OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 01, 2014, 03:54:39 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Just how Splintered is American Protestantism?  (Read 8882 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« on: April 30, 2008, 12:11:45 PM »

This topic has been split from this thread.

Pravoslavbob, Religious Topics Moderator



No, nor do i have to. I live in America and i know what these sects are all about. I also know that these cults go into Greece and pass out there innovative translations of the bible into modern greek, in order "to convert the godless greek orthodox from there idolatry and meaningless rituals." As i said, perhaps these cowardly protestant preachers should concentrate in their hometown of the bible belt where their white trailertrash flock have turned it into Sodom and Gomorah.

The reason why these protestant cults were driven out of Europe and onto the shores of America was in order to contain them. You know those heretics the puritans, quakers, prilgrims, shakers and all the other hereticing bodies some of whom no longer exist, and others have morphed into anarchy such as the baptist cults with there 106 different denominations or the mormons, or the JW or the penetcostals who think speaking in tongues is divienly inspired when in reality there gibberish is demonic posession.

Leaving aside offensive remarks about other Human Beings like "white trailertrash"  Sad  on just what, may I ask, do you base this paragraph about history please?  Do you know about the roots of the Quakers or the Shakers?  Where do you get "106 different denominations"?   "Contain them"?  This is not historically accurate, I'm sorry.   Real history matters

Respectfully,

Ebor
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 05:15:55 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
buzuxi
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GREEK ORTHODOX
Jurisdiction: WORLD ORTHODOXY AGAINST ECUMENISM
Posts: 265


« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2008, 07:42:33 PM »

Were they not heretics? Werent the shakers a celibate only religion and a more deviant offshoot of the Quakers? As far as 106 baptist sects, your probably right in that my figure is off, i was told this by a baptist minister -10 years ago, so theres alot more now.  Unless you like to stick to the "mainstream" baptist variety, then i guess you can limoit them to a few dozen .
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 05:06:08 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2008, 08:05:21 PM »

Ive never been a fan of freedom of religion, a western invention used against countries who try to protect their indigenous practises from the west,\

Actually and historically, no, that is not what Freedom of Religion is for as understood in the US Constitution and the law as it applies to this country.  And it is this Freedom, constricted and interfered with though it has been at times, that has made it possible for EO Churches to be planted and grow, it seems to me.  So is it Freedom for ones own Religion, but not for others?  "Who will guard the guardians?"

Quote
When the west doesnt get its way politically they blackmail these nations by claiming they persecute based on religion.

Do you have any examples in mind, please?

Quote
Yes,heretics should be driven out just like the heretical pilgrims and quakers were (who no longer exist).

And where were the "Pilgrims" and Quakers driven out *from* that you know of, please?  A number of religious groups came to the "New World" of their own choice so that they could practice their beliefs.

Can you state just what the heresies of these groups might be from your knowledge?  And I assure you that there are plenty of "Quakers" or to go by their correct name members of the Society of Friends in living today.  If you meant to say "Shakers" while they are greatly reduced in number, the last I knew there are still a few of them still living as well. And what do you know about the Shakers or "United Society of Believers in Christs Second Appearing" beyond their celibacy?

Quote
Its time that a United Nations resolution is passed barring american missionarys from going into foreign countries to proselytise.

Oh?  And if eventually it is your ox that is gored?  Again, what would keep such a law that from being turned on you/ your Church?

Ebor
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 05:06:28 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2008, 08:07:51 PM »

Were they not heretics? Werent the shakers a celibate only religion and a more deviant offshoot of the Quakers? As far as 106 baptist sects, your probably right in that my figure is off, i was told this by a baptist minister -10 years ago, so theres alot more now.  Unless you like to stick to the "mainstream" baptist variety, then i guess you can limoit them to a few dozen .

So your number is hearsay and not backed up by any real data? 

If you're going to go by the Barrett numbers, we've been over that in the past.

What do you *know* based on real facts and historical data.  Can you provide sources for your information please?
Thank you in advance.

With respect,

Ebor
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 05:06:47 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #4 on: April 30, 2008, 08:16:03 PM »



If the UN has the power to ban a religious group then what will stop them from banning Orthodoxy? You don't want to give a para-national group that much power. That same Para-national group can backfire and persecute you.

Exactly so.  Something that exerts power on a group that one does not favour, can sometimes be turned on oneself/ones group. 

Quote
Noone likes persecution. If you want the nonOrthodox World to have sympathy when the Orthodox are being persecuted then you have to have some form of sympathy when non-Orthodox groups are persecuted.

I quite agree with you here also.  It's part of the Charity and treating others as one wishes to be treated.  Smiley

Quote
Also, historically America was never meant to trap Protestantism within its borders. It was suppose to spread Protestantism.

Not just various Protestant groups/Churches. Recall that the Colony of Maryland was established with the principal of religious liberty which was stated in law by the Maryland Toleration Act of 1649 which can be found here:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerdoc/maryland_toleration.htm


Ebor
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 05:07:18 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Simayan
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate - GOA
Posts: 816



« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2008, 08:43:55 PM »

Quote
I live in America and i know what these sects are all about.

Quote
The reason why these protestant cults were driven out of Europe and onto the shores of America was in order to contain them. You know those heretics the puritans, quakers, prilgrims, shakers and all the other hereticing bodies some of whom no longer exist, and others have morphed into anarchy such as the baptist cults with there 106 different denominations or the mormons, or the JW or the penetcostals who think speaking in tongues is divienly inspired when in reality there gibberish is demonic posession.

Quote
Ive never been a fan of freedom of religion, a western invention used against countries who try to protect their indigenous practises from the west,

Your close-mindedness is so revolting that it makes me vomit a little every time I think about it. If you hate those "quakers, shakers, prilgrims, and puritans", than maybe you should go back to whatever country you came from (or if you're from here, then just leave), seeing as you despise everyone who founded this country and imbued it with freedom, while you wish to create some sort of theocracy.

And if you did any research, you would know that the teachings of orthodox Quakerism is actually very similar to Orthodoxy.



Oh, and I'm still trying to decide who the "prilgrims" are.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 08:46:44 PM by Simayan » Logged

"He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death, nor mourning nor crying nor suffering, for the old order of things has passed away."
PrincessMommy
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 734


OCA


« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2008, 09:54:55 PM »

Your close-mindedness is so revolting that it makes me vomit a little every time I think about it. If you hate those "quakers, shakers, prilgrims, and puritans", than maybe you should go back to whatever country you came from (or if you're from here, then just leave), seeing as you despise everyone who founded this country and imbued it with freedom, while you wish to create some sort of theocracy.

And if you did any research, you would know that the teachings of orthodox Quakerism is actually very similar to Orthodoxy.



Oh, and I'm still trying to decide who the "prilgrims" are.

Not that I want to stand up for this OP because I find it equally revolting.  But, in the interest of accuracy the the Pilgrims and the Puritans were not interested in Freedom of Religion and certainly did not "imbue" our country "with freedom".  In fact, they were in some ways just as bad as those they were fleeing from in the Old Country.  I think a Wiki search on Anne Hutchinson (sp?) and the founding of Rhode Island (and/or  Roger Williams) would be helpful.   

