- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: United Methodist Church closing 26 churches in Alabama: declining attendance
Posted on 6/14/25 at 10:08 pm to AubieinNC2009
Posted on 6/14/25 at 10:08 pm to AubieinNC2009
quote:I know that. Protestants don't say that Catholics don't recognize faith and grace as necessary components to salvation. The critical word is "alone" in the concept of salvation. We believe the Scriptures teach that the only thing we contribute towards our salvation is our sin that makes salvation necessary, and that good works of obedience are a fruit of salvation, not a root of it.
Catholics do not deny that our salvation is from Christ, and his grace is given freely.
quote:Sola fide is a doctrine taken from the teachings of Scripture by good and necessary consequence.
Faith “alone” was added by Martin Luther and not found in the original greek. We can not earn our salvation it is freely given by God’s grace.
When Paul says that salvation comes by faith apart from the works of the law, that is interpreted by Protestants as faith alone, not faith and works.
However, while Protestants believe that faith alone receives Christ's merits, we don't have a faith that is alone. We believe that our good works are necessary evidences of salvation, not necessary contributions to salvation.
1
Posted on 6/14/25 at 10:22 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
When Paul says that salvation comes by faith apart from the works of the law
Protestants interpret this as “faith alone”, and Christians interpret it as “faith apart from works of the law” (Mosaic law)
Posted on 6/14/25 at 10:31 pm to Stitches
quote:Yes, but only when they are teaching in accordance with His will. Judgement was threatened to several of the churches in Revelation due to them not following Christ. Their lampstand was threatened to be removed from them, in fact, which is a way of warning of cutting them off.
Christ talking to his church in Luke 10: He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects the one who sent me.
quote:I agree that the Church has such authority, but only when they act faithfully in accordance with God's revealed will. I don't agree that that authority lives exclusively with the Papacy and the hierarchy stemming from Rome.
He also gave the church the power to bind and loose, following that with the promise that these things which were bound and loosed would be done so in Heaven. and this is the same church which would be led into all truth. The two are never in conflict when it comes to dogma.
I agree that Christ leads His Church through His Spirit, I don't agree that means she cannot err. The Scriptures don't bear that out and even history doesn't bear that out.
quote:That's no contradiction. John the Baptist testified to the truth of Christ as the Messiah, but that didn't mean John had to be infallible. The Church, likewise, doesn't need to be infallible in order to testify to the truth of the infallible word of God. It's the self-attesting nature of the word of God that is authoritative, not the Church's declaration of it.
Subordinate to the thing written, copied, preserved, compiled, and declared to be that which it is by the only thing Christ left us, the Church, while rejecting the church whom the Holy Spirit infallibly revealed the canon of scripture through. What a contradiction. Also, Christ is the highest authority for the apostolic churches.
The OT Scriptures were recognized as such by the "Church" of Israel, and Jesus held the religious leaders accountable to them even though there wasn't some infallible council that declared what they were.
quote:Some do, sure, but most don't. There's a difference between believing the Scriptures teach something that you might be wrong about and relying on your own authority to define what the Scriptures teach. You can be wrong in your interpretation while also being led by the Scriptures as your highest authority for your interpretations. Those aren't mutually exclusive.
The individual reading scripture is the highest authority for Protestants, since every appeal to scripture is an appeal to an interpretation of scripture.
The point of sola scriptura is that the Christian who adheres to that teaching must acknowledge that he is not an authority to himself (or to the rest of the Church), but even his interpretations must be guided and consistent with the Scriptures. That also means an acknowledgement that his interpretations may need to be reformed and corrected by Scripture, and that they CAN be reformed and corrected, because he is not the highest authority.
quote:While that sounds nice, that's actually not what has happened in practice. First of all, there isn't some 2,000 year old church interpretation of all doctrine. Until something is dogmatically defined by the RCC, there is room for disagreement. That's precisely what has happened throughout history, as many beliefs about all sorts of things occurred and developed over a long time. It's a false characterization to make it seem like Rome has been the same for 2,000 years while Protestants came up with novel and unheard of beliefs. That shows an ignorance of both the Reformation as well as Church history. But, it's also one of the biggest selling points of Catholicism, so I understand why it's so often repeated.
