Why do so many non-Catholic Christian “Protestants” - Reject the term “Protestant”?

[Cleopas]

How can the two be only semantics? one allows NOTHING outside scriptures, the other allows many things.

Because, in practice, the two really permit essentially the same things. Those who advocate Sola Scriptura (at least in my personal experience) recognize (at least in some degree) ecclesiastical authority, the function of ministry in oversight, the voice of the church in business, etc.

However, nothing can trump the rightly divided truth of Scripture. Therefore Scripture becomes the final and supreme authority – The only (hence “sola”) infallible source of authority for the church on earth.

If Scripture trumps reason and experience, reigns over judgments and decrees of the church, and if the leading of the Spirit is tested by it’s correlation to the dictate of Scripture (in as much as it cannot, indeed will not, contradict it) then the essence of sola and prima scriptura is virtually the same. No?

 

[teadough]

I am where I am because that is the best of my understanding of what God wants and wills for me.

i like how you put that. That is how I felt as a Protestant. I would have laughed at you had you told me I would even consider becoming a Catholic.

It’s funny how our understanding changes even though God never changes. I think many people on both sides of the fence tend to relate certain experiences they have had with God and always rely on those types of experiences instead of reaching out and seeking God from other angles. From my protestant perspective I clung to what seemed “safe” and what I knew.

 

[teadough]

Cleopas posted:Therefore Scripture becomes the final and supreme authority – The only infallible source of authority for the church on earth.

Hasn’t one Protestant in this thread already said this and then recanted their remark

Originally Posted by Syele
I do not recognize an authority HIGHER than the Bible.

 

[teadough]

Protestants not only protest the Catholic Church but they Protest each other.

 

[Syele]

Because, in practice, the two really permit essentially the same things. Those who advocate Sola Scriptura (at least in my personal experience) recognize (at least in some degree) ecclesiastical authority, the function of ministry in oversight, the voice of the church in business, etc.

However, nothing can trump the rightly divided truth of Scripture. Therefore Scripture becomes the final and supreme authority – The only infallible source of authority for the church on earth.

If Scripture trumps reason and experience, and the leading of the Spirit is bound by the dictate of Scripture in as much as it cannot contradict it, then the essence of sola and prima scriptura is virtually the same. No?

no. For example… Catholics believe Tradition and Scripture are equals, Correct? So by your logic, since God speaks both of them and therefore will not contradict Himself then Catholics believe in Sola Scriptura too? By saying nothing trumps it, I mean God does not create confusion, If experience is from him, he will not go against what He has already said is His word (scripture).

In Prima Scriptura I could have a Dream in which God gave me a personal revelation that I should quit eating sugar, quit my job and become a nurse. nothing is scripture would say it is wrong to be a nurse or stop eating sugar. So Scripture would not define this revelation at all. I would rely on Tradition, reason and experience plus prayer to determine if this was really God. on the other hand, I could have a dream that God said I should quit my job and go live on the streets as a prostitute and a drug dealer. We can easily see in Scripture that this would not be something God would say, even if my experiences told me (thank goodness it doesn’t) that I’d make more money and its better, I could see from Scripture that God would not require this.

However, If I believe in Sola Scriptura, Neither dream could possibly be from God because the Bible does not say that God will tell me my future profession in a dream. There is no more personal revelation. even if it was a dream that God said I should commit no more sin and repent it was not real, just a memory of Scripture because nothing but scripture can bind the conscious.

–

I once heard God speak Audibly to me. There was no mistaking it. I told two pastors separately, the Southern Baptist one referred me to a counselor, I must have been nuts hearing voices! He believed in Sola Scriptura.

The other pastor, who believed in Prima Scriptura, Prayed with me, and directed me to seek God and Obey Him. Personal revelation was possible.

The difference in how people live according to these two beliefs is significant.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Personally, I don’t mind the term protestant, especially from a historical perspective. Yet, like others have articulates, I am not where I am because I decided to protest Catholicism. I am where I am because that is the best of my understanding of what God wants and wills for me.

Thus, I readily prefer and designate myself, my church, my faith as Christian. There is only one faith, one Christian Religion. We are all a part of that (if we are indeed true converts to Christ). It is a purposeful intent to seek and express unity over division.

Here is a link to my church, we’ve attempted to share some of our thoughts about such there.

Hello Pastor Chris,

Welcome to CAF, I went and checked-out your web site; you seem like a nice person and it seems like a nice Church. I like the painting of Jesus on the Home page. I am sorry but I have to disagree with your comments to a certain extant -

You wrote-
“I am not where I am because I decided to protest Catholicism”

Yes and no, I do not know your Christian background and you might be “Protestant” by no fault of your own. (I don’t mean this in negative way). If you are a practicing Christian and not a Catholic it is because you are "protesting the “Catholic Church” and because you decided not to become Catholic whether you actually realize it or admit it.

On your Church’s web site there is a comment made regarding the lack of stained glass windows…and so on… in your Church. I don’t know if this is a reference to a Catholic Church building or not because some older Protestant Church buildings have stained glass windows. However, I did notice some subtle rejection, or subtle indicators of “protesting the Catholic Church” on your Church’s web site. I don’t know if that was intentional.

