![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The current article reads that Catholics teach that the epistle of James "points to salvation needing to be earned." This should probably be written as follows: "Protestants believe that faith in Christ alone is enough for eternal salvation (as stated in Ephesians 2:8-9), whereas Catholics believe that the phrase 'faith without works is dead' (as stated in James 2:20) points to faith and works as both being necessary to salvation. Protestants, pointing to the same bit of scripture, believe that practicing good works attests to one's faith in Christ and his teachings." I know the difference is small, but it is currently an inaccurate statement of Catholic teaching. Raoulduke25 21:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to dispute the statement in this article that says that protestants are Christians. There are no such thing. I am a theologian and I have confered with several other theologians and we have concluded that protestants are not Christains for several reasons. Many protestants do not obtian a proper baptism. If they do then they reject the Real Presene of Jesus in the Eucharist and even if they accept that they do not have a valid priest to consecrate the Eucharist so one way or another they have lost the title of Christian.
I suggest that a disclaimer be put on the article siting the fact that many theologians dispute the claim of protestants that they are Christians. You should display this disclaimer at the top of the page. Please look at the disclaimer on the atricle for the Pope saying that many theologians dispute his office being founded by Jesus for an idea of how to properly put the disclaimer here. After all fair is fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.47.43.241 ( talk) 06:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Children, Children. I think it's high time we Christians of all stripes stopped calling each other names, poking each other in the eye, and trying to pull out each others' beards. There are a great many folk in the world who hate ALL Christians, regardless of what we call ourselves and all this rancour only gives them more ammunition. It is past high time for us to realize we're all in the same boat and to start rowing in the same direction. 70.248.132.120 ( talk) 11:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Father B.
Protestants ARE Christians. Catholics ARE NOT Christians for, among many other things, they simply teach a paganized christianity religion!
What separates Christianity from EVERY OTHER RELIGION? That it is the only religion where you CAN NOT earn your salvation.*
Catholicism teaches you can.
I wonder what christian would charge for the forgiveness of sins...
A word to the wise: Virtually every catholic has more idols in his backyard than bible verses memorized. (One idol in the backyard and no bible verses memorized) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.101.233 ( talk) 03:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I've got a better idea. How about we say: "All Christians believe that there are no Christians outside the Catholic church." Then there will leave little doubt that this Wikipedia entry was written mostly by Catholics.-- Rrand ( talk) 20:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? Catholics don't "write" this article. If your assumption is correct, and mostly Catholics are editing this article, then Catholics used verifiable information from reliable sources, and digested them into this article. There's not point of view at all. I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. If you feel there has been an unreliable website/book used or a fact that you feel needs a citation, speak up. Otherwhise, GTFO.
You have no idea how hard I tried not to turn this arguement into a religion dispute. -- 98.217.61.141 ( talk) 03:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey I'm a fourteen year old lutheran boy. I'm being confirmed this sunday and I got in a pretty big fight with my Girlfriend about her church being a Denomination. She goes to a United Church of Christ (UCC) church. I told her it is not a denomination. She claims it is. So I did my reseach for my reasons. 1 to be right and 2 to let her know the bitter truth. I got on the internet went to ucc.org and the first thing that pops up is and little slide show saying no matter who you are or where your at on your life's journey your welcome here. That gave me the dead give away that it was non-dom. So I look more because she said that just means anyone can join. Which is what non-dom is pretty much. So I went to Wikipedia and typed in UCC. It said Protestant I clicked on that too. This is where I ended up at. All it says is Christianity. I read her the evidence and she still wouldn't believe me. She said it's a Denomination because it's Christianity. But it isn't. It's just a denomination from non-christian beliefes. I told her that too, still no beliefe. Then she said her friend doesn't go to a cathloic or lutheran church or anything like that. So I asked my pastor he even said it doesn't really have a denomination. So finally i told her that and now she's upset and wants to ask her pastor (which is female and not allowed in my synid). It's causing confusion can anyone change my stuborn girlfriends way of thinking. I think she just doesn't want to be wronge. Brandon Cantrell April 30,2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.13.202 ( talk) 03:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I wish to dispute the following statements:
(1) that Catholics are not Christians
(2) that Protestants are not Christians
I myself am Catholic, and I think that the aforementioned statements are absurd.
Both Catholics and Protestants are Christians; Catholics and Protestants share belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and most Protestants share the Nicene Creed as well, which summarizes Christendom's essential doctrines.
I think that it is shameful that I even have to make this point, because it should be self-evident. However, for those Catholics who do not believe me, the following quote from Unitatis Redintegratio, which was published by the Second Vatican Council, should be sufficient:
"Even in the beginnings of [the] one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle [Peter] strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church" (Unitatis Redintegratio, section 3).
I apologize that I cannot post an equally strong quote from the Protestant perspective; I am simply not familiar enough with Protestant literature. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I in that regard can post one.
Theraven502 ( talk) 22:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)TheRaven502
Since, protestants have divided from their catholic roots they think nothing of dividing more into separate churches that pastors create because of minor disagreements making it harder for all Christians to be one as Jesus ordered your girlfriend probably goes to a church like that, and you lutherns are no better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.179.22 ( talk) 01:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
For someone to be my brother in Christ (a fellow Christian), he MUST:
-Believe in the trinity
-Affirm the inneracy of the Bible (66 book canon)
-Believe in salvation by GRACE ALONE, through FAITH ALONE, in CHRIST ALONE
Since this is not a forum, I'll appreciate any dissenting POV to be e-mailed to marioenouel(at)gmail(dot)com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.100.16 ( talk) 04:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
PS: I honestly think you could do better than that childish argument! :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.102.164 ( talk) 01:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. As important as this discussion is-- you need to take this elsewhere, such as each others talk pages, but it cannot be here.
If anyone else posts more discussion along these lines I will delete them. -- Carlaude ( talk) 04:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
TB: can you please give me your email address. I really want to continue the discussion, and I believe we won't be able to do it here.
ABOUT THE ARTICLE: I recommend adding a section about the literary works of the reformers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.102.148 ( talk) 00:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This article says there are 1.5 billion Christians, of which 800 million are Protestants. The Catholic article says there are 1.14 billion members, and this is the biggest Christian Church. The Orthodox article says this is the second biggest Christian Church, and has around 300 million members. So, if there were around 800 million Protestants, 1100 million Catholics and 300 million Orthodox Christians, that would mean a total of 2.2 billion Christians, not the 1.5 billion stated in this article. Question: Which figure is incorrect, the Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox or the Total? Wallie ( talk) 20:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
-Arithmetical correction: "800 million Protestants, 1100 million Catholics and 300 million Orthodox Christians" equals 2.5 billion people, not 2.2 billion people, i.e., you mentioned the Orthodox, but left them out your total. 71.181.148.96 ( talk) 11:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
-Most, if not all, of the Latin-Americans that convert to protestantism "forget" to remove their name from the Church of Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.101.120 ( talk) 02:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
-The Wikipedia article Christianity gives a range of 1.5 - 2.1 billion Christians, worldwide. If you add the high figures for all groups as given by Wikipedia (1,400 million Catholic, 300 million Orthodox, and 800 million Protestant) you get 2.5 billion Christians worldwide. Cut all figures by 1/4 and you get two billion Christians worldwide, i.e. a figure within the range given by the article on Christianity.
So the actual figures are probably more like 1.1 billion Catholic, 240 million Orthodox and 600 million Protestant. The percentages of Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant who ever set foot in a church outside of being "hatched", "matched", or "dispatched" (ie at Baptism, Marriage and Burial), is even more controversial and disputed than the membership figures themselves.
As it stands, the numbers in the present article (800 million Protestant of a total of 1.5 billion Christians) imply that Protestantism is not only the largest major subgrouping of Christianity, but outnumbers Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy combined, a fact which is not generally known :) 71.181.148.96 ( talk) 11:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, in Orthodox and Catholic Christianity you actually have to STRIVE for salvation. It is not a "quick and easy path." In the Protestant sect becoming and being a Christian is extremely easy and shallow. These figures are a joke (claiming that Protestants are the most numerous). I am Greek Orthodox, the New Testament was written in Greek. Our Priest reads from the Bible in the ancient Greek; we do not use a translation at all. This "neo-Christianity" called Protestant Christianity is the "new kid on the block." The figure just considers the number of people living in Protestant areas, mostly in the US, who are considered "Protestant." America is a super-market of neo spin-off religions that most of the ancient Christian world snickers at. You have NO roots. Those of you who believe in this Protestant thing should consider that you have inherited your beliefs and should most certainly question them. We on the other hand have been inheriting the ORIGINAL Faith for 2,000 years. We are not "based" on the early Church - we ARE the Original Church. The ORIGINAL Faith has split in two (Orthodox & Catholic) for a 1,000 years now, but at least we have not splintered into, what, 33,000 sects? Lord. Anyway, how can you count Protestants since you just walk into their "church" (normally a metal building) get slapped on the forehead and BAM! your good to go. If America is 'Babylon' then don't any of you stop to think that you can't trust these neo faiths spawned here? Yes, Luther started this whole thing in Germany in (what?) the 16th century (practically yesterday in the span of time)? But open your eyes - it has been turned into something resembling a shallow Hollywood scam here, especially in the last 40 years. If you don't have a Certificate of Baptism then you can not be counted. The legitimate Protestant churches do this. Add them up and you will see around 80 million REAL Protestants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.238.116 ( talk) 21:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
This IS weird. How can there be 800 million protestants and 1 billion Catholics that equal to 1.5 billion? This isn't even counting the appx. 300 million Eastern Orthodox and who knows how many Oriental Orthodox Christians. This entire article strikes me as having a very biased, pro-protestant leaning. In all of my studies I have seen numbers of about 500 million protestants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourmeyer4 ( talk • contribs) 04:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
While many Unitarians are indeed Christian, the religion as a whole does not profess any beliefs that are generally accepted as being required to be Christian. To quote from The UUA homepage
Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion that encompasses many faith traditions. Unitarian Universalists include people who identify as Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, and others. As there is no official Unitarian Universalist creed, Unitarian Universalists are free to search for truth on many paths.
To quote the Rev. Marta Flanagan, "We uphold the free search for truth. We will not be bound by a statement of belief. We do not ask anyone to subscribe to a creed. We say ours is a non-creedal religion. Ours is a free faith."
