# In Defense of the faith and my beliefs as a Protestant.



## dudley

I was asked by a life long Presbyterian why I am opposed to the Roman Catholic service commonly termed ‘The Mass’. He asked because he knows I am an ex roman catholic He said In this ecumenical age, there is little difference between the Roman Catholic Mass and the simple Communion Service as practiced by Protestants.

I said I disagree there is a vast difference. The historic creeds of Protestant Churches underline this difference by referring to the Mass as ‘blasphemous’, ‘idolatry’ and ‘injurious to the work of Christ.’

The reason for these statements is that the Mass is supposed to be a continuation of the sacrifice of Christ. It leads sinners to trust in the priest, the Mass, and the church rather than in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Great High Priest who made the one perfect sacrifice for sins forever (Hebrews 10v12). His is the only sacrifice that can deliver from sin.

Yet I am often castigated and denigrated by some Protestants and of course Catholics when, out of love and loyalty to our Savior, I condemn the RC mass as an abomination and a blasphemy.

Why do you think so many cradle Protestants become so soft on catholic heresies?


----------



## Sviata Nich

Did not Luther side with the Catholics on this issue? I thought it was why he and Zwingli didn't come together.


----------



## dudley

Sviata Nich said:


> Did not Luther side with the Catholics on this issue? I thought it was why he and Zwingli didn't come together.



That is true and the Lutheran service is very much like the mass. One of the reasons I became a Reformed Protestant and a Presbyterian after I left the catholic church. I believe as did Calvin and Zwigli.

Zwingli did not see the need for a “sacramental union” in the Lord’s Supper because of his modified understanding of sacraments.

I completely agree with Zwigli. What Zwingli could not accept was a “real presence” that claimed Christ was present in his physical body with no visible bodily boundaries. Christ becomes present to us when we take communion because of our faith in Him. We assend ourselves to Him in heaven by faith and we do not drag Him down to become a piece of bread to be worshipped in a Goden monstarnce which is a blasphemous form of idolotry and distortion of the true nature of the Lords Supper.

Zwigli said and I again agree with him as a Protestant....

“I have no use for that notion of a real and true body that does not exist physically, definitely and distinctly in some place, and that sort of nonsense got up by word triflers.”

Zwingli’s theology of the Lord’s Supper should not be viewed as an innovation without precedent in church history. Zwingli claimed that his doubts about transubstantiation were shared by many of his day, leading him to claim that priests did not ever believe such a thing, even though “most all have taught this or at least pretended to believe it.”
Had Zwingli’s modified doctrine of the “real presence” been an innovation, it would probably not have been so eagerly accepted by his parishioners. The symbolic view spread rapidly because Zwingli had given voice and legitimacy to an opinion that was already widespread.

In Zurich, the mass was abolished in 1525. The Lord’s Supper was celebrated with a new liturgy that replaced the altar with a table and tablecloth.


I believe in taking communion, we are simply symbolically remembering Christ’s life and death and resurrection in faith as well, and honoring Him the way He asked.

According to Zwingli, the sacraments serve as a public testimony of a previous grace. Therefore, the sacrament is “a sign of a sacred thing, i.e. of a grace that has been given.” For Zwingli, the idea that the sacraments carry any salvific efficacy in themselves is a return to Judaism’s ceremonial washings that lead to the purchase of salvation.
Whereas Luther sought to prune the bad branches off the tree of Roman Catholic sacramentalism,

Zwingli believed the problem to be rooted at least partly in sacramentalism itself. The only way to legitimately resolve Roman excess was to reinterpret the nature of the sacraments. Pruning the tree was not enough; pulling the tree up from its roots was the only action that could actually fix the problems.


----------



## caoclan

1) Ignorance (of Biblical Christianity and Romanism)
2) Ecumenicism
3) Jesuits
4) Deception of Christian leaders

In my opinion


----------



## dudley

caoclan said:


> 1) Ignorance (of Biblical Christianity and Romanism)
> 2) Ecumenicism
> 3) Jesuits
> 4) Deception of Christian leaders
> 
> In my opinion



I think I agree with you Sean.


----------



## Jeffriesw

Dudley, in most cases I would say it is just simple ignorance and/or apathy. 
Not knowing what they believe or why they believe it and to lazy to study it.


