Protestant Catechism, is there such a thing?

Let's see. One apologist for one of the Catholic churches says that his church is the only one. Of course he would.

What a revelation! What a surprise!. However, his point is that dissenters and dissenting church bodies are wrong by definition, because they dissent from the only church that is considered (by its own judgment of the matter) to be correct. That is something a lot of other denominations say of themselves also.

But that isn't the point in our little debate.

If we return to the basic idea, there are a number of Catholic chuches...and there are a number of Protestant churches. Of course they cannot all be 100% true and correct. But naturally also, they exist and the churches in each of those categories don't agree with the rest of the churches in their category.

So here is the actual point once again--

With the right wording, and by comparing ONE ONLY from either of the sides against ALL the churches in the opposite category a speaker can make it look like the former is united and therefore "true," while saying that ALL those in the other category represent disunity, and therefore error.

But it's just a trick with words.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

A few thoughts:

While Confessional Lutheranisms's tent is a bit more restrictive, are we much different in our approach? We too have much freedom when it comes to belief and/or practice; along as it does not contradict Scripture (primary) and the Book of Concord as an exposition of the Bible; these beliefs and practices are called Adiaphora or things of indifference. Such is why many Confessional Lutherans refer to our Church as "Evangelical Catholics" in that Papal authority has been traded for Biblical Authority; and the Keys of St. Peter are not in the hands of a single Bishop, but in possession of the whole Church (which does indeed include the Roman or Vatican Catholics even though many Protestants would tell us otherwise). The only Churches that would not have the Key's of St. Peter are those who refuse to administer them.

Click to expand...

Great post. Thanks for the feedback. I suppose upon reflection you are correct at least how the two traditions work themselves out on the ground if that makes sense. As a Lutheran I agree with post insofar there is a hierarchy of doctrine that closest to the center (Christ) must be believed, taught and confessed. So the first Ring If you will must be believed to be a Christian. From there the next ring must be believed to be orthodox and the following ring to be a Lutheran. Outside that I would describe varying degrees of consistency and yet further adiaphora exists. For example Polity isn’t really discussed for Lutheran churches but I suppose an Episcopal polity could be just as faithful to the confessions as our congregational model.

My rub is is the idea in the thread and that there because Rome has the modern CCC that there exists one body of doctrine that All Catholics believe when in reality there is disagreement. Even on something like the Nicene Creed with the example I gave. To be fair the Eastern Catholic Churches officially teach that the Filoque clause is true buyer on the ground from my experience this isn’t true. Perhaps this is dissent similar to progressive Catholics offer with regards to Rome’s teaching in the CCC. Yet that disagreement exists within one of the inner Rings I described in regards to the bier by of doctrine that I was describing above. Add to that the fact the thread assumes that that there is this one body of teaching that must be believed de fide yet there are (my emphasis) vast swaths of the Roman church that dissent from the official CCC.

what do you think?

Edit. Except praise bands. They are verboten. Always. Jk.

Fidelibus said:

Sorry, my fingers were getting ahead of my brain.

Click to expand...

It happens to me too

Fidelibus said:

So I have to ask, other than the bible, where does the Anglican church turn
to establish it's beliefs and practices? And by who's and what authority? Could you also give some examples of these beliefs and practices you speak of?

Click to expand...

Broadly speaking, Tradition and Reason sit alongside Scripture. More specifically, the 39 Articles of Religion and the Book of Common Prayer are foundational documents for us.

That is established by the authority of the Church. How that is expressed varies in different times and places. Where I am, we are "episcopally led and synodically governed."

Examples are easy to find; especially if you look back to the time when there was a serious Puritan Bible-only push in Anglicanism. So you can see that, for example, those folks opposed the giving and receiving of a ring in marriage, because it was not Biblical. Or opposed the use of liturgical vestments, because they were not Biblical. Yet the church retained both, over their objections, because we found that they were not contrary to Scripture and enriched the life of the church in different ways.

