Altar Calls-Non-Catholic/Orthodox

[PRmerger]

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

Interesting. So Scripture decides.

How does this work in your church, then? When a decision about a practice needs to be made and Scripture is silent, what is the model that your pastor uses?

 

[ltwin]

What verse in Scripture tells you this?

It’s logical. Scripture is the Word of God. There can’t be multiple meanings to Scripture. Christians are accountable to other Christians for how they interpret the God’s Word.

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?

At this point in time, there is no formal way for the whole church or representative body of the whole church to come together. The implosion of any type of ability of one group to exert a unifying influence on the a part of the church has probably made the hope of one massive institutional church an impossible one.

What we have now are denominations and similar groups of Christians who wrestle with the Scriptures themselves and have their own standards of doctrine and accountability. There is basically a great conversation going on between these groups over the best way to understand Scripture and how it should be lived out.

Interesting. So Scripture decides.

How does this work in your church, then? When a decision about a practice needs to be made and Scripture is silent, what is the model that your pastor uses?

We don’t use a model. The only decisions that are made are really managerial decisions. The doctrinal content of the church is pretty set. The way we worship is pretty set. We might pick up new practices from other churches, and if they are effective, we might adopt them permanently.

 

[Nicea325]

Itwin:

It’s logical. Scripture is the Word of God. There can’t be multiple meanings to Scripture. Christians are accountable to other Christians for how they interpret the God’s Word.

But apparently many do believe there exist multiple meanings or else thousands of denominations would not be popping up. Okay,but who decides or determines the correct interpretation?

Which may also be very detrimental to one’s salvation,if he or she is misinterpreting Scripture? Who then is accountable? The provider of the Word or the receiver of the Word?

 

[PRmerger]

It’s logical. Scripture is the Word of God. There can’t be multiple meanings to Scripture.

Of course there can. Where does Scripture say that there can only be one meaning to a it?

And as far as saying “it’s logical” to justify your ecclesial practice or theological doctrine, I hope you allow Catholics this same paradigm: “It’s logical to pray for the dead” and “It’s logical to proclaim that there is a place of purgation to where some need to go after they die in a state of grace but not fully purified enough to stand before the Eternal Godhead.”

Christians are accountable to other Christians for how they interpret the God’s Word.

At this point in time, there is no formal way for the whole church or representative body of the whole church to come together. The implosion of any type of ability of one group to exert a unifying influence on the a part of the church has probably made the hope of one massive institutional church an impossible one.

Sadly, this is true. And the Protestant Reformation is to blame for this.

What we have now are denominations and similar groups of Christians who wrestle with the Scriptures themselves and have their own standards of doctrine and accountability. There is basically a great conversation going on between these groups over the best way to understand Scripture and how it should be lived out.

Yes, and none can agree to any place of import. And a new storefront church is opening up as we speak in towns across the world. :crying:

We don’t use a model. The only decisions that are made are really managerial decisions. The doctrinal content of the church is pretty set. The way we worship is pretty set. We might pick up new practices from other churches, and if they are effective, we might adopt them permanently.

Who decides upon whether these new practices are forbidden or permitted?

 

[AbideWithMe]

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?

PR–A person may receive the Holy Spirit during an altar call, but certainly, the Holy Spirit is not limited to that by any means.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Sadly, this is true. And the Protestant Reformation is to blame for this.

The Protestant Reformation is far from the only thing to blame for this. It should go without needing to be said that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches had lost unity far before the Protestant Reformation.

Yes, and none can agree to any place of import. And a new storefront church is opening up as we speak in towns across the world. :crying:

Well, I’d much rather see people having the religious liberty to start a new storefront church instead of seeing people strong-armed into conformity to the established Church—whether the established Protestant Church in, for example, early New England, or the Catholic Church—by threats of being burned at the stake.

Who decides upon whether these new practices are forbidden or permitted?

 

[AbideWithMe]

What we have now are denominations and similar groups of Christians who wrestle with the Scriptures themselves and have their own standards of doctrine and accountability. There is basically a great conversation going on between these groups over the best way to understand Scripture and how it should be lived out.

Yes, the great stream of fraternal conversation --sometimes heated, sometimes cordial–going on between us non-Catholics is something that I think goes on nearly unseen by those who focus short-sightedly on only the differences between Protestants.

 

[PRmerger]

PR–A person may receive the Holy Spirit during an altar call, but certainly, the Holy Spirit is not limited to that by any means.

I agree.

So it wouldn’t necessarily be true that at an altar call a person gives something to God but doesn’t receive, right?

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.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yes, the great stream of fraternal conversation --sometimes heated, sometimes cordial–going on between us non-Catholics is something that I think goes on nearly unseen by those who focus short-sightedly on only the differences between Protestants.

Hmmm, most of the fraternal conversations that I know of are between Calvinists in all their shapes and forms (Baptists, Reformed, Presbyterians, Non-Denom <think Sproul, Begg, MacArthur, Moehler, Ferguson, Zacharias, et. al.) and that of the extreme Universalist Churches (Think Episcopalian, ELCA, Presbyterian USA, Methodist, et. al.).