Respectfully,
PrincessMommy
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2008, 09:55:03 PM »

Your close-mindedness is so revolting that it makes me vomit a little every time I think about it. If you hate those "quakers, shakers, prilgrims, and puritans", than maybe you should go back to whatever country you came from (or if you're from here, then just leave), seeing as you despise everyone who founded this country and imbued it with freedom, while you wish to create some sort of theocracy.

And if you did any research, you would know that the teachings of orthodox Quakerism is actually very similar to Orthodoxy.



Oh, and I'm still trying to decide who the "prilgrims" are.

Look! Up on the Screen!  It's History-Geek!  Wink Grin  I can tell you who they were in real history.

Historically The Pilgrims refers to a specific group of English Separatists who for a time lived in Holland and then sailed across on the Mayflower to found the Plymouth Colony in what is now Massachusetts.

Here is a page on them from "Mayflower Families" http://www.mayflowerfamilies.com/colonial_life/pilgrims.htm

And I will gladly give you more information if you want (or until it starts leaking out of the computer.  Smiley )

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2008, 10:08:34 PM »

Not that I want to stand up for this OP because I find it equally revolting.  But, in the interest of accuracy the the Pilgrims and the Puritans were not interested in Freedom of Religion and certainly did not "imbue" our country "with freedom".  In fact, they were in some ways just as bad as those they were fleeing from in the Old Country.  I think a Wiki search on Anne Hutchinson (sp?) and the founding of Rhode Island (and/or  Roger Williams) would be helpful.   

Respectfully,
PrincessMommy

Well, in a certain light, they *were* interested in Freedom of Religion.... for themselves.   Wink So there could be a bit if similar thinking there.  I'll have to check, but iirc, Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams had disagreements with Puritans and Anne did have some thoughts on Freedom of Belief
http://www.annehutchinson.com/

For those who may not know about it, I recommend reading the Maryland Toleration Act of 1649.  It's quite specific about in its articles on not abusing others of different Churches.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,983


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2008, 11:05:19 PM »

Regarding the OP title, a Wiki article on Protestantism quotes a study by David Barrett who numbers Protestant sects around 8,500 - 9000.
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #10 on: May 02, 2008, 12:59:55 AM »

Regarding the OP title, a Wiki article on Protestantism quotes a study by David Barrett who numbers Protestant sects around 8,500 - 9000.

That sounds a more reasonable figure than the claimed 25,000-30,000+ I have seen. Although, having said that, that figure might have been worldwide. Even so, it seems high.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2008, 01:04:04 AM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,018


WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 02, 2008, 01:24:45 AM »

33,700 according to the link below.

http://www.gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/globalchristianity/resources.php
Logged
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 02, 2008, 01:31:31 AM »


If those numbers are accurate... wow.  Every day two new denominations are born.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2008, 01:31:46 AM by Friul » Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
PrincessMommy
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 734


OCA


« Reply #13 on: May 02, 2008, 06:45:31 AM »

Well, in a certain light, they *were* interested in Freedom of Religion.... for themselves.   Wink

Yes, exactly.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #14 on: May 02, 2008, 08:15:55 AM »


No. That number is *NOT* just groups that can be termed "Protestant"!  Those are from the "Barrett Numbers"! That is stated at the bottom of the page linked to. That number is for all Christian denominations including RC and EO. And Barrett did not count those Churches as one each but counted each country/unit as I recall. To repeat there are not 33,700 "Protestant" churches/denominations by the Barrett numbers.

This has been discussed here before and Keble went to the Enoch-Pratt Library in Baltimore to get first hand data on what Barrett's catagories and counting methods really are. ("Barrett" here refers to a large 2 volume set of collected data "World Christian Encyclopedia". David B. Barrett also did "World Christian Trends".)  I'll have to search for the threads in a bit, as I have to hare off at the moment.

Ebor
« Last Edit: May 02, 2008, 05:09:20 PM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Thomas
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,763



« Reply #15 on: May 02, 2008, 10:12:40 AM »

Were they not heretics? Werent the shakers a celibate only religion and a more deviant offshoot of the Quakers? As far as 106 baptist sects, your probably right in that my figure is off, i was told this by a baptist minister -10 years ago, so theres alot more now.  Unless you like to stick to the "mainstream" baptist variety, then i guess you can limoit them to a few dozen .

Many of the Church groups that emigrated early to America were seeking to establish a physical Kingdom of God or "Zion" in the new world away from what they viewed as the corruption of old European life, some were able to floursih others were not. The Quakers, the Puritans, and the Shakers were all protestants who had been persecuted in England by the "Established Church" or Church of England and left England to be able to worship as they wished without persecution---it should be noted not all were willing to grant that priviledge to others who did not agree with them.

The Religious Society of Friends, whose members are known as Quakers or Friends, was founded in England in the 17th century. The name "Quaker" was first used in 1650, when George Fox was brought before Justice Bennet of Derby on a charge of blasphemy. According to Fox's journal, Bennet "called us Quakers because we bid them tremble at the word of God", a scriptural reference (e.g., Isaiah 66:2, Ezra 9:4). Some beliefs include that individual Quakers may develop individual religious beliefs arising from their personal conscience and revelation coming from "God within"; further, Quakers feel compelled to live by such individual religious beliefs and inner revelations.George Fox and the other early Quakers believed that direct experience of God was available to all people, without mediation (e.g. through hired clergy, or through outward sacraments). Fox described this by writing that "Christ has come to teach His people Himself."  They do not believe in "sola scriptura" but rather see Christ as the Word of God and will follow their personal revelations over the Bible if they feel it is from Christ.

The Puritans were Calvinists who sought to purify the Church from all vestiges of Roman Catholic and were intolerant of any who did not believe as they did---they survive today in vestiges of Reformed or Calvinist and led to the founding of the Presbyterian, Baptist, and Congregationalist churches.

As for history and interest, one of my favorite is the Shakers, also known as  The United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing. The Shakers were influenced by a group of uneducated, millenialist, and mystical  protestant leaders who emigrated to London in 1706. They were generally treated with scorn and some official repression as the 'French Prophets.' Their example and their writings had some influence on Ann Lee, founder of the Shaker movement. Some of their beliefs included the use of toungues and prophecy in which people often convulsed or shook when the "“possession by the spirit” took them over.The Established Church of England derisively called the followers of Ann Lee as "Shaking Quakers"as a mocking description of their rituals of trembling, shouting, dancing, shaking, singing, and glossolalia (speaking in strange and unknown languages). It is important to note they were not a part of the Society of friends. Emigrating to America,the Shakers built 19 communal settlements that attracted some 200,000 converts over the next century. Strict believers in celibacy, Shakers maintained their numbers through conversion and adoption of orphans. Turnover was very high; the group reached maximum size of about 6,000 full members in 1840, but now has only four members left in one museum village in New England.  Their beliefs included the belief that Ann Lee was the second coming of the "Christ spirit" in that she embodied all the perfections of God in female form.

Ann Lee Lee taught her followers that it is possible to attain perfect holiness. She taught that the demonstrations of shaking and trembling were caused by sin being purged from the body by the power of the Holy Spirit, purifying the worshipper. Celibacy was a major belief  and the society practiced equality in all aspects of their belief. Each house was divided so that men and women did everything separately. They used different staircases and doors, and sat on opposite sides of the room. In worship they sat on opposite sides of the room, in practicing intricate worship dances the two sexes never touched.

