Church hoppin’ to Rome
“Mom, I’m thinking about becoming Catholic.” For many Protestant parents, this statement is being heard more and more. As long as Protestants continue to devalue tradition, history, and social justice concerns we should expect to hear more and more young evangelicals “going home to Rome.” The combination of family church hoppin’ to find the best children’s and youth programs, combined with the mythology that Protestants embrace sola Scriptura in practice, creates the perfect conditions to usher young adults into Roman Catholicism.
I was recently in a room full of young adults raised in evangelical America. To my surprise, there was not a single person who had been raised in one congregation or denomination—they’d all changed churches at least two or three times. I’m not surprised, then, that we find among this generation a longing for tradition and consistency—especially in a culture of broken families and high levels of geographic mobility. People want to call something “home.”
In the September 2002 edition of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Scot McKnight’s article, “From Wheaton to Rome: Why Evangelicals Become Roman Catholic,” offered good insight regarding the phenomenon of Protestants converting to Catholicism. The list included: (1) a desire for certainty, (2) a desire for history, (3) a desire for unity, and (4) a desire for authority.
A desire for consistency exposes the fact that Protestant theology is wildly divergent on key issues like justification, salvation, grace, marriage, divorce, birth control, social justice, and so on. Moreover, the downplaying of history and distinctiveness among Protestants tend to undermine connection to tradition. If you’re Baptist, Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, and so on, your family should know why. Also, no church or denomination really practices sola Scriptura as the only, or final, rule of faith. If your church uses a statement of faith, recites creeds, uses confessions and catechisms, sings from hymnals, and so on, your church has dual authorities—Scripture and tradition. While Scripture has final authority for issues related to salvation and morality, tradition determines who gets ordained, what is taught in Sunday school, what the sacraments mean, who holds what church office, and so on.
A desire for unity exposes grievous bifurcations among Protestants, of which there are over 33,000 different denominations in the world. This does seem consistent with Jesus’ desire for unity expressed in John 17. Of course, the “unity” of Catholic and Orthodox communions is often cosmetic. While Protestants put their disunity on display through church planting and denominations, others disagree off the record. The desire for authority is likely a reaction to being raised by a generation of anti-authoritarian baby boomers not carefully distinguishing between good and bad uses of authority. Trustworthy authority can be good for clarifying questions of theology and life as well as providing wisdom. Some forms of decentralization, however, may not be as helpful as we once believed.
To McKnight’s list I would add a desire for intellectual leadership in public life. The Catholic Intellectual Tradition is a history of rigorous scholarship coupled with spirituality and ethical teaching toward forming people committed to piety and making the world a better place, especially for the poor. There have been intellectual contributions by Protestants but there is no comparable, consistent intellectual Protestant tradition that applies spiritual and moral formation to making the world a better place.
In the end, and sadly for some, young Protestants are exposing the weaknesses of their upbringing with their feet. Until Protestants recapture some sense of historic unity and mission to enter the world’s cultures, beyond evangelism, this trend will likely continue. McKnight’s observations are cause for much reflection.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top177 Comments to “Church hoppin’ to Rome”
I just read a post on abortion with never a fact to be found, as far as I could tell.
In terms of this post, at least 99% of it could be removed if the speculation and imagination about imaginary beings were removed.
Report comment to moderator
So religion is ultimately about transforming culture… how sad is that?
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Bradley,
Perhaps it is you who need to apply some “rigorous scholarship” to the popular but inaccurate statement that there are “33,000″ protestant denominations. And then some “rigorous scholarship” would also be appreciated regarding the popular but inaccurate notion that the Catholic church is unified (though you did give one small tip-of-the-hat acknowledgement that it is “cosmentic”). A statement of faith is a form of tradition and not consistent with Sola Scriptura? Singing from a hymnbook?Really?! C’mon, Mr. Bradley, these are very ambigous and might I say lazy accusations.
Certainly the protestant church as a whole has many problems. But the most important problem is that many simply do not teach the Scriptures, much less believe them. They are a “church” in name only. They do not preach or understand the fundamentals of the gospel message. Be more careful about drawing your conclusions based on what gospel-starved teeagers are doing. The Catholic church is just another broken cistern. All their supposed history and traditions will not save a lost soul.
Report comment to moderator
Unity in Christ Jesus differs from unity in denominationalism. The unity that Rome expects is that they are the supreme authority on matters of faith. The pope is not called the Vicar of Christ for no reason. Vicar:- “one who substitutes for another”, Websters II Dictionary. The disunity among protestants is not over the work of redemption in Christ Jesus, but unfortunatly, over interpretation of doctrines of the faith.
I address this not for the sake of believers, but for unbelievers.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with JUSTSAYING’s last paragraph in post 3
Report comment to moderator
Anthony, as a lifelong practicing Catholic most other Christian religions don’t understand the fact that the Catholic Church is the ONLY faith to offer Holy Eucharist, a missing key ingredient from every other faith who may only offer communion. As the first Christian religion founded on Jesus Christ and his Gospel, St. Peter and his successors, (the Popes) have kept the Catholic Faith alive and true. The Catholic church was the first and only church to establish hospitals, educational institutions, and so much more. It is no wonder why younger people feel a loss or hole in their lives practicing their current faiths. There is a huge gap between what Catholic’s believe and what Protestant faiths believe. The Catholic Faith has never strayed from its true core teachings, we don’t bend in the wind with what current society believes, we bend ourselves to what God asks of us. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and that is true of the Catholic Church. I kinda felt a negative spin in the article, that you may be upset that young adults were in want of some very important missing pieces of their lives and that going to the Catholic Church was a bad thing. The key ingredients of a Catholic Mass is the mystery of Christ and his teaching in both the Liturgy and the Eucharist. The Catholic faith holds the core roots of our Christian faith – I am glad that others are able to see that truth.
Report comment to moderator
There is only one good reason to switch to Roman Catholicism in my eyes — that they preach the TRUTH. I’m not sure that either they OR evangelicals do. But I do find the arguments by the Roman Catholics based on apostolic tradition, AND, despite their sometimes allegorical readings of the Bible, the very text of the Bible itself, somewhat more convincing.
Jesus Himself called St. Peter the “rock” upon which he would build His Church. And if He didn’t (as some here have argued) this Incarnate God certainly used p!$$ poor wording in the original Aramaic.
Report comment to moderator
Bradley
You state there are 33,000 different denominations in the world. That is not true, ….. unless of course you count every single church of any size, brought together for a few months, even a home church, a Bible study, any church which has left another church for any reason, even to have a smaller group –
They are simply groups Bradley, it doesn’t mean they are formally formed as denominations. The world at large can knot all this up and make this claim, but we as Christian Believers should know better. This info has been tossed around for years, it isn’t an honest commentary regarding denominations around the world.
Report comment to moderator
What many of you are posting “the Catholic Church won’t save a lost soul” and that it is “Just another broken cistern” are getting it completely wrong…
The Catholic Church is made up of people, as humans we are broken, BUT it is up to our core morals and values of living, our faith in Jesus Christ and what is said in the Bible is the Truth and the gift of the Holy Spirit to save that lost soul or at least to do our best. What you are really doing is bashing people who are trying to live out their faith. In acknowledging our brokenness and turning our eyes and lives back to God we will be saved. Right!
Report comment to moderator
Protestantism is inherently schizophrenic; there are far more than 33,000 different Protestant denominations. If you believe the Bible alone is the final authority, there is a different Protestant denomination for each believer.
I bet you can’t find TWO evangelicals on this blog who agree on how to properly interpret EVERY single jot and tittle of the Bible. “The Bible alone” means how the individual believer interprets the Bible. That means the Bible might teach TULIP; it might teach TULI only; it might teach TUL only; it might teach TU only; it might teach Tonly; it might teach TUIP only; it might teach NOT ONE letter of TULIP; it might teach you can revolt against tyrants; it might teach it’s always a sin to revolt against government, including tyrants; it might teach Hell is separation from God; it might teach God is present in Hell, delivering the punishment; it might teach the Last Supper is meant to be literally understood (i.e. transubstantiation); it might teach the Last Supper is allegorical. It might teach of the existence of unicorns. Hell it might even teach that Jesus is not God, but something less than fully God (i.e., the biblical unitarians). And then take what I’ve just scratched the surface of and start mixing and matching combination; you get a number far greater than 33,000.
