My struggle with bibles

[chevyontheriver]

Why then are the Roman Catholic Churches loosing member and the Protestant churches growing?

Protestants aren't growing but shrinking overall in the USA. This is true of the Mainline (Oldline) but also groups like the Baptists. So while a Protestant group or three might be growing there is overall decline at least in the USA. Other regions will have different dynamics. And yes, Catholics lose members too. Some of them become Nones, others become Protestants because they can't abide by marriage expectations, while others actually find Jesus there finally. But we also have Protestants who become Catholic, often well informed and earnest believing Christians. It's a two way street. You win by the numbers. But we get some fine believers in the process.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Protestant denominations are growing, Roman Catholic Churches are shrinking to the point of hundreds of them closing this year alone.

You said “When Catholics have good-faith disagreements, they typically do not divide the church into denominations”

Why then are hundreds of churches closing?

While I cannot comment on the situation in the USA, in Australia, particularly in Western Australia, Catholicism appears to be thriving with many converts and immigrants. However, I am not convinced that an increase in numbers necessarily equates to correctness. It is merely a statistic reflecting population changes.

 

[The Liturgist]

Could we say that Unitarianism is a demonic teaching, cos it is not of Christ?

Certainly. That said we should still pray for the salvation of Unitarians.

 

[RandyPNW]

It seems unusual for someone to take issue with the Catholic Church if they are not Catholic. Similarly, I have no issue with Protestant churches as I am not Protestant and do not concern myself with internal Protestant disputes or the conservative and liberal divisions within that context.

Clearly, we have a different mindset on this! I do not see the Church universal as divided into "favorite groups," to be chosen as if by preference. This isn't a trip to the grocery store!

Rather, I see the Church universal as a single Church, with no reference at all to its organizational structure. All true Christians comprise "the Church." The Catholics are mine, and the Protestants are yours (as well as the Orthodox). I take issue with the Protestants as well as with the Catholics on issues where I think they deviate from healthy practices and indulge in aberrant doctrine.

My analysis of the Catholic Church will be different from my analysis of the Protestant churches. And each Protestant communion I will look at differently, depending on the history and reputation of each.

Age plays the role in corruption, just as it does to us individually. Over time, compromise takes place, and needs to be addressed. If you don't think so then you're clearly biased and prefer to close your eyes to any flaws that require a remedy? Perhaps the Catholic Church is just your "favorite team?" I hope that's not true?

I don't really believe this--I think you're probably much more fair than that speculation? You probably just wish to minimize Catholic criticism by outside groups? You probably want a pure bride for Christ just as I do. Let's not, however, divide the Church up into Catholic and Protestant sects, as if they don't hold to the same Savior? We're all devoted to the same God and to the same Christ.

 

[RandyPNW]

Protestants aren't growing but shrinking overall in the USA. This is true of the Mainline (Oldline) but also groups like the Baptists. So while a Protestant group or three might be growing there is overall decline at least in the USA. Other regions will have different dynamics. And yes, Catholics lose members too. Some of them become Nones, others become Protestants because they can't abide by marriage expectations, while others actually find Jesus there finally. But we also have Protestants who become Catholic, often well informed and earnest believing Christians. It's a two way street. You win by the numbers. But we get some fine believers in the process.

Christianity has gone the same way as the model God provided for us in Biblical Israel. They started out strong, as a nation and vowing to be one. Over time there was compromise, division, and ultimately destruction, leaving only a small remnant of faithful devotees to God.

Christianity has gone the same route, although on a global level. European Civilization, which has largely carried the banner for Christian Civilization, has fallen back into primitive paganism, upheld by anti-supernatural philosophy, tolerating a plurality of moral expressions. No Church organization has been immune to this anti-religious influence and pressure to compromise. Anybody who says so is part of the problem.

Christianity has always required a spiritual revival of some sort, as well as a reformation of the impurities that have set in. Following judgment there has had to be repentance and recovery, followed by a continuation of the fundamental process that got us here.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I agree that the Church is a good source of truth.

That's good.

However, the Church leadership, if it is responsible, will not be the source of our Salvation, but rather, point us to Christ who is our Salvation.

Just who said otherwise? Which Catholic Church leader claims to be the source of our salvation? That's a Jesus alone thing.

There will always be those who privately wish to be the source of our Salvation themselves, or steal some of God's glory.

I have yet to meet a Catholic who wishes to be the source of our salvation. That's kind of silly.

That's why I recommend caution in putting the Chruch leadership as an authority above the authority of the Apostles and the Scriptures.

Again, whoever said that? How do you ever get the idea that the Church is above the apostles and above Jesus Christ?

