Protestants: What are the "Basics" that all Non-Catholic Christians agree on? And who determines what the "basics" are?

[CopticChristian]

I am a convert from evangelical Protestantism.

I disagree with the statement that there is no common ground. Yes, there is.

Earlier in the thread, I listed Five Fundamentals that almost all Protestants, as well as Catholics, agree on.

Some of the Mainline Protestant sects, especially the modern ones, would disagree with the statement about the Virgin Birth, the Deity of Christ, the Literal resurrection of Jesus, and the authenticity of His miracles. I would ask, is it really correct to call these mainline churches “Protestant,” since Protestants historically believe in Jesus as God. IMO, there comes a point where you are no longer a “Christian” church, but merely a community of people gathered together for the sake of seeking spirituality.

However, as much as they don’t want to admit it, HISTORICALLY, all of the mainline churches agreed with the five fundamentals, and if the modernists in their churches would bring out the original confessions, creeds, and catechisms of their respective denominations, they would find that they have moved quite a ways away from their original church beliefs…

All of the other Protestant groups, for the most part, agree with the Five Fundamentals.

And as for the 33,000 denominations statement, I disagree with that, too. Rather than defining each Protestant church as a different denomination, it is more logical and conducive to dialogue and friendship to group the various Protestant sects. E.g., there are Mainlines, Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, Pentecostals, and Non-denoms. That’s FIVE “groups” of Protestants, not 33,000. There are others that I haven’t attempted to group, but most of the Protestants fit into one of those five “groups.”

Or you could group them into Lutheran, Calvinist, or Baptist. Most Protestants fit into one of these three groups.
It is divisive and rather useless to think in terms of “33,000 and still growing.” That statement is so easily disproven by Protestants, and then the Catholic ends up looking foolish and untrustworthy and hyperbolic, and what good is that? Protestants will distrust Catholics even more if they do not tell the truth or if they attempt to exagerrate the truth.

Rather than making a rather wild claim about tens of thousands of denominations, it is much better to attempt to find common ground, and attempt to fit the Protestant sect into one of the known groups. E.g., yes, there are many thousands of non-denomational Protestants sects, but most of them are evangelical, fundamental, or pentecostal, or a mix of these three. Very few non-denominational churches are Mainlines.

And again, almost all of the non-denoms accept the five fundamentals of the Christian faith, which are also accepted by Catholics. THAT is common ground, and that’s a starting place, and that’s what we need–starting places, not walls.

Looking from the outside in I agree that there are streams and you did not mention Anglican-Methodist-Holiness-Pentacostal stream. The reality is that the Protestant thoughts can be traced from Anglican, Lutheran, Calvin/Reformed, Baptist, and more likely than not as you say streams that sprang up like Evangelicals, Non-denominational, Dispensationalists and Fundamentalists.

Reformed has taken roots in Baptists/Doctrine of Grace as has Dispensationalism in some form and it is difficult to discern from whence they came tracing their roots backwards.

The 33,000 denomination does allow for a point of conversation and does not cause embarrassment in my opinion. Books like “separated bretheren” and “handbook of denominations” do point out the varied and sundry belief systems in Protestant thought.

The further away from the mainstream the less likely you are to find someone even knowing that they have accepted Protestant thought. They are just Christians.

 

[TrueLight]

Okay. You come from one of the high church denominations. It may be that there is more emphasis on theological study in those denominations. I know what those terms mean now, but not when I was a practicing protestant.

I know from my experience that most folks did not study theology except for seminarians or those who took a real interest and those were few.

Most of the books I read were on deepening one’s spiritual life and how to evangelize. Any Apologetics books I read were Protestant in nature.

As a former Evangelical, you didn’t believe the following:

Mary was God-bearer (Theotokos). Less literal translation being Mother of God, something challenged by some in the early church which was why the CC defined it.

