|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What do we mean by Protestant, or indeed Reformed?
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
The thread about the enthronement of Archbishop Justin raised the question of what is meant by Protestant, and the point was raised that it is not a synonym for Reformed. So, my question is, what do these terms mean?
The Church of England claims to be "both Catholic and Reformed". Are these terms of liturgy, theology, organisation, or something else?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
The term 'Reformed' refers to a Calvinistic theological perspective. My understanding is that the CofE is traditionally Catholic in liturgical and ecclesiastical terms, and Calvinistic in theological terms.
However, not all Protestants are Calvinists; John Wesley's Methodists and their revivalist and Pentecostal descendants are described as Arminian. Presumably not all Anglicans are Calvinists either, and this messageboard has taught me that some of them chafe against Catholic liturgies and ecclesiastical controls.
I'll leave it to a specialist to describe Calvinism and Armenianism, but I get the impression that the distinctions have more or less collapsed in British Christianity now. Or maybe it's simply that the terminology has been banished from the pulpit and from church life. Most of the people who seem to discuss the issue online are American. Some of them feel that the self-help, can-do implications of Arminianism have influenced almost all American churches, regardless of their official doctrines. Could the same be said of British churches? I don't know.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Some of the Protestant ones are called "Kirks" in Scotland, and we have no Bishops, but men and women "ordained" in charge of the Kirks. It's quite different from CofE ones and definitely from RC.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I've never understood the 'reformed' in 'catholic and reformed', as a description of the C of E, to mean Reformed (capital letter) = Calvinist. Obviously there is a Calvinist element within the C of E, stronger at some times and some places than in others. But most Anglicans wouldn't own the title Calvinist (indeed most of us wouldn't understand what Calvinism is!).
To my mind, Catholic is the noun and reformed the adjective. The essential nature of the Church is to be Catholic, but it needs to be reformed from time to time (or rather, continually) to keep it so.
Protestant is a perfectly respectable term to describe more or less the same thing. Those of us who are by nature a bit rebellious, even non-conformist (though not Nonconformist) ought to rejoice in the description of Protestant. Unfortunately the term has come to mean the opposite of Catholic, and to be associated with Ian Paisley, with the street-corner ranters against Popery, or with the gloomier aspects of bible-focused and unsacramental religion.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I should probably clarify my current level of understanding.
As I see it, the Reformation split the western church, between those who remained in full communion with the RCC, and those who did not. Those parts of the western church and their offshoots which remain out of communion with Rome I would consider to be Protestant. I would also consider them to be reformed, having been transformed by the Reformation, in one way or another.
I struggle to see how a definition of Reformed can be limited only to Calvinism, as that would exclude Lutherans. I associate Calvinism with the Westminster Confession, which is still endorsed in full by few Christians, and never by the Church of England.
To be Protestant but not Reformed would seem to me to be limited to the sedevacantists.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Angloid
Oh, I know that the terms 'Calvinist' and 'Arminian' aren't really used or understood nowadays, and that not all Anglicans are Calvinist! I think this kind of terminology is about traditional rather than current differences.
The impression I'm getting already from this thread is that 'reformed' has two distinct meanings: it either means 'Protestant', as in the CofE and in Lutheranism, or it means 'Calvinist'. However, I've always read that the 'Reformed' part in the URC name was a reference to the traditional Calvinism of the two old denominations that merged in its creation. And the analysts of one Methodist church survey say it's rather odd for Methodists to describe themselves as 'reformed', since this term designates Calvinism, and John Wesley's Methodists, as I noted before, aren't known for their Calvinism. The commentators wouldn't have said this if they'd taken this word simply to mean 'Protestant', because by that token, all Protestants are 'reformed', and Methodists are obviously Protestants.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
This Anglican is proud to be a Protestant, and a Calvinist.
Oh shit, pride is a sin...
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
However, not all Protestants are Calvinists; John Wesley's Methodists and their revivalist and Pentecostal descendants are described as Arminian.
