Why Become Protestant if You're Catholic?

[Confessional Lutheran]

I'd like to tell a couple of stories. I'll go back three generations to my great- grandmother, Marie Elodie Pecot ( 1887- 1967) for the first story. My great - grandmother was born in Charenton, Louisiana, to a French- speaking, devoutly Catholic family. When she was in her teenaged years, her father, Alexandre, got a job as a marshal in New Orleans and there the family moved. When she was in New Orleans, she met a Baptist from Kentucky, James Henderson Cornett ( 1879- 1976) and they eloped. Her family was livid when they discovered that she ran off with a Protestant and cut all ties to her until her husband agreed to take instruction and convert to the Catholic faith. A couple of years after my grandmother was born ( in DC, no less. Her older brothers were born in Louisiana), my great- grandfather got confirmed and all the children of that marriage ( 3) were raised as Catholics.
My grandmother fell in love with my grandfather, a Presbyterian from Tennessee who had moved up to Washington, DC with his family. When the rest of his family returned to Tennessee, my grandfather carried on up in DC, where he carried on a courtship with my grandmother. They were married in 1933 by a JP in Rockville, MD. My great- grandmother apparently had zero problems with this and they maintained a close relationship until Elodie died in 1967. My grandmother was baptized into the Baptist faith with her husband and their two daughters in the 1950s, in the same church my sister and I were brought up in and baptized ( my sister in 1984 and myself in 1988). My Catholic grandmother became my Baptist grandmother ( my Dad's mother remained a Methodist to the end of her life, as did my Dad's father) in an area that was very much Protestant at the time. Their church community was very close to them and my grandmother retained a powerful faith until the day she died.

I was confirmed after going through the RCIA program in 1995 and lived as a Catholic until 2013. I am in an area that is now very Catholic indeed ( and many Catholics are devoutly so), but I did it as a sort of " do it yourself" matter. I went to weekly Mass and Confession monthly, but I got lost in the vast population of the parish of All Saints. Except for personal discussions with my priest, there were little opportunities to serve and there were cliques that a newcomer could hardly overcome. The homilies were good and I had my now- ended marriage convalidated in the Catholic Church, but when we moved south to Florida, the emphasis changed. The homilies changed to being more about donation, donation, donation and less about theology and doctrine. I was ready to get back to the basics. After a period of intense prayer, my wife and I found an LCMS Church within walking distance of our condo and there we went. That was in the autumn of 2012.
In 2013, we were received into the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod by a reaffirmation of faith and then we started to engage more in Bible study and we were able to participate in the life of the parish by volunteering. The Church became my church family. The same emphasis that was in Hope Lutheran Church in Jacksonville, FL was present in Hope Lutheran Church in Manassas, VA. The family in Manassas is no less my family than the family in Jacksonville. The Lord turned my heart to Him in love and now I truly do see what it is to be a part of the Body of Christ. God leads in mysterious ways.

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

So, coming at the question from this angle, one might conclude that reasons for a Catholic to become a Protestant might be:
1: That is where their search for Truth led them.
2: A tightly- knit community of fellow- believers in Christ.
3: A dissatisfaction with the teachings of their old Church and fulfillment with the teachings of their new one.
4: Added opportunities to contribute one's time, talents and treasures to the life of their local church.

I'm pretty sure there are other reasons as well, but these four might be sufficient to start with.

 

[Albion]

Numbers 1 and 3 seem to me to be essentially the same point and I feel, personally, that this is the reason for a conversion. Unless, that is, we're talking about the kind of person who really doesn't have any interest in theology, the Bible, or doctrine but chooses a church solely on the basis of something incidental, like it being nearby or friends go there or they have a nice children's program.

I will admit that I might be prejudiced in saying that, since I left the Church of Rome because of wanting the truth and had studied the RCCs teachings enough to see where the falsehoods were.

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

Numbers 1 and 3 seem to me to be essentially the same point and I feel, personally, that this is the reason for a conversion. Unless, that is, we're talking about the kind of person who really doesn't have any interest in theology, the Bible, or doctrine but chooses a church solely on the basis of something incidental, like it being nearby or friends go there or they have a nice children's program.

I will admit that I might be prejudiced in saying that, since I left the Church of Rome because of wanting the truth and had studied the RCCs teachings enough to see where the falsehoods were.

