Why are so many protestants anti-Catholic and/or anti-Orthodox

Acts 2:36-40 That is an alter call . Watch any Billy Graham event

Albion said:

They do?

Click to expand...

Yes! For instance, there is a website--blogs, of course--at http://christianblogs.christianet.com/
Most of the people on those blogs claim to be Christians, but quite a few of them don't believe that Jesus is God, or don't believe that they need a "man-made denomination" church to worship (they worship at home, or out in the trees or whatever) and some of them are out and out Gnostics. And most of them claim that sinner's prayers (as in a formal prayer, written by someone else) and altar calls are in the Bible. (Of course, they can't give book, chapter and verse, but that is beside the point.)

Acts 12:12-14 They were having church at a home . We do today anywhere anytime even here when we relate , take a moment , to pray for others confessing or seeking council
or fellowship in Jesus name .

4x4toy said:

Acts 2:36-40 That is an alter call . Watch any Billy Graham event

Click to expand...

No, that's not an "altar call." It's similar enough to probably justify an altar call or say that it has a Biblical precedent, however.

Monk Brendan said:

Yes! For instance, there is a website--blogs, of course--at http://christianblogs.christianet.com/
Most of the people on those blogs claim to be Christians, but quite a few of them don't believe that Jesus is God, or don't believe that they need a "man-made denomination" church to worship (they worship at home, or out in the trees or whatever) and some of them are out and out Gnostics. And most of them claim that sinner's prayers (as in a formal prayer, written by someone else) and altar calls are in the Bible. (Of course, they can't give book, chapter and verse, but that is beside the point.)

Click to expand...

Thanks. I learned something today. You also raise another issue, which is that the regular church bodies that use altar calls and all the lone wolf, non-denominational (and unaffiliated) folks out there are not to be thought of as peas in a pod. These second kind of Christians, I don't give much credence to, although I was interested when you said that "Protestants" often make certain claims or statements about this matter.

Monk Brendan said:

First of all, I want to assure everyone that I am not trying to be argumentative. However, Alithis, If you have ever added one "altar call" or one "sinner's prayer" or any other of the classical Protestant "additions" to the "Biblical" traditions, then your denomination too has added non-Biblical tradition to to the Bible

Click to expand...

dont have a denomination don't attend a man man institution havnt added anything

Alithis said:

dont have a denomination don't attend a man man institution havnt added anything

Click to expand...

Oh, One of Those. If you're so Scripturally minded, Why aren't you following Hebrew 10:24-25, "24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. (KJV)

Now that is IN the Bible. How is your man-made non-denomination of one going to fulfill that command?

Albion said:

No, that's not an "altar call." It's similar enough to probably justify an altar call or say that it has a Biblical precedent, however.

Click to expand...

Would you call it helping to re-birth but this time in Spirit . You share the Gospel of Jesus , your testimony of Jesus in your life , then ask them if they would like to know how to be born-again , then lead them in confession of Jesus in prayer as Lord and their Lord if they are being drawn by the Holy Spirit . If they are not ready , keep fishing and keep sewing the seed of the Word .. The alter in church has no power , you present your self to the alter of God in Spirit when ever and where ever .. Presenting yourself at a church alter is only a bolder public profession of an inward act of faith . When I've led people to Jesus I tell them to find a church then tell the preacher and get baptized .. A definitive point in time you can remember and refer to when you acted in faith in response to the call . I've never baptized anyone but I'd be willing in a heartbeat if asked .

Then there's hearing through the Word what the Spirit is saying to the churchs , an in tune preacher will hear and preach as he is led , if it hits your heart , come to the alter and confess and or receive . Another act of faith that is definitive but where Jesus can transform your faith to substance . Same as lifting hands in praise , fasting and praying , anointing with oil , even shouting and dancing to the Lord .

Teslafied said:

You can't build a rock on someone who later denied Jesus if it was all on Peter the church would have collapsed when he folded up under pressure.

Click to expand...

If that is so, why did Jesus say "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt 16:18 KJV)

He did not say that to himself, he said it to Peter (Cephas/Simon). To further nail this down, Matt 4:18 says, “And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.” (KJV)

With these two Scriptures in mind, we see Jesus talking to Simon, and He called him Peter (Rock) and said upon this Rock (Petros) I will build my church. As far as Peter failing, ALL of the Apostles failed Jesus.

