J
jmcrae
Guest
The JWs and the Mormons certainly will.Speaking as a Methodist-Protestant
I don’t consider JW or Mormons to be Christian.
Others may disagree with me.
WP
- Status
S
Singinbeauty
Guest
I wouldn’t have it any other way…
L
Ladys76
Guest
It’s been a while i didn’t come and visit here, guess i’m lost…
:p :blush: :D
B
Bishopite
Guest
Precisely. None of those groups are “Christian” because they deny the Trinity and therfore have invalid baptisms.
L
lak611
Guest
Please add me, also. I am also proud to be a Jesus freak.I am proud to be a “Jesus freak,” too.
L
lak611
Guest
I agree with you. Belief in the Trinity is a requirement of the Christian faith.Speaking as a Methodist-Protestant
I don’t consider JW or Mormons to be Christian.
Others may disagree with me.
WP
F
Flopfoot
Guest
No one really responded much to my last post here. But I’ll try taking this from a different tack, because I think it is a semi-important issue.
What we want out of a word is for it to be useful in saying what we are trying to say. But we also want a word that isn’t offensive.
Now, it’s quite possible that very few Protestants are actually offended by the word Protestant - it might just be the few of them who have posted in this thread. In which case there isn’t really a need for an across-the-board change of word (we can’t please everyone).
And besides, whatever we agree upon in this thread is not likely to start a revolutionary effect and actually change the way that many people speak. However, it’s an interesting exercise to try and come up with a word, so I shall keep at it anyway.
So - about the usefulness of the word. The best word is a word that includes everyone we are trying to speak about and no-one that we are not trying to speak about.
So a couple of examples of words that wouldn’t be good for replacing the word Protestant -
Well, it is a subset of Christians - anyone who is not Christian (such as Muslims, Mormons etc) we would not call Protestants. Also, I think we may agree that all these people we call Protestants, existed starting from the 16th century onwards - there were no Protestants before Martin Luther, far as I know. Protestants do not include Catholics and Orthodox. But is that the only groups of Christians they don’t include? If so, we have a perfect word (well, it’s a bit long actually) - Non Catholic non Orthodox Christians. If not, we need a word that is a little narrower.
But lets look at another tack. Why do we ever want to refer to Protestants as a group anyway, instead of referring to a larger group, such as Christians, or to a smaller group, such as Methodists? It is because this group, Protestants, generally have a few things in common.
For example, say you are a Catholic parent and you don’t want your child to get converted. You can’t tell them “stay away from Christians”, as then you’d be including yourself. The ones you are worried about are the ones who try and convert everyone. So you can say “Stay away from those Christians who try to convert everyone”. But as shorthand, you want a word that summarises the group of Christians who try and convert everyone - and Protestants fits here well.
Similarly there are a lot of other characteristics that Protestans have in common, which instead of using the descriptive word, we just want to use a word that summarises these characteristics, without implying any characteristics we didn’t mean to.
In the end, I think we’d find there is no word that quickly describes all such characteristics. So let’s make one up. By semi-randomly picking letters on the keyboard, a mix of consonants and vowels.
How about we use the word ‘Mirbs’ to mean “Those Christians who read the bible all the time, try to convert everyone, don’t have many rites or rituals, belong to churches that were established within the last 500 years, or to no church at all (but still believe in the Trinity), and think that all you need to do to get to Heaven is believe in Jesus”.
Unfortunatley, given the definition of this term, I reckon there’d probably be a lot more Mirbs who object to being called Mirbs than there are Protestants who object to being called Protestants! Oh well, we’ll just have to stick with our original term then…
What we want out of a word is for it to be useful in saying what we are trying to say. But we also want a word that isn’t offensive.
Now, it’s quite possible that very few Protestants are actually offended by the word Protestant - it might just be the few of them who have posted in this thread. In which case there isn’t really a need for an across-the-board change of word (we can’t please everyone).
And besides, whatever we agree upon in this thread is not likely to start a revolutionary effect and actually change the way that many people speak. However, it’s an interesting exercise to try and come up with a word, so I shall keep at it anyway.
So - about the usefulness of the word. The best word is a word that includes everyone we are trying to speak about and no-one that we are not trying to speak about.
So a couple of examples of words that wouldn’t be good for replacing the word Protestant -
- Christian - While this includes everyone we are trying to speak about when we say Protestant, it also includes a lot of people who we aren’t trying to speak about (as Catholics and Orthodox are Christians too). That is, the word is not narrow enough.
- Methodist - Anyone who we would call a methodist is someone who we could call a Protestant. However, it doesn’t include everyone we are trying to talk about - some who we would call Protestants, such as Baptists, Presbyterians, etc are not Methodists. So the word is not broad enough.
Well, it is a subset of Christians - anyone who is not Christian (such as Muslims, Mormons etc) we would not call Protestants. Also, I think we may agree that all these people we call Protestants, existed starting from the 16th century onwards - there were no Protestants before Martin Luther, far as I know. Protestants do not include Catholics and Orthodox. But is that the only groups of Christians they don’t include? If so, we have a perfect word (well, it’s a bit long actually) - Non Catholic non Orthodox Christians. If not, we need a word that is a little narrower.
But lets look at another tack. Why do we ever want to refer to Protestants as a group anyway, instead of referring to a larger group, such as Christians, or to a smaller group, such as Methodists? It is because this group, Protestants, generally have a few things in common.
