Do you think Protestants should not leave their denomination and rather change it from within?

[rinnie]

i think there is a move towards a mutual understanding within the various Protestant denominations, Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.

i joined this forum because i believe (perhaps due to many years on building up doctrine n practices in different directions) that now is the time to try to hear one another out 1st before firing accusations (which r many a times misunderstanding).

I have on several accounts tried to defend Roman Catholic doctrine as non-heretical and not anti-Scripture (esp on issues on the Pope and Mary) to Protestant friends, not because i think that Catholics cannot defend themselves, but simply because they r more open to a fellow Protestant.

careful examination has revealed much misunderstanding during the time of the reformers.

Vatican II n Catholic theologians like Yves Congar have opened up much room for Protestant-Catholic dialog.

i really hope that Catholics would see that Protestants have more to offer to the body of Christ (whether you think we r in it or nt) than mere heresies.

I do, I see it, and I embrace it. I think that too many Catholic’s became Protestants not because of the true word of God, but that because somewhere in the family someone was hurt or disagreed not with a teaching of the Church so much, but because of a human err or opinion or sin. Rather it be a Priest or Person in the Church.

I belieive many were misled from the truth of the CC. And I pray we can all come together once again.

I believe who came from a Christian background, and does the work, and traces back the history, will find they came from the Catholic Church.

I always hear my great great great gram etc, was Catholic.

All roots trace back to the Original. the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Its truth, its History.

 

[JRKH]

I have on several accounts tried to defend Roman Catholic doctrine as non-heretical and not anti-Scripture (esp on issues on the Pope and Mary) to Protestant friends, not because i think that Catholics cannot defend themselves, but simply because they r more open to a fellow Protestant.

Amen to this…you have a great advantage over us in this regard.

i think there is a move towards a mutual understanding within the various Protestant denominations, Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Indeed there is. But I think too that one of the things that the protestant community as a whole needs to look at is the disunion within themselves and how thoroughly unbiblical it really is.
I hear about this or that church trying to get back to the “biblical” roots “biblical” church structure and they see things like - meeting in homes, breaking bread and “searching the Scriptures” but then they completely miss things like Mt 18:15-18 and Acts 15 and the truly huge ramifications of these passages along with others pointing to unity and authority.

I’ve had a number of conversations on this subject with protestants but I really am at a disadvantage because, no matter how carefully I express things - sticking only with Scripture and never mentioning the RC or the EO, the fact that they know I am Catholic gets in the way…
If I am able to get them to stop assuming that I have some sort of “Catholic” agenda and we can then just look at the Holy Scriptures and what they say and convey…Often times they will concede that there needs to be greater unity among the denominations.
But - they also recognize how impossible it would be to achieve…
They don’t say it…but the obvious underlying mental block is this rejection of universal church authority. The actual theological issues are relatively small compared to this one “600 pd gorilla” sitting in the middle of the room.

i joined this forum because i believe (perhaps due to many years on building up doctrine n practices in different directions) that now is the time to try to hear one another out 1st before firing accusations (which r many a times misunderstanding).

The more I talk with folks from differing faith traditions the more I realize this too. That most of the issues could be resolved rather easily through greater understanding. Often times it becomes a matter of semantics or emphasis. there are times when we can even be using the same word but it means something different to each side.

careful examination has revealed much misunderstanding during the time of the reformers.

Yes indeed. And politics too. Once things got rolling, various kings and princes saw an opportunity to advance their powers in one way or another…I often wonder if protestantism would have survived much past Trent if the issues had remained purely ecclesiastical instead of becoming so politicized.

Vatican II n Catholic theologians like Yves Congar have opened up much room for Protestant-Catholic dialog.

Yes they have.

i really hope that Catholics would see that Protestants have more to offer to the body of Christ (whether you think we r in it or not) than mere heresies.

Indeed we do. We love it when a person converts from protestant to Catholic because often times they bring a vibrancy to the Church that we old “Cradle Catholics” tend to lack. Then too, as you say above, Protestants who are not hostile to the Church can defend her more easily in many places…

Keep up the good work…

Peace
James

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

How is Protestantism a lie?

It is not God’s truth. It is man made religion. It contains some truth but much of it is very far from historic Christianity.

 

[Contarini]

How is Protestantism a lie?

