History of the "Born Again Christian" movement.
- Thread starter Fidelibus
- Start date
Cis.jd
Well-Known Member
Right, but many have claimed that they knew what was divine revelation using the same essence of reasoning you just gave here. You obviously didn't bother to check out the links i gave in regards to the INC, who used the same form of reasoning for their Bible. Luther himself saw Jude, James, Hebrews and Revelation to be uninspired, and he wanted them removed all because he saw them to be put there by the Catholics to support their own theology. Just research on it.
Mohammad's reasoning was the same when he made the Quran. Turns out he "thought" the NT now was just corrupted by the Catholic church. Even the non christians know where the ruling of our canon comes from. So just in case you take this out of context like you've done in the past; this is being referenced to show how your line of reasoning isn't anywhere different. All of them claim to have "heard the voice" or whatever term to imply a "revelation" they made up in their head.
For you to show no doubt towards the 27 NT, means that you are following the rules and traditions of the Catholic church, in addition to having faith that they canonized the bible with pure honesty and accuracy.
The apostles have not confirmed or stated in scripture what the books of the NT are. They did not say it's only 27. The Apostles evangelized the nation through Oral and Written tradition and it is the EO and RCC that has kept these traditions and made sure people interpreted scripture the way the Apostles taught it.
You didn't understand that reply.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Again if you can’t find the Trinity in Holy Scriptures to help you debate Muslims, we can do this on another thread.
I really don’t know what this means.
Ok meaning material sources on the manuscript history of the NT for apologetics purposes. I debate atheists on that often. Here are some resources you can use:
JEDP
Answering the Documentary Hypothesis | CARM.org
Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability | CARM.org
Manuscript Evidence for the Bible (by Ron Rhodes)
The Institute for Creation Research
http://www.equip.org/article/facts-for-skeptics-of-the-new-testament/
Manuscript Evidence by David Hocking
Is the New Testament Text Reliable? | Stand to Reason
The Textual Reliability of the New Testament | John Ankerberg Show
http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/webfm_send/410
4. The Manuscripts Tell The Story: The New Testament Is Reliable
A Closer Look: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia
The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts
Bible Menu
New Testament Manuscripts Copyright by Norman L. Geisler ppt download
The bearing of recent discovery on the trustworthiness of the New Testament : Ramsay, William Mitchell, Sir, 1851-1939 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
A Brief Sample of Archaeology Corroborating the Claims of the New Testament | Cold Case Christianity
New Testament Documents – Date and Authorship
https://www.bible-history.com/new-testament/timeline.html
Mark fragment Qumran: 7Q5: The Earliest NT Papyrus?
Matthew dating: Arguments for a pre-70 CE Dating of Matthew's Gospel
Early Gospels: The case for the early dating of the Gospels
NT documents: New Testament Documents – Date and Authorship
When Was the New Testament Completed?
Archeological Evidence - Evidences of the Bible
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ramsay/ramsay_gasque.pdf
Josephus and the Old Testament | Scriptures of the Jewish Bible - the Law, the Prophets and the Writings
Flavius Josephus, Against Apion, BOOK I, Whiston section 8 --Josephus
Book of Daniel scholarship: An Introduction to the Book of Daniel
Biblical timelines: Time Line Survey of Bible Events
Daniel DSS: New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls
Jewish Talmud and Death of Jesus: The Jewish Talmud and the Death of Christ
Evidence external of historical Jesus Christ: Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources
Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources
Testimony of the Evangelists - Wikipedia
4. Jesus Feeds 5,000 People (Matthew 14:13-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-15)
The Testimony of Two or Three Witnesses: We Can Trust the Factuality of the Gospel, by Bob and Gretchen Passantino
The testimony of the evangelists examined by the rules of evidence administered in courts of justice : Greenleaf, Simon, 1783-1853 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls - Daniel 9 Daniel 9fragments.
Well the cultists are really setting up their own Sola Ecclesia.
They are easy to detect. Their doctrines always put “Christ plus something else” thus attempting to rob God of His Sovereign Glory.
Next time you debate them ping me, and I will join in and assist. Serious would love to do it. Just think, it would be “yuge” to show a united front.
I believe I established that the authoritative nature of the works is why.
The early church recognized this as well.
Yes the books were identified as of Apostolic origin. Been saying that for pages now.
Of course there were synods and councils discussing these matters as the church grew over the first century and they did not have the printing press and internet.
