LarrySanger.org

The questions that distinguish the denominations

I want to ask my generous and well-informed Christian readership here for their feedback on a list of questions.

The task is fairly straightforward to state, not maybe not easy to execute: Formulate a list of questions that is minimally sufficient to investigate where one “fits” within the broad denominational landscape. There are other differences, but they are more minor and they are “redundant” in that where some distinctives apply, others will as well (e.g., if Mary is mediatrix, then Purgatory). The hypothesis is that if one had (as unlikely as this might be) completely satisfactory answers to all the questions, then one would know just where one fit in, denominationally.

Broadest distinctives: Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant

These distinguish between Catholics and Orthodox, and between those two and Protestants. Some of these also distinguish between categories of Protestant denominations.

  • What is the rule of faith: sola scriptura, the Church, or something else?
  • Should we affirm sola fide, i.e., that we are saved by faith alone, or do our meritorious works also contribute to our salvation?
  • Can and should we pray to the saints?
  • Is it acceptable to reverence (e.g., kiss, pray before) icons?
  • Is Mary to be accorded special honor above other saints, is she a special intercessor, is she “mother of God,” etc.?
  • Do Communion and Baptism (and others, if considered sacraments) contribute to our salvation?

“High church” and “low church” distinctives

Basically, some churches continue the “high church” traditions found in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. These distinguish, for example, Lutheranism and Anglicanism, and in some cases Presbyterianism, from “less formal” churches.

  • Is the Lord’s Supper symbolically/memorially or really the body and blood of Christ?
  • Is pedobaptism sufficient, or must one be a believer to be properly baptized into the Church?
  • Should church governance be episcopal (bishops), presbyterian (elders), or congregational (local autonomy)?
  • Should worship be liturgical and structured or informal and spontaneous?

Particularly Protestant distinctives

These distinguish between broad branches of, especially, low-church Protestantism, but even these can distinguish, e.g., Orthodoxy (in the case of sanctification and charismata).

  • Does God reprobate the damned from eternity, so that there is nothing they can do to be saved? Did Jesus die for all of mankind or only the elect?
  • Is the Christian life primarily about being declared righteous before God (justification), or about being made righteous (sanctification)?
  • Is the miraculous gifting of the Holy Spirit (e.g., tongues, prophecy, healing) common and expected to be found in the church today, or did it mostly (or entirely) cease after the apostolic age?

Other distinctives

These questions regard innovations unique to the last 150 or 200 years or so of church history.

  • Should explicit creeds be adopted, to distinguish a denomination from others?
  • Can Scripture be mistaken or is it “inerrant in the original autographs”?
  • Is it acceptable to have extremely large churches, with “performances” for “audiences”?
  • Should the Church actively engage in socio-political issues, or is its primary role spiritual?

Caveats: I know there are other questions (many other questions; see the excellent Ready to Harvest YouTube channel) on which denominations differ. There is overlap. Again, a person who answers a certain way about Mary and praying to saints will also answer a predictable way about the Apocrypha and Purgatory. I also ask no questions about pre-, a-, and post-millennialism, not because they are unimportant, but because they are not regarded as primary distinctives (even if they are distinctives in some cases). I also know there are many “What denomination am I?” polls. Most of them aren’t very thoughtfully constructed, it seems to me, so they won’t help. I have taken many such polls, for whatever they’re worth.

If you want to help, here are my questions for you:

1. Bearing the above caveats in mind, would you add any questions to the list, either on grounds of the importance or because they draw important denominational (or congregational) distinctions?

2. Would you revise how I formulate a question (or more than one) in some enlightening way?

3. Do you know of any books that systematically treat of these questions, or a similar list of questions, in a reasonably rigorous way? I do not mean just any old theological text, which do treat of these questions, but they are not focused on them in particular, nor are they designed to help the reader decide between positions on them. I also do not mean books for total beginners. I mean serious books for people who actually read theology.

