What truths must you hold to be considered a Protestant?

[blazerdave]

I am curious: how you guys propose unity among Protestants?

Great question! In my humble opinion, the first step is to demonstrate to Protestants that ideas like “starting your own church” or “breaking away to found a new denomination” have no Scriptural basis whatsoever. We don’t need to increase divisions right now. More and more Protestant church planter/pastor friends of mine are realizing this. So Protestants need to avoid creating any new movements, and they need to find a way to reunite groups that agree on 98% of everything. Too many groups split from one another in the past 150 years that really have no barriers to reunification.

If this wild idea actually worked and we saw fewer “kinds” of Presbyterians (I used to be one), Baptists, etc, more dialogue and cooperation would be possible along confessional lines. It would be more beneficial if we had, for example, a Reformed voice than if we had a dozen Presbyterian/Reformed mini-voices. Unnecessary divisions must be eliminated as the first step towards unity.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I am curious: how you guys propose unity among Protestants?

Exile the Baptists to Angolia, and that will instantly create 90% unity among Protestants.

… Good question, and I will respond tomorrow after sleep!

 

[blazerdave]

hahaha

 

[Izdaari]

I don’t even think of myself as a Protestant. I am one by definition simply because I’m a Christian who isn’t Catholic or Orthodox, and because my church (Assemblies of God) is in the Protestant tradition. Nor would I say I reject Catholicism or Orthodoxy – reject is too strong a word. I’m not a member of those churches, nor will I become one (I’m happy with my present church), but I think both have some theology that’s more correct than ours, and I consider both to be my brothers in Christ.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I missed this the first time.

As for (1), if you are Non-Catholic or Non-Orthodox (not sure what a restorationalist is), it doesn’t follow that you are a Protestant: Atheists, jews, Muslims, Mormons, etc. are neither Catholic or Orthodox but I doubt that these faiths (or lack thereof) are considered Protestant. If we bring the category over to Christianity, then it begs the question what distinguishes Protestants from Orthodox and Catholic faiths.

My mistake. I should have also specified Christian and not (Catholic, Orthodox, Restorationalist).

Some people (myself included) would also define Protestant as somehow a descendent of the Protestant reformation. They use a fourth term (restorationalist) for thiose organizations that reject the reformation.

As for (2), I have a question: Can anything to be believed under the Protestant umbrella (i.e. homosexuality is okay)? Under the Catholic faith, those beliefs wouldn’t be in line with the faith and wouldn’t be in good standing with the Church. Is there some equivalent for this in the Protestant faith?

There are Protestant organizations that believe in gay marriage (United Church of Christ). As I said, there is not a statement of faith that you must adhere to in order to be considered Protestant.

This begs the question of why Catholic, Orthodox and Protestants are seen as different. Personally, I believe we all have many things in common but our beliefs aren’t exactly the same. I imagine that if the papacy were brought up that each of these faiths would have differing views about the pope’s role.

Folks like to classify and create hierarchies. That way one can have a structured view of a large entity.

You lost me here.

This was in response to the point of belief “The Catholic church is wrong”. I think it is theoretically possible for there to be a Protestant church that does not believe this (remember there is no Protestant statement of faith). If just would not make any sense if this were the case (why aren’t you Catholic then…maybe for other reasons).

Do you mind expounding on this?

More responses in the next post…

This was in response to the proposition that “faith alone” and “Scripture alone” are common tenets within “Protestantism”.

For starters there is this beast known as liberal Protestantism. Liberal Protestantism leans towards universalism. I don’t know how you can have “faith alone” when in the end everybody makes it in. Also for Liberal Protestantism the Bible is not inerrant or even inspired by God. I don’t know how you can have “Scripture alone” when there is nothing special about Scripture.

 

[Contarini]

Is there a concept of heresy within Protestantism?

There certainly used to be, and still is among many Protestants. Indeed, in a sense that conservative Protestant view of heresy is more repressive than the Catholic one, because for Protestants heresy is simply false doctrine, whereas for Catholics it’s only false doctrine held stubbornly in opposition to the Church (i.e., you can make plenty of theological mistakes and not be a heretic).

Does each denomination view itself as having the fullness of truth like Catholicism does?

No, it generally doesn’t. If there is one thing I wish Catholics could understand about Protestantism, it’s this. Protestant denominations aren’t little imitations of the Catholic Church. By and large they are something else entirely. (This is also why Protestants should not call the Catholic Church a “denomination,” though perhaps we could call the Roman Catholic Church in the strict sense a denomination, in which case the Byzantine, Maronite, Chaldaean, and the other 20 or however many sui juris Catholic churches would also be denominations.)

I’m trying to understand how each denomination deals with the differences between them.

