"Bad" Protestants

North Forest

Overview

Church History — From before the time of Jesus to the present. 150+ hours of free MP3 files.

The title of this article is borrowed from the phrase "Bad Popes." It is common for Protestants who are critical of Catholicism to list various types of bad behavior by Catholics to discredit the claims of the Catholic Church (link).

If you are anti-Catholic and you don't like the conclusions in this article, then please consider changing your view of Catholics. I am merely analyzing Protestant history in the same way that Protestants who are critical of Catholicism typically analyze Catholic history. But I should mention that this kind of thinking is atrocious and sloppy.

A common argument against Catholicism is that corrupt and unrighteous actions by Catholics prove that the Catholic Church is not the true church. Some examples:

A Catholic priest, friar, bishop, or pope who has less-than perfect (or even atrocious) moral behavior. Examples are having wives, concubines, and illegitimate children; appointing relatives to positions of power; simony; too much concern with materialistic pursuits; political and military involvement; and other immoral behavior.
A Catholic ruler who performs morally unacceptable actions such as persecution, torture, or execution. The causes and culture are considered irrelevant.
A Catholic who is a military person. After all, religious people should not be involved in war.
Catholic Church involvement in politics or war. After all, the church is the mystical, spiritual body of Christ and is not to be involved with things of this world.

The problem is that there are plenty of examples of Protestants who do all these same things. The purpose of this article is to highlight a few of these to demonstrate that this argument is invalid.

Index

Examples of Protestants who were:

Bad "Popes"

Martin Luther

John Calvin

Zwingli

Corrupt Protestant Rulers

Christians Do This?

Catholicism | North Forest Home | Top of page

Introduction

Foxe's "Book of Martyrs" is an example of a writer collecting together examples of horrible crimes committed by the so-called "false" church (Catholics) against the so-called "true" church (Protestants). Foxe is even so bold as to include the Waldenses and Albigensians in his list of "true" believers!

If we use the same criteria used by such critics of Catholicism to prove their conclusions then we would have to conclude that the churches, communities and denominations having their historical roots in the Protestant Reformation are not expressions of Christ's true church either. The purpose of this article is to show what happens when we apply the kind of logic and reasoning used by influential anti-Catholics and direct it against Protestantism. (I am not for a moment suggesting that this kind of reasoning is good reasoning; it is atrocious and sloppy).

In this article I am being purposely biased and am viewing the facts from a one-sided perspective because that is what these critics of Catholicism do. I also don't distinguish between the various roles people might have such as:

Ruler
Religious leader
Warrior / soldier
Lay person
Mob

In order to match the method used by these critics of Catholicism, the only factors I am considering are:

Is the deed obviously immoral?
Is the deed done by a Protestant?
In the case of Protestant leaders, the deeds of their followers or subjects must of course be applied against them (since that is how these critics of Catholocism do it).

These critics of Catholicism have a very simple method of proving that the Catholicism is false — if a Catholic does something bad, then Catholicism is false.

Links:

Holy Men? The Leaders of the Reformation
Martin Luther's Violent, Inflammatory Rhetoric and its Relationship to the German Peasants' Revolt

Catholicism | North Forest Home | Top of page

Martin Luther

Martin Luther was the founder of the Protestant Reformation. We should expect his character to be very saintly but this is not the case (link).

Many Protestants who are critical of Catholicism quickly abandon Luther when they are presented with more information about the man, his writings, and his teachings. But how can such an important founder of such an important movement be so easily discarded? After all, it is claimed that he correctly discerned the true biblical interpretation for the various foundational Protestant doctrines.

