Why don't protestants make the sign of the Cross?

[Always in His Presence]

"In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"

I wonder why Protestants do not do this? I know that it's not made a rule in scripture, but I feel it's a part of christian history that should never be broken. It shows that our faith was always the Trinity, despite the lies that many cults and other religions claim. For example, Islam, Jehovah's wittness, Iglesia Ni Cristo, Mormons, etc all claim an original Christian church that never believed in Christ's divinity or the Trinity, but this sign serves to be a historical remembrance that we always did.

The reason why I have made this question and why I ended up thinking that this gesture has to be universally expressed by christians is mainly because of my experience with christian cults. I've been to JW's and the Iglesia Ni Cristo services, and they are very frightening and disheartening.. and despite them teaching false things about the Bible and rejecting the divinity, they for some reason end their prayers with "In Jesus' name", the way protestants do.
These cults will never end with the sign of the cross, they will never say "the Father, Son, and HS" because they fully reject the truth of God. Because of this, I feel that the sign of the cross gesture has to be seen as important to protestants as well.

Nothing so nefarious - it just is not religious tradition with Protestants, who believe in the Trinity.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The best analogy I've ever heard comparing the difference between the Evangelical and the Reformed traditions is this: Luther opened the drawer and carefully removed things that seemed to not belong. The Reformed removed the drawer, turned it upside down, dumped everything out and then put back into the drawer only those things they thought were necessary.

This is why the Reformed Tradition has what it calls the Regulative Principle: That which is positively condoned in Scripture is permitted. This is why some Reformed (and Radical) Protestants did away with vestments and even Christmas (such as the Puritan ban on Christmas in New England and in England during the dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell).

Lutherans don't have this Regulative Principle. Instead we have the Normative Principle, we forbid what Scripture forbids. What Scripture is silent on it is silent on; and whatever is good and useful shouldn't be done away with. It's why we boldly have crucifixes, we have no disdain toward Holy Images, it's why we retain traditional vestments and paraments, it's why we have retained, with full reverence, the Holy Mass.

The difference between the Regulative Principle and the Normative Principle is stark and massive.

When the word "Protestant" is often used, it almost always means those traditions which emerged out from the Reformed and Radical wings of the Reformation.

So Lutherans are always the stand-out, the non-conforming bunch. We are defiantly Catholic in regard to Protestantism, and defiantly Protestant in regard to Catholicism. And insist on being Evangelical in everything.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bbbbbbb]

The best analogy I've ever heard comparing the difference between the Evangelical and the Reformed traditions is this: Luther opened the drawer and carefully removed things that seemed to not belong. The Reformed removed the drawer, turned it upside down, dumped everything out and then put back into the drawer only those things they thought were necessary.

This is why the Reformed Tradition has what it calls the Regulative Principle: That which is positively condoned in Scripture is permitted. This is why some Reformed (and Radical) Protestants did away with vestments and even Christmas (such as the Puritan ban on Christmas in New England and in England during the dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell).

Lutherans don't have this Regulative Principle. Instead we have the Normative Principle, we forbid what Scripture forbids. What Scripture is silent on it is silent on; and whatever is good and useful shouldn't be done away with. It's why we boldly have crucifixes, we have no disdain toward Holy Images, it's why we retain traditional vestments and paraments, it's why we have retained, with full reverence, the Holy Mass.

The difference between the Regulative Principle and the Normative Principle is stark and massive.

When the word "Protestant" is often used, it almost always means those traditions which emerged out from the Reformed and Radical wings of the Reformation.

So Lutherans are always the stand-out, the non-conforming bunch. We are defiantly Catholic in regard to Protestantism, and defiantly Protestant in regard to Catholicism. And insist on being Evangelical in everything.

-CryptoLutheran

And then, there is the Church of England which is neither Lutheran nor Reformed and not Roman Catholic.

 

[The Liturgist]

This Protestant does.
Most of the Protestants at my Protestant church do as well.
We're called Lutherans.

-CryptoLutheran

High Church Anglicans also make the sign of the Cross.

This turned out to be a very interesting subject to explore, by the way, from the standpoint of liturgical studies.

