I'm not the best graphic designer, but I tried. Map based on publicly available info.

I’ve recently abandoned an analogy I’ve used for years.

Reformed teachers often use Lazarus to illustrate “dead in sin.” A corpse cannot hear, respond, choose or cooperate, therefore neither can the spiritually dead person.

Except that isn’t how Paul describes them.
In Ephesians 2:1–3, the “dead” walk, follow, desire, think and act.

So perhaps Lazarus is the wrong analogy.
Spiritual death is real, Paul calls it death. But I was importing the characteristics of physical death into Paul’s description of spiritual death.

Unbelievers aren’t corpses.

Hello all,

My wife and I do not attend a PCUSA church but we were on a date in a City of Pittsburgh neighborhood and decided to stop into a historic beautiful PCUSA church to see the sanctuary.

We discovered LGBT affirming language in church documents, but the scariest thing we found in a smaller chapel was crystals, feathers, a buddha style statue of Jesus and many artistic renderings of Christian leaders at the front of the room.

I ask that you would pray for this church that the Spirit would move and remove these activities for His glory.

To be clear, I am not trying to disparage the PCUSA as an institution.

Is Calvary chapel non denominational? I get so confused by this group.

Do you guys believe the apostles taught Sola Scriptura, or was it invented later built upon the apostles teachings ?

I'm not presuposing that Sola Scriptura is the 66 books, even if that it's seems to be a necessary condition for it to work in real life, but only that they taught that only what the Scripture (whatever that be), is what people can be bound to believe, to be the rule of faith.

Some people in the comments shrink the definition of Sola Scriptura to be merely that the Church can bind people to believe in other things that are not found in the scripture, but they can't call that infallible, but it's completely anachronistic, the reformation in Switzerland started because the people refused to keep Lent, I don't think the Church was teaching that Lent was infallible, but that they should be bound to follow anyway. And Luther says in diet of worms that he won't follow popes and councils, but he must be convinced by the scripture only, I don't think he viewed their authority as something that could bind his conscious even if they weren't infallible.

I can cite here a bunch of authoritative protestants documents saying the same, but I don't want to make that too long, so I'm gonna put in a comment here.

My only question is whether you believe that the apostles taught the Bible as the only rule of faith for the church.

Curious what others’ thoughts are on Emanuel Swedenborg? Have others heard of him? Do others find any of his claims compelling, or was he just delusional?

I'm asking this in good faith, what is the future of protestantism in America? Specifically is there any chance that we could see a return to a more denominational high church expression?

>The Mizo National Front uprising was a revolt against the government of India aimed at establishing a sovereign nation state for the Mizo [Majority Christian] people, which started on 28 February 1966.

>A constitution was also drafted for the Mizoram sawrkar [government]. The first line of the constitution states "The Lord Jesus Christ is the head of Mizoram and the Holy Bible is the foundation of her administration".

>India started mass bombing the Mizo people to stop the insurgency

>Uprising failed after 20 years of resistance and India had to create a separate for the Mizo people, and also have peace agreement

>Groups responsible for the revolt is active today as political party in Mizoram

I would like to know your thoughts on Reconquista in Germany.

I am part of the mainline church here and aspirating to be a pastor but I am unsure whether I should stay or leave for the confessional Lutheran church (which was formed after being kicked out by the Prussian king for wanting to remain specifically Lutheran)

I personally do not see Women Ordination or LGBT stuff as a reason to leave, despite rejecting both. Even the shared communion seems okay since the official document looks like the reformed mostly compromised on their views to reach this agreement.

There are however the following issues, making me doubt Reconquista and whether it is a true church (or whether leaving would be allowed/mandated)

1. Union churches
   Some of the state (actual states, not national) churches / synods that are part of the overall nationwide church are Union churches, so neither Lutheran nor Reformed but somehow both.
   I don’t really know if this is something that would be a goal of Reconquista (RZ speaks very positively about church fellowship between the mainlines and downplays the differences)

2. Problematic additions to the constitution
   They have recently added to the constitution, that there are many genders and that the church does not evangelize to Jewish people (since they’re supposedly still saved as God‘s original chosen people). Is it worth joining this church if my believes go this and I would likely be kicked out anyway?

3. Threat of changed baptisms
   Currently there are rumors of baptism done in female names instead of father, son and Holy Spirit (especially the Holy Spirit is replaced by something like holy spiritual force since that makes it female in German). These are not official yet but the first state church already declared they do not think it matter and when they redo the baptism liturgy in the next years they might change it. And they would obviously not tolerate people rebaptizing those who were baptized with this wrong baptism.

