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

[CopticChristian]

A week after the Easter Vigil, I told my former employer and friend that I had become a Catholic. She said that she heard of Catholics who became Christians but never of a Christian becoming a Catholic. (We had attended the same Evangelical Church for several years.) We Catholics are Christians too. Unfortunately many, many Evangelicals don’t recognize that.

She,

Here you have a dilema in understanding based on Protestant Oral Tradition.

What is a Catholic? The obvious answer is Universal Christian. It is implied that when someone says Catholic that they are Christian.

Winston tastes good like a cigarette…I don’t have to say “should”…your mind completes the sentence.

So, you can conclude that while the world that is not ignorant of this fact…to say Catholic= Universal Christian. You can conclude that these people have been taught that Catholic does not equate to Universal Christian however that does change what is, it just means you have discovered that their minds suffer from dysfunctional thinking and have deleted and distorted what it means to be Catholic. From this you can conclude that other things they think are distorted and deleted when it comes to understanding Christianity.

What is a Christian. Here is the dilema. Who has defined this?

What is soccer? If you do not live in the USA soccer=football. The United States mentality is that Football is that game that was borrowed from Rugby, but the world does not play this game we call football, but the world does call soccer, football. It is this USA mentality.

The World Series? Is the world involved?

American League of baseball. Are all the America’s involved, South America, Central America, all of North America?

So then you can see that it is a megalomania mentality from the USA that defines…

Christian=Protestant…and that stems from Protestant Oral Tradition, paricularly the 6th point of Calvinism…stating that these guys are the true Christians and that Rome is not Christian and the Pope is the anti-Christ…seen here…

historicism.net/readingmaterials/sixthpoint.pdf

So, ask your employer to define for you what a Christian is and how one becomes a Christian…and there you will find what it is they have been taught and what it is they believe…

You should be able to state that all baptized in the Trinitarian formual are Christian…and you may hear “followers of Christ” and to that you add, amen…

The USA took Rugby, changed it…and calls it football…it does not change the reality that the world understands football to be Soccer…same with Christianity…trying to take something that isn’t theirs, define it and apply it to something they do not understand does not change what it is …it is what it is…

and as I said you add amen to follower of Christ…you should know that the Catechism is divided into 4 parts…

Profession of Faith
Sacramental Life
Life in Christ
Prayer…

So when someone says a Christian is a follower of Christ…you should understand and be able to explain that this is based on belief and thinking that orients you to model Christ and follow Christ…and in your mind understand that they understand the 3rd section of the Catechism and they just don’t know it…

 

[nicolakirwan]

Itwin gave, imo, a great overview. It touches on the main emphases and also notes the importance of the two “streams” of evangelicalism–one is Reformed and more or less Calvinistic (9 Marks Churches, John Piper, Acts 29 Network, etc.) and the other is Pentecostal and more or less Arminian (Derek Prince ministries, IHOP w/Mike Bickle, Bill Johnson & Kris Valloton, etc). The word of faith people are in a category all their own and also aren’t really accepted by mainline evangelicals (people like Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copland, etc.). You find a lot of Pentecostal/Charismatics more open to Catholicism even if they don’t agree. I have my thoughts as to why, but that would be a very long post.

Evangelicalism should be distinguished from Mainline Protestantism, and most will have little to nothing to do with liberal Protestantism–Methodism, the PCA, the Episcopal Church, the UCC, etc.

There are more formal Presbyterians that are neither liberal nor strongly Evangelical. The Evangelical thrust is essentially about coming to faith in Christ, knowing Scripture well (and applying it to one’s life) and engaging in meaningful fellowship with other believers (invisible Church versus visible Church).

It seems to me that many Catholics emphasize the Reformation to an extent that leaves them out of sync with the reality of Christianity today. Some seem to want to attribute the Reformation itself to any present-day Christian who isn’t Catholic. So much has happened in Christendom from that time till now that we’re really looking at different issues. It presents an opportunity to reach out anew, but that requires understanding the current dynamic.

Hey AbideWithMe!