Sola Scriptura is inherently schizophrenic.
Report comment to moderator
A church, any church cannot save a single soul – only Christ can save, only repentance and believing on Jesus Christ through faith results in Salvation.
Report comment to moderator
It seems that a lot of posters here don’t really understand sola scriptura. The term is “sola scriptura” not “sola my interpretation”. Scripture is the final authority, not me and my interpretation. As an example from the work world, if my boss tells me and another co-worker to do a project, and one of us misinterprets the bosses instructions, it’s ridiculous to say that therefore the boss doesn’t have the final authority over us.
One of the reasons there are so many divisions in the protestant church is because of a lack of sola scriptura, not because of sola scriptura. Most of the different denominations out there have abandoned the word of God, and that’s what has caused a lot of the divisions. Also, if two groups from within a church have two interpretations of the scripture, and one decides to split off and form a new church, they are holding their “interpretation” as a higher authority than scripture itself. One or both of the groups has a wrong interpretation of what the scripture says, but that doesn’t change the fact that the scripture still has the higher authority.
Also, the term “sola scriptura” doesn’t mean there aren’t other authorities. But, scripture is the only “final” authority. The church has authority over us, but it’s a subordinate authority to scripture.
Report comment to moderator
The New Testament was written (all the books) between 40-65 A.D. not including John the Apostle written in 75-95 A.D. This was approved, read by the church – long before the councils
Tradition is not inspired nor does the Scriptures teach it, nor does the Bible say that it is powerful – Tradition is just that, tradition, it is not inspired – those who sat under the Apostles were taught, however the Apostles were EYEWITNESSES to the preaching/teaching death and resurrection of our LORD Jesus Christ – their disciples were not eyewitnesses but students of the Apostles -
Those who witnessed the life of Christ, HIS teaching his death and resurrection had Apostolic authority, they were eyewitnesses of our LORD as he died and resurrected from the grave – Thomas made it clear when he saw the risen Savior “my LORD and my GOD” – Lets remember something very important as we study – the New Testament is the only record that records the death and resurrection, they were eyewitnesses, GOD gave them the inspired infallible record of what transpired – everyone else who sat under these Apostles heard the truth, but they were not eyewitnesses, they were disciples of the Apostles, that is overlooked in the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church which teaches ‘traditions of men’ which is not Scriptural.
21 Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us
22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us-one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” Acts 1:21
Jesus makes it clear in John 14:23-24 that those who LOVE HIM will keep HIS words – and he that LOVETH HIM not, keep not HIS sayings. There is no tradition here, there is only the voice of Jesus which his Apostles penned to parchment – when little man decides to ‘alter’ GOD’s Word with ‘tradition he is in violation of John 14:24.
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me. John 14:23-24
Jesus did not once speak about tradition being a good thing, nor did Paul or Peter – this is mans invention.
All tradition must be compared to Scripture, if it lines up correctly, then it is true – IF it doesn’t it is false. There are many false teachers/priests so called leaders in many churches who follow traditions which are made up by man. Jesus chose HIS Apostles, they were the ones to whom HE gifted, what they wrote and documented are what we have today in the Bible – GOD breathed, inerrant, infallible Word of GOD.
Jesus Christ spent 40 days with HIS Apostles (Acts 1) after HE resurrected from the grave, and just before he went to Heaven.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry for all the bold in post 14 -
Report comment to moderator
Erjellum,
I think you completely misunderstood my remarks and don’t fully understand the implications of Sola Scriptura. The boss analogy is apt. Say you are given a set of instructions from corporate. The BOSS may be mistaken, but it’s HE that gets final say over how properly interpret the instructions. That is, you need a boss with the final say, or else you get thousands of “literal” interpretations of what the Bible actually says. Not ONE of the many examples I gave were of cafeteria Christians who ignore what the Bible actually says. Every single example I gave in post 11 represents historic differences of over the literal plain sense of the Bible’s text.
Report comment to moderator
friends that have done it say they like the structure (whatever that is) and beautiful tradition of worship (somehow sense of being connected to the early church)
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe, you said, “I bet you can’t find TWO evangelicals on this blog who agree on how to properly interpret EVERY single jot and tittle of the Bible.” The same can be said for many popes and present Catholic apologists. Theological unity in the Roman Catholic church is a myth. Much of the protestant church IS astray, but not because of holding to Sola Scriptura, but because they have rejected it.
GIGI: you said, “What you are really doing is bashing people who are trying to live out their faith.” Have you ever criticized the belief of another religion, even though they were sincerely “trying to live out their faith”? Disagreeing is not “bashing”. There is more I could say, but Victoria has done a nice job using Scripture.
Mr. Bradley, you are correct that a big problem among protestants is church-hopping. It is a consumer mentality that is in operation here, not a biblical mentality. Our problem (along with not understanding the gospel), is that we want to say we love Jesus while at the same time refusing to love His bride, the church.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
First, I wanted to thank you for your civil reply. I know a lot of threads on here turn ugly.
Now, on to the debate…
If you introduce “corporate” into the analogy, then the Boss doesn’t have final authority, corporate does. So, if the boss is mistaken, that doesn’t change the fact that corporate has final authority. That’s actually a better analogy anyway, because “corporate” represents scripture and the “boss” represents the church. If the boss interprets it incorrectly, it’s our job to do what corporate wants and catch the boss in his incorrect interpretation.
True that all the different interpretations that you mentioned are historical differences over the literal sense of the Bible. The fact that all those people disagreed doesn’t change the fact that the Bible is the final authority. Of all the different interpretations, only one or none of them were right. The fact that we fallen humans (or the church, an institution made up of fallen humans) get it wrong, doesn’t change the fact that the scripture is still the final authority.
Report comment to moderator
GIGI: As a Roman Catholic of long standing IE Born into a devout Catholic family, attending Catholic grade and high and being a part of lay ministry for years, I can attest to the fact that the church did me much good, to much to mention. For one thing it introduced me to Christ at a very young age. I am grateful for that. When the Charismatic Movement swept through the denominational churches in the 70′ and 80′ I had a life changing God revealing experience that changed my life forever.
I steeped myself in the Word of God, and the deeper I got into it, the more I realized that Rome was wrong in more ways then I can share here. The early Church at Rome was on fire for God, but over the centuries, it got awat from Biblical truths in many ways and has blended the teachings of man along with Scripture. It still does today. I have many God fearing, Jesus loving, Spirit filled friends in the Roman Church. I would urge you yo remember, no church saves, Catholic or Protestant. Keep you eyes on Jesus, and worship Him, in Catholicism or Protestantism. He alone is worthy. God bless you abundantly.
Report comment to moderator
GIGI: By the way, discern between the Godly and the ungodly in these postings. Bless you
Report comment to moderator
GIGI: Unfortunatly many Protestant churches have also begun to blend man’s teachings with the Word of God. We must pray one for another.
Report comment to moderator
Great article, thanks Anthony. You describe many of the reasons our family recently left the Protestant church — which my husband and I were a part of for 23 & 40 years respectively (years during which we shared much of the anti-Catholic sentiment that Protestants carry) — for the ancient eastern Orthodox church. It was, in fact, a book about a Pentecostal preacher’s conversion to Roman Catholicsm that started the journey almost a year ago (although we chose the Orthodox church over the Roman church).
As to our reasons, I would add in (it could go along with “history” I suppose) the longing for participating in a yearly cycle of feasts as God had developed for the Jewish people. God is a God of seasons and cycles (you see it in Scripture, nature and history) and we longed for this, while not wanting to become Jewish in order participate in a God-developed cycle of feasts. Little did we know a year ago that there was a Church that functioned this way, and has for thousands of years!