As you can see these Heterodox would probably be best described as heretics as their teachings even go beyond the concept of other belief (heterodox) in to fully condemned heresy.  They were very individualistic and yet communal in their approach to developement of the United States as Zion---from them later would develop  the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints, the Millerites, the Jehovah's witnesses and other "American " churches that sought the Millenial return of Christ and the establishment of communal perfect societies in preparation for the Kingdom of God on earth.

Thomas
Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 02, 2008, 10:24:45 AM »

This topic has been split from this thread.

Pravoslavbob, Religious Topics Moderator



Leaving aside offensive remarks about other Human Beings like "white trailertrash"  Sad  on just what, may I ask, do you base this paragraph about history please?  Do you know about the roots of the Quakers or the Shakers?  Where do you get "106 different denominations"?   "Contain them"?  This is not historically accurate, I'm sorry.   Real history matters

Respectfully,

Ebor



As taken from my blog:



Quote
"answering a question about a few denominations

Quote:
Originally Posted by iron_jae
There are so
many different denominations in the Christian faith. Can someone describe the
differences of a few? Especially the more popular ones like Baptist, Methodist,
Pentecostal, Foursquare, etc....



shooting from the hip, I would say:

Baptists came from English Separatists. I forgot the dates....but I would say somewhere in the 16 hundreds. I could be wrong about that.

Some might argue this point, but I think the General Baptists were the first breed of Baptists. Most other Baptists came from the Particular Baptist brand.

There may have been some cross-breeding with other English Separatists and Mennonites/Ana-Baptists, but over here in the United States there was a man in New England.

I forgot his name...Roger....uhm....It might come to me later, but he was kicked out of the Boston area...Massatuechits(I know it's spelled wrong).

But he was kicked out and he formed the state known as "Rhode Island". He is pretty much looked at as forming the first American Baptist Church.

Now.....I don't know what year that was. I'm not looking at anything, and it's been a long time since, I looked over the history of the Baptists.

But as you know they split into alot of different sub-denominations over the years.

You have Primative Baptists, General Baptists, Southern Baptists, American Baptists, Free will Baptists, Reformed Baptists, .........ect.


In general the Baptists are Congregational in government. Now in saying this you might find some that are not. I personally think they were Congregationalists because they started out as English Separatists....who were also Congregational in church governmant.

They believe in Adult Baptism only. They may have gotten this from the Mennonites.

Back then ....they also were against State Churches. They may have gotten this from the Mennonites as well.

Outside of the general Baptists and Free will Baptists, most Baptists have a Calvinistic foundation. This may be due to the fact that they came from "English separatistism".

Most English separatists were Pretty much in agreement with the Puritans in regards to Calvinism. There was alot of cross-breeding between the Puritans and English Separatist groups.

Later in time, most Baptists in North America started to hold a half-way position between Arminianism and Calvinism. They want to believe in free will, unlimited Atonement, but they also want to believe in Once saved always saved.

And this is pretty much the dominate view right now among Baptists.


From the Baptists, you have alot of nondenominational Bible churches, fundementalist churches, The seventhday Adventist church (because they were started by a 7nth day Baptist)......ect.




The Methodhists came from John Wesly, Charles Wesly, and George Whittefield. I might be wrong, but I think it started as a Bible club at Oxford University.


They had a method of daily, prayers, fasts, scriptural readings......ect.

At Oxford, they were called "the Holy Club". That was the put down used by other students....and maybe teachers.

John Wesly was raised in a more "high church" form of Anglicanism, and his mentor was William Law.

But anyway, George Whitfield tought Wesly how to do Open air preaching and over a period of time both John and George split into different groups.

John Wesly's theology slightly changed when he met a set of Morovians on a boat back to England. And at some camp meeting while reading Luther's intro to the book of Romans he felt his heart get warm, and this is where Wesly says he was born again.

This is known as the "Altergate experience".

John Wesly stayed an Anglican all his life, but because of the American Revolutionary war with Great Britan,. John Wesly had to ordain...or maybe he had another priest ordain...his American Methodhist followers.

the Methodist movement became it's own denomination after the death of John Wesly.


It belives in elected Bishops.....so the church government is ran by bishops.

Like the Baptist, it came from England.

Outside of George Whitfield's branch of Methodism......which is very tiny. Most of Methodism is Arminian in theology.

From them, came the Holiness Movement, the Pentecostal Movement, and the later Charismatic movement.......it all comes from this line of Protestantism.



Pentecostalism came from a mixture of Holiness Churches that went to Azuza Street. It was called the Azuza street Revival. This was about 1906. Now there is a short history before that time between a White Holiness Preacher and a black preacher name Semor.....but I forgot all the details, so I'm not gonna talk about it ...at this time. I'm shooting from the hip.

But it started as a revival and it spread from that.

From it you have:

P.A.W.

U.P.C.I.

C.O.G.I.C.

A.O.G.

Foursquare Gospel


and hundreds more.





So it all started from England, with Anglicanism

And From Anfglicanism you had various splits of Puritans, and Seperatists.

And from the Puritans you have. Congregationalists(like the church where Rev.Jeriamiah wright use to preach at)

And Prespyterian. The Prespyterian thing is kinda weird, because this group of Puritans in America linked up with the church of scotland.....so they have a scotish cross-breeding.

But you have alot of differant groups of Prespyterians in America.



And from the Congregationalists you have Baptists.

From the Prespyterians you have Church of Christ

From Anglicanism you have Methodism, and Episcopalism(in America)


And from the Methodists you have the Holiness movement.

And from the Holiness movement, you have the Pentecostal movement.

And from the Pentecostal movement you have the Charismatic movement.



I think, I will stop at this, but part of the problem is "Freedom of Religion" in our country. For most of the splits happened over here in America.



One of my sources is: "The handbook of Denominations in America".

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0687069831


I bought this book like two or three times. I also have anotherone similar to this one.






JNORM888
« Last Edit: May 02, 2008, 10:31:48 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 02, 2008, 10:38:36 AM »

Quote
Not just various Protestant groups/Churches. Recall that the Colony of Maryland was established with the principal of religious liberty which was stated in law by the Maryland Toleration Act of 1649 which can be found here:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerdoc/maryland_toleration.htm


What you say maybe true. The onlything I ever knew about Maryland was that it was a Roman Catholic State, that was eventually controlled by Puritans for a time.


My train of thought was mostly in regards to New England.....with the whole light on the Hill Thing. when the Puritans and English Separatists weren't able to make Great Britan into the enlightened Geneva super state, they tried to make one in America.


There is a direct link between the British civil war and the American Revolution.





JNORM888
« Last Edit: May 02, 2008, 10:39:41 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,980


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #18 on: May 02, 2008, 01:48:01 PM »

No. That number is *NOT* just groups that can be termed "Protestant"!  Those are from the "Barrett Numbers"! That is stated at the bottom of the page linked to. That number is for all Christian denominations including RC and EO. And Barrett did not count those Churches as one each but counted each country/unit as I recall. To repeat there are not 33,700 "Protestant" churches/denominations by the Barrett numbers.

This has been discussed here before and Keble went to the Enoch-Pratt Library in Baltimore to get first hand data on what Barrett's catagories and counting methods really are. ("Barrett" here refers to a large 2 volume set of collected data "World Christian Encyclopedia". Richard Barrett also did "World Christian Trends".)  I'll have to search for the threads in a bit, as I have to hare off at the moment.

