OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 04:16:15 PM *
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: Protestantism  (Read 9689 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« on: November 19, 2003, 09:20:58 AM »

Could not think of a better place to put this, so since the Protestant churches are offsprings of the RC Church I thought I would ask it here.  What are the fundamental differences between the following Protestant Churches?

Anglican
Baptist
Lutheran
Methodist
Presbyterian

I know there are many more, but I believe these are the largest denominations.
Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,745


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2003, 10:49:36 AM »

Quote
Could not think of a better place to put this, so since the Protestant churches are offsprings of the RC Church I thought I would ask it here.  What are the fundamental differences between the following Protestant Churches?

Anglican
Baptist
Lutheran
Methodist
Presbyterian

Great question!

1. The Anglicans didn't begin as a Protestant church but as a schism of the church in England from the papacy that happened coincidentally at the same time as the Protestant revolt in Europe. Reason: the king wanted an annulment and didn't get one. Divorce had nothing to do with it and King Henry VIII, while no saint, was no Protestant either - quite the opposite. But to enforce the schism the king put crypto-Protestants in high positions, such as Thomas Cranmer as the archbishop of Canterbury (the primate of England).

After the king died, Cranmer and these men made Anglicanism Protestant: a confusing mix of basic credal orthodoxy, an orthodox view of baptism as giving grace, rejection of the complete Real Presence and of sacrifice in the Eucharist*, and the discarding of most Catholic ceremonial (this began to reappear in the 1800s), but retaining a basically Catholic divine office (morning and evening prayer) and, unusual among Protestants, a claim to retain bishops, priests and deacons in the apostolic succession.

*Thomas Cranmer was a Zwinglian. The early Anglicans took ideas willy-nilly from most of the European Protestants.

2. The Baptist faith began when John Smythe, an English Congregational minister (English Calvinists, like the Presbyterians in Scotland and the Reformed Church in Holland), adopted the ideas of the Anabaptists (it means 'rebaptizers') of Germany - baptism is only a symbol, not a giver of grace, and only adult believers can be baptized.

Other than that, they have basic credal orthodoxy* but reject the Real Presence and Eucharistic sacrifice and the apostolic ministry. Polity is very free-form with each congregation basically a church unto itself. I think that, outside the major Baptist denominations, Baptist ministers can be self-ordained.

*True of the classical form of the Baptist faith and of the Southern Baptist Convention today, but the American Baptist Conference is basically a modernist, mainline liberal Protestant denomination.

3. Lutherans resemble most other Protestants except they accept a quasi-Real Presence in the Eucharist and like Anglicans use traditional liturgical texts. They believe the same thing about baptism as Catholics and Orthodox. Historically they consistently are ceremonially the most Catholic of the Protestants - they use the crucifix, for example. A few claim bishops in the apostolic succession but most don't. They don't count confession as a sacrament but historically they practise it.

4. Methodism began in the 1700s as an evangelical revival in the Anglican Church that by the 1780s had become a separate church. It doesn't claim apostolic succession. A distinguishing feature of its theology was a move away from Calvinism Catholicwards about man's cooperation with God's grace - called Arminianism after the European Protestant, Jacobus Arminius, who came up with it. (Not to be confused with the Armenian Apostolic Church.)

In the early 1800s Methodism was the wildfire-growth religion in America, the first people to have big tent revivals, etc.

5. Presbyterianism is the Scottish branch of the Calvinist movement. John (Jean) Calvin, a French layman, was one of the pioneer Protestant leaders and a brilliant man, but also very wrong. The St Thomas Aquinas of Protestantism. His theological system, if you buy its premises, is airtight. Among his beliefs are total depravity - man is completely corrupt because of original sin, and double predestination - some people are hellbound, no matter what they want. A horrible system - Robert Louis Stevenson, for example, grew up with it in Scotland and was a committed atheist by the time he was 20.
Logged

Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,941


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2003, 11:07:52 AM »

Regarding Presbyterianism...

Very few, at least in America, adhere to Calvin's double predestination and teach the same basic theology as other mainline Protestants: Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,745


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 19, 2003, 11:20:59 AM »

Quote
Very few, at least in America, adhere to Calvin's double predestination and teach the same basic theology as other mainline Protestants: Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura.