1. In its radical forms, Protestantism claims to restore New Testament Christianity., This is impossible. Therefore, radical Protestantism is a lie.
2. In its moderate forms, Protestantism claims to continue historic, Catholic Christianity in a reformed mode. This is not what Protestantism does. Therefore, moderate Protestantism is a lie.

That, at least, is the case as I understand it. I find it fairly persuasive, although so far I remain a sort-of-Protestant.

Edwin

 

[Cinette]

I’m an Anglican and know that within our denomination there is much to be improved on. (For instance, I think there is much to be learnt from Catholics regarding a higher view of Mary in response to the verse “…henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.”)

However, I subscribe to the words of Billy Graham “'By all means look for the perfect church, and when you find it, join it. But remember, when you join it, it ceases to be perfect!”

One who seeks the perfect Church will have to wait a very long time (until death) to find it.

Hence the question, do you think there is value instead in staying in your own church and in the words of Mahatma Gandhi “Be the change you want to see”?

*With respect, it is not right to join the Church founded by Jesus Christ? Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter, our first Pope and ALL the sacraments. When denominations were formed these were “traditions of men”.

I hope I do not sound arrogant. I believe we have the fullness of the truth while denominations have parts of the truth.

Having said this I do believe that many Protestants are good, holy people who could teach us a thing or two. Converts make wonderful Catholics. Remember the Church is human and divine and the human side is not always pretty as you say.

Come Home darling!

God bless
Cinette*

 

[Cinette]

I feel that if your church’s focus is Christ, then stay and make the change. Lately I’m wishing I’d stayed in the Baptist Church. The focus was solely on God, Christ, Holy Spirit and how to live our lives according to the Bible and Christ’s example. Now, in my particular parish, all I hear about is the organization of the Church and what our priest taught his school kids that week. I’m seriously missing Bible sermons…

*I am sorry that your Parish is such a disappointment. However you should learn about the Catholic Church and what it teaches. Perhaps you should get a good Catholic Bible study course and read some apologetics. The Bible is only part of the teaching - it emanated from Sacred Tradition - it is only a part of revelation.

You were obviously not properly instructed.

God bless
Cinette*

 

[Dhugz]

I’m an Anglican and know that within our denomination there is much to be improved on. (For instance, I think there is much to be learnt from Catholics regarding a higher view of Mary in response to the verse “…henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.”)

However, I subscribe to the words of Billy Graham “'By all means look for the perfect church, and when you find it, join it. But remember, when you join it, it ceases to be perfect!”

One who seeks the perfect Church will have to wait a very long time (until death) to find it.

Hence the question, do you think there is value instead in staying in your own church and in the words of Mahatma Gandhi “Be the change you want to see”?

Protestants should leave their churches made by mere man and sinners.

 

[AlwaysCurious]

1. In its radical forms, Protestantism claims to restore New Testament Christianity., This is impossible. Therefore, radical Protestantism is a lie.
2. In its moderate forms, Protestantism claims to continue historic, Catholic Christianity in a reformed mode. This is not what Protestantism does. Therefore, moderate Protestantism is a lie.

That, at least, is the case as I understand it. I find it fairly persuasive, although so far I remain a sort-of-Protestant.

Edwin

Good succinct post.

Just to chime in with my own :twocents: regarding the question of the thread, it seems that every believer ought to have firm, positive reasons for belonging to his communion or church. Not just an attitude of “well, I’ve experienced God here before so he must be okay with it,” but one of “this is God’s perfect will and nothing could bring greater glory to God because he designed it this way.” To quibble a little bit with CS Lewis, it’s better to have More Christianity than Mere Christianity. Looking for the totality of truth (consequences be damned) is surely better–and demonstrates greater love for God–than complacently accepting where I am because I got saved and am pretty sure I’ll be going to heaven.

I can respect a Protestant who has done his homework, struggling to love God with his whole mind, and truly believes, for the time being at least, that his own communion is exactly what God wants, period. I can respect that even as I disagree. “All-in” is better than “half-in half-out, don’t care to think beyond my personal salvation because it might cost me something.”

“He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me.” Matthew 10:37-8

 

[Peter_J]

I’m an Anglican and know that within our denomination there is much to be improved on. (For instance, I think there is much to be learnt from Catholics regarding a higher view of Mary in response to the verse “…henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.”)

However, I subscribe to the words of Billy Graham “'By all means look for the perfect church, and when you find it, join it. But remember, when you join it, it ceases to be perfect!”

