October 12, 2025
- Introduction
I briefly mentioned the moral failings of the Protestant Reformers in my articles on the Roman Catholic Church. This article will elaborate on that and include their many theological errors. While the evil works of the Roman Catholic Church are disgusting, the wickedness of the Reformers is equally abhorrent. What we learn from history is that we do not learn from history. Even professing Christians, who should know better, seem to be tone deaf and hard of heart.
In the articles regarding the Roman Catholic Church, I suggested that the acid test of truth is what Jesus told us. Jesus said that a good tree can’t bring forth evil fruit and a bad tree can’t bring forth good fruit. We were told that we would know the tree by its fruit. Fruit indicates the nature and character of the tree, the person, and the church denomination. Over the last 1500 years, the fruit of the Roman Catholic Church has consistently been evil mixed with some good works. Evil is not an anomaly but is the nature and character of the Roman Church and its leaders. As you will see, the same can be said of the most well-known Reformers. Unfortunately, very few ‘Christians’ actually believe what Jesus said.
Also, as you read this article, keep this principle in mind: ‘What you do through others, you do yourself’. This principle is true in law and religion. Even if a person does not personally do something evil, if they get others to do it for them, they are just as culpable as if they had done it personally. The Reformers may not have personally murdered women, children, and adults, but to the extent they got others to do the torture and killing for them, they are guilty.
The reforms of the Reformers did not go far enough. They clung to much of the error and wickedness of the past. Some of this will be highlighted in this article. Let us consider the well-known Reformers. (ChatGPT provided the quotes, references, and some of the initial comments. I have edited all that and included many additional remarks.)
II. Martin Luther (Germany, 1483 – 1546)
Brief Biography
Martin Luther, a Roman Catholic Augustinian monk from Eisleben, ignited the Reformation in 1517 by posting his Ninety-Five Theses at Wittenberg. He translated the Bible into German and taught the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. Yet the same Luther who denounced Roman Catholic ecclesiastical tyranny sometimes justified violence and hatred in the name of Christian duty. Yes, you heard that correctly.
A. Against the Peasants (1525)
When peasants rebelled against their lords, Luther at first urged mercy. Still, once blood was shed, he demanded their extermination: “With threefold horrible sins against God and men have these peasants loaded themselves, for which they have deserved a manifold death of body and soul … it is right and lawful to slay at the first opportunity a rebellious person.” See Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants (1525). (See endnotes for the references).
Luther added, “Therefore let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab … nothing can be more venomous or devilish than a rebel; it is just as when one must kill a mad dog.” Does any of this sound like a man of God to you? Or does it sound like an Augustinian Roman Catholic monk?
Tens of thousands of peasants were slaughtered. Luther never retracted the principle espoused in his statements above. He never repented of this great sin. Can it be called anything other than a sin? Luther was a son of the Roman Catholic Church, which murdered millions of their enemies (including other Christians), and Luther condoned and encouraged the murder of tens of thousands. What you do through others, you do yourself.
May I remind you that no murderer has eternal life abiding in them. Refer to 1 John 3:5, “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.”. That is what the apostle John taught, and so did the apostle Paul. What does this verse say about Martin Luther?
- On the Jews and Their Lies (1543)
In his old age, Luther wrote one of the most virulent anti-Jewish tracts in Christian history: “First, their synagogues or schools should be set on fire … Secondly, their houses should likewise be broken down and destroyed.” See Luther’s work, On the Jews and Their Lies (1543). He urged princes to confiscate Jewish writings and to forbid rabbis from teaching. Centuries later, his words were cited by anti-Semitic movements as a theological justification for all manner of evil.
Makes one think of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi movement and their reference to the teachings of Luther to justify their own evil against the Jews. Even if Hitler did not directly make use of Luther’s comments regarding the Jews, his regime leveraged Luther’s writings to support their own assault on the Jews. In addition, sympathetic German Christian clergy did, in fact, explicitly use Luther’s remarks to justify the anti-Jewish policies of the Nazi. That is even worse than any direct comments from Hitler. Can you imagine a professing Christian using the wicked remarks of Martin Luther to justify what was happening to the Jews?