We believed in the Virgin birth. Mary was indeed the mother of Jesus who was God.
Did we talk about the Theotokos? Not in those terms. The focus was on Christ. It is not important to talk about the Theotokos when she is considered to be a sinner. Yes, she is called called blessed because God chose her. However, there is no communion of saints, in Evangelical beliefs, so the focus on Mary is just not there.

The 2 natures of Jesus, (Hypostatic Union) - doubted by some, which was why the CC defined it.

We understood this.

The Filioque meaning that the holy spirit proceeds from the father and the son, denied by those in the eastern church.

I think I believed both, based on various verses, but it wasn’t something debated because I had no concept of the Eastern churches and honestly, when you are out on the street Evangelizing, people are not asking you about the Filioque.

Or the Trinity, challenged by those of the Arian camp, which was why the CC defined it.

Definitely believed in the Trinity.

I had no concept of the development of doctrine. The general belief was this:

• Early Christians from Acts until you go to the Catholic Church
• The CC apostatized and took control of Christianity and caused many abuses, idolatry, etc
• The Protestant Reformation was inspired and supported by God. The reformation brought back the early church

Did Jesus abandon his church? No. The church went through a period of darkness and but Jesus wasd always there.

Really…Did you think they were non-Catholics?

Yes, I thought they were early Christians. I didn’t read about the early church fathers, so I had no idea when Christians started to call themselves Catholic.

I thought the martyrs were again, generic Christians.

I know this seems like a whole lot of ignorance but my focus was on knowing what the Bible says, avoiding sin and maintaining my relationship with Christ. Everything else was just butter.

 

[CopticChristian]

Okay. You come from one of the high church denominations. It may be that there is more emphasis on theological study in those denominations. I know what those terms mean now, but not when I was a practicing protestant.

I know from my experience that most folks did not study theology except for seminarians or those who took a real interest and those were few.

Most of the books I read were on deepening one’s spiritual life and how to evangelize. Any Apologetics books I read were Protestant in nature.

We believed in the Virgin birth. Mary was indeed the mother of Jesus who was God.
Did we talk about the Theotokos? Not in those terms. The focus was on Christ. It is not important to talk about the Theotokos when she is considered to be a sinner. Yes, she is called called blessed because God chose her. However, there is no communion of saints, in Evangelical beliefs, so the focus on Mary is just not there.

We understood this.

I think I believed both, based on various verses, but it wasn’t something debated because I had no concept of the Eastern churches and honestly, when you are out on the street Evangelizing, people are not asking you about the Filioque.

Definitely believed in the Trinity.

I had no concept of the development of doctrine. The general belief was this:

• Early Christians from Acts until you go to the Catholic Church
• The CC apostatized and took control of Christianity and caused many abuses, idolatry, etc
• The Protestant Reformation was inspired and supported by God. The reformation brought back the early church

Did Jesus abandon his church? No. The church went through a period of darkness and but Jesus wasd always there.

Yes, I thought they were early Christians. I didn’t read about the early church fathers, so I had no idea when Christians started to call themselves Catholic.

I thought the martyrs were again, generic Christian.

Here is the tragedy. All of the pastors of these Churches have studied this stuff and know this stuff in a skewed way and do not impart this information to their flock, keeping them in the dark as you were. They have studied lots of early writings and yet let no one know about the existence of this stuff as if they are too stupid or fear that if they knew they would lose control of their flock.

 

[TrueLight]

Here is the tragedy. All of the pastors of these Churches have studied this stuff and know this stuff in a skewed way and do not impart this information to their flock, keeping them in the dark as you were. They have studied lots of early writings and yet let no one know about the existence of this stuff as if they are too stupid or fear that if they knew they would lose control of their flock.

That’s an interesting point.

I would like to know what is taught at Evangelical seminaries. How do they handle the history of the Church?

 

[AbideWithMe]

I know from my experience that most folks did not study theology except for seminarians or those who took a real interest and those were few.

