What is the proper definiton of the word 'Protestant'?

[josephback]

Hi. The word 'Protestant gets tossed around here a lot on CAF, often as a challenge or slur and without definition. Just what is the proper definiton of the word ‘Protestant’?

Recently I have been challenged on another thread to include Mormonism, the JW’s, and Oneness Pentecostals as examples of Protestant denominations. I rejected this because I don’t think they qualify. To me a Protestant is someone who believes in the Trinity as well Sola Scriptura and (in general) Sola Fide, by faith alone. These are a set. The problem with this is that it’s a subjective definition. My parents for instance agree with these points but reject the term. What ultimately is needed is an objective standard to judge by. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines the word ‘Protestant’ as both;

A NOUN:
Protestant
1a) one of the German princes favoring the Lutheran movement who presented at the Diet of Spires in 1529 a protest opposing the annulment of an earlier decree allowing each prince to manage the affairs of his territory and defending freedom of conscience and the right of minorities
1b)[archaic] a member of the Anglican church
1c)a member of a Protestant religous body
1d) a Christian not of a Roman Catholic or Eastern church
2a) one who makes a declaration
2b) one who makes a protest
3)one who applies Protestant principles elsewhere than religion

and;

AN ADJECTIVE:
Protestant

1. of or relating to one of the Christian churches separating from the Roman Catholic Church in the Reformation of the 16th century or from another Protestant church to defend beliefs and practices held vital (as the Refromation principles of justification by faith, the priesthood of all believers, the authority and suffiency of the Bible, and the right and duty of individual judgement in matters of faith), usually rejecting as unscriptural the ceremonial reverence of the saints, monasticism, clerical celibacy, and all but two sacraments, and marked by non-liturgical worship featuring preaching, emphasis on individual salvation or morality or on social reform, and sectarian divisions based on points of doctrine or observance
   2)making or sounding a protest

To Catholics; do either of these defintions have inherent problems of logic and/or inconsistency? If so, what? To self described ‘Protestants’; what do you make of these definitions? Are they sufficient and acceptable to you, or is there room for improvement? Where?

Everyone PLEASE, but PLEASE be CHARITABLE in your responses

 

[elvisman]

Hi. The word 'Protestant gets tossed around here a lot on CAF, often as a challenge or slur and without definition. Just what is the proper definiton of the word ‘Protestant’?

Recently I have been challenged on another thread to include Mormonism, the JW’s, and Oneness Pentecostals as examples of Protestant denominations. I rejected this because I don’t think they qualify. To me a Protestant is someone who believes in the Trinity as well Sola Scriptura and (in general) Sola Fide, by faith alone. These are a set. The problem with this is that it’s a subjective definition. My parents for instance agree with these points but reject the term. What ultimately is needed is an objective standard to judge by. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines the word ‘Protestant’ as both;

A NOUN:
Protestant
1a) one of the German princes favoring the Lutheran movement who presented at the Diet of Spires in 1529 a protest opposing the annulment of an earlier decree allowing each prince to manage the affairs of his territory and defending freedom of conscience and the right of minorities
1b)[archaic] a member of the Anglican church
1c)a member of a Protestant religous body
1d) a Christian not of a Roman Catholic or Eastern church
2a) one who makes a declaration
2b) one who makes a protest
3)one who applies Protestant principles elsewhere than religion

and;

AN ADJECTIVE:
Protestant

1. of or relating to one of the Christian churches separating from the Roman Catholic Church in the Reformation of the 16th century or from another Protestant church to defend beliefs and practices held vital (as the Refromation principles of justification by faith, the priesthood of all believers, the authority and suffiency of the Bible, and the right and duty of individual judgement in matters of faith), usually rejecting as unscriptural the ceremonial reverence of the saints, monasticism, clerical celibacy, and all but two sacraments, and marked by non-liturgical worship featuring preaching, emphasis on individual salvation or morality or on social reform, and sectarian divisions based on points of doctrine or observance
   2)making or sounding a protest

To Catholics; do either of these defintions have inherent problems of logic and/or inconsistency? If so, what? To self described ‘Protestants’; what do you make of these definitions? Are they sufficient and acceptable to you, or is there room for improvement? Where?

