What's the difference between baptist, methodist and orthodox?

FireDragon76 said:

Albigensian were heretics. They were not Trinitarians, they were related to the Bogomils and other Gnostics.

Click to expand...

Who are the greater heretics? Those who did not think correct thoughts? Or those who hunted them down and killed them for thinking incorrect thoughts?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Visible Institutional Churches existed to the degree that the Apostles, Paul especially, were able to write to them, giving them advice, commands and even requesting the sharing of resources. Paul for instance was able to exercise authority in person and by letter and didn't merely leave his congregations to themselves entirely. How is this not institutional to some degree, even if at that time the faithful gathered in houses? Large houses mind you, not small residences by peasants but houses given over to these gatherings by the wealthier members of the community. It's no surprise that once communities felt they were more tolerated they set aside specific buildings dedicated to Church entirely.

The houses Churches did not operate entirely independent of each other with complete autonomy but existed within a wider circle of connections to the person who founded it (an Apostle or someone authorized by an Apostle). How would we explain the sharing of resources between Churches, such as the collection for Jerusalem? If there was not a greater institution governing the individual Churches how did the Apostles have authority to settle the question of gentile converts when such issues should have been settled on a local Church level? This implies a supra-authority of hierarchy, which means institution.

As for the idea of individual church communities existing independent of wider institutions, yes there were oddballs all throughout history, but none of them survived. Each died or were subsumed into the larger Church entities around them.

Click to expand...

But we still have the Apostles in their writings along with independent non denominational churches from their day. But the Visible Institutional Churches are man made and foreign to the New Testament. They are unscriptural.

Dave L said:

But we still have the Apostles in their writings along with independent non denominational churches from their day. But the Visible Institutional Churches are man made and foreign to the New Testament. They are unscriptural.

Click to expand...

Given the apostolic oversight we see exercised in the New testament, your idea of independent communities (More or less fully autonomous) is called into serious question. Can you demonstrate a local church community in the New Testament independent of the Apostles and their rule?

Chesterton said:

He didn't claim that.

Click to expand...

Because his contention was that the greatest schism in church history did not actually happen?

Guys. The OP is exploring Christianity. Can we please not bog them down with information that's largely irrelevant to them and will remain so for probably years?

Albion said:

Because his contention was that the greatest schism in church history did not actually happen?

Click to expand...

I just realized it's foolish of me to argue about my interpretation of what someone else said. It was oddly worded. If he's following the thread and wants to speak for himself he can.

Baby Alice said:

I was about to say, I was lost after about 3 responses.

Click to expand...

Needless to say, we don't want that, Alice.

But I do have to reiterate that when you name those three churches, you were asking about the differences between churches that basically represent the whole range of Christian churches (except for some little-known ones), so different are the three you named.

So can you give us any more information about your religious views or particular interest that would help us narrow down the focus of your inquiry a bit?

Baby Alice said:

I guess I was just more wondering why they were separated? And what are the key beliefs that set them apart?

Click to expand...

Baby Alice said:

I guess I was just more wondering why they were separated? And what are the key beliefs that set them apart?

Click to expand...

I would invite you to ask this in the Orthodox forum - TAW . Volumes could be filled answering, but someone there could probably give a good, succinct answer. I'm not up to it right now.

Been some good answers, but Baby Alice needs to be introduced into THE LIQUOR STORE ANALOGY.

The Baptist in the likker store will not meet eyes with the Methodist layman or the Orthodox priest, will not say hello or acknowledge being there at all.

The Methodist layman will buy real wine for his personal use, but the next day at communion will drink unfermented grape juice in the sacrament.

The Orthodox priest will buy some real wine in the liquor store and take it to the congregation the next day for eucharist.

The Baptist at communion will consider the sacramental elements to be symbolic or a remembrance - a lot of Methodists and all Orthodox will consider the elements to be a real presence of the blood and body of Christ; though they may define things differently.

The Baptists would not usually do INFANT BAPTISM, saying that is for BELIEVERS ONLY -- the Methodists and (I think) Orthodox would baptize infants...

AV1611VET said:

Yes -- you can rearrange the letters to spell: "best in prayer."

Click to expand...

So what? "Eastern Orthodox" can be rearranged to spell "Oreo Rhonda texts."

...and "Heterodox nostra".

I'm on to you, Chalcedonians.

Baby Alice said:

What's the difference between baptist, methodist and orthodox?

Click to expand...

The Orthodox Churches refer to the historic Churches of the East--Greece, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, etc--and can be distinguished into two kinds: The Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox.

