Biggest Error of Protestant Reformers

[CheesusPowerKid]

All of those things sort of tie into each other and the rejection of the church God founded…but as to which is the greatest loss? It has to be hands down the Eucharist…I can’t even begin to imagine where I’d be without Christ’s real presence. I mean, isn’t that a major part of His sacrifice, that by dying on the cross He freed us of sin and then left Himself as a physical form for us to remember Him tangibly by?

 

[Chrissy5754]

I skimmed down through all the postings and saw no comment on rejection of images. Certainly, it was not the biggest error, but it is one that has always intrigued me. I was an art history major in college and, as an ardent Catholic, found the history of the iconoclasm fascinating. For about 150 years, the Church was on the fence about this issue, so many generations of devout believers lived and died without a clear teaching one way or the other. Interestingly, a number of converts have told me they were initially attracted to Catholicism, because the churches were so beautifully decorated.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Basing the foundation of their religion on their misunderstanding of St. Paul’s writings. Many times Jesus tells us to obey the commandments and do works for the poor if we wish to go to heaven. The Protestants do not believe these things that Jesus says in favor of their misunderstandings of St. Paul. All I can say is that by doing so their church is headed for a fall. Lets give it a push!

Please visit Jesus, What Must I Do To Share In Everlasting Life?

 

[Christian4life]

LoneRanger:

leaving instead of working within to right what they felt was wrong…

thinking that they would find or start a church without sin…

not believing in God’s words, that the gates of Hell would not prevail…

still not being able to see the writing on the wall… even now, still blinded from the truth… IMHO

Well, considering yours is a church that has killed innocent people, started religious wars, covered up child abuse and rape, and also in some places demanded money from poor people and squandered it, I would say the gates of hell haven’t exactly been losing that badly.

Do you really need A CHURCH to be a Christian?

 

[jako]

Christian4life:

Well, considering yours is a church that has killed innocent people, started religious wars, covered up child abuse and rape, and also in some places demanded money from poor people and squandered it, I would say the gates of hell haven’t exactly been losing that badly.

Do you really need A CHURCH to be a Christian?

1. “Killing inocent people and starting religious wars”, If you are talking about the crusades, we did not start it, read your history.
2. “covered up chilod abuse and rape” In my opinion, for an organization the size of the Catholic Church to be able to respond as quickly as it did is incredible. It also responded appropriatley.
3. “demanded money from poor people and squandered it.” Ummm, explain.

 

[Nan_S]

I voted “other.” The most unbelievable statement that has been thrown in my face by evangelicals, as much as any of these, is that the bible is self-interpreting!

I’ve been told Martin Luther believed that any man, led by the Holy Spirit, can discern the clear meaning of scripture for himself without the necessity of priests, bishops, or a pope. I don’t know if Luther actually said that, but that’s what I was told.

If true, it certainly opened pandora’s box. Because the next thing that happened was that someone else, supposedly also led by the Holy Spirit, interpreted scripture differently. And the next guy came up with a third interpretation.

So now we have “bible churches” everywhere, across the street from each other, preaching contradictory messages, and each proclaiming they are led by the Holy Spirit to the real truth.

 

[jako]

Nan S:

I voted “other.” The most unbelievable statement that has been thrown in my face by evangelicals, as much as any of these, is that the bible is self-interpreting!

I’ve been told Martin Luther believed that any man, led by the Holy Spirit, can discern the clear meaning of scripture for himself without the necessity of priests, bishops, or a pope. I don’t know if Luther actually said that, but that’s what I was told.

If true, it certainly opened pandora’s box. Because the next thing that happened was that someone else, supposedly also led by the Holy Spirit, interpreted scripture differently. And the next guy came up with a third interpretation.

So now we have “bible churches” everywhere, across the street from each other, preaching contradictory messages, and each proclaiming they are led by the Holy Spirit to the real truth.

“for himself”. Doesn’t that say it all? This is why we have so many “interpretations” and false testaments of the scriptures. No one can agree. Unless we have one guy, directed by the Holy Spirit, who prayerfully interprets the Scriptures. Along with some oral traditions and passes them down to some other guys who are ummm…priests ya that’s it priests and then…oh…um somebody already thought of this? Never mind

 

[Christian4life]

Nan S:

I voted “other.” The most unbelievable statement that has been thrown in my face by evangelicals, as much as any of these, is that the bible is self-interpreting!

I’ve been told Martin Luther believed that any man, led by the Holy Spirit, can discern the clear meaning of scripture for himself without the necessity of priests, bishops, or a pope. I don’t know if Luther actually said that, but that’s what I was told.

If true, it certainly opened pandora’s box. Because the next thing that happened was that someone else, supposedly also led by the Holy Spirit, interpreted scripture differently. And the next guy came up with a third interpretation.

