Church still attracting converts: CHN at record levels

The Wanderer ^ | 10/10/02 | Paul Likoudis

[Desdemona]

They weren't considered "protestants" because no one had yet claimed a monopoly on true Christian faith.

Monopoly?

I've heard that word used before in relation to the Catholic church. What makes you use it? Just because we haven't split off from the original tradition?

[WriteOn]

I reread your post on proof and was wondering what your standard of proof was in for example the case of the Mary doctrines or Mystical Body of Christ doctrines? What could convince you? And is it the same for, say, PreMill Rapture doctrines?

[malakhi]

He is, ostensibly, preventing them from doing their duty by His command to John.

I would suggest the very opposite. They were already not doing their duty, and so Jesus made provision for John to care for her.

[pseudo-justin]

No, but I take what he says with a grain of salt until I measure it against the Word.

Ok, I think I see your general strategy. Scripture is treated as a litmus test against which you check any teaching put forward. Maybe you could answer these questions. I am not attacking you, just curious.

First, what do you use to check your understanding of what a Scriptural passage means? Is there a similar litmus test by which you scrutinize whether you are understanding a passage correctly. For example, you read "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Lk 1:43 and ask what it means. Does this mean that Mary is the Mother of God or not? One pastor says yes, another says no. What litmus test do you have for testing their respective interpretations of the passage? What litmus test do you have for testing whether what you think the word of God means really is what the word of God means?

Second, where in Scripture does it say that we are to take what our pastors say with a grain of salt? Where does it say that we are to hold them in suspicion. I see passages where it says to watch out for those teaching false doctrines, to be on guard, and I see other passages where it says to "be subject to those who are over you in the Lord" I Thess. 5:12, but it seems that Scripture clearly is presupposing that I already know the difference between these two parties--the parties who I need to be on guard from, and those who I need to subject myself to. How am I supposed to know which party is which? Please do not simply respond that I should read the word of God, figure out what it means, and then find the parties that fit the resulting criteria. For what I am seeking in the first place is a party that can help me to undestand what the word of God really means at its deepest levels. Even the word of God itself says about the writings of Paul, which we now count as the word of God: In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability." 2 Peter 3:16-17 Now I count myself as among the people who, if I am not careful, can twist the words of Scripture to my own destruction and lose the stability (which apparently, I have from some other source, namely, whoever gave me the forewarning). So, SCRIPTURE WARNS ME AGAINST MYSELF as well as against others. How am I to test both others and myself against the text, when my understanding of the words of Scripture is counted among the tings that need to be tested?

I find myself with the following vicious circle, how would you help me get out of it? The circle goes like this: In order to become an intelligent reader of the Scriptures, to grasp their deepest meaning for what they truly say, I need to be be someone who walks in the way of the Lord, is not unstable, ignorant, proud, and carrying on in works of the flesh. But in order to become someone who is stable, not ignorant, humble, and not carrying on in works of the flesh, but lives by the Spirit, I need to understand what the Scriptures really mean at their deepest level. I need to be shaped by a right reading of Scripture into the sort of person who is a disposed to find and have a right reading of the text. It is only the self-as-transformed-by-a-right-reading-of-the-Scriptures that is able to understand the Scriptures aright. So where should I begin? How can I begin? The text itself cannot get me out of the vicious circle.

Could you please answer these questions.

[pseudo-justin]

Please see my post #244 to LibertyGirl77. Maybe you too could try to answer the questions I pose there. I am not attacking you or any Protestants, but only looking for a way out of an honest quandary. Can you help?

[SoothingDave]

I would suggest the very opposite. They were already not doing their duty, and so Jesus made provision for John to care for her.

I don't think that can be shown from the text itself. Either way. So we have a stalemate.

(Mary not being the other children's biological mother would not, I imagine, relieve them from their duty.)

SD

[xzins]

You seem to have 2 questions.

1. How do we check our understanding of scripture?
2. Where does it say in scripture that our pastor's opinion is worth a grain of salt?

