Posted on 01/19/2012 7:18:48 AM PST by blam
How Will The Shocking Decline Of Christianity In America Affect The Future Of This Nation?
January 19,2012
Is Christianity in decline in America? When you examine the cold, hard numbers it is simply not possible to come to any other conclusion. Over the past few decades, the percentage of Christians in America has been steadily declining. This has especially been true among young people. As you will see later in this article, there has been a mass exodus of teens and young adults out of U.S. churches. In addition, what "Christianity" means to American Christians today is often far different from what "Christianity" meant to their parents and their grandparents.
Millions upon millions of Christians in the United States simply do not believe many of the fundamental principles of the Christian faith any longer. Without a doubt, America is becoming a less "Christian" nation. This has staggering implications for the future of this country. The United States was founded primarily by Christians that were seeking to escape religious persecution. For those early settlers, the Christian faith was the very center of their lives, and it deeply affected the laws that they made and the governmental structures that they established. So what is the future of America going to look like if we totally reject the principles that this nation was founded on?
Overall, Christianity is still the largest religion in the world by far. According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, there are currently 2.2 billion Christians in the world. So Christianity is not in danger of disappearing any time soon. In fact, in some areas of the globe it is experiencing absolutely explosive growth.
But in the United States, things are different. Churches are shrinking, skepticism is growing and apathy about spiritual matters seems to be at an all-time high.
Before we examine the data, let me disclose that I am a Christian. I am not bashing Christians or the Christian faith at all in this article. In fact, I consider the decline of Christianity in America to be a very bad thing. Not everyone is going to agree with me on that, but hopefully this article will help spark a debate on the role of religion in America that everyone can learn something from.
Unfortunately, the reality is that most Americans spend very little time thinking about religion or spiritual matters these days.
Just consider the following quote from a recent USA Today article....
"The real dirty little secret of religiosity in America is that there are so many people for whom spiritual interest, thinking about ultimate questions, is minimal," says Mark Silk, professor of religion and public life at Trinity College" This is backed up by the numbers. For example, a survey taken last year by LifeWay Research found that 46 percent of all Americans never think about whether they will go to heaven or not.
To most Americans, faith is simply not a big deal. This is particularly true of our young people. Those under the age of 30 are leaving U.S. churches in droves. The following comes from a recent CNN article....
David Kinnaman, the 38-year-old president of the Barna Group, an evangelical research firm, is the latest to sound the alarm. In his new book, "You Lost Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving Church and Rethinking Faith," he says that 18- to 29-year-olds have fallen down a "black hole" of church attendance. There is a 43% drop in Christian church attendance between the teen and early adult years, he says. But it isn't just young people that are leaving American churches. The proportion of Americans that consider themselves to be Christians has been steadily declining for many years. Back in 1990, 86 percent of all Americans considered themselves to be Christian. By 2008, that number had dropped to 76 percent.
Meanwhile, the number of Americans that reject religion entirely has absolutely soared. According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of Americans with "no religion" more than doubled between 1990 and 2008.
So what is going to happen if these trends continue?
Dave Olson, the director of church planting for the Evangelical Covenant Church, has made some really interesting projections regarding what is going to happen to church attendance in America if current trends continue.
According to Olson, only 18.7 percent of all Americans regularly attend church right now. If this number continues to decline at the current pace, Olson says that the percentage of Americans attending church in 2050 will be about half of what it is today.
Other research has produced similar results.
According to a study done by LifeWay Research, membership in Southern Baptist churches will fall nearly 50 percent by the year 2050 if current trends persist.
If you are a Christian, you should be quite alarmed by these numbers.
But what is happening to the faith of our young people should be even more alarming for Christians.
The American Religious Identification Survey by the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society & Culture at Trinity College is one of the most comprehensive studies on religion in America that has ever been done.
According to that study, 15 percent of all Americans say that they have "no religion".
That is up from 8 percent in 1990.
