Church Of Ireland V Presbyterian

C__MC

Could anyone outline the differences to me please between each church?

martinedwards

C OF I has a prayer book, very structured service and hierarchy, bishops and archbishops who are ordained for life. Can LOOK very similar to RC.

Presbys have no prayer books, so the service has the chance to be more free form, and clergy are employed by individual churches, with the moderator being a one year appointment.

Both have some churches which are very contemporary and up to date, and some which are barely out of the 1800s.

and they're both protestant of course!

(I've been both over the years)

antiskeptic

martinedwards wrote: »

C OF I has a prayer book, very structured service and hierarchy, bishops and archbishops who are ordained for life. Can LOOK very similar to RC.

Presbys have no prayer books, so the service has the chance to be more free form, and clergy are employed by individual churches, with the moderator being a one year appointment.

Both have some churches which are very contemporary and up to date, and some which are barely out of the 1800s.

and they're both protestant of course!

(I've been both over the years)

Isn't Presbyterian Reformed (Calvinist) and CoI not necessarily? Or some such

martinedwards

Presbys love a bit of Calvin but both are reformed (ie Protestant)

E mac

Presbyterians tend to look down on C of I caus there too mainstream and not pious enough...though Presbyterians were treated not much better than Catholics in Ireland during the 18-19 century

antiskeptic

martinedwards wrote: »

Presbys love a bit of Calvin but both are reformed (ie Protestant)

Ain't nothing like a bit of Total Depravity to set off your Sunday morn..

ðŸ˜

antiskeptic

martinedwards wrote: »

Presbys love a bit of Calvin but both are reformed (ie Protestant)

What about Protestants who aren't Reformed. I thought Arminians would be Protestants?

theological

C__MC wrote: »

Could anyone outline the differences to me please between each church?

Both are descended from different branches during the Protestant Reformation.

Presbyterians follow after the legacy of the Swiss and Scottish reformations. John Knox the chief reformer of the Scottish Reformation was influenced by the work of John Calvin while he was in exile in Switzerland.

Anglicans (the Church of Ireland is an Anglican church) follow after the legacy of the English Reformation, which was influenced via Lutheranism and a lesser extent through the Swiss Reformation (for example predestination is mentioned in the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion). Anglicanism is probably more complicated in its structures, and in its particular traditions than Presbyterianism.

Presbyterians structure their churches different to Anglicans. Anglicans follow the ecclesiastical church structure similar to Roman Catholics with archbishops, bishops, priests and deacons. Presbyterians don't have this structure, they follow a model of ministers, elders and deacons.

ChrisJ84

theological wrote: »

Both are descended from different branches during the Protestant Reformation.

Presbyterians follow after the legacy of the Swiss and Scottish reformations. John Knox the chief reformer of the Scottish Reformation was influenced by the work of John Calvin while he was in exile in Switzerland.

Anglicans (the Church of Ireland is an Anglican church) follow after the legacy of the English Reformation, which was influenced via Lutheranism and a lesser extent through the Swiss Reformation (for example predestination is mentioned in the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion). Anglicanism is probably more complicated in its structures, and in its particular traditions than Presbyterianism.

Presbyterians structure their churches different to Anglicans. Anglicans follow the ecclesiastical church structure similar to Roman Catholics with archbishops, bishops, priests and deacons. Presbyterians don't have this structure, they follow a model of ministers, elders and deacons.

This is a great summary. There are any number of books out there on the reformation, but one of the best short introductions that I've read is this. It was written 150 or so years ago but is very readable and informative.

The only other thing I'd add is that whatever the differences in doctrine or tradition, there is huge variation from church to church within both denominations. A lot of that comes down to the emphasis the reformation put on the principles of freedom of individual conscience and local church government.

ChrisJ84

antiskeptic wrote: »

What about Protestants who aren't Reformed. I thought Arminians would be Protestants?

I think martin was just using reformed (small r!) as shorthand for following the reformation, i.e. Protestant.

Arminianism and Reformed (big R!) are just different branches of Protestantism. Arminians are more heavily influenced by one of the Dutch reformers, Jacob Arminius. Reformed churches are more heavily influenced by the Swiss reformation (Calvin and Zwingli).

antiskeptic

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I think martin was just using reformed (small r!) as shorthand for following the reformation, i.e. Protestant.

Arminianism and Reformed (big R!) are just different branches of Protestantism. Arminians are more heavily influenced by one of the Dutch reformers, Jacob Arminius. Reformed churches are more heavily influenced by the Swiss reformation (Calvin and Zwingli).