Erm, not exactly. Methodists, Salvationists and Nazarenes (I can't speak for the Penties) are acdtually Wesleyans, not true Arminians. The difference is that we, whilst not being Calvinists, would nonetheless subscribe to that part of Calvinism called 'total depravity.'
- soemthing that Arminians don't subscribe to. They say that one can simply choose to follow Christ; Wesleyans say that is impossible due to sin and that prevenient grace is required.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
...or with the gloomier aspects of bible-focused and unsacramental religion.
None taken!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
- soemthing that Arminians don't subscribe to. They say that one can simply choose to follow Christ; Wesleyans say that is impossible due to sin and that prevenient grace is required.
I doubt very much they would say one can simply choose to follow Christ. It's not a simple choice at all, even to an Arminian.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
The "Anglicans are not Protestant" idea got traction with the Anglo-Catholic Revival. "Protestant" was really a reference to "Anglicans who don't agree with us."
It has gained serious currency in the US and Canada, much to my regret. It does a large disservice to much of Anglican history and an especial disservice to Methodists who only gradually separated from the Anglicans in a series of complicated steps 1783-1820 or so.
In Canada the Calvinist/Arminian division collapsed completely in 1925 when the United Church was formed by merger between the Methodists, most Presbyterians, and the Congregationalists. The Twenty Articles, our doctrinal statement, are silent about Calvinism/Arminianism and most ministers and congregations just amble along and don't give it a second thought.
Anglo-Catholicism goes for Sacramental Arminianism, which is against Calvinism in both aspects.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
However, not all Protestants are Calvinists; John Wesley's Methodists and their revivalist and Pentecostal descendants are described as Arminian.
Erm, not exactly. Methodists, Salvationists and Nazarenes (I can't speak for the Penties) are acdtually Wesleyans, not true Arminians. The difference is that we, whilst not being Calvinists, would nonetheless subscribe to that part of Calvinism called 'total depravity.'
- soemthing that Arminians don't subscribe to. They say that one can simply choose to follow Christ; Wesleyans say that is impossible due to sin and that prevenient grace is required.
I defer to your greater theological knowledge, and I'm glad that my post prompted you to bring more precision to the debate. However, in my reading John Wesley is usually placed close to the Arminian camp than anything else; certainly, the Wesleyan Methodists are routinely contrasted with the Calvinistic types that predominated in Wales. I admit that my sources are often historical rather than theological.
In terms of 'total depravity', isn't it the case that Wesley eventually emphasised victory over sin rather than depravity? Also I would be wary of implying that Methodism, Salvationism and the Nazarenes have taken Wesley in the same direction up to the present point.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[qb]Erm, not exactly. Methodists, Salvationists and Nazarenes (I can't speak for the Penties) are actually Wesleyans, not true Arminians. The difference is that we, whilst not being Calvinists, would nonetheless subscribe to that part of Calvinism called 'total depravity.'
There are some Methodists who are Calvinist enough to subscribe to total depravity, but not many of them on this side of the pond. I don't know what passes for Methodist in England.
--Tom Clune
[ 24. March 2013, 00:08: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I struggle to see how a definition of Reformed can be limited only to Calvinism, as that would exclude Lutherans.
The story in Calvinist circles is that the term derives from a letter by the Queen of England who described the Protestants in Geneva as "more reformed". By this she meant that the Calvinists had gone further in breaking with Rome. i.e. Luther strove to eliminate any ecclesiastical traditions which he felt were contrary to Scripture-- Calvin sought to eliminate those not specifically mandated in Scripture.
That's our story and we're stickin' to it.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
However, not all Protestants are Calvinists; John Wesley's Methodists and their revivalist and Pentecostal descendants are described as Arminian.
Erm, not exactly. Methodists, Salvationists and Nazarenes (I can't speak for the Penties) are acdtually Wesleyans, not true Arminians. The difference is that we, whilst not being Calvinists, would nonetheless subscribe to that part of Calvinism called 'total depravity.'
