|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Just who DOES identify as Protestant?
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
I have a new job. As well as my work in public libraries, I am now working as a market researcher, going door to door with surveys which I have to entice people to take.
The one I've been conducting the past couple of days was on people's opinions of the EU; apparently the same survey goes out in different EU countries, to gain people's perception of what the EU stands for and what is being done about the economic situation.
All interesting stuff, if a little repetitive, as these things so often are. But the thing that I want to focus on here, was a question in the classification section which asked people which religion they considered themselves to be. There were a series of radio buttons, so you could only pick one. The first three were Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, then came 'Other Christian' followed by other religions such as Islam, Hindu etc, then there were options like 'Other', 'Atheist', 'Agnostic/Don't Know', and probably a 'Prefer not to say'.
To my mind, if someone is a Christian, the first three options should have all the possibilities covered - if one is not Catholic or Orthodox, one must be some kind of protestant. Maybe that's a bit simplistic, but I think it would generally be held to be true by those who are informed about various branches of Christianity.
But it seems the man on the street is not very informed. Nobody in my sample chose Protestant, although one said they were C of E (but never attended church) and chose 'Other', and another, a regular weekly churchgoer, chose 'Other Christian', commenting that they didn't know what a Protestant was.
That's the trouble with the term Protestant in my opinion. People who ought to fall into that category, either don't know what it means, or think of themselves as 'Christian' primarily, maybe evangelical if pushed, but Protestant is just a term that is not commonly heard, except when hearing news about places like Northern Ireland.
Whereas Catholic and Orthodox are meaningful descriptors of those who belong to those churches, I thing Protestant has probably had its day. But what can we replace it with?
Just who DOES identify as Protestant?
Discuss!!
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curious Kitten
Shipmate
# 11953
|
Posted
It's better than Christian. One delightful survey I didn't run away from fast enough changed my answer from Christian to Other Religion and penciled in Catholic when I told them my regular church was the Catholic Cathedral.
Mind you, they also tried to save my soul by proof texting at me without knowing the rest of the chapter or even complete verses.
[ 22. June 2014, 20:16: Message edited by: Curious Kitten ]
--------------------
Happiness is not having what we want but wanting what we have.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I think some people would want to distinguish at least between the Anabaptist branches and other non-RC, non-Orthodox groups. Otherwise (and maybe even so) the term "Protestant" will encompass such a wide variety of believers that it is almost useless. (E.g., Christian Scientist, Quaker, Southern Baptist snake-handlers, Seventh Day Adventists.) What do you do with the Coptic Orthodox Church? (The hot potato on the Ship is probably whether the Church of England is Protestant; I gather many would say not.)
By the way, did that collection of radio buttons include Jews? If so, is it lumping together the several major divisions of Judaism? If it includes Islam, does it distinguish between Sunni and Shiite?
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
The thing is HCH at least two historic UK denominations cross that boundary: the URC and the Baptists Union. Both of these draw a mix of Non-Conformists who pushed out of the CofE in 1549, who were largely Magisterial Reformed types (e.g. Calvinist and Lutherans) and Separatists who never even under the Commonwealth had any truck with CofE who were largely Radical Reformed types e.g. Anabaptists. You have to add a fair sprinkling of the heterodox and you get a mix that makes the CofE look tame.
To give you some idea what this means. In the URC we have trouble with "liberal" as our liberal wing are often those with a strong Anabaptists heritage.
Jengie
[ 22. June 2014, 20:39: 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
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I'm not sure very many CofE folk would want to choose "Protestant" without putting some sort of qualification on it. I've even heard pretty conservative CofE Evangelicals insist on the formula "Catholic and Reformed".
For Christian groupings alone, at the hospital where I work we've got Orthodox Christian, Roman Catholic, Catholic, Anglican, Church of England, Methodist, Baptist, Protestant, United Reformed, Presbyterian, Evangelical Christian, Pentecostal, Free Church, Nonconformist, Seventh Day Adventist, Christian, Quaker, Unitarian, Christian Scientist, Mormon, and Jehovah's Witness. (I know some people would dispute whether some of those "count". Also, I'm working from memory and may well have missed someone!)