There is also a form of the sign of the Cross made by many Protestant clergy, including Anglicans and Methodists, in which the sign is made with the entire hand, held straight at a horizontal or vertical angle, usually in two motions, kind of like a pair of perpindicular karate chops. This is frequently used for blessing the Eucharist and the Congregation. I haven’t seen it in the Eastern churches: for example, at the end of the Syriac Orthodox Divine Liturgy, or Holy Qurbono, the priest, while leaving his left hand on the horn of the altar (which is just the corner of the Holy Table, as opposed to what one sees in illustrations of the altar at the Temple in Jerusalem*), does make the sign of the cross over the people, but does so as if he were making it over a person, with the thumb and forefingers brought together to symbolize the Trinity (which has become the norm, except in the Russian Old Rite).

In the ancient liturgies of North Africa (Libya and the Sahara West of Egypt, an area known as the Maghreb to Arabs, meaning “the West”) which are largely lost to history because all of the Christians there were killed by the Muslims, (including Arians of Visigothic ethnicity who had converted to Islam), it is believed that priests made the sign of the Cross with their body, by raising their arms.

*I have often wonderedi if the depiction of the “horns of the altar” or the meaning of the phrase is understood, since the accuracy of the illustrations we do not know for sure.

I will say it is remarkable how much the Jewish renderings of what the vestments of the High Priest would look like resemble those of Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox bishops; this is of course by design**, but I have seen a Malankara (schismatic Indian) Orthodox scholar argue that the hood used as a mitre during the liturgy by West Syriac Rite bishops such as in his church and the canonical Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch (whose Patriarch is the Patriarch of the canonical Jacobite church in India), not to be confused with the Helmet of St. Anthony, a monastic cowl attributed to St. Anthony and historically worn at all times by Coptic Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox monks (while in public, at least), and amusingly, in a happy accident of language, called an eskimo in the West Syriac accent used by the Syriac Orthodox) which the hood is worn over at some parts of the liturgy, and at other times the hood is lowered and rests on the shoulders, was the actual original meaning of “Mitre”, as opposed to the prevailing view that the word mitre referred to a turban. The Syriac Orthodox also wear turbans of a distinct onion dome shape, similiar to the Maronite tabiah), except in Iraq where they wear a small red kamilavka called a kossita (not to be confused with the headgear of the Assyrian Church of the East sometimes also called a Kossita (which can be compared here)**** but more accurately called a Shashta, for it, like the Chaldean Catholic Shash, is a modified tarboush).*****

**For instance, the Sakkos which Orthodox bishops wear over the Alb is, in the case of some Eastern Orthodox bishops, even adorned with metal pomegranates, although I don’t think these are usually made into actual bells, since the Orthodox altars have curtains, which open in the middle, symbolizing how the veil of the second temple was rent in two, and Orthodox Bishops are not the High Priest, that being our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ, but are rather High Presbyters, and anyone they authorize is permitted in the altar, and at many times during the liturgy, and throughout the entire week after Pascha (Easter, the feast of the Resurrection), the doors and curtains are left open, so the specific reason why the Kohanim Gadol wore the pomegranata bells would be if in the event he were to die or become incapacitated while in the Holy of Holies - the bells rang while he moved, so if the ringing stopped, they knew they needed to call for the other Kohanim Gadol, if there was one.***

***If this had happened to Ananias, they would have had to send for Caiaphas to see what had happened to him), or in those cases where there was only one high priest (which I believe was the case during the latter portion of St. Zadok, who became sole high priest after his former colleague Abiathar was deposed by King Solomon), and also as far as I am aware, St. Esdras (Ezra) who was the high priest when St. Nehemiah the Prophet was charged with rebuilding Jerusalem, and indeed just as St. Nehemiah guided the people in secular affairs according to divine prophecy, St. Esdras assisted him by guiding the people in religious affairs, for instance, by reading the Torah to the people, the first time it had been heard in many years.

**** Patriarch Mor Ignatius Zakka Iwas, memory eternal, wearing a red cassock, is wearing the Syriac Orthodox Kossita, also in red, atop his eskimo, whereas Catholicos Mar Addai II, memory eternal, wearing a purple cassock, is wearing the Assyrian Church of the East version of the Kossita, which is also called the shashta., a name I think should be used preferentially in the West because it more closely resembles the Chaldean Catholic shash, which is doubtless more closely related to it, since the Chaldeans separated from the Church of the East in a schism along tribal lines in the 1700s, wherein the mainly Arabic speaking tribe known as the Kaldaye (Chaldeans) were persuaded to enter into communion with Rome.

