What Theological Contributions Have Protestants Made?

[wisdomseeker]

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.

did the world needed protestants to learn about God? was not this the command of Christ to His Church? to go to whole world and preach the Gospel?

do you think that ML was the one first to preach the Gospel to people?

i think what ML did was to distort the Gospel to those who already been evangelized.
**
Martin Luther.
**“Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers.”
Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O’Hare, Ibid, 209. ****

 

[Contarini]

Why can’t we try to encompass as much of the richness of the Christian Faith as possible, without letting go of anything?

I didn’t see where he used a stereotype or caricature. People also experince God in other places than ritual.

His post seemed to place “ritual” and “experience” over against each other. Nothing I said either denigrated experience or suggested that experience can only be found in ritual. His post did accuse me of worshiping God though “complication and ritual” and of denigrating experience. None of these things have anything that I can see to do with anything I have said. They have a lot to do with the assumptions that certain modern American Christians bring to these discussions.

All of this came out of your claim that Peterson writes “like an academic” and is too hard for the average believer. On the basis of my suggestion (in response to this) that evangelicals need to embrace the intellectual aspect of the Christian Faith, you and FrJohnB have deduced some rather astonishing things: that I am opposed to “experience” (at least outside the context of the liturgy), that I “worship God through complication and ritual,” and so on.

That is pure BULL

An assertion. Suppose you support the assertion by giving a brief, simple explanation of the Christian Faith which does not omit or deny the Trinity and the Incarnation.

and you know it.

A gratuitous and groundless insult. Why do you find it so hard to defend your position substantively without silly tactics like this? If I knew that I was wrong, I would obviously change my position and agree with you.

Refute me instead of insulting me. Then we will get somewhere.

If you are so ignorant as to not understand these things then why are you attempting to be a Christian? Does not the Bible clearly say believe in the Lord Jesus as your savior and you shall be saved?

It says “believe in the Lord Jesus Christ,” actually. Again, do you mean by this that Unitarianism is theologically acceptable? (I mean, of course, classic Unitarianism of the 18th-century variety. Many modern members of the Unitarian denomination don’t believe in Jesus as savior.) Please don’t take offense. I am trying to engage logically with what you are saying.

Do you agree with me that the phrase “believe in the Lord Jesus Christ” implies belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation? In that case, how can you say that this is a simple belief? Yes, the statement is simple on the surface, and of course a person can accept it and be saved without trying to work out the implications. But given that human beings do have minds, and an annoying tendency to use them occasionally (at least it seems to annoy you immensely), people will wind up disagreeing about what it means to call Jesus “Lord” and “Christ.” Some people will think that a purely human Jesus can be Lord and Christ. You clearly agree with me that this is not the case. And at that point complexity becomes unavoidable. The complexity isn’t invented by silly scholars who have nothing better to do. It’s there in the “simple” statements of the New Testament.

Try to understand Islam and you can see why it is easier to believe lies than truth also.

I am suggesting just why it is easier to believe this particular lie–because it’s simpler and seems to preserve monotheism more purely. You seem to have another explanation. Are you suggesting that people believe lies just for the sake of believing lies? That may help Christians feel smug, but it certainly does not stem from any serious attempt to understand Islam, or anything else.

I could not see from Fr. John’s comments he made any assumptions.

Because you share the assumptions, and they seem obvious to you. I have described the assumptions above. I can see that they are assumptions for the simple reason that I know them to be false assumptions. No doubt I am assuming false things about you as well. It would be helpful to me both intellectually and spiritually if you would show me what they are, instead of simply insulting me.

 

[Contarini]

The good Fr. is quoting from a well known american hymn called “Lift Him Up.”

Then why did he say that he was quoting from Jesus’ words in the New Testament–which in fact he was? I am baffled by why you and he both want to turn this into a discussion of my ignorance of African-American hymnody instead of discussing the quotation in its original, Scriptural context. (Actually I can easily think of a reason–that both of you are anxious to avoid a serious discussion of Scripture and are taking cheap shots at me instead–but it’s not very creditable to the two of you, and I would gladly believe that there is some other reason.)

