Why I am Proud to be a Protestant
Protestantism is not perfect. No informed Protestant would claim such. Evangelicalism has major problems. This is nothing new. But Protestants have always thought the strengths of Protestantism outweigh the weaknesses. Otherwise, we would not be Protestant!
While I often write about the weaknesses of our system, sometimes complaining about Evangelical shames, I want to do something different here. I am going to give a short list of what I believe to be the major strengths of Protestantism:
1. Celebration of diversity: Protestants can appreciate and celebrate the diversity in the Christian faith unlike any other tradition. Whether it be in worship style or liturgy, house churches or mega churches, Protestant recognize that all people are not alike in their subjective preferences. Protestantism, as a movement, cannot dogmatize the way people should be in areas that are based in non-essential personal preferences. We can recognize that God has created people differently—and this was intentionally. If people have a personality that does not respond well to one style of worship, they are free to celebrate their diversity without feeling the obligation of adapting their style to some traditional norm. Therefore, to be Protestant is to be able to celebrate diversity.
2. Promotion of true belief: Protestantism is built upon a distrust of one man’s or one institution’s ability to infallibly dogmatize truth to the exclusion of one’s personal convictions. In other words, Protestants hold to the position that belief cannot be outsourced to any human authority or tradition. Protestants believe that truth must be “adduced” by the individual before it can be truly believed. It is not that Protestants don’t recognize or respect authorities other than themselves, but that they understand that belief is ultimately an internal act of an individual’s will which requires true personal conviction. Protestants recognize the risk of “putting a Bible in everyone’s hands.” We recognize that in doing so we are allowing for the possibility of error and heresy. But we also recognize that the possibility of true conviction necessitates the possibility of error. In this, it is worth the risk. The personal conviction, however, should be fueled and feed from trusted outside sources, but, in the end, those outside sources cannot make the decisions for the us. Therefore, in my opinion, Protestantism allows for true belief more than any other Christian tradition.
3. Allowance of true scholarship: Closely connected to the second is the allowance of true scholarship. In other words, Protestants are not under a necessary mandate to conform to a traditional system. The scholarship produced in biblical studies and theology is not an exercise in confirming an established tradition of dogma. If one were simply to enter scholarship to prove what a tradition mandates they prove, scholarship becomes and exercise in confirming prejudice. This is not true scholarship. Protestants are free to question, search, deny, confirm, doubt, and change in a way that other dogmatic traditions are not. Again, this is risky, but, in the end, it does not mandate a certain conclusion and can evaluate the evidence more objectively. In other words, Protestants don’t have to be lawyers defending a client of tradition, but they are investigators of truth. They can be critical scholars. Whether or not we always practice this is a different matter. But the issue is one of allowance. Protestants can be critical scholars who are willing to let the evidence take them wherever it leads, not simply to a predetermined destination. Therefore, I believe Protestants can practice true scholarship to a degree that other traditions cannot.
I think that all of these provide the basis for why I believe Protestantism will always remain strong even in the midst of our weaknesses. Please understand that I respect other Christian traditions. I love the faith and stance of all those who, traditionally or not, are Christocentric, believing Christ—the God-man—is the center of all things. But everyone must understand that I am Protestant for a reason. I simply believe that it offers strengths that are stronger than the strengths of other tradition. I also believe that its weaknesses are not as weak as the weaknesses of other traditions.
Also be aware that I understand that the traditional answers for “Why I am Protestant”—”because it is biblical,” “because it provides personal assurance,” “because I believe in salvation by faith alone,” or “because I don’t believe in the Pope”—are not unimportant in my mind. However, these reasons are primarily methodological rather than theological. They provide the basis for our theological stance, which, indeed, is of ultimate importance.
It is because of this, I am proud to be a Protestant.
Join us in reclaiming the mind for Christ. Start The Theology Program in your church.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Theological Word of the Day: Sola Fide
- Doctrinal Disagreement to the Glory of God
- In Defense of Sola Scriptura - Part 8b - What about all the divisions?
- In Defense of Sola Scriptura - Part Eight - What about all the divisions?
- An Emerging Understanding of “Orthodox” - Part 4: Are Catholics Orthodox?

Peter on 18 Sep 2008 at 12:00 am #
“Therefore, to be Protestant is to be able to celebrate diversity.”
