Only 1 in 11 Christians Has a Biblical Worldview

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.

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.

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.

XS>Did Y'shua quote from the so-called New Testament? B'Shem Y'shua

CI>No, because it wasn't written yet.

XS> So;If you want to follow Y'shua you would quote from the same scriptures as He did. The Tanach

Christ founded a new Church, which transcends Judaism. If you want to be some sort of Messianic Jew, that's fine, but you're not being a real Christian.
242 posted on 06/12/2005 3:00:44 PM MDT by Conservative til I die

Y'shua did not found a new church.

Y'shua provided a Jewish sin offering for all time to all people.

If you trust in Y'shua you are a "called out one" (Ekklesia) ( translated as church).

You are only saved if you are grafted into Abraham.

B'Shem Y'shua

XS>"We also know that Y'shua spoke Greek as his quotations were always from the Septuagint version of the Tanach"

jk>NO, we don't know that! You are presuming that because the Bible was written in Greek (NT), that Jesus spoke the same language, but that argument doesn't follow. His words as written in the Gospels are not necessarily verbatim His quotes in Greek, but the authors writing His words translated into Greek.

XS>"Whether Y'shua spoke Aramaic is questionable as it's only requirement is to support the "rock"/ "peter" myth"

jk>That's ridiculous. Jesus also spoke in Aramaic in other portions of the Gospel, such as "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me". Also, in John's Gospel, the cure of the deaf man - "be opened", also in Aramaic. Your anti-catholic bias is showing through.

jk>Just because the Bible was written in Greek doesn't mean that JESUS SPOKE in Greek!

Regards

243 posted on 06/12/2005 3:57:31 PM MDT by jo kus

If you carefully research the most literal translation it will be apparent to you that
the quotes are from the Septuagint as there are subtle difference between the
Septuagint and the Hebrew of the Tanach

Matthew 27:46. Eli, Eli ... This language is not pure Hebrew nor
Syriac, but a mixture of both, called commonly “Syro-Chaldaic.” This was
probably the language which the Saviour commonly spoke. The words are
taken from Psalm 22:1.

It has been asked, What language is it that our Lord spoke? Eli, Eli, lama
sabachthani. Some say it is Hebrew-others Syriac. I say, as the evangelists.
quote it, it is neither. St. Matthew comes nearest the Hebrew,
Eli, Eli, lamah azabthani, in the words, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani.
And St. Mark comes nearest the Syriac,
Mark 15:34, [S] Alohi, Alohi,l’mono shebachtheni, in the words Eloi,Eloi, lamma sabachthani.
from Clark's commentary

What this proves is Matthew spoke Hebrew and Y'shua spoke Hebrew but

Mark who was Peter's scribe copied what Peter quoted which was Aramaic.

Please provide the citation for the deaf man healed in JOHN.

B'Shem Y'shua

First, I am on vacation, so I don't have access to a lot of "research".

"the quotes are from the Septuagint as there are subtle difference between the
Septuagint and the Hebrew of the Tanach"

I believe you are slightly confused. We were speaking of Jesus and His language. The Septaugint and the "Tanach" were written over 100 years before Jesus of Nazareth was born! We are speaking of the NT, not the OT!

From what I remember, Hebrew was not really a commonly spoken language, perhaps similar to Latin today. Aramaic was the common language spoken, as well as koine Greek.

The reference that I make regarding the deaf man was the word "be opened" Ephathath (spelling?). I don't remember the verse, sorry, I don't have a bible handy.

The point I am making is that we can't really tell if Jesus spoke Greek or not BECAUSE the Bible is written in Greek. That is a faulty logical conclusion. Jesus certainly spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. IF the common language was Aramaic, Jesus certainly spoke it, as that is how everyone in Judea understood Him.

Regards

"Catholics (as far as I can see) aren't doing any of this, {evangelization} at least not around here. Why? Surely the Catholic Church has the resources to do it.

Financially, the Church is not bursting with resources, as you imply. The resources of the Church are more in the "human" aspect. The Church relys heavily on the laity and its preaching of the Gospel. We are called to preach the Gospel by our actions, at work and at home. Perhaps you are taking this very huge responsibility for granted. That is where we can make the biggest difference - at home and at work. Sure, it would be nice to see young Catholic boys, like the Mormons, go off on missions and knocking on doors. But the Church doesn't push in that way. Sure, we should be evangelizing our own "fallen-away" brothers. I believe the second largest denomination is nominal Catholics...

