He deserves.

Bishops and priests have a great place of honor among God’s people. but it does not mean they cannot be blinded and fall. God forbid i should judge anyone, but it does not take much to see the pride in some priests and bishops.

we can go back to our ancesters and see that the sheperds in Israel were deceived and lead the people into err. and God called them to judgement.

in the Church, i hear all the time, all the blame being put on the people. i hear none of them recognized their own failures. none of us are above the laws of God. none.

everyone can see the disconnection and disharmony in the Mass. music and Worship simply dont go together. there is no sense of Awe for the things of God. and it is all because we have grown weary and tired of the Faith and decided to look for other things. we must not forget the Prophecy: “when I returned will I find any Faith?”
thank you for being here.

**“Without truth, charity ends up in sentimentalism. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled arbitrarily. It is the fatal risk of love in a culture without truth. It falls prey to the emotions and contingent opinions of the individuals, an abused and distorted word, to the point of signifying the contrary.” BXVI **

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Wow. Dead silence…what conclusions should be drawn from this?

One conclusion is that you have trouble being patient.

Another is that the Reformation just might have been a resounding success, since the idea was not at all to introduce anything new but rather to reform the church and return to the historical faith. As such the introduction of new things is contrary to the very idea.

Of course there are those who have introduced new teachings, and Catholics tend to lump them all together as Protestants but they are not in the tradition of the Reformation at all but rather follow what had happened that needed reforming.

 

[wisdomseeker]

One conclusion is that you have trouble being patient.

Another is that the Reformation just might have been a resounding success, since the idea was not at all to introduce anything new but rather to reform the church and return to the historical faith. As such the introduction of new things is contrary to the very idea.

Of course there are those who have introduced new teachings, and Catholics tend to lump them all together as Protestants but they are not in the tradition of the Reformation at all but rather follow what had happened that needed reforming.

was any doctrine that needed to be reformed?

if it was sanctity of man that needed reform, can you show us how you are more holy than Catholics?

**“Without truth, charity ends up in sentimentalism. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled arbitrarily. It is the fatal risk of love in a culture without truth. It falls prey to the emotions and contingent opinions of the individuals, an abused and distorted word, to the point of signifying the contrary.” BXVI **

 

[Deconi]

AMEN
could not have said it better.

I seriously doubt that and you betray your modesty…but thank you.

 

[Deconi]

One conclusion is that you have trouble being patient.

Another is that the Reformation just might have been a resounding success, since the idea was not at all to introduce anything new but rather to reform the church and return to the historical faith. As such the introduction of new things is contrary to the very idea.

Of course there are those who have introduced new teachings, and Catholics tend to lump them all together as Protestants but they are not in the tradition of the Reformation at all but rather follow what had happened that needed reforming.

In some ways, what you say is spot on, Joe. The unfortunate thing though is that you do not reform something by leaving it; that’s obstinance.

But you are correct that what the original… uhm…‘reformers’…intended is NOT what protestants has exampled.

The one tangible effect of the Reformation is that it compelled The Church to DEFINE some of her doctrines conclusively, so that there are less ‘grey’ areas for confusion.

Blessings.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

was any doctrine that needed to be reformed?

if it was sanctity of man that needed reform, can you show us how you are more holy than Catholics?

**“Without truth, charity ends up in sentimentalism. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled arbitrarily. It is the fatal risk of love in a culture without truth. It falls prey to the emotions and contingent opinions of the individuals, an abused and distorted word, to the point of signifying the contrary.” BXVI **

Well it certainly wasn’t the sanctity of man. Even though many in the church were in wanton open sin that wasn’t the reason for the Reformation. Anabaptists tried to pretend it was and they were so holy but we all know that isn’t true.

The Lutheran Confessions spell out the new innovations in the church that were not correct and needed reform. I would refer you to them www.bookofconcord.org The Smalcald Articles and the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope speak directly to the issues.

Also the back and forth of the Augsburg Confession, the Confutation of same and the Defense of same hash over the disputes. All three can be accessed on that site.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

In some ways, what you say is spot on, Joe. The unfortunate thing though is that you do not reform something by leaving it; that’s obstinance.

But you are correct that what the original… uhm…‘reformers’…intended is NOT what protestants has exampled.

The one tangible effect of the Reformation is that it compelled The Church to DEFINE some of her doctrines conclusively, so that there are less ‘grey’ areas for confusion.

Blessings.

They did not leave, they were thrown out. Maybe that’s the same thing to you.

The Church did continue to make new dogma. Going exactly against the point of the Reformation. Grey area, unknown things? That was embraced. Making things sin that God did not say were sin, that was rejected. Making more things sin that God did not was not reform. Though granted, there was an effort to do things like actually educate priests and such.