It appears that your denomination is not only a rejection of Catholicism, but is also a rejection of early “Protestant” denominations, under the guise that the Church is “all inclusive”.

A Christian denomination which is non-denominational, may be “all inclusive” as far as who is allowed to become a member, the Catholic Church is "all inclusive” in this sense. However, once a break is made from another denomination and there is created, an actual rule-set or set of beliefs for that denomination, it is only “inclusive” if one accepts those new beliefs.

The term “protesting” in the context of Christian History is not the same as “protesting” in secular speak. “Protesting” as used in theological terms, means to “Protest the Roman Catholic Church” that is why ‘Reformers” were/are called “Protestants”.

One can say that “I am not personally protesting Catholicism” and actually believe it but if they are Christian and not Catholic (descendents of early Protestant denominations) they are following a set of beliefs that reject beliefs found in Catholicism and are, by a Christian definition, “protesting the Catholic Church”.

I hope this helps,

Peace

 

[ibkc]

Protestants not only protest the Catholic Church but they Protest each other.

Yes. Actually, if ignore the long-time historical usage and take the term “protestant” 100% literally as several of our Protestant brethren in this thread are doing, then we can say that modern-day Protestants are more actively protesting each other. I well remember my Presbyterian grandmother tsk-tsking her Methodist neighbors and some of my Baptist classmates preaching at me and telling me I was hellbound for being an Episcopalian.

Perhaps most don’t even know what the Catholic Church teaches. I certainly didn’t know when I was a Protestant. I just had a vague sense of monks and nuns, and ornate churches and statues - which I was always drawn to.

 

[teadough]

Perhaps most don’t even know what the Catholic Church teaches. I certainly didn’t know when I was a Protestant. I just had a vague sense of monks and nuns, and ornate churches and statues - which I was always drawn to.

Same here. It’s almost as if I looked at the Catholic Church as being somewhat of a caricature or something,however, I was still drawn to all that stuff you mentioned. It is so crazy how it was right in front of us the whole time. It was almost like God had all these wild billboards pointing and blinking “Look it’s Me…Here I am…Ding Ding Ding…Look!!!”.

In some ways I looked at it as so real that it was unbelievable. It’s the only thing I know of where I can’t say “if it seem to good to be true then it can’t be true”. I know it’s real. I know it’s True. I know it is Good.I know it’s God

 

[Rightlydivide]

In a practical sense, it is just an easy way for people to categorize non Catholics.
They do not have any way of saying exactly who is a Protestant.
Unification Church?
Christian Scientist?
Urantia?
Liberal Catholic Church International?
Reform Catholic Church?

These groups are completely different and reject the traditional teachings of Protestant reformers…
But hey…its EASIER…so people will lump everyone together. Less thinking required…

 

[GKC]

flameburns,

“Anglicans often prefer to speak of themselves as ‘catholic’ with a small ‘c’…”

And some use a capital “C”. Like me.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[ibkc]

In a practical sense, it is just an easy way for people to categorize non Catholics.
They do not have any way of saying exactly who is a Protestant.
Unification Church?
Christian Scientist?
Urantia?

I have no problem saying it. None of these are Protestant. Unification Church is not even Christian.

Christian Science is a little more complicated. I call it the first “New Age” sect. Clearly they treat Jesus in a traditional enough manner - moreso than the Mormons and the JWs - and they were influenced by evangelicalism, but they went off in a completely different direction. Urantia is also early New Age. It riffs on Jesus’ divinity and accepts the Trinity, but it denies the Christian concept of sin and the need for Jesus’ atonement.

It’s silly to even think of calling these groups Protestant. Their Christianity itself is debatable. Just because a group uses Jesus in some capacity, doesn’t make them Christian.

Liberal Catholic Church International?
Reform Catholic Church?

Insignificant numbers of self-important crackpots with ugly, amateurish websites?

These groups are completely different and reject the traditional teachings of Protestant reformers…

Therefore, they’re not Protestant. Hey, that was easy!

But hey…its EASIER…so people will lump everyone together. Less thinking required…

Protestantism refers to the various forms of Christianity that arose out of the doctrines of the Reformation. American non-denoms follows some or all of these doctrines and/or doctrines which derived from the doctrines.

 

[graceandglory]

I was raised Catholic. I became a lapsed Catholic as a teenager and spent nearly 20 years as an evangelical, bible believing Christian.
Even AS a practicing Protestant, I rejected the term. Rightfully so, it turns out. I wasn’t protest-ing ANYthing,

I know for many evangelical types, they just “are.” It is what it is. Especially among the non-denominationals.

During my conversion experience, coming back to the Catholic Church, I still couldn’t say of myself that I had been protestant. Now, four years back in the Catholic Church, I call my protestant days, my “days of apostasy,” or I say I was a “practicing protestant” but I only use it among Catholics.

