Protestantism just makes no sense to me.

[JonNC]

Yeah, I admit I’m worthless. I had a few good days this week where I was charitable and loving somewhat. But today, fostered by a loss of sleep, I’m back to being my old vice-ridden self. Sorry for subjecting all of you to my miserable attitude like that.

70 times 7 times. You are not worthless, anymore than the rest of us.

I look forward to dialogue with you - once you’ve had some sleep.

Jon

 

[sdegutis]

My beloved Saint Francis de Sales, with his extraordinary meekness and kindness and gentleness, has made much kinder and better than I all the major arguments I would make anyway. So I only wish to refer anyone who seeks God to his work The Catholic Controversy, which is freely available online. He’s so loving that every time I read anything he writes, I feel like he’s giving me a hug in spirit somehow. No wonder he converted over 70,000 Calvinists in just 4 years!

 

[tabycat]

What is so sad is that Christiams know so little about Christianty of any type.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yeah, I admit I’m worthless. I had a few good days this week where I was charitable and loving somewhat. But today, fostered by a loss of sleep, I’m back to being my old vice-ridden self. Sorry for subjecting all of you to my miserable attitude like that.

Not worthless, just not thinking before posting… I am guilty of that as well

The best way to avoid it is to remember that “God opposes the proud but gives Grace to the humble”.

Thank you for being humble and charitable, and to express remorse and apologies is a very hard thing to do indeed.

Peace.

 

[Chuck_Finley]

kbwall:

Indeed, it is quite sad how many Protestants are so incrediblty ignorant of Catholicism…

Wait for it…wait for it…

I mean, most protestants go by Sola Scriptura. This means they trust the Bible, but they act as though the Bible just appeared out of thin air. It wasn’t, it was written and assembled by the early Church. Then, any Christian with a lick of common sense then must conclude that the Holy Spirit guided the early Church while they wrote and assembled the Bible.

BAM!

So, what was it you were saying about us being ignorant of* your *beliefs?

They decide that confession is wrong

What Protestants believe confession is wrong?

they decide the Eucharist is symbolic

And that’s wrong because…

If God is a real, true entity that we are to follow and obey (and not some ambiguous thing that people have mixed feelings about and can take or leave), then one would think that He would have only one ground set of rules. The Catholic Church is the only branch that claims to have that. From what I can tell, most branches of Protestantism seem to leave most major decisions up to individual interpretation. I’m sorry, but this just doesn’t seem the way an Almighty God would have us do things at all.

My, that’s some straw man you’ve got there. Why do you think we have creeds, confessions, and catechisms?

Christ talked about unification and the like. The Catholic church seems to be the only Christian Church that even has unity. If a Baptist or a Methodist or Lutheran stood up and made a bold and perhaps heretical statement, not many people care. He can be easily ignored for being a fanatic, even by other Baptists, Methodists, or Lutherans.

Actually, he would be corrected and given an opportunity to repent. If he did not, he would be disciplined up to and including excommunication.

I just don’t see how so many people can be Protestant. Of course I love them and acknowledge them as Christians

And what better way to show that you love us by being dishonest about what we believe?

 

[sdegutis]

Chuck, what “denomination” do you belong to? What are your main beliefs about how to be saved?

 

[sdegutis]

To anyone who is not a Catholic, let me ask you:

By what means are you certain that your understanding of Scripture is correct and not someone else’s understanding that contradicts yours? Do you claim it’s because your interpretation of such and such verse makes sense in light of other passages of Scripture? What then about someone else’s contradicting interpretation of that same passage that uses even other verses to prove their point? And don’t you have any concern that perhaps, not having the ability to memorize the entirety of Scripture at any given point in time, you may have omitted one or another verse which sheds even more light on your interpretation of the passage in question? Don’t you think this is a very shaky method of interpreting Scripture?

 

[Prosmith]

I’ve tried to wrap my head around it, but nothing about them makes sense. Forgive my bluntness, but to me the whole idea of protestantism just seems to stem completely from ignorance. Indeed, it is quite sad how many Protestants are so incrediblty ignorant of Catholicism, and see it as this weird “other” branch of Christianity. Some don’t even consider it Christianity, which is perhaps the most depressing part of it all.

