What are the shared beliefs necessary for ALL Protestants?

Status
Not open for further replies.
kathmandu said:
The one thing protestants have in common is that they do not believe in the infallibility of the pope. That is were it started and still remains today.
Click to expand...
Not to mention many Catholics prior to 1870…
 
meltzerboy said:
A few threads have discussed what essential elements of the faith must be believed (and practiced) to call oneself Catholic. My question is what are the basic commonalities shared by all Protestants? Is it the belief in the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity but not the Catholic Church and its doctrines, or are sola Scriptura, certain sacraments, or anything else required? Also, on this basis, which Christian religious groups would NOT be considered Protestant (or Catholic): Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Quakers, Christian Scientists, Unitarians, Jesus-only Pentecostals? Would any of these or others still be thought of by mainstream Protestants or themselves as variants of Protestantism?
Click to expand...
Many scholars of religion have argued that the term “Protestant” as a religious category and (especially) as a doctrinal category is essentially meaningless. That’s why so often when you see the phrase “Protestants believe that…” on this site, what follows is almost always in error, because whatever is expressed is an over-generalization that doesn’t apply to all Protestants.

If I had to define the category, I’d say they are non-Catholic Christians with a tradition somehow rooted in the Latinate Church. But I’m not sure I would include the non-Niceaen groups (e.g. Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses).
 
Zooey said:
Mormons: no valid baptism (because of error in the Trinitarian formula for baptism); theology varies.
Jehovah’s Witnesses: no valid baptism; nonchristian theology.
Quakers: theologically liberal Christian; no baptism at all.
Christian Scientists: closer to Hindu than Christian.
Unitarian: some call themselves Christian, & if validly baptized, may be so. Most probably religiously liberal in a a general (nonchristian) sense.
Jesus-only Pentecostals: probably invalid baptism; theology fairly conservative standard protestant.

(All of the above are part of the reason for the name “Non-Catholic Religions” forums).
Click to expand...
I thought these Protestants weren’t considered Protestants by Protestants.
 
mark_a said:
I thought these Protestants weren’t considered Protestants by Protestants.
Click to expand...
Don’t expect us to agree on that, either.

If you ask the Trinitarian Protestants (stemming from the actual Reformation, those in true “protest”), they aren’t Christian, and therefore, not Protestant.

If you ask them, they are the true Christians, and therefore the true Protestants and Reformationists.

This whole “we can’t even agree to disagree” was my first clue that I needed to re-examine my life as a Protestant.
 
ESMDHokie77 said:
That’s because it’s groundless. Just because of the date of when something was defined infallibly doesn’t mean it was nonexistent as a popular belief.
Click to expand...
So it existed only as a popular vote before that date? That sure changes a lot of things. It actually blows my mind. The implications here are endless.
 
icamay said:
Don’t expect us to agree on that, either.

If you ask the Trinitarian Protestants (stemming from the actual Reformation, those in true “protest”), they aren’t Christian, and therefore, not Protestant.

If you ask them, they are the true Christians, and therefore the true Protestants and Reformationists.

This whole “we can’t even agree to disagree” was my first clue that I needed to re-examine my life as a Protestant.
Click to expand...
Those religions mentioned do not themselves consider themselves protestant. They have nothing to do with the reformation. They are religions that did not come out of the Roman religion. I was a Jehovah’s Witness for 10 years and the witnesses are really not even Christian. They do not believe Christ is divine and they do not believe in the trinity. The same with the Unitarians, who are humanists believing man will find his own salvation. Many Protestant religions do not consider Unitarian baptism valid.
 
kathmandu said:
So it existed only as a popular vote before that date? That sure changes a lot of things. It actually blows my mind. The implications here are endless.
Click to expand...
You’re putting words in my mouth. I never said that beliefs were determined by popular vote. I said that beliefs, before being defined by the church, are usually held to by a majority of the faithful. That was my intention of using the word “popular”, I did not mean to insinuate democratic voting.

