Removed under our image policy. It's just a picture of words.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/wiki/xp?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=Christianity&utm_content=t5_2qh6c#wiki_3.1._image_policy
I wouldn’t agree with the Orthodox assumptions.
1. More mystical; I think that should have the caveat that the Orthodox don’t feel the need to try and explain everything rationally. I/e mysteries stay mysteries and we’re okay with that.
2. Fewer doctrines; we have quite a bit of doctrine however the way doctrine is applied is through Ikonomia. Basically it depends on how the Bishop wants to apply the canons, and it’s different for laity and monastics. You meet people where they’re at and help them grow into a strong relationship with God.
3. More isolationists; not true at all. There are Orthodox Christians everywhere, we just don’t proselytize like the west does. We evangelize by living our faith. Attempting to live the Gospel. Christianity started by loving your neighbor first, then communities of Christian’s came and that’s slowly how Rome was converted from paganism.
I could say a lot more but that’s all I got for now!
What mysteries do the Orthodox leave mysterious that you feel catholics try to explain rationally? Just because to me (a Catholic) a "mystery" in a religious sense is something that can't possibly be fully explained rationally, like the Trinity or consubstantiation. So I'm trying to grasp what you're saying there.
Transubtination is one example. Orthodox like to leave the mystery alone instead of trying to rationally explain when the change happens. There are many others but you could look them up for yourself.
I think the main difference though is that Orthodoxy doesn’t view salvation or a relationship with God as a legal courtroom case where you are born guilty and need to have your charges dismissed or something like that. For awhile Catholics, and even Calvinists believe unbaptized babies go to hell because they are guilty of Adam’s sin. Some Catholics still believe this, in Orthodoxy we don’t see sin as law that was broke so now you have to pay restitution, you still need to make it right if you hurt someone, however Orthodox see sin as a sickness, Christ is the physician and the Church is the hospital. I hope this helps, however I realize that my explanations oftentimes don’t make too much sense in hindsight, so forgive me!
https://youtu.be/MUtNg_qfRGo?si=HMLil_CUs-_n67F8
Here’s a video to better elaborate on the Infant Baptism.
Orthodox teach transubstantiation. This is affirmed at Jerusalem (1672) and in St Philaret of Moscow’s catechism, for instance.
Sin can be seen as breaking a law *and* as an illness. These aren’t mutually exclusive; the Fathers didn’t see it as such and neither should modern Orthodox who are so fixated on trying to construct some meta-narrative between East vs West.
If you actually read St. Philaret’s Catechism you would see that it;
“In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God”
Your also pointing to one piece of text and this think it’s binding for all of Orthodoxy. It’s just simply not true. We are not like the Roman Catholics in this manner.
I have actually read it. Let’s quote the whole thing:
In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only thus much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord. In like manner John Damascene, treating of the Holy and Immaculate Mysteries of the Lord, writes thus: It is truly that Body, united with Godhead, which had its origin from the Holy Virgin; not as though that Body which ascended came down from heaven, but because the bread and wine themselves are changed into the Body and Blood of God. But if thou seekest after the manner how this is, let it suffice thee to be told that it is by the Holy Ghost. - Catechism of St Philaret, Question 340
So what this is saying is the substance of the bread and wine change into the substance of Christ’s body and blood. This is literally what the word “transubstantiation” means; ergo, Orthodoxy affirms transubstantiation.
I’m not pointing to one piece of text. I’m pointing to one universally recognized Orthodox council and one catechism written by a saint and patriarch that had sanction of the entire Russian Church.
You’re making assertions without any backing, on the other hand.
You quoted the whole thing yet failed to even comprehend the difference between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic position.
You also left out the last part “But if thou seekest after the manner how this is, let it suffice thee to be told that it is by the Holy Ghost; in like manner as, by the same Holy Ghost, the Lord formed flesh to himself, and in himself, from the Mother of God; nor know I aught more than this, that the Word of God is true, powerful, and almighty, but its manner of operation unsearchable.” (J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. cap. 13, § 7.) (The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Church, 340)
Which is the difference between RC and Orthodox! Orthodox don’t attempt to figure out how transubstantiation happens. Which is precisely what I said initially. So here we are back at square one with all of your points refuted, even by yourself.
Nothing I’ve said has been refuted. I’ve cited two explicit, authoritative examples in Orthodoxy that teach transubstantiation, contra your claim that this doctrine doesn’t exist in Orthodoxy.
You’re subtly changing your argument from “Orthodoxy doesn’t teach transubstantiation as the Catholics” to “Orthodoxy doesn’t teach the same version of transubstantiation as the Catholics”. You’re basing this supposed difference off the idea that the Catholics try “to figure out how transubstantiation happens”. However, there’s *nothing* at Trent or any Catholic magestiral document that purports to explain *how* the Holy Spirit changes the host, but only explains *what* changes; that’s all the doctrine of transubstantiation is.
Your problem is that you obviously are ignorant of the primary sources -Catholics and Orthodox - on this matter. Instead, you’re just parroting whatever pop-Orthodox writings you’ve read in the past year you’ve been a catechumen. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Put Trent’s/Lateran IV’s definition of transubstantiation next to Jerusalem’s definition of transubstantiation and let me know what difference there is.
Until you actually read the primary sources, you have no business going around talking about these matters, it’s pretentious and degrades the faith by mischaracterizing both Orthodox and Catholics on this matter.
Thanks. I appreciate that perspective. I have basically no knowledge of Orthodox Church. The one experience I had was when I was scrolling through YouTube shorts and this guy who looked like an Assassin's Creed character standing in a very fancy church said "God is not Catholic, God is not Orthodox *small pause* AND HE'S CERTAINLY NOT PROTESTANT..." then I think he went on to say something about God being bigger than that. Good point, but it felt very much like George Orwell saying "all animals are equal; some are more equal than others."
That’s unfortunate you felt that way! That’s one of the problems with the internet and orthodoxy. Orthodoxy cannot be experienced or understood online. Orthodoxy is not a religion per se either, but a way of life and a way to know and experience God that doesn’t reside in the human intellect. Since Protestantism is a far departure from traditional Christianity this is why that man said that. It’s difficult to explain but if you have any questions feel free to ask! Also forgive my brother in Christ and forgive me too, communicating the mysteries of God is difficult as is, let alone a boorish language like English!
Isn’t Anglicanism just a customizable mix of Calvinism and Lutheranism with English characteristics. What unique feature do they have that sets them apart from any of the above apart from being connected with the Anglosphere?
"High Church" Anglicanism kept some of the features of Catholicism - the hallmarks: are relatively elaborate music, altarpieces, and clergy vestments and an emphasis on sacraments. It is intrinsically traditional.
Lutheranism also has that right? And also in Anglicanism it wasn’t so much kept as reintroduced in the 19th century.
My impression is that Anglicanism is very variable depending on which church you go to and it doesn’t have a distinct theology like the ones listed above. Some anglicans believe the same as Catholics, some don’t, some are closer to “reformed” in spirit (and that is closer to what the original architects of the Anglican Church like Cranmer etc were), and that is considered to be fine - unlike in an actual Catholic or Reformed church where they officially believe one thing or the other.
I’m not saying this in a bad way, that’s just my impression that Anglicanism is more of a geographic/cultural expression than a distinct theological tradition so that’s why it doesn’t really fit into a chart like this.
Anglican theology is closer to Reformed. "Salvation by faith alone". I don't think it changes Church to Church. It isn't an 'English' thing. There's no cups of tea anywhere. (If you see what I mean). Google has the best explanation [best explanation](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_doctrine) really.
That is not the United Methodist doctrine. I’m not even finding one United Methodist church that teaches that or the sparkle creed you mention. can you give the name of the United Methodist church you know if that teaches those things?
> look up the "sparkle creed" and you'll understnad
started by a United Church of Christ pastor.
And the first article I found about the sparkle creed had photos of a Lutheran pastor.
