Posted on 02/06/2011 9:39:22 PM PST by Cronos
Are we witnessing the death of America's Christian denominations? Studies conducted by secular and Christian organizations indicate that we are. Fewer and fewer American Christians, especially Protestants, strongly identify with a particular religious communion—Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, etc. According to the Baylor Survey on Religion, nondenominational churches now represent the second largest group of Protestant churches in America, and they are also the fastest growing...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Persevero, respectfully, we who are Catholics ARE Bible believers, AND were Bible compilers. (http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm)
The Canon of the Bible
All Christians realize that if God has revealed Himself by communicating His will to man, man must be able to know with assurance where that revelation lies. Hence the need for a list (i.e. canon) of books of the Bible. In other words, man needs to know without error (i.e. infallibly) what the books of the Bible are. There must be an authority which will make that decision.
The canon of the Bible refers to the definitive list of the books which are considered to be divine revelation and included therein. A canon distinguishes what is revealed and divine from what is not revealed and human. “Canon” (Greek kanon) means a reed; a straight rod or bar; a measuring stick; something serving to determine, rule, or measure. Because God did not explicitly reveal what books are the inspired books of the Bible, title by title, to anyone, we must look to His guidance in discovering the canon of the Bible.
Jesus has told us that he has not revealed all truths to us.
Jn 16:12-13
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.
Jesus then told us how he was planning to assist us in knowing other truths.
Jn 14:16-17
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.
Jn 15:26
When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.
The New Testament writers sensed how they handled truth-bearing under the influence of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth.
1 Cor 15:3-4
For I handed on (paredoka) to you as of first importance what I also received ...
2 Tim 2:2
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust (parathou) to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.
There was a constant history of faithful people from Paul’s time through the Apostolic and Post Apostolic Church.
Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.
The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.
Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.
The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.
Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.
The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.
The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.
Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.
The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.
There was no canon of scripture in the early Church; there was no Bible. The Bible is the book of the Church; she is not the Church of the Bible. It was the Church—her leadership, faithful people—guided by the authority of the Spirit of Truth which discovered the books inspired by God in their writing. The Church did not create the canon; she discerned the canon. Fixed canons of the Old and New Testaments, hence the Bible, were not known much before the end of the 2nd and early 3rd century.
Catholic Christians together with Protestant and Evangelical Christians hold the same canon of the New Testament, 27 books, all having been originally written in the Greek language.
Catholic Christians accept the longer Old Testament canon, 46 books, from the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Alexandrian Canon.
Protestant and Evangelical Christians, from the Reformers onward, accept the shorter Old Testament canon, 39 books, from the Hebrew Palestinian Canon. Jews have the same canon as Protestants.
Canonical books are those books which have been acknowledged as belonging to the list of books the Church considers to be inspired and to contain a rule of faith and morals. Some criteria used to determine canonicity were
o special relation to God, i.e., inspiration;
o apostolic origin;
o used in Church services, i.e., used by the community of believers guided by the Holy Spirit.
Other terms for canonical books should be distinguished: the protocanonical books, deuterocanonical books, and the apocryphal books.
The protocanonical (from the Greek proto meaning first) books are those books of the Bible that were admitted into the canon of the Bible with little or no debate (e.g., the Pentateuch of the Old Testament and the Gospels)
The deuterocanonical (from the Greek deutero meaning second) books are those books of the Bible that were under discussion for a while until doubts about their canonicity were resolved (e.g. Sirach and Baruch of the Old Testament, and the Johannine epistles of the New Testament).
The apocryphal (from the Greek apokryphos meaning hidden) books have multiple meanings:
o complimentary meaning - that the sacred books were too exalted for the general public;
o pejorative meaning - that the orthodoxy of the books were questioned;
o heretical meaning - that the books were forbidden to be read; and lastly
o neutral meaning - simply noncanonical books, the meaning the word has today.
Another word, pseudepigrapha (from the Greek meaning false writing) is used for works clearly considered to be false.
