Talk:Protestantism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Catholics Teaching Earned Salvation

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)

It seems to me that the concern here is better addressed by having this page talk about Protestantism, and leaving it at that, rather than attempting to say what others believe. Tb (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that Raoulduke25's proposal is fine, as it synchronises this article better with the sola fide article. The five solas distinguish protestant doctrine from Roman Catholic doctrine of the 16th century (and in this case, from 21st century doctrine.) So I think it is important to explain the Protestant distinctives by describing the Catholic view in the Theological tenets of the reformation section. Even with the changes, it would be useful to have some theologians, of all stripes, call by here and add some authoritative citations. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

let us be fair

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)

The closest I find is "As such, Catholics believe the pope to be the Vicar of Christ, while the other faith communities disacknowledge Petrine primacy among the bishops." Some Protestants consider Catholics and Eastern Churches (for example) not to be Christians, and of course many Protestant communities do not recognise each other. Consider this from the point of view of a Hindu or Buddhist encyclopedia reader. That reader might expect the encyclopedia to see the most common usage of Christian in the text. Meanwhile we also have a responsibility to make it quite clear to that reader that different communities believe that Jesus of Nazareth instituted and heads their Christian religion, and not that of dissenters and heretics that the rest of the world usually calls Christian. In my opinion, this project is about creating a general reference work, not a theology textbook. So, facts should be clear and quickly understood. To my mind, though it could be improved, the introduction makes it clear that Protestantism is dissent, heterodoxy and heresy to Catholicism. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If there are so many thelogians saying that Protestant are not Christians, that would be noteworthy. Find some references, and then add a section discussion the question. Tb (talk) 15:02, 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.

Sorry, this guy is full of crap... And I'm Catholic. Protesants may not be correct in their interpretation of Christianity (from my point of view and, apparently, the above poster's) but they are undeniably Christian. Same goes for Catholics, regardless of the asshole below. 90.15.14.30 (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Who's the clown?

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)

I'm Lutheran

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)

The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, but you could ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Right to be Called Christian

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)

ENDING THIS DISCUSSION

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)

It is curious that by this standard, the apostles Peter and Paul would not pass muster. Tb (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As said above, I will respond to all arguments against my position through e-mail (see my address above) , because this IS NOT a forum.

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)

It's childish to point out that you have given an absolute standard which is (1) not found in the Bible, and which (2) would not accept Peter or Paul as Christians? Maybe you should think through all the corner cases before you pronounce on absolute standards. In any case, if you don't want to reply, the solution is not to reply. Tb (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This talk page...

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)

So let's not get in an edit war on the talk page, and let's recall that this is connected to the actual content of the article, in particular, whether it's appropriate for the article to assume that Roman Catholics count as Christians. Tb (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This if this is under debate then it could and should be made more clear where in the article this content is or would be.

For example, do you mean individual Roman Catholics or the Roman Catholic Church as a whole (what every that means).--Carlaude (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the objectors were trying to make a point which would then (if agreed) be reflected in the article. It seems to me that there is virtually no chance of the objectors gaining any consensus on the point, of course. Tb (talk) 03:31, 8 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)

I have no interest in an emailed conversation with you, sorry. You've already said twice that something was your final word and you would post nothing else; that tells me that a conversation with you would be pointless. Tb (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Something wrong with the numbers

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)

I would guess that that the Protestantism number includes just adherents (full members and their children only, if I recall) or something meaningful, and that R. Catholic and Orthodox pages include all members-- people baptisted as children even if the never set foot in the church again. --Carlaude 20:28, 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)

Unitarians as Christians

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)

Description of Martin Luther

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:

• Martin Luther, German religious reformer, theologian, founder of the Lutheran church in Germany, founder of Lutheranism

This was revised by Theology10101 to read:

• Martin Luther, German Monk, Father of Protestantism, theologian, founder of the Lutheran church in Germany, and creator of Lutheranism.

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)

My reply: Yes Martin Luther was a German Monk, but more importantly, as related to this article, he was a German religious reformer. He is not really the father of Protestantism in that he was preceed by both John Wycliffe and Jan Hus. Finally his relationship to Lutheranism is better stated as founder instead of creator. So to restate my main reasons for reverting this edit are 1) the deletion on any reference to being a religious reformer. 2)a very questionable claim of being the "Father of Protestantism" 3)a very strong dislike of the term "creator" of Lutheranism.

