Questioning my Protestant heritage

Noone being holy isn't a Protestant thing, it's a Christian thing. Christ got the Apostles to confess His divinity by saying "Why do you call me good when noone is good except the Father?" by this we do not mean there haven't been wonderful saints who have lived wonderfully close to Christ's lifestyle, we simply mean that we all have a corrupt Adamic nature, and are all born in Original Sin, and that short of God, we cannot be good. Christ makes us holy through His atonement which He offers to us by grace. And upon taking part in that grace, we may grow to be more Christlike through His intervention in our hearts.

I think if saints are your main problem, you aren't yet an alien to Protestantism. Lutheranism, Anglicanism, I believe even certain Presbyterian groups (If they don't acknowledge them, they're wild about consulting them for doctrine), acknowledge the saints, they just don't pray for their intercession, opting instead to rely on the Scriptural promise of Christ's intercession.

I think you could also find many Protestants who lived saintly lives. Look up Richard Wurmbrand. He only died in 2001, but his experiences in the Communist prisons of Romania are just....wow.

At any rate, I will pray that you find a denomination suitable for your walk with Christ. But I will warn you, once you start looking into say, Catholicism, you'll find that there's a lot more to being Catholic than just believing the things you list in addition to what you've been taught in Protestantism. It's not that big of a leap to say, at least on an institutional level, that Protestants and Catholics believe in a totally different plan of salvation.

Jonaitis said:

What annoys me is that people portray Protestants denominations as condemning each other and claiming to be the only true church. This is far from the truth, there is more fellowship and unity between Protestant denominations than these people actually realize. I've never, I repeat, never attended a church that condemned another church for the difference in theology outside the gospel. Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Anglicans (to give an example) all see each other as brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ, and partakers of the same gospel truth. We all agree on the same important truths that is necessary to be saved. It really shows the ignorance of people when they misrepresent Protestantism as a bunch of people fighting each other. It is painful to watch...

Click to expand...

This is true. The notion, often bandied about in Catholic and Orthodox circles, that Protestantism is nothing but a bunch of rabid maniacs condemning each other left and right, is simply not consonant with reality.

There are indeed Protestants who have such uncharitable attitudes, yes. I have known Scripture Only people who thought anybody who lit a candle was in thrall to Satan. But then, there are Catholics and EO people who do, too (even about people within their own communion).

If I offer one other piece of advice, it would be not to listen too much to the wackiest or loudest brigade of whatever Christian confessions you look into. Most Christians you will meet in other confessions will be pretty charitable.

Don't look at people and saints.
Only look at Jesus and Bible , nothing more and nothing less.
Those saints are the Works of Holy Spirit ,nothing to do with them , nothing to admire at except admire at the Grace of Holy God.

Hi I literally just joined this form.

In my experience I was raised in a non-Christian home. From college on I tried just about everything and have spent umpteen hours in study.

As far as redemption is concerned I place my faith and trust in Jesus, in Him and only Him. I will leave it up to you to decide if the backbone of your faith is rooted in the Bible or the Teachings and/or traditions or a combination of things. But St. Paul warns us to have good doctrine. There are huge differences in doctrine between most of the various churches out there.

But I think that once you determine by what authority your doctrine comes from then finding a place to worship becomes much easier.

Tigger45 said:

Lutherans and Anglicans believe those things yet are still considered protestants.

Click to expand...

I was about to suggest a liturgical Protestant church also.

Mary Meg said:

Yes! That's absolutely it! If I read the Church Fathers as a Protestant, it's easy to say, "Wow, they believe a lot of things I disagree with" -- and look at the Bible and cite chapter and verse why. But if I read the Church Fathers with an open mind, I find places where they describe the same verses I'm looking at, only they understand them differently. And if I'm being honest, I have to ask... how do I even know I'm right? Aren't I basing this on somebody else's opinion, or my own interpretation? And these people were very likely taught by somebody who knew somebody who wrote the thing...

Click to expand...

Pr. Jordan Cooper has some stuff on the early church on his youtube channel, but he understands it from a Lutheran perspective primarily. High church Anglicans/Episcopalians or Lutheranism are probably your only way to remain Protestant once you get the liturgical/historical bug in you.

Dr. Jordan B Cooper

The ELCA tends to be more high church than the LCMS, but it really varies from congregation to congregation. Pr. Cooper is in the AALC, which is similar to the ELCA but somewhat more conservative (no women pastors, to my knowledge).