Umm.. I think thou doest exaggerate. Protestants have a long and illustrious history of intolerance.
“Protestantism is built upon a distrust of one man’s or one institution’s ability to infallibly dogmatize truth to the exclusion of one’s personal convictions. In other words, Protestants hold to the position that belief cannot be outsourced to any human authority or tradition.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Protestantism “outsources” its beliefs to the bible, a book written by less than 40 people, and dogmatizes what is in that book to the exclusion of any contrary personal convictions.
Well… unless you want to count folks like bishop Spong in your camp, in which case you are welcome to him.
“If one were simply to enter scholarship to prove what a tradition mandates they prove, scholarship becomes and exercise in confirming prejudice. This is not true scholarship.”
Uhh…. have you noticed this protestant thing called creation science?
Have you noticed the harsh reaction protestants have to anyone who dare question the flood, the historicity of the exodus, the genuineness of all the 66 books, etc etc etc?
I’m not seeing protestants as special in any of these areas. All that is different is that the bounds of their sacrosanct beliefs that MUST be defended, is a little different to other traditions.
C Michael Patton on 18 Sep 2008 at 12:23 am #
Peter, your response does nothing but confirm what was said about diversity. We are allowed to stretch, change, present options, and, even sometimes, conform. The point is that there is not a necessary mandate in Protestantism. The ugliness is going to be there, but, as I said, that is part of the risks that makes all three of these strengths a reality.
historic_salve on 18 Sep 2008 at 3:29 am #
I don’t really understand how diversity is a goal in and of itself, or how this is unique to Protestantism. The Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Churches are all composed of people and jurisdictions from many different backgrounds, including ethnic backgrounds, but with the added benefit (at least officially) of common belief on many more issues.
John S. Oliver on 18 Sep 2008 at 3:45 am #
This is well stated and packed with truth.
The down side of Protestantism is that it is an identity based on protest. Historically that is understandable. But listening to Christian talk shows can get tiresome when all they can get excited about is what they are against. Bashing liberals is not constructive, edifying or inspiring. They are wrong and that needs to be clearly stated. But do not stop there.
SO what are we for?
Over the years what has greatly helped me is a mental and emotional orientation to the five SOLAs.
Salvation is
by grace alone
through faith alone
in Christ alone
based on Scripture alone
to the glory fo God alone.
As you know sola is Latin for alone and this was first stated in Latin centuries ago.
What I have come to appreciate is that the SOLAs relate not only to initial justification in miraculous transformation of rebirth but also on-going personal sanctification.
I just passed through a very difficult season of financial challenges. I needed to often recall that my deliverance from the impossible cash flow pinch would come only from Christ. I could not save myself. It would be due to His grace that is embedded in the goodness of His nature. I could know this for sure due to His precious promises in the Scriptures. My role was to exercise mustard seed fith with corresponding faith filled actions. And give His glory in my heart and with my tongue both before and after the provision arrived.
I challenge you to develop two more points by this time next year.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 18 Sep 2008 at 8:19 am #
CMP,
A very irenic and ecumenical post.
Neil Damgaard on 18 Sep 2008 at 8:34 am #
Well Michael, I think you have written a fine article. It is short, succinct, intuitive. I shall use it here where I am “Protestant Chaplain” on a secular university campus that is very Massachusettsean, and in a community that is at the very least 50% Catholic-based. The word “Protestant” has come to mean so little any more, that as Protestant Chaplain, no one is really sure what that is. As an evangelical P.C. I have a wide open opportunity to bring new definition to both the words “Protestant” and “evangelical” while being honest about the imperfections of both. May God bless me to not mess it up. Your article was timely, for me. Thank you! I will send a check for Five Million quatros (ref. Star Trek, “The Gamesters of Triskillion”) to your numbered Swiss account soon.
Sally Jo Shelton on 18 Sep 2008 at 9:09 am #
It’s interesting how diversity now seems to be at the top of the list of Christian virtues. I am not convinced. Yes, diversity is wonderful. God created diversity. Diversity is beautiful.
But the Apostle Paul reminds us that “There is one body and one Spirit … one hope … one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph 4:4-6).
