Unscriptural Protestant Beliefs

[losh14]

James does not contradict sola fide, unless you believe that works are not required of the regenerate. Luther never taught that.

Was this a later development by other Reformers?

“They demonstrated their faith by works.” Exactly!! Those good works don’t save us - Christ does that. But good works demonstrate our faith, which we receive by Grace. Sola fide does not contend that we just “Believe and everything will be okay”. Obedience requires good works, but those good works have nothing to do with how we are justified.

It appears there are two parts to your response - one is the role of works in salvation, and two is the distinction between justification and sanctification in salvation. Is that correct or am I reading too much into your response?

 

[RHC]

I have to disagree, I think domination matters greatly because like Lutherteach mentions, they don’t want to be painted with a broad brush. We are lumping protestants together yet they one protestant community beleives biblically (sp?) and another doesn’t.

I think that it’s disingenuous to lump them all together. Yet, if I were to ask all the protestants I meet and know what their beliefs are, I could never get it straight and remember who believe’s what. This thread, although asks for what protestants believe that are unscriptural, what about those that don’t believe as their brethren? This person is still a protestant, but really, is it charitable to just say “protestants believe this and that”?

One thing to remember is that there are differences among even the denominations - Southern Baptists are different from Free Will Baptists or Primitive Baptists, for example. This is something that many of my friends who were born and raised Catholic don’t understand.

For example, I can speak for myself. I was born and raised Protestant. At various points, I was Southern Baptist, evangelical non-denominational (which is not a denomination per se, being more of a series of independent churches with little cohesive theology), and Reformed Presbyterian/Calvinist. Yes, there is a wide variety of theology within those groups. They do not agree with each other on some things, but they readily agree on others. Broad brushstrokes would not work here.

In the spirit of the OP, I can tell you various unScriptural beliefs I held and under which group I was taught what:
OSAS/Perseverance of the Saints - Southern Baptist, Evangelical Non-denominational, Reformed Presbyterian
Unconditional Election - Reformed Presbyterian; to lesser extent, Evangelical Non-denominational - this is the doctrine that God chooses an individual without any consideration of his/her merit and nothing we do can influence this
Total Depravity - Mainly Reformed Presbyterian, but all three have bits of this - This teaches that we are completely corrupted by sin and we are born again not of our own will but of God’s. You cannot choose God nor can you choose your own salvation because you are completely corrupt.
Limited Atonement - Reformed Presbyterian. Teaches that Jesus only died for the elect (the chosen).
Irresistable Grace - Mainly Reformed Presbyterian, although the Evangelical Non-Denominational had some of this - Teaches that you cannot resist God’s grace in your life. Once He calls you, you WILL be His child. Forever. And nothing will change that.
Sola Scriptura - All three, although the Reformed Presbyterian has a great devotion to the Westminster Confession of Faith, which was penned in 1646.
Sola Fide - All three.
Rapture, Tribulation (as described in Tim LaHaye’s works) - Evangelical Non-Denominational, Southern Baptist. My friends in the Reformed Presbyterian church were split on this; some were more in line with the Catholic understanding.
Each man/woman interprets Scripture with authority for himself/herself - All three, especially Evangelical Non-Denominational. Usually the priesthood of all believers is the justification for this.
Divorce and remarriage for any reason, at any time, no-fault - All three.
Women in church authority - Evangelical Non-Denominational. Specifically, female deacons.
All churches have truth, except the Catholic Church - Evangelical Non-Denominational. The other two would agree that the Catholic Church is not at all okay, but they would probably argue that they have the fullness of truth and not others.

 

[JonNC]

=losh14;6603087]Was this a later development by other Reformers?

No, not at all, as the link provided demonstrates.

It appears there are two parts to your response - one is the role of works in salvation, and two is the distinction between justification and sanctification in salvation. Is that correct or am I reading too much into your response?

You’re exactly correct. While one cannot exist long without the other, Lutherans make a distinction between Justification, which is monergistic, and Sanctification, which is in many ways synergistic - our response to Grace as regenerate people of God.