This is why we need to go directly to Jesus for truth, and only allow Christian leaders to serve us indirectly. They point us to Jesus--they are not Jesus themselves. Christian leaders can present truth, and they can misrepresent the truth--we need to be cautious or careful. Our truth needs to be grounded in our own personal experience with God. Otherwise, we're simply taking somebody else's word for something.

Our own personal experience is rather limited. That's why it is useful to stand on the shoulders of others who have gone before us in the faith. It's Jesus and me and a whole cloud of witnesses.

We are all capable of pride and error. The wise person accepts correction. That's what we read in the Wisdom Literature.

I'm glad you admit that. Your post that I replied to seemed rather proud in asserting your wisdom and rationality and assurance of salvation. As if you've got it all and us Catholics are left to drool. That's how it seemed.

I'm not your enemy. Why all the sarcasm?

You appeared to be an enemy. One who had all this rationality and wisdom direct from God telling me how superior he was. How he was saved and I wasn't. So I tried to burst that bubble. That's why I asked you about false assurances of salvation, which even you seem to realize can happen.

Is it wrong to take seriously God's commandment to "have no other gods?"

Not at all.

We can't make gods of our own church leaders.

Who ever said that? Jesus I admit to being God. No other man ever.

Sometimes they can be great guides in our spiritual walk. Sometimes they can misrepresent truth.

Yup. Which is why it is not about this specific leader or that one but about leaders following Tradition and Scripture. Leaders, even faithful ones, come and go. Which is why it's not just about some particular leader, but about the coincidence of bishops, the Tradition, and the Scriptures.

It is on us to be responsible. If you attack those like me who simply want to be responsible you are making a choice.

You need to be responsible. So do I. You have been given a bit of wisdom and rationality and you can and should act on what you have been given. Me too. You claimed too much in your previous post. You used that to put down Catholics and the Catholic Church. I get it that your leaders got you to think that way. But maybe you have it all a little bit wrong. I may have gotten you a bit wrong, as I have limits , but I'm saying you have done so too. with regard to Catholics. Your statements about thinking Church leaders are as gods is evidence of that. It's up to you what you want to do about that.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Clearly, we have a different mindset on this! I do not see the Church universal as divided into "favorite groups," to be chosen as if by preference. This isn't a trip to the grocery store!

Rather, I see the Church universal as a single Church, with no reference at all to its organizational structure. All true Christians comprise "the Church." The Catholics are mine, and the Protestants are yours (as well as the Orthodox). I take issue with the Protestants as well as with the Catholics on issues where I think they deviate from healthy practices and indulge in aberrant doctrine.

My analysis of the Catholic Church will be different from my analysis of the Protestant churches. And each Protestant communion I will look at differently, depending on the history and reputation of each.

Age plays the role in corruption, just as it does to us individually. Over time, compromise takes place, and needs to be addressed. If you don't think so then you're clearly biased and prefer to close your eyes to any flaws that require a remedy? Perhaps the Catholic Church is just your "favorite team?" I hope that's not true?

I don't really believe this--I think you're probably much more fair than that speculation? You probably just wish to minimize Catholic criticism by outside groups? You probably want a pure bride for Christ just as I do. Let's not, however, divide the Church up into Catholic and Protestant sects, as if they don't hold to the same Savior? We're all devoted to the same God and to the same Christ.

I attempted to steer the conversation back to the main topic, yet it appears there is a reluctance to do so. Our discussion is centered on the Bible, not personal views about churches.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Christianity has gone the same way as the model God provided for us in Biblical Israel. They started out strong, as a nation and vowing to be one. Over time there was compromise, division, and ultimately destruction, leaving only a small remnant of faithful devotees to God.

Christianity has gone the same route, although on a global level. European Civilization, which has largely carried the banner for Christian Civilization, has fallen back into primitive paganism, upheld by anti-supernatural philosophy, tolerating a plurality of moral expressions. No Church organization has been immune to this anti-religious influence and pressure to compromise. Anybody who says so is part of the problem.

Christianity has always required a spiritual revival of some sort, as well as a reformation of the impurities that have set in. Following judgment there has had to be repentance and recovery, followed by a continuation of the fundamental process that got us here.

I can more or less agree with this. (Just to show I'm not on auto-contrarian mode.)

 

[ozso]

It seems unusual for someone to take issue with the Catholic Church if they are not Catholic. Similarly, I have no issue with Protestant churches as I am not Protestant and do not concern myself with internal Protestant disputes or the conservative and liberal divisions within that context.

Then why do you create so many Catholic vs Protestant threads? They night be dressed up as something else, but that's what they usually predictably turn out to be.

 

[ozso]

I attempted to steer the conversation back to the main topic, yet it appears there is a reluctance to do so. Our discussion is centered on the Bible, not personal views about churches.

