What is a Protestant?

[Thomas_Aquinas_1]

I thought I would post another letter addressed to my uncle. This one is in reply to his question to me, regarding what I mean by the use of the term “Protestant”. The letter touches on Church history, and explains the Deposit of Faith and Sola Scriptura. In the letter below, I refer several times to another “letter”, which is about a 100+ page “book” that I wrote to my dad, which my uncle is now reading.

Dear …

I almost forgot that you asked me to explain what I meant by Protestant. In the letter, I use the term very broadly to refer to the groups that split off during the time of the Protestant Reform in the early 16th century, and the denominations that later split from them. Before the 16th century, all Christians were Catholic. There were multiple dioceses (or local Churches), but they were all united in faith and government. They all believed the same doctrines and were united under leadership of the Pope, who is the principle of unity. As I mentioned in the letter, there was a split in the Catholic Church in the 11th century between the Churches of the East, and those in the West. The Eastern Church’s separated from the unity of the Pope and began to call themselves The Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church (or Churches, since there are many dioceses) came back into the Catholic Church at the Council of Florence in 1441, but they split away again soon afterwards. Some of the Eastern Churches came back again and have been united with the West, under the Pope, ever since. The Orthodox Churches of the East, who are separated from the unity of the Pope, still hold to virtually all of the beliefs of Catholicism.

The thousands of different denominations today trace their origin to the Protestant Reform from the 16th century. Before that, you did not have hundreds of different groups, with different denominations on every corner. It is true that before the Protestant Reform there were individual groups who split away from the Catholic Church, but they would usually last for a few decades or sometimes a century or more before the fizzling out and dying off. These groups were called heretics, since they denied one or more teachings of Christ. With the Protestant split in the 16th century it was different. Rather than fizzling out and disappearing, they began to divide; and they have continued dividing ever since. What began with just a few groups in the 16th century has become tens of thousands of separate groups in our day.

In the past half century the division has increased up exponentially. In the past, new groups would usually form over a doctrinal dispute. Today, however, individual and separate churches will spring up simply because a person wants a church of his own. The person doesn’t necessarily leave the church he attends over a doctrinal dispute, but simply because he wants to be the preacher in his own church. Today, if you have the money, you can rent space and start a church. As such, the number of separate groups, or denominations, has exploded. Today many of the new groups call themselves “non denominational”, since they are not linked to any major group, but they are separate and distinct from one another.

In the letter, I loosely refer to all of the separate denominations, or individual groups, as “Protestants”, since most of them hold to the two main pillars of the Protestant Reform, which are sola fide (justification by faith alone), and sola scriptura (the Bible alone). I deal with both of those issues in the letter. I’ll just discuss one now because this is the one that, in my opinion, is the main reason for Protestantism dividing into so many different denominations. I’ll address it in a way different than I do in the letter.

From the time of the Apostles, through the Fathers of the Church and up to the Protestant Reform, Christians did not consider the Bible the sole authority. The teachings of Christianity were handed down as a complete body of doctrines from Jesus through the Apostles. The complete body of doctrines is called The Deposit of Faith. The doctrines are not Gnostic (only for a select few of the enlightened). They are for all men, everywhere and for all time.

Just before ascending into heaven, when Jesus commanded His Apostles to go throughout the world preaching “all that He commanded them”, He was speaking of the Deposit of Faith – the body of doctrines He delivered to them. This is what the Apostles preached and what they handed down to the generations that followed. When the Church was founded, none of the letters of the New Testament had been written. People lived as Christians for decades, and some died, without ever reading a letter from the New Testament; nevertheless, they knew what Jesus taught because they knew the Deposit of Faith.

continue

 

[Thomas_Aquinas_1]

continuation

The book of Acts gives us a history of the beginning of the Church. In Chapter two, we read that just after Pentecost the people were already “persevering in the doctrine of the apostles” (Acts 2:42). Three chapters later, the High Priest is complaining because the Apostles had filled Jerusalem with their doctrine – “you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine,” (Acts. 5:28). So, before any of the New Testament books had been written, the Apostles had already filled Jerusalem with the doctrines of Christ, which make up the Deposit of Faith, and the people were persevering in it. A few decades later, writing to Timothy, St. Paul exhorts him to “attend unto reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine” (1 Tim 4:13). In Acts 13, we are told that the proconcil “believed, admiring at the doctrine of the Lord” (Acts 13:12). This knowledge of the “doctrine of the Lord” that “filled Jerusalem”, preexisted any of the writings of the New Testament.

