AboutAndrew Foley Expertise Although, as an American, I am a great admirer of the Protestant-influenced culture which created this country, as well as the zeal and Biblical scholarship of many Protestant denominations and individual Protestants, I am forced to conclude that the Protestant Faith is based on faulty and selective Biblical interpretation as well as erroneous reasoning. While Protestants can of course be good Christians, at its heart Protestantism is religious anarchy which will lead many devout souls to perdition. Jesus prayed that we may "all be one"(JN 17:21) and that there may be "one flock, one shepherd" (JN 10:16). I believe that He established a Church against which "the gates of Hell shall not prevail" (MT 16:18). I don't believe Jesus intended for Christianity to be an eternal debating club, which is the condition to which Sola Scriptura relegates our religion. I'll be glad to try to answer any questions you have, although my special interest is in the Faith/Works question, the question of the Bible's authority, and the dangers of Pentecostalism
Experience Lifetime interest in comparative religion, especially among Christians.
Question Hi Andrew... I am also working through, as a protestant, some of these questions about faith/works... I have found your answers to helpful, except for one thing... You seem to have little respect for the "born again movement" and paint protestantism as "easy believism", but in my own personal experience, I know of far more Roman Catholic people who live as pagans and go to confession every once in a while, than I know protestants who basically don't follow what their church teaches about living a godly life. Is this only my experience? Also, and more or less related, you say that Sola Scriptura means an endless debating club within the church. However, I don't see a whole lot of difference in the Catholic church. There are factions pushing for every type of doctrinal belief, from women priests to charismatic catholics to catholics for choice (abortion). Again, am I skewed in my perceptions? Thanks.
Answer Hello and thanks for writing! I would like to clarify something first. I don't condemn Protestantism as a whole as "easy believism", although I think the seeds of that kind of thinking can be found in the doctrine of Sola Fide. Excluding Calvinists, who would say that we're all predestined anyway, most traditional Protestants- although certainly adhering intellectually to Sola Fide- always promoted an ethos of high moral rectitude and lived their lives as if their Final Judgement would be based on their actions in this life. It's a certain strain of modern American Protestantism- primarily found among the more uneducated and emotion-centered movements, that really promotes "easy-believism", the concept that salvation is won in a single instant when we "accept Jesus as our personal savior" (usually at some emotion-driven revival or altar call) and that we don't really have to do anything much after that to remain "saved". Even if one doesn't hold to the specific theology of "once saved always saved", the adherent of "easy-believism" will usually say that one has to do a heck of a lot of major sinning in order to lose their salvation. Compare that to 1 John 3:4-10 where it says that anyone who sins belongs to the devil. We all sin, so obviously we destroy our relationship with God when we commit serious sins (see 1 John 5:16-17 for the distinction between sins). In a conversation with a Pentecostal friend who always refers to various people as "saved", regardless of the kind of life they're currently living, I commented that from the way she talks it would seem like the only people in Hell are Hitler and Stalin. I think "easy-believism" promotes moral complacency and laxity and a smug, callous disregard for the needs of one's fellow man. So without really getting into the subject, I just wanted to make a distinction between traditional Protestantism and the dumbed-down version prevalent in America today. The following is an excellent critique of "easy-believism": http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/march/29.72.html#related
As for your observation that Protestants (a pretty broad term) live more moral lives than Catholics, you're right- that is only your personal experience. I've grown up around Catholic families who were exemplars of virtue while observing many Protestants who were no better than pagans. Of course, I've also known very many immoral Catholics and many godly, upstanding Protestants as well. I really don't think either side has cause to crow. Recent polls show that self-proclaimed "born again" Christians live exactly as the secular world does, and sometimes worse when it comes to things like divorce rates, pre-marital sex, consumption of immoral entertainment, etc. The statistics for Catholics are a little better, but not by much. (Here's one such article: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_divorce.html) In any case, the argument is irrelevant. Does the personal moral behavior of a particular religion's members really say anything about the truth of their doctrine? If that were so, then we should all become Amish or Mormons or Moslems.
As for the various movements and organizations you mentioned, I would disagree with you that their existence is comparable to the "endless debating club" that Sola Scriptura has made of Protestantism. Inherent to the idea of Catholicism is the idea that the Church is the Christian's divinely instituted spiritual authority on earth, imbued with the power-as directed by the same Holy Spirit who inspired the prophets and the authors of the Bible- to pass infallible judgement on matters of faith and morals. Once the Church has spoken authoritatively on such matters of faith and morals, then anyone who publicly dissents from such teaching has automatically excommunicated himself and should no longer be considered part of the Church. Such are those people who call themselves Catholics and yet lobby for reversal of the age-old Catholic prohibition of abortion, homosexual acts, women priests and other such issues that the Church has already infallibly ruled on. If the public has the impression that these people are still Catholics in good standing or that it is permissible for Catholics to debate the Sacred Magisterium (the body of the Church's infallibly defined doctrine), then that is a failure of communication and leadership on the part of the Church's leadership, not an accurate view of reality. As for the charismatics, although there are definitely some excesses in the movement, for the most part they are loyal Catholics who put their emphasis on the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Of course, there are a wide range of spiritual issues that Catholics may lawfully debate, such as priestly celibacy (which is a discipline of the Roman rite, not an infallible doctrine), the idea of Limbo, the exact chronology of End Times events, etc., but on matters that are a part of our Sacred Magisterium, the proper attitude is, as St. Augustine once said, "Rome has spoken, the case is closed."
On the contrary, I am not aware of any Protestant church, besides various cults like the Branch Davidians or certain Pentecostal sects led by modern-day "prophets", which claim any unique divine authority to define doctrine to the exclusion of other churches. Every denomination will readily admit that its unique interpretation of Scripture is based on human understanding and that other churches' interpretations are equally valid, even if there is disagreement. Private interpretation of Scripture is one of the pillars of the Reformation and the right of every Protestant. You will rarely ever see Catholics debate Scripture because we feel that it is the Church's right and duty to interpret it for us, while it is common to observe Protestants, especially the non-denominational types who have become the face of American Protestantism, arguing vehemently over every syllable of the Bible as if it were God's plan that every truck driver, barber and plumber should be his own religious authority and interpret the Bible for himself. The massive proliferation of Protestant denominations testifies to the utter fatuousness of the doctrine of individual interpretation. As with most Catholic/Protestant debates, the ultimate question comes down to authority; how are we to know God's truth? Sola Scriptura has led to thousands of "truths" as defined by over 30,000 different denominations. I believe that there is one truth and that God has left us a means to understand it, through the authority of the Catholic Church.
