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

[RileyG]

Regarding the first sentence, because it's not a Christian thing. It's a Catholic thing. Just like potlucks are a Baptist thing.

Regarding the second sentence, it's not part of Christian history. It's part of Catholic history. This guy sums up the whole concept really well in a short. This just came by my feed today. Perfect timing.

It’s literally right in the Bible. Invoking the trinity is right in the Bible.

Are microphones, praise bands with electric guitars, and projectors in the Bible?

 

[Reasonably Sane]

By any chance are you Jehovah Witness or Mormon?

Many, if not all, Protestants hold the empty cross in high regard and consider it the symbol of Christ’s defeat over death and sin.

Only Lutherans and Anglicans/Episcopalians hold the cross with the body of Christ as visible in their churches.

The crucifix is generally associated with Catholics.

I became a Christian at age 27. I'm now 70. I've always seen the cross as a mere symbol, kinda like the fish. I don't believe in "images" of Christ at all. Whenever someone shows a picture of "Jesus" in a piece of toast or cloud formation, I always give the same response: That looks more like Jerry Garcia.

On a related note, this is why It rubs me the wrong way when I see people in music and films that are obviously acting out against belief in the saving blood of Christ wearing a cross. I used to say that I don't have the fish on my car because a lot of the time, when I'm driving, my style is not necessarily a good example. It's much less of an issue today, but still could come up. Best to advertize your religion through your actions rather than symbols or "claims". i.e. don't say you're a Christian. Show that you are. Oddly, when you do the latter, people end up asking.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

It’s literally right in the Bible. Invoking the trinity is right in the Bible.

Are microphones, praise bands with electric guitars, and projectors in the Bible?

Here is where I may need to be the learner. This is a sincere question. Where is the trinity "invoked" in the bible? And what does that have to do with the sign of the cross? I'll add another aspect of my opinion on it: I compare it to the "pictures" in stained glass in Catholic (and also my) churches. This was given to me by a friend who was raised AG, but at age 44 met a Catholic girl, so he converted. He said the pictures were necessary to share the stories in the bible to a congregation that did not have bibles or could not read. They were reminders of the events in the bible. My Christian church has four of them representing the seed sown.

I compare it to Protestants practicing communion, except that is a commandment of Jesus. The sign of the cross is a man made reminder.

Regarding your second sentence: First, nobody sees it as something we should be doing. Second, it's a technology thing. The Bible doesn't mention Church busses either, but for some churches they are a good idea. Also, regarding guitars, I offer Psalms 33:3*.

In my post above is my perspective on a LOT of stuff my churches and other churches do. That is, I prefer not to judge what they do or don't do, but if it goes too far from my personal beliefs, obviously I won't attend that church. I had to leave the first baptist church my wife and I tried to attend when we first moved from Seattle to rural Kentucky because they had a "mormon" attitude about alcohol, and they were quite dogmatic about the turn or burn message. I chose not to be a "troublemaker" so I found another church more open to reasonable interpretations of scripture. And that's OK. I have no ill feeling toward that other church.

Now Mormonism, SDA and JW's are a different matter. Though I've found mormons to be very nice people, at least on the surface.

*This verse is an interesting study in different interpretations. KJV and NIV sez "...play skillfully..." while the ESV (My preferred version) sez "...play skillfully on the strings..."
And the difference is that the word "play" is strongs 5059, which it translates, "to touch or play a stringed instrument".

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Okay so you agree, Psalms are songs, and thus, they have repetitions in them as part of their structure, and that with the accompanying music, is a memory aid so that helps us to remember them and their content.
Memorization of prose is harder than memorizing songs.

That is not what I said; I said Psalms are prayers that we routinely sing, just as we do about 95% of all prayers used in our Services.