By knowing the doctrines contained within the Deposit of Faith, the early Christians were not only unified in belief, but were capable of spotting errors. Writing to the Romans, St. Paul said “I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them” (Romans 16:17). St. John the Apostle warns of those who fall away from the doctrine of Christ “Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 1:9). In the next verse he tells them to avoid those who preach other doctrines: “If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works” (2 John 1:10). It was knowledge of the doctrines contained within the Deposit of Faith that enabled them to spot contrary doctrines. Over the course of the centuries heresies would arise that would deny one or more of the doctrines.

The books of the New Testament are based on the Deposit of Faith (the doctrines of Christ). While the New Testament books are inspired by God and inerrant, the intent of the writers was not to expound these doctrines systematically. The Bible and the Deposit of Faith go together like a hand in a glove. If you know the Deposit of Faith you clearly see all the teachings in the Bible, but if you don’t know it, you can easily be led astray through a false interpretation. The Bible alone does not necessarily give someone a systematic doctrinal knowledge of what Jesus and the Apostles passed on.

When Martin Luther, the first Protestant, split from the Catholic Church he came up with a new doctrine. This doctrine taught that all people needed was the Bible. They didn’t need any of the doctrinal teachings that had been passed down to them. But since the Bible can be easily misunderstood, the result was that each person interpreted it differently, which resulted in immediate division. By rejecting what had been passed down to them, they were rejecting the doctrines contained in the Deposit of Faith, in favor of their private interpretation of the Bible. In the letter to dad, I provide some quotes from Luther showing his frustration with what happened immediately following the introduction of this new teaching. According to his own words, it was chaos. He said “there are about as many sects and Creeds as there are heads”.

Martine Luther: ““This one will not hear of Baptism, that one denies the Sacraments, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are about as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No Yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet”.

**Martin Luther: **“How many doctors have I made by preaching and writing” asked Luther in frustration “Now they say, Be off with you. Go off with you. Go to the devil. Thus it must be. When we preach they laugh. …when we get angry and threaten them, they mock us, snap their fingers at us and laugh in their sleeves”.

He complained because no one would listen to him any longer, as all followed their own interpretation of the Bible. The immediate result of rejecting the Deposit of Faith was division. The Bible speaks of a time when people will not endure in sound doctrine: “For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine” (2 Tim 4:3). That time is today.
When the Orthodox split, however, they did not reject the Deposit of Faith. They held to it and as such have remained fairly unified in their belief (which is virtually identical to the belief of the Catholic Church).

So, when I used the word Protestant in the letter, I was referring to the thousands of denominations or groups that have sprung up since the time of the Protestant Reform. One of the few beliefs that they all hold in common is “Sola Scriptura”, which means that the Bible alone is all a person needs to arrive at the truth. But if privately interpreting the Bible resulted in each person arriving at the truth, there would be unity in belief, since all would interpret the Bible the same way. Yet this is exactly contrary to what happens. There is a Latin saying “contra factum, non argumentum est”, which means, “against a fact, there is no argument”, and one fact that is obvious to all is that each person who reads the Bible does not arrive at the same belief. The Bible is Divinely inspired, and, as the Bible itself says, “is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice” (2 Tim 3:16), but when it is not interpreted in accord with the “doctrine of Christ”, it results in much confusion.

That’s the long answer for what I mean when I use the term Protestant.

 

[waxwing]

Of course there are many answers to this question, the academic one found in many sources, the one with the Protestent bent to it or the Catholic bent to it or just the more flippant of the the cuff one. When I read your question/post I thought of two things, one was another question “What is a American” or in my case “What is a Canadian” and the complex answers and simple one this can be answered with, and the second was the movie “The Breakfast Club”…I know I know “What”!! I think of Protestants comprised of little groups ‘marking their territories’, the nerd, the jock, the prom queen they all have distaste/mistrust for the Principal and for their fellow cliquish students, In the end (the movie) they make peace with each other but on Monday they return to their groups.

I know this is the flippant answer but I am a little tired and this is what came to mind

 

[NeelyAnn]

Thanks for posting this.