Unity is even more beautiful. At the foot of the cross, all distinctions and differences become superfluous. We lay them aside, even as men take off their hats when they enter the sanctuary of a church. As we fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith (Heb 12:2), we join in one Spirit, one heart, and one voice to worship our God and Savior, the Father of us all.
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
It is like the precious oil upon the head,
Coming down upon the beard,
Even Aaron’s beard,
Coming down upon the edge of his robes.
It is like the dew of Hermon
Coming down upon the mountains of Zion;
For there the LORD commanded the blessing—life forever.
–Psalm 133
Peter on 18 Sep 2008 at 9:10 am #
“The point is that there is not a necessary mandate in Protestantism.”
Which you’re probably happy about when it doesn’t tread on your sacrosanct turf. But which you probably do get mighty upset about when it does.
Not everything in Orthodoxy has a mandate either. In fact, many protestants have a bee in their bonnet about for example young earth creationism being a test of orthodoxy that Orthodox probably wouldn’t. So who’s to say it is protestants who let the cards fall where they may?
Or is someone like Bishop Spong to be held high because no dogma is sacrosanct for him, and since he is a protestant, he shows the ultimate in tolerance and diversity?
Or is your point that only some protestants have a particular bee? So when you walk into the next protestant church you have the excitement of not knowing if you will be a heretic there or not?
But then aren’t you having it both ways, claiming protestants to be one group when you want to celebrate diversity, but not one group when you want to ignore the doctrines that won’t be tolerated?
Hawke on 18 Sep 2008 at 11:14 am #
Peter Wrote:
“In fact, many Protestants have a bee in their bonnet about for example young earth creationism being a test of orthodoxy that Orthodox probably wouldn’t. So who’s to say it is protestants who let the cards fall where they may?”
What defines “many”? If you mean specifically the likes of Ken Hamm, then yes he (they) would have a bee in his (their) bonnet about OEC vs. YEC. As for the intolerance, I think CMP is talking about Protestant’s in general, not so much Fundamentalists (i.e. KJV only camp). There is nothing in scripture that would determine one’s salvation if choosing either YEC or OEC view.
I believe the gist of Michael’s OP is that there would tend to be less of a constraint in the non-essentials for the Protestant when in juxtaposition to being dogmatic in traditions. I don’t believe that anyone can speak for all Protestants or Evangelicals for that matter (i.e. we have no Pope). So there would be diversity when it came to the non-essentials, while having unity with the essentials (i.e. agreement in creedal statements). I believe St. Augustine had a popular saying about such things. Unfortunately, some Protestants do not share St. Augustine’s viewpoint.
I don’t recall CMP being angry about non-essentials if someone would not agree with him? We haven’t even discussed the historical “holding in anathema” statements.
C Michael Patton on 18 Sep 2008 at 11:23 am #
Hawke,
Thanks. You have said it well about YEC. But also, what I am saying is that we can have a diversity of those who are dogmatic and argue for their positions. We have created an environment where such strong stances are allowed. That way we can have YEC and OEC who together strengthen the faith. It is kinda like freedom of speech. You will have the boneheads out there, but they simply cause us to be more diligent in our studies. If everything was predetermined how we are to believe and argue, then there would be very little ability to have iron sharpening iron. Diversity is necessary for true academics.
Jeff on 18 Sep 2008 at 2:51 pm #
I’m sorry about the intended then reinterpreted views spoken here. God speaks plainly in His Word and it is His interpretation through His Spirit and whether or not you can dogmatically believe it is not the issue; it is, rather that you be open to Him teaching you the only truth there is! I KNOW that the use of “iron sharpens iron” in response #10 was misused as the only correct interpretation is one who is mature (as God has given him truth to teach) will “hone” the less mature to the truth of Holy Writ. It is as Paul addressed Timothy or Phillip the Ethiopian. No matter how much fervor you have in expressing your beliefs, it is the Word of Truth that should always be the victor in correct exposition!
M. G. Hysell on 18 Sep 2008 at 6:24 pm #
I found Mr Patton’s statement, “Protestantism is built upon a distrust of one man’s or one institution’s ability to infallibly dogmatize truth to the exclusion of one’s personal convictions” reminiscent of something Pere Yves Congar o.p. wrote in his Tradition and Traditions: that the Protestant appeal to the First Seven Ecumenical Councils is always complemented by an evaluation from the vantage point of Scripture. Congar insists that a Catholic would certainly expect exactly this, but the difference lies in the ecclesiology of both Catholicity and Protestantism.