 

[RileyG]

Here is where I may need to be the learner. This is a sincere question. Where is the trinity "invoked" in the bible? And what does that have to do with the sign of the cross? I'll add another aspect of my opinion on it: I compare it to the "pictures" in stained glass in Catholic (and also my) churches. This was given to me by a friend who was raised AG, but at age 44 met a Catholic girl, so he converted. He said the pictures were necessary to share the stories in the bible to a congregation that did not have bibles or could not read. They were reminders of the events in the bible. My Christian church has four of them representing the seed sown.

I compare it to Protestants practicing communion, except that is a commandment of Jesus. The sign of the cross is a man made reminder.

Regarding your second sentence: First, nobody sees it as something we should be doing. Second, it's a technology thing. The Bible doesn't mention Church busses either, but for some churches they are a good idea. Also, regarding guitars, I offer Psalms 33:3*.

In my post above is my perspective on a LOT of stuff my churches and other churches do. That is, I prefer not to judge what they do or don't do, but if it goes too far from my personal beliefs, obviously I won't attend that church. I had to leave the first baptist church my wife and I tried to attend when we first moved from Seattle to rural Kentucky because they had a "mormon" attitude about alcohol, and they were quite dogmatic about the turn or burn message. I chose not to be a "troublemaker" so I found another church more open to reasonable interpretations of scripture. And that's OK. I have no ill feeling toward that other church.

Now Mormonism, SDA and JW's are a different matter. Though I've found mormons to be very nice people, at least on the surface.

*This verse is an interesting study in different interpretations. KJV and NIV sez "...play skillfully..." while the ESV (My preferred version) sez "...play skillfully on the strings..."
And the difference is that the word "play" is strongs 5059, which it translates, "to touch or play a stringed instrument".

I think you are way over thinking it. The sign of the cross is essentially a reminder of our baptism. It’s a beautiful prayer.

Take care

 

[RileyG]

That is not what I said; I said Psalms are prayers that we routinely sing, just as we do about 95% of all prayers used in our Services.

The liturgy is relatively repetitive. The angels in revelation pray using the same words over and over. Jesus prayed using the same words in his agony in the garden.

Nothing wrong with repetition.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Those aren't human.

Should we not use the example of heavenly worship for our own here in this world. The uniformity of worship in heaven and on earth is one major part of the "communion of the saints"; when we do it is the whole Church in fellowship worshiping together.

This book clearly explains this concept from a very Biblical and evangelical perspective: https://www.amazon.ca/Heaven-Earth-Gifts-Christ-Divine/dp/0758606710

 

[RileyG]

Should we not use the example of heavenly worship for our own here in this world. The uniformity of worship in heaven and on earth is one major part of the "communion of the saints"; when we do it is the whole Church in fellowship worshiping together.

This book clearly explains this concept from a very Biblical and evangelical perspective: https://www.amazon.ca/Heaven-Earth-Gifts-Christ-Divine/dp/0758606710

Ah, yes. The liturgy is when heaven and earth meet

 

[Jamdoc]

Your contributions were great. Not only did you give an answer as to why Protestants don't do tradition, but you became an excellent example for some of the people I talked to here about this protestant mentality of "It's Catholic, not in the Bible" being the roots of cults.

This is what I am talking about on how certain Protestants don't realize their rejection of tradition (under the false claim that it is only catholic) has made denominations that eventually became more distant from Christianity.

Lets look at what just happened here

First, there is picking and choosing of translations and verses, while ignoring other gospels and numerous other translations. This is what the INC, JW's, Mormons, Unitarian Churches do. The INC uses the Lamsa translation with Acts 20:28, which they claim is a prophecy of their church because in the Lamsa it says "church of Christ (which is the name of the church translated to english)", never mind that every other translation has it as "church of God". Same thing was just done here in regards to Matt 6.

Next, the whole "everyone before us is wrong and we are the ones who got it right". Apparently, all christians during the early centuries are wrong for "not following scripture" because of doing repetitive prayers such as the Rosary.

