Why so many Protestant denominations

[jmcrae]

Take the claim that there are thousands of denominations and interpretations of Scripture in protestant churches. When we apply the same criteria to the catholic church as being one unified whole and everyone interprets the scriptures the same we find otherwise. There are just as many different interpretations in the catholic church as in protestant churches.

The difference is that each of the Protestant churches teaches different, incompatible doctrines at the official level (it’s coming from their head offices), whereas whatever differences in doctrine you are seeing in Catholic churches are not coming from the Vatican, but from someone’s personal opinions - they are not following the teachings of the Catholic Church.

So, for example, when a Fundamental Baptist talks about the Seven Fundamentals, he isn’'t giving his personal opinion - he’s quoting from the official teachings of the Fundamental Baptists. When a Methodist talks about the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (which contradicts the Seven Fundamentals on several key points related to salvation) he, too, isn’t giving his personal opinion - he is quoting from the official teachings of the Methodist Church.

But there are lots of uneducated Fundamental Baptists who don’t know what the Seven Fundamentals are, and there are lots of uneducated Methodists who don’t know what the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is, and when they speak, they are just giving their personal opinions - these aren’t the Protestants that we’re talking about when we say that “Protestants disagree” - no. Rather, we are talking about the Protestants who do know their theology, and the teachings of their Church - and what we see is that the official doctrine of each Protestant church differs (often quite radically) from other Protestant churches.

When a Catholic gives his personal opinions on something, that contradicts the teachings from the Vatican, he isn’t teaching as a Catholic - he’s just giving an opinion, the same as uneducated Protestants who don’t know what their churches teach, either.

It’s only when what he is saying actually conforms to what the Vatican teaches that he is promulgating Catholic doctrine, and every Catholic who does that, is saying the same things - sometimes in different words, but the meaning will be the same.

When we criticize Protestants for being all over the map with their theology, we aren’t talking about the uneducated ones who are just giving their opinions. We are talking about the educated Protestants who are promulgating the official teachings of their church. It’s the official teachings of Protestantism that are all over the map. Personal opinions are just personal opinions - but comparing the official, educated teachings of Protestants to the uneducated opinions of some Catholics is like trying to compare apples and oranges - it’s not the same thing. We expect personal opinions to be all over the place, but what we find with Protestantism is that it’s the official teachings that are all over the place; not just the uneducated opinions of the laity.

 

[dogsaint]

be careful what you read. I myself have read some pretty interesting things. Sometimes it helps to check validity of the source you read from. And just because someone claims to be something, doesnt truly mean they are. It’s tough especially on the internet.

This was from the source that credits the protestants with 30,000 denoms.

 

[jmcrae]

This was from the source that credits the protestants with 30,000 denoms.

I don’t consider that a reliable number. There are a lot, but the method of arriving at that particular number seems suspect, to me.

 

[DebChris]

So you would not have a problem with participating in mass in South Bend, Indiana, where the members of the parish speak in tongues?

biblia.com/christianity2/3b-charismatics.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_movement

As a Charismatic Catholic, I will respond to this. On May 19, 1975, with special persmission of Pope Paul, Cardinal Josef Suenens, Primate of Belgium, 12 bishops and 700 priests–all leaders in chrarismatic renewal–celebrated mass at the high altar, normally reserved for the Pope alone.
The charisms, or gifts received by members of the Renewal have be submitted to the authority of Rome. Its members are called to adhere to the following three principles:

1. Faithfulness to the authentic teachings of the faith.
2. Grateful reception of the gifts
3. Supremacy of love over all the other gifts.

I enjoy a Charismatic Mass which allows these gifts of the Holy Spirit to be manifested. It is not, however, the manifestation of these gifts that is the focus of any Mass. The focus of the Mass is the celebration of the Eucharist. Every Mass, regardless of the culture in which it is celebrated contains essential elements. These elements include contrition, petition, and thanksgiving. Every Mass contains the reading of Sacred Scripture and the Consecration of the ordinary elements of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Jesus is present, in his full divinity at every Eucharistic celebration…

The difference is that each of the Protestant churches teaches different, incompatible doctrines at the official level (it’s coming from their head offices), whereas whatever differences in doctrine you are seeing in Catholic churches are not coming from the Vatican, but from someone’s personal opinions - they are not following the teachings of the Catholic Church.

