Is protestantism just anything that's not Catholic or greek orthodox?
>>18246099Protestants are essentially just Catholics who reject Rome. They still uphold all the Catholic creeds. Any Protestant who doesn't gets rejected from the club. To be considered a Protestant denomination, you have to accept all Catholic creeds, reject the Pope, and also not join the Orthodox. Don't do the first and you're heterodoxical. Don't do the second and you're Catholic. Don't do the third and you're Orthodox. It's that simple.
>>18246099No, as you have to be part of the Latin Church tradition.
>>18246099>>18246113SIR WE ARE PROTESTENT TOO SIR
>>18246099It's poorly defined and depends on who you ask.The common traits among definitions are that they are churches of Trinitarian Christians who are not Roman Catholic nor one of the eastern sects like Eastern or Oriential Catholicism.Beyond that, I understand them to represent a tradition that split off from Catholicism in the 16th century, since the term "Protestant" originates with the Protestant princes, who were present at the Protestation at Speyer in 1529.In other words, they're still a manmade tradition, just as Catholicism originated in the first place with Constantine in the 4th century about 1100 years earlier.Anyone who didn't go along with Constantine at that time was labeled a "Donatist," even if they had widely differing beliefs. It turns out some churches (specifically, the ones that upheld believer's baptism) from this group of non-Catholic Christians existed entirely separately from the political structure of Catholicism to this day. So properly, these churches have a separate history from Protestantism, and are I believe rightly considered separate.This point is especially underlined because both sides of the Reformation dispute in the 16th century wanted to persecute them. Both the original Protestants and the Catholics of the time continued to advocate for violence against those who practiced believer's baptism (sometimes called "credobaptism") - even though they were entirely peaceful churches of Trinitarian Christians who simply differed with them on that practice since they went strictly with the Bible as their authority. They also differed on some other things like church governance (congregational) and opposition to idolatry as well.
>>18246099Orthodox means "of the right opinion". Greek/Russian Buddhism isnt the right opinion. They worship men and the deification of men. Papists are more biblical than they'll ever be.
>>18246181>just as Catholicism originated in the first place with ConstantineTell me you haven't read the pre-nicene patristics without telling me you haven't read read the pre-nicene patristics.
>>18246099>greek orthodoxThere's multiple Orthodox denominations. Oriental Orthodox(Ethiopian Coptic), Eastern Orthodox, probably some others that I can't think of.
>>18246099Protestants are the fat gesticulating black women of christianity.>uhuh ayo hol up whyboy, so you be sayin the pope is gods depjuty or god himself?
>>18246182>They worship menHow?
No, not necessarily. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science are examples of non-Protestant non-Cathodox sects.
>>18246181>Anyone who didn't go along with Constantine at that time was labeled a "Donatist," even if they had widely differing beliefs. It turns out some churches (specifically, the ones that upheld believer's baptism) from this group of non-Catholic Christians existed entirely separately from the political structure of Catholicism to this day. So properly, these churches have a separate history from Protestantism, and are I believe rightly considered separate.This is completely inaccurate and from the pseudo-historical trail of blood theory.
>>18246918
>>18246099How did they take this fat fucking retard's words seriously is beyond me
>>18247025How is a polemical quote from the 16th century a direct source about 4th and 5th century Christianity? There's no evidence that Donatists rejected infant baptism in the 5th century, the controversy they had with the mainstream Church was whether or not the grace that comes through the sacraments depends on the holiness of the minister, hence many Donatists rebaptized other kinds of Christians including Catholics, as well as apostates (lapsi). It had nothing to do with infant baptism. The dividing issue between Donatists and Catholics presuposses sacramentalism which is at odds with standard Baptist doctrine. Bullinger is polemically comparing the Anabaptists of his time to the Donatists of antiquity for their custom of rebaptism. This has nothing to do with infant baptism.
>>18247121>How is a polemical quote from the 16th century a direct source about 4th and 5th century Christianity?It's not from Trail of Blood (1931), that's for sure. That's what they were saying before and what I was responding to.You want to move the goalposts though? Okay. No problem.>Codex Justinianus Book 1, Title 6 (A.D. 529)1.6.2Emperors Honorius and Theodosius to Anthemius, praetorian Prefect."If any person shall be discovered to rebaptize anyone of the catholic faith, he, together with him who has permitted this infamous crime -- provided the person persuaded to be rebaptized be of an age capable of a crime -- shall be punished by death. Given at Constantinople March 21, 413, C.T. 16.6.6. Revived April 16, 529, C.J. 1.6.2.">the controversy they had with the mainstream Church was whether or not...Why should I believe you and not the sources? Are you lost, anon?
>>18247130>Codex Justinianus Book 1, Title 6 (A.D. 529)I don't see anything in your quote about believer's baptism vs infant baptism. I already told you what the controversy between the mainstream Church and the Donatists was about, and it had nothing to do over whether or not infants ought to be baptized, it had to do with the holiness of the minister, which is why Donatists would rebaptize non-Donatists Christians. >Why should I believe you and not the sources? Are you lost, anon?You want sources? Pic rel. Literally a two second Google search. Are you really this dumb? The trail of blood theory is historically laughable.
>>18246904They're not really Christian tho, basically completely different religions.
>>18247173Not Catholic Christians. But still Christian.
>>18247186No. Not Christian since they disagree with the historic creed and beliefs. If I tell you I believe in Jesus but my idea of Jesus is a space alien from the planet Xenon, am I still "Christian"?