I have studied Church history a great deal and I think the "evidence" is extremely ambivalent for Rome's claims, but personally I felt drawn to the ELCA and Episcopal Church because I prefer their overall approach. I have been involved in both, and of the two I prefer Lutherans, but YMMV.

Mary Meg said:

a small Southern Baptist church

Click to expand...

Hi, Mary Meg I am Bill, pleased to meet you; God bless you

I see you have already gotten some attention, here.

About your Southern Baptist church > I am told the Southern Baptist convention has local independent churches who are more or less free to choose their own pastors. There isn't anyone to make sure they choose by certain standards of the organization.

And one church might be a family-generations managed group, like yours, while others might have many members of various backgrounds.

I think one thing you can feed on is what our Apostle Paul says are qualifications for someone just to be considered to be ordained a pastor >

1 Timothy 3:1-10.

I think meeting these requirements can be more crucial than beliefs and practices. Because such a qualified person is growing in the character of Jesus, so this can spread to nourish others. And then, in the humility of Jesus we have the honesty we need, for understanding His word well, with His grace in us having us living the meaning which is deeper than words can tell.

Mary Meg said:

I've grown to feel a lot closer to the Early Church...... and honestly I've started to feel like it doesn't look all that much like my church today.

Click to expand...

Well, some understand the early church to be the disciples when they first received the Holy Spirit. Then was when they were not mature; they had just gotten started. So, I would not try to go back to what maybe was not mature. Yes, God used them and it is impressive how. But they needed to grow in Jesus, to later discover how He would have them living and loving.

And in case you mean the early ones who a number of Catholics claim were the early Catholic Church . . . who are you going by, for your authority to believe this? I mean, do you personally know these people making claims, and do you know their example?? Are you God, to know their hearts so you can know which one's claims are reliable???

God knows who knows what he or she is talking about. And I offer that our Father is pleased to personally help us along to know whom He really wants us to trust > Hebrews 13:17. So, God bless you to know and honor and obey whomever God trusts to take care of you.

Albion said:

I tend to prefer the word of God over all other sources.

In fact, it bothers me a trifle when I hear or read people say that whatever some person in the first several centuries wrote must be the final answer to whatever doctrinal question it might be. Not a consensus, mind you, but just what one or a handful of churchmen had to say.

Click to expand...

Pr. Jordan Cooper has a great deal to say about this on his videos- there really isn't much of a universal consensus outside of things such as baptismal regeneration being a given (so you really won't find any Calvinistic theology on baptism in the early Church) or the Lord's Supper being a real sacrament and not a symbol (though it's not necessarily expressed in RC terms, for instance Augustine's view on the Lord's Supper seems to be participatory rather than being transubstantiation).

This video in particular is worth watching. And looking into Pr. Jordan Cooper's book, The Righteousness of One. It details the history of soteriology and demonstrates that it's not just something Luther and Calvin pulled out of thin air based on a misreading.





https://www.amazon.com/Righteousnes...usness+of+one&qid=1555640726&s=gateway&sr=8-1


Frankly, he's a brilliant guy and was a big help to me coming to terms with Lutheranism from an Orthodox background. He really helped me understand things, like how the Church fathers don't always speak with precision about justification, but that's not to say they are silent on the topic altogether. Sometimes they are very clear.

I see. Wow. We assumed something else, although for no particular reason.

Mary Meg said:

I know Presbyterians, yes. I can't say I've met an Episcopalian. But don't feel bad, I haven't met a Catholic either! Not in the flesh. I live out in the country and don't get out that much... There are all those things (even Lutherans) in the city.

Click to expand...

I know it may sound odd, but if you get interested in whatever and contact a parish, you may be able to get a ride with someone sometime. Orthodox people seem to do that all the time, since a fair number have to travel a good ways to their parishes. Probably not only Orthodox folks...

Jason0047 said:

Luther said “sin boldly.” Not a man I want to follow or listen to.

Click to expand...

Lutherans have no reason to be overly apologetic for that quote . We refuse to reduce preaching to sound bites or clobber passages, so it's wrong to just grab things like that and pretend that's our last word on sin.

And the end of the day, every one of us must either choose to sin boldly or to die in our sins. There really is nothing else possible from our perspective. Those who conceive of the Christian life in Puritanical, moralistic terms simply miss it altogether.

There's an excellent film, Babette's Feast (a Danish film, Babettes Gaestebud). It's a meditation on grace, and is probably one of the best spiritual allegories ever (it's one of Pope Francis' favorite films). Well worth watching. The General's toast at the end is epic at articulating something close to our view of grace:

"Mercy and truth have met together. Righteousness and bliss shall kiss one another. Man, in his weakness and shortsightedness, believes he must make choices in this life. He trembles at the risks he takes. We do know fear.