Varies widely depending on the denomination and the differences. Naturally most members of most denominations think that their denomination is the most theologically sound and/or has the most effective organization for evangelization, etc. But some would be willing to say that they are simply in their denomination because that’s their spiritual heritage (whether through upbringing or conversion) even if some other denomination has a lot of advantages.

And then you have the widespread phenomenon of “nondenominational” churches (Catholics often try to deny that there are such things, because they confuse denominations, which are organizational entities, with theological traditions), and the even more widespread phenomenon of people moving freely among denominations for various reasons, only some of them theological.

Edwin

 

[peary]

Protestants, what truths must you hold to be considered one of you? Can you believe in the Immaculate Conception and still be a Protestant? All of the 5 solas? Be confessional and hold to the Augsburg Confession as well or is that non-essential?

I ask this because Catholics are sometimes told that they have less freedom of thought in comparison to the Protestant churches. I’m curious about the intellectual freedom in the Protestant realm, if there’s some overarching dogma/doctrine that unites everybody together. I ask this question out of curiosity so that I can see the world better from your point of view.

Thank you in advance.

1. rejection of the papacy
2. rejection of the visible church, supplanting it with an invisible entity
3. rejection of all Marian doctrines
4. rejection of important sacraments, such as Reconciliation and the Eucharist.
5. rejection of the Mass as a true sacrifice, the priest as priest who makes the sacrifice, and the altar as where the sacrifice occurs.
6. rejection of all devotions, particularly the Rosary
7. rejection of key dogmas, such as Purgatory
8. rejection of the fact that the Catholic Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church formed by Christ and His apostles.
9. acceptance, for the most part, of divorce, birth control, recreational sex, and, to a greater or lesser degree, abortion.
10. Acceptance, for the most part, of practicing homosexuality.

These seem to be the “Top Ten”. Of course, there are more.

 

[Hereswith]

It depends greatly on what denomination you come from. I was raised Congregationalist, converted to Catholicism in my late twenties.

Truths in common with Catholics: the divinity of Christ, the redemptive nature of his cruxifiction, immaculate conception, necessity of baptism (although mode varies), truth in Scripture (the degree of literal interpretation varies), value of prayer, value of the communion rite (although valued a bit differently than in Catholicism - and it often is not weekly but monthly), value of the rite of marriage.

Many Protestants see their own congregation as independent. There is no universal hierarchy. They elect their own, hire their own ministers. The minister answers to God alone and the congregation, not to a bishop.

We all have more in common than not.

 

[JonNC]

=peary;6517349]1. rejection of the papacy

Not necessarily. The Bishop of Rome is the Patriarch of the West, as set by the early councils. We reject universal jurisdiction and infallibility, which we along with Orthodoxy (as I understand it), consider innovations

1. rejection of the visible church, supplanting it with an invisible entity

Again, not necessarily.

1. rejection of all Marian doctrines

False, at least for Lutherans. As the scriptures are not explicit in these areas, Lutherans are free to accept or reject, as a matter of personal piety. I accept the perpetual virginity,
as an example.

1. rejection of important sacraments, such as Reconciliation and the Eucharist.

Completely false for Lutherans.

1. rejection of the Mass as a true sacrifice, the priest as priest who makes the sacrifice, and the altar as where the sacrifice occurs.

Depends upon what you mean by sacrifice. The mass is certainly, for participants, a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.

1. rejection of all devotions, particularly the Rosary

Again, not necessarily.

1. rejection of key dogmas, such as Purgatory

As for Purgatory, correct.

1. rejection of the fact that the Catholic Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church formed by Christ and His apostles.

Why should one believe that the single Patriarchcate in Rome is the one true Church?

1. acceptance, for the most part, of divorce, birth control, recreational sex, and, to a greater or lesser degree, abortion.

False, and inflammatory. Provide documentation.

1. Acceptance, for the most part, of practicing homosexuality.

False, and inflammatory. Provide documentation.

These seem to be the “Top Ten”. Of course, there are more.

Perhaps you need to rethink your “top ten”.

Jon

 

[Dancelittleewok]

If any of the newcomers would like to respond this:

1. How do you think that Protestants can be united amongst themselves?
2. In light of AP’s post, do you think that liberal Protestants and Catholics have more in common than traditional Catholics and Protestants?

Contarini:

Varies widely depending on the denomination and the differences. Naturally most members of most denominations think that their denomination is the most theologically sound and/or has the most effective organization for evangelization, etc. But some would be willing to say that they are simply in their denomination because that’s their spiritual heritage (whether through upbringing or conversion) even if some other denomination has a lot of advantages.

And then you have the widespread phenomenon of “nondenominational” churches (Catholics often try to deny that there are such things, because they confuse denominations, which are organizational entities, with theological traditions), and the even more widespread phenomenon of people moving freely among denominations for various reasons, only some of them theological.

