What are some unique doctrines that a denomination holds that makes them distinct from others?

[The Liturgist]

2. Amish with their Ordnung

Oh, here is something that might interest you on the subject of the Ordnung. It might surprise you to learn that this aspect of the Amish church is not inherently recent or innovative or of 17th century origin. Rather, the word Ordnung means “Order” in German, and there are books of church order dating back to the first century, for example, the Didache and a derivation of it called the Didascalia, which is still used officially by the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the equivalent document is called the Typikon, and it varies between jurisdictions, which can be independent regional churches like the Serbian Orthodox Church or the Antiochian Orthodox Church or the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem, and between parishes and monasteries, for example, in the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the monasteries on Mount Athos in Greece still use the traditional Sabaite-Studite Typikon that is used by most parishes and monasteries, with minor variations, in the Church Slavonic-speaking Orthodox churches like the Russian Orthodox, Belarussian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, and related traditional jurisdictions like the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, whereas most parishes and monasteries under the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, which include most Greek Orthodox churches in the United States, use the recent and somewhat controversial Violakis Typikon (which is somewhat simpler, but even Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, a loyal bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, described some aspects of the Violakis Typikon as “ill-advised.” Additionally, there are typikons used by the Old Rite Orthodox and the related Russian Old Believers who are not in communion with the canonical Orthodox churches. There is the disused “Cathedral Typikon” that was reconstructed by scholars such as the musicologist Dr. Alexander Lingas, who runs the choir Capella Romana, and which was used until the conquest of Constantinople by Venice in the 1200s for worship at the Hagia Sophia, and in a few other places, and in the US, there is a monastery in the Orthodox Church in America called New Skete that has a highly idiosyncratic typikon of its own inspired by the old Cathedral Typikon.

And other Eastern churches also have the idea of books of church order. The liturgical equivalent in the Armenian church would in English be called the “Directory”; I cannot recall the Armenian word.

Moving west, we find the concept exists in, for example, the Traditional Latin Mass, or Vetus Ordo, of the Roman Catholic Church, vs. the new mass, or Novus Ordo, and also in monastic rules, for example, the Rule of St. Benedict.

Thus these works include instructions pertaining to the life of the faithful or of monks in a monastery, like the Rule of St. Benedict or the Didache, whereas in other cases, an order might pertain only to liturgical matters, with other issues addressed in volumes of canon law.

The Methodist Book of Discipline represents the former approach, whereas the Directory for Public Worship instituted to replace the Anglican Book of Common Prayer during the tyrannical reign of Oliver Cromwell would be an example of the latter, a liturgical instruction book. In the Presbyterian churches in particular it was common to have, instead of specific liturgical books, to instead have more general instructions to ministers in a “Book of Order”, whereas Continental Calvinists like the Dutch Reformed or the French reformed theologian Boucher had no problems with the retention of written liturgical prayers for worship, but these bothered the Scottish Presbyterians, and for many centuries they resisted implementing them, until the liturgical revival in the 19th century, which coincided with the Scoto-Catholic movement in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

So the subject of the “Ordnung” is interesting, in that virtually every church has something like the Ordnung; what makes the Amish and Old Order Mennonite Ordnungs interesting is the extreme intensity with which they prescribe and proscribe certain aspects of the daily lives of their members, in a manner that goes far beyond that of most other denominations.

 

[The Liturgist]

In Orthodoxy our doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the same as the Western Churches. Except that we strictly hold that the Holy Spirit proceeds exclusively from the Father per John 15:26. Most other Christians profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

While I believe this is crucial within our confession, I do not criticize how other Christians profess their faith on this.

Interestingly the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East all agree with the Eastern Orthodox on the rejection of the filioque.

Also, most Byzantine Rite Catholic Churches do not confess the filioque, and strangely, I have read that the Roman Catholic position is that the Filioque would be in error if used in the Greek language. If true that confuses me a bit, because I don’t see how it could be correct in Latin but not in Greek.

At any rate, I do agree with you that the avoidance of the filioque is crucial within Orthodoxy, but I regard it as less of an immediate issue in terms of dialogue with other liturgical Christians. Also I would note happily that among liturgical Protestants for some time there has been a movement, active within Anglicanism and a few related places, called “Drop the FIlioque” which argues against retaining the filioque in the Nicene Creed, in part because of the division it causes with us.

I do think the filioque could possibly be interpreted in a manner that is not heretical, if one understood that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father alone but proceeds from the Son insofar as He sent it to us as our Paraclete, but that is not how Roman Catholics usually interpret it, and the problem is the use of a common verb for both conditions. Additionally there is the problem that the mere existence of the filioque is contrary to the canons of the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus which prohibit changing, tampering with or replacing the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, that is to say, the Nicene Creed.