TrueLight—Thank you for you thoughtful words in a post to me earlier.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Here is the tragedy. All of the pastors of these Churches have studied this stuff and know this stuff in a skewed way and do not impart this information to their flock, keeping them in the dark as you were. They have studied lots of early writings and yet let no one know about the existence of this stuff as if they are too stupid or fear that if they knew they would lose control of their flock.

Dear CopticChristian—

That isn’t even remotely close to being true. I was writing my post at the beginning of page 8 of this thread while you wrote this nonsense, so I wasn’t writing in response to you, but please see that post from me.

I hate to say this in such a strong manner, but if a non- Catholic wrote something as full of hogwash as what I’ve quoted here from you, most of the people would consider him a half-baked anti-Catholic bigot.

 

[joe370]

Hey TrueLight…

We believed in the Virgin birth. Mary was indeed the mother of Jesus who was God.
Did we talk about the Theotokos? Not in those terms. The focus was on Christ. It is not important to talk about the Theotokos when she is considered to be a sinner. Yes, she is called called blessed because God chose her. However, there is no communion of saints, in Evangelical beliefs, so the focus on Mary is just not there.

That’s pretty much the case in all protestant circles.

I think I believed both, based on various verses, but it wasn’t something debated because I had no concept of the Eastern churches and honestly, when you are out on the street Evangelizing, people are not asking you about the Filioque.

LOL…That’s true…I had never heard of the filioque either as a former protestant…

• The CC apostatized and took control of Christianity and caused many abuses, idolatry, etc

Yeah it’s pretty sad to hear such silliness.

• The Protestant Reformation was inspired and supported by God. The reformation brought back the early church

You mean churches. LOL…Just joking…I was told the same. My sister is an evangelical and she believes all of that stuff.

Yes, I thought they were early Christians. I didn’t read about the early church fathers, so I had no idea when Christians started to call themselves Catholic.

What compelled you to investigate?

I know this seems like a whole lot of ignorance but my focus was on knowing what the Bible says, avoiding sin and maintaining my relationship with Christ. Everything else was just butter.

Wow, that’s quite a journey. Were you faced with any catholic doctrinal hurdles during your journey home to the catholic church? Like the assumption of Mary for example?

 

[TrueLight]

What compelled you to investigate?

CAF is the vehicle God used.

Wow, that’s quite a journey. Were you faced with any catholic doctrinal hurdles during your journey home to the catholic church? Like the assumption of Mary for example?

Anything Marian was difficult and continues to be.

What helped me with the Assumption was when I found:
The Account of St. John the Theologian of the Falling Asleep of the Holy Mother of God.

I needed something that showed some basis for the Assumption.

The Immaculate Conception was more difficult because I felt by stating Mary never sinned we were likening her to Jesus. Eventually, it came down to the belief in the Magisterium.

Those were small hurdles.

What continues to be an issue for me is what I see as excess Marian devotion. I don’t want to discuss that in this thread though.

Okay. Enough about me!

 

[TrueLight]

My experience has been that more than a few Evangelical Christians go pretty deep into theology and Christian history. When I was in high school, I read most of St. Augustine’s works, some of Aquinas, Thomas a Kempis, more than a few of the ECF’s letters, several biographies on St. Francis (he was a favorite subject for history papers for me, along with Il Divino Michaelangelo, as I’m a sculptor). I knew Catholic and Orthodox history to a decent extent also through studying art history. My Evangelical pastor recommended St. Teresa of Avila’s writings to me as well as The Cloud of Unknowing** and other writings of Catholic mystics.

Interesting. Which denomination did you grow up in?

Did you attend a private HS? I did actually read the imitation of Christ as a teen, but it was a devotional book to me and I just blocked out the “heretical” parts that had anything to do with Catholicism.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Here is the tragedy. All of the pastors of these Churches have studied this stuff and know this stuff in a skewed way and do not impart this information to their flock, keeping them in the dark as you were. They have studied lots of early writings and yet let no one know about the existence of this stuff as if they are too stupid or fear that if they knew they would lose control of their flock.