Ebor 

I did the search for you:

Ah, the bogus Barrett number.

35,000 is just an estimate anyway, and back when Barrett did count, he came up with 22,000-- except that he counted the Roman Catholics over a hundred times. Furthermore, the vast majority of those numbers came from independent churches (including some Orthodox) and a huge number of weird cross-pollinations in Africa, which themselves accounted for half the total.

Ah, the Barrett number. We've been here many times before. It all comes down to the same set of points:
  • 30,000 is an estimate he gave of the total number of all Christian churches. His last count (in 2001) produced 22,000.
  • Barrett's methodology creates a lot of phantom churches, because he counts each body in every country in which it appears.
  • "Protestant" is actually a subcategory in his taxonomy (he has six, as I recall: Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, Independent, and Marginal). You are essentially counting everything that isn't in the first two categories as "Protestant". In fact, the vast majority of bodies counted are in the last two, and especially the last.
  • Far and away the majority of Christian groups are found in Africa.

Part of the reason you have them, I would remind you, is the same reason we have oriental and eastern and "true" and "genuine" and "catholic" and "old Catholic" and so forth churches. 

I've actually done some research into the famous 22,000 number. It comes from Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia. It's not the number of Protestant groups, but the number of all christian groups.

I've studied this work a bit, and I see several things he's done which inflate this number. For one thing, he counts each body in every country in which it appears, which means that there are 200 Catholic churches, not one. He also isn't entirely consistent about how he counts the splinter Orthodox and Anglican groups, so that the numbers given for Orthodox and Anglican bodies are a bit arbitrary.

It's also important to understand that half of the bodies counted are in Africa. Most of these he does not count as "protestant" because they are too tenuously connected to the historic reformed churches. When he starts dividing "independents" from "protestants", first, the former group is much, much larger, and second, it contains lots of groups which are orthodox-like or catholic-like or anglican-like.

Looking more closely, what one finds is that for most church "flavors" in the USA, there are no more than a couple of bodies which contain the vast majority of members of that "flavor". In most cases a single body holds the vast majority (ECUSA, PCUSA, ELCA, UMC...). The conspicuous exception is the vast sea of baptist-polity groups, for whom organization into larger polities isn't what they do (the SBC isn't really supposed to be a polity per se, though the fundamentalists keep trying to make it into one).

Internationally? Well, only the Catholic Church really exists as a single international polity. (Well, and the Mormons, but....) And there's an obvious reason for this: national churches are an obvious unit of polity for legal reasons.

It's really only fair to complain about defects in polity. Orthodoxy is particularly bad on this point, though the Anglicans are trying hard to catch up with them. 

I've actually looked at Barrett's numbers, something I doubt very many others have.

Understand that he counts groups in six categories: Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, Independent, and Marginal. The latter two categories both contain bodies that some might lump into any of the other four groups. "Protestant" contains the bodies that believe in organization: Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and various congregational conferences etc. "Independent" contains both bodies that don't believe in organization and certain splinters from the other groups. For some reason, Barrett tends to count Anglican splinters as "Independent" and Orthodox splinters as "Orthodox".

The Anglican and Orthodox numbers are very similar, except that the Orthodox numbers reflect the problem of overlapping jurisdiction. But-- when the "Protestants" are split out into the major traditions, they also resemble the Orthodox. How many major traditions are there? It's a little hard to say: I'd guess less than twenty, maybe less than ten.

What drives the numbers up are the independents and marginals. But since these are groups that mostly don't believe in organization, it isn't surprising that their numbers are very large, and it isn't legitimate to attribute their numbers to the other bodies that are organized. If it comes to that, one can go straight back to Chalcedon, if not earlier. And it's simply not true to attribute all their divisions to disagreement; that's more a property of groups like Orthodox who are big on anathematizing.

Historically the major protestant groups have united into one big group in each country, plus various small to tiny dissenting gorups. Orthodoxy isn't following this pattern because of political resistance to elimination of overlapping jurisdiction among immigrant churches. 

Barrett is not on-line (or shouldn't be). The most recent edition is 2001, and the set costs about $270 US. It's two volumes, large format, lots of fine print-- A massive doorstop only slightly less massive than a pulpit bible, and with four times as many words. At least.

I've seen some on-line articles on it which quoted certain numbers. One in particular referred to Lutheran numbers which immediately rang alarm bells.

Unfortunately my first post on the subject timed out....
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #19 on: May 02, 2008, 04:33:06 PM »

Thank you very much for finding these again, Cleveland.  I appreciate it.  Smiley

I keep looking for a cheap set of "Barrett" for reference purposes, but it's still expensive even as a used book so far.

So "Protestantism" isn't nearly so "splintered".  If one wants to use the Barrett numbers, then one has to honestly used his definitions and methods as well.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« Reply #20 on: May 02, 2008, 04:42:18 PM »

Quote
What drives the numbers up are the independents and marginals. But since these are groups that mostly don't believe in organization, it isn't surprising that their numbers are very large, and it isn't legitimate to attribute their numbers to the other bodies that are organized.

I actually have to agree with that. What does "25,000+ different denominations" really prove? Consider this: a non-Christian could use the same kind of rhetoric to look at Christians and say "See! There are 25,000+ Christian denominations. Christians are completely splintered."

I'm not saying that Protestants aren't splintered. Rather I'm saying that if you want to make a good argument to show that Protestants are splintered, you need to dig deeper than just citing "25,000+ different denominations".

-Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #21 on: May 02, 2008, 05:00:42 PM »


What you say maybe true. The onlything I ever knew about Maryland was that it was a Roman Catholic State, that was eventually controlled by Puritans for a time.

This is not a case of "maybe true".  The Tolerance Act of 1649 is a real historical document that was passed as law in the colony. The copy I linked to is at a very trustworthy site at Yale University that has as it's purpose to make historical documents available for anyone interested to access and read.

The *Colony* of Maryland was started by the Calvert Family the head of whom was "Lord Baltimore".  They were RC.  But not all colonists were RC and as can be read in the Toleration Act, there were plenty of people of other denominations of Christian in or dealing with the colony.

May I ask what information you have of the colony being "controlled" by "Puritans"?  I have not come across anything like that, (and I live in Maryland, though I grew up in Montana).  The "Puritans" were for the most part in the New England colonies.  New York was first Dutch. There were Swedes in the Delaware area with Philadelphia/Pennsylvania being founded by William Penn who was Quaker. Maryland had RC and Church of England from the earliest. I don't know of any big "Puritan" influence in the middle and southern colonies. If you have any information I would be interested to learn about it.

Quote
There is a direct link between the British civil war and the American Revolution.

?  Well, historically there is a link since the English Civil (Royalists vs. Parliamentarians) proceeded the American Revolution by more then a century and it was in the "Home Country" as it were of the American Colonies. But I don't understand your statement.  Could you please expand some more one what you mean here?  

Ebor

edited to remove a left over letter.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2008, 08:31:34 PM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #22 on: May 02, 2008, 05:04:01 PM »

I actually have to agree with that. What does "25,000+ different denominations" really prove? Consider this: a non-Christian could use the same kind of rhetoric to look at Christians and say "See! There are 25,000+ Christian denominations. Christians are completely splintered."