One who seeks the perfect Church will have to wait a very long time (until death) to find it.

Hence the question, do you think there is value instead in staying in your own church and in the words of Mahatma Gandhi “Be the change you want to see”?

Hi gabjus. Without wishing to downplay the complexities of these questions, I want to make one small suggestion: be careful whom, in your own church, you say this to and how you say it. I’m not sure how they would take it.

Analogously, if a Roman Catholic were to tell other Roman Catholics “I’m thinking about becoming protestant; but I’m not sure, I might just stay Catholic and try to change the Church from within” you can bet that it wouldn’t go over too well!

 

[Contarini]

Hi gabjus. Without wishing to downplay the complexities of these questions, I want to make one small suggestion: be careful whom, in your own church, you say this to and how you say it. I’m not sure how they would take it.

Analogously, if a Roman Catholic were to tell other Roman Catholics “I’m thinking about becoming protestant; but I’m not sure, I might just stay Catholic and try to change the Church from within” you can bet that it wouldn’t go over too well!

It wouldn’t go over well with most of the folks on this forum. But that’s a problem with their view of Catholicism!

Edwin

 

[gabjus]

It wasn’t a lie of Luther or Calvin or another reformer but rather it was a lie from satan that misled

That said…I believe that it would be more accurate to say that Protestantism is founded on a false and deeply flawed premise. It is founded upon the rejection of the authority of the ekklesia - the group - “The Church”. That which Jesus gave the authority to bind and loose. That to which we are to “Tell it to” and Listen to" (Mt 18:15-18).
I do not believe that rejecting this authority was Luther’s intent…He originally sought to “reform” the Church…But all too soon things got out of hand. If Rome did not need to be listened to, why does Luther need to be listened to, or Calvin, or Zwingli, or Henry VIII or Tinsdale, or…From here the dominoes began to tumble - split upon split upon split. Instead of having a “Romish” church and a “Reformed” church you had Catholics, Lutherans, Cavinists, Anabaptists, Anglicans and…then these began splitting - the Puritans, Presbyterians, Baptists, and I don’t know how many other groups formed over the decades and centuries…All taking their cue from the single most damaging protestant foundational principle…the defiance of Scriptural Church Authority.

As far as I know (in my very limited knowledge I must admit), at the Diet of Worms, Luther when asked to recant, of points on doctrine he was most willing to concede, but recanting meant also recanting his works that dealt with the tyranny and injustice that the German people suffered, which he could not do. What else could he had done?

Yes indeed. And politics too. Once things got rolling, various kings and princes saw an opportunity to advance their powers in one way or another…I often wonder if protestantism would have survived much past Trent if the issues had remained purely ecclesiastical instead of becoming so politicized.

Hence, from what I said above, I do not think Luther would even persisted if the situation was not more political than doctrinal in nature (since it was with doctrinal issues that Luther was most willing to give in).

*With respect, it is not right to join the Church founded by Jesus Christ? Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter, our first Pope and ALL the sacraments. When denominations were formed these were “traditions of men”.

I hope I do not sound arrogant. I believe we have the fullness of the truth while denominations have parts of the truth. *

No offence taken at all ^_^. I readily admit that at least my denomination have merely parts of the truth.

• Having said this I do believe that many Protestants are good, holy people who could teach us a thing or two. Converts make wonderful Catholics. Remember the Church is human and divine and the human side is not always pretty as you say.

Come Home darling!

God bless
Cinette*

That’s precisely one of the main reasons I won’t likely ever move from my denomination, I acknowledge that a church is not always pretty.

However, I cannot how God has moved in my Christian experience from the life of Protestants. I believe there is genuine miracles, genuine love for God and man, genuine presence of God and genuine conversion.

I believe my faith to be true and I hope it be proven by my works.
In the words of Luther, “God help me!”

 

[gabjus]

Hi gabjus. Without wishing to downplay the complexities of these questions, I want to make one small suggestion: be careful whom, in your own church, you say this to and how you say it. I’m not sure how they would take it.

Analogously, if a Roman Catholic were to tell other Roman Catholics “I’m thinking about becoming protestant; but I’m not sure, I might just stay Catholic and try to change the Church from within” you can bet that it wouldn’t go over too well!

I think it would be slightly easier (though still never easy) in an Anglican setting, since we probably have more differences of beliefs within the denomination than most other denominations.

