But, is Hank Hannegraaff's definition of "the Protestant Faith" to be taken as, well, definitive? What, in heaven's name, is Protestantism? Our host, Albion Land, asked this question in an earlier blog, only to receive this predictably bull in a china shop remark from the Reformed Catholicism blog: "What made me laugh was the fact that they were surprised to be called 'Protestant' by Roman Catholics. But in fact, Anglo-Catholics–no matter how close they feel to the theology of Rome–are Protestants and it is this fact that makes part of their position so untenable from a Reformation perspective." Of course, had they read what he actually wrote just a bit more carefully, they may have saved themselves the embarrassment of, once again, completely mis-stating the position of Anglo-Catholics.
The question is, how does one arrive at the conclusion that our blog is a Protestant blog? Within Anglicanism the words "Protestant" and "Catholic" are used often to mean "High" or "Low", by which measurement we are not Protestants. But, from the perspective of a Roman Catholic we are Protestant because we are Western Christians who are non-papal. However, from Hank Hannegraaff's perspective we are not Protestants because we reject two of his solas- as defined by ultra modern Evangelicals that is. Perhaps the real problem is trying to define the word "Protestant."
What hath a Pentecostal in common with a Presbyterian? What hath a Baptist in common with a High Church Lutheran? What hath a Reformed Episcopalian in common with a "religious" atheist who supports "gay" marriage and rejects the Incarnation completely? The answer is, they are all Protestants. What hath a Fundamentalist in common with a student of Higher Criticism? What hath a High Churchman in Anglicanism in common with a Quaker? What hath Jerusalem in common with Athens?
I replied to the Reformed Catholicism blogger as follows: "A valid question was raised about the usage and definition of a word so widely applicable as to mean everything from anything to nothing." I meant that exactly as I stated it. Since Billy Graham the Evangelist and John Spong the "Christian" Atheist are both Protestants, the word has nothing to do with articles of Faith. We are left with a very reduced product, a definition in strictly negative terms, and lacking the beauty of apophaticism: "Some kind of Western Christian (from real to sort of) who is not a Roman Catholic." There is no Creed for Protestants, but rather an anti-creed: "I do not believe in Universal Jurisdiction and Papal Infallibility." Of course, a Hindu can say that too. Well, along with the Hindu, we can say this anti-Creed; and along with Pentecostals, Baptists and Methodists this makes us Protestant. However, we can say this with an Orthodox Christian, but he is not a Protestant though he shares this one point of unbelief as a belief. It boils down to this: "Protestant" is hardly a useful term, and one that we can dispense with. It says nothing about what we do believe.
Now, to our Reformed Catholicism blogger friends and to the more militant Roman Catholics in Blogger land, we Anglican Catholics are quite a puzzle indeed. The same problem exists for strict Darwinists when they attempt to place a Duck-billed Platypuse into an existing paradigm. It lays eggs and has a beak, so it must be a bird. But, it is furry and nurses its young, so it must be a mammal. It lays eggs but has no wings, so it is a reptile. But reptiles have no fur. Why don't we just eliminate all of the platypuses for convenience? Failing that, let us make fun of them all for being so obviously stupid that they cannot admit that they are birds, or planes or superman, or a whatever the hell they are.
Never liked platypuses anyway.