When a Catholic gives his personal opinions on something, that contradicts the teachings from the Vatican, he isn’t teaching as a Catholic - he’s just giving an opinion, the same as uneducated Protestants who don’t know what their churches teach, either.

It’s only when what he is saying actually conforms to what the Vatican teaches that he is promulgating Catholic doctrine, and every Catholic who does that, is saying the same things - sometimes in different words, but the meaning will be the same.

When we criticize Protestants for being all over the map with their theology, we aren’t talking about the uneducated ones who are just giving their opinions. We are talking about the educated Protestants who are promulgating the official teachings of their church. It’s the official teachings of Protestantism that are all over the map. Personal opinions are just personal opinions - but comparing the official, educated teachings of Protestants to the uneducated opinions of some Catholics is like trying to compare apples and oranges - it’s not the same thing. We expect personal opinions to be all over the place, but what we find with Protestantism is that it’s the official teachings that are all over the place; not just the uneducated opinions of the laity.

Each Catholic is called to apply the teachings of the Catholic Church to his personal life. Since each life is different, this application will not always be the same. We are not clones of one another. We live in different cultural settings. These cultural differences, as has been mentioned in earlier posts, may affect how an individual expresses his/her faith but they do not change the doctrinal teachings that have been passed from the time of the Apostles until now.

 

[justasking4]

The difference is that each of the Protestant churches teaches different, incompatible doctrines at the official level (it’s coming from their head offices), whereas whatever differences in doctrine you are seeing in Catholic churches are not coming from the Vatican, but from someone’s personal opinions - they are not following the teachings of the Catholic Church.

So, for example, when a Fundamental Baptist talks about the Seven Fundamentals, he isn’'t giving his personal opinion - he’s quoting from the official teachings of the Fundamental Baptists. When a Methodist talks about the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (which contradicts the Seven Fundamentals on several key points related to salvation) he, too, isn’t giving his personal opinion - he is quoting from the official teachings of the Methodist Church.

But there are lots of uneducated Fundamental Baptists who don’t know what the Seven Fundamentals are, and there are lots of uneducated Methodists who don’t know what the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is, and when they speak, they are just giving their personal opinions - these aren’t the Protestants that we’re talking about when we say that “Protestants disagree” - no. Rather, we are talking about the Protestants who do know their theology, and the teachings of their Church - and what we see is that the official doctrine of each Protestant church differs (often quite radically) from other Protestant churches.

When a Catholic gives his personal opinions on something, that contradicts the teachings from the Vatican, he isn’t teaching as a Catholic - he’s just giving an opinion, the same as uneducated Protestants who don’t know what their churches teach, either.

It’s only when what he is saying actually conforms to what the Vatican teaches that he is promulgating Catholic doctrine, and every Catholic who does that, is saying the same things - sometimes in different words, but the meaning will be the same.

When we criticize Protestants for being all over the map with their theology, we aren’t talking about the uneducated ones who are just giving their opinions. We are talking about the educated Protestants who are promulgating the official teachings of their church. It’s the official teachings of Protestantism that are all over the map. Personal opinions are just personal opinions - but comparing the official, educated teachings of Protestants to the uneducated opinions of some Catholics is like trying to compare apples and oranges - it’s not the same thing. We expect personal opinions to be all over the place, but what we find with Protestantism is that it’s the official teachings that are all over the place; not just the uneducated opinions of the laity.

I’m confused by your defense of your church. Take Scripture as an example. It has only infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses. That means that all catholics who interpret those scriptures not offically interpreted are just expressing their opinions. This includes the pope and eveyone else.

Secondly, your church has many beliefs and practices that can either be believed or not. Take scapulars and the appearances of Mary throughout the world. Do catholics have to believe these things or not?

Thirdly, is Mary the medatrix of all graces or not?

Fourthly, what are all the Sacred Traditions?

Fifth, must a person belong to the catholic church to be saved? In the past it has taught that you had to, now you don’t. Which one of these was correct? False?

