Why Bring Up the Marian Views of the Early Protestant Leaders At All? Of What Relevance is It? This is a question often raised by Protestant apologists, who misunderstand the reason why Catholics note these historical facts about the Protestant founders beliefs and aspects of distinctive Catholicism that they retain. Primarily, it is a matter of historical fact or absence of evidence for same. Hence I wrote in the thread at CA where Tim Staples and I had a little friendly debate: In this instance, no dogma is involved. Its purely a matter of historical fact: did Calvin believe in the PVM or not? Whether he did or not has nothing to do with Catholic belief. We do hold to it in any event, as dogma. If one is interested in the history of theology, development of doctrine, and history of ideas (as I am, very much so), these sorts of questions are interesting, in and of themselves, wholly apart from apologetics or personal adherence one way or the other. Along these lines, its fascinating to see how the earliest Protestants differ from present-day ones, which is a matter of internal Protestant development (or departure, as the case may be). These approaches are as much sociological as they are historical, but not directly related to apologetics or partisanship. I also think, however, that such questions are tangentially or potentially also apologetical ones in some respects. If a Protestant founder like Luther or Calvin believes in the PVM and at the same time believes in sola Scriptura, then (assuming self-consistency) they obviously think they have biblical rationale to believe it, rather than merely Catholic authority or an argument from extrascriptural tradition. This then becomes a question in apologetics, insofar as a Protestant tries to claim that Catholics believe in it (as they habitually claim) only due to extrascriptural tradition. At that point we say that it is entirely possible to accept it within a sola Scriptura rule of faith, since Luther or Calvin or Zwingli or whoever, did the same. This undercuts the argument against such-and-such detested Catholic doctrines based on thinking they are traditions of men or corruptions. And that is undoubtedly apologetics and/or polemics. Anti-Catholic polemicist James Swan understands this, since he wrote on his Boors All blog, on 10-15-14: What Ive found is that the alleged Mariology of the Reformers has been used by the defenders of Rome to show that the Reformers practiced sola scriptura and held to distinctly Roman doctrines. Anti-Catholic polemicist Steve Hays, writing on his Tribalblogue site on 10-13-14, demonstrates, on the other hand, that he doesnt get all of this at all (which is not an infrequent occurrence for him), in writing (after referring to the discussion with Tim Staples on the CA blog): Suppose the Protestant Reformers agree with Rome on this issue. If thats an argument from authority in support of Rome, then by converse logic, when they disagree with Rome, thats an argument from authority in opposition to Rome. The argument from authority cuts both ways. Hes completely out to sea here, and about to drown. It never was an argument from authority in the first place (what non-Catholics believe has no bearing at all on what the Catholic Church teaches as binding doctrine: zero, zip, nada, zilch). He only thinks it is because he doesnt analyze Catholic thinking and apologetics deeply enough. And he does not do so because it is a general rule that what one utterly despises, one doesnt accord enough respect to study and research and present accurately. Therefore, when such a person sets out to battle against the dreaded Beast that he detests so deeply, he inevitably ends up fighting a straw man. Hays has virtually made a career (insofar as one can say that at all about a mere blogger, as he is) out of such foolish activities. Protestant apologists typically claim that such beliefs among their founders are mere unfortunate remnants of their former Catholic affiliation, which they havent yet managed to shake off because they were still early in the game of Protestant history, and this is understandable, etc., etc. This is the spin that indicates, I think, a definite measure of embarrassment that the heroes and founders of the Protestant Revolt continued to believe a fair amount of Catholic stuff that now your average Protestant Tom, Dick, or Harry immediately knows from Scripture Alone, are abominable false doctrines. Luther and Calvin hadnt yet arrived at that basic state of Bible knowledge (a ridiculous contention if there ever was one, once one sees how learned and soaked in the Bible both men were). The remnant explanation is possible; however, its an entirely subjective argument, very difficult to prove. Its a distinction without a difference. How would one prove that so-called Reformer X believed in the PVM because of the continuance of arbitrary Catholic tradition, or because he truly thought it was warranted from the Bible? I dont see any way to do it. So the claim is arbitrary and made based on wishful thinking and special pleading, rather than solid ascertainable fact. Its an interpretation superimposed on the facts as can be determined, to explain away what is thought to be anomalous or embarrassing or inconvenient in the course of anti-Catholic and/or pro-Protestant apologetics and polemics. In any event, all parties are responsible to try to determine the historical facts of any given matter, whichever way they turn out, and to be willing to retract some things and modify positions, as more facts become available. Thats what its all about: we ought to go to wherever the truth leads us, as can best be determined by diligent study. It was that pursuit of truth that led both Tim Staples and I into the Catholic Church, which entailed changing our minds on a host of matters.
Posted on: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:37:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015