Generalizations of Protestants

[robwar]

“Other” Christians are defined as:

Protestants are defined as those churches originating during the Protestant Reformation, including Anglicanism as well as churches that originated later, such as the Methodists. Pew notes that these churches tend to include “belief in grace through faith alone (known as sola fide or ‘by faith alone’), belief in the Bible as the ultimate authority in matters of faith and order (known as sola scriptura or ‘by scripture alone’) and belief in the priesthood of all believers.”

Another group that Pew defines as Protestant is what Pew calls “Independent Christians.” These are Christians defined as having “developed ecclesial structures, beliefs and practices that are claimed to be independent of historic, organized Christianity.” These include:

See pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-traditions/#defining

thank itwin, I always appreciate your posts, insight and information. The definition of Protestantism as defined by Pew is what I am trying to talk about on this thread. The other “christian” such as Mormons, JW, Chrisitan science as well as I think Seven day Adventis and Universal Unitarians are not what I am trying to discuss here. Groups that would call themselves Protestants would trace their roots back to the reformation even if now they do not even resemble the first Protestants. Now we can quibble over the number of 20K to 40 K. but I do think the main point is that there are definately alot of Protestant groups and even with a basis of authority of the Bible, trinitarian view of God, and the other things you listed, there is no central single good way of trying to answer all of them in terms of apologetics by Catholics or even an understanding by lay Catholics. If someone falls in the mainstream denominational Protestant is bothered by the fact that a majority of Catholic apologists usually are answering either evangelicals or fundamentalists is probably because those are the groups that are more out in the public square, have more anti-Catholic teachings and are in control of Christian media. More liberal Protestants simply are not out in the public square of things, the silent 40%. Likewise, more liberal Protestants are probably going to be more accepting of same sex marriage, unlimited divorce, abortion, disbelief in biblical miracles, women ordination etc and so on. Those things are clearly not taught and promoted by the Catholic church.

 

[Faithdancer]

I do not believe the only faithful followers of Jesus Christ are those who claim fellowship in the Body of Christ.

 

[Faithdancer]

As for denominations claiming to be the Catholic Church, there are many. The Roman Catholic Church, the Sedevacantists, the SSPX, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East etc. All claim to be the Catholic Church.

Very true. And, even if there are 40,000 Protestant denominations, so what? What does that number prove?

 

[Faithdancer]

But of course Catholics don’t claim to be the only Christians in existence. Those that do are sinning. Catholics call Protestants ‘separated brethren’. It is the triumphalism that some have that disturbs me. :sad_yes:
I am a cowboy in Texas, but I go to a regular church for cultural reasons. Listening to country western and wearing a hat in church just bothers me for some reason. I drive past a cowboy church on the way to my church in a much bigger town.

Men should take their hats off in church, I completely agree. As far as what kind of music moves people in a church service, I don’t feel that I can judge that. Latin? Gospel? Christian rock? A cappella? Country Christian? Personally, I can appreciate it all but then, I’m a music lover…and a Christ lover. So as long as Christ is central to the music, I’m down with that.

 

[ltwin]

If someone falls in the mainstream denominational Protestant is bothered by the fact that a majority of Catholic apologists usually are answering either evangelicals or fundamentalists is probably because those are the groups that are more out in the public square, have more anti-Catholic teachings and are in control of Christian media.

I agree that evangelical/fundamentalist Christians have done a much better job at utilizing the media than historic Protestant churches have. I doubt that liberal Protestants are less “out in the public square” than evangelicals/fundamentalists. If they aren’t very visible, its because they usually mingle with progressive activists who aren’t very religious and their own non-dogmatic inclinations encourage them to downplay religious labels for the sake of “unity.”

I think there is more going on. The way I see Protestantism is that it can be easily divided between liberals (or “modernists”) and conservatives. Liberal Protestants have been very successful at embedding themselves within the institutions of the historic mainline churches in the USA, Canada, Europe, and Australia (essentially the “West”).

Conservative Protestants are themselves divided into two orientations. Lets call the first orientation “Confessional Orthodoxy.” This refers to those Protestants who want their churches to maintain the beliefs and practices outlined in the various Protestant confessions of the 16th century (such as the original Book(s) of Common Prayer or the Westminster Confession or the Lutheran Confessions) or, for later churches like the Methodists, want their church to maintain the teachings and spirituality of their founders, in Methodism’s case John Wesley.

