Questioning my Protestant heritage

[ViaCrucis]

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.

I grew up in an Evangelical/Pentecostal environment (first eight years in a non-denominational church, then a Pentecostal church until I was 18, also attended a KJV-only Baptist private school from K-6th grade). Like you I began to start studying the history of the Church, studying Scripture, and learning theology, and like you it challenged a lot of what I had been raised to believe, and ultimately, took me on a journey.

One of the things I learned was that the usual Protestant narrative about Martin Luther and the Reformation is, generally, just wrong. From the perspective of the Evangelical Reformers the Church never fell away, nor was there need to "restore" the "true Gospel", because the Gospel has always been the Gospel. The Reformation wasn't about restoring Christ's Church as though it were lost, it was never lost. It was about reform, both ecclesiastical and theological reform. The view of the early Reformers was that certain errors had crept into the Church in recent centuries, and also certain abuses, which were resulting in a skewed and distorted picture.

From the Lutheran perspective, we never left the Catholic Church; we are Catholics, believing in the Catholic faith of the Holy Catholic Church. Which is why in our chief confessional document, the Augsburg Confession, we said this:

"5] This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers. This being the case, they judge harshly who insist that our teachers be regarded as heretics. 6] There is, however, disagreement on certain abuses, which have crept into the Church without rightful authority. And even in these, if there were some difference, there should be proper lenity on the part of bishops to bear with us by reason of the Confession which we have now reviewed; because even the Canons are not so severe as to demand the same rites everywhere, neither, at any time, have the rites of all churches been the same; 7] although, among us, in large part, the ancient rites are diligently observed. 8] For it is a false and malicious charge that all the ceremonies, all the things instituted of old, are abolished in our churches. 9] But it has been a common complaint that some abuses were connected with the ordinary rites. These, inasmuch as they could not be approved with a good conscience, have been to some extent corrected.

10] Inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the Canons, we pray that Your Imperial Majesty would graciously hear both what has been changed, and what were the reasons why the people were not compelled to observe those abuses against their conscience. 11] Nor should Your Imperial Majesty believe those who, in order to excite the hatred of men against our part, disseminate strange slanders among the people. 12] Having thus excited the minds of good men, they have first given occasion to this controversy, and now endeavor, by the same arts, to increase the discord. 13] For Your Imperial Majesty will undoubtedly find that the form of doctrine and of ceremonies with us is not so intolerable as these ungodly and malicious men represent. 14] Besides, the truth cannot be gathered from common rumors or the revilings of enemies. 15] But it can readily be judged that nothing would serve better to maintain the dignity of ceremonies, and to nourish reverence and pious devotion among the people than if the ceremonies were observed rightly in the churches." - The Augsburg Confession, Article XXI, 5-15

The schism between Wittenberg and Rome isn't something to be celebrated, but lamented. The fact that Roman Catholics and Lutherans aren't in communion today is a tragedy of history. And, unfortunately this will remain the case because neither side is going to abandon certain fundamental convictions and confessional views.

From the view of the Church of Rome, we are rebellious schismatics who left the Church.
From the view of the Lutherans, Rome kicked us to the curb, but we are nevertheless faithful sons and daughters of the Church, because Rome doesn't get to decide who is and isn't Catholic.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Mary Meg]

So if these writers are in error, did they learn their errors from the apostles?

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?

 

[thecolorsblend]

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?

Those same issues are what drove me to convert to Catholicism. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. In the end, I acknowledged that the Catholic Church has the superior case for being the Church which Our Lord founded.

I converted and haven't looked back. I don't miss the Southern Baptist world at all.

 

[Mary Meg]

On the surface of things, it seems rather presumptuous and borderline ridiculous for someone to show up 1,500 years later to say, "you've been doing it wrong all this time & I know better."

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.

 

[Tree of Life]

Thanks... That's exactly what I'm looking for. I'm not looking to jump ship right now, that's a really scary thought! Mainly just wondering... whether I do or don't... how to deal with these questions.

What church tradition are you currently involved in? Studying church history from the perspective of a big box, non denom megachurch can be incredibly jarring. But there are many more ways to resemble the early church than Roman Catholicism. I believe that Presbyterianism is the closest thing to the early church that we have today - moreso than Roman Catholicism.

 

[Mary Meg]

Sorry, I realize this doesn't really answer your question as to what you ought to do, but no matter your denomination, I just can't imagine that loving people who did their best to love God is problematic.

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?"

 

[FenderTL5]

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?"

Saint Nicholas has a fan or two, but they're mostly children.

j/k

 

[Mary Meg]

The Reformation, unfortunately, split the church. But still, it was not a matter of Christianity having been forgotten until Martin Luther opened a Bible one day. Rather, the church in all its manifestations -- Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant -- is holy, and also flawed, all at the same time.

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...

 

[Albion]

Here's a thought...

Why is it that the Word of God, the Bible, is subject to all sorts of interpretations leading to disagreement between the churches, but the Early Church Fathers--or any one of them, if truth be told--are supposed always to be taken at face value as though there is no possibility of there being more than one way of understanding what they meant, no problem with nuances, figurative speech, and so on??