An alternate entry might be to use that which is found in the article on Martin Luther

• Martin Luther, a German monk, theologian, university professor and church reformer

Open to other suggestions and/or comments Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply: I see how you can be confused but this section is Protestantism and is very related to express that he is known as the "Father of Protestantism." which could be cited by almost every resource from the Luthern Faith all the way to the Catholic Faith or any other religion. It's true is wasn't the first to challenge the Catholic religion but Luther has the title because his ideas were most widely spread. Wycliffe never had that title and it is a title. The deletion of being a "religious reformer" would be needed because it would be redundant to leave that in with the title "Father of Protestantism" and "Founder of Luthernism" because the term implies "religious reformer" since he started the mainstream protestantism. Because you have a dislike for the term "creator" doesn't justify changing it. I changed it to eliminate redundancy (changed with a purpose). It'd be better to leave out the second "founder of" or to change the word for the following title because it's awkward sounding, along with being redundant, to say "founder of ... , founder of..." it's more proper to either change the second "founder of" or leave it out completely and if you really don't like the term this is an alternate way of writing that last part, "founder of Luthernism and of the Luthern Church in Germany."

Theology10101 (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Refimprove request

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)

BAPTISM

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)

potentially a good addition, but then someone with a third sacrament will want theirs in there and eventually we'll have all seven of the Catholic church along with tons of explanation as to exactly which denomination accepts what sacrament. It would be complicated and very large. Farsight001 (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this neutral, objective and verified?

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)

I have heard that non-Protestants do it too. Seriously, what you saw was vandalism. It was on the page for nearly 2 hours today, before another unregistered user like yourself deleted it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

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)

unless the majority of protestants are members of either of those organizations thats not really relevant to this article... but it would be relevent to both the KKK, and the "Christian Identity Movement"'s articles... so i suggest that you mention it there (if it's not there already). Claframboise (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

C Class

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)

Three fundamental principles of Protestantism?

Why not the Five solas instead of just three? --Richard (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

800 million

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)

Use of the term Radical

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?

Can you be more specific about the changes you have in mind? Tb (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Evangelical vs. Evangelical Lutheran

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.

The Continental use is often entirely misunderstood in English. The principal English meaning is, as you say, from the Great Awakening, and the Methodist revival, and refers to that. I don't think this article should belabor it, however; when "Evangelical" is used to mean Lutheran or Protestant, then it is perhaps worth explaining at that place. Tb (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

groups of traditions

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 and their Reformation Period Brethren

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)

That is what he appears to be saying, however, REAL history shows that that idea is full of gibberish. The origins of the Baptist church are easily traced back to one man, who certainly didn't live within even 1000 years of John the baptist. That doesn't stop people from saying it though. I've certainly heard it before.Farsight001 (talk) 02:19, 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)

[[2]] You are in violation of WP:POV and I suggest that you discontinue your accusations of "gibberish". Baptists, if in any succession, are derived from the Anabaptist. The catholic Church of England is derived from the catholic Church of Paul in communion to the Bishop of Rome, commonly, and ignorantly, referred to as the Catholic Church. I suggest that future scholars do reform this draft of an article. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Anglicanism

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. +Angr 05:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe when they repeat the 39 articles? OK Anglicanism has a catholic wing (although with a pattern of desertion over time) but it comes from the Protestant tradition if we are looking at classification. --Snowded ^TALK 07:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Do anyone besides Anglicans argue that Anglicanism is entirely distinct from Protestantism (quite an umbrella term)?

By some measures, there are more Restorationists than Anglicans! How is Anglicanism one of only four traditions, while Restorationism is entirely ignored? Readers need to know what reference is saying that, but the point lacks a citation. In a casual search, I couldn't find a non-Wikipedia secular scholarly reference that said what the article's introduction says.

I've even seen works that group Catholicism with Orthodoxy while separating Restorationism!

