Author Topic: "Protestant" (Read 5581 times)

Josiah · « **on:** Mon Feb 07, 2011 - 20:11:40 »

.

.

Protestant:

The Definition:

1. One of the German princes and cities that protested against the decision of the second Diet of Speyer (1529) to enforce the Edict of Worms (1521) and deny toleration to Lutherans. This is the original meaning and the origin of the term.

2. A Christian or Christian organization whose faith and practice are founded on the principles of the Reformation, especially the teaching of Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide and often also embracing accountability and the praxis of Sola Scriptura.

The Usage:

1. Non-Protestant. Originally, it simply referred to a group of German princes protesting the forbidding of Lutherans to worship in certain Catholic areas. It had nothing to do with the Pope or the Catholic Denomination, it was about the Diet of Speyer's ruling against Lutherans. But, in time, it became a term of derision by some Catholics to refer to those who, IN THE OPINION OF THOSE CATHOLICS, disagreed with some Catholic teachings and/or practices. It typically was not extended to Eastern Orthodox Christians and organizations (which, obviously, also disagree with some RCC teachings and practices - long before Luther or Calvin were born). For some, it still has this deragatory, condemning, "anti" meaning and is still a term of derision, although this is now rare.

2. Protestant. Those Christians and Christian organizations that embraced Sola Gratia/Solus Christus/Sola Fide originally called themselves "Evangelicals." For a time, they resisted the term of derision, not only because it was intented to be imflamatory but because it was inaccurate - they were not about "protesting" anything but in proclaiming the Gospel as they understood such. But, in time, the term lost its derivise quality and simply became a very sloppy term for Lutherans, Anglicans and Calvinists as a group. In time, these Christians themselves began to use the term as a generic label for the commonality of this group - especially vis-a-vis Sola Gratia/Solus Christus/Sola Fide. This was not only true for "Protestant" but also for "Lutheran" and later "Methodist" and "Baptist" and many more ( originally terms of derision that came into such common use and lost that negativity so that those in those groups began embracing the label).

Comments:

1. A "Protestant" is not one who fundamentally "protests." This is simply an inaccurate usage of the term. The only "protest" involved was to the Diet of Speyer in 1529 and it's "anti-Lutheran" polity. Rather, a "Protestant" is one who embraces what they regard as biblical Christianity and the defining concept of Sola Gratia/Solus Christus/Sola Fide and likely the epistemological praxis of Sola Scriptura. I'm Protestant, but I don't "protest" the Catholic Church - I hold it in very high regard and consider it valid (indeed, nearly all Catholics known to me are far more "anti" Protestant than I am "anti" Catholic).

2. A "Protestant" is not simply a Christian who is not officially registered in a congregation legally affiliated with the Catholic Denomination. Such would mean that Orthodox Christians, Mormons, Christian Scientist, etc. would be "Protestant" as they would all deny (correctly).

3. While undeniably Luther, Calvin and others were "against" a few things in the Catholic Denomination of their day, it's EQUALLY true that the RCC was "against" them to the EXACT same degree on the EXACT same issues. Thus, Luther and the RCC were BOTH "protestant" (if such is defined as "in disagreement") to the EXACT same degree and on the EXACT same issues. But note that the RCC excommunicated Luther - not the other way around.

4. I take no automatic offense at the labels "Lutheran" or "Protestant." Indeed, I embrace and use them - even aware of their complex "history." Those registered with the LDS are typically no longer taking offense at "Mormon" (indeed, many of them have embraced it).

5. I do think the term should be understood and used correctly. As such, no offense will be taken (or implied) and nothing other will be meant.

.

.

LightHammer · « **Reply #1 on:** Mon Feb 07, 2011 - 20:12:55 »

Hey Josiah is this the first thread you've made?

p.rehbein · « **Reply #2 on:** Tue Feb 08, 2011 - 18:25:17 »

That was an interesting and informative OP Josiah. (well, in my opinion.....sigh...gotta say that ya know)

I will say, that I am not offended by the term Protestant but, then, I have never identified myself as a Protestant, so that may be why..................These identifying tag thingys - protestant-evangelical and such amuse me more than offend me. I'm a "whosoever", uh, OOOPPSSSS, (is that an identifying tag thingy?)

I will stand and proclaim "for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotton Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life"

I choose to be a "whosoever".