I mean, most protestants go by Sola Scriptura. This means they trust the Bible, but they act as though the Bible just appeared out of thin air. It wasn’t, it was written and assembled by the early Church. Then, any Christian with a lick of common sense then must conclude that the Holy Spirit guided the early Church while they wrote and assembled the Bible. Even the most stubborn protestants must accept that the Catholic church was God’s true church. So, do protestants just think God abandonned the Catholic Church halfway through or something? I find this to be the biggest whole in Protestant logic. The Bible had to come from somewhere, and if it came from the Catholic church, then that must mean the Catholic church has authority from God.

There’s also the accusation of the supposed manmade traditions of the Church. If anything, Protestantism seems far more guilty of that than Catholicism. Protestantism picks and chooses what to do and what not to do. They decide that confession is wrong, because sin should be private, they decide the Eucharist is symbolic, the multitude of different doctrines based on different readings of scripture, etc. and unlike Catholics, they do not even claim the Holy Spirit is guiding them. For one thing, it’s not even possible for all these different interpretations to be true. If God is a real, true entity that we are to follow and obey (and not some ambiguous thing that people have mixed feelings about and can take or leave), then one would think that He would have only one ground set of rules. The Catholic Church is the only branch that claims to have that. From what I can tell, most branches of Protestantism seem to leave most major decisions up to individual interpretation. I’m sorry, but this just doesn’t seem the way an Almighty God would have us do things at all.

Christ talked about unification and the like. The Catholic church seems to be the only Christian Church that even has unity. If a Baptist or a Methodist or Lutheran stood up and made a bold and perhaps heretical statement, not many people care. He can be easily ignored for being a fanatic, even by other Baptists, Methodists, or Lutherans. However, if a Catholic preist or bishop says anything, people listen. Because he is part of an organization, and he has people to answer to. He represents the church anytime he speaks out in public. Because Catholic have unity. Protestants seem to be all over the place.

I just don’t see how so many people can be Protestant. Of course I love them and acknowledge them as Christians, and will continue to pray for them, But their logic just makes zero sense to me.

First of all, you are painting with a very broad brush here which leads me to believe that this is more of a shot at anyone who isn’t of your beliefs rather than a genuine misunderstanding on your part. If you make a statement that would truly make me believe that you honestly don’t understand why someone would not want to be Roman Catholic then I would gladly dialogue with you, but until then i think it’s nothing more than the same old light the fuse and run.

 

[benjohnson]

To anyone who is not a Catholic, let me ask you:

By what means are you certain that your understanding of Scripture is correct and not someone else’s understanding that contradicts yours? Do you claim it’s because your interpretation of such and such verse makes sense in light of other passages of Scripture? What then about someone else’s contradicting interpretation of that same passage that uses even other verses to prove their point? And don’t you have any concern that perhaps, not having the ability to memorize the entirety of Scripture at any given point in time, you may have omitted one or another verse which sheds even more light on your interpretation of the passage in question? Don’t you think this is a very shaky method of interpreting Scripture?

As a Lutheran - I am constantly corrected by tradition, my pastor, my catechism, my creed, and fellow Lutherans.

For Lutherans, scripture only overrules other authorities in the case of doctrine. And as a lay person, that is well outside my purview.

As a Lutherans,- I am baptized, I attend church, I repeadidly confess our sins, I receive the true Body and Blood of Christ, and I return the grace I have been given with as much faith as I can.

So I don’t study the bible for any extra grace, only that my faith be renewed.

 

[sdegutis]

As a Lutheran - I am constantly corrected by tradition, my pastor, my catechism, my creed, and fellow Lutherans.

For Lutherans, scripture only overrules other authorities in the case of doctrine. And as a lay person, that is well outside my purview.

As a Lutherans,- I am baptized, I attend church, I repeadidly confess our sins, I receive the true Body and Blood of Christ, and I return the grace I have been given with as much faith as I can.

So I don’t study the bible for any extra grace, only that my faith be renewed.

You appeal to the authority of the Scriptures and to others’ interpretation of the Scriptures. Yet you do not appeal to my interpretation of the Scriptures. Why then do you appeal to the authority of your pastor, your catechism, your creed, and your fellow Lutherans? Do they not all derive their authority only from the Scriptures? Then why do you not also appeal to my authority for interpreting Scripture? For surely they and I have one in the same rule, so what makes their interpretation more worthy of authority than mine? And yet I have come up with a conflicting interpretation that they do not agree with. So which of us is right, and why?