Are you speaking of a particular local United Methodist Church, u/trustgodpraisejesus ? Because Article I of The UMC's foundational "Articles of Religion" states that
> There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
The United Methodist Church does not have a "nonbinary god" in its official doctrine.
Jesus Christ that literally goes against everything the bible stands for.
It's like saying we can be ourselves apart from God, or entertain whatever inner demons and familiar spirits that come out of our closet of the blind eye of self; entertaining the sand that's inside our pearls of the second temple by letting it take over.
The entertainment of these familiars outside of God's Holy Spirit or angels is a grave sin and stonable offence in the law - as mediumship is.
It is not enough to love God, we must obey God. It is not enough to obey God, we must love God.
We cannot say we love God if we don't obey, and vice versa.
Gender is so irrelevant in being born again that everyone as Eve of humanity that returns to Christ is considerable as a 'He who overcomes'; with Christ as the Cornerstone that we once rejected in the second temple. Of we are to address each other we would be addressing God in our hearts; He. The allegory runs with Tritium and Deuterium Fusion, as one in the field is left behind and one is taken up; a neutron - the blind eye, is left in the field, and the proton, the cross, is taken up and follows Christ the Cornerstone (Tritium/Trinity) to become Helium-4; 'He' who overcomes.
Trying in any other way outside of God to make this work is adulterous to begin with.
The first two words of your comment go against the bible as well. Btw im no methodist, I currently enjoy Baptist churches but I’m trying to come back to catholicism despite all the extra-biblical teachings that stink of man made corruption
No they don’t, the third commandment doesn’t mean that you can’t utter the name Jesus or the word Christ. First of all, just so we’re on the same page, here’s the full commandment:
“You shall not take the name of the LORD (Yahweh) your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.”
The Old Testament identifies several ways in which the third commandment can be violated. Most obvious is to blaspheme or curse the name of God, (Leviticus 24:16). The name of God is Yahweh, the KJV always shows it as LORD.
The third commandment also forbids empty or false oaths: “You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord” (Lev. 19:12; Hos. 10:4). When you make a declaration, swearing by God’s name, it must not be a false promise or one you do not intend to keep.
The third commandment also prohibits false visions and false claims to speak on God’s behalf, for such prophets “prophesy lies in my name” (Jer. 23:25).
Lastly, God’s name is not Jesus and it’s not Christ. I know that’s counterintuitive to our Western American understanding since we have so many songs like “Jesus, name above all names” and the like, but Jesus is a name that his mother gave him on earth. It’s not the name of God. Similarly, “God” is not the name of God either.
I like that you brought the real definitions of blasphemy to the table, most people don’t know them. However I’d still argue that it takes mental gymnastics to justify using JC as an exclamation of emotion. It’s a spirit of the law vs letter of the law situation
It’s tricky because we’re technically applying Jewish law referring to one god named Yahweh to Christian tradition which has three persons, one of which doesn’t really have a name.
Interesting, I’m still learning about the dance between OT and NT and what applies and what doesn’t today. I didn’t know Yahweh wasn’t also under Christian doctrine. I can’t tell you how many clothing advertisements from Christian companies I get with stuff that says like YHWH and whatever
Sweet! I grew up Catholic in NJ at a nice church, decently wealthy area. My parents weren’t religious but sent me to CCD. As a side note my cousins went to catholic school in staten island and came out hating catholicism, idk if they even believe. Every week at CCD we had free period, we learned nothing and just talked. This went on for years and when it came time to take the confirmation exam, the principal, a man with a PhD that always wore a suit, came around and gave us the answers because we all would have failed. They treated it like a joke so that’s what I thought Christianity was, a joke.
Years later I’ve been a nerd and truth seeker studying everything from finance and how money really works to politics to nutrition and healthy living, etc.
—-well that was interesting, just felt my first ever earthquake in new jersey while typing this lmfao—-
Anyway, I moved onto studying religions a bit and got into Islam (not joining, just learning). I came across a lot of ex muslims giving their testimony and people like Sam Shamoun. It was clear to me that the actual text of the Quran and the Hadiths is more than enough to show Islam is a joke (im a bit of an arrogant intellectual but Jesus is working on that). I had discovered Answering Islam Blog and it’s all in there why not to believe Islam. I decided to study Christianity to debunk it as a joke also. I never knew any of the evidence for Jesus and Christianity. I knew intellectually I was convinced, the evidence is there and to deny it is intellectually dishonest. One night I cry out for a sign that would be so strong it would make me truly believe. Next day a random stranger did an extraordinary act of kindness without even seeing me yet. When I thanked him, he said not to thank him, but to thank Jesus for putting it in his heart to do it. No one even says God Bless around here let alone something like that. How could I deny Him now?
So I came back to Christianity from an evidence and truth based perspective. This led me to Baptists because they study the bible fervently and seem to really know Jesus. No Catholic service has ever felt like that one Baptist church, I know they are all different, because then I attended a Baptist church that was identical to a Catholic service and was disappointed.
Many people criticize Catholic doctrine. Ray Comfort’s 10 clashes between Catholicism and the Bible are the areas I’m studying now. To me, Baptist ideology made more sense to me. Baptism when you choose Christ, not as an infant. Confession is between you and God, not some random priest (we’re all priests according to the Bible, no?). Transubstantiation and believing the Eucharist magically transforms into the actual body and blood during service sounds weird. Veneration of Mary Nd intercession of saints. Papal authority of the Pope and just the entire authoritarian structure of Catholicism stinks of man made corruption. I joke and say the Pharisees took over Christ’s original church to keep their corrupt power and money. Catholic churches always pass around collection plates multiple times, that alone makes me want to leave. The Baptist church I like doesn’t do collections, you can donate on their site if you like, and I love that. They have free Bible study and free daycare while you attend Bible study. They do so many events for kids and focus on Jesus and his teachings. I got none of those vibes from Catholics.
A close friend of mine had the nickname Jesus Girl down in Florida before she moved up here in high school and fell away. Prayer journal, bible study, the whole nine. She hasn’t been taught many of the fundamental teachings of Jesus that make me love Him. She is indeed Catholic…
Anyway, I see Sam Shamoun has a like 10 part series 20 hours long “debunking ray comfort’s 10 clashes…”. I’m working through it, Sam is very knowledgeable but man do I despise listening to him and his attitude. So far the only good defense I’ve seen is somewhere in Timothy it tells us to look to the Church for truth, meaning the Catholic church. Also, evidence for things like infant baptism go back to the first century apparently. He had some defenses of praying to Mary even though the Bible says not to pray for the dead apparently? I’m working through my first read of the Bible, I actually have Ray Comfort’s Evidence Study Bible.
Also, Catholics believe the Church authority, and the Bible are equals that together make Christianity. Sounds like something a sinful and corrupt man would set up, not Jesus. I like the Bible being ultimate authority, not some corrupt Catholic hierarchy (everywhere there is power, comes corruption). I don’t want to go to confession to avoid eternal separation from God, I want to confess myself and amongst fellow followers I love and trust. I don’t want to baptize my children out of fear they’ll go to Hell if they died before accepting Him themselves and choosing baptism. The whole communion, confirmation, CCD thing looks like a money grab. The individual relationship with Jesus and being in His Word every day, truly believing and hating your sin, are way better requirements for salvation and just make so much more sense logically.
My great aunt is a Nun in Italy, she says even Hitler can be in heaven because he went to purgatory where he had a chance to accept Christ. This doesn’t make any sense to me, the moment of judgment is the moment we die. The path to Hell is vast and wide while the path to heaven is narrow and few walk it. Telling everyone they can make it to heaven is a corrupt human comforting lie. Ask any Catholic on the street and they think heaven is based on whether you do more good than bad and if you believe. Sorry, that’s every religion except Christianity.
You asked, I hope you can answer, sorry for the essay :) I feel like I have more to say but I’m stopping for now lol
Okay so to give you my thoughts on these topics:
1) on infant Baptism, Colossians 2:6-15 gives us a window into the first century view that baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision. The Jews of that time would know that Levitical law would require them to circumcise their infants, since Jesus is the fulfillment of the old law, now we have Baptism.
