Does Protestantism lead to atheism?

[MichaelP3]

Fair enough. But I really do want to know, Is the church an institution?

I would say yes. If we mean the Catholic Church. Taking history and merely the way of governing it does reflect the attributes of an institution governed by humans/people.

This is however not the argument I feel is needed in this thread. We all know infallibility and when it is valid and so on. I always sigh when I get an explanation on that again.

 

[Peter_J]

I would say yes. If we mean the Catholic Church.

No, I’m asking for your view.

 

[MichaelP3]

No, I’m asking for your view.

Really not trying to be uncharitable here but yes.

If you want a direct answer.

 

[Peter_J]

Really not trying to be uncharitable here but yes.

If you want a direct answer.

Not uncharitable at all, as it’s what I asked.

But I’m a trifle surprised since you previous said “I would say yes. *If *we mean the Catholic Church.” (emphasis added) But no matter.

 

[MichaelP3]

Not uncharitable at all, as it’s what I asked.

But I’m a trifle surprised since you previous said “I would say yes. *If *we mean the Catholic Church.” (emphasis added) But no matter.

Again not to mean bad ( ) But you get people pointing out things you didn’t mean in this forum.

I know you refer to something “different” I maybe (possibly) don’t get.

 

[drac16]

Bad experiences can lead one to atheism, but I’m not convinced that Protestantism is altogether bad. I’m not a protestant, but I believe that there is some wisdom in the protestant community. Dr. James White’s book, ‘The God Who Justifies’, was a good book; I have it on my Kindle. It’s very much a work of scholarship with loads of references and original language material.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Protestantism (and other forms of non-Catholic Christianity) and Catholicism and more similar than dissimilar. I personally don’t think one or the other is more or less likely to lead one toward atheism, at least by any significant amount.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Lenten_ashes I really like you. You have a way of posting here that makes it feel good. Thank you first of all.

I’d actually (even just for fun, no bad whatever intended ) have attended RCIA. But I live in a far away town, in a country where Catholicism isn’t major (We do have 4 Dutch Reformed churches to choose from but that is besides the point). Maybe 60 km away would be the nearest.

On another hand. My wife being a previous Catholic. She is even more a Protestant than I am today. I would like to take the credit, but I can’t. We were sitting in the Zagreb Cathedral a month ago (we were visiting the family and Croatia was near) and the questions she asked me I could not answer. It is an awesome Cathedral, no question about that. But she was (Please don’t ask me to explain for I do not know) seeing it a different way.

Thank you brother for the compliment. I like you as well and i sympathize with you on some of your qualms with some Catholic teachings.

Well that certainly changes things. My apologies as i thought your spouse was still Catholic. I know how strenous a Catholic/protestant relationship can be , especially if there are children involved. At least you are on the same page there.

 

[steve_b]

If you only have the Bible to make sense of God you have a big problem.

And the Sola Scriptura also says your interpretation is the most correct. So every individual makes a different interpretation.

It’s a problem after another.

How can you interpret the Bible without the tradition of the church?

At the end of the day you realise nothing makes sense and your only honest option is atheism.

After ten years I gave the Catholic Church a chance and tried to see Christianity and Bible through the Catholic tradition and now it makes sense to me.

Tell us more!

I see you have responded only 3 times on this thread. I hope you’re still around. I personally wanted to read more of your thoughts, particularly explaining in greater detail, the points you raise in this post.

In particular,

• what kept your interest percolating in Christianity, as an atheist, enough so to then pursue Catholicism in particular, after 10 yrs an atheist?
• And any other topic you want to expand on

Just being transparent, your story has interest written all over it

 

[BornInMarch]

Protestant faiths in and of themselves don’t turn people away from God.

HOWEVER, the disunity among Protestantism (the fact that any Protestant or Baptist can found their own church on their own ideas) has the potential for churches that are overly materialistic or strict or hedonistic or otherwise un-Christian.

One example is Televangelism; in theory the idea of using technology to reach a larger number of followers is a good one, but in practice many televangelists use their shows to ask for money and proceed to spend it on themselves.

In an organized, structured church institution, potential priests can be vetted and bad ones (sexual predators and deviants, closet-atheist con artists, alcoholics, etc) can be rooted out.
But when ANYONE can make their own church, then there’s nothing stopping opportunists from founding one just to cash in on genuine faith.

Even when someone founds their own church with the best of intentions, their beliefs might be just plain bad. Churches that teach that your automatically going to go to Heaven once you accept Christ (even if you continue to commit major sins or otherwise turn away from Christ after the fact), Churches that teach that God already decided whose going to Heaven and Hell and that your actions have sway over the decision (with being born rich being taken as a hint that your destined for Heaven), Churches that allow Abortion (because convince is more important than human life apparently), and other such churches are examples of how things can go err when anyone can found their own church.

But if someone belongs to a Protestant Denomination run by people with good intentions AND following biblical rules, then they should be safe.

 

[Wannano]

Protestant faiths in and of themselves don’t turn people away from God.

