An example of Protestant inconsistency

[Liberian]

adventistnomore:

For those who don’t know, the “Churches of Christ” don’t use musical instruments. They want to return to a “first century” way of doing Church and so they exclude musical instruments. I wondered… the Bible never explicitly excludes musical instruments… in fact, it never adresses the issue. So I decided to look up their reasoning online…
…
And we as Catholics are supposed to take their claims seriously?

Adventist No More,

I can’t speak for the Churches of Christ, and the link you give certainly appears official, but what I heard years ago from a member of that church was that Amos 6:5 criticizes people for “improvising to the music of the harp, like David” and they interpret this to mean that they shouldn’t use musical instruments in church. I realize that this is a stretch, but at least Amos 6:5 is in the Bible.

• Liberian

 

[adventistnomore]

ZAROVE:

what asumptions and central tenets are these that cause them to be Protestant?

1. They claim Scripture alone as the source of their teachings. They reject all human tradition and authority, in favor of the Bible as their only creed. (Sola Scriptura is the hallmark of the Protestant family. This belief distinguishes them from Catholic & Orthodox Christians who believe in the additional authoritative role of tradition and Church hierarchy, and from sectarian groups that have added additional writings to the Scriptures, and/or see a continual source of fresh doctrinal devlopment invested in a prophet figure i.e. Latter Day Saints, Christian Science, etc.).
2. A “Restorationist” approach to Christian doctrine that assumes prevailing apostasy in established, or preceding churches. This is the very essence of the word “Protestant” – they protest “unbiblical” doctrine in the established churches and seek to recover the essence of “1st Century Christianity.” That quest, of course, was shared by all the Reformers.
3. Their origins. Though the founders of the various Churches of Christ (for example, Campbell) renounced any affiliation with existing Protestant bodies, they all came from Methodist or Baptist backgrounds, and the Church’s doctrines are shaped by that upbringing. Thus, other key doctrines of the churches derive from these tradtions:

a. Rejection of Calvinist predestination, a legacy of Methodism
b. Rejection of infant baptism, or any form but immersion, a legacy of the Baptists
c. Rejection of the sacramental natue of the Lord’s Supper, also from the Baptists
d. Rejection of Chruch hierarchy, and an insistence on congregational Chruch structure, a legacy of the radical Reformation, transmitted through the Baptists

(To their credit, they do have unique differences. For example, they (virtually) affirm the sacramental nature of baptism.)

This is not to say that their beliefs were not based on fresh, original Biblical scholarship or personal conviction, (we shouldn’t assume they just borrowed these beliefs) but, when compared to the full spectrum of Christianity, they most naturally fit in among the Protestant groups they are derived from.

… This is a pretty good summary of why they are properly labeled as Protestants, despite their claims to the contrary. Of course, their claims to the contrary are founded upon their belief that they are the only true reflection of Christianity. They do not see themselves as pertaining to any particular branch of Christianity because they assert that their teachings alone capture the fullness and purity of Christian doctrine. This is a polemical protest, and does not reflect an external appraisal of their beliefs.

 

[adventistnomore]

Liberian:

Adventist No More,

I can’t speak for the Churches of Christ, and the link you give certainly appears official, but what I heard years ago from a member of that church was that Amos 6:5 criticizes people for “improvising to the music of the harp, like David” and they interpret this to mean that they shouldn’t use musical instruments in church. I realize that this is a stretch, but at least Amos 6:5 is in the Bible.

• Liberian

Thanks for that point. Yeah, i certainly believe using that verse is a stretch. (The entire passage condemns the people of Israel & Judah for “feasting and lounging,” extravagent luxury, complacency, indifference to God’s impending judgment, drunkenness, etc. - Amos 6:1-7. The context has nothing to do with congregational worship, to say the least.) To their credit, it is good that the statement I linked to avoided using this passage of scripture, or the other one mentioned above. On the other hand, it demonstrates why they had to turn to early Christian history & practice (almost exclusively) to verify their point – confirming their inconsistent approach.

 

[ZAROVE]

1. They claim Scripture alone as the source of their teachings. They reject all human tradition and authority, in favor of the Bible as their only creed. (Sola Scriptura is the hallmark of the Protestant family. This belief distinguishes them from Catholic & Orthodox Christians who believe in the additional authoritative role of tradition and Church hierarchy, and from sectarian groups that have added additional writings to the Scriptures, and/or see a continual source of fresh doctrinal devlopment invested in a prophet figure i.e. Latter Day Saints, Christian Science, etc.).

Regardless, it is not soley a Protestant Property. Prior pt the reform, John wycliffe held this view. So did the Waldenses.

It si not par for couse with Protestantism.

