Trying to Better Understand Mainline Philosophy
Hey Everyone, As the title suggests I'm trying to better understand the Reformed Doctrine of Mainline Protestantism. I'm a recent catholic convert from Atheism, and prior evangelical dispensational Protestantism, but I have an interest in ecumenicism and inter-denominational dialogue. Recently, I have been reading through the philosophies of John Calvin, Martin Luther, and Huldrych Zwingli to understand the foundational tenants of Mainline Protestantism. So far I have liked a lot of what I have read, despite having some disagreements which was to be expected. The Doctrines of Sola Gratia and Sola Fide are very well articulated, as is the idea of Total Depravity. I also like the Idea of Irresistible, though I understand it from a more universal outlook than it has been previously explained to me. Additionally, from what I've read on Covenant Theology and Kingdom Theology the two frameworks seem amazing additions to the Faith. I particularly like the works I have read by Karl Barth on the subject.
That being said there are Certain ideas i take issue with, however I a similar vein to the issues many protestants espouse towards Catholics (i.e. Accusations of Worship of Saints, Anti-papism, idolatry, etc.) I imagine these issues are due to ignorance on my part and that of my fellow Catholics. So I figured I would ask those of you who hold to some of these ideas to better explain them to me, and correct me if I am in error.
Here They Are in order.
Predestination: To my understanding Predestination feels both unnecessarily cruel and unjust while simultaneously removing free will. Additionally, it seems to place god within time, rather than beyond it, with god making a decision on who are included in the elect at a specific point in the past rather than existing ex temporally and thus knowing the results of individuals actions now without compromising on free will. This confusion extends to all beliefs which stem from predestination.
Sola Scriptura: I know there is a difference between solo and sola scriptura, I know you guys don't hold that the bible alone is the only source of authority. However, the claim that scripture is the ultimate source of authority seems inaccurate to me for two reasons. First, the church existed prior to the compilation of the bible, thus would have authority over it. And second, Had scripture held authority over the oral tradition of the New covenant the proponents of the old covenant, the pharisees, could have used scripture from the old covenant to attack the new covenant before its tenets were transcribed to scripture.
Universal Priesthood: I'm Kind of halfway on this one. I believe that the individual ought to be able to read and comprehend the scriptures on his own, and that the work of the reformers to restore this right was noble. However, personal interpretation has led to the foundation of various heretical groups, namely the JWs and LDS, and thus there ought to be some authority to help the individual define their interpretation, that being the church.
There are other ideas I take issue with, however these are the tree main ones. Hopefully you guys can help me out with understanding, and if you guys can provide sources (either biblical or extra-biblical) that would be phenomenal. Again thank you so much, God Bless.