{"id":1341,"date":"2007-02-02T14:06:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-02T14:06:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2007\/02\/comments-on-the-question-are-protestants-heretics.html"},"modified":"2017-06-02T17:25:29","modified_gmt":"2017-06-02T21:25:29","slug":"comments-on-the-question-are-protestants-heretics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2007\/02\/comments-on-the-question-are-protestants-heretics.html","title":{"rendered":"Comments on the Question: “Are Protestants Heretical?”"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>
\"Dialogue7\"<\/div>\n
Image by \u201cgeralt\u201d (3-4-14)<\/span> [Pixabay <\/a>\/ CC0 public domain<\/a>]<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
***<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n

(2-2-07)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

*****<\/div>\n

The topic was first brought up at The Boar\u2019s Head<\/span> forum<\/a>, with reference to the article of the same name by Edward T. Oakes, S.J. (First Things<\/span>, 31 January 2007<\/a>). It was then noted by Reformed writer Alastair Roberts, on his adversaria<\/span> blog<\/a>, and in turn cited by<\/a> ReformedCatholicism.com<\/a>. As I am banned from the latter site because I have protested more than once the rather (somewhat ironically) \u201cun-ecumenical\u201d treatment of Catholics, and especially Catholic converts (and notably, Cardinal Newman) in that venue, I commented at adversaria, since I have enjoyed many amiable dialogues with Alastair. Other commenters on that blog will be listed in various colors:<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a good article, though the sentence you quote does betray a typical misperception of the Reformation, common (but not exclusive) to Roman Catholics: \u201cthe Reformers took a portion\u2026\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Whenever I read about the Reformers having \u201cleft\u201d the Roman Catholic Church, or being schismatic, or whatever, I feel an urge to scream, in words of one syllable: \u201cThey! Did! Not! Leave!!! They! Were! THROWN! OUT!!!!!\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

By John H<\/a> on 02.01.07 9:08 am [I link to John\u2019s blog on my sidebar; he\u2019s a Lutheran]
\n
\nWouldn\u2019t it be more accurate to say, \u201cWhen we booted out the Protestants, they did not entirely plunder us of our patrimony\u201d?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

By Christopher Witmer on 02.01.07 12:57 pm<\/p>\n

If they kick me out, and I didn\u2019t do anything except preach the truth, then who\u2019s the real schismatic?<\/span><\/p>\n

By Xon <\/a>on 02.01.07 5:50 pm [Reformed]<\/p>\n

\u201cThrown out\u201d? I suppose in one way this is true, but one must look at the impossible position that they forced the Catholic Church to be in.<\/p>\n

I would contend that no one who is conscious and in his right mind would say that any<\/span> church, confronted with a dissident who denied fifty<\/span> of its long-held tenets, would tolerate this; nor should they be expected to.<\/p>\n

Reformed Protestants (at least the \u201cconservative\u201d ones) don\u2019t even tolerate deviation from TULIP, for heaven\u2019s sake, and that only has to do with soteriology. We Catholics were faced with a frontal attack on many different areas of our faith: things we held sacred: just as you do with regard to your beliefs.<\/p>\n

I ask my Protestant friends: what were we supposed to do? Anyone who has any belief system that had been developed for 1500 years is not gonna simply ditch it because one man comes along, in effect (and sometimes almost literally) claiming to be some sort of pseudo-prophet from God.<\/p>\n

No self-respecting Protestant denomination today would consider such a radical change in their own system for a second. Yet that is what the Catholic Church in 1521 was expected to do, because, well, \u201ceveryone knows\u201d that Luther was right and the 1500-year received tradition wrong.<\/p>\n

No, we don\u2019t<\/span> all \u201cknow\u201d that. And I \u201cknow\u201d it less and less the more I study the issues involved. I gave a more extended presentation of the above argument in this paper:<\/p>\n

\u201c50 Ways In Which Luther Had Departed From Catholic Orthodoxy or Established Practice by 1520 (and Why He Was Excommunicated)\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

I haven\u2019t read the article cited yet; I\u2019m just giving my initial reaction to this very common Protestant piece of highly unreasonable and unjust rhetoric.<\/p>\n

* * *<\/span><\/div>\n


\nIronically, the reasoning that N. T. Wright uses in a post not far below<\/a>, with regard to morality, almost exactly applies analogously to Luther\u2019s demands in 1517-1521. If I change just a few key words, you\u2019ll see how this is the case:<\/span><\/p>\n

