Zobel said:

---

Ah I see your point about signet rings. I think they are more evidence of cultic use of objects with images (i.e., veneration) - which seems to be the biggest problem. Images are omnipresent, the objection is always the veneration of the images.

I also think the more we learn about Second Temple Judaism we the more we see how widely varied it was, how there was no real singular Judaism (scholars now talk about Judaisms) and how modern Rabbinic Judaism is not necessarily representative of any particular sect of the first century - in theology, external appearance, or practice. The reaction to Christianity resulted in a couple of changes - rejection of writing is one significant one, the rejection of "two Powers" theology to a rigid monotheism is another. It doesn't seem unlikely to me that the rejection of images would be a third.

Quote:

---

Aside for general observation. The connections between Islam and iconoclastic Byzantium period are interesting for any intrigued by such. They correspond in time frame ----- that tendency you see in Islamic manuscripts to have faceless people (especially the Prophet) have notable correspondence to the destruction by the iconoclast Emperor administrations to imagery. Intriguingly, some Caliphs imagers appear on coins before it sets in, and after it weakens (again corresponding a bit to the end of iconoclasm in Constantinople)

---

Yes, I agree. It does seem suspect. And St John of Damascus' explicit characterization of Islam as a Christian heresy seems to reinforce this.

---

Agree with everything you wrote above.

To touch on the last, its significant in the recent open "discussion on Islamic terrorism" thread the prospect of Prophet Muhammad not being real came up. But as you probably know, Eastern Orthdodox sources confirm his reality and even month and year of death. That's one absurd dead-end that can be discarded.

Nanomachines son 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.

---

Baptists have always gone right up to the Calvinist double predestination line, but rarely crossed over. I consider myself mostly reformed. I flip flop regularly between believing double predestination and not.

With that said, you are 100% correct about Calvinism influencing Baptist churches. It also doesn't help that a lot of the great modern podcasters and a lot of the Christian right discussion online is dominated by reformed people.

---

Huh? The Baptist denomination was essentially entirely Calvinist until well into the last century...1689 confession?

Nanomachines son said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I mean… You say they believe them, but they don't believe them in the say way - especially not how the church is "one" or "apostolic" or even the definition of "church."

If disunity is the mark of demonic influence - and I'm not arguing against it - then the record of the Reformation is very poor indeed.

---

This is semantics and you know it. If the Catholic Church really believed as you say then they would not accept any Baptist baptism, which we know is false because they do, all of the time.

---

Because the "Baptist baptism" is just baptism done in the proper manner: in the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit, with water.

We do reject other types of baptisms. Not because we like one denomination and not the other, but because it was either valid or it wasn't.

Zobel said:

---

I'm not sure whether or not a church accepts the symbol of faith or understands it appropriately is the criterion being used as to whether or not a person has a valid baptism.

It isn't semantics though. The whole point of the symbol of faith is something that points to the reality. We say we believe this, because it points to this other thing over here that we call the Faith. If we don't really agree on that then the words themselves are meaningless. Baptists and Roman Catholics have radically different understandings of ecclesiology, and it comes down to a completely different understanding of "one, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church." Roman Catholics will say that the Baptist church is not one, or catholic, or Apostolic.

If you want to say, well we'll say the same words at the same time and mean entirely different things about them and that makes us agree... that seems like a very superficial unity indeed.

---

No Protestant church uses the Catholic meaning of Catholic in the creeds.

Once again though, you're focusing on minutia like what Chrisrjans seemingly always do and ignoring the 95% of the rest of my post. Stop trying to fight the 30 Years War again and focus on the modern issues all of our churches are seeing. Every single denomination is being attacked in an identical subversive manner. If you cannot see the influence of Satan here then perhaps you should reconsider your priorities.

This is why I don't post on the religion board. It's a bunch of Christians trying to debate the same issues from 400 years ago or more while they ignore the churches metaphorically burning around them and the millions of Christians abandoning the faith and turning to cultural marxism. I'm tired of it. Christians have their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the ongoing massive problems with modern weak clergy in every single denomination. They ignore the failings of church leadership in virtually every modern social issue.

Even the article posted in the OP spoke about the "dangerous far right".

We agree fundamentally on all of the major aspects that make us Christian. Let's leave it at that and focus on the real enemy, the influence of Satan through cultural marxism on the church.

tk111 said:

---

Nanomachines son 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.

---

Baptists have always gone right up to the Calvinist double predestination line, but rarely crossed over. I consider myself mostly reformed. I flip flop regularly between believing double predestination and not.

With that said, you are 100% correct about Calvinism influencing Baptist churches. It also doesn't help that a lot of the great modern podcasters and a lot of the Christian right discussion online is dominated by reformed people.

---

Huh? The Baptist denomination was essentially entirely Calvinist until well into the last century...1689 confession?

---

Yep. It gets fun also learning about these woke Ivy league schools and how they all started essentially as Calvinistic leaning seminaries.

Nanomachines son said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Nanomachines son 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.

---

Luther did try to work within the system and with the church to fix things. The church refused to listen to him. Luther even wrote his 95 theses in Latin. Unfortunately for Luther, someone took them and translated them all into German and it exploded from there. Luther effectively became a persona non grata overnight as a result despite him not wanting the laity to get involved in what was considered a priestly matter by him. Once it got released the choice was removed from him and the church had to respond according to its own rules. Both sides were between a rock and a hard place with no where to go at that point and any conversations that may have happened had it stayed private became impossible.

All that said, it's clear God had a plan here regardless of what the clergy wanted and none of them knew of that plan. It's unfortunate it led to the single worst period in Germany's history and enormous amounts of deaths but it brought text of the Bible and theology to the people in a way that it never had before. Luther was merely the avenue by which this would be accomplished. It's pretty obvious the seeds had been sown for this situation for hundreds of years though.

---

What do you mean the church refused to listen to him? They responded to his theses, most of which they agreed with him on of the 95, they pronounced only 41 to be in error, so it's not like they completely ignored him. Where practice was wrong, the church agreed with him.

