The trinity is not a core doctrine of Protestantism, but it is a core doctrine of most denominations within Protestantism. There are some denominations, Apostolic and some sects of Pentecostalism that come to mind, that do not believe in the trinity.
Confession: I never really 'got' the Holy Spirit. (I preferred calling him the Holy Ghost. Old School style) I couldn't imagine how he was in any way an equal part of the Trinity.
How old are you sands (if you don't mind answering)? Because I've noticed a couple of your comments sound more "old school".
Yeah from everything I'm reading the only reason they aren't protestants is because they said so.
I think a lot of Protestants don't consider Episcopals to be a part of them either. Episcopals have bishops and believe in Apostolic Succession. The whole service is so very Catholic-y. Most of the members of our church are former Catholics who left for personal reasons, but wanted a similar service. Most people on the forums end up agreeing that Anglicans belong in their own category. It doesn't really matter but I think that's where a lot of confusion comes from with religion in general. Often how something began and where it is now are two different things.
The reason why the Anglicans don't appear Protestant is because they were one of the first Protestants (King Henry VIII). As a result, they are more likely to "look" more Catholic and not appear "Protestant". As the years rolled on, Protestants got further and further away from the Catholic Church and look nothing like it at all (in both liturgy and doctrine).
Confession: I never really 'got' the Holy Spirit. (I preferred calling him the Holy Ghost. Old School style) I couldn't imagine how he was in any way an equal part of the Trinity.
How old are you sands (if you don't mind answering)? Because I've noticed a couple of your comments sound more "old school".
I'm 49. And by the time I was going to catechism, 'Holy Spririt' was in vogue rather than Holy Ghost, but my Granny would use that phrase when saying prayers with us.
Holy Ghost seemed so nonsensical to me, sort of a Scooby Dooby Do irreverent religious figure, that it was almost appealing!
Shenanigans that Anglicans aren't Protestants! Anyone who is not a Catholic or Orthodox and is still Christian is technically a Protestant. I say this as someone who was raised in the Episcopal Church. I was most definitely a Protestant.
Though I'd say that Mormons don't count as Protestants, because they don't really have any of the belief systems of any Protestant root, nor do they originate in the correct time frame.
I would agree that Mormons aren't Protestant...same for Jehovah Witnesses.
That's really interesting. And thanks for not being condescending. I swear I've been to protestant church services my whole life and never have heard the ransom line before.
You actually probably have and just don't realize it.
O come o come Emmanuel And ransom captive Israel That mourns in lonely exile here Until the Son of God appear
Shenanigans that Anglicans aren't Protestants! Anyone who is not a Catholic or Orthodox and is still Christian is technically a Protestant. I say this as someone who was raised in the Episcopal Church. I was most definitely a Protestant.
Though I'd say that Mormons don't count as Protestants, because they don't really have any of the belief systems of any Protestant root, nor do they originate in the correct time frame.
Hmm, I was raised in both the Catholic and Episcopal churces, and I thought we were basically the American arm of the Anglican Catholic church. Anyhow, I always thought of the Episcopal church as being Catholic, minus the pope (a huge minus, I know). Then again, maybe that was just how my parents justified our attending Episcopal church to my Catholic grandparents.
Random aside, in my mind, there's a continuum between Catholics and Fundies that looks like this: Catholics<Episcopal<Lutheran<United Church of Christ<Methodist<Presbytarian<Baptist<Evangelical<Pentecostal<Fundies<JWs/Mormons/7th Day Adventists. Quakers and Unitarians are in their own categories.
I'd go Catholic -> Episcopal -> Lutheran -> Presbyterian -> UCC -> Methodist -> Baptist -> Nondenominational -> Evangelical and so on.
I agree with your placement on Quakers and Unitarians.
I've always found Quakers interesting, mostly because while the foundations of their beliefs are so different from traditional Christianity, I don't find them off putting the way I do Mormons/JW's, etc.
Blue I read your continuum and nodded. Then I read Habs continuum and nodded. Love it!
