Why are you a Protestant(over Catholicism)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter QuietKarlos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, thank you for your reply
I just find it funny the only time where the words faith alone are in the Bible says:
James 2:26
“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

I don’t think a man can be justified by works can I add but when he is justified by faith from God’s grace he has to cooperate by doing works.

I think this makes sense. I’m sorry if I’m debating too much just saying why I believe what I believe.

Thanks and God Bless
 
The dead were judged according to their deeds, by what was written in the scrolls…All the dead were judged according to their deeds. (The Great White Throne Judgment in Revelation 20)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TULIPed said:
You might want to check with some Anglican friends about this (they’re Protestant you know). Here’s but one example:
Click to expand...
There is nothing you can tell me about Anglicanism. As an ex Anglican Churchwarden I read theology at Oxford where I served at “Mass” at Pusey house and went to the same confessor as CSLewis. To the extent that Anglicans venerate the Blessed Virgin Mary, it is only in their pursuit of Catholicism and their rejection of protestantism.
 
Last edited:
Maximian said:
To the extent that Anglicans venerate the Blessed Virgin Mary, it is only in their pursuit of Catholicism and their rejection of protestantism.
Click to expand...
Maybe. We weren’t talking motives though. Anglicans are Protestants, and they do venerate Mary. Reformed Protestants hold Mary in high regard. We do this because that is how scripture treats her. Plus, why wouldn’t we? We love Jesus. We love his mother. Could we do a better job? Always.
Maximian said:
There is nothing you can tell me about Anglicanism.
Click to expand...
Wow. That’s impressive. I’m a cradle Reformed Protestant and I’m still learning. In fact I would say the older I get, the more I realize I don’t know - about pretty much everything. So bravo.

Look - I think it’s wrong when Protestants make sweeping generalizations about Catholics. Like “Catholics practice idolatry when they worship Mary.” Maybe some do. Maybe some Protestants practice idolatry in the way they elevate scripture above all else.

When we generalize we drive people apart. Why not try and recognize that which brings us together. In short, why not give each other the benefit of the doubt?
 
Last edited:
QuietKarlos said:
to discuss my probably silly sometimes opinions
Click to expand...
On a primarily civil discussion board like this one (I’ve been on some real winners, believe me) I don’t consider anyone’s opinions silly. I also often tell people who are genuinely searching that there are no dumb questions. A very good friend of mine from years back once told me that anytime there is an exchange of ideas, only good can ultimately come from that. Penn Jillette, my favorite atheist, calls it “the great marketplace of ideas”, and says he loves listening to people of any persuasion discuss anything at all. So please don’t worry about how you may come across, and try not to be dismayed over how someone else may come across to you. It sounds so far like you have already mastered that one. 🙂

We are all the product of a lifetime of innumerable influences and (name removed by moderator)uts. As life goes on we will, of course, change our outlook on any number of things. We may look back (as I have done many, many times) and been totally embarrassed by something we have said or done. This is what makes listening to someone we may violently disagree with an exercise in patience and acceptance. It’s all good in the end. 😀
 
CelticWarlord said:
Penn Jillette, my favorite atheist, calls it “ the great marketplace of ideas ”, and says he loves listening to people of any persuasion discuss anything at all.
Click to expand...
Have you listened to Ricky Gervais speak about religion? I really like Ricky. I like his style of humor and how he humbles the proud. But his whole angle is “if you’re religious, you’re stupid.” For a smart guy like that, I just don’t get it.
 
I’ve heard the name but know nothing more about him. Sounds like he could be interesting. I’ll look for something of his today, thanks. 🙂
 
QuietKarlos said:
So why are you Protestant(rather than Catholic)?
Click to expand...
Like my name implies, I was raised Catholic. I believe in Scripture which teaches that grace & faith are imputed, rather than being infused. I believe I am a slave (meaning I am owned by my Master), rather than a servant (who is not owned, but can quit at any time). As a slave, I desire to be obedient to my Master. So, I don’t believe I can “lose” my salvation, no-more than a slave can stop being a slave whenever he wants. I believe the church Jesus built would have the complete canon of Scripture, and I believe the Protestant Bible has that complete canon, while the Catholic canon remains “open” - potentially allowing more books into their canon in the future, which at present they don’t know if they are God-breathed or not.
 