***** The Tarboush is an Arabic word for what is more commonly called a Fez; I thought about putting that in parentheses, but I found myself carried away by amusement as I beheld the whimsical sentence I had inadvertently composed whilst describing this headgear, which for Western Christians is ancient and obscure, yet for the persecuted Christians of the Middle East, is extremely holy and important and a central component of the ecclesiastical life of their bishops.

 

[bbbbbbb]

High Church Anglicans also make the sign of the Cross.

This turned out to be a very interesting subject to explore, by the way, from the standpoint of liturgical studies.

There is also a form of the sign of the Cross made by many Protestant clergy, including Anglicans and Methodists, in which the sign is made with the entire hand, held straight at a horizontal or vertical angle, usually in two motions, kind of like a pair of perpindicular karate chops. This is frequently used for blessing the Eucharist and the Congregation. I haven’t seen it in the Eastern churches: for example, at the end of the Syriac Orthodox Divine Liturgy, or Holy Qurbono, the priest, while leaving his left hand on the horn of the altar (which is just the corner of the Holy Table, as opposed to what one sees in illustrations of the altar at the Temple in Jerusalem*), does make the sign of the cross over the people, but does so as if he were making it over a person, with the thumb and forefingers brought together to symbolize the Trinity (which has become the norm, except in the Russian Old Rite).

In the ancient liturgies of North Africa (Libya and the Sahara West of Egypt, an area known as the Maghreb to Arabs, meaning “the West”) which are largely lost to history because all of the Christians there were killed by the Muslims, (including Arians of Visigothic ethnicity who had converted to Islam), it is believed that priests made the sign of the Cross with their body, by raising their arms.

*I have often wonderedi if the depiction of the “horns of the altar” or the meaning of the phrase is understood, since the accuracy of the illustrations we do not know for sure.

I will say it is remarkable how much the Jewish renderings of what the vestments of the High Priest would look like resemble those of Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox bishops; this is of course by design**, but I have seen a Malankara (schismatic Indian) Orthodox scholar argue that the hood used as a mitre during the liturgy by West Syriac Rite bishops such as in his church and the canonical Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch (whose Patriarch is the Patriarch of the canonical Jacobite church in India), not to be confused with the Helmet of St. Anthony, a monastic cowl attributed to St. Anthony and historically worn at all times by Coptic Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox monks (while in public, at least), and amusingly, in a happy accident of language, called an eskimo in the West Syriac accent used by the Syriac Orthodox) which the hood is worn over at some parts of the liturgy, and at other times the hood is lowered and rests on the shoulders, was the actual original meaning of “Mitre”, as opposed to the prevailing view that the word mitre referred to a turban. The Syriac Orthodox also wear turbans of a distinct onion dome shape, similiar to the Maronite tabiah), except in Iraq where they wear a small red kamilavka called a kossita (not to be confused with the headgear of the Assyrian Church of the East sometimes also called a Kossita (which can be compared here)**** but more accurately called a Shashta, for it, like the Chaldean Catholic Shash, is a modified tarboush).*****

**For instance, the Sakkos which Orthodox bishops wear over the Alb is, in the case of some Eastern Orthodox bishops, even adorned with metal pomegranates, although I don’t think these are usually made into actual bells, since the Orthodox altars have curtains, which open in the middle, symbolizing how the veil of the second temple was rent in two, and Orthodox Bishops are not the High Priest, that being our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ, but are rather High Presbyters, and anyone they authorize is permitted in the altar, and at many times during the liturgy, and throughout the entire week after Pascha (Easter, the feast of the Resurrection), the doors and curtains are left open, so the specific reason why the Kohanim Gadol wore the pomegranata bells would be if in the event he were to die or become incapacitated while in the Holy of Holies - the bells rang while he moved, so if the ringing stopped, they knew they needed to call for the other Kohanim Gadol, if there was one.***

***If this had happened to Ananias, they would have had to send for Caiaphas to see what had happened to him), or in those cases where there was only one high priest (which I believe was the case during the latter portion of St. Zadok, who became sole high priest after his former colleague Abiathar was deposed by King Solomon), and also as far as I am aware, St. Esdras (Ezra) who was the high priest when St. Nehemiah the Prophet was charged with rebuilding Jerusalem, and indeed just as St. Nehemiah guided the people in secular affairs according to divine prophecy, St. Esdras assisted him by guiding the people in religious affairs, for instance, by reading the Torah to the people, the first time it had been heard in many years.