We have a Quaker church not far from my house. We also have a Mennonite church close by. For some reason, I stupidly thought Quakers were similar to Amish but someone was telling me that they are kind of opposite. They are both pacifists and don't believe in war but they described Quakers to me as kind of hippy-ish and very liberal. So would Quakers be Christians? I don't know their origins other than they call each other "friends" and they are the "society of friends". It all sounds very 1960's to me. I agree they aren't off putting and maybe because they don't come knocking on your door and they're kind of hippy-dippy and just do their own thing.
Bunnybean LOL. What are the Duggars? That might be a good starting place.
Duggars are fundies of the Quiverful variety. Odd ducks they are.
I'd say the Quakers are Christian. Much like the Amish and the Mennonites, it's not what they believe that sets them apart from other Christians. It's how they practice it. Believe it or not, the Amish and the Mennonites are quite similar to Methodists and Baptists in terms of the foundations of Christianity.
Post by 2curlydogs on Jan 28, 2013 10:32:13 GMT -5
Well, this thread took a fun turn.
All I've got is sibil nailed with wrt the sign of the cross. It was seen as superstitious nonsense by early reformers.
Oh. And I agree with Habs's continuum. Presbyterianism is derived from Calvinism and originated in Scotland in the mid-1500s (1560 I think?). Think John Knox.
Of course now we have Southern Baptist and American Baptist, and there are plenty of differences there.
So very different! I went to a Baptist church in New Jersey when I was a kid. Later in Florida, as an adult I went to a southern Baptist church. I loved both churches but they were so different. The Baptist church in NJ was very "high" church and really more similar to Lutheran. This is why my mom wanted us going there. She grew up Lutheran and there were no close churches in our area.
In Florida, the Baptist church leaned very Evangelical in many ways. For lack of a better word, it was more lively in the service but more strict in their teachings. For example the youth group had to call it the Christmas social. They couldn't use the word "dance". Things like that.
I think denominations vary according to the region they are in. Makes sense that they kind of have to reflect the population in that area if they want to have any members.
I believe I read it on this board, so this may be old news, but only recently I learned that the Mennoites were the first people and then the strict Amish came later. I always assumed it was the other way around. That the more lenient Amish broke off from the strict Amish.
Then I realized that it seems all or at least, most denominations in America grew that way. They started off more lenient and the stricter denominations came later. I know the ELCA Lutheran from Europe are much more liberal than the American Missouri-Synod Lutherans. So much so that our local Missouri-Synod Lutheran church here recently denounced itself from the ELCA Lutherans because the ELCA has started allowing gay people to marry in their church.
It seems like overall the Evangelical and fundie movement came much later. I wonder is that only an American thing? Are there Quiverfulls in other countries?
I just found this list. I didn't realize how many of the early churches in the US were Episcopal. So I wonder why so many shy away from the Protestant label when they were actually the first? ^o)
I just found this list. I didn't realize how many of the early churches in the US were Episcopal. So I wonder why so many shy away from the Protestant label when they were actually the first?
I wonder what a Dutch reform church is like. Anyone ever been?
It makes sense that the early US churches were Episcopal. The Anglican church was well established by the time the English were settling America and so it stands to reason that English who came here would establish Episcopalian churches.
But that has nothing to do with how they feel about the protestant label. Separate issues, separate time frames.
There are Dutch Reform Churches up here in NYS and NJ. It's a fairly small community. There is another "pod" of them in AZ, apparently.
Here they seem fairly progressive - normal contemporary protestant people. Apparently they don't believe in free will? Our pre-marital counselor was from the Reformed Church in this area so that's how he explained it to us. He gave us a copy of A Purpose Driven Life.
And now that I've looked at the list, it makes perfect sense. The religions of the churches mentioned match up perfectly with the faiths of those who settled those colonies. Spanish Catholics, explorers/adventurers settling Virginia in the name of the queen, Puritans/non-conformists in Massachusetts, the Dutch settled NY, etc.
Also, I think you're incorrect about these churches growing stricter. In the case of all the ones you've listed, the churches have voted/decided to become more liberal and those who wanted to stay as they were have voted to separate.
