Problems with Protestantism

[2nd_Adam]

I acknowledge that there are problems with many modern day American churches which could have Protestant roots. However, not of all these churches are rooted in the Protestant Reformation (doctrine and life). Some American Churches actually practice a form of Christless Christianity. Is the answer to these problems in contemporary Protestantism simply a return to the Catholic Church? Maybe some of the same problems found in many modern American churches are the same problems found in the Catholic Church… for there is diversity in the various Catholic churches too. I like to hear your thoughts as Christians (Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Anglican, etc).

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

What do you mean when you say, “Christless Christianity”? Do you mean that they don’t focus on and or around Christ? If so, I have to be honest, I have not witnessed too many (if any really) Christian churches like this. Catholic or Protestant.

It is an interesting thread. I would just like a little clarification on “Christless Christianity” before I add too much.

God bless you

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I acknowledge that there are problems with many modern day American churches which could have Protestant roots. However, not of all these churches are rooted in the Protestant Reformation (doctrine and life). Some American Churches actually practice** a form of Christless Christianity. ** Is the answer to these problems in contemporary Protestantism **simply a return to the Catholic Church? **Maybe some of the same problems found in many modern American churches are the same problems found in the Catholic Church… for there is diversity in the various Catholic churches too. I like to hear your thoughts as Christians (Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Anglican, etc).

Please tell me where I went wrong. I am a Catholic of close to 70 years with 9 years of Catholic education through high school and 10 years of Catholic College. What did I miss? Where did I go wrong to mist this tid-bit of information?

 

[Nita]

I acknowledge that there are problems with many modern day American churches which could have Protestant roots. However, not of all these churches are rooted in the Protestant Reformation (doctrine and life). Some American Churches actually practice a form of Christless Christianity. Is the answer to these problems in contemporary Protestantism simply a return to the Catholic Church? Maybe some of the same problems found in many modern American churches are the same problems found in the Catholic Church… for there is diversity in the various Catholic churches too. I like to hear your thoughts as Christians (Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Anglican, etc).

As a Catholic of course, I see a return to the Catholic Church as the solution.

Jesus so desired us all to be one; it was His final prayer before heading to Gethsemane (John 17). To be one, means to be one in what we believe (one Lord, one baptism, one faith cf. Eph 4:5) – and there is no way that can happen without a final authority when differing doctrinal positions are proposed. Jesus knew what would happen in the future - that interpretations of Scripture and His teachings would differ among His followers. I believe that is why He established the papacy and guaranteed His protection to oversee that it would promulgate only the truth. (By the way, our trust is not in the pope personally – it’s trust in God’s power to ensure that that Pope, and Magisterium, never put forth as doctrine something that is not true. God is perfectly capable of intervening if error is about to be put forward. )

If Christianity is presently in decline, I think one of the important reasons is the proliferation of denominations. How can so many conflicting messages claim to be a witness to truth to those who do not believe in Jesus?! In John 17:21-23 Jesus connects being one with evangelizing the world.
“I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in Me through their word, that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that Thou has sent Me. The glory which Thou has given Me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and Thou in Me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that Thou has sent Me …”

 

[2nd_Adam]

What do you mean when you say, “Christless Christianity”? Do you mean that they don’t focus on and or around Christ? If so, I have to be honest, I have not witnessed too many (if any really) Christian churches like this. Catholic or Protestant.

It is an interesting thread. I would just like a little clarification on “Christless Christianity” before I add too much.

God bless you

Thanks for the post and conversation. I got that term by reading the book called “Christless Christianity”, an honest assessment of the American Church which has been caught up with the philosophies of this world. It seems a drift away from Christ has affected the conservative and liberal churches in America alike. I always discerned this over the years, but the book clarified my thoughts.

amazon.com/Christless-Christianity-Alternative-Gospel-American/dp/0801013186/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252010867&sr=8-1

Christ and Him crucified is not really preached, practiced, or central in many American churches. Maybe you can look at the Amazon link to get an overview of the book, but I don’t expect you to buy it since it was written by Michael Horton from Westminster Seminary. This book is one of the reasons why I want to look at the Catholic Church and see if the 21st Century Catholic Church is caught up in the same worldly errors of convservative and liberal Protestant churches in America.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Please tell me where I went wrong. I am a Catholic of close to 70 years with 9 years of Catholic education through high school and 10 years of Catholic College. What did I miss? Where did I go wrong to mist this tid-bit of information?

