Posted on 11/21/2004 2:48:08 PM PST by atari
Im catholic, but I wasnt raised in a religious household.
Im totally clueless about most Protestant denominations especially, and If any would tell me the differences between them, or point me to a site that would help, that would be great. :-)
"Classical Protestants" (CP) believe in varying theologies concerning the Eucharist. "Evangelical" (EF) churches believe it's all just symbolism.
By EF, I assume you mean Evangelical Fundamentalist. Fundamentalist implying that a Biblical context is fundamental to check out first in all decisions.
Patristic Fathers --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CP give weight to teachings of the "patristic fathers" while EF don't care about them.
EF's believe the early church revealed in the Book of Acts were the only revelations from God to base doctrine on. All other early church doctrines were not directed by the Holy Spirit to be canonized. The Book of Revelation reveals, to varying degrees, that five of the seven earliest churches were worthy of Christ's reproof.
Virgin Mary:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CP used to honor Mary to varying degrees (some dishonored her). EF view her simply as a woman who gave birth to Christ.
Most EF's honor Mary because her faithfulness to God made her the candidate to usher the Savior of the world into the universe. If she had forsaken her virginity, prior to the call, she would have been unusable in this role. We would be hard pressed to find a woman God blessed more than her for this reason alone.
Communion of Saints:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CP varies, EF rejects.
Most EF's believe that dead believers (saints) do not become omnipresent when they pass from our world. Mary, having not acquired the attribute of omnipresence, would not be affective directing prayer toward. ("One Mediator between God and man" would exclude dead saints). We can commune and confess with those believers (saints) that are alive beside us, but not with those who have died.
Reasonableness:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CP theologians open to reason and evidence, EF can't see past the theology of "bible alone" (an unbiblical idea).
I would consider this an unfair characterization. There is a simple distinction, if the context of a Biblical passage comments on a topic, it should hold the highest weight. I point out context because many scientific errors regarding Biblical passages have caused some secularists to dub the Scriptures unreliable. The Bible has taught a round earth despite the leaders in the church misrepresentations, as well as the majority of scientists at the time, being in error.
Many of the scientific controversies that are raging today are still up in the air. Six day creation versus the old age of the universe. Most EF's are confident that the scripture will have the correct perspective when all is said and done. Consider the fact that a God who has the power to create an entire universe, would be able to stretch His light across the expanse of space instantly. If the physical reference during creation is such that matter was shaped and molded instantly, what would that do to atomic clocks.
It is my view that science is just now scratching the surface of how the physical property of "time" can not be accurately accessed during the creation, by our conventional means.
LOL!
Freudian slip?
until that post, I was in your corner...
Thank you very much. I stand corrected.
>>I would consider this an unfair characterization
I've spoken with probably upwards of 500 evangelical fundamentalists. Most are stuck in the circular framework of their beliefs. They cannot, for the most part, accept any evidence outside of this framework.
You may be different, but my experience over the past 10 years has left me with this impression.
"To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers
but showing meekness unto all men.
For we ourselves were sometimes foolish
disobedient, deceived,serving diverse lusts
and pleasures, living in malice and envy
hateful and hating one another."
But avoid foolish questions and genealogies,
and contentions, and strivings about the law;
for they are unprofitable and vain
The best way to understand how denominations arose in Christianity is to read a small book called "The 100 Most Important Events in Christian History" editors A K Curtis, J Stephen Lang, and Randy Petersen, 1991, Fleming H Revell, Christian History Institute.
On the other hand, someone in the thread said to get a Bible and read it, which is the best thing to do because Christianity is not about what you do, BUT WHO YOU KNOW....JESUS. It's about following Jesus, knowing Him and obeying Him and loving him and those who belong to Him. A discussion of religious methodolgy is purely a pursuit of things humans have done, and this doesn' give life or direction. Go right to the source. Read the Book God wrote to you. amen
Are you disparaging Christians having a Biblical worldview?
Psalms 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
Psalms 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Could you be more specific regarding your terms "reasonable", "evidence" and "circular framework".
I think the most important comment for me to inject is that we believe the Holy Spirit has supernaturally protected & preserved the Word of God for all generations. God places the Word of God above His own name.
Psalms 138:2 ... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
I take this to mean that what He has promised (His Word), He will do because His name is at stake.
