What does it mean to be Protestant?

[JonNC]

Hi, And thank-you for your reply. I understand what you are saying. When I say protests a teaching of the RCC I think People sometimes are seeing signs walking back and forth in front of the Church or something

But what I mean is that there are really 2 Religions. Catholic and Protestant. You are either a part of the Catholic Church or you are some other Religion. Anything out of the Catholic faith is considered to be Protestant.

Where someone protests a teaching of our faith it means that they do not agree with it, or cannot accept it that is why they are not part of it. Do you understand what I am saying?

But I do not mean that they openly protest what we are teaching or are even actually have a big problem with it, they just do not see it our way or accept what we teach.

To put it another way Protestant means other then Catholic.

Hi rinnie,
That is an exceptionally broad definition of Protestant. YOu are by this defining the Orthodox as Protestant, as well as the PNCC and Old Catholics. Usually, the less broad (but perhaps too broad, also) grouping is those faith communions directly or indirectly resulting from the Reformation period.

But the word Protestant was formed when the first CHurch broke away from the Catholic Church. It came from the word protest. Do you see what I am saying?

Actually, though, that isn’t the origin of the term.

From post #11

The term protestant comes from the second Diet at Speyer, and was a protest against political authorities, not the Catholic Church, per se. I’m no expert, but it appears more a protest against the restriction of religious freedom. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestation_at_Speyer

Jon

 

[gcnuss]

But the word Protestant was formed when the first CHurch broke away from the Catholic Church. It came from the word protest. Do you see what I am saying?

To put it another way Protestant means other then Catholic.

The first Church that broke away was the Orthodox. Is it Protestant?

But I can understand, and even accept, “protestant” as a generic term equivalent to “non-Catholic” even if it doesn’t cover all non-Catholics.

Who cares what they call me as long as they don’t call me late for dinner.

 

[rinnie]

Hi rinnie,
That is an exceptionally broad definition of Protestant. YOu are by this defining the Orthodox as Protestant, as well as the PNCC and Old Catholics. Usually, the less broad (but perhaps too broad, also) grouping is those faith communions directly or indirectly resulting from the Reformation period.

Actually, though, that isn’t the origin of the term.

From post #11

Jon

Well John what would Mr Webster have to say about that

Protestant any Christian Not belonging to the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthoodox Church.

So E O’s your in. There rest of you are out

 

[rinnie]

The first Church that broke away was the Orthodox. Is it Protestant?

But I can understand, and even accept, “protestant” as a generic term equivalent to “non-Catholic” even if it doesn’t cover all non-Catholics.

Who cares what they call me as long as they don’t call me late for dinner.

That’s what my Dad always used to say You are a joy Pastor Gary And lets hope it’s not the Last Supper

 

[monina]

Right, but this view is unsupported by the historical record, and Baptist historians dismiss it (see Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage).

Edwin

Yep, except you believe that the authors may be lying, exaggerating or misinterpreting, so why should we even consider that source?

Remember?

I said:

Originally Posted by monina forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
And now we’re less likely to have any basic confidence in your musings given you don’t even trust your own sources. They COULD BE lying, mistaken, exaggerating or interpolating.
[sign]
Remember that, Folks, every time Edwin cites a source! [/sign]

You responded:

Indeed–remember that I use critical thinking about the sources I cite rather than just assuming that they are infallible (as you apparently do).

You seriously think that this makes me *less *trustworthy than you?

Edwin

                                                                          __________________
            Affiliation: Episcopalian

 

[Contarini]

Yep, except you believe that the authors may be lying, exaggerating or misinterpreting, so why should we even consider that source?

Because, as I repeatedly pointed out, we have no alternative when dealing with human sources.

Have you really never heard that to err is human?

You still haven’t provided the infallible scholarly sources to which you have access, in contrast to the normal, human, fallible sources I and everyone else use.

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

Because, as I repeatedly pointed out, we have no alternative when dealing with human sources.

Have you really never heard that to err is human?

You still haven’t provided the infallible scholarly sources to which you have access, in contrast to the normal, human, fallible sources I and everyone else use.

Edwin

Ah, but Edwin my friend we do. We have a promise from God to send the Advocate the Holy Spirit to Guide the leaders of the Church. So to err is human but to follow the teachings of the Apostles and successors is divine!!

 

[Contarini]

Ah, but Edwin my friend we do. We have a promise from God to send the Advocate the Holy Spirit to Guide the leaders of the Church. So to err is human but to follow the teachings of the Apostles and successors is divine!!

