Biggest Error of Protestant Reformers

[dfkuz]

Replyto Catholic Dude
re: Great Commission - OUT OF COMMISSION

7 But on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles). As usual you REFUSE to read anything in context. There was no ‘out of commission’ anything. It says specifically that Peter (? you must mean Paul) was ‘entrusted’ to the Gentiles, ie that was his primary scope of work.

Which ‘Bible’ version are you using? It’s terrible! But that’s why the ‘new’ versions were made - to pervert the truth of what God has said! The original Greek makes it clear that what is being discussed here in Ga. 2:7 is the GOSPEL OF THE UNCIRCUMCISION (to Paul) and the GOSPEL OF THE CIRCUMCISION (to Peter). Not ‘to,’ - ‘OF’! These are two different gospels, not two different target groups! Besides, Paul clearly went to the Jews first in his early ministry, so that can’t be what the passage means.

Paul had a gospel of UNCIRCUMCISION, one in which circumcision and the Law performance-based merit system that went with it had absolutely NO PART. That was the message he took to BOTH unconverted Jew and Gentile. Peter, on the other hand, had a gospel that gave the pre-eminence to those of the CIRCUMCISION, Israel (‘Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the CIRCUMCISION for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers.’ (Romans 15:8), in that Israel first should receive her promised Kingdom so that through her the Gentiles could also be blessed. For Peter to now promise to confine his and the 12’s ministry to converted Jews only (which he did) was for him to admit that Israel was not in a position to receive her promises at that time. Peter was acknowledging that God was basically changing horses in mid-stream and starting to do something completely different.

The Gentiles would be reached through a new agency, Paul and his helpers, with a new message that didn’t have to come through redeemed Israel and that did NOT require any personal merit on the part of the believer, as the Law of Moses and even the New Covenant Law expounded by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount were being taken out of the way.

The Bible explains it this way: the GOSPEL OF THE UNCIRCUMCISION was like Abraham BEFORE he was circumcised believing God and having it accounted to him for righteousness (Romans 4). The GOSPEL OF THE CIRCUMCISION was like Abraham AFTER his circumcision being willing to sacrifice Isaac - a work or evidence. (James 2:21-24). The Great Commission in the 4 Gospels and Acts 1:8 was Christ commanding His followers to take the Good News of the Coming Kingdom to those who were willing to believe that Jesus was the Messiah and do the required works of the New Covenant Law, to Israel first and then through Israel, the whole world. That’s clearly not how it works today (we don’t proclaim that the earthly Kingdom is at hand!), so the Great Commission is OUT OF COMMISSION. Paul’s commission, and ours, is found in Romans 5:18-21. God has given us a commission of offering reconciliation with Him to all men on the basis of the Shed Blood of His Son on Calvary’s tree. Let’s grow up into mature men of God and preach what God wants preached while there’s still time. The Day of Grace grows short!

Thank you for this opportunity to write what I believe. I’m not a preacher or theologian by any means, and this has given me a chance to work at expressing the truth of Dispensationalism to any who will listen.

God bless you with understanding!

dfkuz

 

[briand]

I read your explanation of dispensationalism. I still don’t get it, basically God changes his mind. That does not make any sense. I also dont understand why almost every single early christian writer leaned towards sacriments of somekind. I was in the Plymouth Brethren for many years. They are wonderful people but the constant rapture view of the world really twists a soul. It took me literally a decade just to actually accept that somethings in the world are not totally evil and loathed by God.

It also took some time to get over the idea that 99.999% of all humanity will go to hell forever and ever. But thats another post

 

[Philthy]

carol marie:

I’m going with belief of the visable Church - everything else they believe in error would be corrected if they recognized the authority of God’s Church.

Agreed. It is the failure to accept the teaching authority of the Church through Apostolic succession guided by the holy Spirit which is at the root of all errors of faith.