We can trust His promises as revealed and preserved in His Word, with our very lives. We are not talking the shifty Koran, or some musings of Budha, or even Hindu wisdom. We are discussing the revealed Word of the God who inhabits eternity, and created our universe.
Here are a couple of comparison charts:
http://www.saintaquinas.com/christian_comparison.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_divi3.htm
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/denominations/comparison_charts/practices.htm
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/denominations/comparison_charts/catholic_protestant.htm
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/lds_aog.html
http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/BETWEENF/sleuth.zhtml?q=denominations&Submit2=Search&ul=%2Fchi%2F&ps=20&o=1&m=and
this is a link to a search at Christian History Institute for 'denominations'. happy reading.
http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/events/
Link for 100 most important events in Christian history online.
She can sure twist a phrase, eh?? lol
Here is a fairly simple breakdown. I tried to be as fair as possible.
Category 1: Apostolic
Apostolic denomincations believe that religion came down to them indirectly from Christ, through his apostles and their successors. "Christ gaves his revelation to the twelve Apostles, who gave it to so-and-so, who gave it to so-and-so, and onward to the person who gave it to me."
The apostolic denomincations are Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism. The essential difference between Catholicism and the other two is the belief of Catholicism that Peter had a unique office from that of the other Apostles, and his successor continues to have rightful governance of the Church. The differences between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy are more subtle. Some of them are cultural (the Apostolic descent from the Latin vs. the Greek church), others are theological (the number and nature of the sacraments, for instance).
Division 2: Sola Scriptura
The Sola Scriptura category consists of all of those who believe that the Bible alone is the only rule of faith and practice. Whereas for an Apostolic Christian, it is (more or less) sufficient to prove that a belief has always been present in the Church for it to be accepted, a Sola Scriptura believer does not recognize the Church Fathers or any other source but the Bible to be authoritative.
The Sola Scriptura division can be subdivided between those Protestants who historically took Catholicism as the base of their religious beliefs, and then dropped all of those beliefs that they could not justify from the Bible (the first such were the Lutherans), and those who built their religion from the ground up, so to speak: starting with nothing, and believing only those things that they found in the Bible (the first were the Anabaptists).
The number of denominations in this division is Legion. Many possible subdivisions could be made. Most of them arose from disagreements on various theological points. Note that many Anglicans, while their church originated historically as an Apostolic Church, hold to the Sola Scriptura view.
Division 3: Additional Revelations
The above denominations mostly believe that "public revelation" ended with Jesus Christ (that is, that God has said more or less everything that he intends to say). There are other denominations that believe in some revelation subsequent to that of the Incarnation. The chief such are Mohammedanism and Mormonism. I believe that the Jehova's Witnesses may also have an additional book which they regard as revealed, but I am not sure on that point. I do know that their theology is markedly different from most other denominations.
Excellent advice.
>>Are you disparaging Christians having a Biblical worldview?
No, but their "biblical" world view is organized not around the bible alone but the systematic theology of the founders of their Church.
This organiztion of theology is apparrent in their framework. When you offer contradictory biblical evidence, they simply minimze it and revert to the arguments from their framework.
>>Could you be more specific regarding your terms "reasonable", "evidence" and "circular framework".
Sure, here is an example:
Explain how Martin Luthor added the word "alone" to his translation of scripture concerning justification. You can find it in his German translation.
The word never existed in scripture before this, and while protestants didn't adopt Luthors editing of Scripture, they certainly adopted his thelogical idea of justification by faith alone.
In response, an EF will show you scripture which says that works do not play a role in justification. But the correct context of that chapter is actually works of the Jewish law, not Christian works. They have a hard time accepting this even if they read the whole chapter.
Show them James and how [christian] works do play a role in justification, and they revert to the framework once again, minimizing this scripture passage.
The EF won't reject the role of works in justification because it's unscriptural. They reject it because it doesn't fit in their framework. They will simply revert back to justification by faith alone, and will explain away the role of works in justification.
This is what I mean that EF tend to be unreasonable. For one to be reasonable, one has to have the ablity to reason and consider evidence. One who is not reasonable simply rejects evidence and reverts back to their framework.
I've had this discussion hundreds of times with EF. It's always the same.
As we say up here - 'Ayah' ;o),/b>
Must be hard tho', knowing it all
ditto that!
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.