Talk:Protestantism/Archive 2

message: There are some gaps, it seems the question of Authority is an important area only glancingly touched on
#ecclesiastical authority in the Church/churches is an area of difference between Protestantism, Orthodoxy and Roman Catholic
##this also picks up some of the issues around laity, religious minister, holy orders and the priesthood of all believers
#secular authority is an area of diversity in Protestantism
##Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms
##the reformed approach where Calvin and Zwingli are active in exercising secular authority
##the anabaptists 
##the peace churches  
Ideas of the Kingdom of God are relevant to both ecclesiastical and secular authority. 
Paul foord 04:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Authority

message: Need to pick up on/point to Protestantism in the rest of the world Paul foord 04:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Too Anglo-American

message: excerpted from the archive
I don't insist that it should be written in the article that 'Protestants are people of the Book' if for the reasons mentioned earlier you think it incorrect or confusing. But I think that in Sola Scriptura it should be noted that it means rejection of the Tradition. Also Tradition with capitalized 'T' means the Divine Tradition while tradition means various other traditions, which may be modified or abandoned in the light of Tradition, so it should be changed. BTW pls read also about priesthood in the "Dispute??" thread. --SylwiaS 03:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From a Protestant point of view, it's not quite accurate to say that sola scriptura means rejection of Tradition.  Rather, it means that nothing is alongside of Scripture, in a place of equality in our "affections of our devotion and reverence" (as your source put it).  Tradition is embraced, insofar as tradition is biblical - obviously, very different from an Orthodox or Catholic reverence for Holy Tradition. In some cases, this means that traditions are accepted, except those which conflict with Scripture (Lutherans, and especially, Anglicans, tend in this direction).  In other cases, only those traditions are accepted for which there is direct warrant from Scripture (Reformed, and especially, Baptists traditionally tend in this direction ;-).  Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: 'Spirit of prophecy' and Pentecostal types of Protestant churches, and some  restorationist movements and churches which originated in the United States, should usually NOT be said to subscribe to the principle of 'sola scriptura'.  This broad category includes the Jehovah's Witnesses and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but also  many who are nearer to the mainstream of evangelicalism, like Seventh-day Adventists, and many charismatic movements and churches.  Or, perhaps it would be better to say, if they do consider themselves subscribers to the principle, that it is a kind of sola scriptura that is antithetical to the original. These groups can sometimes be extreme in their anti-Traditionalism; but their idea of the Spirit's living voice in the Church and in the life of the believer is comparable in some respects, to the Catholic one. At least, so far as the original idea of 'sola scriptura' is concerned, they are very comparable. Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification of sola scriptura

message: See the archives for discussion of the reasons that this article should not assert that the Roman Catholic Church denies the "priesthood of believers". Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As to the Tradition, while I understand that various Protestant churches have different approach to the Bible and faith, I don’t think any of them would admit cultivating the Holy Tradition. Since Catholic popes and bishops are inseparable part of this Tradition and only they can interpret it, it would mean that there is a Protestant church, which recognizes our pope. --SylwiaS 21:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Priesthood of all believers

message: I'm removing a paragraph that seems a bit fluffy to me.  It was intended to combine what I found here with a summary of Humanism to Protestantism.  As such, looking at it more closely, later, I thought that it was out of place under "Definition", and should go into the history and development, where it could help with introducing an explanation of the founding of universities, supposed connections to capitalism, and the so-called "Protestant work-ethic", etc..  But, it isn't a good paragraph, all said and done. I'm inclined to remove it altogether.  Does anyone want to see some version of it put back in?
:As an intellectual movement, Protestantism grew out of the Renaissance and universities, attracting some learned intellectuals, as well as politicians, professionals, and skilled tradesmen and artisans. The new technology of the printing press allowed Protestant ideas to spread rapidly, as well as aiding in the dissemination of translations of the Bible in native tongues. Nascent Protestant social ideals of liberty of conscience and individual freedom were formed through continuous confrontation with the authority of the Bishop of Rome, and the hierarchy of the Catholic priesthood.  The Protestant movement away from the constraints of tradition, toward greater emphasis on individual conscience, anticipated later developments of democratization, and the so-called Enlightenment of later centuries.
Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ''"As an intellectual movement..."''

