Posted on 05/24/2008 5:35:44 AM PDT by markomalley
| Doctrines | Roman Catholic |
Eastern Orthodox |
Anglican/ Episcopal |
United Methodist |
Lutheran | Reformed/ Presbyterians |
Southern Baptist |
| Trinitarian | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Apostolic Succession | Y | Y | Y | N | N | ||
| Roman Papal Infallibility | Y | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| Immaculate Conception of Mary | Y | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| Assumption of Mary | Y | Y | N | N | N | ||
| Purgatory | Y | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| Celibacy of the Clergy | Y | Higher only | N | N | N | N | |
| Infant Baptism | Y | Y, Triune | Y | Y | N | ||
| Transubstantiation | Y | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| Consubstantiation | N | Y | Some | N | N | ||
| Sacraments are Just a Memorial | N | N | N | N | N | Y | |
| Asking the Saints to pray for us | Y | Y | Some | N | N | ||
| Prayers for the Dead | Y | Y | N | N | |||
| Confession to Clergy | Y | Y | Y | N | N | ||
| Women Clergy | N | N | Y | Y | Some | N | |
| Homosexual Ordination | N | N | Some | Some | N | ||
| Armenian | Y | Y | Y | N | |||
| Wesleyan Holiness | N | N | N | Y | N | N | |
| Eternal Security | N | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y |
| Calvinism | N | N | N | N | N | Y | N |
| Closed Communion | Y | Y | N | ||||
| Early Church Authoritative | N | Y | N | N | N | ||
| At death saints go to heaven | Y | N | Y | Y | |||
| Saints await resurrection in Hades | N | Y | N | ||||
| Orders of Monks and Nuns | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | |
| Charismatic "prayer language" | Some | N | N | ||||
| Premillennialism | N | N | N most | Y | |||
| Covenant Theology | Y | N | |||||
| Dispensationalism | N | Y | |||||
| Cessationist | Y | Some | |||||
| Salvation by faith alone | N | N | Y | Y | Y |
'Twas a cut-and-paste job from the site referenced in the original article. So I didn't particularly choose the SO. Baptists.
(FWIW, I have an aunt who is a Free-Will Baptist and a cousin who was formerly a United Baptist (Old Zion) elder/preacher...so I have seen, first hand, a few doctrinal differences first hand)
Why do you say that?
But they are certainly not KJV-only (would be better if they were).
The Baptist Bible Fellowship was founded by men who had earlier been affiliated with Dr. J. Frank Norris of Fort Worth (d. 1952), and the World Baptist Fellowship. The BBF and the WBF would be almost identical in doctrine, except a strong brand of Calvinism exists in the WBF and is almost absent in the BBF.
Both the BBF and the WBF, along with the American Baptist Association, Texarkana, AR., the Baptist Missionary Association, and others) have a bent for Baptist Successionism, a Baptist variety of Apostolic Succession, but without any prophets. With these Baptists, the succession is not with men, but with local churches as bodies. This teaching had also been among many Southern Baptists in the 19th century.
“Closed Communion.” I would say that the BBF is 50% closed communion and 40% “close communion.” Ten percent wouldn't know how to explain the open/close issue.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The United Religions Initiative (URI), founded by Bishop William E. Swing (The Seventh Bishop of the Diocese of California of the Episcopal Church), was inspired to bring people of diverse faith into cooperation for peace by the example of the work of nations of the world through United Nations working to bring peace. The movement to found it began in 1996, culminating in the signing of the United Religions Initiative Charter in 2000.[1]
"The purpose of the URI is to promote enduring daily interfaith cooperation, to end religiously motivated violence, and to create cultures of peace, justice and healing for the Earth and all living beings."
The URI emphasises a decentralised, grass roots structure that includes not only representation of the world's major religious organizations, but also other voices not often heard. It complements the work of and collaborates with other local and international interfaith organizations, such as the Council for a Parliament of the Worlds Religions.
_____________________________ ...and once they succeed in "uniting" most or all world religions," the Anti-Christ steps in & takes the reins. Take heed, folks. ~bL
Just for curiosity sake, and I ask with due respect, are there significant doctrinal differences between these communities? Or are they *truly independent* primarily due to a factor of geography? Again, not to mock or anything, I'm just curious.
You might want to change the thread designation to “ecumenic”, so posters concentrate on what their particular faith says and how that jives with the chart as opposed to how they disagree with everyone else. At least, that’s my understanding of how a ‘ecumenic” thread would work.
