S.R.C. FAQ Collection
S.R.C Main · FAQs
Protestant Theology
This document attempts to summarize Protestant theology. Whether this is possible depends upon who you count as Protestant. There's a tendency to include everyone who isn't Catholic or Orthodox. By that definition we have to include Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. This makes any kind of common theology nearly impossible to identify. My preference would be to include the churches that go back historically to the Reformers, i.e. Lutheran and Reformed, and the Anglicans. This would include the Baptists, since they are really an offshoot of the Reformed, and the Methodists, as they are offshoots of the Anglicans. I would include the Trinitarian Pentecostals, who are a development of the Holiness movement, which is itself a development of the Methodists. I would also include the Disciples of Christ/Church of Christ, and probably most of the Adventists.
I'm going to describe only the traditional forms of Protestantism. There are many different denominations consistent with the description below. These exist because of
- doctrinal differences. Many of the areas where there are differences are indicated below
- differences in church organization
- historical differences, e.g. in the US immigrants have brought with them churches from the various nations they came from
- the fact that many Protestants don't consider it important to have a single national or international organization. Indeed they are often sceptical that such organizations tend to become top-heavy, and their leaders tend to stray
As I explain in more detail in Where did all those denominations come from?, I believe that there are three major Protestant theological traditions: Lutheran, Reformed, and Wesleyan/Arminian. These traditions are not isolated: Major Protestant writers cite from all three. In addition to these three major traditions, there are a number of more specific issues (e.g. whether to baptize infants, whether speaking in tongues is appropriate) on which denominations take distinctive positions. So most denominations can be characterized by participation in one or more or the major theological traditions, and positions on several of the specific issues.
In addition to the theological issues noted below, there are often differences based on what one might call "modernism." That is, at a given position in the theological/organizational spectrum, there may be several groups, one of which is close to the traditional views and the others of which either reject or interpret more loosely both theological doctrines such as the Trinity and ethical rules such as the requirements to have sex only in marriage.
There is little attempt to justify these. Some additional discussion can be found in my essays on Christianity and in more specific FAQ's. If there are areas where you'd like to see more specific arguments, please contact me.
Most Protestants pretty much subscribe to the earliest creeds, e.g. the Nicene Creed and formula of Chalcedon, although in some groups it is controversial to give formal authority to any creed.
The National Association of Evangelicals is an attempt to get most of these groups to cooperate. They have a statement of faith that has been widely influential, although pretty minimal. See http://www.nae.net/about-mission.html
In general I would say that Protestants hold the same beliefs as Catholics on the Trinity and the Incarnation.
They believe that man can't save himself, though not all feel comfortable with terms like "total depravity" to describe this. They believe that Christ came to save us, that he died on our behalf (I think the range of thought on the atonement is similar to the range of thought within the Catholic tradition), that his death is applied to us through our faith in him, and that as a result God both justifies us and begins on the process of sanctification, which transforms our lives. Justification is based solely on the Christ's death and resurrection, and not on any merit of our own. It is sometimes called "forensic", to emphasize the fact that it basedly only on Christ, not on us.
This statement hides differences in the area of predestination, where beliefs range from a strict Augustinian position (held by Calvin and Luther) to a position that is similar to the common Catholic one. Like the Catholic position, this holds that we can be saved only because God makes the first move, enabling us to respond to him. However it says that God's initiative can be resisted, and that it is possible to lose salvation.
Characteristic Protestant Positions
Authority of Scripture
The ultimate authority is Scripture, though most Protestants acknowledge in theory and all accept in practice that it is useful to do theology in community with others, looking carefully at historical positions. In the 19th Century it was common for groups to reject creeds and other formal standards. Since the early 20th Century, the dangers of modernism have caused an increasing interest in standards. At this point I think the non-credal and credal groups tend to have fairly similar amounts of doctrinal "slack", i.e. that you can get about the same difference from the typical belief without getting into trouble. Of course the amount of slack is different in different groups.
One of the well-know Protestant slogans is "sola scriptura", i.e. Scripture alone. This is misleading. It refers to the fact that Scripture is the ultimate authority (or at least the ultimate thing we can point to concretely -- obviously God is the real ultimate authority). It doesn't mean that reason or scholarship are irrelevant. The phrase needs to be put in its historical context. At the time some Catholics regarded Church tradition and the hierarchy as authorities to the extent that they could not be challenged. If one tried to say "but Christ says here that you're wrong" it would be said that the Church is the authoritative interpreter of Scripture, and according to its interpretation, it is right. "Sola scriptura" is intended to give individuals the right to call the Church and tradition to account, based on Scripture.