That is quite a change.
But the move away from religion is particularly pronounced among our young people.
One recent survey found that 25 percent of all Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 say that they have no religion.
Obviously the Christian faith is not winning the battle for the hearts and the minds of our young people. The cold, hard truth is that in America today, the younger you are, the less likely you are to consider yourself to be a Christian.
Large numbers of young Americans that went to church while they were growing up are now leaving U.S. churches entirely. A recent study by the Barna Group discovered that nearly 60 percent of all Christians between the ages of 15 and 29 are no long actively involved in any church.
But not only have they left the church, our young people have also abandoned just about all forms of Christian spirituality.
Just check out the results of one survey of young adults that was conducted by LifeWay Christian Resources....
•65% rarely or never pray with others, and 38% almost never pray by themselves either.
•65% rarely or never attend worship services of any kind.
•67% don't read the Bible or any other religious texts on a regular basis.
If this does not get turned around, churches all over America will be closing their doors. When the survey above first came out, the president of LifeWay Christian Resources stated that "the Millennial generation will see churches closing as quickly as GM dealerships."
But it is not just church that our young people are rejecting.
The reality is that they are also rejecting the fundamental principles of the Christian faith.
One survey conducted by the Barna Group found that less than 1 percent of all Americans between the ages of 18 and 23 hold a Biblical worldview.
The Barna Group asked participants in the survey if they agreed with the following six statements....
1) Believing that absolute moral truth exists.
2) Believing that the Bible is completely accurate in all of the principles it teaches.
3) Believing that Satan is considered to be a real being or force, not merely symbolic.
4) Believing that a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by trying to be good or by doing good works.
5) Believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth.
6) Believing that God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe today.
Less than 1 percent of the participants agreed with all of those statements.
That is staggering.
But it is not just young adults that are rejecting the fundamentals of the Christian faith.
Even large numbers of "evangelical Christians" are rejecting the fundamental principles of the Christian faith.
For example, one survey found that 52 percent of all Americans Christians believe that "at least some non-Christian faiths can lead to eternal life".
Another survey found that 29 percent of all American Christians claim to have been in contact with the dead, 23 percent believe in astrology and 22 percent believe in reincarnation.
Without a doubt, the religious landscape of America is changing.
Over the past several decades, church attendance has been steadily declining, the percentage of Americans that consider themselves to be Christians has been going down, and the number of people that hold traditional Christian beliefs has been dropping like a rock.
So what does all of this mean for the future of America?
And for those who rest on the unanimous consent of the Fathers, which the RC is forbidden to teach contrary to,
► Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J.: When one hears today the call for a return to a patristic interpretation of Scripture, there is often latent in it a recollection of Church documents that spoke at times of the ‘unanimous consent of the Fathers’ as the guide for biblical interpretation. But just what this would entail is far from clear. For, as already mentioned, there were Church Fathers who did use a form of the historical-critical method, suited to their own day, and advocated a literal interpretation of Scripture, not the allegorical. But not all did so. Yet there was no uniform or monolithic patristic interpretation, either in the Greek Church of the East, Alexandrian or Antiochene, or in the Latin Church of the West.
No one can ever tell us where such a “unanimous consent of the fathers” is to be found, and Pius XII finally thought it pertinent to call attention to the fact that there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, “nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous.” (fn. 24) Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Scripture, The Soul of Theology (New York: Paulist Press, 1994), p. 70.
► Speaking of the difficulty of the so-called Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus in Catholic theology, Cardinal Congar wrote: “Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is unnecessary: quite often, that which is appealed to as sufficient for dogmatic points does not go beyond what is encountered in the interpretation of many texts. But it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching.
One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiasiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. . . . Historical documentation is at the factual level; it must leave room for a judgement made not in the light of the documentary evidence alone, but of the Church's faith.” Yves M.-J. Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), pp. 398-399.