My contention has been, the apostolic works were recognized as authoritative. The church did not make them authoritative. I’m sure we can agree the church did make an authoritative “table of contents” to uphold the truth.
As would the curator take great pride in placing the Mona Lisa in the Louvre. He did not paint it, but recognized for what it is, beautiful art from master Leonardo.
Or a council of music experts comes together and after much deliberation tells us the works of Beethoven is beautiful music. Well thank you very much I can hear the music too.
The scholarship and dedication of the early church in identifying frauds and then later settling the antilegomena is to be commended and we owe them our best.
As I pointed out the cultist build their religions which have Jesus plus them or something else. Putting the yoke of burden on unknowing souls when Christ came to break our chains.
Cultists are quite easy to refute with Holy Scriptures. What they do is take their pet doctrines and read them into the texts of Scriptures. This is called eisegesis.
Instead of course properly employing exegesis.
For example, Joseph Smith claimed to be one of the prophets in Revelation. But when you read what he is peddling it isn’t the Gospel delivered by the apostles.
They also give walls of verses out of context trying to prove one point. The jigsaw theology they employ lacks any coherence and fails the systematic approach employed by Paul in his epistles.
Can you show me where the NT sets up for an infallible magisterium?
I agree Acts 15 gives evidence of having church synods and councils, but where is the declarative infallible charter?
We should be doing both. Meaning presenting the human history and the Divine.
I quite often remind atheists that their most treasured “secular” ancient history they deem unimpeachable have scant manuscript history and the earliest extant manuscripts go back to the 10th AD and they have it thanks to Christian Catholic monasteries and monks spending years transcribing.
If you argue from “things not written” then you should provide what those things were and are. You have not and it shows the argument is from silence.
Actually the burden of proof is on you. You provided a small quote and I provided the context as a defeater.
Actually you made my point. The people did not need the magisterium to tell them Jesus was the Messiah the Son of the Living God. Jesus said such a confession comes from the Father.
See above.
It is the church which recognized what was already authoritative. See the Mona Lisa example above.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
You mean there were no debates throughout the history of the church regarding the antilegomena heading into Trent?
I can share that Catholic history too.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
You can stop there please. Mohammad allegedly received the Quran from an angel. His revelation does not fit the 2 or more witnesses required to establish a claim.
Upvote
0
PeaceByJesus
Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,775
- 2,095
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I understand that you are indeed confused, as my invoking of Westminster was so at least you would have a substantiated definition of SS in regard to one aspect that was contrary to your seeming misapprehension of of it. Now if the other sources concur with you, who seems (as said) to believe that unless a required belief (the Trinity, etc.) is formally, explicitly taught in Scripture then it does not teach it, and therefore sola scriptura (SS) is wrong and Catholic tradition is needed, then show me.
But if you like strawmen then do not complain about the source of the common fire used to burn them. I already used substantiation from the SBC to refute the idea that evangelical faith in the Lord Jesus Christ simply means the 6 things the OP listed. And he disagrees he can to try to show otherwise.
But if your argument is not simply for the need for a central magisterium - which I do believe is the ideal, despite the superior unity Bible believers actually have had and the amalgamated much liberal and dead condition of Catholicism and its perversion of Biblical authority (or for men such as 2 Co. 6:4-10 describes, which is not me), but if your argument is for ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, and that Rome provides this - and without which we cannot assuredly know what is of God (including writings) - then you need to finally actually respond to my repeated questions made in regards to this premise.
But as regards to your recourse to invoking the fractured state of Protestantism versus Rome, once again that is a specious comparison, since all that you can fit under the umbrella called Protestantism cannot be attributed to the historical evangelical stance on Scripture, nor is what a church believes determined by mere official statements.
And to the contrary of the church of Rome being more unified, the testimony is that those who most strongly hold to Scripture as the accurate and basically literal wholly inspired word of God have had the strongest unity in core beliefs and morals overall - and thus has been the primary religious target of liberals as well as RC apologists - while Rome is an amalgam of variant and liberal beliefs, even among priests, with Rome manifestly considering all to be members in life and in death (and thereby conveying, in part, what she really believes)
And rather than her magisterium solving this, as one poster wryly puts it,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” (Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html0
And if you want, i could provide many things RCs can validly disagree on, including what magisterial level many teachings can fall under and the manner of require assent, as well as their meaning, even outside of interpretation of Bible verses, as well as unresolved theological conflict. I think considering the hierarchy of beliefs as well as what type of churches a Ted Kennedy would feel most at home in could be revealing.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
PeaceByJesus
Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,775
- 2,095
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Apparently I have done more objective research on this than whatever you did, and not just from Catholic sources (though i much use them), and contrary to you, the charge that Luther wanted Jude, James, Hebrews and Revelation removed all because he saw them to be put there by the Catholics to support their own theology, is [mainly] spurious Catholic propaganda [though I found a Baptist who opines his rejection of them was more due to theological reservations against them than an historical investigation] and psychohistory, which i charge basically responded to already on this thread. But RCs even imagine Luther removed books from a indisputable RC canon when it did not yet exist.