Good point, sir. The conservative Presbyterian Church in America does - they're 16th-century Calvinists - but the big mainline Presbyterian Church-USA does not.

Most evangelicals today do not, but 19th-century evos did.

Regarding what all mainline Protestants believe, I know Keble and Ebor can better answer this, but I think classical Anglicans hold to a modified view of the last bit, taking on board tradition on their own idiosyncratic terms - the first five centuries of the Church or the first four ecumenical councils. (Which is probably a reason why historically they claim apostolic succession.) Scripture, and tradition*, and reason, whatever that means.

*As opposed to the more appealing Eastern Orthodox view as described by Bishop Kallistos (Ware) that to talk of 'scripture and tradition' - the common Western way as RCs do it too - is wrong and sets up a false opposition: the Bible is part of tradition (as in Holy Tradition).
Logged

Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #4 on: November 19, 2003, 01:54:29 PM »

I think one of the key differences between Protestantism and Orthodoxy is the Protestant notion (derived from Anselm of Canterbury) of salvation as satisfaction paid to an angry God for His offended honor or justice or both.

For them the sacrificial death of our Lord is seen as placating God's righteous wrath.

The repentant sinner is simply credited with the sacrifice of Christ and declared "not guilty" (though he remains, in actual fact, guilty).

This is very different from the Orthodox doctrine of salvation, which sees sin as a problem within man that Christ came to cure, a bondage from which He frees us.

The Protestant notion is also predicated upon the idea that God can actually get "angry," a thing that is not possible.

Too bad I have no more time right now. This is an interesting topic.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2003, 08:28:02 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #5 on: November 19, 2003, 03:35:02 PM »

There are two things that are important to realize in this discussion.

The more important is that doctrine isn't necessarily the best way to get one's hands on the differences. For example, when I was a kid Methodists and Presbyterians in NC worshipped basically the same way; but their polities are totally different. Likewise, the Slovak Lutheran church in Johnstown PA looks exactly like an Episcopal building of a certain age, but none of the surrounding Roman rite Catholic churches would ever be confused with anything else. And then there are general attitude differences which are hard to quantify.

The other is that there is a big division over tradition that you have to back away from official positions to see properly. And it has nothing to do with scripture. Everyone that remains Christian has some sort of tradition, but there is one group that sees tradition as a fixed, immutable thing, and another that sees it as a developing thing. Fundamentalists and conservative Presbyterians fall into the first group, but nearly everyone else falls into the second. Now Orthodoxy, as practiced, splits the difference. It tends to act as though tradition developed so far and then stopped. The more seriously this position is taken, the more traditionalist the group.

To elucidate the Anglican-vs.-Orthodox positions on tradition, I'm going to reach back to something I said in the discussion of The-Jurisdiction-That-Must-Not-Be-Named. One way or the other, there is a body of "authorative" writings of which scripture itself is one part and everything that isn't scripture is the other part. Anglicans call the second part "tradition" and don't have a name for the whole, while Orthodox call the whole "tradition" and don't have a name for the second part.

Right now, I need a noun for the second part, so I will stick to the Anglican terminology. I think, however, that the similarities and differences between Anglican and Orthodox process can be expressed in the Anglican language.

The crucial point of similarity is that Anglicans and Orthodox both agree that the whole must be made to work together. And it seems to me that in real Orthodoxy (as opposed to the Vassiliski "19th century Russia" kind) there is a fundamental agreement that scripture proper isn't subject to the same kind of challenge that traditions are. From that point Anglicans, Orthodox, and Catholics diverge. Orthodoxy see this as a one-way development in terms of rejection of a series of errors. Catholicism also sees a one-way development, but positively: doctrine continues to advance. Anglicans don't see it as a one-way process at all, and besides that tend to combine the negative and positive views of the advance.
Logged
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2003, 05:21:04 PM »

Thanks Keble.  in my question I was more asking of the differences between the different Protestant groups themselves rather than the differences between Orthodoxy and Protestantism and Catholicism and Protestantism.

