List of fundamentalist/evangelical "traditions"

[Patavium]

The Bible points me to Jesus Christ. I am a part of HIS body because it is Him who I have faith in and follow.

By the way, the Orthodox church will say the same about you. So will other Apostolic churches.

What are the other apostolic churches?

The Orthodox Church has valid sacraments.

 

[stewstew03]

…the Bible was made possible by God. It was His Spirit that guided men to write things down.

How do you know?

:bible1:

 

[stewstew03]

Also, the Bible says that all believers should be representatives of Christ.
“And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.”

When I talk about Jesus Christ I am representing Him. When I, as a Christian, am doing something in His name I am representing Christ.

But you are still fallible, right? So, as an error-prone representative of Christ, why should anyone believe you when you are claiming to do something in His name? In fact, there is no reason anyone should believe your interpretation of the bible or anything you teach about Christ because we wouldn’t know whether or not you were preaching truth.

:bible1:

 

[stewstew03]

That’s a different animal, manualman.

There are indeed some folks who object to any Catholic belief/practice/teaching that can’t be explicitly found in the Scriptures. They call what we do, then, a tradition of men.

And yet, it appears, they have a whole bunch of traditions of men of their own.

Don’t forget… most protestants endorse at least two Catholic Traditions: (1) Trinitarian doctrine; and (2) Sunday worship.

:bible1:

 

[Mystophilus]

Mystophilus;9715766:

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

“…This is my body, which is given for you…This is my blood which is given for you, do this in remembrance of me…” Which one does Scripture say is True and how is it to be obeyed:

A) The bread and wine symbolize Christ’s body and blood and it’s strictly a memorial
B) " " but God transmits His grace to us in it
C) " contain Christ’s body, blood, soul & Divinity
D) " become Christ’s body, blood, soul & Divinity, but retain the appearance of bread and wine

E) None of the above, because it is not specific about the sense in which the bread and wine were the body and blood. This is why all of the various opinions have existed among Christian groups who were all trying to follow Scripture.

Having said that, you seem to have quite missed what is going on here. The OP requested Fundamentalist and Evangelical traditions. What I posted is the one of the most significant sources of those, and is not a validation of the claims of the Confession itself.

 

[JonNC]

=Cable;9715902]
“…This is my body, which is given for you…This is my blood which is given for you, do this in remembrance of me…” Which one does Scripture say is True and how is it to be obeyed:

One can tell which of these scripture does not say:

A) The bread and wine symbolize Christ’s body and blood and it’s strictly a memorial
B) " " but God transmits His grace to us in it

As Luther said, “ist ist ist”. Is is is. No mention of symbolizes, represents, etc.

C) " contain Christ’s body, blood, soul & Divinity
D) " become Christ’s body, blood, soul & Divinity, but retain the appearance of bread and wine

Neither of these, either. Not contains, not becomes, but IS. This IS my body, so we must take Christ at His words. The bread and wine ARE His body and blood. Without further explanation from Him, we must hold that it is true, and leave it in God’s hand how this can be, or how it happens. A mystery.
Is there a change? Sure. Not merely bread and wine, but His body and blood.

Jon

 

[Mystophilus]

not found in any pages of the Bible.

As I mentioned above, you can find them here, instead. The traditionalist nature of Evangelical belief is quite well demonstrated by the fact that the document is nearly 400 years old and yet expresses precisely the views often expressed by Evangelicals today.

 

[PRmerger]

As I mentioned above, you can find them here, instead. The traditionalist nature of Evangelical belief is quite well demonstrated by the fact that the document is nearly 400 years old and yet expresses precisely the views often expressed by Evangelicals today.

Sorry, Mystophilus. I am not understanding your point.

Are you in agreement with the Catholics on this thread that there is a certain hypocrisy among those who object to Catholic practices “not found in the bible” yet they themselves proclaim and practice a multitude of things “not found in the bible”?

 

[PRmerger]

This is an interesting thread. What I can say in response to the list of yours and justaservant is-
Not all pertain to all protestant churches

Ok.

That is a true, but irrelevant statement.

and they are not doctrinal traditions.

What is your definition of “doctrinal traditions”?

I can understand on the outside that they are “traditions” but they are not traditions in the respect that a protestant must accept them or they lose communion with their church. Some of these are just petty opinions

What is it that your pastor/church proclaims must be accepted or you will lose communion with your church?

 

[PRmerger]

One sentence out of the list I would beg to differ with. There was music in the worship of God. Read the Old Testament. Specifically when the Israelites were in the desert and the building of Solomon’s temple, Judges 5, the Psalms. You can find music everywhere.

