"Christian" hijacked by Protestants?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Archbishop_10-K
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Much of the time, this is the real point of the ‘are you a Christian’ sort of question.

I would only want to point out that it is NOT the Evangelicals who tend to think themselves the ‘only Christians’. They often are rather committed theologically to some denominational stand or another; but Evangelicals have–for twenty or more years–been reminding one another that denominational distinctives are largely build upon peripheral and not ‘core’ theological issues. Evangelicals strive rather mightily to work together where possible–as in ‘Promisekeepers’, in in such quasi-religious organizations as Scouting.

It is typically the sectarian Protestants–fundamentalists–who would tend to want to say that ‘liberal’ Protestant churches such as the Methodists and Episcopalians (fundies are often non-plussed when they meet me and find out that not all Episcopalians are liberals!!!) are de facto not Christians. Usually, along with Roman Catholics and Orthodox, who are presumed to be either open pagans, or garden-variety secularist/‘religionists’. One can readily disarm such folk, when asked how one expects to get to Heaven, by saying ‘through Jesus Christ’. They’ll immediately assume you are one of those brother ‘Evangelical Catholics’ they’ve heard about but never met. I can tell you that most Catholics, when asked such questions, earn an automatic anathema from their own Church by their comments, and clearly display NO sense of a relationship to God:

“Oh I’m not THAT BAD a fellow, y’know; I oughta go to confession once in awhile, I 'spoze, I dunno; and mebbe drink less beer. But I went to church for my aunt’s funeral four years ago . . . .”

Those sorts of answers earn one a lesson in the ‘Four Spiritual Laws’ or a trek down the “Romans Road”, even if we modify the comments above so as to reflect that the person making them were claiming to be Southern Baptist or Assemblies of God.
 
:We are saying that evangelicals think they are the only Christians:

That’s absolutely false. That is actually one of the main reasons why many people in the mid-20th century (like Billy Graham) started calling themselves “evangelicals” instead of “fundamentalists”–because unlike fundamentalists they didn’t think that they were the only Christians. Of course, fundamentalists claim to be evangelicals to. To make it more confusing, some conservative evangelicals who might be regarded as fundamentalists, depending on how you’re defining your terms (people like Eric Svendsen) call themselves “Evangelicals” making a lot out of the capital letter, and define “Evangelical” quite narrowly. However, many other evangelicals would define evangelical much more broadly.

: and evangelicals don’t consider Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. to be Christians.:

Given that there are self-professed evangelicals in all of the above traditions, that evangelicals are a powerful minority within the Episcopal Church, and that they are in fact becoming the dominant faction within the United Methodist Church, this is an incoherent statement. How can evangelical United Methodists consider themselves not to be Christians? You seem to be identifying “evangelical” with either “fundamentalist” or “nondenominational” or both. This is very sloppy and unfair use of language.

In Christ,

Edwin
 
Archbishop 10-K:
Now, when I want to go to a Christian website, or read a Christian book, I need to make sure it has the word “Catholic” in it.
You still have to be careful with the name ‘Catholic’. There is a website called justforcatholics.com which sounds like a Catholic site, but is actually a Protestant website designed to lure Catholics away from the Church. Also there are are groups that use the title Catholic but are not necessarily in communion with Rome, particularly those who are, well…(you know, the ‘S’ word).
 
Guess how we Orthodox feel about you guys hijacking the word “Catholic” 😃 😉
 
I have you blessed “Christian” name and it is safe and sound. If you want it back you will have to provide me with the ransom of……………

A shrubbery!!!
 
Contarini said:
:
: and evangelicals don’t consider Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. to be Christians.:

WHAT???

I think they do! But then again there’s many groups who think any other denom besides theirs, the people are “not saved”. Weird huh?
 
Contarini said:
:
Given that there are self-professed evangelicals in all of the above traditions, that evangelicals are a powerful minority within the Episcopal Church, and that they are in fact becoming the dominant faction within the United Methodist Church, this is an incoherent statement. How can evangelical United Methodists consider themselves not to be Christians? You seem to be identifying “evangelical” with either “fundamentalist” or “nondenominational” or both. This is very sloppy and unfair use of language.

Contarini/Edwin–I apologize if I am using “sloppy and unfair” language. But I protest that evangelical/fundamentalist/non-denominational are pretty hazy terms precisely because so many of the people we are talking about use whatever term suits their purpose to define themselves. For example, calling themselves evangelical and non-denominational but having very fundamentalist beliefs. So it seems that there are not standard definitions for these terms, instead they seem to overlap frequently and be up to whomever is defining the terms. Coming from the hierarchical Catholic faith with exhaustive teachings and a clear Catechism, I view the Protestant Christian world as extremely difficult to categorize and understand.
 
La Chiara,

I’m sorry for being snippy. I know you aren’t trying to be unfair to Protestants, and you’re absolutely right that these terms are used so loosely that confusion is inevitable. I once had an argument with a friend and colleague of mine over whether we (both of us) were or were not evangelicals. She accepted a fairly strict definition, so no longer saw herself as an evangelical. My views didn’t differ a great deal from hers, but I did and do see myself as an evangelical. It gets very subjective.

