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?
Was it not the Tanach ? You have been mis-lead by a man-made religion. Seek YHvH in His WORD. When Yah'shua spoke those words, what constituted the WORD?
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Jhn 21:17 He said to him the third time, Mark 16:7 "But go, tell His disciples and Peter, Luke 24:34 saying, "The Lord has really risen and has appeared to Simon." Galatians 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, Seek YHvH in His WORD.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Luk 22:32 but I have prayed for you,
None of these scriptures are germane nor relevant.
that your faith may not fail;
and you, when once you have turned again,
strengthen your brothers."
"Simon, son of John, do you love Me?"
Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time,
"Do you love Me?" And he said to Him,
"Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You."
Jesus said to him, "Tend My sheep.
'He is going ahead of you to Galilee;
there you will see Him, just as He told you.'"
I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
Seek the Ru'ach HaKodesh to illuminate
His WORD for your understanding.
Harley, you are great at finding the perfect Scripture for the discussion.
You know your Bible.
When Yah’shua spoke those words, what constituted the WORD?
There is no relevance to your question, as it completely ignores the content of the passage provided.
“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. Iwill give your 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.”
Are you asserting Christ is referring to himself in this sentence as well?
What would be the point or the meaning.
You are aware these words have meaning which are clearly NOT “metaphors”?!?!
From the KJV: 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.
What happened to all of you literalism?
Rav Shaul was saying don't be a public drunk at Pesach !
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
John 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
John 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”
The Tanach
There is no relevance to your question, as it completely ignores the content of the passage provided.
Have a wonderful journey on the wide road of life. Clearly the Roman "church" REJECTS the WORD
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
and replaces it with man-made religion.
Clearly you are incapable of dealing with Christ’s quotes directly from the KJV.
Christ is the Word and in your rebuttal you have rejected his word.
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.”
NONE of your citations conflict with this one:
From the KJV: 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.
What happened to all of your literalism?
|
Nah...Protestant Bibles contain more than 5% error, compared to the Catholic Bible they watered down. When you add to that, the notion that the Holy Spirit reveals different interpretations, to each of us individually, the compounded error rate is astounding. Your remarks are broad, yet the claim implicit behind them is a fundamental issue , and i think few questions are in order. |
||
|
1 Which predominate Protestant Bibles versus which officially approved RC English Bible would do you compare them to? |
Douay Confraternity, 1961 vs. KJV 1989 |
First, the NKJV seems to be what you are referring to, which can hardly be said to have been based on the DRB and thus watering it down, and instead what the NKJV© can be said to have watering down was the KJV, and which the DRB is very similar too as a word for word type translation, while the DRB is criticized by Roman Catholic apologists (RCAs) as well. (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4300&CFID=45541857&CFTOKEN=30609021) But the DRB is not the current official Bible for America, and while you attack modern Protestant versions (not without warrant) you can hardly say that the NAB is not a Bible that has been watered down compared to the Catholic Bible which is what replaced the DRB, and as compare to the KJV. |
|
2 Does being the steward of Divine revelation mean that you are the assuredly infallible interpreters of it? |
|
That itself is an interpretation, which some church “Father's” did not concur with as regards Peter being the Rock, and which presumes that this means a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM), versus other manifestations of binding and loosing. And that this AIM of Rome is necessary to establish and preserve truth, but which is not what Scripture teaches. Writings were established as being Divinely inspired Scripture and authoritative and truth was preserved long before Rome would make her claims, and without such an AIM, as God can and did raise up men from without the formal magisterium when it goes astray to correct it, whose authority does not come from formal decent of office. Thus Christianity began in dissent from those who sat in power but presumed perpetual authority, and likewise after this manner has the church been preserved despite like errors of those who effectively presumed that they were the infallible interpreters of it, but sometimes teach for doctrines mere traditions of men. |
|
3. Does your implied protection against different interpretations include approve all the notes in your Bibles? |
Yes, the notes are explanations which site other Biblical passages as the authority for that explanation. |
