How do you learn what your denomination believes?

[prism]

Indeed. And the key words there are "It used to be."

At the same time, I notice that you named two of the denominations that historically have been among the most concerned about having correct doctrine. Were such a list to include a dozen or so of the well-known but less doctrinally demanding church bodies, that list would present us with examples of denominations that have become very liberal or flexible in recent decades and, in some cases, have experienced a formal split between the more traditional or conservative churches and the less judgmental ones.

I named those two because they are the ones I've had direct experiences with. and they claim to be 'confessional'. (Maybe I'm living in the past?). As someone said most non denominational/evangelical churches have about a 2 paragraph 'statement of faith'.

 

[Messy]

I named those two because they are the ones I've had direct experiences with. and they claim to be 'confessional'. (Maybe I'm living in the past?). As someone said most non denominational/evangelical churches have about a 2 paragraph 'statement of faith'.

And I bet they just stole that from some reformed church.

 

[prism]

And I bet they just stole that from some reformed church.

Or it (2 paragraph statement of faith) is what's left after all the 'in-house' battles that ended up in compromise.

 

[Albion]

Or it (2 paragraph statement of faith) is what's left after all the 'in-house' battles that ended up in compromise.

That doesn't seem to be the pattern. While officially non-denominational churches--or deliberately broadminded ones like the Unitarians--have adopted loose statements of belief in accordance with their theology...

the "battles that ended up in compromise," in the more traditional denominations really didn't end up in compromise but, instead, ended up in schism.

Consider the Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Lutherans, and others that saw new and rival church organizations/synods/etc. launched recently as a consequence of them not being able to find an acceptable compromise.

 

[Josiah]

That doesn't seem to be the pattern. While officially non-denominational churches--or deliberately broadminded ones like the Unitarians--have adopted loose statements of belief in accordance with their theology...

the "battles that ended up in compromise," in the more traditional denominations really didn't end up in compromise but, instead, ended up in schism.

Consider the Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Lutherans, and others that saw new and rival church organizations/synods/etc. launched recently as a consequence of them not being able to find an acceptable compromise.

Good points....


Just to add.... Protestantism has re-aligned.


What I think we're seeing in the USA in Protestantism is a re-alignment. In the 17-19th Centuries, we had mostly transplanted EUROPEAN denominations - results of the Reformation. Often LOTS of them (at one time, there were over 20 Lutheran denominations in the USA). There were Anglican and Methodist from England, Reformed from Scotland, Holland and Switzerland, Lutherans from Germany and Scandinavia, Anabaptists from Germany. And since they were historic churches related to the Reformation, they generally had clear Confessions and Statements of Faith.


But throughout the 20th Century, denominations tended to loose their European character and became more AMERICAN (All those Lutheran groups switched to English and sometimes to more American hymns and worship styles and practices including "don't look Catholic" ). And making a strong impact was RELATIVISM ("There is no Truth, just opinions") and LIBERALISM (need to de-myth the Bible and make Christianity modern, rejections of historic/traditional theology). All this combined with American PRAGMATISM ("feel good" religion, just make me successful) became more the issue - not heaven/hell, not justification, not forgiveness, not God.


American Protestantism re-aligned. Traditional/Confessional/Conservative vs. Liberal/Relativistic/Pragmatic. By 1988 Lutheranism in the USA divided into LCMS/WELS (Conservative) vs. ELCA (LIberal) for example. And the two have been drifting further apart since 1988. We can see the same thing in Calvinism/Reformed Protestantism, and while much smaller, in Anglican/Episcopalian churches. Even denominations largely formed in the USA (albeit from European roots) - Baptist and Methodist - have seen this divide. ODDITY: The LCMS often finds itself more akin to conservative Reformed and even Baptist churches than the ELCA.


The conservative branches still care about Truth and doctrine - and tend to be more clear as to what they believe and teach. The liberal groups tend to not especially embrace that there even is truth so aren't so concerned with it.



Blessings!


- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

I like it.

I think you are saying that there once were a number of different church organizations or entities because of different patterns of immigration, but more recently there was a movement towards uniting them. In the Lutheran example, many different church bodies merged down to about three or four that accounted for the great majority of American Lutherans. But more recently, another American mindset or intellectual trend--liberalism--caused disunity, ultimately resulting in the formation of new Lutheran church bodies or, in other words, a return to institutional disunity.

 

[atpollard]

2000 Baptist Faith and Message

 

[Josiah]

I like it.

I think you are saying that there once were a number of different church organizations or entities because of different patterns of immigration, but more recently there was a movement towards uniting them. In the Lutheran example, many different church bodies merged down to about three or four that accounted for the great majority of American Lutherans. But more recently, another American mindset or intellectual trend--liberalism--caused disunity, ultimately resulting in the formation of new Lutheran church bodies or, in other words, a return to institutional disunity.

