s/o catholic/protestant thing - SOF issue

[oraetstudia]

I attended a well-known Catholic university, and I was pretty sure that my philosophy professor was an athiest.

 

Not that that guarantees that he wasn't also a Catholic. Like the professor at the college I went to, who a friend described as, "He's an Episcopal priest. I'm pretty sure he's not a Christian, but he is a priest."

 

No offense to Episcopalians intended. This particular fellow, though ordained, was no longer much of a believer, but that didn't take away his ordination, any more than being an atheist takes away the mark of baptism.

[oraetstudia]

Need more Jesuit jokes?

http://branemrys.blogspot.com/2011/06/jesuit-jokes.html

 

:lol:

[happyhappyjoyjoy]

Not that that guarantees that he wasn't also a Catholic.... being an atheist doesn't take away the mark of baptism.

 

Yes, but he'd be a non-practicing Catholic.

Edited July 11, 2011 by happyhappyjoyjoy
misquoted

[WishboneDawn]

A Franciscan, a Dominican, and a Jesuit were miraculously transported to witness the birth of Jesus. They each had different reactions to the sight of the Virgin Mary, Joseph and the infant Jesus.

 

The Franciscan fell on his face, overcome with awe at the sight of God born in such poverty.

The Dominican fell to his knees, adoring the beautiful reflection of the Holy Family.

The Jesuit walked up to Joseph, put his arm around his shoulder, and said, "So, have you thought about where to send the boy to school?"

 

Catholic humor, hahaha. :lol:

 

:D I love the Jesuits. If there was a Jesuit school nearby my kids would be enrolled in an instant.

[coffeefreak]

I am awfully unlearned in these matters but doesn't the idea of "Biblical separation" that is promulgated by Bob Jones conflict with the message of Jesus, who told his followers to be like salt and light? Are they not to "flavor the world" and burn their light on a candlestick rather hinding the light under a bushel?

 

Bill

 

Yes, but there's an answer for that too. Jesus told his followers to be the salt and the light, but in most circles children are not equipped to defend their faith so, that philosophy is negated in favor of "protection." The overall thought is, until you are "mature" in the faith, you need to stay with fellow believers and be discipled and THEN you will be sent out in the world. The Biblical support for this is taken from Matthew 28:18-20 when Jesus issued The Great Commission. The Disciples were mature in their faith and had been with Jesus long enough that they were ready to, "Go and make disciples of all nations."

 

This is the reasoning behind many SOF as well as the popularity of exclusive Christian colleges and universities. Many Churches that use a SOF to exclude also preach against sending our children, and especially our girls to secular colleges. So many children leave the church in college (something that is logical to me because it's the age of exploration -finding out who you are apart from your family), this is the new solution. Isolate your children until they're adults and THEN send them out to be the salt and the light.

 

It's actually one of the reasons we just switched churches. . .again.:sad:

 

Blessings!

Dorinda

[Ellesmere]

I am awfully unlearned in these matters but doesn't the idea of "Biblical separation" that is promulgated by Bob Jones conflict with the message of Jesus, who told his followers to be like salt and light? Are they not to "flavor the world" and burn their light on a candlestick rather hinding the light under a bushel?

 

Bill

Yes, it does. ETA: But the idea may be more concerned with separating from other Christians.

 

Being unlearned in this are is perhaps not a terrible thing. It does means getting caught off-guard by some groups that identify only as Christian (and not by a particular stance or denomination) when they exclude a fair number of Christians. I'm not saying that people who subscribe to the BJU school of thought are not Christian. And I'm not going to get myself into more trouble by saying more either. ;)

Edited July 12, 2011 by Clairelise

[SailorMom]

A Franciscan, a Dominican, and a Jesuit were miraculously transported to witness the birth of Jesus. They each had different reactions to the sight of the Virgin Mary, Joseph and the infant Jesus.

 

The Franciscan fell on his face, overcome with awe at the sight of God born in such poverty.

The Dominican fell to his knees, adoring the beautiful reflection of the Holy Family.

The Jesuit walked up to Joseph, put his arm around his shoulder, and said, "So, have you thought about where to send the boy to school?"

 

Catholic humor, hahaha. :lol:

 

 

:lol::lol::lol:

That is awesome!

[Teachin'Mine]

Need more Jesuit jokes?

http://branemrys.blogspot.com/2011/06/jesuit-jokes.html

 

:lol:

 

 

:lol:

[Sebastian (a lady)]

But why exclude people? Do people feel their faith is so weak that exposure to a Jew, Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, or (gasp) atheist is going to destroy their relationship with the divine?

