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

[Shane2336]

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.

I'll have to look into this...thanks for the feedback so far.

 

[Albion]

@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.

If you're trying to find peace in your own mind with this issue, you might consider that the Calvinist churches mentioned here pride themselves on defining the matter precisely, whereas the Lutheran approach, which I don't want to describe as equivocal or anything like that, still doesn't approach this teaching with the same fine toothed comb. They are "confessional" but they nevertheless don't go into some Protestant version of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" like the Scholastics of the Medieval Catholic Church are remembered for.

For me, that's comfortable, since applying too much logic to a divine mystery is a shaky proposition. We can affirm some ideas without then striving to explain every nuance of how and why God does X or Y.

 

[Shane2336]

If you're trying to find peace in your own mind with this issue, you might consider that the Calvinist churches mentioned here pride themselves on defining the matter precisely, whereas the Lutheran approach, which I don't want to describe as equivocal or anything like that, still doesn't approach this teaching with the same fine toothed comb. They are "confessional" but they nevertheless don't go into some Protestant version of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" like the Scholastics of the Medieval Catholic Church are remembered for.

For me, that's comfortable, since applying too much logic to a divine mystery is a shaky proposition. We can affirm some ideas without then striving to explain every nuance of how and why God does X or Y.

I couldn't agree with you more on this. I feel many people get so caught up in figuring out the how and the why (in our infinite wisdom as mere humans) instead of accepting what is.

 

[com7fy8]

In general > it is good to read the Bible and see what is better than self-favoring groups and preachers might be saying.

 

[Albion]

In general > it is good to read the Bible and see what is better than self-favoring groups and preachers might be saying.

All right, but we have to remember that the issue brought to us by the OP concerned denominations--and that's the focus of this entire subforum. A person does study the Bible but then wants to know which churches that he might attend either agree or disagree.

 

[com7fy8]

A person does study the Bible

I'm not going to assume every reader does this.

I would evaluate how much a group emphasizes what the Bible emphasizes, not mainly compare groups.

 

[Albion]

I'm not going to assume every reader does this.

Yes, but that's what this particular thread is about and it is what this forum is for.

 

[Shane2336]

I'm not going to assume every reader does this.

I would evaluate how much a group emphasizes what the Bible emphasizes, not mainly compare groups.

Hello,
I can say that I do indeed read the Bible, on a daily basis, in fact. That is the entire reason that my curiosity has been peaked in this area. Because of disciplined and devoted reading of the Word.

 

[Tangible]

I would be willing to answer some basic questions about Lutheran theology, or at least try.

 

[Meowzltov]

oops.

 

[Meowzltov]

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.

Protestants are united by the Solas:

• Sola Fide, by faith alone.
• Sola Scriptura, by Scripture alone.
• Solus Christus, through Christ alone.
• Sola Gratia, by grace alone.
• Soli Deo Gloria, glory to God alone.

Actually the Catholic Church agrees with most of those.

Other than that, Protestantism is a whirlpool of disagreement. It cannot EVEN agree what makes a person a Christian. It can't agree on whether baptism is salvific, or even asked of us by Christ. It can't agree whether Communion is Real Presence or symbol only. It can't agree on the role of tradition. It can't agree whether we have free will or not. It can't agree whether we will always be Christians or whether we can fall from grace. It cannot agree on abortion or homosexuality. This is sola scriptura come home to rest. But today it is even worse than that. It used to be that all of Protestantism was Creedal, but today that is not so. It cannot agree that the Virgin birth actually happened or that Christ was resurrected or that Jesus was God.

 

[Meowzltov]

@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.

Those who practice infant baptism note that

• it was practiced long before there was a canon of scripture
• Scripture states that whole households were baptized.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Those who practice infant baptism note that

• it was practiced long before there was a canon of scripture
• Scripture states that whole households were baptized.

That depends on one's definition as to what constitutes a household. The Philippian jailer's household all believed prior to their baptism, so it could not have included individuals who were incapable of cognitive faith. Never is it said in scripture that any household was baptized which included non-believers.

 

[now faith]

Transubstantiation, now that shows diversity among denominations.
There is only one problem,Jesus Christ Himself had no intention of being the body and blood in physical form for this sacrament.
Christ used wine and bread,he did not cut himself or offer his flesh.
That happened one time only during his being Crucified.
Bible verse is clear :

Luke: 22. 17. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18. For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
He used bread and wine and said do this in remembrance of me.
He also washed the Apostles feet,are we to think He would be washing our feet?
There are Churches who practice the foot washing as well.


We are cleansed from our sin through Christ blood,with out his blood there would be no remission of sin.
Now look at God's law old and New Testament.
We are to abstain from drinking Blood.

Acts: 21. 25. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

 

[Meowzltov]

That depends on one's definition as to what constitutes a household. The Philippian jailer's household all believed prior to their baptism, so it could not have included individuals who were incapable of cognitive faith. Never is it said in scripture that any household was baptized which included non-believers.

At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. Acts 16:33
It never says only those that believed were baptized. It does say that ALL his household were baptized. You basically made up your stuff.

 

[bbbbbbb]

At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. Acts 16:33
It never says only those that believed were baptized. It does say that ALL his household were baptized. You basically made up your stuff.

Well, I certainly did not make up the following verse. It would help you greatly to read the entire passage rather than just one verse.

Acts 16:34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

 

[Meowzltov]

Well, I certainly did not make up the following verse. It would help you greatly to read the entire passage rather than just one verse.

Acts 16:34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

The head of the household determined what gods the household worshiped. When he converted, his whole household would have changed their beliefs.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The head of the household determined what gods the household worshiped. When he converted, his whole household would have changed their beliefs.

Of course. Can a baby change it's belief?

 

[Meowzltov]

Of course. Can a baby change it's belief?

A baby is part of the household, meaning it will be raised in the religion of that household. There would be no reason to withhold baptism.

 

[bbbbbbb]

A baby is part of the household, meaning it will be raised in the religion of that household. There would be no reason to withhold baptism.

Nor is there the slightest reason to baptize it. Baptizing a baby has no value other than getting it wet. It is certainly not a Jewish custom.