Jon

[bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#IV. Good Works.](http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#IV. Good Works.)

 

[skinny_pumpkin]

No, I don’t believe in baptismal regeneration. It’s not the act of baptism that saves, It’s by faith through God’s grace that we are saved. Baptism in the outward sign of inward conviction. The Bible tells us that believers were baptized. I know this could be the beginning of a long discussion and will try to get to it more fully soon. But my experence is that discussing such things with Catholics doesn’t usually produce much fruit because I don’t hold to Catholic tradition. I go strictly with scripture.

Even if we remove Catholics from the equation, there is one of two sides that one can assert-- baptism is regenerative or it is not, depending on how the scriptures are interpreted. Methodists and Lutherans, as well as Anna baptists (Mennonites, etc) interpret scripture as saying it is.

It is the reformed position that claimed it was not out of the “orthodox” denominations (I exclude gnostic groups such as the Bogomils and Paulicians who also discarded all sacraments).

The modern interpretations given that baptism is not regenerative are the same reasons first espoused by the reformed position. They remain essentially unchanged.

 

[windlessuser]

One thing to remember is that there are differences among even the denominations - Southern Baptists are different from Free Will Baptists or Primitive Baptists, for example. This is something that many of my friends who were born and raised Catholic don’t understand.

For example, I can speak for myself. I was born and raised Protestant. At various points, I was Southern Baptist, evangelical non-denominational (which is not a denomination per se, being more of a series of independent churches with little cohesive theology), and Reformed Presbyterian/Calvinist. Yes, there is a wide variety of theology within those groups. They do not agree with each other on some things, but they readily agree on others. Broad brushstrokes would not work here.

In the spirit of the OP, I can tell you various unScriptural beliefs I held and under which group I was taught what:
OSAS/Perseverance of the Saints - Southern Baptist, Evangelical Non-denominational, Reformed Presbyterian
Unconditional Election - Reformed Presbyterian; to lesser extent, Evangelical Non-denominational - this is the doctrine that God chooses an individual without any consideration of his/her merit and nothing we do can influence this
Total Depravity - Mainly Reformed Presbyterian, but all three have bits of this - This teaches that we are completely corrupted by sin and we are born again not of our own will but of God’s. You cannot choose God nor can you choose your own salvation because you are completely corrupt.
Limited Atonement - Reformed Presbyterian. Teaches that Jesus only died for the elect (the chosen).
Irresistable Grace - Mainly Reformed Presbyterian, although the Evangelical Non-Denominational had some of this - Teaches that you cannot resist God’s grace in your life. Once He calls you, you WILL be His child. Forever. And nothing will change that.
Sola Scriptura - All three, although the Reformed Presbyterian has a great devotion to the Westminster Confession of Faith, which was penned in 1646.
Sola Fide - All three.
Rapture, Tribulation (as described in Tim LaHaye’s works) - Evangelical Non-Denominational, Southern Baptist. My friends in the Reformed Presbyterian church were split on this; some were more in line with the Catholic understanding.
Each man/woman interprets Scripture with authority for himself/herself - All three, especially Evangelical Non-Denominational. Usually the priesthood of all believers is the justification for this.
Divorce and remarriage for any reason, at any time, no-fault - All three.
Women in church authority - Evangelical Non-Denominational. Specifically, female deacons.
All churches have truth, except the Catholic Church - Evangelical Non-Denominational. The other two would agree that the Catholic Church is not at all okay, but they would probably argue that they have the fullness of truth and not others.

Thanks, this si the sort of list i was looking for. Anyone else able to add?

 

[skinny_pumpkin]

Thanks, this si the sort of list i was looking for. Anyone else able to add?

Autonomy of the congregation ie, no bishops (pertains to non denom groups.

**the ability of the “congregation” to appoint the prebstyr. (priest/pastor, etc.) ** denies apostolic succession and is found no where in the New Testament.

