S/O : why don't Protestants like the term Protestant?

[Carrie12345]

That someone was wrong. "Reformed" is a specific thread out of the Protestant Reformation. It doesn't include Lutherans.

Yup. I was raised a Lutheran and used the word Protestant matter of factly.

[creekland]

I think it depends on the person. The term doesn’t bother me in the least.

 

Same here.  This is the first I've heard that some folks don't like it.  I still hear it used in conversation when religion comes up.  I've yet to meet anyone (religious) who hasn't understood the basic version of it as in "not Catholic" based upon Martin Luther.  Whether they know the specifics of any particular denomination or Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc, etc differs.  Of course, I come across more high schoolers and the Protestant Reformation is still taught about in school (history, not religion), so I have a more educated group I converse with I suppose.

 

FWIW, I identify as Protestant Christian and don't take it any further because I don't really identify with a denomination.  Over the years we've worshiped in several.  I find the specific church matters more to me than the denomination.

[sassenach]

I love the term Protestant. It's my preferred "title" aside from non-denominational Christian, which still seems to get the job done.

[milovany]

One of the things I learned and what I referred to in my post above is that there were three main parts of today's Christianity:  Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant.  As a charismatic evangelical Christian who was often all about "God doing a new thing!" I guess I only vaguely knew that; I certainly didn't know the intricacies of it all. I thought a church with a 100-year history was old.

 

In what I hope is a fair and balanced summary, I will present the following (but I'm willing to be corrected / balanced!). This is how I understand the broad, general church history now and much of it I learned here on this board, from both Christians and non-Christians alike. 

 

* According to the EO, they have existed from the beginning without change and at the Great Schism in 1054 AD, Rome broke off -- or was excommunicated -- from the original church because the new dogmas coming to play in the west were incompatible with the original faith (things like Papal supremacy and adding the words "and the Son" to the 600+ year old Nicene Creed). The EO is, aptly, the eastern church of the EO/RC split. 

 

* According to the RC, they are the original church that has existed from the beginning and the EO broke off from them because they wouldn't follow the Pope as the supreme head of the church, or any of the dogmas coming out of the western councils. If the EO would come back under the headship of the pope, the churches could be reunited.  The RC church is the western of the the EO/RC split.  

 

* According to the Protestant sects, the RC was in error and needed to be reformed, thus Luther and the resulting reformation. This also is the church in the west; the reformation and "Reformed/reformed" are western constructs in response to the RC church. There is probably no way to have reunification because each believes the other is fundamentally in error.

 

Back to my EO perspective:  From a historical point of view, the reformation had nothing to do with the eastern church; it just kept on as it had kept on from the beginning. Oh, and of course, there are some groups who claim to be from none of these three groups.

 

Here is the most neutral graphic / timeline that I have seen describing the above:  https://www.pinterest.com/pin/57350595225141318/

 

We became EO in the end, having looked at all of this (the timeline is what especially convinced me to seek that part of the three main sections of Christianity, but there were many other things as well). 

Edited January 8, 2018 by milovany

[Matryoshka]

That's really interesting! But, he used Church of Christ and Congregationalist interchangeably...

 

Now google tells me that there are Protestant Congregationalists and Church of Christ Congregationalists.

This is interesting , thanks for helping me untangle.

Huh? Around here, when someone says Congregationalist, they mean the *United* Church of Christ (aka UCC), which is a super-liberal (yes) Protestant denomination, that theologically is a zillion miles away from the Church of Christ.

[Daria]

One of the things I learned in what I referred to in my post above is that there were three main parts of today's Christianity:  Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant.  As a charismatic evangelical Christian who was often all about "God doing a new thing!" I guess I only vaguely knew that; I certainly didn't know the intricacies of it all. I thought a church with a 100-year history was old.

 

In what I hope is a fair and balanced summary, I will present the following (but I'm willing to be corrected / balanced!). This is how I understand the broad, general church history now and much of it I learned here on this board, from both Christians and non-Christians alike. 

 

* According to the EO, they have existed from the beginning without change and at the Great Schism in 1054 AD, Rome broke off -- or was excommunicated -- from the original church because the new dogmas coming to play in the west were incompatible with the original faith (things like Papal supremacy and adding the words "and the Son" to the 600+ year old Nicene Creed). The EO is, aptly, the eastern church of the EO/RC split. 

 

* According to the RC, they are the original church that has existed from the beginning and the EO broke off from them because they wouldn't follow the Pope as the supreme head of the church, or any of the dogmas coming out of the western councils. If the EO would come back under the headship of the pope, the churches could be reunited.  The RC church is the western of the the EO/RC split.  