Just do some research on it outside the likes of Catholic Answers.
Which is a false analogy, for contrary to whatever your propagandists may have told you, Luther did not charge these books were corrupted by the Catholic church (though she did make use of many forgeries ) , but as with many Catholic scholars before him, he did not consider them to be Scripture proper, and translated and included almost all of them in his translation. And with his judgment on the canon being expressly stated to be personal, and non-binding.
Just do some research on it outside the likes of Catholic Answers.
Nor did illiterate Muhammad believe the Catholic church was corrupt based on what he read in Scripture, but based upon his demonic revelations and ignorant of Scripture, and likely exposure to corrupt ideas from others, including Catholic traders.
So here it is again, the ol "The [RC] Church showed what was Scripture; therefore she is the sure authority on any what other Divine revelation consists of." So since this presumes Rome, with her novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is essential to ascertaining what is of God, here again (and again and again) is the unanswered question:
"Tell me how an authoritative body of Scripture had quite manifestly been established by the time of Christ, from which both He and the NT church therefore appealed to in substantiating Truth claims. In RC theology, one cannot even discover the contents of the Bible apart from faith in her. "
I understand how dangerous answering this question is, for if an authoritative body of Scripture had quite manifestly been established before Rome presumed she was essential for this, then she was not, and contrary to your premise, souls could ascertain the inspired status of the 27 books of the NT, not on the basis of an infallible church saying so.
But if you want to argue that your church as a corporate body wrote these books, and passed them one, and thus she is infallible and must be submitted to, well then go ahead and say so.
Then once again(and again and again) is the unanswered question,
"And so Catholic popes and prelates speak as wholly inspired of God, and also provide new public express revelation thereby, as men such as the apostles could? If not, what is the basis for assurance of the veracity of your church in declaring such?
Is it (as some seem to argue) 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.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium?"
Except when they substantially and irreconcilably (after over 1,0000 years) disagree on why Tradition teaches .
Last edited:
Upvote
0
PeaceByJesus
Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,775
- 2,095
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
But do not stop there, for Scripturally establishing a claim requires more than just any 2 witnesses, but true witnesses without any real contradiction with other witnesses of like integrity. A nd in this case, the 2 witnesses of the OT and NO are profound, and refute Moham-mad .
Upvote
0
Cis.jd
Well-Known Member
I wasn't literally confused, after reading this whole post you gave you appeared to misunderstand why I brought up those links in regards to the Westminster Confession. Before I go into the rest of what you posted, i would like to make sure you understood what my reply towards your Westminster minister means. Please read it again and try to elaborate what my post means. I don't like being swirved to a different argument that isn't connected to where I am being quoted on.
Upvote
0
Cis.jd
Well-Known Member
Please don't give that much credit to your response on this because this is complete fact. You can even do a google search and see non christian sources telling this. Here is a thread from this forum on it.
Did Luther want to throw James out of the Bible?
Why do you think I brought up Muhammad, Felix Manalo, and Joseph Smith? What was the whole point of it? While I would like to reply to what you've just posted here, I just don't see how this is relevant to the point of my argument. So tell me first, what is my point with my referencing of them and the religions they made?
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
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I believe I did. You asked why Protestants had different confessions of faith.
I asked why are their two One True Churches.
If your answer is well the EOs and RCs agree on the core doctrinal matters, then I can firmly tell you Baptists and Presbyterians do as well.
Upvote
0
PeaceByJesus
Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,775
- 2,095
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I understood you think you were not confused, but in "Why are you giving me something that is also rejected by other Protestants?" you confused my citing Westminster as re. an aspect of SS which no historical document on SS I know of concurs with, with citing Westminster as if it such must be as papal encyclical to us, and thus cannot be contradicted, which was not the point.
An EO could validly invoke what Vatican 1 said about a shared belief if someone misrepresented it, but which does not mean they concur with all Vatican 1 teaches.
