Having Trouble With Defining Other Christian Groups

[ltwin]

cont. from previous post.

Article 25: . . . Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

Article 28: . . . Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

Article 31: The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.

Article 34: It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word. Whosoever through his private judgement, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.
Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.

 

[Darryl_B]

What about these articles:

These sound very Protestant to me.

It has been reasonably observed that the Articles of religion are written intentionally to be vague. They are ambiguous. A person who has Calvinistic goggles on, will consider them fairly Calvinist, a person of very Calvinist goggles, might even consider them to be absolutely Calvinist. On the other hand a person who does not have Calvinist goggles on, will generally consider them to be not very Calvinist.

I agree that Anglican is schismatic. Not protestant. To me the test is how easy it is to convert to the Catholic Church. For a protestant, there is generally a fair amount of internal wrestling backwards and forwards during the process. For an anglican, when they do revert, it is just a simple step.

 

[ltwin]

It has been reasonably observed that the Articles of religion are written intentionally to be vague. They are ambiguous. A person who has Calvinistic goggles on, will consider them fairly Calvinist, a person of very Calvinist goggles, might even consider them to be absolutely Calvinist. On the other hand a person who does not have Calvinist goggles on, will generally consider them to be not very Calvinist.

I agree that Anglican is schismatic. Not protestant. To me the test is how easy it is to convert to the Catholic Church. For a protestant, there is generally a fair amount of internal wrestling backwards and forwards during the process. For an anglican, when they do revert, it is just a simple step.

Hmm . . . The Articles of Religion seem to be pretty specific. For example, “The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.” That doesn’t sound like something a Calvinist would think is Calvinist. It’s clearly taken from Calvin’s doctrine of the Spiritual Presence of Christ in Communion. That, my friend, is Protestant theology. And if that doesn’t make at least classical Anglicanism even marginally Protestant, than there is no such thing as Protestantism at all.

 

[Darryl_B]

The English Reformation involved the rejection of the papal jurisdiction and ultimately schism with all that part of the Church which remained obedient to the Pope. But in spite of the definite condemnation of some Roman doctrines by the Articles and by the implications of her practice, the Church of England has never denied that the Roman Church is part of the Catholic Church.

A Theological Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. E J Bicknell.

And that is the difference my friend between schismatic Church of England and the Protestants.

 

[ltwin]

A Theological Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. E J Bicknell.

And that is the difference my friend between schismatic Church of England and the Protestants.

Really? To be Protestant you have to deny that Roman Catholics are part of Christ’s Church? That’s quite a definition you just made up there. “You can believe Protestant doctrines, but as long as you believe Roman Catholics are fellow Christians, you’re not Protestant.”

It’s funny how in trying to assert your own opinion that the Church of England and her daughter churches are not Protestant you bring up irrelevant criteria yet seem to ignore

1. how the Church of England has described its own theology (i.e. the “Protestant Reformed religion established by law”)
2. what both the US and Scottish Episcopal Churches have called themselves (i.e. Protestant Episcopal)
3. the many Anglicans of the past and the present who consider themselves Protestants.

Anglican historian and theologian Alister McGrath explains it well in the Church of Ireland Gazette.

…We need to appreciate that the sixteenth-century Reformation was a complex phenomenon. There was no single Protestant ‘template’. Rather, a variety of reforming movements emerged during the sixteenth century, whose specific forms were shaped by local politics and personalities, as much as by the broader commitment to a recognizably Protestant agenda. The forms of Protestantism which emerged in the great imperial cities (such as Strasbourg), territories (such as Saxony) and nations (such as England or Sweden) had their own distinct characteristics. Some, for example, retained the episcopacy and a fixed liturgy; others discarded one or both. Yet each represented a local implementation of the Protestant agenda.

Historians generally consider that one of the most remarkable and influential forms of Protestantism emerged in England, and has come to be known as ‘Anglicanism’. Reformers in the reign of Henry VIII did not refer to themselves as ‘Protestants’, partly because this was seen to have foreign associations at the time. (Henry VIII, it will be recalled, disliked foreigners having influence over English affairs.) Yet from the reign of Edward VI onwards, English Church leaders began to use this term to refer to themselves, and see themselves as being connected with the great reforming movements and individuals on the continent of Europe.

Of course, many Anglican writers sympathetic to the nineteenth-century High Church ‘Oxford Movement’ (often known as ‘Tractarianism’) were generally dismissive of any suggestion that Anglicanism could be considered ‘Protestant’. After all, they argued, their ‘Anglo-Catholicism’ could be traced back to developments in the early seventeenth century. They pointed to a group of writers during the reigns of James I and Charles I who, they argued, show a much more ‘catholic’ outlook than their colleagues in the reigns of Edward VI or Elizabeth I. Anglicanism was never Protestant; it retained its Catholic identity and resisted any temptations to become part of the Protestant movement.