- soemthing that Arminians don't subscribe to. They say that one can simply choose to follow Christ; Wesleyans say that is impossible due to sin and that prevenient grace is required.
Sorry Muddy, but Arminians do subscribe to the doctrines of both total depravity and prevenient grace.
Roger E. Olson's Arminian Theology: Myth And Realities is the best authority on the subject of which I am aware.
There was a stream of Calvinist Methodism which originated with Whitefield, was exemplified in the Countess Of Huntingdon's Connexion (a term which always sets my puerile sense of humour sniggering) and which today is practically moribund.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
The United Church of Canada believes in total depravity:
Article V of the Basis of Union (Of the Sin of Man)
quote:
We believe that our first parents, being tempted, chose evil, and so fell away from God and came under the power of sin, the penalty of which is eternal death; and that, by reason of this disobedience, all men are born with a sinful nature, that we have broken God's law and that no man can be saved but by His grace.
This did not drive away the Methodist Church of Canada.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Arminianism is basically Remonstrant Calvinism (as expressed at the Synod of Dort). The major difference between Arminianism and mainstream Calvinism is that Arminians believed that unimpaired free will was necessary to human dignity.
I have heard people describe Catholicism and Lutheranism as "Arminian," which is a rather bizarre historical error.
It would not be an exaggeration to describe the Edwardian and Elizabethan prayer books as Calvinist. Many of the Caroline Divines were Calvinists as well--by which I mean they were in line with the theology of the Institutes.
Calvinism is far from being non-sacramental. Calvin's theology of the Eucharist is probably higher than most people who haven't read him think.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Many of the Caroline Divines were Calvinists as well
With the rather high-profile exception of the Laudians, who were opposed by the Calvinitsts as much for their ecclesiology and sacramentalism as for their soteriology and anthropology.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
The term Protestant originated with the Protestation presented by Lutherans at the Diet of Speyer (1529), protesting against brakes on further reform of the church, and as the ODCC points out, in the sixteenth century was sometimes used of Lutherans to distinguish from them from the Reformed.
The Thirty-Nine Articles are thoroughly Reformed in their soteriology but not their ecclesiology, and the ODCC also points out that the word Protestant was never used in the BCP.
(The ODCC also makes the interesting point that Charles I used the word Protestant to mean neither Roman Catholic nor Puritan, ie Elizabeth’s via media!)
All the Reformed are Protestant, but not all Protestants are Reformed – exceptions include liberal Protestants, Arminian Protestants and Calvinist predestinarians who reject other Calvinist distinctives such as paedobaptism (eg Spurgeon), presbyterian ecclesiology and opposition to hymn-singing.
Today Protestantism means not Orthodox (despite Wesley’s sympathies with aspects of Orthodoxy) or Roman Catholic.
The boundaries with Roman Catholicism have become blurred since the advent of the charismatic movement in 1959 (in the preceding half-century, a Roman Catholic Pentecostal would have been an oxymoron, but a charismatic Roman Catholic is not) and by the “co-belligerence” or “ecumenism of the trenches” which has marked evangelical and RC co-operation in opposing things such as abortion, and which has been accompanied by theological initiatives such as the Evangelical And Catholics Together movement.
I don’t think anyone has yet mentioned the Anabaptists, who were and are a product of the Reformation and are undoubtedly Protestant, but whose soteriology is certainly not Reformed.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
...or with the gloomier aspects of bible-focused and unsacramental religion.
None taken!
None intended, Mudfrog! Sorry for the ambiguity. I can't imagine that your religion, bible-focused and unsacramental though it may be, is anything like gloomy. I hope you know what I mean though.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
This may surprise people but please be patient. There are several definitions of Reformed. Protestants are those who protested at the state of the Western Church in the 16th Century and were excommunicated by the see of Rome. It was 50/50 responsibilityand split the western church in two, the Roman Catholic Church was formed at the Council of Trent.
