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

[ktgrok]

Calvinists refer to followers of Calvin. For a long time Calvinist basically meant Presbyterian. But now there are other churches with a Reformed theology. Like some (but not most) Baptists, etc. 

 

Catholic, Episcopal, Methodist, Lutheran, most Baptists, etc would NOT be Reformed/Calvinist. That's Reformed with a capital R. 

 

 

[ktgrok]

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.

 

Well yes, Christian but not Catholic/Eastern Orthodox. I'd lump the Old Catholics in with Catholic, myself, as a schismatic version of them. Of course, one could think of Anglican/Episcopal that same way...so yeah, it's complicated. 

[JFSinIL]

Confusing. I was raised Roman Catholic and was taught in Sunday School back in the 1960s that all the non-Catholic folks were Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Protestant, etc. All the folks calling themselves Christian who were NOT RC were bundled together as Protestants. And my in-laws/hubby still do NOT want to be referred to as "Christian" as to them that means Protestant. No - they are Roman Catholic thank-you very much.

 

It was not until these boards that I realized how many types/versions exist of what my in-laws bundled together under the term "Protestant".

 

Now - in-laws are capable of nitpicking their own religion, too, into divisions - "Oh those Jesuits!" (scornful), etc. One SIL is a Dominican Sister, and in-laws go out of their way to attend churches dominated by Dominicans*, as if the others do not "do Catholic" correctly. * Dominicans are a teaching order, they push higher ed on the Sisters who are capable. SIL has finished her PhD (she joined the order after getting her BA) and is now Provost and Vice President for Academics at Aquinas College in Nashville.

Edited January 9, 2018 by JFSinIL

[shawthorne44]

Isn't Episcopalian a special case?  The Church of England, after all, has as much a political as a religious origin, and I've heard it said that it doesn't (or perhaps didn't) 'count' as protestant.

 

But I know no history of the Church later that around 1714....

 

 

The trigger was political, but the underpinning were protestant.  The people were grumbling about the same problems Luther highlighted.   

 

------------------------------------------------

 

I have no problem with Protestant as a term.   I used to say I was Episcopalian, and I still am.   But, now we live where there is several Baptist churches, several non-denominational churches and a Church of Christ.  So, in town I actually say I'm Protestant, which people understand to mean non-denominational .    If we moved someplace that only had one Christian church, I'd refer to myself as Christian.  

[J-rap]

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.

 

Lutheran churches do too.  (That is, they switch back and forth between the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed.)

 

And getting back to the op, I grew up being taught that if you're a Christian, you're either Catholic or Protestant.  But if you're Protestant, then it's split again into sub-groups:  Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc.  I never minded the term Protestant either, and don't know anyone who does, but Lutheran defined my church more specifically than just the general term Protestant.

 

But nowadays, I realize my view of the term Protestant is changing.  I think of Protestant as meaning non-Catholic Christian churches that have more traditions and liturgy:  Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Methodist, etc.  That's not really based on anything, just my own view of it!

 

All the newer-type churches that are springing up -- the non-denominational Christian churches -- are in a different category in my mind.  And I'm not sure where I'd put Baptist and Orthodox!   :)

[poppy]

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.

 

This is probably the most disrespectful thing I've read about someone else's religion on this board.

 

I don't know about Episcopalians but Catholic mass is a weekly reminder of exactly what they believe.  They give glory to God, confess to being sinners, have reading from the old and new testaments, profess their beliefs in unison (the Nicene creed), give a prayer out of the Gospel of Matthew (Lord's Prayer), the priest blesses communion which involves, again, a recitation of what happened in the Bible and the death of Jesus...... plus about four more prayers here and there.   Honestly,  I am skeptical  that you went to to a few masses and didn't understand any of that. 

[Saddlemomma]

In our case, we don't subscribe to any of those descriptors.  We're Christian, period.  We believe a Christian is anyone who believes in Christ who, by His death and resurrection, saved all who believe in Him and follow His teachings -- not the teachings of men.

 

Unfortunately, the church fathers couldn't agree on certain aspects of His teachings and that is what started the division of Christians into separate denominations; thereby leading to persecution of Christians by Christians.  Many of these doctrinal differences aren't even salvation issues. That's really the sad part of the whole system.  Imagine what we could do together if we weren't arguing with each other over doctrine and which denomination is the "real" one.  Imagine if we were united as just "Christians".  It's a real shame what man has done to Christ's message.

 

My DD laughingly calls herself a "heathen" because she doesn't subscribe to any of the legalistic classification descriptors. She's proud to maintain her "outsider" status of just following Christ; not the crowd.

[Bluegoat]

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.)

 

For broad brush purposes, you can think of Reformed churches as being Calvinist. 

 

There were historically a few different groups operating at the time of the Reformation.  There were a number of things going on in the Church, and also politically, that led to these things, and of course these groups influenced each other.

