What is "Bible Church" supposed to mean?

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
I will proudly count Justin Martyr as a Fundamentalist then.

I can hardly insist that peoples consciences be bound to Justin Martyr, as interesting as his witness is. And in the end that's the point I am making. It's not about what "I believe", but what fellowship in a liberal denomination looks like. Though I do believe in the empty tomb, I am not going to adopt rhetoric that scandalizes the faith of others over a point that doesn't seem essential to me, by adopting rhetoric associated with fundamentalism.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
And the definition was itself based on what, exactly? I have to assume that the survey respondents self-identified their churches as "Bible Churches", else the assignment to that category would necessarily have been arbitrary. How did the survey determine which churches "most strongly affirmed the integrity of Scripture"? With a question like "How much do y'all affirm the integrity of Scripture? A - A lot, B - Quite A Bit, C - Some, D - Not Much, E - Not At All"? And these churches "attest to the greatest degree of unity", you say. Unity with whom, and on what points? I'd have liked to see how that conclusion was drawn, and from what data.
Then rather taking pot shots why no follow the link to the referenced material, as well as the section that deals with how the class of "evangelical" is determined?

First, you can rather readily see which class most strongly affirmed the integrity of Scripture from such stats as:

  • 42.1% of Evangelical Protestants and 7.1% of Catholics Read Scripture weekly or more. ^
  • Orthodox (29%), Mainline Churches (28%), and Catholics (27%) led Christian Churches in affirming that the Scriptures were written by men and were not the word of God, versus just and 7% of Evangelical Churches, who instead rightly affirm its full inspiration of God. (2008 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#)
  • 81% of Pentecostal/Foursquare believers strongly agree that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches , followed by 77% of Assemblies of God believers, and ending with 26% of Catholics and 22% of Episcopalians. (http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/53 [older Barna links have since changed. See secondary source ])
Then you just need to read the sections on theological and moral beliefs (political also factors in)_ to see the correspondence btwn those who most strongly esteem Scripture and their theological and moral beliefs.

And I already showed you that even "Catholics that are Biblical literalists (11.8%) hold more conservative political views than the Catholic population in general does. The Biblical literalist Catholic is as politically conservative as the Biblical literalist who is Evangelical (47.8%) or Mainline Protestant. (11.2%) American Piety in the 21st Century, Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33304.pdf

The fact that I have to walk you thru this indicates that you are reluctant to see much of anything that is contrary to a headhunting animus toward evangelical types.
It still seems to me that fleeing the and taking refuge in "Bible churches" might not be a particularly shrewd move, as there are, shall we say, fundamental differences in the BCs that should give a conscientious Catholic pause. The first in my mind would be the teaching of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. All Catholics and a great many Protestants believe in it, but almost no Evangelicals do. The question is far from trivial, and most of us who believe in the RP believe that the rejection of that belief is unacceptable. This seems to me a place where the Evangelicals have to do violence to the Scripture to maintain their "memorial only" doctrine intact, and thus belies their "Bible only" claim.
What?! Rather than the metaphorical position doing violence to Scripture, that is the ONLY understanding that easily conflates with the whole of Scripture, in contrast to the metaphysical Catholic contrivance, and which also is not a plainly literal reading of the words at issue in the Last Supper .

At least Anglican understanding is not so extreme, and though far less precise nor uniformly believed it seems, and it is rejected as being a valid Eucharist, and (according to a Catholic researcher) Anglicanism can apparently lay claim to being the originators of the term "Real Presence" in order to distinguish btwn the two.

Though strongly opposed to the Catholic dogma on the LS yet I do not necessarily make a matter of salvation, unless as traditional implicitly RCs do.
All of them? You mean one cannot be an evangelical/Bible Christian and affirm the Nicene creed as stated on CF, and the apostles creed as well?
The conscious rejection of the ancient creeds of the Church,
the rule amongst Baptists and generally true in their descendents and offshoots is also cause for concern. The creeds define the true fundamentals of the faith, and rejecting them for either a truncated version embraced too often because the real creeds are "too Catholic", or accepting de facto creeds created by the leader(s) of a particular congregation, is hazardous on its face. Making up one's own "orthodoxy" on the fly is an open invitation to rediscover ancient heresies and hail them as newfound truth.
Which is simply fallacious argument. First, rejecting ancient creeds does not mean one necessarily rejects fundamentals of the faith and embraces ancient heresies, and evangelicals have been foremost defender of core Truths which the affirm together with Catholics, and against cults which deny them. It was not a Catholic who wrote "The kingdom of the cults" but an evangelical.

And while affirming such Truths as stated in the Apostles creed the Nicene creed as stated on CF, yet one can reject them as a doctrinal standard, since the uninspired words of men are not determinitive of what the NT church believed.

Instead, the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. And in which Catholic distinctives are not manifest, and are often contrary to what the NT church manifestly believed.

And thus rather than being a standard for orthodoxy, creeds as well as writings of so-called church fathers (which we also have available as a result of the work of Anglicans), insofar as they affirm Catholic distinctives then they are an attestation not to manifest NT orthodoxy, but to gradual accretion of non-Scriptural beliefs.
On top of all that, if you flee the RCC to escape predators who prey on the faithful, you're likely to find yourself simply choosing a new set of predators. Do you really think sexual abuse is unique to the RCC? Or theft from the Church? Or theft in general? Abuse of children? Even murder? If so, then you're living in a fantasy world. As I point out briefly in a previous post, this same vile behavior takes place in all denominations, sects, cults... and yes, all religions. Thump the Catholics all you like, but look around you a bit, and see if there's not enough depravity to go around happening in every bloody organization where people in positions of trust and authority can abuse those who trust them.
Certainly that is true, to varying degrees overall, but what kind of argument is yours? By such reasoning you could counter the Lord's basic directive, "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another," (Matthew 10:23) for evil exists everywhere, while it makes a mockery of His commands,
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:14,17-18)

Separation is one of the fundamental principals in Scripture, and as concerns faith and morals in the church, thus the shunning of impenitent practitioners of known gross sin is mandated, (1 Corinthians 5:11-13) as is from heretics. (Titus 3:2)

Therefore the issue becomes where to draw the line. Luther himself did not want to separate at first, but their comes a point when it becomes necessary as in the case of recalcitrance.

