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.

[RobbyS]

The last paragraph is interesting because That is not a far departure from the Catholic doctrine. Do you not distinguish between the spiritual and the mental or psychological? The spiritual is as real as the corporal and as much a cause as a blow to the head.

[GoLightly]

I use to think along those lines, but not now. The differences between the RCC and other Christian Sects is much greater than I originally believed. I think France is a good example, where the RCC supported a law making it illegal to evangelize.

The RCC had to make concessions to France a couple of centuries ago & they've been losing ground there ever since. Ceding any soul has such dire consequences in their belief, so I can't fault them for doing whatever they can to hold on to their members.

Even on the social issues where we line up as co-belligerants it is a mixed bag.

I agree, it is a mixed bag. I don't demand perfection.

IIRCC, in the last election the swing vote that put the RATS back in control of the legislative branch were RC's. The position of the RCC in the WOT has been nonexistent as well.

The GOP failed to earn a win. Their fiscal policies were disgraceful & that had a lot to do with people in the middle switching sides, especially since the Donks put blue dogs up in swing districts. The Church has skin in the game & their way is no longer the secular way.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The error of the Roman belief in the Eucharist, as distinct from the Scriptural understanding of the Lord's Supper, is that the mass sacrifices Christ anew with every offering.

This is at the heart of the Reformation's complaint. Christ was sacrificed "once for all the sins of His sheep." To offer Him up again and again for every new sin committed erroneously means the sacrifice was somehow ineffective and incomplete. Salvation then wrongly becomes an endless ritual of sin, sacrifice, sin, sacrifice, sin, sacrifice...etc.

But that is not what Scripture tells us.

"For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." -- Hebrews; 9:24-28

Thus the RC mass actually negates Christ's one-time, predestined, perfect and accomplished atonement for the sins of those He came to acquit.

Believers have been redeemed. The Lord's Supper is a spiritual commemoration of this joyous liberty in Christ; a sign and seal of His unmerited grace; a meal of remembrance and fellowship.

"Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus" -- Hebrews 10:9-19

For further reading...

CALVIN'S INSTITUTES:
OF THE POPISH MASS
How it not only profanes, but annihilates
the Lord's Supper

[Campion]

The idea of rituals that HAVE TO be performed in order to gain God's favor is something that Islam got from the prevalent religion of its day. It would not have gotten that idea from Protestantism. The idea that one doesn't know for sure until after one dies whether or not one has found favor with God is an idea that Islam got from the prevailing religion at the time of its birth

The "prevailing religion" in Arabia at the time of Mohammed was paganism, not Catholic Christianity.

And of the few Christians on the Arabian peninsula, many (perhaps most) of them were Nestorians or Monophysites, not Catholics.

[Campion]

The error of the Roman belief in the Eucharist, as distinct from the Scriptural understanding of the Lord's Supper, is that the mass sacrifices Christ anew with every offering.

That statement is a flat falsehood, and no Catholic who knows their faith will agree with it. By repeating it, you bear false witness against your neighbor.

And if, as I expect, you stubbornly insist that I believe what I absolutely and without reservation deny that I believe, I suggest that you take it up with my bishop, David Choby of the Diocese of Nashville. He can, if he agrees with you, rebuke me for my alleged "heresy".

I guarantee he will tell you that you are wrong.

This is at the heart of the Reformation's complaint.

Then "the heart of the Reformation's complaint" is a lie.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Then "the heart of the Reformation's complaint" is a lie.

We are free to disagree. If you read the link by Calvin, you'll see he makes a very strong case.

CALVIN'S INSTITUTES
Of the Popish mass
How it not only profanes, but annihilates the Lord's Supper

'...Let them now go and deny their idolatry when they exhibit the bread in their masses, that it may be adored for Christ. In vain do they talk of those promises of the presence of Christ, which, however they may be understood, were certainly not given that impure and profane men might form the body of Christ as often as they please, and for whatever abuse they please; but that believers, while, with religious observance, they follow the command of Christ in celebrating the Supper, might enjoy the true participation of it. ..."

[wmfights]

I agree, it is a mixed bag. I don't demand perfection.

I think you have an admirable desire to see them as allies, but as I have learned more and more about them and what they believe I am not so sure.

[Blogger]

The prevailing religion of Arabia at that time WAS indeed paganism, though Muhammad was well aware of the "people of the book", himself being a merchant who dealt with them with regularity (ever hear of the Roman trade roads?) Likewise, Islam did not grow up strictly in Arabia and the Koran was completely written (nor were the Muhammad's lifetime but after Muhammad's death. Certainly, by the time that it was ordered to be compiled by Uthman (who was assasinated in 656), Islam had had quite a bit of exposure to Catholicism.

