Altar Calls-Non-Catholic/Orthodox

[ltwin]

Egg-zactly, ltwin.

Here’s another example of not applying the paradigm equally to Catholics.

If you saw a picture (here I mean a generic “you” not a personal “you”) of a person kissing a statue, your first response would not be, “Maybe he just loves Mary. I don’t know anything about the photo or the person in the photo.”

Rather, it would be, “This person certainly does appear to be worshipping a statue.”

It wouldn’t be reverencing Mary that Protestants would have a problem with. It would be undo reverence and the making of a graven image knowing what Catholics believe about Mary.

Why is that relevant? If it was a Protestant it would be ok, but if it was a Catholic it wouldn’t?

I don’t understand why you feel it’s important to comment on his potential religious denomination.

Because, I don’t know what it is. His particular religious denomination might actually be worth knowing if we want to have a better understanding of why he is reverencing the word of God in such a way. Or it could have nothing to do with denomination and is just an example of personal piety (which is not always officially condoned piety).

Again, I hope you apply your same non-judgemental paradigm to this photo as you did of the man kissing his Bible.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...SSYws7g39728u4oMyC_zlrrnCtZNq4yxT8b0IXj6hs7Bo

I have a non-judgmental approach. I would want to know what religion the people kneeling are (are they Roman or Anglo-Catholics?), what they believe about Mary and why are they praying to her, and why a statue is necessary to effectively pray. If I actually know why they do what they do then I am better informed and can make up my own mind in the light of God’s word.

 

[ltwin]

It is a good image to use when Protestants accuse Catholics of “bowing down before images”. No evangelical will say that these people are “bowing down to” the music ministry or the pastor.

I don’t see how they are related. The picture shows an altar rail which is a permanent feature of the church. The band is not. Some one could kneel down to pray in that church while it’s empty and will still be doing the same thing, kneeling at the altar to pray to God.

 

[Nicea325]

Since Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14 that all things should be done for edification, it can be argued that electricity facilitates edification: lights (so people can see and even read better), air conditioning so old people don’t die in a hot church, and microphones so everyone can hear.

Okay, but there was no electrical means in Paul’s days, so one cannot use the above verse to assume Paul was referring to electrical ulities to edify a facility 2,000 years later.

 

[Nicea325]

I don’t see how they are related. The picture shows an altar rail which is a permanent feature of the church. The band is not. Some one could kneel down to pray in that church while it’s empty and will still be doing the same thing, kneeling at the altar to pray to God.

Oh…come on! Please! Let us not turn-the-blind eye in two very related matters.

 

[ltwin]

Oh…come on! Please! Let us not turn-the-blind eye in two very related matters.

I honestly don’t see how they are related. The altar rail runs across the front of the church. We could assume that on the other side of the church there is a support beam behind the altar rail. Does that mean that prayers are worshipping a support beam just because it happens to be located in the line of sight?

 

[ltwin]

Okay, but there was no electrical means in Paul’s days, so one cannot use the above verse to assume Paul was referring to electrical ulities to edify a facility 2,000 years later.

We are not assuming anything. Paul was not talking about electricity. But if we consider whether electricity should be placed within a church, Paul’s guidelines for worship can inform our decision.

 

[Nicea325]

We are not assuming anything. Paul was not talking about electricity. But if we consider whether electricity should be placed within a church, Paul’s guidelines for worship can inform our decision.

Nor was he talking about technology or facilities either-so nothing is being assumed here. Do you honestly believe Paul was making reference to technological advances for church facility purposes? Seriously?

I think you are adding something to the text which it was never intended to say.

 

[Nicea325]

I honestly don’t see how they are related. The altar rail runs across the front of the church. We could assume that on the other side of the church there is a support beam behind the altar rail. Does that mean that prayers are worshipping a support beam just because it happens to be located in the line of sight?

:ehh: If you insist.

 

[ltwin]

Nor was he talking about technology or facilities either-so nothing is being assumed here. Do you honestly believe Paul was making reference to technological advances for church facility purposes? Seriously?

I think you are adding something to the text which it was never intended to say.

I think you are reading into my words. I never said Paul was talking about technology. My one and only point is that Scripture has something to say about everything we, as Christians do. Just because the Scriptures were written 2000 years ago or earlier does not mean they stop being useful to us or that they are no longer capable of giving direction in new circumstances and environments.

That is different than believing either permission or prohibition based on silence. I don’t believe that just because Scripture is “silent” on an issue we are permitted to do it. Nor do I believe that silence means prohibition.

