What is Protestantism?

[Jean_1958]

What I can not accept is the use of the word Protestantism in the sense of a super denomination with its own dogma and statement of faith.

I believe that most Catholics know that Protestantism is not a super denomination with its own dogma and statement of faith. Most Catholics can attest to the fact that it can be very hard responding to a non-Catholic Christian’s questions about faith without first knowing something about that person’s particular belief system.

Ron Rhodes, in his book The Complete Guide to Christian Denominations (page 16), cites three distinctive features of Protestantism that serve to distinguish it from Roman Catholicism. These three are:

1. The exclusivity of the Bible
2. Salvation by Grace Through Faith
   3 The Priesthood of All Believers

God Bless.

Jean

 

[Hisalone]

Answer; INVALID SACRAMENTS AND HOLY ORDERS.Because they broke away from the Apostolic succession to the original apostles from scripture, and changed their christian belief’s from the original Catholic church Jesus built upon Peter.

That is not Protestant Doctrine

Protestant baptisms are invalid?
Protestant burials are invalid?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

That is not Protestant Doctrine

Protestant baptisms are invalid?
Protestant burials are invalid?

Really! Protestants dont have sacraments or holy orders? Beginning with these, come the understanding of doctrines from the many different protestant faiths. Invalid sacraments, invalid holy orders, I did not specify from which protestant denomination or which sacraments are invalid.
Baptism is if done correctly as Jesus instituted in his church can be valid. But then again anyone can baptise or bury someone, the question is when is a particular sacrament valid?

 

[With_Questions]

Isn’t double predestination a “dogma”?

D’oh…I should have said “unique to all Protestants”. My bad again.

 

[With_Questions]

Answer; INVALID SACRAMENTS AND HOLY ORDERS.Because they broke away from the Apostolic succession to the original apostles from scripture, and changed their christian belief’s from the original Catholic church Jesus built upon Peter.

Of course Protestants do not believe their Sacramaments and Holy Orders are invalid (those that have Sacraments and Holy Orders that is).

So that statement is your opinion (and the opinion of your church) on Protestant Sacraments and Holy Orders.

Which is fine, but an opinion remains an opinion.

I have no interest in debating whether Protestant Sacraments and Holy Orders are valid or invalid.

 

[With_Questions]

Well, if I may repeat what I said before …

I must have missed it:
Originally Posted by Peter J

But to answer your question, I would say there are 3 conditions for “Protestantism”:

• being Christian

Well yes, but that is not exclusive Protestant

• accepting a certain canon of Scripture

Well some liberal Protestants believe Scripture to be nothing more than nice writings. I should know, I was taught that in Sunday School.

I will admit those that accept Scripture generally accept the 66 book canon. At least all that I know of do. But again there is nothing to prevent me from starting a nonDenom tomorrow that uses the 73 book or 81 book canon.

It probably won’t go very far, but it is possible.

• accepting Sola Scriptura

Except many Protestants do not. Methodist and Anglicans come to mind. It might be argued that even Pentecostals do not because they accept the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

 

[With_Questions]

1. The exclusivity of the Bible

I have no idea what this means. Exclusive in relationship to what? I could argue that the Catholics and Orthodox believe this depending on what the “what” is.

I do know what Sola Scriptura and Prima Scriptura are.

I do know that to liberal Protestants the Bible is nothing more than a collection of nice ideas about God. At least that is what I was taught in Sunday School as a child. I can’t see how liberal Protestants believe in the exclusivity of the Bible when to them the Bible really is nothing that special.

Of course Protestants do not accept the Bishop of Rome as the head of the church of Jesus Christ. But then again neither do the Orthodox.

1. Salvation by Grace Through Faith

Don’t Catholics believe this also? I mean it is in the Bible.

I thought that what Catholics do not believe is “Faith Alone”.

I am fairly sure the Church of Christ is one Protestant denomination that does not believe this either.

And of course liberal Protestants are not concerned about salvation because they tend to universalism.

Those liberal Protestants really seem to muddy the waters here.