 

[Armyof1Faith]

This was from the source that credits the protestants with 30,000 denoms.

oh, and any “denomination” of Catholic other than the Catholic Church, aren’t truly Catholic then. Like, the “Catholic” churches that have female priests and such. Just because they call themselves Catholic, doesn’t make them Catholic. They excommunicate themselves and use the title of Catholic to mislead.

 

[Armyof1Faith]

Fifth, must a person belong to the catholic church to be saved? In the past it has taught that you had to, now you don’t. Which one of these was correct? False?

the catholic church means the universal church created by Jesus Christ. Baptism is the only way you can be united with Christ. Most protestant baptisms follow the Catholic requirements and thus they are baptised into the Catholic Church. God is forgiving and could allow someone who was not baptised into heaven, but if they are refusing baptism and are knowledgeable of these things, they have turned away from Him.

 

[DebChris]

QUOTE=justasking4;3109359]I’m confused by your defense of your church. Take Scripture as an example. It has only infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses. That means that all catholics who interpret those scriptures not offically interpreted are just expressing their opinions. This includes the pope and eveyone else.

Discernment of God’s will involves reading Scripture in light of Sacred Tradition and applying that Scripture to our individual lives. Do any two people live identical lives? A popular way of reading Scripture practiced for centuries by Benedictine monks is Lectio Divina. The individual meditates upon a single verse throughout the day. There is more freedom within the Catholic faith than you seem to be assuming.

Secondly, your church has many beliefs and practices that can either be believed or not. Take scapulars and the appearances of Mary throughout the world. Do catholics have to believe these things or not?

As has already mentioned, the culture into which a person is born affects personal expression of faith. It is within these diverse cultures that certain traditions and devotions have developed. A person living in Africa may express his faith differently than a European or Asian. Nevertheless, each shares the same Faith. Each participates in Mass where each receives the Body and Blood,Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Nobody is required to wear a scapula or to accept another’s private revelation. Before the Church Magisterium accepts a private revelation as valid, that revelation goes through an investigative process to find any other explanations. Is the Madonna crying, for instance, because the pipes broke? Not accepting the possibility that Mary appeared to three children in Fatima or that the Virgin appeared to a poor peasant in Mexico does not keep an individual out of heaven.

]Thirdly, is Mary the medatrix of all graces or not?

Without Mary’s fiat there would be no salvation. Mary, whose name means ocean, is the aqueduct by which Christ came into the world. She intercedes on our behalf. At the visitation, she was the conduit by which John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb of Elizabeth. At Cana, her request became the first physical miracle performed by Jesus while He walked the earth as a man. At the foot of the cross, Mary was given to each of us when Jesus placed her in the care of the Apostle John.

Fourthly, what are all the Sacred Traditions?

Tradition needs to be differentiated between the cultural devotions already mentioned and the teachings that have been passed down from the Apostles through the generations. Tradition (T) is those teachings which the Apostles received at the foot of Jesus. These teachings are protected by the Holy Spirit as they pass from one generation to the next through the successors of the Apostles. Traditions (t) that develop culturally, while they may enhance our understanding of Tradition may be modified over time.

Fifth, must a person belong to the catholic church to be saved? In the past it has taught that you had to, now you don’t. Which one of these was correct? False?

The Catholic Church has named many people as saints but has not named a single person as condemned to hell. Judgement, as taught by the Catholic Church has always been left in the hand of God.

 

[guanophore]

I’m confused by your defense of your church. Take Scripture as an example. It has only infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses. That means that all catholics who interpret those scriptures not offically interpreted are just expressing their opinions. This includes the pope and eveyone else.

Since you do not recognize or approve any of the verses that have been infallibly interpreted, how is that relevant? The Teaching of Jesus is what is primary. All that is written and spoken must be measured in the light of that. He is the image of the invisible God, and the embodiment of Grace and Truth. All opinions pale in comparison to Him. I dont’ think you are confused at all, since you have made it clear on many occasions that you think Catholic teaching is the “speculations of men” and that Catholics have been “deceived” by wolves in sheeps clothing. Saying you are confused is just a ploy to try to lure Catholics away from their faith.

Secondly, your church has many beliefs and practices that can either be believed or not. Take scapulars and the appearances of Mary throughout the world. Do catholics have to believe these things or not?

