Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry.
In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
That, actually, is hardly true in the least, exposing your very limited understanding of Protestantism. It is the Bible which Protestants believe to be the very Word of God, not their doctrines nor their Church. The Church is composed of errant men who, under no circumstances can claim to be inerrant. Therein lies one of the primary differences between Protestantism and your own Church.
Well, I'm not saying that Protestants admit to this infallibility. I'm just saying that, for example, when one person (or church or confession, etc) based on Scripture, says that baptism is unnecessary for regeneration, and another, also based on Scripture, says that it is necessary, each one thinks they're right, and they act accordingly.
Now, we may all agree that Scripture is right or inerrant, but no one seems to want to recognize that the Emperor, the doctrine of SS in this case, has no clothes. Scripture cannot speak for itself or tell you what it means; it was never meant to serve as a catechism for one thing and in any case must be interpreted by anyone who reads it, imperfect humans. Two bible scholars, equally well-equipped in exegetical skills, can have very different understandings of the meaning of passages. Either way it's not Scripture that's the issue here; rather it's human beings.
Protestantism cannot and does not speak univocally BTW.
Well, I'm not saying that Protestants admit to this infallibility. I'm just saying that, for example, when one person (or church or confession, etc) based on Scripture, says that baptism is unnecessary for regeneration, and another, also based on Scripture, says that it is necessary, each one thinks they're right, and they act accordingly.
Now, we may all agree that Scripture is right or and inerrant, but no one seems to want to recognize that the Emperor, the doctrine of SS in this case, has no clothes. Scripture cannot speak for itself or tell you what it means; it was never meant to serve as a catechism for one thing and in any case must be interpreted by anyone who reads it, imperfect humans. Two bible scholars, equally well-equipped in exegetical skills, can have very different understandings of the meaning of passages. Either way it's not Scripture that's the issue here; rather it's human beings.
Protestantism cannot and does not speak univocally BTW.
Therefore, it is necessary for your Church to claim Papal infallibility in order to mute any and all dissent over doctrinal matters. The net result is that your Church has an amazingly fluid understanding of doctrine and truth is never a fixed commodity.
Therefore, it is necessary for your Church to claim Papal infallibility in order to mute any and all dissent over doctrinal matters. The net result is that your Church has an amazingly fluid understanding of doctrine and truth is never a fixed commodity.
What I'm saying is that everyone does it already, admittedly or not. But with Scripture alone it cannot work. The historical understanding of the church together with the guidance of the Holy Spirit is necessary. It's a matter of locating that particular church, that God established, wherever it might be and by whatever name it might go by.
Scripture isn't abundantly clear on this IMO, which is why Protestants may differ on such things as whether or not the will of man plays any role whatsoever in his accepting the offer of salvation. And the ancient churches, along with some Protestants, believe that works (what we do with the gifts given by God, such as the works mentioned in Eph 2) play a role in our working out our salvation with He who works in us. The Parable of the Talents describes this dynamic well.
Is salvation a one-time event or a matter of how we go on to live our lives as well? Can we know with 100% certainty that we possess it? What does it mean to follow Christ? And what must we persevere in? For its part the RCC teaches that at the end of the day we'll be judged on our love, bringing together and making sense out of such passages as those referred to above and others such as Matt 25:31-46, as examples.
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."
I stand by my statement. We are saved by grace through faith for the purpose of going works that God prepared for us to do. Meaning, we are not saved by works. Rather, we do works because we are saved. I really don't see how this isn't "abundantly clear". To say otherwise is to completely ignore the scripture. Heck, my 5 year old son gets it.
What I'm saying is that everyone does it already, admittedly or not. But with Scripture alone it cannot work. The historical understanding of the church together with the guidance of the Holy Spirit is necessary. It's a matter of locating that particular church, that God established, wherever it might be and by whatever name it might go by.
The problem is that many churches, not merely your own, claim to be the infallible, inerrant embodiment of Truth. Various arguments have been put forward to establish their claims. Your church uses the historical argument, claiming that all other churches are mere sects which left the ONE, TRUE, CATHOLIC CHURCH. Unfortunately, the other Traditional denominations use the very same argument. When push comes to shove, the fallback argument is one of personal faith without any objective form of determination. Thus, the Mormons are perhaps slightly more straightforward in claiming personal belief in the inerrancy of their Church apart from any logical or historical arguments, not to mention biblical support.
