Is The Word "protestant" Still Applicable?

[Paladin]

We all know the root word of Protestant is protest, coming about from the Luthers, Calvins, and Henry VIIIs who explicitly chose to reject the Church and found something different. From them branched off thousands of sects ranging from the "Catholic 'cept we don't listen to the pope 'n stuff" to far-flung snake handling Pentecostals. Many of these churches still call themselves Protestant and, as Budge I'm sure would attest to, are still close to their protesting roots: they actively choose to reject and teach against the Magisterium.

In the past few decades, however, we've seen some churches with subtly but radically different ideas. Many of them aren't denominational and don't even call themselves Protestant, but "Bible Christians." They never claim to be theological descendants of anyone save the Biblical authors and do not speak that the Church is the "whore of Babylon" or even that it's wrong. They follow, to the best of their ability, what they believe to be what Holy Scriptures teach. Granted, they are wrong most of the time, but their concern is much different than traditional Protestant churches. Look at groups like the Episcopalians: they started with a protest and they continue it today, going as far as rejecting even their founders beliefs and grasping at straws just to protest against something. For them, being Protestant - protesting against something, anything - is an integral part of their identity. Not so with these "Bible churches." Instead of shouting down or arguing against the Church, they say "Well, that's one way to interpret the Bible. We interpet it a little differently." No protests, no passioned cries of "Anti-Christ!" They're just following the beliefs they were passed down.

So, is it correct to call them Protestants when they're not protesting against anything? We need not say their theology is correct, but evangelism approaches to a person who in their faith is [i]against[/i] the Church would be much different than approaches to a person whose faith is [i]for[/i] the Bible.

[Ragamuffin]

I think you may be on to something. I call myself Protestant because it just seems to be the easiest shorthand. I guess Evangelical is probably more accurate since I don't belong to a particular denomination. But I don't "protest" anything. My best friend on this earth is Catholic and we have awesome discussions. He converted this year and I was genuinely happy for him even if we don't believe the same way on the particulars. I know he loves God and is striving to follow Christ as faithfully as he knows how and he feels the same toward me.

So, I don't know what you'd say about me. I honestly hope I'm alive to see the various factions of Christendom be unified again. What form that will/should take I'm not sure, but it grieves my heart when I see the bickering between Protestants and Catholics, Calvinists and Arminians, Evangelicals and Mainliners and so on.

[BG45]

I have to agree with Ragamuffin, though raised a Baptist, I'm not really much of one, so I refer to myself as Protestant usually. Though Evangelical might be more accurate, and I too, don't really protest anything about the Roman Catholic Church's teachings. If anything, I have a healthy respect for it having survived all this time with so little change.

[jeffpugh]

This is a good question. I do not know what to say except maybe you're right, Paladin. I've actually been making an effort as of recent to say "non-Catholic" because I know a lot of Christian churches have popped up with virtually no background and they do not protest... it's odd... I think we're seeing the first fruits of Luther's protestantism... a relativistic view of the bible, but it looks and smells like an absolute idea, but only if you look at one particular church at a time...

[hoosieranna]

Same here. I'm "Protestant" because I'm not Orthodox or Catholic. I don't disagree with the Church. I just don't happen to be part of it.

I'm not particularly "Evangelical" either. Had some bad experiences with a Church of Christ, who might be considered "Bible Christians." Is there a label for those who are still figuring things out?

[Paladin]

[quote name='Nadezhda' post='1271500' date='May 11 2007, 09:33 PM']Same here. I'm "Protestant" because I'm not Orthodox or Catholic. I don't disagree with the Church. I just don't happen to be part of it.

I'm not particularly "Evangelical" either. Had some bad experiences with a Church of Christ, who might be considered "Bible Christians." Is there a label for those who are still figuring things out?[/quote]
The technical term would probably be "Agnostic," but that's got enough stigma of its own. Hm... I'm not sure if there is a label. Non-denom, I suppose?

[hoosieranna]

[quote name='Paladin' post='1271506' date='May 11 2007, 07:43 PM']The technical term would probably be "Agnostic," but that's got enough stigma of its own. Hm... I'm not sure if there is a label. Non-denom, I suppose?[/quote]

I'm not unsure about Christianity (it's true), so I don't think agnostic would be right. My family has some issues with Catholicism that haven't been addressed yet. I go to an ELCA church when I'm home.

Non-demon? I should hope so!

[jeffpugh]

Hahahaha... sounds about right to me...

[Katholikos]

According to Webster's Dictionary and the World Christian Encyclopedia, there are four major divisions within Christianity: Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican (which includes Episcopal), and Protestant. One must put all the beans that are similar in one jar with a label on it in order to discuss 'em or count 'em. If an ecclesial community is not Catholic, not Orthodox, and not Anglican it is Protestant.