Since you reject the Apostolic teaching, it is understandible that you would have difficulty discerning the difference between the Teachings of the Apostles, and certain private devotions and practices. You know very well, and have been told many times that Catholics are not bound by any private revelation. Why do you ask this question? Are you trying to trap persons weak or unsure in their faith?

Thirdly, is Mary the medatrix of all graces or not?

Since you reject the teachings on Mary as “speculations of men”, what difference would that make to you? You have already indicated that the Marian doctrines are doctrines of demons, in your opinion.

Fourthly, what are all the Sacred Traditions?

Since you reject all of them (except the Sacred Scriptures) as erroneous, what difference does this make?

Fifth, must a person belong to the catholic church to be saved? In the past it has taught that you had to, now you don’t. Which one of these was correct? False?

Gracious! Such a plethora of trolling all in one place! Suffice to say that Jesus established One Church. He is not deformed, and only has One Body.

Eph 4:5-6
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of us all"

There is only one church, and all those who are saved belong to it.

 

[pete_29]

I’d like to simplify my question. If the Catholic church was wrong then why wasn’t just one split sufficient ?

 

[rtconstant]

Lots of catholics on these forums mock protestants and think that the catholic church alone is the pillar of truth. Take the claim that there are thousands of denominations and interpretations of Scripture in protestant churches. When we apply the same criteria to the catholic church as being one unified whole and everyone interprets the scriptures the same we find otherwise. There are just as many different interpretations in the catholic church as in protestant churches.

Well logically there cannot be more than one “pillar and ground of Truth”. Since only the Catholic Church was around for the first 1500 years of Christian history it is reasonable that the Catholic Church is that pillar. At the very least it would exclude the Protestant denominations as Paul likely wasn’t talking about denominations that wouldn’t even be in existence until the 1500’s or latter.

I do see now thought what you’re meaning by bringing up the fact that only so many specific verses in Scripture have had direct interpretation. Indeed if the Faith was dependent on Sacred Scripture as the origin of doctrine this would be concerning. Here is the thing though, while that there are several thousand Protestant denominations with new one’s coming everyday (and others passing away) in Catholicism there is one official doctrine which has maintained throughout the ages. Protestant denominations have changed their doctrinal and moral positions throughout the years and will continue to so and will also spawn no denominations because private interpretation of Scripture is the origin of belief.

In Catholicism doctrine drives Biblical interpretation instead of vice versa. Indeed proper doctrine is the origin of Scripture. Without right belief the there could have been no Bible. Catholicism creates the glasses that allows one to clearly read the Bible. When one attempts to read before they can see clearly they are liable to see any sort of thing within the text.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Me, personally? No. However, I understand that speaking in tongues during Mass is considered an abuse, so it’s not something I’d do on a regular basis.

Disobedient Catholics don’t change the teachings of the Church - it remains forbidden to pray in tongues during Mass no matter how many people do it, or what their status is in the secular community.

PS: I used to be active in the Charismatic movement, and I have experienced a number of miracles, personally. So, I have absolutely nothing against Charismatic Catholics, in general.

Excuse my ignorance about Charismatic Catholics. In some Evangelical circles speaking in tongues is not allowed during corporate worship but is allowed in small groups meeting, for example, in people’s homes. In other Evangelical circles, speaking in tongues is allowed but only where the rules given by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians, chapters 12-14. That is, only one person is allowed to speak at a time and only if someone with a gift of interpretation is present to interpret what was said for the rest of the local body of believers. I was unaware that speaking in tongues was tolerated in private but forbidden in public worship by the Roman Catholic church.

Your answer is that you do not have a problem with a Roman Catholic believing in the perpetuity of the spiritual gifts. My next question, if you will be so good as to answer it, is this: If a Roman Catholic believed that certain spiritual gifts, such as speaking in tongues, ceased with the closing of the cannon of Scripture, would you divide over that issue? By divide, i mean, would you consider that person to not be a Roman Catholic, because she does not believe as you do?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

As a Charismatic Catholic, I will respond to this. On May 19, 1975, with special persmission of Pope Paul, Cardinal Josef Suenens, Primate of Belgium, 12 bishops and 700 priests–all leaders in chrarismatic renewal–celebrated mass at the high altar, normally reserved for the Pope alone.
The charisms, or gifts received by members of the Renewal have be submitted to the authority of Rome. Its members are called to adhere to the following three principles:

1. Faithfulness to the authentic teachings of the faith.
2. Grateful reception of the gifts
3. Supremacy of love over all the other gifts.