1. A “Restorationist” approach to Christian doctrine that assumes prevailing apostasy in established, or preceding churches. This is the very essence of the word “Protestant” – they protest “unbiblical” doctrine in the established churches and seek to recover the essence of “1st Century Christianity.” That quest, of course, was shared by all the Reformers.

Simpley saying this queast was shared by reformers does not hwoever prove that the theology held by the CHruch of CHirst is similar to the reformers. Many Cahtolcis who remained within the Cahtolic CHurch also sought this. This doesnt make them reformers. The fact that the term Restorationist exist shodl be enough to show their is a distinction. The only reaosn their is no distinction is your own prefernece ot lump protestants in. Indeed, this whoel thread is an attakc on protestantism in general by the use of one gorup which must be protestant because its not Cahtolic. Heck, CHruch of HCrist is seen as a Cult because of its beelifs in the same way the Cahtolci Chruch is… but Portestants are Hypocrites because teh Chruch of Christ doesnt use intrisments…

Be realistic.

The theological matters are beign discussed, not the desires of the orginisers of the movement.

1. Their origins. Though the founders of the various Churches of Christ (for example, Campbell) renounced any affiliation with existing Protestant bodies, they all came from Methodist or Baptist backgrounds, and the Church’s doctrines are shaped by that upbringing. Thus, other key doctrines of the churches derive from these tradtions:

So this means the Cahtolci CHurhc is largley Pagan, as the bulk of the ealry folowrs wherre Pagan thus their htinkign was hsaped by paganism…

Simley beign brought up in a certian way doesnt mean this shapes you thinking. One can compeltley reject oens upbrigning. I know, I have doen so myself. I am not a red necked coturny hick. This is, hwoever, how I was raised. Yet it doesnt enter my mind nor affec tmy thinkign as I am now. I renounce such a life, and now do not think liek it at all.

This is a foolish and logicllay flawed argument in and of itsself.

a. Rejection of Calvinist predestination, a legacy of Methodism
b. Rejection of infant baptism, or any form but immersion, a legacy of the Baptists
c. Rejection of the sacramental natue of the Lord’s Supper, also from the Baptists
d. Rejection of Chruch hierarchy, and an insistence on congregational Chruch structure, a legacy of the radical Reformation, transmitted through the Baptists

So anyone who rejects calvinism is of meahtodist origins? Is the Cahtolci Chruch of meathodist origins?

simley nto accpting a proposition doesnt mean you derive your theology form another that shares your view.

Same goes for the emersion comments. This is a “Legacy of the Baptists” becuase its similar. No acutal evidence to link the two, just its similar and the orginisers happeend ot be of this backgorund, therefore its obviosuly a pasteche…

Your comments ar all asusmption and no substance.

To their credit, they do have unique differences. For example, they (virtually) affirm the sacramental nature of baptism.

And the Lords supper is taken weekly and with revernece too… One reason they are ocnsidered a cult… same as Catholics…

 

[ZAROVE]

… This is a pretty good summary of why they are properly labeled as Protestants, despite their claims to the contrary. Of course, their claims to the contrary are founded upon their belief that they are the only true reflection of Christianity.

This is a false claim.

1: Not all Chruch of HCirts mebers say they are th eonly true Chruch.

2: thos that do do not count all members lost of other CHurhces.

3: The summery is largley presumption and loigiclaly flawed. IE, you say that because htey cmae form meathodist and baptost backgrousn this shaped their thinking. This assumes that man is soley a prodict of his environemtn and uobrigning, and he cannto shape his own fate. This itsself is agsisnt Cahtolci teahcing. Their is no real evidenc that the Chruches of HCirst inherit a legacy form baotosts and meahtodidst, aside form the sharign of some basic forms. sharign which is also sciptural and coidl eaisly have come form scripture and not thir upbrigning. Soem of which is shared by Cahtolisism.

  Likewise, Chruches of christ tend to reject most of Protestant heology. IE, Baptismal nessisity is a aprt of Chruches of CHrust teahcigns, and hteir is no "Slavaitonby Faith LAone."

The movement is proeprly udnerstood by theologisans as “Restorationist” as because they are a distinct movement that is not dependant upon protestantiim, dispite yoyr claims ot the ocntrary.

I will explain firther if you like.

They do not see themselves as pertaining to any particular branch of Christianity because they assert that their teachings alone capture the fullness and purity of Christian doctrine. This is a polemical protest, and does not reflect an exteral appraisal of their beliefs.

Beleifs whoch you didnt properly examien either. You just presume that tis all based on Baotost and emahtididt teahcign and give the impresion its all put togather gorm them, ignorign the vast differences between the CHruhces of CHrust and Baotosts and meathidsust. This is dishoenst in and of tisself.

 

[adventistnomore]

Not dishonest at all.