What sparked this question was some curiosity on my part.  When you drive down the streets in my town, you will see Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican, Baptists, and a whole host of other Protestant churches almost next door to each other on the same street.  With Protestantism so fractionalized, I am curious to know what are the major differences between them.  What sets each denomination apart from each other.
Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #7 on: November 19, 2003, 05:25:14 PM »

This is not an attack on the Protestant churches, I am just curious as to what are the differences.
Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #8 on: November 20, 2003, 06:54:48 AM »

Now Orthodoxy, as practiced, splits the difference. It tends to act as though tradition developed so far and then stopped. The more seriously this position is taken, the more traditionalist the group.
Keble, I may be wrong here (I often am Sad) but my understanding of the Orthodox view of Tradition is that it is an organic, living, growing entity. For example if some new threat arises in the church that has not had to be dealt with in the past, the church's response will become another part of said Tradition.

For example, Tradition doesn't really say anything regarding ordination of women to the priesthood because it has never been an issue for Orthodox. If, however, an Orthodox bishop began ordaining women, it would probably force a council (probably local) to be held to determine where the church stood on this. That decision would then either be accepted or rejected by greater Orthodoxy over time, depending on whether the local council spoke the mind of the church or not. I've not looked into this particularly deeply though, in fact I'm pretty sure you have a much better understanding of the mechanics involved yourself Smiley

John.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2003, 08:36:23 AM »

What sparked this question was some curiosity on my part.  When you drive down the streets in my town, you will see Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican, Baptists, and a whole host of other Protestant churches almost next door to each other on the same street.  With Protestantism so fractionalized, I am curious to know what are the major differences between them.  What sets each denomination apart from each other.

Well, the most obvious difference is not anything doctrinal, but just what happens when you set foot in the door. The interiors of the Baptist and the Episcopal churches will be substantially different, even when the exteriors are nearly identical, and what goes on inside is very different too. Trying to pin it all down in terms of doctrine isn't going to really get at the heart of the differences.
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #10 on: November 20, 2003, 10:48:40 AM »

What sparked this question was some curiosity on my part.  When you drive down the streets in my town, you will see Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican, Baptists, and a whole host of other Protestant churches almost next door to each other on the same street.  With Protestantism so fractionalized, I am curious to know what are the major differences between them.  What sets each denomination apart from each other.

Well, the most obvious difference is not anything doctrinal, but just what happens when you set foot in the door. The interiors of the Baptist and the Episcopal churches will be substantially different, even when the exteriors are nearly identical, and what goes on inside is very different too. Trying to pin it all down in terms of doctrine isn't going to really get at the heart of the differences.


I agree about what one sees inside the various churches being the most obvious differences.

But I disagree about doctrine not being at the heart of the actual differences.

What one sees inside the churches is the direct result of differences in doctrine. There are doctrinal reasons why the walls of most Baptist churches are bare, for example.

When I think of Protestantism, I do not normally think of the Anglicans, who seem to hover somewhere in that twilight world between Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism. I know, I know . . . "Low Church" Anglicans really are Protestants.

The problem with pinning anything down in Protestantism is that Protestantism isn't just one thing. It is a multitude of things. Deal with one aspect of it and someone will pop up and say, "Hey! You've misrepresented what we believe!" And the person making such a statement will be making it with some justification, because there are so many different "wes" within Protestantism.

I think that perhaps the chief distinctive mark of a Protestant is the vision of the angry (perhaps even bloodthirsty) God whose offended honor and justice demanded a human sacrifice. No ordinary sacrifice would do. Since God is infinite, His victim had to be infinite, too.

One of the troubles with this idea is that it makes sin God's problem, not man's. It also makes it kind of strange that God counsels us to forbear and forgive yet was unable to exercise the same kind of liberality Himself.

This is not the Orthodox view.

God is love. He cannot change. He goes on loving us always.

Sin is our problem. It makes us unable to accept God's love. It poisons us from the inside. It is an illness that leads to mortality.

Our Lord Jesus came down from heaven to deliver us from sin and death, not to placate His Father's wounded pride and honor. God knows no such human shortcomings.