N. T. Wright:<\/p>\n

There is no way that the Catholic Church is going to change its mind on this one given 18 months or so. This completely fails to take into account the views and beliefs of all those involved. The idea that New Labour \u2013 which has got every second thing wrong and is backtracking on extended drinking hours, is in a mess over this cash-for-peerages business, cannot keep all its prisons under control \u2013 the idea that New Labour can come up with a new morality which it forces on the Catholic Church after 2,000 years \u2013 I am sorry \u2013 this is amazing arrogance on the part of the Government.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Legislation for a nouveau morality is deeply unwise. That is not how morality works. At a time when the Government is foundering with so many of its policies \u2013 and I haven\u2019t even mentioned Iraq \u2013 the thought that this Government has the moral credibility to be able tell the Roman Catholic Church how to order one area of its episcopal teaching is frankly laughable. When you think about it like that, it is quite extraordinary. I suppose the hope is that in 18 months time there will be a different Prime Minister who might take a different view, and this will kick it into the long grass until then.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And my analogy (changing a few words):<\/span><\/p>\n

There is no way that the Catholic Church is going to change its mind on its theological doctrine given 18 months or so. This completely fails to take into account the views and beliefs of all those involved. The idea that New Sects and one man, Martin Luther . . . can come up with a new theology which it forces on the Catholic Church after 1,500 years \u2013 I am sorry \u2013 this is amazing arrogance on the part of the New Sects and Martin Luther.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Legislation for a nouveau theology is deeply unwise. That is not how theology works. . . . The thought that this New Sect and one man, Martin Luther, have the moral credibility to be able tell the Roman Catholic Church how to order any areas of its episcopal teaching is frankly laughable. When you think about it like that, it is quite extraordinary. I suppose the hope is that in 18 months time there will be a different [self-proclaimed] \u201cRestorer of the Gospel\u201d who might take a different view, and this will kick it into the long grass until then. <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What is the difference of principle<\/span> between the two? When it comes to government forcing advocacy of homosexuality onto the Catholic Church, you guys all cheer on the Catholics and readily see the invalidity of the principle.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

But when we rewind back to 1521, no one sees that the same exact dynamics apply with regard to Luther\u2019s 50 or more departures from Catholic precedent, and how the Church was supposed to react to that.<\/span><\/p>\n

Someone please tell me what the difference is between the two scenarios? If the Catholic Church should not budge on one <\/span>moral teaching, why should it simultaneously budge on 50 theological teachings, all at once<\/span>? Just because one man claims to have a direct line to God and His will, and truth?<\/span>
\n
\nNuh-uh. Makes no sense to me at all. At best, Luther made a few good points about reform (mostly, the hypocritical practices of most of the corrupt clergy at that time). He could have been a great reformer indeed, if he had controlled and restrained himself.<\/span><\/p>\n

But instead he decided to become a revolutionary dissident. That is not a reformer, by definition, because the reformer restores things to how they used to be. That\u2019s (largely) not what Luther advocated. He overturned and overthrew many Catholic tenets, and introduced many things previously unknown, which is precisely why he is more properly regarded as a revolutionary, from any sensible historical understanding of the history of Christian doctrine.<\/p>\n

* * *<\/span><\/div>\n


\nI agree (having read the article now) with Fr. Oakes that there is much practical common ground in the area of justification. I have been arguing just that on a Lutheran blog<\/a> (Three Hierarchies<\/i>) lately.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cHeresy\u201d simply means \u201cselection.\u201d Protestants, therefore, are \u201cheretics\u201d with regard to individual doctrines<\/span> in the apostolic Tradition that they reject. So, e.g., a Protestant rejects the Sacrifice of the Mass. Therefore, they are heretics with regard to that particular doctrine<\/span>, since it is strongly grounded in the Fathers, and (I would contend) in the Bible itself.<\/span><\/p>\n

There are many such doctrines that were rejected by the so-called \u201cReformers.\u201d But as a blanket term for Protestants, I would agree with Fr. Oakes that it is inappropriate, because Protestants are indeed Christians. \u201cHeretic\u201d as a blanket term applies infinitely more to groups like Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses or Mormons<\/a>, or Christian Science, or Unitarians.<\/span><\/p>\n