Athanasius377 said:

Great post. Thanks for the feedback. I suppose upon reflection you are correct at least how the two traditions work themselves out on the ground if that makes sense. As a Lutheran I agree with post insofar there is a hierarchy of doctrine that closest to the center (Christ) must be believed, taught and confessed. So the first Ring If you will must be believed to be a Christian. From there the next ring must be believed to be orthodox and the following ring to be a Lutheran. Outside that I would describe varying degrees of consistency and yet further adiaphora exists. For example Polity isn’t really discussed for Lutheran churches but I suppose an Episcopal polity could be just as faithful to the confessions as our congregational model.

My rub is is the idea in the thread and that there because Rome has the modern CCC that there exists one body of doctrine that All Catholics believe when in reality there is disagreement. Even on something like the Nicene Creed with the example I gave. To be fair the Eastern Catholic Churches officially teach that the Filoque clause is true buyer on the ground from my experience this isn’t true. Perhaps this is dissent similar to progressive Catholics offer with regards to Rome’s teaching in the CCC. Yet that disagreement exists within one of the inner Rings I described in regards to the bier by of doctrine that I was describing above. Add to that the fact the thread assumes that that there is this one body of teaching that must be believed de fide yet there are (my emphasis) vast swaths of the Roman church that dissent from the official CCC.

what do you think?

Edit. Except praise bands. They are verboten. Always. Jk.

Click to expand...

Certainly, just as there are dissenters in our Church; however, we Lutherans recognize that not a single person, regardless of Church, holds a perfect faith. Sometimes Catholic Apologists speak and write as though this is not the case.

Fidelibus said:

Thanks to all that have responded, and by these responses, it seems that I may have been correct in my conclusion.

1. If any non-Catholic wanted to learn about the Catholic Church and her teachings (as my co-worker did) all they need to do is get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) and read it for themselves.

2. The very fact that I am being referred to several different confessions of faith (or catechisms) by the different posters of this thread backs what I stated in my OP, that my belief there is no Protestant equivalent to the CCC, being there is no "one source" within Protestantism that a Catholic can consult to find out what Protestants believe on any given article of faith or morals. Would you all agree?

IOW, which catechism can Catholics read that gives them the official teachings of each and every Protestant? Is the Reformed catechism the official teaching of the Baptists? Is the Baptist catechism the official teaching of the Methodist church? And what about all of those non-denominational denominations out there? Where are the catechisms with their official teachings? Which of the Protestant catechisms can a Catholic go as to know which represents the official teaching of all of Protestantism?

In the mean time, I will do some comparing of the teachings of the Protestant catechisms and confessions,ect. provided by posters with each other and see what I come up with. Again, thanks to all that gave their input

Click to expand...

"Protestant" isn't a tradition, a communion, a denomination, or a church of any kind. There's this strange idea I notice a lot where the assumption is that "Protestant" is somehow supposed to be like "Catholic", a term to describe a specific institution, tradition, and set of beliefs; and then this then used to attack Protestants when there are all kinds of different opinions among Protestants. That's not how it works.

There are Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Mennonites, etc. There are no "Protestants". There is no "Protestant faith", there is no "Protestant creed", there is no "Protestant church". The term has very little cohesive meaning except to describe historical relationships and a vague connection to the period of religious strife of the 16th century in Western Europe.

The term "Protestant" was originally applied to those German Elector Princes who formally protested at the 2nd Imperial Diet of Speyer. The 2nd Diet of Speyer reversed the decision made at the first, which had granted the various princes of the Holy Roman Empire the right to determine whether their territories would follow Roman religious practices or Evangelical religious practices ("Evangelical" was the preferred term among the original members of the Reform). Most of the princes who protested were Evangelical (Lutheran) but a number were Reformed. This event was known as the Protestation at Speyer, which is why these princes were called "The Protestants", because they formally protested the Diet.

The term "Protestant" would eventually come to describe not just the protesting princes, but Evangelicals and Reformed Christians broadly, and also those groups which arose out of the Radical Reformation, i.e. the various Anabaptist groups (the most famous and still surviving one being the Mennonites). And would continue to include groups that arose later on, such as the Separatist and Non-Conformist English groups of the 17th century (Baptists, Quakers, Shakers, and so forth).

Because virtually all post-Reformation ecclesiastical movements and groups continued to have the "Protestant" appelation, we have the present situation where "Protestant" does virtually nothing to say what a person believes or practices, and really only serves as a vague marker to distinguish it within the complicated family tree of Christian groups.