So now, I would like you all to carefully look at how the similarities of these protestant objections to tradition are with these unitarian cults, it is through the protestants you can see how these cults eventually got their train of thought.

This is same "it's catholic. not in the bible" is the same argument that the Unitarian cults make in regards to Jesus' divinity.

Last thing I'll say in this is that the Catholic Church has changed over the centuries dramatically.
It's not about "those who came before us didn't get it right but I did" at all, it's about, at some point the Catholic Church was different than the modern version, a lot of things, like the Rosary were introduced over 1000 years after the Apostles, thousands of years of extra baggage added on to what the apostles taught, and some of it is outright not good.

When Rome made Christianity the official state religion of the Empire, worldly influence started creeping into it. To be absolutely fair it happens to other denominations too as I'm sure you've noticed all the recent rashes of protestant denominations accepting female pastors (an unbiblical position), LGBT+ affirming, babbling in "tongues" etc. But the 4th century, a LOT of stuff started creeping into the Church now that it was legal and the state religion. One of the first things to creep in was allegorization of scripture which fed Amillennialism, to a point where the previous belief the Church had in Chiliasm to be CONDEMNED. Imagine that. the teachings of the apostles and their most direct disciples CONDEMNED after a few hundred years?

and that's where my angle is. It's not about me, it's about returning to scripture, about returning to Apostolic doctrines, rather than Augustinian doctrines. Augustine was a Greek Stoic Philosopher, he converted but he brought a lot of baggage and was very influential, the Church simply wasn't the same after the School of Alexandria had its way with it.

But as for your accusations, I'm Trinitarian, and I can find the Trinity as far back as Genesis 1, that is a biblical concept in scripture, so I adhere to it. Christ's divinity is established in scripture, and I can even find scripture in the old testament projecting that Messiah is indeed God. Jesus even inserted Himself AS the Lord God in some prophetic passages about the Day of the Lord, referring to Himself as the Lord God who will blow the trumpet in Zechariah 9:14-16 in Matthew 24:29-31
I can believe in these Orthodox doctrines about Christ purely through scripture, and can even find the Old Testament affirming them
That's my basis, scripture. So you don't need to worry about me establishing some cult like the Jehovah's Witnesses, I'm just an Independent Fundamental Baptist who holds scripture as the ultimate authority we have on Earth.

But i do want to close out that it's not specifically an anti-Catholic aim that I have, though it may seem like it, again, there are a LOT of Protestant Denominations falling away as well, and to be absolutely fair, the Southern Baptist Convention might be next in this process.
What I am is pro-scripture, pro-apostolic doctrines, and I see a lot of stuff after the first couple centuries of the Church, as baggage.

 

[Cis.jd]

Here is where I may need to be the learner. This is a sincere question. Where is the trinity "invoked" in the bible? And what does that have to do with the sign of the cross? I'll add another aspect of my opinion on it: I compare it to the "pictures" in stained glass in Catholic (and also my) churches. This was given to me by a friend who was raised AG, but at age 44 met a Catholic girl, so he converted. He said the pictures were necessary to share the stories in the bible to a congregation that did not have bibles or could not read. They were reminders of the events in the bible. My Christian church has four of them representing the seed sown.

I compare it to Protestants practicing communion, except that is a commandment of Jesus. The sign of the cross is a man made reminder.

Regarding your second sentence: First, nobody sees it as something we should be doing. Second, it's a technology thing. The Bible doesn't mention Church busses either, but for some churches they are a good idea. Also, regarding guitars, I offer Psalms 33:3*.

In my post above is my perspective on a LOT of stuff my churches and other churches do. That is, I prefer not to judge what they do or don't do, but if it goes too far from my personal beliefs, obviously I won't attend that church. I had to leave the first baptist church my wife and I tried to attend when we first moved from Seattle to rural Kentucky because they had a "mormon" attitude about alcohol, and they were quite dogmatic about the turn or burn message. I chose not to be a "troublemaker" so I found another church more open to reasonable interpretations of scripture. And that's OK. I have no ill feeling toward that other church.