In which case one could ask why are you citing a church that is rejected by other Catholics, and the answer would be the same, to substantiate what a shared belief is.
As to "why is it that one protestant uses the Westminster Confession and then another protestant (Baptist for ex) dismisses it," the answer is the same as to "why is it that one Catholic uses Vatican 1 and then another Catholic (EO's) dismisses it," and the answer is that besides substantiating as aspect of what a shared belief means, in both cases the reason for the rejection is because, unlike in Acts 15, the weight of Scriptural substantiation has not been of such they all were persuaded, or perhaps could be.
Now the Catholic solution is to presume ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which she has infallibly declared herself to possesses, but which was not the basis for the veracity of the decision in Acts 15. Nor does Romes or our leadership rise to the caliper and credentials as that of the apostles, (2 Cor 6:4-10," in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God," under which men of
Scriptural substantiation in word and in power the NT church saw its limited (it was) scope of unity.
The visible church today is as a divided kingdom, but the means of ascertaining Truth must remain that same as it was for the beginning of the NT church church, which was contrary to the Catholic basis for it.
Also, in reality your linked substantiation for your charges is (in the first link) that of answering a rhetorical question which is a matter of interpretation, thus concluding "If this is the correct explanation of these three sections of the Confession, it is evident that they neither teach nor imply error, and therefore do not need any revision." And in the second it is a forum with obvious Catholic objections to it, based on his (sometimes fault) understanding of it. And while that thread does confirm that the WC is not a doctrinal standard for all Prot. churches, this does not mean that its overall basic SS teaching is not shared by Bible churches, and which believers attest to stronger unity than members of the RCC.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
PeaceByJesus
Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,775
- 2,095
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Wrong again, for despite your attempts to substantiate your RC propaganda, not only does your link does not establish that Luther wanted Jude, James, Hebrews and Revelation removed all because he saw them to be put there by the Catholics to support their own theology [as a poster (Anoetos) stated : The article from the WELS website doesn't substantiate that he wanted them removed. It only substantiates what we already knew, that he didn't like them and had grave reservations about their canonicity (as had many in the early church BTW]
but the actual research will attest to what i provided. So indeed do more research, other than what you seem to have from sources such as "Catholic Answers. See,
Luther and the Canon of Scripture (extensive)
Supplement C: The Canon and the Apocrypha
You brought them up in support of your premise that they acted like Luther, charging corruption by the Catholic church based upon their own judgment, but which is a specious analogy. For unless you want to argue that no dissent can be valid (and you still need to answer my questions as to the basis for the premise that Rome must be trusted), then the issue must be what the basis must be for dissent, and for Truth claims.
So stop your perceived avoidance, and start answering the pertinent questions. You argue that we need Rome to tell us what Scripture consists of, and thus if we accept the NT canon then we need to accept all else that she says is the word of God. Which, besides being a logical fallacy, begs the question,
"Tell me how an authoritative body of Scripture had quite manifestly been established by the time of Christ, from which both He and the NT church therefore appealed to in substantiating Truth claims. In RC theology, one cannot even discover the contents of the Bible apart from faith in her. "
And you also argue the since men such as the apostles orally preached the word of God, then your popes and councils provide the same as being their successors. Which calls for the questions,
"And so Catholic popes and prelates speak as wholly inspired of God, and also provide new public express revelation thereby, as men such as the apostles could? If not, what is the basis for assurance of the veracity of your church in declaring such?
Is it (as some seem to argue) 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.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium?"
Either finally answer the pertinent questions or risk being marginalized.
Upvote
0
Cis.jd
Well-Known Member
You and Redleghunter think so much alike. You have the same misconceptions and the same out of context understanding on a specific quote.
So what if the EO rejects certain beliefs and views of the RCC? We are not the same. We are not sects one denomination that is divided unlike Protestantism which is divided to the thousands. We are completely different churches and have been for many years. We don't claim to be equal to each other theologically. We have a different view of which church is more accurate to the line of the apostles, yet despite that we still have theological respect for our differences. While we disagree with their views we do not deny that uphold an honest apostolic tradition that can argue against ours. It's like finding who is more right between Peter and Paul.
The reason why your comment here fails is because you have tried to "educate" me on what SS is through the referencing of this Westminster Confession, nevermind the other protestant confessions and protestant chat logs all telling the scriptural errors of the WC.
