Biggest Error of Protestant Reformers

  • Thread starter Thread starter Madaglan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Christian4life:
Thank you. You have no idea how much that verse applies to me life right now and has helped me…
Click to expand...
You’re welcome.
 
Well, all of the errors work in tandem, but I guess for me the biggest error is the egalitarian impulse that runs throughout Protestantism. It confuses the roles one has in the body of Christ with the worth of the person. So in Protestantism all roles are the same, hence no difference between clergy and laity; no hierarchy. With no hierarchy each is free to a large extent to become his own church, his own repository of faith, his own arbiter of truth. Because of the absence of a hierarchy, there is no recognition of the sanctity of the priesthood; consequently, no Eucharist. As a matter of fact, this absence of a hierarchical structure gives rise to an absence of the supernatural because the Incarnation of Christ and hence of mankind does not take place in Protestantism. Instead, the lack of the supernatural gives rise to the emphasis on the individual, the community, and it kind of attenuates to what we have today, relativism and the like. So I would say that the hierarchical structure of Catholicism maintained the Incarnation and a sense of the supernatural in the world. With the collapse of the hierarchy as inherent in Protestantism, we have instead egalitarianism, subjectivism, rationalism, and a loss of fhe Incarnation.
 
The sin of pride was the biggest error of the Protestant reformers. They refused to give up their own ideas and refused to submit to the authority and beliefs of the Catholic Church.
 
40.png
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?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church is made up of sinners worshipping the one perfect God. We all make mistakes and it’s our job to go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, repent, and do better. At least the CC still knows that contraception is wrong.

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne
 
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.
Click to expand...
and a Protestant kept insisting that we have a list of officially approved (by Rome) interpretations of the Bible, even after I told her that there’s no such list! Lord, have mercy on us.

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne
 
The sola’s - except sola fide is worse than sola scriptura, as while sola scriptura est contra scriptura, sola fide cannot be derived from scripture if one truly adhere’s to sola scriptura.
 
Definitely the “Solas”. Everything stems from the disrespect of tradition - the kind that affirmed and re-affirmed the issue of transubstantiation. The words are there in the Gospel, but few Protestants realize that our belief wasn’t made up out of thin air sometime in the 1400’s. It was believed from Day One.
 
I see that rejection of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist has the most votes, but Luther did believe in the Real Presence. It wasn’t until later Reformers came along that this doctrine was no longer believed.
 
I vote for the “solas”—many of the other items can be traced to them.
 
Rejection of the Papacy…God’s order for His Church…which I guess is #2 on the list.
 
40.png
Ric:
There was no option for “None of the above”! :mad:
Click to expand...
You could have chosen “Other” and then explained your position as such…

“To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant!” ~Newman
 
All of the listed poll answers are serious errors but I voted Other.

For me the single biggest mistake the Reformers made was separating from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Our Lord Himself with Peter at the head and starting to believe and teach what THEY believed rather than accepting what God’s Church taught as truth.

Each Reformer thought that he knew the real truth about God. Each Reformer, in fact, set himself up as the leader (Pope?) of the church. Each one believed he was right - and so it has continued for the last 500 years.

Once we think that we know more than the one Church Jesus founded we are making ourselves into popes and commiting the first sin, the sin of pride.
 
**There should’ve been the option: “All of the Above,” lol. Those are all horrible errors that has led so many people astray and brought major disunity. Now, you see so called pan-Christians who want unity, while at the sametime rejecting the doctrines and supremacy of the Roman Church. :banghead: **
 
The Reformers’ biggest error was to hold onto infant baptism in their churches. Water baptism was part of Israel’s program for induction into the priesthood (Ex. 29:4) and remission of sins (Acts 2:38), but under the program for the Body of Christ made known to Paul, we are to be followers of Paul as he follows Christ (1 Cor. 11:1) and he declares in 1 Cor. 1:17 that he was not sent to baptize but to preach the gospel. Israel required a sign; we walk by faith. There is but one baptism (Eph. 4:5) and that is supernaturally performed by the Holy Spirit the instant we believe the gospel. Believing that the agency of water can effect any or all of our initial salvation is a dangerous and immature error.
 
40.png
dfkuz:
The Reformers’ biggest error was to hold onto infant baptism in their churches…
Click to expand...
Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church’s practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a “born again” experience—that is, after one has “accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior.” At the instant of acceptance, when he is “born again,” the adult becomes a Christian, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after “being saved,” goes to heaven anyway.

As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to “accept Jesus” in order to reach heaven.

Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (2:39). We also read: “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Christ Calls All to Baptism

Although Fundamentalists are the most recent critics of infant baptism, opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists (“re-baptizers”) echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14).

More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’” (Luke 18:15–16).

Now Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, “Suffer the little children to come unto me,” which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, “Now they were bringing even infants to him” (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word *brepha *means “infants”—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to “accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.” And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: “to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven.” The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said “let them come unto me,” who are we to say “no,” and withhold baptism from them?
…more to be found here catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top