**** Patriarch Mor Ignatius Zakka Iwas, memory eternal, wearing a red cassock, is wearing the Syriac Orthodox Kossita, also in red, atop his eskimo, whereas Catholicos Mar Addai II, memory eternal, wearing a purple cassock, is wearing the Assyrian Church of the East version of the Kossita, which is also called the shashta., a name I think should be used preferentially in the West because it more closely resembles the Chaldean Catholic shash, which is doubtless more closely related to it, since the Chaldeans separated from the Church of the East in a schism along tribal lines in the 1700s, wherein the mainly Arabic speaking tribe known as the Kaldaye (Chaldeans) were persuaded to enter into communion with Rome.

***** The Tarboush is an Arabic word for what is more commonly called a Fez; I thought about putting that in parentheses, but I found myself carried away by amusement as I beheld the whimsical sentence I had inadvertently composed whilst describing this headgear, which for Western Christians is ancient and obscure, yet for the persecuted Christians of the Middle East, is extremely holy and important and a central component of the ecclesiastical life of their bishops.

The Anglicans, indeed, are a mixed multitude. I also should have added to my post above that they are not Eastern Orthodox.

That said, various segments of the Church of England have affinities with the Lutheran, Reformed, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox branches of Christianity.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Anglicans, indeed, are a mixed multitude. I also should have added to my post above that they are not Eastern Orthodox.

That said, various segments of the Church of England have affinities with the Lutheran, Reformed, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox branches of Christianity.

And even with the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East. It was Anglo-Catholic ladies who bought the Assyrian Church of the East and the Syriac Orthodox (in the Middle East) vestments in the 19th century when they were severely impoverished and lacked the splendid vesture that characterizes them today.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I have heard it said - and maybe a better theologian or historian than me can verify or dispute - that the origin of the sign of the cross was in the persecuted church in Jerusalem. That it began as a small cross traced only on the forehead as a subtle and secret sign discretely acknowledging a fellow believer when passing them by as a way of secretly proclaiming their common belief so as not to be noticed without risking being beheaded or fed to the lions. If true, that goes back to the earliest days of Christianity.

Similarly, some other practices of our liturgical churches have been said to come from the same time. Notably, the procession of the cross and the gospel to the altar after the people have assembled and the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, "The Doors!" - a remnant of not proceeding with worship or the elements of worship until the Christians were safely assembled and the gathering was secured from those that would do them harm.

Some of us like those traditions that connect us back to the earliest Christians and days of Christianity, and we still incorporate ancient gestures in our worship. And while it may be argued, "Those things aren't in the Bible," those practices are said to precede the Bible.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have heard it said - and maybe a better theologian or historian than me can verify or dispute - that the origin of the sign of the cross was in the persecuted church in Jerusalem. That it began as a small cross traced only on the forehead as a subtle and secret sign discretely acknowledging a fellow believer when passing them by as a way of secretly proclaiming their common belief so as not to be noticed without risking being beheaded or fed to the lions. If true, that goes back to the earliest days of Christianity.

The Icthys originated as a sign drawn in the sand or dust for the same reason.

 

[The Liturgist]

Notably, the procession of the cross and the gospel to the altar after the people have assembled and the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, "The Doors!" - a remnant of not proceeding with worship or the elements of worship until the Christians were safely assembled and the gathering was secured from those that would do them harm.

It was as much about the sanctity of the services as anything. Doorkeepers ranked just above exorcists as the two most junior ranks of the Minor Orders of ministry in the early church (with Readers being subordinate only to Subdeacons, Deacons, Presbyters and Bishops, for obvious reasons).

 

[The Liturgist]

Nothing so nefarious - it just is not religious tradition with Protestants, who believe in the Trinity.