I have in fact heard RC Sproul sorrowfully admit the lack of unity and leadership amongst the Reformed ranks and Protestantism in general.

Like I twin said, all branches are wrestling (I read struggling) with Scriptures to fit their own theology. This extreme freedom to interpret Scriptures will make it impossible to make grounds for unity. Unless you really go extreme (Universalist) and pretty much admit everything and anything with complete disregard of reason, tradition and history.

From all these proponents, IMHO, Sproul is the only one that goes the extra mile and sets boundaries on Scripture interpretation.

Now Altar Calls are a man made tradition. And you know what? I’m ok with it. A soul closer to Christ is a soul further away from Hell. What I don’t like is Non-Catholics that practice all these unscriptural activities and then point their finger at us (Catholics).

 

[ltwin]

But apparently many do believe there exist multiple meanings or else thousands of denominations would not be popping up. Okay,but who decides or determines the correct interpretation?

Divisions do not exist because Christians believe there can be multiple meanings to Scripture. Divisions exist because Christians believe there is only one meaning to Scripture, and when that meaning becomes disputed division results.

Protestant churches do have methods for making decisions for their own bodies about how they interpret Scripture. However, if people feel that these decisions are wrong there is no civil power who will persecute and suppress them. They are free to start their own organization to propagate their rival interpretation.

Which may also be very detrimental to one’s salvation,if he or she is misinterpreting Scripture? Who then is accountable? The provider of the Word or the receiver of the Word?

Both are accountable. The provider is accountable for what he preaches. The receiver for what he hears.

 

[ltwin]

Of course there can. Where does Scripture say that there can only be one meaning to a it?

It can’t have contradictory meanings, however. Two mutually opposing things cannot both be the truth.

And as far as saying “it’s logical” to justify your ecclesial practice or theological doctrine, I hope you allow Catholics this same paradigm: “It’s logical to pray for the dead” and “It’s logical to proclaim that there is a place of purgation to where some need to go after they die in a state of grace but not fully purified enough to stand before the Eternal Godhead.”

Yes, its logical. We are the body of Christ. We can’t go out and do our own things our way, read the Bible our way just because we feel like it.

Yes, and none can agree to any place of import. And a new storefront church is opening up as we speak in towns across the world. :crying:

What’s so bad about a storefront church? Do you think Peter ever preached in a cathedral?

Who decides upon whether these new practices are forbidden or permitted?

As I said earlier, the character of my church is already set. We know who we are as a church. We have never had any crisis where people thought something was “forbidden” but others thought “permitted.” It may be difficult for someone from an hierarchical church to rationalize, but its the truth. We’ve had crises in our church resulting from someone not doing what they were supposed to and causing trouble. But these haven’t been cases of having to decide is something permitted or forbidden according to Scripture.

 

[ltwin]

Hmmm, most of the fraternal conversations that I know of are between Calvinists in all their shapes and forms (Baptists, Reformed, Presbyterians, Non-Denom <think Sproul, Begg, MacArthur, Moehler, Ferguson, Zacharias, et. al.) and that of the extreme Universalist Churches (Think Episcopalian, ELCA, Presbyterian USA, Methodist, et. al.).

Overly simplistic. As an Arminian, I am highly irritated that Evangelicalism is so often equated with conservative Calvinism.

Evangelicalism is abounding with discussion and conversation.

The mainline, not so much. They’ve pretty much settled on "lets believe everything and nothing and have a lot of committee meetings and write a lot of reports on “unity in diversity,” “living into the tension,” “holy conversation,” and “hijacked African words that we can use to sound ‘inclusive’”.

 

[ltwin]

Yes, the great stream of fraternal conversation --sometimes heated, sometimes cordial–going on between us non-Catholics is something that I think goes on nearly unseen by those who focus short-sightedly on only the differences between Protestants.

The Essential Tenets and Confessional Standards of ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians contains a section that I think is very profound:

Doctrinal Progressives understand the church’s confessional and theological tradition as an evolutionary development of doctrine in which the church’s expression of the gospel becomes richer in each succeeding age. In this view, contemporary theology and new confessions of faith are more developed, better expressed, fuller apprehensions of truth than the faith of previous centuries. Our way is the way.

Doctrinal Restorationists understand the church’s theological and confessional tradition as a series of missteps leading to imperfect understanding and inadequate articulation of the gospel. In this view, a particular moment in the church’s confessional and theological tradition, such as the sixteenth century Augsburg Confession or the seventeenth century Westminster standards, is the pure faith of a theological golden age. Their way is the way.

The Reformed understanding of the church’s confessional and theological tradition sees contemporary Christians as participants in an enduring theological and doctrinal conversation that shapes the patterns of the church’s faith and life. Communities of believers from every time and place engage in a continuous discussion about the shape of Christian faith and life, an exchange that is maintained through Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. Today’s church brings its insights into an ongoing dialogue with those who have lived and died the Faith before us. Voices from throughout the church’s life contribute to the interchange - ancient voices that articulate the enduring rule of faith, sixteenth and seventeenth century voices that shape the Reformed tradition, and twentieth century voices that proclaim the church’s faith in challenging contexts. The confessions in the Book of Confessions were not arbitrarily included, but were selected to give faithful voice to the whole communion of saints.​

 

[PRmerger]

It can’t have contradictory meanings, however. Two mutually opposing things cannot both be the truth.