Again, from an external, unbiased perspective, to what significant branch of Christianity (as concieved of in the modern field of religious study) do they belong to?

Rather than have my reply picked apart, I restate the central unity of my argument. The Chuches of Christ accept Scripture alone, the central rally point of Protestantism. Yes, previous groups (Waldenses, Hussites, etc.) held to similar views. That is why some of them are called “Proto-Protestant,” and indeed, when the Reformation exploded on the world stage, both groups signed concords with the Reformation, effectively joining Protestantism. Likewise, many of the Reformers embraced them, and individual such as Huss and Wycliffe, as the forerunners of their own ideologes, championing their memory as brothers in the same cause. “Protestant,” as a term applied to movements which rejected the Catholic Church arose only after 1521. Nonetheless, the same thread binds these Chruch together.

Again, I made very clear that I do not consider them Protestants simply because they accept the same doctrines as their forerunners. I repeat, they engaged in fresh, honest Biblical scholarship, as is evident by the doctrines by which they differ from other Protestant churches (particularly those you cited).

However, their assumptions match the full spread of those movements which reject Catholic Christianity, (today referred to as Protestant) and are not usually considered sectarian. Moreover, they are directy descended from those movements, and they make that fact clear. I understand that labels can often be too broad or prone to be missapplied. But honestly, though a few particular doctrines held by Church of Christ members differ from those held by other Protestant groups, all Protestant groups have particular doctrines (that’s why they are organized into denominations). I politely add that ** by rejecting (a caricature of ) my point of view that assumes I believe that Protestantism is a giant monolith, you tend to make the equal mistake of assuming that Protestantism is so giant a monolith that the Churches of Christ can be excluded from it. ** (!)

Likewise, not all peculiar doctrines of the Chruches of Christ are that original. The anabaptist and radical reformers of the 16th century held similar rejections of denominationalism, and viewed themselves as restorations of the first century church by their ‘discovery’ of baptism by immersion only, etc. The Churches of Christ built upon these foundations, and had other peculiar doctrins to add. We may have to disagree on this, (I am always prepared to do so) but from an external perspective, there is ** no feature that makes the Churches of Christ so fundamentally and radically distinct from Protestantism to preclude its being called Protestant. **

I’m sorry if that sounds strong… its not meant to be. You’re a member of the Chruch of Christ… rather than speak to you from a Catholic perspetive, I will step back into my Adventism for a moment. I come from the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I mean, my Church is even more radically distinct from the Churches of Christ. Adventists hold peculiar apocalyptic beliefs, believe themselves to be the “remnant Church,” (implicitly) deny salvation by faith alone, believe that a heavenly judgmet is proceeding right now, and believe in a prophetic authority (though they reject that Ellen White was a source of new revelation as in more fringe groups). Nonetheless, Adventists are generally accepted as Protestant, we have links to Protestant groups, and call ourselves Protestant. You would probably be more accepted among other Protestants than we, or are musical instruments that big of an issue? This is where I’m coming from, I respect where you’re coming from though.

 

[adventistnomore]

Finally, I add…

Overlooking “Protestant” inconsistensies, my original point may be restated, for a group of Christians that claim to go by the Bible alone, there are inconsistensies in the Churches of Christ position.

That’s my major point.

---

Lol… PS, I would like to learn more about the Church of Christ though, I’ve never known anyone who was Church of Christ (we don’t have to many in NY). I hope to learn more from you Zarone, and apart from all this debate, good to meet you.

 

[ZAROVE]

forgive multiple posts…

I like ot be thourough

Not dishonest at all.

Again, from an external, unbiased perspective, to what significant branch of Christianity (as concieved of in the modern field of religious study) do they belong to?

Restorationist. They are resotrationist in theology and do not share much of the theological thoguht of the eofmraiton or later Protestant writters.

and yoyr arguemtns where dishoenst.

IE, when you say the “founders” of the CoC ( which is in and of itsself a mro einvovled tale than you rtealise) where of baptost and methodist origins. This means htis dhaped their htinking.

This is not valid. One can be raised oen way and rejct it, and have it not shape their thoughts. I knwo this firsthand, or else I woidltn bven b here posting.

Your other staements abotthhe “LEgacies” they inhereted form bapptstys and methodists dont add up. Too many independant gorups share these. Cahtolisism for instance rejects calvinism.

They can arrive at similar conclusiosn on thei own.

And your self proffessed “Pretty good” summery of their beleifs was self serivng and dint ccover their beleifs at all. You may pretend I am bias begn HCurhc of Chirst ( which since no oen here rellay knwos me is an easy one to sell) and you somehow present yorself as unbias, but relaisticlaly your thole tread is an attakc on another group base don a self interest of provign cahtolsisim by rippign down protestantism by mean of attackignt he HCurhc of CHirst.

