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.
“The article represents the historical view of people ignorant of, or revisionist of, peoples who came through history from Byzantania”
You mean the Roman Empire. Y’know the same place that hosted the Councils of Constantinople, Nicaea, Ephesus, etc.
“the Caucuses”
You mean Armenia, the first Christian nation? Since about 400AD.
“Eastern Europe”
You mean the Serbians, Romanians, Greeks? All Romans.
“the Alps”
Romans.
“northern Europe”
Romans again.
“British Isles”
Also Roman. All of these places were, for most of their history, with the possible exception of Armenia, both Roman and Catholic. The division of the Faith into West and East, did not exist in the beginning.
‘Biblicist never connected with Rome’
Horsehockey.
“There were Christians who had never heard of such a thing as a pope (there was NO pope until the 4th century”)
According to whom? You? There were Popes from St. Peter onwards.
“Biblicist Christians from the first century”
If by Biblicist you mean Catholic, then Yes, this is true.
I may read denominational literature about the faith but, because of the Holy Spirit's presence in me and a constant study of Scriptures, I usually know whether or not the teaching is Biblical. It has the "smack of truth" or I sense something is off, it doesn't sound right. Now some people will mock me saying this, thinking I am boasting or depending upon my own personal interpretation of Scripture, but I think you may agree that it is definitely NOT what we are saying. Jesus said he would send the comforter, the Holy Spirit, and he would lead us to all truth. I do not think it was only meant for an elite few, but for all who belong to God through faith in Jesus Christ. So like you said, there were many people outside of denominational divisions and were simply born-again Christians.
If more people studied the Word in a prayerful and humble way, allowing the Holy Spirit within them to illuminate the truths of God's Word, they could avoid much of the false teaching that is out in the world today. If Christians assembled together with those of like mind and hungered together for the truth, God would lead them to it. Pastors and evangelists are great, don't get me wrong, and God uses them in mighty ways, but we must all be responsible for learning the Word and not just swallowing whatever we are fed by others. We are to search the Scriptures to know that what we are told is true or not.
Thanks for the excellent post...
I generally refer to myself as non-Catholic as opposed to Protestant but I do slip up occasionally....
thanx, enuff twisting to satisfy the roller coaster fan in all of us....