The quiet despair of Protestants

[Albion]

Is it not coming from his personal interactions with Protestant peers on campus?

What is "it?"

Yes, it was written that Protestant students said something which was described for us in a way that could be understood to mean several different things. I was simply asking what, specifically, they said. And I also asked it if perhaps amounted to X or Y, etc. That doesn't seem like too much clarification to ask for.

 

[Radagast]

I don't have any reason to doubt his description of college-age Protestants

I certainly do, knowing something about Protestant on-campus ministries in the USA.

 

[zippy2006]

I certainly do.

I actually read this last night:

At dinner a few years ago with three professors from a conservative Evangelical college, I mentioned how much I, a non-Evangelical, admired Evangelicals for educating their youth so well in Scripture.

The professor on my left said that I had a romanticized or at least outdated view of Evangelicals. "You would be surprised by how many of our students come here knowing next to nothing about the Bible," he said sadly.

This stunned me. I told the professors that I was used to hearing this complaint from Catholic college professors, but could it really be true of Evangelicals too? At a conservative college?

I looked around the table. Every head nodded in the affirmative. The professors explained that even though most of these kids came out of church and youth group culture, their theological background was shockingly thin. "We do the best we can, but we only have them for four years," said one professor. "You can't make up in that short time for what they never had."

Since that night, I have made a point of asking professors at every Christian college that invites me to lecture to assess the Christian knowledge of their undergraduates. In almost every case, whether the college is Catholic or Evangelical, the answer is the same: they are theologically illiterate.

"A lot of our students come here from some of the most highly regarded Catholic schools in this region," said one professor. "They don't know anything about their faith and don't see the problem. They've had it drummed into their heads that Catholicism is anything they want it to be."

None of this is a surprise to anyone familiar with the social science literature documenting the widespread ignorance among Americans of Christian basics.

-Rod Dreher, The Benedict Option, pp. 172-3​

 

[Radagast]

I actually read this last night:

At dinner a few years ago with three professors from a conservative Evangelical college, I mentioned how much I, a non-Evangelical, admired Evangelicals for educating their youth so well in Scripture.

The professor on my left said that I had a romanticized or at least outdated view of Evangelicals. "You would be surprised by how many of our students come here knowing next to nothing about the Bible," he said sadly.

This stunned me. I told the professors that I was used to hearing this complaint from Catholic college professors, but could it really be true of Evangelicals too? At a conservative college?

I looked around the table. Every head nodded in the affirmative. The professors explained that even though most of these kids came out of church and youth group culture, their theological background was shockingly thin. "We do the best we can, but we only have them for four years," said one professor. "You can't make up in that short time for what they never had."

Since that night, I have made a point of asking professors at every Christian college that invites me to lecture to assess the Christian knowledge of their undergraduates. In almost every case, whether the college is Catholic or Evangelical, the answer is the same: they are theologically illiterate.

"A lot of our students come here from some of the most highly regarded Catholic schools in this region," said one professor. "They don't know anything about their faith and don't see the problem. They've had it drummed into their heads that Catholicism is anything they want it to be."

None of this is a surprise to anyone familiar with the social science literature documenting the widespread ignorance among Americans of Christian basics.

-Rod Dreher, The Benedict Option, pp. 172-3​

To put some numbers to it (the first column of numbers is the relevant one):

But "deplorable lack of knowledge, especially among Catholics and non-Evangelical Protestants" is not at all the same as "the quiet despair of Protestants."

And, for Evangelical college students affiliated with IFES, the knowledge situation is much better, of course. For a mixed Catholic/Mainline group, I would expect it to be worse.

 

[zippy2006]

But "deplorable lack of knowledge, especially among Catholics and non-Evangelical Protestants" is not at all the same as "the quiet despair of Protestants."

Sure, but that was his interpretation, not his description, and you cut off part of my sentence in your quote.

 

[Radagast]

.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

To put some numbers to it ....

Goal.
Best known example.

Corrie ten Booms students.

Knew every prophet's name; every river in Scipture, every king of Israel, every woman of note;
every apostle's name; over 20 names or titles by which Yahweh referred to Himself , and Yahshua;
etc etc etc

Her students took tests with the pastor's students,
and the pastor was so embarrassed his students knew so little......

May we all in Christ Jesus so fervently love TRUTH, Yahweh's Word, in Jesus, that we learn all that Corrie ten Boom taught her students and more, in the next six months.