Josiah · « **Reply #3 on:** Wed Feb 09, 2011 - 10:03:55 »

Quote from: p.rehbein on Tue Feb 08, 2011 - 18:25:17

That was an interesting and informative OP Josiah. (well, in my opinion.....sigh...gotta say that ya know)

I will say, that I am not offended by the term Protestant but, then, I have never identified myself as a Protestant, so that may be why..................These identifying tag thingys - protestant-evangelical and such amuse me more than offend me. I'm a "whosoever", uh, OOOPPSSSS, (is that an identifying tag thingy?)

I will stand and proclaim "for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotton Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life"

I choose to be a "whosoever".

... I tend to agree with you. Labels often are not helpful - especially when they are sloppy ones and/or ones with a derogatory/divisive origin. But it seems to be frequent in Christianity..... Protestant, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Mormon, etc. Sometimes these terms are virtually unavoidable. It's sad, I think/feel, when people use them today in deflamatory and inaccurate ways.

.

trifecta · « **Reply #4 on:** Sun Feb 13, 2011 - 19:52:44 »

Protestant is a kind of a sucky name, especially since it was a name given to them. The term is useful, however, in understanding Protestants' view of ecclesiology (church stuff). Protestants believe that certain denominations are together part of the one church. RCC and Orthodox, on the other hand, believe that they are indeed the Church.

Therefore, it is proper to call Protestant churches denominations, but it is not appropriate to call RCC or Orthodox a "denomination." On the other hand, I am basing my assumption on the idea that people should be able to call themselves what they want. Even that has problems, however. For example, the Sons of Liberty was a famous group of revolutionaries in Boston. If a group of loyalists decided to call themselves "the Sons of Liberty," I could not call them that because their name was copied from the original group.

The lesson to be learned here is not to put too much stock in names. Josiah and others complain that the Catholic Church is not found in the Bible. True, but, just as the Way gave way (no pun intended) to Christian (in Antioch--but probably not elsewhere), names don't tell the whole story.

Catholics, too, sometimes try to say they are the true church, because they have Catholic in their name. There are problems with that too. As we saw, names can change over time. The Catholic Church as it was used in those days was the whole church, not just the Roman branch of it.

In short, names can be useful but we must look closer to understand why anyone
with that name really thinks or believes.

Josiah · « **Reply #5 on:** Sun Feb 13, 2011 - 21:16:03 »

Quote from: trifecta on Sun Feb 13, 2011 - 19:52:44

Protestant is a kind of a sucky name, especially since it was a name given to them. The term is useful, however, in understanding Protestants' view of ecclesiology (church stuff). Protestants believe that certain denominations are together part of the one church.

Not exactly....

Protestants tend to believe that the church has nothing to do with denominations - yours, mine or any other. Protestants tend to believe that Christians are people and that the promises, etc., made to Christians were made to people. And that the assembly/gathering/congregating/community of Christians is thus that of people. Thus, we tend to affirm, the church is the one, holy, catholic communion of saints, the community of believers - past and present. Whether they are officially registered in a congregation or that congregation is legally affiliated with a denomination is rather moot, in our view. It's the gift of faith in Christ that makes us Christian, not legal affiliations.

That does not mean that Protestants are opposed to Christian communities or associations, not at all, we tend to be rather passionately in favor of them. Such associating in a given place and time is what we call a "congregation" (from the verb "to congregate" or "to gather together"). There are several examples of such in the NT itself and millions upon millions of them today. Of course, the congregation is not the one, holy, catholic communion of saints, rather the CHRISTIAN PEOPLE there are a small part of such, and the institution that MAY be associated with that congregation is not the one, holy, catholic, communion of believers since institutions cannot believe - they are simply our creations to assist us in our congregating and our goals in such (such as edification, mutual support and cooperation, accountability, etc.).

Congregations may also associate in denominations. Individual believers : congregations as congregations : denominations. Of course, there are no denominations in the NT and likely none existed until the 4th century. But again, no denomination is the one, holy, catholic, communion of BELIEVERS - no, the church (in this strick sense) is PEOPLE - Christian people, people with the gift of faith in Christ, including those now among those in heaven.

It amazes me here TOO that our vocabulary is not always helpful! We use the same word to describe the church that is the spiritual, one, holy, catholic, communion of Believers, and ALSO our many congregations ("St. Francis Catholic Church, St. John Lutheran Church") - so does the NT (although in the NT, we find the word for congregation nearly always used in the plural). We at times use it for denominations, too. The United Methodist Church (but then, The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran SYNOD). No wonder people are confused, even Christians!