Now Mormonism, SDA and JW's are a different matter. Though I've found mormons to be very nice people, at least on the surface.

*This verse is an interesting study in different interpretations. KJV and NIV sez "...play skillfully..." while the ESV (My preferred version) sez "...play skillfully on the strings..."
And the difference is that the word "play" is strongs 5059, which it translates, "to touch or play a stringed instrument".

The key point from this discussion is that Protestantism's evolution involved consistently rejecting traditions deemed "Catholic-made and not in the Bible," with the sign of the cross being a prime example. This self-pursuit of biblical purity by distancing from Catholicism fragmented Christian identity rather than making denominations more authentically biblical.

This rejection created theological gaps, leading to Unitarian cults like Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Iglesia Ni Cristo. These groups reject core doctrines such as the Trinity and Christ's divinity, using the same theme of "non-biblical Catholic inventions." that protestants made with each christian tradition they discarded.

For instance, Iglesia Ni Cristo teaches that belief in Christ's divinity condemns Catholics and mainstream Protestants to hell. They also reject the sign of the cross for similar reasons as every protestant that replied here. Their rejection of the Trinity follows the Protestant notion of "Catholic made, not in the Bible," demonstrating how far this theme can deviate from essential Christian beliefs.


The "empty cross" to is another similar argument from the mormons on this

INC, JW's, Mormons, and similar cults never do the sign of the cross, though they pray "in Jesus' name." Protestantism, in rejecting traditions like the sign of the cross as "Catholic," has aligned more closely with these groups, sharing their dismissal of early Christian practices. The sign of the cross is a centuries-old Christian tradition, and dismissing it as merely "Catholic" ignores its historical significance.

 

[RileyG]

Last thing I'll say in this is that the Catholic Church has changed over the centuries dramatically.
It's not about "those who came before us didn't get it right but I did" at all, it's about, at some point the Catholic Church was different than the modern version, a lot of things, like the Rosary were introduced over 1000 years after the Apostles, thousands of years of extra baggage added on to what the apostles taught, and some of it is outright not good.

When Rome made Christianity the official state religion of the Empire, worldly influence started creeping into it. To be absolutely fair it happens to other denominations too as I'm sure you've noticed all the recent rashes of protestant denominations accepting female pastors (an unbiblical position), LGBT+ affirming, babbling in "tongues" etc. But the 4th century, a LOT of stuff started creeping into the Church now that it was legal and the state religion. One of the first things to creep in was allegorization of scripture which fed Amillennialism, to a point where the previous belief the Church had in Chiliasm to be CONDEMNED. Imagine that. the teachings of the apostles and their most direct disciples CONDEMNED after a few hundred years?

and that's where my angle is. It's not about me, it's about returning to scripture, about returning to Apostolic doctrines, rather than Augustinian doctrines. Augustine was a Greek Stoic Philosopher, he converted but he brought a lot of baggage and was very influential, the Church simply wasn't the same after the School of Alexandria had its way with it.

But as for your accusations, I'm Trinitarian, and I can find the Trinity as far back as Genesis 1, that is a biblical concept in scripture, so I adhere to it. Christ's divinity is established in scripture, and I can even find scripture in the old testament projecting that Messiah is indeed God. Jesus even inserted Himself AS the Lord God in some prophetic passages about the Day of the Lord, referring to Himself as the Lord God who will blow the trumpet in Zechariah 9:14-16 in Matthew 24:29-31
I can believe in these Orthodox doctrines about Christ purely through scripture, and can even find the Old Testament affirming them
That's my basis, scripture. So you don't need to worry about me establishing some cult like the Jehovah's Witnesses, I'm just an Independent Fundamental Baptist who holds scripture as the ultimate authority we have on Earth.

