very nice....let’s see how the anti marian crowd twists those words of the very leaders they themselves credit with ‘restoring’ the ‘true’ faith....
No twisting of their words is necessary. Who doesn’t know that those men were Protestant Catholics. They were Catholics.
The Christians that were living at the time, whose history and heritage had never been connected with Rome, nor did they have any need of the Protestant Catholics in Geneva or in Germany to establish their faith in Christ, were all quite aware that Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli were Catholics.
For Christians reading this thread who have not already been brainwashed by the Catholic (and even some Protestant) pro-Rome revisionist history, I advise that you read some histories and biographies of people(s) who were never connected with Roman Catholicism or Geneva Protestantism.
One of the biggest lies told in “Christendom” is that up to the late 15th century there was nothing but Catholicism (except others who Rome must automatically label as “heritics” — a badge of honor in our opinion), and that since the late 15th century there have been only Catholicism and Protestantism (and in Rome’s view, that insignificant number of outsiders who are all heretics, of course).
The article might or might not give some pause to people who treat Geneva as nearly some kind of New Jerusalem, but it is meaningless to Biblicist Christians who have never based our faith on anything Calvin, Luther, or Swingli had to say. Such Biblicist Christians (also never connected with Rome) already existed before those men ever breathed their first breath.
The article represents the historical view of people ignorant of, or revisionist of, peoples who came through history from Byzantania, the Caucuses, Eastern Europe, the Alps, northern Europe, and even the British Isles, with a Biblicist faith, never connected with Rome, and not inspired by Geneva. There were Christians who probably knew nothing of what was established in Rome as far as a “Roman Catholic Church,” especially where Roman armies never did trod.
There were Christians who had never heard of such a thing as a pope (there was NO pope until the 4th century, whereas there had been Biblicist Christians from the first century), let alone what had happened in Geneva. But they had a faith in Christ from Scriptures copied, and re-copied, and re-copied, that made their way along trade routes as far north as the Netherlands and the British Isles long before the days of Constantine.
I don’t know the real reason why many Christians (Baptists, Assemblies of God, Bible Churches, etc.) on these kinds of threads, who are not really Geneva-bound like to use the word “Protestant” when describing themselves, unless it is just a habit formed through constant bombardment of the word’s usage. Others ignorant of history, and Catholic revisionists use such to their advantage. Of course, many Catholics really think that there has never been anything but Catholics and Protestants-—and many non-Catholics have also been deceived by this error.
So, how much does it mean to Biblicist Christians that the Protestant Catholics like Calvin, Luther, and Swingli still had a Roman Catholic “hangover” from having been drunken with Rome’s errors for so many years of their lives?
It means nothing at all.
>>very nice....let’s see how the anti marian crowd twists those words of the very leaders they themselves credit with ‘restoring’ the ‘true’ faith....<<
There is one of the big differences between Catholics and Protestants, I think. All men can be incorrect in some of their beliefs, even “leaders”. Protestants see leaders as people, and fallible. Even Luther. ;)
Protestants don’t really have any “holy stuff” either. A building is a building, a cup is a cup. It becomes holy via the Lord’s presence.