Why don't protestants make the sign of the Cross?

[Strong in Him]

Nor does it mean that we should not do it.

No, it doesn't.
It someone wants to make the sign of the cross and feels it is important to them; fine. But if they don't want to and have never done so that's not wrong, a sign of weak faith or a denial of the Trinity.

I'm not saying that you said that, but that was the impression I got from the OP

 

[tampasteve]

ADMIN HAT ON

Just a reminder to PLEASE be careful not to call Trinitarian Christians cults or otherwise imply they are not Christians. Also, while we can disagree and debate Christian practices, DO NOT imply that doing something that is traditional, such as using the sign of the cross would make one non-Christian or otherwise not a part of the church.

ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[Cis.jd]

-

​

Ok you point to this church cult ( Iglesia Ni Cristo or Church Of Christ) and i agree they are a false religious cult.

As this is what they say about Jesus
Not God-Man
But we do not subscribe to the belief that Christ is a God-Man. He is man in nature according to His own testimony (John 8:40) and the teachings of His Apostles (I Tim. 2:5; Matt. 1:18).

Christ is Human
The attributes of a human being are found in Christ. He hungered (Matt. 4:2), thirsted (John 19:28), became weary or tired (John 4:6), slept (Matt. 8:24), and died (Matt. 27:50; I Cor. 15:3). However, Christ as distinct from all men, is the only one Who did not sin (I Pet. 2:21-22; Heb. 4:15).
He has been exalted by God and given a name above all other names, that at the name of Christ every knee should bow, those in heaven, and those on earth (Phil. 2:9-11). He has been placed by God far above all principality, power, might and dominion, and every name that is named, and all things have been put under His feet (Eph. 1:21-22). Christ will eventually subject all His power and authority to the true God (I Cor. 15:27-28). He had in so many instances introduced Himself as the Son of God but never did He appropriate the title “God” nor “God the Son” for Himself because He is not God but a man.


So i do not see the connection of this church cult to Protestant churches like Methodist, Southern Baptist, other Baptist, Presbyterian. Are you saying because Southern Baptist, etc.... do not make the sign of the cross, they are sharing the same beliefs as this Iglesia Ni Cristo or Church Of Christ.

First The thread isn't saying "you have to do the sign of the cross to be a christian" nor am I trying to talk in a spiritual sense.

The point i'm trying to make is that i feel that certain traditions have to be upheld, and that I think the lack of respect/importance that Protestants have in regards to tradition because of it more being "catholic" than "biblical" became gradual steps going away from christianity, which lead to the these heretical cults like that church.

Just look at how the objection on doing the sign of the cross (catholic made, not in the bible) on this thread is almost the same in that website. Not only that, without the sign of the cross, you guys pray the same way because they end their prayers "In Jesus' name".
In the past, this is the gesture/code that Christians identified themselves to one another, and it's almost the same case till this day because those false churches can claim they believe in God and Jesus, but they are never going to do that sign.. because they never were one of us.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The point i'm trying to make is the protestant mentality that has lead them to become distant or disconnection to traditional teachings (because of accused affiliation or innovation from catholic church) are actually steps further away from christianity and closer to heretical cults like that church.

This is a false claim on your part. You may want to reconsider pushing this seeming "qualifying argument," because when historical analysis begins, then this argument of yours can swing both ways.

Just look at how the objection on doing the sign of the cross (catholic made, not in the bible) on this thread is almost the same in that website. Not only that, without the sign of the cross, you guys pray the same way because they end their prayers "In Jesus' name".

This is a false analogy, and by persisting with it, you just set yourself up for some deeper philosophical scrutiny. Personally, I'd rather see us all do better things with our time that nick-pick at each other's perceived theological imperfections.

 

[Cis.jd]

This is a false claim on your part. You may want to reconsider pushing this seeming "qualifying argument," because when historical analysis begins, then this argument of yours can swing both ways.

This is a false analogy, and by persisting with it, you just set yourself up for some deeper philosophical scrutiny. Personally, I'd rather see us all do better things with our time that nick-pick at each other's perceived theological imperfections.

Did you read the link I gave from their website about the sign of the cross? Maybe if you checked that out you'd see it a valid analogy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Did you read the link I gave from their website about the sign of the cross? Maybe if you checked that out you'd see it a valid analogy.