IDK how accurate an "oldest church building" listing would be to assessing how big a faith community was (not that anyone was saying that). Buildings in general burnt down much more often back in the day, or their purpose changed and changed again over the generations. I know of a church here that is technically over 200 years old but it's burnt down like 5 times.
I think one of the primary reasons the founding fathers were against a state sanctioned church was because of constant conflict between Catholics and Anglicans in England. But we tent to recall only the poor, persecuted, and wackadoo puritans lol.
And now that I've looked at the list, it makes perfect sense. The religions of the churches mentioned match up perfectly with the faiths of those who settled those colonies. Spanish Catholics, explorers/adventurers settling Virginia in the name of the queen, Puritans/non-conformists in Massachusetts, the Dutch settled NY, etc.
Also, I think you're incorrect about these churches growing stricter. In the case of all the ones you've listed, the churches have voted/decided to become more liberal and those who wanted to stay as they were have voted to separate.
I don't mean these churches being stricter. I mean looking at the contiuum of the denominations posted, the more strict movements seem to have come later. After the Episcopals and Lutherans came the Baptists, then later the Evangelicals and non-denominational. The real super strict fundies and quiverfulls seem to be the newer movements.
with Lutherans, the ELCA were first, then the Missouri-synod. The Missouri-Synod are far more strict. The Mennonites came first, then the Amish who don't use electricity The Baptists are more strict than the earlier Protestants, yet the Evangelicals/Fundies/Quiverfulls are even more strict than them.
It seems to me that the most stringent of the Christian denominations are newer ones.
When I looked at the contiuum you both posted, I initially saw it as going from oldest denominations to newest. But then I thought it could also be considered least strictest to strictest, aside from Catholic. I don't know exactly where they fit in.
I just found this list. I didn't realize how many of the early churches in the US were Episcopal. So I wonder why so many shy away from the Protestant label when they were actually the first?
I wonder what a Dutch reform church is like. Anyone ever been?
I really don't think they do shy away from the term. I've attended Episcopal churches all over the country and even one in Belgium (that was a British Anglican) and they all identified as Protestant. And of course most churches were Episcopal in the US! Most settlements were English, and aside from a few isolated groups (Puritans, Pilgrims, Quakers, a Methodist or Catholic here and there), they were Anglicans. While we often think of the early founding of America as being about freedom of religion, aside from a few outliers, it really wasn't. Most English were Anglicans and wanted to make a better life in general. All of the southern colonies were founded for economic reasons, and would have largely been Anglican. Some of the northern colonies existed to be religious havens (Plymouth, Boston, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania), but not even as a whole.
I think it depends on who you talk to. On religious forums, the question "Are Episcopals Catholic or Protestant" will spawn lengthy debates and very long answers. The only answer that seems to satisfy the masses is giving Anglicans their own category. Some people will say there are three types of Catholics: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Episcopal. Other people will say that while Episcopals aren't Catholics, they aren't Protestant either. They feel Christianity should be broken down into Catholics, Anglicans, Protestants and everyone else. For me, I really don't care what label it has. But it's just one of those things that I guess are an issue with some people. The best description I've heard came from Robin Williams "All of the pleasure, half the guilt." I hope I don't offend any Catholics. It's meant to be light hearted. My very Catholic dad laughed.
And now that I've looked at the list, it makes perfect sense. The religions of the churches mentioned match up perfectly with the faiths of those who settled those colonies. Spanish Catholics, explorers/adventurers settling Virginia in the name of the queen, Puritans/non-conformists in Massachusetts, the Dutch settled NY, etc.
Also, I think you're incorrect about these churches growing stricter. In the case of all the ones you've listed, the churches have voted/decided to become more liberal and those who wanted to stay as they were have voted to separate.
I don't mean these churches being stricter. I mean looking at the contiuum of the denominations posted, the more strict movements seem to have come later. After the Episcopals and Lutherans came the Baptists, then later the Evangelicals and non-denominational. The real super strict fundies and quiverfulls seem to be the newer movements.
with Lutherans, the ELCA were first, then the Missouri-synod. The Missouri-Synod are far more strict. The Mennonites came first, then the Amish who don't use electricity The Baptists are more strict than the earlier Protestants, yet the Evangelicals/Fundies/Quiverfulls are even more strict than them.