 

Seems ridiculously small-minded, and (frankly) very insecure.

 

Bill

 

:confused:

 

Your comment strikes me as humorous in a thread about how wrong headed exclusionary restrictions are too judgemental. I can't imagine why someone might not want to spend their coop time with a family that thinks they are small minded and insecure.:001_huh:

 

I think there is a difference between a class or group organized under the umbrella of a community organization like a museum, library, nature preserve or rec center and one that is organized by a church for the primary purpose of supporting the growth of church members and attendees.

 

I'm not understanding why you think that every homeschool group should accomodate every single interested homeschooler. I expect that a group with the purpose of promoting classical homeschooling will be less than excited about an influx of school in the box families or that an unschooler support group would be feel that their purpose were being misdirected by a growth in new members that were trying to steer the group toward a very curriculum centered model.

 

Likewise, I would assume that an "inclusive" group is going to frown on much religious talk, no matter how intrinsic that is to the lives of particular member families. Or that a natural history museum based science club is going to assume agreement with particular viewpoints on topics like the age of the Earth and evolution.

[mandymom]

I agree that not all Baptists are Calvinists. In fact, I've been a Baptist all my life and NEVER met one that was! I had never even heard the connection of the two until very recently. :confused:

 

I think that Baptists are sometimes comsidered "Calvanist" by some because of the belief that salvation cannot be lost (only one point in Calvanism). However, true 5 point Calvanists (the ones that would call themselves Calvanists) go far beyond that in their theology. Most of these would be members of a Reformed Baptist church. Without the word "reformed", most Baptist churches aren't Calvanists. (I know all of this because a close family member is a strict Calvanist and it has caused many family discussions).

[MamaSheep]

:confused:

 

Your comment strikes me as humorous in a thread about how wrong headed exclusionary restrictions are too judgemental. I can't imagine why someone might not want to spend their coop time with a family that thinks they are small minded and insecure.:001_huh:

 

I think there is a difference between a class or group organized under the umbrella of a community organization like a museum, library, nature preserve or rec center and one that is organized by a church for the primary purpose of supporting the growth of church members and attendees.

 

I'm not understanding why you think that every homeschool group should accomodate every single interested homeschooler. I expect that a group with the purpose of promoting classical homeschooling will be less than excited about an influx of school in the box families or that an unschooler support group would be feel that their purpose were being misdirected by a growth in new members that were trying to steer the group toward a very curriculum centered model.

 

Likewise, I would assume that an "inclusive" group is going to frown on much religious talk, no matter how intrinsic that is to the lives of particular member families. Or that a natural history museum based science club is going to assume agreement with particular viewpoints on topics like the age of the Earth and evolution.

:iagree:

[justamouse]

I have also found Catholic schools/churches to be a lot more tolerant than MANY Protestant faiths...

 

 

That's because every Sunday we pray for our separated brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

All the years I went to Protestant church, we never prayed for any other denomination unless it was in hopes to show them the error of their ways so they would convert.

[Ellesmere]

 

I think there is a difference between a class or group organized under the umbrella of a community organization like a museum, library, nature preserve or rec center and one that is organized by a church for the primary purpose of supporting the growth of church members and attendees.

 

I'm not understanding why you think that every homeschool group should accomodate every single interested homeschooler. I expect that a group with the purpose of promoting classical homeschooling will be less than excited about an influx of school in the box families or that an unschooler support group would be feel that their purpose were being misdirected by a growth in new members that were trying to steer the group toward a very curriculum centered model.

 

I agreed with your earlier comment -- that a SOF helps determine if a group is going to welcome you or not. I'm glad one of my local groups has one. I find that SOF helpful but yes, a bit small.

 

For me, I find it logical to find "XYZ Classical Homeschool Group" will promote Classical homeschooling. A person using a vastly different method will likely know from the name that they probably won't get the support they would like. But, ideally, there is no one saying "we are real homeschoolers and you are not. (I say ideally b/c I realize that this is not the case.)

 

But if you have "XYZ Christian Group", one might (or maybe not) expect it to welcome Christians. And it is off-putting to me that they actually exclude a large group of Christians including many mainline Protestants, RC, EO, and others to the point of saying those people are not Christian. And in this one group (not the one mentioned in the OP, and apparently not the most common type of "Christian" group), there is an unofficial but communicated belief that a child should not use secular or "liberal" Christian materials, and need to go to a narrow list of colleges when they graduate.