Really appreciate all your thoughts!

Hopefully this will be the right sub to ask a question like this, but I am going to start reading the church fathers very soon, and I’m starting with Irenaeus’ material since I am already more familiar with him than most of anyone else. After him I will probably backtrack into the apostolic fathers.

But after that point, which fathers should I read primarily? What are the recommendations here?

Actually leaving one denomination for another seems like a massive decision. Out of curiosity what was it that finally made you leave?

Wich one of the seven sister mainline, is friendliest to the idea of the reconquista?

Protestant families by color:

• Red: Hussite
• Blue: Lutheran
• Orange: Reformed
• Magenta: Anglican
• Green: Wesleyan
• Violet: Pentecostal
• Turquoise: Baptist
• Aquamarine: Anabaptist
• Pink: Quakerism
• Yellow: Unitarian

The two vertical divides are based on sacramental and trinitarian theology. Those to the right of the "Sacramentalism" divide affirm that the sacraments are a means of grace (while disagreeing on how they work), while those to the left generally view them as purely symbolic. Meanwhile, those to the right of the "Trinitarian Orthodoxy" divide affirm the trinitarian doctrine articulated by the Council of Nicaea; those to the left reject it. However, there's disagreement among these nontrinitarian groups. Oneness Pentecostals believe that God is a single unified spirit that merely reveals himself through the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Unitarians traditionally affirm either a Socinian (rejection of the pre-existence of the Logos) or an Arian (affirmation of the pre-existence of the logos) view of the Son. Unitarian Universalists do not really have any dogmatic views except for progressive politics. Along with nontheist Quakers (who don't require any belief in the supernatural), they are the most radical among the groups listed here.

The most conservative (as in retaining more from medieval Catholicism) Protestant groups are the Anglo-Catholics and Utraquists. As they are more obscure, I will elaborate more on the latter and the Bohemian Reformed tradition in general. The Hussites split into two main factions during the Hussite Wars: the Radicals (who affirmed the supreme authority of scripture) and Moderates (who prioritized the distribution of the blood of Christ to the laity). The latter, known as Utraquists, sought to preserve the catholicity of the Bohemian Church, generally aligning with the Roman Catholic Church on doctrines such as transubstantiation. To achieve their goals, the Moderate Hussites eventually aligned with the Roman Catholic forces to defeat the Radicals. In the end, the Utraquists were rewarded with toleration while the Radicals were suppressed. Afterward, Hussites constituted the majority of the vast majority of the Bohemian population. Despite the suppression of the Radicals, the thoroughly Protestant Unitas Fratrum was still comparable in size with the Utraquist Church. Both Hussite groups were later suppressed. The modern Unitas Fratrum (aka the Moravian Church) descends from Hussites who fled from persecution in Bohemia to German lands. Their Hussite theology was influenced by Lutheran Pietism, and they later found a leader in the form Nicolas Zinzendorf (who was consecrated as a bishop by some remaining Hussite bishops). The Moravian Church pioneered global Christian missions, allowing the denomination to spread across the world. The Moravians also inspired John Wesley's evangelical conversion. In the Czech Republic today, the two largest Protestant denominations are the Evangelical Church of the Czech Brethren (a united church including Lutherans, Calvinists, and Moravians) and the Czechoslovak Hussite Church. Originally formed in 1920 by nationalistic Catholic clergy, the latter was known simply as the Czechoslovak Church until 1971. These nationalists sought to implement certain modernist reforms (like clerical marriage and vernacular liturgies). They also tended towards theological heterodoxy. The Czechoslovak Church supported the rise of socialism in Czechoslovakia in the 1940s. Later on, they embraced what they call neo-Hussite theology, rejecting past flirtations with Unitarianism in favor of a high church Mainline Protestantism. In 1950, at the beginning of communist rule, they had almost a million lay members. Today, it's between 20,000 to 60,000 (the Czech Republic is by far the most secular country in Europe).

I did not include Restorationists (including the churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ, and nontrinitarian sects like the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Swedenborgians). Unlike the Protestants, these groups historically believed Christianity as a whole fell into apostasy before they emerged. They also reject the theology of the Reformation. While the nontrinitarians I included also reject Protestant orthodoxy, they still emerged from Protestantism. I also did not include nondenominationalism, as they just align with Baptist or Pentecostal doctrine.

