Question for former Protestants

[MeaMaximaCulpa]

As I’m sure you’re aware, sola scriptura fails to provide a single gospel in which all “bible alone” Christians believe. A few examples:

1. Reformed Christians generally believe in OSAS; Pentecostals believe salvation can be lost. They can’t both be right, so at least one of these two groups have a false gospel.
2. Lutherans generally believe baptism is not merely symbolic (although not absolutely necessary, while Baptists believe baptism is merely symbolic. Again, they can’t both be right, so at least one of the two has the wrong gospel.
3. Southern Baptists believe women cannot be ordained. American Baptists believe women can be ordained. They can’t both be right, so one of these two has the wrong gospel.
4. John Calvin personally believed God predestined both the elect and the damned, but most modern Reformed Christians believe predestines only the elect. They can’t both be right, so…you get it by now.

I’m sure we could spend days pointing out all the different gospel versions that bible alone theology has provided. My question for any former Protestants is, how did you reconcile the fact that the gospel you discerned from the bible conflicted with seemingly countless other gospels that other bible alone Christians discerned from the same bible? Did it ever call into question the validity of sola scriptura? (If this is how God intended the one, true gospel to be conveyed to the world, why aren’t bible alone Christians even close to agreeing on what that one gospel is?) Did you simply remain quietly confident that you had the right gospel and never gave a moment’s thought that other Christians were just as confident that they had the right gospel? Did you not see a conflict in saying, “There are no infallible interpreters of scripture, but this interpretation is objectively wrong”?

I freely admit I view sola scriptura with Catholic eyes, but I’m trying to understand the mindset of someone whose theology seems so clearly flawed to me.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

As I’m sure you’re aware, sola scriptura fails to provide a single gospel in which all “bible alone” Christians believe. A few examples:

1. Reformed Christians generally believe in OSAS; Pentecostals believe salvation can be lost. They can’t both be right, so at least one of these two groups have a false gospel.
2. Lutherans generally believe baptism is not merely symbolic (although not absolutely necessary, while Baptists believe baptism is merely symbolic. Again, they can’t both be right, so at least one of the two has the wrong gospel.
3. Southern Baptists believe women cannot be ordained. American Baptists believe women can be ordained. They can’t both be right, so one of these two has the wrong gospel.
4. John Calvin personally believed God predestined both the elect and the damned, but most modern Reformed Christians believe predestines only the elect. They can’t both be right, so…you get it by now.

I’m sure we could spend days pointing out all the different gospel versions that bible alone theology has provided. My question for any former Protestants is, how did you reconcile the fact that the gospel you discerned from the bible conflicted with seemingly countless other gospels that other bible alone Christians discerned from the same bible?

My understanding of it, at that time, is that while we differed on “non-essentials”, we all agreed on “essentials” like the Trinity doctrine, so it was okay. God would not hold you to account so long as you did the best you could with what you did have.

Did it ever call into question the validity of sola scriptura? (If this is how God intended the one, true gospel to be conveyed to the world, why aren’t bible alone Christians even close to agreeing on what that one gospel is?)

Absolutely. Talk to 5 different protestant pastors and you might get 5 different opinions on various subjects.

Did you simply remain quietly confident that you had the right gospel and never gave a moment’s thought that other Christians were just as confident that they had the right gospel? Did you not see a conflict in saying, “There are no infallible interpreters of scripture, but this interpretation is objectively wrong”?

On the protestant side, as a totality anyway, my pastor’s interpretation really never held anymore weight than my own interpretation. So not many that i knew were puffed up with pride over it. People simply did the best they could and did not dwell over disagreements much.

I freely admit I view sola scriptura with Catholic eyes, but I’m trying to understand the mindset of someone whose theology seems so clearly flawed to me.

