questions

[Snowbunny]

hola

i thought maybe i should just post some of my questions... so here goes

what is a "reformed protestant" my husband is a presbyterian and he said it is a "reformed church"

who leads the protestants? like who is the protestant patriarch?

what are differences between catholics and protestants?

where do protestants come from... like how did they start?

how do you know the difference between denominations... how different can a denomination be without becomming something other than christian?

i think maybe if i start with those questions that will be good then i can ask other ones as time goes by?

gracias
annette

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

hola

i thought maybe i should just post some of my questions... so here goes


what is a "reformed protestant" my husband is a presbyterian and he said it is a "reformed church"

During the Protestant Reformation there were three major branches. The Lutheran, THe Reformed and the Anabaptist, The Reformed Churches are those churches that are the churches coming out of the Reformation that are most closely associated with the teachings of Zwingli, Bucer, Calvin, Bullinger, etc... John Calvin is the most well known and important thinker of this branch. What has come to distinguish them (for the most part) from other Protestant churches are teaching on predestination and election, Covenant theology and a representative form of church government, which is the rule by elders (or Pesbyters).

THere are diviations from this. There are Baptists who are predestinarians, but do not agree on the other items, there are also Baptist who are predestinarians and also hold to a form of covenant theology. There are Anglicans who agree with the Presbyterians on everything except Church government.

We can go into more detail, but I think that is a thumbnail sketch of who are (more or less) come under the title Reformed in one way or another.

who leads the protestants? like who is the protestant patriarch?

WE have no patriarch.

what are differences between catholics and protestants?

THe core difference has to do with our undersatning of authority. Protestants see the Scriptures alone as the only infallible rule for both faith and practice. THis does not mean that we don't know and look at other things like history and tradition. Many (not all) of us do, but while the other sources are useful and helpful, they all are fallible and are subject to the judgement of Scripture.

The RCC believe in Holy Scripture (like the Protestants) and Holy Tradition. That is the divide. we can look at the differences point by point, but those differences begin at this point.

We differ among ourselves a great deal also, how to baptise, who should be baptised, etc... We all agree on the point about Scripture being the only infallible rule, but it is also clear that we are interpreting that rule differently.

where do protestants come from... like how did they start?

The Protestant movement begain in 1517. THat is a long story also. The Renaissance Popes were some of the worst and most corrupt popes in all of church history. It is a low ebb in the history of the papacy. The corruption of the church led to a great rebellion that was both civil and religious. We can give more detail if you like.

Here is a short thing on the corruption of the time:
http://cajunhuguenot2.blogspot.com/2003/12/lorenzo-de-medici-in-late-15th-century.html

how do you know the difference between denominations... how different can a denomination be without becomming something other than christian?

(IMHO) If you can't hold the the Nicene or Apostles' Creed than you are outside of Christendom.

i think maybe if i start with those questions that will be good then i can ask other ones as time goes by?

gracias
annette

These were great questions. I hope I've helped a little bit.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[lmnop9876]

(IMHO) If you can't hold the the Nicene or Apostles' Creed than you are outside of Christendom.

i would definitely agree with that. also the athanasian creed and the definition of chalcedon

 

[arunma]

You two have given excellent responses to these most important questions.

By the way Annette, I am one such Baptist (mentioned by Kenith) who adheres to Reformed doctrines and covenant theology. The major difference between my church and a Presbyterian church is our view on baptism. To put it in simple terms, if I were in a new city on the Lord's Day, chances are I'd go to a Presbyterian church over the local (non-Reformed) Baptist church.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

(IMHO) If you can't hold the the Nicene or Apostles' Creed than you are outside of Christendom.

Excellent answers all, Ken, but I would narrow this one down a little. The crux of this issue is the Trinity, and groups like the Mormons can affirm the Apostles Creed with a corrupt view of the Trininty. I would say the minimum would be the Nicene Creed, but the Athanasian Creed would be better.

 

[Snowbunny]

gracias everyone...

if i may ask... if protestants do not believe sacred tradition is infallible then how do they understand the Holy Spirit guides the universal church? or dont they?

and what do protestants think about creeds? i see you are talking about them as criteria for being christian... like the athanasian or nicene creeds... but those are not the same as the bible... so why dont protestants just say anybody that follows the bible is a christian? are creeds considered more sacred or reliable than sacred tradition but less so than the bible?

 

[Snowbunny]

You two have given excellent responses to these most important questions.

By the way Annette, I am one such Baptist (mentioned by Kenith) who adheres to Reformed doctrines and covenant theology. The major difference between my church and a Presbyterian church is our view on baptism. To put it in simple terms, if I were in a new city on the Lord's Day, chances are I'd go to a Presbyterian church over the local (non-Reformed) Baptist church.

so if you are a baptist that follows the reformed doctrines doesnt that make you not a baptist? sorry if i sound silly but i dont understand...