 

* According to the Protestant sects, the RC was in error and needed to be reformed, thus Luther and the resulting reformation. This also is the church in the west; the reformation and "Reformed/reformed" are western constructs in response to the RC church. There is probably no way to have reunification because each believes the other is fundamentally in error.

 

Back to my EO perspective:  From a historical point of view, the reformation had nothing to do with the eastern church; it just kept on as it had kept on from the beginning. Oh, and of course, there are some groups who claim to be from none of these three groups.

 

Here is the most neutral graphic / timeline that I have seen describing the above:  https://www.pinterest.com/pin/57350595225141318/

 

We became EO in the end, having looked at all of this (the timeline is what especially convinced me to seek that part of the three main sections of Christianity, but there were many other things as well). 

 

Where are the Copts in this?  I thought there was a Copt-Oriental Orthodox/RC schism before the EO/RC schism?

[milovany]

Where are the Copts in this?  I thought there was a Copt-Oriental Orthodox/RC schism before the EO/RC schism?

 

If I may, because my knowledge isn't as developed in this area, I pulled this quote from online and I think it describes this better than I could: 

 

[snip]

“Coptic†means “Egyptian,†and Christians living in Egypt identify themselves as Coptic Christians. As a denomination they originated in the city of Alexandria, one of the most faithful, respected, and fruitful cities during the Apostolic Period. Proudly, the Coptic Christians acknowledge and herald John Mark, (author of the Gospel of Mark), as their founder and first bishop sometime between A.D. 42 - A.D. 62. The Coptic Church was actually involved in the very first major split in the Church, well before there was such a thing as "Roman" Catholicism, and it was also well before the East/West split.

 

Prior to the “Great†East/West Schism of A.D. 1054, the Coptics were separated from the rest by the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451. The council met to discuss the Incarnation of Christ and declared that Christ was "one hypostasis in two natures" (i.e., one person who shares two distinct natures). This became standard orthodoxy for Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches from then on. The Coptic understanding is that Christ is one nature from two natures: "the Logos Incarnate." In this understanding, Christ is from, not in, two natures: full humanity and full divinity.

[End snip]

 

Quoted from here:  https://www.gotquestions.org/Coptic-Christianity.html

(Disclaimer:  I don't know this website and whether or not it presents a balanced view of the different areas of Christianity.)

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

From what I understand, the oriental/coptic and eastern Orthodox Christian churches are much closer to unification today than are the RC and EO churches, because some think the difference described in the paragraph above was partly due to translation issues.  But don't quote me on that.  Patty Joanna or Princess Mommy may have more knowledge on that than I. 

Edited January 8, 2018 by milovany

[lauraw4321]

If I may, because my knowledge isn't as developed in this area, I pulled this quote from online and I think it describes this better than I could: 

 

[snip]

“Coptic†means “Egyptian,†and Christians living in Egypt identify themselves as Coptic Christians. As a denomination they originated in the city of Alexandria, one of the most faithful, respected, and fruitful cities during the Apostolic Period. Proudly, the Coptic Christians acknowledge and herald John Mark, (author of the Gospel of Mark), as their founder and first bishop sometime between A.D. 42 - A.D. 62. The Coptic Church was actually involved in the very first major split in the Church, well before there was such a thing as "Roman" Catholicism, and it was also well before the East/West split.

 

Prior to the “Great†East/West Schism of A.D. 1054, the Coptics were separated from the rest by the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451. The council met to discuss the Incarnation of Christ and declared that Christ was "one hypostasis in two natures" (i.e., one person who shares two distinct natures). This became standard orthodoxy for Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches from then on. The Coptic understanding is that Christ is one nature from two natures: "the Logos Incarnate." In this understanding, Christ is from, not in, two natures: full humanity and full divinity.

[End snip]

 

Quoted from here:  https://www.gotquestions.org/Coptic-Christianity.html

(Disclaimer:  I don't know this website and whether or not it presents a balanced view of the different areas of Christianity.)

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

From what I understand, the oriental/coptic and eastern Orthodox Christian churches are much closer to unification today than are the RC and EO churches, because some think the difference described in the paragraph above was partly due to translation issues.  But don't quote me on that.  Patty Joanna or Princess Mommy may have more knowledge on that than I. 

 

That's very helpful. And my goodness, I'm not sure I can express the difference between one hypostasis in two natures and one nature from two natures. It sounds really similar to me!

