Essentials That Unite All Protestants

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

As a practical matter, and in pretty much all circumstances, I am not situated to grant or deny the label of "Christian" on any other group or individual.  I don't claim to be able to discern and quantify their "personal commitment to, faith in, and experience with Christ as Lord and Savior."

Hi Amigo - Aren't you able to "discern and quantify" your own "personal commitment to , faith in, and experience with Christ as Lord and Savior?" Does that have nothing to do with your testimony as a Christian? Let me not make assumptions. Perhaps a better way to ask this is, Do you have a testimony as a Christian that is separate from your testimony as a member of the LDS church? I would guess you don't have a testimony or identity as an Evangelical or as a Protestant, correct? You talk about a taxonomy. What is the taxonomy for the LDS Christian? To clarify the question, mine is Christian - Evangelical - Mennonite. I have a separate identity and testimony of each. I can certainly discern and quantify that for myself. You mentioned an interesting discussion. I would be very interested in understanding the taxonomy (in the same sense) of the LDS Christian. It seems I remember a few years ago on this forum we had a big discussion about how to label Christians - those who are members of the church and those who are not. RevTestament or someone - I really don't remember came up with the two terms LDS Christian and non-LDS Christian. It seemed that most agreed that was an ok nomenclature. I have been using it every since whether chatting with LDS or non-LDS groups. Does the LDS Christian have a taxonomy of spiritual identity? I know this is a bit off the subject, but it may be inevitable that the very topic will lend itself to similarities and differences between Protestants and LDS Christians. These may include taxonomy, might they not? Thanks my friend.

[Ahab]

17 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi Amigo - Aren't you able to "discern and quantify" your own "personal commitment to , faith in, and experience with Christ as Lord and Savior?" Does that have nothing to do with your testimony as a Christian? Let me not make assumptions. Perhaps a better way to ask this is, Do you have a testimony as a Christian that is separate from your testimony as a member of the LDS church? I would guess you don't have a testimony or identity as an Evangelical or as a Protestant, correct? You talk about a taxonomy. What is the taxonomy for the LDS Christian? To clarify the question, mine is Christian - Evangelical - Mennonite. I have a separate identity and testimony of each. I can certainly discern and quantify that for myself. You mentioned an interesting discussion. I would be very interested in understanding the taxonomy (in the same sense) of the LDS Christian. It seems I remember a few years ago on this forum we had a big discussion about how to label Christians - those who are members of the church and those who are not. RevTestament or someone - I really don't remember came up with the two terms LDS Christian and non-LDS Christian. It seemed that most agreed that was an ok nomenclature. I have been using it every since whether chatting with LDS or non-LDS groups. Does the LDS Christian have a taxonomy of spiritual identity? I know this is a bit off the subject, but it may be inevitable that the very topic will lend itself to similarities and differences between Protestants and LDS Christians. These may include taxonomy, might they not? Thanks my friend.

Are you asking which groups or bodies we identify with?  I was Protestant before joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and since I wasn't ever formally excommunicated from that body, and I can still remember what I was like back then and what an association with that body involved, I feel I can say I am still Protestant as well as a member of this other body that I am in now.  How does that fit within your line of thinking?

Edited July 13, 2020 by Ahab

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So you are defining "Christian" has only those people who, in the moment or on a given day, "have a personal commitment to, faith in, and experience with Christ as Lord and Savior."  I'm not sure that works.

I don't know how to make separate quotes and reply to them in the same response. Sorry about that. I just wanted to clarify that what I am trying to say (Scotsman or not) is that in my Evangelical Protestant viewpoint, being a member of any church (Protestant, Catholic, LDS, Anabaptist, Anglican, or whatever) does not make someone a Christian or a member of the Body of Christ. The thread is about Protestant beliefs so I am trying to reflect that part of my Christian life and identity. My Protestant perspective is that no one becomes a Christian via a church. It is a personal commitment to Christ, his atonement, and grace. Then application is made for membership in a church to grow, fellowship, worship, minister, and learn together with those of like Christian minds. Of course different churches would require different things to join. But none of those requirements make him or her more a Christian after joining than he or she was prior to joining.

So, in my Evangelical Protestant view no ordinance is necessary for becoming a Christian although it may be to become a Methodist, or a member of the LDS church, or a Catholic. I hope that helps a bit clarify how I am defining "Christian." I think this is why Protestants are so able to shift between church affiliations without starting over. One is a Christian prior to joining any church; changing to another has no bearing on one's Christianness (again I am making up a word). In my mind if I joined the LDS Church my taxonomy would change to Christian - Evangelical - Mormon. I don't see any other change that would result from my moving my membership from Mennonite to Mormon. Please remember, I am trying here to respond out of my Protestant perspective. That is the point of the thread. I am glad you said the conversation was interesting. I hope my LDS friends are interested in other's perspectives, if for nothing else other than a learning experience. I enjoy learning from you all!  Thanks for participating in the thread.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

It appears to me that protestants reject this idea of a single organization that is sanctioned of God (and please, protestants, correct me if I am wrong). "Church," for protestants, refers to the whole community of Christian believers, regardless of organizational membership. It is a spiritual understanding, not a question of membership.

