Islam, Protestantism and Divergence from Catholicism

Faith Magazine ^ | January-February 2007 | Francis Lynch

[Titanites]

Protestantism and Islam: Points of Contact

Protestantism may well have begun as a genuine movement of reform. Accepting the teachings of the Church, its adherents wanted to bring the practice of the Church into line with its teachings. This is the object of all Christian movements. However, it very soon developed into something far more radical, jettisoning basic Christian teachings, bringing in doctrines entirely new to Christianity, and having to meld the results into a coherent whole. This involved developing doctrinal and practical solutions to new problems in the field of Christian faith and morals.

Most of Protestant teaching was conventional Christianity, with some being revived from St Augustine and the early fathers. Where there is novelty there is also often a strong similarity with Islamic doctrine. Perhaps there is an interestingly similar dynamic involved in the rejection of traditional Christianity that both these belief systems, to varying extents, share. Whilst the very title of “Protestantism” depicts its genesis as a reactive movement, it is the case that strong protests against the Christian doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation form part of the Koran and so of Islamic faith. It is also noteworthy that Luther issued his own translation of the Koran in 1542, along with a confutation of its soteriology—the key point of Islamic and protestant divergence.

Islam was not a distant or peripheral force in the Europe of the 1520s. The Ottoman Empire had taken Constantinople in 1454. Many scholars had fled to the west, especially to Rome, bringing with them first-hand knowledge of Islam and its practices. Some of these may well still have been alive when Luther visited Rome in 1510. A resurgent Ottoman Empire took Belgrade in 1520 and Hungary in 1526, coming to the very heart of Europe.

Scriptural Fundamentalism

Protestantism was a move closer to the Islamic view of Scriptural authority. The traditional Christian view is that Christ founded the Church which wrote the Scriptures, ratified them and gains constant nourishment from them. Their definitive meaning derives from the same Church which produced them. Luther’s view that Scripture is the only guide to faith and practice is similar to the Islamic view of the Koran. As Muslims are gradually discovering, this view is too optimistic: all Bible believing Protestants from Luther to the present-day have required a huge substructure of unacknowledged assumptions and beliefs by which they interpret the Bible, and which don’t come from it.

One of the most popular Islamic criticisms of “Christianity” is to show that the divergence in interpretation of the Bible is far greater than that concerning the Koran. Seeing such divergence as evidence against Christianity is based upon the Protestant-Islamic view of scripture (and in any case the gap is gradually closing). The Koran had described Jews and Christians as ‘people of the book’, which can be misleading. All literate religions have sacred books, but to suggest |24| JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2007 faith that the Scriptures of the Christians and Jews are the key element of these religions is mistaken. The Protestant emphasis did give an added impetus to the wider distribution of the Scriptures in translation. Again, this echoes the Koran, which was written in the language to be understood by the people.

Anti-sacramentalism

The Reformation was also a move in the direction of Islamic belief on the question of the sacraments, and related ideas about the priesthood. Sacraments, by which grace is given to the people, are a crucial part of Christianity. One of the key sacraments is Holy Orders since only the priest says Mass, hears confessions, confirms, ordains and annoints. Islam has no priesthood, no sacraments, no sacrifice, no temple, and no altar. These things are not unrelated. The priest is one who (in any religion) offers sacrifice and the altar is the place of sacrifice. A religion without sacrifice does not have priests or altars. Luther’s denial that Holy Orders is a sacrament changed the nature of the priesthood.

The priest tended to become a minister or a functionary with duties more akin to a schoolmaster than a sacred person. He no longer wore symbolic vestments, but rather, like everybody else, he wore the uniform of his trade. The vessels (if any) were not sacred and could be handled by anyone. The altar became a table, to be moved as required. The church itself commonly became a meeting place, with no sacred character, and needed no special reverence when not in use for services. The services themselves tended to concentrate on the readings from the Scriptures (in the vernacular) and the sermon became a central part of the service.

Protestantism is then a convergence with the Islamic understanding of ministry and religious services. Luther, and most Protestants, retained two sacraments: Baptism and the Eucharist. Both of these soon lost their sacramental character. When baptism became “believers’ baptism”, the decisive step became faith in Christ (and the Scriptures) and baptism became not an infusion of faith and grace, but only the public acknowledgement of faith. This comes very close to Islamic practice; one becomes a Moslem by acknowledging ones faith in Islam in front of witnesses. This is all a shadow of the Judaeo- Catholic sense of God’s abiding, sanctifying, sacrificial, ritualistic presence amongst his people.

