What are the shared beliefs necessary for ALL Protestants?

[Izdaari]

Protestants don’t necessarily think of themselves as Protestant. Yes, I’m a Christian who’s not Catholic or Orthodox, and yes, I do like a lot of Luther’s and Calvin’s ideas (without regarding either as an infallible guru), but when I think about my identity as a Christian, “Protestant” is way, way down the list of what comes to mind.

And FWIW, I am trinitarian, validly baptized and agree with the Nicene Creed (though I interpret some of the wording a little differently than a Catholic would).

 

[BriaMarie]

While Trinitarian Christians would agree that a belief in the Trinity is necessary to be a Christian, oneness/“Jesus-only” groups would disagree. The church I grew up in didn’t even call themselves Protestant. They said that they didn’t come from the Catholic church at all and their beliefs had existed since the apostles.

 

[CTrent1564]

Protestants don’t necessarily think of themselves as Protestant. Yes, I’m a Christian who’s not Catholic or Orthodox, and yes, I do like a lot of Luther’s and Calvin’s ideas (without regarding either as an infallible guru), but when I think about my identity as a Christian, “Protestant” is way, way down the list of what comes to mind.

And FWIW, I am trinitarian, validly baptized and agree with the Nicene Creed (though I interpret some of the wording a little differently than a Catholic would).

Izdaari:

Hmm, and Assemblies of God Christian who has embraced the Nicene Creed, albeit with some minor differences of interpretation with respect to the Catholic Church. Well done my friend, moving ever so closer to the truth:thumbsup:

Regards and God Bless and have a great Holy Paschal Triduum

 

[Zooey]

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.*
OK, that’s fair. My knowledge of the Oneness groups is very limited; there is clearly a growing trend for them to draw further & further from orthodoxy.

 

[Izdaari]

Izdaari:

Hmm, and Assemblies of God Christian who has embraced the Nicene Creed, albeit with some minor differences of interpretation with respect to the Catholic Church. Well done my friend, moving ever so closer to the truth:thumbsup:

Regards and God Bless and have a great Holy Paschal Triduum

Thanks! Though if I’m moving your way, it’s very slowly since that’s pretty much where I’ve been for 35 years. I’m as much Anglican as Pentecostal, due to the influence of C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright on my thinking, and I do like a liturgical service new and then.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I can tell you what are the shared beliefs necessary for all Reformed Protestants, Lutherans, Baptists, Jehowah’s Witnesses, cult-like sects, and Eastern Orthodox: they must condemn the office of Papacy.

Some go further, despise the Pope, and will talk all day long about the Borgia Popes, Alexander VI, and his sexual debauchery.

At least, that’s what I observed among my non-Catholic friends. Pope-bashing as a common ground on which many non-Catholics can unite.

 

[meltzerboy]

I can tell you what are the shared beliefs necessary for all Reformed Protestants, Lutherans, Baptists, Jehowah’s Witnesses, cult-like sects, and Eastern Orthodox: they must condemn the office of Papacy.

Some go further, despise the Pope, and will talk all day long about the Borgia Popes, Alexander VI, and his sexual debauchery.

At least, that’s what I observed among my non-Catholic friends. Pope-bashing as a common ground on which many non-Catholics can unite.

I can tell by your icons you are saying this half-jokingly (but only half, I suspect). It’s good though you still regard the non-Catholics you mention as friends. Thanks for your reply!

 

[DElias]

I think it really comes down with not accepting the role of the Pope. In my experience on the Protestant-side, Pope-bashing typically comes from extremist churches, ex-Catholics, agnostics, atheists, and the like.

The Catholic church can be well-regarded in some circles. For instance, Pope John Paul II is held in some esteem for his good works in a representative Christian role.

As far as regarding other necessary beliefs, it really becomes a mixed bag with the myriad of churches. I’m an Evangelical Baptist, and we believe in the trinity. There are some liberal churches that reject it. What is defined as Protestant churches can have an affect as well. Unitarians and Mormons take a view that some would not consider inherently Christian and are considered outside of the Protestant arena by other Protestant sects.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I can tell by your icons you are saying this half-jokingly (but only half, I suspect). It’s good though you still regard the non-Catholics you mention as friends. Thanks for your reply!

