|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why do Protestants go to church?
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Corvo: An odd question maybe, but an interesting answer, and not one I think a catholic could give: worship is 'important' but 'not essential', for 'mutual support', but 'no different' from attending any other organisation.
(I'm wondering: did you actually make all of these scare quotes with your fingers next to the computer screen when you wrote this?)
Sorry, they were meant to be quotations marks.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Why do catholics place a greater emphasis on 'going to church'?
The underlying assumption is as yet unproven. Do Catholics place a greater emphasis on Sunday attendance than protestants?
No one said "Sunday attendance". By "going to church" I meant (something like) understanding the church to be instrumental in salvation rather than (let's say) a gathering of the already committed.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Why do catholics place a greater emphasis on 'going to church'?
The underlying assumption is as yet unproven. Do Catholics place a greater emphasis on Sunday attendance than protestants?
Well, weekly Mass attendance is compulsory but I don't know if that means Sunday attendance is compulsory (ie if the weekly attendance can be met by attending midweek services).
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Why do catholics place a greater emphasis on 'going to church'?
The underlying assumption is as yet unproven. Do Catholics place a greater emphasis on Sunday attendance than protestants?
No one said "Sunday attendance". By "going to church" I meant (something like) understanding the church to be instrumental in salvation rather than (let's say) a gathering of the already committed.
I think the Catholic view is that it's both.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alaric the Goth
Shipmate
# 511
|
Posted
Between around 1991 and (Oct.)'98 I went to an ex-Assemblies of God church that had become an independent charsimatic church (& that didn't really suit me), and was moving into being a 'cell church' i.e. one that focused its life on its small groups and began to play down Sunday 'services'. After we left (moved house) it reduced these to once a month and then they disappeared altogether, as in effect did the church (I think one of the cell groups may still exist, but that is by no means certain).
It certainly has made this protestant value meeting together on a Sunday (though the three-quarters of an hour 'preach' last Sunday was , ahem, a 'trying experience' (trying to stay focused/awake)!
Posts: 3322 | From: West Thriding | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(I'm wondering: did you actually make all of these scare quotes with your fingers next to the computer screen when you wrote this?)
Sorry, they were meant to be quotation marks.
Actually, I am not sure I have come across the term "scare quotes" before. Don't we use single inverted commas for quotes within a quote, or taken from a quote? Maybe it's an American term.
[ 17. June 2013, 15:22: Message edited by: Corvo ]
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Why do catholics place a greater emphasis on 'going to church'?
The underlying assumption is as yet unproven. Do Catholics place a greater emphasis on Sunday attendance than protestants?
No one said "Sunday attendance". By "going to church" I meant (something like) understanding the church to be instrumental in salvation rather than (let's say) a gathering of the already committed.
I think the Catholic view is that it's both.
. . . and the protestant view is?
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
mousethief: He didn't say FROM he said THROUGH.
Hmm, like I said, I'm not sure what 'salvation' means anyway, so I guess this includes the prepositions that come after it ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Then I wonder how you can argue one way or the other based on a squishy or unknown definition.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
We certainly can worship at home. Worshiping at church is just the communal, more embodied experience of worship.
In other words, what church really brings to the table is is communality, not worship.
No, it brings (in the context of this discussion) communal worship. Which is a different thing from private worship.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
They know that Christianity is about salvation ('getting to heaven').
Well see, there's your problem. That's not what salvation is about. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Dammit, that's twice in this thread I've agreed with Evensong. Anybody hear horsemen?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
mousethief: Then I wonder how you can argue one way or the other based on a squishy or unknown definition.
That's why I wasn't arguing one way or the other
Corvo started this topic by saying "Given that in Protestantism salvation comes through personal faith..." I argued that at least in my case, this is not true. The fact that my definition of salvation is squishy or unknown strengthens my case that salvation isn't that important for me.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Sounds a bit of a daft question . . .
I see no real difference between Catholics and Protestants on this. They go for the same reason, albeit with different emphases regarding sacraments preaching and fellowship.
It was a serious question. Maybe it should have been do Protestants need to go to church?
If justification/righteousness is imputed on the basis of faith/trust, rather than infused through the grace of the sacraments (surely more than a mere difference of 'emphasis'?) is church going necessary?
