|
Post by revmichael on May 18, 2007 7:25:54 GMT
On the 'How Strange' thread Beau has asked,
'what is the differences between Methodists, Baptist and CofE?'
When the Roman Catholic faith was brought to Britain by Augustine in 597 AD there were already groups of Christians here - probably through the influence of people from the Mediterranean area buying tin and so on.
By the time of Henry VII there were groups within the church who were unhappy because of the Pope's power (the Bishop of Rome) and also that the teaching of the early church fathers had equal value with the Bible. Everyone knows about Henry's break with Rome so he could get his divorce and his formation of the Church of England. However, that was only an excuse so he could get his own way. But various church leaders used it to create a Church based solely on the teaching of the Bible.
Before too long there were some groups who felt that this Reformation (of the church) did not go far enough. They were unhappy with Bishops being appointed and said that each congregation should rule its own affairs. These people became Congregationalists or Independents.
(In Scotland there were also groups who also objected to Bishops; they formed presbyteries - and became Presbyterians)
However, quite soon some of these Independent felt that baptizing babies was wrong and that only people who were old enough to understand the meaning of baptism should be baptized, and that this should be done by total immersion (Gk Baptizo = to dip). Because of opposition to them in this country, the first English Baptist Church was formed in Holland in 1512 (I think).
That covers the C of E and the Baptists.
In the next century John Wesley and his brother, the hymn-writer Charles, were successful Church of England ministers. But John's preaching drew such large crowds that he had to preach in the open air; he travelled around the country with his preaching and teaching ministry. Sadly some Parish churches were barred to him (because each priest was supposed to stick to his own parish). He remained an Anglican (i.e. C of E) priest for the rest of his life. He was very methodical in the way he organized his converts. They had regular classes where they learned the Christian faith and gathered together in the weekevenings to encourage one another. Poor working class people were also attracted to his groups. After he died the Methodist Church broke away from the Church of England and set up their own churches. Later these too divided into different groupings.
(in the eighteenth and nineteenth Century the more Bible-based Anglican churches were sometimes called 'Methodists'. John Newton, the converted slave trader - Spiritual advisor to William Wilberforce - was called a Methodist = low church).
There are other major differences but I hope that explains a little.
If I have got any of this brief summery wrong, or any point is unclear, please correct me here - or contact me via pm.
|
|
|
Post by Beau Leggs on May 18, 2007 15:56:18 GMT
I was more referring to beliefs / services, ie the things that distinguish one group from another. You can leave out the sub-groups, as these tend to get very messy.
|
|
|
Post by revmichael on May 18, 2007 16:52:21 GMT
I was more referring to beliefs / services, ie the things that distinguish one group from another. You can leave out the sub-groups, as these tend to get very messy. Well, some Church of England churches just have Prayer Book (i.e. set) services but it seems to me that an increasing number have a much freer kind of service with different people taking part in them - a mixture of songs, readings, prayers and teaching. Methodist and Baptists would be similar but each Baptists church rules itself, appoints and pays its own minister while the Methodist and Anglicans are more centrally run. Does that help?
|
|
|
Post by Mahatt Micoat on May 18, 2007 18:07:14 GMT
Thanks Rev (I never know whether to call you Rev or Michael, I may stick to RM in future if you don't mind?) I found that VERY interesting. My knowledge of the different denominations was very sketchy and that's made it a lot clearer.
|
|
|
Post by revmichael on May 18, 2007 18:31:28 GMT
Thanks Rev (I never know whether to call you Rev or Michael, I may stick to RM in future if you don't mind?) I found that VERY interesting. My knowledge of the different denominations was very sketchy and that's made it a lot clearer. And I shall call you MM. Thanks so much for your kind comments - I could have gone into greater detail and made it even more boring. Please call me just Michael (well not Just Michael as in Just William) but merely Michael - everyone does - even Sarah Kennedy, and Sir TW!
|
|
|
Post by Mahatt Micoat on May 18, 2007 18:52:57 GMT
Thanks Michael. I remember saying I was going to only (or mostly) be a reader of this board, funny how I've been adding stuff almost every day since.
|
|
|
Post by Beau Leggs on May 18, 2007 18:57:48 GMT
Thanks Rev (I never know whether to call you Rev or Michael, I may stick to RM in future if you don't mind?) I found that VERY interesting. My knowledge of the different denominations was very sketchy and that's made it a lot clearer. And I shall call you MM. Thanks so much for your kind comments - I could have gone into greater detail and made it even more boring. Please call me just Michael (well not Just Michael as in Just William) but merely Michael - everyone does - even Sarah Kennedy, and Sir TW! It couldn't be uninteresting as I am asking for an explanation. It is more of the main differences in beliefs, ie the different interpretations.