Why are Evangelistic churches more active in the US? I can only speculate. There are certainly some good and bad reasons...

There are more dollars to be had here in the US, thus some Evangelical churches are very active here in the US. Check out the fact that many such communities consist of the same middle to high class socialites. Is there really a melting-pot in some of these churches? How are the poor treated (if there are any more than a token number?)

Perhaps this is part of the reason why we see Evangelicals are so visible hear in the US. I have been to Catholic churches that are VERY "evangelical". It is a matter of the laity and the priests. Every community is a little different. You are correct, US Catholics need to be more vocal. This will take time, as that is not the message that we have heard until recently. People must be called to the fact that Jesus calls all of us to evangelize - not going door to door, but to preach the Gospel by their actions at home and at work. That is what most Catholics who take their faith seriously do.

Thus, I think it is wise to take this into accout before one makes such a generalization that Evangelicals are more open to preaching the Gospel in the streets. Most Catholics don't feel called to do it. We are most often called to evangelize our own environment.

This is often more hidden to you, I'd imagine, but even more important.

Regards

There are more dollars to be had here in the US, thus some Evangelical churches are very active here in the US.

Can't help but concede that point, at least in some cases. One church I belonged to, was racked by an embezzlement scandal. It was in Malibu. The pastor had come from South Africa, where presumably there was less wealth to collect. I thought about suing for the return of 4 years worth of tithes.

Check out the fact that many such communities consist of the same middle to high class socialites. Is there really a melting-pot in some of these churches?

That's not been my observation at all. The various evangelical churches I've belonged to and visited over the years tended to reflect the neighborhood they were in, racially and economically. I've never detected any discrimination except for a few white jokes that went too far for my taste. My very first church - a So. Baptist church in East Los Angeles -- was ~70% Latino, ~25% Anglo, ~5% Asian. My current church is in an "upscale" area but it's the most multiracial instition for miles around; in fact it's the only place I ever see black folks in any substantial number, as they are few and far between in my neighborhood and workplace.

How are the poor treated?

Pretty well, most places, thanks to Matthew 25. The one exception was the church where the embezzelment was going on. Even there, the laity (myself included) quietly met a lot of financial needs of people while the leadership was pocketing tithes and telling people the benevolence fund was empty.

When the embezzlement scandal broke, and the one honest pastor got his career destroyed, he and a founding elder published the story. In the midst of that long, disgusting story, there was a reference to a single mother who was short on rent money one month, who approached the church for help, and was told NO, she couldn't have $700, while certain people on the board were taking outrageous salaries for essentially nothing. I was infuriated because I knew exactly who that single mother was: She came to ME and said, "The church said they couldn't help me!" and I ended up paying her rent myself. Not that I minded helping, but, when I found out later that embezzlement was behind it all, I was ticked, let me tell you.

To quote one of the characters from Trinity, by Leon Uris: "That bunch up there is enough to drive a man back to the Roman Catholic faith!"

Perhaps this is part of the reason why we see Evangelicals are so visible hear in the US.

Actually, there's a lot of evangelical activity in Asia -- a couple of my friends are lay missionaries over there. China is estimated to have ~100 million housechurchers by now. A friend of mine just got back from serving the Bible translation ministry in New Guinea for a couple of years. I could go on and on, but the point is, it's by no means a US phenomenon.

US Catholics need to be more vocal. This will take time, as that is not the message that we have heard until recently.

Wasn't there a famous radio priest back in the 1930s? Father Coughlin or something like that?

People must be called to the fact that Jesus calls all of us to evangelize - not going door to door...

Especially not on Saturday morning!!!! (It's one thing to know how to refute JW and LDS, it's quite another to do it while half-asleep.

....but to preach the Gospel by their actions at home and at work. That is what most Catholics who take their faith seriously do. Thus, I think it is wise to take this into accout before one makes such a generalization...

Well, like I said, I just hadn't encountered such people. One can only generalize from one's own experience.

....to preaching the Gospel in the streets. Most Catholics don't feel called to do it. We are most often called to evangelize our own environment.