Freegards
Good point! I'll see if the RM will be willing to do so (or if it's too late)
The Independency of the Local Church
~ by E.L. Bynum
(This sermon was preached at the annual Bible Conference of the Fellowship Baptist Church, Liberal, Kansas, September 20, 1994. We are printing the edited notes that were used in the preaching of this message).
Pastor Landis asked me to preach on The Independency of the Local Church in this Conference. This is a subject that I firmly believe in, because it is supported by the Scriptures.
I. The Meaning of Independence.
A. The definition of independence.
To find out the meaning of independence, we must turn to Webster’s unabridged dictionary. It states, "Independence, the state or quality of being independent; freedom from the influence, control, or determination of another or others; self-maintenance of self-government." "Independent, Not dependent; not subject to the control, influence, or determination of another; not subordinate." "Not subject to bias, persuasion, or influence; self directing." "Free from the rule of another, controlling or governing oneself; self-governing." "Not connected or related to another, to each other, or to a group; separate, as, and independent grocer."
"Independent" as noun, "A person who believes that a local organized Christian church is or should be self-sufficient and not dependent on external ecclesiastical authority."
I certainly agree with Webster, especially in the use of independent as a noun.
B. What we Do Not mean by independent!
When we speak of the local Church being independent, it is important that we make it clear what we do not mean.
We do not mean that we are to be independent of the teaching of the Bible.
We do not mean that we are to be independent of Christ the Head of the Church.
We do not mean that we are to be independent of the leadership of the Holy Spirit.
Independent does not mean that we are to be in a state of disorganization.
Independent does not mean that we are to be without a plan or purpose.
Independent does not mean that we are to be in a state of anarchy.
Independent does not mean that we are to be isolationists.
Independent does not mean that we cannot fellowship with other churches and pastors of like faith and order.
Independent does not mean that we cannot cooperate together as equals, in supporting missionaries and doing Scriptural works.
Independent Baptist Churches cannot and must not surrender their independence to any other Church, organization, Convention or board, etc.
II. The Historical Case for Independent Churches.
A. What reputable historians have said.
1. G.H. Orchard, an English Baptist pastor, wrote A Concise of the Baptists1. It was published in London in 1838. Speaking of the 1st and 2nd centuries, he said, P.22, The Christian societies, instituted in the cities of the Roman empire, were united only by the ties of faith and charity. Independency and equality formed the basis of their internal constitution.
2. Orchard, says on P.31,...the churches for three centuries remained as originally formed, independent of each other, and were united by no tie but that of charity. Again on P.36, Orchard says, During the first three centuries, Christian congregations, all over the East, subsisted in separate independent bodies, unsupported by government, and consequently without any secular power over one another. All this time they were Baptist churches....
3. David Benedict wrote History of the Donatists2, which was published in 1875. On page 138 he writes, "A bishop," says Mosheim, "during the first and the second century, was a person who had the care of one Christian assembly. In this assembly he acted not so much, with the authority of a master, as with the zeal and diligence of a faithful servant. The churches in these early times were entirely independent; none of them were subject to any foreign jurisdiction, but each one was governed by its own rulers and its own laws." "A church and a diocese," says archbishop Whately, "seems to have been, for a considerable time, coextensive and identical; and each church or diocese, and consequently each superintendent, though connected with the rest by the ties of faith and hope and charity, seems to have been perfectly independent, as far as regards any power and control." (Emphasis ours)
4. Orchard tells us how the churches began to lose their independence on p.38, as he writes, In 306 (A.D.), Constantine, surnamed the Great, was saluted emperor by the army, and the aspect of affairs towards the Christian church was soon changed; and in 325, the old corrupt interests were incorporated by an act of the emperor’s from which union we dissent.
He further writes, In 251, there were forty-four Jewish Christian congregations in Rome. Till the time of Sylvester, the Christians had baptized either in private baths, or in subterranean waters, or in any place without the city. The emperor Constantine gave Bishop Sylvester the imperial mansion for a sort of parsonage-house; and here was erected the first artificial baptistery in Rome. From this period, at proper seasons of the year, all their catechumens went to be baptized at the Lateran baptistery. Other churches looked to the bishop, who presided over the Lateran congregation and the baptistery; consulted him about the times of baptism, or administering the ordinance, and the regulation of other ecclesiastical affairs. This mode of proceeding in consulting the bishop, led to the destruction of civil and religious liberty, and ruined the independency of the churches." (Emphasis ours).
