Historic Protestantism vs Modern Protestantism

G

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest
I do hope that you also take my comments the same way, now that I understand more about your reasoning I think I'm more satisfied that it is an applicable way to divide the denominations into broad groups.

Oh, absolutely.

Further on the Anglo-Lutheran group could the Dutch Reformed Church (now joined with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Netherlands and Reformed Churches of the Netherlands to be the Protestant Church in the Netherlands) be included in this having "privileged" church status, or is the fact that it is dependant on Calvin what places it in the Reformed group?

Yeah, the uniting groups like the Uniting Church of Australia, the United Church of Christ, and the Evangelische Kirke in Germany all present a problem. I would tend to place them in the Protestant/Reformed camp more because those Lutheran bodies tend to see themselves more as Protestants than as Catholics, and the Anglo-Lutheran family exists precisely because they seem themselves as more Catholic than Protestant. Also, the distinctives of Lutheran theology like the real presence tend to get lost, as do particulars of Calvinist (as opposed to Arminian) theology, in my opinion, and so that really centers them in the strictly Protestant camp. But maybe I'm just suspicious of new (post-1817) things.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Personally, I tend to mentally envision Christianity into six superclasses: the Orthodox family (including Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and other ancient eastern churches), the Catholic family (including Catholics in communion with Rome as well as breakway groups), the Anglican/Lutheran community of liturgical, historical, and conservative Reformation churches, the Reformed Calvinist and Reformed anti/post-Calvinist groups (including groups repudiating specific Reformed/Calvinist doctrines, like dispenastionalists rejecting covenant history, Arminianism rejecting Dortrecht, and Baptist groups rejecting paedobaptism, but retaining the overall structure of Reformed theology, plus Wesleyans/Methodists) which I generally understand to be the core of Protestantism, Anabaptists and primitive restorationists, and modern restorationists like the Campbelite/Churches of Christ, Pentecostals, and Adventists..
If I may ask,

Although I agree with your distinctions as they're very good categorizations, I would wonder where things would fit such as the Black Church - how would they be categorized.


Growing up within it, I've seen a lot of instances where it seems people discuss the historical church - and yet never consider how it has a very different historical trajectory than many of the other branches....especially as it pertains to things such as Liberation theology.


In example, we see how the The Exodus in American History and Culture had PROUFOUNDLY different impacts on differing groups reading them​


For you had one side reading the book in gaining inspiration (and justification) against tyranny of the British Empire when it came to the American Revolution (as they saw it) while the American Black slaves saw the Exodus as a book proclaiming God's Freedom and a book inspiring them to flee from enslavement - with many slave masters condemning them even as they praised Exodus in their support for the American Revolution when they prided themselves as patriots. And although Exodus had applications that applied to both groups, one group would tend to deny the other the right of interpretation if it went against their interests. Kenneth Chelst, a distinguished academic, and a wide-ranging and profound scholar of Jewish thought has produced a compelling /original study on the issue that blessed me a lot - entitled Exodus and Emancipation: Biblical and African-American Slavery ( more here, here and here/here).​

This is something that I don't think we can avoid if being honest on the history of how groups tended to develop into their own entities. ...we see the same thing with others who are hard to classify - people coming to mind being others like Nat Turner.​


Nat Turner: A Troublesome Property. America's Spartakus.
There's a reason Nat Turner's theology was the way it was (more here, here and here/here/here)....Numerous black slave rebellions and insurrections took place in North America during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. There is documentary evidence of more than 250 uprisings or attempted uprisings involving 10 or more slaves. Three of the best known in the United States during the nineteenth century are the revolts by Gabriel Prosser in Virginia in 1800, Denmark Vesey in Charleston, South Carolina in 1822, and Nat Turner in Southampton County, Virginia, in 1831. If studying African-American History, one will quiclly recall many of the Slave Revolts that often happened—-with ones like the Nat Turner slave rebellon being amongst the most famous since he was trying to get freedom at all costs…and led a revolt in Virginia on August 21, 1831 that resulted in 56 deaths among their victims, the largest number of white fatalities to occur in one uprising in the antebellum southern United States. And there were others as well - some done by white men who wanted to help the blacks get freedom at all costs....like John Brown's rebellion and the deaths he caused. White abolitionist John Brown had already fought against pro-slavery forces in Kansas for several years when he decided to lead a raid on Harpers Ferry, Virginia (West Virginia was not yet a state). And this raid was a joint attack by former slaves, freed blacks, and white men who had corresponded with slaves on plantations in order to form a general uprising among slaves. It almost succeeded, had it not been for Brown's delay, and hundreds of slaves left their plantations to join Brown's force, and others left their plantations to join Brown in an escape to the mountains. Eventually, due to a tactical error by Brown, their force was quelled. Nonetheless, but directly following this, slave disobedience and the number of runaways increased markedly in Virginia.


Some would say that he AND others like him were “terrorists”—and yet, one can understand how he arrived at that point after seeing attrocities like the raping of their families, kidnapping, ruthless whippings and many other evils. But you rarely - if ever - hear of their schools of theology discussed....as if they're not even in the discussion for Protestant worldviews that have developed and worth seeing where they belonged...

Whenever it comes to discussing Historic Protestant vs Modern Protestant debates, I do think we have to factor in the culture factor - for ethnicity and culture have often led to SIGNIFICANT gaps in understanding the ways that groups operate and engage with one another.....Protestant culture for Blacks being radically different many times from how Caucasians/Whites lived it out....and what's seen to be normative in one group being far from how other groups see it.​


Within the Black Church, the founder of Wesleyan thought ( John Wesley ) has always been one of the most celebrated individuals...and to be more specific, where he's celebrated is within the one of the branches within Methodism that's connected with holiness denominations holding to the teachings of John Wesley. Probably one of the greatest reasons he's celebrated is due to his fighting against slavery in an era when many either remained silent or took no action when disliking the fact that slavery existed. Alongside that reason for why many blacks love him is the other reason of how involved he was in social justice/reform movements, be it with reforming the ways prisons operated or reforming the way that child labor laws operated.

Of course, for those churches within the Holiness Movement associated with John Wesley, it has been the case that there has often been what can be seen as legalism on some things. Others disagree, especially as it comes to the issue of cultural concessions...especially in the realm of Hip Hop (i.e. Rap, MCeeing, Graffiti, Dancing, Spoken Word/Poetry, etc) and many other things connected to /Urban culture.

Because of this, many in the Black church have been in civil war on a host of issues...and the Holiness churches have been one of the main ones leading the way - in many respects similar to previous movements in the Early Church that were advocating for separation from what was deemed "worldliness" and vain expressions (even though those movements would've been within Eastern Christianity and Non-Protestant thought)....