Sure, but Monina apparently thinks that all one’s human, scholarly sources should be infallible. At least, that’s the only sense I can make of her repeated trumpeting of my acknowledgment that all *my *sources are fallible.

We aren’t talking about divine protection, but about how one normally evaluates a text written by human beings.

Edwin

 

[monina]

Sure, but Monina apparently thinks that all one’s human, scholarly sources should be infallible. At least, that’s the only sense I can make of her repeated trumpeting of my acknowledgment that all *my *sources are fallible.

We aren’t talking about divine protection, but about how one normally evaluates a text written by human beings.

Edwin

Nope, Edwin.

This all started with one poster, an agnostic, claiming that the inspired writers of Scripture could be mistaken, interpolating, exaggerating, or lying.

Yet, when it was convenient to his argument he’d proclaim, “Jesus said _____” or “God would never _________”

But, logically, he can’t make any claims about Jesus or God if he believes those who gave him that info could be mistaken, interpolating, exaggerating or lying.

My comment was:

My remark was about larkin, an agnostic who believes that Scripture has error, yet who keeps talking about Jesus and the apostles and the Pharisees–info he only knows from Scripture. How does he know anything that was written was not a mistake, exaggeration, interpolation or lie? (That’s using his own quote!)

You entered this discussion here:

Any historian, approaching any historical document, assumes that the writers may be doing one of these four things, or all of them at once. That doesn’t mean that we assume the writers are doing this. I for one tend to give the authors (of any text) the benefit of the doubt when it comes to deliberate lying–that is, I assume they are sincere unless I have reason to believe otherwise. But of course authors do lie, and when approaching any text that’s always going to be a possibility.

How else do you imagine historians approach evidence?

Edwin

If larkin, an agnostic, believes that the writers could be lying, then why in the world would he quote something that may be a lie? And how does he know that the Resurrection is a lie but that Jesus overturning the tables in the Temple is a historical fact?

And if you agree with his approach to Scripture, AND you believe that your sources could be lying, why should we read any sources you cite?

Who wants to go to a source that could be written by a liar?

That’s quite a bizarre paradigm to promote.

 

[Contarini]

Nope, Edwin.

This all started with one poster, an agnostic, claiming that the inspired writers of Scripture could be mistaken, interpolating, exaggerating, or lying.

In other words, claiming consistently with his agnosticism that Scripture is just another ancient text, subject to error.

But, logically, he can’t make any claims about Jesus or God if he believes those who gave him that info could be mistaken, interpolating, exaggerating or lying.

I agree that he can’t logically make claims about God, unless he is being ironic, which I think he was (in other words, his point was that on our own terms we ought to believe thus and so). However, as you yourself demonstrate by helpfully providing the link, you criticized him for making simple historical statements. In other words, you assumed irrationally that if he didn’t think the New Testament was divinely inspired and infallible, he had to reject it altogether. That is not how one normally treats human texts. One uses them critically, aware that they *may *be misleading but that they may also provide valuable insights.

If larkin, an agnostic, believes that the writers could be lying, then why in the world would he quote something that may be a lie?

And I repeat: this is true of all human, fallible texts. The fact that Larkin sees Scripture as a purely human text does not mean that he can’t have opinions about which parts of it may be historically accurate.

Do you only quote Scripture and church documents? Do you never quote any merely human scholar or other writer? I find this hard to believe. I have repeatedly challenged you on this and you have repeatedly failed to address the point.

And how does he know that the Resurrection is a lie but that Jesus overturning the tables in the Temple is a historical fact?

Ask him, but clearly the one event is much more unlike the sort of thing that we normally observe happening in the world than the other. I myself don’t think Muhammad ascended to heaven or actually spoke with the angel Gabriel, but I have no problem believing that he captured Mecca and destroyed the idols in the Ka’aba (though of course the Islamic accounts of these events might well be misleading).

And if you agree with his approach to Scripture, AND you believe that your sources could be lying, why should we read any sources you cite?

Those are two completely different questions. Of course I do not agree with his approach to Scripture, in that I accept the divine inspiration of Scripture. However, I think that historical analysis of Scripture is a valuable exercise, since Scripture *is *an ancient text and since it’s useful to know what can and can’t be said about Scripture on strictly historical grounds. So I welcome secular scholarship on Scripture, although at times I will depart sharply from the presuppositions of such scholarship. (Larkin isn’t, as far as I know, a scholar of Scripture–just an educated person with general knowledge–but that’s true of most of us here regarding most of the things we discuss.)