The second orientation is Evangelicalism, which is the heir to that trans-Atlantic revival movement that transformed English speaking Protestantism in the 18th and 19th centuries. The two orientations aren’t mutually exclusive. For example, its possible to be both a confessional and evangelical Presbyterian or Methodist.

My point is that most Protestants around the world are either confessional or evangelical in their orientation. Many are a mix of both. It’s really only in Western countries, where liberal Protestants often lead very old, respected, and wealthy institutions, that liberals get a lot of attention.

So, maybe the problem is not that Catholic apologists appear to ignore liberal Protestants, but that they appear to ignore “confessional” Protestants.

 

[marywarfield]

thank itwin, I always appreciate your posts, insight and information. The definition of Protestantism as defined by Pew is what I am trying to talk about on this thread. The other “christian” such as Mormons, JW, Chrisitan science as well as I think Seven day Adventis and Universal Unitarians are not what I am trying to discuss here. Groups that would call themselves Protestants would trace their roots back to the reformation even if now they do not even resemble the first Protestants. Now we can quibble over the number of 20K to 40 K. but I do think the main point is that there are definately alot of Protestant groups and even with a basis of authority of the Bible, trinitarian view of God, and the other things you listed, there is no central single good way of trying to answer all of them in terms of apologetics by Catholics or even an understanding by lay Catholics. If someone falls in the mainstream denominational Protestant is bothered by the fact that a majority of Catholic apologists usually are answering either evangelicals or fundamentalists is probably because those are the groups that are more out in the public square, have more anti-Catholic teachings and are in control of Christian media. More liberal Protestants simply are not out in the public square of things, the silent 40%. Likewise, more liberal Protestants are probably going to be more accepting of same sex marriage, unlimited divorce, abortion, disbelief in biblical miracles, women ordination etc and so on. Those things are clearly not taught and promoted by the Catholic church.

But for purposes of this discussion are evangelicals
and fundamentalists falling in mainstream Protestant
or other?

 

[robwar]

I agree that evangelical/fundamentalist Christians have done a much better job at utilizing the media than historic Protestant churches have. I doubt that liberal Protestants are less “out in the public square” than evangelicals/fundamentalists. If they aren’t very visible, its because they usually mingle with progressive activists who aren’t very religious and their own non-dogmatic inclinations encourage them to downplay religious labels for the sake of “unity.”

I think there is more going on. The way I see Protestantism is that it can be easily divided between liberals (or “modernists”) and conservatives. Liberal Protestants have been very successful at embedding themselves within the institutions of the historic mainline churches in the USA, Canada, Europe, and Australia (essentially the “West”).

Conservative Protestants are themselves divided into two orientations. Lets call the first orientation “Confessional Orthodoxy.” This refers to those Protestants who want their churches to maintain the beliefs and practices outlined in the various Protestant confessions of the 16th century (such as the original Book(s) of Common Prayer or the Westminster Confession or the Lutheran Confessions) or, for later churches like the Methodists, want their church to maintain the teachings and spirituality of their founders, in Methodism’s case John Wesley.

The second orientation is Evangelicalism, which is the heir to that trans-Atlantic revival movement that transformed English speaking Protestantism in the 18th and 19th centuries. The two orientations aren’t mutually exclusive. For example, its possible to be both a confessional and evangelical Presbyterian or Methodist.

My point is that most Protestants around the world are either confessional or evangelical in their orientation. Many are a mix of both. It’s really only in Western countries, where liberal Protestants often lead very old, respected, and wealthy institutions, that liberals get a lot of attention.

So, maybe the problem is not that Catholic apologists appear to ignore liberal Protestants, but that they appear to ignore “confessional” Protestants.

you again have keen insite into this. If Catholic apologists tend to ignore confessional Protestants, then it is interesting if you regularly watch Marcus Grodi’s ETWN show, The Coming Home network. Many of the converts he interviews are very much often from either Anglican or Lutheran traditions which generally would fall into the confessional designation as you define it. Often what drives them to leave their previous churches is the issues with that denomination becoming too liberal in a number of areas such as abortion, homosexuality, etc and so. The desire for Orthodoxy in the face of their particular group abandoning traditional historic Christianity is what lead many of these confessional Protestants to the Catholic church.

 

[ltwin]

But for purposes of this discussion are evangelicals
and fundamentalists falling in mainstream Protestant
or other?