I enjoy a Charismatic Mass which allows these gifts of the Holy Spirit to be manifested. It is not, however, the manifestation of these gifts that is the focus of any Mass. The focus of the Mass is the celebration of the Eucharist. Every Mass, regardless of the culture in which it is celebrated contains essential elements. These elements include contrition, petition, and thanksgiving. Every Mass contains the reading of Sacred Scripture and the Consecration of the ordinary elements of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Jesus is present, in his full divinity at every Eucharistic celebration…

Each Catholic is called to apply the teachings of the Catholic Church to his personal life. Since each life is different, this application will not always be the same. We are not clones of one another. We live in different cultural settings. These cultural differences, as has been mentioned in earlier posts, may affect how an individual expresses his/her faith but they do not change the doctrinal teachings that have been passed from the time of the Apostles until now.

DebChris:

Thank you for your response! Would you say that jmcrae is correct in asserting that it is not allowed by the Roman Catholic church to speak in tongues during mass? Would you consider a Roman Catholic who thought it is wrong to speak in tongues to not be a Catholic because he does not share this belief with you?

 

[DebChris]

I was unaware that speaking in tongues was tolerated in private but forbidden in public worship by the Roman Catholic church.

Your answer is that you do not have a problem with a Roman Catholic believing in the perpetuity of the spiritual gifts. My next question, if you will be so good as to answer it, is this: If a Roman Catholic believed that certain spiritual gifts, such as speaking in tongues, ceased with the closing of the cannon of Scripture, would you divide over that issue? By divide, i mean, would you consider that person to not be a Roman Catholic, because she does not believe as you do?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church talks about the charisms being used for the upbuilding of the community. The United States Catholic Cathecism for Adults written by the US Council of Bishops mentions the Charismatic Renewal several times along with other renewal movements within the Church. You rightly state that speaking publicly in tongues is not forbidden in the Catholic Church. As mentioned earlier, Pope Paul VI gave special permission for the Charismatic celebration of the Mass at the high altar in St. Peter’s Basilica. Our God is alive and well. I like the story of a Carmelite nun who questioned whether or not the gift of tongues was from God and why she needed it. She already had an initmate relationship with our saviour. “If it is from God, why would I refuse?”
“Bishops and pastors continue to emphasize the centrality of the liturgy in Catholic prayer life, while strongly supporting the wide-ranging aspects of personal prayer, peity, and meditation.” United States Catholic Cathecism for Adults, p. 477]

Non-Catholic Pentecostal churches developed because members who exhibited these spiritual gifts were ex-communicated from their original faith denominations. This primarily happened during the revivals of the 19th and 20th centuries. Denominations, such as the Assembly of God and Pentecostal Holiness churches developed from the preaching of itinerant preachers primary in rural areas with high illiteracy rates. Unlike non-Catholic denominations, the Roman Catholic Church has warmly embraced the Charismatic Renewal with its expression of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
My most recent thoughts have leaned toward the life of St. Francis of Assisi. Thought a fool by many, his adherence to the gospel message breathed new life into the Catholic Church. As Catholics, we have the lives of the saints to remind us what it means to follow Christ.

One of the local parishes provided “little blue books” for Advent. Yesterday’s informational short was about the Puritans. The Puritans sought to purify the Anglican church of all things Roman Catholic. They outlawed Christmas because of the externals—tree, gifts, crib, etc. Established in the 16th century, the Puritan movement was over by the end by the end of the 17th.

I did not answer your last question. I would consider that person to be at a different understanding than myself. I would not divide over the issue but would invite him/her to a prayer meeting to see for himself or herself. I would mention as above the teachings of the Magisterium and give the example of the Carmelite nun. I would leave the rest to the Holy Spirit.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… I did not answer your last question. I would consider that person to be at a different understanding than myself. I would not divide over the issue but would invite him/her to a prayer meeting to see for himself or herself. I would mention as above the teachings of the Magisterium and give the example of the Carmelite nun. I would leave the rest to the Holy Spirit.