I'm an Anglican. The Church of England has become largely a Church of the Zeitgeist, eager to prove how idiotically open minded they are, and what new perversions they can embrace and how many pernicious and unChristian beliefs they can espouse in the name of "diversity". The Episcopal Church (TEC), is, with the possible exceptions of hold-outs like the Korean Episcopal Church in the US and various backwoods parishes where old gaffers like me hold forth, an even worse snake-pit than the CofE.
.
Then you need to separate from the chaff, and keep the wheat. Even Judah separated from Ephraim and was favored by God insofar as (and until) they did not go deep South as well.
Should those of us who are still old school Anglicans sign on with some strip-mall "Bible church" where there's no liturgy, no creeds, no solemnity when we take the Body and Blood of our Lord, no mighty hymns, no confession, in short, none of most of the things that constitute worship for us? I'll pass.
Which is simply another false either/or dichotomy. Most of church services I have been part of typically have a static liturgy, though aside from basics, none is manifest in the inspired life of the NT church. I think most find safety in structure, and would not like a meeting as 1 Corinthians 14 describes, "For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted." (1 Corinthians 14:31)

As for no solemnity when we take the Body and Blood of our Lord, I have only seen solemnity in the evangelical services, to a fault, focusing on remembering what Christ did as a fact of history, and even like Catholics, with the focus on consuming the elements, missing the fact that effectually remembering means recognizing the body of Christ as being the church which He purchased with His sinless shed blood, and thus showing the love of Christ to each other by sharing food with them as part of a communal love feast, showing unity with the Lord and with those "for whom Christ died." (Romans 14:15; 1 Corinthians 8:11)

Which is what the only manifest description of the Lord's supper in the church epistles describes 1Cor. 10,111Cor. 10,11; Jude 1:12)

As for no creed and mighty hymns(!), what classic mighty hymns we have! Why even Rome sings some of them. Read an old Baptist hymnal, as this from men and women of the SBC, favorites of which I put together here , and glorify the Lord. Which are not as the majority of contem-poor-ary fluff, but overall of dept and much theology. Such can serve as creeds, while our hard cover old Baptist hymnal has an extensive doctrinal section in the back.
I'm going to stay in the Anglican faith and fight against the decay. We may not win, the end is not in our hands.
I myself am a former weekly Mass-going RC and CDD teacher and lector, remaining for 6 years after I was manifestly born again thru deep repentance and faith, and who only prayerfully left for evangelical faith mainly out of a desire to be with those who were actually committed to serving God, besides the discrepancies I increasingly saw btwn the NT church and Catholicism. Not that evangelical faith is fully that of the prima NT church with its manifest apostles, but better to try to go by what the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed shows (and which i come far too short in).

And also judge righteousness judgment, versus off-the-cuff bias, though we all can be guilty of that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I can hardly insist that peoples consciences be bound to Justin Martyr, as interesting as his witness is. And in the end that's the point I am making. It's not about what "I believe", but what fellowship in a liberal denomination looks like. Though I do believe in the empty tomb, I am not going to adopt rhetoric that scandalizes the faith of others over a point that doesn't seem essential to me, by adopting rhetoric associated with fundamentalism.
Ok maybe we can tighten the shot group a bit.

Was Jesus raised with an imperishable immortal human body?
 
Upvote 0

Love &Forgiveness

Active Member
Aug 30, 2018
300
77
US
✟18,415.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Love &Forgiveness said:

I'm not against the Bible. I know we don't need it. We only need Jesus.

PeaceByJesus said:

Which is simply another false dichotomy. Just where do you get your definition of your Jesus? Did He personally appear to you? Why do you even believe in the Nicene Creed?

Love &Forgiveness said: Faith comes by hearing, but the Jews memorized the entire Law and they still didn't believe in God.

PeaceByJesus said: Which argument employs another logical fallacy a well as an error of ignorance. As regards the former, the fact that someone is given the word of God, but does not apprehend it, simply does not impugn at the least the necessity and efficacy of it. One can have access life-saving medicine, but unless they take it then they can die.

As regards your factual error, the Jews who Jews memorized the entire Law did believe in God, (Acts 26:7) as even demons do, but not unto salvation, since they do not believe all He said. Of course, if one rejects Scripture, then they can just dismiss what it says about anyone.

Love &Forgiveness said: In the Bible we see people believing in Jesus because of the miracles He did. We see people believe in Him because they saw Him risen, for instance Thomas. We see some believe because of visions.

PeaceByJesus said: And the soothsayer Joseph Smith also claimed to see Jesus, the Father and the Son, as well as converse with Moses, Elias and Elijah. The point is that visions alone are not determintive of what is valid, and while some people in the past as well as the present can believe on the Lord Jesus via a dream or vision, such subjective experiences are subject to testing by the established authority, which the Christ of Scripture attested to.

The fact is that apart from Scripture, the Christ you believe in could be anything or anyone.

Love &Forgiveness said: Salvation is accomplished by Faith from start to finish and that Faith is given to us from God.

PeaceByJesus said: But which is also a false either/or dichotomy, for the fact that faith is given to us from God is simply not opposed to faith coming from the word of God, and of Scripture assuredly being the word of God. God also gives food, however, He usually uses a delivery service of types.

Love &Forgiveness said: Faith is a gift, not something earned through reading the Bible.

PeaceByJesus said: Who said anything about being earned? That is simply a strawman which flows from your previous false either/or dichotomy.

Love &Forgiveness said: Paul used the Scriptures because that is the Word of God and the only way to reach some people, but not the only way to reach all people.

PeaceByJesus said: Which contradicts your previous statement on the Bible, "I know we don't need it." Now it is true that God could even appear in the clouds to every nation and declare, "I am God almighty, and I am going to show you how I want things to be done from now on," and zap Hollywood studios (among other things and people).

However, this is not anything like how God works as a norm (but remember Sodom).
For while God expressly revealed Himself to a very limited few and His will in a very limited scope, yet when He chose to reveal His will to an entire nation then He preserved it in writing, which is His manifest means of preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Ps. 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Lk. 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)

And as is abundantly evidenced, the "word of God/the Lord" was normally written, even if subsequent to to being spoken, and as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme substantive standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

Love &Forgiveness said: Most of the people that became believers in Jesus never read the Scripture. They most likely didn't have them.



PeaceByJesus said: Indeed. However, the ones who preached to them were those to whom the Lord, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." "that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures." (Luke 24:44-45) (Luke 24:27)

And thus the Christ they believed in was not some abstract deity, but one whose message of His identity and work flowed out of Scripture, and thus the Gentiles converts were immediately schooled in Scripture as able, "Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," (Romans 1:2) "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Romans 16:26)

Love &Forgiveness said: What the Scriptures are is a testimony of God from those who witnessed Him in their lives.

PeaceByJesus said: They are not simply personal testimonies about Jesus in their lives, but also of public declarations about Himself and His will, preserved by inspired-of-God writing, and as such the transcendent supreme substantive standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims.

In contrast, you are elevating subjective experiences of God above the objective established supreme transcendent substantive testimony of Scripture, to which the Christ of Scripture appealed to as being so. The former certainly is indispensable, for Scripture promises it, but they are not the supreme standard on Truth.


What non-sequitur is another example of your irrational illogical responses. Here the one who asserts we do not need the Bible invokes the Bible in support of herself, by which she apparently presumes to attack my refutations by relegating them to be what "knowledge" is referring to in the passage, in contrast to her "love."