Asking for a "Protestant Catechism" is like asking what language is spoken in the Western Hemisphere. Sure, we all share this side of the globe, and can all be broadly called "American" in that our place of residence is "the Americas", consisting of North America, Central America, and South America, as well as the islands of the Caribbean Sea. And so geographically we are "American". But there is no single language, and indeed it makes no sense to even think that there should be. The historical circumstances that gave rise to the different nations of the Americas are diverse, each nation, whether the US, Canada, Mexico, Honduras, Brazil, or Columbia each has its own distinct history with distinct circumstances. There is no "American" language, there is no "American" culture. There are the languages of the Americas, there are the cultures of the Americas. Plural.

Likewise, there is no "Protestantism", instead there are a diverse number of Protestantisms.

Lutherans are not generically "Protestant", we're Lutheran, distinctively Lutheran.
And the same is true of Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Mennonites, and every other "Protestantism" out there.

As such, yes, there are "Protestant" catechisms, such as the Small and Large Catechism for Lutherans or the Westminster Catechism for Presbyterians. But there is no such thing as a "Protestant Catechism" for the precise reasons already outlined above.

One cannot act like Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists (et al) are "Protestant" and therefore all have some sort of "Protestant" identity. That's not how it works.

-CryptoLutheran

redleghunter said:

I believe the divide most Catholics who don’t know much about Protestant vs Non denominational should know is if a denomination is creedal.

Lutheran, Reformed and Methodist (at least for now) are creedal. Joel Osteen probably does not even know what a creed is.

Click to expand...

Your statement is well taken and sadly so. Many protestant churches, including most non denominational churches do not know what a creed is. I recently did a study of a great book on the Apostles Creed in the church I attend. The common reaction among most of those who attended was I never heard this before followed by I never understood how big God is. By that they meant God was the God of their experience as they had never been taught doctrine and had no real understanding of the nature and power of God nor the interrelation of the Apostles Creed. Sure the church as a statement of faith online that is similar, mostly to the Creed but not in all ways. Teaching and learning are anemic in many modern churches if it exists at all outside the sermon. Don't get me started on pastors like Olsteen or worse.

CaspianSails said:

Your statement is well taken and sadly so. Many protestant churches, including most non denominational churches do not know what a creed is. I recently did a study of a great book on the Apostles Creed in the church I attend. The common reaction among most of those who attended was I never heard this before followed by I never understood how big God is. By that they meant God was the God of their experience as they had never been taught doctrine and had no real understanding of the nature and power of God nor the interrelation of the Apostles Creed. Sure the church as a statement of faith online that is similar, mostly to the Creed but not in all ways. Teaching and learning are anemic in many modern churches if it exists at all outside the sermon. Don't get me started on pastors like Olsteen or worse.

Click to expand...

Mind me asking which book you used for your Apostles Creed study?

I did one with a small group last year. The advantage I had was I was born, raised and educated Roman Catholic. Except for the two group leaders who were seminary grads, it was undiscovered country for the rest of the class.

redleghunter said:

Mind me asking which book you used for your Apostles Creed study?

I did one with a small group last year. The advantage I had was I was born, raised and educated Roman Catholic. Except for the two group leaders who were seminary grads, it was undiscovered country for the rest of the class.

Click to expand...

Greetings my brother in Christ. It was
The Apostles' Creed: Discovering Authentic Christianity in an Age of Counterfeits
by R. Albert Mohler Jr.

Mohler is a Southern Baptist theologian. He does a great job of exposition on the Creed along with pointing out modern counterfeits and pointed commentary that protestants in particular could identify with and for some disagree with. However his explanation and exposition of the Creed is very well done. I looked at a few others but they were unfortunately more about the author presenting himself and less about sound traditional doctrine. I did pull in other sources from the writings of early church founders like Augustine and others. I include information found within the Presbyterian catechism and others. The book however is self sufficient but my audience had little background and knew nothing of chruch history and our brothers in antiquity. I found this very interesting in the book. The author speaks of his first days in seminary and states that a teacher of church history made a statement like this. My job is to teach you that someone existed between Christ and your grandmother and that it matters.