Thats hypocracy in and of itsself and dishienst.

Rather than have my reply picked apart, I restate the central unity of my argument. The Chuches of Christ accept Scripture alone, the central rally point of Protestantism. Yes, previous groups (Waldenses, Hussites, etc.) held to similar views. That is why some of them are called “Proto-Protestant,” and indeed, when the Reformation exploded on the world stage, both groups signed concords with the Reformation, effectively joining Protestantism.

so yo disregard basic logic.

Tobe a protestant requires mro ethan scirpture alone. It also rewuitres accptance of and afifliation to the movement.

Protestants hodl to five solas, not one.

Admisison that other non-protestant grups adhere to sciropture alone proves that scuroptrue aloen is not soely protestant.

it is not proper to say this is the central point of protestantism, since the central rallyign cry was acutlaly justificaiton by Faith Alone, which is rejected by the Chruches of HCirst and all restorationists.

Likewise, many of the Reformers embraced them, and individual such as Huss and Wycliffe, as the forerunners of their own ideologes, championing their memory as brothers in the same cause.

which either is irrelevant as protestants didnt exist, or else you jst provesd the likes of Jakc Chick trght…

Jack says Protestants where the firts type fp Christins, only later did Cahtolics show up. You at elats give creedance ot this by amdititng protestants existed into the distant past form the ealryiest days of the Chruch… sicne scirpture alone gorus existed at leats since the second century.

( thought hre cannon was not finalised.)

“Protestant,” as a term applied to movements which rejected the Catholic Church arose only after 1521. Nonetheless, the same thread binds these Chruch together.

And restorationism began in the late 18th century early 19th cenruty, and largely rejects the central points of protestantism aside form SOla Scuopttura which tyo elevat ot the only protestant tenat.

restoraitonism is a seperat emovement, not affiliated with protestantism.

It cosnsits of the Churses of Christ, Christain Chruhces, and other ismilar offshoots, and the radical Mormon groups which rode in on the restorationist claims.

Again, I made very clear that I do not consider them Protestants simply because they accept the same doctrines as their forerunners. I repeat, they engaged in fresh, honest Biblical scholarship, as is evident by the doctrines by which they differ from other Protestant churches (particularly those you cited).

This is inconsistant. In oen instance you say they arent considered protestants. In another they are. “Other Protestanrt chruhces”. Indeed the hwol e poitn wiht you is that they are protestant.
This schitzophrinic veiw is not vlaid in and of tisself.

 

[stillsearching]

ZAROVE:

forgive multiple posts…

I like ot be thourough

Not dishonest at all.

Again, from an external, unbiased perspective, to what significant branch of Christianity (as concieved of in the modern field of religious study) do they belong to?

Restorationist. They are resotrationist in theology and do not share much of the theological thoguht of the eofmraiton or later Protestant writters.

and yoyr arguemtns where dishoenst.

IE, when you say the “founders” of the CoC ( which is in and of itsself a mro einvovled tale than you rtealise) where of baptost and methodist origins. This means htis dhaped their htinking.

This is not valid. One can be raised oen way and rejct it, and have it not shape their thoughts. I knwo this firsthand, or else I woidltn bven b here posting.

Your other staements abotthhe “LEgacies” they inhereted form bapptstys and methodists dont add up. Too many independant gorups share these. Cahtolisism for instance rejects calvinism.

They can arrive at similar conclusiosn on thei own.

And your self proffessed “Pretty good” summery of their beleifs was self serivng and dint ccover their beleifs at all. You may pretend I am bias begn HCurhc of Chirst ( which since no oen here rellay knwos me is an easy one to sell) and you somehow present yorself as unbias, but relaisticlaly your thole tread is an attakc on another group base don a self interest of provign cahtolsisim by rippign down protestantism by mean of attackignt he HCurhc of CHirst.

Thats hypocracy in and of itsself and dishienst.

Rather than have my reply picked apart, I restate the central unity of my argument. The Chuches of Christ accept Scripture alone, the central rally point of Protestantism. Yes, previous groups (Waldenses, Hussites, etc.) held to similar views. That is why some of them are called “Proto-Protestant,” and indeed, when the Reformation exploded on the world stage, both groups signed concords with the Reformation, effectively joining Protestantism.

so yo disregard basic logic.

Tobe a protestant requires mro ethan scirpture alone. It also rewuitres accptance of and afifliation to the movement.

Protestants hodl to five solas, not one.

Admisison that other non-protestant grups adhere to sciropture alone proves that scuroptrue aloen is not soely protestant.

it is not proper to say this is the central point of protestantism, since the central rallyign cry was acutlaly justificaiton by Faith Alone, which is rejected by the Chruches of HCirst and all restorationists.