But no. Our choice is of no importance. There comes a time when your eyes are opened. And we come to realize that mercy is infinite. We need only await it with confidence, and receive it with gratitude. Mercy imposes no conditions. And, lo! Everything we have chosen has been granted to us. And everything we rejected has also been granted. Yes, we even get back what we rejected.

For mercy and truth are met together. And righteousness and bliss shall kiss one another."

Click to expand...

Indeed, man's choices are nothing, mercy is infinite, we get back even what we reject. This is pure Gospel.

Mary Meg said:

Hi. I grew up in a small Southern Baptist church that my something-great-great-grandparents helped found. It's not really a great place for dynamic preaching or worship -- it's just my family and a few other families, sharing the love and Gospel of Christ. I love it for that, and in some way, it will always be home...

But as I've gotten older and learned things (maybe too much for my own good), I've started to have doubts and questions about a lot of things. I studied a lot of Christian history in school and Bible and theology and classical languages, and through all of that I've grown to feel a lot closer to the Early Church...... and honestly I've started to feel like it doesn't look all that much like my church today.

I know the Protestant narrative very well... that the Catholic Church was corrupt, had fallen away from the truth of the Gospel of Christ, and needed Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation to come and bring us back to the true Gospel. And I've mostly been happy with my church and my upbringing and everything, just now I am wondering...

So I'm not sure I even know how to ask the questions I'm asking... How do I approach these things? Are there answers, and how can I find them? Where do I go from here? Or do I stay put?

Good and great Christians -- So I've come to admire a lot of great people from the history of Christianity -- saints. That means they were holy people who are surely now enjoying God's glory in eternity. But my Protestant background tells me that no one is holy... But surely people go to heaven, right? Surely people can grow in sanctity and become more Christlike... I've seen that with my own eyes, and isn't that the point?

But if I admire Christians from the first dozen Christian centuries -- it turns out I'm admiring people who believed very differently than me, who believed in things like baptismal regeneration, the perpetual virginity of Mary, that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus... Does that mean they were less than Christian, for believing something beyond what's revealed in the Bible? Should I even admire them? As much as I admire them, I'm afraid these people would have told me I'm not a Christian since I don't believe those things.

My Protestant background tells me that the Catholic Church went off the rails at some point in history. When? If I accept that these great saints -- it is what I want to call them -- were true believers, despite believing different things than me, then don't I also have to accept that the faith they had was true? And that the Church that was teaching them was teaching the true faith? At the very least, that it wasn't as wholly corrupt at that time as the Protestant Reformation would have me believe it became -- to the point that breaking from it and starting over was warranted? That it must have gone off the rails sometime later? The problem is, the more people I admire, and the closer they get to 1517, the more I start to wonder if anything really could have gone off the rails very far...

(Don't even mention that I might admire Catholic saints after 1517... )

This is getting long and I haven't even gotten to half the things in my head... but I'll have to put a period here and maybe post again sometime.

Click to expand...

I come from a non-denominational background. My father actually grew up Roman Catholic, and went to seminary to become a priest. His education there led him to becoming Protestant before he would have taken his vows. He's got sharp disagreements with Rome to this day, but he does not subscribe to the view that Catholics are heretics, or that the Pope worships the devil, or anything on that level. When I hear views like that from Protestants that he would not adopt, I get disappointed. Many Catholics are actually more sane on some issues than some of the louder Protestant blowhards, and my dad retained that sanity in his own faith. My mom grew up Presbyterian (she wouldn't be today, with how many of those churches have strayed from Biblical teaching), and she didn't take the extreme positions either. We've gone to non-denominational churches where I suppose you could say the core teachings are very similar to the Southern Baptists, but there's more flexibility on issues like when the Rapture is going to happen relative to the Tribulation, whether certain gifts of the Spirit have ceased or not, how dancing, gambling, and alcohol (when legally old enough) can be handled, etc. My point is that there's more than one Protestant narrative out there. Luther did some good and necessary reforms, and there was terrible corruption in the Roman Catholic Church in his day, and there still is some today. But they're not heretics.

