In my opinion...

That is from the "Radical Reformation", not the Protestant Reformation. Many of these Evangelical, "non-denominational" and other American branches are certainly not "Protestant". One major indication is the constant, autistic practice of running around asking people "When were you born again", because of monergism v synergism. People who contend synergism are not Protestants, they're... something else... whatever. I've been banned from christianchat.com and christianchat.net for spreading heresies because I specifically discussed my Lutheran point of view. I promise, if you take the time to read on "radical reformation" and synergism, you'll see exactly what I'm saying.

I still think they're Christian, because I believe Christians are people with a personal relationship with Christ as savior, just as Catholics, Mormons, Eastern Orthodox, etc. They don't feel the same about me, and that's too bad.

Nuh Early Reformers were right that the Pope has grown to be too fucking corrupt

The problem is later autists like Calvin

>In my opinion, Protestants missed the entire point of Lutheranism and their religion has been turning steadily worse since the Reformation.
FTFY

Scholasticism was instrumental in the development of the scientific method, though.
Early modern philosophy often regurgitated things already covered by medieval thinkers, but they were too casual to deal with scholastic logic and its strict, precise reasoning. There really isn't anything quite like it until the appearance of logical positivists.

United in corruption and less than substandard monks and church officials on all levels. But y'know, all of that is perfectly okay since we're all together :)

You have to admit, had it not been for the Reformation, how long would it have taken for the Catholic church to unfuck itself from its state at the time, assuming it would have even attempted to do so at all.

For sure, my family belongs to the Plymouth Brethren for the most part and it's not Protestantism in the slightest once you show up to their meetings. I don't know what the fuck it is, it's like some bizarro Christianity.

Catholics hated theology too, they simply thought a handful of things from the philophical world could be cherry-picked to affirm beleifs they already held. Aquians famously said that all philosophy other than Aristotle was useless and refused to call himself a philosophy because he thought it was a lowly thing. Middle "philosophy" was the absoltue lowest point in western history, undoing even the most basic philosophy of Thales who insisted on naturalistic explanations for reality and observation over religious dogma. To put it bluntly I don't think it is accurate to say Christians practiced philosophy in the middle ages, but rather they destroyed it. It took until Spinoza to truely fix this crap.

To give you an idea of how much Christianity slowed down science, you can trace the birth of the scientific method to two men: Bacon and Descartes.

The Catholic church banned both their books. We already had proto-science in pre-socratic Greece which had rejected religious explanations inexchange for actual thought. Than after hundreds of years of Christian thinking people think sickness is caused by demons and Aquinas writes books on how to identify witches.

>modern Protestantism still reaps the "benefits" of this callous anti-intellectualism
Yet their interpretation of the Bible and approach to religious life is entirely modernist: no sacraments, no monasticism, no mysticism, no spiritualism, no miracles, etc.

And look how obsessed with rationalism are the Calvinists.

>Catholic universities are still some of the most respected in humanities, there are many notable Catholic thinkers and the Church still serves as a powerful authority in moral matters even for the non-religious, simply because its role in culture is so well established. The fruits of the Reformers are rotten.
I couldn't help but think of Matthew 7:15-20 and 12:33-37 when I read that.

Jesus did anticipate this.

The Council of Trent adressed all the legitimate issues. I do agree that the Church was corrupt and unsustainable at the time of the Reformation, but we're talking about an institution that has been operating since the 4th century, it's important to see the context. It has ALWAYS been slow and behind contemporary intellectual movements.

>But, even the Church itself by itself, because of its marvelous propagation, its exceptional holiness, and inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good works; because of its catholic unity and invincible stability, is a very great and perpetual motive of credibility, and an incontestable witness of its own divine mission.
Vatican I, Session 3, Chapter 3

Calvinism is what made Europe great

Catholic doesn't necessarily refer to just Roman Catholics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_(disambiguation)

Wow, you are so full of shit. There was a shitload of legitimate philisophy in the middle ages. The works on theology were certainly most influential, but the sad fact is that nobody likes to bother with anything else since they just want to skip from the greeks to Descartes or some shit. I've studied Aquinas and attended a college course devoted to his non-theological works, there is an IMMENSE amount of them and large parts aren't even translated to popular languages.

