What Do You Mean By Protestant?

[bogeydogg]

So there a lot of folks on here asking questions to “protestants” as an all encompassing group which is unified in its belief and understanding of Scripture. Because of this assumption a great many out of left field questions get asked to people to make them defend doctrines to which they do not adhere. While of course it may be great good fun to do this, it ultimately winds up being a straw man because the questioner is putting words into the questioned’s mouth without actually bothering to find out what he believes.

In other words it is a straw man argument.

It would be like some Chick-track soaked know nothing asking Catholics to defend the Church’s position on the sacrificing of the children born of the illicit relations between priests and nuns for the glory of Baal. (No really I once read a Chick track which claimed this to be a practice of the Roman Catholic Church)

Of course you would answer, “Well I don’t have anything to say about that doctrine because it does not exist.”

To which the reply would come, “Ah Hah so you can’t answer it then huh!”

You see it is ridiculous.

In the same way it is absurd to ask a Presbyterian why his Church does not baptize infants because it does. Or to ask a Methodist about double predestination because he won’t believe it.

So before you get all high and mighty about “protestants” try and figure out what you are talking about and to whom you are speaking because some of us who come to these boards are not Catholic and yet have taken the time to learn a great deal about Catholic Doctrine and don’t think the Church is an enemy of the Faith. As such it would be nice to have the same courtesy returned.

God Bless

 

[Belloc_Fan]

That’s a very fair point. On the other hand, it should be noted that it’s a bit of a two-way street: many non-Catholic Christians (Protestants, as well as charismatics and non-denominational Christians who shirk even the title “Protestant”) are more than a bit vague in identifying themselves. It’s worth noting that your own handle identifies you merely as a Christian – while I understand that the emphasis on Christ outweighs the doctrinal differences between Christians, to cradle Catholics who’ve never been in any Protestant service, self-identified Protestants on a Catholic forum saying, “This is the true belief you Catholics should have” can unwittingly give the impression that they’re speaking for Protestantism writ large.

Perhaps both sides could be a bit more specific about which groups they’re referring to, whether it’s the denomination they’re criticizing, or affirming.

 

[awatkins69]

I think people usually when discussing protestant doctrine, they assume they hold to the typical and most common protestant teaching. You are correct. It is sometimes hard to discuss with protestants, because no two churches will teach the exact same thing.

Of course, to make this very easy and have nothing of a straw man argument, all you have to do is explain to us whether we understand your church’s doctrine or not. If yours is different from the one we are discussing, please clarify, and we can recognize that in our conversation. But most of the time when we refer to “*the *protestant position”, we mean the most typical one.

Likewise, it would be fair if when discussing Catholic doctrine, we recognize the official Catholic teaching. I’ve noticed quite a few straw man arguments on evangelical and fundamentalist websites (not saying you do this). For instance, when discussing justification, it seems that the Catholic position is erroneously described as consisting of earning salvation by works in a system of debt. Very easy to refute from the Bible (because it’s wrong), but *not *the Catholic teaching.

 

[bogeydogg]

To that end I would like to givwe a VERY brief rundown of the highlights of some denominations. I make no claim to this being exhaustive so don’t nit-pick these are of necessity broad statements which should not be thought of as true for all adherents of the denominations mentioned because, after all, there are a great many rogue teachers who still call themselves Catholic but by their teachings could not possibly be considered so, so try not to make 5the wackos speak for the whole.

First off there are several denominations which call themselves Christian and Protestant but are in fact neither. Chief among these are the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They lay claim to being Christian but deny the divinity of Christ and therefore by definition cannot be.

A close cousin but more nebulous in its doctrine would be the Seventh Day Adventists. I don’t know that their doctrine disqualifies them from being Christian but in practice they follow a modern day prophet and that always makes say “Hmm?”

Some other non-Christian protestants would be Unitarians (deniers of the Trinity) Christian Scientists (Divinity of Christ) and others.

Next would be the massive amounts of “Charismatic/ Neo-Pentecostal” groups. Among these would be Assembly of God, Church of God in Christ, Inspired Body of Christ, Pentecostal, etc. All of these groups work on the assumption that the Charismata did not cease but continues today. Some say that you must “be baptized in the Holy Spirit” to be saved and others say that you don’t. Regardless they all work on the assumption that God’s grace is not full in salvation and there must be a further receiving in order to have the fullness of Christian life. I have a problem with this. Also it is out this bunch that the “Prosperity Gospel/ Televangelists” came out if so make of that what you will.