 

[jmcrae]

It is TRUE in the Book of Acts that Peter is refered to as “Cephas”, his Aramaic name, that does not take away from the fact that in the Matthew passage that it DOES NOT use the Aramaic words for Peter but only the Greek as Jesus was doing this to make the emphasis. Matthew uses Simon bar Jonah followed by the Greek words. Notice we Catholics DO NOT establish the primacy of Peter from Luke it is because of the emphasis of the Matthew passage. The Matthew passage in question does not use that Cephas or Kepha in it, that is why I wrote a note of correction in the first place.

The Gospel of Matthew was written in the Greek language. This in no way means that Jesus was speaking Greek at the time that He was addressing Peter, and the fact that the Early Christians heard Jesus say “Kepha” and not “Petros” (since that’s what they started calling him after this time) shows us that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic at the time.

Please don’t confuse the writing of the scene with the actual scene itself. The writing only points to what happened - it’s not the actual event itself.

To LilyM I never said you claimed that Jesus only spoke Aramaic, I said it is a common misconception. Please do not read into that more than is there. But to say Peter never spoke Greek woul also be wrong as his epistles are clearly in a Greek style and to be a fisherman you had to trade with other people in a commerce situation, hence the need to speak Greek

Peter’s Epistles were written by scribes; Peter himself was not able to read or write.

 

[jmcrae]

They did not leave, they were thrown out. Maybe that’s the same thing to you.

They weren’t excommunicated until many years after they had stopped their association with the Catholic Church. Lutheranism was five years old by the time Luther was actually excommunicated from the Catholic Church. He was already long gone - it was not for his sake that he was excommunicated, but for the sake of his followers, so that they would understand that by following him, they were departing from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and following after an innovation of man.

 

[FrJohnB]

The Gospel of Matthew was written in the Greek language. This in no way means that Jesus was speaking Greek at the time that He was addressing Peter, and the fact that the Early Christians heard Jesus say “Kepha” and not “Petros” (since that’s what they started calling him after this time) shows us that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic at the time.

Please don’t confuse the writing of the scene with the actual scene itself. The writing only points to what happened - it’s not the actual event itself.

Peter’s Epistles were written by scribes; Peter himself was not able to read or write.

So then Luke the Physician who was writing to the Greek Theophilus would not have written in Greek also? This is rich. The entire New Testament was written in Greek. What seminary did you attend???

Who told you Peter could not read or write? Were you there? The arguments of Peter being illiterate have never been concluded one way or another. His epistles have been compared to Paul’s in writing style so as to make one question that he never wrote them. Peter could have dictated the letter to Silvanus but we cannot be certain of this either. Maybe you can go back in your time machine and tell us for certain. Early church tradition has always held that Peter was the author of the Epistles of Peter.

Once again, I can only conclude by your post you must have been there to know for absolute certain what language was spoken so I will until you tell me seminary you learned this from assume otherwise.

 

[Padrej]

So then Luke the Physician who was writing to the Greek Theophilus would not have written in Greek also? This is rich. The entire New Testament was written in Greek. What seminary did you attend???

Who told you Peter could not read or write? Were you there? The arguments of Peter being illiterate have never been concluded one way or another. His epistles have been compared to Paul’s in writing style so as to make one question that he never wrote them. Peter could have dictated the letter to Silvanus but we cannot be certain of this either. Maybe you can go back in your time machine and tell us for certain. Early church tradition has always held that Peter was the author of the Epistles of Peter.

Once again, I can only conclude by your post you must have been there to know for absolute certain what language was spoken so I will until you tell me seminary you learned this from assume otherwise.

I have also heard the argument that Peter could not read or write, It almost smacks of a parallel with Mohamed who could not read or write writing the Koran.
It stands to reason that Peter would have some education to even dictate these epistles if they were not his. I tend to fall on the side of Early Church tradition that Peter actually wrote them. I can see the similar writing style to Paul who was not a Greek speaker by nature so you can tell the letters he dictated as they don’t have all the run on sentences.
Every Protestant commentary I have lists Peter as the author of these books but with the possibility of being dictated through Silvanus. BUT it also lists this is an uncertainty that it was a dictated work because of the early church tradition to the contrary.

 

[jmcrae]

So then Luke the Physician who was writing to the Greek Theophilus would not have written in Greek also? This is rich. The entire New Testament was written in Greek. What seminary did you attend???

Yes, I know that the Gospels and the New Testament were written in Greek; and I didn’t need to go to Seminary to find that out - I went to Art School; we learned how to observe what is really there. What Elementary school did you go to; you seem to be misreading what I wrote.

