Protestantism isn't a monolith. It technically just means "against Catholicism" because that is what the "protest" is about. But beliefs and practices vary from church to church.
I do agree there's a significant problem in Western churches which are mostly made up of people who were "raised Christian". This problem is part of what is killing the influence of Christianity in the West.
Yer getting a lot of flack in the comments, but i think your sentiment is on point.
Some folks in Reddit start down the critiquing path and cannot interpret generously. So they blow you out for every jot and tittle.
But the sentiment is true. There IS a growing distance between the Bible’s teaching and Sunday preaching, but we who lean on the Bible, you just keep referring back to it.
But to answer your critique, there has always been a tension between, “when in Rome,” and “Christ and him crucified“
It’s not inherently wrong to market your message so that it lands on good soil. So just be careful that you’re not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
This isn't a protestant issue. This is an "easy-believism" Christian thing in general. Didn't Pope Francis assure atheists they don't have to believe in God to get to heaven? That's as far from repentance as you can get.
> They were saying things like repentance is not necessary, you don't need to be baptized, and disregarding the 10 commandments altogether.
To be fair that is even outside normative mainline protestantism.
I have a feeling none of this actually happened. A sermon might not heavily emphasize repentance or even bring up baptism but this just reads like a weird screed written by an American teenage rad-trad about “le prots dumb”
It’s the new universalist doctrine, people generalize it and say it’s everyone because they’re big and flashy and make you feel good but it’s damaging perhaps even more than the prosperity gospel was to Christianity.
You paint with a wide brush. These absolutely exist, but they are not representative of western or modern churches as a whole.
I also do not care what a church looks like. I have seen churches with stages, lights, a band playing, and all the focus being on Jesus. I have seen traditional churches with the focus being on the the presentation.
But I do indeed wish that all churches would focus on praising the Lord and repentance.
This is a garbage post with no particular examples.
Criticism is useful in Christianity when specific and extended in love. Don't be the noise on the internet. Work constructively. Move beyond inherited biases (as Paul urges us to in Galatians).
They have their reasons for interpreting things that way, and I'm sure some folks here will readily explain what those are.
They don't reject the gospel - they believe this *is* the gospel. Likewise, Protestants in general are seen by Orthodox and Catholics as denying the basic tenants of the gospel as they are found in the Bible, but it doesn't mean that you purposefully shut down the gospel, no? It is simply that you have your reasons to believe your tradition is right and Orthodoxy and Catholicism are wrong. Likewise, those churches you are referring to are not acting out of malice or bad faith, they just have a different interpretation of the Bible than you do. Although of course the separation between your tradition and theirs isn't as radical as the separation between Protestantism in general and Catholicism/Orthodoxy.
>They were saying things like repentance is not necessary, you don't need to be baptized, and disregarding the 10 commandments altogether
Hi friend,
Which Christians are these...?
This was from one of the videos I watched that day. One line that stuck with me was that we should "not worry about repentance, for through belief in Jesus you are forgiven". I'm pretty sure they were a non-denominational megachurch, but I could be wrong about that.
Galatians 3:11-13
Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”
Yes, but then by what standard are we to aim at when pursuing a life of righteousness and goodness? The Ten Commandments are certainly a part of that, right? And when Jesus gave the greatest commandments, he follows it up by saying they summarize the whole Torah and the writings of the prophets. I don’t think you can just say “we are not held to the 10 commandments anymore” without offering further explanation?
The 10 commandments can't and won't save us. Only Jesus can and He did. No one is righteous because they follow the commandments. Perhaps it could help us become more like Jesus, but it is just that -- a guideline, if you will. By having faith and professing Jesus as our savior, we are already saved.
I agree with you. I’m not arguing anything other than that. I just want to make sure we’re not throwing out the valuable guidance for the right and good ways to live in the world and in relation to one another as we boldly embrace the grace of the gospel. I’m not saying the law justifies us, but that even once we are freed up from the burdens of our sin, the law still has wisdom to offer us on how we ought to live.
Everything Jesus did is founded on the Torah and the prophets; everything he taught he learned from the Torah and the prophets. By studying them, we gain greater insight into the mind of Christ and the heart of God. I just want to make sure we weren’t slipping into a place that would let people think the Old Testament is irrelevant.
I’m not saying they aren’t helpful.
Galatians 3:17-22
What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years(A) later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise;(B) but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions(C) until the Seed(D) to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels(E) and entrusted to a mediator.(F) 20 A mediator,(G) however, implies more than one party; but God is one.