1. I will answer this for me. I check myself my comparing my interpretations with (a) other scripture, (b) other interpretations. If my interpretation is seriously different, then I need some clear and compelling reason for disagreeing.

2. This is the easier question. One is supposed to show respect for one's pastor. Elders are to be held in esteem. That's not to say they are infallible.....they certainly are still human. However, everything defaults to scripture.

[SoothingDave]

No, the question is "How can you claim not to rely on any 'fallible man' when you yourself are fallible?"

SD

[xzins]

Proof for switching denominations would be different than accepting one argument as stronger than another for purposes of teaching.

For example, when it comes to the millennium I teach the basics of the different viewpoints, and then I tell them my opinion, that viewpoint that I think has the strongest case. I go so far as to make it a probability statement. For example, I think a premillennial understanding is strongest at about a 70/30 level. I think post-trib versus pre-trib is strongest at about a 51/49 level.

If I found myself consistently teaching that catholic viewpoints were overwhelmingly the strongest, then I'd have to reconsider my denominational affiliation.

There is no way, however, that the assumption of Mary and the immaculate conception could ever approach even 50/50 in my estimation. They have a case, but it simply isn't a strong one.

[xzins]

I trust that God gave the scripture because He expects it to be read. Therefore, he made it understandable despite any weakness on my part.

His Spirit within us reveals the deep things of God.....BUT, our part is to listen.

SD, I'm not speaking for you. I'm speaking for me. You can use any process you wish.

[WriteOn]

:-) That's about what I thought you'd say.

[pegleg]

For example, when it comes to the millennium I teach the basics of the different viewpoints, and then I tell them my opinion, that viewpoint that I think has the strongest case. I go so far as to make it a probability statement. For example, I think a premillennial understanding is strongest at about a 70/30 level. I think post-trib versus pre-trib is strongest at about a 51/49 level.

So your theology is based upon best guess and opinion? Do you believe it is possible to know the Truth rather than guess about it? Would you agree this is the reason Christ left us the Church , which scripture clearly tells us is the pillar and foundation of Truth?

If I found myself consistently teaching that catholic viewpoints were overwhelmingly the strongest, then I'd have to reconsider my denominational affiliation.

Do you ever consider the Catholic position when you are comparing opinions?

There is no way, however, that the assumption of Mary and the immaculate conception could ever approach even 50/50 in my estimation. They have a case, but it simply isn't a strong one.

As you’ve stated, this is just your opinion. And as I have stated, Christ left us the Church so you don’t have to guess about these things.

[american colleen]

And I never understood how people can say that Scripture is perspicuous.

I had this bookmarked... seems like a good time to share it.

Why I Believe in the Perspicuity of the Bible
E. L. Core

The Perspicuity of the Holy Bible

The Bible is “Perspicuous”: that means it is “clearly expressed or presented” and “easy to understand”.

That the Bible is clearly expressed and easy to understand is... well, it’s quite clear that the Bible is perspicuous.

And easy to understand.

Some Christians, however, actually believe the Bible is not clear and easy to understand. Yes, though it is clearly difficult to fathom, it is true: there are people who say they are Christians and yet believe the Bible is not Perspicuous. Most of them are mind-enslaved Roman Catholics, who are probably not Christians anyway, but they say they are because they don’t know any better.

For their sake, and to support the faith of true Christians, I will now clearly demonstrate the Perspicuity of the Bible.

Proof One of the Perspicuity of the Bible
The Bible itself clearly teaches the Perspicuity of the Bible:

2 Peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

Amen! The Bible clearly teaches the Perspicuity of the Bible!

What more needs to be said to a true Christian? However, as we all know, Roman Catholics are not satisfied if you quote from the Bible. Unlike real Chrisitians, they need other proofs that really are useless, from history and the like. But they are easy to provide, so I shall do so.

Proof Two of the Perspicuity of the Bible

There is no evidence whatever from the true Christians in the early centuries that they believed in the Perspicuity of the Bible. But they must have, because the Bible clearly teaches it (see Proof One). So, the wicked, evil, diabolical, satanic Roman Catholic Church obviously destroyed every shred of a trace of evidence of their belief in Biblical Perspicuity.

