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

[CopticChristian]

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.

Flame,

Greg Laurie, says that those that do not answer an altar call are those that do not want to confront their sin…

I say, those that do not answer an altar call just may not want to become Protestant.

What is more valuable, a stadium filled with Greg Laurie preaching nonsense with thousands answering an altar call or 100 in Mass, all going to communion?

Take your time in answering that question.

 

[nicolakirwan]

Coptic, you are arguing for the sake of arguing and missing the point or again, not listening well. Because of that I won’t continue this discussion.

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic, you are arguing for the sake of arguing and missing the point or again, not listening well. Because of that I won’t continue this discussion.

Nicol,

I understand. You have no capacity to discuss. You generalize. Your ability to discuss and engage in answering with respect to the issues you have posed is understood. Do not respond to this post. Do not attempt to answer any questions that were posed.

 

[nicolakirwan]

Nicol,

I understand. You have no capacity to discuss. You generalize. Your ability to discuss and engage in answering with respect to the issues you have posed is understood. Do not respond to this post. Do not attempt to answer any questions that were posed.

CopticChristian, this post is an example of the uncharitable attitude and jumping to conclusions that I alluded to above. When speaking with another, the ability to show that you understand what they are telling you and why is important for the conversation to progress. Your line of questioning showed misunderstandings of what was written at every turn with no willingness to acknowledge that perhaps you had read it wrong or even a willingness to take what was said in the best light rather than the worst. Answering your questions while it was clear that you were not understanding what was said or meant would be fruitless.

Your automatic conclusion that someone taking issue with your manner of engagement means they have “no capacity to discuss” is not based on knowledge, but again, is reflective of a poor attitude.

 

[flameburns623]

Flame,

Greg Laurie, says that those that do not answer an altar call are those that do not want to confront their sin…

I say, those that do not answer an altar call just may not want to become Protestant.

What is more valuable, a stadium filled with Greg Laurie preaching nonsense with thousands answering an altar call or 100 in Mass, all going to communion?

Take your time in answering that question.

Cross-check yourself. I was suggesting to Nicol that the RCC calls it’s membership to true conversion of heart via numerous ways. In an earlier post I actually mentioned Eucharistic devotion.

One common way that the Church calls us to true conversion of heart, which I neglected to mention–is the SACRAMENT OF RECONCILIATION!!!. Every aspect of that sacrament is meant to be nothing less than a conversion of heart. That so many receive this Sacrament, as well as the Sacrament of the Eucharist, so lightly and so casually is not for want of the Church exhorting us to do otherwise.

As it happens, I do feel the Church doesn’t so good a job of teaching true conversion in the preaching of sermons as many Protestants do. And that, I think, is what Nicol misses in the RCC–the good, sturdy, bracing sermon, the proclamation of the Word in terms which truly stir one’s heart.

Protestants IMHO do that well.

Catholics, badly.

But that is a trade-off wherein Catholics still come out way ahead in the end. We have the Sacraments, which are, each of them, direct encounters with Christ and direct infusions of grace thru the Holy Ghost. Protestants encounter Christ in His Word, the Scripture, but not sacramentally, and so miss so much of Him in their pilgrimage.

And btw–Greg Laurie, with whom I am wholly unfamiliar, may or may not be “preaching nonsense”. My experience with Evangelicals is that for all their flaws, they get a lot of things right. Hopefully enough that many of them live out their lives in some genuine and salvific relationship to Christ

I think you and I are basically on the same side of this discussion.

 

[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 **​

excuse me while I get the hang of copying quotes.

In answer to James: my, you certainly take some liberties with your pre suppositions. I was commenting on why evangelicals don’t call themselves protestants. As I mentioned, there were christian people who opposed the catholic church/state long before the reformation, yes back to the time of Jesus. The apostles were eye witesses, the apostles peformed miracles, they could be relied upon for discernment, and then the apostles died.

People either believed in Jesus or they didn’t. People were able to be believers without joining the club, the club hadn’t even been established yet, but what held people together was they believed in Jesus. The church is the people who believe in Jesus.

Oh the joining of church and state is to be looked at negatively. There’s plenty of history to prove why. The state did it for what it could get them (power and riches) and the church did it for the same reasons. It’s where a 2 tier (at least) system was established, powerful royalty (clergy) types and then the rest of the poor pleebes. Of course not all believers went along with the church state, yet they were people who believed in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The point is, there were people from the begining who did not bow to the rulers, the authoritarians and their man made customs through the centuries, yet they were christians.