Sent from my iPhone
Bill Jeffries


----------



## CharlieJ

But Dudley, the Reformed view of the sacraments is more Lutheran than Zwinglian. We believe the Eucharist is a means of grace and we believe in the real presence of Christ, though it is mediated through his Spirit rather than his true, physical, localized body that resides in heaven. At least, every Calvin scholar I've ever read has said that Calvin is much nearer Luther than Zwingli.


----------



## kodos

*Calvin rejects the bare memorial view.*

Calvin's Institutes, Book IV. Ch. 17. 10-12. Reading Calvin on this matter is most edifying. As others have often said, he helps illuminate complex theological matters!



> 10. The sum is, that the flesh and blood of Christ feed our souls just as bread and wine maintain and support our corporeal life. For there would be no aptitude in the sign, did not our souls find their nourishment in Christ. This could not be, did not Christ truly form one with us, and refresh us by the eating of his flesh, and the drinking of his blood. But though it seems an incredible thing that the flesh of Christ, while at such a distance from us in respect of place, should be food to us, let us remember how far the secret virtue of the Holy Spirit surpasses all our conceptions, and how foolish it is to wish to measure its immensity by our feeble capacity. Therefore, what our mind does not comprehend let faith conceive—viz. that the Spirit truly unites things separated by space. That sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals in the Supper, and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfils what he promises. And truly the thing there signified he exhibits and offers to all who sit down at that spiritual feast, although it is beneficially received by believers only who receive this great benefit with true faith and heartfelt gratitude. For this reason the apostle said, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ”? (1 Cor. 10:16.) There is no ground to object that the expression is figurative, and gives the sign the name of the thing signified. I admit, indeed, that the breaking of bread is a symbol, not the reality. But this being admitted, we duly infer from the exhibition of the symbol that the thing itself is exhibited. For unless we would charge God with deceit, we will never presume to say that he holds forth an empty symbol. Therefore, if by the breaking of bread the Lord truly represents the partaking of his body, there ought to be no doubt whatever that he truly exhibits and performs it. The rule which the pious ought always to observe is, whenever they see the symbols instituted by the Lord, to think and feel surely persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is also present. For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him? If this is true let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given to us.
> 
> 11. I hold then (as has always been received in the Church, and is still taught by those who feel aright), that the sacred mystery of the Supper consists of two things—the corporeal signs, which, presented to the eye, represent invisible things in a manner adapted to our weak capacity, and the spiritual truth, which is at once figured and exhibited by the signs. When attempting familiarly to explain its nature, I am accustomed to set down three things—the thing meant, the matter which depends on it, and the virtue or efficacy consequent upon both. The thing meant consists in the promises which are in a manner included in the sign. By the matter, or substance, I mean Christ, with his death and resurrection. By the effect, I understand redemption, justification, sanctification, eternal life, and all other benefits which Christ bestows upon us. Moreover, though all these things have respect to faith, I leave no room for the cavil, that when I say Christ is conceived by faith, I mean that he is only conceived by the intellect and imagination. He is offered by the promises, not that we may stop short at the sight or mere knowledge of him, but that we may enjoy true communion with him. And, indeed, I see not how any one can expect to have redemption and righteousness in the cross of Christ, and life in his death, without trusting first of all to true communion with Christ himself. Those blessings could not reach us, did not Christ previously make himself ours. I say then, that in the mystery of the Supper, by the symbols of bread and wine, Christ, his body and his blood, are truly exhibited to us, that in them he fulfilled all obedience, in order to procure righteousness for us—first that we might become one body with him; and, secondly, that being made partakers of his substance, we might feel the result of this fact in the participation of all his blessings.


----------



## PreservedKillick

My short answer is failure of churches and Christian parents to teach doctrine. The young people I've seen head towards Rome out of Reformed or other Protestant traditions whose families I knew well generally had the "theology divides" attitude.


----------



## ericfromcowtown

Sviata Nich said:


> Did not Luther side with the Catholics on this issue? I thought it was why he and Zwingli didn't come together.



I know the story of Luther banging his fist on the table and shouting "this is my body!" But, the Lutherans don't believe in transubstantiation, right? They also would not state that communion is a continuation of Christ's sacrifice, right?


