Protestantism is Misrepresented

[chrisg93]

: …making your initial claim a lie. Whether they are right or not was not the point. Of course you think the Catholic Church is right, and I applaud you for that. But that’s no excuse for telling falsehoods about other Christians.

Again, I am going to request of you for fairness and accuracy plus I will ask you to stop name calling and insult above.

I admited my ignorance of Lutheranism. What do you do? Forgive in kindness? No, you "judge’ me wrong for being 93% correct rather than 100% correct. The truth is that 93%± non-Catholic Christians don’t believe in the Real Presence.You have used my mistake to make a debating point. You “strain at the nat but swallow the camel”.

On divorce, you admit 99%± of non-Catholic Christians believe in divorce. Why wern’t you be completely honest and say that in your first post? Instead you come up with “new order Amish” to prove me wrong. Give me a break. We can all find some sect that believes anything. Calling me a liar for neglecting the “new order Amish” is your sin, not mine.

How can remarriage be a primary issue and divorce a secondary issue? That’s not logical. Divorce always preceeds remarriage and remarriage is not possible without divorce. Therefore divorce is the primary issue. The only way remarriage can be primary in someones mind is if they are seeking divorce because remarriage is really their main motivation. Yes, faithful Catholics do sometimes get a civil divorce for reasons of legal protection, but the marriage is permanent in the eyes of God and in the eyes of the Church and in the eyes of faithful Catholics.

Contrary to your opinion, being right is the point.*

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

PXseeker:

I think its very safe to say that most of us are incredibly ignorant of other traditions. We assume we “know” about them based upon what we’ve heard second or third or xth hand. The sisters who taught me in parochial school painted protestantism with a broad brush, overgeneralized and in the end, misrepresented a lot. On the other side, protestants for years have feared Catholic practices and traditions, because of the same type of religious “education” in Sunday school. We have a dickens of a time getting folks to bless themselves. Those over forty fear it’s “too catholic” - like that’s something bad, LOL.

If you want to make statements, research the traditions and beliefs. The internet is full of resources. Go to a denomination’s website and read “what we believe” as a starter. Then do some scholarly reseach. btw, the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia, which is an excellent reference for many Catholic issues and questions, is the 1911 version; so beware - the bias is very much pre-ecumenism.

If you don’t want to do some serious research - Then don’t assume anything.

Better off not pursuing a bad line of reasoning half baked.

The fact is, we all share a wonderful faith and salvation. All of us are seeing that faith through the fragmented lens of human frailty. Be kind, be sensitive,be… “Christian”

Peace,
John

Exactly Excellent post ​

I’m just hoping that Andy will explain why Calvinism is uneasy with the notion of freewill. ##

 

[Exporter]

As a kid, I was raised in the Methodist Church. At age 24 I became Catholic because I found that it is the oldest Church and that Jesus was it’s founder! I do know something about the Protestants first hand. On occasion I have had a dialogue with them about religious topics.

Usually they will start like this: “So you think Peter was the first Pope,huh? Show me in this Bible where it says that!” THEY WANT TO BE SHOWN IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE …or they think they have triumphed. That’s the “Bible Only Theory”. They don’t have a clue about the writings of the Early Fathers or that the Holy Spirit was Promised to the Church by Jesus…se Matt16:16-19. That passage also tells us Jesus founded His Church on Peter , the Rock.

Protestantism stands on a one-legged stool, while Catholics have a three-legged stool ! One leg is the Bible, another is Tradition which are the writings of the first men of the Church; the last leg is the fact that Jesus promised Peter that He would be with the Church forever, and He is: thru’ the Holy Spirit. So of course Protestants using only the Bible can’t possibly know as much as Catholics because of their “Bible only theory”. Sola scriptura has been shown many times to be deficient and downright harmful. It doesn’t work! Imagine each Protestant interprets the Bible as they see fit, no wonder they split up a lot. How many different Protestant Churches are there…today, in the USA there are more than 300 different Proteatant Churches. How many Catholic Churches? ONE! The Bible says the Church will be united…one.

 

[pnewton]

You know that this is and excellent forum to clear up misunderstandings of other denominations. There is such a huge base of those well versed in other denominations that all one need do is ask and await an answer. I try always to reply to questions regarding Baptist belief.

I also think it is a good idea to give reference(s) when you hold out yourself as knowledgeable about another religion.