Yes, the RCC and LDS have a very different view of the church (well, actually just an ADDITIONAL one that entirely overwhelms and overpowers the Protestant one - an institutional view that is always itself).

Quote

Therefore, it is proper to call Protestant churches denominations, but it is not appropriate to call RCC or Orthodox a "denomination."

I disagree. Christian PEOPLE are - together - the church. The Body of Christ. The one, holy, catholic, communion of saints. Christian CONGREGATIONS may be called "church" but technically, such is a congregation of BELIEVERS which may or may not have institutional aspects, it matters not if such is a congregation that is non-denom (independent of any other) or denominational (a member of such - the RCC, UMC, LCMS, SBC whatever). A denomination is a formal association of several congregations under a common name, jurisdiction, polity and often but not always a common confession (statement of teachings of that denomination). Unless your congregation is non-denom (entirely autonomous and independent in every way from any and all other congregations) then it's denominational. The question is just WHICH denomination.

Quote

The lesson to be learned here is not to put too much stock in names. Josiah and others complain that the Catholic Church is not found in the Bible. True

Glad we agree.

But actually, MY point was that the claim that the RCC was given this or that remarkable thing IN THE NT is simply without confirmation. It's not even mentioned.

Quote

Catholics, too, sometimes try to say they are the true church, because they have Catholic in their name. There are problems with that too. As we saw, names can change over time. The Catholic Church as it was used in those days was the whole church, not just the Roman branch of it.

From my prespective, the several denominations legally named "The Christian Church" probably could best say, "We MUST be the true Christian Church because the name we gave the denomination says that." As we know, "catholic" is simply an adjective that embraces all Christians - it has nothing to do with an institutional, legal/political/economic geopolitical entity. The church IS one, holy, CATHOLIC, communion of saints- the community or family of believers, IMO.

YES, in my opinion, this has a huge impact. IMO, you are my FULL, unseparted and in every possible sense equal and equally blessed brother or sister in Christ. Because the point is our hearts in Christ, not our political associations (NOT that there is ANYTHING wrong with congregating with other Christians or in your congregation associating with other congregations!). CHRIST made us one, it has nothing to do with all of us crowding into one room of one congregation or our legally registering in such. Christians are PEOPLE, people with the gift of faith in Christ. The enormous, constant emphasis on the denomination that I found in Catholicism was one of the things that troubled me, and yes - it does serve to divide us into "us vs. them" "holy vs. apostate" "insiders and outsiders"

I HOPE the opening post serves to better understand this (yet another sloppy) term...

Thank you!

Pax

- Josiah

.

chestertonrules · « **Reply #6 on:** Sun Feb 13, 2011 - 21:41:49 »

Quote from: Josiah on Mon Feb 07, 2011 - 20:11:40

.

.

Protestant:

The Definition:

1. One of the German princes and cities that protested against the decision of the second Diet of Speyer (1529) to enforce the Edict of Worms (1521) and deny toleration to Lutherans. This is the original meaning and the origin of the term.

2. A Christian or Christian organization whose faith and practice are founded on the principles of the Reformation, especially the teaching of Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide and often also embracing accountability and the praxis of Sola Scriptura.

The Usage:

1. Non-Protestant. Originally, it simply referred to a group of German princes protesting the forbidding of Lutherans to worship in certain Catholic areas. It had nothing to do with the Pope or the Catholic Denomination, it was about the Diet of Speyer's ruling against Lutherans. But, in time, it became a term of derision by some Catholics to refer to those who, IN THE OPINION OF THOSE CATHOLICS, disagreed with some Catholic teachings and/or practices. It typically was not extended to Eastern Orthodox Christians and organizations (which, obviously, also disagree with some RCC teachings and practices - long before Luther or Calvin were born). For some, it still has this deragatory, condemning, "anti" meaning and is still a term of derision, although this is now rare.