However lets go back to the state of the Protestants churches in the immediate situation after the split. They were dispersed set of churches centred around a number of city states. There was Luther's one, there was one in Basel, there was one in Zurich under Huldyrich Zwingli, there was Geneva under William Farel, there was Strasbourg. I doubt I have listed all of them. The absence of Calvin is deliberate, he is second generation, not one of this original. So not one Protestant Church, there has never been a split between the Reformed and Lutherans because we have never been together!
Now enter John Calvin. First he is French, a refugee and I think never ever took citizenship Geneva though he did of Strasbourg. In someways you need to split Calvin the theologian from Calvin the Church adminstrators. The theologian is pivotal in church thought, he basically takes the theology of the Western church and reframes it in a way that paves the way for systematic theology.
As an adminstrator he is far sighted and does a number of important things. I would note among these the greater involvement of laity in church administration. However he also wanted to create unity in these diverse city churches.
He failed with the tri-partite version including the Lutherans, I suspect trying to reconcile Luther and Zwingli was beyond even John Calvin despite them being both dead by this time. However a second attempt resulted in agreement between the Genevans and the Church in Zurich. As a unity across churches created by the Reformation it has used the title Reformed. The Reformed tradition has ever since been one that splits and merges. Calvin seems to be the father of ecumenism.
So now there are three different definitions of Reformed
- The western church as a whole is Reformed in the sense that the theological debate takes place largely within the terms of the debate as created by Reformed theologians. If you are arguing about whether Arminianism or Predestinarianism is right you are conducting a discussion in Reformed theology and intriguing one that would not have seem ill formed to Calvin.
- The churches that trace their line back to the Consensus Trigernius, many of which belong to World Communion of Reformed Churches. There are people who have split who do not belong. This intriguingly has a very broad range of theology. It never for them has been solely John Calvin. The theology is broad.
- Finally there are those who are inspired by John Calvin and see him as almost the sole theologian for them and often summarise it as in TULIP. These are quite often quite separate from those in definition 2. The fact that if we take Calvin on his own terms he would be highly doubtful over the TULIP.
I am Reformed in the sense of 1 & 2 but I owe too much to other theologians to be 3.
Jengie
[ 24. March 2013, 09:47: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Actually rethinking 3 needs splitting into 2, there are those who work in the tradition that comes for Calvin and is broad, I am among them and the 39 articles is recognisably a Reformed document to those of us who are. It is low Calvinist.
Then there are the purist or narrow Reformed which is what I describe above. Those who seek to out Calvin Calvin and to keep to a pure theology. I tend to refer to these as Neo-Calvinist,who take only John Calvin as authoritative and treat the rest of the theological tradition only to the extent it fits with this.
The CofE has 1 & 3a definition of Reformed. Fails 2 outright and has a few who want to make it 3b
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
My apologies about misrepresenting the Arminian position; I must have read somewhere, probably from a Calvinistic source, that Arminians don't believe in total depravity and that they believe that a person can simply decide to follow Jesus though their own volition. I have heard it said by Calvinists that in Arminianism, such faith is contributed by the believer and therefore is salvation by works rather than grace.
I know that in Wesleyanism we do believe in TD and that saving faith is given as a result of the prevenient grace of God. That is different to me deciding to put my faith in God and simply making a choice to invite Jesus into my heart. It is that difference that I thought was seen in Arminianism.
If not, then I am slightly confused. Who are the people then, who do not believe in prevenient grace and total depravity?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I struggle to see how a definition of Reformed can be limited only to Calvinism, as that would exclude Lutherans.
Well, its just a name. The Romans are not the only catholic Christians, the churches in communion are not the only orthodox, Anglicans aren't the only Christians in England or who speak English (and most of them these days are neither), Baptist churches are not the only ones who baptise, Presbyterians are not the only ones who ordain presbyters, evangelicals are not the only ones who proclaim the Gospel. And so on. And what JJ said about the history of it.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
There was a stream of Calvinist Methodism which originated with Whitefield, was exemplified in the Countess Of Huntingdon's Connexion (a term which always sets my puerile sense of humour sniggering) and which today is practically moribund.