The apostolics simply (usually) go with the interpretation of the 2,000 year old church versus that of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Brother Billy Bob from First Baptist.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 10:38 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
There wasn't some infallible church that ruled what the Old Testament Scriptures were,
That’s why the Jews had several different canons, because each sect had their own idea of what was and wasn’t scripture. That’s why Jesus had to quote from some super obscure passages in the Torah when dealing with the Sadducees, because they didn’t accept the expanded canon of the Pharisees. The OT used by most Jews in Jesus day was the Septuagint, which is the same OT used by the Catholic and Orthodox churches today, with some minor differences in how the individual books are labeled.
quote:
Jesus held the leaders of Israel accountable to them, as if they should have known what they were and what they taught.
And yet, this isn’t sola scriptura. Holding someone accountable to scripture isn’t the same as saying they’re accountable to only scripture. The Jews didn’t believe in sola scriptura, and neither did Jesus.
quote:
The doctrine of sola scriptura is derived from good and necessary consequence from the Scriptures
This is a circular argument, because you as a random Presbyterian living in the year 110AD (which wasn’t a thing for another 1400 years) wouldn’t have a clue what is and isn’t scripture outside of maybe the Gospels and Acts. You would have no normative epistemic authority to be able to pick up a writing and say this is scripture and then point to another believed to be scripture by most (let’s use the Didache or Clement I or Shepherd of Hermas) and say this isn’t scripture.
So no, you wouldn’t be able to employ sola scriptura when you would have no way of knowing what is and isn’t scripture. You would follow the oral traditions of the bishop over your diocese.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 10:41 pm to Harald Ekernson
quote:
Why not just educate them on the right methods of worship and the right theology?
Why do you assume this didn't happen?
These churches are failing because they rejected the true Christians who were fighting against their perversion of the truth.
quote:
Or maybe Satan (or God) isn’t what you think he is.
Nope. Definitely not it.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 10:43 pm to Stitches
quote:First, I find it interesting that you contrasted Protestants with Christians, as if Protestants aren't Christians.
Protestants interpret this as “faith alone”, and Christians interpret it as “faith apart from works of the law” (Mosaic law)
Second, Paul didn't distinguish between different forms of the law in his statements about salvation being apart from the law. In Romans 3:20, he says "For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." The critical piece here is that he says it's through the law that comes knowledge of sin. Are you arguing that he was only referring to the Mosaic / ceremonial law that we attain knowledge of sin? In Rom. 7:7, Paul says that apart from the law, he wouldn't have known it was sin to covet, which is part of the moral law in the 10 commandments.
In addition, Paul says that Abraham was justified by his faith and not by his works, yet Abraham came before the law was given to Moses.
In Ephesians 2:8-9, Paul again says that we are saved by grace through faith, not according to works, so that we cannot boast. It's clear that boasting can occur regardless of the type of law, because the focus is on human merit, not a particular type of law.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 10:45 pm to DesScorp
When I saw this I thought they were shutting down churches for not agreeing with the woke crap the UMC now hold as gospel. But, when you read the story, mostly this was a book keeping thing. They essentially claimed the churches were "closed" as they were not longer part of the UMC denomination. From my understanding most of the churches are still active they are just no longer UMC affiliated.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 10:52 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
These churches are failing because they rejected the true Christians
What incentive would they have to do this? Are you insinuating they aren’t sincere? Are they atheists masquerading as Christians? Why would they knowingly reject the “truth” if they are sincere?
Posted on 6/14/25 at 11:04 pm to Stitches
quote:Jesus quoted from Scripture as authoritative, not other traditions, like the oral traditions that were claimed to be passed down from Moses.
That’s why the Jews had several different canons, because each sect had their own idea of what was and wasn’t scripture. That’s why Jesus had to quote from some super obscure passages in the Torah when dealing with the Sadducees, because they didn’t accept the expanded canon of the Pharisees.
Jesus certainly met people where they were at, but with the authority of Scripture.