 

[but I guess that's why I'm not a theologian]

[Bluegoat]

Most of the people I have head who dislike the term belong to a group that claims to be some kid of remnant.

 

Other than that, I've always understood it to mean any of the groups that came out of the Reformation.

 

Now, sometimes people, particularly those who grew up Catholic, get this idea that there was only one group or instance that broke off of the Catholic Church, which is inaccurate and tends to lead to some odd ideas, such as imagining Lutherans don't believe in the institutional church.  That can be annoying for some.

 

As far as reformed, with a small r it just means what it would with any use of the word, some kind of attempt to reform something.

[Elizabeth86]

I didn't know protestants didn't like to be called protestants. News to me?

[Bluegoat]

Huh? Around here, when someone says Congregationalist, they mean the *United* Church of Christ (aka UCC), which is a super-liberal (yes) Protestant denomination, that theologically is a zillion miles away from the Church of Christ.

 

Congregationalist is actually a type of governance, in the same way that an apostolic or presbyterian organization is.  So it can apply to all kinds of groups that organize themselves according to that principle.

[Guest]

I'm Protestant and have no problem calling myself that. It is pretty broad to me, meaning (mainly) Christian but not Catholic or Orthodox. But it's not offensive, not even remotely.

That’s the way I think of it. I know many Catholics; it is just a way of saying, “I’m not Catholic.â€

[Bluegoat]

Funnily, in the Canadian military, it used to be that the chaplains were all divided into Catholic or Protestant.

 

If you happened to be Jewish, you were counted as a Protestant.

[Bluegoat]

Or Anglicans...

 

Well, there are the Reformed Episcopals.

[Rachel]

Over forty plus years, I've heard many references to "pockets" of hidden and isolated real Christians who kept the first century church intact from the time of the apostles until now...that is the answer when you ask why there is nothing in church or secular history about them. Pockets.

 

This is important because if you believe that the kingdom will stand forever and the gates of hell will not prevail against it, you can NOT have a history during which the church was lost or misplaced, and had to be restored.

 

They do believe they were the ones to restore it, but they will not accept that there were not a handful of authentic Christians and churches (people believing and worshiping identically to modern Cofc) still somewhere at every time between the apostles and now.

 

It's only been in the last decade that I've known of hardline church of Christ preachers acknowledging that Catholics protected sacred texts through the dark ages.

are these “antis�

[milovany]

That's very helpful. And my goodness, I'm not sure I can express the difference between one hypostasis in two natures and one nature from two natures. It sounds really similar to me!

 

It reminds me of an cartoon I saw at Christmas time, for which I can't find a link, where a little boy on Santa's lap at the mall is asking the bearded man, "Homooisios or homoiusios?"  The store Santa replies with a befuddled, "What?!" and the little boy sighs, "You're not the real St. Nicholas."  :D

[Daria]

Funnily, in the Canadian military, it used to be that the chaplains were all divided into Catholic or Protestant.

 

If you happened to be Jewish, you were counted as a Protestant.

 

When I was a kid in kindergarten in Australian public school, there was "religious Ed" at school.  You had to choose "Catholic", "Anglican", "Protestant", or "Other".  

 

If you chose "Other" you went to Protestant classes, because they were the smallest, but you didn't get to do things like helping decorate the tree because those were considered "celebrating", whereas the Protestant class (like Sunday school but in the middle of a school day) was considered "educational".  

[Rachel]

Funnily, in the Canadian military, it used to be that the chaplains were all divided into Catholic or Protestant.

 

If you happened to be Jewish, you were counted as a Protestant.

😳😳

[DawnM]

When I was a kid in kindergarten in Australian public school, there was "religious Ed" at school.  You had to choose "Catholic", "Anglican", "Protestant", or "Other".  

 

If you chose "Other" you went to Protestant classes, because they were the smallest, but you didn't get to do things like helping decorate the tree because those were considered "celebrating", whereas the Protestant class (like Sunday school but in the middle of a school day) was considered "educational".  

 

Curious how the Anglican differed from the Protestant classes.

[JennyD]

Growing up, I thought all Christians were either Catholic or "Protestant" -- that "Protestant" referred to all the many variants that grew out of (what I thought of as) the "Protestant Reformation."  

 

Once I reached adulthood and met a wider range of people (lol) I've kind of mentally expanded the "all Christian" label to include Catholic + EO + Mormon + Protestant (still a pretty big catch-all still covering a pretty wide range).

 

 

 

This is exactly me, too.  

