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

[com7fy8]

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.

But what might "faith" mean?

"faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6)?

belief without personal submission to Christ?

How much does a group emphasize person submission?

 

[com7fy8]

the concept of predestination.

Looking at Romans chapter nine, I think the Bible goes beyond what people deny or claim to be predestination. I don't hear about Romans 8:29.

 

[com7fy8]

Baptist - Sacraments, or ordinances, are merely a display of good faith.

They are not just gestures, if we do them in God's grace which effects us with His love (1 Corinthians 16:14).

 

[Meowzltov]

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.

Baptizing a baby initiates into the Church, and rightly so, since he/she will be raised in the faith. It is absolutely a Jewish custom to initiate a baby into the Mosaic covenant on the eighth day through the rite of Circumcision. Baptism is the Christian equivalent of Circumcision.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Baptizing a baby initiates into the Church, and rightly so, since he/she will be raised in the faith. It is absolutely a Jewish custom to initiate a baby into the Mosaic covenant on the eighth day through the rite of Circumcision. Baptism is the Christian equivalent of Circumcision.

Circumcision is not for all Jewish babies (girls are entirely excluded) and has no sacramental value at all. If one wishes to conflate baptism with circumcision then baptism should be performed for male babies only on the eighth day and it should not be understood in any sacramental way, but merely as a sign that the baby is identified with God's covenant people. That, assuredly, is not the teaching of the Catholic church.

 

[Meowzltov]

If one wishes to conflate baptism with circumcision then baptism should be performed for male babies only on the eighth day and it should not be understood in any sacramental way, but merely as a sign that the baby is identified with God's covenant people. That, assuredly, is not the teaching of the Catholic church.

Just because circumcision is only done on boys doesn't mean it isn't a sign of being brought into the Covenant and being made a part of God's people. And so in the same way, baptism brings us into the New Covenant and makes us a part of God's people. This is why we do not refuse baptism to young children who will be raised in the Church.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Just because circumcision is only done on boys doesn't mean it isn't a sign of being brought into the Covenant and being made a part of God's people. And so in the same way, baptism brings us into the New Covenant and makes us a part of God's people. This is why we do not refuse baptism to young children who will be raised in the Church.

That is quite ridiculous. I have known innumerable Catholic families where the parents get their babies baptized as fire insurance only. They are told (accurately) that without baptism if the baby dies then it will go to hell and the parents will be held accountable by God. Thus, the babies get sprinkled and then don't show up at church until their First Communion. After that they usually come back for their wedding or any funerals which might happen. Other than that, the church is good for fire insurance.

 

[Meowzltov]

That is quite ridiculous. I have known innumerable Catholic families where the parents get their babies baptized as fire insurance only. They are told (accurately) that without baptism if the baby dies then it will go to hell and the parents will be held accountable by God. Thus, the babies get sprinkled and then don't show up at church until their First Communion. After that they usually come back for their wedding or any funerals which might happen. Other than that, the church is good for fire insurance.

It's a sacrilege. Those parents take the baptismal vows for their babies, and they are essentially lying. I wish the churches would do a better job of weeding out poor candidates.

The Church does not teach that babies without baptism go to hell. Even Limbo has been left out of the Catechism since the early 80's.

THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED*
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

[bbbbbbb]

It's a sacrilege. Those parents take the baptismal vows for their babies, and they are essentially lying. I wish the churches would do a better job of weeding out poor candidates.

The Church does not teach that babies without baptism go to hell. Even Limbo has been left out of the Catechism since the early 80's.

THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED*
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

So, if the Catholic Church is not another Israel, what is this nonsense about baptism being the equivalent of circumcision?

 

[Meowzltov]

So, if the Catholic Church is not another Israel, what is this nonsense about baptism being the equivalent of circumcision?

We may not be replacing Israel, but we are another People of God. And so, it makes sense that there would be a rite of initiation into the covenant, into the Church. I'm really surprised this all needs to be explained to you.

 

[bbbbbbb]

We may not be replacing Israel, but we are another People of God. And so, it makes sense that there would be a rite of initiation into the covenant, into the Church. I'm really surprised this all needs to be explained to you.

You need not be surprised. I do know the reasoning and the reality is that the Catholic Church, in order to go beyond what is clearly taught in the New Testament has had to mine the Old Testament to justify some very strange doctrines. For example, there is no teaching at all in the New Testament about a class of men known as priests, so the Catholic Church has used the Levitical priesthood as its model, but, strangely, has forbidden these men to marry and has given them authority never seen in the Levitical priesthood. No Levitical priest ever heard confessions and forgave the sins of the penitent Jew.

 

[com7fy8]

it makes sense that there would be a rite of initiation into the covenant, into the Church.

Our Apostle Paul says "we" "who first trusted in Christ", in Ephesians 1:12. How much do Catholic or Protestant groups focus on trusting in Jesus?

 

[Mediaeval]

Anglican Philip Cary wrote an interesting paper juxtaposing Lutheran and Baptist/Reformed views:
http://www.academia.edu/185285/Why_...t_The_Logic_of_Faith_in_a_Sacramental_Promise

This is a shorter version, presented to Lutherans and with a tidier ending:
http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/carysolafide.pdf

 

[bbbbbbb]

Anglican Philip Cary wrote an interesting paper juxtaposing Lutheran and Baptist/Reformed views:
http://www.academia.edu/185285/Why_...t_The_Logic_of_Faith_in_a_Sacramental_Promise

This is a shorter version, presented to Lutherans and with a tidier ending:
http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/carysolafide.pdf

I read the longer version and found it quite enlightening. Thank you.

 

[Major1]

Baptizing a baby initiates into the Church, and rightly so, since he/she will be raised in the faith. It is absolutely a Jewish custom to initiate a baby into the Mosaic covenant on the eighth day through the rite of Circumcision. Baptism is the Christian equivalent of Circumcision.

Infant baptism is not Biblical.

It may very well be Jewish or Catholic but it is definitely not Biblical.

 

[Major1]

Our Apostle Paul says "we" "who first trusted in Christ", in Ephesians 1:12. How much do Catholic or Protestant groups focus on trusting in Jesus?

If they are not doing so 100% then they are in error!

 

[Major1]

You need not be surprised. I do know the reasoning and the reality is that the Catholic Church, in order to go beyond what is clearly taught in the New Testament has had to mine the Old Testament to justify some very strange doctrines. For example, there is no teaching at all in the New Testament about a class of men known as priests, so the Catholic Church has used the Levitical priesthood as its model, but, strangely, has forbidden these men to marry and has given them authority never seen in the Levitical priesthood. No Levitical priest ever heard confessions and forgave the sins of the penitent Jew.

I would encourage you to investigate/google a woman by the name of Semeramis.

She was the mother/wife of Nimrod in Genesis 10. I think you will be surprised to see the familiarities in the Catholic religion when compared to the Babylonian religion.

 

[Major1]

We may not be replacing Israel, but we are another People of God. And so, it makes sense that there would be a rite of initiation into the covenant, into the Church. I'm really surprised this all needs to be explained to you.

The Bible tells us that Israel is Israel and the church is the churchch.

 

[com7fy8]

People can make God seem distant and theoretical. Colossians 3:15 and Hebrews 12:4-11, to me, show He is very personal with each of His children.

 

[Major1]

It's a sacrilege. Those parents take the baptismal vows for their babies, and they are essentially lying. I wish the churches would do a better job of weeding out poor candidates.

The Church does not teach that babies without baptism go to hell. Even Limbo has been left out of the Catechism since the early 80's.

THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED*
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Acts 16:30.....
Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

A child/infant does not have the ability to BELIEVE.