Dear Coptic Christian—

I apologize saying something that may have easily been misconstrued as me calling you a bigot. I did not mean it that way, but rather I intended to point out that I believe you were doing a couple of things that would likely be decried as Catholic-bashing here if the shoe were on the other foot.

For the sake of clear communication, I’ll spell out those “couple of things”.
What stuck out the most to me was your last sentence. I don’t know how to read that as anything other than attempting, very uncharitably, to impute motives. Imputing motives is a sin that very few of us are free of, and I freely admit that I am not free of it; though I try to avoid it, sometimes it takes a slap in the face from someone I’ve violated to realize what an *** I’m being.

Secondly, yes, Evangelical pastors should have had a lot of time given to reading ECF’s in seminary, if not before. However, again, your phrase “keeping them in the dark”’ referring to lay people, is problematic in three ways:

–Firstly, it is simply inaccurate, as I attested to in my post #106.

–Secondly, it implies deliberate omission, where it is omitted, for the purpose of control—again, you are imputing motives.

–Thirdly, it implies that you seem to think it’s all the pastor’s responsibility to spoon-feed lay people. Most of us can read, and it only took me a very small effort as a high school student to find early Christian writings to my heart’s content. If an Evangelical Christian doesn’t know much about the ECF’s, the responsibility for that falls on them.

 

[TrueLight]

–Thirdly, it implies that you seem to think it’s all the pastor’s responsibility to spoon-feed lay people. Most of us can read, and it only took me a very small effort as a high school student to find early Christian writings to my heart’s content. If an Evangelical Christian doesn’t know much about the ECF’s, the responsibility for that falls on them.

Well, yes and no.

We’re speaking of how the denominations are structured and their focus.

As a Catholic, I cannot help but be curious about certain things because we commemorate Saints. We have Saint feast days, so if a day commemorates St Faustina, and I don’t make the effort to find out more about her, that’s my fault. We have veneration of relics. We have orders and lay orders.

The sermons I listened to never referred to the Church Fathers at all. They referred to St Paul a lot.

The Catholics I knew were non-practicing (just cultural Catholics).

I do not think the pastors did anything deliberate but teach what they believed.

But I also don’t put the blame on a devout Evangelical Christian who spent his or her time in prayer and trying to understand God’s word.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Interesting. Which denomination did you grow up in?

Did you attend a private HS? I did actually read the imitation of Christ as a teen, but it was a devotional book to me and I just blocked out the “heretical” parts that had anything to do with Catholicism.

I grew up going to an Evangelical Congregational church here in southeast Pennsylvania, and now I go to an Evangelical Free church since I left my hometown. (FWIW, I’m 44 and a woman, an intelligent but not-terribly-intellectual artist, but always curious; so I was not exceptional or rare in reading early Christian writings in my church. I think it was St. Augustine’s well-known saying “You have made us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in You” that drew me in to exploring more.)

No, I went to a regular high school in a smallish rural town.

 

[TrueLight]

I grew up going to an Evangelical Congregational church here in southeast Pennsylvania, and now I go to an Evangelical Free church since I left my hometown. (FWIW, I’m 44 and a woman, an intelligent but not-terribly-intellectual artist, but always curious; so I was not exceptional or rare in reading early Christian writings in my church. I think it was St. Augustine’s well-known saying “You have made us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in You” that drew me in to exploring more.)

No, I went to a regular high school in a smallish rural town.

I just don’t think that is typical if you average all the evangelical/fundamentalist and pentecostal congregations in the U.S., but I might be wrong because my experience is really only with Baptists, Pentecostals and non-denominational megachurches like Brooklyn Tabernacle and Times Square Church. It’s also possible that I’m throwing in denominations that may not be technically “evangelical” as well even though they referred to themselves as such.

By the way, I am also very intelligent and well educated and extremely curious. So much so, it has gotten me into a lot of trouble.

