Wishing to be Protestant again...

[eucharisteo]

Well, what I find interesting is that the emotional high provokes people to constantly pursue a new one. As one studies scripture more and more I can’t begin to fathom why people don’t realize that the early Christians were Catholic. It kept jumping out at me repeatedly and caused a lot of internal struggle. But my wife was really not open to hearing what I was learning until several years later when she finally got fed up with the constant lack of charity from the members, elders, preachers and deacons in our life. Not to mention her 2 oldest brothers are preachers and get on her last nerve. We were surprised to hear one of them try to calm down their mother by telling her that Catholicism is very close to the Church of Christ…ironic, isn’t it? So other Christian faiths have the same exact problems. I learned that people are people no matter where you go.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Cat (and Eucharisteo, too),

**You wrote, Cat: ** *Once again, people are dropping out of the discussion because of some vague reason that they no longer wish to be involved etc. etc.

WHY does this always happen?!!!

Why don’t be people stick to it and finish what they started, instead of dropping out when things don’t go their way?*​

When I eventually drop out of C.A. fora like this, it is usually because a forum originally intended to deal with Protestantism ends up being swamped by a bunch of narrow-minded, scatter-shot shooting sectaries, “Fundamentalists” (who are fundamentally wrong! ) and Pentecostals , who are not really Protestant (and who, in fact, loathe Lutherans, Anglicans, and Presbyterians only slightly less than they do Catholics, and for many of the same reasons). Protestants usually engage in fora conversation seriously and with dignity, whereas the “Fundies” rant and rail and really do not care about dialogue at all, just using C.A. fora for a cybernetic version of “tract passing”.

An example is Amy, who just goes on and on about her pet peeves and cherished Arminian sectary doctrinal and exegetical distinctives, while giving little evidence that her mind is being formed in some way by the contacts that she has in the forum’s postings. She and others like her just spout over and over the same tired old Fundamentalist line and persists in their (often uncharitable) bromides. (Maybe I am being uncharitable, though that is not my intention; Amy probably is a likable and intelligent enough gal when she is off the subject of religion.)

If one wants really Protestant angles on these interchanges, it is probably better to use “Lutheran”, “Presbyterian”, “Anglican” (or “Episcopalian”), and other more specific terms (one of them or more) than “Protestant” in a C.A. forum heading, the word “Protestant” tending to draw in the sectaries (so many of whom do not realise that they are not truly Protestant). Let the sectaries be drawn to C.A. Fora which are aimed at them (i.e., those which use such terms as “Fundamentalist”, “Pentecostal”, “Baptist”, etc.), not at genuine Protestants.

Just some observations, just a suggestion—.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[tweetymom]

Cat (and Eucharisteo, too),

**You wrote, Cat: ** *Once again, people are dropping out of the discussion because of some vague reason that they no longer wish to be involved etc. etc.

WHY does this always happen?!!!

Why don’t be people stick to it and finish what they started, instead of dropping out when things don’t go their way?*​

When I eventually drop out of C.A. fora like this, it is usually because a forum originally intended to deal with Protestantism ends up being swamped by a bunch of narrow-minded, scatter-shot shooting sectaries, “Fundamentalists” (who are fundamentally wrong! ) and Pentecostals , who are not really Protestant (and who, in fact, loathe Lutherans, Anglicans, and Presbyterians only slightly less than they do Catholics, and for many of the same reasons). Protestants usually engage in fora conversation seriously and with dignity, whereas the “Fundies” rant and rail and really do not care about dialogue at all, just using C.A. fora for a cybernetic version of “tract passing”.

An example is Amy, who just goes on and on about her pet peeves and cherished Arminian sectary doctrinal and exegetical distinctives, while giving little evidence that her mind is being formed in some way by the contacts that she has in the forum’s postings. She and others like her just spout over and over the same tired old Fundamentalist line and persists in their (often uncharitable) bromides. (Maybe I am being uncharitable, though that is not my intention; Amy probably is a likable and intelligent enough gal when she is off the subject of religion.)

