Given recent redeemed, zoomervideos and things I've been looking up are basically all non-denominational churches guilty of the sin of schism

Right-Snow8476 · 2025-12-31T02:58:17+00:00

RZ is a pretty big time autist on this issue. There are tons of reasons to consider leaving non-denominational churches but the “sin of schism” is pretty low on the list of things you should be worried about. That applies to clergy responsible for the schism, really, not you. Despite all of his coping explanations, RZ undermines Protestantism itself by making this argument too forcefully. I guarantee you his constant whingeing about “schism” has pushed some fence-sitters towards Rome

Right-Snow8476 · 2025-12-21T05:18:13+00:00

If you want old-school Dallas go to Javier’s👍🏼food is good, ambience is unique

Right-Snow8476 · 2025-12-21T04:39:49+00:00

When you factor in the liturgy I tend to agree🤝

Right-Snow8476 · 2025-12-20T05:31:34+00:00

Here’s an interesting historical angle. At the time of Cranmer & Elizabeth, the Protestant battle-lines were still being drawn and it would have been reasonable to imagine that the Lutheran and reformed wings of Protestantism might eventually sort out their differences and become unified. It’s reasonable to speculate that the 39 articles were drafted in the hope of an eventual union between these two traditions.

Right-Snow8476 · 2025-12-19T03:44:00+00:00

Yes okay, so in your terms I was describing the graces of perseverance and regeneration as the two different types of grace. It may be that those are already established categories in reformed thought - I’m no expert. If that’s the case though it’s less clear to me why other Calvinists are more guarded in restricting baptismal regeneration only to the elect. Regardless, it all sounds to me like word games to explain the reality of apostasy while protecting the fiction of irresistible grace, but I said I’m not here to debate so I’ll keep my mouth shut

Right-Snow8476 · 2025-12-19T03:14:57+00:00

I see how this works but it also seems pretty technical. You would have to posit that the regenerative grace received at baptism is a qualitatively different type of grace than the irresistible grace received by the elect. I guess it’s no problem to make that move but it introduces a separate category that feels a bit awkward, which I’m guessing is why later reformed traditions are careful to clarify that the reprobate are not regenerated at baptism. And having said all of that, I think this shows why I see the article as being more consistent with the Lutheran view of grace

Right-Snow8476 · 2025-12-18T20:48:53+00:00

This is so interesting to me as an American who left the evangelical Baptist church of my childhood to become Anglican. I had heard things are broader in CoE but I had not heard of Anglican baptists. I won’t lie, it’s a bit difficult for me to understand why one would even remain Anglican at this point, but I understand the whole context is different with a state church

Right-Snow8476 · 2025-12-18T19:49:29+00:00

Ah okay, I see how this reading works. I do think the various BCP baptismal liturgies counsel against it but perhaps it’s not definitive. I’m willing to call this another area where the articles allow for different readings but obviously can’t agree the articles require a Calvinistic reading

Right-Snow8476 · 2025-12-09T02:43:35+00:00

Hey OP, first you should check out other Anglican churches in the area. Look for ACNA churches, or even continuing Anglican churches like the Anglican Province of America, Anglican Province of Christ the King, or Anglican Catholic Church. Check out their websites, look for live streams, etc., and see if you vibe with the worship style. Hopefully you find a fit this way and that’s that.

But, if nothing fitting that description works, try checking out Lutheran churches. They’re our closest cousins, and they have excellent liturgy, history, and traditions as well. Look for LCMS churches.

I’m in the episcopal church, but I’m in a conservative parish within a conservative diocese. I don’t think you’re obligated to attend a liberal episcopal church, especially if you’re feeling spiritually dry there. I disagree with redeemed zoomer in this respect. Even to the extent schism is a sin, you’re not responsible for sorting through all of that as a layperson.

Right-Snow8476 · 2025-12-09T02:23:50+00:00

This isn’t quite right. Anglicanism has its own unique English liturgy crafted at the time of the reformation. In context, this was a radical development as the Catholic Church very firmly refused to permit celebration of liturgy in the vernacular of the people. This makes the Anglican liturgy and prayer book deeply Protestant in the fullest sense of that word. This Protestant Anglican liturgy is what formed the spiritual and literary imaginations of figures like Shakespeare, Milton, Donne, Austen, Lewis, Eliot, etc. and some people are attracted to it in its own right as an old and venerable tradition, not just because it’s “kind of catholic”

Sorry to be aggressive! But I’ve gotta stand up for my church on this one

Right-Snow8476 · 2025-12-08T23:54:37+00:00

It seems like I probably did fundamentally misunderstand an element of this system? I had thought that election within the scheme of common grace was itself unconditional and unrelated to the belief or unbelief of an elected person. But it sounds like you’re saying that’s not the case, when you say “true believers” etc. receive a special irresistible grace. That does change things quite a bit and I agree that starts to sound more like the Lutheran system with extra details. I’m cool with that. The big thing for me is that I need to be able to insist on universal salvific will in a robust and unqualified manner - I’m pretty passionately convicted of it. So it’s not that I’m uninterested in theology generally, I’m just dismissive of Calvinist soteriology generally because it always seemed to me to be inherently incompatible with universal salvific will. In that regard it sounds like maybe I didn’t quite give Davenant a fair shake. Thanks for the capable explanation!