My understanding is that the filioque originated in Spain in response to a prolongued outbreak of an Adoptionist heresy, which is interesting in light of the fact that Spain is also where the Three Chapters Controversy engendered a schism after Theodore of Mopsuestia was anathematized by the Three Chapters of Justinian immediately prior to the Second Council of Constantinople in an unsuccessful attempt at rapprochement with the Oriental Orthodox.

 

[Lukaris]

Interestingly the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East all agree with the Eastern Orthodox on the rejection of the filioque.

Also, most Byzantine Rite Catholic Churches do not confess the filioque, and strangely, I have read that the Roman Catholic position is that the Filioque would be in error if used in the Greek language. If true that confuses me a bit, because I don’t see how it could be correct in Latin but not in Greek.

At any rate, I do agree with you that the avoidance of the filioque is crucial within Orthodoxy, but I regard it as less of an immediate issue in terms of dialogue with other liturgical Christians. Also I would note happily that among liturgical Protestants for some time there has been a movement, active within Anglicanism and a few related places, called “Drop the FIlioque” which argues against retaining the filioque in the Nicene Creed, in part because of the division it causes with us.

I do think the filioque could possibly be interpreted in a manner that is not heretical, if one understood that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father alone but proceeds from the Son insofar as He sent it to us as our Paraclete, but that is not how Roman Catholics usually interpret it, and the problem is the use of a common verb for both conditions. Additionally there is the problem that the mere existence of the filioque is contrary to the canons of the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus which prohibit changing, tampering with or replacing the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, that is to say, the Nicene Creed.

My understanding is that the filioque originated in Spain in response to a prolongued outbreak of an Adoptionist heresy, which is interesting in light of the fact that Spain is also where the Three Chapters Controversy engendered a schism after Theodore of Mopsuestia was anathematized by the Three Chapters of Justinian immediately prior to the Second Council of Constantinople in an unsuccessful attempt at rapprochement with the Oriental Orthodox.

Yes, thank you and I should have mentioned this particular. I actually have a tendency to take it for granted that they are Orthodox. I understand the matters of formal communion between our churches of course.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

There are many similarities between Christian denominations, the purpose of this thread is to help expand knowledge of distinct doctrines of each denomination that makes them different to others. These distinct doctrines will typically only be found within a particular denomination only or a small handful. Another purpose of this thread is to help people decide on a denomination on what doctrines to them that will either be a deal breaker, or a must have.

I will start with some examples:

1. Calvinism with its predestination doctrine
2. Amish with their Ordnung
3. Mennonites in some ways similar to Amish, but different because they allow modern technology
4. Baptists with their full immersion baptism, believer baptism. Maybe there are many more denominations that also have these doctrines, still learning.

These are some examples, there may be denominations that have the same doctrines, I don't know too many or which ones have the same doctrines, here to learn more.

I'm saddened by this post. Similarities yes however that's just not good enough for our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

" I never knew you"

Be blessed.

 

[9Rock9]

Baptists, many Messianic groups, Seventh-day Adventists, a number of community church groups all have believer's baptism - by immersion as the only form of accepted baptism.

A lot of Christian denominations affirm a future judgment - Seventh-day Adventists have a unique view based on Dan 7, and Rom 2 and 2 Cor 5:10 regarding the judgment in heaven seen in Dan 7 prior to the coming of Christ as depicted in Dan 7.

Yeah, I don't think an individual doctrine is enough to distinguish a denomination from the others. Like you said, there are plenty of denominations that affirm believer's baptism.

The real difference is over how they combine various doctrines.

On the surface, Seventh Day Adventists and Seventh Day Baptists may seem pretty similar as they both baptize believers by immersion and observe a Saturday Sabbath, but that's really where the similarities end. They're still gonna disagree over Ellen White, the investigative judgment, and 7th Day Baptists can go either way in free will and eschatology.

Anabaptists also affirm credobaptism, but don't seem to put as much emphasis on immersion, specifically. Depending on the particular denomination, they may immerse, or they might sprinkle. Even the ones that do immerse do it quite differently from Baptists.


I'd say, for Baptists, the uniqueness is the affirmation of believer's baptism (primarily, if not exclusively, by immersion), congregational polity AND a traditional Protestant understanding of soteriology.

The Church of Christ also practices believer's baptism and congregationalism, but they have a very different understanding as to how soteriology works.

 

[returntosender]

Prayer for salvation of the dead and belief that they are saved.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes, thank you and I should have mentioned this particular. I actually have a tendency to take it for granted that they are Orthodox. I understand the matters of formal communion between our churches of course.

