Wishing to be Protestant again...

[Cat]

Amy1966, I don’t understand your question about “the sin issue.” If you’re asking what I believe has happened to my sins, I believe in I John 1: 9, which happens to be what the Catholic Church teaches. Please clarify your question and I will answer it.

How do you deal with the fact that people who use the Bible as their sole authority have so many differences in major teachings? Do you believe that YOU and/or your church or fellowship are interpreting the Scriptures correctly? Do you believe that others are incorrect? Why?

Yes, you can see in these forums that Catholics argue over whether contemporary music is appropriate for Mass, or whether the Mass should be in Latin or English. But no one argues about the ancient teachings of the Church regarding salvation and other doctrines because we accept the teaching from the Scriptures and from tradition that Christ is Head of the Church and that He gives His apostles authority here on earth, the “keys of heaven.”

But among the sola Scriptura advocates, there are major differences between the teachings about salvation, justification, sanctification, and last things. These are important issues, and I don’t understand how you can accept the variety of teachings regarding these issues. How do you know that you’re right?

Also, each Christian and church uses the Bible to justify or condemn things; e.g., some will prove from the Bible that practice of homosexuality is beautiful and created by God, and others will prove from the Bible that homosexuals deserve to be shunned or even put to death. How do you know what the Bible really teaches?

How do you KNOW that you are listening to the Holy Spirit and not your own inner voice, or your own church traditions, or your parents’ teachings, or the media’s influence, or even an evil spirit?

 

[Esdra]

Hi,

I know this problem of the nearly not existing social aspect in the Catholic Church only too well!!

I am from Austria, in Central Europe. The fast majority of the people here are, of course, Catholics. So I am also a baptized Catholic, I was also risen as one and was for quite a long time (up to about 2004 or so) a “good Catholic”.

This “social coldness” of the Catholic Church even led to the fact that there are hardly ever young people. It is the boringness, as you said correctly.

You go in, hear the Catholic ceremony, get your hostie and go out of the church to come back next Sunday. This is one of the biggest differences between protestant and catholic Churches: In Catholicism you come to heaven when you follow exactly the doctrine of the Holy Mother Church, this also means having your hostie every Sunday.

The brutal thing is: my mum was always very encouraged to make the catholic mass less boring - she and my aunts also did worship - even held bible-evenings.
But she didn’t get a thank you or anything! On the contrary: The priest at that time, a very conservative one, didn’t want her to make mass less boring and try to bring youngsters into the church.
You could say my mum (and also my dad) where the ancestors of the modern **charismatic Catholic Church ***(By the way: this denominations within the Catholic Church is really great! Watch out of such Charismatic Catholics! Here in Europe there are really many youngsters, who are not only catholics according to the paper, charismatic Catholics!.) *But she didn’t get anything no thank you - just nothing!

So, martyr, you can actually try bringing some “protestantism” into your Catholic Church. - BUT this always will depend upon the priest (and of course also your fellow-christians!). In worst case everything will end up like with my mom!
Best would be, just to go to the parochial church council - become a member - and then talk to them! Ask them if you could make a worship (with “protestant” music!) - I prefer you the song of Hillsong. They are great! luvthem

So, as I have said, I was a good catholic - up to the age of about 14 or 15 when i realized all the things you have written in your thread (below).
I began to read the bible and found out a lot of verses that were, in my understanding, incompatible with the Catholic Doctrine.
I searched very long - nearly everywhere - even in the LDS Church or at Jehovah’s Wittnesses…

I knew: Judging from the Bible, the first services of Christianity must have been completely differently from the Catholic mass!

Last Summer then I got to know a woman, who attended a penetcoastal Church, and this was the first Person I could actually talk about all the things I found out in my Bible-Studies!
I then gave Jesus my life and am in the mean time in a Baptist Congregation. - So i already changed denominations!

And, whether you believe it or not, I found exacteley what the bible, the new testimony, described as a christian community - in both: in the pentecoastal church and now in the Baptist Church.

I am really happy now. I found the social aspects, as you called them, in exactely these Churches (and I guess you can find them in nearly every protestantic church! - I also, for instance, found it in the Lutherian Evangelical Church, I attended sometimes with my dad (he wanted to show me that there are also other denominations than the catholic one!) when I was about 16.)

Hope I could help you with your Questions and you found it interesting reading about a Catholic living in Central Europe (Because I am still officially Catholic! - But it’s only a matter of time until I’ll crack with her - I don’t want to go back, never again!)