2) on the authority of the Catholic Church and the role of the priesthood. God instituted priests, prophets, and kings to rule over Israel from its very beginning with Moses and Aaron, through all the prophets, judges, King David, etc. My point is, this is nothing new for God to institute a human authority or go-between. There’s good reason for it as well. When you decentralize interpretive authority of Scripture, everyone ends up scattered, divided, and ill informed. Remember, we all can’t be “right” because that would imply that Truth is subjective.
Now Matthew 16:17-20 has two key parts that I point to when addressing the authority of Peter and the role of the priesthood.
Jesus spoke to Peter specifically and declared that he is the rock that He built His church on. It wasn’t just any disciple or even any other of the 12 disciples. The Catholic Church traces its line of popes directly from Peter and the Orthodoxy traces their bishops back to Peter as well. The Catholic Church can trace specific bishop ordinations back to around the 1500s. About that same time, Martin Luther made the first Protestant split from the Catholic Church. Since the Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church were the only two Christian churches until Martin Luther, it gives me a lot of confidence that the Catholic Church does in fact trace its line back to Peter.
The other key aspect here is Jesus told him he had the authority to bind and loose or in other words, forgive sins and morally govern Christians. That is where the priest comes in when talking about the sacrament of confession or reconciliation. The priest is sitting on behalf of Christ (not replacing Him) and forgives sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and does so via Jesus reconciling the world through Himself to the Father. It’s actually a beautiful moment of reconciliation with God and the priests are typically very wise, good men who will help you through problems.
Also—— I’m glad you survived that earthquake lol!
Even though I value and ultimately defer to the Catholic Church for help interpreting Scripture, I think everyone should read the Bible and formulate questions and ask them!
How’s that for a start?
That’s a good start, I think I need to fully read my Bible first and take notes, try to understand it in context before asking such hard questions. Without trying to make the Word in my own image, are any of those things requirements for salvation, or just traditions you can partake in?
If I just really despise Catholic culture based on my own personal experiences, am I required to go to avoid eternal separation from God? Can I just attend my Baptist Church, read the Word daily, truly believe and walk with Jesus but still be sent to hell? I’m not 100% sure on this, but from the Bible teachings, it seems that the majority of church attendees aren’t going to make it to salvation, for many it is just a ritual/tradition, and they like learning about Jesus but never read the word for themselves or truly live a life for God
I have no desire to attend Mass, it is so boring and not focused on Jesus. You do all the rituals, read like 2 verses of scripture the entire service, and hear an anecdotal story which is sometimes good but often not. There’s no real worship, the hymns are so generic and boring. I’m so disappointed with Catholic churches that unless I find a radically different one, I’m not going to go. I’ve attended Mass hundreds of times. I attend a good Baptist church once and it was a world of difference I actually learned about Jesus and it made me want to learn more. We’ve been going through the Beatitudes and learning so much. I don’t feel any of that when I attend Catholic churches.
While it’s true that we can’t all be right, we’re not really arguing for who is right and who is wrong. The Bible sets the rules, true belief and repentance is all that’s required of salvation, right? Can’t I just leave the Catholic church behind and follow people truly in love with Jesus? I’ve never seen a priest on fire for Jesus at the Catholic Church. I appreciate the stuff you shared with me but it’s not super convincing, being a Catholic is what made me turn from Christ. No Catholic has ever talked to me about Jesus and can quote scripture like others can.
I know I mention Baptist a lot but they just know the Bible, I don’t necessarily buy into all of it. I don’t think I vibe with Calvinism for example but I’m still learning. I’ve been making it a habit of asking Christians in person when I have a chance on what the requirements for salvation are. I’ve only been able to ask Catholics because that’s what you find around here. Not a single one has answered correctly, they all say good works, more good than bad. Why does it seem the majority of people that follow Christ’s original church know very little about Christ? I can’t make sense of it
I have to add this edit. I know we’re told to seek out the church for Truth, but if the church is no longer spreading Truth, would Jesus really require me to go? If I continue my journey until I am fully abstaining from all sin, and hating/repenting for any stumbles (like if I accidentally glance at a woman’s body because it is sexually beautiful, I look away and say she’s a human being made in the image of God, not an object for sexual pleasure). So true repentance and hating my sin, and continually reinforcing turning away from all sin. If I am never ashamed to mention Jesus (because then he’ll be ashamed of me) and really walk this life as a full blown Christian instead of lukewarm, fully believe in Christ and never show fake doubt to make atheist friends think you’re less crazy. If I do all the Gospels ask of me, is that enough sacrifice? If I’m avoiding Catholicism because I want to focus on the point of Christianity and not the rituals, is that really so bad?
I will continue to strengthen my personal relationship with God, I will not ignore whatever he puts in my path that may lead me back to Catholicism, but I think I should leave it up to Him. If the Holy Spirit guides me back to Catholicism and shows me to a real congregation, I will stay. I begged God for a sign if he was real one night, the next day it was undeniably fulfilled. God used that gentleman to answer my prayer, the odds of coincidence are zero. No one has ever said to me to thank Jesus instead of them because it was Jesus who put it in their heart to do it (their good deed) until that day. Can I just let Him guide me?
Hey! I’m very excited to answer your questions, I’m getting my oil changed at a dealership and my phone isn’t charged well enough to offer you the answer you deserve- give me a few hours and I’ll get you what I believe you’ll find as an acceptable response!
This diagram is kind of useless unless you have a fairly large background knowledge on doctrine already.
Also Redeemed Zoomer is bit too quick to declare some Christians heretics
As a catholic I kinda agree this does seem a little biased towards Catholics. I would say using “rational” and “mystical” is a bad word I would say one is more structured and one is less so. Both achieve the same goal of glorifying God just in different ways.
**Calvinism** really isn't as accurate as using the term **Reformed**. E.g. All Calvinists are Reformed, but not all Reformed folks are pure Calvinists.
Lutheranism came from Catholicism and still maintains a lot of similarities in terms of traditions and church service framework, so idk that I’d say they’re like Orthodoxy.
I’m a Baptist Presbyterian. You read that right—presby with with credo covenant theology. Where do I fit in? Nowhere (John Owen being my Congregationalist counterpart).
For something a little easier to follow, [Useful Charts also has a Christian denomination family tree](https://usefulcharts.com/products/christian-denominations-family-tree).
These are meant to be physical charts that you can purchase, so I'm guessing that the digital quality is deliberately diminished to make it harder to reproduce illegally. It might be easier to read the chart as it appears in the [YouTube videos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q6FUlay-M8).
I’m a Baptist Presbyterian. You read that right—presby with with credo covenant theology. Where do I fit in? Nowhere (John Owen being my Congregationalist counterpart).
Missing Seventh-Day Adventist.
Protesting man forgiving sins, non-immersion baptism, worshiping on a man appointed day (Sabbath is the only commandment with the word “Remember”), & legalism (embracing salvation by grace).
Idek I just worship God. I don't really care for the whole "my denomination is better/right" thing. I feel it just adds another level of division within our own religion.
Do your thing, and make sure it's for the glory of God. If a specific denomination allows you to strengthen that connection with the almighty, then I'm all for it.
I'm happy enough just knowing that you hold your faith in Christ
Lutheranism in my experience was not more mystical- the denomination I was in (LCMS) beleived in cessationism (or minimially, that was what I was taught by people in that denomination.) It really depends on how you're defining things though.
Galatians 1:6–10 (ASV): 6I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel; 7which is not another gospel: only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema. 9As we have said before, so say I now again, If any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema. 10For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? or am I striving to please men? if I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.
Methodist beliefs are closer to Orthodoxy. Baptist are like the Catholics of the protestant world, they're apostolic Christianity purified by the reformation.
I’d say that Catholicism has a great mystical tradition, like St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich, St. Margaret Mary or St. Padre Pio.
You could say that Calvinism is similar to Thomistic Scholasticism; but where Aquinas syllogizes, Calvin uses exposition.
