Some points are given below to show the consequences if Protestantism is true -

 If Protestantism is true then -

 1) Individual interpretation of a text called scripture is true. Yet there is no evidence in that text that God wants men to privately interpret a text, nor is there any evidence that private interpretation of a text is the normative means to determine Christian doctrine.

 2) Subjectivism is true, for Protestantism is based upon the subjective judgements of the Reformers and subsequent subjective judgements of later Protestants. Yet subjectivism is false, for truth is always objective.

 3) The gospel of the sacraments is false and the gospel of justification by faith alone is true. Yet there is 1) strong evidence for old testament sacraments, and new testament sacraments, and 2) no evidence in the bible for justification by faith alone, and 3) very little to no evidence for justification by faith alone in church history.

 4) Church history is irrelevant to revealed truth. For the history of the church is Catholic, containing much evidence for Catholic doctrine and practice. Yet the reformers rejected church history, or only selectively embraced church history and invented many novel doctrines, such as 50 Heterodox Beliefs of Luther in 1520. Yet Christ is God and therefore must control church history, contrary to the illogical rejection of the Protestant reformers.

 5) Worship of God is not detailed in the OT nor the NT. For example, there is much detail missing concerning the practices of the Day of Atonement sacrifice and the prayers said at the Passover. Similarly there is little in the NT regarding NT worship of God. Yet the Protestant reformers based their understanding of the Christian faith upon the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Therefore according to the reformers, God has permitted to exclude any detailed instructions for the worship of God in the NT. But at the same time the bible is emphatic that true worship of God is required in the manner detailed only by God, through his covenant community. The inconsistent nature of the OT and NT worship as detailed in the text and the nature of God means the reformers would always be uncertain as how to worship the true God. This lack of certainty means there is always the probability that some reformers were not worshiping God the way He wants to be worshiped, and therefore were committing grave sins of idolatry.

 6) Believers can invent their own doctrines and begin their own denominations apart from the work of Christ. Yet such action only leads to scepticism and indifference to doctrine. Hence the ability to begin one’s own denomination is actually an act against faith, which leads to a secular state. Hence Protestantism leads to unbelief.

 7) The reformers were correct, yet they disagreed with each other on many points of doctrine and practice. Likewise subsequent generations of Protestants also disagree with each other on many points of doctrine and practice. Hence doctrinal difference and practice, which brings chaos, violence and indifference, is the product of the true faith. Such is absurd.

 8) The reformers had no authority apart from apostolic succession. Hence any believer can make up any doctrine without any authority. such only leads to chaos, which is absurd.

 9) The reformers taught justification by faith, yet differed on the content of the faith. Hence the reformers chief doctrine involves a grave uncertainty concerning who has faith, for nobody has the authority to define the content of the faith.

 10) Protestantism has no authority beyond the individual believer, or perhaps the vote of a group of believers. Hence any denomination will tend to have very limited authority, or alternatively tie itself to the national government as we see with Anglicanism. Neither option is from God as there is no evidence for denominationalism, nor a state church in the NT or church history prior to the reformation. Such a problem leads to an inevitable separation between church and state which is seen in the USA, or a false union of state and church in Anglicanism whereby a non ordained lay person in the reigning Monarch has the power to appoint bishops.

 11) Calvinism teaches the church is not to be united to the state. Yet the state notoriously changes its position on morality through a process of inter-generational decay. Hence the church is always subject to a state in moral decay under the influence of a state that is subject to the effects of original sin. Hence a form of Protestantism will always tend towards a discontinuity against the whims of the government, be that a democracy, aristocracy, or a Monarchy. Hence the defect of not joining a denomination to the state infers Calvinist Protestantism is leads to a de facto separation of church and state, which infers the state will inevitably legislate laws that are against the Protestant gospel.

 12) There is no infallible means to determine the extent of the canon of scripture. Hence the canon of scripture is merely a manmade set of books.

 13) There are multiple methods to interpret a text and none of the methods are found within scripture. The conclusions arrived at using the methods are often contrary and sometimes contradict Protestant doctrine. Hence the doctrine of sola scriptura leads to an elitist understanding of Christianity according to the conclusions of bible professors, both for and against Protestant doctrinal history. The elitist Christianity then produces scepticism about the meaning of the biblical text, causing indifferentism within the denomination.

 14) The reformed understanding of faith as an instrumental cause of justification is without merit in the bible, and reason. Hence such reformed doctrines must separate faith and reason, which in turn gives occasion to the rise of an age of sceptical rationalism which rejects faith. Faith is rejected by the rationalists because faith is incorrectly understood by both the rationalists from the Protestant tradition to be made apart, and sometimes against reason.

JM