But i do want to close out that it's not specifically an anti-Catholic aim that I have, though it may seem like it, again, there are a LOT of Protestant Denominations falling away as well, and to be absolutely fair, the Southern Baptist Convention might be next in this process.
What I am is pro-scripture, pro-apostolic doctrines, and I see a lot of stuff after the first couple centuries of the Church, as baggage.

The rosary goes back to Eastern Christianity, really.

Yes, the Church used Roman and Greek philosophy to explain theology, I don’t find a thing wrong with that. The Jewish people got the idea from the afterlife from the Greeks, they got it from the ancient Egyptians and so on.

Essentially, the core doctrines inside the RCC has remained the same. It only defines doctrines and dogmas once they are attacked.

God bless

 

[Reasonably Sane]

The key point from this discussion is that Protestantism's evolution involved consistently rejecting traditions deemed "Catholic-made and not in the Bible," with the sign of the cross being a prime example. This self-pursuit of biblical purity by distancing from Catholicism fragmented Christian identity rather than making denominations more authentically biblical.

This rejection created theological gaps, leading to Unitarian cults like Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Iglesia Ni Cristo. These groups reject core doctrines such as the Trinity and Christ's divinity, using the same theme of "non-biblical Catholic inventions." that protestants made with each christian tradition they discarded.

For instance, Iglesia Ni Cristo teaches that belief in Christ's divinity condemns Catholics and mainstream Protestants to hell. They also reject the sign of the cross for similar reasons as every protestant that replied here. Their rejection of the Trinity follows the Protestant notion of "Catholic made, not in the Bible," demonstrating how far this theme can deviate from essential Christian beliefs.


The "empty cross" to is another similar argument from the mormons on this

INC, JW's, Mormons, and similar cults never do the sign of the cross, though they pray "in Jesus' name." Protestantism, in rejecting traditions like the sign of the cross as "Catholic," has aligned more closely with these groups, sharing their dismissal of early Christian practices. The sign of the cross is a centuries-old Christian tradition, and dismissing it as merely "Catholic" ignores its historical significance.

Well, thank goodness that stuff all happened before I became a Christian in 1981. I base my perspective on what is actually in the bible, and prayer. I'm also a big fan of the late Dr. Michael Heiser regarding how the ancient languages are actually interpreted for our modern English bibles. They are all flawed, but are still excellent sources, as is all human created information. And the bible is both divine and human. As is Jesus. If I refused to go to a church unless they agreed with me on everything, I wouldn't go to church. I'd start my own.

 

[RileyG]

Well, thank goodness that stuff all happened before I became a Christian in 1981. I base my perspective on what is actually in the bible, and prayer. I'm also a big fan of the late Dr. Michael Heiser regarding how the ancient languages are actually interpreted for our modern English bibles. They are all flawed, but are still excellent sources, as is all human created information. And the bible is both divine and human. As is Jesus. If I refused to go to a church unless they agreed with me on everything, I wouldn't go to church. I'd start my own.

Your last sentence explains Protestant sects to a T. That’s why there are 60,000 plus different denominations

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Your last sentence explains Protestant sects to a T. That’s why there are 60,000 plus different denominations

Yep. Even the apostles didn't agree on everything. And there is a reason Paul penned all those letters. The Christian message is very basic. But we try to complicate it until it starts to match what the Jews did to God's message to them. Every one of us, every day, demonstrate why we each, individually, need the blood of Christ. It's hard to not humanize the divine message. So often we find ourselves striving to be "good enough" to be saved, completely missing the whole message.

It's why I started saying this, about three years ago: Every human being has the same life span, and we even have a word for it. That word is "today". So, when I wake up in the morning, it is a completely fresh start. It doesn't matter what happened or what I did yesterday. What matters is today. We learn from the past, live in the present, and prepare for the future. And eventually one of those "todays" will be our last. And we hope to hear, "Well done, good and faithful servant." The good news in this is that if I really screwed up yesterday, I'm starting fresh from this morning. And if I did really well yesterday, though I can soak up the joy it brings me, the real question is, "what are you going to do today?" In fact, in both cases, that is the question. Without His forgiveness, that would not be possible.