[Daria]

Congregationalist is actually a type of governance, in the same way that an apostolic or presbyterian organization is.  So it can apply to all kinds of groups that organize themselves according to that principle.

 

There are lots of religious words that mean one thing when they're lower case, but are also the proper names of specific denominations.

 

If you say a church is "episcopal" it means it has bishops.  So Roman Catholics are "episcopal", Lutherans are "episcopal", AME Zionists are "episcopal".  But if you say "I'm a member of the Episcopal Church" it means you belong to a specific type of "episcopal" church, and carries with it connotations like a structured liturgy and the ordination of LGBT priests.

 

If you say a church is "congregationalist", you mean that the church is governed at the church level and not responsible to a governing body. But "Congregationalist" churches refer to a specific subset of congregationalist churches.

 

Similarly, as an Episcopalian, I grew up saying that I believed in "one holy, catholic, and apostolic church", even though I certainly wasn't raised to believe in the Catholic church.  

[poppy]

Congregationalist is actually a type of governance, in the same way that an apostolic or presbyterian organization is.  So it can apply to all kinds of groups that organize themselves according to that principle.

 

It's definitely a specific church denomination. There is one in every town near me, near Boston.  I agree with the "liberal" description - it's the church with the LGBT pride flag  usually.

 

I think this may be like how you can be a democrat (believer in Democracy) without being a  Democrat (specific political party).

 

[Daria]

Curious how the Anglican differed from the Protestant classes.

 

I don't know, because I only went to Anglican class.  The only thing I remember from that class was the priest trying to convince the Kindergarten boys that when the Bible said that God loved everyone he meant "girls too".  I'm pretty sure the Catholic priest and the Protestant minister would have agreed that God loved girls too.  

[Lang Syne Boardie]

are these “antis�

Yes, but my husband and friends who were from "conservative institutional" (which is hardline on most Cofc doctrine but allows kitchens, orphanages, and prison ministries) heard the same ideas.

[Xahm]

When I was teaching in Russia, my students sometimes asked me about my religion, and I'd tell them I was Presbyterian, which was a kind of protestant from Scotland (as my ancestors were) but I went to a Russian Baptist church in Russia because there were no Presbyterian ones and Baptist more like Presbyterian than Orthodox was. That usually satisfied them, but occasionally they'd press for info, either about church history or beliefs and practices. One student, after I tried to quickly explain the whole Reformation, which was apparently not covered at all in their school history books, said, "oh, so you are close to Catholics!" After thinking a second, I realized that from a Russian perspective, yes, in a way we are. It was just one of those weird for me moments.

In Russia I tried to be careful how I identified, because the default was to assume that unfamiliar religions were cults.

[Daria]

Yes, but my husband and friends who were from "conservative institutional" (which is hardline on most Cofc doctrine but allows kitchens, orphanages, and prison ministries) heard the same ideas.

 

Can you explain this further?

[Matryoshka]

It's definitely a specific church denomination. There is one in every town near me, near Boston. I agree with the "liberal" description - it's the church with the LGBT pride flag usually.

 

I think this may be like how you can be a democrat (believer in Democracy) without being a Democrat (specific political party).

Yes, that's the UCC. The Church of Christ is a whole 'nother thing. I'm also from the Boston area, and yeah, if people say "Congregational" around here, they mean the UCC.

 

I'd never even heard of The Church of Christ till recently (probably on these boards) ... I don't think it's a common denomination around here, whereas I think it's the reverse in some other areas of the country, where the UCC isn't well known.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Matryoshka

[Rachel]

Yes, but my husband and friends who were from "conservative institutional" (which is hardline on most Cofc doctrine but allows kitchens, orphanages, and prison ministries) heard the same ideas.

That explains why I’ve never heard these viewpoints. Our church has been disfellowshiped from the more traditional c of Cs. My inlaws attend what you are calling conservative institutional, but I’ve never heard that term. I’m not sure what our church is called, but we get along with other denominations.

[Rachel]

Yes, that's the UCC. The Church of Christ is a whole 'nother thing. I'm also from the Boston area, and yeah, if people say "Congregational" around here, they mean the UCC.

 

I'd never even heard of The Church of Christ till recently (probably on these boards) ... I don't think it's a common denomination around here, whereas I think it's the reverse in some other areas of the country, where the UCC isn't well known.

The church of Christ (they prefer a small c) is most common in Texas and Tennessee followed by the states surrounding them. The further north you go, the less likely you are to find one.