 

[Snowbunny]

During the Protestant Reformation there were three major branches. The Lutheran, THe Reformed and the Anabaptist, The Reformed Churches are those churches that are the churches coming out of the Reformation that are most closely associated with the teachings of Zwingli, Bucer, Calvin, Bullinger, etc... John Calvin is the most well known and important thinker of this branch. What has come to distinguish them (for the most part) from other Protestant churches are teaching on predestination and election, Covenant theology and a representative form of church government, which is the rule by elders (or Pesbyters).

THere are diviations from this. There are Baptists who are predestinarians, but do not agree on the other items, there are also Baptist who are predestinarians and also hold to a form of covenant theology. There are Anglicans who agree with the Presbyterians on everything except Church government.

We can go into more detail, but I think that is a thumbnail sketch of who are (more or less) come under the title Reformed in one way or another.


WE have no patriarch.



THe core difference has to do with our undersatning of authority. Protestants see the Scriptures alone as the only infallible rule for both faith and practice. THis does not mean that we don't know and look at other things like history and tradition. Many (not all) of us do, but while the other sources are useful and helpful, they all are fallible and are subject to the judgement of Scripture.

The RCC believe in Holy Scripture (like the Protestants) and Holy Tradition. That is the divide. we can look at the differences point by point, but those differences begin at this point.

We differ among ourselves a great deal also, how to baptise, who should be baptised, etc... We all agree on the point about Scripture being the only infallible rule, but it is also clear that we are interpreting that rule differently.



The Protestant movement begain in 1517. THat is a long story also. The Renaissance Popes were some of the worst and most corrupt popes in all of church history. It is a low ebb in the history of the papacy. The corruption of the church led to a great rebellion that was both civil and religious. We can give more detail if you like.

Here is a short thing on the corruption of the time:
http://cajunhuguenot2.blogspot.com/2003/12/lorenzo-de-medici-in-late-15th-century.html



(IMHO) If you can't hold the the Nicene or Apostles' Creed than you are outside of Christendom.



These were great questions. I hope I've helped a little bit.

In Christ,
Kenith

gracias ken if i may ask, how do protestants view the idea of christian unity? like especially with all the different ideas and everything... its very different for me since the structure of the Church is in control of official Catholic doctrines...

and who makes doctrines in protestant churches now that we are on that... you mentioned people like john calvin (who i looked up) but i think he has been dead for a long time... but the churches are still there... so do the church administrators decide what is doctrinally correct for a denomination?

Dios te bendiga
annette

 

[Snowbunny]

if you do not have patriarchs how do you have bishops or apostolic succession?

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

gracias everyone...

if i may ask... if protestants do not believe sacred tradition is infallible then how do they understand the Holy Spirit guides the universal church? or dont they?

and what do protestants think about creeds? i see you are talking about them as criteria for being christian... like the athanasian or nicene creeds... but those are not the same as the bible... so why dont protestants just say anybody that follows the bible is a christian? are creeds considered more sacred or reliable than sacred tradition but less so than the bible?

There are Protestants that deny all Creeds, but historic Protestants do not do so. The ancient Creeds are we all agree to be perfectly in line with the Word of God. THe are not infallible because they are declared to be so by fallible men, but they are highly esteemed because we agree that they repeat what the Word of God declares to be so.

I have great respect for tradition and see it as important, but it too is fallible, as are our interpretations of it and Scripture. I would invite you to read this article that I wrote some time back about tradition, St. Vincent, Sola Scriptura and Tradition . I would like your thoughts on what it says.

We believe the Holy Spirit guides the universal (i.e. catholic) Church by the Word of God. Tradition and history are both important, but neither is on par with the Scriptures. They are vital interpretive tools, but they are tools and not the Word or the Spirit.

Much of what you ask we've already discussed here at SR before and I have placed many portions of my on contributions on a blog. I would also ask that you read "UNAM SANCTAM and Vatican II, which was written a few years ago. I think it shows a seriously contradiction and fallible teaching in the RCC. IF this judgement is correct (and it is only one of many examples, than the claim of Rome on its ex cathedra infallibility is mistaken.

Thanks again for your questions.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

gracias ken if i may ask, how do protestants view the idea of christian unity? like especially with all the different ideas and everything... its very different for me since the structure of the Church is in control of official Catholic doctrines...

and who makes doctrines in protestant churches now that we are on that... you mentioned people like john calvin (who i looked up) but i think he has been dead for a long time... but the churches are still there... so do the church administrators decide what is doctrinally correct for a denomination?

Dios te bendiga
annette

Hola Annette,

YOu have, in this post, touched on a raw nerve. I crave with all my heart Christian unity. I will be out of step with many of my Reformed brethren on this issue.