I think worded carefully and in a timely fashion, it could probably work well, as long as you follow the rules of the denomination. The Roman Catholic Church herself seem to take well to ‘Protestant flavours’ brought in ex-Protestant converts. I believe there is much we can learn from each other (even if we cannot agree on how this mutual-learning process should be done. Dialogue/Conversion/Acknowledgement/etc.)

 

[Contarini]

As far as I know (in my very limited knowledge I must admit), at the Diet of Worms, Luther when asked to recant, of points on doctrine he was most willing to concede, but recanting meant also recanting his works that dealt with the tyranny and injustice that the German people suffered, which he could not do. What else could he had done?

What’s your evidence for this interpretation? I find it extremely implausible. Certainly Luther drew on a tradition of “gravamina” against Rome, and this is one reason he was so popular. But his refusal to recant was due to the fact that he thought his doctrines were not human inventions but the Word of God.

He set up his own theological opinions as the Word of God, against the previous consensus of the Church. This was made abundantly clear in the Leipzig debate. I don’t think there’s any way around this.

However, I cannot how God has moved in my Christian experience from the life of Protestants. I believe there is genuine miracles, genuine love for God and man, genuine presence of God and genuine conversion.

This is also the reason I remain a Protestant of a sort, albeit very hesitantly so.

Catholicism during and since Vatican II has provided a pretty good rationale for how one can acknowledge the truth of Catholicism while also acknowledging the value of Protestantism. On a practical, personal level, though, it’s hard to see my way clear. The big sticking point for me is the stipulation in canon law that a Catholic can’t receive communion in other churches. I’m not sure I can justify breaking Eucharistic communion with fellow Christians.

Edwin

 

[JRKH]

As far as I know (in my very limited knowledge I must admit), at the Diet of Worms, Luther when asked to recant, of points on doctrine he was most willing to concede, but recanting meant also recanting his works that dealt with the tyranny and injustice that the German people suffered, which he could not do. What else could he had done?

Hence, from what I said above, I do not think Luther would even persisted if the situation was not more political than doctrinal in nature (since it was with doctrinal issues that Luther was most willing to give in).

My knowledge is likewise very limited in this area so I will not make comment on what Luther “could have done”…

But you bring in a factor that I think is too often overlooked in such discussions. This is the “dual role” that had developed in the Western Church that did not exist in the Eastern. In the west, as the Roman Empire fell, the Pontiff and the Church in general, took on more of the civil administration as well as it’s spiritual role.
Over time, this became more and more problematic…History speaks for itself in these matters.
This same issue did not plaque the Eastern Church where the Patriarchs could devote themselves to spiritual maters while the government of the Emperor attended to civil matters.

When dealing with the Reformation period it is wise…as you point out above… to recognize that the course which events took were actually more political in nature than theological.

That said though…And separating out the theological from the political…well at east as much as I am able……I still hold that the protestant movement, the attempt to reform the Church was doomed by it’s rejection of biblical “Church” authority. Not only did the Reformers rejected Rome (or were excommunicated), they rejected each other - and THAT is where the fatal flaw occurred.
By rejecting each other, they established the fundamental Protestant tradition of rejecting authority in favor of private interpretation…and when they did that, they lost any chance they might have had of “Protecting the Gospel” from erroneous teaching.

Peace
James

 

[AlwaysCurious]

However, I cannot how God has moved in my Christian experience from the life of Protestants. I believe there is genuine miracles, genuine love for God and man, genuine presence of God and genuine conversion.

I

I hear you. But God is present in lots of places, yes? He may be present in some way in a Baptist Bible study, a Pentecostal praise service, or a Quaker silent meeting. He might be present out in nature amidst a tribe who has never even heard of him. But are some ways better than others, i.e. closer to the will and mind of God? Is it not proper to respond to the love of God by being obedient, by willing what he wills, by conforming to the Truth?

Seems to me that God is unscrupulous. He’ll take whatever he can get–he’ll take the smallest shreds of faith in the human heart and run with them. That doesn’t *necessarily *mean he wants us to stay where we are; merely that he is willing to condescend to us in order to draw us up higher. That process may entail moving well outside our comfort zone.

On a slightly different note–and I am not saying this pertains to your personal experience or anyone else’s here–I think it’s good to keep in mind that the devil masquerades as an angel of light. And one of the easiest ways to obscure the truth (or the true Church) is to flood the market with counterfeits.