For a good review on the issue, one may wish to consider going online and looking up an article under the name of "The Dunamis Word - What Does 21st Century Holiness Look Like?" . The article is made by a man named Pastor Harvey Burnett. He's a wonderful man of God whom I've always loved talking with. For he's one whom I used to blog with years ago on another site....and he's also very knowledgable of many of the backgrounds concerning the Black Church as well as Church History in general.


To see the ways the Methodist movement impacted the Black Church has always been fascinating to me ......and with the classification of it, I do wonder why it seems to be often neglected.



I shared this with another recently as it concerns the history behind the Black Church - as history of the Black Church (more shared on it in #229 - as well as the history of blacks in the OT/NT in #14 /#16 ) - is a multifaceted reality and not something that's in any way monolithic....especially when considering the dynamic of intercultural connections and splicing of cultures:
To me, I always find it amazing when going back and considering the extensive amount of ways that the slaves, in their example, were so in line with the Spirit of how things were done in the Early Church /Ancient Faith.....and what the prophets of the OT/NT preached on when it came to suffering for the Lord/righteousness and looking unto Him for deliverance. The book An Unbroken Circle: Linking Ancient African Christianity to the African-American Experience (more here) is one of the best historical reads present (if not the best) which helps to break that down - by Fr Moses Berry ( curator of the Ozarks Afro-American Heritage Museum and rector of Theotokos “Unexpected Joy” Orthodox Church in Ask Grove, Missouri).





Upon its publication in 1997, An Unbroken Circle: Linking Ancient African Christianity to the African-American Experience, broke new ground in Orthodox writing. And many people have found this book to be an invaluable resource, both for personal growth and for Orthodox outreach as well as general understanding of the ways the Body of Christ came together....



But outside of seeing the ways that Blacks were connected to Eastern Christianity, within American culture it often seemed that Black churches had a very distinct categorization from other groups when it came to the ways they lived out their own faith.

Why I Sing Amazing Grace: The African-American Worship ExperIENCE

The History of The Black Church - The Beginning

quinn-chapel-01jpg-f0febe4063c23fe4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
330
35
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟23,842.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Yeah, the uniting groups like the Uniting Church of Australia, the United Church of Christ, and the Evangelische Kirke in Germany all present a problem. I would tend to place them in the Protestant/Reformed camp more because those Lutheran bodies tend to see themselves more as Protestants than as Catholics, and the Anglo-Lutheran family exists precisely because they seem themselves as more Catholic than Protestant. Also, the distinctives of Lutheran theology like the real presence tend to get lost, as do particulars of Calvinist (as opposed to Arminian) theology, in my opinion, and so that really centers them in the strictly Protestant camp. But maybe I'm just suspicious of new (post-1817) things.

I was more asking in the sense of it in its historic sense as being seen from within as the Dutch continuation of the Catholic church.

The uniting groups are a rather new innovation and have some inclination having shed some of the distinctives that you have mentioned to then trend towards secularist humanism (I know this is true of a Canadian Church and some wings of the UCA) but I think these may be exceptions rather than rules and it may be a bit too early to reclassify them as their own breed just yet.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
JWs, OPs and Mormons are not trinitarian; their teachings show otherwise despite what they say that they teach. There are non trinitarian Messianic Jews as well. They are not Christian by the definition of the Nicene Council, wven though they give lip-service to Christ.
To be fair, if I may say..

It was not always the case that one was automatically assumed to not be a Christian if he or she was Non-Trinitarian since there were many wrestlings with how to interpret the nature of the Lord - specifically with Binitarianism ...specifically [URL="http://youtu.be/T2WvZ0AcXi4"]Binitarian Monotheism and Jewish Binitarianism since that was indeed[/URL] a very prevalent view within the early church (paticularly amongst the Jewish branch of the Church) - and knowing many Messianic Jews who've had to deal with the issue, it's something I think needs to be dealt with in much sensitivity since it is an ever-present issue that is being wrestled with within Messianic Judaism as well as other places today (some of this discussed before - such as here, here and here).

For many (seeing it firsthand growing up with friends and family involved in it - especially when I was in college in Orangeburg, South Carolina where it was big), I have seen where many in Oneness Pentecostalism do not simply give lip service to the Lord - they were devoted to proclaiming the Gospel and living devout/God-fearing lives ...and I don't think it'd be good for us to sum them all up as being the same due to where others did (and still do, unfortunately) a LOT of mess in their name. For Commonality doesn't mean all sides are equal, just as believers in a Prebysterian church who acknowledge Yeshua is a Jew doesn't mean they're the same as a Messianic fellowship saying the same thing and yet living distinctly. Having friends that're Oneness Pentecostals since I grew up with that, there were (and still are a lot of variations) and language issues --- and it seems that it was something many seemed to focus too much on at times. The issue is being discussed more so within the body and there's a lot of mutual dialouge going on as to how often misunderstandings occur even when there's similarity. In example, T.D Jakes (who came from a Oneness Pentecostalism background) actually shared in depth with many notable teachers/preachers who had a Trinitarian background and shared on his reasons for how the Trinity can be misunderstood ( more shared here, here, here, here, here and here ). As James McDonald said, "I do not require T.D. Jakes or anyone else to define the details of Trinitarianism the way that I might. His [Jakes's] website states clearly that he believes God has existed eternally in three manifestations."

And with the Trinity itself, for those not adhering to it, part of why I tended to give others grace if they didn't understand it was due to what I was exposed to growing up when seeing the ways Jews and other groups wrestled over the issue.....and yet being noted by others in the Church as followers of the Lord. I'm reminded of something else that was brought up years ago in another thread on similar dynamics in regard to Non-Trinitarian groups such as Muslims / Islam (whom St. John of Damascus noted to be a Christian Heresy rather than another religion...specifically calling it the "Heresy of the Ishmaelites" and also giving the first significant Christian theological and apologetic answer to Islam - also giving The. Fountain of Wisdom, which was a defence of the doctrine of the Trinity penned by John of Damascus ...more here and here). It's from an article written by a priest in the ROCOR that discusses if Islam and Judaism worship the same God as us.

It seemed he was arguing, among other things, that the Jews worshiped a Trinitarian God...even though others have noted how it would be pretty hard to convincingly maintain that they did so knowingly, at least in regards to the bulk of the Jews - for if they knowingly worshipped a Trinitarian God, the entire battle with accepting Christ might have been rather less shocking to them. But if they could, without entirely realizing it, worship a Triniarian God, then it is not necessarily impossible that someone else, like modern Jews or Muslims or other Christian groups emphasizing the oneness of God in a desire to honor Him (even though mistaken), could as well - more discussed in places such as Salvation of Muslims and Jews (as well as here, here and here)..