Mary Meg said:

Yes! That's absolutely it! If I read the Church Fathers as a Protestant, it's easy to say, "Wow, they believe a lot of things I disagree with" -- and look at the Bible and cite chapter and verse why. But if I read the Church Fathers with an open mind, I find places where they describe the same verses I'm looking at, only they understand them differently. And if I'm being honest, I have to ask... how do I even know I'm right? Aren't I basing this on somebody else's opinion, or my own interpretation? And these people were very likely taught by somebody who knew somebody who wrote the thing...

Click to expand...

I'd say it depends on the issues at hand. I don't see why their views can't be respectfully questioned, though.

Mary Meg said:

Yes!! Something that keeps occurring to me... if Jesus meant what he said, that "the gates of hell would not prevail" against his church -- then how can I believe that the church only a generation or two from the Apostles, people who by all appearances were faithful unto death even in the face of persecution, so completely fell apart and lost the truth -- such that these early writers didn't know what they were talking about?

Click to expand...

Personally, that's not a position that I hold. I also understand that a number of old practices were established to teach the Gospel in a very different time and culture, and without that context today, the Gospel becomes harder to find in that old framework within our modern context.

Mary Meg said:

Yes!! When I read Church history the right way forwards -- starting from the beginning and reading to the Reformation rather than starting from the Reformation and then trying to skip back to the beginning -- I have a really hard time seeing where this "going off the rails" supposedly took place... It all seems like a direct line from the Apostles (albeit with some bumps and detours here and there) ... until the Protestant Reformation, which basically appears to be a train wreck.

Click to expand...

I'd say the train wreck metastasized by the time of the Crusades. I cannot describe the religious aspect to them as anything less than perverse.

Mary Meg said:

Well it's funny, there's really only one saint that Protestants seem to accept, and that's Augustine -- who they think is "one of them." If I talk about him -- even if I call him "Saint Augustine," people seem to understand and accept that. Oh, and St. Patrick -- people like him too -- even with the "Saint," since that seems to be his first name. But anybody else -- and people give me a funny look and ask, "Wait, isn't that Catholic?"

Click to expand...

The way "saint" is used in the New Testament, every believer is a saint. Reserving that ranking to perceived super-Christians isn't what Paul or John did, so I like to avoid misusing it as a title. Augustine, Patrick, Francis of Assisi, etc usually have "Saint" referred to as part of their name, so that's probably how it slips through. When I don't use "saint" in that way, it's not a denial that they are Christian brothers, or that they were used by God or lived good lives. It's because I want to be more or less consistent and I don't want to prepend every believer's name that I know of with "Saint" because it gets redundant.

Mary Meg said:

Yes. I think the Reformation is really lamentable too. And even if I should agree with the Reformers on theological points -- I think Luther was like a bulldozer in a cathedral, not caring what he wrecked as long as long as his voice was heard. That is not a way to pursue reform, if "reform" was really what he desired, rather than schism.

What I have a really hard time with is this: Luther's justification for his schism was basically that the Catholic Church had fallen into apostasy. That's pretty much the only justification for schism: the Church you're breaking from is no longer the true Church. But if I take the moderate view that you're taking, then there really isn't any justification...

Click to expand...

Luther was generally careful about how he approached matters, then when he would come to a conclusion, he would become a firebrand about that conclusion. I think that's part of why the Lutherans are closer to the Catholics on a number of issues than the Southern Baptists are, for example.

Mary Meg said:

Well yes, the Word of God is the Word of God, and there's no substitute for that.

It's not that what an early writer wrote is the final answer -- but how do we come to the final answer? Yes, we have the Word of God -- but how do we know how to understand it and interpret it? I can listen to Luther, or Calvin, or Wesley, or Spurgeon, or Jonathan Edwards, or John MacArthur -- but all of those people are basing their interpretations on what, other people's interpretations? Even if I claim to be relying on my own interpretation, it's invariably going to be colored by somebody else I read and agreed with. I can read and study the Word, in the words and in the grammar and in the context, and come to a radically different interpretation than anybody else has ever come to -- but then, who the heck am I, to be arriving at some new truth from a 2,000-year-old text? Lots of other diverse, smart people have come to radically different interpretations over those -- well, 500 years. And I'm just a little person. How can I know who and what is right?

Click to expand...

Well, you're probably not going to find anything new. Christians have debated a number of issues over the last 2,000 years. There were schisms before 1054, would you believe.

Mary Meg said:

Well yes, the Word of God is the Word of God, and there's no substitute for that.

