Protestantism (sixteenth century) is the Christian denomination that follows the theological doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, a movement that aimed at reforming the Roman Catholic Church from perceived abuses and theological mistakes.¹Löffler, K. (1910). “Pope Leo X”. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company:

“The immediate cause was bound up with the odious greed for money displayed by the Roman Curia, and shows how far short all efforts at reform had hitherto fallen… Abuses occurred during the preaching of the Indulgence. The money contributions, a mere accessory, were frequently the chief object, and the “Indulgences for the Dead” became a vehicle of inadmissible teachings…(The pope) gave himself up unrestrainedly to his pleasures and failed to grasp fully the duties of his high office.”

While this reform was substantial, the dialectical thought underlying most of the problems of Roman Catholicism was not challenged.

Instead of re-discovering the non-dialectical thought of early Christianity, Protestantism tended to define itself by taking the opposite direction to Catholicism in many theological matters while still operating under the same Either / Or paradigm.

Anglicanism, like many other Protestant denominations, shows a conflicting disposition towards the Filioque clause. On the one hand, they often choose to remove it from the Creed; on the other hand, they often fail to do so because of an apparent lack of interest or some other historical contingency. We can only conclude that, at the very least, this way of proceeding is a strange way of dealing with a key theological principle that has far reaching implications and defines the character of the God being worshipped.

This ambiguous and contradictory historical record can be exemplified by the following eventualities:

• The Lambeth Conferences (1978 and 1988) advised the Anglican Communion to omit printing the Filioque in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed⁵Lambeth Conference (1978). Res. 35.3; Lambeth Conference (1988), res.6.5.⁶Anglican Consultative Council 9 (January 1993). Written at Cape Town, ZA. “Resolutions” (anglicancommunion.org). London: Anglican Communion Office. Archived from the original on 30 August 2008. Res.19.. However, this recommendation was not renewed in the 1998 and 2008 Conferences and was therefore not implemented.

• The General Convention of The Episcopal Church (USA, 1985) recommended the removal of the clause from the Creed and the Book of Common Prayer⁷Episcopalarchives.org (1985). General Convention Sets Course For Church 19 September 1985.⁸Resolution 1994-A028. “Reaffirm Intention to Remove the Filioque Clause From the Next Prayer Book.” Episcopalarchives.org. Retrieved 25 April 2013.. This decision was reaffirmed in the General Convention of 1994. However, the last revision of the book was printed in 1979, so the resolution has not yet taken effect.

• The Scottish Episcopal Church no longer prints it in its modern language liturgies.

The Protestant Reformation was characterised by five theological premises (the five “Solas”, meaning “only” in Latin). These premises, as their name implies, were based on a dialectical approach between what were understood to be paired opposites, in which Protestantism defined itself by choosing a side, usually the option perceived as contrary to that of Roman Catholicism.

As we shall see, the chosen positions were sometimes more nuanced and less black and white as it may appear at first glance, especially given that Protestantism developed into an heterogeneous multiplicity of more or less like-minded denominations that addressed different theological postulates in their own ways.

However, the dialectical paradigm of paired oppositions that underlies the central themes of the Reformation is not just a matter of semantics, but it is very real, implying a way of thinking alien to early Christianity and an opposition between aspects of religion and the spiritual life that were previously understood as synergistic and complementary.

As mentioned above, however, there is variability in the degree to which this principle is actually implemented in modern Protestant denominations. For example, Methodist Bishop Scott J. Jones writes:

“Faith is necessary to salvation unconditionally. Good works are necessary only conditionally, that is if there is time and opportunity. […] However, for the vast majority of human beings good works are necessary for continuance in faith because those persons have both the time and opportunity for them”.⁹Jones, Scott J. (2002). United Methodist Doctrine. Abingdon Press, p. 190.

The second “Sola”, Sola Scriptura, asserts that Scripture (the Bible) is either the only source of legitimate authority or, when it recognizes Church tradition as legitimate, that it has absolute primacy over it. Due to its importance, this principle was sometimes called “the formal principle” of the Reformation.¹⁰Bavinck, Herman (2003). Reformed Dogmatics. Baker Academic, 2:209–10.