You don't get to define what a 'valid' analogy is, and your linked article doesn't by some fiat set up a 'standard of comparison.' You have a methodological insufficiency in your thinking here, so do yourself a favor, and diminish the claim you're making against Protestants before the same measure you use is used back upon you....................

....... and by the way, I'm not a Protestant.

 

[Cis.jd]

You don't get to define what a 'valid' analogy is, and your linked article doesn't by some fiat set up a 'standard of comparison.' You have a methodological insufficiency in your thinking here, so do yourself a favor, and diminish the claim you're making against Protestants before the same measure you use is used back upon you....................

....... and by the way, I'm not a Protestant.

Yeah, you didn't bother to check the link out to have more context on the analogy.

 

[ralliann]

No.

Why is a empty cross held in high regard. The resurrection shows Jesus' defeat over death. The cross was the method of shedding of blood, that God required for the sin of the world to be taken away.

That is ongoing for all time.

Both played an important part to the whole of God's plan in redemption of man. But still without belief in Jesus for Eternal Life, belief in the cross saves no one.

It still plays a part to all who come to Christ doesn't it?

Many people believe Jesus died on the cross for their sins, but are these same people. Believing in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal Life. Because that is the only way to receive Eternal Life and become a born again child of God, by belief in Jesus.

And his death for our sins as well.

So what does believing in Jesus mean. It means to believe Jesus and who He, Jesus or other believers/disciples (Paul, Peter, Phillip, etc..) say Jesus is. Which is the resurrection and the life, The promised Messiah / Son of God*. This is the name and believing in this name. Is what gives people God's free gift of Eternal Life.

He is risen from death and is high priest.

“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He.”

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.


Do not miss believing in the name of Jesus or you will miss receiving God's free gift of Eternal Life salvation.

* Messiah and Son of God are the same names of Jesus, so if you believe Jesus is The Messiah, you are also believing Jesus is the Son of God

Both his death and resurrection are necessary, aren't they?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, you didn't bother to check the link out to have more context on the analogy.

Actually, I did look at, and briefly read, your linked article about some 'Church of Christ' cult down in the lower Americas.

What about it would you specifically like me to notice?

 

[Cis.jd]

Actually, I did look at, and briefly read, your linked article about some 'Church of Christ' cult down in the lower Americas.

What about it would you specifically like me to notice?

Lower Americas? That is a Filipino cult.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Lower America's? That is a Filipino cult

Like I said, I briefly perused it, mainly because it didn't appear to be an academically inclined article, so I gave it short shrift.

Alright. I'll take the correction you've provided: "It's Filipino."

With your correction of my lack of reading in mind, you still haven't answered my question.

 

[Cis.jd]

Like I said, I briefly perused it, mainly because it didn't appear to be an academically inclined article, so I gave it short shrift.

Alright. I'll take the correction you've provided: "It's Filipino."

With your correction of my lack of reading in mind, you still haven't answered my question.

But you came here saying my "analogy is invalid" without carefully looking into what i gave to have more proper context on it.

To answer your question: Here is a snip from that link

Brother Bob: Dear friends, is it a good sign? Should we all be identifying ourselves as a member of the Roman Catholic Church by placing that symbol on our forehead? Using our right hand to make that sign of the cross that identifies a person as Catholic? What did we just read? It is the sign and symbol of Catholicism. It is the symbol of those that are to be tormented in the lake of fire forever. Why You Should NOT Make the Sign of the Cross

You read more in that link, the reasoning is almost similar to protestants, look at a few of the replies here. Most of their objections to other things are also shared objections by protestants. I'm not bashing Protestantism for causing cults, but this is more about this mindset on disassociation from traditions due to perceived protestant notion of "Catholic ties and non-biblical references". This disassociation may have (unintentionally) lead to a broader separation from Christianity itself.

Keep this in mind, that this church (and other cults) end their prayers "in Jesus' name" and they are not the only ones. The JW's, mormons, etc are like this. And the separation/rejection of christian traditions, starting with the Sign of the Cross makes protestants more closer to them than they are with us.All of them state they are the true christians.