Upvote
0
PeaceByJesus
Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,775
- 2,095
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
That is far too broad. Do not fall into the error of using Protestant uncritically. As you know, typically Protestant is is used as a hanger so wide that you could fly a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Mormon 747 thru it. Thus, like as Catholic sect are know by descriptive distinctive names, so we have "fundamentalists and "evangelicals, but the basic defining distinctive is that strong esteem of Scripture as the accurate, wholly inspired and basically literal (in that genre) word of God.
It is these who testify to the strongest unity in basic Biblical beliefs and morals, and commitment.
- The highest percentage of those who strongly agree they have a personal responsibility to share their faith was found among believers in Pentecostal/Foursquare churches (73%) http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/53
- 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. ^
- The percentage of Catholics who believed the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches declined from 34% in 1991 to 26% in 2011 http://www.barna.org/faith-spiritua...1991-shows-significant-changes-by-faith-group.
- 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
- The typical Catholic person was 38% less likely than the average American to read the Bible; 67% less likely to attend a Sunday school class; 20% less likely to share their faith in Christ with someone who had different beliefs, donated about 17% less money to churches, and were 36% less likely to have an "active faith," defined as reading the Bible, praying and attending a church service during the prior week. Catholics were also significantly less likely to believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches. 44% of Catholics claimed to be "absolutely committed" to their faith, compared to 54% of the entire adult population. However, Catholics were 16% more likely to attend a church service and 8% more likely to have prayed to God during the prior week than the average American. Barna Reaearch, 2007, “Catholics Have Become Mainstream America” http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/100
- 82% of Mainline Churches, 77% of Catholics and 53% of Evangelical Churches affirmed, "There is MORE than one true way to interpret the teachings of my religion." U.S. Religious landscape survey; Copyright © 2008 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics | Pew Research Center
- 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.^
- 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." 2008 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics | Pew Research Center
- Only 33% of Catholics strongly affirmed that Christ was sinless on earth. http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/53
- A 2008 Catholic commissioned survey of adult Catholics reported 68% of Catholics affirmed you could be a good Catholic without going to Mass every Sunday, and 55% thought of themselves as good Catholics. 77% of Catholics agreed they were proud to be Catholic, (85% of weekly attendees) and 61% agreed that sacraments were essential to their faith (83% of weekly attendees). 2008 poll of 1,007 self-identified adult Catholics by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University; http://cara.georgetown.edu/beliefattitude.pdf
- 43% of Catholics overall (and 36% of weekly attendees) affirmed they look to Catholic teachings and statements made the pope and bishops to form their conscience on what is morally acceptable . ^
- 36% of weekly attendees affirmed their Catholic faith was the most important part of their life, 39% said it was “among the most important.” ^
- 83% of Catholics affirmed that helping those in need was important to their sense of what it means to be a Catholic; 79% affirmed the Eucharist was, 73% said living according to Church teachings, 68% said devotion to Mary, and 66% said attending Mass. Catholics in the South are the most likely to say such things are “very important.” ^
- 75% of surveyed adult Catholics said they never doubted the Trinity, 68% that the Father created all we know of the Universe, 73% that Christ rose from the dead, 59% that there is a Hell, and 44% that the pope and bishops have taken the place of Peter and the apostles. ^
- Almost a third of Catholics surveyed, including 15 percent of highly committed church members, said one could be a good Catholic without believing Jesus rose from the dead. Counting Catholics: ‘Church of immigrants’ poised for growth | Ahead of the Trend
- 66% of Catholics supported women's ordination to the priesthood, and 73% approved of the way John Paul II leads the church. Surveying the Religious Landscape: Trends in U.S. Beliefs by George Gallup, Jr. and D. Michael Lindsay (Morehouse Publishing, 1999). Copyright © 2004 -- The Gallup Organization www.gallup.com