Likewise, many of the Reformers embraced them, and individual such as Huss and Wycliffe, as the forerunners of their own ideologes, championing their memory as brothers in the same cause.

which either is irrelevant as protestants didnt exist, or else you jst provesd the likes of Jakc Chick trght…

Jack says Protestants where the firts type fp Christins, only later did Cahtolics show up. You at elats give creedance ot this by amdititng protestants existed into the distant past form the ealryiest days of the Chruch… sicne scirpture alone gorus existed at leats since the second century.

( thought hre cannon was not finalised.)

“Protestant,” as a term applied to movements which rejected the Catholic Church arose only after 1521. Nonetheless, the same thread binds these Chruch together.

And restorationism began in the late 18th century early 19th cenruty, and largely rejects the central points of protestantism aside form SOla Scuopttura which tyo elevat ot the only protestant tenat.

restoraitonism is a seperat emovement, not affiliated with protestantism.

It cosnsits of the Churses of Christ, Christain Chruhces, and other ismilar offshoots, and the radical Mormon groups which rode in on the restorationist claims.

Again, I made very clear that I do not consider them Protestants simply because they accept the same doctrines as their forerunners. I repeat, they engaged in fresh, honest Biblical scholarship, as is evident by the doctrines by which they differ from other Protestant churches (particularly those you cited).

This is inconsistant. In oen instance you say they arent considered protestants. In another they are. “Other Protestanrt chruhces”. Indeed the hwol e poitn wiht you is that they are protestant.

This schitzophrinic veiw is not vlaid in and of tisself.

Like, Dude, is there a spellchecker on this thing, cause I can’t understand anything you wrote. Like, this is not me saying something to be rude, it’s just like the spelling is so bad in your post, I can’t read it. Maybe you can fix it and then we will all know what you are trying to say?

 

[ZAROVE]

However, their assumptions match the full spread of those movements which reject Catholic Christianity, (today referred to as Protestant) and are not usually considered sectarian.

No, it doesnmt. As noted they reject most of what you woidl hear in a Protestant chruch. IE, Faith LAone, thats a big one.

Their is clear distinction int her theology as well.

You even admited this yourself.

You justw ant an easy lable to justify this unnessisary thread.

Moreover, they are directy descended from those movements, and they make that fact clear.

No, their a seperate movement. Trust me, I know the hisotyr better than you do on this.

Yiu sem tohave ogotten it soely form catholic apologetics side.

I understand that labels can often be too broad or prone to be missapplied. But honestly, though a few particular doctrines held by Church of Christ members differ from those held by other Protestant groups, all Protestant groups have particular doctrines (that’s why they are organized into denominations).

The same can be said of Cahtolcis. Os cahtolics are just another denomenation…

1: The HCurhces of CHrist arent denomenational. dispite your desire to force them to accept they are. hwich is in and of itsself offensive and self righeosu of you.

2: They arent protestant btu restorationist. Theyr theology is markecdly unrelated tot he teformation. dispite your tryign to undermine this by sayign no more so than the drift between other protestant CHurches.

Do relaise that all you have said is also said of Cahtolsisim. That its just another denomenation and shoufknt claim supremacy.

Insultign others and depictign them as you need them to be depicted to suit your end will nto firther nay cause Christ endorses.

I politely add that by rejecting (a caricature of) my point of view that assumes I believe that Protestantism is a giant monolith, you tend to make the equal mistake of assuming that Protestantism is so giant a monolith that the Churches of Christ can be excluded from it. (!)

I make the point that they are restorationist. Not Protestant. This because htey reject the reform and are a seperate mvoement. Protestant CHruches call themselves rptoestant and thir are base simialrities you do not find in restoraitonist CHruches. DIspite your claim that this is a caracaturisation of your claims, the reality is that they are markecly differnet. and not different int he same vein as other denominations.

Not appricating these differences and ways of thoguth will forbid you form understanding the members of the HCurhc of christ cand caus elaienation.

Is that what toy want? to sew discord?

This is the only result you will find in this lien fo reasoning.

Likewise, not all peculiar doctrines of the Chruches of Christ are that original. The anabaptist and radical reformers of the 16th century held similar rejections of denominationalism, and viewed themselves as restorations of the first century church by their ‘discovery’ of baptism by immersion only, etc. The Churches of Christ built upon these foundations, and had other peculiar doctrins to add.

At leats in your one sides take of hisotry which shows them as nothgin but a synthasis of methodism and baptist teahcings.

By the way, the very term restorationist precludes origionality, sicne htye wanted to resotr what was before… this sort of eliminates origionality…

We may have to disagree on this, (I am always prepared to do so) but from an external perspective, there is ** no feature that makes the Churches of Christ so fundamentally and radically distinct from Protestantism to preclude its being called Protestant. **

and yet even wikipeepia acknoeledges that its not protestant.

