Posted on 06/09/2005 12:03:02 PM PDT by Rytwyng
Radio evangelist Chuck Baldwin, WorldNetDaily, and Whistleblower magazine have recently revisited findings by Christian opinion researcher George Barna that only 9% of born-again Christians have a Biblical perspective on life. “The problem with America’s Christianity today is that, for the most part, it doesn’t exist!” Baldwin said, in a June 1 broadcast.
We should revisit these figures too. They first appeared in a Barna Update December 1, 2003: “A Biblical Worldview Has a Radical Effect on a Person’s Life.”[1] Barna defined a Biblical worldview as belief in eight propositions:
Absolute moral truths exist. The Bible defines moral truth. Jesus Christ lived a sinless life. God is the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe, and He rules it today. Salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned. Satan is real. Christians have a responsibility to share their faith in Christ with others. The Bible is accurate in all its teachings. What Does It Mean? “People’s views on morally acceptable behavior are deeply impacted by their worldview,” Barna wrote.
In general, he found, people who do not have a Biblical worldview are much more likely than those who do have a Biblical worldview to condone or engage in immoral behavior: cohabitation, drunkenness, homosexual activity, adultery, profanity, voluntary exposure to pornography, abortion, and gambling. For example, those who held a non-Biblical worldview were 31 times more likely to accept cohabitation than the Biblically faithful.
Nondenominational Protestant churches yielded the highest percentage of persons with a Biblical worldview (13%), with Pentecostal churches next (10%), and Baptists third (8%). Mainline Protestant churches (2%) and Catholics (1%) brought up the rear.
“The results are shocking!” Baldwin said.
Given the prevalence of the non-Biblical worldview — in a country in which 80% of the people call themselves Christians — is it surprising that our entertainment industry cranks out smut? That our public schools teach moral relativism and hold “workshops” to teach children how to perform aberrant sex acts? That our politicians, judges, and business leaders aren’t much better?
Shocking, maybe. Distressing, to be sure. Thou Shalt Not Panic Let’s not panic. As bad as these statistics are, we who do have a Biblical worldview know that Christ sits enthroned at the right hand of the Father. All power in heaven and earth is given to Him (Matt. 28:18). His enemies shall be made His footstool (Ps. 110:1; Acts 2:34–35). Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess Him Lord (Phil. 2:10–11). That is the end to which God has directed all of history. That is the message of the whole Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.
God’s Word is about truth, not self-esteem. Rather than be demoralized by findings like Barna’s, we should take them as indicators of where we are as a nation and where we need to go.
Acquiring a Biblical Worldview If America wanted to be a Godless nation, there would not have been such a decisive “values vote” in the 2004 election. Support for abortion would not be slipping in poll after poll. Eleven out of 11 states would not have amended their constitutions to block “gay marriage.” Mainline denominations would not be losing droves of members to Biblically faithful churches.
These are indications that more Americans would like to adopt a Biblical worldview. Speaking as someone who for much of his adult life did not have a Biblical outlook, my biggest problem was that I didn’t know I had a problem.
How do you acquire a Biblical worldview?
Read the Bible every day, making it an indispensable part of your daily routine — like getting dressed. It’s good to read about the Bible, to take a Bible study course, and to listen to Bible teachers, but there’s no substitute for the Bible itself. God will speak to you through His Scriptures — if you listen. Get into the habit of measuring all things by how they stack up against the Scriptures. To be able to do that, you have to acquire the familiarity with the Bible that comes with daily reading. Don’t ask, “What would Jesus do?” You don’t know because you’re not Jesus. Ask instead, “What does the Bible say?” This is the standard used by Jesus Himself and by His apostles (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 4:30). Strengthen your prayer life. Prayer is how you connect with God, person to Person. “There is none righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10; Ps. 53:3); this means you, and everyone. We need God’s grace in our lives. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). No one else can pick us up when we stumble. No one else can help us to do better. There’s Hope Barna has reported one sign that more Americans are already trying to acquire a Biblical worldview. In an April 11, 2005 Barna Update, he found that 45% of adults in America read the Bible during a typical week — “a significant rise from the 31% measured in 1995,” he reported.[2]
A level of 45% still means there’s 55% left to go, and “during a typical week” can be improved to “every day.” Nevertheless, it’s progress — the kind of progress that, in time, ought to mean changes in the more distressing figures.
If I did, then you guys'd complain that I was my own little god for interpreting or explaining!
Other than 'Saints', are All believeing Christians waiting in Purgatory for the Lord's return? (Other than that theif guy)
Did I say this???
'tis ok: an easily made mistake.
(I had a GOB of them.. just now catching up from a day away...)
Not exactly "blame"... it's just, that the Evangelicals are out there in the world fishing for lost souls (like me) and the Catholics are invisible. NOW they want me to come back to the RC church, after the Evangelicals did the hard work of saving me, healing me, and teaching me Biblical living.
To be fair, I am honestly considering their arguments -- which are stronger that I had previously realized, actually -- but at some point theologizing has to give way to "by their fruits shall ye know them".
I don't hate the Catholic Church, I hate pederasty. And I mentioned in another post, one of my Evangelical churches caught a youth pastor in pederasty and reported him -- alas, he made it out of the country before he could be arrested. Sin happens in all denominations.
But we called the cops; the RC church in the USA did extensive coverups of pederast priests. That's NOT official Catholic doctrine, and I don't blame Catholicism in general for it, but it DID happen and it's going to cost all of you a lot of money.
"Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Nothing to do with the subject at hand! Stick to the context, which is about the writings of the OT, not the Law and what will remain.
"The Greek septuagent had no jots or tittles"
HUH??? What does that mean?