But at the end of the day, we have to always keep God's Mercy in mind when it comes to how He interacts with others. As another noted best:
I would say yes, we worship the same God as the Jews. The difference is they knew Him before us, and so didn't know Him fully, whereas the Muslims met Him after the Incarnation, where He was fully revealed to us, and then rejected the original and changed Him further. To take my "Harry" example up there, Jews knew Harry before we did, but didn't know he lives with his father and brother. They still assert he lives alone, but their friendship with him isn't as close as it would be if they accepted this new information about him. Muslims met Harry after it was common knowledge that he lives with his relatives, but are still refusing to accept it.

It's one thing to doubt a new truth about something when you already knew it. To be introduced to something, then assert you know more about it than what was known by the experts who introduced you to it, is another.
Gxg (G²);64359091 said:
..At the end of the day, when it comes to the Church, it's the job of the Holy Spirit to work in the hearts of others. Invitations can go out - but once that's done, it's no one's job to try either convincing others to join Orthodoxy or assuming the Lord is not working with them on their own journey.

If they remain where they are, that is between them and the Lord (as there are bigger problems in the world to worry on) - for even the Fathers note this dynamic often (especially within the culture of the Desert Fathers - as Abba Poemen noted on the issue of living by example...not trying to be one who is the legislator of others).

We know where God is ...but we don't know where He's not. And thus, we cannot say that others are ever forbidden from remaining where they are....as well as forbidden from saying that we can never learn from others not on the same level as we see ourselves on. Of course, there's an aspect of helping others grow further that we see even in scripture. In example, Cornelius in Acts 10-11 comes immediately to mind, as he had no idea about Jesus and yet scriptures notes how his prayers/devout actions (i.e. gifts to the poor, kindness, etc) were like prayers before the Lord -and the Lord sent full revelation to the man via Peter. But prior to that, Cornelius was still seen as a disciple/follower of the Lord..

There's also Acts 18:24-28, where its clear that Apollos only knew of the Baptism of John...suggesting that He had not heard at all of the Baptism which Jesus commanded after His resurrection in Matthew 28:19....and which began to be administered to all believers in Christ on and after that day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41, Acts 8:12, etc). Therefore, Apollos KNOWLEDGE of the Christian Gospel must have been deficient in SOME ways, though HE TAUGHT accurately the things concerning Jesus as far as he knew them.. He certainly knew about Jesus' life and teachings, but He may not have known about Jesus's death and resurrection...or about the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. God blessed Him by sending Him others who gave more full awareness of it (Acts 19:1-20:1 ).

And of course, Acts 19:2-4 where Paul finds believers who were given ONLY the Baptism of John....but they were incomplete in God's Best for them.
Acts 19:1-6
Paul in Ephesus 1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?" They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." 3So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?" "John's baptism," they replied. 4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[c] and prophesied.
These believers in the Lord were COMPLETLY unaware of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit----something Christ made clear was apart of the reason why He had to die (Joel 2:27-29 , John 14, John 16, Acts 2:16-18, etc)---and therefore they probably had not heard much of Jesus's Life and ministry.....and CERTAINLY not of His death/resurrection and the work of the Holy Spirit. They had evidently relocated from Palestine to Ephesus before Jesus's own ministry began...and as followers of John, they would have known His message that the Messiah would bring the Spirit (Luke 3:16). Nonetheless, it stands to reason that the obvious issue is that they were already considered followers of GOD long before having full information of the details of Christ's Work/something to believe in....

And even prior to their meeting Paul, they were still teaching things others NEEDED to learn based on what they had received.

The Lord truly works with others where they are at...



Personally, although I can see the validity of others not believing in a Trinity and yet still seeing Christ as the Messiah/God and Salvation of all, of course I believe that the Trinity is the Orthodox way to go for completion - in large part due to seeing the constant references of Jesus to the "Father" and to the "Spirit", and the record that all three were present in some way at John's baptism. Arguably during Jesus' ministry, we were actually WATCHING 2 "persons" of the Trinity operating together - i.e. the "Son" indwelled by the "Spirit".




Although I can more than see the logic in a Trinitarian viewpoint, I'm not really dogmatic about it in assuming others not holding to it are automatically not connected to Christianity since they are on the tree of the Church as well - although they may not be in the Orthodoxy branch.

~

With the Trinity, indeed, I think it is a system of thought which can make a lot of sense on who the Lord is--especially when it comes to references on things such as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit operating,. However, I think we need to be careful when we include or exclude people from the kingdom. If you deny that Jesus is Lord/God, that is clear as the Bible speaks plainly to that. The relationship of the Father to the Son to the Spirit? That is not as clear in the Bible, IMHO, at all points....

Shalom :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I give the benefit of the doubt, and while the above may be somewhat true, I also believe that considering the dialogue between the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics, that the Catholic Theologians picked up on the fact that there was some merit in what was proposed in the Augsburg Confession (were that not the case, why was there a Counter Reformation?).

I will not speculate on the outcome, but here is some food for thought; were it not for Zwingli, Calvin and Karlstadt poisoning the well, how would the Church look today?
Good question to consider when it comes to wondering how the Church would look today if not for the actions of those you noted.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Gxg (G²);64533503 said:
To be fair, if I may say..

It was not always the case that one was automatically assumed to not be a Christian if he or she was Non-Trinitarian since there were many wrestlings with how to interpret the nature of the Lord

IMO, being non-Trinitarian does not always define anyone as other than Christian, but denying the deity of Christ (one particular form of non-Trinitarianism) probably does.

I don't want to take a firm stand, up or down, on the status of any of these folks merely to make this point; but I think the point is important for anyone interested in the question, "Does that qualify as a variety of Christianity or not?"
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I wouldn't put the Evanglicals, especially the "non-denominational" type under historic since such concept is a result of one being ignorant of history.
I think one would need to put Evangelicals under the historic dynamic depending on which group or type of Evangelicals are being discussed. For many do exactly as other groups in the Early Protestant movement have done - and, for that matter, what much of the Early Body of Christ was focused on when it comes to Community Outreach, holistic living and incarnating the Kingdom of God into the world.

Within the Evangelical camp, we see it plainly where there are many turf battles going on between groups - specifically in the fact that throughout the Evangelical Church ...you have non-white culture concerned with issues that other Evangelicals are not focused on due to the ways that much of the early DOMINANT Evangelical culture began initially with a Euro-Centric focus that did not concern itself with the struggles of blacks or migrants. ...and for Evangelicals from the non-white background, their main battles are on the ground were helping out others in their neighborhoods (i.e. feeding the poor, taking care of the homeless, housing, looking after widows/orphans, helping kids get to college, Gang violence/drug abuse, gun shootings, etc. ) - with those in the White Evangelical culture being the ones focusing on things such as gay marriage as the "ultimate issue" ....something when others have said that is an issue other whites in suburbia can afford to focus on since they don't have to deal with issues the rest of the culture struggles with daily...and that they would prefer others NOT be focused on since those things force others to be involved practically with issues that impact groups they are not concerned for (more shared here in #13 and #361 ).

