The Origins & Authors of the
modern Christian Theologies

Martin Luther the first Protestant (1483-1546)

Please email me with your questions, objections or comments.

Return to Homepage "A Biblical Case for the Catholic Faith: 7 Reasons Christians go to Church and what it means to be a Bible Believing Christian"

What follows are but some of the distinctly Protestant doctrines since the Renaissance Era. History tells us that not one of these ideas is of Apostolic origin for not one of these ideas even preceded the Renaissance Era or the middle ages. To demonstrate this, each Protestant doctrine below has been researched to provide the century it was first created, and by which Protestant or Protestant group. The Holy Bible tells us that:

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." Hebrews 13:8

Christ's Gospel does not change. If one believes that the NT Holy Bible contains the teachings of Christ's Apostles, one has to acknowledge that if the Apostles did not teach a particular doctrine or idea, the idea is not Biblical. To claim a modern idea is "Biblical" is to assert that the Apostles taught it. Yet as the following list demonstrates, all the ideas below were invented in the last 500 years. This list contains additions/changes to Christ's Gospel that were not taught by his Apostles to his infant Church and therefore were not written into the Bible because they we not invented yet. Therefore all of these ideas should be rejected as unapostolic ideas, or traditions of modern man verse Traditions of the Apostles.
(Every idea preceded by an *, (which is every idea except the first 2), was either rejected or unheard of by Protestantism's first Protestants, i.e., even the first Protestants aligned themselves with the Catholic Faith on every issue but the first two.) In essence, the ever evolving Protestant belief systems even reject the teachings of their own Protestant reformers in the 16th century yet somehow still claim the Apostles taught these ideas.

Click on any idea below for an immediate explanation of its origin and author.

1. Sola Scriptura or the "Bible Only" idea

2. Only 66 Inspired Books verse the 73 Books contained in every single Christian Bible before Martin Luther

#3. SOLA FIDE (FAITH ALONE). Contrary to what you pastor has told you, this is a Catholic position

*4. The Once Saved Always Saved idea

*5. Denial of the Eucharist as a Sacrament, denial of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and the idea it is only a "symbol".

*6. Denial of Baptism as a Sacrament, denial of the saving power of Baptism and the idea it is only a "symbol." Prohibiting Baptism to Infants, and administering it Only by immersion.

*7. Denial of the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary (believing she had other children) and denial of her historic Christian title "Mother of God"

*8. Belief in the "Rapture": the seven year Tribulation and the literal thousand year reign of Christ, Dispensationalism or the "Left Behind" idea.

*9. Protestant Pastor's acceptance of civil divorce by a secular state authority, and on that state's authority RE-marrying Christians against what God has previously joined together in Christian marriage.

*10. Denial of the Blessed Trinity

*11. Acceptance of Female Clergy

*12. Acceptance of openly homosexual clergy by mainline and non-denominational Protestant churches.

The Holy Scriptures tells us:
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings." Hebrews 13:8-9

Fellow Christian: Are any of the above ideas "Biblical?" How can they be "Biblical" if the Apostles did not teach them and write them into the NT Bible? The original Protestant reformers didn't teach 16% of these new ideas. What does that tell you? If one thinks about it, an idea or doctrine can only be "Biblical" if it is "Apostolic," i.e. taught by the Apostles to the early Church. This is because they wrote the NT Bible. Just because your pastor tells you his "Statement of Faith" is "Biblical," it's not unless the Apostles taught his ideas and subsequently wrote them into the NT Bible. For the Mormons and the JW's tell us the same thing, that their ideas are "Biblical." But we ultimately reject these theologies because of one reason: The Apostles never taught Mormon or JW theology. One should reject the new ideas of modern Christianity for the same reason one rejects the theology of the JW's, because the Apostles did not teach these ideas and write them into the Holy Bible. To be Biblical, it would have to have been taught by an Apostle to Christ's early Church, not invented in the last few hundred years or decades as the distinctive ideas of your church's "Statement of Faith" reveal.