CaspianSails said:

My job is to teach you that someone existed between Christ and your grandmother and that it matters.

Click to expand...

I had a lecturer say a similar thing; that too many Protestants thought the Church started at the Reformation, and had no idea about anything that came before that. (He taught early church history).

Paidiske said:

I had a lecturer say a similar thing; that too many Protestants thought the Church started at the Reformation, and had no idea about anything that came before that. (He taught early church history).

Click to expand...

I agree totally and am a Protestant. Very few are even aware of church history and sadly most have no clue even who Luther, or Calvin were. Let alone people like Ignatius or Augustine or even early reformers like Valdes or St Francis of Assisi. Nor do they have a clue of the origin of doctrine they hold so dearly such as the Trinity which was not considered doctrine until, stretching my memory a bit here, around 400 AD I believe. Don't quote me on that. Or dare I say to them that until recent history the Catholic Church was the church at least in Western Christiandom. One by one I attempt to convince them that first sound doctrine matters, then history matters and there are many great theologians that preceded Charles Finney or other modern writers. How can we understand what we believe if we do not know the origins and the heresies that came before and repeat over time or never cease. Peace and blessings to you.

redleghunter said:

Mind me asking which book you used for your Apostles Creed study?

I did one with a small group last year. The advantage I had was I was born, raised and educated Roman Catholic. Except for the two group leaders who were seminary grads, it was undiscovered country for the rest of the class.

Click to expand...

We Lutherans have been using Luther's small Catechism since it's publication almost 500 years ago. It is original intent was for the instruction of children, but is a good starting point for those who have no familiarity: The format is simple, the Creed is broken down into Three Articles with explanations; it does the same for the Lord's Prayer, the 10 commandments, as well as the Eucharist, Baptism and the "Office of the Keys"(Confession and Absolution), here is the section on the Creed:

A great starting point for more advanced study.

Fidelibus said:

Not true, Catholic Apologist John Martignoni will explain why:


"There is one body of teaching in the Catholic Church...one. If there are folks who call themselves Catholic, but who do not agree with one or more doctrines and dogmas of the Church, then these people are known as dissenters. They are, in essence, Protestants. They are no longer one with the Church. The body of doctrine and dogmas of the Church, however, is one. In Protestantism, is there one set body of doctrine and dogmas? No, there is not. In Protestantism, you have a myriad of beliefs (all supposedly from the one and same Bible) spanning a myriad of denominations and it is a perfectly acceptable situation to most Protestants to have all of these varying beliefs. One is not a dissenter or a heretic in Protestantism, one merely starts a new denomination and then their different belief (or beliefs) is accepted as normal, at least, for that denomination. So, yes, there are dissenters to Catholic teaching within the Church and they may indeed try to pass off as "Catholic" the dissent that they teach, but it has no official stamp of approval from anyone. There is an authoritative body within the Catholic Church (the Pope and the Magisterium) that is recognized as such by Catholic and non-Catholic alike, which gives witness to only one set of official and authoritative beliefs in Catholicism - the set of beliefs found in the CCC. Protestantism has nothing similar."

Click to expand...

Exacty. There is One Deposit of Faith. Of course individuals can choose to reject a teaching here or there (protestantism)

concretecamper said:

Exacty. There is One Deposit of Faith. Of course individuals can choose to reject a teaching here or there (protestantism)

Click to expand...

Here is a genuine sign from my hometown of Dubuque, Iowa which is outside of the Holy Ghost Catholic Church (the place of the True Deposit).

bbbbbbb said:

Here is a genuine sign from my hometown of Dubuque, Iowa which is outside of the Holy Ghost Catholic Church (the place of the True Deposit).

Click to expand...

if you say so

Maria Billingsley said:

Scripture both old and new is the only form of catechizing for those who do not follow traditions of men.
2 Timothy 3
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Click to expand...

Based on your post and your non-sequitur NT quotation, I do not believe that you understand the purpose of a catechism.

thecolorsblend said:

Based on your post and your non-sequitur NT quotation, I do not believe that you understand the purpose of a catechism.

Click to expand...

As a former Catholic, I can see why you would think so.
Blessings