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
That just accounts for 104% of the total. Math skills seem to equal theological knowledge here.
That system of points was published as a refutation of the heretical 5 points of Arminian Remonstrance, and are a summation of the judgements rendered at the Synod of Dort in 1619.
It is unfortunate that most folks view Calvinism in context of the 5 points, when in fact Calvinism can be summed up in one. Namely that God completely saves sinners, without any of our help. Some of us just don't realize that we didn't have anything to do with our own salvation. That is solidly Biblical.