- 80% of Catholics believe it is possible to disagree with the pope on official positions on morality and still be a good Catholic. Time/CNN nationwide poll of 1,000 adults, conducted by Yankelovich Partners, Sept. 27-28, 1995; subsample of 500 Catholics, MOE ± 4.5%
- 77% of Catholics polled "believe a person can be a good Catholic without going to Mass every Sunday, 65 percent believe good Catholics can divorce and remarry, and 53 percent believe Catholics can have abortions and remain in good standing. 1999 poll by the National Catholic Reporter. http://www.catholictradition.org/v2-bombs14b.htm
- Comparing Catholics and other Americans, 44% of Catholics claimed to be "absolutely committed" to their faith versus 54% of the entire adult population, and donated about 17% less money to churches; was 38% less likely than the average American to read the Bible; 67% less likely to attend a Sunday school class; 20% less likely to share their faith in Christ with someone who had different beliefs; 24% less likely to say their religious faith has greatly transformed their life; and were 36% less likely to have an "active faith," (defined as reading the Bible, praying and attending a church service during the prior week.) Yet Catholics were 16% more likely than the norm to attend a church service and 8% more likely to have prayed to God during the prior week. Catholics Have Become Mainstream America, Barna research, July 9, 2007 https://www.barna.org/barna-update/...s-have-become-mainstream-america#.VDZOGDRxnGg
- 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
- 94.4% of Evangelical Protestants and 84.9% of Catholics believe that Jesus is the son of God. 42.1% of the former and 46.1% of the latter say they pray once a day or more. http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33304.pdf
- 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. ^
- 56% of Assemblies of God (versus 17% Catholics) Christians strongly DISAGREE that Satan is just a symbol of evil [rather than a real being]. ^
- Catholics and Mainline Protestants tend more towards belief in a more Distant God. Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion - American Piety in the 21 Century – September 2006 . http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33304.pdf
- Evangelical Protestants and Black Protestants tend towards belief in a more Authoritarian God. ^
- 56% of Assemblies of God (versus 17% Catholics) Christians strongly DISAGREE that Satan is just a symbol of evil [rather than a real being]. ^
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
PeaceByJesus
Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,775
- 2,095
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
We look to the Holy Scriptures as the only wholly inspired infallible standard to test truth claims.[/QUOTE]
While leadership can go South, and take their followers with them, Scripture never does, but only a relative remnant seek to walk faithfully by it./
While leadership can go South, and take their followers with them, Scripture never does, but only a relative remnant seek to walk faithfully by it./
- Thirty percent of Protestants listed God as their most important connection (relationship) versus 9% of Catholics. Barna, 2008 http://www.barna.org/barna-update/a...ns-identify-their-most-important-relationship
- By denomination, 61% of the those associated with an Assemblies of God church said they had shared their faith at least once during the past year, as did 61% of those who attend a Pentecostal/Foursquare church, and ending 14% among Episcopalians and just 10% among Roman Catholics. http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/54
- 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. ^
- Church attendance [2001]: 69% of those associated with Assembly of God churches, and 66% of other Pentecostal churches and 61% of those in non-denominational Protestant churches were the most likely to have attended in the past week (which does to mean they always do) .
- However, numbers from head counts show the actual rate of attendance nationwide is less than half (around 18%) of what the pollsters report, though some studies show attendance at services as increasing. 7 Startling Facts: An Up Close Look at Church Attendance in America
- 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 through 2004: 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
- 40% Roman Catholics vs. 41% Non-R.C. see abortion as "morally acceptable"; Sex between unmarried couples: 67% vs. 57%; Baby out of wedlock: 61% vs. 52%; Homosexual relations: 54% vs. 45%; Gambling: 72% vs. 59% Catholics Similar to Mainstream on Abortion, Stem Cells
