Are new Christian Churches considered Protestant?


#1

Are Churches that were established after the Reformation era considered “Protestant”?

For example, the Church of Christ has its organizational origins in the early 1800’s. They didn’t have anything to do with breaking with Catholicism. It doesn’t really make sense to me to call them Protestant.


#2

Hello

Well that depends on if it is a Catholic Church, my church was built in the 1930’s. If the religion was established in 1800’s then it is a christain sect.

God Bless
Saint Andrew.


#3

I personally would refer to them as “sects” as they are a break-off of a break-off of a break-off etc. etc. etc.


#4

[quote=Angainor]For example, the Church of Christ has its organizational origins in the early 1800’s. They didn’t have anything to do with breaking with Catholicism. It doesn’t really make sense to me to call them Protestant.
[/quote]

Sure it does. They’re by insisting on separating themselves from the One True Church, they are at least passively protesting its teachings. Thus, Protestants.

But we could just call them Apostates, if you prefer. :wink:


#5

[quote=jaz1976]I personally would refer to them as “sects” as they are a break-off of a break-off of a break-off etc. etc. etc.
[/quote]

That’s just it. I don’t think you could say the Church of Christ “broke off” from anything. They established a church based on what they believe is a biblical model.


#6

[quote=Angainor]That’s just it. I don’t think you could say the Church of Christ “broke off” from anything. They established a church based on what they believe is a biblical model.
[/quote]

That’s the problem, right there. They established a church based on what they believe . . .

Jesus established the Catholic Church. It’s based on what HE believed.

That is the reason why my mother converted to Catholicism. Her reasoning is that Jesus is God, so shouldn’t she belong to the Church he established instead of one started by mere men? And by what authority do these men know that their interpretation of the Bible is correct?


#7

[quote=Kay Cee]And by what authority do these men know that their interpretation of the Bible is correct?
[/quote]

What men are you talking about? Joseph Ratzinger? Karol Wojtyla?

No Men save one have authority in their own right. Authority belongs to the Word, the Word that is with God, the Word that is God.

But I don’t see how this has to do with The Church of Christ being Protestant.


#8

[quote=Angainor]That’s just it. I don’t think you could say the Church of Christ “broke off” from anything. They established a church based on what they believe is a biblical model.
[/quote]

Sure they did. Their founders were Presbyterians, and their “biblical” model of church polity shows its Presbyterian roots (at the same time that of course they made some radical breaks with their Presbyterian heritage). They drew adherents from different traditions, but their roots are solidly Protestant.

Groups like that are fairly called Protestant because they originated from earlier Protestant movements. I think you’re buying their propaganda too readily. Of course they believe that their form of church polity is a pure “Biblical pattern” (at least the less sophisticated members of the movement do). But historically they were clearly conditioned by the attitudes of 19th-century Protestantism. That doesn’t invalidate their claims. The point is that we all interpret the Bible in a historical context, whether we admit it or not.

Edwin


#9

[quote=Angainor]What men are you talking about? Joseph Ratzinger? Karol Wojtyla?

No Men save one have authority in their own right. Authority belongs to the Word, the Word that is with God, the Word that is God.

But I don’t see how this has to do with The Church of Christ being Protestant.
[/quote]

I never said the pope has authority in his own right. God gave this authority to the Catholic Church (Mt. 16:18). Christ is our King; the pope is his prime minister. The pope exercises authority bestowed upon him by Christ, not by authority bestowed by himself.

It seems to me that the Church of Christ is Protestant in that it protests Catholicism as being the church Christ founded.

My point is that basing a religion on the Bible is actually backwards from the way it was originally done. The New Testament is based on Catholicism. It was Catholics who wrote it! It was Catholics, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who canonized certain books into the New Testament and not others. (If you don’t believe they were inspired by God, why do you accept their decision?) You have to admit that the Church came first, not the Bible (otherwise how could Paul have written letters to the church in Rome, the church in Corinth, etc.) The New Testament wasn’t even “put together” until the end of the 4th Century.


#10

Protestants are heretics.

Orthodox are schismatics.


#11

Againor, of course the sect that calls itself the “church of Christ” is Protestant. (And let me remind you that taking a name for a denomination does not give you that identity, this sect calls itself the "church of Christ, but is not the Church of Christ.)

One reason the cofC is a Protestant sect is that it teaches Protestant doctrine. Just the very idea that the church is built on the NT of the Bible alone (sola scriptura) is Protestant. The idea that anyone, anytime, anywhere can “restore” the original church back into existence just by picking up a Bible and using it as a “roadmap” or “blueprint” is a very Protestant idea.

The cofC did break away from another denomination, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in 1906 (not the early 1800’s). The founders of the Christian Church (Stone and the Campbells) split away from the Non-Jurors Presbyterian Church Seceeding another Protestant sect. The N-J P C S broke away from the Church of Scotland another Protestant denomination, which schismed from the Calvinist church of Geneva. which broke away from the Catholic Church.

Today’s self-proclaimed “churches of Christ” is the result of a series of church schisms, all Protestant and eventually going back to the Catholic Church.

