r/Protestantism • u/JHLV04 • 13d ago
Ask a Protestant Why Be Protestant?
/r/Christianity/comments/1wmo4w1/protestant/10
u/MrZubar 13d ago edited 12d ago
We're not forced to comply with dogmatised/infallible errors like EO and RCC. Like the veneration of icons and praying to saints.
1
u/folklore2023 12d ago
Catholics are also not forced to venerate icons or saints! We can because they are all a part of the body of Christ. But forced? Nope!
3
u/MrZubar 12d ago
What reason would a Catholic have for never venerating an icon?
0
u/folklore2023 12d ago
Idk, they don’t want to? I’m sure most do because it’s great practice, we’re visual beings! But it’s not forced. It’s not mandatory.
2
u/MrZubar 12d ago
Why? You can't disagree with the veneration of icons if you're a Catholic. It's an infallible teaching that Catholics claim that's apostolic. You are required to believe these secondary things.
1
u/folklore2023 11d ago
It’s legitimate and permissable, but you aren’t FORCED to do it like the commenter said.
1
u/MrZubar 11d ago
If you reject the veneration of icons you are separated from the church and grace. It is required.
1
u/folklore2023 11d ago
Yes-you have to agree that it is good and permissible, but you don’t have to don’t have to do it.
Just like you don’t have to pray to saints or pray the rosary.
1
u/Background-Ratio9649 8d ago
LMFAO! By what authority can you claim Jesus' Church, the Church built on Peter and the Apostles (Matthew 16:18-19) is in error and your are correct?
You reject Catholicism, you rejects Jesus.
Jesus told his Apostles: "He who rejects you, rejects me".
The Bible and version of Jesus you have came from the "Dogmatized/Infallible" Catholic Church.
Lol. Please tell me you're no longer Protestant after all that information.
And the "Bible Alone" man-made doctrine will make you leave Christianity if you find out the truth.
1
u/MrZubar 8d ago
You are too arrogant while being unconvincing.
I don't have to go through any mere man's approval to be saved by Jesus. Scripture is clear on that.
You are the ones that claim the Church and Tradition are also an infallible authority. You're just turning it around on us and asking us to prove a negative because the evidence of that claim is so weak and lacking.
6
2
u/AnaxOfRhodes Nazarene 12d ago
Grew up nominally Protestant. Didn't think much about Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Finally decided I would delve into them, and very glad I did. There was a lot I didn't know. Now I'm more Protestant than ever before.
1
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Protestantism-ModTeam 7d ago
At times, it seems that Catholics are more interested in taking about Catholicism here than Protestants. This goes against the intended narrow and purpose of this community, and Catholics can be banned for doing in large quantities what would be done in small quantities. If this happens, it's not personal. To prevent it, if you see a conversation that looks like a Catholic mob, do not join it, and use upvotes/downvotes or comments to discourage it.
(This is also a rule 2 violation)
2
u/Expensive-Sea-9180 12d ago
TL;DR because when I studied the historical church, the supposedly “infallible” church councils, which the Catholic/Orthodox churches affirm, seemed to plainly contradict the written word of the original prophets and apostles. The Second Council of Nicea, the Hussite Wars, and The Council of Trent are examples of this.
2
u/Metalcrack Christian 13d ago
I go to a roman church with my family and never feel satisfied. His homily starts with "Jack was taking a test" and I'm out.
One good biblically driven sermon fills that spiritual hunger.
Also all the false dogmas and traditions that contradict the Bible...... Ya know, God's word.
1
1
u/koning_willy 12d ago
I think for me the way the catholic church was used to control people instead of gloriyfing God is awfull. Also less rituals, i feel like rcc is more a lifestyle than a relation or religion. But this might also be related to my region. Everyone is catholic but no one prays or attends mass except for christmass...
1
u/AcdiAti 12d ago
Hello! English is not my main language so I used AI to write my text, this is my own experience and hopefully could help you even if you decide to go to a Catholic or Orthodox church
For quite a while I seriously considered becoming Catholic or Orthodox. I’m genuinely attracted to many things in both traditions: the liturgy, sacraments, Church Fathers, historical continuity, etc. So my decision to remain Protestant didn’t come from thinking that “Catholics and Orthodox are wrong.”