A man dies and goes up to heaven and finds, surprisingly, that there are two pearly gates. Above one is the word "predestination" and above the other is "free will". So he goes through the one labeled predestination and finds an Angel there. "What are you doing here?" says the seraphim. "Well", says the guy, "I just came here to heaven and I saw the gates with the signs, and I'm a good Calvinist, so obviously I came in here". "Wrong" says the Angel. "You stood outside and had two choices, and made the decision to come in here. You had better go out and choose again". So the guy goes through the gate labeled "free will" and finds another angel. "What are you doing here" says the cherubim. "Well," says the guy "the other angel told me to come here..."
What the article is getting at is that although faith levels remain high, increasingly denominational adherences are declining. All denominational adherences. Increasingly people identify themselves as "christian" rather than "baptist", "presyterian", "methodist" and so on. This is a trend that is not unique to the US and is down to a great many factors, not all of them negative.
It is partly due to the pervasive cultural phenomenae known as post-modernism, which in this case is expressed in a great suspicion of "Big Answers", and a reluctance to commit long term to human institutions (of course the church is a God given institution, but denominations are percieved to be what we have created).
It is partly due to the increasing mobility of our modern society, which makes it easier for folk to go to other churches if they have a disagreement with the one they are at.
It is partly due to people percieving that the theological differences that gave rise to some of the denominations are now "dead issues". Some of them are, frankly.
It is partly due to the consumerist mentality of modern society. We have grown to expect consumer "choice". If a church doesnt suit us, we just leave rather than try and work it out. More worryingly, if theological precepts disturb us, we just replace them with ideas that are more palatable to us (this last is quite dangerous).
It is partly due to a healthy coming together of Christians who are beginning to realise that their similarities are a great deal more important than their differences, most of which are not as great as their leaders have proclaimed.
It is partly due to the decline of "Christendom", the alliance of Christian belief with Political power.
It is partly due to the cult of individualism, at the expense of group identity. Basically we question more and accept less.
It is partly due to the large numbers of charlatans who espouse false but attractive doctrine that has "burned" a lot of honest but gullible folk and "turned them off" churches, or in some cases christianity altogether.
The RC church is not immune to this either. There's lots of dissillusioned lapsed Catholics out there.
well, the article does state “. Fewer and fewer American Christians, especially Protestants,”
that is funny!
Statistics have to be interpreted.
valid point. Though it can’t be point 1 or 2 as this is across the country and it is more for denominations that have been bitten by the pinko bug
What the article is getting at is that although faith levels remain high, increasingly denominational adherences are declining
All good and valid points which in composition points to a disturbing trend towards nominal Christianity.
For as long as I can remember, there have been books and articles written about the perceived decline in church membership. This shouldn't be any surprise to even the most casual observer of modern society. There was a movie in 1990 called "Avalon" that was a story of an immigrant family that brought over family members one-by-one; the first American generation was enthralled with the television and the audience watched the family traditions whither away. In a way, this is an analog of denominations within the West. Family traditions make one a member of a particular denomination. Over time, the denomination forgets why they are that way, the wealthier move to a congregation more of their demographic, children move to other parts of the country, Presbyterian marries Baptist and settles on attending a Big Box, and so on.
It is very obvious that our culture has divorced itself from any Christian heritage, embraced relativism, and those who claim to be Christian have transformed the meaning of faith from one prizing doctrine (Truth) and sacrament, to one that is better characterized as a moralistic therapeutic deism; the former sanctuary treated with reverence for its worship and instruction now viewed as a part-time gymnasium and entertainment venue; Bible studies are now places to social network, prayer meetings are now sanctified gossip.
The move from OPC to PCA is more academic, I personally have seen how Federalism has motivated some of the transition. Others move from one to the other because they desire a higher church experience, instead of a suit, the clergy wears a dress like Lutherans and Roman Catholics and officiates over a colder liturgy. Fine, that is personality differences.
But the biggest effect on membership has everything to do with marketing. The Big Box markets themselves as cheap entertainment and babysitting. Singles can go to Saturday night service, hook-up, and go clubbing and end their nights somewhere other than their own beds. Married folks can get free group counseling on the latest pseudo-Christian techniques. Divorcees can join a "Singles and Singles Again" so they can explore the now sanctified form of adultery called "re-marriage". Are you a stoner or alcoholic? compulsive gambler? hopelessly in debt? There is a class for you that doesn't require Christ or even a Higher Power. So the complexion of the "Church" has changed as the unregenerate find their way into the Church, get their fix, take follow-up courses from pseudo-Christian self-help and Purpose Driven books, and move on whenever they get past their moment of anxiety or personal crisis.