Everyone PLEASE, but PLEASE be CHARITABLE in your responses

I would say that the Adjective definition is closer to the true term, “Protestant”, especially the line:
"… of or relating to one of the Christian churches separating from the Roman Catholic Church in the Reformation."

Virtually every Protestant community that exists today can trace their belief system back to the Reformation. Whereas, most of them have changed some of the doctrines and teachings of the original “Reformers” or added to them, each offshoot can trace its lineage to the Reformation.

**A true Protestant, however, must be a Trinitarian, Baptized Christian. The problem with the other groups you mentioned, JW’s Oneness Pentecostals and Mormons is that they don’t fall into this category because they deny the Trinity and the divinity of Christ (JW’s and Mormons).

 

[meltzerboy]

**I would say that the Adjective definition is closer **to the true term, “Protestant”, especially the line:
"… of or relating to one of the Christian churches separating from the Roman Catholic Church in the Reformation."

Virtually every Protestant community that exists today can trace their belief system back to the Reformation. Whereas, most of them have changed some of the doctrines and teachings of the original “Reformers” or added to them, each offshoot can trace its lineage to the Reformation.

A true Protestant, however, must be a Trinitarian, Baptized Christian. The problem with the other groups you mentioned, JW’s Oneness Pentecostals and Mormons is that they *don’t *fall into this category because they deny the Trinity and the divinity of Christ (JW’s and Mormons).

I guess Quakers would also not fit the Protestant definition. But all of these groups–Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, Quakers–regard themselves as Christians. Are they still considered Christians by Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox?

 

[Carlan]

I guess Quakers would also not fit the Protestant definition. But all of these groups–Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, Quakers–regard themselves as Christians. Are they still considered Christians by Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox?

Meltzerboy, I believe they would be considered cults.
Peace, Carlan

 

[Bluegoat]

I think it can be used more than one way, but it has to be clear how one is using it.

I tend to use it most for groups, or theological traditions, that are descended from the actions or thinking of the historical Protestant Reformation. So Lutherans today may not be “protesting” or even “witnessing” against the Pope, but they are clearly a body that is related to a group that separated out of the Catholic Church in the Reformation.

Or the concept/formulation of “faith alone” is Protestant in that it is a way of speaking that comes out of the Reformation. This is even true now that the CC has acknowledged that Luther’s way of speaking about this was a valid expression of Catholic belief. That way of speaking about it still comes from the reformation and is in that sense Protestant.

Even a group like the Old Catholics, which did not come from the Reformation, I tend to think of as being Protestant in that their ideas are (now) basically Protestant in type, though the group is not Protestant in an historical sense. Or one sometimes meets Celtic Christians of some type who are trying to practice pre-Roman orthodoxy, but have many basically Protestant attitudes.

JW’s, Mormons, and Unitarians I would say are different. I would say Mormons and JWs are descended from Protestantism. I would say they are not Christian in the conventional sense (especially the Mormons) but are in that they are in the sense that they follow Christ as well as they can. But I think to call them Protestants is misleading.

The Unitarians might I think legitimately be traced to pre-Protestant movements, but I don’t feel qualified to make a firmer statement. But again, though descended from Christianity, not Christian in the normal way.

 

[Publisher]

I guess Quakers would also not fit the Protestant definition. But all of these groups–Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, Quakers–regard themselves as Christians. Are they still considered Christians by Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox?