>>18247158>You want sources? Pic rel.When was that written, anon? Doesn't look like a primary source to me.Scholars have long recognized the fact that the church existed in history.But if you want to talk modern scholarship, modern scholarship has difficulty differentiating biological facts. For that reason alone it doesn't do much to remove all the primary sources talking about this, much less the analytical conclusions that believer's baptism (see Acts 2:41-42, Acts 8:36-37 for the biblical definition) is a historical reality. You may hide from it, but the sources are telling the truth.>I already told you what the controversy between the mainstream Church and the Donatists was about,Your view of history is laughably simplistic. It is also biased against fact, since what you refer to as the "mainstream" here is just a sect built around the personality of the emperors in the 4th and 5th century AD. You seem to swallow their definition that the cult gave as fact without questioning it.If you actually read the "Sermon on the Passion of Saints Donatus and Advocatus given on the 4th day before the Ides of March" (see Patrologia Latina Vol. 8, cols. 752-758.), you would get a different reality entirely. Not to mention the fact that Augustine's letter to Vincentius shows that there were many different kinds of churches that rejected Constantine's bid for absolute power. It makes no sense to assume they all believed the same thing. That's why I wrote up here (>>18246181) that I'm referring specifically to the churches that practiced believer's baptism. They are the ones who existed entirely separate from the political structure of the time. The politicians failed to destroy the church or our Bible (the received text). All because God protected us.
>>18247195>No. Not Christian since they disagree with Catholic creed and beliefsIf you believe in the Gospel and Christ, you're Christian. It's just that simple.
>>18247205They alter or add new stuff to the "gospel" - altering the Bible with bizarre translations like the JWs or even adding entire new books like the Mormons. Jesus from Xenon is the true good news. He will return in his space ships. You must accept this as Christian theology under your logic's.
You know there was a guy named Martin Luther. Not the colored guy. Read about him.
>>18247215Appeal to ridicule fallacy.Why would adding new books make one not Christian if God gave new revelation? Does believing in the books beyond the Gospel of Christ make one not Christian?Here's a good video related to the subject:https://youtu.be/v_VGDeqFluA?si=72UipuYMcvng0nEC
>>18247230Yes Muslims are Christian. Very smart take.
>>18247246You briefly glanced at the title and immediately assumed the video came to that conclusion, exactly as I expected. Bravo.
>>18247197The pic I posted provided many primary sources, perhaps you should look into them. The burden of proof is on you to show that Donatists were Baptists. You have failed to do so, and all the evidence is against you. You know what Donatists also did that is contrary to what Baptists do? Practice episcopal polity. Pic relYou sound like this>WE WUZ DONATISTS N SHEEEEEEEIT That's how you sound.
>>18247266>The pic I posted provided many primary sources, perhaps you should look into them.The sources don't actually support the point.
>>18247269None of your sources support your thesis that Donatists were Baptists. Keep we wuzzing.
Protestants were originally Catholics who rejected the Pope's authority, and the authority of his Church, but once the original Protestant denominations secured their independence from Rome they began splintering into new sects whose identity didn't really revolve around papal independence but around new sectarian divisions of the sort the Church used to keep a pretty tight lid on. Shutting down heresy for over a thousand years is the reason there weren't several different branches of Catholicism, and the lack of a centralized authority figure, being founded on a rejection of any centralized authority in fact, is why the Protestant movement fractured so quickly into so many different groups, and continues to splinter to this day.
>>18246112There's no such thing as Protestant orthodoxy because there's no ecclesiastical body that enforces orthodoxy. If you don't adhere to your denomination's doctrines and creeds then you become non-denominational protestant, and if you're ambitious enough you can found your own denomination and become a rival sect to the one that kicked you out. There's no governing body among protestant denominations to prevent this from happening, which is why it keeps happening.
>>18247277Church continuity is a central point of Scripture, anon."And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."- Matthew 16:18"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."- Matthew 28:19-20>>18247308>the lack of a centralized authority figureI take it you don't believe in God, then. Since you seem to ignore God in everything you've been saying.
>>18247365lol you think God is the one organizing Protestant denominations? okay buddy
>>18247378You assume that God cannot be in control of His church. There has to be a cult leader instead, otherwise that automatically means there cannot be a centralized authority figure according to your logic.
>>18247382Cult leaders are always Protestants.
>>18247382>You assume that God cannot be in control of His churchHe clearly isn't. Any student of history could tell you as much. >god totally wanted the papacy moved to Avignon and for there to be two popes bro, it's his divine will
>>18247399All forms of catholicism are satanic and unbiblical. That has nothing to do with God or His church.
>>18246099There are three parts to the Christian Church OP. >Catholics: The heirs of Peter.>Schismatics: Established their own churches which are theologically different from Catholicism without compromising on core doctrine. (Orthodox, Nestorians, Ethiop-Malankara, Goan Nasrani, etc) >Protestants: heretical and borderline illiterate, self obsessed, retards who think that "whatever feels good to you man" can stack up with millennia of academic theology and doctrine, because that's what they taught him at "Pastor Billy-Joe-Bob's Big House of God and Auto-Repair Shop". There's basically no difference between a Protestant and a Mormon OP.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eESDgyc_4aE
>>18246112There's also difference between "reformed" and "restorationist" congregations
>>18248506One accepts Catholic dogma, the other does not.
