Altar Calls-Non-Catholic/Orthodox

[ltwin]

Interesting discussion…

But the question Itwin…in this case, who in the church, will determine if your pastor teaches or interprets anything contrary to Scripture?

And how will the church determine what is against or contrary to Scripture?

My church (and I’m not holding out my church as an example of “best practices” since I have a ton of problems with the entire way the church is structured) has a church board which has fired pastors in the past.

Other churches are part of denominations who have bureaucracies that get involve. When my church was part of a conference/denomination, members who had problems with a pastor would call the conference.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Hiya, EC. Could you please address the above? Thanks.

Two words bi-polar [actually one word: mania]

 

[ltwin]

So authority resides with the church-right?

The church does have authority to hold people accountable to Scripture. If the church had no authority to teach and discipline, why the need to even go to church in the first place?

 

[AbideWithMe]

So now this prompts the question: why would you follow an authority that is fallible, and claims to be so, when there is an authority that is infallible?

I think this is the crux of the matter for some people such as myself. If a person believes the Catholic Church has never, even once, taught in error, or changed a teaching, they should be Catholic. If they find the evidence pointing them towards thinking it likely that the CC has changed a teaching, they should not be Catholic. As a Protestant, I’m able to respect all of Christendom that has gone before me, while being open to the possibility that there is no single church that has never, ever been sincerely mistaken on some point of teaching.

PRmerger–You asked me a question about the thread topic. I’ll answer it when the thread gets back on track. (If anyone wants to start a betting pool on when that may happen, my bet is page 22.)

 

[ltwin]

I think this is the crux of of matter for some people such as myself. If a person believes the Catholic Church has never, even once, taught in error, or changed a teaching, they should be Catholic. If they find the evidence pointing them towards thinking it likely that the CC has changed a teaching, they should not be Catholic. As a Protestant, I’m able to respect
all of Christendom that has gone before me, while being open to the possibility that there is no single church that has never, ever been sincerely mistaken on some point of teaching.

PRmerger–You asked me a question about the thread topic. I’ll answer it when the thread gets back on track. (If anyone wants to start a betting pool on when that may happen, my bet is page 22.)

I’ll try.

I know Catholic churches have altars. For those with altar rails, do people pray at those?

 

[AbideWithMe]

I’ll try.

I know Catholic churches have altars. For those with altar rails, do people pray at those?

I’m curious to hear the answer to that, too.

(Surprise me, folks! I haven’t put any virtual money on page 22 yet. Let’s get back to the topic and stay on track.)

 

[andrewstx]

I’ll try.

I know Catholic churches have altars. For those with altar rails, do people pray at those?

Catholics usually pray in the pews that have kneeling benches in them.

Sometimes they kneel at the rail in front of the tabernacle, that is a box where the blessed sacrament (body of Christ) is kept.

 

[PRmerger]

Two words bi-polar [actually one word: mania]

Huh?

Who is bi-polar/manic? The Catholic papacy?

I get that you’re making a joke, as I see the …

but I still don’t get what the joke is. The way we view non-Catholic Christians is bi-polar?

 

[PRmerger]

I think this is the crux of the matter for some people such as myself. If a person believes the Catholic Church has never, even once, taught in error, or changed a teaching, they should be Catholic.

Actually, that is not my argument here.

I have always said: find the Church that Christ established, and then conform your views to this Church.

If they find the evidence pointing them towards thinking it likely that the CC has changed a teaching, they should not be Catholic.

It would be helpful if you could offer an example if you think this has happened.

Note: please be cognizant of disciplines vs dogmas/doctrines/teachings.

The former can change. And has.

The latter cannot. And has not.

As a Protestant, I’m able to respect all of Christendom that has gone before me, while being open to the possibility that there is no single church that has never, ever been sincerely mistaken on some point of teaching.

I think this is very dangerous thinking.

Firstly, it makes it necessary that you doubt that canon of the NT. If the Church is not capable of being infallible, then you cannot know that Hebrews is inspired and that the Epistle of Clement is not, without any degree of certainty.

You need to question whether the Gospel of Mark is actually the Word of God, or if perhaps the Shepherd of Hermas is actually the Word of God.

Secondly, this belief that there is no single church that has never ever been sincerely mistaken means that Jesus did not keep his word, and that he did indeed leave us orphans.

PRmerger–You asked me a question about the thread topic. I’ll answer it when the thread gets back on track. (If anyone wants to start a betting pool on when that may happen, my bet is page 22.)

No need. I think it’s understood that you do indeed receive something when you go to an altar call. In addition to giving yourself over to the Lord you do profess that the Holy Spirit is received.

 

[AbideWithMe]

No need. I think it’s understood that you do indeed receive something when you go to an altar call. In addition to giving yourself over to the Lord you do profess that the Holy Spirit is received.

PRmerger—Yes, in any relationship the given and receiving is mutual, and more circular than linear. IOW, I don’t conceive of giving/receiving like it’s a yardstick with giving neatly marked off at one end and receiving marked off at the other end; it’s more like a circle or sphere with both giving and receiving cycling around all the time.