Sorry. Even catholics prove that's not correct. (protestants knew it ever since , well, ever)...
http://www.reachingcatholics.org/rock.html
excerpt:
"Upon This Rock
James McCarthy
In the Gospel of Matthew we read:

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." —Matthew 16:13-18

The Roman Catholic Church interprets Jesus here to say, "You are Peter, and upon you, Peter, I will build My church." Peter would be the rock upon which the Church would be built [552, 586, 881]. He would be the "prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church."

There are several problems with this interpretation. The first is that someone reading Matthew’s Gospel in Greek, the original language of the New Testament, would not have immediately concluded that Peter was the rock. In the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus said to Simon, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church" (Matthew 16:18), His choice of words was significant. Though Peter’s name means rock (petros), Jesus did not say, "You are Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petros) I will build my church." What He said was, "You are Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church."

The word Jesus chose to use for rock, petra, is a feminine noun that refers to a mass of rock. The New Testament uses this word in Matthew 7:24,25 to refer to the bedrock upon which a wise man built his house. Petra is also found later in Matthew’s Gospel with reference to Jesus’ tomb, which workers had carved out of solid rock (Matthew 27:60).

Peter’s name, Petros, on the other hand, is masculine in gender and refers to a boulder or a detached stone. Greek literature also uses it of a small stone that might be picked up and thrown.

What Jesus said to Peter could be translated, "You are Stone, and upon this bedrock I will build My church." His choice of words would indicate that the rock on which the church would be built was something other than Peter.

Anyone reading the Gospel of Matthew in the original Greek language would have noticed the difference. The reader would have had to pause and decide what was meant by "upon this rock" (Matthew 16:18). The reader would not immediately have equated the rock (petra) with Peter (Petros), because the words are different.

To determine the best interpretation, the reader would have had to look more closely at the context. This is the second and greatest weakness with the Roman Catholic interpretation: It fails to give proper emphasis to the context.

The context of Matthew 16:13-20 is not about Peter; it is about Jesus. It starts with a question that Jesus raises about His identity: "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" (Matthew 16:13). It reaches a climax with Peter’s declaration: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). It concludes with the Lord warning His disciples "that they should tell no one that He was the Christ" (Matthew 16:20).

When Peter correctly answered Jesus’ question as to His identity, the Lord remarked, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 16:17). Peter’s insight into Jesus’ true identity was a revelation from God. In this context, Jesus, making a play on words, says, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church" (Matthew 16:18).

The context argues for interpreting "this rock" as referring back to the revelation and its content. In other words, the Lord Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16) would be the solid rock upon which the Christian faith would rest. Every doctrine and practice would be founded upon Him. Every true believer would hold to a common conviction: Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16).

The cultural context of the passage also supports interpreting "this rock" as referring to Jesus in His identity as the Son of God. Matthew wrote his Gospel for a Jewish audience. He expected his readers to be familiar with Old Testament imagery.

How would a Jewish reader interpret "upon this rock"? G. Campbell Morgan answers, "If we trace the figurative use of the word rock through Hebrew Scriptures, we find that it is never used symbolically of man, but always of God." For example:

There is no one holy like the Lord; Indeed, there is no one besides Thee, Nor is there any rock like our God. —1 Samuel 2:2

For who is God, but the Lord? And who is a rock, except our God? —Psalm 18:31

Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none. —Isaiah 44:8

The wider context of the New Testament also confirms that Jesus, not Peter, is the rock. For example, Peter himself wrote of Christ as a rock (petra):

For this is contained in Scripture: "Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone, and he who believes in Him shall not be disappointed." This precious value, then, is for you who believe. But for those who disbelieve, "The stone which the builders rejected, this became the very corner stone," and, "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense." —1 Peter 2:6-8

Paul also refers to Christ by the Greek word petra. In Romans he wrote of Christ as "a rock (petra) of offense" (Romans 9:33) over which the Jews had stumbled. In First Corinthians he wrote of a spiritual rock encountered by Israel in the wilderness. He identified that rock, saying, "...and the rock (petra) was Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:4).

Interpreting Christ as the rock upon which the church would be built also harmonizes well with other statements in Scripture. Paul warned, "No man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:11). Here he emphasizes that Christ is the foundation upon which the church is built. In Ephesians, Paul speaks of the church as "having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone" (Ephesians 2:20). Here Paul pictures Christ as the principal stone and the apostles and prophets as secondary stones...." (more at site/link)

I see it as , if Jesus can use someone like Peter he can use anyone loving and seeking Truth once they find it

4x4toy said:

I see it as , if Jesus can use someone like Peter he can use anyone loving and seeking Truth once they find it

Click to expand...