The problem is that many churches, not merely your own, claim to be the infallible, inerrant embodiment of Truth. Various arguments have been put forward to establish their claims. Your church uses the historical argument, claiming that all other churches are mere sects which left the ONE, TRUE, CATHOLIC CHURCH. Unfortunately, the other Traditional denominations use the very same argument. When push comes to shove, the fallback argument is one of personal faith without any objective form of determination. Thus, the Mormons are perhaps slightly more straightforward in claiming personal belief in the inerrancy of their Church apart from any logical or historical arguments, not to mention biblical support.
Anyone or any group can claim infallibilty, while some merely imply it without articulating it by insisting that their particular position is the correct one. Either way the sheer number of claims in no way affects whether or not any one of the claimants is truly infallible. And for its part the RCC recognizes the validity of Eastern Orthodox reliance on Tradition as well.
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."
I stand by my statement. We are saved by grace through faith for the purpose of going works that God prepared for us to do. Meaning, we are not saved by works. Rather, we do works because we are saved. I really don't see how this isn't "abundantly clear". To say otherwise is to completely ignore the scripture. Heck, my 5 year old son gets it.
Scripture has lots to say, and those sayings are not generally categorized or linked thematically. When you can reconcile how those sheep in Matt 25:31-46 are judged based on what they did for "the least of these" then you'll understand the gospel more fully, and be better able to explain it to your 5 year-old as well. Everything one does to gain salvation, BTW, originates with grace, including the works God gives us to do such as those mentioned in Eph 2. And grace can always be rejected and refused.
Scripture has lots to say, and those sayings are not generally categorized or linked thematically. When you can reconcile how those sheep in Matt 25:31-46 are judged based on what they did for "the least of these" then you'll understand the gospel more fully, and be better able to explain it to your 5 year-old as well. Everything one does to gain salvation, BTW, originates with grace, including the works God gives us to do such as those mentioned in Eph 2. And grace can always be rejected and refused.
Duno, I still disagree. There is nothing in Matthew 25:31-46 which implies that they were saved as a direct result of their deeds as opposed to them performing the deeds because they were saved. Meaning, we know that they were saved because a saved person would perform those things. Not, they were saved because they performed those things. Otherwise we have to ask, "How many hungry do we have to feed?", "How many strangers do we have to clothe?", and "How many prisoners do we have to visit?", before we are counted among the sheep on the right?
BTW...I was born and raised Catholic. I am pretty sure that official Catholic doctrine suggests the same. The Catholic Church doesn't say that we are saved by works and deeds. Rather, one can loose their salvation through mortal sin. Works is a part of the sanctification process. Not a prerequisite to justification.
I never knew that was a RC proof text-still don't-which is why I didn't quote it even if the poster I was responding to may've actually been using it to mean private interpretation by individuals.
Well, you did affirm you agreed with the poster who invoked 2Pe 1:20, while your own NABRE notes affirm that 2 Peter 1:20 is "Often cited, along with 2 Tm 3:16, on the “inspiration” of scripture or against private interpretation," though it interprets it differently. But but if you care not to answer the question....
Tradition is simply evident in the practices and doctrines of the Church. I'll give examples. In the ancient churches in the east and west, baptism is considered to be efficacious for regeneration, infant baptism is held to be valid, and Jesus is considered to be really present in the Eucharist. These aren't even debated because they are simply the legacy of the church from the beginning. But, based on Scripture alone, Protestants debate these matter among themselves frequently. A little infallible place where the buck can stop here wouldn't be such a bad thing.
First, unless one is defending Protestantism (with all Caths place under that tent) as the one true faith (which i certainly do not) than what "Protestants do" is not a valid argument. What many Protestants accept or do not simply does not impugn the case for Scripture being the supreme substantive authoritative sure word of God.