5. It is highly significant, that the first successful attempt to take away the independency of the local churches was carried out through an unsaved Roman emperor by the name of Constantine. These churches in Rome ceased to even resemble scriptural churches. They became Roman Catholic churches. Since that time, many churches have lost their independency through submission to decrees of political leaders. In America this has come about through the organizing of Associations, Conventions, Boards, and Fellowships. Then they elect presidents, chairmen, boards, and committees to lord it over Gods’ churches. (A committee is a board by a sweeter sounding name).
6. Let us look at the testimony of Francis Wayland, (1796-1865). He was born in New York City. He pastored First Baptist Church, Boston, Mass., and First Baptist Church, Providence. He was, for 28 years, President of Brown University. He wrote a number of books, including the 336 page, Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches3, originally published in 1857. On page 177, and 178, he wrote, The Baptists have ever believed in the entire and absolute independence of the churches. By this, we mean that every church of Christ, that is, every company of believers united together according to the laws of Christ, is wholly independent of every other; that every church is perfectly capable of self-government; and that, therefore, no one acknowledges any higher authority, under Christ, than itself; that with the church all ecclesiastical action commences, and with it terminates, and hence, that the ecclesiastical relations proper, of every member, are limited to the church to which he belongs.
On page 181, he states, It would seem, from these simple principles, impossible that a church of Christ can be in any proper and legitimate sense represented. (Emphasis his). We have nothing to submit to representatives. We have no representatives to whom any thing is to be submitted. I will go further, and add, that what can not be done properly and legitimately must not be done improperly and illegitimately. It is as truly a violation of the independence of the churches, and the right of private judgment, when several hundred brethren meet in some public convention, and manufacture public opinion, and adopt courses which their brethren are called upon to follow, on pain of the displeasure of the majority, as when they establish a formal representation, to whose decisions all the constituency must submit.
On page 182, Wayland wrote, Jesus Christ left his church without any general organization. Throughout the New Testament we can discover not a trace of organization beyond the establishment of individual churches. Their bond of union was sympathy with him through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in each individual. It is not probable that as he left it, so he intended that it should continue to the end of time? (Emphasis ours). The object of the church of Christ on earth is very simple: it is the conversion of souls. This object, it seems to me, can be accomplished without the use of the complicated, cumbrous, and frequently soul-destroying machinery, with which his disciples have for many ages been burdened.
Wayland was also with us who believe in missionaries being sent out through the agency of the Church, and not through a board. In 1859, he wrote, Thoughts on the Missionary Organizations of the Baptist Denomination. In it, Wayland stated, The more I have reflected on the subject, the more obvious has it seemed to me, that preaching Christ to the heathen must be a more simple business than is commonly supposed. There were no missionary boards and no central organizations in the times of the Apostles, and yet they labored with an efficiency that turned the world upside down; and why should we need such organization now?
7. John Quincy Adams was born in 1825 in Philadelphia, PA, and pastored churches in New Jersey and New York. He wrote the 179 page book, Baptists Thorough Reformers4. On page 153, he wrote, The primitive churches were independent in their government. All the members were on an equality in each church, and each church was on the same equality with every other church. There were no bishops, in the sense in which that term is used by Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, and Methodists. There were no church sessions, presbyteries, assemblies, synods, or conferences. (And I might add there were no associations, conventions, organized fellowships, or mission boards or committees ~ELB). Advisory councils, having no power to legislate, were sometimes called to give counsel in difficult matters. But individual churches possessed supreme authority to administer discipline, and transact their own business. The church was the highest court of appeal. (Emphasis ours).
8. T.H. Pritchard (born 1832) pastored a number of Baptist Churches. He also was president of Wake Forrest College. He authored one of the chapters in the book, Baptist Doctrines5. This 630 page book was edited by Charles A. Jenkins. On page 305 Pritchard wrote, as to church government, we believe that each separate and individual church is entirely independent of all other churches, persons and bodies of men, either civil or ecclesiastical, and is to be governed by its own members alone, without aid or interference of any other person or persons whatever. Consequently, churches governed by popes, bishops, synods, presbyteries, conferences, or in any other way than by their own members directly and exclusively, are not constituted on the model of the primitive churches, nor governed according to the gospel rule. (Emphasis ours).