True of Evangelicals too. But the few who do, especially in the college environment, make a big impact.

"I thought about suing for the return of 4 years worth of tithes."

Interesting. I heard the Catholic Church has just topped paying 1 billion dollars in the sex scandals. I wonder how many have considered the same.

I said "...Check out the fact that many such communities consist of the same middle to high class socialites. Is there really a melting-pot in some of these churches?"

You responded "...That's not been my observation at all."

I have observed this, as my wife and I went to a few Protestant "non-denominational" churches before I came back to the Catholic Church. And I found that there were so many churches locally that one could pick and choose what to believe and what group of people one wanted to hang out with. One church we went to was filled with rich people because the preacher taught the wealth and health gospel. I am certain that is not the case everywhere, but the temptation is there esp. in Protestantism BECAUSE you choose which set of people and beliefs that you will maintain.

"... embezzlement scandal broke"

Unfortunately, I have seen this here in the local community (not catholic) as well. However, I try not to use this (or the sex scandal) as my reasons for staying with or refuting a particular denomination's belief system. Christ said in several parables that the Church would undergo such trials from within - the weed, the bad fish, the wolf in sheep's clothing... With this in mind, the scandals of various churches isn't as big an issue with me personally, as my belief is wedded to the history and belief that Christ formed an apostolic community that continues substantially within the Catholic Church. When one reads the Acts of the Apostles, one also finds scandals and such. It shouldn't be surprising that man is in need of God, both now and then.

"...{evangelization} it's by no means a US phenomenon."

Of course. Evangelicals are also very active in the Western Hemisphere as well. My point is that it is difficult to see this work unless we are there or know someone who was there. Are you in a position to know many Catholics who were missionaries? Unless you are in contact with religious (the vocation) men and women, you wouldn't find the Church is very active.

It would be interesting to see some study on evangelism in the US and the reasons behind why some are active and others are not. I think the emphasis is different in the Catholic Church - evangelization has, in the past, been the field of the religious, laity being perhaps only from the third order of religious brothers or sisters. Everyday Catholics, however, generally do not, nor have they been told to go door to door. I have, however, been reading of more campus ministry, for example. It is a slow process, but I think with the influx of Protestant pastors and such, we are beginning to see an upsurge of apologetics and active evangelization. I believe God is behind this more active role - and it is the formerly Protestant members of the Church who are leading the charge.

"True of Evangelicals too. But the few who do, especially in the college environment, make a big impact."

Watch EWTN one of these days and check out some of the shows, especially "Life on the Rock" and other such youth oriented apologetic programming. You will find that the Church is becoming more active. It isn't going to happen over night, but I think you will begin to appreciate that there are also Catholic out there who are active in evangelization. You just need to actually look for them. I don't imagine you will find them posting flyers on cars in the parking lot of your church, but there are Catholic radio, TV, and campus outreach programs - if you choose to look for them.

Regards

One church we went to was filled with rich people because the preacher taught the wealth and health gospel.

In my experience the name-it-and-claim-it, health & wealth gospel tends to draw in the poor, the down-and-out, the chronic losers, who can't succeed on their own and think they can "faith" their way into financial success. If you found a wealth-gospel church where the people are actually rich, part of me wants to say, "Hey, it finally WORKED somewhere!" /sarcasm>

It would be interesting to see some study on evangelism in the US and the reasons behind why some are active and others are not. I think the emphasis is different in the Catholic Church - evangelization has, in the past, been the field of the religious [orders]...

I thought of that too. In Evangelical circles, Matthew 28:18-20 is interpreted and taught as a command to all believers. Perhaps in Catholic teaching, it is traditionally interpreted as a command only to the Apostles (and ordained successors)? That would explain a lot of the difference, if true.

...with the influx of Protestant pastors and such, we are beginning to see an upsurge of apologetics and active evangelization. I believe God is behind this more active role - and it is the formerly Protestant members of the Church who are leading the charge...

That's actually a real intellectual difficulty for me. If the RC church is the sole lawful successor of the Apostlic church, then how is it that they have to get their best evangelists from the ranks of "heretics"?

Also, related to this: the doctrine of the RC church has been for centuries, "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church". Yet every last one of these Protestant pastor converts speaks fondly of his evangelical background, and if asked, "When did you get saved?", every last one of them would say they were already Christians while still Protestants. This seems to be a contradiction.