Although we uphold shared principles, individual Unitarian Universalists have varied beliefs about everything from scripture to rituals to God.
I've removed Unitarians from the list looseBits ( talk) 20:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
--
While it can be successfully argued that Unitarian Universalist are not "Christians", they should not be confused with traditional Unitarians who ascribe to the teachings and philosophy of our Lord Jesus Christ and worship the God of Abraham.
-- Simpotico ( talk) 06:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
An edit that I thought was a bit excessive which I reverted has been questioned. As it was a good faith edit and could use the input from others, I have moved the discussion from my talk page to the article talk page.
The orginal copy read:
This was revised by Theology10101 to read:
The following was copied from my talk page: Dbiel,
Why would you undo changes that I had made? Why do you say it went way too far? Was Luther not a monk or the father of Protestantism? I don't see how that was too far or inaccurate. Please explain.
Thank you,
Theology10101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theology10101 ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Open to other suggestions and/or comments Dbiel ( Talk) 04:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Theology10101 ( talk) 05:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to request that more references are cited, because for the last 3/4 of this article or so I cannot find any references for most of these statements. For example, is it true that the Protestant denominations feel justified in declaring war on the Catholic Church? Please help in completing references if possible. Rrand ( talk) 03:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Since there's a section dealing with one of the two sacraments (Communion or the Lord's Supper), ain't it logical to have a another section dealing with the other sacrament ( Baptism)???
It could be more or less like the section about the lord's supper...
Keep in mind the 4 basic views:
1) Regenerative Infant Baptism: Lutherans, Anglicans
2)Non-regenerative Infant Baptism: Presbyterians
3) Regenerative Believer's Baptism: Churches of Christ
4) Non- regenerative Believer's Baptism: Baptist, Reformed Baptist, Pentecostals, Evangelicals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.101.203 ( talk) 07:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I found this sentence in the topic, which does not seem neutral, objective, or verified: "Although not entirely true, it is widely recognised that protestants frequently sodomise each other." It doesn't seem relevant, or even specific to the topic. 65.30.159.100 ( talk) 13:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
This article doesn't mention the fact that the Klk Klux Klan requires it's members to be active Protestants. Nor does it even mention the fact the Protestants make up the majority of the Christian Identity Movement. This seems like something that should be discussed in full and properly added to the article.-- 141.157.15.80 ( talk) 15:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
This article needs a completely rewritten lead. The Movements within Protestantism sections are all stubs and need fleshing out. The entire article needs more cited content. The article may only qualify as Start class, in truth. -- Secisek ( talk) 21:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Why not the Five solas instead of just three? -- Richard ( talk) 07:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I really don't agree with the 800 million count, it is probably closer to less than half of that. We must especially remember that a Protestant baptism is also a Catholic one, since there is currently a mutual recognition of Trinitarian baptisms. Protestantism is declining in many places such as the US and the UK, primarily because the said ecclesial communities are incredibly divided and often too liberal to be called Christian. Anglicans don't always call themselves Protestants. Restorationists don't call themselves Protestants. Many Baptists and Evangelicals are also hostile to the term. Continental Europe has comparatively very few Protestants. In Africa and elsewhere, there are quite a few Pentecostals, but they are never in majority in any single country. [1] ADM ( talk) 04:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion of a possible edit. The term "radical" in reference to to the Reformation is typically reserved for the radical reformers, that is to say the Annabaptists. It may be cofusing to use the term radical for reformers within what is typically known as the Reformed Tradition (sometimes also Calvinism) such as Zwingli and Knox. Radical in this sense assumes gradations of radicalism as well as a general baseline. The problem is, whose perspective or baseline does one use to define radical? Luther's? (As seems to be the case in this article) Calvin's? Knox's? Perhaps a better, more neutral, term for the more "radical" or severe reformers of the Reformed Tradition might be thoroughgoing. As we know of course the radical reformers (Annabaptists) themselves have been assigned that term based largely on the perspective of the majority (Lutheran & Reformed) protestant baseline - in itself a system gradation refering to the fact that the Annabaptist movement was so much more radical in its shifts (adult baptism, church/state relationship, etc.) from other forms of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. This is a whole seperate issue - one for scholars and publishers to deal with rather than us - but for the time being shall we keep to the standard accepted terminologies: Reformed or Calvinistic = Reformed Tradition, Radical Reformers = Annabaptists?
Suggestion of a possible edit. The term Evangelical has a dual meaning in English. One refers to Evangelicalism which has its roots in the 18th and 19th centuries, in the various Great Awakenings. The other is scholarly movement in 16th century Europe predating the Reformation itself, from which the Evangelical Lutheran Reformers and the Evangelical Lutheran Churches such as in Sweden & Germany took their name. Would it help to distinguish here, using perhaps Evangelical Lutheran, as is standard? This destinction is peculiar to English, and may not occur to Germans, Swedes, Hungarians, etc, for whom Evangelisch, Evangelikus, etc. simply means Lutheran. For Americans though, the term Evangelical may conote something very different.
After a little back and forth between myself and snowded, I've started a new discussion Talk:Christianity#Denominations which may be of interest. Quantpole ( talk) 01:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Protestantism did indeed separate itself and be formed from the roman catholic church. under the list of denominations formed during that time includes: Lutherans, Calvanists, etc.
However, history shows that the Baptists were not from the reformation period. they were called the anabaptists when the roman catholic church was formed. but, the bible shows that John the Baptist existed long before the Roman Catholic Church did. It is logical to conclude, with that information in mind, that the Baptists did not sprout away from the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation Period as the Protestants did.
( Kinghawke ( talk) 04:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC))
Are you actually saying that John the Baptist started the Baptist Church -- Sfcongeredwards ( talk) 01:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you farsight, saying that john the Baptist founded the Baptists Church is like saying that the Apostolic church(small US based church) was founded by the Apostles -- Sfcongeredwards ( talk) 01:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The article ought to go at least a little into the question of whether Anglicanism is Protestant. Currently, the map shows England as Protestant, but the lede says Anglicanism is distinct from Protestantism and the article never mentions Anglicanism again. So that's an internal contradiction, and one that may well be confusing to readers unfamiliar with Anglicanism's schizophrenic view of itself. I know it's difficult, because it is non-NPOV both to assert that Anglicanism is Protestant and to assert that it isn't, but the solution is not to have the map make one non-NPOV assertion and the text make the other one. + An gr 05:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
If Anglicanism is halfway between Catholocism and Protestantism then it is protestant, nor Catholic but a distinct branch of Christianity.-- Sfcongeredwards ( talk) 02:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
There is an answer here, but it is not a simple one. The Church of England considers itself both Catholic and Reformed, and maintains that it is still part of the 'One True Church' which includes the (Roman) Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Those Churches dispute that this is the case and do not consider the Church of England to be in Communion with them. Many adherents of the Church of England do not consider themselves Protestant. And the formal theology of the Church has a more nuanced appeal to a 'via media' middle way between Protestantism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy. Nevertheless, the C of E is popularly considered to be 'Protestant' and most (though not all) adherents consider themselves Protestant. It seems, then, that the Church of England, and perhaps broader Anglicanism, are either a) a third branch between Protestantism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy or b) a part of Protestantism which claim themselves a third branch between Protestantism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy. The real problem here is that, as with many English institutions, the Church of England is a result of a messy compromise betweeen competing tendencies and which therefore prefers to avoid formal labels. Not so useful for an encyclopedia, but there you go! 90.193.97.18 ( talk) 18:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
'Protestantism does not depreciate good works; but it denies their value as sources or conditions of justification, and insists on them as the necessary fruits of faith, and evidence of justification.'
I'm not sure the answer is quick or simple. Most (but certainly not all) Protestants believe that they are saved by faith alone. (Ephesian 2:8-9) not by any works that we do. The thought here is that, if we could be saved by our own works, why would we need Jesus? Yet the "good works" that a Christian does are not entirely valueless. There are rewards for them (Matt 10:41, 5:2, Luke 6:23, 31, etc...) also by living this way, you will discredit those who "slander God because of the way Christian live". (1Peter 2:15, 3:16) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmccaff ( talk • contribs) 18:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
There are issues with the numbers of Christians and the numbers of Protestants asserted by this article in the "Denominations" section.
The estimated number of Christians ranges between 1.5 billion and 2.1 billion, (see Christianity#Demographics)
Catholics are somewhere between 1.05 and 1.31 billion members (see Catholic Church)
Orthodox Catholics are somewhere 225 and 300 million members (see Orthodox Church)
Anglicans are approximately 77 million
Mormons are 13 million and Jehovah's Witnesses are 13-17 million (yes, yes, I know some Christians don't consider these two sects Christians).
The point is that the above figures conflict with the assertion in the "Denominations" section that Protestants account for 800 million out of 1.5 billion Christians.
800 million Protestants is just barely credible if the total number of Christians is 2.2 billion (1.1 billion Catholics + 800 million Protestants + 225 Orthodox + 77 million Anglicans = 2.22 billion Christians).
Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses aren't Protestants so the question is whether to bump down the number of Protestants, bump up the number of Christians or just omit these two sects from the count altogether.
I am going to bump up the number of Christians in the "Denominations" section of this article to 2.2 billion.
But there is still another problem...
The article states, "There are about 800 million Protestants worldwide,[8] among approximately 1.5 billion Christians These include 170 million in North America, 160 million in Africa, 120 million in Europe, 70 million in Latin America, 60 million in Asia, and 10 million in Oceania."
Add up the numbers in each region and you get 590 million... Presumably the remaining 210 million live in the Arctic and Antarctica. ;^)
We need to either revise the regional numbers upwards and/or reduce the total number of Protestants. I suspect the right answer is to revise the regional numbers upwards. Numbers can be found at http://www.adherents.com
-- Richard ( talk) 04:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
70.171.235.197 ( talk) 19:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I ask you note LDS to be protestant. Any Christian church not directly connected with Catholicism IS protestant. HOW can you say Protestants "feel practising the Faith but not necessarily good works are adequate"? No good, Christian church I know of advocates this. "By your works are ye known." Catholics, with poor boxes and bingo and such, on down to the Salvation Army, Advocate and Practice good deeds. 70.171.235.197 ( talk) 19:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Strictly speaking - the LDS churches practices many of the things that Protestantism is protesting. (i.e. A single human leader/prophet of the Church, (much like the Catholic Pope) the concept of Priests as a church clergy/office (rather than every believer is a priest), the concept of "sola-scriptura" (Bible alone) as opposed the Book of Mormon/Pearl of Great Price and the Bible together. Veneration of Moroni (the thought here is that he is placed on the highest place of the Church) much like the Roman Catholic practice of naming many of their Churches after Mary (i.e. - "Our Lady of ....", Church of the Blessed Virgin, The Queen of Heaven, ..etc..)