But of course, besides taking 1 Corinthians 8 out of context, and engaging in another false either/or dichotomy, since just what is loving needs to be defined, and Scripture states that "Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;" (1 Corinthians 13:6) and God's word is truth, which Scripture assuredly is, then it only strengthens my case.

1 Corinthians 12:31 NLT
So you should earnestly desire the most helpful gifts. But now let me show you a way of life that is best of all.

1 Corinthians 13:1-13 NLT
If I could speak all the languages of earth and of angels, but didn’t love others, I would only be a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. [2] If I had the gift of prophecy, and if I understood all of God’s secret plans and possessed all knowledge, and if I had such faith that I could move mountains, but didn’t love others, I would be nothing. [3] If I gave everything I have to the poor and even sacrificed my body, I could boast about it; but if I didn’t love others, I would have gained nothing. [4] Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud [5] or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. [6] It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. [7] Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance. [8] Prophecy and speaking in unknown languages and special knowledge will become useless. But love will last forever! [9] Now our knowledge is partial and incomplete, and even the gift of prophecy reveals only part of the whole picture! [10] But when the time of perfection comes, these partial things will become useless. [11] When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things. [12] Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely. [13] Three things will last forever—faith, hope, and love— and the greatest of these is love.
 
Upvote 0

Love &Forgiveness

Active Member
Aug 30, 2018
300
77
US
✟18,415.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Love &Forgiveness said:

I'm not against the Bible. I know we don't need it. We only need Jesus.

PeaceByJesus said:

Which is simply another false dichotomy. Just where do you get your definition of your Jesus? Did He personally appear to you? Why do you even believe in the Nicene Creed?

Love &Forgiveness said: Faith comes by hearing, but the Jews memorized the entire Law and they still didn't believe in God.

PeaceByJesus said: Which argument employs another logical fallacy a well as an error of ignorance. As regards the former, the fact that someone is given the word of God, but does not apprehend it, simply does not impugn at the least the necessity and efficacy of it. One can have access life-saving medicine, but unless they take it then they can die.

As regards your factual error, the Jews who Jews memorized the entire Law did believe in God, (Acts 26:7) as even demons do, but not unto salvation, since they do not believe all He said. Of course, if one rejects Scripture, then they can just dismiss what it says about anyone.

Love &Forgiveness said: In the Bible we see people believing in Jesus because of the miracles He did. We see people believe in Him because they saw Him risen, for instance Thomas. We see some believe because of visions.

PeaceByJesus said: And the soothsayer Joseph Smith also claimed to see Jesus, the Father and the Son, as well as converse with Moses, Elias and Elijah. The point is that visions alone are not determintive of what is valid, and while some people in the past as well as the present can believe on the Lord Jesus via a dream or vision, such subjective experiences are subject to testing by the established authority, which the Christ of Scripture attested to.

The fact is that apart from Scripture, the Christ you believe in could be anything or anyone.

Love &Forgiveness said: Salvation is accomplished by Faith from start to finish and that Faith is given to us from God.

PeaceByJesus said: But which is also a false either/or dichotomy, for the fact that faith is given to us from God is simply not opposed to faith coming from the word of God, and of Scripture assuredly being the word of God. God also gives food, however, He usually uses a delivery service of types.

Love &Forgiveness said: Faith is a gift, not something earned through reading the Bible.

PeaceByJesus said: Who said anything about being earned? That is simply a strawman which flows from your previous false either/or dichotomy.

Love &Forgiveness said: Paul used the Scriptures because that is the Word of God and the only way to reach some people, but not the only way to reach all people.

PeaceByJesus said: Which contradicts your previous statement on the Bible, "I know we don't need it." Now it is true that God could even appear in the clouds to every nation and declare, "I am God almighty, and I am going to show you how I want things to be done from now on," and zap Hollywood studios (among other things and people).

However, this is not anything like how God works as a norm (but remember Sodom).
For while God expressly revealed Himself to a very limited few and His will in a very limited scope, yet when He chose to reveal His will to an entire nation then He preserved it in writing, which is His manifest means of preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Ps. 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Lk. 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)

And as is abundantly evidenced, the "word of God/the Lord" was normally written, even if subsequent to to being spoken, and as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme substantive standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

Love &Forgiveness said: Most of the people that became believers in Jesus never read the Scripture. They most likely didn't have them.



PeaceByJesus said: Indeed. However, the ones who preached to them were those to whom the Lord, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." "that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures." (Luke 24:44-45) (Luke 24:27)

And thus the Christ they believed in was not some abstract deity, but one whose message of His identity and work flowed out of Scripture, and thus the Gentiles converts were immediately schooled in Scripture as able, "Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," (Romans 1:2) "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Romans 16:26)

Love &Forgiveness said: What the Scriptures are is a testimony of God from those who witnessed Him in their lives.

PeaceByJesus said: They are not simply personal testimonies about Jesus in their lives, but also of public declarations about Himself and His will, preserved by inspired-of-God writing, and as such the transcendent supreme substantive standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims.

In contrast, you are elevating subjective experiences of God above the objective established supreme transcendent substantive testimony of Scripture, to which the Christ of Scripture appealed to as being so. The former certainly is indispensable, for Scripture promises it, but they are not the supreme standard on Truth.


What non-sequitur is another example of your irrational illogical responses. Here the one who asserts we do not need the Bible invokes the Bible in support of herself, by which she apparently presumes to attack my refutations by relegating them to be what "knowledge" is referring to in the passage, in contrast to her "love."

But of course, besides taking 1 Corinthians 8 out of context, and engaging in another false either/or dichotomy, since just what is loving needs to be defined, and Scripture states that "Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;" (1 Corinthians 13:6) and God's word is truth, which Scripture assuredly is, then it only strengthens my case.

Matthew 22:36-40 NLT
“Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the law of Moses?” [37] Jesus replied, “‘You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ [38] This is the first and greatest commandment. [39] A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ [40] The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.”
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Ok maybe we can tighten the shot group a bit.

Was Jesus raised with an imperishable immortal human body?

I would phrase it that he was raised with a glorified body. This is also consistent with early Lutheran eucharistic theology.
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
First, you can rather readily see which class most strongly affirmed the integrity of Scripture from such stats as:
I gather that you see the stats you quoted (which I snipped for brevity's sake) as indicative of something or other. Adherence and/or fidelity to God's word? But I see in those stats support for my own view that Catholicism is a more natural home to a wider variety of people than evangelicalism.

Specifically, evangelicalism (and, frankly, any tradition which espouses sola scriptura) somewhat requires laypeople to become, in a sense, scholars of the word on their own. While that may sound like a positive development on the surface, the sad reality is that most people aren't equipped to be scholars.

Now, as a Catholic, that poses no problem for me. My faith recognizes that different people have different gifts and different callings. And, to put it softly, different aptitudes; not all Catholics are called to be scholars and experts. In the Catholic Church, there are many ways to answer one's calling. Virtually none of them require the layman to become a scholar.