Excellent points, all. People do have all kinds of reasons for rejecting/ joining a Church and I'm sure that they're all valid in the eyes of those who reason why they've joined a particular group. It does seem to me that finding Truth in a certain faith is probably the most valid reason for joining said faith.

 

[Josiah]

I wrote this years ago at another website .... it's incomplete and not well worded (a bit too harsh) but it's still accurate. If I have time, I'll do a better post...

Why this Catholic Became a Protestant...

1. Ecclesiology. I disagree that Christians are a specific institutional denomination, the RCC as the RCC itself alone so insists for itself alone. The egotistical, divisive, INSTITUTIONAL, self-centered, self-serving, power-grabbing, truth-evading, accountability-denying claims of it itself alone for it itself alone was something I found to be very unbiblical, unreasonable and absurd. I came to believe that Christians are PEOPLE, and so the "assembly, community, gathering, communion" of PEOPLE is also PEOPLE - not a denominational, geopolitical, legal, denomination. I rejected the self-serving ecclesiology of the RCC. I came to embrace the ancient creed: one, holy, catholic communion of believers. And thus all the OBSESSION the RCC has with itself, all the enormous egotistical power-grabbing, lording-it-over-all-as-the-Gentiles-do" of the RCC increasingly revealed to me that the RCC is wrong. In what is the foundation of the RCC , the key point on which it stands or falls. The claims of the RCC here are not only unbiblical and unhistorical - but dangerous and absurd. I simply could not accept the extreme egoism, individualism and institutionalism of the RCC.


2. Epistemology. I came to reject the epistemology of "just swallow WHATEVER I'M officially saying because I'M alone saying it." This "just drink the koolaid I'M feeding 'ya and shut up" rubric (CCC 87, etc.). Over and over and over in Scripture (OT and NT) we are told to beware of false teachings - yet the RCC forbids this. Jesus praised Christians for doing this - yet the RCC condemns that (Rev. 2:2, etc.). I came to embrace that the TRUE TEACHER is likely to come into the light, to welcome the light, to insist on accountability - because TRUTH would matter, not the unmitigated power and lordship of self alone over all. It is the teacher of FALSEHOOD who is likely to hide in the dark, reject the light, insist on building around self huge, thick, divisive walls of egotistical and power grabbing and self serving claims of self for self, insisting that he alone just be given a "pass" on truthfulness and that all just swallow whatever self alone says cuz self alone is saying it and self alone tells all to do that. Now.... I DO agree with a sense of "authority" but Catholicism (and also all the cults) confuse authority with dictatorship. There is a BALANCE between authority and responsibility, a balance the RCC has entirely, wholly, completely, absolutely abandoned - ironcially becoming the very thing it PRETENDS to reject: self appointing self the sole and UNACCOUNTABLE teacher, interpreter, judge, jury - a dictator. Now, what seems interesting to me is that generally, Catholicism is very sound, I have a huge respect for Catholic scholarship, and I think RCC theology is generally excellent. I am profoundly impressed with much of Catholic doctrinal history. So why the RCC retreats into a very unbiblical, unsound, dangerous, "cultic" epistemology puzzles me - but it does.


3. A "Catholic" by Catholic definition is one who just docilicly swallows what the RCC feeds them... BECAUSE it itself alone does. Truth is irrelevant, the only point is the RCC shouting "don't be insubordinate to ME!" That's the whole enchilada. Either you do - and thus you are Catholic, or you don't and thus you aren't. This finally dawned on me. While I largely AGREED with the RCC (I still agree with probably 95% of what it teaches - doctrinally and morally), I agreed with it MORE than the great majority of "Catholics" (I MUST put that in quotation marks!), I was not Catholic at all. What I accepted I did because I viewed it as true and sound - NOT because I was blindly being subordinate. I was what our deacon so powerfully condemned as the "greatest threat to the Catholic Church since Gnosticism" - I was a "Protestant hiding in the Church" as he characterized it, what he regarded as much WORSE than a "Cafeteria Catholic" which he also insisted were by definition not Catholic at all. If one doesn't mindlessly accept the ecclesiology and epistemology of the RCC - and thus SUBMIT to it (right or wrong, good or sound), then one is not a Catholic. Then I'm not Catholic. In MY view, my leaving was a move of integrity, honesty, character: an unwillingness to lie, to give false witness.