Contrary to what it may appear, this tenet does not necessarily deny tradition, reason or experience as sources of truth. However, it always subordinates them to Scripture. In practice, moreover, modern theologians have for the most part replaced the early Church Fathers¹¹The void left by the rejection of tradition was more or less filled by modern theologians and preachers not operating under a consensus. This opened the way to theological innovations that in extreme cases are, not only controversial, but just plain contrary to the traditional Christian mindset and theology (e.g., Prosperity Gospel). Some modern public figures have also shown questionable integrity far from the standards of the early Fathers, many of them martyrs (e.g., some televangelists and their luxurious lifes)., of whom many Protestant believers have little knowledge.

Protestantism not only rejected the notion of the infallible interpretations of the Catholic Pope, but also renounced the guidance of Holy Tradition¹²Holy because it is believed to be guided and preserved by the Holy Spirit, who resides in each Christian since Pentecost, especially when they come together in the name of God as the patriarchs did in the early councils.

In fact, by believing that not only the Catholic Church, but all Christianity, was corrupted and had to be re-founded by the Reformation in the sixteenth century, Protestants unknowingly deny that the promise of God regarding the preservation of His Church was fulfilled (Matthew 16:17-19).. Therefore, the figure of the (One) Pope was substituted by the infallible interpretations of (the Many) individuals, making each believer their own Pope in the process.

From an Orthodox lens, by renouncing the consensus (unity) of the early Church Fathers (plurality), this doctrine opens the door to (many) contradicting personal interpretations of the (one) Holy Book. This can be easily seen in the ever increasing number of Protestant denominations, each with their own particular interpretations of the same Scriptures.

Another implicit dialectical danger that the doctrine of Scripture alone introduces is that between the visible or common Church and the invisible one. The concept of the invisible or mystical Church states that there are two churches: the one of the elect, who are saved and known only to God, and the institutional visible Church that contains both saved and unsaved persons.¹³Weaver, Jonathan (1900). Christian Theology: A Concise and Practical View of the Cardinal Doctrines and Institutions of Christianity. United Brethren Publishing House, p. 245:

“There are distinctions between the general invisible church and the general visible church, which it is not necessary to carry out to the last analysis. In a sense, they are both visible. All who are members of the general invisible church are members of the general visible church. But all who are members of the general visible church are not members of the general invisible church. A clear and distinct difference between the visible and invisible church may be stated thus:

(1) The general invisible church includes all out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation who are truly saved. No one denomination has in its communion all who belong to the invisible church.

(2) The visible church includes all who are recognized as members of a Christian church. No one denomination can justly claim to be the general visible church.”

This notion, contrary to early Church Fathers that saw the invisible and visible churches as one and the same, was favoured by the Protestant reformers who did not see the Catholic Church as the true one.¹⁴L. Gonzalez, Justo (1970–1975). A History of Christian Thought. Volume 2: From Augustine to the eve of the Reformation. Abingdon Press. It was also later used to distinguish between true believers within particular denominations (e.g., John Calvin), thus becoming a source of internal division.

C. “[…] Apostolicity and gnosis for the Gnostics therefore lay in the secret knowledge of a select circle of elite initiates. Gnosis was secret, and ultimately, an indeterminable interior disposition. For the orthodox, Gnosis and apostolicity lay precisely in known doctrines handed down and available to all member of the church.” 

― Farrell, Joseph P. (2016).
God, History, and Dialectic¹⁶Farrell, Joseph P. (2016). God, History, and Dialectic (Vol. I), pp 49-50.

The third “Sola”, “only grace”, excludes the notion of personal merit as part of achieving salvation. According to this principle, salvation is a free gift, an “unmerited favour”, given by God.

This tension between grace and free will, also prevalent within Scholastic Catholicism, could not be resolved during the Reformation.

However, some Protestant denominations such as Arminians and Methodists modulate the dialectical polarity present in this doctrine by postulating a “prevenient grace”. This grace, which they believe is distributed to everyone through the Holy Spirit¹⁷See “Myth 7: Arminianism Is Not a Theology of Grace” in Olson, Roger E. (2006). Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. InterVarsity Press., allows believers to understand the Gospel and respond accordingly.

This modulated doctrine is, then, a form of synergy with God. Because of that, it remains closer to early Christian belief and contrary to the more polarized views of Lutherans and Calvinists (the latter believing in predestination).¹⁸Olson, Roger E. (2009). Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. InterVarsity Press, p. 95: “Arminians do not think so; they hold a form of evangelical synergism that sees grace as the efficient cause of salvation and calls faith the sole instrumental cause of salvation to the exclusion of human merits.”