YES!

(did Jesus start training His disciples BEFORE or AFTER they learned HE is MESSIAH ? )
(did Jesus send out His disciples two by two with orders to heal the sick and cast out demons everywhere they went with the message BEFORE or AFTER they learned HE is MESSIAH ? )
(did Jesus change ? ) (in the last 2000 years, or ever ? )

And to think that Jesus would choose an imperfect man over a perfect truth... smh
And wasn't He talking to Peter?
Why would He say upon this instead of upon you?
The impersonal pronoun is in the Catholic & Orthodox bibles, isn't it?

yeshuaslavejeff said:

The Roman Catholic Church interprets Jesus here to say, "You are Peter, and upon you, Peter, I will build My church." Peter would be the rock upon which the Church would be built [552, 586, 881]. He would be the "prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church."

Click to expand...

But the site you posted:

yeshuaslavejeff said:

http://www.reachingcatholics.org/rock.html

Click to expand...

Is not a Catholic site. To prove something to me, you have to be able to quote from the Vatican's website. If it is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (include the link) then I will listen to you. Here is the Vatican Website:
w2.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html

OrthodoxForever said:

That was a protestant source and a neutral source

Click to expand...

As you might know, not all Protestant sites are neutral.

Albion said:

No, that's not an "altar call." It's similar enough to probably justify an altar call or say that it has a Biblical precedent, however.

Click to expand...

This is the passage:
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:36-38 KJV)

This is NOT an "Altar Call." Peter preached a sermon, yes. But He did not say to them How many want to be saved? Rather, the crowd asked Peter how to be saved, which is where Peter told them to repent.

There was no altar. The was no choir singing Just As I Am. There were not people waiting at the foot of the steps to take the sinners off to someplace and condemn them into weeping and crying for their sins to be forgiven. Nor was Peter begging the crowd repeatedly to come forward. Didn't happen. The "altar call" is an invention of 18th-19th century, most usually found in America, or in missionary fields that were planted by Euro-Americans.

The only "Altar call" we have is, "With fear of God, with faith and love draw near!"

grandvizier1006 said:

I get that. However, I think you just might be assigning ideas about Protestants that we don't have. just because you were one doesn't prevent you from doing that.

Click to expand...

Those who are converts to Catholicism are generally the most zealous. Cardinal Newman was a good example.

Originally an evangelical Oxford University academic and priest in the Church of England, Newman then became drawn to the high-church tradition of Anglicanism. He became known as a leader of, and an able polemicist for, the Oxford Movement, an influential and controversial grouping of Anglicans who wished to return to the Church of England many Catholic beliefs and liturgical rituals from before the English Reformation.

Click to expand...

Job8 said:

Those who are converts to Catholicism are generally the most zealous. Cardinal Newman was a good example.

Click to expand...

The same can be said of Catholics that have converted the other way (to low church Evangelical Protestantism), they often tend to be the most vocal. (and I suspect that is partly their new church teaching them they have been duped and deceived previously).

DerekJM said:

The same can be said of Catholics that have converted the other way (to low church Evangelical Protestantism), they often tend to be the most vocal. (and I suspect that is partly their new church teaching them they have been duped and deceived previously).

Click to expand...

While those who become Catholic from a Protestant background are probably more zealous, I don't see them generally as anti-Protestant. Some, but not most. Most will be thankful for what they learned as Protestants. Not angry about being duped or deceived. Generally happy about the trajectory they started from and how it developed. Happy to be where they are now, but not bitter about the past. To find a truly angry convert you'd best start with a Catholic turned evangelical.

OrthodoxForever said:

I run into this a LOT. I grew up in a mixed protestant family full of Presbyterians, Methodists, baptists, and Pentecostals and when I started my conversion process 5 years ago almost all of them thought I was selling my soul to the devil, half of them cut me out entirely and the other half screamed in my face to repent whenever I saw them.

The thing is... I made this choice because it was the next step in my own spiritual journey. My beliefs didn't change, though there are some of them I now understand with greater depth than I used to or ever could had I stayed a Methodist, but they didn't actually change and they are 100% based in scripture. The difference now is that I am part of a church family that shares them. I don't understand how people can be so adamantly opposed to something they don't even fully understand. I talked to my aunt about it since she and my uncle are the only other non-protestant believers in our family (they're Roman Catholic) and she said that the same exact thing happened to her when she converted 40 years ago.

What's with all this hate?

Click to expand...

I think psychology wise, it is boundary setting.