Meltzerboy, you got it right. It was a very tongue-in-cheek comment prompted by my observation that all of my friends, coming from really diverse religious backgrounds, agreed on this one point! Now I shall add that my observations are not based on in-depth study of various Protestant denominations. The only non-Catholic religion on which I have somewhat of an in-depth knowledge is Eastern Orthodoxy, but EO is traditionally not lumped together with Protestantism, but rather treated as a separate kind of religion. Yet, amazingly, even those Protestants I met, and the Eastern Orthodox (Greek, Russian, Romanian, Serbian etc EO) agree on this one: Catholicism’s claim that the office of Papacy was divinely instituted as opposed to being a man-made office (in a matter somewhat similar to how God appointed Moses as the leader of the Jewish nation), and the claim that Popes are divinely protected from teaching error on matters of faith and morals (while they are still sinful people who commit sins themselves), are wrong. If they wouldn’t agree to disagree with us Catholics on this one, they would regard the Pope as the head of the visible organization named Church, instituted by God, and they would all be Catholics!

 

[samiam1611]

I think it really comes down with not accepting the role of the Pope. In my experience on the Protestant-side, Pope-bashing typically comes from extremist churches, ex-Catholics, agnostics, atheists, and the like.

The Catholic church can be well-regarded in some circles. For instance, Pope John Paul II is held in some esteem for his good works in a representative Christian role.

As far as regarding other necessary beliefs, it really becomes a mixed bag with the myriad of churches. I’m an Evangelical Baptist, and we believe in the trinity. There are some liberal churches that reject it. What is defined as Protestant churches can have an affect as well. Unitarians and Mormons take a view that some would not consider inherently Christian and are considered outside of the Protestant arena by other Protestant sects.

Interesting that Mormons and others are not necesaarily/technically Christian. I always thought, if you think Jesus is the Messiah, you’re a Christian! That’s what they taught me in Hebrew school anyway, back when I was like 8. Guess that’s what you get as an introduction to Judaism, only I never got much farther than that

 

[cooterhein]

Interesting that Mormons and others are not necesaarily/technically Christian. I always thought, if you think Jesus is the Messiah, you’re a Christian! That’s what they taught me in Hebrew school anyway, back when I was like 8. Guess that’s what you get as an introduction to Judaism, only I never got much farther than that

There’s a couple of basics to Christianity other than “Jesus is the Messiah.” Right there at ground level is a couple of other basics: Christians are Trinitarian and Christians (following in the Jewish tradition) have always been monotheistic.

Mormons are not Trinitarian. Mormons are not monotheistic. Some of them will even argue that monotheism is an invention of the late Middle Ages and that Christianity (along with Judaism) had always been something other than monotheistic until then.

So Mormons claim to be Christians…the “True Christians,” actually. They believe they have the fullness of truth along with a living prophet of God whose words are far more valuable than those of a dead prophet. But they also have some really basic differences of beliefs from what has always defined Christianity, and they’ll generally have to defend a view of Christian history that is…let’s go with “factually suspect.” I mean, it begins with the assertion that Jesus visited America and converted Native Americans after His resurrection, but it really takes off from there.

In answer to the OP: Protestantism doesn’t just mean “anti-pope,” given that atheists are more likely to dislike the pope than any sort of Christian. “Protestant” initially meant “to protest something,” and that actually didn’t mean “disagree with.” “Protest” referred to a positive assertion of certain basic truths.

So what were those basic truths? I guess the prerequisites are trinitarianism and monotheism along with a certain type of Christology, for starters, but that’s just how you identify a Christian. In order to get more specifically Protestant, you look at the Solas, primarily Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. These, along with a belief in the priesthood of all believers and a general departure from apostolic authority centered in Rome, are the key markings of a Protestant.

I believe there was an initial list of some sort…

1. 
   *]Mormons- not Protestant, not Catholic, not Christian.
   
   *]Jehovah’s Witnesses- another restoration movement; also rejects trinitarianism. They are monotheistic, but they reject the divinity of Christ. Thus, not Protestant or Catholic or Christian.
   
   *]Quakers- Depends if you’re “Orthodox” or “Hicksite,” which stresses “inner light” and allows for beliefs that are universalist or entirely non-theistic. Historically, the movement began in England and wasn’t directly involved with the Reformation, although it was tangentially related. The Anabaptists were seen by some (ie., Voltaire) as the “fathers” of the Quakers. However, it is another restorationist movement, and while there is a wide variety of beliefs, there is a broad rejection of SS. Definitely not Catholic and not Protestant, though some may be Christians. It depends.
   