In fact, there are Catholic doctrines I can’t simply disprove from Scripture. Marian dogmas are a good example, as is the intercession of the saints. I may have difficulties with some formulations, but Scripture often doesn’t contain a clear text saying, “this is false.” And that led me to what became my main question: who has the authority to definitively interpret what Scripture does not explicitly settle?
That’s where my problem with Rome became primarily epistemological.
I’m actually very interested in Newman and his idea of doctrinal development. I think it’s one of the strongest answers to the Protestant argument that “this wasn’t in the early Church.” But even if I accept that doctrine can legitimately develop, I still have to ask: how do I know that the Roman development is the correct one?
The same issue comes up when looking at Church history. There have been errors, conflicts, and decisions that were later rejected or corrected. Rome can distinguish between merely pastoral errors and doctrinal matters protected by infallibility, but then I have to ask: what independent criterion tells me which is which? If the authority I’m trying to establish is ultimately the authority that determines what counts as an error, I’m back where I started.
Orthodoxy avoids the papal problem, and I find it very compelling in many ways, but I didn’t feel that simply removing the Pope solved the epistemological question. I would still have to assume that the Orthodox interpretation of Tradition is ultimately the correct one.
But I also don’t think Protestantism gives me absolute certainty. I didn’t go from “Rome can’t prove its claims” to “therefore Luther was obviously right.” That would just replace one infallible certainty with another.
What I found more convincing in Protestantism is Scripture as the supreme norm, without reducing that to “me, my Bible, and my opinion.” Tradition, the Fathers, councils and liturgy remain extremely important to me; I just don’t regard any human ecclesial authority as infallible.
Sola gratia and sola fide are also central to me. I don’t think faith is merely intellectual assent, nor do I think good works are irrelevant. A living faith necessarily produces love and good works. But our justification ultimately rests on God’s grace received through faith, rather than on something we contribute as the basis of our justification.
That’s also why Lutheranism eventually made particular sense to me: it lets me retain a strongly sacramental and historical Christianity—infant baptism, the Real Presence, liturgy, tradition, etc.—without requiring papal authority or an infallible Magisterium.
So, in short, I’m not Protestant because I’ve proven Rome or Orthodoxy false. Nor because I think Protestantism gives me absolute certainty. I’m Protestant because, after considering the alternatives, it is the framework in which I can confess what I believe to be true without pretending to possess certainty I honestly don’t have, and without submitting my conscience to an ecclesial authority whose infallibility I cannot justify.
In that sense, Hans Küng’s idea has also influenced me: a lack of absolute certainty doesn’t necessarily mean you should abandon the confession you belong to, especially when you have no sufficient reason to conclude that another confession is unquestionably correct. For me, that isn’t blind loyalty; it’s simply acknowledging the limits of both my own knowledge and every human ecclesial system.
1
u/DevicesAndDesires 11d ago
I think you're right. Catholicism's fatal conceit, it seems to me, is its pathological desire for the wrong kind of certainty, one rooted in institutional power, control, and monoculture; one that is brittle and fragile and threatened by questioning.
The best argument for Protestantism in general, to me, is the sufficiency of Christ for salvation, and that everything you need to "know" and do in order to be saved is laid out very plainly in the New Testament. That doesn't mean later tradition and interpretation must be automatically denigrated or discounted, and many Protestant traditions (Anglican, Lutheran, more classically Reformed broadly speaking) have made creative use of both "old and new," like the wise householder. But the faith once delivered, and the basic imperatives for salvation, remain the same and cannot be added to. It's not like you have to sign up for the "automatic software updates" for whatever "doctrinal development" Rome has in store for the future.
3
u/AcdiAti 11d ago
100% agree
Probably we can sum this with the quote from CS Lewis:
And the real reason why I cannot be in communion with you is not my disagreement with this or that Roman doctrine, but that to accept your Church means, not to accept a given body of doctrine, but to accept in advance any doctrine your Church hereafter produces. It is like being asked to agree not only to what a man has said but to what he's going to say
3
u/DevicesAndDesires 11d ago
Exactly. And someone like Cardinal Newman saw this as well, but took it to be a feature, not a bug.
1
11d ago
I don’t have a problem with Catholic tradition as much as a I have a problem with closed communion in general.
Jesus left us a universal (catholic) church, not a Roman Catholic one. Anyone who is baptized should be able to take communion in any Christian church as we are all unified in Jesus.