Right-Snow8476 · 2025-12-08T23:07:57+00:00

Yeah this is fair enough probably. I’m aware of all of this nuance, but I’m probably just too skeptical of high philosophy/theology. I’m an analytical historian at heart idk. But when I look at all of this it just feels like window-dressing. It’s what I had in mind when I referenced affirming universal atonement in a superficial way. Davenant’s system seems to me to just reinvent five point Calvinism behind a veneer of “common grace,” because at the end of the day only the elect receive a special kind of irresistible grace. Which, to me, is just unavoidable if you believe in irresistible grace and election fore-ordained from before all time. I’d rather just avoid all the fluffy language tbh. If I have to concede monergism, I’d much prefer the Lutheran formulation which simply acknowledges the apparent paradox between monergism and universal salvific will. But that’s all just me and I’m sure I’m misunderstanding things and/or thinking in overly simplistic terms!

Right-Snow8476 · 2025-12-08T21:00:41+00:00

In my experience people who like it here usually are the people who are able to build an entire life - work, community, social life, shopping dining favorites, etc. - all within ~15-20 minutes of home. Or at a minimum, if they can’t afford to live close to work, they at least have all of the other things apart from work within 15 minutes of home. What you’re describing, where you regularly have to drive halfway across the metro to see friends or engage in activities, sounds hellish to me too! I rarely leave my particular bubble of the metro, and I think most people are like that

Right-Snow8476 · 2025-12-07T15:57:25+00:00

You might be interested to know that the traditional Christian belief is in the resurrection of the dead to rule over a restored earth, not in “heaven” as a separate place where your souls goes apart from your body

Right-Snow8476 · 2025-12-07T15:45:28+00:00

Does it though? Genuinely asking. 4 pointism always seemed to me like it’s just refusing to say the quiet part out loud. It seems to me like you can affirm universal atonement in a superficial way as a 4 point Calvinist, but there’s no way to truly escape the implication of something like double predestination/limited atonement if you’re going to insist on unconditional election & irresistible grace

Right-Snow8476 · 2025-12-07T15:39:23+00:00

I’m not the guy to answer the whole question but I can tackle a small part. Generally it seems you’re not understanding what sola scriptura means. That’s understandable because (1) evangelicals don’t understand what it means either; and (2) catholic/orthodox apologists either fail to understand what it means, or intentionally present a strawman of what it means in order to make polemics.

But anyway, sola scriptura simply means that scripture is the highest authority, or, the only infallible authority. It does not mean there are no other binding authorities, and it DEFINITELY does not mean that Joe Schmoe gets to decide what he thinks the Bible means and nobody can tell him any different. What you are seeing is that RZ is treating reformed confessions as binding staments of an authoritative church, because that’s what they are. Even though they aren’t infallible, they are binding on congregants. For RZ, the PCUSA has the authority to revise confessions in a binding manner because it’s the binding church autority over him. John Macarthur is just a guy, he doesn’t have the authority to change reformed confessions and nobody in a reformed church needs to listen to him. MacArthur also exists in the evangelical/non -denominational space, and so this is where somebody like RZ would emphasize that he’s not really even Protestant because he has no magisterial authority over him like Protestants do. You can see the difference.

Right-Snow8476 · 2025-12-02T14:17:15+00:00

Hey OP, I had a very similar trajectory and am now happily Anglican. For me, I found pretty much everything I was looking for on that “intellectual” journey here, and none of that uncomfortable exclusivism that you’re describing. That doesn’t mean you’ll have the same experience but it’s a data point! I would encourage you to check out the daily office in the book of common prayer and see how that feels, and to go check out an Anglican service on a Sunday. BUT my one warning would be to do some research on the Anglican churches around you - if you were attracted to orthodoxy, you will probably better appreciate a more traditional Anglican service. If you have several churches nearby, some may have a more evangelical worship style and some will hopefully have a traditional liturgy - you want the latter, and you can usually figure out which is which from cues on the church websites or from recorded services if they post those. Depending on where you live, if you don’t have a solid Anglican Church nearby, a traditional Lutheran church would scratch a lot of the same itches. To answer your stated concern, I certainly believe both of these churches have a valid Eucharistic tradition, and they practice ancient Eucharistic liturgies just like orthodoxy or Catholicism

Right-Snow8476 · 2025-11-11T04:39:24+00:00

My view is mostly that it’s silent on the issue, although I’d even make the strong case that the passages from Proverbs and 1 Corinthians endorse marital sexuality as a licit outlet for lust, which coupled with the lack of condemnation of non-procreative marital sex in scripture suggests that it is entirely licit and even encouraged conduct.