--AuthorityTam (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I can't speak for all Anglicans, but as an Anglican from England, I've never heard an Anglican disagree with Anglicans being Protestant and I definitely regard myself as a Protestant. Certainly the catalyst for the creation of the CofE was a fat bloke in Rome telling a fat bloke in London that he wasn't allowed to divorce a fat bird from Spain, but the actions of this split were carried out by people who were angry at the wealth of the Catholic church, a view that it had strayed from the humility of Christianity and that it should be Protested. Thus, Anglicanism is a form of Protestantism. It is true that there is the "high church" side of Anglicanism that retains more of the Catholic traditions, and Henry VIII died as an "English Catholic", distinct from "Roman Catholic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 23 June 2009

From Anglicanism - The earliest Anglican formularies corresponded closely to those of contemporary Reformed Protestantism; but by the end of the 16th century, the retention in Anglicanism of many traditional liturgical forms and of the episcopate was already seen as unacceptable by those promoting the most developed Protestant principles. In the first half of the 17th century the Church of England and associated episcopal churches in Ireland and in England's American colonies were presented by some Anglican divines as comprising a distinct Christian tradition, with theologies, structures and forms of worship representing a middle ground, or via media, between Reformed Protestantism and Roman Catholicism; a perspective that came to be highly influential in later theories of Anglican identity. So originally Protestant, via media suggested as early as 17th century, and currently generally used by the modern church. But since it was originally Protestant and since legally the head of the COE must be a Protestant and since Protestant is found in some of the Anglican communion churches to this day, I would encourage it be included in the Protestant group. Nitpyck (talk) 20:31, 2 June 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)

It claims it is distinct now, but it was not originally, and so still belongs under the group of sects that broke from the Roman church at about the same time or are directly descended from those earlier reformation churches. The Methodists are descended from the Anglican church should they also not be one of the protestant sects?
And I would argue that rejection of the authority of Rome is a wider separation than any differences it may have with the other mainstream Protestant churches (Note however that this is my opinion and therefor not a valid point for the article). But my earlier argument that it was originally and was for centuries considered a protestant church is not disputed.Nitpyck (talk) 05:04, 5 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)

Well, I think it should stay in, but simply make its shade on the map a lighter purple than the rest to denote that it presents itself as a via media. To further conflate the issue, pragmatically in a socio-political-cultural context in England, High Church Anglicans and conservative Catholics are often "allies" today in opposition to the positions of Liberal Anglicans and modernist Catholics. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no doubt in anyone's minds about the Church of England being protestant until the Oxford Movement started to question it. The ideas of the Oxford Movement have always been those of a loud minority. This phrase "via media" that keeps popping up is theirs, dragged from the works of Richard Hooker and turned it into an unsupported claim about the nature of the Church of England.

On the basis of these two short foreign words used out of context by a clutch of disaffected nineteenth century academic clerics, the most influential protestant church in the world has been torn out of an article of protestantism!

By all means a note can be made of how some have questioned the protestantism of the Church of England, but it is not a question one can take seriously for long.

Now, how are we going to work the Anglican Communion back into this article?

Howard Alexander (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I might add that if a church cannot be protestant where its liturgy is derived from and modelled on pre-Reformation forms, then the Lutheran churches are not protestant either. Who is for denying that Martin Luther was protestant?! Howard Alexander (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unaware of it, but it is currently after the Oxford Movement, and while the ideas of the Oxford Movement may be a minority in some countries, they are not in others. Nor is this article about the Church of England, nor is the Anglicanism section about the Church of England. Whatever may have once been the truth, it is the case that today there are Anglicans who reject the term Protestant, and while you may think they should go back to the "origins" in the 16th century, they will simply retort that the origins of the Church of England are far older than the 16th century. Tb (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I can only speak from familiarity with the Church of England the Church of Ireland of course. I cannot say whether, for example, members of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America consider themselves protestant. If there are Anglicans who do not consider themselves protestant, that is a position worthy of mention, but not to the exclusion of the mainstream idea.

I understand the problem with the word "protestant"; it is a party label, when we are all trying to get on with being a representation of the holy, catholic and apostolic church. That is a good reason not to emphasise it, but no reason to shun it if it is accurate.

So, I propose minor changes in the lead, and a new section on Anglicanism, being open about how we disagree.

Can someone put their hands on any quotes from respected Anglican theologians who say that Anglicans or their particular church is not "protestant"? We can then cite those.

Howard Alexander (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to finding sources! But as for the substance of text, I would suggest perhaps wording that indicates simply that the question is controversial. It is certainly agreed that there was a time when nobody thought the Church of England was protestant, then there was a time when everybody did, and then (up to the present) a time when some do and some don't. I have no objection to changes which make this clear. The lead cannot spend too much energy on it, but can give a quick "some count Anglicanism as protestant", and then later text in the article can give a brief explanation. Tb (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Jolly good - I made a tweak or two; we just need some citations. Howard Alexander (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a nice step forward. Tb (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Justification by Faith Alone

'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.'

• Sigh* Can someone please change this to make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.95.9 (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense to me, but the language may be just a little too formal for readers of a general encyclopedia, particularly for an article like this one that should introduce a general reader to Protestantism. Some explanation or borrowing from other Wikipedia articles on sola fide may be in order. Take a look at some of the references to see if they offer more accessible summaries - it is quite a tricky topic and I have heard people spend several hours to try to explain it. I hope you resolve it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In actuality, the grammar of the aforementioned quote is not at all common and I do so suggest this, if the quote is not already revised: protestantism of the Roman catholic Christian faith does not depreciate so-called good works; rather, such movement does deny such works to be justification and instead believes that those so-called good works are only inspired by faith. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

Issues with numbers of Christians and numbers of Protestants

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)

LDS?

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)

Eastern Orthodox Christians, along with Oriental Orthodox, are not Catholic and they are not protestant. It has always been my understanding that since the LDS dose not recognize the Christological formulas (the Trinity) of the first Ecumenical Councils where as protestants (whether Lutheran, Arminianist or Calvinist) do means LDS are not protestants, I believe wikipedia categorizes them as nontrinitarian. Zantorzi (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite. Most non-mormons (especially outside America) would not say that the LDS church is Christian ("no trinity takes the Christ out of Christian"). That leaves Orthodox, Protestant, and Roman as the three generally identified branches (hard to cut it any other way). The LDS is hard to mention or not mention in a neutral way though. Under the mistaken impression that all non-mention is biased, I think we do tend to over-emphasise minority groups though. Kan8eDie (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"Quite"? People have a right to participate and voice their opinions on wikipedia. And think people can mention or talk about LDS in a neutral way, just as how someone can write on Shiite Islam in a neutral way. Even myself as a Catholic can do so. Zantorzi (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Mormoms are non-trinitarian rather than protesant. Protestant implies a connection with the Diet of Speyer; Mormons weren't around then.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Church of Latter Day Saints, formerly in communion to Joseph Mormon, was and is not protestant of Paul's church of catholic Christian faith in communion to the Bishop of Rome. The Church of Latter Day Saints is, rather, derivitave of some Christian denomination as a cult and then now a religion totally separate from Christianity. As Christianity is to Judaism, Mormonism is to Christianity. I propose that the "LDS" is removed from Christianity sections on the basis of its extreme differences. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 06:07, 19 November 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..)

Vandalism in Article

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)

Odds & Ends

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)

Anglicanism is considered by many to represent a "middle way" between Catholicism and Protestantism. Sources vary, depending on their perspective, their audience, and how detailed they want to get. EastTN (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I just followed the Ontario page here. Under religion it lists Protestant, Catholic, Other, Orthodox and assorted other faiths. No Anglican unless it's Protestant or Other Christian.203.25.1.208 (talk) 04:57, 22 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)

When you distinguish "Episcopalian" and "Anglican", I suspect you don't really know what you're talking about. Tb (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, changed it to Methodist. Rmccaff (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Mainline" Protestantism

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)

We should remember this nice post, because it explains well why many Anglicans do not wish to be called Protestant. Hail Mary, the Rosary, saints, transubstantiation, the term "priest", sacrificial Eucharistic theology, use of the apocrypha in worship, purgatory, and hierarchy--all these are accepted by many Anglicans. Tb (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is User:Rmccaff writing this? And why here? He objects to the statement that Protestantism is most closely tied to those groups that separated from the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century But that statement is not a statement about the "essence" of Protestantism, but about the historical context within which Protestantism arose. All of the contrasts which User:Rmccaff is talking about here are already discussed in the article. Does he want them in the lead? That would be quite inappropriate. Tb (talk) 21:34, 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)

