Evangelical vs Protestant

  • Thread starter Thread starter dcana
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dcana

Guest
For those who are evangelical or “non-denominational” (or both). Why or why not? What would you give as a definition for “Protestant” and why do you consider yourself to be outside of this definition? I noticed one user’s self-described religion as “Evangelical, former Protestant” and that made me curious.

Peace
 
isn’t evangelical kind of like Bible belt really radical protestants. I don’t know, I thought they were the same thing.

well they are, they are all a branch off from the true church

:bowdown:
 
I was a protestant street witnessing Jesus Freak in the early 70’s. I was charismatic and evangelical. To evangelize is to spread the Word. Charismatic means Holy Spirit oriented. I am a Convert now, since 1993. I am still an evangelical charismatic but now I express all of that within the Church. You will notice that many Catholic churches are turning charismatic. You can even look for a list of charismatic masses in your area. And to add to this, I am a Novus Ordo Latin Catholic and I am in training to become a secular Franciscan. This all works together beautifully.
As for the word “protestant” it means “one who protests”. There are currently over 32,000 sects recognized. Just to prove anyone can build their own “cafeteria style pick and choose” religion, I became a protestant minister! Hey, if you are protestant and you follow the beliefs of a human’s opinions like Calvinists, etc, why not just make your own religion? If you don’t feel comfortable with this, think about the keys of the kingdom being given to Peter and whether you agree with it or not, you are ALL members of the One Body, the Bride of Christ, the one holy catholic (universal) and apostolic (descending from the original Apostles) Church! I realized this myself after 35 yrs. It may not be perfect but it’s the Original Church. Pax et bonum, beejenigma
 
Also, it’s probably all got a bit messy over time.

Back at the Reformation, you were a protestant if you were outside the Catholic church. A fundamental part of this split was believing that you were saved through faith alone, which is what evangelical means to a protestant.

Nowadays, if you look at the Church of England, there’s a huge range of beliefs, from liberal to Anglo-Catholic. Therefore, a large number of protestants would not identify themselves as evangelical.
 
Originally and narrowly, the root term evangel means simply to share or spread some word or news with the idea of getting others to share in or accept it. In this sense all or most Christian religions, including the Catholic church, are evangelical, since general Christian belief is that it is appropriate to share the faith with anyone, and that anyone can come to the faith and be welcomed, and that it is a good thing to do this.

This is as opposed to “non-evangelical” religions that make little attempt to spread their beliefs or doctrine, and/or believe they are only appropriate for or applicable to some “select” or “chosen” group.

In modern times the term has come to be used in the US to refer specifically to certain generallly conservative and fundamentalist protestant sects (although there are some not so conservative groups that can be agressively evangelistic), but this use is not universal. In Latin America the term evangelical is broadly used to refer to almost all Protestant religions, even those (e.g. Episcopal, Unitarian, etc.) not usually thought of as such in the US.
 
For me, I simply wanted to seek the truth out and see where it lead me. Therefore, I was open to Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. When, I first began my investigation of the biblical issues, I must admit that I had a preconceived notion that the RCC was the oldest church in existence because of Christ’s establishment of it through Peter. I thought that this was a given - something that all Catholics would just “have” on those in Protestant and Orthodox faiths (I believe Orthodox doesn’t ackowledge Peter’s primacy) .

Unbeknowst to me, (and upon further investigation), I was shocked to discover that not only is the establishment of the RCC through Peter merely debatable - there is an abundance of biblical data to demonstrate just otherwise and highly doubt it altogether! I have heard Karl Kealting, Scot Hahn, and Tim Staples talk about this, and quite frankly, they are quite unconvincing to me - which was a big part in me becoming Protestant. From the petra/petros debate in original Greek to the true ecumenical council in the book of Acts where certainly Peter would have been presiding (had Christ felt the need to actually establish a papacy) but instead we find James in charge. Later on, Paul even rebukes Peter on a matter of faith and morals (which supposedly the pope is deemed “infallible”)

In fact, the very notion of fallible human beings determining that there is supposedly and infallible magesterium is by its very nature subject to err.

Much more more could be said, but I need to have some dinner…
 
I also wanted to address the “40,000” denominations argument that just about all Catholics accuse Protestants of. This is simply an apples to oranges comparison because the Roman Catholic RULE OF FAITH is being compared to the Protestant’s VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS of the Protestant RULE OF FAITH. The Catechism is the standard belief that all in the RCC must adhere to in order be considered Catholic. Yet, a conservative Catholic and and moderate Catholic can (and do) read the very same Catechism and invariably arrive at a completely different understandings of what the rule of faith actually teaches. This happens continuously!