----------



## Sviata Nich

ericfromcowtown said:


> I know the story of Luther banging his fist on the table and shouting "this is my body!" But, the Lutherans don't believe in transubstantiation, right? They also would not state that communion is a continuation of Christ's sacrifice, right?



"_Now here stands the Word of Christ: Take, eat; this is My body; Drink ye all of it; this is the new testament in My blood, etc. Here we abide, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken. It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word or regard it without the words, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive...Briefly that is as much as to say: For this reason we go to the Sacrament because there we receive such a treasure by and in which we obtain forgiveness of sins. Why so? Because the words stand here and give us this; for on this account He bids me eat and drink, that it may be my own and may benefit me, as a sure pledge and token, yea, the very same treasure that is appointed for me against my sins, death, and every calamity. On this account it is indeed called a food of souls, which nourishes and strengthens the new man_" - From Luther's Larger Catechism 

I am not endorsing such a belief, and I am not trying to be wishy-washy. I think we should hold to the Biblical view (and teach it), however keep in mind that it is possible for true believers to fall into moral or/and doctrinal error. So I think we ought to challenge the Catholic belief (as well as others), but do so in love and always try to remember how we are united in our love of Christ.


----------



## PreservedKillick

I also have a problem with liberal RC priests knowingly allowing Protestants to participate in the Mass, just on the grounds that they're being inconsistent with their own doctrine and putting that person, in their mind, in great spiritual danger for the sake of being inclusive. This is secondary, of course, to my bigger problem with the individual Protestant participating in a corruption of the Lord's Supper. Correct me if my understanding of RC doctrine is off here--I was a medievalist in college, so anything post-Vatican II is confusing to me .


----------



## Philip

CharlieJ said:


> But Dudley, the Reformed view of the sacraments is more Lutheran than Zwinglian. We believe the Eucharist is a means of grace and we believe in the real presence of Christ, though it is mediated through his Spirit rather than his true, physical, localized body that resides in heaven. At least, every Calvin scholar I've ever read has said that Calvin is much nearer Luther than Zwingli.



Indeed. Actually, it's one of the few places where Calvin is genuinely mystical (as opposed to the very metaphysical and Aristotelian teaching of the RCC). He believed that by the Lord's Supper, the believer is brought into Heaven, as opposed to the Lutheran view where Christ comes to earth. Calvin's reversal of the Lutheran claim reveals his close understanding of the full humanity of Christ, such that if He is present in the sacrament, it is because we have been brought into Heaven, not because Christ has come down to earth.


----------



## jwright82

P. F. Pugh said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Dudley, the Reformed view of the sacraments is more Lutheran than Zwinglian. We believe the Eucharist is a means of grace and we believe in the real presence of Christ, though it is mediated through his Spirit rather than his true, physical, localized body that resides in heaven. At least, every Calvin scholar I've ever read has said that Calvin is much nearer Luther than Zwingli.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Actually, it's one of the few places where Calvin is genuinely mystical (as opposed to the very metaphysical and Aristotelian teaching of the RCC). He believed that by the Lord's Supper, the believer is brought into Heaven, as opposed to the Lutheran view where Christ comes to earth. Calvin's reversal of the Lutheran claim reveals his close understanding of the full humanity of Christ, such that if He is present in the sacrament, it is because we have been brought into Heaven, not because Christ has come down to earth.
Click to expand...


Very nice post Phillip! I can honestly say that that didn't dawn on me before the difference between going to heaven and coming down down to earth. I will say this it seems to me that the catholic church has made good reforms in the moral protests that the reformers had, like preists having mistresses and such. They have come a long way and should be congradulated for that but. Most American Protastants live an enviroment of Pragmatism which regects any sort of esoteric or abstract theoretical disputes. What we need to affirm is that differences in fundamental, not abstract or esoteric beleifs, beleifs makes for a fundamentaly differfent beleif system.