But he disagreed on church teaching. The church said the teaching was sound, so Luther had to recant that part. He did not recant and ended up tripling down. If he wanted to work within the system, he could have. The problem is his view on salvation was different than the teachings of the system, so he was forced to go his own way. Which is exactly what should happen. If we teach X and you teach Y, we don't really go together do we?

---

It was still an entirely private matter until someone else translated it into German. Luther was perfectly okay keeping it within the Church. Once it got publicized and released, the choice was removed from both sides and they each dug in on their respective positions.

Luther did not publish or translate the 95 These into German. Someone else did that and it was entirely against his wishes. He did not want the laity involved in the matter at all.

---

I'll have to look into this claim. It doesn't seem to square with his later obstinance against long held Catholic teaching on salvation, free will, original sin vs total depravity, but I'll try to keep an open mind.

The Banned said:

---

Nanomachines son 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.

---

Baptists have always gone right up to the Calvinist double predestination line, but rarely crossed over. I consider myself mostly reformed. I flip flop regularly between believing double predestination and not.

With that said, you are 100% correct about Calvinism influencing Baptist churches. It also doesn't help that a lot of the great modern podcasters and a lot of the Christian right discussion online is dominated by reformed people.

---

It's long, but feel free to peruse the recent "faith alone" thread on the R&P board. Lots of cordial discussion that dives into the heart of this matter and how monergism vs synergism plays the primary role.

Essentially, if "we contribute nothing to our salvation" then even the choice to follow God isn't ours and double predestination is a thing. Otherwise we do choose to follow God and leaving the faith later in life must be an option. It's either double active or double passive.

Being passive in the direction of choosing God but being active in leaving Him is Lutheran. Being able to choose Him but not leave is very new and has its own "cheap grace/free grace" issues. But bigger than that is the logical fallacies that both sides have to embrace to hold onto that belief. If I can reject something, by definition I must be able to accept it. And if I can accept something, by definition I must be able to reject it.

Not going to rehash it all here, but it's a good group of people going through the whole thing and you may enjoy it.

---

This is why I said Baptists go right up to the line. It's a complex issue as you said. It's ultimately meaningless in the end though provided you maintain your faith and you act in the manner Paul describes. It's an interesting aspect of theology but not really a big deal in comparison to what we as Christians and our churches face in the modern world, which is clearly far more damaging to the religion as a whole.

Quote:

---

No Protestant church uses the Catholic meaning of Catholic in the creeds.

---

yeah, that's kind of the point ain't it?

Quote:

---

We agree fundamentally on all of the major aspects that make us Christian. Let's leave it at that and focus on the real enemy, the influence of Satan through cultural marxism on the church.

---

but we don't. like i said, the end result of ecumenism is a race to the least common denominator which will be some loose statements about the divinity of Jesus Christ - if that.

what is a "major" aspect to me is irrelevant to you. just because it doesn't matter to your sect doesn't make it irrelevant.

Quote:

---

If you cannot see the influence of Satan here then perhaps you should reconsider your priorities.

---

oh, i see it. i just think it started several centuries before you think it did.

Quote:

---

Christians have their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the ongoing massive problems with modern weak clergy in every single denomination but one

---

FIFY

everyone should do what the OP says is happening and become Orthodox. all of this bickering ends, and we take a huge victory in the culture war. win-win.

come for the anti-woke, stay for the grace.

Nanomachines son said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm not sure whether or not a church accepts the symbol of faith or understands it appropriately is the criterion being used as to whether or not a person has a valid baptism.

It isn't semantics though. The whole point of the symbol of faith is something that points to the reality. We say we believe this, because it points to this other thing over here that we call the Faith. If we don't really agree on that then the words themselves are meaningless. Baptists and Roman Catholics have radically different understandings of ecclesiology, and it comes down to a completely different understanding of "one, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church." Roman Catholics will say that the Baptist church is not one, or catholic, or Apostolic.

If you want to say, well we'll say the same words at the same time and mean entirely different things about them and that makes us agree... that seems like a very superficial unity indeed.

---

No Protestant church uses the Catholic meaning of Catholic in the creeds.

Once again though, you're focusing on minutia like what Chrisrjans seemingly always do and ignoring the 95% of the rest of my post. Stop trying to fight the 30 Years War again and focus on the modern issues all of our churches are seeing. Every single denomination is being attacked in an identical subversive manner. If you cannot see the influence of Satan here then perhaps you should reconsider your priorities.

This is why I don't post on the religion board. It's a bunch of Christians trying to debate the same issues from 400 years ago or more while they ignore the churches metaphorically burning around them and the millions of Christians abandoning the faith and turning to cultural marxism. I'm tired of it. Christians have their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the ongoing massive problems with modern weak clergy in every single denomination. They ignore the failings of church leadership in virtually every modern social issue.

Even the article posted in the OP spoke about the "dangerous far right".

We agree fundamentally on all of the major aspects that make us Christian. Let's leave it at that and focus on the real enemy, the influence of Satan through cultural marxism on the church.

---

This is a pretty insightful observation, and part of me inclines to agree. It is why I was trying to stress that incomplete understanding of the histories of the West and East Empire relations is far from trivial and part of the divide. Exploring them offers bridges to get back to the unity you seek. Even the filioque debate started out as a political and regional concern that later grew out of proportion. The bold is a very real thing.

Quote:

---

This is why I don't post on the religion board. It's a bunch of Christians trying to debate the same issues from 400 years ago or more while they ignore the churches metaphorically burning around them and the millions of Christians abandoning the faith and turning to cultural marxism. I'm tired of it. Christians have their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the ongoing massive problems with modern weak clergy in every single denomination. They ignore the failings of church leadership in virtually every modern social issue.

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm not sure whether or not a church accepts the symbol of faith or understands it appropriately is the criterion being used as to whether or not a person has a valid baptism.