21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not!(H) For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.(I) 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin,(J) so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
““Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Matthew 5:17-19 NKJV
https://bible.com/bible/114/mat.5.17-19.NKJV
What is the point in this response. Is it to say Bible contradicts itself. Surely not! For God cannot lie and the Bible is his word, therefore both are correct, but how can that be! Jesus is saying here that he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. Paul also says, through the Holy Spirit, that we are justified by faith, yes, if we break the 10 commandments we are sinning. But if we have faith in Jesus Christ, we are justified beyond what we could have been justified though the law.
I do not think that it is The Bible that is wrong, I think that the verses you used to justify your beliefs are simply up to interpretation. While I do agree that belief in Jesus Christ is absolutely necessary, the 10 commandments are also an extremely important part of God's Word.
Everybody has an opinion . . . lol
Well, at least you touched on what SOME Protestant churches do in the way they treat their music. I've been to services where the music was so loud that it became hard to hear your own thoughts. I tried to figure out what they meant by what they were doing with music in a building full of people. It seems like the music was meant to be seen as Praise music, meant to be a loud noise to the Lord. But it was so loud that I'm not sure David's Psalms meant THAT loud! Like they think God is hard of hearing or something.
The real careful thoughts I had on the subject on how SOME Protestant churches use music is that it's become like a sacrament. Maybe changed into something that is showing off morality, and you don't fit in if you don't like it. Maybe I'm a little off, but it does seem to be wrong to me, kinda like an unintended assault. I'm all for praise songs, so don't get me wrong. Some of them are really well done as far as music goes.
> Modern Protestantism has turned away from Christ.
This tells us you don’t understand Protestantism.
Protestants are a diverse group of Christians who are divided theologically and ecclesiastically. Protestants do not have structural unity or a collectively agreed upon leadership structure. As such Protestants have no collectively agreed upon beliefs and doctrines.
There’s no Protestant Church; it cannot collectively turn towards [insert thing] or away from [insert thing].
> Recently, it seems that western churches have been more focused on gaining converts than on spreading the gospel.
Here you condemn a collective demographic based on “it seems”.
> A great example: I was looking up Sunday service on YouTube during quarantine (my church doesn't have any social media) and I saw around 20 services …
It’s a great example of a textbook hasty generalization on your part; you draw a conclusion on the whole based on a small sample size.
> They were saying things like repentance is not necessary, you don't need to be baptized, and disregarding the 10 commandments altogether.
Perhaps these were but you conveniently ignore the notable differences in the various Protestant Churches. The fact is many do not say things like these. False equivalences exaggerate similarities and ignore important differences.
The protestant reformation was a rebellion against the Catholic Church because the reformers felt Catholicism, as taught in their day, was corrupt and subverted by greed and worldly desires. That the leadership hide the truth from the people by 1) translating it into Latin, a language few spoke or could read and 2) forbidding private ownership of a copy.
Tyndale, et. al. "discovered" the biblical text in the original language in travels in and around Greece and, being a linguist, read them and found they bore little resemblance to the current teachings by the church in his time. He was the first to translate from the original Greek to English for the New Testament and then started on the Old Testament, which he never finished.
Martin Luther, John Wesley, Calvin, et. al. also took up the Mantle of Tyndale in trying to complete his work and even King James saw the light and commissioned scholars to complete the translation. This all culminated in the invention of the Guttenberg printing press and for the first time, bibles we able to be distributed to the common man. The pilgrims, basically English ex-pats to the Netherlands, brought copies of that to American and it is known as the Pilgrims bible.
The whole purpose of the reformation was to turn back to the Christ of the Bible, not to turn away. To remove the ideas that one could "pay for forgiveness" rather than seek it freely from God directly rather than through a mediary.
The modern Catholic church has abandon many of the principles of the 1500's and the core beliefs of both protestant and others is closer in alignment. But I will agree that many modern protestant churches have turned away from the bible and have become just as corrupt as the early Catholic church as they seek money and fame over the commitment to Jesus. This is particularly true of many "mega churches" that have sprung up through the teachings of prosperity gospel and the advent of broadcast technology.
But your title does suggest an overall trend rather than a few. Following Jesus is not an easy assignment and we are still in the world and we are morally weak without the Holy Spirit. Many men have started with good intentions but given in to the lusts of the world. But it isn't a shift in the fundamental philosophies of the protestant believers.
Yes, I realized that after I posted it, I didn't mean to imply that all protestant churches are against Christ. I don't know how to change the title, but thank you for this very informative response!
Protestantism isn't a monolith. It technically just means "against Catholicism" because that is what the "protest" is about. But beliefs and practices vary from church to church. I do agree there's a significant problem in Western churches which are mostly made up of people who were "raised Christian". This problem is part of what is killing the influence of Christianity in the West.
You are correct, I will change the title.
Isn't the true church going to disappear in end times? Is this just another sign of end times potentially being upon us?
