Differences in Core Protestant Beleifs

[jrtrent]

You characterized divisions within Protestant traditions as coming from new converts who haven’t been properly taught the denomination’s “correct teaching.”

No. I was responding to Mystophilus’s claim that wide divergence could be found within a single parish or congregation on core issues such as baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and eternal security, not divisions within Protestant traditions. General Baptists and Particular Baptists have some strikingly different teachings on the issue of Christ’s atonement, and you shouldn’t find both sets of beliefs taught as acceptable in a single congregation. A General Baptist, believing that Christ died for all, who later adheres to the tenet that Christ only died for the elect should be looking for a different church to attend since his beliefs are no longer in line with that of the congregation he had been attending.

 

[ltwin]

No. I was responding to Mystophilus’s claim that wide divergence could be found within a single parish or congregation on core issues such as baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and eternal security, not divisions within Protestant traditions. General Baptists and Particular Baptists have some strikingly different teachings on the issue of Christ’s atonement, and you shouldn’t find both sets of beliefs taught as acceptable in a single congregation. A General Baptist, believing that Christ died for all, who later adheres to the tenet that Christ only died for the elect should be looking for a different church to attend since his beliefs are no longer in line with that of the congregation he had been attending.

In some denominational bodies this is true. In others, not so much. It depends on the level of tolerance granted by the group in question. Many Protestants are able to reconcile such contradictions in a way that allows them to stay in the their church. The question is “is the larger group willing to allow such contradictions to exist in the group?”.

For example, there are classical Pentecostal denominations that officially declare that “speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.” Some denominations go so far as to require candidates for ordination to explicitly affirm that they believe in this doctrinal formulation. Yet, many Pentecostal denominations today face the challenge of a considerable number of its clergy who no longer subscribe to this belief without qualification. Unless a minister comes out to explicitly deny the doctrine, he wont be forced out of the denomination. He can just avoid the topic entirely in his preaching.

 

[Newsy]

Sure, and I can find all of those positions within a single Anglican parish, and all but the Real Presence within a single parish of any large denomination. Those differences are not denominational.

So, that means these things are relative? Some hold beliefs from varying backgrounds, everyone should accept these differences as correct?

All you have proven is that many differing positions can be accepted by a single church.

 

[Newsy]

Banana daiquiri.

Wow! That’s deep.

Do you reject the idea of Apostolic Authority? Is Apostolic Succession demonstrated in Acts 1?

 

[Newsy]

No. I’m pointing out that the differences in Protestantism are not about denomination. The difference cross denominational lines, as seen by the example of Anglicanism. The same could be said about Baptists even more so, since Baptists are congregationally governed.

Rather than lumping all Anglicans together, I’m pointing out that not all Anglicans are the same. You characterized divisions within Protestant traditions as coming from new converts who haven’t been properly taught the denomination’s “correct teaching.” I used Anglicanism as an example of how this diversity is not just a feature of novices but exists even at the top tear of Anglican churches. The same could be said for many Protestant denominational families.

Does this mean that the Christian message should be a general average of all Christian beliefs? Ever think that this is a product of “church shopping”, looking for a church that “fits what I believe”?

Is Truth relative? Can Truth be defined by “what most people believe”?

 

[ltwin]

Does this mean that the Christian message should be a general average of all Christian beliefs? Ever think that this is a product of “church shopping”, looking for a church that “fits what I believe”?

Is Truth relative? Can Truth be defined by “what most people believe”?

Of course not. A Reformed Anglican is not going to say that Anglo-Catholic beliefs are just as good and equal to his own, and vice versa. A Reformed Anglican is going to be a Reformed Christian because he believes that Reformed doctrine is correct. However, he may not feel the need to leave the Anglican Church for an explicitly Reformed Church for a variety of reasons. That doesn’t mean that everything is relative. It could just simply mean that he believes that he should stay where God planted him. This then is not a result of “church shopping” but a serious discerning of where God wants a person to be.

 

[JonNC]

=ltwin;9942745]Baptists do believe in sacraments. It is common to refer to them as ordinances because it disassociates them from Catholic ideas that they are salvific. However, when a Methodist says “sacrament” and a Baptist says “ordinance” they mean the same thing. In fact, many Protestants who prefer the term ordinance also use the term sacrament. The two terms are often used interchangeably.

Fr some, the terms may be interchangeable, but the meanings are not.

And yet the fundamentalist churches emerged out of the mainline denominations at the beginning of the 20th century. **They all share the traditions and theologies of the Protestant Reformation. **The difference is not denominational. It is primarily cultural and worldview: how do they understand the Gospel. A fundamentalist Calvinist and a mainline Calvinist will have completely different answers, all while appealing to the Calvinist tradition. A fundamentalist Calvinist will have more in common with a fundamentalist Arminian. And a mainline Calvinist will have more in common with a mainline Arminian.