 

[benjohnson]

You appeal to the authority of the Scriptures and to others’ interpretation of the Scriptures. Yet you do not appeal to my interpretation of the Scriptures. Why then do you appeal to the authority of your pastor, your catechism, your creed, and your fellow Lutherans? Do they not all derive their authority only from the Scriptures? Then why do you not also appeal to my authority for interpreting Scripture? For surely they and I have one in the same rule, so what makes their interpretation more worthy of authority than mine? And yet I have come up with a conflicting interpretation that they do not agree with. So which of us is right, and why?

For Lutherans - scripture is only the final authority on measuring doctrine. Otherwise, we submit to other authorities.

Of course, as you imply, there is an interpretation problem - in that Lutherans could very will have an incorrect “personal interpretation” of the Bible.

That doesn’t let you off the hook as a Catholic, as I have witnessed some Catholics having a “personal interpretation” of the teachings of Magisterium - for example SSPX.

Lutherans must look past their “personal interpretation” problem and do their best to bind their consciousness to God. I would think that this would be wise for Catholics as well.

 

[sdegutis]

For Lutherans - scripture is only the final authority on measuring doctrine. Otherwise, we submit to other authorities.

Of course, as you imply, there is an interpretation problem - in that Lutherans could very will have an incorrect “personal interpretation” of the Bible.

That doesn’t let you off the hook as a Catholic, as I have witnessed some Catholics having a “personal interpretation” of the teachings of Magisterium - for example SSPX.

Lutherans must look past their “personal interpretation” problem and do their best to bind their consciousness to God. I would think that this would be wise for Catholics as well.

My beloved Saint Francis de Sales answered this so beautifully: “Whoever says that our Master has not left us guides in so dangerous and difficult a way, says that he wishes us to perish. Whoever says that he has put us aboard at the mercy of wind and tide, without giving us a skilful pilot able to use properly his compass and Chart, says that the Saviour is wanting in foresight. Whoever says that this good Father has sent us into this school of the Church, knowing that error was taught there, says that he intended to foster our vice and our ignorance.”

These facts apply just as well to Luther as to the SSPX.

 

[sdegutis]

For Lutherans - scripture is only the final authority on measuring doctrine. Otherwise, we submit to other authorities.

Of course, as you imply, there is an interpretation problem - in that Lutherans could very will have an incorrect “personal interpretation” of the Bible.

That doesn’t let you off the hook as a Catholic, as I have witnessed some Catholics having a “personal interpretation” of the teachings of Magisterium - for example SSPX.

Lutherans must look past their “personal interpretation” problem and do their best to bind their consciousness to God. I would think that this would be wise for Catholics as well.

If Scripture is the final authority, then to what authority do you appeal when understanding Scripture is the problem? Personal interpretation varies thus proving it is not reliable.

Although many Catholics use the same technique for interpretation, it doesn’t validate it by any means, it only means those Catholics are acting erroneously and inconsistently with their religion’s definitive doctrines. SSPX are no exception.

What does it mean to “bind our consciousness to God”? It seems irrelevant to the discussion of interpreting Scripture correctly. Or else, do you mean that there is no hope of interpreting Scripture infallibly? In that case, what good is Scripture’s own infallibility if it’s inaccessible to us through an infallible interpreter?

 

[benjohnson]

If Scripture is the final authority, then to what authority do you appeal when understanding Scripture is the problem? Personal interpretation varies thus proving it is not reliable.

That’s certainly is a problem. As far as I know, Lutherans have only had to defer to scripture as the finally authority for doctrine twice in about 1700 years. Otherwise we defer to other authorities.

Although many Catholics use the same technique for interpretation, it doesn’t validate it by any means, it only means those Catholics are acting erroneously and inconsistently with their religion’s definitive doctrines. SSPX are no exception.

I’m always suspicious of Biblical interpretation - especially my own. That’s why I don’t do it if I can avoid it. As such, I’ve been taught by church and tradition.

I don’t think SSPX is an issue because of poor Biblical interpretation, but because of someones own well-meaning interpretation of the Magisterium. I certainly could be wrong in this!

What does it mean to “bind our consciousness to God”? It seems irrelevant to the discussion of interpreting Scripture correctly. Or else, do you mean that there is no hope of interpreting Scripture infallibly? In that case, what good is Scripture’s own infallibility if it’s inaccessible to us through an infallible interpreter?