It isn't semantics though. The whole point of the symbol of faith is something that points to the reality. We say we believe this, because it points to this other thing over here that we call the Faith. If we don't really agree on that then the words themselves are meaningless. Baptists and Roman Catholics have radically different understandings of ecclesiology, and it comes down to a completely different understanding of "one, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church." Roman Catholics will say that the Baptist church is not one, or catholic, or Apostolic.

If you want to say, well we'll say the same words at the same time and mean entirely different things about them and that makes us agree... that seems like a very superficial unity indeed.

---

No Protestant church uses the Catholic meaning of Catholic in the creeds.

Once again though, you're focusing on minutia like what Chrisrjans seemingly always do and ignoring the 95% of the rest of my post. Stop trying to fight the 30 Years War again and focus on the modern issues all of our churches are seeing. Every single denomination is being attacked in an identical subversive manner. If you cannot see the influence of Satan here then perhaps you should reconsider your priorities.

This is why I don't post on the religion board. It's a bunch of Christians trying to debate the same issues from 400 years ago or more while they ignore the churches metaphorically burning around them and the millions of Christians abandoning the faith and turning to cultural marxism. I'm tired of it. Christians have their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the ongoing massive problems with modern weak clergy in every single denomination. They ignore the failings of church leadership in virtually every modern social issue.

Even the article posted in the OP spoke about the "dangerous far right".

We agree fundamentally on all of the major aspects that make us Christian. Let's leave it at that and focus on the real enemy, the influence of Satan through cultural marxism on the church.

---

Can't disagree with you…modern issues certainly seem to be weeding us out. Perhaps, if we choose to view it in such a way, it can actually bring all these different denominations together in the way of truth vs untruth. The recent goings on within the Methodist denomination being an example.

tk111 said:

---

Nanomachines son 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.

---

Baptists have always gone right up to the Calvinist double predestination line, but rarely crossed over. I consider myself mostly reformed. I flip flop regularly between believing double predestination and not.

With that said, you are 100% correct about Calvinism influencing Baptist churches. It also doesn't help that a lot of the great modern podcasters and a lot of the Christian right discussion online is dominated by reformed people.

---

Huh? The Baptist denomination was essentially entirely Calvinist until well into the last century...1689 confession?

---

Yes, Dispensationalism wrecked havoc upon the Baptist churches. Thank God that is largely dying out with the Boomers.

Nanomachines son said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm not sure whether or not a church accepts the symbol of faith or understands it appropriately is the criterion being used as to whether or not a person has a valid baptism.

It isn't semantics though. The whole point of the symbol of faith is something that points to the reality. We say we believe this, because it points to this other thing over here that we call the Faith. If we don't really agree on that then the words themselves are meaningless. Baptists and Roman Catholics have radically different understandings of ecclesiology, and it comes down to a completely different understanding of "one, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church." Roman Catholics will say that the Baptist church is not one, or catholic, or Apostolic.

If you want to say, well we'll say the same words at the same time and mean entirely different things about them and that makes us agree... that seems like a very superficial unity indeed.

---

No Protestant church uses the Catholic meaning of Catholic in the creeds.

Once again though, you're focusing on minutia like what Chrisrjans seemingly always do and ignoring the 95% of the rest of my post. Stop trying to fight the 30 Years War again and focus on the modern issues all of our churches are seeing. Every single denomination is being attacked in an identical subversive manner. If you cannot see the influence of Satan here then perhaps you should reconsider your priorities.

This is why I don't post on the religion board. It's a bunch of Christians trying to debate the same issues from 400 years ago or more while they ignore the churches metaphorically burning around them and the millions of Christians abandoning the faith and turning to cultural marxism. I'm tired of it. Christians have their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the ongoing massive problems with modern weak clergy in every single denomination. They ignore the failings of church leadership in virtually every modern social issue.

Even the article posted in the OP spoke about the "dangerous far right".

We agree fundamentally on all of the major aspects that make us Christian. Let's leave it at that and focus on the real enemy, the influence of Satan through cultural marxism on the church.

---

Which is kind of why this thread probably started. Of all the clergy out there right now, the orthodox probably have the highest batting average of clergy refusing modernity. The next wave of Catholic priests will be solid in the manner.

I agree with you on needing to find the common ground. I have been and will continue to be a major proponent of that, but part of what gets in the way is the differences. You can't just ignore them.

For example, how many Protestant churches out there (especially evangelical/baptist) refuse to acknowledge second marriages? How many accept IVF, which has led to many, many millions of embryos being destroyed? How many accept contraception, which had been denounced as evil by every Christian sect ever until 1930? How many will claim asking the saints for intercession is idolatry?

Tried as I have to seek unity without those topics getting in the way, they just do. That's why challenging the entire process of how we split in the first place is so important.

The Banned said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Nanomachines son 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.

---

Luther did try to work within the system and with the church to fix things. The church refused to listen to him. Luther even wrote his 95 theses in Latin. Unfortunately for Luther, someone took them and translated them all into German and it exploded from there. Luther effectively became a persona non grata overnight as a result despite him not wanting the laity to get involved in what was considered a priestly matter by him. Once it got released the choice was removed from him and the church had to respond according to its own rules. Both sides were between a rock and a hard place with no where to go at that point and any conversations that may have happened had it stayed private became impossible.

All that said, it's clear God had a plan here regardless of what the clergy wanted and none of them knew of that plan. It's unfortunate it led to the single worst period in Germany's history and enormous amounts of deaths but it brought text of the Bible and theology to the people in a way that it never had before. Luther was merely the avenue by which this would be accomplished. It's pretty obvious the seeds had been sown for this situation for hundreds of years though.

---

What do you mean the church refused to listen to him? They responded to his theses, most of which they agreed with him on of the 95, they pronounced only 41 to be in error, so it's not like they completely ignored him. Where practice was wrong, the church agreed with him.

But he disagreed on church teaching. The church said the teaching was sound, so Luther had to recant that part. He did not recant and ended up tripling down. If he wanted to work within the system, he could have. The problem is his view on salvation was different than the teachings of the system, so he was forced to go his own way. Which is exactly what should happen. If we teach X and you teach Y, we don't really go together do we?