 

[Thomas_Aquinas_1]

Of course there are many answers to this question, the academic one found in many sources, the one with the Protestent bent to it or the Catholic bent to it or just the more flippant of the the cuff one. When I read your question/post I thought of two things, one was another question “What is a American” or in my case “What is a Canadian” and the complex answers and simple one this can be answered with, and the second was the movie “The Breakfast Club”…I know I know “What”!! I think of Protestants comprised of little groups ‘marking their territories’, the nerd, the jock, the prom queen they all have distaste/mistrust for the Principal and for their fellow cliquish students, In the end (the movie) they make peace with each other but on Monday they return to their groups.

I know this is the flippant answer but I am a little tired and this is what came to mind

Thanks for the comments. Interesting analogy.

 

[paul_c]

I enjoyed your letter. Well written. What was the impetus to write a 100 page letter to your father?

I agree with you in general terms on what a protestant is. In simpler terms, it is someone who protests against the authority of the Catholic Church. Of course those that protest against the authority of the Catholic Church are also likely to protest the authority of Any church over them and hence, the division that you note.

 

[Warrenton]

As a practical matter, a Protestant is a non-Catholic or non-Orthodox Christian.

Historically, the Protestant churches held, in varying degrees, to several concepts: “sola scriptura”; (2) justification by faith alone; and (3) predestination.

The most cogent exponent of these beliefs was Calvin. Even the episcopal Protestant churches, like the Lutheran and Anglican churches, were heavily influenced by Calvinism, and for several hundred years, the average Protestant would have articulated his belief in the foregoing three tenets.

This is largely no longer the case. Comparatively few Protestants believe in “sola scriptura,” they do not even believe in the truth of the scriptures as they once did. Bishop Spong is a good example of the type.

While many claim to believe in justification by faith, as a practical matter, the assert works even more than Catholics do. The “social gospel” idea typifies this development.

Last, predestination is virtually moribund as a guiding principal in Protestants. It simply could not withstand the “test” of two world wars and abortion, which have consigned untold millions to a violent and premature death. There are few Protestants today who would agree that a child killed before the age of reason will go to hell simply because he or she was not “elect.” The only intellectual response to the argument makes living worse than dying, and so has little broad appeal.

Of course, there are some “fundamentalists” or “evangelical” Protestants who adhere to their traditional beliefs, and ironically, they are very close to a Catholic position in many respects. The decay of Christendom has brought about a situation where we have more in common with a true Calvinist than with many of the sects.

The only unifying principal in ost Protestantism is therefore that they are not in union with Rome.

 

[JonNC]

=Warrenton;7488605]As a practical matter, a Protestant is a non-Catholic or non-Orthodox Christian.

As a practical matter, yes.

Historically, the Protestant churches held, in varying degrees, to several concepts: “sola scriptura”; (2) justification by faith alone; and (3) predestination.

The most cogent exponent of these beliefs was Calvin. Even the episcopal Protestant churches, like the Lutheran and Anglican churches, were heavily influenced by Calvinism, and for several hundred years, the average Protestant would have articulated his belief in the foregoing three tenets.

I’d be interested in some examples of how.

This is largely no longer the case. Comparatively few Protestants believe in “sola scriptura,” they do not even believe in the truth of the scriptures as they once did. Bishop Spong is a good example of the type.

As a confessional Lutheran, I’d say that many Protestants never really did believe in sola scriptura, in the classic sense.

While many claim to believe in justification by faith, as a practical matter, the assert works even more than Catholics do. The “social gospel” idea typifies this development.

This assumes that sola fide excludes the importance of good works. Lutherans have never disagreed with Catholics as to their importance, only their role regarding their impact on our standing before God.

Last, predestination is virtually moribund as a guiding principal in Protestants. It simply could not withstand the “test” of two world wars and abortion, which have consigned untold millions to a violent and premature death. There are few Protestants today who would agree that a child killed before the age of reason will go to hell simply because he or she was not “elect.” The only intellectual response to the argument makes living worse than dying, and so has little broad appeal.

One needs to be clear about predestination. This sounds like the Calvinist TULIP, which Lutherans have never accepted. God desires that all may be saved.

Of course, there are some “fundamentalists” or “evangelical” Protestants who adhere to their traditional beliefs, and ironically, they are very close to a Catholic position in many respects. The decay of Christendom has brought about a situation where we have more in common with a true Calvinist than with many of the sects.

How would you say that the Calvinist TULIP is close to Catholic teaching?

The only unifying principal in ost Protestantism is therefore that they are not in union with Rome.

Now this may have some validity. Then again, I feel much closer to Rome than almost any other Protestant communion.