 

[zippy2006]

.

Again, my late addition:

Edit: I don't mean to deny the fact that there is a fair helping of youthful zeal in the OP. For that reason the Protestant annoyance is of course understandable. ...But there is also something interesting and potentially instructive.

 

[Radagast]

I can't help but notice that, even if I just say ".", somebody will argue with it. Maybe I should have said ";".

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I can't help but notice that, even if I just say ".", somebody will argue with it. Maybe I should have said ";".

..............................................
..............................................! "!"



?

 

[St_Worm2]

I can't help but notice that, even if I just say ".", somebody will argue with it. Maybe I should have said ";".

Not me! I don't think anyone could have said it better

 

[zippy2006]

I can't help but notice that, even if I just say ".", somebody will argue with it. Maybe I should have said ";".

Is that what you noticed? You mistook an olive branch for an argument.

 

[ladodgers6]

[I know this is somewhat of a long post, so I have a request to make for those of you who will skim it: If you only read 1 paragraph, read the one I've bolded. Thank you, and may God's blessings be ever in your soul!]

I have read your entire post. I will reply to each point. BTW, I am in the Reformed Faith (Classical Calvinism/Lutheranism).

Since coming to college, I've gotten very involved in the Christian Campus House (CCH). Due to the demographic of the area, most of the people I know are Protestant. I've been involved in small groups with CCH for 2 years now, talked a lot with a lot of my Protestant friends, and occasionally they say something that should be deeply worrying to all Christians: They believe that we don't have a Biblical truth. We often discuss many theological issues, like the dispute of faith-alone or faith-and-works, where a thoroughly Biblical argument can be made for both. In my small group now, we're reading through Romans, and various verses point in either direction.

Justification by Faith Alone! I love this doctrine. If one doesn't understand this, then they will always attempt to work toward God's favor to gain access to heaven. I'll explain: 1) We are all condemned cursed sinners under the Law. Now if you understand this. Then you will understand that condemned sinners cannot offer anything to God in exchange for Salvation! Galatians 2:16 clearly states, "that no one will be justified through the works of the Law." Why? because we are already cursed by the Law. The Law exposes our sins before a Holy God! In order to fulfill God's will in keeping his Law. One has to fulfill the Law perfectly without a single blemish of Sin, from the womb to the tomb! So we are captives to sin because of the Law! We are on death row awaiting to walk the green mile. This is why God sent his only begotten Son to redeem his people from their sins by becoming a curse for us! Christ fulfilled God's Law with the required Perfect Obedience for us! Christ has reversed the curse. And died in our place as a condemned sinner when he took our sins upon his head and received the full righteous wrath of the God for us!!! This is not our doing, it's all Christ Alone! Our Savior, Our Redeemer, Our Rescuer, Our Pascal Lamb, Our Messiah. I LOVE THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST!!! Why? because it's free to sinners! The Gospel is not for righteous; for what do they need to be rescued from? The Gospel is the for the sick. For wicked sinners who are under the curse of the Law! Understand this??? We bring nothing to the Cross but our sin, but receive everything in Christ; and are you ready??? We are sealed with the quarantee of the Holy Spirit unto Salvation! Salvation is of the Lord! (Jonah 2:9) So in the JUSTIFICATION of the sinner! It is the righteous works of Christ that saves the sinner! Why? because Christ's works are absolutely perfect, flawless, without sin! Why do we mention Christ's works being imputed or credited to the sinner's account? Because of the curse of the Law. The Law brings knowledge of sin! And sin brings condemnation and death. As Paul says in Corinthians, that the Law is the ministry of death! Read Galatians 3 very powerful. So I'll try to sum it up. If you add any works of the sinner to the Gospel you get another Gospel, which is no Gospel at all. Why? because as I have already explained. Sinners cannot provide sinless works! This is why the second Adam came to fulfill the broken Covenant of Works! Which the first Adam broke through disobedience. In Christian theology, justification is God's act of removing the guilt and penalty of sin while at the same time making a sinner righteous through Christ's atoning sacrifice. ... In Lutheranism and Calvinism, righteousness from God is viewed as being credited to the sinner's account through faith alone, without works.