With all due respect to my Protestant friends, I think that Congar is right: the real point of divergence resides in how the Reformation tradition views the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the teaching authority of the Church. Dr Wallace’s past article about a “Paper Pope” seems to recognise just this, that each believer is a magisterium unto herself or himself. The question, then, becomes: to what charism of truth (an alternate word for “infallibility”) does the Holy Spirit afford to those who bear the gift of “teaching” in the Church?
I should at least admit that, for Catholics, there are varying notes of “theological certitude” and very few articles of faith bear the category of “dogma.” Among these are the consubstantiality of Christ with the Father (Nicaea I) and the hypostatic union (Ephesus, Chalcedon). Would Mr Patton admire the “distrust” of a Protestant who employs a methodological hermeneutic of suspicion towards these dogmas. A more urgent case would be the divinity of the Holy Spirit, an article of faith only faintly detected in the Scriptures but pronounced as dogma at the First Council of Constantinople (381). Yet denial of such doctrines have wreaked havoc on certain Churches. Even some mainline Protestant communions have abandoned these ancient expressions of the Christian faith. Moreover, I would press, it would be impossible to be a Lutheran and repudiate the Augsburg Confession, or a Christian Reformed and repudiate the Canons of Dort, or even to employ an initial distrust until these doctrines have been verified in the consciences of believers.
I would be curious as to how these issues are addressed by my fellow-believers, in particular Mr Patton. At the very least, we should admit that his perspective finds a home more among “Free Church” Protestants than those historic communions descended from the Reformation. Luther, certainly, would agree with me.
In Christ our God,
M. G. Hysell
Peter on 18 Sep 2008 at 7:29 pm #
I don’t see how having everything except perhaps the bare minimum being up for academic grabs “strengthens the faith”. Au contraire, I think swallowing the occasional error, and accepting it all with childlike faith, is better for the faith than doubting everything until it is proven.
C Michael Patton on 18 Sep 2008 at 10:19 pm #
Peter, I don’t think appreciate how much freedom there actually is in the Orthodox faith.
C Michael Patton on 18 Sep 2008 at 10:31 pm #
M.G.,
Great comments. I think that I would be more than willing to qualify these strengths as also producing the greatest weaknesses. The question is as it has always been since the reformation…is it worth it?
I believe that it is a necessity of belief. Just as freedom is a necessity of love, I believe that freedom is a necessity of belief.
“Would Mr Patton admire the “distrust” of a Protestant who employs a methodological hermeneutic of suspicion towards these dogmas.”
In some sense, heresy is good for the church. In other words, we don’t need to live in fear that people will abuse truth…this will happen no matter what. But, this abuse calls on us to take up arms, if you will, and understand our faith to a degree that we would not before.
This is the same thing I argued in “Doctrinal Disagreement to the Glory of God.” (Although it was lost in the crash
)
Peter on 18 Sep 2008 at 10:55 pm #
“Peter, I don’t think appreciate how much freedom there actually is in the Orthodox faith.”
We’re missing some words here. You don’t think I appreciate it? Or you don’t think protestants appreciate it?
In any case, the issue is not the exact amount of freedom, the issue is whether you think it is good to have clear lines beyond which you must not cross. A lot of protestantism is inching one proposition at a time towards Spong, and it isn’t clear when one has fallen on the wrong side of a line which must surely exist. You do agree there is a line, surely?
C Michael Patton on 18 Sep 2008 at 11:04 pm #
You bet!
But, here is what I would say, the radicals sometimes serve to strengthen the faith. Would you agree that God uses heretics for his glory?
John S. Oliver on 19 Sep 2008 at 12:04 am #
Our ignorance of world history and church history is often very sad.
Here are three videos of less than two minutes each.
They give a grand context of history.
Into this grand context Protestantism arose, spread and was challenged.
History of Religion
http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/history-of-religion.html
Imperial History of the Middle East
http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html
March of Democracy
http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/march-of-democracy.html
Charles Lee on 19 Sep 2008 at 1:25 am #
You have to praise the diversity of Protestantism because the protestants’ churches are so self-centred that they will never be able to reach a united faith.