Orthodox doctrine, however, affirms full Synergism, the working together of God and man, just as the two natures of Jesus Christ worked together and interpenetrated each other (Perichoresis) during the Incarnation.

In this manner, personal merit is not ignored, since it is recognised as the preparation to receive God´s grace or energies. God´s grace is not restricted to be granted through the faith of the believer (a mentalist approach), but is also understood as working through a person´s will to achieve a state of purity through works worthy of receiving the Holy Spirit. This does not imply, however, that God is compelled by man´s own efforts. Salvation, for the personal God of Christianity, is not the end result of a successfully implemented method or technique.

Total depravity (also radical corruption¹⁹Sproul, R. C. (2017). TULIP and Reformed Theology: Total Depravity. Ligonier Ministries: “I like to replace the term total depravity with my favorite designation, which is radical corruption. Ironically, the word radical has its roots in the Latin word for “root”, which is radix, and it can be translated root or core.” or pervasive depravity) is a Protestant theological tenet derived from the Augustinian concept of Original Sin.

This doctrine, to varying degrees, was and continues to be affirmed by some Protestant denominations²⁰“Calvinism and Lutheranism Compared”. WELS Topical Q&A. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Archived from the original on 27 September 2009: “Total Depravity – Lutherans and Calvinists agree”: “Yes this is correct. Both agree on the devastating nature of the fall and that man by nature has no power to aid in his conversions…and that election to salvation is by grace. In Lutheranism the German term for election is Gnadenwahl, election by grace–there is no other kind.”²¹Andreä, Jakob; Chemnitz, Martin; Selnecker, Nikolaus; Chytraeus, David; Musculus, Andreas; Körner, Christoph (1577). Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord.²²Melanchthon, Philip, ed. (1530). The Augsburg Confession. such as the Lutherans and all of Calvinism.²³The Canons of Dordt (reformed.org). Retrieved 20 May 2023.²⁴Westminster Assembly (1646). Westminster Confession of Faith.²⁵Westminster Larger Catechism 1-50 (reformed.org). Question 25. Retrieved 20 May 2023.²⁶The Heidelberg Catechism (reformed.org). Question 8. Retrieved 20 May 2023.

For Calvin, the fact that man´s work amounts to nothing is just the logical consequence of believing that mankind´s current state is one of total depravity, devoid of the capacity to will anything good for themselves.

This is the dialectical opposite of most Eastern and mystical doctrines. Instead of the the notion that “You are already God” found in many of them, Calvinism affirms the opposite extreme of the dialectic: man is nothing, the pure absence of anything good, incapable to choose God, refrain from evil or accept salvation.

Orthodox Christian understanding, in contrast, views man as capable of willing good, as we previously saw when exploring the doctrine of Ancestral Sin, even if there exists a tendency to also will and act in a direction that draws us farther away from God.

This is a consequence of having inherited a fractured human nature. Nevertheless, human nature still retains the attributes proper to God, such as free will, since it was made in His image, even if he lost its likeness.

The next “Sola”, “only Christ”, negates the idea of the necessity of a priestly class as administrators of the Sacraments and mediators between God and mankind. This doctrine states that the Christ is the only mediator²⁷1 Timothy 2:5. New King James version., salvation being through no other.

A core tenet of Lutheran theology, this principle rejects Sacerdotalism, the notion that there are no valid Sacraments outside those found in the services officiated by priests ordained by apostolic succession.

Martin Luther, in fact, substituted the figure of the ordained priest (the One) by “the general priesthood of the baptized” (the Many). Later Lutheranism and classical Protestantism expanded the concept, speaking of “the priesthood of all believers”.

This doctrine, which may appear superficially attractive, and is historically understandable because of the abuses committed by some of the Catholic authorities of the time, bears the risk of substituting the tyranny of the One (a centralized authority figure such as the Pope) for the tyranny of the Many (each one his own authority; anarchy and atomization of the Church).

The last “Sola”, “glory to God alone”, stands in opposition to the veneration of Mary the Mother of Jesus (Theotokos: Mother of God) and the saints.

Some Reformers believed that God alone should be worshipped and venerated, whereas early Christians always venerated (not worshipped), honored and paid respect to the saints.