Someone has put a dirty phrase in the first line of the article it self. Please fix it. Tks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.153.156.60 ( talk) 13:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Where does the idea Anglicanism is split from the Protestant group come from? Here they are the mainstream protestants along with groups such as Methodists or the Uniting Church whereas groups like Baptists or (Open) Brethren, considered by this article to be mainstream protestant are in fact borderline independent though not quite as far as Pentecostals and the like.
Also, where do the Sects fit in e.g. J.W's and Mormons? I see Seventh Day Adventist listed, briefly, under protestants but that's it. Should there be additional major Christian divisions therefore in the heading? I know Oriental was mentioned as distinct from Eastern but I am thinking specifically of sects, those mentioned previously and any others relevant e.g. Christian Science (Am I thinking of the right group?), and Independents or some such which would cover the Pentecostals and the like which Catholics/ex-Catholics do not view as Protestant.
As regards "In the early 20th century there developed a less critical reading of the Bible in the United States that has led to a "fundamentalist" reading of Scripture. Christian Fundamentalists read the Bible as the "inerrant, infallible" Word of God, much like fundamentalist Muslims would read the Qu'ran" How does this differ to the historical, original as opposed to Catholic, Victorian etc, era's reading of it? I accept the parrallel that both a fundementalist Muslim and Christian believe their texts as divinely inspired etc but this is somewhat provocative as fundementalist Islam is roughly equated with terrorism which Christianity is most certainly not! I think both the parallel and the historical extent of the claim need revision. 203.25.1.208 ( talk) 06:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
If you were to "grade" denominations on their "protestant-ness". The Anglicans would probably score the lowest of all the Protestant denominations. They are very very similar to the Roman Catholic church, they practice and believe many of the same things. In "extreme protestantism" ( mostly fundamentalist Churches ) they do not consider the Roman Catholic church (as a whole) to be "true Christians" at all. ( Many Roman Catholics do not believe that non Roman Catholics are "true Christians" either ) If you were to take all of the issues listed here and in the article (papacy, priesthood, mariology, mass, etc..) and go through them denomination by denomination, it's hard to imagine any other denomination closer to the Roman Catholic church than the Anglican church (although some (ELCA)Lutheran and Methodist might come close). Rmccaff ( talk) 21:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Good catch, changed it to Methodist. Rmccaff ( talk) 20:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the concept that "Mainline" Protestantism "is most closely tied to those groups that separated from the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century" Protestantism isn't really a genealogy of the Church denominations, so much as an ideology/theology that differs from "Mainline" Roman Catholicism.
That may have certainly been the beginnings of the movement. The word protestant comes from the word "Protest". What are they protesting? The Roman Catholic church of course. Yes there was Martin Luther's original "95-Thesis" and that was likely what defined Protestantism of that day. Since then many other items have been added (as Church theologies and doctrines "mature") and so I would argue that the definition of Protestantism is any belief that goes against Roman Catholic specific teachings, sacraments or Catechisms. Protestantism is not merely what defined it several centuries ago, but continues to be defined in new ways even today.
Other examples would be veneration of Mary and Saints. In particular the concept of Mary as a sinless person or even "The Mother of God" (Theotokos). Hail Mary prayers (which are viewed as "Praise Mary" prayers). The Rosary meditations/prayers. Canonizing Saints not specifically mentioned in the Bible. The Apocryphal Books of the Catholic Bible. The "transubstantiation" of Communion. The concept of Mass being done by Priests (the main purpose of Priests was sacrifice in the Old Testament) so this is often viewed as a continual "re-crucifying of Christ". Protestants believe in salvation by "Faith only" (Titus 3:5, Ephesians 2:8-9) Many Roman Catholics believe that your salvation depends on acts (good deeds) that you do in addition to the faith. The concept of indulgences. The concept of Purgatory. Protestants do not recognize the papacy or it's hierarchy. The majority do not concede that Peter was ever a Pope. The concept of the Pope as a "vicar" (proxy or substitute). The difference between the way "intercessory prayer" is viewed. Protestants believe that Jesus is the only mediator (go-between) between God (The Father) and men. Roman Catholics believe that other Saints (Mary in particular) can also be a mediator or go-between. The "immaculate conception" from a Protestant point of view would be the birth of Jesus (on Earth). The Roman Catholic immaculate conception is the birth of Mary. The majority of Protestants believe the original sin was Satan rebelling against God. In Roman Catholicism it is Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:1-6)
Less obvious examples would be the lineage of Mary, most Protestants see the differences between Matthew and Luke as being the lineages of Joseph and Mary respectively. (Matthew 1:1-17, Luke 3:23-37) The majority of Roman Catholics believe that Mary's parents were Saint Anne and Saint Joachim. Whether Mary had other children, (younger half-brothers and half-sisters fathered by Joseph) i.e. James (the Less), Jude, Joses and Salome. Obviously Protestants believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, so Jesus would have been the oldest.
This is by no means an exhaustive list, but examples of "modern day" Protestantism to begin with. Rmccaff ( talk) 20:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
"But that statement is not a statement about the "essence" of Protestantism, but about the historical context within which Protestantism arose. " - Then why not start the article with the essence and definition, rather than the history and church genealogy? Rmccaff ( talk) 21:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I do agree with your statements about "not all Protestant" denominations share the same beliefs. However the vast majority do share in the majority of issues listed above (some of which (but not all) have been added to the main article) Anglicans and ELCA Lutherans do seem to be somewhere between the Protestant and Roman Catholic "extremes". But the largest Protestant denominations (i.e. Southern Baptist (U.S.A.) and Assembly of God (World) do not consider the Anglican church a protestant church. There is also no mention in the main article of "Mary-ology" (Purpetual virgin, Mary as sinless, Mary as the Mother of God, etc...) which is far and away the single biggest "issue" that Protestants have against the Roman Catholic church. While Anglicans and perhaps even Martin Luther himself may have agreed with this, certainly none of the larger Protestant churches of today do. Where do you draw the line between those "accepted by the majority of Protestants" and those who simply "include themselves by default" because they aren't Roman Catholic? I'm not sure, but certainly these groups exist (LDS Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, Church of Scientology, etc..) Rmccaff ( talk) 23:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not discount Martin Luther as a protestant. But Luther died 5 centuries ago. While some of his 95-thesis issues remain, many more have sprung up since his death. While is definitely a part of Protestant history, he is hardly the definition of Protestantism today. As for my "POV" the majority of Protestant Churches today, not just AG, and Baptist, but most Lutheran, all Missouri Synod Lutheran, virtually all Pentecostal, all fundamental, most Methodists, most Presbyterians, do not believe in Mariology. Don't take my world for it, so a survey yourself on their official denomination home page/beliefs. I think the fact that well over 90% agree on this hardly makes this simply my POV. I find this somewhat amusing coming from an Anglican POV, which does not agree with most of Luther's 95-thesis. Rmccaff ( talk) 16:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not debating "what they should believe" or even arguing theology at all. People believe what they believe, there are many other forums for debate and this has been going on for hundreds of years, but it is a disservice not to define it, or simply give a correct definition. Rmccaff ( talk) 18:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
"What you don't recognize is that there are different and opposing views of what the essence of Protestantism is" - In that case wouldn't it make much more sense to include all the major views? Again, not debating whether they are "right or wrong", but simply that this is a prevailing view that should be included in the definition. Wikipedia's own Mary articles differentiate between Protestant and Roman Catholic views here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessed_Virgin_Mary#Roman_Catholic_views ) to suggest otherwise is a blatant omission of facts. It is a common practice (however politically incorrect/derogatory ) among Protestants to refer to Roman Catholics as "Mary worshipers". Again this is not the forum to debate whether they are right or wrong, simply to include this as part of the definition. Rmccaff ( talk) 18:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I removed some sections that were apparently added to this article by Catholic "e-pologists," who IMHO are one of the more pernicious and destructive special interest groups butchering Wikipedia articles. The "33,000" denomination claim has been traced to its source, and the source lists Mormons, random cults like the Branch Davidians and Moonies, etc. in the category that Catholic Apologists misrepresent as "Protestants" when they use this polemic. The statistic also includes para-church organizations and different geographic jurisdictions as different "denominations." In fact, it lists several hundred Roman Catholic "denominations," although Catholic apologists seem reluctant to point that out. The source document lists only 21 Protestant denominations in the sense that Catholics mean "denomination," while listing 16 Catholic denominations (presumably the various rites).
The paragraph was also written as if each denominational split was doctrinal or a bad thing, presuming a Catholic point of view on the matter. The truth is that Protestant denominations will divide for purely logistical reasons (like the American Baptist General Conference and the Canadian Baptist General Conference, or the Church of the Nazarene and the Wesleyan Church), and variations in theological emphasis and social mission are as often celebrated as disputed. (For example, the Salvation Army is renowned for their work, even though few other Protestants choose their organization or worship style.) The Catholic polemic also ignores the fact that Catholicism has achieved nothing more than a meaningless organizational unity of little substance, while parties as discordant as theological liberals, "cultural Catholics," pagan-tinted "folk Catholics," etc. far outnumber "traditional" Catholics in the world.