Many notes can be explanations which class many passages as being similar. But using ones that site other passage are we to understand that the story of Balaam and the donkey, (Num. 22:1-21) is to be understood as a fable based upon Num. 22:36-38? |
|
4 Is true that within the parameters of Catholic teaching the RC have great liberty to interpret the Bible? |
No. |
Who are we to believe best interprets Rome, you or established Roman Catholic apologists? “The liberty of the Scripture interpreter remains extensive. Taking due consideration of the factors that influence proper exegesis, the Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, by the judgment of the magisterium, by the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith. That is a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty” Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bt.asp) |
|
5 How do you know that Roman Catholic sources are not teaching contrary to official doctrine? |
I validate them! The doctrine is written in such documents as the Catechism and “Fundamentals and Catholic Dogma”. Also, Papal Encyclicals. And, yes, I cross check. It is also the purpose and function of the Imprimatur & Nihil Obstat, to assert that others, more qualified than I have reviewed the material, to protect against error. |
So the truth of what Rome teaches is according to your interpretation, and which may differ from the interpretation of other Roman Catholics. RCs on FR have shown us that, from what ecclesiam nulla salus means to the viability of Rome's Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (which does go back to the Index of Prohibited Books). As you seem to see the latter as assuring such stamped material “is considered to be free from doctrinal or moral error,” then you must agree with all that is, such as all the study helps in your official Bible for America. True? |
|
6 What is the basis for your assurance that Rome has spoken infallibly? |
So your basis for assurance is Scripture as the supreme authority, as you interpret it? If so then you if not being the little pope that RCs erroneously charge Protestants with being, at least you are affirming one can have assurance of doctrine by Scripture. Or is the basis for your assurance that Rome has spoken infallibly based upon the premise that she is infallible when speaking in accordance with her criteria for such, which gives the interpretation of Mt. 16:18-19 authority? Even though the reasoning and arguments which may lead up to an infallible decree are not themselves necessarily infallible. |
|
|
7 Can RCs have any disagreement on teachings that are not infallibly defined? |
Evolution for instance. As long as we believe that it all started with God’s Creation |
But whether Gn. 1+2 is a literal story finds disagreement in approved teaching, while the question i asked presupposes you know for sure all that has been infallibly defined by the Solemn, Sacred, ExtraOrdinary magisterium. As you cannot (if you have an infallible canon of all infallible statements, let us know) then that important issue tops the list as to things in which RCs can have disagreements on (and thus what things require de fide credenda or de fide tenenda faith, with their corresponding differences in penalties for dissent). And flowing from that lack of an infallible list of all infallible teachings is interpretive disagreement as to which teachings are fallible from the Ordinary Magisterium, and to what degree one may dissent from such. To which can be added multitudes of things from the precise or full meaning of infallible and fallible statements (such as the status of Prots as per Lumen Gentium), and to what parts of the catechism is infallible teaching (unless that itself cannot err), to what the infallibility of Scripture extends to, to what Tradition precisely is, to what the Fathers taught and who they all were, to whether the anathemas of Trent still stand and what they entail, to whether the church was right in sanctioning torture, to Geocentricity versus Heliocentricity, etc., all of which require interpretation and see disagreement. |
|
8 Do these constitute the majority or the minority of what RCs believe and practice? |
How can differences constitute a majority? |
I was referring to whether teachings that are infallibly defined (and thus indisputable) versus those that are not are the majority. |
|
9 Are the Scriptures the supreme assuredly infallible authority for Catholics? |
Yes |
Thus you are a Protestant and differ with others, who argue that the church is supreme, as since the Roman Catholic church claims to authoritatively define the extent of Scripture and what it is and what it means, then it must be the supreme authority on Truth. And which is consistent with her claims. |
|
10 What is the basis for the claim to be the One True Church in Catholicism, Roman or Orthodox? |
Matt 16:18-19 |
If it is only Scripture then Tradition is excluded, which other Roman Catholics disagree with, while again, if Scripture is the basis for the claims of Rome to uniquely be the OTC then it is competing with Protestants who argue on the same basis in contending against her claim to be uniquely infallible, and which claim is what makes her interpretation of Tradition, Scripture and history authoritative, and which premise is the real basis for her claim. Both Rome and the EOs have the same basis for their claim to be the OTC, which is not just Scripture but Tradition, both being ultimately based on what they say it means, yet they are not in full communion but divide on a critical issue, and among others as a result. If they accepted papal infallibility, which is foundational for Rome's unique claims, then then they could agree on the other things. |