 

[Andyman1517]

## I’m just hoping that Andy will explain why Calvinism is uneasy with the notion of freewill. ##

The theology behind salvation is something that has been plaguing Christians for 2000 years. We have seen different sects divide and multiply very quickly over their differing views on this matter. With the coming of the concepts of Protestantism and sola scriptura, came a more rigorous study of the Bible. As it just so happens, the Bible, as we know, is full of scripture that speaks of Gods omnipresence and sovereignty. This scripture, combined with many New Testament verses that talk of how God has a foreknowledge of our lives led many early protestants to the conclusion that if God knows what our actions will be before we do them, then he must have already planned them. Since he is totally sovereign, he is thus sovereign over every aspect of our lives, including our salvation. Therefore, some early protestants (Calvinists) believed that it is by God’s hand alone that we come to salvation. This is why Calvinists are “uneasy” with the concept of free will.

Calvin’s doctrines did create some interesting problems however. First, if God predestines everyone, then that means he predestined Adam and Eve would sin, which would make God, not man, the author of sin. Since God is all good and hates nothing worse than sin, it made no sense why he would do such a thing. Also, another problem is created by Calvinism: Jesus died so everyone could be saved. Why would Jesus, sacrifice be necessary for everyone if some people were already predestined to be saved? Also, Calvinism can make people believe that if some are predestined to be saved, then what’s the point of even thinking about religion or trying to be a good person.

There are solutions to some of the problems that Calvinism creates. You can look at these solutions on www.reformed.com if you feel so inclined. It is important to remember, however, that although Calvinism might seem like a foreign concept, many prominent Catholic and non-Catholic theologians have dabbled with it over the years. Although Calvinism may seem to have many holes, from a strictly Biblical standpoint, free will has just as many holes.

In Christ,

Andy

 

[Charlemagne]

jmm08:

Baptism is something the Catholic Church and all Protestant Christian Churches practice.

Not true. My cousin and his wife are both fallen away Catholics. They belong to a Christian Church that does not baptize. Their children were “presented” to the community. They base this on the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple.

I have a friend at work who was raised Jewish, is not baptized, and worships at a Christian Church that does not believe Baptism is necessary for salvation.

 

[Mary3]

Andy,

As a former protestant, I found your observation intriguing, but I have a very different personal experience. Granted, I have not examined a lot of other peoples’ posts to see if they are generalizing and ‘lumping together’ protestant doctrines.

My problems with protestantism began when I realized exactly what you mentioned. There IS no standard doctrine, or single standard of Truth. Sola scriptura was not leading us protestants to discover the Truth we could all assent to.

I have Christian friends from many different protestant denominations. They are all quite devout and serious about their faith, but they can’t agree on essential matters. My Episcopalian friends baptise infants, but my Baptist friends do not. My Methodist friends recognize that we will be judged based on our works, my Presbyterian friends find that concept abhorrent. Celebration of the Lord’s supper ranges from weekly to 4 times per year.

Frankly, it was this very chaos that made me start to wonder how to discern the Truth. Surely God didn’t intend to hide the Truth from us, or leave us to our own devices to discover Truth as best we could. Once you start to wonder about those things, and look back into early Christian history, you find yourself at the foot of the only apostolic Church that has remained united to Peter’s successors.

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant” John Cardinal Henry Newman :bowdown2:

 

[Lance]

As a convert from Methodist I agree with most of what Andyman said. I had several Catholic relatives and never saw any anti-Catholic teaching in the Methodist Church, but that may have been because they knew about my relatives. I did know several Souther Baptist who had some grave misconceptions about the Catholic Church and even a couple who were openly anti-Catholic. My mother was not happy that I converted but she accepted it and did not bring it up after I told her my decision was final.

 

[Contarini]

:Again, I am going to request of you for fairness and accuracy:

You have yet to show that I have been inaccurate. I have shown that you were inaccurate, but instead of honestly admitting your mistake you try to pretend that it wasn’t a big deal and the guilt is somehow on me for pointing it out.

lus I will ask you to stop name calling and insult above.:

I apologize for that. I’m trying to show you that this isn’t just a “debating point” issue, but that you are deeply slandering your fellow Christians. However, obviously my rhetoric offended you and did not accomplish its purpose.

:I admited my ignorance of Lutheranism. What do you do? Forgive in kindness?:

What’s to forgive? You admitted your ignorance of Lutheranism, but you did not admit that this made your claim about Protestantism false, which was what I was arguing. You haven’t offended me personally. You made a false generalization about Protestantism, and I was perfectly within my rights to point this out.

: No, you "judge’ me wrong for being 93% correct rather than 100% correct.:

That’s silly. I’m not judging you as a person at all. I’m pointing out that you are wrong. Abandon your error, stop trying to defend it by sophistical excuses, and I have no further quarrel with you.