I also reworded the section on Mormonism and other non-trinitarian groups to make it clear that neither the non-orthodox groups nor Protestants themselves consider these groups Protestant, and the people who try to put them together in the same category have an axe to grind.-- ManicBrit ( talk) 01:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The article did not make any statements about what the 33,000 number means; it could mean that Protestants don't care much about organizational unity, or it could mean sheer fractiousness, or any number of other things. It is hard to see how any such inference could be substantiated, but it is well substantiated that there are a large number of organizationally distinct Protestant groups. Your polemic about who added what is entirely unsubstantiated and doesn't much need a response, since it isn't anything about the article. Please focus on what the article says, and not on your suppositions about the reasons why this or that person added this or that text. Criticize the article, not the editor. Tb ( talk) 01:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I will add to the paragraph in question that the figure cited does not distinguish groups which hold to Protestant doctrines, as spelled out in this article, or the reasons why these various groups exist. I don't see how any of you can dispute that.-- ManicBrit ( talk) 02:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
BTW, can you please tell me what characteristics Mormons share with Baptists and Lutherans aside from the fact that they aren't Catholic? You guys also seem keen to revert my minor edit of the words "share certain characteristics with Protestantism." But Mormonism is a hierarchical religion with priests led by an infallible prophet, which seemingly makes it much more like Roman Catholicism than any Protestant group. The Unification Church, the Manson Family, and People's Temple, among other groups past and present, also defer to supposedly infallible leaders with special charismatic gifts from God. What "characteristic" do you see these groups sharing with Lutherans and Methodists - again, aside from their not being Catholic? Should I start an article on "hierarchical religions" and list Catholicism alongside the Latter-Day Saints?
Making the word "Protestant" refer to every member of the human race who somehow fits the word "Jesus" into their philosophy and who isn't Catholic makes the word meaningless, and does nothing except make the only acceptable term for a sola Protestant "Christian" - which might not be so bad after all.-- ManicBrit ( talk) 02:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The number of Protestants reported in this article seems to be inflated. No references are cited to substantiate the claim that there are 800 million adherents to the denominations of Protestantism. It seems that, in this section, the contributor merely referred to the 2 billion statistic and subtracted the populations of Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy. The interests of accuracy would be better served by the deletion of this section of the article until such a time as a valid reference for such figures can be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pristuccia ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
"Protest," along with the word "Protestant," had a different meaning in the 16th century from what it now has. This needs to be addressed. Specifically, the positive nature of the word (as it was originally used) needs to be emphasized more than its negative aspect- which is the only thing we currently see in the Etymology section. The word "protest" has increasingly lost its original positive meaning of "witnessing on behalf of" (pro-testantes), and that's the way it was used prior to and at the time of the Reformation. As a general rule, "This I protest" would not necessarily have implied any negative form of protest against something. That's the kind of thing that needs to be talked about in the etymology section- the meaning of the word at the time of the Reformation and the ways in which the meaning and use of the word has changed from then to now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.219.180.45 ( talk) 12:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
This actually has some bearing on an earlier section, where the inclusion of Mormonism as a part of Protestantism is discussed. When you consider how being a Protestant means you Protest something- in the sense that you speak in favor of a specific set of propositions, rather than focus exclusively on a "protest against"- a short list of the things Protestants speak in favor of quickly eliminates Mormonism from consideration. Start with the Five Solas. I think Sola Scriptura, for one, is going to be a teensy bit of an issue. Protestants are united in protesting this (in the positive sense), among other things. I don't think Mormons can get on board with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.219.180.45 ( talk) 12:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC) lil wayne man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.4.170 ( talk) 22:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I hate to beat a dead horse, but no one is served by having inflated statistics on the worldwide population of Protestants. Once again, the 800 million figure is posted, this time, seemingly in response to my earlier post, sources are cited. I question the validity of the source and would like to point out that the number is completely out of line with any other source, including Wikipedia itself: the article on Protestants by country refers to the CIA factbook and lists the number at a much more realistic 560 or so million. I would like to say that really, one could find books to support almost any point of view, and so I again must question the source, the information and the intent of the person who posted it here. Please address this as soon as possible and have this statistic removed and replaced with one that is in keeping with actual consensus. Again, no one is served by such erroneous information, regardless of denomination or religous background. Thank you. Pristuccia ( talk)Pristuccia —Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC). span>
This map is full of factual errors and overstating the % of protestants by country for at least the european ones. As per the map description : the data source is : Data is based on 1: the US State Department's International Religious Freedom Report 2004, 2 adherents.com, and the 3 CIA Factbook, ...only for the first source a year is given so I assume the others are more recent. Checking the 2004 report that is still available on the internet I discovered many errors (and every time the same one showing a higher % of protestants than the source is actually mentioning).
For a repeat of the remarks on the map discussion page see below Ruud64 ( talk) 21:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Using the quoted source International Religious Freedom Report 2004, I found some mistakes , the map is overstating the % of protestants for several countries :
Austria: According to the 2001 census, membership in major religions are as follows: Roman Catholic Church--74.0 percent; Lutheran and Presbyterian churches (Evangelical Church - Augsburger and Helvetic confessions)�-4.7 percent; Islamic community�-4.2 percent; Jewish community--0.1 percent; Eastern Orthodox (Russian, Greek, Serbian, Romanian, and Bulgarian)�-2.2 percent; other Christian churches�-0.9 percent; other non-Christian religious groups�-0.2 percent. Atheists accounted for 12 percent; 2 percent did not indicate a religious affiliation In other words less than 15 % protestants in Austria the map shows something different.
Netherlands: Approximately 31 percent of the population consider themselves Roman Catholic, 14 percent Dutch Reformed, 6 percent Muslim, 6 percent Calvinist Reformed, 3 percent non-Christian (Hindu, Jewish, or Buddhist), and 40 percent atheist or agnostic. In other words just about 20 % , the map shows the same color as for Germany
Germany: The Evangelical Church, which includes the Lutheran, Uniate, and Reformed Protestant Churches, has 27 million members, who constitute 33 percent of the population. Statistical offices in the Evangelical Church estimate that 1.1 million members (4 percent of the membership) attend weekly religious services. The Catholic Church has a membership of 27.2 million, or 33.4 percent of the population. According to the Church's statistics, 4.8 million Catholics (17.5 percent of the membership) actively participate in weekly services. According to government estimates, there are approximately 3.1 to 3.5 million Muslims living in the country (approximately 3.4 percent to 3.9 percent of the population). Statistics on mosque attendance were not available. So at the time of this report , 33 % protestanst however same color as for the Netherlands.
The map should be updated for these mistakes and carefully checked for more mistakes (notably the baltic states look incorrect to me as well).
Furthermore , due to the increasing secularization, the number of protestants has dropped in 2011 to less than 20 % in the Netherlands and less than 30 % in Germany.
So either the map sould be named historical 2001 status of protestentism or the coloring should be updated to the current status. Ruud64 ( talk) 22:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The scandinavian coutries are shown as being more than 90 % protestant, the socalled source for this map the International Religious Freedom Report 2004 however is not backing this up.
2004 report on Sweden: The country has a total area of 173,732 square miles, and its population is an estimated 9.0 million. Approximately 79.6 percent of the population belongs to the Church of Sweden. Since the Church and the State separated in 2000, a number of people have left the Church each year. In 2003, 58,746 people left the Church. According to studies carried out by the Church of Sweden, the main reason for people leaving appears to be economic; membership means a tax of 1.19 percent of members' incomes. In 2003, the Church of Sweden baptized 67.6 percent of children, a figure that has declined steadily over the past 2 decades. Confirmations have declined even more sharply; 37.6 of Swedish children were confirmed in 2003, as opposed to 80 percent in 1970.
The latest report the 2010 issue states for Sweden : Religious membership or affiliation is concentrated in a few major denominations. According to the Church of Sweden (Lutheran), an estimated 71.3 percent (6,664,000 persons) of citizens are members; other Protestant groups total approximately 4.4 percent (400,000) of the population. Membership in the Church of Sweden has decreased steadily since it separated from the state in 2000. During 2009, 73,396 members left the Church (1.6 percent of registered members). Church-led studies found that individuals left primarily for economic reasons: membership carries a tax on income, normally less than 1 percent (separated members can still attend services). That is in 2009 75,8 % of the Swedes were protestants - again as for other countries (see above) less than shown on the map. Same for the other scandinavian countries none of them has a population that is >90 % protestant and some not even >80 %. Besides for the countries listed above, the map is not correct for the scandinavian countries. Ruud64 ( talk) 21:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I have removed reference to the Barrett numbers (World Christian Encyclopedia) for three reasons. First, there's no page references, which is unconscionable in a work that's several thousand pages long. It leas me to doubt that the text has actually been read.
Second, Barrett's counting methodology is eccentric. He actually counts 230-some Catholic denominations, essentially one per country. It's therefore difficult to say what his counts actually mean. For instance, the Anglican Communion is organized as a set of national churches; how different is this really from the Catholic Church? In general his methodology tends to take the most extreme possible view of organizational division, producing an exaggerated picture.
Third, if you take Barrett's taxonomy, a relatively small portion of that 33,000 is actually Protestant. He divides everything into six "megablocs': Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, Independent, and Marginal. "Independent" is far and away the largest, IIRC 2/3s of the total, but it includes bodies that are decidedly not Protestant, such as Old Catholics, Old Believers, and some other Orthodox groups, as well as all the continuing Anglicans.
If we only include Barrett's Protestants, or roll the Anglicans in with them, we are going to get a lot less than 33,000; and given the other oddities, even that number is problematic. I suspect we need to make some reference to it, but saying "33,000" with the implication that all of this is due to Protestant fragmentation is grossly inaccurate. At the very least we need to make it clear that some Protestant churches have a hierarchical structure that encourages unity, while others do not care about organizational unity at all. Mangoe ( talk) 15:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
This has already been discussed but editing is still taking place on this issue. See the section above Protestantism-Anglicanism
This hidden note appears in the article:
<! -- Note: Anglicanism is not classified solely as Protestantism. See text and sources. Please do not remove this note. -- ><! -- Note also that according to the Four Marks article, many reformed denominations agree that they too are catholic, part of the Christian faith. We need a citation that puts Anglican self-concept with Roman Catholic identity, not just catholic-- >It separated from the Roman Catholic Church in 1534 with the Act of Supremacy and understands itself to be both Catholic (universal) and Reformed ( Protestant) [1]
The discussion is not definitive. Protestants lay claim to the Four Marks as much as (Roman) Catholics do. Perhaps this has been resolved above in the other section. Thought I would add further thinking to the discussion. Also, the note in the text probably should be moved, it seems out of place where it is now. DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 14:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The current article reads that Catholics teach that the epistle of James "points to salvation needing to be earned." This should probably be written as follows: "Protestants believe that faith in Christ alone is enough for eternal salvation (as stated in Ephesians 2:8-9), whereas Catholics believe that the phrase 'faith without works is dead' (as stated in James 2:20) points to faith and works as both being necessary to salvation. Protestants, pointing to the same bit of scripture, believe that practicing good works attests to one's faith in Christ and his teachings." I know the difference is small, but it is currently an inaccurate statement of Catholic teaching. Raoulduke25 21:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to dispute the statement in this article that says that protestants are Christians. There are no such thing. I am a theologian and I have confered with several other theologians and we have concluded that protestants are not Christains for several reasons. Many protestants do not obtian a proper baptism. If they do then they reject the Real Presene of Jesus in the Eucharist and even if they accept that they do not have a valid priest to consecrate the Eucharist so one way or another they have lost the title of Christian.