The language that the Gospels were written in has absolutely nothing to do with what language the people were speaking when the actual events took place.

Who told you Peter could not read or write?

It’s in the notes of my Bible.

His epistles have been compared to Paul’s in writing style so as to make one question that he never wrote them. Peter could have dictated the letter to Silvanus but we cannot be certain of this either. Maybe you can go back in your time machine and tell us for certain. Early church tradition has always held that Peter was the author of the Epistles of Peter.

Yes, I know - in the same way that my boss is the author of the web sites that I program and design. He provides the content of the web sites, but he has no knowledge of how to use a computer, so I take his content, and I do the design and the programming to get the content on to the World Wide Web. I don’t put my name on those web sites; I put his name on them. He is the author of them; I am just an employee.

Just because Peter had a scribe doesn’t mean that the ideas were not his.

 

[Padrej]

Yes, I know

 

[jmcrae]

In Matthew 16 verse 17 the words in the Greek manuscripts that are translated “Blessed are you Simon Bar Jonah” are words used only in Aramaic.

It was his name. My name is McRae; I don’t change it to “Warrior of the Sun” just because I am speaking English, but if someone wants to show the meaning of my name, then they would use “Warrior of the Sun” instead of “McRae” to show the meaning. (Off-hand I can’t imagine any circumstances where it would be meaningful, but just supposing.)

In the first instance, Matthew doesn’t care that “Simon bar Jonah” means A tanner who is the son of a well-digger; it isn’t relevant to his point.

But in the second instance, he is showing how Jesus names him Rock, so he shows it in the Greek (because his audience is Greek).

The problem is IF YOU WERE A STUDENT OF GREEK, if you read the wording of the Matthew passage in question that is used to establish the primacy of Peter there is a language shift in the Greek text of words that are only used in the Aramaic language to words used exclusively in the Greek.

He is writing in Greek; what else is he going to use?

 

[FrJohnB]

It was his name. My name is McRae; I don’t change it to “Warrior of the Sun” just because I am speaking English, but if someone wants to show the meaning of my name, then they would use “Warrior of the Sun” instead of “McRae” to show the meaning. (Off-hand I can’t imagine any circumstances where it would be meaningful, but just supposing.)

In the first instance, Matthew doesn’t care that “Simon bar Jonah” means A tanner who is the son of a well-digger; it isn’t relevant to his point.

 

[larkin31]

One major theological contribution Protestants have made is to bring to godhead all those Christians who have difficulty with the idea of institutional infallibility, particularly when practiced with sin on the institution’s hands.

 

[Deconi]

Boy you really don’t get it do you. I don’t know how much plainer PadreJ could have made it. Yes Simon was his name the “bar Jonah” part is an expression only used in Aramaic indicating that at THAT MOMENT Jesus was speaking Aramaic. Jesus changes the name to “Petros” in Greek translated “Peter” in English and goes on to say upon this “petra” (rock) I will build My Church. “Petros” and “petra” are NOT Aramaic words indicating AT THAT MOMENT Jesus switched to speaking in Greek for emphasis only. Please note also when God changes a mane in the Bible it is because of a spiritual change has happened also (Abram-Abraham, Sari-Sarah). So it is VERY relevant to Matthew’s account that he left in “Simon bar Jonah” in there contrary to your opinion. It has NOTHING to do with the audience being Greek as Matthew, although does focus on the Gentile converts, he goes out of his way to show the fulfillment of OT prophesies in his gospel that no other writer does; so it is evident that some Jews were reading the text also. Mathew being a Jew shapes his gospel so it could be understood by a Jewish audience, his goal there is to convince them that the King of Kings had come. With that in mind he would need to add tidbits like “Simon bar Jonah” that only a Jewish audience would find relevant. YOU may not find it relevant but his readers did.

It would be as if I was writing to a Jewish person that was a convert (lets insert my name instead of Peter here and my father) “Blessed are you John bar Vincent” to indicate to the Jewish readers that I was John son of Vincent. Simon bar Jonah obviously meant something to the Jewish reader’s of Matthew’s day or else he would not have indicated who Simon’s (Peter’s) father was. Therefore it was totally relevant. YOU may not find it relevant but his readers did.

This is a higher level of scholarship and something not being generalised in the varied school of thought. Being multi-lingual, my family have a habit of crossing languages when they talk and the mother language of the relative being addressed takes predominance. So I can certainly understand the position.

However, I am in pursuit of a Masters Degree, (Theology / Philosophy) and I have to say that I have a heck of a time arguing, and literally heated arguments with my PROFESSORS! and tutorial doctors about several of the above! Their position, for instance, in regards the authorship of the Gospels is STUCK in the 'mysterious 'Q" document, that yet validates the proposition that Mark came first, and Matt and Luke are not the authors of their Gospels, or the ‘author’ sourced some of Mark’s work.