Best wishes,
Esdra

Hi, I chose that title to be somewhat provocative to hopefully garner people who could reply to this thread. I converted from Protestantism more than 10 years ago and I am happy to be Catholic. However, having said that I do miss much of the social aspects of a Protestant church. There were programs and bible studies for every age group; there were many ways of connecting to different people in your church–I had lots of friends in church and we would call each other up and do things together. There would be family picnics and other outings the church would sponsor.

In my 10 years of being Catholic my knowledge of truth has increased but at the cost of fellowship. I’ve been around 4 different Catholic churches in 10 years and all of them seem to be not much more than ‘Eucharist factories’ where you shuffle the people in, give them a boring homily, the Eucharist and shuffle them out until next week when you can do it again. The earliest youth group starts at high school.

I have brought some of my brothers and sisters in to the Church, but we all are beginning to pine for the days when going to church was enjoyable.

It does really appear to me that the Catholic Church, as an institution, does not foster fellowship anywhere near as much as the Protestant churches do. Am I wrong?
…]

 

[Esdra]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325 View Post
.

I’ve never seen any indication of this in any Protestant churches I’ve been to. I think this is unfair to say Protestants don’t take worship seriously and that all of them are there to have fun first, worship second. How do you know this? Just because the Nazarene church in my town is gimmicky and full of a bunch of goofy family fun boloney to get people in the door doesn’t mean the Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterians, etc. are doing the same? The Anglican parish in my town has coffee hour after the service and the worship is the priority. There is nothing wrong with socializing and being friendly afterward. I don’t see why coffee hour equates to worship being secondary? Can’t we walk and chew gum? worship AND enjoy each other’s company?
**I have brought some of my brothers and sisters in to the Church, but we all are
Exactly! It fosters Eucharist worship which is communal and social fellowship is second. That is one the problems I see with many Protestant sects,first it is about socializing (having fun),then worship.

If the pastor of the Catholic parish is stubborn and wants to keep things mundane, boring, expensive, and cold, and the bishop’s his buddy, you can try and try and do all you want but he’s the boss, pure and simple. Any fellowship you’d want wouldn’t be in the bulletin, it’d be at your house, and it’d be pretty dang unofficial.
The old cliche: If one is not part of the solution,then one is part of the problem

Sorry**

Hi gurneyhalleck,

you name it pretty well - thank you! Well done.

Greetings,
Esdra

 

[Amy1966]

@Amy,

Boy do I have some responses for you but it’s a little late so I can’t really expound on it. But I do have some comments,

Did you know that the “Jewish Canon” that Luther decided to go with (removing 7 books from the bible) wasn’t “finalized” until the 10th Century AD? That’s right, the Jews didn’t come up with this Canon until 1,000 years after the death of Christ. Did you also know that the Jewish rejection of the Septuigent was prompted by the success the early Christian Fathers had converting jews to Christianity with it? And that their current stories about mis-translations and redefined messianic expectations started about then?

That this is the tradition Luther and company decided to accept for their OT canon? I have a book for you to read, I’ll provide both the online version and a link to amazon for you to purchase if you so desire. It’s very to know the history of the bible and how it came to be, particularly if you’re going to try claiming it’s the sole rule of faith.

Where we got the Bible: Our debt to the Catholic Church by Rev Henery G. Grahm
Online:
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

Amazon
amazon.com/Where-Bible-Debt-Catholic-Church/dp/0895557967/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273377572&sr=8-1

About the author
If memory serves, the Rev. Henry G. Grahm was a Pryebetryan minister who would eventually convert to Catholisism. I’m not sure if that was just after or before he worte this, it was certainly around the time he was gaining some shocking revelation about his (former) Protestant heritage. It was written using an equal number of Protestant and Catholic sources about the history of the Bible its self and what times were like at key developmental stages.

Needless to say Amy, the bible has quite a different history than you apparently believe it does.

The Jews recognized the canon of what Protestants call the OT long before you historical errors. Click here for a general overview and dig deeper if you care to by following the sources at the bottom.

As far a Martin Luther is concerned many of his ideas were not new at all and many proceeded him by over a century. Personally, I don’t care or know too much about Martin Luther and his importance in my life as a Christian is not wrought by him but by God.

Do you honestly believe the people residing at the Council of Hippo resembled the Roman Catholic Church we see at Trent some 1000 plus years later or the contemporary Catholic church today? Earlier church fathers mention by name the books of the NT some excluding a few but some including them a century or two before the council. There are also complete Bibles that the “Catholic” church never laid hands on that were discovered and dated and retained by the Greek Orthodox church.