There are somewhat differing views on "private interpretation." That is, are there any limits on individuals' right to interpret Scripture independently of any Church or tradition? The more radical Protestants emphasize this right. Others (particularly the "confessional churches") say that any individual has the right to challenge the Church, but believe that ultimately the Church as a whole makes the judgement. These judgements are embodied in documents such as "confessions". This differs from the Catholic view primarily in that it acknowledges the possibility that the Church may have made an error, so that individuals can demand a reconsideration of the tradition.
Historically, non-confessional churches reject any binding creeds or confessions. This appears to set no limit on idiosyncrasy. However in practice standard readings of Scripture were adopted by the community. Since formal creeds were rejected, the community tends to regard these as the obvious reading of Scripture, and not as a community creation. There is often a fair degree of latitude for individuals, but at some point readings of Scripture that vary too much from the community's are likely to result in trouble.
Thus I would maintain that in practice there is more similarity between confessional and non-confessional churches than there might appear to be. In both cases there is a community judgement, but individuals have the right to challenge it based on their reading of Scripture. If the community ends up rejecting the challenge, then a judgement needs to be made (formally or informally, depending upon the denomination's approach) on whether the difference is serious enough to require action. However differences certainly do exist on how much "slack" is allowed for disagreement, and whether differences tend to be resolved by splits in the church or other results.
Justification and Related Doctrines
There are differences from the Catholic tradition in the way salvation is described. To some extent this is terminology, but it reflect some differences in content as well. Grace is seen as a property of God, and not something resident in us. Our status as God's children comes through his gracious act in sending us Christ. We take advantage of this through faith. Faith in itself isn't meritorious -- it's simply our decision to rely totally on God for salvation. Thus "justification by faith alone" means "we depend upon God alone for salvation".
In the Catholic tradition, grace is often used for something that is "infused" into us and resides in us. Protestant theology has an equivalent, but it is conceived of differently.
In Protestant theology, God's work with us certainly results in a change. However to a great extent, our change is seen as a growth in union with Christ and in the presence of the Holy Spirit. That is, while it is present in us, in some sense it isn't ours. It's the presence of God in us. The Catholic language is seen as suggesting that we develop attributes that genuinely merit reward from God. Protestant theology certainly expects Christians to change, and to grow in godliness, but avoids any language that might suggest that in doing so we gain anything that would obligate God to reward us.
There's another implication of differences in the way "grace" is used. Because grace can be infused in us, the Catholic Church tends to see itself as channelling grace. Protestants see grace as an attribute of God, so it always describes an action of God himself. For example, when someone commits a sin that Catholics would call mortal, in Catholic theology the relationship with God is to a certain extent severed. To reestablish it requires an act of conversion, which is normally associated with the sacrament of reconcilation. In the Protestant analysis, the relationship with God remains. God now acts with whatever combination of discipline and counsel seems appropriate to him. He may use the Church to help in this, but it is primarily his action, out of his grace.
Protestants use the term "justification" to refer to God's acceptance of us and forgiveness of us. Justification is entirely based on God's grace, and on no merit in us. If technical terms don't appeal to you, you can think of justification as forgiveness by God. (In fact where Luther speaks of justification, Calvin tends to speak of forgiveness.) In the Lutheran and Reformed traditions, our response is also a gift from God. In fact, justification and our response are two results of the same thing: being united spiritually with Christ. This union is the basis of our forgiveness, and also the basis for God's work with us in transforming our lives. These two effects can be distinguished (i.e. described individually), but they can't be separated. God's presence by its very nature transforms us.
Protestant theology commonly uses the term "sanctification" to refer to the transformation of our lives. Thus we may say that as a result of God's grace, he incorporates us into Christ. This results in two effects: justification and sanctification. These are the two sides of salvation. We receive these in faith.
There are differences in how our response is described. In the Reformed tradition, it is commonly taught that our response is solely a result of God's work in us, and thus that we don't have any real choice as to whether to respond. In the Arminian/Wesleyan tradition, although the ability to respond is also seen as a gift of God, people are considered to have a real option to accept or reject it.
Note that Catholics use the term "justification" to cover both the Protestant justification and the Protestant sanctification.
"Faith" is used very broadly. It refer to our side of the bond with Christ. While is based on knowledge and/or belief, it also includes trust in God, and committing our lives to him. There is a tendency in the Catholic tradition to use the term "faith" to refer to belief.
One well-known Protestant slogan is "justification by faith alone." This refers to the fact that justification is not based on any merit on our part, but is a sheer gift from God. It does not mean that we independently come to faith and are then rewarded with justification. Rather, faith is the way we receive justification. Since faith includes trust in God, the slogan actually means that we rely entirely on God for justification. Note that this slogan makes no sense when Catholic definitions are used. Since justification in the Catholic sense includes sanctification, and faith tends to mean belief, "justification by faith alone" sounds like is saying that we don't need to transform our lives, and simple intellectual belief is enough. This is, of course, not the case.