If one wants really Protestant angles on these interchanges, it is probably better to use “Lutheran”, “Presbyterian”, “Anglican” (or “Episcopalian”), and other more specific terms (one of them or more) than “Protestant” in a C.A. forum heading, the word “Protestant” tending to draw in the sectaries (so many of whom do not realise that they are not truly Protestant). Let the sectaries be drawn to C.A. Fora which are aimed at them (i.e., those which use such terms as “Fundamentalist”, “Pentecostal”, “Baptist”, etc.), not at genuine Protestants.

Just some observations, just a suggestion—.

Pax, Jerry Parker

I was a Pentocastal for many years and in my heart still am one. In all my years I never have heard any ugly comments about Catholics. Oh and i think you misused the word fundie, not supposed to be used here, see rule number 6.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Tweetymom,

**You wrote: ** I was a Pentocastal for many years and in my heart still am one. In all my years I never have heard any ugly comments about Catholics. Oh and i think you misused the word fundie, not supposed to be used here, see rule number 6.​

Oops! I did not mean to flout a rule by resorting to “Fundy” or “Fundie”! I meant it as an handy term to avoid some longer locution. I’ll keep in mind not to employ that term again on a C.A. forum (or is it only on this one that this term is forbidden? It is getting late and I am just to tired to check into this for now.)

Yes, there are many sectaries who are not abusive, excessively confrontational, or obtuse. Amy happens to be one who seems to be one of those who is laden with the more negative qualities. Many Baptists and Pentecostals are sweet souls who love the Lord and avoid irritating other Christians who are not of their kind of fellowship or way of mind and belief. I have met many such kindly sectaries, especially among the Southern Baptists. Some of them are in my own family (including some mellow Pentecostalists).

I am far from thinking that the only saintly Christians are Catholics and Orthodox! In fact, sometimes I wonder, given how we and other kinds of Christians behave, if Christian belief really changes a person’s behaviour for the better or not. I can get quite sceptical about this matter, but I hold on to my faith and hope (and pray) for the best.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[Hiskid1973]

I am far from thinking that the only saintly Christians are Catholics and Orthodox! In fact, sometimes I wonder, given how we and other kinds of Christians behave, if Christian belief really changes a person’s behaviour for the better or not. I can get quite sceptical about this matter, but I hold on to my faith and hope (and pray) for the best.
Pax, Jerry Parker/QUOTE

It’s all about making daily choices to reflect Christ in all our words, deeds, thoughts and attitudes…

 

[BILL_PICK53]

I do not know what you are looking at but my Church has a fish fry on Sat,a Faith formation,Teen 4 Christ,Playschool for 1 to 8,Bible study. teens and adults ,small Faith grroup,a Spanish groups,Bot Scouts,Cub Scouts,Moms night out,KofC,Children & Youth ch0irs,Teens for Christ and Bigno on Sat. and this is just thie week and My Church has only 1200 people not counting the Spanish group…Movie group.last week we had a play and a picnic,So you need to find a Church that is working and stop with the my church does nothing and lots of fellowship.,This goes on all week…

 

[Jerry_Parker]

His Kid 1973,

**We had written: ** Jerry Parker: I am far from thinking that the only saintly Christians are Catholics and Orthodox! In fact, sometimes I wonder, given how we and other kinds of Christians behave, if Christian belief really changes a person’s behaviour for the better or not. I can get quite sceptical about this matter, but I hold on to my faith and hope (and pray) for the best.

His Kid: It’s all about making daily choices to reflect Christ in all our words, deeds, thoughts and attitudes.​

How right you are, His Kid! The way to follow our Lord is easy to state, and so hard to undertake, daily, as we must do it. The fact is, however, that none of us follows through on this consistently, though those who attain holiness come close to it. The fact also is that probably most of us do not even try very hard! The latter is why the seeming lack of impact can make one sceptical at times about the transformation of the individual behaviours of most believers. We all must strive harder to follow our Lord in word and in deed!

My perception of the matter may be influenced by the fact that I live in a milieu and culture, that of Québec, where almost everybody is Catholic (most Roman, a few Eastern), at least nominally, and yet it can be hard to see how our Catholic faith has much impact on lives. Perhaps in the U. S. of A., where the percentage of Catholics in the population is lower, there is a little more effort to take stands on issues and on one’s business of daily living than there is here in Rouyn-Noranda, Québec. For America’s sake, I hope so! Catholicism up here seems so much like a toothless, declawed, mute, tired old tiger —. However, we must live by faith, not by the treacherous evidence of our eyes; the Holy Spirit works in ways unknown fully to us in the lives of individual Catholics. (Often I have to ask myself, “How much worse would I (or that guy) be if I (he) had not been baptised and exposed to the Holy Faith?”)