So now we have “bible churches” everywhere, across the street from each other, preaching contradictory messages, and each proclaiming they are led by the Holy Spirit to the real truth.

I don’t know. How do we really know if those people were being led by the spirit, I mean that is between themselves and God. I guess for some people you can see by the way they live…but then again you don’t always know that either.

 

[Christian4life]

1) “Killing inocent people and starting religious wars”, If you are talking about the crusades, we did not start it, read your history.

1. “covered up chilod abuse and rape” In my opinion, for an organization the size of the Catholic Church to be able to respond as quickly as it did is incredible. It also responded appropriatley.
2. “demanded money from poor people and squandered it.” Ummm, explain.

Nooo…I’m actually not talking about the crusades, but there have been so many other wars, I’m sure the information out there is biased no matter where you get it from, but maybe I’ll look it up further and get into some of that later.

Actually I don’t really care what church did what. Protestants were just as bad, like in the war over the 2 Marys where you had Catholics and Protestants all over the place. I’m glad we aren’t like that now. I’m just saying that the church is not perfect. It doesn’t make any sense to me when people tell me that the gates of hell won’t prevail against it and I read about all the terrible stuff that’s already going on.

If what I read was true (it was on MSN) there was a vatican document that spelled out how the church was supposed to handle cases of abuse, and it said pretty clearly that they were to be covered up. I don’t know if the article is true or not, as I don’t trust the liberal media, but even Catholics did not say it didn’t exist, they just said it was taken out of context.

And from the passage I read, I don’t see how you could’ve taken that out of context, it pretty clearly said what it said. Hold on I’ll try to find it.

 

[Christian4life]

observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1020400,00.html

Here it is. It IS from a liberal newspaper, but they SEEM to have confirmed that it is authentic.

Well, can anyone answer me? Is this true or not?

Cause if it is, that makes your church look preeetty bad. And if it isn’t, then I guess I can’t say I’m shocked at how the media twists things around, as I’ve seen them lie so many times.

 

[Nan_S]

Christian4life:

I don’t know. How do we really know if those people were being led by the spirit, I mean that is between themselves and God. I guess for some people you can see by the way they live…but then again you don’t always know that either.

I’m sure ministers believe they are being sincere when “feel” the spirit leading them to preach doctrines contradictory to the ministers across the street. Sincerity and warm fuzzies, however, are no substitute for truth. Nontheless, I’ve met far, far too many people who have blind faith in the wisdom and learning of a minister. They follow him blindly into error because they don’t stop to think whether he may be preaching accurately.

Near the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warned us to guard against being blind and ignorant about our ministers and their teaching:

Mt 7:15-20 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits.”

 

[Nan_S]

observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1020400,00.html
Here it is. It IS from a liberal newspaper, but they SEEM to have confirmed that it is authentic.
Well, can anyone answer me? Is this true or not?
Cause if it is, that makes your church look preeetty bad. And if it isn’t, then I guess I can’t say I’m shocked at how the media twists things around, as I’ve seen them lie so many times.

Interesting link. And very long. Too bad today is Monday. I’ve bookmarked it so that I can come back and study it this weekend when I have time to examine it properly.

I can say that, in 1962, we were dealing with an overabundance of the “shoot first and ask questions later” attitude. Mere accusation was generally accepted as evidence of guilt. Also, there was a great deal of blatant, sanctioned anti-Catholic bias in this country. So I can understand the urgency for keeping matters quiet until a proper investigation had been completed.

It was outrage against the “give the guy a fair trial then hang him” attitude that shortly after, in the United States, led to the Miranda decision which constitutionally protected the rights of the accused. The Catholic church simply appears to have been at the cutting edge of social justice.

 

[Christian4life]

Nan S:

I’m sure ministers believe they are being sincere when “feel” the spirit leading them to preach doctrines contradictory to the ministers across the street. Sincerity and warm fuzzies, however, are no substitute for truth. Nontheless, I’ve met far, far too many people who have blind faith in the wisdom and learning of a minister. They follow him blindly into error because they don’t stop to think whether he may be preaching accurately.

Near the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warned us to guard against being blind and ignorant about our ministers and their teaching:

Mt 7:15-20 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits.”

You have a point there.

I don’t know…what does that mean by “good fruits”? The Methodists down the street are running an orphanage…they also march in gay rights parades and give out contraceptives in church…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Madaglan:

Thank you RonWI for excerpts from the two Lutheran documents. You make the important point that traditional Lutherans do indeed agree on the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In fact, according to my historical understanding, the differing opinions on the Eucharist was one of the major reasons why Luther could not reconcile with those Swiss reformers who saw the Eucharist as only a symbol, or as a spiritual presence at best.

Sadly, besides the Lutherans, nearly all the other Protestant groups rejected the Real Presence That’s why I put it on my list of choices.