 

 Calvin was very concerned to maintain God's complete rule over everything - that human decision making and actions in no way dictate or influence what happens in Heaven or Earth - it's all God.  He developed the idea of double predestination which is unique to Reformed groups - whereas Catholics and Lutheran groups will say that God creates people with the intention of them being saved, Calvinism says that God creates some to be saved and some to be damned - because of course if God creates all to be saved but some are not, then it's not all God's sovereign action, God becomes dependent on human actions (at least so Calvin thought.)  Calvinists also don't accept the use of images, and changed the way the Church organized itself, among other things.  

Edited January 9, 2018 by Bluegoat

[sassenach]

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

I think the historical end has been answered. On the theological end, and I hesitate to put a definition out because I’m sure to be corrected, but the clearest one I have is belief/agreement with the 5 Solas.

 

https://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/the-five-solas-of-the-protestant-reformation.html

 

If someone says they are reformed, my expectation is that they place a high value on exegetical teaching (teaching scripture by trying to understand what scripture is saying rather than using scripture to support what the teacher wants to say), they will hold God’s sovereignty and holiness in high regard (the source of some earned criticism is the emphasis of his holiness more than his love), and as someone upthread mentioned, the biggie is who does the saving. Do we save ourselves through our faith or does the Holy Spirit compel us? I personally hold that point in some tension, though all of my biggest doubts and questions over the years have been resolved by pressing into God’s sovereignty.

 

Reformed folks (I would say that currently, those who use the title on themselves are talking theology) tend to be thinkers. The intellectual pursuit of studying theology is an emphasis. It’s a swing away from “feelings†driven faith and the evangelical seeker movement of the 80s and 90s.

 

That’s my nutshell. I’m sure I’ve neglected or offended, as is almost always the case in these threads! (This one seems to be going well so far!)

[eternalsummer]

This is probably the most disrespectful thing I've read about someone else's religion on this board.

 

I don't know about Episcopalians but Catholic mass is a weekly reminder of exactly what they believe.  They give glory to God, confess to being sinners, have reading from the old and new testaments, profess their beliefs in unison (the Nicene creed), give a prayer out of the Gospel of Matthew (Lord's Prayer), the priest blesses communion which involves, again, a recitation of what happened in the Bible and the death of Jesus...... plus about four more prayers here and there.   Honestly,  I am skeptical  that you went to to a few masses and didn't understand any of that. 

 

I didn't meant it as disrespectful, but just as a description of what the experience felt like to me, as a child/teenager who had no context for the religious experience other than the experience itself.

 

For me, the ritualized statements of faith (the Nicene creed, readings from religious texts, etc.) were a lot easier to deal with than the personal appeals of the various Baptist congretations.  I recognize, especially as an adult, that the things they were reading or reciting together were religious beliefs, of course - I'm not an idiot :)  But to a person participating without knowing either the context or the exact meaning of

 

"We believe in one God, 

the Father, the Almighty,

Maker of all that is, seen and unseen. 

 

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God,

eternally begotten of the Father,

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made, consubstantial

of one Being with the Father."

 

 etc., it was (for me) something to get through without messing up the word order and, because I didn't have any context for things like "eternally begotten" or even "true God from true God," it seemed like a ritual in which the congregants were participating instead of a direct appeal.  I'm sure that to the congregants, esp. the adult ones, it has meaning - they know what the prayers mean and why they pray them.  But to an outsider, a Baptist minister explaining the necessity of accepting Jesus into my heart and the songs in plain modern English with the guitars and the piano and etc. spoke more directly, to me, about their religious belief.

 

 

My experiences in Catholic mass (I attended maybe 3 or 4?  fairly modern, as far as I could tell) and Episcopal services (seemed more traditional, actually - attended maybe a dozen, but some were things like Easter services) were in many ways similar to how I experienced Friday night (occasionally Saturday morning) shabbat services, which (as they were Reform) were about half Hebrew and half English: there were prayers and songs that were obviously meaningful to the congregation, and they could both recite them and sing them from heart and probably knew what they meant, but I spent most of the time trying to keep up.

 

I am trying to figure out how to say that I preferred that.  I liked the feeling of being part of an old tradition, of everyone saying the same thing at the same time, of songs that were obviously generations old, of a worship that was outwardly corporate - everyone was not only praying at the same time, but they were using the same words and actions to do it.  I can still recite the Aleinu and the Kaddish (well, the communal parts) and the Shema and I can sing Shalom Aleichem.  Only for the Shema do I have any idea of the meaning of what I'm saying.

[eternalsummer]

Eh, I’ve seen what eternalsummer is describing in more than a few congregations. It happens in some evangelical ones too. Church is more about the process and theologically rather light.

 

I do think it’s inportant to point out that judging a faith by their most nominal believers isn’t fair. There are plenty of devout Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Greek Orthodox, etc. Those believes and the churches they attend would be the ones I’d judge by. If it seems watered down or just going though he motions, that’s an issue with that specific congregation and not really a fair representation of the core beliefs of the faith.

 

I would say that I didn't find the Baptists to be more theologically weighty or thoughtful than the Episcopalians, but I did find them to be more earnest to convince me than the Episcopalians were, and that their services were designed as such in a way that the more ritualistic services were not (in my experience).

