A Protestant PhD exposes the error of Calvin & Luther


Perhaps before I download you could tell me where the PhD is from?

Its a free download … and the best use of 55 minutes you will make. A Presbyterian, trained in America’s best Theologic schools. Degree from Chicago.
Still alive to defend, explain his discoveries. Teaches theology in the Midwest.

The best Christian Apology of the Faith since that given by St. Paul. :thumbsup:

But, be prepared for some shocking revelations. Your life will be forever re-oriented after you receive. :slight_smile:

Seems evidence for how little one can know and be a PhD.

First let me say that many of his conclusions about what Calvin taught are probably correct, but the strange thing is he supposedly struggled with these question for years and yet he never once mentioned reading the formost Protestant Reformer on the Church Fathers, Martin Chemnitz. He said Reformers had no defense of sola Scriptura, well Martin Chemnitz spent around 100 pages on it’s defense in his Examination of the Council of Trent.

He’s correct on many of his conclusions about how stereotypical Evangelical Protestantism today in the US has many very strong positions that are neither historical nor biblical. Things like the ask Jesus into your heart innovation of the 1800’s. Actually a lot of innovations from the 1800’s abound and are accepted as if they were the historical church. He even speaks of the “revivals” that are the real roots of his original religion.

Anyway he sounds like a sincere fellow who’s trying to do what is correct, but does fall into a logical problem that if he examined the religion he was raised in and challenged it through years that he basically just seems to become Catholic without a similar examiniation. But that might just be a time limitation of mass media.

There’s a reason why Chemnitz has been forgotten/ignored, and that’s because he was of the type of early Protestants who thought the ECFs were Protestant and not Catholic. It was these countless “appeals” to the ECFs that the early Protestants used to justify their schism. What has come to light however is that the ECFs were not Protestants at all, and all past “appeals” to them were bogus. This realization has driven many Protestants to Rome and caused Protestantism to almost universally stop appealing to the ECFs at all.

Apologist Dave Armstrong has solidly shown Chemnitz to be in great error in this regard (i.e. that the ECFs were Protestant and taught things like Sola Scriptura):



As he was Presbyterian, why would one be surprised that he disagrees with Luther?


Marcus Grodi told in this Journey Home program how when he trained in Protestant seminary … the joke [near truth of matter] was that when learning the History of the Church, they jumped directly from the Apostles to the Reformationists.

Gives the Protestant pastors their ‘invin.- ignorance’ excuse.

You’re 1 for 2 — almost //// … but for the fact he also held Evangelical roots, and was a big fan of Luther.

You haven’t listened to the program have you … :smiley:

I haven’t listened to the link yet. Is this by chance, the guest who thought (just his personal opinion) that Luther was probably bi-polar?