I sought a fellowship that embraced humility, accountability, community. That was Christocentric rather than self-centered, that lifted high the Cross rather than the denomination itself. I looked for at least some attempt at BALANCE between authority and responsibility, that pointed to an Authority OTHER than self. It was important to ME that the teachings be biblical and historical. I wanted a fellowship that embraced the teachings I felt strongly were TRUE, but didn't insist I accept things I could not so embrace. It was important to ME that worship be liturgical and sacramental. That the fellowship be pro-life, pro-family. I eventually found that in the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. AT FIRST, I saw it as "Catholic Light" - embracing all I felt dear but none of the reasons why I had to leave the RCC
. But in time, I came to embrace the GOSPEL, the Law/Gospel distinction, the "Theology of the Cross" - I became Lutheran, not "Catholic light." Just my journey...... .


.

I'll try to say more (and better) later...



- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

moved by me

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

Geography might have a little bit to do with it, too. If you're in a small town, perhaps a Catholic parish isn't too close, but there are other liturgical churches available.

 

[Josiah]

Why Reformed to Lutheran?

Here's another direction...

I was never Reformed (I went from Catholic to Lutheran) but here is a bit of the story of one who did go from Reformed to Lutheran http://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/why-i-am-not-reformed/


My wife grew up Reformed.... She and her family were very active at a tiny, very conservative/orthodox Reformed church informally associated with a Reformed seminary (often they didn't have a pastor of their own and leaned a lot on profs from the sem). It was interesting for me when we first met and talking about our faith traditions..... What appealed to us was actually very similar (reminding me that Reformed and Lutheran are close siblings). What appealed to her about Lutheranism was the sense of humility and the Sacraments (rather passionately becoming Lutheran on both Baptism and Communion). She was less embracing of the Lutheran worship style, that was a process for her. She was Confirmed a few weeks before we were married.


We all have our journeys....



- Josiah

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

Why Reformed to Lutheran?

Here's another direction...

I was never Reformed (I went from Catholic to Lutheran) but here is a bit of the story of one who did go from Reformed to Lutheran http://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/why-i-am-not-reformed/


My wife grew up Reformed.... She and her family were very active at a tiny, very conservative/orthodox Reformed church informally associated with a Reformed seminary (often they didn't have a pastor of their own and leaned a lot on profs from the sem). It was interesting for me when we first met and talking about our faith traditions..... What appealed to us was actually very similar (reminding me that Reformed and Lutheran are close siblings). What appealed to her about Lutheranism was the sense of humility and the Sacraments (rather passionately becoming Lutheran on both Baptism and Communion). She was less embracing of the Lutheran worship style, that was a process for her. She was Confirmed a few weeks before we were married.


We all have our journeys....



- Josiah

Yes, we all do and that is exactly why I brought this thread up. The Lord leads us to Him however it is that He pleases. The Holy Spirit making new movements in the hearts of believers may on occasion lead those believers away from the denominations that they grew up in.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, we all do and that is exactly why I brought this thread up. The Lord leads us to Him however it is that He pleases. The Holy Spirit making new movements in the hearts of believers may on occasion lead those believers away from the denominations that they grew up in.

Having read all the posts in this thread I have not seen any compelling reasons for changing either between Protestant denominations or between Protestant faith traditions (for example Reformed to Lutheran) nor any compelling reasons to become a Protestant if you are Catholic.

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

Having read all the posts in this thread I have not seen any compelling reasons for changing either between Protestant denominations or between Protestant faith traditions (for example Reformed to Lutheran) nor any compelling reasons to become a Protestant if you are Catholic.

Fair enough. I'd say that the search for Truth is probably the most compelling reason for one to go from one faith tradition to another. Perhaps a Catholic found Truth in one of these Protestant traditions we are discussing? Then, of course, there's always the will of God ( another compelling reason) working in the heart of a believer.

 

[Albion]

The search for truth is something we all seem to be emphasizing and, with that, you have different interpretations of jointly-held evidence to consider.

Some people will think truth is found in one of the alternative interpretations (Faith vs. Works, for instance) and some will find truth in the opposite one.

BUT when it is said that there is no compelling reason for a Catholic to become a Protestant, there is always one more thing. I refer to the fact that much of Catholic doctrine is based on phony history. In saying this, I am relaying the basics of my own spiritual journey.

