Protestant Denominational Differences (I want to hear from YOU!)

[Shane2336]

Hello everyone,

This is something that has been weighing quite heavily on me of late.
I was brought up in the Baptist Church, and have identified as such for my entire time here on Earth. Over the years, I have done modest amounts of research into the other denominations. This delving has been nothing more than exploratory, up until the past two weeks. What I have indeed found is that although we Protestants DO agree on the very core doctrine of salvation in Christ alone, because of God's grace, through our faith; the similarities seem to stop about there.

These are very general "blanket" statements mind you, merely placed to start an informed discussion.

Baptist - Sacraments, or ordinances, are merely a display of good faith. Salvation is attained by faith in Christ alone. The believer is protected under the promise of eternal salvation. Though he may stray, he will never again be lost. Infant baptism is not practiced, on the belief that it is merely a show of faith for the born again Christian. The Bible is held to be the 100% inerrant Word of God and the final authority on all matters. (Most) Congregations denounce the concept of predestination.

I place that there, to get this started. I would love to hear anyone's thoughts on the above matters and to challenge them! I am particularly very interested in hearing from Lutherans and Presbyterians here as I have taken quite an interest in both of these denominations. (There is only so much you can read though, I'd love to hear it from the "sources" and engage in actual discussions!) Thank you and God Bless.

 

[dysert]

I had been a member of Baptist churches for well over 20 years, so I'm quite familiar with their set of beliefs and believe they are very biblical. I would probably disagree with your sentiment that
"(Most) Congregations denounce the concept of predestination." My gut tells me that there are probably as many who accept predestination as there are those who don't accept it. That doesn't bother me though.

I went to a Presby church (PCUSA) for a couple of years and swallowed hard when they performed infant baptism. They also have documents that are supposed to "supplement" what's in the Bible (which doesn't sit well with me). I accepted our differences, though, because I was tired of changing churches. However, when the denomination decided to accept the LGBT's redefinition of marriage and then actually ordained a lesbian married couple it was too much, and I left.

I'm now in a nondenom church which is 100% biblical and growing fast. It's great to not be under the umbrella of a denomination who can change their stand on issues (like the Presby's did) and have it trickle down to the local churches.

Not sure what kind of discussion you're wanting, but this sounds like it could be an interesting topic so I thought I'd jump in.

 

[look4hope]

Ufff! I apologize in advance if my post here seems a bit too simple and not meaty enough.

I was raised a Catholic but my folks were laid back with attending services and engaging with church at all. Weddings, baptisms, funerals, Easter and Christmas were the top reasons to attend.

Fast forward. I had a time in life during my late teen years when I decided not to believe. I'm glad it didn't last long. I became a Lutheran about 10 years ago. Found it refreshing to meet folks that shared my views and was happy to find a small church where I didn't feel pressured to fit in.
We believe that baptism is an introduction and welcoming to God's word. A promise.

Alright, I'll keep this post short.
It's an interesting topic so I'm sure many will jump in.

 

[Shane2336]

@dysert Just wanting to hear some different viewpoints on things. Thanks for your contribution! I have heard that the PCUSA is quite "liberal" in their views on some very important topics. I have also done some reading up on the PCA, which seems to definitely be more "conservative" in nature. On the topic of infant baptism, I'm in the same boat as you my friend. I just don't understand how it is seen as a Biblically grounded practice. But, that's why this thread is here. I'd like to hear from some people who disagree with, or see things differently than, myself.

 

[Shane2336]

@look4hope Thanks for tossing your hat in! I'm very excited to see where this goes!

 

[Shane2336]

@look4hope Could you expound a bit on the Eucharist/Communion from the Lutheran perspective?

 

[look4hope]

Ok Shane, I'm very bad at explaining things so hope this helps learn a bit on the Lord's Supper from my perspective.

We take Jesus at his word. It's all about forgiveness. He did it all, and when he gave us the Sacrament, as the Lutheran Confessions affirm, "he was speaking of his true, essential body, which he gave into death for us, and of his true, essential blood, which was poured out for us on the tree of the cross for the forgiveness of sins".

 

[Albion]

Shane,

I'm not quite sure how to respond or what you are most interested in. Right off, I agree that your overview of the denominational differences is correct. That is to say that the Baptists (and some smaller churches that stem from the Baptists) have a special view of the sacraments and especially of Baptism itself. The other major Protestant churches do not share any of that. But on the other hand, it's also true that all are Protestants, meaning that the Baptists and the others agree on the "Solas," which, in the main, define Protestant thinking. The matter of "Eternal Security" that you mentioned in the OP isn't so easily categorized. Baptists go either way with that; so do some of the other major denominations.

So, what are we trying to solve here? Are you wavering between Baptists and Lutherans in particular? If so, the main characteristics you'd have to come to grips with in the case of Lutheran Christianity would not be doctrinal certainty but 1. liturgical worship, 2. the sacraments as efficacious channels of grace instead of mere symbols or obligationsm and 3. Creeds and Confessions of Faith.