   *]Christian Scientists- Christian is a misnomer. There is an unorhodox form of trinitarianism, with God the divine Father-Mother, Christ the “spiritual idea of sonship,” and “divine Science” aka Holy Comforter. Speaking of divine science, that’s sort of the basis for not believing in actual medical science. Christian Science is the template for the crazy religious cult that causes people to die from easily preventable causes.
   
   *]Unitarians- characterized by liberal Christian theology, starting with the rejection of the Trinity. It got its start in Eastern Europe as a grouping of Arians and Unitarians split from the Polish Calvinist Church in the mid-16th century. By the 19th century, though, it became more universalist and de-emphasized any sort of theology. Its fellowship came to include outright non-Christians and atheists. As of now, the movement is dwindling and aging. It is monotheistic, but the Christology is not Christian in nature. It’s more similar to Mormonism.
   
   *]Jesus-only Pentecostals- broke away from Protestantism; rejects the Trinity. SS and Sola Fide appear to be pretty similar to that of the Reformers; baptism, however, is more similar to Catholicism aside from saying only Jesus’ name. (The greater similarity has to do with soteriological points of comparison). This is less of a cult, and not really as much of a restoration movement. It’s a lot more like an old-school heresy. Oneness theologian Dr. David Bernard says Modalistic Monarchianism and Oneness Pentecostalism are essentially the same, provided that you don’t understand Modalism to be the same as Patripassianism. So to summarize…I’d say the distinctive teachings are essentially those of Sabellius, but the people among whom they’ve been resurrected happened to be Protestants in the 20th century. Sabellianism is, of course, distinctly outside of Orthodox and Catholic Christianity as well as Protestantism, but the Oneness Pentecostals did retain many distinct elements of Protestantism while also moving in a more Catholic-oriented direction in other areas. Whether you put this one inside or outside of Christianity largely depends on where you’d put Sabellius. This branch of Pentecostalism goes where he goes. Either way, it’s not a part of Catholicism and it’s not a part of Protestantism, either- although that is where it broke from.

 

[cooterhein]

If they wouldn’t agree to disagree with us Catholics on this one, they would regard the Pope as the head of the visible organization named Church, instituted by God, and they would all be Catholics!

That’s a bit too simplistic, I think. There’ve been a few other…things…that have come up since the Schism that widened the divide between CC and EO. But you know what those things are, right?

 

[samiam1611]

I’m reading about Mormons on Wikipedia. Boy was I uninformed! I thought they were just some other kind of Christianity like all the rest. Weird how they have so much in common but yet different enough to not be. I mean look at the buzz words…Jesus, church, bible, baptism, eucharist. How can that not be Christian? (but then I read on and see the important differences.)

 

[meltzerboy]

There’s a couple of basics to Christianity other than “Jesus is the Messiah.” Right there at ground level is a couple of other basics: Christians are Trinitarian and Christians (following in the Jewish tradition) have always been monotheistic.

Mormons are not Trinitarian. Mormons are not monotheistic. Some of them will even argue that monotheism is an invention of the late Middle Ages and that Christianity (along with Judaism) had always been something other than monotheistic until then.

So Mormons claim to be Christians…the “True Christians,” actually. They believe they have the fullness of truth along with a living prophet of God whose words are far more valuable than those of a dead prophet. But they also have some really basic differences of beliefs from what has always defined Christianity, and they’ll generally have to defend a view of Christian history that is…let’s go with “factually suspect.” I mean, it begins with the assertion that Jesus visited America and converted Native Americans after His resurrection, but it really takes off from there.

In answer to the OP: Protestantism doesn’t just mean “anti-pope,” given that atheists are more likely to dislike the pope than any sort of Christian. “Protestant” initially meant “to protest something,” and that actually didn’t mean “disagree with.” “Protest” referred to a positive assertion of certain basic truths.

So what were those basic truths? I guess the prerequisites are trinitarianism and monotheism along with a certain type of Christology, for starters, but that’s just how you identify a Christian. In order to get more specifically Protestant, you look at the Solas, primarily Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. These, along with a belief in the priesthood of all believers and a general departure from apostolic authority centered in Rome, are the key markings of a Protestant.

I believe there was an initial list of some sort…

1. 
   *]Mormons- not Protestant, not Catholic, not Christian.
   