I'm not saying that Protestants aren't splintered. Rather I'm saying that if you want to make a good argument to show that Protestants are splintered, you need to dig deeper than just citing "25,000+ different denominations".

-Peter.

Well, yes, because that is not what the Barrett numbers are talking about at all.  It's flat out and simply incorrect to say that there are "25,000+ Protestant" groups/denominations/Churches.  Barrett *is* about *all* bodies that consider themselves Christian, and to reiterate in his counting the RC is not just one nor is the EO.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #23 on: May 02, 2008, 06:35:00 PM »

Thanks for clearing that up, folks. I always thought those figures were a bit dodgy and shouldn't be repeated with confidence.
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #24 on: May 02, 2008, 08:28:20 PM »

Thanks for clearing that up, folks. I always thought those figures were a bit dodgy and shouldn't be repeated with confidence.

Yet in the past (and it wouldn't surprise me to see it happen again) they have been repeated and repeated and sometimes the number grows. They have been tossed off casually or blunted stated as fact in posts where the writer doesn't know where they really came from or how they were obtained.  They've been used to, sometimes, dismiss persons from non-EO/RC/OO churches or I think to somehow show the Pride of "Protestants" since they have so many groups it's because people think they know best and go make their own Church. 

It's important to know where statistics come from, and just *how* they were collected and *what do they really mean.*   Have you ever read "How to Lie With Statistics" btw?  It's a slim but important book on how to not be taken in or fooled by people manipulating information.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,980


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #25 on: May 02, 2008, 08:37:03 PM »

Yet in the past (and it wouldn't surprise me to see it happen again) they have been repeated and repeated and sometimes the number grows. They have been tossed off casually or blunted stated as fact in posts where the writer doesn't know where they really came from or how they were obtained.  They've been used to, sometimes, dismiss persons from non-EO/RC/OO churches or I think to somehow show the Pride of "Protestants" since they have so many groups it's because people think they know best and go make their own Church. 

It's important to know where statistics come from, and just *how* they were collected and *what do they really mean.*   Have you ever read "How to Lie With Statistics" btw?  It's a slim but important book on how to not be taken in or fooled by people manipulating information.

Ebor

Not only these, but also the POV and predisposition of the user of the information is important.

To wit:  The Orthodox object to be characterized as 1 Church per nation within each communion because they share communion and faith with one another and thus are one Church.  The Catholics have the same objection.  However, if the same line of thinking were applied to the rest of the group (i.e. that intercommunion + faith = unity = being listed as 1 vs. many), then the number of denominations on that list would probably be reduced greatly (maybe by over half) - because there are many groups out there that are administratively separated but believe in the same essential points and would intercommune their members with no issue.

Then, there's the question of what to do with the non-Eucharistic Christians?

Hence, it's not in an Orthodox Christian's best interests to use these types of numbers.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 03, 2008, 02:10:54 AM »

This is not a case of "maybe true".  The Tolerance Act of 1649 is a real historical document that was passed as law in the colony. The copy I linked to is at a very trustworthy site at Yale University that has as it's purpose to make historical documents available for anyone interested to access and read.

The *Colony* of Maryland was started by the Calvert Family the head of whom was "Lord Baltimore".  They were RC.  But not all colonists were RC and as can be read in the Toleration Act, there were plenty of people of other denominations of Christian in or dealing with the colony.

May I ask what information you have of the colony being "controlled" by "Puritans"?  I have not come across anything like that, (and I live in Maryland, though I grew up in Montana).  The "Puritans" were for the most part in the New England colonies.  New York was first Dutch. There were Swedes in the Delaware area with Philadelphia/Pennsylvania being founded by William Penn who was Quaker. Maryland had RC and Church of England from the earliest. I don't know of any big "Puritan" influence in the middle and southern colonies. If you have any information I would be interested to learn about it.

?  Well, historically there is a link since the English Civil (Royalists vs. Parliamentarians) proceeded the American Revolution by more then a century and it was in the "Home Country" as it were of the American Colonies. But I don't understand your statement.  Could you please expand some more one what you mean here?  

Ebor

edited to remove a left over letter.


I got it from a Roman Catholic Historian. I don't know if it was before or after we became a country. But for a time, Protestants ruled Maryland. Roman Catholics were not allowed to run for office. From what I can recall, he said that it happened during a period when Protestants(In North America) didn't trust Roman Catholics. Something happened to cause this. I forgot what happened. But after it was ruled by Protestants. The ban of keeping Roman Catholics from taking office was eventually lifted.

You gotta watch EWTN. Sometimes they have specials. One of them went over the history of Maryland. I think I saw a similar documentary on TBN.



My point about the British civil war, and the American Revolution was that Protestantism was meant to be spread by America. The English Separatists and Puritans wanted to be a light on the shiny Hill.

The Puritans under Oliver Cromwell couldn't do it in Britan, so it was eventually tried again in North America.


The boom in denominations is directly related to American Democracy. Our religious freedom makes it easy to form splinter groups.





In regards to Puritanism. In that sense I was focused on the theology. Not the congregational denomination. In Theology, Puritans can be Congregationalist, Prespyterian, low church Anglican, and Baptist(English Separatist).


Many Puritans in North America eventually connected with the Church of Scotland, to form what is known as "Prespyterianism".


And you can find Prespyterians all over the North and South.



I don't know what Protestant denomination took over the state of MAryland away from the Roman Catholics, but according to what I saw on EWTN, it happened for a period of time when Protestants (In North America) were hostile towards Roman Catholics.






JNORM888
« Last Edit: May 03, 2008, 02:21:53 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 03, 2008, 08:29:53 AM »

Not that I want to start a political discussion here, but still, I believe that the USA was founded on a basically anti-Christian idea. There is no such thing in a Christian world view as an "unalienable right to pursuit of happiness." We are called to take up a cross, not to "pursue happiness." Besides, Christians must obey "supreme authorities," which, in the 1770-s, were King George and his appointed governors. So, the only right choice for any Christian at that time was to be a Loyalist. Unfortunately, history is always being re-written by victors, and new generations are indoctrinated in new (and often false) ideas.
Logged

Love never fails.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #28 on: May 03, 2008, 09:00:48 AM »


I got it from a Roman Catholic Historian.

Do you recall the name of this person?

Quote
I don't know if it was before or after we became a country. But for a time, Protestants ruled Maryland. Roman Catholics were not allowed to run for office. From what I can recall, he said that it happened during a period when Protestants(In North America) didn't trust Roman Catholics. Something happened to cause this. I forgot what happened. But after it was ruled by Protestants. The ban of keeping Roman Catholics from taking office was eventually lifted.

One of the confusions here is you wrote "Puritans" in Maryland.  Puritans were not the only sort of "Protestant" nor were most of the non-RC Christians "Puritan" in most of the British Colonies in North America.  If the "Roman Catholic Historian" said that there were "Puritans" in Maryland I should very much like to know what his/her source material is for that.  As I wrote above along with the Roman Catholics Maryland was Anglican/Church of England.  It was following the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 in which King James II was overthrown and William and Mary placed on the throne that control of the Colony of Maryland was taken from the "Lord Proprietary".  A Royal Governor was installed and in 1692 the "Establishment Act" was enacted which created 31 Parishes of the Church of England.  This did not drive RCs from the colony. It did not take their property or destroy their churches. It was a matter of politics among other things. Once the C 0f E was "established" I have read that RC churches weren't allowed to be built.  However the first RC Cathedral, the Basilica in Baltimore was constructed from 1806-1821, still stands today and in fact had a major renovation a few years ago.