Then there are the more Arminian groups such as the Wesleyan/ Methodist Churches which fall under the rubric of mainline protestantism, but theologically have a great difference with the next group mainly over how we are saved.

The last group is what I think of as Christian Protestantism; the Lutheran Church, the Anglican Church, the Presbyterian Church and the Baptist Church. All of these Churches, at least according ti their historical creeds, would be thought of as Calvinist and all of them came about during or shortly after the Reformation.

I am Baptist and of course I realize that term means many things to many people, but I am speaking of the historical creedal stance of these Churches. I am also aware that a great many people who call themselves Baptist don’t know they have a Confession of Faith to which they are to conform, but I am defining this more for the purposes of this thread and I hope if you find it interesting we can discuss.

God Bless******

 

[awatkins69]

While you could make a case against Mormons, SDA, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and maybe Unitarians being protestant, I definitely consider charismatics/pentecostals protestant. They typically hold to the five solas.

Also, don’t forget the Anabaptists, Mennonites, Congregationalists, Dutch Reformed, Quakers, Moravians, Church of Christ, and thousands of “non-denominational” churches.

 

[bogeydogg]

I think people usually when discussing protestant doctrine, they assume they hold to the typical and most common protestant teaching. You are correct. It is sometimes hard to discuss with protestants, because no two churches will teach the exact same thing.

Of course, to make this very easy and have nothing of a straw man argument, all you have to do is explain to us whether we understand your church’s doctrine or not. If yours is different from the one we are discussing, please clarify, and we can recognize that in our conversation. But most of the time when we refer to “*the *protestant position”, we mean the most typical one.

Likewise, it would be fair if when discussing Catholic doctrine, we recognize the official Catholic teaching. I’ve noticed quite a few straw man arguments on evangelical and fundamentalist websites (not saying you do this). For instance, when discussing justification, it seems that the Catholic position is erroneously described as consisting of earning salvation by works in a system of debt. Very easy to refute from the Bible (because it’s wrong), but *not *the Catholic teaching.

Absolutely it is a slander against the Roman Catholic Church to say that She teaches Salvation by works. I wholly agree, and say so when others make that claim.

As far as a general position, I think the general consensus among “Evangelical American Protestants” would be along the lines of the Charles Finney/ Invite Jesus/ God wants you to be rich/ America is the promised land/ right leaning/ your best life is this one mumbo jumbo which I don’t adhere because I think it is unchristian, if not anti-Christian, at best.

I am a Calvinist if I am anything, which is not at all the majority report, but I tend to think of myself as Augustinian more than Calvinist because because Calvin said some things that I think are wrong. However I do believe in the Solas but I think they are poorly defined by those who claim to believe them and I am persuaded that Reformation Faith is the true Catholic Faith espoused by the Fathers during the time of Augustine.

However I am not persuaded that Catholic Doctrine (by this I mean the '94 Catechism) so deviates from Orthodox Faith as to be non-Christian which is far more than the life counselling pseudo-psychobabble humanism that passes itself off as “Protestantism” each Sunday around the Country.

God Bless.

 

[mark_a]

So before you get all high and mighty about “protestants” try and figure out what you are talking about and to whom you are speaking because some of us who come to these boards are not Catholic and yet have taken the time to learn a great deal about Catholic Doctrine and don’t think the Church is an enemy of the Faith. As such it would be nice to have the same courtesy returned.

God Bless

Fair enough!!

 

[bogeydogg]

While you could make a case against Mormons, SDA, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and maybe Unitarians being protestant, I definitely consider charismatics/pentecostals protestant. They typically hold to the five solas.

Also, don’t forget the Anabaptists, Mennonites, Congregationalists, Dutch Reformed, Quakers, Moravians, Church of Christ, and thousands of “non-denominational” churches.

Most of the second list falls broadly under either Presbyterian or Baptist, at least confessionally.

And while these other Pentecostal groups may lay claim to the Solas they don’t understand them and twist the teaching to a sort of “God the cosmic genie” idolatry and count on Salvation based on Divine Indifference, and that is not Orthodox Christianity.