message: It seems to me that this is a basic part of Protestantism. I believe that what actually happens is not readily apparent. Jesus said at the Last Supper, "This cup represents the New Testament in my blood" (see Matthew). In other words, the cup was partly symbolic ("represents"). However, by drinking from the cup, the disciples were taking part in a sacred covenant with Jesus, before God. Therefore, the consequences of drinking from this cup were and are very real, and quite serious. The fact that God is watching, is what makes the Communion so serious. Whom are they communing with? With God. And God decides whether to honor their covenant with Him or not. This happens in Heaven, by God's supreme, divine authority, not necessarily whether the disciples understood it or not. Although human understanding is important, God's Holy Spirit is "able to discern the thoughts and intentions of the (human) heart." God Himself was certainly not confused about what it meant. The New Covenant (mentioned in the book of Jeremiah), which is represented and entered into by drinking from the Communion cup, is described in the New Testament (a "testament" contains the written terms and conditions of an oral covenant). So, to say that the New Testament is "unconditional", is a contradiction in terms. The New Testament actually is ABOUT the conditions of the New Covenant in Christ's blood, including how to live out, this New Covenant. (Sept.)
::I refer to you Eucharist, Eucharistic theology, Real Presence, and Eucharistic theologies contrasted.  KHM03 11:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most translations of the Bible give "This cup is the New Testament..." for the passage above. Whether he meant it representationally is open for dispute. DJ Clayworth 15:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WHAT HAPPENS AT COMMUNION?

message: A revival first broke out in Scotland, contemporaneously with Calvinism in France and Switzerland. Unfortunately, the English Puritans, under Oliver Cromwell, crushed the Scottish Covenanters, when they tried to put a Catholic King of Scotland onto the English throne. Cromwell and his Puritans defeated the numerically-superior but misguided Scottish army, and proceeded to conquer and subdue all of Scotland. The real "braveheart" was Oliver Cromwell! (Sept.) --  unsigned comment by anonymous User:129.24.93.219 
: Are you suggesting an addition or change to the article, or just trying to start a discussion? Also, the normal way to sign your posts on wikipedia is to use three or four tilde's. That way no one will confuse your nickname with the name of a month. (This is a current pet peeve of mine.) Wesley 20:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This refers more to Protestant Reformation or English Reformation rather than Protestantism, There is also an article on te Covenanters. -- Paul foord 03:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: English Puritanism Has its Roots in the Scottish Covenanters Movement, as Well as German Lutheranism and French/Swiss Calvinism

message: In Protestantism, Jesus is the highest in ranking under the Father. But in Catholicism, Jesus's worldly mother, Mary, is at higher ranking than Jesus (which, IMO as a Protestant, is wrong). That's the most important difference! How do you guys miss that? Protestantism never believed that "Virgin Mary" is worthy of the title of "The Mother of God". This is very offensive to Protestants, please include it. --Hayson
:In the future, please sign your notes.  As to your comments concerning "Mother of God": no one has mentioned this because theotokos is perfectly acceptable within the entire Christian tradition, and has been since the early centuries of the church (i.e., it is in no way an innovation, as can be argued for purgatory or other such disputed teachings); Θεοτόκος is a descriptive title, and not a reference to rank.  See, for instance, the recent Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, which has a concise discussion of the Nestorian controversy, which was sparked by an objection to the use of Θεοτόκος.  Ask around before speaking for all protestants, please. -Rekleov 18:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you'll find many Catholics who venerate Mary above Jesus.  And, as a Protestant, I can strongly affirm that Mary is indeed the Mother of God.  KHM03 22:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for not signing my notes. KHM03 should have known that God consists of three parts: Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Mary is only the physical mother of Son, not all of God. I was a Catholic myself, and then converted to Protestant. A Catholic will pray many times a day to "Mother of God" instead of God(who created "Mother of God"), that's what I meant by higher ranking, sorry if I confused you. I'm sorry that I didn't know about theotokos. I'll try and research more before I speak for all protestants, but most protestants don't believe in the dispute traditional teachings. (Isn't that why Martin Luther made the revolution in the first place?) --Hayson 03:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the importance of Mary is plain to see.  According to the 10 commandments: "honor thy father and mother."  Nobody debates that Mary was Jesus' mother so therefore Jesus must honor Mary (This does not mean he is subordinate, however).  If by praying to Mary we "get her on our side" how much more influence will she have with God than we with our prayers alone? 216.99.65.10 14:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: To back this up, as a Protestant I would certainly agree that Mary is "Mother of God". Jesus is God, Mary is his mother. What more do we need? Incidentally it is a subtle theological error (in Protestantism as well as Catholicism) to consider that Jesus is only part of God. Talk to your minister for more on that. DJ Clayworth 15:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Well said. At the time of the third council, it was decided to call Mary "Theotokos" ("mother of God") mainly to emphasize that her son, Jesus, was fully God, and not only human. Orthodox believers are encouraged to pray to Mary in addition to praying to God, rather than instead of praying to God. You can read this in the published liturgies. I strongly suspect that Roman Catholics have the same practice, and I know that both believe that prayer to Mary is only effective because she entreats God to answer the prayer, not because she has any power of her own apart from God to answer prayer. You may well find some Catholic and Orthodox believers who are confused about this, but you can also find Protestants who are confused about various things as well. May God have mercy on us all. Peace, Wesley 17:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why has nobody mentioned this? 

