What else? But such a rational you could call them Catholic, since we are told from RCs that they came forth from Catholicism, but rejected it in part, holding to core teachings such as expressed in the Apostles Creed and the plenary Divine inspiration of Scripture, etc. but (invoking CFs) rejecting certain RC distinctives, such as sola ecclesia (the church being the supreme and assuredly infallible authority.
Likewise Unitarians, Mormons and other pseudoChristian heretical churches even more radically departed from Protestantism, rejecting the aforementioned common truths, plus the plenary Divine inspiration of Scripture (Unitarians), while most effectively operate under the RC model of sola ecclesia for determining Truth.
Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares (as in what history, tradition and Scripture teach).
Likewise Mormonism etc, but its conclusions of what history, tradition and Scripture teach are different.
But the RC model was not the basis upon which the NT church began. Why do we absolutely need an assuredly infallible magisterium? And what is the basis for your assurance that Rome is the one true and infallible (if conditionally) church?
Are the Pentecostal, Holiness, Assemblies of God Protestant ? Are the Calvary Chapel churches Protestant ?
Are Sedevacantists Catholic? Are the EOs despite substantial dissident , even rejecting among other things, universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, Roman purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception, because they are untraditional.
If you start your own tax exempt church in a home, office, or public school building, is it Protestant ?
You have not heard? Being 501(3)(c) means you cannot support candidates as a church, etc, unless you are liberal perhaps.
Is Protestant only Anglican, Episcopalian, Lutheran, and Presbyterian ? Can we throw in Methodist ?
RCs here reject liberal RCs are being Catholic, so why must we include Anglicans who are closer to Rome than to evangelicals?
My point in all this is that while you can use generalizations, to be consistent with Scripture, which calls believers who came from Judaism "Christians," then we should not act as atheists do in calling Hitler a Christian. Or a Catholic.
We should respect the core defining distinctives that result in both real unity and core contention, as did Christianity and Judaism, and Protestantism versus Catholic. And in this case ask if the groups mentioned are more critically opposed to core historical Protestant distinctives or more in basic unity with them. Simply not being Catholic while denying the most basic core truths and moral views should not qualify as Protestant.
Pentecostal, Holiness, Assemblies of God, Calvary Chapels, SBC and like evangelical churches all officially hold to historical core truths which cults deny, and historical preached the evangelical gospel of personal repentance and faith that effects manifest regeneration, and uphold conservative moral truths that liberal Prots and the majority of Catholics overall dissent from.
Yet they usually differ on predestination, which issue sees unresolved conflict in Rome (among things), and church government, etc. But because of the concord on key truths, and the common conversion, then among the regenerate there is a spiritual unity that largely transcends external tribalism.
You mean having historical descent and being the stewards of Scripture means such is the assuredly infallible church, dissent from which is rebellion against God. Which premise means Rome cannot solve the problem of legitimacy, but others can.
The churches of Asia in Revelation are the answer to that question and without any doubt, every one of them was a legitimate New Testament apostolic church. Do you believe in one holy catholic apostolic church according to the Scriptures
Indeed, and the churches of Asia in Revelation are evidence against Rome. Not one time are any of these or any other churches written to told to submit to Peter as their supreme infallible head, nor example doing so, not even as a solution to their problems, nor commended for so doing, even among the extensive critiques or commendations. Not once.
Nor did he even give the conclusive decree as to what should be done and how to do it in Acts 15, nor was he listed first or along among those who seemed to be pillars in Gal. 2. Peter was the initial street-level leader of the 11, and can be seen exercising a general pastoral role, yet was not looked to by the churches as the the supreme infallible head, nor is there any evidence for a successor of any apostle after Jude, though James was martyred. (Acts 12:1,2)
And even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against the idea of such in the early church.
But invoking the churches of Asia does not answer the question i asked. Do you mean having historical descent and being the stewards of Scripture means such is the assuredly infallible church, dissent from which is rebellion against God? That seems to basically be the RC argument ("we gave you the Bible...") .
Was Jesus' prayer to the Father rejected ? God forbid.
Indeed not, and is more realized among evangelicals than Catholics, as His prayer did not refer to an organizational unity or comprehensive doctrinal unity which has ever been a goal not realized, but that of an essential spiritual unit, "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee...I in them, and thou in me..." (Jn. 17:21,23) Which is by manifest regeneration of the Spirit, which is rare among Catholics until they become truly born against, thru personal repentance our of a broken and contrite heart. Not infant baptism and ritualism.
Only insofar as that is realized, esp. among leadership,. may the world may believe that "thou hast sent me," and "they may be made perfect in one."
As the basis for the NT church was not that of Rome, its degree of unity was realized under manifest apostles of God,
"in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God...By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,..." (2 Corinthians 6:6-7)
Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12)
And which is stark contrast overall today, which Rome is not even in the running (not that i think i am an apostle or really something), esp. as the greater the claims then the greater the attestation is required, and Rome claims assured infallibility which even the apostles did not.
And Rome's unity is limited and largely on paper and organizationally, while apart from that she abounds in disunity. Cults actually have the greatest unity using Rome's model. And what Rome really holds to is manifest by what she does and effects. And evangelicals have been and yet are far more unified in basic Biblical views than the overall fruit of Rome.
Then unless you hold that the Fundamentalists are correct in their doctrine of the Church, and that they are the only true New Testament churches
No, i do not.
you have no unbroken chain of apostolic New Testament churches.
Which is premise is why you need to actually answer what i asked you above. Do so forthrightly and we can talk.
I don't solely rely on a "we gave you the Bible" argument when trying to understand what has come to pass. The book of Revelation demonstrates that most of the Asian churches fell short of the mark, but they still had the faith which was once delivered to the saints. and I assume they were part of the holy catholic apostolic church. You could make the Fundamentalist Baptist case here and argue that all churches are local. I think you already rejected the claims that Fundamentalists alone go back in direct apostolic succession to these churches. We know none of the Reformed theology churches do; they were started by men some 1500 years later. Who remains ? Do you propose the Eastern Catholics instead of the Western Catholics ? Would you take the position that the Jewish believers diminished and the Gentile believers misunderstood the Scriptures, drifting into long apostasy ?