The short answer is that there is near unanimous agreement about the history and church genealogy (though only "near", hence the ambiguity about Anglicanism expressed there), and the lead cannot go into long grisly details. The article does go into those details. There is most certainly not agreement on the essence. The definition is best not even addressed, though you'll find that the definition in most dictionaries has more in character with the historical. You will find that Martin Luther had rather high beliefs about Mary (see Martin Luther's views on Mary), you will find that the term "priest" is in wide use by many who consider themselves Protestants (a great many Anglicans, for example). So your list may express your convictions about the essence of Protestantism, but it is hardly universally agreed. Wikipedia should not get into a religious dispute about who best expresses the essence of Protestantism. (Paul Tillich thought that the doctrine of the Incarnation was contrary to the essence of Protestantism!) We can, however, explain the doctrinal complexities in the article, and indeed, we do. Most of the article is concerned with such matters. The lead is there to give just the briefest indication to the reader that they have found the right article. Tb (talk) 00:14, 11 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)

Any definition of "Protestant" under which Martin Luther doesn't count, simply points out that the definition of "Protestant", however appealing to Baptists and AGs, is a bad definition. Mariology is hardly the "single biggest issue", given the historical facts. I can only suspect that you are coming from one POV, and are fairly unfamiliar with the much broader waters into which you have wandered. Restorationists of all stripes, include the JWs and the LDS, generally reject the term "Protestant", though they unquestionably came from that historical stream. The Church of Scientology doesn't even call itself Christian in the least; why are you putting it there? Your general strategy seems to be to identify some set of doctrines, and then whoever accepts those must count as Protestant. That is inherently a POV-laden enterprise. It results--as we can see here--with the oddity that you must characterize Martin Luther as a non-Protestant. Tb (talk) 00:08, 26 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)

It is clear that you don't understand what the word "Mariology" means. It does not mean "high doctrine of Mary"; it means only "doctrine of Mary". The Presbyterian Church most certainly does have a Mariology: it teaches that Mary was Jesus' mother, and that Jesus was conceived virginally. It is a "low" Mariology, by contrast with the Roman Catholic Church, which teaches a lot more. But it is not the essence of being a Presbyterian or being a Protestant to have a low Mariology. That may be on your big list of "Roman Catholic errors", but Protestantism is not just about opposing Roman Catholic errors. It is a family of positive theological systems in their own rights. What you don't recognize is that there are different and opposing views of what the essence of Protestantism is. Given that fact, Wikipedia's role is not to choose who has it right, but to express, with a neutral point of view, what those views share and where they differ. It is most certainly not Wikipedia's role to determine what Protestants should or should not believe. Tb (talk) 17:52, 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. Given that fact, Wikipedia's role is not to choose who has it right, but to express, with a neutral point of view, what those views share and where they differ. Tb (talk) 18:01, 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)

It is a common practice (however politically incorrect) among Protestants to refer to Roman Catholics as "Mary worshipers" Actually, it's only common in certain subgroups, and there, it's about as offensive as referring to African Americans with the N-word. It's not just "incorrect", it's outrageously offensive. But regardless, I have no objection to suitable text which identifies differences in Mariology as relevant, but not as if that were somehow the main issue, and not without respect for the actual differences between Protestants on the question. Tb (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mormons and Stephen Ray's "33,000" Claim

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)

First, new edits to the bottom of the page please. Second, cut the pov pushing. You removed sourced material because it was "Catholic polemics" and then complain about a distinctly NON-Catholic source from a Catholic perspective. Frankly, your entire comment here amounts to little more than "blame the Catholics". Do you know who edited that information in? no. do you know how long it has been here? A rather long time. And yet you automatically assume the Catholics are to blame for it all. And you think the Catholics are being biased? I say in as good a faith as I can manage, look to yourself first.Farsight001 (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my error on placement. However, the "sourced" material was mis-cited and misrepresented. The other material was poorly placed in the article and made for poor reading, as well as being framed wrongly, with misleading assumptions taken for granted. If you want to get into an edit war, then bring it on. (Someone else apparently has reverted your edits before I got here, thanks to whoever.) Or, we can simply appeal to an administrator and look up what the source in question really says. --ManicBrit (talk) 13:41, 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)