2. Protestant. Those Christians and Christian organizations that embraced Sola Gratia/Solus Christus/Sola Fide originally called themselves "Evangelicals." For a time, they resisted the term of derision, not only because it was intented to be imflamatory but because it was inaccurate - they were not about "protesting" anything but in proclaiming the Gospel as they understood such. But, in time, the term lost its derivise quality and simply became a very sloppy term for Lutherans, Anglicans and Calvinists as a group. In time, these Christians themselves began to use the term as a generic label for the commonality of this group - especially vis-a-vis Sola Gratia/Solus Christus/Sola Fide. This was not only true for "Protestant" but also for "Lutheran" and later "Methodist" and "Baptist" and many more ( originally terms of derision that came into such common use and lost that negativity so that those in those groups began embracing the label).

Comments:

1. A "Protestant" is not one who fundamentally "protests." This is simply an inaccurate usage of the term. The only "protest" involved was to the Diet of Speyer in 1529 and it's "anti-Lutheran" polity. Rather, a "Protestant" is one who embraces what they regard as biblical Christianity and the defining concept of Sola Gratia/Solus Christus/Sola Fide and likely the epistemological praxis of Sola Scriptura. I'm Protestant, but I don't "protest" the Catholic Church - I hold it in very high regard and consider it valid (indeed, nearly all Catholics known to me are far more "anti" Protestant than I am "anti" Catholic).

2. A "Protestant" is not simply a Christian who is not officially registered in a congregation legally affiliated with the Catholic Denomination. Such would mean that Orthodox Christians, Mormons, Christian Scientist, etc. would be "Protestant" as they would all deny (correctly).

3. While undeniably Luther, Calvin and others were "against" a few things in the Catholic Denomination of their day, it's EQUALLY true that the RCC was "against" them to the EXACT same degree on the EXACT same issues. Thus, Luther and the RCC were BOTH "protestant" (if such is defined as "in disagreement") to the EXACT same degree and on the EXACT same issues. But note that the RCC excommunicated Luther - not the other way around.

4. I take no automatic offense at the labels "Lutheran" or "Protestant." Indeed, I embrace and use them - even aware of their complex "history." Those registered with the LDS are typically no longer taking offense at "Mormon" (indeed, many of them have embraced it).

5. I do think the term should be understood and used correctly. As such, no offense will be taken (or implied) and nothing other will be meant.

.

.

From the dictionary:

Prot·es·tant /ˈprɒtəstənt or, for 4, 6, prəˈtɛstənt/ Show Spelled
[prot-uh-stuhnt or, for 4, 6, pruh-tes-tuhnt] Show IPA

–noun
1. any Western Christian who is not an adherent of a Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Church.

stevehut · « **Reply #7 on:** Sun Feb 13, 2011 - 22:22:22 »

I don't call myself a "Protestant," because my faith isn't based on "protesting" against anything.

I'm pro-Jesus, not particularly "anti-pope."

chestertonrules · « **Reply #8 on:** Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 07:17:22 »

Quote from: stevehut on Sun Feb 13, 2011 - 22:22:22

I don't call myself a "Protestant," because my faith isn't based on "protesting" against anything.

I'm pro-Jesus, not particularly "anti-pope."

That is true, I'm sure, but not really relevant. I once believed as you believe today.

Your faith came from the Catholic Church. I believe all Christians should do a thorough study of the early Church and when ready make a decision for or against the Catholic Church.

I have come to believe that Jesus only started one Church and that this Church is and always has been the Catholic Church.

Perhaps you will reach a different conclusion, but don't do so without study and prayer.

DCR · « **Reply #9 on:** Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 07:29:13 »

Quote from: trifecta on Sun Feb 13, 2011 - 19:52:44

Protestants believe that certain denominations are together part of the one church. RCC and Orthodox, on the other hand, believe that they are indeed the Church.

Neither of those concepts really cut it, IMO.

Followers of Jesus Christ together are the one church.

p.rehbein · « **Reply #10 on:** Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 08:13:56 »

Quote from: DCR on Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 07:29:13

Quote from: trifecta on Sun Feb 13, 2011 - 19:52:44
Protestants believe that certain denominations are together part of the one church. RCC and Orthodox, on the other hand, believe that they are indeed the Church.

Neither of those concepts really cut it, IMO.

Followers of Jesus Christ together are the one church.

The Church of God Anderson, Indiana does not believe as stated in Tri's comment either.........

We hold firm to the "whosoever" belief in who is and who isn't part of the Church.