Not that many people opt for "Protestant". (Well, look at the choice they've got!) Some seem to choose "Nonconformist" because they don't want to identify with anything in particular, rather than because they're Nonconformist in the traditional sense.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Sorry my poor checking. Yes I did check and that is why I got it wrong, as I keep forgetting the earlier acts of Uniformity.
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
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Back in the day my boss was from Glasgow. He claimed to be Protestant and not Christian. The same ideas existed in Northern Ireland. We had a few discussions about what Protestant and Catholic meant, he refused to accept it was anything other than political.
For this reason I refuse to self describe as protestant, to some it would mean I was claiming to belong to a political grouping where I do not belong.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Who self-describes as protestant? Non-Catholic and non-Orthodox christians in Catholic or Orthodox-dominated countries, that's who. Especially French ones.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
Perhaps you should specify what denominations fall under "Protestant" within your survey if that is how you wish those individuals to identify themselves?
As an aside, I would be surprised if you had the same result in the U.S.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Other than Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox, don't forget the non-Chalcedonians (Armenians, Copts, and Ethiopians), the Mar Toma, Syriac Whatsits (apologies to Syriac Whatsians; can't remember the name of the church), and so on. Folks that broke off from the Orthodox/Catholic Church before 1054.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Lutherans are not Reformed.
As for whether we're Protestant, that depends upon who's asking. Often here Protestant is taken as equivalent to non-Real Presence and non-baptismal regeneration. Which wouldn't fit.
So we always have to ask, what exactly do you mean by Protestant?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
the Mar Toma,
The Mar Thoma church is Protestant in the Anglican tradition, and took its final form in 1889.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I've also noticed that some historians of religion see Pentecostalism as a separate development from Protestantism.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
So we always have to ask, what exactly do you mean by Protestant?
Churches that came out of the Protestant Reformation as led by Luther, Calvin, et al., or those descended from them, or those created subsequently in their image and/or likeness.
It's a start.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
the Mar Toma,
The Mar Thoma church is Protestant in the Anglican tradition, and took its final form in 1889.
OK.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Lutherans are not Reformed.
As for whether we're Protestant, that depends upon who's asking. Often here Protestant is taken as equivalent to non-Real Presence and non-baptismal regeneration. Which wouldn't fit.
So we always have to ask, what exactly do you mean by Protestant?
What about Spiritual Presence and Baptismal Regeneration? That's classic Reformed/Methodist and the doctrinal position of the United Church of Canada per the Articles of Faith, 1925.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've also noticed that some historians of religion see Pentecostalism as a separate development from Protestantism.
I think it is some stretch to say that Pentecostalism is a separate development. Its roots are clearly within Protestantism.
What about the vestigial forms of groups that split off from the Catholic Church before Luther? And where do we put people like the Doukhobors, whose roots are in Eastern Europe?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Lutherans are not Reformed.
As for whether we're Protestant, that depends upon who's asking. Often here Protestant is taken as equivalent to non-Real Presence and non-baptismal regeneration. Which wouldn't fit.
So we always have to ask, what exactly do you mean by Protestant?
What about Spiritual Presence and Baptismal Regeneration? That's classic Reformed/Methodist and the doctrinal position of the United Church of Canada per the Articles of Faith, 1925.
Lutherans believe in "total" Real Presence, body-soul-spirit-and-whatever-else presence of Christ. I'm suspecting that's quite different from what you mean by Spiritual Presence.
I don't know if or how your position on baptismal regeneration differs from ours, it may or may not. But no surprises if there is some continuity, the Reformed took their beginning from Lutheranism.
To be blunt about it, our position on the sacraments is the one that Catholics would probably describe as wrongheaded and lacking clarity, while most Protestants would call plain superstition. If not worse.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
So we always have to ask, what exactly do you mean by Protestant?
