Umm...not to nitpik...but weren't Zwingli and Calvin part of the Magisterial Reformation? When I hear "Radical Reformation", I think of the Anabaptists.
It really depends. While Calvin himself was Magisterial, much of his theology, particularly his soteriology, was adopted by the Radicals. Calvin and Zwingli were on the "boarder" between Magisterial and Radical; they themselves and those who strictly followed their theologies are Magisterial, but those who merely derived their teachings from them were often Radical.
I agree with these statements (and affirm their doctrinal implications)
but there are also Lutherans that would affirm them as well (even Apostolic Succession). So, could we say that those Lutherans are not Protestants?
Some aren't; that is true. The Scandinavian Lutherans in particular kept a valid episcopate and the Anglican Communion is in a state of Full Communion with them. The ELCA and its sister in Canada had AS reintroduced as per its agreement to enter into Communion with the Anglican Communion in the US and Canada respectfully.
However, there is admittedly a difference between Lutherans/Moravians and Anglicans here. In Lutheranism, it is
possible whereas in Anglicanism it is
definite.
I'm not opposed to the idea, but it just seems confusing to say that the group that started the reformation isn't Protestant.
Honestly, I really think that Lutheranism/Moravianism is perhaps the best deserving Christian group for the
via media title. It is very difficult to pin them down because so many (most?) are either outright Catholic or are so bloody close without
quite getting there (mostly due to lack of Apostolic Succession).
I think the problem here is that the word "Protestant" can mean so many things:
-Some may apply the word to groups that retained sacramental theology, and held to the basic structures of the historic Church (like Anglicans and some Lutherans).
- When others use the word they are thinking of the different confessional Calvinist/Reformed groups.
-Others think of Evangelical groups with Anabaptist doctrines.
I don't believe that Evangelicals are Protestants anymore; I think they constitute a new branch of Christianity because they absolutely don't follow one of the most essential aspects of Protestantism:
sola scriptura. They are almost always
solo scriptura that use the former title falsely and ignorantly. They
seem to be Protestants on the surface, but they are a whole new ballgame entirely.
The Radical Reformation/Evangelicalism is not classic Protestantism but a sort of perversion of it. I have a lot of honest sympathy for Presbyterians, Reformed, and etc Protestants; I really, really do. These folks took Protestantism and told its founders "you got it all wrong, even Zwingli".
Luther was right about the peasants. Not about the violent crushing, but of their uneducated take on what he and his contemporaries and Calvin were saying.
Oddly enough when you really compare all the doctrines and distinctions side by side, a confessional Presbyterian probably has just as much in common with many Roman Catholics as he might with a non-denominational anabaptist/evangelical.
I'd almost say the Presbyterian is closer to the Roman Catholics...although you are probably right.
So in this sense, the word "Protestant" isn't really a helpful description for anything other than to say that an organization is not recognized by the Roman Catholic Church, (and that it isn't Eastern Orthodox).
Not sure I agree. There are certain aspects of Protestantism that are truly fundamental that they have and Catholicism doesn't.
The only group the word is really useful for is Roman Catholicism, and that is mainly as a broad term to state "not one of us."
Unfortunately agreed, although their more erudite members are usually better with the term.