---

It was still an entirely private matter until someone else translated it into German. Luther was perfectly okay keeping it within the Church. Once it got publicized and released, the choice was removed from both sides and they each dug in on their respective positions.

Luther did not publish or translate the 95 These into German. Someone else did that and it was entirely against his wishes. He did not want the laity involved in the matter at all.

---

I'll have to look into this claim. It doesn't seem to square with his later obstinance against long held Catholic teaching on salvation, free will, original sin vs total depravity, but I'll try to keep an open mind.

---

Tip: Part of where you come out in Luther's arguments is what you make of Augustine. He started with some of his foundations, and later departed from those. (Bear in mind the East in general has a more ambivalent view toward Augustine and that too is significant in the divide)

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

No Protestant church uses the Catholic meaning of Catholic in the creeds.

---

yeah, that's kind of the point ain't it?

Quote:

---

We agree fundamentally on all of the major aspects that make us Christian. Let's leave it at that and focus on the real enemy, the influence of Satan through cultural marxism on the church.

---

but we don't. like i said, the end result of ecumenism is a race to the least common denominator which will be some loose statements about the divinity of Jesus Christ - if that.

what is a "major" aspect to me is irrelevant to you. just because it doesn't matter to your sect doesn't make it irrelevant.

Quote:

---

If you cannot see the influence of Satan here then perhaps you should reconsider your priorities.

---

oh, i see it. i just think it started several centuries before you think it did.

Quote:

---

Christians have their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the ongoing massive problems with modern weak clergy in every single denomination but one

---

FIFY

everyone should do what the OP says is happening and become Orthodox. all of this bickering ends, and we take a huge victory in the culture war. win-win.

come for the anti-woke, stay for the grace.

---

Or...

you could come to our Church, you're always welcome! We'll go to the local Papusaria afterwards and get some good grub.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

No Protestant church uses the Catholic meaning of Catholic in the creeds.

---

yeah, that's kind of the point ain't it?

Quote:

---

We agree fundamentally on all of the major aspects that make us Christian. Let's leave it at that and focus on the real enemy, the influence of Satan through cultural marxism on the church.

---

but we don't. like i said, the end result of ecumenism is a race to the least common denominator which will be some loose statements about the divinity of Jesus Christ - if that.

what is a "major" aspect to me is irrelevant to you. just because it doesn't matter to your sect doesn't make it irrelevant.

Quote:

---

If you cannot see the influence of Satan here then perhaps you should reconsider your priorities.

---

oh, i see it. i just think it started several centuries before you think it did.

Quote:

---

Christians have their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the ongoing massive problems with modern weak clergy in every single denomination but one

---

FIFY

everyone should do what the OP says is happening and become Orthodox. all of this bickering ends, and we take a huge victory in the culture war. win-win.

come for the anti-woke, stay for the grace.

---

Zobel,

Come, come, now. On the purely political side of the whole issue you have to admit that Orthodox over the centuries in Eastern Europe allowed itself to become almost comically regionally vested and bickering and is not without its internal divides between members such as those of Greek Orthodox (Byzantine remnant) and the ROC of Russia, and still those of Bulgaria, Serbia, etc? How to solve that tendency which was the down-side of losing the patriarchates?

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm not sure whether or not a church accepts the symbol of faith or understands it appropriately is the criterion being used as to whether or not a person has a valid baptism.

It isn't semantics though. The whole point of the symbol of faith is something that points to the reality. We say we believe this, because it points to this other thing over here that we call the Faith. If we don't really agree on that then the words themselves are meaningless. Baptists and Roman Catholics have radically different understandings of ecclesiology, and it comes down to a completely different understanding of "one, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church." Roman Catholics will say that the Baptist church is not one, or catholic, or Apostolic.

If you want to say, well we'll say the same words at the same time and mean entirely different things about them and that makes us agree... that seems like a very superficial unity indeed.

---

No Protestant church uses the Catholic meaning of Catholic in the creeds.

Once again though, you're focusing on minutia like what Chrisrjans seemingly always do and ignoring the 95% of the rest of my post. Stop trying to fight the 30 Years War again and focus on the modern issues all of our churches are seeing. Every single denomination is being attacked in an identical subversive manner. If you cannot see the influence of Satan here then perhaps you should reconsider your priorities.

This is why I don't post on the religion board. It's a bunch of Christians trying to debate the same issues from 400 years ago or more while they ignore the churches metaphorically burning around them and the millions of Christians abandoning the faith and turning to cultural marxism. I'm tired of it. Christians have their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the ongoing massive problems with modern weak clergy in every single denomination. They ignore the failings of church leadership in virtually every modern social issue.

Even the article posted in the OP spoke about the "dangerous far right".

We agree fundamentally on all of the major aspects that make us Christian. Let's leave it at that and focus on the real enemy, the influence of Satan through cultural marxism on the church.

---

Can't disagree with you…modern issues certainly seem to be weeding us out. Perhaps, if we choose to view it in such a way, it can actually bring all these different denominations together in the way of truth vs untruth. The recent goings on within the Methodist denomination being an example.

---

This is my dream. I have no problems as a Baptist standing next to a Catholic or Orthodox as a last line of defense of general Christendom. I'll gladly line up to protect a Catholic Church if necessary.

This is why my Bible study and a similar Catholic Bible study are going to have regular combined ones. We must foster cooperation in the coming battle or we will all fall because once again, God never guaranteed our nation will remain Christian or that anyone here will be Christian, he only declared the church in some form will survive. This means we, as Christians, must put in the work to maintain general Christendom for our people and we must work with others from other denominations to do this.

The modern heresies we face are like nothing the church has ever seen before especially when combined with the ease of information spread from modern technology.

nah, thanks though. i'm anti-modern, anti-individualist, and anti-democracy. the entire story arc from the reformation onward is essentially one big progressive movement culminating in the left of today. the only difference between each generation is what part of their cultural inheritance they are tearing down. protestantism in any flavor isn't going to work for me.

Nanomachines son said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Nanomachines son 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.