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[sambos671]

Cat (and Eucharisteo, too),

**You wrote, Cat: ** *Once again, people are dropping out of the discussion because of some vague reason that they no longer wish to be involved etc. etc.

WHY does this always happen?!!!

Why don’t be people stick to it and finish what they started, instead of dropping out when things don’t go their way?*​

When I eventually drop out of C.A. fora like this, it is usually because a forum originally intended to deal with Protestantism ends up being swamped by a bunch of narrow-minded, scatter-shot shooting sectaries, “Fundamentalists” (who are fundamentally wrong! ) and Pentecostals , who are not really Protestant (and who, in fact, loathe Lutherans, Anglicans, and Presbyterians only slightly less than they do Catholics, and for many of the same reasons). Protestants usually engage in fora conversation seriously and with dignity, whereas the “Fundies” rant and rail and really do not care about dialogue at all, just using C.A. fora for a cybernetic version of “tract passing”.

An example is Amy, who just goes on and on about her pet peeves and cherished Arminian sectary doctrinal and exegetical distinctives, while giving little evidence that her mind is being formed in some way by the contacts that she has in the forum’s postings. She and others like her just spout over and over the same tired old Fundamentalist line and persists in their (often uncharitable) bromides. (Maybe I am being uncharitable, though that is not my intention; Amy probably is a likable and intelligent enough gal when she is off the subject of religion.)

If one wants really Protestant angles on these interchanges, it is probably better to use “Lutheran”, “Presbyterian”, “Anglican” (or “Episcopalian”), and other more specific terms (one of them or more) than “Protestant” in a C.A. forum heading, the word “Protestant” tending to draw in the sectaries (so many of whom do not realise that they are not truly Protestant). Let the sectaries be drawn to C.A. Fora which are aimed at them (i.e., those which use such terms as “Fundamentalist”, “Pentecostal”, “Baptist”, etc.), not at genuine Protestants.

Just some observations, just a suggestion—.

Pax, Jerry Parker

Jerry just to point out most Fundalmentalist especially those of the Baptist view hold to reformed theology specifically with regard to Calvins Institutes. They believe that Presbyterians have left the reformed faith for something more secular (not even more Catholic) So, I’m confused when you exclude baptist and fundalmentalist from Reformed theology.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Sambos,

You wrote: *Just to point out most Fundalmentalist especially those of the Baptist view hold to reformed theology specifically with regard to Calvins Institutes. They believe that Presbyterians have left the reformed faith for something more secular (not even more Catholic) So, I’m confused when you exclude baptist and fundamentalist from Reformed theology. *​

Nay, Sambos, your conception of what Baptists believe is very, very out of date. Yes, it is true that Baptists originally believed in Reformed ('Calvinist") soteriology, but that is no longer the case for most of them. Yes, there are groups, such as the Association of Reformed Baptists in America, which hold true and fully to the classic Baptist confession of 1689, but this and other Baptist groups (to concentrate on Baptist sectarianism in the U. S. of A.) are very much in the minority.

Most Baptists now and since a very long time are not “confessional” at all, rejecting confessions of faith, specific creeds, etc., partly from disagreement (with Baptist confessions) and partly from an unwillingness to set anything alongside the Bible itself as authoritative (with all of the doctrinal ambiguity that such an approach can permit and assure).

Most Baptists, since a long time, have rejected Reformed (commonly called “Calvinist”) soteriology. That alone would place them among the sects, rather than with Protestants, none of whom accept “Arminian” teaching on soteriology (at least, not without strong reservations, as among the confessionally “loosey-goosey” Anglicans) about many of Arminianism’s claims), which does not accord with the doctrine of their confessions. Most Baptists hold to what commonly has been called “decision theology”, which places one’s salvation in the believer’s own hands by “making a personal decision for Christ”, rather than in God’s sovereign Grace and divine gift (not human decision) of faith. Most of them also reject Predestination, some going so far as to deny the doctrine of Original Sin. These tendencies preclude them from consideration as Protestants.

