r/Protestantism

My new obsession is assurance of salvation and whether Protestantism is right- we can have assurance- or Catholicism is right- we can’t have assurance and it’s a toss up whether you’ll be good enough or not.(Please, I’m sorry for being scornful, but please no Catholics coming to preach in this post- yes I’ve seen Catholic explanations of all of this)
1 Corinthians is a verse I’ve seen used that seems to say we can’t have assurance of salvation, because Paul himself didn’t. I know elsewhere he seems to be assured he will have salvation, but that doesn’t make this verse go away.

I recently posted some similarities between roman catholics and muslims, but here is another fun one and correct me if I am wrong but it seems like a pattern you can’t unsee once you understand it.

It’s easy to discredit or see when different religions not of Jesus Christ operate in the same way. Mormons say they believe in the bible yet they have the Book of Mormon which expands on the bible, provides it’s own interpretation, and tells the readers how to view the bible and what to believe about it.

It’s the same thing with the Seventh Day Adventists who have Ellen G. White and her writings, Jehovah’s witnesses who have the watchtower group, Muslims who have the hadiths, and when it comes to Roman Catholics they have their catechism of the catholic church book.

To me, it’s a blatant example of Roman Catholics claim to follow the bible yet they reference the catechism book and use that as how they interpret scripture. At any time the pope can update this and say “the church views abc-xyz in this way” and people have to believe it. Nobody is there to challenge it, at they just claim papal infallibility due to the church being established by Christ. In other words, agree to disagree Christ started their physical roman catholic vatican centered church, but who decided to create a separate book and say that should be used to interpret the bible? More importantly, the fact roman catholics blindly accept this without questioning it is crazy to me.

In my opinion, it’s a clear sign and pattern that can’t be ignored.

Why don't Christians read the Bible? Most believers would say they know it is important, yet life has a way of pushing it aside. Busy schedules, exhaustion, distractions, and the feeling that Scripture is difficult to understand often become reasons we neglect God's Word. What begins as good intentions can slowly become spiritual drift.

Many of the obstacles to Bible study are not as difficult to overcome as we imagine. Reading passages in context, using trustworthy Bible study resources, learning a little history and geography, and recognizing the different types of literature found in Scripture can make the Bible much easier to understand. The goal is not simply to gain knowledge but to allow the Holy Spirit to shape our hearts into greater obedience to Christ.

The Bible still speaks because the people it describes struggled with many of the same fears, temptations, failures, and questions we face today. As we spend time in God's Word, we come to know Him more deeply, are strengthened for the spiritual battles we face, and are reminded of His faithfulness, His love, and the hope we have in Christ. Bible study is not just another Christian discipline. It is one of the primary ways God transforms His people.

That's the question. Why do we let so much money changing and capitalism in our churches? The Bible I've read and did an 18 month discipleship on AND went to an accredited Christian university to study for 4 years, does not teach me about how important money is above all else. Super weird. Explain the marriage between Jesus and capitalism (with scripture please).

Am I the only one who sees the similarities between islam and roman catholicism especially when it comes to their debate tactics? What I mean is both of them use this “shifting the goal post” tactic. Muslims love to use this argument that the torah and the bible affirms the Quran yet when you point out inconsistencies in that argument they argue that the Bible is corrupted. It’s not corrupted when it benefits them yet it is when it contradicts Islam.

With Roman Catholicism, it’s the same and they use the same tactic. Whenever you debate them they will try to use the Bible and anytime the Bible contradicts their beliefs they use “tradition” or some vague person or council from hundreds of years ago. It’s fine to use the Bible for them and anytime something contradicts their beliefs like Marian doctrines, intercession of the saints, etc. they try to use the bible for these beliefs and anytime you call it out they switch to some “traditions”.

Am I the only one noticing this? It is extremely frustrating when they always shift the goalpost and deflect.

I live in Brazil and we have here a big culture between protestantism and catholicism that is "what you do, I don't like" and that destroys some cool stuff.

I am not saying you have to get a image/paint of Paul, Peter, Mary, but seeing those people remember us their purpose to life, Christ, like all our lives have to point for Christ.

