/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Protestantism homeland is still in America

I would not be worry for them

During the industrial revolution, liberalism started to reach the masses of commoners.

Protestant churches took either one of two general approaches:

1. The majority capitulated and tried to frame Christianity within liberalism. You can see the fruits of this in Anglicanism today.

2. Entirely rejected all forms of liberalism and become fundamentalist. This created a strong, yet small group of believers (who frankly have ended up with some odd beliefs)

Neither of these two strategies really worked out.

The Catholic church took one approach, and that was to justify liberalism within Catholicism, standing firm on what Catholic doctrine has always been. For the most part it worked, but it was not without errors and it allowed compromises to be made on non essential points. The big one that comes to mind is allowing "repentant and non practicing" homosexuals into the priesthood. We all know how that turned out.

The Orthodox church remained largely oblivious and out of touch with any of these issues because the industrial revolution didn't effect Eastern Europe in the same way. Instead of a subversive ideology, they had a violent revolution and were forcefully subjected. They retained their doctrine, however half the clergy are just communist KGB agents at this point.

That's my analysis of the decline of Christianity anyway

>>705537

>"repentant and non practicing" homosexuals

Repentant of what if they didn't practice it?

>>705530

Mass apostasy. Thessalonians comes to mind…

>>705534

How many of them have supernatural faith? Churches are shuttering. You have those snake oil salesmen like Osteen…

Don't get me wrong, there's a dozen plus threads on here right now showing the Catholics (particularly in the US) in trouble, but there real problems in America elsewhere as well. At best, the country is about 10-20 years trailing Europe in this regard.

>>705537

>The majority capitulated and tried to frame Christianity within liberalism. You can see the fruits of this in Anglicanism today.

You also had agitators who infiltrated the Anglican thought-stream. That's how contraception worked it's way in there.

>Entirely rejected all forms of liberalism and become fundamentalist. This created a strong, yet small group of believers.

You misinterpret these somewhat: these are underground churches (in actuality or in prototype) within the worldly structure. However, without a top down authority between groups you have those strange teachings you talk about here and there.

>The Catholic church took one approach, and that was to justify liberalism within Catholicism, standing firm on what Catholic doctrine has always been. For the most part it workedbut it was not without errors and it allowed compromises to be made on non essential points. The big one that comes to mind is allowing "repentant and non practicing" homosexuals into the priesthood. We all know how that turned out.

It worked in so far that it has a lot of people attending mass. It did not work so well in preserving belief in dogma and the preservation of divine tradition. And if you do not preserve both of those, it's just apostasy as well, but with a Christian veneer. A Potemkin village.

And don't even get me going on the homosexual issue. That was certainly much more than a non-essential point. This is of course ignoring all the potential communist and Masonic activity within Rome over the 20th Century, which has been documented much here recently, as a further corrosive.

>The Orthodox church remained largely oblivious and out of touch with any of these issues because the industrial revolution didn't effect Eastern Europe in the same way. Instead of a subversive ideology, they had a violent revolution and were forcefully subjected. They retained their doctrine, however half the clergy are just communist KGB agents at this point.

I somewhat disagree with this, as not the whole structure is Russian and thus the KGB/FSB assertion is a bit over the top in that regard. But what that does touch on, that I do think is an important issue, is sectionalism. There's a thread on that issue right now, focusing on Constantinople and Moscow jockeying for power, versus any genuine concern over the spiritual health of the Ukrainian church. This is also quite acidic, the source of this problem being of the world and worldly desires, as much as anything else.

>>705616

Good analysis. But what can we do? Seems like all churches suck in the end. I've looking for a year and I think I'll be denominationless forever

>Protestantism is dead in Europe!

Though the British empire has declined considerably since its peak, that's not to say Roman Catholicism is rising. Jihadist please go.

>- "Everybody knows the Bible is a childish fairytale filled with contradictions"

And the 4th wave feminist manifesto is perfect for setting your watch.

>- "Christianity has repressive and unacceptable views on sex. All that stuff with pedophile priests and saying that people shouldn't have sex outside a heterosexual marriage is unbelievable."

Nearly nobody honestly believes laypeople are tainted because their pastor was tainted. If this were the case then millennials would have baby boomer afflictions instead of the millennial afflictions which visibly dominate the internet.

>- "You can't believe in science and Christianity. Humanity has moved past such primitive ideas."

Atheists originally disputed the notion of the universe beginning in a single point which expanded outward to form the stars. They thought space was always how we found it. This kind of reasoning is just atheism reverse the cases of who-said-what the past several generations.

>>705587

>is itself arguably the ideological father of liberalism, basing all authority as it does as a point of principle on the individual human.

This is one of the weakest points of the Catholic apologetic, IMO. See the following blog post on this:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/01/elevator-out-of-order.html

>This objection like the others could only apply to Protestants who have no acquaintance with the Church's sound tradition of classical theism.

Meanwhile, here in the real world, outside of the caricature of internet Catholic apologists, there have been plenty of Protestant philosophers who defend classical theism (e.g. James Dolezal, E.L. Mascall, Paul Helm, Norm Geisler).

>>705873

>This is one of the weakest points of the Catholic apologetic, IMO.

I was not making an apologetical point, however. It was a bland comment on the fundamental import of ideas like sola scriptura and "the inner witness of the Holy Spirit". But the key word was "arguably", I understand that a complex of factors were involved.

>there have been plenty of Protestant philosophers who defend classical theism

I stand corrected, and interesting to see. I was painting in broad strokes, in my defense, but the observation still applies to a not insignificant contingent.

>>705530

It may be anecdotal, but I think Protestantism is dead in Europe because all the faithful Protestants left. My mother's side left Germany so they wouldn't get drafted into the war with Denmark, and my father's side left Sweden because the patriarch of the family was put under house arrest for being Baptist.

>>705530

Protestantism is in decline because the Christianity as a whole is in decline. It's not like people convert en masse to Orthodoxy and Catholicism

>>705534

this. America is the home for Protestantism