In addition to all that’s been said by AbideWithMe, I would add that (in contemporary usage as distinguished from the historical usages) evangelicals are those Protestants who

1. would be able to completely agree with the main propositions of the Protestant Reformation: the primacy of Scripture, justification by grace alone through faith alone, and the priesthood of all believers.
2. are usually literal in their interpretation of the Bible (i.e. if the Bible said Jesus was born of a virgin, they believe it actually happened).
3. believe that a conscious conversion experience (what is called being born again, from which derives the label “born-again Christian”) is essential. This is non-negotiable. Evangelicals can and do (such as evangelical Anglicans) believe in infant baptism; however, all evangelicals agree that true conversion is a must.
4. put a high priority on actively spreading the Gospel at home and abroad. They believe the Great Commission was given to the whole church and it is ultimately the central life purpose of every Christian to spread the Gospel by word and deed. It’s not optional and needs to be a priority for every Christian.
5. believe that the Church is made up of all born-again Christians and is not limited to one particular visible church or denomination.

In America, evangelicals tend to fall into two main divisions. One is the Reformed, Calvinistic, Presbyterian evangelicals. These tend to be academically heavy on formal doctrine and until recently were very anti-Charismatic. The other is the Arminian Wesleyans, Holiness, Pentecostals. The latter group tends to be more perfectionistic and charismatic.

Revivalism has been a feature of both branches; however, at this time I think the Pentecostal types tend to display the more revivalistic type of evangelicalism. Reformed and Wesleyan evangelicals have an awkward relationship. Both are evangelicals, but just have different ways of being so.

Evangelicalism has been a feature of American Protestantism from the very beginning. High water marks of evangelical history in the United States are the First and Second Great Awakenings. Research the history of these nation shaking religious revivals to get a feel for American style evangelicalism.

 

[ltwin]

You find a lot of Pentecostal/Charismatics more open to Catholicism even if they don’t agree. I have my thoughts as to why, but that would be a very long post.

I have my own thoughts about this as well. “How do the two evangelical streams relate to Catholicism?” would be a great thread topic.

 

[MaryT777]

I have my own thoughts about this as well. “How do the two evangelical streams relate to Catholicism?” would be a great thread topic.

I was wondering the same thing:shrug:

Mary

 

[AbideWithMe]

Itwin gave, imo, a great overview. It touches on the main emphases and also notes the importance of the two “streams” of evangelicalism–one is Reformed and more or less Calvinistic (9 Marks Churches, John Piper, Acts 29 Network, etc.) and the other is Pentecostal and more or less Arminian (Derek Prince ministries, IHOP w/Mike Bickle, Bill Johnson & Kris Valloton, etc). The word of faith people are in a category all their own and also aren’t really accepted by mainline evangelicals (people like Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copland, etc.). You find a lot of Pentecostal/Charismatics more open to Catholicism even if they don’t agree. I have my thoughts as to why, but that would be a very long post.

Evangelicalism should be distinguished from Mainline Protestantism, and most will have little to nothing to do with liberal Protestantism–Methodism, the PCA, the Episcopal Church, the UCC, etc.

You’ve given a thoughtful overview yourself, Nicola. I do want to add, though, that a sizable number of members in Methodism and TEC are theologically conservative (i.e. they and their ministers haven’t taken “higher criticism” so far that they’re denying central tenets of Christian belief). With Mainline Christians who are theologically and morally conservative, Evangelicals have no need to be as wary as I think we too often are. It also has to be noted that there’s a range of conservative-liberal belief within Evangelicalism itself.

There are more formal Presbyterians that are neither liberal nor strongly Evangelical. The Evangelical thrust is essentially about coming to faith in Christ, knowing Scripture well (and applying it to one’s life) and engaging in meaningful fellowship with other believers (invisible Church versus visible Church).

That’s not a bad way to describe Evangelicalism in a nutshell. I’d add here that, for the Wesleyan-derived evangelicals, even if not Pentecostal, we’re usually not going to be afraid of emotion. Some of the early Wesleyan Methodists, even in the Pennsylvanian German denomination in which I grew up, were “enthusiasts”, which perhaps was disconcerting to their Church of England and Lutheran or Reformed neighbors.

It seems to me that many Catholics emphasize the Reformation to an extent that leaves them out of sync with the reality of Christianity today. Some seem to want to attribute the Reformation itself to any present-day Christian who isn’t Catholic. So much has happened in Christendom from that time till now that we’re really looking at different issues. It presents an opportunity to reach out anew, but that requires understanding the current dynamic.

Well said.

 

[TimothyH]

Evangelicalism should be distinguished from Mainline Protestantism, and most will have little to nothing to do with liberal Protestantism–Methodism, the PCA, the Episcopal Church, the UCC, etc.

This is an excellent summary answer to the question asked in the original post.

Most Evangelicals are about as willing to associate themselves with denominational Protestantism as they are with Catholicism.