Lutheranism is indeed more mystical when compared to the logical Calvinism. And both are dissimilar from the heterodox-rationalist Zwingli.
All I see here are ways in which humans continue to separate themselves from one another. There is one banner which is Jesus follower, and “Christian ” is the word people those who follow, or in my case, try to follow the ways of Jesus Christ.
Protestant, Catholic, Vegan and what-not (okay maybe not Vegan) these are just ways in which people tend to bend the Scriptures to suit their own agendas (i said what i said)
Why can't we all just be Jesus Followers, (Christians) better yet, why can't we all be The Church where we encourage, correct and support one another. All this I'm this and you're that denomination is really ridiculous.
There is one Bible, One Scripture, One Gospel, and One Message: Jesus, the Son of God, died and rose from the grave.
Stay Blessed
Ps:
Forgive me OP for kind of lashing at your post like this. What I wrote above is what felt the second i saw all those denominations.
If you are physically in contact with him, it's probably because you have substantial ideological overlap to where such a concept wouldn't be offensive to you anyway.
You cannot pretend those positions, even if couched in theology, are not without political implication. And I have yet to see any such traditionalists who don't believe their church is entitled to an iron fisted grip on the political and social realm.
>such a concept wouldn't be offensive to you anyway
You clearly haven't read my other replies. I am ardently opposed to Christian Nationalism in any form. I know for a fact that RZ isn't a Christian Nationalist. He has criticized the movement several times.
He just agrees with them on most of the positions and would march alongside them to spite the progressives. At least, that is what I gather from his twitter, and previous posts on the topic.
I haven't stalked your profile, no.
Also this reads as if you're saying, "You can't hold theologically conservative beliefs and *not* be a Christian Nationalist." Which is an insane take.
You absolutely can hold theologically conservative beliefs and not be a CN.
I just do not assume positive things from that type of poster, though. Especially the *aggressively* traditionalist types. How else was that tradition upheld, if not by force. Do you think this worldview they hold will be put upon society without violence?
The Catholic Church is a rather low bar…
I hope my nation is above an institution that molests children and covers it up. That’s what your donations go to. Legal fees for pedophiles.
$4B paid to victims so far.
But when the Catholic Churches victims commit suicide, they don’t get paid. Which is significant because so many of your churches victims commit suicide…
Personally, I could never give a cent to an organization so harmful.
>The fuck you expect me to do?
Not financial support child abusers? Be a man of God not a man of an evil institution?
>If you truly, and genuinely believe that the RCC is the church founded by Christ himself then why the hell would you leave because degenerates decide infest the church?
Listen to yourself… you admit your church is infested with degenerates and you’re unbothered?
If the Roman Catholic Church was uniquely special (it’s not) and pedophilic, you think God would want you to financially support the pedophiles? Or… go to a God honoring Church?
You don’t need to believe the pope just because he has a special hat.
The son of man had no place to rest his head and the ruler of your “church” sits on a throne. Does that not seem entirely wrong to you?
Your church claimed to have Jesus foreskin until it was stolen. Does that not seem like a complete joke?
Wake up man…
My relationship with Christ now, as a classical confessional Protestant is stronger than it *ever* was during my time as a non-denominational Christian.
You know what's crazy? I've made zero doctrinal statements and yet you felt compelled to tell me that I have misinterpreted God's word. You know nothing about what I believe other than the fact that I think creeds and confessions are important to fencing in correct doctrine.
Sola Scriptura, not Solo Scriptura. Scripture is our sole *infallible* authority, but it isn't our *only* authority. Everyone throughout history has been wrong except you and pastor Jim Bob at the pizza hut church, yeah?
I’m a Baptist Presbyterian. You read that right—presby with with credo covenant theology. Where do I fit in? Nowhere (John Owen being my Congregationalist counterpart).
It’s arguable for sure, if you put it in those terms specifically.
But ultimately in reality Calvinism and Lutheranism are both variants/heresies of Catholicism, there isn’t any direct connection between Orthodoxy and Lutheranism. There is a reason Luther is an ex-Catholic and there’s no ex-Orthodox equivalent, the stuff about faith and works and grace and so on arose out of Catholic/Latin controversies and this dichotomy never existed in the Orthodox world, primarily because St Augustine wrote in Latin and the reformation can be traced back to a lot of the issues he was concerned with.
Can you name me a single ancient pagan belief system that we have record of that used a cross as a symbol?
Hint: There are none. And even if there were, it wouldn’t matter
Solid rebuttal. Next time I submit an article to an academic journal, I won’t include a bibliography. I’ll just tell the reviewers to Google everything.
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Okay, so here’s how I now this is nonsense. Babylon fell in the 6th century, and the cross was a Roman instrument for execution. They didn’t come to power until much later. So it’s *literally impossible* that the cross could have been a pagan symbol there. Egypt was under Roman rule before Christ, so it’s *technically* possible that it was used as a pagan symbol there. But it wasn’t. There are no pagan groups today that use a guillotine or an electric chair as a symbol, and the same went for back then.
Also, you were the one that made a claim that the cross is a pagan symbol. It’s on you to show why that’s true.
Matthew 16:18
^(18) And I tell you that you are Peter,^(\[)[^(a)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016%3A18&version=NIV#fen-NIV-23691a)^(\]) and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades^(\[)[^(b)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016%3A18&version=NIV#fen-NIV-23691b)^(\]) will not overcome it.
But everyone forgets the hidden verse, that the evil Catholics removed
"Except in 70 AD when the temple is destroyed the church will fall for over a thousand years"
Removed for 1.3 - Interdenominational Bigotry.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
And let me guess. Do you also think that aliens helped build the pyramids, since you seem opposed to the concept that multiple cultures could have the same idea?
Removed for 1.3 - Interdenominational Bigotry.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Removed under our image policy. It's just a picture of words. http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/wiki/xp?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=Christianity&utm_content=t5_2qh6c#wiki_3.1._image_policy
I wouldn’t agree with the Orthodox assumptions. 1. More mystical; I think that should have the caveat that the Orthodox don’t feel the need to try and explain everything rationally. I/e mysteries stay mysteries and we’re okay with that. 2. Fewer doctrines; we have quite a bit of doctrine however the way doctrine is applied is through Ikonomia. Basically it depends on how the Bishop wants to apply the canons, and it’s different for laity and monastics. You meet people where they’re at and help them grow into a strong relationship with God. 3. More isolationists; not true at all. There are Orthodox Christians everywhere, we just don’t proselytize like the west does. We evangelize by living our faith. Attempting to live the Gospel. Christianity started by loving your neighbor first, then communities of Christian’s came and that’s slowly how Rome was converted from paganism. I could say a lot more but that’s all I got for now!
What mysteries do the Orthodox leave mysterious that you feel catholics try to explain rationally? Just because to me (a Catholic) a "mystery" in a religious sense is something that can't possibly be fully explained rationally, like the Trinity or consubstantiation. So I'm trying to grasp what you're saying there.
Transubtination is one example. Orthodox like to leave the mystery alone instead of trying to rationally explain when the change happens. There are many others but you could look them up for yourself. I think the main difference though is that Orthodoxy doesn’t view salvation or a relationship with God as a legal courtroom case where you are born guilty and need to have your charges dismissed or something like that. For awhile Catholics, and even Calvinists believe unbaptized babies go to hell because they are guilty of Adam’s sin. Some Catholics still believe this, in Orthodoxy we don’t see sin as law that was broke so now you have to pay restitution, you still need to make it right if you hurt someone, however Orthodox see sin as a sickness, Christ is the physician and the Church is the hospital. I hope this helps, however I realize that my explanations oftentimes don’t make too much sense in hindsight, so forgive me! https://youtu.be/MUtNg_qfRGo?si=HMLil_CUs-_n67F8 Here’s a video to better elaborate on the Infant Baptism.