 

Corrected typo

Edited January 9, 2018 by Rach

[Garga]

When I was teaching in Russia, my students sometimes asked me about my religion, and I'd tell them I was Presbyterian, which was a kind of protestant from Scotland (as my ancestors were) but I went to a Russian Baptist church in Russia because there were no Presbyterian ones and Baptist more like Presbyterian than Orthodox was. That usually satisfied them, but occasionally they'd press for info, either about church history or beliefs and practices. One student, after I tried to quickly explain the whole Reformation, which was apparently not covered at all in their school history books, said, "oh, so you are close to Catholics!" After thinking a second, I realized that from a Russian perspective, yes, in a way we are. It was just one of those weird for me moments.

In Russia I tried to be careful how I identified, because the default was to assume that unfamiliar religions were cults.

We had a student from Spain live with us for a month. He went to our church with us to see what it was like. He said that in his home town all the churches are Catholic. He asked what sort of church ours was and we said Protestant and didn’t even try to talk about denominations. He was satisfied with that answer; not Catholic = Protestant.

 

Sometimes all this depends upon the country. Spain has historically been heavily Catholic and he didn’t really have too much of a background in lots of denominations. Russia would be even more removed from Protestantism. Weren’t they historically EO?

Edited January 9, 2018 by Garga

[Rachel]

Can you explain this further?

I’m not sure where the term anti- originated, but we joke that it’s because they are against everything. These churches do have buildings, but don’t believe a church should have anything not specifically mentioned in the Bible: instruments and kitchens being the main ones they are against.

 

They also believe orphans and widows should be supported by individuals not by the church. There are a few other things that most churches adhere to such as not celebrating Easter or Christmas as a church.

 

Because there is no governing body for the churches of Christ, every single congregation varies.

 

 

ETA

My husband’s grandparents attend an anti and they are genuinely good people who would give their shirts off their backs to anyone in need. In fact they and several of their church members gave us money and supplies when we went to help with Hurricane Harvey cleanup. It’s more of a focus on what the church as an institution does vs what the church as people do if that makes sense.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Rach

[Daria]

I’m not sure where the term anti- originated, but we joke that it’s because they are against everything. These churches do have buildings, but don’t believe a church should have anything not specifically mentioned in the Bible: instruments and kitchens being the main ones they are against.

 

They also believe orphans and widows should be supported by individuals not by the church. There are a few other things that most churches adhere to such as not celebrating Easter or Christmas as a church.

 

Because there is no governing body for the churches of Christ, every single congregation varies.

 

So, no indoor plumbing, or electric lights?  

 

I have to admit, I'm not following the logic.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

So, no indoor plumbing, or electric lights?  

I have to admit, I'm not following the logic.

It is not really logical, but you'd have to understand their method of hermeneutics to find out how they arrived at these doctrines and then made exceptions, which I won't get into...

[Rachel]

So, no indoor plumbing, or electric lights?

 

I have to admit, I'm not following the logic.

There is plumbing and lights, I don’t really understand it either.

[MrsMommy]

It reminds me of an cartoon I saw at Christmas time, for which I can't find a link, where a little boy on Santa's lap at the mall is asking the bearded man, "Homooisios or homoiusios?"  The store Santa replies with a befuddled, "What?!" and the little boy sighs, "You're not the real St. Nicholas."  :D

 

I enjoyed that way too much! :) Thanks for the chuckle!

[Bluegoat]

There are lots of religious words that mean one thing when they're lower case, but are also the proper names of specific denominations.

 

If you say a church is "episcopal" it means it has bishops.  So Roman Catholics are "episcopal", Lutherans are "episcopal", AME Zionists are "episcopal".  But if you say "I'm a member of the Episcopal Church" it means you belong to a specific type of "episcopal" church, and carries with it connotations like a structured liturgy and the ordination of LGBT priests.

 

If you say a church is "congregationalist", you mean that the church is governed at the church level and not responsible to a governing body. But "Congregationalist" churches refer to a specific subset of congregationalist churches.

 

Similarly, as an Episcopalian, I grew up saying that I believed in "one holy, catholic, and apostolic church", even though I certainly wasn't raised to believe in the Catholic church.  

 

 

It's definitely a specific church denomination. There is one in every town near me, near Boston.  I agree with the "liberal" description - it's the church with the LGBT pride flag  usually.

 

I think this may be like how you can be a democrat (believer in Democracy) without being a  Democrat (specific political party).

 

 

Yes, but the point here is that any group that has a congregationalist model of governance may choose to make it part of their official name, in which case it will be capitalized Congregationalist.

