Replies

You have succumbed to a common myth about Protestantism. It is not "every man for himself." There is a long record of agreement on orthodoxy (vs orthopraxy).

I would venture to say that there is not as much unity in Roman Catholicism as a lot would like to believe.

not as much unity in Roman Catholicism as a lot would like to believe.

Someone pointed to me privately that great diversity of opinion exists, for example, on the inerrancy of the Bible among the Catholics. Some of it indeed exists. Even greater diversity exists over the reforms of the Vatican II. Moreover, our dispute with the non-Catholic apostolic sister Churches such as the Eastern Orthodox Church or even the pre-Chalcedon Churches is on an entirely different footing, and very little of it is theological.

The difference is that all these disputes are not about what we commonly hold to be the sacred deposit of faith. We agree on what Christ taught, what the sacraments of the Church are, what work the Church is supposed to be doing, where the authority of the Church is coming form, what is the authority of the scripture.

You have succumbed to a common myth about Protestantism. It is not "every man for himself." There is a long record of agreement on orthodoxy (vs orthopraxy).

I was listening to Hank Hanegraaf one day on a discussion of Calvinism, with two guests, one pro and one con. The discussion was rather heated, and periodically Hank jumped in and reminded the listeners that this was an "in-house debate".

I thought about that for a bit, wondering how he came to that notion. My best guess is that he knows that within the communities that grew out of the Reformation, both streams of thought were present since the very beginning. You had good solid Christian thinkers and theologians on both sides. Therefore, the issue was more open than, say, an issue like the Trinity, Sola Scriptura, and Sola Fide that all the Reformers believed.

So I'm inclined agree with you about there being an overarching orthodoxy of Protestantism: which can perhaps be defined as the basic beliefs that all (or almost all) Reformed denominations share.

And I actually think Hank's methodology is a sound one: did Christians all agree on this, or did they have a range of opinions? But my question is...why stop with the Reformation? In other words, why do we not extend his methodology back past 1500 into the 1200s, the 800s, the 500s, and all the way back?