|
11 Are there divisions within Catholicism on doctrinal issues? |
No. Where there has been disagreement, it has been resolved. |
This then will be welcome news to all such. However, there is the substantial issue of papal jurisdiction and infallibility, among others. Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church, and when they were enforced and applied they brought about evil practices at the expense of the prevailing Truths of the Church. If Almighty God in His merciful loving-kindness changes the dreadful situation of the sinner, it is unknown to the Church of Christ. The Church lived for fifteen hundred years without such a theory. — http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076 "The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." Orthodox apologist Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135. It can even get a little physical: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2079328/Priests-brawl-Bethlehems-Church-Nativity-clergy-fight-Christmas-cleaning.html?printingPage=true |
|
12 Do divisions mean the basis for achieving spiritual unity is invalid? |
If they existed in the teachings from Rome, your example of the circular firning squad would ensure someone being hit. But your question is absured on its face. |
You are the one being hit, as Roman Catholicism has divisions based upon interpretations of what Rome teaches, and there are also formal divisions within Catholicism on doctrinal issues based upon the same basis for Rome's claims to be the one true Church©. Thus while Roman Catholics want to attack SS type Protestants for relying upon interpretation and having divisions, Roman Catholics do both as well, even if not as pronounced and though both overall consent to a few core teachings. |
|
13 What jurisdiction does the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome effectively exercise? |
Infallibility applies only to ex-cathedra pronouncements on matters of faith and morals. |
You misunderstood the question, which is not what realm infallibility pertains to, but its the jurisdiction of the magisterium; whether it can effectively rule today over those without or only its own flock. |
|
14 Do you think Sola Scriptura means only the Scriptures can be used in understanding what doctrinal truth is in the light of Scripture? |
I thinkg Sola Scriptura is a crutch used to pretend that Tradition plays no role in faith and truth. It pretends that there was no Truth until a Canon was established some 400 years after Christ and that it somehow became more true after Luther edited it. |
What you think, as with what you think infallible teachings all consists of, and more, is much a result of your interpretation, which in this case is based on being uniformed or misinformed. See 1684 here. Based on what it is said to mean (and is not said), holding to SS does not mean rejecting any and all “tradition,” or the teaching office, etc., or that their was no Truth until the canon was established, but that Scripture is the assured Word of God and as progressively given was (and is) the supreme transcendent material authority for Truth ( faith and morals), and thus it is the standard for testing truth claims and establishing additional revelation which was to be added to Scripture, as evidenced therein, while its full sufficiency awaited the canon being closed and established as such, which was due its qualities and attestation, the New being after the manner by which Hebrew Scriptures had been established before their was a church in Rome. Nor do Protestants hold to the same canon of wholly God-inspired Scripture as Luther, or that the 66 book canon is different from that of the 1st century. Luther, like early Christ and notable Roman Catholic scholars right into Trent, had doubts about the complete inspiration of some books, including the apocrypha, and the first infallible, indisputable canon from Rome was not provided until the year Luther died. |
|
15 Do most Protestant denominations who hold to Scripture as being the wholly inspired literal Word of God as supreme (“evangelicals”) manifest a common consent to core teachings, while allowing varying degrees of dissent on other issues? |
They only hold it is literal until they can’t explain clear Biblical text which supports the Catholic position they oppose. common consent.. This usually means, as long as you preach John 3:16 and bash Catholics, we don’t much care what you believe. |
This reply misinterprets “literal” in this context. Obviously not all of Scripture is held as being literal (as in water literally being the blood of David's men or Jesus literally being a door, etc.), but literal in this context denotes “being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something,” (WordWeb #1) The second answer is manifestly not true, as such overall hold to certain core teachings, and thus contend against cults who deny them, as well as against doctrines of men in Rome, as both flow from the same cultic premise of sola ecclesia. But like Catholics, such have varying degrees of dissent on many things. In addition, while formal divisions certainly abound, yet in practical terms research testifies to more commitment to moral and doctrinal issues by evangelicals than RCs, |
|
