![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2025\/04\/Protestantism-552x833-1.jpg\")
<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n
Lucas Banzoli<\/a>\u00a0is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a\u00a0Seventh-day Adventist theology<\/a>, whereby there is\u00a0no such thing as a soul<\/a>\u00a0that consciously exists outside of a body, and\u00a0no hell<\/a>\u00a0(soul sleep and annihilationism). He has a Master\u2019s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 27 self-published books, as well as blogmaster for six blogs. He\u00a0has many videos on YouTube<\/a>.<\/p>\n This is my\u00a068th refutation<\/a>\u00a0of Banzoli\u2019s writings. From 25 May until 12 November 2022 he wrote\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0one single<\/em>\u00a0word<\/em>\u00a0in reply, claiming that my articles were\u00a0\u201cwithout exception poor, superficial and weak\u201d<\/span>\u00a0and that\u00a0\u201conly a severely cognitively impaired person\u201d<\/span>\u00a0would take\u00a0them\u00a0\u201cseriously.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0Nevertheless, he found them so\u00a0\u201centertaining\u201d<\/span>\u00a0that after almost six months of inaction he resolved to\u00a0\u201cmake a point of rebutting\u201d<\/span>\u00a0them\u00a0\u201cone by one\u201d<\/span>;\u00a0this effort being his\u00a0\u201cnew favorite sport.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>But apparently he changed his mind again, since he has replied to me only\u00a016 times<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(the last one\u00a0dated 2-20-23<\/a>).<\/p>\n This is a reply to the controversial and relevant items of his list, in his article, \u201cA Confession of Faith Common to all Protestants\u201d<\/span><\/a> [<\/span>Uma Confiss\u00e3o de F\u00e9 comum a todos os protestantes<\/a>] (10-29-24)<\/span><\/p>\n Lucas\u2019 original Portugese was automatically translated into English on his blog<\/a> by Google Translate. His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n You have certainly seen a Catholic accuse Protestants of being divided into \u201c40,000 sects with different doctrines\u201d (which is humanly impossible, since there are not even 40,000 doctrines to have 40,000 doctrinal divergences),\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Yes; this is a dumb argument. I renounced it over twenty years ago in my article, 33,000 Protestant Denominations? No!<\/a> [9-4-04], and have ever since said \u201chundreds\u201d to describe the number of Protestant denominations. There are methodological difficulties with the usual figures. In any event, denominationalism itself is utterly unbiblical and anything beyond one Church is already a very serious unbiblical falsehood.<\/p>\n and many of them say that there is not even a common core of doctrines to be considered \u201cProtestant\u201d, as if \u201cProtestant\u201d could be anything.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s a stupid belief, too, but I immediately note that almost all of what Protestants have in common are beliefs that Catholics and Orthodox also hold; in other words, these are tenets that all Christians<\/em> hold in common. I will demonstrate that in my reply.<\/p>\n First of all, it is important to highlight two things. First, unlike the scarecrow constantly present in Catholic apologetics, antitrinitarians are not \u201cprotestants,\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019ve been a Catholic apologist for almost 35 years, and I haven\u2019t observed this false view being \u201cconstantly present in Catholic apologetics.\u201d<\/span> One would have to be very ignorant to claim this, and as usual when sweeping statements about \u201cCatholic apologists\u201d are made by Protestants, not even a single example is provided. Speaking for myself, I have never ever stated that actual<\/em> Protestants denied the Trinity.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, out of ignorance or bad faith, many of them say this because they believe that Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses are Protestants,\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cMany\u201d<\/span>? I think not. It doesn\u2019t take much knowledge at all to see that JWS are not Protestants or any other kind of Christians. They\u2019re Arian heretics. I particularly object to this silly characterization, seeing that my first major apologetics project as a Protestant evangelical in 1981, was to do a massive refutation of the false belief of Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses. I was part of an \u201canti-cult\u201d ministry.<\/p>\n behind the secondary issues that divide us is a primary and much more important element that unites us.<\/span><\/p>\n And he thinks these are listed in his thirty points. But I will show that with regard to many of these so-called \u201ccentral\u201d or \u201cprimary\u201d beliefs, Protestants in fact disagree<\/em> with each other. Note that Lucas claims in his title that these points are \u201cc<\/span>ommon to all<\/strong> <\/em>Protestants.\u201d<\/span> So if I demonstrate that several of them aren\u2019t<\/em>, he is guilty of a misleading, only partially true title and would have to shorten his list to half as long in order to be intellectually honest.