However, this approach poses a unique challenge to evangelicals. For one thing, it artificially sets one's spiritual acumen into artificial parameters of scriptural expertise. For two things, this happens in spite of the fact that, let's face it, the great majority of people in the world (and, yes, the great majority of evangelicals) are not exactly equipped to be scholars and academics.

It seems that the evangelical tradition does not offer very many accommodations to all people's gifts and aptitudes. And it looks to me as though the difference between you and me is that you see this development as a positive thing.

And I already showed you that even "Catholics that are Biblical literalists (11.8%) hold more conservative political views than the Catholic population in general does.
If I'm misinterpreting your post here, I welcome your correction. But here, again, you seem to interpret this as a positive thing. I have a fair number of conservative ideological preferences myself. But on certain issues, I am left of center.

I find it troublesome that one's Christian faith should be so closely identified to their ideological preferences. Baptism is not (and should not be) accompanied by a GOP membership card. I believe Christians do a disservice to non-Christians by implying a mandatory connection to Republican Party politics. Considering how polarized America is right now, evangelizing others is challenging enough without introducing the complicating factor of party affiliation.

At least Anglican understanding is not so extreme, and though far less precise nor uniformly believed it seems, and it is rejected as being a valid Eucharist, and (according to a Catholic researcher) Anglicanism can apparently lay claim to being the originators of the term "Real Presence" in order to distinguish btwn the two.
Divide and conquer? I do not believe you benefit your side in attempting to further alienate Anglicans from Catholics in order to reinforce your evangelical viewpoints.

Whatever daylight there might be between Anglicans and Catholics, I have observed that many Anglicans have an easier time seeing themselves among Catholics than they do with seeing themselves among evangelicals.

Circling back to the ideological thing, I've noticed a tendency in many of your posts to treat your faith as though it's a political ideology itself. Such is your right, of course, but the adage goes "You catch more flies with honey" for a reason.

Which is simply fallacious argument. First, rejecting ancient creeds does not mean one necessarily rejects fundamentals of the faith and embraces ancient heresies
Be that as it may, the creeds are important to the great majority of Christians worldwide. The evangelical rejection of creeds (or at least the evangelical tendency to ignore them) is bothersome to most of the Christians in the world.

I well understand why evangelicals tend to ignore the ancient creeds. In its place, their logic is sound. However, the facts remain that the creeds do exist and most Christians cherish them. But evangelical ecclesial communities ignore the creeds and this represents another divisive factor for people who might otherwise be of good will toward the evangelical tradition.

And while affirming such Truths as stated in the Apostles creed the Nicene creed as stated on CF, yet one can reject them as a doctrinal standard, since the uninspired words of men are not determinitive of what the NT church believed.
This is a curious observation considering the various creeds' roots in the Early Church.

Instead, the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
I note you left out "comprehensive" as a descriptor.

And thus rather than being a standard for orthodoxy, creeds as well as writings of so-called church fathers (which we also have available as a result of the work of Anglicans), insofar as they affirm Catholic distinctives then they are an attestation not to manifest NT orthodoxy, but to gradual accretion of non-Scriptural beliefs.
Put another way, the Church went off the rails a few weeks after Our Lord's ascension and it took over a millennium and a half to get everything back on track?

Luther himself did not want to separate at first, but their comes a point when it becomes necessary as in the case of recalcitrance.
To be fair (which is the opposite of charitable in this case), Luther was willing to stick around had the Catholic Church collectively been willing to convert to Lutheranism.

Which is simply another false either/or dichotomy. Most of church services I have been part of typically have a static liturgy, though aside from basics, none is manifest in the inspired life of the NT church. I think most find safety in structure, and would not like a meeting as 1 Corinthians 14 describes, "For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted." (1 Corinthians 14:31)
This, again, speaks to the evangelical unwillingness to accommodate the needs of its members (or would-be members, as the case may be).

I draw a spiritual comfort from a liturgy which has been slowly refined and perfected over the centuries. I find that more trustworthy than the overly-produced and perfectly executed stage-managing of evangelical worship.

As for no creed and mighty hymns(!), what classic mighty hymns we have!
Here is one area where results tend to vary significantly. However, in the Southern Baptist and non-denominational services I have attended, the music tends to be a selection of whatever's popular on the local Contemporary Christian radio station.

The near-perfect stage management strikes again here because only those who refuse to see won't notice the relationship between the volume of the music compared to the brightness of the house lights. The louder the song is, the brighter the light are. The transition from softness to loudness is frequently accompanied by a transition from dim lights to bright lights. "Here's the big dramatic transition to the loud part of the song, better shine those lights brighter! Maybe the parishioners will recognize their cue to stand up in unison!"

Lest I be accused of hypocrisy, I recognize that this shallow (though dramatic) type of presentation is a successful way of reaching vast swaths of the audience. But I, frankly, resent being "managed" in this type of way, particularly when there's no real purpose for it. Nothing of substance is gained from these manipulative theatrics and I remain unmoved, literally and emotionally. They are lost on me... though, apparently, not everybody. Not even close to everybody, it seems.

Why even Rome sings some of them. Read an old Baptist hymnal, as this from men and women of the SBC, favorites of which I put together here , and glorify the Lord. Which are not as the majority of contem-poor-ary fluff, but overall of dept and much theology. Such can serve as creeds, while our hard cover old Baptist hymnal has an extensive doctrinal section in the back.
This is a remarkable admission on your part. And yet, it's something I find common in the various forms of evangelicalism.

It seems that the evangelicals have observed some facet of traditional Christianity and then thrown it away for no good reason. Later, they realize the utility of whatever practice which they rejected once offered so they replace it with something of lesser value.

To wit: evangelicals don't have Confessors; but they may have "accountability partners". In some respects, an AP serves some of the same purposes of a Confessor. Except an AP need not be ordained and certainly cannot hear a proper Confession. Moreover, a Confessor is forbidden from discussing the particulars of what he hears; no such restriction exists for AP's. The law recognizes and protects the Seal of Confession; no such recognition or protection likely exists for AP's.

Evangelicals typically don't have a cantor, as such. But many of them have come to recognize the importance a musical director offers so now they have "worship leaders". However, a cantor's role is to direct the faithful in song while it's the job of a "worship leader" to memorize songs popular on the aforementioned local Contemporary Christian radio station.

And, regarding your post above, evangelicals don't have creeds. But many of them have come to recognize the value creeds offer so they use songs in their place. There's no apparent logic behind this decision, save "Creeds are what the dang Catholics do and we ain't Catholic!", I suppose. But the ancient creeds have existed since the Early Church while evangelical songs are probably here today, gone tomorrow, and will be swiftly forgotten by history. Time will tell, I guess.

In any case, the more time goes by, the more I see evangelicalism as a hollow, stripped down, less effectual and less valuable shadow of traditional Christianity. The above are just some examples as to why.

