Updated 04:40 pm.EST, Sat November 21, 2009

Church|Wed, Jan. 14 2009 10:57 AM EST

Most Protestant Churchgoers Open to Other Denominations

By Audrey Barrick|Christian Post Reporter

Protestant churchgoers are no more loyal to their denomination than they are to brands of toothpaste or bathroom tissue, reports one research firm.

Results from the latest Ellison Research survey, released Monday, show that 16 percent of Protestants are exclusively loyal to their denomination and will only consider attending a church within their current denomination if they were placed in a situation where they had to leave their current church.

The rest are open to considering other denominations. Fifty-one percent said they prefer one denomination but are open to others and 33 percent said they do not have any preference for one specific denomination.

Ellison Research found similar levels of loyalty among churchgoers to other products and services. Twenty-two percent said they are exclusively loyal to one brand of toothpaste and 64 percent expressed a brand preference (while also considering other brands); 19 percent will only consider one brand of bathroom tissue and 59 percent said they prefer one brand but are open to others; and 16 percent said they are loyal to one brand of pain relievers with 57 percent expressing preference for one brand but also considering other kinds.

Ron Sellers, president of Ellison Research, believes many Protestants are open to other denominations because there are many groups under the Protestant faith, unlike the Roman Catholic tradition.

"On the Protestant side, there are scores of different denominations, with some of them fairly similar in practice and theology," he noted. "The story of this research is that many Protestants may not see a lot of difference among some of these denominations. It may not be lack of loyalty so much as it is the presence of so many options that is causing Protestants to be about as loyal to a brand of toothpaste or bathroom tissue as they are to their church denomination."

He added, "Protestant denominations are simply facing what most companies face as they try to develop brand loyalty – consumers with many different options who may not perceive strong differences among those options.

"Church denominations certainly are not the same as hotels or soft drinks, but some of the same rules apply – the brands that develop stronger loyalty tend to do a better job of differentiating themselves from other brands and demonstrating key elements of the brand very clearly. With one-third of all Protestant churchgoers not even being able to identify a preferred denomination, denominational leaders face many of the same challenges as do the leaders of brands such as Coke, Chevrolet, or Home Depot."

Roman Catholics were more likely to express loyalty to one denomination, with six out of ten Catholics saying they would only consider attending a Roman Catholic church.

The survey findings may be good news for the Catholic church, but Sellers pointed out, "The bad news, of course, is that four out of ten active Catholics would at least be open to another denomination, even though most would prefer to remain in the Catholic church."

The study was conducted on a sample of 1,007 adults, which included 471 adults who regularly attend worship services.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
  • Thu May 28, 2009 11:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Yah, let me explain it better:

    -This is true, of course (per ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS RESPONSUM AD DUBIUM). This teaching affirmed that the Papal teaching of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis belongs to the Deposit of Faith, but it was not the Pope that declared that - it was the Ordinary Magesterium of the Church.

    Which goes to illustrate that Popes very rarely teach ex-Cathedra, but wisely leave the teaching office up to the ordinary (and sometimes extrodinary) Magesterium. In fact, popes have spoken ex-Cathedria only twice in all of Church history.

    JP2 could have issued Ordinatio Sacerdotalis with ex-Cathedra authority, but he didn't - he let Ratzinger handle that for him (as this is Ratzinger's job).

    Only a tiny fraction of Doctrine has been defined in the ex-Cathedra manner.-

  • Thu May 28, 2009 11:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "episkipo is a bishop, not a priest."

    One is ecclesiatically over the other but both have the "same priestly duties." Saying Mass, consecrating the Bread and Wine, hearing confessions, baptizing, etc.

  • Thu May 28, 2009 11:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "Roman Catholics were more likely to express loyalty to one denomination, with six out of ten Catholics saying they would only consider attending a Roman Catholic church."

    Probably because the Catholic Church is not a "denomination" since it was here since Jesus founded it (the trunk of the tree) Duh!