The task is to make a fairly minimal list of the most fundamental questions and those that mark the differences between the major denominations.

by

Larry Sanger

“Internet Knowledge Organizer.” Currently President of the Knowledge Standards Foundation, started Wikipedia and various other educational and reference sites. Ph.D., Philosophy, Ohio State, 2000. [read more]

Posted

in

Comments

Please do dive in (politely). I want your reactions!

55 responses to “The questions that distinguish the denominations”

  1. Nathan

    Regarding your either/or on the Lord’s Supper in “High church” and “low church” distinctives, traditional Calvinists (read: traditional Presbyterians) would not assent to either position, since Calvin espoused a “real spiritual presence” view that is somewhat antithetical to the Zwinglian memorialist language. And then Lutherans would make distinctions (but would probably tick “yes” to a “really the body and blood of Christ” question given such a format). Would it not be better to render this question thus: “are the elements of the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper really the body and blood of Christ or not?” Would this do better at distinguishing high church (Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran*, Anglo-Catholic?) and Low Church (the rest of Protestantism aside from the Anglo-Catholics).

    Similarly, since Protestants will espouse or embrace all sorts of views in terms of Christian practice (such as using icons and praying “through” them to God–the way you ask a friend for prayer; such as embracing liturgy), it may be better to render other questions as “must x or not?” E.g., “Should worship be liturgical and structured or informal and spontaneous?” could be “must worship be liturgical or not?” since Catholics and Orthodox worship must be liturgical, they would answer “yes,” but since Protestants *can* embrace liturgy to varying degrees, but hold this as no essential part of their Christian expression (and thus acknowledge the validity of spontaneous worship even if they are liturgical) , they would answer “not.”

    Reply
    1. Larry Sanger

      Good points here, thanks.

      Reply
  2. Adrian Clark

    In my near sixty year journey from baptism at six months into the Church of England (“remember your baptism”, Martin Luther, 1483 – 1546), to thirty years in the trough of narcissism, through baptist ecclesiology (2008 – 2015) and onto Anglo Catholicism, I posit the following:
    1. Who do you recognise as authorititive in matters of rules of the faith?
    2. What is the role of mystery in understanding the attributes of God?
    3. How does God reveal himself such that we can know his purpose for our lives?

    Reply
  3. CC

    I’d add something about creation and the first 11 chapters of the Bible. They are either true thus trustworthy or they are not. If they are not, can we trust the rest of Scripture? In my opinion creation is on the line between first and second degree orders, probably closer to first.

    Reply
  4. ccate

    Read more church history to know how the modern distinctives came into being. A history of doctrine particularly (John Hannah, Our Legacy… he’s fair I believe…ask your buddy M Svigel about it).

    Was infant bapt maintained because it identified an empire’s citizens? The root of many practices has nothing to do with the proof texts used to defend it.

    What percentage of the Anglican liturgy was born out of the medieval Catholic church at its worst?

    Who added the phrase “and from the son” to the nicene creed and when? Was that ecumenical? Is it really biblical or did it make the trinity more symmetrical?

    Reply
    1. Larry Sanger

      Well, I have read some. I’m working my way through Allison’s Historical Theology, which is useful for these purposes for sure. Any systematic theology (I’ve read a couple) helps. But they don’t focus on helping a modern person to decide on the theological merits of various answers to these questions, which is a task familiar to philosophers maybe more than theologians.

      Reply
  5. ccate

    Either the church wrote the bible or not. That is central here. imho the bible should be writing the church. I support “private judgement”… note the vast majority of the NT is written directly to lay people, not exclusively to leadership. Of particular interest to me is the correction Paul gives about eucharist… not correcting the leadership but the lay people. There are no instructions as far as I can see in the letters to leaders on how to “administer”…

    raze the bastions I say.

    Is there just one voice/view derivable from the early fathers? Eastern or Western? Latin or Greek? Was the Catholic church ever pure in its Bishops? Apostolic succession is unsustainable. The papacy is unsustainable.