Scripture itself isn’t fallible - it’s the written word of God. But as a Lutheran, I admit that we could be mistaken by our own interpretation of the Bible. Perhaps if we are able, we could come close to God as possible, and perhaps we could do his will in spite of ourselves. I pray that others have better success than I. I’m a mess. If I had to guess, the Catholic Pope is doing a good job of it.

 

[sdegutis]

That’s certainly is a problem. As far as I know, Lutherans have only had to defer to scripture as the finally authority for doctrine twice in about 1700 years. Otherwise we defer to other authorities.

I’m always suspicious of Biblical interpretation - especially my own. That’s why I don’t do it if I can avoid it. As such, I’ve been taught by church and tradition.

I don’t think SSPX is an issue because of poor Biblical interpretation, but because of someones own well-meaning interpretation of the Magisterium. I certainly could be wrong in this!

Scripture isn’t fallible - it’s the written word of God. But as a Lutheran, I admit that we could be mistaken by our own interpretation of the Bible. Perhaps if we are able, we could come close to God as possible, and perhaps we could do his will in spite of ourselves. I pray that others have better success than I. I’m a mess. If I had to guess, the Catholic Pope is doing a good job of it.

But you must see that it is a contradiction to say that Holy Scripture is infallible yet cannot be interpreted infallibly. In your view, there is no safe way of interpreting Scripture with any kind of assurance. So then, what use to us is the very fact that it’s infallible? If God decided it should be infallible for our benefit, does it make more sense that he should provide us an infallible way to interpret it, or that we should be left crossing our fingers merely hoping we might have interpreted it the way he intended us to?

 

[sdegutis]

The Saint also says:

“It is not the Scripture which requires a foreign light or rule, as Beza thinks we believe; it is our glosses, our conclusions, understandings, interpretations, conjectures, additions, and other such workings of man’s brain, which, being unable to be quiet, is ever busied about new inventions. Certainly we do not want a judge to decide between us and God, as he seems to infer in his Letter. It is between a man such as Calvin, Luther, Beza, and another such as Eckius, Fisher, More; for we do not ask whether God understands the Scripture better than we do, but whether Calvin understands it better than S. Augustine or S. Cyprian. S. Hilary says excellently (Lib. 2 de Trin. xviii.) ‘Heresy is in the understanding, not in the Scripture, and the fault is in the meaning, not in the words.’ and S. Augustine (In Joan. Tr. xviii, i.): ‘Heresies arise simply from this, that good Scriptures are ill-understood, and what is ill-understood in them is also rashly and presumptuously given forth.’ It is a true Michol’s game; it is to cover a statue, made expressly with the clothes of David (1 Kings xix.) He who looks at it thinks he has seen David, but he is deceived, David is not there. Heresy covers up, in the bed of its brain, the statue of its own opinion in the clothes of Holy Scripture. He who sees this doctrine thinks he has seen the Holy Word of God, but he is mistaken; it is not there. The words are there, but not the meaning. ‘The Scriptures,’ says S. Jerome, ( Adv. Lucif. 28. ) ‘consist not in the reading but in the understanding:’ that is, faith is not in the knowing the words but the sense. And it is here that I think I have thoroughly proved that we have need of another rule for our faith, besides the rule of Holy Scripture. ‘If the world last long,’ said Luther once by good hap (Contr. Zwin. et. Oecol), ‘it will be again necessary, on account of the different interpretations of Scripture which now exist, that to preserve the unity of the faith we should receive the Councils and decrees and fly to them for refuge.’ He acknowledges that formerly they were received, and that afterwards they will have to be.”

 

[AbideWithMe]

I pray that others have better success than I. I’m a mess.

You’re quite charitable in your posts; that’s no small thing.

 

[benjohnson]

But you must see that it is a contradiction to say that Holy Scripture is infallible yet cannot be interpreted infallibly. In your view, there is no safe way of interpreting Scripture with any kind of assurance. So then, what use to us is the very fact that it’s infallible? If God decided it should be infallible for our benefit, does it make more sense that he should provide us an infallible way to interpret it, or that we should be left crossing our fingers merely hoping we might have interpreted it the way he intended us to?

I make no claim of perferfection. In fact I deny it. I would be estatic if you could show me obvious perfection.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’ve tried to wrap my head around it, but nothing about them makes sense. Forgive my bluntness, but to me the whole idea of protestantism just seems to stem completely from ignorance. Indeed, it is quite sad how many Protestants are so incrediblty ignorant of Catholicism, and see it as this weird “other” branch of Christianity. Some don’t even consider it Christianity, which is perhaps the most depressing part of it all.