God Bless

 

[Belloc_Fan]

It seems that you’re making “Protestant” and “Reformed” interchangable. But even the Anabaptists, from which the Baptists are semi-descended, were decisively (and violently) at odds with Calvin/Dordt, and even more at odds with the Lutherans. Certainly, the Mennonites aren’t “Reformed” by any stretch, but they’re descendants of a group which split off from the Catholic Church during the Protestant Reformation, so they’re “Protestant” in the normal sense of that term.

Are you suggesting that the five solas are (or ought to be) the identifying mark of **all **Protestantism? That strikes me as the sort of squeezing Protestantism into a narrow box which you just criticized.

 

[uxordepp]

Protestant means one who protests the Catholic faith. Originally this meant only those groups which developed directly as a result of the Lutherian revolt. Practically, it has come to mean non-Catholic Christians.

I’m not sure there are ANY tenets of Christianity that all Protestants hold in common, except to reject Rome.

 

[bogeydogg]

While you could make a case against Mormons, SDA, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and maybe Unitarians being protestant, I definitely consider charismatics/pentecostals protestant. They typically hold to the five solas.

Also, don’t forget the Anabaptists, Mennonites, Congregationalists, Dutch Reformed, Quakers, Moravians, Church of Christ, and thousands of “non-denominational” churches.

Also to clarify I think non-denominational Churches may be populated by Christians but since they have divorced themselves from any sort of oversight cannot be considered a Christian Church because Scripture clearly teaches that there is an order of governance within the Churches and over them by trusted Servants called of God.

Also Church of Christ is sort of a square peg because they say they believe in the Solas but do not acknowledge salvation apart from baptism (which is not found in the Scripture i e the thief on the cross was not baptized) but the only baptism they confess is their own and thus they re-baptize which I think is an aberrant practice.

God Bless

 

[bogeydogg]

It seems that you’re making “Protestant” and “Reformed” interchangable. But even the Anabaptists, from which the Baptists are semi-descended, were decisively (and violently) at odds with Calvin/Dordt, and even more at odds with the Lutherans. Certainly, the Mennonites aren’t “Reformed” by any stretch, but they’re descendants of a group which split off from the Catholic Church during the Protestant Reformation, so they’re “Protestant” in the normal sense of that term.

Are you suggesting that the five solas are (or ought to be) the identifying mark of **all **Protestantism? That strikes me as the sort of squeezing Protestantism into a narrow box which you just criticized.

No what I am saying is that Protestantism is to broadly defined and that many groups which would call themselves “Protestant” meaning “Christian and not Catholic” are by their doctrine and practice not Christian and therefore not protestant either.

Also the issue of the Anabaptists was re-baptizing but confessionally the Baptists are very similar with Calvin/ Dordt/ Luther.

God Bless

 

[bogeydogg]

Protestant means one who protests the Catholic faith. Originally this meant only those groups which developed directly as a result of the Lutherian revolt. Practically, it has come to mean non-Catholic Christians.

I’m not sure there are ANY tenets of Christianity that all Protestants hold in common, except to reject Rome.

I don;t reject Rome. I just don’t believe the Bishop of Rome Speaks for the entirety of Christendom, even though I have great respect and veneration for him.

God Bless

 

[Corki]

Protestant means one who protests the Catholic faith. Originally this meant only those groups which developed directly as a result of the Lutherian revolt. ** Practically, it has come to mean non-Catholic Christians**.

I’m not sure there are ANY tenets of Christianity that all Protestants hold in common, except to reject Rome.

I would say that Protestants are all Christians who are neither Catholic nor Orthodox. For apologetic purposes, that includes JWs, Mormons and SDAs too. However, when talking about Sacraments, I would only include those with trinitarian Baptism.

 

[awatkins69]

I don;t reject Rome. I just don’t believe the Bishop of Rome Speaks for the entirety of Christendom, even though I have great respect and veneration for him.

God Bless

Hi bogey. You seem to be very observant, intelligent, and honest as an observer. You said that you believe your current faith is that which was practiced by Augustine, and you describe yourself as holding to an Augustinian view of theology. Just wondering what you thought of this. Not trying to give a virulent attack, just asking.

“Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail” Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393).

