The Prosperity Gospel/"Name it and Claim it" theology
Martin Luther's version of the Bible.
"Speaking in tongues" a la Assemblies of God. I'm not speaking about the "speaking in tongues" as stated in the Bible. I'm talking about the incessent babbiling done at Charismatic services that is labeled as "Biblical" but is, in fact, NOT.
Being "slain in the Spirit."
The theology that once you have "accepted Jesus as your Savior" all your sins are washed away and you are no longer guilty of any sin. Ever. You can go out and kill someone, but it's okay, because Jesus died for your sins.
Holy Communion is seen as a simple "rememberance meal"
Baptism confers no grace; a simple declaration of one's faith and not as spiritual regeneration (John 3:5).
You lack apostolic succession,
you have no Holy Mysteries,
you do not venerate the Theotokos and the saints,
you have stripped the Old Testament,
you have abstracted the New Testament from the context of the tradition of the Fathers.
THIS SEEMS TO HAVE GOT ITSELF ON TWICE. NO IDEA HOW. SORRY.
I have extracted the above from your posts. I'll try to comment on them in a different order, lumping together the ones that seem similar to each other.
REAL INNOVATIONSThe Prosperity Gospel/"Name it and Claim it" theology
As far as I know this is a very recent innovation, and is rejected by orthodox Evangelcials.You can go out and kill someone, but it's okay, because Jesus died for your sins.
This is repeatedly and strongly denied from our pulpits - but there have been people who were (inaccurately, I think) dubbed Antinomians who have taught such heresy.Televangelists.
Well... if one is going to preach by broadcasting, which in itself is a good thing, surely it must be an innovation?
MAYBE INNOVATIONS"Speaking in tongues" a la Assemblies of God. I'm not speaking about the "speaking in tongues" as stated in the Bible. I'm talking about the incessent babbling done at Charismatic services.
The problem is that no-one has direct knowledge of what speaking in tongues was in the early church, either in people's private devotions or in church gatherings. But yes - the introduction of what you describe probably dates from 1906 in Azusa Street.Being "slain in the Spirit."
This happened in the 18th century awakening, though then it was discouraged and died down or out, whilst today I gather on hearsay that there are people who encourage it. Nonetheless, it must be admitted that there are cases in the Bible of people falling to the ground when they meet the holy - God, Jesus, and angel - both in the days of our Lord's flesh, and at other times.
NOT INNOVATIONSThe theology that once you have "accepted Jesus as your Savior" all your sins are washed away
This, of course, we hold to be NT teaching, not an innovation.Martin Luther's version of the Bible... you have stripped the Old Testament,
I assume you are referring to his use of the Hebrew canon rather than the LXX. Whether you are right to use the LXX or we are right to use the Hebrew OT is no doubt open to debate - but I don't think the Hebrew canon can be dubbed a specifically Protestant idea, nor an innovation
WHOSE INNOVATIONS?you have no Holy Mysteries
See my comments on the Lord's Supper and baptism: if you mean the other sacraments, again we think these are your innovations.you do not venerate the Theotokos and the saints,
It depends what you mean by "venerate". You are right that we do not do it in the manner you do, but again, we think it is your innovation, not the other way round!Holy Communion is seen as a simple "rememberance meal"
By many, called Zwinglians. Again, those who hold this view do not believe it is an innovation, but rather was the biblical understanding.Baptism confers no grace; a simple declaration of one's faith and not as spiritual regeneration
A similar view to the Zwinglian one on the Supper, believed by those who teaching it to be biblical. Others do believe that God meets one in a special way and does indeed impart a influx of grace at that moment.You lack apostolic succession
Yes, we lack that: but we think it is your innovation, not the other way round!you have abstracted the New Testament from the context of the tradition of the Fathers.
I'd need to think a lot more about this one. We believe, of course, that the Fathers developed theology beyond the beliefs of the apostles, and that as it evolved not every new idea was correct. But, as I've said before, we read other Christian writers in the same spirit, and here the difference between you and us seems to me to be that we treat all post-canonical writings on the same level, whereas you accord special authority to the Church Fathers as part of Holy Tradition. Again, the question is, which of us has created the innovation?