Why I am Not a Protestant

Red Pill Catholicism?

I was recently asked by a good friend of mine why I became Catholic. He wondered if I had a “red pill” moment or was gradually convinced. I answered that it was gradual, as I cannot isolate that “one moment” when I decided to become Catholic. Though there are distinctly Catholic doctrines that I find more reasonable, I don’t think it’s fair to say that this or that changed my views. Rather, changing my mindset when thinking about the debate between denominations was more of a major factor.

A shift in mindset is not an argument or a theological doctrine. Rather, one can think of it as an epistemological lens, framework, or filter. These filters are not arguments themselves, but rather, they help with rejecting types of reasoning (good or bad) that are not relevant to an issue. For example, if I’m deciding who I’m going to vote for next election, I’m likely not going to think about the metaphysical debate as to whether numbers exist or not. Unless Trump openly decides to be a realist, and the typical liberal outrage makes it a matter of political contention.

There were two ways my mindset shifted:

1. I grew very skeptical of my own interpretations of Scripture.
2. Recognizing Protestantism was not the default position.

With these filters, I had done two things: First, I filtered out my own inclinations to suppose my personal interpretation of Scripture is superior to minds and souls greater than mine. Second, I had filtered out my version of Christianity being the “last resort,” because my own worldview required just as much of a burden of proof as Catholicism.

Sin as a Distorter of Truth

As someone who struggles with sin regularly, it does not seem reasonable to assume that I could just choose which church to join based on my interpretation of Scripture. If the Alliance Church pastor says one thing, and I think another, what grounding reason do I have to reject his interpretation over mine? The Holy Spirit? Doesn’t the pastor have the Holy Spirit as well? If so, why would the Holy Spirit tell him one thing and tell me the exact opposite?

Alongside the claims of the Alliance Church, we also have the Pentecostals saying one thing, and the Baptists saying another. No doubt, this has a lot to do with the complexity of Scripture. So, not only is the Bible a complex book, but I am still a grave sinner. When one consistently falls into grave sin, one is in rebellion to the truth. Thus, as a grave sinner, I am in constant rebellion to the truth, whether I like it or not. The likelihood I would reliably find an essential truth of Scripture through my own faculties is very low, to say the least.

What follows is that, since I believe my own sin and the complexity of Scripture, and I see that the likelihood of my personal interpretation of Scripture being reliable is low, there is a good reason to reject my own interpretation of Scripture.

Although some will claim, “The main things are the plain things,” I found this not to be true. For even the main things, like requirements for salvation, are up for debate in Protestant circles. Some said I needed baptism to be saved. Others said baptism is a work, thus is not necessary. My own soul was on the line, and it was apparently up to me and my own conscience to decide who was correct.

Infinity Protestantism

When it came to discerning which church I wanted to join, I found myself paralyzed in a state of anxiety. Not in the psychological sense, but in the sense that I was in a state where I was constantly aware of the vast, almost infinite, number of possibilities to choose from. There is seemingly nowhere to go except to remain stationary, but stillness brought about even more despair.

What Protestantism offers is a false freedom, much like the rejection of objective morality. Those who reject objective moral law believe they’ve been freed from the confines of illusory societal norms and mores. Or freed from the ressentiment of the weak, in order so that they become Nietzschean Übermensch. Thus, they are allowed to indulge in their gluttonous pleasure. However, though psychologically guiltless, they’ve only enslaved themselves to their own passions.

Likewise, we’ve convinced ourselves that rejection of objective dogmas is more freeing than holding on to them. As a consequence, we’ve opened the floodgates to heresy. Without dogma, all is permitted! How can a Pentecostal claim that the United Church is heretical? Both denominations use the same sola scriptura principles and have come to a different conclusion. Were they distorted by sin? How come one was and not the other?

Authority of the Church

By the grace of God, the Catholic Church offered me a solution: The intertwining of the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scripture. When I would debate myself as a Protestant, I would have had to look at all views on baptism, all views on authority, all views on justification. On top of that, I must find reason why my interpretation is reliable given the vast amount of sin I’ve committed. Either that or be a Christian-pragmatist who simply builds upon what’s currently working in my life and isn’t obviously anti-Christian. But being rooted in Truth and being rooted in what works are vastly different, as the latter can easily devolve into relativism, whereas the former cannot.

As a Catholic, there is no debate on essential issues like baptism. I submit to the teaching of the Church that baptism is a Sacrament necessary for salvation. I submit to the apostolic authority of the Church and Her universal communion. I submit to the doctrine that salvation is a process. Whether my own faculties are unreliable does not matter because it is not me who is making the choice; it’s the Church.

I don’t even have to fully understand these doctrines either. As interested and committed as I am to studying philosophy and theology, I’m simply limited in my time and intellect. But the fact that I cannot understand the Church’s teaching on the Trinity doesn’t mean I will debate myself on whether God is actually three persons: I simply submit to the teaching of the Church, because She is the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

Protestantism is Not the Default Position

The other major contributing mindset that really shifted my views towards Catholicism was letting go of the assumption that Protestantism is the default position. Too many times do I see Catholics defending their worldview as if they had the sole burden of proof. This is mistaken. As Trent Horn points out in a dialogue with two Protestants, he says,

I think what ends up happening is a Protestant will ask a Catholic, “Well, where is that in the Bible or where is that in church history? Prove this.” And the Catholic will offer evidence and it either is convincing or it’s not convincing. And a Protestant might say, “Well, it’s not convincing to me. So I’m fine just remaining as a Protestant.”… I don’t believe that is the default. Just as atheism is not just a lack of belief in God, like it has positive beliefs to it.