   *]Jehovah’s Witnesses- another restoration movement; also rejects trinitarianism. They are monotheistic, but they reject the divinity of Christ. Thus, not Protestant or Catholic or Christian.
   
   *]Quakers- Depends if you’re “Orthodox” or “Hicksite,” which stresses “inner light” and allows for beliefs that are universalist or entirely non-theistic. Historically, the movement began in England and wasn’t directly involved with the Reformation, although it was tangentially related. The Anabaptists were seen by some (ie., Voltaire) as the “fathers” of the Quakers. However, it is another restorationist movement, and while there is a wide variety of beliefs, there is a broad rejection of SS. Definitely not Catholic and not Protestant, though some may be Christians. It depends.
   
   *]Christian Scientists- Christian is a misnomer. There is an unorhodox form of trinitarianism, with God the divine Father-Mother, Christ the “spiritual idea of sonship,” and “divine Science” aka Holy Comforter. Speaking of divine science, that’s sort of the basis for not believing in actual medical science. Christian Science is the template for the crazy religious cult that causes people to die from easily preventable causes.
   
   *]Unitarians- characterized by liberal Christian theology, starting with the rejection of the Trinity. It got its start in Eastern Europe as a grouping of Arians and Unitarians split from the Polish Calvinist Church in the mid-16th century. By the 19th century, though, it became more universalist and de-emphasized any sort of theology. Its fellowship came to include outright non-Christians and atheists. As of now, the movement is dwindling and aging. It is monotheistic, but the Christology is not Christian in nature. It’s more similar to Mormonism.
   
   *]Jesus-only Pentecostals- broke away from Protestantism; rejects the Trinity. SS and Sola Fide appear to be pretty similar to that of the Reformers; baptism, however, is more similar to Catholicism aside from saying only Jesus’ name. (The greater similarity has to do with soteriological points of comparison). This is less of a cult, and not really as much of a restoration movement. It’s a lot more like an old-school heresy. Oneness theologian Dr. David Bernard says Modalistic Monarchianism and Oneness Pentecostalism are essentially the same, provided that you don’t understand Modalism to be the same as Patripassianism. So to summarize…I’d say the distinctive teachings are essentially those of Sabellius, but the people among whom they’ve been resurrected happened to be Protestants in the 20th century. Sabellianism is, of course, distinctly outside of Orthodox and Catholic Christianity as well as Protestantism, but the Oneness Pentecostals did retain many distinct elements of Protestantism while also moving in a more Catholic-oriented direction in other areas. Whether you put this one inside or outside of Christianity largely depends on where you’d put Sabellius. This branch of Pentecostalism goes where he goes. Either way, it’s not a part of Catholicism and it’s not a part of Protestantism, either- although that is where it broke from.

1. 
   I thank you for all this information! One point, however: is it really true Mormons are not monotheistic, as you state? That I never knew; but I also didn’t think they weren’t regarded as Christians by other groups.

 

[Jimmy_B]

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).

Interesting… I didn’t know, for example that Quakers weren’t baptized…

 

[samiam1611]

I didn’t know, for example that Quakers weren’t baptized…

Yeah what’s the deal with Quakers? Remember the Puritans? Whatever happened to them? Are Quakers anything like them? I associate them in my mind but that’s based on…nothing. Anyone know?

 

[seeker57]

*]Unitarians- characterized by liberal Christian theology, starting with the rejection of the Trinity. It got its start in Eastern Europe as a grouping of Arians and Unitarians split from the Polish Calvinist Church in the mid-16th century. By the 19th century, though, it became more universalist and de-emphasized any sort of theology. Its fellowship came to include outright non-Christians and atheists. As of now, the movement is dwindling and aging. It is monotheistic, but the Christology is not Christian in nature. It’s more similar to Mormonism.

Well, you are partly correct. Unitarians outside the U.S. are primarily Christian in orientation, many conduct baptisms, and more or less think of Jesus as a great teacher, but may or may not believe in his divinity.

You are also correct that originally, Unitarianism started in the 16th Century when the Protestant Reformation took hold in the remote mountains of Transylvania in eastern Europe. The first edict of religious toleration in history was declared in 1568 during the reign of the first and only Unitarian king, John Sigismund. Sigismund’ s court preacher, Frances David, had successively converted from Catholicism to Lutheranism to Calvinism and finally to Unitarianism because he could find no biblical basis for the doctrine of the trinity. Arguing that people should be allowed to choose among these faiths, he said, “We need not think alike to love alike.”

