which branches of Reformation you think is the "most correct"?

[Jesusthekingofking]

there are a few minor disagreements or distinctions among the branches of reformation, which one do you think has the "most correct" doctrine?

It's fine you think the entire protestant reformation was wrong.

I just want to see your reason why you think so.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm a Lutheran.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[d taylor]

-
​

Well actually most protestant churches still approach eternal life salvation the same way as the catholic church. They may say it differently, but when examined to what they are actually saying, it lines up closely with catholicism.

Only free grace is a true departure from the eternal life salvation teaching of most churches.

 

[PloverWing]

The major branches of the Reformation, as I learned them in school, were Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, and the Radical Reformation, so I'm taking these as the four options of our multiple-choice question.

You can tell from my profile that my choice was Anglican. I think the general approach of the Anglican tradition is a good one: Keep as much as possible from the Roman Catholic tradition, and reform those few things that really needed to be reformed.

Regarding the other groups:

The Lutheran tradition is quite close to the Anglican tradition in many ways, and our theologians have hammered out various agreements of full communion between Lutheran and Anglican bodies in North America and Europe.

I think the Reformed tradition made a mistake in stepping away from sacramental and liturgical worship as much as they did. But they are known for detailed study of the Bible and the creation of systematic theologies, and I respect that scholarship.

The Radical Reformation is even farther from Catholic liturgy and tradition, by deliberate choice. But I admire their vision of and commitment to Christian ethics.

 

[Jesusthekingofking]

-
​

Well actually most protestant churches still approach eternal life salvation the same way as the catholic church. They may say it differently, but when examined to what they are actually saying, it lines up closely with catholicism.

Only free grace is a true departure from the eternal life salvation teaching of most churches.

free grace? which protestant church defined free grace?

 

[d taylor]

free grace? which protestant church defined free grace?

What Is Free Grace Theology? – Grace Evangelical Society

 

[Jesusthekingofking]

What Is Free Grace Theology? – Grace Evangelical Society

it's called sola gratia, it's a core protestant doctrine.

 

[d taylor]

it's called sola gratia, it's a core protestant doctrine.

That is what they (protestant) say but again when examined their sola gratia. Either adds actions before or after, their saying faith in The Messiah. For example many protestants say one must repent and have faith. Others say if a person does not bear fruit they are not a true believer. Very few protestants actually teach a true faith alone receiving of eternal life salvation.

 

[Tuur]

That is what they (protestant) say but again when examined their sola gratia. Either adds actions before or after, their saying faith in The Messiah. For example many protestants say one must repent and have faith. Others say if a person does not bear fruit they are not a true believer. Very few protestants actually teach a true faith alone receiving of eternal life salvation.

I disagree. It's not a "Grace and" situation. If we are convicted of the fact that we are sinners and have done absolutely nothing to earn salvation and can do absolutely nothing to save ourselves, that our only hope is what Christ has done for us, what then should be our response? If we continue to willfully sin, what does that say of how we view the blood Christ shed for us? And if we say we believe, but have no evidence of that in our lives, should we not question whether we have faith in Christ at all?

All I know is that without that wonderful Grace, I would have no hope. None of us would.

 

[d taylor]

I disagree. It's not a "Grace and" situation. If we are convicted of the fact that we are sinners and have done absolutely nothing to earn salvation and can do absolutely nothing to save ourselves, that our only hope is what Christ has done for us, what then should be our response? If we continue to willfully sin, what does that say of how we view the blood Christ shed for us? And if we say we believe, but have no evidence of that in our lives, should we not question whether we have faith in Christ at all?

All I know is that without that wonderful Grace, I would have no hope. None of us would.

I define faith as being persuaded by evidence that a promised or statement is true. So when a person is persuaded, a promise or statement is true, then they believe the promise or statement. Can you believe something is true and then not believe it.

So with that said (above), God has promised that anyone who believes in His Son (Jesus, The Messiah) has received His (God's) free gift of Eternal Life. He list/states no other condition to be met.

I believe God's promise is true, so i know i have received God's free gift of Eternal Life. Why because i have believed in The Messiah for Eternal Life, I need absolutely no other evidence, than God's promise.

 

[PloverWing]

What Is Free Grace Theology? – Grace Evangelical Society

Looking at the web site for Grace Evangelical Society, it seems to be approaching Christianity from a broadly Reformed point of view. It speaks of Calvinists and Arminians (but not other branches of Christian thought), and it focuses very much on belief, rather than, say, participation in the sacraments or in Christian community.

So I think I take post #6 as a vote for the Reformed branch of the Reformation. Acknowledging, of course, that there is diversity under the Reformed umbrella.

 

[Clare73]

there are a few minor disagreements or distinctions among the branches of reformation,
which one do you think has the "most correct" doctrine?
It's fine you think the entire protestant reformation was wrong.
I just want to see your reason why you think so.

Most Biblical - Presbyterian Church of America

Any church adhering to the original Westminster Confession of Faith.

 

[Jonaitis]

there are a few minor disagreements or distinctions among the branches of reformation, which one do you think has the "most correct" doctrine?

Reformed.

 

[Jesusthekingofking]

Reformed.

Why not Lutheran or anglican?

 

[Jonaitis]

Why not Lutheran or anglican?

They deny much with my convictions, such as double predestination, and affirm what I don't think is biblical, such as associating the presence of Christ's body and blood with the sacrament, to give a few examples of their tradition. So I consider Reformed to be the most correct tradition.

 

[PSUseagull]

St. Augustine changed some of the doctrines of the original church, and Calvin has been described as Augustine on steroids. So it would be my guess than none of the Protestant traditions are as close to the original church as is the Catholic Church. A tree limb on a dead trunk cannot be alive.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings "Jesusthekingofking",

there are a few minor disagreements or distinctions among the branches of reformation, which one do you think has the "most correct" doctrine?
I just want to see your reason why you think so.

I consider that it was a slow process and there were many discoveries of elements of the One Apostolic Faith. "Justification by faith" was an important step, but then there was much disagreement of what this actually represents. I endorse the basic belief of adult water baptism and I have sympathy with the AnaBaptists who were persecuted by some Protestants and the Catholics. But again there seems to be a range of different views among the AnaBaptists. I have a reasonable respect for some of the expositions by Sir Isaac Newton, such as his expositions on Daniel and Revelation, but he was over 100 years later, but the question arises whether there were many others who helped to open the way to establish some of the true beliefs leading up to his beliefs.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Andrewn]

The Radical Reformation is even farther from Catholic liturgy and tradition, by deliberate choice. But I admire their vision of and commitment to Christian ethics.

The Radical Reformation is far from Catholic liturgy and tradition and is the first group that insisted on adult baptism. However, it is also the only branch that taught what later came to be known as Arminianism, which in its essence, is based on Catholic beliefs. Some of the other branches fell into the Reformed errors.

Baptists and Pentecostals are other non-liturgical Credobaptist groups.

there are a few minor disagreements or distinctions among the branches of reformation, which one do you think has the "most correct" doctrine?

Although Methodists are not a branch of the original Reformation, I consider Wesley's doctrines to be the most biblically correct.

I've extended my comments to include Methodists, Baptists, and Pentecostals, who are not part of the 16th-century Reformation but are certainly worth mentioning.

 

[JoeT]

there are a few minor disagreements or distinctions among the branches of reformation, which one do you think has the "most correct" doctrine?

It's fine you think the entire protestant reformation was wrong.

I just want to see your reason why you think so.

What the other's don't have is the Real Presence and the rest of the sacraments. And never will.

JoeT