r/Protestantism

Hey so I assume this will be taken down, I don’t want to attack anyone nor am I saying all Protestants are bad, but I’ve noticed that many Catholic church’s and shrines, and statues are defaced and disrespected all over the world by Protestants, and others. examples spray painting statues of Mary, peeing on alters, streaking in churches. I assume these people would be outliers rather than the average Protestants, but I’m curious on the Protestant view on why the Catholic Church is attacked but not other religions. I understand that some Protestants don’t consider Catholics Christians but why come after Catholics but not other non believers from false religions. I never hear news of Protestants defacing Hindu temple or Muslims mosques, or Jewish synagogues. Maybe cause I’m not from those faith so I just don’t see it happen, again not attacking anyone I fully understand bad apple do justify stereotyping a whole group, and I assume Protestant churches suffer similar defacing a from non believers, but I’m curious what you all think.

I'm going to a Pentecostal church tonight for the first time. I'm very passionate about my faith. I think this might be the right denomination for me.

Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and the Orthodox all believe in true presence and they all (including Methodists and Moravians) believe in infant baptism.

What are the key views of the denomination? I've heard great things, and I'm new to Christianity, looking for a church.

"It seemed to me that if Christ was truly the Son of God and if he founded a Church to teach all nations in His name, it must be a Church teaching with authority, as her Master did. Obviously one might deny that Christ was the Son of God, and one might reject the claim that he founded a Church. But if these two claims were accepted, it seemed to me that in spite of all its faults the Roman Catholic Church was the only one which could reasonably be thought to have developed out of what Christ established."

What are some good arguments that defend the protestant reformation? A friend of mine who is Catholic looks down upon me because of my Protestant views.

I’m trying to fully believe that I don’t have to do anything to earn my salvation and realize that Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross was enough and the ultimate gift. What makes this hard is I used to be a practicing Catholic, so with all the rituals it felt like I was trying to maintain and earn my salvation by avoiding mortal sin and taking the Eucharist. And I’ve realized that when I was very devout, it was based off of fear and I don’t want that for my relationship with God. I’ve been exploring other denominations and most likely want to be in historical/high church Protestantism. Catholicism gave me a good starting foundation for my faith, but after re-learning its history and dogmas I don’t want to stay. But that’s kinda besides the point rn and just some extra info.

Anyway, How can I let go of my anxiety and need to feel like I have to do stuff to earn salvation? It feels deeply rooted in me that I have to do that and that I’m not forgiven unless I go to a priest specifically. I’m tired of letting this consume me. I want to focus on God, but it’s hard when I have all these “obligations” and rules from my infant baptism on me, that I don’t want to follow. Also if anyone’s been in my situation and changing denominations I’d love to hear your story for some encouragement. This is one of the hardest things I’ve gone through.

Genuine question that I havent got a good answer for from the best people I've been able to ask (from different traditions):
____________________________________________________________________________________________

The cosmological argument identifies God as: God is the uncaused cause.

The teachings concerning the trinity with-or-without the filioque states that the Holy Spirit is caused by the Father via procession with-or-without the Son.

=> Holy Spirit is not God ?
____________________________________________________________________________________________

What am I missing?

I'm trying to help a local family out as they've asked me for advice as they want their kids to learn English. They have a 4 year old, an 8 year old, & a 12 year old so please specify the age demographic for the shows. I often explain help with Old Testament verse explanation due to them being an (ethnic) Jewish perspective on certain verses.

We usually think of laziness as refusing to work, but Scripture presents us with a more challenging question: can we be extremely busy doing things for God while neglecting our relationship with Him? We can volunteer, serve, give, teach, and help others while spending very little time in prayer, Scripture, obedience, or simply sitting at Jesus' feet.

Jesus' parables of the Ten Virgins and the Talents show the importance of diligence, readiness, and faithfully using what God has entrusted to us. But the story of Mary and Martha reminds us that being busy for Jesus isn't the same thing as growing closer to Him. The answer isn't to stop serving, but to make sure our service flows from a growing relationship with Him.

Paul and the other New Testament writers continue this call to diligence, holiness, spiritual maturity, and faithful service. We are called both to serve God and to seek to know God. The question is whether our activity for God has sometimes become a substitute for the deeper work He wants to do in us.