It is the anti-Catholic wing of Protestantism that has the big problem here, when defining Catholicism out of the realm of Christianity altogether. But in so doing, they are largely following the lead of the vehement, vitriolic anti-Catholicism of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger, Melanchthon et al. The original movement was anti-Catholic precisely because of its revolutionary nature.<\/p>\n

I agree completely with Stephen Barr, in his counter-reply to Fr. Oakes: \u201cResponse to Oakes on Protestants and Heresy\u201d (First Things<\/span>, 1 February 2007<\/a>):<\/p>\n

While I agree with the general sentiment of Fr. Edward Oakes\u2019 observations yesterday<\/u><\/a> concerning the invidious or vituperative use of the word heresy<\/i>, I feel that he is turning into a matter of sentiment what should be a matter of precise definition. If the word heresy<\/i> is thought of merely as an insult or a taunt, then I agree that it is improper for Catholics to use it of Protestants, or Protestants to use it of Catholics. We should not be attempting to wound one another. Much better to call each other brothers.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The word heresy<\/i> in Catholic teaching, however, has a very precise technical meaning today. It is not, as Oakes would have it, \u201cexplicitly [to] deny key doctrines of the faith.\u201d The word key<\/i> is not part of the definition of heresy given in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which reads: \u201cHeresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Catholic Church says that all things (though not only those things) taught by Ecumenical Councils as revealed truths under pain of anathema are to be believed \u201cby divine and Catholic faith.\u201d There are propositions on justification and other matters that were taught by the Council of Trent under pain of anathema. So, if a baptized person were obstinately to deny one of those propositions, the term heresy<\/i>, as used technically by the Catholic Church, would apply to him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

. . . With all due respect, this is not a question of how Edward Oakes feels about it. . . . This is a question of facts and definitions, not sentiment. Nor is it a question of whether something is a \u201ckey teaching,\u201d even of an Ecumenical Council. The term key teaching<\/i> does not name a technical concept in Catholic doctrine or canon law, as far as I am aware.<\/p>\n

. . . I agree with my good friend Fr. Oakes that the way the word heresy<\/i> is apparently tossed about by some people on the Web is not at all helpful. But ecumenical dialogue is also not advanced by muddying the meanings of words and by confusing feeling for clear thought.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

* * *<\/div>\n


\nI would like to challenge some of the above comments about the simplistic view of who-did-what (as if we can speak in those terms about church-institutions, but hey). I follow the argument of The myth of religious neutrality here, not directly quoting:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Although expressed in many ways, perhaps, like the \u201950 Ways In Which Luther Had Departed From Catholic Orthodoxy or Established Practice\u2019, I think it is primarily the challenge to Scholasticism that is the real point. Not all those ways in which it is expressed. And certainly not just by one man, in this case Luther.<\/span><\/p>\n

Scholasticism upholds a distinction between earth and heaven, between a natural realm and a realm of supernature of Grace. It regards religion as controlling theories in the negative sense, that is: any theory may be accepted, as long as it not (visibly) contradicts revealed doctrine. At the same time, any \u2018neutral\u2019 doctrine can be taken aboard by \u2018the church\u2019, by adding the information that God was the primary cause of it.<\/span><\/p>\n

This view was challenged in the 16th century by both the reformation and enlightenment, but for very different reasons. Enlightenment sought to abolish the necessity of the religious control, either by entirely separating religious from theoretical thought, or posing the opposite relationship of religious thought being controlled by theoretical reason.<\/span><\/p>\n

The reformation sought a return to a radical biblical position, where all theoretical reason is thought to be controlled by religion. False religion will lead to false beliefs and theory. This operates in a way that biblical belief directs thinking and theorising, it is not a source though for the proper basis of science as it is used by fundamentalists.<\/span><\/p>\n

Leaving those arguments aside maybe, I think it is important to hold for instance Luther against this background where the Roman Catholic Church (RC) was under pressure not on many fronts per se, but mainly on one front, namely how to relate the bible and religious doctrine to daily life and theorizing in the natural world. In this perspective, Enlightenment posed the same threat to Scholasticism as the Reformation, in a way, namely that the authority of the RCC would be damaged. I can\u2019t help but see the similarities to the gospels, although I don\u2019t believe the same change of order in the Cosmos took place in the reformation: Jesus Christ is still the head of the Church and the One who gathers and will complete the Church. But I do believe that there was a measure of falsehood in the idea that the authority of the RCC was challenged: for who can challenge the authority of the RCC, if Jesus Christ is head of the Church, and on what basis would any one be able to do so?<\/span><\/p>\n