Radical Individualism

Two other points relating to the priesthood are relevant here. Firstly, the Christian priest is a Pontifex, a bridge, a constant channel of grace between God and man and is often a channel of prayer from man to God. He prays for the dead. None of these occur in Islam, or in Protestantism. Islam in fact explicitly denies that the living can help the dead in any way, as do most branches of Protestantism. Secondly we have issues of priestly celibacy, monasticism and religious vows. Christianity has always admired and looked up to monks and hermits, seeing in them a real attempt to forsake this world for the Kingdom of God. It has always admired and usually demanded celibacy from its priests. The Koran itself praised Christian monks for their charity and benevolence, but there was no place in Islam for monasticism. Celibacy was despised. Protestants deprecated both celibacy and monasticism and both virtually disappeared from Protestant countries. Luther had been a monk and had taken solemn vows, but readily forsook those vows to get married. Generally, Christians take vows very seriously but in Islam they are easily dispensed if they become inconvenient. In the play A Man for All Seasons St Thomas More says that when we take a vow we hold our very selves in our hands. You don’t get this in Islam, or in Luther.

We turn now to the destruction of images. Luther allowed and other reformers encouraged or even enforced a widespread and devastating iconoclasm. The fury of this destruction may be traced to the sacred or sometimes miraculous reputations of some images, or to their association with prayers for the dead, or perhaps to social causes. A similar iconoclasm had occurred in the Byzantine Empire in the eighth century under the influence of Islam. Islam and Protestantism rejected both images, and the intercession of saints often associated with them.

Marriage and the Position of Women Undermined

Turning to morals, it has often been noticed that the ethics of most religious systems are very similar to each other. Those of Islam and Catholicism differ most in the areas of marriage and the position of women and of the relation between religion and state.

A Muslim is expected to marry. But marriage is a contract with the possibility of divorce is built into it, not a lifelong commitment. Polygamy is also allowed. Less well-known is the fact that a man may also, in certain cases, keep concubines. Traditional Christianity forbids these things but the early Protestants allowed all of these arrangements. One of the scandals of the Reformation was the bigamous marriage of Philip of Hesse, conducted by Luther himself. Luther was not keen on it; he suggested concubinage as a compromise.

One of the greatest and most far reaching of the changes in the social life of Europe caused by the Reformation concerned the position of women. Outside |25| faith the domestic circles, the main channel for education and advancement for women was the church. They were educated at convent schools, could rise to become prioresses or abbesses of great houses and were numbered amongst the scholars, Saints, mystics and martyrs of the church. Many achieved fame for their letters or spiritual writings, women like Juliana of Norwich, Catherine of Siena. and Theresa of Avila.

Furthermore, they could find constant visual aids and role models in Our Lady and the female saints depicted in churches and books. All these were swept away in Protestant countries. This doesn’t seem to have been an oversight. Many of the reformers had a deep distrust of women in any positions of power. The domestic position of women could have become grim as well were it not that that the early Protestant experiments in this area were effectively abandoned. Polygamy never caught on. The official recognition of concubinage was short lived, and divorce became very rare to be indulged in only by the rich.

State Theocracy

What about the relations between church and state? The Ottoman Sultan claimed to be the successor of Muhammad and the spiritual leader of all the Muslims. He was of course still bound by the Koran and Islamic practices, but there was no conflict between church and state. This appealed to many reformers. It became a model for Protestant states, where generally the prince, rather than a priest, was head of the church, and at the highest level directed its affairs. Finally, Luther believed that reason was so corrupted by sin that it could not be relied upon. The radical transcendence of Allah produces a similar downplaying of the harmony of faith and reason.

I have tried to suggest that many of the major Protestant innovations have a relationship with Islam. Perhaps there are sociological similarities. One might even think that some of the Protestant ‘innovations’ were not really novelties at all. I would certainly not suggest that Protestantism imported every idea from Islam, clearly most of the key Protestant ideas are Christian. Nor do I think that all the innovations came from Islam. Outstanding exceptions are justification by faith alone, and possibly the Protestant distaste shown towards pilgrimages and honouring the saints. There may be something to learn from all this about the way in which pious men rebel against the idea of divine, incarnational authority and activity living on down the centuries in the Church.

[GoLightly]

An interesting study might concern the recent embracing of the Gnostic gospels by parts of our culture, and the inability of certain quarters (is there overlap?) to criticize Islam.