They viewed them as forerunners, teachers and examples of a life well lived, as well as deified persons that rightfully gained their eternal place in the presence of God and are, therefore, capable of interceding for the living.

Veneration, for the Orthodox, is the non-dialectical middle way between the two extremes of worship (reserved for God alone) and ignoring the saints by withholding from them the respect they have earned.

In addition to the five theological pillars of the Reformation, other prominent examples of dialectical thought found in Protestantism include:

Just as with saints, Protestants reject the representation and veneration of icons as a form of idolatry. The Orthodox position is that the rejection of material representations as intrinsically unworthy is bad theology, resembling a Gnostic or Neo-Platonic attitude towards matter and being the consequence of not deriving the correct implications from the fact that God Himself was incarnated.

In the words of St. John of Damascus, the Orthodox champion against Iconoclasm:²⁸St. John of Damascus. Three Treatises on the Divine Images: First Apology against those who decry the Holy Images. St Vladimirs Seminary Press (2003), para.16

“Of old, God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was never depicted. Now, however, when God is seen clothed in flesh, and conversing with men, (Bar. 3.38) I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter, I worship the God of matter, who became matter for my sake, and deigned to inhabit matter, who worked out my salvation through matter. I will not cease from honouring that matter which works my salvation.” 

This underlying distrust of matter seems to make difficult its acceptance as a conduit of God´s grace (Energies), as is made evident by the different interpretations regarding the Sacraments and especially the Eucharist, where some Protestant denominations altogether reject Christ´s presence in it in favour of a merely symbolic interpretation (e.g., General Baptists²⁹Southern Baptist Convention (2018). Basic Beliefs: Baptism & the Lord’s Supper: “The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members … memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His Second Coming.”³⁰National Baptist Convention (2018). What We Believe: Baptism & the Lord’s Supper:

“We believe the Scriptures teach that Christian baptism is the immersion in water of a believer, into the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost; to show forth in a solemn and beautiful emblem, our faith in the crucified, buried, and risen Savior, with its effect,in our death to sin and resurrection to a new life; that it is prerequisite … to the Lord’s Supper, in which the members of the church, by the sacred use of bread and wine, are to commemorate together the dying love of Christ; preceded always by solemn selfexamination.”,Anabaptists³¹Balmer, Randall Herbert; Winner, Lauren F. (2002). Protestantism in America. New York: Columbia University Press, p. 26., some non-denominational Christian churches³²University of Virginia Library (Religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu; 2006). Archived from the original on 30 October 2007.). In general, Protestantism places less focus on the Sacraments, retaining only two of the seven classical ones: Baptism and the Eucharist (with the latter being interpreted in different ways, as we have just seen).

Farrell, among others, has related this to Protestantism’s emphasis on personally experiencing the certainty of our salvation and the danger of adopting a Gnostic attitude towards it:³³Farrell, Joseph P. (2016). God, History, and Dialectic, Volume I: God, The Foundation of the First Europe, p. 57.

“This intimate connection between the rejection of sacramentalism and the reliance upon interior emotional and intellectual certitude in one’s salvation is a feature of all Gnostic systems, and the Gnostic’s “direct access to God”.

Finally, Protestants do not adhere to the Catholic doctrine of the Beatific Vision. Contrary to its quasi-Monism, they believe in a concept of salvation that emphasizes multiplicity in the world to come.

By looking for “the New Heaven and a New Earth”, where purified souls with spiritualized bodies reside in extreme closeness to God, the vision of the afterlife is one of plurality:

• Contrary to the Catholic Beatific Vision, saved persons do not share in God´s Essence.

• Contrary to Orthodox deification, they do not become interpenetrated by God´s Uncreated Energies.

Therefore, the Protestant vision of the world to come (Eschaton) does not solve the problem of the One and the Many, being similar to the solution provided by Judaism and Islam (but opposite to the view of their panentheistic mystical schools).

In our typology of mysticism (see HERE) we labelled Protestantism as an exponent of the theistic Mysticism of Union. Given the above considerations we can now further qualify it as an external union, where Heaven is considered also as a place³⁴The Methodist Protestant denomination, however, teaches that Heaven is a state of being. and the union with God is not emphasized as much as in the other two main Christian denominations.

The Protestant zeal in correcting the perceived abuses and deviations of Roman Catholicism is, from an Orthodox point of view, understandable. However, as seen in the preceding examples, it seems that this “rebellion” was, in some cases, not rebellious enough. This is clearly seen in the adoption of the Filioque clause.