<\/span><\/p>\n Nineteen, or 63% of all his points are simply beliefs held in common with all Christians, and thus irrelevant. What Lucas needs to demonstrate are beliefs that are distinctive to Protestants<\/em> and held by all of them. That list becomes a very short one indeed, under scrutiny (perhaps even nonexistent). Thus, we can exclude (in this scenario that I think is reasonable) from the discussion right off the bat (#1-2, 4-6, 8, 11, 13-17, 21-22, 25-29; #21 being somewhat unique, as I will explain).<\/p>\n The other eleven points, or 37% of the list (#3, 7, 9-10, 12, 18-20, 23-24, 30) are disputable, and I contend that there are Protestants \u2014 not infrequently, many<\/em> \u2014 who disagree with what Lucas claims is unanimity. Thus, 100% of his points fail in their purpose, under scrutiny: being either irrelevant (19) or untrue as a matter of fact (11), leaving his claim a complete failure. Let\u2019s take a look at the \u201cduds.\u201d<\/p>\n 3) We believe that God is the only one we should pray to and the only one who answers our prayers.<\/span><\/p>\n Catholics agree that God ultimately answers our prayers, and that when saints are involved, they are functioning as intermediaries who can only \u201cpass along\u201d what God brings about. But there are some Protestants who believe that saints can be invoked. A post from St. Michael\u2019s Anglican Church<\/a> in Matthews, North Carolina states:<\/p>\n The practice of requesting the intercessions of the glorified Saints is no different in degree, nature, or kind from the necessary intercessory prayer that Christians offer for one another on earth. If I ask you to pray for me and for my intentions, I know that in Christian charity you will do so. If you ask prayers of me, I should be delighted and moved by the same charity to pray for you. Offering requests through God in the Communion of the Saints to those fellow Christians who reign with Christ beyond the veil is no different. We may ask for their prayers, just as we pray for them. . . .<\/p>\n Anglicans are not obliged to solicit the gracious prayers of the Saints on our behalf, but, just as they are not compelled to request the intercessory prayers of fellow Christians in heaven, so they are forbidden to say that such a practice is contrary to Scripture and Tradition. For Anglicans, the practice of the invocation of the Saints is limited in the main to private devotions and extraliturgical services which are not part of the usual public Liturgy. However, it is certainly to be encouraged and has never been rejected by the Anglican Church, , which counts herself a true Apostolic Church practicing the fullness of the Catholic Faith, of which the Communion of Saints is a supreme article. Please note that Article of Religion XXII does not condemn the ancient or patristic or biblical doctrine concerning the Invocation of Saints and other related truths, but only the Romish, that is, the popularly-believed late medieval and thus erroneous view of the same. The Anglican teaching is the reformed Catholic view, anchored in the Holy Scriptures and the Tradition of the Primitive Church.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Anglican apologist C. S. Lewis wrote:<\/p>\n I accept the authority of the\u00a0Benedicite<\/em> for the propriety of invoking . . . saints. . . . ( The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Vol. III: Narnia, Cambridge, and Joy 1950-1963<\/i><\/a>, edited by Walter Hooper, HarperSanFrancisco, 2007, To the Editor of the\u00a0Church Times<\/em>, 15 July 1949)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n With approximately 85 \u2013 110 million members, Anglicanism is the third-largest Christian communion after Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.<\/p>\n 7)<\/span>\u00a0We believe in a worship free of graven images for purposes of worship and\/or veneration, and that we should not bow down before any image.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Martin Luther believed in adoration of Jesus in the sacrament of the Eucharist, which includes bowing before the consecrated host and chalice. He even wrote a treatise about it in 1523, called, The Adoration of the Sacrament<\/span><\/em><\/a>, which is included in Luther\u2019s Works<\/em> in English, in volume 36, pp. 268\u2013305, where he proclaimed, \u201che who does believe, as sufficient demonstration has shown it ought to be believed, can surely not withhold his adoration of the body and blood of Christ without sinning . . . One should not withhold from him such worship and adoration either . . . one should not condemn and accuse of heresy people who do adore the sacrament.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n Luther was observed bowing before the consecrated host and chalice. It\u2019s for this reason that John Calvin called Luther \u201chalf-papist\u201d and that \u201che had raised up the idol in God\u2019s temple.\u201d See more on this<\/a>.\u00a0<\/span>Some \u201chigh\u201d Anglicans or Anglo-Catholics practice this, too. So, for example, the article, \u201cWhat is Eucharistic Adoration?\u201d<\/a> from Church of the Good Shepherd, an Anglo-Catholic parish in South Carolina, affirmed:<\/p>\n The practice of Eucharistic Adoration is the spiritual exercise of adoring the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. The intention of such a devotion is to allow the faithful to be connected with an awareness of the gift of Christ\u2019s sacramental presence and experience a spiritual communion with Him. . . .