Historians now regard this account of Anglicanism as an unfortunate aberration. It is certainly true that some significant members of the Church of England during the reigns of James I and Charles I laid greater emphasis on its sacramental life than some of their contemporaries. Some also showed themselves to be critical (at points) of the first generation of Protestant leaders in the English Reformation. Under Charles I, this group began to gain the ascendancy, with William Laud (1573- 1645) becoming Archbishop of Canterbury and Richard Neile (1562-1640) Archbishop of York.

Yet such figures cannot be thought of as ‘Catholics’, nor can their Protestant identity be denied, for that reason. In the first place, they were generally affirmative of their Protestant credentials. In the second, their sacramental and ecclesiological views can easily be accommodated within the spectrum of Protestant possibilities. Protestantism is a ‘big tent’ movement, offering a surprising variety of possibilities within its vision of Christian thought and life. Luther, it must be remembered, had a much ‘higher’ view of baptism and the eucharist than Zwingli – a fact which is reflected in modern Lutheranism at this point. Yet nobody has seriously suggested that Lutheranism is not a form of Protestantism on account of these sacramental views.

Some point to Charles I as the classic representative of this ‘Anglo-Catholicism’. Yet they too easily overlook the awkward fact that, on the evening before his execution, Charles told his thirteen-yearold daughter, Elizabeth, that he was to die for “maintaining the true Protestant religion”, and urged her to read the works of Lancelot Andrewes and Richard Hooker “to ground [her] against Popery”. Others suggest that Anglicanism is a ‘middle way’ (via media) between Protestantism and Catholicism. For that reason, it is argued, it is neither Protestant nor Catholic, but combines the strengths of both. Yet historians such as Diarmaid McCulloch have rightly pointed out that the ‘middle way’ developed in England in the late sixteenth century was between Lutheranism and Calvinism – two quite distinct versions of Protestantism. The ‘middle way’ which resulted was neither Calvinist nor Lutheran – but it was certainly Protestant…see more

 

[Darryl_B]

Really? To be Protestant you have to deny that Roman Catholics are part of Christ’s Church? That’s quite a definition you just made up there. “You can believe Protestant doctrines, but as long as you believe Roman Catholics are fellow Christians, you’re not Protestant.”

It’s funny how in trying to assert your own opinion that the Church of England and her daughter churches are not Protestant you bring up irrelevant criteria yet seem to ignore

1. how the Church of England has described its own theology (i.e. the “Protestant Reformed religion established by law”)
2. what both the US and Scottish Episcopal Churches have called themselves (i.e. Protestant Episcopal)
3. the many Anglicans of the past and the present who consider themselves Protestants.

Anglican historian and theologian Alister McGrath explains it well in the Church of Ireland Gazette.

You are making this statement with a temperament not conducive to discussion. I feel I hit a nerve somewhere, which I apologize for. I wonder why it is that you so much want the Church of England to be Protestant, rather than what it really is, schismatic. Do you have important historical affiliation there?

Incidentally I am not defining the protestant. They did that by themselves, rather outspokenly actually.

 

[ltwin]

You are making this statement with a temperament not conducive to discussion.

Only because I’m a little irritated by your ignoring or dismissing as “ambiguous” any piece of evidence I present and simply re-stating your own opinion that Anglicans are schismatic, not Protestant. They called themselves Protestant for most of their history. One of their formative historical confessions, the 39 Articles, authored by a Convocation of the Church and given legal force by the English Parliament, is strongly flavored with Calvinist theology. Furthermore, the current governor of the Church of England, Queen Elizabeth, pledged to protect the Protestant Reformed religion as established by law (AKA Anglicanism) upon her coronation.

Nevertheless, they are not, cannot be, and never were Protestant.

I feel I hit a nerve somewhere, which I apologize for. I wonder why it is that you so much want the Church of England to be Protestant, rather than what it really is, schismatic. Do you have important historical affiliation there?

I have a BA and MA in History. I don’t like historical revisionism.

Incidentally I am not defining the protestant. They did that by themselves, rather outspokenly actually.

Yes, and many of those defining Protestantism were Anglicans. John Wesley was a High Church Anglican all of his life, and remained a priest in the Church of England until his death. Was he a schismatic Roman Catholic? Was George Whitefield, Anglican priest and leader of the Great Awakening, a schismatic Roman Catholic? Are John Stott and J. I. Packer Roman Catholic schismatics? I think any honest assessment of these men will show that they are indeed Protestant.