It seems to me that the most stringent of the Christian denominations are newer ones.
When I looked at the contiuum you both posted, I initially saw it as going from oldest denominations to newest. But then I thought it could also be considered least strictest to strictest, aside from Catholic. I don't know exactly where they fit in.
I hope I'm making sense.
In a list of Protestant denominations, Catholic (and Orthodox) doesn't belong.
In a list of Protestant denominations, Catholic (and Orthodox) doesn't belong.
And how are we defining "strict"?
The contiuum of denominations was supposed to represent the time they were established. That's why the Catholics are first.
I happened to notice that the contiuum could also be most liberal to most strict denominations if you take out Catholic and just begin with Episcopals.
Strict does have a lot of different defintions but overall, for me, two big factors I look at are: their view on gay people and their view on women. Everyone has their deal breakers but those were mine. I'd heard my share of anti-gay sermons from the fundie church. I was done. Regarding women, any church that promotes, not tolerates, but promotes women not being allowed to work, having as many kids as possible, being subservient to the man is what I'd regard as strict. It's my nice way of saying backasswards. If they make 12 year old girls stand in the front of the church and pledge their virginity to their dads and wear a ring, but say nothing to boys, that kind of stuff.
In my experience, Catholic churches run the gamut with some being very liberal and others not so much. A friend of mine in NJ said that apparently they did kind of an intervention with the priest about not having any more homilies about birth control because they were losing so many parish members. So there seems to be a lot variety among Catholic parishes.
Again, I hope I'm not offending anyone. I enjoy learning about Christianity especially since there is so much to learn.
Ok, so "strict" here has more to do with the teachings on sexual morality.
I think a major inaccuracy in your conclusion wrt less strict to more strict is that you are characterizing these Protestant denominations based upon what they teach today. For example, the Church of England was quite strict in these matters when it first chose to break away from the Catholic Church (well, except for divorce, of course). It is over (a lot of) time that they have changed their teachings in the other matters you have mentioned.
I think that some of the more recent denominations came about to counter the more liberal stances of these other churches over time. In other words, these recent denominations thought that the (now) liberal churches went too far in changing Christianity. If I'm not mistaken this happened in Judaism as well. IIRC, Hasidism was a response to the other branches of Judaism going too far liberal/reformed. Maybe MrD or some of the other Jewish posters can confirm, clarify or tell me I'm completely wrong about that...lol.
Ok, so "strict" here has more to do with the teachings on sexual morality.
I think a major inaccuracy in your conclusion wrt less strict to more strict is that you are characterizing these Protestant denominations based upon what they teach today.
Not just for sexual morality but all social issues. But yes for me, when I'm referring to strict, I'm referring to more of what you are going to see today in church. But for some reason I found it strange if you look at that list of oldest churches in the US, you'll find that today, they are also some of most liberal in their teachings. I have NO idea what Episcopals and Lutheran taught 200 years ago. They could have been just like the fundies for all I know. But today the Reform, Episcopals and Lutherans are considered the most liberal of movements.
Where, the denominations that came later, especially those after the Protestants, are today the most conservative in their teachings. By the time you get into the Evangelical, Quiverfull, Fundie movements, you are a world away from the teachings of today's Epsicopals.
So I take it then, the non-denomination and fundie type churches are in answer to the early churches becoming less stringent over time?
Ok, so "strict" here has more to do with the teachings on sexual morality.
I think a major inaccuracy in your conclusion wrt less strict to more strict is that you are characterizing these Protestant denominations based upon what they teach today.
Not just for sexual morality but all social issues. But yes for me, when I'm referring to strict, I'm referring to more of what you are going to see today in church. But for some reason I found it strange if you look at that list of oldest churches in the US, you'll find that today, they are also some of most liberal in their teachings. I have NO idea what Episcopals and Lutheran taught 200 years ago. They could have been just like the fundies for all I know. But today the Reform, Episcopals and Lutherans are considered the most liberal of movements.