If it were Presbyterianism, liturgy would not be an issue, but the rest would be. Of course, Eternal Security/OSAS is part of the history of Presbytrianism.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Shane,

I'm not quite sure how to respond or what you are most interested in. Right off, I agree that your overview of the denominational differences is correct. That is to say that the Baptists (and some smaller churches that stem from the Baptists) have a special view of the sacraments and especially of Baptism itself. The other major Protestant churches do not share any of that. But on the other hand, it's also true that all are Protestants, meaning that the Baptists and the others agree on the "Solas," which, in the main, define Protestant thinking. The matter of "Eternal Security" that you mentioned in the OP isn't so easily categorized. Baptists go either way with that; so do some of the other major denominations.

So, what are we trying to solve here? Are you wavering between Baptists and Lutherans in particular? If so, the main characteristics you'd have to come to grips with in the case of Lutheran Christianity would not be doctrinal certainty but 1. liturgical worship, 2. the sacraments as efficacious channels of grace instead of mere symbols or obligationsm and 3. Creeds and Confessions of Faith.

If it were Presbyterianism, liturgy would not be an issue, but the rest would be. Of course, Eternal Security/OSAS is part of the history of Presbytrianism.

Ironically, it is not Eternal Security/OSAS that is part of the history of Presbyterianism but the doctrine of the perserverance of the saints. That simply means that the elect will perservere to the end of their lives, exhibiting the fruits of their election. The subtle difference here is on the stress to do good works as being essential to one's identification as being elect. In much OSAS literature the emphasis is on the security of the believer through faith apart from works.

 

[Major1]

@dysert Just wanting to hear some different viewpoints on things. Thanks for your contribution! I have heard that the PCUSA is quite "liberal" in their views on some very important topics. I have also done some reading up on the PCA, which seems to definitely be more "conservative" in nature. On the topic of infant baptism, I'm in the same boat as you my friend. I just don't understand how it is seen as a Biblically grounded practice. But, that's why this thread is here. I'd like to hear from some people who disagree with, or see things differently than, myself.

Do you have a specific area or concern you would like to be addressed?????

That is really the best way to approach this. We can talk all day about different theology but what is it that YOU are wanting to talk about. I will be glad to speak with you.

I am a Baptist and have been for about 60 years. My education was through a
Presbyterian seminary and undergraduate work at a Baptist seminary.

 

[Major1]

Ironically, it is not Eternal Security/OSAS that is part of the history of Presbyterianism but the doctrine of the perserverance of the saints. That simply means that the elect will perservere to the end of their lives, exhibiting the fruits of their election. The subtle difference here is on the stress to do good works as being essential to one's identification as being elect. In much OSAS literature the emphasis is on the security of the believer through faith apart from works.

Excellent comment!

I agree completely. Works come because we are saved and not to be saved.

 

[Major1]

Shane,

I'm not quite sure how to respond or what you are most interested in. Right off, I agree that your overview of the denominational differences is correct. That is to say that the Baptists (and some smaller churches that stem from the Baptists) have a special view of the sacraments and especially of Baptism itself. The other major Protestant churches do not share any of that. But on the other hand, it's also true that all are Protestants, meaning that the Baptists and the others agree on the "Solas," which, in the main, define Protestant thinking. The matter of "Eternal Security" that you mentioned in the OP isn't so easily categorized. Baptists go either way with that; so do some of the other major denominations.

So, what are we trying to solve here? Are you wavering between Baptists and Lutherans in particular? If so, the main characteristics you'd have to come to grips with in the case of Lutheran Christianity would not be doctrinal certainty but 1. liturgical worship, 2. the sacraments as efficacious channels of grace instead of mere symbols or obligationsm and 3. Creeds and Confessions of Faith.

If it were Presbyterianism, liturgy would not be an issue, but the rest would be. Of course, Eternal Security/OSAS is part of the history of Presbytrianism.

70,000 posts. You have certainly be busy getting out the Word of God! Good job and keep it up.

Personally I am a Christian by the grace of God and a Baptist by choice.

That choice IMO stems from the belief I have that the Baptist faith is the closest to correct Bible interpretation. Is it perfect......heavens NO!

It is again IMO after having studied and read and experienced other Protestant denominations, the Baptist work harder to follow the Scriptures than do the rest.

 

[Major1]

Ok Shane, I'm very bad at explaining things so hope this helps learn a bit on the Lord's Supper from my perspective.

We take Jesus at his word. It's all about forgiveness. He did it all, and when he gave us the Sacrament, as the Lutheran Confessions affirm, "he was speaking of his true, essential body, which he gave into death for us, and of his true, essential blood, which was poured out for us on the tree of the cross for the forgiveness of sins".