I stayed away from Catholicism because I honestly believed through indoctrination that it was not pleasing to God.

Like I said before, just like St. Augustine, the Lord allowed me to explore certain paths in order to lead me to him.

Once I left Evangelical circles I became more open minded about EVERYTHING and this is what allowed me to eventually explore Catholicism after finding CAF.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Well, yes and no.

We’re speaking of how the denominations are structured and their focus.

As a Catholic, I cannot help but be curious about certain things because we commemorate Saints. We have Saint feast days, so if a day commemorates St Faustina, and I don’t make the effort to find out more about her, that’s my fault. We have veneration of relics. We have orders and lay orders.

The sermons I listened to never referred to the Church Fathers at all. They referred to St Paul a lot.

The Catholics I knew were non-practicing (just cultural Catholics).

I do not think the pastors did anything deliberate but teach what they believed.

But I also don’t put the blame on a devout Evangelical Christian who spent his or her time in prayer and trying to understand God’s word.

I fully agree with that last sentence especially, TrueLight. People have varied gifts and interests. I wasn’t thinking in terms of blame as much as in terms of opportunity—I meant to be speaking specifically to what Coptic Christian seemed to be implying by choosing the rather loaded phrase “keeping them in the dark”.

I think it’s great that the CC emphasizes the communion of the saints. It is something I’ve always believed, and been taught about, from the Heroes of the faith passage in Hebrews 11, though I don’t pray to any single saint.

Thank you for your charitableness here, TrueLight, Joe, and Pfaffenhoffen. I value it.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Yeah, I can relate to the “becoming more open minded about everything” part, TrueLight, and while I’ve done that while staying within my church, believe me, I have had to throw off certain attitudes of a limited number of people I’ve heard growing up.

I think the Evangelical Free church and Evangelical Congrational churches were simply Lutherans who rejected government support and interference, if I recall correctly (and maybe I don’t)…overall, I’d place them further away from fundamental tendencies than many Baptist churches, in my opinion.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Here you go:

philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm

Excellent site. It says it better than I can.

Might I observe that this is an intellectually honest Catholic site.

So…

(1) The same source that claims there are 33,000 Protestant Denominations also claims there are 242 Catholic Denominations.
(2) Catholics reject that there are 242 Catholic denominations.
(3) By rejecting this claim, they are rejecting the process and definitions that the authors use in arriving at 242 Catholic denominations.
(4) The authors use the same definitions and processes to arrive at 33,000 denominations.
(5) Therefore intellectually honest Catholics must reject the 33,0000 Protestant denomination figure on the basis of rejecting the processes and definitions used to arrive at this figure because the same processes and definitions are used to arrive at 242 Catholic Denominations.

It is good to see that there are some intellectually honest Catholic sources that do not quote figures that are arrived at using processes and definitions they reject.

Anyway, I do not intend to participate further in this thread. But just to repeat that in my mind anyone who persists in using the 33,000 figure is just not being serious and intellectually honest and probably should just be ignored by myself.

 

[CopticChristian]

Dear Coptic Christian—

I apologize saying something that may have easily been misconstrued as me calling you a bigot. I did not mean it that way, but rather I intended to point out that I believe you were doing a couple of things that would likely be decried as Catholic-bashing here if the shoe were on the other foot.

For the sake of clear communication, I’ll spell out those “couple of things”.
What stuck out the most to me was your last sentence. I don’t know how to read that as anything other than attempting, very uncharitably, to impute motives. Imputing motives is a sin that very few of us are free of, and I freely admit that I am not free of it; though I try to avoid it, sometimes it takes a slap in the face from someone I’ve violated to realize what an *** I’m being.

Secondly, yes, Evangelical pastors should have had a lot of time given to reading ECF’s in seminary, if not before. However, again, your phrase “keeping them in the dark”’ referring to lay people, is problematic in three ways:

–Firstly, it is simply inaccurate, as I attested to in my post #106.