9. Baptist Doctrines5 (published 1890) also has a chapter called The Independence of the Churches, written by J.A. Smith, Chicago IL. On p.230, Smith writes, Church independency is, in Baptist belief and practice, a fundamental principle...the Church of Christ is a local Christian society. This point is so far implied in what is said elsewhere in this volume, in setting forth the characteristics of the apostolical churches, as to make it unnecessary for us to go at length into the Scriptural proof. It must suffice to say, here, that in no usage of the word "church," in any part of the New Testament, can the smallest authority be found for any other species of organism than the Christian society, made up of baptized believers, meeting in one place for worship, the administration of the ordinance and for the hearing of the Word.
He further writes on p.231, The local church...is in every respect, complete. Its official appointments, pastors and deacons, are all for which the New Testament rule provides. Its functions, as a Christian organism, are complete in test local and independent form. Every detail of administration, whether official, disciplinary, or in any other sense executive, is comprehended in what is assigned to the local church. There is, in short, in the New Testament conception of the church, no point at which one church can officially interpose in the affairs of another without unauthorized intrusion, nor any point at which supplementary organization can be attached, without encumbering the beautiful simplicity of New Testament order, and changing to complication and confusion what the Lord himself intended to be a unit and a harmony.
Smith writes on p.234, By the historical value of the principle of church independency, we mean the place it fills in historical Christianity. It is not too much to say that the enormous mischief inherent in and proceeding from the great Antichristian apostasy had their root in a departure from this principle, and that no efficient cure for these mischiefs has ever been found short of a return to primitive Christian simplicity in this regard. (We say AMEN!)
B. Where did the other organizations come from?
Earlier we quoted Orchard, as to how the Roman Churches lost their independence and their identity as New Testament Churches. There were other attempts to impose some kind of organizational power over Baptist Churches. These attempts failed for the most part. For over a thousand years Baptists churches, under different names, carried on their work, sent out missionaries and spread throughout many nations. They did this without mission boards, conventions, union, associations, or organized fellowships. If you want more information on this, I heartily recommend, Local Church Missions, A Doctrine and Practice Manual6, by Charles K. Johnson. (It may be ordered from Tabernacle Baptist Church, P.O. box 3100, Lubbock, TX 79452)
John T. Christian wrote, A History of the Baptists7, (two volumes). In vol.1, page 313, he wrote, The formation of Baptist Associations may be traced to the period of the Civil Wars (not to be confused by the American Civil War) and they were developed in the last half of the seventeenth century. He further states, The idea of an association seems to have originated with the particular Baptists. The London Confession of Faith of 1643, article XLVII seems to anticipate an association. On page 314, he says, But while the idea of associations originated with the Particular Baptists, the General Baptists were the first to organize. He further states, The General Baptists, like the Particular Baptists, held the idea of the Independency of the Churches, but their General Conference was more Presbyterian in its legislation. By their connection with the Anabaptists and the Mennonites of the Continent, and their stay at Amsterdam, they obtained knowledge of the Presbyterian Synods of the churches of Luther and Calvin.
This gives us a clear view of the origin of these unscriptural organizations. The ideas may be traced back to Luther and Calvin, and their ideas may be traced back to the Church of Rome.
According to The Baptist Encyclopedia8, the Somerset Association in England, was formed about 1653. It was followed by a number of Associations in that country.
C. The formation of extra-scriptural organizations in America.
The Baptist Encyclopedia8, by William Cathcart (published 1881) traces the history of the Associations in America. On page 46, it reads, The Philadelphia Association was formally established in 1707, and it has lived and flourished ever since. He then lists 15 Baptist Associations that were formed in the 1700’s in America. No doubt much of this was done by sincere and good men who thought they were doing the right thing. However, this does not make it right, for there is no Scriptural authority for such organizations.
1. These 15 Associations originated in the 1700’s, about 1700 years after Jesus organized the local church.
2. The Triennial Convention was organized on May 18, 1814. This was to be the mother of the Northern Baptist Convention.
3. In May, 1845, the Southern Baptist Convention was organized. This was over 1800 years after Jesus organized His local Church.
4. In March, 1905, what is now the American Baptist Association was formed. Almost 1900 years after Jesus set up His local church.
5. In 1950, the Baptist Missionary Association was formed. This was over 1900 years after Jesus Christ organized His local Church.
6. In 1932, the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches was formed. This was about 1900 years after Jesus started His local church.
7. In 1923, the Baptist Bible Union of America was formed. Although this organization did not last long. It was to be the forerunner of both the World Baptist Fellowship, and the Baptist Bible Fellowship. It was almost 1900 years after the local Church was organized by Jesus Christ.