16 Do the above typically have their own magisterium over their own flock? |
“..common consent to core teachings..” You undermine your own position |
Rather, the fact is that the magisterium of Rome can effectively only rule her own flock, regardless of her claim to universal jurisdiction and the power to punish her own by physical means, that is, coercive jurisdiction, while the unity she claims is not necessarily superior to that of any other body under their own magisterium. In addition, her model for such, that of sola ecclesia — or sola Roma, with the Roman church alone being effectively the a supreme authority — is the same type as cults example and which can show the greatest universal unity among themselves. |
|
17 Does evidence on evangelicals overall testify to a greater conservatism and unity in certain core doctrinal and moral truths and commitment than among Roman Catholics overall? |
No! Who has been more steadfast in the Pro-life movement than the Roman Catholic Church. |
Not so (search abortion). We are not taking about official high sounding teachings, but what Rome effectually teaches, which is overall more liberal views on most issues than her evangelical counterparts. |
|
18 How many of the above answers are a matter requiring interpretation, and what makes you correct over other Catholics who disagree with your answers here? |
None. Matt 16:18-19; Lk 22:32;J n 21:17; Mk 16:7; Lk 24:34; Acts 1:13-26, 2:14, 2:41, 3:6-7, 5:1-11, 8:21, 10:44-46, 15:7, 15:19; Gal 2:11-14 The doctrine is written in such documents as the Catechism and “Fundamentals and Catholic Dogma”. Also, Papal Encyclicals. And, yes, I cross check. |
Not so, as how many infallible teachings there are (which parts of Encyclicals, etc. are) can and does see different interpretation, as well as (to some degree) what they mean, and whether any or how many verses of Scripture have been infallibly defined, and thus what the very verses themselves teach, without contradicting Rome, and to what official doctrine includes, such as whether all the approved notes in your Bible teach official doctrine, or all papal bulls, etc., as well as whether Scripture is the primary basis for the claims of Rome, versus her authority which makes such authoritative, and especially that there are no divisions within Catholicism on doctrinal issues. In addition Catholic interpretations of what SS basically means often differ, though they are usually unified in error (joined by some Protestants), while your answers also are a result of your interpretation of my questions.
|
|
19 Did you make a fallible or infallible interpretation when you first trusted the RC church to be perpetually, assuredly infallible (when speaking according to defined criteria)? |
I don’t claim infallibility for myself, rather the sources cited above. |
So everything in an papal encyclical is infallible? Or the Catechism? Or is this a matter of some interpretation? In any case your answer is that you made a fallible decision based upon your interpretation of information, leading you to trust in an assuredly infallible magisterium, or that it is and ever will be, and which then requires fallible human reasoning to discern which statements are and are not (which you should know if you are going to give them your assent of faith), and to some degree what they all mean. And in which in both there must be and are allowed some interpretive differences among scholars as well as laity, while it is held by some apologists that most of your faith and morals comes from the Ordinary Magisterium which is rarely singled out as teaching infallible dogma, and which sees variation of interpretation and may allow some degree of dissent. And while both the RCs and EOs claim the same basis for their claims to be the OTC, yet they divide, with each one claiming to the other departed from them. And although Catholics might not evidence a great degree of interest in doctrine, yet wide and substantial disagreement abounds in Roman Catholicism on moral and doctrinal matters, in which dissent is usually effectively unpunished, and can even be said to be fostered by honoring the Ted Kennedy-type Catholics (or worse) in life and in death. And while Rome is effectively as one denomination among others in jurisdiction, and suffers division from other Catholics and the above variations within, those who hold to SS after its historical Scriptural “tradition” are attacked due to SS being faulted because of their own divisions, though without a centralized magisterium they overall assent to and contend for core truths, and mark as heretics those who deny them. And although they see a substantial degree of different interpretations in other matters, so does Roman Catholicism, with differences being a matter of degrees. |
|
20 Do both Protestants and Catholics hold to a perpetual, assuredly infallible supreme authority on earth, but cannot claim assured infallibility in understanding them? |
No, or there would be only one Protestant religion, which makes the subsequent set of negative variables an illogical question. |
Your “no” denies that Protestants and Catholics (which includes those other than the Latin ones) both hold to a perpetual, assuredly infallible supreme authority, which they do (Scripture and the AIM of Rome), but both see divisions within and formally. Your no also cannot mean that Protestants and Catholics (or at least the latter) can claim assured infallibility in understanding their respective supreme authorities, as this denies the teaching of both. Instead, neither claims assured infallibility in understanding their respective supreme authorities, but assurance of truth is provided by the Scriptures. (1Jn. 5:13) |