Consider the Septuagint; did Jesus ever say a word about what version or language or anything written of man concerning Scripture? No Why? Because He recognizes that the Scriptures are of God and not of man. The Church uses circular reasoning in making the claim it gave the Bible to the world by claiming the Church gets its authority from the Bible and the Bible get its authority from the Church.

This whole thing is way of the topic and if I brought us to this and got us this far into a totally different topic, then I apologize…let’s move along if you want to debate where the Bible has its origins, then start a new subscription or thread or whatever it is called.

Amy

 

[Amy1966]

Actually not everything you say is completely true. You have to be careful how you interpret what the RCC teaches about salvation outside the RCC.People hear: no salvation outside the RCC and automatically make false conclusions. People need to read the documents completely and in their entirety.

No one ever said every Catholic lay person would agree on all matters. However, it does not matter what our opinions are about salvation, it is what the RCC teaches and any ‘good’ Catholic knows it. God is not concerned about opinions,but only TRUTH.

It is very simple, it is not about who is right or wrong,but the fullness of Truth.

As I said the church has changed over the centuries; I have seen discussions on Catholic TV concerning this very issue. Rather than call it what it is, which is change they say they elaborate what the Popes and Councils meant by further explaining. You can’t explain a cursed damnation on all those outside the See of Rome into they did not really mean it that way and not call it change. It would give the Church more credibility to say yes we have reevaluated and we have made changes, then the world would say that is reasonable. Instead they pigeoned holed themselves into making the claim that they are infallible in certain pronouncements; so now they have to add sugar coatings to protect from using the taboo word “changed” because then it is no longer infallible.

You are correct and I agree that God is not concerned about opinions but only TRUTH. Well stated!!

I am not going to respond to anymore of these touchy issues because I would to focus on the Word of God and any differences in doctrines, not on your church’s history because it gets touchy and personal for some and I don’t want to diss your faith; it is after all yours and many many others faith of choice, just not mine. I enjoy talking with all of you because you help to strengthen my own relationship with Jesus by forcing me to dwell deeper into what He has said in His word by the issues and questions that are brought forth in these discussions. I hope the same occurs for everyone regardless of where they are in their personal faith and walk. Can we agree on this?

 

[Amy1966]

But you didn’t answer the question did you? You are the one who made an assertion, please defend it.

How, when, where was the Bible that you use assembled?

This has nothing to do with pride, but historical accuracy, and your lack of knowledge of the issue.

You also realize that chances are, the “Protestant Bible” that you are using is more than likely incomplete right? You realize that many “Protestant Bibles” removed some books right?

I checked the cover and it was assembled and printed in the United States. Where was yours assembled?

Start a new subscription of you care to get into that issue; you will be destroyed in your misconceptions about the Bible and if you read some of the most recent posts you will get a little idea. Doesn’t matter; I can prove you wrong and you will still believe you are right because you use internal and bias sources as your proof; yet the very early church fathers you all love to quote quoted most of the books already used and a few quoted exactly the ones that were used a century or more before the Council of Hippo that had men that look nothing like the Roman Catholic Church. So if you want to waste your time, deny the authority of the Holy Spirit and the very words of Jesus on the topic, then start the topic on a new subscription or thread.

I have no interest in arguing where the Bible and its authority originates since it is from above the issue is mute.

 

[Amy1966]

That simple-eh? Then explain to me why the MAJORITY of non-Catholic churches have no bishops,priests and deacons as mentioned in the NT?

I think if all those non-Catholic would have applied it,there would be no need to have thousands upon thousands different churches.

BTW: The RCC did apply it,you apparently do not comprehend that the Church is a living organism that has grown since the first century.

The only priests you will find in the NT is the royal priesthood of believers called Christians and the only High Priest-Jesus Christ, beyond that your priesthood is not only not found in NT Scripture. Hebrews banished the notion of it including the altar of sacrifice. So yeah you are correct in that statement. A Bishop is an overseer, they are synonymous and I have never been to a church that did not have deacons, so I have no idea what you are talking about and of course your diversion from the facts I stated about following the Biblical pattern went unaddressed except you said they “did apply it”, which sounds “past tense”. You are also correct it is a living organism and I will add ever-changing as all living organisms, especially religious ones tend to do. Ask Jesus, He got pretty upset with that living and growing organism called Israel.

But to each one to their own faith; you enjoy and love being apart of your church and I enjoy my faith based relationship with the Savior of my soul, so to each his own and we shall all respect his/her choice of faith although we may disagree with each ones teachings.

