/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>837171

Neat. Seems I've gone straight up the tree (Methodist/Nazarene). Although I wouldn't say there was an "undivided" church even in those earlier periods. The Jewish Christians of Palestine as well as Asia Minor (such as Polycarp) had more Jewish characteristics (Polycarp was known to celebrate Passover still - and he was a Gentile. The Roman bishop at the time disputed him about this, but Polycarp was above reproach and a disciple of the Apostle John himself. He learned his traditions from him). The Jewish characteristics of the church were all but wiped out by the 4th century. That's early division by any measure.

>>837180

I also wouldn't put Gregory and Augustine in the same "bracket" as Irenaeus. Irenaeus predates both by quite a bit, and was one of Polycarp's own disciples. He's from the 2nd century. They're 4th and 6th century. Gregory is almost the same distance from Irenaeus as we are from Luther.

>>837171

Baptists are from anglican dissenters, and the Restorationist churches came from baptists.

Reformed doesn't even make sense, since the vast majority the modern evangelical/neo-protestant churches are arminians, not calvinists.

>>837187

I guess he subscribes to the anabaptist influence theory of Baptist origins

It would be more accurate to put Baptists as an outgrowth of Anglican and radical, then shortly later influenced by "reformed"

>>837187

>since the vast majority the modern evangelical/neo-protestant churches are arminians, not calvinists.

1, no, arminians are not even a plurality of evangelicals

2, arminianism is reformed

The X and Z axis are the same. There are no sacramental liberals or experiential conservatives. To take God as a "performer" like a prostitute in a lap dancing club is for self-serving libertines and condemned by almost every Church Father and their hatred of theater.

>>837206

I don't think you're understanding what the terms are supposed to convey here

>>837207

I don't think you understand what I supposed to convey here.

>>837211

Yes. It is about man relating to man and not man relating to God, seen by the fact that the pastor is facing man and not God. This is the basis of classical anglican liberalism.

>>837187

There's far more in practice at least. Rather than word. Many Protestants often regurgitate the same Lutheran message of Faith Alone, but their lives are motivated by much more (to God's glory). They live with more holy intent than that degenerate message would suggest; hey get inspired by Jesus' sermon on the mount; and they feel bad for watching internet porn. Even the so called "most distilled and pure" of the Reformed - the Puritans - were largely guilt-ridden and agonized whether they were one of the elect or not, if they sinned. And were absolutely relentless with others who were degenerates.

>>837199

>1, no, arminians are not even a plurality of evangelicals

Sorry, my previous post was meant for this (that there are more Arminians in practice).

>>837220

You're being anachronistic.

Liberalism is a post-enlightenment movement. The reorientation of the pulpit as the center of the service occurred during the continental reformation, which Anglicanism later adopted as well.

What time frame are you even referring to when you say "classical anglican liberalism"?

Big picture you're just setting up a false dichotomy. The argument you should be making is that the sacramental style of worship is informed by theological conservatism/traditionalism and why, but this is not what you're doing.

>>837221

>that degenerate message

What message?

>>837226

Sola fide isn't osas, and neither is antinomianism. Those who reject sola fide and/or OSAS encounter the same problems of members continuing to struggle in the flesh, but the legacy of puritans or amish is definitely superior to the comparable catholic or EO society.

Are you additionally trying to argue that a sense of guilt in Christian morality is negative?

>>837224

The enlightenment is the logical outcome of anglicanism and french protestantism. God is merely the means for a good manners club in protestantism, and still is to this day. If you cannot see this, then no argument can be made.

>>837228

Oversimplification and non-sequitur isn't an argument in the first place

>>837227

>Are you additionally trying to argue that a sense of guilt in Christian morality is negative?

By no means. Quite the opposite. I admire the Puritans' vigilance, despite the general Calvinist leanings. Their hearts and day to day concerns said something entirely different. Something better.

>>837229

Neither is spouting midwit terms that mean little more than "I disagree".

>>837231

I've expounded on my case and asked you specific questions to substantiate your point, which you've ignored. You repeated an assertion, implicitly conceded to arguing by fallacy, and resorted to name calling.

I'm still here and willing to discuss the question. Leaving with a condescending insult over the shoulder really doesn't reflect well on your church.

>>837233

Re-read your comment, see how it has no positive content besides your feminine snark. I shall insult you further, it is my belief that insults can teach just as much as any type of communication.

I see you on another level of mediocrity, which is no wonder your experiental man-worship is unseen by you. You throw colorful sprinkles over the most tasteless of foods and call it a banquet, just as much your kind discusses ethics robbing Christian terminology and calls it the worship of God.

My case is that experiental worship is in equal footing with any secular speech for those who do not miss the trees for the forest. You are a liberal because you don't see a difference between Logos and Nomos.

When you believe experiental worship is directed towards God and is not the worship of man like any secular worldview, you remind me of a pink pig believing himself to be a human because he does not have the colours of the other brown pigs.

But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.

>>837220

They were preaching from the Bible. This was not "man relating to man" in their minds, but delivering the words of God. This was even more pertinent at the time, since they went for centuries with Latin speaking priests speaking gibberish and not helping common people know God's Word at all.

As for Anglicans, they were just as focused on sacrament as the EO and Roman Catholics. It was their dissenters (congregationalist, Presbyterians, Wesleyans) who focused more on the pulpit ideal. And in some cases, like Wesley, he was very much a lover of Liturgy, but his "pulpit" was mostly outdoors.. he brought himself to the people and preached in their towns, on the streets. And it was far from anything Enlightenment based. If anything, he was largely responsible for preventing something like the French Revolution happening in England. He saved souls, set up social work for the poor, and generally engendered a sense of contentment among the populace that they never thought of rebelling like others.

>>837239

Revolutionaries of a past long gone never see their faults. The anglican hatred of monasticism is secular and utilitarian. One merely disagrees what is most useful, one does not disagree that usefulness is that which is highest. From experiential worship and ethical discussions only the pomp is changed.

>>837255

There was no Anglican hatred of it as a whole. You're talking about kings and worldly powers in charge of the Church of England. Especially at it's inception. Specifically Henry in the beginning, who saw the monestaries as threats to his State (and also knew they were wealthy). It was a looting operation, if anything.. rather than any kind of serious theological or philosophical dispute. You're giving it more credit than it deserves and overthinking. Henry was a thug.

As for now, Anglican is a huge umbrella. Everything from royalists to traditionalists to raging homos.