At the rist of oversimplification, a good pastor foster’s their relationship with Jesus, and that is all that really matters. Denominationalism leads to religiousity, which, with all of it’s rules and regulations, gets in the way of loving God.

Some of my more vocal Evangelical friends would just as soon become a Catholic as they would become an Epsicopalian, Presbyterian or Methodist.

-Tim-

 

[ltwin]

This is an excellent summary answer to the question asked in the original post.

Most Evangelicals are about as willing to associate themselves with denominational Protestantism as they are with Catholicism.

At the rist of oversimplification, a good pastor foster’s their relationship with Jesus, and that is all that really matters. Denominationalism leads to religiousity, which, with all of it’s rules and regulations, gets in the way of loving God.

Some of my more vocal Evangelical friends would just as soon become a Catholic as they would become an Epsicopalian, Presbyterian or Methodist.

-Tim-

Well, evangelicals have their denominations too. For example, the National Association of Evangelicals is nothing but a group of denominations. If I’m not mistaken, the United Methodist Church has observer status with the NAE. The UMC is in between the mainline and evangelicalism. It has a strong evangelical heritage, but at this time liberal Protestantism has made many inroads in that church. There are several smaller Presbyterian churches who are members of the NAE as well.

However, it is true that denominational loyalty is not strong among evangelicals. The general view is that the local church is what is most important, and if denominations do anything, it is in service to the mission of the local church and doing what local churches cannot do, like large scale missionary programs.

 

[Adamski]

Non denominational is code for baptist who drink and dance

 

[Aramis]

Well, Pedro, you are generalizing, but at least you realize that you are!

Some of what you’re seeing among your acquaintances could stem from the fact that Evangelical churches, if they can be said to have a charism, have the gift of bringing in people who may otherwise fall through the cracks in other churches, or who have little or no remaining vestige of Christian upbringing. It’s not then surprising if they know little about the historical Christian controversies.

My experience with Evangelicals is that the term encompasses a useless clade of a variety of different types of churches, which only share a general rejection of fundamentalist extremism, Catholicism, and Mainline Protestantism, and the adoption of the term itself. Most of them have only one sacrament they recognize as truly sacramental - baptism - but many consider communion a sacrament as well. (Especially the Evangelical Lutherans). Some see marriage as a sacrament, others merely as a blessing upon a union, and not essential provided the union is formalized somehow.

Some of the local “Evangelicals” in Anchorage are actually highly fundamentalist - biblical literalists - while others are essentially Lutheran in belief, while not being part of any Lutheran Synod, but have what is essentially a lutheran mass once a month. And a few are actually baptists. One group is even Pelagian (they deny Original Sin), but hold communion and chrismation to be sacraments…

 

[AbideWithMe]

My experience with Evangelicals is that the term encompasses a useless clade of a variety of different types of churches, which only share a general rejection of fundamentalist extremism, Catholicism, and Mainline Protestantism, and the adoption of the term itself. Most of them have only one sacrament they recognize as truly sacramental - baptism - but many consider communion a sacrament as well. (Especially the Evangelical Lutherans). Some see marriage as a sacrament, others merely as a blessing upon a union, and not essential provided the union is formalized somehow.

Some of the local “Evangelicals” in Anchorage are actually highly fundamentalist - biblical literalists - while others are essentially Lutheran in belief, while not being part of any Lutheran Synod, but have what is essentially a lutheran mass once a month. And a few are actually baptists. One group is even Pelagian (they deny Original Sin), but hold communion and chrismation to be sacraments…

Aramis–If you’re interested in understanding Evangelicalism better, the Wiki article I linked to is a good place to start. Itwin has some informative posts on this thread, too.

It’s hard to understand present day Evangelicalism without delving into its history in German Pietism and English and American Methodism in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, and then the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy of the 20th century. But I think doing that would surpass both the scope of this thread and the curiosity of the readers.

 

[TimothyH]

My experience with Evangelicals is that the term encompasses a useless clade of a variety of different types of churches, which only share a general rejection of fundamentalist extremism, Catholicism, and Mainline Protestantism, and the adoption of the term itself. Most of them have only one sacrament they recognize as truly sacramental - baptism - but many consider communion a sacrament as well. (Especially the Evangelical Lutherans). Some see marriage as a sacrament, others merely as a blessing upon a union, and not essential provided the union is formalized somehow.

