Why am I still a Protestant?

This article is not intended as a polemic against either the Catholic or the Orthodox Churches. Rather, it is meant to question those in authority who stand in the way to prevent the reunification of the whole Holy Universal Christian Church. We are, and ought to be, the Body of Christ, and we should be able to stand shoulder to shoulder against those who prefer to divide us. Satan is working overtime to create division and apostasy, and we need to sound the call for true believers to close ranks. Indeed, we need to come together, right now, under Jesus, and love one another as He loves us. 

One

When the purveyors of the faith wander away from the truth, even the authority of "apostolic succession" isn't enough to save those who are seeking Jesus. Thus, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness find that they must go back to the ancient records and find what the Apostles taught and learn from the earliest sources. The Church that teaches doctrines that are not founded on Scripture or the Apostolic deposit is not the true Church. Tradition and doctrinal declarations either have that foundation or they are false. Common practice and folk beliefs are not valid sources to be made imperative by the Church's hierarchical authority. For certain, we can never validate henotheism and mix pagan ideas with the Truth, especially when doing so causes us to forget proper behavior. We don't follow just because the Church claims authority, but rather because the Holy Spirit illuminates our understanding of Scripture and the teachings of the Apostles.

The Church is like a 3-legged stool. We need good works of charity, the Gospel of discipleship, and sound theological teaching. Like St. Paul said, "Faith (theology), Hope (discipleship), and Love (charity), these three, but the greatest of these is Love." The Church needs the works of charity because it is the message to the world, but without the other two, it cannot stand. When you have all three, the Church is revealing the Kingdom in all its glory. The Church needs works, but the individual believer relies on faith for his salvation. We do those works because we are responding in love to the desires of God, who conforms us to his likeness by teaching us to emulate his righteousness. Salvation and regeneration are not the same thing. We know we are being reformed as we begin to show the fruits of the Holy Spirit. 

There is too much debate over which Church has the correct doctrine of salvation. Yet, in all actuality, I think that every believer in whichever Church has to find the truth for him/herself. Jesus said, "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life, and no one comes to the Father but by Me." He didn't say that we come by way of the Church. We need to have a personal relationship with Him, not merely with his body. The Holy Spirit helps us to relate directly to Jesus in the Trinity, so that we can be conformed to his character and nature. Then, when we pray "in his Name," the Father hears the Son speaking in agreement. 

Two

In the Gospel of Luke (22:36-38), Jesus suggested the disciples should "buy a sword." What does this mean? Is it not likely that Jesus was telling the disciples that they were about to be driven out from the cities, where once they had been welcomed, but now no more? They were being kicked out of the synagogues for sharing the Gospel about Jesus. Now, they will need money and the gear to care for themselves, even to the extent that they will need to cut wood for their campfires. "Buy yourself a sword" is like saying, "You're going to be passing through the wilderness, like vagabonds and hobos, so get yourself a good knife." It will serve for bushcraft as well as for self-defense against wolves. Traveling for the sake of the Gospel has always been a risky business. 

The Early Church Fathers were almost universally pacifist in their attitudes toward dealing with other people. Jesus spoke of turning the other cheek, and praying for those who persecute you, even forgiving when we are harmed. We should refrain from seeking to repay others in the manner we have received, but let the matter rest in God's hands. If He decides to let vengeance stand for justice, that is his prerogative. Of course, we can stand in defense of the helpless, but that's another kind of situation which should be handled with restraint, if possible. And, if we can avoid being harmed, or defend ourselves without harming others, that is acceptable. 

Three

Protestants love the Bible above all else (except for God Himself), and demand that serious interpreters show how their view is Biblical. Catholics, however, put their traditions and Magisterium on such a pedestal that they use those to interpret the Bible. That leads to TONS of accretions that skew their views and practices. It is as if they take small grains of truth and build a castle in the air balanced on simple assumptions. Where is the clear Apostolic mandate? 

Orthodox and Catholic believers often use images in the form of statues or icons, and venerate those images as a way of prayer and drawing near to holiness. It is said that such images are symbols of holiness, but I humbly beg to differ. If an icon is a symbol of something divine, then they say, "the honor that goes to it, goes in a certain way to the prototype." No. It doesn't. That would be like "symbolically" putting the holiness in a box, like the idolaters used to do. An idol is an object intended to make the god appear immanent so that humans can focus and relate to it. The Divinity of the Holy Spirit cannot be manipulated, nor should we venerate saints in icons. The logic is the same, and it perverts the idea of spirituality. 

If you want to pray to saints, asking them to pray for you, go ahead. It is the same as asking a living friend. Show respect, but do not venerate them. Their only power is the influence of their prayers. Yet, if we are welcome before the throne of the Almighty, why would we not bring our own prayers directly to God Himself? Jesus will vouch for our admission and stand beside us in supplication. That is all the help we need. 

Four

Is it possible that I believe the doctrine of Predestination? If you can be erased from the Book of Life, it is because your name was never written in the Blood of the Lamb. From the beginning of the world, all people are tentatively written in the Book, in "pencil" which can be erased. God loves all whom He has created, and desires their salvation. Now, the Blood of Jesus is permanent. If you refuse Him, or deny that his works are of the Holy Spirit, your pencil marks can be erased. We are all loved, but we are all rebels. Given the chance, we MUST accept Jesus to get a permanent entry in the Book. Before Jesus was born, God knew which few truly wanted to know, love and serve Him, and their names were kept in the Book. There are many examples in the Old Testament. 