This tactic also is also related to sola Scriptura. When a Protestant evangelical says that the Bible is our RULE OF FAITH, Catholics (especially Scott Hahn who doesn’t just say "protestant’ whithout using the disclaimer “THE ANARCHY OF PROTESTANTISM” first) are quick to point out that the Bible must be insufficient because there are so many interpretations of it. Yet, there are just as many interpretations of the RCC’s Rule of Faith as there are of the Bible.

It is true that Evangelicals (like myself) consider the Bible uniquely inspired by God as His living Word. And it follows that as with any document, it must be interpreted. This would explain that God does not teach the 40,000 denominations, rather He teaches His PEOPLE - and common sense dictates that all will not learn at the same pace or even as much as others. Hence, all the denominations. This is not chaos when we are all united in the essential teachings of the Bible as we are. The disagreement lies with non-essential areas. And, that is fine with me, especially when I first realized that God did not come to save any particular DENOMINATIONS (including the RCC), rather He came to save His PEOPLE, regardless of what denomination they are in.

Not to mention, the word “denomination” needs to be defined before it is carelessly thrown out there. I have always wondered where in the world that the 40,000 figure came from because it sure does not seem like there are that many. And, I have come to find out that this number is based on JURISDICITON rather than on actual DIFFERING BELIEFS AND PRACTICES. Therefore, my study has shown that there are 21 differing Protestant denominations and 16 different Roman Catholic denominations worldwide.

So, I must conclude that “40,000 denomination” argument is nothing more than a poorly thought out line of reasoning that is just as devastating to the Roman Catholic position as the Roman Catholic imagines it to be against Protestantism/Evengelicalism.
 
Like you, I just want to know the truth and love and serve the one true God. God has given us his word in the Bible. I believe 100% in what the Bible says but I am not too proud to admit I don’t always know how to interpret it. I pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance and I know He will never lead me down the wrong path. However, I still do not always understand what I am reading and trying to interpret. It is obvious by the fact that there are so many denominations, that men do not all interpret the word of God the same, even if they pray for guidance. God did institue the church as an authority so that I can rest assured that I am living according to God’s plan and to maintain Christian unity. Without an authority you end up with a very divided body. While there were disagreements and even dislikes among the apostles, the church remained one.It wasn’t until Martin Lurther decided his interpretaions were better that there was no longer one Christian church. Christ prayed for unity and we should all be praying and working toward restoring that unity.
 
The problem for you (assuming that you are Catholic) is that there IS MUCH division in interpreting the Rule of Faith (Catechism) within the RCC. Further, everything we NEED TO KNOW for SALVATION is clearly taught in Scripture. For example, if you are of the persuasion that Christ completely atoned for your sin on the cross and paid in full the sin debt of humanity, then I believe that if you repent and recieve Him as Savior and Lord, your sins are forgiven and your eternal inheritance awaits.

However, if you believe meritorious works are involved in the equasion to get to heaven, then the burden of proof is with you. Remember, James said, “Faith without works is dead”, so I believe that we are saved by the KIND OF FAITH that WILL produce good works…enough that our works will reveal the real saving faith that we have. But, if you believe that we are saved BECAUSE of the good works you do, then you would have something to boast about, wouldn’t you?

I belive unity is great and it is something we should strive for. However, if push comes to shove, TRUTH will prevail:

"Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.” (Luke 12:52-53)

Christ came to DIVIDE in order that we could have TRUTH revealed to us…which is far more important.
 
Thank you for all your responses but I still have not seen what I was looking for. What defines a Protestant and why do many these days call themselves non-denominational, or fundamentalist, or evangelical, but not Protestant? The way I look at it is this. If you are a Christian and you are not Catholic or Orthodox, you are a Protestant. If you reject that Jesus founded the Catholic Church that all must be a member of, if they have been graced by God with this knowledge, to be saved, and that this and only this Church has God-given authority over men, and that we are not saved by faith alone, and that Scripture is not the sole rule of faith, or any one of these three tenets, you IMHO are a Protestant and a child of the Reformation. Did not Luther and Calvin and the gang believe (or not believe, rather) these three things? This is to me the very definition of a Protestant. Why does that moniker seem to have become a negative one, one that people want to distance themselves from?
jbowler said:
Originally and narrowly, the root term evangel means simply to share or spread some word or news with the idea of getting others to share in or accept it. In this sense all or most Christian religions, including the Catholic church, are evangelical, since general Christian belief is that it is appropriate to share the faith with anyone, and that anyone can come to the faith and be welcomed, and that it is a good thing to do this.