|
|
|
Post by revmichael on May 18, 2007 19:37:34 GMT
And I shall call you MM. Thanks so much for your kind comments - I could have gone into greater detail and made it even more boring. Please call me just Michael (well not Just Michael as in Just William) but merely Michael - everyone does - even Sarah Kennedy, and Sir TW! It couldn't be uninteresting as I am asking for an explanation. It is more of the main differences in beliefs, ie the different interpretations. The beliefs are very similar - the Trinity of the Godhead Father, Son and Holy Spirit and Jesus dying on the cross to pay for the sins of his people. Each church differs slightly in its interpretation of these beliefs. But really their main differences are not beliefs but the way they organize themselves. If you can think of some specific questions then I will try to answer them. I'm not trying to be evasive - I just don't know where to start as almost every church (even in the same denomination) does things slightly differently.
|
|
|
Post by revmichael on May 18, 2007 19:42:33 GMT
Thanks Michael. I remember saying I was going to only (or mostly) be a reader of this board, funny how I've been adding stuff almost every day since. And it's good to have your contributions. Please keep them coming.
|
|
|
Post by BjornTobyStomped on May 18, 2007 21:12:46 GMT
Thanks Michael. I remember saying I was going to only (or mostly) be a reader of this board, funny how I've been adding stuff almost every day since. And it's good to have your contributions. Please keep them coming. Yes I have on the other thread Michael sorry.
|
|
|
Post by sarah on May 18, 2007 22:34:42 GMT
I must confess to being a lapsed christian. however, I do believe in the old saying, do unto other as you would do etc. even my mum, bless her, used to say, that you don't have to go to church to pray!
sorry if i'm rambling. but thanks you rev, michael, for this board. xx
|
|
|
Post by Beau Leggs on May 18, 2007 22:39:56 GMT
It couldn't be uninteresting as I am asking for an explanation. It is more of the main differences in beliefs, ie the different interpretations. The beliefs are very similar - the Trinity of the Godhead Father, Son and Holy Spirit and Jesus dying on the cross to pay for the sins of his people. Each church differs slightly in its interpretation of these beliefs. But really their main differences are not beliefs but the way they organize themselves. If you can think of some specific questions then I will try to answer them. I'm not trying to be evasive - I just don't know where to start as almost every church (even in the same denomination) does things slightly differently. That is the reason I only asked for the basic groups differences. As soon as you go into subgroups the differences can be very vague. I know that the split between the orthodox church and the Roman church was because of many reason, mainly power, but the religious one was the rank of the Holy Spirit. Apparently in the OC it was an equal share between God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, whereas in the RC the Holy Spirit was degraded down to a messenger. Things may have changed since the split, but that was the given reason.
|
|
|
Post by Lord L on May 19, 2007 8:59:09 GMT
The beliefs are very similar - the Trinity of the Godhead Father, Son and Holy Spirit and Jesus dying on the cross to pay for the sins of his people. Each church differs slightly in its interpretation of these beliefs. But really their main differences are not beliefs but the way they organize themselves. If you can think of some specific questions then I will try to answer them. I'm not trying to be evasive - I just don't know where to start as almost every church (even in the same denomination) does things slightly differently. That is the reason I only asked for the basic groups differences. As soon as you go into subgroups the differences can be very vague. I know that the split between the orthodox church and the Roman church was because of many reason, mainly power, but the religious one was the rank of the Holy Spirit. Apparently in the OC it was an equal share between God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, whereas in the RC the Holy Spirit was degraded down to a messenger. Things may have changed since the split, but that was the given reason. I think you are mistaken Beau. The Catholic Church has always held as an article of Faith that the Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity: He is God the Holy Spirit alongside and the same as God the Father and God the Son. The Nicene Creed, written several centuries before the Great Schism, states: '... we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life. He proceeds from the Father and the Son, and with the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets.' It is the so-called 'filioque clause' which (among other things) caused problems between the East and the West. The Western (Catholic) Church had, and has, 'proceeds from the Father AND the Son' and holds it to be doctrinal. The Eastern (Orthodox) Churches have the version 'proceeds from the Father' only.
|
|
|
Post by revmichael on May 19, 2007 9:39:42 GMT
The beliefs are very similar - the Trinity of the Godhead Father, Son and Holy Spirit and Jesus dying on the cross to pay for the sins of his people. Each church differs slightly in its interpretation of these beliefs. But really their main differences are not beliefs but the way they organize themselves. If you can think of some specific questions then I will try to answer them. I'm not trying to be evasive - I just don't know where to start as almost every church (even in the same denomination) does things slightly differently. That is the reason I only asked for the basic groups differences. As soon as you go into subgroups the differences can be very vague. I know that the split between the orthodox church and the Roman church was because of many reason, mainly power, but the religious one was the rank of the Holy Spirit. Apparently in the OC it was an equal share between God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, whereas in the RC the Holy Spirit was degraded down to a messenger. Things may have changed since the split, but that was the given reason. Thanks Beau. I know that the Roman Catholic Church and (I believe) the Orthodox church claims never to change, but I'm sure there must be slight signs of movement between. Things are not so clear-cut between the various Protestant denominations these days.