Why does it bother catholics so much, that people can be free and love the Lord Jesus Christ without the initiations and traditions of the catholic church? Oh it bothers catholics, to the point of rage.

 

[JustaServant]

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.

Documentation please.

 

[Roostah]

Hi Justa,

Simple observation of people. There are differences in thinking today in Christendom, there were differences at the time of the reformation obviously, there were differences before the reformation, only silent. People had differences at the time of Jesus, the apostles had a few differences amoung themselves. The idea that people were of one mind at anytime is ludicrous. Why is the obvious, a truth, so hard to accept? There should be rejoicing when someone comes to know Jesus as their Savior, no matter which church they may be involved with.

 

[JustaServant]

Hi Justa,

Simple observation of people. There are differences in thinking today in Christendom, there were differences at the time of the reformation obviously, there were differences before the reformation, only silent. People had differences at the time of Jesus, the apostles had a few differences amoung themselves. The idea that people were of one mind at anytime is ludicrous. Why is the obvious, a truth, so hard to accept? There should be rejoicing when someone comes to know Jesus as their Savior, no matter which church they may be involved with.

Lets try this again.
You said:

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… From early on, there were christians outside the catholic church…from the begining, therefore they are not protestants, yet they are christians.

Historical documentation please.

 

[Roostah]

**Coptic writes;
Roostah,

Name these groups and their descendants of today.

I recall Nestorians, Arians, Judaizing Christians that Chrysostom dealt with, Gnostics…

There were no

Baptists
Methodists
Anglicans
Presbyterians
Menonites
Amish
Jehovah Witness
Mormon
Pentacostal
Assembly of God
Reformed Baptist
Evanelical Free
Lutheran

What are the names of the goups you believe existed? How do you know this? Who taught you this? **​

Yes Christian history has had many denominations and sects. Who are the decendants? who are the ancestors? The answer is people, some of whom were/are saved by their faith in Jesus and some doomed by not accepting Jesus, his free gift. Remove the labels, we are all in the same predictament. One thing is for sure, the church will not save you.

 

[JRKH]

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 - certainly I agree that this is what Abide said.

Peace
James

 

[AbideWithMe]

Yes - certainly I agree that this is what Abide said.

Peace
James

Well, that was a safe thing to say, James.

Coptic, I didn’t say you misquoted me; you didn’t quote me in the post to which I was responding. I did say you misunderstood me, and that I’d clarify as family matters permitted.

 

[JustaServant]

Lets try this again.
You said:

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… From early on, there were christians outside the catholic church…from the begining, therefore they are not protestants, yet they are christians.

Never fails to amaze me how quickly these guys high-tail it when asked for documentation.

 

[Roostah]

Justa,

I am a guest here. You’re baiting me, trying to get me booted? I won’t high-tail it out of here. Be patient

 

[JustaServant]

Justa,

I am a guest here. You’re baiting me, trying to get me booted? I won’t high-tail it out of here. Be patient

No dude, I asked for historical proof of your claims, you didn’t provide it because you can’t.
It doesn’t exist.

 

[JRKH]

**

excuse me while I get the hang of copying quotes.**
No problem…The simplest way to do a quote is to hit the quote button and when the reply page comes up you will see the quoted post in the reply box. Just start typing your response below the quoted section.
Breaking up the quoted sections is a touch more involved…but you will catch on quickly.

In answer to James: my, you certainly take some liberties with your pre suppositions. I was commenting on why evangelicals don’t call themselves protestants.

 

[JRKH]

(Cont)

Of course not all believers went along with the church state, yet they were people who believed in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The point is, there were people from the beginning who did not bow to the rulers, the authoritarians and their man made customs through the centuries, yet they were Christians.

True - but again - the fact that there were people who “didn’t go along with” does not in itself establish anything useful.
The fact that there were those who “did not bow down” might indicate deep spirituality…but then again - it might just indicate a lack of humility and a refusal to submit to legitimate, Christ granted authority…

Why does it bother Catholics so much, that people can be free and love the Lord Jesus Christ without the initiations and traditions of the catholic church? Oh it bothers Catholics, to the point of rage.

Since you are using present tense here I am assuming that you are not speaking about historical issues here and I am glad of that.
As to your comment…I am not enraged that others are not members of the Church. I have never met a Catholic who was bothered to the point of rage.
I HAVE met Catholics who become very frustrated and even angry over some of the falsehoods they hear about the Church. These become very aggravating.

