Who is considered to be a Protestant?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lak611
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seems like you all agree I’m a protestant…

A protestant is someone who rejects the authority of the pope and has the Bible as their sole autority. Martin Luther is not an authority to a Lutheran.

So is a “bad” Catholic a Protestant, or a member of a Protestant church who does not reject the Roman pontiff a Catholic?
Well, that makes you “one” of the definitions of a Protestant.

But I believe you are also a Protestant Heretic since you reject Martin Luther’s authority, yet still adhere to his teachings (rejection of the universal Christian Church being one of them, Sola Scriptura being the other).

“Bad” is (for me) not a correct term to use. It implies judgement. I’d say “wrong” would be a better word.

To answer your question, no one decides to be a Protestant by default. Once they decide to reject The Church, they are “protesting” The Christian Church instituted by Christ. They choose to become a Protestant. They may not believe that, but then again, their wrong about rejecting it, so it isn’t the first time that their wrong regarding Christianity.

Some are born into their respective faith and are Protestant by birth and by the indoctrination of their parents or whoever was in charge of their religious training. Same deal with Catholics.

🙂
 
From what I have read, you can classify Christianity into four branches. The fourth branch would be called Restorationist.

Restorationists believe that the church lost it for 1900 or so years and that their sect represents the return of true Christianity. JW, Mormons, Adventists, United Pentecostals…etc. would all be considered restorationalists. Some restorationist we would consider Christian but a little wierd. Other restorationists we would consider not Christian.

If you are not Catholic, Orthodox, or Restorationist you would be considered Protestant.

Lutherans, Anglicans and Baptists are not Orthodox, Catholic, or Restorationalist (you might make a case that extreme KJV only Baptists though are Restorationists). The line might be considered blurry here.

Here is more information about restorationist.
Here’s a great breakdown:

Christian faith groups:
One source estimates that there are 34,000 separate Christian groups in the world.

We have attempted to sort them into:

Four to seven meta-groups, (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism…)

Three wings, (conservative, mainline and liberal)

Fifteen Religious families, (Adventist, Baptist, Lutheran, Reform…)

Dozens of denominations, (from the Amish to The Way), and
Many systems of belief (Arminianism, British Israelism, Calvinism…)

religioustolerance.org/christ.htm

Many hundreds of denominations: There are on the order of 1,200 Christian organizations in North America.
Their names range from the Amish to The Way.
We have essays describing some of them.

Four to eight meta-groups: Most of the Christian denominations and sects in the world can be sorted into about eight segments or branches: Roman Catholicism,
Eastern Orthodoxy,
Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Churches,
Protestantism
Restorationists
Anglican Communion
Pentecostals
Others

Unfortunately, there is no consensus about which faith groups should be embraced by the term “Protestantism.” For example: Some theologians split out the Anglican Communion from Protestantism.
Others consider Pentecostalism to be separate from Protestantism.
Others separate the European Free-Church Family out as a separate group.
Some include the Restorationist denominations, which includes the Mormon church (a.k.a. LDS) within Protestantism. Some consider them to be a separate Christian group. Still others consider them to be non-Christian.

The organization Christian Churches Together (CCT), a broadly based, inclusive, Christian ecumenical movement, suggests still another classification of U.S. faith groups. They group Christian denominations into five families" Evangelical/Pentecostal, Historic Protestant, Historic Racial/Ethnic, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic.

Two or three “wings”: Like in the area of politics, Christians and Christian groups can be divided into conservative and liberal wings, according to their belief systems. Their teaching on abortion access, origins of the earth and the rest of the universe, equal rights for gays and lesbians, and same-sex marriage, are four indicators of their location on the liberal- conservative continuum. Fundamentalists, other Evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodoxy, and such varied groups as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Unification Church, etc. generally form the conservative wing;
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Progressive Christianity, Evolutionary Christianity, United Church of Christ, United Church of Canada and others form the liberal wing.
Often, a third, mainline wing is added, composed of such denominations as: American Baptist Churches in the USA, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, etc.

Fifteen religious families: Denominations can be sorted into 15 families, according to their historical roots. 1
Examples are the Adventist, Baptist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, and Presbyterian families.

Theological beliefs: There are many systems of theological beliefs within Christianity.
They often cut across denominational boundaries.
Members of an single congregation may hold conflicting belief systems.
Examples are Arminianism, British Israelism, Calvinism, Christian Identity, Universalism, etc.
The Barna Research Group, arguably the most important polling group working in the religious and spiritual area, sorts individuals into five faith segments according to their theological beliefs.

religioustolerance.org/christ7.htm
 
Not everyone else; Universalists are non-Christian, despite typically protestant trappings (at least one such group uses Byzantine trappings). Those groups claiming descent from John the Baptist are likewise actually outside the heritage of the Church Christ founded, and properly are not Christians.