|
21 In Scripture, did formal decent of office assure perpetual authority? What was the real basis for authority for Christ and the apostles? |
Christ is the Second Person of the Triune God and IS the Authority. Do you suppose Christ’s authority presented in 16:18-19, was meant to end with the life of Peter or the other Apostles? |
That Christ is The Authority is a given, an which is based on unique personal ontological oneness and His administration is based on His overcoming, (Acts 2:36; Rv. 3:12). But if unique ontological decent is the basis for perpetual authority then we must look for Levites, and under this premise then the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders were right about John the Baptist. And Christ, and the church. Your second reply is based upon the interpretation that Peter was the Rock upon which the church is built, but in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424, emp. mine) which understanding some of the ancients concur with. And while men can argue about the significance of the difference between the Greek (the language the Holy Spirit chose to express the New Testament revelation in) words “Petros” (Peter, or stone in Jn. 1:42) and “petra” (rock) in Mt. 16:18, and what the LORD might have said in Aramaic, i find that the phrase “this stone” (“touton lithosis”), used to identify the cornerstone which is the foundation of the church, (Mt. 21:42) is only used of Christ as regarding a person. (Mt. 21:44) In addition, only one apostle was replaced in Scripture, which was Judas (by lots and not by election as per Rome), and this was in order to maintain the original number of the foundational twelve apostles, and required one to have been personally discipled by their Lord. (Acts 1:16-26; cf. Rev. 21:14; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:17). However, no successor is mentioned for James the brother of John after his martyrdom, (Acts 12:1,2; cf. Mt. 4:21,22) nor is any preparation evident for replacing any others, but only for choosing bishops/elders. Formal decent as in Rome's apostolic succession, which includes gaps of up to 3 years and popes who who did not even qualify to be called Christian, does not assure spiritual authenticity or perpetuation, even for those who at in Moses' seat. Apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church, (Eph. 2:20) and were sovereignly called and ordained by God, their election not being based upon genealogical lineage, and their worthiness of that title was evident by a holiness and teaching which conformed to that which was written, along with powerful Scriptural supernatural attestation. (2Cor. 4:2; 6:1-10; 12:12) Of which Rome has most manifestly failed of. |
|
22 In Scripture by what primary means did assurance of Truth and that men of God were such instrumentally come by? |
Other than my citations in response to #18 and #21 above, I assume you refer to “By their fruits you shall know them”. |
And more, while whether fruit is good or bad requires a Divine transcendent objective material standard which Scripture is established to be. What the claims of Christ were not based upon was the formal decent by which men sat in the seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2) which did not assure perpetuity on that basis, but He established His claims upon Scripture and the manner of attestation it reveals Truth being given, especially to new revelation. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 17:2,11; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12) While writings as well as men of God are supposed to be confirmed as such by other manifest men of God, yet they are such even if denied this formal recognition, as their authenticity is made evident by conformity to Scripture as described. Thus the apostles persuaded men by the “manifestation o the Truth. (2Cor. 4:2) This is how authenticity is established in Scripture, and while having a self-proclaimed infallible magisterium (which infallibly declares she is and will be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula) has its appeal in contrast to what the other method requires to overcome the competition, it is by the latter means that the Christian church began and overcomes as being the church of the living (versus institutionalized) God. For as said, Scripture is evidenced to have been the supreme standard for obedience and testing truth claims, and which itself was essentially established as being of God due to its unique Heavenly qualities and attestation. |
Supplemental
The first Council called by a Pope was the Lateran Council I in 1123. To resolve the Great Schism, the Council of Constance, 1414-1418, was called by the Emperor Sigismund; but once a single line of Popes was secure in Rome again, they denied that the Emperor had any authority to call Councils. The last Emperor in any position, and with any need, to call a Council, Charles V, deferred to the Pope -- who then was the one to call the Council of Trent, 1545-1563. At the time of Justinian, the Pope was regarded as primus inter pares, first among equals of the Patriarchs, but that was all. The Patriarch of Constantinople was made second in rank, although this was a bit resented by the other, older Patriarchates.