More logically put:
It is impossible for the Apostles to have written an idea into the NT Bible,,,,,if they never taught it. So if they did not teach it, it's not "Biblical," nor is it "Apostolic," it's just a modern "interpretation" of the Bible taken out of context to suit the readers needs. Therefore all modern interpretations of Christ's Gospel, not taught by the Apostles should be rejected and labeled "unbiblical."

The Holy Scriptures command us to:
“Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.”
1 Thessalonians 5:21-22

Have you tested your pastor's theology for Apostolicity? Have you tested it to see if it was taught by the Apostles? Or if it was invented in the latter half of the second millennium? If the Apostles did not teach these ideas, they are not Biblical. For only the teachings of the Apostles were written into the NT Bible. With that in mind, it might come as a surprise to some, but all distinctly Protestant doctrines are derived via the Protestant Renaissance era doctrine of Sola Scriptura, or the Bible Alone idea which in itself is not even Biblical. For the Bible never makes this claim in any fashion whatsoever. Many Protestants believe that their doctrines were taught by the Apostles to Christ's early Church and are therefore: Biblical.
Yet Philosophy 101 tells us: "If the premise is false, the conclusion is invalid".

E.G., it is a false premise to assume that the ideas of modern Protestantism are what the Apostles taught. This is because your own Protestant reformers did not even teach these ideas, so how could have the Apostles? Therefore the conclusion that these ideas are somehow "Biblical" or what the Apostles taught and wrote into the Bible is invalid. This is simple logic.

So where did these ideas come from? Many Protestants do not know the authors of their distinctive Protestant doctrines. Many never consider the fact that what they currently believe, was first taught only centuries/decades ago, instead of 2 millenniums ago. And since these ideas are products of the Renaissance era at the earliest, it is impossible for the Apostles to have taught them in the Apostolic age.

THE FOLLOWING LIST gives an approximate date and author of the main doctrines professed by modern Protestantism. Through extensive historical research and correspondence with numerous Doctors of Protestant Theology and Protestant Pastors, all efforts have been made to be accurate to the specific doctrine's date of origin and author. If you disagree with the date or the author, research it yourself to see for yourself these historical facts or email me your objection. If you are unsure, ask your pastor for his historical support on why he believes his theology was taught by the Apostles when it wasn't even believed by his own original Protestants. Ask him the 3 Unanswerable Questions for Your Pastor. I have listed the following distinctly Protestant doctrines in chronological order as they appeared in modern Christianity.

Although the Bible never says or implies this idea, most Protestants define the doctrine as declaring that the Bible is the "SOLE infallible rule of faith," whereby the reader's modern personal interpretation of the Bible supersedes that of his church or any other church to include The Church Christ founded in 33AD (See: Matt 16:16-19). For if one disagrees with his church, he simple "church shops" to find another church he does agree with, or starts a new church of his own or stops going to church and "Becomes his church." What Christians have believed since the time of Christ falls second to one's modern personal interpretation of the Bible.

Many believe this idea is of Martin Luther's origin. The fact is, the first we hear of such an idea is from an Englishman named John Wycliffe in the 14th century. Wycliffe professed an idea similar to Sola Scriptura centuries before Luther officially coined the doctrine in the 16th century. Although the idea preceded the Protestant Reformation by centuries, it still is in no way "Apostolic," for its innovation date is the 14th century at the earliest. And if it's not Apostolic or taught by the Apostles, it is logically not Biblical. For how did it get into the Bible if the Apostles did not teach it? Not one Apostolic or post Apostolic Father believed in this idea in any shape or form. Not one person until the Renaissance era believed that "The Bible is the SOLE Rule of Faith" and that Apostolic Tradition is subordinate to each individual's interpretation of the Bible. This idea is not even Biblical. The idea of Sola Scriptura or "Bible Only" is not taught anywhere in Scripture and is not even supported "implicitly" in Scripture.