Now from here should be noted that Luther was not alone in posing this threat of authority. Nor is it right to say that initially the reformators rejected RCC authority. On the contrary, I believe they sought primarily a reformation of or within or by the Church, to return to the bible as the source for our \u2018primary direction\u2019 in life, thought and acting, uncompromised by \u2018baptised\u2019 Greek thinking of a Pagan source.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Reformation was certainly not without fault. Also, after the initial Reformation, the broad stream of reformed continued in Scholastic ways of thinking, I currently believe that creationist and intelligent design theories are sadly still examples of this, despite well meant effort to \u2018apply Gods Word\u2019 to the Natural world and science.<\/span><\/p>\n

But what good does it to the Protestant\/Reformed AND to the RCC to maintain the distinctives on the basis of \u2018what happened\u2019, if no serious exchange takes place about \u2018why it happened\u2019?<\/span><\/p>\n

By Elbert on 02.02.07 4:06 pm<\/p>\n

These are the 50 things that the Catholic Church was supposed to reverse (stop on a dime and go in a completely different direction) because Luther said so at the Diet of Worms and in his three treatises of 1520 alone:<\/p>\n

1. Separation of justification from sanctification.
\n2. Extrinsic, forensic, imputed notion of justification.
\n3. Fiduciary faith.
\n4. Private judgment over against ecclesial infallibility.
\n5. Tossing out seven books of the Bible.
\n6. Denial of venial sin.
\n7. Denial of merit.
\n8. The damned should be happy that they are damned and accept God\u2019s will.
\n9. Jesus offered Himself for damnation and possible hellfire.
\n10. No good work can be done except by a justified man.
\n11. All baptized men are priests (denial of the sacrament of ordination).
\n12. All baptized men can give absolution.
\n13. Bishops do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
\n14. Popes do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
\n15. Priests have no special, indelible character.
\n16. Temporal authorities have power over the Church; even bishops and popes; to assert the contrary was a mere presumptuous invention.
\n17. Vows of celibacy are wrong and should be abolished.
\n18. Denial of papal infallibility.
\n19. Belief that unrighteous priests or popes lose their authority (contrary to Augustine\u2019s rationale against the Donatists).
\n20. The keys of the kingdom were not just given to Peter.
\n21. Private judgment of every individual to determine matters of faith.
\n22. Denial that the pope has the right to call or confirm a council.
\n23. Denial that the Church has the right to demand celibacy of certain callings.
\n24. There is no such vocation as a monk; God has not instituted it.
\n25. Feast days should be abolished, and all church celebrations confined to Sundays.
\n26. Fasts should be strictly optional.
\n27. Canonization of saints is thoroughly corrupt and should stop.
\n28. Confirmation is not a sacrament.
\n29. Indulgences should be abolished.
\n30. Dispensations should be abolished.
\n31. Philosophy (Aristotle as prime example) is an unsavory, detrimental influence on Christianity.
\n32. Transubstantiation is \u201ca monstrous idea.\u201d
\n33. The Church cannot institute sacraments.
\n34. Denial of the \u201cwicked\u201d belief that the mass is a good work.
\n35. Denial of the \u201cwicked\u201d belief that the mass is a true sacrifice.
\n36. Denial of the sacramental notion of ex opere operato<\/span>.
\n37. Denial that penance is a sacrament.
\n38. Assertion that the Catholic Church had \u201ccompletely abolished\u201d even the practice of penance.
\n39. Claim that the Church had abolished faith as an aspect of penance.
\n40. Denial of apostolic succession.
\n41. Any layman who can should call a general council.
\n42. Penitential works are worthless.
\n43. None of what Catholics believe to be the seven sacraments have any biblical proof.
\n44. Marriage is not a sacrament.
\n45. Annulments are a senseless concept and the Church has no right to determine or grant annulments.
\n46. Whether divorce is allowable is an open question.
\n47. Divorced persons should be allowed to remarry.
\n48. Jesus allowed divorce when one partner committed adultery.
\n49. The priest\u2019s daily office is \u201cvain repetition.\u201d
\n50. Extreme unction is not a sacrament (there are only two sacraments: baptism and the Eucharist).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As I wrote in my paper about this:
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Is that enough to justify his excommunication from Catholic ranks? Or was the Church supposed to say, \u201cyeah, Luther, you know, you\u2019re right about these fifty issues. You know better than the entire Church, the entire history of the Church, and all the wisdom of the saints in past ages who have believed these things. So we will bow to your heaven-sent wisdom, change all fifty beliefs or practices, so we can proceed in a godly direction. Thanks so much! We are forever indebted to you for having informed us of all these errors!!\u201d Is that not patently ridiculous?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