message: I changed it from "a split from within" to "a splitting away from" because the former makes it sound like two large opposing factions were debating within the Church. The new phrase better reflects both the size of the group and the nature of the revolt. -- 2nd Piston Honda 05:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence 

message: The article lists Anglicans/ Episcopalans as among the Prostestant groups.  While I understand this, I do not agree.  I myself am an Anglican and do not consider myself Protestant.  However, I know other Anglicans who do. I also must admit that I generally refer to myself as "Anglo-Catholic."   Because of my bias, I shall not edit the article, but ask that others review the website of the Episcopal Diocese of New York which has a question/answer forum where the following exchange occurred:
Wednesday March 19, 2003
Question:
this is a long going debate amongst my family. Is the Episcopal Church Catholic or Protestant
Answer:
This question generates debate because many people make the mistake of thinking that “if you are not Roman Catholic, then you must be Protestant.” Significantly, the Episcopal Church is Anglican, and it dropped the word ‘Protestant’ from the title page of The Book of Common Prayer over 20 years ago - it confuses our identity. 
The most balanced and respected theological view is that there are three major ‘Catholic’ churches - a) Roman Catholic, b) Orthodox, and c) Anglican (Episcopal). This view is based on the fact that the English Reformation was affected by the (continental) Protestant Reformation in significant but not substantial ways. While our English forebears distinguished their church from the Bishop of Rome, they still retained the essential components of the Catholic Church. We are not Protestant because of several elements in our polity, spirituality and theology which are fundamental to our common life. These include the three-fold ministry of Holy Orders, the retention of a sacramental life that emphasizes Holy Baptism and the Holy Eucharist, the focus on the life of sanctification, the embrace of the Religious Life, the centrality of the historic episcopate, and several other distinguishing aspects of Catholicity. It would be incorrect to say that we are not Catholic because we are not Roman Catholic. And it would be incorrect to say that we are Protestant. 
Therefore, the most accurate answer to your question is - we are Anglican. We are a Catholic Church, sympathetic to and impacted by the Protestant style, but characterized by a life that flows distinctively from the English Rite instead of the Roman Rite. 
A direct link to this is [ Episcopal Church Q & A]
--Franklin Moore 05:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see why you don't just edit the page.  I did some book research and everything I read makes the same distinctions.  We could say "often listed as Protestant but considers itself a branch of Catholicism distinct from the Roman and Orthodox branches" or somesuch.--Cberlet 15:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue is discussed in detail on the Anglicanism page that links from the list. Is my re-arranged sub-subheading a solution?--Cberlet 16:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The new subheading seems to address my concerns quite well.  Thanks Franklin Moore 22:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are Anglicans Prostestant?

message: There is one for the distribution of Catholicism in the world. De mortuis... 02:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a map? 

message: A new WikiProject focussing on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion has just been initiated:  WikiProject Anglicanism.  Our goal is to improve and expand Anglican-reltaed articles.  If anyone (Anglican or non-Anglican) is interested, read over the project page and consider signing up.  Cheers! Fishhead64 06:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Anglicanism

message: It would be nice with a new header that shows the major differences between Protestantism and Catholicism. Like the role of following Jesus messengers etc. And differences in modern days, and in the society´s. -like politics etc. --Comanche cph 23:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The major differences between Protestantism and Catholicism. 