I suggest that a disclaimer be put on the article siting the fact that many theologians dispute the claim of protestants that they are Christians. You should display this disclaimer at the top of the page. Please look at the disclaimer on the atricle for the Pope saying that many theologians dispute his office being founded by Jesus for an idea of how to properly put the disclaimer here. After all fair is fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.47.43.241 ( talk) 06:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Children, Children. I think it's high time we Christians of all stripes stopped calling each other names, poking each other in the eye, and trying to pull out each others' beards. There are a great many folk in the world who hate ALL Christians, regardless of what we call ourselves and all this rancour only gives them more ammunition. It is past high time for us to realize we're all in the same boat and to start rowing in the same direction. 70.248.132.120 ( talk) 11:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Father B.
Protestants ARE Christians. Catholics ARE NOT Christians for, among many other things, they simply teach a paganized christianity religion!
What separates Christianity from EVERY OTHER RELIGION? That it is the only religion where you CAN NOT earn your salvation.*
Catholicism teaches you can.
I wonder what christian would charge for the forgiveness of sins...
A word to the wise: Virtually every catholic has more idols in his backyard than bible verses memorized. (One idol in the backyard and no bible verses memorized) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.101.233 ( talk) 03:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I've got a better idea. How about we say: "All Christians believe that there are no Christians outside the Catholic church." Then there will leave little doubt that this Wikipedia entry was written mostly by Catholics.-- Rrand ( talk) 20:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? Catholics don't "write" this article. If your assumption is correct, and mostly Catholics are editing this article, then Catholics used verifiable information from reliable sources, and digested them into this article. There's not point of view at all. I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. If you feel there has been an unreliable website/book used or a fact that you feel needs a citation, speak up. Otherwhise, GTFO.
You have no idea how hard I tried not to turn this arguement into a religion dispute. -- 98.217.61.141 ( talk) 03:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey I'm a fourteen year old lutheran boy. I'm being confirmed this sunday and I got in a pretty big fight with my Girlfriend about her church being a Denomination. She goes to a United Church of Christ (UCC) church. I told her it is not a denomination. She claims it is. So I did my reseach for my reasons. 1 to be right and 2 to let her know the bitter truth. I got on the internet went to ucc.org and the first thing that pops up is and little slide show saying no matter who you are or where your at on your life's journey your welcome here. That gave me the dead give away that it was non-dom. So I look more because she said that just means anyone can join. Which is what non-dom is pretty much. So I went to Wikipedia and typed in UCC. It said Protestant I clicked on that too. This is where I ended up at. All it says is Christianity. I read her the evidence and she still wouldn't believe me. She said it's a Denomination because it's Christianity. But it isn't. It's just a denomination from non-christian beliefes. I told her that too, still no beliefe. Then she said her friend doesn't go to a cathloic or lutheran church or anything like that. So I asked my pastor he even said it doesn't really have a denomination. So finally i told her that and now she's upset and wants to ask her pastor (which is female and not allowed in my synid). It's causing confusion can anyone change my stuborn girlfriends way of thinking. I think she just doesn't want to be wronge. Brandon Cantrell April 30,2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.13.202 ( talk) 03:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I wish to dispute the following statements:
(1) that Catholics are not Christians
(2) that Protestants are not Christians
I myself am Catholic, and I think that the aforementioned statements are absurd.
Both Catholics and Protestants are Christians; Catholics and Protestants share belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and most Protestants share the Nicene Creed as well, which summarizes Christendom's essential doctrines.
I think that it is shameful that I even have to make this point, because it should be self-evident. However, for those Catholics who do not believe me, the following quote from Unitatis Redintegratio, which was published by the Second Vatican Council, should be sufficient:
"Even in the beginnings of [the] one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle [Peter] strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church" (Unitatis Redintegratio, section 3).
I apologize that I cannot post an equally strong quote from the Protestant perspective; I am simply not familiar enough with Protestant literature. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I in that regard can post one.
Theraven502 ( talk) 22:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)TheRaven502
Since, protestants have divided from their catholic roots they think nothing of dividing more into separate churches that pastors create because of minor disagreements making it harder for all Christians to be one as Jesus ordered your girlfriend probably goes to a church like that, and you lutherns are no better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.179.22 ( talk) 01:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
For someone to be my brother in Christ (a fellow Christian), he MUST:
-Believe in the trinity
-Affirm the inneracy of the Bible (66 book canon)
-Believe in salvation by GRACE ALONE, through FAITH ALONE, in CHRIST ALONE
Since this is not a forum, I'll appreciate any dissenting POV to be e-mailed to marioenouel(at)gmail(dot)com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.100.16 ( talk) 04:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
PS: I honestly think you could do better than that childish argument! :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.102.164 ( talk) 01:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. As important as this discussion is-- you need to take this elsewhere, such as each others talk pages, but it cannot be here.
If anyone else posts more discussion along these lines I will delete them. -- Carlaude ( talk) 04:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
TB: can you please give me your email address. I really want to continue the discussion, and I believe we won't be able to do it here.
ABOUT THE ARTICLE: I recommend adding a section about the literary works of the reformers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.102.148 ( talk) 00:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This article says there are 1.5 billion Christians, of which 800 million are Protestants. The Catholic article says there are 1.14 billion members, and this is the biggest Christian Church. The Orthodox article says this is the second biggest Christian Church, and has around 300 million members. So, if there were around 800 million Protestants, 1100 million Catholics and 300 million Orthodox Christians, that would mean a total of 2.2 billion Christians, not the 1.5 billion stated in this article. Question: Which figure is incorrect, the Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox or the Total? Wallie ( talk) 20:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
-Arithmetical correction: "800 million Protestants, 1100 million Catholics and 300 million Orthodox Christians" equals 2.5 billion people, not 2.2 billion people, i.e., you mentioned the Orthodox, but left them out your total. 71.181.148.96 ( talk) 11:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
-Most, if not all, of the Latin-Americans that convert to protestantism "forget" to remove their name from the Church of Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.101.120 ( talk) 02:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
-The Wikipedia article Christianity gives a range of 1.5 - 2.1 billion Christians, worldwide. If you add the high figures for all groups as given by Wikipedia (1,400 million Catholic, 300 million Orthodox, and 800 million Protestant) you get 2.5 billion Christians worldwide. Cut all figures by 1/4 and you get two billion Christians worldwide, i.e. a figure within the range given by the article on Christianity.
So the actual figures are probably more like 1.1 billion Catholic, 240 million Orthodox and 600 million Protestant. The percentages of Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant who ever set foot in a church outside of being "hatched", "matched", or "dispatched" (ie at Baptism, Marriage and Burial), is even more controversial and disputed than the membership figures themselves.
As it stands, the numbers in the present article (800 million Protestant of a total of 1.5 billion Christians) imply that Protestantism is not only the largest major subgrouping of Christianity, but outnumbers Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy combined, a fact which is not generally known :) 71.181.148.96 ( talk) 11:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, in Orthodox and Catholic Christianity you actually have to STRIVE for salvation. It is not a "quick and easy path." In the Protestant sect becoming and being a Christian is extremely easy and shallow. These figures are a joke (claiming that Protestants are the most numerous). I am Greek Orthodox, the New Testament was written in Greek. Our Priest reads from the Bible in the ancient Greek; we do not use a translation at all. This "neo-Christianity" called Protestant Christianity is the "new kid on the block." The figure just considers the number of people living in Protestant areas, mostly in the US, who are considered "Protestant." America is a super-market of neo spin-off religions that most of the ancient Christian world snickers at. You have NO roots. Those of you who believe in this Protestant thing should consider that you have inherited your beliefs and should most certainly question them. We on the other hand have been inheriting the ORIGINAL Faith for 2,000 years. We are not "based" on the early Church - we ARE the Original Church. The ORIGINAL Faith has split in two (Orthodox & Catholic) for a 1,000 years now, but at least we have not splintered into, what, 33,000 sects? Lord. Anyway, how can you count Protestants since you just walk into their "church" (normally a metal building) get slapped on the forehead and BAM! your good to go. If America is 'Babylon' then don't any of you stop to think that you can't trust these neo faiths spawned here? Yes, Luther started this whole thing in Germany in (what?) the 16th century (practically yesterday in the span of time)? But open your eyes - it has been turned into something resembling a shallow Hollywood scam here, especially in the last 40 years. If you don't have a Certificate of Baptism then you can not be counted. The legitimate Protestant churches do this. Add them up and you will see around 80 million REAL Protestants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.238.116 ( talk) 21:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
This IS weird. How can there be 800 million protestants and 1 billion Catholics that equal to 1.5 billion? This isn't even counting the appx. 300 million Eastern Orthodox and who knows how many Oriental Orthodox Christians. This entire article strikes me as having a very biased, pro-protestant leaning. In all of my studies I have seen numbers of about 500 million protestants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourmeyer4 ( talk • contribs) 04:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
While many Unitarians are indeed Christian, the religion as a whole does not profess any beliefs that are generally accepted as being required to be Christian. To quote from The UUA homepage
Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion that encompasses many faith traditions. Unitarian Universalists include people who identify as Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, and others. As there is no official Unitarian Universalist creed, Unitarian Universalists are free to search for truth on many paths.
To quote the Rev. Marta Flanagan, "We uphold the free search for truth. We will not be bound by a statement of belief. We do not ask anyone to subscribe to a creed. We say ours is a non-creedal religion. Ours is a free faith."