I think most of the inability to criticize Islam has to do with indoctrination in multiculturalism, where all cultures are "equally" valid, with a heavy dose of anti-Westernism. The successful have to get dragged down in order to level the playing field.

There is a certain amount of hollow emptiness in pure secularism & filling some of that with ancient or third world spirituality doesn't violate multiculturalism in the same way as embracing some of that old time religion dominant in ones own culture.

In short, I don't think it has to do with overlap, except in the broadest sense.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

To reduce Christianity to the simple statement that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savor is to ignore two thousand years of reflection

Christ told us to come to Him as children. That does not mean stupidly or mindlessly, it means without guile and expectation.

As a Protestant, I see the RC church adorning God's grace with all kinds of plastic baubles and shiny inconsequential beads that actually diminish the gift itself. It is top heavy with man-made hoops which have nothing to do with Scriptural instruction. There are thousands of verses that challenge the vast and intricate rigmarole the RC church has established which very nearly obscures the truth of Christ risen.

When Jesus was asked how we should live, He gave a sermon about trust and obedience and fellowship by His name.

But when He was asked how we are saved, He "reduced Christianity to a simple statement..."

"...blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." -- John 20:29-31

So we are told that we learn of our salvation in Scripture by the possession of Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ.

"Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you...

But the comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." -- John 20:10-20,26

The great Scottish reformer, John Knox, on his appraisal of the "reflections" of the RC church...

"That God's word damns your ceremonies it is evident; for the plain and straight commandment of God is, 'Not that thing which appears good in thy eyes shalt thou do to the Lord thy God, but what the Lord thy God has commanded thee; that do thou; add nothing to it; diminish nothing from it.' Now unless you are able to prove that God has commanded your ceremonies, this his former commandment will damn both you and them." -- John Knox (Knox, Works, 1:199. Cf. Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church, in Tracts, 1:128-29.)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Islam doesn't require Muslims to understand the Koran & translation into any language from the original Arab is frowned upon.

That's interesting and certainly counter to Protestant habit and instruction.

When Muslims want to know how it all applies to something, they get a ruling about it (fatwa) from a Muslim scholar.

That sounds more like the RC hierarchy than anything found in Protestant churches.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Amen and amen.

[Quix]

THANKS

[GoLightly]

That's interesting and certainly counter to Protestant habit and instruction.

Yes, it is counter to Protestant habit and instruction. The five pillars of Islam are all works based. As long as you go through the motions, you're fulfilling your religious obligations. When someone said it's like Calvin on steroids, they were correct. Going through the motions offer proof to Allah that you're submitting your will to him. You do them & Allah does the rest.

That sounds more like the RC hierarchy than anything found in Protestant churches.

Cept that all of their "clergy" are free agents. If they have power, it's due to having a following or they're supported by a state. Even with the Shia, where descent from Mo offers greater credibility, there's not actually the kind of hierarchy that Rome has.

[RobbyS]

Knox was a rebel priest under thrall to a rebellious doctrine. So we need not take his word for anything with first examining that doctrine. The Kirk was never anything more than the creature of Knox and men like himself. He was violently anti-episcopal and iconoclastic even though his teacher, Calvin, was not. Calvin was closer to the Lutherans on such matter than is often thought, as his correspondance with Cranmer and even the Poles attests. Knox and men like him were so focused on destruction that they gave no quarter to human sensibilties.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

As long as you go through the motions, you're fulfilling your religious obligations. When someone said it's like Calvin on steroids, they were correct. Going through the motions offer proof to Allah that you're submitting your will to him. You do them & Allah does the rest.

LOL. Well, that's completely counter to Calvinism. All good works are by the Holy Spirit, not by men who are seeking approval from God which is in theory and practice a lot closer to Romanism.

If you want to know what Calvinism is, it is this --

"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Not of works, lest any man should boast.

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." -- Ephesians 2:1-11

Or you might try reading that old standby from Spurgeon...

A DEFENSE OF CALVINISM

"The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again.

It is a great thing to begin the Christian life by believing good solid doctrine. Some people have received twenty different "gospels" in as many years; how many more they will accept before they get to their journey's end, it would be difficult to predict. I thank God that He early taught me the gospel, and I have been so perfectly satisfied with it, that I do not want to know any other. Constant change of creed is sure loss. If a tree has to be taken up two or three times a year, you will not need to build a very large loft in which to store the apples. When people are always shifting their doctrinal principles, they are not likely to bring forth much fruit to the glory of God. It is good for young believers to begin with a firm hold upon those great fundamental doctrines which the Lord has taught in His Word. Why, if I believed what some preach about the temporary, trumpery salvation which only lasts for a time, I would scarcely be at all grateful for it; but when I know that those whom God saves He saves with an everlasting salvation, when I know that He gives to them an everlasting righteousness, when I know that He settles them on an everlasting foundation of everlasting love, and that He will bring them to His everlasting kingdom, oh, then I do wonder, and I am astonished that such a blessing as this should ever have been given to me!