“I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by…and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate.” Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).

“Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.” Augustine, To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 (A.D. 397).

“The chair of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today.” Augustine, Against the Letters of Petillian, 2:51 (A.D. 402).

 

[bogeydogg]

I am not denying that Peter was in Rome and neither do I deny Apostolic Succession. However where I differ is with the post-Vatican Council teachings on the Holy See specifically the infallibility and authority of the Pope. I think all true Christians (that is those who belong to Christ by God’s will and mercy and grace and for His glory) no matter where they are participate in true communion with all the Saints of all time.

I do believe the Apostles are the foundation of the Church and their teachings and the Traditions of the great saints through out history are great and abiding gifts from God, but I do not think Rome is right in its teaching concerning for example plenary indulgence because no man can forgive sin, only God (Luke). And as much as any priest may say I absolve you, if (a little Augustinian thought here) the attendant grace of the Holy Spirit does not make that a reality then the absolution is invalid and worthless.

It is the heart of the penitent who makes confession real not the authority of the priest and by extension the Holy See.

God Bless

 

[awatkins69]

I am not denying that Peter was in Rome and neither do I deny Apostolic Succession. However where I differ is with the post-Vatican Council teachings on the Holy See specifically the infallibility and authority of the Pope. I think all true Christians (that is those who belong to Christ by God’s will and mercy and grace and for His glory) no matter where they are participate in true communion with all the Saints of all time.

I do believe the Apostles are the foundation of the Church and their teachings and the Traditions of the great saints through out history are great and abiding gifts from God, but I do not think Rome is right in its teaching concerning for example plenary indulgence because no man can forgive sin, only God (Luke). And as much as any priest may say I absolve you, if (a little Augustinian thought here) the attendant grace of the Holy Spirit does not make that a reality then the absolution is invalid and worthless.

It is the heart of the penitent who makes confession real not the authority of the priest and by extension the Holy See.

God Bless

Again, not trying to be mean or offensive. Just giving some food for thought. Firstly, with Apostolic Succession, I really have to wonder how a Baptist can have this. I’ve heard of Baptist apologists claiming some hidden Apostolic Succession invisible to the eyes of historians. But I honestly do not see this as realistic.

As for the authority of the Church, specifically the pope, I think that it is clear that St. Augustine thinks the parts of Scripture which the Catholic Church claims teach the primacy and authority of the pope, do in fact teach such things. And I’m just going by what St. Augustine says. There is more from his peers such as St. John Chrysostom and St. Ambrose.

As for Saint Augustine and confession, listen to his own words:

“All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grievous sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, them, and confess your sins to the priest. Confession alone is the true gate to Heaven.” Augustine, Christian Combat (A.D. 397).

We also believe that the sinner must be truly penitent in order for their sins to be forgiven, and if there were no priest to give absolution and it were an extreme condition, perfect sorrow for sins would suffice. If the sinner is not truly sorry or at least afraid of God’s wrath, then they do not receive forgiveness.

 

[jmcrae]

To that end I would like to givwe a VERY brief rundown of the highlights of some denominations. I make no claim to this being exhaustive so don’t nit-pick these are of necessity broad statements which should not be thought of as true for all adherents of the denominations mentioned because, after all, there are a great many rogue teachers who still call themselves Catholic but by their teachings could not possibly be considered so, so try not to make 5the wackos speak for the whole.

First off there are several denominations which call themselves Christian and Protestant but are in fact neither. Chief among these are the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They lay claim to being Christian but deny the divinity of Christ and therefore by definition cannot be.

A close cousin but more nebulous in its doctrine would be the Seventh Day Adventists. I don’t know that their doctrine disqualifies them from being Christian but in practice they follow a modern day prophet and that always makes say “Hmm?”

Some other non-Christian protestants would be Unitarians (deniers of the Trinity) Christian Scientists (Divinity of Christ) and others.

Next would be the massive amounts of “Charismatic/ Neo-Pentecostal” groups. Among these would be Assembly of God, Church of God in Christ, Inspired Body of Christ, Pentecostal, etc. All of these groups work on the assumption that the Charismata did not cease but continues today. Some say that you must “be baptized in the Holy Spirit” to be saved and others say that you don’t. Regardless they all work on the assumption that God’s grace is not full in salvation and there must be a further receiving in order to have the fullness of Christian life. I have a problem with this. Also it is out this bunch that the “Prosperity Gospel/ Televangelists” came out if so make of that what you will.