Although we uphold shared principles, individual Unitarian Universalists have varied beliefs about everything from scripture to rituals to God.
I've removed Unitarians from the list looseBits ( talk) 20:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
--
While it can be successfully argued that Unitarian Universalist are not "Christians", they should not be confused with traditional Unitarians who ascribe to the teachings and philosophy of our Lord Jesus Christ and worship the God of Abraham.
-- Simpotico ( talk) 06:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
An edit that I thought was a bit excessive which I reverted has been questioned. As it was a good faith edit and could use the input from others, I have moved the discussion from my talk page to the article talk page.
The orginal copy read:
This was revised by Theology10101 to read:
The following was copied from my talk page: Dbiel,
Why would you undo changes that I had made? Why do you say it went way too far? Was Luther not a monk or the father of Protestantism? I don't see how that was too far or inaccurate. Please explain.
Thank you,
Theology10101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theology10101 ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Open to other suggestions and/or comments Dbiel ( Talk) 04:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Theology10101 ( talk) 05:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to request that more references are cited, because for the last 3/4 of this article or so I cannot find any references for most of these statements. For example, is it true that the Protestant denominations feel justified in declaring war on the Catholic Church? Please help in completing references if possible. Rrand ( talk) 03:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Since there's a section dealing with one of the two sacraments (Communion or the Lord's Supper), ain't it logical to have a another section dealing with the other sacrament ( Baptism)???
It could be more or less like the section about the lord's supper...
Keep in mind the 4 basic views:
1) Regenerative Infant Baptism: Lutherans, Anglicans
2)Non-regenerative Infant Baptism: Presbyterians
3) Regenerative Believer's Baptism: Churches of Christ
4) Non- regenerative Believer's Baptism: Baptist, Reformed Baptist, Pentecostals, Evangelicals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.101.203 ( talk) 07:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I found this sentence in the topic, which does not seem neutral, objective, or verified: "Although not entirely true, it is widely recognised that protestants frequently sodomise each other." It doesn't seem relevant, or even specific to the topic. 65.30.159.100 ( talk) 13:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
This article doesn't mention the fact that the Klk Klux Klan requires it's members to be active Protestants. Nor does it even mention the fact the Protestants make up the majority of the Christian Identity Movement. This seems like something that should be discussed in full and properly added to the article.-- 141.157.15.80 ( talk) 15:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
This article needs a completely rewritten lead. The Movements within Protestantism sections are all stubs and need fleshing out. The entire article needs more cited content. The article may only qualify as Start class, in truth. -- Secisek ( talk) 21:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Why not the Five solas instead of just three? -- Richard ( talk) 07:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I really don't agree with the 800 million count, it is probably closer to less than half of that. We must especially remember that a Protestant baptism is also a Catholic one, since there is currently a mutual recognition of Trinitarian baptisms. Protestantism is declining in many places such as the US and the UK, primarily because the said ecclesial communities are incredibly divided and often too liberal to be called Christian. Anglicans don't always call themselves Protestants. Restorationists don't call themselves Protestants. Many Baptists and Evangelicals are also hostile to the term. Continental Europe has comparatively very few Protestants. In Africa and elsewhere, there are quite a few Pentecostals, but they are never in majority in any single country. [1] ADM ( talk) 04:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion of a possible edit. The term "radical" in reference to to the Reformation is typically reserved for the radical reformers, that is to say the Annabaptists. It may be cofusing to use the term radical for reformers within what is typically known as the Reformed Tradition (sometimes also Calvinism) such as Zwingli and Knox. Radical in this sense assumes gradations of radicalism as well as a general baseline. The problem is, whose perspective or baseline does one use to define radical? Luther's? (As seems to be the case in this article) Calvin's? Knox's? Perhaps a better, more neutral, term for the more "radical" or severe reformers of the Reformed Tradition might be thoroughgoing. As we know of course the radical reformers (Annabaptists) themselves have been assigned that term based largely on the perspective of the majority (Lutheran & Reformed) protestant baseline - in itself a system gradation refering to the fact that the Annabaptist movement was so much more radical in its shifts (adult baptism, church/state relationship, etc.) from other forms of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. This is a whole seperate issue - one for scholars and publishers to deal with rather than us - but for the time being shall we keep to the standard accepted terminologies: Reformed or Calvinistic = Reformed Tradition, Radical Reformers = Annabaptists?
Suggestion of a possible edit. The term Evangelical has a dual meaning in English. One refers to Evangelicalism which has its roots in the 18th and 19th centuries, in the various Great Awakenings. The other is scholarly movement in 16th century Europe predating the Reformation itself, from which the Evangelical Lutheran Reformers and the Evangelical Lutheran Churches such as in Sweden & Germany took their name. Would it help to distinguish here, using perhaps Evangelical Lutheran, as is standard? This destinction is peculiar to English, and may not occur to Germans, Swedes, Hungarians, etc, for whom Evangelisch, Evangelikus, etc. simply means Lutheran. For Americans though, the term Evangelical may conote something very different.
After a little back and forth between myself and snowded, I've started a new discussion Talk:Christianity#Denominations which may be of interest. Quantpole ( talk) 01:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Protestantism did indeed separate itself and be formed from the roman catholic church. under the list of denominations formed during that time includes: Lutherans, Calvanists, etc.
However, history shows that the Baptists were not from the reformation period. they were called the anabaptists when the roman catholic church was formed. but, the bible shows that John the Baptist existed long before the Roman Catholic Church did. It is logical to conclude, with that information in mind, that the Baptists did not sprout away from the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation Period as the Protestants did.
( Kinghawke ( talk) 04:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC))
Are you actually saying that John the Baptist started the Baptist Church -- Sfcongeredwards ( talk) 01:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you farsight, saying that john the Baptist founded the Baptists Church is like saying that the Apostolic church(small US based church) was founded by the Apostles -- Sfcongeredwards ( talk) 01:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The article ought to go at least a little into the question of whether Anglicanism is Protestant. Currently, the map shows England as Protestant, but the lede says Anglicanism is distinct from Protestantism and the article never mentions Anglicanism again. So that's an internal contradiction, and one that may well be confusing to readers unfamiliar with Anglicanism's schizophrenic view of itself. I know it's difficult, because it is non-NPOV both to assert that Anglicanism is Protestant and to assert that it isn't, but the solution is not to have the map make one non-NPOV assertion and the text make the other one. + An gr 05:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
If Anglicanism is halfway between Catholocism and Protestantism then it is protestant, nor Catholic but a distinct branch of Christianity.-- Sfcongeredwards ( talk) 02:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
There is an answer here, but it is not a simple one. The Church of England considers itself both Catholic and Reformed, and maintains that it is still part of the 'One True Church' which includes the (Roman) Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Those Churches dispute that this is the case and do not consider the Church of England to be in Communion with them. Many adherents of the Church of England do not consider themselves Protestant. And the formal theology of the Church has a more nuanced appeal to a 'via media' middle way between Protestantism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy. Nevertheless, the C of E is popularly considered to be 'Protestant' and most (though not all) adherents consider themselves Protestant. It seems, then, that the Church of England, and perhaps broader Anglicanism, are either a) a third branch between Protestantism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy or b) a part of Protestantism which claim themselves a third branch between Protestantism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy. The real problem here is that, as with many English institutions, the Church of England is a result of a messy compromise betweeen competing tendencies and which therefore prefers to avoid formal labels. Not so useful for an encyclopedia, but there you go! 90.193.97.18 ( talk) 18:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
'Protestantism does not depreciate good works; but it denies their value as sources or conditions of justification, and insists on them as the necessary fruits of faith, and evidence of justification.'
I'm not sure the answer is quick or simple. Most (but certainly not all) Protestants believe that they are saved by faith alone. (Ephesian 2:8-9) not by any works that we do. The thought here is that, if we could be saved by our own works, why would we need Jesus? Yet the "good works" that a Christian does are not entirely valueless. There are rewards for them (Matt 10:41, 5:2, Luke 6:23, 31, etc...) also by living this way, you will discredit those who "slander God because of the way Christian live". (1Peter 2:15, 3:16) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmccaff ( talk • contribs) 18:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
There are issues with the numbers of Christians and the numbers of Protestants asserted by this article in the "Denominations" section.
The estimated number of Christians ranges between 1.5 billion and 2.1 billion, (see Christianity#Demographics)
Catholics are somewhere between 1.05 and 1.31 billion members (see Catholic Church)
Orthodox Catholics are somewhere 225 and 300 million members (see Orthodox Church)
Anglicans are approximately 77 million
Mormons are 13 million and Jehovah's Witnesses are 13-17 million (yes, yes, I know some Christians don't consider these two sects Christians).
The point is that the above figures conflict with the assertion in the "Denominations" section that Protestants account for 800 million out of 1.5 billion Christians.
800 million Protestants is just barely credible if the total number of Christians is 2.2 billion (1.1 billion Catholics + 800 million Protestants + 225 Orthodox + 77 million Anglicans = 2.22 billion Christians).
Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses aren't Protestants so the question is whether to bump down the number of Protestants, bump up the number of Christians or just omit these two sects from the count altogether.
I am going to bump up the number of Christians in the "Denominations" section of this article to 2.2 billion.
But there is still another problem...
The article states, "There are about 800 million Protestants worldwide,[8] among approximately 1.5 billion Christians These include 170 million in North America, 160 million in Africa, 120 million in Europe, 70 million in Latin America, 60 million in Asia, and 10 million in Oceania."
Add up the numbers in each region and you get 590 million... Presumably the remaining 210 million live in the Arctic and Antarctica. ;^)
We need to either revise the regional numbers upwards and/or reduce the total number of Protestants. I suspect the right answer is to revise the regional numbers upwards. Numbers can be found at http://www.adherents.com
-- Richard ( talk) 04:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
70.171.235.197 ( talk) 19:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I ask you note LDS to be protestant. Any Christian church not directly connected with Catholicism IS protestant. HOW can you say Protestants "feel practising the Faith but not necessarily good works are adequate"? No good, Christian church I know of advocates this. "By your works are ye known." Catholics, with poor boxes and bingo and such, on down to the Salvation Army, Advocate and Practice good deeds. 70.171.235.197 ( talk) 19:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Strictly speaking - the LDS churches practices many of the things that Protestantism is protesting. (i.e. A single human leader/prophet of the Church, (much like the Catholic Pope) the concept of Priests as a church clergy/office (rather than every believer is a priest), the concept of "sola-scriptura" (Bible alone) as opposed the Book of Mormon/Pearl of Great Price and the Bible together. Veneration of Moroni (the thought here is that he is placed on the highest place of the Church) much like the Roman Catholic practice of naming many of their Churches after Mary (i.e. - "Our Lady of ....", Church of the Blessed Virgin, The Queen of Heaven, ..etc..)