<\/p>\n In the Church of England, Father John Mason Neale (1818-1866) revived interest in Eucharistic Adoration among Anglicans when he made it a part of the devotional life of the nuns of the Society of Saint Margaret. Father Neale saw Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament and Eucharistic Exposition as the logical devotional expression of the Church Catholic\u2019s understanding of the Real Presence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 9) We believe that Sacred Scripture is the highest authority for Christians, the highest and final authority that prevails over any tradition, teaching, denomination, council, confession of faith or religious leadership.<\/span><\/p>\n This is generally<\/em> true of Protestantism, as one of its two pillars and its rule of faith, but again, there are exceptions (whereas Lucas ignores that). Anglicanism and its offshoot, Methodism, place a higher emphasis on tradition and the authority of the Church, and also accept the notion of apostolic succession, both of which are, strictly speaking, contradictory to sola Scriptura<\/em> (Scripture Alone as the only infallible authority). Along these lines, John Wesley, the key figure at the beginning of Methodism, but himself a lifelong Anglican, stated:<\/p>\n If to baptize infants has been the general practice of the Christian Church in all places and in all ages, then this must have been the practice of the apostles, and, consequently, the mind of Christ. . . . The fact being thus cleared, that infant baptism has been the general practice of the Christian Church in all places and in all ages, that it has continued without interruption in the Church of God for above seventeen hundred years, we may safely conclude it was handed down from the apostles, who best knew the mind of Christ. (A Treatise on Baptism<\/em>; in Coll. iii<\/em>, 232-233; 11 Nov. 1756)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Martin Luther had made the exact same point over 200 years earlier:<\/p>\n The magisterial Reformation initially seems to have allowed that every individual had the right to interpret Scripture; but . . . The Peasant\u2019s Revolt of 1525 appears to have convinced some, such as Luther, that individual believers (especially German peasants) were simply not capable of interpreting Scripture. It is one of the ironies of the Lutheran Reformation that a movement which laid such stress upon the importance of Scripture should subsequently deny its less educated members direct access to that same Scripture, for fear that they might misinterpret it (in other words, reach a different interpretation from that of the magisterial reformers). (Reformation Thought: An Introduction<\/i>, 4th edition, 2012, p. 110)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n 10) We believe that the reading of Sacred Scripture is for all the faithful, that its translation into the language of the people should be encouraged and that it can be freely examined by the faithful, to the detriment of an ecclesiastical monopoly of some institution.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Luther & the Immaculate Conception: More Non-Catholic Historians & Scholars<\/a>\u00a0(9-30-10)\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n Perfection is a prominent doctrine within the\u00a0Methodist tradition, . . . Methodists use the term\u00a0Baptism of the Holy Spirit<\/i> to refer to the second work of grace, entire sanctification.<\/p>\n Other denominations, such as the\u00a0Lutheran Churches\u00a0and\u00a0Reformed Churches, reject the possibility of Christian perfection in this life as contrary to the doctrine of\u00a0salvation\u00a0by\u00a0faith alone, . . .<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n In traditional\u00a0Calvinism\u00a0and\u00a0high church\u00a0Anglicanism, perfection was viewed as a gift bestowed on righteous persons only after their death (see Glorification).\u00a0John Wesley, the founder of\u00a0Methodism, was responsible for reviving the idea of spiritual perfection in\u00a0Protestantism. . . . Wesley transformed Christian perfection as found in church tradition by interpreting it through a Protestant lens that understood sanctification\u00a0in light of\u00a0justification\u00a0by grace\u00a0through faith working by love. . . .<\/p>\n Wesley taught that the manifestation of being entirely sanctified included engagement in\u00a0works of piety\u00a0and\u00a0works of mercy. . . .<\/p>\n Daniel L. Burnett, a professor at\u00a0Wesley Biblical Seminary, writes that:<\/p>\n Views compatible with the Wesleyan understanding of entire sanctification were carried forward in later times by men like the medieval Catholic priest\u00a0Thomas a Kempis<\/a>, . . . the Dutch theologian\u00a0Jacobus Arminius<\/a>, the German Pietist Phillip Jacob Spener, the Quaker founder\u00a0George Fox<\/a>, the Anglican bishop\u00a0Jeremy Taylor<\/a>, and the English devotional writer\u00a0William Law<\/a>. Many of these influences fed into [John] Wesley\u2019s heritage and laid the foundation for the development of his thought.