Posted on 07/04/2010 2:24:16 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist
INTERESTING.
THX.
PRAISE GOD.
actually, I did a little googling and found that it was 57% Episcopalian, 23% Congregationalist, 21% Presbyterian,3% Quaker, etc
Why do I need a system of points to codify a belief if it is evident from the bible?
How does the protestant belief of “sola scriptura” that people died for, stand if I also require a system of points of belief?
Just some questions....it seems to be we have replaced one pope with another.
I believe in “sola sciptura” and the priesthood of the believer, in that we should all work out our salvation, with fear and trembling rather than rest on non-cannonical writings and musings of men. (and the Bible is NOT that - it ‘s divinely breathed, through the agency of God-fearing men)
You don't. The so-called "Five Points of Calvinism" are just Five Points of a summation on what the Bible says about Predestination.
Like a pastoral teaching outline. It's just a point-by-point listing of what the Infallible Bible says on the subject.
"....the various creeds and confessions of the historic church have been a useful means of codifying and focusing key Biblical doctrines, and by extension are very useful in matters of church membership (covenants) or forming definitions of heresy for Protestants. An interesting problem arises, as many "Protestant" churches, especially evangelical and non-denominational ones, reject the creeds as binding on themselves re matters of discipline or doctrine. How does St Simeon the Patient Reformed Church know that First Fundamental Independent Baptist Church of Christ Unified down the street is trinitarian and orthodox, if FFIBCoCU refuses to publish (or even write down on paper) their "what we believe" document, and also refuses to deny or affirm SStPRC's own "what we believe" document?There is no simple way of determining whether some churches are "in the fold" of authentic Christianity or are apostate/heretical. We (the pro-creedal Christians) have to "take it on faith" that they (the anti-creedal Christians) are really our brothers in Christ. Now to some extent I'm exaggerating here in order to prove a point, but I think the question is a valid one.
I would never suggest that a creed is a substitute for Scripture itself, nor would I suffer accusations that creeds are fabrications of doctrine. I would say that creeds are excellent summaries of where Scripture speaks to certain subjects, and exist as historic documents as to who took what side in ecclesiastical/doctrinal disputes. IMO creeds were wisely formed to "redeem the time" (Eph. 5:16) when testing or investigating the confessions of a professing believer, and continue to be smart tools for the churches' use today.
Only those believers that individually and institutionally submit themselves to the historic creeds of the church can be said to be "in agreement" doctrinally. By their very nature, creeds define what two or more groups' shared beliefs are, and they provide a useful way for both insiders and outsiders to test themselves on whether they really are doctrinally and congregationally unified.
-- Alex Murphy, May 2, 2009
Thanks for the ping. Bookmarked here, too.
We want to be up front and answer the question most often posed when relating that we are confessional: "How can you hold a man made document above Scripture?" The answer is simple, we don't. We believe the that Confession we confess, the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith, to have authority in the church and amongst its members ONLY in that it agrees with Scripture and is a concise statement of sound biblical doctrines. We believe the creeds we confess to have authority in the church and amongst its members ONLY in that they agree with Scripture and are concise, yet thorough, statements of the orthodox faith. The Creeds and Confession are subservient to Scripture. Would they disagree with Scripture, we would reject them. But they don't disagree, so we don't reject them. They do agree, so we accept them.
Consider that most churches have a Statement of Faith developed from that church's understanding of Scripture. These statements explain what the church teaches and what its members believe. Members of the church are expected to understand that the Statement of Faith explains, as far as the church understands, proper doctrine in the church. In America, most of these statements are fairly ambiguous (some more than most). The Creeds and Confession are similar to a Statement of Faith, though much more thorough and much, much less ambiguous.
Consider that most churches have a Statement of Faith developed from that church's understanding of Scripture. These statements explain what the church teaches and what its members believe. Members of the church are expected to understand that the Statement of Faith explains, as far as the church understands, proper doctrine in the church. In America, most of these statements are fairly ambiguous (some more than most). The Creeds and Confession are similar to a Statement of Faith, though much more thorough and much, much less ambiguous.
What an excellent statement - thank you for pinging me to it. The "2nd Confession" is the 1689 version of the Baptist Confession, right? There's a great deal of commonality with the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is what I hold to myself. Glad to "shake hands" with a fellow Trinitarian believer!
This OPC elder is happy to follow in the footsteps of our forefathers. Thanks for posting this on the fourth.
Great history I never learned in public school, thanks for the ping. :)
“Who were the Catholic Founders ?
Where there many?
Or just Protestants?”
I found this, it has a chart -
Religious Affiliation of the
Founding Fathers
of the United States of America
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
Excellent summary of the differences (what few there actually are).
Usually 4 pointers are “ulip’s”
So you are unusual ...
BTW predestination is taught all through scripture..
Well as far as reformed “theology” goes, one heresy is as bad as another. Macht Nichts.
I just love your happy homepage. The boys fishing is a terrific photograph. 8~)
Dr E., try out the Christian Traditions Selector test that raynearhood has on his profile. Here's how I scored (I'd like to know how the UCoC got in there, tho):
|
URL: http://www.selectsmart.com/plus/select.php?url=denomtradition Link: Christian Traditions Selector
|
Great post.
The Puritan movement of course included Presbyterians, as well as Congregationalists, and, even Particular Baptists. One cannot pigeon hole the movement as being only Congregationalists... more like, the most serious and radical of Protestant British and European colonists at the time were Calvinistical, and therefore interested in purifying a corrupt Church. And even Anglicans at the time, were very influenced by Calvinism (Anglican Christianity being originally described as the middle ground between Calvinism and Lutheranism (no, not Roman Catholicism).
Officially, the Puritan party originally wanted to stay Anglican, and purify the English Church, but, little by little, serious Calvinists found it impossible to stay...and broke away (even if by just going to America). Presbyterianism after all only refers to the practice of governance by Elders (a concept originally developed by Calvin)...(not fully democratic like Congregationalism, nor hierarchical like Anglicanism or Rome...) which is, after all, a foretaste of Representative Democracy....
Calvinists is a term broader than just English Puritans, as it consists of far more than Englishmen, but, the “Puritan movement” was fully fledged Calvinist...and the most influential movement across denominational lines in pre-revolutionary America.
So close were the Puritan Congregationalists to the theology of Presbyerians, that Congregationalist and Presbyterian pastors would trade off preaching at each other’s churches, or even be hired by one or the other...there really wasn’t all that huge of a gap, in America at least.
Rule of law...(originally thinking of God’s moral laws) applying equally to king or commoner is one of the main subversive elements of Calvinism to monarchy.
Interestingly, I’ve read that in China today, Presbyterianism is a favorite form in highly educated house churches...of course due to many Presbyterian missionaries there (like Eric Liddel) before Mao, but also due to the fact that Calvinist theology gives the most logical base for democratic ideas...
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.