See this? These are not Protestants.
youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac

You might think, because they use a Protestant bible or because they're not some Orthodoxy, to group them with Protestants. This is all something entirely different, altogether. This is the result of the Radical Reformation, which happened years after the Protestant Reformation.

They're protestant and so are JW's and mormons, you're all inside this big smelly trash bag.

They're absolutely still Protestants
This is low church Protestantism based in the two principles of Luther's reformation, that the bible alone is the source of authority on doctrine, and that justification is through faith in Christ alone. What happens after these two beliefs is necessarily a cluster fuck, unless you have state churches like Europe did, and even then it was a cluster fuck that led to the 30 years war

This misled. Doesn't even deserve greentext, only pity.

>proddies
>not misled

No, sir.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Reformation

Those, in America, we call "Born Agains", as they place a literal spiritual emphasis on the English interpretation of those two words. They are synergists, not monergists. They are not Protestants, at all.

Radical Reformers are anabaptists.

Jesus Camp folks and other American "born again" Christians do practice baptism, their theology follows the Reformation and Puritanism.

Way to ignore everything I said
The Protestant Reformation's core principles are Sola Scriptura, and Sola Fide. Low Church Protestants hold to those. They just reached a different conclusion than you. They're the direct result of Martin Luther's actions, and there is no getting around this.

The word "Anabaptist" does not mean "does not believe in baptism". It means they believe infant baptism to be invalid, and when you are "born again", you must have a "believer's baptism", which generally led to adherents being baptized a second time.

They don't agree with Martin Luther, either. They don't observe saints as we do, they don't venerate the virgin Mary as we do, they don't have infant baptism or believe it's legitimate, they couldn't name a single church father if asked. They're not Protestants. I might agree with "It wouldn't have happened if not for Luther", but I personally believe if Luther hadn't "done what he did in that time", someone else would have. Saying it required the P.R. doesn't logically follow, because then I'll point to Anglicanism or even the schism between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, events which were similar separation of theology, and similarly led to their own sets of sects. "Born Agains" are not a sect of Protestantism.

>They're not Protestants

>They don't agree with Martin Luther, either.
Neither do Calvinists
And neither do most Lutherans
They're still Protestants

Calvin wasn't part of the Radical Reformation, was not a believer in synergism, and the Born Agains don't agree with him any more than Luther.

>This very specific part of the reformation that didn't believe in a specific part of my theology, but derived theirs from a Sola Scriptura, and Sola Fide viewpoint pioneered by the man who kicked off Satan's revolution in the church aren't Prtoestants because I say so

I think you guys don't understand Protestant beliefs. We are not anti-catholic, we're not even against today's catholic church. The fundamental issues with which we disagree do not lead to "speaking in tongues", "snake handling", "having chips and soda for communion", "faith healing", or any of these other "charismatic practices". It's no more fair to associate these with Protestantism than it is for me to call you modern inquisitors, because that is not "what the Catholic church is" today. Real Protestantism and Catholicism have very few fundamental differences anymore in practice. You're just on some tangent and you're mistaken.

>Satan's revolution
lol. my sides are in orbit. You have real problems, man. Bless your heart.

You could call me an "inquisitor" all you want (though it'd be technically incorrect) since the inquisition was neither wrong, nor a thing of the past. The office of the inquisition still exists. And yes Sola Scriptura led to the radical reformation buddy
And what exactly should we make of the Swedish Lutheran Church, or the Anglican Communion's sorry states? They are also Protestants

t. John Luther von Zwingli

>We are not anti-catholic
We are perfectly aware that Martin "the Pope does well" Luther was insufficiently anti-Catholic, and the present Pope has regained control over there:

lifesitenews.com/news/lutherans-receive-communion-at-vatican-after-meeting-with-pope-report

>"speaking in tongues", "snake handling", "faith healing", or any of these other "charismatic practices
These charismatic practices are done by the Pentecostals and other charismatics.

Calvinists, Arminians, Wesleyans, Puritans, and all the good folks in the Bible Belts of the Netherlands and the USA are all Protestants.

Though they are not Lutherans, they still believe the Five Solae. You're just butthurt because they do not practice a sacramental Christianity.

Look, if I argue the existence of a "trinity", are you going to call me Catholic? I'm not Catholic. It's the same thing you're doing arguing Sola Scriptura makes Born Agains Protestant. You're not only wrong, you're stubborn to refuse to try to understand.