The diagram at right gives some impression of how the One Catholic Church has broken up -- setting aside the Protestant fragmention of the See of Rome in the West, which of course would require a complex diagram in its own right. The convention of calling the Latin Church "Catholic" and the Eastern Churches "Orthodox" obscures the circumstance that katholikê, "universal," signifies the Church of the Roman Empire, whose Emperor and Patriarch in Constantinople the Bishop of Rome excommunicated in 1054 AD. The Greek Church therefore still uses katholikê, while the Churches that fell out over one of the Ecumenical Councils, especially the Nestorians and Monophysites, would be heterodox, not "Orthodox," to both the Latin and Greek branches of the Catholica Ecclesia. While the Coptic and Syrian Churches broke away over the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon, there remained a continuous line of Greek Patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, even as the Patriarch of Constantinople proselytized Bulgaria, Russia, and other states in the Balkans. Beginning with the Crusades, the Church of Rome sought converts over the same territory; and so we see Latin/Catholic churches and counter-churches swarming around the older, Orthodox ones. The counter-churches double up with the existing Orthodox churches, but sometimes a Catholic church exists, e.g. in the Ukraine or Ruthenia, where a separate Orthodox one doesn't. The Popes claim doctrinal authority, while the doctrine of Constantinople is based on the Church Councils.
Source: http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#popes
The diagram at right gives some impression of how the One Catholic Church has broken up -- setting aside the Protestant fragmention of the See of Rome in the West, which of course would require a complex diagram in its own right. The convention of calling the Latin Church "Catholic" and the Eastern Churches "Orthodox" obscures the circumstance that katholikê, "universal," signifies the Church of the Roman Empire, whose Emperor and Patriarch in Constantinople the Bishop of Rome excommunicated in 1054 AD. The Greek Church therefore still uses katholikê, while the Churches that fell out over one of the Ecumenical Councils, especially the Nestorians and Monophysites, would be heterodox, not "Orthodox," to both the Latin and Greek branches of the Catholica Ecclesia. While the Coptic and Syrian Churches broke away over the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon, there remained a continuous line of Greek Patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, even as the Patriarch of Constantinople proselytized Bulgaria, Russia, and other states in the Balkans. Beginning with the Crusades, the Church of Rome sought converts over the same territory; and so we see Latin/Catholic churches and counter-churches swarming around the older, Orthodox ones. The counter-churches double up with the existing Orthodox churches, but sometimes a Catholic church exists, e.g. in the Ukraine or Ruthenia, where a separate Orthodox one doesn't. The Popes claim doctrinal authority, while the doctrine of Constantinople is based on the Church Councils.
(http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#popes)
A favored argument against Sola Scriptura frequently used by our friends in the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church is "Just look at Protestantism! It's a mess, of 22,000 25,000 30,000 33,000 58 gazillion denominations!"
What are they saying? Mostly that Sola Scriptura as a rule of faith is insufficient to bring about institutional, organisational unity to the church of Jesus Christ. And of course, Christ would obviously want His church to have institutional, organisational unity! Evidently, setting the 
Scripture alone up as the sole infallible final rule of faith for the church doesn't accomplish what it's supposed to. Ergo, Sola Scriptura is false.
I've created this crude and very maladroit drawing to illustrate.
Let's analyse, then, the alternatives of Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy.
