Protestant tunnelvision

[conleyed]

To: DrewC

Drew,
You wrote “Im a protestant and I just wish we could all get along and become one body of Christ and not argue over whos wrong and whos right, We are all right because we believe in Jesus Christ!”

You are on the right path believing in Jesus Christ as your Savior.
I commend you for this.
However, the more light you receive, the more accountable you are.
As you associate with Catholics who are knowlegeable of the faith, you will begin to see that God has preserved one true Church, and allowed many others to come into existance over the many years since the reformation. He is in control, and he holds a person accountable for what they are exposed to. Since your faith is associated with mainstream protestantism, you are accountable to what you learn from them. As you expose yourself to deeper truths, you now become accountable to whaere the Holy Spirit is leading you. Are you prepared for this change in belief structure? The challange is great, but the rewards of a more peaceful mind are even greater.

Living by faith alone is a dangerous thing.
"When is my faith GOOD ENOUGH to save me?
How long must I have this faith?
What if I waiver?

I’m sure you have seen great “faith only” preachers fall or preach for worldly gain.

God knows our frailties, and has provided direction through a church that He has sustained for 2,000 years.
As you look deeper into Catholic beliefs, you will discover that there is nothing that you believe that we do not already embrace.
You will also discover that there are resources open to you that you never dreamed of. Things such as the emotional cleansing of confession, the peace afforded by saying a Rosary. Celebrating Holy days and Holy seasons. The comfort of the Eucharist every Sunday to sustain us through the week.
The list goes on and on.

I urge you to look deeper into the Catholic faith and see that there is nothing to fear and a world to gain.

There are many of us Catholics willing to assist you on a journey that you will never regret.

Hope this has help clear things up for you, and may God bless you in your search for truth.

-Edward

 

[johnnydigit]

However, the more light you receive, the more accountable you are.

ah thanks. i used to use the analogy of splashing in a puddle, whereas being Catholic is like diving into the deep and vast ocean that is the fullness of the faith. what is more, as you go deeper you discover whole new worlds that words cannot even explain. i guess splashing in a puddle is more comfortable, less risky, and just plain easier to deal with than being immersed in heaven. que sera…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I am a Protestant, and I think that 1) not all Protestants have this “tunnel vision” you are referring to, and 2) not all people with this “tunnel vision” are Protestants.

Also, I believe that Catholics can go to heaven - without leaving the Catholic Church. I also believe people from various other Protestant denominations can go to heaven. I don’t believe in once saved always saved.

In case you hadn’t been able to tell from the differences in nearly everything in their theology besides the fact that 1) there is one God in three persons and 2) Jesus died for our sins, Protestants believe many different things. Please don’t lump us all together.

You can definitely blame someone for refusing to listen in the midst of diehard evidence. But can you really blame someone for believing what they’ve been taught, when they don’t know any better?

​

Catholics are no different - the difference is in the thing believed. Catholics call their tunnel vision orthodoxy, or believing the truth, or being reasonable or the fullness of faith. But so do many Protestants: they just live in a different tunnel, so they use the same words & values for a different orthodoxy. Would anyone follow a faith he regarded as a pack of lies ? So Catholic beliefs are no more valid as ideas in themselves than are the ideas of those who reject them.

For instance: it is not possible to prove beyond all possibility of reasonable doubt that Peter was at Rome - he may have been. That he was, is as much an interpretation of data as the denial that he was. Neither position can be proved - faith is involved in holding either position. As long as either party assumes that its interpretation is totally right & that the other is totally wrong, neither will convince the other. The rightness of the interpretation is the point at issue, so it is suicidal (as well as illogical) to treat it as valid, & illogical to expect Protestants to treat it as valid.

Perhaps a way out of the stalemate would be to treat the interpretation of the facts as theologically & doctrinally valid, while not seeing the validity in the facts as such. For not all facts are bearers of theological value - some are. The crucifixion of Jesus was a completely usual event in itself - it is important because it has been given a theological interpretation; but being crucified was no big deal in itself. It was important only because of the identity of the crucified. That, alone, is what makes this execution significant - not that it was a crucifixion of a Jew under a Roman governor, but that it was the execution of God Incarnate.

For a lot of people the very question of Peter’s Roman presence is of no theological importance - for Catholics it is, because it has important consequences for a number of Catholic doctrines. IOW, it has a functional load in Catholicism that it does not have for Protestantism. Many doctrines have a high functional load for both Christianities: the existence of God is one of them. Peter’s Roman presence, OTOH, is not: Protestantism would not collapse if it were proved beyond doubt that Peter died in Rome & was buried there. Catholicism might - or at least, it might seem to. But Catholicism would probably be able to survive.

So those who accept both:

• the actuality of certain material facts - &
• the significance of them as a revelation of the value they have in the purpose of God
  cannot assume that this or that fact will have the significance for others - Christian or not - that they have for them & their fellow-believers. This does not imply that they must deny the faith they hold. It does imply that they cannot start by insisting on the validity of the significance; for that is just what is not accepted by the person they are trying to convince. Facts are easier to demonstrate than what they signify - their significance can be known by faith, & God alone can give faith. Faith is so totally supernatural that it is impossible to argue anyone into it, & pernicious to try.

 

[c659smith]

Bottle of Geer,

As I understand what you are writting is for the benefit of not being wrong believe both sides?

Fact Scripture states where Peter died.

Fact Roman and Jewish documents state same.

To disagree with facts would say that lincoln was not assainated, There was no revolutinary war, which of course you would call such a person whacked out…

The words together you are saved by "FAITH ALONE never appears in scripture only once when it states you are not saved by Faith Alone. Throughout the New Testament it talks of love, forgiveness, feeding the poor, curing the sick, etc… Jesus sent His Apostles and deciples out to do all these things in His name with Faith.
The saved by faith alone theory by many Protestants is not worth a grain of salt. I will prove this point time and time again but you know what people like fantasy.

Jesus gave his Church facts and these facts are undeniable no matter how much people want to make them fantasy for personal comfort or gain.

The Catholic Church has the extradinary Miracles that happens thriughout it;s history.

I would rather be wrong and have conviction with factual data than to be right on a guess.

To be Catholic is to have truth and truth is Christ’s Church

 

[holdencaulfield]

Claudius:
Yes that’s true many Protestants are unwilling to look at facts, because facts prove what they believe is wrong.