There's still the duty of gathering with fellow Christians for worship. Even the least sacramental Protestant does that; our faith has both vertical and horizontal elements.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Why do catholics place a greater emphasis on 'going to church'?
The underlying assumption is as yet unproven. Do Catholics place a greater emphasis on Sunday attendance than protestants?
Well, weekly Mass attendance is compulsory but I don't know if that means Sunday attendance is compulsory (ie if the weekly attendance can be met by attending midweek services).
Sundays are days of obligation.
quote:
Canon 1247
On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass; they are also to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord's Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Why do catholics place a greater emphasis on 'going to church'?
The underlying assumption is as yet unproven. Do Catholics place a greater emphasis on Sunday attendance than protestants?
Well, weekly Mass attendance is compulsory but I don't know if that means Sunday attendance is compulsory (ie if the weekly attendance can be met by attending midweek services).
Sundays are days of obligation.
quote:
Canon 1247
On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass; they are also to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord's Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body.
Why are they bound to participate in the mass? I mean, seriously, theologically, would it make any difference if they didn't? Worship is due to God, the body and mind need relaxation, but surely in catholic theology participation in the mass is about more than these?
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I admit I don't quite understand what this question is getting at, but even so is it the right question to be asking? Neither sounds as though it has any bearing on what either "worship" or its Greek antecedent "proskuneo" means.
"Made available" also implies an assumption that grace is a commodity.
No it doesn't, it just implies that it is something we can receive, and our theology of worship is not drawn solely from a simple definition of 'proskuneo'.
Our theology may not solely be, but you were talking specifically about how one defines worship. And, anyway, our theology has to start with what the word we're talking about means.
Perhaps a useful starting point might be answering the following questions.
1. When I worship, what am I doing?
2. When I worship, what do experts think I ought to be doing?
Is this where the reference to beneficium or sacrificum which I don't really understand comes from?
3. Are what I am doing and what somebody else thinks I ought to be doing, the same?
Be that as it may, 'made available' still sounds to me uncomfortably like the commoditification of grace.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Sidebar: Our Amish neighbors have worship services only every *other* Sunday. I'm not sure why, but it may have to do with the simple logistics of their worship model -- they meet in one another's houses on a rotational basis, but a "district" may have well over 100 attendees, with worship (lots of a capella singing and VERY long sermons by their preacher -- no trained clergy; laymen are elected to the preacher position on a rotating basis) lasting the better part of the day and including a communal potluck; that's a lot to ask from the hosting family in the midst of their other daily responsibilities. (What typically happens is that female relatives and friends descend upon the host house the Friday before Sunday worship to clean the place top to bottom, and probably also to start preparing the big meal, while the menfolk deliver and set up the benches for the service.) Even considering that children and un-baptized youth are not required to attend the church service per se (some may stay home; others stay in the yard), we wonder how some of these houses can accomodate so many worshippers. Anyway...their particular understanding of corporate worship doesn't necessitate weekly meetings.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Our Amish neighbors... meet in one another's houses on a rotational basis... [have] no trained clergy... [services] including a communal potluck...
Right, is there an Amish community anywhere near me? I think not, sadly... ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Dear Partner and I were talking about how every-other-week worship, except when I'm assisting, seems to be a more natural rhythm for our household, and how maybe the Amish model is on to something.
Although the difference is that the Amish are interacting with other members of their congregation nearly every day, unlike "English" congregations like mine whose members tend to lead separate lives apart from weekly worship.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Although the difference is that the Amish are interacting with other members of their congregation nearly every day, unlike "English" congregations like mine whose members tend to lead separate lives apart from weekly worship.
As I think I said upthread, this is where we're all getting it wrong IMO. How can we be the body of Christ in any genuine, meaningful sense if our only interactions with one another are a shallow conversation and a few 'Peace be with you's once a week?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Our main services are twice a month. However, we have a Facebook page where we post the daily prayer and generally interact, such as expressing our views on the new Black Sabbath album. And there's a weekly evening discussion which tends to be casual but deep, if you get what I mean.
