Why do many evangelical protestants not describe themselves as "protestants"

[Roostah]

Roostah,
Welcome to the boards. Very nice first post.

I think that we can agree on this…but such does not make those people right…and in fact, in following the tradition and example laid down in Acts 15…Such people would be like Judaizers who refused to accept the findings of the Council of Jerusalem.
Would you consider such people to be good Christians who dissented from the decision of the council - who dissented from that which, “seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to (Church leaders)…” (Acts 15:28)?

The “Alliance of Church ans State” that you mention is looked at negatively by some in the protestant world. But such people fail to see the great blessing that occurred after the legalization of the faith. It permitted the Church to come together openly in great councils, just as Holy Scripture itself instructs and describes, to deal with various issues and questions. All sides were able to then “Tell it to the Church” and to “Listen to the Church” to whom Christ gave authority to Bind and Loose “Whatever” (Mt 18:17-18) and through whom It is the good pleasure of our God to make known His Wisdom (Eph 3:8-12)

If there were those who chose to defy the decisions of the councils…then they could only be described as like those who St John refers to as, going out from us but never truly being of us…(1John 2:19).
Such ones were people who rejected that which “…seemed good to the Holy Spirit…”(Acts15:28)

Personally I find it impossible to put any faith in such people or groups who acted in such a unbiblical fashion and I cannot give much credence to groups today who seek to embrace such groups and/or ideas.

Peace
James

 

[rfournier103]

Well, they do, its just the history in the bible. But i’ll agree that they know nothing about church history after the bible

Or of the history between 33 AD and circa 393 when the New Testament was compiled.

 

[rfournier103]

From the time of Jesus and through the centuries, there were many christians who did not hitch themselves to the alliance of church and state. People 2000 years ago were no different than we are today, there were differences in people’s thinking. Of course not all christians agreed in harmony with catholic teaching. From early on, there were christians outside the catholic church…from the begining, therefore they are not protestants, yet they are christians.

Your evidence of this is…?

 

[Aramis]

Well…what is the Lutheran faith?

They believe in original sin.
They believe God’s grace alone saves, obtained by faith alone upon Christ’s merit, but faith is aided by the sacraments.
They usually hold to a belief in the real presence.
They hold that the bible is the sole divinely inspired work - but disagree on the implications of that.
They are trinitarian biphysite believers in a physical incarnation born of Mary.
They believe in human depravity unless the holy spirit has come to affect one through baptism and faith.
They hold that there are no less than 2 sacraments: Baptism and Communion; some sects of Lutherans hold there are more.

My wife’s family are mostly lutherans, ranging from fundamentalist lutherans to “seriously liberal for the ELCA” lutherans.

 

[flameburns623]

Evangelicalism, as an American movement, was largely born in the 1950’s and was a self-conscious effort to transcend denominational boundaries while retaining a sense of Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxis.

It had some roots in the Fundamentalist movement of the late 1880’s thru the 1920’s, but Fundamentalism reverted to strict sectarianism. 1950’s Evangelical leaders tried to avoid that–BUT WHILE AVOIDING WHAT THEY SAW AS THE DE-EMPHASIS ON TRUTH OF THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT, which had been around since the 1930’s or so.

One of the things Evangelicalism succeeded at was a de-emphasis on denominational labels in favor of simply self-identifying as “Christian”. To the extreme that some Evangelicals presume that ANYONE who self-identifies by way of a denominational label instead of simply as a “Christian” is lacking a’relationship with Jesus Christ’.

It’s not just Catholics, therefore, who are thought of as not-Christian. If one says that one is a “Lutheran” or an “Anglican” or a “Methodist”—rather than speaking of oneself as a Christian who’happens to fellowship in an Anglican/Catholic/Lutheran/Methodist church–many Evangelicals would consider such a person suspect of being caught up in “Churchianity” and possibly not a true Christian at all.