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Ireneaus,

    Glad to have you back; I pray that you and your wife are able to keep your jobs . . . this economy has affected everyone. Hopefully it will recover soon . . . . Oh, this might interest you; this past weekend I was part of my cousins wedding party . . . a groomsman at a Catholic wedding . . . how ironic, dont you think?

    What authority did the Pharisees have other than teaching the law and the prophets? It seems that you are clinging to their position/title despite the fact that you have not elaborated upon what they authoritatively taught (apart from the law and the prophets). It makes no sense to refer to their authority without giving evidence as to how they exercised it . . . I have posted scripture where Jesus specifically warns the disciple to beware of the leaven (teachings) of the Pharisees (Matthew 16:11), scripture stating that they seated themselves in this position, posted commentary after commentary emphasizing the fact that they exhorted the law/prophets (apart from this: they had no authority), scripture where Jesus blasted their traditions and finally stated that this entire priesthood came to an end at Christs atoning sacrifice . . . . . all this and still you cling to their position; it does not add up my friend.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Prophet - interesting work schedule you got there. How do you know when it's night or day?"

    It's all pretty much one big blur until the weekend. LOL.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Just because it comes from a Greek word, doesn't make it Biblical.

    Presbuteros is translated into the englis "presbytery" meaning an elder or group of elders. At least, that's how it was designed in, and for, the church in the first century.

    James 5:14 says "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord..."

    The word elders is "presbuteros". The elders were not designed as the shepherd (as that is the pastor's role). Ther were, and are, the elders, or mature Christians, in the church congregation that were full of wisdom and the power of God.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet,

    Pope is just a title coming from the Greek Papa. The pope's office is still that of bishop.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet - interesting work schedule you got there. How do you know when it's night or day?

    "Priest is never mentioned as an office in the church (same with "Pope"). Both are man-made, and both continue the bondage that the old testament priests had begun with their man-made traditions."

    Yes, presbuteros is an elder, but etymologically, this is where we get the English word for 'priest.' It's just unfortunate that the Greek word 'hieros' which is translated into Latin as 'secerdos' is translated into English as 'priest' as well. So while reading in Greek or Latin, they are two different words, in English the same word is used.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    iraneus,
    episkipo is a bishop, not a priest.
    presbuteros is an elder, not a priest.
    Priest is never mentioned as an office in the church (same with "Pope"). Both are man-made, and both continue the bondage that the old testament priests had begun with their man-made traditions.

    We just had a lay off at our work too. Fortunately, I was passed over, but I did inherit more work because of it. The reason why it seems like I'm on here all the time is because of my work schedule. I work m/w/f, and start at 1am and work until I'm done (anywhere between 1pm and 4pm) And my sleep process is extremely strange. On nights I go to work I only sleep maybe 3 hours if I'm lucky (last night I only got about 20 minutes of sleep before I headed in). On my nights off I sleep 11 to 12 hours. Don't ask me how I keep it up, because I don't even know.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    O4H and Prophet,

    Sorry, but it took a while for me to get back. I don't know how you two guys (as well as numerous others on these threads) do it; I see you guys on other threads as well - this could be a full-time job. BTW, I still have my job. My wife and I both survived the round of lay-offs. There may be a second round later, but for now, we've made it through. Thanks and praise to God.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    O4H - "There are many things that Jesus/God recognized or mention but never sanctioned or approve of in scripture... this tradition is no different..."

    Yes, I know that Jesus and others referred to things, topics, or events that were not written in the OT. But in this instance, Jesus is referring to a tradition that touches on religious discipline; He's not merely bringing this up as a point of history or culture, but rather as an authoritative truth, which is why He acknowledges it as well as admonishing His disciples to acknowledge it.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet - "Sorry for the miscommunication. I wasn't necessarily commenting on the topic that you and Online were having. I was merely pointing out that the office of the Catholic priest is anti-scriptural and just a continuation of a man-controlled and man-made sect."