And while that those who hold to Scripture being the supreme infallible authority disagree on paedobaptism and the "Real Presence" (originally an Anglican term it seems, in distinction from Catholicism) is a valid statement, those who do are in the minority, and disagree with Rome on it, while you have substantial disagreements under sola ecclesia as well, as EOs attest .
For if you those who hold to the alternative model, that the church is the one true interpreter (as EOs, JWs' and Mormons do), then these also disagree with others who hold to the same.
Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development....On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. - ORTHODOXY AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM
But if you want to compare churches with churches, btwn Scripture versus the church being the basis for veracity, and with the strongest comprehensive doctrinally unity being a attribute for validity, then there is a world-wide cult you can join, which uses Scripture, but as with Rome, it can only authoritatively mean what leadership says.
However, if you want to operate according to how the NT church began, then you need to establish Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, even though that means some can disagree, which has always been a reality amid unity.
And while we both can point to a limited scope of core beliefs that Cath and certain Prot. churches profess paper unity on, this is neither the type and basis for the limited unity that the NT church realized under extraordinary men of God, of Scriptural purity, probity passion and power (2 Corinthians 6:4-10) who established Truth claims upon said Scriptural substantiation.
What possible difference could it make how church members react to church teachings-and how does that relate to having a unity of faith?
What possible difference could it make how church members react to church teachings? Are you serious? That is like saying What possible difference could it make how church members conflict with what they profess. For mere professions are not the Scriptural basis for determining what a church or person believes, for that is based on what they overall do and foster. (Mt. 7:20; James 2:18) Professions versus proof.
And thus what a church teaches is not simply by what they profess, but above all it is by what they do, for the hearers of the word usually look for its meaning by how the preachers it apply it. Thus while canon law forbids ecclesiastical funerals to notorious public sinners, when time and time again Rome provides them to the likes of Teddy Kennedy then it tells the people how Rome understands what she authored. And what is means to be considered a honorable member, while even some conservative bishops are removed or marginalized.
And the one basic duty of RCs is to follow their pastors as docile sheep.
'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources
But in contrast to doing so, when trad. Caths look at the plain Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus statements that damn all who are not in the bosom of the RCC, and with obedience to the pope meaning RC rulers had to exterminate those whom Rome considered heretics, and compare these and others with the spin V2 puts on them (or the ongoing ambiguity that results in RC debating how it can be said that RCs worship the saem God together with Muslims, or how SS type Prots can be said to be brethren in Christ with them), then they begin to sounds like Protest-ants.
Now in reality, conservative evangelical "Bible Christians" (as CA calls them) not only typically affirm but contend for the same basic Truths RCs do as expressed in the CF Statement of Faith, because of the weight of Scriptural substantiation they have, while for the same reason we reject distinctive Catholic teachings which are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
In addition, we can choose to be part of holy conservative fellowships in which liberal laity and prohomosexual, proabortion public figures are not members nor would feel comfortable in. In contrast Rome manifestly considers such members in life and in death, and thus showing her understanding of canon law, and thus you cannot relegate them to being excommunicated ( latae sententiae or ferendae sententiae) but you are to consider and treat them as Rome does.
That is, unless you want to be essentially akin the Protestants you attack, and thus determine the validity of what your church teaches by examination of the ancient warrant to them, and therefore (unlike more liberals) be considered to be in a sect or in schism.
Meanwhile, despite the mess that Catholicism is in reality, we have RCs who are basically insisting that a prostitute is our mother and that need to leave conservative fellowships that we are at home in and "come home" and thus be part of the unholy amalgam that is Catholicism, which we could hardly feel at home in! Which proposal is thus absurd.
The RCC doesn't even agree with everything Augustine or Aquinas had to say. Truth is not arrived at by democratic process.
Which means that contrary to the often-invoked "unanimous consent of the fathers," and the dictum of Vincentius ("we..hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all"), the lack of “unanimous consent ” of the fathers - while making use of forgeries ) is a reality, and as Newman confessed,
It does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius ("we..hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all") must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem. — John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., reprinted 1927), p. 27.
PeaceByJesus said: ↑...Thus the NT church did not begin consistent with the Cath. model for ascertaining what is of God, as for a RC the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is to be the basis for their assurance of what is of God.