The “Real Presence” is not the RCC’s belief, at all - the belief of the RCC is in the “Substantial Presence”: which goes beyond the Lutheran belief in consubstantiation. And beyond any Anglican ideas except for those of such Anglicans as are “Romans” in their Eucharistic doctrine.​

(The Eastern Catholic Churches don’t give transubstantiation the exclusive status that we do, AFAIK)

Christian4Life:

I don’t know…what does that mean by “good fruits”? The Methodists down the street are running an orphanage…they also march in gay rights parades and give out contraceptives in church…

Couldn’t that be said with even more force of the CC ? Or of any religion one likes to mention ?​

That test is very hard to apply in such a way as to leave one assured that what is tested, is good - because something good can always go rotten, and improve or reform (or not). ##

 

[Nan_S]

Christian4life:

You have a point there.
I don’t know…what does that mean by “good fruits”? The Methodists down the street are running an orphanage…they also march in gay rights parades and give out contraceptives in church…

I think the answer to this question is given in the very next paragraph of Matthew. Jesus condemns those who pick and choose actions of faith according to their will, instead of embracing the totality of the Father’s will.

Mt 7:21-23 "Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’ "

I would suggest that the ones who successfully drove out demons and did mighty works in His name had to have SOME degree of serious faith, otherwise their faith-actions would have been impossible. The Methodists you cite in your example are doing just that. Yet Jesus condemns them anyway, for choosing to act according to their will and not the Father’s.

For a modern parallel, I think of certain celebrated “TV preachers” who went down in flames due to scandal. We have serious reservations about their salvation. Yet, along the way they still led many people to Christ.

We can also look at the Gospel of John, where Jesus clarifies that to keep producing good fruit, we must keep our will connected to the Father’s will.

*Jn 15:4-6 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. *

 

[Malachi4U]

The reformation/DE-formation is so abundant with gross and outrageous errors how can you limit yourself to just one?:whacky:

Besides, they keep changing their beliefs faster then the wind changes direction.

 

[Nan_S]

Putting it simply, supporting homosexual behavior is “bad fruit.” There are plenty of scriptures that make that quite clear. The fact that they are also running an orphanage doesn’t sanctify their act of marching in the gay rights parade. Makes me wonder what kind of people are taking care of the orphans…

Likewise, the preacher who tells his flock that “good is good” and “evil is good” is putting his own will ahead of the Father’s. He produces “bad fruit,” misleading his flock into believing error. We are called to live according to what we have been taught. And we are also called to educate ourselves enough that we can see past the surface sincerity of our ministers and discern whether the truth is in them.

 

[Christian4life]

Nan S:

I think the answer to this question is given in the very next paragraph of Matthew. Jesus condemns those who pick and choose actions of faith according to their will, instead of embracing the totality of the Father’s will.

Mt 7:21-23 "Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’ "

I would suggest that the ones who successfully drove out demons and did mighty works in His name had to have SOME degree of serious faith, otherwise their faith-actions would have been impossible. The Methodists you cite in your example are doing just that. Yet Jesus condemns them anyway, for choosing to act according to their will and not the Father’s.

For a modern parallel, I think of certain celebrated “TV preachers” who went down in flames due to scandal. We have serious reservations about their salvation. Yet, along the way they still led many people to Christ.

We can also look at the Gospel of John, where Jesus clarifies that to keep producing good fruit, we must keep our will connected to the Father’s will.

Jn 15:4-6 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.

Thank you. You have no idea how much that verse applies to me life right now and has helped me…

 

[MariaG]

posted by Christian4life

Actually I don’t really care what church did what. Protestants were just as bad, like in the war over the 2 Marys where you had Catholics and Protestants all over the place. I’m glad we aren’t like that now. I’m just saying that the church is not perfect. It doesn’t make any sense to me when people tell me that the gates of hell won’t prevail against it and I read about all the terrible stuff that’s already going on.

Scripture tells us that the gates of hell won’t prevail (Mt 16:18). So we know this is true.

So how can that be when people in the Church, even people who lead the Church do horrible things? Because we can trust that the Holy Spirit will protect the official teachings of the Catholic Church from error.

But man still has free will. That means there will never be a Pope who will teach that adultery is okay, even while he may BE an adulterer.

The *teachings *of the Church will never be in error. The people in the church will constantly be in error.

The Bible tells us and shows us that even the early Church, even Peter the man we believe Christ choose to lead His Church, did not practice what he preached. (Remember Peter’s vision about no unclean food and Paul having to chastise Peter for not eating “unclean” food according to the Judism?)

It is from this example we can see that God will protect the teachings from error, not the men. I hope that helps.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

I believe the gravest error was believing there can be an invisible Church separate from the visible Church. Before Luther could formulate the Solas, he first had to believe that it would be possible to split from the visible Church Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against.

Once you can believe that there can be an invisible Church or that God wants you to be the new Church, well, isn’t that what the Mormon Church thought? Obviously this is just my opinion.