I knew it was flawed from the outset based upon the thousands of denominations we had. This 6 minute clip from Pat Madrid sums up perfectly as to why it simply does not pass the test:

youtube.com/watch?v=NnwHATcBbNE

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I’m sure we could spend days pointing out all the different gospel versions that bible alone theology has provided. My question for any former Protestants is, how did you reconcile the fact that the gospel you discerned from the bible conflicted with seemingly countless other gospels that other bible alone Christians discerned from the same bible? Did it ever call into question the validity of sola scriptura? (If this is how God intended the one, true gospel to be conveyed to the world, why aren’t bible alone Christians even close to agreeing on what that one gospel is?) Did you simply remain quietly confident that you had the right gospel and never gave a moment’s thought that other Christians were just as confident that they had the right gospel? Did you not see a conflict in saying, “There are no infallible interpreters of scripture, but this interpretation is objectively wrong”?

I freely admit I view sola scriptura with Catholic eyes, but I’m trying to understand the mindset of someone whose theology seems so clearly flawed to me.

Well the problem here is that (through no fault of your own), you’re taking on a very Catholic perspective of Protestantism.

First, when I was an Evangelical, though I had a particular theological mindset, I never viewed my church from the perspective of it being “the one true Church,” and I suspect that most Evangelicals are the same way (I can’t speak for Lutherans and some of the other major “mainline” Protestant denominations). Growing up Pentecostal, one of the signature beliefs that differentiated our denomination (grew up in the Assemblies of God) from others is the idea of Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the physical evidence of tongues. Although of course we believed that our theology was more correct, differences between other groups were simply taken as pious differences. Perhaps on some level there was an implicit understanding that no one was going to agree on absolutely, and generally, as long as someone got the essential Christian beliefs correct, it didn’t really matter. Whether Lutherans believed that the Eucharist was truly Jesus’ body and blood didn’t really matter in terms of salvation, they were just incorrect.

Do different Christians of varying Protestant denominations and faith groups get into arguments or disagreements on specific beliefs? Sure do. I remember once my parents in a church we attended (that was non-denominational), got into a furious argument with a pastor who had explicitly rejected the gift of tongues right from the pulpit. Boy was that utterly embarrassing for me to witness by the way.

The point of Sola Scriptura wasn’t that everyone would come to agreement on doctrine, but rather that all your beliefs should be backed up fully by scripture. I don’t think there is any Protestant, whether mainline or Evangelical, that believes that everyone will simply conform to one understanding of scripture.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… differences between other groups were simply taken as pious differences. Perhaps on some level there was an implicit understanding that no one was going to agree on absolutely, and generally, as long as someone got the essential Christian beliefs correct, it didn’t really matter. Whether Lutherans believed that the Eucharist was truly Jesus’ body and blood didn’t really matter at least to some others!*] in terms of salvation … I don’t think there is any Protestant, whether mainline or Evangelical, that believes that everyone will simply conform to one understanding of scripture.

*my addition]

This conforms to the mix of people I’ve known and know in the UK.

The Holy Trinity and some form of general conversion of life or heart, and generally not altogether ignoring the Bible, that’s the core.

God helps people whose hearts are halfway good, to get some way along the road even if their theology is a bit dodgy in parts. He’s funny like that. And some of them can be great to fellowship with.

If somebody first picked an argument in the year 1500, it carries on, for centuries. It may or may not now be a central point for individuals or particular groups.

 

[Michael1966]

Hello Mea,

From my experience I think that it isn’t necessary to link Protestantism with Sola Scripture. I was brought up a Methodist which values a ‘Quadilateral’ of scripture, tradition, reason and experience. In many ways I am returning more to that as I get older, with an increasing understanding that both scripture and tradition are also influenced by reason and experience.

I find it hard to understand how in our age of more thorough scientific exploration anyone holds simply to scripture and/or tradition as ultimate authorities. I think we have clearly added to those perspectives, though that does not mean we have to dismiss everything those perspectives have to say.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I freely admit I view sola scriptura with Catholic eyes, but I’m trying to understand the mindset of someone whose theology seems so clearly flawed to me.