RaisedCatholic said:
Like my name implies, I was raised Catholic. I believe in Scripture which teaches that grace & faith are imputed, rather than being infused. I believe I am a slave (meaning I am owned by my Master), rather than a servant (who is not owned, but can quit at any time). As a slave, I desire to be obedient to my Master. So, I don’t believe I can “lose” my salvation, no-more than a slave can stop being a slave whenever he wants. I believe the church Jesus built would have the complete canon of Scripture, and I believe the Protestant Bible has that complete canon, while the Catholic canon remains “open” - potentially allowing more books into their canon in the future, which at present they don’t know if they are God-breathed or not.
Click to expand...
Is yours a one-person religion? Do you “pick and choose” the doctrines that you like and those that don’t like? Do you have enough knowledge and understanding to “pick and choose” accurately? Are you your own “pope”? What about the spiritual gifts of other people across time and geography? Do you need them? Or, are they “nice to have”? Do you know the Bible in the original languages (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic) and ancient cultures to be able to interpret them correctly? What about the seven sacraments of the Church (baptism, confession, communion, confirmation, marriage, holy orders, anointing of the sick)? Do you need them or not? Do you need anyone’s graces beside your own? Are you not capable of sinning, apostasizing, being unfaithful to your LORD and falling away? How do you know that your Bible canon is correct? Before Martin Luther, the Bible was larger and included more books. Where was correct doctrine and practice before you came along? What if you’re wrong? God bless you.
 
Ok I’ll bite. I had many of these same questions about Catholicism, and so I went and read the RCC (among others). Please have a look at the 2nd Helvetic Confession of Faith (attached below) - it will answer most of the questions you’ve asked, at least with regard to Reformed Protestantism.

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/helvetic.htm

(This one is not used as often as the Westminster Confession, but I like it because it reads easier).
 
RaisedCatholic said:
I believe in Scripture which teaches that grace & faith are imputed, rather than being infused.
Click to expand...
Imputed righteousness is one of the primary theological reasons I’m a Reformed Protestant. Taking a scientific approach - when I look at my life empirically (and the sinfulness the permeates it), and I read scripture - it just makes a great deal of sense to me (and very, very thankful for a Savior!)
 
You see there are many other denominations that would disagree with your interpretation of scripture. These are smart people who know how to read.

This would leave me to believe that it would have been better if some higher authority was set up to guide us on what to believe. One that was divinely inspired and that God set up… Oh if only.

I’m sorry for my sarcasm but I just couldn’t be Protestant since i could never understand any of the Bible on my own. When something determines your salvation there needs to be a higher authority to explain how you get it and to put together what the Bible means.
 
QuietKarlos said:
You see there are many other denominations that would disagree with your interpretation of scripture. These are smart people who know how to read.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

There are smart people on both sides. I’m speaking for myself. I know my own heart (and how deceitful and sick it is). I know that I am never righteous - not even in the instant the communion wafer is dissolving on my tongue. Even then - ESPECIALLY then - I am aware of my sinfulness. And I am aware of my need for Christ.

I have read about and studied imparted righteousness. The regulars on this board know that I am a defender of, and thankful to Catholic orthodoxy. Without Catholics humbly and dutifully preserving our faith, who knows where we’d be.

But ultimately, I must believe and worship as I follow my heart in good conscience (see RCC 1776). And I so I read this (written I think by some smart people - like the RCC was written by smart people):

“For Christ took upon himself and bore the sins of the world, and satisfied divine justice. Therefore, solely on account of Christ’s sufferings and resurrection God is propitious with respect to our sins and does not impute them to us, but imputes Christ’s righteousness to us as our own (II Cor. 5;19 ff.; Rom. 4;25), so that now we are not only cleansed and purged from sins or are holy, but also, granted the righteousness of Christ, and so absolved from sin, death and condemnation, are at last righteous and heirs of eternal life. Properly speaking, therefore, God alone justifies us, and justifies only on account of Christ, not imputing sins to us but imputing his righteousness to us.” (2nd Helvetic Confession of Faith)