    I wasn't aware that we were discussing the Catholic priesthood. I respect your opinion, but obviously I have to disagree with you. The office of Catholic priest is not anti-scriptural. The bible talks about episcopos and presbyteros in various places in the NT. This is equivalent to bishop and priest (presbyter).

    As a Catholic Christian in Lake Jackson (about one hour south of Houston), I belong to the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo is my bishop, or head pastor, if you will. My local parish community (which would have been roughly equivalent to a house church in the first century when the Christian population was much smaller) where I worship is St. Michael the Archangel in Lake Jackson - one of about 150 parish communities within the "church" of the Galveston-Houston diocese. So the "church" in Galveston-Houston includes all those bishops, priests, deacons, and lay members who profess the catholic and apostolic faith. And of course, the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston is just one local "church" within the Universal (Catholic) Church throughout the world.

    Let us suppose for a moment that you were a Christian living in Crete in the first century A.D. (say, about 65 A.D.) You would then have attended "church" under the leadership of your bishop Titus, appointed by St. Paul . Local house churches would have met under presbyters (elders) with deacons assisting.

  • Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Irenaeus,

    (I am referring to an instance in which Jesus points to a Jewish tradition (namely, that the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat), does not refute it, and admonishes His disciples to acknowledge it.)

    There are many things that Jesus/God recognized or mention but never sanctioned or approve of in scripture . . . this tradition is no different . . .

  • Sat Jan 24, 2009 7:43 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    iraneus,

    You said "I agree, but that is not germane to the topic at hand. At the time that Jesus stated this, those things had not yet passed away."

    Sorry for the miscommunication. I wasn't necessarily commenting on the topic that you and Online were having. I was merely pointing out that the office of the Catholic priest is anti-scriptural and just a continuation of a man-controlled and man-made sect.

  • Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    O4H,

    Again, I think we are off topic of what I was originally attempting to cover. I am not addressing the extent to which the Pharisees' teaching is true or in error or whether the Pharisees used Jewish tradition authoritatively in their teaching. I am referring to an instance in which Jesus points to a Jewish tradition (namely, that the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat), does not refute it, and admonishes His disciples to acknowledge it. Neither the issue of the Pharisees sitting on Moses' seat nor the topic of Moses' seat even existing and/or being available for successors to authoritatively teach from are demonstrated in the OT. This is only known through Jewish tradition, and apparently a tradition that Jesus did not find fault in.

  • Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    O4H,

    I don't particularly have a problem with any of those commentaries that you cited. In one sense, one could obviously say that some of the Pharisees 'teachings' are wrong. In another sense, one could say that the Pharisees teachings are correct, but their hypocritical practice of their teachings are what is wrong. Scripture uses both senses. It doesn't seem that all the teachings of the Pharisees were so much in the wrong as it was their application of certain teachings or their hypocritical practice of them. For instance, when Jesus criticized the Pharisees for certain teachings, it was not necessarily because the teaching itself was wrong, but rather that the Pharisees were using a certain teaching (which was true) as a loop hole around another teaching. So if the Pharisees were to teach that you are to offer your tithe to the temple or offer some other gift to God (which is a true teaching), the disciples were to heed this teaching as true. If the Pharisees were using this teaching as an escape clause so that they did not have to honor their parents, it was the false application of the teaching that was in error; i.e., it was not the tradition itself that was wrong; it was the nullification of a commandment by that tradition that was wrong. In other words observe and obey what they teach (in this example, make tithes and offerings to God AND honor one's father and mother), but do not do what they practice (make tithes and offerings to God BUT use this as a loop hole to release one's obligation to offer support to one's father and mother). Remember, that it was this same Jesus castigating the Pharisees for their hypocrisy that also commanded them to do the latter without neglecting the former; i.e., do not use one teaching as an escape clause to justify not following another teaching.

  • Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:43 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    The Pulpit Commentaries says:

    All that they taught or commanded out of the Law, or in due accordance therewith, was to be observed and obeyed. The statement is made in general terms, but was conditional and restricted by other considerations. It was only their official junctions, derived immediately from Scripture, not their grosses, evasions, and interpretations, that were to be regarded with respect. The Lord had already taken occasion to warn against these errors (See Matthew 16:6, 11, 12, etc).