Voila - I just figured out how to quote twice in the same reply! You see there is hope for Protestants to learn! I agree with your statement here. The Bride of Christ is the Body of Christ which is the whole community of Christian believers, regardless of organizational membership. It is a community that, for the majority of Protestants is open to all. A small percentage, growing smaller all the time, exclude some groups. I reject their exclusivity.

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

An interesting note. The gatekeeping ceremony to become Catholic is baptism. Catholics accept any baptism done with the proper form (in the name of the Trinity), matter (water), and intent. There is no priesthood necessary for baptism -- indeed, an atheist could perform an acceptable baptism if those three criteria are met. As scripture teaches, there is only one baptism. The joke (tinged with truth as many good jokes are) is that those protestant baptisms then are actually Catholic baptisms and protestants have joined the Catholic Church

I like this. I have no objection to belonging to the Catholic church in that or any other sense. That would have no bearing or impact on my Christian - Evangelical taxonomy. I don't know if MiserereNobis would agree or not, I would be very interested to hear his thoughts on whether or not, from his perspective it is possible to be an Evangelical Catholic. It seems to me I know a number of Catholics who are comfortable in that taxonomy.

[Damien the Leper]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

So describing a non-Christian Protestant ("Not every Protestant is a Christian") seems akin to describing a non-mammalian dog.

I might have an example. Christian Fellowship Ministries (Potter's House, The Door, Victory Chapel) was started by Wayman and Nelda Mitchell in Prescott, AZ. A friend who is now and Evangelical Apologist grew up in Potter's House when we were in middle and high school. However, she has said they are close to being a "cult" without being a cult.

[pogi]

On 7/12/2020 at 3:06 PM, Navidad said:

Pogi asked about what unites all Protestants. 

Thank you for your thoughtful reply! 

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I don't know how to make separate quotes and reply to them in the same response. Sorry about that. I just wanted to clarify that what I am trying to say (Scotsman or not) is that in my Evangelical Protestant viewpoint, being a member of any church (Protestant, Catholic, LDS, Anabaptist, Anglican, or whatever) does not make someone a Christian or a member of the Body of Christ. The thread is about Protestant beliefs so I am trying to reflect that part of my Christian life and identity. My Protestant perspective is that no one becomes a Christian via a church. It is a personal commitment to Christ, his atonement, and grace. Then application is made for membership in a church to grow, fellowship, worship, minister, and learn together with those of like Christian minds. Of course different churches would require different things to join. But none of those requirements make him or her more a Christian after joining than he or she was prior to joining.

So, in my Evangelical Protestant view no ordinance is necessary for becoming a Christian although it may be to become a Methodist, or a member of the LDS church, or a Catholic. I hope that helps a bit clarify how I am defining "Christian." I think this is why Protestants are so able to shift between church affiliations without starting over. One is a Christian prior to joining any church; changing to another has no bearing on one's Christianness (again I am making up a word). In my mind if I joined the LDS Church my taxonomy would change to Christian - Evangelical - Mormon. I don't see any other change that would result from my moving my membership from Mennonite to Mormon. Please remember, I am trying here to respond out of my Protestant perspective. That is the point of the thread. I am glad you said the conversation was interesting. I hope my LDS friends are interested in other's perspectives, if for nothing else other than a learning experience. I enjoy learning from you all!  Thanks for participating in the thread.

i think we see it the same way, or at least the majority of the Church does because most members are converts from another church.   Most were Christians before becoming members of the Church, from some other church that was not the true church of Jesus Christ.  And yet, even though we were not members of the true church of Jesus Christ, before, we were still true Christians.  Or at least I think the majority of us were.  

Hence the difference between the collective body of believers who believe in Jesus Christ and try to worship him as well as we know how, probably, and the true church of Jesus Christ.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Good afternoon my friend: Let me answer your first question this way - I would say that the significant majority of Protestants consider that individual Roman Catholics have the same right to join the Body of Christ as does anyone else. I think that one point of confusion is seeing the Body of Christ as made up of churches. I don't believe most Protestants see the Body of Christ in that way. It isn't a church thing. It is an individual thing. For my LDS friends, the Church is essential to enable someone to have a personal relationship with Christ for eternity. For my Protestant friends a personal relationship with Christ is essential and that is not beholden or restricted to any one church. There are so many churches (individual and group)  represented in Protestantism, yet it is in the individual relationship with Christ where we join the body of believers- or the Body of Christ. So the question is not about the Roman Catholic Church. It is about individual folks from that faith group and how do they view their relationship with Christ? As I said in another reply, unfortunately there are some, fortunately not a majority of Protestants who deny some individuals the right  to belong to the body of Christ based on their group affiliation. Some include Catholics in that. Again, thank goodness these folks are a minority and becoming more so every year. I speak against that mindset every chance I get. So Protestants are pretty ecumenical when you consider that it is on an individual basis (with those representing a host of churches) that most Protestants believe folks come to Christ. This is why folks like Billy Graham allowed leaders from many churches to sit on his platform during his crusades. This upset the minority; but the majority supported him in it. Denying any individual the right to belong to the Body of Christ is anti-Protestant by and large.

