Church still attracting converts: CHN at record levels

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

[pegleg]

Do you mean denomination???

However you wish to answer is fine with me.

[Tantumergo]

"Where would you place "the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?" I think the testimony of scripture and the church is certain on this one. It gets a 10.

Where would you place "the full inspiration of scripture by God?" I would give it a 10."

I would agree with you wholeheartedly on these points, however, many Christians would dispute them with a conviction that would be sincere in their own eyes. Not to mention the fact that the majority of my and probably your countrymen would be certain on neither.

You can give them a 10 because it fits your belief (as it does mine), but this is not a certainty apparent to everyone.

I would suggest that what you define as "certainty" has less to do with "proof" and more to do with "faith".

"Out of curiosity where would you place "the trinity?""

I would give Them a 10. How about you?

[Codie]

I'm male.You are correct it makes a difference here.I take it your pro-women ministers.Why?

[xzins]

Doctrinal "fact" is a different animal than space/time fact and than "facts of faith." Doctrinal fact is a virtual synonym for "biblical fact."

Doctrinal facts are determined by a specific body of literature called the bible. (Sometimes, it is also commended by natural revelation.) My "faith" is not what makes it a fact. It is made a doctrinal fact by it's appearing in the scriptures in a clear, consistent presentation. (For example: it is a "doctrinal fact" that Moses led the Children of Israel out of Egypt. I cannot say that Noah did it and be correct.)

There is no Christian who can dispute the resurrection. The resurrection is the touchstone of Christianity and to leave it is to identify oneself as not being Christian. (Romans 10:9-10; 1 Co 15)

It is difficult to deny the full inspiration of scripture because that is told us in the bible. Some might quibble over the meaning of "words" but they should be toward the 10 end of the continuum.

[Tantumergo]

"Their testimony precedes the Church and was the accepted rule over the church."

Why do you see such a contradistinction between the Apostles and the Church? The Apostles ARE the Church, THEY are the rule over the Church. Their writings are only a part of their rule and testimony. (Albeit highly authoritative.)

Do you really think that they lived in close communion with the rest of the believers for 30 - 40 years, and those believers only had their scanty scraps of writings as their abiding testimony?

The NT can be read from cover to cover in a few hours. How can 30 years of teaching, living, exhorting, worshipping, laughing, crying all be compressed into a few pages?

[wai-ming]

Let 10 be a certain fact. Let 0 be a wild, totally unsupportable assumption.

Where would you place "the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?" I think the testimony of scripture and the church is certain on this one. It gets a 10.

Out of curiosity where would you place "the trinity?"

Where would you put it, xzins?

I too would give "the bodily resurrection of Christ" a 10, but in so doing, would have to give the Trinity a 0.

The two doctrines are incompatible in my mind. Christ did not de-resurrect in order to join the amorphous Trinity. Jesus is still a resurrected being.

[xzins]

I would give the trinity a 10.

It is CERTAINLY taught in the bible. Wai-ming, I'm not talking about an opinion of the rational-logical mind of humans.

I'm asking the simple question: Is the teaching of the trinity a clear, continuing, consistent teaching of the bible (OT & NT)?

Whether I understand it or not has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether that is what the text of the bible teaches over and over again at various places and in various ways.

Do you see what I'm saying?

It's like the question: What is the story-line name of Spiderman in the new Spiderman movie? The answer is Peter Parker. My understanding how he becomes Spiderman has absolutely nothing to do with the fact of his story-line name.

[xzins]

And what that comes from the apostles do you have that still remains?

[Tantumergo]

"Doctrinal "fact" is a different animal than space/time fact"

Does that then place it on the same level as fairy-tale fact?

"My "faith" is not what makes it a fact."

I would suggest that it is your faith that determines how you understand, interpret and relate to that "fact", and what degree of importance that you attach to that fact.

"It is made a doctrinal fact by it's appearing in the scriptures in a clear, consistent presentation."

This is YOUR faith speaking a definition of what a doctrinal fact IS. There are many who would disagree with this yet still claim to be Christian. There are many who would disagree that anything appears in Scripture in a clear consistent manner; especially after the butchers of historical, form and redaction criticism have had their way with it!!

(For example: it is a "doctrinal fact" that Moses led the Children of Israel out of Egypt. I cannot say that Noah did it and be correct.)

If you are a pastor then you must know that there are historico-critical scholars out there who deny that Moses even existed and that this story was simply a myth created by the suffering exiles in Babylon to give encouragement to their people in adversity.

"There is no Christian who can dispute the resurrection."

There are certainly people who interpret the resurrection accounts in a none space/time/historical manner, and yet still claim to be Christians.

Where do you get your authority to deny this title to them or assert that their interpretation of the Bible is any less authentic than yours?

After all, they make their claims on the basis of the scriptural testimony, and so do you. How are the rest of us to know who is speaking with authority and truth?

[Desdemona]

I'm confused. I thought Jesus formed the church on the Rock, Peter, thus the Apostles were the first members, etc. And that we are the heirs of the church as it's been passed down.

Or am I trying to make this too simple?

[Tantumergo]

"And what that comes from the apostles do you have that still remains?"

The Divine Liturgy and the rest of the sacraments come from the Apostles and all pre-date the writing down of their testimony.

We have the teachings and writings, the prayers and the insights of those who lived and learned at the feet of the Apostles. They were able to understand the teaching in the context it was given. A bit like the way you may have received traditions from your family - traditions that may seem incomprehensible to outsiders!

But more than any of that we still "have" the Apostles with us. They are the twelve foundation stones of the Catholic Church - we are still in communion with them. We have fellowship with them in the communion of saints. The same Spirit who guided them is the same guide and soul of the Church which Christ founded on them.