Of course, as a Catholic, I am with you on this.

However, if you go by the Bible-alone, here’s an argument that has been presented by a Bible-Alone advocate who claims that we are not to use music in our worship services:

We are to serve God according to the New Testament (Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 10:9)! New Testament worship includes singing (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16), but not playing on mechanical instruments. Such instruments would be an unauthorized addition (Revelation 22:18; 2 John 9). source

 

[PRmerger]

That is what I was trying to say. My church doesn’t say I must say Amen. My church doesn’t have to have a spire on a steeple. My church doesn’t say I have to fold my hands during prayer. None of this is necessary to my faith whereas the Catholic tradition is necessary. That is the difference.

What, then, does your church say is “necessary”, and could you cite the Bible verses that tell you that it’s “necessary” and which ones tell you that the spire on a steeple is secondary?

 

[PRmerger]

If God wanted us to know/do something important would He not have put it in His book to make it possible for all to read?

This, Kristin, is another man-made tradition.

You heard a man say it, who heard another man say it, who heard another man say it, but no one ever read “If God wanted us to know/do something important” he “would have put it in His Book!” in a single page of the Bible.

Incidentally, the corollary question I would pose to you is this: If God wanted the Bible to be the only source of His Revelation, wouldn’t He have said that? (He didn’t :nope

And what do you make of the 400 years–that’s like from the time the Pilgrims came to America to present day!–that there was no Bible? How could it be that important if God left 400 years without a Bible?

(NB: I am not claiming that the Scriptures are not important. Only presenting an argument to Kristin using her paradigm).

And another thought you may not have considered, since you view being able to read the Bible as so necessary–what about for the first 20 centuries of Christianity when most Christians couldn’t even read? Is salvation denied to them because they couldn’t read?

Please remember your comment you made (bold mine):

If God wanted us to know/do something important would He not have put it in His book to make it possible** for all to read**?

Also, the Bible says that all believers should be representatives of Christ.
“And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.”

When I talk about Jesus Christ I am representing Him. When I, as a Christian, am doing something in His name I am representing Christ.

Amen!

 

[PRmerger]

Don’t forget… most protestants endorse at least two Catholic Traditions: (1) Trinitarian doctrine; and (2) Sunday worship.

:bible1:

Yep. :yup:

 

[Mystophilus]

Sorry, Mystophilus. I am not understanding your point.

Are you in agreement with the Catholics on this thread that there is a certain hypocrisy among those who object to Catholic practices “not found in the bible” yet they themselves proclaim and practice a multitude of things “not found in the bible”?

Completely and emphatically in agreement.

Why would I not be?

 

[PRmerger]

Completely and emphatically in agreement.

Why would I not be?

I don’t know how to answer that question–why would you not be in agreement with something posted here on the CAFs? I dunno–because you have disagreements with the POV that was proffered?

 

[Mystophilus]

I don’t know how to answer that question–why would you not be in agreement with something posted here on the CAFs? I dunno–because you have disagreements with the POV that was proffered?

Not “Why in general might I disagree with what someone says in a thread somewhere here”, but “Why in particular might you consider it necessary to ask at this point whether or not I agree that there are traditional dogmata in Protestantism?”

Sorry, I am just curious as to why you asked whether I agreed with something of which I had already presented a demonstration.

 

[Mystophilus]

That is what I was trying to say. My church doesn’t say I must say Amen. My church doesn’t have to have a spire on a steeple. My church doesn’t say I have to fold my hands during prayer. None of this is necessary to my faith whereas the Catholic tradition is necessary. That is the difference.

Does your church leave any such latitude on these?

I know that some Protestant churches do, but many do not.

 

[PRmerger]

Not “Why in general might I disagree with what someone says in a thread somewhere here”, but “Why in particular might you consider it necessary to ask at this point whether or not I agree that there are traditional dogmata in Protestantism?”

Sorry, I am just curious as to why you asked whether I agreed with something of which I had already presented a demonstration.

Because I find it hard to understand your posts.

 

[Mystophilus]

Because I find it hard to understand your posts.

Really? What do you find difficult to understand?

 

[PRmerger]

Really? What do you find difficult to understand?

Well, as I said, I didn’t understand if you were in agreement with the Catholics on this thread that there is a certain hypocrisy among those who object to Catholic practices “not found in the bible” yet they themselves proclaim and practice a multitude of things “not found in the bible”.