Thoughts while driving on freeway
...besides "AHHHH I HATE THE FREEWAY!"
Key: EP = Evangelical Protestants, RC = Roman Catholics, EO = Eastern Orthodox
My thoughts:
EP's have good attitude but bad theology.
RC's have good theology but bad attitude.
EO's are right but can tend to abuse their power over others.
To elaborate:
EP's have a great attitude and they kick RC's and EO's butts in missions, but they have bad theology. That is most denominations have little to no doctrinal content. They often don't understand the history of Protestantism nor their own denominational roots. 99% have no clue there even is a Christian Church of the East. They also tend to be closed-minded, self-centered and experience-seeking.
To quote a prominent Orthodox philosopher and theologian, "I went to a local church on the corner who were so doctrinally ignorant as to preach heresy from the pulpit. They said Christ had one divine nature. ... He had TWO natures, He was fully God and fully Man, and if He wasn't, He couldn't have died for your sins. It was because they had a credal statement that's THREE LINES LONG. And you could go to that church for 50 years and never once hear about the doctrine of the Trinity. And if you live 50 years and know nothing about the God you serve I question whether you really love the God of the Bible."
RC's have good theology but bad attitude. They tend to be overmeticulous in their theological, ecclesiastical and philosophical definitions. There's also a tendency to "punch in and out", like going to work, as if Church was merely a duty and nothing more.
EO's tend to come across as "we're the only way" - but you could say that about many fundamentalists as well. Since they have many bishops, and not just one Pope, it's a much healthier system. They tend to be the most open-minded of the three. They're right historically, theologically, ecclesiastically and have the best balance between faith and reason, theology and philosophy, rational vs. non-rational, ecclesiastical hierarchy and personal responsibility.
Key: EP = Evangelical Protestants, RC = Roman Catholics, EO = Eastern Orthodox
My thoughts:
EP's have good attitude but bad theology.
RC's have good theology but bad attitude.
EO's are right but can tend to abuse their power over others.
To elaborate:
EP's have a great attitude and they kick RC's and EO's butts in missions, but they have bad theology. That is most denominations have little to no doctrinal content. They often don't understand the history of Protestantism nor their own denominational roots. 99% have no clue there even is a Christian Church of the East. They also tend to be closed-minded, self-centered and experience-seeking.
To quote a prominent Orthodox philosopher and theologian, "I went to a local church on the corner who were so doctrinally ignorant as to preach heresy from the pulpit. They said Christ had one divine nature. ... He had TWO natures, He was fully God and fully Man, and if He wasn't, He couldn't have died for your sins. It was because they had a credal statement that's THREE LINES LONG. And you could go to that church for 50 years and never once hear about the doctrine of the Trinity. And if you live 50 years and know nothing about the God you serve I question whether you really love the God of the Bible."
RC's have good theology but bad attitude. They tend to be overmeticulous in their theological, ecclesiastical and philosophical definitions. There's also a tendency to "punch in and out", like going to work, as if Church was merely a duty and nothing more.
EO's tend to come across as "we're the only way" - but you could say that about many fundamentalists as well. Since they have many bishops, and not just one Pope, it's a much healthier system. They tend to be the most open-minded of the three. They're right historically, theologically, ecclesiastically and have the best balance between faith and reason, theology and philosophy, rational vs. non-rational, ecclesiastical hierarchy and personal responsibility.