 

I get that a group may exist for the purpose of supporting its church congregation or people of "like faith". Maybe I'd be less bothered if they called themselves by the name of their denomination or fellowship. Does that make sense at all? (Genuinely asking, since I have not been batting a thousand for clarity lately!)

[twoforjoy]

:confused:

 

Your comment strikes me as humorous in a thread about how wrong headed exclusionary restrictions are too judgemental. I can't imagine why someone might not want to spend their coop time with a family that thinks they are small minded and insecure.:001_huh:

 

The issue isn't that holding those beliefs, in and of itself, makes one small-minded and insecure. It's that requiring that those around you also hold those beliefs is.

[MamaSheep]

...I get that a group may exist for the purpose of supporting its church congregation or people of "like faith". Maybe I'd be less bothered if they called themselves by the name of their denomination or fellowship. Does that make sense at all? (Genuinely asking, since I have not been batting a thousand for clarity lately!)

 

Ok, this makes sense to me too. I don't really have strong opinions one way or the other on this subject, other than I'd like to see a little more kindness and tolerance from both sides. But I can see where one might expect a group called "Townsville Christian Homeschool Group" to be open to whoever believes they're a Christian, as opposed to expecting that "Townsville Pentecostal Homeschool Group" or "Faith Baptist Church Homeschoolers" might be a little more specific in the sort of members it's designed for.

[twoforjoy]

All the years I went to Protestant church, we never prayed for any other denomination unless it was in hopes to show them the error of their ways so they would convert.

 

The Anglican cycle of prayer includes prayer for other denominations, and I've never gotten the impression that it's supposed to be a prayer for conversion.

[WishboneDawn]

The Anglican cycle of prayer includes prayer for other denominations, and I've never gotten the impression that it's supposed to be a prayer for conversion.

 

Same here but then Anglicans are a bit of a different breed from a lot of other protestants. :)

[mommaduck]

Same here but then Anglicans are a bit of a different breed from a lot of other protestants. :)

 

True. And I think this is where we toss the Anglicans in with the RC/EO.

[pfamilygal]

Our co-op meets at a church. We have a SOF (We believe that the Bible is the Word of God and in the inerrancy of Scripture. We believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and in Christ crucified, buried and risen. We believe that Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life†and that “no one comes to the Father except through Himâ€. We will always refer to the Bible as our foundational teaching tool.)

We require that it is signed by all parents, but we do not equate signing with believing everything in it. We just want folks to know upfront what viewpoint the classes are being taught from. We are mostly very conservative Evangelicals (I'm one of the more liberal members - which is quite funny if you know me), but also have Buddhist, atheist, RC and LDS members. These members teach classes. The only restrictions we have are that they not teach things in conflict with the SOF. (For example, we don't use the Book of Mormon, we don't teach that the world was created by random chance, etc.)

[silliness7]

The issue isn't that holding those beliefs, in and of itself, makes one small-minded and insecure. It's that requiring that those around you also hold those beliefs is.

 

 

Ooh! That's a subtle twist. You're around me therefore I require that you subscribe to xyz beliefs. Yes, that would be ridiculous. That is NOT what they are doing with their SOF.

 

With an SOF they are looking for like-minded people with which to hang. (Not necessarily exclusively hang, but hang w/ their kids in a school-ish setting.) Maybe it is small-minded and insecure to blast people who want to let their guard down in a certain educational setting where they can trust the philosophical outlook of the other adults and not have to worry about them saying something wonky to their kids. The parents may or MAY NOT hear about said wonkiness and therefore MAY NOT have the opportunity to discuss.

 

I don't get why this issue gets hashed out ad nauseum. Those who feel excluded just can't get past it. We're talking about the education of children here. There are many other educational institutions which require SOF of participants as well as instructors. SOF are not exclusive to the homeschooling world.

[Carol in Cal.]

That's because every Sunday we pray for our separated brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

All the years I went to Protestant church, we never prayed for any other denomination unless it was in hopes to show them the error of their ways so they would convert.

 

At least two Roman Catholics on this board have indicated that their church teaches that other denominations are not Christian/do not save. Isn't that the official RC position? (I know that it doesn't seem to be held by all Roman Catholics on this board, though.)

[Carol in Cal.]

 

But if you have "XYZ Christian Group", one might (or maybe not) expect it to welcome Christians. And it is off-putting to me that they actually exclude a large group of Christians including many mainline Protestants, RC, EO, and others to the point of saying those people are not Christian.

 

Maybe I'd be less bothered if they called themselves by the name of their denomination or fellowship. Does that make sense at all? (Genuinely asking, since I have not been batting a thousand for clarity lately!)