Hi Deacon ED B,

I am not saying that you went wrong somewhere, or missed something. I’m sure the Catholic Church has issues just like many of the Protestant churches in America.

 

[2nd_Adam]

As a Catholic of course, I see a return to the Catholic Church as the solution.

Jesus so desired us all to be one; it was His final prayer before heading to Gethsemane (John 17). To be one, means to be one in what we believe (one Lord, one baptism, one faith cf. Eph 4:5) – and there is no way that can happen without a final authority when differing doctrinal positions are proposed. Jesus knew what would happen in the future - that interpretations of Scripture and His teachings would differ among His followers. I believe that is why He established the papacy and guaranteed His protection to oversee that it would promulgate only the truth. (By the way, our trust is not in the pope personally – it’s trust in God’s power to ensure that that Pope, and Magisterium, never put forth as doctrine something that is not true. God is perfectly capable of intervening if error is about to be put forward. )

If Christianity is presently in decline, I think one of the important reasons is the proliferation of denominations. How can so many conflicting messages claim to be a witness to truth to those who do not believe in Jesus?! In John 17:21-23 Jesus connects being one with evangelizing the world.
*“I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in Me through their word, that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe *that Thou has sent Me. The glory which Thou has given Me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and Thou in Me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that Thou has sent Me …”

Thanks for your thoughts. IMO, I’m not sure if the Catholic Church has mainfested the light of Christ in greater degree or faithfulness than the other branches of Christianity (Protestant, Orthodox, Anglican, etc).

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Thanks for the post and conversation. I got that term by reading the book called “Christless Christianity”, an honest assessment of the American Church which has been caught up with the philosophies of this world. It seems a drift away from Christ has affected the conservative and liberal churches in America alike. I always discerned this over the years, but the book clarified my thoughts.

I had never heard of the book. At only $13 I think I may give it a read. I got nothing against Protestant writers. C.S. Lewis is probably my second favorite author Well the book is at least on my Amazon wish list but my wish list is quite large.

From the Amazon product description:

Is it possible that we have left Christ out of Christianity? Is the faith and practice of American Christians today more American than Christian? These are the provocative questions Michael Horton addresses in this thoughtful, insightful book. He argues that while we invoke the name of Christ, too often Christ and the Christ-centered gospel are pushed aside. The result is a message and a faith that are, in Horton’s words, “trivial, sentimental, affirming, and irrelevant.” This alternative “gospel” is a message of moralism, personal comfort, self-help, self-improvement, and individualistic religion. It trivializes God, making him a means to our selfish ends. Horton skillfully diagnoses the problem and points to the solution: a return to the unadulterated gospel of salvation.

Okay I can see where you are coming from. Yes I do not believe that the Reformers would feel uncomfortable and would not know what was going on if they were transplanted into a Joel Olsteen service. Though I would love to see their reaction to it ]

So are these things (ie Christ being a self-help guru ect.) a result of Protestantism ran amuck or a result of Americanism? Do we find these teachings in other places of the world or is it a predominately American phenomenon?

As far as answers to this Christless Christianity? These things have become popular because they are catering to what people want to hear. As long as there are people out there who want to hear this stuff (such as the prosperity gospel) and there is money to be made by people who preach it will be here.

God bless you

 

[Nita]

Thanks for your thoughts. IMO, I’m not sure if the Catholic Church has mainfested the light of Christ in greater degree or faithfulness than the other branches of Christianity (Protestant, Orthodox, Anglican, etc).

Some - and at times perhaps, a great many - of its clerical and lay members have not manifested Christ’s teaching faithfully. But the “faith” proclaimed by the Catholic Church (it’s doctrines and moral teachings) is not determined by its members. The Church’s “faith” is always “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic”. It grows, but no dogma/doctrine is ever reversed or voided. Neither is any doctrine expanded in a way that would negate a previous doctrine.

Those who wish to know what the Catholic Church teaches can find out easily. The official Catechism, Council documents, and ex cathedra papal decrees are publicly available to all. These teachings are to be adhered to in every Catholic parish in every nation - for all time. (Again, I recognize that there are dissident Catholics, even priests. They will have to answer to God for not upholding the truth.)