The Five Solae are literally what makes anyone a Protestant

Like saying the council of nicea which established the states of Jesus' divinity is literally what makes a person "Catholic".

It's literally the difference between being a Christian, and being a non-Christian so yes it is a major defining thing.

But all these people believe in Jesus' divinity state and the trinity and they are not catholic. Why? The same reason not all people who believe Sola Scriptura makes all people Protestant. You have a biased teaching on "who is who".

It's like arguing with a Muslim. I swear.

They follow Calvin.

Luther was simply Catholic lite at the end. Ironically his pal Philip was a synergist!

No.

Catholics at mass recite the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

The Costantinopole Creed introduced the line about the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church that Catholics.

Protestants reject claims of "catholicism" and apostolic succession, and believe in priesthood for all believers, again this begins with Luther but is not limited to Lutheranism.

*The Costantinopole Creed introduced the line about the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church that Catholics and Orthodox obsess over.

And born agains reject practices and creeds of Protestants. They're so far removed, they actually believe Catholics are the heretics. Protestants do not.

>inquisition not wrong

PLEASE, GOOBY.

> since the inquisition was neither wrong
wew, lad

>And born agains reject practices and creeds of Protestants.
The only "Protestant" creeds are the Five Solae
Anything else is specific to denomination

>And born agains reject practices and creeds of Protestants
Such as?

>they actually believe Catholics are the heretics. Protestants do not
Convert to Catholicism already.

Jeez you Catholics are ornery, and protestants are a sect of buffoons. You should all convert to Arianism already.

>Oy Gevalt that evil inquisition not letting the mob burn their neighbors at the stake and executing everyone on trumped up false charges of heresy made to get rid of people they didn't like, and then not executing a single person themselves

>such as?
Infant baptism, transubstantiation, confession (do you realize some of them are convinced once born again they "sin no more") . Those are just a few off the top of my head. They don't know what the nicene creed is at all, and we say it in church.

>Transubstantiation
ALL Protestants reject this.

Sure Lutherans will concede that the bread and wine actually becomes the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, Calvinists and Evangelicals don't.

That was a messed up sentence. Are you meaning to imply the Inquisition didn't torture, burn at the stake and otherwise murder people?

That's exactly what I'm saying

wow. just, wow. Are you a holocaust denyer, too?

I'd say you are since you're the one going against the consensus of actual historians

he's probably flat earth, fake moon landing, tinfoil hat, too. youve been cool. hes just a crazy troll

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Legend

There are actual historians who claim the Inquisition didn't include torture and murder? What do these actual historians say about the Crusades? Were those summer trips to hand out lolly-pops and childrens' toys?

>Infant baptism
Practiced by Methodists and others, including Presbyterians and some Reformed churches.

>transubstantiation
Lutherans explicitly reject transubstantiation, believing that the bread and wine remain fully bread and fully wine while also being truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

They speak of a Sacramental Union that is completely different from the Catholic dogma.

From a Catholic perspective, Lutherans approach the Holy Communion kind of like the Nestorians did with the body of Christ.

>confession
What is rejected is priestly absolution, because only God can absolve sins.

Again, this is believed by Lutherans who like other Protestant groups believe in priesthood for all believers.

>They don't know what the nicene creed is at all
There have sermons on the topic.

Bible belters reading Nicene Creed find no issue with it.

And your posts prove you do not know your own Lutheran theology that well.

Your popery is showing.

It did a pretty terrible job of uniting Europe if you ask me. Europe had some horrible wars in the middle ages and it was almost constant. Chevauchee was a fucking horrible tactic that France endured for over 100 years. How exactly was Christianity a unitive force?

The papal inquisitions were long before the spanish inquisition and all of it was brutal and murderous.

Not really

CoE legalized financial loans with interest, which was completely essential to the rise of capital.

And? I wasn't criticising the CofE, gawd bless it.

fuck anglicans

You can thank Anglicans for the Industrial Revolution. You wouldn't even have a computer to shitpost with if it wasn't for us.

Just because Spanish misdeeds have been exaggerated by the English for propaganda purposes doesn't mean they didn't happen.

...

/int/ and /pol/ are different boards, friend. You got lost.

...