The Oriental Orthodox refers to those Churches who did not accept the authority of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, the reasons for this are complicated and in a lot of ways boils down to semantics more than actual theology; but ultimately it resulted in a schism. The Coptic Orthodox Church, the Ethiopian Tawahedo Orthodox Church, the Syriac Orthodox church, and the Armenian Apostolic Church are all Oriental Orthodox, as such these particular Churches are in communion with one another.

The Eastern Orthodox refers to those Churches in the East who did accept the Council of Chalcedon. What we know as the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches today were one Church, so the Eastern and Western Churches were in communion with one another for the first thousand years of Christian history; from the time of Christ and the Apostles until the 11th century. While the breech between East and West began earlier, and was not really final until later, most historians locate the formal schism in the year 1054 AD when the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople ended up excommunicating one another. Things had been shaky since the time of Photius of Constantinople in the 9th century, and the schism was not true and final until the 15th century Council of Florence which destroyed any chance at reunification between East and West.

The Methodists can be traced back to the 18th century evangelistic ministry of John Wesley, an Anglican priest. Originally Methodism was a movement from within Anglicanism, but eventually became its own thing. In the United States Methodism was chiefly identified with Wesley and Wesleyanism, Wesley's own brand of Arminian theology; back in Britain Methodists were more identified with George Whitefield, who was a Calvinist. As such Methodist history is part of the larger history of Anglicanism, and the Reformed debate between Arminianism and orthodox Calvinism (See English Reformation, The Remonstrants, and The Synod of Dordt).

Baptists can trace their origins to the 17th century in England as one of the Non-Conformist, Separatist groups of the period. Their chief defining characteristic was their rejection of infant baptism in favor of baptizing only believers (a belief known as Credobaptism or "Believer's Baptism"). These English Baptists eventually made it to the New World in order to practice their religion freely, the first of these originally lived alongside the Puritans in Massachusetts, but the Puritans wanted to have a Geneva-style theocracy and so dissenters were mistreated; one such dissenter, a Baptist by the name of Roger Williams moved away and founded the new colony of Rhode Island, Williams was big on religious freedom and so Rhode Island was one of the first places that had religious tolerance and freedom as part of its social fabric. So several characteristics of Baptists, at least of the American variety, largely followed these distinctives (the list is not exhaustive, just to give examples):

1. Baptism only of believers by immersion.
2. Freedom of conscience.
3. Each congregation is autonomous.
4. Separation of Church and State.

In the years since Baptists grew increasingly more diverse as they disagreed on many different issues, some of these issues include Calvinism/Arminianism, Missionaries/No Missionaries, Slavery/Abolition.

These are the brief histories of these groups; accounting the beliefs of all three, and the differences, would be a fairly massive undertaking.

-CryptoLutheran

Dave L said:

There is plenty of history on this. Unless you don't consider these groups to be Christian Churches.

Click to expand...

The "Trail of Blood" narrative is fiction and pseudo-history.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

The "Trail of Blood" narrative is fiction and pseudo-history.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Do you think the holocaust happened? And what role did the christian churches play in it?

Dave L said:

Do you think the holocaust happened? And what role did the christian churches play in it?

Click to expand...

Of course the holocaust happened. No church was actively participant in the holocaust, as far as I know (with the possible exception of the Deutsche Christien occupied German Protestant Church). But Christian complacency allowed much of the holocaust to happen, either by ignorance or "ignorance" or by being complicit. There were Christians who goose-stomped to Hitler's barking orders, and there were Christians who opposed--Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, are numbered among some of the victims of the holocaust. The churches were both complacent, sometimes complicit, but also in opposition. There is no simple single answer to this question.

Perhaps you could explain what this has to do with the Trail of Blood fiction?

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

The "Trail of Blood" narrative is fiction and pseudo-history.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Another attempted fiction, like The Great Controversy by Ellen White, to portray what they like as the original church. It's much easier to just join the original church.

ViaCrucis said:

Perhaps you could explain what this has to do with the Trail of Tears fiction?

Click to expand...

Hate to nitpick, but I think you meant "blood". And speaking of books, look for my new book The Trail of Blood, Sweat and Tears, which has nothing to do with religion. It's just a biography of a band from New York.

Chesterton said:

Hate to nitpick, but I think you meant "blood".

Click to expand...

Major and very unfortunate typo on my part, I've fixed it.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

Major and very unfortunate typo on my part, I've fixed it.

Click to expand...

I don't think it was major or unfortunate. I was just having some fun with it.