Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Methodist Church and the LGBTQ question

Welcome, brother Bristoe. ;-{>8

Conservative believers of all Christian faiths have a lot in common. That said, the biggest difference is found in the sacraments.

If the devil is in charge of anything, it's only because God has allowed it.

I’ve been thinking about that throughout the day. I’m not sure that they do. The same language is used but people mean very different things even when using the same or like phrases. The religious discussions on this forum bear that out. There are a lot of competing ideas that resemble but very different.

I do ageee that a big difference exists related to sacraments. Most don’t believe or aren’t taught means and presence and believe that the sacraments are simply symbolic or a sign of unity or identity.

From what I’ve seen most differences can be traced back to the understanding of justification. If justification isn’t dialed in all other theology and doctrine becomes pretty skewed.

Winner winner right off the bat.

Egalitarianism will get you to where they are now eventually. The underlying presuppositions make it inevitable.

The only power Satan has is the power we give him.




P

Yep, African Methodist’s pushed for the split, defended the traditional interpretation, then states one Ted to the liberal side to keep donations/charity coming in, go figure.

lol,..In some respects the Lutheran Church wants to make sure that it's not mistaken for Catholicism.

During the recitation of the Apostle's Creed, I was surprised to see that the Lutheran Church I'm attending changed the wording from "The Holy Catholic Church" to "The Holy Christian Church".

I'm new to the Lutheran Church and it's interesting to see how, even 500 years later, They still have a bit of a chip on their shoulder about the Catholic Church.

My wife is Catholic and I occasionally attend Mass with her on Saturdays.

I've decided that it's best not to let it be known that I attend a Lutheran Church around those Catholics. I'm also not overly comfortable about the Lutherans learning that I'm married to a Catholic. But I suppose it's going to come out eventually.

I wouldn't worry very much - caring about your being married to a Roman Catholic is probably way, way down the list for most folks in the MS churches.

That's not what I read in the book of Job.

Our carnal will and the power of satan are two different things.

We still use the phrase “Holy catholic Church” even though spelling predictor doesn’t like having me type it with a small c. They definitely still distinguish the difference. I appreciate the order of service. In American Evangelicalism I was always taught that I was going to church to do something for God. It’s very refreshing to have the emphasis placed on going to church to receive something FROM God. Another significant distinction.

It’s interesting that the African Methodists are the ones holding the line. Other African denominations are also strong on holding to the lines of traditional doctrine. It would be interesting to pick that apart and see what cultural factors differ to drive them to be so consistent.

“catholic” in the Apostles Creed refers to the universal church of Jesus. It’s meant to encompass all of the denominations, not refer to the Roman Catholic Church. There is certainly a lot of overlap between the mainstream Christian denominations.

The Africans have definitely held the line in this fiasco. Their congregation hasn’t been filled with those only participating in the church to push the gay agenda. When the stateside leeches figured out that they didn’t have the votes to shove their agenda down our throats, they cancelled General Conference for the second time and pushed the meeting out two years. The American Methodist bureaucracy is ripe with militant leftists. If you research the statements and actions of the bishops here, it’s embarrassing.

Any religious organization is ran by men and we are all flawed. The problem is when they are allowed to go against the scripture and start delving in things that go against it. The Roman Catholic church is the oldest organized religion I know of but since it's founding it has been plagued by borderline satanic leadership. When the Methodist church United they started going away from their founding principles. Any church organization that goes against the scriptures is satanic by definition. You cannot have two masters.

Even most of those arguments are distinctions without differences.

While we'd love for you to join us in worship (and we'll say it), most of us are happy you are on the narrow path.

I wish that it were that straight forward but unfortunately it isn’t. The distinctions are stark only appearing to be without difference.

There are at least two if it’s three views that are reflected in the posts on this forum. Palagian/Finneyism, semi-Palagianism and Pauline. Tabula Ross’s vs sick and needs help vs dead and incapable.

Depending on the understanding of justification the view of the self and God are directly impacted. I was raised Anna-Baptist or Palagian and transitioned to semi-Palagian then to a Pauline understanding. The difference that it makes in my understanding of salvation, security of salvation, etc is polar opposite. Definitely more than mere distinction.

To me, it seems like a lotta this issue and discussion is about churches and denominations…and the individuals that comprise them…makin’ a point — instead of makin’ a difference.

The Gospels and the Book of Acts and the epistles of Paul kinda provide a roadmap about how to make a genuine difference — and the early body of Jesus’ followers pulled it off. Within the first three hundred years of Jesus’ movement the Roman Empire embraced Christianity.

Jesus’ original ekklesia toppled an empire in terms of an ideology, and it toppled a religious system that’d been in place for thousands of years. And they didn’t do it by makin’ a point.

They didn’t have a platform, they didn’t have any leverage in culture, they didn’t have any wealth, and they had very little organization. But they were clearly successful in bringing about cultural change.

The problem with that view is that people build the church. From what I read I’m the NT God takes credit for making things change. Of course He doesn’t do it without people which isn’t the point. He simply does what He will as He will. Well, that pattern is consistent through the OT also.

From what I’ve seen in the history of the church things get messed up royally when people try to “make things happen”, “usher in the kingdom”, “take dominion”, etc. Those points in history typically correlate with false teaching and heresies.

What was Jesus’ reputation among the most ‘religious’ people back then…the scripture thumpers of their day…what did they say about Jesus…? “He’s the friend of tax collectors and sinners.” His reputation was that He spent too much time with the people that He shouldn’t be spending any time with.

So there’s Jesus hangin’ out with with the tax collectors and the sinners. Does that mean that by hanging out with tax collectors He thinks it’s OK for them to cheat people on their taxes…? Does that mean that by hangin’ out with sinners He thinks it’s OK for them to sin…?

Nope. Sin is what ultimately killed Him. Sin is what ultimately had Him nailed to a cross. Sin is what ultimately cost Him His life. He wasn’t condoning sin. He was tryin’ to reach sinners. He was tryin’ to make a difference.

To me, some churches and denominations…and the individuals that comprise them…choose to sit safely back in their congregation of people who all believe the same thing. And who all sing the same songs, and who all get along and who all agree about everything from politics to theology. Entities and individuals that sit back and occasionally throw hand grenades out into the culture to make a point.

Some others…entities and individuals…are actually trying to engage people who need the message of the Gospel. And they could care less that other’s…especially ‘religious’ people…criticize them for who they associate with. You never, ever, find Jesus being concerned about being guilty by association.