And it makes sense to me. It sits in harmony with what I see in my life. And I am thankful that “while I was yet a sinner, Christ died for me.”
 
iam ina wierd position most of my belives are catholics , i have been baptized as one when i was older and i accept most catholic belives but I do doubt some belives and kinda reject one.

the reason as to why i do is because i belive not all catholic tradition is infalibale beacuse simply there was been times where it was flat out wrong or have had significant changes over the centuries .

the biggest one and the one i reject is that infalabilty of the pope , and the notion of papal supremacy:

was this always true ? no ,this is one example of a catholic tradtion that evolved over the centuries and teaching that it was not is false.

now iam not saying the pope was like the rest he was not from the begining the patriach of rome had power and leverage but he was the supreme pontif that our mordern world knows him as, historians have cited multiple occurances that are against the notion of full papal supremacy in late antiquity and the early middle ages so much so that one who reads finds out that in the middle ages there was 2 phases of papal supreamcy .

the evidence against it overwiegths the evidence for it .

the others are not as big as a problem they are just ifs: example

was mary a perpetual virgin ? i have no clue , the earliest source for that was in the mid 2nd century not by a church father but by the Protoevangelium of James ( an apocryfull book) and its not till the early 4th century that we find this in orthodox teaching , does it really matter if she was not one? in my opinion no, but thats just me.

did mary asscend to heaven ? no clue , the sources of this come very late Epiphanius of Salamis wrote of his search for reliable traditions concerning the fate of Mary and his inability to discover any, he flat out said he does not know if she died naturarly a martyr or did not die.

again the first sources of the assendion of mary come from apocrypha

there is also minor one that peter founded the church of rome ( not the catholic church just the church of rome in the city of rome) which does not line up with the catholic timeline of the events of acts and the expulsion of the jews , it most likely that peter just took over once he arrived since the church in the city predates him.

in history and this also applies to this as well the earlier the source the better unless there is sufficient proof that the later source is just as valid, concerning that these traditions first come from apocrypha its not imposible to suggest that the church took these from apocryphal text and added them the traditions.

but other issues like faith and works i a clear example of protestant and catholic misunderstanding : both belive you are saved by faith alone , but like james said if you have faith with out works its dead: meaning you claim to be jesus follower in your lips , but dont do anything else and still live in your sins .
 
QuietKarlos said:
So I asked people in the forum why are they Christian and the discussion of Protestantism of course came up.

So why are you Protestant(rather than Catholic)?
Click to expand...
First, regarding practice and doctrine, use of the term Protestant is folly.
There is no Protestant church, or Protestantism in that regard.

As for me, I was, for a few years, continuing Anglican, but most of my life Lutheran (Evangelical Catholic).
I am a Lutheran because of its teachings on word and sacrament: baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, confession/ Holy Absolution, the real presence in the Lord’s Supper.
While these separate me from most western non-Catholic traditions, I am not Catholic in communion with the Bishop of Rome because I believe universal jurisdiction of the pope is contrary to scripture and the early Church.
 
Last edited:
Can you give an example of a Pope’s ex cathedra pronouncement that you reject?
 
That’s a curious take, because Catholics compiled the Bible originally, long before the Protestants decided to take some books out of it. How do you know they were correct in doing so?
 
Limoncello4021 said:
That’s a curious take, because Catholics compiled the Bible originally, long before the Protestants decided to take some books out of it. How do you know they were correct in doing so?
Click to expand...
That’s funny, because the principle person commissioned by the Pope to compile and translate the Bible into Latin, did so by placing them in a separate section designated as Deuterocanonical books, and said that while they are useful, they shouldn’t be used in the liturgy. Which sounds stunningly like the Reformers’ position on the Deuterocanonical works. It appears to me that the Reformers are actually taking the more ancient tradition on this matter.
 
Last edited:
I am watching a video with an ex Protestant who talks about the Papacy at the moment and I’m 55 minutes through but he does a great job on explaining the Papacy if you want to watch. It’s up to you but I have learned a lot from it so I’m sure you would too. God Bless

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top