I believe that the fact is that what the Lutheran's believe and teach it is very close to Transubstantiation. However, there still exists the question of whether it (Bread/wine) really DOES become the Body and Blood of Christ.

"Transubstantiation" is the belief that the wine & bread is actually the body and blood of Christ.

Baptist do not accept that and the wine (Juice) and bread is taken as the Bible says and that is in 'REMEMBERENCE" of Christ until He comes again.

From my readings and studies, it appeared that Martin Luther went back and forth about Transubstantiation and in the end of his life, felt it WAS true.

 

[Albion]

I believe that the fact is that what the Lutheran's believe and teach it is very close to Transubstantiation. However, there still exists the question of whether it (Bread/wine) really DOES become the Body and Blood of Christ.

"Transubstantiation" is the belief that the wine & bread is actually the body and blood of Christ.

Baptist do not accept that and the wine (Juice) and bread is taken as the Bible says and that is in 'REMEMBERENCE" of Christ until He comes again.

From my readings and studies, it appeared that Martin Luther went back and forth about Transubstantiation and in the end of his life, felt it WAS true.

I think you're mistaken about that. His view was not Transubstantiation but what others looking at it have termed Consubstantiation (Lutherans don't accept the term as correct). He believed that the true, physical body and blood of Christ are made present but not that the bread and wine cease to be--as is the Catholic POV called TRANSubstantiation. You are entitled to disbelieve that also, but I would point out that Jesus did not only say to take the elements in remembrance of him but also that they were his body and blood, not that they would stand for them.

 

[Albion]

Ironically, it is not Eternal Security/OSAS that is part of the history of Presbyterianism but the doctrine of the perserverance of the saints. That simply means that the elect will perservere to the end of their lives, exhibiting the fruits of their election. The subtle difference here is on the stress to do good works as being essential to one's identification as being elect. In much OSAS literature the emphasis is on the security of the believer through faith apart from works.

We're really talking about the same thing in principle, aren't we? It's only the way that certain individuals represent the matter--or misrepresent it--that you appear to be referring to.

 

[Major1]

I think you're mistaken about that. His view was not Transubstantiation but what others looking at it have termed Consubstantiation (Lutherans don't accept the term as correct). He believed that the true, physical body and blood of Christ are made present but not that the bread and wine cease to be--as is the Catholic POV called TRANSubstantiation. You are entitled to disbelieve that also, but I would point out that Jesus did not only say to take the elements in remembrance of him but also that they were his body and blood, not that they would stand for them.

You may be correct my friend. It has been a long time since I studied this subject so I looked it up at.......................
https://bfhu.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/martin-luther-on-the-real-presence/

"Martin Luther believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. He became indignant when groups, who had followed him out of the Catholic Church, rejected the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. He deplored the fact that every milkmaid and farmhand thought they could interpret scripture correctly. Here he is in his own words.

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”

—Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

 

[Shane2336]

@Major1 (and everyone else) First, I'd like to apologize for not making my question clear here. I was casting a very broad net out! I specifically have been doing quite a lot of research on Lutheranism and the PCA lately. This stemmed from some curiosity about the view of the Sacraments and some other theological differences between my Baptist upbringing and these two denominations. I have had many concerns about the more liberal and "relaxed", for lack of a better term, environment of my current denomination. And after doing some of this digging, I can say that I am leaning towards a Calvinist approach of things as well. I'm not saying I disagree with the Baptist Church entirely, but I'm not ruling these other two out for myself either. I see things in all of them that I can adhere to.

 

[bbbbbbb]

@Major1 (and everyone else) First, I'd like to apologize for not making my question clear here. I was casting a very broad net out! I specifically have been doing quite a lot of research on Lutheranism and the PCA lately. This stemmed from some curiosity about the view of the Sacraments and some other theological differences between my Baptist upbringing and these two denominations. I have had many concerns about the more liberal and "relaxed", for lack of a better term, environment of my current denomination. And after doing some of this digging, I can say that I am leaning towards a Calvinist approach of things as well. I'm not saying I disagree with the Baptist Church entirely, but I'm not ruling these other two out for myself either. I see things in all of them that I can adhere to.

There are certainly Calvinist Baptist churches out here. The Reformed Baptist Church and the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches are decidedly Calvinistic.

 

[Shane2336]

@bbbbbbb Yes, you are certainly correct. And it's not like I am 100% sold on the full Calvinist theology. To be perfectly honest, the Lutheran view of "predestination" (to use the term a little loosely) makes quite a bit of sense to me as well.

 

[bbbbbbb]

@bbbbbbb Yes, you are certainly correct. And it's not like I am 100% sold on the full Calvinist theology. To be perfectly honest, the Lutheran view of "predestination" (to use the term a little loosely makes quite a bit of sense to me as well.

I think the Reformed Baptists may be fairly close to what you want. The GARBC is pretty much full Calvinist, but the Reform Baptists seem to be somewhat softer.