See also http://www.lazyboysreststop.org/pope-21.htm on patristic support on the Rock
► Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid:. the dogma being defined here is Peter´s primacy and authority over the Church "” not a formal exegesis of Matthew 16. The passages from Matthew 16 and John 21 are given as reasons for defining the doctrine, but they are not themselves the subject of the definition. As anyone familiar with the dogma of papal infallibility knows, the reasons given in a dogmatic definition are not themselves considered infallible; only the result of the deliberations is protected from error. It´s always possible that while the doctrine defined is indeed infallible, some of the proofs adduced for it end up being incorrect. Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1999), p. 254. This is solved via sola ecclesia: ► Cardinal Congar: “It is the Church, not the Fathers, the consensus of the Church in submission to its Saviour which is the sufficient rule of our Christianity.” Yves M.-J. Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), p. 399.
► Cardinal Manning:It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...
I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
Secular seminaries of a sort. In contrast,
Even the Unitarian (a religion that effectively denies Christ and the Divine authority of the Bible, but, unlike its immoral form today, at that time it at least overall upheld general Biblical morality) “Father of the Common School,” Horace Mann (May 4, 1796 — August 02, 1859), who became Massachusetts Secretary of Education in 1837, not only understood the impossibility of separating education from religious moral beliefs, but held that it was lawful to teach the truths of the general Christian faith, asserting that the “laws of Massachusetts required the teaching of the basic moral doctrines of Christianity.” Mann, who supported prohibition of alcohol and intemperance, slavery and lotteries, (http://www.famousamericans.net/horacemann) dreaded “intellectual eminence when separated from virtue”, that education, if taught without moral responsibilities, would produce more evil than it inherited. (William Jeynes, “American educational history: school, society, and the common good,” p. 149, 150)
Mann evidenced that he rightly understood that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment did not prohibit officially favoring the general, common Christian faith and its morality, but that it forbade official sanction of one particular sect by distinctively favoring its doctrinal distinctions, stating that “it may not be easy theoretically, to draw the line between those views of religious truth and of Christian faith which is common to all, and may, therefore, with propriety be inculcated in schools, and those which, being peculiar to individual sects, are therefore by law excluded; still it is believed that no practical difficulty occurs in the conduct of our schools in this regard.” (Stephen V. Monsma, J. Christopher Soper, “The Challenge of Pluralism: Church and State in Five Democracies”, The Unites States, cp. 2, p. 21) To critics who were alarmed at the concept of secular schools, he assured that his system “inculcates all Christian morals; it founds its morals on the basis of religion; it welcomes the religion of the Bible...,” but he did exhort that Bible reading be without comment to discourage sectarian bickering. (Mann, Twelfth Annual Report for 1848 of the Secretary of the Board of Education of Massachusetts. Reprinted in Blau 183-84.
Considered second to Mann in his schooling endeavor was Henry Barnard, who was raised in a deeply religious family, and who saw his involvement in education “as part of the providence of God”. Like the majority of Americans, he believed that democracy and education went together in “the cause of truth—the cause of justice — the cause of liberty— the cause of patriotism — the cause of religion.” (Jeynes, p. 154)
By 1890, schools nationwide saw 95 percent of children between the ages of five and thirteen enrolled for at least a few months out of the year, though less than 5 percent of adolescents went to high school, and even fewer entered college. In addition, while there existed thousands of local schools, nearly one thousand colleges and universities (or varying quality), and scores of normal schools which trained teachers, a nationwide educational “system” had yet to be realized by the end of the 1800’s. Education was largely locally managed, as the federal bureau of education, while collecting information about the condition of education, possessed no control over local schools. Education agencies on the state level were small, and its few employees had little or no power over local school districts. School systems in large cities could also function with little oversight, such as in Baltimore, where the public schools in 1890 employed only two superintendents for the entire district of 1,200 teachers.
http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/CauseEffect.html
Thank you. That was excellent.
Context is everything in Bible interpretation.