"Pause, my soul! adore, and wonder!
Ask, 'Oh, why such love to me?'
Grace hath put me in the number
Of the Saviour's family:
Hallelujah!
Thanks, eternal thanks, to Thee."

I suppose there are some persons whose minds naturally incline towards the doctrine of free-will. I can only say that mine inclines as naturally towards the doctrines of sovereign grace. Sometimes, when I see some of the worst characters in the street, I feel as if my heart must burst forth in tears of gratitude that God has never let me act as they have done! I have thought, if God had left me alone, and had not touched me by His grace, what a great sinner I should have been! I should have run to the utmost lengths of sin, dived into the very depths of evil, nor should I have stopped at any vice or folly, if God had not restrained me. I feel that I should have been a very king of sinners, if God had let me alone. I cannot understand the reason why I am saved, except upon the ground that God would have it so. I cannot, if I look ever so earnestly, discover any kind of reason in myself why I should be a partaker of Divine grace. If I am not at this moment without Christ, it is only because Christ Jesus would have His will with me, and that will was that I should be with Him where He is, and should share His glory. I can put the crown nowhere but upon the head of Him whose mighty grace has saved me from going down into the pit. Looking back on my past life, I can see that the dawning of it all was of God; of God effectively. I took no torch with which to light the sun, but the sun enlightened me. I did not commence my spiritual life-no, I rather kicked, and struggled against the things of the Spirit: when He drew me, for a time I did not run after Him: there was a natural hatred in my soul of everything holy and good. Wooings were lost upon me -- warnings were cast to the wind -- thunders were despised; and as for the whispers of His love, they were rejected as being less than nothing and vanity. But, sure I am, I can say now, speaking on behalf of myself, "He only is my salvation." It was He who turned my heart, and brought me down on my knees before Him. I can in very deed, say with Doddridge and Toplady --

"Grace taught my soul to pray,
And made my eyes o'erflow."

And coming to this moment, I can add --

"Tis grace has kept me to this day,
And will not let me go."

Spurgeon continues on in a most compelling way...

[GoLightly]

I didn't say Calvinism, but Calvinism on steroids. Steroids may help to grow strength & muscles, but they also create perversions, distortions of the body. Pardon my crude analogy, but they expect Allah to grab them by the balls & their hearts will follow.

All good works are by the Holy Spirit, not by men who are seeking approval from God which is in theory and practice a lot closer to Romanism.

I wasn't gonna go there... I figured our Roman friends would see it or they wouldn't. If I had said Catholicism on steroids, ears would be covered... la la la, I can't hear you.

Meanwhile, in your effort to cure me of the error of my ways, you've laid some tasty fruit on the table.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Knox was a rebel priest under thrall to a rebellious doctrine. So we need not take his word for anything with first examining that doctrine. The Kirk was never anything more than the creature of Knox and men like himself. He was violently anti-episcopal and iconoclastic even though his teacher, Calvin, was not. Calvin was closer to the Lutherans on such matter than is often thought, as his correspondance with Cranmer and even the Poles attests. Knox and men like him were so focused on destruction that they gave no quarter to human sensibilties.

To tell a Presbyterian that Calvin was closer to Luther than to Knox is laughable. Calvin and Knox were about as close in theology as two men can be. Knox was Calvin's student and received asylum from him when the Romanists sought to kill him. The Reformation was already underway when Knox came along. The arena of debate had become localized in the daily errors of Rome and Knox bravely repudiated them.

JOHN KNOX: PREACHER OF THE SCOTTISH REFORMATION

Or this short bio from Charles Sylvester...

"John Knox was ordained a priest in the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland at the time when John Calvin began the Reformation of Geneva. The flames of the Reformation began to be kindled in Scotland in the heart and mind of Knox's close friend George Wiseheart. Being on familiar terms with Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, Wiseheart was chosen by King Henry the Eighth for going to Scotland and interceding for the hand in marriage of Mary Stuart, the infant "Queen of Scots," with Edward, the infant son of the King of England. Wiseheart was an unwilling tool of King Henry in this matter and his action set Catholic Scotland against him. When Wiseheart was burned at the stake by Cardinal Beaton, the fires that consumed his body fired the heart of John Knox. From that hour he was the enemy of the Roman Catholic Church. Two years later, Beaton was assassinated by "parties unknown."