Gigi, #6 – The eastern Orthodox church also offers the Holy Eucharist. We are catechumen at this point, and will be baptized in the next few months. We are looking forward to partaking of the Eucharist for the first time! As with the Roman church, it is not a symbolic “communion” but also is the center of our services as the actual partaking of the body and blood of Christ (although from what I understand there is a difference between how our two churches approach this, as the EO church doesn’t teach “transubstantiation”).
Report comment to moderator
If there are any Protestants interested in books that describe why someone converts from Protestantism, I would submit the following:
Becoming Orthodox by Peter Gillquist. Gillquist and 6-7 other Campus Crusade national & regional leaders, along with about 2000 parishioners, converted to Orthodoxy in the late 1970s/early 1980s. This is the story of their decisions and how they came about.
Anyway ~ just some ideas for anyone interested! I realize not everyone will be, of course, and that’s fine. We’re thus so thankful for really getting to know our King and our God in this way.
Report comment to moderator
It was Peter’s confession of faith that Christ is the Son of God that is the rock on which Christ’s Church is built. Roger is quite right that man’s teachings have been blended in, especially in the US. The “problem” with the American, non-RCC churches especially, is that they are “American” which is why there are so many. The RCC doesn’t have that problem because the head of the church is always in Vatican City, in Rome.
The RCC is consistent, Gigi is right about that, and it stands fast. We have a lot in common. But Roger is also correct. I have never known the RCC member who really reads the Bible and a soul needs to be in the Word. It is not being a member of the RCC or any denomination that matters. It is the confession of faith that Christ is the Way, etc. That is the true rock. No one comes unto the father except through Christ, and Christ alone.
Report comment to moderator
thus = just, LOL. I use a software, in my job as a classroom transcriber for deaf & hard-of-hearing students, that allows me to type even faster than usual by using abbreviations — and unless I’m scrupulously careful in watching what comes out, sometimes I make these kinds of mistakes. Sorry!
Report comment to moderator
EndyBlue, you might find John Paul II’s book “Prayers and Devotions” of interest as it goes through a year and provides commentary on each of the RCC feast days.
And both you and Gigi should know there are other churches that also believe that Communion becomes the body and blood of Christ, smaller though they may be, teaching transubstantiation. After being baptised in the RCC and attending Baptist Sunday School, I grew up from age 7 in such a church. It is also a “world-wide” church, though small and largely unknown. I think it is the consistency in knowing that the word used for a service in NY is the same in a particular service as it is in New Delhi that binds the members, and I think this is something that American denominations don’t have. But what we in America do have is that when we come across another Christian, as soon as we establish that they fervently believe Christ is the Way, we have something great and deep in common, even if our particular “traditions” are more local.
Report comment to moderator
NJ Lawyer, we too love the consistency you mentioned. I said this to someone we met on a visit to a monastery over the weekend — I find it wonderful and even overwhelming knowing that millions of other Orthodox Christians all over the world are reading the exact same Scriptures, honoring the same saints, celebrating the same feasts, chanting the same Liturgy, and receiving also the Eucharist on any given Sunday. Knowing that from time zone to time zone this is happening for a total of 24 straight hours only adds to the amazement! Thanks for your post.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 14,
of course many diaagree with your dates.
Report comment to moderator
I found the following comment in the3 leqd in interesting:
” The Catholic Intellectual Tradition is a history of rigorous scholarship coupled with spirituality and ethical teaching toward forming people committed to piety and making the world a better place, especially for the poor. ”
One can observe in this blog a very strong theme of distrust of rigorous scholarship of any form. And this anti-sholastic trend, I suggest makes at least cettian protestant denominations difficult for many young people as they become exposed to ever increasingly levels of education and exposed to a wide variety of traditions.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus was/is the Rock, unless you aren’t able to understand the other Scriptures which define who HE was. Jesus is the ROCK, it is upon HIM that all is built – Peter was never the ROCK as in the foundation, if you believe that you misunderstand the Scripture. Jesus was and is the FOUNDATION, the ROCK upon all that is built. Christ Jesus built HIS church upon HIS FOUNDATION HIS teaching/preaching, death on the Cross, Resurrection from the grave – HE and HE alone is the ROCK the foundation, which rests our Salvation, NONE OTHER.
Jesus is the FOUNDATION the CHIEF CORNER STONE, the ROCK upon which the church is built not Peter, or any other man.
No mention of Peter being the ROCK here.
No mention of Peter being the ROCK here.
Without doubt Christ himself is the Rock, the tried foundation of the church; and woe to him that attempts to lay any other! Peter’s confession is this rock as to doctrine. If Jesus be not the Christ, those that own him are not of the church, but deceivers and deceived. Matthew Henry
Report comment to moderator
I’ve said this before, but will say it again — since an untrue statement has been made yet again — while “human tradition” is condemned in the New Testament, there certainly are places in the New Testament where tradition and oral teaching are spoken of positively; we are in fact instructed to “keep the [oral and written] traditions”.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 31,
when you say:
“No mention of Peter being the ROCK here.”
I suggest for at least the material presented that your argument regarding Peter is valid.
I suggest a similar arguemnt can be made about Paul.
Report comment to moderator
I thought Paul was the Walrus?
Report comment to moderator
When tradition doesn’t line up with the Word of GOD it is not the inerrant inspired Word of God, it is nothing but mans traditions, to meet man’s idea of GOD, not what GOD ordained in the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, have you ever wondered why the Bible isn’t mentioned in the Bible? It’s just a question I had a few weeks back as I thought through some of these things. It seems like if the compiled group of letters was supposed to be the sole source of the Church’s beliefs and activities, it would have been mentioned by someone somewhere in the “Good Book.” But nowhere are we told about this “book to come”. I’m not being snide, if it sounds like it, I’m seriously curious about this.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, I agree with #35.
Report comment to moderator
endybl;ue post 36,
you actually ask a very good question for which there is no very good answer.
Well done!
P.S. see the 1545 reference victoria made in post 14.
Report comment to moderator
Endyblue – 36
Your questions don’t make sense – it has nothing to do with justifying man’s made up ‘traditions.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, I was asking a genuine question. I wasn’t trying to justify anything; it’d be more enjoyable if you could converse without this knee-jerk negative reaction. I agree that the Trinity isn’t mentioned by name, but it’s still “there” in the way the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all presented. Incarnation is there, obviously, since we believe Jesus was God born in the flesh. And the same for the rest. Even if the words aren’t there, the *facts* of these ideas are. But nowhere is a book to come mentioned; nowhere is there even an allusion to it. You’d think if this was going to be so important, that if it was to be the basis of our faith and the only measuring stick with which to measure the Christian life, it would at least be mentioned somehow, even if not with the word “Bible”.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, thanks Musing.
Report comment to moderator
But Victoria, that’s what Peter’s confession of faith was — an acknowledgment that Christ is the Way and the only way, that is indeed the rock on which the church is built. You can’t ignore Christ’s own words to Peter.
Incarnation is right there in the Bible. The Holy Spirit visited Mary and we all know what happened nine months later. I don’t need the word “incarnation” to know it happened. And Christ said I and the Father are one — so you have two persons — and then he said he would not leave us comfortless and sent the Holy Ghost/Spirit — the third person of the trinity. And all you have to do is read the verses in Handel’s Messiah to find the word “onminpotent.”
Report comment to moderator
Endyblue – 40
Please be more specific RE: book –
As for your accusation of “knee jerk” I would suggest you re-read what I wrote – I wouldn’t think you would ask the questions if you had known the answers.
Report comment to moderator
NJL – 42
A little rock, and upon this rock Petra “I will build my church.” – - Jesus doesn’t promise to build HIS church upon Peter, but upon Himself, as Peter tells us (1 Peter 2:4-9) Peter petros, literally a little rock.