Churches that came out of the Protestant Reformation as led by Luther, Calvin, et al., or those descended from them, or those created subsequently in their image and/or likeness.
It's a start.
True. Though it is a bit unfair to the Hussites etc. who preceded Luther and whom he acknowledged as forerunners.
But yes, if we're clearly speaking in historical terms, we will acknowledge the term Protestant.
Trouble is, a great many people we speak with aren't up on their history OR the differences between denominations, and immediately classify Lutherans among the Reformed or even among those popularly called Evangelicals. Which is almost as misleading as those who believe us to be Roman Catholics in disguise.
Neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Trouble is, a great many people we speak with aren't up on their history OR the differences between denominations, and immediately classify Lutherans among the Reformed or even among those popularly called Evangelicals.
Of course the Lutheran Church in Germany is called "Evangelische." ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've also noticed that some historians of religion see Pentecostalism as a separate development from Protestantism.
I think it is some stretch to say that Pentecostalism is a separate development. Its roots are clearly within Protestantism.
But we could equally say the roots of Protestantism are within Catholicism. We're all related somewhere along the line, but the question is at what point we become significantly different.
Pentecostalism is certainly developing a life of its own in the world today. There are some who suggest that Pentecostalism represents the future, in which case Protestantism may come to rely on Pentecostalism rather than the other way round.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Trouble is, a great many people we speak with aren't up on their history OR the differences between denominations, and immediately classify Lutherans among the Reformed or even among those popularly called Evangelicals.
Of course the Lutheran Church in Germany is called "Evangelische."
And the main Lutheran body in the US is the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Obviously, the primary meaning of "evangelical" has shifted.
But yes, there's no question that Lutherans are not Reformed. Historically, the three main strands of continental Protestantism were the Evangelical (Lutheran), Reformed (primarily Calvinist, though some others as well) and Anabaptist.
But I've never known any Lutherans who eschew the label Protestant.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Lutherans are not Reformed.
As for whether we're Protestant, that depends upon who's asking. Often here Protestant is taken as equivalent to non-Real Presence and non-baptismal regeneration. Which wouldn't fit.
So we always have to ask, what exactly do you mean by Protestant?
What about Spiritual Presence and Baptismal Regeneration? That's classic Reformed/Methodist and the doctrinal position of the United Church of Canada per the Articles of Faith, 1925.
Lutherans believe in "total" Real Presence, body-soul-spirit-and-whatever-else presence of Christ. I'm suspecting that's quite different from what you mean by Spiritual Presence.
I don't know if or how your position on baptismal regeneration differs from ours, it may or may not. But no surprises if there is some continuity, the Reformed took their beginning from Lutheranism.
To be blunt about it, our position on the sacraments is the one that Catholics would probably describe as wrongheaded and lacking clarity, while most Protestants would call plain superstition. If not worse.
I think you may be equating Protestantism = Baptist, because that's the non-regenerative, pure memorialist line. And you've gone and coloured over vast swaths of people who do identify as Protestant: The United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church of the US, the UCCan and a large part of the United Church of Christ. And that's much of Protestantism in North America today.
Respectfully, I think your definition of Protestant is far too narrow.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Uh no, I don't think so. I'm aware that other positions exist besides the pure memorialist one. I'm simply saying that to the best of my knowledge, Lutherans are unique in their particular view of the Lord's Supper, which, when explained, tends to get major raised eyebrows. We are neither memorialist nor transubstantiationalist nor even consubstantiationalist. And we don't hold to the Calvinist position described in the Institutes, or to its later variant.
As for baptismal regeneration--
yes, we do hold to this, but we also hold that the saved can fall away and be lost. I do not know whether there are other Protestants who can say that they hold both doctrines at the same time.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
But I've never heard anyone suggest that Lutheran views on the Real Presence or on baptismal regeneration disqualify Lutherans from being Protestant. I'd think any raised eyebrows would have to come from people who don't understand what Protestant means.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Uh no, I don't think so. I'm aware that other positions exist besides the pure memorialist one. I'm simply saying that to the best of my knowledge, Lutherans are unique in their particular view of the Lord's Supper, which, when explained, tends to get major raised eyebrows. We are neither memorialist nor transubstantiationalist nor even consubstantiationalist. And we don't hold to the Calvinist position described in the Institutes, or to its later variant.