The Church often doesn’t define something unless there is a heresy out about the subject matter, and the faithful would benefit by getting the Truth from the Church.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
Many scholars of religion have argued that the term “Protestant” as a religious category and (especially) as a doctrinal category is essentially meaningless. That’s why so often when you see the phrase “Protestants believe that…” on this site, what follows is almost always in error, because whatever is expressed is an over-generalization that doesn’t apply to all Protestants.

If I had to define the category, I’d say they are non-Catholic Christians with a tradition somehow rooted in the Latinate Church. But I’m not sure I would include the non-Niceaen groups (e.g. Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses).
Click to expand...
Of course as the JW’s deny the divintiy of christ and the Mormons deny the Trinity and state that God has a physical body and a heavenly wife. All those beliefs are non-Christian beliefs. At least not Historical Christianity.
 
meltzerboy said:
Thanks, Zooey, for the information. I wonder about Unitarians though, some of whom may call themselves Christian, but do not (I assume) believe in the Trinity or even Jesus as equivalent to G-d the Father. How can they be “validly” baptized then? It appears you believe baptism is more of the key to Christianity than belief in the Trinity, except for Quakers? And do Jesus-only Pentecostals believe in a Triune G-d? I would think not.
Click to expand...
OK, trhe thing about Unitarians is, that they aren’t all unitarian in theology. Many are universalists, & may or may not be unitarian. (Christian Universalism is again a much discussed topic again…goes by cycles). A member of the Unitarian-Universalists could easily believe in universal salvation, hold a liberal view on biblical interpretation, but be trinitarian in belief. More to the point,if such a person is validly baptized according to standard trinitarian formula, s/he is a Christian (at least technically).
Quakers generally hold beliefs that are quite close to those of other noncatholic Christians, but since they don’t have sacraments, they are [technically] not Christain.

My understanding of Oneness Pentecostals is that while they are usually theologically fairly close to other protestants, they only baptize in the Name of Jesus. Which is NOT Christian baptism.

A valid trinitarian baptism is a valid baptism, & there is no backing away from it. The person may not believe in it, but is, none the less, forever marked by it. To be baptized is to be Christian. Period.
Maybe a bad Christian. Maybe a backslidden Christiain. But a Christian, none the less.
 
Please correct me if I am wrong but I think I know of one thing that all Protestants can agree on… That some sort of Jello be present at any potluck. 😃

In my Church it is usually in the appropriate Liturgical color.
 
meltzerboy said:
Is it the belief in the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity but not the Catholic Church and its doctrines, or are sola Scriptura, certain sacraments, or anything else required? Also, on this basis, which Christian religious groups would NOT be considered Protestant (or Catholic): Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Quakers, Christian Scientists, Unitarians, Jesus-only Pentecostals? Would any of these or others still be thought of by mainstream Protestants or themselves as variants of Protestantism?
Click to expand...
This is a quote from Wikipedia:
Some beliefs extending across Protestantism are the doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide
-Sola scriptura maintains that the Bible (rather than church tradition or ecclesiastical interpretations of the Bible)[8] is the final source of authority for all Christians.
-Sola fide holds that salvation comes by faith alone in Jesus as the Christ, rather than through good works.

Someone once told me that self-study of the bible (including some degree of self-interpretation) is a distinguishing characteristic of Protestantism. (paraphrasing).
So if a denomination satisfies these things it seems that it would not be inaccurate to be considered a protestant denomination. If it only satisfied 1 or 2 of these things, perhaps it is debatable???
That’s just my take on it, you probably wanted more factual answers.
 
JoshuaNY said:
Please correct me if I am wrong but I think I know of one thing that all Protestants can agree on… That some sort of Jello be present at any potluck. 😃

In my Church it is usually in the appropriate Liturgical color.
Click to expand...
And tuna casserole.😃
 
samiam1611 said:
This is a quote from Wikipedia:
Some beliefs extending across Protestantism are the doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide
-Sola scriptura maintains that the Bible (rather than church tradition or ecclesiastical interpretations of the Bible)[8] is the final source of authority for all Christians.
-Sola fide holds that salvation comes by faith alone in Jesus as the Christ, rather than through good works.