The hymn is most commonly sung in African American churches. The quote is a praphrase of Jesus’ own words that if I would be lifted up from the earth I will draw all men unto me. I am not surprised that you may not be familiar with that hymn as it never made it to the old 1940 or 1980 hymnal of the Episcopal church. Just a suggestion: familiarize yourself with other hymns, it will open up a whole new world to you.

Just as Fr. John assumed me to be ignorant of New Testament Greek, so you assume that my knowledge of hymns is limited to Episcopal hymnody. Actually I grew up Holiness and know a lot of hymns not in the Episcopal hymnal, but I admit that I am not as familar with African-American hymns as I would like.

(To some familiar with that line, you could look racist by your comments

It is racist to assume that a quotation from Scripture really is a quotation from Scripture, and to be ignorant of (or to ignore–but in this case I admit that I really was ignorant) that it is also part of an African-American hymn? Hymns often quote Scripture. Why would anyone stop to discuss the hymn instead of discussing Scripture (since Fr. John explicitly cited the passage as a direct quotation from Jesus)? This is truly bizarre.

knowing Fr. John as I do he may be pulling a fast one here to entrap you by your words)

A cheap and dishonest tactic, unworthy of a Christian priest. I would gladly believe that he is a better person than you think him. But you know him better than I do, and unfortunately your bad opinion of him appears to be the correct one.

As a matter of fact, my wife and I have recently ordered the volume Lift Every Voice and Sing for our parish (she has just become the choir director and I the organist), precisely in order to widen the parish’s experience of hymnody beyond the limits of the 1982 Hymnal, and specifically in order to introduce the kind of evangelical, experiential hymnody that you and Fr. John unwarrantedly assume that I disparage. (LEVAS is an African-American hymnal.) You don’t know me, and you are making a whole series of completely false and ungrounded assumptions about me.

It is obvious from these line you are not familiar with the great commission to go and make disciples of all nations???

No, it should be obvious from this line that I don’t think the Great Commission is about “reaching the masses,” if only because the Apostles (like Jesus Himself) were themselves from “the masses.”

The concept of “reaching the masses” is an outgrowth of the elite, post-Constantinian Church, particularly in Western Europe (and most acutely in the 18th century and following, when evangelicals such as the Wesleys pointed out the huge deficiencies of European state churches in this regard). It presupposes that the people doing the “reaching” stand over against the “masses.”

You should know also that Jesus’ death/cross does draw

I not only know it, but I said it. I also raised a number of questions–questions that lie at the heart of historic Christian theology–concerning *how *this happens. You have not addressed those questions. You don’t have to, because the “complex” theologians you so much despise have done it for you. You can enjoy the fruits of their labors while sneering at them. This is ungrateful and unjust.

So now you think that we are NOT supposed to love everyone?

Of course not. But a command to Jesus’ disciples to love each other refers, obviously, to the relationship among Jesus’ disciples. And that raises the difficult question of who is a disciple of Jesus and who isn’t. This particular text is not talking about our love for those who are not disciples, which of course is no less important. It just functions differently. I love Mormons, but if I moved into community that was solidly Mormon, Jesus’ command would not prevent me from starting a new, orthodox church over against the Mormon one. If I moved into a town that was solidly Baptist, Jesus’ command would prevent me from starting an Anglican congregation to compete with the Baptists. The “love” of which Jesus speaks here is not just benevolence, but a love that seeks unity with all Jesus’ disciples in spite of our differences.

That’s just one example of how I understand this command. No doubt you disagree with my application in several respects.

OK I thought the Church was “Inclusive”

In some respects, yes. In others, no. The currently dominant faction in the Episcopal Church misuses and overuses this rather vague and problematic term. You appear to have assumed that I belong to that faction. Which is, again, an example of your unfortunate habit of making groundless assumptions about those who disagree with you and using those assumptions to take rhetorical cheap shots.

 

[Contarini]

IF you have read ANY of Fr John’s other posts you would never make such an inflamatory comment.

I’m sorry. I know that some people take a reductio ad absurdum as if it were a serious accusation. My point is simply, again, that the Incarnation and the Trinity are paradoxical concepts and are not “simple” by any normal meaning of that word.

The ability to use emoticons is nice, but a substantive argument would be more helpful.

Oh so you would call Jesus Christ an “elitist” would you? He went after the Pharisees for making the Law so complicated and burdensome on people when it was so simple to begin with.

