Why I Can Never Be Protestant

Why I Can Never Be Protestant

Over 20 articles deep, I thought I would give my personal reasons as to why I'm not a Protestant and never will be. I'm sure a Protestant apologist can come and pick these apart as they will, but they aren't meant to be arguments. Rather, they are my personal reasons for finding Protestantism to be a false religion.

I will try to not make these arguments pointed at the sins of Protestant members, though I have seen Catholicism attacked in a similar way. "This Protestant did x, therefore Protestantism is wrong" is a pretty terrible way to think. Rather, I will be pointing to the actual doctrines, teachings, and practices that are embedded in Protestantism.

1. Bible Alone

This doctrine is normally formatted in two ways:

a. The Bible is the only source of God's infallible word that we know of.
b. All doctrines must come from the Bible.

The difference is that those in position "b" will cite Bible verses that seem to preach the "Sola Scriptura" doctrine. As I've covered in another article, there isn't a single valid verse that, when put to scrutiny, holds up. It simply is an unbiblical doctrine. I also find it to be contrary to the entire Bible's purpose. The Bible isn't formatted as a Catechism for Christian beliefs. Ultimately, Christ gave us the Church. Not "a" Church, but "the" Church (Colossians 1:18, Ephesians 1:22-23, James 5:14-15, etc). I don't want to downplay Scripture, I view it as insurmountably valuable, but without a set Church to define doctrine, you're only asking for division. This kind of division is exactly what I see in the Protestant churches. Christ wanted unity (1 Corinthians 1:10; Psalm 133:1) and I have seen more unity in the Catholic Church over the last 2000 years than the Protestant churches in the last 500.

2. The Biblical Canon

I have made an entire article on this topic, but will summarize my view nonetheless: Nowhere does the Bible state which books should be in the Bible. Thus, this makes the statement "Bible Alone" almost meaningless. What even is the Bible? How do we know which books should be in the Bible? When Protestants altered the Biblical canon, they effectively stated that they can know what books are in the Bible. They view themselves as having the same (if not more) authority than an ecumenical council. I have big problems with this.

We need a Church to infallibly define Scripture. Otherwise, we're left with guessing or relying on faulty measures to decide what books of the Bible are God's actual word.

3. Unbiblical Teachings

The same Protestants who preach they are "Bible believing Christians" are the same ones who hold to unbiblical beliefs. Now, I stated I wasn't going to criticize people, but many of these are very common beliefs in Protestantism and thus valid objections.

Common Non-biblical Protestant Teachings/Practices:
1. "You need a personal relationship with Christ."
2. "The Word of God is only found in the Scriptures."
3. "Purgatory is a false doctrine."
4. "Salvation is by faith alone."

Sure, we can debate these topics, but ultimately they fail. There isn't sufficient biblical support for any of those claims. Purgatory is perhaps my biggest hang-up. The idea that we are imperfect on earth, perfect in heaven, but require no perfecting to enter heaven is logically impossible. Whether you believe God does it instantly or not is beside the point, some people (maybe even most) need to be purified before entering heaven. That's what purgatory is, and Protestants reject it.

4. The Early Church

The Early Church was Catholic. That's almost a no brainer to me. The early Christians believed in regenerative baptism, purgatory, transubstantiation, Peter's primacy, priestly hierarchy, confession to a priest, and more. What's important about this is that the first Christians were the ones who are a direct product of the apostles' teachings. So unless you want to state that the apostles failed completely and didn't establish the Church Christ wanted, it seems to point toward Catholicism.

What makes this even more compelling is St. Polycarp. Why? St. Polycarp was born in 69 A.D. (This is before some books of the New Testament!) and a student of the apostles, specifically John. We read in Irenaeus' writings:

New Advent, Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenæus, Ch. 3

"For, while I was yet a boy, I saw you in Lower Asia with Polycarp, distinguishing yourself in the royal court, and endeavouring to gain his approbation. For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events (inasmuch as the experiences of childhood, keeping pace with the growth of the soul, become incorporated with it); so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse — his going out, too, and his coming in — his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance."

So St. Polycarp, a literal student of John the apostle, who had spoken with "those who had seen the Lord" (the other apostles), was a Catholic bishop of Smyrna. Jerome even calls him "apostolic":

Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius:"

Some even say that the letter to the church in Smyrna described in Revelation (Revelation 2:8-9) was actually to him, since John and Polycarp knew each other. The letter in Revelation also warns the church that they will face persecution, and they did, specifically Polycarp.

It seems to me that if any Christians would get it right, it'd be the students of the apostles. If I'm going to listen to a Christian, it will be the likes of Irenaeus and Polycarp, not Martin Luther. Luther wasn't trained by apostles and he had terrible morals and theology. You can't tell me, "Luther was just preaching the Bible" because all the Church fathers cited loads of scripture in their writings. This is something I can't reconcile.

5. Claims that you can be “100%” sure of your salvation.

Not all Protestants make this claim, but of the ones who do, I can’t agree with. They claim that you can be 100% sure that you have been saved, but also that if a person doesn’t go to heaven or apostatizes they, “were never a true Christian in the first place.” So, how do I know I’m a true Christian? 



Imagine a Christian. He accepts Christ as his Lord and Savior and vows to follow God all his life. He believes he has been saved and is 100% sure of it. Other Protestants would agree and say, “Yes this man is saved. He can know with certainty!” Later in his life he experiences some tragedy that leads to his deconversion and he becomes an atheist. How can we say that he was 100% sure of his salvation, if not long after he committed apostasy? What would these Christians say about atheists who used to be devout Bible believers, and were 100% sure they were saved, but deconverted?

Truth is, nobody can be 100% sure of their salvation. Not due to the insufficiency of Christ, but the weakness of man. To say I am 100% sure I will be saved is to say I know my future, and this is not a power that I have. 


Conclusion

This isn't meant to be a refutation of Protestantism, but rather my personal reasons I don't hold to Protestant theology. I have been Catholic for 11+ years and plan to stay like that until I die. The only religion I find to have even the smallest similarities to Catholicism would be Eastern Orthodoxy, and I still have issues with their church. Rome is my home.