Our Sunday meetings are followed by a bring and share meal so except for our sermons being more like a five minute ramble than a long exposition, and not singing anything, we're not a million miles from that Amish model, if expressed in a dramatically non-Amish manner*
*We don't have the funny beards.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
SCK: Well, for us part of the solution is transitioning to a different church closer to home (just one of several reasons we're moving in this direction), where we already have friends and acquaintances and also have more potential for activities that bring us together during the week.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Why are they bound to participate in the mass? I mean, seriously, theologically, would it make any difference if they didn't? Worship is due to God, the body and mind need relaxation, but surely in catholic theology participation in the mass is about more than these?
The only worship Jesus ever commanded is the eucharist - a command.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I can't decide about this thread. It either pisses me off, or I should dismiss it as based on a narrow view derived from some historical European idea that Christianity is divvied up between the Roman Catholic denomination and everyone else.
Not around here it isn't. Roman Catholic is no different than Baptist, Pentacostal, Anglican, Greek or Russian Orthodox and Mennonite. Merely a religious preference. Nothing more. The claimed historical pedigree carries as much weight as titles like sir, lord, baron. It's not part of the culture. Once we dump the specialness idea for the Roman church, we actually work rather well together. But then, I'm living in a young province in Canada where old means 3 generations and maybe 100 years.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
NP, it has nothing to do with "specialness" -- it's about differences in attitudes/requirements of corporate worship. Being all chummy in the local Christian Churches Club doesn't mean that the various churches don't look at corporate worship differently.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I may be reacting to things I've seen elsewhere. But I still don't get the difference and nor do I accept it. Only 20% of us go to any form of church, and the numbers and proportions for Romans is not different. I don't see any distinction here. I find the question begs an answer that accepts that RCers are different.
The ones who are really different here and go to church in the highest proportions are the evangelical theatre churches. The ones with mini orchestras, bookstores and fast food restaurants. I think they have the idea that this is where business takes place. They go to feel good and to be confirmed that they are good people.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Again you are missing the entire point of the question, but I despair now of explaining it so you will understand.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
They go to feel good and to be confirmed that they are good people.
Because that's what Christianity is all about, really, isn't it?
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Again you are missing the entire point of the question, but I despair now of explaining it so you will understand.
Something the pope says? Some theoretical self-serving thing about the church holding Peter's keys and all that? I don't mean to be dim.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
NP, as someone who has travelled up the candle myself, I do find that there is a difference in what church is for from the perspectives of Protestants (of various kinds), RCs, and other catholic-minded Christians. It has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism being 'more special', it's a cultural difference. Do you really not see how for Christians who don't believe in sacraments, church will be different from how it is for Christians who do believe in sacraments?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I'm seeing nor really getting the "up the candle" idea. It just doesn't fit here at all. The highest candle appears to be the one group of Anglo-Catholics. They do some Latin too. Around here, Anglicans, Lutherans, Roman Catholics particularly all appear relatively parallel. Of course, Lutherans and Anglicans recognize fully the ordination of each other with seamlessness in Canada. The Lutherans have the most money and largest population mostly it seems.
I may be reflecting on regional lack of difference. And reflecting further on the retreat centres I've attended, the most recent one run via an agreement between the 3 denominations listed above, with 3 live-in friars and the resident priest being Anglican. Also the ecumenical centre which is run by these 3 plus the United Church of Canada and I think the Mennonites. The sharing of facilities between the same 3 in a number of our rural communities. The general tendency to focus on the liturgy of the mass/communion, the usual pattern for couples being to live together and get married later when expecting children. The chaplains in hospitals also being shared among the three denominations. One relative who died in hospital was chaplained by an RC. I might also reflect the history of the division of First Nations communities historically, with the agreement that this one would be RC, that one Anglican, that one Presbyterian, like picking teams for hockey.
So I do not see it. I will ask the neighbours, perhaps similarly uninformative.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I may be reacting to things I've seen elsewhere. But I still don't get the difference and nor do I accept it. Only 20% of us go to any form of church, and the numbers and proportions for Romans is not different. I don't see any distinction here. I find the question begs an answer that accepts that RCers are different.
The ones who are really different here and go to church in the highest proportions are the evangelical theatre churches.
Every community has distinctive social and historical circumstances that influence churchgoing practices, in addition to (or in spite of) whatever the different denominations explicitly teach on the subject. So although in your country there may be little difference between, say, Catholic and Methodist churchgoing rates, this is very unlikely to be the case in England, for a variety of reasons.
