Are Anglicans protestants?

[commenter]

Protestantism isn’t an empty term simply because there is spectrum of beliefs under one umbrella. Protestantism means that you adhere to the Christian faith without being part of the Catholic Church. It really isn’t intended to define doctrine any more than that.

That might be true now, but I think Protestantism once provided a common foundation for doctrine. For instance, a Methodist minister would learn Christianity in general, but also learn the specific doctrines of Protestantism, which Methodists shared with other denominations (more with some, less with others). Then he would learn the distinctive beliefs of Methodism, or whatever.

According to my reading of history and individual stories, it was common in small towns to have a single minister handle all Protestant preaching needs, or for a minister of one tradition to switch to another Protestant tradition. There was eventually the development of “Christian colleges”, which were Protestant interfaith institutions, and “Christian (i. e. Protestant) writers and publishers”, all promoting or at least assuming a Christian doctrine specific to Protestants, though leaving some room for different traditions.

In recent years the split between Mainline and Evangelical has complicated things, along with ecumenism with Catholics, so people don’t talk about “Protestant doctrine” anymore. But it once was a common foundation and I think it affected Anglicans somewhat.

 

[ltwin]

The problem is that ‘Protestantism’ has become (or has perhaps always been) a meaningless, empty term which can mean almost anything. To say that a Lutheran and a Zwinglian are both Protestants, for instance, show how empty the term is.

I disagree with this strongly. The word “Protestant” has never been an “empty” term. Protestantism has always meant adherence to a set of core beliefs: the supremacy of Scripture (the Bible as the highest authority by which the church judges doctrine, practice, and Christian life), justification by faith alone, and the priesthood of all believers.

Now, Protestants disagree on a host of issues and even disagree on the precise meaning of core doctrines, such as the exact role that works play in soteriology and sanctification or what exactly encompasses the priesthood of all believers. Nevertheless, these beliefs are there, and they distinguish all Protestants from Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Now, today, there are many liberal Protestants who may disregard one or all of the core Protestant beliefs, but they are being unorthodox and deviating from historic Protestantism.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

I disagree with this strongly. The word “Protestant” has never been an “empty” term. Protestantism has always meant adherence to a set of core beliefs: the supremacy of Scripture (the Bible as the highest authority by which the church judges doctrine, practice, and Christian life), justification by faith alone, and the priesthood of all believers.

I do not believe that dog will hunt.

At best Protestantism meant the use of certain phrases such as “the supremacy of Scripture”, “justification by faith alone”, and “the priesthood of all believers”, but what the various sects, denominations, and so on meant by these differed widely.

A more apt definition would be “folks who rejected the authority of the Holy Father in the 16th century”, which is the only sure thing in common.

.

 

[Novocastrian]

I do not believe that dog will hunt.

At best Protestantism meant the use of certain phrases such as “the supremacy of Scripture”, “justification by faith alone”, and “the priesthood of all believers”, but what the various sects, denominations, and so on meant by these differed widely.

A more apt definition would be “folks who rejected the authority of the Holy Father in the 16th century”, which is the only sure thing in common.

.

Really you’d have to say “folks, and their ecclesiastical descendants, who…” in order to be accurate. But at this point the term is so broad as to become virtually worthless - do you include Mormons? Deists? Secular humanists? And what about the cross-fertilisation between Roman Catholics and non-RCs in the twentieth century? Do we count some of the post-conciliar theologians of the Roman Church, in spite of their union with Rome, as Protestants by descent (if not present-day dissent)?

 

[Peter_J]

The problem is that ‘Protestantism’ has become (or has perhaps always been) a meaningless, empty term which can mean almost anything. To say that a Lutheran and a Zwinglian are both Protestants, for instance, show how empty the term is.

Well then, by the same token would you say that it is meaningless to say that the term “catholic” applies to Catholics (ICWR), Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans?

 

[Peter_J]

“No Hurry?” … “other things to do?”
What could be more important than prompt response to posts on the Internet?

These days, more and more people are drinking the coolaid of “Forum isn’t everything” and “Turn off your computer once in a while” and so on.

Don’t know where it will all end.

 

[Peter_J]

.

 

[Mystophilus]

According to my reading of history and individual stories, it was common in small towns to have a single minister handle all Protestant preaching needs, or for a minister of one tradition to switch to another Protestant tradition.

I presume that you are talking about the USA here, because this is certainly not true of the UK.

 

[Petaro]

Looking more like them every day.

 

[KjetilK]

Protestantism isn’t an empty term simply because there is spectrum of beliefs under one umbrella. Protestantism means that you adhere to the Christian faith without being part of the Catholic Church. It really isn’t intended to define doctrine any more than that.

That depends on how you define Catholic here. If you mean ‘Roman Catholic’ or ‘Churches in communion with Rome,’ then your definition would define the Orthodox as ‘Protestants’?

 

[KjetilK]

Protestantism isn’t an empty term simply because there is spectrum of beliefs under one umbrella. Protestantism means that you adhere to the Christian faith without being part of the Catholic Church. It really isn’t intended to define doctrine any more than that.

And one problem is that many Roman Catholics use ‘Protestant,’ and demand that every one who they define as ‘Protestant’ has to answer for everything done by anyone they define as ‘Protestant.’