Who wants to go to a source that could be written by a liar?

That’s quite a bizarre paradigm to promote.

We’ve been over this before, and you have repeatedly failed to defend your position, so you have lost the argument by default.

But just to make the point clear to anyone coming in at this point: you have yet to explain why you believe that all reliable sources are infallible, or how you know that whatever non-inspired sources you trust are 100% free from error and could not possibly have been written by liars. This is the "bizarre paradigm.

Humans are fallible. Apart from divine intervention (which of course we accept by faith and cannot prove with certainty through reason alone), it is always possible that any text authored by a human being is mistaken, and it is theoretically possible that any such text is lying (if we know the author’s character well, we may have moral certainty that this is not the case).

Do you really disagree with this statement? Don’t you see that if you do disagree with it, you need to explain why you have such extravagant confidence in a human being?

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

In other words, claiming consistently with his agnosticism that Scripture is just another ancient text, subject to error.

He believes the writers could be lying, mistaken, interpolating and exaggerating.

Let’s say I read “People” magazine and proclaim that I believe the writers could be lying, mistaken, interpolating and exaggerating. Then I say, “People magazine says Brad Pitt is marrying Angelina!”

I have first discredited my source and then I’m citing my source. :whacky:

You find this type of paradigm credible?

 

[Contarini]

He believes the writers could be lying, mistaken, interpolating and exaggerating.

Let’s say I read “People” magazine and proclaim that I believe the writers could be lying, mistaken, interpolating and exaggerating. Then I say, “People magazine says Brad Pitt is marrying Angelina!”

I have first discredited my source and then I’m citing my source. :whacky:

You find this type of paradigm credible?

I repeat: why on earth would you think *any *human source incapable of lying, being mistaken, interpolating or exaggerating?

I remain baffled by this idea that reliable human (non-inspired) sources are to be regarded as infallible.

Either we are seriously miscommunicating here, or some of you have a serious problem with basic critical reading skills. I’m inclined to think that it’s a combination of the two. I think that you are misreading Larkin’s statement (and my agreement with it in principle, setting aside the question of divine inspiration/protection) as if he had said “the authors are very likely to be doing these things.” But that’s not what he said. How likely a given author is to be doing any of these things is going to vary widely. A reliable source is one whose author can be counted on (with moral, not absolute certainty) not to lie and is unlikely to make serious mistakes with any frequency. An unreliable source is one that has been shown to lie and/or to make frequent and serious mistakes. Most sources are somewhere in between.

Given that both you and Monina have misread the question in this way, I have to conclude that someone really dropped the ball in terms of teaching you critical thinking/reading skills. I’m shocked that you are shocked at such a basic proposition as that human beings are likely to err and may sometimes lie. I’m shocked that you think that apart from divine intervention there are any sources free from unintentional error and absolutely free from all suspicion of lying.

Neither of you has so far bothered to defend what I find to be an absolutely astonishing and unreasonable assumption. Instead, you keep repeating with a tone of shock what I think is the entirely reasonable statement that any merely human source may make mistakes.

So to answer your question: of course if you said “People magazine says Brad is marrying Angelina” you would be doing something reasonable. You name your source and leave your hearers open to the possibility that the source is mistaken. If you said without qualification “Brad is marrying Angelina” you would be somewhat more open to criticism, although in non-scholarly discourse one can’t expect people to cite sources critically all the time

We are stuck with sources written by human beings, and apart from divine intervention (itself a matter of faith and not entirely provable by reason) no such source is beyond question. I’m baffled by the fact that you don’t recognize this.

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

Sure, but Monina apparently thinks that all one’s human, scholarly sources should be infallible. At least, that’s the only sense I can make of her repeated trumpeting of my acknowledgment that all *my *sources are fallible.

We aren’t talking about divine protection, but about how one normally evaluates a text written by human beings.

Edwin

I see what you are saying. But my take on what she was saying is yes we believe the Bible is indeed the word of God given to Man to write by the Power of the Holy Spirit. So you don’t believe the words of the bible at all anyway. To you the words of God have no truth or meaning to them at all. So how can you play scripture against scripture another words one truth against another truth and try to make one a lie if you don’t agree with either truth anyway.