Please give an argument showing that Jesus was referring to intellectual complexity, rather than (as it appears to me) burdensome ritual obligations. Nor does Jesus ever suggest, as far as I can remember, that the Law is simple. Jesus’ summary of the Law is, of course, a standard rabbinic one.

1 Corinthians 3 speaks to persons such as yourself who only grasps a tiny bit of the Gospel; it refers to them as “babes” and “carnal,” and “ignorant.” I would encourage you to move beyond this.

I am trying to do so. And I would like all Christians, even the supposedly stupid “masses” (stupid according to the implications of what you have been saying), to do so as well. Rick Warren does not seem to me to provide solid enough food for this. Hence, in spite of his virtues, he is not the best example of a Protestant theological contribution. That is the point that started our argument, isn’t it?

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[larkin31]

did the world needed protestants to learn about God?

Gee, the world did not even “need” Jesus for that matter if God had chosen simply to communicate otherwise, or never allow the Fall in the first place.

We are not talking “need” here.

The question is about “contributions.” And I answered it.

The typesetting and printing of the Bible in English is another, primarily Protestant, contribution.

The crafting of the US Constitution is another.

Was this thread actually set up as a ruse simply to claim repeatedly that Protestants have made NO contributions?

 

[tweetymom]

Gee, the world did not even “need” Jesus for that matter if God had chosen simply to communicate otherwise, or never allow the Fall in the first place.

We are not talking “need” here.

The question is about “contributions.” And I answered it.

The typesetting and printing of the Bible in English is another, primarily Protestant, contribution.

The crafting of the US Constitution is another.

Was this thread actually set up as a ruse simply to claim repeatedly that Protestants have made NO contributions?

Ya think?

 

[James_Least]

Is is too late to go back to the visible-universal, invisible-universal church discussion(?)?

There is another viewpoint, perhaps not yet presented: visible-local only. It kind of goes along with: “Where ever two or three of you are gathered IN MY NAME, there am I in the midst.” Jesus said that.

I am not Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox.

The universality of the gospel does not make the ecclesia universal. If such an assembly exists, it has yet to assemble.

Peace.

James Least

 

[Deconi]

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.

You’re clearly ahead of me in formal study for I’ve come to experience all you say in the past 2-years! I’ve read scores of ‘protestant work’ and thought as well as other religions and secular works opposing all religions in an effort to get a 360degree view of things Divine!

I do not need my studies for work or livelyhood as I have a happy career, which is why I probably get to be argumementative. But I enjoy it as a hobby and it keeps me on my toes and the brain functioning at a required speed.

Thanks for the recommendations (always appreciated) and will add Chemnitz to the list!

 

[guanophore]

There is another viewpoint, perhaps not yet presented: visible-local only. It kind of goes along with: “Where ever two or three of you are gathered IN MY NAME, there am I in the midst.” Jesus said that.

I am not Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox.

The universality of the gospel does not make the ecclesia universal. If such an assembly exists, it has yet to assemble.

Peace.

James Least

Actually, if you are not in communion with the successor of Peter, then you are a Protestant.

Yes, there is a visible local church, but it is not separate from the ecclesia. I think the opposite of what you say is true. It is indeed the universality of the Gospel that makes the Church universal. The two cannot be separated. Separation occurred when the “gospel” was re-interpreted, separating it from the unity that exists in the Aposotlic succession. When one departs from the Gospel that has been handed down to us, one separates oneself from communion with the One Body, One Church whose head is Christ.

 

[larkin31]

The question is about “contributions.” And I answered it.

The typesetting and printing of the Bible in English is another, primarily Protestant, contribution.

The crafting of the US Constitution is another.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Gee, the world did not even “need” Jesus for that matter if God had chosen simply to communicate otherwise, or never allow the Fall in the first place.

We are not talking “need” here.

The question is about “contributions.” And I answered it.

The typesetting and printing of the Bible in English is another, primarily Protestant, contribution.

The crafting of the US Constitution is another.