 

[twopekinguys]

I checked the cover and it was assembled and printed in the United States. Where was yours assembled?

Start a new subscription of you care to get into that issue; you will be destroyed in your misconceptions about the Bible and if you read some of the most recent posts you will get a little idea. Doesn’t matter; I can prove you wrong and you will still believe you are right because you use internal and bias sources as your proof; yet the very early church fathers you all love to quote quoted most of the books already used and a few quoted exactly the ones that were used a century or more before the Council of Hippo that had men that look nothing like the Roman Catholic Church. So if you want to waste your time, deny the authority of the Holy Spirit and the very words of Jesus on the topic, then start the topic on a new subscription or thread.

I have no interest in arguing where the Bible and its authority originates since it is from above the issue is mute.

LOL, you’re too funny,

You’re the one who makes an assertion that you cannot, and will not substantiate, and you try to deflect by suggesting a new thread be started.

No one is denying the Holy Spirt, (so please stop putting words in my mouth), who do you think guided those who set the Canon of the Bible?

I am sure I am not the only one waiting for you to “destroy” anything. The only thing that you are destroying is your own credibility. Assuming that you have any on the subject.

In closing, play all of the little word games you want, but you have still not answered the question.

By the way, the word is “moot”, not “mute”.

 

[Amy1966]

I agree with you, and have said the same thing many times myself.

Too many people try to find a religion that fits their views, instead of bringing their views in line with the Church.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but {wanting} to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, --------- 2 Timothy 4:3

That time has been since day one and continues till this day and will continue until the destruction of the fallen creation and as more and more evil prevails, then to shall we see this continue to grow, but where this grows, so does the grace of God!!

 

[benidict]

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but {wanting} to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, --------- 2 Timothy 4:3

That time has been since day one and continues till this day and will continue until the destruction of the fallen creation and as more and more evil prevails, then to shall we see this continue to grow, but where this grows, so does the grace of God!!

i agree. and the list of protestant denominations keeps growing, and getting stranger all the time. joel van olsteen comes to mind. he really likes to tickle peoples ears. and yes, the grace of God does continue to grow…within the Church He established. ill give you three guesses my friend. Peace

 

[Cat]

Once again, people are dropping out of the discussion because of some vague reason that they no longer wish to be involved etc. etc.

WHY does this always happen?!!!

Why don’t be people stick to it and finish what they started, instead of dropping out when things don’t go their way?

I can see dropping out of an online discussion when you have a sudden crisis, or you get sick and have to go to the hospital, or when your house and computer burn down.

But so MANY MANY people on these forums post their “I’m not going to participate anymore” posts and give some totally made-up reason about “conflict” and this drives me absolutely NUTS!!!

IMO, it’s rude to start a discussion, raise issues, and then back out of it.

If you aren’t willing to continue a discussion (or debate) until satisfaction is achieved by all, then I say stop participating in online discussion groups. Get a blog and just say what you want to say and then don’t accept any discussion.

There is no reason why a thread can’t go on for months and months or years and years. Some of the discussions in the Family Life section are very, very old, and are still relevant.

I challenge those who have decided that the discussion is too hot for them to handle to gird up their loins, take a deep breath, and plunge back in. Or at least start new threads and try to define just one issue on each threaed to discuss.

 

[benidict]

Once again, people are dropping out of the discussion because of some vague reason that they no longer wish to be involved etc. etc.

WHY does this always happen?!!!

Why don’t be people stick to it and finish what they started, instead of dropping out when things don’t go their way?

I can see dropping out of an online discussion when you have a sudden crisis, or you get sick and have to go to the hospital, or when your house and computer burn down.

But so MANY MANY people on these forums post their “I’m not going to participate anymore” posts and give some totally made-up reason about “conflict” and this drives me absolutely NUTS!!!

IMO, it’s rude to start a discussion, raise issues, and then back out of it.

If you aren’t willing to continue a discussion (or debate) until satisfaction is achieved by all, then I say stop participating in online discussion groups. Get a blog and just say what you want to say and then don’t accept any discussion.

There is no reason why a thread can’t go on for months and months or years and years. Some of the discussions in the Family Life section are very, very old, and are still relevant.

I challenge those who have decided that the discussion is too hot for them to handle to gird up their loins, take a deep breath, and plunge back in. Or at least start new threads and try to define just one issue on each threaed to discuss.

hi cat. i posted a response, and i totally agree with you. but i erased it. will p.m. you when i get a chance. Peace

 

[CatholicFireman]

IMO if a person wants to leave a thread that’s their business and theirs alone. Peace†

 

[crazzeto]

The Jews recognized the canon of what Protestants call the OT long before you historical errors. Click here for a general overview and dig deeper if you care to by following the sources at the bottom.