The theory of Holy Tradition is one such example. Of course, most people do not study history very well or very much, so they believe a plausible story. If it were a weird interpretation of Scripture that some church has given them, they might question it, but when a denomination says they believe X because "the Apostles taught it" ...or that "X has always been believed" ...the listener probably isn't well enough versed in the facts of history to spot the revisionism. Then too, they cannot immediately turn to their own copy of the Bible to check out what they've been told (which they would do in the case of most doctrinal controversies).

In fairness, this is not something that's confined to Roman Catholicism. The Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, some Baptists, and other churches lean on their own revisionist history to undergird their doctrines, too, but if the question is asked about Catholic to Protestant, this is an issue not to be overlooked.






.

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

The search for truth is something we all seem to be emphasizing and, with that, you have different interpretations of jointly-held evidence to consider.

Some people will think truth is found in one of the alternative interpretations (Faith vs. Works, for instance) and some will find truth in the opposite one.

BUT when it is said that there is no compelling reason for a Catholic to become a Protestant, there is always one more thing. I refer to the fact that much of Catholic doctrine is based on phony history. In saying this, I am relaying the basics of my own spiritual journey.

The theory of Holy Tradition is one such example. Of course, most people do not study history very well or very much, so they believe a plausible story. If it were a weird interpretation of Scripture that some church has given them, they might question it, but when a denomination says they believe X because "the Apostles taught it" ...or that "X has always been believed" ...the listener probably isn't well enough versed in the facts of history to spot the revisionism. Then too, they cannot immediately turn to their own copy of the Bible to check out what they've been told (which they would do in the case of most doctrinal controversies).

In fairness, this is not something that's confined to Roman Catholicism. The Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, some Baptists, and other churches lean on their own revisionist history to undergird their doctrines, too, but if the question is asked about Catholic to Protestant, this is an issue not to be overlooked..

I was hoping to avoid that uncomfortable topic and I spent a few minutes trying to choose the words that I write with care, but you are correct. Historical revisionism does seem to be something that the RCC has indulged in, although some studies can easily disprove many of their claims. When Luther initiated the Reformation in Germany ( as opposed to Zwingli's Reformation in Switzerland or the Henrician Reformation in England), we see that doctrines such as Purgatory, invocation of the saints and clerical celibacy were relatively new concepts that Martin Luther and the others sought to do away with.

The Holy Scriptures were not set down in indisputed form until after the Council of Trent in 1563 ( which put the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church in its final form. This was well after the beginning of the Evangelical Movement), with the books of the apocrypha as being declared canonical by the Magesterium and rejected as such by the clergy of the Evangelical churches. Before 1563, what was and was not to be considered Scripture was still open to debate https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-you-should-know-about-the-council-of-trent/, http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2015/01/luthers-view-of-canon-of-scripture.html.

The semi- Pelagianism found in the teachings of the Catholic Church ( that anyone can cooperate with God out of his own power, without the prompting of the Holy Spirit, in effecting his own salvation) was a heresy that was overtly condemned by the Church earlier, but then, according to the Council of Trent, we see it being implicitly approved, while anathematizing the Faith Alone stance of the Reformers http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm.

1] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.
2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.
3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God. http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php

These words come from the opening paragraphs of the Formula of Concord. Truth is indeed immutable and only in the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures, is such Divine Truth to be found. No doubt that there are true Christians who worship in the Catholic Church and the CC does retain the Sacraments and the Word. When they seek to go beyond that ( looking at Pope Leo X and Pope Francis I), they're prone to error. Martin Luther never sought to leave the Catholic Church: he sought to reform it and those in power sought to kill him for it. He rejected Leo's excommunication and he actually declared the Pope and bishops in allegiance to Rome in a state of heresy themselves: http://www.dionneblog.com/martin-luthers-response-to-his-excommunication-by-pope-leo-x/.

Pilate once asked Jesus " what is truth?" without realizing that Truth Himself stood before him. In Jesus Christ and in Jesus Christ alone, can we find all fullness of Truth. That fullness can be usurped by nobody. The only Word qualified to call itself Truth is the Word of God, both the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and the Holy Scriptures. There is my testimony. Amen.

 

[Josiah]

I was hoping to avoid that uncomfortable topic and I spent a few minutes trying to choose the words that I write with care, but you are correct. Historical revisionism does seem to be something that the RCC has indulged in, although some studies can easily disprove many of their claims. When Luther initiated the Reformation in Germany ( as opposed to Zwingli's Reformation in Switzerland or the Henrician Reformation in England), we see that doctrines such as Purgatory, invocation of the saints and clerical celibacy were relatively new concepts that Martin Luther and the others sought to do away with.