3 The Priesthood of All Believers

Don’t Anglicans have priests? I seem to have read that they do.

And of course liberal Protestants don’t worry about Priesthood of Believers.

It would seem to me that if you eliminate liberal Protestants you might be able to come up with some common dogmas the rest of us hold. But that by definition would not be Protestantism, it would be something else I guess.

 

[Jean_1958]

I have no idea what this means. Exclusive in relationship to what? I could argue that the Catholics and Orthodox believe this depending on what the “what” is.

I do know what Sola Scriptura and Prima Scriptura are.

If you know what those (Sola Scriptura and Prima Scriptura) are then you know the meaining of “exclusivity of the Bible” . Exclusive means, according to the dictionary, limited to the object or objects designated. In this case, The Bible. The Bible alone is authority. Maybe I am wrong, but any Protestant that I have ever met in my life has told me the Bilbe alone has authority.

As Catholics, we believe God’s authority comes from The Bible, through Church Tradition AND ex cathedra pronouncements of the pope. This is a BIG difference from Protestants. They believe in The Bible and just The Bible in terms of authority.

Don’t Catholics believe this also? I mean it is in the Bible.

I thought that what Catholics do not believe is “Faith Alone”.

As Catholics, we believe faith and works go together. For us we’re saved by God’s grace because it’s unmerited and a free gift from God. But the Bible also teaches us that we will not only be judged by our faith in God, but by our deeds. However, Protestants believe good works are merely a by-product of salvation. Maybe I am wrong, but any Protestant I have ever met has told me that salvation is by faith alone and good works have absolutely nothing to do with salvation.

Don’t Anglicans have priests? I seem to have read that they do.

And of course liberal Protestants don’t worry about Priesthood of Believers.

You have it backwards. Priesthood of Believers means you do not need a priest. Protestants believe you do not need a priest because every lay person is his “own priest”.

As for Anglicans, they are not considered Protestant in the same sense of the Reformation churches. Their separation from Rome is somewhat different and not a part of this thread.

If you want a better explanation of these three things, please read Ron Rhode’s book The Complete Guide to Christian Denominations. It’s all on page 16. By the way, the guy is a Protestant.

Hope this helps.

Jean

 

[With_Questions]

Hello Jean:

In looking around the internet I did find an online dictionary that had a definition similar to what you proposed. See “b”

1capitalized a: any of a group of German princes and cities presenting a defense of freedom of conscience against an edict of the Diet of Spires in 1529 intended to suppress the Lutheran movement b: a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth ; broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church
2: one who makes or enters a protest
— Prot·es·tant·ism \ˈprä-təs-tən-ˌti-zəm\ noun

So if you want to go with “B” I suppose you have the dictionnary on your side.

I just wonder how you can have

Protestantism

that excludes whole Protestant denominations and liberal Protestants. Protestant churches that do not believe in Protestantism makes no sense to me.

Maybe if you called it classic Protestantism.

Maybe I am wrong, but any Protestant that I have ever met in my life has told me the Bilbe alone has authority.

When I was a teenager I played the organ at a Protestant church in a Protestant denomination (United Church of Christ) that believed the Bible had no more authority than any other nice books someone can write about God.

This Protestant church denied the unique inspiration of the Bible. Once you deny that, you are left with just a religious book with nice writings about God that ultimately has no more authority than “The Purpose Driven Life”.

As Catholics, we believe faith and works go together. For us we’re saved by God’s grace because it’s unmerited and a free gift from God. But the Bible also teaches us that we will not only be judged by our faith in God, but by our deeds. However, Protestants believe good works are merely a by-product of salvation. Maybe I am wrong, but any Protestant I have ever met has told me that salvation is by faith alone and good works have absolutely nothing to do with salvation.

Well I thought I remember of reading that the Church of Christ (not United Church of Christ) denied faith alone. Upon using google, I confirmed that with this article.
In fact, when I googled Methodist faith alone I found this snippet that said that Methodists do not believe in faith alone. However I know that Classic Methodists do believe in faith alone, albeit in a somewhat different sense than taught by the Germanic reformers.

