Altar Calls-Non-Catholic/Orthodox

[AbideWithMe]

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).”

PRmerger–I’m just stopping in to say I saw this post–thanks for the response. I thought I’d write a more meaningful reply tonight, but I didn’t realize how late it is after a long day. I have to get to bed. :yawn:

 

[EvangelCatholic]

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.

That is true but some parishes invite those seeking healing to stay after the service is over for unction, laying on of hands and prayer. It is a very meaningful experience that I suspect is similar to “altar calls”.

 

[ltwin]

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.

That might be what you’d do if you were a “Bible alone advocate,” but just because you’d feel forced to choose between these two paradigms doesn’t mean I or anyone else would feel forced.

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for man’s salvation, faith and life is either expressly set down in Scripture or may be deduced from Scripture. The worship of God and the government of the church is to be ordered by the general rules of God’s Word. Whatever is not found within or proved from within is not to be required to be believed as an article of faith or thought necessary to salvation.

In short, everything must be examined, measured, and reformed according to Scripture.

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.”

Who is the “you” of which you speak?

 

[ltwin]

That is true but some parishes invite those seeking healing to stay after the service is over for unction, laying on of hands and prayer. It is a very meaningful experience that I suspect is similar to “altar calls”.

In Pentecostal churches, there is laying on of hands during the altar calls. Sometimes someone praying might be anointed while praying.

Usually, Pentecostal churches have times set within the service where people can request prayer and anointing. They stand at the front and the pastor and other elders will lay on hands and the forehead will be anointed. There is also proxy prayer and anointing of strips of cloths for people to carry on their body parts.

 

[PRmerger]

That might be what you’d do if you were a “Bible alone advocate,” but just because you’d feel forced to choose between these two paradigms doesn’t mean I or anyone else would feel forced.

It’s logic, ltwin.

There are no other choices. Either you conclude that it’s forbidden or prohibited when Scripture is silent.

Can you think of any other choices, other than forbidden or permitted, when Scripture is silent on an issue?

 

[PRmerger]

They don’t seem similar to me. In Communion we receive from the Lord. In altar calls we give to the Lord—we lay down our lives before Him, or we lay down our sins in repentance, or we cast our cares or our gratitude before Him.

Is it your pastor’s position that you receive the Holy Spirit during an altar call?

Hiya, AWM. Could you answer the above question, please?

 

[ltwin]

It’s logic, ltwin.

There are no other choices. Either you conclude that it’s forbidden or prohibited when Scripture is silent.

Can you think of any other choices, other than forbidden or permitted, when Scripture is silent on an issue?

Consider the whole counsel of God. Are there general guiding principles that can be deduced from Scripture on a given topic? If so, what are those guiding principles that can be discerned from the whole of Scripture?

 

[PRmerger]

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for man’s salvation, faith and life is either expressly set down in Scripture or may be deduced from Scripture. The worship of God and the government of the church is to be ordered by the general rules of God’s Word. Whatever is not found within or proved from within is not to be required to be believed as an article of faith or thought necessary to salvation.

In short, everything must be examined, measured, and reformed according to Scripture.

Except for the canon of the NT, right?

Do you acknowledge this great exception to the above rule of thumb?

Who is the “you” of which you speak?

You, ltwin, and any other Protestant who does not give tacit or explicit submission to the authority of the Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Consider the whole counsel of God. Are there general guiding principles that can be deduced from Scripture on a given topic? If so, what are those guiding principles that can be discerned from the whole of Scripture?

And, in the end you come to one of 2 conclusions: forbidden or permitted. Yes?

Is there another choice you have?

 

[ltwin]

Except for the canon of the NT, right?

Do you acknowledge this great exception to the above rule of thumb?

I’m not sure what you are asking. Are you asking if the New Testament is exempt from being “examined, measured, and reformed” by other parts of Scripture? Both Old and New Testaments are authoritative. We cannot “reform” the New Testament. We can use Scripture to interpret Scripture, and we can cautiously look to the historical records to better understand the context in which a particular book of the Bible was written in.

You, ltwin, and any other Protestant who does not give tacit or explicit submission to the authority of the Catholic Church.