And also judge righteousness judgment, versus off-the-cuff bias, though we all can be guilty of that.
To say the least.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Justification is directly linked to the bodily resurrection of Christ right?

To get back to this question. In Lutheran theology, traditionally, justification is linked to the death of Christ (in fact, the central motif of Lutheranism is the Cross, the death of Christ). We still speak of it that way in some of our rites even to this day, for instance in the order of absolution:

"God, the Father of mercies, through the death of his Son, has reconciled the world to himself... As a called and ordained minister of the Church of Christ, I declare to you the complete forgiveness of all your sins...".

This directly relates to our Theology of the Cross, as opposed to Theologies of Glory. In the Catholic version of the absolution, they still say "death and resurrection". Lutherans focus on Christ's death in thinking about our relationship to God. That's not to say we deny the resurrection as theology, but declaring it a "fundamental" of the faith is not a Lutheran emphasis. The "fundamental of the faith" is that God reconciles us to himself in Christ's death.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To get back to this question. In Lutheran theology, traditionally, justification is linked to the death of Christ (in fact, the central motif of Lutheranism is the Cross, the death of Christ). We still speak of it that way in some of our rites even to this day, for instance in the order of absolution:



This directly relates to our Theology of the Cross, as opposed to Theologies of Glory. In the Catholic version of the absolution, they still say "death and resurrection". Lutherans focus on Christ's death in thinking about our relationship to God. That's not to say we deny the resurrection as theology, but declaring it a "fundamental" of the faith is not a Lutheran emphasis. The "fundamental of the faith" is that God reconciles us to himself in Christ's death.
That is reconciliation. Yet Romans 4:25 speaks of His resurrection as our justification.
 
Upvote 0

nChrist

AKA: Tom - Saved By Grace Through Faith
Supporter
Mar 21, 2003
21,118
17,842
Oklahoma, USA
✟879,660.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
There are real Bible churches that are quite serious and valid. The Holy Bible is God's Word to us, and real Bible churches take that seriously. The Holy Bible is to be read and studied.

2 Timothy 2:15 KJV Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Part 1 or 2

I gather that you see the stats you quoted (which I snipped for brevity's sake) as indicative of something or other. Adherence and/or fidelity to God's word? But I see in those stats support for my own view that Catholicism is a more natural home to a wider variety of people than evangelicalism.
Ted Kennedy-type Catholics would agree, while it seems it is the traditionalists who are most likely to feel uncomfortable.
Specifically, evangelicalism (and, frankly, any tradition which espouses sola scriptura) somewhat requires laypeople to become, in a sense, scholars of the word on their own. While that may sound like a positive development on the surface, the sad reality is that most people aren't equipped to be scholars.
No, but the other extreme is '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 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)
Now, as a Catholic, that poses no problem for me. My faith recognizes that different people have different gifts and different callings. And, to put it softly, different aptitudes; not all Catholics are called to be scholars and experts. In the Catholic Church, there are many ways to answer one's calling. Virtually none of them require the layman to become a scholar.
But while there needs to be teachers who are, the problem becomes when they must support leadership with presume inerrancy, versus the validity of teaching being based on the degree of evidential warrant for it. For when constrained to support leadership then the conclusion of the teachers is compelled to support it regardless of where the Truth may lead, which is cultic.

Of course, while traditional Catholics attack ascertaining the validity of church teaching by examination of the evidential warrant for it from ancient church teaching (the Scriptures), they do so themselves by examination of the warrant for it from ancient, or medieval to 1960, church teaching. Thus Francis supporters sometimes call their traditional cousins "Protestants."

But my point on the surveys was to show that esteem for Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God corresponds to the greatest degree of unity in basic beliefs.
However, this approach poses a unique challenge to evangelicals. For one thing, it artificially sets one's spiritual acumen into artificial parameters of scriptural expertise. For two things, this happens in spite of the fact that, let's face it, the great majority of people in the world (and, yes, the great majority of evangelicals) are not exactly equipped to be scholars and academics.
But we have TV! Seriously, there is problem on both sides. When academia takes the place of anointing, or the latter is seen as absolutely essential, then you have institutionalized dead faith, as well as theological looseness and "dignified" error. Do you really want to trumpet modern Catholic Bible scholarship such as seen for decades in NAB notes and helps ?

And it typically was the lettered class that rejected the prophets of old and the Lord and his anointed preachers. .

But when anointing is seen as necessarily being in opposition to academic training then you have tend to have superficiality and crass error.
The Puritans understood the need for both anointing and academic training.
It seems that the evangelical tradition does not offer very many accommodations to all people's gifts and aptitudes. And it looks to me as though the difference between you and me is that you see this development as a positive thing.
No. Again, my point on the surveys was to show that esteem for Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God corresponds to the greatest degree of unity in basic beliefs.

PeaceByJesus said:

And I already showed you that even "Catholics that are Biblical literalists (11.8%) hold more conservative political views than the Catholic population in general does.

If I'm misinterpreting your post here, I welcome your correction. But here, again, you seem to interpret this as a positive thing. I have a fair number of conservative ideological preferences myself. But on certain issues, I am left of center. I find it troublesome that one's Christian faith should be so closely identified to their ideological preferences. Baptism is not (and should not be) accompanied by a GOP membership card. I believe Christians do a disservice to non-Christians by implying a mandatory connection to Republican Party politics.
Well, you can be a conservative and not be a Christian, but i dare say that you cannot be a mature Christian and not be a conservative in the basic issues polled.
Considering how polarized America is right now, evangelizing others is challenging enough without introducing the complicating factor of party affiliation.
True. But that was not the context of the disputation.
PeaceByJesus said:

At least Anglican understanding is not so extreme, and though far less precise nor uniformly believed it seems, and it is rejected as being a valid Eucharist, and (according to a Catholic researcher) Anglicanism can apparently lay claim to being the originators of the term "Real Presence" in order to distinguish btwn the two.

Divide and conquer? I do not believe you benefit your side in attempting to further alienate Anglicans from Catholics in order to reinforce your evangelical viewpoints.

Whatever daylight there might be between Anglicans and Catholics, I have observed that many Anglicans have an easier time seeing themselves among Catholics than they do with seeing themselves among evangelicals.
Thus they should be aware of how Catholics see them.
Circling back to the ideological thing, I've noticed a tendency in many of your posts to treat your faith as though it's a political ideology itself. Such is your right, of course, but the adage goes "You catch more flies with honey" for a reason.
As Catholics tend to quote and evangelicals have exampled, "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." (James 2:17) And as it follows that, "I will shew thee my faith by my works," (James 2:18) so also political ideology, insofar as corresponds to moral ideology and principals, relates to what one believes.
Be that as it may, the creeds are important to the great majority of Christians worldwide. The evangelical rejection of creeds (or at least the evangelical tendency to ignore them) is bothersome to most of the Christians in the world.
I well understand why evangelicals tend to ignore the ancient creeds. In its place, their logic is sound. However, the facts remain that the creeds do exist and most Christians cherish them. But evangelical ecclesial communities ignore the creeds and this represents another divisive factor for people who might otherwise be of good will toward the evangelical tradition..
That depends on what they say, and the status given them.
This is a curious observation considering the various creeds' roots in the Early Church.
Again, the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), is Scripture. Thus while one can affirm such Truths as stated in the Apostles creed and the Nicene creed as stated on CF, yet one can reject them as a doctrinal standard, since the uninspired words of men are not determinitive of what the NT church believed.

