Why I Am Protestant

There are three major “wings” of orthodox Christianity: Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox (I use capital “O” when speaking of this branch of Christendom, and small “o” when speaking in general of “right belief”) and Protestant. When someone is baptized in the Catholic Church or in the Orthodox Church they are Catholic or Orthodox respectively. But the term “Protestant” seems to be a catch-all phrase for everybody else – all other orthodox Christians (obviously excluding cults such as JW’s and Mormons which are not “orthodox”).

In spite of this, I don’t like the term or what it implies.

Working in a Protestant book store I received a call one day by an angst customer. He was seeking books in our store that have been written against the “Homo-filled Catholic Church” (as he called it). I could not think of any books on our shelves that targeted against the Catholic Church; this fact enraged the caller. He began to accuse me of conspiring with the Harlot of Revelation. When I told him I did not share his view that the Harlot of Revelation was the Roman Catholic Church this infuriated him even further; he demanded to know if our store was Protestant which it is. He then wanted to know if I was Protestant, which I am. He then asked why I was not “protesting” against the Catholic Church. He had me there.

Protestantism received its’ name by way of the Reformers “protest” against Medieval Catholicism, and the term stuck. Yet both movements have grown and matured over the years (consider a type of ecumenical common ground that was reached and signed between Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism in 1999) and I for one am not wholly interested in fighting doctrine with the Catholic Church, especially since I have so many to fight with within Protestantism itself (do we baptism infants or don’t we [Lutheran or Baptist], are the spiritual gifts for today or are they not [Reformers or Charismatic’s], do we have “compatibalistic” free will or “libertarian” free will [Calvinists or Arminian]… I could go on). The point is that while I obviously cannot be Catholic (I reject wholesale certain doctrines revolving around Mary and the Pope among others), my Evangelical convictions [which cannot be found in the Catholic Church) gives me options and permits me to work out my own salvation by way of study and independent thinking which I feel is restricted within Catholicism.

Even still, I do not accept wholesale some “big” doctrinal positions that define Protestantism. These doctrines include Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, while I hold to both, I feel Protestantism needs to better articulate and nuance what they mean. And I am not alone. Many Evangelical Protestant scholars are – by way of returning to the scriptures – also calling for a more faithful way to understand these two doctrines.

Take Sola Scriptura as our first example. It means “by scripture alone” as a matter of authority in all areas pertaining to the faith. However, many who leave the definition at that have tossed out every tool given us by God to correctly understand the scriptures. Tools such as “historical context”, “literary context”, “literary genre”, “reasoning” and others. The bible has become a banquet of piece-meal for scavengers and vultures. When many think of “scripture alone” this concept rules out all other tools of interpretation because that would mean we are not using scripture “alone”, but with other tools. A good example of this is in the recent debate between two Reformed teachers, John Piper and N.T. Wright. Wright argues that we need to understand what a particular word meant in its’ original context, how was it used and what connotations did it carry. In response John Piper says that it is not how a word was used or what it meant in its original context that matters, what really matters is the word itself. This is a HUGE error as a result to a wholesale commitment to Sola Scriptura because the scriptures no longer mean what they were intended to mean, they now mean whatever we want them to mean depending on how we now use certain words today.

I suggest (along with other evangelical scholars) that instead of Sola Scriptura we adopt the phrase “Scripture as our Final or Ultimate authority on matters pertaining to the faith” (I don’t know how to say this in Latin).

Now consider Sola Fide. This Latin phrase means “by Faith Alone”, but in what sense are we to understand faith “alone”? Like Sola Scriptura, how far do we take the term “alone”? Many Reformers (especially of the deterministic wing – i.e. Calvinism/Lutheranism) have taken this term too far. I was listening to a Christian radio program just yesterday that well illustrates this extreme Reformed commitment to Sola Fide. A young man called in requesting clarification of terms; he said he was very confused. What was the problem? He said he always hears preachers and evangelists claim that one must “repent” in order to be saved and he heard a popular Christian band tell the audience that Jesus is not just our Savior, he is also our Lord. So where is the confusion? To this young man’s Reformed sensibilities, salvation is "by Faith Alone", repentance is simply not required because that would constitute a “work”; as a matter of fact if you “repented” to become a “Christian” you probably are not a Christian at all, because one becomes a Christian by Faith Alone and not by the “work” of repentance.