Then there are the more Arminian groups such as the Wesleyan/ Methodist Churches which fall under the rubric of mainline protestantism, but theologically have a great difference with the next group mainly over how we are saved. ******

Which brings me to the question - how much of the Nicene Creed can you reject, and still consider yourself a Christian?

If you can reject any of it at all (as every Protestant on earth rejects/protests at least one line of the Nicene Creed; hence how they came to be Protestants), then why not be able to reject all but one line (pick any) and still think of yourself as a Christian, as the above groups seem to do?

The last group is what I think of as Christian Protestantism; the Lutheran Church, the Anglican Church, the Presbyterian Church and the Baptist Church. All of these Churches, at least according ti their historical creeds, would be thought of as Calvinist and all of them came about during or shortly after the Reformation.

 

[jmcrae]

I do believe the Apostles are the foundation of the Church and their teachings and the Traditions of the great saints through out history are great and abiding gifts from God, but I do not think Rome is right in its teaching concerning for example plenary indulgence because no man can forgive sin, only God (Luke).

This is actually a classic example of reading the Scriptures out of context. In the story to which you refer, Jesus, in His humanity, forgave the paralytic his sins. He was rebuked by the Pharisees for so doing, because, they said, only God can forgive sins.

Jesus’ answer references Himself as “Son of Man” (that is, the prototype of the Christian priest) and says, Not so (because He knew that He was going to establish the Sacrament of Reconciliation) - and in fact, it would be easier to tell him to be healed of his illness, and get up and walk (which he then tells the paralytic to do) and all are made silent when they see the paralytic get up, take his mat, and go home.

And as much as any priest may say I absolve you, if (a little Augustinian thought here) the attendant grace of the Holy Spirit does not make that a reality then the absolution is invalid and worthless.

Right. And we have the faithful promise of Christ to His priests that when they undertake to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation, the Holy Spirit will, in fact, be there, and the sins they forgive will be forgiven, while those that they retain shall be retained. (Matt. 18:18)

It is the heart of the penitent who makes confession real not the authority of the priest and by extension the Holy See.

Actually, it’s both. There is no Sacrament without the penitent making his Confession, but there is also no Sacrament if there is no properly authorized priest present.

 

[bogeydogg]

Again, not trying to be mean or offensive. Just giving some food for thought. Firstly, with Apostolic Succession, I really have to wonder how a Baptist can have this. I’ve heard of Baptist apologists claiming some hidden Apostolic Succession invisible to the eyes of historians. But I honestly do not see this as realistic.

As for the authority of the Church, specifically the pope, I think that it is clear that St. Augustine thinks the parts of Scripture which the Catholic Church claims teach the primacy and authority of the pope, do in fact teach such things. And I’m just going by what St. Augustine says. There is more from his peers such as St. John Chrysostom and St. Ambrose.

As for Saint Augustine and confession, listen to his own words:

“All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grievous sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, them, and confess your sins to the priest. Confession alone is the true gate to Heaven.” Augustine, Christian Combat (A.D. 397).

We also believe that the sinner must be truly penitent in order for their sins to be forgiven, and if there were no priest to give absolution and it were an extreme condition, perfect sorrow for sins would suffice. If the sinner is not truly sorry or at least afraid of God’s wrath, then they do not receive forgiveness.

I agree Augustine believed in the authority of the Church as well as the Bishops I believe these things too. I most certainly believe the members of any Church are subject to its leadership as the Church is subject to Christ. The Apostolic succession is not nebulous. We know from history the line of bishops descended from the Apostles and those men duly ordained by God are part of it. The argument of the Reformers was not that catholicity was invalid but the Rome had lost Her way. That is why it was the reformation and not the Revolution. It was Rome who threw out the Reformers at Trent not the other way around.

Remember Luther posted his theses in Latin not German because he was asking for an ecclesiastical court not a revolution. It was his students who translated them and handed them to the laity not Luther. Luther did not seek to break from Rome he wanted Rome to rediscover Her own past specifically what bishops had handed down during life of Augustine concerning Pelagius and Cassianus.

God Bless