Protestantism Today

[Jim_Dandy]

Some of us are converts and were taught as Protestants that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and the Pope is the anti-Christ. I imbibed this poison as a Baptist from birth.

This anti-Christ bull-oney is still official Lutheran doctrine (see the Book of Concord’s “Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope,” which labels all Popes as murderers and says they and their adherents (that’s me) “defend [and practice] godless doctrines and godless services.” Many Protestant ecclesial communities teach that Catholics are not Christian and are going to hell if they don’t give up their religion and become Protestant. During the Reformation era, many false charges against the Church were made by Protestants that have become known as the Black Legends. Those legends are very much believed even today, and Catholics are regularly confronted with these lies. One example is the fraudulent Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, which remains a best seller centuries after it was written. Another is the myth of the Spanish Inquisition. And many more.

If anyone is interested, spend a little time on the Internet checking out anti-Catholic websites. Don’t forget YouTube. The evidence is not hard to find. Here’s a sample:

youtube.com/watch?v=PrPrbdonJ68&NR=1

Jim Dandy

 

[JLF2011]

Some of us are converts and were taught as Protestants that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and the Pope is the anti-Christ. I imbibed this poison as a Baptist from birth.

Many Protestant ecclesial communities teach that Catholics are not Christian and are going to hell if they don’t give up their religion and become Protestant.
Jim Dandy

I’ve never heard anything like this in the Protestant churches I’ve attended. People can distort just about anything, I guess. God knows that, of course.

 

[Contarini]

I’ve never heard anything like this in the Protestant churches I’ve attended. People can distort just about anything, I guess. God knows that, of course.

Indeed. But anti-Catholicism is the traditional Protestant attitude. And I’m not sure that there’s a coherent defense of Protestantism to be made without it (unless you accept a fundamentally liberal understanding of Protestantism, and thus of Christianity as a whole).

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

I’ve never heard anything like this in the Protestant churches I’ve attended. People can distort just about anything, I guess. God knows that, of course.

I would ask have you attended denominational or other than denominational Protestant Churches…?

 

[JLF2011]

I would ask have you attended denominational or other than denominational Protestant Churches…?

I’ve attended at different times, on a regular basis, Presbyterian, Congregational, Dutch Reformed, and a non-denominational.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’ve attended at different times, on a regular basis, Presbyterian, Congregational, Dutch Reformed, and a non-denominational.

Imagine this…you are in a Church…Presbyterian…Congregational…Dutch Reformed…non-denominational…recall all of those experiences…the people…the music…the preaching…the studies…they were all Protestant…to be Protestant is to accept that it is something that is not something else…what is that something else you are not part of or have not experienced and in your participation you agree.with what it is to be Protestant…something that is not something else…

 

[BrianGular]

Indeed. But anti-Catholicism is the traditional Protestant attitude. And I’m not sure that there’s a coherent defense of Protestantism to be made without it (unless you accept a fundamentally liberal understanding of Protestantism, and thus of Christianity as a whole).

Edwin

I think it’s fair to say that Protestantism’s beginning as a reaction to the abuses of the church in the 16th century heavily influences her characteristics, but to claim that one cannot defend Protestantism without anti-Catholicism is more than a stretch. We could remove one or the other and the remaining group would still stand on its foundations. With a substantial body of foundation shared between them, each group offers a defensible position–at least defensible enough to convince its adherents.

 

[CopticChristian]

I think it’s fair to say that Protestantism’s beginning as a reaction to the abuses of the church in the 16th century heavily influences her characteristics, but to claim that one cannot defend Protestantism without anti-Catholicism is more than a stretch. We could remove one or the other and the remaining group would still stand on its foundations. With a substantial body of foundation shared between them, each group offers a defensible position–at least defensible enough to convince its adherents./QUOTE]

and thus the promotion of propagation of error…convinced.