What’s the difference between a denomination and theological tradition to you? You’ve alluded to you it as above and I wanted to make sure I understood you.

 

[TriuneUnity]

If any of the newcomers would like to respond this:

1. How do you think that Protestants can be united amongst themselves?

I think what is difficult about the concept of conservative Protestants uniting is that most of the current divisions within Protestantism come from the Reformed wing of the original Reformation. This would be Baptists, Arminians (through Methodism), Pentecostals, the Holiness sects, etc. The Anglicans and Lutherans, the two other major wings of the Reformation have almost nothing in common with any of these traditions and would see no real point to begin any kind of unity with them unless they changed the vast majority of their theology. It is much more likely than Lutherans would unite with Catholics and Orthodox long before any other Protestant tradition.

1. In light of AP’s post, do you think that liberal Protestants and Catholics have more in common than traditional Catholics and Protestants?

More than likely, since they’re both functionally non-Christian in most respects. As AP pointed out, why bother dividing over Sola Fide when all you have to do to be justified is have a pulse for more than 20 seconds.

 

[Hereswith]

OK that’s it. I’m off to Panda Express for some lunch.

Triunity I wanted to add that there are different kinds of Lutherans. Isn’t it the Missouri Synod that is very fundamentalist, while the others are as you say more liberal.

I was raised in a liberal Protestant church, by the way (Congregationalist) - and as you say there is a lot in common between that and Catholic. But still, there is a huge difference. So don’t diss those of us who have converted - we had good reason, and plenty of it.

And there is nothing “non-Christian” by the way in a liberal Protestant church, or any Catholic church for that matter. Want to rethink that? Sounds like maybe you blurted without thinking?

God Bless.

Danceleelittlewok, you asked how Protestants can unite. Believe me, they won’t. They are vastly different entities with very different beliefs. It is like asking why Catholics and Mormons don’t just unite. Absurd.

I would say that there is little in common between fundamentalist Protestants and any Catholic, period. The basic philosophy is simply not the same. Ideologically, there is much in common between liberal Protestants and Catholics. The ritual is different, mostly.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Triunity I wanted to add that there are different kinds of Lutherans. Isn’t it the Missouri Synod that is very fundamentalist, while the others are as you say more liberal.

As an outside observer, I would characterize TriuneUnity’s form of Lutheranism as more fundamentalist than the LCMS. For example, the WELS do not have open communion with any other Lutheran group unless there is agreement on certain key doctrines. My understanding is that LCMS, although they practice closed communion, does allow more leeway with other Lutherans than do the WELS.

Sources:

livingbold.net/welsspace/reallife/spiritual/lutherandifference

Wisconsin practices “close” or “closed” Communion, inviting to our altars only those who are members of congregations in our fellowship. Although Missouri officially teaches “close(d)” Communion, many pastors and churches practice “open” Communion, allowing joint Communion with those not in doctrinal agreement with the Missouri Synod.

lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=422

The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod has never understood or applied the historic practice of close[d] Communion in such a way as to mean that only LCMS members are permitted to commune at LCMS altars. The official position of the Synod is that not only are members of other Lutheran churches with whom we are in altar and pulpit fellowship invited to commune with us, but also that in certain extraordinary cases of pastoral care and in emergencies members of churches not in fellowship with us may be given Communion. The Synod stated, for example, in 1986 “that pastors and congregations of The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod continue to abide by the practice of close communion, which includes the necessity of exercising responsible pastoral care in extraordinary situations and circumstances” (1986 Res. 3-08 “To Maintain Practice of Close Communion”).

 

[JonNC]

As an outside observer, I would characterize TriuneUnity’s form of Lutheranism as more fundamentalist than the LCMS. For example, the WELS do not have open communion with any other Lutheran group unless there is agreement on certain key doctrines. My understanding is that LCMS, although they practice closed communion, does allow more leeway with other Lutherans than do the WELS.

Sources:

livingbold.net/welsspace/reallife/spiritual/lutherandifference

lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=422

My LCMS congregation has a communion statement, which states, in effect, that we confess that the supper is the true body and blood of Christ, not a mere symbol or a simple remembrance. If you believe the same, you are welcome to commune. It also includes the 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 warning about not discerning His presence, and an offer to council with the pastor or elder prior to. When I first moved here, we were ELCA, and were permitted to receive.

Jon

 

[TriuneUnity]

OK that’s it. I’m off to Panda Express for some lunch.

Triunity I wanted to add that there are different kinds of Lutherans. Isn’t it the Missouri Synod that is very fundamentalist, while the others are as you say more liberal.

The only Synod that can be considered liberal is the ELCA. Granted that it is the largest (currently) number wise, but the Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Synod, the Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the AALC, and the CLC are all conservative Synods. However, I do not define Lutheranism by Synod, but rather, by the Lutheran Confessions.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

The only Synod that can be considered liberal is the ELCA.