There were times when Roman Catholics were not allowed to hold office in Maryland, but that did not stop them from taking part in public life.  Charles Carroll of Carrollton from Maryland signed the Declaration of Independence, the only Roman Catholic to do so.  He also was publically active in other areas including the start of the B&O Railroad. At one time he was one of the richest men in the Colonies/United States. He had an RC chapel on his estate which still exists. He was the last surviving Signer of the Declaration.

Anti-RC feelings in politics were more in the 19th Century and part of it had to do with increased immigration.

Quote
You gotta watch EWTN. Sometimes they have specials. One of them went over the history of Maryland. I think I saw a similar documentary on TBN.

We don't have cable TV.  Smiley I wonder if these are ever put on DVD or on the 'Net.  

Quote
My point about the British civil war, and the American Revolution was that Protestantism was meant to be spread by America. The English Separatists and Puritans wanted to be a light on the shiny Hill.

The Puritans under Oliver Cromwell couldn't do it in Britan, so it was eventually tried again in North America.

I mean no offense here, but the American Revolution happened because politics, economy and rights among other things.  There were few if any "Puritans" around in the mid 1700s and none of the members of the Continental Congress were, as far as I know.  The Parliamentarians/Cromwell's party were long gone, with the throne being restored when Charles II came back.   I really do not follow your assertion that there is some binding link between the two besides the fact that they are both part of British History.  The "Commonwealth" under Oliver Cromwell and his successor lasted from 1649 to 1660.  It didn't have much affect in North America.  The Colonies were not under the control of a single govermental unit but individual entities.

Are you thinking of "a city on a hill"?  That is a phrase from John Winthrop, who *was* a Puritan, in 1630.

Quote
The boom in denominations is directly related to American Democracy. Our religious freedom makes it easy to form splinter groups.

I don't know about a "boom" but there were groups forming in other countries, not just the US.  And as the Barrett numbers show a very large number of the groups are in Africa.



Quote
In regards to Puritanism. In that sense I was focused on the theology. Not the congregational denomination. In Theology, Puritans can be Congregationalist, Prespyterian, low church Anglican, and Baptist(English Separatist).

Well, on this point I would disagree with you.  the name "Puritan" refers to a specific group from the 16th and 17th Centuries. As a religious group they do not exist today as far as I know.  It is not the same or equal to "Protestant".  What particular points of theology do you have in mind, please?

Quote
Many Puritans in North America eventually connected with the Church of Scotland, to form what is known as "Prespyterianism".


And you can find Prespyterians all over the North and South.

On this a person who knows more about the Presbyterians would have more information.  But 21st Century Presbyterians are not "Puritans".

Quote
I don't know what Protestant denomination took over the state of MAryland away from the Roman Catholics, but according to what I saw on EWTN, it happened for a period of time when Protestants (In North America) were hostile towards Roman Catholics.

Church of England, see above, and it was take over from the Proprietor, the Third Lord Baltimore, Charles Calvert, by the Throne.  Here is a link to some information about the last one:

http://mdroots.thinkport.org/library/charlescalvert.asp  

 And while the Calverts were RC, that the colonies, not just Maryland, were coming under Royal Governorship had to do with wealth, power and influence.  Also, there were laws binding on RCs in England, it wasn't just in North America, and part of that can be traced back to various things in politics from the reigns of James I and Elizabeth.

Ebor

edited for grammar
« Last Edit: May 03, 2008, 11:45:06 AM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #29 on: May 03, 2008, 09:12:40 AM »

Not that I want to start a political discussion here, but still, I believe that the USA was founded on a basically anti-Christian idea. There is no such thing in a Christian world view as an "unalienable right to pursuit of happiness." We are called to take up a cross, not to "pursue happiness." Besides, Christians must obey "supreme authorities," which, in the 1770-s, were King George and his appointed governors. So, the only right choice for any Christian at that time was to be a Loyalist. Unfortunately, history is always being re-written by victors, and new generations are indoctrinated in new (and often false) ideas.

Oh, but this isn't political (I don't *think*)  this would be a discussion of History!  Smiley Smiley  And there can be honest history, not just 're-written by victors'.   I'm intrigued by your phrase "the only right choice for any Christian at that time".  May I ask what you have read of Colonial history please?  Have you read all of the Declaration of Independence?  This sets out the reasons.  Also, there are surviving notes and works from the people involved for primary source material.

I know that you have many other things to do with your teaching and other parts of life and I by no means want to cause you any stress.  It's just, I suppose, another case of "History-Geek rides again"   Smiley Wink

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #30 on: May 03, 2008, 09:23:37 AM »

Not only these, but also the POV and predisposition of the user of the information is important.

To wit:  The Orthodox object to be characterized as 1 Church per nation within each communion because they share communion and faith with one another and thus are one Church.  The Catholics have the same objection.  However, if the same line of thinking were applied to the rest of the group (i.e. that intercommunion + faith = unity = being listed as 1 vs. many), then the number of denominations on that list would probably be reduced greatly (maybe by over half) - because there are many groups out there that are administratively separated but believe in the same essential points and would intercommune their members with no issue.

Then, there's the question of what to do with the non-Eucharistic Christians?

Hence, it's not in an Orthodox Christian's best interests to use these types of numbers.

Exactly so, Cleveland!  Yet it has been done many times, mostly as a way to show how confused/prideful/wrong those "Protestants" are. (Never mind that there is no generic "Protestant" but different bodies and Churches).

It reminds me of a part of C. S. Lewis' "A Pilgrim's Regress" where a "riddle" or puzzle is given of a man who is traveling with his enemy and cannot go faster.  There is a bridge between him and his home.  His wife sends a message "Should I leave the bridge so that you may pass or destroy the bridge so that your enemy may not come over?"  The point being that using something for ones own point/argument can be used by an opponent against ones argument sometimes.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 05, 2008, 10:05:20 AM »

Not that I want to start a political discussion here, but still, I believe that the USA was founded on a basically anti-Christian idea. There is no such thing in a Christian world view as an "unalienable right to pursuit of happiness." We are called to take up a cross, not to "pursue happiness." Besides, Christians must obey "supreme authorities," which, in the 1770-s, were King George and his appointed governors. So, the only right choice for any Christian at that time was to be a Loyalist. Unfortunately, history is always being re-written by victors, and new generations are indoctrinated in new (and often false) ideas.

I agree,


A cut and paste from my blog:





Quote
Calvinism's historical inconsistency with Romans 13:1-2
Calvinism’s inconsistency with Romans 13:1-2

In modern times, it is not uncommon to hear a Calvinist bring up Romans 13:1-2 when it comes to the issue of “civil disobedience”. They seem to support government oppression over the rights of the poor and downtrotten. Normally they will say that “civil disobedience” is only in regards to personal evangelism. But lets look at their history to see if this was always true.


NKJV
Romans 13:1-2
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.


In the book Christianity’s dangerous idea, Dr. Mcgrath mentions one of the threats to King James the 1st’s Kingdom.