The Holy Scriptures were not set down in indisputed form until after the Council of Trent in 1563 ( which put the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church in its final form. This was well after the beginning of the Evangelical Movement), with the books of the apocrypha as being declared canonical by the Magesterium and rejected as such by the clergy of the Evangelical churches. Before 1563, what was and was not to be considered Scripture was still open to debate https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-you-should-know-about-the-council-of-trent/, http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2015/01/luthers-view-of-canon-of-scripture.html.

The semi- Pelagianism found in the teachings of the Catholic Church ( that anyone can cooperate with God out of his own power, without the prompting of the Holy Spirit, in effecting his own salvation) was a heresy that was overtly condemned by the Church earlier, but then, according to the Council of Trent, we see it being implicitly approved, while anathematizing the Faith Alone stance of the Reformers http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm.

1] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.
2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.
3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God. http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php

These words come from the opening paragraphs of the Formula of Concord. Truth is indeed immutable and only in the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures, is such Divine Truth to be found. No doubt that there are true Christians who worship in the Catholic Church and the CC does retain the Sacraments and the Word. When they seek to go beyond that ( looking at Pope Leo X and Pope Francis I), they're prone to error. Martin Luther never sought to leave the Catholic Church: he sought to reform it and those in power sought to kill him for it. He rejected Leo's excommunication and he actually declared the Pope and bishops in allegiance to Rome in a state of heresy themselves: http://www.dionneblog.com/martin-luthers-response-to-his-excommunication-by-pope-leo-x/.

Pilate once asked Jesus " what is truth?" without realizing that Truth Himself stood before him. In Jesus Christ and in Jesus Christ alone, can we find all fullness of Truth. That fullness can be usurped by nobody. The only Word qualified to call itself Truth is the Word of God, both the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and the Holy Scriptures. There is my testimony. Amen.

OUTSTANDING! (Should be required reading, lol)....


I think this is one very, very distinctive difference between Catholicism and "first wave" Protestantism. In Epistemology, Luther and Calvin directed people to God (to Jesus and to God's Written Word), to real Truth but Truth outside of self. The RCC then (and now) points all to it itself (See CCC 85 and SO much else). Luther's paradigm of Truth being Christ and the Word was anathama to the RCC denomination. Something similar is the case in justification, as Luther and Calvin direct all to the Cross whereas the RC Denomination directed all to look in the mirror and to itself


I believe in truth (and passionately reject relativism), but I reject the RCC model which is to simply equate Truth with whatever Self says at the moment cuz self does. I think it's a bit harder to ascertain and is found outside of self. Only GOD can state, "Whatever I say is thus true." The RCC (and the LDS and in addition all the "cults" known to me) will quote some Scriptures (such as "The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth") but ALL of them do the same SILLY, ABSURD mistakes. They just delete the word "you" (plural, btw) and insert the legal moniker of their singular, individual denomination - to make Jesus referring to IT alone and certainly to no other. The second equally silly spin (that any kindergartener can see) is they invert the whole promise, so that it becomes, "The Holy Spirit will lead/teach the exclusive,singular, individual LDS denomination which will infallibily FOLLOW/LEARN." Stupid, isn't it? Just because God LEADS and TEACHES doesn't mean there will be ONE who will INFALLIBLY follow and learn. Any teacher will tell you that even if you gave a PERFECT lesson, that means SQUAT in terms of any student perfectly learning it - much less that ONE will perfectly learn it and EVERYONE ELSE will not learn it (every time). Sometimes, people need to evaluate these claims of denominations - and THINK. Jesus' promise (SO quoted by all these egotistical denominations claiming self alone IS Truth) simply says the Holy Spirit will teach and lead us...... it doesn't say ONE will infallibly learn and follow just cuz it itself says it itself exclusively does. God taught and lead Adam and Eve in the Garden too.... God taught and lead the Kingdom from Saul on.... God's perfect leading and teaching hasn't mean one INFALLIBLE student and follower before.... yet the whole epistemology of the RCC, LDS and others depends and hinges on this ABSURD, irrational spin on that promise of Jesus.....

I admit, Christians pointing to CHRIST as the Truth and to God's inscripturated words as the Truth also is an unproven assumption.... but it's at least pointing to something OUTSIDE (entirely) OUTSIDE self. Something to which ALL are EQUALLY accountable. Gaining truth even in that paradigm is difficult (I admit) but we can't even start if we follow the RCC/LDS paradigm of "When I speak, I'm right so I'm right when I state that when I speak, I'm right."