The surviving Gnostic groups (mostly in the middle east) likewise are neither properly Christian nor protestant, despite their ancient heritage and apostolic origins; they have as different an understanding of Christ as to be incompatible with the rest of Christianity.
I didn’t think Universalists were Christian, but I wasn’t sure so I didn’t include that.

Thanks for pointing those other ones out; I didn’t know about them. I probably should have included some kind of “I’m sure there are some I don’t know about” clause, but I was also dealing mostly with major denominations, so I didn’t.
 
It’s a rule of grammar.

It’s something everyone should’ve learned in school.

For example, you can “bob” for apples or you can be named Bob.

👍
then in your case you are a “protestant” of Protestants. 😛

Really, I see no point in making things more complicated than necessary.
 
Protestant: The very name means protesting. They are the religions that protested the Catholic or later the other protestant churchs.

A Protestant is a Christian non-Catholic.
A Christian is a person who believes in the trinity and that Jesus died on the cross and rose to save us from our sin. (I know that sounds liberal, but I could not find another way to say it:blush: )

So, Mormons are not Christian, and Baptists are Protestant.
That is why Christians say that momonism is a cult. Protestants do not like to be called Protestants because they don’t feel that they are protesting anymore, and also because it is a negative word.

The only exceptions that are not really exceptions are the Eastern Church, because it still has the apostolic succession so it is Catholic, just not fully Catholic. I think the same applies to the SSPX and others like them.
 
Well, that makes you “one” of the definitions of a Protestant.

But I believe you are also a Protestant Heretic since you reject Martin Luther’s authority, yet still adhere to his teachings (rejection of the universal Christian Church being one of them, Sola Scriptura being the other).

“Bad” is (for me) not a correct term to use. It implies judgement. I’d say “wrong” would be a better word.

To answer your question, no one decides to be a Protestant by default. Once they decide to reject The Church, they are “protesting” The Christian Church instituted by Christ. They choose to become a Protestant. They may not believe that, but then again, their wrong about rejecting it, so it isn’t the first time that their wrong regarding Christianity.

Some are born into their respective faith and are Protestant by birth and by the indoctrination of their parents or whoever was in charge of their religious training. Same deal with Catholics.

🙂
What I meant by “bad”, was “salad bar religion”, if you know what I mean.😉

I’m not born into my faith family-wise, but it’ s the church that’s here.🤷 I don’t feel like much of a protestant, but I guess I am a Protestant with the big P.🤷
 
Who is considered to be a Protestant, and what is your definition of Protestant?
Any of the denominations which started after about 1630 is a Protestant denomination, whether they admit it or not.
 
You might be a Protestant if…
  1. You use a Protestant Bible (66 books versus 73, also omitting portions of Daniel and Esther).
  2. You believe in “Bible alone” epistemology
  3. You believe in “Faith alone” soteriology.
For instance, even if the sect claims to be “non-denominational” or “independent”, if they cling to a uniquely Protestant Bible they clearly cling to Protestant tradition.
 
You might be a Protestant if…
  1. You use a Protestant Bible (66 books versus 73, also omitting portions of Daniel and Esther).
  2. You believe in “Bible alone” epistemology
  3. You believe in “Faith alone” soteriology.
For instance, even if the sect claims to be “non-denominational” or “independent”, if they cling to a uniquely Protestant Bible they clearly cling to Protestant tradition.
Hmm. Protestant = A Christian that uses the 66 book Bible.

I can see that definition working.
 
If you don’t see the differences, look closer. The difference is:
  • I DO NOT agree that the Bible alone can bind the conscience. [1]
  • I do not deny that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of the Bible,[2]
  • I do believe there is personal revelation.(God can and does speak to people individually.[3]
    (I can go into more detail if we start a new thread)
So what I believe is VERY different than the Definition of sola scriptura that belongs with the 5 sloas.
**[1] What else can bind the conscience then?[2] I think the context of the Holy Spirit speaking independently is in reference to determining doctrine. If you dont believe that then you must be open to the idea of a prophet showing up and claiming to be receiving divine revelation. Most traditional Protestant groups reject that.[3] **Again, the context is in regards to Sola Scriptura. It is not denying God may give someone a vision or something, what it is against is the idea of that vision becoming a measuring stick or reference for orthodox doctrine.