I believe that the Church of the 16th Century made some very serious errors and we are still plagued by those errors today. The corruption at Rome (and elsewhere) lead to the split of the Western Church. Luther certainly had his faults and so did Rome (and everyone else). Luther was not attempting to divide the Church, when he spoke out against the gross abuse then taking place with the sale of indulgences.

The decrees from the Council of Trent greatly narrowed the lattitude of beliefs that were accepted during the Middle Ages. Trent said agree with us on this or be damned (literally anathema). Protestants too made doctrinal pronouncements that were very narrow. IT sometimes seems like everybody defined everyone else to be outside of sound doctrine.

Today, Rome has taken several more steps in that direction. The First Vatican council was a continuation of the steps taken at Trent. Vatican II was a step back in someways, but a side step in other ways.

Unity will not come in my lifetime, but I do pray for it daily.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

if you do not have patriarchs how do you have bishops or apostolic succession?

Some Protestant Churches do have Apostolic Succession -- The Anglican/Episcopal Churches do as do some Lutheran Churches, most do not have Apostlic Succession. THis is a question I am just now beginning to study more fully. Maybe in a year or two I will know more about it.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[arunma]

Hola Annette,

YOu have, in this post, touched on a raw nerve. I crave with all my heart Christian unity. I will be out of step with many of my Reformed brethren on this issue.

I believe that the Church of the 16th Century made some very serious errors and we are still plagued by those errors today. The corruption at Rome (and elsewhere) lead to the split of the Western Church. Luther certainly had his faults and so did Rome (and everyone else). Luther was not attempting to divide the Church, when he spoke out against the gross abuse then taking place with the sale of indulgences.

The decrees from the Council of Trent greatly narrowed the lattitude of beliefs that were accepted during the Middle Ages. Trent said agree with us on this or be damned (literally anathema). Protestants too made doctrinal pronouncements that were very narrow. IT sometimes seems like everybody defined everyone else to be outside of sound doctrine.

Today, Rome has taken several more steps in that direction. The First Vatican council was a continuation of the steps taken at Trent. Vatican II was a step back in someways, but a side step in other ways.

Unity will not come in my lifetime, but I do pray for it daily.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

Actually I too would like unity with other Christians, even with Roman Catholics (though I realize that most of our fellow Reformed Protestants will disagree, and some fundie Baptists would even call me a servant of the harlot of Babylon). I think the problem right now is the numerous doctrinal errors within the Catholic Church. For example, I would be much more comfortable with Catholicism if they would give up their universalist doctrines.

 

[Snowbunny]

Hola Annette,

YOu have, in this post, touched on a raw nerve. I crave with all my heart Christian unity. I will be out of step with many of my Reformed brethren on this issue.

I believe that the Church of the 16th Century made some very serious errors and we are still plagued by those errors today. The corruption at Rome (and elsewhere) lead to the split of the Western Church. Luther certainly had his faults and so did Rome (and everyone else). Luther was not attempting to divide the Church, when he spoke out against the gross abuse then taking place with the sale of indulgences.

The decrees from the Council of Trent greatly narrowed the lattitude of beliefs that were accepted during the Middle Ages. Trent said agree with us on this or be damned (literally anathema). Protestants too made doctrinal pronouncements that were very narrow. IT sometimes seems like everybody defined everyone else to be outside of sound doctrine.

Today, Rome has taken several more steps in that direction. The First Vatican council was a continuation of the steps taken at Trent. Vatican II was a step back in someways, but a side step in other ways.

Unity will not come in my lifetime, but I do pray for it daily.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

gracias ken!

if i may ask, what about unity with other protestant denominations... surely the differences between protestants cant be as great as the difference between any given protestant denomination and the catholic church...

oh and what do protestants think of the Orthodox churchs?

gracias

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

gracias ken!

if i may ask, what about unity with other protestant denominations... surely the differences between protestants cant be as great as the difference between any given protestant denomination and the catholic church...

oh and what do protestants think of the Orthodox churchs?

gracias

Annette,

You ask very thoughtful questions.

Sadly, Protestantism is all over the map. More traditional/historically minded Protestants have more in comon with Rome (though there is still a sizable gulf) than the do with the further flung reaches of some protestant sects.

I wouls say that the disarry and constent tendency to ever greater schism is one of the best apologetic tools in the Roman Catholic tools kit.

I don't know enough about the Eastern Church.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[Snowbunny]

Annette,

You ask very thoughtful questions.

Sadly, Protestantism is all over the map. More traditional/historically minded Protestants have more in comon with Rome (though there is still a sizable gulf) than the do with the further flung reaches of some protestant sects.

I wouls say that the disarry and constent tendency to ever greater schism is one of the best apologetic tools in the Roman Catholic tools kit.

I don't know enough about the Eastern Church.

