Altar Calls-Non-Catholic/Orthodox

[twopekinguys]

You sure about that? It is my understanding that Luther accepted the Real Presence but denied the sacrificial nature of the Mass. For him, viewing the Mass as a sacrifice turned it into a work. For Luther, the Mass was not an offering or sacrifice. The celebration of the Mass was in receiving and benefiting from the Christ’s word of promise and the signs of bread and wine.

Then you should be able to provide a reference for this statement.

Context is everything, and I am sure others beside myself would like to see in what context Luther said this.

 

[twopekinguys]

All the Reformers accepted Sola Scriptura. Henry VIII wasn’t a “Reformer.” He was a monarch who piggie-backed on the Protestant Reformation to replace the Pope’s power in England with his own, but he didn’t really introduce any doctrinal reforms. Those came later.

Henry VIII wasn’t a reformer?

Who started the Church of England? Who sanctioned divorce? That in itself is a “doctrinal reform”

Wanna try that one again?

Again, please provide references for your statement “All the Reformers accepted Sola Scriptura”.

Remember, context is everything. I will wait patiently for your references.

 

[ltwin]

Then you should be able to provide a reference for this statement.

Context is everything, and I am sure others beside myself would like to see in what context Luther said this.

The exact quote is from the Weimar edition of Luther’s works 10[2], 212 translated in Robert C. Croken’s Luther’s First Front: The Eucharist as Sacrifice:

It is very clear that the Mass is not a matter of our work or word, but of Christ alone giving us both the word of promise and the sign of bread and wine, and that its celebration consists not in offering or sacrificing, but only in receiving and benefiting.​

This was written in response to Henry VIII’s attack on Luther, for which Henry was given the title “Defender of the Faith” by the Pope.

The Eucharist in the West, edited by Edward J. Kilmartin, SJ, and Robert J. Daly, SJ, and published by Liturgical Press in 2004, states:

Luther was convinced that the Catholic doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass describes only a human work, and that it makes of this work a means of grace. . . . This explanation of Biel’s provided strong support for Luther’s conviction that Catholic theology erroneously attributes to the Mass a sacrificial activity that competes with the sacrifice of the cross. For, in this theory, the victim of the cross and the Mass is identical, but* not the sacrifice*. The eucharistic sacrifice is offered by the Church acting as principalis offerens. (p. 172).​

 

[ltwin]

Henry VIII wasn’t a reformer?

Who started the Church of England? Who sanctioned divorce? That in itself is a “doctrinal reform”

Wanna try that one again?

Henry did separate the Church of England from the Pope’s jurisdictions. But that is about it. The English Reformation during Henry’s reign was not particularly radical. The most radical changes were the legal relationship between the English Church and the papacy. Through various Acts of Parliament, most importantly the Act of Supremacy, the Pope was replaced as head of the Church in England by the king. Doctrinally, however, Henry changed little.

Technically, there were never any divorces. His marriage to Catharine of Aragon was declared null and void by the Archbishop of Canterbury sitting in judgement at a special court. Anne of Cleves testified that her marriage to him was never consummated. The others either died in childbirth or were executed for adultery.

Again, please provide references for your statement “All the Reformers accepted Sola Scriptura”.

Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Cranmer all accepted that Scripture was the highest authority for church doctrine.

 

[twopekinguys]

The exact quote is from the Weimar edition of Luther’s works 10[2], 212 translated in Robert C. Croken’s Luther’s First Front: The Eucharist as Sacrifice:

It is very clear that the Mass is not a matter of our work or word, but of Christ alone giving us both the word of promise and the sign of bread and wine, and that its celebration consists not in offering or sacrificing, but only in receiving and benefiting.​

This was written in response to Henry VIII’s attack on Luther, for which Henry was given the title “Defender of the Faith” by the Pope.

The Eucharist in the West, edited by Edward J. Kilmartin, SJ, and Robert J. Daly, SJ, and published by Liturgical Press in 2004, states:

Luther was convinced that the Catholic doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass describes only a human work, and that it makes of this work a means of grace. . . . This explanation of Biel’s provided strong support for Luther’s conviction that Catholic theology erroneously attributes to the Mass a sacrificial activity that competes with the sacrifice of the cross. For, in this theory, the victim of the cross and the Mass is identical, but* not the sacrifice*. The eucharistic sacrifice is offered by the Church acting as principalis offerens. (p. 172).​

Do you have links? I don’t see the entire context here.