One vein of Quaker thought is that the Quaker movement is the culmination of the Reformation…some Friends even as the “rediscovery of New Testament Christianity”…not identical in form…but experiencing the same Risen Christ in their midst. Perhaps the “downsizing” from 7 sacraments to 2…or 3 if one includes foot washing as a sacrament/ordinance…to “rediscovering” by individual and corporate “experience” the Risen Christ who is living among us and is our true Teacher…not a book…or an eccleastical body…but Seeking to define in our lives what it means to be a “Christian”…are we truly living in the perpetual First Day of the New Creation as we act as leaven in society to speak and witness Truth…

I happen to accept that idea…that the Society of Friends “rediscovered” the immediate Presence of God and with God Present among us, the need for “ritual observances/outward forms” as means to gain God’s favor…instead, how one lives is the proof of whether one is a “Christian” or not…how closely we practice the Presence of God in our midst…“experiential Christianity”…a great gift for the world…but even Friends have lost the Vision or the Ocean of Light and Love covering the Ocean of Darkness and Death.

Not all Quakers identify themselves as “Christian”…but all Quakers identify themselves as “Friend”. “Up to now I have called you servants…now I call you friends”…“You are my friends if you DO what ever I have commanded you.”…so Quakerism is the culmination of the Reformation…no priests, ministers, rituals or rites to utilize as “worship”…instead, we draw Inward and then seek to express our faith Outward in the world in which we live…

This Quaker considers himself a Christian.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The World Christian Encyclopedia lists four categories of Christians**: ** (Roman) Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant. The editor, David Barrett, is an Anglican clergyman. However, the name in America used to be the Protestant Episcopal Church. JWs, Mormons, and others are listed as Marginal Christians, but how they qualify as Christian at all is questionable, IMO.

**Webster defines a Protestant as “any western Christian not an adherent of a Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Church.” **

That’s the definition I use. But I don’t consider Anglicans in a separate category; they are Protestant. The High Church (which calls itself Catholic), the liberal (Protestant) Broad Church and the evangelical (Protestant) Low Church, are all under the same Anglican umbrella.

My :twocents:

Peace, Jim Dandy

 

[elvisman]

The World Christian Encyclopedia lists four categories of Christians**: **(Roman) Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant. The editor, David Barrett, is an Anglican clergyman. However, the name in America used to be the Protestant Episcopal Church. JWs, Mormons, and others are listed as Marginal Christians, but how they qualify as Christian at all is questionable, IMO.

**Webster defines a Protestant as “any western Christian not an adherent of a Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Church.” **

That’s the definition I use. But I don’t consider Anglicans in a separate category; they are Protestant. The High Church (which calls itself Catholic), the liberal (Protestant) Broad Church and the evangelical (Protestant) Low Church, are all under the same Anglican umbrella.

My :twocents:

Peace, Jim Dandy

Agreed, with one caveat. According to the Catholic Church you must be baptized to be considered a Christian. It is the first of the Sacraments of Initiation.

I also agree with you that Anglicanism is not a seperate category. Anglicans are under the Protestant umbrella.

 

[Pythons]

Question:

Just what is the proper definiton of the word ‘Protestant’?

Numbers 16
Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men: And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown: And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD? And when Moses heard it, he fell upon his face:

 

[Carlan]

Numbers 16
Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men: And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown: And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD? And when Moses heard it, he fell upon his face:

Hmmm! Peace, Carlan

 

[manualman]

…“You are my friends if you DO what ever I have commanded you.”…so Quakerism is the culmination of the Reformation…no priests, ministers, rituals or rites to utilize as “worship”…
This Quaker considers himself a Christian.

Wouldn’t that make you nearly the OPPOSITE of Reformation Protestants since one of their most basic tenets is that Salvation is a free gift given by faith unrelated to things that the person might DO? I see the connection about rejecting assertions of Divinely appointed authority resting on any groups or persons and agree that that aspect is similar. But that’s only part of protestantism.

 

[Publisher]

Wouldn’t that make you nearly the OPPOSITE of Reformation Protestants since one of their most basic tenets is that Salvation is a free gift given by faith unrelated to things that the person might DO? I see the connection about rejecting assertions of Divinely appointed authority resting on any groups or persons and agree that that aspect is similar. But that’s only part of protestantism.