Some of the local “Evangelicals” in Anchorage are actually highly fundamentalist - biblical literalists - while others are essentially Lutheran in belief, while not being part of any Lutheran Synod, but have what is essentially a lutheran mass once a month. And a few are actually baptists. One group is even Pelagian (they deny Original Sin), but hold communion and chrismation to be sacraments…

The majority of people who attend these Churches probably couldn’t describe their beliefs as well as you have. The same holds true for many Catholics.

We have to be careful to seperate the creeds of these Churches from the individuals who may or may not understand the theology behind their pastor’s teaching and struggle like the rest of us to find a way to love Jesus. There is a difference between having a simple faith and having a simplistic theology. I know little old Catholic ladies who can’t discuss transubstantiation but they pray the rosary daily, have never cursed in their lives, and put a bag of groceries in the SVdP food box at Church every week.

Here in the south, many people who are raised in Evangelical homes simply have never heard Catholic beliefs nor experienced a truly spiritual Catholic. When they meet a Catholic who lives an authentic life as a disciple of Jesus and is not afraid to share his faith, they are more than willing to ask questions. I have found that many of these say things like, “I guess I just try to be a good Christian and listen to my pastor.” Challenging them on doctrine or acting like a triumphant Catholic is the quickest way to chase them away.

-Tim-

 

[CopticChristian]

This is an excellent summary answer to the question asked in the original post.

Most Evangelicals are about as willing to associate themselves with denominational Protestantism as they are with Catholicism.

At the rist of oversimplification, a good pastor foster’s their relationship with Jesus, and that is all that really matters. Denominationalism leads to religiousity, which, with all of it’s rules and regulations, gets in the way of loving God.
Some of my more vocal Evangelical friends would just as soon become a Catholic as they would become an Epsicopalian, Presbyterian or Methodist.

-Tim-

Tim,

Do you have to know something to love it?

Do you love something more or less as you know more about it?

Help me know this from you.

 

[CopticChristian]

This is an excellent summary answer to the question asked in the original post.

Most Evangelicals are about as willing to associate themselves with denominational Protestantism as they are with Catholicism.

At the rist of oversimplification, a good pastor foster’s their relationship with Jesus, and that is all that really matters. Denominationalism leads to religiousity, which, with all of it’s rules and regulations, gets in the way of loving God.

Some of my more vocal Evangelical friends would just as soon become a Catholic as they would become an Epsicopalian, Presbyterian or Methodist.

-Tim-

Tim,

Define Religiousity for me.

A good pastor? John Paul II was a good Pastor. Benedict is a good Pastor. Is it your belief that all they do is foster a relationship with Jesus?

So, your Evangelical Protestant friends would become Episcopalian, Presybyterian or Methodist as well as Catholic. How many of these friends are you describing?

 

[CopticChristian]

Aramis–If you’re interested in understanding Evangelicalism better, the Wiki article I linked to is a good place to start. Itwin has some informative posts on this thread, too.

It’s hard to understand present day Evangelicalism without delving into its history in German Pietism and English and American Methodism in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, and then the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy of the 20th century. But I think doing that would surpass both the scope of this thread and the curiosity of the readers.

Abide,

This is the original OP question…

Many of my evangelical protestant friends never refer to themselves as protestants. Most of them were members of Campus Crusade, and even this organization didn’t really refer to itself as protestant, only Christian. I even had one of my best friends ask me “what’s a protestant” (no joke, she never heard of the term which surprised me)

So why do evangelical denominations use only Christian when referring to themselves.Do they want to misinform people that they are the only true christians. Do they have a lot of disregard for their protestant history? Or do they just feel they’ve moved beyond the whole Catholic protestant thing, even if they still are protestant? Anyone who can tell me please help

Earlier you posted this…

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”.

The problem is that whatever you call yourself, you are propagating error and Christ is not teaching error and the Holy Spirit is to lead you into all truth, not error…

Regardless of what Protestant stripe you bear…the notion that all you need…

is a Book that was stolen from the Catholic Church, translated without permission in error and then discarded in favor of some Hebrew text absent the fullness of the Truths revealed and passed off as Scripture is error and no one with that book can prove that they have anything but a translation or prove that it is Scripture…to focus on Christ you must focus on all He did and the Bible I read, that the Catholic Church says is Scripture says there were many things He did not recorded…What were they? Did He baptize babies?..do you give up fighting to know…or are you just saying you are focusing on Christ…

For Christ revealed truth, Christ founded a Church and He left us a Testament to His past, present, future in the Church not in a book…and He said to go out and Baptize…not have altar calls, join hands and say “yeah Jesus”…He said you worship on this hill and you will worship in truth and what you do know…and how can you know the truth if you make folley of the Church he founded as if it is unnecessary…

just gasping your breath…like oh well…all the fighting…lets just focus on what?

