Protestant... Oh How I HATE That Term...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Singinbeauty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Singinbeauty said:
All right… I know what kind of can I am opening with this but I am gonna do it anyways… 😛

I HATE the term Protestant. There I said it. I am Non-Denominational (and we have had so many convo’s about that term… this is not the place for it!) but because I am not catholic I am considered protestant. Gee, that’s fair.

Anything and everything that is NOT catholic is considered protestant… right? So, mormans or JW’s or some obscure cult that doesn’t believe that Christ is the Lord of All and the Savior of our Souls are considered protestant? From what I understand ‘protestant’ is a person or group that protests the Catholic Church, right? I don’t protest the RCC… Why am I still protestant? I get lumped in with anyone and everyone who are not even christian by definition but because they aren’t catholic they are protestant…

Does this seem fair?
Click to expand...
No, not every group that isn’t Catholic is considered Protestant. JWs and Mormons aren’t even considered Christian by the Catholic Church (since they deny the doctrine of the Trinity as well as other fundamental Christian teachings). Even though you consider yourself non-denominational and not a protester against the Catholic Church, your beliefs are from the Protestant revolt. If you use a Protestant Bible, then you are using a Bible that came about as a result of Protestants removing 7 books from the Old Testament. If you believe you are justified by faith alone and the Bible is the only source of revelation and final authority in matters of faith, then your beliefs are fundamentally Protestant. I used to be “non-denominational” and the non-denominational churches I attended didn’t differ in belief from the denominational churches – they just chose not to use a denominational label to identify themselves.
 
Veritas41 said:
Even though you consider yourself non-denominational and not a protester against the Catholic Church, your beliefs are from the Protestant revolt. If you use a Protestant Bible, then you are using a Bible that came about as a result of Protestants removing 7 books from the Old Testament. If you believe you are justified by faith alone and the Bible is the only source of revelation and final authority in matters of faith, then your beliefs are fundamentally Protestant …
Click to expand...
JMJ + OBT​

Exactly! 🙂

That’s not to say that I think Singinbeauty is a “2nd class Christian,” or anything like that, but you’ve made the precise point that a number of us have been trying to make in this thread. Singinbeauty, according to what she has indicated are her beliefs, is materially a Protestant even if she is not formally one.

In Christ.

IC XC NIKA
 
Marsha_Adams said:
Gottle:

The Protestants chose to abandon truth. Whatever faults the Catholic Church had or has, it still contains the full deposit of faith. There is truth and there is and then there is everything else, to choose to remain outside of truth carries eternal repercussions. It is our duty to call all outside the Church to come home, to come to truth. Protestantism has no grace or strength not already contained within the Church, let them come home and dwell in the fullness of grace.

Marsha
Click to expand...

But, truth - or rather, Christ Who is the Truth from God & about God - is not like a glass of water; which is a static thing, in one single place, which, if one person drinks it, cannot be drunken by anybody else.​

Christ is not a possession, like a favourite toy, which if possessed at all by one person, can not be possessed by anybody else as long as that person has it.

So to talk of abandoning truth, implies that Christ is a inert object, which can be possessed only by members of a single group, & only on condition that they stay in that group. But that is to treat Christ like a sacred object, which cannot do anything of itself, but must be moved by others if it is is to move at all. And He is not like that; He does not need us - but we do need Him.

It’s true there is a “deposit of faith” - but Christ is greater than it; just as He is greater than our hearts. He can’t be reduced to it, & He is not limited by it, just as He is not limited by or to the sacraments; or by or to the Church. So leaving the CC is not the same as leaving Christ - if the witness of the Church has been subChristian, leaving the Church may be the time that a former Catholic first experiences God as he or she is meant to; there is nothing, humanly speaking, to stop the Church being an obstacle to faith - or any other.

Faith is not ensured by a place, an object, an action, a society, or a set of words - but by a Person; it is God Alone, Who gives faith & communion with Him - the Church, its beliefs, rites, sacraments, members, & the other means of grace, are instrumental causes of grace: not its authors. The life of grace has only one Author, God. If God dwells in a man, that man is alive, even if he has none of the other, lesser, means of grace. One can perfectly well be “in the Church”, and have no faith whatever; this is not true of being “in Christ”.