 

[Contarini]

I think it’s fair to say that Protestantism’s beginning as a reaction to the abuses of the church in the 16th century heavily influences her characteristics

But that’s not really why Protestantism began. Of course it had something to do with it, but Protestantism rested on doctrinal foundations, particularly the claim that “Rome” had perverted the Gospel and no longer accepted the authority of the Word of God. That’s what I mean by “anti-Catholicism.” If “Rome” was simply a corrupt expression of the true Church, then by the standards of the Reformers themselves they committed a grave sin in separating from Rome.

I would recommend Calvin’s treatment of the nature of the Church in Institutes Book IV, chaps. 1-2, for a better understanding of this.

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

But that’s not really why Protestantism began. Of course it had something to do with it, but Protestantism rested on doctrinal foundations, particularly the claim that “Rome” had perverted the Gospel and no longer accepted the authority of the Word of God. That’s what I mean by “anti-Catholicism.” If “Rome” was simply a corrupt expression of the true Church, then by the standards of the Reformers themselves they committed a grave sin in separating from Rome.

I would recommend Calvin’s treatment of the nature of the Church in Institutes Book IV, chaps. 1-2, for a better understanding of this.

Edwin

I hear this so often. What is the presumed Gospel? What is the Perversion? Or is this just so many words that mean nothing. If there was a perversion, I want to know what it was, so I can pack my bags and head on out…lets get on with it and tell me…please.

 

[JLF2011]

Imagine this…you are in a Church…Presbyterian…Congregational…Dutch Reformed…non-denominational…recall all of those experiences…the people…the music…the preaching…the studies…they were all Protestant…to be Protestant is to accept that it is something that is not something else…what is that something else you are not part of or have not experienced and in your participation you agree.with what it is to be Protestant…something that is not something else…

Not to be dense, but exactly what’s your point? (I was a philosopy major in college, but the logic here is eluding me .)

 

[Daedelus76]

The intellectual roots of Protestantism rest with Calvin, Zwingli, Arminius, etc… in terms of the doctrines. But really Protestantism’s formal cause was the abuse of clerical power by the late medieval western church, not in mere intellectual speculation. The Catholic Church had become the 800 pound gorilla of Western Europe. Especially the period where the Papacy was disputed by no less than three popes (look at Jan Hus for an example of a proto-Reformer- his objections were only to the Popes using money raised from indulgences to fight each other, and deniel of the Eucharist to the laity in both kinds).

 

[Roy5]

It’s true. Corruption within the Church was perhaps the match that lit the candle of the Reformation. The corruption was connected to doctrine and practice. The Catholic Church at that point laid enormous emphasis on ‘good works’ and the benefits from them. For example, say a few Hail Marys and you get so many merits. Luther, of course, was incensed by Tetzel, a fundraiser for the construction of St. Peter’s in Rome. Tetzel was telling the faithful - to some degree threatening - that giving to the fund would help get their loved ones out of purgatory quicker. Luther responded with his 95 theses in which, among other things, he argued that you could not buy your way into or out of anything. This ld him to emphasize faith above everything else, a way of minimizing the part ‘good works’ played in individual salvation. Perhaps he carried this too far, as reform movement often do. Obviously, good works (meaning kind deeds, but not reciting packaged prayers) play a major role among Christians - or should.
There were other factors at play. Nationalism. Printing press and the greater availability of the Bible. The luxuries which the Pope enjoyed in Rome. Buying and selling high positions within the church. The rogue behavior of some Popes which brings to mind modern sex scandals among the clergy. Protestantism rebelled against the looseness which characterized so much of the church despite its outward piety. Etc.

 

[joe370]

Hey Roy…

It’s true. Corruption within the Church was perhaps the match that lit the candle of the Reformation.

Just curious:

Do you think that men such as Martin Luther should have done like Francis of Assisi and stuck it out, (embracing the whole weeds and wheat thing until the end of time) - attempting to reform from within Jesus’ Church, or do you believe leaving the church was the better way to go? Just a simple question I had asked myself so long ago.

 

[Daedelus76]

Since you spent rather a lot of time waxing about your ability to ponder and reason, ponder why it is that every faith community (whether protestant or, ahem, liberty-taking catholic) that has taken your advice in the last 80 years has been bleeding membership at rapidly fatal levels.