8. In the 1930’s the World Baptist Fellowship had its beginning, at least 1900 years after Jesus organized His local Church.
9. In 1950 the Baptist Bible Fellowship came into existence. This was over 1900 years after Jesus organized His local independent Baptist Church.
My questions! How did Baptist churches survive, thrive, and multiply for over 1600 years without organized Associations? How did they exist for over 1800 years without conventions? How did they accomplish so much for 1900 years without organized fellowships?
III. The Biblical Case for the Independency of the Church.
1. The Divine Head of the local church is Jesus Christ, and this church can only have one head.
And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, (Ephesians 1:22)
But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ; From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. (Ephesians 4:15-16
) For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church; and he is the saviour of the body. (Ephesians 5:23)
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. (Colossians 1:18)
The headquarters of the Church must be where the Head is, and He is in heaven. The Church has no right to join any organization, be it Association, Convention, or Fellowship. We cannot do so, and still be in submission to Christ. The Head of the Church never mentioned any of these organizations.
2. The Divine Architect planned the local Church. No where in His plan, is to be found a place for these organizations.
Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: (Ephesians 3:8-11)
The Church is a building, and it is the only religious building we have on this earth.
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:19-22)
3. The Divine Builder constructed the local Church, and nothing is said in the Bible about Him building these other organizations.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)
4. The Divine Purchaser paid for it.
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)
5. The Divine Teacher instructed it.
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:18-20)
6.The Divine Godhead sustains it.
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:20)
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)
And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. (Ephesians 1:22-23)
Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. (Ephesians 3:21)
Conclusion: Men stumble at the simple plan of salvation. Even so they stumble at the simplicity of the Church. Man wants something bigger, greater, and more elaborate than God planned. This is not God’s way!!
If the Divine architect did not plan it, and the Divine builder did not build it, and the Divine purchaser did not purchase it, and the Divine teacher did not instruct it, Then the Divine Head does not recognize it, nor will the Divine Godhead sustain it.
The greatest mission work was done in the history of Christianity in the first century without an Association, Convention, Fellowship, Mission Board or Mission Committee. The Roman Empire was evangelized without them. If they didn't need them then, then we don’t need them today.
We have the truth, let us cleave to it with all our might, and proclaim it with all our strength, until Jesus Christ our Saviour comes.
1 A Concise History of Baptists, by G.H. Orchard, republished 1956, by Ashland Avenue Baptist Church, Lexington, Kentucky.
2 History of the Donatists, by David Benedict, Memorial Edition, printed for Maria M. Benedict, Providence, R.I., 1875.
3 Notes On the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches, by Francis Wayland, originally published in New York in 1857 by Sheldon, Blakeman and Co. Reprinted 1988 by Baptist Heritage Press, Watertown, WI.
4 Baptists the Only Thorough Reformers, by John Quincy Adams, Centennial Edition, originally published in New York in 1876. Republished in 1980 by Backus Book Publishers, Rochester, N.Y.
5 Baptist Doctrines, Edited by Charles A. Jenkins, originally published in St. Louis in 1890, Reprinted 1989 by Baptist Heritage Press, Watertown, WI.
6 Local Church Missions, A Doctrine and Practice Manual, by Charles K. Johnson. Published 1984, by Tabernacle Baptist Church, Lubbock, Texas.
7 A History of the Baptists, by John T. Christian, (2 vol.) published by Bogard Press, Texarkana, Ark.-Tex.
8 The Baptist Encyclopedia, by William Cathcart, 1881, republished by the Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc., Paris, Arkansas.
To Topical Index of Baptist Doctrine
Historically, Baptists have held the absolute autonomy of each (local) church, under the direct Headship of Christ to be a non-negotiable distinctive.
Many still hold this distinctive, and I am one of them. Our church fellowships and works on certain projects with other churches of like faith and practice. There is no hierarchy of churches, however, and no synods, and we can dis-fellowship as quickly as we fellowship, if the situation requires it.
If a church were to ask me to consider being their pastor, I would require that the church NOT be a member of ANY organization outside of the local body itself. I have founded three local churches, and I teach each church not to affiliate the church with anything outside of itself. Cooperate with other churches where it is possible and worthy to do so. Enjoy fellowship with other congregations. But do NOT actually join any organization of churches (or other organizations).