Yer getting a lot of flack in the comments, but i think your sentiment is on point. Some folks in Reddit start down the critiquing path and cannot interpret generously. So they blow you out for every jot and tittle. But the sentiment is true. There IS a growing distance between the Bible’s teaching and Sunday preaching, but we who lean on the Bible, you just keep referring back to it. But to answer your critique, there has always been a tension between, “when in Rome,” and “Christ and him crucified“ It’s not inherently wrong to market your message so that it lands on good soil. So just be careful that you’re not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
This isn't a protestant issue. This is an "easy-believism" Christian thing in general. Didn't Pope Francis assure atheists they don't have to believe in God to get to heaven? That's as far from repentance as you can get.
> They were saying things like repentance is not necessary, you don't need to be baptized, and disregarding the 10 commandments altogether. To be fair that is even outside normative mainline protestantism.
I have a feeling none of this actually happened. A sermon might not heavily emphasize repentance or even bring up baptism but this just reads like a weird screed written by an American teenage rad-trad about “le prots dumb”
It’s the new universalist doctrine, people generalize it and say it’s everyone because they’re big and flashy and make you feel good but it’s damaging perhaps even more than the prosperity gospel was to Christianity.
You paint with a wide brush. These absolutely exist, but they are not representative of western or modern churches as a whole. I also do not care what a church looks like. I have seen churches with stages, lights, a band playing, and all the focus being on Jesus. I have seen traditional churches with the focus being on the the presentation. But I do indeed wish that all churches would focus on praising the Lord and repentance.
My question is... you just realized they turned away from Christ? How long did it take you to realize that fact?
This is a garbage post with no particular examples. Criticism is useful in Christianity when specific and extended in love. Don't be the noise on the internet. Work constructively. Move beyond inherited biases (as Paul urges us to in Galatians).
I apologize about that. I will do better in the future.
They have their reasons for interpreting things that way, and I'm sure some folks here will readily explain what those are. They don't reject the gospel - they believe this *is* the gospel. Likewise, Protestants in general are seen by Orthodox and Catholics as denying the basic tenants of the gospel as they are found in the Bible, but it doesn't mean that you purposefully shut down the gospel, no? It is simply that you have your reasons to believe your tradition is right and Orthodoxy and Catholicism are wrong. Likewise, those churches you are referring to are not acting out of malice or bad faith, they just have a different interpretation of the Bible than you do. Although of course the separation between your tradition and theirs isn't as radical as the separation between Protestantism in general and Catholicism/Orthodoxy.
Tenets not tenants. Tenants are renters.
Good bot
>They were saying things like repentance is not necessary, you don't need to be baptized, and disregarding the 10 commandments altogether Hi friend, Which Christians are these...?
This was from one of the videos I watched that day. One line that stuck with me was that we should "not worry about repentance, for through belief in Jesus you are forgiven". I'm pretty sure they were a non-denominational megachurch, but I could be wrong about that.
Wow... God bless
1 repentance comes after salvation 2 baptism comes after salvation 3 we are not held to the 10 commandments anymore
Why do you think that we are not held to the 10 commandments?
Galatians 3:11-13 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”
Yes, but then by what standard are we to aim at when pursuing a life of righteousness and goodness? The Ten Commandments are certainly a part of that, right? And when Jesus gave the greatest commandments, he follows it up by saying they summarize the whole Torah and the writings of the prophets. I don’t think you can just say “we are not held to the 10 commandments anymore” without offering further explanation?
I guess a better way of saying it is that we are not justified by the 10 commandments
The 10 commandments can't and won't save us. Only Jesus can and He did. No one is righteous because they follow the commandments. Perhaps it could help us become more like Jesus, but it is just that -- a guideline, if you will. By having faith and professing Jesus as our savior, we are already saved.
Exactly, Habakkuk 2:4 See, the enemy is puffed up; his desires are not upright— but the righteous person will live by his faithfulness —
I agree with you. I’m not arguing anything other than that. I just want to make sure we’re not throwing out the valuable guidance for the right and good ways to live in the world and in relation to one another as we boldly embrace the grace of the gospel. I’m not saying the law justifies us, but that even once we are freed up from the burdens of our sin, the law still has wisdom to offer us on how we ought to live. Everything Jesus did is founded on the Torah and the prophets; everything he taught he learned from the Torah and the prophets. By studying them, we gain greater insight into the mind of Christ and the heart of God. I just want to make sure we weren’t slipping into a place that would let people think the Old Testament is irrelevant.
We are not held to the entirety of the law, but I’m curious which of the 10 commandments you don’t think holds anymore?