But it's very unsettling to hear how so many decently devout Christians so readily accept the idea that we just don't know how to settle issues like faith-alone or faith-and-works. We all believe the Bible has the truth; Catholics, non-denominationals, Orthodox, Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, even the Christians often thought to be unbiblical are fierce in reverence to Holy Scripture holding the truth. But interpretations within Scripture vary wildly, and far too many Christians say that we'll never know how to settle theological issues, because everyone's interpretation of the Bible is different.

I beg to differ. Once you understand the sinner's plight before a Holy God, and why God sent his Son to save sinners. You will begin to understand the Gospel of Christ! The works of the believer flow from our justification in Christ Alone! As Paul says in Romans 6 (I love Romans); "Shall we continue to sin, since we are under Grace?" I'll leave this for you to do your homework. If you get stuck, please buy all means reach out. The works or obedience of the believer flow from our faith in Christ Alone! So in essence Faith and works are distinct from each other, but not separate. Like Justification and Sanctification. They are two links in a chain. The two links are distinct from each other, but not separate. Justification of the sinner comes first, then follows the life long progress of Sanctification. And finally, justification is a one time instantaneous declaration act. And Sanctification (Acts, Works, Obedience) is a life long process.

In some ways, this is correct. Sermons have applied Scripture to various parts of life for 2,000 years now, and applying a given verse or idea to various circumstances can yield different results. This is the flexibility of Scripture.

For this point read Daniel Wallace. I believe he has a website with old manuscripts dating back to the 1st and 2nd century. I also have a audio file on this as well. If you like, I will email it to you. It will solidify and support the biblical teachings of the Reformed Faith!

But to say there is no theological truth seems like a contradiction to the nature of God!

AMEN!!! visit the whitehorseinn.org and corechristianity.org

Jesus is the truth; no one here will deny that. But does the truth say that we are saved by faith alone (believe in me and be saved), or by faith and works (all will be judged according to their works)?

Well then, time for a story. Christ was crucified between two thieves. One looked at Christ and said take me with you to paradise. The other said if you are the Son of God. Then get us out of this mess (I'm paraphrasing). The thief that believed Christ is the messiah was saved. What works did he do to earn Salvation? Another homework assignment is to read Luke 18, of the Tax Collector and the Pharisee. Please do me a favor and read it. And give me your thoughts on it.

God knows the Bible was written by many different authors to different audiences from different time periods. He knows that the Bible can be hard to interpret. He also sent us the gift of the Holy Spirit to help us out. And as long as He's forming a Church, it's only logical that He would grant His Church guidance by the Holy Spirit to lead people to the truth.

Again, read Daniel Wallace on this matter.

And, as convert John Henry Newman noted, there's only 1 church that even claims to have guidance from the Holy Spirit: The Catholic Church.

Yea, this was the reason why the Reformation occurred. People were imprisoned and even killed for opposing the Pope's authority on Scripture. The Catholic church opposed common folks learning to read the Scripture themselves. This caused the Bible to be translated into common language of the people. Side note: The Reformers intentions were not to destroy the Catholic Church, but to reform it back to Scripture. Because of the false teaching of the Catholic Church; like indulgences for one. But for the record, men with money bought their way into important positions within the Catholic Church. Which caused corruption and greed which lead to corruption of Scripture. And this was what the Reformers were fighting against to reform.

The infallibility of the Papacy is vital to preserving the truth, and the framework for it is laid out in the Bible. Papal Infallibility | Catholic Answers

So I challenge people to be like the bereans who even challenged Paul, and checked for themselves, on what he was preaching. The Bible states to grow in knowledge of God's word, so that we are not deceived by false teachers! Learning the distinction between Law & Gospel in relation to Justification by Faith Alone, is key to understanding Scripture! You have Law passages, and you have Gospel passages. Law passages are imperatives; that demand from us; do this. Where Gospel passages are indicatives; I will do; meaning God promises he will do for us! I don't have enough room here to go into detail, but you can research it at monergism.com

While we all have the Holy Spirit guiding us, we're imperfect in accepting it. Much of these forums would not exist if we all accepted the Spirit enough to be led to the truth, because these arguments wouldn't exist. Throughout the Old Testament, it can be said that the Prophets have infallibility. The Bible itself is believed to be true because of inspiration from the Holy Spirit. So it would logically follow that God would grant the modern Church infallibility on theological & moral issues!