I myself regard the Oriental Orthodox as fully Orthodox, and I really like the sui juris Eastern Catholic churches (some of which would be Orthodox were it not for historical maneuvering in politics by the RCC, for instance, the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church owe their existence largely to the formation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the subsequent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Brest . Likewise, I really like the Assyrian Church of the East and regard it as approaching Orthodoxy, along with some Continuing Anglican churches in the US.

 

[The Liturgist]

Prayer for salvation of the dead and belief that they are saved.

I don’t understand what you mean by the concluding phrase “and belief that they are saved,” for the simple reason (without wishing to cause any offense) that the grammar of that phrase is incorrect, and the meaning of it in context with the opening phrase “Prayer for the salvation of the dead” is ambiguous. Are you talking about once saved, always saved? Or do you mean a denomination that prays for the dead and then believes that those prayers will definitely be 100% efficacious, perhaps something along the lines of Mormon baptism?

However, what I can say with certainty is that prayers for the salvation of the dead are definitely not unique to a single denomination, but can be regarded as a normative practice shared by an absolute majority of the world’s Christian population. But first, let us consider which churches specifically engage in the practice of prayer for the dead:

Christian communities that pray for the dead include the Assyrian Church of the East, most Anglicans (including, but not limited to, broad church and high church Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics, and the non-jurors and their successors, the Scottish and American Episcopalians, but not low church Anglicans such as the Archdiocese of Sydney, Evangelicals such as the Holy Trinity Brompton set, and in the US, the Reformed Episcopal Church), the Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans (Martin Luther specifically approved of prayers for the dead, but not of the Missa Pro Defunctis, which is actually unique to Roman Catholicism and High Church Anglicanism), Methodists (John Wesley regarded prayers for the dead as extremely important and composed new prayers for this purpose, for such prayers were absent from all English editions of the BCP other than the initial 1549 BCP, and the Deposited Book of 1928 which was approved by the Church but blocked in the House of Commons by a minority of Anglicans assisted by members of various other Protestant churches and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland).

Likewise, prayer for the dead is also an integral part of the faith of the Moravians (the Protestant denomination also known as the Unitas Fratrum, founded by in the 15th century by St. Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague, who are venerated as saints in the Eastern Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia), who set out to to restore to the Czech Christians things which they had been deprived of, like a vernacular liturgy and communion in both kinds, when the country was forcibly converted from Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism following its conquest by the Archduchy of Austria in the 13th century), the Old Catholics (who broke communion with Rome in opposition to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility in the 1870s), the Oriental Orthodox (consisting of the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Coptic Orthodox (who are from Egypt), the Ethiopian Tewahedo and Eritrean Tewahedo Orthodox Churches, the Indthe Roman Catholics, the Syriac Orthodox of the Middle East, who call themselves Suroye, who mostly live in Syria, Iraq, and in Jerusalem, Bethlehem and surrounding environs, but before the genocide in 1915 waged against Armenian, Syriac Orthodox, Assyrian and Pontic Greek Orthodox Christians, also lived in very large numbers in Turkey, with the headquarters located in a monastery in Tur Abdin, a Turkish province where the Suroye were particularly numerous, and finally the three Syriac Orthodox jurisdictions that serve the Mar Thoma Christians of India, first evangelized by the Apostle Thomas, who also founded the Church in several centers of the Suroye church and the Assyrian Church of the East before traveling to Kerala, home to a large Jewish population from around 200 BC until the 1950s, when most of its remaining members moved to Israel ; these Christians historically spoke Syriac and now speak a Syriac-influenced South Indian language, Malayalam, and like the Suroye and Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox, are largely of Jewish Descent.

Finally, we have, rather obviously, the Roman Catholics and the Sui Juris Eastern Catholic churches in communion with the Pope of Rome (and in practice, subordinate to him), such as the Maronite Catholics of Lebanon, the Byzantine Rite churches that use the same liturgy as the Eastern Orthodox such as the Ukrainian Greek Catholics, the Ruthenian Greek Catholics, the Melkite Catholics, etc, and churches whose liturgy is based on Assyrian (the Chaldean and Syro Malabar Catholics) or Oriental Orthodox liturgies (the Armenian Catholics, nearly all of whom were martyred by the Ottomans during the horrible aforementioned genocide of 1915, the Coptic Catholics, the Malankara Catholics, and several others).

I would also note that many famous Christians, including, as mentioned previously, Wesley, Luther, Jan Hus, Jerome of Prague, and the fathers of the Early Church, as well as all Orthodox, Assyrian and Roman Catholic theologians, and many leading Anglican theologians such as Dr. Edward Pusey, Rev. Percy Dearmer, and CS Lewis, all prayed for the dead, and in many cases, such as that of Luther, Wesley and CS Lewis, openly advocated for the practice.

There are also other smaller denominations of Christians who pray for the dead which I omit for reasons of brevity. These include high church groups within other Protestant denominations, and some obscure Independent Catholic and Restorationist groups, some of dubious orthodoxy.

