Protestant Doctrine

[PaulAckermann]

Protestants do have doctrine as is evidenced by our confessions.

Theses confession are only recognized by the older traditions with Protestantism. Baptist and Non-denominational churches would not recignize these confessiona at all.

To be frank with you, there is no such thing as Protestant doctrine. There is Baptist doctrine, there is Luther doctrine, there is Unitarian doctrine. But there is no such thing as Protestants.

There are only two things all Protestants can agree on - a vague understanding of the Lordship of Christ and Jesus is not Catholic. That is all that Protestant can agree on. Its funny. Protestants can't agree whether Jesus was the Son of God (Most Prosteant believe this), Jesus was A son of God (JWs), or that Jesus was just a man (Unitarians). But there one thing they agree on, that Jesus was not Catholic.

This Belgic Confession is so vague that it either says a lot and very little, depending where you are coming from. For instance, it says "the pure preaching of the gospel", but it does not even define what is the gospel. Does the gospel include accepting Jesus as Saviour and Lord (John MacArthur) or just accepting Jesus as Saviour only (Charles Ryrie). Is the gospel that Jesus died for every single person in the world (Billy Graham), or did Jesus only die for the Elect (Reformed)? Does one become born again by just believing in the gospel (Reformed), asking Christ into your heart (Baptist), being baptized (believed by Lutheran and the United Church of Christ), or by being dead and having someone else getting baptized for you (Mormon).

 

[cathmomof3]

Protestants do have doctrine as is evidenced by our confessions. Just as the RCC has doctrine that it can openly site here on CF, I would like to openly present this Protestant doctrine.

The Belgic Confession of 1619
Article 29
The Marks of the True Church
We believe that we ought to discern diligently and very carefully, by the Word of God, what is the true church-- for all sects in the world today claim for themselves the name of "the church."

We are not speaking here of the company of hypocrites who are mixed among the good in the church and who nonetheless are not part of it, even though they are physically there. But we are speaking of distinguishing the body and fellowship of the true church from all sects that call themselves "the church."

The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church-- and no one ought to be separated from it.

As for those who can belong to the church, we can recognize them by the distinguishing marks of Christians: namely by faith, and by their fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness, once they have received the one and only Savior, Jesus Christ. They love the true God and their neighbors, without turning to the right or left, and they crucify the flesh and its works.

Though great weakness remains in them, they fight against it by the Spirit all the days of their lives, appealing constantly to the blood, suffering, death, and obedience of the Lord Jesus, in whom they have forgiveness of their sins, through faith in him.

As for the false church, it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God; it does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ; it does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in his Word; it rather adds to them or subtracts from them as it pleases; it bases itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ; it persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry.

These two churches are easy to recognize and thus to distinguish from each other.

and what "authority" wrote this and where did this authority come from? I though you guys only believed what the bible said?

 

[cathmomof3]

Rituals don't save souls, faith in Christ saves souls. A person can have all the rituals and rites and sacraments in the word bestowed upon him but if there isn't a real faith in Christ, it's for nothing.

Catholics agree with you on this...Surprised?

 

[enelya_taralom]

By the way, most "Baptists" churches are 3 or 4 point Calvinist, but all Protestants are united in Christ, united in the Lord's Supper, sola gratia, sola fide, sola Christus, sola scriptura, Soli Deo Gloria, baptism and many other Biblical doctrines.

Sorry I haven't read further, but I have a comment on this

First, it's actually more of a question. How can one believe in sola gratia and sola fide at the same time? Sola means "alone" doesn't it? So if you believe in faith alone, but also believe in grace alone, then they aren't really sola, are they? Or does sola gratia and sola fide refer to something besides justification and salvation?


Oh, and not all Protestant churches are united in baptism. I know of many Protestant churches that baptise infants and recognize baptism as a sacrament (Anglican, for example) but also know of many that will not baptise infants and believe it to be only symbolic (Alliance, Baptist). I also know of many in both camps who believe that we should only be baptised once, but then also know of others where it is taught that you can be baptised as many times as you'd like.

Also, not all Protestant churches are united in the Lord's supper. Again, I know of many that believe in the literal presence of Christ (Lutheran, High Anglican), but again, many who believe it to only be symbolic (Baptist, Alliance, Low Anglican).

 

[BigNorsk]

Well, the solas need to be in their proper places or they do seem to be contradictory.

You often hear it said that we are saved by faith, but that isn't really correct.