@Albion

Referring to post 25....

I just see it as a re-alignment of denominations. It's no longer historic theological roots, it's conservative vs. liberal - within each tradition.

There are FAR fewer Protestant denominations in the USA today simply as a result of loosing that European connection but dividing along a new issue. In American Lutheranism, the 20 or so groups were divided mostly into cultural groups (Germans, Danes, etc. - although there were other issues, too) but their teachings were very similar (for most). Today, those cultural/historic roots are mostly gone but the divide is conservative/traditional vs. liberal/pragmatic. The first is very clear on what is believed, the second doesn't much care (well, they are passionate about "gay rights" and "gay marriage" and pro-abortion - that sort of thing).

It's a bit surprising that as a conservative/traditional/confessional Lutheran, I often get along better with other conservative/traditional Christians (even Catholics!) than I do some of my fellow "Lutherans" from the ELCA. Here you Anglican.... I'm Lutheran - from two very different branches of the Reformation But we get along pretty well. I even agree with MoreCoffee a lot of the time, LOL.

Will this result in two mega Protestant denominations in the USA? I don't think so. The Liberal ones might, perhaps, someday. They are headed in that direction. Something like that happened in Germany in the mid-19th Century and in Canada in the 1950's. But I don't think that will happen on the conservative/traditional side. We'll come to respect each other and cooperate with each other more but not merge since we care about our different views.


Blessings!


- Josiah



.

 

[Josiah]

Following up on post 25 and 28....

@Albion
@atpollard
@MoreCoffee

We three often have discussions... even passionate ones.... about issues we CARE about. Issues that have been debated for centuries and often central to the Reformation. We are focused on salvation/justification and biblical morality/sanctification. We reference the Bible because we accept authority/truth and we often may reference ECF's and Councils and esteemed theologians because we embrace the history of the faith. We'll likely end up disagreeing BUT I TOTALLY respect your faith... that you care about truth... that you are focused on the same things I am. I know you're heaven-bound (and there you will learn that Lutherans were right all along, ) I find you.... refreshing. This is in sharp contrast to discussions with a lot of folks - where the issues they care about are how to feel good, gay rights, getting more women in positions of authority, looking to the world rather than to the Word. It's just more fruitful discussing with Christians who care about truth than those who don't think it exists or think I'm focused on stuff that doens't matter (like salvation) instead of what does (like affirming a mother's right to kill her baby and making Christianity relevant).


Blessings!


.

 

[Albion]

Wow. Josiah, I feel like I'm being unresponsive if I don't write a long reply to you about your observations in Post #28, but I think you've got it right on point after point. The only thing that comes to mind now, and as a footnote, is that various trends, simple fatigue caused by the endless wrangling among them, are apparently causing a decline in church attendance across the board. There is hardly any denomination of note that is gaining members (unless it's because of immigration) and the ones who remain are less active.

 

[prism]

That doesn't seem to be the pattern. While officially non-denominational churches--or deliberately broadminded ones like the Unitarians--have adopted loose statements of belief in accordance with their theology...

the "battles that ended up in compromise," in the more traditional denominations really didn't end up in compromise but, instead, ended up in schism.

Consider the Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Lutherans, and others that saw new and rival church organizations/synods/etc. launched recently as a consequence of them not being able to find an acceptable compromise.

Which essentially is the same. If you don't separate, you compromise and end up with a scant statement of faith.
But the real attack hasn't been on SOFs but rather on God's Word itself, mainly through the higher critical movement, which affects doctrine and biblical authority.
The schism usually revolves around compromised practices in the Church (e.g. gay ministers); the more liberal faction, joining the world's chorus, while those pushing for biblical purity oppose gay ministers. The decision is usually made in the political arm of the Church, with the dissenters either splitting to another body or 'for the sake of peace', compromising.

 

[Albion]

Which essentially is the same. If you don't separate, you compromise

It's true that if you don't separate, you probably will compromise, but these two are hardly "the same" thing.

However, what I referred to concerned the recent change in many of the leading denominations towards formal separations rather than continue on as "houses divided."

The United Methodists, for instance, very recently agreed among themselves (!) to divide their congregations between the old (existing) church and a brand new one, the "Global Methodist Church," so that each side could go its own way instead of continuing to argue internally.

But the real attack hasn't been on SOFs but rather on God's Word itself, mainly through the higher critical movement, which affects doctrine and biblical authority.

That was yesterday's argument.

More recently, the proponents of watered-down doctrinal statements don't always bother to make a case for their claims by referring to and re-interpreting Scripture. That battle has already been fought ad nauseum, so that today the proposed changes are quite often argued simply on sociological grounds, using patently false information, much as the political left does with its social platform.