This is a myth that has been challenged by many scholars. In reality the demographics of religion in North America shows nonreligion as the fastest growing sentiment. Buddhism and Neo-Paganisms are the fastest growing religious beliefs in the US. Most people in the US seem drawn to more liberal or humanistic beliefs that focus on individual empowerment, autonomy, and free-thought. Mainline Protestantism’s decline is probably due to factors other than “liberal theology”, perhaps the institutional politics of mainline churches responded less favorably to changing cultural trends than many of the Pentecostal and non-denominational churches with loose denominational ties.

What people WANT is to have a relationship with God. They already know there is more to existence than greed, power and/or ego. They are unimpressed with religious communities that tell them that God is inside themselves.

Where else would the real God be? There’s a Tibetan proverb, to follow the inner wittness rather than the outer ones. Letting somebody else, even a Pope or Church, think, feel, and decide for you is a good recipe for alienation from yourself and silencing that inner voice of conscience. It is not a sign of integrity or responsibility. In a consumerist and pluralist society, choosing to be Catholic is no more a sign of unwavering commitment to community and tradition than choosing to be Protestant, or Atheist.

They rebel against it from time to time, but they always exhaust themselves in faulty alternatives and come looking again for the real thing.

Come back home… to Unitarian Universalism?

 

[wisdomseeker]

**Quote:
Originally Posted by Contarini
But that’s not really why Protestantism began. Of course it had something to do with it, but Protestantism rested on doctrinal foundations, particularly the claim that “Rome” had perverted the Gospel and no longer accepted the authority of the Word of God. That’s what I mean by “anti-Catholicism.” If “Rome” was simply a corrupt expression of the true Church, then by the standards of the Reformers themselves they committed a grave sin in separating from Rome.

I would recommend Calvin’s treatment of the nature of the Church in Institutes Book IV, chaps. 1-2, for a better understanding of this.

Edwin **

That is true to me as I hear this over and over again. that seems to be the main motive why so many form groups and call themselves Christians. And with such a belief, they continuously struggle to make the Church right again. they continulously fail since the Church which is the creation of Jesus Himself cannot be corrupted since it is protected by the Holy Spirit.

martin luther failed miserably on the understanding of the Church Jesus found just like so many do today. he placed himself above the Church and consider himself righteous before God. this is a sin of pride and abominable to God. the result is that he wasnt so righteous after all as his plans started to falling appart and his life ended up not being something that someone wanted imitate. while the CC had many Saints at the time and succeeded in bringing many back into the Church again.

the great deed of martin luther was to turn many nations against the Holy Church of God that got worse with time.

 

[Roy5]

** My understanding of Luther is that he left the Church in large measure because the Church tried to shut him up, he continued to state objections to Vatican policies, so a papal bull was issued declaring him in effect an outlaw.** So, he was kicked out. A friendly prince, as I recall, gave him a safe refuge, else je probably would have been killed, either by assassination or tried as a heretic and executed - as had happened to Huss and other pre-Reformation reformers. Luther, Calvin and others, of course, are remembered largely because they were the first successful reformers. Huss, Tyndale, Wycliffe, Waldo and various others had not been successful.

** My guess is that the Vatican was sure that by denouncing Luther he would lose out**. Instead, it only increased his popularity among Germans (and others) who already were tired of domination from Rome - plus a rising nationalism, disgust with corruption in the church, etc.

** St, Francis of Assisi and others tried to bring reforms into the Church and did superb work which we continue to honor today.** However, their impact on Rome and the wider church was quite limited. The flagrant worldliness and other corruption in high places continued. Was it any wonder that a zealous and brash Augustinian monk like Luther rebelled?