Shortly after the death of Beaton, John Knox came to Edinburgh as a newly ordained priest, having been accused of "hatching the plot" against the cardinal even though he did not personally take a hand in executing it. Soon Knox had a growing group of followers. He accused the Catholic clergy of Scotland of being "gluttons, wantons and licentious revelers, but who yet regularly and meekly partook of the sacrament." Knox traveled to Geneva three times to study under Calvin who had a high regard for the young Scotsman. Knox returned to Scotland, was married at age 38, and was widowed a few years afterward.

Then hell sent a close call for the Reformer in the person of Mary Queen of Scots. Mary's mother was Mary of Guise, a French woman married to King James of Scotland. Knox bore a terrible hatred toward Mary of Guise. His book, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, had Mary Tudor, Mary of Guise, and Mary Queen of Scots, in mind. As soon as Mary Queen of Scots had landed on Scottish soil, Knox fled fearing for his life. Before long he returned to Scotland and sought a personal interview with the queen, then 20-years-old, "with intent to bring her heart to Jesus." Mary then tried her hand at converting Knox back to Roman Catholicism - or the "Mother Church" - with bribes of political power. Stormy interviews followed, punctuated by "covenantal lawsuits" served up by Knox and his followers.

In response to Knox's imprecatory prayers, Mary Queen of Scots is reputed to have said: "I fear the prayers of John Knox more than all the assembled armies of Europe." In response to the rising resistance of the Scottish Reformers, Mary fled Scotland and was later put to death by a court of English who had accused her of plotting to assassinate Elizabeth I. Knox was survived by the Scottish Covenanters, who drew up a compact in 1638 asserting their right, under God, to national sovereignty." -- Progress of Nations, ed. Charles H. Sylvester (Hanson-Bellows Company, 1912) vol. III, pp.454-457.

And here is a review of the excellent book...

"FOR KIRK AND COVENANT
The Stalwart Courage of John Knox"
by Douglas Wilson

"This study of the life, character, and ministry of John Knox makes a valuable contribution to an understanding of the Reform Movement, particularly during the sixteenth century in Scotland.  Its accuracy is enhanced by the selected words of Knox which reflect the courage, the intellect, and the proactive faith of this spiritual giant.  This book will be accepted as an important building block, not only of Presbyterian doctrine, but of the literature of theology in general." -- D. James Kennedy, Ph.D. (Senior Minister, Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church and Chancellor of Knox Theological Seminary, Fort Lauderdale, Florida

[Dr. Eckleburg]

lol. I enjoy your candor. 8~)

[Quix]

Fascinating read. Thanks.

[RobbyS]

Knox was a Calvinist, and one has to separate Calvin from the Calvinists. On the doctrine of the Eucharist. and I refer you to the Institutes, Calvin's belief about the real presence is distinguished from that of Luther by a semantical hair. Calvin was never the rationalist that Zwingli was, and he approached the Sacrament with as much devotion as a pious Baptist does today. The difference is that the the power of the Sacrament was not in the particular faith of the communicant but in the Lord. As if Christ in heaven were chained to his throne, he denies HIs presence in the elements or even with them. Knox was only concerned to deny the mass. In his Christiantity I find nothing but the negative.

[steadfastconservative]

"The Reformation was a return to Trinitarian Chistianity with Scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit as preeminent paths to understand that we are saved by Christ's atonement alone."

This must be why so much of mainline Protestantism no longer believes what is found in the Scriptures, indeed, rejects much of it. That is why it has accepted things such as divorce and homosexuality, which are condemned in the Scriptures. Protestants are straying further and further from the Scriptural basis of their faith. But this was bound to happen since they separated themselves from Rome.

[Marysecretary]

This is an absolutely ridiculous thread. I see all the usuals are climbing on aboard the hate protestants train. Arrgghhhhh!!!! I wish they'd recognize their OWN heresies but they don't see that.

[Marysecretary]

AMEN, Enosh!

[Marysecretary]

Sorry, I sent the message to enosh instead of to you. It should have read AMEN, Alpha. My bad.

[Marysecretary]

Yes, and I do pray for that often. It's the only way to change things in this violent world.

[Marysecretary]

We believe that Christ is the only way to God,not any denomination. It's a personal relationship not a 'religious' one.