OK. Now I understand that you are simply making a blanket statement without any basis in fact to support such a claim.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure what you are asking. Are you asking if the New Testament is exempt from being “examined, measured, and reformed” by other parts of Scripture? Both Old and New Testaments are authoritative. We cannot “reform” the New Testament. We can use Scripture to interpret Scripture, and we can cautiously look to the historical records to better understand the context in which a particular book of the Bible was written in.

I am asking how you use a ruler to measure the ruler.

You cannot judge whether, say, Hebrews measures up to the NT unless you already have a NT, right?

How do you do that?

The Catholics have their answer. I am just wondering how you judge Hebrews to be the inspired Word of God when you do not yet have a canon to see how it measures up.

(Here “you” is a Christian who does not yet know what the canon is.)

 

[ltwin]

And, in the end you come to one of 2 conclusions: forbidden or permitted. Yes?

Is there another choice you have?

Sure. 1) Required according to the Word of God; 2) permitted according to the church’s discretion as informed by Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience; 3) forbidden according to the church’s discretion as informed by Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience; 4) left to individual discretion to be discerned in the light of God’s Word; 5) repugnant to the Word of God and forbidden.

And those are just “theoretical” categories. There could be more options depending on what kind of question is being asked.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Except for the canon of the NT, right?

Do you acknowledge this great exception to the above rule of thumb?

You, ltwin, and any other Protestant who does not give tacit or explicit submission to the authority of the Catholic Church.

I can’t believe you wrote that. Sounds like some sort of strong arm coercion. Is that how the Papacy views non Roman Catholics? I think not.

 

[ltwin]

I am asking how you use a ruler to measure the ruler.

You cannot judge whether, say, Hebrews measures up to the NT unless you already have a NT, right?

How do you do that?

The Catholics have their answer. I am just wondering how you judge Hebrews to be the inspired Word of God when you do not yet have a canon to see how it measures up.

(Here “you” is a Christian who does not yet know what the canon is.)

The witness and inner persuasion of the Holy Spirit and the common agreement and consent of the church.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure. 1) Required according to the Word of God; 2) permitted according to the church’s discretion as informed by Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience; 3) forbidden according to the church’s discretion as informed by Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience; 4) left to individual discretion to be discerned in the light of God’s Word; 5) repugnant to the Word of God and forbidden.

And those are just “theoretical” categories. There could be more options depending on what kind of question is being asked.

You must see the degree of cognitive dissonance this has for Catholics.

You (or your pastor) get to declare, based on your own perceptions, “It’s not in Scripture, so we can do this, as it’s not expressly forbidden!”

but you can also equally declare, “It’s not in Scripture, so you can’t do this, as it’s not a Biblical practice!”

It seems to be an arbitrary assignation that you can apply at your whim when there is a practice you want to do, as well as a practice you object to…as Scripture can never address the entirety of the human experience. You apply it at your discretion.

 

[PRmerger]

The witness and inner persuasion of the Holy Spirit and the common agreement and consent of the church.

And what is that definition above, except a wonderful explication of Sacred Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

I can’t believe you wrote that. Sounds like some sort of strong arm coercion. Is that how the Papacy views non Roman Catholics? I think not.

Is what how the papacy views non-Roman Catholics?

 

[ltwin]

You must see the degree of cognitive dissonance this has for Catholics.

You (or your pastor) get to declare, based on your own perceptions, “It’s not in Scripture, so we can do this, as it’s not expressly forbidden!”

but you can also equally declare, “It’s not in Scripture, so you can’t do this, as it’s not a Biblical practice!”

Me or my pastor get to do nothing. Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation.

It seems to be an arbitrary assignation that you can apply at your whim when there is a practice you want to do, as well as a practice you object to…as Scripture can never address the entirety of the human experience. You apply it at your discretion.

No. It belongs to the church as a whole to discern the meaning of Scripture.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Hiya, AWM. Could you answer the above question, please?

Sure, PRmerger. I’ll be back at the end of the day when I have time to write

 

[PRmerger]

No. It belongs to the church as a whole to discern the meaning of Scripture.

What verse in Scripture tells you this?

And how does this work? When did the church as a whole declare that, say, marriage on a beach is fine? And when did the church as a whole declare that organ music is permitted?