The differences exist. In theological aporach and elgacy and htinking., I know, Ive been toprotestant churches. i know how protestants think.

The HCurhces of christ do nto fdiffer only on denominational lines, and syaign this is a gross distortion of reality. A distortion you seek intentionally tomake to lable them protestant so you can use them as a punshign bag to showcase “Protestant hypocracy”.

  The differences are that htey seek not to reject rome btu live as CHrist taigh. They seek not to be saved "By faith alone" but by onbedience and rpeentance. bedence and repentance are stressed, not faith.

trust me, its raidcllay different. So different protestants dotn even think Im saved.

so dont lie abotu how its all the same, and theirs no reaosn nto to call them protestant. You clearly do nto care fot the tuth yo car eonly for your own needs and ends here.

 

[ZAROVE]

I’m sorry if that sounds strong… its not meant to be. You’re a member of the Chruch of Christ… rather than speak to you from a Catholic perspetive, I will step back into my Adventism for a moment. I come from the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Do not patornise me lad. I know full well catholsiskm, and many mistake me for catholic.

 Gwt to knwo me before you condescend to aid me in my meager understanding.

Perhaps I kow more than you realise.

I mean, my Church is even more radically distinct from the Churches of Christ.

No, its not.

I know of them too.

Adventists hold peculiar apocalyptic beliefs, believe themselves to be the “remnant Church,” (implicitly) deny salvation by faith alone, believe that a heavenly judgmet is proceeding right now, and believe in a prophetic authority (though they reject that Ellen White was a source of new revelation as in more fringe groups). Nonetheless, Adventists are generally accepted as Protestant, we have links to Protestant groups, and call ourselves Protestant.

and sicne adventist call themselves protestant, tis not offensive to call them this.

Forcign CHruh of CHirst mebers to call themselves protestant so you can look doen your nos at them is ahrdly the same.

Indeed, forcign them to be called protestant to suit your perceptiosn is itsself a breach of charity. which I thoguth was agaisnt the cahtolci way of life, Correct me if Im wrong here…

You would probably be more accepted among other Protestants than we, or are musical instruments that big of an issue? This is where I’m coming from, I respect where you’re coming from though.

I like how you said “Other Protestants” Yeah Ill just accpet Im a protestanmt. You said so, and gee fogolly they aint no differnce…

Do you se how your runbing it in itsself may be offensive?>

How your derogitives and condecent itsself may be seen as grave error, because it causes anger and aleination?

And the simple fact is Im more accepted by Cahtolics, not “Other Protestants” whoh think Im a nonsaved cult member.

Dont you dare rpesume loek this again.

And dorp sayign that Im a prtoestant. Chruc fo chtist is protestant. and I woidl be mor wlcomed with “Other protestants.”

Stop offendign peopel when you know its offensive.

I dotn care what your personal veiw is, which is self serving. You knwo tis offnesive, so dont do it.

Finally, I add…

Overlooking “Protestant” inconsistensies, my original point may be restated, for a group of Christians that claim to go by the Bible alone, there are inconsistensies in the Churches of Christ position.

That’s my major point.

Your major poitn is to trash soemone elses CHruch for no reaosn than to preas your own baises to others. This strengthens the cahtolic posiituon by mamoing “Protestants” lok like fools.

That is also offnesive. Just like callign the HCurhc of CHirst is offnesive even knowng they disliek it.

This whole thread is worhtless because it accomplishes nothign but angering others and causign bias in others who know not why they are angry.

 

[mlchance]

byzmelkite:

It is still a fact that the Eastern churches have never used musical instruments and that the Eastern Churches follow the most ancient practices.

So what? “Ancient” does not equal “necessary” or even “better.” In any event, noting the above still doesn’t change the facts that:

1. The organ was invented long before the Protestant Reformation (contra your assertion).
2. Instrumentation entered Christian worship, at least in the west, well before the Protestant Reformation (contra your assertion).
3. There is nothing in Scripture or Tradition that either prohibits or requires instrumentation in Christian worship.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Joe_Monahan]

Reminder to all:

Charity and respect are basic tenets expected to be met in all postings. The matter under discussion here is the decision of a Church to not use musical instruments in its worship services. The reasoning behind that decision may be a legitimate subject for discussion, but the use or non-use of instrumental accompaniment is not a basis on which to denigrate the worship practices of any Church.

Further, attributing a greater reverence or a more proper discipline to any Church or Churches of the Catholic Communion on the basis of use or non-use of instrumentation is inappropriate.

Unless this thread assumes a more charitable tenor, it will be closed.