It depends on which Reformation one is speaking about. Certainly, the groups you reference would have many difficulties with the Augsburg Confession.

Jon

 

[Mystophilus]

So, that means these things are relative? Some hold beliefs from varying backgrounds, everyone should accept these differences as correct?

All you have proven is that many differing positions can be accepted by a single church.

Yes, that is all that I have proven, and all that I was saying. Wheresoever you are introducing relativism from, it has nothing to do with what I have said.

 

[Mystophilus]

Wow! That’s deep.

Not that deep: Nigel7 replied to my comment with a complete non sequitur, and so I replied to his likewise, to highlight that fact.

Do you reject the idea of Apostolic Authority? Is Apostolic Succession demonstrated in Acts 1?

Again, I have no idea where you are reading these things in from.

 

[Mystophilus]

I haven’t studied every variant, but the denominations I’ve attended, visited, and read about do have distinct teachings on these issues. There is a difference between Presbyterians and Baptists on the issue of infant baptism; there is a difference between Methodists and Baptists on what occurs during communion; there is a difference between Lutherans and Baptists on whether a saved Christian can lose his salvation.

The problem is that there are differences between Presbyterians and Presbyterians on the issue of infant baptism, between Baptists and Baptists on communion, etc. These differences are not denominational, because individuals within denominations disagree whilst agreeing with individuals within other denominations. Itwin has summarised this very well.

 

[Mystophilus]

it would be accurate to say there would be some big differences between Anglican and Southern Baptist. That is definitely denominational.

Even looking at extremes like that, it is not so simple: Young Earth Creationism, sola scriptura literalism, and anti-sacramentalism can all be found in Anglicanism. The lines between Protestant denominations are much fuzzier than many Catholics believe.

 

[jrtrent]

The problem is that there are differences between Presbyterians and Presbyterians on the issue of infant baptism, between Baptists and Baptists on communion, etc. These differences are not denominational, because individuals within denominations disagree whilst agreeing with individuals within other denominations. Itwin has summarised this very well.

Without specifics, I can only surmise that you are dealing with minor issues rather than the “LARGE core doctrinal differences” the OP had asked about, or you are lumping separate Baptist or Presbyterian traditions together and calling them one denomination. For example, the Reformed Baptist church I attended in Washington believes exactly the same thing regarding communion that a Reformed Baptist church in California believes, and that belief is found in chapters 28 and 30 of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. Members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, wherever you find them, will believe the same thing about baptism, and it will be found in chapter 28 of the Westminster Confession of Faith as well as in certain questions/answers in the catechism. And the beliefs of the OPC on baptism will be different from that of the Reformed Baptists, as one can see by reading chapter 29 of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.

While typing this, I realize that there are times when members within denominations disagree on core issues, and that when governing bodies of denominations make decisions to change core beliefs, many will find other churches to attend, and it can even spark the formation of yet another denomination. This has occurred in different denominations regarding the ordination of women and homosexuals, for example.

But this does not change the fact that there are core doctrinal differences that exist between denominations, which is what zurbupar, the OP, has asked about. Finding individuals within a given church who disagree on certain issues, or who do not faithfully follow their church’s teachings, does not change the fact that denominational differences exist.

 

[jrtrent]

Oops! I got sidetracked with something on the stove and missed the 20 minute time limit for edits. Just wanted to add:

There’s an interesting question and answer at the link below in which a practicing Lutheran is struggling over doctrinal issues with respect to predestination and other concepts within the acronym TULIP. The OPC minister answering the question highlights some key differences between Orthodox Presbyterian and Lutheran doctrine pertaining to salvation and the sacraments. The individual asking the question will need to work through what he believes and possibly find a different church should he no longer be able to honestly agree with the Lutheran positions.
opc.org/qa.html?question_id=292

 

[robwar]

Without specifics, I can only surmise that you are dealing with minor issues rather than the “LARGE core doctrinal differences” the OP had asked about, or you are lumping separate Baptist or Presbyterian traditions together and calling them one denomination. For example, the Reformed Baptist church I attended in Washington believes exactly the same thing regarding communion that a Reformed Baptist church in California believes, and that belief is found in chapters 28 and 30 of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. Members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, wherever you find them, will believe the same thing about baptism, and it will be found in chapter 28 of the Westminster Confession of Faith as well as in certain questions/answers in the catechism. And the beliefs of the OPC on baptism will be different from that of the Reformed Baptists, as one can see by reading chapter 29 of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.