Additionally, most Jews also pray for the dead, for instance, in the Ashkenazi service known as Yizkor (Hazkarar Neshamor) so I would be interested to know if any Messianic Jewish groups also engage in this practice, and if so, which ones, and to what extent.

At any rate, it should be obvious from the listing of denominations which practice prayer for the dead that it is an extremely widespread practice, one engaged in by an absolute majority of all Christians, including all members of the largest, second largest fourth largest, and fifth largest denominational groups (the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans and Methodists), and by most members of the third largest (the Anglicans), and by the Oriental Orthodox, who I reckon to be the eighth largest (behind the Pentecostals, who may or may not pray for the dead, owing to the diversity of their beliefs) (the largest group that generally does not pray for the dead is the sixth largest group overall, the Reformed churches, including Presbyterian and Reformed churches, mostly do not pray for the dead, with the exception of some extremely high church liturgical ”Reformed Catholics”, for instance, members of the 19th century Scoto-Catholic movement, and perhaps Dr. William E. Orchard, the Catholic-influenced pastor of the King’s Weigh House, and possibly his predecessor, the brilliant liturgist Rev. John Hunter, whose service book Devotional Services for Public Worship, first printed around 1900, was the most influential Protestant liturgical book to be published since the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Baptists are the other major denominational group that rejects prayer for the dead, and they do so categorically, and on doctrinal grounds.

Thus, since this belief is held by most Christians, including all Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and members of the closely related Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East, and by all Lutherans and Methodists loyal to the doctrines of Luther and Wesley, and by a solid majority of Anglicans (as shown by the fact that the majority of editions of the Book of Common Prayer in use outside of England, and the BCP’s successor, Common Worship, contain prayers for the dead), and by the Moravians, the second-oldest Protestant denomination and the only Protestant denomination whose founders are venerated as saints by the Eastern Orthodox, it can be established as a normative belief for all Christians, and does not belong in the category of “Unique beliefs that a denomination holds that makes it distinct from all others.”

Rather, we can say that the rejection of Prayers for the Dead is a shared distinctive of Baptist, Reformed, Non-Denominational and some Restorationist churches (for instance, Adventists). So, in effect, neither prayers for the dead, nor the rejection thereof, are unique beliefs that distinguish one denomination from all the rest, since most Christians pray for the dead, while many Christians from many different Baptist and Reformed denominations do not pray for the dead.

 

[The Liturgist]

I'm saddened by this post. Similarities yes however that's just not good enough for our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

" I never knew you"

Be blessed.

Are you saying there is a single correct denomination or are you making some kind of an argument against the existence of denominations? Are you aware of the fact that most Christian churches are involved in various forms of ecumenical dialogue, seeling reconciliation and reunification, a process that has been highly successful in restoring unity to separated Christians ranging from Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians, formerly estranged but now reconciled, in Syria and Egypt, to the mainline Protestant churches of Europe and North America, to the various hitherto isolated traditional Anglican churches of the Global South?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Are you saying there is a single correct denomination or are you making some kind of an argument against the existence of denominations? Are you aware of the fact that most Christian churches are involved in various forms of ecumenical dialogue, seeling reconciliation and reunification, a process that has been highly successful in restoring unity to separated Christians ranging from Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians, formerly estranged but now reconciled, in Syria and Egypt, to the mainline Protestant churches of Europe and North America, to the various hitherto isolated traditional Anglican churches of the Global South?

I am saying there should be no denominations.

 

[The Liturgist]

I am saying there should be no denominations.

Well I agree, but the problem is, in 1054, the Roman Catholic Church excommunicated the Orthodox, and then embraced radically different doctrines from those which had characterized the early church, which was not divided into denominations but which was one church, and as a result of these new doctrines and practices, such as Scholastic theology, Papal supremacy, a denial of the chalice to the laity, purgatory, and other teachings which were unknown to the Early Church, and also due to severe corruption during the Avignon Papacy, and the reign of Pope Alexander VI, and subsequently, the failed military campaigns of Pope Julius II, which resulted in Rome being sacked, as it had been by foreign invaders in the year 600 and before that, in the fifth century, only this time by soldiers from the Holy Roman Empire who had initially been sent to protect Rome from a feared invasion which never materialized, who grew bored and frustrated. The result of this third sacking of Rome was the end of the Roman Renaissance, and a severe shortage of funds, which led to Pope Leo X putting an emphasis on the sale of indulgences in an attempt to finance the completion of the beautiful design for St. Peter’s Basilica which was the work of the talented sculptor, architect and painter Michaelangelo, but this was the wrong way to finance such a project, for it caused righteous indignation on the part of Martin Luther, and it led to the Protestant Reformation, which resulted in numerous other schisms, and what is worse, the emergence of Pietism in the 18th century led many Christians to regard doctrine as unimportant and to be untroubled by the proliferation of denominations, which resulted in the emergence of several additional Protestant denominations whose existence otherwise would have been deemed unwarranted, as people stopped trying to address defects in existing denominations, and instead formed new ones.