As for baptismal regeneration--
yes, we do hold to this, but we also hold that the saved can fall away and be lost. I do not know whether there are other Protestants who can say that they hold both doctrines at the same time.
1) "Consubstantialism" is the classic handle for the Lutheran position; and
2) Regeneration + Saved can fall away is Arminianism and the classic and current position of Methodism.
Try again.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But I've never heard anyone suggest that Lutheran views on the Real Presence or on baptismal regeneration disqualify Lutherans from being Protestant. I'd think any raised eyebrows would have to come from people who don't understand what Protestant means.
True. But there's a shedload of thrm in my experience.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
1) "Consubstantialism" is the classic handle for the Lutheran position; and
2) Regeneration + Saved can fall away is Arminianism and the classic and current position of Methodism.
Try again.
I will.
Consubstantiationalism is close, but no cigar. The Lutheran position differs in that we refuse to specify exactly how the elements are present, or how Christ is present. In other words, we're bloody annoying, we just keep quoting the texts at people and refusing to draw conclusions, and we don't care.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
As for the classic Arminian position, I was unaware that Arminians believe in baptismal regeneration. Seriously, they do? I'm referring to the belief that baptism creates faith and regeneration in a person (including infants) because of the promise associated with it--rather, the Holy Spirit does so, but that work is certain and not conditional on anything but God's promise alone. It is monergistic--an act of God alone, not dependent on any human precondition such as faith or willingness or what have you. All of that is supplied,given by God, through baptism. That's what we call baptismal regeneration.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped, I have had the Anglican position on communion described to me in the same terms.
[ 23. June 2014, 02:52: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
1) "Consubstantialism" is the classic handle for the Lutheran position . . . .
Consistent with LC's post, every Lutheran and Lutheran source I've known rejects use of the term "consubstantiation" to describe the Lutheran understanding of the Real Presence. It seems to be a term non-Lutherans think describes the Lutheran position, but Lutherans themselves don't think so.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
True. But there's a shedload of thrm in my experience.
Too true, I'm afraid.
[ 23. June 2014, 03:06: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
[cross-posted]
What I mean is, I don't think the Lutheran position is as unique as you're painting it.
Episcopal church mocking gets really tiresome.
[ 23. June 2014, 03:10: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Oh, I don't mean to paint it as unique on the basis of two doctrines. (everything is of course unique if you consider ALL the doctrines!) To be sure, we share a lot with others, and perhaps CofE most of all.
I'm just explaining why we get into trouble with certain folks over the term "Protestant."
ETA: I'm not sure what your last line means. did you think I was somehow mocking the CofE?
[ 23. June 2014, 03:14: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
I was only thinking about the communion doctrine, actually.
What did you mean by "I can believe that! ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif) "?
I'm in the US, so Episcopal church, not CofE.
[ 23. June 2014, 03:23: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I meant that, if they say it of us, it doesn't surprise me at all that they say it of another part of the Christian family. Shared experience.
And sorry on the misidentification, my mind was back in the sixteenth century.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
^lightbulb moment^
This is what I THOUGHT you meant when you said that you had had your doctrine described in the same terms:
quote:
The Lutheran position differs in that we refuse to specify exactly how the elements are present, or how Christ is present. In other words, we're bloody annoying, we just keep quoting the texts at people and refusing to draw conclusions, and we don't care.
Looking back, I suspect you meant theological terms, and not the above. But the above is in fact exactly the kind of description I have heard frustrated non-Lutherans make of the Lutheran position, and many of us are perverse enough to enjoy it.
[ 23. June 2014, 03:32: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
[cross-posted -- let me see if what you just wrote clarified it for me]
"...if they say it of us..."