I argue that I can accept all this, including that Peter could not read or write, if they provide convincing evidence. Unfortunately for my position (student) THEY are convinced, they’re the ones doing the marking.

I have examined the earliest documents I could find from the ECFS and not only is there no referrence or question regarding Peter’s illiteracy, but no allusion to question the authorship of The Gospels…except an affirmation that not only were the Gospels authored by Matt, Mark, Luke and John, but that they ‘came’ in that order!

There was even some thought that Gen2 was written before Gen1…but thankfully it didn’t last in the class and the assertion seems to have been disgarded.

Awwwelll…*

 

[Padrej]

One major theological contribution Protestants have made is to bring to godhead all those Christians who have difficulty with the idea of institutional infallibility, particularly when practiced with sin on the institution’s hands.

OUCH
Spoken like someone who has been hurt by a church in the past.
Could you elaborate on the institutional sin?

 

[Jolly_Joe]

This is a higher level of scholarship and something not being generalised in the varied school of thought. Being multi-lingual, my family have a habit of crossing languages when they talk and the mother language of the relative being addressed takes predominance. So I can certainly understand the position.

However, I am in pursuit of a Masters Degree, (Theology / Philosophy) and I have to say that I have a heck of a time arguing, and literally heated arguments with my PROFESSORS! and tutorial doctors about several of the above! Their position, for instance, in regards the authorship of the Gospels is STUCK in the 'mysterious 'Q" document, that yet validates the proposition that Mark came first, and Matt and Luke are not the authors of their Gospels, or the ‘author’ sourced some of Mark’s work.

I argue that I can accept all this, including that Peter could not read or write, if they provide convincing evidence. Unfortunately for my position (student) THEY are convinced, they’re the ones doing the marking.

I have examined the earliest documents I could find from the ECFS and not only is there no referrence or question regarding Peter’s illiteracy, but no allusion to question the authorship of The Gospels…except an affirmation that not only were the Gospels authored by Matt, Mark, Luke and John, but that they ‘came’ in that order!

There was even some thought that Gen2 was written before Gen1…but thankfully it didn’t last in the class and the assertion seems to have been disgarded.

Awwwelll…*

Good luck. If you keep your eyes open I think you will come to the conclusion that higher doesn’t always equal better. Academia seems bent on having to crank out higher degrees and to get those degrees people come up with theories and such. Some of them literally get a life of their own and become widely accepted “facts” even though there is little or nothing to support them.

One you see all the time here is the idea that the Synod of Jamnia set the Jewish canon. And it’s often used to support the idea that it’s stupid to follow them. Well it was a theory, largely of one man, and largely discounted today for the simple reason there is no supporting evidence. Yet you see it referred to as if it were fact over and over.

You can see a lot of things spoken repeatedly about Martin Luther are similar. Produced one time and fits so nice they are used over and over without even bothering to check original sources.

One big problem you have as a student is that grading. You could be the best student and do a really good job of learning and in the end, in most places, it would be hazardous to your Master’s degree. You’d think instead of turning out educated people capable of thinking and researching that many places simply want to make disciples to vote on their side in any debate. He who cranks out the most degrees and thus has the most votes-wins.

One thing you find underlaying much if not most of the higher scholarship is that the Bible really isn’t trustworthy. It pretty much operates as a given that the Bible is a collection of myths reworked from surrounding cultures. Those things did not happen, nothing is original. Be careful, once you drink the Kool-Aid and give up on the Bible you never know where you end up.

Good luck with your studies.

One thing you should have is access to a decent library. If you want to read something written by a Protestant that always had great respect among Catholic read Martin Chemnitz. His Examination of the Council of Trent and Loci Theologici are both very interesting reading for a Catholic scholar. Unlike many Protestants he was an absolute expert in the church fathers and uses them liberally throughout. I’d suspect you’d really enjoy it.

 

[larkin31]

OUCH
Spoken like someone who has been hurt by a church in the past.
Could you elaborate on the institutional sin?

I have not been hurt by a church. I am explaining a fundamental reason that many Protestants find a home in their churches–the idea of papal and institutional infallibility is anathema to many of them.

for starters, the resistance to translation of the Bible into English, and its persecution of said translators and printers. I consider that an institutional sin. But I don’t want to make this a list of Church sins (IMO). This is not necessary. I am merely pointing out what Protestantism has done: many many millions of persons have found a way to God through Protestantism. This is the fundamental “contribution” of this movement.