Men lean toward respect of God, and churches that stress the respect for God. Women are drawn by the love aspect of God. Churches that stress God's love draw more women. I think this is why the Catholic Church has lost more men as Vatican 2 changes were made. Focus was on God's love (loving others) vs respect for God and all his creations. Too much hand holding and hippy singing in the Catholic church today.

Quote:

---

To make it political - I think the dominant form of religion in the US is a heavily-calvinist-influenced protestantism, which has good and bad points to it. But the chief bad about it is that it is the dominant form of religion in the US and in that role it reflects US society more than it influences it. That's why as US society changes, the center of gravity of that religion changes too. Pick a topic... divorce, birth control, homosexuality, even actual politics.

---

Fascinating observation. Will not contest it per-se, but you would say calvinist-influenced more than say, Baptist? But your general take especially if talking about earlier period, seems to be onto it.

Surprised a certain watch aficionado hasn't weighed in

Well, every divorce has two sides. The question of division can't possibly be one sided.

If you're going for unity, the only possible way is to get to the least common denominator - which is a minimal set of loose confessions about Jesus Christ - and maybe not even that!

I think your understanding of the early church is not really correct from a historical inquiry perspective. The council of Jerusalem wasn't "rules" about starting a church, but instead a strict reading of Leviticus to explain why non-Jewish believers didn't have to be circumcised in order to worship the God of the Jews - by taking the Eucharist which was correctly understood as similar to the Passover - as followers of the Jewish Messiah.

Which actually kind of shows the opposite thing than what you say....rather than chaos you had an authority structure, a group that was actually capable of making a definitive decision on a complicated topic, and it was considered closed.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

All Christians should agree that:

1. Egalitarianism is anti-Christian
2. Abortion is evil in all circumstances and is an inverted sacrament of the enemies of Christ.
3. Homosexuality should have NO QUARTER in the Church at all. Homosexuals must repent and turn away from that sin. Marriage can NEVER be accepted as anything other than one man to one woman.

Anyone who calls themself a Christian and embraces abortion or homosexuality is deceiving themselves and everyone around them.

---

You should add no fault divorce remarriage imo.

If a church doesn't want to allow homosexual marriage, that's their perogative. But they should ban any marriage viewed as sinful to be ideologically consistent.

I am curious how you view egalitarianism as inconsistent. Jesus's most basic tenets were loving everyone equally even if you don't agree with their choices. They all have the same worth.

---

Agree with the divorce thing. Catholics are the last ones holding onto that, and it is often seen as a burden. Which is probably why all the other denominations stopped caring about it.

Second, egalitarian is not the same thing as equality. Men and women are equal is dignity (equality). We do not share the same exact roles in society or in the church, so we are not egalitarian.

Zobel said:

---

Well, every divorce has two sides. The question of division can't possibly be one sided.

If you're going for unity, the only possible way is to get to the least common denominator - which is a minimal set of loose confessions about Jesus Christ - and maybe not even that!

I think your understanding of the early church is not really correct from a historical inquiry perspective. The council of Jerusalem wasn't "rules" about starting a church, but instead a strict reading of Leviticus to explain why non-Jewish believers didn't have to be circumcised in order to worship the God of the Jews - by taking the Eucharist which was correctly understood as similar to the Passover - as followers of the Jewish Messiah.

Which actually kind of shows the opposite thing than what you say....rather than chaos you had an authority structure, a group that was actually capable of making a definitive decision on a complicated topic, and it was considered closed.

---

titan said:

---

Quote:

---

To make it political - I think the dominant form of religion in the US is a heavily-calvinist-influenced protestantism, which has good and bad points to it. But the chief bad about it is that it is the dominant form of religion in the US and in that role it reflects US society more than it influences it. That's why as US society changes, the center of gravity of that religion changes too. Pick a topic... divorce, birth control, homosexuality, even actual politics.

---

Fascinating observation. Will not contest it per-se, but you would say calvinist-influenced more than say, Baptist? But your general take especially if talking about earlier period, seems to be onto it.

---

Calvinism heavily influences that Baptist church. Once saved always saved was first promulgated by Calvin. Even Luther disagreed with this. Calvinism is at the heart of the SBC, even though it's been semi-hidden. It's why the sudden rise in Reformed doctrine was inevitable.