In modern times the term has come to be used in the US to refer specifically to certain generallly conservative and fundamentalist protestant sects … but this use is not universal.
Click to expand...
This is the use I’m referring to. As you can see by the poll, which is currently 25 “No” versus 2 “Yes,” this group tends to say they are evangelical but not Protestant. Why?
narrow_path said:
The problem for you (assuming that you are Catholic) is that there IS MUCH division in interpreting the Rule of Faith (Catechism) within the RCC. Further, everything we NEED TO KNOW for SALVATION is clearly taught in Scripture. For example, if you are of the persuasion that Christ completely atoned for your sin on the cross and paid in full the sin debt of humanity, then I believe that if you repent and recieve Him as Savior and Lord, your sins are forgiven and your eternal inheritance awaits.

However, if you believe meritorious works are involved in the equasion to get to heaven, then the burden of proof is with you. Remember, James said, “Faith without works is dead”, so I believe that we are saved by the KIND OF FAITH that WILL produce good works…enough that our works will reveal the real saving faith that we have. But, if you believe that we are saved BECAUSE of the good works you do, then you would have something to boast about, wouldn’t you?

I belive unity is great and it is something we should strive for. However, if push comes to shove, TRUTH will prevail:

"Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.” (Luke 12:52-53)

Christ came to DIVIDE in order that we could have TRUTH revealed to us…which is far more important.
Click to expand...
  1. “There IS MUCH division in interpreting the Rule of Faith (Catechism).”
Nope, there is no such thing as “interpreting the Rule of Faith.” Either you believe in every infallibly-proclaimed dogma of the Church or you are a heretic (at least as far as that goes). For example, Purgatory, Mary’s Immaculate Conception and her Assumption into Heaven, contraception and abortion being always morally evil, divorce not being possible, the efficacy of praying to the Saints, the Papacy, salvation is not by faith alone, the Bible is not the sole rule of faith (Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magesterium), the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, forgiveness of sins by God through a man (namely, a priest) and the other five Sacraments, obviously, all the dogmas concerning God, man, and Christ, etc, etc, etc. I believe there are between 200 and 300 infallible dogmas. If you do not believe all of these exactly as they are you are a heretic, and infallibly so, so to speak.
  1. “Further, everything we NEED TO KNOW for SALVATION is clearly taught in Scripture.”
If it were clear, why are there so many Protestant opinions on Baptism, which now saves us, as I happened to hear at a Maronite liturgy today? Some say (correctly, because the Catechism says so) that it is necessary for salvation and is the door through which we enter the Church, others would say (incorrectly) that it is absolutely not necessary and might even lump it with those evil “works” you are making reference to. Some would say (incorrectly) that it’s fine if you want to be baptised, but it is only symbolic. So which is it? This is fundamental to “what we need to know for salvation.” And don’t get me started on osas. Isn’t it supremely relevant vis-a-vis “what we need to know for salvation,” that is, if it is possible to forfeit one’s salvation through sin? I would say so.

It is really only “clear” in the mind of the interpreter, such that everyone else who does not see the same thing in Scripture is necessarily wrong, is “unbiblical,” and is blind to the “clear” sense of Scripture. “Look, it’s right there in Ephesians 2:8, plain as day!” “Yes, but the Bible also says (fill in blank) at (fill in Scripture citation)!” And on and on it goes, at nauseum.
  1. Unity is not just “great” it is essential. Truth is, the Church was, is, and will always be perfectly united, because the Body of Christ is One and cannot possibly be divided. If some willingly put themselves outside the body, that does not affect the unity of the body in the least. Yes, Protestants are Christians equally as much as Catholics are, but have put themselves, willingly or unwillingly, whether they know it or believe it or not, outside of the unity of the Church. If they are saved it is through the Sacrament of Baptism which Jesus gave to the Catholic Church and by God’s infinite mercy and wisdom.
When Jesus said he came to divide, he was saying that the proclamation of the Gospel would be accepted be some, but not by others - salvation would be accepted by some, but not others. Jesus was saying nothing here about the unity of His Church. As Our Blessed Lord said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” Also, God’s Word is decribed as a “two-edged sword.” Two-edged swords divide - there’s what’s on one side of the blade and there’s what’s on the other side of the blade. :knight2:
 
Protestant refers to those who belong to churches traditionally stemming from the Reformation. For example, the Presbyterian Church, the Lutheran Church, etc.
Evangelical can be considered a sub-division of Protestant, one that emphasizes the great commission, and is generally more conservative theologically, although that is changing.
Most evangelicals would hold to the five solas put forth in contradiction to the teaching of the Roman Catholic church of the time: Sola scriptura, Sola fide, Sola gratia, Solus Christus, and Soli Deo Gloria.
 