It would be mainstream Protestantism. Evangelicalism is (as simple as I can define it) a form of Protestant revivalism. Evangelicalism wanted to revive the historic confessional Protestantism of the seventeen and eighteen hundreds.

For example, John Wesley is an Anglican priest who sees the Anglican Church of his day as dead and worldly. He starts a revival movement that becomes Methodism. Later on, many Methodists complain that the Methodist Church has become dead, lifeless, and worldly. So, many Methodists leave the Methodist Church to join the Church of the Nazarene and countless other “Holiness churches.”

They are still Protestant churches. They are just reacting to what they perceive to be a coldness inherent within confessional Protestantism.

 

[ltwin]

you again have keen insite into this. If Catholic apologists tend to ignore confessional Protestants, then it is interesting if you regularly watch Marcus Grodi’s ETWN show, The Coming Home network. Many of the converts he interviews are very much often from either Anglican or Lutheran traditions which generally would fall into the confessional designation as you define it. Often what drives them to leave their previous churches is the issues with that denomination becoming too liberal in a number of areas such as abortion, homosexuality, etc and so. The desire for Orthodoxy in the face of their particular group abandoning traditional historic Christianity is what lead many of these confessional Protestants to the Catholic church.

Well, perception is not always reality. I can’t really say that if professional (?) Catholic apologists ignore confessional Protestants. I am evangelical and from a pretty non-confessional tradition, so I really only pay attention to Catholic apologetics when they concern Evangelicalism.

However, I can say that often “amateur” Catholic apologetics don’t really seem to have a good understanding of the confessional/evangelical divide.

 

[robwar]

But for purposes of this discussion are evangelicals
and fundamentalists falling in mainstream Protestant
or other?

I think all of this can get very confusing because there is a lot of Protestants that are a mixture of many of these things. What I mean by main stream or main line Protestants are those that ususlly belong to one of the main historic denominations such as Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbytarian etc. and they likewise hold a certain view that the Bible may contain errors or myths and while it is considered inspired, it isn’t without error. I think that is the complaint of the poster that inspired this thread. He felt Catholic apologists usually ignored that side of Protestantism. Evangelicalism started in the 1700’s with the revival or great awakening. Again, it gets confusing because evangelicalism likewise isn’t a denomination but those that consider themselves that are found in the historic reformation denominations as well as independent non-denominational churches, baptist churches etc. They hold a more conservative view of the authority of the Bible, personal relationship with God, born again John 3:16 type experience etc. Fundamentalism is a much more extreme form of evangelicalism. They are much more a strict literalism of the Bible. They also follow what is called dispensationalism. I think you are on the thread of of Karl Keatings book which I would highly recommend because that is geared towards fundamentalists who usually are the biggest critics in Protestantism of the Catholic church. Most of them are either found in Baptist type churches or independent fundamentalist churches.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

So, maybe the problem is not that Catholic apologists appear to ignore liberal Protestants, but that they appear to ignore “confessional” Protestants.

In all fairness to the Catholic apologist’s. The big picture that is seen in both confessional Protestants and non-Catholic Evangelicals is that both camps are in commonality of protesting their views against the Catholic Church. This protest or anti-Catholic sentiments can be seen and heard from each camps pulpits and their writings.

The Catholic apologist when addressing one camp in Protestantism or Evangelical circles, in reality; is addressing all and any one who hears them, what the Catholic Church really teaches, so that those of no fault of their own can truly hear what the Catholic Church believes. From a practicing Catholic.

Whether the platform from which the Catholic apologists speaks from is Anglican or non-denominational. The Truth of Catholicism does not change in either camp in order to hear what the Catholic Church teaches and believes.

The Catholic apologists, IMHO, does not fear from which platform he/she shares their Catholic faith, so long as the Message of Jesus Christ be told, at the same time correcting any false errors of the Catholic Church that is viewed from each non-Catholic platform, when being addressed distinctly.

In other words, the Catholic apologist’s is not bias to only one side of any Protestant confession or non-Catholic profession. The Catholic apologist’s message is always the same to give a witness for his/her hope in Jesus Christ, and clear up or correct any misgiving views of the Catholic faith.

If Catholic apologists are guilty of generalizing Protestant confessions and Evangelical independent professions, no matter how diverse this subject is viewed upon.