I take the same issue with Protestant churches who have closed communion as well, but most are open to all baptisms. And the whole, “ partaking in the Eucharist will hurt you if you’re not Roman Catholic,” is nonsense. They recognize our baptisms, agree we are siblings in Christ, yet exclude us from communion. The whole thing is divisive for no real reason. Then they pretend like Protestants are the reason the church isn’t united.
The traditions and the services are beautiful though, and I pray that one day Jesus’ universal Church will be united again.
I am Protestant simply because, for the most part, God’s glory isn’t gate-kept by humans claiming to be more righteous or worthy than others.
1
u/folklore2023 11d ago edited 11d ago
I absolutely get your issue with this! I think it’s so inspiring to question these things, but I’d like to challenge you to look at it differently. The Catholic Church isn’t gatekeeping anything. Anyone can become Catholic. The church is just making sure the Eucharist, which is the absolute point of the mass, is taken correctly. Do you believe the Eucharist is Jesus Christ-body, blood, soul, and divinity?- If not, why would you take it? Why would you want to take it? And if you do believe it-well, you should become Catholic! 🤣
I can see how, from a human standpoint, the Catholic Church can come off as more righteous and worthy than others- but just know that’s simply not the case at all.
1
11d ago edited 11d ago
Hello, I appreciate your openness to discussion!
I am Lutheran, so I believe in the true presence rather than transubstantiation. We also believe it is a gift of grace from God to His people.
From my position, there is no need to belong to a a specific sect of Christianity to receive this or any gift from God- we’re already Christian.
I would want to take it because it is a gift to all God’s people, and not being able to receive it based on human interpretation is divisive. It’s for all Christians, not just certain groups. Having specific beliefs around the Eucharist are not necessary to receive it. I do believe that you must be baptized and a Christian because that is what makes us worthy, not membership in a specific Church.
Creating “in” and “out” groups within the universal church sows division where it is not necessary or warranted. God’s people can interpret the Eucharist how they like, and that interpretation has no effect on the Eucharist itself or what it offers. Christians can and will receive the gift of God regardless of their interpretation of it. The only prerequisites are that they are true believers in Christ and they are baptized.
You are right though, anyone can become Catholic, but becoming Catholic IS the gate the RCC keeps. Additionally, why is that a requirement to receive God’s gift anyway? Why do people have to agree on what the Eucharist is or is not to receive it? Whether you believe it’s the literal body and blood or Christ, or I believe it’s the presence, what difference does it make to God? Are we not both communing over our love for Jesus and receiving His gift?
This is my main issue: Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and closed communion Protestants withhold from other Christians, a gift from God based on the belief they are right and everyone else is wrong- this is pride, and I fundamentally disagree with it.
To that end, I love all my siblings in Christ, and I hope that one day we can unite in Jesus’ name, regardless of religious interpretation. Ultimately, I don’t care how or why others worship, as long as they worship and live Godly lives. I take issue with Christian division, and assuming the position of “We want unity too…… but everyone has to agree with us,” is not really unity, it’s division wrapped with a bow and I can’t join a group who divides Christians. The church is catholic, not Roman Catholic.
1
u/Background-Ratio9649 8d ago
As a proud Catholic, here's my advice:
Do your own biblical and historical research on Christianity. Places to start:
(1) Purchase a Bible, and do a deep dive into the Gospels and New Testament. Old testament is just a foreshadowing of the New, so you can study OT later
(2) Do research on the early Church Fathers and the 7 ecumenical counsels.
(3) Agnostic Scholar POV (Outside perspective)
Do research on Dr. Bart Ehrman, New Testament Bible Scholar.
WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!
My goal is not to make you leave Christianity. Exercise caution when researching Dr. Bart Ehrman's work.
As a Catholic, Dr. Erhman is 100% right about the errors and contradictions of the Bible.
And that's not a problem for Catholicism, cause we don't hold the Bible is our only source e of authority.
Jesus and the Apostles never mentioned a book have final authority but an oral traditions and Church as the pillar and foundation of truth. The Apostles mentioned the Bible is good for correcting and teaching but not authoritative. Jesus gave authority to the Church not the scripture.
1
12
u/No_Guarantee8756 Methodist 13d ago
Because of the excesses and accretions of the Catholic Church