Again, Jesus held the religious leaders accountable to the Scriptures, which means they had to have some idea of what they were, even without an infallible council.
quote:The Septuagint was a compilation of books, including some that even the RCC rejects as Scripture. You can't say that they had the same books as Rome and the Orthodox do when factually, the Septuagint included books that are rejected by Rome.
The OT used by most Jews in Jesus day was the Septuagint, which is the same OT used by the Catholic and Orthodox churches today, with some minor differences in how the individual books are labeled.
quote:Sola scriptura doesn't teach there aren't other authorities for the Christian. It teaches that the Scriptures are the only infallible authority, and the highest authority for the Christian.
And yet, this isn’t sola scriptura. Holding someone accountable to scripture isn’t the same as saying they’re accountable to only scripture. The Jews didn’t believe in sola scriptura, and neither did Jesus.
Jesus held everyone accountable to the word of God, not to traditions of men.
quote:I find it amazing when Catholics like yourself act as if the Church had no idea what was and wasn't Scripture until a few hundred years later when there was some credence given to what was and wasn't in a more formal way. That's simply not true. Letters were written to churches and then copied and sent on. They were delivered by those who were known to the Apostles initially, and known to the churches. The core of the New Testament writings were not much in dispute early on. The churches were in close communication and collaboration through messengers, which Paul attests to in his letters. They weren't little islands.
This is a circular argument, because you...wouldn’t have a clue what is and isn’t scripture outside of maybe the Gospels and Acts. You would have no normative epistemic authority to be able to pick up a writing and say this is scripture and then point to another believed to be scripture by most (let’s use the Didache or Clement I or Shepherd of Hermas) and say this isn’t scripture.
So no, you wouldn’t be able to employ sola scriptura when you would have no way of knowing what is and isn’t scripture. You would follow the oral traditions of the bishop over your diocese
And to my point about John the Baptist testifying to Christ: the Church doesn't have to be infallible to testify to God's word. God's word is what it is. It's not the Church's job to create it, but to recognize it.
quote:The name "Presbyterian" comes from the Greek word presbuteros, which simply means "elder". It's the word Peter uses in 1 Peter 5, for instance, when he calls himself a fellow elder, or that Luke uses in Acts 15 of those whom met along with the Apostles in the Jerusalem Council.
...as a random Presbyterian living in the year 110AD (which wasn’t a thing for another 1400 years)
I believe the evidence shows both in the Scriptures and early in church history that the Church was presbyterian in polity and ecclesiology, and slowly moved toward an episcopate model with the bishop of Rome taking full authority over the Church after a few hundred years of development. I'm Presbyterian because I believe that was the original model on display in the Scriptures.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 11:05 pm to dickkellog
quote:
so the UMF held the mortgages to the churches, but the individual churches provided the working revenue for the church. so as these individual churches have expressed interest in leaving the UMF, the UMF's stand point has been fine, just pay us what you owe us.
That hasn't been all the cases, pretty sure not even most.
Many of the churches that left bought their own properties, then had to buy them again when they left.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 11:09 pm to Harald Ekernson
quote:
Are they atheists masquerading as Christians? Why would they knowingly reject the “truth” if they are sincere?
They are non Christian people, in some cases they worship a female deity, in other cases believe that there is no God, in other cases that all paths lead to God.
This from their own words.
They do not believe.
Posted on 6/14/25 at 11:09 pm to FooManChoo
There's your God not saying a damned thing
Really not a word. God? Thats no God - again - it's men
for 10000 years, men
Another God remains perfectly clear not requiring 7 or 8 pages of hooey to still say:
"NOTHING".
Really not a word. God? Thats no God - again - it's men
for 10000 years, men
Another God remains perfectly clear not requiring 7 or 8 pages of hooey to still say:
"NOTHING".
Posted on 6/14/25 at 11:22 pm to mudshuvl05
quote:You're clearly misunderstanding what I'm saying.
The over 40,000 different denominations in America alone, many of which have vast chasms between their ideology, would like a word with you
There is only body of Jesus Christ, comprised of the visible (all those who profess faith in Jesus Christ) and the invisible (the elect of God from all ages). The visible Church has many different expressions that may differ from each other in various ways but agree on that which is important to the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ.
The Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Southern Baptist may be very different on several doctrines but are both in agreement on what matters most, and therefore are considered by Protestants to be part of the one Church of Jesus Christ. We don't see ecclesial unity (in terms of one denomination having authority over the other) as necessary to be part of Christ's one true Church as Rome or the Orthodox do, though I do believe we should seek for unity in all things.
quote:See, this is my point. You claim the Orthodox church is the only true Church of Jesus, while the Roman Catholics assert the same thing. That was my point.
The exclusive Church are the remaining patriarchate majorities of the Orthodox church. Everything you said above nonsense. It's amazing how little protestants know about the one true Apostolic church.
quote:I agree with you on this, but that isn't a problem with Protestantism, but a problem with poor teaching within certain Protestant churches. You can find the same sort of thing in Catholicism and Orthodoxy too, by the way, with adherents to each only going to Mass a few times per year (on the holy days of Easter and Christmas, for instance), or not at all, while claiming to be Christians because they were baptized into the Catholic/Orthodox church. I'm glad you don't take the faith so lightly, but what you described isn't unique to your experience with Protestantism.
Growing up protestant, I never could stomach churches so full of such lukewarm Christians. One day of Easter, go to church on Sunday, let out, live like I'd been living because it didn't matter because no matter what I'm saved and that's what everyone else in the pews next to me was doing: it's why I fell into agnosticism and atheism. There's nothing edifying about it. The foundation was built on sand.
quote:Again, you can point to all sorts of abuses, but that doesn't mean that Protestantism is wrong. It means there are abuses. You mentioned Martin Luther, but he wasn't trying to leave the Roman Catholic church (I know you're Orthodox so you think Rome is wrong, too). He was trying to reform the church of abuses he saw, and he was kicked out because of it. Still trying to remain faithful to Christ in spite of being kicked out of the only option he had at the time, he began worshipping according to his understanding of the Scriptures apart from Rome. That's what other Protestants began doing, as well, since there weren't other options.
My church now is built on The Rock. There's nothing about it that cleanses the soul, because it's a church built on Martin Luther and others, and from there it exploded into denominations so numerous that the end result has become mega churches full of non-denominational concerts with a pastor-centered message who sometimes drops down from the ceiling on cables with a laser show to really bring it home.
quote:Again, you're referring to abuses and false teachings that I would condemn along side you.
Not the Orthodox, nor the Catholic church believes what you said. What we do believe is that if you think you are going to be saved and baptized after your 1 month journey in the Holy Non-Denominational Church of Dallas featuring pastor Bob and his vast 30 year Apostolic succession, and then go out and live your faith without works or changes to your life and keep on living like those outside the church and be fine and dandy because you got saved at vacation Bible school that time when you were 12, that you might FAFO what Jesus meant when he said, "narrow is the gate."
While I believe in the preservation of the saints ("once saved, always saved"), it is a lot more involved than what the moniker indicates. I am Reformed in my convictions, which means I am monergistic in my understanding of salvation, where God does all the necessary work to save sinners. That means He is the one who will keep us and preserve us to the end if we have been saved by Him, and if we have been saved by Him, it means we have been given new hearts that desire to obey Him and serve Him. Therefore, good works will be a fruit and evidence of the Spirit-wrought work of regeneration and salvation that we possess. If someone claims to be a Christian and doesn't look any different from the world, he should question whether or not he is truly trusting in Christ, because if he is, he won't be so cavalier about sin.
All that to say, it seems that you have seen some abuses and are applying them to all Protestants, including myself, even though I don't agree with those abuses but specifically preach against those.
This post was edited on 6/14/25 at 11:26 pm
Posted on 6/14/25 at 11:23 pm to FriendofBaruch
quote:You are lost. I'll pray for you.
There's your God not saying a damned thing
Really not a word. God? Thats no God - again - it's men
for 10000 years, men
Another God remains perfectly clear not requiring 7 or 8 pages of hooey to still say:
"NOTHING".
Posted on 6/14/25 at 11:24 pm to dickkellog
quote:Yikes.
well insert your name or school logo bullschit religion here 2000 years ago.