Report comment to moderator
Great to read some faithful Catholic apologetics. Not finding very much of that on the Facebook Worldmag link. Excellent dialogue, all of you.
Report comment to moderator
I haven’t seen SteveG for a few days. Musing seems to consider himself a Christian.
I would be interested by what either of these people consider the basis for their belief, as they are both intelligent and articulate in most of their comments.
Most of the other comments I read here seem to be much noise and little content. I have a book checked out of the library called The Rest of Noise. It is a history of 20th century music, but I think the title could also apply to most of the comments I read here at wmb.
Report comment to moderator
Since Jesus Christ Himself referred to the Old Testament prophets, I’d argue that might be the Bible in the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
Nana – 47
That’s right – And then there are passages in the NT which are clearly taken from the OT.
The prophecies in the Bible foretold Christ’s coming, therefore the New Testament. Of course it would all be penned to parchment. The fact that much of the Old Testament prophecy has come to pass proves that everything written was correct – the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ when found proved that everything in the OT was correct, down to the last words. The New Testament is no different it brings forth the prophecy fulfilled of Christ, HIS birth, HIS life, death and Resurrection – and the prophecy of end times – It would only make sense that there would be a NEW Testament -
Report comment to moderator
Re Peter and the “rock” I would note that if Peter is NOT the “rock” upon which Jesus would build His Church He used such utterly p!$$ poor and confusing language that NO ONE should be condemned for understanding it the way Roman Catholics do.
And I say also unto thee, That thou (Simon, son of Jonas) art (now) Peter (meaning some kind of “rock”), and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:18
Nothing I put in parenthesis belies the original context of the narrative. Jesus changes Simon’s name to “some kind of rock” and then says “upon this rock I will build my church.”
Again, if Peter ISN’T the rock, then an Incarnate God poorly chooses His words.
Report comment to moderator
I see that you’re not understanding my question. I don’t know how to word it any more clearly than it is, so I’ll just leave it out there.
Report comment to moderator
If you cannot word it differently maybe you don’t know what you are asking? I have attempted to guess, as Nana has. I don’t like playing guessing games, are you able to articulate your question so there is no doubt as to what you are asking?
Report comment to moderator
HE is the ROCK, HIS work is perfect: for HIS ways are judgement: a GOD of truth and without iniquity, just and right is HE. Deuteronomy 32:4 (Old Testament)
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual ROCK that followed them: and that ROCK was CHRIST. 1 Corinthians 10:4 (New Testament)
A little rock is not “the rock” which is Christ the cornerstone, nor is Peter the first pope – This is one of the most glaring examples of the Roman Catholic Church and their inability to understand Scripture. Perhaps that is because they rely on “TRADITION” rather than the Word of GOD (Bible)
Report comment to moderator
Peter the Apostle was not a Roman Catholic. He was a follower of Jesus Christ, not the many pagan traditions that make up much of Roman Catholic practices.
It is a great tragedy to see Protestants leaving the Bible for Rome. All of those I know who have gone to Rome have given up their former good works, and gone deep into the mysticism and traditions of the Catholic Church. They seem to lose their love for the poor, especially the unborn. There are probably others who don’t go this way, but this has been my experience with everyone I know who went Catholic.
Obviously they have never really received a love of the truth.
Report comment to moderator
I disagree that it’s unclear; Musing got it. It’s a pretty straight forward question – why is there no mention anywhere in the Bible of a future collection of writings that would come to be known as the Bible? Many things “to come” were spoken of or prophesied about, why not this?
“And in that day you will have My Words collected into a book and with this book you will base everything in Christianity?” Or something like that. A collection of writings is not mentioned anywhere that I’m familiar with.
Report comment to moderator
I have to get an order placed for my business. Have a good night!
Report comment to moderator
Endyblue,
I don’t see the importance of the question, honestly. We do have such verses as “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” strongly suggesting some texts are God-inspired Scripture and some aren’t. We wouldn’t accept the Book of Mormon or the Koran, for example. All Christians understand that most writings are outside the canon, and Scripture recognizes that as well. The question of whether there’s any direct reference to a time after the printing press when books could be printed in such a way to have enough pages in one volume to include all of Scripture in one volume really seems irrelevant to the question of scriptural authority.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, I wasn’t trying to make a big deal out of the question, nor use it to address scriptural authority, if it seems that way. The several posts on the subject were, unfortunately, just trying to clarify — not because I wanted to push the point.
Report comment to moderator
But you fail to answer my question #51 which is a clear question, why not clarify your question so that we can answer it?
Where do you find the above in Scripture? Book and verse please.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 39,
actuallt EndyBlues comment does seem pertient: the canon itself is ojne of tradition, and if one looks carefully many traditions.
One may argue, it is a weak argument I suggest, but nonetheless an dargument, that Jesus endorsed the Old Testatment (there is a time line puzzlement here
).
But the establishment of the New Testament is a tradition which post dates any known words of Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
random name,
I merely suggest that if one looks clearly at the teachings of Jesus there is at least one compelling teaching which arguably is essential for the world today.
Report comment to moderator
EndyBlue,
the following is a nice summary of the understanding of the various biblical canons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible
I was particularly taken by the oobservation that Luther did not apparently consider all the books we think of as the protestant canon as canonical. In particular, and germane to many discussions in WMB, is his doubts about the Book of Reveleation.
Now it is perhaps useful to then enter the discussion of the mnay books which did not make it into the canon, but were durin gvarious periods of times considered canonical. Ehrman’s material discusses this qite well.
P.S. the footnote in Wikipedia has been rewritten, but I believe you will find that Luther explicitly did not accept the book of Revelation as well as several of the Epistles. The foot note in the article is a starting point.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I do not agree with your interpretations of Scripture. How do I know that you are right, and I am wrong?
Report comment to moderator
Contented-Joy, You are bigoted and incorrect in your view of Catholicism. I am sad to see that. Victoria, If you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you will see that Catholics do not believe in salvation through works.
Report comment to moderator
#48
The fact that much of the Old Testament prophecy has come to pass proves
Rather like the incoherent ravings of Nostradamus when run through the blender a million times start to look like accurate predictions.
It’s called a myth. It was written thousands of years ago by desert nomads in their spare moments in between killing each other and stealing each other’s womens and occassionally having visions after going without water in the desert for too long.
The word “proves” (often typed here) is perhaps the least meaningful word in all human languages, though it has a lot of competition in that regard from the word “God.”
Report comment to moderator
Musing, you omitted the fact that even though Luther had a low opinion of those books, he did not exclude them from his translation into the German vernacular and changed his opinion later in life.
Report comment to moderator
By the way, this link refutes Victoria’s “big rock” “little rock” theory.
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/pope_peter_rock.htm
Report comment to moderator
Catholicism has some strong points.
For the most part it is traditional and has a strong active mission and presence in local communities, building churches, hospitals, schools, etc. with names like Blessed Virgin, Immaculate Conception, Sacred Heart, Saint so and so. Catholics are typically unashamed of their faith. However, scriptural authority is shared by popes and a spotted history of bizarre unscriptural traditions.
My biggest beef with Protestantism is the exclusivity and separation and feeling of superiority toward other churches. There is a pulling back from the world and the surrounding culture, except to preach at them. Charity for the most part is reserved for missions in far away places. Plenty of protestants in my circles tend to be critical of those who aren’t like them.
Protestants historically have known their Bibles fairly well, compared to Catholics who historically got their instructions from the local priest.
But I think one reason kids in this video game age are moving toward Catholicism is they don’t know their Bibles very well and are attracted by the structure and religious ceremony. Many Protestant churches feel more like a rock concerts, which kids can already get on their iPods.
Report comment to moderator
I’m skipping 62 posts to comment on the original piece. Perhaps I’ll read them later, but I have a fever and can’t concentrate for long.
