Which Doctrines Do All Protestants Agree Upon?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Teflon93
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
They were probably scared off by the Luther talk for the past 8 threads:(
Yes, the historical record of Luther is quite frightening to those unaware of it…but since the Alexander VI talk didn’t frighten off the Catholics, I presume our Protestant brothers and sisters are made of sterner stuff. 😉
 
The Apostles Creed:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell. [See Calvin]
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Do any mainline Protestant communities object to any part of the Apostles’ Creed?
 
Hey now—back on topic! :tsktsk: :tsktsk:
Well, the original question was “What Doctrines do all Protestants agree on?” and so discussing the different varieties of Baptist is semi-related, since you can go to any number of “Baptist” churches and find differences in doctrine and practice. :cool:

So there. 😛
 
Didn’t read through the thread, SORRY!
My $.02

“fundamental Christianity”

In no specific order:

Inerrancy of the Scriptures
The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God’s grace and human faith
The bodily resurrection of Jesus
The authenticity of Christ’s miracles
 
Didn’t read through the thread, SORRY!
My $.02

“fundamental Christianity”

In no specific order:

**Inerrancy of the Scriptures **
The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God’s grace and human faith
The bodily resurrection of Jesus
The authenticity of Christ’s miracles
Hi MFM—the bolded portions above are outside the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds—do ALL mainline Protestants truly hold these in common?
 
Of the 95 items on Luther’s list, the Church did agree with him on all but (I believe) 14 of his points. He clearly held his private, personal interpretations above that of the Church.

“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.”
Luther said that the popes and councils have contradicted each other. He said this in the first part of the 16th, where availability of Councils’ canons and history couldn’t have been that available.

If they contradicted each other, we don’t see or hear much of the contradictions from Protestants. This website would be loaded with contradictions. Maybe some one could enlighten me?

peace
 
And NO ONE has suggested that the Pope and Cardinals are above examination and criticism. …

Did I say someone suggested that? No. By the way, were did you say this numerous times? I’ve read a lot of what you have said, just because I find most of it a waste of time, does not mean I have ignored it. /COLOR]

The fact that the Church was, in part, at fault does not detract in any way shape or form from Luther’s own failings.

Never said that would detract from Luther’s own failings. And Luther’s own failings does not detract from the fact that the Church was, in part, at fault. Do you care to specify a fault, and how it was corrected? Was there only one, or do you have several examples?

What do you want us to do? Never say anything about Luther’s failings? That seems to be where you are going with this. …
Not at all, feel free to bring up Luther’s failings. And equally free to bring up failings of Catholics. I bought a few books for the purpose of becoming familiar with Luther’s failings, though am not an expert, nor do I know all of them. Do you know more about Luther’s and other churches errors, than you know about your own Church’s errors (Popes, individuals holding office in the Church)?

Is the politically correct thing to do to ignore history and place the entire blame for the Reformation at the feet of a blackened Church? …

I never came close to putting the entire blame on the Church. And pointing out a few unfavorable moments of our history is not equivalent to ignoring history. Such drama. The Church’s influence was so substantial at the time, that if the majority of Catholics and Catholic leaders were leading lives reflecting Catholic faith and charity, do you really think an individual as insignifant and imperfect as Luther would have had as much influence as he had? Usually things have to be really bad for people to start to question or leave what they grew up trusting and believing.

Now folks might be very uncomfortable reading about the excesses of Luther and his friends. …
I’m not at all uncomfortable reading about Luther’s excesses. Are you uncomfortable with reading about the excesses of Catholics? Please stop crying about name calling, just because I find your posts to be of little quality and largely a waste of time, that is not the same as name calling.

Luther is not God! He should not be placed on a pedestal above reproach.

Exactly. Don’t forget to say that about Alexander and others. I know you didn’t say they were above examination. However (were you expecting “but…”?), where have you actually said they are not to be placed on a pedestal?

More undefended innuendo. Please state who does not like to admit that and evidence your statement. Or retract the accusation. Thank you.

How about for starters “If the Catholic Church has a fault in regards to Luther, it was that the Church ordained him too quickly.”
or “Corruption among some clergy exascerbated the need for discipline.” Now there’s a great admission, no detail, just vague.
As far as recent evidence, the sex scandal, and how many presumed most of the accusations were just copy-cats, now theres a sign of not liking or wanting to admit to imperfection.

And ignoring historical evidence, ignoring Luther’s failings builds up the Body of Christ how exactly?

I’mm not ignoring Luther’s failings, just including failings on both sides.

Please speak for yourself. Have you left the Church? If so, then what were your reasons?

I know people who have left the Church or are luke warm partially because of the witness of Catholics and the scandal. What, you don’t know people like that? Again, I am Catholic, Comprehend?

So, as I replied to your reply earlier, you have not demonstrated this. Saying that something ‘could probably be claimed’ is not demonstrating it. Your claim lacks evidence.

…

Moreover you are tautologizing this claim. Perhaps if you say this often enough, for you, it will be true? Sorry to once again be the bearer of bad news, but for the rest of us, tautology is not how reason and reference work.