It's not that what an early writer wrote is the final answer -- but how do we come to the final answer? Yes, we have the Word of God -- but how do we know how to understand it and interpret it? I can listen to Luther, or Calvin, or Wesley, or Spurgeon, or Jonathan Edwards, or John MacArthur -- but all of those people are basing their interpretations on what, other people's interpretations? Even if I claim to be relying on my own interpretation, it's invariably going to be colored by somebody else I read and agreed with. I can read and study the Word, in the words and in the grammar and in the context, and come to a radically different interpretation than anybody else has ever come to -- but then, who the heck am I, to be arriving at some new truth from a 2,000-year-old text? Lots of other diverse, smart people have come to radically different interpretations over those -- well, 500 years. And I'm just a little person. How can I know who and what is right?

Click to expand...

It is a difficult problem.

In my neck of the woods, we tend to say that the Church was there in the first century before any of the NT scripture was even written. And it was the Church that decided what was Scripture, and what wasn't. So we tend to think it is not the best approach to just take Scripture, try to interpret it, and see what you get. For us, Scripture is a (hugely important) part of Tradition, not the basis of it.

Which is not to say that you shouldn't read Scripture, or see what makes sense to you, or when certain readings are not in good faith, and so on. But (I think) in the end, all the "liturgical" churches, all that officially subscribe to the Nicene Creed, etc., are going to believe some version of that. I think.

My suggestion to not only Mary but to all here is to follow the Bible alone, and to ask the Lord for the understanding on His Word and to always compare Scripture with Scripture. Men and their words will fade away like dust, but God’s Word will abide forever.

@Mary Meg If you get to look into the Ancient Church, don't assume that Orthodox are Catholics without Pope, this is usually Catholic normativity.

Mary Meg, hello there.

Mary Meg said:

Yes! That's absolutely it! If I read the Church Fathers as a Protestant, it's easy to say, "Wow, they believe a lot of things I disagree with" -- and look at the Bible and cite chapter and verse why. But if I read the Church Fathers with an open mind, I find places where they describe the same verses I'm looking at, only they understand them differently. And if I'm being honest, I have to ask... how do I even know I'm right? Aren't I basing this on somebody else's opinion, or my own interpretation? And these people were very likely taught by somebody who knew somebody who wrote the thing...

Click to expand...

Hi Mary Meg - first I pray that you can know peace of mind and trust in God as you pursue Him in all things. Second is share that I’ve heard it said that some approach Sacred Scripture with Protestant lenses and others do so with Catholic lenses so have trust that God will help you grow and learn as you proceed. In terms of your original question about “how” I think you are doing it - read the early Church Fathers and be open to what they teach and why. Your point that the earliest ones were taught by the apostles carries a lot of logical weight to me- but then again I’m Catholic so it generally doesn’t cause me the discomfort and challenge that I know you are going through. And challenging what we’ve always “known” takes a lot of courage and patience. Continue to seek to learn and to pray that the Holy Spirit will guide you in your search. God will give you grace to overcome the challenges you will face and I know you will have peace in your heart. Feel free to ping me if you think I can help more specifically.

May God guide you Mary Meg!

I was too once a Southern Baptist, but read the fathers enough and you will see, especially Saint Ignatius.

The main difference I've found in my journey to Orthodoxy is much more of an emphasis on humility.
As a baptist I was always pushed to achieve, either in ministry or preaching. This is very much a Baptist mindset, building up treasures if you will. But if we are doing things to build up "treasures" are we really gaining?

If you come to Orthodoxy you will find a people profoundly interested in humility. Pride was the first sin, humility is the first cure. All the writers within the Church will emphasize humility and love first.

This was the same line of thinking that lead me to the Orthodox Church when I first became Christian. I couldn't reconcile how any of the Protestant Churches operated with the history of the Church prior to their existence, especially that type of Protestantism which implies the Fathers of the Church had almost everything except the Trinity wrong.

From my perspective as an Orthodox Christian the Roman Catholic side went off the rails during the Great Schism and this was further reinforced when the Pope added to the creed the filioque and insisted on his supremecy over the entire Church. With regards to the filioque I've found it interesting that a majority of Protestants approve of a change made to the creed by the Pope's authority alone and keep it in their recitation of the creed (if they confess it at all). Even if you agree with the filioque theologically, by adding it to the creed you are suggesting that the Pope or really anyone within the Church has the right to amend it anyway they see fit, instead of it being a matter of universal consensus which allows us to change the creed.

Your point about believing in something beyond the bible is interesting. Some Protestants (not all) seem to be under the impression that the only history of the Church that matters is the first century and then their own particular conversion to Christianity. That perspective is impossible to justify.