- Crude Speech and Personal Excess
Luther’s Table Talk is rife with vulgarity. One remark, whether jest or conviction, is often quoted: “If your wife will not fulfill the marital duty, then let the maid come and do it in her stead.” Tischreden, Weimar Edition No. 4623b.
Though he defended marriage against celibacy vows, his coarseness shocked even his friends.
It is hard for me to imagine hearing anything like this from a Christian pastor or priest. If I did hear such a comment, even in jest, I would think this person was a false Christian, not a genuine one. May I suggest to you that no man of God would utter such words, especially in jest. It is not funny or clever. Are we to believe that Luther was so impoverished in speech that he could not find a more appropriate way to say what needed to be told without encouraging anyone to take his statements literally?
In a letter to Philip Melanchthon in August 1521, Luther wrote the following. “Sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, who has overcome sin, death, and the world.” Letter of August 1, 1521 (WA Br. 2, 372; Luther’s Works, Vol. 48, p. 281.) It is said that this was not an endorsement of sinning but Luther’s way of encouraging this young man, who was scrupulous about his personal sin and about making mistakes in doctrinal reforms. He only meant for Philip not to be so fearful of making a mistake or sinning that he stopped walking in faith in Christ. A defender of Luther’s comment wrote, “Trust in Christ’s grace even when your conscience accuses you.” That is the meaning of Luther’s statement, so his defenders say.
Again, are we to believe that Luther, if he was a genuine man of God, could not find a more Biblical way to encourage Philip to act courageously in faith without saying something so careless as this? I add that to tell anyone to disregard their conscience and go forward “trusting in Christ’s grace” is giving that person a license to sin, whether intended or not. It is wicked and antinomian to the core. It is precisely the kind of encouragement one would expect from Satan, not a man of God.
And elsewhere, Luther wrote against sinning. In the same letter, Luther wrote, “Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this is not a place where righteousness resides” (LW 48:281). It is plain that Luther was an Augustinian disciple. The idea that ‘Christians will commit sins while we are here, for this is not a place where righteousness resides’ is false to the core. The Word of God teaches the exact opposite of this. A few examples of many that might be quoted are: Romans 8:1-8, 1 Corinthians 6:8-10, Ephesians 5:1-11, Galatians 5:16-25, Romans 6:12-14, 1 John 3:7-10, and Titus 2:11-12. All of these verses and many more explicitly refute and rebuke Martin Luther’s obscene comment.
Luther rightly rejected the Roman Catholic Church’s works-based salvation and went in the opposite direction. The pendulum swung too far. Luther embraced a faith without works theology, which is antinomian at heart. He erred in the opposite direction and plunged Christianity into lawlessness.
- Summary
Luther proclaimed freedom of conscience, yet urged princes to crush and burn dissenters. He denounced superstition yet wrote in superstition’s tone against Jews. His brilliance and courage reformed Christianity to a degree. His anger and hatred disfigured it.
Luther also corrupted the gospel in accordance with Augustine’s tenets. Reformed churches and Calvinism in general owe a great deal to Luther. But, like his theological father, Augustine, the truth was obscured by his antinomian false teachings.
Luther also believed he could unilaterally determine which New Testament books were inspired and which were not. He did not remove any books from the Bible, but he certainly questioned the canonical status and authority of several of its books. For example, Luther disparaged the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation in the New Testament. Books that rebuked his interpretations were relegated to inferior status. Tell me how that upholds the primacy of the Word of God without discouraging others from seriously considering its authority. Impossible. His ego knew no limits. What does that tell you about him?
I am so grateful that I do not stand in God’s place. Was Martin Luther a genuine born-again Christian? It seems there is ample evidence to wonder and question whether he was. I certainly do not believe it based on what I know.
III. John Calvin (France / Geneva, 1509 – 1564)
Brief Biography
John Calvin, born in Noyon and trained in law, became the system-builder of Reformed theology. In Geneva, he sought to fashion a godly commonwealth ruled by the Word of God and administered by magistrates. His genius ordered Protestant doctrine; his rigor gave it steel and coldness. Behold the kindness and severity of God. Too bad that can’t be said of Calvin. I wonder, did Calvin really know that God of the Bible? The word says that God is full of mercy, yet it is hard to find much mercy in what Calvin taught, believed, and instituted in his nation. He reminds me of the Pharisee.