To get it correct it should be said this way. Salvation is by God's grace alone (Sola Gratia), through faith alone (Sola Fide) for the sake of Christ's merit alone (Solus Christus). We are ultimately saved by God's grace. Let's say you read the Bible, God's Word is a source of his grace. But if you do not have faith, you don't receive his grace. It isn't that his grace isn't there, it is that you don't receive it without faith. We aren't saved because we are good enough or we merit it, it is dependant on Christ's merit.

Hope that helps you understand, sometimes people speak in shorthand or even don't understand it themselves.

If our unity depended on ourselves you would be right that we would not be united, but it doesn't.

Marv

 

[enelya_taralom]

Well, the solas need to be in their proper places or they do seem to be contradictory.

You often hear it said that we are saved by faith, but that isn't really correct.

To get it correct it should be said this way. Salvation is by God's grace alone (Sola Gratia), through faith alone (Sola Fide) for the sake of Christ's merit alone (Solus Christus). We are ultimately saved by God's grace. Let's say you read the Bible, God's Word is a source of his grace. But if you do not have faith, you don't receive his grace. It isn't that his grace isn't there, it is that you don't receive it without faith. We aren't saved because we are good enough or we merit it, it is dependant on Christ's merit.

Hope that helps you understand, sometimes people speak in shorthand or even don't understand it themselves.

If our unity depended on ourselves you would be right that we would not be united, but it doesn't.

Marv

That makes much more sense, thanks for clearing that up We believe very similar things

 

[Catholicism]

So were the people who wrote The Belgic Confession of 1619 infallible?

 

[OnTheWay]

As for the false church, it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God; it does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ; it does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in his Word; it rather adds to them or subtracts from them as it pleases; it bases itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ; it persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry.

These two churches are easy to recognize and thus to distinguish from each other.

You're correct. The false church asigns individuals the ability to create their own doctrines based on their "personal interpretation" and create new churches whenever they feel like it.

 

[HisKid1973]

not of the Roman Catholic Church, as well
not of the Calvinist Church, as well
not of the Lutheran Church, as well
not of the Anglican Church, as well
not of the Baptist Church, and so on

No Church is perfect here on the earth

A hearty amen to that bro...As soon as people show up...But for the Grace of God...K

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

and what "authority" wrote this and where did this authority come from? I though you guys only believed what the bible said?

That comment only reveals a lack of understanding of the principle of "sola scriptura".

To learn what it really means, go here:

http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/aahsolascrp.htm

http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Godfrey.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

This Belgic Confession is so vague that it either says a lot and very little, depending where you are coming from. For instance, it says "the pure preaching of the gospel", but it does not even define what is the gospel.

I guess you skipped over articles 20 and 21.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

Well, the solas need to be in their proper places or they do seem to be contradictory.

You often hear it said that we are saved by faith, but that isn't really correct.

To get it correct it should be said this way. Salvation is by God's grace alone (Sola Gratia), through faith alone (Sola Fide) for the sake of Christ's merit alone (Solus Christus). We are ultimately saved by God's grace. Let's say you read the Bible, God's Word is a source of his grace. But if you do not have faith, you don't receive his grace. It isn't that his grace isn't there, it is that you don't receive it without faith. We aren't saved because we are good enough or we merit it, it is dependant on Christ's merit.

Hope that helps you understand, sometimes people speak in shorthand or even don't understand it themselves.

If our unity depended on ourselves you would be right that we would not be united, but it doesn't.

Marv

Exactly, and in fact the Belgic makes this qualification in article 22: "However, to speak more clearly, we do not mean, that faith itself justifies us, for it is only an instrument with which we embrace Christ our Righteousness. But Jesus Christ, imputing to us all his merits and so many holy works which he has done for us, and in our stead, is our Righteousness. And faith is an instrument that keeps us in communion with him in all his benefits, which, when become ours, are more than sufficient to acquit us of our sins."

It is similar with sola scriptura. We do not mean that the Bible is our only authority to the exclusion of all subordinate authorities. Why would we say this on the one hand, and have authoritative confessions of faith on the other?

 

[a_ntv]

That comment only reveals a lack of understanding of the principle of "sola scriptura".

To learn what it really means, go here:

http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/aahsolascrp.htm

http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Godfrey.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html

I have looked at these site, and they look like simply as low level propaganda. When a site explains that a doctrine is to held only bc it is the contrary of the romish doctrine, that is not a theological site looking at confront and at the Truth, but simply rubbish.