In Christ,
Kenith

gracias Ken

if i may ask then... is there a scope to which Protestants are all over the map? ...i think i asked something similar to this in the past when i asked whether Protestants have a definition for a "Christian" ... but what i mean is do Protestants protest against each other? are there things which you simple do not accept as orthodox amongs each other or is there a silent understanding that on certain, non core topics, its okay to disagree? that is what i mean by is there a scope...

if there is such a scope do other Protestants condemn each other as non-Christians? is there like a Protestant Communion (of Churches) like the Apostolic Communions?

gracias
annette

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

gracias Ken

if i may ask then... is there a scope to which Protestants are all over the map? ...i think i asked something similar to this in the past when i asked whether Protestants have a definition for a "Christian" ... but what i mean is do Protestants protest against each other? are there things which you simple do not accept as orthodox amongs each other or is there a silent understanding that on certain, non core topics, its okay to disagree? that is what i mean by is there a scope...

if there is such a scope do other Protestants condemn each other as non-Christians? is there like a Protestant Communion (of Churches) like the Apostolic Communions?

gracias
annette

Annette,

Thanks again for the questions. I think most Protestants believe that there are core beliefs (most of which are there in the Creeds of the early Church).

There are some that are so narrow in thier thinking that they would deny that any can be saved who do not agree with them on all points, but this is an exception and not the rule.

I would add that that was Romes stance prior to Vatican II. Boniface the VIII salvo (Unim Sanctum) was aimed at the Eastern Christians and clearly says that they would got to hell for not being under the Roman Pontif.

Trent said pretty much the same thing about the Protestants, and Vatican I made them to be infallible pronouncements of the Church. Vatican II changed that, but how can you change an infallible pronouncement? Now we are merely wayward brethren. That is better.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[lmnop9876]

there is one thing that unites catholicism, orthodoxy, and traditional protestantism, and that is the creeds. we all agree to the doctrines of the ecumenical creeds and of the definition of chalcedon. this is a good place to start when working towards Christian unity.

 

[Erinwilcox]

gracias Ken

if i may ask then... is there a scope to which Protestants are all over the map? ...i think i asked something similar to this in the past when i asked whether Protestants have a definition for a "Christian" ... but what i mean is do Protestants protest against each other? are there things which you simple do not accept as orthodox amongs each other or is there a silent understanding that on certain, non core topics, its okay to disagree? that is what i mean by is there a scope...

if there is such a scope do other Protestants condemn each other as non-Christians? is there like a Protestant Communion (of Churches) like the Apostolic Communions?

gracias
annette

To the question concerning the fact that there are many different denominations of Protestants, I gathered some of my own thoughts on the matter:

All men are sinful and have sinned:


(Romans 3:9-10) - "What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10as it is written, "There is none righteous, not even one."

(Romans 3:23) - "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

(Psalm 14:3) - "They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one."

Even our leaders/pastors/elders are but men, though they are greatly blessed by God. Therefore, as men, they are capable of making mistakes and can err. Even the most influential, powerful, gifted teacher/minister is not perfect and is quite capable of being wrong.


Jeremiah 17:9

• "The Heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: Who can know it?
• I the Lord search the heart, I try the reigns, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doing."

The heart of the Christian, though no longer in enslaved to sin, must still wrestle with sin and do battle against it.

Rather than be under the headship of one man and submit ourselves to his interpretation of the scriptures, we are to search out the scriptures for ourselves. Thus being said, we find a church where we believe the most truth from the Bible is being taught and what is most in line with our convictions and join ourselves to it. The pastors/elders teach and preach and we listen and study the Bible to make sure that what is being taught is accurate. This is not questioning the preaching per se, but rather having the Berean spirit commended in the Bible. We apply what is taught from the pulpit to our own lives and grow spiritually not only by the hearing of the Word, but also by the study and reading of it.

This being said, people are convicted by different things and people interpret the Bible in different ways--this is why there are so many different denominations. However, all true churches, though of different denominations, are held together by the common thread of belief in the KEY, UNCHANGEABLE, UNALTERABLE, UNCOMPROMISABLE doctrines of the Bible (some of which doctrines include the doctrine of salvation, the doctrine of the Trinity, etc). Every true church holds to the basic, uncompromisable doctrines of the Bible--the areas where they differ and have their own distinctions are the areas which, though imporantant since they are in God's Word, are are not fundamental to salvation and the Christian faith (what I mean by this is that Sovereign Grace churches speak in tongues--Reformed Baptists do not--will those in one or the other denomination be damned because of their beliefs regarding the matter of tongues? Certainly not).


So now you have it, my own thoughts on why there are so many Protestant denominations. My brethren, if I have erred in anything that I have said (for I am only a creature tainted by sin), please forgive me and point it out that I may learn from my mistakes.