Click here: Is Sola Scriptura or the Bible Only theory even Biblical? Have you ever checked? Where do the Scriptures teach the "Sola" in Sola Scriptura?

What did the Apostles teach Christ's early Church about Scripture and Tradition?
Click here: The Early Church Fathers teaching Scripture about Apostolic Tradition

Protestants often ask:
"What else is there? What else has Christ's Infallible Authority besides the Holy Scriptures?" Read the verses not underlined in the Protestant Bible."

As you will see, a reoccurring theme after each Protestant doctrine listed here is this: if the particular doctrine was invented during the Renaissance era/post-Renaissance era, how could have it been taught by the Apostles to the early Church and therefore be "Biblical"?

This doctrine is believed by most Protestants to be a non-Catholic position. The fact is, Sola Fide, or Faith Alone and the other SOLA's (SOLA CHRISTUS, & SOLA GRATIA) are actually Apostolic Catholic positions. Only Sola Scriptura is rejected by Apostolic Christianity as not only unbiblical but also unapostolic. Sola Fide or Faith Alone was believed by Christ's Church since Apostolic times.
Faith Alone (Sola Fide): It is a Catholic position. Have you been taught that Catholics must work their way to Heaven? It's not what the Apostles taught nor what the Catholic Faith teaches.

One cannot find a Bible before Martin Luther (16th century) that excludes the 7 Sacred Books he removed from the Canon of Scripture. What does tell us logically? All Christians before Luther's version of the Bible, accepted the 73 books (verse 66 books) as inspired Holy Writ. Luther created the very first Bible in the history of Christianity to exclude 7 of these sacred books. Actually he apportioned them to an "uninspired but good for reading" appendix in his translation. In fact every Protestant Bible carried the 7 books in an appendix until 1826 when the English Bible Society began omitting them from their publications. Soon every other Protestant translation followed suit. It is of note that even William Tyndale, (who was a precursor to the first Protestants), in his English version of the Bible, *included* 73 books as opposed to the 66 held by Protestants today.
One cannot find a Bible that precedes Luther that EXCLUDES the 7 sacred books. What does that tell you? It tells you that every single Bible (and every single Christian) before Luther held these 7 books as inspired.

The following link (from the Protestant website at Calvin College) provides the official declaration at the Council of Carthage in the 4th century when the OT/NT canon was FIRST defined. This same canon remained unchanged for 1000+ years until Luther deemed (by his own authority) 7 OT books "uninspired." (He did so because these 7 sacred books contradicted his new theology). This 24th Canon from the 4th century Council of Carthage was used by all Christians as the only canon of Scripture. It was again reaffirmed in its entirety at the Council of Trent in the 16th century in response to the Protestant Reformation and the deletion of 7 sacred books from the Holy Bible.
The closing of the Christian canon in the 4th century. From Protestant Calvin College website:

This Protestant site above lists Canon 24 of the Council of Carthage in the 4 century that lists the 7 missing books Luther removed from the Bible. All Bibles contained these 7 books until their removal by Luther in the 16 century:

1. Tobias, (Listed in the 4th century as Tobit)
1. Wisdom, listed as one of the 5 Books of Solomon.
2. Sirach (known as Ecclesiasticus) listed as one of the 5 Books of Solomon.
3. Baruch listed as one of the Twelve Books of the Prophets. (Protestant Bibles only have 11 books of the prophets)
4. Tobias, (Listed in the 4th century as Tobit)
5. Judith
6. Maccabees book 1
7. Maccabees book 2

Again, why does every Bible without exception before Martin Luther have 73 inspired books?
By what right and under whose power did Luther removed Scripture from Scripture? Does not the Holy Bible caution:

"I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in the prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book." Rev. 22:18-19

Test this as the Holy Bible commands.
“Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.” 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22

I just want to believe as the Apostles taught Christ's early Church, no matter where it leads me and no matter what it costs me. Do you?