Of course it did. Rome just does what was done at the first council-of Jerusalem. Controversies arise among imperfect humans. God does not leave us without a means of resolution.
Of course it did not, and you are engaging in sophistry, attemptong to convert Acts 15 into a RC council. For unlike presuming the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility by which RCs have assurance of Catholic doctrine, and looking to the pope as part of a line of infallible heads to call councils and settle issues, the matter was settled upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
In which Peter called no council, nor provided the conclusive Scripturally substantiated judgement, which was by James, but as street-level leader among bretheren, and the first to use the keys to the kingdom into which believers are translated upo believing the gospel, (Col. 1:13,14) what he did testify to (along with Paul and Barnabas) and exhort was the evangelical gospel of grace, in which contrite souls were manifestly regenerated before baptism, which falls under being "saved by grace" (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-10)
To be sure, God does not leave us without a means of resolution, and councils are affirmed under SS, though as said, a biblical (contra Rome) central magisterium should be the goal.
Sure, they pick up a book, produced by members of the church, and proceed to dictate its meaning centuries after the fact. Not infallibly though, apparently, and not necessarily with agreement.
You mean this describes your church, which picks up Scripture which it did not produce, for the writers of it, much less the holy Spirit, were manifestly not RC, and proceeds to incrementally - even centuries after the fact, including ensured magisterial infallibility - read into it teachings which are simply not what the NT manifestly believed, but which easily could have been added if the author was a RC, though not without contradictions.
In addition, rather than diverse meanings, such a Truth as Isaiah 53 referring to the Lord Jesus is what we see very uniformly preached by SS evangelicals, and rather than being typically very ignorant of Scripture as Caths are, it is evangelical types who are most likely to be explaining Scripture to the lost.
I guess sola scriptura adherents must believe their interpretations to be maybe true, maybe not-with a 50-50 chance, perhaps, of being true? Maybe Jesus is God, but we don't want to act too sure of ourselves here by formally stating that to be an infallible truth? Maybe baptism is necessary for regeneration, maybe man is justified by faith alone?
Once again your recourse is to treating all and whatever falls under the term Protestantism as being the faith at issue and contended for. And for tactical reasons, for those who actually strongly hold to the authority of Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God (versus what modern RC scholarship much teaches, even in your official English bible ), then they attest (and manifest) to being far more unified and orthodox in basic beliefs than the fruit of Catholicism overall .
Which includes Jesus being God and other fundamental Truths, which modern evangelicalism rose up to effectually defend (it was not Rome which produced "Kingdom of the cults"), while Catholic Bible scholarship became overall quite liberal.
And very few SS Christians hold that the act of baptism effects regeneration, while salvation by faith alone did not mean a faith that is alone according to historical SS teaching, but that such faith "not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love." (Westminster confession, chapter 11) Which Reformers as Luther formally taught .
Right, but neither the Eunuch nor the Bereans would've come up with the gospel on their own, by reading Scripture. They needed to be told the message
Indeed - and are far less likely to be told the gospel by a RC than historical evangelical types, and thus SS preachers orally preach the word also, but under the premise that, like as seen in Acts 17:11, the veracity of what is preached is subject to testing by Scripture as the supreme substantive transcendent sure word of God.
Which is fundamentally contrary to the presumption of Rome as effectively being the supreme authority on Truth.[/QUOTE]
PeaceByJesus said: ↑
For as is abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
The Mormons "use" Scripture also, meaning abuse, as does Rome, as convenient, for her unScriptural teachings, reducing Scripture to being an abused servant compelled to support her as the supreme infallible authority.
PeaceByJesus said: ↑
What is the basis for your assurance of truth? That an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority?
Check it out by the grace of God. We have a wealth of extensive classic evangelical commentaries, as well as contemporary pastors and teachers who uphold basic core Truths and work to expose fringe elements and reduce the scope of variant interpretations, many of which your magisterium does not provide interpretations for. And RCs actually have a great deal of liberty in interpreting the Bible in order to support what they interpret their church as teaching, which itself can see variant interpretations.
But unlike RCs, do not preach our church, but as with Phillip towards the eunuch, we are to preach Christ, and by Scriptural substantiation establish what saving Truth is, as evangelicals are the most known to practice. Historical evangelicals have been far more active contending for the basic Truth we both assent to than Vatican-approved Catholics.
