The Wages of Protestantism

The following exchange took place at YouTube, where some ex-Catholic guy named Mike Gendron has made a name for himself with his channel, which purports to expose "THE DARK SECRETS OF CATHOLICISM!" to his gullible audience.

It's mostly lies and distortions - mixed with some truth. But it resonates with many people - because Gendron tells them what they want to hear: "You don't need to clean up your sinful lives to get into Heaven! Just believe in Christ's atoning death and be saved! Whoopeeee!" Of course Satan too believes in Christ's atoning death, for all the good it does him.

And, of course, Jesus says the exact opposite: "Be ye therefore PERFECT, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect." - Matt 5:48.

In spite of this significant commandment, Protestants misread it as Jesus advising his disciples to TRY to be perfect. Which seems to me to be the same as to "work" at being perfect. Oh well....
Anyway, I thought this colloquy might be of some interest to some of you.

Fitz

Me: So which of the 30,000+ Protestant sects gets it right?

Someone going by "eireannemerald" then offered the following witty observation: The ones who have the best light shows and acoustic guitar music and can make people clap and sway to the music. Those are REAL churches. 😁

Here our Protestant friend "Chad" decided to jump in:

TheChadPad: All of them, because none of them disagree on the cause of salvation, which is faith alone by the grace of God. If any one disagrees on this point, they are not Protestant.

Me: Really? What about those who say Jesus only had one nature? Or who say one must have faith AND works? Or those that say, Once saved, always saved." Or those who say, "Once saved NOT always saved"? Or those that say, "Sola scriptura"? Or those who say, "not-Sola Scriptura"? One could go on almost forever. Do you see the problem?

TheChadPad: Those who would say something contradictory to the doctrine of “sola fide” as described by Martin Luther should not be classified as Protestant.

Me: So, "All Protestants agree... unless they disagree. Then they're not Protestants." Do I understand you right?

TheChadPad: If they agree with the doctrine of sola fide.

Me: What if they agree with Sola Fide but disagree with Sola Scriptura?

The ChadPad: Such as who?

Me: When I show you who, will you admit you were wrong?

TheChadPad: I never said they should not be Protestant if they didn’t believe in sola scriptura. Go ahead and show me who.

Me: You used a double negative there, amigo. So what is your meaning?

TheChadPad: I mean I never claimed that sola scriptura is a necessary doctrine to consider someone Protestant. I make the distinction at sola fide. So if you are trying to prove there are Protestants who don’t claim sola scriptura, therefore disproving my claim, I am telling you I never claimed that and you’re attacking a straw man.

Me: Ok. Well it's hard to tell what Protestants teach and believe, because they all disagree, not only with Catholicism, but with one another. And their beliefs change from year to year too. For example: in his 95 theses Luther argued FOR purgatory. Later on he denied it. What are we to make of a system like that?

TheChadPad: I just googled it, and I am finding here that Luther challenged the belief in purgatory in theses 14-29, and in 17-24, he argues that nothing can be definitely said about the spiritual state of people in purgatory. I think we have different information here. This comes from Wikipedia. Where is your information from?

Me: He challenged the efficacy of *indulgences* - not purgatory. In fact he spoke a lot about purgatory in the theses. Fifteen times. Indulgences are mentioned 45 times. His gripe (at the time) was with the selling of indulgences, as Tetzel was accused of doing... not purgatory. Later on he had a change of heart about that too. The individual theses discussing purgatory are roughly theses 15-26. But there are some others. The entire 95 Theses can be found at: https://www.luther.de/en/95thesen.html

TheChadPad: I’m going to try to post my reply in two sections, as my comment is not showing up in long form.

TheChadPad: The critiques Luther levels show the absurdity of purgatory itself. I am reading them now. It is true there is no outright dismissal of the idea, but because these theses were meant to be presented as grounds for debate, it seems appropriate that he would entertain the position. That’s what you do when you want to attack an opponent’s argument, try out their position and see what kinds of absurdities it leads to. There are plenty here. I’d say, if he really believed in purgatory while writing this, he would have to be rather dense or suffering from the catholic indoctrination. As Luther was no stupid man, I would assume the latter.

TheChadPad: It could also be assumed that, no matter what reservations he may have had, he would not have wanted to come right out swinging at that doctrine. I would say Thesis 82 damns the concept of purgatory writ large. “Why does not the Pope deliver all souls at the same time out of Purgatory for the sake of most holy love and on account of the bitterest distress of those souls - this being the most imperative of all motives, - while he saves an infinite number of souls for the sake of that most miserable thing money, to be spent on St. Peter's Minster: - this being the very slightest of motives?” Purgatory should be empty. Not to mention he absolutely rails against the absurdity of granting any remission for sins to those in purgatory in the theses that follow, and those before. I have to conclude that this is a man who didn’t believe in it at all.

Me: I've often wondered about guys like you... Protestants who don't understand clear, expository writing - such as Luther EXPLICITLY affirming purgatory in the Ninety-five Theses, for example: "Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ the same as despair, fear, and assurance of salvation." As mentioned, there are numerous other examples of him proclaiming it.

Then there's your error concerning Sola Fide - a heresy concocted by Luther when he added "alone" to Romans 3:28.

The only place in the Bible where you'll see "faith alone" is in James: "As you can see, a man is justified by his deeds and not by faith alone."

Or these, also from James:

"So, faith also, if it hath not works, is dead in itself."

"And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers and sending them out another way?"

"For even as the body without the spirit is dead: so also, faith without works is dead." "Shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith."

"What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?"

Evidently St, James had to deal with "faith alone" heretics in his day too.

These are some of the reasons Luther tried to remove James' epistle from his "bible". But he failed. The outcry was too great.

He might as well have tried to remove the whole Bible from the Bible. Because from first to last it screams out loud how works are a necessary corollary to *righteousness*.

You come across as a decent guy, and you're not stupid but it amazes me how you cannot see what's before your very eyes.

But that's what Protestantism does to people. It clouds their minds. You need to come become a Catholic. You'll be glad you did.

Fitz