And that proves that.

Proof Three of the Perspicuity of the Bible

Martin Luther taught the Perspicuity of the Bible. After the Bible, his word ought to be enough. But we have more than that: we have volume after volume after volume of Martin Luther’s commentary on book after book after book of the Bible. If the Bible were not Perspicuous, we would have no need of biblical commentary from Luther. Right?

Another easy proof.

Proof Four of the Perspicuity of the Bible

John Calvin taught the Perspicuity of the Bible. After the Bible and Luther, his word ought to be enough. But we have more than that: we have reams of Bible commentary from John Calvin. If the Bible were not Perspicuous, we would have no need of biblical commentary from Calvin. Right?

This is a snap.

Proof Five of the Perspicuity of the Bible

Martin Luther and John Calvin taught the Perspicuity of the Bible. They both wrote voluminous biblical commentaries. They each taught doctrines that no Christians had ever dreamed of before, and they disagreed on what the Bible taught about justification, Holy Communion, eternal security, and many other doctrines.

Clearly, then, the Bible is Perspicuous.

Proof Six of the Perspicuity of the Bible

Many different groups prove contradictory doctrines from the Bible:

1. God is a Holy Trinity — God is not a Holy Trinity.
2. Jesus was and is truly God — Jesus was not truly God.
3. Baptism forgives sins — baptism does not forgive sins.
4. Infants should (or may) be baptized — infants may not be baptized.
5. Christ is actually received in Holy Communion — Christ is not received in Holy Communion.
6. Once Saved, Always Saved — Once Saved Not Always Saved.

Et cetera — ad infinitum.

If the Bible were not Perspicuous, they could not prove contradictory doctrines from it. Right?

Conclusion: That is why I believe in the Perspicuity of the Bible. ;-)

[pegleg]

Great post. Sounds perspicuous to me also :-)

[american colleen]

I knew I'd need it for one of those Perspicuous moments. ;-)

[Desdemona]

Yes. Clear. Crystal. Can see right throught it.

Colleen, I'm supposed to be studying, not ROLTFLMBO!!!

[american colleen]

It is pretty funny, even though it may have been written by one of them there wicked, evil, diabolical, satanic, mind-enslaved Romanist papist guys.

[xzins]

Actually, I think the Mary stuff is your opinion and the opinion of a room full of catholic theologians. It will always remain an opinion since it's premised on assumptions.
There is little to zero scripture involved in that doctrine, so the best you could say is that it's marginally scriptural Christian opinion.

My opinion on premillennial is a valid Christian opinion since it's a topic directly addressed by scripture. It's the answer that's fuzzy.

[Desdemona]

There is little to zero scripture involved in that doctrine, so the best you could say is that it's marginally scriptural Christian opinion.

There is only zero in scrpture about it because of the books chosen to be official scripture. They were chosen, what, 1600 years ago? Who knows what didn't make it in. There is a limit because of the cutoff date.

And it's not opinion. It's deeply held, very strong tradition - from before the bible was formalized.

I have to go, but it might be worth considering the statements in the bible itself that say that what is contained in the book is not all that happened.

[pegleg]

Actually, I think the Mary stuff is your opinion and the opinion of a room full of catholic theologians. It will always remain an opinion since it's premised on assumptions.

At least you’re consistent with your use of the words I think . Actually you are not correct as it is not my opinion. The teachings on Mary are dogmas of the Catholic Church. Which BTW, is the one founded by Christ. I also notice you fail to capitalize Catholic, which shows a lack of respect on your part.

My opinion on premillennial is a valid Christian opinion since it's a topic directly addressed by scripture. It's the answer that's fuzzy.

As usual you avoided all my questions. You seem to be fleeing from the Truth and its staring right at you. I know this will be in vain but I’ll try one more time. My questions aren’t that hard.

1. Do you believe it is possible to know the Truth rather than guess about it?
2. Would you agree this is the reason Christ left us the Church , which scripture clearly tells us is the pillar and foundation of Truth?
3. Do you ever consider the Catholic position when you are comparing opinions?

Thanks