----------



## dudley

jwright82 said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Dudley, the Reformed view of the sacraments is more Lutheran than Zwinglian. We believe the Eucharist is a means of grace and we believe in the real presence of Christ, though it is mediated through his Spirit rather than his true, physical, localized body that resides in heaven. At least, every Calvin scholar I've ever read has said that Calvin is much nearer Luther than Zwingli.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Actually, it's one of the few places where Calvin is genuinely mystical (as opposed to the very metaphysical and Aristotelian teaching of the RCC). He believed that by the Lord's Supper, the believer is brought into Heaven, as opposed to the Lutheran view where Christ comes to earth. Calvin's reversal of the Lutheran claim reveals his close understanding of the full humanity of Christ, such that if He is present in the sacrament, it is because we have been brought into Heaven, not because Christ has come down to earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very nice post Phillip! I can honestly say that that didn't dawn on me before the difference between going to heaven and coming down down to earth. I will say this it seems to me that the catholic church has made good reforms in the moral protests that the reformers had, like preists having mistresses and such. They have come a long way and should be congradulated for that but. Most American Protastants live an enviroment of Pragmatism which regects any sort of esoteric or abstract theoretical disputes. What we need to affirm is that differences in fundamental, not abstract or esoteric beleifs, beleifs makes for a fundamentaly differfent beleif system.
Click to expand...


I will just add that I agree with you completely James. I do not accept the Roman catholic teaching of transubstantiation or the Lutheran teaching of Consubstantiation, both bring Christ down to earth and into a piece of bread wafer. I agree with Zwigli that Christ is not present in the bread and wine, they remain bread and wine, however because of our faith we ascend spiritully to heaven in communion when we receive the Lords Supper. I do hold to and believe the Calvinist Presbyterian teching on the Lords Supper.


----------



## Frosty

dudley said:


> Yet I am often castigated and denigrated by some Protestants and of course Catholics when, out of love and loyalty to our Savior, I condemn the RC mass as an abomination and a blasphemy.






dudley said:


> Why do you think so many cradle Protestants become so soft on catholic heresies?



Because Dudley, don't you see that those Roman Catholics are _sincere in their belief_?!?! Who are you to tell them that what they sincerely believe is wrong?!?! 

On a serious note, thank you for not doing the easy thing and giving some fluff answer. In this day, doctrinal differences do not seem to matter much to most Christians. I learned this when I left my old church a few months ago over doctrinal differences. I pray that other Christians will see the importance of the distinction you made to your friend.


----------



## dudley

PreservedKillick said:


> I also have a problem with liberal RC priests knowingly allowing Protestants to participate in the Mass, just on the grounds that they're being inconsistent with their own doctrine and putting that person, in their mind, in great spiritual danger for the sake of being inclusive. This is secondary, of course, to my bigger problem with the individual Protestant participating in a corruption of the Lord's Supper. Correct me if my understanding of RC doctrine is off here--I was a medievalist in college, so anything post-Vatican II is confusing to me .





You are completely correct Matt and I agree with you when you say “my bigger problem with the individual Protestant participating in a corruption of the Lord's Supper“. The Roman catholic position of the Lords Supper is that through the hands of the rc priest acting "as the Christ" in His place the bread wafer and the wine actually become the physical body and blood of Jesus and that while still appearing to be bread and wine the real substance has been changed into the actual body and blood of Christ. I am an ex Roman catholic and now through the Grace of God I have been converted to the true faith of the apostles and the true Gospel of the Lord which I believe is the Reformed faith; the restoration of the faith after 1500 years of Romanist corruptions. I am a Presbyterian now and I believe in the Protestant memorialization of the supper. When I was a Roman catholic I faithfully attended mass every Sunday and on their so called holy days and even during the week once in a while. However I always had a problem with the notion of transubstantiation, not that I question Christ coming to us in the Eucharist, communion, but I always thought how Christ becomes present was not for any man or group of men to define as was done by men in the Council of Trent , which was a counter move and knee jerk reaction to the Glorious Protestant Reformation. I believe that as finite beings we can ascribe a theory as to how Christ becomes present , but the finite can never completely explain the infinite which is in essence a metaphysical impossibility. I also had a complete repulsion of the of the reservation of the bread wafer in a tabernacle and the worshipping of the bread placed inside a gold monstrance for adoration outside the service of the Lords Supper. I was not only uncomfortable with the practice but was embarrassed by it altogether. To me even before I became a Protestant it seemed to be a form of gross idolatry and a blasphemy of what Christ intended in the Lords Supper. I was happy after Vatican II when the church almost completely abandoned the practice and I was hopeful that the reforms of Vatican II would lead to a more Protestant view of the Lords Supper that would eventually restore unity among Christians in the one sacrament which represents the one and only true and only needed Perfect sacrifice; the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary for the forgiveness of mans sin and salvation for all who place their faith in Him alone for salvation. 