This is very Catholic.

Yes, its logical. We are the body of Christ. We can’t go out and do our own things our way, read the Bible our way just because we feel like it.

This, too, is very Catholic.

However, if we are going to base our ecclesial practices and teachings on the paradigm “it’s logical to do this” then you ought to be praying for the dead and preaching about a place where purgation occurs when we die with a little bit o’ dirt on our souls. Logical!

What’s so bad about a storefront church? Do you think Peter ever preached in a cathedral?

Well, nothing is wrong with the building, of course. Mass has been celebrated in many a ramshackle building, given its 2000 year history of being celebrated around the world.

It’s the concept of following the Bible Alone that fosters and nurtures the mentality that you can leave your fallible pastor and start your own church, with your own “Bible” teachings whenever you think your fallible pastor is in error.

And given the fact that you don’t believe that men could be given the charism of infallibility (except, curiously, you do believe that men could be given the charism of infallibility, namely, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John et al), you always have that thought in the back of your mind: is my pastor’s preaching in error? And since he is fallible, that means he is going to be in error at some point…

it seems logical that there’s going to be a proliferation of men who read and study their bibles who leave their church and start their own storefront churches.

That’s the recipe for chaos and confusion.

(NB: the “you” in this post refers to a generic I believe in the Bible-Alone “you”, not necessarily a personal ltwin “you”.)

 

[PRmerger]

The mainline, not so much. They’ve pretty much settled on "lets believe everything and nothing and have a lot of committee meetings and write a lot of reports on “unity in diversity,” “living into the tension,” “holy conversation,” and “hijacked African words that we can use to sound ‘inclusive’”.

Love the way you articulated this! I may have to borrow it sometime.

 

[PRmerger]

As I said earlier, the character of my church is already set. We know who we are as a church. We have never had any crisis where people thought something was “forbidden” but others thought “permitted.” It may be difficult for someone from an hierarchical church to rationalize, but its the truth. We’ve had crises in our church resulting from someone not doing what they were supposed to and causing trouble. But these haven’t been cases of having to decide is something permitted or forbidden according to Scripture.

What is your pastor’s position on marrying someone who’s been divorced?

What is his position on abortion?

What about IVF?

 

[ltwin]

What is your pastor’s position on marrying someone who’s been divorced?

My church will marry divorced persons. That doesn’t mean that he’d marry every divorced person. There could be situations where the pastor would refuse, but being divorced would not in and of itself lead to a refusal to marry them.

What is his position on abortion?

My church teaches that abortion is the murder of human life.

What about IVF?

This is not something that my church has a teaching on. I can’t imagine that anyone in my church would feel that a couple resorting to IVF after exhausting all natural means would be wrong.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Overly simplistic.

You stole my phrase

As an Arminian, I am highly irritated that Evangelicalism is so often equated with conservative Calvinism.

Notice I did not say evangelical, but separated the 2 branches that I know of

Evangelicalism is abounding with discussion and conversation.

Then you should take this opportunity to tell me which branches apart from the ones I mentioned are in fraternal talks.

 

[ltwin]

Notice I did not say evangelical, but separated the 2 branches that I know of

Your categories were not exclusively Calvinistic though. Not all Baptists and non-denominational churches are Calvinistic. (Many Baptists seem to be a peculiar blend of Arminian/free will/decision theology and Calvinist/eternal security/OSAS. Look at the Southern Baptist Convention, where conspiracy theories abound that the Calvinist minority is trying to take over the Convention).

One could even argue that many Presbyterians these days aren’t even really Calvinists in the strict sense either!

Then you should take this opportunity to tell me which branches apart from the ones I mentioned are in fraternal talks.

What do you mean by “fraternal talks?” Both formal and informal dialogue goes on at all levels of church life. Evangelicals of all sorts work together in organizations like the NAE and World Evangelical Alliance. The Pentecostal World Fellowship and the Baptist World Alliance started an official dialogue a couple years ago (though there has always been contact between the two groups).

 

[PRmerger]

My church will marry divorced persons. That doesn’t mean that he’d marry every divorced person. There could be situations where the pastor would refuse, but being divorced would not in and of itself lead to a refusal to marry them.

So what would prevent him from marrying a person who’s been previously divorced?

My church teaches that abortion is the murder of human life.

This is not something that my church has a teaching on. I can’t imagine that anyone in my church would feel that a couple resorting to IVF after exhausting all natural means would be wrong.

And yet IVF causes a multitude of early abortions, creating newborn tiny lives that are discarded, frozen, or even later “selectively” aborted if there’s “too many” that develop in the womb.

That’s indefensible. And it’s untenable for a pastor to be against abortion yet have no teaching against IVF.

Point being made: as Scripture was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith of the Apostles, it is up to a pastor (or an individual) to decide what doctrines/teachings he’s going to declare to be the will of God.