AB is exactly right with this: To McKnight’s list I would add a desire for intellectual leadership in public life. The Catholic Intellectual Tradition is a history of rigorous scholarship coupled with spirituality and ethical teaching toward forming people committed to piety and making the world a better place, especially for the poor.
What’s more, by dividing the world into parishes and expecting people to worship in their parish, they show a keen sense of community and of God’s ownership of everything. Over the last 500 years, Protestants have made schism an art form and called it good, ignoring Christ’s teaching that outsiders will know us by our love for one another. For their part, Catholics (and Anglicans) used torture as a teaching method.
But back to the intellectual tradition. By the nature of its hierarchy, there are many in the Catholic establishment who have the time to follow intellectual pursuits. Their writings are edited by others within the faith before publication. They don’t care if they sell books. They don’t care who disagrees with them. This is marvelous. As for us, we have our Sprouls and Pipers and their teachings are first-rate. But many of us believe Sproul because he’s Sproul, not because we’ve taken a Berean approach to the Scriptures and found him sound. And, if Sproul’s books didn’t sell, he’d have to do something else to pay the bills, leaving him less time to write. Catholics have a rich intellectual tradition at least partly because they’ve made it a priority, to the point that the Church pays people to think.
And, though we deny it, of course we rely on tradition as well as Scripture. To prove this, you only need to define “Scripture.” Of 1000 daily WMB readers, probably 800 would claim to believe that the Bible is God’s inspired, Holy Word. I’m one of them. However of those 800, 780 of us are taking someone else’s word for it. Do you really know why the Gospel of James isn’t part of the Canon? Why do the Psalms include those 150 pieces?
So, while I’m not at all sure that a flight to Rome is the answer, the multiplication of denominations and, worse yet, independent churches is a blemish on the Bride of Christ. And don’t get me started on the ridiculous number of English translations…….
Report comment to moderator
“Sola fide.” JON ROWE, your link does not refute anything, it only disagrees with centuries of Christian scholars who wanted to reform, and still protest the tradition of apostolic succession to papal authority according to the original manuscripts. The Roman Catholic church has abandoned some of its nonscriptural practices.
While I am obligated to judge right from wrong, I do not judge anyone’s salvation based solely on the church they attend, that is God’s prerogative – not ours. “Sola fide.”
Report comment to moderator
STUBOB, I greatly admire the intellectual pursuits of many Catholic priests and orders, in fact I subscribe to a couple of their publications. But that doesn’t mean they’re all in agreement with the various types of papal authority. I think liberation theology, aligning itself wiwth communism, has not benefited the exercise of free will, either in belief or politics.
Report comment to moderator
I seem to know a lot of folks who go Rome when they marry someone from that church. In southern Louisiana a gal I know was from one of the only Baptist families in a heavily Catholic area. She finally met her husband at a church-run camp.
If crossing over isnt done for marriage purposes, I’d want to know from ea person what led them to make the move.
I know an army chaplain who went from Baptist to Catholic over the “authority” issue alone
Report comment to moderator
As for some young Protestants exposing the weaknesses of their teachings with their feet, they’ll be held accountable for what they’ve already heard and whether or not they’ve studied to show themselves approved. Desiring top-down certainty is a weakness common to all humans, but not a good reason to modifiy religious beliefs in order to feel more secure. It is up to each of us, as individuals, to know what we believe and why.
Report comment to moderator
As I understand Endyblue’s question – which I think is relevant and worth answering – she is not asking about a “book” in the modern sense of being printed in a certain format, but rather a recognized collection of writings that are considered Scripture, but were not part of what was known as Scripture during Jesus’ lifetime.
What I was taught in Bible school was that it was hinted at but never stated in so many words. There is a reference in one of Peter’s letters to something that Paul being difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:15-16). Peter goes on to say that the “untaught and unstable” distort those things, “as they do also the rest of Scriptures.” This implies that some at least of Paul’s writings are Scriptures, although Peter doesn’t indicate what writings of Paul he is talking about.
There is also Jesus’ statement to the disciples that the Holy Spirit will guide them into all truth (John 16:13), and remind them of things that Jesus taught them (John 14:26). There is no mention of those things being written down, but since some of the disciples (now called apostles) did write things down, or passed on their knowledge to someone else who wrote them down (e.g. Mark is thought to be writing Peter’s point of view in his Gospel), that is seen as giving their writings a certain stamp of authority.
I do agree, though, Endyblue, that from our human point of view it would be nice if there had been a clear prophecy about the New Testament. Of course, from a human point of view there are a lot of things that it would be nice if they had been made clearer – all those things that Christians from different traditions argue over, many of which have been mentioned on this thread.
I see people making three different responses to this. One is to insist that they are clear, and those who see them as unclear (or come up with a very different interpretation) are clearly wrong. Another is to conclude that the scriptures are of purely human origin, as if they were divinely inspired they would not be unclear.
And the third, which I try to take, is to recognize that God sees things far differently than I do and has some good reason for communicating in the way He did, as unclear as it sometimes seems to me. (Please note I’m not saying it’s all unclear, only some aspects of it, primarily the ones that divide different Christian traditions.)
Report comment to moderator
(1) a desire for certainty, (2) a desire for history, (3) a desire for unity, and (4) a desire for authority.
I seriously doubt there’s a well-beaten path from Wheaton to the Vatican. By the time young people graduate from fundamentalism, their need for authority has been fully satisfied. The special need for authority was an aspect of the Ronald Reagan era that temporarily prevented certain individuals from learning anything. It was a quirky generational rage.
Protestants have been around long enough to offer more history than most people bother to learn. What need for Rome when from every end of the Bible belt longen folk to goon on pilgrimages, especially to wend their way to the holy, blissful Ronald Reagan Library. Furthermore, Consumer Reports tested both religious traditions and found equal levels of certainty/uncertainty.
Which leaves unity. Isn’t that begging the question? If you define unity as a synonym for catholic, then of course the desire for unity leads to Rome. But that’s presuming that numerical plurality is unity. It’s picking the sunny side of the street. And it’s ignoring the fact that sometimes you want to cross over to the shade.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop, well said – I think
Report comment to moderator
nana post 66,
indeed, I specificaly noted that the footnotes reflect your basic opinion.
but tell me, which of Luther’s opinions were then right?
Remember, the canon is a traditon of the church, not grounded itself in scripture (a lovely reentrant argument here).
Report comment to moderator
For those who are thinking about the Catholic Church, I suggest finding out what Catholics really believe. Please, don’t just listen to misinformed anti-Catholic animus such as that here. Catholic Answers is a good resource. Also http://www.chnetwork.org. There are plenty of ways to research the truth.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, #59, I did reword it per your request (in #55). And the “verse” you quoted me saying isn’t there — that was my point. Here’s more of the quote, to show that this is what I was saying: “Many things ‘to come’ were spoken of or prophesied about, why not this? ‘And in that day you will have My Words collected into a book and with this book you will base everything in Christianity.’ Or something like that”. I’m saying why isn’t there something like this in the Bible? To me, the fact that there isn’t, and looking at the history of the canon (that the church put it together outside the NT times), indicates that it’s not the only basis of the Christian faith. Of course I realize that you think the Bible was put together while the apostles were still alive (that’s what I think I’ve gathered?) so if that’s the case — that you believe that — then of course we won’t agree on that.
But, as Julie asks in #63, why should your interpretation be considered truth over what I believe? That’s always baffled me in our conversations. For some reason you think we’re supposed to take everything you write as gospel truth, even if we understand something differently. :huh:
Report comment to moderator
Musing,#77, I like how you worded that (”Remember, the canon is a traditon of the church, not grounded itself in scripture”). Thank you.
Report comment to moderator
Stubob, much of what you write resonates with our family. We have moved to a liturgical parish from a completely “fly be the seat of your pants” independent church — the differences are striking.
Sawgunner, to answer your question what made us make the move from a protestant church to an Orthodox one is the fullness of the faith that we believe the Orthodox church holds. Our protestant experience was always falling short of what we now believe is what God intended in regard to His Body on the earth, the Church.