Now, we of course like to accuse them of Sola Ecclesia; that is, we contend that their sole infallible final rule of faith is Whatever The Church® Says. But they don't like it when we say that, so let's be conciliatory and lay the contention aside. Their "real" rule of faith is Apostolic Tradition, which includes written and unwritten tradition from the apostles, both in Scripture and in other places such as the lived-out faith of the church, the liturgies, the writings of church fathers down through the years, etc.
Notice that, like the Scripture, this too forms a corpus with limits. The Da Vinci Code is not part of Apostolic Tradition. Neither is the Qur'an, nor is The Audacity of Hope (though, depending on which Roman or EO priest you ask, that last one might be close). We and others have contended many times, rightly, that the limits to the Roman and EO Canons of Scripture are not only poorly defined but actually non-existent. It is also indisputable that one's presupposition of an infallible interpreter (whether she be Rome or EOC) will govern which little-t traditions are actually accepted, promoted if you will, to Big-T Sacred Apostolic Tradition, thus forming the basis for Roman or Orthodox dogma, leaving the little-t traditions to rot by the wayside, relegated to "Well, he was just speaking as a private theologian" or "That was just his opinion" status.
But let's leave all of that aside and grant that there is one big and awe-inspiring God-given Verbum Dei corpus of Scripture and Tradition that is the proper rule of faith for the church of Jesus Christ.
The problem is obvious - Rome, sedevacantists, traditionalist Catholics, Pope Michael-ists, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, and various other churches with incompatible teachings all appeal to this set and limited corpus of Scripture and Tradition. It would appear that the criticism against Sola Scriptura of multiple denominations applies to the Roman and EO rule of faith as well.
The Romanist or Orthodox might object: "But we're not in communion with those schismatics/heterodox/heretics!" Now, what if I were to reply, as a member of a Southern Baptist church, that, have no fear my non-Sola Scripturist friends, my church holds that everyone who's not a member of a Southern Baptist church is a schismatic/heterodox/heretic too? Would that make our Romanist or Orthodox friends feel better?
Or would that make them criticise us even more strongly: "See? You Sola Scripturists can't even hold communion with each other!"? Yep, my money's on that one, too. We're darned if we do and darned if we don't, but somehow if the Romanists or Orthodox don't hold communion with these other churches, that's just fine. Such special pleading is just...special.
So let me break this down as clearly as I can. "The Protestant Church" does not exist. Self-named "Protestant churches" vary so widely in doctrine and authority as to make points of comparison impossible to ascertain. If you want to compare unity and disunity, compare the adherences to the competing rules of faith. Or compare churches, like the Roman Church to the Southern Baptist Convention or the Pope Michael Catholic Church to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. What do we find, if we do this? How different from each other are the churches that hold to Scripture alone as rule of faith, and how different from each other are the churches that hold to "Sacred Apostolic Tradition" as rule of faith? Answer that and you'll know one reason why we consider all this talk about how Tradition and Magisterium make for superior church unity to be just that – talk.
Source: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/12/special-pleading-of-sola-ecclesia-ists.html
You allege that Christ is saying if you are drunk in public you are guilty of the blood of Christ and bring damnation on yourself?
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?
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?
And to not acknowledge dependance upon God or expresses gratitude to Him while teaching Godless evolution (even if implicit) can amount to teaching officially approved atheism, or at least that the government must be.
