S
strngrnrth
Guest
Why are you Protestant?
- Status
C
Contarini
Guest
Because that is the tradition of Christianity in which I was catechized.
Edwin
Edwin
C
chris_molter
Guest
When I was Episcopalian/Anglican I would have replied “because I believe the Anglican tradition to be the truest expression of Biblical Christianity which allows for unity in the essentials and diversity in the non-essentials”
(now, I’d say, “because I didn’t know any better”
)
(now, I’d say, “because I didn’t know any better”
)
P
Publisher
Guest
In my early years I attended a “Protestant evangelical” church with my parents. I joined the Society of Friends as it spoke Truth to me as no other other tradition had or has since…I was looking for “something” and among Friends I experienced that “Something” I had sought.
In my later years I remain a Friend after much study and prayer as I find no tradition to have a “line back” to the original teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, regardless of their claim. Unless each generation “owns” their individual experience with the Divine…it’s simply “empty outward forms”.
I HAVE found that the writings of Elaine Pagels, Bart Erhman, Jacob Macoby, Joan O’Grady, Marcus Borg to name a few has shed a gread deal of light on the origins of Christianity…especially those traditions which came to be called “Catholic” and “Orthodox”. I have found that “early Christianity” was no more unified than contemporary Christianity, regardless of the claims…those who have claimed Christianity was “unified” simply dismiss the 'heretics" as authentic representations of early Christianity.
The Dead Sea Scrolls(while not being “Christian” heavily influenced Christian thought), Nag Hamaddi Library, Gospel of Judas and a few other early Christian writings have shed tremendous light on the diversity Christianity had in those first centuries. I see the “rise” of “proto-orthodox/catholicism” from among those first groups and how those called the “Early Church Fathers” formulated a “version” and theology which eventually supplanted all other groups.
The Reformation was no more than a continuation of a trend which had existed from the beginning years.
For me Quakerism is the “simplest” version of Christianity with it’s roots in the orthodox tradition…it’s theology and understanding of the “meaning” of Jesus makes the most sense to me in my middle years. I don’t really see that changing.
In my later years I remain a Friend after much study and prayer as I find no tradition to have a “line back” to the original teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, regardless of their claim. Unless each generation “owns” their individual experience with the Divine…it’s simply “empty outward forms”.
I HAVE found that the writings of Elaine Pagels, Bart Erhman, Jacob Macoby, Joan O’Grady, Marcus Borg to name a few has shed a gread deal of light on the origins of Christianity…especially those traditions which came to be called “Catholic” and “Orthodox”. I have found that “early Christianity” was no more unified than contemporary Christianity, regardless of the claims…those who have claimed Christianity was “unified” simply dismiss the 'heretics" as authentic representations of early Christianity.
The Dead Sea Scrolls(while not being “Christian” heavily influenced Christian thought), Nag Hamaddi Library, Gospel of Judas and a few other early Christian writings have shed tremendous light on the diversity Christianity had in those first centuries. I see the “rise” of “proto-orthodox/catholicism” from among those first groups and how those called the “Early Church Fathers” formulated a “version” and theology which eventually supplanted all other groups.
The Reformation was no more than a continuation of a trend which had existed from the beginning years.
For me Quakerism is the “simplest” version of Christianity with it’s roots in the orthodox tradition…it’s theology and understanding of the “meaning” of Jesus makes the most sense to me in my middle years. I don’t really see that changing.
A
AnotherChance
Guest
It would be helpful if a response were included like “I am divorced and don’t want to (or don’t think I can) get an annulment.” My experience has shown that this is a common reason for either not becoming Catholic or for leaving the Catholic Church and becoming Protestant.
This was why I stayed away for years, until the call Home become too strong to ignore.
This was why I stayed away for years, until the call Home become too strong to ignore.
S
strngrnrth
Guest
Who was the first Protestant? Was it Luther?
Let’s define “Protestant” as someone who believes in the Trinity, Virgin Birth, Divinity, Humanity and Incarnation of Jesus Christ, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ in the flesh, Heaven, Hell, Judgment of the Living and the Dead by Christ, resurrection of the body, God’s being eternal, all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing, Creator and Sustainer of all that is, and at the same time totally rejects any special authority on the part of the Pope, the office of the Papacy itself, and the concept of Apostolic Succession. Let us include only people whose opinions are known and verified historically.