I dont see any substantial conflicts/differences in those two definitions.
Lots of protestants agree with many things Catholic, unless you only define protestant as “anti-Catholic.” So your assertion “as long as it isnt a Catholic interpretation at the end of the day” is not reasonable.
I wasnt talking about each and every doctrine must be different from what the Church teaches, I was talking in general. For example if a Catholic were to claim they were going by Scripture alone and they concluded salvation was not by faith alone, for example, Protestants would not accept that interpretation despite the fact the Catholic is simply going by the Bible.
 
**[1] What else can bind the conscience then?[2] I think the context of the Holy Spirit speaking independently is in reference to determining doctrine. If you dont believe that then you must be open to the idea of a prophet showing up and claiming to be receiving divine revelation. Most traditional Protestant groups reject that.[3] **Again, the context is in regards to Sola Scriptura. It is not denying God may give someone a vision or something, what it is against is the idea of that vision becoming a measuring stick or reference for orthodox doctrine.

I dont see any substantial conflicts/differences in those two definitions.
The difference is pretty significant! Sola Scriptura doesn’t allow for secondary sources of Authority. That is why Catholics are always asking people to show them where Sola Scriptura is in teh Bible.

**[1] **God Can! in any way He so chooses.
**[2] **I do not reject modern day prophecy. It is possible. How do you figure “most” Protestants reject it? I think most denominations believe that prophecy is a gift for the edification of the church. (Though most do claim the “office” of Prophet is no more.)
**[3] **Sola scriptura says that the Holy Spirit never speaks independently of scripture and that personal spiritual experience can never “be a vehicle of revelation.” I disagree with that, I believe the Holy Spirit can and will speak in ways besides scripture and one can have revelations through personal experience.

In all of 1,2,&3 though God does not lie and God does not contradict Himself. Scripture is the 1st authority that all other revelations must be measured by. This is different than sola scriptura.

If Sola Scriptura is the measure of what a Protestant is, then there are a whole lot of non-Catholic non-Protestant Christians around.
 
The difference is pretty significant! Sola Scriptura doesn’t allow for secondary sources of Authority. That is why Catholics are always asking people to show them where Sola Scriptura is in teh Bible.

**[1] **God Can! in any way He so chooses.
**[2] **I do not reject modern day prophecy. It is possible. How do you figure “most” Protestants reject it? I think most denominations believe that prophecy is a gift for the edification of the church. (Though most do claim the “office” of Prophet is no more.)
**[3] **Sola scriptura says that the Holy Spirit never speaks independently of scripture and that personal spiritual experience can never “be a vehicle of revelation.” I disagree with that, I believe the Holy Spirit can and will speak in ways besides scripture and one can have revelations through personal experience.

In all of 1,2,&3 though God does not lie and God does not contradict Himself. Scripture is the 1st authority that all other revelations must be measured by. This is different than sola scriptura.

If Sola Scriptura is the measure of what a Protestant is, then there are a whole lot of non-Catholic non-Protestant Christians around.
Did you realize that all three of your reasons (both times) are “in-biblical” beliefs?

:confused:
 
  1. How is it un-Biblical that God can do whatever He pleases? He is not going to “Please” to go against His own will… Please explain.
2.Last I checked the Bible refers to prophecy in the last Days. The young men will prophsy and the old men will dream dreams. It is not unbiblical to say that God will speak to us.
  1. Personal revelation is not un-Biblical, provided the revelation does not contradict the Scripture. God does not contradict Himself. God may tell me that it is His will for me to be (for example) a Teacher , this can be 100% true and not contradict scrupture in any way.
 
  1. How is it un-Biblical that God can do whatever He pleases? He is not going to “Please” to go against His own will… Please explain.
2.Last I checked the Bible refers to prophecy in the last Days. The young men will prophsy and the old men will dream dreams. It is not unbiblical to say that God will speak to us.
  1. Personal revelation is not un-Biblical, provided the revelation does not contradict the Scripture. God does not contradict Himself. God may tell me that it is His will for me to be (for example) a Teacher , this can be 100% true and not contradict scrupture in any way.
[1] What else can bind the conscience then?
Binding the conscience isn’t in the bible.
[2] I think the context of the Holy Spirit speaking independently is in reference to determining doctrine. If you dont believe that then you must be open to the idea of a prophet showing up and claiming to be receiving divine revelation. Most traditional Protestant groups reject that.
Prophets after Jesus.
[3] Again, the context is in regards to Sola Scriptura. It is not denying God may give someone a vision or something, what it is against is the idea of that vision becoming a measuring stick or reference for orthodox doctrine.
Personal revelation to the members of The Magistarium has alwasy been in effect and used by The Holy Spirit to guide Priests in The Church since Acts (all decisions were made and prayed over and decided with the help of The Holy Spirit…including doctrinal decisions).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top