Ask a RC even what his/her favorite Bible verse is and they are likely to be at a loss, while the books and pages of lay RCs contending for doctrines typically lack the required approval. And in the past laity were forbidden to debate in such a forum as this. So much for
Where would Christianity be today if not for the Council of Nicea? .
Nicea s consistent with the validity of councils that Westminster in principal affirmed, but the basis for the veracity of what Nicea taught was not that of ensured veracity, but
Scriptural substantiation, and thus our assent for it.
At least many Protestants accept its decrees as valid, giving some kind of nod, tacit or otherwise, to the church's office of discerning truth
Again, what many Protestants accept or do not simply does not impugn the case for Scripture being the supreme substantive authoritative sure word of God, and it is those who most strongly affirm this that testify to greater unity than the fruit of Rome, which RCs sadly want us to be part of.
PeaceByJesus said: ↑
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?
That again does not answer the question as to the basis for assurance of Truth claims, for we both can agree (as i have affirmed) for the validity in principal of a central magisterium, but the issue is that of the basis for assurance that what it teaches is True. Either the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome or
Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
Well, that's one way to speculate about the matter.
With all due respect, this only means that the Bible is still the ultimate authority, serving as the rule by which to determine if any other historical beliefs are valid or not.
The reality that Bible was the ultimate authority, serving as the rule by which to determine if any other historical beliefs are valid or not, is contrary to Catholicism.
And all of this really still just places the authority in the hands of the individual, which is why even the Reformers diverged over the role, weight, and importance of historical decisions and practices.
And under the alternative, that of the church being the supreme infallible standard for Truth, RCs debate over what Catholic teaching means, and the role, weight, and importance of historical decisions and practices in determining that. Unless they will just follow the pastors as docile sheep, for that while in one century obedience to the pope mean exterminating all the heretics, in anther they can follow a pope who gives evangelicals a "high five ."
And again the NT church did not begin according to the Cath model for determination of Truth, that of following the judgement of the historical magisterium, but with common souls, albeit a relative remnant, following itinerant preachers who established Truth claims of their itinerant leader upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. Thanks be to God. No praying to created beings in Heaven for them, besides other Catholic distinctive doctrines.
At dinner a few years ago with three professors from a conservative Evangelical college, I mentioned how much I, a non-Evangelical, admired Evangelicals for educating their youth so well in Scripture.
The professor on my left said that I had a romanticized or at least outdated view of Evangelicals. "You would be surprised by how many of our students come here knowing next to nothing about the Bible," he said sadly.
This stunned me. I told the professors that I was used to hearing this complaint from Catholic college professors, but could it really be true of Evangelicals too? At a conservative college?
I looked around the table. Every head nodded in the affirmative. The professors explained that even though most of these kids came out of church and youth group culture, their theological background was shockingly thin. "We do the best we can, but we only have them for four years," said one professor. "You can't make up in that short time for what they never had."
Since that night, I have made a point of asking professors at every Christian college that invites me to lecture to assess the Christian knowledge of their undergraduates. In almost every case, whether the college is Catholic or Evangelical, the answer is the same: they are theologically illiterate.
"A lot of our students come here from some of the most highly regarded Catholic schools in this region," said one professor. "They don't know anything about their faith and don't see the problem. They've had it drummed into their heads that Catholicism is anything they want it to be."
None of this is a surprise to anyone familiar with the social science literature documenting the widespread ignorance among Americans of Christian basics.
Thanks for that confirmation that this generation is the most Biblically illiterate and morally confused one that America has ever birthed. As a result, we are in for a rough ride.
And yet considering the well-documented great disparity btwn Catholics and evangelicals overall even in the state of spiritual declension in recent years, the OP should have a thread titled The Quiet Despair of Catholics.
A few of the abundant states from various researchers (^ indicates the same source as above, and. Also Barna changed their site and so many links may be broken).