« Last Edit: November 20, 2003, 10:53:33 AM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2003, 11:03:47 AM »

The key differences in the various protestant denominations are how the faith is expressed and how the church is governed.  Protestants as a whole ( as do all Christians for that matter) agree on more things than they disagree.  YES there are doctrinal differences, but for the most part they are either minor or deal with secondary issues.  FOR example - the more puritanical a protestant church is, the more austere their structures and worship will be.  While Liturgical Protestants tend towards esthetically pleasing services and structures.

There are 4 major schools of theology amongst Protestants.

1 Lutheran

2 Calvinism/Arminianism ( generally referred to as: REFORMED)

3 Anglican

4 Anabaptist

All other protestant denominations are offshoots of these 4.  If you understand these, you will understand protestant theology.

***Lutheranism is based on the teachings of Martin Luther who was a RC priest of the Augustinian order.  Lutheranism keeps the Eucharist central to the worship experience, but with added emphasis on the Word.  Lutheranism rejects the scramentality of all sacraments except Eucharist and Baptism.  Some Lutheran denominations have pursued and kept apostolic succession, allow women to become priests, and holds a married clergy.  Lutheran theology is summed up in the Augsburg Confession. (See: http://www.frii.com/~gosplow/augsburg.html)



***   Calvinism is based on the teachings of John Calvin.  Calvin's doctrine was catholic in its acceptance of the Trinity, human sinfulness, and the saving work of Jesus Christ. It was Protestant in its commitment to the final authority of the Bible, justification by Grace through faith alone, and the bondage of the will for Salvation. It was distinctly reformed in its stress on the omnipotent sovereignty of God, the need for discipline in the church, and the ethical seriousness of life.

The so - called Five Points of Calvinism were formulated by Dutch Reformed theologians at the Synod of Dort (1618 - 19) in response to the teachings of Arminianism.

The five points teach that:

1 - humankind is spiritually incapacitated by Sin
2 - God chooses (elects) unconditionally those who will be saved
3 - the saving work of Christ is limited to those elected ones
4 - God's grace cannot be turned aside
5 - those whom God elects in Christ are saved forever Predestination

Armenians differ mainly in their belief that man does have a free will.

Baptist, Presbyterians, Congregationalists are just a few examples of the churches of the Calvinist school.

***Anabaptist: Anabaptists are the most radical of the protestant groups.  They are your classical puritans.   Anabaptists reject infant baptism, are the root of the doctrine of separation of church and state, reject the Eucharist wholesale, reject organized clergy, reject formal creeds - all in all they are the most “primitive” of the Protestant groups holding to the Bible alone and rejecting all sacraments and all church authority.

Mennonite, Quakers, Amish are Anabaptists.  (Current day Baptists while sharing many views of the Anabaptists are more Calvinist or Armenian in their theology.)

***Anglicanism: this would be the group most familiar to those on this forum so I chose to cover it last and least.  Their differences from the RCC are spelled out in the statement: The 39 Articles - http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/articles/articles.html

God bless and I hope I was of help.
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2003, 11:04:41 AM »

if you need information about theological beliefs - check out this website:  

http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/index.html

also of interest:

http://www.frimmin.com/faith/apostolic.html
« Last Edit: November 20, 2003, 11:05:25 AM by Br. Max, OFC » Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,757


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2003, 11:52:13 AM »

Armenians differ mainly in their belief that man does have a free will.

Armenians differ quite considerably from all of these other groups; Armenians are Orthodox, but Arminians are not.  Smiley
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #14 on: November 20, 2003, 12:05:50 PM »

Br.Max,

A suggested correction I'd offer to your categorization of Protestantism would be to separate Calvinism and Arminianism as these are mutually exclusive theologies.  They differ on each of the Synod of Dort's "five points of Calvinism" (which were, as you pointed out, made in response to the 5 points of the Arminian Remonstrance)  Yes, it differs primarily on the Arminian belief of "free will" but it extends to the other points: for example, in Arminian theology the atonement was made for all and not just for the elect; God's grace can be rejected; and a true believer can finally fall away from salvation.  