Evangelicals are also a bit more prone to have deep roots in any sort of history, therefore not likely to see themselves as part of the Protestant movement. This is more true on the layperson level----there are plenty of scholarly and well-informed Evangelical leaders and thinkers. But those learned ones also have a deeper sense of attachment to some Protestant denomination, even if they don’t advert their denominational label widely. Again, Evangelicalism was not an effort to abolish denominations, but an effort to transcend the sectarianism and divisiveness which an overemphasis on denominational distinctives had produced for earlier generations.

 

[CopticChristian]

Wow Coptic…Pretty blunt my friend…:nunchuk:…

Something is bothering me though…While as Catholics we do believe our non-Catholic brothers are in error, I can’t quite figure out the jump you make in the last paragraph. Seems to me that in the realm of abortion and homosexuality we Christians should cease bickering and form a united front, a united voting block.
Such an alliance does not nullify other areas of disagreement, but it could certainly be beneficial to thousands upon thousands of babies.

But perhaps this is all getting a bit off topic…

Peace
James

JR,

I understand. Allow me to explain my understanding by asking a few questions.

First Abide says, let’s stop fighting and just be Christian. This is the premise of my understanding. Do you agree with this as a starting point of my thought process?

 

[nicolakirwan]

flameburns623’s post was pretty spot on as well. I do think that Evangelicalism was a positive move for Protestantism. I also think that Evangelicals do hold on faithfully to the core of the Christian faith because they succeed at producing real believers who have faith in Christ, are baptized and go forward to live in obedience to Him and teach others to do the same. The Lord said that His sheep will hear His voice.

In fact, the Catholic Church has in many circles (and nearly all I was ever a part of) completely forgotten the preaching *of conversion *of heart. This is in many ways at the core of Evangelicalism. Not only were people not truly converted, but they weren’t taught that they needed to be to escape God’s judgment. Even though the Catechism views authentic conversion of heart to be essential, it is so underemphasized that along with the lack of catechesis, many of the criticisms Evangelicals have of Catholicism are true in practice if not in principle.

 

[AbideWithMe]

JR,

I understand. Allow me to explain my understanding by asking a few questions.

First Abide says, let’s stop fighting and just be Christian. This is the premise of my understanding. Do you agree with this as a starting point of my thought process?

Coptic, that’s not what I said, though it’s apparently what you heard. I’m in the midst of some family concerns; I’ll try to reply to you tomorrow. (Don’t hold your breath on that, as usual…but I will try.)

 

[AbideWithMe]

flameburns623’s post was pretty spot on as well. I do think that Evangelicalism was a positive move for Protestantism. I also think that Evangelicals do hold on faithfully to the core of the Christian faith because they succeed at producing real believers who have faith in Christ, are baptized and go forward to live in obedience to Him and teach others to do the same. The Lord said that His sheep will hear His voice.

In fact, the Catholic Church has in many circles (and nearly all I was ever a part of) completely forgotten the preaching *of conversion *of heart. This is in many ways at the core of Evangelicalism. Not only were people not truly converted, but they weren’t taught that they needed to be to escape God’s judgment. Even though the Catechism views authentic conversion of heart to be essential, it is so underemphasized that along with the lack of catechesis, many of the criticisms Evangelicals have of Catholicism are true in practice if not in principle.

Thank you, Nicola. Perhaps you can help bridge some gaps here in regards to misconceptions on both sides.

 

[flameburns623]

flameburns623’s post was pretty spot on as well. I do think that Evangelicalism was a positive move for Protestantism. I also think that Evangelicals do hold on faithfully to the core of the Christian faith because they succeed at producing real believers who have faith in Christ, are baptized and go forward to live in obedience to Him and teach others to do the same. The Lord said that His sheep will hear His voice.

In fact, the Catholic Church has in many circles (and nearly all I was ever a part of) completely forgotten the preaching *of conversion *of heart. This is in many ways at the core of Evangelicalism. Not only were people not truly converted, but they weren’t taught that they needed to be to escape God’s judgment. Even though the Catechism views authentic conversion of heart to be essential, it is so underemphasized that along with the lack of catechesis, many of the criticisms Evangelicals have of Catholicism are true in practice if not in principle.