I do have to say that from where I stand Catholicism does not look as clear-cut as conservative Catholics like those on this board see it to be. But we needn’t argue about that.

Edwin
 
Guess how we Orthodox feel about you guys hijacking the word “Catholic” 😃 😉
Prodo,

Why not blame the founders of Orthodox Church for not maintaining the appelation catholic to their Church from the start of their schism? They could have name your Church as “Catholic Orthodox Church” until now if they have been consistent.

But I think they didn’t dare to do it. Simply because they would not want to be mistakened as belonging to the papists. Eversince, the term *catholic *was always understood by people from all walks of life to a Church associated with the bishop of Rome.

Pio
 
La Chiara:
Contarini/Edwin–I apologize if I am using “sloppy and unfair” language. But I protest that evangelical/fundamentalist/non-denominational are pretty hazy terms precisely because so many of the people we are talking about use whatever term suits their purpose to define themselves. For example, calling themselves evangelical and non-denominational but having very fundamentalist beliefs. So it seems that there are not standard definitions for these terms, instead they seem to overlap frequently and be up to whomever is defining the terms. Coming from the hierarchical Catholic faith with exhaustive teachings and a clear Catechism, I view the Protestant Christian world as extremely difficult to categorize and understand.

FWIW, I always have difficulty in working out what Catholics are criticising when they criticise Protestants - that is what comes of being entirely unfamiliar with the USA (I’ve never been there, even); being from the UK; being familiar with some forms of UK Christianianity, but not others.​

The sort of Protestantism objected to, sounds as if it might be what in the UK we would call “low-Church” or “Free Church” in type - the sort that is not centralised to any great degree; tends to be composed of autonomous or semi-autonomous churches; stresses liturgy much less than extemporary preaching; and, because it does not place very strong emphasis on what the Calvinists call “godly order”, tends to split relatively easily - so, may not be too much bothered about larger questions such as ecclesiology and Christian Unity.

But - if this is more or less accurate - it is still only one way of being Protestant. Protestantism is an immensely adaptable religion - that is both a strength, and a weakness. It’s had to be sufficiently vigorous and adaptable to suit both 16th century Genevans, and 19th-century Methodists going West. Not to mention Black Churches in the Deep South, and 20th-century Ugandan Anglicans. It’s had to be profound enough for theologians, and inspiring enough to make martyrs, from Scotland to Uganda to China

And even from the beginning there were several strands of Protestantism - and many features which they shared in various combinations: Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Calvinism, all valued orderly worship and liturgy, but: Anglicanism & Lutheranism both set the “godly prince” over the Church, to be its nursing father & protector against heresy, treason, and foreign enemies; Calvinism set the prince within the Church, as one of its members, who could be rebuked, &, if need be, deposed for “ungodliness” or “idolatry”. Anglicanism & Lutheranism both valued organic continuity with the past; Calvinism was more modern-minded, and, though Calvin has a very high doctrine of the Church, he did not see the old prohibition against usury as still binding; quite unlike Luther, who hated such things - Luther was inclined to be even more strict than the Roman Church on this. Calvinism is far closer to being a “Scriptura sola” church, at least in principle, than Anglicanism - which relies on reason, Fathers, and Scripture.

These three overlap, are alike, & unalike.

And there is also the Radical Reformation: Anabaptists, Mennonites, and so on. Including groups with a fondness for prophecy. Luther opposed them - so did Queen Elizabeth.
As well as the older pre-Reformation bodies, such as the Waldenses and Moravians.
And each of these has its own character, history, theology, emphases, devotional life, and so on.

Protestantism is complicated, because its origins are; as are the needs it has had to meet, the challenges it has had to face, and so on. Sociology, politics, geography, chronology, have been as important as theology and faith.

Just as with Western Catholicism 🙂
 
40.png
hlgomez:
Why not blame the founders of Orthodox Church for not maintaining the appelation catholic to their Church from the start of their schism? They could have name your Church as “Catholic Orthodox Church” until now if they have been consistent.

But I think they didn’t dare to do it. Simply because they would not want to be mistakened as belonging to the papists. Eversince, the term *catholic *was always understood by people from all walks of life to a Church associated with the bishop of Rome.
Dear Pio,
we are officially known as the Orthodox Catholic Church. We started adding Orthodox in antithesis to the Eastern heresies and not in opposition to the West, and when those heresies died out we would return to refering to ourselves simply as the Catholic church. However, since 1054 the West has fallen into the heresies of jurisdictional supremacy and papal infallibility, so we once again added the “Orthodox” moniker, only this time the heresies haven’t died out (despite already being dealt with by the Canons of the church) and so the Orthodox moniker has stuck since we’ve been using it for so long :cool:

John.
 
John,

I am embarrassed by the lack of civility–let alone courtesy–shown you.

I know far too little about the Orthodox branch of the Church, aaapart from a few snippets from one Fr Meyerdorf [spelling???] on Filioque and I for one look forward to your comments. on the many subjects/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top