And the Non-Denominational movement among Evangelicals is not the solution to this problem, but rather compounds it, for each Non-Denominational chapel or megachurch is like a denomination unto itself, with many of them being more like dioceses, with multiple “campuses”, for example, Mars Hill Church in Seattle, albeit with the distressing tendency to broadcast the sermon of a celebrity preacher to all of the “campuses” rather than de-emphasizing the individual pastor in order to emphasize Christ, following the example of St. John the Baptist, who said of himself and Christ, “I must decrease so that He may increase.” The mere existence of the “celebrity pastor” or the “rockstar pastor” is in opposition to the message of humility that is foundational to the Gospel.

Thus, unfortunately, the problem of denominations is not one easily solved. For my part, I work on helping to unite disparate churches that share a common doctrine and compatible praxis, and indeed am working on organizing such a reunion right now between two small Eastern churches

 

[FireDragon76]

There are many similarities between Christian denominations, the purpose of this thread is to help expand knowledge of distinct doctrines of each denomination that makes them different to others. These distinct doctrines will typically only be found within a particular denomination only or a small handful. Another purpose of this thread is to help people decide on a denomination on what doctrines to them that will either be a deal breaker, or a must have.

I will start with some examples:

1. Calvinism with its predestination doctrine

Not distinct to Calvinism. Catholics and Lutherans also have doctrines of predestination.

 

[ViaCrucis]

These distinctions are often, or often reflections of, the very reasons why certain schisms or divergence of communion among groups of Christians happened in the first place. Whether we think of that as good or bad, that's generally just how it is.

In the 16th century a reform movement arose in the city of Wittenberg, because a German monk named Martin Luther began to voice ideas which were held as controversial by many, and received resistance and even hostility. Luther had no interest in "starting a church", for Luther his church was the Church, the Catholic Church. Luther's religious ministry began when he joined the Augustinians, taking on upon himself the monastic life under the spiritual leadership of Johann von Staupitz. Under Staupitz' influence and spiritual counsel, Luther would learn to take refuge in God's mercy and forgiveness. Luther continued to be trained and educated, academically, when Staupitz sent him to the University of Wittenberg, where Luther would receive his doctorate in theology, and was trained in the reading and study of the Scriptures. So when, in 1517, there arose in Saxony the preaching and doings of men like Johann Tetzel going around performing major theatrics to sell indulgences to raise money for the building of St. Peter's in Rome, Luther chose this as the topic of discussion and debate among the Wittenberg academics.

That's what the 95 Theses were, a series of debate points to be discussed among the academics at the university. it is generally believed that the church door in Wittenberg served as a kind of university posting board, where invitations for discussion could be posted. The Theses were written in Latin, because Latin was the language of academia. In addition to posting the Theses to the church door, Luther also sent a copy along with an extremely cordial letter to Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz, whose jurisdiction covered Saxony and thus Witenberg, where Luther was both professor of theology and parish priest. The letter expressed concern over what people like Tetzel were doing, and how it was bringing shame not only Albrecht, but to the Pope himself, and to the Church. In addition to this, it is generally believed that some of Luther's students saw the Theses and on their own initiative translated them into German and then printed them en masse for public consumption without Luther's knowledge.

The 95 Theses, if read, are not a thunderous attack on the Catholic Church, or the Pope. Luther, instead, argued that the selling of indulgences were an abuse of proper ecclesiastical authority, a violation of it in fact, and contrary to pious Christian faith and practice. It wouldn't be until several years later, after Luther's excommunication because of his refusal to recant at the Diet of Worms and the hostility of church dignitaries and papal representatives that Luther would begin to directly confront the papacy as not being a victim of corruption, but a chief cause of corruption.

More meaningful to what would become the reform movement began under Luther are the 1518 Heidelberg Disputation, containing 28 Theses for debate in which Luther digs into much deeper theological content--though Luther here was still working from within established theological norms of the time, and demonstrating his strong Augustinian influence (not merely the influence of the Augustinian Order and Staupitiz' spiritual counsel within it, but more broadly the larger Augustinian theological tradition). Luther was not rebelling, or opposing, the theological tradition which he had inherited, but working within it; though in such a way that it created controversy. As Luther continued to refine his theological thinking, it did become more sharply divided from that of more established Roman norms; but nonetheless Luther still was never the founder of a new church; but was interested in reform of the established Church.