TRD-Ferguson said:

---

I think it's important and necessary for a church to have Doctrinal Statements. That said, do those statements agree with the Word of God?

The Methodist church had been a good "compromise" for my Catholic wife and me. When the recent split occurred our Pastor boldly stated he had always been United Methodist and was going to remain a United Methodist. Maybe I took that wrong but it seems to me that he should have said he would stand with Christ.

---

Almost my situation to a T. Our methodist Church (FUMC Richardson), which we loved, went all in on the new, liberal, UMC path and we left. it broke my heart because the worship style was perfect for both of us as it was a traditional choir based music and suited us. our pastor towards the end ended up being angry and defiant against the conservative members and ideals and it was time to go.

we have since found another church in the metroplex that seems to be on the right path

Thought this was gonna be a thread about The Power Team over in dallas.

StockHorseAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Protestantism is often led by pastor couples cuddled up on billboards, modern and divisive and logically hard to swallow.

---

If I recall, Can't Orthodox Priests be married if they are married before they become a priest? How is this hard to swallow for you?

---

Yes the Orthodox Church allows someone to be married before they are ordained a deacon. They highest title they can attain is Archpriest. Bishops and above have to take monastic vows so they have to be single men. A married priest can move up to being a Bishop if he has been widowed. Once divorced/widowed a priest may not remarry.

StockHorseAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Protestantism is often led by pastor couples cuddled up on billboards, modern and divisive and logically hard to swallow.

---

If I recall, Can't Orthodox Priests be married if they are married before they become a priest? How is this hard to swallow for you?

---

They can become married as a priest.

RC priest can only be married if before becoming clergy.

Wife has no role in Clergy either way.

None of this "Pastors Joel and Victoria" stuff

Aggie97 said it best/first

Would the Catholic church have ever reformed if not for Protestantism? Probably not. Now it sounds like that as the Protestant churches lose track, the Catholics and the Orthodox will pull them back. My personal opinion is that this huge variety of churches is making the Kingdom stronger. I know in my small town, we all work together toward the one goal of serving the community. There is no animosity. It would be nice if we all met together and had one large church, but human nature unfortunately will never allow that to happen. The goal of unity is for the next age.

Jack Boyett said:

---

Would the Catholic church have ever reformed if not for Protestantism? Probably not. Now it sounds like that as the Protestant churches lose track, the Catholics and the Orthodox will pull them back. My personal opinion is that this huge variety of churches is making the Kingdom stronger. I know in my small town, we all work together toward the one goal of serving the community. There is no animosity. It would be nice if we all met together and had one large church, but human nature unfortunately will never allow that to happen. The goal of unity is for the next age.

---

It's an interesting thought. The church agreed with Luther that what was happening in his location was an abuse of indulgences. In that respect, I do think the church leadership saw a reason for reform.

What Luther refused to budge on was the authority of the church in teaching matters. Had he said the church teaches the truth but is acting in error, he probably would have ended up a canonized saint. Instead we have infinity billion denominations. We'll see what happens in the future. I do think we all end up as one again before Jesus comes back but who knows. In the meantime, like you said, all we can do is work together as best we can and try to work out the differences.

The Banned said:

---

Jack Boyett said:

---

Would the Catholic church have ever reformed if not for Protestantism? Probably not. Now it sounds like that as the Protestant churches lose track, the Catholics and the Orthodox will pull them back. My personal opinion is that this huge variety of churches is making the Kingdom stronger. I know in my small town, we all work together toward the one goal of serving the community. There is no animosity. It would be nice if we all met together and had one large church, but human nature unfortunately will never allow that to happen. The goal of unity is for the next age.

---

It's an interesting thought. The church agreed with Luther that what was happening in his location was an abuse of indulgences. In that respect, I do think the church leadership saw a reason for reform.

What Luther refused to budge on was the authority of the church in teaching matters. Had he said the church teaches the truth but is acting in error, he probably would have ended up a canonized saint. Instead we have infinity billion denominations. We'll see what happens in the future. I do think we all end up as one again before Jesus comes back but who knows. In the meantime, like you said, all we can do is work together as best we can and try to work out the differences.

---

You could say Luther was bound to happen at some point (in that way). It's one thing to have a central authority over the Church when the local priest and 5 rich guys around town were the only people who could read, much less had access to scriptures to read, but once literacy became part of every person's regular life and everyone had access to a Bible to read for themselves... central authority for teaching makes less sense.