    Is the text infallible in what it asserts? How does the bible say what it says? How to extract meaning from it.

    In other words I think you are asking the wrong questions, to come from the top down. I think you should continue as you started to come from the bottom up.

    I think along the way you can still be obedient to Christ in having some sort of time spent with believers face to face (the gathering together). Some would say you must be able to point to an elder or better a group of elders as “your own”… choose your elders wisely, some of them will dare to tell you what to do. What is an elder allowed to command? Hebrews suggest you must obey… again, choose wisely.

    You can be in a room with believers with whom you disagree and even listen to a bad preacher without being in disobedience to Christ.

    Reply
    1. Larry Sanger

      Well, suffice to say I’m indeed working on a bottom-up account of Christian theology as well. But I know enough of both Scripture and theology at this point to come to some provisional conclusions (as I have done about the Eucharist, see my three videos about it) about issues of application on which I have only some clear impressions, nothing actually worked out.

      Thanks for the comments; I agree with pretty much everything you say.

      Reply
  6. Evan

    “Church councils/church fathers are to be generally trusted or generally ignored?” as part of the approach to historical Christianity.

    Reply
    1. Larry Sanger

      An important question, but does it really uniquely distinguish any denominations, and in a way that does not overlap other (perhaps more fundamental) questions on the list? Which?

      Reply
      1. Evan

        The dispensationalist or the reconstructionist would differ from everyone else on this, I think. I’m thinking the IFB groups don’t look unique without this question. There are also groups that are low church non-denom that would ascribe no authority to church history or those fathers.

        So I guess this is a sub-question between sola scriptura and high church/low church, but it splits a lot of groups. Anglican/Methodists sometimes use “prima scriptura” to show that they accept scripture as the greatest theological authority, but that there are additional secondary authorities (church history, reason). Pentecostals might also use “prima scriptura” and have the charasmatic gifts as their secondary authority. This question of secondary authority is huge.

        Reply
  7. Emanuel

    [Ed. note: the following is partly LLM generated. Such responses should either be labeled as such or not submitted.]

    Molinism and Provisionism are theological perspectives that do not neatly fit into the traditional Catholic, Orthodox, or Calvinistic Protestant frameworks. While Molinism is often associated with Catholic thought, some Protestants also hold to it. Provisionism, on the other hand, is a growing theological movement within Protestantism that rejects both Calvinism and Arminianism while emphasizing human responsibility and God’s universal provision of salvation.

    Given this, it would be valuable to incorporate questions that distinguish these views as well. Here are some additional questions that could be included:

    *Broadest distinctives:*
    – Does God’s knowledge of future events include counterfactuals (i.e., what free creatures *would* do under different circumstances), and does He use this knowledge in determining His providential plans? (Molinism)

    *Particularly Protestant distinctives:*
    – Is prevenient grace necessary for one to respond to the gospel, or is human ability intact enough to do so without irresistible grace? (Provisionism)
    – Does God desire the salvation of every individual, and is salvation genuinely available to all without unconditional election? (Provisionism)
    – Is God’s sovereignty best understood as exhaustive determinism, or does it allow for libertarian free will? (Molinism vs. Calvinism)
    – Did Jesus’ atonement provide an actual payment only for the elect, or was it provisionally available to all? (Provisionism)

    These perspectives are growing in influence and deserve to be represented alongside the more traditional frameworks you have outlined. By broadening the scope of your questions, your list will better accommodate those who do not fit squarely into Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Calvinistic Protestantism.

    I hope these refinements help in making your framework even more comprehensive.

    Reply
    1. Larry Sanger

      I’m afraid this sounds and is formatted as if it were automatically generated. Moreover, it commits a mistake common to LLMs: it misunderstood the task. The task is not simply to add more theological questions. It is to devise questions that importantly distinguish between the denominations, and questions that are not worse than the others here at distinguishing some particular major denomination or other.

      Reply
      1. Emanuel

        I’ll admit I overrefined my response using A.I. That wasn’t my goal though.
        I appreciate the discussion and would love to hear your thoughts on where you would categorise molinism and provisionism perspectives.