 

I agree!

 

It goes back to sort of a pet peeve of mine--the coopting of the word "Christian" to refer only to big, contemporary worship, non-denominational but more or less Baptist or Penticostal churches, rather than to all believers in Christ.

[Ellesmere]

At least two Roman Catholics on this board have indicated that their church teaches that other denominations are not Christian/do not save. Isn't that the official RC position? (I know that it doesn't seem to be held by all Roman Catholics on this board, though.)

 

I agree!

 

It goes back to sort of a pet peeve of mine--the coopting of the word "Christian" to refer only to big, contemporary worship, non-denominational but more or less Baptist or Penticostal churches, rather than to all believers in Christ.

 

My experience with Roman Catholics is that I have been accepted by them as a Christian due to my valid baptism in a Protestant church. They pray for the unity of believers. But I do not take communion when I go to Mass since I am not Catholic but no one calls me unchristian. For me comment further would go way OT, I think, esp. since I am not Catholic.

 

The churches where I heard "Christian" redefined and prayers for people to be rescued and converted away from Catholicism, EO, Anglicanism, etc. were not Protestant, technically (going back to someone who did experience it at a Protestant church.)

 

They are likely viewed as such, but they themselves were "non-denominational" or identified with specific fellowships. They weren't necessarily for big, contemporary worship, either.

[justamouse]

At least two Roman Catholics on this board have indicated that their church teaches that other denominations are not Christian/do not save. Isn't that the official RC position? (I know that it doesn't seem to be held by all Roman Catholics on this board, though.)

 

My priest said that any baptism is accepted, and even if I had never been Catholic and was baptized. I would not have to get 're baptized'. My salvation, therefore, was never in question.

 

Pope Benedict has said that Jesus came to establish ONE church (not 33k) and that others (not including Orthodox as they DO have Apostolic Succession) do not have Apostolic succession (Bishops can be traced in succession back to Apostles).

 

So, you can be 'saved' and be out of the RCC and still be a brother and sister in Christ.

[mommaduck]

My priest said that any baptism is accepted, and even if I had never been Catholic and was baptized. I would not have to get 're baptized'. My salvation, therefore, was never in question.

 

Pope Benedict has said that Jesus came to establish ONE church (not 33k) and that others (not including Orthodox as they DO have Apostolic Succession) do not have Apostolic succession (Bishops can be traced in succession back to Apostles).

 

So, you can be 'saved' and be out of the RCC and still be a brother and sister in Christ.

 

Exactly. And the Orthodox would add that we don't/aren't to judge the state of another's soul. Only God knows that, especially when Scripture says that we don't even know our own hearts.

[Xuzi]

My priest said that any baptism is accepted, and even if I had never been Catholic and was baptized. I would not have to get 're baptized'. My salvation, therefore, was never in question.

 

Pope Benedict has said that Jesus came to establish ONE church (not 33k) and that others (not including Orthodox as they DO have Apostolic Succession) do not have Apostolic succession (Bishops can be traced in succession back to Apostles).

 

So, you can be 'saved' and be out of the RCC and still be a brother and sister in Christ.

LDS claim Apostolic succession via Peter, James, and John appearing to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and ordaining them with the Holy Priesthood. Every LDS priesthood holder has a little card that shows their "Priesthood Lineage", i.e. who ordained them, and who ordained that person, and who ordained that person, etc. back to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, back to Peter, James, and John, and back to Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

 

(just as an FYI. ;) I don't think many people outside of the LDS church know that we even make that claim)

[ktgrok]

At least two Roman Catholics on this board have indicated that their church teaches that other denominations are not Christian/do not save. Isn't that the official RC position? (I know that it doesn't seem to be held by all Roman Catholics on this board, though.)

 

Heavens no, that is certainly not the official position of the church! The church considers other denominations to indeed be brothers and sisters in Christ, and therefore certainly believes they are Christians. As for being saved, the Church believes that although the Church is the ordinary means to salvation God certainly is not restricted by ordinary means. He is bigger than that.

 

For all we know Hell is an empty place, and no one has ever gone there.

[Violet Crown]

At least two Roman Catholics on this board have indicated that their church teaches that other denominations are not Christian/do not save. Isn't that the official RC position? (I know that it doesn't seem to be held by all Roman Catholics on this board, though.)

Then they don't know what they're talking about, or you've misunderstood them.

 

My Catholicism is pretty reactionary--I find the post-1960's Church to have an incomprehensible theology regarding many questions, including the status of baptized non-Catholics--and I can assure you that even the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church did not teach either that (a) baptized non-Catholic persons aren't Christians; or (b) there is any person who cannot be saved.