This idea originated with John Calvin a second generational French Protestant. He is the first man in the history of the world to espouse such an idea. Even the first Protestants (Luther and the Lutherans) and the second Protestants (The Church of England) both affirmed the Apostolic Christian position that man has "free will" and can, if he desires, turn his back on God and hence forfeit salvation. Today much of nontraditional Protestantism embraces this new idea invented by Calvin with zero historical support. This idea was not even embraced by Protestantism's original reformers, so how could have the Apostles have taught it to Christ's early Church?
Read your Christian Fathers quoting scripture on Mortal Sin and the ability to lose one's salvation

How could have the Apostles have taught this idea if it was invented by Calvin in the 16th century?

i.e., Denial of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

The first Protestants (Luther and the Lutherans) and the second Protestants (The Church of England) both affirmed the Apostolic position that the Eucharist is a Sacrament and that is really is Jesus Christ. It was John Calvin (in contrast to (John 6:52-54, Mark 14:22-24. Matt. 26:26-28, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Cor. 10:16) who initially taught definitively to his church otherwise. He denied the Eucharist is actually Christ and settled on the Eucharist as being not a mere Symbol, but something "Spiritual". It was the post-reformational Protestants, the ANABAPTISTS who followed the ideas of Huldreich Zwingli who went so far as to deny everything in the Eucharist and claim that it is "merely" a symbol. This is the position of many modern Protestants today. Again, if this idea was first composed by Huldreich Zwingli in the 16th century, how on earth could it have been taught by the Apostles to Christ's early Church?

Read St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch and Student of John the Apostle in 110 A.D.:

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

Click here: The *unanimous* consent of the Fathers on the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. John 6 is literal.

Again the first Protestants (Luther and the Lutherans) and the second Protestants (The Church of England) both affirmed the Apostolic position that Baptism is a Sacrament; a regeneration and a forgiveness of sin. " saves you" (1 Pet. 3:20–21).
It was Calvin who first denied the saving power of Baptism and considered it a mere symbol. Yet Calvin still administered the sacrament to infants.
Contrary to what even Calvin professed, it was the ANABAPTIST'S who later denied the sacrament of Baptism to INFANTS and considered ONLY Baptism by IMMERSION to be valid. This is in contrast with Ezekiel 36:25-26. and this idea is at odds with ALL reformers to include ALL of Apostolic Christianity. Again, another example of Sola Scriptura in action. Sola Scriptura allows any Protestant church to teach anything they desire, for there is no one to stop them. With Sola Scriptura, anyone can believe anything they want about the Gospel of Christ, as long as they call it "Biblical."
Click here: Your Christian Fathers teaching Scripture on Baptismal Grace
Click here: Your Christian Fathers teaching Scripture on Baptizing Babies

How could have the Apostles have taught this idea if it was invented by Calvin in the 16th century?


Although the first Protestants again reaffirmed the Apostolic Christian position that Mary had no other Children, and the 'Brothers' of our Lord were either cousins or children of Joseph from another marriage. It was not until the post-reformational era that these ideas surfaced. Again, as Sola Scriptura allows, modern Protestants reject not only Apostolic Christianity but also the ideas of their own reformers.
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary


From: Lutheran Church Doctrine of Beliefs, LCMS. The first Protestants "never objected to denoting the Virgin Mary as the "Mother of God" (theotokos, "God-bearer"), since she was the mother of Jesus and Jesus was and is indeed God. Since the Son of God was and is sinless, it is evident that some miraculous "exception" was made in the conception of Jesus through Mary that prevented original sin from tainting the Christ-child."
Brief history of the Nestorian Heresy (5th Century):
This heresy about the person of Christ was initiated by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied Mary the title of Theotokos (Greek: "God-bearer" or, less literally, "Mother of God"). Nestorius claimed that she only bore Christ’s human nature in her womb, and proposed the alternative title Christotokos ("Christ-bearer" or "Mother of Christ"). Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Nestorius’s theory would fracture Christ into two separate persons (one human and one divine, joined in a sort of loose unity), only one of whom was in her womb. The Church reacted in 431 with the Council of Ephesus, defining that Mary can be properly referred to as the Mother of God, not in the sense that she is older than God or the source of God, but in the sense that the person she carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate ("in the flesh"). The Protestant reformers concurred.
Click here: For the Great Heresies Of History.

