Baptism

Originally posted by epic0002
Methodism is a group of historically related denominations of Protestant Christianity. The Methodist movement traces its origin to the evangelistic teaching of John Wesley. It originated in 18th century Britain, and through vigorous missionary .... BLAH BLAH BLAH ...Anglican liturgy and traditi... In 2006 Methodism claimed some seventy-five million members ...[text shortened]... E 75 MILLION IDIOTS THAT PUT THEIR FAITH IN a man named JOHN WESLEY according to the encylopedia

The modern evangelical movement has John Wesley to thank for its origins. Wesley was a pioneer in preaching to the poor and working classes. His sermons against the vices of drink, gambling etc.. are required reading in most seminarys. The Weslyan quadrilateral is the most innovative theological thinking since Martin Luther.

Modern Methodist' are decendant of 2 groups, the Methodist Episcopalians, and the United Brotherhood. Modern evangelicals deride Methodists because we use reason and experience(2 legs of Weslyan quadrilateral) as a way of examining what we believe.

Originally posted by serigado
They sound a LOT more advanced then your obsolete thinkings and beliefs.

Touche! Thank YOU ! And Epic---keep babbling.

Originally posted by epic0002
it sounds like your babbling is a mix of everything you havnt learned all your life😕

It sounds like I learned one thing you were never even exposed to--manners.

Originally posted by duecer
The modern evangelical movement has John Wesley to thank for its origins. Wesley was a pioneer in preaching to the poor and working classes. His sermons against the vices of drink, gambling etc.. are required reading in most seminarys. The Weslyan quadrilateral is the most innovative theological thinking since Martin Luther.

Modern Methodist' are decendant ...[text shortened]... e reason and experience(2 legs of Weslyan quadrilateral) as a way of examining what we believe.

Boy am I glad Ol John boy was born... I guess people didnt know what to do about religion for the 1800 years between Christ and the holy John Wesley.

Originally posted by epic0002
Boy am I glad Ol John boy was born... I guess people didnt know what to do about religion for the 1800 years between Christ and the holy John Wesley.

The only major world religion that has yet to go through a reformation is Islam. The point here is self explanatory.
Christianity has gone through many major and minor reformations. From St. Augustine to Martin Luther, and yes, even John Wesley. Even if you can't recognize it, his contributions have had as much impact on Christianity as Kant, or Luther, or St. Francis of Assisi.

Originally posted by duecer
The only major world religion that has yet to go through a reformation is Islam. The point here is self explanatory.
Christianity has gone through many major and minor reformations. From St. Augustine to Martin Luther, and yes, even John Wesley. Even if you can't recognize it, his contributions have had as much impact on Christianity as Kant, or Luther, or St. Francis of Assisi.

not an impact on Christianity... an impact on Wesleyism, Lutherism, and all hail the Pope.. someone needs to take that luny out.

Originally posted by duecer
The only major world religion that has yet to go through a reformation is Islam. The point here is self explanatory.
Christianity has gone through many major and minor reformations. From St. Augustine to Martin Luther, and yes, even John Wesley. Even if you can't recognize it, his contributions have had as much impact on Christianity as Kant, or Luther, or St. Francis of Assisi.

I was a United Methodist for a long time, and I'm like most others in that we don't know the first thing about John Wesley--except that he was a historical figure, obviously instrumental in the early Meth. Church, and he wrote some hymns (or was that Charles?). And we don't WANT to know. The point is, one doesn't have to know a bloody thing about the church fathers, nor care to know, in order to embrace the beliefs of the denomination. Constantine was big in the early Christianity, but I don't want to study his life and contributions either.

Originally posted by epic0002
not an impact on Christianity... an impact on Wesleyism, Lutherism, and all hail the Pope.. someone needs to take that luny out.

What does the Pope have to do with this thread? Do you just type random thoughts that come into your head?

For 1600-1800 years there were no Biblical literalists. Luther’s Reformation had nothing to do with Eastern Orthodox Christianity, but was strictly vis-à-vis Rome. Tradition includes the determination of the Biblical canon by the church (the church, of course, precedes NT scripture: Paul’s letters were written to established churches), as well as the teachings of the post-apostolic fathers, who were not afraid to use reason.

The only “lateral” that Wesley added to the Anglican view is apparently “experience”—which may have come from his pietistic sensibility. (At least, I learned the other three when I was Episcopalian.)

For 1600-1800 years there were no Biblical literalists.----I hardley think that's true, and would be very hard to prove on your part.

As for the rest of your arguments, correct Luthers reformation had nothing to do with Eastern Orthodoxy, but that does not mean that they havn't been affected by it.

Secondly correct (sort of), the church(catholic[means universal]) has decided what is included in the cannon, unfortunately we no longer use the latin vulgate, or the books of the apocrypha, which all serious biblical scholars deem important enough to studied. They arrived at this through reason and experience.

While Paul et al were not afraid to use reason, the church for 1700 years suppressed scientific thought based on reason, so reason is a fairly new phenominom in the church. I hardly think the Inquisition had anything to do with reason, or perhaps Gallileao might be a better example.

Experience has taught us to approach new subjects, and new social paradims with open minds. It would be foolish to ignore the mistakes of history, or worse to repeat them.

