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

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

No, actually, I'm not seeking to invalidate you. What I'm attempting to do, and so far without success apparently, is to wake you up to the fact that you're hinging your criteria of evaluation on vague claims regarding "Church Tradition." It seems to me that from your particular understanding of Church Tradition, you've honed in too much on the value of one Catholic gesture and imputed an inflated value of it by which to then turn it and use it as a criterion of evaluation on Protestants.

This is not an "Either/Or" issue where Tradition is involved. It's not, either you're absolutely right or I am. It's a matter of finer historical clarification. The analysis needed for that clarification has yet to be done. Since you're the one making the claim, it's on you to demonstrate where it applies.

Care to start with an analysis of Martin Luther? Or John Calvin? Henry the VIII? John Wesley? ....Soren Kierkegaard? We could name a litany of persons who have weighed in on "Church Doctrine" and who may or may not have resorted to the use of the Trinitarian gesture.

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.

And, now we're getting somewhere. What, exactly, IS your approach? You've only mentioned it but you haven't elaborated upon what its constituent aspects, ideas or processes of evaluation are. This is where you're not being clear and explicit.

At the same time, I can appreciate your personal concern about how some seemingly Christian people, even Protestants, have perhaps duped themselves about their proper relation and identity with God in Christ by flouting 'tradition.' It is a common occurrence, I know.

 

[Cis.jd]

No, actually, I'm not seeking to invalidate you.

Well honestly, i'm baffled that with all I said: this "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"

is what you understood. You didn't check the link out as I asked you to and thought they were from Lower America's?

So please read my arguments against because i'm not going to always make a big effort in trying re-explain things numerous times just so you can understand what i am saying. For example: "Care to start with an analysis of Martin Luther? Or John Calvin? Henry the VIII? John Wesley?"... I don't understand why exactly?

Now, for the "analysis that I'm have not shown". Here is one important key parts of the argument for you to go back on. Try to now look at that link (and the JW link as well), there is a common denominator that they have with some of the responses in this thread about not doing the sign of the cross.

 

[d taylor]

-

​

But false belief groups were staring even when Paul was around. If you want to know who a false group is find out who they say Jesus is.

If they do not say Jesus is the promised Messiah (Christ) / Son of God, the resurrection and the life and that Jesus is God come in human flesh. The that is the read flag, that should show a person this group is a false group and not by signs they make or do not make. Making a sign is no indicator of what one believes about Jesus and how to receive God's free gift of Eternal Life and becoming a born again child of God.

Ask anyone who makes the sign how does one become a born again child of God. If they answer anything than belief in Jesus, believing that Jesus is who He says He is. The resurrection and the life the promised Messiah/ Son of God. This is the name that has been given for all people to believe in, to become a born again child of God.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

In Christian Protestant leagues, I would make the sign of the cross to mess up the pitcher. The shock on the all the players on the feild made it easy for me to get triples and home runs.

 

[Cis.jd]

But false belief groups were staring even when Paul was around. If you want to know who a false group is find out who they say Jesus is.

Yup, hence he wrote 2 Thess 2:15 is a very important theme i've placed on here for my thread.

 

[Sabertooth]

I wonder why Protestants do not do this?

The Cross was a means to an end; not an end in itself.

Lift Up the Suffering Symbol (1989)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well honestly, i'm baffled that with all I said: this "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"

is what you understood. You didn't check the link out as I asked you to and thought they were from Lower America's?

So please read my arguments against because i'm not going to always make a big effort in trying re-explain things numerous times just so you can understand what i am saying. For example: "Care to start with an analysis of Martin Luther? Or John Calvin? Henry the VIII? John Wesley?"... I don't understand why exactly?

Now, for the "analysis that I'm have not shown". Here is one important key parts of the argument for you to go back on. Try to now look at that link (and the JW link as well), there is a common denominator that they have with some of the responses in this thread about not doing the sign of the cross.

I'll take a second look at your links and see what I've missed.

 

[d taylor]

Yup, hence he wrote 2 Thess 2:15 is a very important theme i've placed on here for my thread.

-

​

But Paul is addressing teachings he had taught the Thessalonians, more than likely Paul is speaking about his teaching from 1st Thessalonians


But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.
For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words.

But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you. For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night. For when they say, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape. But you, brethren, are not in darkness, so that this Day should overtake you as a thief. You are all sons of light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober. For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. But let us who are of the day be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet the hope of salvation. For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him.
Therefore comfort each other and edify one another, just as you also are doing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well honestly, i'm baffled that with all I said: this "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"

is what you understood. You didn't check the link out as I asked you to and thought they were from Lower America's?