You don’t like the links? I’ve demonstrated there was corruption and abuses in the Church, as if no one is aware of that and it needs to be demonstrated? That’s not tautolizing. Take or or leave it.
 
40.png
Mt_28_19_20:
So I take it you have no intention of refraining from threadjacking here, Mt?
 
I think some of us forgot our Ritalin.
Please stay focused, or branch out on a new thread.
runandsew;2648052:
What about the fundamentals of fundamentalism?
  • **The inerrancy of the Bible **
  • Sola Scriptura
  • The virgin birth of Christ
  • The doctrine of substitutionary atonement
  • The bodily resurrection of Jesus
  • The imminent return of Jesus Christ.
Do all mainline Protestants agree on the bolded portions above?
I think that they do.
I think that it is the theologians who might question those items, but they are not speaking authoritative for the creeds and the confessions of the mainline protestant denominations.
 
Hi MFM—the bolded portions above are outside the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds—do ALL mainline Protestants truly hold these in common?
All that I understand to be protestant 😛 do, but as we know Catholics like to spread out what a protestant is to include anything uncatholic.😃
 
…I think that it is the theologians who might question those items, but they are not speaking authoritative for the creeds and the confessions of the mainline protestant denominations.
OK, this is something that I started to raise earlier but got distracted. :o Teflon and I asked that the thread be split.

My question is who speaks authoritatively for Protestants? In theory? In reality? Thank you.
 
OK, this is something that I started to raise earlier but got distracted. :o Teflon and I asked that the thread be split.

My question is who speaks authoritatively for Protestants? In theory? In reality? Thank you.
This seems directly relevant in that we don’t have a definitive answer yet on those doctrines which go beyond the Apostles and Nicene Creeds which date well before the Great Schism much less the Reformation.
 
Good topic for another thread—we’re just trying to capture Protestant doctrines in this one.
Good point.

I would like to hear the Lutherans present and defend the doctrines of Luther that caused this great schism in the Catholic Church

peace
 
I think some of us forgot our Ritalin.
Please stay focused, or branch out on a new thread.

I think that they do.
I think that it is the theologians who might question those items, but they are not speaking authoritative for the creeds and the confessions of the mainline protestant denominations.
I think that there are denominations that don’t necessarily hold to inerrancy. However, the list this came out of specifically relates to the Fundamentalist movement (As Martin correctly designates).

That brings up another question though in regards to denomination. Fundamentalism is not a denomination but a movement within the Protestant fold. So I think that would point more toward there being individual believers within the many branches of the Protestant tree that hold to a set core belief system as established by the book series “The Fundamentals”.

I’m glad Martin brought this up. So far amongst denominations there doesn’t necessarily seem to be a consensus but amongst those individuals who espouse the values of the 90 articles of The Fundalmentals there is some broad consensus. So could fundamentalists as individuals be grouped as a whole and be classified as a denomination even though they all technically belong to a multitude of denominations?
 
Except that not all “protestants” or “bible christians” or whatever term you’d like to use even subscribe to this list…
For a start:
  • There is one God
  • God is all powerful, all knowing, and all present
  • God is good
  • God is eternal
  • The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God
  • Jesus Christ is true God and the true Son of God
  • God became man
  • Christ was born of the virgin Mary
  • Christ died for our sins
  • Christ offered Himself on the Cross as a sacrifice for us
  • On the third day He rose again bodily
  • He ascended into Heaven
  • He will come again
Etc., etc., etc…

You can find the rest yourself.

…
 
I think that there are denominations that don’t necessarily hold to inerrancy. However, the list this came out of specifically relates to the Fundamentalist movement (As Martin correctly designates).

That brings up another question though in regards to denomination. Fundamentalism is not a denomination but a movement within the Protestant fold. So I think that would point more toward there being individual believers within the many branches of the Protestant tree that hold to a set core belief system as established by the book series “The Fundamentals”.

I’m glad Martin brought this up. So far amongst denominations there doesn’t necessarily seem to be a consensus but amongst those individuals who espouse the values of the 90 articles of The Fundalmentals there is some broad consensus. So could fundamentalists as individuals be grouped as a whole and be classified as a denomination even though they all technically belong to a multitude of denominations?
Well, we’re really looking for “official” doctrine here. Just as it wouldn’t be correct to take a dogmatic view of Limbo in the Catholic Church (we are free to believe or not believe in it); we probably shouldn’t view inerrancy of the Bible as a doctrine unless it’s considered to be a requirement for a given community.

Since the Fundamentalist movement is so large, of course, some of its doctrines may in fact rise to dogmatic beliefs.
 
This seems directly relevant in that we don’t have a definitive answer yet on those doctrines which go beyond the Apostles and Nicene Creeds which date well before the Great Schism much less the Reformation.
In practice, though, from your own experience there are pastors who attempt to speak authoritatively for Protestants. Are there not? On what basis?

Now I know that teaching and traditions are allowed by Sola Scriptura, but they are considered fallible. The bottom line is scripture itself. Yet, I suspect that those fallible teachings and traditions hold quite a bit of weight.

Why btw are we not including the solas or are those not considered ‘doctrine’? I would assume anything which unified mainline Protestants might be worthy of notice at this point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top