 

[Nicea325]

QUOTE=ltwin;10852616]You sure about that? It is my understanding that Luther accepted the Real Presence but denied the sacrificial nature of the Mass. For him, viewing the Mass as a sacrifice turned it into a work. For Luther, the Mass was not an offering or sacrifice. The celebration of the Mass was in receiving and benefiting from the Christ’s word of promise and the signs of bread and wine./QUOTE]

And to bad the words in red proved how wrong Luther was with his agendas. Bread and wine are not only signs. Yep! And the rest is history and the scores of non-Catholic churches and beliefs says it all. Where does it end?

 

[Nicea325]

All the Reformers accepted Sola Scriptura. Henry VIII wasn’t a “Reformer.” He was a monarch who piggie-backed on the Protestant Reformation to replace the Pope’s power in England with his own, but he didn’t really introduce any doctrinal reforms. Those came later.

Sources please…

 

[ltwin]

Do you have links? I don’t see the entire context here.

The Eucharist in the West.

Luther’s First Front.

 

[ltwin]

Sources please…

It’s common knowledge. Sola Scriptura is one of the defining principles of the Reformation. I’ve already given you the names of reformers who saw scripture as the highest authority in the church.

 

[andrewstx]

Before it was on TV, it began in the revivals. It continues to be practiced in evangelical churches across the world.

The term “altar call” is more of a modern name for it. It used to be “tarrying at the mourner’s bench.” The “mourner’s bench” being the section at the front of the congregation where those who were being convicted of sins sat and prayed.

While “these groups” do not have stone altars in their churches, they all historically had wooden tables at the front of the church on which the bread and wine were prayed over. They also had “altar rails,” where people went to pray. Therefore, the traditional call to come and pray for the forgiveness of your sins became known as the “altar call.”

Many modern evangelical churches no longer include a wooden table commonly called an “altar” nor do they feature “altar rails.” However, the term “altar call” is still used because its the customary language.

We are not sacrificing Jesus over again. The sacrifice is of ourselves. The idea is that at the “altar” we lay down our old lives, the old man, our sins and our problems. When we rise up from the “altar” we do not pick back up all these things. We turn them over to Jesus for good.

It is the altar of prayer. The “altar” is a place of prayer. It is a place where we “meet” God. It can be a “mourner’s bench” or a closet in your house for that matter.

My Gramma went to a church of The Nazarene. At the end of a service people went forward to a bench and squatted around it like this Z instead of kneeling conventionally which is more like this L.

They did not believe in once saved always saved, when backslidden they had to “Get saved” repeatedly, they also went forward to “get sanctified”, and to just pray.

What we would call an altar, they call a “Lord’s Supper table” and usually they just move it in and out for the “Lord’s Supper” on the rare occasions they “OBSERVED the Lord’s Supper”. But the low benches they call “altars” are always in place.

One observation alter is a verb meaning to change, altar is the noun used for the table the Divine Liturgy is celebrated on.

 

[ltwin]

My Gramma went to a church of The Nazarene. At the end of a service people went forward to a bench and squatted around it like this Z instead of kneeling conventionally which is more like this L.

They did not believe in once saved always saved, when backslidden they had to “Get saved” repeatedly, they also went forward to “get sanctified”, and to just pray.

What we would call an altar, they call a “Lord’s Supper table” and usually they just move it in and out for the “Lord’s Supper” on the rare occasions they “OBSERVED the Lord’s Supper”. But the low benches they call “altars” are always in place.

One observation alter is a verb meaning to change, altar is the noun used for the table the Divine Liturgy is celebrated on.

The bench you are talking about sounds like the “mourner’s bench” or the “anxious bench” that altar calls developed from.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Peace to all!

Have any of you ever seen on tv when the pastor calls people up for altar calls? Yes–Billy Graham would be a famous example of this.. First of all, I thought these groups do not believe a physical altar is necessary? To the best of my knowledge, this is correct. Second, they attack ancient liturgical churches for sacrificing Jesus over again? Exactly who is “attacking”? I’m pretty sure Billy Graham, my previous famous example, didn’t attack Catholicism. Are they attacking or just disagreeing? Can you provide some examples of what you mean? Finally, if such is the case, then where is the altar he or she call people to approach? :ehh: Did the explanations about the use and meaning of altar calls by Evangelicals help to answer your question here?