By most accounts evangelicals are more likely to attend church than more 'moderate' or 'mainstream' Protestants. This stands to reason, since evangelicalism - especially in its more Pentecostal manifestations - is often the fruit of revivalism and conversionism, and stresses the outward signs of religious belief and practice. Nevertheless, certain kinds of evangelicalism have an individualistic streak, are less sacramental than other kinds of Christianity, and emphasise the priesthood of all believers and the personal relationship with God. So IMO some evangelicals must find it easier to do without the institutional church than, for example, Christians of the High Church/Catholic type.
As you say, in many Western countries churchgoing is only practiced by a small percentage of the population.
[ 18. June 2013, 20:16: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
NP, as someone who has travelled up the candle myself, I do find that there is a difference in what church is for from the perspectives of Protestants (of various kinds), RCs, and other catholic-minded Christians. It has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism being 'more special', it's a cultural difference. Do you really not see how for Christians who don't believe in sacraments, church will be different from how it is for Christians who do believe in sacraments?
Quite. I would say it was actually a I]theological[/I] difference.
Catholicism (in its several expressions) understands salvation in terms of the communication of grace through the sacraments, so that the individual soul grows in the holiness required to stand before the holy God. The church is instrumental in this, and so 'going to church' is itself essential for the individual Christian.
Protestantism, on the other hand (and in its various expressions), understands salvation in terms of trust in the promise of God that the individual sinner will be accepted while still formally a sinner. The Church is where this promise is proclaimed in Word and sacrament. So 'going to church' would not seem to be essential in the same sort of way.
My question - Why do Protestants go to Church ? - was a serious one. I realise there are many strands within Protestantism, so there may be many answers, but I am asking could going to church ever be described as 'essential' (to salvation) and why?
[ 18. June 2013, 20:53: Message edited by: Corvo ]
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
My question - Why do Protestants go to Church ? - was a serious one. I realise there are many strands within Protestantism, so there may be many answers, but I am asking could going to church ever be described as 'essential' (to salvation) and why?
Well I think it was a perfectly sensible question, and one well worth asking. I hope the various answers have been helpful for you, Corvo. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
uffda
Shipmate
# 14310
|
Posted
Well, I've come late to this conversation, but I've taken the time to read it through from the beginning. One item that has been raised but not fully explored is the serious difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants about how authority works in each church.
The Roman Catholic Church legislates by means of Canon Law that its members are bound to attend Mass on Sundays. This binding comes with the attachment of grave sin. By making the Mass the object of legislation, the Roman Catholic Church has always opened itself to a legalistic understanding of participation. At the local Catholic parish in my neighborhood, for instance, there are often 50-100 people who exit the church as soon as Communion begins, because it is at that point that people understand they have fulfilled their obligation to attend.
Now, there are many, even most Roman Catholics who are deeply devotional, and I do not mean to put the genuine nature of their participation down. But for Protestants, the Mass as an object of legislation, is a foreign notion. For Catholics, skipping Mass on Sunday IS a matter of salvation since it is gravely sinful. For the Protestant, salvation is not at stake in missing Sunday worship. Church and worship are given to us as ways to express to God our thanks for the gift of salvation. As in any large body, some will be faithful and devout, others will be more occasional, others indifferent.
As a Lutheran myself, I would say that since we understand salvation to be a gift from God, and not something to be earned, we may not say that anyone is saved by church attendance, nor can we say anyone is damned by lack of church attendance. Authority is not understood or exercised in our church in such a way as to make the church necessary for salvation. We go to church on Sunday, as has been mentioned, to make use of a means of grace: to hear the promises of God, to explore God's Word, to support and be supported by our fellow believers, to express out thanksgiving to God for the gift of faith.
--------------------
Invincibly ignorant and planning to stay that way!
Posts: 1031 | From: Buffalo, NY | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
My question - Why do Protestants go to Church ? - was a serious one. I realise there are many strands within Protestantism, so there may be many answers, but I am asking could going to church ever be described as 'essential' (to salvation) and why?
If the particular protestant believes in justification by faith as essential to salvation, then church attendance could be seen as necessary for faith because it is the best place to cultivate faith.