Someone has put a dirty phrase in the first line of the article it self. Please fix it. Tks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.153.156.60 ( talk) 13:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Where does the idea Anglicanism is split from the Protestant group come from? Here they are the mainstream protestants along with groups such as Methodists or the Uniting Church whereas groups like Baptists or (Open) Brethren, considered by this article to be mainstream protestant are in fact borderline independent though not quite as far as Pentecostals and the like.
Also, where do the Sects fit in e.g. J.W's and Mormons? I see Seventh Day Adventist listed, briefly, under protestants but that's it. Should there be additional major Christian divisions therefore in the heading? I know Oriental was mentioned as distinct from Eastern but I am thinking specifically of sects, those mentioned previously and any others relevant e.g. Christian Science (Am I thinking of the right group?), and Independents or some such which would cover the Pentecostals and the like which Catholics/ex-Catholics do not view as Protestant.
As regards "In the early 20th century there developed a less critical reading of the Bible in the United States that has led to a "fundamentalist" reading of Scripture. Christian Fundamentalists read the Bible as the "inerrant, infallible" Word of God, much like fundamentalist Muslims would read the Qu'ran" How does this differ to the historical, original as opposed to Catholic, Victorian etc, era's reading of it? I accept the parrallel that both a fundementalist Muslim and Christian believe their texts as divinely inspired etc but this is somewhat provocative as fundementalist Islam is roughly equated with terrorism which Christianity is most certainly not! I think both the parallel and the historical extent of the claim need revision. 203.25.1.208 ( talk) 06:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
If you were to "grade" denominations on their "protestant-ness". The Anglicans would probably score the lowest of all the Protestant denominations. They are very very similar to the Roman Catholic church, they practice and believe many of the same things. In "extreme protestantism" ( mostly fundamentalist Churches ) they do not consider the Roman Catholic church (as a whole) to be "true Christians" at all. ( Many Roman Catholics do not believe that non Roman Catholics are "true Christians" either ) If you were to take all of the issues listed here and in the article (papacy, priesthood, mariology, mass, etc..) and go through them denomination by denomination, it's hard to imagine any other denomination closer to the Roman Catholic church than the Anglican church (although some (ELCA)Lutheran and Methodist might come close). Rmccaff ( talk) 21:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Good catch, changed it to Methodist. Rmccaff ( talk) 20:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the concept that "Mainline" Protestantism "is most closely tied to those groups that separated from the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century" Protestantism isn't really a genealogy of the Church denominations, so much as an ideology/theology that differs from "Mainline" Roman Catholicism.
That may have certainly been the beginnings of the movement. The word protestant comes from the word "Protest". What are they protesting? The Roman Catholic church of course. Yes there was Martin Luther's original "95-Thesis" and that was likely what defined Protestantism of that day. Since then many other items have been added (as Church theologies and doctrines "mature") and so I would argue that the definition of Protestantism is any belief that goes against Roman Catholic specific teachings, sacraments or Catechisms. Protestantism is not merely what defined it several centuries ago, but continues to be defined in new ways even today.
Other examples would be veneration of Mary and Saints. In particular the concept of Mary as a sinless person or even "The Mother of God" (Theotokos). Hail Mary prayers (which are viewed as "Praise Mary" prayers). The Rosary meditations/prayers. Canonizing Saints not specifically mentioned in the Bible. The Apocryphal Books of the Catholic Bible. The "transubstantiation" of Communion. The concept of Mass being done by Priests (the main purpose of Priests was sacrifice in the Old Testament) so this is often viewed as a continual "re-crucifying of Christ". Protestants believe in salvation by "Faith only" (Titus 3:5, Ephesians 2:8-9) Many Roman Catholics believe that your salvation depends on acts (good deeds) that you do in addition to the faith. The concept of indulgences. The concept of Purgatory. Protestants do not recognize the papacy or it's hierarchy. The majority do not concede that Peter was ever a Pope. The concept of the Pope as a "vicar" (proxy or substitute). The difference between the way "intercessory prayer" is viewed. Protestants believe that Jesus is the only mediator (go-between) between God (The Father) and men. Roman Catholics believe that other Saints (Mary in particular) can also be a mediator or go-between. The "immaculate conception" from a Protestant point of view would be the birth of Jesus (on Earth). The Roman Catholic immaculate conception is the birth of Mary. The majority of Protestants believe the original sin was Satan rebelling against God. In Roman Catholicism it is Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:1-6)
Less obvious examples would be the lineage of Mary, most Protestants see the differences between Matthew and Luke as being the lineages of Joseph and Mary respectively. (Matthew 1:1-17, Luke 3:23-37) The majority of Roman Catholics believe that Mary's parents were Saint Anne and Saint Joachim. Whether Mary had other children, (younger half-brothers and half-sisters fathered by Joseph) i.e. James (the Less), Jude, Joses and Salome. Obviously Protestants believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, so Jesus would have been the oldest.
This is by no means an exhaustive list, but examples of "modern day" Protestantism to begin with. Rmccaff ( talk) 20:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
"But that statement is not a statement about the "essence" of Protestantism, but about the historical context within which Protestantism arose. " - Then why not start the article with the essence and definition, rather than the history and church genealogy? Rmccaff ( talk) 21:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I do agree with your statements about "not all Protestant" denominations share the same beliefs. However the vast majority do share in the majority of issues listed above (some of which (but not all) have been added to the main article) Anglicans and ELCA Lutherans do seem to be somewhere between the Protestant and Roman Catholic "extremes". But the largest Protestant denominations (i.e. Southern Baptist (U.S.A.) and Assembly of God (World) do not consider the Anglican church a protestant church. There is also no mention in the main article of "Mary-ology" (Purpetual virgin, Mary as sinless, Mary as the Mother of God, etc...) which is far and away the single biggest "issue" that Protestants have against the Roman Catholic church. While Anglicans and perhaps even Martin Luther himself may have agreed with this, certainly none of the larger Protestant churches of today do. Where do you draw the line between those "accepted by the majority of Protestants" and those who simply "include themselves by default" because they aren't Roman Catholic? I'm not sure, but certainly these groups exist (LDS Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, Church of Scientology, etc..) Rmccaff ( talk) 23:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not discount Martin Luther as a protestant. But Luther died 5 centuries ago. While some of his 95-thesis issues remain, many more have sprung up since his death. While is definitely a part of Protestant history, he is hardly the definition of Protestantism today. As for my "POV" the majority of Protestant Churches today, not just AG, and Baptist, but most Lutheran, all Missouri Synod Lutheran, virtually all Pentecostal, all fundamental, most Methodists, most Presbyterians, do not believe in Mariology. Don't take my world for it, so a survey yourself on their official denomination home page/beliefs. I think the fact that well over 90% agree on this hardly makes this simply my POV. I find this somewhat amusing coming from an Anglican POV, which does not agree with most of Luther's 95-thesis. Rmccaff ( talk) 16:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not debating "what they should believe" or even arguing theology at all. People believe what they believe, there are many other forums for debate and this has been going on for hundreds of years, but it is a disservice not to define it, or simply give a correct definition. Rmccaff ( talk) 18:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
"What you don't recognize is that there are different and opposing views of what the essence of Protestantism is" - In that case wouldn't it make much more sense to include all the major views? Again, not debating whether they are "right or wrong", but simply that this is a prevailing view that should be included in the definition. Wikipedia's own Mary articles differentiate between Protestant and Roman Catholic views here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessed_Virgin_Mary#Roman_Catholic_views ) to suggest otherwise is a blatant omission of facts. It is a common practice (however politically incorrect/derogatory ) among Protestants to refer to Roman Catholics as "Mary worshipers". Again this is not the forum to debate whether they are right or wrong, simply to include this as part of the definition. Rmccaff ( talk) 18:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I removed some sections that were apparently added to this article by Catholic "e-pologists," who IMHO are one of the more pernicious and destructive special interest groups butchering Wikipedia articles. The "33,000" denomination claim has been traced to its source, and the source lists Mormons, random cults like the Branch Davidians and Moonies, etc. in the category that Catholic Apologists misrepresent as "Protestants" when they use this polemic. The statistic also includes para-church organizations and different geographic jurisdictions as different "denominations." In fact, it lists several hundred Roman Catholic "denominations," although Catholic apologists seem reluctant to point that out. The source document lists only 21 Protestant denominations in the sense that Catholics mean "denomination," while listing 16 Catholic denominations (presumably the various rites).
The paragraph was also written as if each denominational split was doctrinal or a bad thing, presuming a Catholic point of view on the matter. The truth is that Protestant denominations will divide for purely logistical reasons (like the American Baptist General Conference and the Canadian Baptist General Conference, or the Church of the Nazarene and the Wesleyan Church), and variations in theological emphasis and social mission are as often celebrated as disputed. (For example, the Salvation Army is renowned for their work, even though few other Protestants choose their organization or worship style.) The Catholic polemic also ignores the fact that Catholicism has achieved nothing more than a meaningless organizational unity of little substance, while parties as discordant as theological liberals, "cultural Catholics," pagan-tinted "folk Catholics," etc. far outnumber "traditional" Catholics in the world.