The Evangelical Churches which are focused/centered in minority communities have often had differing emphasis on the battles that matter - for many times they were WITHOUT political power - and yet it often seems when they (be it Black or Hispanic or Asian ) don't go along with what the majority of one culture in Christianity (i.e. White, Suburban, Evangelical etc.) feel is important, it's assumed they are not Evangelical or wish to deal with issues impacting their culture.....but the truth is that they simply wished to deal with issues by walking in love/helping practically ....for they already have enough issues to contend with.


As one of my close friends noted back in the day,

As I listen to many of the conversations today I still believe that most of what is coming out of Evangelical Christianity today has no real bearing on the African American Community at large .....Many of the theological conversations are like those from the Reformation. Instead of fighting against the Papacy we are fighting against post-modernism, the Emergent Church, Prayer in Schools, The New Perspective on Paul and discussing the movie Expelled. More Christians are concerned with Expelled than they are the recent acquittal of three officers in New York. While many are fighting to get Intelligent Design as an alternative to the Big Boom and Darwinism a lot of schools are trying to get their graduation rate better than 50%. A lot of schools in the Urban poor areas are trying to find money for books and computers while most of the conversations are surrounding around Expelled and Harry Potter. You see the Calvinism vs Arminian debate or Paedo vs Credo Baptist or Plurality vs other governing methods or limited vs universal atonement and finally the Premill Pretrib vs Amill debate may not be at all relevant to most Christians in South Side Chicago or even Philly. These people are trying to stop an ongoing epidemic of murders on the South Side while people in Philly may now see some light.

In closing we must ask ourselves are we speaking a language foreign to our listeners.


The culture dynamic will ALWAYS impact what is to be considered truly historic or not - for many times we look at one group doing things and say they're not historic enough....and yet we have no idea on others who actually did what happened historically.

For others, especially in movements from Protestant Movement (especially those for Abolitionist camps or others seeking to divorce themselves from State Power), there is much remembrance by Evangelicals today in how they have lived their lives. In the West, the issue of the separation of church and state during the medieval period centered on monarchs who ruled in the secular sphere but encroached on the Church's rule of the spiritual sphere. This unresolved contradiction in ultimate control of the Church led to power struggles and crises of leadership, notably in the Investiture Controversy, which was resolved in the Concordat of Worms in 1122. By this concordat, the Emperor renounced the right to invest ecclesiastics with ring and crosier, the symbols of their spiritual power, and guaranteed election by the canons of cathedral or abbey and free consecration. There's also the dynamic of what occurred at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, when Martin Luther articulated a doctrine of the two kingdoms...and according to James Madison, perhaps one of the most important modern proponents of the separation of church and state, Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms marked the beginning of the modern conception of separation of church and state (as seen in Madison to Schaeffer, 1821 ).

For other examples, one can look to what occurred in England and how the principle of separation of church and state can be found in the Magna Carta - and before that, there's also the struggle of the Donatists and their opposition to the actions of Constantine's Empire - with some Protestant movements look to the Donatists as an example of opposition against the corruption of Catholicism and a pioneer in the struggle to achieve the separation of church and state....and being independent - as well as here in an excellent book I was able to read years ago entitled In the Days of Caesar: Pentecostalism and Political Theology by Amos Yong in examining the reasons why the Donatists were fueled to not feel like they had to fit in with the existing structures in the political systems of their day in order to serve the Lord.

There was more discussion elsewhere on the matter, as it concerns the dynamics of church history in regards to Orthodoxy and the Reformation (more here in #81 / #84 /#90 and here /here).

I say that because many in the Evangelical Church actually live out the very spirit that the historic Protestant camps were about when it came to the concept of not wishing the Church to be extensively involved with issues of the State - and feeling that the early church in its infancy was at its best when it was not on a level requiring it to not be on the margins - with them feeling that what occurred in the 4th Century onward was a mistake and that the Church should have been content with development in where it was at during the first 3 centuries during persecution.

Many keep in mind the example of of the Desert Fathers - who FLED the Empire when being weary of many of the ways that believers began to be Co-Opted by the political system as the PRIMARY means of establishing righteousness in the land. It's something others (from St.Anthony in his ascetic practices to the piety of St.Moses to St.Mark and numerous others) were very direct about in trying to avoid...and that's basic to the history of the Church. There were various saints throughout history who saw a MYRIAD of ways of how to go about dealing with social issues - and that's part of the diversity within the Church in how others had differing perspectives on righteousness. Some were soldiers and others were monastics - but all sought the Lord...

And for others becoming a part of systems that were echoed in movements that tended to eschew getting involved in politics - as with much of Protestant Camp from the Radical Reformation - it's not something that Evangelicals have been unaware of.

One very prominent leader within Christendom/the Evangelical world and a Messianic Jew, known as Alan Hirsh noted how traditional/institutional forms of the Church that were birthed in Christendom are things which did not necessarily have to be where all focus goes. To be clear, Alan Hirsch relies on the restorationist meta-narrative that the New Testament church was pure in all things but at one point in history, identified by him as the conversion of Constantine/that era, everything went wrong, and has continued wrong.. That meta-narrative is something I cannot go with fully, even though I do feel there were many things in early Christendom that were not necessarily the ultimate in what the Lord desired ---and one can go either here , here , here or here in his book entitled "The Forgotten Ways" for more on his view/where it has been critiqued.



Christianity of Antiquity looked radically different than how many today believe it to be - and mistakes were made - yet, as another wisely said to me before, God consistently "paints" using broken brushes. .

And with Evangelicals, in many respects they do fit the "broken brushes" dynamic in the work they have done despite where they may have been broken in differing places - and the work they did was necessary at times, honoring what has occurred in Church history. If we have a mindset of the Church being Organic in that it was meant to continue developing and evolving to address the issues of the time, I don't see how we could try to divorce Evangelicals today from being historic - for future generations of Evangelicals or believers in general.....if given a couple more centuries of human existence....will look back and see some of the other movements developed in the Evangelical camp as a continuation of what happened in the Protestant movement before.

One chart that comes to mind to explain it well - especially with movements developing that deal with branches connected to the Missional/Emerging Church trying to address the issues today that deal with reaching out to the community - is seen in the following :



Of course, when compared to the rest of the Church, the Evangelical world is but one small part of historic history....another link in the chain that will continue to develop, just as other camps have developed (including others which are Evangelical and Ancient expressions from places deemed to be "third world" and neglected in the development of the Church...as noted best in Theology in the Context of World Christianity: How the Global Church Is Influencing the Way We Think about and Discuss Theology )....


denominations_family_tree_2013_v4.png
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
IMO, being non-Trinitarian does not always define anyone as other than Christian, but denying the deity of Christ (one particular form of non-Trinitarianism) probably does.