While typing this, I realize that there are times when members within denominations disagree on core issues, and that when governing bodies of denominations make decisions to change core beliefs, many will find other churches to attend, and it can even spark the formation of yet another denomination. This has occurred in different denominations regarding the ordination of women and homosexuals, for example.

But this does not change the fact that there are core doctrinal differences that exist between denominations, which is what zurbupar, the OP, has asked about. Finding individuals within a given church who disagree on certain issues, or who do not faithfully follow their church’s teachings, does not change the fact that denominational differences exist.

thank-you that was well put. There are some fuzzy lines between different groups but also within different groups. There are key disagreements in doctrine and teaching and application and worship. My brother-in-law is a deacon in his independent Baptist Church and I can safely say while they practice baptism and it is not infant and communion is done just once a month as a memorial and there is no concept of any type of real presence. The Methodist church I did grow up in did teach only 2 sacraments as opposed the the 7 of Catholic and Orthodox. Liberal segments of different denominations have more in common with each other than with conservative elements in their own denominations. The Trinity and all that it implies is basically being abandoned in some of the Charismatic/word of faith groups. Some fundamentalist groups believe in the rapture and dispensationalism. Many mainline groups do not teach this and have been some of the fiercest critics even if many in the pew read those books and believe in it. Doctrinal differences do lead to different styles of worship. Anglican, Lutheran, some Methodist do have a more liturgical style do to their original understand of sacraments. That is very different if you compare it to Baptist or even Charismatic.

 

[Publisher]

A Protestant friend of mine tried to tell me that all Protestant denominations only disagree on “little matters” after I asked him why there are 30,000 different protestant denominations and how that kinda proves that protestants aren’t doing something right. He said they were things like “little t” traditions that don’t necessarily matter, like styles of music, population size, and location. Now, I am pretty sure that this is a false statement, but if anyone knows of a few LARGE core doctrinal differences between main protestant denominations, that would be a great help. I just do not know enough about the different denominations to be able to answer this question, and neither does my friend! haha!

Thanks SO Much!
God Bless You!

Most Protestants see only ONE really “core belief”…that in Jesus of Nazareth God showed His great mery to humanity. All who place their trust in Him in faith are inheiritors of His grace.

Protestants may differ on traditions, order of service, place some of the other doctrines ahead of others…but that one central Truth, that the love of God was personified in Jesus of Nazareth in a unique and one time event…God walked among us in Jesus and showed us what He is really like…if I want to know who God is, I look to Jesus of Nazareth.

All the rest fades into the background in the Light of this astounding love and grace.

 

[robwar]

Most Protestants see only ONE really “core belief”…that in Jesus of Nazareth God showed His great mery to humanity. All who place their trust in Him in faith are inheiritors of His grace.

Protestants may differ on traditions, order of service, place some of the other doctrines ahead of others…but that one central Truth, that the love of God was personified in Jesus of Nazareth in a unique and one time event…God walked among us in Jesus and showed us what He is really like…if I want to know who God is, I look to Jesus of Nazareth.

All the rest fades into the background in the Light of this astounding love and grace.

Then what is all these different Protestant groups about? Are these differences meaningless?
If that truly is the core value, why is there finger pointing going on (not by you but others) in that we are the most true to the Bible which includes pointing a figure at the Catholic or orthodox as not being real Christians.

 

[Publisher]

Then what is all these different Protestant groups about? Are these differences meaningless?
If that truly is the core value, why is there finger pointing going on (not by you but others) in that we are the most true to the Bible which includes pointing a figure at the Catholic or orthodox as not being real Christians.

While there are different groups, for the most part no single Protestant group believes their religous organization is The Church. The Church is comprised of those who places their faith in Jesus of Nazareth as God’s revelation to humanity. The Church comprises all who share in His grace and forgiveness and walk as New Creations In Christ Jesus.

Those Protestant groups that point fingers limit the grace and mercy of God. The problem Catholics and Orthodox have is that they believe their particular religous organization comprises The Church…God’s People exist whereever two or three gather in His Name…that is The Church…the name outside on the building or sign in front of the meeting house is incedental…not definitive.

 

[robwar]

With all do respect, that is your view based on liberal protestantism. I don’t think someone from Bob Jones University would share it.

 

[Publisher]

With all do respect, that is your view based on liberal protestantism. I don’t think someone from Bob Jones University would share it.

I don’t believe even anyone from Bob Jones would claim their particualar denomination is The Church, the Only Church, the One Church. They may have definite beliefs concerning what it takes to become a Christian, but they do not claim to be the only Christians.

 

[robwar]

Again, with all do respect, they do have some very definite views on who is a real Christian as opposed to a belief in a One True Church and their views would not include Catholics which I think you do.