 

[markoh]

This is not true. The development of the "altar call’ has nothing to do with mimicking a Catholic communion. This article from Christianity Today gives the history: “Walk the Aisle: Popularized by frontier camp meetings and Charles Finney’s “anxious bench,” the altar call became an evangelistic staple of American churches.” It’s worth reading the whole thing but I’ll quote one relevant part:

hello thanks for the information-- you make me feel jealous for the content and understanding

 

[Nicea325]

I think you are reading into my words.** I never said Paul was talking about technology. My one and only point is that Scripture has something to say about everything we, as Christians do**. Just because the Scriptures were written 2000 years ago or earlier does not mean they stop being useful to us or that they are no longer capable of giving direction in new circumstances and environments.

That is different than believing either permission or prohibition based on silence. I don’t believe that just because Scripture is “silent” on an issue we are permitted to do it. Nor do I believe that silence means prohibition.

Am I? Remember, you said this:

Since Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14 that all things should be done for edification, it can be argued that electricity facilitates edification: lights (so people can see and even read better), air conditioning so old people don’t die in a hot church, and microphones so everyone can hear.

Apparently you are using the above verse to support your argument about “edification” through modern technological means.

I am not reading into your words, I am simply relaying back what you made very clear.

 

[ltwin]

Am I? Remember, you said this:

Since Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14 that all things should be done for edification, it can be argued that electricity facilitates edification: lights (so people can see and even read better), air conditioning so old people don’t die in a hot church, and microphones so everyone can hear.

Apparently you are using the above verse to support your argument about “edification” through modern technological means.

I am not reading into your words, I am simply relaying back what you made very clear.

Apparently I haven’t made anything clear, since you think I think that Paul was talking about electricity in 1 Corinthians 14.I never said, “Paul was talking about electricity when he lectured the Corinthians on edification.” What I said is that “it can be argued that electricity facilitates edification.”

I’m really not arguing anything about electricity. I was using “electricity” and “marijuana” as examples for why I think the allowing or prohibiting of things based on the “silence of Scripture” does not work as a principle on which to base Christian worship.

 

[Nicea325]

Apparently I haven’t made anything clear, since you think I think that Paul was talking about electricity in 1 Corinthians 14.I never said, “Paul was talking about electricity when he lectured the Corinthians on edification.” What I said is that “it can be argued that electricity facilitates edification.”

I’m really not arguing anything about electricity. I was using “electricity” and “marijuana” as examples for why I think the allowing or prohibiting of things based on the “silence of Scripture” does not work as a principle on which to base Christian worship.

I too never said Paul was discussing electricity or whatever.However, I do understand what you are stating,thus forgive my misunderstanding.

 

[ltwin]

I too never said Paul was discussing electricity or whatever.However, I do understand what you are stating,thus forgive my misunderstanding.

No problem. Electricity and marijuana were silly examples anyway but were the first things that popped into my head . . .

 

[AbideWithMe]

As long as we’re speculating, my guess would be that he might be in a country where Bibles are not as easy to come by as they are here, and so he might be realizing how precious it is.

But you wouldn’t assume that he’s worshipping the Bible, right?

I hope you apply this same judgement to this photo as well.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/...vX-H_9nvhOXMmwl5mEA8nkTo_RA-TMFA54dDgPOzgCrvA

PRmerger–I don’t have a problem with people, in devotion or reverence, kissing something which represents or reminds them of a person. I’ve kissed photos and clothes of a beloved person who had to be away for a time, and I certainly wasn’t worshipping either the person or the photo. In the year and a half I’ve been at CAF, I haven’t said a single word about Catholic private devotional practices, apart from asking a question about the (to me) superstitious practice of burying a St. Joseph statue upside-down to help sell a house. And I think I may have said something about that "never known to fail " prayer which involves publishing the prayer in a newspaper or leaving copies of it in a church. Apart from that, not a judgmental word has been written by me. So what’s up with targeting me or Itwin in order to try to make a point on this thread; a point which you’ve brought up several times already on other threads?

I think perhaps two things–or two groups of people-- may be getting mixed up here. There are those who object to what they perceive to be idolatrous devotion practices by some Catholics regarding Mary. I’m guessing those are the people who you should be addressing. But, that’s not me, and from their comments, I don’t think that describes Itwin or
EvangelCatholic, either. Still, you’ve tried to push your point with us, to my puzzlement.

