Seamaster said:

---

Then dont be surprised that all Protestant Churches become gradually heterodox.

---

The Romanists became heterodox about 600-700 years go.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Seamaster - Might it be a better idea to start a new thread and to stop derailing this thread?

---

It's okay that he presents the RCC as an option. I just don't think Seamaster, as erudite as he is, has really studied the history of evangelical movements in Europe and America in depth.

Guys. I had no intention of 'de-railing' anything. I only comment that what's happening to the United Methodists is a fixture and feature of Protestantism. It simply is. My former church (The PCA) was born in the 1970s out of the PCUSA for all of the same reasons.

I've been there.

But I'll digress.

UTExan. Happy to read anything you suggest.

Seamaster said:

---

Guys. I had no intention of 'de-railing' anything. I only comment that what's happening to the United Methodists is a fixture and feature of Protestantism. It simply is. My former church (The PCA) was born in the 1970s out of the PCUSA for all of the same reasons.

I've been there.

But I'll digress.

UTExan. Happy to read anything you suggest.

---

If you are interested, Pentecostal historian Vincent Synan wrote The Century of the Holy Spirit, which details revivalist/charismatic movements ca-1900 to
2001. There are others on the Methodist roots of Pentecostalism and Supernaturalism in the ministry of John Wesley if interested.

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

The problem that I am currently having is that if you allow homosexuals to be married in the church, the church moves from being a forgiver of sins to an active participant in sinful behaviors.

---

Do you hold a similar position if the church is holding a marriage for a heterosexual divorcee? Or a heterosexual couple that already have a child together? As far as I'm aware there is not difference between the church participating in those sins and participating in homosexual marriage.

---

You make a good point. But the solution isn't to double down and go even more apostate.

Quad Dog said:

---

Fair enough, and what if it is a second marriage or any other number of things?

---

Kinds of marriage I support: consenting adult man and woman (not related) agreeing to live in monogomy for life. Can't think of exception to this right now.

Nothing else.

Marriage is about parenting above all else.

Quote:

---

The Traditional Plan "provides a gracious way for any local church and any annual conference to leave the denomination without having to worry about the possibility of losing or having to litigate for their property and assets," writes the Rev. Walter Fenton in an essay on the Traditional Plan for the Wesleyan Covenant Association.

A petition submitted by Dunnam augments the gracious accountability section, by adding a $200,000 grant to annual conferences leaving the denomination to help pay for transitional expenses. The General Council on Finance and Administration can fund these grants using reserves held by the denomination's general agencies

---

This is especially gracious, in my opinion. Peace seeking.

The denomination has no obligation to do this. They are giving away millions and millions in real property to make this as amicable as possible. The alternative would likely be a mess of ugly lawsuits, but property rights would likely prevail in most states if push came to shove.

BusterAg said:

---

Quote:

---

The Traditional Plan "provides a gracious way for any local church and any annual conference to leave the denomination without having to worry about the possibility of losing or having to litigate for their property and assets," writes the Rev. Walter Fenton in an essay on the Traditional Plan for the Wesleyan Covenant Association.

A petition submitted by Dunnam augments the gracious accountability section, by adding a $200,000 grant to annual conferences leaving the denomination to help pay for transitional expenses. The General Council on Finance and Administration can fund these grants using reserves held by the denomination's general agencies

---

This is especially gracious, in my opinion. Peace seeking.

The denomination has no obligation to do this. They are giving away millions and millions in real property to make this as amicable as possible. The alternative would likely be a mess of ugly lawsuits, but property rights would likely prevail in most states if push came to shove.

---

It is probably more gracious to the liberal churches than to the traditional ones. The pastors of these churches knew that eventually this day of reckoning would come.

It is tragic to see yet another of the mainline protestant denominations fracture over homosexual issues. I ponder from time to time what John Wesley would say. (Although, it should be noted, he married very late and had a generally unhappy/brief marriage, with no kids; somewhat of a historical oddity for the period/location to favor a celibate life.)

The majority will go the way of accepting gay pastors/marriages, and many of the relatively healthy churches today will see negative impacts in their youth programs over the coming decades as their youth pastors start to more closely resemble the RCC stereotypes for abuse.

nortex97 said:

---

It is tragic to see yet another of the mainline protestant denominations fracture over homosexual issues. I ponder from time to time what John Wesley would say. (Although, it should be noted, he married very late and had a generally unhappy/brief marriage, with no kids; somewhat of a historical oddity for the period/location to favor a celibate life.)