I have a very good friend who was a Baptist (Lutheran now, altho after recent events I’m not sure for how long). We shared many spiritual things, but she would not talk in any areas where we had denominational differences. So, I asked her once if there was a book/catechism she could recommend where I could read the official teachings (versus opinions) held by the Baptist Church. (I was still a little naive at that time about Protestantism.) The most she could tell me were the names of some writers that she felt were trustworthy. Later, of course, I realized there is no such thing as a set of definitive teachings. I recall being out to lunch with her some time later. At the time, some denominations were discussing/adopting some of the modern changes. She said she wished they had something like our unchangeable doctrines. I really did ache for her - because I knew what a strong, Biblically orthodox Christian she was. I can’t imagine what it would be like to belong to a church that could change its moral and doctrinal type teachings. To me, those are the houses “built on sand” (cf Mt 7:26); and today, the rain and winds are blowing. It’s sad to see them fall as they cave in to the demands of our immoral secular culture.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Some - and at times perhaps, a great many - of its clerical and lay members have not manifested Christ’s teaching faithfully. But the “faith” proclaimed by the Catholic Church (it’s doctrines and moral teachings) is not determined by its members. The Church’s “faith” is always “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic”. It grows, but no dogma/doctrine is ever reversed or voided. Neither is any doctrine expanded in a way that would negate a previous doctrine.

Those who wish to know what the Catholic Church teaches can find out easily. The official Catechism, Council documents, and ex cathedra papal decrees are publicly available to all. These teachings are to be adhered to in every Catholic parish in every nation - for all time. (Again, I recognize that there are dissident Catholics, even priests. They will have to answer to God for not upholding the truth.)

I have a very good friend who was a Baptist (Lutheran now, altho after recent events I’m not sure for how long). We shared many spiritual things, but she would not talk in any areas where we had denominational differences. So, I asked her once if there was a book/catechism she could recommend where I could read the official teachings (versus opinions) held by the Baptist Church. (I was still a little naive at that time about Protestantism.) The most she could tell me were the names of some writers that she felt were trustworthy. Later, of course, I realized there is no such thing as a set of definitive teachings. I recall being out to lunch with her some time later. At the time, some denominations were discussing/adopting some of the modern changes. She said she wished they had something like our unchangeable doctrines. I really did ache for her - because I knew what a strong, Biblically orthodox Christian she was. I can’t imagine what it would be like to belong to a church that could change its moral and doctrinal type teachings. To me, those are the houses “built on sand” (cf Mt 7:26); and today, the rain and winds are blowing. It’s sad to see them fall as they cave in to the demands of our immoral secular culture.

I think the best summary of historic Protestantism can be summed up by the solas of the Protestant Reformation, Westminster Confession of Faith, and the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689. You can find all of this on-line. The central issues are historical from both sides, with the Catholic response to the Reformation being the Council of Trent. Here’s an interesting Scripture on division:

For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. - Apostle Paul

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I think the best summary of historic Protestantism can be summed up by the solas of the Protestant Reformation, Westminster Confession of Faith, and the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689.

You don’t think that the Augsburg Confession is a good summary of historical Protestantism? Or at least included in the list? That’s one place I go when I want to read up on historical Protestantism.

God bless

 

[2nd_Adam]

You don’t think that the Augsburg Confession is a good summary of historical Protestantism? Or at least included in the list? That’s one place I go when I want to read up on historical Protestantism.

God bless

I’m not familiar with the Augsburg Confession since I do not have a Lutheran background. My church history was non-denominational and Reformed. I think the Westminster Confession of Faith is considered the standard for historic Protestantism, or at least the most famous.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I’m not familiar with the Augsburg Confession since I do not have a Lutheran background. My church history was non-denominational and Reformed. I think the Westminster Confession of Faith is considered the standard for historic Protestantism, or at least the most famous.

If you’re interested:

bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php

Happy reading.

God bless you

 

[Nita]

I think the best summary of historic Protestantism can be summed up by the solas of the Protestant Reformation, Westminster Confession of Faith, and the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689. You can find all of this on-line. The central issues are historical from both sides, with the Catholic response to the Reformation being the Council of Trent. Here’s an interesting Scripture on division:

For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. - Apostle Paul

Thank you. I intend to read them both.

Do you know if these Confessions are considered “unchangeable”, that is, perpetually true and binding? - and nothing can ever be taught by any congretation of that denomination that is contrary to it? - contrary teaching being considered heretical by the heads of those denominations?

 

[DOShea]

Do you know if these Confessions are considered “unchangeable”, that is, perpetually true and binding? - and nothing can ever be taught by any congretation of that denomination that is contrary to it? - contrary teaching being considered heretical by the heads of those denominations?