I guess it rather depends on what justification by faith means. What is faith? Is it only believing that x,y,z is true or is it hearing Jesus' words and acting on them as the scriptures say? Or is it simply the belief that God exists and we trust it'll all be okay.
Church attendance would probably depend on what faith means to them.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by uffda:
Authority is not understood or exercised in our church in such a way as to make the church necessary for salvation.
So what would you say, as a Lutheran, is necessary for salvation?
The divide between RC's does seem to underlie the idea that in the RCC, salvation is a continual process of growing in sanctification whereas a more protestant one might suggest salvation has already occurred ( a more one off event ) and the rest is rather superfluous.
Continual vs Static.
Perhaps.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
2. When I worship, what do experts think I ought to be doing?
Is this where the reference to beneficium or sacrificum which I don't really understand comes from?
The original context was more or less "as worship is something *I can do* at any place and time, why do I need to go to church to do it?" In that context it makes sense.
quote:
Be that as it may, 'made available' still sounds to me uncomfortably like the commoditification of grace.
Well if you want to be sensitive about it, so does the idea of 'infusion'.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The original context was more or less "as worship is something *I can do* at any place and time, why do I need to go to church to do it?" In that context it makes sense.
That seems to me a deliberate misinterpretation of the OP, which is clearly talking about corporate worship. ("Going to church")
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
uffda
Shipmate
# 14310
|
Posted
Originally posted by Evensong:
So what would you say, as a Lutheran, is necessary for salvation?
Faith, in the sense of trust in God, is necessary for salvation, which is itself a gift of God.
Lutherans would want to resist any effort to push faith back to the human being as a response to God, for then, always questions arise e.g. how do I know I have responded adequately? This is why Lutherans maintained the baptism of infants, and the firm belief that the pious and the impious both receive the Body and Blood of Christ in communion, where other Protestants began to practice "believer's baptism" or taught that unbelievers received only bread and wine at the communion table. If God's promises are somehow conditional on our ability to respond to them, the certainty of the promise is compromised. So we regard church attendance as a way to express to God our thanksgiving for God's gift of faith only, and not as a way of cultivating faith. In the view of others, Lutherans come across in a more passive way.
--------------------
Invincibly ignorant and planning to stay that way!
Posts: 1031 | From: Buffalo, NY | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
2. When I worship, what do experts think I ought to be doing?
Is this where the reference to beneficium or sacrificum which I don't really understand comes from?
The original context was more or less "as worship is something *I can do* at any place and time, why do I need to go to church to do it?" In that context it makes sense.
quote:
Be that as it may, 'made available' still sounds to me uncomfortably like the commoditification of grace.
Well if you want to be sensitive about it, so does the idea of 'infusion'.
Sorry. I was confused before, but now I'm really confused.
Neither beneficium nor sacrificum mean anything to me. I don't speak Latin, and haven't done it since the 1960s. Even in those days, most of the Latin I did was about military weapons, Gauls etc.
Is sacrificum just Latin for sacrifice? If so do you mean 'whether the Mass is a sacrifice' or something else? If not, what do you mean by it here? And what do you mean by beneficium?
You say 'in that context it makes sense' but to this simple bear, it doesn't.
As for 'infusion', neither of us has mentioned the word before. I don't think anyone else has. This is facetious, but I'm inclined to ask 'what have herbal teas got to do with the subject?' But what, in this context, are you talking about? I think you may be assuming the rest of us have technical knowledge about liturgical theory which in my case, is way beyond the case. I strongly suspect I am not the only one.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Catholics go to church to receive and grow in the grace which leads to holiness and ultimate salvation. But why do Protestants go? If salvation comes through faith in God's promises, what difference does it make whether you go to church or not?
That's the $64, 000 dollar question. I seldom do at present. Local standards of preaching are very bad. My background/preference is Aff-Cath, currently I'm stuck with latitudinarian provincial Tory middledom. I go to quieter weekday services when I can make it, and rush out before the bleating interrogation starts. That's it.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
Yep. Exactly my point.
Either we're on contact with the Holy Spirit, or we're not paying attention in the first place.
So, Church is only a matter of finding a place in the community of ideas and doctrines ...
or not.
