degeneRat wrote:

> <snip>
>
>>>>> What I AM saying -- which was
>>>>> absolutely true -- was that he did NOT support any of the doctrines
>>>>> being put forward by the Protestant factions on the continent at the
>>>>> time.
>
>
>>>> What you call "Protestant factions" are more often called
>>>> "Reformers," at least insofar as they sought to reform the church's
>>>> doctrines. However, you are wrong to insist that Henry was not
>>>> Protestant -- this is a term accepted by Anglicans and by Roman
>>>> Catholics.
>
>
>>> Not all of them -- certainly not by most historians either.
>
>
>> Bullshit.
>
>
>>> I doubt you
>>> would find one reputable historian who would claim Henry was a follower
>>> of any of the Protestant factions on the Continent at the time.
>
>
>> Strawman -- I distinguished between reformed doctrine and
>> protestantism in general. See for yourself:
>
>
>>>> Protestant is a rather general term for one who protests,
>
>
> No, Humpty Dumpty --

Yes, retard.

> when discussing the history of the 16th and
> 17th centuries, it is not. Protestant is a specific historical
> term in that context, and if you are not willing to accept the
> language of reputable scholars in the field, then you might as
> well call Henry a space alien or an Antedeluvian, or whatever other
> strange term you invent, but your term will have no historical
> meaning anyone familiar with the period would recognize.
>
> Get back to me when you have read a book or two.

Evangelical and reformed are synonyms:
--------
....[A] great breakthrough for evangelicals did come in 1537 when royal
permission was given for a vernacular version of the Bible. In 1538
Cromwell issued further Injunctions that required that all churches
acquire a copy of the English Bible. The central position of scripture
in Protestant belief made it vital to make the text available, and an
official version gave the English Bible the stamp of approval.
Cromwell's Injunctions also took a strong line against images, and
centres of pilgrimage.

These three years 1536-38 marked the high watermark of officially
sanctioned evangelical doctrine under Henry VIII. The King was a keen
theologian, and was prepared to incorporate evangelical ideas into his
new Church where he saw fit. But he wasn't comfortable with the
alterations, and from 1539 onwards he reversed most of his previous
policies.
http://www.britannia.com/history/articles/relpolh8.html
----------
King Henry VIII was initially opposed to the ideas of Luther. he was
praised by the pope for a pamphlet that he wrote in 1521 that criticised
the German monk. However after the Split with Rome many of the things
that Luther said should happen, did happen in England. Henry VIII
ordered Bibles to be published in English and took much money and land
from the church. However Henry did this for political gains, not because
he supported the ideas of Luther. However because of his actions Henry
VIII laid the foundations of Protestantism in England which under the
rule of Edward and Elizabeth would transform England from a Catholic to
a Protestant nation. By 1603 the Protestant Reformation in this country
was complete.
http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/pro...eformation.htm
----------
Henry VIII (1491-1547), king of England (1509-1547), the image of the
Renaissance king as immortalized by German artist Hans Holbein, who
painted him hands on hips, legs astride, exuding confidence and power.
Henry VIII had six wives, fought numerous wars in Europe, and even
aspired to become Holy Roman Emperor in order to extend his control to
Europe. He ruthlessly increased the power of royal government, using
Parliament to sanction his actions. Henry ruled through powerful
ministers who, like his six wives, were never safe in their positions.
His greatest achievement was to initiate the Protestant Reformation in
England....Viewed by some as the embodiment of the warrior king who
restored England’s honor, by others as a tyrant who ruled by the
chopping block, the life of Henry VIII has been a source of continuous
fascination. Catholic writers pictured him as the devil, English
Protestants credited him as the founder of their religion.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...enry_VIII.html
------------
When he sought to nullify his first marriage to Catherine of Aragon
because of the lack of a male heir, it was clear that Rome would not
support him, so in 1531, Henry broke with the Catholic Church and set up
a (Protestant) National Church in England under his supreme leadership.
http://renaissance-faire.com/Renfair...enry-VIIIA.htm
------------
Merriam-Webster: ...*broadly* [as I noted] : a Christian not of a
Catholic or Eastern church; one who protests.