: The truth is that 93%± non-Catholic Christians don’t believe in the Real Presence.:

You have no proof for this figure. You’re just pulling it out of your hat. Who asked you to be the Statistician of Protestant Error? Why not just admit that you really don’t know much about Protestantism and drop the whole argument?

I don’t know if your figure is right or not. It sounds low to me, but I don’t have any figures of my own–and of course a lot depends on what you count as “Real Presence.” However, the bigger point is that when you make a generalization about “Protestantism” that doesn’t include the Lutherans, you are making a false generalization. If anyone can claim to be the original Protestants, it’s the Lutherans. You know quite well that Luther is generally considered the founder of Protestantism. So how can you pretend that Lutherans are just “one among eight thousand” groups (actually there are a number of Lutheran denominations, so they aren’t just one–but that’s beside the point)?

:You have used my mistake to make a debating point. You “strain at the nat but swallow the camel”.:

No, the “camel” here is that if you say “Protestants disbelieve X,” when your statement is false for one of the core traditions of Protestantism, you are making a false statement. Stop trying to defend it or pretend it’s a minor “debating point.”

Here’s an analogy: if a Protestant were to come onto this board and say, “Catholics don’t allow married men to be priests,” this would rightly be jumped on. It would be pointed out that the Eastern Catholic churches do allow married priests (besides a small number of converts from Anglicanism and maybe Lutheranism in the Latin Rite). Now the Eastern Catholic churches are a small percentage of Catholics as a whole–the vast majority of Catholics are found in the Roman Catholic Church strictly so called (i.e,. the “Latin Rite”). But a statement about “Catholics” that excluded the Eastern Catholics would be a horribly mistaken statement. Do you understand now why I’m so upset?

 

[Contarini]

:you admit 99%± of non-Catholic Christians believe in divorce.:
First of all, “believe in divorce” is a vague and not very accurate way of putting it. Tolerate divorce and remarriage would be more accurate. Second, I didn’t admit your 99% figure as more than a fairly probable guess. Why do we have to make these statistical guesses, when neither of us knows enough to speak with that kind of accuracy? I don’t have a problem admitting that the vast majority of Protestant churches today celebrate second marriages while the first spouse is living, and allow divorced and remarried people to be members in good standing. A fairly large majority allow such people to be clergy, although many of the more conservative denominations do not–or at least did not until quite recently. In fact, liberal Protestant attitudes toward divorce are a lot more recent than you might think. The Church of England, for instance, only started allowing remariage to be performed in church a few years ago (what about Henry VIII? Actually, like any good Catholic, he was looking for an annulment, not a divorce!).

: Why wern’t you be completely honest and say that in your first post?:

Because we weren’t arguing about the number. We were arguing about whether this is a fair generalization about all Protestants. I admit that I’m on weaker ground here than with regard to the Real Presence. I’m probably influenced by the fact that I happen to come from a branch of conservative Protestantism (the radical wing of the “holiness movement”) that is extremely strict about divorce. Also, Protestants have become laxer on divorce even in my lifetime (as the example of the C of E shows). Still, I maintain that there are enough Protestants who oppose all divorce, and that they represent a solid enough strand of Protestant tradition, that your original statement needs to be modified. Again, this isn’t a debating point. This is about bearing false witness against your brothers and sisters in Christ. You are trying to present Catholicism as a lonely witness to the truth, ignoring the beliefs of real people. You aren’t doing your Church any favors by doing this. On the contrary, Protestants like myself who come from traditions that oppose divorce are drawn to Catholicism because it agrees with the best in our own traditions. (In my case, I’ve spent six years as an Episcopalian, much of this in a parish with an otherwise conservative priest who was divorced and remarried–one of my biggest qualms about conservative Episcopalians right now is that we rightly oppose homosexual behavior but are papering over the divorce issue entirely.) But when we find Catholics lying brazenly about our traditions, this does not endear Catholicism to us.

:Iyou come up with “new order Amish” to prove me wrong.:

The person I was quoting was new order Amish. But his views were representative of a wide variety of groups.

:We can all find some sect that believes anything.:

It isn’t just one group. Look, I grew up among conservative evangelicals. Do me the credit of recognizing that I may actually know what I believed, OK? I just don’t understand what you are getting out of this. Don’t you see the arrogance of telling someone born and bred in Protestantism that he doesn’t know his own tradition? Aren’t you offended when Protestants do this to you? Do you think we like it any better?