However with the election of Joseph Ratzinger to the papacy ( which I also now believe the papacy is an antichrist institution) this practice and many other distorted and corrupt papaist beliefs and heresies began to resurface and were actually encouraged by the so called pope Benedict. It was at that point I was inspired I believe by the grace of God to leave the Roman catholic church and seek and search for the truth. It was in that search about 5 years ago that I began a transformation of myself into the realm Protestantism and experienced again by the grace of God as did John Calvin and the other protestant reformers “a true Protestant conversion“. I became a Presbyterian because I also admired John Calvin and his theological explanations of the subject as well as that I could completely relate with Calvin on his description of experiencing a ‘True Protestant Conversion” I am now a staunch and avid Calvinist Presbyterian Reformed Protestant. I have openly renounced the Roman catholic church and her pope in the same manner . I have embraced the Westminster standards and I believe that the Protestant memorializing of the Lords Supper is what Christ intended. I concur with Zwigli that it is a memorial only and not a sacrifice again and continuing sacrifice as the Romanists incorrectly teach. I believe as a Protestant that the Romanist position of transubstantiation is a blasphemy and insult to Jesus Christ Himself and the FATHER IN HEAVEN. I believe like Zwigli that the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine but I also believe as Calvin taught that instead of bringing Christ down to earth through the ‘magic’ of the rc priest and placing Him into a bread wafer; which in itself is a contradiction to Chalcedon; we ascend to the Lord Jesus in heaven who is at the right side of His Father in heaven in communion and we receive Him truly by our faith alone in Jesus Christ also which is bestowed upon us by Gods awesome Grace. In so doing we are also giving all Praise to the Father for whom all Glory is really due . This I believe is the correct and true meaning of the Lords Supper as it was given to us and is taught to us through the scripture which as a Protestant I believe is the only and final authority in matters of faith and practice. I totally renounce the authority of the pope and any man who would attempt to place himself above the scripture and equal in a authority to the scripture and the bible.

I also now believe the Roman catholic mass is really an abomination and a further insult to Christ as the Romanists incorrectly believe that the mass is a continuation of the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. It is abominable because it defies the scriptural direction to us ‘It is finished’ we can as men do no more. It has been completed by Christ alone. We are saved not because of what we continue to do but because Christ did it for us; we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone , the wonderful Protestant doctrine of Justification. The Romanist mass as I said is a complete abomination and it is also why I totally renounce Roman Catholicism as did the Protestant Reformers and declare and affirm myself to the world as a Protestant and a Presbyterian. The following I think is a very good little piece that makes fun of the ludicrous teaching of the Romanists on the Lords Supper. I think it also demonstrates why we a s Protestants should not participate in the Romanist Lords Supper, which is a Fable, not the truth!

I now find the celebration of the Lords Supper as a Protestant and as a Presbyterian more meaningful and believe Christ is present also without the injurious teaching to the true nature of the sacrament which Roman Catholicism calls transubstantiation. I now believe that the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine. In the supper Christ becomes present to us because of our faith and our ascending to Jesus and thus the Father in heaven and the Lord who is the giver of the sacrament. The elements which are symbols are not changed into Christ's actual body and blood. 

I hope you enjoy the poem, I now do since I have discovered the biblical essence of what Christ intended by the sacrament. 

An Interesting Tale of the Eucharist

A PRETTY MAID, A PROTESTANT, 
WAS TO A CATHOLIC WED; 
TO LOVE ALL BIBLE TRUTHS AND TALES, 
QUITE EARLY SHE'D BEEN BRED. 

IT SORELY GRIEVED HER HUSBAND'S HEART 
THAT SHE WOULD NOT COMPLY, 
AND JOIN THE MOTHER CHURCH OF ROME 
AND HERETICS DENY. 

SO DAY BY DAY HE FLATTERED HER 
BUT STILL SHE SAW NO GOOD 
WOULD EVER COME FROM BOWING DOWN 
TO IDOLS MADE OF WOOD. 

THE MASS, THE HOST, THE MIRACLES, 
WERE MADE BUT TO DECEIVE; 
AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION, TOO, 
SHE'D NEVER DARE BELIEVE. 