The Protestants of the “magesterial Reformation” acknowledge the Oecumenical Creeds and their own Confessions of faith as the authoritative measures for interpreting what Holy Scripture means. This is to assure doctrinal uniformity and “Protestant orthodoxy”. Even the Anglicans have their “39 Articles”, while genuine Presbyterians hold firmly to the Westminster Standards, and other Reformed Protestants to the “Three Forms of Unity” (most notably the “Belgic Confession”) and/or to other Reformed Confessions. Most Baptists disavow confessions (and usually even the Oecumenical Creeds), something which also places them among the ranks of the sectaries, not of Protestants (Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian/Reformed, Moravian).

Finally, all Baptists, alike the so-called Reformed (actually, semi-Reformed) or the Arminians among them, reject any understanding of the sacraments as having objective validity and efficacy, as Protestants variously understand them to have. For Baptists, the sacraments are purely symbolic, having no intrinsic efficacy to convey grace, even from a “Receptionist” understanding. This denial of sacramental efficacy makes Baptists to squat among the sectarians rather than to stand among the Protestants.

It is even more crucial to their salvation to convert sectaries to the Catholic faith than it is even to reconcile Protestants to Rome. Both need Catholic faith, but the sectaries fall more woefully short of Catholic faith than Protestants do so.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[Esdra]

But that’s not what Jesus taught. You have a relationship with Jesus–doesn’t He whisper to you about the importance of the Church and the reasons why you should be involved with the Church? When you read His Word, don’t you see all the passages and verses that encourage Christians to be part of the Body of Christ, i.e., the Church?

He taught that not only are we to have a relationship with Him, but with His Church. John 17. The entire letter to the Ephesians is about “body life,” or life in the Church. Paul and the other New Testament missionaries gave their lives to plant CHURCHES, not just tell individuals about Jesus.

Frankly, if I had to march into the arena to be eaten by lions or gored by bulls, I would rather march in singing with other Christians than just all by myself, or more accurately, “me and Jesus.” Maybe that makes me sound like my relationship with Jesus is weak, but that’s OK. Lots of those early martyrs marched in together, not alone. And I’m guessing that when that time came, they stopped fighting about which hymn to sing as they were taken to their execution, or what color their burial shroud should be i order to most express reverence, and instead, were One in Christ as they died for Him.

We NEED each other! Politics and all. Latin vs. Vernacular. Veiled and unveiled. Friendly or cold. Outgoing or reclusive. Decently or indecently dressed. Young and old. Free of serious sin or caught up in struggles with addictions and excesses. Protestants or Catholics–…]

Society needs the Church! One person can’t do much, but a whole lot of people working together CAN do much good, even if they bicker and argue while they’re passing out the soup or passing the hat for Haiti victims.

Unreached people groups need the Church. Again, one person can’t do much unless they’re rich and have political clout. But many people working together can support missionaries and teachers and preachers and aid workers to the darkest of lands where people are routinely martyred for professing faith in Jesus Christ. Yes, those Christians can accomplish much even if they are arguing and being unfriendly to each other and getting caught up in silly controversies and debates and spending more time online than they should. The Lord can work through His Church anyway, in spite of our sin.

…]

Dear Cat,

As you have written quite general, I couldn’t believe it - I can completely agree with this post, although I am not a Catholic, but a Protestant!
Great post, I would have said it in similar words!
However, instead of “the Church” I would have used a Christian Community…

Best wishes,
Esdra

 

[sambos671]

Well, how do you classify such writers as RC Sproul? Seems very Calvinistic to me. Also baptist being influenced by Zwigli would not have a sacramental view. During my time as a Baptist Reformed theology was the primary doctrinal believe with soteriology. Such discussions as can you make a decision for Christ if you are unregenerated? were common. And my discussions with them today the same emphasis is placed on TULIP. So I wonder what specific sectarian baptist you’re talking about. Free will Baptist? American Baptist? Southern Baptist? Independent Fundalmentalist Baptist?