That’s why we are in basically the same position as Protestants - because all of us need the grace of God, whether we are members of His Son or not. In fact, Protestants are in some sense members of the Church already: the “return to Rome” approach no longer applies - because we all need to return to God. ##
 
Okay, this is long, but I’ve actually been quite subtly (unintentionally) insulted by a scenario somewhat like the one I’m giving below, so I will try to add something…

Imagine this scenario:
Catholic: I’m really ashamed of the sin I’ve done, and I’m so scared to confess it to the Priest.
Click to expand...
Non-Catholic: Well then don’t; just confess to God.
Click to expand...
Catholic: But the Church teaches that if I sincerely repent, I should also make confession to my priest if it’s in my power.
Click to expand...
Non-Catholic: Well then just be Christian and no problem!
Click to expand...
Ahem…what’s wrong with this scenario? And yet, if we were to go around calling all non-Catholics simply “Christians” this is what happens. This implies that Catholics either aren’t Christians, or that they add something, as many have pointed out here.

Catholics are quite proud to be called Catholic–because we believe we have the fullness of the Truth. Since very early, Church fathers said to look for the Catholic Church precisely because any church claiming some belief contrary to that Catholic fulness of the truth would still claim to be Christian (consider, back then, Gnostics would still claim to be Christian; an extreme example but it gets the point across). People needed some way to distinguish the orthodox, full truth from other beliefs and heresies. The dissenters felt no sentimental need to hijack the term Catholic (whereas they weren’t going to give up the name Christian) so Catholic was a safe way for orthodox Christians, who believed what we still believe to the Fullness of the faith (and not one doctrine less) to define themselves, and has been the way ever since.

Why is all that relevant? Because I understand that, regarding what I’m about to say, you might tell us we’re invited to call ourselves plainly Christian too…but unless and until all people who so much as call themselves Christians agree on everything considered doctrine by any of them (which we’d love to see, of course obviously believing Catholicism to be that single full-truth path that all would ideally follow), that’s just not even desirable for us. Now on to the rest…

CONTINUED…
 
Now, that being so, we still can’t address Non-Catholics simply as “Christian”, because we are Christian. Saying of someone “Oh he’s just Christian” implies that Catholics add to the “plain truth” of the Christian message–an idea deeply offensive to Catholic sensibilities! We do not think that we added to the truth; if we thought parts of our faith were mere man-made additions, we’d not be Catholic; likewise, if you thought all parts of our faith were (as truly now as long before the Reformation) ordained by God and not manmade traditions, you would be Catholic. To argue otherwise would be contrary to common sense.

That’s why we can’t just say you’re a plain ol’ Christian…because that’s a relative term. Plain ol’ Christian compared to whom? To we Catholics who “add unneeded beliefs” to the plain ol’ truth? Sorry, we will never go for that. I think if you consider what it implies, you’ll understand.

For what it’s worth, we can simply use the term Christian when in terms of what we have in common, such as if we say that “All Christians believe in the Trinity”; but when distinguishing you from Catholics (which you must understand is important as we believe that we are not just any other church among many), we cannot simply say we are Catholic and you are “just Christian.”
 
Without reading the rest of the thread, I will simply state me feelings on the word “Protestant”.

I use the word Protestant to describe Christians who are not a part of the Catholic Church. This does not include Mormons, or anyone like that, because they are not Christians. However, for Methodists, Lutherans, even “Non-Denominationals”, I use the term Protestant. They are in protest of the fullness of truth that the Catholic Church teaches. Whether they want to be, mean to be, or feel that they are is another matter. But they are in Protest of some of the core beliefs of the Church, and are thus Protestants. Now, a different title does not mean I feel they are “lesser” in God’s eyes, or anything of the such. That judgement is not mine to make. I am just going to call things how I see them, and that’s how I see this.
 
Isn’t it funny how some main stream churches don’t consider Catholics as equals or even Christian. Yet a term that is used to desicribe the protestants is offensive.

If anyone of you say that nobody has ever heard a protestant say that Catholics are not christian, you’re lying, because you have.
 
Sixtus said:
Marsha

My first introduction to SDA was in our home town when the SDA temple was in a desperate need of a paint up and maintenance and they heard that a group of local Catholics did such work on a volunteer basis and they asked for our help and we gladly obliged.

There was not talk of Papist or Whore of Babylon then. I was astonished years later to discover what their greater family were really saying about us.

Every year on Good Friday the Catholics lead an ecumenical procession carrying a cross through the town, where we start at the main Church of England parish church, process through the main High St and end up at either the Methodist, Baptist, Cof E or Catholic Church. I often wondered why the SDA categorically refused to support this initiative of witness.

Stikes me as a bit double standard they were happy to ‘go to the catholics when they needed help which they themselves were unable to provide’, thus calling a truce, when it suited them, then returning to the declaration of war, when the errand of mercy was over :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Interesting you should say that - the SDA Church is involved (as an observer) in Churches Together in England: one of the members of which is the Catholic Church in England & Wales: churches-together.org.uk/whoweare_memberchurches.html​

IMO, the SDA Church is a much a cult as the JWs & the Mormons & the Christian Scientists; which is not to say that there are not Christians in it - that, is God’s business.