    These same commentaries give passages to support their statements, for example:

    And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition (Matthew 15:6).

    And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, (Mark 12:38).

    Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts (Luke 20:46).

    I could provide additional commentary references but I think these will suffice.

  • Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Ireneaus,

    (Then why didn't Jesus say to His disciples to observe and practice what the Law and the Prophets command?)

    He did . . . there is nothing convoluted here except when we try to impose our own interpretations into the text. Perhaps you will consider what others had to say about Matthew 23:2, 3 . . .

    Matthew Henry says:

    The scribes and Pharisees made it their business to study the scripture, and were well acquainted with the language, history, and customs of it, and its style and phraseology. Now Christ would have the people to make use of the helps they gave them for the understanding of the scripture, and do accordingly. As long as their comments did illustrate the text and not pervert it; did make plain, and not make void, the commandment of God; so far they must be observed and obeyed, but with caution and a judgment of discretion.

    Jamison Fausett and Brown Commentary says:

    They bid you observe, that observe and do: the word (therefore) is thus, it will be seen, of great importance, as limiting those injunctions which He would have them obey to what they fetched from the law itself. It is remarked by Webster and Wilkinson that the warning to beware of the scribes is given by Mark and Luke (Mark 12:38; Luke 20:46) without any qualification: the charge to respect and obey them being reported by Matthew alone, indicating for whom this Gospel was especially written, and the writers desire to conciliate the Jews.


    Adam Clarke says:

    All therefore whatsoever: That is, all those things which they read out of the law and prophets, and all things which they teach consistently with them. This must be our Lords meaning: he could not have desired them to do every thing, without restriction, which the Jewish doctors taught; because himself warns his disciples against their false teaching, and testifies that they had made the word of God of none effect by their traditions.

  • Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    O4H - "... what he told the disciples to observe was obviously the teaching from the law and the prophets. This tradition as we both acknowledge did not come from Moses or from the Lord... so, it was not the position which they were to observe but rather the law and the prophets which they read from. This is what Jesus told them to observe; it is actually pretty clear."

    Then why didn't Jesus say to His disciples to observe and practice what the Law and the Prophets command? Why convolute the point with the presumed authority of the Pharisees and interject them into the mix. Or why point out the Pharisees at all? Would this not apply to anybody who faithfully taught from the Law and the Prophets?

  • Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:41 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Irenaeus,

    (Only that some tradition regarding the Pharisees sitting on Moses' seat must have existed since Jesus refers to it, does not claim that it's not true, and admonished His disciples to acknowledge it.) & (Then from where does Jesus come up with this idea, and why does He admonish His disciples to acknowledge it? If the tradition of the Pharisees sitting on Moses' seat was another man-made tradition, why did Jesus not call them out on it?)


    Yes, I acknowledge that some tradition existed concerning those who sat themselves in Moses seat and yes, Jesus does refer to it, however, as I already mentioned . . . nowhere in Matthew 23 does Jesus say that this tradition was handed down from generation to generation . . . what he told the disciples to observe was obviously the teaching from the law and the prophets. This tradition as we both acknowledge did not come from Moses or from the Lord . . . so, it was not the position which they were to observe but rather the law and the prophets which they read from. This is what Jesus told them to observe; it is actually pretty clear. So, if these Pharisees placed themselves in this position . . . they have no binding authority apart from teaching scriptures.

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    O4H - "Since historically the (chair of Moses) in the synagogue came into use far after the actual time of Moses, is it not clear that reference to this chair cannot be cited in support of an oral tradition that goes back to Moses?"

    Then from where does Jesus come up with this idea, and why does He admonish His disciples to acknowledge it? If the tradition of the Pharisees sitting on Moses' seat was another man-made tradition, why did Jesus not call them out on it?