Thanks be to God who gave Himself for us. I noticed a few things that needed editing which i fixed in the original.
We know what Christ does with the lukewarm. He spits them out of His mouth
I certainly agree with removing the federal government from all involvement with education on absolutely every level. All of it should be returned to the states.
However....I oppose socialist schooling, even if districts were completely independent and the size of a city block or a suburban housing subdivision. There are several problems even if socialist schooling were this localized:
1) Finding agreement on the religious worldview, even among neighbors of a small neighborhood.
2) The risk that the socialist school would be lukewarm and generic in its religious worldivew, or godless secular.
3) Since it is impossible to have a religiously, politically, and socially neutral education, taxpayers would be forced to pay for a religious, political, and cultural worldview that they might find abhorrent, and students forced to use them.
4) Socialist-entitlement schools ( even in a district as small as a housing subdivision) are still **socialist** schools. Children risk learning that government and the voting mob have great power to give them tuition-free schooling. Well?...If the voting mob and government can force others to pay for tuition-free school, why not use that power to get **lots** of socialist goodies.
Mann was right about the Establishment Clause, but he was still dead wrong about socialist-entitlement and compulsory government owned and run schooling. It was a progressive idea from the beginning. Teacher training and curriculum development has always been under the control of progressives. Socialism inevitably leads to greater and greater centralization and greater and greater secularism, and eventual becomes more of a jobs program for the workers than a true social service.
Mann had good intentions but we know about intentions and the road to hell.
You are speaking truth, and my use of Mann was to illustrate that even one that in that compromised religion understood the Establishment Clause did not forbid reading the Bible and moral education based on it.
You sure take up a lot of space to confuse a very clear message from Christ.
1 Cor 10:16
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
1 Cor 11:27-29 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
And what of this prior passage on the same subject?
Do you believe condescension and volume make you seem authoritative?
“First, the NKJV seems to be what you are referring to,..”
NO! I meant KJV, because that is exactly what World Publishing wrote, so take it up with them.
Christ meant precisely what is written here:
Matt 16:18-19
“And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
You go to great lengths to pretend that Christ left us with no earthly authority to preserve his Gospel and his Church on earth. This passage at the moment it is delivered makes clear that Peter and his successors are protected from error by the Holy Spirit.
The only alternative is for you to project that same gift to each of us.
individually.
We see the fruits of that concept in the proliferation of Protestant denominations, in the aftermath of Luther’s interference.
Read Acts 10 carefully. "Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that IS A JEW IS TO KEEP COMPANY, OR COME UNTO ONE OF ANOTHER NATION: but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." Acts 10:28.
When did God show Peter this? "...he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to earth..." Acts 10:10-16.
Now while Peter DOUBTED IN HIMSELF WHAT THIS VISION WHICH HE HAD SEEN SHOULD MEAN,..."Acts 10:17.
We know that Peter and the 11 were filled with the Holy Spirit. That they are protected from error. Then what does Acts, Chapter 10 mean? Peter should have KNOWN what the dream meant, he was filled with the Holy Spirit and "was protected from error". He should NOT have hesitated to go to the Gentile Cornelius. After all, Peter and the 11 were sent, BY JESUS CHRIST, to preach the gospel to ALL nations. Why would Peter hesitate, and not only that, say "It's not LAWFUL for a Jew to keep company, or come unto ONE OF ANOTHER NATION" Acts 10:28.?
Not only that, the others at Jerusalem later CALLED HIM TO ACCOUNT FOR HIS ACTION regarding Cornelius. Acts 11:4,18.
Were Peter and the 11 IN or OUT of the commission that Christ gave them? Peter was doubting, hesitating, and rehearsing the matter. Why not do what Christ commanded them to do in His commission, preach the gospel to every nation? Without doubt, or hesitation. They were filled with the Holy Spirit. Why did they think they may be in error regarding Cornelius?