Yah cuz it's going sooo well

Zobel said:

---

Yah cuz it's going sooo well

---

Hey, I'm basically Baptist, but I will take any brother in Christ, be they Catholic or Presbyterian who defends his beliefs using chapter and verse over anyone who just relies on tradition, membership, or someone else's teachings to consider themselves saved.

Literacy rates prior to the reformation was sub 20%. It didn't get over 50% for a couple centuries after the reformation, and even that was only in a few countries. In fact, the higher the literacy rate, the more division there becomes in denominations.

This would follow the exact arc you think it would, as the Bible is interpreted by every individual that reads it. We can claim it's super clear all we want, but if that were true, then we should all be arriving at the same place. No different than if the directions we downloaded off the internet back in the Mapquest days were clear, we'd all arrive at the same place. But for some reason we are ending up in totally different states, if not a different country like our Mormon friends.

There is a reason Jesus didn't leave a Bible for everyone to read, but left a group of men to lead the church. I think the current state of Christianity shows why He didn't do that.

I am just saying Reformation and at least some level of decentralization was bound to happen, even if it wasn't Luther. And Jesus didn't leave writings because the people he was reaching didn't communicate that way. The discipleship method was common of Jewish teachers of the day. You can't really compare the 2 worlds at all. Besides, if he meant for there to be a single centralized church, he would have needed way more disciples instead of sending out the Word and then having them return back to Him.

Phatbob said:

---

I am just saying Reformation and at least some level of decentralization was bound to happen, even if it wasn't Luther. And Jesus didn't leave writings because the people he was reaching didn't communicate that way. The discipleship method was common of Jewish teachers of the day. You can't really compare the 2 worlds at all. Besides, if he meant for there to be a single centralized church, he would have needed way more disciples instead of sending out the Word and then having them return back to Him.

---

I disagree. The decentralization happens at the precise moment that printing the Bible and teaching that everyone can understand for themselves. The very same Bible that consistently tells believers to listen the leaders the apostles left in their place when they moved on to the next town. Jesus even prayed that the body of believers be one in John 17.

Quote:

---

Once you read about guys in the 200s teaching things that are now rejected by Protestants,

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Quote:

---

Once you read about guys in the 200s teaching things that are now rejected by Protestants,

---

---

Took it out not to make this thread even further off the rails, but yes. Real presence. Acknowledging your bishop. Primacy of Rome. Prayers to saints. All that.

Phatbob said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Jack Boyett said:

---

Would the Catholic church have ever reformed if not for Protestantism? Probably not. Now it sounds like that as the Protestant churches lose track, the Catholics and the Orthodox will pull them back. My personal opinion is that this huge variety of churches is making the Kingdom stronger. I know in my small town, we all work together toward the one goal of serving the community. There is no animosity. It would be nice if we all met together and had one large church, but human nature unfortunately will never allow that to happen. The goal of unity is for the next age.

---

It's an interesting thought. The church agreed with Luther that what was happening in his location was an abuse of indulgences. In that respect, I do think the church leadership saw a reason for reform.

What Luther refused to budge on was the authority of the church in teaching matters. Had he said the church teaches the truth but is acting in error, he probably would have ended up a canonized saint. Instead we have infinity billion denominations. We'll see what happens in the future. I do think we all end up as one again before Jesus comes back but who knows. In the meantime, like you said, all we can do is work together as best we can and try to work out the differences.

---

You could say Luther was bound to happen at some point (in that way). It's one thing to have a central authority over the Church when the local priest and 5 rich guys around town were the only people who could read, much less had access to scriptures to read, but once literacy became part of every person's regular life and everyone had access to a Bible to read for themselves... central authority for teaching makes less sense.

---

Though when that it is said, its important to realize the idea scripture was restricted is a myth. It was because so many were illiterate that the stained glass windows, icons, and effigies were used the way they were --- to tell the story and meaning without words. This wasn't an "instead of" but an addition to that both RCC and EOC halves used for promoting the message. If you learned to read, you could.

Legalism and Strictness does not mean more masculine. The article greatly confuses/conflates the two very different ideas. Nuns are extremely strict/legalistic, but they are not masculine.

And if this was a church's goal, it distracts from the Gospel message; trying to make it all about self (manliness), or rules (legalism/strictness).