And BTW the so-called “one and only church of Christ” is still schisming into more and more, ever smaller denominations. I have counted at least seven Protestant denominations calling themselves the “churches of Christ”, all denying fellowship and the very name Christian to the others.


#12

The International churches of Christ, a full fledged controlling cult.

The Grace Centered churches of Christ, which in some cases permit the use of musical instruments in worship.

The “mainstream” cs of C which forbids the use of musical instruments, but has sunday school classes.

The “anti” cs of C which does not have sunday school classes finding them “unscriptural”.

The “anti” cs of C which has sunday school but finds congregational funding of “institutions” such as orphanages and retirement centers “unscriptural”.

The “anti” cs of C which does not have sunday school classes, or support “institutions”.

The “one-cupper” cs of C which finds the use of individual shot glasses for grape juice in the “Lord’s Supper” unscriptural and passes a common cup through the congregation.

In my “cofC” youth the huge issue was having kitchens and dining rooms on church property, many found this “unscriptural” and so yet another splinter came into existence.

I find it highly ironic that a sect that was founded to bring all Christians into one body has splintered into nine competing denominations all claiming the word Christian for their group only and all refusing fellowship to the others.

Alexander Campbell must be spinning in his grave.


#13

Boppysbud,

Thank you, I consider myself answered.

[quote=boppysbud]One reason the cofC is a Protestant sect is that it teaches Protestant doctrine. Just the very idea that the church is built on the NT of the Bible alone (sola scriptura) is Protestant.
[/quote]

I see that “Protestant” refers to a general set of philosophical ideas, like sola scriptura. It is no longer strictly associated with “Protesting”.

A church can be Protestant even if they don’t give a second thought to Catholicism, much less spend any energy protesting Catholicism because it inherets a set of ideas from people who did once protest Catholicism.

Is that about right?


#14

[quote=boppysbud]I find it highly ironic that a sect that was founded to bring all Christians into one body has splintered into nine competing denominations all claiming the word Christian for their group only and all refusing fellowship to the others.

Alexander Campbell must be spinning in his grave.
[/quote]

I think this illustrates the weakness of sola scriptura. I don’t subscribe to sola scriptura.
Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil. 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22


#15

[quote=Angainor]Boppysbud,

Thank you, I consider myself answered.I see that “Protestant” refers to a general set of philosophical ideas, like sola scriptura. It is no longer strictly associated with “Protesting”.

A church can be Protestant even if they don’t give a second thought to Catholicism, much less spend any energy protesting Catholicism because it inherets a set of ideas from people who did once protest Catholicism.

Is that about right?
[/quote]

Yes, that is more or less correct. And of course the ideas protested against by the original protestors do go back to the Catholic church (that’s all their was in the west at the time).

I tend to see the idea of “protestant” as having two definitions. The original Protestants. And then the ideas that all Protestants hold in common.

The original Protestants the Lutherans and Anglicans were protested against by seceeding groups of Protestants who did not see them as going far enough and being Protestant enough.

So we had the Zwinglians and Calvinsists who prostedted the Lutheran idea that Baptism is for forgiveness of sins and that Holy Communion is the body and blood of Christ. They taught the sacraments are symbolic only.

Then there were the puritans and seperatists of England who thought the Anglicans did not go far enough in “purifying” the liturgy and ceremonial of the church by retaining customs such as wedding rings, vestments, and the use of liturgy at all.


#16

[quote=Angainor]Are Churches that were established after the Reformation era considered “Protestant”?

For example, the Church of Christ has its organizational origins in the early 1800’s. They didn’t have anything to do with breaking with Catholicism. It doesn’t really make sense to me to call them Protestant.
[/quote]

I would say that it depends. If they do not intend to be protestant and are a totally new and are very different from mainline protestantism, they probably wouldn’t be considered protestant. Protestantism is not just those that broke from Catholicism, it is those Christians that follow Martin Luther’s theology in retaliation against Catholicism. For example, most Protestants are offshoots of offshoots, the Southern Baptist Church and Pentecostal Church did not directly come out of Catholicism. The only protestant Churches that I see as direct offshoots from Catholicism are the Anglicans and Lutherans. As for the “Church of Christ,” I know nothing about them, most likely they were offshoots from Protestantism, or probably they are an offshoot of a mixture of different religions. Still, just because they’re not protestants, it doesn’t mean that they’re “truer” or “better.” It is obviously still a deficient faith. Hindus, Judaism, Jehovah Witnesses etc. are not considered Protestant, does that make them any better?


#17

[quote=Angainor]Boppysbud,

Thank you, I consider myself answered.I see that “Protestant” refers to a general set of philosophical ideas, like sola scriptura. It is no longer strictly associated with “Protesting”.

[/quote]

It never was, in the sense you mean. “Protestant” referred to a very specific political protest by German rulers who favored the emerging “evangelical” movement and did not want to be forced by the Empire to roll back or halt evangelical reforms. Like most religious labels, it wasn’t a term the “evangelicals” originally picked for themselves. Both “evangelical” and “reformed” (the terms of choice used by the two main wings of the movement) better describe what Protestantism was about than the term “Protestant” itself. Don’t over-analyze historical labels. They are terms of convenience, nothing more.

Edwin


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.