Anglicans are the largest Protestant denomination, and Lutherans are the second largest Protestant denomination, and the third oldest, and they both make the sign of the cross; and the second oldest Protestant denomination, the Moravians, in their original form, later known as the Utraquists, before coming under the influence of low church elements like the Taborites and then being driven by persecution onto the estate of the Graf von Zinzendorf, who introduced his own idiosyncratic and strongly Pietist theological ideas, worshipped using what was literally the Latin Mass, but with the laity partaking of the blood of our Lord as well as His Body. And Moravian and Methodist clergy and those of several other churches make the sign of the cross when performing baptisms and consecrating the Eucharist.

I could add that I made the sign of the cross routinely both as an Episcopalian layman and as a Congregationalist minister. I will take a look at the old UCC Book of Worship, if desired, to see if the rubrics actually required that I did that or if perhaps I was influenced by the sign of the cross being made by Lutheran and Methodist pastors from my LCMS parochial school and the UMC church where I was baptized (which at the time had godfearing men as its presbyters, although there was already a left wing element in the UMC to be sure).

 

[The Liturgist]

And then, there is the Church of England which is neither Lutheran nor Reformed and not Roman Catholic.

The same can be said about a great many Baptists, the Methodists, Moravians and the various Restorationist denominations such as the Stone/Campbell Movement (Christian Church/Disciples of Christ and the more traditional Churches of Christ) and the various non-denominational evangelical churches.

 

[The Liturgist]

The reason why I have made this question and why I ended up thinking that this gesture has to be universally expressed by christians is mainly because of my experience with christian cults.

I think you make a good point. Christians should unite around the Sign of the Cross, for it is a sign of Christian unity and faith in the Incarnation of God in the person of Jesus Christ, His Salvific Baptism, Transfiguration, Passion, Resurrection and Ascension, and the sending of God the Holy Spirit on Pentecost to serve as our comforter and paraclete.

 

[The Liturgist]

Of course all three Persons of the Holy Trinity may be addressed in prayer. Each Person of the Trinity is equally God. There is also a perichoresis, or mutual indwelling of the Persons of the Trinity, so that each Person is of one will and one substance with the others.

Indeed. And in the Orthodox Church, our daily prayers have sections addressed to each person of the Holy Trinity.

Many Protestants will address prayers to our Heavenly Father or to Jesus Christ, but relatively few will address prayers to the Holy Spirit, which I regard as indicative of a large scale problem of a Macedonianist tendency, that is to say, a widespread and in some cases deliberate crypto-Pneumatomacchianism in the Western Church.

 

[The Liturgist]

Honestly, i think abandoning of certain traditions are slippery slopes to cults.. or were building blocks of them.

Amen to that. We are obliged to preserve the traditions handed down from the Apostles according to 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, a fact recognized by Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer, John Wesley and even John Calvin.

 

[The Liturgist]

Jesus participated in traditions, rituals, etc.. He didn't have a problem with them per se. They are only a problem when they prohibit you from loving God and your neighbor.

Indeed. And nothing in the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church, properly defined, prevents such love, but rather, our tradition is designed to promote real, authentic love. Indeed, we have traditions to prevent hate - for example, at one of the ancient councils, perhaps it was Trullo, we adopted a canon that prohibits our clergy from managing the financial affairs or estates of parishioners. This is so as to prevent the hate that would be engendered for the Church and for God and for the Congregation if one of our priests did that, and either failed, or alternately embezzled, and in either case a member of a local church of their heirs and successors (some or all of whom might be Christians, even members of the same local congregation) was financially harmed, or worse, rendered destitute, as a result.

We also have the tradition of oikonomia, whereby canons can be relaxed in the interests of promoting salvation of souls. For example, if someone required a service animal, and there was no one who could look after the service animal in the narthex during the liturgy, a bishop could authorize them to have the service animal with them in the nave (animals are generally not allowed in the nave unless there is a severe storm from which they require protection; there is an ancient canon from the first millennium which allows for even farm animals to be brought into the church in such an emergency). Of course, there are newer canons, and I am sure some jurisdictions have canons allowing access for service animals, but the newer canons differ slightly between the different local churches, but the main body of canons are contained in the Rudder, compiled by St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite, who also compiled together with St. Macarius of Corinth, another Athonite Monk and hesychast, the wonderful anthology on prayer, mystical theology, hesychasm, and monastic life, the Philokalia, not to be confused with the collection of the more useful writings of Origen by the Cappadocian Fathers, the Philocalia with a “c”.