Was just pointing out a doctrinal difference. Pope Clement V made advocating for people to charge interest on loans heretical in the 14th century, that was lifted by the Anglicans thanks in part to the influence of Calvin.

I think part of the confusion comes from what people consider to be Protestant and Catholic.

From someone who isn't well versed like some of the anons in this thread, many Catholics consider any sect that popped up after and due to, whether directly or indirectly because of, the Protestant Reformation to be Protestant.

So many Catholics consider that the USA Bible Belt and all of those sects to be Protestant.

For example, there are Eastern Orthodox believers, Catholics, and Protestants. That's how most average Catholics view it. You fall into one of those three umbrellas and then go from there.

Of course there are differences between Anglicans and Roman Catholics. That doesn't mean the CofE is not a catholic church, people call the Roman Catholic Church 'the' Catholic Church in the same way the USA is often called America. It is a colloquialism rather than something that is technically accurate.

As someone whose family belongs to a "protestant" sect, that's not quite accurate. My dad watches the pope all of the damn time, this sect is basically Catholism with less bling and bishops.

I never said it was accurate, just what most Catholics see as the set-up of Christian sects.

Ok, I misunderstood what you were implying

Just admit you're fucking Protestants already you baptist fucks

Sacramental Union isn't Nestorian. It actually more accurately reflects the Two Natures of Christ being united, fully "Divine" and 'human'(Bread and Wine).

A more Nestorian approach would be akin to the Reformed view of the Eucharist

A Protestant accepts the Creed not because it is Tradition or how the Church had decreed dogma but because it somehow conforms to Scripture.

Catholics, Orthodox and some Anglicans accept the Creed because it reflects Tradition, or it is how the Church had interpreted Scripture and added this as a "Regula Fidei" of sorts.

I'm Catholic...

Nice try Martin

I took St. Jerome as my confirmation name because I love studying and he's the patron saint of students (alongside librarians).

>you will never go into the wilderness to translate the bible from hebrew
Feels bad man

>A Protestant accepts the Creed not because it is Tradition or how the Church had decreed dogma but because it somehow conforms to Scripture.
And that is my point, only using historians' definition of Protestant and not yours.

>Catholics, Orthodox and some Anglicans accept the Creed because it reflects Tradition, or it is how the Church had interpreted Scripture and added this as a "Regula Fidei" of sorts.
Because they do not follow Sola Scriptura, unlike all Protestants.

>A Protestant accepts the Creed not because it is Tradition or how the Church had decreed dogma but because it somehow conforms to Scripture.
Agreed, but using the historians' definition of Protestant, not yours.

>Catholics, Orthodox and some Anglicans accept the Creed because it reflects Tradition, or it is how the Church had interpreted Scripture and added this as a "Regula Fidei" of sorts.
Because they do not believe in Sola Scriptura, unlike all Protestants.

And evangelicals will never not be Protestant

I honestly lost you

Anglicans are Protestants. High-Anglicans/Anglo-Catholics are just tending back towards orthodoxy, but they still have the Queen as their Pope.

Protestantism originated with the Protestant Reformation.

Anglicans did not separate during the Protestant Reformation.

"It has often been alleged that Christianity in its political effects was a
disintegrating force and tended to weaken the power of Rome to resist her
enemies. It is difficult to see that it had any such tendency, so long as the
Church itself was united. Theological heresies were indeed to prove a
disintegrating force in the East in the seventh century, when differences in
doctrine which had alienated the Christians in Egypt and Syria from the
government of Constantinople facilitated the conquests of the Saracens. But
after the defeat of Arianism, there was no such vital or deep-reaching
division in the West, and the effect of Christianity was to unite, not to sever,
to check, rather than to emphasise, national or sectional feeling. In the
political calculations of Constantine it was probably this ideal of unity, as a
counterpoise to the centrifugal tendencies which had been clearly revealed in
the third century, that was the great recommendation of the religion which he
raised to power. Nor is there the least reason to suppose that Christian
teaching had the practical effect of making men less loyal to the Empire or
less ready to defend it. The Christians were as pugnacious as the pagans."
- J.B. Bury

>muh exact moment of separation

That's not true but it is more about doctrine and the ability of the CofE to trace its roots back to the Apostles (even if it split from the pope) than it is about time periods.