Why I Can't be Protestant

[FabiusMaximus]

I agree 98% (Go europe! ). But I disagree with the Lutheran part - you have it mixed up. Lutherans are more in fear of going away from their Lutheran traditions and the Book of Concord . If it’s not prohibited in the Bible or the book of Concord, Lutherans generally don’t have a problem with you doing something.

Well since you’re in the Lutheran church right now (pending your official conversion to Catholicism) - I’d say you would know better .

Go Europe! May the Lord bless and guide our beloved Old Continent.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I can’t be a Protestant (ever again) because:

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide aren’t true; therefore, Protestantism isn’t true.

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

 

[CopticChristian]

What is wrong about being White and European? That’s one of the things I like about Christianity. I hate to break it to you, but despite its Middle Eastern origins, you’d be hard pressed to find someone who wouldn’t identify Catholicism as something largely White and European. Europeans have dominated its hierarchy and its theological development right from the very beginning of the faith. What’s the problem, here? Why do you have animosity towards Whites?

I’m proud of being a White European. I wouldn’t give that up for the world. This is what God willed me to be. And I embrace it with my whole being.

Protestants do believe in an infallible authority. They believe the Bible is the infallible authority. Lutherans I’d say are reluctant to go beyond what they believe is specifically mentioned in the Bible for fear of corruption.

Roman Catholicism is primarily White European. Deal with it. Embrace it. It’s beautiful. Can we now cut out the race question?

But you haven’t understood what I’ve been telling you, at any rate.

How do you expect to lead an Evangelical, for instance, to Catholicism if you compare him with a Mormon? Do you expect him to find Catholicism with a positive light? It’s counter-productive to act that way, simply put. You won’t bash their heads into the Catholic Church. You’ll probably just resolve them to grab on even tighter to their beliefs.

There is no judgement in stating that Protestanism is a new religion started by White Europeans. Jesus was an Asian Jew and so was His mother, blessed Mary. The bible says “all nations will call me blessed”, so I am just following Scripture.

 

[CopticChristian]

I can’t be a Protestant (ever again) because:

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide aren’t true; therefore, Protestantism isn’t true.

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

So true, so true, so true and the truth will set others free. I cannot be Protestant if it ain’t true.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

There is no judgement in stating that Protestanism is a new religion started by White Europeans. Jesus was an Asian Jew and so was His mother, blessed Mary. The bible says “all nations will call me blessed”, so I am just following Scripture.

OK, wonderful. I thought you implied there was something wrong with Europe or Whites. Glad that’s cleared up.

 

[wondrousgnat]

I have a problem with the term “heresies.” Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, etc. I agree were heretics. But - I have a problem calling people who were born and raised with belief systems centuries old heretics. My wife is a Lutheran (ELCA) and I would not call her and the members of her church heretics.
The creators of those churches, yes, but not the descendants of their followers. When it comes to being Christians many of them put Catholics to shame.

(Mind you, I do believe in every aspect of the Catholic church.)

 

[vsedriver]

The bigger question is what is the true religion? That’s what you should be interested in finding.

That’s the question I had asked myself. To find the Truth I had to find who had authority to define the Truth. I found the authority was left to Peter, as Christ the King’s Chief Steward and the keeper of the keys to the kingdom, the See of Peter points to what is the true religion.

 

[CopticChristian]

OK, wonderful. I thought you implied there was something wrong with Europe or Whites. Glad that’s cleared up.

Help me understand how you inferred some sort of judgement from statement of facts?

 

[CopticChristian]

I have a problem with the term “heresies.” Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, etc. I agree were heretics. But - I have a problem calling people who were born and raised with belief systems centuries old heretics. My wife is a Lutheran (ELCA) and I would not call her and the members of her church heretics.
The creators of those churches, yes, but not the descendants of their followers. When it comes to being Christians many of them put Catholics to shame.

(Mind you, I do believe in every aspect of the Catholic church.)

This is an interesting thought. Let me qualify my understanding.

Salvation/Justification Catholic the work of God from beginning to end by grace, through Faith, working in love, intrinsic. The works we do are as a result of grace not of our own. Baptized through which Faith, Hope, Charity are given.

Salvation/Justification Protestant extrinsic, acquitted justified criminals, legally declared righteous, works have no merit even as a free gift as I understand it. Baptized, not believing grace or Faith, Hope and Charity are provided.