---

Baptists have always gone right up to the Calvinist double predestination line, but rarely crossed over. I consider myself mostly reformed. I flip flop regularly between believing double predestination and not.

With that said, you are 100% correct about Calvinism influencing Baptist churches. It also doesn't help that a lot of the great modern podcasters and a lot of the Christian right discussion online is dominated by reformed people.

---

It's long, but feel free to peruse the recent "faith alone" thread on the R&P board. Lots of cordial discussion that dives into the heart of this matter and how monergism vs synergism plays the primary role.

Essentially, if "we contribute nothing to our salvation" then even the choice to follow God isn't ours and double predestination is a thing. Otherwise we do choose to follow God and leaving the faith later in life must be an option. It's either double active or double passive.

Being passive in the direction of choosing God but being active in leaving Him is Lutheran. Being able to choose Him but not leave is very new and has its own "cheap grace/free grace" issues. But bigger than that is the logical fallacies that both sides have to embrace to hold onto that belief. If I can reject something, by definition I must be able to accept it. And if I can accept something, by definition I must be able to reject it.

Not going to rehash it all here, but it's a good group of people going through the whole thing and you may enjoy it.

---

This is why I said Baptists go right up to the line. It's a complex issue as you said. It's ultimately meaningless in the end though provided you maintain your faith and you act in the manner Paul describes. It's an interesting aspect of theology but not really a big deal in comparison to what we as Christians and our churches face in the modern world, which is clearly far more damaging to the religion as a whole.

---

I suggest it is a very big deal as it's the main reason we don't "church together" to fight these issues in the first place.

Let's unify around faith in Christ. Great. Now what is that? Is it an intellectual faith? Is it one where we have to do the good things He commands us or lose it? Is it something He just put inside of, we can't deny it and any other lost souls out there simply didn't get picked?

As Zobel said, even trying to find that lowest common denominator is difficult. Which is why Jesus left men in charge, guided by the Holy Spirit, to teach and reprove, not a text for us to read and attempt to make a church that we think mirrors it.

yeah for sure, the yokes of communism and islam, and the political intrigues which came with it, have been horrible for the church.

but the yoke of progressivism on the west has been much, much worse.

i think we fix it by taking the best of the western inheritance and putting it in subordination to the wisdom of the east. it will take time to undo the damage to the western psyche, but the building blocks are there.

america should be orthodox.

titan said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Nanomachines son 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.

---

Luther did try to work within the system and with the church to fix things. The church refused to listen to him. Luther even wrote his 95 theses in Latin. Unfortunately for Luther, someone took them and translated them all into German and it exploded from there. Luther effectively became a persona non grata overnight as a result despite him not wanting the laity to get involved in what was considered a priestly matter by him. Once it got released the choice was removed from him and the church had to respond according to its own rules. Both sides were between a rock and a hard place with no where to go at that point and any conversations that may have happened had it stayed private became impossible.

All that said, it's clear God had a plan here regardless of what the clergy wanted and none of them knew of that plan. It's unfortunate it led to the single worst period in Germany's history and enormous amounts of deaths but it brought text of the Bible and theology to the people in a way that it never had before. Luther was merely the avenue by which this would be accomplished. It's pretty obvious the seeds had been sown for this situation for hundreds of years though.

---

What do you mean the church refused to listen to him? They responded to his theses, most of which they agreed with him on of the 95, they pronounced only 41 to be in error, so it's not like they completely ignored him. Where practice was wrong, the church agreed with him.

But he disagreed on church teaching. The church said the teaching was sound, so Luther had to recant that part. He did not recant and ended up tripling down. If he wanted to work within the system, he could have. The problem is his view on salvation was different than the teachings of the system, so he was forced to go his own way. Which is exactly what should happen. If we teach X and you teach Y, we don't really go together do we?

---

It was still an entirely private matter until someone else translated it into German. Luther was perfectly okay keeping it within the Church. Once it got publicized and released, the choice was removed from both sides and they each dug in on their respective positions.

Luther did not publish or translate the 95 These into German. Someone else did that and it was entirely against his wishes. He did not want the laity involved in the matter at all.

---

I'll have to look into this claim. It doesn't seem to square with his later obstinance against long held Catholic teaching on salvation, free will, original sin vs total depravity, but I'll try to keep an open mind.

---

Tip: Part of where you come out in Luther's arguments is what you make of Augustine. He started with some of his foundations, and later departed from those. (Bear in mind the East in general has a more ambivalent view toward Augustine and that too is significant in the divide)

---

I'm familiar with his theology and line of argumentation. This is the first time I've heard he tried to keep it all in house. Seems odd for a guy to try to keep everything in house only to bail on his church's teachings completely in a 3 year period.

Quote:

---

Worshippers must stand for long services, which can last upwards of five hours. They must fast, too, sometimes for up to 40 days.

---

I appreciate the reason for this happening but I'm out of this is in the cards. My old man back can't stand for more than about 1 hour at a time.

Call me an Orthodox 2 percenter.

this is absurd though. the church has faced heresies more widespread (even becoming a majority at some points) and certainly weirder and wackier. the church has also faced political persecution that makes what's going on in europe and the usa look like child's play.

you talk about a common christianity - but what is the point of defending that commonality together if all it becomes is some mealy mouthed halfhearted confession that looks nothing like the faith of even a century ago? i don't care a whit about "general christendom" if its just code for some kind of cultural conservatism. that isn't the gospel.

Nanomachines son said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm not sure whether or not a church accepts the symbol of faith or understands it appropriately is the criterion being used as to whether or not a person has a valid baptism.

It isn't semantics though. The whole point of the symbol of faith is something that points to the reality. We say we believe this, because it points to this other thing over here that we call the Faith. If we don't really agree on that then the words themselves are meaningless. Baptists and Roman Catholics have radically different understandings of ecclesiology, and it comes down to a completely different understanding of "one, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church." Roman Catholics will say that the Baptist church is not one, or catholic, or Apostolic.

If you want to say, well we'll say the same words at the same time and mean entirely different things about them and that makes us agree... that seems like a very superficial unity indeed.