Thus from the Lutheran perspective, "Lutheranism" was never something fundamentally other than Catholic. The term "Lutheran" was not a self-imposed designation, but one thrust upon those who agreed with Luther and Luther's theological contemporaries. The term the "Lutherans" themselves preferred was "Evangelical", which even today in German carries the basic sense of what the English word "Protestant" does. Lutherans did not call themselves Lutherans or Protestants; the former was a term used to attack the reform movement; and the latter originated as a term referring to the German princes who formally protested the imperial decree at the Second Imperial Diet of Speyer.

The Lutheran distinctive is what Luther and the other Evangelical fathers would call the chief doctrine of the faith: Justification by grace alone through faith alone on Christ's account alone. On this, and this alone, they argued rests everything.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

These distinctions are often, or often reflections of, the very reasons why certain schisms or divergence of communion among groups of Christians happened in the first place. Whether we think of that as good or bad, that's generally just how it is.

In the 16th century a reform movement arose in the city of Wittenberg, because a German monk named Martin Luther began to voice ideas which were held as controversial by many, and received resistance and even hostility. Luther had no interest in "starting a church", for Luther his church was the Church, the Catholic Church. Luther's religious ministry began when he joined the Augustinians, taking on upon himself the monastic life under the spiritual leadership of Johann von Staupitz. Under Staupitz' influence and spiritual counsel, Luther would learn to take refuge in God's mercy and forgiveness. Luther continued to be trained and educated, academically, when Staupitz sent him to the University of Wittenberg, where Luther would receive his doctorate in theology, and was trained in the reading and study of the Scriptures. So when, in 1517, there arose in Saxony the preaching and doings of men like Johann Tetzel going around performing major theatrics to sell indulgences to raise money for the building of St. Peter's in Rome, Luther chose this as the topic of discussion and debate among the Wittenberg academics.

That's what the 95 Theses were, a series of debate points to be discussed among the academics at the university. it is generally believed that the church door in Wittenberg served as a kind of university posting board, where invitations for discussion could be posted. The Theses were written in Latin, because Latin was the language of academia. In addition to posting the Theses to the church door, Luther also sent a copy along with an extremely cordial letter to Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz, whose jurisdiction covered Saxony and thus Witenberg, where Luther was both professor of theology and parish priest. The letter expressed concern over what people like Tetzel were doing, and how it was bringing shame not only Albrecht, but to the Pope himself, and to the Church. In addition to this, it is generally believed that some of Luther's students saw the Theses and on their own initiative translated them into German and then printed them en masse for public consumption without Luther's knowledge.

The 95 Theses, if read, are not a thunderous attack on the Catholic Church, or the Pope. Luther, instead, argued that the selling of indulgences were an abuse of proper ecclesiastical authority, a violation of it in fact, and contrary to pious Christian faith and practice. It wouldn't be until several years later, after Luther's excommunication because of his refusal to recant at the Diet of Worms and the hostility of church dignitaries and papal representatives that Luther would begin to directly confront the papacy as not being a victim of corruption, but a chief cause of corruption.

More meaningful to what would become the reform movement began under Luther are the 1518 Heidelberg Disputation, containing 28 Theses for debate in which Luther digs into much deeper theological content--though Luther here was still working from within established theological norms of the time, and demonstrating his strong Augustinian influence (not merely the influence of the Augustinian Order and Staupitiz' spiritual counsel within it, but more broadly the larger Augustinian theological tradition). Luther was not rebelling, or opposing, the theological tradition which he had inherited, but working within it; though in such a way that it created controversy. As Luther continued to refine his theological thinking, it did become more sharply divided from that of more established Roman norms; but nonetheless Luther still was never the founder of a new church; but was interested in reform of the established Church.

Thus from the Lutheran perspective, "Lutheranism" was never something fundamentally other than Catholic. The term "Lutheran" was not a self-imposed designation, but one thrust upon those who agreed with Luther and Luther's theological contemporaries. The term the "Lutherans" themselves preferred was "Evangelical", which even today in German carries the basic sense of what the English word "Protestant" does. Lutherans did not call themselves Lutherans or Protestants; the former was a term used to attack the reform movement; and the latter originated as a term referring to the German princes who formally protested the imperial decree at the Second Imperial Diet of Speyer.

The Lutheran distinctive is what Luther and the other Evangelical fathers would call the chief doctrine of the faith: Justification by grace alone through faith alone on Christ's account alone. On this, and this alone, they argued rests everything.