That all depends on one’s perspective. The LCMS are liberal from the standpoint that they allow communion with ELCA and I presume are open to communion with WELS. Whereas WELS is conservative in that it closes communion even to LCMS.

I will agree that ELCA is the most liberal Lutheran group. I would classify LCMS as moderate. You could say they are liberal or conservative leaning depending on one’s viewpoint on adherence to doctrine.

TriuneUnity:

I do not define Lutheranism by Synod, but rather, by the Lutheran Confessions.

Isn’t the reason there are different synods not in union with one another due to the fact that they adhere (i.e. interpret) to the Lutheran Confessions differently?

 

[TriuneUnity]

That all depends on one’s perspective. The LCMS are liberal from the standpoint that they allow communion with ELCA and I presume are open to communion with WELS. Whereas WELS is conservative in that it closes communion even to LCMS.

From where do you take it that an ELCA Lutheran may commune at an LCMS church? I have never met an LCMS pastor that would permit it.

Isn’t the reason there are different synods not in union with one another due to the fact that they adhere (i.e. interpret) to the Lutheran Confessions differently?

Depends on the issue that is dividing the two synods.

 

[AmateurPianist]

1. rejection of the papacy
2. rejection of the visible church, supplanting it with an invisible entity
3. rejection of all Marian doctrines
4. rejection of important sacraments, such as Reconciliation and the Eucharist.
5. rejection of the Mass as a true sacrifice, the priest as priest who makes the sacrifice, and the altar as where the sacrifice occurs.
6. rejection of all devotions, particularly the Rosary
7. rejection of key dogmas, such as Purgatory
8. rejection of the fact that the Catholic Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church formed by Christ and His apostles.
9. acceptance, for the most part, of divorce, birth control, recreational sex, and, to a greater or lesser degree, abortion.
10. Acceptance, for the most part, of practicing homosexuality.

These seem to be the “Top Ten”. Of course, there are more.

Please provide a link to show that to be a card carrying Protestant you must adhere to these beliefs.

I challenge you to do this. Please, please provide a link and surprise us all with proof that in order to be a card carrying Protestant you must adhere to this.

Of course you can not do this.

That is because [SIGN]You are spreading lies[/SIGN]

I honestly expect better conduct from any organization that exalts itself to “One True Church” status than this rubbish.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Danceleelittlewok, you asked how Protestants can unite. Believe me, they won’t. They are vastly different entities with very different beliefs. It is like asking why Catholics and Mormons don’t just unite. Absurd.

I would say that there is little in common between fundamentalist Protestants and any Catholic, period. The basic philosophy is simply not the same. Ideologically, there is much in common between liberal Protestants and Catholics. The ritual is different, mostly.

First off, define fundamentalist. I’d say Catholics and Protestants do have something in common: belief in a triune God, God the Son became man, died, sacrifice Himself for us and rose again, Sacred Scripture is the inspired word of God, etc. I think both faiths wouldn’t have this in common in any liberal Protestants and Catholics. Yet I wouldn’t say that we are the exact same and no conversion is need because that is indifferent-ism and goes beyond the ecumenical boundaries.

What do you mind about “basic philosophy isn’t the same?”

P.S. Can someone explain to me this synod business within a denomination? I’ve never understood this. Thanks!

 

[TriuneUnity]

First off, define fundamentalist. I’d say Catholics and Protestants do have something in common: belief in a triune God, God the Son became man, died, sacrifice Himself for us and rose again, Sacred Scripture is the inspired word of God, etc. I think both faiths wouldn’t have this in common in any liberal Protestants and Catholics. Yet I wouldn’t say that we are the exact same and no conversion is need because that is indifferent-ism and goes beyond the ecumenical boundaries.

What do you mind about “basic philosophy isn’t the same?”

P.S. Can someone explain to me this synod business within a denomination? I’ve never understood this. Thanks!

I’ll try, Dance. A Synod, within Lutheranism (other denominations may or may not define a Synod differently), is a jurisdictional body that oversees a federation of individual churches that all agree not only with the Lutheran Confessions, but with Synodical documents, resolutions, etc. Initially, Synods in America were regional bodies. When Germans and Scandinavians began to immigrate here in the late 19th century, they settled in different regions. The Lutherans in those regions then formed Synods that had oversight within that area. A large number of Germans settled in Wisconsin, and the upper midwest and formed what is today the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Germans also settled in the Missouri region and formed the Missouri Synod. Scandinavians settled in the upper midwest and Great Plains and formed the Evangelical Lutheran Synod, etc.

Since that time, other issues have arisen within American Lutheranism than have either separated the Synods from fellowship with each other. They are not different denominations per se…like the difference between Baptists and Presbyterians. But rather, theological differences within one overall denomination (Lutheranism).