A. The Execution of Michael Servetus (1553)
Servetus, a Spanish physician and theologian, denied the Trinity and infant baptism. Arrested in Geneva, he was condemned and burned alive. Years before, Calvin had written to Farel: “If he [Servetus] shall come, I shall never permit him to depart alive, provided my authority be of any avail.”
After the execution, Calvin justified the deed: “Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them, makes himself an accomplice in their crime.” — Defensio Orthodoxae Fidei (1554).
Now, please tell me if you actually think an honest and genuine man of God would say or do such a thing. I remind you that in 1 John, we are told that no murderer has eternal life abiding in them. Was Calvin a repentant murderer? Doesn’t sound like it. Nothing I could find tells me he ever repented of this great sin of his. What I read is that he continued to justify this execution.
Calvin’s mercy did surface in that he said he would have used a less cruel way to kill him, rather than burning him alive; he would have beheaded him. What a nice guy. So thoughtful! But Calvin also said this, “Seretus suffered the penalty of his heresies, but was not executed with the cruelty that he deserved.” Calvin to Farel, in Opera Calvini, vol. 13, col. 727. So much for his supposed mercy.
Are we going to believe the Word of God or the words of men? Modern Reformed scholars describe this as ‘morally indefensible, though historically understandable’ in a time when heresy was equated with treason. So what! Do these modern theologians think their statement absolves these leaders? What does God say about such matters?
B. Civil Punishment for Religious Crimes
In the Institutes (IV.xx.3) Calvin wrote: “The magistrate is to take care that idolatry, sacrilege against the name of God, blasphemies against His truth, and other offenses to religion, be suppressed.” Thus, the sword of the state was made the guardian of doctrine. How could these leaders, like Calvin, actually believe that God wants forced or coerced obedience? Were they blinded by their own lust for power and authority?
C. Social Control in Geneva
Under Calvin’s consistory, citizens were disciplined for missing sermons or for moral offenses. Schaff observes: “Geneva became a Christian commonwealth in which religion and politics were inseparably united … Yet Calvin’s rule was not free from the rigor of legalism.” Even his disciple Beza admitted his master’s severity. Again, does this sound like what a genuine man of God would do?
D. Summary
Calvin’s theology exalted God’s sovereignty (exhaustive, meticulous, effectual determinism) but left little mercy for human frailty. He kindled a disciplined faith, yet quenched freedom of conscience in its cradle. Only in this way could he live with the evil he had committed and promoted through the civil authorities.
Calvin must have missed the passage where God declared that mercy triumphs over judgment. He must also have blinded his heart and mind to the truth, for he is another disciple of Augustine who corrupted Christianity in the 5th century.
IV. Huldrych Zwingli (Switzerland, 1484 – 1531)
Brief Biography
Zwingli, a humanist priest of Zürich, began preaching reform in 1519. He abolished images and the mass, proclaimed Scripture the only authority, and joined the cause of civic Protestantism. But his reformation marched under banners and pikes as much as under the cross.
A. Persecution of Anabaptists
When believers’ baptism spread, Zwingli persuaded the council to outlaw it. Schaff records: “By 1529, rebaptism was declared a capital crime. Felix Manz drowned in the Limmat River on January 5, 1527, ‘He who dips shall be dipped.” Zwingli’s own tract called the Anabaptists “seditious and the devil’s instruments.” That is like saying that genuine Christians (Anabaptists) are sons of the devil. They even said that about Jesus Christ. Here is another reformer who was not himself reformed and who was not transformed into a child of God.
B. Militarism and Death
Zwingli fell in battle at Kappel (1531), bearing arms for the Protestant cantons. His last words, “They can kill the body, but not the soul”, sealed a ministry that mixed sword and sermon. Any religion that demands obedience under penalty of torture and death is a product of the god of the world, Satan. It is not of God who calls us to come to Him that He might give us rest voluntarily. A forced or coerced love is no love at all.
C. Summary
Zwingli’s courage is unquestioned; his resort to force is undeniable. The first Reformation martyr, Felix Manz, died not by Rome’s hand but by Protestant Zürich’s.