Some of his views:

He was anti-Jewish (link). He wrote the letter, "The Jews and Their Lies". In chapter 15 he writes:
- Safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews.
- Set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn.
- Their houses also be razed and destroyed.
- Eject them forever from the country.
He promoted violence against the peasants. He wrote in the pamphlet "Against the Murderous Peasants" (link), "Let all who are able, cut them down, slaughter and stab them, openly or in secret."
He promoted violence against other Christians. He wrote that the "the emperor, kings, and princes" should "attack this plague [the Romanists] of all the earth no longer with words but with the sword" and "wash our hands in their blood." (link)
He was vulgar and obscene (link, link, link)
His views contradicted scripture (link).
He said that it was OK to sin ("Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong").
He was not opposed to polygamy (link)
Some of his views were very Catholic, for example:
- He had a devotion to Mary (link, link).
- He believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist (link).
He claimed himself to be the ultimate authority for interpreting scripture — he thought of himself as a "pope" (link, link)
Luther and other Protestants denounced Copernicus' heliocentric theory (link, link).

In conclusion, if we use the same arguments that these critics of Catholicism use in accessing prominent Catholic leaders, we must conclude that Protestantism is false because the founder's teaching and character are so obviously at odds with sensibilities, and because he had such obviously untrue beliefs.

Catholicism | North Forest Home | Top of page

John Calvin

John Calvin was the most influential leader of the Protestant Reformation. We should expect his character to be very saintly but this is not the case.

Some of his unrighteous actions:

He beheaded James Gruet because he dared to write against him.
Under the so-called benign administration of Calvin, James Gruet was beheaded because he had written some profane verses. The slightest word against Calvin or his absurd doctrine was punished as a crime.

He was sentenced to death for blasphemy and beheaded on July 26, 1547. Durant gives further detail: Half dead, he was tied to a stake, his feet were nailed to it, and his head was cut off. (link)
He believed that heresy was a capital crime (link).
The right of the government to put heretics to death. During Calvin's reign in Geneva, between 1542 and 1546, 58 persons were put to death for heresy.

The brothers Comparet, two humble boatmen, were executed and pieces of their dismembered bodies nailed on the city gates. The Comparet brothers, with Calvin's approval, were tortured.
Michael Servetus was burned at the stake (link).
The fact cannot be dodged that Calvin delivered Servetus to the Inquisition, and then tried either by a lie or a subterfuge to cover his part in the matter. I hope that Servetus will be condemned to death. On October 26, the Council ordered that he be burned alive on the following day. That he desired Servetus' death is clear. Calvin's observations on this appalling death make horrifying reading: He showed the dumb stupidity of a beast. He went on bellowing in the Spanish fashion: Misericordias! Henry Hallam, the Protestant historian, gave the following opinion: Servetus, in fact, was burned not so much for his heresies, as for personal offense he had several years before given to Calvin which seems to have exasperated the great reformer's temper, so as to make him resolve on what he afterwards executed. Thus, in the second period of the Reformation, those ominous symptoms which had appeared in its earliest stage, disunion, virulence, bigotry, intolerance, grew more inveterate and incurable.
He acted as if he was the new "pope" (link).
Calvin was a cruel, murderous, tyrant who considered himself to be the pope of Geneva.
He created a police state in Geneva (link).
His was the first European experiment in the systematic subjugation of an entire populace according to a specific doctrine. Calvinist Geneva, the "Protestant Rome," was a police state. Once a month, everyone in town, old or young, rich or poor, was required to submit to questioning, as to whether they knew their prayers, or why they had missed one of Master Calvin's sermons. Everyone was encouraged to spy on everyone else, children on their parents, workers against each other, servants against their masters.
His teaching is a license for immorality (link).
Calvinism Declares An Elect Person Remains Saved Even If He Plunges into the Very Lowest Abyss of Sin

In conclusion, if we use the same arguments that these critics of Catholicism use in accessing prominent Catholic leaders, we must conclude that Protestantism is false because a founder's actions are so obviously at odds with sensibilities.

Catholicism | North Forest Home | Top of page

Zwingli

If Zwingli were a pope, Protestants who are critical of Catholicism would surely use him as an example of a "bad pope":

He wrote that the massacre of the bishops was necessary for the establishment of the pure Gospel (link).
To compel the Catholic cantons to accept the new doctrines, Zwingli urged civil war and succeeded in persuading Zurich to declare war and march against the Catholic territories (link).
He was a dictator.