Jimmy · « **Reply #11 on:** Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 08:34:27 »

I am a Christian. What I believe has nothing to do with the RCC one way or another. I do not need to know anything about the RCC to believe as I do. I need not protest against the RCC unless of course where the RCC is in opposition to the Bible.

chestertonrules · « **Reply #12 on:** Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 09:00:53 »

Quote from: Jimmy on Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 08:34:27

I am a Christian. What I believe has nothing to do with the RCC one way or another. I do not need to know anything about the RCC to believe as I do. I need not protest against the RCC unless of course where the RCC is in opposition to the Bible.

That is not accurate given that the Catholic Church compiled and preserved the New Testament for you.

It is a serious matter to reject this Church. You may be right in doing so but you should review the case prayerfully.

Jimmy · « **Reply #13 on:** Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 09:39:58 »

Quote from: chestertonrules on Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 09:00:53

Quote from: Jimmy on Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 08:34:27
I am a Christian. What I believe has nothing to do with the RCC one way or another. I do not need to know anything about the RCC to believe as I do. I need not protest against the RCC unless of course where the RCC is in opposition to the Bible.

That is not accurate given that the Catholic Church compiled and preserved the New Testament for you.

It is a serious matter to reject this Church. You may be right in doing so but you should review the case prayerfully.

No the catholic church did not preserve the NT for me. God through the Holy Spirit did that. But if you insist that is some reason to believe the catholic doctrine, then since the Jews compiled and preserved the Old Testament, you should then concede to the present day Jewish religion as you insist that I concede to the present day RC religion. Both of couse are ludicrous.

I reject the Catholic Church. I reject the Lutheren Church. I reject the Methodist Church. I reject the Baptist Church. I reject the...... you name it......Church. I reject none of those in the the church of Jesus Christ, the body of believers. But that has nothing to do with any of the functional religious organizations that abound, all who would claim similar authority and preeminance in religious beliefs.

chestertonrules · « **Reply #14 on:** Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 10:39:23 »

Quote from: Jimmy on Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 09:39:58

Quote from: chestertonrules on Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 09:00:53
Quote from: Jimmy on Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 08:34:27
I am a Christian. What I believe has nothing to do with the RCC one way or another. I do not need to know anything about the RCC to believe as I do. I need not protest against the RCC unless of course where the RCC is in opposition to the Bible.

That is not accurate given that the Catholic Church compiled and preserved the New Testament for you.

It is a serious matter to reject this Church. You may be right in doing so but you should review the case prayerfully.

No the catholic church did not preserve the NT for me. God through the Holy Spirit did that. But if you insist that is some reason to believe the catholic doctrine, then since the Jews compiled and preserved the Old Testament, you should then concede to the present day Jewish religion as you insist that I concede to the present day RC religion. Both of couse are ludicrous.

I reject the Catholic Church. I reject the Lutheren Church. I reject the Methodist Church. I reject the Baptist Church. I reject the...... you name it......Church. I reject none of those in the the church of Jesus Christ, the body of believers. But that has nothing to do with any of the functional religious organizations that abound, all who would claim similar authority and preeminance in religious beliefs.

God guided the Catholic Church as it wrote, compiled, and proclaimed the Word of God as written down in the New Testament.

You must believe that God created, used, and then discarded his Church, but I don't find that position to be credible nor is it consistent with scripture or history.

Jimmy · « **Reply #15 on:** Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 11:15:55 »

Quote from: chestertonrules on Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 10:39:23

Quote from: Jimmy on Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 09:39:58
Quote from: chestertonrules on Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 09:00:53
Quote from: Jimmy on Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 08:34:27
I am a Christian. What I believe has nothing to do with the RCC one way or another. I do not need to know anything about the RCC to believe as I do. I need not protest against the RCC unless of course where the RCC is in opposition to the Bible.

That is not accurate given that the Catholic Church compiled and preserved the New Testament for you.

It is a serious matter to reject this Church. You may be right in doing so but you should review the case prayerfully.

No the catholic church did not preserve the NT for me. God through the Holy Spirit did that. But if you insist that is some reason to believe the catholic doctrine, then since the Jews compiled and preserved the Old Testament, you should then concede to the present day Jewish religion as you insist that I concede to the present day RC religion. Both of couse are ludicrous.

I reject the Catholic Church. I reject the Lutheren Church. I reject the Methodist Church. I reject the Baptist Church. I reject the...... you name it......Church. I reject none of those in the the church of Jesus Christ, the body of believers. But that has nothing to do with any of the functional religious organizations that abound, all who would claim similar authority and preeminance in religious beliefs.