The majority will go the way of accepting gay pastors/marriages, and many of the relatively healthy churches today will see negative impacts in their youth programs over the coming decades as their youth pastors start to more closely resemble the RCC stereotypes for abuse.

---

No, it is a good thing, forcing people to align either with the Word of God or against it.

Quote:

---

Social Justice churches have gotten to the point where they have handwaved away sin in general because it's now "bad" to judge people based upon their desired sexual fetish no matter how degenerate or damaging it may be. They are slowly doing the same with drug use, usury, crime in general, and just general selfish behavior. Why? Because experiencing consequences for anything means you are getting judged and that is bad.

---

That is fine for political parties, perhaps even movements. But not religions, not churches. Either they follow their received creeds and confessions, or they are basically Unitarian.

(Not disagreeing with your post)

They are not governments. They have no obligation to be `fair' or `inclusive'. No matter what you think of one, part of their traits is a religion's willingness to set benchmarks, and to proclaim bedrock truths.

Seamaster said:

---

It's sad to see but it's predictable.

Every single Protestant denomination goes through this. The orthodox will split and form a new denomination.

And that new denomination after a generation, or two, will start to split and splinter for the same reasons.

In other words, this splitting and dissolving is a feature of Protestantism. After all, that's how it all started.

The only option is the Holy Catholic Church and being in communion with the successors of the Apostles.

And, the Catholic Church needs faithful believers more than ever right now. If you have noticed a lot of those successors are wolves in sheeps clothing. But Christ also promised that this would happen. Just as Christ selected Judas who betrayed him, there are those that are still betraying him.

So consider making an effort to study and learn and pray about the claims of the Catholic Church especially if you are troubled by the failure of Protestantism.

---

Seamaster,
This especially is true, and you can set a clock by it almost:

Quote:

---

Every single Protestant denomination goes through this. The orthodox will split and form a new denomination.

---

However, though it is usually run from, in a way, haven't we done that also with the EOC mess? And much of that split is over narrow arguments between magisterial Western Popes and magisterial Eastern Emperors.

Do we not see a bit of that now with even the threatened break (it even looks possibly with merit) with some of this papacy's directions and views by more should we say "Vatican I" style Catholics?

I think what Christianity is needing in general is more humility about the massive interplay of secular politics in many of its theological fights, and if it would just take a step back to take full advantage of the fact it no longer has political power, it might be able to work out some of the real divides.

Aggie4Lie02 had a good point:

Quote:

---

My hope is that we will begin to see a consolidation of some of the more conservative groups into a single unified voice.


That's what Protestantism is going to need if it is going to survive.

---

I think that actually goes for all. There has to be greater willingness to stand for the maintenance of benchmarks.

Just two cents.

craigernaught said:

---

There are a lot of vulnerable Methodist churches, especially in urban and rural areas who may not survive a split regardless of which way they break. Many of my friends are pastors in such places in Virginia and Maryland. Liberal and conservative, they are very worried.

I don't know what's going to happen, but in the short term at least, small, vulnerable churches are going to pay the price.

---

And yet, you have start-up pentecostal churches that thrive in this environment. One key may be hard work. Adam Hamilton went door to door when he started his little Methodist church in an old funeral home in Kansas City. It is now a mega church with a membership of 22,000. I know Duke and Perkins-educated pastors who think that going door to door is beneath them or a waste of their time and who then complain about their membership. Sometimes it is about the quality of the pastors who fail to lead by example and lack of zeal to reach people.

Tom Scholz said:

---

This going to get interestingI am on our Missions Team at Church..we found out Monday that our Missions Budget got cut ( as well as all others)

Guess quite a few folks during the Pledge Drive only committed till the end of FEB. They want to see how this all plays out.

One of our Church Member works for the District and is a voting member---to put it mildly---he is very concerned.

---

Our pastor is very left wing and our attendance has dropped accordingly. I stick around because of my wife but I have warned her that I have an expiration date regarding patience with the left wing theological nonsense of the church. Strange, because while the clergy trends left, the membership tends to be more literalist and conservative. I often wonder if the seminaries are so disconnected from the churches that they put out preachers who are neither very inspiring nor do they possess many ministerial gifts.

PacifistAg said:

---

And everyone thinks their theology is right and will point to verses to support it. Egalitarian or complimentarian? Sola scriptura or non-sola scriptura? Penal substitution or Christus Victor? Liberal or conservative theology? The two greatest commandments say nothing about having the "right" theology.

Thankfully, our relationship with Christ and eternal "security" isn't determined by holding perfect theology.