- Committed Roman Catholics (church attendance weekly or almost) versus Non-R.C. faithful church goers (see the below as as morally acceptable): Abortion: 24% of R.C. vs. 19% Non-R.C.; Sex between unmarried couples: 53% vs. 30%; Baby out of wedlock: 48% vs. 29%; Homosexual relations: 44% vs. 21%; Gambling: 67% vs. 40%; Divorce: 63 vs. 46% ^
- Comparing 16 moral behaviors, Catholics were less likely to say mean things about people behind their back, and tending to engage in recycling more. However, they were also twice as likely to view inappropriate contentographic content on the Internet, and were more prone to use profanity, to gamble, and to buy lottery tickets. ^
- In a survey asking whether one approves or rejects or overall sees little consequence (skeptical) to society regarding seven trends on the family (More: unmarried couples raising children; gay and lesbian couples raising children; single women having children without a male partner to help raise them; people living together without getting married; mothers of young children working outside the home; people of different races marrying each other; and more women not ever having children), 42% of all Protestants were “Rejecters” of the modern trend, 35% were Skeptics, and 23% were “Approvers.” Among Catholics, 27% were Rejecters, 34% were Approvers, and 39% were Skeptics. (Among non religious, 10% were Rejecters, 48% were Approvers, and 42% were Skeptics.) Pew forum, The Public Renders a Split Verdict On Changes in Family Structure, February 16, 2011 The Public Renders a Split Verdict On Changes in Family Structure | Pew Research Center
- 50 percent of Protestants affirmed gambling was a sin, versus 15 percent of Catholics; that getting drunk was a sin: 63 percent of Protestants, 28 percent of Catholics; gossip: 70 percent to 45 percent: homosexual activity or sex: 72 percent to 42 percent. Ellison Research, March 11, 2008 http://ellisonresearch.com/releases/20080311.htm http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080312/study-behaviors-americans-consider-sinful.htm
- 75% of white evangelical Protestants consider having an abortion morally wrong, as do 64% of Hispanic Catholics, 58% of black Protestants, 53% of white Catholics, 38% of white mainline Protestants and 25% of religiously unaffiliated adults. Abortion Viewed in Moral Terms: Fewer See Stem Cell Research and IVF as Moral Issues | Pew Research Center
- White evangelical Protestants are the only major religious group in which a majority (54%) favors completely overturning Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade at 40: Most Oppose Overturning Abortion Decision | Pew Research Center
- 35% of white evangelicals and 52% of 59% of white Catholics see overturning Roe v. Wade as not that important. Roe v. Wade at 40: Most Oppose Overturning Abortion Decision | Pew Research Center
- 64% of white evangelical Protestants [blacks make up 6% of all evangelicals] believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, as do 52% of Hispanic Catholics, and 41% of white Catholics, and 39% of black Protestants, and 31% of white mainline Protestants. Public Opinion on Abortion | Pew Research Center
- 31% of faithful Catholics (those who attend church weekly, 2004) say abortion should be legal either in "many" or in "all" cases.. 2004, The Gallup Organization Gallup Survey for Catholics Speak Out: 802 Catholics, May 1992, MOE ± 4%;
- When ask to choose, three-fourths of all Protestant pastors surveyed said [2009] they are pro-life, and 13 percent said they were pro-choice. LifeWay Research; http://www.lifeway.com/ArticleView?...-pastors-share-views-on-gay-marriage-abortion
- 26 percent of Catholics (2007) polled strongly agree with the Church's unequivocal position on abortion Catholic World Report; survey of 1,000 Catholic Americans by Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at the University of Connecticut; http://www.adoremus.org/397-Roper.html
- 46 percent of Catholics who say they attend mass weekly accept Church teaching on abortion; 43 percent accept the all-male priesthood; and 30 percent see contraception as morally wrong. ^
- In 1992 0nly 13 percent of Catholics overall agreed that abortion could never be a moral choice. 41% said it was morally acceptable in rare circumstances and another 41 percent said it was morally acceptable in many or all circumstances. 70% of Catholics overall agreed that Catholics can vote in good conscience for political candidates who support legal abortion. As Bishops Meet, Catholics Voice Differences With Church's Doctrine; Poll Finds Backing Of Female Priests
- Fornication, homosexuality
- In a 2010 LifeWay Research survey 77 percent of American Protestant pastors (57% of mainline versus 87% evangelical) strongly disagree with same-sex marriage, with 6% percent somewhat disagreeing, and 5% being somewhat in agreement and 10 percent strongly agreeing. (5% of evangelical).
- Only 3% of evangelical pastors (versus 11% mainline) somewhat agree that there is nothing wrong with homosexual marriage.