|
|
|
Post by revmichael on May 19, 2007 9:41:30 GMT
That is the reason I only asked for the basic groups differences. As soon as you go into subgroups the differences can be very vague. I know that the split between the orthodox church and the Roman church was because of many reason, mainly power, but the religious one was the rank of the Holy Spirit. Apparently in the OC it was an equal share between God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, whereas in the RC the Holy Spirit was degraded down to a messenger. Things may have changed since the split, but that was the given reason. I think you are mistaken Beau. The Catholic Church has always held as an article of Faith that the Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity: He is God the Holy Spirit alongside and the same as God the Father and God the Son. The Nicene Creed, written several centuries before the Great Schism, states: '... we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life. He proceeds from the Father and the Son, and with the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets.' It is the so-called 'filioque clause' which (among other things) caused problems between the East and the West. The Western (Catholic) Church had, and has, 'proceeds from the Father AND the Son' and holds it to be doctrinal. The Eastern (Orthodox) Churches have the version 'proceeds from the Father' only. That is very helpful my Lord. Thanks. I was hoping that you would venture on to these threads - as I know that you are well versed in RC doctrine and practices. These are things about which a bumbling baptist (even one without captial letters) knows little.
|
|
|
Post by smiffy on May 19, 2007 10:20:22 GMT
I used to know an Evangelical (sp?) minister who was given a Baptist Chapel with no more than 5 in the congregation. It now has a full house each service, playgroups, teen groups, congregational dinners that have to be done frequently and he has had to go freelance on his main wage job as he is too busy.
|
|
|
Post by revmichael on May 19, 2007 10:25:38 GMT
I used to know an Evangelical (sp?) minister who was given a Baptist Chapel with no more than 5 in the congregation. It now has a full house each service, playgroups, teen groups, congregational dinners that have to be done frequently and he has had to go freelance on his main wage job as he is too busy. That's good news Smiffy. My last pastorate started with nine people and there 150 at one time, and 130 when I retired. We did all kinds of things in the community as well. This does happen a lot. It's just the decline a churches that seem to remain in the news.
|
|
|
Post by Lord L on May 19, 2007 17:49:58 GMT
I think you are mistaken Beau. The Catholic Church has always held as an article of Faith that the Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity: He is God the Holy Spirit alongside and the same as God the Father and God the Son. The Nicene Creed, written several centuries before the Great Schism, states: '... we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life. He proceeds from the Father and the Son, and with the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets.' It is the so-called 'filioque clause' which (among other things) caused problems between the East and the West. The Western (Catholic) Church had, and has, 'proceeds from the Father AND the Son' and holds it to be doctrinal. The Eastern (Orthodox) Churches have the version 'proceeds from the Father' only. That is very helpful my Lord. Thanks. I was hoping that you would venture on to these threads - as I know that you are well versed in RC doctrine and practices. These are things about which a bumbling baptist (even one without captial letters) knows little. But I am only a Catholic in the sense that I am most certainly not anything else! It is a matter of cultural, historical and ideological identity, not faith.
|
|
|
Post by revmichael on May 19, 2007 18:13:44 GMT
That is very helpful my Lord. Thanks. I was hoping that you would venture on to these threads - as I know that you are well versed in RC doctrine and practices. These are things about which a bumbling baptist (even one without captial letters) knows little. But I am only a Catholic in the sense that I am most certainly not anything else! It is a matter of cultural, historical and ideological identity, not faith. But we're still glad to have your helpful comments.
|
|
|
Post by Glen B Ogle on May 19, 2007 21:38:05 GMT
Of course sometimes there is no differences between the denominations - the church I attend is, like most in Milton Keynes, ecumenical. In our case we include C of E, Methodist, Baptist Union and United Reform Church, although there is one church which also includes RC as well.
I think the differences of opinion have mainly been about organisational details rather than doctrinal ones - for some years we couldn't have a Church Council as that was seen as C of E and one of the members, who was URC, objected.
Not that I claim any expertise on the subject having been a lapsed Christian until a few years back, and having got involved more from the practical side than the spiritual (I own several parafin lamps and as a 16th Century manor chapel the church has never had electricity*). I do now consider myself a practicing christian however, although my attendance at services is patchy partly due to the fact I live 25 miles away!
Glen
* Our electicity will hopefully be connected in the next few weeks having finally sorted the final obstacle - Great Crested Newts in the ducting.
|
|