Were any of the great reformers unquestioned and undeniable men of God? In my Roman Catholic articles, I cited examples of many popes who were, without a doubt, the spawn of Satan. And I asked the simple question: was there one good pope in the last 1500 years? Was there one good Reformer?
V. Heinrich Bullinger (Switzerland, 1504 – 1575)
Brief Biography
After Zwingli’s death, Heinrich Bullinger became chief pastor of Zürich and the architect of Reformed confessional theology. He helped draft the First and Second Helvetic Confessions, which defined Reformed faith for centuries. Mild in temper yet unyielding in his dogma, he joined his mentor, Zwingli, in endorsing state discipline over religious error.
A. Opposition to Anabaptists
In his tract Contra Catabaptistas (1531), Bullinger wrote: “They are obstinate, rebellious, and deceitful men … enemies of all civil order, despising the magistrate whom God hath ordained.” He supported Zürich’s policy of imprisoning or executing Anabaptists who persisted in rebaptism. Schaff notes: “Bullinger approved the measures by which Anabaptist leaders were imprisoned or executed, believing leniency would imperil souls and society alike.” Here we have another reformer in need of reformation himself. Many of these leaders used the state or civil authorities to demand compliance under pain of death. Does that sound like something Jesus Christ would do?
B. Covenant Theology and Rigid Discipline
Bullinger’s theory of the divine covenant united Old and New Testaments under one dispensation of grace, but it also bound church and state in a single moral jurisdiction. In The Decades he preached: “The magistrate beareth not the sword in vain; he is the minister of God to take vengeance upon evil-doers.” Thus, sin and crime became indistinguishable.
This is a subject that deserves much more attention. Murder is a capital crime against God and civil authority. That makes sense. But to rebaptize a person is no crime against God or the civil authority, but was often a capital crime against the Reformers’ religion as well as the Roman Catholic Church. And they wickedly used that authority to hurt and murder other Christians who disagreed with them. No one who hates his brother Christian and who murders him has eternal life abiding in them. Did these learned men of God not read and understand that passage?
C. Summary
Bullinger tempered Zwingli’s politics with pastoral reason, yet never abandoned coercion and cruelty. He bequeathed to the Reformed church a legacy of piety and precision, but not of liberty.
The apostle Paul taught something very different about the gospel and liberty. Is that not true?
VI. John Knox (Scotland, c.1514 – 1572)
Brief Biography
John Knox, the flaming Scottish reformer and disciple of Calvin, was the father of Presbyterianism. He helped topple Catholic rule in Scotland, but his tongue was as sharp as his faith was fervent.
A. The “Monstrous Regiment of Women”
In 1558, he published The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women: “To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature; it is contumely to God, a thing most contrary to His revealed will.” And again: “It is repugnant to nature that women shall reign and have empire over man.” The pamphlet alienated even Protestant Queen Elizabeth I, who never forgave him.
B. Harshness and Intolerance
Knox called Catholics “idolaters worthy of death.” He preached: “The sword of justice is God’s ordinance for the punishment of malefactors; but when it is maintained to defend idolatry, it becometh the devil’s instrument.” His fiery sermons stirred iconoclastic mobs to destroy altars and monasteries across Scotland, another Reformer in need of personal reformation.
C. Summary
Knox brought Scripture to Scotland and rage to its pulpits. He fought for truth, but too often forgot charity and the clear teachings of the Word of God. Of all the Reformers, I wonder if he may have actually been a man of God? Mary Queen of Scots feared his piety and prayers. There is no evidence that he, like other Reformers, called explicitly and directly for the destruction of those who did not conform to his understanding of scripture, except as noted already. His weapon seemed to be the pen and the pulpit, not the sword. Apparently, there isn’t much, if any, evidence that he directly encouraged others to mistreat other Christians. However, he was content to let the state enforce religious laws. I am not sure what to make of that or what to think of him.
VII. Thomas Müntzer (Germany, c.1489 – 1525)
Brief Biography
Thomas Müntzer began as Luther’s ally and ended as his nightmare. A mystic and revolutionary, he preached that the Spirit spoke through the poor and called them to overthrow the ungodly.