Traditional Christianity may very well be on the decline in the West, but it is exploding in the Eastern nations. Churchianity may be replacing Christianity mainly because the Gospel has been replaced by the less offensive Joel Osteen-like messages. One of the many reasons why there will be a run on mill-stones at Judgment Day.
I'm not worried, there will always be a Remnant.
Alas, the PCA and OP aren’t very large, at all. PCA is about 300,000 members; OP is about 30,000. Cumberland Presbyterian has less than 50,000. Cumberland PCA is radically left-wing also.
Protestant denominations in America are disappearing, and that’s not a gloat from a triumphantalist Catholic. It’s an alarm bell. Because if you think Satan has had his way with the old denominations (PCUSA, TEC, ELCA, UMC, etc.), you just wait and see what an easy time he has with the scattered offshoots, shards and nondenominational churches.
>> Ah, but you ignore the Bible believers, going back to the Apostolic church (Bereans) and the Waldensians. <<
Waldensians, themselves, assert that Peter Waldo was their founder. The Bereans were founded by John Barclay in 1773. There certainly were non-Catholic Christians throughout every age since the time of Christ, but such groups typically agreed with modern Protestants on a single issue or two, and frequently had many beliefs far more alien to Protestants than the one or two issues that they disagreed with the Catholic Church on. For example, the Albigensians believed all procreation was evil, tying people to this world. (The word, “bugger” comes from “Bulgar,” as in “Bulgaria,” given the widespread belief associated with a sect similar to that in Albi, truly endorsed by the Albi’s coreligionists or not, that non-procreative sex was permissable.)
I’ve never read Joel Osteen — ok, there are a lot of threads that are posted about his teachings, but they seem a lot like self-helps ON THE SURFACE (disclaimer — I’ve not read them deeply enough for me to make any real comment on what he does or doesn’t teach)
Good analysis. I grew up in an evangelical church and still a member of this type of church b/c of family reasons but attend a conservative confessional Lutheran church every chance I get. The big box churches, as you call it, feel empty and hollow to me. Its like attending a live infomercial. Shallow and bad music followed by a slick sermon presentation. I prefer communion/creeds/ confessions of faith/rich and beautiful hymns with Christ crucified for our sins as the constant theme. Most people in my generation would rather stay home than attend something that is not entertaining.
what was funny for me, when I moved to Poland is that in Europe, Evangelical means the Lutherans, Evangelico-Augusburgo!
heh...so in other words you think its point three - Catholics are right!
And in a sense there is nothing wrong with some denominations declining or even folding, as long as they are being replaced with new movements that do address the needs of today. Christ calls on us to minister and witness to our fellow citizens. The call never changes, just the way to do it. Personally I feel (and its not my idea) that we are now living in a Johanine rather than a Pauline age. That will mean a radical shift around into how the church operates in the US (and indeed the rest of the West) over the next few years.
The social gospel you portray is not innacurate. Like most of these wrong turnings, its based upon a too heavy concentration on one part of the gospel. Jesus does indeed call on us to build up and help out our local community. These help groups and social gatherings and so on are all very well, but they are not the main purposes of a church. To concentrate on them to the exclusion of worship and solid bible teaching is just wrong, and the fact that many churches neglected the social side of things in the past is no justification to go overboard on it now.
Well people say that TV is subversive and bad - but I would be more specific. It’s not so much TV that is bad, but what is shown on it. Nowadays that is most of it of course - personally I have noticed I spend much less time watching TV now, and most of what I do watch is older programs or documentaries.
“The Bereans were founded by John Barclay in 1773.”
No, the Bereans I refer to are found in the book of Acts. When the apostles made claims about religion, they “searched the Scriptures to see if these things were so.” Note they did not contact the Holy See.
Throughout Christian history there have been Bible believing Christians who rely upon God’s and not man’s word. There will be until the end of the age.
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.