And the umbrage this man took with what the Christian band claimed (that Christ is also our Lord) is that Christ is not our Lord – according to him – he is only our Savior! Why? Because if Christ is our Lord as much as our Savior then that means we must be obedient, and obedience constitutes “works”. We are not saved by our LORD Jesus Christ, for that would mean we are saved by works of obedience to Jesus Christ as our Lord, this cannot be true because we are saved by Faith Alone. The absurdity of this position is astronomical, and how it can be maintained in light of the New Testament is beyond me. I changed stations when the host (a Reformed specialists or scholar?) began to affirm all that the caller said and to criticize everyone who thinks otherwise.

This (narrow) interpretation is probably a result to the previous commitment of Sola Scriptura as I illustrated above. It is a wholesale commitment to a traditional doctrine (Sola Fide) at the expense of understanding the scriptures in their own context. I believe Sola Fide should be understood this way: We are saved by Faith Alone and not by the Works of the Law that maintain a distinction between Jews and Gentiles and that give Jews privilege by way of ethnicity, rituals or nationality, to God. In other words, we are not brought into the family of God by circumcision; we are brought into the family of Abraham by faith and Abraham’s faith was seen by his obedience to God. This is why James explicitly says that we are justified by “works” and not by “faith alone” in agreement with both Paul and Jesus. Paul says by our faith we fulfill the law and Jesus says that the “works” which God requires is that we “believe”.

So while I strongly affirm Faith Alone, I believe Protestants need to better articulate this doctrine in light of the scriptures. A faithful commitment to the scriptures reveals that we are justified by Faith Alone and not by “Works of the Law”. But Faith itself is a verb; so it is not as though nothing is accomplished on our part in order that we be saved. The crowd shouted “what must we do to be saved”, Peters answer: “Repent”. A soldier once asked, “what must I do to be saved”, Paul’s answer: “believe and you shall be save”. Some Jews once asked the Son of God, “What are the works that God requires”, Jesus’ answer: “The works of God is this: that you believe in the One whom he sent”. (For a full treatment of this subject by me see my blog "Responding to a Catholic Friend".)

Protestants and Catholics alike owe a great deal to the Reformers, to Luther and Calvin, Zwingli and Huss, and especially their forerunners, Tyndale and Wycliffe among others. If not for the Protestant Reformers we – all of us except the Orthodox – may still be listening to the bible read in church each week in some irrelevant archaic Latin jargon. While I admire the Reforms to some extent – and I certainly owe a lot to their work – I do not have any type of a priori commitment to them. In other words, they are not “canon” for me, and neither, I might add, is their teaching. Quite the contrary, by returning to the scriptures as my ultimate authority on all matters of the faith I believe I am keeping with the heart of the Reformation (Reformed and Always Reforming), and in that, I recognize I am Protestant. My a priori commitment then is to the Word of God and not to any man, movement or era.

In my unwavering commitment to the scriptures the label I prefer over “Protestant” is “Evangelical”. Yet Evangelicalism was birthed in the camp of the Protestant spirit. And that is why I am a Protestant today.

Derek

Let me be crystal clear about something, I am neither anti-Catholic or am I anti-Protestant, I am just a guy trying to find his way. In point of fact I have a great deal of respect for the current Pope and for the great headways which the Catholic Church has made since the Second Vatican Council. They have redefined their understanding of the Priesthood and of the concept of the Church and I only look forward to the day when they bring their doctrines of Mary closer in line with the scriptures... but one step at a time is all anyone can hope for.

Furthermore, Protestants could learn a thing or two from Catholics. I was quite disappointed several months ago when I attended a public March for Life, and discovered that there were very few Protestants while almost everyone marching to save a babies murder were Catholic. How do I know? I was getting "Hail Mary" in surround sound.