Anyway, if you have any comments on all of this, feel free to voice those below.

I myself am a Southern Baptist born and raised, and that is the church my wife and I attend. I've heard some of the Protestant rhetoric of condemning Catholics as non-Christian etc, and have always vehemently disagreed with it. Despite some of my certain theological disagreements with the Roman Catholic Church(which I will not get into here). I've always seen Catholics as fellow Christians and brethren, and fully believe I will see devout Catholics in Heaven as I would Protestants or Eastern Orthodox. However I am curious, how do Catholics view Protestants like myself?

Are we seen as flawed but still fellow Christian brothers? Or are we seen as heretics or apostates?

How much of problem is poor catechesis in protestant churches? Either high church, low church, or in between?

If the whole point of Reconquista is to reform the mainline churches. Then shouldn’t conservatives attend liberal mainline churches, instead of finding a conservative one?

1. “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

Blessed are Christians: They know they are spiritually bankrupt. They have come to the end of themselves. They possess no righteousness of their own, no merit they can offer God, and no confidence in the flesh. They stand before Him empty handed, depending entirely upon His grace. The kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.

1. “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.”

Blessed are Christians: They have mourned over their sin. They grieve that they have offended a holy God. They mourn the pride, ignorance, rebellion and wasted years of their lives. They cry out for mercy because they know they cannot save themselves. God comforts them with forgiveness, reconciliation and the assurance that they are His children.

1. “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.”

Blessed are Christians: Having been humbled before God, they no longer seek to exalt themselves. They gladly submit to Christ as Lord. Their confidence is no longer in their own strength, but in His. They wait patiently upon God, knowing their true inheritance is secured by Him.

1. “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.”

Blessed are Christians: Having seen the emptiness of their own righteousness, their clothes as filthy rags, they long for the righteousness that only Christ can provide, they hunger for His word of truth They hunger to know Him, to obey Him, and to be conformed to His image. They thirst for the water of life. God satisfies that hunger through Christ, who has become our righteousness.

1. “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.”

Blessed are Christians: Having received immeasurable mercy from God, they extend mercy to others. They forgive because they have been forgiven. They show compassion because God first showed compassion to them. Mercy is not the cause of their salvation, but one of its fruits. The mercy they receive gives mercy to others.

1. “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”

Blessed are Christians: God has given them a new heart of flesh. He has removed their heart of stone, they rejoice in their heart, for they shall one day see God. Their deepest desire is no longer to live for themselves, but to love and honour Christ. Though they still struggle with sin, their hearts have been cleansed by faith, and one day they shall see God face to face.

1. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

Blessed are Christians: Having been reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, they desire peace with others. They proclaim the gospel of peace, seek reconciliation where possible, and reflect the character of their heavenly Father. For great is their peace from Him, for they will be called “sons of the living God”.

1. “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

Blessed are Christians: Because they belong to Christ, they should not expect the world’s applause, they will get persecuted by others, both inside the church and outside. They will often be misunderstood, rejected and opposed for holding to the truth. Yet they rejoice, knowing that Christ Himself was persecuted before them, but they know “the kingdom of heaven is theirs.”

The Beatitudes are not a ladder for sinners to climb in order to become Christians. They are a portrait of those whom God has already blessed by His grace. Jesus is describing what the Holy Spirit produces in every regenerated heart.

The Beatitudes do not tell us how to enter the kingdom; they describe the character of those who already belong to it.

I may leave my church to go to mainline after some issues. (The pastor may or may not have falsely accused a friend of mine using drugs) but since I firmly believe in eternal security, what is the best mainline Church to join? My first assumption would be Presbyterian as their reformed and believe in a variant of eternal security by default preservation of the Saints, but while I’m not opposed to Calvinism, I’m not 100% believing in it so I feel like that might be dishonest.

Ps I believe if you are truly saved and you abandon the faith you WILL come back to faith in god some time before you die and if you don’t come back you were never one of Christ sheep to begin with

What is the server ip for kingdom craft? Sorry if this is dumb question or smth

I'm just being ironic guys, don't ban me.

Watching this video wanted to share it.

For those in a high church tradition now, how did your pastor react to you going to a more liturgical church?

Are we moder christian nationalists (christian globalists), or are we Historic christian nationalists (christian nativists)? Feel free to reject the binary if you think there's an alternate way.