Well, as a former Presbyterian who never really bothered to investigate Calvinism in any depth, I really did not care what other “Gospel” other Protestants (Or Catholics for that matter) might have believed. We live in a democracy, and in Australia at least, Jack is as good as his master (supposedly). We’re probably more egalitarian than Americans in that respect. Such social attitudes are bound to have an influence on religious life, whether we like it or not.

I suppose that having a Methodist trained pastor who was somewhat cynical about the hardline Calvinist boys may have had something to do with it as well, since he didn’t spend much time brow beating the congregation over which “Gospel” was correct. If anything his sermons were mainly reminders about how*** we*** ought to live as Christians, rather than theological point scoring.

So most of the time the question never entered my mind.

I suppose one turning point was when the old pastor, in one of our talks in his office, commented “When it comes to theology, Protestants couldn’t agree how far to spit!” and “I sometimes wonder if Protestants get into heaven.” There was another occasion not long before he died, when he was quite worried his rejection of the Papacy was a “heresy”.

After he died, and whenever I attended or joined another church, these differences became a more noticeable. But had I found another Protestant church where I really felt “at home”, I probably would have swept these concerns under the carpet, and stayed Protestant. The only problem was that God was making sure i didn’t, and no matter where I went this sense of frustration stayed with me. In addition, He was pushing the Catholic Church into my mind.

But it wasn’t because I analysed deeply the differences between Protestant denominations.

And most Protestants don’t. They “live” their Christian life, or try to. Theological differences are for the nerds, or at the very least, they expect their leaders to be able to justify their stance if and when necessary.

People make a church. It’s all very well saying the Holy Spirit is the author of the Church, and no doubt He is. But the reality is that much of what constitutes the attractiveness or unattractiveness of a church is the people and their attitude - welcoming, cool, indifferent, hostile, warm, whatever. And the reason I enjoyed my Presbyterian Church was the quality of the people.

Which is where the Catholic Church can learn a bit (a lot?) from the Protestants. Until your average Catholic Church becomes as welcoming as your average Protestant Church, all the theological point scoring in the world won’t make much difference.

 

[Cloisters]

I just keep my eyes on Jesus Hostia; pray the Office; attempt Lectio; pray the rosary and Divine Mercy chaplet; and do unto others as I would be done to – all while keeping in mind that God does see and hear everything I do.

I was raised Southern Baptist. I found a brochure on “Where We Got the Sacraments” and looked everything up in the Bible. Everything was there. I noticed my attraction to the Catholic church building itself, not understanding why my heart burned warmly when I got around it. A Catholic friend gave me a rosary and how to pray it brochure, and I spent a wonderful summer occupied by it. I couldn’t understand why Catholics were so worldly when they had the Sacraments and Sacramentals.

Essentially, Mary brought me into the church. At the tender age of 16, after one of the most horrific family experiences, I was received into the Church. “Tiber Swim Team 1980.”

Then mom didn’t consider herself ready to die in 2010 until a family priest-friend anointed her.

I have met some truly Spirit-filled Protestants with whom I would rather hob-nob than Catholics-only-in-name (COINs), or the falsely devout Catholics (Amelia-of-Fatima Catholics). St. Francis de Sales deplores the latter, as well. “Devout pietism” I think it’s called.

So, that being said, I live as simply as possible, in obedience to God and husband (and kids), attempting to be a contemplative in the world in the hermitage of the heart.

Blessings,
Cloisters

 

[MT1926]

I knew it was flawed from the outset based upon the thousands of denominations we had. This 6 minute clip from Pat Madrid sums up perfectly as to why it simply does not pass the test:

youtube.com/watch?v=NnwHATcBbNE

Excellent clip. Thank you.

"I never said you stole money."

Wow. Simple to the point. A six word sentence that can have 5 different meanings.

Never understood why people won’t accept the logical fact that the Bible cannot remain inerrant when our fallible minds are doing the interpreting.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

As I’m sure you’re aware, sola scriptura fails to provide a single gospel in which all “bible alone” Christians believe. A few examples:

1. Reformed Christians generally believe in OSAS; Pentecostals believe salvation can be lost. They can’t both be right, so at least one of these two groups have a false gospel.