Phil

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

The “solas” were a huge error, at the root of all the others. It cut out a good deal of the Deposit of the Faith, and what was left was insufficient to protect from further error coming in.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[herry]

Why do Catholics beleive that protestantism is so bad? Here is my vote for all the categories:

1. Rejection of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (See Exodus 20:2-6 (in a Bible that doesn’t have it removed), Isaiah 42:8, and Acts 7:48-49, the Eucharist has the star of Acts 7:43, and Amos 5:26 on it, )
2. The Sola’s: (See Isaiah 8:20, Hosea 8:12, John 5:39, 47, John 8:31-32, 2 TIMOTHY 3:15-17, Romans 3:24, )
3. Rejection of images: (Its a ‘no brainer’ See Exodus 20:4, Romans 1:23, Acts 15:29, [Acts 19:24-28–If its not wrong,why didn’t they just make Marian shrines instead?])
4. Rejection of an earthly priesthood ( Hebrews 8:4, the Book of Hebrews takes on 30 miutes to read)
5. Rejection of the papacy: ( See John 12:8. Jesus appointed no vicar, not even peter was his vicar. Jesus gave the church the Holy Ghost to guide it (John 16:12-14). In the Letters to the churches in Revelation, Jesus tells them to repent of thier sins or else he will remove his candlestick, not “Uh Oh, I wish i didn’t give em those keys”. The popes call themselves by God’s own name (John 17:11, Matthew 23:9).
6. Rejection of the Mass (Hebrews 9:25-28, and chapter 10)
7. Rejection of Mary’s role in salvation ( Galatians 1:6-10, Jeremiah 7:18, and 44:17-19, 1st Kings 11:33 - New Israel is making the same mistakes of old Israel, 1st Timothy 2:5)
8. Rejection of the veneration of saints ( 1st Corinthians 1:13, Prayer to saints originated as Cathoilicism was influence by polytheism) “Not only did Christianity conquer rome, but Rome also conquered Christianity”.

Sorry if I sound contradictory to Cathollic Dogmatic theology, But this is why protestantism has been such as success. See Acts 5:34-39. Protestants are obeying the Bible, and chastening themselves according to the Word of God (Daniel 10:12), rather than trusting in man (Jeremiah 17:5). As far as a visible church, there have always been orthodox Christian denominations who never assimialted into Roman universal Christianity. The gates of Rome never prevailed against it, and in due time they multiplied, and have a unity not understandable by the Roman mind. Baptists marry lutherans, methodists love episcolaians, 7th day adventists love non-denomiationalist’s, we are unified. We do not send out soldiers with crosses on thier chests and swords in thier hands to kill those we disagree with. Rome’s history is inseperable from the crusades and inquisitions which were not justified in any light (John 18:36, Matthew 5:21-22).

-Respectfully yours,

Herry

 

[Genesis315]

herry:

Sorry if I sound contradictory to Cathollic Dogmatic theology, But this is why protestantism has been such as success.

We’ve already got 1500 years on ya. We’ll see who’s been more successful when it’s all said in done.

No Protestant denomination has gone 200 years without significant doctrinal change (for those denominations that are even that old).

 

[BayCityRickL]

I said OTHER, although the Eucharist is right up there.

OTHER: rejection of the Magisterium of the Church in the Pope.

There were problems in the Catholic Church, but honest historians tell us that these problems had been in existence for a long time, maybe more than 100 years.

Leaving the Catholic Church and setting up other independent churches was not only intellectually dishonest and damaging to faith and unity, but resulted in political chaos in Europe and elsewhere and the death of many people who were incidental victims of the whole thing.

Luther’s decision to translate the Bible from the original languages was enlightened in some respects, but it was carried out in the most devisive way.

Certainly the other – sola fide and sola scriptura – were intellectually dishonest and just downright incorrect.

One perception I have of the division of Christianity is the lingering hatred of Catholicism and the intellectually bankrupt criticism of everything that is Catholic.

 

[oat_soda]

i just watched the new luther movie. i thought it was pretty good. i’ve always admired luther. basically, i feel he was right on some things but out in left field on others. i wonder if the cause of the reformation and the apostacy in the church today is a result of our faith being more about obedience then about the faith itself.

the orthodox churches never experianced a “reformation”. i think that the more a faith identifies itself with blind obedience vs. accepting something handed down to us from the apostles, it will always be subject to devisive forces. not to say that ultimate authority isn’t needed, but that people need to understand that the faith is what it is and the pope is its servant. we can’t change it but should cherish it as a gift more precious then gold.
i think the arbitrary manner in which recent popes have legitimately changed the liturgy post VII has only made things worse. i think we need a more patristic apostolic paradigm.