Turns out, (and I know people will argue with me), I was very Catholic in my doctrine during all of my “protestant” years. I just didn’t know it. As the saying goes: “Once Catholic, always Catholic.” I would have vehemently argued with that 10 yrs ago, but the more Catholic I become, I look back on my life and see how true that adage really is.

So many evangelicals don’t know about the Truth of the Catholic Church, so they really aren’t protest-ing anything. It’s kinda like the term, “alien.” That works for us “earthlings,” but as for the aliens, they don’t think of themselves as “alien.”

Don’t know if that helps – it’s just my take on it.

 

[graceandglory]

I’ve noticed in this thread a confusion between the use of the terns Catholic and Christian.

I remember when I was little, (and Catholic) wondering if I was a Christian. At school, most people were “Christian.” As a not very well catechized Catholic girl, I didn’t know if I was Christian. And then my mom coined the term, “you’re a Catholic Christian.” Or was that a Christian Catholic? I couldn’t keep them straight. Because I didn’t know the difference.

I think that is a HUGE problem. Practicing protestants from most denominations call themselves first and foremost Christians. But many Catholics don’t know that they are Christian.
That is very sad.

As Catholics we are supposed to believe that faithful protestants are our “separated brethren.” It would really help with true ecumenism, and bringing everyone into the fullness of the whole Christian faith, which I believe is only found in the Catholic Church, if we could all agree on terms.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I have no problem saying it. None of these are Protestant. Unification Church is not even Christian.

Christian Science is a little more complicated. I call it the first “New Age” sect. Clearly they treat Jesus in a traditional enough manner - moreso than the Mormons and the JWs - and they were influenced by evangelicalism, but they went off in a completely different direction. Urantia is also early New Age. It riffs on Jesus’ divinity and accepts the Trinity, but it denies the Christian concept of sin and the need for Jesus’ atonement.

It’s silly to even think of calling these groups Protestant. Their Christianity itself is debatable. Just because a group uses Jesus in some capacity, doesn’t make them Christian.

Insignificant numbers of self-important crackpots with ugly, amateurish websites?

Therefore, they’re not Protestant. Hey, that was easy!

Protestantism refers to the various forms of Christianity that arose out of the doctrines of the Reformation. American non-denoms follows some or all of these doctrines and/or doctrines which derived from the doctrines.

A person who knows their groups! That was nice actually.
What about the notion of Catholicism protesting the doctrines of the 1st Century? I would give a link but…I get in trouble for that kind of thing…

 

[ibkc]

A person who knows their groups! That was nice actually.
What about the notion of Catholicism protesting the doctrines of the 1st Century? I would give a link but…I get in trouble for that kind of thing…

I’m not sure what you mean.

 

[Singinbeauty]

All you have to do really is go into the ‘Traditional Catholic’ forum and find a HUGE amount of arguing and debating going on BETWEEN CATHOLICS regarding their own Faith / Belief system.

Does this make the ones who say that Vatican II is unreliable and contains errors / is wrong, protestants - because they protest what the Catholic Church teaches? See HERE for an example…

It makes you wonder…

 

[KJK80]

1. You’re right, individual’s disagreeing must be exactly the same as church’s who proclaim the truth of God’s word disagreeing.
2. guanophore (whom the post you linked to) is not of the latin rite… There may be differences between the rites which are discussed and even argued… however, they are still extremely ecumenical.

 

[ibkc]

All you have to do really is go into the ‘Traditional Catholic’ forum and find a HUGE amount of arguing and debating going on BETWEEN CATHOLICS regarding their own Faith / Belief system.

Does this make the ones who say that Vatican II is unreliable and contains errors / is wrong, protestants - because they protest what the Catholic Church teaches? See HERE for an example…

It makes you wonder…

Wonder what? All of these people are still Catholic. They are not arguing doctrine; they are arguing details of practice. That is a big difference.

Find me examples of huge groups of Catholics fighting over things like the Assumption of Mary, the Primacy of Peter, or the necessity of the sacrament of reconciliation, and then we’ll talk.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Wonder what? All of these people are still Catholic. They are not arguing doctrine; they are arguing details of practice. That is a big difference.

Find me examples of huge groups of Catholics fighting over things like the Assumption of Mary, the Primacy of Peter, or the necessity of the sacrament of reconciliation, and then we’ll talk.

Since I am forever being told to go read the catechism because it holds what the church teaches it seems odd to me that you wouldn’t be more alarmed that someone finds errors with it and refuse to believe what it says. Yet you still call them catholic even though they throw out some of what it teaches.

 

[ibkc]

Since I am forever being told to go read the catechism because it holds what the church teaches it seems odd to me that you wouldn’t be more alarmed that someone finds errors with it and refuse to believe what it says. Yet you still call them catholic even though they throw out some of what it teaches.

The catechism contains what the Catholic church teaches. It’s no skin off my nose if individuals disagree. Find me large, organized groups of people openly rebelling against what the catechism teaches, and we’ll talk. Otherwise, what individuals do is between themselves and God. I am sure there are people at your non-denominational church who really think the whole thing is a bunch of hooey, but keep coming for the social aspects or because of family pressure or whatever. It’s between them and God.