In the 1830s, a Scottish visionary, who belonged to a sect known as the Irvingites, claimed while in a trance that the rapture or gathering to be with Christ would occur before the period of persecution. This position, now known as the "pre-tribulational" view, was embraced by John Nelson Darby, an ex-Anglican priest and one of the early leaders of a Fundamentalist movement which became known as Dispensationalism. Darby's pre-tribulational view of the rapture was then picked up by a man named C. I. Scofield, who taught the view in the footnotes of his Scofield Reference Bible, which was widely distributed in England and America. Many Protestants who read the Scofield Bible uncritically accepted what its footnotes said and adopted the pre-tribulational view, *even though no Christian had heard of it in the previous 1800 years of Church history*.

Eventually, a third position developed, known as the "mid-tribulational" view, which claims that the rapture will occur during the middle of the Tribulation. Finally, a fourth view developed which claims that there will not be a single rapture where all believers are gathered to Christ, but that there will be a series of mini-raptures that occur at different times with respect to the Tribulation. This belief was something completely new in Christianity. No previous Christian, Catholic and Protestant alike, had ever proposed or taught about such an event. Even the Protestant reformers taught the Catholic position of Amillenialism, that Christ will come but once, at the end of the world, just like the Holy Bible tells us.
Click here: Are you Pre, Mid or Post? Read what your own Protestant reformers believed as well as Apostolic Christianity for 2000 years: Amillenialism.

Only within the last 100 years has essentially every Protestant organization condoned civil divorce and REmarried previously join couples before God. What God had put together, the secular state has pulled apart and REmarried with the full cooperation of the Protestant minister.
Click here: Your Christian Fathers on Divorce & Remarriage, Contrary to what your Pastor might have told you, Divorce & REmarriage is NEVER allowed for any reason, and never has been.
Mark 10:9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder. 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter.11And he said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery'" (cf. Luke 16:17-18).

This demonstrates as Sola Scriptura allows, the constant change in the Gospel of Christ, i.e., what was a sin yesterday, is not today.

Another Protestant group: the "Jesus Only" Pentecostals have in the last 100 years denied the Holy Trinity which was believed by Apostolic Christianity and the reformers themselves and the whole of Protestantism until the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses. The "Jesus Only" Pentecostals deny the Trinity as the Renaissance era doctrine of Sola Scripture allows them to. I.e. personal interpretation and rejection of the teachings of the Apostles. In Protestantism one can believe anything they want via Sola Scriptura, for there is no one to stop them, there is no higher authority other than one's own personal interpretation of the Bible. AKA Sola Scriptura or the Bible Only idea.
Click here: Your Apostolic Fathers on the Holy Trinity

Within the last 50 years many Protestant organization have allowed/ordained female clergy. This is a new idea rejected by the Protestant reformers and all of Apostolic Christianity.
Click here: The Fathers on Women and the Priesthood


Click here, orthodox Christianity has always considered homosexual behavior a sin whether. As Sola Scriptura or the "Bible Only" theory dictates, anything can be called Biblical in Protestantism. For historic Christian teachings are not binding on the modern interpretations of Protestant pastors.


My friends, the purpose of this page is to demonstrate that if all of these ideas originated in the Renaissance era and post Renaissance era, it is impossible for them to be taught by the Apostles to Christ's early Church. And following logic, this means none of these ideas are "Biblical," for how did the Apostles write these ideas into the NT Bible if they never heard of them? It is of note that every single new doctrine originated using the idea of Sola Scriptura. That the Bible is the SOLE infallible rule of faith. Scripture never supports this idea much less Apostolic Christianity. Using Sola Scriptura, one can believe anything they want from reading the Bible Only and at the same time dismiss/ignore the Sacred teachings of the Apostles for 2000 years. Even though the Holy Bible tells us:

"Hold fast to the traditions whether they come in oral or written form." 2 Thess 2:15

My friend, I just want to believe as the Apostles taught the early Church, no matter where it leads me and no matter what it costs me. And that is why I reject ideas invented in the second half of the second millennium, because it is impossible for the Apostles to have taught them to Christ's infant Church. If you embrace any of these Renaissanic ideas, ask yourself why? Why do you follow the Traditions of the Renaissance era and post Renaissance era man, instead of the beliefs Christians have always believed, to include the your first Protestants?
Do you want to believe as the Apostles taught the early Church? No matter where it leads you and no matter what it costs you? Is your Faith in Jesus Christ that strong? If so, then logic compels us to reject these modern ideas on the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be true to the teachings of the Apostles to Christ's Church, which Scripture calls:

"The Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth" 1 Tim 3:15.
I want to believe as the Gospel of Christ as taught by his Apostles to his infant Church"

Do you?

God Bless you,


The Catholic Faith comprises the verses not underlined in your personal Bible nor taught in
Modern Christian seminaries or churches.

Read the Bible verses not underlined in your Bible.

“Test everything. Hold on to the good.” 1 Thessalonians 5:21

Suggested reading:

Intro to the Catholic Faith for Evangelicals

Catholic Answers: "Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth" A compendium of basic Catholic beliefs and the Biblicism behind these beliefs.

FAQ about the Catholic Faith from Columbia University


50 Practices and Doctrines not found in the Holy Bible.

2. JUST THE TRUTH: 2 Dozen Logic and Historical Facts Refuting the Apostolicity and Biblicism of the Modern Christian Belief Systems "Test Everything." 1 Thess 5:21

3. An Exercise in Logic, Two Logic Proofs from History 101 demonstrating how the modern Christian theologies did not even exist in the first millennium, making it impossible for Christ and His Apostles to have taught to His early Church.

4. The Promises of Jesus Christ to His Holy Church (as recorded in Holy Writ)

5. Three uneasy questions for your pastor concerning his personal theology.

6. Seven Reasons Christians Go To Church, Which One Is Yours?

7. "The 7 Stages of Christian Spiritual Development" What stage are you?

8. The Historical Origins & Authors of the Modern Christian Theologies.

9. Is Sola Scriptura or the "Bible Only" idea even Biblical? Where does the Bible teach the "SOLA" or the "ONLY" in Sola Scriptura?

10. Modern Christians often ask: "WHAT ELSE IS THERE? What else has Christ's infallible authority besides the Holy Bible?" Featuring the verses not underlined in most Bibles nor taught in modern Christian seminaries or churches.

11. FAITH ALONE (SOLA FIDE): It is a Catholic Position. Have you been taught that Catholics "work their way to Heaven?"

12. "Who is the Bride of Christ?" What does the Holy Bible say?

13. Did the BEREANS "Search the Scriptures" and therefore follow the BIBLE ONLY idea?
Or did the THESSALONIANS, who also "Searched the Scriptures?

14. The 3rd Unanswered Challenge for the Non-Catholic Theologies:
Is the Catholic Faith Apostolic? Name just one Catholic doctrine that isn't. Name one doctrine the early Church believed,,,, that the Catholic Faith today *no longer does*. Why can't the modern Christian theologies make the same bold claim?

15. Biblically, did the "Official Teachings or Doctrines of the Catholic Faith" become corrupt or Apostate as your Pastor might teach? Are there verses in the Holy Scriptures that forbid the "Gates of Hell" from overcoming His Church? What does the Holy Bible really say about: "The Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth" 1 Tim :15?

16. Is Praying to Saints Biblical? Is the "HAIL MARY" Prayer Biblical? Read the verses not underlined in your pastors Bible nor taught in his church.

17. How Modern Christian are compelled to use and embrace an unbiblical and anti-biblical definition and concept of a Christian Church.

Return to Homepage "A Biblical Case for the Catholic Faith"

Email: :