As to the other…I would not use the term “bother” in describing the reason that Catholics would like others to come home to the Church. Personally I a very happy that others have found Christ and Love Him so much. My desire is that my non-Catholic brothers and sisters have MORE freedom and more of Christ and for that reason I desire that they come to understand the fullness and glory of His Church.

I hope that as you participate here at CAF, you will come to understand this more and more. Perhaps you will never convert…but you will surely come to see that there are Catholics who are just as passionate about Christ as any evangelical, well versed in Scripture and in history and able to convey the Gospel fully and truthfully.

Peace
James

 

[RJ_Empson]

Believing in God and Jesus and fully accepting them into your life is the ultimate challenge for each and every soul on Earth.

I faced this challenge as an Anglican. (Protestant) The more I looked into faith and the more I read and prayed the more I knew I had to become a Catholic in order to break through the glass ceiling separating me from the Lord.

I know that the term Protestant is considered derogatory to a lot of well… Protestants as it still implies that you are protesting against a true authority.

This is nowhere more true than here in merry England where a lot of Church of England Protestants even refer to themselves as Anglo-Catholics.

I wonder how many people have considered what it was that was being protested against or if some religions were born out of convenience of another generation? This is certainly true for me and I cannot wait til Easter when I will be in full communion with the Roman Catholc church.

 

[JRKH]

No dude, I asked for historical proof of your claims, you didn’t provide it because you can’t.
It doesn’t exist.

Justa…With all due respect…I agree with Roostah here.
Lets’ be patient for a bit…and let him bring up his points.

In his initial response to me he mentioned that I have some pretty interesting “presuppositions”. I’m sure that he will be most interested to discover that he has some very interesting presuppositions of his own…
For instance - in my response to him I pointed out that just because there were people who stood outside or in opposition or whatever - does not automatically make them good or right.

It should prove to be an interesting conversation.

Peace
James

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian, this post is an example of the uncharitable attitude and jumping to conclusions that I alluded to above. When speaking with another, the ability to show that you understand what they are telling you and why is important for the conversation to progress. Your line of questioning showed misunderstandings of what was written at every turn with no willingness to acknowledge that perhaps you had read it wrong or even a willingness to take what was said in the best light rather than the worst. Answering your questions while it was clear that you were not understanding what was said or meant would be fruitless.

Your automatic conclusion that someone taking issue with your manner of engagement means they have “no capacity to discuss” is not based on knowledge, but again, is reflective of a poor attitude.

Nicol,

My attitude sucks. I always struggle with being Charitable. In the confessional I am always taught that the gravest of sins are sins against Charity. I agree that understanding is necessary. You suggest I ask questions because I misunderstand. You believe I read things wrong. You believe it is fruitless to answer my questions. There are 2305 viewing this thread and for their sake clarity is needed. You believe I have made automatic conclusions. I believe the readership will see that all I have done is ask for clarity…

You said this.

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.

I asked you to point me to where in the Catechism this is discussed. You did not reply.

You said this…

Please, I want you to emphasize and explain how something like the Faith can be empty.

I asked this…

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?

I asked for clarity with this question…

You made a sweeping generalization as it concerns Catechesis…and I asked this…

Who is responsible for Catechesis?

You did not reply or clarify

I have asked you more than once this question and you have yet to answer…

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

You stated this…

Coptic, you are arguing for the sake of arguing and missing the point or again, not listening well. Because of that I won’t continue this discussion.

I believe that you have concluded incorrectly. You, others should see that all I have done is ask for clarity. When I ask you where the Evangelical beliefs you state can be found you ignore me. You say things have been discussed ad nauseum…

you said this…

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

and then added this…

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.

You have complained that Catechesis is lacking. You spent time arguing with a Nun. You dismiss me as arguing for arguing sake. I can only conclude that you do not see me as a valuable person to Catechize and you are willing to argue with a nun however when I ask questions asking for clarity you dismiss me and say I argue for arguing sake.

Catechize me. Teach me. I am asking questions.

Where are these Evangelicals you speak of? How can I find their beliefs?

What does it mean the Faith is empty and if empty how can it be full?

Where do you see conversion of the Heart in the Catechism and how is this relevant to what you say?

Who is responsible for Catechesis?

What is the core of Christian Faith?

Forgive my dimwitted mind, I am old, my thinking is slow, I learn, I have nothing to teach…what I know comes only by the grace of God from members of the Church, the magesterium and I fail to see how asking questions is arguing…help me, help me understand…is this too much to ask?