For example, say you are a Catholic parent and you don’t want your child to get converted. You can’t tell them “stay away from Christians”, as then you’d be including yourself. The ones you are worried about are the ones who try and convert everyone. So you can say “Stay away from those Christians who try to convert everyone”. But as shorthand, you want a word that summarises the group of Christians who try and convert everyone - and Protestants fits here well.
Similarly there are a lot of other characteristics that Protestans have in common, which instead of using the descriptive word, we just want to use a word that summarises these characteristics, without implying any characteristics we didn’t mean to.
In the end, I think we’d find there is no word that quickly describes all such characteristics. So let’s make one up. By semi-randomly picking letters on the keyboard, a mix of consonants and vowels.
How about we use the word ‘Mirbs’ to mean “Those Christians who read the bible all the time, try to convert everyone, don’t have many rites or rituals, belong to churches that were established within the last 500 years, or to no church at all (but still believe in the Trinity), and think that all you need to do to get to Heaven is believe in Jesus”.
Unfortunatley, given the definition of this term, I reckon there’d probably be a lot more Mirbs who object to being called Mirbs than there are Protestants who object to being called Protestants! Oh well, we’ll just have to stick with our original term then…
L
lak611
Guest
That just does not work. Basically, that sounds like saying that Catholics ignore the Great Commission and do not try to convert anyone. I am sure that Protestants will dislike that term just as much as Catholics.
F
Flopfoot
Guest
Sorry. I guess I should explain that I started off trying to write a good post, got into a dead end somewhere, and then instead of just terminating the post and leaving it there, decided to use it as another outlet for my bitterness (it has been nearly 3 years since some Protestants tried to convert me and I’m still angry about it).
L
lak611
Guest
Your apology is accepted. Sometimes the web is not the best tool for us to put our thoughts into words. I have posted things that “didn’t come out quite right” also.
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
C
contramundum7
Guest
If i had read this a year ago, i would have responded w/ some virulently pro-Catholic “spoutations” or what have you. But now i understand and accept what (i think) u are saying here. some churches are so… well, what’s the word…
I like to leave even the true Church sometimes (sorry, but i believe there is one Church and its Catholic… despite the messed up people u find there
) and go out into the middle of “nowhere” and be alone with just God and the beautiful world he made. To me, THAT is the original “church”…You stay around people long eough you will lose your mind (and possibly your soul)
No kidding… !
Anyway, i sometimes feel i need to stay out there for a few days to clear my head of all the human (and demonic) “cob-webs” …
Sometimes Christians are the most un-Christian of all…
C
contramundum7
Guest
I could sure relate to that!!
I think there are a lot of bitter people on these forums… and they scapegoat particular kinds of people, etc…
Oh well, i guess they need our prayers.
But people who don’t know Jesus at all need our prayers (and help) more…
Anyway, just venting… (some bitterness of my own).
S
Sixtus
Guest
Well out of Christian duty was prepared to give JW’s the benefit of the doubt…until one day, a ‘door knocker’ told me that their bible says that Mary had 11-children by Joseph and Jesus was the second oldest!!!
I tried not to smile, I stood there in agony for want of one, then sadly the occasion just became to much for me and I roared with laughter. I regret that. It was just so funny.
They left before I had a chance to enquire the name of the family pet
S
Sixtus
Guest
Well out of Christian charity, was prepared to give JW’s the benefit of the doubt…until one day, a ‘door knocker’ told me that their bible says that Mary had 11-children by Joseph and Jesus was the second oldest!!!
I tried not to smile, I stood there in agony for want of one, then sadly the occasion just became to much for me and I roared with laughter. I regret that.
They left before I had a chance to enquire the name of the family pet and whether the Lord had a dog called Lassie
L
lak611
Guest
Obviously the JW’s Bible must not have this verse. “Luk 2:7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.” (ESV)
B
believers
Guest
Maybe I should have been more specific.I define religion in a very strict sense not the general sense of “the service or worship of God.” I define religion and legalism like this…
Religion - any system in which man by his own efforts tries to earn the approval of God.
Legalism - any religious system that teaches that a person can do something to earn or merit salvation or blessing from God.
Rom 4:4,5
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 11:6
And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
There are many religious systems which teach salvation by works, or which try to mix works with faith, such as…
Believe + keep the Law of Moses
Believe + be circumcised
Believe + water baptism
Believe + confess your sins
Believe + give up your bad habits and fully surrender
Believe + make a public display or have great sorrow of a show of tears
Believe + church membership
Believe + nothing (this is what I personally subscibe to)
I hope that makes it clear. I know this is just an overview but this can get very intensive if we should discuss it further.
L
lak611
Guest
I do not understand. I thought that you are a Christian based on previous posts you made. I did not ever think that you did not believe in anything. I thought you believed in Christ.
B
believers
Guest
You’re confused and that could be my fault. I’m trying to define religion and legalism without going into this in depth. I tried to give you examples but apparently they didn’t work.
I am against religion and legalism based on these definitions…
Religion is any system in which man by his own efforts tries to earn the approval of God.
Legalism is a religious system that teaches that a person can do something to earn or merit salvation or blessing from God.
I posted these verses earlier…
Rom 4:4,5
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 11:6
And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
If you’re still confused… just google “religion legalism”. There’s a lot of info on this topic.
L
lak611
Guest
Ok. Now it makes sense.
- Status