As a point of fact, the article implies that all of these denominations are "Protestant," which means that Mormons, Moonies, UFO-cult groups that see Jesus as a space alien, etc. are all counted as "Protestant." This is totally inappropriate, since the article otherwise describes Protestants as groups which believe in the five solas - which Mormons, Moonies, and various other groups plainly do not. The World Encyclopedia actually lists about 8,000 groups under the heading "Protestant." As far as my assertions about Catholic Apologists, I will reply to that by saying that the flaw in the design of Web 2.0 sites is that they assume that various communities have good intent. The Society for Technical Communication and other groups have examined Web 2.0 sites and concluded quite the opposite - that many communities do not intend to be honest or even legal in their group contributions. Catholic Apologists - many of whom are in the paid employment of Catholic Answers and other fundamentalist Catholic institutions - have an axe to grind, that much is plain. Their job is to put pro-Catholic propaganda on Web 2.0 sites. It's easy for a group of religious fanatics to mob a site and proclaim their spin "the consensus." The articles having to do with Catholicism and Christianity in general are the least accurate, poorest written articles on Wikipedia, and Catholic fanaticism has a lot to do with it.

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)

The source you provided is anything but a reliable source, and adding that paragraph implies that the large number is due to the inclusion of LDS and New Age groups, which seems extremely implausible. There are perhaps a dozen LDS/Prairie Saint denominations, and relatively few organized New Age groups which identify themselves as Christian at all. Tb (talk) 18:28, 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)

Of course. I'm Anglican, and I'm neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant, though some Anglicans are Protestants. Protestant Anglicans also have a hierarchical religion with priests, by the way. If you think "hierarchy" is some thing which makes a group non-Protestant, you'll have to write off Presbyterians, most Lutherans, Methodists, all Anglicans, etc. Tb (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you tell me - what makes the Mormons more like you, an Anglican, than like a Roman Catholic, so that Mormons (as well as Moonies and others) can be put into a logical category with you? What is a "Protestant" to you? If you can't offer a logical reason why Mormons and New Religious Movements should be logically grouped with Lutherans and Anglicans, then your claim of "33,000" Protestant denominations needs to be explained. Even if we gave each major Protestant tradition (Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, etc.) 500 different denominations, we wouldn't be anywhere close to your "33,000" number. This paragraph that you defend does not distinguish denominations based on theology, and it wrongly implies that each denomination is the result of a schism, when many are simply the result of logistical organization based on region, nationality, etc. This article is factually wrong.--ManicBrit (talk) 01:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of being "more like". The silent Quakers and the AGs are all Protestant, even though they are worlds apart on most questions of theology. I may have more in common with many Canadians, yet I am American. I don't know how you can say that it "implies" that each denomination is the result of a schism; it says nothing of the kind. Tb (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If you'll bear with me, I took the liberty of adding the definition of "denomination" from the World Christian Encyclopedia itself to the reference. Lest I be accused of using an "unreliable source" like James White (a scholar in residence at a fully accredited university and an ordained minister published by major publishing companies), I have taken the quote from a Catholic Apologist's Web page, where the apologist attempts to prove that there really are "33,000" denominations from the Reformation. As the quote plainly shows, these figures are compiled by counting each separate national jurisdiction as "a separate denomination." It also counts independent, congregationally-run churches as "denominations," if you follow the rest of the page. This is not a "scandal" of "schisms," my Anglican friend. If the World Encyclopedia counts Protestants this way, then I hope the next edition lists 300,000 "denominations." I'd really like to see your rationale for deleting the actual words of the World Encyclopedia itself...perhaps someday I won't have a job, and I can sit here all day and we can revert each other's edits into the wee hours. --ManicBrit (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish you could put your POV and bias away for just a moment. You are not behaving like my friend. The quote you added in the reference, unlike your words, is good and measured, and a worthy contribution to the article. I regret that you accompanied it with inflammatory rhetoric here and in the edit history. Tb (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You identified yourself as an Anglican in the "Oxford Movement" mold, so noting that I - as an evangelical Christian who does not believe in "apostolic succession" or the theory that the "Church" in the proper sense refers only to some triad of high Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox - disagree with an editor who believes that Baptists and Congregationalists belong in a category with Scientologists and Mormons is not a personal attack. I don't know why you see it as such, or why noting the negative contributions of a group of zealots (who routinely cite "reliable sources" such as anti-freedom-of-religion and pro-Fascist writer John Salza) to Wikipedia's reliability and readability is a sin. The flaws of the "good faith" model of Web 2.0 sites is well-documented by industry associations, and pretending that we're all "good faith" contributors seeking only objective truth is naive in the extreme.--ManicBrit (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It is improper to state or imply that my affiliation is at issue. You are mostly ranting here about irrelevancies, so I won't reply to your reflections. Once again, you speak of Scientologists for some reason I cannot fathom. Nothing in this article relates to Scientology, and nobody thinks Scientology is Christian, let alone Protestant. I simply want you to recognize that Protestantism--whether you like it or not--is a broader term than you think; most importantly, it is not a stand-in for some set of putatively correct doctrines which you happen to hold dear. You are wrong about the history, and you are wrong about the theology. At best, you have a POV about what Protestantism should mean, which is all very well and good, but not that relevant to the article here, which must conform to Wikipedia's standards of WP:NPOV. If you cannot assume good faith, then Wikipedia is probably not the place for you. Tb (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