Muhammad died in 632. During his lifetime, Islam began to be spread by the sword. By 640, they controlled both Syria and Palestine. By 642 they controlled Egypt. Certainly, you will agree that they were acquainted with Catholic Christians by this time. As mentioned, Uthman was assasinated in 656. Muslim civil war broke out called the Fitna. During the next hundred years the Hadith were written down, likely starting around 758 with the Abbasid dynasty. These Hadith are essential supplements and clarifications of the Koran for most Muslims. The Abbasids had defeated the Umayyad's at that time. The Umayyad's had invaded Spain in 711 BC finally being defeated at Tours in 732 after they attacked the Christians. All of the time being well acquainted with Roman Catholicism.

So, that brief history lesson shows that not only was Catholicims the "prevalent religion of its day, but that the Muslims were acquainted with it throughout their early spread.

Practices shared by the two religions are:
Prayer beads
Pilgrimages for favor from God
Repetitive Prayers
Devotion to Mary
Confirmation into the religion (for Muslims through recitation of the Shahada)
Spread often by the sword
Salvation by works plus faith
Lack of assurance of one's salvation
And, a history of persecution of the Jews (sorry, but it is a sad point of history)

As Vatican II stated:
The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has also spoken to men. They strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God's plan, to whose faith Muslims eagerly link their own.

Although not acknowledging him as God, they venerate Jesus as a prophet, his virgin Mother they also honor, and even at times devoutly evoke. Further, they await the day of judgment and the reward of God following the resurrection of the dead. For this reason they highly esteem an upright life and worship God, especially by way of prayer, alms-deeds and fasting (Nostra Aetate, Vatican II).



And, as Pope John Paul II said to his Catholic audience in Turkey in 1985: "Christians [Meaning Catholics] and Muslims, we have many things in common as believers and as human beings....We believe in the same God, the one and only God, the living God...."

So. Study up on your history. You'll find some very interesting similarities between Roman Catholicism and Islam.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Terrific history lesson. Many thanks.

"Although not acknowledging him as God, they venerate Jesus as a prophet, his virgin Mother they also honor, and even at times devoutly evoked." -- Vatican II

Amazing. Apparently because Islam venerates Mary, Vatican II is willing to overlook or somehow temper its satanic demotion of Jesus Christ.

[steadfastconservative]

"Catholic" means universal. There is no "Roman" Catholic Church. That is the derogatory term which Protestants gave the Catholic Church after breaking away. The Church as always referred to herself as the Catholic Church.

[wmfights]

There is no "Roman" Catholic Church.

Call yourself anything you want, but the history of the RCC is anything but universal.

[Enosh]

It's mutated.

No doubt.

Here, have some popcorn.

[GoLightly]

What's your call on the over / under?

[Enosh]

"over / under?"

Sorry, I don't understand. I left this thread a couple days ago and haven't bothered to study all the posts.

[wimpycat]

Your posts #3 and #37 are the two best responses to this article.

[GoLightly]

One of the possible side bets one can make on a football game is the over / under. The odds makers set a number & if the combined score of both teams in a game is over or under that number, those that bet the correct direction win.

I never thought I'd see the movie thread go over 15K & I didn't tune in for the whole thing. Think the teams are too tired to take this one that high, so this one should have a set number much lower or do you think there's enough potential heat generated by the very selection of the original topic on this one to carry it on to similar heights?

[Enosh]

Gamble on if this should become an undead thread?

I imagine not. I'll place on red three.

(It's a Trinity thing.)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

yup I meant small c.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I usually mean small c when I'm talking about the church.
Even Mormons fit into the small c. Ya'lls beliefs arent really that different.

[RobbyS]

The error of the Roman belief in the Eucharist, as distinct from the Scriptural understanding of the Lord's Supper, is that the mass sacrifices Christ anew with every offering.

No, you are in error. The Comprendium: Catechism of the Catholic Church says (280) The Eucharist is a memorial in the sense that it makes present and actual the sacrifice which Christ offered to the Father on the cross. once and for all on behalf of mankind. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution{Luke 22:1920] The sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one and the same sacrifice. The priest and the victim are the same[Christ] ; only the manner of offering is different; In a bloody manner on the cross, in an unbloody manner in the Eucharist. (281) In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice al of the members of his body. The liives of his faithful, their praise,their suffering, their prayers, their work are united to those of Christ.

The Protestant revolt began with a valid protest against the mechanical manner in which the mass was sacrificed, with private masses all too common, and with communion of the people a rare event. Hence a matter involving the priest alone, and he was sometimes so uneducated that he barely understood the words he was saying. But the real disagreement was doctrinal. Luther et al. started with a claim that false doctrine was being taught and then moved from there to deny the special right of the clergy to teach at all and claiming for themselves a superior right to do so. Belief and forms of worship being so closely related, the liurgy was then discarded along with the doctrine, with the revolutionaries claiming the right to worship in any manner they saw fit.