"The vowels that were added to the Masoretic were just as divinely inspired as the consonants"
Then why do some of them disagree with the Dead Sea Scrolls, written hundreds of years before? THIS is the OT that Christ used, not the one written 800 years later! What is funny is that you are defending a tradition 800 years old which has proven to have made mistakes when compared to the original writings (Dead Sea Scrolls).
"It was good enough for Jesus so it is good enough for me."
You are sadly mistaken, because the NT uses the Septuagint version over 80% of the time when the OT is quoted. I am sorry to break this news to you. But the Apostles used the Septuagint, not the "Masoretic" text, which didn't exist until 600-800 AD...As you will recall, the vast majority of Christianity - very quickly - was made up of Gentiles, those who weren't able to piece together the "vowel-less" Hebrew text. The Septuagint, not the Hebrew OT, was used by Christianity. Why aren't you using it? Why are you defending this "tradition" that has been proven insufficient?
Regards
We know that Jesus was in the temple (in Jerusalem) and read from the SCROLL.
One would probably assume with little doubt that it was in HEBREW, being Jerusalem, after all.
It's the displaced Jews that have lost the ability to read HERBEW and would be using the language of Alexander, who imposed his rule over the Mediternian (SP?) area and gave his language to be most universal.
It makes you wonder if the Hebrew OT would have been translated into LATIN (similar to the Sept.) if Jersualem had not so upset Rome that it got wiped out!
It is practically certain that Jesus read Hebrew. I think Jesus Himself used Aramaic, not Hebrew, as His dominant language. Did He speak Greek? I would say He probably could, as many Jews were bilingual.
From what I read, Greek was a commonly spoken language in Israel during the time of Jesus. Most scholars now have moved away from the idea that the Septuagint was ONLY for those Jews of the diaspora. The Septuagint was also used by Jews in Palestine. This makes sense, considering the difficulty in READING a language that required special training (no vowels). Archeology has also found many artifacts that point to a common use of Greek by the Jews. I imagine only those such as the Pharisees, not the common people, would READ the Hebrew Scriptures.
"It makes you wonder if the Hebrew OT would have been translated into LATIN (similar to the Sept.) if Jersualem had not so upset Rome that it got wiped out!"
Greek was still the language that united people. It was considered a more cultured language, even in Rome. What is interesting is why Greek fell out of use later. Perhaps the splitting of the Roman Empire into an East and West half?
Regards
"Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?..."
Then I suppose you find Jesus' Transfiguration experience a scandalous affair?
Regards
"Catholics are invisible"
With all due respect, I find this to be false. The Catholic Church is the LARGEST charity organization in the world. You probably don't see Catholic missions very much unless you happen to live in a third world country. They are all over the place in Africa, South America, Asia, etc. I can't answer to your experience, but they are also fairly active in the US in particular areas, such as anti-abortion and Hispanic rights activities. I suppose it depends where you live and what particular ministry you are talking about.
Regards
"But we called the cops; the RC church in the USA did extensive coverups of pederast priests"
In hindsight, it probably would have been better if the bishops would have come out and did something. However, we are being anachronistic by saying such things.
I had heard something interesting that applies to this a few months ago. I think practically every family, for example, has their "uncle Bob", the strange one who you knew did some very unusual things - whether it was molesting one of your cousins, or maybe a closet homosexual, or perhaps the family knew he was breaking the law stealing or whatever. How did families handle such affairs in the 1980's or earlier? Did they run around and call the cops on "uncle Bob"? Hardly. They tried to deal with it without bringing attention to the family. Or they pretended that uncle Bob would eventually stop doing what everyone knew he was doing. That was the way things were done then. What was the purpose, then, of bringing out this dirty laundry?
We have to remember this mindset was active (probably still is) in most people.
Today, most people think that airing dirty laundry is the right thing to do (as long as it isn't their own laundry!). In this sue-happy society, it seems more important to extract a pound of flesh from someone than to try to help the person with the problem. So far, what has been done to try to help those with the problem? True, these people should be prosecuted, but that seems to be the only concern - to sue and get money for the defendant - who often times was accusing someone from 20 plus years ago and was dead!
Another factor to consider was that psychologists of the 1980's advice to the Church, in retrospect, was partially responsible for the continued coverup. These "professionals" advice was that priests with problems should undergo a few months of counseling and that would do the trick. Only now are we learning that many of these people will NEVER be fully cured of their addiction - sort of like an alcoholic. If psycologists were telling bishops that priests could be "cured", more or less, of their addiction, can you understand why they would be reluctant to go public when they thought they could fix it in a few months?
What happened was terrible. The Bishops have to take the blame in some regards. However, we should try to place ourselves in their shoes before we judge them. The advice they were given by professional psychologists was flat out wrong. It was not common at the time to bring out the dirty laundry when they thought they could fix matters internally. We should not fault those who made the effort to fix things with what they knew and the accepted norms of the time. We should look more at those who merely moved guilty priests around to other parishes. Those are the ones, I think, that are noteworthy and deserving of blame. What is important now is that the Church has taken the necessary steps to protect both the victim, and to help the person with the problem (hopefully, by identifying such people BEFORE they enter the priesthood).
Regards
"Catholic Charities" is funded with US tax dollars.
B'Shem Y'shua
We know Y'shua spoke Hebrew as he spoke with the scholars in the Temple when he was child. His first public act as an adult was to read the scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue in his home town of Nazareth.
We also know that Y'shua spoke Greek as his quotations were always from the Septuagint version of the Tanach. The official language of the Roman Empire was Koine Greek not Latin.
Whether Y'shua spoke Aramaic is questionable as it's only requirement is to support the "rock"/ "peter" myth.
B'Shem Y'shua
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.