I mean, most protestants go by Sola Scriptura. This means they trust the Bible, but they act as though the Bible just appeared out of thin air. It wasn’t, it was written and assembled by the early Church. Then, any Christian with a lick of common sense then must conclude that the Holy Spirit guided the early Church while they wrote and assembled the Bible. Even the most stubborn protestants must accept that the Catholic church was God’s true church. So, do protestants just think God abandonned the Catholic Church halfway through or something? I find this to be the biggest whole in Protestant logic. The Bible had to come from somewhere, and if it came from the Catholic church, then that must mean the Catholic church has authority from God.

There’s also the accusation of the supposed manmade traditions of the Church. If anything, Protestantism seems far more guilty of that than Catholicism. Protestantism picks and chooses what to do and what not to do. They decide that confession is wrong, because sin should be private, they decide the Eucharist is symbolic, the multitude of different doctrines based on different readings of scripture, etc. and unlike Catholics, they do not even claim the Holy Spirit is guiding them. For one thing, it’s not even possible for all these different interpretations to be true. If God is a real, true entity that we are to follow and obey (and not some ambiguous thing that people have mixed feelings about and can take or leave), then one would think that He would have only one ground set of rules. The Catholic Church is the only branch that claims to have that. From what I can tell, most branches of Protestantism seem to leave most major decisions up to individual interpretation. I’m sorry, but this just doesn’t seem the way an Almighty God would have us do things at all.

Christ talked about unification and the like. The Catholic church seems to be the only Christian Church that even has unity. If a Baptist or a Methodist or Lutheran stood up and made a bold and perhaps heretical statement, not many people care. He can be easily ignored for being a fanatic, even by other Baptists, Methodists, or Lutherans. However, if a Catholic preist or bishop says anything, people listen. Because he is part of an organization, and he has people to answer to. He represents the church anytime he speaks out in public. Because Catholic have unity. Protestants seem to be all over the place.

I just don’t see how so many people can be Protestant. Of course I love them and acknowledge them as Christians, and will continue to pray for them, But their logic just makes zero sense to me.

KB,

When I commenced posting on this site I put up some posts similar to this. Go back and check my profile of threads I started. I believe one of them was something like “why I can’t be Protestant” followed by 2 very similar postings. You could learn by reading the responses to this.

I would suggest something to you that may cause you to learn. The first thing I would do, and I know you did not ask, is to be brief in your question on posting. It would make it easier to respond to. When you include paragraphs of what you don’t agree with it is difficult to read. You could have just put a few sentences up and then as people posted salt the thread with the remainder of what you wrote. That is just a suggestion.

Next I would ask you to think about what it would be like to post in a sea of Muslims. Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, etc I disagree with all of them however they all look to the same guy we do and perhaps not wrapping your head around it may be a good thing because you will stay put.

I could never be Reformed. I have learned that if I were to be Reformed that I would probably find myself dialoguing regularly with Radical. You may want to engage Radical every now and again. You could learn something.

I could never be Lutheran. I have learned that if I would become Lutheran I would probably dialogue with John NC. I suggest you read those posts and learn from them.

I could never be Evangelical. You will find Abide With Me posting on your site and you may learn something here as well.

More imporantantly I have learned that beliefs are seated deep within the mind. Beliefs can be changed. The only person that can change those beliefs for me, is me. The same is true for you. I do understand how beliefs are formed and if you are interested I recommend reading “Submodalilties…Going Meta” by L. Michael Hall. I am about 1/2 way done with this but it is the best explanation and understanding of how beliefs are formed and can change. The changes of course are directed at the reader and not to changing the minds of others.

There is a way to change beliefs if you want to and the first step is to question them. If you cannot wrap your head around Protestant thought then try to understand that when asking a Protestant to change a belief you are asking them to question, to doubt, and I don’t know about you but that for me is unsettling. Be prepared to be geared towards doubting of your beliefs and questioning your beliefs.

So how do you wrap your head around Protestant beliefs? Read what Radical writes, read what John NC writes, Abide With Me writes and others, and accept what you can and question what causes you to doubt and question your own beliefs.

Just a thought.

 

[benjohnson]

You’re quite charitable in your posts; that’s no small thing.

Thank you for the encouragment! But I’ll admit that I’m only mimicking the hospitably, charity, and kindness that I see here demostrated here by others.