God guided the Catholic Church as it wrote, compiled, and proclaimed the Word of God as written down in the New Testament.

You must believe that God created, used, and then discarded his Church, but I don't find that position to be credible nor is it consistent with scripture or history.

The RCC is not His Church. Period.

chestertonrules · « **Reply #16 on:** Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 11:28:23 »

Quote from: Jimmy on Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 11:15:55

Quote from: chestertonrules on Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 10:39:23
Quote from: Jimmy on Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 09:39:58
Quote from: chestertonrules on Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 09:00:53
Quote from: Jimmy on Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 08:34:27
I am a Christian. What I believe has nothing to do with the RCC one way or another. I do not need to know anything about the RCC to believe as I do. I need not protest against the RCC unless of course where the RCC is in opposition to the Bible.

That is not accurate given that the Catholic Church compiled and preserved the New Testament for you.

It is a serious matter to reject this Church. You may be right in doing so but you should review the case prayerfully.

No the catholic church did not preserve the NT for me. God through the Holy Spirit did that. But if you insist that is some reason to believe the catholic doctrine, then since the Jews compiled and preserved the Old Testament, you should then concede to the present day Jewish religion as you insist that I concede to the present day RC religion. Both of couse are ludicrous.

I reject the Catholic Church. I reject the Lutheren Church. I reject the Methodist Church. I reject the Baptist Church. I reject the...... you name it......Church. I reject none of those in the the church of Jesus Christ, the body of believers. But that has nothing to do with any of the functional religious organizations that abound, all who would claim similar authority and preeminance in religious beliefs.

God guided the Catholic Church as it wrote, compiled, and proclaimed the Word of God as written down in the New Testament.

You must believe that God created, used, and then discarded his Church, but I don't find that position to be credible nor is it consistent with scripture or history.

The RCC is not His Church. Period.

I think you would admit that you don't know much Church history. Why not take a few months and actually learn about where the New Testament came from and what the early Christians believed? You have nothing to lose by learning more, right?

stevehut · « **Reply #17 on:** Tue Mar 01, 2011 - 12:08:30 »

Quote from: chestertonrules on Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 07:17:22

1- Your faith came from the Catholic Church.

2- I believe all Christians should do a thorough study of the early Church

3- when ready make a decision for or against the Catholic Church.

4- I have come to believe that Jesus only started one Church

1- Nope. It came from God, with the help of Christians who instructed me from Scripture. In the ten years I attended a Catholic parish in Los Angeles, I was instructed by nuns and priests who didn't even make Bibles available to us and never suggested that we should read them on our own time.

2- I agree.

3- Actually, my decision to follow Christ had nothing to do with the Catholic Church, either for or against.

4- I agree.

stevehut · « **Reply #18 on:** Mon Mar 07, 2011 - 23:37:18 »

Wow, this thread died a quick death.

chestertonrules · « **Reply #19 on:** Tue Mar 08, 2011 - 22:15:31 »

Quote from: stevehut on Tue Mar 01, 2011 - 12:08:30

Quote from: chestertonrules on Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 07:17:22

1- Your faith came from the Catholic Church.

2- I believe all Christians should do a thorough study of the early Church

3- when ready make a decision for or against the Catholic Church.

4- I have come to believe that Jesus only started one Church

1- Nope. It came from God, with the help of Christians who instructed me from Scripture. In the ten years I attended a Catholic parish in Los Angeles, I was instructed by nuns and priests who didn't even make Bibles available to us and never suggested that we should read them on our own time.

2- I agree.

3- Actually, my decision to follow Christ had nothing to do with the Catholic Church, either for or against.

4- I agree.

Thanks for the bump. I'll be glad to breathe new life into this thread.

1) The Church wrote down the teachings of Jesus.

2)Good!

3) That's an incorrect assumption on your part. The Church evangelized the world and made it possible for you to know Jesus.

4) Then what happened?

Josiah · « **Reply #20 on:** Fri Mar 11, 2011 - 20:52:46 »

Quote from: chestertonrules on Mon Feb 14, 2011 - 11:28:23

Why not take a few months and actually learn about where the New Testament came from and what the early Christians believed? You have nothing to lose by learning more, right?