Instead of going back to the non-dialectical (Both / And) way of thinking of Orthodoxy and patristic theology, Protestant theological positions usually became the polar opposite to those of Catholicism, at the same time operating under the same dialectical paradigm.

To use an analogy, instead of walking the middle way, Protestantism understood that rejecting the left path necessarily implies walking through the right one.³⁵In practice, however, many Protestant denominations present more nuanced positions, showing at least partially non-dialectical doctrines far from the more black and white “Solas” of the Reformation.

The main principles of the Protestant Reformation have been unable to achieve unity and have created a vast network of denominations with diverse beliefs which, by definition, cannot all be true.

One of the biggest dangers, then, is that by being unaware of the dialectical paradigm that underlies many of their core principles, Protestantism is less protected against possible deviations in doctrine and practice. Some of these deviations can already be seen (e.g., Pentecostalism and its anti-intellectual embrace of emotionalism).

1. The Way: What Every Protestant Should Know about the Orthodox Church. Clark Carlton.
2. Rock and Sand: An Orthodox Appraisal of the Protestant Reformers and Their Teachings. Fr. Josiah Trenham.
   
   [Even if Fr. Trenham’s views regarding some other topics not discussed in this website can be controversial (please, do your own research), we found Rock and Sand to be a good summary of the differences between denominations, written in a nonconfrontational tone by a former Reformed Episcopal priest].

1. Löffler, K. (1910). “Pope Leo X”. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company:

   “The immediate cause was bound up with the odious greed for money displayed by the Roman Curia, and shows how far short all efforts at reform had hitherto fallen… Abuses occurred during the preaching of the Indulgence. The money contributions, a mere accessory, were frequently the chief object, and the “Indulgences for the Dead” became a vehicle of inadmissible teachings…(The pope) gave himself up unrestrainedly to his pleasures and failed to grasp fully the duties of his high office.”

2. Oberdorfer, Bernd (2006). “ … who proceeds from the Father’ and the Son? The use of the Bible in the filioque debate: a historical and ecumenical case study and hermeneutical reflections”. In Helmer, Christine; Higbe, Charlene T. (eds.). The multivalence of biblical texts and theological meanings. Symposium series. Vol. 37. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, p. 155.
3. Lacoste, Jean-Yves, ed. (2005). “Filioque”. Encyclopedia of Christian theology. Vol. 1. New York: Routledge, p. 583.
4. Guretzki, David (2009). Karl Barth on the Filioque. Barth studies. Farnham, UK: Ashgate. A close examination of Karl Barth’s defense of the filioque, p. 12.
5. Lambeth Conference (1978). Res. 35.3; Lambeth Conference (1988), res.6.5.
6. Anglican Consultative Council 9 (January 1993). Written at Cape Town, ZA. “Resolutions” (anglicancommunion.org). London: Anglican Communion Office. Archived from the original on 30 August 2008. Res.19.
7. Episcopalarchives.org (1985). General Convention Sets Course For Church 19 September 1985.
8. Resolution 1994-A028. “Reaffirm Intention to Remove the Filioque Clause From the Next Prayer Book.” Episcopalarchives.org. Retrieved 25 April 2013.
9. Jones, Scott J. (2002). United Methodist Doctrine. Abingdon Press, p. 190.
10. Bavinck, Herman (2003). Reformed Dogmatics. Baker Academic, 2:209–10.
11. The void left by the rejection of tradition was more or less filled by modern theologians and preachers not operating under a consensus. This opened the way to theological innovations that in extreme cases are, not only controversial, but just plain contrary to the traditional Christian mindset and theology (e.g., Prosperity Gospel). Some modern public figures have also shown questionable integrity far from the standards of the early Fathers, many of them martyrs (e.g., some televangelists and their luxurious lifes).
12. Holy because it is guided and preserved by the Holy Spirit, who resides in each Christian since Pentecost, especially when they come together in the name of God as the patriarchs did in the early councils.

    In fact, by believing that not only the Catholic Church, but all Christianity, was corrupted and had to be re-founded by the Reformation in the sixteenth century, Protestants unknowingly deny that the promise of God regarding the preservation of His Church was fulfilled (Matthew 16:17-19).