 

[Contarini]

Then they are either Pentecostal or Charismatic, both of which are …DENOMINATIONS.

No. You’re confusing denominations and traditions.

Denominations are organizations. Non-denominational churches are not part of a larger bureaucratic organization. That’s all. Unfortunately this often does go along with an amnesia and denial about the traditions that shape them. But there’s nothing inaccurate about the claim to be non-denominational, any more than Catholics are being dishonest when they say that the Catholic Church isn’t a denomination. A denomination is a particular kind of Protestant phenomenon arising from the growth of religious liberty and thus the proliferation of church bodies that could no longer even claim to be the Church as a whole.

Also, probably the majority of non-denominational churches are more or less Baptist in theology, though it’s true that many others are Pentecostal/charismatic.

Edwin

 

[benjohnson]

Incidentally I am not defining the protestant.

I think I see what you’re getting at - that Anglicans are not quite the same as what we can call Protestants now. They’re liturgical, historical, and follow an episcopal form of governance that is distinct form what many Protestant non-denoms are like for example.

But I don’t think we quite get to discount the name “Protestant” - we even call the struggles in Northern Ireland as between the Catholics and the Protestants for example.

 

[ltwin]

I think I see what you’re getting at - that Anglicans are not quite the same as what we can call Protestants now. They’re liturgical, historical, and follow an episcopal form of governance that is distinct form what many Protestant non-denoms are like for example.

I seem to hear this a lot on Catholic Answers: that the definition of Protestant at some indefinite point in time and space magically changed from what it always had been to excluding groups that are “liturgical, historical” and episcopal as you put it. When did this change in definition occur? Who was behind it? I grew up in the deep South and a decidedly evangelical culture and Episcopalians and Lutherans were always “Protestants.” That was never in dispute.

And if liturgical and episcopal traditions and governments are enough to disqualify you from being Protestant, than many non-denoms, Baptists,and Pentecostals are not Protestant because they to varying degrees have adopted liturgical traditions and episcopal government, for example . . .

Meet Charles Blake, Presiding Bishop of the Church of God in Christ.

 

[GKC]

I seem to hear this a lot on Catholic Answers: that the definition of Protestant at some indefinite point in time and space magically changed from what it always had been to excluding groups that are “liturgical, historical” and episcopal as you put it. When did this change in definition occur? Who was behind it? I grew up in the deep South and a decidedly evangelical culture and Episcopalians and Lutherans were always “Protestants.” That was never in dispute.

And if liturgical and episcopal traditions and governments are enough to disqualify you from being Protestant, than many non-denoms, Baptists,and Pentecostals are not Protestant because they to varying degrees have adopted liturgical traditions and episcopal government, for example . . .

Meet Charles Blake, Presiding Bishop of the Church of God in Christ.

http://ncinc.webs.com/BishopBlake.jpg

By my definition (no one need agree), the possession of valid apostolic succession separates the Catholic from the protestant.

And yes, as we know, I’m familiar with the logic behind Apostolicae Curae.

GKC

 

[ltwin]

By my definition (no one need agree), the possession of valid apostolic succession separates the Catholic from the protestant.

And yes, as we know, I’m familiar with the logic behind Apostolicae Curae.

GKC

OK. That could make things simplified between obvious cases (for example Baptists versus Anglicans). However, I think there are still problems with that. Who determines who has valid apostolic succession? Obviously, Anglicans think their’s is valid, but Rome disagrees.

Another issue is that as I understand it, there are some Lutheran churches who claim apostolic succession and other Lutheran churches who do not even call their leaders “bishops.” According to this definition, you could have churches in the same tradition, believing in the same confessions, divided between “Catholic” and “Protestant” branches.

Still another issue is the fact that this criteria creates the possibility that someone is a communicant in a “Catholic” church yet holds to the historical beliefs of that church, which are Protestant.

It seems that this creates a technical definition of who is “Catholic” and who is “Protestant” but it’s not a very practical one.

 

[GKC]

OK. That could make things simplified between obvious cases (for example Baptists versus Anglicans). However, I think there are still problems with that. Who determines who has valid apostolic succession? Obviously, Anglicans think their’s is valid, but Rome disagrees.

Another issue is that as I understand it, there are some Lutheran churches who claim apostolic succession and other Lutheran churches who do not even call their leaders “bishops.” According to this definition, you could have churches in the same tradition, believing in the same confessions, divided between “Catholic” and “Protestant” branches.

