Revisiting doctrines and topics

[KLP]

I have been revisiting all the background material and studies on Lutheran, Methodists, and Presbyterian (PCA) again. Thinking maybe I have changed enough. But I still cannot take most of the Calvinism stuff. I have lessened some on my immediate aversion on topics of original sin, sola fide, faith comes on part of HS, and infant baptism. No way I could go RCC...but at least willing to study a bit more of Lutherans...but the huge organizations are nutso IMO.

[SolaDude]

Sounds like you tend toward the Arminian end of the spectrum rather than the Calvinist end. Here are a few Arminian-based denominations:

1) American Baptist Churches USA
2) The United Methodist Church
3) Wesleyan Church
4) Pentecostal Churches
5) The Church of the Nazarene
6) Calvary Chapel

Here's a website that lists a bunch of Arminian-based or Arminian-friendly denominations:

h**p://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/ ... minations/

[Shrubbery]

Lutherans aren't Calvinist (no predestination stuff). I used to be ELCA Lutheran. They're a lot like Episcopalians, except Lutherans believe the Lord's Supper is symbolic, whereas Episcopalians believe the body and blood are somehow in the bread and wine (not quite Catholic belief, but something in between). I think they call it "real presence"? I read an article on the Episcopal belief of this that made sense. ELCA Lutheran is very much on the liberal side (gay clergy acceptable, naming ceremonies for transsexual people, etc.). The more conservative side of Lutheranism would be Missouri Synod. I don't know much about them. There may be other branches of Lutheran. These are the only two in my area. so the only ones I've investigated at all. I actually didn't know Missouri Synod existed until my mom started playing organ at one of their churches. She used to bring a book to read during the pastor's sermon. She's ELCA at heart.

Methodists seem to be fairly loosey goosey about beliefs. Like you can believe whatever you want. They won't care.

I couldn't go RCC either. I just can't wrap my head around the pope idea at all. I went to several services as a kid. It was like a more formal version of my normal Lutheran service. But Lutherans are pretty formal (especially after being in coc). Just yesterday I was thinking about that, when the song leader in my coc started to lead the wrong song and then someone pointed to the slides behind him and he stopped and corrected himself and sang the correct song. Stuff like that happens all the time in the coc, where the song leaders are coming up with the songs possibly that day. In these liturgical services, the music, Bible readings, etc. are selected days before and printed in a bulletin, and the organist or piano player has all the music in order in front of them, so it's really obvious what comes next. I've never seen a wrong song mishap occur in the Lutheran church. Just made me think of the decently and in order passage. But that's a bit off topic, I guess. Sorry.

[gordie91]

KLP, I would recommend a podcast by Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick called Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy. It can be found at Ancient Faith Radio. He also has an updated book, his original series is almost 10 years old if I remember correctly. He reviews all of the various doctrines and beliefs of other denominations and movements and compares them to what Orthodoxy believes and teaches. It is not an exercise in bashing and many times he points out the similarities and common ground even with groups that seem very dissimilar from Orthodox Christianity.

He covers a lot of historical backgrounds especially associated with the various Reformation movements and even covers non-christian religions. He gives a good history of the American religious movements and all the variants as well. It is informative and for someone revisiting key points of religion, might find the background useful. Podcasts are not too long and have a sound of being in a big room, I'm guessing at his church, but I adjusted the tone on the radio in my car. Of course the book, doesn't make sound.

[agricola]

The coc is mainly Arminian, and I have found that the attitude definitely carries over!

[ena]

If Calvinism is true there would be no need for the sacrifice of Jesus. Either you are predestined to be saved or not. Choice is not an option. Rather clear to me.

[B.H.]

Isn't the Lutheran Church the one the ex Church of Christ woman with lots of tatoos preaches for. I think it is Nadia Bolz-Weaver or Boltz-Weaver.

[Cootie Brown]

Methodists seem to be fairly loosey goosey about beliefs. Like you can believe whatever you want. They won't care.

You say that like it's a bad thing. They are a pretty good alternative for unequally yoked agnostics. Merhodists are some really nice non-judgemental folk. They are a good choice for folks that are looking for a non-legalistic version of Christianity.

[SolaDude]

If Calvinism is true there would be no need for the sacrifice of Jesus. Either you are predestined to be saved or not. Choice is not an option. Rather clear to me.

Just wondering how you came up with this conclusion about Calvinism and why it seems so clear to you?

The concept of predestination is alluded to and discussed in scripture, and the word itself is found in scripture. Also, the word "elect" is used (for example, I Peter 1:1 "to the elect"). The concept relates to God's choosing nature, i.e., he chose Israel, he chose the church, etc., meaning that that He elected them, they did not elect themselves. God is presented in all of the Bible as a God of choosing, ISTM, so am wondering why that would be inconsistent with the notion of predestination? So given the fact that it is referenced in scripture, I'm just wondering why it is so clear to you that it is not valid in some conceivable, perceptual notion?

Given it is controversial (so therefore not "clear") and some believe in it in some ways and others do not believe in it in other ways, I therefore am not sure how, either way, one could conclude it is "clear", especially when it involves a realm of God that our minds cannot truly grasp anyway.

[teresa]

The concept relates to God's choosing nature, i.e., he chose Israel, he chose the church, etc., meaning that that He elected them, they did not elect themselves.

The ancient Hebrews thought in terms of God's covenant relationship with the corporate body. So when God called Abraham, the idea was that God was also calling at the same time all those in the corporate body who would come through the line of Abraham (through the promised son). In the ancient Hebrews' way of thinking, the individual who is part of the corporate group benefits from the blessings that God bestows on the corporate group.

The Western way of thinking is that God calls the individual. If we read the scriptures outside its ancient Hebrew context, then we might (IMO) mistakenly conclude that God arbitrarily chooses the individuals He wants to save (in order to demonstrate his love and mercy) while allowing the rest to perish.