That depends. There were changes made, predominantly in the German translations during the 16th century, and those were considered correct by some, incorrect by others. If you go to the site linked above, you will see near the top of the article a red outlined box. Inside are these words containing another link:

Click here for information on Melanchthon’s Alterations to the Augsburg Confession

Takes a while to get to the meat of the issues, but good information is there.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Thank you. I intend to read them both.

Do you know if these Confessions are considered “unchangeable”, that is, perpetually true and binding? - and nothing can ever be taught by any congretation of that denomination that is contrary to it? - contrary teaching being considered heretical by the heads of those denominations?

That’s a good question. The answer is no, there are not completely binding for the leaders, pastors, elders, and deacons from that particular denomination who use them as their statement of faith. I was nominated as an elder at a PCA Church, and you were allowed to take exceptions to some of the statements found in them. I believe Scott Hahn came from a PCA with the Westminster Confession of Faith. Certain exceptions to a confession can exempt you in serving as a leader, but not exempt you from membership. For church membership, only a credible confession of faith in Chrst and baptism is needed for church membership. It’s not that much different than the Catholic Catechisms too. Please note that I am aware the Catechism of the Catholic Church is probably about 20 years old and there are many others before it. The Westminster Confession is quite old as a Confession of Faith as compared to the Catechism of the Catholic Church that you have shared with me. The Catholic Church allows a wide range of positions on certain issues, and only a handful of Scripture is dogmatically defined for you. Therefore, we are in a similar situation in interpreting Scripture and the contents of our Catechisms. As I mentioned, I used to own a hardcopy of your current Catechism and a hardcopy of the Companion of the Catechism. I find American Catholicism more Protestant friendly than Catholicism found in Catholic majority countries. Our communites are similar too. You will find creedal and confessional Protestants and other Protestants that are not. I have found some Catholics to be creedal and confessional, and many others who are not. It is nice to remember that we share many of the same historical creeds formulated before the schism and of course way before the Reformation. I always wondered where Augustine would have landed if he lived in the 16th century.

 

[AdrianP]

I don’t know about Protestantism in some aspects but this thread about Protestants coming to a Church with 7 Mysteries may help:
amazon.com/tag/christianity/forum/ref=cm_cd_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx77WQHU8YS50Z&cdThread=Tx1K9WZEE21GSCU&displayType=tagsDetail

I think liberal conservaive is a false debate a true debate is about Having not or Having the 7 Mysetries including Holy Eucjarist for eternal life.

 

[Nita]

That’s a good question. The answer is no, there are not completely binding for the leaders, pastors, elders, and deacons from that particular denomination who use them as their statement of faith. I was nominated as an elder at a PCA Church, and you were allowed to take exceptions to some of the statements found in them. I believe Scott Hahn came from a PCA with the Westminster Confession of Faith. Certain exceptions to a confession can exempt you in serving as a leader, but not exempt you from membership. For church membership, only a credible confession of faith in Chrst and baptism is needed for church membership. It’s not that much different than the Catholic Catechisms too. Please note that I am aware the Catechism of the Catholic Church is probably about 20 years old and there are many others before it. The Westminster Confession is quite old as a Confession of Faith as compared to the Catechism of the Catholic Church that you have shared with me. The Catholic Church allows a wide range of positions on certain issues, and only a handful of Scripture is dogmatically defined for you. Therefore, we are in a similar situation in interpreting Scripture and the contents of our Catechisms. As I mentioned, I used to own a hardcopy of your current Catechism and a hardcopy of the Companion of the Catechism. I find American Catholicism more Protestant friendly than Catholicism found in Catholic majority countries. Our communites are similar too. You will find creedal and confessional Protestants and other Protestants that are not. I have found some Catholics to be creedal and confessional, and many others who are not. It is nice to remember that we share many of the same historical creeds formulated before the schism and of course way before the Reformation. I always wondered where Augustine would have landed if he lived in the 16th century.

Actually there are not many official Catechisms. Prior to the current one, you’d have to go back about 500 years – to the Council of Trent Catechism. Before that, I don’t know.

There are secondary, so to speak, which are always to be in conformity to the official catechism. (Eg. Catechisms for school children, catechumens, etc.) But they are secondary, and if something is questionable in them (which after Vatican II unfortunately happened a LOT in our Church ) one had to refer to the official Catechism to check its veracity. The problem was, a lot of people didn’t realize what was being put forth was questionable. The problem was finally recognized by the bishops, and efforts are being taken to start correcting the problem. But, that’s another whole thread.