HOWEVER, the disunity among Protestantism (the fact that any Protestant or Baptist can found their own church on their own ideas) has the potential for churches that are overly materialistic or strict or hedonistic or otherwise un-Christian.

One example is Televangelism; in theory the idea of using technology to reach a larger number of followers is a good one, but in practice many televangelists use their shows to ask for money and proceed to spend it on themselves.

In an organized, structured church institution, potential priests can be vetted and bad ones (sexual predators and deviants, closet-atheist con artists, alcoholics, etc) can be rooted out.
But when ANYONE can make their own church, then there’s nothing stopping opportunists from founding one just to cash in on genuine faith.

Even when someone founds their own church with the best of intentions, their beliefs might be just plain bad. Churches that teach that your automatically going to go to Heaven once you accept Christ (even if you continue to commit major sins or otherwise turn away from Christ after the fact), Churches that teach that God already decided whose going to Heaven and Hell and that your actions have sway over the decision (with being born rich being taken as a hint that your destined for Heaven), Churches that allow Abortion (because convince is more important than human life apparently), and other such churches are examples of how things can go err when anyone can found their own church.

But if someone belongs to a Protestant Denomination run by people with good intentions AND following biblical rules, then they should be safe.

As a non-Catholic I have found your comments very interesting. You have raised some very interesting and legitimate concerns within the realm of Protestantism, some of which I have never been familiar with. And I want to state that I appreciate your tone, you have a different approach than so many who want to just slap a Protestant face.

Yes, the Catholic system should be able to weed out the undesirable and corrupt candidates for the priesthood but is that the reality of the situation wIthin the Church?

I believe you had good intentions in your last paragraph however it is this statement that I actually have issues with. I feel a huge problem within Christianity whether in Protestant or Catholic dimension is the assumption that the Church will make us safe. I am afraid that is a subtle untruth that many accept as truth.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I believe you had good intentions in your last paragraph however it is this statement that I actually have issues with. I feel a huge problem within Christianity whether in Protestant or Catholic dimension is the assumption that the Church will make us safe. I am afraid that is a subtle untruth that many accept as truth.

Clinging to the Church is clinging to Jesus as the two are inseparable ACTS 9:4 - 1 TIM 3:15

That’s why it’s called “Mother Church”, it’s job is to nurture, everyday of the week, not just for a hourly nod on Sundays.

But no, not safe in that bad people are still going to do bad things, even those claiming to be followers of Christ.

Pax

 

[Wesrock]

The lack of unity in both doctrine and even more recently in moral teaching has opened the door to excessive secularization and has been severely harmful to the Christian faith.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I don’t mean to be uncharitable.

It seems there is a trend starting with the Reformation to interpret scripture and Christian doctrines in a “low” fashion rather than a “high” fashion. For instance the Lutheran “consubstantiation” rather than the Catholic “transubstantiation.” The Reformed took it even further and viewed the Eucharist as merely “symbolic.” And then the Ana-baptists regarded baptism as merely symbolic.

These views are those that are more acceptable to the fleshly mindset, more appealing to natural man. Certainly consubstantiation I feel is more logical to the fleshly mind than transubstantiation, one less miracle to believe. Also it is easier to believe that the Eucharist is just a symbol rather than that the bread and wine are Jesus’ body and blood. Again, it is easier to believe baptism is just a symbol, an ordnance we perform simply because Jesus commanded it, rather than baptism actually doing something, like washing sins away.

Scripture says we walk by faith and not by sight. Well, it is definitely hard to explain Christian miracles to one who walks by sight. It’s hard to see how the bread and wine are Jesus’ body and blood because to natural eyes they look the same. It takes eyes of faith to see it.

The Protestant Reformation set in motion a trajectory of Christian belief more acceptable to fleshly, logical, natural man. The ultimate questrion is, if Christian doctrines are merely symbolic, maybe God is merely symbolic?

 

[Padres1969]

It seems there is a trend starting with the Reformation to interpret scripture and Christian doctrines in a “low” fashion rather than a “high” fashion. For instance the Lutheran “consubstantiation” rather than the Catholic “transubstantiation.” The Reformed took it even further and viewed the Eucharist as merely “symbolic.” And then the Ana-baptists regarded baptism as merely symbolic.

These views are those that are more acceptable to the fleshly mindset, more appealing to natural man. Certainly consubstantiation I feel is more logical to the fleshly mind than transubstantiation, one less miracle to believe. Also it is easier to believe that the Eucharist is just a symbol rather than that the bread and wine are Jesus’ body and blood. Again, it is easier to believe baptism is just a symbol, an ordnance we perform simply because Jesus commanded it, rather than baptism actually doing something, like washing sins away.

Scripture says we walk by faith and not by sight. Well, it is definitely hard to explain Christian miracles to one who walks by sight. It’s hard to see how the bread and wine are Jesus’ body and blood because to natural eyes they look the same. It takes eyes of faith to see it.

The Protestant Reformation set in motion a trajectory of Christian belief more acceptable to fleshly, logical, natural man. The ultimate questrion is, if Christian doctrines are merely symbolic, maybe God is merely symbolic?