Having seen the quite virulent discussions between A and R on CARM I wouldn't use the word 'just'. The R's appear to think of God programming them to believe whereas the A's hold out the role of a persons free will in their salvation.

Pretty different views of God I'd suggest..

ChrisJ84

antiskeptic wrote: »

Having seen the quite virulent discussions between A and R on CARM I wouldn't use the word 'just'. The R's appear to think of God programming them to believe whereas the A's hold out the role of a persons free will in their salvation.

Pretty different views of God I'd suggest..

Not so much different views of God as different views of how God accomplishes salvation. So this amounts to a disagreement "within the family," and while these things are important we should probably also avoid anathematising each other

I also think it's important to represent one another fairly. Arminians still affirm that God is sovereign, and the Reformed still affirm free will and the free offer of the gospel to everyone. I've never heard someone with Reformed convictions describe their position as God "programming" anyone.

Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God is a great place to get a short introduction to the Reformed view, and it's a book that's had a massive impact on my own thinking on this.

antiskeptic

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Not so much different views of God as different views of how God accomplishes salvation. So this amounts to a disagreement "within the family," and while these things are important we should probably also avoid anathematising each other

I also think it's important to represent one another fairly. Arminians still affirm that God is sovereign, and the Reformed still affirm free will and the free offer of the gospel to everyone. I've never heard someone with Reformed convictions describe their position as God "programming" anyone.

Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God is a great place to get a short introduction to the Reformed view, and it's a book that's had a massive impact on my own thinking on this.

Maybe the Calvinist on CARM misrepresent but the view is widespread there: God choses whose eyes to open without any input from the free will of man.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but if God spanners on a man such that the man free willingly choses Him then there is a problem with free will. Namely the spannering upon this man and not that man by God.

If, without this spannering upon, a man will never freely chose God (and conversely, with that spannering upon man will surely plump for God) then surely free will not be involved.

In a nutshell, do you see it working differently?

ChrisJ84

antiskeptic wrote: »

Maybe the Calvinist on CARM misrepresent but the view is widespread there: God choses whose eyes to open without any input from the free will of man.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but if God spanners on a man such that the man free willingly choses Him then there is a problem with free will. Namely the spannering upon this man and not that man by God.

If, without this spannering upon, a man will never freely chose God (and conversely, with that spannering upon man will surely plump for God) then surely free will not be involved.

In a nutshell, do you see it working differently?

There's a couple of things to say here I think. One relates to free will generally, the other to how Christianity sees our state before we come to saving faith.

First thing is that free will is never free in an absolute sense, for anyone in any circumstances. Our will is always constrained by things like our history, temperament, environment etc. In that context, I don't see how God's drawing us to himself is a problem.

Second thing is that, from a Christian perspective, our wills are actively bent towards evil and away from God. God has to intervene in some way to change that, or else we would not and could not choose to put our faith in him. Roman Catholics and different branches of Protestantism see this differently and articulate it in different ways, but as far as I know all acknowledge that God plays an active role in our salvation.

The 39 Articles of Religion (the Anglican / CoI doctrinal foundation) speak to these things, particularly articles 9, 10 and 17 (apologies for the big cut and paste):

9. Of Original or Birth–Sin.
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, ,(which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.

10. Of Free–Will.
The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith; and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

17. Of Predestination and Election.
Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour.

Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God’s purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only–begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God’s mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God’s Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.

ChrisJ84

I was reading Practical Religion by J. C. Ryle and came across this passage, talking about the future gathering of all Christians together in heaven. It seems relevant and appropriate to this thread

"To find that all we meet are at last of one opinion and one judgment, and see eye to eye, to discover that all our miserable controversies are buried for ever, and that Calvinists no longer hate Arminians, nor Arminians Calvinists, Churchmen no longer quarrel with Dissenters, nor Dissenters with Churchmen - to join a company of Christians in which there is neither jarring, squabbling, nor discord, every man’s graces fully developed, and every man’s besetting sins dropped off like beech-leaves in spring, all this will be happiness indeed!”

antiskeptic

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I was reading Practical Religion by J. C. Ryle and came across this passage, talking about the future gathering of all Christians together in heaven. It seems relevant and appropriate to this thread

"To find that all we meet are at last of one opinion and one judgment, and see eye to eye, to discover that all our miserable controversies are buried for ever, and that Calvinists no longer hate Arminians, nor Arminians Calvinists, Churchmen no longer quarrel with Dissenters, nor Dissenters with Churchmen - to join a company of Christians in which there is neither jarring, squabbling, nor discord, every man’s graces fully developed, and every man’s besetting sins dropped off like beech-leaves in spring, all this will be happiness indeed!”

In other words: enjoy (if you do enjoy) the debate while you can!