But, with the revision that altar calls are primarily but not exclusively about us giving ourselves, I’ll stick with my original idea. There’s a distinct ethic, so to speak, of giving ourselves in altar calls that’s different from the receiving (“Take and eat…”) of Communion. We are nothing in ourselves, of course, and we can only return to God what He first gave us; and in the Methodist theology in which I was raised, we believe it’s God’s prevenient Grace which first moves us to respond to the offer of reconciliation and adoption which He initiates. But in altar calls, there’s a particular sense of self-surrender, self-emptying, and letting go of our attachments—why? because God is worthy of that kind of whole-hearted devotion and worship; but also in order to be free to receive more of God’s influence. Some Evangelical hymns commonly used at altar calls show this ethic: “I Surrender All”, “Take My Life and Let It Be (Consecrated Lord to Thee)”, “Is Your All on the Altar of Sacrifice Laid”. ( There’s also a contemporary song by Clay Crosse called “I Surrender All” that’s about this self-giving ethic.)

If I were to try to give you the picture in my mind that I have for altar calls, it would be that of a person kneeling at the feet of their Lord and Master in worship and humility, while offering their upturned cupped hands to Him—handing over to Him as an offering, their heart and soul, mind and strength. We believe in His graciousness He will accept our offering and fill our hands and our very selves with more of Himself. In Communion, as an Evangelical, my picture is more of Christ surrendering Himself for us: kneeling before us in unfathomable Divine humility to wash our feet, and offering Himself on the altar to be broken for us. In altar calls, we are broken before Him.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Actually, that is not my argument here.

I have always said: find the Church that Christ established, and then conform your views to this Church.

It would be helpful if you could offer an example if you think this has happened.

Note: please be cognizant of disciplines vs dogmas/doctrines/teachings.

The former can change. And has.

The latter cannot. And has not.

I think this is very dangerous thinking.

Firstly, it makes it necessary that you doubt that canon of the NT. If the Church is not capable of being infallible, then you cannot know that Hebrews is inspired and that the Epistle of Clement is not, without any degree of certainty.

You need to question whether the Gospel of Mark is actually the Word of God, or if perhaps the Shepherd of Hermas is actually the Word of God.

Secondly, this belief that there is no single church that has never ever been sincerely mistaken means that Jesus did not keep his word, and that he did indeed leave us orphans.

No need. I think it’s understood that you do indeed receive something when you go to an altar call. In addition to giving yourself over to the Lord you do profess that the Holy Spirit is received.

I’ll try to get to responding to other parts of your post on other days. On these long late June days, I’m usually outside all day till twilight, then I’m perpetually surprised by the fact that it’s time to get ready for bed when I come in.

 

[AbideWithMe]

There’s a distinct ethic, so to speak, of giving ourselves in altar calls that’s different from the receiving (“Take and eat…”) of Communion.

I wanted to add here that I’m talking as an Evangelical.

 

[PRmerger]

If I were to try to give you the picture in my mind that I have for altar calls, it would be that of a person kneeling at the feet of their Lord and Master in worship and humility, while offering their upturned cupped hands to Him—handing over to Him as an offering, their heart and soul, mind and strength. We believe in His graciousness He will accept our offering and fill our hands and our very selves with more of Himself.

Very beautiful image! (And very Catholic, too )

In Communion, as an Evangelical, my picture is more of Christ surrendering Himself for us: kneeling before us in unfathomable Divine humility to wash our feet, and offering Himself on the altar to be broken for us. In altar calls, we are broken before Him.

As a Catholic, we view it as the One Flesh Union. It is where our marriage with the Lamb is consummated.

What greater image of love is there than this, between husband and wife, or between Christ and His Beloved.

 

[Burdock]

premerger why have you got that image on the screen

 

[Nicea325]

The church does have authority to hold people accountable to Scripture. If the church had no authority to teach and discipline, why the need to even go to church in the first place?

So Scripture is above church authority?

 

[ltwin]

So Scripture is above church authority?

Yes.

 

[Nicea325]

Yes.

I am sorry,but where does Scripture explicitly teach it is “the” final authority?

BTW: I hope you are aware that the church did not develop from Scripture?

 

[ltwin]

I am sorry,but where does Scripture explicitly teach it is “the” final authority?

This is what Protestants believe. Our reasons for believing this have been argued endlessly on this forum already.

BTW: I hope you are aware that the church did not develop from Scripture?

Neither did Scripture “develop” from the church. Scripture comes from God, its authority comes from God, and the church can only recognize Scripture for what it is: god-breathed. This is the Protestant belief.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Nicea325
I am sorry,but where does Scripture explicitly teach it is “the” final authority?

This is what Protestants believe. Our reasons for believing this have been argued endlessly on this forum already.

But unfortunately there is no concrete evidence to prove such a belief. Not one verse in the Bible ever declares Scripture as “the” final authority. It is an innovation by Protestants.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
BTW: I hope you are aware that the church did not develop from Scripture?

Neither did Scripture “develop” from the church. Scripture comes from God, its authority comes from God, and the church can only recognize Scripture for what it is: god-breathed. This is the Protestant belief.

Sorry,but you are wrong. It is a false dichotomy to believe Scripture came before the church or that it did not develop from the church. Scripture is the church and its teachings in written form. Scripture came from human hands who were inspired by God. Humans are God its instruments.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Neither did Scripture “develop” from the church. Scripture comes from God, its authority comes from God, and the church can only recognize Scripture for what it is: god-breathed. This is the Protestant belief.

Oh, so none of the New Testament writers belonged to the Church?

If you belong to the Church of God and you write about the Church of God, who owns those writings? The Church of God. Simple Intellectual Property Rights principles applied.

It belongs to God, the Church and the Scriptures, ALL belongs to God and it **ALL **comes from God.

That is precisely why it is unreasonable to separate Scriptures from the Church! They both come from God and should not be separated!

No matter how much you want the Scriptures to be independent from the Church, it is not going to happen.

If you deny the Church, you are denying the Scriptures.