First, I don’t think it is a false gospel, but their interpretation. When I was Protestant, I always felt OSAS, as long as I believed that Jesus died for my sins and He was my Savior, I was good.

1. Lutherans generally believe baptism is not merely symbolic (although not absolutely necessary, while Baptists believe baptism is merely symbolic. Again, they can’t both be right, so at least one of the two has the wrong gospel.

Again, I think it is a false interpretation of the Gospel. The denomination I came from doesn’t think (to my knowledge) that baptism is symbolic.

1. Southern Baptists believe women cannot be ordained. American Baptists believe women can be ordained. They can’t both be right, so one of these two has the wrong gospel.

I was never either, so I can’t really say. All I can say is that in the Catholic tradition, only men are ordained.

1. John Calvin personally believed God predestined both the elect and the damned, but most modern Reformed Christians believe predestines only the elect. They can’t both be right, so…you get it by now.When I was Protestant, I believed I was going to heaven. Now that I’m Catholic, I don’t know, because no one knows until that time.

I’m sure we could spend days pointing out all the different gospel versions that bible alone theology has provided. My question for any former Protestants is, how did you reconcile the fact that the gospel you discerned from the bible conflicted with seemingly countless other gospels that other bible alone Christians discerned from the same bible?

Didn’t give it much thought.Did it ever call into question the validity of sola scriptura? (If this is how God intended the one, true gospel to be conveyed to the world, why aren’t bible alone Christians even close to agreeing on what that one gospel is?) Did you simply remain quietly confident that you had the right gospel and never gave a moment’s thought that other Christians were just as confident that they had the right gospel? I thought my previous denomination had the “right” Gospel. Meaning, I thought they had the right interpretation of it. Didn’t see any issues until I started feeling called to the Catholic Church, and explored Catholicism.

Did you not see a conflict in saying, “There are no infallible interpreters of scripture, but this interpretation is objectively wrong”?Didn’t really give that much thought when I was Protestant, until I started to feel called to the Catholic Church.

I freely admit I view sola scriptura with Catholic eyes, but I’m trying to understand the mindset of someone whose theology seems so clearly flawed to me.

 

[Wannano]

As I’m sure you’re aware, sola scriptura fails to provide a single gospel in which all “bible alone” Christians believe. A few examples:

---

I am not invited to respond since I am not a former Protestant but I cannot keep silent. Your post has stirred up something in me that causes me to respond. Your first sentence is viciously wrong. You are so sure all are aware that “bible alone” Christians do not believe in one single gospel. Are you truthfully ignorant to the fact that they all agree on the Gospel message that Christ presented to the world?. They all believe in the birth, life, death and Resurrection of Christ which has resulted in eternal salvation for all who believe. THIS is the GOSPEL!

                                               **************

1. Reformed Christians generally believe in OSAS; Pentecostals believe salvation can be lost. They can’t both be right, so at least one of these two groups have a false gospel.

---

To call different ideas and interpretations a “false gospel” is very troubling language.

                                                        ************

1. Lutherans generally believe baptism is not merely symbolic (although not absolutely necessary, while Baptists believe baptism is merely symbolic. Again, they can’t both be right, so at least one of the two has the wrong gospel.

---

I am amazed that you would not insist on saying both of these groups have the wrong gospel!

                                                       **********

1. Southern Baptists believe women cannot be ordained. American Baptists believe women can be ordained. They can’t both be right, so one of these two has the wrong gospel.

---

The wrong gospel?.

1. John Calvin personally believed God predestined both the elect and the damned, but most modern Reformed Christians believe predestines only the elect. They can’t both be right, so…you get it by now.

---

No, I don’t get it by now. To me your logic is very shallow.