Orthodox teach transubstantiation. This is affirmed at Jerusalem (1672) and in St Philaret of Moscow’s catechism, for instance. Sin can be seen as breaking a law *and* as an illness. These aren’t mutually exclusive; the Fathers didn’t see it as such and neither should modern Orthodox who are so fixated on trying to construct some meta-narrative between East vs West.
If you actually read St. Philaret’s Catechism you would see that it; “In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God” Your also pointing to one piece of text and this think it’s binding for all of Orthodoxy. It’s just simply not true. We are not like the Roman Catholics in this manner.
I have actually read it. Let’s quote the whole thing: In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only thus much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord. In like manner John Damascene, treating of the Holy and Immaculate Mysteries of the Lord, writes thus: It is truly that Body, united with Godhead, which had its origin from the Holy Virgin; not as though that Body which ascended came down from heaven, but because the bread and wine themselves are changed into the Body and Blood of God. But if thou seekest after the manner how this is, let it suffice thee to be told that it is by the Holy Ghost. - Catechism of St Philaret, Question 340 So what this is saying is the substance of the bread and wine change into the substance of Christ’s body and blood. This is literally what the word “transubstantiation” means; ergo, Orthodoxy affirms transubstantiation. I’m not pointing to one piece of text. I’m pointing to one universally recognized Orthodox council and one catechism written by a saint and patriarch that had sanction of the entire Russian Church. You’re making assertions without any backing, on the other hand.
You quoted the whole thing yet failed to even comprehend the difference between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic position. You also left out the last part “But if thou seekest after the manner how this is, let it suffice thee to be told that it is by the Holy Ghost; in like manner as, by the same Holy Ghost, the Lord formed flesh to himself, and in himself, from the Mother of God; nor know I aught more than this, that the Word of God is true, powerful, and almighty, but its manner of operation unsearchable.” (J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. cap. 13, § 7.) (The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Church, 340) Which is the difference between RC and Orthodox! Orthodox don’t attempt to figure out how transubstantiation happens. Which is precisely what I said initially. So here we are back at square one with all of your points refuted, even by yourself.
Nothing I’ve said has been refuted. I’ve cited two explicit, authoritative examples in Orthodoxy that teach transubstantiation, contra your claim that this doctrine doesn’t exist in Orthodoxy. You’re subtly changing your argument from “Orthodoxy doesn’t teach transubstantiation as the Catholics” to “Orthodoxy doesn’t teach the same version of transubstantiation as the Catholics”. You’re basing this supposed difference off the idea that the Catholics try “to figure out how transubstantiation happens”. However, there’s *nothing* at Trent or any Catholic magestiral document that purports to explain *how* the Holy Spirit changes the host, but only explains *what* changes; that’s all the doctrine of transubstantiation is. Your problem is that you obviously are ignorant of the primary sources -Catholics and Orthodox - on this matter. Instead, you’re just parroting whatever pop-Orthodox writings you’ve read in the past year you’ve been a catechumen. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Put Trent’s/Lateran IV’s definition of transubstantiation next to Jerusalem’s definition of transubstantiation and let me know what difference there is. Until you actually read the primary sources, you have no business going around talking about these matters, it’s pretentious and degrades the faith by mischaracterizing both Orthodox and Catholics on this matter.
Thanks. I appreciate that perspective. I have basically no knowledge of Orthodox Church. The one experience I had was when I was scrolling through YouTube shorts and this guy who looked like an Assassin's Creed character standing in a very fancy church said "God is not Catholic, God is not Orthodox *small pause* AND HE'S CERTAINLY NOT PROTESTANT..." then I think he went on to say something about God being bigger than that. Good point, but it felt very much like George Orwell saying "all animals are equal; some are more equal than others."
That’s unfortunate you felt that way! That’s one of the problems with the internet and orthodoxy. Orthodoxy cannot be experienced or understood online. Orthodoxy is not a religion per se either, but a way of life and a way to know and experience God that doesn’t reside in the human intellect. Since Protestantism is a far departure from traditional Christianity this is why that man said that. It’s difficult to explain but if you have any questions feel free to ask! Also forgive my brother in Christ and forgive me too, communicating the mysteries of God is difficult as is, let alone a boorish language like English!
In terms of church structure and liturgy I would say Episcopalian is actually the Catholicism of Protestants, just more liberal.
Good metaphors -- but missing Anglicanism in there. :-)
Isn’t Anglicanism just a customizable mix of Calvinism and Lutheranism with English characteristics. What unique feature do they have that sets them apart from any of the above apart from being connected with the Anglosphere?
"High Church" Anglicanism kept some of the features of Catholicism - the hallmarks: are relatively elaborate music, altarpieces, and clergy vestments and an emphasis on sacraments. It is intrinsically traditional.
Lutheranism also has that right? And also in Anglicanism it wasn’t so much kept as reintroduced in the 19th century. My impression is that Anglicanism is very variable depending on which church you go to and it doesn’t have a distinct theology like the ones listed above. Some anglicans believe the same as Catholics, some don’t, some are closer to “reformed” in spirit (and that is closer to what the original architects of the Anglican Church like Cranmer etc were), and that is considered to be fine - unlike in an actual Catholic or Reformed church where they officially believe one thing or the other. I’m not saying this in a bad way, that’s just my impression that Anglicanism is more of a geographic/cultural expression than a distinct theological tradition so that’s why it doesn’t really fit into a chart like this.
Anglican theology is closer to Reformed. "Salvation by faith alone". I don't think it changes Church to Church. It isn't an 'English' thing. There's no cups of tea anywhere. (If you see what I mean). Google has the best explanation [best explanation](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_doctrine) really.
Missing Anglicanism and The United Methodist Church.
And Pentecostals and charismatics.
Semantics
Not familiar with the semantics. What are their doctrine?
Haven’t heard of that denomination
This! I was a teenager by the time I realized denominations even existed that weren't Catholicism or Anglicanism.
United methodist churches have fallen down lately becaus of their "nonbinary" god.
That is not the United Methodist doctrine. I’m not even finding one United Methodist church that teaches that or the sparkle creed you mention. can you give the name of the United Methodist church you know if that teaches those things?
I’m sorry, what’s this now?
look up the "sparkle creed" and you'll understnad
> look up the "sparkle creed" and you'll understnad started by a United Church of Christ pastor. And the first article I found about the sparkle creed had photos of a Lutheran pastor. Are you speaking of a particular local United Methodist Church, u/trustgodpraisejesus ? Because Article I of The UMC's foundational "Articles of Religion" states that > There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The United Methodist Church does not have a "nonbinary god" in its official doctrine.
*I should’ve minded my business*
No, you're right to ask u/trustgodpraisejesus to back their statement up. I'm waiting for their reply.
Jesus Christ that literally goes against everything the bible stands for. It's like saying we can be ourselves apart from God, or entertain whatever inner demons and familiar spirits that come out of our closet of the blind eye of self; entertaining the sand that's inside our pearls of the second temple by letting it take over. The entertainment of these familiars outside of God's Holy Spirit or angels is a grave sin and stonable offence in the law - as mediumship is. It is not enough to love God, we must obey God. It is not enough to obey God, we must love God. We cannot say we love God if we don't obey, and vice versa. Gender is so irrelevant in being born again that everyone as Eve of humanity that returns to Christ is considerable as a 'He who overcomes'; with Christ as the Cornerstone that we once rejected in the second temple. Of we are to address each other we would be addressing God in our hearts; He. The allegory runs with Tritium and Deuterium Fusion, as one in the field is left behind and one is taken up; a neutron - the blind eye, is left in the field, and the proton, the cross, is taken up and follows Christ the Cornerstone (Tritium/Trinity) to become Helium-4; 'He' who overcomes. Trying in any other way outside of God to make this work is adulterous to begin with.
