Are Quakers Protestant?

[TDAS04]

In any case, I tend to view Quakers favorably, they seem like nice people.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Extremely so? It's rather hard to get more Protestant than a Quaker.

[TDAS04]

I voted yes in the poll, I think Quakers are Protestant, but some beliefs are a bit out of the Protestant mainstream.  For example, belief that an Inner Light of God resides in everyone gives Quakers a softer, more positive view of humanity.

[Tintrlvr]

They're as much Protestants as other Protestant denominations that emerged around the same time such as Baptists and Methodists.

[LabourJersey]

Extremely so? It's rather hard to get more Protestant than a Quaker.

[Bismarck]

Of course. They are still common in central Indiana where I grew up. Many of the earlier settler of Indiana, including some of my ancestors, were quakers. They have some unorthodox beliefs but I don’t think anyone here thinks of them as being unusual.

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Silly OP, everyone knows oatmeal isn't a religious variant

[RINO Tom]

Yes, definitely.  Didn't Quakers spring up out of Congregationalists, who can very clearly trace a direct lineage to the various English forms of Protestantism like Anglicanism/Episcopalianism?  I feel like if your church is a "reformation" of a church that very clearly descends from the Protestant Reformation (i.e., Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican, etc.), then you're obviously Protestant - even if it's a more extreme evolution like Pentecostals theoretically descending from Methodists.

That doesn't mean Protestantism is necessarily "all Christians that came after Catholics or Orthodox Christians," though.  Groups like Jehovah's Witness or Mormons didn't, to my knowledge, trace their lineage quite as smoothly to the radical departure they're at now.  Could be wrong, though.

[UWS]

They are

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Do they believe that The Bible is more important than the church?

Do they affirm the Nicean Creed?

If the answer to any of those questions is no, then no. If the answer for both of those is yes, then yes.

[satsuma]

Do they believe that The Bible is more important than the church?

Do they affirm the Nicean Creed?

If the answer to any of those questions is no, then no. If the answer for both of those is yes, then yes.

A) Yes, where the above says it's "rather hard to get more Protestant than a Quaker," I think the meaning is that Quakerism deconstructs so much of Christianity's sacramental and institutional forms in favor of faith and the Bible, that you could argue that it is more Protestant than other Protestants.

B) No, the Quakers do not affirm creeds at all, but similarly most Baptists do not affirm creeds despite believing in many of the substantial points in them. (Are many Protestants violating the belief in "one holy catholic and apostolic church?") Likewise, Quakers are also set apart in not acknowledging a physical baptism (the true baptism being spiritual), although Evangelical Friends are permitted to baptize adults in water, as Baptists do.

Personally, I'd say that Quakers are Protestant, but I would use different criteria. Protestant churches are those that spring from the Protestant Reformation, being traceable to that schism in some way. Rather than require the Nicene creed specifically, I would ask the more ambiguous question of whether the church has remained part of Christianity or if instead they have become non-Christian.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Yes

[Republican Party Stalwart]

Yes, they are indeed Protestant and therefore indeed Protestant Christian, even if they may be more "ideologically left-liberal" (in the modern sense)*, ergo "less Christian," ergo less Protestant, than they used to be. So are Anabaptists, so are Shakers (do "Shakers" actually exist anymore?), so are Unitarians, so are Universalists, and so are (or, at least, were) Unitarian Universalists. You could also make a relatively strong case that the Jehova's Witnesses are too, considering their origins. Also Mormonism, although that one is much more of a stretch.

*Quakerism has always been "left-liberal," theologically speaking (and also theoretically ideologically and politically speaking, although that distinction isn't as true in US historical context on terms of how these things functionally manifest; Quakers were historically right-leaning within the US political framework until maybe more recent history), relative to Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Eastern Christianity, and High-Church forms of Protestantism. However, when I say "more left-liberal," I'm referring to the degree to which the American (and global) Overton Window has shifted radically to the left (at least on social issues) within the last 70 years, and the degree to which Quakers may or may not disproportionally occupy the left-wing to far-left (theologically, politically, and ideologically) in that present-day Overton Window, particularly on social issues.

[RINO Tom]

I have become a LOT more interested in the various denominations of Christianity since I first responded to this and (I think/hope!) thus a lot more knowledgeable ... I do not see any good argument why Quakers are not Protestants.  They have at least as good of a claim and probably a better one that many charismatic groups that nobody questions are Protestant.

[LastMcGovernite]

Only when they stop sowing their wild oats.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

What's really disturbing about them is their rejection of Baptism and Communion/Eucharist.  While as a Baptist I have a different view of these sacraments than a Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox would, they're still really important parts of the faith and shouldn't be neglected.

[RINO Tom]

What's really disturbing about them is their rejection of Baptism and Communion/Eucharist.  While as a Baptist I have a different view of these sacraments than a Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox would, they're still really important parts of the faith and shouldn't be neglected.

While I kind of agree, in all fairness their rejection to it was that the church wouldn't administer either to women, which every single church now does ... so the Quakers were arguably correct in the first place but never came around to "joining back in."