In conclusion, if we use the same arguments that these critics of Catholicism use in accessing prominent Catholic leaders, we must conclude that Protestantism is false because a founder's teaching and character are so obviously at odds with sensibilities, and because he had such obviously untrue beliefs.

Catholicism | North Forest Home | Top of page

King James I

This the King James who commission the King James Bible.

Biographical notes:

The first Stuart king.
Became James VI of Scotland in 1567.
Became James I of England in 1603.
A firm Protestant, a Calvinist.
He commissioned the Authorized King James Bible in 1611.

link | link | link | link | link

His dishonorable and unchristian acts (with my comments):

In 1604 he expelled all Catholic priests. (Not a very charitable act).
In 1605 he executed Catholics. Others, including Fawkes, underwent prolonged and brutal torture and were then savagely executed in public. (Foxe would consider an execution such as this as evidence of "bad" religion).
He signed the Negative Confession of 1581. No other Protestant Confession is so fiercely anti-popish. (Guaranteed to create religious conflict, persecution, and abuse of Catholics).
Many Jesuits and other priests had to flee into exile, and some, including the leading English Jesuit Father Garnet, were brutally executed after state show trials.
During his reign, the north of Ireland was settled by English and Scottish Protestants, and many Irish Catholics lost their land. (He allowed Catholics to be victimized).
Some consider him to be homosexual or bisexual.
He enacted even harsher penal laws against Catholics.

In conclusion, using the same arguments as these critics of Catholicism, these acts of a Protestant leader are sufficient to demonstrate that Protestantism is false. We must remember that these critics of Catholicism make no distinction between church leaders and secular rulers who are members of a particular denomination.

Catholicism | North Forest Home | Top of page

Queen Elizabeth

There is not much that needs to be said about the Protestant Queen Elizabeth's publicly-known persecution of Catholics. A couple of examples of Catholic martyrs who she killed:

Catholicism | North Forest Home | Top of page

William of Orange

William of Orange was a Protestant leader who did many unrighteous actions.

He was the leader of a violent movement (link).
Violent explosions of religious fanaticism that shook the Low Countries in August 1566. Calvinist mobs forcibly entered churches, smashing the images and destroying the furnishings.
He organized a political party (link). [Why are religious men involved in politics?]
In 1566 the party of the Gueux was organized with William's connivance.
He was the leader of an unrighteous mercenary mob of corsairs (pirates) (link).
Orange, in his capacity as a sovereign prince, had given letters of marque to a number of vessels under the command of the lord of Dolhain. These vessels were simply corsairs and they were manned by fierce fanatical sectaries, desperadoes inflamed at once by bitter hatred of the papists and by the hope of plunder. These "Beggars of the Sea" (Gueux de mer), as they were called, rapidly increased in number and soon made themselves a terror in the narrow seas by their deeds of reckless daring and cruelty.
He invaded the low countries (link) [Why are Protestants, who should be peace-loving, invading anybody?].
William of Orange wasn't idle either. He invaded the low countries several times with a mercenary army. Due to a lack of money and little public support these invasions were doomed from the start. There rebels were not entirely unsuccessful. The "Watergeuzen" had captured the harbortown of Den Briel. These sailors were a colourful lot of people. The fleet consisted out of noblemen, scientists, merchants, fishermen, craftsmen and riff-raff from every region of the Netherlands as rank and file. William the Silent made use of these seamen as privateers. The fall of Den Briel or Brielle was the first in a row of several cities mainly in Holland and Zeeland. These cities created a government
(De Statenvergadering in Dordrecht 1572) with as its head William of Orange as stadtholder.

General historical notes (link):

He grew up in a cultivated Lutheran environment

In the mind of William, the prince of Orange, the religious issue gradually assumed paramount importance. In a sensational speech in the Council of State, he argued that it was not feasible to enforce religious unity and that it was not right for princes to presume to rule over the consciences of their subjects.