When I was in my teens there were - probably still are - a few Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion churches in and around Brighton (which is where I'm from).
Howell Harris's & George Whitfield's Calvinist Methodists separated from the CofE in the 1810s and 20s. They became the dominant church in many parts of Wales - most of them joined the new Welsh Presbyterian denomination, which is not very large today but was hugely important in the 19th century.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Countess's lot are still alive and kicking in the Fens.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
A key issue for Calvinist theology deals with the question of the omnipresence of the human nature of Christ. A pure Calvinist would argue that since Jesus Christ ascended, it would be impossible for him to be in, with and under the bread and the wine as the body and blood of Christ (I understand I am taking a Lutheran approach to this).
Episcopalians believe that the body and blood are with the bread and wine (consubstantiation).
Therefore they are not reformed in the since of being a Calvinist church.
Calvinists also believe in double predestination--just as some are predestined to heaven, others are predestined to hell)
Anglicans--as I understand them--believe that God wants all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth
Therefore Anglicans do not accept Calvinist theology.
Calvinists argue for the Preservation of the Saints--once saved always saved. If you are not acting as a "saved" person, you belong to the "other" group. (my interpretation)
Anglicans do recognize that people can fall away from the faith, and we are all still saints and sinners.
Therefore, Anglicans are not Calvinists.
I think the term "Reformed" for Anglicans goes to their structure more than anything else.
A better term may be "reforming" which is a continuing process, not forgetting its background, but also addressing modern issues.
Reformed is so static. Reforming means the processing is still going on.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
The tern "protestant" was actually coined by Roman Catholics referring to those who were separating themselves from the Bishop of Rome. It was meant as a term of derision.
For the longest time Anglicans and Lutherans avoided the term because we did not want to be lumped in with Calvinists, Arminians, Anabaptists, or Zwinglians. Given the current fundamentalist movement, there are still reasons to avoid the term, in my book.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
No.
quote:
Calvinists also believe in double predestination--just as some are predestined to heaven, others are predestined to hell)
Positively not. There are many, many Calvinists who believe in predestination, just not double-predestination.
quote:
Calvinists argue for the Preservation of the Saints--once saved always saved. If you are not acting as a "saved" person, you belong to the "other" group. (my interpretation)
Who have you been discussing theology with? The only time we can know for sure whether we are saved or not is at the Second Coming.
quote:
pure Calvinist would argue that since Jesus Christ ascended, it would be impossible for him to be in, with and under the bread and the wine as the body and blood of Christ (I understand I am taking a Lutheran approach to this).
Yes, and as a characterization of Reformed views it is flat wrong. If not backsliding into pure Memorialism, classic Calvinism goes for "Spiritual Presence". The United Church of Canada's Basis of Union states it thus:
quote:
The Lord's Supper is the sacrament of communion with Christ and with His people, in which bread and wine are given and received in thankful remembrance of Him and His sacrifice on the Cross; and they who in faith receive the same do, after a spiritual manner, partake of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ to their comfort, nourishment, and growth in grace. All may be admitted to the Lord's Supper who make a credible profession of their faith in the Lord Jesus and of obedience to His law.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The word 'Protestant' comes from the Latin, protestari, meaning "to witness, testify." It does not mean "to protest." The name of "Protestants" was first used by a group of Lutherans about themselves in the 1529 Imperial Diet of Speyer in Germany.
Incidentally:
quote:
"Of all the Protestant groups today, it is The Salvation Army that represents the best chance of entering into full communion with Rome... I'm serious, for I see The Salvation Army as an authentic expression of classical Christianity. (They) are clear about the person and nature of Jesus Christ. You are close to Rome on many ethical issues. The ordination of your officers is for function and good order within the denomination and would not be an issue affecting priesthood." Cardinal Bernard Law
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Just in case someone is unsure about the meaning of 'protestari':
definition
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
For the longest time Anglicans and Lutherans avoided the term...