Here’s another thing–you invoked the “8,000 denominations” figure earlier. Yet now you are speaking as if not all of those really count. Which is it? A large number of those “8,000” (assuming that that is an accurate figure) are the tiny “sects” that you are now trying to rule out of consideration. When generalizing about the Real Presence you want to speak as if each of these groups has an equal vote. When generalizing about divorce you speak as if they don’t matter at all. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Contarini]

:How can remarriage be a primary issue and divorce a secondary issue? That’s not logical. Divorce always preceeds remarriage and remarriage is not possible without divorce. Therefore divorce is the primary issue.:
It depends on what we mean by divorce. My point is that the divorce condemned by the Church (rightly) is a divorce that leaves one free to marry again. Divorce in the sense of severing legal ties so that the other person has no power over one is legitimate in emergency circumstances, as you admit. Therefore, the thing that makes divorce wrong is that it paves the way for remarriage. To some extent this is semantics, but not entirely. Just recently an old family friend has felt the need to seek a divorce for the reasons you admit to be legitimate, while making it clear that she has no intention of remarrying. (She’s one of these conservative evangelicals who don’t believe in divorce, whose existence you bizarrely deny–and no, she’s not New Order Amish–she’s non-denominational charismatic!)

:Yes, faithful Catholics do sometimes get a civil divorce for reasons of legal protection, but the marriage is permanent in the eyes of God and in the eyes of the Church and in the eyes of faithful Catholics.:

Exactly. That was my point.

:Contrary to your opinion, being right is the point.:

It isn’t the point we were arguing about. We are arguing over what Protestants actually believe. You’re welcome to say that they are wrong. You are not welcome to misrepresent what they believe. I know people whose lives have been (from an earthly point of view) ruined precisely because they didn’t see themselves free to remarry when their spouse had abandoned them and taken up with someone else. I naturally get mad when you speak as if these faithful, devout people don’t exist, or as if they are somehow running contrary to their own Protestant traditions, when in fact it is those traditions that have caused them to act in this way. I’m sorry if I’ve offended you in my reaction. But you need to understand that we’re talking about the lives and beliefs of real people here, people whom I know personally. You’re sweeping them aside as if they don’t count, and nothing I’ve said to you holds a candle to the deeply offensive, arrogant nature of what you are doing.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[bob]

Contarini:

Bob,

Let me get this straight. You’re saying that it’s fair to use the generalization “Protestant” when you mean “fundamentalist” because fundamentalists are offshoots of the older forms of Protestantism? By that logic, it’s fair to call Protestants Catholics because Protestants came out of Catholicism. An offshoot is just that–something that has “shot off” and is no longer part of the parent body. We use the word “Protestant” for all the churches that ultimately derive from the Reformation, and I’m fine with that. But it is both unjust and silly to speak as if fundamentalist Baptists are somehow the same sort of thing as Lutherans. In many ways (particularly having to do with sacramental theology), Lutherans are closer to Catholicism than to the Baptist brand of Protestantism. (And in other ways, the reverse is true–so counter-examples you can come up with are irrelevant.) But whether that’s so or not, when you say “Protestant” you are necessarily referring to Lutherans and Reformed (and Anglicans, insofar as they reflect the theology of the 16th-century English Reformers–many Anglicans, including myself, have abandoned most of that theology while remaining institutionally Protestant, but that’s another story). These are the original Protestants. It’s a perversion of language to redefine the word to mean Baptists and Pentecostals to the exclusion of traditional Protestantism…

No. You suggested fundamentalists as of of the options for Protestants in your earlier thread.

I then said Uh Uh (disagree) because they (the Born Again fundamentalists) reject all “denominational” Protestant churches as well as Catholics.

Basically, on this Catholic Answers Forum, it will definitely be easier to classify all shades of non-Catholic Christan groups as Protestants as it is practically impossible for us to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

Also most, except the Lutherans, if not all, broke from the Reformers rather than from the Catholic Church directly.

I am sorry, but honesty, it is just not possible to separate every non-Catholic Christian group by their individual beliefs.

 

[mark_a]

Andyman1517:

After reviewing quite a bit of catholic.com and reading many of the posts on this board, it seems to me that protestantism is terribly misrepresented. Many of the posts tend to sway toward identifying all protestants with fringe groups like Pentecostals who blend the line between cult and Christianity.

I have read much about how many Protestants know very little about Catholic doctrine, but the same can be said about Protestants and this site.