Consequently, the situation became increasingly dangerous. The leadership of the opposition was now taken over by a confederation of lesser nobles and gentlemen, some of them Calvinists, who were more desperate than the magnates and less averse to a violent solution; they and their followers soon came to be called the Gueux (Beggars). The great lords kept aloof, but William and a few others showed sympathy for the movement.

The Duchess did indeed promise a moderation of the antiheretical measures, but it was already too late for minor relaxations to avert trouble. Misery caused by the economic depression contributed to the violent explosions of religious fanaticism that shook the Low Countries in August 1566. Calvinist mobs forcibly entered churches, smashing the images and destroying the furnishings.

Orange seems to have contemplated immediate active resistance but in the end did nothing because the popular hero Lamoral, graf van Egmond, stadholder of Flanders and Artois, would not support him. He allowed the Protestants, now openly rebellious, to hail him as their defender.

Orange was justified in expecting a general rising when he should appear as a liberator. He saw his own fortunes irrevocably bound up with those of the Netherlands, and he no longer hesitated to proceed to military action.

In 1573 he finally joined the Reformed Church (Calvinists).

Orangist propaganda was active, but military operations were mainly confined to the exploits of the Sea Beggars.

His failure to consolidate the newly won unity was primarily due to the excesses of his Calvinist supporters who forcibly introduced popular and intolerant regimes.

History of Protestantism in the Netherlands

Catholicism | North Forest Home | Top of page

Huguenots

The Calvinistic Huguenots in France are typically represented as peace-loving "true" Christians. But they are not so peace-loving after all:

They were a militant group.
They pillaged Catholic houses.
They were involved in active (violent) resistance.
One of their leaders, Huguenot Jean de Mere, assassinated Duc de Guise, which led to the start of civil war.
They provoked a civil war.
They took up arms.
They formed a political party.
They had a military man, Gaspard II de Coligny, as their leader.
They had a political man, Henri de Navarre, as their leader.
Their leader, Henri de Navarre, became heir to the throne.
They threatened revolt.
They formed their own state.

Some of their unrighteous exploits:

From this Historical Timeline:
They take up arms [Why would a denomination need to create an army? What would we think if the Baptists (for example) decided to take up arms? Is this a Christian thing to do?]

They formed a political party [Shouldn't Christians stay out of politics (since that's what the Catholic Church did that was supposedly so horrible)?]

That provoked civil war, in which the leaders of both parties endeavored to exploit the weakness of the crown and get control of the government.

A politician is their leader — Henri de Navarre escapes the French court, reassumes the Protestant faith, and becomes leader of the Huguenots.

Prince de Conde (the other major Huguenot leader) is made governor of Picardy.
From Important Dates in Huguenot History [Note: these are activities which Protestants who are critical of Catholicism would object to if Catholics did them]:
1560 - Huguenots petition the King and threaten revolt if persecution persists.

1562 - Huguenots sign manifesto saying they were forced to take arms.
From Faith in Focus: The Huguenots:
There were also groups among the Huguenots who offered "active resistance," somewhat like an underground counter movement. The Camisards were led by so-called "prophets" or "inspired ones" who claimed Spirit-given revelations to take up arms to attack the enemies.
From The Columbia Encyclopedia:
They became a political force, led by Gaspard II de Coligny.

A Huguenot political party was formed in 1573 to fight for religious and civil liberties.
From Huguenots, An Introduction:
In their struggles for religious freedom, the Huguenots were driven to become a political party and even a "state within the state," headed by some of the greatest French nobles.
From Gaspard II de Coligny, lord de Chatillon:
French soldier and leader of the Huguenots in the French Wars of Religion. He became sole leader of the Huguenots in 1569. [Why does a denomination have a military man as their leader?]
From French Wars of Religion:
The Huguenots started a war — By late June, 1562. order destabilized, and rumors of Protestant victories elsewhere Motivated Huguenots to pillage Catholic houses. The assassination of Catholic Duc de Guise by Huguenot Jean de Mere, in February 1563, led to de Mere being publicly executed. This provoked the Second War.