Insofar as creeds affirm Catholic distinctives not manifest in wholly inspired substantive authoritative record d then they do not attest to what of what the NT church manifestly believed,
I note you left out "comprehensive" as a descriptor.
OK. the most comprehensive only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed is Scripture, esp. Acts-Revelation.
PeaceByJesus said: ↑
And thus rather than being a standard for orthodoxy, creeds as well as writings of so-called church fathers (which we also have available as a result of the work of Anglicans), insofar as they affirm Catholic distinctives then they are an attestation not to manifest NT orthodoxy, but to gradual accretion of non-Scriptural beliefs

Put another way, the Church went off the rails a few weeks after Our Lord's ascension and it took over a millennium and a half to get everything back on track?
Being put another way is to misrepresent what I said. "Insofar as they affirm Catholic distinctives then they are an attestation not to manifest NT orthodoxy, but to gradual accretion of non-Scriptural beliefs.
Catholicism never completely apostatized, rather to the contrary she retained all the inspired books we do and salvific Truths, but in doctrine added and took away things which makes herself an object of faith, starting with becoming a Christian being thru her ritual even without personal repentant faith as required, (Acts 2:38; Acts 3:37,37) and meriting heaven thru works done thru her, and by her intercession.

PeaceByJesus said:

Luther himself did not want to separate at first, but their comes a point when it becomes necessary as in the case of recalcitrance.

To be fair (which is the opposite of charitable in this case), Luther was willing to stick around had the Catholic Church collectively been willing to convert to Lutheranism.
Confirmed.

PeaceByJesus said:

Which is simply another false either/or dichotomy. Most of church services I have been part of typically have a static liturgy, though aside from basics, none is manifest in the inspired life of the NT church. I think most find safety in structure, and would not like a meeting as 1 Corinthians 14 describes, "For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted." (1 Corinthians 14:31)

This, again, speaks to the evangelical unwillingness to accommodate the needs of its members (or would-be members, as the case may be).
Compared to the text I provided of one kind of service, yes that speaks to the typical evangelical unwillingness to accommodate the needs of its members, and how much more the institutionalized church, Catholic and Protestant.
I draw a spiritual comfort from a liturgy which has been slowly refined and perfected over the centuries. I find that more trustworthy than the overly-produced and perfectly executed stage-managing of evangelical worship.
What defines refined and perfected? And comfort? Yes, there is security in rituals and unchanging liturgy, and part of which can be in essence a form of theater, and which is conducive to reverence but also to perfunctory professions. And in my years as a weekly Mass-going RC the latter is what I experienced.

After I become convicted of my sins and was born again thru tearful deep repentance though still a Catholic, I had an ongoing hunger to both know how to please God according to Scripture, and wanted to share it. Some good evangelical radio teachers helped (I was a truck driver). After the mass I wanted to share about the Bible things I realized but rarely did i find anyone interested. Looking for life in my Catholic area, i found in Catholic charismatic meeting a different class of Catholics overall, but such were treated a 2nd class or maybe 3rd after the nuns "social justice commission" the hierarchy tried to bind them in with. After that compromise the group rather died.

But it was in evangelicalism that I found people whose lives were profoundly changed by regeneration, and very seriously committed to Christ and His word, and to evangelism, though not without a minority of tares and faults in some beliefs. And while the latter have increased as has declension in Catholicism, reformation of the latter would be more foundational, while one cannot leave the latter body for a better fellowship.
Here is one area where results tend to vary significantly. However, in the Southern Baptist and non-denominational services I have attended, the music tends to be a selection of whatever's popular on the local Contemporary Christian radio station.
Most of which cannot hod a candle to the plethora of classic hymns in the old Baptist hymnal.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The near-perfect stage management strikes again here because only those who refuse to see won't notice the relationship between the volume of the music compared to the brightness of the house lights. The louder the song is, the brighter the light are. The transition from softness to loudness is frequently accompanied by a transition from dim lights to bright lights. "Here's the big dramatic transition to the loud part of the song, better shine those lights brighter! Maybe the parishioners will recognize their cue to stand up in unison!"
Preach it!
Lest I be accused of hypocrisy, I recognize that this shallow (though dramatic) type of presentation is a successful way of reaching vast swaths of the audience. But I, frankly, resent being "managed" in this type of way, particularly when there's no real purpose for it. Nothing of substance is gained from these manipulative theatrics and I remain unmoved, literally and emotionally. They are lost on me... though, apparently, not everybody. Not even close to everybody, it seems.
It is often worldly today, including on "Christian radio," and one cannot blame Pope Francis and V2, but neither must traditional evangelicals defend it and be part of it.

But Catholics also complain about their liturgy, even the use of classic Prot hymns, never mind communion in the hand, or innovations in practice or liberty in teaching. A few from Catholic apologists themselves.
This is a remarkable admission on your part. And yet, it's something I find common in the various forms of evangelicalism.
It is not an admission but an assertion. Catholics seem to think that we must defend whatever is Protestant, seeing as they must defend a particular church, but we need only defend a faith as Biblically supported.
It seems that the evangelicals have observed some facet of traditional Christianity and then thrown it away for no good reason.
This equal and opposite reaction has happened to a degree. Some scholars see Trent doing so.
Later, they realize the utility of whatever practice which they rejected once offered so they replace it with something of lesser value.
Or replace it with its Scriptural version.
To wit: evangelicals don't have Confessors; but they may have "accountability partners". In some respects, an AP serves some of the same purposes of a Confessor. Except an AP need not be ordained and certainly cannot hear a proper Confession.
The only command or exhortation to confess sins is to each other which is in James 5:16, and indeed God can show mercy and grace in response to the intercession of others. But as shown (see above by the grace of God), nowhere are believers shown praying to created beings in Heaven (PTCBIH) or taught to, despite the Spirit inspiring the recording of about 200 prayers, and this being a most basic practice, with there always being plenty of created beings to pray to, and occasions for to do so since the Fall.

And despite Catholics once again playing word games as they also do with "worship," "asking" created beings in Heaven to pray for them is indeed praying to them, and is asking them to intercede, as it is when done on earth.

James 5:14,15 is invoked by Catholics to support required regular confession to Catholic priests, but besides presbuteros not being Catholic priests , there is no confession manifest there, much less required regular confession, but the promise of forgiveness -most likely for sins of ignorance for which the subject is being chastised for (cf. Lv. 4:1-11; Luke 12:47, 48) - in response to the intercession of holy men.