        Reply
        1. Larry Sanger

          Well, I admit I haven’t studied molinism yet. I know what it is, but have had too many higher priorities in my reading…

          What I’m pretty sure about is that no denominations differ from each other about it.

  8. Otto Pellinen

    I think there should be questions clearly demarcating between catholics and eastern orthodox. One could also include the oriental orthodox (Christological dogmas):
    https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Christianity_Branches.svg

    At least papal infallibility should be included, but it seems also some questions on which Rome has ruled seem to be relevant, such as the view on original sin (the Augustinian view is the grounds for the Marian doctrines of immaculate conception and assumption) and purgatory? Sure, they go hand in hand with papal infallibility, but if one wouldn’t disagree with anything the pope teaches, papal infallibility would become less problematic.

    I think a question on the role of ecumenical councils should also be there with the papal question. If one doesn’t admit any authority on any councils, then this opens up a lot of questions up to debate, as one is left to interpret the Bible on one’s own devices. One can quickly come up with very unorthodox interpretations just like Jehovah’s witnesses on trinity.

    Even sola scriptura requires implicitly some kind of authority (even infallibility?) for some form of tradition to sort out the appropriate canon: how do we know what books should be given sacred authority, if we don’t take into account what books historical Christianity actually canonised and on what grounds?

    Reply
    1. Santtu Hyytiäinen

      The way one views original sin is indeed important. For me, whether the Augustinian view is correct or not is the deciding factor between credo- and paedobaptism. As a result it is also the hinge between lutheranism and pentecostalism.

      Reply
      1. Larry Sanger

        Good point. Not just credo- vs. paedobaptism, but the Augustinian view of Original Sin and free will is associated with total depravity (the “T” in TULIP), and it helps drives views about Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism (and so, especially, is relevant to debates over Calvinism again). It is also pressed into service to support sacramentalism. So, I guess I’m on board there.

        Reply
    2. Larry Sanger

      Fair point, I should at least add the filioque question. And one about the Pope, at least adding it to the church governance question, seems important for that purpose as well.

      Reply
  9. Doug

    There is a “good news bad news” with the framing of some of the questions.

    The good news: they reflect historic thinking on the matter.
    The bad news: they reflect historic thinking on the matter. 😀

    Unfortunately, the questions are often beset by denominational baggage. Now that might be appropriate to navigate between denominations, if that’s the goal. But, unfortunately, denominational distinctives often befog Christian essentials.

    Consider, for example, the question “should we affirm ‘sola fide’?” — well, of course we should, but let’s ask, instead, what is the essence and object of said ‘fide’? Because if its essence is “a life-directing trust” and the object is Jesus, then fide is certainly sufficient (and will, naturally, be accompanied by meritorious works in keeping with Jesus’ instructions).

    Reply
    1. Larry Sanger

      Re sola fide, you raise a point I often make myself. I know what you are saying here generally, but it’s a complaint about how denominations separate and the coherence of the grounds for separation, not about how I formulate the questions.

      Reply
  10. Larry Sanger

    ChatGPT-4 gave some harebrained book suggestions but after some nudging I got these useful items out of it:

    “The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity & Diversity” – Roger E. Olson
    Olson explicitly examines theological diversity across Christian traditions, offering a comparative approach that would help a reader navigate major doctrinal and denominational differences.

    “Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology” – Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy
    While limited to evangelicalism, this book is structured as a point-counterpoint discussion of major theological differences, helping readers identify where they fit doctrinally.

    “Four Views on the Church” (Counterpoints Series) – Edited by Chad Owen Brand and R. Stanton Norman
    Part of the Counterpoints series, this book compares different ecclesiological models (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Reformed, and Baptist). While not exhaustive, it does precisely what you’re asking: helping a reader think through denominational distinctives.

    Reply
1 2 3 4
Newer Comments

Leave a Reply to Diane Sperber Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Log in