I did. AND I actually studied Scripture under my Catholic teachers for the unique, defining dogmas of the RCC, such as The Bishop in Rome is Infallible, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Assumption of Mary, Immaculate Conception of Mary - and I discovered, right from my Catholic teachers and the Catholic Catechism - that these things are at best biblically baseless and often not even with support for the denomination's own chosen snippets from it's own chosen "fathers." The dogmas that make it unique are without confirmation from either God's Scripture or even the denomination's own "fathers."

But let's return to the topic.....

Protestant:

The Definition:

1. One of the German princes and cities that protested against the decision of the second Diet of Speyer (1529) to enforce the Edict of Worms (1521) and deny toleration to Lutherans. This is the original meaning and the origin of the term.

2. A Christian or Christian organization whose faith and practice are founded on the principles of the Reformation, especially the teaching of Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide and often also embracing accountability and the praxis of Sola Scriptura.

The Usage:

1. Non-Protestant. Originally, it simply referred to a group of German princes protesting the forbidding of Lutherans to worship in certain Catholic areas. It had nothing to do with the Pope or the Catholic Denomination, it was about the Diet of Speyer's ruling against Lutherans. But, in time, it became a term of derision by some Catholics to refer to those who, IN THE OPINION OF THOSE CATHOLICS, disagreed with some Catholic teachings and/or practices. It typically was not extended to Eastern Orthodox Christians and organizations (which, obviously, also disagree with some RCC teachings and practices - long before Luther or Calvin were born). For some, it still has this deragatory, condemning, "anti" meaning and is still a term of derision, although this is now rare.

2. Protestant. Those Christians and Christian organizations that embraced Sola Gratia/Solus Christus/Sola Fide originally called themselves "Evangelicals." For a time, they resisted the term of derision, not only because it was intented to be imflamatory but because it was inaccurate - they were not about "protesting" anything but in proclaiming the Gospel as they understood such. But, in time, the term lost its derivise quality and simply became a very sloppy term for Lutherans, Anglicans and Calvinists as a group. In time, these Christians themselves began to use the term as a generic label for the commonality of this group - especially vis-a-vis Sola Gratia/Solus Christus/Sola Fide. This was not only true for "Protestant" but also for "Lutheran" and later "Methodist" and "Baptist" and many more ( originally terms of derision that came into such common use and lost that negativity so that those in those groups began embracing the label).

Comments:

1. A "Protestant" is not one who fundamentally "protests." This is simply an inaccurate usage of the term. The only "protest" involved was to the Diet of Speyer in 1529 and it's "anti-Lutheran" polity. Rather, a "Protestant" is one who embraces what they regard as biblical Christianity and the defining concept of Sola Gratia/Solus Christus/Sola Fide and likely the epistemological praxis of Sola Scriptura. I'm Protestant, but I don't "protest" the Catholic Church - I hold it in very high regard and consider it valid (indeed, nearly all Catholics known to me are far more "anti" Protestant than I am "anti" Catholic).

2. A "Protestant" is not simply a Christian who is not officially registered in a congregation legally affiliated with the Catholic Denomination. Such would mean that Orthodox Christians, Mormons, Christian Scientist, etc. would be "Protestant" as they would all deny (correctly).

3. While undeniably Luther, Calvin and others were "against" a few things in the Catholic Denomination of their day, it's EQUALLY true that the RCC was "against" them to the EXACT same degree on the EXACT same issues. Thus, Luther and the RCC were BOTH "protestant" (if such is defined as "in disagreement") to the EXACT same degree and on the EXACT same issues. But note that the RCC excommunicated Luther - not the other way around.

4. I take no automatic offense at the labels "Lutheran" or "Protestant." Indeed, I embrace and use them - even aware of their complex "history." Those registered with the LDS are typically no longer taking offense at "Mormon" (indeed, many of them have embraced it).

5. I do think the term should be understood and used correctly. As such, no offense will be taken (or implied) and nothing other will be meant.

.

chestertonrules · « **Reply #21 on:** Wed Apr 06, 2011 - 22:09:27 »

Quote from: ChristsPrincess on Tue Apr 05, 2011 - 23:34:02

I don't see myself as a Protestant. The only time I've ever been called one is by a Catholic.

I just know I have been born again and have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

The churces I've gone to in the past have all been non-denominational. I like to think of myself simply as "A follower of Christ"

This section from the catechism describes your situation:

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

Christian Forums News:

Author Topic: "Protestant" (Read 5581 times)

p.rehbein

p.rehbein