A. Call to Holy War
In his Sermon Before the Princes (1524), he proclaimed: “Drive out the godless! For the godless have no right to live, save as they serve the elect. The sword is necessary to purge the land of the wicked.” And in his Prague Manifesto: “Let not the blood of the godless stop your sword; the day of the Lord is come, and the godly shall inherit the earth.”
B. Conflict and Death
When the Peasants’ War erupted, Müntzer became its prophet and general. Defeated at Frankenhausen, he was tortured and executed in 1525. His final words echoed Scripture: “They may kill the body, but they cannot kill the soul.”
C. Summary
Müntzer’s zeal for justice turned to fanaticism. He sought to build the kingdom of God with the weapons of men and perished by them, another Reformer in need of personal reformation. It is hard to imagine that men who claimed to know and love God could be so blind, cruel, and wicked.
VIII. Later Reflection
A. The Reformers Reassessed
Historians have long wrestled with the moral contradictions of the Reformers. They tore down superstition and restored Scripture (in some respects that is true, but not in others), yet too often enthroned another form of coercion. Luther’s fury against peasants and Jews, Calvin’s burning of Servetus, Zwingli’s and Bullinger’s persecution of Anabaptists, Knox’s hatred of women rulers, and Müntzer’s revolutionary slaughter, all expose the frailty that shadows genius and leadership. God often uses godless men to further His work, who do not really know Him and who certainly use means and methods that God condemns.
And how many average Christians know enough of the God of the Word and the Word of God, to stop following such men? These words ring in my ears, ‘Come out from among them and be ye separate’.
B. Modern Acknowledgment
In recent generations, many Protestant bodies have openly repented of these wrongs:
• The Lutheran World Federation (1983) condemned Luther’s anti-Jewish writings as “theological aberrations.” Is that what passes for repentance?
• The Reformed Church of Switzerland apologized for drowning and imprisoning Anabaptists.
• The Church of Scotland honors female ministers, the very “monstrous regiment” Knox denounced.
These acts of ‘repentance’, if one can call them that (I do not), remind us that reformation must never cease; truth demands continual purification of heart as well as doctrine. There is no repentance of the false teachings associated with the Reformed tradition, which is the foundation for most of these wicked excesses contained in this short article.
C. Theological Irony
The Reformers proclaimed salvation by grace, yet many enforced their faith by fear and the sword. They exalted Scripture yet wielded power as though man’s will, not God’s, secured the Church. The lesson of their errors is timeless: theology divorced from humility and truth breeds tyranny.
They freed the scriptures from the Roman Catholic Church, but corrupted them at the same time. They freed believers from the sacerdotalism of the Roman Catholic Church, but only in part. They freed believers from the legalism of the Roman Catholic Church but also enslaved them to antinomianism.
IX. Contrast with the Early Church
A. Spirit of the First Centuries
Before emperors called councils and bishops bore swords, the Church triumphed through meekness. The Fathers taught patience, purity, and voluntary faith:
“Religion cannot be forced; it must be embraced willingly.” — Lactantius, Divine Institutes V.20. Did the Reformers never read any of this material?
“The blood of Christians is seed.” — Tertullian, Apologeticus 50
“Christians fight not with swords and spears, but with prayer and good works.” Origen, Against Celsus VIII. Did the Reformers never read any of this material?
“If the heathen smite thee on the cheek, turn to him the other also; for thus did our Lord command.” Cyprian of Carthage, On the Lord’s Prayer. Did the Reformers never read any of this material?
“No man can be compelled to believe, for faith is the free act of the soul.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on John. Their holiness conquered Rome without armies or decrees. Did the Reformers never read any of this material?
B. The Great Moral Divide
The martyrs shed their own blood; the Reformers sometimes shed another’s. The ancient saints called men to repentance; the Reformers at times ruled by fear. Thus, the Apostle’s warning stands fulfilled: “For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.” James 1:20 (KJV). No murderer has eternal life abiding in them. 1 John.
C. Final Reflection
Reform without sanctification becomes revolt. The early Church overcame by self-sacrificing love; the Reformers by controversy and, too often, by the sword. Both claimed to serve Christ, yet only one bore His likeness. Which do you think is the real one?