So please read my arguments against because i'm not going to always make a big effort in trying re-explain things numerous times just so you can understand what i am saying. For example: "Care to start with an analysis of Martin Luther? Or John Calvin? Henry the VIII? John Wesley?"... I don't understand why exactly?

Now, for the "analysis that I'm have not shown". Here is one important key parts of the argument for you to go back on. Try to now look at that link (and the JW link as well), there is a common denominator that they have with some of the responses in this thread about not doing the sign of the cross.

Ok. So, I tracked down your 'links' and looked at and read them. What important key parts of the argument are you wanting me to connect as a common denominator between them?

 

[Cis.jd]

The Cross was a means to an end; not an end in itself.

Lift Up the Suffering Symbol (1989)

The cross was our beginning. The sign of the cross is more of acknowledging the fullness of God and that we were saved by him. God saved us and by God I mean The Father, Son, and HS saved us.

The beginning and salvation of who we are is of the Trinity and it was displayed on that cross. We have used that profession as a signal of our faith through out the centuries. This gesture is proclaiming our entire identity and history, and profession of faith in what the Bible has revealed in less than a second.

 

[Cis.jd]

Ok. So, I tracked down your 'links' and looked at and read them. What important key parts of the argument are you wanting me to connect as a common denominator between them?

The common denominator is that the reasons are "it's catholic made; not in the bible", the same thing you see in several posts here such as #40.

 

[Cis.jd]

But Paul is addressing teachings he had taught the Thessalonians, more than likely Paul is speaking about his teaching from 1st Thessalonians​

Yes, that is well known. But those teachings are not just in written form, it was also verbally passed down. Despite what the story is, he directly says we have to keep both.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The common denominator is that the reasons are "it's catholic made; not in the bible", the same thing you see in several posts here such as #40.

Yeah, I get that part. Personally, even if the gesture is Catholic made, I don't think the gesture is a bad thing. It has its uses as a part of Catholic tradition, and I don't think it's "The Mark of the Beast."

So yeah, I get that there are some Protestants who make similar identifications about the Roman Catholic Church. But not all Protestants identify Catholics in that way, however. A number of Protestants simply see Catholics as fellow brethren in Christ.

 

[Lost4words]

For me, making the sign of the cross is a blessing. It also is a VERY strong reminder of what Jesus did for me and His Church. It is also an acknowledgement of the Holy Trinity.

Its a wonderful 'prayer'....

 

[Cis.jd]

Yeah, I get that part. Personally, even if the gesture is Catholic made, I don't think the gesture is a bad thing. It has its uses as a part of Catholic tradition, and I don't think it's "The Mark of the Beast."

So yeah, I get that there are some Protestants who make similar identifications about the Roman Catholic Church. But not all Protestants identify Catholics in that way, however. A number simply see Catholics as fellow brethren in Christ.

Yes.
And what I'm pointing out is that common denominator: "catholic made, not in the bible".

Many Baptists and Non-denominational Christians are often unaware of or view traditional Christian practices negatively, they think it's catholic not christian. For instance, if someone makes the sign of the cross in a prayer circle, 100% people are going to think that guy is Catholic. Why? Back then when someone did that he was telling someone he was christian. This misconception arises because newer denominations have either slandered or neglected to teach the importance of Christian history.

I think good example of this mentality can be seen in the video made Redeemedzoomer on "All christian denominations explained in 12 min"

Older Protestant denominations retain more traditions, while newer ones have progressively fewer, sometimes becoming almost unrecognizable as Christian. The sign of the cross is a key example, as many Protestants avoid it due to the mistaken belief it's a Catholic invention. This fallacy distances them from traditional Christianity and inadvertently aligns them more with non-Christian cults.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes.
And what I'm pointing out is that common denominator: "catholic made, not in the bible".

When you speak to Baptists and Non-denominational christians, a lot of them are very oblivious to christian traditions and sometimes view it very negatively. A lot of them think it isn't christian because it's catholic and unbiblical nevermind that Orthodoxy, Anglicans, and Lutherans do it, the history books show christians have been doing this in early AD. They don't realize that they are thinking of the history of christianity negatively.

Well, the truth is, if we're specifically talking about the gesture, there is no direct and clear historical evidence that Christians of say, 43 A.D., were using the Sign of the Cross.