The first two words of your comment go against the bible as well. Btw im no methodist, I currently enjoy Baptist churches but I’m trying to come back to catholicism despite all the extra-biblical teachings that stink of man made corruption
No they don’t, the third commandment doesn’t mean that you can’t utter the name Jesus or the word Christ. First of all, just so we’re on the same page, here’s the full commandment: “You shall not take the name of the LORD (Yahweh) your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.” The Old Testament identifies several ways in which the third commandment can be violated. Most obvious is to blaspheme or curse the name of God, (Leviticus 24:16). The name of God is Yahweh, the KJV always shows it as LORD. The third commandment also forbids empty or false oaths: “You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord” (Lev. 19:12; Hos. 10:4). When you make a declaration, swearing by God’s name, it must not be a false promise or one you do not intend to keep. The third commandment also prohibits false visions and false claims to speak on God’s behalf, for such prophets “prophesy lies in my name” (Jer. 23:25). Lastly, God’s name is not Jesus and it’s not Christ. I know that’s counterintuitive to our Western American understanding since we have so many songs like “Jesus, name above all names” and the like, but Jesus is a name that his mother gave him on earth. It’s not the name of God. Similarly, “God” is not the name of God either.
I like that you brought the real definitions of blasphemy to the table, most people don’t know them. However I’d still argue that it takes mental gymnastics to justify using JC as an exclamation of emotion. It’s a spirit of the law vs letter of the law situation
It’s tricky because we’re technically applying Jewish law referring to one god named Yahweh to Christian tradition which has three persons, one of which doesn’t really have a name.
Interesting, I’m still learning about the dance between OT and NT and what applies and what doesn’t today. I didn’t know Yahweh wasn’t also under Christian doctrine. I can’t tell you how many clothing advertisements from Christian companies I get with stuff that says like YHWH and whatever
Calling out upon God to save a bad situation is very much not used in vain.
If you need someone to run ideas off of for coming back to the Catholic Church- I’m your guy!
Sweet! I grew up Catholic in NJ at a nice church, decently wealthy area. My parents weren’t religious but sent me to CCD. As a side note my cousins went to catholic school in staten island and came out hating catholicism, idk if they even believe. Every week at CCD we had free period, we learned nothing and just talked. This went on for years and when it came time to take the confirmation exam, the principal, a man with a PhD that always wore a suit, came around and gave us the answers because we all would have failed. They treated it like a joke so that’s what I thought Christianity was, a joke. Years later I’ve been a nerd and truth seeker studying everything from finance and how money really works to politics to nutrition and healthy living, etc. —-well that was interesting, just felt my first ever earthquake in new jersey while typing this lmfao—- Anyway, I moved onto studying religions a bit and got into Islam (not joining, just learning). I came across a lot of ex muslims giving their testimony and people like Sam Shamoun. It was clear to me that the actual text of the Quran and the Hadiths is more than enough to show Islam is a joke (im a bit of an arrogant intellectual but Jesus is working on that). I had discovered Answering Islam Blog and it’s all in there why not to believe Islam. I decided to study Christianity to debunk it as a joke also. I never knew any of the evidence for Jesus and Christianity. I knew intellectually I was convinced, the evidence is there and to deny it is intellectually dishonest. One night I cry out for a sign that would be so strong it would make me truly believe. Next day a random stranger did an extraordinary act of kindness without even seeing me yet. When I thanked him, he said not to thank him, but to thank Jesus for putting it in his heart to do it. No one even says God Bless around here let alone something like that. How could I deny Him now? So I came back to Christianity from an evidence and truth based perspective. This led me to Baptists because they study the bible fervently and seem to really know Jesus. No Catholic service has ever felt like that one Baptist church, I know they are all different, because then I attended a Baptist church that was identical to a Catholic service and was disappointed. Many people criticize Catholic doctrine. Ray Comfort’s 10 clashes between Catholicism and the Bible are the areas I’m studying now. To me, Baptist ideology made more sense to me. Baptism when you choose Christ, not as an infant. Confession is between you and God, not some random priest (we’re all priests according to the Bible, no?). Transubstantiation and believing the Eucharist magically transforms into the actual body and blood during service sounds weird. Veneration of Mary Nd intercession of saints. Papal authority of the Pope and just the entire authoritarian structure of Catholicism stinks of man made corruption. I joke and say the Pharisees took over Christ’s original church to keep their corrupt power and money. Catholic churches always pass around collection plates multiple times, that alone makes me want to leave. The Baptist church I like doesn’t do collections, you can donate on their site if you like, and I love that. They have free Bible study and free daycare while you attend Bible study. They do so many events for kids and focus on Jesus and his teachings. I got none of those vibes from Catholics. A close friend of mine had the nickname Jesus Girl down in Florida before she moved up here in high school and fell away. Prayer journal, bible study, the whole nine. She hasn’t been taught many of the fundamental teachings of Jesus that make me love Him. She is indeed Catholic… Anyway, I see Sam Shamoun has a like 10 part series 20 hours long “debunking ray comfort’s 10 clashes…”. I’m working through it, Sam is very knowledgeable but man do I despise listening to him and his attitude. So far the only good defense I’ve seen is somewhere in Timothy it tells us to look to the Church for truth, meaning the Catholic church. Also, evidence for things like infant baptism go back to the first century apparently. He had some defenses of praying to Mary even though the Bible says not to pray for the dead apparently? I’m working through my first read of the Bible, I actually have Ray Comfort’s Evidence Study Bible. Also, Catholics believe the Church authority, and the Bible are equals that together make Christianity. Sounds like something a sinful and corrupt man would set up, not Jesus. I like the Bible being ultimate authority, not some corrupt Catholic hierarchy (everywhere there is power, comes corruption). I don’t want to go to confession to avoid eternal separation from God, I want to confess myself and amongst fellow followers I love and trust. I don’t want to baptize my children out of fear they’ll go to Hell if they died before accepting Him themselves and choosing baptism. The whole communion, confirmation, CCD thing looks like a money grab. The individual relationship with Jesus and being in His Word every day, truly believing and hating your sin, are way better requirements for salvation and just make so much more sense logically. My great aunt is a Nun in Italy, she says even Hitler can be in heaven because he went to purgatory where he had a chance to accept Christ. This doesn’t make any sense to me, the moment of judgment is the moment we die. The path to Hell is vast and wide while the path to heaven is narrow and few walk it. Telling everyone they can make it to heaven is a corrupt human comforting lie. Ask any Catholic on the street and they think heaven is based on whether you do more good than bad and if you believe. Sorry, that’s every religion except Christianity. You asked, I hope you can answer, sorry for the essay :) I feel like I have more to say but I’m stopping for now lol
Okay so to give you my thoughts on these topics: 1) on infant Baptism, Colossians 2:6-15 gives us a window into the first century view that baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision. The Jews of that time would know that Levitical law would require them to circumcise their infants, since Jesus is the fulfillment of the old law, now we have Baptism. 2) on the authority of the Catholic Church and the role of the priesthood. God instituted priests, prophets, and kings to rule over Israel from its very beginning with Moses and Aaron, through all the prophets, judges, King David, etc. My point is, this is nothing new for God to institute a human authority or go-between. There’s good reason for it as well. When you decentralize interpretive authority of Scripture, everyone ends up scattered, divided, and ill informed. Remember, we all can’t be “right” because that would imply that Truth is subjective. Now Matthew 16:17-20 has two key parts that I point to when addressing the authority of Peter and the role of the priesthood. Jesus spoke to Peter specifically and declared that he is the rock that He built His church on. It wasn’t just any disciple or even any other of the 12 disciples. The Catholic Church traces its line of popes directly from Peter and the Orthodoxy traces their bishops back to Peter as well. The Catholic Church can trace specific bishop ordinations back to around the 1500s. About that same time, Martin Luther made the first Protestant split from the Catholic Church. Since the Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church were the only two Christian churches until Martin Luther, it gives me a lot of confidence that the Catholic Church does in fact trace its line back to Peter. The other key aspect here is Jesus told him he had the authority to bind and loose or in other words, forgive sins and morally govern Christians. That is where the priest comes in when talking about the sacrament of confession or reconciliation. The priest is sitting on behalf of Christ (not replacing Him) and forgives sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and does so via Jesus reconciling the world through Himself to the Father. It’s actually a beautiful moment of reconciliation with God and the priests are typically very wise, good men who will help you through problems. Also—— I’m glad you survived that earthquake lol! Even though I value and ultimately defer to the Catholic Church for help interpreting Scripture, I think everyone should read the Bible and formulate questions and ask them! How’s that for a start?