The New Testament does not teach that Jesus will return to this Earth. Neither Mark, Paul, Matthew, Luke, nor Acts ever teach it. Revelation explicitly denies it by destroying the old creation. The only "return" in the New Testament is Christ's final manifestation prior to the annihilation of the present world and the creation of a new one. The traditional doctrine of a Second Coming to Earth is therefore not New Testament teaching but a later theological construction.

Mark 13:24–27 is the only passage that resembles a "second coming" expectation:

>Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. (Mark 13:26)

This echoes Daniel 7:13–14. But the ambiguity is crucial: in Daniel, "coming with the clouds" is not a descent to Earth; it is the Son of Man approaching the Ancient of Days in heaven. Many scholars therefore read Mark's language as describing Christ's heavenly enthronement rather than a future earthly return. Others interpret it as a cosmic, future revelation. In Mark 14:62, Jesus says to the high priest:

>You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.

Again, the imagery is Danielic. It is not an explicit descent to Earth. It signifies enthronement, vindication, and divine authority, but not a geographical "return."

Paul's eschatology likewise concerns cosmic transformation rather than spatial movement. It is participatory and transformative, not geographical. Paul never says that Christ returns to Earth. The movement he describes is upward (believers) and downward (Christ), but the meeting point is "in the air," and Paul does not narrate what follows.

The New Testament teaches a transition to a new creation, not a return to the old. There is no stage in which Jesus resumes residence on the present Earth. Every text traditionally used to support a "second coming to Earth" dissolves under close analysis. In Matthew and Luke, Christ's future manifestation is apocalyptic and symbolic, not geographically specified.

Augustine's eschatology (City of God 20) is fully compatible with the conclusion that the New Testament does not teach a true return to Earth. Augustine explicitly rejects millenarianism (the notion of a future earthly reign of Christ) and denies any idea of Christ returning to dwell on this Earth or establishing an earthly kingdom. He interprets Christ's "coming" as the final judgment, not a geographical descent. In Augustine's cosmology, the present Earth will be destroyed; Christ's eternal dwelling is not on the old Earth.

The central point of New Testament teaching is that Christ has already risen and taken his throne in the heavenly Jerusalem.

I have heard a lot of discussion and debate about this and I would like someone to help clear it up.

Please stay respectful

I sometimes have a subconscious feeling of unbelief- I don’t quite know how to describe it? Like when you read something fictional and your brain quietly but deeply reminds you “that’s not real”? Sometimes when learning or thinking about God I get that feeling, and I try to correct myself and dismiss it.
I was thinking this morning about what my basis for belief is and I’m worried it’s too weak- I was raised Christian, live in a deeply Christian family. I started believing in God not because I have something I can definitively point to that convinced me, but because it’s just simply what I’ve always known. When I see atheist arguments, the anchor that keeps me from panicking is the thought that if I die and find there isn’t a God, I’ll have lost nothing, and even if someone could prove 100% God wasn’t real I’d still be a Christian anyways, because I think my life is better for it. I like having a guidebook to follow for how to live my life and I like having a God to be loyal to and to cling to when things are rough. So I don’t need 100% proof of his existence because if I believe and find I was wrong I’ll have lost nothing
But I worry this isn’t a good enough justification for my faith. I think about God all the time and worry all the time about sin(it’s a problem really) and living life the way Jesus wants, but what if my faith isn’t real? What if I’m just going through the motions and I’ve deluded myself into thinking I have real faith? I could point to all the ways my life is devoted to God as evidence, but theoretically I could do all those things and still not believe it in my heart. And I know someone will point out I’m talking a lot about works here and not what Jesus did on the cross- I can choose in my conscious mind to say “that’s real and I believe in that,” but what if my unconscious heart doesn’t believe it? You could choose to tell yourself in your head “my bed is lava” and then live your life treating it as such, but somewhere in your mind you still know it’s not lava and your just acting. What if that’s what I’m doing?
And if I really am deluding myself, how can I be saved? I know the story of the man who said “I believe, so help my unbelief,” but salvation depends on our hearts genuine faith in Jesus. I could imitate all the things someone with real faith does and even tell myself in my head that I have real faith, but if my heart still chooses not to believe then I can’t fix that no matter how hard I try. I’m hesitant to say my heart 100% without a doubt believes in Jesus, and it doesn’t matter if I choose consciously to keep obeying the Bible because if my heart doesn’t follow it’s all for nothing. Basically, if I can act like a Christian apart from faith, then what if I really don’t have faith and I’m deluding myself?

Follow the logic, christian history and corroborate with Paul's writings yourself...

1.- Paul was an enemy of the church. Galatians 1:13 "For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it."