Like you and I can disagree with the scripture. But to BEGIN with we DO believe that it is the true word of God. But we only disagree with eachothers interpretation of it.

Like for example My Lord My Lord why have you forsaken me. You could say Jesus said His God left Jesus. I will argue no he was not talking to God he was talking to the Jews and quoting psalms. In the end we may or may not come up in agreement. But we can help eachother in understanding, or get eachother thinking. And we may disagree to the end. I may say I have the Church to teach me, you say I do not feel your Church is the true teacher etc, It happens all the time.

But in the end we can and do agree on one thing. Jesus did say those words. Thats what I believe her point is. But when you reject God how can you really have a valid fight. Do you see what I mean. What is your real purpose? It is not to learn or help others in the faith you are here to try to Prove something wrong that you do not agree with anyway and that is God.

We as Christians know that ALL scripture is true and scripture cannot contradict scripture. If it does it is not the scripture it is our understanding of it. That is another way of learning the true scripture. But if its all a lie in your mind then how can one lie be a truth and another lie be a truth also.

Sorry for wild explain. but thats what I think she was saying. Hope you understand what I am trying to say, and I got my point across

 

[Contarini]

I see what you are saying. But my take on what she was saying is yes we believe the Bible is indeed the word of God given to Man to write by the Power of the Holy Spirit. So you don’t believe the words of the bible at all anyway. To you the words of God have no truth or meaning to them at all.

But that makes no sense. The words of the Qur’an have plenty of meaning to me even though I don’t think they are the words of God. I think the Qur’an is an important historical document and I can treat it as such. It is entirely unreasonable for Christians to object when unbelievers do this with regard to the Bible.

Furthermore, monina has in fact gone on to generalize about non-inspired sources, and has repeatedly claimed that my (to me obvious and basic) statement that all merely human sources are open to error somehow discredits everything I say. This isn’t just about the Bible–it’s about how we view non-inspired sources. It’s relevant to the original issue WRT larkin because obviously as an agnostic he thinks those are the only kinds of sources there are.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

I repeat: why on earth would you think *any *human source incapable of lying, being mistaken, interpolating or exaggerating?

I remain baffled by this idea that reliable human (non-inspired) sources are to be regarded as infallible

No one is saying that all writers in all texts are infallible, Contarini, and “incapable” of lying, etc.

It’s the “reliable” part that’s under discussion. The agnostic poster cites data from Scripture when it conveniently supports his argument, “God is love therefore God wouldn’t _____” Now, in his mind, that’s “reliable” data that God is love!

Yet, conveniently, when we report, “Well, the Scriptures also say _________” suddenly the Scriptures are a text of mistakes.

If one is going to cite a source, one ought to have a reasonable assurance of its “reliability”.

And be consistent about one’s approach to the data, not basing arguments upon one’s feelings attached to the data.

You seemed to have supported this inconsistency.

If I misread your comment, I apologize.

Of course all historical texts–and, yes, even Scripture–must be read with a discerning eye. However, if one views it as unreliable, or mistaken, it seems peculiar to quote it and use it as a reference.
.

 

[rinnie]

But that makes no sense. The words of the Qur’an have plenty of meaning to me even though I don’t think they are the words of God. I think the Qur’an is an important historical document and I can treat it as such. It is entirely unreasonable for Christians to object when unbelievers do this with regard to the Bible.

Furthermore, monina has in fact gone on to generalize about non-inspired sources, and has repeatedly claimed that my (to me obvious and basic) statement that all merely human sources are open to error somehow discredits everything I say. This isn’t just about the Bible–it’s about how we view non-inspired sources. It’s relevant to the original issue WRT larkin because obviously as an agnostic he thinks those are the only kinds of sources there are.

Edwin

I understand. I was talking about what she said on #64 about Larkin. That is what I was commenting on and thought you were also. So it is my mistake.

But to make one other comment on this as far as the Qur’an I disagree with you on that. But let me make my point and I think it can tie what monina was saying and what my comment is. It really fits. Check this out.

Ironically I have been reading a book that is the Bible and the Qur’an. Now you said that you don’t think they are the words of God. There is alot of truth to alot of their words. Its just a screwed up truth. But if I had to I could get you to recant what you said. Do you see what I mean?

Let me give you an example. Muslim Tradition also regards Judaism and Christianity as true Religions that were forms of the One True Religion valid for a special period of history.