Which corresponds to what we see in Mark 2:1-12, in which a man sick of the palsy is forgiven, which equates to being healed, as a result of the intercession of his friends who brought him to Christ, as we can do in pray. But no confession was manifest here and likely his chastisement was for sins of ignorance.

But confession to each other in general is exhorted in James 5:16, with the provision or binding and loosing being afforded to all of holy faith and fervent prayer as Elijah. Which I come much too short of.
Moreover, a Confessor is forbidden from discussing the particulars of what he hears; no such restriction exists for AP's. The law recognizes and protects the Seal of Confession; no such recognition or protection likely exists for AP's.
Yes, we all know about Catholic secrecy, including for the ones hearing confession. However, Scripture stats concerning the latter, "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear."(1 Timothy 5:19-20)

And while it should not be required to tell the state of a crime, and confidentiality is consistent with charity, yet i know of no Scriptural requirement unconditionally forbidding reporting to authorities what is confessed in private.
Evangelicals typically don't have a cantor, as such. But many of them have come to recognize the importance a musical director offers so now they have "worship leaders". However, a cantor's role is to direct the faithful in song while it's the job of a "worship leader" to memorize songs popular on the aforementioned local Contemporary Christian radio station.
Which is simply your definition, while apart from the source, in Scripture there certainly worship leaders who memorized songs.
A
nd, regarding your post above, evangelicals don't have creeds. But many of them have come to recognize the value creeds offer so they use songs in their place. There's no apparent logic behind this decision, save "Creeds are what the dang Catholics do and we ain't Catholic!", I suppose. But the ancient creeds have existed since the Early Church while evangelical songs are probably here today, gone tomorrow, and will be swiftly forgotten by history. Time will tell, I guess.
Evangelical hymns have already endured for about 150 years overall, and I expect to do more, though the prophesied apostasy of the church is increasingly apparent. But evangelicals do not have to go South with it.
In any case, the more time goes by, the more I see evangelicalism as a hollow, stripped down, less effectual and less valuable shadow of traditional Christianity. The above are just some examples as to why.
To say the least.
As one who has spent years in both, I can honestly say that while modern evangelicalism is in spiritual declension, with many headed to Hell, as is and in Catholicism, yet it is the latter which is mostly a form of Christianity but denying the power, in which relative few of her vast multitudes have ever know a day of salvation with its basic profound effects (nature even seemed quite new to me), and which church has become as the great gates of Hell for such. Sadly.

Tell me of your conversion.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But my point on the surveys was to show that esteem for Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God corresponds to the greatest degree of unity in basic beliefs.
And I don’t know why this is not being comprehended on this thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeaceByJesus
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Ted Kennedy-type Catholics would agree, while it seems it is the traditionalists who are most likely to feel uncomfortable.
Of course, while traditional Catholics attack ascertaining the validity of church teaching by examination of the evidential warrant for it from ancient church teaching (the Scriptures), they do so themselves by examination of the warrant for it from ancient, or medieval to 1960, church teaching. Thus Francis supporters sometimes call their traditional cousins "Protestants."
But we have TV! Seriously, there is problem on both sides. When academia takes the place of anointing, or the latter is seen as absolutely essential, then you have institutionalized dead faith, as well as theological looseness and "dignified" error. Do you really want to trumpet modern Catholic Bible scholarship such as seen for decades in NAB notes and helps ?
Well, you can be a conservative and not be a Christian, but i dare say that you cannot be a mature Christian and not be a conservative in the basic issues polled.
Thus they should be aware of how Catholics see them.
It is often worldly today, including on "Christian radio," and one cannot blame Pope Francis and V2, but neither must traditional evangelicals defend it and be part of it.
But Catholics also complain about their liturgy, even the use of classic Prot hymns, never mind communion in the hand, or innovations in practice or liberty in teaching. A few from Catholic apologists themselves.
These are just a few instances of what appears to be your preference for setting people against each other: trad Catholics vs. modernist Catholics, Roman Catholics vs. Anglo-Catholics, etc.

Your Divide & Conquer approach may be successful with other members. I wouldn't know. But I'd appreciate it if you'd skip the transparent divisive tactics and try to stick more to the point(s).

For when constrained to support leadership then the conclusion of the teachers is compelled to support it regardless of where the Truth may lead, which is cultic.
I have long found it telling that when a Protestant first hears of the submission which Catholics owe their spiritual authorities, their first thought jumps to the possibility of error.

It's enough to make me wonder why Protestants seemingly expect to hear error taught as revealed truth.


No. Again, my point on the surveys was to show that esteem for Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God corresponds to the greatest degree of unity in basic beliefs.
Clearly. I merely offered an alternative interpretation for that very same data.

Since we're circling the issue though, I participated in RCIA as part of my conversion to Catholicism. I assume you're familiar with RCIA, at least in the broad strokes. The program was managed by two women, one of whom in particular was a virtual font of knowledge. She was a convert as well and privately studied Catholic doctrine for something like ten years before deciding to convert. Later, she decided to convert and studied with parish staff for a few more years. The one answer I never heard her give was "I don't know". Her knowledge is unmatched among Catholic laity in my experience. She's by far the most knowledgeable catechist I've ever had the pleasure to meet.

The parish chose wisely in placing her as a catechist. She has no special talent for charity or missions but she can answer any doctrinal question you throw her way.

I recently completed the majority of my marriage prep, including material related to NFP. The teachers of the NFP class are incredibly knowledgeable about NFP. Their love for each other was obvious and they obviously had a rock solid understanding of NFP. They answered some incredibly complicated questions (repeating them here would probably cause me, and others, to blush) without missing a beat. Here again we find people for whom "I don't know" doesn't seem to be in their vocabulary.

The parish chose wisely in placing those two as NFP instructors. They're not exactly brilliant Church historians but their mastery of NFP is beyond reproach AFAIC.

About a year ago, my parish received a visit from a man who runs a Catholic charity in some type of partnership with my parish here in my city. His heart for the helpless, hopeless, lost people who visit his shelter is obvious. We're talking here about somebody who probably doesn't know the difference between a papal bull and an encyclical. And yet, his conscience is seared only by his inability to help everybody who comes his way.

What's my point? My point is that the above examples each have their own talents. One is gifted with a passion for teaching the faith while two are gifted in guiding married couples as they live out Church teachings while the third has a virtually unmatched heart for the hard luck cases of the world. The Church has ways for all of them to live out their callings.

None of them are locked into being scripture experts. Each can exercise their talents to the fullest. And, to tie it all back in, I know from experience that they wouldn't have the same opportunities to follow their callings in an evangelical environment. The Catholic Church is simply better at utilizing the talents of the faithful to the glory of God.

