Why do some Protestants refuse to tell what their denominations are?

[ATraveller]

Protestants I know are very fluid about denominations

I know some who have gone ‘church shopping’ because they’re ‘non-denominational’ and they moved away but they don’t go to just any church.
(It’s not always accurate but it’s not so ‘non-denominational’ if they snoop around and figure out the seminary the pastor attended.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Or just ask without snooping.
They’ll look for amenities and consider the median age but they’ll also consider the sermons. I know someone rejected one church because the minister said the literal Resurrection isn’t important and likely not real and it’s more important to focus on the metaphor. Flee for your life in those cases.

 

[2towers]

I could not find their post [it was nested in a reply] but one Protestant post said they came to CAF to learn more about Catholicism for positive reasons. My hat is off to those. Of course there are those who come in as trolls, but I imagine thy are in the minority. This is the sort of ecumenism I am comfortable with

Some of us converts, and I am the worst offender, have Protestant baggage we have to sort through. This sometimes results in uncharitable posts. I pray that those who come here with good intentions are able to overlook that kind of thing. Understanding, is an important step in diffusing hatred and discord, and that is a medicine that I need to swallow myself from time to time.

 

[JonNC]

I wasn’t speaking of this forum, and yes the Lutherans on this forum have always been up rup front out their affiliation… I am speaking generally in the every day world. I know confessional LCMS Lutherans and several ELCA Lutherans. I’m amazed at the differences between the two synods both under the denomination of Lutheran.

Me, too. Particularly on social issues.

 

[anon65111186]

There is zero hierarchy- every individual Baptist church is totally autonomous

I know Episcopalians and Lutherans have a hierarchy of sorts, but aren’t Presbyterian churches run by their own in church group of Elders + the Minister?

What about Methodists?

 

[JetteZ]

But “where they are coming from” might have very little to do with what they actually believe.

My husband was born into the Catholic Church, as the son of Italian immigrants the dividing line between Catholicism and culture is nearly impossible to delineate. His beliefs and some of those I have read here are so different that coming from the outside I would question that both could possibly be Catholic.

It sounds like you want to be able to choose to not engage with someone instead of taking the opportunity to better understand each other. I find that really disheartening.

 

[Casilda]

I have only come across three people in my entire life refuse to disclose their religious affiliation. It was only after I got to know them that I learned, one was a JW, one belonged to Church of Christ and the third was raised Catholic and had become an atheist.

 

[ltwin]

I know Episcopalians and Lutherans have a hierarchy of sorts, but aren’t Presbyterian churches run by their own in church group of Elders + the Minister?

Presbyterians are governed by presbyterian polity. At the local level, the minister (teaching elder) and the lay elders (ruling elders) form the session (governing body). However, there are higher governing councils–presbyteries, synods, and at the national level is usually a general synod. Each council sends representatives to the higher council, and the higher council is able to overrule decisions of the lower councils.

Methodists are governed by what they call “connectionalism.” In Britain, the Methodist Church is ultimately governed by an annual conference. In the US, Methodists have bishops, a number of annual conferences (which function like dioceses), and a general conference which ultimately has final authority.

 

[ltwin]

Therefore it is difficult to say what exactly constitutes Baptist doctrine. For example, some Baptists are Calvinists and others are Arminians.

Historically, Baptists have held 5 distinctive beliefs: supreme authority of the Bible, believer’s baptism, local church autonomy, importance of preaching, and separation of church and state. (Baptist Distinctives)

 

[lanman87]

You wrote almost everyone. That isn’t everyone. So who is right? Who decides who is a Christian?

I said almost everyone because there are a few groups who call themselves Christian but the majority of Christianity has looked at their teachings and rejected it as adhering to the Gospel or as teaching another Gospel than the Gospel of Christ. . JW, Mormons, and Christian Scientist are the three that come to mind. Ultimately God will decide who is Christian. However, it is the plurality of the universal church that makes the decision from a human standpoint. If 80%+ of Christianity considers something essential to Christianity then it is pretty safe to say that it is essential. If there is an area where something is understood by 20% to mean one thing 25% to mean something else and 25% something else and the rest something else then it probably isn’t an essential or clear teaching. All the division comes from the fact that the various understandings comes from speculation and opinion, instead of a clear teaching found in the Gospel message.

 

[adf417]

exnihilo:

You wrote almost everyone. That isn’t everyone. So who is right? Who decides who is a Christian?

I said almost everyone because there are a few groups who call themselves Christian but the majority of Christianity has looked at their teachings and rejected it as adhering to the Gospel or as teaching another Gospel than the Gospel of Christ. . JW, Mormons, and Christian Scientist are the three that come to mind. Ultimately God will decide who is Christian. However, it is the plurality of the universal church that makes the decision from a human standpoint. If 80%+ of Christianity considers something essential to Christianity then it is pretty safe to say that it is essential. If there is an area where something is understood by 20% to mean one thing 25% to mean something else and 25% something else and the rest something else then it probably isn’t an essential or clear teaching. All the division comes from the fact that the various understandings comes from speculation and opinion, instead of a clear teaching found in the Gospel message.

Ive heard more than 50% of the early church was becoming Arian in the 4th century, not sure if this # is accurate, maybe someone can confirm, but if is close then your grading scale of truth might need to be reconsidered. Othrwise the Trinity doctrine should be tossed out.

Peace!!!

Peace!!!