There are many who are in the Church for their own reasons, and they may actually believe to some degree, but their names are still not permanent. They remain until the Last Day, in the hope that they may yet come to know the Lord. We need a personal relationship with Jesus to be saved. If He has never touched your life, it doesn't matter how much you have done for the Church. We are not saved by works, but by trusting in the person of Jesus. Seek his Face and listen for his Voice, desire longingly to feel his Presence, and He will come to you. Spend time with Him in prayer and let Him change your heart. Then you will not need to fear the words, "I never knew you." Jesus will write over your name in his own Blood, and you will be permanently in the Book of Life. If you truly know and love Jesus, you will never blaspheme the Holy Spirit, because you know that God is good. You will not be deceived. 

Five

There still remains one central argument that divides the Church, and has for 1,000 years. Why are we arguing about the generation of the Holy Spirit? I perceive a problem with this, in that it appears like a basic theological misunderstanding. God is a Trinity, 3-in-1. He always was 3-in-1, is now 3-in-1, and always will be 3-in-1. There never was any eternal existence which held any creative God that wasn't "Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All three were present together in the beginning, before anything was created. They all work together in concert, and never without the cooperation or consent of each other. 

The Son existed before the Father sent Him down to assume the human body that was begotten by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit existed before He ever spoke through the prophets, even before He hovered over the face of the deep, and the Father existed before there was any idea of creating anything that was created. All three persons of the Trinity are co-eternal, existing together, and they never existed as any person without the other two. They did not generate each other. They are equals in every possible respect. Their appellations are due solely to their relationships with each other. They always act in agreement, and if one is acting, then they are all participating in that action. We may give "credit" for an action according to which person we perceive at the time, but that is because we live in the dimensions of creation and time. 

In every instance in which we refer to the One True God, we are speaking of the Trinity, so if one "comes" or "goes" or "proceeds," it is always moving "from" the other two. There is no Son without the Father and the Holy Spirit. There is no Holy Spirit without the Father and the Son. And there is no Father without the Holy Spirit and the Son. Therefore, it is illogical to imagine that the Holy Spirit can proceed from the Father alone. He is not generated, breathed, emanated, or any other process that begins from previous non-existence. He is not the emotional "deep sigh of love" shared by the Father and the Son. He is his own person. Coming into Being implies change, but God is immutable. When God contemplates Himself, He perceives "I, You and Us," all at the same instance.

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son because that is where He was located, in Heaven, and He was not given the task of dwelling within us, as believers, until Jesus returned, ascending into Heaven. Now, simply, when the Trinity is together, as they always are, any one person of them must proceed from both of the others. 

In the Scriptures, in the Gospel of John, this is clear when Jesus says, "I am in the Father and the Father is in me," and later, "Receive the Holy Spirit," when He breathed on the disciples. When they tried to dissuade Him from leaving, did He not say, "Unless I return to the Father, the Holy Spirit will not descend to you"? There can be no other logical conclusion but that the "Filioque" is correct, and that the Holy Spirit does indeed proceed from both the Father "and the Son." Can we please stop arguing over whether that phrase belongs in the creed? Say it or don't. It is the same either way.

Six

One more thing, Protestants have difficulty in believing that the priest is performing a miracle during the Mass to transform the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood. This is especially so when that priest is unregenerate, but in any case, it sounds too much like he is crucifying Jesus again. And we must assert our faith that the elements are transformed invisibly. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church insists that this is merely re-presenting the sacrifice before God's throne. In the letter to the Hebrews, Jesus' sacrifice was once, for all time, so God doesn't need to be reminded. For us, if you are re-presenting, then why do you have a problem with our representation? It can be the "Body and Blood" if Jesus wants it to be, even if the bread and wine are used as a symbol. If He wants it to be that today, it is. No argument. If the priest's ritual actions make it so, then the parishioners' acceptance is enough to validate their faith. We thus have Miracles all around. The disciples didn't understand what he was saying, and the Gospels don't give a clear explanation, except for the scene at the Last Supper (which John doesn't show). I think Jesus knows who has real faith and wants to do what He asked of us. That's enough. 

Seven

Finally, I would like to add the suggestion that the majority of us have neglected a central part of the Way of the early Church. In the Book of Acts, the believers lived together in community. Just as the disciples had done as they walked with Jesus, they cared for one another and shared with any who were in need. There were some problems, of course, but those can be worked out. That idea needs to be combined with the commitment to eschew the negative influences of worldly society. Just as Elijah and John the Baptist did, the Desert Fathers chose to live apart, in total simplicity, immersing themselves in prayer. Their example was followed by men and women who took monastic vows, enclosing themselves in small communities where they could work and pray, hopefully in peace. They shared the fruits of their labor, ate at common tables, and supported each one's spiritual growth. Thus, they saved the learning of civilization through the dark times of conflict with barbarians and Muslims. 

I am not suggesting that we all need to take vows of poverty, chastity, obedience and stability. Family is a core value of the Church and a pillar of civilization. God wants a great and thriving kingdom, not a dwindling ghost town. But we can experiment with the idea of community, like the Apostles did in the first century. Monasteries thrived for 1,000 years in Europe, and some still do. In America, many faith groups tried to build utopian communities of both men and women. Some succeeded in lasting for generations, like the Shakers. The experiment would eventually fail, however, because they didn't have their own children, or they squabbled over sharing and economics. 

It's hard to look clearly at the practices of your "enemies" to see what works. Simplicity, if not poverty, is a key idea, with ministry to marginalized members of the outside society, and also communal prayer on a daily basis. Protestants stand too far apart from our Catholic and Orthodox brethren. We might do well to find ways to incorporate their ideals of drawing away from the world to pray and live simply in community. Monasticism has played vital roles in the history of the Church. Let us not forget that, nor despise what we could learn from it.

Thank you for listening.