While sins are of different severity from a practical point of view, the division between mortal and venal sins (used by Catholics) is not accepted. As long as faith remains, God will deal with our sin, no matter how serious. Thus the only thing mortal is something that probably corresponds most closely to what Catholics would call apostacy, i.e. a rejection of faith. In the case of Reformed theology and others that accept perseverence of the saints, even that isn't possible. (Its appearance suggests that the person was probably not saved in the first place, though only God can know for sure whether that's the case or whether the person will turn out to be salvagable after all).
Contact with the dead is considered impossible or unauthorized. The treasury of merits is rejected, as is any role of the saints or Mary in salvation, though of course we may be thankful to God for the lives of exemplary Christians, and use them for motivation and inspiration. Generally Protestants do not pray to or venerate anyone other than God, although a certain level of honor is certainly appropriate for those who have lived good Christian lives. Generally Protestants do not pray for the dead, as they most commonly believe that God will cleanse them from the remnants of sin, and thus there is not a process such as Purgatory where they need the help of our prayers.
Sacraments
Not all use the term "sacraments", though almost everyone accepts that Baptism and the Lord's Supper were established by Christ and are important ways in which God reaches out to us. Normally these are seen as the only sacraments or ordinances of this kind, though Christ certainly endorsed marriage and other practices.
As in the Catholic tradition, baptism has a number of implications, but represents primarily our dying to sin with Christ and rising to new life, as well as our incorporation in him and our formal entry into the Church. It shows both God's initiative in calling us and our response to him. As is well known, there are two traditions, represented by those who baptize infants and those who do not. These two positions emphasize different aspects: God's gracious call and our response, respectively. I would say this is a difference in emphasis only -- both would acknowledge both aspects. Neither would say that the act of baptism has an automatic effect without faith. (Explaining the way faith works in infant baptism is somewhat of a challenge. Calvin says: "infants are baptized into future repentance and faith, even though these have not yet been formed in them, the seed of both lies hidden within them by the secret working of the Spirit.")
There is a wider range of views on communion. Everyone understands it as a commemoration of Jesus' sacrifice, which brings us spiritually into contact with him. There are great differences in the way this contact is described, ranging from the actual presence of Christ's body and blood (Lutheran), through a contact with Christ's body and blood mediated through the Holy Spirit (Reformed), to a view that the sacrament is purely symbolic (Zwinglian) -- however even in this case the symbol should help us establish a spiritual contact with Christ. Protestants generally do not accept transsubstantiation (though a few Anglicans probably do).
Church Structure
It is normally acknowledged that Scripture does not mandate a completely detailed church organization, though the major offices in the church are normally traced to the New Testament. The most commonly used New Testament offices are deacons, elders, pastors, and bishops, not all of which are necessarily used by any one group, nor are they necessarily seen as separate. (For example, in the Reformed tradition, pastors are seen as one kind of elder, and the role of bishop is carried out partly by the pastor and partly by the presbytery.) Many churches use "bishop" as a New Testament office, but without any claim (or desire) that their bishops are in the apostolic succession. These are sometimes referred to as "titular bishops." The Methodists and groups descended from them (including Pentecostals) use titular bishops. (Anglicans do often claim their bishops to be in the Apostolic Succession.) Local churches many be independent or tied by national/international organizations of varying sorts. Few churches claim to be the only true church. (Indeed that claim is often seen as defining the group claiming it as a "cult".)
The Church as the body of Christ includes all those who are saved by him, whatever church they belong to. The term "denomination" is commonly used to refer to a specific group. In the case of tightly-knit organizations, such as the Episcopal or Roman Catholic Churches, it's a specific organization or hierarchy. In the case of churches that reject organizations above the church level, it's a bit harder to define. But normally it refers to a set of churches that have the same beliefs and practices, and would be a single organization if they believed in organizations. The term "holy catholic Church" in the Apostles' creed is understood as refering to the whole body of Christ, not to a specific denomination.
There are varying attitudes on the relationship among various denominations. All groups accept in principle that the Church should be one, but they are concerned that ecumenical efforts commonly involve compromising principles that they consider to be important. Thus it ranges from groups that maintain relationships only with other groups that are very similar in belief and practice to those who are active in national and international ecumenical bodies. At one extreme are denominations that call themselves "non-denominational." One might think from this that they are unusually broad. In fact they are often unusually narrow. They believe that there should be only one Church, and they are it. They reject the term "denomination" because that implies that there can be many different legitimate churches. (The term "non-denominational" is also used in a very different way: Sometimes there are "community churches" that welcome people from a range of denominations. Often they are in smaller communities, where it doesn't make sense to have several churches. Normally they have pastors trained in one of the denominations, and often they have some connection with one or more denominations, for administrative convenience. Thus they aren't opposed to the conventional denominations in the same sense as those mentioned above.)