what's the protestants' view on the word "protestant"?

[Shoshana]

Kevan:

I’ve conversed with many Protestants who have an antipathy to labels. They no longer go to a church because of its beliefs; it just happens to be where they feel the Lord wants them to go. So they don’t want to be labeled with some church’s baggage because, in fact, they have no allegiance to that baggage. They believe that all such baggage needs to be forgotten and we should all just be “Christians.” And that can even go so far as the distinction between Protestant and Catholic.

My own opinion is that such fogginess goes in the wrong direction, although it might feel good at first.

This is true…my brother and wife refuses to pledge any allegiance to any building (as they call it). Thye told my mom that to belong to any building is just a pride thing. It didn’t even matter in the long run as long as they Had Jesus as Lord and Saviour…everything else was bunk. And as long it was a bible-loving church.

But they decide that it was okay for them to receive holy communion (even if he declared that all catholics are going to hell) when the priest declared that only people who are baptized and believe in the teachings of the RC church were allowed to go…they went anyway (this was at my dad’s funeral). They reasoned that that they were in the ‘catholic’ in the universal sense. They interpret what they want to and still do to this day after 23 years of searching fo rhis own God…yes, he is protesting…big time. And they make up their own rules…at the cost of his soul. Do not forget he was baptized catholic…she wasn’t.

I have great difficulty with them…I believe that not only have they been decived…they also deceive…to this day. I believe that she is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. And there is nothing I can do about it…there is nothing to talk to them about…

The ‘protestant’ is exactly that…to protest. Even if Luther and Henry the V111 have died too many years ago. It is from them that these thousands of denominbations have stemmed from…:crying:
Blessings,
Shoshana

 

[new_man]

Eden:

Even if one were to use the affirmative definition of “protest” as “to witness” to describe “Protestants” in the 16th century, the same idea is that the Protestants were “protesting against” or “witnessing against” the Church. Their name derives from the “against” aspect. That is to say, the name is conditional upon the existence of the “Other” (the Catholic Church). Concluding that the name was derived because “originally protestant meant to show belief in Christ without acceptance of (i.e. “protest against”) the magisterium” still maintains the “against”. Their belief in Christ exists “against” the Magisterium.

I believe this definition accurately reflects the meaning that you were trying to convey in your original post:

1. To affirm in a public or formal manner; to bear witness; to declare solemnly; to avow.

However, this still doesn’t support your assertion. The name derives from the fact that Protestants affirmed in a public manner, bore witness to and declared solemnly their opposition to the Church vs. a derivation in which Protestants affirmed in a public manner, bore witness to and declared solemnly their belief in Christ.

Syn: To affirm; asseverate; assert; aver; attest; testify; declare; profess. See Affirm.

There would have been no “Protestants” without the existence of the Catholic Church so the name clearly is not representing merely a “testimony” to a belief in Christ.

Every history that I can find on the emergence of the word “Protestant” supports the “against the Church” vs. “for Christ” definition. Here is a typical example:

The term Protestant originally applied to the group of princes and imperial cities who** protested** the decision by the 1529 Diet of Speyer to reverse course and enforce the 1521 Edict of Worms. The 1521 edict forbade Lutheran teachings within the Holy Roman Empire. The 1526 session of the Diet had agreed to toleration of Lutheran teachings (on the basis of Cuius regio, eius religio) until a General Council could be held to settle the question, but by 1529 the Catholic forces felt they had gathered enough power to end the toleration without waiting for a Council.
arthistoryclub.com/art_history/Protestant

Eden I do not argue with the essence of what you say and I think your exposition of the position is pretty accurate. However I am attempting to balance the books as it were in introducing into the debate the positive aspect of Witness in their understanding of the use of “protestari” during the era of the 1520s. it is quite true that the church wat protested against but that is not he ONLY aspect the term carried than. that is my point. Further as I have said this is particularly important for Americans where the verbs usage is now divorced from its Latin and Old french etymology.

Essentially i am attempting to nuance the position as you have set it out rather than disagree with it.