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    O4H - "Did you know that synagogue worship first emerged in postexilic times, long after the time of Moses?"

    Yes. And I never stated that the tradition came from the time of Moses. Only that some tradition regarding the Pharisees sitting on Moses' seat must have existed since Jesus refers to it, does not claim that it's not true, and admonished His disciples to acknowledge it.

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophat - "An[d] that, as well as priests, were done away with after the Sacrifice."

    I agree, but that is not germane to the topic at hand. At the time that Jesus stated this, those things had not yet passed away.

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:55 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    irenaeus,

    I do remember how this discussion started, however, I think we are emphasizing two different things . . . you are emphasizing a (seat) . . . I am emphasizing the reason for that seat (to teach the law and the prophets/Scripture). Besides, Jesus was not saying that tradition in itself is authoritative or an equal par with written revelation, or that an oral tradition was passed on generation by generation to those who sit in this chair. Jesus merely alluded to the existence of this chair and as a matter of fact; many scholars say that the Pharisees have (seated themselves) which is something that I have been saying all along . . . they did not receive this authority from God. For example, the New American Standard Bible says:

    The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; (Matthew 23:2).

    Again, this passage certainly does not prove that an oral tradition was passed down generation by generation from Moses to others who would sit in that place of authority. There is virtually no biblical, historical, or archeological support for such a view. Two Qs:

    Did you know that synagogue worship first emerged in postexilic times, long after the time of Moses?

    Since historically the (chair of Moses) in the synagogue came into use far after the actual time of Moses, is it not clear that reference to this chair cannot be cited in support of an oral tradition that goes back to Moses?

    Looking back in hind sight, this entire priesthood came to an end at the death of our Lord Jesus Christ and we do not read of any priesthood other than the priesthood of all believers (1Peter 2:5, 9).

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:58 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Jesus condemned the Pharisees for forcing their man-made traditions upon the people. The Catholic church is just a continuation of those man-made traditions that Jesus condemned.

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:57 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "He's the one that said that the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat. "

    Ant that, as well as priests, were done away with after the Sacrifice.

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Actually, the word is compell, which means an effort on the part of Peter to get them to do something. So, yes, Peter was teaching a false doctrine.

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    O4H - "I sincerely desire to know what they authoritatively taught... do you have any information on this?"

    Remember how this part of the discussion started. I'm not talking abouth the Pharisees teaching authoritatively something from rabbinic tradition that happened to be true. I'm talking about Jesus referring to the Jewish tradition of the Pharisees sitting on Moses' seat. I 'm not addressing anything about what the Pharisees taught; not yet anyway. The point was made the Jesus or the apostles never referred to tradition in their teachings. And I'm saying here is one instance.

    You have already mentioned that we are short of information from the OT scriptures that would have allowed us to come to the conclusion that the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat and not some other indiviual or another body, such as the Sadducess, or the Scribes, or the Zealots, or the priests, or whoever. The only way this was known was through Jewish tradition, and apparently it was authentic because not only does Jesus not refute it, explicitly points it out and admonishes His own disciples to acknowledge it as well.

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    O4H - "I think it is an assumption to say that the Pharisees were given rightful authority to sit in Moses seat..."

    It is not an assumption; Jesus said as much. He's the one that said that the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat. This wasn't merely an historical observation. Jesus derives a conclusion based on this being true. Namely, that because this is true (not an assumption) His disciples are to yield obedience to their commands.

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet - "... So, yes, Peter was teaching a false doctrine."

    No he wasn't. Peter is accused of being hypocritcal here. Some other Jews followed in Peter's hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. Peter cannot be considered a 'hypocrite' unless he taught one thing and then acted against his own teaching; that's what a hypocrite is - one who does not practice what he preaches.

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    salt,
    I'm not sure of the point of your post. Can you elaborate?

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet,

    I think my friend irenaeus will be back . . .

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    absojc,

    I am sorry . . . I thought you were of the Orthodox (Eastern) faith . . . Nevertheless, I enjoyed your post and willingness to share.