 

But the different groups that do that may have nothing to do with each other.

[Bluegoat]

😳😳

 

In effect it wasn't quite as weird as it sounds, because at that time there weren't many, or any, Jewish chaplains, so if you or your family needed the services of one, you were administratively given to the Protestant one.  There are lots of things they do that aren't strictly about any particular kind of religious observance.  That would probably also be the person responsible for arranging things with your own civilian clergy if that needed to be done.

[Xahm]

Russia today, based on my observations and in line with what I've read, is placing a stronger and stronger emphasis on its Orthodox identity. For some individuals, this is a religious or spiritual matter, but for many (including, it is suspected, many in the government), it is very closely tied with nationalism and national identity. Almost everyone I met (besides those I met actually in a protestant church) identified as Orthodox. Few attended church with any regularity, though many had been baptized and attended certain ceremonies. Similar to Lent in idea, but much stricter, the Russian Orthodox Church has "The Great Fast" before Easter. Every restaurant has a special menu during that time to accommodate those fasting. I'd say a majority of those I knew (and I mostly knew academically-oriented upper middle class and up folks) changed their diet during the time, though few followed all the restrictions. For example, one of my bosses wouldn't eat milk chocolate on certain days, but was fine with dark chocolate,    and seemed a bit sheepishly confused about whether that was technically allowed. Those who were actively and religiously Orthodox would make a point of telling me so, when it came up in discussion. To explain, I taught English to mostly ages 15-25 year olds, with a fair number of 30's and a few up through their 60s, part of teaching was having lots and lots of conversations, and my students tended to take me out for dinner/drinks to keep the conversations going. It was a great time!

 There has recently been a crackdown on non-sanctioned religion. The laws as written are really broad and vague and are applied inconsistently, I believe the stated purpose is to halt the spread of extremism, but they have been used to jail Jehovah's Witnesses and practitioners of Yoga, amongst others.

 

We had a student from Spain live with us for a month. He went to our church with us to see what it was like. He said that in his home town all the churches are Catholic. He asked what sort of church ours was and we said Protestant and didn’t even try to talk about denominations. He was satisfied with that answer; not Catholic = Protestant.

Sometimes all this depends upon the country. Spain has historically been heavily Catholic and he didn’t really have too much of a background in lots of denominations. Russia would be even more removed from Protestantism. Weren’t they historically EO?

 

[Pam in CT]

Funnily, in the Canadian military, it used to be that the chaplains were all divided into Catholic or Protestant.

 

If you happened to be Jewish, you were counted as a Protestant.

 

 

Huh.   :huh:   Wonder if they... protested... about that?

[creekland]

Youngest son told me in Jordan one gets the choice of Muslim or Christian.  That's it.  Apparently no one is Jewish or Atheist or Buddhist or whatever else, not as identified on their Driver's License anyway.  He had no idea what one would do if they identified with something else and I'm too lazy to google right now to see if Google has the answer.

[scoutingmom]

Funnily, in the Canadian military, it used to be that the chaplains were all divided into Catholic or Protestant.

 

If you happened to be Jewish, you were counted as a Protestant.

Yup, I remember Air Cadet Camp (at a Canadian Forces Base)... Sunday we were marched to the Churches. "Catholics go here, Protestants there." Me, "excuse me sir, but I'm Mormon. I'm not Catholic or Protestant" "Go with the Protestants." (I didn't think about what the Jewish kids did...).

 

That was the first year.

 

Second year... "Go with the Protestants." Me. "No, sir. I am sorry but that is not my religion and I am not." After a bit of arguing, and being backed up by a staff cadet corporal (who happened to also be my brother's girlfriend), I got to sit out.

 

Third year (different base) no argument, got to sit in a room with 2 Jewish cadets.

 

Etc.....

 

But yes, the Mormon "chaplains" in the Canadian Military (in quotes as it is a military profession, not a Mormon religious title) are considered Protestant.

[lea1]

I don't think that's what "Reformed" means, at least not in the context that it was asked.  Reformed theology is a specific subset of protestant theology, associated with John Calvin and Presbyterians.  There are plenty of Protestant denominations that have different theology.  

 

I don't think most people dislike the word "Protestant", because it's an umbrella term that encompasses a lot of specific groups, and most of the time people use the more specific label.  Generally, for example, I'd be more likely to tell people that my family is "Episcopalian", rather than "Protestant", for the same reason that someone might say that they're "French" rather than "European".   