Not quite a representation of Protestant belief…most Protestants do believe what we do is important toward our santification…by our lives we show our faith…not just by our words…Quakerism dispenses with all ritual requirements to approach God…all ritual requirements have been fulfilled by Christ…we share in his Life…those who follow Christ must seek to become like Christ…Salvation is the FREE GIFT of God…by grace through faith…not of our selves…“lest any man should boast”.

 

[josephback]

Numbers 16
Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men: And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown: And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD? And when Moses heard it, he fell upon his face:

You know what’s interesting about this if I remember is that Korah and his men even had liturgical worship. But it was a rebellion against God because it was a rebellion against his servant Moses. So is Moses here like the Pope??? Interesting definition.

Everyone is staying charitable. Happy face

 

[josephback]

So the consensus is that JW’s, Mormons, and Oneness folks are not Protestant? Any objectors to this?

 

[Nicea325]

So the consensus is that JW’s, Mormons, and Oneness folks are not Protestant? Any objectors to this?

No objections from me. I do not understand how JW’s & Mormons deny the Trinity and yet claim they are Christians? The Trinity is one of the major beliefs of orthodox and historical Christianity both groups simply deny and reject. My book…they are OUT!

 

[MillTownCath]

Protestant - Protest (like protest the Catholic Church)

Any correlation?

 

[Pythons]

You know what’s interesting about this if I remember is that Korah and his men even had liturgical worship. But it was a rebellion against God because it was a rebellion against his servant Moses. So is Moses here like the Pope??? Interesting definition.

Everyone is staying charitable. Happy face

Yes, indeed that’s exactly the way I understand it…
…The “sin” was that Korah believed he could “ursurp” God’s established Religious Authority.
…And listed as a proof that there were people aside from God’s established Priesthood.
…That were “just as holy” as God’s established Priesthood.

That there were upright, good people that “wanted to be Priests” was no doubt true…
…However it is God who determines what He is going to do and HOW it’s going to be done.
…Korah and those with him were operating OUTSIDE of that.

 

[Radical]

You know what’s interesting about this if I remember is that Korah and his men even had liturgical worship. But it was a rebellion against God because it was a rebellion against his servant Moses. So is Moses here like the Pope??? Interesting definition.

Everyone is staying charitable. Happy face

so implying that Protestants are akin to Korah is your idea of everyone staying charitable? Interesting definition…In any event, I guess as soon as God swallows up all Protestants in an earthquake we will know that God endorses papal leadership to the same extent that he supported the leadership of Moses…

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I find it interesting that so many Protestants identify themselves as simply “Protestant” on this board. Does that imply that all Protestants believe the same things? Nope. They don’t. There are thousands of conflicting and competing Protestant denominations. The one thing they all believe is that the Catholic Church is wrong and that their particular denomination is right. The Bible tells them so (even though no two of them agree about what the Bible means). To name their denomination would tell us too much, like who founded their organization and when.

How do Protestants define themselves? Against the beliefs (real or presumed) of the Mother Church of all Christendom – the Catholic Church – founded by Christ in A.D. 33 for the salvation of the world.

Peace to all.

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

 

[josephback]

so implying that Protestants are akin to Korah is your idea of everyone staying charitable? Interesting definition…In any event, I guess as soon as God swallows up all Protestants in an earthquake we will know that God endorses papal leadership to the same extent that he supported the leadership of Moses…

I have seen no one do ad hominem attacks on Protestantism. I thought that it was an interesting and unique definition. Citing Korah is a comparison, and I think a valid one. You happen to disagree. Perhaps “being charitable” while calling a spade a spade is a pipe dream. I didn’t/don’t want to unjustly attack Protestants. But avoiding all attacks while staying true to the faith proves quite difficult, if not impossible. It’s probably just time for me to cease trying and call it like it is. Sometimes offense is unavoidable.