|
While i do not see holding that the elements of the Lord supper literally become Christ's body and blood is necessarily a salvific issue in and of itself, to resort to attempting to invoke texts such as 1Cor. 11:17-33 to support it is such a wresting of Scripture that it is an argument against it and against sound exegesis. The context in 1Cor. 11:17-33 is not at all what the physical elements that are consumed consist of, but the effectual unity of the members of the body of Christ, and thus what the communal supper commemorating Christ's utterly selfless death is to consist of as to practice, relating to its correspondence to the sacrifice of Christ for His body, the church. This section begins with Paul's words in vs, 17, 18: “Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.” He then (1Cor. 11:19) then affirms that divisions manifest who is approved and who is not, and in the next verse (20) reveals the issue that makes this manifest: “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.” Notice that Paul actually denies that they were validly celebrating the Lord's Supper, and the reasons which he proceeds to give is that in the feast of charity, which was an actual communal meal, some members of the body were being treated something akin to being lepers: “For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.” (v. 21,22) Paul's criticism of them is that they are really not commemorating the Lord's unselfish sacrifice of Himself due to the selfish manner in which they are practicing it, eating the food up while leaving others to go hungry, which was a practical denial that those who were left out were members of the body, which is a sin resulting in judgment. Thus he will tell them, “Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. (vs. 32,33) But first Paul provides the instructions given in instituting the supper, (1Cor. 11:23-25) and thus "as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [manifest] the Lord's death till He come." (v. 26) Christians manifest His death for them by dying to self in serving God and therefore serving others. Paul “died daily,” and wrote, “the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.” (2Cor. 5:14,15) and “use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.” (Gal. 5:13) Thus these selfish Corinthians were not manifesting recognition of Jesus death for them because they were not mindful and caring for the valid welfare of others. And because “as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [manifest] the Lord's death till he come," therefore the next verses state, "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. {28} 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. " (1 Cor. 11:27-29) Examining oneself in this context primarily concerns how you were treating each others, which recalls Jesus words about being reconciled before offering sacrifice. (Mt. 5:23,24) There is nothing at all here about the composition of the physical bread they ate, rather, “not discerning' or judging the "Lord's body" refers to effectively denying what His death represents by their selfishness by failing to recognize the other members as part of the body and treating them according. In further confirmation in the next chapter Paul further elaborates on the interdependence of the body, “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ." "That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another." (1Cor. 12:12,25) How far I have to go. Paul next reveals that this hypocritical miscelebration was the reason that they were being chastened and judged, including death, which capital punishment for lack of care is consistent with O.T. penalty about not caring for the poor. (Ex. 22:22-24) “For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.” (v. 30) Therefore Paul provides the remedy needed to avoid chastening, which was not by recognizing that the bread was really Jesus flesh, but by rightly judging what the sacrifice of Christ which they commemorated represented and acting accordingly; "Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. " (1 Corinthians 11:33,34) " This corresponds to what Paul said in the previous chapter, that "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. " (1 Corinthians 10:17) To be in communion with Jesus broken body and shed blood in His death is to be communally consistent with Him who died for us and purchased us with His blood. "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: {15} And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. " (2 Corinthians 5:14-15) Note also that one who does not provide for the legitimate (not selfish, or as a result of indolence) needs of his own family has denied the faith. (1Tim. 5:8) Thus in context what “not discerning the body” refers to is not that they did not recognize what is supposed to happen in transubstantiation, but that of members of the body of Christ commemorating the unselfish sacrificial death of the Lord in a very selfish hypocritical manner, thus eating and drinking damnation to themselves. Jesus gave Himself for the church, purchasing it with his own blood, (Acts 20:28; 1Cor. 6:20) and the disobedient here let others go hungry while they feasted, a communal meal which was supposed to signify oneness with Christ and each other. Thus they failed to recognize the corporate body of Christ for what it was. The hypocrisy here would be somewhat akin to someone celebrating a wedding anniversary by consorting with a prostitute. Yet today, while we are commanded to, “Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; [and] them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body,” (Heb. 12:3) yet we seldom seem to be and perhaps may try to put them out of mind. Those who are born again by faith (not being by sprinkling as an infant) are to pray for them (see Ps. 70) and here is one organization (not affiliated with me except spiritually) that such can give to as the Lord leads. TOC |
Fantastic point about harvesting. I know what you mean about talking to people and finding no optimism. It varies from non-chalance to people stocking up on food.
Glad to hear you’re well!
Every time you drive by a government school think “Temple of Atheism”!
And...Lucky us! We get to pay for it through taxes! /s
How can that be religiously neutral or constitutional?
Every time you drive by a government school think “Temple of Atheism”!
And...Lucky us! We get to pay for it through taxes! /s
How can that be religiously neutral or constitutional?
But I know what you mean. When traveling to other Churches, I thank God I'm at where I am. Now that you came back, maybe you're being called to be a "pointy stick" too. God bless.
Well put. And I’ll add, the Bible is the Living Word. It speaks to each person uniquely if you open your heart to God. So it doesn’t matter if a word here or there may not be the exact translation.
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.