ScottL on 19 Sep 2008 at 12:32 pm #
Michael -
Do you think it better to not label ourselves protestant, eastern orthodox or roman catholic and rather just state where we stand Scripturally? Does claiming protestantism and pitting it (at least somewhat) against roman catholicism/eastern orthodox become unhelpful and divisive?
If I had to, I would take the protestant title, but that word is loaded - for other Christian traditions and even with non-Christians. Even from Peter’s comments above, it seems he might have in mind a far-out fundamentalist.
I know we like tags and titles, but maybe we should be encouraged to simply start claiming to be Christians, followers of Christ, followers of the Way (though that one is not familiar), etc, rather than saying I am a protestant, evangelical, reformed, charismatic Christian. If the word ‘protestant’ is loaded with all kinds of implications and prejudices, how much more is 4 words combined together.
Just a thought to ponder.
Edward T. Babinski on 19 Sep 2008 at 5:00 pm #
Pride? Celebration? Aren’t they a bit emotionally laden?
On the Bible I doubt it could have been kept out of the hands of people forever, and of course it wound up in the hands of people with questioning minds, including deists. The Protestant Reformation was followed by a time of deistic questioning of the Bible, the Enlightenment, which was followed by liberal biblical theologians, i.e., from Riemarus to Voltaire, Toland, Strauss, Schweitzer, Bultmann, Barth, and Tillich.
Is Jesus the center of the cosmos? How certain, percentage-wise, are you that that’s true? James D. G. Dunn is one major Christian theologian who argues that the historical Jesus probably didn’t say a word attributed to him in the fourth Gospel.
Parchment and Pen » Scot McKnight on why he is not Catholic or Orthodox on 01 Oct 2008 at 11:28 am #
[...] summary on why he is not Catholic or Orthodox. This is a helpful addition to my post “Why I am Proud to be Protestant.” I think we are saying the same thing as Scot talks about the “Wiki” [...]
Dudley Davis on 22 Nov 2008 at 9:10 pm #
I too am Proud to be a Protestant. Through Gods grace I was made one of the elect and by his saving grace alone I am now also a Son of the Reformation and staunch avowed Reformed Protestant. A series of circumstances led me to become a Presbyterian. I was Roman Catholic. I became a Presbyterian in February 2007.
I believe that many Protestants do not appreciate the Reformation roots and our heritage. I was taught as a roman catholic that the Reformers were the ones who strayed from the true church of Christ. I now know and believe it was quite the opposite. The Reformers and especially John Calvin restored the Gospel and the church to its true foundation.
I am an adult convert to Presbyterianism as well as Protestantism. I was a roman catholic until I was and became interested in the study of the Protestant Reformation and the different branches of Protestantism about 3 years ago. Perhaps that is why I do not take for granted the rich distinctive character of this branch of the Reformation.
I began doing my extensive study of the Protestant Reformation from the
perspective of Protestant writers and Theologians. I centered a lot on the
reformers Luther, Calvin and Knox. I studied Luther’s Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone and I began concentrating on the Reformed Theology of Calvin and Knox. I then read the Westminster Confession of Faith and the short and long catechisms of the Presbyterian Church. I started to attend services at many different Protestant denominations.
I started the project to discover and know myself better as a Christian. As a Roman Catholic I always thought it was the Protestant fold that strayed,
I now see that the Roman church strayed. I believe I am born again in the
Gospel of Christ. I believe I am a better Christian. I now stand for the truth of
salvation by faith alone, through free and sovereign grace alone, by the
finished work of Christ alone. I Believe Rome is wrong in not accepting the
doctrine.
I DEFINE WHAT I MEAN BY THE TERM “PROTESTANT” not in any denominational way i.e. denoting membership of any one Protestant denomination or with any political meaning. It is used to designate one who believes in the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation i.e. the authority of the Bible alone in all matters of faith and practice and that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
I studied the Protestant Reformation with fervor and I became convinced and a believer in the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation. When I accepted the authority of the Bible alone in all matters of faith and realized that
salvation is by grace alone could no longer say I was a Roman Catholic or an
Episcopalian. I renounced also the ecclesiastical authorities of both churches. I renounced the authority of the Bishop of Rome as Christ’s head of his church on earth. I fully understood that only Christ heads his church. When I renounced the Ecclesiastical structure, I searched and found Calvin, Knox and the Presbyterian denomination. I knew I was a Protestant but not yet a Presbyterian. I wanted to find a Protestant denomination that I believed had the purest form of the Gospel. It was in that search I became a Presbyterian in faith not only a Protestant.