I don’t know that it has been forgotten to the degree you think it has. Most of the movements and groups extant in the Church–the Marian movements, Opus Dei, Cursillo, Marriage Encounter, Charismatic Movement, Catholic Evangelicals, Eucharistic Adoration, the various sorts of lay apostolates and ‘tertiary orders’–all of these put more emphasis than I think you are lending credit on some sort of conversion of heart.

The Year of Evangelism or whatever it’s being called, like the various previous periods consecrated to one thing or another, all of these likewise have at their center the call to Catholics to a conversion of soul.

Lent is ALL ABOUT true conversion of heart.

So in some ways, Catholics are actually more systematic about calling people to true conversion than many Protestant Evangelicals. In fact, I started my journey back home to the RCC after reading books and hearing sermons which talked of “praying the Scriptures”, which talked about good hymnody as not simply a sort of interlude or preface to worship–but as worship and as prayer in and of itself.

I began to realise that the Breviary, the Liturgy of the Hours, Plainsong and Gregorian Chant were time-honored and systematic ways of doing the things which Evangelicals were doing haphazardly.

Having said that–I do believe that Roman Catholics do a miserable job of systematic, on-going, adult-level religious education. Adult Protestants often go to Church for up to three hours on a Sunday morning, about half of that time spent in a Sunday School usually broken down into several groups–college aged, single adults (usually the 25-35 folks), married adults, divorced/separated/widowed (usually the 35-55 crowd), and the seniors (the over-55 attendees). All of these classes staffed by untrained volunteers, employing either a denominational curriculum or else one provided commercially via one of several non-denominatial outlets.

Few Catholic parishes offer even a solitary adult class, and Catholic churchgoing culture doesn’t lend itself to the expectation that such classes are important. Among other things, it is often in these classroom settings that close personal bonds get forged, where Protestant Evangelicals develop that friendly atmosphere which is so often contrasted with the less-inviting Catholic worship experience.

Off topic, but germaine to the point made by the poster I cited.

 

[nicolakirwan]

Well, I think that things are turning a good corner, but unfortunately the individual movements within the Church are somewhat self-selecting, no? Meaning that people generally seek those things out to join with other likeminded individuals. If they do so, clearly their heart has been set aflame already. But with respect to the masses of Catholics brought up in Catholic schools and parishes, it has been testified to time and again ad nauseum that there has been little to no catechesis for about 40-50 years. So we’re talking about generations of Catholics who did not learn the faith regardless of whether they continued to identify as Catholic and attend Mass, etc.

I’ve heard it time and again that people think that Catholics who leave Catholicism do so primarily because of sin or a political issue. I can’t emphasize to people enough how many cradle Catholics I knew well in Evangelical circles who left the faith and can only say how empty the faith of their schools and churches was. Even my own Confirmation sponsor. People from the midwest, the east coast, the south, other countries. It wasn’t just a few bad priest/parishes/schools here and there. They left so that they could seek Christ more, not because they wanted to get out of Church teaching. Or they left because they ran into an Evangelical who truly evangelized them and they associated their new spiritual growth with Evangelicalism and not Catholicism.

And that’s also where I’m coming from. I was heavily in ministry and had no particular desire to leave Catholicism. But things were so bad that I went where I thought I could continue growing best. My argument with a religion teacher (a nun no less) about the sole Lordship of Christ was pretty much the last straw. But that’s what happens when you don’t properly bring people up with good teaching.

 

[flameburns623]

Well, I think that things are turning a good corner, but unfortunately the individual movements within the Church are somewhat self-selecting, no? Meaning that people generally seek those things out to join with other likeminded individuals. If they do so, clearly their heart has been set aflame already. But with respect to the masses of Catholics brought up in Catholic schools and parishes, it has been testified to time and again ad nauseum that there has been little to no catechesis for about 40-50 years. So we’re talking about generations of Catholics who did not learn the faith regardless of whether they continued to identify as Catholic and attend Mass, etc.