TB, this article itself tends to discuss Protestantism in terms of the "five solas." Then it takes a curious turn where it notes that various non-trinitarian groups who don't regard themselves as Protestant or even Christian, and who aren't regarded as "Protestant" by Christians who believe in the "solas," are nonetheless Protestants, and that there are "30,000" Protestant denominations (which is what you get when you divide Reformation groups into different "denominations" each time they occur in a separate country, which automatically multiplies them all by 238, and then you lump in all the non-trinitarian groups, and count each little church association as a separate "denomination" even when those associations merely see themselves as local groups of a larger tradition and have no axe to grind with others.) The source cited, the World Encyclopedia, doesn't even list 24,000 of those "denominations" as "Protestant," but are labeled here as "Protestant" based on the judgment of non-Protestants like yourself. This article also states explicitly, despite your curious denials to the contrary, that all these groups are the results of doctrinal schisms, which is not the case. A Protestant missionary from Scotland may go and found several churches in Uganda, and when the Ugandans take over the management of their own facilities and join together in an association they label "The Northern Ugandan Evangelical Alliance," you posit that there has been a schism from the Presbyterian Church! At the risk of stating something "NPOV," I believe that your viewpoint reflects that of an "apostolic succession" tradition that identifies denominations with "churches," and which on some level seeks to minimize and dismiss the relevance of other Christian traditions, which you see as illegitimate expressions of the faith.--ManicBrit (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Then it takes a curious turn where it notes that various non-trinitarian groups who don't regard themselves as Protestant or even Christian, and who aren't regarded as "Protestant" by Christians who believe in the "solas," are nonetheless Protestants No, it says exactly the opposite. It says that they share some characteristics, and some people lump them in, but they reject the label as do mainstream Protestants. What would you have it say in addition to that? It certainly does not say that they are "nonetheless Protestants". As for the number of denominations, we are simply citing a fair and legitimate source, and your imaginations about what it implies or who it says are there, is irrelevant. If you have a superior neutral source, that would be great. So far, you are just tossing off entirely unsupported accusations of bias, and you aren't even reading what the article says correctly. I believe you are reacting to some subtext you think is there, but which just isn't. Tb (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Number of Protestants Worldwide

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)

Etymology needs work.

"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)

World population of Protestants Is Inflated.

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>

protestantism map

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)

I actually checked out the latest freedom report issued late 2010. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2010/index.htm :

Netherlands

Society has become increasingly secularized. In general church membership continued to decline. : According to a 2006 study by the government's Social Cultural Planning Bureau, the number of persons who are church members declined steadily from 76 percent of the population in 1958 to 30 percent in 2006 (16 percent Catholic and 14 percent Protestant). Only 16 percent regularly attend church. Catholics constitute the largest religious group in the country.

So with 14 % protestants the color should be changed.