Jon

 

[Thomas_Aquinas_1]

I enjoyed your letter. Well written. What was the impetus to write a 100 page letter to your father?

Thanks. I didn’t originally set out to write a 100+ page letter. After I converted to the Church my father and I would always get into arguments. I was never able to communicate why I converted because the conversation would end in an argument before I could make my points. In reality, my father knew virtually nothing about what the Church actually teaches. One day he said to me “the Catholic Church believes in sola fide”, which, of course, was one of the main teaching of Luther, not the Catholic Church.

Since I was never able to explain the reasons for my converting without getting into an argument, I decided to write him a letter. I didn’t originally intend for it to be 100+ pages. It began with 11 or 12 pages. Then I began to add quotes and additional information, etc. In the end, it was very long and very complete. It covers virtually everything and really cannot be refuted, in my opinion. I plan to try and get it published one day. I’ll post the chapter on the Pope in this thread in a day or two. It has some information that is very useful when defending the Papacy to non-Catholics, including an argument that I have never seen in print before. Look for a new thread titled Peter the Rock.

 

[ProVobis]

I enjoyed your letter. Well written. What was the impetus to write a 100 page letter to your father?

I agree with you in general terms on what a protestant is. In simpler terms, it is someone who protests against the authority of the Catholic Church. Of course those that protest against the authority of the Catholic Church are also likely to protest the authority of Any church over them and hence, the division that you note.

Indeed, the Protestants are the protesters and their descendants. Unlike a schismatic church, however, they operate in a church without Apostolic Succession.

But Vatican II documents on ecumenism refer to them as “brothers” and to be respected as such.

 

[Dave_B]

I plan to try and get it published one day.

If you dont get round to that, you could put it on the web, with a free website. There are plenty of free and easy ways to create web sites now.

Or you could contact some catholic sites, and ask them if they’d like to publish it for you on their site.

 

[paul_c]

Thanks. I didn’t originally set out to write a 100+ page letter. After I converted to the Church my father and I would always get into arguments. I was never able to communicate why I converted because the conversation would end in an argument before I could make my points. In reality, my father knew virtually nothing about what the Church actually teaches. One day he said to me “the Catholic Church believes in sola fide”, which, of course, was one of the main teaching of Luther, not the Catholic Church.

Since I was never able to explain the reasons for my converting without getting into an argument, I decided to write him a letter. I didn’t originally intend for it to be 100+ pages. It began with 11 or 12 pages. Then I began to add quotes and additional information, etc. In the end, it was very long and very complete. It covers virtually everything and really cannot be refuted, in my opinion. I plan to try and get it published one day. I’ll post the chapter on the Pope in this thread in a day or two. It has some information that is very useful when defending the Papacy to non-Catholics, including an argument that I have never seen in print before. Look for a new thread titled Peter the Rock.

So, not to diverge too far from this thread, but what was your father’s reaction?

 

[Thomas_Aquinas_1]

If you dont get round to that, you could put it on the web, with a free website. There are plenty of free and easy ways to create web sites now.

Or you could contact some catholic sites, and ask them if they’d like to publish it for you on their site.

Good idea.

 

[Thomas_Aquinas_1]

So, not to diverge too far from this thread, but what was your father’s reaction?

He didn’t have a reply and I didn’t bring it up. Knowing that our prior conversations usually ended in an argument, I thought it was prudent to not say anything and just let what he read sink in for a while. A few years ago he told me that he now watches EWTN, and mentioned a few shows he enjoys.

 

[paul_c]

He didn’t have a reply and I didn’t bring it up. Knowing that our prior conversations usually ended in an argument, I thought it was prudent to not say anything and just let what he read sink in for a while. A few years ago he told me that he now watches EWTN, and mentioned a few shows he enjoys.

Excellent. Well done.

 

[Warrenton]

Now this may have some validity. Then again, I feel much closer to Rome than almost any other Protestant communion.Jon

Jon - I will try to respond to some of the issues you raised, but first, I want to preface my remarks with a few general thoughts.

The main divide today in the West is not between Protestants and Catholics, but rather between Christians who think that the Church has real authority within society and those who do not. Perhaps, as some have argued, the rift sources in the Reformation,but we are well beyond that now, because both opposing camps are made up of Catholics and Protestants alike. Restated, some Catholics and Protestants want a strong, doctrinally sound Church, while other Catholics and Protestants (in name at least) want a weak Church or no discernable Church at all.