"Humility is the foundation of all sound theology." - Martin Luther




- Josiah

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

OUTSTANDING! (Should be required reading, lol)....


I think this is one very, very distinctive difference between Catholicism and "first wave" Protestantism. In Epistemology, Luther and Calvin directed people to God (to Jesus and to God's Written Word), to real Truth but Truth outside of self. The RCC then (and now) points all to it itself (See CCC 85 and SO much else). Luther's paradigm of Truth being Christ and the Word was anathama to the RCC denomination. Something similar is the case in justification, as Luther and Calvin direct all to the Cross whereas the RC Denomination directed all to look in the mirror and to itself


I believe in truth (and passionately reject relativism), but I reject the RCC model which is to simply equate Truth with whatever Self says at the moment cuz self does. I think it's a bit harder to ascertain and is found outside of self. Only GOD can state, "Whatever I say is thus true." The RCC (and the LDS and in addition all the "cults" known to me) will quote some Scriptures (such as "The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth") but ALL of them do the same SILLY, ABSURD mistakes. They just delete the word "you" (plural, btw) and insert the legal moniker of their singular, individual denomination - to make Jesus referring to IT alone and certainly to no other. The second equally silly spin (that any kindergartener can see) is they invert the whole promise, so that it becomes, "The Holy Spirit will lead/teach the exclusive,singular, individual LDS denomination which will infallibily FOLLOW/LEARN." Stupid, isn't it? Just because God LEADS and TEACHES doesn't mean there will be ONE who will INFALLIBLY follow and learn. Any teacher will tell you that even if you gave a PERFECT lesson, that means SQUAT in terms of any student perfectly learning it - much less that ONE will perfectly learn it and EVERYONE ELSE will not learn it (every time). Sometimes, people need to evaluate these claims of denominations - and THINK. Jesus' promise (SO quoted by all these egotistical denominations claiming self alone IS Truth) simply says the Holy Spirit will teach and lead us...... it doesn't say ONE will infallibly learn and follow just cuz it itself says it itself exclusively does. God taught and lead Adam and Eve in the Garden too.... God taught and lead the Kingdom from Saul on.... God's perfect leading and teaching hasn't mean one INFALLIBLE student and follower before.... yet the whole epistemology of the RCC, LDS and others depends and hinges on this ABSURD, irrational spin on that promise of Jesus.....

I admit, Christians pointing to CHRIST as the Truth and to God's inscripturated words as the Truth also is an unproven assumption.... but it's at least pointing to something OUTSIDE (entirely) OUTSIDE self. Something to which ALL are EQUALLY accountable. Gaining truth even in that paradigm is difficult (I admit) but we can't even start if we follow the RCC/LDS paradigm of "When I speak, I'm right so I'm right when I state that when I speak, I'm right."

"Humility is the foundation of all sound theology." - Martin Luther - Josiah

Those are all some pretty good points. The Truth to be found is to be found in God's Word, irrespective of the institution that presents it. I am no fan of relativism, either and I do find the weight of history to be on the side of the Reformers. There is no " basic minimum" in regards to Truth, but there exists plenty of adiaphora for people to focus on and get worked up about. Whether we like it or not, Truth is unchanging, although the way that Truth is presented to us might have some minor variations from one group to the next. For me, my introduction to Confessional Lutheranism was an answer to a prayer I continually made to God as I saw certain inconsistencies regarding Catholic faith and practice.

Inconsistencies that I saw included the general " church drama" that every congregation has to deal with, not serious enough to warrant a departure, but just mildly irritating. A more serious inconsistency might be the official position as stated in the CCC on certain social issues and homilies made by local priests that contradicted those positions. An extremely serious inconsistency would be the hierarchy preaching a different ( and occasionally opposite) point of view regarding doctrine that would have been regarded as damnable heresy just a couple of centuries ago.

The smooth continuation of apostolic teaching as taught in the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod and the consistency of its teaching between one LCMS- affiliated church and another goes a long way to setting my heart at ease as to the truth of what is being taught. The truth is found in Scripture and that truth is hedged by the " fence" we call Concordia: The Book of Lutheran Confessions. It's always good to have a catechism set down in print and to adhere faithfully to that catechism.