I don't want to take a firm stand, up or down, on the status of any of these folks merely to make this point; but I think the point is important for anyone interested in the question, "Does that qualify as a variety of Christianity or not?"
More than understand where you're coming from and I agree with your distinctions in regards to how denying the Deity of Christ is more so the true dynamic of whether or not someone is really a Christian/disciple of Christ - as that's essentially what II John 1 was about when it came to the issue of warning others on those going against the Apostles in denying that Christ came in the Flesh ...

And there are forms of non-Trinitarianism that deny the essentials of Christ coming in the Flesh - just as there are forms of Trinitarianism that do the same (or deny the humanity of Christ even though they affirm aspects of the Gospel which may be true). Concepts can overlap many times and sometimes it's really a matter of a case-by-case situation - as trying to make a box of how it may always look for each person is akin to asking "What does the shape of an Ocean Wave look like?"...for there are varieties and nuance.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
How about Classic vs. Radical then? Since Vatican Catholicism has been undergoing reform (Counter-reformation-Vatican II-present Pope etc.) they should be included in the Classic group with the likes of us (although they may not like nor agree with it;):p).
I would think that there are other dynamics of undergoing reform that would classify the Catholics as being included in the Classic group - specifically in light of movements starting later on in the Catholic Church AFTER the Counter-Reformation that shaped the Church greatly when it comes to representing the Global South (as reflected currently in the actions of Pope Francis who's from Argentina/from the part of the world focusing more so on physical battles alongside racial and his actions in regards to challenging social systems that neglect the poor or marginalized) ....specifically with Liberation Theology/Liberation movements.

The scriptures/Biblical History do have an extensive focus upon what happens PHYSICALLY as much as it does with things SPIRITUALLY,:
1 John 3:16-18
If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person?

And this is something that has been in view for many groups who ended up accepting Liberation Theology after it was formulated in the Catholic Church because of where politics ignored groups where there's physical struggle occurred and the needs of the poor were ignored counter to what the Good Samaritan did (Luke 10:25-33):

I don't think there can really a good categorization of the Catholic Church with regards to Classical vs Radical without dealing with the issue of what occurred in Latin American with the Catholic Church and the material problems plaguing it - for much of Liberation Theology arose in response to what happened often throughout church history....as it concerns Ascetism and focusing seldom to none on the physical and believing one becomes more spiritual as they have less. It was highly influential in the Catholic Church for a good bit...and interestingly enough, the movement ended up becoming something that spread to other camps OUTSIDE of the Catholic world - connecting it with Protestant movements (cross pollination of thought) who felt it was a problem for people to assume God's not concerned for things such as healing of the body (as Jesus did often) or having goods....condemning others who dare to believe in praying for the sick to get healed/believing Gods heart is for wholeness and that its not wrong to live comfortably.

Its what often kept those who were poor in their states, as their condition was "spiritualized" and made to look bad if one tried to rise up from that....as the prevailing view was that God "ordained" each of us to remain in the state of life that we were born into---and so if you were born poor, you were not to fight against it.

As Martin Luther King (a Liberation Theologian himself from the Baptist world) said best, , “A minister cannot preach the glories of heaven while ignoring social conditions in his own community that cause [people] an earthly hell.”-He said this in regards to other colored preachers of his day who'd talk about God and yet not do anything on physical conditions others dealt with. Some of its similar to others who have a "pie in the sky" mindset, as opposed to others who are of the mindset that heaven is to be brought to Earth.


There may be a way to connect the Catholic Church with both a RADICAL classification and a CLASSICAL classification when it comes to Liberation Theology - seeing the way that it evolved. We know that with Liberation Theology, others who are founders within the movement would be people such as priest Gustavo Gutiérrez. James Cone would be another influential leader in the movement---as he contexualized it within the framework of something known as Black Liberation Theology. For his specific emphasis on "Black Liberation Theology" was centered on the fact that blacks in the Civil Rights time/afterward needed to know that the Lord indeed desired for them to be treated fairly as well.....

And this is something many Catholics for Liberation Theology have often voiced support of...especially those who grew up African-American in Catholic Schools.... a

Blacks in the Catholic Church have solidarity with other Black Christians in the Protestnat world when it comes to common struggles impacting people of color (or engaging the impact of Colonialism, Eurocentric viewpoints that neglect/mininize black perspectives, etc.) - so to advocate divorce between groups is very difficult.

Of course, people often think that all those advocating "Black Liberation Theology" are "racist"---but it depends on the variation one comes in contact with. For many, what's preached was born in an attempt to make Christianity relevant to the black urban youths who strike fear in the hearts of so many suburban whites – When King tried to calm those engaged in urban violence in Watts in 1965, he was booed. Those youths did not see any gains from the civil rights movement and were more attracted to the rhetoric and programs of Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam. James Cone, Vincent Harding and other black Christian activists who admired both King and Malcolm sought to develop a theology that would bring young blacks back to the Christian church. They argued that God was on the side of the oppressed and that Jesus was a militant willing to rock the boat. Their work inspired a whole new generation of black church activists and activists of all ethnicities who have made it their Christian duty to shelter the homeless, feed the hungry, cloth the naked and protect the weak.

A large part of the message has to do with family values and responsibility that should be encouraged by conservatives. But they also preach King's message of opposition to war and materialism – a message often lost in the annual focus on King's "dream" of a colorblind society. Since the first slaves arrived in America, blacks and whites have preached different versions of the Bible. For blacks, the most popular text was Exodus, and slaves strongly identified with Moses and the "Hebrew children." For whites connected to slavery, the most popular text came from the disciple Paul, who urged the slaves to be kind to their masters and obey their masters. The former is a theology of liberation; the latter is a theology of oppression. No one did more to unite these wildly differing views of Christianity than the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. King was able to preach a religion that incorporated the militancy of the Old Testament with the "love your neighbor as yourself" message of Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount. Moreover, King integrated our secular political philosophy of liberty and equality with his religious message. King wanted to move toward a colorblind society but realized we weren't there yet. Toward the end of his life, he recognized that America would need a true revolution in values to get there. More than a dream, he called for an end to militarism, poverty and racism. As a Liberation Theologian - and one who noted thankfulness to the Catholic Church for his learning of Liberation Theology - King's goal was to see justice given practically to people of all classes/ethnic backgrounds. And Liberation Theology is the driving theme behind many for Black Liberation Theologians.