 

[Neutron]

I’ve been struggling with this lately. I think the big mistake is that they think they can decide for themselves what to believe.

Other than that, I would lean towards the Real Presence issue as the major fault. I am Luttheran Church - Missouri Synod, a Prostestant body that believes in the Real Presence. They use a little different words than the Catholics (in, with and under), but the meaning is pretty close.

Now I’m considering Catholic conversion to bring unity to my own family. My wife and kids are all Catholic. I’m not seeing a huge shift here. I am reading some conversion stories to understand why others have gone through Catholic conversion. If I had been part of another Protestant body that did not believe in Real Presence, this process might be a lot harder. Or perhaps easier, as there is a larger difference. Right now the LCMS and Catholic seem somewhat similar.

(And yes, I do understand that there are still some major differences).

 

[mom26sofar]

The biggest error is disagreement with Christ giving Peter the Keys, ie: the authority of the Church. All other categories fall under that subject. IMO.

Jamie

 

[rjs1]

herry:

Why do Catholics beleive that protestantism is so bad? Here is my vote for all the categories:

1. Rejection of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (See Exodus 20:2-6 (in a Bible that doesn’t have it removed), Isaiah 42:8, and Acts 7:48-49, the Eucharist has the star of Acts 7:43, and Amos 5:26 on it, )
2. The Sola’s: (See Isaiah 8:20, Hosea 8:12, John 5:39, 47, John 8:31-32, 2 TIMOTHY 3:15-17, Romans 3:24, )
3. Rejection of images: (Its a ‘no brainer’ See Exodus 20:4, Romans 1:23, Acts 15:29, [Acts 19:24-28–If its not wrong,why didn’t they just make Marian shrines instead?])
4. Rejection of an earthly priesthood ( Hebrews 8:4, the Book of Hebrews takes on 30 miutes to read)
5. Rejection of the papacy: ( See John 12:8. Jesus appointed no vicar, not even peter was his vicar. Jesus gave the church the Holy Ghost to guide it (John 16:12-14). In the Letters to the churches in Revelation, Jesus tells them to repent of thier sins or else he will remove his candlestick, not “Uh Oh, I wish i didn’t give em those keys”. The popes call themselves by God’s own name (John 17:11, Matthew 23:9).
6. Rejection of the Mass (Hebrews 9:25-28, and chapter 10)
7. Rejection of Mary’s role in salvation ( Galatians 1:6-10, Jeremiah 7:18, and 44:17-19, 1st Kings 11:33 - New Israel is making the same mistakes of old Israel, 1st Timothy 2:5)
8. Rejection of the veneration of saints ( 1st Corinthians 1:13, Prayer to saints originated as Cathoilicism was influence by polytheism) “Not only did Christianity conquer rome, but Rome also conquered Christianity”.

Sorry if I sound contradictory to Cathollic Dogmatic theology, But this is why protestantism has been such as success. See Acts 5:34-39. Protestants are obeying the Bible, and chastening themselves according to the Word of God (Daniel 10:12), rather than trusting in man (Jeremiah 17:5). As far as a visible church, there have always been orthodox Christian denominations who never assimialted into Roman universal Christianity. The gates of Rome never prevailed against it, and in due time they multiplied, and have a unity not understandable by the Roman mind. Baptists marry lutherans, methodists love episcolaians, 7th day adventists love non-denomiationalist’s, we are unified. We do not send out soldiers with crosses on thier chests and swords in thier hands to kill those we disagree with. Rome’s history is inseperable from the crusades and inquisitions which were not justified in any light (John 18:36, Matthew 5:21-22).

-Respectfully yours,

Herry

Herry,

I’m afraid that every one of your points has been dealt with in detail by a number of Catholic books and websites, but in particular right here on the Catholic Answers website.