The reality is that both camps share a commonality, they protest the Catholic Church. When the Catholic apologist addresses one misconception of Catholicism, the apologist is addressing all of Protestantism and non-Catholic Evangelicals.

Peace be with you

 

[KP3243]

Very true. And, even if there are 40,000 Protestant denominations, so what? What does that number prove?

The number proves that God set up one church not thousands of them. We simply cannot be so split on thing as important as the Eucharist which if Catholics are right then all of our faces should really be on the floor or things like the Papacy. Does it or does it not make sense that God would set up a system that as time goes on His people would always know with clarity and certainty what they were called to do especially if it was unpopular. In the 1960s Pope Paul VI went against popularity and a synod of bishops who recommended that the Church permit spouses to use artificial contraception. He wrote Humane Vitae and everything he claimed would be a result of contraception has come true – to the point the Church isn’t sure he wasn’t a prophet. Most mainstream American Protestant Churches the contraception issue is long past not all but most do not hold the same view as the Catholic Church on this. A lot of Protestants changed their tune when abortion became so common and they realized if life begins at conception what on earth are we doing with the pill? You can make even the most ardent feminist quiet if you explain what Humane Vitae says you will get her when you say you might not agree with all of it but you can see the logic behind it and that it does make sense when you realize who and what the Church is trying to protect. They cannot deny the negative results that Paul VI predicted - they have all happened.

 

[KP3243]

Well, perception is not always reality. I can’t really say that if professional (?) Catholic apologists ignore confessional Protestants. I am evangelical and from a pretty non-confessional tradition, so I really only pay attention to Catholic apologetics when they concern Evangelicalism.

However, I can say that often “amateur” Catholic apologetics don’t really seem to have a good understanding of the confessional/evangelical divide.

I don’t know what either of these mean, I also don’t know why it has to be so confusing with so many labels.

 

[KP3243]

I will say if groups like the Westboro Baptist church is included as a denomination then I would concur that most if not all Baptists want nothing to do with this group and find it offensive to be lumped in with this church. Even as a Catholic their outrageous and hurtful view of Christianity has been used by the mainstream media as somehow representing all Christians and they have done this with great success using fringe groups like this to help their agenda along.

 

[ltwin]

I don’t know what either of these mean,

You mean confessional Protestants verses evangelical Protestants? Confessional Protestantism is Protestantism that places greater emphasis on the historical confessions of the various Protestant denominations. In other words, classical Lutheranism, classical Presbyterianism, and classical Anglicanism (of the more Protestant kind as opposed to a more pronounced Anglo-Catholicism).

Evangelicalism, however, speaks to a quintessentially Anglo-American styled Protestantism. This is itself not a denomination but a religious style or mentality that crosses denominational lines. Today, the most recognized evangelical in America would be Billy Graham. In the words of George Marsden:

“Evangelical” (from the Greek for “gospel”) eventually became the common British and American name for the revival movements that swept back and forth across the English-speaking world and elsewhere during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Central to the evangelical gospel was the proclamation of Christ’s saving work through his death on the cross and the necessity of personally trusting him for eternal salvation. In America, the way for the revivals had been prepared in part by the strong Puritan heritage of New England. Nevertheless, the revivalists’ emphases on simple biblical preaching in a fervent style that would elicit dramatic conversion experiences set the standards for much of American Protestantism. Since Protestantism was by far the dominant religion in the United States until the mid-nineteenth century, evangelicalism shaped the most characteristic style of American religion.

(*Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism *, p. 2)

I also don’t know why it has to be so confusing with so many labels.

Well, the truth is it is confusing. Religion, like other types of culture, is complex.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Very true. And, even if there are 40,000 Protestant denominations, so what? What does that number prove?

Motley.

 

[KP3243]

You mean confessional Protestants verses evangelical Protestants? Confessional Protestantism is Protestantism that places greater emphasis on the historical confessions of the various Protestant denominations. In other words, classical Lutheranism, classical Presbyterianism, and classical Anglicanism (of the more Protestant kind as opposed to a more pronounced Anglo-Catholicism).

Evangelicalism, however, speaks to a quintessentially Anglo-American styled Protestantism. This is itself not a denomination but a religious style or mentality that crosses denominational lines. Today, the most recognized evangelical in America would be Billy Graham. In the words of George Marsden:

(*Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism *, p. 2)

Well, the truth is it is confusing. Religion, like other types of culture, is complex.