---

Great news for false teachers! Perfect theology isn't necessary.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

MidTnAg said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

UMC needs to kick the liberals out or the denomination will not survive.

---

That is similar to what far right individuals said about churches who integrated when I was growing up, kick the blacks out of your church or it will not survive.

Now far right individuals are saying, "kick the liberals out or the denomination will not survive".

I wonder if we will ever be an inclusive society.

---

Skin color is irrelevant to faith. Theology is not. God isn't inclusive when it comes to theology. He is very exclusive.

---

Disagree. What was the theology of the Prodigal Son? Or the adulteress? Or the prostitute who washed Christ's feet? By your post, should not Christ have excluded them?

And edited to add that from my reading it was the Pharisees who were exclusive, not Christ.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

And it came to pass, Jesus lo he said unto them "And they shall know you are my disciples by your perfect theology"

Seriously though, didn't Jesus have a thing or two to say about humility? How can we be so certain that we have the "perfect" theology? It seems many place a higher value on "being right" than over any other virtue. As if being wrong about their faith is the most unforgivable of sins

---

Exactly! Liberation theology, prosperity gospel, the current divide over sexuality between liberal and conservative factions - no need to have perfect theology. Why place a higher value on being right than any other virtue?

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

And it came to pass, Jesus lo he said unto them "And they shall know you are my disciples by your perfect theology"

Seriously though, didn't Jesus have a thing or two to say about humility? How can we be so certain that we have the "perfect" theology? It seems many place a higher value on "being right" than over any other virtue. As if being wrong about their faith is the most unforgivable of sins

---

Exactly! Liberation theology, prosperity gospel, the current divide over sexuality between liberal and conservative factions - no need to have perfect theology. Why place a higher value on being right than any other virtue?

---

Maybe because Christ didn't? In the examples I gave, "right" theology would have generated a much different response than the one Christ did, correct?

In fact, when Christ was asked "theological questions", my reading tells me He answered by saying love God and love your neighbor.

Quote:

---

3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
5 "Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
6 "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
7 "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
8 "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
9 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
10 "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 "Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.

---

Quote:

---

35 One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, 36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37 And He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

---

Quote:

---

34 "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.35 For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.' 37 Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38 And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39 When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' 40 The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'

---

Yep. I don't see anything in these about having perfect theology. I do see a lot about love and how we treat the marginalized though.

dermdoc said:

---

I would even say that the folks who Christ got the most upset at were the folks (Pharisees) who thought they had the "right" theology.

And I can not remember one time when Christ excluded anyone. Even the thief on the cross.

---

Exactly. The Prodigal Son is also a great example, as you pointed out. The Father didn't wait to verify that His son had the right theology. He just embraced him and celebrated that he had returned.

The Pharisees had their lily white exterior that was driven by "perfect" theology, but they were nothing but whitewashed tombs that were dead inside.

dermdoc said:

---

I would even say that the folks who Christ got the most upset at were the folks (Pharisees) who thought they had the "right" theology.

And I can not remember one time when Christ excluded anyone. Even the thief on the cross.

---

Doesn't this make the opposite point? That they in fact had the wrong theology (which you say Jesus doesn't care about)? John 10 comes to mind. Jesus is the gate, all that came before him were thieves and robbers. What do thieves and robbers do? What does the hired help do? Theology matters, and you've quoted Jesus sparingly and attempted to extract from parables lessons that are not there.

Jesus made it quite clear He is the only way. If perfect theology isn't important, certainly some level of it is because of that claim. What I took issue with is comparing the divide on sexuality (liberal and conservative) to egalitarian and complementarian and other old divides.

And I agree with you that Jesus made it clear that he is the only way. But I can not remember when he was exclusive. You mentioned thieves, how did Christ respond to the thief on the cross?

And what distract from the one parable I mentioned, the parable of the Prodigal son? Where did the father mention theology? And did I misrepresent the adulteress incident? Would not theology treated her differently than how Christ did? Or the thief?

dermdoc said:

---

And I agree with you that Jesus made it clear that he is the only way. But I can not remember when he was exclusive. You mentioned thieves, how did Christ respond to the thief on the cross?

---

His claim that He is the way is undeniably exclusive. You're also asking me to defend the idea that he walked the countryside preaching systematic theology. Clearly He didn't, yet we see him rebuking incorrect teaching repeatedly and referring to those teachers as thieves and wolves and vipers. And he read in the temple. Beliefs about God matter. Again, disagreement about some issues is understandable with no definitive scripture to say one way or the other but some of these divides are not like the others. That is what I take issue with.