IMHO, Arminian theology was a much needed corrective to Calvinist monergism (particularly supralapsarianism!)which itself was an extreme reaction to the excesses of Medieval Roman Catholicism.  The synergism of Arminianism seems much more in keeping with Orthodox soteriology.  It is my research into the Calvinist and Arminian debate (which is alive and well in the SBC) that has led me to look at the early Church's theology of man, sin, and salvation and to consider Orthodoxy.
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2003, 12:19:43 PM »

***Anglicanism: this would be the group most familiar to those on this forum so I chose to cover it last and least.  Their differences from the RCC are spelled out in the statement: The 39 Articles - http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/articles/articles.html

No, no no!!! The 39 Articles are not a confessional document that defines Anglicanism!


The crucial thing about understanding Protestant-ism is its origin in rebellion against the papacy. If you are a Protestant, you have to believe that this rebellion was justified and that it does not put you outside The Church. And in practice, this means judging the Roman church against some sort of scripture-based standard. Everything else after that is potentially up for grabs.

In practice this means that the basis for differentiation changes from group to group, and even over time. Methodists are, in origin, evangelical Anglicans, but in practice they are now pretty different. Amish theological process looks pretty similar to Orthodox process, but it starts from a different point. Conservative Presbyterians are Calivinist but liberals aren't; however, both groups are firmly rooted in their particular polity.

It's still legitimate to talk about the doctrinal and theological differences between groups, as long as you keep in mind that these are not usually fundamental differences.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2003, 04:37:14 PM by Keble » Logged
MsGuided
Pharmakolytria
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 478


St. Anastasia


« Reply #16 on: November 20, 2003, 06:34:20 PM »


There are 4 major schools of theology amongst Protestants.

1 Lutheran

2 Calvinism/Arminianism ( generally referred to as: REFORMED)

3 Anglican

4 Anabaptist

All other protestant denominations are offshoots of these 4.  If you understand these, you will understand protestant theology.

Just curious, who/what exactly are the Mormons, and where do they fit in, if they do at all?  (Yes, the curiosity comes from that good ol' South Park episode Tongue)

Kim
Logged

"Forgive me that great love leads me to talking nonsense." Barsanuphius
Innocent
No longer posting on this site
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440

St. Innocent of Alaska


« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2003, 06:40:06 PM »

I think Mormons are an off shoot of 7th day adventists and they are an off shoot of Calvinism. I could be wrong the denomination bananza in Protestantism is confusing. The new thing now is protestants say they are in fact not protestants. My sisters boyfriend is a Baptists and they believe they are not protestants.


There are 4 major schools of theology amongst Protestants.

1 Lutheran

2 Calvinism/Arminianism ( generally referred to as: REFORMED)

3 Anglican

4 Anabaptist

All other protestant denominations are offshoots of these 4.  If you understand these, you will understand protestant theology.

Just curious, who/what exactly are the Mormons, and where do they fit in, if they do at all?  (Yes, the curiosity comes from that good ol' South Park episode Tongue)

Kim
Logged
MsGuided
Pharmakolytria
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 478


St. Anastasia


« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2003, 06:45:03 PM »

I think Mormons are an off shoot of 7th day adventists and they are an off shoot of Calvinism.

ahh yes, my grandfather and a bunch of my family are 7th day adventists.  Grandpa listens to church on the radio every day.  He's a good, caring man; pray for him, and me.
Logged

"Forgive me that great love leads me to talking nonsense." Barsanuphius
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #19 on: November 20, 2003, 06:46:47 PM »

I think Mormons are an off shoot of 7th day adventists and they are an off shoot of Calvinism.

Oh No! No! No! The mormons are just TOTAL Freaks!

I will just tell you the funniest part:

An Angel appeared to John Smith and presented him with sacred texts which contained the truth. And along with those texts a pair of "magic spectacles" that you had to wear in ordeer to read them.  Roll Eyes (I am NOT kidding!)

Now, no one else has EVER actually seen these texts, nor the glasses, but he found enough kooks around to believe him.

Similar to what L. Ron Hubbard did with Scientology.