I wrote it in response to the popes statement in the summer of 2007 that only the church of Rome has the “fullness of truth.” I Left the roman catholic church in January 2006 I was an Episcopalian for a while but in February 2007 I began practicing as a Presbyterian and I am now a confessed and communing Presbyterian Protestant.
I became a Presbyterian because I believe that Calvin restored the church to its pure and uncorrupted form. I was taught that it was the Protestant reformers who had strayed and defected from the true church, the roman catholic church. I discovered and now am convinced and firmly believe that it was quite the opposite. Rome had strayed from the true Gospel and true authority and true form of Christ’s church. Rome teaches men, accordingly, to rely upon the sacraments and not upon Christ, to stop at the external act — as if water, bread and wine were our Saviors - and the mother of Jesus is the co-redemptress…instead of looking to Him, Christ in whom all the truths of the Gospel center and terminate.
Roman catholic worship revolves around what they call the mass. Some Protestants mistakenly see the mass as the roman catholic Lords Supper. It is not. I found myself renouncing the mass because it contradicts the nature of The Lords Supper as Christ gave it to us. It’s a commemorative meal where Christ’s suffering for us is remembered as he asked, however the bread remain bread and the wine remains wine. Christ becomes present to us in the supper because of our faith and His grace and His Fathers.
The false RC teaching of transubstantiation is the view that Jesus is slain/killed every time the communion is performed. That is why I also now believe the roman mass is an abomination and a blasphemy to God and Jesus his son. To “enhance” this belief, roman catholics through the centuries have used the symbol of the Lord still on the cross (crucifix). Protestant Christians will have the cross as a reminder of the finished work of Christ on the Cross. That He is not there, and that He needs never again to die on the Cross.
Romans 6:10
For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
I am now Protestant and Presbyterian because I have joined ranks with those who in this life who have believed the good news and put their faith in Christ alone for their salvation, although they too must stand before that throne of judgment, it will be to hear in court what they have been assured already: that they have been acquitted. Not because of any righteousness of their own or atonement they could make; but all because of the Lamb who sits in the midst of the throne. The One they face as Judge is the One they have already known as Lord and Savior. He has taken their place, secured their righteousness, paid their penalty and drawn the sting of death so that for them it is no more.
I became a Protestant and am Proud to be a Presbyterian Protestant for the same read Michael stated so well in his paper “Why I am Proud to be Protestant.”
Michael said and I feel the same way now…..
“I love the faith and stance of all those who, traditionally or not, are Christocentric, believing Christ—the God-man—is the center of all things. But everyone must understand that I am Protestant for a reason. I simply believe that it offers strengths that are stronger than the strengths of other tradition. I also believe that its weaknesses are not as weak as the weaknesses of other traditions”.
It is primarily why I am now a staunch Reformed Presbyterian Protestant. It is primarily why I left the church of Rome and the roman catholic faith as did Calvin and the reformers.
God bless our Reformed Presbyterian faith. May more be elected to come out of her and find the truth.
In Grace,
Dudley
Dudley Davis on 22 Nov 2008 at 11:33 pm #
A thought I had after my previous post is that if you are Proud to Be Protestant as I am than it is also important to have Protestant conviction. I believe all Protestants and Presbyterians need to have and profess a strong Protestant conviction. I believe Protestant conviction means we must take a stand alongside the great Christian leaders of the Protestant Reformation. The two pillars of Protestantism I think are namely a positive witness for Christ, and protest against error. We must cherish and defend our Protestant heritage.
Many Protestants not just Calvinist Presbyterians have become too lax in defending the principals of the Protestant Reformation and the reformers. I as a former roman catholic see the gross errors. I also see the need to defend and promote the cause of the Reformed faith and Protestantism.
Protestantism involves protesting against error, but also propagating the Truth. A Protestant, therefore, in the true sense, is one who not only protests against the corruption’s, abuses and apostasy of Romanism, but also bears faithful witness to the fundamental principles of the Gospel as set forth in the Word of God.
In grace,
Dudley