Austria:

According to 2009 estimates, membership in major religious groups is as follows: Roman Catholic Church, 66 percent; Muslim community, 4.2 percent; Protestants, including Lutheran and Swiss Reformed Churches (Evangelical Church-Augsburger and Helvetic confessions), 3.9 percent; Eastern Orthodox (Russian, Greek, Serbian, Romanian, and Bulgarian), 2.2 percent; other Christian churches, 0.9 percent; Jehovah's Witnesses, 0.3 percent; other non-Christian religious groups, 0.2 percent; and Jewish community, 0.1 percent. Atheists account for 12 percent, and 2 percent do not indicate a religious affiliation.

There are actually less protestants than muslims in austria. The color on the map is clearly incorrect.

Estonia

The country has an area of 17,666 square miles and a population of 1.3 million. The population is 13.6 percent Evangelical Lutheran and 12.8 percent Orthodox. Other Christian groups, including Methodists, Seventh-day Adventists, Roman Catholics, and Pentecostals, constitute 1.4 percent. Thirty two percent of the population is unspecified or other, 34.1 percent is unaffiliated, and 6.1 percent does not identify with a religion.

Most religious adherents among the Russian speaking population, who mainly reside in the capital or the northeastern part of the country, are Orthodox.

In other words the map is incorrect for quite a number of countries, it was already for the 2004 status and is even more so for the year 2009.

Ruud64 (talk) 22:32, 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)

The Barrett numbers

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)

Anglican Self-concept, Catholic or Protestant

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)

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)

Asking whether Anglicanism is "Catholic or Protestant" is the wrong question. Although the issue is somewhat complex, in what might be considered "classical" Anglicanism the mainstream via media of the tradition is best understood as being both "Catholic and Reformed" (or "Catholic but not Roman Catholic and Reformed but not Protestant"). This is certainly the principal self-definition of the Church of England (which, historically, has also sometimes called itself the "Catholic Church of England" after the English Reformation). When the Church of England in the past has called itself "Protestant" it was more of a political statement than a theological one. It principally meant that it was not under papal authority rather than an assertion of theological identity. In some other countries, however, (especially in the United States) the term "Protestant" is generally used for any non-Roman Catholic western church tradition regardless of theological or ecclesiological concerns. If you want to find them it is of course possible to find Anglicans on the so-called "extremes" who will prefer to just define themselves as either "Catholic" or "Protestant". But such examples don't prove the rule on this matter. Here in Australia it is the normal custom in the media - and also by the Roman Catholic Church (and by those churches that do traditionally identify as being Protestant) - to refer to "Orthodox, Anglicans and Protestants" when referring to the non-Roman Catholic churches. I hope this helps clarify the issues rather than confuse them even further. Anglicanus (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Anglicanus: this is not an "unpartisan" description of classical Anglicanism, whatever that is, unless by Anglicanism you mean a designation that only came into widespread use after the Oxford Movement and the Tractarians. You only need to ask historians: while the (very complex and internally riven) English Reformation may have left the Church of England less radically reformed than others, very few in the seventeenth and eighteenth century Church--including most high churchmen--would have accepted that it was Protestant only in a political sense, but would have insisted it was truly reformed in a theological and liturgical sense (though there was disagreement on what this amounted to precisely). The forceful rejection of transubstantiation, and suspicions of the still too "popish" doctrine of ubiquity espoused by the Lutherans, is as good a marker of theological and liturgical protestantism as it gets. Add to that the insistence on vernacular worship (legally binding even into the late 19th century in England), widespread discomfort with crucifixes and saint's images, and rejection of the term 'mass', and the very Genevan spirit of the 39 articles. Not to mention the dissolution of monastic and mendicant orders (until the Anglo-Catholic revival). These all suggest and fairly decisive and thoroughgoing reformation of the Church of England. Of course all of these were politically significant as well, but in early modern Europe it is virtually impossible to disentangle religion from politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwd123 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but all this just seems to be old-fashioned Protestant polemic more than neutral and reasoned argument and I consider your understanding of the complexities of Anglican history to be deeply flawed. Your thinking seems to be stuck in the 16th century as if these issues were still as significant now as they were then. If you think that I'm being partisan then you are also being so in your own way. Anglicanus (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)