Denominations (& humanities)

What do you think about various denominations, my fellow posters?

>Orthodox Presbyterians
Great. I listen to reformed forum. Machen's Christianity and liberalism was impactful to me in college.
I disagree with presbyterian polity formally because I do not believe the pastor should be a part of a higher body (the presbytery) but instead should be a member of the church. "New presbyter is but old priest writ large."
>Missouri-Synod Lutherans
Also great, but I detract from their founding principle. I think the LCMS is more fundamentalist than they like to admit.
The Saxon migration happened in the context of persecution from the government during the Prussian union of churches. Old Lutherans migrated to Missouri to practice Lutheranism as they saw fit, not following the liturgical demands of Frederick iii. This is analogous to the mayflower story and puritan new England.

I'm not a Lutheran because of my view of the Lord's supper and the extra calvinisticum, so I see the union movement as a positive development, even if I don't like how it was legislated in 19th c Prussia.

The history of their founding in the US is a little embarrassing and corrupt. An early leader got power trippy. The LCMS is at the same time the largest confessional denomination but also seems to define itself in contrast to mainstream evangelicalism. Also, I come across some liberal individual takes from LCMS.
Good overall.
>Independent Fundamental Baptists
Generally misguided but earnest. Emphasis seems to be more opposing the world than positive identity with Christ. Stale boomer political takes and poor liturgy.

>NEW Independent Fundamental Baptists (the theology of which I ascribe to closest)
Same but literally a cult. I don't oppose NIFB for anything Anderson and friends say about homosexuals, but that's their schtick to feel persecuted, like westboro.

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Same but literally a cult.
    hmm obviously I hear this a lot lol so how would you personally define "cult" in this context? Its easier to think of early Mormons and modern Amish as cults since they want(ed) their congregations to physically separate from everyone else.

    • 2 months ago
      Dirk

      A cult is at its simplest any christian movement that departs from historic orthodoxy, but that's obviously nuanced and prone to debate. Cults are characterized by domineering leadership and closure from the outside society.

      I won't make any accusations of particular wrongdoing or scandal, NIFB is just a triumphalist, cloistered movement that visibly departs from the historic church.

      Lutheran is one of the only ones I haven't got to try but want to. I also want to try another Presbyterian church because the one I tried felt more obsessed with politics than anything related to the Bible.

      That's the trouble, every church is different with quirks and faults. It's not like McDonald's where a McChicken in Iowa is like a McChicken in Idaho.
      You should try listening to the Paleo protestant podcast. The hosts are all faculty at Hillsdale college and represent the OPC, LCMS and ACNA.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >visibly departs from the historic church.
        interesting.
        In what way does NIFB visibly depart where Old IFB does not?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I ask this because the key distinctions are that NIFB breaks with Old IFB on zionism and eschatology... and to my mind come closer to historic orthodoxy than Old IFB

          • 2 months ago
            Dirk

            I guess I'm being charitable on IFB which is a broader movement that I don't know to be completely landmarkist. Historically all Baptists are independent and since the 20th century they sided with the fundamentalists, though I would say most Baptists went the middle way of neo evangelicalism.
            Given IFB churches can be cultic too, in my opinion.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            in that case, how do define "visibly departing from the historic church?"
            just not an argument I've heard from Protestants.
            what does it mean?

          • 2 months ago
            Dirk

            Landmarkism - a theory of origins glossing over the mainstream church for centuries, theology - rejecting the ecumenical creeds, worship - not using any liturgy developed through the ages, ecclesiology - the single pastor as final say with deacons as functional ruling elders
            These things are characteristic of the IFB movement but not the classical Baptists, which developed out of the broader non-conformist movement in the 18th century. See the center for baptist renewal for a clear picture of reformation Baptists.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >glossing over the mainstream church for centuries
            interesting.
            is there a theological problem behind glossing over the mainstream?
            surely the Reformation had to happen due to the mainstream being in the wrong?

            Secondly, I would say "Landmarkism" as it's formulated is not really a fundamental doctrine. This is from experience IRL (NIFB). No one really believes there was an unbroken chain of "baptists"; rather, there was in every age of Christianity, at least a minority of believers who held to what Protestants would call the 5 solas.
            Thirdly; rejecting the ecumenical creeds; it was my understanding Protestants already rejected several ecumenical creeds. The crux of the issue seems to be that Baptists do not believe in a "one holy catholic apostolic church" but rather the "Body of Christ" and independent churches making up the body. This would require deeper scriptural discussion; suffice it to say I find the Bible a better authority than councils, and that is the IFB belief.

            Fourth
            >ecclesiology - the single pastor as final say with deacons as functional ruling elders
            From what I have read of early church writers this seems to have been the norm; autocephalous churches each with one bishop.

          • 2 months ago
            Dirk

            By glossing over the mainstream I meant identifying with underground movements for an unbroken chain since the time of Christ, some of which being heretical groups. I'm not meaning to appeal to majority, but I find it cultic to insist against the evidence that this is the one true body of churches.

            Protestants do not reject ecumenical creeds. Most Protestants say at least one weekly. Even early baptist catechisms included the creeds. Anti creedalism is characteristic of restorationism (like SDA and Mormons).

            The NT talks about "elders (plural) in every church" (acts 14). The issue in fundamentalist baptist polity isn't the regular use of a single elder (the pastor) based on context but the general requirement that there may only be one pastor in a church, and the subsequent elevation of deacons to a position of ruling. The Baptists are right regarding the autonomy of the local church.