2.- The church that Paul persecuted and tried to destroy did not have his writings: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon.

3.- Since the church did not have Paul's writings, the church was the supreme authority for the Christians. The Church holds the supreme authority for the christian and has the power to bind and lose on earth. Matthew 16:18-19

4.- Paul converts to the church that he persecuted and now he writes what the Christians taught him: 1 Timothy 3:15: 'The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth."

5.- Paul even writes in his Ephesian's letter that to give glory to God you must do it in the church that he once persecuted: Ephesians 3:20-21 "to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen." Note that this he learned from the Christians, the christian church taught him this and he wrote it and he believed it and he preached it!

5.- Refusing to listen to the church will turn you into a PAGAN! Matthew 18:17 "And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector."

6.- After Paul's conversion to the church, the church continued to be the supreme authority for the Christians! Paul submits to the church and preaches what the Christians taught him about the church that he once persecuted. So, Paul starts writing his letters Galatians, Timothy, Romans, etc...

7.- Some 300 years later the church then decides to take Paul's writings to make their own christian bible; so in the year 382 under the leadership of Pope Damasus 1st in the council of Rome the christian bible is made and Paul's writings are declared "Inspired by God" by the very same church that he once persecuted!

8.- Protestants arrive some 1,500 years later and took the bible that the catholic church made, but with one twist, Protestants now claim that Paul's writings are the infallible authority and the supreme authority, even more so than the church that Jesus himself founded and that Paul himself persecuted!

9.- How can Protestants even think to say that Paul's writings are more infallible and hold higher authority than the very same church that Jesus Christ founded and that Paul himself persecuted?

And that is why Sola Scriptura is a heresy; Sola Scriptura is a man made doctrine popularized by enemies of the Church to minimize and downplay its supreme authority! There is nothing more supreme than the church that Jesus founded! Paul's writings are not above the church that he once persecuted!

The only reason why Paul's writings are in the bible is because the catholic church that he once persecuted decided to include them in a cannon that they made in the year 382 under the leadership of Pope Damasus 1st in what is known as the council of Rome!

There are enemies of the church who want you to believe that supreme authority lies in Paul's writings. It sounds all so "convincing and true", but it is a clever deception designed to draw believers away into Protestant sect and away from the church where glory is to be given to God THROUGH ALL GENERATIONS FOREVER AND EVER. AMEN as stated in Paul's letter to the Ephesians 3:20-21 he learned this from the very same church that he once persecuted and tried to destroyed as he himself also stated in Galatians 1:13 "For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it."

Good evening everyone, I hope you're all having a great weekend.

I was thinking about a couple of experiences I had a while ago, once after my grandmother died and the other after a nasty car crash, and I’d be really interested to hear how other Reformed Christians would understand these situations.

At the time, I was already in quite a dark place mentally. I wasn’t exactly losing or doubting my faith, but I was struggling generally and had found myself wondering whether life was really worth it. (This isn't an X-factor story, don't worry)

When my grandmother died, I went to see her body. Whilst I was there, I suddenly had an incredibly strong feeling that there was something above me, almost watching over me. It’s difficult to put into words because I didn’t literally hear a voice, but the overwhelming sense I got was essentially:

“It’s okay. Everything is going to be okay.”

I don’t think I’ve ever experienced a feeling quite like it before, nor since.

I’m not claiming that I know this was the Holy Spirit, or even necessarily that it was supernatural. I know grief can have a lot of psychological effects, and I especially don’t want to interpret every unusual feeling I ever get as a message from God.

At the same time, as a Christian, I’ve always wondered whether it’s reasonable to understand what happened as the Holy Spirit comforting me, at a point when I particularly needed it.

Similarly, I was once in a fairly serious car crash (completely my inexperienced fault). After crashing onto a fairly busy dual carriageway, other than my car being a bit smashed up, I came off perfectly fine, just with a banged head. Once again, I can’t claim definitively that God miraculously intervened, but I’ve always wondered whether it would be reasonable to understand my survival as an example of God’s providential protection.

I come from a Reformed/evangelical Anglican perspective, although I’m open to continuationist or charismatic perspectives.

Have any of you experienced something comparable? And from a Reformed perspective, how would you distinguish between ordinary emotions during grief, God’s providence, the comfort of the Holy Spirit, and something that someone might wrongly interpret as special revelation?

(If this question isn’t appropriate for this subreddit, please let me know and I’m happy to remove it.)