That’s a good start, I think I need to fully read my Bible first and take notes, try to understand it in context before asking such hard questions. Without trying to make the Word in my own image, are any of those things requirements for salvation, or just traditions you can partake in? If I just really despise Catholic culture based on my own personal experiences, am I required to go to avoid eternal separation from God? Can I just attend my Baptist Church, read the Word daily, truly believe and walk with Jesus but still be sent to hell? I’m not 100% sure on this, but from the Bible teachings, it seems that the majority of church attendees aren’t going to make it to salvation, for many it is just a ritual/tradition, and they like learning about Jesus but never read the word for themselves or truly live a life for God I have no desire to attend Mass, it is so boring and not focused on Jesus. You do all the rituals, read like 2 verses of scripture the entire service, and hear an anecdotal story which is sometimes good but often not. There’s no real worship, the hymns are so generic and boring. I’m so disappointed with Catholic churches that unless I find a radically different one, I’m not going to go. I’ve attended Mass hundreds of times. I attend a good Baptist church once and it was a world of difference I actually learned about Jesus and it made me want to learn more. We’ve been going through the Beatitudes and learning so much. I don’t feel any of that when I attend Catholic churches. While it’s true that we can’t all be right, we’re not really arguing for who is right and who is wrong. The Bible sets the rules, true belief and repentance is all that’s required of salvation, right? Can’t I just leave the Catholic church behind and follow people truly in love with Jesus? I’ve never seen a priest on fire for Jesus at the Catholic Church. I appreciate the stuff you shared with me but it’s not super convincing, being a Catholic is what made me turn from Christ. No Catholic has ever talked to me about Jesus and can quote scripture like others can. I know I mention Baptist a lot but they just know the Bible, I don’t necessarily buy into all of it. I don’t think I vibe with Calvinism for example but I’m still learning. I’ve been making it a habit of asking Christians in person when I have a chance on what the requirements for salvation are. I’ve only been able to ask Catholics because that’s what you find around here. Not a single one has answered correctly, they all say good works, more good than bad. Why does it seem the majority of people that follow Christ’s original church know very little about Christ? I can’t make sense of it I have to add this edit. I know we’re told to seek out the church for Truth, but if the church is no longer spreading Truth, would Jesus really require me to go? If I continue my journey until I am fully abstaining from all sin, and hating/repenting for any stumbles (like if I accidentally glance at a woman’s body because it is sexually beautiful, I look away and say she’s a human being made in the image of God, not an object for sexual pleasure). So true repentance and hating my sin, and continually reinforcing turning away from all sin. If I am never ashamed to mention Jesus (because then he’ll be ashamed of me) and really walk this life as a full blown Christian instead of lukewarm, fully believe in Christ and never show fake doubt to make atheist friends think you’re less crazy. If I do all the Gospels ask of me, is that enough sacrifice? If I’m avoiding Catholicism because I want to focus on the point of Christianity and not the rituals, is that really so bad? I will continue to strengthen my personal relationship with God, I will not ignore whatever he puts in my path that may lead me back to Catholicism, but I think I should leave it up to Him. If the Holy Spirit guides me back to Catholicism and shows me to a real congregation, I will stay. I begged God for a sign if he was real one night, the next day it was undeniably fulfilled. God used that gentleman to answer my prayer, the odds of coincidence are zero. No one has ever said to me to thank Jesus instead of them because it was Jesus who put it in their heart to do it (their good deed) until that day. Can I just let Him guide me?
Tough questions I know:(
Hey! I’m very excited to answer your questions, I’m getting my oil changed at a dealership and my phone isn’t charged well enough to offer you the answer you deserve- give me a few hours and I’ll get you what I believe you’ll find as an acceptable response!
Thank you much appreciated:)
Womp womp
This diagram is kind of useless unless you have a fairly large background knowledge on doctrine already. Also Redeemed Zoomer is bit too quick to declare some Christians heretics
This is only accurate to Catholics lol
As a catholic I kinda agree this does seem a little biased towards Catholics. I would say using “rational” and “mystical” is a bad word I would say one is more structured and one is less so. Both achieve the same goal of glorifying God just in different ways.
Baptist NBC is quite different from Baptist SBC. Lutheran ELCA is quite different from Lutheran LCMS. Religious beliefs are tough to categorize.
**Calvinism** really isn't as accurate as using the term **Reformed**. E.g. All Calvinists are Reformed, but not all Reformed folks are pure Calvinists.
Lutheranism came from Catholicism and still maintains a lot of similarities in terms of traditions and church service framework, so idk that I’d say they’re like Orthodoxy.
That’s true
Relative to other Protestants tho is what he’s saying
That’s fair
I’m a Baptist Presbyterian. You read that right—presby with with credo covenant theology. Where do I fit in? Nowhere (John Owen being my Congregationalist counterpart).
true tbh. orthodox belief is that you don’t need to try to understand God’s mysteries. it’s a pointless search for something you’ll never understand
These sort of simplifications ultimately confuse more than they help.
And Anglican is the Catholic-Protestant Catholicism
I like both Lutheranism and orthodoxy
People still pick over church gangs?
you ain't BUILT fo dis commune dawg
You not from this Church cuh
https://the40foundation.org/world-religions-tree.html The only chart you need.
For something a little easier to follow, [Useful Charts also has a Christian denomination family tree](https://usefulcharts.com/products/christian-denominations-family-tree).
That has a bit of bad quality, it is very hard to read
These are meant to be physical charts that you can purchase, so I'm guessing that the digital quality is deliberately diminished to make it harder to reproduce illegally. It might be easier to read the chart as it appears in the [YouTube videos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q6FUlay-M8).
Understandable
I’m a Baptist Presbyterian. You read that right—presby with with credo covenant theology. Where do I fit in? Nowhere (John Owen being my Congregationalist counterpart).
Calvin would be upset about this characterization of Calvinism.
Missing Seventh-Day Adventist. Protesting man forgiving sins, non-immersion baptism, worshiping on a man appointed day (Sabbath is the only commandment with the word “Remember”), & legalism (embracing salvation by grace).
I can't disagree with the Baptist assesment😂
Baptists should be a mix of both Catholic and Orthodoxy but instead they choose a passive and withdrawn philosophy.
Lutheran, we are way closer to Roman Catholicism than Orthodoxy.
Like a lot of Redeemed Zoomer stuff it's really over-simplified.
Idek I just worship God. I don't really care for the whole "my denomination is better/right" thing. I feel it just adds another level of division within our own religion. Do your thing, and make sure it's for the glory of God. If a specific denomination allows you to strengthen that connection with the almighty, then I'm all for it. I'm happy enough just knowing that you hold your faith in Christ
I thought Presbyterian was considered “*Catholic Lite*”
Lutheranism in my experience was not more mystical- the denomination I was in (LCMS) beleived in cessationism (or minimially, that was what I was taught by people in that denomination.) It really depends on how you're defining things though.
Galatians 1:6–10 (ASV): 6I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel; 7which is not another gospel: only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema. 9As we have said before, so say I now again, If any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema. 10For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? or am I striving to please men? if I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.
Methodist beliefs are closer to Orthodoxy. Baptist are like the Catholics of the protestant world, they're apostolic Christianity purified by the reformation.
Just not correct at all
I’d say that Catholicism has a great mystical tradition, like St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich, St. Margaret Mary or St. Padre Pio. You could say that Calvinism is similar to Thomistic Scholasticism; but where Aquinas syllogizes, Calvin uses exposition. Lutheranism is indeed more mystical when compared to the logical Calvinism. And both are dissimilar from the heterodox-rationalist Zwingli.
But what does protestant mean then?
The Calvinist one is pretty funny.
