@LeeWoofenden I disagree with very little you say here. I certainly reject the "once saved always saved" idea where what you do after you convert means little. I think having true faith and doing good works always go hand-in-hand. But then you get to the idea that repentance means sinning less in the future. I would say it means renouncing your past sins, and recommitting yourself to the correct path.

That way lead to better action, but it only leads to a better heart when it is not based on your own efforts. The Pharisees "perfectly" obeyed the letter of the law, but did not know God and were not good people in Jesus' eyes... This is the kind of advice most belief systems give - follow these steps and you'll do less wrong. But, they don't change the inside at all.

There is also a very real danger of learning to "justify" your own behavior internally. Even as a Christian, I find it very easy to say (for example), "that lie didn't hurt anyone (maybe it even "helped" someone by not hurting their feelings; I am a good person - I rarely do anything "truly" wrong." And, I can truly believe my own self-delusion if I'm not careful. This is why it is hard to achieve salvation in most belief systems -

not committing any "atrocious acts" is good enough for most people to believe they are good and see no reason to change.

@LeeWoofenden I agree - the primary (historical) error of the Catholic Church was abuse of power; this is, in fact, primarily what the reformers were against. Of course one of the most obvious abuses of the Reformation period was selling of indulgences. This, of course, was a form of "doing this (pay money) to get salvation (forgiveness)" so one of the pushes was to condemn work-based systems. (I'm sure none of this is news to you.)

The thing is, I don't really think it matters if "faith alone" saves but this naturally always entails good works; or if the combination of the "faith and resulting works" saves. It is a good theological debate, but there is no practical difference. (I am excluding the few who take this too far and say only the conversion moment matters and that it is thus possible to not change at all from the conversion and still be saved.)

My problem with the modern Catholic Church is that it is non-evangelical. It is all fine and good to teach "practical living" to believers, and in the middle ages when all Europeans were (at least nominally) Christians that may have even been enough. But there is never a push to spread the Gospel within the Catholic Church, and that is much needed in the current world.

@bruisedreed (you're a Methodist, right?) In reference to this question, do you know what view of the Lord's Supper is most common among Methodists? I'm pinging @Nathaniel too, since his answer demonstrated a good deal of knowledge on the subject.

@Mr.Bultitude No. I'm a Pentecostal. Historically, Pentecostalism is largely descended from Methodism (via Holiness movements) so soteriology is similar. But ask most Pentecostals if they have Wesleyan soteriology and they won't know what you're talking about. In Australia we no longer have proper methodists - we have something called the Uniting Church

I'm not familiar with the various branches of modern Methodism, but I can look up a few Methodist theologians on the subject

@Mr.Bultitude Historically, Methodism formed largely within the Anglican church and didn't split in England till after Wesley was dead. Unless it changed for some reason later (I can't think why), it will be the same as the Anglican perspective.

@ThaddeusB Non-evangelistic would be more appropriate than non-evangelical (though Catholicism is that too)

@LeeWoofenden yes - that's me

@bruisedreed True, but today's Anglicans are all over the map... on everything. The 39 articles are immaterial, and they may as well be congregationalists with their wide variety of beliefs. And Methodists aren't too different in that regard; many pride themselves on their denomination's lack of a confession.

@Mr.Bultitude Modern Methodists are most likely quite similar. Wesley at least took the 39 articles seriously

does anyone if there is a way to describe the (widely held view) that is the opposite of Christian perfectionism? ie that is impossible to attain sinlessness this side of physical death?

@ThaddeusB Yes, I think the "faith alone" thing is largely academic. Plenty of Protestants believe it, but it doesn't really matter whether they do or not. What matters is whether they live Christian lives--meaning loving God and loving the neighbor. According to Matthew 25:31-46, at the time of Judgment God doesn't ask what you believe, but what you did for others.

@Mr.Bultitude care to comment any further on this: christianity.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/31702 ?

@bruisedreed I'd note the post's author himself commented that lack of evidence doesn't count as evidence

"inaugurated eschatology" is the opposite of over realised eschatology I guess

maybe. depending on how you think about these things :P

I can't think of or find any direct term for the opposite view to perfectionism

@bruisedreed Berkhof describes the opposite view as "sanctification imperfect in this life" or the "imperfect character of sanctification in this life." Personally, I'd just say "sanctification," though some would argue that that is the umbrella term. ccel.org/ccel/berkhof/systematictheology.vi.x.html

This has cooked my noodle for some time

@bruisedreed I'm with @curiousdannii on this one. The answer, while it may be true, is simply too short, and provides no references or support showing that actual Christians have held and stated this position.

@bruisedreed It may not be a good answer, but I'd echo @thedarkwanderer's comment: "I think it's fair to assume that a 'localized flood' happened at some point in history. If one makes the assumption that 'The Flood' happened as a discrete historical event (which this question does) evidence against it being global is indeed evidence for a localized flood."

Furthermore, I don't recall brevity (as long as something actually answers the question) or lack of sources being a legitimate reason to recommend deletion in that context.

@Mr.Bultitude It's one sentence. If that comment betters his answer then it belongs in his answer. If there are at least a few sources to point to, then he should. The post is 4 years old. dancek clearly has no intention of editing it.

That's why I voted to delete it.

It is a legitimate answer, but it is very low quality.

@Mr.Bultitude I'm Methodist. Generally, the UMC today doesn't focus on a particular understanding of how communion is the body and blood (it's a holy mystery, but focuses more on taking it seriously as a sacrament, confessing our sins and enabling God's grace to work to transform us.

@TRiG and @BruceAlderman This article reminded me of you.

I would think converting the local flood answer to a comment would be the best thing to do - that is what it should have been to begin with.

@fredsbend Wow, what a crock. 150 years after the Civil war ended, Southern "scholars" are still trying to whitewash it.

@BruceAlderman ..........pun intended? :P

@El'endiaStarman Heh, it didn't even occur to me.

Progress! :D The gaps are why I'm working on a way to procedurally construct the locations of the centers of the polygons instead of doing them semi-manually, like I did here.