I made this thread here because initially I thought of the topic in regards to the Sign of the cross to be philosophical rather than theological due to the emphasizes on shared identity and historical continuity among Christians. To view it as more of unity beyond the other doctrinal differences. I see the disassociation from the church that protestants have held has resulted to protestants not realizing the need of preserving and honoring the ethical and cultural traditions of Christianity. This sign of the cross is not a "catholic thing", these cults claim they are true christians, but ever since the first century, this sign of the cross gesture has been our "code of identification". It has represented our unity, and echoes the voices of christians who not only believed but died for this faith. Yet protestants either think this is insignificant or wrong due to catholic ties?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But you came here saying my "analogy is invalid" without carefully looking into what i gave to have more proper context on it.

To answer your question: Here is a snip from that link


My point isn't to label Protestantism as causing cults, but to challenge the mindset that disassociates from traditions due to perceived Catholic ties and non-biblical references. This disassociation might unintentionally lead to a broader separation from Christianity itself, giving rise to such churches. If i told you exactly what this church believes in, showed you the reddit page, and what it is about, you'd find it disturbing.

Fine. You can express your concern, but remember that expressing your concern, however valid it may be or seem, isn't a demonstration of its soundness and actual accuracy or truth.

It's up to you to show that further disassociation actually does lead to a broader separation from Christianity itself. What might be more historically and philosophically prudent is for you to look into the specific reasons why certain individuals in the History of Christianity have disassociated from more Catholic conceptions of Tradition.

Keep this in mind, that this church (and other cults) end their prayers "in Jesus' name".

And? We all know that merely ending a prayer in "the name of Jesus" doesn't thereby make a person a Christian. To identify with Jesus as the Christ is to live a life of mind that fully engages with the historic claims regarding who Jesus is and what that means for our moral choices as we seek to relate with God the Father through Christ by the power and leading of the Holy Spirit.

Obviously, some individuals and groups deviate in quite a few ways.

I made this thread here because I think the importance of the Sign of the cross is a philosophical rather than theological due to the emphasizes on shared identity and historical continuity among Christians, promoting unity beyond the other doctrinal differences. I feel that the disassociation from the church that protestants have held to ended up in protestants not realizing the need of preserving and honoring the ethical and cultural traditions of Christianity. This church, is just like the JW's, Mormons, Scientologist and even Islam. They claim they are restoring the original christians who have reemerged to return the true church. This sign of the cross is not a "catholic thing", it represents our faith and commitment. It is echoing the voices of christians since the 1st century. Maybe it's both philosophical and theological.

The problem here is that you have 2,000 years of various issues to sort through in discerning and appropriately analyzing the nature of each individual disaffection that exists between all of those churches claiming the identity of "Christian." From my perspective and understanding, no denomination is off-the hook and free from scrutiny. ... and thus far, not much in the way of any real philosophical analysis has been applied by you. You're just making theological claims without clear justification and your chosen article unfortunately does not provide the support or justification you need to buttress your assertions.

 

[seeking.IAM]

...Yet protestants either think this is insignificant or wrong due to catholic ties?

I think it has already been established better language is "some, many, or most" protestants, not all. There is the matter of us Anglicans, and a few others.

 

[Cis.jd]

It's up to you to show that further disassociation actually does lead to a broader separation from Christianity itself. What might be more historically and philosophically prudent is for you to look into the specific reasons why certain individuals in the History of Christianity have disassociated from more Catholic conceptions of Tradition.

I showed it through that link. How further away from christianity can you get?

There are various reasons why Protestants have disassociated from Catholic traditions, but the viewpoint extends beyond disassociation from Catholicism to distancing from actual Christianity itself. The rejection of established symbols like the sign of the cross may appear minor, yet it contributes to a gradual shift away from the core identity and unity of the Christian faith, resulting in the birth of new churches and a fragmentation of Christian identity among Protestant denominations.

Obviously, some individuals and groups deviate in quite a few ways.


The problem here is that you have 2,000 years of issues to sort through in discerning and appropriately analyzing the nature of each individual issue that exists between all of those churches that claim the identity of "Christian." From my perspective and understanding, no denomination is off-the hook and free from scrutiny. ... and thus far, not much in the way of any real philosophical analysis has been applied by you. You're just making theological claims without clear justification.