 

Now: the Catholic Church has consistently taught that non-Catholic communities (with the exception of the Eastern Orthodox and some other special cases) are not churches, properly speaking; and it would be true to say, from a Catholic POV, that non-Catholic communities do not save. But I've never met a Protestant who thought that she was saved by her church, either. If I asked my neighbor if she was saved by the SBC, she would laugh.

[Avila]

At least two Roman Catholics on this board have indicated that their church teaches that other denominations are not Christian/do not save. Isn't that the official RC position? (I know that it doesn't seem to be held by all Roman Catholics on this board, though.)

 

Not the official position at all. I also don't personally know any Catholics who believe that either.

 

http://Www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp

[In The Great White North]

At least two Roman Catholics on this board have indicated that their church teaches that other denominations are not Christian/do not save. Isn't that the official RC position? (I know that it doesn't seem to be held by all Roman Catholics on this board, though.)

 

Can you link their quotes?

 

I suspect there are some words/phrases being used that mean different things to different people (ie. being saved.)

[8circles]

Exactly. And the Orthodox would add that we don't/aren't to judge the state of another's soul. Only God knows that, especially when Scripture says that we don't even know our own hearts.

 

As would most if not all the Protestants I know.

 

Now: the Catholic Church has consistently taught that non-Catholic communities (with the exception of the Eastern Orthodox and some other special cases) are not churches, properly speaking; and it would be true to say, from a Catholic POV, that non-Catholic communities do not save. But I've never met a Protestant who thought that she was saved by her church, either. If I asked my neighbor if she was saved by the SBC, she would laugh.

 

It is my position, as a Protestant, that no church - including RC or EO - saves anyone. Jesus does & he does it across denomination/branch boundaries.

 

That's because every Sunday we pray for our separated brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

All the years I went to Protestant church, we never prayed for any other denomination unless it was in hopes to show them the error of their ways so they would convert.

 

I'm sorry that you belonged to a misguided Protestant church. IME most of them don't do that - I don't know anyone who does. We pray for unbelievers (no religious affiliation specified) to come to know Jesus, we don't care which church that happens in or if it even happens in any church. I've been to RC services where the separated were prayed-for, that we would be unified. If I remember correctly, from the RC perspective that means that we would become RC meaning convert, no? That's different somehow than your old Protestant church? :confused:

 

I have also found Catholic schools/churches to be a lot more tolerant than MANY Protestant faiths...

 

I have not found this to be true at all. Potato/Potahto.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't get why this issue gets hashed out ad nauseum. Those who feel excluded just can't get past it. We're talking about the education of children here. There are many other educational institutions which require SOF of participants as well as instructors. SOF are not exclusive to the homeschooling world.

 

There are a few reasons it keeps getting hashed out. 1. People don't want to believe that their SOF is exclusionary and so they keep getting posted, 2. there are plenty of educational institutions to choose from (usually), there is often only one good homeschooling group in an area and 3:

 

But if you have "XYZ Christian Group", one might (or maybe not) expect it to welcome Christians. And it is off-putting to me that they actually exclude a large group of Christians including many mainline Protestants, RC, EO, and others to the point of saying those people are not Christian.

[happyhappyjoyjoy]

This is one of the more misunderstood teachings of the RCC. As she said above, the RCC believes you can have salvation outside of the RCC. It also believes that the Catholic Church is the 'vehicle' through which Jesus brings his salvation, even to Christians that are in a church with no apostolic succession.

[Geo]

Statements of Faith are *intended* to exclude. That is the whole point of them. This one is obviously designed to make sure it excludes Catholics.

 

:ohmy:...SHAME on them! Sometimes I could just cry.

[milovany]

And the Orthodox would add that we don't/aren't to judge the state of another's soul. Only God knows that, especially when Scripture says that we don't even know our own hearts.

As would most if not all the Protestants I know.

 

 

 

I dunno. When we were in the evangelical church, and in the evangelical and reformed forums I'm familiar with even now, the Christians there are very active in judging the state of another's soul. The talk, when it comes to individuals and their walk with God, is often centered around whether they're "saved" or not (and opinions fly as to whether or not such-and-such in their life means they're saved or not saved). I see this all. the. time. It's very common. If you asked them if they were judging someone else, of course they'd say, "No" (I would have). But if you listen to conversation along these lines, you might hear things like, "She's a pre-believer!" (as in, hasn't prayed "the prayer of salvation" yet), or "He made a confession of faith at one time, but has walked away from that" (as in he's backslidden), or "She died without receiving Christ, that's too bad" (as in, she's in hell now). These are all ways of judging the state of another's soul.