 

Every time I went to a Baptist (or Presbyterian, but now I am not sure what kind of Presbyterians they were?  they seemed quite conservative to me, and I had no idea it was a way of describing church governance organization), it was made quite clear to me, both through the service and through other parts I attended - youth group or whatever - that there were certain things I, Sara, needed to do for myself and within myself to be both spiritually sound and saved from hell.  When I went to Mass, there was none of this - it might have been present in the verses/prayers everyone said, but the priest wasn't harping on it and no one came up to me afterward and said, "don't you just love how Jesus is working in your heart today?" or anything like that.  

 

 

I'm sorry to sideline so much - I really like learning about Christianity from people on this forum (especially the history of Christianity) as you get sort of a biased-unbiased perspective; people generally speak from their own experiences or beliefs, but don't try to convert you (by and large) which makes it easier to understand.

[Bluegoat]

I would say that I didn't find the Baptists to be more theologically weighty or thoughtful than the Episcopalians, but I did find them to be more earnest to convince me than the Episcopalians were, and that their services were designed as such in a way that the more ritualistic services were not (in my experience).

 

Every time I went to a Baptist (or Presbyterian, but now I am not sure what kind of Presbyterians they were?  they seemed quite conservative to me, and I had no idea it was a way of describing church governance organization), it was made quite clear to me, both through the service and through other parts I attended - youth group or whatever - that there were certain things I, Sara, needed to do for myself and within myself to be both spiritually sound and saved from hell.  When I went to Mass, there was none of this - it might have been present in the verses/prayers everyone said, but the priest wasn't harping on it and no one came up to me afterward and said, "don't you just love how Jesus is working in your heart today?" or anything like that.  

 

 

I'm sorry to sideline so much - I really like learning about Christianity from people on this forum (especially the history of Christianity) as you get sort of a biased-unbiased perspective; people generally speak from their own experiences or beliefs, but don't try to convert you (by and large) which makes it easier to understand.

 

I think that's quite typical.  It's interesting though because most Protestant groups like Baptists tend to say that it is God who brings faith, while Anglicans and Catholics are more likely to see human agency as also being involved in some sense.  But in practical terms, it almost works out as the opposite in approach.  I think maybe it's because from the Anglican/Catholic POV you know that God has done his part, you have been saved, and all you need to consider is your participation in that - and part of that is participation in things like sacraments which are pretty concrete.  It's very corporate.  Whereas with Baptists, at least if we mean how many people think about it, I think there is more a sense of some people are saved and some aren't - and how do you know for sure you, or your loved ones, are actually part of the saved group?  It's all on God to give faith, but since it is out of your control it can produce a certain amount of anxiety. 

[ScoutTN]

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.

So do lots of Presbyterians! ;)

[6packofun]

 

 

* 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. 

 

 

What does the bold mean?  Does existing without change just mean apostolic succession?  No change in practices from the first century Christian church? (Are we talking doctrine or conduct/practice?)  This seems like a broad statement so I'm not sure what it means!  :)

 

Also, how is the leader of the EO church different in practice from the pope?  (Is he called the Patriarch or something like that?)  Can you give a few brief answers if you have time?  Thanks!

[milovany]

What does the bold mean?  Does existing without change just mean apostolic succession?  No change in practices from the first century Christian church? (Are we talking doctrine or conduct/practice?)  This seems like a broad statement so I'm not sure what it means!   :)  Also, how is the leader of the EO church different in practice from the pope?  (Is he called the Patriarch or something like that?)  

 

Can you give a few brief answers if you have time?  Thanks!

 

I fixed your above request for you, LOL! 

 

From the way I understand it, it's a combination of both apostolic succession and the way those apostles were led by the Holy Spirit. From the first major church council in the book of Acts to the last one in about 800 AD, during which some of the theology and beliefs of the church were somewhat formalized, it was a conciliar action where one bishop had one vote.The Apostle James said, at the end of the first church council described in the book of Acts, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us .." when he announced the decision of that council. The bishop of Rome, the pope, had a primacy (a role of honor, a "first among equals"), but not a supremacy (a role as head) over the other four patriarchates and their bishops.

 

[sIDE NOTE, that you can skip if you want - The attempt to develop that supremacy is one of the major things that led to the Great Schism. The other was Rome's addition of the filioque clause to the ancient Nicene Creed without the agreement of the other bishops; at the council of Nicea in 325 AD, when the Creed had been agreed upon, it was also agreed that no changes could be made without the full consent of all bishops. Thus the unfortunate event of the splitting of the church into east (with its four patriarchs) and the west (with its one).]

 

Because of the loss of the Roman patriarch who had held that position of primacy, after the Great Schism in 1054 AD, the leader of the patriarchate of Constantinople (who you referred to in your post) now has this position of primacy.  But that's all it is -- a place of honor among the other patriarchs of the church; he's a first among equals. He has no supremacy and cannot rule for the entire church. The church is still conciliar.  And that's a big part of the "unchanged" comment made. 