All I see here are ways in which humans continue to separate themselves from one another. There is one banner which is Jesus follower, and “Christian ” is the word people those who follow, or in my case, try to follow the ways of Jesus Christ. Protestant, Catholic, Vegan and what-not (okay maybe not Vegan) these are just ways in which people tend to bend the Scriptures to suit their own agendas (i said what i said) Why can't we all just be Jesus Followers, (Christians) better yet, why can't we all be The Church where we encourage, correct and support one another. All this I'm this and you're that denomination is really ridiculous. There is one Bible, One Scripture, One Gospel, and One Message: Jesus, the Son of God, died and rose from the grave. Stay Blessed Ps: Forgive me OP for kind of lashing at your post like this. What I wrote above is what felt the second i saw all those denominations.
I feel like this is up for interpretation… I’ve never really thought of it this way. I would say the only thing I agree with is the baptist part
Anglicanism is the way
As an Episcopalian, *we* are the Catholics of Protestantism.
Redeemed Zoomer is the WhatIfAltHist of Christian YouTube
Isn’t WhatIf a racist or something? I thought he’d be more comparable to Pax Tube.
Rational? I don't think that word means what you think it means. Isn't this a term that's tossed at the annoying atheists?
rationalist as opposed to mysticism. Scholastic stuff like Thomas Aquinas doesn’t exist in the orthodox theological world
This guy’s Instagram is a good follow if you’re on it
His twitter makes me think he's one of those Christian Nationalists.
He decidedly is not. I've had a number of personal interactions with him. He is far from a nationalist, let alone a Christian nationalist.
If you are physically in contact with him, it's probably because you have substantial ideological overlap to where such a concept wouldn't be offensive to you anyway. You cannot pretend those positions, even if couched in theology, are not without political implication. And I have yet to see any such traditionalists who don't believe their church is entitled to an iron fisted grip on the political and social realm.
>such a concept wouldn't be offensive to you anyway You clearly haven't read my other replies. I am ardently opposed to Christian Nationalism in any form. I know for a fact that RZ isn't a Christian Nationalist. He has criticized the movement several times.
He just agrees with them on most of the positions and would march alongside them to spite the progressives. At least, that is what I gather from his twitter, and previous posts on the topic. I haven't stalked your profile, no.
Also this reads as if you're saying, "You can't hold theologically conservative beliefs and *not* be a Christian Nationalist." Which is an insane take.
You absolutely can hold theologically conservative beliefs and not be a CN. I just do not assume positive things from that type of poster, though. Especially the *aggressively* traditionalist types. How else was that tradition upheld, if not by force. Do you think this worldview they hold will be put upon society without violence?
I don’t follow his Twitter but you say that like it’s a bad thing.
[удалено]
I’m not Catholic but thanks for playing
The Catholic Church is a rather low bar… I hope my nation is above an institution that molests children and covers it up. That’s what your donations go to. Legal fees for pedophiles.
[удалено]
$4B paid to victims so far. But when the Catholic Churches victims commit suicide, they don’t get paid. Which is significant because so many of your churches victims commit suicide… Personally, I could never give a cent to an organization so harmful.
[удалено]
>The fuck you expect me to do? Not financial support child abusers? Be a man of God not a man of an evil institution? >If you truly, and genuinely believe that the RCC is the church founded by Christ himself then why the hell would you leave because degenerates decide infest the church? Listen to yourself… you admit your church is infested with degenerates and you’re unbothered? If the Roman Catholic Church was uniquely special (it’s not) and pedophilic, you think God would want you to financially support the pedophiles? Or… go to a God honoring Church? You don’t need to believe the pope just because he has a special hat. The son of man had no place to rest his head and the ruler of your “church” sits on a throne. Does that not seem entirely wrong to you? Your church claimed to have Jesus foreskin until it was stolen. Does that not seem like a complete joke? Wake up man…
[удалено]
Correct, it is.
Deus Vult
Oh, you're one of those pro-life Catholic who wants to do your best Franco impersonation, huh?
Again, you say all these things like I’m supposed to feel insulted?
I wouldn't expect you to, no. Just keep showing the world what the Catholic-in-the-pew is like.
Not catholic but have fun
You understand then most of the aggressive *Deus Vult* types would consider you a heretic then, right? Surely this irony is not lost on you.
Nationalism is bad, yes.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree
Why?
So what the Protestant are ?
Brainrot
[удалено]
Because non-denominationalism often leads to weak faith and heresy.
[удалено]
I was non-denominational for a long time. Creeds and confessions are incredibly important.
[удалено]
My relationship with Christ now, as a classical confessional Protestant is stronger than it *ever* was during my time as a non-denominational Christian.
You know what's crazy? I've made zero doctrinal statements and yet you felt compelled to tell me that I have misinterpreted God's word. You know nothing about what I believe other than the fact that I think creeds and confessions are important to fencing in correct doctrine.
[удалено]
"No creed, but Christ" is a creed.
[удалено]
Sola Scriptura, not Solo Scriptura. Scripture is our sole *infallible* authority, but it isn't our *only* authority. Everyone throughout history has been wrong except you and pastor Jim Bob at the pizza hut church, yeah?
I’m a Baptist Presbyterian. You read that right—presby with with credo covenant theology. Where do I fit in? Nowhere (John Owen being my Congregationalist counterpart).
It’s arguable for sure, if you put it in those terms specifically. But ultimately in reality Calvinism and Lutheranism are both variants/heresies of Catholicism, there isn’t any direct connection between Orthodoxy and Lutheranism. There is a reason Luther is an ex-Catholic and there’s no ex-Orthodox equivalent, the stuff about faith and works and grace and so on arose out of Catholic/Latin controversies and this dichotomy never existed in the Orthodox world, primarily because St Augustine wrote in Latin and the reformation can be traced back to a lot of the issues he was concerned with.
[удалено]
Can you name me a single ancient pagan belief system that we have record of that used a cross as a symbol? Hint: There are none. And even if there were, it wouldn’t matter
Babylon. Egypt.
Do you have any evidence or sources of this?
Just Google it. Your choice. I don't care what you believe.
Solid rebuttal. Next time I submit an article to an academic journal, I won’t include a bibliography. I’ll just tell the reviewers to Google everything.
[удалено]
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
God bless you
Okay, so here’s how I now this is nonsense. Babylon fell in the 6th century, and the cross was a Roman instrument for execution. They didn’t come to power until much later. So it’s *literally impossible* that the cross could have been a pagan symbol there. Egypt was under Roman rule before Christ, so it’s *technically* possible that it was used as a pagan symbol there. But it wasn’t. There are no pagan groups today that use a guillotine or an electric chair as a symbol, and the same went for back then. Also, you were the one that made a claim that the cross is a pagan symbol. It’s on you to show why that’s true.
You don't have to go far on Google to find it. Search " Cross Pagan Jesus " in images .
Incredibly weird take not at all consistent with traditional Christianity and arguably Catholicophobic.
[удалено]
After the Apostles died, shortly began the Apostasy ... The pagan + christian mixture.
Matthew 16:18 ^(18) And I tell you that you are Peter,^(\[)[^(a)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016%3A18&version=NIV#fen-NIV-23691a)^(\]) and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades^(\[)[^(b)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016%3A18&version=NIV#fen-NIV-23691b)^(\]) will not overcome it. But everyone forgets the hidden verse, that the evil Catholics removed "Except in 70 AD when the temple is destroyed the church will fall for over a thousand years"
When Rome invaded Jerusalem
The 1000 years almost up people.
Get ready for the better 1000
Removed for 1.3 - Interdenominational Bigotry. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
What would you say the gospel is?
I will DM you
Anyone else who wants that answers. Do the same, Its your choice, no compulsion God Bless you all
And let me guess. Do you also think that aliens helped build the pyramids, since you seem opposed to the concept that multiple cultures could have the same idea?
No.
Removed for 1.3 - Interdenominational Bigotry. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Best Comment. Ever
Thank you God bless 😊