Moreover, to simply do what too many Protestants do by applying faulty Hermeneutics and extrapolate from some one or two selected verses in the Bible isn't going to historically "prove" that Christians in 43 A.D., or 63 A.D., or 93 A.D., were in fact using the Sign of the Cross.

So, we should be very circumspect in the sort of historical claims that we make in regard to the Christian Faith. Still, if the Sign of the Cross developed over time after the 1st Century A.D., I see no reason why it can't be used if Christians want to use it as an expression of their faith.

This protestant mindset has actually become gradual footsteps away from Christianity. As you can see in this thread, those who belong to older Protestant denominations have more traditions retained and the new ones have less. As time grew, each denomination that came out had less tradition than the one before to the point where it eventually became unrecognizable to christianity as shown from those cults.

Personally, I place very little reliance upon what I would term "Ongoing, Post-1st Century Tradition" in my own faith. Am I an apostate in your eyes if this is the case?

The sign of the cross is a very big example of this, the fact that protestants have stopped doing this because of this "catholic made/not in the bible" fallacy has made them more closure in communion with those cults, and they don't realize it.

Sure, some things in overall Tradition may be legitimate historically. However, we don't want to commit another fallacy where we equivocate the term "tradition" as seen in a scant few verses in the New Testament with EVERYTHING that is claimed to be "Tradition" that came after the 1st century, or even the 2nd century.

............ again, through my own scholarly viewpoint I'm of the mind that anything which is not mentioned (or justifiably inferred) in say, the first 100 years after Christ, isn't required for faith. It may be useful; it may be insightful. But it's not required.

Surely, you don't want to identify ME as an apostate. I'm pretty sure I'm not.

And if folks think they'll be the 'prophets' who will land into me, then I'll find it more than convenient to make difficulties everywhere.” ―

 

[The Liturgist]

Congregationalist never do.

“Never” is too strong a word, for this was certainly the norm at the King’s Weigh House in London during the tenure of Dr. William E. Orchard as pastor, and I recall seeing it at some of the more high church Reformed Catholic / Liberal Catholic UCC parishes. Also I doubt anyone at a traditional Congregationalist church these days, whether UCC or Park Street Church in Boston, would care if you crossed yourself.

I did have a lady at an LCMS parish I visited become perplexed by my crossing myself, which was surprising, but she was not unpleasant or confrontational about it.

 

[The Liturgist]

Lutherans do. So do some Anglicans.

In my experience, more Anglicans than Lutherans.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Cross as a universal Christian symbol actually arrived later than most Christians realize, after the end of the Roman repression of Christianity.

Untrue, we have archaeological and manuscript evidence from the Second Cenrury attesting to its universal importance. We also have material written in the Second Century which stresses the sanctity of the cross in an extreme way (for example, the apocryphal Gospel of Peter - now, our manuscript of said Gospel dates from the ninth century, however, we know from the Patristic descriptions of it and other quotations that it is the document that was known to Church Fathers in the late second century as a strange but not overtly heretical Gospel that was found in some churches, with one bishop in the early third century declaring that as a precaution, he was removing this work wherever he found it)

Nonetheless, in terms of establishing an early date for the veneration of the cross, it definitely does that, although we also have numerous earlier accounts which are also less potentially associated with heterodoxy.

 

[ViaCrucis]

"In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"

I wonder why Protestants do not do this? I know that it's not made a rule in scripture, but I feel it's a part of christian history that should never be broken. It shows that our faith was always the Trinity, despite the lies that many cults and other religions claim. For example, Islam, Jehovah's wittness, Iglesia Ni Cristo, Mormons, etc all claim an original Christian church that never believed in Christ's divinity or the Trinity, but this sign serves to be a historical remembrance that we always did.

The reason why I have made this question and why I ended up thinking that this gesture has to be universally expressed by christians is mainly because of my experience with christian cults. I've been to JW's and the Iglesia Ni Cristo services, and they are very frightening and disheartening.. and despite them teaching false things about the Bible and rejecting the divinity, they for some reason end their prayers with "In Jesus' name", the way protestants do.
These cults will never end with the sign of the cross, they will never say "the Father, Son, and HS" because they fully reject the truth of God. Because of this, I feel that the sign of the cross gesture has to be seen as important to protestants as well.

This Protestant does.
Most of the Protestants at my Protestant church do as well.
We're called Lutherans.

-CryptoLutheran