Rather, such ignorance of the obvious immediate and larger context of Scripture and analogous usage (which can be seen here) in order to force the text to fit your pretext is typical of cultic interpretation, but but really is built upon implicit trust in a self proclaimed assuredly infallible magisterium.
And which is the party who really takes up space (just the "Bulls" of the popes from 540 to 1857 are said to fill forty-one volumes), not in careful exegesis as i demonstrated here , but who instead exhibits much presumption and self assertion.
This passage is in perfect context and stands on its own.
Your refusal to acknowledge same is out of fear of losing the “protest”, which is why you go to such great lengths to obfuscate the subject.
Name calling and citing “obvious larger context” dribble is pure smoke.
You continue to avoid the obvious conclusion of your position:
You go to great lengths to pretend that Christ left us with no earthly authority to preserve his Gospel and his Church on earth. This passage at the moment it is delivered makes clear that Peter and his successors are protected from error by the Holy Spirit.
The only alternative is for you to project that same gift to each of us.
individually.
We see the fruits of that concept in the proliferation of Protestant denominations, in the aftermath of Luther’s interference.
This doesn’t mean Peter can’t make math errors or have self doubt.
This is with regard to judgement on matters of faith and morals.
Now, go back and respond to the question presented above.
It's called reading God's Word as it is STATED. NOT reading something into it that isn't THERE. And projecting a predetermined meaning in order to make it fit the RCC teachings and doctrines.
I gave you NOTHING that was not presented CLEARLY in God's Word. You gave me NOTHING that WAS presented in God's Word. Acts 10 would give you a clear understanding of what was happening at that time. But you seem more eager to dismiss it in favor of Rome's interpretation. Which, by the way, can in NO WAY be reconciled with Acts 10. And Peter. So sweep it under the rug, forget it exists and take up another cause to "keep the lunies on the path", as Pink Floyd sang.
The "Shocking Decline Of Christianity in America" is because the gospel of your salvation has been replaced with works, and wafers and deceitfull doctrines of devils. But it FEELS so good to THINK God is impressed with man's endeavors to work their way to Him. It's called "The way of Cain" in Jude 11. From Genesis to today, it's still what man decides God wants from him. Man working to present his offering to God, instead of the offering God demands.
You want to know what the future of this nation is? Read the Bible. God tells you in His Word.
Proverbs 9:10 - The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.
THIS is my answer to your misguided conclusion from Acts 10.
Christ meant precisely what is written here:
Matt 16:18-19
“And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
You continue to avoid the obvious conclusion of your position:
You go to great lengths to pretend that Christ left us with no earthly authority to preserve his Gospel and his Church on earth. This passage at the moment it is delivered makes clear that Peter and his successors are protected from error by the Holy Spirit.
The only alternative is for you to project that same gift to each of us.
individually.
Do you believe condescension and volume make you seem authoritative?
When you defend a church which arrogates to itself the claim of supremacy and universal jurisdiction then you should not complain when the warrant for such is examined and impugned when found wanting, despite their church's own prolixity, and the foundational presuppositions behind your assertions warrant more than a cursory examination, despite the unwillingness of Roman Catholic apologists to allow themselves to see superficiality of their claims, and even though such RCs often basically ignore what refutes them and continue to argue by assertion, after the autocratic premise of their object of devotion. And as you have done so here I will reiterate and expand upon some of what I said. For Paul, “as his manner was,” “reasoned out of the Scriptures” (Acts 17:20) and we are to search out a matter and be like the noble Bereans. (Act 17:11)
In contrast, for you Rome's say so on such matters is to be sufficient, for as one of your own says, “He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips,” (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ); http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm] and “the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.” Pope Pius X, VEHEMENTER NOS, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10law.htm Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means")
But of course, as shown, there is still significant personal interpretation involved in this.
Nah...Protestant Bibles contain more than 5% error, compared to the Catholic Bible they watered down.
“First, the NKJV seems to be what you are referring to,..”