---

No Protestant church uses the Catholic meaning of Catholic in the creeds.

Once again though, you're focusing on minutia like what Chrisrjans seemingly always do and ignoring the 95% of the rest of my post. Stop trying to fight the 30 Years War again and focus on the modern issues all of our churches are seeing. Every single denomination is being attacked in an identical subversive manner. If you cannot see the influence of Satan here then perhaps you should reconsider your priorities.

This is why I don't post on the religion board. It's a bunch of Christians trying to debate the same issues from 400 years ago or more while they ignore the churches metaphorically burning around them and the millions of Christians abandoning the faith and turning to cultural marxism. I'm tired of it. Christians have their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the ongoing massive problems with modern weak clergy in every single denomination. They ignore the failings of church leadership in virtually every modern social issue.

Even the article posted in the OP spoke about the "dangerous far right".

We agree fundamentally on all of the major aspects that make us Christian. Let's leave it at that and focus on the real enemy, the influence of Satan through cultural marxism on the church.

---

Can't disagree with you…modern issues certainly seem to be weeding us out. Perhaps, if we choose to view it in such a way, it can actually bring all these different denominations together in the way of truth vs untruth. The recent goings on within the Methodist denomination being an example.

---

This is my dream. I have no problems as a Baptist standing next to a Catholic or Orthodox as a last line of defense of general Christendom. I'll gladly line up to protect a Catholic Church if necessary.

This is why my Bible study and a similar Catholic Bible study are going to have regular combined ones. We must foster cooperation in the coming battle or we will all fall because once again, God never guaranteed our nation will remain Christian or that anyone here will be Christian, he only declared the church in some form will survive. This means we, as Christians, must put in the work to maintain general Christendom for our people and we must work with others from other denominations to do this.

The modern heresies we face are like nothing the church has ever seen before especially when combined with the ease of information spread from modern technology.

---

Yes, and will protect a reformed one in turn. As for the differences --- it might be beneficial to figure out the really decisive ones and religitate those. Personally, I still havent' heard a good argument against the EOC claim in this case the West altered the deal with the filioque argument for example. There are probably others where the EOC needs to back down.

we have very, very few five hour services. basically confined to holy week. and we have floors to sit on, and chairs for the old or infirm. that article is kinda silly, there's no physical fitness test to be orthodox.

Zobel said:

---

we have very, very few five hour services. basically confined to holy week. and we have floors to sit on, and chairs for the old or infirm. that article is kinda silly, there's no physical fitness test to be orthodox.

---

Apostates!

The Banned said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm not sure whether or not a church accepts the symbol of faith or understands it appropriately is the criterion being used as to whether or not a person has a valid baptism.

It isn't semantics though. The whole point of the symbol of faith is something that points to the reality. We say we believe this, because it points to this other thing over here that we call the Faith. If we don't really agree on that then the words themselves are meaningless. Baptists and Roman Catholics have radically different understandings of ecclesiology, and it comes down to a completely different understanding of "one, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church." Roman Catholics will say that the Baptist church is not one, or catholic, or Apostolic.

If you want to say, well we'll say the same words at the same time and mean entirely different things about them and that makes us agree... that seems like a very superficial unity indeed.

---

No Protestant church uses the Catholic meaning of Catholic in the creeds.

Once again though, you're focusing on minutia like what Chrisrjans seemingly always do and ignoring the 95% of the rest of my post. Stop trying to fight the 30 Years War again and focus on the modern issues all of our churches are seeing. Every single denomination is being attacked in an identical subversive manner. If you cannot see the influence of Satan here then perhaps you should reconsider your priorities.

This is why I don't post on the religion board. It's a bunch of Christians trying to debate the same issues from 400 years ago or more while they ignore the churches metaphorically burning around them and the millions of Christians abandoning the faith and turning to cultural marxism. I'm tired of it. Christians have their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the ongoing massive problems with modern weak clergy in every single denomination. They ignore the failings of church leadership in virtually every modern social issue.

Even the article posted in the OP spoke about the "dangerous far right".

We agree fundamentally on all of the major aspects that make us Christian. Let's leave it at that and focus on the real enemy, the influence of Satan through cultural marxism on the church.

---

Which is kind of why this thread probably started. Of all the clergy out there right now, the orthodox probably have the highest batting average of clergy refusing modernity. The next wave of Catholic priests will be solid in the manner.

I agree with you on needing to find the common ground. I have been and will continue to be a major proponent of that, but part of what gets in the way is the differences. You can't just ignore them.

For example, how many Protestant churches out there (especially evangelical/baptist) refuse to acknowledge second marriages? How many accept IVF, which has led to many, many millions of embryos being destroyed? How many accept contraception, which had been denounced as evil by every Christian sect ever until 1930? How many will claim asking the saints for intercession is idolatry?

Tried as I have to seek unity without those topics getting in the way, they just do. That's why challenging the entire process of how we split in the first place is so important.

---

So then we'll continue our stupid infighting and watch as Satan destroys our churches from the inside.

Post like yours are the reason why I have slowly become blackpilled on the future of Christianity in the US. The church is burning and still Christians won't put aside their doctrinal differences to fight the real enemy. I am increasingly convinced that the focus on doctrinal differences such that the much larger and worse problems are ignored is actually part of the influence of Satan on the church.

"You see those Catholics have the wrong idea about this specific issue. We can't move forward until this is resolved."
"Those Protestants don't believe in this specific way about this unique item so until this is resolved, we can't move forward."
*Satan rubs his hands together and smiles*

The Banned said:

---

titan said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Nanomachines son 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.

---

Luther did try to work within the system and with the church to fix things. The church refused to listen to him. Luther even wrote his 95 theses in Latin. Unfortunately for Luther, someone took them and translated them all into German and it exploded from there. Luther effectively became a persona non grata overnight as a result despite him not wanting the laity to get involved in what was considered a priestly matter by him. Once it got released the choice was removed from him and the church had to respond according to its own rules. Both sides were between a rock and a hard place with no where to go at that point and any conversations that may have happened had it stayed private became impossible.