 

As for theological beliefs, they, too, have gone unchanged. They were somewhat formalized through the councils, but what the councils did was formalize what the people of the church already believed.  It didn't work the other way around -- doctrines were not introduced from the councils that the people then had to adhere to. If a foreign doctrine had been introduced, the lay people -- technically -- had the power to protest and resist. For example, and I will try and get this right, when some leaders tried to say that venerating icons was idolatrous (a practice from the very early days of the church, one that spoke to the incarnation of Christ), it was the Empress Theodora who led the church back to the practice.

 

All of the above is what we collectively call Holy Tradition.  Holy Tradition is the life of the church developed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. 

 

Oh, as for practice -- those things can and do change a little bit over time. They are not dogma. For example, the earliest Divine Liturgy was that of St. James the Apostle.  It was several hours long.  Over time it was shortened and today we have two main liturgies, that of St. Basil the Great and that of St. John Chrysostom (between 1.5 and 2 hours long).  While the liturgy on a Sunday is about 1600 years old, new troparia (songs) were written and added after that time, as different saints were canonized and honored and different feasts developed and practiced.  The liturgy has always been serviced in the language of the native people in the different areas of the world.  There are also different cultural practices in different parts of the world, and that's okay.  This is not changing Holy Tradition.  If something starts to get out of whack, the people -- and as needed, the bishops -- bring it back. 

 

Long answer, sorry.  Hopefully it made some sense. 

Edited January 9, 2018 by milovany

[milovany]

I didn't meant it as disrespectful, but just as a description of what the experience felt like to me, as a child/teenager who had no context for the religious experience other than the experience itself.

 

I took it the way you meant it, if that is helpful.  You were describing how your brain processed the experience within your personal context.  ("Cookies"!)

[Bluegoat]

I fixed your above request for you, LOL! 

 

From the way I understand it, it's a combination of both apostolic succession and the way those apostles were led by the Holy Spirit. From the first major church council in the book of Acts to the last one in about 800 AD, during which some of the theology and beliefs of the church were somewhat formalized, it was a conciliar action where one bishop had one vote.The Apostle James said, at the end of the first church council described in the book of Acts, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us .." when he announced the decision of that council. The bishop of Rome, the pope, had a primacy (a role of honor, a "first among equals"), but not a supremacy (a role as head) over the other four patriarchates and their bishops.

 

[sIDE NOTE, that you can skip if you want - The attempt to develop that supremacy is one of the major things that led to the Great Schism. The other was Rome's addition of the filioque clause to the ancient Nicene Creed without the agreement of the other bishops; at the council of Nicea in 325 AD, when the Creed had been agreed upon, it was also agreed that no changes could be made without the full consent of all bishops. Thus the unfortunate event of the splitting of the church into east (with its four patriarchs) and the west (with its one).]

 

Because of the loss of the Roman patriarch who had held that position of primacy, after the Great Schism in 1054 AD, the leader of the patriarchate of Constantinople (who you referred to in your post) now has this position of primacy.  But that's all it is -- a place of honor among the other patriarchs of the church; he's a first among equals. He has no supremacy and cannot rule for the entire church. The church is still conciliar.  And that's a big part of the "unchanged" comment made. 

 

As for theological beliefs, they, too, have gone unchanged. They were somewhat formalized through the councils, but what the councils did was formalize what the people of the church already believed.  It didn't work the other way around -- doctrines were not introduced from the councils that the people then had to adhere to. If a foreign doctrine had been introduced, the lay people -- technically -- had the power to protest and resist. For example, and I will try and get this right, when some leaders tried to say that venerating icons was idolatrous (a practice from the very early days of the church, one that spoke to the incarnation of Christ), it was the Empress Theodora who led the church back to the practice.

 

All of the above is what we collectively call Holy Tradition.  Holy Tradition is the life of the church developed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. 

 

Oh, as for practice -- those things can and do change a little bit over time. They are not dogma. For example, the earliest Divine Liturgy was that of St. James the Apostle.  It was several hours long.  Over time it was shortened and today we have two main liturgies, that of St. Basil the Great and that of St. John Chrysostom (between 1.5 and 2 hours long).  While the liturgy on a Sunday is about 1600 years old, new troparia (songs) were written and added after that time, as different saints were canonized and honored and different feasts developed and practiced.  The liturgy has always been serviced in the language of the native people in the different areas of the world.  There are also different cultural practices in different parts of the world, and that's okay.  This is not changing Holy Tradition.  If something starts to get out of whack, the people -- and as needed, the bishops -- bring it back. 

 

Long answer, sorry.  Hopefully it made some sense. 

 

 

What's a bit tricky about this is that a number of Christian groups claim pretty much the same thing - they don't change any essentials and any that seem changed are really just the same thing responding to different circumstances.  Certainly almost all believe they share the important beliefs and practices of the early church.  And there is actually no group that is truly identical in every belief, expression, and practice with the early church - so all of them are making some distinction around what is important.

[eternalsummer]

What's a bit tricky about this is that a number of Christian groups claim pretty much the same thing - they don't change any essentials and any that seem changed are really just the same thing responding to different circumstances.  Certainly almost all believe they share the important beliefs and practices of the early church.  And there is actually no group that is truly identical in every belief, expression, and practice with the early church - so all of them are making some distinction around what is important.

