Tagged: Protestantism Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Eugene Adkins 8:08 pm on 2016-12-05 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Protestantism   

    One thing that “American Atheists” and several Protestant churches will have in common this holiday season 

    The title of this post may sound a little weird, but assure you that “American Atheists” and several Protestant churches will have something in common this holiday season that you may never fathomed.

    What is it?

    They think you (More …)

    • marciasettles 8:45 pm on 2016-12-05 Permalink | Reply

      Our doors will be open! (We are a small Church of Christ in KY.)

    • Bernard Barton -Preacher for the Pleasant Hill church of Christ in Tennessee 5:29 am on 2016-12-06 Permalink | Reply

      The Pleasant Hill church of Christ in Pleasant Hill, Tenn will be meeting December 25 because it is the first day of the week when Christians worship God and study the Word of God together-Bernard Barton-Preacher of the pleasant Hill congregation

    • docmgphillips 1:32 pm on 2016-12-06 Permalink | Reply

      Regardless of secular holidays, we will be in church when the elders have set the time…and if they are led astray by “political correctness,” we will worship at home. But, regardless, we will worship the Lord on the Lord’s day.

  • J. Randal Matheny 4:18 am on 2016-05-14 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Protestantism,   

    Chose one of these statements. Your eternal life depends upon it. 

    In an article called, “Obedience Unlocks God’s Power,” a popular evangelical writer states:

    While effort has nothing to do with your salvation, it has much to do with your spiritual growth.

    This is the standard evangelical disclaimer about obedience. If you read anything by evangelicals, you’ll see similar statements all over the place. Now this: (More …)

    • D. H. Johnson 9:45 am on 2016-05-14 Permalink | Reply

      Randy, you are absolutely right about choosing the right version that comes from the correct Greek copies. It makes me wonder why absolute specific obedience to every detail is required TO BECOME A CHRISTIAN, but after we become a Christian, sin is acceptable. If loving God is keeping his commandments (1 Jn 5:3), how much do we love him if we keep one command? Two? Three? How many commands are we to obey if we love Him with all our heart, soul and mind? God makes a covenant, but for some reason it is not necessary for God’s children to keep ALL of the commands of that covenant. The Israelites kept many of the commands of God, and Jesus testified they kept the Sabbath, Feast Days, and even tithed! However he also testified that not one of them kept that covenant (John 7:19). Why? They were warned that unless they kept ALL of the commands of the Covenant, he would curse them (Deut 28;1; 15). If we keep all the law but offend in one point, are we not guilty of all (Jas 2:10-12)? What is so hard about keeping all the commands of God (1 Jn 5:3)? We claim to follow the Great Commission, but how many plan to ‘observe ALL THINGS whatsoever’ Jesus commands us? Should we not apply the same principles of obedience to God’s children that we apply to the unbeliever so that he can become a Christian?

      • Humberto 5:57 pm on 2016-05-15 Permalink | Reply

        “…but after we become a Christian, sin is acceptable

        lol, who said that?

    • Carol Vinzant 9:52 am on 2016-05-14 Permalink | Reply

      Dear Randy, I, for one, REALLY appreciate your devoting your writing to the elements of salvation that really matter! We are in the most ecumenical phase ever, since the restoration of the church. Most think we of churches of Christ, ( including many of our own members are thinking this way) are too picky and only focus on baptism. I believe we began to focus on baptism because it was what was being omitted. We all should recognize the difference in “effort” and “obedience.” Of course we should NEVER forget FAITH on our part, and GRACE as God’s gift to us. Anyone who can read and understand the Bible cannot miss the fact that GOD wants Obedience to His WORD…..We should NEVER take away nor add to God’s Word. (Rev. 22: 18, 19).Even Moses did not get to go into the promised land due to disobedience and what EFFORT he had manifested! (We know Moses IS in Heaven with God, and got to view Canaan, and later was on the Mount of Transfiguration.)
      “Preach on, Brother,” and may we simply TRUST and OBEY.

      • Humberto 6:01 pm on 2016-05-15 Permalink | Reply

        I second your comment. <3

        Well said. Abiding Jesus words is easy. People complain too much and they have forgot the simple and essential baptism.

    • fd4tht 10:40 am on 2016-05-14 Permalink | Reply

      Of course, none of those folks would argue that you must “obey” God to grow, or to acquire forgiveness when you sin. Even the “sinner’s prayer” requires compliance. Repentance is obedience. Leave it to the devil to skew terms and leave a trail of deception. Thanks for the persistence.