« Last Edit: November 20, 2003, 06:48:04 PM by TomS » Logged
MsGuided
Pharmakolytria
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 478


St. Anastasia


« Reply #20 on: November 20, 2003, 06:59:58 PM »


An Angel appeared to John Smith and presented him with sacred texts which contained the truth. And along with those texts a pair of "magic spectacles" that you had to wear in ordeer to read them.  Roll Eyes (I am NOT kidding!)

Now, no one else has EVER actually seen these texts, nor the glasses, but he found enough kooks around to believe him.


Wow, South Park was eerily accurate!  Shocked
Logged

"Forgive me that great love leads me to talking nonsense." Barsanuphius
Innocent
No longer posting on this site
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440

St. Innocent of Alaska


« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2003, 07:00:59 PM »

No doubt they are total freaks but Joe Smith got some of his stuff from 7th days.

Mormons believe:

1) No Trinity: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each separate Gods. Each was created at some point.

2) We become Gods if we are good. So one day we will be the same as Jesus.

3) If someone died as an unbeliever you can do some sort of after death baptism to save them. Not sure how it works.

3) American Indians are Jews. They are one of the lost tribes of Israel.

They are weird and not really Christian at all.

I think Mormons are an off shoot of 7th day adventists and they are an off shoot of Calvinism.

Oh No! No! No! The mormons are just TOTAL Freaks!

I will just tell you the funniest part:

An Angel appeared to John Smith and presented him with sacred texts which contained the truth. And along with those texts a pair of "magic spectacles" that you had to wear in ordeer to read them.  Roll Eyes (I am NOT kidding!)

Now, no one else has EVER actually seen these texts, nor the glasses, but he found enough kooks around to believe him.

Similar to what L. Ron Hubbard did with Scientology.



Logged
Tony
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #22 on: November 20, 2003, 07:07:46 PM »

Don't Mormons believe that after they die they can become "gods" and rule over their own little planet?

In Christ,
Tony
Logged
Innocent
No longer posting on this site
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440

St. Innocent of Alaska


« Reply #23 on: November 20, 2003, 07:17:19 PM »

Yes!

Don't Mormons believe that after they die they can become "gods" and rule over their own little planet?

In Christ,
Tony
Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #24 on: November 20, 2003, 07:23:03 PM »

Don't forget, there are people on the moon!

"The inhabitants of the moon are more of a uniform size than the inhabitants of the earth, being about six feet in height. They dress very much like Quaker style and are quite general in style or the one fashion of dress. They live to be very old; coming generally, near a thousand years" (History of the Life of Oliver Huntington, p. 10, University of Utah).

And of course, don't forget the inhabitants of the sun:

"So it is with the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialized" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 13:271).
Logged
Innocent
No longer posting on this site
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440

St. Innocent of Alaska


« Reply #25 on: November 20, 2003, 07:28:44 PM »

Shocked WOW! That is crazy! Shocked

Don't forget, there are people on the moon!

"The inhabitants of the moon are more of a uniform size than the inhabitants of the earth, being about six feet in height. They dress very much like Quaker style and are quite general in style or the one fashion of dress. They live to be very old; coming generally, near a thousand years" (History of the Life of Oliver Huntington, p. 10, University of Utah).

And of course, don't forget the inhabitants of the sun:

"So it is with the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialized" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 13:271).
Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,441


« Reply #26 on: November 20, 2003, 08:07:01 PM »


An Angel appeared to John Smith and presented him with sacred texts which contained the truth. And along with those texts a pair of "magic spectacles" that you had to wear in ordeer to read them.  Roll Eyes (I am NOT kidding!)

Now, no one else has EVER actually seen these texts, nor the glasses, but he found enough kooks around to believe him.


Wow, South Park was eerily accurate!  Shocked

That, was a funny episode.  I've heard that Trey Parker (one of the writers) is Jewish and that's one reason there are so many religious (and Jewish) jokes.
Logged
MsGuided
Pharmakolytria
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 478


St. Anastasia


« Reply #27 on: November 20, 2003, 08:57:05 PM »

Yes, the character of Kyle (Jewish boy) is supposed to be based on him, and Stan on the other writer, Matt Stone.

But back to the topic at hand... Roll Eyes
Logged

"Forgive me that great love leads me to talking nonsense." Barsanuphius
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #28 on: November 20, 2003, 09:13:16 PM »

Just a note.