And these [i][b]are[/b][/i] denominations -- that is, they have called themselves by a unique name to distinguish themselves from every other Christian denomination (nom = name).

[i]Newsweek[/i] magazine had an article about this phenomenon in its April 16, 2001 issue, entitled [i]The Changing Face of Christianity[/i], p. 49. QUOTE According to David B. Barrett, coauthor of the [i]World Christian Encyclopedia[/i], there are now 33,800 different Christian denominations. "And the fastest-growing are the independents, who have no ties whatsoever to historic Christianity," he says. END QUOTE

But these "independent" denominations are all built upon the Protestant principal of Sola Scriptura. And they abjure the Mother Church of Christendom founded by Christ, yet espouse the Church's book -- some configuration of the Bible -- ONLY. That makes them Protestant even though their "protest" against the Catholic Church may be silent.

This is Sola Scriptura carried to it ultimate absurdity.

Likos

[Akalyte]

Is it illegal to use the word "heretic"? I still use it..Of course cause I really dont care who it offends anyhow. lol

Protestants got that name by protesting the catholic church, which they still do since they are obvious outside of the church.

[jeffpugh]

I think so far you get labeled a meanie or some kind of evil conservative or radical for using heretic... As far as I gather.

[Katholikos]

[b][size=3]Webster:[/size] [/b]

[u][b]Heretic[/b][/u]

1. A professed believer who maintains beliefs contrary to those accepted by his or her church.

2. A baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith.

[u][b]Heresy:[/b][/u] religious opinion or doctrine at variance with the accepted doctrine.

I think the Church makes a distinction among those who rejected the Truth and were involved in the original heresies of Protestantism, and those who, through no fault of their own, are born into that belief system and remain in it. Emphasis on [b]through no fault of their own[/b]. Willful and knowing rejection of the Church and its teachings is considered heresy.

However, a person who is baptized Catholic and dissents from the Church's teaching is designated a heretic in canon law.

Father G, please correct me if I am wrong.

Likos

[GodChaser]

I still protest the Catholic Church, not out of hatred, but out of a desire to know God and do what is right.

Democracy is a messy thing, but it has allowed God to give people a real chance to find him, and not be forced.

How many of the billions of Catholics do you really think have gotten into heaven since its inception?

How many of the millions, maybe even billions of Protestants have gotten into heaven since its inception?

How many pentecostals have gotten into heaven?

Who knows, only God knows.

According to Akalyte, all Catholics probably, and no protestant or other has ever entered into God's glorious grace in heaven.

Such an open mind Akalyte. But I've come to expect that from you.

BTW, the Catholic Church isn't the whore of Babylon, though she controls it. Benedict is probably her lap puppy!

Edited May 12, 2007 by GodChaser

[jckinsman]

Free will (not democracy) is what God has given all of us. Out of our love for Him ,we freely choose to serve him and do his will. Is that what you were trying to say? Protestants were given their name from the protest of the catholic church. If you are any denomination as a result of this protest I think that "protestant" is a correct term. JC
Pope Benedict is a wonderful man, try reading some of his books. I think that if you educated youself alittle on the man you would feel silly making that statement!

Edited May 12, 2007 by jckinsman

[Sojourner]

I think Protestant is still an apt term, despite the fact that the majority aren't actively protesting.

I think it speaks to the historic roots of these denominations, which are still there even if some non-denominational Christians don't claim them or even know of them.

And, as Likos said, there are an ever-increasing number of denominations, many of which are founded in protest over something even if it wasn't the Catholic church.


(as an aside, my favorite church name: The Union Separate Baptist Church. This was the historic name of a Baptist church I attended for a while. They formed around the time of the Civil War, hence the "Union" part of the name, but it still always made me laugh.)

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1271726' date='May 12 2007, 02:11 AM'](as an aside, my favorite church name: The Union Separate Baptist Church. This was the historic name of a Baptist church I attended for a while. They formed around the time of the Civil War, hence the "Union" part of the name, but it still always made me laugh.)[/quote]

My favorite denom name: [b]Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptist.[/b]

Runners-up:

[b]The Church of God with Signs Following[/b] - the name applied to Pentecostal holiness churches that engage in the practice of snake handling and drinking poison in their religious worship services, based on Mark 16:17-18.

(Shoulda asked Budge if she handled snakes and drank poison.)

[b]Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God[/b]

[b]Duck River (and Kindred) Associations of Baptists[/b]

Likos

[johnnydigit]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1271726' date='May 12 2007, 12:11 AM']I think Protestant is still an apt term, despite the fact that the majority aren't actively protesting.