 

I'm trying to un-learn all that I had previously learned in this regard. I don't succeed very well a lot of the time, but press on ...

Edited July 12, 2011 by milovaný

[WishboneDawn]

nm

[mommaduck]

I dunno. When we were in the evangelical church, and in the evangelical and reformed forums I'm familiar with even now, the Christians there are very active in judging the state of another's soul. The talk, when it comes to individuals and their walk with God, is often centered around whether they're "saved" or not (and opinions fly as to whether or not such-and-such in their life means they're saved or not saved). I see this all. the. time. It's very common. If you asked them if they were judging someone else, of course they'd say, "No" (I would have). But if you listen to conversation along these lines, you might hear things like, "She's a pre-believer!" (as in, hasn't prayed "the prayer of salvation" yet), or "He made a confession of faith at one time, but has walked away from that" (as in he's backslidden), or "She died without receiving Christ, that's too bad" (as in, she's in hell now). These are all ways of judging the state of another's soul.

 

I'm trying to un-learn all that I had previously learned in this regard. I don't succeed very well a lot of the time, but press on ...

 

Exactly my experience also, and I've been in many different denominations and non-denominations.

[8circles]

I dunno. When we were in the evangelical church, and in the evangelical and reformed forums I'm familiar with even now, the Christians there are very active in judging the state of another's soul. The talk, when it comes to individuals and their walk with God, is often centered around whether they're "saved" or not (and opinions fly as to whether or not such-and-such in their life means they're saved or not saved). I see this all. the. time. It's very common. If you asked them if they were judging someone else, of course they'd say, "No" (I would have). But if you listen to conversation along these lines, you might hear things like, "She's a pre-believer!" (as in, hasn't prayed "the prayer of salvation" yet), or "He made a confession of faith at one time, but has walked away from that" (as in he's backslidden), or "She died without receiving Christ, that's too bad" (as in, she's in hell now). These are all ways of judging the state of another's soul.

 

I don't question that this is what is around you. This isn't in my reality AT ALL. I'm not sure why you feel fit to question mine. My statement was about the people *I* know. I have never heard anyone IRL say aanything remotely similar to your examples. "pre-believer" is a new term to me, just heard it now for the first time. I'm very sorry that your experience & those of others with a Protestant church was so distasteful. It isn't enough to validate anyone's sweeping negative generalizations about Protestants. I assure you that the quality of Catholics & EO around me - both clergy & non - wouldn't paint a very nice picture of the whole of their church if I were to use only them as a guide. I'm not sure why it's OK to do this with Protestants.

[8circles]

Exactly my experience also, and I've been in many different denominations and non-denominations.

 

Maybe we should start keeping a tally.

[mommaduck]

No, but there is something to listening to the general experience of many people from various places rather than just looking at what is immediately in front of us. The truth is, this is an issue that is rampant within Protestantism in general, even though some fortunate people have not experienced it. And I stated that even when I was a Protestant (and trust me, I wasn't a loosy goosy one either).

 

Milovany was responding exactly due to what you pointed out...that simply because it wasn't your reality, it is the reality of others. That should not be so easily dismissed and neither should your experience.

[justamouse]

I dunno. When we were in the evangelical church, and in the evangelical and reformed forums I'm familiar with even now, the Christians there are very active in judging the state of another's soul. The talk, when it comes to individuals and their walk with God, is often centered around whether they're "saved" or not (and opinions fly as to whether or not such-and-such in their life means they're saved or not saved). I see this all. the. time. It's very common. If you asked them if they were judging someone else, of course they'd say, "No" (I would have). But if you listen to conversation along these lines, you might hear things like, "She's a pre-believer!" (as in, hasn't prayed "the prayer of salvation" yet), or "He made a confession of faith at one time, but has walked away from that" (as in he's backslidden), or "She died without receiving Christ, that's too bad" (as in, she's in hell now). These are all ways of judging the state of another's soul.

 

I'm trying to un-learn all that I had previously learned in this regard. I don't succeed very well a lot of the time, but press on ...

 

Yes, that's what I experienced as well, and hairier than that. I didn't believe it when people told me I'd walk into an RCC church and no one would judge me like that. I didn't believe it, but I've yet to see it. And it's amazingly freeing to not be judged. And, like Milovany, it's a struggle to let those old teachings go.