There are five Solas that summarize the foundational principles of the Protestant Reformation. They developed over time through the work of several theologians, most importantly Luther and Calvin. Sola means only or alone.
- Sola Scriptural = Scripture Alone. The Bible is the ultimate authority for faith and practice, not church tradition or papal decrees.
Despite this statement, many Calvinists are more committed to their presuppositions than they are to the Bible. Their interpretations of the Word of God flow from their prior beliefs that only the twisting of scripture can account for them.
- Sola Fide = Faith Alone. Justification or being declared righteous before God comes by faith in Christ alone and not by human works or merits.
The faith they teach is a faith without faithfulness. It is the faith of devils and not of God, for faith without works and obedience is not saving faith, contrary to Augustinian Calvinism. They ignore all of the many conditional statements in the Word of God and, at the same time, claim they are faithful to scripture alone and faith alone. They are not.
- Sola Gratia = Grace Alone. Salvation is entirely by God’s grace or His unearned favor and is not something humans can achieve.
Sinners can’t forgive themselves. That forgiveness comes from the grace of God, but it comes with conditions such as repentance and faith. This they deny. Their idea of grace is no grace at all, even though they presume to be the most faithful disciples of the grace of God and what that actually means.
- Solus Christus = Christ is the only mediator between God and man, and salvation is through His person and work alone.
We all agree with this statement as written. However, what Calvinists mean by this is that mankind doesn’t cooperate or participate in their own salvation, which is not true and is not Biblical. Their false religion assumes that Christ did it all and that there is nothing at all that we are to bring to the table to secure our own salvation. They incorrectly assume that there are no conditions that we must meet to be saved.
- Soli Deo Gloria = To the glory of God alone. All of life and salvation are for God’s glory, not the glory of man, saints, or the Christian Church.
We all agree. Repentant sinners have nothing to brag about, and they do not want any credit or recognition. That alone belongs to God.
Our study would not be complete without digging a bit deeper. Many Christians are somewhat familiar with the T.U.L.I.P. of Calvinism. The five sola must be understood in light of the five tenets of Augustinian Calvinism. I have written many articles under the page titled ‘Augustinian Calvinism’ on my website ‘seekgodintruth.com.’
- T stands for total depravity and total inability.
In my book ‘When Lies Become Truth’, the first chapter debunks the lie that we are born totally unable to respond to God, exercise faith in Christ, and obey His commands. Thanks to Augustine and his pagan ideas, the concept of Original Sin and all that it entails was introduced into the Christian church in the 5th century. Before Augustine, the primitive church believed no such thing. The Bible does not teach any such thing. In most cases, the proof texts are misinterpreted by design.
- U stands for unconditional Election.
They believe that God chose in eternity past who would be saved and who would not. They think that whatsoever comes to pass does so by the sovereign decree of God. As R. C. Sproul put it, “there are no rogue elements.” God is the source of all good and all evil, according to them. Notwithstanding that truth, we are responsible not to do the evil that God predetermined we would do, and they seriously want us to believe that God is not the author of sin and of evil and that we are guilty. Refer to my articles on Theism and Calvinism for more information.
- L stands for limited Atonement.
These ideas follow one another and are logically consistent, but not Biblical. If God chose who He would save and those He would not save, then obviously Jesus Christ did not die for those going to hell. They mistakenly believe that the atonement paid for past, present, and future sins.
They also believe that Christ died as our penal substitute. That means that Christ became our sin, and we become His perfection by imputation. They think that even born-again Spirit-filled Christians never stop sinning in this life because of Original Sin and the sin nature we inherit from Adam. When Christians sin, the Father sees Christ’s obedience and credits that to us, even in our refusal to repent of those sins. The devil could not have created a better deception. In the garden, the serpent said to Eve, “You shall surely not die” when you sin against God and eat of the forbidden tree. Augustinian Calvinism tells Christians that very same lie.
- I stands for Irresistible Grace.
If all my future sins are already forgiven because I am one of the elect, then grace must, of course, be irresistible. But in this scheme, there is no grace at all in the atonement. See my article, Doctrines of Grace, under the page Augustinian Calvinism.