-CryptoLutheran

Interestingly, in terms of retaining Catholicity, Martin Luther was inspired by his realization of the existence of the Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox Churches, which were churches that were dogmatically Orthodox, very close to Luther in terms of their theological emphasis on communicatio idiomatum (and indeed, like Luther, they were falsely accused of monophysitism) obviously never under the control of the Roman Pope, but rather a fully Catholic church but not under the Pope of Rome (but rather the autocephalous Pope of Alexandria). So it made Luther realize that you could retain Catholicity without being in communion with the Roman pontiff, who essentially from Luther’s perspective had abandoned him. Martin Luther did not set out to start a denomination; the schism rather was a tragic result of an attempt to reform, although in the end, some of what Martin Luther pushed for was implemented by the Roman Church at the Council of Trent, for example, at Trent, the practice of selling indulgences was abolished and prohibited.

And I don’t think the numerous positive reforms that happened at Trent would have happened had it not been for Martin Luther, so he actually did succeed in his goal to reform the Roman church, even if he was not able to reform the Roman church as much as he had wanted, and it is clear that the Lutheran churches are among those churches which one can regard as Catholic, along with the Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrians and Romans.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Lutheran distinctive is what Luther and the other Evangelical fathers would call the chief doctrine of the faith: Justification by grace alone through faith alone on Christ's account alone. On this, and this alone, they argued rests everything.

Now the interesting thing about this is that its really not that much of a distinctive, in its Lutheran form at least, since Lutherans do not interpret this in a radical or extreme manner. And the only particularly novel aspect to this was the use of the word “alone,” since obviously everyone agrees that salvation is by grace through faith on the salvific work of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Now I can think of two Lutheran dogmatic points which are highly emphasized in Lutheranism, moreso than elsewhere, for example, the emphasis on the Law vs. Gospel, and on the idea of the Mass as Gottesdienst. However there really is not a major or important difference between Lutheranism and other traditional Christian churches, in my opinion, which is why I desire ecumenical reconciliation with the Lutherans.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Now the interesting thing about this is that its really not that much of a distinctive, in its Lutheran form at least, since Lutherans do not interpret this in a radical or extreme manner. And the only particularly novel aspect to this was the use of the word “alone,” since obviously everyone agrees that salvation is by grace through faith on the salvific work of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Now I can think of two Lutheran dogmatic points which are highly emphasized in Lutheranism, moreso than elsewhere, for example, the emphasis on the Law vs. Gospel, and on the idea of the Mass as Gottesdienst. However there really is not a major or important difference between Lutheranism and other traditional Christian churches, in my opinion, which is why I desire ecumenical reconciliation with the Lutherans.

The Law-Gospel Dialectic and the emphasis on God-come-down are, in a Lutheran view, intrinsically part of the proper understanding of Justification.

God reckons and declares me righteous on Christ's account, God does this through the Gospel, so that whenever, however, and wherever this Gospel is, God declares that I, wretch and hell-worthy sinner that I am, entirely righteous. So that in the Holy and Divine Mass, where the Word is preached and the Sacraments are administered, here God has descended to meet me, lowly and unworthy sinner, to clothe me with the pure white clothes of Jesus Christ and embrace me as a beloved and holy child of God.

Without a clear distinction and proper differentiation between God what commands (Law) and what God promises, does, and gives as pure grace (Gospel) there cannot be a correct understanding of Justification Coram Deo. Because the moment I confuse Law and Gospel, I will not hear Good News, nor rightly fear God who in His utmost righteousness and holiness declares what is right and, because of my sin, my un-rightness. And what will result is various ways of thinking and systems of doctrine which will engender in me either pride or despair, and the harshness of the Law will not humble me, .and the comfort of the Gospel will not soothe me, I will either live in a state of thinking I must do things in order to perceive a loving God or I will convince myself of my own goodness and cease to repent and be in a state of penitence before God.

These dangers abound and can be seen everywhere, including on this very forum in myriad ways. Where there is either no fear of God or no comfort in the Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

The Law-Gospel Dialectic and the emphasis on God-come-down are, in a Lutheran view, intrinsically part of the proper understanding of Justification.

God reckons and declares me righteous on Christ's account, God does this through the Gospel, so that whenever, however, and wherever this Gospel is, God declares that I, wretch and hell-worthy sinner that I am, entirely righteous. So that in the Holy and Divine Mass, where the Word is preached and the Sacraments are administered, here God has descended to meet me, lowly and unworthy sinner, to clothe me with the pure white clothes of Jesus Christ and embrace me as a beloved and holy child of God.

Without a clear distinction and proper differentiation between God what commands (Law) and what God promises, does, and gives as pure grace (Gospel) there cannot be a correct understanding of Justification Coram Deo. Because the moment I confuse Law and Gospel, I will not hear Good News, nor rightly fear God who in His utmost righteousness and holiness declares what is right and, because of my sin, my un-rightness. And what will result is various ways of thinking and systems of doctrine which will engender in me either pride or despair, and the harshness of the Law will not humble me, .and the comfort of the Gospel will not soothe me, I will either live in a state of thinking I must do things in order to perceive a loving God or I will convince myself of my own goodness and cease to repent and be in a state of penitence before God.