And again when I grew up, the United Church of Christ church that I played the organ at believed in Universalism. How can you believe in salvation by faith alone when in the end everyone gets a pass.

As for Anglicans, they are not considered Protestant in the same sense of the Reformation churches. Their separation from Rome is somewhat different and not a part of this thread.

Why isn’t it a part of this thread. If Anglicans and Episcopaleans are not Protestant, then what are they? Orthodox? Restorationalists?

If you want a better explanation of these three things, please read Ron Rhode’s book The Complete Guide to Christian Denominations. It’s all on page 16. By the way, the guy is a Protestant.

Hope this helps.

Jean

I will concede that if you want to define Protestantism in that manner you can find authorities that agree with you.

But to me this absolutely makes no sense. You are left with Protestant denominations that do not believe in Protestantism. That makes as much sense as Catholic churches that do not believe in Catholicism.

Unless you want to to say Anglicans, Episcopaleans, Church of Christ, United Church of Christ, “liberal Protestants” are not Protestants. But then how do you classify them. Orthodox?

How can you have whole Protestant denominations that do not believe in Protestantism. That makes as much sense as Catholics that do not believe in Catholicism.

It really seems to me that if you want to go with this definition of Protestantism, that you modify it with some adjective, say Reformed Protestantism. Otherwise you are left with a definition of Protestantism that excludes entire Protestant denominations.
That makes absolutely no sense. At least to me.

 

[Jean_1958]

Can you define a “liberal Protestant”? As far as I know, a Protestant is a Protestant. I’ve never heard of a “liberal Protestant” before.

I just wonder how you can have Protestantism that excludes whole Protestant denominations and liberal Protestants. Protestant churches that do not believe in Protestantism makes no sense to me.

Maybe if you called it classic Protestantism.

I do not understand you here. As far as I know, every Protestant church that I have ever been to believes in exclusivity of the Bible, salvation by grace through faith, and the priesthood of all believers. The same can be said of my daughter. If a church is Protestant, you have Protestantism. How can you have a Protestant church that doesn’t believe in Protestantism?

There are some, like the Jehova’s Witnesses, who will call themsevles Protestant or Christian, but are not really Protestant or Christian. They are normally called Quasi-Christian because they take Christian beliefs and mix them with their own beliefs and prophetic writings.

When I was a teenager I played the organ at a Protestant church in a Protestant denomination (United Church of Christ) that believed the Bible had no more authority than any other nice books someone can write about God.

And again when I grew up, the United Church of Christ church that I played the organ at believed in Universalism.

According to Wikipedia, the United Church of Christ (see THIS ENTRY) is mailine Protestant. My daughter knows a lady who belongs to the United Church of Christ and who considers herself Protestant because she believes in exclusivity of the Bible, salvation by grace through faith, and the priesthood of all believers. I do not know what United Church of Christ church you attended, but perhaps you attened one that was not fully in line with the mainline beliefs of their denomination?

How can you believe in salvation by faith alone when in the end everyone gets a pass.

I can not answer this because I am not Protestant. Perhaps you need to ask someone who believes in this particular belief.

I, too, have yet to figure out how someone can get a free pass into Heaven.

Why isn’t it a part of this thread. If Anglicans and Episcopaleans are not Protestant, then what are they? Orthodox? Restorationalists?

Unless you want to to say Anglicans, Episcopaleans, Church of Christ, United Church of Christ, “liberal Protestants” are not Protestants. But then how do you classify them. Orthodox?

All mainstream Protestants generally trace their separation from the Catholic Church to the 16th century. The word Anglican originates in ecclesia anglicana, a medieval Latin phrase dating to at least 1246 meaning the English Church. Therefore, they were aroun well before the Reformation took place in 1517. In fact, the origins of the Church of England can be traced back to sometime in the late 6th century in the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Kent (see THIS ENTRY in Wikipedia). It was not until the mid 17th century that the Church of England (and associated episcopal churches in Ireland and in England’s American colonies) came to be seen as comprising a distinct Christian tradition with theologies, structures and forms of worship representing a middle ground, or via media, between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Please read the Wikpiedia entry on Anglicanism for mroe information.