- P stands for perseverance or preservation of the saints.
If all my past and future sins are forgiven and God’s grace is irresistible, then I can’t ever be lost. This is the Reformed idea of what we call eternal security today.
All five tenets are false to the core, and I firmly believe they must all be rejected. Some call themselves former Calvinists who hold on to eternal security, which, in my mind, makes them partial Calvinists. They object to that, but it is true nonetheless. See my other articles for more on this subject.
The fruit of the tree will always reveal the nature of the tree. A good tree can’t bring forth evil fruit because it is not its nature or character. The opposite is also true. An evil tree can’t bring forth good fruit. But despite this, the average Christian couldn’t care less about the history of doctrine and the Christian Church. They carelessly think that bad trees eventually do produce good fruit, because they are part of that good fruit. Their mistake is this. God saves many despite the rotten fruit coming from the evil tree, not because of it. If you stay long enough with the bad tree, it will corrupt you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump.
Yet Christian men and women, yesterday and today, cling to ignorance and lies and let blind, and often godless ‘Christian’ men, lead them. Why? Misplaced trust? An unwillingness and lack of motivation to search out the truth? They do not love God supremely? Lack of opportunity? How do we explain this?
Years ago, I believe that God spoke to me and told me to come out from among them. Initially, I thought that was only about the Roman Catholic Church. But many years later, after attending various Protestant denominations, I understood it applied more broadly to the entire American Christian Church, including Big Eva (Evangelicalism). False teaching runs very deep in the whole system.
If the Reformers were so wrong about the Christian role in politics and civic affairs, why is it hard for Christians to believe that they were also mistaken about their theology?
_____________________________________________________________
Endnotes
1. Luther, Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants (1525), Hanover Historical Texts.
2. Luther, On the Jews and Their Lies (1543), Luther’s Works 47.
3. Luther, Table Talk (Tischreden), Weimar Edition No. 4623b.
4. Calvin, Letter to Farel, 13 Feb 1546, in Letters of John Calvin, trans. Bonnet.
5. Calvin, Defensio Orthodoxae Fidei (1554).
6. Calvin, Institutes IV.xx.3, trans. Beveridge.
7. Zwingli, Refutation of the Tricks of the Catabaptists (1527).
8. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 8.
9. Bullinger, Contra Catabaptistas (1531).
10. Bullinger, The Decades, Sermon IX.
11. Knox, The First Blast of the Trumpet (1558).
12. Knox, Works IV (ed. Laing).
13. Müntzer, Sermon Before the Princes (1524).
14. Müntzer, Prague Manifesto (1521–24).
15. Bainton, Here I Stand, ch. 16.
16. Lactantius, Divine Institutes V.20.
17. Tertullian, Apologeticus 50.
18. Origen, Against Celsus VIII.
19. Cyprian, On the Lord’s Prayer.
20. Chrysostom, Homilies on John.
21. Holy Bible, KJV, James 1:20.
Endnotes
1. Luther, Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants (1525), Hanover Historical Texts.
2. Luther, On the Jews and Their Lies (1543), Luther’s Works 47.
3. Luther, Table Talk (Tischreden), Weimar Edition No. 4623b.
4. Calvin, Letter to Farel, 13 Feb 1546, in Letters of John Calvin, trans. Bonnet.
5. Calvin, Defensio Orthodoxae Fidei (1554).
6. Calvin, Institutes IV.xx.3, trans. Beveridge.
7. Zwingli, Refutation of the Tricks of the Catabaptists (1527).
8. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 8.
9. Bullinger, Contra Catabaptistas (1531).
10. Bullinger, The Decades, Sermon IX.
11. Knox, The First Blast of the Trumpet (1558).
12. Knox, Works IV (ed. Laing).
13. Müntzer, Sermon Before the Princes (1524).
14. Müntzer, Prague Manifesto (1521–24).
15. Bainton, Here I Stand, ch. 16.
16. Lactantius, Divine Institutes V.20.
17. Tertullian, Apologeticus 50.
18. Origen, Against Celsus VIII.
19. Cyprian, On the Lord’s Prayer.
20. Chrysostom, Homilies on John.
21. Holy Bible, KJV, James 1:20.