It would take me too long to try and reply to each point here, but I would ask you to do a search on Catholic Answers re each of your points and you will find that the Scriptures, and the unbroken history of the Church Our Lord Himself founded, absolutely support the Catholic position and show the Protestant positions (which of the many!) to be false.

As for your comment that you Protestants are unified. WHAT! Have you never studied history? The early Lutherans and Calvanists hated each other as much as they hated the Catholics and they killed each other. Today the Protestants are split into hundreds of denominations that don’t agree on countless doctrinal issues.

You comment that the Protestants did “not send out soldiers with crosses on their chests and swords in their hands to kill those we disagree with”. WHOA! Again; have you read any history? Calvin’s Geneva made Soviet Russia look like a holiday farm by comparrison. We Catholics have a long list of Saints who were martyred by Protestants of many persuasions.

Please go back to your Bible and your history books because you have a lot to relearn.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Genesis315:

We’ve already got 1500 years on ya. We’ll see who’s been more successful when it’s all said in done.

No Protestant denomination has gone 200 years without significant doctrinal change (for those denominations that are even that old).

Isn’t that a bigoted statement to make against Seperated Brethren?

As far as a Protestant denomination going 200 years w/o significant doctrinal change (your words, not mine), that would be incorrect. Methodism has held to the Articles of Religion for longer than 200 years. The Anglican Church has held to the Articles for much longer than that. Those are the primary/chief sources of the doctrine of both churches.

There are certainly some matters discussed here that merit debate. However, there are some matters being discussed here that have (a) tried (unsuccessfully, I might add) to pigeonhole ALL Protestants, and (b) have been just plain bigoted AND wrong.

In my quick view of the Protestant Errors website… I found some “errors” there, too. So I wouldn’t use it to “prooftext” against Protestants… unless you want to be guilty of “being too Protestant.”

Where this thread is concerned, it is best to remember a few things if you want to engage in apologetics with Protestants:

1. Not all Protestants descended from Luther (ex: Anglicans and Methodists).
2. Luther never said the word “Consubstantiation.” Anglicans/Methodists take a more Eastern approach with Real Presence, similar to that of the Orthodox.
3. Most Protestants are not dispensationalists.
4. Not all Protestants subscribe to “the Solas”

The wide painting of the brush leads to unfounded bigotry. Please don’t be guilty of the same bigotry that many Protestants show towards Catholics; be better than that.

O+

 

[rjs1]

O.S. Luke:

Isn’t that a bigoted statement to make against Seperated Brethren?

As far as a Protestant denomination going 200 years w/o significant doctrinal change (your words, not mine), that would be incorrect. Methodism has held to the Articles of Religion for longer than 200 years. The Anglican Church has held to the Articles for much longer than that. Those are the primary/chief sources of the doctrine of both churches.
O+

This statement is historically incorrect.
As an ex Anglican I can assure you that the Anglican Church has NOT held to the Articles at all. The range of doctrine in the Anglican Church is from ultra Protestant to Anglo Catholic, with both these positions, and all the ones in between, dismissing or “reinterpreting” any of the Articles they did not like.

As for the Methodists - their theology now ranges from fairly Calvanist, to so liberal that it is virtually agnostic. The Methodist church no longer exists in my country, having gone into a union with some other Protestant denominations years ago. Now fthey form a Church that ordains women and homosexuals, allows totally unrestricted abortion and divorce, believes in the legalisation of drug use, and many of whose ministers now deny the Virgin Birth and Resurrection.

 

[O.S.Luke]

rjs1:

This statement is historically incorrect.
As an ex Anglican I can assure you that the Anglican Church has NOT held to the Articles at all. The range of doctrine in the Anglican Church is from ultra Protestant to Anglo Catholic, with both these positions, and all the ones in between, dismissing or “reinterpreting” any of the Articles they did not like.

As for the Methodists - their theology now ranges from fairly Calvanist, to so liberal that it is virtually agnostic. The Methodist church no longer exists in my country, having gone into a union with some other Protestant denominations years ago. Now fthey form a Church that ordains women and homosexuals, allows totally unrestricted abortion and divorce, believes in the legalisation of drug use, and many of whose ministers now deny the Virgin Birth and Resurrection.

