Hi there!
I am Distruzio, NSG's resident American Royalist (former anarcho-capitalist/anarcho-monarchist) and libertarian monarchist (although paleomonarchist would be more accurate). I am also an Eastern Orthodox Christian.
For those of you unfamiliar, the Orthodox Church along with the Latin/Roman (Catholic), Oriental Orthodox, and Anglo- Catholic Churches (although this is hotly contested, I admit that this particularity is my own perspective and should not be considered the universal position of all the Eastern, Oriental, Latin/Roman, or even the Anglo-Catholics*), can show, through Apostolic Succession, inheritance of the spiritual, ecclesiastical and sacramental authority, power, and responsibility that were conferred upon the Disciples by the Apostles - who, in turn, received their spiritual authority from Jesus Christ. In other words, it was the Orthodox, and those previously mentioned, who wrote the New Testament (all authors of the individual books within the NT were Orthodox/Catholic priests and bishops) and compiled/cannonized the Bible into the book we all know today. It was us who handed down the Creed and established what a Christian is to believe and how a Christian is to believe in order to avoid heresy against the Faith and Word.
We - those mentioned above - are not, however, sola scripturists.
Many Christians consider the Protestants mere schismatics - not necessarily heretics. I however, struggle to maintain even this modicum of neutrality on the status of Protestantism and Christianity and I, quite often, give in to the temptation to label Protestants, by and large, idolators. More specifically, bibliolators - worshippers of the Bible. They, in my opinion, deny the authority of Christ and the Holy Spirit - they deny God and supplant him with themselves.
This thread will be my attempt to explain this position in order to both avoid future threadjacks and better organize my thoughts on the matter. But before I delve into the meat of the topic, I should make some very important disclaimers: I do not dismiss Protestants (or members of any other faith or lack thereof) as though they are unworthy of redemption, salvation, or propriety; I do not think ill of the Protestant tradition or faiths; and, finally, I am aware that, in this regard, I am a bigot towards Protestants. I do not shy from this label; but I am aware of the issues it raises both for my faithful expression of Christianity and for my relationships with individual Protestants. I confess but repentance is something that comes hard for me. It's a weakness.
This weakness is the purpose of this thread: I hope that someone will finally be able to argue me out of this stubborn refusal to acknowledge Protestant traditions as part of Christianity. In order to do this, however, I must lay out precisely why it is that I believe that Protestantism is not Christianity.
So let me be very clear: this is not a topic attacking the character or individual traits of any particular Protestant or Protestant denomination. Such things do not, necessarily, a Christian make or unmake. You are not Christian because you're a "good" person. You are not Christian because you "believe" that Christ exists/existed. Therefore, merely being a "good" Lutheran or a "good" Presbyterian is not a justifiable reason to proclaim oneself a Christian. No one would say that a "good" atheist counts as a Christian, would they? Why not? Because the atheist, in being labelled atheist, is merely expressing their faith/lack of faith. To say that the atheists of the world "are not Christian" is no more an insult than saying they "are not firetrucks." They simply aren't. And saying this, in no way, is a reflection of their individual character or the value of their beliefs or lack of beliefs. So, too, is the statement that Protestants are not Christian.
I'm not saying that Protestants are going to hell. I'm saying that Protestants aren't firetrucks. I'm saying that firetrucks aren't Christian.
A Protestant is, in large part, an individual who rejects the authority of Apostolic Succession, the Patriarchal Consensus, and the Holy Tradition that so defines the history of Christianity. My argument is not, necessarily, that the Protestant is not Christian because of theological and doctrinal conflicts but, rather, that the Protestant is not Christian because the Protestant, by definition rejects basic historical fact concerning the Church, issues of theology and science, and social milieus and outlooks.
How many critics of fundamentalist nutbags stand in awe of just how disconnected from reality they seem? From my perspective, I see the same thing with all Protestants - however wonderful and beautiful they may be, to say they are Christian is to deny reality. Not that all Protestants are fundamentalist nutbags, mind you. It's just that they're doing themselves and Christians the world over a great disservice to say, "I'm a Christian but that Pope guy? Fuck him. Also? Fuck Mary. And Icons. And Peter. And anything looking like 'tradition'. Fuck it all."
The reality is that that "Pope guy" is a very real authority. As are all Bishops. As is the Church - that physical entity that safeguarded the scriptures for centuries until consensus could be found on just which scriptures were to be relevant to the message of Christ. Jesus didn't burst from His mothers womb with a complete Bible in hand and thump it from the corner at every passing stranger. The Bible didn't exist. For nearly a thousand years the Bible did not exist as we know it. In fact, the Bible that Protestants use is not the Christian Bible at all. It's different. As different as the Satanic Bible is from the Koran. Sure there are books and characters within that can be found in other holy books and traditions but, the fact remains, changing the message of the scripture by removing entire books and inconvenient verses changes the thing utterly.
Would we argue that the cliffs notes version of Romeo and Juliet is the same thing as the actual script for the play?
What I'm saying is that only those who profess the one universal Faith and are united with the Mystical Body of Christ (the Church) are members of the Church of Christ. Only those individuals can legitimately bear the title of Christian.
With the exception of Anglo-Catholicism (which started as a political dispute between England and Rome), Protestantism was a rebellion against Christian theology and biblical history 1500 years old at the time. The Protestant rejects Peter and the other Apostles but accepts Christ. How can one be a Christian by doing this? A Protestant, therefore, is no mere schismatic - they are a heretic. They are as much a heretic against Christianity as the Christian is a heretic against Judaism.
But, of course, I'm failing to justify this argument in the only rhetoric a Protestant will understand. No matter how logical and verbose I make myself, the Protestant is a sola scripturist. The Protestant believes that "if the Bible says it, it's true." So what do I do? Which Bible do I use? Of course my Bible will justify my argument. So how about the Protestant Bible?
He who hears you [Peter] hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me (Lk 10:16).
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt 16:19).
If any man preaches any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed (Gal 1: 9).
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt 16:19).
If any man preaches any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed (Gal 1: 9).
These three verses seem to be very clear. If even the Protestant Bible argues in favor of the collegiate of Bishops that typifies Christianity, then what is the Christian to do? How should we react to the assertion that Protestantism is Christianity? How do we respond to someone who denies the authority of the Chair of Peter (although the Orthodox remain in schism with Rome, we do not deny the authority of the Pope - we merely point out that his authority does not extend over other bishops and patriarchs)?
By rejecting that assertion.
So, if I am saying that the Protestant is not Christian, then how do I treat Protestants?
With respect. The same way I treat the democratist and the homophobe - respectfully. I'm not a dick. I am a bigot. A Protestant is not a Christian.
Can you dissuade me? I hope so. Because this perspective puts me at odds with a large swath of both Orthodox and Catholic believers. The Orthodox Church teaches that Protestants are heretical Christians. To my mind, a heretical Christian is not a Christian. They are a heretic. This is a failing of mine, I'm sure of it. It's a good thing Jesus forgives me - because I don't. Maybe that's my ego refusing to step aside? I don't know. I can only hope that someone can figure out a way to break through my stubbornness and convince me that Protestantism is a part of Christianity. Until you can though, I'm convinced that a firetruck better fits the definition.
Also, as an aside not completely unrelated: I'm not calling into question anyones salvation.