            It is true that a single bishop in a church has early provenance, my issue is not desiring or forbidding several elders.
            I also hold to a four office and not a two office view but that doesn't define orthodoxy.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I meant identifying with underground movements for an unbroken chain since the time of Christ, some of which being heretical groups.
            true. this is quite stupid. which is why in practice they dont believe this. at least New IFB. Old IFB dont talk about doctrine a lot. They just kind of act happy, eat dinners, and sing songs.

          • 2 months ago
            Dirk

            I could phrase this better
            My issue is that fundamentalist Baptists forbid the installation of a second pastor. I also take issue that they don't aspire to place several elders in each local church, like the prescriptive model in acts 14.
            Functionally, they do utilize a plurality of elders by elevating the office of deacon to one of ruling.

        • 2 months ago
          Nega-Dirk

          I ask this because the key distinctions are that NIFB breaks with Old IFB on zionism and eschatology... and to my mind come closer to historic orthodoxy than Old IFB

          I don’t think NIFB is a cult, it just has a bit of cult of personality around Anderson.
          Anderson specifically departs from orthodoxy in his claim gays should kill themselves which is simply heretical and I’ve heard he tried defend this position on the grounds gays can’t repent but I haven’t see the evidence for that last part.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            here's a question:
            do you think he teaches committing a homosexual act means you cant repent?
            or that a reprobate cannot repent?
            perhaps to his discredit you may not know the answer.

          • 2 months ago
            Nega-Dirk

            >here's a question:
            >do you think he teaches committing a homosexual act means you cant repent?
            Yes.
            I don’t know for 100%, that’s why I didn’t assert it as fact. However I’ve seen him intentionally tell gays to uninstall life.exe in an interview. So the only way I could rationalise that as being an acceptable thing to say would be if you seriously believe they can’t repent.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            AH, see, you would have to be an avid listener to catch a sermon where he goes in depth.
            Since he believes in sola fide and eternal security, he doesnt believe committing homosexuality would either lose your salvation or disqualify you from being saved in some way; he has even given stories of people he's met who had at one point or the other, committed these acts but later repented, having felt disgust at it.
            what Anderson actually teaches is that becoming a "reprobate" predisposes you to "unnatural affection" and that reprobates, as opposed to normal lost people, eventually desire* this unnatural affection.
            If someone feels legitimate disgust from homosexual acts theyve committed, it's evidence of not being given to unnatural affection.

            all that to say; avowed homosexuals (i.e. goes to "pride" parades; sleeps with hundreds of partners; being "filled with all unrighteous) are reprobates and that's what reprobates do.

            but I suppose that that takes a while to explain, so you cant really ever catch a sound bite of that.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I've moved since my last attempt at a Presbyterian church so I may try the one near me now. Sadly not close to an Anglican or Lutheran church but on the other hand Presbyterians are a tiny bit closer to my Baptist upbringing so it doesn't feel as weird.

    • 2 months ago
      Nega-Dirk

      >Its easier to think of early Mormons and modern Amish as cults since they want(ed) their congregations to physically separate from everyone else. Similar things can be seen with the historic Waldensians. I don’t classify separation or shaming culture as justified grounds to call a church/community a cult.
      1) considering how much Anabaptists (and to less of an extend Mormons) were persecuted it’s not surprising they would develop a culture of separation.
      2) Amish really don’t deviate too far from the historic orthodoxy of the church. They have cultural accretions, but they generally don’t consider those customs to be related to salvation, e.g facial hair.
      3) Shaming is a historic Christian practice and is preferable to both physically harming people as punishment or allowing hostile/deviant behaviour within the church community.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >considering how much Anabaptists (and to less of an extend Mormons) were persecuted it’s not surprising they would develop a culture of separation.
        to me it seems obvious that Christians are supposed to be persecuted.
        I dont know if separating because of it is what Jesus Christ would want.

        • 2 months ago
          Nega-Dirk

          >to me it seems obvious that Christians are supposed to be persecuted.
          I actually agree and so do the anabaptists just probably not in the way you are thinking, so I’m happy to explore this. Anabaptists generally oppose engaging in politics because they consider it worldly, and that it harms the church in the long run. They also view that if the state is going to persecute Christians it’s gonna persecute Christians and thus is our lot in this world.
          However, their non-resistance doesn’t equate to actively seeking out people who hate you or intentionally choosing to live around forces likely to persecute or or subvert you.
          >I dont know if separating because of it is what Jesus Christ would want.
          And we can debate that, anabaptists do. I consider anabaptists communities like the Hutterites, Bruderhof or Amish a lot like the city hill. They are clearly visible and don’t hid themselves but they also don’t actively seek to involve themselves with the people down the hill.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Lutheran is one of the only ones I haven't got to try but want to. I also want to try another Presbyterian church because the one I tried felt more obsessed with politics than anything related to the Bible.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    all these sects sound made up

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why are you tripgayging when your tripgayging brings nothing to the discussion

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I am in the Missouri synod. I’ve gone through kindergarten all the way to graduating high school in LCMS schools. I am content overall with the synod. The double downing of the new commentary of the large catechism is very concerning. I also don’t like how they try to appeal to low church American prots with contemporary services or how my church only does communion once every Sunday and splits it between two services. So most of the time I’ll have to wait 2 weeks to take communion. Luckily I live in a city with numerous Missouri synod churches so I can easily go to a different one if I want to.

    • 2 months ago
      Dirk

      Do you use the historic lectionary or the 3 year?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        3 year

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *