Christianity In The USA

Hermetic Seal said:
(in this case, money/stability of employment by being a highly-paid megachurch worship band staff member instead of the flux of touring musician.) This, in turn, made evangelical culture more averse to taking stances that could hurt the flow of cash, and more eager to embrace the "business growth" of new "customers" outside the traditional clientele.
Click to expand...
This is pretty much the bottom line:
"For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. And some people, craving money, have wandered from the true faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows." The prosperity "your best life now" gospel was previously the domain of certain more extreme charismatic churches, but now seems to be commonplace in many mainstream Baptist and non-denominational type circles. Even my brother, who was a pastor for many years, left the ministry in search of more money/financial security. His wife had frequently done female counseling in his churches, but suddenly decided she wanted to get paid top dollar for it (many of the people were poor), rather than continuing to do so out of love and Christian service. Their older teenage son had felt called to be a missionary, but they successfully dissuaded him from doing so on the basis of "money is where it's at" parental advice. Sad state of affairs.
 
Many of the issues in modern Christianity are the result of Sola Scriptura.

I've literally heard people explain that when Saint Paul refers to homosexuals he means something like "male prostitutes" rather than people in a loving same sex relationship. Whilst I fully accept that it is a stretch to reach such conclusions from a plain reading of the text. Sola Scriptura leaves the door open to these kind of interpretive gymnastics, and all the people who disagree with it from within can really say is "you're intepreting it wrong." Who gets to decide?

The answer is the individual, ultimately, and that is why you get pride flags in churches.
 
Lawrence87 said:
Many of the issues in modern Christianity are the result of Sola Scriptura.

I've literally heard people explain that when Saint Paul refers to homosexuals he means something like "male prostitutes" rather than people in a loving same sex relationship. Whilst I fully accept that it is a stretch to reach such conclusions from a plain reading of the text. Sola Scriptura leaves the door open to these kind of interpretive gymnastics, and all the people who disagree with it from within can really say is "you're intepreting it wrong." Who gets to decide?

The answer is the individual, ultimately, and that is why you get pride flags in churches.
Click to expand...
Since Zwingli started using the term 'Sola Scriptura' in the early 1500's no mainstream Christian church has interpreted scripture to condone homosexuality except for fringe cases in modern times. The meaning of the term from the reformers perspective is that in matters of doctrine, the teaching of the scriptures supersedes the teaching of the church and\or it's traditions when differences arise. Ultimately the Holy Spirit leads a chosen believer to the truth and to a traditional Christian church that doesn't believe in such nonsense ('male prostitutes'). The damned will of course make up false churches and doctrine as has been the case since the first century; heretics and heresy has abounded from the beginning of Church history and will continue to do so until the end (or perhaps post millenialism is true and that won't happen) but His sheep will avoid such evil.
 
Lawrence87 said:
Many of the issues in modern Christianity are the result of Sola Scriptura.

I've literally heard people explain that when Saint Paul refers to homosexuals he means something like "male prostitutes" rather than people in a loving same sex relationship. Whilst I fully accept that it is a stretch to reach such conclusions from a plain reading of the text. Sola Scriptura leaves the door open to these kind of interpretive gymnastics, and all the people who disagree with it from within can really say is "you're intepreting it wrong." Who gets to decide?

The answer is the individual, ultimately, and that is why you get pride flags in churches.
Click to expand...

I have been sort of mentoring a guy for a long time that insists on his own personal interpretation of Scripture, and will twist and mutilate anything he finds in the Bible to meet his preconceived ideas, especially about sex. He is single and has been trying to convince me that all the Bible verses about fornication, keeping your body holy, etc. are only referring to "bad" forms of sexuality, like homosexuality, pedos, beastiality, etc. He is very quick to vociferously condemn them, but says "normal premarital sex" is fine, and that we just don't understand what the Bible really says (but he has it figured out now). He even went so far as to announce that all English Bible translations have errors, so none of them can be trusted. He sends me verse after verse, twisting them and taking them out of context. He won't listen to anything the Church Fathers or Saints have said, because "it's not in the Bible". It makes me insane trying to reason with him. He won't join any church either, regardless of denomination, because he says it's good enough to pray to Jesus privately at home. This is what "sola scriptura" has wrought: total loss of objective truth and or a sacramental view of life in Christ.
 
Last edited:
My 2 cents on some of the decline in church attendance and decline of Boomer Christianity (evangelical).

1. Excessive altar calls. In the early 2000s I attended Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. We had to go to church service every Sunday and 3 chapel services on Mon, Wed, Fri. At the end of every service, all year long, every year, the pastor conducted an altar call with accompanying sappy music. He often used phrases like "do you know that you know if you died tonight you'd be in heaven". I heard of people going up a few times, because, hey, were you really sincere that last time you said the Jesus Prayer? Well, I've been living like a Christian, trying to follow His commandments, etc. Ah! Ah! Ah! That's works bro, that's works.

It didn't take long for me to sour on the Jesus Saves message. I suspect it didn't take long for others, either. Then it dawns on you, why am I listening to all of these sermons if all that matters is the altar call? If I've altar called a few times, and I'm saved, what's the purpose of church? I guess to keep the altar call cycle going. But then let's do the altar call, a quick baptism station and be done with it. Can you spare a minute to get saved? We'll give you a free towel with the Star of David on it. The altar call cheapened church to the point where it's superfluous (the church). If Christians aren't attending church it's because there is, quite reasonably, no reason to do so. You believe, you're saved by grace, now go on and have a blessed day and don't come back now unless you're ready to tithe.

2. Debating atheists. A lot of boomer Christians got caught up in the (((atheism))) debates. By trying so hard to get people to believe God exists, Christianity and living a life for Christ is completely overshadowed. Now the debate is on the age of the earth, the efficacy of science, philosophical problems like the problem of evil or suffering, and examining the historical-critical interpretation of the Bible, the historical method, historical evidence, semantic debates, and on and on. I got caught up in this and felt, "well, what's the point in the rest of it if you don't even believe God exists?" But now we know what the point of the rest of was because of how foul and corrupted our culture has become with the woke and Clown World stuff going on.

I think the 'once saved, always saved' stuff has failed. It didn't conserve our society and culture or even Christianity and so American Protestantism begins to decline. Focusing on whether or not God exists moved the goalposts so far away people even lost power over pronouns. The culture has become clearly demonic, meaning there must also be an opposite, which isn't just what's traditional, but what's Christian. And yet that seems lost, which is why I'm an orthodox inquirer, because I had never heard of theosis (and apparently neither has (((spellcheck))) ) before, I figure there has to be something beyond the simple salvation prayer stuff, which is a recent invention anyway, and that one has to do some kind of work or put in effort into their faith.

I will close with a small anecdote proving this point where some Christian guy produced his own movies. One of them was a movie where he, known as Gramps, goes to college. This was 2000s era. The premise of the movie is how this good Christian man is stunned by the sinfulness of the students and the college. It should be really good with a lot of great points being made all over the place, the field is ripe for threshing, or so I thought. The film quickly degenerated into where gramps debates a science professor who is teaching evolution. The whole thing becomes about this debate and how science is undermining Christianity. I think a lot of good people were duped into having that debate and it helped maintain a lukewarm Christian church.
 
Aloha said:
Since Zwingli started using the term 'Sola Scriptura' in the early 1500's no mainstream Christian church has interpreted scripture to condone homosexuality except for fringe cases in modern times. The meaning of the term from the reformers perspective is that in matters of doctrine, the teaching of the scriptures supersedes the teaching of the church and\or it's traditions when differences arise. Ultimately the Holy Spirit leads a chosen believer to the truth and to a traditional Christian church that doesn't believe in such nonsense ('male prostitutes'). The damned will of course make up false churches and doctrine as has been the case since the first century; heretics and heresy has abounded from the beginning of Church history and will continue to do so until the end (or perhaps post millenialism is true and that won't happen) but His sheep will avoid such evil.
Click to expand...
"No one has ever interpreted the Scripture in that way" is an appeal to tradition. So in that instance someone might say "I don't care about the traditions of men, the Holy Spirit led me to this conclusion."

When saying "Reformers never interpreted it that way..." you tacitly acknowledge the necessity for a traditional interpretive framework. In other words Scripture is not sufficient in itself.
 
Last edited:
Lawrence87 said:
"No one has ever interpreted the Scripture in that way" is an appeal to tradition. So in that instance someone might say "I don't care about the traditions of men, the Holy Spirit led me to this conclusion."

When saying "Reformers never interpreted it that way..." you tacitly acknowledge the necessity for a traditional interpretive framework. In other words Scripture is not sufficient in itself.
Click to expand...
Except the Scriptures say they are sufficient. It's not the fault of the Bible if a church apostatizes.
 
Lawrence87 said:
If two people read the same passage and interpret it differently and it is not unambiguous as to who is correct, how do you determine which person is interpreting accurately?
Click to expand...
You don't do it by reading the passage in light of a medieval tradition that was unknown to the Apostles.

"My church says so" does nothing to tell us what the intention of the original Author is.
 
I believe the church must define what scripture teaches but individuals must use their own logic and reasoning when they read it to truly digest it- not to come up with their own crazy doctrines but to understand the message and themes of individual books and how they fit in with scripture as a whole.

The church interprets the Bible and sets doctrine but individuals must be fully engaged mentally and spiritually when they read it for themselves.
 
GodfatherPartTwo said:
The same way you interpret whatever dogmas your church tells you to believe. By assuming words have meaning, and applying a historical-grammatical hermeneutic to the text.
Click to expand...
Ok but I am asking about if two people are doing that within their understanding of those things. Both people read the same passage, both interpret it in a straightforward sense, both feel equally convinced that the Holy Spirit guided them to their understanding but they come to a different conclusion.

For example why did Christ curse the fig tree? It's not really straightforwardly apparent in the text itself, and people have puzzled over this through the ages. There is a great deal of double meaning, cross reference, and symbolism etc in the Biblical text. And it is clear that agreement is not the outcome of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, considering how the church has fractured and continues to fracture since it's advent. It's a complicated book and it doesn't interpret itself.
 
Lawrence87 said:
Ok but I am asking about if two people are doing that within their understanding of those things. Both people read the same passage, both interpret it in a straightforward sense, both feel equally convinced that the Holy Spirit guided them to their understanding but they come to a different conclusion.
Click to expand...
God will be the one who judges that. I can't force someone to my interpretation. If they won't follow the Bible then there's nothing I can do for them.

Lawrence87 said:
For example why did Christ curse the fig tree? It's not really straightforwardly apparent in the text itself, and people have puzzled over this through the ages. There is a great deal of double meaning, cross reference, and symbolism etc in the Biblical text. And it is clear that agreement is not the outcome of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, considering how the church has fractured and continues to fracture since it's advent. It's a complicated book and it doesn't interpret itself.
Click to expand...
By that same logic, it's clear that agreement is not the outcome of the Orthodox Church. You believe all the Church Fathers were Orthodox, yes? And how many different interpretations did they have? Yet you wont agree with them when the majority of them said that the Scriptures are perspicuous, able to be understood.
 
GodfatherPartTwo said:
God will be the one who judges that. I can't force someone to my interpretation. If they won't follow the Bible then there's nothing I can do for them.
Click to expand...
You've just equated your interpretation with the Bible there. Which anyone else can do as well.

By that same logic, it's clear that agreement is not the outcome of the Orthodox Church. You believe all the Church Fathers were Orthodox, yes? And how many different interpretations did they have? Yet you wont agree with them when the majority of them said that the Scriptures are perspicuous, able to be understood.
Click to expand...
The standard is not that we must have one view/interpretation on every subject under the sun. On some topics there may be a range of acceptable interpratations or some Father may have been wrong. But any casual observer can't help but notice that the Orthodox have a very consistent understanding of what the Scriptures teach, what the Church is, what the Sacraments are, what the Creed is, what the ascetic life looks etc.
 
Christos_NIKA said:
I have been sort of mentoring a guy for a long time that insists on his own personal interpretation of Scripture, and will twist and mutilate anything he finds in the Bible to meet his preconceived ideas, especially about sex. He is single and has been trying to convince me that all the Bible verses about fornication, keeping your body holy, etc. are only referring to "bad" forms of sexuality, like homosexuality, pedos, beastiality, etc. He is very quick to vociferously condemn them, but says "normal premarital sex" is fine, and that we just don't understand what the Bible really says (but he has it figured out now). He even went so far as to announce that all English Bible translations have errors, so none of them can be trusted. He sends me verse after verse, twisting them and taking them out of context. He won't listen to anything the Church Fathers or Saints have said, because "it's not in the Bible". It makes me insane trying to reason with him. He won't join any church either, regardless of denomination, because he says it's good enough to pray to Jesus privately at home. This is what "sola scriptura" has wrought: total loss of objective truth and or a sacramental view of life in Christ.
Click to expand...
Since he refuses to listen to any English translation, tell him to look up what  porneia means. Then ask him if he, a  pornoi, will inherit the Kingdom of God according to 1 Corinthians 6:9.

If he refuses to repent, the deficiency is in him, not in the Bible.
 
OrthoSerb said:
But any casual observer can't help but notice that the Orthodox have a very consistent understanding of what the Scriptures teach, what the Church is, what the Sacraments are, what the Creed is, what the ascetic life looks etc.
Click to expand...
The same can be said for anyone who identifies themselves by the Five Solae, or anyone who identifies themselves by the Bishop of Rome.
 
GodfatherPartTwo said:
God will be the one who judges that. I can't force someone to my interpretation. If they won't follow the Bible then there's nothing I can do for them.
Click to expand...
This is what it comes down to, each individual thinks that their interpretation is the accurate way of "following the Bible" You can say they are wrong and they can say you're wrong...

GodfatherPartTwo said:
By that same logic, it's clear that agreement is not the outcome of the Orthodox Church. You believe all the Church Fathers were Orthodox, yes? And how many different interpretations did they have? Yet you wont agree with them when the majority of them said that the Scriptures are perspicuous, able to be understood.
Click to expand...
Orthodox doctrine is based upon Patristic consensus, which by and large agrees. It is also true that the same Scripture can have different meanings that are expounded by different Church Fathers, that are not mutually exclusive. The Scriptures are able to be understood within the framework of the Church.

When you remove it from that context, it doesn't really matter about your interpretation. If a church wants to interpret or explain away Bible verses so that they can have faggots leading their services and pride flags on the walls. What can you do? Other than be like "I don't agree with them!" The Orthodox church has a means of assuring that stuff like this doesn't fly. Priests get disciplined, people get excommunicated and so forth. In Reformed churches all you can do is be like 'I don't agree with that church' and go to a different one, or end up not going to one because you can't find one that you agree with or whatever. But there is no mechanism to prevent this rot, and it exists because people can essentially interpret the Bible however they please and if people like what they say enough they have themselves a church and there's nothing anyone can do about it, other than lament at the state of modern Christianity.
 
Lawrence87 said:
If a church wants to interpret or explain away Bible verses so that they can have faggots leading their services and pride flags on the walls. What can you do? Other than be like "I don't agree with them!" The Orthodox church has a means of assuring that stuff like this doesn't fly. Priests get disciplined, people get excommunicated and so forth. In Reformed churches all you can do is be like 'I don't agree with that church' and go to a different one, or end up not going to one because you can't find one that you agree with or whatever. But there is no mechanism to prevent this rot, and it exists because people can essentially interpret the Bible however they please and if people like what they say enough they have themselves a church and there's nothing anyone can do about it, other than lament at the state of modern Christianity.
Click to expand...
Church discipline has been a feature in every Reformed church from the beginning. It is a Biblical precept. What you are complaining about is not something that you can prevent either. If someone doesn't like your church's teaching, they will leave and start a new one. Does that mean your church is to blame for the apostasy? Likewise, the Bible is not to blame for any apostate, whether they be individuals or churches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top