All that said, it's clear God had a plan here regardless of what the clergy wanted and none of them knew of that plan. It's unfortunate it led to the single worst period in Germany's history and enormous amounts of deaths but it brought text of the Bible and theology to the people in a way that it never had before. Luther was merely the avenue by which this would be accomplished. It's pretty obvious the seeds had been sown for this situation for hundreds of years though.

---

What do you mean the church refused to listen to him? They responded to his theses, most of which they agreed with him on of the 95, they pronounced only 41 to be in error, so it's not like they completely ignored him. Where practice was wrong, the church agreed with him.

But he disagreed on church teaching. The church said the teaching was sound, so Luther had to recant that part. He did not recant and ended up tripling down. If he wanted to work within the system, he could have. The problem is his view on salvation was different than the teachings of the system, so he was forced to go his own way. Which is exactly what should happen. If we teach X and you teach Y, we don't really go together do we?

---

It was still an entirely private matter until someone else translated it into German. Luther was perfectly okay keeping it within the Church. Once it got publicized and released, the choice was removed from both sides and they each dug in on their respective positions.

Luther did not publish or translate the 95 These into German. Someone else did that and it was entirely against his wishes. He did not want the laity involved in the matter at all.

---

I'll have to look into this claim. It doesn't seem to square with his later obstinance against long held Catholic teaching on salvation, free will, original sin vs total depravity, but I'll try to keep an open mind.

---

Tip: Part of where you come out in Luther's arguments is what you make of Augustine. He started with some of his foundations, and later departed from those. (Bear in mind the East in general has a more ambivalent view toward Augustine and that too is significant in the divide)

---

I'm familiar with his theology and line of argumentation. This is the first time I've heard he tried to keep it all in house. Seems odd for a guy to try to keep everything in house only to bail on his church's teachings completely in a 3 year period.

---

He was a very volatile and forceful person. Think of egoistic politicians. It may be as simple as at the end of those years he had become emotionally invested and too much hijacked by the animosities (political relating to the regional politics of Germanic princes vs Chales V as much as scriptural). He reaches a point when says "it was all over with Augustine." Like said, it depends on what one makes of Luther's starting point and in more than one area he has a good case. At least from the Western tradition perspective---that's what makes the relative lack of East input on the Reformation a significant omission.

i don't understand. you haven't been in unity with the rcc for four centuries and disunity now is some big play by satan? why does disunity to rome make your church fall apart now?

the simpler explanation is that we're just seeing the final act of the modernist movement, which kicked off in the reformation but went into overdrive when it found a superpower to animate in the united states.

the right thing to do is to free our country from that influence.

we should revert to a pre-modern understanding of suffrage, citizenship, politics, the purpose of the state.

and, yes, we should revert to a pre-modern understanding of the church.

both of those things go hand in hand. and if we did that, we'd be a hell of a lot closer to the mind of the apostles AND the intent of the original constitution.

Nanomachines son said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm not sure whether or not a church accepts the symbol of faith or understands it appropriately is the criterion being used as to whether or not a person has a valid baptism.

It isn't semantics though. The whole point of the symbol of faith is something that points to the reality. We say we believe this, because it points to this other thing over here that we call the Faith. If we don't really agree on that then the words themselves are meaningless. Baptists and Roman Catholics have radically different understandings of ecclesiology, and it comes down to a completely different understanding of "one, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church." Roman Catholics will say that the Baptist church is not one, or catholic, or Apostolic.

If you want to say, well we'll say the same words at the same time and mean entirely different things about them and that makes us agree... that seems like a very superficial unity indeed.

---

No Protestant church uses the Catholic meaning of Catholic in the creeds.

Once again though, you're focusing on minutia like what Chrisrjans seemingly always do and ignoring the 95% of the rest of my post. Stop trying to fight the 30 Years War again and focus on the modern issues all of our churches are seeing. Every single denomination is being attacked in an identical subversive manner. If you cannot see the influence of Satan here then perhaps you should reconsider your priorities.

This is why I don't post on the religion board. It's a bunch of Christians trying to debate the same issues from 400 years ago or more while they ignore the churches metaphorically burning around them and the millions of Christians abandoning the faith and turning to cultural marxism. I'm tired of it. Christians have their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the ongoing massive problems with modern weak clergy in every single denomination. They ignore the failings of church leadership in virtually every modern social issue.

Even the article posted in the OP spoke about the "dangerous far right".

We agree fundamentally on all of the major aspects that make us Christian. Let's leave it at that and focus on the real enemy, the influence of Satan through cultural marxism on the church.

---

Which is kind of why this thread probably started. Of all the clergy out there right now, the orthodox probably have the highest batting average of clergy refusing modernity. The next wave of Catholic priests will be solid in the manner.

I agree with you on needing to find the common ground. I have been and will continue to be a major proponent of that, but part of what gets in the way is the differences. You can't just ignore them.

For example, how many Protestant churches out there (especially evangelical/baptist) refuse to acknowledge second marriages? How many accept IVF, which has led to many, many millions of embryos being destroyed? How many accept contraception, which had been denounced as evil by every Christian sect ever until 1930? How many will claim asking the saints for intercession is idolatry?

Tried as I have to seek unity without those topics getting in the way, they just do. That's why challenging the entire process of how we split in the first place is so important.

---

So then we'll continue our stupid infighting and watch as Satan destroys our churches from the inside.

Post like yours are the reason why I have slowly become blackpilled on the future of Christianity in the US. The church is burning and still Christians won't put aside their doctrinal differences to fight the real enemy. I am increasingly convinced that the focus on doctrinal differences such that the much larger and worse problems are ignored is actually part of the influence of Satan on the church.

"You see those Catholics have the wrong idea about this specific issue. We can't move forward until this is resolved."
"Those Protestants don't believe in this specific way about this unique item so until this is resolved, we can't move forward."
*Satan rubs his hands together and smiles*

---

I'm all for putting it aside. I agree that Satan loves division between churches, which is why it's a crying shame we have multiple denominations in the first place.