 

[seeking.IAM]

Most Protestants overlook the fact that there were a few hundred years of Christianity before the Bible came into being as we know it. Practices were created that became ingrained as part of the fabric of the Christian faith. There were a few letters from the apostles and early faith leaders shared from place to place, but largely the world was illiterate, and the faith was spread and supported through oral tradition. It was not until the invention of the printing press that the Bible was readily available in most lay persons hands. We are indebted to those earliest Christians for perpetuating the faith we follow still to this day. We should be more grateful.

 

[RileyG]

Most Protestants overlook the fact that there were a few hundred years of Christianity before the Bible came into being as we know it. Practices were created that became ingrained as part of the fabric of the Christian faith. There were a few letters from the apostles and early faith leaders shared from place to place, but largely the world was illiterate, and the faith was spread and supported through oral tradition. It was not until the invention of the printing press that the Bible was readily available in most lay persons hands. We are indebted to those earliest Christians for perpetuating the faith we follow still to this day. We should be more grateful.

100% right. Which is why, in my opinion, the doctrine of sola scriptura doesn’t make much sense. The earliest Christians relied on oral tradition and liturgy for their beliefs. They didn’t have a New Testament to read from. Many were illiterate.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

100% right. Which is why, in my opinion, the doctrine of sola scriptura doesn’t make much sense. The earliest Christians relied on oral tradition and liturgy for their beliefs. They didn’t have a New Testament to read from. Many were illiterate.

In so far as such tradition neither conflict with, or are forbidden by, Scripture. When they do, then Scripture is the only reliable normative factor we have.

 

[RileyG]

In so far as such tradition neither conflict with, or are forbidden by, Scripture. When they do, then Scripture is the only reliable normative factor we have.

Yes. The SOTC isn’t forbidden by scripture.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Yes. The SOTC isn’t forbidden by scripture.

Indeed! It is a good and faithful practice!

 

[Valletta]

The key point from this discussion is that Protestantism's evolution involved consistently rejecting traditions deemed "Catholic-made and not in the Bible," with the sign of the cross being a prime example. This self-pursuit of biblical purity by distancing from Catholicism fragmented Christian identity rather than making denominations more authentically biblical.

This rejection created theological gaps, leading to Unitarian cults like Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Iglesia Ni Cristo. These groups reject core doctrines such as the Trinity and Christ's divinity, using the same theme of "non-biblical Catholic inventions." that protestants made with each christian tradition they discarded.

For instance, Iglesia Ni Cristo teaches that belief in Christ's divinity condemns Catholics and mainstream Protestants to hell. They also reject the sign of the cross for similar reasons as every protestant that replied here. Their rejection of the Trinity follows the Protestant notion of "Catholic made, not in the Bible," demonstrating how far this theme can deviate from essential Christian beliefs.


The "empty cross" to is another similar argument from the mormons on this

INC, JW's, Mormons, and similar cults never do the sign of the cross, though they pray "in Jesus' name." Protestantism, in rejecting traditions like the sign of the cross as "Catholic," has aligned more closely with these groups, sharing their dismissal of early Christian practices. The sign of the cross is a centuries-old Christian tradition, and dismissing it as merely "Catholic" ignores its historical significance.

With fundamentalists it seems like their take on a Bible passage is so often not the clear meaning of the passage. As we've spoken about, vain repetition is much different than repetition, but, for example, repetition alone is what they have latched on to no matter what the Bible says. So too fundamentalists don't seem to think much of what the early Christians thought. With most Protestants I can have a productive discussion about Bible passages, with fundamentalists it's generally a lecture about what Catholics supposedly do wrong.