                                                   ************

I’m sure we could spend days pointing out all the different gospel versions that bible alone theology has provided. My question for any former Protestants is, how did you reconcile the fact that the gospel you discerned from the bible conflicted with seemingly countless other gospels that other bible alone Christians discerned from the same bible? Did it ever call into question the validity of sola scriptura? (If this is how God intended the one, true gospel to be conveyed to the world, why aren’t bible alone Christians even close to agreeing on what that one gospel is?) Did you simply remain quietly confident that you had the right gospel and never gave a moment’s thought that other Christians were just as confident that they had the right gospel? Did you not see a conflict in saying, “There are no infallible interpreters of scripture, but this interpretation is objectively wrong”?

I freely admit I view sola scriptura with Catholic eyes, but I’m trying to understand the mindset of someone whose theology seems so clearly flawed to me.

Thank you for giving us insight into framework for your formulations. If you truly are sincerely “trying to understand” you may need to reassess your methodology.

What you have presented here is no different in my opinion than what some Fundemental Protestants might present in “trying to understand” why someone would be a Catholic whose “theology seems so clearly flawed”.

Ps my apologies for messing up the above format!

Please understand I get evenly annoyed with either Protestants or Catholics who do this.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Excellent clip. Thank you.

"I never said you stole money."

Wow. Simple to the point. A six word sentence that can have 5 different meanings.

Never understood why people won’t accept the logical fact that the Bible cannot remain inerrant when our fallible minds are doing the interpreting.

You are very welcome, friend.

I found that clip to be pretty revealing as well.

Books simply do not interpret themselves. If you wrote a book right now, then shot it to the moon, only to be recovered 2,000 years later by a group of Russians, there just might be some difficulty discerning the exact message that you, as the author, was trying to convey. Different language that may have changed much over that time, with strange idioms in a totally different culture/era. And what about gestures that may or may not have taken place? You absolutely need Sacred Tradition and access to Patristic work in order to have a full and correct understanding of the Scriptures imo. And even then that doesn’t factor in the personal filter that each individual has when interpreting said work. So you also need the Holy Spirit. And Protestants understand and acknowledge that part while neglecting the former.

 

[misspriss]

I don’t think I have much of an answer for these questions, as it was just what I was taught. I drifted away from my Baptist upbringing in high school, partly because I was into some fairly sinful stuff, and partly because I didn’t feel like what the Southern Baptists believed made total sense. I couldn’t wrap my head around OSAS, since I was “saved” when I was 7, does that mean the rest of my life didn’t matter? Why bother going to church and refraining from sin if it didn’t matter? Why was that okay? It was not logical.

The Catholic church cleared up all the inaccuracies I found in my Baptist upbringing, I wish I could remember and list them all but I remember the more I learned I had so many “aha!” moments it wasn’t even funny.

But I converted very early in my adult life, I didn’t have a time when I researched and defended the beliefs of the Southern Baptists, as soon as I got to an age where I wasn’t simply accepting what I was taught, I started to have doubts and see holes and inaccuracies.

 

[Richard_White]

I have always been Catholic, but after reading your OP, I just wanted to remark that one of the things that I have realized as of late is that with most people in the world today, there is no one, single Truth that is being held above other ideas. Although there are various different denominations and thought processes out there with some very different ideas, they, at the same time, are perfectly fine with other denominations and thought processes being at the same level as them. According to Dr. Alister McGrath in The Twilight of Atheism (which I just had to read for my Theology class), this very tolerant approach and lack of identifying one, single method of Truth is the hallmark of postmodern thought, which does not wish to impose anything on anyone else, but fosters a culture that believes in “multiple truths and multiple methods to get there.”

Anyway, just my two cents. May God bless you all!

 

[Wannano]

I don’t think I have much of an answer for these questions, as it was just what I was taught. I drifted away from my Baptist upbringing in high school, partly because I was into some fairly sinful stuff, and partly because I didn’t feel like what the Southern Baptists believed made total sense. I couldn’t wrap my head around OSAS, since I was “saved” when I was 7, does that mean the rest of my life didn’t matter? Why bother going to church and refraining from sin if it didn’t matter? Why was that okay? It was not logical.

