Troubling! Criticism of Protestantism in Wikipedia

JayW said:

It's Wikipedia, about as valid a source for truth as Facebook.

Click to expand...

Wikipedia is a good general source even though it's editors are all volunteer. Facebook has no editors for it's content.

9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 1

Alicewonder said:

I found it troubling to say the least....How do we reply to these things??

Click to expand...

First, I agree that Wikipedia is a great overall source, but very untrustworthy when it comes to anything political, including when politics touches on other subjects, as happens quite frequently with religion.

Second, that article is a broadside. The author is really piling it on, with little interest in providing different perspectives. If you take it as one big horse pill, you may become overwhelmed. I suggest you break it down into individual issues, and then do research on each one, starting with what most interests you. I think you will find that there is another side to the story, but it is going to take digging and prayerful assimilation of the facts and dynamics of what is going on.

Alicewonder said:

Hi! I am a non-denom Christian and saw this article Wikipedia ---- Criticism of Protestantism - Wikipedia

I found it troubling to say the least....How do we reply to these things??

Click to expand...

How can you reply?

Sola scriptura (choose your own definition of several) is easily provable false. Logically, biblically and historically it is provable as false. it simply does not stack up.

Logically: if you hold as a prime truth "all necessary truth for salvation is in the bible" Then that statement itself must be in the bible else the statement is self refuting. And it is nowhere in the bible. So Simple logic shows it false.

Biblically: the bible itself says "the pillar and foundation of truth is the church" so contradicting it being scripture alone.

Historically: the faith was passed on by paradosis, handing down, not scritpure, which is why Paul said "hold true to tradition we taught you by word of mouth and letter" - not least because the canon did not exist for another couple of centuries!
So sola scriptura is a denial of how the early church passed on the faith.

The reality is few could read, and even if they could it was only after the printing press and even last centuries that average joe could afford a bible. So "bible christianity" did not exist as we know it pre reformation.

And sola scriptura or variaints also presumes that the meaing of scripture is unambiguous. If that were true how is it that on every doctrine protestants disagree with multiple mutually exclusive versions of baptism, eucharist...the list is endless.

Reality is tradition and authority to "Bind and loose" by the church are needed to interpret scripture. Lose that and you get the endless schisms of protestants.
Accept it and you are led back to what the early fathers said scripture meant - those who were actually taught by the apostles! In the case of eucharist it is real presence, as Justin Martyr said "is the flesh of Jesus", as ignatius said - valid only if performed by a bishop or his appointee.

You cannot invent your own eucharist, based on your own interpretation of words, and that is the problem protestantism has. If the holy spirit guides that meaning when asked...how is it he guides protestants in at least 5 opposite directions?

I speak as ex evangelical and mainstream protestant who studied the early church and which led inexorably back to rome.

Protestants have a problem. Deny the authority of the church to act infallibly in council and you no longer have a new testament. Accept that authority and you can no longer be protestant, because you accept the authority that interprets scripture.

Horns of an impossible dilemma. The dilemma that led me back to Rome.

And all other problems start there.
Sola scriptura is provably false.

Mountainmike said:

I speak as ex evangelical and mainstream protestant who studied the early church and which led inexorably back to rome.

Click to expand...

Maybe not the right place to start this discussion, so bear with me as I do nevertheless.

The rome church of today is not the same church as handed down the apostolic writings. The rome church has ever developed, and while it is still in truth about holding up the name of Christ, they do it in a way that is not in accord with what Jesus asked his followers to do. Jesus did not ask his followers to build buildings. He did not ask them to perform many of the "traditions" that the catholic church performs today, which are probably heresies that crept in when christianity became a state institution. Allow me to post 11 minutes of video.
So in essence we are in a search for the truth that once was held by the church, and a very good place to start is the scriptures.

Alicewonder said:

Hi! I am a non-denom Christian and saw this article Wikipedia ---- Criticism of Protestantism - Wikipedia

I found it troubling to say the least....How do we reply to these things??

Click to expand...

First question I ask is what do you believe the word criticism means in the context of this wiki article? What I see is a reasonable critique of Protestantism well written with reasonable argument and proof backed up by references to a range of books and articles on the subject.

Alicewonder said:

Hi! I am a non-denom Christian and saw this article Wikipedia ---- Criticism of Protestantism - Wikipedia

I found it troubling to say the least....How do we reply to these things??

Click to expand...

It is simply the common misrepresentations of Christianity by largely Roman Catholics who are anti-Protestant and who are pro-Roman Catholicism (ala Catholic Answers), who twist scripture to promote Sola Ekklessia.

I see it also promotes the "43,000 denominations" fallacy. It seems every time I see that claim, that number grows by 10,000, but no one dares produce this list of "43,000 denominations".


While Wikipedia may occasionally point to some decent references, Wikipedia is not a place to search for truth since anyone can edit the articles with no validation.

There are many legitimate conversations that follow up and contest what you say... not sure this thread is the right place!

So in brief...
1. The rome church is very much a continuum of the early church. It believs in all the same things. Liturgical. Sacramental. Real presence, only if perforned by bishop in succession or his appointee. etc

2. Now study scripture "the pillar and foundation of truth is the church, which is the household of God" - which demonstrably refers to the physical church in the OT - so the physical church is given a role in scripture.