That Church is a living, breathing, growing entity and it will remain so until the end of time.

[Tantumergo]

"I'm confused. I thought Jesus formed the church on the Rock, Peter, thus the Apostles were the first members, etc."

You are quite right that Peter, the Rock, Prince of the Apostles was the principle foundation stone of the Church. But all the Apostles are regarded as foundation stones as well - as in the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic" Church.

Apoc21:14 "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them, the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

[Joshua]

"They will find themselves questioning how the Church that claims to be the Church instituted by Christ could have such abysmal leadership. One would think that Christ would protect his own if they truly are his own. "

Excellent point. It was one of the many reasons I left Catholicism.

I fellowshipped at Calvary Chapel, a non-denominational nationwide church. A good deal of the Pastors came from the Catholic and mainline liberal denominations. The one I attended had over 1000 who attended and of those more than half were x-catholics. I have to chuckle when I read articles like this.

""Most of these people have M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees, and so they are not employable in the world. It’s a difficult decision for these men to give up their work, their careers, and their livelihoods. Nevertheless, 94 this year have entered, or are on their way into, the Church." "

The RC likes to parade around their Scott Hanhs like it it was some victory badge. The above quote from the article shines the light on these so called conversions.

As the article states most do have degrees and are giving up their "careers". I would bet that most of these converts are seminary trained. They chose this as a career. You don't choose to lead the flock, God chooses you. They have been taught by man, not lead by the Holy Spirit. Mans work always fails.

The Catholic church is the logical next step. When you're not led by the Spirit of truth you look to whatever doctrine of man tickles your ears. They look to man for the answers. What better place than the RC for a church based on the traditions of man. Any honest Catholic here can't debate that statement. We have numerous Catholics on here that will tell you you can't use the Bible to validate tradition. Sola Scriptura is foolish they say. You go to the church to validate the tradition of the church. Make sense? How can you loose?

To get back to your point on the leadership. You would think from reading in here that the problems with leadership is something caused by the modern age. Truth is that leadership in the RC has a long list of human debris as it's leaders. A study of the Popery will show that there were those in leadership who belonged in a chair with a skull cap wired to 20,000 volts, not the chair of Peter. When you question the RC on this they tell you that man is fallible. On the same breath they tell you that the church is led by the Holy Spirit, has all truth, and can't be questioned. Even though the priest that is putting the wafer in your mouth could have raped your 14 year old son the day before, Jesus has to overlook this and come down as this priest calls him. Sorry I'm not buying it.

If I have to stand before God and claim that I believed in His word only and not the traditions of man that perverted and contradicted it, so be it. I'll take my chances.

[Desdemona]

Sola Scriptura is foolish they say.

This concept is refuted by the bible itself. If you read it so often, you should know that.

[Joshua]

Actually the bible promotes it

[xzins]

If you are a pastor then you must know that there are historico-critical scholars out there who deny that Moses even existed and that this story was simply a myth created by the suffering exiles in Babylon to give encouragement to their people in adversity

There certainly are critics.

But even they would admit that the fact of the Bible story is that "Moses" leads the children out of Israel. They would agree that the fact of the bible story is that Jesus actually, bodily resurrected.

What they would deny is that those things actually happened in space/time.

Now does your church teach that the "resurrection" is a bible story that didn't actually happen? Or does it teach that it is a bible story (fact) and that it actually happened (faith.)

[xzins]

That's all fine stuff for you to believe, but none of it is stuff you can demonstrate to me.

The scriptures (apostolic writings), on the other hand, have independent histories that can be traced.

I can demonstrate to you the histories of the apostle's writings.

To me, it's a "which came first, chicken or egg" thing....the apostles' proclamation or the church. Me -- I think people responded to the proclamation. (How can they hear without a preacher?) And then it's a matter of who should be in charge: the apostles' proclamation or the people who interpret the apostles' proclamation. I choose the scripture.

You are free to believe what you want. I'm just not convinced of your case.

[Joshua]

" 2 Tim 3:15-17 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

" 1822 exartizo- to complete, to finish a) to furnish perfectly b) to finish, to accomplish (as it were, to render the days complete)"

"

There's the verse and also the meaning of the word "Thouroughly" in verse 17

Maybe you can explain it to me. This verse says that scripture makes me perfectly complete. What is the next level after that?

[TotusTuus]

there is no PROOF

As a late comer here, and reading both your exchanges, I'd like to add an important point from the Catholic point of view to the above:

The proof comes from the Divine Grace of God working through Divine Faith. Otherwise there would be no reason for Divine "Faith".

Take this line from your (xzins) Post 70:

Where would you place "the full inspiration of scripture by God?" I would give it a 10.

I would give it a 10 too, except the proof comes from the Grace of God working through Faith in me. From the Holy Scriptures themselves, read by an individual separated from the Church, it's not possible to consider giving it a 10. The Scriptures themselves, particularly the New Testament, don't give me the information on just what Books are supposed to be there and which are not. It is the living, Divinely instituted Church, led by the Holy Spirit which authoritatively, the Authority of Christ no less, can tell me and others which Books are the Canon of Holy Scripture.

A non-Christian not open to Faith would just consider your "proofs" of the Bible being the Word of God as being "rationalizations".

[TotusTuus]

There are several problems with your quoting of St. Paul's 2nd Epistle to Timothy as "proof" of sola-scriptura.

To begin with, the time frame of St. Paul writing this Letter was before the complete Canon of Scripture existed, such as the four Gospels. He seems to be commenting about the Old Testament.

More importantly, nowhere does that statement, which is true and accepted by Catholics, state solascriptura. The sola concept just isn't there.