It also mentions the "Protestant church" when referencing the comparison. Though Protestant varies greatly, when you're comparing it to Orthodox options.

The article that spurred this discussion is absolutely silly, and sweeps with a brush so wide, it invalidates the entire supposition/premise. What a ridiculous write-up.

The Banned said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

I am just saying Reformation and at least some level of decentralization was bound to happen, even if it wasn't Luther. And Jesus didn't leave writings because the people he was reaching didn't communicate that way. The discipleship method was common of Jewish teachers of the day. You can't really compare the 2 worlds at all. Besides, if he meant for there to be a single centralized church, he would have needed way more disciples instead of sending out the Word and then having them return back to Him.

---

I disagree. The decentralization happens at the precise moment that printing the Bible and teaching that everyone can understand for themselves. The very same Bible that consistently tells believers to listen the leaders the apostles left in their place when they moved on to the next town. Jesus even prayed that the body of believers be one in John 17.

---

I think our conceptualization is different. Catholics will view that as the Church hierarchy that he is referring to, Protestants would view that as a the natural state of all believers who, due to the very nature of being saved, choose to follow his commands, no matter the membership in a human-led organization. In theory, both would be valid, but in practice, both fall short in different ways.

For sure, they were used as tools for portraying a message, though the argument against it used earlier about the methods of Jesus are plenty. There is no way you'd have a 1st century group of Jews being in favor if iconography. Different times, different methods.

Hoyt Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

2) Too many churches have abandoned a sense of sacredness in the worship - a worship gathering should NOT resemble a modern concert.

---

AMEN. This is why I left my old church and have gone to a much smaller and sacred one.

---

It's all these seeker-friendly churches, doing whatever is necessary to get bodies in the door. The Word of God (truth) alone is enough to draw people in. Church should be a time of reverent worship, equipping the saints, prayer, communion…not light shows, emotionally manipulative music, and sermons where barely the spine of one's Bible is cracked.

The Orthodox church is neither particularly strict nor legalistic.

Agreed that the article is kind of dumb. There isn't an emphasis on "pushing yourself physically" - at least not that I have ever heard of. And fasting for 40 days is otherwise just known as Lent.

There is, however, a strong masculinity aspect. Not so much because of some kind of new approach to the sexes but just that the Church hasn't changed and consistently affirms a traditional teaching on men and women.

Interestingly enough this story is simply not true. Early churches - and synagogues - were filled with images. For example - the Dura Europos church and synagogue both reflect this, from ~230 AD. The more we discover archaeologically, the more we find.

Phatbob said:

---

For sure, they were used as tools for portraying a message, though the argument against it used earlier about the methods of Jesus are plenty. There is no way you'd have a 1st century group of Jews being in favor if iconography. Different times, different methods.

---

You are correct. One of the ironies of the post 1st Century dividing. (By Trajan's reign and after 117 AD uprising its really in gear). Another thing --- the most persuasive analysis link anti-icon iconoclasm in the Byzantine dark age equivalent to a desire to cater to Islam's anti-imagery a bit -- to make the Muslim conquest a little more difficult to draw a distinction trying to win back the same peoples. (Where it gets really ornate is the possibility that Prophet Muhammad in turn though, got some of his ideas from Eastern (Byzantine) heretics. So complex!

Zobel said:

---

Interestingly enough this story is simply not true. Early churches - and synagogues - were filled with images. For example - the Dura Europos church and synagogue both reflect this, from ~230 AD. The more we discover archaeologically, the more we find.

---

Phatbob had said 1st C. His case is better there until after the post-Jamnia conference true divide starting between the Jewish and newly rising -- lets call them Nazarene's to preserve their still many Jewish traits at the moment.

The Banned said:

---

titan said:

---

Quote:

---

To make it political - I think the dominant form of religion in the US is a heavily-calvinist-influenced protestantism, which has good and bad points to it. But the chief bad about it is that it is the dominant form of religion in the US and in that role it reflects US society more than it influences it. That's why as US society changes, the center of gravity of that religion changes too. Pick a topic... divorce, birth control, homosexuality, even actual politics.

---

Fascinating observation. Will not contest it per-se, but you would say calvinist-influenced more than say, Baptist? But your general take especially if talking about earlier period, seems to be onto it.