Great point and question here. We are still human filled with pride and biases. Instead of someone admitting they are wrong they keep trying to fit a square block into a round circle hole. Even when presented with the truth, they rather not lose a debate and look wrong. Like those people I mentioned before who bought their way into those important Catholic hierarchy positions. Or as Luther once said, these are wolves in sheep clothing, to mislead and deceive people.

And I'll state it again: Everything the Catholic church teaches is thoroughly Biblical. Getting into the apologetics for this would be far too long, but Dave Armstrong has a number of writings on the topic, after he converted from Evangelical Protestantism after doing an in-depth Bible study to disprove Catholicism.

I beg to differ a bit on this point. Though there are points there CC and the Reformers agreed upon. There were points they did not. I will leave it at that.

Please remember the Spirit of Gentleness & self-control as you write your responses, and thank you for taking the time to read & think about this critical issue in the Church! May God bless us all, and remind us of our complete & total dependence on Him!

Thanks for being courtesy and friendly. As I also believe we can share and debate these topics with love, not hate. Specially if we are discussing God's word, right? Hope this helps? I'm looking forward to your reply! Happy New Year and God Bless, in Christ Alone!!!

 

[fhansen]

And please tell us just how the RC proof text, 2 Peter 1:20,21, refers to personally interpreting what is written, vs. leaving that up to the church?

I never knew that was a RC proof text-still don't-which is why I didn't quote it even if the poster I was responding to may've actually been using it to mean private interpretation by individuals.

By that measure, since under your alternative, Sola Roma, in which the church provides all the sure Truth of God, evidences the divergency of beliefs based on what "The Church" alone teaches (depending on what century) then that model for ascertaining what is of God is also invalid. The Watchtower cult shows more unity than Catholicism, in which there is division ever on what tradition teaches .

Tradition is simply evident in the practices and doctrines of the Church. I'll give examples. In the ancient churches in the east and west, baptism is considered to be efficacious for regeneration, infant baptism is held to be valid, and Jesus is considered to be really present in the Eucharist. These aren't even debated because they are simply the legacy of the church from the beginning. But, based on Scripture alone, Protestants debate these matter among themselves frequently. A little infallible place where the buck can stop here wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Rather than the mighty magisterium being the perfect answer to division, she actually has caused more. As one poster wryly reported,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, Against The Grain

What possible difference could it make how church members react to church teachings-and how does that relate to having a unity of faith? The RCC doesn't even agree with everything Augustine or Aquinas had to say. Truth is not arrived at by democratic process.

Certainly "It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission.." (the Westminster Confession - a major historical document on SS)

However, the church itself did not begin with souls heeding all the judgments of the historical magisterium, but with common souls rightly ascertaining who and what was of God, and thus following some itinerant preachers and their itinerant Lord versus those who did sit in the seat of Moses.

Thus the NT church did not begin consistent with the Cath. model for ascertaining what is of God, as for a RC the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is to be the basis for their assurance of what is of God.

Of course it did. Rome just does what was done at the first council-of Jerusalem. Controversies arise among imperfect humans. God does not leave us without a means of resolution.

Thus, "...the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true." - Karl Keating, founder of Catholic Answers; Catholicism and Fundamentalism San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988, p. 275),

Which is what evangelicals do, expounding on the meaning of Scripture to such as to the seeking eunuch, preaching Christ, not a church as RCs mainly do.

Sure, they pick up a book, produced by members of the church, and proceed to dictate its meaning centuries after the fact. Not infallibly though, apparently, and not necessarily with agreement. I guess sola scriptura adherents must believe their interpretations to be maybe true, maybe not-with a 50-50 chance, perhaps, of being true? Maybe Jesus is God, but we don't want to act too sure of ourselves here by formally stating that to be an infallible truth? Maybe baptism is necessary for regeneration, maybe man is justified by faith alone?

Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. (Acts 8:35)

Meanwhile, contrary to you, even the veracity of the apostle's preaching was subject to examination by Scripture, as all preaching is to be.

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

Right, but neither the Eunuch nor the Bereans would've come up with the gospel on their own, by reading Scripture. They needed to be told the message

For as is abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

Yes, abundantly evident 500 or so years ago at any rate. The RCC uses Scripture continuously to support her positions as well, but comes from a position of lived experience at the same time.

What is the basis for your assurance of truth? That an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority?

Who does your interpretation? What gives you certainty that yours is necessarily superior to say, that of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society? Where would Christianity be today if not for the Council of Nicea? At least many Protestants accept its decrees as valid, giving some kind of nod, tacit or otherwise, to the church's office of discerning truth.