Watch EWTN one of these days and check out some of the shows... Catholic radio, TV... if you choose to look for them.

Actually I did recently look. We don't get EWTN, nor are there any Catholic TV or radio shows that i can find. There's nothing at all, at least not in English. This being Los Angeles, you'd think there'd be SOMETHING, somewhere. Evangelicals are all over the place, however.

I earlier wrote "...One church we went to was filled with rich people because the preacher taught the wealth and health gospel."

I believe that some enjoy such a church because it makes them feel good about their own situation. If the preacher tells them to "don't worry about picking up your cross - daily" or to ignore "it will be more difficult for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then a rich man to enter heaven", then they can have it both ways: They can continue on with their life of luxury and selfishness while thinking they are saved and God is shining blessings on them the whole while.

"In Evangelical circles, Matthew 28:18-20 is interpreted and taught as a command to all believers. Perhaps in Catholic teaching, it is traditionally interpreted as a command only to the Apostles (and ordained successors)? That would explain a lot of the difference, if true"

Only with post Vatican 2 documents have the laity really been told that they, too, are to evangelize, which I have already related. However, how many people do you think have read such documents? And because the homilies focus on the Gospels, it is unusual or rarely do we hear that the laity are to also preach the Gospel to others. I think John Paul emphasized it to a degree. But things move slowly in the Catholic Church.

"If the RC church is the sole lawful successor of the Apostlic church, then how is it that they have to get their best evangelists from the ranks of "heretics"?

I don't know if former Protestants are the "best" evangelists, but I believe their background helps to bring them to the forefront - as many Catholics are not actively evangelizing to the masses. I believe that Evangelicals are able to stir within people that initial conversion process. They concentrate on salvation differently than Catholics. I think Catholics focus more on worship of God through the sacraments, which in time, brings about a conversion in a different manner. At any rate, I have read a number of conversion books, and they are very interesting to see how many Protestants come "home" to the Catholic Church.

I am an RCIA director (one who is involved with bringing adult converts into the Church), so I see many such people. What is interesting is that those who are serious about their faith (which began with their Protestant background) are often times the most active members of the Church. Many "cradle" Catholics take for granted the gift that God has given them. From my experience, only when a person has undergone a conversion experience will he become more active in the Church and place God higher on the list of important priorities.

Here is a website for Protestant preachers interested in becoming Catholic. http://www.chnetwork.org/
The majority of the "board" are former Protestants. They seem to treasure what Protestantism gave them - love of the Bible, fellowship, etc. However, they have heard God's call to something beyond Protestantism. They came to realize that the Catholic Church's claims that it is the Church established by Christ, and felt the Spirit moving them to join. As I said before, I believe it is God's Providence that is moving these active members into our community.

"the doctrine of the RC church has been for centuries, "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church"

It still is true and held by the Church. However, there are those who are "catholics" and don't know it. They have been baptized, hold many of the same doctrines that we do, and the Spirit is certainly moving them to love their neighbors. They love the Church's book, the Bible. One does not have to be enrolled in a Catholic Parish to be a Catholic, according to the Church. (called invincible ignorance) However, once one is aware that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ, then that person MUST join. We will be judged based on what God has given us and how we received God's graces.

"every last one of them would say they were already Christians while still Protestants. This seems to be a contradiction."

There is no contradiction. We are "saved" through baptism. Christian baptism is valid, no matter the denomination, if done in the name of the Trinity. By Baptism, we are saved. However, this salvation makes us children of God in the sense that we are now new creations. We are expected to use the gifts that God has given us and become more like Christ. As Paul states time and time again, final salvation is not guaranteed. This is another topic that we could certainly continue on, but Catholics and many Protestants define "salvation" and "justification" differently. This adds a little to the confusion.

"...There's nothing at all, at least not in English"

ETWN and Catholic Answers both offer internet and satellite radio shows:

http://www.catholic.com/radio/about.asp

http://www.catholic.com/radio/calive.asp (this is the monthly schedule, which you can listen to live, or download later)

http://www.ewtn.com/radio/index.asp

If one does a quick internet search, he would find other radio stations that may be in his area. The internet allows one to listen to radio stations that are not local.

Regards

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.