Pauline, thanks for saying my question wasn’t unclear and was in fact a valid question. You mentioned John 16:13, I believe this happened through the Church, and that the holy Scriptures are one of the many Holy Traditions the Holy Spirit led the Church into. I see the Church as the foundation, with Christ as the chief cornerstone, with the Scripture one of the rocks that was added — rather than the other way around. And I personally believe this is what history shows as well. Thank you for sharing your perspective to add to the conversation.
Report comment to moderator
Nana,
I agree that the RCC has abandoned some of its “unscriptural” practices. My point was only that the idea that Peter is the “rock” upon which Jesus said he would build His Church is NOT UNSCRIPTURAL.
Report comment to moderator
EndyBlue,
I am sensing here that you may know more about this than I do.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, that’s what I used to think. I just hope you still keep an honestly open mind to both sides of the scholarship.
Report comment to moderator
Romeward Bound: Evaluating Why Protestants Convert to Catholicism
David Hagopian
http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/index.html?mainframe=/webfiles/antithesis/v1n5/ant_v1n5_romeward.html
Report comment to moderator
I don’t take anything from the “traditions” of the RCC or the Eastern Orthodox Church – The Bible is my source, not the traditions of men. I didn’t write the Bible, I cite it many times, as it is truth and it is the “gospel truth” –
If you want to follow the “traditions” of men there has never been anything to stop you,……
Report comment to moderator
Exactly which part of Scripture do you disagree with
Report comment to moderator
Julie, the RCC believes that Salvation comes from Mary – This isn’t true, Salvation comes ONLY throught Jesus Christ.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1 Timothy 2:5
Report comment to moderator
I always find arguments over hwo is a true Christian very uzzling and at times amusing.
Do people expect that such discussion will actualy result in any real consensus?
Report comment to moderator
No, but it does expose the listener to different thoughts and ideas and perspectives so we can sharpen our own belief.
As to the discussion with EndyBlue (thank you for this talk and your willingness to step in, by the way), I ask what about:
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. 1Cor11:2 and
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. 2Thess 3:6
Report comment to moderator
mumsee post 91,
if this was for edification, I suspect there would be far less acrimony.
As disucssed earlier (and referenced in my comment to Victoria in her comment on Peter), I do not find the words of Paul to be of enough weight for me to consider them seriously in my beliefs.
As the material we have from Jesus has been given to us, it does not mention Paul.
Report comment to moderator
I hear of a lot of people who leave out the writings of Paul and as that is a large part of the NT, it does leave a hole. I suspect one would have to also toss out the book of Luke as he was not an eyewitness.
Report comment to moderator
mumsee post 93,
are you suggestng that the words of Jesus as they have been given to us are not sufficient???
Actually none of the Gospel writers appear themselves to have been witnesses (victoria will probalby come in with a different interpretation).
Report comment to moderator
We need to know that whatever “tradition” is being followed that it line up with the Word of GOD, not the “traditions” which are followed by any man, be it the Pope or anyone else.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, discerning if the tradition is biblical is essential. But it comes to trusting those who went before us as to what the canon is. Some would say none of Paul. Some would say the NT as the PRotestants have it. Others would call for the books the Catholics have. It is very confusing. But we do know that Scripture does not contradict itself. God does not contradict Himself and so true Scripture must be consistent.
Is there anything in Paul’s writings that would go agains the rest of Scripture? Anything in the extra Catholic books that would go against the rest of Scripture? Anything in the traditions that go against Scripture or add to it? Revelation, if you except it as the Word of God (I do) would indicate we are not to add to or take from the Word. We are to read it, study it, compare it and look to be sure we are following the Truth and not some manmade doctrine.
Report comment to moderator
mumsee post 96,
I trust few and always check for myself.
This is my path, yours may be different.
There is much in Paul’s writing that is not reflected at all in the Gospels. There is a wonderful table (I will get the reference tonight) showing some of these issues if one wants to be technical about it. Indeed a strong case can be made that Paul was not very familiar at all with the understanding of the words and life of Jesus as recorded by the Gospels directly.
Report comment to moderator
mumsee post 96,
and out of curiousity, if the writing of paul are reflected completely in the Gospels, why would we not reference the Gospels directly rather than the writings of Paul?
There is an interesitng answer here which one can pursue, but it perhaps can take some time.
Report comment to moderator
mumsee post 96,
but of course I have already indicated that I do not take the Book of Revelations as the Word of God.
And we can begin to see the circular argument as you are posing it.
Report comment to moderator
It has become increasingly clear to me over the years that the men with and for whom Jesus spoke, explained things, illustrated what he meant, rebuked and encouraged their perspective, and whom He taught and prepared SPECIFICALLY for their future role… the apostles…are the ones that God’s people should look to for the authoritative take on reality from God’s perspective.
No one else – no church tradition, no organization, no presumed orthodoxy, qualifies to fill that role. Understanding what the apostolic writers (including Paul and James) meant, and intended their hearers to understand – with all of the inherent difficulties and barriers due to language, time and cultural differences – is the body of truth we should be seeking to take in and make sense of.
I believe we should be especially wary of granting that unique authority to anything or anyone that attempts to stand in place of that body of truth, and explain to us what God really meant. And the key component that each of us personally brings to this huge task (understanding reality as explained by its Author)? A humble, teachable heart that wants to see and comprehend more than it wants to be proven right.
May God’s Spirit give that to each of us.
Report comment to moderator
The Apostle Paul was accepted by Christ’s Disciples, if Paul had taught,preached a false Gospel the other Apostles would not have been silent -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, thank you for including “many cases” rather than stating that “all” is wrong.
I do agree that there is wrong tradition. Which is why it is so important for us to search the Scriptures ourselves and not take the word of others. We use others as a guide but not as the final word. Scripture is the final word.
My thought is to find believers who seem to have their lives in order, meaning they are living out the things of God, hear them out or ask them questions, then take it to the Lord, read His word and find what is truth.
Report comment to moderator
I am confident the Apostles were so concerned about the Truth that they would have been all over Paul just like they were others for attempting to lead folk astray.
I did not suggest that Paul’s words were a reiteration of Scripture, I said they would not contradict Scripture. So it is with tradition. If tradition contradicts Scripture, it is wrong. If Paul contradicts the rest of Scripture, he should be thrown out. Instead, he builds on Scripture, not adding to the Truth but making it more clear.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Mumsee, those are Scriptures I’m aware of that show that there IS a place for tradition. And since there wasn’t a Bible when those words were written (and because it speaks of oral tradition in addition to written), it made me realize that the church, including it’s traditions, starting developing before the Bible was canonized.
Musing, I’m just a humble seeker who is learning something of which she’d never heard before. I’m just starting to see this side of the faith, and it’s amazing. One year ago I had no idea what the Catholic and Orthodox churches were all about; I would just dismiss them much when they would come up in conversation.
Victoria, I was looking for something in the New Testament (about these letters being compiled as a collection on which to base the Christian faith).
Report comment to moderator
This has been an interesting discussion which has opened up interesting discussion with the kids on just what happened to bring the canon of Scripture together. Food for thought!
Report comment to moderator
Julie, several years ago I would watch CHN until the guests’ testimonies became so predictable in their carping and belittling of Protestants I stopped expecting anything educational or worthwhile, only that RCC is the true church and all other denominations are inferior. My best friend is a RC, attends mass every morning and all the other observances. We often discuss our beliefs and acknowledge the differences. We are both Believers and pray for each others’ needs. He knows I’m at odds with the way he practices his faith by adding other intermediaries besides Christ. For him it’s a family thing, for me it’s a deliberate choice to reject the Vatican’s teachings and the Pope in favor of Sola Fide, not works. CHN is not a good witness.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
The Apocrypha was from the four hundred years before Christ?