Emily
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Catholics go to church to receive and grow in the grace which leads to holiness and ultimate salvation. But why do Protestants go? If salvation comes through faith in God's promises, what difference does it make whether you go to church or not?
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
So, Church is only a matter of finding a place in the community of ideas and doctrines
I think this somewhat misses the point regarding a local community of Christians. IMO it's not a group of people who meet to discuss, share, and / or formulate ideas and doctrines, although those are important. It's a group of people who are committed to share their lives with one another, so as to encourage growth in godly character and the spreading of God's kingdom.
Using 'God's kingdom' in the sense of the area within which God's ways and will hold sway. So spreading God's kingdom means, essentially, making disciples; people who follow Christ's ways in every sphere of their lives.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As for 'infusion', neither of us has mentioned the word before. I don't think anyone else has. This is facetious, but I'm inclined to ask 'what have herbal teas got to do with the subject?' But what, in this context, are you talking about?
It's implied to by the original post and later referred to explicitly by the original poster:
"Catholics go to church to receive (and grow in the) grace"
"rather than infused through the grace of the sacraments"
It seems to me that to be consistent this would also have to be viewed by you as a 'commoditification of grace'
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by uffda:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So what would you say, as a Lutheran, is necessary for salvation?
Faith, in the sense of trust in God, is necessary for salvation, which is itself a gift of God.
Works for me. The first part at least.
I read a bit of Luther a few years ago. Admired the dude. He had balls and I think his heart was in the right place.
Yet his theology seems ultimately to end up with predestination.......which I couldn't countenance. But that's probably why his requirement for faith is so easy in the first place.
The hard shit comes later.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Sorry, you missed the point of Luther. He's not the predestination dude, that's Calvin. Luther cheerfully says that ALL are called, and none predestined to hell, so we should stop fussing about it. And faith is not easy--it's impossible. A gift of the Holy Spirit, not something we can choose ourselves. (the idea of it being easy is probably from looking at things AFTER the HS does his thing)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Actually some Protestants go to Church to worship God. It is meet and right so to do. And our bounden duty.
What we think to get out of going is another matter.
[ 21. June 2013, 12:07: Message edited by: shamwari ]
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Sorry, you missed the point of Luther. He's not the predestination dude, that's Calvin.
I don't think so. Calvin is the double predestination dude. Luther is the single but hides behind the "Hidden God" when it comes to Hell.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And faith is not easy--it's impossible. A gift of the Holy Spirit, not something we can choose ourselves. (the idea of it being easy is probably from looking at things AFTER the HS does his thing)
Faith being a gift of the Holy Spirit is the element of predestination is it not?
If you're not riding that particular animal, you're screwed.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Luther declines to take a position at all unless he can point to it in the Scriptures. Which is why Lutherans get queasy even about the term "single predestination", as it moves one step away from the evidence and into the realm of logic--which is not much help in this particular area. Very like the way we avoid saying "consubstantiation" about the Lord's Supper--trying to pin things down that way makes our stomachs hurt.
I've just been reading Gerhard (all 800 pages of him!) on the subject. Predestination et al in Lutheran theology. Very ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Both wrong.
Double Predestinarianism is a later take on Calvin by lesser theologians who were his followers.
I have read what Calvin actually says about predestination. He basically says "I suppose you could say that as God is outside time". In other words the causal link with God does not work. This is of course a classical take of theology.
The mistake you are making is thinking Calvinism is all about Calvin. It is not and never was. It always has been a group effort. First Calvinist theologian time wise is Huldrych Zwingli and William Farel is John Calvin's predecessor in Geneva.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Luther declines to take a position at all unless he can point to it in the Scriptures.
I distinctly recall things about prevenient grace in his discussions with Erasmus in The Bondage of the Will.
But I suppose one could refer to :
John 6.44: No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day.
or
John 6.65: And he said, ‘For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.’
Rather messes with the rest of the Gospels tho.
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Both wrong.
Double Predestinarianism is a later take on Calvin by lesser theologians who were his followers.
Fair enough! Thanks for setting us straight Jengie.
I've read quite a bit of Marilynne Robinson in the last few years and she has said the same thing. She is a self-proclaimed Calvinist and I love her work.
I'd like to grill you on what you believe his atonement theory to be at some stage.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