 

[AdrianP]

Protestants can start by reading St John Chrysostom Homilies as a first step in returning home to a Church with 7 Mysteries.

Sign from God that St John Chrysostom interpretation of Bible is revealed

full-of-grace-and-truth.blogspot.com/2008/11/divine-inspiration-and-st-john.html

Icon depicting the Divine inspiration of St. John Chrysostom: St. Proclos his disciple witnessing St. Paul speaking into St. John’s ear. Icon courtesy of www.eikonografos.com used with permission.

"Saint John [Chrysostom] was renowned for his explanations of the Holy Scriptures. He also interpreted the Epistles of Saint Paul, whom he admired greatly. In order to assure himself that the interpretation of the Epistles were correct, he asked God to offer him a sign.
At that same time, a nobleman had risen against Emperor Arcadius. The Emperor, in turn, confiscated all of the man’s possessions and threatened to execute him. The nobleman became desperate and decided to ask for Saint John’s assistance. When he arrived at the Patriarchate, Saint John could not offer him an audience immediately, but instructed him to return that evening. Saint John told the assistant priest, Proclos (who later succeeded Saint John as Patriarch), to show the nobleman to the Saint’s room when he arrived. That evening, the nobleman returned and Proclos went to inform the Patriarch of his arrival. The door to the room was shut, so Proclos looked through the keyhole. He saw Saint John sitting at his desk writing, with a bald-headed man, slightly bent, looking over his shoulder. Seeing this, Proclos returned to the nobleman and told him that the Patriarch was in conference. Proclos returned to the Patriarch’s room several times during the night, but the man was still talking with John. Thus the nobleman waited the entire night to see Saint John. Morning came and the Patriarch prepared to perform the orthros, realizing neither that the nobleman had waited all night for him, nor that Proclos had seen the vision.

That morning the nobleman returned to the Patriarchate since it was of the utmost importance for him to see the Patriach. Proclos went again to inform John of the nobleman’s arrival, but again saw the same man in the Patriarch;s room. John looked extremely interested in what the man was telling him. Proclos was bewildered on how the man was entering, since everyone had to come by him.
The nobleman returned for the fourth time and Proclos assured him that the Patriarch was alone, for he had made certain that no one passed without his knowledge. When Proclos went to the Patriarch’s room, he was shocked to find the same man still there. He returned to the nobleman and told him to go to his home for it was impossible for him to see John.

That third day, the Saint had remembered the nobleman and inquired about him. Proclos told John that the man had come three times, but each time, the Patriarch was busy talking to the same man. John asked Proclos whom he had seen in the room. Proclos told him that it looked as if it were the Apostle Paul, whose icon sat on the Saint’s desk. Joyously, Saint John realized that this was the sign he had asked for from God concerning his interpretations of the Apostle’s epistles. Thus, Saint John wrote The Fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul containing the explanation of the letters. This book is one of the greatest works in the writings of the Orthodox Church.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I acknowledge that there are problems with many modern day American churches which could have Protestant roots. However, not of all these churches are rooted in the Protestant Reformation (doctrine and life). Some American Churches actually practice a form of Christless Christianity. Is the answer to these problems in contemporary Protestantism simply a return to the Catholic Church? Maybe some of the same problems found in many modern American churches are the same problems found in the Catholic Church… for there is diversity in the various Catholic churches too. I like to hear your thoughts as Christians (Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Anglican, etc).

I think that across the christian spectrum of church communities there are churches where people are “Christ-less” in the sense that they have forgotten about Christ and are simply acting as a civic service organization. I’m reminded of the story about a christian bishop visiting the U.S. from Korea who visited many difference churches. After being asked what he thought about christianity in the states his comment was something to the effect of… “It’s simply amazing all of the good things people can do… without God.” I think he meant that although people were doing good works for the poor or the unborn, etc., they really had lost sight of the meaning behind it all… Jesus Christ. I don’t think that particular malady is consigned to non-Catholic communities. I think the risk lies anywhere that a Church is populated with people.

I think that a return to unity is a step in the right direction in terms of minimizing the problem, but I don’t think the flaws in humanity will ever be completely overcome until His return.

Just my two cents.

Peace,
Robert