Timeline for Is Methodism excluded from from the category of Protestantism?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 13 at 13:47 | comment | added | Andrew Shanks | The Reformers felt the need to embrace protestant sacralism to defend them from the Roman Catholic superpower, also sacralist. It took several centuries after the Reformation to abandon this sacralism. The English Civil War leading up to the Glorious Revolution 1688, Roger Williams, the Enlightenment and the French Revolution all played a part in the demise of sacralism. It is this view of the church which was paramount in the persecution of non-conformists. Eg, see:- christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/80625/… | |
| Feb 13 at 13:17 | history | edited | DJClayworth | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 136 characters in body
|
| Feb 9 at 23:10 | comment | added | Dan Fefferman | @curiousdannii thanks for you contributions. I'd add the the whole idea of "supporting someone on their journey" represents a very different attitude than the Reformation itself originally exemplified. For Puritans, Baptists where heretics who should be driven out of the colony or worse. Quakers we even executed, and it wasn't any better in England. This shows, I think, that the definition of "Protestant" is far more broad today than in former times. | |
| Feb 9 at 3:37 | comment | added | curiousdannii♦ | For example, lots of denominations officially teach infant baptism, but accept credobaptists as members. A church may not require members to affirm all of the Nicene Creed because they prefer honesty and want people to feel they can say they don't understand or accept it all without judgement, but might still treat very seriously someone saying something explicitly rejected in the Creed (such as someone denying the divinity of Jesus.) There's a big pastoral difference between supporting someone on their journey of faith and learning, and how you react to overt and deliberate heresy. | |
| Feb 9 at 3:32 | comment | added | curiousdannii♦ | @DanFefferman Even for most denominations which use the Athanasian Creed, it's not at the same level as the Nicene Creed, which is really The Creed of Trinitarian Christianity. Lots of people reject the first and last lines. If you chop them off then it would have broader acceptance. And there's also a difference between a creed or confession which defines the teachings of a denomination, and what is required or expected of members. | |
| Feb 9 at 2:43 | comment | added | Dan Fefferman | +1 Thanks for this contribution. A key point here may be what "accepts" means (regarding the creeds). Their web sites that United Methodist hymnal publishes -'Only two of these (Nicene and Apostles')." So only two of the "old ecumenical creeds" are actively affirmed, and the website declares that members do not need to actually believe in even these. [I do not say this to impugn Methodism, but to challenge this criterion for Protestantism.] Let me know if I got something wrong. | |
| Feb 9 at 1:46 | history | answered | DJClayworth | CC BY-SA 4.0 |