I can only speak for my tradition… and my statement holds true.

What you’ve said about praxis is true, but a totally different matter… many churches, just like the Catholic Church, have their doctrinal standards plainly spelled out. Whether people choose to ADHERE to them is an entirely different matter.

I suspect (heck, I know) that there are Catholics who practice birth control, support a woman’s right to choose regarding abortion, do not believe in transubstantiation, etc. But that’s not the fault of doctrinal standards - that’s a failure to adhere to them.

Two very, very different things. Protestants are accused of pick and choose. But the fact of the matter is that many Catholics do it, too. That certainly doesn’t make it right.

O+

 

[mikeee]

Luther was right. The church of his time was in error. They refused to accept this and excommunicated him for following his conscience. You are correct in saying pride was at the center of the disaster but it was not the pride Luther but rather the pride of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Sorta sounds like the church of today doesn’t it?

Darrel:

I said ‘other’,

I think the real problem here is the simple assumption that it is ever ok to be divided as a Church after what Jesus said to Peter. It seems like simple rebellion and disobediance. The will of God was never subject to opinion. He told us who was in charge and now it is rejected. Gods will is now subject to interpretation in many thousands of ways. Pride comes to mind.

-D

 

[rjs1]

O.S. Luke:

I can only speak for my tradition… and my statement holds true.

What you’ve said about praxis is true, but a totally different matter… many churches, just like the Catholic Church, have their doctrinal standards plainly spelled out. Whether people choose to ADHERE to them is an entirely different matter.

I suspect (heck, I know) that there are Catholics who practice birth control, support a woman’s right to choose regarding abortion, do not believe in transubstantiation, etc. But that’s not the fault of doctrinal standards - that’s a failure to adhere to them.

Two very, very different things. Protestants are accused of pick and choose. But the fact of the matter is that many Catholics do it, too. That certainly doesn’t make it right.

O+

Many Catholics do pick and choose, but the official teaching of the Catholic Church remains unchanged on all the essential issues I mentioned.

The official teaching of the Anglican Church has undergone radical transformation to the point of ordaining publically professed homosexuals living in a relationship with a male partner.

The official teaching of the Uninting Church in Australia, comprising mainly the former Methodist Church, is radically different from anything Charles Wesley would recognise.

Protestantism has no central authority and no Divinely guided Magesterium. They claim that it is the Bible, but with whose interpretation? Hence Protestantism has disintegrated into hundreds and even several thousand sects - ranging from ardent Biblical fundamentalists to groups not even vaguely identifiable as Christian. Remember that all the breakaway sects - Mormans, Jehova’s Witnesses, Christadelphians etc etc etc were once part of some mainline Protestant church which was once part of the Catholic Church.

 

[O.S.Luke]

rjs1:

Many Catholics do pick and choose, but the official teaching of the Catholic Church remains unchanged on all the essential issues I mentioned.

The official teaching of the Anglican Church has undergone radical transformation to the point of ordaining publically professed homosexuals living in a relationship with a male partner.

I think there is a difference between official teaching and practice, especially in the case of the Anglican Church. The Windsor Report makes clear the official teaching of the Anglican Church. That doesn’t mean it’s being followed or practiced.

The official teaching of the Uninting Church in Australia, comprising mainly the former Methodist Church, is radically different from anything Charles Wesley would recognise.

No argument there. But as in all things in Australia, rebellion is a bit in vogue, wouldn’t you agree?

Protestantism has no central authority and no Divinely guided Magesterium. They claim that it is the Bible, but with whose interpretation? Hence Protestantism has disintegrated into hundreds and even several thousand sects - ranging from ardent Biblical fundamentalists to groups not even vaguely identifiable as Christian. Remember that all the breakaway sects - Mormans, Jehova’s Witnesses, Christadelphians etc etc etc were once part of some mainline Protestant church which was once part of the Catholic Church.