 

[lanman87]

Ive heard more than 50% of the early church was becoming Arian in the 4th century, not sure if this # is accurate, maybe someone can confirm, but if is close then your grading scale of truth might need to be reconsidered. Othrwise the Trinity doctrine should be tossed out.

There was a period where there was great debate about the Trinity and Arianism. However, the Trinity became the doctrine of the church when it became clear that the Trinity was a more Biblical understanding. It went from becoming a debated doctrine to an essential doctrine by consensus of the church. Arianism slowly became a very small contingent that was rejected by the plurality of Christianity. That is why today non-Trinitarian “Christians” are rejected as preaching a false Gospel by the vast Majority of Christianity.

 

[stuartbrianhenlis]

I think I was there once! And the “pastor” received his certification from the Gumby Theological Seminary! (He passed with honors!)

 

[exnihilo]

That isn’t a very objective standard for doctrine. Basically it says doctrine is a vote. More importantly, if true, then there should be no Protestants. The majority of the Church believed the Catholic Church was the true Church. This is why I say this is a late stage approach to reconcile vast division. Most dissenters were a minority breaking out of a larger group. They should have gone with the majority and stayed in their denomination or the Catholic Church.

 

[rfournier103]

It sounds like you want to be able to choose to not engage with someone instead of taking the opportunity to better understand each other. I find that really disheartening.

Um… no. Not quite.

To think that I would “not choose to engage with someone” based on their religious affiliation is quite the assumption on your part. I have never shied away from engaging with anyone on this forum for any reason other than lack of time.

I completely understand that one’s beliefs might not always jibe with the faith community they profess to belong to, but I think the point I was trying to make was that I find it refreshing when people are up front about their affiliation. As I said, many non-Catholic websites REQUIRE that you state your beliefs (which confession of faith, creed, etc…) when you join. I was just thinking it might be nice. Especially since in the age of the internet everything feels so anonymous (even when it really isn’t).

 

[TheHolyTrinity]

That is a little sneaky to not say whose authority they are under.

 

[adf417]

adf417:

Ive heard more than 50% of the early church was becoming Arian in the 4th century, not sure if this # is accurate, maybe someone can confirm, but if is close then your grading scale of truth might need to be reconsidered. Othrwise the Trinity doctrine should be tossed out.

There was a period where there was great debate about the Trinity and Arianism. However, the Trinity became the doctrine of the church when it became clear that the Trinity was a more Biblical understanding. It went from becoming a debated doctrine to an essential doctrine by consensus of the church. Arianism slowly became a very small contingent that was rejected by the plurality of Christianity. That is why today non-Trinitarian “Christians” are rejected as preaching a false Gospel by the vast Majority of Christianity.

Again Ianman i think you need to verify your sourcing. The Areian heresy was fought and defended before the bible, as you know it, came into existance. If you still contend the Triniry was infact defended by means of biblical understanding only then you must be willing to accept as your canon the many other books being used at that time. Books like The Gospel Of Barnabas, 1 Clement, and The Didache. These books, among others, were considered canon by majority of Christians - which would be another area in which your “plurality of Christianity” does not hold up.

Peace!!!

 

[JetteZ]

I was trying to understand why someone would want religious information available; that was the only reason I could imagine.

It was also based off of what you shared on never debating Protestants in real life.

What other sites require isn’t a reason.

 

[Reuben_J]

Another reason is that people may have preconceived ideas about the church based on the “title” of the church. It goes both way. I’ve found some folks on this board have preconceived ideas about some things and have wrong understandings of evangelical teachings. On the other hand, I freely admit that I had misunderstandings about RCC doctrine and terminology before I came to this board.

Sometimes people will not say “I’m a Baptist” because it could bring a certain preacher or group (Westboro Baptist maybe) that are totally different and do not share the same core values and teachings. Instead of theological discussion it could turn into “Why do Baptist think God hates homosexuals”. Which is not what 99.9% of Baptist churches teach.

I agree about those having preconcieved ideas associated with the title of the church and that it cuts both ways. It, however, is no excuse for not telling when being asked. Sure, it may be a waste fo time to having explain the misconception but it also poses an oppurtuntiy to correct it also. The truth should prevail.

 

[Reuben_J]

MaryT777:

I believe it’s insecurity. Many denominations are divided in and within themselves. I will talk to one Lutheran called confessional LCMS and they will believe something different than the ELCA which is more liberal.

This alone I think would lead to some type of proof that Sola Scriptura leads to division even within certain denominations.

I agree with this. They would much prefer to use the larger umbrella term of “Christian” because it shows some type of unity and they can avoid admitting their way of thinking has lead to the breakup of Christendom.

Yes, the elusiveness seems to be driven with something to hide, like it is a point of weakness and thus wanting to avoid having to admit it.

 

[Reuben_J]

JetteZ:

Even among Catholics, we have different interpretations and different preferences within worship.

This is very true and almost always overlooked/downplayed by Catholics. The reality is that such a small percentage of Catholics actually regularly attend services and accept the traditions and teachings of the Church. Even that small percentage of those who attend Mass are pretty divided between those who accept the teachings and those who don’t, or accept some but not all. We claim a unity but don’t really have it.

And, then, from this vantage point, we attack the Protestants and all their denominations. For not identifying as a particular denomination with an established set of teachings.

I think the comparison with the Protestants is quite different. The Oneness of the Catholic Church is the source of unity. There can be personal disagreement but Catholics being Catholics still accept the Church and not leave to form a new church or converting to different churches. I thought Protestants who formed their own churches are not under the old authority of their pastors. Correct me if I am wrong though.