 

[KjetilK]

Yes, sadly, Anglicans are Protestants. Arguably, Henry VIII did more for Protestantism than Martin Luther ever dreamed of.

“Sadly”?

Well, you did just quote the post of a Roman Catholic, so why are you surprised? I think it’s sad when people leave my Church.

 

[KjetilK]

Re: Tudors, they been a hobby area for me for around 20 years. Many factoids in there. Many of them related here, over the years.

How would you classify ‘The Tudors’ mini series, in comparison to other such historical shows?

 

[KjetilK]

According to my reading of history and individual stories, it was common in small towns to have a single minister handle all Protestant preaching needs, or for a minister of one tradition to switch to another Protestant tradition. There was eventually the development of “Christian colleges”, which were Protestant interfaith institutions, and “Christian (i. e. Protestant) writers and publishers”, all promoting or at least assuming a Christian doctrine specific to Protestants, though leaving some room for different traditions.

That might be true for some European and American towns, but not for the countries with established Churches, like Norway, Sweden or Denmark.

 

[KjetilK]

Protestantism has always meant adherence to a set of core beliefs: the supremacy of Scripture (the Bible as the highest authority by which the church judges doctrine, practice, and Christian life), justification by faith alone, and the priesthood of all believers.

Well, not quite.

1. For a Lutheran, Scripture is not ‘alone’ the same way a, say, evangelical sees it. In Lutheranism, Tradition - especially the creeds - are binding, and Scripture are read within that Tradition.
2. There are huge differences in how justification is viewed, especially between Lutherans and Calvinists.
3. A Lutheran and an evangelical might both use the term ‘priesthood of all believers,’ but they do not mean the same thing about it. According to Lutheran doctrine, for instance, only a person who is properly called (not by some ‘inner call’) might publicly preach and administer the sacraments.

 

[commenter]

(responding to my post about Protestantism, which I said formerly had a common doctrinal bond).

I presume that you are talking about the USA here, because this is certainly not true of the UK.

You are correct. As a typical American, I have heard there are other countries, but I had always thought those reports were apocryphal.

 

[Contarini]

FYI, be sure to distinquish between the Church of England’s brand of Anglicanism and American Anglicanism. The latter recently had to break away from CoE because we could no longer find grounds for compromise with CoE’s increasingly unscriptural stand.

If by “American Anglicanism” you mean the ACNA, then that’s not true at all. The ACNA didn’t break away from the C of E per se but from the Episcopal Church. In my experience, many members of the ACNA long for recognition by Canterbury, though I’m sure mileage differs on that one (as GKC can testify, the older “Continuing churches” tend to be less enamored of Canterbury). I’m pretty sure the leaders of the ACNA have made a bid to be recognized as the legitimate branch of the Anglican Communion by Canterbury (that is, by the C of E).

But so far such recognition is not forthcoming. That means that institutionally, thus far, the term “American Anglicanism” applies most strictly to the Episcopal Church, not to the “Anglican Church in North America,” if we are going to have a competition and say it only applies to one body. I’m happy to apply it to everyone who claims it, even those obnoxious Continuers

So your statement is erroneous at several levels, though I accept it as a statement of how you personally (and no doubt others in the ACNA and/or AMIA) think and feel about the C of E.

Edwin

 

[phil19034]

Another major identifying mark of what defines a “Protestant” is which Books and Chapters make up the OT.

The Protestants removed books from the OT, which the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East all hold as Inspired.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Another major identifying mark of what defines a “Protestant” is which Books and Chapters make up the OT.

The Protestants removed books from the OT, which the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East all hold as Inspired.

Well in that case the episcopalians and anglicans would not qualify because we use a Bible with the apocrypha or deuterocannonical books.

 

[GKC]

If by “American Anglicanism” you mean the ACNA, then that’s not true at all. The ACNA didn’t break away from the C of E per se but from the Episcopal Church. In my experience, many members of the ACNA long for recognition by Canterbury, though I’m sure mileage differs on that one (as GKC can testify, the older “Continuing churches” tend to be less enamored of Canterbury). I’m pretty sure the leaders of the ACNA have made a bid to be recognized as the legitimate branch of the Anglican Communion by Canterbury (that is, by the C of E).

But so far such recognition is not forthcoming. That means that institutionally, thus far, the term “American Anglicanism” applies most strictly to the Episcopal Church, not to the “Anglican Church in North America,” if we are going to have a competition and say it only applies to one body. I’m happy to apply it to everyone who claims it, even those obnoxious Continuers

So your statement is erroneous at several levels, though I accept it as a statement of how you personally (and no doubt others in the ACNA and/or AMIA) think and feel about the C of E.

Edwin

Yep, as to the ACNA hoping, in due course, either to be recognized as the “true” Anglican rep in the US, if not by the Communion, at least be a significant portion of it (as in the Global South/Africa, SEA). Implications for TEC and for the Communion in there.

Also yep as to the lack of enthusiasm for Canterbury amongst the old line Continuum members. Irony is, back after the St’ Louis meeting in 1978, when the Continuum flickered into life, it hoped to do the same thing. In those innocent days, they thought most of Anglicanism would be supporting them. Nope.

Aside: not all the constituent or affliated bits of the ACNA came directly from TEC, as did the 4 dioceses which form the backbone of the group. Some folk came in from different directions.