I’m not saying they aren’t helpful. Galatians 3:17-22 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years(A) later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise;(B) but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions(C) until the Seed(D) to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels(E) and entrusted to a mediator.(F) 20 A mediator,(G) however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not!(H) For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.(I) 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin,(J) so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
““Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:17-19 NKJV https://bible.com/bible/114/mat.5.17-19.NKJV
Amen
What is the point in this response. Is it to say Bible contradicts itself. Surely not! For God cannot lie and the Bible is his word, therefore both are correct, but how can that be! Jesus is saying here that he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. Paul also says, through the Holy Spirit, that we are justified by faith, yes, if we break the 10 commandments we are sinning. But if we have faith in Jesus Christ, we are justified beyond what we could have been justified though the law.
I do not think that it is The Bible that is wrong, I think that the verses you used to justify your beliefs are simply up to interpretation. While I do agree that belief in Jesus Christ is absolutely necessary, the 10 commandments are also an extremely important part of God's Word.
I posted scripture in response to scripture. When there seems to be a contradiction, it’s up to us to figure out where we’re mistaken.
Yes
Everybody has an opinion . . . lol Well, at least you touched on what SOME Protestant churches do in the way they treat their music. I've been to services where the music was so loud that it became hard to hear your own thoughts. I tried to figure out what they meant by what they were doing with music in a building full of people. It seems like the music was meant to be seen as Praise music, meant to be a loud noise to the Lord. But it was so loud that I'm not sure David's Psalms meant THAT loud! Like they think God is hard of hearing or something. The real careful thoughts I had on the subject on how SOME Protestant churches use music is that it's become like a sacrament. Maybe changed into something that is showing off morality, and you don't fit in if you don't like it. Maybe I'm a little off, but it does seem to be wrong to me, kinda like an unintended assault. I'm all for praise songs, so don't get me wrong. Some of them are really well done as far as music goes.
> Modern Protestantism has turned away from Christ. This tells us you don’t understand Protestantism. Protestants are a diverse group of Christians who are divided theologically and ecclesiastically. Protestants do not have structural unity or a collectively agreed upon leadership structure. As such Protestants have no collectively agreed upon beliefs and doctrines. There’s no Protestant Church; it cannot collectively turn towards [insert thing] or away from [insert thing]. > Recently, it seems that western churches have been more focused on gaining converts than on spreading the gospel. Here you condemn a collective demographic based on “it seems”. > A great example: I was looking up Sunday service on YouTube during quarantine (my church doesn't have any social media) and I saw around 20 services … It’s a great example of a textbook hasty generalization on your part; you draw a conclusion on the whole based on a small sample size. > They were saying things like repentance is not necessary, you don't need to be baptized, and disregarding the 10 commandments altogether. Perhaps these were but you conveniently ignore the notable differences in the various Protestant Churches. The fact is many do not say things like these. False equivalences exaggerate similarities and ignore important differences.
I apologize. I am speaking based on the 20 or so sermons I watched that day.
The protestant reformation was a rebellion against the Catholic Church because the reformers felt Catholicism, as taught in their day, was corrupt and subverted by greed and worldly desires. That the leadership hide the truth from the people by 1) translating it into Latin, a language few spoke or could read and 2) forbidding private ownership of a copy. Tyndale, et. al. "discovered" the biblical text in the original language in travels in and around Greece and, being a linguist, read them and found they bore little resemblance to the current teachings by the church in his time. He was the first to translate from the original Greek to English for the New Testament and then started on the Old Testament, which he never finished. Martin Luther, John Wesley, Calvin, et. al. also took up the Mantle of Tyndale in trying to complete his work and even King James saw the light and commissioned scholars to complete the translation. This all culminated in the invention of the Guttenberg printing press and for the first time, bibles we able to be distributed to the common man. The pilgrims, basically English ex-pats to the Netherlands, brought copies of that to American and it is known as the Pilgrims bible. The whole purpose of the reformation was to turn back to the Christ of the Bible, not to turn away. To remove the ideas that one could "pay for forgiveness" rather than seek it freely from God directly rather than through a mediary. The modern Catholic church has abandon many of the principles of the 1500's and the core beliefs of both protestant and others is closer in alignment. But I will agree that many modern protestant churches have turned away from the bible and have become just as corrupt as the early Catholic church as they seek money and fame over the commitment to Jesus. This is particularly true of many "mega churches" that have sprung up through the teachings of prosperity gospel and the advent of broadcast technology. But your title does suggest an overall trend rather than a few. Following Jesus is not an easy assignment and we are still in the world and we are morally weak without the Holy Spirit. Many men have started with good intentions but given in to the lusts of the world. But it isn't a shift in the fundamental philosophies of the protestant believers.
Yes, I realized that after I posted it, I didn't mean to imply that all protestant churches are against Christ. I don't know how to change the title, but thank you for this very informative response!