- 11% of evangelical pastors (versus 30% mainline) somewhat agree that homosexual civil unions are acceptable, with 67% of the former and 38% of the latter strongly disagreeing with homosexual civil unions. October 2010 LifeWay Research survey of 1,000 randomly selected Protestant pastors. http://www.lifeway.com/ArticleView?...protestant-pastors-oppose-homosexual-marriage
- A 2002 nationwide poll of 1,854 priests in the United States and Puerto Rico reported that 30% of Roman Catholic priests described themselves as Liberal, 28% as Conservative, and 37% as Moderate in their Religious ideology. 53 percent responded that they thought it always was a sin for unmarried people to have sexual relations; 32 percent that is often was, and 9 percent seldom/never. However, nearly four in 10 younger priests in 2002 described themselves as conservative, and were more likely to regard as "always a sin" such acts as premarital sex, abortion, artificial birth control, homosexual relations, etc., and three-fourths said they were more religiously orthodox than their older counterparts. Los Angeles Times (extensive) nationwide survey (2002). http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/LAT-Priest-Survey.pdf FindArticles.com | CBSi
- The survey also found that 80% of Roman Catholic priests referred to themselves as “mostly” heterosexual in orientation, with 67% being exclusively heterosexual, 8% leaning toward heterosexual, 5% completely in the middle, and 6% leaning toward homosexual and 9% saying they are homosexual, for a combined figure of 15% on the homosexual class. Among younger priests (those ordained for 20 years or less) the figure was 23%. ^
- One-third of surveyed priests said they “do not waver” from their vow of celibacy, while 47% described celibacy as “an ongoing journey” and 14% said they “do not always succeed in following” it. 2% said celibacy is not relevant to their priesthood and they do not observe it. not celibate. ^
- 71 percent of priests responded that it always was wrong for a woman to get an abortion, 19 percent that it often was, and 4 percent seldom/never. ^
- 28 percent judged that is always was sin for married couples to use artificial birth control, 25 percent often, 40 percent never. ^
- 49 percent affirmed that it was always a sin to engage in homosexual behavior, often, 25 percent; and never, 19 percent. ^
- To take one's own life if suffering from a debilitating disease: always, 59 percent; often, 18 percent; never, 17 percent. ^
- A combined 15 percent of the clergy polled identified themselves as "gay (9%) > or more (6%) on the homosexual side." Among younger priests 23 percent did so. Los Angeles Times (extensive) nationwide survey (2002). http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/LAT-Priest-Survey.pdf
- 17 percent of the priests said "definitely" , and 27% said "probably," a homosexual subculture'--defined as a `definite group of persons that has its own friendships, social gatherings and vocabulary'--exists in their diocese or religious order. ^
- By denomination, 61% of the those associated with an Assemblies of God church said they had shared their faith at least once during the past year, as did 61% of those who attend a Pentecostal/Foursquare church, and ending 14% among Episcopalians and just 10% among Roman Catholics. http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/54
- More
- Thirty percent of Protestants listed God as their most important connection (relationship) versus 9% of Catholics. Barna, 2008 http://www.barna.org/barna-update/a...ns-identify-their-most-important-relationship
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
Cis.jd
Well-Known Member
Good job showing your hypocrisy. You first claim that alegations of Luther wanting the removal of those 4 NT books to be only from Catholic sites yet here you are referencing protestant sites. Even non christian sites talk about this. It's even stated on the Antilegomena.
"About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel."( Luther, M. (1999).
Acted like Luther? No. So you just didn't get it then because this explanation in reference to me bringing up the non-trinitarian cults is wrong.
Well if you are going to argue as to how the RCC shouldn't be followed due to Scripture being the only rule of faith, then why are you accepting an inspired table of contents that they ruled to be accepted.
There was no NT during the time of the apostles and the first christians of the 1CE, and i have repeated the events of Nero so many times. However you reply with guessing games and make false claims that they all had the NT back then.
This was answered just through your own beliefs. The fact that you still have faith that the NT you have is correctly canonized, and that there is no other books than 27, then you are displaying actual assurance on the declaration of the Church. And yes, the church has to be infallible. As i told you, quote in the statements Irenaeus made in regards to the church, you kept on bringing him up and he gives the explanation there yet you refuse to quote it.
Upvote
0
PeaceByJesus
Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
- Feb 20, 2013
- 2,775
- 2,095
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
So in your Catholic mind Protestants are divided and so is Catholicism, You and the EOs are "are not the same," and neither are Protestant churches. But you and the EOs are are completely different churches and have been for many years, though few Protestant church are completely different.
And apart from your spurious recourse to big tent Protestantism, we who hold to the most basic defining distinctive of the group the OP focuses on , and which is the difference btwn us and with liberal Prots and full cults, that of warrant from Scripture as the accurate and wholly inspired word of God being the necessary basis for veracity of doctrine (versus ensured veracity of leadership), have a different view of which church is more accurate to the line of the apostles. But while we disagree with each other's views somewhat we do not deny these overall uphold honest apostolic Scriptural teachings, and thus evangelicals work side by side in multitudes of ministries, and can easily worship together, etc.
Well, we have that also.
The reason why your comment here fails is because you have tried to construe my use of the WC as if I were making all it says into dogma for all, versus using it to substantiate a basic shared aspect of SS which you misrepresented.
Thus you have Failed once again, while persevering in refusing to deal with warranted questions as regards your basic premises.
Now its time to sleep on this coast.
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
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Pretty much what I’ve seen. Although not sure what they group as mainline.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