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 5:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So, I see the the Catholics have left.

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:02 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Irenaeus,

    (What do you make of Jesus being critical of the Pharisees where they are in error yet at the same time Jesus points to the Pharisees having rightful authority to sit on Moses' seat thus the disciples should yield their obedience to what the Pharisees command and practice?)

    I think it is an assumption to say that the Pharisees were given rightful authority to sit in Moses seat and that they taught oral tradition which was true and authoritative . . . if this is true . . . what did they teach that was authoritative? Besides, as I mentioned earlier . . . they were not permitted to add or diminish from what had been written:


    Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar (Proverbs 30:6).


    To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them (Isaiah 8:20).


    Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you (Deuteronomy 4:2).


    I sincerely desire to know what they authoritatively taught . . . do you have any information on this?

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:58 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Actually, the word is compell, which means an effort on the part of Peter to get them to do something. So, yes, Peter was teaching a false doctrine.

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:16 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet,

    They were compelled by example to follow along; they were compelled by his poor example... they were not compelled by formal teaching and instruction. They were not forced to follow by way of command or directive.

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Actually, the word is compell, which means an effort on the part of Peter to get them to do something. So, yes, Peter was teaching a false doctrine.

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    O4H said: No . . . sorry, I should have clarified what I meant by giving a resounding, Amen to absojcs post. There has been much discussion between Catholics and Protestants on church history and spiritual authority . . . it was just nice to have someone from the Orthodox faith confirm what many of us have been saying all along. To that, I say, Amen!

    --------------------------------------------------------

    And that, from someone who is NOT from the orthodox faith with a capital "O", just orthodox in his beliefs from a Evangelical/Charismatic Church, so you know where I stand on the Holy Spirit!

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet,

    It's like I stated previously, if I cheated on my wife, I would not by my action be teaching that it is morally licit to commit adultery. Yes, my actions, if made public, would cause scandal and set a bad example, and if I were in a position of leadership, could cause some to be led astray or even fall away from the faith. I would cause confusion to those who were new or young in the faith, and by my poor example, it would appear that I'm compromising the gospel by confusing the message. But I would not be said to be fornally or officially teaching that adultery is morally acceptable.

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet - "Ummm....no. Peter forced (a quote from the Bible)..."

    Ummm... no, others followed Peter's bad example. 'Force' is not a quote from the Bible, rather it's an English translation of a Greek word, and an overly strong one at that. I believe that most other English translations render compel. I need to check the tense though, because it seems that it's the others that felt compelled by Peter's bad example; again, Peter did not force them to do anything.

    "Otherwise you would know, that Peter didn't "lead them astray". He was purposely teaching them and making them follow incorrect teachings."

    No, it says that Branabas was led astray or carried away (depending on translation). And purposely???... Peter did this out of fear of those that same with James. Peter was not standing there preaching that Jews are not allowed to have table fellowship with Gentiles and that Jewish converts to Christianity are still required to maintain Jewish customs. He was not makeing any official declaration or teaching in any proper sense.

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet - "By the way...is there a difference between leading and teaching? Isn't leading someone into sin, the same as teaching them it's ok?"

    Yes, there is a difference. Poor conduct is not the same as teaching in any official or proper sense.

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    By the way...is there a difference between leading and teaching? Isn't leading someone into sin, the same as teaching them it's ok?

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Ummm....no. Peter forced (a quote from the Bible) the gentiles. But then again, you listen to the Church, instead of studying the scriptures for yourself. Otherwise you would know, that Peter didn't "lead them astray". He was purposely teaching them and making them follow incorrect teachings.

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet,

    Some were led astray and felt 'compelled' to follow Peter's conduct; Peter did not force anybody to do anything.

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    If Peter had only been a bad example, then he would have been merely doing something incorrectly without forcing Gentiles to do the same. He would have let them do what they wanted. But, as we see, he was pushing them to follow his incorrect (or fallible) interpretation.