I don't know what this means. If who says what of whom? And I don't understand the .
[ 23. June 2014, 03:32: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
OK, now I see.
I only meant this part: "we refuse to specify exactly how the elements are present, or how Christ is present."
It's what I've had described to me by an Episcopal priest about the Anglican (including Episcopal) approach to communion.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Dang crossposts! I think we've got it sorted out now.
Yes, there is that major point of similarity between us and you, which is one reason our two groups are so closely related. We're obviously not 100% the same (polity, for instance) but on these two doctrines the similarity shows up really clearly.
And of course, you folks have had your own issues with the term "Protestant," at least some of you. Though I don't know if it is for the same reasons or not.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
As for the classic Arminian position, I was unaware that Arminians believe in baptismal regeneration. Seriously, they do? I'm referring to the belief that baptism creates faith and regeneration in a person (including infants) because of the promise associated with it--rather, the Holy Spirit does so, but that work is certain and not conditional on anything but God's promise alone. It is monergistic--an act of God alone, not dependent on any human precondition such as faith or willingness or what have you. All of that is supplied,given by God, through baptism. That's what
Seriously, they do, and so do Calvinists.
Article XVI of the UCCan's Basis of Union, drawn up at a conference in 1908:
quote:
We acknowledge two sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which were instituted by Christ, to be of perpetual obligation as signs and seals of the covenant ratified in His precious blood, as a means of grace, by which, working in us, He doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and comfort our faith in Him, and as ordinances through the observance of which His Church is to confess her Lord and be visibly distinguished from the rest of the world.
No Presbyterian or Methodist here on the Ship will find that repugnant or even controversial.
As for annoying proof-texting Lutherans, whatever floats your boat. You can be as annoying as the Anglicans at times, but you're still Protestant.
"Protestant" is a negative definition really, it means you're not Roman Catholic, Not Orthodox and not part of an Eastern Churches who split pre 1054. It means your church or your spiritual forefathers split from Rome during the Reformation and there were multiple paths away from Rome during the Reformation.
So yes, Anglicans are Protestant (er, is that a General Confession I see in the Book of Common Prayer ) and so are Lutherans. Methodists did not all of a sudden become Protestant in 1820 and the Reformed were just one path away from Rome.
Or to get wet, whether you swam the Thames, the Rhine or the Elbe you still swam away from the Tiber.
But oh to swim in Lake Geneva, where the waters run pure and the declarations of faith are refreshingly honest and brief.... ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
If you look upthread, you'll see that I agreed to the term if we are speaking historically. The problem comes in with those who are using the term to classify doctrines.
Still not clear on the Arminianism. My understanding was that they were/are synergistic--that is, they conceive of human choice as playing some role in salvation, however small that may be. The Lutheran position is monergistic, and denies any role to human choice, willingness, receptivity, or whatchamacallit. This of course has a direct impact on baptismal theology--Lutheran baptismal regeneration is completely and totally one-sided.
ETA: on looking at your quote a second time, the two things that concern me (as a Lutheran, I mean) are the terms "ordinances" and "confess her Lord" used as a purpose of baptism. Both of those imply a human contribution to baptism which we deny.
[ 23. June 2014, 03:56: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Then you have misunderstood Article XVI. Those who are baptized choose it or have their guardians choose it for them. It is most manifestly a sign and display of faith and has ever been one of the Church's most precious acts of faith. This is quite aside from aspect of salvation and the terms "ordinance" and "confession of faith" do not refer to salvation at all.
Do Lutherans not ask the candidate or their guardians to confess their faith as part of the Act of Baptism?
The Arminian distinctive is that it admits that someone may resist salvation or fall away, but nonetheless God can and does save. You can choose God, but nevertheless God chooses.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Still not clear on the Arminianism. My understanding was that they were/are synergistic--that is, they conceive of human choice as playing some role in salvation, however small that may be.
Classical Arminianism teaches that God's universal prevenient grace gives fallen human beings the ability to accept or reject salvation.