Joe Monahan

 

[ZAROVE]

To be hoenst, I wodl like ir closed. In addition to existing soley to show how stupid and wrogn the CHruhc of CHirts is, and thus how Protestants are hypocrites, repeated attemts to ask not to be called Protestant have met with condescension . Reopeatedly is the CHruhc of CHrst called Protestant based only on a smug attitude of defiance and irreverence ot their position. This is neither enjoyed nor conduccive to discussion.

I will like ot open a thread about the CHurhces of CHrist to clear confusion, but nly if assured it wont degenerate into an all out attackl on it based on peopels desire to force it to fit a spacific mould.

 

[adventistnomore]

Zarove,

I am honestly sorry that I seem to have offended you and your church as much as i have. Poor choice of wording in my original post, and our base disagreements have made me reconsider the spirit in which I originally began this thread. I ask for your sincere apologies in that respect. I am also sorry if you have believed i was patronizing you or representing you as biased – I assure you that was the furthest from my intention.

I will relucantly concede your point on the status of the Churches of Christ (Protestant or not), though I do have my reservations. In truth, the entire notion of labeling denominations into a class is an insensitive process prone to disagrements. I have been reluctant to use the term "restorationist’ because it seems more like a subset within the churches descended form the original Protestant reformation. (Much as Adventists, Advent Christians, and Chruch of God are considered ‘Adventist’ or ‘Apocalyptic,’) But i can certianly see your point – the unique positions of (Magisterial) Protestantism (Luthern & Reformed) are sufficient to distinguish them from Anglicanism, despite both accepting sola scriptura. My argument was based on the descent and assumptions basic to the Churches of Christ, which I believe follow in the Reformation tradition.

Nonetheless, I will concede your point.

As Catholics, we disagree with Church of Christ claims that we are a perversion of the true Church. We believe the foundation of those claims is the platform of “sola scriptura.” In this, you are like unto Proto-Protestant, Lutheran, Reformed, Holiness, Radical Reformation, Evangelical, Charismatic, Adventist, Apocalyptic, soem Anglican, and fellow Restorationist groups. This thread notes an inconsistent application of the use of sola scriptura by the Churches of Christ, as a representative example among many others that could be garnered from these other groups.

Again, I apologize for the spirit with which I opened this thread, but I do believe that as the direct descendants of the original first century Chruch (via apostolic succession and constent doctrine [assuming a Catholic interpretation of Scripture]), we find non-Catholic attempts to discredit our theological system on the basis of “sola scriptura” wanting, especially when it (selectively) uses tradition where Scripture is lacking. My original post was propmpted by reading of one Church of Christ member’s rejection of the Catholic tradition, and disrespect of his wife’s Catholic faith. It upset that his church would boldly reject our tradition, when they themselves selectively use tradition, and do not apply sola scriptura consistently.

Part of apologetics is noting the inconsistencies that undermine the positon of one’s intellectual opponents (in this thread, those who believe the Bible alone determines faith and practice, whom I misclassified as “Protestants”). This thread exposes an inconsistency in one such group, not to humiliate that group, or individual members of that group, but to strengthen a Catholic witness and apologetical response to such Christians, when opposed by their claims.

 

[adventistnomore]

Zarove,

I am honestly sorry that I seem to have offended you and your church as much as i have. Poor choice of wording in my original post, and our base disagreements have made me reconsider the spirit in which I originally began this thread. I ask for your sincere apologies in that respect. I am also sorry if you have believed i was patronizing you or representing you as biased – I assure you that was the furthest from my intention.

I will relucantly concede your point on the status of the Churches of Christ (Protestant or not), though I do have my reservations. In truth, the entire notion of labeling denominations into classes is an insensitive process prone to disagreements. I have been reluctant to use the term "restorationist’ because it seems more like a subset within the churches descended form the original Protestant reformation. (Much as Adventists, Advent Christians, and Chruch of God are considered ‘Adventist’ or ‘Apocalyptic,’) But i can certianly see your point – the unique positions of (Magisterial) Protestantism (Luthern & Reformed) are sufficient to distinguish them from Anglicanism, despite both accepting sola scriptura. My argument was based on the descent and assumptions basic to the Churches of Christ, which I believe follow in the Reformation tradition.

Nonetheless, I will concede your point.

As Catholics, we disagree with Church of Christ claims that we are a perversion of the true Church. We believe the foundation of those claims is the platform of “sola scriptura.” In this, you are like unto Proto-Protestant, Lutheran, Reformed, Holiness, Radical Reformation, Evangelical, Charismatic, Adventist, Apocalyptic, some Anglican, and fellow Restorationist groups. This thread notes an inconsistent application of the use of sola scriptura by the Churches of Christ, as a representative example among many others that could be garnered from these other groups.