The main topic is basically the Catholic bible vs the Protestant one. Which not surprisingly turned out to be an argument of Catholic vs Protestant in general.

 

[AlexB23]

A doctrine of demons (1 Tim 4:1). Counterfeit Christianity.

Yep. Totally agree. The Unitarian/Universalist movement is 100% counter to Christianity. Same with New Age junk. Yes, some parts talk about peace, but only Christianity will give us everlasting life and peace up in Heaven above.

1 Timothy 4:1 (NRSV-CE): "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will renounce the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons."

 

[AlexB23]

Certainly. That said we should still pray for the salvation of Unitarians.

We should, though it looks unlikely. When someone gets sucked into a cult such as the Unitarian movement, there is almost no getting out.

 

[The Liturgist]

We should, though it looks unlikely. When someone gets sucked into a cult such as the Unitarian movement, there is almost no getting out.

The Unitarians aren’t particularly cultish, they’re rather like a more radically liberal version of the United Church of Christ or other liberal mainline denominations. Hypothetically one can be a Trinitarian Christian and a member of the UUA, since the Universalist part of the UUA was at least in theory Trinitarian at one time, with Universalism being their main doctrinal “distinctive.” Of course they clearly went down a bit of a rabbit hole into Transcendantalist theology like the Unitarians, which informed their decision to merge with them. There is one Unitarian church in Boston, King’s Chapel, which used to be Anglican, until 1785, and which uses a modified Book of Common Prayer and was historically agnostic on the issue of the Trinity, in that their revised BCP was designed to accommodate both those who believed in it and those who don’t.

A condition almost as bad, or perhaps worse, exists in the previously normal Remonstrant Church in the Netherlands, also known as the Arminian Church, which disagreed with Calvinists over the issue of free will. Unfortunately the Remonstrants have become among the most liberal of liberal Protestants, to the point where each member is encouraged to write their own creed, which is in each instance a violation of the canons of the council of Ephesus, the third Ecumenical synod, which prohibit adding to or modifying the Symbol of Faith (the NIcene Creed) or writing new Symbols of Faith.

 

[AlexB23]

The Unitarians aren’t particularly cultish, they’re rather like a more radically liberal version of the United Church of Christ or other liberal mainline denominations. Hypothetically one can be a Trinitarian Christian and a member of the UUA, since the Universalist part of the UUA was at least in theory Trinitarian at one time, with Universalism being their main doctrinal “distinctive.” Of course they clearly went down a bit of a rabbit hole into Transcendantalist theology like the Unitarians, which informed their decision to merge with them. There is one Unitarian church in Boston, King’s Chapel, which used to be Anglican, until 1785, and which uses a modified Book of Common Prayer and was historically agnostic on the issue of the Trinity, in that their revised BCP was designed to accommodate both those who believed in it and those who don’t.

A condition almost as bad, or perhaps worse, exists in the previously normal Remonstrant Church in the Netherlands, also known as the Arminian Church, which disagreed with Calvinists over the issue of free will. Unfortunately the Remonstrants have become among the most liberal of liberal Protestants, to the point where each member is encouraged to write their own creed, which is in each instance a violation of the canons of the council of Ephesus, the third Ecumenical synod, which prohibit adding to or modifying the Symbol of Faith (the NIcene Creed) or writing new Symbols of Faith.

Let us call it what it is: The Unitarians are a cult, and I do not care for the history of it, or about the history of free will. The Unitarian ideology is straight from the pits of darkness.

Unitarians do not believe in the saving power of Christ:

BBC - Religions - Unitarianism: God

Unitarian views of God, including their rejection of the Christian idea of the Trinity - from which the Unitarian movement got its name.

www.bbc.co.uk

This guy explains why the UU is a cult:

Unitarian-Universalism: The Closed-minded, Intolerant religion – Christian Apologetics Project

capro.info

 

[The Liturgist]

Let us call it what it is: The Unitarians are a cult, and I do not care for the history of it, or about the history of free will. The Unitarian ideology is straight from the pits of darkness.

Unitarians do not believe in the saving power of Christ:

BBC - Religions - Unitarianism: God

Unitarian views of God, including their rejection of the Christian idea of the Trinity - from which the Unitarian movement got its name.

www.bbc.co.uk

This guy explains why the UU is a cult:

Unitarian-Universalism: The Closed-minded, Intolerant religion – Christian Apologetics Project

capro.info

My point is, they’re not a high-control group like Scientology or the J/Ws. One will not get shunned or face dire social consequences for leaving them. They are heretical, but they are not known for being oppressive of their members, at least in the US. The Baha’i, on the other hand, are a different matter, specifically concerning “covenant breakers,” although one can leave the Baha’i faith, provided one makes a point of doing it quietly.