Consubstantiation doesn’t necessarily hold to something that’s any “easier” to believe than Transubstantiation. Both require you to believe that the very essence of the bread and wine has changed.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Consubstantiation doesn’t necessarily hold to something that’s any “easier” to believe than Transubstantiation. Both require you to believe that the very essence of the bread and wine has changed.

Yes, what is the difference between the two? Why have a difference?

My understanding is that con means with, that is, with, in, and under, the bread and wine. That the bread and wine remain there. Trans means across so the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine, but just look like bread and wine, another miracle. I myself find con to be just a little bit more logical, makes a bit more sense to a logical mind.

 

[Padres1969]

Yes, what is the difference between the two? Why have a difference?

My understanding is that con means with, that is, with, in, and under, the bread and wine. That the bread and wine remain there. Trans means across so the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine, but just look like bread and wine, another miracle. I myself find con to be just a little bit more logical, makes a bit more sense to a logical mind.

Maybe. But ultimately both acknowledge that Christ is physically there in the bread and wine and that they’ve been fundamentally changed by his presence. I mean I guess I can see how Consubstantiation might be a little “easier” to believe in that it says there is still bread and wine there, but it doesn’t deny that Christ is fully physically present there either any more than transubstantiation does. Both require an enormous amount of faith and acceptance that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist.

 

[LutheranScholar]

We actually call it " Sacramental Union," rather than " consubstantiation." We don’t claim to be able to explain a Divine Mystery in philosophical terms stand-firm.blogspot.com/2012/06/lutheran-view-on-consubstantiation-and.html.

*Lutherans believe that Christ’s true body, the same body that was incarnate in the Virgin Mary, crucified on the cross, touched by the apostles, and ascended into heaven, is essentially (truly and substantially) present here on earth in the Supper, although invisibly in a way beyond understanding. It is received orally with the bread by the godly and the wicked alike, because the Sacrament is not founded on people’s holiness, but upon God’s Word; likewise Christ’s blood with the wine. Thus, the Holy Supper works consolation and life in the believing, and condemnation in the unbelieving.
*

41 20. Likewise, we also hand over all proud, frivolous, blasphemous questions (which decency forbids us to mention), and other expressions to God’s just judgment. Most blasphemously and with great offense ‹to the Church› such things are proposed by the Sacramentarians in a crass, carnal, Capernaitic way about the supernatural, heavenly mysteries of this Sacrament.
42 21. We utterly ‹reject and› condemn the Capernaitic eating of Christ’s body, as though ‹we taught that› His flesh were torn with the teeth and digested like other food. The Sacramentarians—against the testimony of their conscience, after all our frequent protests—willfully label us with this view. In this way they make our teaching hateful to their hearers. On the other hand, we hold and believe, according to the simple words of Christ’s testament, the true, yet supernatural eating of Christ’s body and also the drinking of His blood. Human senses and reason do not comprehend. But, as in all other articles of faith, our reason is brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ [2 Corinthians 10:5]. This mystery is not grasped in any other way than through faith alone, and it is revealed in the Word alone. [Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, ed. Paul Timothy McCain (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006), 490-91.]
It is impossible to define Luther’s doctrine as consubstantiation. Even the words ‘in the bread’, ‘with the bread’, ‘under the bread’, or ‘in, with, and under the bread’, were never regarded by Luther as more than attempts to express in these old, popular terms inherited from the Middle Ages the great mystery that the bread is the body, the wine is the blood, as the Words of Institution say. [This is My Body: Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar, (Adelaide, South Australia: Openbook Publishers, 1959) 129.]

 

[mackbrislawn]

Maybe. But ultimately both acknowledge that Christ is physically there in the bread and wine and that they’ve been fundamentally changed by his presence. I mean I guess I can see how Consubstantiation might be a little “easier” to believe in that it says there is still bread and wine there, but it doesn’t deny that Christ is fully physically present there either any more than transubstantiation does. Both require an enormous amount of faith and acceptance that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist.

Yes, even though Christ is fully physically present in the bread and wine, that is to say, the bread and wine are still there. My senses tell me that too, that bread and wine are still there, and the flies are attracted to the wine as well! So, why deny that bread and wine are not there? As transubstantiation does?

 

[Padres1969]

Yes, even though Christ is fully physically present in the bread and wine, that is to say, the bread and wine are still there. My senses tell me that too, that bread and wine are still there, and the flies are attracted to the wine as well! So, why deny that bread and wine are not there? As transubstantiation does?

Seems to me both simply use a different mechanism to try and explain why what we see still appears to be solely bread and wine when both profess that Christ is wholly physically present there body and blood.

That said, it’s not really on topic. With regard to the topic I doubt that consubstantiation really leads to atheism any more than transubstantiation does. Frankly I’m not sure that even believing in memorial-ism does either. It’s a big leap IMO to go from thinking the bread and wine are offered symbolically to thinking God himself is merely symbolic. And indeed memorial believing Christians in my experience are some of the most staunchly devout from those more “fundamentalist” Protestant denominations.