Here on CF I've found by far better definitions and explanations of SS, by protestant people that are really exploring the basis of their faith, but here on CF I've found also a huge variety of definition of SS.

 

[seashale76]

Protestants do have doctrine as is evidenced by our confessions. Just as the RCC has doctrine that it can openly site here on CF, I would like to openly present this Protestant doctrine.

Does this supposedly apply to ALL protestants? I can tell you right now that most of the groups I was associated with when I was a protestant either didn't know or care about this confession. Those who didn't have a clue about it here who are latching on to it confuse me. Surely, this confession shouldn't be necessary for you?

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

I have looked at these site, and they look like simply as low level propaganda. When a site explains that a doctrine is to held only bc it is the contrary of the romish doctrine, that is not a theological site looking at confront and at the Truth, but simply rubbish.

Here on CF I've found by far better definitions and explanations of SS, by protestant people that are really exploring the basis of their faith, but here on CF I've found also a huge variety of definition of SS.

I guess we can say the same thing about the low level Roman Catholic propaganda sites that are referenced here at CF.

 

[JJB]

Does this supposedly apply to ALL protestants? I can tell you right now that most of the groups I was associated with when I was a protestant either didn't know or care about this confession. Those who didn't have a clue about it here who are latching on to it confuse me. Surely, this confession shouldn't be necessary for you?

At one time all Protestants were very familiar with the various confessions. They are helpful to our position and provide further unity amongst the various denominations.

I don't understand your last question about the necessity of a confession for me. Would you clarify?

 

[edie19]

Theses confession are only recognized by the older traditions with Protestantism. Baptist and Non-denominational churches would not recignize these confessiona at all.

To be frank with you, there is no such thing as Protestant doctrine. There is Baptist doctrine, there is Luther doctrine, there is Unitarian doctrine. But there is no such thing as Protestants.

There are only two things all Protestants can agree on - a vague understanding of the Lordship of Christ and Jesus is not Catholic. That is all that Protestant can agree on. Its funny. Protestants can't agree whether Jesus was the Son of God (Most Prosteant believe this), Jesus was A son of God (JWs), or that Jesus was just a man (Unitarians). But there one thing they agree on, that Jesus was not Catholic.

This Belgic Confession is so vague that it either says a lot and very little, depending where you are coming from. For instance, it says "the pure preaching of the gospel", but it does not even define what is the gospel. Does the gospel include accepting Jesus as Saviour and Lord (John MacArthur) or just accepting Jesus as Saviour only (Charles Ryrie). Is the gospel that Jesus died for every single person in the world (Billy Graham), or did Jesus only die for the Elect (Reformed)? Does one become born again by just believing in the gospel (Reformed), asking Christ into your heart (Baptist), being baptized (believed by Lutheran and the United Church of Christ), or by being dead and having someone else getting baptized for you (Mormon).

As an FYI - my baptist pastor quotes the LBC, the Westminster Confession, the Westminster Catechisms, the Canons of Dort, the Belgic Confession and would never tell anyone they need to "ask Jesus into their heart." Oh, he also quotes Augustine and Erasmus (to name two). He would state (and I agree) that the to preach the Gospel is to preach Christ and Him crucified. And that the gospel is doctrine.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

As an FYI - my baptist pastor quotes the LBC, the Westminster Confession, the Westminster Catechisms, the Canons of Dort, the Belgic Confession and would never tell anyone they need to "ask Jesus into their heart." Oh, he also quotes Augustine and Erasmus (to name two). He would state (and I agree) that the to preach the Gospel is to preach Christ and Him crucified. And that the gospel is doctrine.

My ex-Lutheran Sunday school teacher loves to quote from the Westminster catechisms, and he is now neither Lutheran nor Reformed, but C&MA. Also, many of the Reformed confessions presuppose the Augsburg Confession. There is a lot of confessional agreement in traditional Protestantism.

 

[Lynn73]

Catholics agree with you on this...Surprised?

Could have fooled me. I've heard Catholics say that water baptism saves. Isn't that believing that a ritual saves?

 

[lionroar0]

My ex-Lutheran Sunday school teacher loves to quote from the Westminster catechisms, and he is now neither Lutheran nor Reformed, but C&MA. Also, many of the Reformed confessions presuppose the Augsburg Confession. There is a lot of confessional agreement in traditional Protestantism.

I think that this would be a good discussion.

Maybe another thread??

Peace