The fact of the matter is that many if not most Protestants don’t:

1. Believe every single word of the Bible to be literal, whether they be evangelicals (like myself) or not. Most protestants take the Bible “seriously, but not literally”. Sola Scriptura simply means that the Word of God is the best authority we have, not that it wasn’t physically written by men and contains mistakes. It was inspired by the Holy Spirit, however, as Catholics believe.
2. Believe in speaking in tongues or any other strange signs of the Holy Spirit. This is a pentecostal thing, and I am truly offended that some people in previous posts have grouped “protestants” as a whole with the likes of Benny Hinn.
3. Baptize Adults. Only Baptists, Pentecostals/Charismatics, and non-denominationers practice this. Baptism is a sign, much like circumcision is for Jews, that a Child will be admitted and brough up among a community of believers.
4. Believe that by saying something along the lines of “I accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior” that a person is then “saved”. For many protestants, growing close to God takes many years and rarely has some sort of epiphany that suddenly makes them become “saved”. As a believer of Reformed Theology, I personally believe that a person is not “saved” through their own personal act, but by God’s choice to elect the to heaven. Augustine taught a similar idea as have many Catholics over the years, unfortunately over the years, the apparent self-serving idea of free-will has developed and taken some of the glory away from the sovereign God. I guess Reformed Theology just isn’t practical to people today, but alas this is a subject for elsewhere.

I also fear that many here have a difficult time telling the difference between anti-catholicism and legitimate theological differences. Please, I would love to hear what your problems with protestantism is and respond to it. Hope this helps.

In Christ,

Andrew

Many Catholic sites are designed to help Catholics defend against anti-Catholicism. There is no easy way to be really ecumenical with the written word.

However, if you listen to (most) Catholic apologists, you will hear the patience and love we have for Christians in general. Note I said most.

 

[Contarini]

:No. You suggested fundamentalists as of of the options for Protestants in your earlier thread.

I then said Uh Uh (disagree) because they (the Born Again fundamentalists) reject all “denominational” Protestant churches as well as Catholics.:

I was responding to someone who spoke as if all Protestants were fundamentalists. I didn’t realize that you were suggesting the opposite (i.e., that fundamentalists aren’t really Protestants). I’d be a lot more likely to agree with that, but I’d argue that fundamentalists mostly (not always) consider themselves Protestants, and since they originate from the older Protestant groups they share a lot of the basic Protestant beliefs, although usually in a more radical and simplistic form. The fundamentalist view of salvation, for instance, is radically different from that of Luther but couldn’t exist if not for Luther. But we aren’t disagreeing very significantly. Sorry I misunderstood you.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[GoodME]

Protestantism is a reflection of the results it has produced:

• A system where the ministry is called by the congregation and is not established and charged by the authority of the Church. The result of this has been the splintering of the Faithful into 20,000 denominations.
• A system where “Scripture Alone” is preached. The result of this has been a loss of contact with the interpretations of the teachings of Christ as handed down to us by the Apostles and their followers, which are not exclusively contained in Scriptures and the loss of the understanding of the meaning of the Faith as it is taught by Scriptures, due to the disconnect with the history and practices of the early Church.
• A system where each person is his/her own “pontiff”. The result is a system of Faith practice that is non-determinate, sometimes random, and certainly practiced according to the individual, who may shape his/her Faith practice to be anything that they see is valid, using any justification that they please - in absence of a Church and the charge and authority of that Church to teach the Faithful.
• A system who’s practice of Faith is evidenced by intolerance and haterd and misinformation - ironically often directed at the Church that has attempted to stay true to the teachings and practices of the early Church.

If I am mis-representing your practice of your Protestant Faith - I am sorry. It is very hard to nail down just what IS Protestant Faith practice, as clearly, not even Scriptures themselves represent a valid play-book.

My firmness and my tone is from my sense of urgency that I hope you explore this site and these forum threads to possibly re-investigate your Faith Practice and to challenge your thoughts about what it means to follow Christ.

Just one man’s opinion.

 

[GoodME]

4. Believe that by saying something along the lines of “I accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior” that a person is then “saved”. For many protestants, growing close to God takes many years and rarely has some sort of epiphany that suddenly makes them become “saved”. As a believer of Reformed Theology, I personally believe that a person is not “saved” through their own personal act, but by God’s choice to elect the to heaven. Augustine taught a similar idea as have many Catholics over the years, unfortunately over the years, the apparent self-serving idea of free-will has developed and taken some of the glory away from the sovereign God.

This isn’t exactly what Augustine taught. Calvinism (“reformed” theology) is a “hard” election, where Augustine was a “soft” election .

Soft election - God acts on the heart of man, who simply only needs to yield to those Graces. However, man sometimes chooses “not God” in spite of these Graces.

Hard Election - the Graces of God are irresistable to the elect man, and represent the strong steering the weak . The problem here is that many who think this begin to lapse into “then the righteous man is incapable of sin”, etc., which is CLEARLY in error.

Just my thoughts.