Yes, absolutely! I feel the same way.

Even though i do not personally speak in tongues and have not made up my mind as to whether it is a legitimate work of the Holy Spirit, i would not divide over the issue. I would consider both a Baptist (who believes speaking in tongues to be of the devil) and a Pentecostal (who believes a person is not a Christian until she speaks in tongues) to both be Christians if they believed in the same essential doctrines of the faith.

This is the point i was trying to make to JM. He may disagree with a Charismatic Catholic, but still consider that person to be of the same religion as himself. As an Evangelical, i may disagree with a Baptist or Pentecostal, but still consider them to be Christians like myself. In my mind they are still members of the universal (catholic) church if they hold to the essential beliefs of who Jesus is and the meaning of what he did.

In some ways, there are denominations in Roman Catholicism just as there are denominations in Protestant Christianity. That is, there are groups that differ in beliefs about non-essential doctrines who are still members of the church because they still agree on the essential doctrines of the faith.

What St. Augustine said holds true for both Catholics and Protestants, i think:

“In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.”

 

[justasking4]

I’d like to simplify my question. If the Catholic church was wrong then why wasn’t just one split sufficient ?

It depends what you mean by split. I can understand why there are some many “different” churches for a number of reasons. Most are theological and Christian theology is a complex system of truth in which it is impossible for Christians to agree upon every detail.
There are also other reasons. Some protestant churches split because of church growth.

 

[jediliz]

someone already probably answered this way, but this is what I say:

“Joe” didn’t agree with the Catholic Church on something, so “Joe” starts his own church. However, “James”, after attending “Joe’s” church, doesn’t like something “Joe” is teaching at his pulpit, so he decides to start HIS own church, but keeps a few of “Joe’s” teachings, while ignoring others. Mark attends James’ church, but thinks “James” is interpreting the one passage wrong, so HE starts his own church. And that’s how it begins. They agree on one or two things, but disagree on countless others.

There are 50,000 protestant denominations. Almost none of them agree on anything, a few of them might even refuse to celebrate the birthday of Jesus because they’ve fallen for the “its too pagan” or something.

 

[justasking4]

jediliz;3114304]someone already probably answered this way, but this is what I say:

“Joe” didn’t agree with the Catholic Church on something, so “Joe” starts his own church. However, “James”, after attending “Joe’s” church, doesn’t like something “Joe” is teaching at his pulpit, so he decides to start HIS own church, but keeps a few of “Joe’s” teachings, while ignoring others. Mark attends James’ church, but thinks “James” is interpreting the one passage wrong, so HE starts his own church. And that’s how it begins. They agree on one or two things, but disagree on countless others.

Do you any real world examples for this assertion that people leave for just any frivilous reason?

There are 50,000 protestant denominations. Almost none of them agree on anything, a few of them might even refuse to celebrate the birthday of Jesus because they’ve fallen for the “its too pagan” or something.

Lets test your theory. In your city go to 3 or 4 different protestant churches and look at their doctinal statements on what they believe and compare them with each other.
See what they say about Jesus Christ and Scripure. Do they agree or disagree?

 

[estesbob]

Do you any real world examples for this assertion that people leave for just any frivilous reason?

Lets test your theory. In your city go to 3 or 4 different protestant churches and look at their doctinal statements on what they believe and compare them with each other.
See what they say about Jesus Christ and Scripure. Do they agree or disagree?

’

OK-I went to a JW, Mormon, Lutheran and Baptisty Church-they all had substatial differences on what they say about Christ and Scripture. i also went to two different Episcopal Churches. one told me that Scripture did not forbid homosexuality or Priestesses, the other told me it most certainly did. The Evangelical church down the street told me once I was Saved I was always saved while the Methodist Church told me that was not true. And nearly every one of them had a different view on the nature of the Eucahrist. How do we reconcle this-or is God the author of confusion?

 

[DLC]

There are many different protestant denomination because the Bible allows for freed of worship. We are free to choose how we want to worship God. Some chose a more traditional way and others a more contemporary way. Morst Protestant church agree on the main tenants of the faith. On other things there is great freedom. Please do not think that just because there are different denomination that we all disagree on what is important.