Amy,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text

It’s always good to know what it is you are reading, this is what Martin Luther and Company chose for you to read. It was developed in the 10th century AD.

As far a Martin Luther is concerned many of his ideas were not new at all and many proceeded him by over a century. Personally, I don’t care or know too much about Martin Luther and his importance in my life as a Christian is not wrought by him but by God.

Changing the NT canon was a new idea, there was debate over the 7DC’s but again no one actually pushed to change it because they were pretty sure what they knew what was going to happen, they would be declared Anathema as Luther and his friends were.

But again your history fails you, Luther and his idea’s very much wrap them selves around your life as a Christian. Ever hear of Sola Fide? Sola Scriptura? These are his idea’s, they were new to him.

Do you honestly believe the people residing at the Council of Hippo resembled the Roman Catholic Church we see at Trent some 1000 plus years later or the contemporary Catholic church today? Earlier church fathers mention by name the books of the NT some excluding a few but some including them a century or two before the council. There are also complete Bibles that the “Catholic” church never laid hands on that were discovered and dated and retained by the Greek Orthodox church.

They were the Catholic Church, in fact prior to Hippo St. Ignatious of Antioch wrote:

CHAPTER VIII.–LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP.
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as,** wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church**. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Amy, it’s clear to me that you have a lot of historical studying to do.

Consider the Septuagint; did Jesus ever say a word about what version or language or anything written of man concerning Scripture? No Why? Because He recognizes that the Scriptures are of God and not of man. The Church uses circular reasoning in making the claim it gave the Bible to the world by claiming the Church gets its authority from the Bible and the Bible get its authority from the Church.

No, he didn’t say the words “the Septiugent is the official Canon”, but then again Christ never said anything about ever putting a single word into writing at anypoint in time. What Christ and his Apostles did do is take some 80 to 90 percent of all their Old Testament quotations from the Septuigent because that was the scripture being used by most Jews at that point in time, and as you should well know:

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to ransom those under the law, so that we might receive adoption.

That is, God knowing all of time chose that specific moment in time to send his Son because that was the perfect moment in time to do so! That means it’s no accident that Christ was born in the times and culture he was born in, and it was certainly no accident that the Septuigent was most popular at the point in time which Christ was born.

This whole thing is way of the topic and if I brought us to this and got us this far into a totally different topic, then I apologize…let’s move along if you want to debate where the Bible has its origins, then start a new subscription or thread or whatever it is called.

Amy

I’m just trying to answer some of your questions here Amy, it seems you’ve gotten a lot of bad history and I’m just trying to offer some corrections. God bless,

 

[BILL_PICK53]

I’m not catholic nor do I consider myself protestant. I’m Christian.​

In the Christian churches I’ve been part of over the last 30+ yrs, there’s been great fellowship.

Dokmas, Ask the Pastor of your church what you are and he will say protestestant or will tell you your den.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Dokimas,

**You wrote: ** *I’m not catholic nor do I consider myself protestant. I’m Christian.

In the Christian churches I’ve been part of over the last 30+ yrs, there’s been great fellowship.*​

I strongly suspect, from the phraseology of your claim to be “Christian” but neither Catholic nor Protestant, that you well may be a sectary (who is a non-Protestant non-Catholic) of one of the Campbellite groups which rather presumptuously lay claim to calling themselves “Church of Christ”, “Disciples of Christ”, or similar names. Is this so? If it is, then, indeed, you are in the “No Man’s Land” of the sects, indeed of those very contentious ones that commonly are called “Campbellite”.

If I am wrong (and I hope that I am!), then congratulations, for you will have avoided one of the most nastily contentious of the sects so common, and thus one of the most truly “sectarian”, in the U. S. of A.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[Esdra]

Dokimas,

**You wrote: ** *I’m not catholic nor do I consider myself protestant. I’m Christian.

In the Christian churches I’ve been part of over the last 30+ yrs, there’s been great fellowship.*​

I strongly suspect, from the phraseology of your claim to be “Christian” but neither Catholic nor Protestant, that you well may be a sectary (who is a non-Protestant non-Catholic) of one of the Campbellite groups which rather presumptuously lay claim to calling themselves “Church of Christ”, “Disciples of Christ”, or similar names. Is this so? If it is, then, indeed, you are in the “No Man’s Land” of the sects, indeed of those very contentious ones that commonly are called “Campbellite”.