NO! I meant KJV, because that is exactly what World Publishing wrote, so take it up with them.
I find your statement from one unreferenced study to be rather meaningless without a comparison with the current official Roman Catholic Bible today, the greater problems of which you ignored, as well as its approved notes, while the old version which few Roman Catholics use which you chose to compare it with is criticized by weightier Roman Catholics than G. Larry, which source was also supplied by link.
Christ meant precisely what is written here:Matt 16:18-19
Your “argument” is simply an assertion, while you ignored the reality that the interpretation that this refers to Peter uniquely being the infallible Rock is only one interpretation, finding disagreement even among CFs, and that the real basis for this verse having any authority for that position is that Rome has infallibly declared that she is infallible, and uses this in support.
And which does not necessarily amount to a formal exegesis of it according to one of your own:
Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid: the dogma being defined here is Peter´s primacy and authority over the Church, not a formal exegesis of Matthew 16. The passages from Matthew 16 and John 21 are given as reasons for defining the doctrine, but they are not themselves the subject of the definition. As anyone familiar with the dogma of papal infallibility knows, the reasons given in a dogmatic definition are not themselves considered infallible; only the result of the deliberations is protected from error. It´s always possible that while the doctrine defined is indeed infallible, some of the proofs adduced for it end up being incorrect. Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1999), p. 254.
You go to great lengths to pretend that Christ left us with no earthly authority to preserve his Gospel and his Church on earth. This passage at the moment it is delivered makes clear that Peter and his successors are protected from error by the Holy Spirit.
Clear? Even the context in which this is supposedly exercised is a manner of interpretation, and your EO friends reject the aspect of the unique Petrine prerogative. That assured, formulaic perpetual infallibility is what Rome goes to great lengths to extrapolate from such texts in her eisegesis is what is clear, and shows ignorance of how God preserved truth and under what context the claim to authenticity and the exercise of power is valid.
While Rome pretends that such promises support her magisterium, examining all the verses invoked for this in the light of the rest of Scripture does not evidence, as was shown, that Peter was uniquely the rock upon which the church is built — but that this refers to Peter's Divinely revealed confession of who Christ was, and thus to Christ Himself, “the Rock of this faith confessed by St Peter,” as your CCC even allows — while binding and loosing are manifest to reference apostolic powers Rome only wishes she really evidenced (thus the instruments of the Inquisitions would have been all spiritual, and the Last Rites would be associated with healing, and not death), as well as to rulings which rested upon Scriptural warrant and substantiation, (Acts 5:1-10; 13:9, 1Cor. 5:4,5; Ja. 5:14-16; Acts 15:7-20; Gen. 34:2,27; 35:2; Ex. 20:3-5; Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; Rm. 15:8-12,19; Num. 23:19 Amos 9:11-12) and not after the autocratic means of Rome and its premise of perpetual assured formulaic infallibility.
In addition, Rome argues her conclusion upon the premise that an AIM is necessary to preserve Truth. However, what Scripture manifests is that God never needed a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium of men to preserve His truth, and which does indeed lead to autocratic presumption (as seen in cults, and Rome infallibly defining herself to be infallible, and thus all “proofs,” if needed), but instead He often raised up men from without the formal magisterium to reprove it, as Christ did to those who presumed to teach for doctrines things which were merely the “tradition of the elders.” (Mk. 7:3-13) And as John the Baptist and the Lord Himself had no claim to sit in the seat of Moses, so their authority was challenged by the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders. (Mk. 11:28-33) But the claims of Christ were established by Scripture and the manner of attestation it affirms being given to the Truth. And thus the church began in dissent from those who supposed perpetual power based upon formal decent.