I also reworded the section on Mormonism and other non-trinitarian groups to make it clear that neither the non-orthodox groups nor Protestants themselves consider these groups Protestant, and the people who try to put them together in the same category have an axe to grind.-- ManicBrit ( talk) 01:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The article did not make any statements about what the 33,000 number means; it could mean that Protestants don't care much about organizational unity, or it could mean sheer fractiousness, or any number of other things. It is hard to see how any such inference could be substantiated, but it is well substantiated that there are a large number of organizationally distinct Protestant groups. Your polemic about who added what is entirely unsubstantiated and doesn't much need a response, since it isn't anything about the article. Please focus on what the article says, and not on your suppositions about the reasons why this or that person added this or that text. Criticize the article, not the editor. Tb ( talk) 01:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I will add to the paragraph in question that the figure cited does not distinguish groups which hold to Protestant doctrines, as spelled out in this article, or the reasons why these various groups exist. I don't see how any of you can dispute that.-- ManicBrit ( talk) 02:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
BTW, can you please tell me what characteristics Mormons share with Baptists and Lutherans aside from the fact that they aren't Catholic? You guys also seem keen to revert my minor edit of the words "share certain characteristics with Protestantism." But Mormonism is a hierarchical religion with priests led by an infallible prophet, which seemingly makes it much more like Roman Catholicism than any Protestant group. The Unification Church, the Manson Family, and People's Temple, among other groups past and present, also defer to supposedly infallible leaders with special charismatic gifts from God. What "characteristic" do you see these groups sharing with Lutherans and Methodists - again, aside from their not being Catholic? Should I start an article on "hierarchical religions" and list Catholicism alongside the Latter-Day Saints?
Making the word "Protestant" refer to every member of the human race who somehow fits the word "Jesus" into their philosophy and who isn't Catholic makes the word meaningless, and does nothing except make the only acceptable term for a sola Protestant "Christian" - which might not be so bad after all.-- ManicBrit ( talk) 02:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The number of Protestants reported in this article seems to be inflated. No references are cited to substantiate the claim that there are 800 million adherents to the denominations of Protestantism. It seems that, in this section, the contributor merely referred to the 2 billion statistic and subtracted the populations of Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy. The interests of accuracy would be better served by the deletion of this section of the article until such a time as a valid reference for such figures can be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pristuccia ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
"Protest," along with the word "Protestant," had a different meaning in the 16th century from what it now has. This needs to be addressed. Specifically, the positive nature of the word (as it was originally used) needs to be emphasized more than its negative aspect- which is the only thing we currently see in the Etymology section. The word "protest" has increasingly lost its original positive meaning of "witnessing on behalf of" (pro-testantes), and that's the way it was used prior to and at the time of the Reformation. As a general rule, "This I protest" would not necessarily have implied any negative form of protest against something. That's the kind of thing that needs to be talked about in the etymology section- the meaning of the word at the time of the Reformation and the ways in which the meaning and use of the word has changed from then to now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.219.180.45 ( talk) 12:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
This actually has some bearing on an earlier section, where the inclusion of Mormonism as a part of Protestantism is discussed. When you consider how being a Protestant means you Protest something- in the sense that you speak in favor of a specific set of propositions, rather than focus exclusively on a "protest against"- a short list of the things Protestants speak in favor of quickly eliminates Mormonism from consideration. Start with the Five Solas. I think Sola Scriptura, for one, is going to be a teensy bit of an issue. Protestants are united in protesting this (in the positive sense), among other things. I don't think Mormons can get on board with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.219.180.45 ( talk) 12:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC) lil wayne man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.4.170 ( talk) 22:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I hate to beat a dead horse, but no one is served by having inflated statistics on the worldwide population of Protestants. Once again, the 800 million figure is posted, this time, seemingly in response to my earlier post, sources are cited. I question the validity of the source and would like to point out that the number is completely out of line with any other source, including Wikipedia itself: the article on Protestants by country refers to the CIA factbook and lists the number at a much more realistic 560 or so million. I would like to say that really, one could find books to support almost any point of view, and so I again must question the source, the information and the intent of the person who posted it here. Please address this as soon as possible and have this statistic removed and replaced with one that is in keeping with actual consensus. Again, no one is served by such erroneous information, regardless of denomination or religous background. Thank you. Pristuccia ( talk)Pristuccia —Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC). span>
This map is full of factual errors and overstating the % of protestants by country for at least the european ones. As per the map description : the data source is : Data is based on 1: the US State Department's International Religious Freedom Report 2004, 2 adherents.com, and the 3 CIA Factbook, ...only for the first source a year is given so I assume the others are more recent. Checking the 2004 report that is still available on the internet I discovered many errors (and every time the same one showing a higher % of protestants than the source is actually mentioning).
For a repeat of the remarks on the map discussion page see below Ruud64 ( talk) 21:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Using the quoted source International Religious Freedom Report 2004, I found some mistakes , the map is overstating the % of protestants for several countries :
Austria: According to the 2001 census, membership in major religions are as follows: Roman Catholic Church--74.0 percent; Lutheran and Presbyterian churches (Evangelical Church - Augsburger and Helvetic confessions)�-4.7 percent; Islamic community�-4.2 percent; Jewish community--0.1 percent; Eastern Orthodox (Russian, Greek, Serbian, Romanian, and Bulgarian)�-2.2 percent; other Christian churches�-0.9 percent; other non-Christian religious groups�-0.2 percent. Atheists accounted for 12 percent; 2 percent did not indicate a religious affiliation In other words less than 15 % protestants in Austria the map shows something different.
Netherlands: Approximately 31 percent of the population consider themselves Roman Catholic, 14 percent Dutch Reformed, 6 percent Muslim, 6 percent Calvinist Reformed, 3 percent non-Christian (Hindu, Jewish, or Buddhist), and 40 percent atheist or agnostic. In other words just about 20 % , the map shows the same color as for Germany
Germany: The Evangelical Church, which includes the Lutheran, Uniate, and Reformed Protestant Churches, has 27 million members, who constitute 33 percent of the population. Statistical offices in the Evangelical Church estimate that 1.1 million members (4 percent of the membership) attend weekly religious services. The Catholic Church has a membership of 27.2 million, or 33.4 percent of the population. According to the Church's statistics, 4.8 million Catholics (17.5 percent of the membership) actively participate in weekly services. According to government estimates, there are approximately 3.1 to 3.5 million Muslims living in the country (approximately 3.4 percent to 3.9 percent of the population). Statistics on mosque attendance were not available. So at the time of this report , 33 % protestanst however same color as for the Netherlands.
The map should be updated for these mistakes and carefully checked for more mistakes (notably the baltic states look incorrect to me as well).
Furthermore , due to the increasing secularization, the number of protestants has dropped in 2011 to less than 20 % in the Netherlands and less than 30 % in Germany.
So either the map sould be named historical 2001 status of protestentism or the coloring should be updated to the current status. Ruud64 ( talk) 22:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The scandinavian coutries are shown as being more than 90 % protestant, the socalled source for this map the International Religious Freedom Report 2004 however is not backing this up.
2004 report on Sweden: The country has a total area of 173,732 square miles, and its population is an estimated 9.0 million. Approximately 79.6 percent of the population belongs to the Church of Sweden. Since the Church and the State separated in 2000, a number of people have left the Church each year. In 2003, 58,746 people left the Church. According to studies carried out by the Church of Sweden, the main reason for people leaving appears to be economic; membership means a tax of 1.19 percent of members' incomes. In 2003, the Church of Sweden baptized 67.6 percent of children, a figure that has declined steadily over the past 2 decades. Confirmations have declined even more sharply; 37.6 of Swedish children were confirmed in 2003, as opposed to 80 percent in 1970.
The latest report the 2010 issue states for Sweden : Religious membership or affiliation is concentrated in a few major denominations. According to the Church of Sweden (Lutheran), an estimated 71.3 percent (6,664,000 persons) of citizens are members; other Protestant groups total approximately 4.4 percent (400,000) of the population. Membership in the Church of Sweden has decreased steadily since it separated from the state in 2000. During 2009, 73,396 members left the Church (1.6 percent of registered members). Church-led studies found that individuals left primarily for economic reasons: membership carries a tax on income, normally less than 1 percent (separated members can still attend services). That is in 2009 75,8 % of the Swedes were protestants - again as for other countries (see above) less than shown on the map. Same for the other scandinavian countries none of them has a population that is >90 % protestant and some not even >80 %. Besides for the countries listed above, the map is not correct for the scandinavian countries. Ruud64 ( talk) 21:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I have removed reference to the Barrett numbers (World Christian Encyclopedia) for three reasons. First, there's no page references, which is unconscionable in a work that's several thousand pages long. It leas me to doubt that the text has actually been read.
Second, Barrett's counting methodology is eccentric. He actually counts 230-some Catholic denominations, essentially one per country. It's therefore difficult to say what his counts actually mean. For instance, the Anglican Communion is organized as a set of national churches; how different is this really from the Catholic Church? In general his methodology tends to take the most extreme possible view of organizational division, producing an exaggerated picture.
Third, if you take Barrett's taxonomy, a relatively small portion of that 33,000 is actually Protestant. He divides everything into six "megablocs': Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, Independent, and Marginal. "Independent" is far and away the largest, IIRC 2/3s of the total, but it includes bodies that are decidedly not Protestant, such as Old Catholics, Old Believers, and some other Orthodox groups, as well as all the continuing Anglicans.
If we only include Barrett's Protestants, or roll the Anglicans in with them, we are going to get a lot less than 33,000; and given the other oddities, even that number is problematic. I suspect we need to make some reference to it, but saying "33,000" with the implication that all of this is due to Protestant fragmentation is grossly inaccurate. At the very least we need to make it clear that some Protestant churches have a hierarchical structure that encourages unity, while others do not care about organizational unity at all. Mangoe ( talk) 15:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
This has already been discussed but editing is still taking place on this issue. See the section above Protestantism-Anglicanism
This hidden note appears in the article:
<! -- Note: Anglicanism is not classified solely as Protestantism. See text and sources. Please do not remove this note. -- ><! -- Note also that according to the Four Marks article, many reformed denominations agree that they too are catholic, part of the Christian faith. We need a citation that puts Anglican self-concept with Roman Catholic identity, not just catholic-- >It separated from the Roman Catholic Church in 1534 with the Act of Supremacy and understands itself to be both Catholic (universal) and Reformed ( Protestant) [1]
The discussion is not definitive. Protestants lay claim to the Four Marks as much as (Roman) Catholics do. Perhaps this has been resolved above in the other section. Thought I would add further thinking to the discussion. Also, the note in the text probably should be moved, it seems out of place where it is now. DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 14:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)