That's not really true. As well as what SPK said, Anglicans universally regarded themselves as Protestant in the 17th, 18th, and most of the 19th century. And most still do. In the UK its even part of our constitution. The king or queen has to be a Protestant by law. In Ireland, where this stuff matters more than in most places the Church of Ireland is most definitely Protestant. The period of history when its members ran the show is called the Protestant Ascendancy.
And here in England at least some Anglicans self-identify as Calvinists or Reformed. (JJ's sense 3b). And the CofE is and always has been in full communion with some Lutherans.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sonata3
Shipmate
# 13653
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The tern "protestant" was actually coined by Roman Catholics referring to those who were separating themselves from the Bishop of Rome. It was meant as a term of derision.
For the longest time Anglicans and Lutherans avoided the term because we did not want to be lumped in with Calvinists, Arminians, Anabaptists, or Zwinglians. Given the current fundamentalist movement, there are still reasons to avoid the term, in my book.
Which is why I have always liked the description of Anglican and Lutheran churches in the Waterloo Declaration (the full communion agreement between ELCIC and the Anglican Church in Canada): "Lutherans and Anglicans...share a common heritage as catholic churches of the Reformation."
--------------------
"I prefer neurotic people; I like to hear rumblings beneath the surface." Stephen Sondheim
Posts: 386 | From: Between two big lakes | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sonata3:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gramps49:
[qb] The tern "protestant" was actually coined by Roman Catholics referring to those who were separating themselves from the Bishop of Rome. It was meant as a term of derision.
Do you have a source for this? It seems to contradict what I said.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sonata3:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The tern "protestant" was actually coined by Roman Catholics referring to those who were separating themselves from the Bishop of Rome. It was meant as a term of derision.
For the longest time Anglicans and Lutherans avoided the term because we did not want to be lumped in with Calvinists, Arminians, Anabaptists, or Zwinglians. Given the current fundamentalist movement, there are still reasons to avoid the term, in my book.
Which is why I have always liked the description of Anglican and Lutheran churches in the Waterloo Declaration (the full communion agreement between ELCIC and the Anglican Church in Canada): "Lutherans and Anglicans...share a common heritage as catholic churches of the Reformation."
Well let me quote the Westminster Confession at you quote:
The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all
And the Belgic Confession
quote:
We believe and confess
one single catholic or universal church—
a holy congregation and gathering
of true Christian believers,
awaiting their entire salvation in Jesus Christ
being washed by his blood,
and sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit.
Do I need to find more? Basically if a Reformed confession or statement of faith refers to the Church, it explicitly refers to the catholic church.
It may not mean the same thing by Catholic as the Anglican Church does but then neither do the Lutherans nor the Roman Catholics for that matter.
Jengie
[ 24. March 2013, 22:45: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
When I refer to those who recognize the Bishop of Rome as their spiritual leader, I will refer to them as Roman Catholics.
I accept the concept of the catholic church meaning universal. However, many of the fundamentalist evangelist groups would flee from this word.
The topic of this thread, though, was what do we mean by protestant and reformed.
Note to mud: I double checked my information. I was wrong. The term "Lutheran" was coined by the Roman Catholics during the Council of Trent as a term of derision.
Protestant, though, was a political term coined by the princes of Germany who were separating themselves from Rome. The theologians who supported Luther preferred the term "evangelical (catholics)."
However, I will stand by what I said concerning the real presence of Christ in the sacraments and the parts of the TULIP theology I refereed to. As noted, though, some fellowships who come from the Calvinist background have moved away from the strict understanding of TULIP.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
sonata3
Shipmate
# 13653
|
Posted
Jengie, I think your last sentence summarizes our difficulty in this discussion. We are all coming to many of the terms thrown out in this discussion - catholic, reformed/Reformed, Calvinist - through our own denominational, and personal, filters. The terms become slippery. As a Lutheran, I am not prone to thinking of myself as "Protestant." Yet for many of the people with whom I share communion each week, being "Protestant" is an essential part of their identity. Many Anglicans, and some Lutherans, identify as "Anglo-Catholic" or "Evangelical Catholic" as a way of distancing themselves from what they perceive to be more radical expressions of the Reformation. And yet I am well aware that I am in full communion with Presbyterians in the US, and that Christians of Reformed and Lutheran backgrounds form one united church in Germany.