Let’s define “Protestant” as someone who believes in the Trinity, Virgin Birth, Divinity, Humanity and Incarnation of Jesus Christ, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ in the flesh, Heaven, Hell, Judgment of the Living and the Dead by Christ, resurrection of the body, God’s being eternal, all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing, Creator and Sustainer of all that is, and at the same time totally rejects any special authority on the part of the Pope, the office of the Papacy itself, and the concept of Apostolic Succession. Let us include only people whose opinions are known and verified historically.
P
Publisher
Guest
I would think if part of the definition is “rejects any special authority on the part of the Pope” and “the first”…it’d fall into the Orthodox camp…so by the definition provided, that lets Martin off the hook.
P
Publisher
Guest
This is not an indictment on you…but an observation. Many Catholics simply dismiss those who fall into the Protestant camp as somehow being “morally objectionable” and their need to continue in their sinful ways as the “real” reason for not being Catholic…instead of giving “Protestants” the benefit of the doubt that many of us have very seriously studied the CC’s claims and simply found them lacking.
It is very easy to simply dismiss most of us by labeling us as not having a “formed conscience” or not wanting to do the “hard work of becoming Catholic” or not joining simply because we have some “secret sin” we hold on to…it’s always easier to dismiss those of us who have truly, sincerely sought out the Truth…and don’t find it’s best expression among the Catholic church.
Just an observation.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
A friend who I went to grad school with witnessed to me. I was an atheist with a completely messed up life. One week later I was clean and happy as I became a Christian on a Sunday morning on a couch in a rented room at the library where we met at the time. My friend was starting a church based on the Bible and…that was around 4 years ago.
S
SIA
Guest
All of the choices provided seem to characterize all Protestants to be of the one mind set that Catholics seem to believe about all Protestants. I’m not Roman Catholic anymore because it is surely not the one Church Christ founded. It’s doctrines and dogmas prove that.
I didn’t vote because I found the choices to not fit me. I don’t see veneration, or the papacy as idolatry. And as a Lutheran, I certainly don’t see the real presence as idolatry. I’m Lutheran because I believe that the Augsburg Confession is a scripturally sound confession of faith.
Jon
Jon
V
VARC
Guest
I could deal with the immaculate conception, purgatory and indulgences, saints and statues, transubstantiation, etc, etc. But I absolutely reject that a single bishop of the Church is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit. The bishop of Rome has usurped the role of the Holy Ghost to guide the Church “into all truth”. The doctrine is scripturally based on one passage of scripture (Matt 16:18) that NONE of the Fathers interpreted to mean that the Church’s infallibility depends and always has depending on one man: the bishop of Rome. It was forced on the RCC after much pressure and political manuvering by Pius IX. I believe RCs many accept this doctrine because it gives them a religious security blanket so they don’t have to make any moral or doctrinal decisions they need only follow orders. I could stand no more and left the RCC last year.
K
khutcheson
Guest
There are far more reasons to be Protestant than choices posed by this poll. I think you’d find that the primary reason most Protestants are Protestant (and the primary reason most Catholics are Catholic) is because they were born into their faith.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
Mainly, because there was no Catholic Church in the city I grew up in.
C
chris_molter
Guest
Actually, it’s the mind-control implant that does that. grrrchchh… Sorry. I shouldn’t talk about it… Causes wicked feedback.
R
Rulkiewicz
Guest
This should have been a multiple choice poll.
P
Publisher
Guest
LOL WOW…Protestants are “brainwashed” and Catholics have “mind-control implants”…How wonderful…we’ve found something we have in common with one another!!!Actually, it’s the mind-control implant that does that. grrrchchh… Sorry. I shouldn’t talk about it… Causes wicked feedback.
Neither of us is able to think for ourselves…see…I knew if we tried hard enough we’d find SOMETHING we can share!!!
L
LutheranDK
Guest
An option is missing:
“Not just any single one of the above - and none of the above as those options have been worded”.
This poll is very poor quality - asking very leading questions…
“Not just any single one of the above - and none of the above as those options have been worded”.
This poll is very poor quality - asking very leading questions…
M
MarkBrown
Guest
None of the above. Like LutheranDK this is a very narrow poll that appears to be just reinforcing Roman Catholic beliefs on why people are protestant.
- Status