Dear folks, we are supposed to stick with one topic per thread. While these rabbit trails are interesting, they’re way off topic. There have already been numerous threads, over, and over, and over again, trying to discuss sola scriptura, which is where this thread is veering off towards. It’s a worthy topic, but it’s not the one topic of this thread.

Nicea, I think you’ve received a more than adequate answer about why Evangelicals might use altar calls, and what they mean to Evangelicals. Apparently that’s not what you were .looking for, though, so could you possibly rephrase your question? I don’t understand what you want.

I do not want anything. I basically brought up an observation and wanted others to say whatever they wanted.

Okay. I’ve placed my own questions in bold within your first post.

 

[andrewstx]

The bench you are talking about sounds like the “mourner’s bench” or the “anxious bench” that altar calls developed from.

That is exactly what it is and evangelicals renamed it the altar and then renamed the altar to “Lord’s Supper Table”.

 

[AbideWithMe]

That is exactly what it is and evangelicals renamed it the altar and then renamed the altar to “Lord’s Supper Table”.

The altars, used for the Lord’s Supper, came first, not the “mourner’s bench”.

 

[PRmerger]

Because the fact is that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have erred

Fair enough.

You need to be quite skeptical, then, that the canon of the NT is actually the Word of God.

Each and every time you quote from Hebrews, (as you did here) or, the Gospel of Mark,(as you did here) you need to be giving the caveat: * that is, if the Catholic Church did not err when she proclaimed these books to be *theopneustos. Since the CC is capable of erring I can’t be sure this isn’t one of those times.

 

[ltwin]

The altars, used for the Lord’s Supper, came first, not the “mourner’s bench”.

Exactly. The mourner’s bench was at the front of the church, near the altar. Therefore, the call for people to come up and pray near the altar became known as the “altar call.” Nothing was “replaced.”

 

[AbideWithMe]

That is exactly what it is and evangelicals renamed it the altar and then renamed the altar to “Lord’s Supper Table”.

I re-read your earlier post, Andrew, and I think I misunderstood you in part. But, I’ve seen plenty of Evangelical churches which have a permanent altar and permanent railings for communicants to kneel at for Communion. The altar may have “Do This In Remembrance Of Me” on it–I’ve seen that a number of times.

If an altar call is given, people can go up and kneel at the same railing used for Communion, but it is not confused by anyone with Communion.

 

[ltwin]

I re-read your earlier post, Andrew, and I think I misunderstood you in part. But, I’ve seen plenty of Evangelical churches which have a permanent altar and permanent railings for communicants to kneel at for Communion. The altar may have “Do This In Remembrance Of Me” on it–I’ve seen that a number of times.

If an altar call is given, people can go up and kneel at the same railing used for Communion, but it is not confused by anyone with Communion.

Our old church building had permanent altar railings which people kneeled at to pray on both sides of the edge of the platform. In the middle of the platform stood the pulpit. Below the pulpit off the platform was a wooden table with “Do This In Remembrance of Me” carved into it. There was a shelf under it on which the gold communion containers were placed. When we didn’t have communion, there was usually one of those big fancy Bibles always left open on it with the offering plates on both sides and a flower display.

We never received communion at the railings though because they would pass around these large gold colored containers that held the little plastic cups of grape juice and bread in. The ushers would go pew by pew and allow each person to take a plastic cup, one with juice and one with bread, from the large containers.

In our new building, we have a table on the platform but I don’t think it was actually made to be an altar. It looks like regular house furniture that has a couple of candles placed on it. I don’t know who made that decision, but anyway. . . . We have no altar rails, but people pray at the steps to the platform and we still call it praying at the altar.

 

[ltwin]

You need to be quite skeptical, then, that the canon of the NT is actually the Word of God.

No, I don’t.

Each and every time you quote from Hebrews, (as you did here) or, the Gospel of Mark,(as you did here) you need to be giving the caveat: * that is, if the Catholic Church did not err when she proclaimed these books to be *theopneustos. **Since the CC is capable of erring I can’t be sure this isn’t one of those times.

Thanks for the advice.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I don’t.

Thanks for the advice.

I understand that you don’t feel that way…but you do realize that you are being inconsistent with your approach…and that you have an untenable position “I believe the Church can err and I believe that the canon of the NT is without error even if this same Church, that can err, is the ONLY way I know that the Gospel of Mark is inspired.”

Untenable.