 

In addition, even the Messianic Jewish services I attended (which would be either Christian or Jewish or neither depending on your perspective, I guess) considered themselves a reawakening of what had been the essential nature of the earliest believers in Jesus as messiah (both Jewish believers and Gentile believers).  I think I am stating their theology correctly - at any rate, a huge part of their self-identity as a congregation and a movement was as people who worshipped God and practiced Judaism/early Christianity in the same way that early Christians practiced it, and as the only group that was doing so correctly or authentically, of course.  

[Penelope]

I think it's confusing because there are terms describing how a church's government works (presbyterian, congregationalist, etc), and terms that denote certain beliefs. So if I say I'm Presbyterian, that doesn't really tell you anything about what "flavor" Christian I am (liberal, conservative, Reformed, arminian, etc.), but it does tell you how my church governs itself (elders report to a session which reports to a regional assembly, which reports to a general assembly).

 

The term protestant covers a wide variety of both beliefs and governing styles.

For Presbyterians, that somewhat is true today. But historically, Presbyterianism has Calvinist origins and is historically considered Reformed and never Arminian. It never was just a form of church government.

 

It is only within the past hundred years or so, at least in America, that the words like Presbyterian or Episcopal didn’t actually mean something more distinctive than a form of government. These labels had general theological and belief associations just as the words Methodist, Lutheran, or Reformed did.

[lauraw4321]

I’m loving this thread.

[poppy]

I didn't meant it as disrespectful, but just as a description of what the experience felt like to me, as a child/teenager who had no context for the religious experience other than the experience itself.

 

For me, the ritualized statements of faith (the Nicene creed, readings from religious texts, etc.) were a lot easier to deal with than the personal appeals of the various Baptist congretations.  I recognize, especially as an adult, that the things they were reading or reciting together were religious beliefs, of course - I'm not an idiot :)  But to a person participating without knowing either the context or the exact meaning of

 

"We believe in one God, 

the Father, the Almighty,

Maker of all that is, seen and unseen. 

 

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God,

eternally begotten of the Father,

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made, consubstantial

of one Being with the Father."

 

 etc., it was (for me) something to get through without messing up the word order and, because I didn't have any context for things like "eternally begotten" or even "true God from true God," it seemed like a ritual in which the congregants were participating instead of a direct appeal.  I'm sure that to the congregants, esp. the adult ones, it has meaning - they know what the prayers mean and why they pray them.  But to an outsider, a Baptist minister explaining the necessity of accepting Jesus into my heart and the songs in plain modern English with the guitars and the piano and etc. spoke more directly, to me, about their religious belief.

 

 

My experiences in Catholic mass (I attended maybe 3 or 4?  fairly modern, as far as I could tell) and Episcopal services (seemed more traditional, actually - attended maybe a dozen, but some were things like Easter services) were in many ways similar to how I experienced Friday night (occasionally Saturday morning) shabbat services, which (as they were Reform) were about half Hebrew and half English: there were prayers and songs that were obviously meaningful to the congregation, and they could both recite them and sing them from heart and probably knew what they meant, but I spent most of the time trying to keep up.

 

I am trying to figure out how to say that I preferred that.  I liked the feeling of being part of an old tradition, of everyone saying the same thing at the same time, of songs that were obviously generations old, of a worship that was outwardly corporate - everyone was not only praying at the same time, but they were using the same words and actions to do it.  I can still recite the Aleinu and the Kaddish (well, the communal parts) and the Shema and I can sing Shalom Aleichem.  Only for the Shema do I have any idea of the meaning of what I'm saying.

 

Sure, I'll agree, fora teenager going to church just one time, having a minister directly say to you in plain English is more simple.  And if that's what you want in a church, more power to you  But to say Catholic mass doesn't "really had anything much to say about religious belief as such" and to imply they just go through the stand-sit-kneel rituals while waiting for cookie time is ... ungenerous, at best.  

 

There are "just going through the motions" people in  just about every faith, I'm sure, and it's not more true in the faith you aren't than the faith you hold.

 

[milovany]

What's a bit tricky about this is that a number of Christian groups claim pretty much the same thing - they don't change any essentials and any that seem changed are really just the same thing responding to different circumstances.  Certainly almost all believe they share the important beliefs and practices of the early church.  And there is actually no group that is truly identical in every belief, expression, and practice with the early church - so all of them are making some distinction around what is important.

 

Understood!  That's where, for me, the educated non Christian people on this forum were a great help. More than one said, over the course of several weeks around the time we were leaving our Protestant church, something along the lines of "If anyone has a claim to be the historical church, it's the Orthodox," which led me to start reading writings from the early times and move forward in time with how things developed, rather than with my feet standing in the 20th century trying to look back through time. That was how it played out for our family, but I do totally understand that other groups feel the same way about their lineage.

[scoutingmom]

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"

Joseph Smith had never been baptized before his vision.

[Chris in VA]

I think it's funny that many Episcopalians say they aren't Protestant, they are "somewhere in the middle, between Protestant and Catholic," yet the official name of the Episcopal Church as it is in America is The Protestant Episcopal Church in America. 

 

I'm Episcopalian. I think my denomination has an identity crisis, to be honest! 