Faith in Christ should be confusing or complex, in fact Jesus couldn’t have made it easier for us.

 

[KP3243]

It would be mainstream Protestantism. Evangelicalism is (as simple as I can define it) a form of Protestant revivalism. Evangelicalism wanted to revive the historic confessional Protestantism of the seventeen and eighteen hundreds.

.

If you are going to make that claim don’t you think Jesus Himself would have had to come back and reestablish a new Church? There are such VAST differences. How could anyone come up with Eucharist only being symbolic? Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper NO human has the right to change that only Jesus does. Even the Romans knew what we were doing at mass as early as the end first century, they didn’t understand how it was happening and probably didn’t believe it was happening but they knew what was going on and who is was established by.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Gabriel,
Just a couple of comments.

=Gabriel of 12;11881166]In all fairness to the Catholic apologist’s. The big picture that is seen in both confessional Protestants and non-Catholic Evangelicals is that both camps are in commonality of protesting their views against the Catholic Church. This protest or anti-Catholic sentiments can be seen and heard from each camps pulpits and their writings.

From a Lutheran perspective, there is probably as much Lutheran writings “protesting” the Reformed and other non-Lutheran protestants as there is protests against Catholics. That said, I think it is self-defeating to base one’s beliefs on what they oppose, instead of what they believe. From the pulpit, I have rarely heard anything anti-anyone else. Yes, anecdotal for sure, but I’ve been around for a while. From a personal experience, I can’t recall my dad, a Lutheran pastor, ever say anything anti-Catholic, but I sure can remember hearing him rail against the “sacramentarians”!

The Catholic apologist when addressing one camp in Protestantism or Evangelical circles, in reality; is addressing all and any one who hears them, what the Catholic Church really teaches, so that those of no fault of their own can truly hear what the Catholic Church believes. From a practicing Catholic.

Whether the platform from which the Catholic apologists speaks from is Anglican or non-denominational. The Truth of Catholicism does not change in either camp in order to hear what the Catholic Church teaches and believes.

Ok, but what does change is the hearer. For example, I regularly receive Tee Coming Home Network newsletter. If the article is a testimony of a Baptist, Calvinist/Reformed, or American evangelical, the testimony means little, because the beliefs they present are completely foreign to me. If it is a Lutheran, OTOH, or even a rather high church Anglican, I’m tuned in because they present a belief structure I adhere to, and how Catholic teaching spoke to that.

The Catholic apologists, IMHO, does not fear from which platform he/she shares their Catholic faith, so long as the Message of Jesus Christ be told, at the same time correcting any false errors of the Catholic Church that is viewed from each non-Catholic platform, when being addressed distinctly.

In other words, the Catholic apologist’s is not bias to only one side of any Protestant confession or non-Catholic profession. The Catholic apologist’s message is always the same to give a witness for his/her hope in Jesus Christ, and clear up or correct any misgiving views of the Catholic faith.

If Catholic apologists are guilty of generalizing Protestant confessions and Evangelical independent professions, no matter how diverse this subject is viewed upon.

As a general rule, a speaking or writing needs to focus his/her message to the expected audience. Gabriel, if you write an apology in favor of infant baptism, you’ll get an amen from the Lutheran corner. If you criticize adult only baptism as **the **protestant teaching, the Lutheran responds with, , “not in these here parts”.

The reality is that both camps share a commonality, they protest the Catholic Church. When the Catholic apologist addresses one misconception of Catholicism, the apologist is addressing all of Protestantism and non-Catholic Evangelicals.

I think the use of the term “protest” is overstated. Most protestant laity in the pews couldn’t care less what you guys teach. You’re just another church down the street that mom and dad weren’t members of, so neither are they.

Peace be with you

And also with you, my friend.

Jon

 

[ltwin]

Faith in Christ should be confusing or complex, in fact Jesus couldn’t have made it easier for us.

I agree. In my opinion, the Catholics have made it too complex.

If you are going to make that claim don’t you think Jesus Himself would have had to come back and reestablish a new Church?

No. I’m speaking about history and theology. In terms of history and theology, Evangelicalism properly understood is mainstream Protestant theology cast in a revivalistic mold and adapted to an American cultural context. Jesus doesn’t have to come back to earth and reestablish a new church just to vindicate my opinion of American religious history. That would be silly.