Dispensationalism In the sense of early, or late acts dispensations for the non Jews, Claims that gospels were for the Jews and Paul’s instruction was for the gentiles, and the two should not mix. (over simplification)

Premillennialism which encompasses the tribulation and rapture mentioned above.

Communion is a remembrance, not the real presence

baptism is not regenerative

Iconoclasm

 

[windlessuser]

Dispensationalism In the sense of early, or late acts dispensations for the non Jews, Claims that gospels were for the Jews and Paul’s instruction was for the gentiles, and the two should not mix. (over simplification)

:O, you serious about that one?

 

[GIR]

They lack a couple things in the bible too:

-priests, deacons, and bishops
-confirmation/chrismation
-sacramental absolution

 

[skinny_pumpkin]

:O, you serious about that one?

Very, They basically argue about when the church started in Acts, Chap 2 (Pentecost), chap 13 (Paul and Barnabas begin preacing to the gentiles), chap Acts 28 (vs 26-28, Paul proclaiming the Kingdom of God has come to the Gentiles). I think there might be others as well.

Many believe that everything necessary for salvation was taught by Paul, including things about baptism and the “Lord’s Supper”. Any parables of Christ, were for the Jews alone, and are not to be bound on gentile Christians.

" Ultradispensationalism. A theology that teaches that there are two churches: (1) the bride church, which is solely Jewish and exists only in the transitional period in Acts; (2) the body church which includes Gentiles and which began with Paul’s ministry. For this reason, some ultradispensationalists observe the Lord’s Supper only, whereas others reject both the Lord’s Supper and water baptism. (4)

here and here

 

[Teflon93]

I’d say one good example is the belief that banning alcohol is Scriptural.

Umm, no, Christ turned water into wine, not wine into water, at Cana.

Closely tied to this is the notion that the Eucharist is to be given with grape juice (which didn’t even exist until Welch invented the pasteurization process for grapes in the 1830s.)

I’ve heard Pentecostal pastors replace references to wine in Gospel accounts of the Last Supper with “juice”.

This is due to many fundamentalist beliefs coinciding with the temperance movement.

 

[Church_Militant]

I sure you are aware of websites by Ex Catholic Priests who say Protestants have it right.

Really? Have yet to see any of those, but it really doesn’t matter because they fail to agree with not only the New Testament, but with the writings of the early church, which were far closer to source than they or their errant communities of modern post reformation step children.

I cite scripture in my blog article that supports its theme. It’s not my fault that others from outside the Church espouse error.

 

[Holly3278]

I could tell you at least some of what the unscriptural Protestant beliefs are but I don’t really have time for that. What I’d like to do is to show you all of the various heresies that various Protestant churches embrace. Unfortunately, to do so would take pages upon pages upon pages of material. So, here are three major heresies that most Protestants readily embrace:

1. 
   *]The “doctrine” of “sola scriptura” - The belief that all doctrine must either come from Scripture or it is invalid.
   *]The “doctrine” of “sola fide” - The belief that we are “saved” by faith alone which is refuted by James 2:24.
   *]The wholesale rejection of the Communion of the Saints.
   
   Keep in mind that this is only three of the heresies that Protestants often embrace. There are many more.

 

[steve_b]

Well to my knowledge, Sola fide means that one is saved by faith alone -using the protestant definition of faith.

faith is never alone. Therefore, to teach faith alone is a distortion.
w:

As Catholics we define** faith** as Unconditional belief in God, Hope as Unconditional trust in God, and charity is unconditional love for God.

Allow me to interject the CCC on these virtues

**Faith **
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=faith&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

Hope

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=hope&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

Charity

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=charity&xsubmit=Search&s=SS
w:

And I dont remember which apostle said this, but we are to perform good works, showing our faith and hope expressed through charity(love).

Paul. Gal 5:6
w:

The protestant definition of “faith” summarises the above concepts. Thats why I think it’s just a matter of semantics.