“”Jame’s Scotish experience had created something of an aversion on his part to
the more austere forms of Presbyterian church culture and convinced him that,
just as Geneva was a republic, so Calvin’s followers were covert
revolutionaries. His views on this matter were shaped to no small extent by some
unpleasant experiences with Scottish prespyteries, Particularly under Andrew
Melville, a Scotish Presbyterian who had taught at the Calvin’s protégé Theodore
Beza.

At a heated encounter between the King and senior churchmen at
Falkland Palace in October 1596, Melville had physically taken hold of James and
accused him of being “God’s silly vassal.” Melville pointedly declared that
while he and his colleagues would support James as King in public, in private
they all knew perfectly well that Christ was the true King in Scotland, and his
Kingdom was the Kirk-a Kingdom in which James was a mere member, not a Lord or
head. James was shaken by this physical and verbal assault, not least because it
suggested that Melville and his allies posed a significant threat to the
Scottish throne. Apologists for the Anglican establishment were to spot their
opportunity. Richard Bancroft and others set out to persuade James that his
monarchy was dependant upon the episcopacy for its future. The ultimate goal of
Puritanism, they argued, was to overthrow the monarchy altogether.
Without the
bishops of the Church of England, there was no future for the monarchy in
England. The King’s real enemies, the “Papists” and the “Puritans,” had a vested
interest in destroying his authority. Only a close working alliance with the
bishops would preserve the status quo and allow James to exercise his (as he saw
it) divinely ordained kingly role in state and church. It was a telling
argument, and it hit home.

In the end, James I developed his own policy
that managed to contain Puritanism’s agendas without leading to any major
alterations to the practices or beliefs of the established church.

The
Puritans were offered scraps of consolation and promises of future change that
either never materialized or amounted to surprising little. James promised a new
English translation of the Bible, which some Puritans may unwisely have hoped
would strengthen their position; when the famous “King James Version” was
published in 1611, it turned out to use the traditional language favored by
Anglicans rather than the more radical terms preferred by Puritans
.“The theory of the divine right of kingd neatly locked church and king together
in the robust circle of mutual support and reinforcement, in effect making the
established church impervious to significant parliamentary criticism. Yet the
most significant criticism of James’s doctrine was theological. The theological
foundation for the doctrine of “monarchomachy”- the idea that severe
restrictions were to be placed upon the rights of Kings, so that the people had
both a right and a duty to resist tyrannical monarchs-was laid in France in
response to the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day in 1572. Some years earlier,
John Calvin-perhaps beginning to recognize the practical and political
importance of the question –had conceded that rulers might exceed the bounds of
their authority by setting themselves against God; when they did so, he
suggested, they abrogated their own power. These ideas were developed and
extended by abrogated their own power. These ideas were developed and extended
by his French followers in the aftermath of the events of 1572. Francois Hotman,
Theodore Beza, and Philippe Duplessissisted. The Primary Christian duty to obey
God is to be placed above any secondary obligation to obey a human ruler.
Puritan writers thus deconstructed the notion of the divine right of Kings with
theological ease and personal glee, pointing out its lack of biblical warrant.
For them, the King’s excesses highlighted the virtues of the republicanism of
Calvin’s Geneva. These virtues were emphasized by one of the most important
English translations of the Bible-the so-called Geneva Bible, produced by
English exiles at Geneva during the reign of Mary Tudor and published in 1560.
It was probably the finest translation of its age. Yet its growing popularity in
the reign of James I rested largely on an additional feature of this
translation-its marginal notes
.“The answer was suggested by a new doctrine that had arisen within Reformed
Protestantism after the death of Calvin. Though he had advocated lawful
resistance to tyrants, Calvin had not endorsed the justifiable regicide-that is,
the killing of oppressive monarchs. Calvin’s death in 1564 removed the last
remaining obstacle to this new doctrine, which became increasingly significant
in the late 1560’s. In his short treatise of Politike power(1556), John Ponet
(1514-56) asserted that the people had the right to revolt against their
oppressors-including “Kings, Princes and other gouvernors”-and to destroy them
before they destroyed the people. Christopher Goodman (1520-1603) took a similar
line in his How superior powers ought to be obeyed(1558). Just as a surgeon might
amputate a limb to save the whole body, so society ought to be able to eliminate
oppressors through the death sentence. On January I, 1649, Charles I was charged
by Parliament with being a “tyrant, traitor, and murderer.” The use of these
three words in the charge ensured that both a legal and theological foundation
were laid for the anticipated death sentence
.











JNORM888
« Last Edit: May 05, 2008, 10:34:45 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #32 on: May 05, 2008, 10:22:08 AM »

Quote
Well, on this point I would disagree with you.  the name "Puritan" refers to a specific group from the 16th and 17th Centuries. As a religious group they do not exist today as far as I know.  It is not the same or equal to "Protestant".  What particular points of theology do you have in mind, please?

I know conservative Prespyterians that still call themselves "Puritan".  The context they use it in is in regards to "Theology". In the 18 hundreds some of the Congregationalists called themselves puritan.


So I disagree with you. People still use the term. Many Puritans moved to North America in the 16 hundreds and the Pilgrims(Separatists, but Puritan in Theology) were eventually absorbed by the Puritans. The Congregationalists still called themselves puritan.

And you still had cliches....like...."The puritan work ethic".....and other cliches. The Puritans didn't disappear when they came to North America.


They started Harvard, and I think Yale. Not to mention a handfull of HBCU's. There are people that still use the term Puritan, and the United Church of Christ is the modern heir of North American Puritanism.



You are ignoring the Puritan Influence in the Revolutionary War. Where do you think we got the cliche of "no king but Christ" from? We got it from Puritanism.

The Puritans still had an Axe to grind against the English Monarchy so they used what happened in North America as an excuse to separate themselves from King George.






JNORM888
« Last Edit: May 05, 2008, 10:28:57 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #33 on: May 06, 2008, 12:23:03 PM »

You are ignoring the Puritan Influence in the Revolutionary War. Where do you think we got the cliche of "no king but Christ" from? We got it from Puritanism.

The Puritans still had an Axe to grind against the English Monarchy so they used what happened in North America as an excuse to separate themselves from King George.

How weird. Have they never read Romans 13?
Logged

Love never fails.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #34 on: May 06, 2008, 01:04:18 PM »

I know conservative Prespyterians that still call themselves "Puritan".  The context they use it in is in regards to "Theology". In the 18 hundreds some of the Congregationalists called themselves puritan.

Interesting.  It is always good to gain new information. Could you please give some links or information on these groups?  Thank you in advance.

Quote
So I disagree with you. People still use the term. Many Puritans moved to North America in the 16 hundreds and the Pilgrims(Separatists, but Puritan in Theology) were eventually absorbed by the Puritans. The Congregationalists still called themselves puritan.

Then we will have to agree to disagree.  Smiley  Would you please give some historical references for the Congregationalists and are they the same as the Congregationalist churches of today?

Quote
And you still had cliches....like...."The puritan work ethic".....and other cliches. The Puritans didn't disappear when they came to North America.

Well, I know of the phrase "Protestant work ethic" which was coined by the German sociologist Max Weber.  He wrote a book on it that was published in 1905
http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/weber.htm

I looked your "cliche" as you called it up and it is equated with Weber's idea.