HE WENT TO SEE HIS CLERGYMAN 
AND TOLD HIM HIS SAD TALE 
"MY WIFE IS AN UNBELIEVER, SIR; 
YOU CAN PERHAPS PREVAIL; 

FOR ALL YOUR ROMISH MIRACLES 
MY WIFE HAS STRONG AVERSION. 
TO REALLY WORK A MIRACLE 
MAY LEAD TO HER CONVERSION." 

THE PRIEST WENT WITH THE GENTLEMAN 
HE THOUGHT TO GAIN A PRIZE. 
HE SAID, "I WILL CONVERT HER, SIR, 
AND OPEN BOTH HER EYES." 

"THE PRIEST HAS COME TO DINE WITH US!" 
"HE'S WELCOME," SHE REPLIED. 

AND WHEN, AT LAST, THE MEAL WAS O'ER, 
THE PRIEST AT ONCE BEGAN, 
TO TEACH HIS HOSTESS ALL ABOUT 
THE SINFUL STATE OF MAN. 

THE GREATNESS OF OUR SAVIOUR'S LOVE, 
WHICH CHRISTIANS CAN'T DENY. 
TO GIVE HIMSELF A SACRIFICE 
AND FOR OUR SINS TO DIE. 

"I WILL RETURN TOMORROW, LASS, 
PREPARE SOME BREAD AND WINE; 
THE SACRAMENTAL MIRACLE 
WILL STOP YOUR SOUL'S DECLINE." 

"I'LL BAKE THE BREAD," THE LADY SAID. 
"YOU MAY," HE DID REPLY. 
"AND WHEN YOU'VE SEEN THIS MIRACLE, 
CONVINCED YOU'LL BE, SAY I." 

THE PRIEST DID COME ACCORDINGLY, 
THE BREAD AND WINE DID BLESS. 
THE LADY ASKED, "SIR, IS IT CHANGED?" 
THE PRIEST ANSWERED, "YES, 

IT'S CHANGED FROM COMMON BREAD AND WINE 
TO TRULY FLESH AND BLOOD. 
BEGORRA LASS, THIS POWER OF MINE 
HAS CHANGED IT INTO GOD!" 

SO HAVING BLESSED THE BREAD AND WINE, 
TO EAT THEY DID PREPARE 
THE LADY SAID UNTO THE PRIEST 
"I WARN YOU TO TAKE CARE. 

FOR HALF AN OUNCE OF ARSENIC 
WAS MIXED RIGHT IN THE BATTER, 
BUT SINCE YOU HAVE ITS NATURE CHANGED 
IT CANNOT REALLY MATTER." 

THE PRIEST WAS STRUCK REAL DUMB, 
HE LOOKED AS PALE AS DEATH, 
THE BREAD AND WINE FELL FROM HIS HANDS, 
AND HE DID GASP FOR BREATH. 

"BRING ME MY HORSE!" THE PRIEST CRIED, 
"THIS IS A CURSED HOME!" 
THE LADY REPLIED, "BEGONE; 
TIS YOU WHO SHARES THE CURSE OF ROME!" 

THE HUSBAND, TOO, HE SAT SURPRISED, 
AND NOT A WORD DID SAY. 
AT LENGTH HE SPOKE, "MY DEAR, SAID HE, 
"THE PRIEST HAS RUN AWAY. 

TO GULP SUCH MUMMERY AND TRIPE, 
I'M NOT FOR SURE QUITE ABLE; 
I'LL GO WITH YOU AND WE'LL RENOUNCE 
THIS ROMAN CATHOLIC FABLE." 


I too renounced that same roman catholic fable!!!
I studied the Protestant reformation and I came to believe that the Reformed Protestants are the restoration of the church to its uncorrupted foundations.

I have come to truly believe there is nothing outrageous in believing that all true Christians are justified by faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone and that the Bible is our only source of authority. To challenge these twin pillars of Christian faith is to challenge the heart of the Gospel. Those who set aside these basic Christian tenets are themselves ‘outrageous’ and stand against the Gospel. It is why I am a Protestant today, protestant means we protest the false teaching which are against the Gospel and we Proclaim the truth. I am thankful I am today a Protestant and a Presbyterian. 

In faith alone,
Dudley


----------