Again, I apologize for the spirit with which I opened this thread, but I do believe that as the direct descendants of the original first century Chruch (via apostolic succession and constent doctrine [assuming a Catholic interpretation of Scripture]), we find non-Catholic attempts to discredit our theological system on the basis of “sola scriptura” wanting, especially when it (selectively) uses tradition where Scripture is lacking. My original post was prompted by reading of one Church of Christ member’s rejection of the Catholic tradition, and disrespect of his wife’s Catholic faith. It upset that his church would boldly reject our tradition, when they themselves selectively use tradition, and do not apply sola scriptura consistently.

Part of apologetics is noting the inconsistencies that undermine the positon of one’s intellectual opponents (in this thread, those who believe the Bible alone determines faith and practice, whom I misclassified as “Protestants”). This thread exposes an inconsistency in one such group, not to humiliate that group, or individual members of that group, but to strengthen a Catholic witness and apologetical response to such Christians, when opposed by their claims.

 

[adventistnomore]

Zarove,

I am honestly sorry that I seem to have offended you and your church as much as i have. Poor choice of wording in my original post, and our base disagreements have made me reconsider the spirit in which I originally began this thread. I ask for your sincere apologies in that respect. I am also sorry if you have believed i was patronizing you or representing you as biased – I assure you that was the furthest from my intention.

I will relucantly concede your point on the status of the Churches of Christ (Protestant or not), though I do have my reservations. In truth, the entire notion of labeling denominations into a class is an insensitive process prone to disagrements. I have been reluctant to use the term "restorationist’ because it seems more like a subset within the churches descended form the original Protestant reformation. (Much as Adventists, Advent Christians, and Chruch of God are considered ‘Adventist’ or ‘Apocalyptic,’) But i can certianly see your point – the unique positions of (Magisterial) Protestantism (Lutheran & Reformed) are sufficient to distinguish them from Anglicanism, despite both accepting sola scriptura. My argument was based on the descent and assumptions basic to the Churches of Christ, which I believe follow in the Reformation tradition.

Nonetheless, I will concede your point.

As Catholics, we disagree with Church of Christ claims that we are a perversion of the true Church. We believe the foundation of those claims is the platform of “sola scriptura.” In this, the Church of Christ is like unto Proto-Protestant, Lutheran, Reformed, Holiness, Radical Reformation, Evangelical, Charismatic, Adventist, Apocalyptic, some Anglican, and fellow Restorationist groups. This thread notes an inconsistent application of the use of sola scriptura by the Churches of Christ, as a representative example among many others that could be garnered from these other groups.

Again, I apologize for the spirit with which I opened this thread, but I do believe that as the direct descendants of the original first century Chruch (via apostolic succession and constent doctrine [assuming a Catholic interpretation of Scripture]), we find non-Catholic attempts to discredit our theological system on the basis of “sola scriptura” wanting, especially when it (selectively) uses tradition where Scripture is lacking. My original post was propmpted by reading of one Church of Christ member’s rejection of the Catholic tradition, and disrespect of his wife’s Catholic faith. It upset that his church would boldly reject our tradition, when they themselves selectively use tradition, and do not apply sola scriptura consistently.

Part of apologetics is noting the inconsistencies that undermine the positon of one’s intellectual opponents (in this thread, those who believe the Bible alone determines faith and practice, whom I misclassified as “Protestants”). This thread exposes an inconsistency in one such group, not to humiliate that group, or individual members of that group, but to strengthen a Catholic witness and apologetical response to such Christians, when opposed by their claims.

 

[adventistnomore]

Perhaps to move away from the Churches of Christ: does anyone else have an example of an inconsistent application of the principle of sola scriptura?

 

[Tom]

byzmelkite:

Actually, I think the Churches of Christ are on the right track. In the eastern rite Catholic Churches and Orthodox churches we do not use musical instruments because the only musical instrument made directly by God is the human voice. Therefore; the human voice is the only musical instrument that is fit for worship.

Wow!!! I just realized they are the true church, but they don’t have it exactly right!!! To be exactly right they must worship naked!!! It’s in Scripture!!!

Genesis 2:25 And they were both naked: to wit, Adam and his wife: and were not ashamed.

And then after the fall:

Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons. 8 And when they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in paradise at the afternoon air, Adam and his wife hid themselves from the face of the Lord God, amidst the trees of paradise. 9 And the Lord God called Adam, and said to him: Where art thou? 10 And he said: I heard thy voice in paradise; and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.

It’s so obvious, God was angry because they made clothes, not for having a snack!!!
God doesn’t want us to wear clothes. Clothing goes against Scripture. Let’s get NAKED!!!
I’m sorry, please forgive my lack of charity and taste. I’ll go to confession now…

 

[adventistnomore]

adventistnomore:

…I ask for your sincere apologies***in that respect…

Haha… I’m sorry, I meant “forgiveness.”