We support missionaries who are of the same persuasion with regard to autonomy (and of course, a whole lot of other criteria). We send support funds through the missionaries’ home/sending churches, or through clearing houses established for processing missionary funds. We prefer to send the funds through the missionary's home/sending local church. We're not too keen on missionary boards or agencies that are not themselves under a ministry of a local church.
The table's flawed - literally. Several rows look like they should have been columns (Arminian, Wesleyan Holiness, etc). But it's a start.
Over the course of my seven+ years on FR, certain themes keep appearing in Catholic apologetics. The same things are repeated, the same language is used, and it betrays an intellectual bankruptcy on the side of Catholicism. On a thread two years ago, Opus Dei evangelist and Catholic priest, Rev. John McCloskey is quoted as saying "The definition of a person who disagrees with what the Catholic Church is teaching is called a Protestant." As one FRCatholic put it, "In the Catholic apologetics business, you all look alike to me." It's a bigoted statement for Catholics to say "all Protestants are alike", but it's a charge that's repeated, in essence if not those words, every day in this forum. I'm thrilled whenever I see someone trying to move beyond the intellectually bankrupt apologetics that Catholics post here on FR.
As to the table itself, I don't think the table captures enough information. IMO there should be more columns giving distinctives - things like "governing structure" (elder rule/pastor rule), "denominational" ("Churches of Christ" and "Primitive Baptists" don't have a hierarchical denomination that rules over the local congregation, unlike Lutherans and Presbyterians), and "creeds" (whether they adhere to any of the historic creeds, incl. the Nicene and Apostolic Creeds).
Irving's Law has been invoked, first clause. markomalley wins the round by default.
Naturally, I do disagree with its assertion that the universality and governance of the Church was established by Constantine. This is well documented throughout the history of the Church, long before that time. I would refer you to Cyprian's Trestise on the Universality of the Church, particularly paragraphs 4 and 5 (written around AD 250); Irenaeus' Against Heresies, particularly Book III, and especially Chapter III.3 (written around AD 190); and Clement's letter to the Corinthians, particularly Chapter 59 (written around 80 AD).
Having said that, the part of the letter defining what is meant and not meant by "independent" was very illuminating and I appreciate you posting it!
Actually you don’t know what you are talking about. The Maronites are extemely Catholic. Many Baptist consider speaking in tongues demonic even though Pentacostals believe it is a gift from the Holy Spirit. Yet there are Catholics who speak in tongues. Go figure.
Fair enough.
Over the course of my seven+ years on FR, certain themes keep appearing in Catholic apologetics. The same things are repeated, the same language is used, and it betrays an intellectual bankruptcy on the side of Catholicism.
I agree that the quality of the apologetics could be a whole lot better. Speaking for myself, whenever I use a Catholic apologetics source, I have to fact check it first, as some of them are HORRIBLY weak. And while I like egg-in-the-mouth, I really can't stand egg-on-the-face.
On a thread two years ago, Opus Dei evangelist and Catholic priest, Rev. John McCloskey is quoted as saying "The definition of a person who disagrees with what the Catholic Church is teaching is called a Protestant."
Yeah, I remember that thread. And that quote. That quote was, IIRC, used initially in the context of dissident Catholic groups, such as "womenpriests" and "VOTF," I've seen it used elsewhere, inappropriately, as well. And, again, that does a disservice not only to the object of the comment but to the person stating the comment, as well.
And just as it would be unfair to lump the Bayside prophecies, the little Southern Italian donna who mixes Catholic doctrine with folk medicine, or Santaria into the Catholic Magesterium (by stating that "Catholics believe..."), it is unfair, in my opinion, to lump all Protestants in with the Westboro Baptists, the Trinity United Church of Christ, or Snake Handlers.
Unfortunately, theology, is not an easy subject. To become a licensed theologian in the Catholic Church takes years of hard study...and then you are still just a baby learning to crawl (cf I Cor 13:12). It's a whole lot easier to become a Catholic Apologist. That just takes a website...and there are no standards for the licensure of an "apologist." Thus, some are really good (Patrick Madrid, in my mind, is one), some are talented and knowledgeable, but far too much into cutesy showmanship -- which enables some to fall for the style more than the substance of what's said (Scott Hahn comes to mind there), and a whole bunch of them I have very little academic respect for (and I'll leave that list blank). The point is that any of them should be fact-checked before citing.
I'm thrilled whenever I see someone trying to move beyond the intellectually bankrupt apologetics that Catholics post here on FR.