Correct me If I’m wrong.

buy Faith “alone” is in scripture. The problem is, NOT is in front of it. [Jas 2:24]

 

[JonNC]

=Holly3278;6636219]I could tell you at least some of what the unscriptural Protestant beliefs are but I don’t really have time for that. What I’d like to do is to show you all of the various heresies that various Protestant churches embrace. Unfortunately, to do so would take pages upon pages upon pages of material. So, here are three major heresies that most Protestants readily embrace:

Let’s take a look.

*]The “doctrine” of “sola scriptura” - The belief that all doctrine must either come from Scripture or it is invalid.

Sola scriptura is a practice, not a doctrine. It is the practice of using scripture as the final norm, holding all teachings and teachers accountable to it. It does not exclude Tradition, or councils or creeds, or even confessions.

*]The “doctrine” of “sola fide” - The belief that we are “saved” by faith alone which is refuted by James 2:24.

Sola fide teaches that we come to justification by grace alone through faith in Christ alone, and not works of the law. Sola fide is specific, that we can do nothing to achieve justification. Justification is monergistic. It does not, however, exclude the necessity of sanctification which is in many ways synergistic, and includes obedience to the commands of Christ, including doing good works.

The Common Understanding of Justification

14.The Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church have together listened to the good news proclaimed in Holy Scripture. This common listening, together with the theological conversations of recent years, has led to a shared understanding of justification. This encompasses a consensus in the basic truths; the differing explications in particular statements are compatible with it.

15.In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

*]The wholesale rejection of the Communion of the Saints.

I would agree that rejection of the communion of saints is a belief contrary to scripture and the Church.

Jon

 

[skinny_pumpkin]

Let’s take a look.
Sola scriptura is a practice, not a doctrine. It is the practice of using scripture as the final norm, holding all teachings and teachers accountable to it. It does not exclude Tradition, or councils or creeds, or even confessions.

There is no independent "norm" apart from the practitioners.   Even our own western society demonstrates this.  "Courts" interpret "writings".   Courts change as well as attitudes.   The norm includes the saints and their application of written texts.   They cannot be divorced.  It is our faith that holds all of this as being guided by the Holy Spirit in some way, either by the magestrium, or by some other "norm".  If this is not true, then the scriptures would be "dead".

Sola fide teaches that we come to justification by grace alone through faith in Christ alone, and not works of the law. Sola fide is specific, that we can do nothing to achieve justification. Justification is monergistic. It does not, however, exclude the necessity of sanctification which is in many ways synergistic, and includes obedience to the commands of Christ, including doing good works.

If it is monergistic, then yes, it does not necessarily exclude sanctification, but that means it does not include it as well.

Many see the scriptures as ascetical in nature. Virtue is certainly highly esteemed.

 

[JonNC]

=skinny_pumpkin;6643733]
If it is monergistic, then yes, it does not necessarily exclude sanctification, but that means it does not include it as well.

You are correct when you say that justification is monergistic and does not include sanctification. We do not view justification as a process, as Catholics do.

But sanctification must follow justification. We are bound to do good works, to respond to grace and grow in it. Sanctification is synergistic in this way. Sola fide, therefore, does not exclude the necessity of good works.

There is no independent “norm” apart from the practitioners. Even our own western society demonstrates this. “Courts” interpret “writings”. Courts change as well as attitudes. The norm includes the saints and their application of written texts. They cannot be divorced. It is our faith that holds all of this as being guided by the Holy Spirit in some way, either by the magestrium, or by some other “norm”. If this is not true, then the scriptures would be “dead”.

Courts interpret writings, but the Supreme Court (is supposed to) determines whether decisions abide by the Constitution. Now, like the Court does with precedent, we consider and apply great weight to the writings of the ECF’s and the early councils, and give thanks for them as they lead us in understanding of scripture.
Where the analogy breaks down, in my opinion, is there isn’t an entity (a group of individuals) that is given equal position as the Constitution, and in fact is not accountable to it.

The other problem I see, keeping the analogy, would be if the Court broke into 2 parts, each claiming it was the true court. Even further, the Chief Justice deciding that he could make decisions all by himself, separate from the other justices (Patriarchs).