No one has yet touched my argument, let alone dealt with the analogies I brought to bear. If you want to believe your thing in some fideistic sense, then feel free, but don\u2019t pretend, then, that it is able to be talked about rationally with someone else. Presuppositionalism simply creates an impenetrable bubble. You may be safe inside of it, but no one outside of it is impressed, because it is closed to critique and rational scrutiny.
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Image by \u201cgeralt\u201d (3-4-14) [Pixabay \/ CC0 public domain] *** (2-2-07) ***** The topic was first brought up at The Boar\u2019s Head forum, with reference to the article of the same name by Edward T. Oakes, S.J. (First Things, 31 January 2007). It was then noted by Reformed writer Alastair Roberts, on his adversaria blog, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":9087,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[51],"tags":[3366,309,308,232,2720,3367],"class_list":["post-1341","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-ecumenism-christian-unity","tag-catholics-and-protestants","tag-ecumenical","tag-ecumenism","tag-heresy","tag-heretics","tag-separate-brethren"],"yoast_head":"\nComments on the Question: "Are Protestants Heretical?"<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Reformed Protestants don't even tolerate deviation from TULIP, for heaven's sake. We Catholics were faced with a frontal attack of heretical doctrines.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2007\/02\/comments-on-the-question-are-protestants-heretics.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Comments on the Question: "Are Protestants Heretical?"\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Reformed Protestants don't even tolerate deviation from TULIP, for heaven's sake. We Catholics were faced with a frontal attack of heretical doctrines.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2007\/02\/comments-on-the-question-are-protestants-heretics.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-02-02T14:06:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-02T21:25:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2007\/02\/Dialogue7.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"640\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"452\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2007\/02\/comments-on-the-question-are-protestants-heretics.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2007\/02\/comments-on-the-question-are-protestants-heretics.html\",\"name\":\"Comments on the Question: \\\"Are Protestants Heretical?\\\"\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-02T14:06:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-02T21:25:29+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"Reformed Protestants don't even tolerate deviation from TULIP, for heaven's sake. We Catholics were faced with a frontal attack of heretical doctrines.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2007\/02\/comments-on-the-question-are-protestants-heretics.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2007\/02\/comments-on-the-question-are-protestants-heretics.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2007\/02\/comments-on-the-question-are-protestants-heretics.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Comments on the Question: “Are Protestants Heretical?”\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Comments on the Question: \"Are Protestants Heretical?\"","description":"Reformed Protestants don't even tolerate deviation from TULIP, for heaven's sake. We Catholics were faced with a frontal attack of heretical doctrines.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2007\/02\/comments-on-the-question-are-protestants-heretics.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Comments on the Question: \"Are Protestants Heretical?\"","og_description":"Reformed Protestants don't even tolerate deviation from TULIP, for heaven's sake. We Catholics were faced with a frontal attack of heretical doctrines.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2007\/02\/comments-on-the-question-are-protestants-heretics.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2007-02-02T14:06:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-02T21:25:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":640,"height":452,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2007\/02\/Dialogue7.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2007\/02\/comments-on-the-question-are-protestants-heretics.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2007\/02\/comments-on-the-question-are-protestants-heretics.html","name":"Comments on the Question: \"Are Protestants Heretical?\"","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-02T14:06:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-02T21:25:29+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"Reformed Protestants don't even tolerate deviation from TULIP, for heaven's sake. We Catholics were faced with a frontal attack of heretical doctrines.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2007\/02\/comments-on-the-question-are-protestants-heretics.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2007\/02\/comments-on-the-question-are-protestants-heretics.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2007\/02\/comments-on-the-question-are-protestants-heretics.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Comments on the Question: “Are Protestants Heretical?”"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1341","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1341"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1341\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9087"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1341"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1341"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1341"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}