---

Calvinism heavily influences that Baptist church. Once saved always saved was first promulgated by Calvin. Even Luther disagreed with this. Calvinism is at the heart of the SBC, even though it's been semi-hidden. It's why the sudden rise in Reformed doctrine was inevitable.

---

I feel like this take has popped up before...the "once-saved-always-saved" moniker is not used by Calvinists; that comes from the altar call culture that still dominates evangelical America. The folks that push people hard to come up and make a decision and say the magic words. Calvinism does not teach that, and mentioning the C word in front of those folks will usually be met with considerable hostility. Guys like Billy Graham were very much not Calvinists. The easy-believism found often in the SBC and many "non-denominational" churches is not rooted in Calvinism. It stems largely from the Finney-era forced revivalism.

Calvinism does teach that those who are saved persevere in their faith through the power of the Spirit alone, but it does not mean that saying a prayer with the right words makes you good to go no matter what happens next in your life.

The rules that have been followed were made to keep people from falling into sin (or in another way, away from God). As there are as many ways to do that as there are ways people can act, the way people interact with their culture changes. Graven images were, at the time, ways that other religions worshiped. Having rules against it kept God's people from tempting themselves with other gods. We don't really have that same association, and that explains a lot of the change at the time, and in a way maybe that helps demonstrate that there are reasons why the Church does not need to look the same way it did pre-Luther.

I don't mean to get into big theological debates in this thread, but when it comes to the dissemination of the Word of God, the message is the important thing, not the messenger.

Phatbob said:

---

The rules that have been followed were made to keep people from falling into sin (or in another way, away from God). As there are as many ways to do that as there are ways people can act, the way people interact with their culture changes. Graven images were, at the time, ways that other religions worshiped. Having rules against it kept God's people from tempting themselves with other gods. We don't really have that same association, and that explains a lot of the change at the time, and in a way maybe that helps demonstrate that there are reasons why the Church does not need to look the same way it did pre-Luther.

I don't mean to get into big theological debates in this thread, but when it comes to the dissemination of the Word of God, the message is the important thing, not the messenger.

---

That's a good insightful post. I see exactly what you are saying, and it also explains very well why for the Christian Empire, that no longer became problematical because the images not used that way.

tk111 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

titan said:

---

Quote:

---

To make it political - I think the dominant form of religion in the US is a heavily-calvinist-influenced protestantism, which has good and bad points to it. But the chief bad about it is that it is the dominant form of religion in the US and in that role it reflects US society more than it influences it. That's why as US society changes, the center of gravity of that religion changes too. Pick a topic... divorce, birth control, homosexuality, even actual politics.

---

Fascinating observation. Will not contest it per-se, but you would say calvinist-influenced more than say, Baptist? But your general take especially if talking about earlier period, seems to be onto it.

---

Calvinism heavily influences that Baptist church. Once saved always saved was first promulgated by Calvin. Even Luther disagreed with this. Calvinism is at the heart of the SBC, even though it's been semi-hidden. It's why the sudden rise in Reformed doctrine was inevitable.

---

I feel like this take has popped up before...the "once-saved-always-saved" moniker is not used by Calvinists; that comes from the altar call culture that still dominates evangelical America. The folks that push people hard to come up and make a decision and say the magic words. Calvinism does not teach that, and mentioning the C word in front of those folks will usually be met with considerable hostility. Guys like Billy Graham were very much not Calvinists. The easy-believism found often in the SBC and many "non-denominational" churches is not rooted in Calvinism. It stems largely from the Finney-era forced revivalism.

Calvinism does teach that those who are saved persevere in their faith through the power of the Spirit alone, but it does not mean that saying a prayer with the right words makes you good to go no matter what happens next in your life.

---

OSAS is just the easiest way to say it. We can say unconditional election, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints too, it's just easier that way. They both mean the same thing: if you're saved, you're saved.

The difference is in if God actually picked you (Calvinism) or if you assented to God's call (what most baptists, non-denom believe). I did this on the R&P board: the problem with saying that you chose to believe but can't ever lose salvation is the same easy believism you mention. This is why there is such a growing reformed movement in the SBC. Choosing God and staying saved forever just doesn't go well together and that strain of Protestantism is starting to catch on.


ETA: also the realization that if you do choose to follow God's call, you by definition contributed to your salvation in at least some way, which most SBC/non-denom are allergic to