Others coming to mind who've defended it are Catholics such as Father Michael Pfleger (who reeived his B.A. in Theology from Loyola University, his Master of Divinity from the University of St. Mary of the Lake, and an honorary Doctor of Divinty from North Park Theological Seminary) of the St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church in Chicago (one of Chicago's most troubled neighborhoods in regards to crime and poverty ) - one who works extensively within the Black Community and has noted the ways that Liberation Theology was highly necessary to transform many neglected communities - with it tying together Christian communities, regardless of whether they are Catholic or Protestant...Radical and what we're in need of today.




The Faith Community of Saint Sabina is an African American Catholic community of faith, education and service is truly one of the most stellar Catholic Churches I've ever seen - and their sermons have always be distinct... yet not many are aware of it.


There are many things within forms of Black Liberation theology that're off and I'm glad others have noted that--but some things are worth considering

Our faith as believers was always meant to be one where we were very much concerned with being of earthly good to others who are within our ability to impact for Him since the Lord did the same for us. Tabitha certainly had that mindset in Acts 9:35-37 when she was always aiding the poor---and so did other apostles. Only in our times does it seem that being earthly good/working for the good of all men (even unbelievers, if it means working with them) is considered to be a problem somehow...but it wasn't always so, at least in the U.S. It seems that the concept centuries ago in the U.S was to be "earthly good" since there were many things off in the U.S that needed to be reformed in the 18th/19th centuries (i.e. child sweat shops/labor, slavery, prison reform, etc)---with physical action always being seen as a reflection of what spiritual reality one holds to and whether or not they're really "spiritually good/minded at all." John Wesley and William Wilberforce amongst others were key leaders in taking charge of things. Sadly, in later times, people felt that focusing too much on the physical led to people missing the spiritual transformation of their souls---and so there was a strong Evangelical Revival that spread on preaching on the Kingdom of God...with much preaching on conversion being the focus......and in the process, all that matter was the intellectual side of things and talking of Christ rather than living it out/

And as it concerns the Catholic Church, I don't think you'd really have many movements developing within the Protestant world that are focused on Social Justice and Radical action unless the Liberation Theology from the Catholic Church developed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The Independents ( Congregationalists and Cromwell's denomination) dominated English church polity 1649 through to 1659.
Very true - and wild to see how much was developed during that era...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
B

bbbbbbb

Guest
Gxg (G²);64534622 said:
And it concerns the Catholic Church, I don't think you'd really have many movements developing within the Protestant world that are focused on Social Justice and Radical action unless the Liberation Theology from the Catholic Church developed.

I do not believe this to be true at all. The Social Gospel developed in the Protestant churchs of the United States and Germany at the end of the nineteenth cenury - considerably long before there were any hints of Liiberation theology in th Catholic church.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
So... How did this thread become something about the Catholic Church? :confused:
Must be something in the water!
Haven't really seen where anything was a matter of being about the Catholic Church alone. The issue was focusing on discussing differing groups in the Protestant world and whether to classify them as Historical or Modern. From previous commentary:
A twin (http://www.christianforums.com/t7785930/) prequel spin-off to: http://www.christianforums.com/t7784575/, which itself is a spin-off: http://www.christianforums.com/t7783651/, which itself is a sequel http://www.christianforums.com/t7783009/, which itself is a sequel to: http://www.christianforums.com/t7749617/, which itself is a spin-off of: http://www.christianforums.com/t7748641/, which itself is a direct prequel to: http://www.christianforums.com/t7747424/, which itself is a spin-off of: http://www.christianforums.com/t7745268/, which itself is a spin-off of: http://www.christianforums.com/t7741459/, which itself is a direct sequel to: http://www.christianforums.com/t7740345/, which itself was a spin-off of: http://www.christianforums.com/t7738969/, which itself was a spin-off of: http://www.christianforums.com/t7732542/.

Due to unresolved issues as a result form complexities, this is a direct sequel to the thread: Protestant Reformation vs Primitive Restoration, where the content of the original thread is split in two.

To simply put; in terms of doctrines and practices, what are the differences between historic Protestants and modern Protestants?

Historic:


  • Amish
  • Anglican
  • Baptist
  • Brethren (Swiss)
  • Hutterite
  • Hussite
  • Lutheran
  • Mennonite
  • Methodist
  • Non-Trinitarian (cannot be discussed per forum rules)
  • Reformed
  • Waldensian
Modern:

  • Adventist
  • Brethren (Plymouth)
  • Evangelical
  • Fundamentalist
  • Holiness
  • Messianic
  • Non-Denominational
  • Non-Trinitarians (cannot be discussed per forum rules)
  • Pentecostal
  • Quaker (Friends)
  • Restorationist
Thanks for bringing it up. The list is not intended to be exhaustive so feel free to mention more groups!
There were various schools of thoughts and the results were quite divergent, but one thing the Reformation had in common was the total break from the Roman Church. People such as Pierre Waldo, John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, Jean Calvin, Thomas Cramner, et cetera thought that Rome and the Pope had erred in some ways thus needed reforming or breaking. Others such as Felix Manz, Conrad Grebel, Menno Simons, Jakob Amman, Jakob Hutter, Jakob Hermanszoon, John Wesley, George Whitefield, et cetera felt that the original reformers either did not go far enough or went the wrong direction.

The latter group who thought that the original reformation did not go far enough or went the wrong direction would become starting point of a chain reaction where the ideas of puritanism, pietism, revivalism, and/or restorationism would start resulting in either the movement being no longer recognizable with the original movement, or a further break or schism with the original movement resulting in many more splinter movements. Thus the current situation of modern Christianity.

I have no idea where to draw the line in terms of date whether one becomes historical or modern. Perhaps I should've drawn it at the Reformers...


In my opinion, retaining the solas do not constitute for being part of the original movement since a lot of modern Evangelicals do so as well. However I would agree that dropping the solas (unless it's something like prima scriptura) would constitute of being more part of the restoration movement than reformation.

Would it be okay to say that any groups formed within the next hundred years after the Protestant Reformation be considered "historic"?
"historic" could, in theory, cover anything that happened in the past, even last week. But folk usually think of "historic" as meaning something that has had a long history and use in a given culture. Protestant denominations that date back to the 16th century would qualify. But when one thinks of "historic Christianity" something older would be in mind, I think. Something that stretches back to apostolic times would be what one is thinking of with that phrase.

I think that "restorationist" denominations may see "historic Christianity" as meaning the Christian religion as it existed while the apostles were still alive and able to discipline the churches.

I am not sure what non-denominational groups would think "historic Christianity" means, or even what "historic Protestantism" means.
It may be that Historic vs. Modern may not be the best terminology. Classic vs. Modern may be more appropriate. With this modified terminology, I would propose that it would encompass everything that occurred up until the end of the Age of Orthodox as we Confessional Lutherans call it. That would take us to the end of the "Baroque" period, which ends around 1725.