message: I contend against 2nd Piston Honda that this sentance from the intro:
:Protestantism is a main branch of Christianity.
is better than this version:
:Protestantism is one of three main groups currently within Christianity.
I claim this because the second could be interpreted as POV because of the word "currently" (as though one group may shortly or sometime in the future leave the bounds of Christendom). If the specification of three branches is what 2nd Piston Honda is concerned with, then I'd suggest:
:Protestantism is one of the three main branches in Christianity.
--Flex 16:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro sentence

message: I take issue with the phrase "Protestantism is currently the dominant religion of many first-world countries such as the United States and Germany," particularly with its place in the introduction. First, Germany is evenly split along Protestant and Catholic lines, so the assertion that the former is the "dominant" religion is hard to swallow. Also, the obvious implication here is that a correlation exists between Protestantism and social and economic prosperity. I'm sure this has a certain appeal with many people, but on the other hand it isn't difficult to find first world countries that are primarily Catholic (Canada, Australia, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc.), so I hardly see what good the assertion does, out of place, without context, at the beginning of the article. Albrecht 21:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protestantism and the First World 

message: Under the "famous people" Joseph Smith, Jr. is listed, and it's claimed that Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) claim to be Protestant. (with a "citation needed" mark.)
However, "Question: Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a Protestant church?
Answer: Gordon B. Hinckley, President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said: 
"We are not an institution which has broken away from the Roman Catholic or any other church. We are not part of a reformation. We declare that this is a Restoration. The teachings and organization of the Church are as they were anciently." 
http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-57-16,00.html
Most Mormons would NOT agree that they are part of any Protestant religion.  I haven't edited the page but would appreciate someone else looking at this.
Autobahnsho 04:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mormons" 

message: For anyone who is interested, there is a draft of a new article, Religious views on masturbation, at User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation. Please feel free to expand the draft, especially the section User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Protestantism! After it looks good on user space, it can be posted on to article space. CyberAnth 08:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protestant views on masturbation

message: There is a debate over at Talk:Roman Catholic Church regarding whether the Catholic Church should be in the category "Christian denominations".
I have made a proposal over at Talk:Christianity which, in essence, proposes replacing Category:Christian denominations with Category:Major branches of Christianity and Category:Protestand denominations.  Hopefully, this will address the issue.
I believe this proposal should be debate at Talk:Christianity so I have placed the proposal on that page.  Please place your comments in the section titled Proposal for change to the category "Christian denominations"
--Richard 16:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for change to the category "Christian denominations" 

message: Interested editors may wish to vote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 22.  Badagnani 06:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion review for [[Melissa Scott (pastor)]]

message: Protestantism has been nominated to be the Anglicanism collaboration of the month. If you wish to add your vote on it, please go to WP:AngCOTM. Cheers. Wassupwestcoast 03:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anglicanism Project of the Month

message: The above chart is incorrect. Anabaptists emerged on their own and not from the Reformed Church. Anabaptists actually existed long before the Reformation movement, meeting in house churches. Moreover, the Church of England came BEFORE the Reformed Church. Moreover, Methodism emerged from the Church of England and not from the Reformed Church.
* Original content by 121.7.10.253, moved here from article by Nathan Baum 02:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anabaptist origins 

message: Please help! I have to write an essay on this...
Describe the Protestants' practices of self-government th=and the influence of those practices on the development of democracy and Federalist ideas.
--Impure innocence 03:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a homework site. There are many aids to help you set up paper and you can get tons of research on the internet or at a local library. Pick an easier subject on religion next time, like Catholicism.69.209.68.126 05:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HW HELP!

message: The following entry was reverted (actually it was commented out instead).
*Brian Reagon, Uses religion in comedy.
Reasons: The link does not currently exist, no reference is cited, therefor lack of notability. Dbiel (Talk) 19:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Brian Reagon

message: Does the following imply that Martin Luther's intent was to separate from the church (which is not true) He like his predecessors sought to reform the church from within, but were forced to separate when attempts to reformed from within failed.
:" Earlier "reformers" such as John Wycliff and Jan Hus did not advocate such a separation but rather sought to purge what they saw as impurities within the Catholic Church. Anachronistically, they can be seen as reformers as their work heavily influenced the thinking of those who did formally separate, such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli, Thomas Cranmer, and John Knox."
I do not know how to better word it and I may be overreacting; but wanted to raise the issue. Dbiel (Talk) 19:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the rewording. Dbiel (Talk) 03:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading information?