English translations of all of the above are available, and many are either in the public domain or are available to read free of charge; I can provide links to anyone interested, so if anyone reading this post is so interested, send me a message via the forum.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Indeed. And in the Orthodox Church, our daily prayers have sections addressed to each person of the Holy Trinity.

Many Protestants will address prayers to our Heavenly Father or to Jesus Christ, but relatively few will address prayers to the Holy Spirit, which I regard as indicative of a large scale problem of a Macedonianist tendency, that is to say, a widespread and in some cases deliberate crypto-Pneumatomacchianism in the Western Church.

Below is the closing collect for the prayers of the Church for this coming Sunday; Fathers Day. Note the prayer, how it sums up the focus of the prayers and note in particular the doxology it closes with (which will be very familiar to you) which mention all three persons of the God-head:

Heavenly Father, from whom all fatherhood is named, we give You thanks for earthly fathers. Give them confidence in their station and zeal for their task to care for their families faithfully. Make them examples to their children of godly life and love of Your Word. Bless their work of bringing up children in the fear and instruction of the Lord, and give them the comfort of Your absolution over all their shortcomings. Gather us together with all our fathers to Your eternal household; through Jesus Christ, Your Son, our Lord, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.​

 

[The Liturgist]

I dont believe there are any supernatural effects to doing the cross,

The Sign of Cross is a form of prayer, by which we express thanks to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; additionally, the Cross itself, and any representations of it, such as the Sign of the Cross, literally dispels demons. However, this is because of what Christ did on the Cross, which they find intolerable; if one makes the sign of the Cross, one “triggers” them to use the modern generation Z vernacular.

 

[Cis.jd]

The Anglicans, indeed, are a mixed multitude. I also should have added to my post above that they are not Eastern Orthodox.

That said, various segments of the Church of England have affinities with the Lutheran, Reformed, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox branches of Christianity.

I do like how eclectic Anglicans are. I like how they merge the best of both worlds, I guess on the earlier days of my exploration I could have been anglican, the only thing that really turned me off was how they postered their political views. I mean, if you support lgbt, trump, BLM, etc fine.. but i just find it a bit annoying to see that stuff churches.

Let's focus on spirituality here and not politics

 

[Cis.jd]

The best analogy I've ever heard comparing the difference between the Evangelical and the Reformed traditions is this: Luther opened the drawer and carefully removed things that seemed to not belong. The Reformed removed the drawer, turned it upside down, dumped everything out and then put back into the drawer only those things they thought were necessary.

This is why the Reformed Tradition has what it calls the Regulative Principle: That which is positively condoned in Scripture is permitted. This is why some Reformed (and Radical) Protestants did away with vestments and even Christmas (such as the Puritan ban on Christmas in New England and in England during the dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell).

Lutherans don't have this Regulative Principle. Instead we have the Normative Principle, we forbid what Scripture forbids. What Scripture is silent on it is silent on; and whatever is good and useful shouldn't be done away with. It's why we boldly have crucifixes, we have no disdain toward Holy Images, it's why we retain traditional vestments and paraments, it's why we have retained, with full reverence, the Holy Mass.

The difference between the Regulative Principle and the Normative Principle is stark and massive.

When the word "Protestant" is often used, it almost always means those traditions which emerged out from the Reformed and Radical wings of the Reformation.

So Lutherans are always the stand-out, the non-conforming bunch. We are defiantly Catholic in regard to Protestantism, and defiantly Protestant in regard to Catholicism. And insist on being Evangelical in everything.

-CryptoLutheran

Another good analogy is this: A group of people in a church think they should have distance from the alter. One person takes 1 step away (just arm length). The second person thinks more distance is needed, so he goes behind the 1st one. The third person thinks more distance is needed, he goes behind 2nd person, the 4th goes behind the 3rd one, and so on. Each new person who moves behind is not only further away from the altar but also closer out the door and doesn't realize it.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The same can be said about a great many Baptists, the Methodists, Moravians and the various Restorationist denominations such as the Stone/Campbell Movement (Christian Church/Disciples of Christ and the more traditional Churches of Christ) and the various non-denominational evangelical churches.

Quite true.