[8circles]

No, but there is something to listening to the general experience of many people from various places rather than just looking at what is immediately in front of us. The truth is, this is an issue that is rampant within Protestantism in general, even though some fortunate people have not experienced it. And I stated that even when I was a Protestant (and trust me, I wasn't a loosy goosy one either).

 

The point is it isn't confined to Protestantism. When it goes the other way it's excused as someone being misinformed or the receiver misunderstood or simply - that's not was the RC/EO officially believes. Well, since we (Protestants as a whole) have no authority except Jesus, I guess we could just brush it off as - that's not what Jesus taught & let it go. I've not lived my life in a bubble either - I've belonged to Protestant churches not only across the US but across the world. Am I looking at what's around me? sure - but it's a pretty big area. I've never denied that this problem exists in Protestantism, I object - loudly - to the generalizations that follow. They are FALSE.

 

ETA: I'm going to start keeping a tally, just so we Protestants can know just how horrible we all are. Keep us humble.

Edited July 12, 2011 by momoflaw

[milovany]

I don't question that this is what is around you. This isn't in my reality AT ALL. I'm not sure why you feel fit to question mine. My statement was about the people *I* know. I have never heard anyone IRL say aanything remotely similar to your examples. "pre-believer" is a new term to me, just heard it now for the first time. I'm very sorry that your experience & those of others with a Protestant church was so distasteful. It isn't enough to validate anyone's sweeping negative generalizations about Protestants. I assure you that the quality of Catholics & EO around me - both clergy & non - wouldn't paint a very nice picture of the whole of their church if I were to use only them as a guide. I'm not sure why it's OK to do this with Protestants.

 

Forgive me, I should have left off the "I dunno" so as to make it clear I was speaking of my background and situation (and not questioning yours). I'm sorry. But it's not just the IRL situation I'm speaking of either, it's what I see online in forums as well, and what I see in SOFs for "Christian" groups, etc. People are very concerned with the salvation of others (whether they're saved or not). A good example of this can be seen at World Magazine's blog section. It can be scary to post over there if you have anything other than an evangelical, somewhat reformed faith. You can be told you're not Christian solely if you use words "priest" or "homily" or "liturgy." I'm glad you have not had this experience/background! But I still think it's very common in American Christianity.

Edited July 12, 2011 by milovaný

[mommaduck]

The point is it isn't confined to Protestantism. When it goes the other way it's excused as someone being misinformed or the receiver misunderstood or simply - that's not was the RC/EO officially believes. Well, since we (Protestants as a whole) have no authority except Jesus, I guess we could just brush it off as - that's not what Jesus taught & let it go. I've not lived my life in a bubble either - I've belonged to Protestant churches not only across the US but across the world. Am I looking at what's around me? sure - but it's a pretty big area. I've never denied that this problem exists in Protestantism, I object - loudly - to the generalizations that follow. They are FALSE.

 

The honest truth is that, even online, I have not heard the same of RC/EO. I've only heard one person on WTM call the EO a cult simply because a group of immigrants are trying to maintain their culture (which has nothing to do with religion other than they also don't want Protestants trying to convert them) and one or two people have trouble with certain cultural aspects of particular churches.

 

Most Protestant churches I have attended do not teach Jesus as the only authority. Nope, pastors, elders, husbands, parents, etc....some even see Bill Gothard as their authority.

 

And good grief, I wasn't beating up Protestants! I was one myself and noted the same thing then. Heavens, I was one that walked around with a bat, hitting everyone over the head with theological debates. I speak from experience of having been in it and a part of it. I didn't even leave Protestantism on my own accord, to be honest. So it wasn't a case of "oh, well she was unsatisfied and thus she's just airing her complaints". No, it was taking an honest look at what was around me and what I was participating in. I can do the same in an EOC and see flaws. But this is just not one of them (judging another's salvation).

 

I'm sorry that you are taking me otherwise.

Edited July 12, 2011 by mommaduck

[justamouse]

The point is it isn't confined to Protestantism. When it goes the other way it's excused as someone being misinformed or the receiver misunderstood or simply - that's not was the RC/EO officially believes. Well, since we (Protestants as a whole) have no authority except Jesus, I guess we could just brush it off as - that's not what Jesus taught & let it go. I've not lived my life in a bubble either - I've belonged to Protestant churches not only across the US but across the world. Am I looking at what's around me? sure - but it's a pretty big area. I've never denied that this problem exists in Protestantism, I object - loudly - to the generalizations that follow. They are FALSE.