In any event, the Court is not the law, the Consitution is, and the court is accountable to it. In the same way, all teachers are accountable to scripture.

Jon

 

[skinny_pumpkin]

You are correct when you say that justification is monergistic and does not include sanctification. We do not view justification as a process, as Catholics do.

But sanctification must follow justification. We are bound to do good works, to respond to grace and grow in it. Sanctification is synergistic in this way. Sola fide, therefore, does not exclude the necessity of good works.

Sola fide, does not exclude good works. it just does not include them by necessity – unless we are bound to do them as a response to grace…

 

[steve_b]

Let’s take a look.

Sola scriptura is a practice, not a doctrine.

Not a doctrine?
J:

It is the practice of using scripture as the final norm, holding all teachings and teachers accountable to it. It does not exclude Tradition, or councils or creeds, or even confessions.

Sounds like doctrine to me
J:

Sola fide teaches that we come to justification by grace alone through faith in Christ alone, and not works of the law. Sola fide is specific, that we can do nothing to achieve justification. Justification is monergistic. It does not, however, exclude the necessity of sanctification which is in many ways synergistic, and includes obedience to the commands of Christ, including doing good works.

As you can see, faith isn’t alone. That’s why James says we are NOT justified by faith alone. [Jas 2:24]

Luther said he added alone to faith because he thought it belonged there.

 

[to_seek]

Just a thought here. I have knowledge of both the protestant and the catholic faith. One questions how much of the catholic dogmas etc were layed down at the time of the apostles preaching and teaching His Word. As far as I know catholic means universal for starters, and the Catholic Church as such as set up by Constantine. My point being is there is as much unscriptural practices in both forms of worship today. We cannot judge these matters ourselves which it appears some of you are doing. Christs Word is the same, today as it was then. Repent, Be baptised, believe and obey and if this is done sincerely, the fruits will show in a persons life whether they are Catholic or Protestant…If no good fruits appear in a persons life then they will be sifted at the end of life, the goats from the sheep, whatever religon they practised. No outward form of religon is going to save anyone, neither protestant nor catholic. This is the view I have come too after a long search and it is as valid as saying that only sacraments will save a person. Im not knocking the sacraments here, dont get me wrong. There is no point trying to prove one form of worship is better then another as it is what people themselves do and believe that really counts.

 

[steve_b]

Just a thought here. I have knowledge of both the protestant and the catholic faith. One questions how much of the catholic dogmas etc were layed down at the time of the apostles preaching and teaching His Word.

Paul’s letter to the Church of Rome. Watch out for those who cause division. They don’t serve Our Lord but their own selfish appetites. Stay away from them. Division is evil, I want you to be innocent of it.[Rm 16:17…]

Who did Protestants break from in the 16th century? The Church of Rome.
ts:

As far as I know catholic means universal for starters, and the Catholic Church as such as set up by Constantine.

You said you had knowledge of the Catholic Church. Obviously not
ts:

My point being is there is as much unscriptural practices in both forms of worship today.

what is unscriptural in the Catholic mass?
js:

We cannot judge these matters ourselves which it appears some of you are doing. Christs Word is the same, today as it was then. Repent, Be baptised, believe and obey and if this is done sincerely, the fruits will show in a persons life whether they are Catholic or Protestant…If no good fruits appear in a persons life then they will be sifted at the end of life, the goats from the sheep, whatever religon they practised.

If a person obeys and believes in Our Lord and His apostles, they won’t be in anyother faith and any other Church but the Catholic Church which Jesus established with Peter as the head.

Anything else apart from this as Paul said is serving one’s own selfish appetites but not serving Our Lord.
js:

No outward form of religon is going to save anyone, neither protestant nor catholic.

By what authority do you say that?.
js:

This is the view I have come too after a long search and it is as valid as saying that only sacraments will save a person. Im not knocking the sacraments here, dont get me wrong. There is no point trying to prove one form of worship is better

This is the place to Prove your view.