These dangers abound and can be seen everywhere, including on this very forum in myriad ways. Where there is either no fear of God or no comfort in the Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

Indeed. I don’t think these are really problematic issues, although I do believe that the Patristic witness is clear that the Divine Liturgy also contains a “bloodless and rational sacrifice,” also called in the Byzantine liturgy “a mercy of peace, a sacrifice of praise” and in other ancient texts “a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.” And during the Byzantine liturgy, the priest when consecrating the Eucharist intones “Thine own of Thine own, we Offer unto Thee, on behalf of all and for all.”

On the other hand, the Law/Gospel idea is not a bad one, although I will say the catechesis I received in LCMS parochial school took it to a degree that it managed to contradict the Epistle According to St. James and the statements of many Early Church Fathers, and was much closer to Evangelical Protestantism and Calvinism than to the sacramental theology we associate with the LCMS at present. This was of course during the period of time when the LCMS was in a transition from having been on the same course as the ALC and LCA, albeit moving at a slower pace, to becoming the mostly very liturgically traditional church that it is now. Indeed I was around four years old I think when the Seminex incident occurred.

 

[NeoWatchman]

Since so many people here seem knowledgeable on denominations here, perhaps this is the perfect place to find help as I'm looking for a new denomination; I'm overwhelmed with 40k+ choices.

Looking for these qualifiers:
-Protestant
-Solo sciptura (only scripture as the authority and not tradition/etc)
-Conservative core biblical beliefs (especially on pro-life, there is only ONE way to heaven and the path destruction is very wide and accommodating and most people sadly die on that path, 1 Cor 6:9-11, 1 Tim 1:9-10; Jesus IS God and is the son/avatar/theophany of God and is the promised Messiah)
-No women pastors
-Doesn't preach the foundation of salvation, laying on of hands, etc over and over again (Paul tells the churches to stop doing this and to move on from milk to meat so the church can grow spiritually). I grew up Baptist and all churches I've ever gone to do this all the time.
-Teaches a POST Tribulation rapture (at Christ's return only)
-Believes in a literal Antichrist and believes that most of the end-times prophecy has yet to happen
-No dietary restrictions
-Does NOT speak in tongues en masse during service (group babbling)

Thank you in advance.

 

[Lukaris]

Since so many people here seem knowledgeable on denominations here, perhaps this is the perfect place to find help as I'm looking for a new denomination; I'm overwhelmed with 40k+ choices.

Looking for these qualifiers:
-Protestant
-Solo sciptura (only scripture as the authority and not tradition/etc)
-Conservative core biblical beliefs (especially on pro-life, there is only ONE way to heaven and the path destruction is very wide and accommodating and most people sadly die on that path, 1 Cor 6:9-11, 1 Tim 1:9-10; Jesus IS God and is the son/avatar/theophany of God and is the promised Messiah)
-No women pastors
-Doesn't preach the foundation of salvation, laying on of hands, etc over and over again (Paul tells the churches to stop doing this and to move on from milk to meat so the church can grow spiritually). I grew up Baptist and all churches I've ever gone to do this all the time.
-Teaches a POST Tribulation rapture (at Christ's return only)
-Believes in a literal Antichrist and believes that most of the end-times prophecy has yet to happen
-No dietary restrictions
-Does NOT speak in tongues en masse during service (group babbling)

Thank you in advance.

I was briefly in a Landmark Baptist Church over 20 years ago. I don’t know where you could look precisely but maybe a Baptist Church that holds beliefs like those in a church I have linked?

Welcome! - Bloomsburg Baptist Church

For 50 years, Bloomsburg Baptist Church has been preaching the gospel and the clear teachings of the Bible. Everyone is welcome to attend!

bloomsburgbaptistchurch.net

 

[katya1965]

It might be useful to remember that denominations may differ not only in their doctrines, or also may use allegations of ecclesiastical irregularities as a factitious reason for the quarrel with their opponents, the real reason being elsewhere. St. Basil the Great in his 1st canon calls this parasynagogues—gatherings of disobedient Presbyters or Bishops and of uneducated laities. Look at the 13 denominations into which the ROCOR broke up. Do they all differ by their doctrines? It looks like they declare one and the same Orthodox doctrine, but are not in communion with each other. Each one of their first hierarchs declares that he is the only legitimate successor of Metropolitan Vitaly. 13 bishops are direct successors of One Metropolitan? Has this ever happened in the history of the Church before? And what would you say about a bishop who broke communion with his Metropolitan-First Hierarch, waited until he died, founded his own denomination, declared himself the sole heir of his former First Hierarch and canonized him as a saint?