You need to knwo your history of Anglicanism and the Church of England to know they are not really Protestant.

How can you have whole Protestant denominations that do not believe in Protestantism.

If these “so-called” Protestant denominations do not believe in Protestantism then are they truly Protestant? No. Absolutely not. However, no one can stop them from identifying themselves as such. They are just misguided as to what true Protestantism really is all about.

Hope this helps.

Jean

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Of course Protestants do not believe their Sacramaments and Holy Orders are invalid (those that have Sacraments and Holy Orders that is).

So that statement is your opinion (and the opinion of your church) on Protestant Sacraments and Holy Orders.

Which is fine, but an opinion remains an opinion.

I have no interest in debating whether Protestant Sacraments and Holy Orders are valid or invalid.

**I wasn’t clear from my statements; Sacraments and Holy orders are from the Catholic church. Protestants removed from themselves what is holy and took with them what they seemed to fit there new Christian faith’s. So you see, Sacraments did not come from the protestant faith’s.This is not an opinion it is a matter of fact and historical record.

What protestants invented were combining of Church and State, along with new Christian theologies that are not contained in scripture nor sacred Tradition from the apostles. This is a grave topic of understanding about protestant belief’s (sacraments, holy orders) and where they come from.**

 

[Peter_J]

I must have missed it:
Originally Posted by Peter J

Well yes, but that is not exclusive Protestant

Well some liberal Protestants believe Scripture to be nothing more than nice writings. I should know, I was taught that in Sunday School.

I will admit those that accept Scripture generally accept the 66 book canon. At least all that I know of do. But again there is nothing to prevent me from starting a nonDenom tomorrow that uses the 73 book or 81 book canon.

It probably won’t go very far, but it is possible.

Except many Protestants do not. Methodist and Anglicans come to mind. It might be argued that even Pentecostals do not because they accept the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Well as I said, there are borderline cases. I would question whether an Anglican who believes in the Sufficiency of Scripture but not in Sola Scriptura, is really a “Protestant”.

I’m not sure what you mean about Methodists.

Interesting point about Pentecostals. I hadn’t thought of it that way.

Anyhow, I would still stick with those three conditions (more-or-less) for “Protestantism”

• being Christian
• accepting a certain canon of Scripture
• accepting Sola Scriptura

 

[With_Questions]

OK.

It is becoming clear to me that (in the words of a former President) it all depends upon what the meaning of is umm Protestant is.

If you define Protestant broadly, in the sense of any Christian group that is (1) not Catholic or Orthodox (2) is Christian and adheres to certain essentials such as the trinity, then there is no such thing as Protestantism since there is no one belief that is unique to Protestants yet is common to all Protestant groups.

If you define Protestant more narrowly, there may be such a thing as Protestantism since you will be excluding certain groups that would fall under the broader definition.

However you must be aware of what you are excluding under the more narrow definition. Let’s look at some of those proposed here.

(1) Accept a certain canon of Scripture (the 66 book variety).

You are excluding liberal Protestants who do not accept the inspiration of Scripture. Liberal Protestants don’t really care whether the Bible you use is the 66, 73, or 81 book variety.

To liberal Protestants, the Bible is a nice book about God that you are free to ignore if you find something in it that you don’t like (see homosexuality).

(2) Accept Sola Scriptura

You are excluding liberal Protestants for the reason above. You are also excluding Anglicans and their derivatives, Methodists, arguably Pentecostals, and I am sure other groups because these believe more in Prima Scriptura.

I think you are also excluding Friends (per Publisher).

(3) Exclusivity of the Bible

You are excluding liberal Protestants for the same reason.

(4) Sola Fide

You are excluding liberal Protestants because they believe in the end everybody (or almost everybody…they might exclude Hitler and Stalin) gets a pass.

You are also excluding the Church of Christ and Friends (per Publisher).

Unless Sola Fide is very broadly defined, you also are excluding Anglicans, Methodists, any Arminian based branch including Pentecostalism.