–Secondly, it implies deliberate omission, where it is omitted, for the purpose of control—again, you are imputing motives.

–Thirdly, it implies that you seem to think it’s all the pastor’s responsibility to spoon-feed lay people. Most of us can read, and it only took me a very small effort as a high school student to find early Christian writings to my heart’s content. If an Evangelical Christian doesn’t know much about the ECF’s, the responsibility for that falls on them.

I have taken Protestant Pastors to the library to see the Early Church writings. I have discussed with Protestant Pastors these things. I challenge you to look and find any “Protestant” website, church information, or any writing that does diservice to cause those that read to investigate further.

I have read many Protestant books. I can tell you that they gloss over history, the gloss and less than honest approach directing attention elsewhere other than to look beyond “The Bible” is an insult to an intelligent mind.

I am a Physician. I trust nothing in the literature until I read it for myself. Yes there are dishonest sceintists too. When I look at anything written I look for a bibliography, references, etc. I then scan to see from whence it came. I then look at the conclusion and ponder. I then look at the chapters and when I find one that interest me I read it and ask questions. I then look at the introduction, the back cover and ask questions. If I find myself wondering about bias I look further and when reading anything Protestant…I find myself wondering how any intelligent person can swallow this stuff and why those that write are so dishonest.

You might want to cruise this website and see if there is anything that is not out in the open and if there is anything hidden. You wont’t find Protestant chat rooms very friendly to the likes of me that dissents.

You may want to cruise the threads where our “christian” brothers/sisters find it amazing that no one accepts their learned “The Bible is the Word of God” and cannot tell us where the Bible came from. This dialogue and the usual verse after verse to try to prove Scripture defines Scripture is commonplace. It does prove the point that the majority, not all, but the majority have a hard time accepting that what they were taught is not true. I am sure that many come her believeing that they have some revelation. It is perhaps that they have had success with this thinking and proof with ignorant Catholics.

I hope that clarifies this for you.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Hi CopticChristian—

Thank you for the effort at clarification.

I know it’s hard sometimes to sense a person’s tone of delivery over the internet, even with smilies, so I’ll say clearly that I regard you in a friendly manner. I respect, as well, your method of doing research.

I have a few questions for you that will have to wait till I’m home tonight, but for now I want to give you some reassurance, if you will accept it: I used to care for other people’s horses on my farm, and through that I got to become friends with two women that had grown up very strictly Catholic. They had problems with Catholicism, though, and they left. Through knowing me over a span of years, they became open to giving Christianity another try. I sent them, not to my church, but to the Catholic churches in their neighborhoods. One woman thanked me years later for helping her get back to God.

I say that because you appear to care that poorly-taught Catholics not be “sucked” into believing anything Protestant, but rather explore their own faith first. I agree with that.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi CopticChristian—

Thank you for the effort at clarification.

I know it’s hard sometimes to sense a person’s tone of delivery over the internet, even with smilies, so I’ll say clearly that I regard you in a friendly manner. I respect, as well, your method of doing research.

I have a few questions for you that will have to wait till I’m home tonight, but for now I want to give you some reassurance, if you will accept it: I used to care for other people’s horses on my farm, and through that I got to become friends with two women that had grown up very strictly Catholic. They had problems with Catholicism, though, and they left. Through knowing me over a span of years, they became open to giving Christianity another try. I sent them, not to my church, but to the Catholic churches in their neighborhoods. One woman thanked me years later for helping her get back to God.

I say that because you appear to care that poorly-taught Catholics not be “sucked” into believing anything Protestant, but rather explore their own faith first. I agree with that.

Amen.:clapping::tiphat::extrahappy::

 

[TrueLight]

…I find myself wondering how any intelligent person can swallow this stuff…

I’m sure some atheists look at Catholics and wonder the same thing.

But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise

It is not intelligence that allows you to believe that Jesus Christ ascended into the heavens, or in the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves of bread and fish.

It eventually comes down to faith, no matter how learned you are.