Someone once told me that self-study of the bible (including some degree of self-interpretation) is a distinguishing characteristic of Protestantism. (paraphrasing).
So if a denomination satisfies these things it seems that it would not be inaccurate to be considered a protestant denomination. If it only satisfied 1 or 2 of these things, perhaps it is debatable???
That’s just my take on it, you probably wanted more factual answers.
Click to expand...
No, samiam, your perspective is very interesting to me: sola Scriptura and sola fide. Thanks!
 
meltzerboy said:
No, samiam, your perspective is very interesting to me: sola Scriptura and sola fide. Thanks!
Click to expand...
And even still, the way these two items are viewed varies greatly. Lutherans view sola scriptura as a praxis, not a doctrine, necessarily. On sola fide, the Lutheran confessions and Luther himself clearly articulate that, while we are justified by grace through faith, that does not exclude the necessity of good works.

What one sees is American evangelicalism and other protestant communions is generally not what Lutherans recognize as either sola scriptura or sola fide.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
And even still, the way these two items are viewed varies greatly. Lutherans view sola scriptura as a praxis, not a doctrine, necessarily. On sola fide, the Lutheran confessions and Luther himself clearly articulate that, while we are justified by grace through faith, that does not exclude the necessity of good works.

What one sees is American evangelicalism and other protestant communions is generally not what Lutherans recognize as either sola scriptura or sola fide.

Jon
Click to expand...
I knew it sounded too simple. Thanks for the additional information, Jon!
 
Zooey said:
OK, trhe thing about Unitarians is, that they aren’t all unitarian in theology. Many are universalists, & may or may not be unitarian. (Christian Universalism is again a much discussed topic again…goes by cycles). A member of the Unitarian-Universalists could easily believe in universal salvation, hold a liberal view on biblical interpretation, but be trinitarian in belief. More to the point,if such a person is validly baptized according to standard trinitarian formula, s/he is a Christian (at least technically).
Quakers generally hold beliefs that are quite close to those of other noncatholic Christians, but since they don’t have sacraments, they are [technically] not Christain.

My understanding of Oneness Pentecostals is that while they are usually theologically fairly close to other protestants, they only baptize in the Name of Jesus. Which is NOT Christian baptism.

A valid trinitarian baptism is a valid baptism, & there is no backing away from it. The person may not believe in it, but is, none the less, forever marked by it. To be baptized is to be Christian. Period.
Maybe a bad Christian. Maybe a backslidden Christiain. But a Christian, none the less.
Click to expand...
Zooey:

First off, I think we as Catholics in this forum need to not lump every branch of Protestantism together. Many Tradtional Anglicans are very close to us and many are coming into full communion via the Ordinariates and many leading Anglican Clergy already have * and thousands are going to enter the Catholic Church in England this Easter [including by some counts 60 to 70 additional Anglican Clergy].

Second, Oneness Pentecostals not only Baptize in “Jesus Name only” they are very anti- Trinitarian which thus makes them technically not orthodox Christian as their theology confuses the distinction of the 3 Divine Persons [Father, Son, Holy Spirit] and thus posits that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are merly attributes/functions/modes of God. In this sense, the Oneness Pentecostal movement [which is growing in the South among that group, the Southern US being where I live] is at it core, a return of the ancient heresy of Modalism [also referred to as Sabellianism].

In summary, it would be unjust to link Oneness Pentecostals with historic confessional protestants [Anglicans, Lutherans, and Reformed] who while I think they have deviated from Apostolic Traditon and orthodoxy on certain points, traditional Christians in those eccesial communities share the orthodox belief of the Most Holy Trinity with us Catholics and also the Eastern Orthodox Churches.*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top