If you define Sola Fide narrowly you are also excluding arminian

(5) Salvation by Grace through Faith

Depends how this is defined. If this is narrowly defined, see (4). If this is broadly defined you can add Anglicans, Methodists and their derivatives.

However if this is too broadly defined you risk including Catholics and Orthodox.

So the problem here is that if you are going to impose doctrinal restrictions on Protestants, you immediately start excluding certain groups that are commonly considered Protestants.

So my question then is how are these groups classified.

 

[With_Questions]

Just to address a couple of items here.

Can you define a “liberal Protestant”? As far as I know, a Protestant is a Protestant. I’ve never heard of a “liberal Protestant” before.

Sure.

Perhaps you have heard of the controversy in mainline denominations supporting gay marriage for example. This is one manifestation of liberal Protestant.

From my experience liberal Protestants:
(1) Do not accept the inspiration of the Bible. They are free to ignore stuff they see in the Bible and do not like as (for example) Paul’s opinion.

(2) Tend towards universalism. God certainly would not condemn a good person that denies Christ.

(3) Do not believe in moral absolutes and sin (see gay marriage controversy).

If you thought all of Protestants were at least broadly orthodox, I hate to disillusion you.

One more thing. Consider this a spectrum from orthodoxy to liberalism rather than black and white.

According to Wikipedia, the United Church of Christ (see THIS ENTRY) is mailine Protestant. My daughter knows a lady who belongs to the United Church of Christ and who considers herself Protestant because she believes in exclusivity of the Bible, salvation by grace through faith, and the priesthood of all believers. I do not know what United Church of Christ church you attended, but perhaps you attened one that was not fully in line with the mainline beliefs of their denomination?

United Church if Christ is arguably the most liberal of the Protestant denominations.

Here is a link to their web site.

The closest I can find to a statement of faith is here.

Needless to say you will not find anything concerning the issues you raise.

The United Church of Christ has a very Congregationalist approach to church government. The United Church of Christ church that I was organist at in High School had a Unitarian / Universalist pastor. That was perfectly fine.

You will (rarely) find relatively conservative United Church of Christ Congregations (per their Congregationalist approach to church government). Perhaps your friend was attending one of these churches.

 

[Jean_1958]

With Questions, you are being nitpicky and just beating this to death at this point. As far as I’m concerned, I gave you three distinctive features of Protestantism that serve to distinguish it from Roman Catholicism and thus answered your initial question. I’m not going to get into anymore nitpickiness regarding Protestantism.

God Bless.

Jean

 

[Jean_1958]

FYI With Questions, the United Church if Christ does have the three distinctive features of Protestantism that serve to distinguish it from Roman Catholicism.

The UCC states the following on its website:

We confess the authority of one God. We affirm the primacy of the Scriptures, the doctrine of justification by faith, the priesthood of all believers, and the principle of Christian freedom. We celebrate two sacraments: baptism and the Lord’s Supper (also called Holy Communion or the Eucharist).

This can be found on their website on the ABOUT US page under the heading ‘Characteristics of the United Church of Christ’. (Click HERE to go there.)

You were, quite obviously, looking in the WRONG place for this information.

Look, I have NEVER met any Protestant that denies the exclusivity of the Bible (aka Sola Scriptura). I have NEVER net any Protestant that denies salvation by grave through faith and faith alone. I have NEVER met any Protestant that denies the priesthood of all believers. The same goes for my daughter who is friends with many Protestants and who even attended a Protestant (Baptist) high school for a couple of years.

God Bless.