73% (highest) of Pentecostal/Foursquare believers strongly affirm that Christ was sinless on earth, with Catholics, Lutherans and Methodists being tied at 33%, and the lowest being among Episcopalians with just 28% http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/53
47.8% of the Evangelicals and 11.8% of Catholics affirm the Bible is Literally true. 6.5% of the former and 19.8% of the latter see it as an ancient book of history and legends. ^
42.1% of Evangelical Protestants and 7.1% of Catholics Read Scripture weekly or more. ^
About 56 percent of Evangelicals currently say they're strongly affiliated with their religion, while only 35 percent of Catholics say the same, and 4% lower than mainline Protestants (devoutness of Mainline Protestants [distinct from evangelicals] fell to roughly 30 percent in the late 1970s to late 1980s before gradually climbing to 39 percent in 2010) https://www.barna.com/research/prot...-reflect-diverse-levels-of-religious-activity
Bible Reading: the highest was 75%, by those going to a Pentecostal/Foursquare church who reported they had read the Bible during the past week (besides at church), while the lowest was among Catholics at 23% ^
Volunteer church work (during past 7 days): Assemblies of God were highest at 30%, with the lowest going to Catholics at 12%. ^
Donating Money (during the last month): Church of Christ churches were the highest at 29%, with Catholics being the lowest at 12% ^
American evangelicals gave four times as much money, per person, to churches as did all other church donors in 2001. 88 percent of evangelicals and 73 percent of all Protestants donated to churches. John Ronsvalle and Sylvia Ronsvalle, The State of Church Giving through2004: Will We Will?16th ed. (Champaign, Ill.: Empty Tomb,2006),12.http://www.generousgiving.org/stats#
Data from a variety of researchers indicates that Catholics give one-third to one-half the portion of income that Protestants give. empty tomb, inc. : Catholic Giving
A Catholic survey reports that 4 percent of US Catholics described themselves as “very” involved in parish or religious activities other than attending Mass, and 11% as “somewhat involved, and 64% as “not involved at all.” Among weekly (or more) attendees (approx 22% of adult Catholics), 13% were very” involved, 29% “somewhat involved and 25% not involved at all.” http://cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServices/FRStats/devotionpractice.pdf
25% of Evangelical Christians and 20% of other Protestants and 7% of Catholics said the read the Bible on a daily basis. 44% of Catholics said they rarely or never read the Bible, along with only 7% of Evangelical Christians and 13% of other Protestants. Catholics, Protestants Practice Faith in Different Ways - Rasmussen Reports®
91% of Evangelical Christians and 63% of other Protestants and 25% of Catholics consider themselves to be born again; ^
44% of Evangelical Christians reflect at least daily on the meaning of Scripture in their lives. 36% of other Protestants and 22% of Catholics do the same; ^
52% of Evangelical Christians have had a meaningful discussion about their faith with a non-Christian during the past month. 28% of other Protestants and 18% of Catholics also have held such a discussion. ^
68% of Evangelical Christians attend a regular Bible Study or participate in some other small-group activity. 47% of other Protestants take part in small groups related to their faith, along with 24% of Catholics. ^
Catholics' responses to the questions that make up the 2004 Gallup Index of Leading Religious Indicators show Catholics lag noticeably behind Protestants on all but two of the survey items that make up the Index: belief in God and church membership. Protestants vs. Catholics: Who's Got Religion?
Catholics [2012] report the lowest proportion of strongly affiliated followers among major American religious traditions, with a considerable divergence between evangelical Protestants on the one hand and Catholics and mainline Protestants on the other. There was an abrupt decline in strength of affiliation among Catholics starting in 1984 and ending in 1989. Thus may be due to the growing number of Latino Catholics responding to the survey. Previous research has shown Latino Catholics were less likely to report a strong religious affiliation compared with other Catholics. Also, the percentage of Americans who say they adhere to no religion climbed from about 6 percent in the 1970s and 1980s to 16 percent in 2010. Religion In America: Evangelicals Surge As Catholics Wane
Catholics broke with their Church's teachings more than most other groups, with just six out of 10 Catholics affirming that God is "a person with whom people can have a relationship", and three in 10 describing God as an "impersonal force." 2008The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#-
And yet considering the well-documented great disparity btwn Catholics and evangelicals overall even in the state of spiritual declension in recent years, the OP should have a thread titled The Quiet Despair of Catholics.