Mormonism predates Seventh Day Adventism, so it is not possible that Mormonism arose out of the latter.

The Seventh Day Adventist sect came out of the Millerite Movement of the 1840s. Baptist minister William Miller predicted Christ would return sometime between March 21, 1843, and March 21, 1844. When the Lord was tardy, Miller set another date: October 22, 1844.

When the Lord ignored Miller's timetable a second time, Miller's movement mostly fell apart. The diehards followed one of Miller's disciples, Ellen G. White, and eventually became the Seventh Day Adventists, so called from their insistence on maintaining the Old Testament Saturday Sabbath.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Tikhon29605
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 532


May I become Thy Tabernacle through Communion.


« Reply #29 on: November 20, 2003, 10:06:46 PM »

After hearing about the Science Fiction religion of Mormonism it amazes me that ANYONE would consider Orthodoxy to be strange and exotic.  LOL
Tikhon
Logged
katherine 2001
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 889


Eastern Orthodox Church--Established in 33 A.D.


« Reply #30 on: November 20, 2003, 11:04:55 PM »

Yes, they have such an extensive genealogical collection because they want to baptize all of a person's dead relatives when they baptize someone.  I know some people see no problem with using their geneaological information, but I won't.  I object to the whole idea.

Also, according to the Mormons, Jesus and Lucifer were brothers at one time.  
Logged
David
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of the South)
Posts: 1,952


Retired GM


WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 20, 2003, 11:54:26 PM »

I hate to sound condescending and negative, but Mormonism seems like something written in a bad 1950's comic book.  God the Father came from planet Kolob in a spaceship to earth to physically impregnate the no-longer-Virgin Mary(notice I am not calling her the Theotokos as in Mormon teaching Christ was not born God).  The angel Moroni inscribing the Book of Mormon on silver plates in reformed Egyptian, which were buried in upstate NY.  Baptism of the Dead.  The idea that if you're a good Mormon, you get to be god of your own planet and your wives spend eternity giving birth to the souls of the people on your planet.  

As Johnny Carson would say, wild and wacky stuff....
Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."
-Yazid Ibrahim
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #32 on: November 21, 2003, 12:08:16 AM »

I hate to sound condescending and negative, but Mormonism seems like something written in a bad 1950's comic book.  God the Father came from planet Kolob in a spaceship to earth to physically impregnate the no-longer-Virgin Mary(notice I am not calling her the Theotokos as in Mormon teaching Christ was not born God).  The angel Moroni inscribing the Book of Mormon on silver plates in reformed Egyptian, which were buried in upstate NY.  Baptism of the Dead.  The idea that if you're a good Mormon, you get to be god of your own planet and your wives spend eternity giving birth to the souls of the people on your planet.  

As Johnny Carson would say, wild and wacky stuff....

Since the Lord's covenant with David was called the Davidic Covenant, does that make Mormonism, as the message conveyed to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni,

the Moronic Covenant ?

And, since it was the religion delivered to man by the angel Moroni, could it not also be said to be a

Moronic Religion ?

 Wink

« Last Edit: November 21, 2003, 12:17:14 AM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,757


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 21, 2003, 12:31:50 AM »

The angel Moroni inscribing the Book of Mormon on silver plates in reformed Egyptian, which were buried in upstate NY.  

You mean I go to school in the Holy Land??
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
David
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of the South)
Posts: 1,952


Retired GM


WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 21, 2003, 12:46:08 AM »

Yes, Mor...as I have heard there were leaders of three non-Christian sects to come from one county in upstate NY.  Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell(founder of the JWs), and another whose name escapes me.
Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."
-Yazid Ibrahim
Innocent
No longer posting on this site
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440

St. Innocent of Alaska


« Reply #35 on: November 21, 2003, 10:16:22 AM »

Wow  I always wanted to make a pilgrimage to the  Holy Land. Little did I know I have lived here all my life!  Cool

Yes, Mor...as I have heard there were leaders of three non-Christian sects to come from one county in upstate NY.  Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell(founder of the JWs), and another whose name escapes me.  
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #36 on: November 21, 2003, 10:30:05 AM »

I could be wrong, but I thought Russell started out in the Midwest.