Report comment to moderator
And yet Jesus’ quotes in the NT are from the Septuagint — the Greek translation of the OT widely used in His day — and the Septuagint included these books. These deuterocanonical books were in most Bibles until about 200 years ago, including the original King James and the Bibles that the fathers of the Reformation used.
There are also other OT books He didn’t quote; it’s obviously not a final indicator of whether or not the books are Scripture.
Report comment to moderator
All of Victoria’s quotes, pro and con, are sound and reliable for instruction. Many Christians change churches and denominations. We are a mobile society in search of Truth that doesn’t add to or take away from scripture. There’s the rub – how many manmade traditions have to be dropped in order to accept Christ’s saving grace alone?
Report comment to moderator
The Apocrypha was written about 400 years B.C. and the time when Christ was here.
Josephus never mentioned the Apocrypha (he was a Jewish historian 1st century) – The Apocrypha was written about 400 years B.C. and the time of Christ. Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate which the Roman Church uses – however Jerome rejected the Apocrypha. (340-420)—
Report comment to moderator
victoria,
now since the canon is based on tradition, are you asserting that yor interpretation of tradition is necessarily and objectviely superior than someone else’s ointerpretation of tradition?
On what objective basis do you hold this?
Report comment to moderator
victoria,
and of course Paul is argued as being accepted by the Apostles based on a book written by one of the followers of Paul.
And again the argument is reentrant.
Report comment to moderator
At root trying to prove that the Bible and the Biblical canon is correct by referring to the canon and the Biblical texts, except for very special cases, is effectively circular and non-objective.
Report comment to moderator
As the kids chimed in, “faith”.
Report comment to moderator
I so prefer the Westminster Confession of Faith’s simple statements. I know, I know I can’t refer to a confession because Anthony said it violates Sola Scriptura (so I need to put it in my own words???). And guess what the self-attestation of the Scriptures is a circular argument, but do you appeal to the Word of God or do you appeal to his creation (I know, I know there are so many problems in that last sentence)? But in the end its all a matter of faith given to us by the Holy Spirit (I know, I know there goes another circular argument).
From Chapter 1, Paragraphs 1-3
3. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.
4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.
5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
Report comment to moderator
mumsee,
indeed correct, faith. But peoples faith are all diofferent: at root that was a key component of Luther when he confronted the Roman Catholic Church.
Report comment to moderator
Normp post 116,
and when was the Westminster Confession written?
Report comment to moderator
Now lets be very clear, all of the arguments given are indeed arguably valid and sufficient for the poster to decide their stance on the canon and the Bible.
They are not, however, sufficient to assert that others must therefore accept this view of the canon and the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
#119
I assume there is a question within a question, but I don’t follow.
I don’t feel a great need to back up the truth that God’s Word is God’s Word with some sort of objective test from God’s creation. Does it make sense to appeal to lower authorities to establish the highest authority? Now I know everyone who rejects God’s Word, and even some who don’t, will say, “Well that’s a convenient argument isn’t it?” And I’ll say, “Yeah, I guess it is. But it is still true. Perhaps God will reveal His truth to you. I hope so.”
Report comment to moderator
Wasn’t James the Bishop of Jerusalem? Why wasn’t Peter in that position if he was the supreme leader of the early church?
Report comment to moderator
nopn post 121,
I merely asked when the Westminster confession was written?
We ahve been discussing whether religious beliefs are being held as traditions or as truly biblically based. If the belief is based n something recent, then it would appear to be a tradition UNLESS one can clearly trace this back to biblical references.
and I never ask you to backuyp God’s word with objectvie tests UNLESS yo0u start using your interpretation of God’s word to make objective statements of truth.
Report comment to moderator
LLoyd post 122,
I might phrase your question slightly differently, but indeed the role of James and perhaps more importantly the early Judaic Christianity of Israel is indeed an important question which is often lost in these discussions.
The simple answer is because the Paulist won the theological argument and the Church of Jerusalem apparently did not fare well during the Roman destrcution of the temple.
Report comment to moderator
Mid 1600s
I suppose you can look up the Scriptural proof texts and see if you agree with the way they are used. (But I guess whether they prove the point or not depends on your powers of interpretation. So whether you approve or not: should I accept your authority? Well you haven’t been alive that long so where does that leave me?)
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – 88:
Julie does not say that she disagrees with Scripture. She says that she disagrees with your interpretations of Scripture.
So then, it is a legitimate question: Two Believers, you and Julie, each of whom desire to follow Scripture, disagree on the interpretation of a certain passage, or passages.
How can we deterimine which interpretation is correct?
Report comment to moderator
I asked Julie in post #88 —–”Exactly which part of Scripture do you disagree with” —— I received NO ANSWER.
Julie did not give the Scripture she disagrees with, nor does she EXPLAIN WHY she disagrees -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Yes, that is why I copied your exchange from post 88.
For you to ask what part of Scripture she disagrees with presumes that she is disagreeing with Scripture. We’d all agree, that’s bad. However, her words are plain: she does not disagree with Scripture, but with your interpretation of it.
It’s like the infamous lawyer’s question, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Whether you answer “Yes” or “No”, you are admitting to the premise of the question, namely that you have beaten your wife.
Surely, you are not asserting that you are infallible in your interpretation of Scripture? That your interpretation is co-equal with Scripture in authority, and that to disagree with your interpretation is to disagree with Scripture itself?
Pretty clearly, you both agree that this statement is in Scripture and is authoritative:
Pretty clearly, you and she interpret it differently. How can we then decide which of you is correct?
The obvious answer is by appealing to other parts of Scripture, which you have indeed done, in several posts. But of course, these parts must also be interpreted. Catholic apologetics also accepts these Scriptures, yet it interprets them as being in harmony with Matthew 16:18 establishing the papacy. You interpret them differently.
Report comment to moderator
We all use the reasoning machinery built into us. We can’t not use it; it is inherent to who and what we are as human beings. The ability to reason is a quite amazing set of tools that can be refined or degraded by how they are developed in us, by how we use them and what we use them for, and – most especially – by what we want most deeply in life.
In our engagements with others, we all appeal to implicit, and either well- or poorly-understood rules of logic to justify ourselves, and to attempt to validate our own reasonings and conclusions, or invalidate those of others. Whether we use those rules in an open search of truth and understanding, or for less noble, hidden purposes, and whether we use them as tools to persuade, illumine, instruct and guide/correct those we engage, or as weapons with which we seek to ridicule and beat down the views and values of those others (by attempting to obscure/neutralize truth – or, sadly, to demonstrate our personal superiority), all depends on our own, individual hearts and what they are centered around. And sadly, we often do not/can not recognize in ourselves what those truly are.
A short way of saying this is ‘we believe what we believe, because we want what we want.
The reasoning ability itself can be shaped through intelligent, disciplined instruction; by being neglected; or by being conditioned/manipulated by those skilled in employing the “arts” of illusion (convincing others that what is true, is not true, or that what is genuinely important is trivial or even contemptible, etc.) and illogic (mis-applying the inherent rules of reasoning in an attempt to cloud, rather than clarify the reference points that we and others need to navigate reality). We humans even possess the dubious capability of deceiving ourselves.
In all of this – whether serving truth and goodness, or falsehood and illusion – this incredibly powerful, flexible ‘mental equipment’ we are furnished with is ours to use in the service of whatever inner motivations we possess.
If we were to come to love our Creator appropriately – recognizing His worth and elevating Him to the top of our system of values and beliefs; and because of that, we loved, respected and treated our fellow human creatures as if we believed that they mattered as much we do (simply because our Creator says that they truly do!), then I think we would find our reasoning capabilities engaged in the purposes they were designed and intended for; and vastly more useful, helpful and satisfying.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas – 128
If you would like to discuss this subject, please do so on your own, WITHOUT using Julie as your reason or excuse.
Julie didn’t make clear what she wanted to discuss, —- I left it at that.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, as you know your question is basic and clear; and is a valid one. But Victoria wants to pinpoint you on an issue, not answer the relevant question directly (the question of whose interpretation we’re supposed to believe). I completely understand what you’re asking; I’ve asked it myself — with the same results.