 

[Peter_J]

The big sticking point for me is the stipulation in canon law that a Catholic can’t receive communion in other churches.

True. A Catholic isn’t allowed to receive from a non-Catholic minister if it is possible for him/her to approach a Catholic minister. (And even if it’s impossible to approach a Catholic minister, there are other restrictions; most obviously the non-Catholic minister must have valid orders e.g. Orthodox, PNCC, or ACoE.)

 

[MasterAsia]

Do you think Protestants should not leave their denomination and rather change it from within?

Short answer:
No it is “somewhat” impossible.

Assumptions:
In the final analysis Protestantism will always be about the personal interpretation of an individual that is charismatic enough to start a gathering.

This is true even with the Anglican Church, who started with the will and determination of a man who is not even qualified to be a preacher. (Now being helplessly theologically defended by among others the Archbishop of Canterbury)

Logical Continuity:
If a “good” Protestant finally sees something amiss, it means, in his own study of scripture a certain something must be something else. He will go out to seek other groups that “agrees” with his interpretation, if none exists, he will start his own denomination - if he has the will and the means. To change an existing denomination runs against the Protestant dictum of Sola Persona, oops, I mean Sola Scriptura. Ultimately, the center is I, myself, and us. The current denomination for all intents and purposes has become them, they and others.

I’ll be using the Anglican Church again. Many from them joined us because according to their self-determination the Catholic Church is the lesser of evils. Why I am saying this? They would not have left if gay marriage was not allowed.

 

[JonNC]

=MasterAsia;9404337]
Assumptions:
In the final analysis Protestantism will always be about the personal interpretation of an individual that is charismatic enough to start a gathering.

And here is the problem with “assumptions”.

Logical Continuity:
If a “good” Protestant finally sees something amiss, it means, in his own study of scripture a certain something must be something else.

Would it be fair to say that Catholics who truly ant non-Catholics to convert are depending on this?

**To change an existing denomination runs against the Protestant dictum of Sola Persona, oops, I mean Sola Scriptura. ** Ultimately, the center is I, myself, and us. The current denomination for all intents and purposes has become them, they and others.

Willing, for the moment, to respond to this polemic, how does it run counter to the protestant dictum of sola scriptura?

Jon

 

[Contarini]

True. A Catholic isn’t allowed to receive from a non-Catholic minister if it is possible for him/her to approach a Catholic minister. (And even if it’s impossible to approach a Catholic minister, there are other restrictions; most obviously the non-Catholic minister must have valid orders e.g. Orthodox, PNCC, or ACoE.)

Right. It’s the valid orders thing that causes trouble in practice for me. I can’t bring myself to care deeply about “validity”–grace seems more mysterious to me than is containable under that concept. I know I’ve received grace (of one sort or another) from the Eucharist in Episcopal churches (and even in non-episcopal Protestant communities). I know that this grace binds me together with my fellow Episcopalians and with other Protestant brothers and sisters (and the fact that this includes my wife certainly plays an important role in the practical difficulties the issue presents for me). I cannot renounce that grace. But I also feel the urgency of publicly and visibly uniting myself to the bishop of Rome and taking my place within the community marked by union with Rome and full acceptance of the historic Christian tradition (the Orthodox, in my opinion, have the latter to all intents and purposes, but obviously not the former).

Edwin

 

[JRKH]

Right. It’s the valid orders thing that causes trouble in practice for me. I can’t bring myself to care deeply about “validity”–grace seems more mysterious to me than is containable under that concept. I know I’ve received grace (of one sort or another) from the Eucharist in Episcopal churches (and even in non-episcopal Protestant communities). I know that this grace binds me together with my fellow Episcopalians and with other Protestant brothers and sisters (and the fact that this includes my wife certainly plays an important role in the practical difficulties the issue presents for me). I cannot renounce that grace. But I also feel the urgency of publicly and visibly uniting myself to the bishop of Rome and taking my place within the community marked by union with Rome and full acceptance of the historic Christian tradition (the Orthodox, in my opinion, have the latter to all intents and purposes, but obviously not the former).

Edwin

Edwin,
I really don’t think it is a matter of “renouncing grace” at all. Just a recognition of something greater, more full (The Fullness of Truth)…So please do not feel that you have to “renounce” the grace you receive where you are.

Peace
James