Jean

 

[Peter_J]

A few things to say here:

• I was deliberately vague (slightly) when I said “Accept a certain canon of Scripture”. In particular, I did not say “66 books of the bible”. I think there is a certain amount of flexibility – e.g. someone could count some of the deutero-canonical books as part of the bible, and still (arguably) be “Protestant”. On the other hand, a Christian who e.g. counted the 4 gospels but none of the NT epistles, could not be considered “Protestant” to my mind.
• You mentioned that my 3 conditions (1. Christian 2. canon of Scripture 3. Sola Scriptura) would exclude liberal Protestants. I would answer that it depends how liberal. Basically if a “Protestant” is so liberal as to consider the bible to be a collection of opinions with absolutely no authority, then I would say that he/she doesn’t meet my definition of “Protestant”. (It occurs to me that if I had added condition #4 “Consider the bible to be infallible”, then I would have eliminated a great many more of the liberal Protestants.)
• On a side note, it seems to me that there is a trend whereby any Christian group that self-identifies as “Protestant”, is automatically deemed to be “Protestant”. That trend doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

 

[Jean_1958]

You will (rarely) find relatively conservative United Church of Christ Congregations (per their Congregationalist approach to church government). Perhaps your friend was attending one of these churches.

You mis-read what I typed. It is not my friend. It is my daughter’s friend who is with the UCC.

To liberal Protestants, the Bible is a nice book about God that you are free to ignore if you find something in it that you don’t like (see homosexuality).

I know conservative Protestants who like to ignore things in the Bible if it does not jive with their belief system or if it is something they do not like.

For example, my former conservative Protestant co-worker was shown some passages in Revelation (Rev 20:12-14). After I showed her these passages and explained to her how we are not only judged by our faith, but by works as well she aid she was going to show her pastor that and by golly she sure did. She came back to work and told me that her pastor said those passages in the Bible were irrelevant since all you need is salvation by grace through faith and faith alone. Now tell me, how can some passages, verses, and books be relevant while others are not relevant? Either the entire Bible means something or it means absolutely nothing at all. Anyhow, this is probably best reserved for another thread.

As I said before, you are being nitpicky and just beating this original topic to death at this point. Therefore, I am going to leave it alone now.

God Bless.

Jean

 

[hays1122]

From my experience liberal Protestants:
(1) Do not accept the inspiration of the Bible. They are free to ignore stuff they see in the Bible and do not like as (for example) Paul’s opinion.

The Catholic church ignores,or talks round certain passages in the bible.
For instance.
John 14:6 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me.”
We take this to mean that when we pray we should talk directly to God our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet Catholics say this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t pray asking Mary to pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.
You compare this to asking my friend to pray for me.
It’s really not the same thing. But that’s how Catholics are taught to believe. And I respect that.
So protestants aren’t the only ones who decide what certain verses mean.
And that is only one verse. There are many. I have read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. When I read about the Lord’s prayer it says,“Jesus does not give us a formula to repeat mechanically.” Yet it seems to me that the rosary is said mechanically. I know you won’t agree. I have heard it before.
The point is we are to pray to Jesus.
He forgives our sins.
And in the Lord’s prayers Jesus said,“When you pray,pray like this,Our Father…”
Not Hail Mary,or to the many great saints we read about.
What really gets me is that the Catechism says the same thing.
Yet,there’s also a part of the Catechism that explains praying to Mary and the saints. Seems like it should be one or the other.
I’ll go with the way Jesus said we should pray.

 

[Jean_1958]

The Catholic church ignores,or talks round certain passages in the bible.

You are forgetting, we Catholic also believe in Tradition. That is why Protestants do ot undertand many things, like Mary and the saints.

We, just like our Protestant brothers and sisters, also pray directly to God. I do not know of any Catholic who does not pray directly to God. Ipray to him, my daughter prays to him, my Catholic co-workers pray to him.

As for praying to Mary, why would we not pray to our blessed Mother? After all, she bore the man who saved us — Jesus. Did she not? It is only right she is given proper respect.

As for praing to the saints, we view them as alive in Heaven and we only ask for their itercession just as our fellow Protestants ask their pastors and fellow congreation members to inerceed and pray for them on their behalf.

If asking the saints to interceed and pray for us is wrong then it should be wrong for a Protestant to ask for their pastor and fellow congegation members to interceed and pray on their behalf.

Why do you rail against Catholicism when you do not understand it? Perhaps you should try to understand what we believe and why.

I am respectful of Protestants and do not say they are in the wrong for what they do so why must they be disrespectful of me and say wh I do as a Catholic is wrong?

God Bless.

Jean