And the Jehovah's Witnesses did evolve from within the ranks of the Seventh Day Adventists, who, BTW, are powerfully weird. Just read some of their stuff sometime . . . or, on second thought, don't.

The Seventh Day Adventists really hate the Roman Catholic Church. Anti-Catholicism is part of their raison d'etre. They blame just about everything on the RCC and are really rabid about it, at least in their literature.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #37 on: November 21, 2003, 11:23:46 AM »

The SDA church seems to be this weird mixture of perfectly sensible people with a quirk about the Sabbath and some of the loopiest Protestant cranks you will ever meet.
Logged
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #38 on: November 21, 2003, 12:30:23 PM »

Yes, Mor...as I have heard there were leaders of three non-Christian sects to come from one county in upstate NY.  Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell(founder of the JWs), and another whose name escapes me.  

Bozo the Clown. Or was it Curly Joe?
« Last Edit: November 21, 2003, 12:31:13 PM by TomS » Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #39 on: November 21, 2003, 06:04:32 PM »

Yes, Mor...as I have heard there were leaders of three non-Christian sects to come from one county in upstate NY.  Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell(founder of the JWs), and another whose name escapes me.  

Bozo the Clown. Or was it Curly Joe?

Luther looked a little bit like the real Curly (whose name was Jerome Horwitz) but with hair kind of like Moe's.

But, of course, Luther wasn't from upstate NY.

He was from New Jersey . . . wasn't he?  Grin
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #40 on: November 21, 2003, 07:58:20 PM »

Quote
Since the Lord's covenant with David was called the Davidic Covenant, does that make Mormonism, as the message conveyed to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni,

the Moronic Covenant ?

And, since it was the religion delivered to man by the angel Moroni, could it not also be said to be a

Moronic Religion ?
Quote


 Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin !!!!!
Logged
Karamazov
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 280


WWW
« Reply #41 on: November 21, 2003, 08:00:13 PM »

I think Moronikos could best address this one! Cheesy
« Last Edit: November 21, 2003, 08:00:31 PM by Karamazov » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,757


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #42 on: November 24, 2003, 03:39:59 PM »

Luther from Jersey...I like that one!
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #43 on: November 24, 2003, 04:00:05 PM »

Luther from Jersey...I like that one!

Yeah.

I think he used to play bass for Bruce Springsteen and did some studio work with Bon Jovi.

He tried to get into Kiss but didn't look good in the make-up and leather.

Last seen touring with Twisted Sister.

Have I left out any famous bands from Jersey?

 Grin
« Last Edit: November 25, 2003, 03:28:03 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Lt
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #44 on: April 25, 2005, 05:07:38 PM »



Yeah.

I think he used to play bass for Bruce Springsteen and did some studio work with Bon Jovi.

He tried to get into Kiss but didn't look good in the make-up and leather.

Last seen touring with Twisted Sister.

Have I left out any famous bands from Jersey?

 Grin

This entire discussion is a joke. You don't have to accept LDS or the SDA churches if you don't want to, but don't sit here and mock their entire beliefs. This is actually acting contrary to Christianity, but also common sense.
Also, as a devout Lutheran, I would appreciate you not making any comments about Martin Luther or anything else that will come from your uninformed and blissfully ignorant little minds. It seems to me as if you people have to insult every other religion and especially every Protestant denomination claiming we are all heretics and morons, and never give any examples of how we are not the one true church ourselves.
It is inherently clear that Orthodox Christians, at least all that I have heard or read, are hell-bent on mocking other religions. DO I accept Mormonism? Obviously not!!! Do I sit here and mock their beliefs, being uninformed and ignorant? Not a chance. THat is non-Christian. That's like saying "Hey you're Muslim? You will rot in hell!! Want to come to church with me?" It seems like the goal of Orthodox in general is to mock other beliefs to make their own ignorant and insecure members feel special.
Why would anyone possibly convert to Orthodoxy when all they do is hear and read discussions mocking orther people? Even Mormons would think this is ridiculous.
Logged
Tags:
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 0.155 seconds with 72 queries.