--------------------
"I prefer neurotic people; I like to hear rumblings beneath the surface." Stephen Sondheim
Posts: 386 | From: Between two big lakes | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Right Gramps 49
TULIP was only coined a hundred years after John Calvin. It was coined as part of Dutch controversy.It remains as do all Reformed statements of faith provisional (its not in the Bible). The synod of Ddort statement have not been accepted by Presbyterian a huge subset of the Reformed tradition (CofS is only the Westminster Confession, maybe with Scot thrown in, PCUSA does not have Ddort in there lot and so on.
You really DO NOT KNOW the Reformed tradition but are dealing with a caricature.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
From my point of view the term Reformed (capital R) only applies to those churches that are Calvinistic.
Those UK churches that are Arminian/Wesleyan are from the Catholic tradition that has been reformed from within. This would include The Salvation Army which traces its spirituality, doctrine and government back through Methodism, into Anglicanism and ultimately into Catholicism.
The Calvinistic churches - Presbyterian, Baptist, etc - would not have that ancestry.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
"Consubstantiation" is not an accurate description of Anglican eucharistic theology.
The prayer books (at least before 1979) teach a kind of virtualism in the Eucharist; that the elements are physically unchanged, but that through them the power (virtus) of the Body & Blood of Christ are transferred to believers.
The most common Anglican attitude on the ground is the affirmation of the Real Presence, agnostic as to its mechanics. Although of course you can find Anglicans running the gamut from memorialist to Thomist as far as the Eucharist is concerned.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
As a western Canadian, without much of the sophistication of people from other places with longer history and more understanding of the subtleties, the term Protestant is used here in the specific sense of "not Roman Catholic". "Reformed" usually passes over our heads, but with discussion, we usually understand it to mean "not traditional churches", with that pretty well undefined, but "traditional" most probably meaning meaning churches that were around for the 100 years or so the provinces have existed.
It was interesting to see an eastern church that is in communion with Rome set up a couple of years ago. I don't think it fit with any of the prior understandings for most people (being in communion with Rome is not necessarily obvious), and it was simply considered "other". However, if they have a fall supper* and sell tickets, it will probably aid in understanding.
*means a turkey dinner with all the trimmings. That's about as close as we get to "consubstantiation", with the most critical factor being whether they make tea that doesn't get cross contaminated by being served in coffee urns.
[ 25. March 2013, 02:55: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Calvinists also believe in double predestination--just as some are predestined to heaven, others are predestined to hell)
Positively not. There are many, many Calvinists who believe in predestination, just not double-predestination.
It is true that Calvinists come in various shapes, sizes and numbers of points, but it is also true that Calvin himself believed in double election:
"...for some eternal life is pre-ordained, for others eternal damnation" Institutes Bk 3 Ch xxi
[ 25. March 2013, 06:04: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Therefore Anglicans do not accept Calvinist theology.
Up to a point, Lord Copper...
The anthropology and soteriology of the Thirty-Nine Articles is certainly in the Augustinian-Calvinist tradition - see Articles IX to XVIII.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I don't know whether this has something to do with what side of the water you're coming from, but Ken and Jengie are the people whose contributions to this thread make sense to me.
Whether some Anglo-Catholics like it or not, the CofE has been unequivocally Protestant since the accession of Queen Elizabeth in 1558, and Reformed, in the sense of being on the reformed side of the Reformation.
It has usually been rather less unequivocally Reformed in the Calvinist, Westminster Confession sense. The establishment in the later part of Queen Elizabeth's reign is the nearest point that tradition came to being the CofE norm. I suspect most of the laity never noticed, yet alone took the bait.