Posted on 6/15/25 at 12:13 am to Harald Ekernson
quote:
What incentive would they have to do this? Are you insinuating they aren’t sincere? Are they atheists masquerading as Christians? Why would they knowingly reject the “truth” if they are sincere?
These are all great questions. I honestly don't know why they're doing it and it makes no sense to me.
I can tell you it started with women pastors. That is always the first sign of a church that has lost its way.
I have relatives who were lifelong methodists and were heartbroken when they had to leave their church. They stuck it out until the gay marriage group won the vote and the church didn't attempt to break away from the national convention.
This post was edited on 6/15/25 at 12:16 am
Posted on 6/15/25 at 2:46 am to alphaandomega
There was an 18 month run up and my church in Opelika chose to leave. The leadership told the congregation we could leave in the future and there was no need to rush a decision. We voted to leave irrespective of the guidance given. Meanwhile, the church in Auburn was not provided an opportunity to vote to leave and has essentially collapsed.
The United Methodist leadership was very sleazy and calculated in how they handled all the churches in conference. I’m purposefully not using people’s names, but have a very negative view of the leadership and glad we got out when we did. They are not very “Christian” and deserve all the bad things that happen to them.
The United Methodist leadership was very sleazy and calculated in how they handled all the churches in conference. I’m purposefully not using people’s names, but have a very negative view of the leadership and glad we got out when we did. They are not very “Christian” and deserve all the bad things that happen to them.
Posted on 6/15/25 at 6:12 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Second, Paul didn't distinguish between different forms of the law in his statements about salvation being apart from the law. In Romans 3:20, he says "For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." The critical piece here is that he says it's through the law that comes knowledge of sin. Are you arguing that he was only referring to the Mosaic / ceremonial law that we attain knowledge of sin? In Rom. 7:7, Paul says that apart from the law, he wouldn't have known it was sin to covet, which is part of the moral law in the 10 commandments.
You’re conflating Paul’s condemnation of works of the law with a blanket rejection of all cooperation with grace. In Romans 3:20 and 7:7, Paul isn’t drawing a line between ceremonial and moral law simply to exclude one. He’s showing that the law in its entirety (even the moral law) reveals sin but does not provide the power to overcome it. Yet that’s not the same thing as saying no obedience or cooperation plays a role in salvation. Paul is rejecting justification by the law, not justification with no transformation or obedience whatsoever. If Paul meant to eliminate all human cooperation with grace, then verses like Romans 2:6–7 (where God rewards those who by patience in well-doing seek glory and honor) would directly contradict his theology—which they don’t. They clarify it.
quote:
In addition, Paul says that Abraham was justified by his faith and not by his works, yet Abraham came before the law was given to Moses.
Abraham, cited by Paul as the example of justification by faith, is in fact the best argument for a Catholic or Orthodox view as opposed to a Calvinist one. His faith “was credited as righteousness,” but not because it was passive or intellectual.
Hebrews 11 says that Abraham obeyed by faith. Yet, this doesn’t occur in Genesis 15. It occurred in Genesis 12. Why was he only first justified in Genesis 15, which comes after 3 chapters full of good works, if he already had faith that pleased God in Genesis 12? It’s because works completed his faith.
Furthermore, James 2 flatly states that Abraham was justified by works when he offered up Isaac, and that “faith was completed by works.” This is what I said above.
So no, Paul isn’t saying faith excludes cooperation—he’s saying we aren’t saved by legalistic, self-sufficient works, especially those tied to the Mosaic Law. Grace comes first, but grace isn’t opposed to obedience—it enables it. The problem isn’t that humans do something. The problem is boasting in doing it apart from grace.
Posted on 6/15/25 at 6:37 am to FooManChoo
I can’t even take Protestants seriously. In 20 years, all Protestant churches will affirm gay marriage. That’s because the Protestant branch of Christianity changes to accommodate society. The Orthodox Church will never affirm gay marriage because we care about upholding the teachings of Christ. I bet you go to a “church” that only does the Eucharist 4 times a year. lol.
Page 7 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News