Y'all can focus on internecine squabbles all you like. I'm sure some passengers of the Titanic thought that if they just blamed everything on the other passengers the ship would right itself.
Duno, I still disagree. There is nothing in Matthew 25:31-46 which implies that they were saved as a direct result of their deeds as opposed to them performing the deeds because they were saved. Meaning, we know that they were saved because a saved person would perform those things. Not, they were saved because they performed those things. Otherwise we have to ask, "How many hungry do we have to feed?", "How many strangers do we have to clothe?", and "How many prisoners do we have to visit?", before we are counted among the sheep on the right?
Who knows? That's up to God, who'll really be judging by the heart anyway. As I've noted here before, the real criteria for judgment in Christianity is our love-because love defines man's justice which is why the Greatest Commandments are what they are. Love fulfills the other commandments by its nature, and motivates the kind of works done in Matt 25:31-46. And Romans 2 tells us that while the Law can never justify us-cannot make us just-we'll nonetheless be judged by it. Why? because the Law is holy, spiritual, and good: it's simply right. But unless man is motivated to obey for the right reason, for the New Covenant reason, then it's all garbage; he's just a white-washed tomb, which is what Paul is essentially saying in Phil 3. And he continues in 1 Cor 13, "...if have a faith that can move mountains but have not love, I am nothing." And, "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." And Augustine would say, "Without love faith may indeed exist, but avails nothing."
And it's not just works done as per Matt 25. Also: "Just then, a man came up to Jesus and inquired, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to obtain eternal life?”
“Why do you ask Me about what is good?” Jesus replied, “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” Matt 19
BTW...I was born and raised Catholic. I am pretty sure that official Catholic doctrine suggests the same. The Catholic Church doesn't say that we are saved by works and deeds. Rather, one can loose their salvation through mortal sin. Works is a part of the sanctification process. Not a prerequisite to justification.
Here the Council of Trent in session 6 can speak on official Church teaching. The anathemas in this context mean "let him be shunned", language much less popular nowadays of course: "...faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.
For, if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace."
Canon 1.
"If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema."
Canon 24.
If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema.
Faith is the beginning of it all, from man's perspective, not the end. Salvation is both an act of faith and a continuous walk, something to be worked out with He who works in us depending on the time, opportunities, knowledge, and grace received, after which God gives His determination on how well we've done with what we had. ref Luke 12:48. God wants more from-but most importantly for-us than some believe...or prefer to believe?
And BTW, the reason that some sin is said to be mortal, (sin that leads to death, 1 John 5:16) is that some acts are so intrinsically opposed to love of God and neighbor by their nature that they destroy love in us, and love, again, is the primary definition of justice for man, what makes him right in God's eyes. The church also teaches that persistence in this state or act is required.
I've heard of Jimmy Akin's piece here but I don't know if I've read it before. I scanned it now and it seemed pretty good overall. I don't know if he compromised anything IMO-I'd have to read it more carefully- but I see he quoted Trent as well. Do yourself a favor. Read the Council of Trent session 6 on justification for yourself: Paul III Council of Trent-6
Carefully, being as objective as you can. The canons at the end can be quite edifying, even as they may seem contradictory sometimes. But they present very sound and balanced doctrine on justification, while sometimes appearing semi-Pelagian (which they're not at all) on the one hand, and in agreement with the Reformers on the other.
Perhaps it can be summed up this way: Man cannot possibly be saved without God, but he can always refuse to be saved, and can turn back away from God/salvation at any step along the way. The will of man plays a role, and is expected to do so with God calling and drawing but never forcing the matter. This is a contested area in Protestantism, with disagreement between believers or churches. And God, alone, knows with 100% certainty whose names are written in the Book of Life and whose are not, who will persevere and who will not. BTW, I was also raised Catholic, left the Church, later becoming a conservative Protestant, then returned about 25 years later, much to my own surprise at the time.
[I know this is somewhat of a long post, so I have a request to make for those of you who will skim it: If you only read 1 paragraph, read the one I've bolded. Thank you, and may God's blessings be ever in your soul!]