If the SDAs regard us as hell-bound spawn of anti-Christ, they should make that unambiguously clear. ISTM that they are giving off mixed signals. But I suppose we do the same ##
 
Sixtus said:
Marsha

My first introduction to SDA was in our home town when the SDA temple was in a desperate need of a paint up and maintenance . . .:
Click to expand...
It must have been an SDA off shoot. SDAs do not refer to their churches as temples.

Marsha
 
mercygate said:
If they confess the Trinity they are Christians. I concur 100% with everything else you have said. It would be to concede to a lie to agree that “we are the same” when Protestants leave out the pieces they don’t like. I was a Protestant. You have no idea how hard it is to choke on the truth that the Catholic Church is Who she claims to be. But once you get past that, it’s supernatural peace: Indescribable!
Click to expand...
:amen:
 
I don’t consider SDA’s, Mormons, or Jehovah’s Witnesses to be Protestant. To me, they are non-Christian cults. They believe as much as the founders of their “religions” as they do the Bible and the tradition of the church. Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young are false teachers. They add to the Scripture and the tradition, and put their teachings on as equal or a higher plane than the Bible and the traditions of the church. Plus, any religion that does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity or the Divinity of Jesus Christ cannot be considered Christian.
 
Pug said:
Perhaps “non-denominational” means that each grouping or building is free standing, with no obligation or ties to another group or building.
Click to expand...
Then they should call themselves a “free” or “independent” church. Each parish would then be a seperate and distinct denomination (in reality)

Calling themselves “non-denominational” is just redefining the English language, which is exactly what the sodomites did.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Bob, I think you’re a fine man, but I just think you’re wrong about this. I don’t know where you live, and it could be different there, but I live in the Bible Belt, and most of these non-denominational churches are pretty fundamentalist, and a lot of them got started PRECISELY BECAUSE they had had it with relativism in their former churches.
Click to expand...
Right, so they solve this problem by choosing a relativistic term “non-denominational” 🙂 I don’t think it isa good idea 😉
If you don’t want to affiliate with the Baptists or the Methodists or the Assemblies of God or Nazarenes or whatever, you start one that’s “non-denominational”.
Click to expand...
So why don’t they call themselves a “free church” or an “independent church” or a “Mere Christianity” Church or a Generic Christian Church or…

There are other names they could have used.

Non-denominational is nothing more than someone redefining an english word they don’t like to mean something it doesn’t mean. Basically, they’re not speaking English, but relativist-ese.

Remember what “gay” used to mean before the homosexuals got a hold of it? Well, “non-denoms” are redefining “denomination” in a simliar way. “We don’t like what it means so we’ll give it a new meaning!” Yup. Relativism.
 
Back to the term “protestant”

Why not call them what I call them? Sola scripturists 🙂
 
JimO said:
You know, this problem is certainly not confined to Catholics and “Protestants”. I have friends who are Baptists and others that are Assembly of God. You cannot get much different theologically. I’ve heard Baptists say that AoGs are letting demons speak through them when praying in tongues and AoGs say that Baptists aren’t filled with the Holy Spirit.

This is Satan’s greatest victory - to cause division.
Click to expand...
I grew up in that household! Mother was Baptist, father was AoG! And not only did these groups distrust each other, half of the time they didn’t even think the others were real Christians! And don’t even throw a conversation in about the Methodists or Lutherans down the street! They were considered the biggest blasphemers of all, (except for those Catholics, who worshipped the devil! :bigyikes: ) The argument is still going on 45 years later!

Satan ain’t no dummy! 😉
 
[SIGN]I just discovered a way to end all the wars between all nations.

We are no longer Australians, Americans, Iraqis, Chinese, Italian, English, French etc…

From now on… we are now Earthlings![/SIGN]

😃 :yup: :love:
 
BobCatholic said:
Yeahbut, we are sola gratiaists 🙂 So that term would include us :confused:
Click to expand...
Not to mention that Catholics are *Sola Verbum Dei *(The Word of God Alone), which means not just Sola Scriptura, but the WHOLE Word of God – Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church – the whole enchilada! 👍
 
For most non-Catholic Christians, protesting against the RCC isn’t even a part of thier theologyany more. I feel ‘protestant’ is an outdated term personally.

Luther’s writings are closer to Catholicism than modern day protestant writings. Just look at Luther’s Catechism. His 10 commandments are what many may call ‘the Catholic version’.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top