 

Having said that, I work in a Catholic school, and I'll will make the comment that I'm "Protestant" or "was raised Protestant", if I'm responding to something where I think the Catholic church's teaching is pretty unique.  For example, recently a kid asked me a question about Saints.  Since the Catholic church's teaching on Saints is pretty distinct from the teaching of all Protestant denominations, I told the kid "You know, that's a question where you'll want a specific Catholic answer, so ask Ms. Z.  I was raised Protestant, so my answer might not match."  

Excellent response.  I have never disliked Protestant and have used the term in the past, although it is not very specific.  I always thought that Protestant was basically any Christian church that is not Catholic, but I have never viewed it as a negative term at all.  I was raised in a Baptist church and we have always referred to ourselves as Protestant, when distinguishing from Catholic, for instance.

[ktgrok]

Yup, I remember Air Cadet Camp (at a Canadian Forces Base)... Sunday we were marched to the Churches. "Catholics go here, Protestants there." Me, "excuse me sir, but I'm Mormon. I'm not Catholic or Protestant" "Go with the Protestants." (I didn't think about what the Jewish kids did...).

 

That was the first year.

 

Second year... "Go with the Protestants." Me. "No, sir. I am sorry but that is not my religion and I am not." After a bit of arguing, and being backed up by a staff cadet corporal (who happened to also be my brother's girlfriend), I got to sit out.

 

Third year (different base) no argument, got to sit in a room with 2 Jewish cadets.

 

Etc.....

 

But yes, the Mormon "chaplains" in the Canadian Military (in quotes as it is a military profession, not a Mormon religious title) are considered Protestant.

 

Hmm...if they were using Protestant as term to mean not Catholic, I get it. I mean, wasn't Joseph Smith Methodist before he had his visions? On the other hand, no, Mormonism was not a reaction to or protest of Catholicism...so yeah. 

 

There needs to be a different term maybe? Because people tend to think Protestant means "not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox"

[eternalsummer]

I always thought Protestant meant "not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox" - this as someone who was raised in the Bible belt as a non-religious person.  I had and still have really no solid understanding of what Reformed means, other than knowing it has something to do with not being Catholic.  I read a post in a thread recently that listed a few criteria for being Reformed but they all seemed like things I sort of thought Catholics believed too, so it was confusing.  (things like "belief in God's sovereignty," etc.)

[milovany]

Agreeing with eternalsummer that I have no idea what "reformed" means. 

 

As a theology, it is my understanding that "reformed" refers -- generally speaking -- to the belief that we have no power to do anything and that God wills and does all. The way this plays out in the realm of personal faith is that it is God, then -- not we ourselves -- Who chooses who of us will have faith in Him and who of us will not. In yet other words, He creates some for eternal salvation with Him, and some for eternity apart from Him. Since we are His created beings, we submit to His creative hand; He created us, and He can create us for whatever end He desires. If we have to make a decision to follow Him, it's a works-based salvation; we have to do something -- believe -- in order to be saved; that would mean God is not in control and therefore not sovereign.

 

That is the understanding I developed after I became Orthodox and read about this topic and talked with others who believed in it, anyway. It is a theology which most definitely is not Orthodox because it's a theology that developed in the west and was never part of the phronema of the east. But even more than that, is not the ancient teaching from the days of the early church until now, which instead teaches that all who will may come (think of the Prodigal Son returning home; he made the decision to return). Faith is a gift we give Him.

 

I am more than willing to have things clarified/corrected by someone who does believe in reformed theology.

Edited January 9, 2018 by milovany

[eternalsummer]

As a theology, it is my understanding that "reformed" refers -- generally speaking -- to the belief that we have no power to do anything and that God wills and does all. The way this plays out in the realm of personal faith is that it is God, then -- not we ourselves -- Who chooses who of us will have faith in Him and who of us will not. In yet other words, He creates some for eternal salvation with Him, and some for eternity apart from Him. Since we are His created beings, we submit to His creative hand; He created us, and He can create us for whatever end He desires. If it is WE who make the decision to follow Him, it's a works-based salvation (we have to do something -- believe -- in order to be saved, and this is not acceptable because it would mean God is not in control).

 

 

That is the understanding I developed after I became Orthodox and read about this topic and talked with others who believed in it. It is a theology which most definitely is not Orthodox because it's a theology that developed in the west and was never part of the phronema of the east.  But even more than that, is not the ancient teaching of the early church, which instead teaches that all who will may come (think of the Prodigal Son returning home; he made the decision to return).

 

I am more than willing to have things clarified/corrected by someone who does believe in reformed theology.