 

But they're not generalizations. They are personal experiences, felt by many people. There is a walking wounded in this country of those who have left churches because of things like this. I can't get the stats right now, (Barna group) but I believe that at this time there are more Christians leaving thier churches in America to the point that if it continues we're going to have skeleton crews left.

[8circles]

But they're not generalizations. They are personal experiences, felt by many people. There is a walking wounded in this country of those who have left churches because of things like this. I can't get the stats right now, (Barna group) but I believe that at this time there are more Christians leaving thier churches in America to the point that if it continues we're going to have skeleton crews left.

 

As much as I'd love to continue walking hand-in-hand with my sisters in Christ here I've got a meal to deliver.

[WishboneDawn]

No, but there is something to listening to the general experience of many people from various places rather than just looking at what is immediately in front of us. The truth is, this is an issue that is rampant within Protestantism in general, even though some fortunate people have not experienced it. And I stated that even when I was a Protestant (and trust me, I wasn't a loosy goosy one either).

 

I agree and I'm Protestant. You won't find Catholic websites claiming Protestants aren't Christians. You won't find Catholic homeschooling materials that condemn Catholicism. You won't find prominent Catholic figures making outrageous claims about Protestants. You won't find Catholic writings that deny the baptism of Protestants. You. Just. Won't. But will find all of that in protestant churches. And you'll find much worse.

[Avila]

I agree and I'm Protestant. You won't find Catholic websites claiming Protestants aren't Christians. You won't find Catholic homeschooling materials that condemn Catholicism. You won't find prominent Catholic figures making outrageous claims about Protestants. You won't find Catholic writings that deny the baptism of Protestants. You. Just. Won't. But will find all of that in protestant churches. And you'll find much worse.

 

Well, you might. ;). There are some groups who call themselves Traditional Catholics (note the capital T) that are pretty radical. And you can go to their web sites and find some pretty nasty stuff, though much of it will be aimed at the post-Vatican II Catholic Church.

 

The difference is that issue of authority. Anyone can go to the Vatican website, Catholic.com, EWTN, the USCCB or the catechism to see what the Church teaches. It is all out there. No secrets. Any diocesan Catholic Church and any religious order that hasn't left that authority will believe and teach that.

 

You can't get that as a protestant. One Baptist church may not teach what the other one a block over teaches. A Presbyterian won't believe exactly as the Baptist does. And a UCC might disagree with all of it, at any given point. THIS is exactly why a lot of the SOFs exist, actually, to bring it back around to the point of the thread. Because every one of these churches can teach something different, a group that contains them all has no reference point in common unless they come up with one.

 

The aggravating part is that there is SO much that RC and EO DO have in common as fellow Christians, but we are the ones singled out by the SOFs. These groups disagree with one another on a lot of issues, but it is only the issues that differ with RC and EO and LDS that get put into the SOF. All we agree on is apparently not realized or understood or considered important enough to base a group on.

[WishboneDawn]

The point is it isn't confined to Protestantism.

 

Yes, it pretty much is. There might be a bit from the Catholic side but it's nothing like what comes from our side.

 

Anti-Catholicism on the Net

 

 

ETA: I'm going to start keeping a tally, just so we Protestants can know just how horrible we all are. Keep us humble.

 

This is ridiculous. That's like going to a neighbour to let them know their son has been tossing rocks at your dog and having them accuse you of telling them how horrible their family is.

 

None of this has been about how horrible we Protestants are. Point to where posters have been accusing all Protestants of horrible things.

 

It is about how some Protestants treat other Christians, Catholics in particular but more generally LDS, Mormons...Even fellow Protestants. And it shouldn't be an eye-opener. Not when churches are handing out Jack Chick tracts about "death cookies" or BJU makes it clear that Catholics are not real Christians.

 

The only horrible thing about Protestants is if we fail to see what some fellow Protestants are doing in our name.

[Mrs Mungo]

The aggravating part is that there is SO much that RC and EO DO have in common as fellow Christians, but we are the ones singled out by the SOFs. These groups disagree with one another on a lot of issues, but it is only the issues that differ with RC and EO and LDS that get put into the SOF. All we agree on is apparently not realized or understood or considered important enough to base a group on.

 

I disagree that the Catholics are actually being "singled out." I can't sign most Statements of Faith because they demand a belief in a 7 day creation. I don't believe that, and I cannot sign that I do. I was raised in a charismatic church. I believe in faith healing, speaking in tongues, Sole Fide, just not a literal creation story.

 

Once again, I will point out that I understand the desire to have like-minded people together when it comes to teaching Bible or even science. I don't understand the need when it comes to doing field trips or teaching other types of classes.