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?

What I'm saying is that such an entity, established by God, is necessary, whether it's Rome or some other place.

 

[fhansen]

A believer is to conditionally submit to both civil magistrates of his province and country as well as to his church, as Jews were to those who sat in the seat of Moses. But rather than a type of divided kingdom earth-wise, there should be one central magisterium of apostolic integrity, yet which concept has been poisoned by the corruptions of Rome.

Well, that's one way to speculate about the matter.

But we should be dealing with a historical understanding of SS if it is to be attacked, even if the poster does not wholly agree with all it states.

redleghunter said: ↑

Of course, like many core Christian convictions, the doctrine of sola Scriptura has often been misunderstood and misapplied. Unfortunately, some have used sola Scriptura as a justification for a “me, God, and the Bible” type of individualism, where the church bears no real authority and the history of the church is not considered when interpreting and applying Scripture. Thus, many churches today are almost ahistorical—cut off entirely from the rich traditions, creeds, and confessions of the church. They misunderstand sola Scriptura to mean that the Bible is the only authority rather than understanding it to mean that the Bible is the only infallible authority. Ironically, such an individualistic approach actually undercuts the very doctrine of sola Scriptura it is intended to protect. By emphasizing the autonomy of the individual believer, one is left with only private, subjective conclusions about what Scripture means. It is not so much the authority of Scripture that is prized as the authority of the individual.

The Reformers would not have recognized such a distortion as their doctrine of sola Scriptura. On the contrary, they were quite keen to rely on the church fathers, church councils, and the creeds and confessions of the church. Such historical rootedness was viewed not only as a means for maintaining orthodoxy but also as a means for maintaining humility. Contrary to popular perceptions, the Reformers did not view themselves as coming up with something new. Rather, they understood themselves to be recovering something very old—something that the church had originally believed but later twisted and distorted. The Reformers were not innovators but were excavators. (Understanding Sola Scriptura)

With all due respect, this only means that the Bible is still the ultimate authority, serving as the rule by which to determine if any other historical beliefs are valid or not. And all of this really still just places the authority in the hands of the individual, which is why even the Reformers diverged over the role, weight, and importance of historical decisions and practices.

 

[fhansen]

We are saved by grace through faith in order to do works (Ephesians 2:8-10). I really don't understand why there is so much debate over this issue. It is written plain as day. No interpretation is required.

Scripture isn't abundantly clear on this IMO, which is why Protestants may differ on such things as whether or not the will of man plays any role whatsoever in his accepting the offer of salvation. And the ancient churches, along with some Protestants, believe that works (what we do with the gifts given by God, such as the works mentioned in Eph 2) play a role in our working out our salvation with He who works in us. The Parable of the Talents describes this dynamic well.

Is salvation a one-time event or a matter of how we go on to live our lives as well? Can we know with 100% certainty that we possess it? What does it mean to follow Christ? And what must we persevere in? For its part the RCC teaches that at the end of the day we'll be judged on our love, bringing together and making sense out of such passages as those referred to above and others such as Matt 25:31-46, as examples.

 

[Radagast]

I guess sola scriptura adherents must believe their interpretations to be maybe true, maybe not-with a 50-50 chance, perhaps, of being true? Maybe Jesus is God, but we don't want to act too sure of ourselves here by formally stating that to be an infallible truth? Maybe baptism is necessary for regeneration, maybe man is justified by faith alone?

This kind of misrepresentation of what Protestants believe is neither nice nor helpful.

 

[Radagast]

.

 

[fhansen]

This kind of misrepresentation of what Protestants believe is neither nice nor helpful.

Of course it's not what they believe-and that's the point. In actual fact they believe their own tenets to be, for all practical purposes, as infallible as the Catholic Church claims hers to be. So why be opposed to the doctrine of infallibility, as a matter of principle at least?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Of course it's not what they believe-and that's the point. In actual fact they believe their own tenets to be, for all practical purposes, as infallible as the Catholic Church claims hers to be.

That, actually, is hardly true in the least, exposing your very limited understanding of Protestantism. It is the Bible which Protestants believe to be the very Word of God, not their doctrines nor their Church. The Church is composed of errant men who, under no circumstances can claim to be inerrant. Therein lies one of the primary differences between Protestantism and your own Church.