We are rallying together in some areas, by the way. We ban together against LGBT issues. We ban together around pro-life issues. We ban together for freedom of speech. As Catholics, we have hard and fast teachings that bad prelates can twist as much as they can, but they still remain. Even Father James Martin can't say what he wants to say without facing excommunication. I absolutely believe the Catholic Church would fall if it wasn't apostolic.

We'll keep voting together, I'm sure. We'll keep fighting the culture war together, I'm sure. But without these important theological differences being ironed out, we'd all be Arians. Some respect for that process has to be given.

Zobel said:

---

this is absurd though. the church has faced heresies more widespread (even becoming a majority at some points) and certainly weirder and wackier. the church has also faced political persecution that makes what's going on in europe and the usa look like child's play.

you talk about a common christianity - but what is the point of defending that commonality together if all it becomes is some mealy mouthed halfhearted confession that looks nothing like the faith of even a century ago? i don't care a whit about "general christendom" if its just code for some kind of cultural conservatism. that isn't the gospel.

---

No it hasn't. The church has never faced anything like this. It has never seen a decline in membership like this across the board. It has never seen subversion of this type. Gnosticism and Arianism have nothing on what we are seeing now. Those could be hashed out because the Bible was clear on a lot of those issues. The modern ones are different because these require a level of Biblical understanding no normal Christian could be expected to have to counter. So when some Marxist says you're being mean or lack compassion, many Christians, including clergy, just give in.

You misunderstand me when I say general Christendom. I don't mean some generalized garbage church. I want Catholics to remain Catholic, Baptists to remain Baptists, Lutherans to remain Lutheran, etc. We can hash out our differences later when we're not being attacked by Satanic cultural marxism and when our churches are being burned by the hundreds.

Zobel said:

---

i don't understand. you haven't been in unity with the rcc for four centuries and disunity now is some big play by satan? why does disunity to rome make your church fall apart now?

the simpler explanation is that we're just seeing the final act of the modernist movement, which kicked off in the reformation but went into overdrive when it found a superpower to animate in the united states.

the right thing to do is to free our country from that influence.

we should revert to a pre-modern understanding of suffrage, citizenship, politics, the purpose of the state.

and, yes, we should revert to a pre-modern understanding of the church.

both of those things go hand in hand. and if we did that, we'd be a hell of a lot closer to the mind of the apostles AND the intent of the original constitution.

---

Hmm. By pre-modern, in the RC case, do you mean pre-Vatican I I take it. Is Council of Trent or Tridentine era sufficiently `pre-modern'? The political implication of post there is intriguing.

Zobel said:

---

i don't understand. you haven't been in unity with the rcc for four centuries and disunity now is some big play by satan? why does disunity to rome make your church fall apart now?

the simpler explanation is that we're just seeing the final act of the modernist movement, which kicked off in the reformation but went into overdrive when it found a superpower to animate in the united states.

the right thing to do is to free our country from that influence.

we should revert to a pre-modern understanding of suffrage, citizenship, politics, the purpose of the state.

and, yes, we should revert to a pre-modern understanding of the church.

both of those things go hand in hand. and if we did that, we'd be a hell of a lot closer to the mind of the apostles AND the intent of the original constitution.

---

I agree with you about reverting the churches. We must remove the stain of dispensationalism and remove the influence of Satanic Marxism on our churches. It is the only way they will survive.

And no this isn't new, cultural marxism is a century old and Marxism 2 centuries old.

YouBet said:

---

Quote:

---

Worshippers must stand for long services, which can last upwards of five hours. They must fast, too, sometimes for up to 40 days.

---

I appreciate the reason for this happening but I'm out of this is in the cards. My old man back can't stand for more than about 1 hour at a time.

Call me an Orthodox 2 percenter.

---

Most weekly services are about 1.5 to 2 hrs. In the U.S. we have pews like most Western Churches. In Greece where my parents are from there are no pews but chairs against the wall for the elderly and disabled.

If we understand the church as the assembly of God, then that has to extend backward into Israel. St Paul certainly understood it this way. So our collective history doesn't begin in 33 AD, but goes all the way back to the time when Elijah thought he alone remained faithful but God told him that 7,000 had not bent the knee to Ba'al.

But only 7,000 faithful left in the entire northern Kingdom!

At one point it is possible that Arianism was a majority. Certainly those in power have been heretics, resulting in the persecution of the faithful and torture of people like St Maximos the Confessor. When was the last time a Christian clergyman had his tongue ripped out by the president of the US? Or his hand cut off so he could no longer write?

The Islamic rulers of Turkey denied the ability to print or educate clergy - the first Greek printed bible by the Patriarchate of Constantinople didn't happen until the 1904!

The godless communists murdered hundreds of thousands of the faithful and clergymen in Russia a hundred years ago.

These are nothing, nothing. We shouldn't lose hope over this, no matter how insidious it appears. Cultural followers will always be here. Their falling away says nothing about the faithful.

Being counter-cultural is at the heart of Christian history. We should be much more worried if we are comfortable with the cultural zeitgeist.

Quote:

---

No it hasn't. The church has never faced anything like this. It has never seen a decline in membership like this across the board. It has never seen subversion of this type. Gnosticism and Arianism have nothing on what we are seeing now. Those could be hashed out because the Bible was clear on a lot of those issues. The modern ones are different because these require a level of Biblical understanding no normal Christian could be expected to have to counter. So when some Marxist says you're being mean or lack compassion, many Christians, including clergy, just give in.

You misunderstand me when I say general Christendom. I don't mean some generalized garbage church. I want Catholics to remain Catholic, Baptists to remain Baptists, Lutherans to remain Lutheran, etc. We can hash out our differences later when we're not being attacked by Satanic cultural marxism and when our churches are being burned by the hundreds.

---

Ah, you mean far more like the Allies in WW II. Deliberately set-aside, post-pone absolutely real differences in favor of fighting toward a common end of a declared common enemy. A situation where all that is back-burnered maybe is feasible in that style.