I agree and like your approach of coming up with different definitions and terminology.

I'd go a step further, though, and not divide things by date so much as by historical consciousness.

Thus instead of stamping a date, we could talk about historic churches as being churches that look backward for their roots which would include not only Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, and Calvinist churches, but also later groups like the Methodists. Modern churches could then include reformation or even pre-reformation restorationist groups that look primarily toward reconstructing the church through a definite break with the past, and would thus include Waldensians, Zwinglians, and the sixteenth century Anabaptists as well as Churches of Christ, Baptists, Pentecostals, etc.
The focus was essentially on discussing the Reformation, the Radical Reformation and Protestant culture today in seeing how to classify groups - whether that be discussing if groups can be classified as reflecting Protestant/Reformational thought as it was in its infant stages...or whether it best fits what happened in later centuries with the Radical Reformation and Restoration Movement in its History, Beliefs, and Practices (including those today considering themselves to be Neo-Restorationists or things like the Campbellite and Restorationist traditions in the South - and other places involving Restorationists ) - and seeing if groups in the Protestant camp have any real connection to the Reformation as it was.

Other groups have been brought up - with it being noted that the list initially given in the OP was by no means exhaustive and that other groups could be added on for consideration....and thus, I brought up what I thought needed to be addressed on the issue - one of them being the Black Church/Modern Churches developed from that, which a significant branch of Church history ....one I'm surprised no one really brought up when discussing the issue (as mentioned in #62 ).

Aside from the fact that there was not a complete disconnection from the Catholic Church for many groups associated with the Reformation....The most recent thing discussed was Evangelicals in their connection to Historic Protestantism (as mentioned in #67 ) - and the only thing I can see recently as it concerns Catholics was on where it was mentioned that many groups who are within the realm of Protestant culture did not seem to be discussed (such as Liberation Theological camps) when it comes to comparing Historic Protestantism with Modern Protestanism (or Classical vs. Radical, if using that terminology) - for they are also camps that were connected with the Restorationist camps at differing points, even though they themselves shared ancestry with the Catholic world when seeing the ways that they developed from Liberation Theology in Latin America ...something that was in line with reform movements in the Catholic Church similar to the Counter-Reformation (as discussed in #69 ). '''

IMHO, if one is going to address whether groups today in the Protestant Church connect with Historic or Modern classification, there also needs to be discussion on the ways that ALL groups in the Protestant world tie in - and so far, certain groups really have been left alone as if they don't exist. That may have to do with a lack of real experience in those groups or awareness...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

WisdomTree

Philosopher
Feb 2, 2012
4,016
170
Lincoln
✟15,879.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Gxg (G²);64535262 said:
Haven't really seen where anything was a matter of being about the Catholic Church alone. The issue was focusing on discussing differing groups in the Protestant world and whether to classify them as Historical or Modern. From previous commentary:
The focus was essentially on discussing the Reformation, the Radical Reformation and Protestant culture today in seeing how to classify groups - whether that be discussing if groups can be classified as reflecting Protestant/Reformational thought as it was in its infant stages...or whether it best fits what happened in later centuries with the Radical Reformation and Restoration Movement in its History, Beliefs, and Practices (including those today considering themselves to be Neo-Restorationists or things like the Campbellite and Restorationist traditions in the South - and other places involving Restorationists ) - and seeing if groups in the Protestant camp have any real connection to the Reformation as it was.

Other groups have been brought up - with it being noted that the list initially given in the OP was by no means exhaustive and that other groups could be added on for consideration....and thus, I brought up what I thought needed to be addressed on the issue - one of them being the Black Church/Modern Churches developed from that, which a significant branch of Church history ....one I'm surprised no one really brought up when discussing the issue (as mentioned in #62 ).

Aside from the fact that there was not a complete disconnection from the Catholic Church for many groups associated with the Reformation....The most recent thing discussed was Evangelicals in their connection to Historic Protestantism (as mentioned in #67 ) - and the only thing I can see recently as it concerns Catholics was on where it was mentioned that many groups who are within the realm of Protestant culture did not seem to be discussed (such as Liberation Theological camps) when it comes to comparing Historic Protestantism with Modern Protestanism (or Classical vs. Radical, if using that terminology) - for they are also camps that were connected with the Restorationist camps at differing points, even though they themselves shared ancestry with the Catholic world when seeing the ways that they developed from Liberation Theology in Latin America ...something that was in line with reform movements in the Catholic Church similar to the Counter-Reformation (as discussed in #69 ). '''

IMHO, if one is going to address whether groups today in the Protestant Church connect with Historic or Modern classification, there also needs to be discussion on the ways that ALL groups in the Protestant world tie in - and so far, certain groups really have been left alone as if they don't exist. That may have to do with a lack of real experience in those groups or awareness...

Quotes within a quote, within a quote and so on... Quoteception: we must go further.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Site Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,455
5,308
✟828,720.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
So... How did this thread become something about the Catholic Church? :confused:

Must be something in the water!

It certainly has departed from the intended theme, hasn't it.

God bless.

I think it may have been me that started it; I proposed that the Catholic Church should be included with the "Historic" or "Clasic".:blush::blush::blush::sorry:

Interesting... However, we would need to look for another term than "modern" to describe these other Churches. as some of these "restorationist" types would discribe themselves as "primitive".

It may be that we Lutherans already did have the proper terminology in our Confessions and other writings; radical.

How about Classic vs. Radical then? Since Vatican Catholicism has been undergoing reform (Counter-reformation-Vatican II-present Pope etc.) they should be included in the Classic group with the likes of us (although they may not like nor agree with it;):p).

While traditionally, traditional Catholics might resist this idea arguing that the Church "does not change", truth is that it has... and continues to.:)
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Quotes within a quote, within a quote and so on... Quoteception: we must go further.
Not really within a quote and so on - seeing that it was the INITIAL discussion from the beginning on what was discussed (in light of the claim that things suddenly became about the Catholic Church which wasn't really accurate ) - and as said before, if one's going to ask a question as if they're serious about getting an answer (i.e discussing what camps in the Protestant world are either Historic or Modern - in the spirit of the Restorationist or the Reformation/Radical Reformation, etc.), it's expected one's serious about addressing it at any point when discussion happens. It's a really a side issue focusing on commenting on quote within a quote as if that was all that was said. As said before, the most recent thing discussed was Evangelicals in their connection to Historic Protestantism (as mentioned in #67 ) - in specific regards to your claim that to include Evangelicals as being Historic would somehow be "ignorant of history", as there are multiple points where Evangelicals were VERY MUCH in line with Historic. ....