 

I grew up hearing Christianity split into Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox. None of those names were slurs or used in any negative way. 

[solascriptura]

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.

“Faith is a gift we give Him.†Is the the EO understanding of faith? I’m genuinely curious and not contemptuous in any way. I’ve never hear that before. Please forgive my ignorance as I’ve never learned much about the EO branch of Christianity.

[Scarlett]

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.

Yes JWs have been labeled as extremists and all their property seized. I followed the trial and appeal very very closely and it was unbelievable how it went down.

[milovany]

Thanks, Patty Joanna.  Yes, that is pretty much what I was thinking.  I was writing in the context of the Reformed idea of faith -- that God gives it to who He wills, so some will never have faith.  But I think we can ALL have faith, should we choose to do so, and that in choosing to do so, it's a gift we give God, part of us back to Him.  And yes, as you describe, because He already created something to have faith in, and enabled us to have faith in the first place, and then He gives back again to us, and we again back to him as we live a life of faith.  A living faith. 

[shawthorne44]

I think it's funny that many Episcopalians say they aren't Protestant, they are "somewhere in the middle, between Protestant and Catholic," yet the official name of the Episcopal Church as it is in America is The Protestant Episcopal Church in America. 

 

I'm Episcopalian. I think my denomination has an identity crisis, to be honest! 

 

I grew up hearing Christianity split into Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox. None of those names were slurs or used in any negative way. 

 

Wow, there are people that say that in seriousness?  

I've heard similar as a joke e.g. "Catholic-light", but that sounds like people were serious.  

Identity crisis.  Yup.   Don't forget the Anglicans in America.  

[Reefgazer]

I am Protestant and don't object to the term; I've never heard of being annoyed at that term.

Edited January 10, 2018 by reefgazer

[Daria]

I think it's funny that many Episcopalians say they aren't Protestant, they are "somewhere in the middle, between Protestant and Catholic," yet the official name of the Episcopal Church as it is in America is The Protestant Episcopal Church in America. 

 

I'm Episcopalian. I think my denomination has an identity crisis, to be honest! 

 

I grew up hearing Christianity split into Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox. None of those names were slurs or used in any negative way. 

 

I've never heard that, but in some ways it makes sense to me.

 

I'm a kinda lapsed/agnostic Episcopalian, who works in a Catholic school.  So, I go to Catholic Mass far more often than I go to an Episcopal church.  

 

In some ways, the Catholic service is so comfortable to me.  As someone who grew up in a very liturgical tradition, the structure and ritual of the Catholic Mass is very familiar and comforting.  I'm not sure what I believe about God, but there's no doubt that in a Catholic or Episcopal service, I feel more comfortable with the idea of God than at any other point in my life.  

 

On the other hand, when I'm reviewing Catholic theology homework with my students, I find that there are many times when the teaching is so different from what I grew up with.  Not just ideas that are new, or different, but ideas that seem really alien, and in direct conflict with what I was taught as an Episcopalian child and teenagers. 

 

On the other hand, at one point as a teen I attended youth group and occasionally church with an United Church of Canada congregation,  In youth group, when we talked about theology, almost everything I heard there made sense, it fit with what I'd been taught.  But the services were so different from what I was used to that it was really distracting.  It made me really aware of how important the liturgy and the ritual was to my ability to feel closer to God.

[luuknam]

Calvinists refer to followers of Calvin. For a long time Calvinist basically meant Presbyterian. But now there are other churches with a Reformed theology. 

 

 

Um, what!? Best I can tell, the Continental Reformed Church both predates Presbyterianism and is Calvinist. Also, say, the Dutch Reformed Church is about the same age as Presbyterianism (and is Calvinist as well). 

 

(not that I have much of a clue what Presbyterianism is, other than that Wikipedia says it originated in the British Isles in the 16th century - okay, Wikipedia says that there have been a handful of Presbyterian churches in NL since the 1950s, so, not that surprising that I'm clueless about them)

[DawnM]

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.

 

Ok, this may be a quibble that no one wants to venture into, but the LDS I have talked to try to argue that they are "just another Christian denomination" which would mean they don't want to be thought of as a different religion.  But you are saying you feel that LDS is indeed a different religion, right?  

[poppy]

Ok, this may be a quibble that no one wants to venture into, but the LDS I have talked to try to argue that they are "just another Christian denomination" which would mean they don't want to be thought of as a different religion.  But you are saying you feel that LDS is indeed a different religion, right?  

 

I am not the poster but I get what she is saying.  It is a "just another Christian denomination" but it is not Catholic, and is not Protestant. 

Catholics use one version of the Bible.  They think it's the true Bible.

Protestants use a different version.  They think it's the true Bible.

Mormons use a 3rd version (plus, obviously, has additional scriptural texts including the Book of Mormon).  They think it's the true Bible.

[Bluegoat]

Um, what!? Best I can tell, the Continental Reformed Church both predates Presbyterianism and is Calvinist. Also, say, the Dutch Reformed Church is about the same age as Presbyterianism (and is Calvinist as well). 