Well, thank you, Alex. You've always been a most able and (IMHO) fair-minded person to contend with, as well.
OK (I was just quoting, so I don't see how I invoked it, but, OK).
Irish Channel Pub. 11 o'clock tomorrow. We can discuss who buys over a pint. ;-)
That said, do you agree that the local Christian churches were originally independent of one another? ~bL
I grew up in the United Methodist and they do infant baptisms and I had my children baptized when they were infants.
And I still owe you an email. (soon!) Best, ~bL
Speaking for myself, I try never to light the first match.
That said, do you agree that the local Christian churches were originally independent of one another?
Absolutely not. In fact, I am one to believe that the scripturally-supported organizational strategy is to have a common teaching authority. And, if there is a dispute that cannot be reconciled otherwise, to call a council of the bishops (the successors to the apostles) and resolve it there. I would refer you to Acts 15:6ff, which references the first such council, the council of Jerusalem (although acknowledged as the first council, it is not usually numbered among the great ecumenical councils).
So, while it's clear that a central bureaucracy such as what exists today hadn't yet developed, I definitely see a communion and common teaching among the apostles and the bishops that they appointed to shepherd each city's believers. A universality, if you will. I see that bishops were appointed by other bishops, not elected by their congregations (e.g., Timothy, Titus were both ordained by Paul), which also implies a central governance of some sort (although, let me stress, not to the degree that we have today).
And that is what encouraged me by the piece you posted: that there was an acknowledgment of some sort of communion among those various communities that identify themselves as "independent." I was not aware that there was that degree of fellowship with them.
I believe I spot some errors about Orthodoxy. Perhaps an Orthodox poster would confirm this.
There is an organization of Pro Life Episcopalian. Please keep them in your prayers.
Jesus Christ is the head of the Catholic church. They do not worship the current pope. They worship Christ. As a matter of fact, thanks to the internet I am very impressed how they worship Christ.
Try again.
Belief that Baptism takes away sin
Belief in Doctrine of Original Sin
Belief that the Gifts of The Holy Spirit are active in today's Church.
Number of Sacraments
Governing Structure. Hierarchy vs Congregational, etc.
Has Confessions or Articles of Faith
Ante, Post or Non Millennial 5 Solas Perpetual Virginity of Mary Liturgical vs Free style worship Icons or Statues permitted in Churches Abortion permitted Artificial Birth Control permitted Remarriage after Divorce permitted Infant Baptism - this may already be on the list. Non believers may be saved by the grace of Christ. Believe Scripture is the inerrant, inspired Word of God.
Belief that Baptism takes away sin
Belief in Doctrine of Original Sin
Belief that the Gifts of The Holy Spirit are active in today's Church.
Number of Sacraments.
Governing Structure. Hierarchy vs Congregational, etc.
Has Confessions or Articles of Faith
Ante, Post or Non Millennial
5 Solas
Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Liturgical vs Free style worship.
Icons or Statues permitted in Churches.
Abortion permitted.
Artificial Birth Control permitted.
Remarriage after divorce permitted.
Non believers may be saved by the grace of Christ.
Believe Scripture is the inerrant, inspired Word of God.
Sorry I messed up the prior post.
Yeah. I knew it. I gave ‘em money. They must be in pain these days.
Interesting. My own experience has been that BBF churches are devoid of Landmark doctrine, while the Southern Conventional churches in this area are steeped in it today, in the 21st century. Baptist churches are indeed difficult to pigeonhole.
But you do...You bow down to statues and pray to them and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about...
The Maronites are extemely Catholic.
Didn't say they weren't, did I???
*******************
I would have thought that someone who has been here on the Religion forum for a certain amount of time might recognize that this is not correct.
Very interesting.
I’ll make a stab at the Orthodox column by repeating only the entries that are incorrect.
Note that although this is an excellent thread and seems to be generating lots more light than heat, the table under discussion is clearly a Protestant. The list of issues to compare will inevitably reflect the position of it’s creator. I’m not being critical, just observing.
Anyway, here are my suggested changes:
Assumption of Mary: Y (but not a dogma)
Consubstantiation N (Orthodox don’t buy into a theory of the real presence)
Prayers for the dead Y
Confession to clergy Y
Armenian (not Armenian) N (we don’t buy into the Calvinist / Arminian platforms)
At death saints go to heaven Y
Saints await resurrection in Hades N (this one is WAY off base)
Orders of Monks and Nuns Y (not ‘orders’ but many monasteries)
Covenant Theology N
Dispensationalism N
Cessationist N
please post a correction here.