In the U.S., the Unitarian Universalists are a bit different. however. Unitarians first split from the original Congregationalist churches in New England. These were the churches first founded by the Puritans, although their doctrines were substantially different. Churches with Unitarian beliefs, and Harvard Divinity School, were found in cities primarily in the Northeast. Unitarian Churches removed all mention of the trinity from their worship or prayer early on.

Universalist churches were found in more rural areas. Universalists believe in universal salvation, in other words, no hell, or at least no permanent hell.

The two merged in 1961 to become Unitarian Universalists. Since that time, many congregations have dispensed with references to Christianity as a core belief, and there is now a greater emphasis on exploring spirituality using many religious traditions, as well as science, reason and human experience.

Unitarian Universalism in the United States is very much an American innovation, although we do maintain ties with Unitarians in other areas of the world.

While some UUs consider themselves Christian, many do not. Some believe it has evolved into a religion unto its own.

I would disagree with the allegation that,

As of now, the movement is dwindling and aging. It is monotheistic, but the Christology is not Christian in nature. It’s more similar to Mormonism.

The number of people deciding to become a UU is steady, at least from the reports I saw about a year ago.

But, I do disagree UUs are monotheistic or that we are similar to the LDS.

Many of the UUs who are members of my congregation are pagans, and definitely not monotheistic. Others are atheist, so they don’t claim any deity.

Also, Mormon teachings are fundamentally conservative in nature. UU teachings are anything but conservative in nature.

Just thought I would point that out.

Seeker

 

[meltzerboy]

Well, you are partly correct. Unitarians outside the U.S. are primarily Christian in orientation, many conduct baptisms, and more or less think of Jesus as a great teacher, but may or may not believe in his divinity.

You are also correct that originally, Unitarianism started in the 16th Century when the Protestant Reformation took hold in the remote mountains of Transylvania in eastern Europe. The first edict of religious toleration in history was declared in 1568 during the reign of the first and only Unitarian king, John Sigismund. Sigismund’ s court preacher, Frances David, had successively converted from Catholicism to Lutheranism to Calvinism and finally to Unitarianism because he could find no biblical basis for the doctrine of the trinity. Arguing that people should be allowed to choose among these faiths, he said, “We need not think alike to love alike.”

In the U.S., the Unitarian Universalists are a bit different. however. Unitarians first split from the original Congregationalist churches in New England. These were the churches first founded by the Puritans, although their doctrines were substantially different. Churches with Unitarian beliefs, and Harvard Divinity School, were found in cities primarily in the Northeast. Unitarian Churches removed all mention of the trinity from their worship or prayer early on.

Universalist churches were found in more rural areas. Universalists believe in universal salvation, in other words, no hell, or at least no permanent hell.

The two merged in 1961 to become Unitarian Universalists. Since that time, many congregations have dispensed with references to Christianity as a core belief, and there is now a greater emphasis on exploring spirituality using many religious traditions, as well as science, reason and human experience.

Unitarian Universalism in the United States is very much an American innovation, although we do maintain ties with Unitarians in other areas of the world.

While some UUs consider themselves Christian, many do not. Some believe it has evolved into a religion unto its own.

I would disagree with the allegation that,

The number of people deciding to become a UU is steady, at least from the reports I saw about a year ago.

But, I do disagree UUs are monotheistic or that we are similar to the LDS.

Many of the UUs who are members of my congregation are pagans, and definitely not monotheistic. Others are atheist, so they don’t claim any deity.

Also, Mormon teachings are fundamentally conservative in nature. UU teachings are anything but conservative in nature.

Just thought I would point that out.

Seeker

Thanks for the information on the various forms, as well as origins, of Unitarianism! It seems to me that this religion–among those mentioned previously–is furthest removed from traditional Protestantism.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think Pastor Gary’s explanation was dead-on as well…

The problem with the question is the presumption that “protestantism” is a single, monolithic group, or that it once was. Neither is true.
Beyond that, I agree with Pastor Gary.

Jon

 

[seeker57]

Thanks for the information on the various forms, as well as origins, of Unitarianism! It seems to me that this religion–among those mentioned previously–is furthest removed from traditional Protestantism.

I agree with you.