Then there is the group of Protestant who don’t have a problem with seeing Catholic practices or beliefs as permissable or possible, but object to be told by Catholics that they are required for all Christians. An example of this would be in the Papal encyclical “Mortalium Animos”, where the Pope writes that "all who are truly Christ’s " will accept the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, and IIRC, the Immaculate Conception. That’s where people like me start to ask why it is required of Christians to absolutely believe something that’s not explicitly or implicitly in the Bible.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

PRmerger–I don’t have a problem with people, in devotion or reverence, kissing something which represents or reminds them of a person. I’ve kissed photos and clothes of a beloved person who had to be away for a time, and I certainly wasn’t worshipping either the person or the photo. In the year and a half I’ve been at CAF, I haven’t said a single word about Catholic private devotional practices, apart from asking a question about the (to me) superstitious practice of burying a St. Joseph statue upside-down to help sell a house. And I think I may have said something about that "never known to fail " prayer which involves publishing the prayer in a newspaper or leaving copies of it in a church. Apart from that, not a judgmental word has been written by me. So what’s up with targeting me or Itwin in order to try to make a point on this thread; a point which you’ve brought up several times already on other threads?

I think perhaps two things–or two groups of people-- may be getting mixed up here. There are those who object to what they perceive to be idolatrous devotion practices by some Catholics regarding Mary. I’m guessing those are the people who you should be addressing. But, that’s not me, and from their comments, I don’t think that describes Itwin or
EvangelCatholic, either. Still, you’ve tried to push your point with us, to my puzzlement.

Then there is the group of Protestant who don’t have a problem with seeing Catholic practices or beliefs as permissable or possible, but object to be told by Catholics that they are required for all Christians. An example of this would be in the Papal encyclical “Mortalium Animos”, where the Pope writes that "all who are truly Christ’s " will accept the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, and IIRC, the Immaculate Conception. That’s where people like me start to ask why it is required of Christians to absolutely believe something that’s not explicitly or implicitly in the Bible.

Well stated. There really is considerable latitude in matters such as the adoration of the Bible; actually the Lectionary [readings for the entire church year] is the actual book used in Mass. Lutherans refer to these things as adiaphora; ceremonies and rites neither commanded nor forbidden. For example, Martin Luther referred to the blessed Virgin as the “Queen of Heaven” yet urged Christians to not overemphasize that if it confused others or took the focus off Christ.

I’ve never seen an “altar call” in Lutheran churches but I don’t think that expression is “wrong” or in anyway contrary to the Christian faith. What I find curious is the adamancy that some posters proclaim the “truth” and refer to others as “illegitimate” Christians.

 

[PRmerger]

PSo what’s up with targeting me or Itwin in order to try to make a point on this thread; a point which you’ve brought up several times already on other threads?

I am sorry that you feel targeted.

I am not accusing you nor am I recusing you. I am simply saying, “I hope you allow Catholics the same paradigm that you allow yourselves, namely: to bow down or kiss a Bible is not necessarily idolatry (although it can be), nor should bowing down or kissing a statue of Mary be considered idolatry (although it can be).”

 

[hn160]

The only altar calls that Lutheran do is to kneel at the altar rail to receive the very Body and Blood of Christ in the bread and wine for the foregiveness of sins.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s where people like me start to ask why it is required of Christians to absolutely believe something that’s not explicitly or implicitly in the Bible.

Because you accept the canon of the NT, given to you by the Catholic Church, when there is nothing explicitly or implicitly in any of the books of the Bible that tell you this table of contents.

You must rely on the authority of the CC to do this for you.

So it seems disingenuous to hold that standard for everything else you reject, yet accept it for something huge like the canon of the NT.

 

[PRmerger]

I was using “electricity” and “marijuana” as examples for why I think the allowing or prohibiting of things based on the “silence of Scripture” does not work as a principle on which to base Christian worship.

And here is exactly the problem. For each and every question of ecclesial or theological praxis, a Bible alone advocate MUST choose a paradigm when the Bible is silent on this.

Either you must say: well, the Bible doesn’t mention it, so it’s permitted.

OR

Well, the Bible doesn’t mention it, so i’ts forbidden.

And the obvious problem that Catholics are pointing out is that it’s a rather arbitrary application of these paradigms. When you want to continue a practice that is not found in the Bible, you say, “It’s permitted, since the Bible is silent on this.”

And when you want to forbid this practice, you apply it thusly: “It’s forbidden, since the Bible is silent on this.”