 

(not that I have much of a clue what Presbyterianism is, other than that Wikipedia says it originated in the British Isles in the 16th century - okay, Wikipedia says that there have been a handful of Presbyterian churches in NL since the 1950s, so, not that surprising that I'm clueless about them)

 

I'm sure this differs in different areas of the country but here, not many people are aware of most of the continental Protestant churches.  The only real exception is Lutherans because there was a German immigration to part of the province.  But even some of the Lutherans ended up as Anglicans because Anglican bishops ended up administering some of their churches when they couldn't get Lutheran ministers - my own Anglican parish started out as a Lutheran parish.

 

People who came from other parts of Europe as Protestants ended p in Anglican, Lutheran, or Presbyterian churches, rather than setting up branches of their home church.  So today you don't see many people here aware of those other groups.

[DawnM]

I am not the poster but I get what she is saying.  It is a "just another Christian denomination" but it is not Catholic, and is not Protestant. 

Catholics use one version of the Bible.  They think it's the true Bible.

Protestants use a different version.  They think it's the true Bible.

Mormons use a 3rd version (plus, obviously, has additional scriptural texts including the Book of Mormon).  They think it's the true Bible.

 

Yes, except she used the term "different RELIGION" that is more than just a different denomination of the same religion.

[ktgrok]

Um, what!? Best I can tell, the Continental Reformed Church both predates Presbyterianism and is Calvinist. Also, say, the Dutch Reformed Church is about the same age as Presbyterianism (and is Calvinist as well). 

 

(not that I have much of a clue what Presbyterianism is, other than that Wikipedia says it originated in the British Isles in the 16th century - okay, Wikipedia says that there have been a handful of Presbyterian churches in NL since the 1950s, so, not that surprising that I'm clueless about them)

 

Sorry,s should have said in the USA, Calvinist has been synonymous with Presbyterian for a long time. I'm not familiar with the Continental Reformed Church, although a brief look up shows it to be similar to the Presbyterian Church I know. 

[scoutingmom]

Ok, this may be a quibble that no one wants to venture into, but the LDS I have talked to try to argue that they are "just another Christian denomination" which would mean they don't want to be thought of as a different religion. But you are saying you feel that LDS is indeed a different religion, right?

As a member, I feel that it is another Christian Religion. If someone said I am not Christian, I would not agree with them. There are a few instances where I would not bother to argue the protestant label..... but it is not a protestant religion in that it is not from the protest from the reformation.

 

And I definitely will fight against being sent to a church for a worship service of another Christian denomination or non-Christian religion against my will.

 

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

[scoutingmom]

I am not the poster but I get what she is saying. It is a "just another Christian denomination" but it is not Catholic, and is not Protestant.

Catholics use one version of the Bible. They think it's the true Bible.

Protestants use a different version. They think it's the true Bible.

Mormons use a 3rd version (plus, obviously, has additional scriptural texts including the Book of Mormon). They think it's the true Bible.

We use the King James Version of the Bible.

 

We also have the Book of Mormon.

 

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

[scoutingmom]

Yes, except she used the term "different RELIGION" that is more than just a different denomination of the same religion.

I was 13. Give me a break

 

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

[scoutingmom]

Ok, this may be a quibble that no one wants to venture into, but the LDS I have talked to try to argue that they are "just another Christian denomination" which would mean they don't want to be thought of as a different religion. But you are saying you feel that LDS is indeed a different religion, right?

And I guess depending on my mood and who it is and why it is being discused, I probably wouldn't ever say "Just another Christian denomination. I might say it was another Christian denomination, but the "Just implies to me that there is no difference.

 

I also have mostly heard this type of thing mostly when being told we aren't Christian, such as when not being allowed to participate in a Christian Homeschool Group.

 

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

[Frances]

Each of these phrases in the creed is there to state what is true and to refute early heresies. Eg, a heresy: Jesus is not fully God. So the creed says “very God of very God.†Another heresy: Jesus is a creature, not God. So the phrase, “begotten of the Father before all ages.†It is a statement that puts into a short, memorable (with practice) form a summary that continues to remind the faithful of much more extensive instruction.

 

Most high Liturgy does that, which is why it takes some time to learn the meanings and enter into them, and why it can look or be ( when I am distracted) ritualistic. But when I’m paying attention, it’s multilayered and rich.

 

As an example: before communion the priest bows and we bow back. A visitor who was standing next to me asked me why we worshippped the priest with this bow. I explained that this was not at all what had happened there. The priest bowed and quietly asked forgiveness from the people, and our response is to forgive and to ask his forgiveness. That is a meaningful action if one does it paying attention.

 

There’s a reason the priest stands here, or there; that the gospel is chanted, that someone makes the sign of the cross. These all call to mind the faith.

 

Liturgy means “work†and if you do it right it is work and if can be exhausting. It is not a performance for or by the people; it is prayer and worship, as one does the work to make it so.

But even some Catholics are never taught the kinds of things you are talking about. I was raised Catholic by two very devout parents, but never attended Catholic school and most of my CCD classes were pathetic. I left the church at the end of college, but have probably learned more about Catholicism as an adult from this board than I was ever taught growing up. Nothing I’ve learned has made me interested in returning to the church, quite the contrary actually, but it is nice to have a better understanding of many of the things I experienced growing up.