So we are contrasting what is done and what is not done so as to conclude one group provides shame to the other. If the work is not of our own and the work for one is realized as God working through us and the other group does something and that work has no value are you then judging God on the one hand and the Creature on the other?

What is it you are contrasting? Help me understand, provide evidence of what it is that you believe one group does and the other does not or vice versa that creates this concept of shame.

 

[CopticChristian]

I have a problem with the term “heresies.” Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, etc. I agree were heretics. But - I have a problem calling people who were born and raised with belief systems centuries old heretics. My wife is a Lutheran (ELCA) and I would not call her and the members of her church heretics.
The creators of those churches, yes, but not the descendants of their followers. When it comes to being Christians many of them put Catholics to shame.

(Mind you, I do believe in every aspect of the Catholic church.)

This is written concerning heresies. We will all agree that Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, Luther and others were heretics. With the exception of Calvin all were Catholic priests/monk. Nestorius and others were Catholic Bishops that led their flocks astray and were heretics and Knox etc were of the same type.

So lets just take the situation where I am asked to join and participate with the Hare Krishna. They have good music, good food, they have an interesting outlook. They help people, they are not worldly. I innocently choose to participate. I continue to participate until someone tells me that the leader is believed to be God incarnate. I stay for awhile to figure that out, when do I become responsible to investigate and leave? Is there some point where I am required to discern why I should not be part of this group?

Translate that to another group like the Oneness Pentocostals. I like the music, the preaching, the euphoria and am led to believe I can speak in tongue. I am innocent in my participation. I discover that echolalia is a crock of poop and linguists can prove that there is no language, I discover that they deny the Trinity, and find that in history they stem from the Holiness movement, the Methodists and subsequently the Anglicans. The Anglicans have for the head of the Church the Queen of England. I realize that there is controversy over which Church is the correct Church and realize there can only be one Church. When do I as a participant stop being innocent and find myself in a quandry where if I totally accept knowingly the teachings of Knox, etc that are called heretics or question if this is the right thing to do? If I knowingly take the position of Knox and decide that this is what I am going to do, do I not take on the status of that from which this thought came?

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Help me understand how you inferred some sort of judgement from statement of facts?

The mere mention of a heretical, specifically White Protestantism implies that there is something wrong with being White, or White identity in itself, because it contrasts the Catholic Church, which, presumably, is not “too White.” Therefore it seemed that you were implicitly stating that part of the problem with Protestantism is that it’s too White, or was founded by Whites. ***

Protestanism as I said is a form of thought. If I want to describe it I can say, it has been declared to be a heresy in the past, those that promoted it were declared anathema, and it is a form of thought that emanates from white europeans and is in essence a new religion, teaching fallible doctrines, based on an infallible source providing uncertain certainty. ***

Why point out that it emanates from White Europeans? It seems to imply that Protestantism is worse because it is White. That’s why it initially seemed that you had a problem with White Europeans as important members of the Church. But you said that wasn’t what you were trying to say, so there is no problem.

 

[CopticChristian]

The mere mention of a heretical, specifically White Protestantism implies that there is something wrong with being White, or White identity in itself, because it contrasts the Catholic Church, which, presumably, is not “too White.” Therefore it seemed that you were implicitly stating that part of the problem with Protestantism is that it’s too White, or was founded by Whites. ***

Protestanism as I said is a form of thought. If I want to describe it I can say, it has been declared to be a heresy in the past, those that promoted it were declared anathema, and it is a form of thought that emanates from white europeans and is in essence a new religion, teaching fallible doctrines, based on an infallible source providing uncertain certainty. ***

Why point out that it emanates from White Europeans? It seems to imply that Protestantism is worse because it is White. That’s why it initially seemed that you had a problem with White Europeans as important members of the Church. But you said that wasn’t what you were trying to say, so there is no problem.

Does this sound better?

Protestanism is a new religion founded by white europeans, formerly catholic, expounding new beliefs the likes of which had never been taught, denying authority, claiming extrinsic justification, claiming faith alone and the bible alone. The remainder of white europe did not concur with these teachings. Asian jews, Black Africans, Irish, Eastern Europeans and other parts of the world found it difficult to accept that Christianity was being defined in the cradle of white europe. How could it be possible that all peoples of the world were to accept that God had chosen these people to announce some novel thought?