13. Weaver, Jonathan (1900). Christian Theology: A Concise and Practical View of the Cardinal Doctrines and Institutions of Christianity. United Brethren Publishing House, p. 245:

    “There are distinctions between the general invisible church and the general visible church, which it is not necessary to carry out to the last analysis. In a sense, they are both visible. All who are members of the general invisible church are members of the general visible church. But all who are members of the general visible church are not members of the general invisible church. A clear and distinct difference between the visible and invisible church may be stated thus: (1) The general invisible church includes all out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation who are truly saved. No one denomination has in its communion all who belong to the invisible church. (2) The visible church includes all who are recognized as members of a Christian church. No one denomination can justly claim to be the general visible church.”

14. L. Gonzalez, Justo (1970–1975). A History of Christian Thought. Volume 2: From Augustine to the eve of the Reformation. Abingdon Press.
15. Pagels, Elaine (1989). The Gnostic Gospels. Vintage Books, pp. 32-33: “The Protestant theologian Paul Tillich recently drew a similar distinction between the God we imagine when we hear the term, and the “God beyond God”, that is, the “ground of being” that underlies all our concepts and images.”
16. Farrell, Joseph P. (2016). God, History, and Dialectic (Vol. I), pp. 49-50.
17. See “Myth 7: Arminianism Is Not a Theology of Grace” in Olson, Roger E. (2006). Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. InterVarsity Press.
18. Olson, Roger E. (2009). Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. InterVarsity Press, p. 95: “Arminians do not think so; they hold a form of evangelical synergism that sees grace as the efficient cause of salvation and calls faith the sole instrumental cause of salvation to the exclusion of human merits.”
19. Sproul, R. C. (2017). TULIP and Reformed Theology: Total Depravity. Ligonier Ministries: “I like to replace the term total depravity with my favorite designation, which is radical corruption. Ironically, the word radical has its roots in the Latin word for “root”, which is radix, and it can be translated root or core.”
20. “Calvinism and Lutheranism Compared”. WELS Topical Q&A. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Archived from the original on 27 September 2009: “Total Depravity – Lutherans and Calvinists agree”: “Yes this is correct. Both agree on the devastating nature of the fall and that man by nature has no power to aid in his conversions…and that election to salvation is by grace. In Lutheranism the German term for election is Gnadenwahl, election by grace–there is no other kind.”
21. Andreä, Jakob; Chemnitz, Martin; Selnecker, Nikolaus; Chytraeus, David; Musculus, Andreas; Körner, Christoph (1577). Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord.
22. Melanchthon, Philip, ed. (1530). The Augsburg Confession.
23. The Canons of Dordt (reformed.org). Retrieved 20 May 2023.
24. Westminster Assembly (1646). Westminster Confession of Faith.
25. Westminster Larger Catechism 1-50 (reformed.org). Question 25. Retrieved 20 May 2023.
26. The Heidelberg Catechism (reformed.org). Question 8. Retrieved 20 May 2023.
27. 1 Timothy 2:5. New King James version.
28. St. John of Damascus. Three Treatises on the Divine Images: First Apology against those who decry the Holy Images. St Vladimirs Seminary Press (2003), para.16.
29. Southern Baptist Convention (2018). Basic Beliefs: Baptism & the Lord’s Supper: “The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members … memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His Second Coming.”
30. National Baptist Convention (2018). What We Believe: Baptism & the Lord’s Supper: “We believe the Scriptures teach that Christian baptism is the immersion in water of a believer, into the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost; to show forth in a solemn and beautiful emblem, our faith in the crucified, buried, and risen Savior, with its effect,in our death to sin and resurrection to a new life; that it is prerequisite … to the Lord’s Supper, in which the members of the church, by the sacred use of bread and wine, are to commemorate together the dying love of Christ; preceded always by solemn selfexamination.”
31. Balmer, Randall Herbert; Winner, Lauren F. (2002). Protestantism in America. New York: Columbia University Press, p. 26.
32. University of Virginia Library (Religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu; 2006). Archived from the original on 30 October 2007.
33. Farrell, Joseph P. (2016). God, History, and Dialectic, Volume I: God, The Foundation of the First Europe, p. 57.
34. The Methodist Protestant denomination, however, teaches that Heaven is a state of being.
35. In practice, however, many Protestant denominations present more nuanced positions, showing at least partially non-dialectical doctrines far from the more black and white “Solas” of the Reformation.