[Pawz4me]

But even some Catholics are never taught the kinds of things you are talking about. I was raised Catholic by two very devout parents, but never attended Catholic school and most of my CCD classes were pathetic. I left the church at the end of college, but have probably learned more about Catholicism as an adult from this board than I was ever taught growing up. Nothing I’ve learned has made me interested in returning to the church, quite the contrary actually, but it is nice to have a better understanding of many of the things I experienced growing up.

 

Yes, but from a protestant perspective.

 

Sometimes these threads remind me of the "are (some) public schools really that bad" discussions. IME some churches don't educate. At all.

 

It was only after we quit attending church (when I was around 40) and I started self-educating that I learned how ignorant I was about Christianity and religion in general. Essentially nothing was taught about any of the big, rather important principles in the churches I attended. Not in Sunday services, not in Sunday school, not in small groups. It was all pretty much either feel good stuff or hellfire-and-brimstones-if-you-don't-believe (or don't believe like we do) stuff. No real meat as far as history or the "why" of what the particular church believed.

 

Remember the survey that was done years ago that found on the whole that atheist and agnostics knew much more about religion than people who were regular church attenders? That didn't surprise me even one little bit.

Edited January 11, 2018 by Pawz4me

[DawnM]

As a member, I feel that it is another Christian Religion. If someone said I am not Christian, I would not agree with them. There are a few instances where I would not bother to argue the protestant label..... but it is not a protestant religion in that it is not from the protest from the reformation.

 

And I definitely will fight against being sent to a church for a worship service of another Christian denomination or non-Christian religion against my will.

 

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

 

Honestly, I am a Christian and would not feel upset if I were asked to go to a different denomination for a few services.  I have even attended Catholic services, as a Protestant.  

[DawnM]

I was 13. Give me a break

 

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

 

Well, in fairness to me, you said Air Cadet, I thought that was a military thing and you were over 18.  I have no reference to know you would have been 13.

[DawnM]

Yes, but from a protestant perspective.

 

Sometimes these threads remind me of the "are (some) public schools really that bad" discussions. IME some churches don't educate. At all.

 

It was only after we quit attending church (when I was around 40) and I started self-educating that I learned how ignorant I was about Christianity and religion in general. Essentially nothing was taught about any of the big, rather important principles in the churches I attended. Not in Sunday services, not in Sunday school, not in small groups. It was all pretty much either feel good stuff or hellfire-and-brimstones-if-you-don't-believe (or don't believe like we do) stuff. No real meat as far as history or the "why" of what the particular church believed.

 

Remember the survey that was done years ago that found on the whole that atheist and agnostics knew much more about religion than people who were regular church attenders? That didn't surprise me even one little bit.

 

I did grow up with a lot of theology and I am thankful my parents didn't just teach me what OUR church believed, but also compared it with other churches and religions, so that I came out of their home knowing the tenants of many other faiths.  In high school (Christian school) we went to a Mosque, a Synagog, and a Hindu temple, AND we spent time there interviewing the leaders in each.  

 

I am by no means an expert, I will say that up front, but I do have a better understanding than many.

[J-rap]

As an aside (to me too, because it's so easy to get caught up in all of this, and it is interesting!), it's almost kind of funny to think of all the "religious" differences vs. the main message of Christ.  (And the religious differences aren't necessarily bad -- I don't mean that!  We all have preferred ways of worshipping.)  I recently read a book "The End of Religion" by Bruxy Cavy.  He peels away the layers and gets to the meat of Christ's message that connects all Christian denominations.  Sometimes books like that are good reminders. 

[Daria]

Yes, except she used the term "different RELIGION" that is more than just a different denomination of the same religion.

 

In everyday speech, the line between "religion" and "denomination" isn't that clear.

 

Plenty of people, if asked "What religion are you?"  would reply "Catholic" or "Eastern Orthodox" or "Baptist", even though they'd also identify as Christian.  So someone who is LDS might also say "LDS" or "Mormon", that doesn't mean that they don't also identify as Christian.

 

Similarly, people explain things all the time using "religion" to mean their particular belief system.

 

For example, people might say "My religion teaches that the Pope is infallable.", or "Gay marriage is against my religion", or "In my religion, we observe the Sabbath on Saturday".  If "religion" only meant the broader Christian community, those would all be wrong, as they are beliefs that are only held by a segment of the Christian community, and taught by a segment of Christian leaders.  

[eternalsummer]

I feel compelled to link at this point:

[Pam in CT]

Scarlett, do JWs self-identify as "Protestant," or (like EO and Catholic and LDS and I've learned on this thread Church of Christ) as a different.... (searching for the right word, please forgive me if I don't get it right)... strand of Christianity?

[Bluegoat]

I don't think it would make much sense to call Mormons or Jews Protestants, as they really didn't come out of any of the Protestant reformations.  You can argue about how close the theology is to mainstream Christianity, but from a historical perspective Protestant seems like it's just wrong to me.  It's more of a schism if it's anything.