I see a good thing in have images of Jesus. Obviously the "European Jesus" is being unmasked some time ago, but I think when some culture that is not too allowed from Christianism (like asian, african) receives Christ, they can have an icon to look. I see a real problem if they are curving and praying to a paper, but treat the thing with respect and really see themselves in the context.

I don't think images of Jesus are wrong.

I’ve been talking with Catholics and they seem to look at me like I’ve got two heads if I claim that we can believe the Bible is divinely inspired without having an infallible church institution as the reason why.

I know what the Bible has its authority from God, not from the Church, and the whole “Isaac Newton only discovered gravity“ argument, but I’m still having issues putting into words how we can know that the Bible IS INSPIRED INFALLIBLY, and that we have the CORRECT LIST OF BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT (canon) without appealing to the authority of the Roman Church.

Hello Brothers and Sisters,

I have seen many try to dispute the legitimacy of Paul and thus place the Gospel over his writings and make his letters akin to secondary sources or apocrypha on the basis he was not an original apostle or his claim of contact with Jesus is dubious. I was taken in by this line of thinking until I did my own research and saw Paul was accepted by the other Apostles and his teachings were approved. Whenever I see arguments against Paul be brought up, I have never seen this fact be addressed, but I am wondering the following: What would be the argument against Paul despite him being fully accepted as an Apostle by the other disciples of Jesus (bar Judas obviously).

Sincerely,
An Inquiring Faithful of Christ.

I feel disgusted in myself and too far gone. This about 6 months ago and I can’t move on

Making this post because I never hear anyone from any denomination have the stance that I do on if you can lose salvation or not and I’m wondering if it’s somehow heresy/obviously wrong?
Orthodox and Catholics are always super adamant about salvation not being a guarantee and arguing against assurance of salvation, but the argument I always hear is “you need to persevere” and I just think… yeah?
And Protestants are always adamant on “one saved always saved” and always argue against scriptures that talk about falling away only with scriptures about Jesus keeping us always
My stance has always been that you can fall away if you choose to reject Jesus. If you wake up one day and decide “you know Jesus ain’t real” and remain that way the rest of your life, I can’t imagine you’ll go to heaven because “you sang “Jesus loves me” in pre school””
At the same time Ive always believed that “one saved always saved” means that no sin is serious enough to cut you off from God as long as you return to him and strive to move past it.
Using Paul’s analogy of a race- it’s like EO/Catholics are saying you can run the entire race and and still be disqualified in the end because your form was a little off, and claim protestants say you can quit in the middle and still get a participation award and I don’t ever see Protestants argue against that, and I’m in the middle with the view that you can trip and have as bad a form as possible, but as long as you still make it to that finish line your good. What disqualifies you is willingly dropping out

Hi all,

I'm looking for some advice and resources. I will try to keep this as brief as possible, I can provide more details in comments as needed.

I've grown up protestant, I've experienced a range of low-church denominations and am currently the youth pastor at a non-denom, evangelical zwingli-esque church, memorial eucharist, baptism as a symbol, etc.. you know the drill.

Over the past decade I have been reading a lot about theology, church history and trying to approach my bible with as little pre-conceived assumptions as possible. The result has been that I have boiled down my denominational future down to two options - (conservative) Lutheranism and Orthodoxy. Both take an aligned view of church history, retaining traditions of the apostles, real presence in the eucharist, etc.

I don't desire to become Orthodox, because it is SO foreign to my experience of faith so far. But there are some undeniable aspects of it that are 'winning' over Lutheranism to me. For example, I see absolutely no biblical or church father evidence of PSA as a concept - which seem foundational to Lutheranism. I'm yet to find a convincing argument as to how the church is 'the pillar and ground of truth', and that 'the gates of Hades will not prevail', and yet, so many errors entered the church so early - which Lutheranism seeks to rectify.

I'm writing this post to look for feedback or resources. As I mentioned, I don't want to become Orthodox, but feel compelled to it, as the 'truth'. I'm unconvinced by the arguments of people like Gavin Ortlund. But I feel that I must do my due diligence in exploring all of the explorations or solutions that Protestantism has to offer, before I make the decision on such a huge change in my faith.