Maybe YOU should get back to ME.

> <snip>
>
>>>> The Reformation was hardly radical: the teachings of Calvin and
>>>> Luther had historical precedents.
>
>>> It certainly was radical, in a wide variety of ways.
>
>> Like your list of 350 benefits for straight couples, I suppose you
>> cannot name ONE.
>
>>> Everyone at the
>>> time considered it radical, both on the Roman and the non-Roman side.
>
>> No! What was the initial response by the papists at the Diet of
>> Augsburg? It *wasn't* that the teachings were novel or radical, it was
>> that they were true. Indeed, Eck agreed with most of the Augsburg
>> Confession -- there were, of course, some areas of disagreement which
>> remain to this day. The whole purpose at Augsburg was to show that the
>> evangelicals were not engaged in radical teachings. They proved it.
>> The differences were left to transubstantiation, marriage of priests,
>> primacy of the pope, sufficiency of Scripture, etc. -- IRONICALLY,
>> NITWIT, THE SAME THINGS YOUR CHURCH REMAINS DIVIDED OVER WITH ROME! lol
>
> Yes, Nitwit -- Henry disagreed with the Protestants on every one of
> those issues,

That isn't the issue, degeneRat. Not everyone considered every aspect of
the Reformation to be radical -- Rome even started some reforms in
areas, e.g., the sale of indulgences.

> coming down firmly on the Roman side of the controversy,

Not so firmly. The link to Britannia above notes his flirtation with
reformed doctrine for some time.

> except for the issue of the Pope's authority in England, where again,
> as I said, his dissent was not based on Protestant grounds,

One who protests. He was protestant in the broad sense, though not
altogether with respect to doctrine (despite his brief flirtations with it).

> but on much earlier Constantinian grounds.

Which were also grounds noted by Calvin, Luther, Melanchthon, et al.

> Henry supported transubstantiation. He
> forbade priests to marry (leading Cranmer to have to hide his wife ),
> and he did not believe in sufficiency of Scripture.

See above.

> He was not Protestant.

Yes, he was. He was not reformed, though.

>> <snip>
>
>
>>>>> Several of those close to Henry had Protestant leanings,
>>>>> including Anne Boleyn and Catherine Parr, and certainly Cromwell and
>>>>> Cranmer (both of whom had spent time on the continent -- Cranmer in
>>>>> Germany ). But Henry firmly squelched any effort to change the
>>>>> doctrinal aspects of the Church as long as he lived.
>
>
>>>> Correct, he sought only divorce -- a trivial and selfish matter
>>>> compared to the doctrinal abuses of Rome.
>
>
>>> Er...doesn't this contradict your earlier claim he was a Protestant?
>
>
>> NO, dimwit. I distinguished between reformed (specifically doctrinal)
>> and protestant (more general protest against Rome). NITWIT.
>
> But you are incorrect to do so.

No, I am correct. Scholars agree. Only sophists with axes to grind don't
-- and funny that they're the same ones who don't accept the *whole*
context of AW movement and its ******* spawn you call "post-1970s AR"
and make similarly narrow distinctions to avoid dealing with real issues.

> You are inventing a new meaning for
> Protestant which is not historically valid for the period.

Not at all. I've said repeatedly Protestant in a broad manner, meaning
one who was/is at odds with Rome, as distinguished from Reformed
*doctrine*. That is valid and accepted use of the term.

>> <snip>
>
>
>>>> Not aspects at all and you're arguing semantically. Protestant is
>>>> quite general, but Reformed is more specifically what your church is
>>>> in terms of doctrine.
>
>
>>> I'd disagree.
>
>> I know, but it's because you don't understand Christian doctrine.
>
> *LOL* That rich, coming from someone who doesn't even know what
> Protestant means.

I do, and as noted in the links above, Henry was protestant in two
senses. First, doctrinally: he did dabble in reformed doctrine for a
while but he did return to a conservative Catholicism sans the papacy.
Second, his act of PROTEST against the pope was, inherently, protestant.
It's not my shortcoming that you refuse to accept the generally accepted
broad meanings of words.

<snip>