Like I said before, if one is going to address whether groups today in the Protestant Church connect with Historic or Modern classification, there also needs to be discussion on the ways that ALL groups in the Protestant world tie in - and so far, certain groups really have been left alone as if they don't exist....
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I think it may have been me that started it; I proposed that the Catholic Church should be included with the "Historic" or "Clasic".:blush::blush::blush::sorry:



While traditionally, traditional Catholics might resist this idea arguing that the Church "does not change", truth is that it has... and continues to.:)
Pretty much, Bruh - and on the subject, one cannot really classify certain groups in the Protestant World as either "Historic" or "Classic" unless one examines the ways that those groups also had their roots in the Catholic World and STILL associate with/work with Catholics - thus making their classification difficult to simply generalize into one camp alone.....as if they have only one level of ancestry/reflection instead of being hybrids. To me, it'd be like asking someone to choose between whether or not they're Black or White - in the event they're biracial - and telling them you can only be one when they're trying to do a project on how to identify Black people. It'd not be accurate.

If starting from an ideology that the Catholic Church does not change, then of course it'd be a struggle to note where there were just as many changes/Reforms (like the Reformation) that occurred within it - from the Counter-Reformation to the development of Liberation Theology in Latin American Catholicism and the ways it literally has shaped many within the Protestant world to adopt Liberation Theology - as discussed in in #69 with prominent figures in the Protestnat world such as Martin Luther King and others......or, for that matter, the development of Charismatic Catholics ( in light of where the Catholic Church began seeing the Charismatic movement develop in its midst even when they tried to classify the movement as a "Protestant" concept) and examining the ways that there are many natural affinities between Roman Catholics and Pentecostals, especially in the area of spirituality and mysticism....my mother experienced this growing up in the Catholic Church in Panama when it came to The Catholic Charismatic Renewal and I've seen this myself throughout the Caribbean..

Moreover, as it concerns the discussion, I am saddened that there has been NO real serious addressment of the ways that the Black Church needs to be addressed when it comes to the issues of Historic vs Modern in Protestant world. For many Black Catholics (and my own family is full of them in light of our Afro-Hispanic background and growing up in Central America/the West Indies) this is something that is a basic in light of how it in/of itself has its own developments and history......and yet many act as if it doesn't even exist - or, because they are not really involved extensively in it and don't know how to handle it, they may be silent on the issue. You can't talk on groups such as the Lutherans or the Anabaptists in their history - and yet leave out other groups in the discussion of Historic vs Modern such as people associated with Fredrick Douglass - who noted how reading the Bible made him realize the importance of being educated....and when he saw the "Christianity" supported by his owners/their church that said he was meant to be their slave and had no right to question, the Christianity he read about in scripture was radically different ( as discussed here and here and here ...or A Narrative on the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave , seeing how Douglass felt that American Christianity practiced in the South is/was not authentic Christianity...and he went even further to say that in fact, it is another religion altogether ..as discussed here /here ).

There's also the groups of believers associated with people like abolitionists - such as Sojourner Truth. From what I remember, although she traveled freely to numerous churches speaking on God's desire for abolition of slavery (as she was a slave who experienced the lack of education many others did due to the way churches were set up to not allow others to know things fully).....she later became involved with the popular Spiritualism religious movement of the time, through a group called the Progressive Friends, an offshoot of the Quakers. As they were very mystically oriented and felt one could connect with the Lord in a myriad of places - plus having a traveling mindset - it wasn't hard for Sojourner to often connect with the Quaker world (and is significant in light of the Reformation of American Quakerism, 1748-1783 and other dynamics dealing with the evolution of Historic Protestant groups like the Quakers in their development - be it with Levi Coffin in aiding with change of focus to helping the slaves and how that interconnected with the beginnings of things such as with George Fox and the Quakers coming to mind as well because of their simplicity with community being the focus). She worked often with activist Quakers, some of them helping her make an official complaint in court about how her son was once severely harmed by being sold into slavery.
There are battles of classification right there since he and others weren't even deemed by many of the groups connected to the Reformation or the Restorationist to be a significant part of Church History itself - but they are a part of the story.

Like I said before, Blacks in the Catholic Church have solidarity with other Black Christians in the Protestnat world when it comes to common struggles impacting people of color (or engaging the impact of Colonialism, Eurocentric viewpoints that neglect/mininize black perspectives, etc.) - something that was very big to me growing up when it came to Black Catholic Theology (#19 )- so to advocate divorce between groups is very difficult when it comes to saying "Well, the Protestants over there are not Historic " and yet ignoring where the entire discussion misses where those same Protestant groups (if from Black Churches) are in the spirit of the Catholic Church. It'd be like asking how to classify The Theology of Martin Luther King, Jr. -as well as the Church expression he comes from - and yet missing where he in practice/action (as a Liberation Theologican) already expresses what was found in the Catholic Church .....and thus, to classify him as one thing is to make a classification on where Catholics stand as well.


I really don't see how one can discuss Historic vs Modern or Classical vs Historic and not address the Black Church/Modern Churches developed from that, which a significant branch of Church history ....one I'm surprised no one really brought up when discussing the issue (as mentioned in #62 ).:)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
How so?

Unless you consider the Counter Reformation as knee-jerk damage control to counter the Reformation? ...There are lots who have already came to that conclusion.

Rather, I give the benefit of the doubt, and while the above may be somewhat true, I also believe that considering the dialogue between the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics, that the Catholic Theologians picked up on the fact that there was some merit in what was proposed in the Augsburg Confession (were that not the case, why was there a Counter Reformation?).

I will not speculate on the outcome, but here is some food for thought; were it not for Zwingli, Calvin and Karlstadt poisoning the well, how would the Church look today?
To me,

I see it as a dynamic with survival - as sometimes, stronger species develop in the wild today and are able to handle environments that their predecessors could not handle due to being challenged by other competing groups that may have tried to suppress them....and thus, as much as others may be bothered by folks like Zwingli, there's still the reality that his actions caused others to either step up their game or realize there were things in their camp that allowed for other groups to spring up/find room to go against them - and thus, they solidified their positions even more and got their defenses better by meeting needs that were not realized before.


The Butterfly Effect (the concept of how a small change can become huge) seems to have a lot of reflection in the ways development occurred in movements when it comes to Church history.....


As it stands, sometimes things can get lost in translation - for the reformation is so huge that one has to limit the scope.




With the Reformation, there were so many sects that developed and mixed together than to see where some began and where others ended in influence (be it good or bad) can be difficult....some having connections to previous camps others deemed bad and yet the camps as they later developed (because of how they did much good at various points) give room for illustrating aspects of benefit that came even from camps deemed negative - and thus, you have one side saying "You can't say this early founder of the Reformation was bad in all he started" while others say "It doesn't matter what his descendants did - that man's work is bad at all points!!!"...

And others who simply want to have others dealt with on the basis of their actions - both good and bad - and realizing how complicated history can be at times.
 
Upvote 0