** I recently finished reading a book on the history of the Papacy (from Peter? forward) entitled “Absolute Monarchs”** which deals only peripherally with Luther but documents how some rogues, rascals and racketeers succeeded in become Popes and/or manipulating the Papacy for personal glorification and greed. I put a question mark after Peter because the author named Norwich suggests that the evidence that Peter was in Rome and/or the first Pope is scant - more tradition, perhaps, than verified by historical accounts. Norwich, all in all, shows enormous admiration for the persistence of the Papacy over the centuries.

 

[wisdomseeker]

** My understanding of Luther is that he left the Church in large measure because the Church tried to shut him up, he continued to state objections to Vatican policies, so a papal bull was issued declaring him in effect an outlaw.** So, he was kicked out. A friendly prince, as I recall, gave him a safe refuge, else je probably would have been killed, either by assassination or tried as a heretic and executed - as had happened to Huss and other pre-Reformation reformers. Luther, Calvin and others, of course, are remembered largely because they were the first successful reformers. Huss, Tyndale, Wycliffe, Waldo and various others had not been successful.

** My guess is that the Vatican was sure that by denouncing Luther he would lose out**. Instead, it only increased his popularity among Germans (and others) who already were tired of domination from Rome - plus a rising nationalism, disgust with corruption in the church, etc.

** St, Francis of Assisi and others tried to bring reforms into the Church and did superb work which we continue to honor today.** However, their impact on Rome and the wider church was quite limited. The flagrant worldliness and other corruption in high places continued. Was it any wonder that a zealous and brash Augustinian monk like Luther rebelled?

** I recently finished reading a book on the history of the Papacy (from Peter? forward) entitled “Absolute Monarchs”** which deals only peripherally with Luther but documents how some rogues, rascals and racketeers succeeded in become Popes and/or manipulating the Papacy for personal glorification and greed. I put a question mark after Peter because the author named Norwich suggests that the evidence that Peter was in Rome and/or the first Pope is scant - more tradition, perhaps, than verified by historical accounts. Norwich, all in all, shows enormous admiration for the persistence of the Papacy over the centuries.

But St Francis is nothing like martin luther. St Francis never separted himself from teh Church. he never condemned anyone for their sins much the contrary. he never consider himself is sineless man but instead admitted his temptations.

martin luther did not succeeded in anything. just look the result of his ideas today?

 

[Roy5]

I tried to suggest that Luther was kicked out of the Church when he challenged the simony that went on - ‘buying’ God’s blessings. St. Francis did not challenge the church in this way. I certainly don’t think that Luther thought of himself as sinless. In fact, quite the opposite. He was driven to despair because he felt so unrighteous and tried desperately to be absolved through ‘good works’ - , severe fastings, self-flagellation and such. It was then that he saw Romans 5:1 in a new light. We aren’t saved by our own noble efforts - by our acts of piety - but we are ‘justified by faith’ - by our simple and unpretentious faith. We are saved by grace and not of our own doing.
This is not to endorse Luther, but some Catholics seem to have such hostility toward him and Protestantism that they unkindly and unethically warp his life and his message. Even the Vatican appears to have softened in recent years as to the Reformation, ready to admit that mistakes were made by Rome as well as by the reformers.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I tried to suggest that Luther was kicked out of the Church when he challenged the simony that went on - ‘buying’ God’s blessings. St. Francis did not challenge the church in this way. I certainly don’t think that Luther thought of himself as sinless. In fact, quite the opposite. He was driven to despair because he felt so unrighteous and tried desperately to be absolved through ‘good works’ - , severe fastings, self-flagellation and such. It was then that he saw Romans 5:1 in a new light. We aren’t saved by our own noble efforts - by our acts of piety - but we are ‘justified by faith’ - by our simple and unpretentious faith. We are saved by grace and not of our own doing.

This is not to endorse Luther, but some Catholics seem to have such hostility toward him and Protestantism that they unkindly and unethically warp his life and his message. Even the Vatican appears to have softened in recent years as to the Reformation, ready to admit that mistakes were made by Rome as well as by the reformers.

yeah, i understand. i think this protestant gives a great insight about martin luther.

youtube.com/watch?v=whhQZldd1Gc&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLA09CF30CA37C21E5