At any rate I’m rather keen to get back to the subject of the Bible since I noticed another of @Xeno.of.athens threads on the subject of scripture also got derailed by argumentation over prayer for the dead, and that has got to be frustrating, so out of fraternal love for him I would prefer it if we simply agree Unitarians are bad and then return to the main topic.

 

[AlexB23]

My point is, they’re not a high-control group like Scientology or the J/Ws. One will not get shunned or face dire social consequences for leaving them. They are heretical, but they are not known for being oppressive of their members, at least in the US. The Baha’i, on the other hand, are a different matter, specifically concerning “covenant breakers,” although one can leave the Baha’i faith, provided one makes a point of doing it quietly.

At any rate I’m rather keen to get back to the subject of the Bible since I noticed another of @Xeno.of.athens threads on the subject of scripture also got derailed by argumentation over prayer for the dead, and that has got to be frustrating, so out of fraternal love for him I would prefer it if we simply agree Unitarians are bad and then return to the main topic.

Alright. We both agree that Unitarians are bad, just as bad as Scientology, Baha'i, and JWs, and that followers of these groups need our prayers to repent and be saved by Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior (Jesus is the only way to the Father - John 14:6).

 

[Michie]

*subscribing*

 

[The Liturgist]

Alright. We both agree that Unitarians are bad, just as bad as Scientology, Baha'i, and JWs, and that followers of these groups need our prayers to repent and be saved by Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior (Jesus is the only way to the Father - John 14:6).

Indeed - my point was merely they are easier to escape than the other cults, since they won’t try to separate you from your family, or at least haven’t been known for doing that, yet, although given how unstable they are, and the wide disparity in belief and practices between their different congregations, I should not be surprised if an individual UUA parish were to attempt it.

When I read a Catholic Bible, I am assured that it contains the full canon of Holy Scripture as defined by ancient Church councils and definitively listed by the Councils of Florence and Trent, reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council. If the Bible includes cross-references, then it will link passages between the Old Testament and the New Testament, including the Deuterocanonical books. If there are annotations provided by the Catholic Church or one of its faithful shepherds (a bishop), then I can trust in their reliability. However, these assurances are not present when I use a Jewish Tanakh or a Protestant Bible. For these reasons, I prefer a Catholic Bible over a Protestant or Jewish one.

An Orthodox Bible should also I think be something you would find useful in this respect, in that indeed, the Byzantine Rite Catholics and Eastern Orthodox use the same Bibles. The main reason for using one of ours, namely, the Orthodox Study BIble, would be to compare the Septuagint to the Vulgate Old Testament (the Douai Rheims includes a translation of St. Jerome’s translation of the Septuagint Psalter, which lacks Psalm 151 but otherwise matches the Psalter used by the Orthodox). The differences in what is regarded as canonical are extremely minor. Now, obviously, I don’t imagine you would need to do this, but in general, I use Catholic Bibles for convenience because I desire access to this material, and I also am very happy with the Psalter in the Challoner Douai-Rheims Bible.

I also particularly like the Knox Bible (which is a Catholic Bible, no connection to John Knox, the extremely anti-Catholic and in my opinion somewhat disagreeable founder of Scottish Presbyterianism).

 

[AlexB23]

Indeed - my point was merely they are easier to escape than the other cults, since they won’t try to separate you from your family, or at least haven’t been known for doing that, yet, although given how unstable they are, and the wide disparity in belief and practices between their different congregations, I should not be surprised if an individual UUA parish were to attempt it.



An Orthodox Bible should also I think be something you would find useful in this respect, in that indeed, the Byzantine Rite Catholics and Eastern Orthodox use the same Bibles. The main reason for using one of ours, namely, the Orthodox Study BIble, would be to compare the Septuagint to the Vulgate Old Testament (the Douai Rheims includes a translation of St. Jerome’s translation of the Septuagint Psalter, which lacks Psalm 151 but otherwise matches the Psalter used by the Orthodox). The differences in what is regarded as canonical are extremely minor. Now, obviously, I don’t imagine you would need to do this, but in general, I use Catholic Bibles for convenience because I desire access to this material, and I also am very happy with the Psalter in the Challoner Douai-Rheims Bible.

I also particularly like the Knox Bible (which is a Catholic Bible, no connection to John Knox, the extremely anti-Catholic and in my opinion somewhat disagreeable founder of Scottish Presbyterianism).

Yes, the UU are probably easier to escape, though the doctrines are woke, so that means it is sadly very hard to get folks turned away from woke ideology. I should try the DRB bible, if it is on Bible Gateway, or the OSB as well.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Then why do you create so many Catholic vs Protestant threads? They night be dressed up as something else, but that's what they usually predictably turn out to be.

I don't. This thread is not Catholic Vs Protestant. It's about bibles!