In contrast, rather than leaving an earthly authority to preserve his Gospel and his Church on earth that would end up being like the one that was replaced, the Lord did not establish a perpetuated Petrine papacy through formal decent, but established the church of the Living God (not institutionalized God) upon faith, by which the just shall live, this being demonstrable Scriptural faith in Him as the Divine Son of God, the Rock, “a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is He.” (Dt. 32:4b) to save them by His sinless shed blood. (Rm. 3:25) By this faith the church exists and by this faith the one body has its members, (1Cor. 12:13) and overcomes, (1Jn. 5:5) attacking the gates of Hell which shall not withstand it. (Mt. 16:18) And upon which faith authenticity rests, like that of a true Jew, not by formal decent, (Rm. 2:28,29) Though such are to ordain others who have this faith, it is by their Scriptural testimony that authenticity rests, but not as defined by autocratic determination.
This does not mean the church must cease to exist even when it presumes powers it is not given and binds what is not to be bound (including freedom of access to the Bible and men of God who loved it) and loosing that which should be bound (including means of the Inquisitions and certain teachings), nor when it fails in organizational unity or in teaching outside core salvific truths, for as the Church began upon the most essential faith in the Lord Jesus to save them, not their church or own merits, but out of a broken heart and contrite spirit, (Ps. 34:18; Acts 2:37; 16:14, 30) so as long as core salvific truths are preserved by which men may see themselves as damned for their sins and destitute of any means by which they may justify themselves, and so call upon the Lord Jesus to save them by his blood, then souls may yet be added to the body of Christ and the Church may continue, even when its Godliness, and faith is largely external in structure and form.
Yet those who promote salvation by confidence is their own virtues and the power of their church and who presume assured infallibility and perpetuation prophesy their own invalidation, and as God can raise up from stones children of Abraham, (Mt. 3:9) so He can raise up stones who have the essential faith of Peter to continue to build his Church, even if they are not sanctioned by those who presumed perpetuity based upon formal dissent and autocratic presumption.
The only alternative is for you to project that same gift to each of us. Individually.
Your premise is false, as is your argument. Those who hold to Sola Scriptura do not presume assured infallibility; rather they put their faith in the Scriptures as being assuredly infallible and can only seek to persuade souls “by the manifestation of the truth,” which the apostles most supremely did . (2Cor. 4:2) Even those who were the writers of holy writ did not presume to have assured formulaic infallibility, as if they would always be infallible whenever they spoken on faith and morals to the whole nation or church. One may speak infallible truth even if he is a donkey, but this does not assure that he will be infallible whenever he speaks according to a certain scope and subject-based criteria.
Nor is assurance promised in Scripture based upon the promise of an assuredly infallible perpetual magisterium. Rather authenticity and assurance is established conformity with the Scriptures and its means of attestation, (1Jn. 5:13) and to which the Lord in his apostles appealed, as has been shown.
We see the fruits of that concept in the proliferation of Protestant denominations, in the aftermath of Luther’s interference.
And as has been shown the divisions in each is only a matter of degrees. And you cannot compare Roman Catholicism with Protestantism, as the former is one entity among other Catholic churches and the latter is many. But you can compare different models for achieving unity. As both have their problems, the question is, which one is Scriptural?
The Roman Catholic model is one in which souls make a of fallible human decision to trust in a assuredly infallible magisterium, which is effectively superior to Scripture, and to which implicit assent is to be rendered, and which justifies itself based upon tradition and history. Under this model, the greatest prevention of dissent based upon interpretation and the greatest degree of unity made be seen, and therefore cults, which basically operate under the same magisterial model, can boast of the greatest degree of unity.
However, while Rome has its Supreme magisterium and infallible statements which require the highest degree of submission of faith, yet discerning which statements are infallible and which was are not, and and at least some of what they mean, still involves some degree of interpretation. Also, infallible pronouncements arguably do not consist of the majority of what Catholics believe and practice, which area allows and requires more interpretation.
Therefore, while Roman Catholics look to an assuredly infallible magisterium and its pronouncements, they have made a fallible choice to do so, and must use fallible human reasoning in deciding which ones are infallible, and at least some of what they mean, as well as much of the other teachings of Rome. In reality, while Catholics subscribe to a certain set of core beliefs, allowable and disallowable disagreements within Rome are substantial even if they do not result in many formal divisions.