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Sambos,

You wrote: * Well, how do you classify such writers as RC Sproul? Seems very Calvinistic to me. Also baptist being influenced by Zwigli would not have a sacramental view. During my time as a Baptist Reformed theology was the primary doctrinal believe with soteriology. Such discussions as can you make a decision for Christ if you are unregenerated? were common. And my discussions with them today the same emphasis is placed on TULIP. So I wonder what specific sectarian baptist you’re talking about. Free will Baptist? American Baptist? Southern Baptist? Independent Fundamentalist Baptist*​

What’s the problem with Spourl? He is not a Baptist, you know, he is a Calvinist, in theology and by denominational affiliation!

You have been led, by Baptists who define these things as these sectaries wish to do so, who accept the soteriological teachings of Reformed theology, but reject a lot of the rest. To be really Reformed, one doesn’t “cherry pick” soteriology (Calvin’s, Beza’s, etc.) alone but Calvinism itself, which also embraces doctrine and praxis regarding church governance (quite a different thing from Baptist congregationalism or connexionalism), the ministry (about which Reformed/Presbyterian ideas are quite at variance with those of Baptists), and the sacraments (where Baptists flat-out deny the teachings of Bucer, whose sacramental views are normative, or of Calvin), including infant baptism (which Baptists hotly contest), etc. Calvinism is about more than soteriology! No, it just won’t do to sport Reformed views on soteriology and to think that, ipso facto, one is Reformed (or “Calvinist”)! At best, Baptists can be semi-Reformed, but not Truly Reformed.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[sambos671]

Sambos,

You wrote: * Well, how do you classify such writers as RC Sproul? Seems very Calvinistic to me. Also baptist being influenced by Zwigli would not have a sacramental view. During my time as a Baptist Reformed theology was the primary doctrinal believe with soteriology. Such discussions as can you make a decision for Christ if you are unregenerated? were common. And my discussions with them today the same emphasis is placed on TULIP. So I wonder what specific sectarian baptist you’re talking about. Free will Baptist? American Baptist? Southern Baptist? Independent Fundamentalist Baptist*​

What’s the problem with Spourl? He is not a Baptist, you know, he is a Calvinist, in theology and by denominational affiliation!

You have been led, by Baptists who define these things as these sectaries wish to do so, who accept the soteriological teachings of Reformed theology, but reject a lot of the rest. To be really Reformed, one doesn’t “cherry pick” soteriology (Calvin’s, Beza’s, etc.) alone but Calvinism itself, which also embraces doctrine and praxis regarding church governance (quite a different thing from Baptist congregationalism or connexionalism), the ministry (about which Reformed/Presbyterian ideas are quite at variance with those of Baptists), and the sacraments (where Baptists flat-out deny the teachings of Bucer, whose sacramental views are normative, or of Calvin), including infant baptism (which Baptists hotly contest), etc. Calvinism is about more than soteriology! No, it just won’t do to sport Reformed views on soteriology and to think that, ipso facto, one is Reformed (or “Calvinist”)! At best, Baptists can be semi-Reformed, but not Truly Reformed.

Pax, Jerry Parker

You make a good point. I’ll have to check this out further. You seem pretty well versed on this topic. I might seek you out for some information. Thanks.

 

[sambos671]

How does the London Baptist Confession of 1689 stand against reformed theology? How is reformed theology sacramental? And what are your comparisons between Catholicism and Reformed theology?

 

[packermann]

As a former Protestant, I totally hear what you’re saying. And I agree to a point. My former churches did emphasize fellowship - so fellowship we did. In Sunday school, on retreats, in Mom’s groups, in couple’s small groups etc. And it seemed like I had lots of friends - but they were only friends while we went to the same church, which was typically a couple of years. People came & went … they’d get mad at the Pastor, or the worship team, or hear about a new, even better church with better programs - or “nicer” people and off they’d go. It was like a revolving door. That’s what happens when everyone has the attitude “what am I getting out of this?”

I’ve been Catholic for about 5 years and I find it a great big relief that I’m not longer asked to serve all over the place on a Sunday morning (nursery, Preschool sunday school room, hospitality hostess etc.) and instead I can just get up and go and worship with my family. I’m no longer caught up in any church “drama” … because all those former church friends created ALOT of drama… and I’m no longer in it for what I’m getting. Bad homily? Oh well… I’m not there for the homily, I’m there for Jesus. Sing off key hymns? Ditto. Not a single friend in sight? Jesus had few friends at the foot of the cross. It’s not about me. It’s about Him. And this is where He is… What could I possibly say? Sorry Jesus… I knew it was your Church but it just wasn’t very “fun?” Seriously?