I’ve heard it time and again that people think that Catholics who leave Catholicism do so primarily because of sin or a political issue. I can’t emphasize to people enough how many cradle Catholics I knew well in Evangelical circles who left the faith and can only say how empty the faith of their schools and churches was. Even my own Confirmation sponsor. People from the midwest, the east coast, the south, other countries. It wasn’t just a few bad priest/parishes/schools here and there. They left so that they could seek Christ more, not because they wanted to get out of Church teaching. Or they left because they ran into an Evangelical who truly evangelized them and they associated their new spiritual growth with Evangelicalism and not Catholicism.

And that’s also where I’m coming from. I was heavily in ministry and had no particular desire to leave Catholicism. But things were so bad that I went where I thought I could continue growing best. My argument with a religion teacher (a nun no less) about the sole Lordship of Christ was pretty much the last straw. But that’s what happens when you don’t properly bring people up with good teaching.

On the call to conversion, I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Catholics don’t generally have great sermonisers who can conduct rousing crusades for Christ. The Mass is not really designed for that, and–meaning no disrespect-- most priests, bishops, and popes are simply not competent to speak in public anyhow, IMHO.

Our seminaries must spend thousands of hours teaching seminarians liturgical rubrics and something less than ten minutes on public speaking lessons. Lifelong Catholics don’t believe me but they are seriously cheated in terms of the quality of the ‘homilies’ we have to endure every Sunday, even allowing that Catholic priests cannot gesticulate wildly, run up-and-down the aisles, or do backflips while preaching as some Protestants are wont to do.

Even without being able to indulge such antics, folks like Billy Graham, RC Sproul, the late D. James Kennedy, or any run-of-the-mill backwoods Southern Baptist are better communicators than Pope Benedict, Timothy Dolan, or pretty much any other Catholic priest I’ve ever heard. The Catholics have better THEOLOGY–they just don’t know how to preach it.

I think that lack of powerful preaching is part of what you’re missing. Preaching which pounds home the need for a true conversion. The sort of preaching common in Protestant sermons, rare in Catholic homilies. And not likely to grow MORE common, so far as I can tell. And I don’t see a good fix for it. Catholics are convinced that homilies must be erudite and utterly boring. Thankfully, the rest of a well-done Mass is beautiful enough to make up for the sermons.

But yeah–we could stem the tide and even reverse the trend of drifting-away adult Catholics if we had better catechesis and better on-going Catholic adult ed. Apart from the Sunday Schools which I mentioned earlier, a significant number of Protestants have some other sort of regular religious education, such as home Bible studies.

I will underscore–the religious education is important, but so are the relationships and common bonds which get formed in these classes. And the cultivation of lay leaders who could help step up and take some pressure off of the priests and religious. Especially if we arrive at a day when serious persecution besets the Church. We just aren’t prepared to operate as a community in the absence of ordained sacramental leaders arrested for non-compliance with the Affordable Healthcare Act, “preaching hatred and homophobia”, or whatever could lead to systematic assaults against our Faith.

Occaisionally, some Catholics have home Rosary circles, but that’s not common in every parish, and I doubt if 5% of the parishioners even know of such things even in parishes which offer such.

 

[CopticChristian]

Oh - is THAT what he meant. Well I agree with this.

Peace
James

JRKH,

Abide, says that I misquoted, so with permission I will go back to the entire quote…Abide tends to come and go, so I will discuss it with you as Abide may or may not participate…

This is what Abide said…agreed?

Yes—I’m an Evangelical Christian, and this is what I more often than not hear from fellow Evangelicals. It’s a sign of openness. I can say for myself and others I know, it’s not a sign of ignorance of history. Somewhat the opposite, it can mean we’re tired of all the fighting that’s been a part of Christian history and we’d like to focus on what we do all have in common—Christ Himself: hence, “Christian”.

 

[CopticChristian]

flameburns623’s post was pretty spot on as well. I do think that Evangelicalism was a positive move for Protestantism.
In fact, the Catholic Church has in many circles (and nearly all I was ever a part of) completely forgotten the preaching

 

[nicolakirwan]

nicolakirwan;10322882:

Nicol,

What is it you think that this means in the context of Protestant thought?