Protestant is Protestant and to believe that it was not error…well then let us just stop fighiing and concede to the pro-choice people and the homosexuals, well they are people and want to get married and what’s the big hoopla lets just join hands and focus on important issues like sitting around a camp fire and singing cum bay ya…

Are you serious?

 

[JRKH]

This is an excellent summary answer to the question asked in the original post.

Most Evangelicals are about as willing to associate themselves with denominational Protestantism as they are with Catholicism.

At the rist of oversimplification, a good pastor foster’s their relationship with Jesus, and that is all that really matters. Denominationalism leads to religiousity, which, with all of it’s rules and regulations, gets in the way of loving God.

Some of my more vocal Evangelical friends would just as soon become a Catholic as they would become an Epsicopalian, Presbyterian or Methodist.

-Tim-

Actually Tim, I find the “rules and regulations” to make it easier to Love God.

But I’m curious as to what you mean here…Could you provide an example of a rule or regulation that you think hinders the ability to Love God?
I don’t men this to be confrontational, I am genuinely curious.

Peace
James

 

[Roostah]

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.

 

[JRKH]

Abide,

This is the original OP question…

Earlier you posted this…

The problem is that whatever you call yourself, you are propagating error and Christ is not teaching error and the Holy Spirit is to lead you into all truth, not error…

Regardless of what Protestant stripe you bear…the notion that all you need…

is a Book that was stolen from the Catholic Church, translated without permission in error and then discarded in favor of some Hebrew text absent the fullness of the Truths revealed and passed off as Scripture is error and no one with that book can prove that they have anything but a translation or prove that it is Scripture…to focus on Christ you must focus on all He did and the Bible I read, that the Catholic Church says is Scripture says there were many things He did not recorded…What were they? Did He baptize babies?..do you give up fighting to know…or are you just saying you are focusing on Christ…

For Christ revealed truth, Christ founded a Church and He left us a Testament to His past, present, future in the Church not in a book…and He said to go out and Baptize…not have altar calls, join hands and say “yeah Jesus”…He said you worship on this hill and you will worship in truth and what you do know…and how can you know the truth if you make folley of the Church he founded as if it is unnecessary…

just gasping your breath…like oh well…all the fighting…lets just focus on what?

Protestant is Protestant and to believe that it was not error…well then let us just stop fighiing and concede to the pro-choice people and the homosexuals, well they are people and want to get married and what’s the big hoopla lets just join hands and focus on important issues like sitting around a camp fire and singing cum bay ya…

Are you serious?

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

 

[JRKH]

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.

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

 

[AbideWithMe]

Actually Tim, I find the “rules and regulations” to make it easier to Love God.

But I’m curious as to what you mean here…Could you provide an example of a rule or regulation that you think hinders the ability to Love God?
I don’t men this to be confrontational, I am genuinely curious.

Peace
James

James, I think Tim was writing as if from the perspective of some evangelicals, not from his own perspective. At least, that’s how I took his intent.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Abide,

This is the original OP question…

Earlier you posted this…

The problem is that whatever you call yourself, you are propagating error and Christ is not teaching error and the Holy Spirit is to lead you into all truth, not error…

Regardless of what Protestant stripe you bear…the notion that all you need…

is a Book that was stolen from the Catholic Church, translated without permission in error and then discarded in favor of some Hebrew text absent the fullness of the Truths revealed and passed off as Scripture is error and no one with that book can prove that they have anything but a translation or prove that it is Scripture…to focus on Christ you must focus on all He did and the Bible I read, that the Catholic Church says is Scripture says there were many things He did not recorded…What were they? Did He baptize babies?..do you give up fighting to know…or are you just saying you are focusing on Christ…

For Christ revealed truth, Christ founded a Church and He left us a Testament to His past, present, future in the Church not in a book…and He said to go out and Baptize…not have altar calls, join hands and say “yeah Jesus”…He said you worship on this hill and you will worship in truth and what you do know…and how can you know the truth if you make folley of the Church he founded as if it is unnecessary…

just gasping your breath…like oh well…all the fighting…lets just focus on what?

Protestant is Protestant and to believe that it was not error…well then let us just stop fighiing and concede to the pro-choice people and the homosexuals, well they are people and want to get married and what’s the big hoopla lets just join hands and focus on important issues like sitting around a camp fire and singing cum bay ya…

Are you serious?

Coptic, you misunderstood my post.