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n John Wesley wrote about the falsity of \u201cfaith alone\u201d:<\/p>\n Beware of s<\/em>olifidianism<\/em>; crying nothing but, \u2018Believe, believe\u2019 and condemning those as ignorant or legal who speak in a more scriptural way. At certain seasons, indeed, it may be right to treat of nothing but repentance, or merely of faith, or altogether of holiness; but, in general, our call is to declare the whole counsel of God, and to prophesy according to the analogy of faith. The written word treats of the whole and every particular branch of righteousness, descending to its minutest branches; as to be sober, courteous, diligent, patient, to honour all men. So, likewise, the Holy Spirit works the same in our hearts, not merely creating desires after holiness in general, but strongly inclining us to every particular grace, leading us to every individual part of \u2018whatsoever is lovely.\u2019 And this with the greatest propriety; for as \u2018by works faith is made perfect\u2019, so the completing or destroying the work of faith, and enjoying the favour, or suffering the displeasure, of God, greatly depends on every single act of obedience or disobedience. (A Plain Account of Christian Perfection<\/em>, 1767; rev. 1777; in W xi<\/em>, 431-432; from Farther Thoughts on Christian Perfection<\/em>, 1762)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 19)\u00a0We believe that salvation is defined based on what we have done in this life only, with no second chances for salvation after death (whether through reincarnation, purgatory or the like).<\/span><\/p>\n There are two silly and absurd things here. Catholics don\u2019t believe in a \u201csecond chance\u201d for salvation after death. One\u2019s eternal destiny is determined at the moment of death, and doesn\u2019t change. Accordingly, all who are in purgatory, in our view, are saved and inevitably on the way to heaven. Secondly, no Christian, as the term has always been defined through history, believes in reincarnation. That said, now we can address purgatory. And yes, some serious Protestants believe in this, too. C. S. Lewis wrote:<\/p>\n Our souls\u00a0demand\u00a0Purgatory, don\u2019t they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, \u201cIt is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy\u201d? Should we not reply, \u201cWith submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I\u2019d rather be cleaned first.\u201d \u201cIt may hurt, you know\u201d \u2014 \u201cEven so, sir.\u201d<\/p>\n I assume that the process of purification will normally involve suffering. Partly from tradition; partly because most real good that has been done me in this life has involved it. . . .<\/p>\n My favourite image on this matter comes from the dentist\u2019s chair. I hope that when the tooth of life is drawn and I am \u201ccoming round,\u201d a voice will say, \u201cRinse your mouth out with this.\u201d\u00a0This\u00a0will be Purgatory. The rinsing may take longer than I can now imagine. The taste of\u00a0this\u00a0may be more fiery and astringent than my present sensibility could endure.\u00a0(Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer<\/em>, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1964, 107-109)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n See more on this and also Lewis\u2019 belief in prayers for the dead<\/a>. The Wikipedia article, \u201cPurgatory\u201d<\/a> states:<\/p>\n Elements of the Anglican,\u00a0Lutheran, and\u00a0Methodist\u00a0traditions hold that for some there is cleansing after death and\u00a0pray for the dead<\/a>, knowing it to be efficacious.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Wesleyan scholar Jerry L. Walls defended the doctrine in his book,\u00a0Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation<\/em> <\/a>(Oxford University Press, 2011).<\/span><\/p>\n 20) We believe that sins can and should be confessed directly to God, who forgives us if we are sincerely repentant, and that we can also confess our sins to one another (especially if we have sinned against them), and not under the obligation of a private confession to a priest or that forgiveness depends on that private confession.<\/span><\/p>\n Some Protestants accept this, too. John Wesley wrote:<\/p>\n Do not they yet know that the only Popish confession is the Confession made by a single person to a priest? \u2014 and this itself is in no wise condemned by our Church; nay, she recommends it in some cases. (A Plain Account of the People Called Methodists<\/em>; in Coll. iv<\/em>, 186 [W (1831) v. 176-190]; 1748)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n C. S. Lewis, the famous Anglican apologist, believed in and practiced formal confession, as I discovered when reading the book, The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Vol. II: Books, Broadcasts, and the War, 1931-1949<\/i><\/a>, edited by Walter Hooper, HarperSanFrancisco, 2004. In a letter to his friend Mary Neylan on 4 January 1941 (\u201cSupplement\u201d section of\u00a0 Volume III from 2007<\/a>), Lewis gave a basic explanation, referring to \u201cConfession and Absolution which our church enjoins on no-one but leaves free to all . . . the confessor is the representative of our Lord and declares His forgiveness\u201d (p. 1540). Writing again to her on 26 April 1941 Lewis stated (p. 481) that practicing confession was \u201ca desire to walk in well established ways which have the approval of Christendom as a whole.\u201d See much more on this<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n