Do you see what I am saying. They are not rejecting our Word of God. They actually agree with all of it to be honest. They do believe in the missions Moses and Jesus. But then they get go off track and think it was limited to time and space. ANd then Muhammad came with a mission for the whole world. See what I mean. So we do have alot of the same truths with them. Ifnot for the mission of Muhammad we would be on the same page actually.

But the point now is they do indeed believe in Jesus, and Moses. Now we got Larkin see what I mean. He does not believe in the words or is not totally convinced. But you Do believe and can agree to recant if you had to. Because you believe. So we can make solid ground.

But I did not read the whole thread I was only commenting on that one comment so if may be my bad. Again that was what I was commenting on.

 

[rinnie]

No one is saying that all writers in all texts are infallible, Contarini, and “incapable” of lying, etc.

It’s the “reliable” part that’s under discussion. The agnostic poster cites data from Scripture when it conveniently supports his argument, “God is love therefore God wouldn’t _____” Now, in his mind, that’s “reliable” data that God is love!

Yet, conveniently, when we report, “Well, the Scriptures also say _________” suddenly the Scriptures are a text of mistakes.

If one is going to cite a source, one ought to have a reasonable assurance of its “reliability”.

And be consistent about one’s approach to the data, not basing arguments upon one’s feelings attached to the data.

You seemed to have supported this inconsistency.

If I misread your comment, I apologize.

Of course all historical texts–and, yes, even Scripture–must be read with a discerning eye. However, if one views it as unreliable, or mistaken, it seems peculiar to quote it and use it as a reference.
.

See Edwin you have to know Larkin. Personally I have a kind of soft spot for the guy myself. See larkin is trying to be the Master

He will watch every single thing you say and wait for you to say one WORD wrong or he can take it out of context and BAM there he is.

But when you call him on it he takes his toys and he goes back home

But we need to stick together and plant that mustard seed

So larkie you ready to come back out and play But we are all on the same team we are Christians. Now we gotta get that seed growing. And without larkin we can’t play. But larkin is fun I will give him that!!

So remember we are all on the same team. We love God, and we love spreading his word. So Larkin bring in on baby. We are waiting for you. We got alot of seed’s we gotta plant!!

 

[Lutheranteach]

One must remember that the term protestant, was not the creation of those who rejected some part of the Catholic Faith but rather a term placed on those people by Catholics. The term used by “protestants” themselves at the time, and one that is still used to some degree, is Reformed churches. One was not a protestant but a member of the reformed church.

 

[Contarini]

No one is saying that all writers in all texts are infallible, Contarini, and “incapable” of lying, etc.

If Monina is not saying that, she needs to express herself more clearly.

It’s the “reliable” part that’s under discussion. . . .

If one is going to cite a source, one ought to have a reasonable assurance of its “reliability”.

When dealing with ancient texts, sometimes we don’t have that luxury. Again, the Qur’an and early Islam generally are a good example. We don’t *have *external evidence for what happened in Arabia in the early seventh century, except perhaps a few Christian legends that are if anything less reliable than the Islamic sources. So however suspicious we may be of the Islamic sources, we have to use them or resign ourselves to knowing nothing at all. Skeptics are in the same position with regard to the New Testament for the most part, and with regard to parts of the Old Testament as well.

And be consistent about one’s approach to the data, not basing arguments upon one’s feelings attached to the data.

You seemed to have supported this inconsistency.

I wasn’t supporting larkin’s specific judgments, but his right to have an opinion about which parts of the NT are historically reliable and which parts aren’t. Monina claimed that he couldn’t accept the historicity of the cleansing of the Temple without accepting the whole thing. That’s not reasonable. It’s not how anyone deals with ancient texts in general.

If you want to challenge specific statements larkin has made, be my guest. I may well join you.

Edwin

 

[Rightlydivide]

See Edwin you have to know Larkin. Personally I have a kind of soft spot for the guy myself. See larkin is trying to be the Master

He will watch every single thing you say and wait for you to say one WORD wrong or he can take it out of context and BAM there he is.

But when you call him on it he takes his toys and he goes back home

But we need to stick together and plant that mustard seed

So larkie you ready to come back out and play But we are all on the same team we are Christians. Now we gotta get that seed growing. And without larkin we can’t play. But larkin is fun I will give him that!!

So remember we are all on the same team. We love God, and we love spreading his word. So Larkin bring in on baby. We are waiting for you. We got alot of seed’s we gotta plant!!

Not at all cool. Larkin CANNOT answer and you know that.