ilumus said:
Protestant refers to those who belong to churches traditionally stemming from the Reformation. For example, the Presbyterian Church, the Lutheran Church, etc.
Evangelical can be considered a sub-division of Protestant, one that emphasizes the great commission, and is generally more conservative theologically, although that is changing.
Most evangelicals would hold to the five solas put forth in contradiction to the teaching of the Roman Catholic church of the time: Sola scriptura, Sola fide, Sola gratia, Solus Christus, and Soli Deo Gloria.
Click to expand...
This makes a lot of sense, but someone who belongs to a subdivision of a group is a member of that group.
 
Yes, a subdivision of a group is a member of that group. Precisely my point! Evangelicals who do not consider themselves Protestant may not be fully aware of what they are saying. Just because they say they aren’t Protestant doesn’t mean they aren’t Protestant. That is something that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so it is wholly separate from people’s opinions or feelings.
 
As an Anglican I do not consider myself to be Protestant. Who invented the term Protestant? That person then might have had a definition of that. To my understanding Protestants are Anti-Catholic Christian churches.

I do believe all that stuff about Jesus establishing the Catholic church through Peter, have a high regard for the Pope, believe in purgatory… the list goes on, so basically I don’t protest any doctrine of the RCC
 
ilumus said:
Yes, a subdivision of a group is a member of that group. Precisely my point! Evangelicals who do not consider themselves Protestant may not be fully aware of what they are saying. Just because they say they aren’t Protestant doesn’t mean they aren’t Protestant. That is something that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so it is wholly separate from people’s opinions or feelings.
Click to expand...
Your opinion seems to imply then that we might as well call all Christians Catholic, as they are a subdivision of the Catholic church?
 
Protestants have been denied the chance to read the sola scriptura, thanks to King James and Luther. If you want to read the fully canonized final version of the accepted body of written knowledge which was what was authorized- the final body agreed upon by early Councils who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, read a Jerusalem or St. Joseph’s or any FULL Bible. I had no idea until I dared to look at that dreaded “Apocrypha” that it was actually REMOVED by humans at a much later date by human choice, thereby denying all good protestants from actually reading the real, originally accepted body of work, which was not even finalized until the fourth century. And, by the way, if you believe in sola scriptura, did you know there was no bible when Christ was alive and he never said to believe in it alone? He said to follow his words we had “heard” and the traditions we had been given. Please explain “heard” and “traditions” and where they fit into the partial bible you have been given thanks to human intervention and also where the oral part and the tradition part fit into a body of written only works that are not even what was accepted for a thousand years? Oh, and the Catholic moderates are not Catholic. If they are “cafeteria Catholics” and choose to sway on even one issue from what the Church have been inspired to follow, they are not Catholic. Argue this point with me. You won’t make much of a dent in a fact. Scott Hahn, Jimmy Aiken, and many other fantastically famous protestant theologians became Catholic after deep study of the Early Church Fathers and the history of the only Christian Church that existed for so long. I am one of those theologians and I am proud to be a Convert. Pax et bonum, Beej Matson, secular franciscan in training
 
Beejenigma said:
I was a protestant street witnessing Jesus Freak in the early 70’s. I was charismatic and evangelical. To evangelize is to spread the Word. Charismatic means Holy Spirit oriented. I am a Convert now, since 1993. I am still an evangelical charismatic but now I express all of that within the Church. You will notice that many Catholic churches are turning charismatic. You can even look for a list of charismatic masses in your area. And to add to this, I am a Novus Ordo Latin Catholic and I am in training to become a secular Franciscan. This all works together beautifully.
As for the word “protestant” it means “one who protests”. There are currently over 32,000 sects recognized. Just to prove anyone can build their own “cafeteria style pick and choose” religion, I became a protestant minister! Hey, if you are protestant and you follow the beliefs of a human’s opinions like Calvinists, etc, why not just make your own religion? If you don’t feel comfortable with this, think about the keys of the kingdom being given to Peter and whether you agree with it or not, you are ALL members of the One Body, the Bride of Christ, the one holy catholic (universal) and apostolic (descending from the original Apostles) Church! I realized this myself after 35 yrs. It may not be perfect but it’s the Original Church. Pax et bonum, beejenigma
Click to expand...
Beejenigma,

Thank you for this testimony. Can you tell me what incidents in your life triggered or inspired you to realize that the Catholic Church was the true Church. How did you come to take this leap of faith?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top