What is the Core of the Christian Faith as you see it? Here at the EFCA you can see their statement of Faith…

efca.org/about-efca/statement-faith

Notice without error in the original. Most Protestants have no clue that there are no Originals and there are only translations. Do you agree with this as a Core?

So, do you agree that Baptism is an ordinance and is a core as well?

What is your proof for this gross over generalization?

The Evangelical Free Church in America is a denomination that is not representative of the many streams that have been discussed here. I have no apologies to make for the EFCA.

Regarding the necessity of conversion of heart, that is straight from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Regarding the lack of catechesis, this has been discussed, as I mentioned, ad nauseum in various corners. If you look up discussions about the negative consequences of Vatican II, it is a common theme. It is also an experience testified to by many former Catholics from the US and elsewhere.

 

[CopticChristian]

10323153]Well, I think that things are turning a good corner, but unfortunately the individual movements within the Church are somewhat self-selecting, no? Meaning that people generally seek those things out to join with other likeminded individuals. If they do so, clearly their heart has been set aflame already.

I’ve heard it time and again that people think that Catholics who leave Catholicism do so primarily because of sin or a political issue. Even my own Confirmation sponsor. People from the midwest, the east coast, the south, other countries. It wasn’t just a few bad priest/parishes/schools here and there. They left so that they could seek Christ more, not because they wanted to get out of Church teaching. Or they left because they ran into an Evangelical who truly evangelized them and they associated their new spiritual growth with Evangelicalism and not Catholicism.

And that’s also where I’m coming from. I was heavily in ministry and had no particular desire to leave Catholicism. But things were so bad that I went where I thought I could continue growing best. QUOTE]

Nicol,

But with respect to the masses of Catholics brought up in Catholic schools and parishes, it has been testified to time and again ad nauseum that there has been little to no catechesis for about 40-50 years. So we’re talking about generations of Catholics who did not learn the faith regardless of whether they continued to identify as Catholic and attend Mass, etc.

I am one of these you speak of and I believe that I am fairly well Catechized and I can speak of others I know…in fact Catechesis is ongoing and is my responsibility…do you expect people to get spoon fed?

People don’t learn the Faith because of themselves, not because the Church is not there. Have you read the entire Catechism cover to cover. I purchased the Audio Catechism for Adults USA and listien to it too many times to recall. You and Protestants should as well. Faith comes by hearing.

I can’t emphasize to people enough how many cradle Catholics I knew well in Evangelical circles who left the faith and can only say how empty the faith of their schools and churches was.

Please, I want you to emphasize and explain how something like the Faith can be empty. The Faith is the Faith. The one who makes it empty or sees it as empty is the person. Tell me, if the faith is empty how does it become full?

My argument with a religion teacher (a nun no less) about the sole Lordship of Christ was pretty much the last straw. But that’s what happens when you don’t properly bring people up with good teaching./

Why are you arguing with a Nun? What is your point to argue about the Lordship of Christ. Do you believe in Lordship Salvation?

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian;10323685:

The Evangelical Free Church in America is a denomination that is not representative of the many streams that have been discussed here. I have no apologies to make for the EFCA.

Regarding the necessity of conversion of heart, that is straight from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Regarding the lack of catechesis, this has been discussed, as I mentioned, ad nauseum in various corners. If you look up discussions about the negative consequences of Vatican II, it is a common theme. It is also an experience testified to by many former Catholics from the US and elsewhere.

Nicol,

Where do you find anything of substance of the Evangelicals you speak of? Are they some nebulous group? What streams? Name them.

Show me where you see conversion of the heart in the Catechism and explain why you believe this is something that is lacking?

I am not interested in common themes or your notion of the negative consequences of Vatican II. I care not of any testament of negative consequences. Do you believe that there are negative consequences and why?

Who is responsible for Catechesis?

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian;10323685:

The Evangelical Free Church in America is a denomination that is not representative of the many streams that have been discussed here. I have no apologies to make for the EFCA.