This really is a hail mary, last ditch attempt for me. If you have been in this situation yourself, please share your experience with me.

I’m posting this because the current state of this sub is getting out of hand, and we really need to talk about how rules are being enforced here. Right now, r/Protestantism is completely losing its identity because we are letting ourselves get drowned out by non-Protestant users. I know the usual argument is that this is an open forum, but letting our own community get buried by a sheer numbers game is ruining the space.

To be clear, nobody is asking to ban people just based on their user flair. This is about stopping behavior that constantly derails the sub. We are regularly dealing with users who have zero interest in the health of this community but still dominate our front page. You see it every day: apologists looking strictly for a theological fight, recent converts trying to validate their choices by tearing down Protestant doctrine, and an endless influx of bad-faith "just asking questions" threads meant to mock our faith. Calling this "productive discussion" is a joke.

The lack of reciprocity across Reddit is something we can’t ignore anymore. If you go to r/Catholicism or any Orthodox sub, they enforce strict rules to protect their space. Try stepping out of line there and see how fast you get moderated. Meanwhile, our sub is a total free-for-all. When someone comes here looking for actual Protestant fellowship, they just find a hostile battleground. When solid Protestant answers get buried under downvotes and endless counter-arguments, it drives our own people away.

If a non-historian isn't allowed to hijack r/AskHistorians, why are we allowing other traditions to hijack a Protestant sub? I’m asking the mod team to look beyond the report button and actually protect the original purpose of this community.

My proposal for the mods:
We should implement a [Fellowship Only] post flair. In these specific threads, top-level comments must be restricted to verified Protestant users. Non-Protestants should still be allowed to read and learn, but they shouldn't be allowed to hijack the discussion.

To the community:
The mods need to know how the community actually feels about this. If you are tired of staying silent and want to see this sub protect its space, please upvote this post for visibility and drop your thoughts or suggestions in the comments below. Let's see where everyone stands.

been attending for couple of years , have heard questionable statements from pulpit, I’ve been praying , studying scripture as if I was reading it the first time , without the lens of a specific denomination

Some of life's hardest decisions come after loss, failure, or unexpected change. When we're afraid or desperate, it's easy to rush toward whatever seems to offer relief instead of taking the time to seek God's will. Isaiah 30 shows that Judah made exactly that mistake. Faced with the threat of Assyria, they trusted Egypt for security rather than turning to the God who had faithfully cared for them in the past.

God's response wasn't simply to point out their bad decision. He invited them back to Himself. "In returning and rest you shall be saved; in quietness and confidence shall be your strength" (Isaiah 30:15). Instead of frantic self-reliance, God called His people to repentance, trust, and patient dependence. Waiting on God is rarely easy, but His timing often reveals His wisdom in ways we couldn't have seen if we had rushed ahead.

The same temptation exists today. We can make plans, seek advice, and chase quick solutions while forgetting to ask what God desires. Isaiah 30 reminds us that God is patient with His people, willing to forgive, guide, and bless those who return to Him. The challenge isn't simply making wiser decisions; it's learning to trust God enough to let Him direct our path, even when the future is uncertain.

My parents and I can’t agree with this matter. They were very strict about what kind of music my siblings and I were allowed or not allowed to listen to growing up. Now I’m 20, and I am a Christian because I believe and I want to be one and not just because of the way I was raised and I find myself disagreeing with my parents' point of view. I don’t believe secular music is all bad, as long as you know what you’re listening to and what the message in that song means. What do you think?

I don’t understand the appeal of a mega church. It just doesn’t stand to reason that that would be what Jesus or anyone in the Bible would want especially with all the entertainment aspects. It feels like they’re making a joke of it.

I’m not a Puritan or anything, I’m a Methodist like I want there to be people at my church but if the way we’re going to get hundreds of people into church is by having loud microphone stages with pastors rambling whether it’s about fire and brimstone or about how Jesus cares no matter what I just don’t think that that’s worthy of praise

But my opinions aside why do you go to your mega church? Do you have any justification for why you’d prefer this type of service? Do you think that it affects your faith as a whole?