Sure, no denomination is off the hook, but my argument (or what became of it) is touching the trend within Protestantism: the distancing from traditional practices. I'm raising the argument that this trend risks not only fragmenting the Christian faith but also diluting its rich heritage.

The philosophical point of The importance of the Sign of the Cross in my argument is based on this question: Should Protestants prioritize the preservation of Christianity's collective identity and historical continuity, or emphasize practices solely based on perceived biblical adherence and distance from traditional church customs?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I showed it through that link. How further away from christianity can you get?

There are various reasons why Protestants have disassociated from Catholic traditions, but the viewpoint extends beyond disassociation from Catholicism to distancing from actual Christianity itself. The rejection of established symbols like the sign of the cross may appear minor, yet it contributes to a gradual shift away from the core identity and unity of the Christian faith, resulting in the birth of new churches and a fragmentation of Christian identity among Protestant denominations.



Sure, no denomination is off the hook, but my argument (or what became of it) is touching the trend within Protestantism: the distancing from traditional practices. I'm raising the argument that this trend risks not only fragmenting the Christian faith but also diluting its rich heritage.

The philosophical point of The importance of the Sign of the Cross in my argument is based on this question: Should Protestants prioritize the preservation of Christianity's collective identity and historical continuity, or emphasize practices solely based on perceived biblical adherence and distance from traditional church customs?

Neither, because the reality in which Christianity exists as a religious and social phenomenon is bigger than both the Bible and "Church Tradition" combined. Moreover, the Christian faith isn't in the process of fragmenting; it was presented to the world in a fragmentary way in the first place and many folks are apparently only just now beginning to realize this. The overall truth being that no one church polity has actually held the high ground, whether politically or philosophically, for any longer than the Lord allowed that polity to do so in the ongoing theater of the vast stretches of human history.

But, here we are, with many denominational divisions now, some old, some new, all claiming in one way or another to connect all the way back to the first apostles and, thereby, each making overt, competitive denunciations of many of the other divisions. It's sort of ironic, don't you think?

Anyway, I'd suggest you don't put all of your epistemological eggs into one basket and don't get too worked up about the use of the Trinitarian gesture. Its use, or its disuse, isn't the watershed issue that you're inflating it to be and if both you and I want to criticize the Filipino cult represented in OP article, we could both do so on other grounds than this one.

 

[frienden thalord]

-
​

Well i really see no reason to. Jesus' work on the cross is finished. Personally I also can see how in many ways the cross can become more important than Jesus. The cross gives no one God's free gift of Eternal Life. It is belief in The Person Jesus which gives people God's free gift of Eternal Life salvation.

The cross was the method used in Jesus' horrible death. I do not even have crosses as a possession, I just do not see the need.

I want to focus on telling people how to receive God's free gift of Eternal Life, by belief in Jesus.

Sound it out to the last breath my friend .
Remind all that no other religoin , no other mindset , no other anything can save .
BELIEVE YE IN CHRIST JESUS . and let us all beware and be on gaurd for many within our own christain realm
now believe other religoins serve the same God we do and that there is no real need for them to rather repent
and believe that JESUS IS THE CHRIST .
So allow me some very friendly words that john once wrote .
He who believes NOT the TESTIMONY that GOD gave OF THE SON
is calling GOD a liar . YES that says A LIAR . so how can they be serving the same GOD we do .
In fact john actually says real clear what spirit this is coming from and who .
HE who DENIES that JESUS is THE CHRIST is anti christ . Keep that in mind
cause all other religoins DENY HIM as THE CHRIST . EVEN the muslims . They believe HE is not the CHRIST
that HE is not the SON of GOD .
Paul warned the church to beware about those who preach another gospel , another jesus .
We all need to be well planted in the bible my dear dear friends . I sure hope this encouraged us all .

 

[Cis.jd]

Neither, because the reality in which Christianity exists as a religious and social phenomenon is bigger than both the Bible and "Church Tradition" combined. Moreover, the Christian faith isn't in the process of fragmenting; it was presented to the world in a fragmentary way in the first place and many folks are apparently only just now beginning to realize this. The overall truth being that no one church polity has actually held the high ground, whether politically or philosophically, for any longer than the Lord allowed that polity to do so in the ongoing theater of the vast stretches of human history.