Two things that have been consistent have been a suspicion of liturgical flummery and a suspicion of the Pope and Popery. These are still more prevalent than some shipmates would like to believe. But it is silly to ignore this.
[ 25. March 2013, 11:46: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
As someone coming from an 'unchurched' background, I wonder whether the baggage of this terminology should be jettisoned as it seems to perpetuate unnecessary divisions.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
One person's ballast and baggage that can be jettisoned overboard is someone else's precious distinctive - so it is very hard to decide what to ditch - even if it were possible.
So, for instance, to pick a few Shippies at random - Mudfrog would cling to one piece of baggage that Jengie, say, or Ken, say, would be happy to chuck overboard - whilst he would equally be willing to kick other things into touch (to mix metaphors) which they would undoubtedly want to retain.
This doesn't just happen in Protestant circles. It happens all over.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Backing up a bit, I find myself in sympathy with Jengie's somewhat exasperated tone at times when posters miss the nuances within the overall and broadly Reformed position. I think this is because - inevitably given the nature of these things - there are so many self-appointed spokespeople who would claim that their 'take' is the correct Reformed one.
If you have a semper reformanda agenda then everything's up for grabs (other than what's between the covers of the Bible and even then there isn't agreement as to exactly what it all means, of course).
The corollary of that is inevitably a 'I'm more Reformed/less Reformed than you' approach. If we're going to be reformed or Reformed then we have to live with that.
The loudest voices are often at the extremes. I've been on RC and Orthodox chat-rooms where posters - particularly from the US - have only ever come across particular forms of fundamentalist Protestant and they assume that, for instance, all Reformed Christians are into double-predestination or that all Pentecostals believe that you have to speak in tongues in order to be saved ...
They take some convincing that not all Protestants adhere to this kind of views.
Conversely, others have only come across ultra-liberal Protestants and they seem to think that we're all desperately liberal and out to undermine the faith and so on ...
It all depends on who you've been exposed to the most.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Therefore Anglicans do not accept Calvinist theology.
Up to a point, Lord Copper...
The anthropology and soteriology of the Thirty-Nine Articles is certainly in the Augustinian-Calvinist tradition - see Articles IX to XVIII.
However, a large number of Anglicans wouldn't agree with the bulk of the 39 articles (the Reformed leaning would take exception to what they would see as the Erastianism of certain articles) even assuming they had read them.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Raptors Eye
The problem with jettisoning the language is we would have to create a new set to talk about these things. No language is going to be entirely neutral and efficient and yes it has a habit of picking up layers but that is a property of language for you not Christianity. I have at times played with using alternative terms but it only works as long as you make a good deal of effort to keep them in people's conciousness.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fëanor
Shipmate
# 14514
|
Posted
Regarding double-predestination, ISTM that if one accepts predestination to salvation, then there exist only three logical corollaries regarding those not in the set of the "predestined":
1. They are damned (which is indistinguishable from double-predestination -- by selecting members into set A, one is simultaneously selecting members into the set B which is equivalent to Not-A)
2. They cease to exist (annihilation-ism)
3. They don't exist (universalism)
As such, I've never given much credence to people who claim to believe in predestination, yet disavow double-predestination, annihilation-ism, and universalism.
Perhaps one of the ship's Reformed contingent could explain my error?
Posts: 177 | From: Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
I once thought that one could happily classify all non-Catholic and non Orthodox christians as Protestant or Reformed until I was informed by posters here that this was emphatically not the case.
In Marseilles on the main street,la Canebiere,there is a late 19th century church,called popularly the 'Eglise des Reformes'
It is ,in fact the Catholic church of St Vincent de Paul built on the site of an earlier convent of the Reformed Augustinians.So 'Reformed' can be used for Catholic churches also,although I did get my nose on a plate for suggesting this might be possible.I'm prepared to accept that this is a quid pro quo for the many arguments about who has the right to call themselves Catholic.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