If I am wrong (and I hope that I am!), then congratulations, for you will have avoided one of the most nastily contentious of the sects so common, and thus one of the most truly “sectarian”, in the U. S. of A.

Pax, Jerry Parker

Hi,

just wondering: Why do you consider this Church (“The Disciples of Christ”) as nasty sect?
I found en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciples_of_Christ
and that doesn’t sound that bad.
It’s just a protestant church, or am I wrong?

Not that I am interested in this church to become a member or so - I am happy with my Baptist Community…

Greetings,
Esdra

 

[Heteroclite]

This forum is super because not only can you start a new thread when you encounter a topic that’s of interest to you, but you can also avail yourself of the private messaging system or even private email system (both available under the name of each poster) to talk about off topic issues. So, could we all either stick to the topic, which is

But does anyone else see this lack of fellowship problem?

or else get off the thread? It’s really unfair to hog a thread for stuff that’s not related to the OP. Thank you for sticking to the “rules of the game.”

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Esdra,

**You wrote: ** * Just wondering: Why do you consider this Church (“The Disciples of Christ”) as nasty sect? I found en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciples_of_Christ and that doesn’t sound that bad. It’s just a protestant church, or am I wrong?

Not that I am interested in this church to become a member or so; I am happy with my Baptist Community.*​

The Campbellite orbit of sects has a lot of variety! That should not be surprising, given Campbellites’ history of fissiparousness that, proportionate to their numbers, is scarcely credible even by obstinate Baptist scale of measure. The Disciples of Christ denomination mostly (note that “mostly”, Campbellites are maddeningly individualistic) has tamed down considerably since frontier days. The Campbellites claiming the right to call themselves “Church of Christ”, “Christian Church” (with and without including subdivisional qualifiers in their names) still have that old-fashioned Campbellite ferocity about matters of doctrine and even the most seemingly innocent practices (hymnody, use of piano or organ accompaniment, order of service, inclusion or exclusion of responsive readings, and on and on) that is hallmark of Campbellitism. Even Mormonism (more recognisably Christian in the case of the R.L.D.S. Community of Christ, more wildly and paganly inventive in the case of the L.D.S. Latter-day Saints) is an outgrowth of Campbellitism (along with Methodist influence). Campbellites can be fierce and uncharitable in the extreme about these (and many other) matters.

The tendency of Protestantism (relatively mildly) and of sectarianism (relentlessly) to divisiveness reaches oxygen-starved heights in Cambellism of the more fundamentalist kind(s) that is indicative of just how under-nourished is the concept of “church” outside the Catholic Church in “the West”. The smallest matters are allowed to rend apart Campbellite fellowship, and the smallest groups are presumptuous to usurp the title(s) to being the entirety of the “real” Christian Church. This can make for very suffocating conditions – artistic, intellectual, doctrinal, etc. – among Campbellitism’s infinitely divided ranks. Legalism, along with tunnel vision about what constitutes the (or a) church, are both causes and symptoms of this uncharitable and intransigent divisiveness.

As a Baptist, you may be interested particularly in Campbellites’ notorious insistence that Baptism is absolutely essential to salvation. This insistence does not derive from a belief (a very Catholic one) that water and the word conjoin in Holy Baptism to convey forgiveness, salvation, and grace. No, the Campbellites insist on baptism (typically enough from their legalism) simply because it is a rite that Christ insisted upon, as a religious law, the performance of which is mandatory, but which is not a true Means of Grace, as it is for Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and even (to various degrees) Presbyterians, Reformed, and Methodists, however diversely such groups explain Holy Baptism doctrinally and exegetically. For Baptist believers, baptism (regrettably) is only symbolic, a badge of one’s faith and an act of personal piety and of a certain solidarity with other believers and public testimony, but for Campbellites, Baptism is even less than that, a mere legal act to be carried out – or else!!

Anyway, I could go on, but I won’t here. The historically Campbellite groups that have wandered into liberalism tone down the divisiveness and legalism of the legacy (such as it is) of what they are heirs, which is why some of the larger and older groups seem less odious in the ways that I have described. Liberal and fundamentalist tendencies, however, still are rampant in the Campbellite sector of North American sectarianism.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[Lypher]

That’s not my Catholic parish! My Catholic parish started out 11 years ago with at most 12 families. Now we have nearly 3,000 families. My advise is to either become an agent of change or find another Catholic parish.

Awesome…