A militant group — Throughout the 1560's, Huguenots remained militant, seeking converts to gain control of Parisian government.

In conclusion, the Huguenots were guilty of the same kinds of deeds that these critics of Catholicism object to in the historical Catholic Church. Using the same arguments as these critics of Catholicism, these acts of these Protestants are sufficient to demonstrate that Protestantism is false.

Catholicism | North Forest Home | Top of page

Slavery

Certainly slavery is a bad thing. Yet Protestants in America had slaves as the following articles demonstrate:

From Southern Baptists:
Southern Baptists owned slaves.
From Slavery in America:
Southern Baptists and Methodists owned slaves.
Southern Protestants also persecuted Catholics. From Catholics and the Negro:
Most of the South was predominantly Protestant and in some sections, penal laws were in force against Catholics.

In conclusion, using the same arguments as these critics of Catholicism, these acts of Southern Protestants denominations are sufficient to demonstrate that Protestantism is false.

Catholicism | North Forest Home | Top of page

Ireland

Ireland provides a good example of Protestants acting unrighteously:

Violence against innocent school girls:
Protestant terror groups throwing bombs at children are seen as despicable. 220 sectarian attacks and 3 murders.
From Key Dates in Irish History:
1649 - Cromwell in Ireland. Massacres of Wexford and Drogheda. Confiscation of estates of Irish Catholics, many are exiled to barren Connaught.

1695 - Penal Laws enacted against Catholics. Catholics disqualified from government, franchise, judiciary, armed forces and professions. Estates split up. May not carry arms, own expensive horse etc. Soon Catholics own only 7% of Irish land.
From The Irish Republican Army:
Despite these killings, and other violence against Catholics — which Protestant paramilitary groups have claimed.
From When Being Right is Wrong:
Extremist elements have sprung from the Protestant side as well, . . . instigating violent riots against Catholics
From Irish History:
Between 1695 and 1728 a series of Acts of Parliament were passed by a Protestant gentry anxious to consolidate their powers and worried that Louis XIV of France might attempt an invasion of Ireland. Also known as a "popery code," these laws forbade Irish Catholics from practicing their faith or bringing their children up in their own religion, and the vast majority of wealthy Catholics were stripped of their wealth, their positions, their estates and their homes, leaving them as paupers.

In conclusion, the Protestants in Ireland were guilty of the same kinds of deeds that these critics of Catholicism object to in the historical Catholic Church. Using the same arguments as these critics of Catholicism, these acts of these Protestants are sufficient to demonstrate that Protestantism is false.

Catholicism | North Forest Home | Top of page

Genocide?

The Protestant nation, America, practiced genocide against the Native Americans they encountered as they settled the vast continent. I'm almost ashamed to be an American except that I wasn't alive then and I didn't do it.

From Encyclopedia of North American Indians:
The missionization of native peoples in the Americas was the foundation for one of the primary European conquest strategies. Based on the view that immigrant America was the New Israel, overtly helped build the theological foundation for the political doctrine of Manifest Destiny and called for the extermination or removal of Indian communities to make room for white immigrants. The Jackson administration had conceived a plan to move all Indian peoples from their aboriginal territories to a place designated as "Indian Territory," west of the Mississippi River. The Protestant Whipple engineered the U.S. government's theft of the Black Hills from the Sioux people.
From Manifest Destiny:
Manifest Destiny: That it was America's divinely assigned mission to expand westward across the North American continent and to establish democratic and Protestant ideals. The states wanted the Indians removed from their borders.

In conclusion, the Protestants in America were guilty of the same kinds of deeds that these critics of Catholicism object to in the historical Catholic Church. Using the same arguments as these critics of Catholicism, these acts of these Protestants are sufficient to demonstrate that Protestantism is false.

Article originally written July 21, 2004.

Statement of Faith | About the author

Catholicism | North Forest Home | Top of page

John Shepard

email: js17@northforest.org

http://www.northforest.org/CatholicApologetics/BadProtestants.html

Revised: July 16, 2011