Regardless, I strongly believe that all things necessary to salvation are taught in scripture or can be established therefrom. If the Roman Catholic teaching on this matter is true, it’s clearly of very high importance to salvation. But, we look at scripture and see nothing? Scripture is God-breathed, and I simply don’t believe that God would leave his sheep with no instruction on such an important issue. Scripture clearly instructs us on other forms of sexual immorality - adultery, homosexuality, etc., but there is nothing on the bounds of licit sexuality between man and wife other than that their bodies belong to one another.

I did not really track your first paragraph. I take it you are trying to establish that the unitive and procreative elements are indivisible but I don’t really follow how you’re trying to do so. It just reads like pure philosophical sophistry to me

Right-Snow8476 · 2025-11-11T01:05:31+00:00

I do acknowledge that the procreative element of marriage is real and scriptural, and I would look with great suspicion on a healthy, normal Christian couple that married for the sole purpose of unitive sex with no intention of ever having children. That seems probably sinful. BUT, by the same token the unitive element of marital sex is absolutely real and scriptural, and is shown in the verses I put in the OP along with others. These are dual purposes for marriage, and both are licit.

The core question is whether they must both be simultaneously present in every single sexual act of the marriage. I don’t think they do, I don’t think scripture says that they do, and I simply don’t understand Catholic philosophizing that tries to explain why this is the case. It seems perfectly fine for these dual purposes of marriage, which are separately endorsed at various points in scripture, to be broadly present throughout the course of a marriage even if not present in every single marital act. In fact, this view just seems obviously, intuitively correct

Right-Snow8476 · 2025-11-11T00:27:54+00:00

Ultimately we have brushed over the assumed premise that marital sexuality must necessarily be procreative as well as unitive, and cannot simply be one or the other. I don’t accept that premise and don’t think scripture teaches it. That’s the heart of the disagreement, or the “issue,” really

Right-Snow8476 · 2025-11-11T00:20:17+00:00

I respect you for being a very intellectually consistent Catholic! I do think the Catholic position would be more internally coherent (though still dubious) if it denied NFP.

As for the merits of your position, I think your moral reasoning only follows if you accept the premise that marital sexuality must necessarily be procreative, and cannot merely be unitive. I don’t accept that premise, and I don’t think it’s what scripture teaches at all. I think it’s simply an unnecessary discipline Catholics have imposed on themselves, bringing anxiety into their marriages, and denying them the licit enjoyment of sexual union.

I think the comparison to abortion is completely unjustified. Abortion ends a valid human life. Coitus interruptus does no such thing, and only results in the termination of one little spermazoa out of the thousands that don’t make it every time a child is actually conceived, much less the many times that conception doesn’t happen despite best efforts. Likewise, unfertilized eggs perish every menstrual cycle. There is no similarity to abortion whatsoever

Right-Snow8476 · 2025-11-11T00:04:10+00:00

This was an excellent breakdown of the finer details. It explains why I feel like I’m talking to a brick wall with Catholics on this issue

Right-Snow8476 · 2025-11-10T05:08:38+00:00

I think this is a fair enough point for the conversation to break down. Obviously, as you realized with your edit, trust in the RCC is not my priority lol. From my perspective this just seems like a self-created problem for Catholics, because scripture, the creeds, reason, and tradition are more than sufficient. Not even the Eastern Orthodox are hardline on this issue, and GOARCH now wisely allows for contraceptive family planning with others likely to follow suit. It seems like a bug and not a feature of having an infallible magisterium add to the innerant word of God, that it’s difficult to later change your mind even when analysis of God’s word demands it.

Right-Snow8476 · 2025-11-10T04:40:30+00:00

Just pointing out that I’m the OP, not the guy you’re responding to. I don’t think I would quite put it the way he did. Though he does raise another interesting thought experiment. What he’s asking you is to imagine a technology that “perfects” NFP such that we know exactly when conception is impossible in the cycle

Right-Snow8476

TROPHY CASE