 

[Endeavourer]

A book you might really enjoy is Pagan Christianity, by Frank Viola. It compares the early church to the conventions and customs we've all come to know in our worship practices, as they arose throughout church history. It seems like his research might speak to you at this point in your spiritual journey.

 

[Albion]

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."

That's quite a stunning statement since you can look in the phone book of almost any city an find any number of Protestant churches which bear the name of some saint, such as St. Peter, St. John, etc.

One of the two most popular names for Lutheran churches in this country is St. Paul's Lutheran Church.

 

[Mary Meg]

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.

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?

 

[Mary Meg]

That's quite a stunning statement since you can look in the phone book of almost any city an find any number of Protestant churches which bear the name of some saint, such as St. Peter, St. John, etc.

One of the two most popular names for Lutheran churches in this country is St. Paul's Lutheran Church.

Well, "Protestants" where I come from means "Southern Baptists." I don't think I've ever met a Lutheran.

 

[Mary Meg]

What church tradition are you currently involved in? Studying church history from the perspective of a big box, non demon megachurch can be incredibly jarring.

But there are many more ways to resemble the early church than Roman Catholicism. I believe that Presbyterianism is the closest thing to the early church that we have today - moreso than Roman Catholicism.

I'm in a little-box (matchbox?) country Southern Baptist church. I'm not necessarily hitching my buggy to Catholicism just yet. I'm open to exploring other traditions. I'm just putting it out there that I'm wondering and want to explore.

 

[lismore]

Hi.

Hello Meg. The Church -going off the rails, since the day the Lord was taken into heaven and will be until the day he returns. Born again but still fallible human beings. RC, Protestant, all can fall into the same or different traps. But the Lord still loves the church- he's coming back for us. People from every denomination and none will be with the sheep and the same with the goats. My humble advice to you would be that what you're looking for cannot be solved by going here, or there, to this denomination or that, only by seeking the Lord can you find what you seek. Prayer in the Holy Spirit. A church family is a blessing, but first the Lord

God Bless

 

[Albion]

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?

Well, if that is how you look at it, I appreciate the response. What I thought is that you were supportive of the Roman Catholic view of the subject, which is that comments of an Early Church Father or two are equally as authoritative as the word of God in Scripture.

 

[Albion]

Well, "Protestants" where I come from means "Southern Baptists." I don't think I've ever met a Lutheran.

Or a Presbyterian or an Episcopalian? I'm surprised but I guess it could be so.

 

[Tree of Life]

I'm in a little-box (matchbox?) country Southern Baptist church. I'm not necessarily hitching my buggy to Catholicism just yet. I'm open to exploring other traditions. I'm just putting it out there that I'm wondering and want to explore.

Ah yes. Studying church history from the perspective of the Southern Baptist movement can also be very jarring. There are many degrees between you and Rome that are well worth exploring. Let's start with the particular issues that stand out to you as missing from your baptist church that you believe are important from a biblical and historical perspective.

 

[FIRESTORM314]

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?

Well -if I am reading my bible correctly, they started to fall apart during the lifetime of the Apostles. That's why there is talk of false teachings in the Epistles. And just like we are all claiming superiority over the others groups here - they did it in the first church. In fact they challenged Pauls teachings - it pretty much went like this - we received the Holy Spirit - We are equal with the Apostles - we don't need to listen to them as we have what they have. Just like with Moses when they challenged his leadership, except in Exodus the wrongdoers were severly punished. The result was a splintering with many other teachings coming into play. A good place to start is to look at Timothy as he was a second generation Christian. Notice Paul tells him to fan the flame - he receved the Spirit by the laying on of hands

For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of words but of power.

The Church does have one thing in Common - Jesus saves. It is in him we trust.

Human pride and ego as run amock and satan as led us a merry dance because of it but he cannot defeat Christ and we are safe in him. The gates of hell cannot prevail...

Victory has been won at the Cross. The question you need to ask is what type of church you want to belong to?

 

[Mary Meg]

I grew up in an Evangelical/Pentecostal environment (first eight years in a non-denominational church, then a Pentecostal church until I was 18, also attended a KJV-only Baptist private school from K-6th grade). Like you I began to start studying the history of the Church, studying Scripture, and learning theology, and like you it challenged a lot of what I had been raised to believe, and ultimately, took me on a journey.

I'm glad you understand.

I appreciate all you've written and quoted here. Several things that occur to me right off about Lutherans:

First: Luther and other Lutherans were excommunicated. But rather than try to work out the issue and restore communion with Rome, they went off on their own and built another church. Or is that a mistaken perception? Did they deny that the Church of Rome, or the pope, had the authority to excommunicate them? I know, from things I read, that Luther and others were pretty scathing in their polemic against the pope and Rome... but I read here that they don't really have any fundamental beef? How did they justify continuing in what, from the perspective of Rome, was schism?

Second verse, same as the first: Why, after the Council of Trent addressed many of the issues of corruption Luther was concerned about in the first place, did the Lutherans not try to patch things up then? Or did they?

Finally: There are probably diverse traditions of Lutherans. But isn't it true that at least some of them here in the U.S. no longer have bishops? How they can claim to be "catholic" without bishops?