Furthermore, the basis for Rome's claim is derived from Scripture, Tradition and history, yet under this basis we still see still many divisions between Catholic churches who like Rome claim an assuredly infallible magisterium based upon Scripture, Tradition and history.
Under Sola Scriptura, souls also make a human decision to trust in an assuredly infallible authority, that being the Divinely established Scriptures, and also must exercise fallible human reasoning, if prayerfully, in understanding what it means. And under which there usually is a denominational magisterium, which again, is effectively all that Rome has herself. However, even without a central magisterium, they overall subscribe and manifestly contend for a limited set of core beliefs, outside of which one is rendered a heretic, yet outside of which allowable and disallowable disagreements are substantial and even result in many formal divisions (although evangelicals manifest a remarkable degree of spiritual unity in manifold ways which transcends denominations.)
Finally, the quality if not quantity, of the unity based upon implicit assent to an assuredly infallible magisterium can hardly be said to be superior to the unity attained by the Berean hearts and method, even if relatively rare.
Therefore as said, division is only about degrees, with any superiority of Rome's model being that of organizational unity, which any single denomination can compete with, while exhibiting essential spiritual unity across the lines and evidencing more fruits of regeneration, as they preached not themselves but Christ Jesus the Lord.
God’s grace on the USA is about true freedom
True Freedom is only found when we are slaves to Christ.
We now have the freedom in the Spirit to resist sin and its condemnation.
Freedom is found only in a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ by His grace not our works.
This is a protestant truth and not catholic obviously.
Vatican, LDS, Mormons, and Islam are all cults.
Most protestant denominations today, like my LCMS, are also cults.
The old wineskin of religious denominations has been replaced with the new wineskin of personal intimate individual relationship.
These truths are why God established the USA.
They are is also why the USA must be gone for the NWO to take place
It is also why the rapture is important because the mystery of the age of grace in the true church established through the land of Grace the USA, is the only thing stopping the NWO.
IMHO Our Lord Jesus Christ will protect His bride.
Tidal waves, WW3, disclosure, etc happen after the rapture.
It is going to be so intense that no planning to survive it will be possible especially in this hemisphere.
The text is in isolation from its context which is about the church as the body, and does not stand alone by which not discerning the body is made to refer to the nature of what is being eaten.
Even your own official NAB notes, while not denying transubstantiation, recognizes that not discerning the body is really about the manner or spirt in which this communion is to sppsd take place,
“If the Corinthians eat and drink unworthily, i.e., without having grasped and internalized the meaning of his death for them, they will have to answer for the body and blood, i.e., will be guilty of a sin against the Lord himself (cf. 1 Cor 8:12).
* [11:28] Examine himself: the Greek word is similar to that for “approved” in 1 Cor 11:19, which means “having been tested and found true.” The self-testing required for proper eating involves discerning the body (1 Cor 11:29), which, from the context, must mean understanding the sense of Jesus’ death (1 Cor 11:26), perceiving the imperative to unity that follows from the fact that Jesus gives himself to all and requires us to repeat his sacrifice in the same spirit (1 Cor 11:18–25).” (http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/11)
Even if one believes in transubstantiation, the focus here is to be properly placed on the above, treating other members with the care they give to the host, while again, the context shows that “not discerning the Lord’s body” has nothing to do with not recognizing the composition of the elements, but refers to their failure to recognize other members for whom Christ died as being members, contrary to being in communion/fellowship with the body and blood of Christ which was given for the very ones they were neglecting while supposedly commemorating it!
I gladly allow the reader to examine my exegesis and judge what is warranted. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Bible/1Cor._11.html#11
Good post once again Daniel...information valuable as always. Thanks for taking the time and effort you do to set the record straight as you do. Always good reads and we learn more and more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.