    • Timothy Hall 10:43 am on 2016-05-14 Permalink | Reply

      Clearly stated, Randal. By juxtaposing Warren’s statement with Scripture’s you show the serious contrast between the two positions. God has been so gracious to offer salvation; why would we ever quibble over His terms?

  • J. Randal Matheny 3:06 pm on 2015-10-17 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Protestantism   

    ‘I never wonder if I’m wrong.’ Where did Bart go amiss? 

    “The truth of the matter is I never do wonder if I’m wrong.” So ends Bart Campolo, son of famous evangelical Tony, an interview on World Mag. A few years back he rejected his father’s religion and turned to atheism.

    Below, a few thoughts of mine after reading the interview. (More …)

  • J. Randal Matheny 11:40 am on 2014-09-05 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Protestantism,   

    “What is the Difference Between Catholics and Protestants?” is the title of an article on a popular Protestant website. You can probably imagine how the author answers the question. (I didn’t bother to read it. I have other priorities.) As a New Testament Christian who eschews sectarian divisions, how would you answer this question? Are there any real differences between the two groups? If so, what are the basic differences? Feel free to share your perspective in the comments area.

    • James 3:09 pm on 2014-09-05 Permalink | Reply

      There used to actually be some big differences, but not so much anymore. It seems like the whole denominational world is merging into one big conglomeration of believe what you want, worship how you want, live how you want and don’t say anyone else or anything is wrong. The major differences that are slipping away were that 1) The Catholics believed they were the only true church while protestant denominations accepted each other more or less. 2) Catholics had statues, prayed to Mary and saints, and the pope. More protestants are moving toward those things. 3) Catholics said the church overruled the Bible, protestants used to believe the Bible more not so much now. Of course there is the no birth control position of the Catholic leaders that is not followed by most of the members. The Catholics used to believe you had to be baptized (sprinkled) to go to heaven. But this most recent Pope has gone so far as to say even atheists can be saved. It really does seem like we are about to just have individual groups of Pentecostal, Calvinist, “Spirit led”, Catholic, interdenominationalists before long.

    • Jack 6:59 pm on 2014-09-11 Permalink | Reply

      The conclusion of the matter is_ Catholics are saved by the Church_ Protestants by grace.

  • Eugene Adkins 6:53 am on 2013-02-14 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , Protestantism,   

    I’ll Tell You What To Give Up For “Lent” 

    I’m no protestant, but has the “protestant” world all but completely forgotten what and who they originally protested??? It seems like more and more I see signs in churchyards and hear people talking about what they’re going to do (or not do) for “Lent.” Sadly, even members of the Lord’s church have gotten caught up in this outward display of religious ignorance!

    The Bible doesn’t have much to say about “Lent” but it does say enough to be clear:

    Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations – “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.” (Colossians 2:20-23)

    Do we get it? Outward restrictions don’t correct inward sins! “Lent” is the first thing I think of when I read Colossians 2:20-23 and then think of the religious world today. There is no biblical principle for this manmade doctrine. You don’t live it up on “Fat Tuesday” to give it up on “Ash Wednesday!” Sackcloth and ashes never changed a heart! Forty days of neglecting our self is not the same as forty days in the wilderness. Biblical prayer and fasting and “Lent” are not the same thing. One is about devotion to God and the other is about devotion to values that have no true value against wicked and sinful indulgences. It’s not what does or doesn’t go into the mouth that affects a person’s relationship with God – it’s what does or doesn’t come out of the heart that affects one’s relationship with God (Matthew 15:1-20). Depriving the body doesn’t equal feeding the soul! Never has, never will.

    If something is not sinful it does not have to be given up to improve our relationship with God – but if something is sinful we best not wait for a time of self-imposed religion to correct something that needs to be addressed immediately. In other words, don’t wait for the “preparation of the Holy Week” to start living a Holy Life (1 Peter 1:13-16).

    If you’re still looking for something to give up, my answer would be that the best thing to give up for “Lent” is “Lent” itself!

    • John T. Polk II 7:28 am on 2013-02-14 Permalink | Reply

      Excellent reply! Widespread ignorance doesn’t prove that it’s true. The former “Protestants” have become major proponents of what they formerly protested. How confusing that must be. Preach the word.