This explains your affinity for the Catholic Church, and my preference for the some Lutheran services over many Catholic ones.

My comments were aimed at defining general Protestantism, as opposed to specific sects which may have been closer to Rome or Constantinople. I tried to describe a “typical” Protestant of Britain and the US, up through around the 1920s. Obviously, this will not be accurate for all Protestants everywhere.

You asked for an example of the “generic” Calvinism, and I would offer you the Articles of Religion, which can be accessed at the back of any 1929 edition of the Book of Common Prayer (Anglican or Episcopal). One notices that even where the Articles are at pains to limit avowal of a Calvinist principal, they tend in that direction as against a Tridentine expression. See, e.g., Art VI “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary for salvation…”

Regarding predestination, the Catholic view of the election of the Blessed Virgin is very close to Calvin’s general doctrine. It is obvious to any Catholic that if the Blessed Virgin was born without sin, then she was “predestined” to her role. Yet, we still believe that she conformed her will to God’s by her “fiat.” We praise her actions, while at the same time recognizing that the “fiat” can also be viewed as her reaction to irresistable grace.

Catholics do not deny that predestination occurs, but we undertand that it does not occur uniformly as Calvin held. We observe distinctions in St. Paul’s use of the word “grace” in different contexts.

As you correctly pointed out, in practice as well as theory, many (perhaps most) Protestants never took predestination or sola fide to a logical extreme - the error commononly known as antinomianism. For this reason, I am optimistic that Catholics and many Protestants will increasingly find common ground upon which to strengthen the Church in the West.

 

[Robert_Burns]

He didn’t have a reply and I didn’t bring it up. Knowing that our prior conversations usually ended in an argument, I thought it was prudent to not say anything and just let what he read sink in for a while. A few years ago he told me that he now watches EWTN, and mentioned a few shows he enjoys.

Good analysis of what caused the divisions and subdivisions of the Protesters themselves - but in short - a Protestant is merely anyone who is no longer in Unity with the Church Established by GOD , the Son and who no longer partakes of the Sacraments also established by GOD the Son. There is only One True Church that has the four marks of ONE HOLY CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC and all four marks are necessary and yet in defiance of the Sacraments themselves - have established various methods in which they decide how to Worship GOD.

 

[Thomas_Aquinas_1]

Good analysis of what caused the divisions and subdivisions of the Protesters themselves - but in short - a Protestant is merely anyone who is no longer in Unity with the Church Established by GOD , the Son and who no longer partakes of the Sacraments also established by GOD the Son. There is only One True Church that has the four marks of ONE HOLY CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC and all four marks are necessary and yet in defiance of the Sacraments themselves - have established various methods in which they decide how to Worship GOD.

I agree, there is only one true Church and it is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church; but in the letter I did want to distinguish detween the Protestants and the Orthodox. Neither the Protestant sects, nor the Orthodox churches are parts of the One True Church since both groups are in heresy due to their denial of defined dogmas of the faith, and neither are subject to the Pope. Therefore, both groups are, by definition, heretics and schismatics. But I would not refer to the Orthodox a “Protestants”, since they differ from the Protestant sects in many respects.

 

[larkin31]

As a practical matter, yes.

I’d be interested in some examples of how.

As a confessional Lutheran, I’d say that many Protestants never really did believe in sola scriptura, in the classic sense.

This assumes that sola fide excludes the importance of good works. Lutherans have never disagreed with Catholics as to their importance, only their role regarding their impact on our standing before God.

One needs to be clear about predestination. This sounds like the Calvinist TULIP, which Lutherans have never accepted. God desires that all may be saved.

How would you say that the Calvinist TULIP is close to Catholic teaching?

Now this may have some validity. Then again, I feel much closer to Rome than almost any other Protestant communion.

Jon

I have learned about Lutheranism from your posts. I appreciate the manner in which you share.

 

[larkin31]

I agree, there is only one true Church and it is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church; but in the letter I did want to distinguish detween the Protestants and the Orthodox. Neither the Protestant sects, nor the Orthodox churches are parts of the One True Church since both groups are in heresy due to their denial of defined dogmas of the faith, and neither are subject to the Pope. Therefore, both groups are, by definition, heretics and schismatics. But I would not refer to the Orthodox a “Protestants”, since they differ from the Protestant sects in many respects.

How important are these generalized labels?