Great post!

I too had the same experience in Protestant churches. Yes, there were lots of fellowship. But there was also a lot of gossip, backstabbing, and pressure to help out in those activities. After a while I just got burned out.

Protestant churches remind me of Martha and Catholic churches remind me of Mary of Bethany. Martha was always busy with activities. Mary just wanted to sit at the feet of Jesus. Protestant retreats are all about activities and fellowship. Catholic retreats are usually silent retreats - because you are concentrating on Jesus. Sure, Catholic homilies can be boring. But they are also very short. Ministers give hour-long sermons at times. A Protestant church service is very minister-centered. But a Catholic Mass is Christ-centered. It is Christ-centered because it is Eucharist-centered, and Christ is in the Eucharist.

Sure, Protestant churches have more fun things for kids. But this in itself gives a subliminal message to our kids that God exists for us rather than we exist for God. It is not that I am against having fun. But the Catholic Church would never be able to compete in the area of “fun”. Protestants can have children’s church while adult church is going on. Catholics would never and should never have a children’s church, because the Mass is important for all at any age.

But just as the Catholic Church can never compete with Protestant churches when it comes to fun, neither can Protestant churches compete with the secular world when it comes to fun. If your kids go to any church primarily because it is fun, one day they will wake up to find that the world offers more fun. And then they will stop going to church altogether. The Church cannot compete with the world when it comes to fun. The Church will always lose that competition. No matter how exciting a Protestant church can be, it cannot compete with drinking parties, sex, and drugs that your kids will be exposed to in college. But if the name of the game is truth, and heaven, and reconciliation with God, and meaning in life, and true joy, then the Church will always win.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Sambos,

You wrote: *You make a good point. I’ll have to check this out further . You seem pretty well versed on this topic. I might seek you out for some information. Thanks.​

Thanks, to you, too, Sambos, for not becoming simply intransigent about the matter! The name “Reformed” really does imply a lot of baggage in theology and church praxis, not simply demarcate a particular approach to soteriology. One could use the adjective “Reformed” to describe an aspect of what the Reformed faith is, but to consider oneself or another as “Reformed” implies acceptance of a lot more than just one aspect of Reformed faith and practice.

It is true, however, that in some matters of Reformed faith and praxis there legitimately can be some flexibility. For example, some Reformed churches, especially in Europe, incorporate episcopacy (though seldom any claim to “apostolic succession”), rather than the system of presbyters and presbyteries, etc., of Presbyterianism or (using other terminology for the same system) of a genuinely Reformed denomination such as the Protestant Reformed Churches of America. Episcopacy, like presbyterianism, is alian to congregationalism and has at least an outward respect for the unity of the Church (in this case, of the denomination). However, congregationalism really is foreign to the Reformed faith, which has, so far as Protestantism goes, a rather “high” doctrine and concept of the Church, temporal as well as eternal, not merely as locally manifested but also as it has its wider existence, something that, ultimately, rules out congregationalism (even though, traditionally, Congregationalists, mostly now folded, in the U. S. of A., into the United Church of Christ, an apostate, modernist, denomination, albeit pan-Protestant Christian in its origins), have considered themselves as being Reformed, but, even at its best, Congregationalism was only rather defectively Reformed. The same applies to Reformed Baptists, who hold to Reformed soteriology, but reject most of the rest of doctrine and praxix that distinguishes Reformed allegiance from other types of Christianity.

Anyway, may your research lead you to deepening faith and allegiance to our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ!

Pax, Jerry Parker*

 

[FantomScholar]

Thanks, to you, too, Sambos, for not becoming simply intransigent about the matter! The name “Reformed” really does imply a lot of baggage in theology and church praxis, not simply demarcate a particular approach to soteriology. One could use the adjective “Reformed” to describe an aspect of what the Reformed faith is, but to consider oneself or another as “Reformed” implies acceptance of a lot more than just one aspect of Reformed faith and practice.