Accepting a free gift is not a "work", particularly when the ability to accept comes from God, so Arminians believe that salvation truly is sola gratia.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Then you have misunderstood Article XVI. Those who are baptized choose it or have their guardians choose it for them. It is most manifestly a sign and display of faith and has ever been one of the Church's most precious acts of faith.
Thank you. You have made my point for me.
Lutherans do NOT consider baptism to be an act of faith, a display, confession, or sign of faith AT ALL. They consider it to be the wellspring of faith. Faith is a result* of baptism, baptism is not an act of faith.
(*yeah, yeah, of course we have converts where faith comes first and baptism follows. I am one of those. But that is normally the case with first generation converts, and the following generations are baptized in infancy, prior to faith.)
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Do Lutherans not ask the candidate or their guardians to confess their faith as part of the Act of Baptism?
No, we do not. We ask the candidate and/or sponsors to confess the faith of the one holy Christian church, into which the candidate is about to be baptized. The candidate may or may not already share in that faith (though if adult, that is normally the case). The question is irrelevant. That faith will become theirs through baptism, but it often, even usually (see: infants), does not exist in the person prior to baptism.
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The Arminian distinctive is that it admits that someone may resist salvation or fall away, but nonetheless God can and does save. You can choose God, but nevertheless God chooses.
And we, of course, say that you cannot choose God--God does the choosing. Luther's the Bondage of the Will is the classic on this. We are free only to reject. Yes, I know this is illogical--that human choice works in only one direction. But Lutherans are not known for logic. If logic conflicts with what we see in the Scripture, logic can go hang.
That is the Lutheran distinctive, and it is precisely why Lutherans are so damned annoying.
[ 23. June 2014, 04:53: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
What's wrong with this online definition?
quote:
A member or follower of any of the Western Christian Churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church in accordance with the principles of the Reformation, including the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran Churches
I think "Western" in this definition distinguishes between Western and Eastern Traditions and therefore the definition does not apply to the Orthodox and others, who follow the Eastern Tradition and protest that the Catholics are Heterodox in their claims of unique authority.
In summary, Protestant means non-Catholic unless you are follow the Eastern rather than the Western Tradition.
Simples? Too approximate? YMMV.
[ 23. June 2014, 05:46: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Well, it makes you Catholic in your own eyes (like me) but not a Catholic in RC eyes. I think you're in an "ecclesial community, aren't you.
And if you want to protest against that judgment, (which in my view is only right and proper to do), doesn't that make you a protestant?
[ 23. June 2014, 07:13: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Catholic substance and protestant principles is an Anglican catchphrase.
But I think it might be Lutheran too.....
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Or to get wet, whether you swam the Thames, the Rhine or the Elbe you still swam away from the Tiber.
But oh to swim in Lake Geneva, where the waters run pure and the declarations of faith are refreshingly honest and brief....
But, surely a lake is a place where the waters do not run, unlike a river.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
To my mind, if someone is a Christian, the first three options should have all the possibilities covered - if one is not Catholic or Orthodox, one must be some kind of protestant. Maybe that's a bit simplistic, but I think it would generally be held to be true by those who are informed about various branches of Christianity.
Just who DOES identify as Protestant?
Discuss!!
The term 'protestant' was useful for a time when there was a protest going on against the Catholic church. Now it is no longer a useful category and is mainly used by catholics who don't recognise that by and large they lost the argument and that christianity broke away from catholicism several hundred years ago.
The issue is not really trying to make a tripartite division into Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox as though those categories really matter in God's view. That's more a box-ticking exercise for those who are insecure in their identity as part of the family of God.
That's not to say catholics can't be christians. I know a fair few who recognise that the two are not synonymous and can hold on to both identities.
Labels serve a purpose for a time, but if kept for longer than they are necessary they serve only to divide. So to those who would advocate trying to insist on labels and sub-divisions, I would gently point them to 1 Corinthians 1:10-17.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