The Body of Christ is discernible only by God.  Only He knows who is part of that vast body of believers, and it is not an individual concept at all.  For being a true believer makes one a member of that vast corporate body.  Yet we often have an ornery and complex debate about who is or should be part of that vast body of Saints (in the original sense).  Wars have strangely been fought over it, with one Pope being told that the city he was attacking was half Catholic.  He responded that God would know how discern his dead followers from the heretics.

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Informed Protestants would agree with Augustine's construct of the two cities and the responsibilities of the City of God as residents within the City of Man. Loving your neighbor as yourself leaves us no choice but to engage in the City of Man of which we are part. My best friend in the LDS community always, and I mean always is talking about Babylon versus Zion - the coercive hand of government, versus the enabling power of Christ. I have thought of Augustine's concept whenever my friend talks of his theory of limited government based on the Babylon versus Zion dichotomy.

Jesus never took the view that govt is the enemy.  He told us to render to Caesar that which is Caesar's, paying taxes and the like.  For are the govt "powers that be" not ordained of God?  And in a democracy, the govt is us.  We vote for it and are responsible for it.  Your LDS buddy is just wrong, Phil.  A better question would be, Who or what is the true enemy?  What is the Protestant take on that question?  Or is there one?

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

  In Mexican terms it is classic PRI versus PAN ideology...............................

Arriba y adelante !!

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I don't know if MiserereNobis would agree or not, I would be very interested to hear his thoughts on whether or not, from his perspective it is possible to be an Evangelical Catholic. It seems to me I know a number of Catholics who are comfortable in that taxonomy.

I'm not sure, honestly. My gut reaction says no, but I suppose it depends on the definition of "Evangelical." Evangelical is so.... protestant. I know there are attempts for Pentecostal and charismatic Catholicism, but that again doesn't sit right with me, but I haven't looked at it enough to give you a full answer.

My "taxonomy" can't really distinguish my Christianity from my Catholicism. I wasn't Christian before I became Catholic, so it's hard for me to divorce the two. I also feel that God doesn't want me to do that, either, to try to determine which one is more "important" or more "true to my identity." They are one and the same for me.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

 

...aggregated community ...

I Like that phrase.

I think it well describes the boundaries which are needed for a community to define its truth, nothing more, nothing less.

[Ahab]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Body of Christ is discernible only by God. 

Bad terminology, I think.  I think you are referring to a body of believers who all believe in Christ but that is not his church.  The body of Christ refers to his church. Not all who believe in Christ are members of his church.

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Only He knows who is part of that vast body of believers, and it is not an individual concept at all. 

He knows who believes in him whether or not those who believe in him are members of his church.

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

For being a true believer makes one a member of that vast corporate body. 

Many people believe in him even though they are not members of his church, and those who are not members of his church are not of the same body or group. Some are of Paul or Apollos or Luther or some person other than Christ.

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yet we often have an ornery and complex debate about who is or should be part of that vast body of Saints (in the original sense). 

Only those who are baptized into his church, otherwise one is simply a member of some other body or group.

 

[3DOP]

A multiplicity of "true churches" makes church discipline so nearly impossible as to be useless to try.

"Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief." (Heb. 13:17)

This text presupposes a visible church with visible officers to which the faithful are supposed to be obedient. The problem is that shared Protestant "essentials" fail to make them go to church together. How can this be? There have to be more "essentials" on which Protestants disagree vehemently. What else could make them refuse to go to the same church, obedient to the same prelates, practicing the same disciplines, and teaching the same doctrines? It is unthinkable to love each other in the essentials, and then have "non-essentials" separate them from going to church together. Protestants are hundreds of splintered and divided communities that cannot sing together, pray as one, worship as one, hear the same teaching, or be under the discipline of the same ecclesiastical rulers. Anything that causes Protestants to have so many different churches is obviously ESSENTIAL. That is not the kind of unity for which Christ prayed to the Father in Jn. 17.

What Protestant church will step to the plate and claim to be the one true church? None? Okay, no wonder nobody feels obliged to apply Heb. 13:17 to somebody who doesn't even claim to have that authority. Where church disciplinary action is attempted, it is impotent because if somebody doesn't like the way a Protestant church is going, they can look for a different "not one true church". For church discipline to be effective, there must be a mentality that there is one true visible church to which all Christians should give their submission.    

Edited July 17, 2020 by 3DOP