That depends on what they say, and the status given them.
They're creeds. They're intended to summarize what the authors considered to be the core essentials of the faith.

since the uninspired words of men are not determinitive of what the NT church believed.
Except they kind of can be.

Insofar as creeds affirm Catholic distinctives not manifest in wholly inspired substantive authoritative record d then they do not attest to what of what the NT church manifestly believed,
Ah. The creeds are basically correct, except for all that Catholic stuff then?

What defines refined and perfected?
Refinement and perfection.

Catholics seem to think that we must defend whatever is Protestant, seeing as they must defend a particular church, but we need only defend a faith as Biblically supported.
And yet I keep hearing about "unified" Protestants are with each other. Even though there's no single point of doctrine upon which all Protestants and they certainly don't have (or claim to have) corporate unity, still the claim is Protestants are somehow unified.

I can't and won't speak for other Catholics. But it gets pretty tiresome when Protestants claim to be unified while constantly disavowing the doctrines of everybody else, and sometimes even their own.

nowhere are believers shown praying to created beings in Heaven (PTCBIH)
That's out of scope for this thread. I'll simply say that a scriptural antecedent is a Protestant requirement rather than a Catholic one.

And despite Catholics once again playing word games as they also do with "worship," "asking" created beings in Heaven to pray for them is indeed praying to them, and is asking them to intercede, as it is when done on earth.
Specificity is never a bad thing. The great majority of Protestants (and particularly evangelicals) tend to prefer painting with a brush so broad as to be useless when discussing terminology. Making distinctions is necessary in such cases. I understand that Protestants have no real regard for those distinctions. But the distinctions nevertheless exist. Call it word games if you will. It doesn't change the facts.

And while it should not be required to tell the state of a crime, and confidentiality is consistent with charity, yet i know of no Scriptural requirement unconditionally forbidding reporting to authorities what is confessed in private.
As above, it is Protestants who insist upon a scriptural mandate. Do not attempt to push your hermeneutical preferences on us, thanks.

Evangelical hymns have already endured for about 150 years overall,
Golly!

Tell me of your conversion.
No.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
That is reconciliation. Yet Romans 4:25 speaks of His resurrection as our justification.

Thinking critically, and not necessarily as a Lutheran here, perhaps Paul is seeing Jesus' resurrection as justification for a particular part of his Jewish religious background, such as the resurrection of the dead and the last judgment.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
These are just a few instances of what appears to be your preference for setting people against each other: trad Catholics vs. modernist Catholics, Roman Catholics vs. Anglo-Catholics, etc.

Your Divide & Conquer approach may be successful with other members. I wouldn't know. But I'd appreciate it if you'd skip the transparent divisive tactics and try to stick more to the point(s).
Pointing out the differences common foes have who are attacking you for your differences is not unreasonable.

But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. (Acts 23:6)
I have long found it telling that when a Protestant first hears of the submission which Catholics owe their spiritual authorities, their first thought jumps to the possibility of error. It's enough to make me wonder why Protestants seemingly expect to hear error taught as revealed truth.
Because that is so often what occurs, (Jeremiah 9:3-5; 23:14; 27:14) and Christ Himself was subject to. (Matthew 27:11,14; Luke 23:2,10,14; John 18:30)
Clearly. I merely offered an alternative interpretation for that very same data.
Whatever that was I do not recall.
My point is that the above examples each have their own talents. One is gifted with a passion for teaching the faith while two are gifted in guiding married couples as they live out Church teachings while the third has a virtually unmatched heart for the hard luck cases of the world. The Church has ways for all of them to live out their callings.
And I have seen the like in my church experience.
The Catholic Church is simply better at utilizing the talents of the faithful to the glory of God.
So you, but she is better at deceiving those who do not know better, as well as historically keeping them that way.
They're creeds. They're intended to summarize what the authors considered to be the core essentials of the faith.
Which i see no problem with, but it is the full content and status given such that can be the problem.

PeaceByJesus said:

since the uninspired words of men are not determinitive of what the NT church believed.

Except they kind of can be.
Not supremely determinitive versus what Scripture manifests.
Ah. The creeds are basically correct, except for all that Catholic stuff then?
If and insofar as they affirm Catholic distinctives.

PeaceByJesus said:

What defines refined and perfected?

Refinement and perfection.
Obviously the same question applies.
And yet I keep hearing about "unified" Protestants are with each other. Even though there's no single point of doctrine upon which all Protestants and they certainly don't have (or claim to have) corporate unity, still the claim is Protestants are somehow unified. I can't and won't speak for other Catholics. But it gets pretty tiresome when Protestants claim to be unified while constantly disavowing the doctrines of everybody else, and sometimes even their own.
I never made that claim of unified Protestantism, but validly pointed out the correspondence btwn one's position and attitude toward Scripture and stronger unity in core beliefs.

And apart from official paper statements, which themselves are subject to redefinition as V2 and modern teaching examples , there's hardly single point of doctrine upon which all Catholics agree, and they testify to disagreeing most with their church, but whom Rome manifestly considers such members in life and in death. Which is also a lament of traditionalists.

And what one does and fosters is the Bible basis for determining what one believes. (James 2:!8; Mt. 7:20)
That's out of scope for this thread. I'll simply say that a scriptural antecedent is a Protestant requirement rather than a Catholic one.
The lack of which affirms my point.
Specificity is never a bad thing. The great majority of Protestants (and particularly evangelicals) tend to prefer painting with a brush so broad as to be useless when discussing terminology. Making distinctions is necessary in such cases. I understand that Protestants have no real regard for those distinctions. But the distinctions nevertheless exist. Call it word games if you will. It doesn't change the facts.
Specificity is indeed not a bad thing, and thus when the words that were used for worship are examined , it testifies to Catholics playing word games.
As above, it is Protestants who insist upon a scriptural mandate. Do not attempt to push your hermeneutical preferences on us, thanks.
Which attests to my point that Catholic distinctive are not manifest the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), including PMI, which is the basis Catholicism asserting she can teach as binding that which is not in that record, nor declared as wholly inspired of God.

PeaceByJesus said:

Tell me of your conversion.

As i suspected.

I think we should be done. by now.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

gordonhooker

Franciscan tssf
Supporter
Feb 5, 2012
1,883
1,045
Wellington Point, QLD
Visit site
✟274,602.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Divide and conquer? I do not believe you benefit your side in attempting to further alienate Anglicans from Catholics in order to reinforce your evangelical viewpoints.

Whatever daylight there might be between Anglicans and Catholics, I have observed that many Anglicans have an easier time seeing themselves among Catholics than they do with seeing themselves among evangelicals.
To say the least.

I am an Anglican and I identify more with RC's and the various Orthodox brothers and sisters than I do with some of the different groups that post on these forums. We see ourselves as both catholic and reformed and some are more reformed than others. I find only a few things I find difficult to accept in RC doctrine but I sure as heck wouldn't go to war over it.
 
Upvote 0