Originally posted by duecer
For 1600-1800 years there were no Biblical literalists.----I hardley think that's true, and would be very hard to prove on your part.

As for the rest of your arguments, correct Luthers reformation had nothing to do with Eastern Orthodoxy, but that does not mean that they havn't been affected by it.

Secondly correct (sort of), the church(catholic[means u ...[text shortened]... th open minds. It would be foolish to ignore the mistakes of history, or worse to repeat them.

For 1600-1800 years there were no Biblical literalists.----I hardley think that's true, and would be very hard to prove on your part.

Well, yes: that was a far too sweeping a statement on my part. If you read in the history of church doctrine, though, it’s pretty clear that—

(1) Biblical literalism as a doctrinal position did not develop until after Luther’s sola scriptura, perhaps not being fully-formed until the late 18th/early 19th century (I don’t think there are any “smoking gun” dates; Jaroslav Pelikan seems to have it developing from the 17th to the early 19th centuries). As such, it really is a Protestant phenomenon.

(2) Although various early church writers understood various differing portions of the Biblical texts as literal/historical, more allegorical interpretation was the norm. And taking some things historically/literally does not a wholesale literalist make.

(3) On the “flip-side” of all that are the various critical approaches to exegesis (form criticism, historical criticism, literary criticism) that also seem to have developed mostly from “Protestant soil.”

As for the rest of your arguments, correct Luther’s reformation had nothing to do with Eastern Orthodoxy, but that does not mean that they haven’t been affected by it.

I don’t think they have been doctrinally affected much at all. It’s hard to say because Orthodoxy was kind of the “forgotten Christianity” (I forget whose phrase that is) in much of the West until the 20th century. Now, however, it’s a different story. Also, having recently read some Orthodox writers on exegesis/hermeneutics, it’s apparent they are now being affected by the “critical exegesis” mentioned above, grappling with how that fits into the tradition.

While Paul et al were not afraid to use reason, the church for 1700 years suppressed scientific thought based on reason, so reason is a fairly new phenomenon in the church. I hardly think the Inquisition had anything to do with reason, or perhaps Galileo might be a better example.

Again, while I don’t necessarily disagree with what you’re saying, if you take the Patristic age to go until circa 600 CE, then the use of reason is certainly a strong feature of the Greek influence on Christianity. And again, I’m not sure how different things after that were in the East versus the West. I would say that reason was a “recovered” phenomenon. (I have to add that I grew up Lutheran—ELCA—and never heard reason mentioned as a “pillar of faith” until I became an Episcopalian.)

Experience has taught us to approach new subjects, and new social paradigms with open minds. It would be foolish to ignore the mistakes of history, or worse to repeat them.

No doubt.

BTW, I wasn’t intending to dis Wesley in any way with my “lateral” comment; I certainly agree with the addition of experience.

EDIT: I don't mean to harp on this, but the Latin Vulgate was--well, Latin. What has really been lost is the Greek (by the Great Schism of 1054, few Western theologians read Greek any more and few Greeks read any Latin). Similarly for Hebrew, at least in the East, where the LXX was/is used pretty exclusively. The languages make a difference.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I was a United Methodist for a long time, and I'm like most others in that we don't know the first thing about John Wesley--except that he was a historical figure, obviously instrumental in the early Meth. Church, and he wrote some hymns (or was that Charles?). And we don't WANT to know. The point is, one doesn't have to know a bloody thing about the chu ...[text shortened]... big in the early Christianity, but I don't want to study his life and contributions either.

METH church is right😵

there you go Pink Puss.. I admitted it😉

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]For 1600-1800 years there were no Biblical literalists.----I hardley think that's true, and would be very hard to prove on your part.

Well, yes: that was a far too sweeping a statement on my part. If you read in the history of church doctrine, though, it’s pretty clear that—

(1) Biblical literalism as a doctrinal position did not develop unti ...[text shortened]... t in the East, where the LXX was/is used pretty exclusively. The languages make a difference.[/b]

I agree that reason is a recovered pillar, and your points are very persausive

Originally posted by duecer
I agree that reason is a recovered pillar, and your points are very persausive

Just so you know that I respect your thinking; and you were right to call me on my over-generalization.

I am no longer a Christian, so perhaps it was a bit presumptuous of me to jump in. It’s just that not too long ago I was doing my own research into the history of church doctrine, and reading a lot in the Orthodox tradition. It just turns out not to be quite so straightforward as the Protestants-versus-Rome viewpoint that I grew up with. And I think that Western Protestantism could gain a lot (without relinquishing it’s own positive accomplishments) by exploring the Eastern—particularly Greek—Orthodox tradition.

Since you’re interested in this stuff, I might recommend Jaroslav Pelikan’s 5-volume History of Church Doctrine. (I’ve read volumes 1, 2, and most of 5; 3 is the medieval period; 4 is the Reformation period.)

If I were still in the Christian camp, whatever differences you and I might have would likely pale compared to our agreements...

Be well.

Originally posted by epic0002
METH church is right😵

there you go Pink Puss.. I admitted it😉

Just what did you admit to, Mr. Dingleberry Hunter? I wasn't debating whether or not the UMC is right or wrong. I am simply stating that you are a rude, crass, malevolent individual who must have had no proper home training...over, and over, and over...on thread, after thread, after thread....