I think it speaks to the historic roots of these denominations, which are still there even if some non-denominational Christians don't claim them or even know of them.

And, as Likos said, there are an ever-increasing number of denominations, many of which are founded in protest over something even if it wasn't the Catholic church.
(as an aside, my favorite church name: The Union Separate Baptist Church. This was the historic name of a Baptist church I attended for a while. They formed around the time of the Civil War, hence the "Union" part of the name, but it still always made me laugh.)[/quote]

i agree. these fancy labels help to keep the youth and baby christians ignorant to the history of christianity. they become completely ignorant of the catholic church, and their parents and those in the know would like to keep it this way. they don't want their kids asking them what exactly it is they are protesting. my favorite quote, "Catholics are Christian?"

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1271646' date='May 11 2007, 09:20 PM'][b][size=3]Webster:[/size] [/b]

[u][b]Heretic[/b][/u]

1. A professed believer who maintains beliefs contrary to those accepted by his or her church.

2. A baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith.

[u][b]Heresy:[/b][/u] religious opinion or doctrine at variance with the accepted doctrine.

I think the Church makes a distinction among those who rejected the Truth and were involved in the original heresies of Protestantism, and those who, through no fault of their own, are born into that belief system and remain in it. Emphasis on [b]through no fault of their own[/b]. Willful and knowing rejection of the Church and its teachings is considered heresy.

However, a person who is baptized Catholic and dissents from the Church's teaching is designated a heretic in canon law.

Father G, please correct me if I am wrong.

Likos[/quote]


thanks for that. protestant, heretic, same to me. as harsh as it sounds, it's the truth.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='johnnydigit' post='1271741' date='May 12 2007, 02:32 AM']i agree. these fancy labels help to keep the youth and baby christians ignorant to the history of christianity. they become completely ignorant of the catholic church, and their parents and those in the know would like to keep it this way. they don't want their kids asking them what exactly it is they are protesting. my favorite quote, "Catholics are Christian?"[/quote]
Totally agree ... the further from the label, the further from the questions. And I think that's a bad thing for all involved, because you SHOULD know the history of your own faith.

[quote name='johnnydigit' post='1271741' date='May 12 2007, 02:32 AM']thanks for that. protestant, heretic, same to me. as harsh as it sounds, it's the truth.[/quote]
it's important to distinguish between material and formal heresy here.

[Paladin]

According to the papal bull Cantate Domino via the Council of Florence:
[quote]...after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they [the law]could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation.[/quote]
That makes me and most males on this board anathema.

Point being: anathemazation and heresey are usually temporal directives. Clearly at the time of the Council of Florence, people were circumcising with attention to Mosaic law rather than medical knowledge. It was necessary to declare heretics those who promolgated that practice. Now that few Catholic practice Mosaic law, the anathemization doesn't really apply. Same deal with the Council of Trent's anathemization of Luther and his followers: they were actively choosing to reject the Church. While there are some that still do that - and they are still rightly called heretics - there are others that have no beef with the Church, and the Church recognizes that. Check out [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html"]Unitatis Redintegratio[/url], the decree of ecumenism to see what the Church really teaches about Christian brethren separated from the See of Peter.

My consideration of classification is really more about how to bring them back than how to properly dismiss them. When you're talking about certain Protestants like Budge's ilk, your strategy is likely to use a lot of apologetics, history education, and counter points. When evangelizing the "Bible Christian," I think you could be a lot more focused on opening up the Scriptures to the truth of the Church's teaching instead of making parries and ripostes.

[Aloysius]

most American males. From what I understand circumcision is still uncommon in Europe. and besides, it'd be the parents and doctors, not the actual males themselves if it was done to them as babes (if you went to get a circumcision done as an adult, and didn't have medical reasons for it, then you've anathematized yourself)

That anathema is still in effect for anyone who would "observe" circumcision out of religious or cultural reasons. medical reasons were not in its scope, because no such idea existd at the time, and Pius XII answered that medical reasons were permittable. I do believe that quote comes from the Bull of Union with the Copts, which means they were likely arguing against doing it in order to be able to blend in culturally with the muslims when they said "whether or not one puts hope in it". I personally disagree with the medical reasons, as do a growing number of health professionals from what I understand, but that's a whole other debate... dig it up if you like, it's been done before. hehehe

Anyway, yes, it does come down to culpability for rejecting the Church for present day followers of these heretical sects that were raised in them; and many who are raised in them do not have that culpability, if that's your point.

But anathemas made about this or that principal of faith or morals by an ecumenical council would remain in force today.