Quote
They started Harvard, and I think Yale. Not to mention a handfull of HBCU's. There are people that still use the term Puritan, and the United Church of Christ is the modern heir of North American Puritanism.

I know of Harvard and Yale (though one source of information says that it was founded by "Congregationalists" rather then "Puritans".  You appear to think that they are the same, but there seems to be some difference of opinion.)  I beg your pardon, "HBCU"?  Would you please post what those letters mean?


Quote
You are ignoring the Puritan Influence in the Revolutionary War. Where do you think we got the cliche of "no king but Christ" from? We got it from Puritanism.

You have asserted that there is a "Puritan Influence" on the American Revolution, but you have not provided any sources or documentation to back this up. Would you please provide some support for this claim.  What people or movements in the time leading up to the American Revolution are you thinking of when you write this, please?  Also, the phrase "No king but Christ" was not, from all of my reading, a rallying cry of the American Colonists. I have found a reference to a biography of a Donald Cargill with that title for example (Scots and during the reign of Charles II apparently).  But no reference to the American Colonies and the politics and economics that were motivating forces for the Revolution.

Some of these for people to look up were the Navigation Acts:
http://www.usahistory.info/colonial/Navigation-Acts.html

The Stamp Act:  http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/stampact.htm

What are termed the "Coercive Acts"
http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/MilSci/Resources/abscoer.html

Quote
The Puritans still had an Axe to grind against the English Monarchy so they used what happened in North America as an excuse to separate themselves from King George.

You've asserted this before.  On what evidence and documentation do you base this claim please?  Have you read the Declaration of Independence which lays out the reasons for seeking to be a separate nation?

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #35 on: May 06, 2008, 01:08:22 PM »

How weird. Have they never read Romans 13?

Just for the sake of information and discussion, and no offense is intended by any means, how much American History have you read, Heorhij and do you recall the texts/authors?  Have you read the Declaration of Independence or other primary source documents?

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #36 on: May 06, 2008, 01:11:50 PM »

Just for the sake of information and discussion, and no offense is intended by any means, how much American History have you read, Heorhij and do you recall the texts/authors?  Have you read the Declaration of Independence or other primary source documents?
Ebor

I certainly have read the Declaration of Independence and I do really believe that its opening statement is clearly, 100% anti-Christian. No offence intended. Again, there is no such thing as "human unalienable rights," and especially there is no such thing as the right to pursue happiness. That's what the evil one said to Adam and Eve: you guys are entitled to your unalienable right to pursue happiness... Sad
Logged

Love never fails.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #37 on: May 06, 2008, 01:21:53 PM »

I certainly have read the Declaration of Independence and I do really believe that its opening statement is clearly, 100% anti-Christian. No offence intended. Again, there is no such thing as "human unalienable rights," and especially there is no such thing as the right to pursue happiness. That's what the evil one said to Adam and Eve: you guys are entitled to your unalienable right to pursue happiness... Sad

Are you being serious?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #38 on: May 06, 2008, 01:23:14 PM »

I certainly have read the Declaration of Independence and I do really believe that its opening statement is clearly, 100% anti-Christian. No offence intended. Again, there is no such thing as "human unalienable rights," and especially there is no such thing as the right to pursue happiness. That's what the evil one said to Adam and Eve: you guys are entitled to your unalienable right to pursue happiness... Sad

Thank you for replying.  And no offense taken  Smiley  OK, now if you're willing, and have the time, could we go over some of that so that I can understand *why* you think it is "anti-Christian" please.  If you would prefer to not, I apolgize for asking. I want to understand your views.

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. "  

Is there anything in the opening sentence for example that you think is anti-Christian such as the idea of the necessity of dissolving political connections?

The first sentence mentions unalienable rights:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: 

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. "


I know that you're busy and I don't mean to intrude on your time, I assure you.

Ebor

« Last Edit: May 06, 2008, 01:26:42 PM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #39 on: May 06, 2008, 01:36:54 PM »

^There is nothing in Romans 13 about dissolving political connections. We, those who are baptized in Christ and clothed ourselves in Christ, are supposed to be "subject to governing authorities" (Rom. 13:1-7). I just cannot see it any other way.
Logged

Love never fails.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,980


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #40 on: May 06, 2008, 03:17:32 PM »

That's what the evil one said to Adam and Eve: you guys are entitled to your unalienable right to pursue happiness... Sad 

I'm going to have to disagree: the Evil one didn't use the draw of happiness to lure them in, but rather the promise of becoming like God Himself.  They probably were happy without it.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #41 on: May 06, 2008, 03:45:06 PM »

I'm going to have to disagree: the Evil one didn't use the draw of happiness to lure them in, but rather the promise of becoming like God Himself.  They probably were happy without it.

But the main thing is, "you are entitled." Not "do what God/God's minister King George V says," but "do what you believe you are entitled to ("dissolve political unions," overthrow the Tsar, amass gold and/or weapons, rule the world, etc.)."
Logged

Love never fails.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,980


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #42 on: May 06, 2008, 03:51:27 PM »

But the main thing is, "you are entitled." Not "do what God/God's minister King George V says," but "do what you believe you are entitled to ("dissolve political unions," overthrow the Tsar, amass gold and/or weapons, rule the world, etc.)." 

Again, while the entitlement was definitely a part of the draw, it wasn't the entitlement to happiness, but to omnipotent power and equality with the creator.  I think one can make the case that it was happiness, but I think it is a weaker case with little support.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #43 on: May 06, 2008, 03:57:56 PM »

Again, while the entitlement was definitely a part of the draw, it wasn't the entitlement to happiness, but to omnipotent power and equality with the creator.  I think one can make the case that it was happiness, but I think it is a weaker case with little support.

Well, maybe the analogy with Adam and Eve is too far-fetched. I am still not convinced that Rom. 13:1-7 does not explicitly forbid "dissolving political unions." Again, the King of England and his appointed governors WERE the ONLY legal "superior authorities" in the North American colonies, and they, as such, should have been viewed (according to the text of Rom. 13) as MINISTERS OF GOD.

I have to say though that I am not comfortable participating in this discussion because I am a first generation immigrant to the USA. I live in this country and, as I know from experience, I can very easily be accused in being ungrateful, un-appreciative etc. Sorry, guys, I must bail out. Smiley
Logged

Love never fails.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,980


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #44 on: May 06, 2008, 04:02:09 PM »

Well, maybe the analogy with Adam and Eve is too far-fetched. I am still not convinced that Rom. 13:1-7 does not explicitly forbid "dissolving political unions." Again, the King of England and his appointed governors WERE the ONLY legal "superior authorities" in the North American colonies, and they, as such, should have been viewed (according to the text of Rom. 13) as MINISTERS OF GOD.

I have to say though that I am not comfortable participating in this discussion because I am a first generation immigrant to the USA. I live in this country and, as I know from experience, I can very easily be accused in being ungrateful, un-appreciative etc. Sorry, guys, I must bail out. Smiley 

I'd never view you as un-appreciative or ungrateful, and certainly I find many theological problems with any assertion that the Revolutionary War was Biblically supported.  I just agree with your first statement: Adam and Eve is too far-fetched.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Tags: Protestant Christianity Puritans American Revolution 
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.189 seconds with 72 queries.