It is true, however, that in some matters of Reformed faith and praxis there legitimately can be some flexibility. For example, some Reformed churches, especially in Europe, incorporate episcopacy (though seldom any claim to “apostolic succession”), rather than the system of presbyters and presbyteries, etc., of Presbyterianism or (using other terminology for the same system) of a genuinely Reformed denomination such as the Protestant Reformed Churches of America. Episcopacy, like presbyterianism, is alian to congregationalism and has at least an outward respect for the unity of the Church (in this case, of the denomination). However, congregationalism really is foreign to the Reformed faith, which has, so far as Protestantism goes, a rather “high” doctrine and concept of the Church, temporal as well as eternal, not merely as locally manifested but also as it has its wider existence, something that, ultimately, rules out congregationalism (even though, traditionally, Congregationalists, mostly now folded, in the U. S. of A., into the United Church of Christ, an apostate, modernist, denomination, albeit pan-Protestant Christian in its origins), have considered themselves as being Reformed, but, even at its best, Congregationalism was only rather defectively Reformed. The same applies to Reformed Baptists, who hold to Reformed soteriology, but reject most of the rest of doctrine and praxix that distinguishes Reformed allegiance from other types of Christianity.

Anyway, may your research lead you to deepening faith and allegiance to our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ!

Pax, Jerry Parker

I agree with everything you have written above, Jerry. I appreciate your historical knowledge here. It seems to me that to define Reformed simply as adhering to the articles of the Canons of Dordt is a gross oversimplification of the system of Reformed theology and is, at best, an attempt to reduce a theological tradition to its lowest common denominator. There is no question that the divines assembled at Dordtrecht and later at Westminster would have understood the term “Reformed” to mean not only the five articles against the Remonstrants, but also a presbyterian-type church polity, paedobaptism, Calvin’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper, covenant theology, etc. For some reason, Baptists who adhere to a form of covenant theology and TULIP are quite insistent on labeling themselves Reformed Baptists, even though they did not do so until the 20th century.

I agree with TULIP in toto. I am not, however, Reformed. Particular Baptist, predestinarian Baptist would be appropriate. Reformed Baptist would not. It wouldn’t do justice to Christians who are actually Reformed. Nor would it do justice to Baptists to equivocate in such a way.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Sambos,

You wrote: *How does the London Baptist Confession of 1689 stand against reformed theology? How is [R]eformed theology sacramental? And what are your comparisons between Catholicism and Reformed theology? *​

The London Baptist Confession of 1689 is, in some ways, an admirable document, especially by odious Baptist standards, but it is only partly Reformed To the very extent that it is not Reformed, it is noxious, as Baptist “distinctives” always are.

The Reformed aspect of the 1689 Confession is its soteriology (i.e. its Reformed “take” on, notably, Justification, Sanctification, and Predestination and Reprobation). Its condemnation of Infant Baptism is contrary to Reformed teaching, and its insistence that the sacraments (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper) are purely symbolical is as utterly foriegn to Reformed teaching as it to that of Catholicism. The teaching of “the 1689” about the nature of the Church, also, is hostile to Reformed teaching. For Baptists, the Church, as such, is only the totality of the elect, past, present, and future, with no room for any viable teaching about the visible, temporal Church, the pilgrim Church in which the elect and the unsaved mingle and among whom God accomplishes His work of Grace and His Holy Spirit’s witness to the Christian faith.

Your question about comparisons between Catholicism and Reformed theology is very broad in scope. I’ll leave that to your individual study; several of the works of Louis Bouyer, a Catholic convert from Protestantism, make for a good beginning point. However, I would say that the Reformed faith, and even more so Lutheranism, are closer to Roman Catholicism than they are to sectarianism (“Arminian”, congregationalist, and anti-sacramental) as one finds it, in full or in part, in Methodism, Pentecostalism, “Campbellism”, and in the Baptist and neo-evangelical orbit.

There was a strong influence of the Scholasticism of the High Middle Ages that reverberated in the theology of the Reformed, Anglican, and Lutheran reformers and theologians, helping to keep them from drifting into the uncatholic “enthusiasm” of those outside their orbit, among the sects. This joint heritage of Catholicism and of “magisterial” Protestantism in Scholasticism and the Creeds goes far to facilitating more fruitful dialogue between Reformed (and Lutheran and Anglican) Christianity and Catholicism than does the futile attempt of Catholics to find enough common ground with Baptists for similar discourse; although there is (thankfully) some such common ground of Catholics with such sectaries, it is, by comparison, rather scanty in extent.

Although Reformed sacramental theology interprets the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist differently, it differs markedly from sectarianism’s doctrine, which denies God’s objective work of grace through the sacraments. “Anglo-Catholicism” (a school of thought in Anglicanism) and Lutheranism, in their teaching about the sacraments, of course, have even more in common with Catholicism and Orthodoxy than Reformed teaching does, but that is not to deny the link, as relatively tenuous as it may become at times, of Reformed sacramental teaching with that of Catholicism. One must bear in mind that the major Reformed Confessions (Westminster Standards of the Presbyterians, the Three Forms of Unity of the Reformed, and the 39 Articles of Religion of the Anglicans) embody the sacramental teachings of Martin Bucer, rather thlose of Jean Calvin (although Calvin, too, was far from the sectarian doctrine, most notably of Huldrych Zwingli, in these matters).

Bucer’s doctrine of the Eucharist differs from that of Lutheranism (and of Catholicism) mainly in being “Receptionist” regarding the presence of our Lord in the elements of the Holy Communion and the believer’s reception of the Lord and of His grace. However, the Reformed (especially Bucerian) teaching is that the sacraments, Baptism as well as Holy Communion, have objective validity and really do convey grace; they are not simply and only symbolic. The sects’ observance of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are merely congregational and individual acts of collective and personal piety, and do not convey grace by their very nature; essentially, sectarianism’s “ordances” (a word that many sectaries tend to use in preference to “sacraments”) therefore are not sacramental in any true sense of the word.

Whew! That’s two rather intense messages in one morning concerning your questions about the Reformed faith, so I’ll leave it at this! How glad I am that I am Catholic now, however much these Protestant matters remain of interest to me!

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[Jerry_Parker]

You wrote: *I agree with everything you have written above, Jerry. I appreciate your historical knowledge here. It seems to me that to define Reformed simply as adhering to the articles of the Canons of Dordt is a gross oversimplification of the system of Reformed theology and is, at best, an attempt to reduce a theological tradition to its lowest common denominator. There is no question that the divines assembled at Dordtrecht and later at Westminster would have understood the term “Reformed” to mean not only the five articles against the Remonstrants, but also a presbyterian-type church polity, paedobaptism, Calvin’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper, covenant theology, etc. For some reason, Baptists who adhere to a form of covenant theology and TULIP are quite insistent on labeling themselves Reformed Baptists, even though they did not do so until the 20th century.

I agree with TULIP in toto. I am not, however, Reformed. Particular Baptist, predestinarian Baptist would be appropriate. Reformed Baptist would not. It wouldn’t do justice to Christians who are actually Reformed. Nor would it do justice to Baptists to equivocate in such a way. *​

Thanks for your generously spirited reply, Fantom! You are clear that “Reformed Baptist” is a “phantom” concept and self-contraditory label. However, Baptists who are “Particular” about faith and Predestination are closer, in that regard, to the Scholastic teaching, and calling themselves “Particular Baptist” or one of the equivalent terms leads to clearer thinking about Christian doctrine and the variances of Christians about certain points thereof.

You might find interesting, as I have, the Catholic parallel to “TULIP”, as Jimmy Akin, a Catholic apologist of Catholic Answers, has defined it in his book (one that I commend hightly to you and to Sambos), The Salvation Controversy (San Diego, Calif.: Catholic Answers, 2001), on p. 86-87. A “Thomistic TULIP” would be as follows:

T = Total inability (to please God without special grace)
U = Unconditional election
L = Limited intent (for the altonement’s efficacy)
**I ** = Intrinsically efficacious grace (for salvation)
P = Perseverance of the elect

Although “Calvinist hardliners” as one might call them loosely, among the Reformed, would not find the Catholic “Thomistc TULIP” acceptable, “Calvinism’s” TULIP is compatible with most of Thomistic Scholasticism, from which the Reformed (and even more so, Lutherans) only differ in details, not in essence.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[distracted]

i am wishing to be a virgin again…