    • John Henson 11:34 am on 2013-02-14 Permalink | Reply

      The bodies observing Lent have flipped it upside down. It used to be an avoidance of certain foods (which is itself unscriptural) and is now an opportunity for indulgence including the use of alcohol in some places. This is what happens when the doctrines of men are observed. They go haywire.

  • Weylan Deaver 2:18 pm on 2011-08-03 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Felix Manz, John Calvin, , Protestant Reformers, Protestantism, reformation, , Urbanus Rhegius   

    “Compelle Intrare” 

    In Jesus’ banquet parable (Luke 14:12-24), the master sent his servant to gather up guests for the feast. His instructions were, “Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled” (v. 23, ESV).

    In Latin, “compel people to come in” is written, “compelle intrare.” From early centuries of church history through medieval times and beyond, the Roman Catholic Church leaned on a grotesquely twisted interpretation of “compelle intrare” in Luke 14:23, concluding that governmental authorities had the right to coerce people into the church. In a perverse marriage, Catholicism and the state were so tied together that the former could dictate the latter use deadly force against the church’s enemies. And, the church’s enemies included whatever men and doctrines were not in lock step with what the Catholic Church taught. Forced conformity to Catholicism was the glue holding society together. Naturally, if people were allowed to study the Bible for themselves, voluntarily practice what they believed from their own study, and freely preach their views, it would be a fundamental threat to the church’s power (and the crumbling of society, as they knew it).

    Reformers such as Martin Luther are often hailed for their courage in confronting the status quo in religion (i.e. Catholicism). Yet, what they created in the Reformation was simply another state religion like Catholicism—only with certain different doctrines. In other words, while Luther opposed the Catholic Church, he very much endorsed the idea that the Reformed church could use force against its own enemies.

    While the reformers (such as Luther, John Calvin, etc.) were battling Catholicism, there were others insisting that both sides were wrong in their concept of a church which forced itself on everyone in a given locale. The view of these objectors was that the church of Christ consisted of voluntary believers, and that it had no connection to the state; nor was it biblical to use force in spreading the gospel. They studied their Bibles and clung to their convictions. They also found themselves mercilessly persecuted by both the Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformers.

    Martin Luther commissioned his friend, Urbanus Rhegius, to fight those who were calling for a church formed only of voluntary believers. Rhegius said:

    “The truth leaves you no choice; you must agree that the magistracy has the authority to coerce his subjects to the Gospel. And if you say, ‘Yes, but with admonition and well-chosen words but not by force’ then I answer that to get people to the services with fine words and admonitions is the preacher’s duty, but to keep them there with recourse to force if need be and to frighten them away from error is the proper function of the rulers….What do you suppose ‘Compelle intrare’ means?” (quoted in Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, p. 74).

    Those who thought the church and state were separate, that the state should not interfere with the church, and that the church should be organized along New Testament lines, were considered radicals and hated as enemies. One of them was Felix Manz, of Zurich, Switzerland. His goal was “to bring together those who were willing to accept Christ, obey the Word, and follow in His footsteps, to unite with these by baptism, and to leave the rest in their present conviction” (ibid.). In other words, Manz was opposed to coercion and held that the church should consist of true believers—those who wanted to accept and obey the gospel.

    For his “heretical” ideas, Felix Manz had his hands tied around his bent knees, with a big stick shoved between his elbows and knees so that he could not move his arms. He was put in a boat and rowed into the Limmat River, where he was thrown into the frigid water to drown. The date was January 5, 1527.

    Over the recent centuries, both Catholicism and Protestantism have had to back off of “compelle intrare,” but neither the former nor the denominations that sprang from the latter have gone all the way back to the primitive church’s organization and practice. Therein lies their insuperable problem.

    If we, in the church of Christ, had lived back then, we would have been hunted like dogs by both Catholics and the Reformers. We are still at spiritual war with their religious descendants, but, thanks be, at least they cannot come after us today with a death warrant.

    • John T. Polk II 2:30 pm on 2011-08-03 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks for the historical reminder, since we “have not yet resisted to bloodshed, striving against sin” (Hebrews 12:4), but we may yet pay our dues (Hebrews 11:32-40). Islam, like Roman Catholicism, is passively agreeable as a minority of a population, but in a majority, they are like our adversary the Devil, walking about like a lion, seeking whom they may devour (1 Peter 5:8). Whatever our lot, we must not “fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28). Keep admonishing, brother.

compose new post
next post/next comment
previous post/previous comment
show/hide comments
go to top
go to login
show/hide help
shift + esc