The Catholic church cleared up all the inaccuracies I found in my Baptist upbringing, I wish I could remember and list them all but I remember the more I learned I had so many “aha!” moments it wasn’t even funny.

But I converted very early in my adult life, I didn’t have a time when I researched and defended the beliefs of the Southern Baptists, as soon as I got to an age where I wasn’t simply accepting what I was taught, I started to have doubts and see holes and inaccuracies.

I am happy for you that you found what you needed. I am hoping that you also are aware that not all non-Catholics believe in OSAS either.

 

[JustaServant]

Thank you for giving us insight into framework for your formulations. If you truly are sincerely “trying to understand” you may need to reassess your methodology.

What you have presented here is no different in my opinion than what some Fundemental Protestants might present in “trying to understand” why someone would be a Catholic whose “theology seems so clearly flawed”.

Ps my apologies for messing up the above format!

Please understand I get evenly annoyed with either Protestants or Catholics who do this.

I would tend to agree.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I am happy for you that you found what you needed. I am hoping that you also are aware that not all non-Catholics believe in OSAS either.

Praise God for that.

 

[misspriss]

I am happy for you that you found what you needed. I am hoping that you also are aware that not all non-Catholics believe in OSAS either.

Oh I am aware, I didn’t mean to imply they did. That was just all I knew. When I learned about the Catholic church though it did just fill in all the holes so perfectly, I found the answers to all my questions I saw no reason to keep looking.

 

[Little_Mary]

Thank you for giving us insight into framework for your formulations. If you truly are sincerely “trying to understand” you may need to reassess your methodology.

What you have presented here is no different in my opinion than what some Fundemental Protestants might present in “trying to understand” why someone would be a Catholic whose “theology seems so clearly flawed”.

Ps my apologies for messing up the above format!

Please understand I get evenly annoyed with either Protestants or Catholics who do this.

I don’t agree. I think the OP did a good job of sounding as charitable as possible. I did not read the questions as “challenging”. Maybe that’s because I, too, have wondered what most protestants think about other protestant churches with different interpretations.

The common answer I’m seeing here so far is that most protestants don’t really think about it much. They use the essential vs. non-essential argument.

I regularly field questions from a protestant BIL who describes himself as a fundamentalist. He truly believes that the Catholic church is the whore of babylon, etc. When he questions me, his questions are biting and thoroughly uncharitable. He is not interested in my responses, only in making his point. That was not my impression of the original post here.

But look at the two of us, reading the same thing and taking it two entirely different ways!

Sound familiar?

Pax

 

[rft183]

I don’t agree. I think the OP did a good job of sounding as charitable as possible. I did not read the questions as “challenging”. Maybe that’s because I, too, have wondered what most protestants think about other protestant churches with different interpretations.

The common answer I’m seeing here so far is that most protestants don’t really think about it much. They use the essential vs. non-essential argument.

I regularly field questions from a protestant BIL who describes himself as a fundamentalist. He truly believes that the Catholic church is the whore of babylon, etc. When he questions me, his questions are biting and thoroughly uncharitable. He is not interested in my responses, only in making his point. That was not my impression of the original post here.

But look at the two of us, reading the same thing and taking it two entirely different ways!

Sound familiar?

Pax

It seems to me that the Catholic OP and the Protestant (Wannano) are using two different meanings of the word gospel… To the Catholic, the gospel is the entirety of what the church teaches. But to the Protestant, it is the virgin birth, the crucifixion, and the resurrection - that Christ died for our sins. To the Catholic, the gospel includes all of that and so much more.

 

[Wannano]

It seems to me that the Catholic OP and the Protestant (Wannano) are using two different meanings of the word gospel… To the Catholic, the gospel is the entirety of what the church teaches. But to the Protestant, it is the virgin birth, the crucifixion, and the resurrection - that Christ died for our sins. To the Catholic, the gospel includes all of that and so much more.

Interesting insight, certainly in the Protestant realm, people who incur others with different interpretations of something non-essential do not claim the other has a false gospel. You present a profitable observation.