Per the Anglican/Lutheran/Protestant discussion, the biggest issue is less about the definition of Ang. or Luth. but the def. of Prot. Protestant, for all intents and purposes, is synonymous with non-denom Mega Church rock concerts, at least in the modern American context. 1/5

Many I know (including myself even a year ago) reject the Prot. label because they reject the excesses of mod. Amer. Prot. and the complete lack of sacramentology. Upon seeing the robust sacramental views of the early Prots, I am more accepting of the label. 2/5

Another component is that Protestant is not contrary to Catholic (yes with a capital C), but Romanist. Anglicanism is Protestant because it rejects Rome and Catholic because it seeks to align its theology through the Fathers to Scripture. 3/5

Protestant and Catholic should go hand in hand. The Neo-Prots try to skip over the Fathers straight to Scripture, and thus cease to be Catholic, and in so doing, lose out on being Protestant as well. 4/5

Are Anglicans and Lutherans Protestant? Yes, because they are Catholic but not Roman.

Are modern American Evangelicals Protestant? On the whole, no, because they may not be Roman, but they are also not Catholic. 5/5