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    There is a difference between being a bad example and what Peter did. Peter "forced Gentiles to follow Jewish customs." In case you weren't aware, that means he was making Gentiles follow Jewish customs. More succinctly, he was fallible in his teaching of the Gentiles. Though the epistles of his that we do use are infallible, not all his teachings were. I could find teachings from every preacher, both Catholic and Protestant, that would be called infallible. But it doesn't mean that ALL their teachings and interpretations are. Such is the case with Peter. We use only his infallible teachings, but not all his teachings. And to say that he is infallible in his interpretation because we use a couple of his epistles is erroneous.

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    No, I am focusing on Peter's error in teaching. Because Paul corrected him for teaching incorrect doctrine.

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet,

    You are not bursting my bubble. This is the impression I get from you because I was not even addressing the issue of the papacy (or any other distinctively Catholic doctrine), but that is where you seem to be trying to steer the discussion. I am strictly speaking about Peter (as well as some others) who taught and interpreted scripture infallibly, yet you want to continue focusing on Peters' failure in conduct. I acknowledge Paul's confrontation of Peter's inappropriate conduct, but all this proves is that God can use a fallible man to infallibly make known His revelation. Therefore, as I said prior, Peter spoke infallibly in his sermon on Pentecost. Peter spoke infallibly regarding the revelation revealed to him concerning the Gentiles becoming Christians and that the Holy Spirit had been poured out and was available to the Gentiles just as it was for the Jews, that Peter infallibly interpreted scripture on a number of occasions, and that he penned two infallible letters. What is your beef with this point without jumping to examples of where Peter sinned?

    BTW, Peter was not 'teaching' false doctrine.I suppose one could say that he was 'teaching' by bad example, but we know that he was not teaching in any proper or official sense as teacher and apostle. Paul clearly says what Peter did... Peter was eating with the Gentiles (in accordance with the revelation that had been made known), but when James and some of the Jews arrived, out of fear, Peter withdrew from the Gentiles and sat with the Jews. Peter's actions led others astray including Barnabas such that others behaved similarly. In other words others felt compelled to follow Peter's (poor) example, but Peter did not force them to act that way. In fact, this actually demonstrates Peter's prominence in that since Peter was a leader, he should have known better; since he was the chief apostle, he should have known better; since he personally received the revelation regarding the Gentiles, he should have known better. Otherwise, why did Paul single out Peter? Why not also admonish the other Jewish Christians who were present? Why did he not berate Barnabas for doing the same thing? Because Peter being a leader should have known better and should have acted in a manner becoming of his position.

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    O4H - "Since Jesus in this same Gospel of Matthew indicates that tradition can be wrong and lead people astray . . . and since He places Gods Word over tradition (Matthew 15:6) . . . is it not unwise to argue for the authority of tradition from Matthew 23: 2, 3?"

    This is an excellent question. I by no means disagree with you that in some instances the Pharisees had usurped the intention and authority of the scriptures through their man-made tradition. Jesus clearly points this out, but this does not preclude the idea that there was legitimate Jewish oral tradition that was also true and authoritative. You are asking me what to make of Jesus pointing to the Pharisees having rightful authority to sit on Moses' seat yet at the same time Jesus being critical of the Pharisees where they are in error. I suppose that the same question could be asked of you in reverse: What do you make of Jesus being critical of the Pharisees where they are in error yet at the same time Jesus points to the Pharisees having rightful authority to sit on Moses' seat thus the disciples should yield their obedience to what the Pharisees command and practice? I know you somewhat answered that earlier in that they are only to obey in as much as the Pharisees faithfully teach from the law and the prophets. But this only begs the question: How do they know when they are teaching faithfully? And if the masses could always discern for themselves when the Pharisees were teaching faithfully, then what need do they have of teachers in the first place.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Church
  • Gifts
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Bethany House Publishers

It was a balmy California evening. I had gone for a jog before I was to speak at a leadership conference. I still can't recall how I got there, but I found myself sitting on a curb

Featured Advertiser Links