 

[Messy]

No unity is bad, but you can't be united if a church isn't even christian.

 

[prism]

That was yesterday's argument.

More recently, the proponents of watered-down doctrinal statements don't always bother to make a case for their claims by referring to and re-interpreting Scripture. That battle has already been fought ad nauseum, so that today the proposed changes are quite often argued simply on sociological grounds, using patently false information, much as the political left does with its social platform.

Yesterday's sown seeds are bringing forth todays thorns. Actually, attack on God's Word has been going on since the beginning.
If Christian leaders would speak forth God's Word, we wouldn't have to compromise on sociological issues.

 

[Albion]

If Christian leaders would speak forth God's Word, we wouldn't have to compromise on sociological issues.

I can't agree. Christian leaders who do speak God's word are met with opposition just as the heretical ones are. That's part of what the sin of our first parents has done.

If it were otherwise, there wouldn't be the many schisms that have occurred recently in the conservative denominations as well as in the generally liberal ones.

 

[MoreCoffee]

We reference the Bible

But we have very different bibles, there is no "the bible" between us; though you may have a better view of the deuterocanonical books and sections in Esther and Daniel than some.

I know you're heaven-bound (and there you will learn that Lutherans were right all along, ) I find you.... refreshing. This is in sharp contrast to discussions with a lot of folks - where the issues they care about are how to feel good, gay rights, getting more women in positions of authority, looking to the world rather than to the Word. It's just more fruitful discussing with Christians who care about truth than those who don't think it exists or think I'm focused on stuff that doens't matter (like salvation) instead of what does (like affirming a mother's right to kill her baby and making Christianity relevant).

I also care about gay rights because all people deserve to be treated as image bearers of God, and because human dignity extends to everyone without exception. I care about having women better represented in positions of authority and power for similar reasons to those just stated. And I think that the world is also a place where we receive revelation from God and wisdom from God too. And while it is true that salvation matters a great deal it is also true that justice, mercy, truth, and kindness matter and must be upheld. And abortion, while terrible and unutterably sad appears to some to be the only solution available to them, desperation and poverty, cruel laws, and heartless economics are crimes against human dignity too and they are frequently the proximate cause for seeking abortion. So let us not single out the sins of some and leave unnoticed the sins of the whole of society that creates the environment where poverty, hunger, desperation lead to sins like killing the unborn babies that ought to be given every opportunity to live and flourish.

 

[Josiah]

But we have very different bibles, there is no "the bible" between us; though you may have a better view of the deuterocanonical books and sections in Esther and Daniel than some.

@MoreCoffee

I can't remember the last time.... or any time... when you quoted any Deuterocanonical book (RCC or EOC or OOC ones) as your norm for any view of yours. You may have included some with others (perhaps) but not as your norm.

And IF you ever had, I'd respect that ... and note your practice of Sola Scriptura (albeit, as you note, you referencing a unique collection of books only your denomination embraces).... and note that of course, as you know, Lutherans don't ignore those unique books (Luther INCLUDED all of them in his German translation... and often quoted from them himself) we just don't place them equal to say the Book of Romans as your church does.

But I think you missed the point of the discussion here and of posts 25, 28 and 29.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I can't remember the last time.... or any time... when you quoted any Deuterocanonical book (RCC or EOC or OOC ones) as your norm for any view of yours. You may have included some with others (perhaps) but not as your norm.

In CH I am, on the whole, engaged with Protestants who - for the most part - receive only 66 books and ignore or discount the rest of the sacred canon so, for that reason, most of the time I quote from shared material. Jesus did something similar with the Sadducees, but I am not intending to compare my posts with Jesus' replies to the Sadducees, I only cite his practise as one example from sacred scripture where it is wise to use a common source - it may avoid the long debates about sources of authority that I've seen, participated in, and finally decided are not very productive.

and note your practice of Sola Scriptura

I do not use nor adhere to sola scriptura; but for the sake of communication with those who do and are likely to debate any deviation from that view, I use bible quotes. It's just for the sake of peace really.

 

[prism]

I can't agree. Christian leaders who do speak God's word are met with opposition just as the heretical ones are. That's part of what the sin of our first parents has done.

If it were otherwise, there wouldn't be the many schisms that have occurred recently in the conservative denominations as well as in the generally liberal ones.

Natch, I expected push-back from you.
Paul was met with much opposition but it didn't stop him. Speaking forth God's Word is part of teaching as laid out in the Great Commission and gives direction to the sheep.

Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. [19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

 

[prism]

I do not use nor adhere to sola scriptura; but for the sake of communication with those who do and are likely to debate any deviation from that view, I use bible quotes. It's just for the sake of peace really.

Out of curiosity, what is your 'bottom line' source of authority?