 

 

I think I knew that some Christians believed something like this - probably garnered from the first year of IB American History, at least that's what the connection feels like.  I thought it was sort of a belief that was specific to that time, though (around 1600-1700?) and to (my brain is saying "Calvinists" but I am not sure exactly who they were), and I didn't realize there were Christians, much less a bunch of them, who held this belief now.

 

Again, my religious exposure, separate of Reform Judaism (and even that was sketchy) was limited to occasionally going to bring-a-friend night at the local Baptist church in suburban Missouri.  My impression through them was that to be saved you had to accept Jesus into your heart.  They were quiiiiite anxious for me to do this, which surely if God were the one making me do it or not do it they wouldn't have made such an effort?

 

Or would a Baptist not be reformed (or Reformed?).  

 

I did go a few times to an Episcopalian church and a Catholic one, but neither really had anything much to say about religious belief as such - it was more a ritual, read from the book, turn here, kneel here, read again, time for cookies!  The extent of the sermons I remember from either of those churches were more, "here is our communal obligation to the community" and less "here is what the Bible requires you yourself to do or believe," if that makes sense.  Not that the Baptists didn't believe in and do community ministries - I know they did them because I helped with them sometimes - but that's not as much what the sermons and Sunday school classes were about.

[milovany]

Again, my religious exposure, separate of Reform Judaism (and even that was sketchy) was limited to occasionally going to bring-a-friend night at the local Baptist church in suburban Missouri.  My impression through them was that to be saved you had to accept Jesus into your heart.  They were quiiiiite anxious for me to do this, which surely if God were the one making me do it or not do it they wouldn't have made such an effort?

 

Or would a Baptist not be reformed (or Reformed?). 

 

Yes, I think it would be correct to say that in this sense, Baptist is not reformed.  You do have to accept Christ and are the one who makes the decision to follow Him.  And it's not just Baptist who believe this, many Christian sects do.  I know I did before I became Eastern Orthodox -- I was very very concerned for the people, especially loved ones but also others, who had not prayed to receive Christ.

 

I hope it's okay to say that I enjoyed reading your last post; describing the various experiences you've had -- and the thoughts that went along with those experiences -- in the religious realm. 

Edited January 9, 2018 by milovany

[chiguirre]

I did go a few times to an Episcopalian church and a Catholic one, but neither really had anything much to say about religious belief as such - it was more a ritual, read from the book, turn here, kneel here, read again, time for cookies!  The extent of the sermons I remember from either of those churches were more, "here is our communal obligation to the community" and less "here is what the Bible requires you yourself to do or believe," if that makes sense.  Not that the Baptists didn't believe in and do community ministries - I know they did them because I helped with them sometimes - but that's not as much what the sermons and Sunday school classes were about.

Actually, both Catholics and Episcopalians recite the Nicene Creed during their services. It's right after the sermon. It covers the bases of what they believe.

[PeachyDoodle]

Yes, I think it would be correct to say that in this sense, Baptist is not reformed.  You do have to accept Christ and are the one who makes the decision to follow Him.  And it's not just Baptist who believe this, many Christian sects do.  

 

Unless the church happens to be Reformed Baptist... in which case, they are.

 

It's complicated.

Edited January 9, 2018 by PeachyDoodle

[Bluegoat]

Hmm...if they were using Protestant as term to mean not Catholic, I get it. I mean, wasn't Joseph Smith Methodist before he had his visions? On the other hand, no, Mormonism was not a reaction to or protest of Catholicism...so yeah. 

 

There needs to be a different term maybe? Because people tend to think Protestant means "not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox"

 

Well, people use it within a specific context.  Everyone just kind of knows that when you say Protestant, not only is it not Orthodox or Catholic, you don't mean neopagans or Jews or Muslims.  

 

And there are other groups that split from those that also aren't actually Protestant.  The Old Catholics, who split from the Catholic Church after Vatican I, are not Protestant - they weren't part of the various Protestant reformations, you can't understand their split in the same way or their theological positions.  

 

Joseph Smith was a Protestant, but Mormonism isn't really in the Protestant family , it's too different theologically and includes a whole different source text.  Though from a scholarly perspective you can certainly see the influence Smith's background had.

 

When people use the term to mean "not Catholic (or Orthodox) they are operating within the context of Christianity and it's major divisions.  It tends to ignore small groups like the Old Catholics, or even groups like the Oriental Orthodox which most people don't know much about here.

 

Now, if you were in a place where those groups are more important you'd probably speak differently.