Where, the denominations that came later, especially those after the Protestants, are today the most conservative in their teachings. By the time you get into the Evangelical, Quiverfull, Fundie movements, you are a world away from the teachings of today's Epsicopals.
So I take it then, the non-denomination and fundie type churches are in answer to the early churches becoming less stringent over time?
That's what I think, but I'd have to research it to be sure.
Ok, so "strict" here has more to do with the teachings on sexual morality.
I think a major inaccuracy in your conclusion wrt less strict to more strict is that you are characterizing these Protestant denominations based upon what they teach today.
Not just for sexual morality but all social issues. But yes for me, when I'm referring to strict, I'm referring to more of what you are going to see today in church. But for some reason I found it strange if you look at that list of oldest churches in the US, you'll find that today, they are also some of most liberal in their teachings. I have NO idea what Episcopals and Lutheran taught 200 years ago. They could have been just like the fundies for all I know. But today the Reform, Episcopals and Lutherans are considered the most liberal of movements.
Where, the denominations that came later, especially those after the Protestants, are today the most conservative in their teachings. By the time you get into the Evangelical, Quiverfull, Fundie movements, you are a world away from the teachings of today's Epsicopals.
So I take it then, the non-denomination and fundie type churches are in answer to the early churches becoming less stringent over time?
I think this is a vast oversimplification of things. For example, "Lutheran" comes in a variety of flavors, some liberal, some very much not (hello WELS!).
Any religion that comes from a reformative breakaway is almost always going to be more "strict" at the get-go than the faith it's breaking away from. So of course the newer ones are more strict - they are breaking away over something that has "gone morally wrong". Rarely is that breakaway because the church has gotten too conservative.
Even within the 2000+ year history of the Catholic Church you see this movement from strict (middle ages) to pretty liberal (Renaissance) to strict (counter-reformation) to liberal (Vatican II).
I am oversimplifying as well because it would be far too complicated to try and explain all of this on a message board.
Popping in to say the Renaissance was not such a liberal time for the Church. See, for example, Antonio Rinaldeschi, who was executed in Florence in 1502 for throwing dung at a fresco of the Virgin Mary. But if you mean "liberal" in that lots of popes had kids and were running around poisoning people, buying elephants, and painting little boys with gold paint, point taken.
Popping in to say the Renaissance was not such a liberal time for the Church. See, for example, Antonio Rinaldeschi, who was executed in Florence in 1502 for throwing dung at a fresco of the Virgin Mary. But if you mean "liberal" in that lots of popes had kids and were running around poisoning people, buying elephants, and painting little boys with gold paint, point taken.
I'm going to need a little bit more info on this last bit.
Any religion that comes from a reformative breakaway is almost always going to be more "strict" at the get-go than the faith it's breaking away from. So of course the newer ones are more strict - they are breaking away over something that has "gone morally wrong". Rarely is that breakaway because the church has gotten too conservative.
I guess that's where it's backwards in my head. I feel as a society we've become more socially progessive and I would think churches would reflect that. And by progressive I mean that while 150 years ago it was the norm for a church to teach that women should not be educated or work but to stay home with kids, today you are less likely to find belief even among the religious conservative. You've got to dig deep into the evangelicals/fundies to get into that mentality. So I would have thought that as churches break away and reform, that they would reform into more liberal territory but it seems to be the opposite.
Also, for some reason I assumed the more liberal churches like the Episcopals and ELCA Lutherans were always liberals but I'm wondering if that's not the case. That the Episcopals of yore are what the Fundies are today. And as these Protestant churches got away from their roots and became more liberal, that caused a need for the non-denominational and evangelical churches.
I know around here and in Florida, any new church that sprouted up was generally a very evangelical church. If you wanted a more progressive/liberal church that say welcomed gay people, you'd find a church that was around for the last 100 years. The new church in the local high school or movie theater, while very charismatic in their service, was very fundie in their teachings.
If my posts sound rambly it's because I'm writing out loud. This is a topic I happen to love learning about.