Since coming to college, I've gotten very involved in the Christian Campus House (CCH). Due to the demographic of the area, most of the people I know are Protestant. I've been involved in small groups with CCH for 2 years now, talked a lot with a lot of my Protestant friends, and occasionally they say something that should be deeply worrying to all Christians: They believe that we don't have a Biblical truth. We often discuss many theological issues, like the dispute of faith-alone or faith-and-works, where a thoroughly Biblical argument can be made for both. In my small group now, we're reading through Romans, and various verses point in either direction.
But it's very unsettling to hear how so many decently devout Christians so readily accept the idea that we just don't know how to settle issues like faith-alone or faith-and-works. We all believe the Bible has the truth; Catholics, non-denominationals, Orthodox, Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, even the Christians often thought to be unbiblical are fierce in reverence to Holy Scripture holding the truth. But interpretations within Scripture vary wildly, and far too many Christians say that we'll never know how to settle theological issues, because everyone's interpretation of the Bible is different.
In some ways, this is correct. Sermons have applied Scripture to various parts of life for 2,000 years now, and applying a given verse or idea to various circumstances can yield different results. This is the flexibility of Scripture.
But to say there is no theological truth seems like a contradiction to the nature of God!
Jesus is the truth; no one here will deny that. But does the truth say that we are saved by faith alone (believe in me and be saved), or by faith and works (all will be judged according to their works)?
God knows the Bible was written by many different authors to different audiences from different time periods. He knows that the Bible can be hard to interpret. He also sent us the gift of the Holy Spirit to help us out. And as long as He's forming a Church, it's only logical that He would grant His Church guidance by the Holy Spirit to lead people to the truth.
And, as convert John Henry Newman noted, there's only 1 church that even claims to have guidance from the Holy Spirit: The Catholic Church.
The infallibility of the Papacy is vital to preserving the truth, and the framework for it is laid out in the Bible. Papal Infallibility | Catholic Answers
While we all have the Holy Spirit guiding us, we're imperfect in accepting it. Much of these forums would not exist if we all accepted the Spirit enough to be led to the truth, because these arguments wouldn't exist. Throughout the Old Testament, it can be said that the Prophets have infallibility. The Bible itself is believed to be true because of inspiration from the Holy Spirit. So it would logically follow that God would grant the modern Church infallibility on theological & moral issues!
And I'll state it again: Everything the Catholic church teaches is thoroughly Biblical. Getting into the apologetics for this would be far too long, but Dave Armstrong has a number of writings on the topic, after he converted from Evangelical Protestantism after doing an in-depth Bible study to disprove Catholicism.
Please remember the Spirit of Gentleness & self-control as you write your responses, and thank you for taking the time to read & think about this critical issue in the Church! May God bless us all, and remind us of our complete & total dependence on Him!
Y'all can focus on internecine squabbles all you like. I'm sure some passengers of the Titanic thought that if they just blamed everything on the other passengers the ship would right itself.
You are missing the point, for the issue was that of RCs invoking division among whatever churches that they place under the tent of Protestantism, and with the RC argument being that disagreements and division disqualifies Protestantism from being correct. Which it is not as a whole, however, by that standard neither is Catholicism, since disagreements and division is very manifest within it as well.
This and related issues are addressed in a post above.
I've heard of Jimmy Akin's piece here but I don't know if I've read it before. I scanned it now and it seemed pretty good overall. I don't know if he compromised anything IMO-I'd have to read it more carefully- but I see he quoted Trent as well. Do yourself a favor. Read the Council of Trent session 6 on justification for yourself: Paul III Council of Trent-6
Will do. I will first admit that I am no expert on Roman Catholic theology. There are plenty of people who are much smarter than I am on those topics. I try to be as respectful as I can with my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters (both literally and figuratively), which is why I try to use Catholic approved sources. Usually, my issue is not with Catholic Doctrine. It is when I am having a discussion with a Catholic who doesn't understand what the official Catholic doctrines are. Although, there are times when I have the misunderstanding. I think if more protestants actually took the time to understand the official positions of the Vatican and not the confused opinions of the laity, they would discover that the Roman Catholic Church is not as far off as they expected. Just my opinion though.
]