Regarding the necessity of conversion of heart, that is straight from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Regarding the lack of catechesis, this has been discussed, as I mentioned, ad nauseum in various corners. If you look up discussions about the negative consequences of Vatican II, it is a common theme. It is also an experience testified to by many former Catholics from the US and elsewhere.

Nicole,

Tell me, you did not answer…

What is the Core of the Christian Faith as you see it? …

 

[nicolakirwan]

CopticChristian, I think you are misunderstanding what is being said–either because of assumptions, your own misunderstandings about what “evangelicalism” is, poor reading of what I’ve written, all three, or none.

In any event, to answer your questions,

1-I read the Catechism; if you are implying that I need to listen to it instead, you are propagating an interesting teaching that while obviously based on a bible verse, is novel.

2-Whether or not you or others were well catechized does not mean that there weren’t serious issues in other parishes and schools. Your positive experience does not erase the negative experiences of others, nor does it mean that there weren’t or aren’t problems that needed to be ameliorated.

3–Faith without works is dead. This is Catholic teaching. When people profess to believe but live in sin and care nothing about repentance, presuming upon the grace of God, their faith is dead. Objections?

4-The nun denied Christ as being the way the truth and the life. She was speaking heresy according to the Catholic Church. As you may not have read my post well, I was raised Catholic and in Catholic schools. This nun was teaching me and others heresy against the faith that the Catholic Church teaches. Religious indifference was rampant.

 

[CopticChristian]

nicolakirwan;10323726]CopticChristian, I think you are misunderstanding what is being said–either because of assumptions, your own misunderstandings about what “evangelicalism” is, poor reading of what I’ve written, all three, or none.

In any event, to answer your questions,

QUOTE]

Nicol,

1-I read the Catechism; if you are implying that I need to listen to it instead, you are propagating an interesting teaching that while obviously based on a bible verse, is novel.

You said Preaching was lacking. Preaching is hearing. We take in the world by our eyes, ears, senses and the word Catechesis means to echo and in fact if you read the Catechism it explains that…you echo what you hear…so to hear the Catechism you get (name removed by moderator)ut in a way that is different and coincident with Catechesis and the way we learn.

2-Whether or not you or others were well catechized does not mean that there weren’t serious issues in other parishes and schools. Your positive experience does not erase the negative experiences of others, nor does it mean that there weren’t or aren’t problems that needed to be ameliorated.

There are problems that require Catechesis and I suggested you listen to the Catechism and you resist.

3–Faith without works is dead. This is Catholic teaching. When people profess to believe but live in sin and care nothing about repentance, presuming upon the grace of God, their faith is dead. Objections?

The Church has wheat and chaff. The Church has people. People Sin. Paul said he was the greatest of Sinners. So, do you want to focus on the sin or the glory of the Church and those that we should look to and model, ie saints…

Well then there was Judas, Nestorius, Arias, Pelagius, and Uh…well Augustine was a sinner…

But so was Paul, murderer, Augustine Fornicator and then if you look at the geneaology of Jesus all kinds of sinning people…by one man’s disobedience sin entered the world…so we are all descendants of Adam…you want to speak only of those that fail…what is it you think the Church is a contest?

4-The nun denied Christ as being the way the truth and the life. She was speaking heresy according to the Catholic Church. As you may not have read my post well, I was raised Catholic and in Catholic schools. This nun was teaching me and others heresy against the faith that the Catholic Church teaches. Religious indifference was rampant./

If you thought she was a heretic, why argue, dust your sandals off and go to the Bishop. If you read the Catechism it talks about scandal and the detriment Scandal does to the Faith.

Luther has been declared to be a heretic. Calvin was a Catholic whose father was an embezzler and excommunicated. Calvin was also a murderer. Tyndsdale was disobedient and stole the Vulgate and translated it without permission and Henry VIII was more concerned about his progeny than his Faith. Now here are examples of Poor Catechesis. Would you agree that Catechesis if implemented for these guys would have solved lots of problems as well?

**What is the Core of the Christian Faith as you see it? **…