3. Indeed without the authority of the church as gathering of successors of apostles to "bind and loose" enenacted in councils there would be no new testament! Study what the fathers who chose the canon believed...such as Ephraim is vociferous onintercession of Mary. Lose the authority of the church and you loose the new testament. Keep that authority, and you cannot disregard the views of those who chose it on what it meant.

4. For sure the acorn grew to an oak, the buildings that house a few, need to be bigger to house many!
The structure and hierarchy of an organisation of billions has to be bigger with more layers. The acorn is still the same species as oak.


5. Tradition does not mean what you think. Now study history and accept the colloquila interpretation "traditions" you use is not the same word "paradosis" translated as tradition to which Paul tells us to hold true. The handing down of the faith "tradition, paradosis" by apostolic succession, is the mechanism our Lord chose to pass on the faith.

6. Protestants drum up a convenient myth of an apostasy. Many choose constantine as the bad guy! But history does not bear that out. Read "the apostasy that wasnt" or "life of anthony" anasthasius and see that nothing actually changed on doctrine one end of constantines reign to the other!. Catholic doctrine has scarecly changed in 2000 years, just some understandings have developed. the truth has not changed. The trinity was a developed understanding of God. The early church really did believe in the eucharist was "the flesh of Jesus" quote Justin Martyr. Nothing has changed. Augustine (whose council finally set the new testament in stone) quotes the long list of popes in support of his cause against donatism. Even orthodox held the bishop of rome as "primacy of honour" because of succession from Peter. Nothing has actually changed.

PeterDona said:

Maybe not the right place to start this discussion, so bear with me as I do nevertheless.

The rome church of today is not the same church as handed down the apostolic writings. The rome church has ever developed, and while it is still in truth about holding up the name of Christ, they do it in a way that is not in accord with what Jesus asked his followers to do. Jesus did not ask his followers to build buildings. He did not ask them to perform many of the "traditions" that the catholic church performs today, which are probably heresies that crept in when christianity became a state institution. Allow me to post 11 minutes of video.
So in essence we are in a search for the truth that once was held by the church, and a very good place to start is the scriptures.

Click to expand...

Adstar said:

I did not really want a cut and paste.. I was asking for a specific example of a doctrine that has flaws in it that can be shown by using scripture.... But anyway thanks for replying.

Click to expand...

Sola scriptura (and solo scriptura) - the rallying cry of protestants , and the father of 10000 schisms, is provably false using scripture. Start there.

If you hold the statement as a prime truth that "all necessary truth for salvation is in scripture" (use your own definition) - that statement must BE in scripture for the statement to be true. It is not. So proven false.

Scripture also denies it where it says "the pillar and fondation of truth is the chruch which is the household of God" . Thereby stating there is truth outside scripture, indeed the pillar of truth lies outside it.

I could go on...sola scriptura is easily proven false, by logic, scripture and history.

Mountainmike said:

2. Now study scripture "the pillar and foundation of truth is the church, which is the household of God" - which demonstrably refers to the physical church in the OT - so the physical church is given a role in scripture.

3. Indeed without the authority of the church as gathering of successors of apostles to "bind and loose" enenacted in councils there would be no new testament! Study what the fathers who chose the canon believed...

Click to expand...

OK I will make a point of doing that at some time

1) I do meet people who are catholics and by my experience are filled with the Holy Spirit
2) I do applaud that the catholic church still holds up some of its tradition, though I feel that it is shaking when the pope e.g. wants to open up to divorce. I believe from scripture in the indissolubility of marriage, so I agree with catholics rather than reformatarians on that issue.

I just wanted to state these 2 points, because I felt that my post came out as harsh, and that was not intentional, and I am happy that you kept a restrained response.

Finally, Ia gree that your scripture reference is certainly interesting to consider. (1 tim 3:15) That is certainly not a small statement to make of the Church.

Alicewonder said:

Hi! I am a non-denom Christian and saw this article Wikipedia ---- Criticism of Protestantism - Wikipedia

I found it troubling to say the least....How do we reply to these things??

Click to expand...

In the proverbs it says that wise people say thank you when criticized. I read the article, but what did you find troubling?

Alicewonder said:

Hi! I am a non-denom Christian and saw this article Wikipedia ---- Criticism of Protestantism - Wikipedia

I found it troubling to say the least....How do we reply to these things??

Click to expand...

What do you find troubling? that it is completely accurate?

Alicewonder said:

Hi! I am a non-denom Christian and saw this article Wikipedia ---- Criticism of Protestantism - Wikipedia

I found it troubling to say the least....How do we reply to these things??

Click to expand...

The easiest way to counter any of the arguments is to bring them up here, and register your objections, and refute the criticisms.
People here do it all the time.

Alicewonder said:

That it's hard to reply to!! That is why I liked the Wiki page on Criticism to Catholicism someone here showed me. But it does not reply to all the criticisms!

Click to expand...

Anyone can criticize. The question is whether the criticisms are accurate or not.
If you support an organization without caring about whether it's tenets are actually true you are very much missing the point.