But, here we are, with many denominational divisions now, some old, some new, all claiming in one way or another to connect all the way back to the first apostles and, thereby, each making overt, competitive denunciations of many of the other divisions. It's sort of ironic, don't you think?

Anyway, I'd suggest you don't put all of your epistemological eggs into one basket and don't get too worked up about the use of the Trinitarian gesture. Its use, or its disuse, isn't the watershed issue that you're inflating it to be and if both you and I want to criticize the Filipino cult represented in OP article, we could both do so on other grounds than this one.

Your response misses the central point I made about the consequences of neglecting traditional Christian practices like the sign of the cross, which inadvertently contributes to fragmentation within the faith. While you address broader themes like denominational divisions, my argument focuses specifically on the philosophical importance of Christian continuity. It's crucial to acknowledge how rejecting these traditions can lead to a loss of Christian identity and even the emergence of cults with divergent doctrines, as highlighted in the Igelsia ni Cristo link.

That point of that link isn't just to show you a cult exists, but to show you the similarities of the rejection of traditions and how it eventually reached a high level that it slanders it. That Filipino cult is one of the many cults. You want another example

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/cross-belief/

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/wp20080201/why-pray-in-jesus-name/

Second, the fact that you didn't acknowledge the link I gave means you just came in here to contradict me without even seeing the context of it. I hope you actually take the time to look into these cults and see their roots.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Your response misses the central point I made about the consequences of neglecting traditional Christian practices like the sign of the cross, which inadvertently contributes to fragmentation within the faith. While you address broader themes like denominational divisions, my argument focuses specifically on the philosophical importance of Christian continuity. It's crucial to acknowledge how rejecting these traditions can lead to a loss of Christian identity and even the emergence of cults with divergent doctrines, as highlighted in the Igelsia ni Cristo link.

That point of that link isn't just to show you a cult exists, but to show you the similarities of the rejection of traditions and how it eventually reached a high level that it slanders it. That Filipino cult is one of the many cults. You want another example

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/cross-belief/

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/wp20080201/why-pray-in-jesus-name/

Second, the fact that you didn't acknowledge the link I gave means you just came in here to contradict me without even seeing the context of it. I hope you actually take the time to look into these cults and see their roots.

You're incorrect. I'm simply denying the truth of your assertion, that: it's crucial to acknowledge how rejecting these traditions can lead to a loss of Christian identity and even the emergence of cults with divergent doctrines.

My denial of your assertion only requires that I allude to a broader spectrum of historical and hermeneutical issues that go far beyond the simple confines of your OP article.

As for looking into these various cults, like the Jehovah's Witnesses and other assorted groups, I've already looked at them, and their divergence from Trinitarian doctrine usually hinges on how they define Christ, not whether or not they make what Catholics consider to be the proper gesture.

Again, I'm suggesting you rethink your approach here, because each thrust forward that you insist on taking will ultimately backfire since you'll inadvertently open your own favored affiliation with Roman Catholicism up to scrutiny that, I'm sure, you don't intend to do. Just do yourself and us a favor and stop with this line of reasoning.

 

[Cis.jd]

You're incorrect. I'm simply denying the truth of your assertion, that: it's crucial to acknowledge how rejecting these traditions can lead to a loss of Christian identity and even the emergence of cults with divergent doctrines.

My denial of your assertion only requires that I allude to a broader spectrum of historical and hermeneutical issues that go far beyond the simple confines of your OP article.

As for looking into these various cults, like the Jehovah's Witnesses and other assorted groups, I've already looked at them, and their divergence from Trinitarian doctrine usually hinges on how they define Christ, not whether or not they make what Catholics consider to be the proper gesture.

Again, I'm suggesting you rethink your approach here, because each thrust forward that you insist on taking will ultimately backfire since you'll inadvertently open your own favored affiliation with Roman Catholicism up to scrutiny that, I'm sure, you don't intend to do. Just do yourself and us a favor and stop with this line of reasoning.

I know you want to invalidate me but can you at least try to read what I am posting? That part in bold is so off that i'm not sure if you don't understand what I said or you are intentionally misrepresenting my argument.

I'm suggesting you to actually read what the approach is before coming off of what is wrong with it. That is what you are supposed to do when you are discussing things with someone especially since you have critical thinking on the bottom of your pic. This is the 2nd (or 3rd) time that you've done this.