Still another issue is the fact that this criteria creates the possibility that someone is a communicant in a “Catholic” church yet holds to the historical beliefs of that church, which are Protestant.

It seems that this creates a technical definition of who is “Catholic” and who is “Protestant” but it’s not a very practical one.

All the above is true.

GKC

 

[jritenour]

Yes, as Picky says, anyone that says the Nicene creed affirms the catholic church, so that is why there is “Catholic” and there is “catholic.” From my own “protestant” perspective, labels are just there for ease of categorization, which can be dangerous in and of itself. We usually see at least 3 branches of the church; Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. There are some groups that don’t fit easily into one of those branches (the Church of England would be one).

Within the protestant camp, it can usually be split into liturgical churches and non-liturgical churches. Most “Evangelical” churches would be in the non-liturgical camp, but not all.

I think you’re ok to put Anglicans (Church of England – Anglican Communion) into the Protestant camp and most Anglicans are in the liturgical subgroup like a lot of Lutherans (if not virtually all). We’re obviously not Roman Catholic. So, I think our RC brothers/sisters would agree.

 

[Darryl_B]

I think I see what you’re getting at - that Anglicans are not quite the same as what we can call Protestants now. They’re liturgical, historical, and follow an episcopal form of governance that is distinct form what many Protestant non-denoms are like for example.

But I don’t think we quite get to discount the name “Protestant” - we even call the struggles in Northern Ireland as between the Catholics and the Protestants for example.

The Northern Ireland thing is actually nothing to do with religion, it is to do with nationality. The northern ireland has two camps, those who want a unified with the south, ireland. And the other one is those who want affiliation with England.

Fact 1. It is not religious, it is purely national.

Fact 2. Is is generally mistaken as religious because the majority of people who want a unified Ireland just so happen to be Catholic. The majority of people who do not want a unified Ireland and want an association with England just so happen to be non-Catholic schismatics.

Fact 3. It got ran through the propaganda machine, and turned into a Catholic and supposedly “protestant” conflict, so that people could develop passion even hatred, within that invented framework, developed by copying an historical context.

So Ireland doesn’t really count as example. A better example would perhaps be, in my country, where Catholic and Anglican have been known to have combined Ash-Wednesday.

 

[Darryl_B]

http://ncinc.webs.com/BishopBlake.jpg

Reminds me of Alex Jones.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

I’m 84 years old, and I never thought I’d see the day when Anglicans/Episcopalians were no longer seen as heretics, rather schismatics! Oh how Christendom has evolved.

 

[Darryl_B]

I’m 84 years old, and I never thought I’d see the day when Anglicans/Episcopalians were no longer seen as heretics, rather schismatics! Oh how Christendom has evolved.

My friend, it is better to draw someone home than to expel them beyond. In my country the fastest diminishing religion is the Anglican Church, they have lost 18% between the last three censuses, and for the first time in my country since its foundation the Catholic Church has become the largest and Anglican second. I would much rather see them come home, that small step, that small step that many I know have done, rather than be lost.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think I see what you’re getting at - that Anglicans are not quite the same as what we can call Protestants now. They’re liturgical, historical, and follow an episcopal form of governance that is distinct form what many Protestant non-denoms are like for example.

But I don’t think we quite get to discount the name “Protestant” - we even call the struggles in Northern Ireland as between the Catholics and the Protestants for example.

I seem to hear this a lot on Catholic Answers: that the definition of Protestant at some indefinite point in time and space magically changed from what it always had been to excluding groups that are “liturgical, historical” and episcopal as you put it. When did this change in definition occur?

If I read…well, skimmed…this correctly, I think you guys have this backwards.

Lutherans and Anglicans are by definition Protestants since Luther started the whole thing off and Henry VIII was quick to follow. Calvinists were early adopters, also.

It’s the Johnny-come-lately’s who seem to deny that they are Protestants and prefer to simply call themselves Christians. Well, aren’t we all? So, that’s not very useful.

Baptists are often the most adamant about this, but Calvinism is apparently dividing Baptists pretty badly, so I guess it depends on the individual Baptist or Baptist congregation as to how they will refer to themselves.

 

[spedteacherita]

OK, I can go along with this except with one minor change. We need a “Other” category for those churches that are not Catholic, Eastern/Oriental, Orthodox or Protestant. For example, the LDS Church and its offshoots are not Protestant. Likewise, a group like Jehovah’s Witnesses is not Protestant either.
ltwin;12418866:

I don’t think these should even include Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons or LDS as Protestants here. Since they do not see Christ as a Person of the Holy Trinity then the would be consideted cults.