United Methodist and Lutheran, put a Y for infant baptism.
Transubstantiation -- my understanding is that the Lutheran position is (from my point of view) similar to the Catholic view. Semantics.
"Womyn" clergy -- put a "some" under Lutheran. ELCA does this, I'm pretty sure. (Either that, or put quotes around "Lutheran", ie. LINO.)
Weslyan holiness as a category?
Closed communion, put a Y under Lutheran. Ideally, the Reformed also fence the table.
"Saints await resurrection in Hades" -- my understanding is that this is one position held in the early church, by those that held to a literal future millennium. Modern chiliasts would find this unusual.
Whoever did this chart is picking out some odd things to comment on, and not covering the sweep of the various Christian traditions very well.
C'mon now...I have seen pictures of your pope kneeling before statues of Mary and praying...Seems like I've seen him on the tv doing the same thing...
I’ll fill in some Orthodox answers.
Belief that Baptism takes away sin Y
Belief in Doctrine of Original Sin N
Belief that the Gifts of The Holy Spirit are active in today’s Church. Y
Number of Sacraments. At least seven
Governing Structure. Hierarchy vs Congregational, etc. Episcopal
Has Confessions or Articles of Faith Y (Nicene creed)
Ante, Post or Non Millennial Amillenial
5 Solas N
Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Liturgical vs Free style worship. Liturgical
Icons or Statues permitted in Churches. Icons, only.
Abortion permitted. N
Remarriage after divorce permitted. Limited
Non believers may be saved by the grace of Christ. Y
Believe Scripture is the inerrant, inspired Word of God. Y (but not all agree on ‘inerrant’)
Newberger. I was fairly certain that Orthodox believe the Eucharist is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. They do not have a theological term for it, such as Transubstantiation. This is why if given permission by an Orthodox clergy a Catholic may receive communion in an Orthodox Church because the Orthodox do have a valid sacrament of the Eucharist.
Armenian?
Did you mean Arminian?
Thanks, Radl!
Twas a cut-and-paste job from the site referenced in the original article. So I didn't particularly choose the SO. Baptists.
Yup. The chart tells us something about the charter's own personal quirks.
Lee, a big difference in semantics.
Catholics — transubstantion trans — change, substance — substantiation
So Catholics believe that the wine and bread, once consecrated, become the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
Luthersan — consubstantiation con — with, substantiation — substance.
So Lutherans believe that the wine and bread REMAINS wine and bread, while at the same time becoming the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
I know this is a very simple explanation. But it is one that I think a lot of people understand. I heard a priest explain it and he definitely added to this. But basically, he broke down the two words into their Latin counterparts.
Anglicans for Life
Please pray for them as they will be attending GAFCON and Lambeth.
Well you don’t know what your talking about because there are no statues in my church. We have a wooden cross but that’s it. If, for some very strange reason the preacher decided to put a statue in there, (something that would never happen) we certainly wouldn’t worship it. I think he does have a picture of Christ in his office and he probably meditates on that photo just like the Catholics meditate on a statue.
Generally appears to be a good faith list.
For Anglican, Women Clergy should be ‘some’.
For Lutherans, I think Consubstantiation should be a ‘yes’.
Closed communion would be yes.
Women Clergy would be ‘some’.
For Baptists, Calvinism should be ‘some’.
On the other side of the coin, Dispensationalism should probably be ‘most’.
For Reformed/Presbyterian, Closed Communion should probably be ‘semi’ or ‘some’.
Yes, and have you not also heard the explanation? I’ve seen it posted many, many times.
The next Lambeth Conference should be very interesting. How long until it takes place?
Officiallly starts July 16th, I believe. There are also some preconference activities and events.
You are correct that the Orthodox do no assign a term to this but Consubstantiation would be closer to what the Orthodox Church holds that Transubstantiation.
Also, an Orthodox clergyman is violating the teachings of the Orthodox Church if he were to offer communion to a Roman Catholic (without first performing the Sacrament of Christmation).
I remember in 2004 you said you and your wife were pastors
When did you leave because they have always accept women as pastors?
I will return the favor
you are not to post me any longer
who says?
There is a polite way to do this you know?
hopefully we at least share mutual respect
for the second time, please do not post to me any longer -
Now, Ive pinged the mod, not to enforce, just to witness your obstinance
Dont not ping /copy / post me - either to this thread or in the future please
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.