Recognizing Protestantism was not the default position really hit home for me because I had also been an atheist for a couple of years. I assumed atheism was the default position, unless a Christian “proved” God’s existence. Not only that, but I also believed religious people were irrational for not defaulting to atheism, since they didn’t have a rational argument or evidence for theism. This couldn’t be farther from the truth.

A Digression On “Lack-Theism“

Atheism is a worldview. It’s not, contrary to popular belief, simply the “lack of belief in God”. Where theists believe in God, atheists explicitly do not. They believe that God does not exist, and thus, take on the ontological commitments of God’s non-existence in their worldview. Atheism, then, is a negation, and negations in one’s worldviews have consequences.

It might help to imagine the consequences of negating something, like “All men are mortal.” It would follow that there are some immortal men out there. To deny that all men are mortal would require philosophical argument or empirical evidence to show there is at least one immortal man. We may also have to question how the person is defining “mortality.” Is such a man susceptible to the effects of time? Can we kill them? Do they survive the heat death of the universe? If we say “No, no, yes,” then the consequences commit us to at least one person who is unaffected by time, can’t be killed by another person, and will survive long after the universe is gone.

It would be much easier to just accept that “All men are mortal.”

Likewise, by negating God from your worldview, you’ve committed yourself to reject every religious claim ever made, and all religious explanations of reality. This may be tricky when you realize that it’s awfully difficult to ground morality without God, though there are great attempts to do so. Of course, atheists who are inclined to do philosophy don’t see a problem with this, as they strive to explain their worldviews. For example, there are some interesting atheistic Platonic theories out there that are worthy of investigation. We should commend such attempts, despite our disagreements. However, these philosophical atheists should be distinguished from the lack-theist atheists who don’t want to do their homework and thrive on poking holes in other worldviews.

Sometimes, people call themselves atheists even though they are really agnostics. Some might say, “I’m not committing myself to a necessary universe! I simply don’t know, and you don’t either!” Okay, but that skepticism towards the origins of the universe isn’t atheism; it’s just skepticism. And claiming that you simply don’t know whether God exists is taking on the agnostic position, not atheism. Theists claim there is a God or gods; atheists claim the negation. Agnostics don’t claim anything.

Lack-theism, then, is simply the position of people who lack the will to put time and effort into intellectually defending a position. It absolves a person of sounding inane when they share their personal beliefs. One can’t help but think that the hostility lack-theists have towards theists is resentment of the fact that they lack passion. Without tension in one’s worldview, there is no passion. And without passion, there is no love, no wisdom, and no philosophy.

Lack-Catholicism?

All worldviews, such as atheism, require a burden of proof. I don’t think my Protestant brothers and sisters would deny this. However, Protestantism is not the negation of Catholicism, so any form of it also requires a burden of proof. If a form of Protestantism were the negation of Catholicism, it would have to deny the inerrancy of Scripture, the Holy Trinity, and Christ saving us from our sins. But most Protestants share these beliefs with Catholics. I have never heard of a Protestant claiming to be a “lack-Catholic.” And I don’t believe such a position would be that attractive.

But even without going so far as to say that they are lack-Catholics, Protestants have beliefs that make them distinct from us, and these distinct beliefs are part of a worldview – they are not mere negations. There are some Protestants who go so far as to deny the doctrine that Mary is the Mother of God, despite it leading to the Nestorian heresy. Some deny the Trinity, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the necessity of Baptism for salvation. Denying these important doctrines requires a burden of proof, and cannot become the default position once the person denies the Catholic position on an issue.

The burden of proof goes for non-denominational and “born again” believers as well. If you are not convinced of the Catholic position because there’s not enough evidence for it, where’s your evidence for your current position? Would it stand scrutiny against legit theologians? Would it even stand the scrutiny of a mere layman like me? I would think not.

All this is to say that it would be intellectually dishonest for a Protestant to assume their version of Christianity is the “default.” It’s not. It simply isn’t. Stop thinking that. Even if some Catholic doctrines fail your smell test, in all likelihood, your own personal beliefs would fail the smell test of almost everyone, even the Apostles and Christ Himself.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the two major reasons why I made an intellectual conversion to Catholicism were mindset shifts and not particular arguments or dogmas. These two mindset shifts were skepticism towards self-interpretation and rejecting the idea that Protestantism is the “default” position. Given my own personal sin, I found it unlikely I would correctly interpret Scripture and be warranted in choosing the correct Protestant denomination. And seeing as how Protestants disagree with major issues like whether baptism is necessary for salvation, the idea that “the plain things are the main things” seems unlikely, since the Holy Spirit would not permit such division. It is also unlikely the case that Protestantism is the default position since each denomination and each “born again” (non-denominational) hold to a set of beliefs that require just as much of a burden of proof as Catholicism does.