No argument there either. But I don’t think a Magisterium has kept the Church all that unified - and leaders from within the Catholic Church chose to ignore the Magisterium (or, maybe more precisely, pervert its teachings for financial and political gain) which led to the Reformation. Before the Reformation, there was the Orthodox/Eastern schism in which half of Christianity fell away (New Advents’s words, not mine). Before that, Arianism produced a huge schism; Nestorian and Monophysite schisms still exist.

Lamentable? Most certainly. I wish Luther had been more diplomatic, and I wish some bishops in the Catholic Church had showed more courage and rose against what was obviously greed and abuse of power by the Church. I grieve over the Reformation, as I grieve over the East/West schism.

My own United Methodist Church is guilty of what many Catholics are guilty of: cafeteria faith. Official teachings don’t mean very much in societies that increasingly place more weight and importance on individualism. I suspect my own communion is going to split over orthodoxy.

I suspect the future holds that Christians of all faiths will have to cling on to each other more tightly, regardless of communion or affiliation, to simply have allies and fellowship. Individualism and living out one’s baptism are not compatible. Individualism and partaking of Eucharist/living in the Body of Christ are just as incompatible. If you ask me, that problem threatens to destroy the Church, not just split it again.

To borrow from the movie Cool Hand Luke, what we have here is a failure to communicate (teach).

O+

 

[James_2_24]

By far it is the rejection of the Real Presence in the Most Holy Eucharist. It is the source and summit of our Faith!

 

[Philthy]

herry:

Sorry if I sound contradictory to Cathollic Dogmatic theology, But this is why protestantism has been such as success.

A success? In what way?

herry:

See Acts 5:34-39. Protestants are obeying the Bible, and chastening themselves according to the Word of God (Daniel 10:12), rather than trusting in man (Jeremiah 17:5).

Hold your horses! They are obeying their interpretations of the bible. The result? Protestants are extraordinarily diverse in their faith - they just choose to ignore those differences as “non-essential differences” so that they can all embrace under the umbrella of evangelism and claim “unity”. Sorry - I don’t buy it.
If it didn’t involve fundamental issues of faith, it might be believable, but it does. And the fact that it is caused by the “bible alone” pillar (which contradicts Scripture, BTW - see 2 Thess 2:15) just makes it look so ridiculous.

herry:

As far as a visible church, there have always been orthodox Christian denominations who never assimialted into Roman universal Christianity.

If you are somehow implying that the orthodox churches are ANYTHING like most Protestant churches in theology or practice then you need a major reality check. There is precious little which separates the orthodox and Catholic Churches.

herry:

The gates of Rome never prevailed against it, and in due time they multiplied, and have a unity not understandable by the Roman mind. Baptists marry lutherans, methodists love episcolaians, 7th day adventists love non-denomiationalist’s, we are unified. We do not send out soldiers with crosses on thier chests and swords in thier hands to kill those we disagree with.

And that would be Why?..Oh yea, because you DIDN"T EXIST when the sword was the weapon for a soldier.

herry:

Rome’s history is inseperable from the crusades and inquisitions which were not justified in any light (John 18:36, Matthew 5:21-22).
-Respectfully yours,
Herry

History is the strongest ally to Catholicism and the most potent refutation of Protestantism. Just remember, when you start appealing to history as a Protestant - we get to open it all up, not just the parts you wish to see.

Blessings,

Phil

 

[e-catholic]

Wcoyote:

I voted for the Eucharist, but looking back at the list, I think it is probably the Sola’s and by that thought process they loose the Eucharist.

We must continue to pray for all our non Catholic brothers and sisters.

Wcoyote

I don’t know if we can blame the sola’s for the loss of the Eucharist. I have never understood how anyone can read John 6 and not understand the Eucharist. The best knowledge of the Eucharist comes straight from scripture, of course there are many others besides John 6. Especially the fundamentalists who take everything literally in the Bible except for John 6.

Sola Fide might. however, be somewhat to blame.

Oh, yeah, I chose the Eucharist, but it was hard to choose between that and the rejection of grace working inside the individual.

Both of these reject methods by which God transforms us into holy beings fit to be taken to heaven.