Was this thread actually set up as a ruse simply to claim repeatedly that Protestants have made NO contributions?

and who said that the Bible was to be printed and distributed into the hands of people?

do you really think that this contribution did any good to the world?

look at Christianity today, everybody gets a Bible and think they dont need the Church and goes and build their own churches leading people into err.

no, thanks. no need for this contribution.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Is is too late to go back to the visible-universal, invisible-universal church discussion(?)?

There is another viewpoint, perhaps not yet presented: visible-local only. It kind of goes along with: “Where ever two or three of you are gathered IN MY NAME, there am I in the midst.” Jesus said that.

I am not Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox.

The universality of the gospel does not make the ecclesia universal. If such an assembly exists, it has yet to assemble.

Peace.

James Least

and you think that Jesus said this because He wanted people to be outside His Church?
or He said that to the people inside His Church? all He tought, all He commanded was for the people in His Church.

i hope you are not insinuating that Jesus built a Church and tells people to disobey His Church and His Teachings, are you?

martin luther
“Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers.”
Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O’Hare, Ibid, 209.

 

[jmcrae]

…

Jesus did not use the words “Petros” and “Petra” - Matthew did.

MATTHEW was making the point TO THE GREEKS that Jesus had changed Simon’s name to “Rock.”

There weren’t any Greeks around when Jesus was speaking to Simon - so there was no reason for Him to speak to him in Greek.

It was Matthew who was writing to the Greeks. It was Matthew who was using the Greek language, to communicate to the Greeks the concept that Simon had been made the Rock upon which Christ’s Church is built.

 

[jmcrae]

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.

There were Catholic translations of the Bible in English as early as 700 AD.

The problem with the early Protestant translations was not that they were in English, but that they were mis-translated; for example, the famous “Sinner’s Bible” in which the Protestant translators rendered all of the Ten Commandments as “Thou shalt …” instead of as “Thou shalt not …”

Perhaps it would have been overkill to burn those guys at the stake (and I don’t know whether they were, or not), but I’m sure you would agree that something of a disciplinary nature was required in response to that.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

There has never been a translation where the translators translated “Thou shalt not” as “Thou shalt”. There was the so called wicked bible which through a printer’s error had that one shalt commit adultery.

They were recalled and it bankrupted the publisher.

It was a printing of the KJV. And the translators translated the Commandments properly.

 

[SyCarl]

There were Catholic translations of the Bible in English as early as 700 AD.

The problem with the early Protestant translations was not that they were in English, but that they were mis-translated; for example, the famous “Sinner’s Bible” in which the Protestant translators rendered all of the Ten Commandments as “Thou shalt …” instead of as “Thou shalt not …”

Perhaps it would have been overkill to burn those guys at the stake (and I don’t know whether they were, or not), but I’m sure you would agree that something of a disciplinary nature was required in response to that.

The first complete translation of the Bible in English. The “Sinner’s Bible” would likely be the 1631 King James printing but only one not was omitted with respect to adultery. Most of them were successfully taken out circulation. The printer was fined 300 pounds which was more than a usual year’s wage at the time.

 

[tweetymom]

and who said that the Bible was to be printed and distributed into the hands of people?

do you really think that this contribution did any good to the world?

look at Christianity today, everybody gets a Bible and think they dont need the Church and goes and build their own churches leading people into err.

no, thanks. no need for this contribution.

I am thankful everyday for Gods word the Bible.

 

[Padrej]

Jesus did not use the words “Petros” and “Petra” - Matthew did.

MATTHEW was making the point TO THE GREEKS that Jesus had changed Simon’s name to “Rock.”

There weren’t any Greeks around when Jesus was speaking to Simon

 

[larkin31]

The first complete translation of the Bible in English. The “Sinner’s Bible” would likely be the 1631 King James printing but only one not was omitted with respect to adultery. Most of them were successfully taken out circulation. The printer was fined 300 pounds which was more than a usual year’s wage at the time.

haha

yes

well, the heresy was not in the printer’s error

 

[larkin31]

and who said that the Bible was to be printed and distributed into the hands of people?

do you really think that this contribution did any good to the world?

look at Christianity today, everybody gets a Bible and think they dont need the Church and goes and build their own churches leading people into err.

no, thanks. no need for this contribution.

God is not grateful that millions more Africans each year are reading the Bible and converting to Christianity (many of them Protestants) each year from other religions?

You desire a return to medieval feudalism?