Report comment to moderator
Endyblue –
No one, and that includes Thomas needs to stand behind Julie to discuss a subject, or use her for an excuse to muddle the conversation.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, that’s your interpretation of what Thomas was doing. But that doesn’t make it the right interpretation; don’t you see? He’s asking a valid question, as did Julie. Why is your interpretation of a Scripture verse (or section) always the right one, when obviously other believers might interpret a verse/section differently (with Scriptures supporting their interpretation)? That’s the question, and it’s a valid one even if you don’t care to address it. Somehow, it seems, you don’t think there’s a way that you can be incorrect in your interpretation.
Report comment to moderator
See, you’re saying, “This is what the Bible means when it says this.” When someone says, “I don’t think that’s what that verse is saying,” you come back with, basically, “But it does.” We’re asking why we should take your understanding over someone else’s.
Report comment to moderator
Why would I believe what whomever says is a correct interpretation of ANY passage of Scripture? ….. IF I have studied it, understood and researched it to be different? I haven’t spent 7 years in research not knowing what I believe and why. . . and that is research, that doesn’t include all the years before. I know what I believe and why, I don’t depend on a denomination, or a single teacher or pastor to direct my path – I rely on the Word of GOD.
Report comment to moderator
But what if others spent that time in research, too, and came to a different conclusion than you? Here’s an example, since you seem to want an issue … using 1 Corinthians 11-12, what do you believe about women wearing a head covering? Yes? No? All the time? Or just in a church service?
Report comment to moderator
Endyblue
You asked other questions above which I gave answers for, NEVER commenting that your question was answered.
YOU WROTE:… #40 “But nowhere is a book to come mentioned; nowhere is there even an allusion to it.”
I answered your question #86 which you have never commentted on.
Now you want to debate head coverings – Endyblue you’ve done this before, when you can’t make your point, you say nothing – switch gears trying to find another passage of Scripture, ask another question as you believe it’s a stumper – I’m not playing the game.
Report comment to moderator
Seven years of research is nothing compared to what many other scholars have put in to studying the Scriptures. And they do not all agree on all points. Interpretation happens even with the best of studying.
Report comment to moderator
I answered your question #86 which you have never commentted on
I actually did comment on it in #105.
Now you want to debate head coverings – Endyblue you’ve done this before, when you can’t make your point, you say nothing – switch gears trying to find another passage of Scripture, ask another question as you believe it’s a stumper – I’m not playing the game.
I actually don’t want to “debate” headcoverings. I’m staying right on topic, trying to address the question at hand. It’s not about the headcovering, it’s about whose interpretation we’re supposed to believe. There were numerous posts on this and the question still hasn’t been answered. Bringing up headcovering is just trying to give a context for the discussion (it could be whether or not Peter is the rock, whether or not baptim is salvific or symbolic, what traditions Paul means we’re supposed to hold to, whether parents should homeschool their children, etc.). Some Christians believe the Bible teaches one thing in all these areas; some believe it teaches another — it all depends on one’s interpretation of the Scriptures.
If you don’t want to answer the direct questions asked of you, then of course you are free to opt out.
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee, I was just thinking about this the other day — even WITH “seven years” of research (and I’m not being critical; I’ve put years of research into different Biblical texts as well), why now at this late date? It’s been 2000 years since the time of the New Testament, and 1600-1700 or so since the canon of the Bible was put together. That’s a pretty long time. Hasn’t anyone figured this out yet? Why are we still researching these things 2000 years later? God hasn’t revealed them before now? That’s not what I believe to be the case.
Report comment to moderator
Are you trivializing what I have done? – it has been my great pleasure to study for most of my life, the last seven years have been the best.
When I stated “7 years research” that meant I do it every day from 3 hours to 9 hours per day …. or more. Before that I studied constantly, but I did not do it as one does in research.
Report comment to moderator
Endyblue – you haven’t commented on the answers I’ve given in the past. You ask questions rather than giving answers based on Scripture.
Report comment to moderator
Where in Scripture does it say we can’t ask questions? Chapter and verse, please.
Report comment to moderator
I said that with this thought in mind: We can certainly toss Scriptures back and forth, but if we don’t start from the same “page” (i.e., whose interpretation we’re going to go with), there’s really no point. You can post tons of Scriptures, but if others have a different interpretation of what they mean, then you haven’t proven your point. You’ve just posted Scriptures that you think back up what you believe. But it’s not necessarily what the words mean (many times, of course, it’s clear what the Scriptures say and all agree: Mary was the Jesus’ mother, Matthew was an Apostle, Moses met God on the mountain, etc.). But there ARE Scriptures that can be interpreted different ways. I don’t think you want to believe that.
Report comment to moderator
Endyblue
There is no Scripture which says you can’t ask questions. When it becomes a situation where the questions are nothing but a constant debate, it serves no purpose.
I have enjoyed a few of our exchanges in the past, but in recent history it is YOU asking questions, and not responding to my answers, but going on to the next question, which causes strife.
I use Scripture to back up what I believe, it will never change.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with much of what you wrote Victoria. I’m not trying to argue with you, just dialogue, please believe me. I’m attempting to keep my spirit in check in this.
When I ask questions, I’m sincere. Most of the time, the questions I ask are ones I’ve asked myself, my husband, my priest, my friends. I’m not challenging you personally. Questions like “Why doesn’t the New Testament tell us about this collection of writings we’re supposed to base our Christianity on? If we’re supposed to be sola scriptura, why doesn’t the scriptura tell us about the scriptura to come?” and “How come we’re still studying what words mean, and verses mean, 1600+ years after the Bible was compiled? Why, when I do a word-by-word study of the section on head covering, to I come to a completely different conclusion than someone else who has also studied it word by word?” The Bible doesn’t answer these questions, so I ask them.
As an example (not debating this topic, don’t even address it, that’s not why I’m bringing it up), I think women, Biblically, should wear a cloth head covering in all church services. This is based on a word-by-word study with a Strong’s concordance of the section in question. Others do not believe this at all; women can wear short hear with no covering in sight. Who’s right? Why should I believe one interpretation over the other?
Anyway, Victoria, I just wish you could see/admit that there could be two (or more) ways to interpret many Scriptures. And you telling me that you studied for most of your life isn’t enough for me to say, “Okay, I’ll go with what you think.” I hope that makes sense.
Report comment to moderator
Endyblue –
You still cannot comment on the answers I gave you much further up on this thread. Again you ignore it, and you expect me to discuss head coverings? Did you read the Scripture I gave in my last post? – You might read it again.
Report comment to moderator
Not at all, Victoria, just pointing out that you are not alone in your searching and researching. People have taken this stuff seriously for years and studied it for years, some spending their entire lives in study. Paul and Barnabas come to mind as having differences, enough to part ways for a season.
Report comment to moderator
I did address the Scripture you posted, Victoria; and I’ve done so in the past as well. Forgive me if the words “I’m not trying to argue with you, just dialogue, please believe me” weren’t clear enough. I plainly said I didn’t want to debate the issue of head covering with you (my words just before saying those two words were “not debating this topic, don’t even address it, that’s not why I’m bringing it up”); I solely used it as an example in my attempt to be open with you about the dilemma of whose interpretation of a Scripture to go with.
I do try to answer what you ask. You asked me to re-phrase something and I did that at least twice. You ask me for Scriptures, and I do post them (they’re often not acknowledged).
Please realize that you are very selective in what you address, Victoria. You ask where my replies to your questions are, but nowhere, yet, do I see Scriptures from the New Testament that show where a collection of writings to come is mentioned, and nowhere do I see an answer to the question that has been asked of you by three different people in this thread, namely why should we believe your interpretation of a scripture over our own? (or some other person’s). For some reason you don’t see that there are Scriptures that can be interpreted different ways. So unless that changes, we’ll keep having this conversation over and over.
I don’t think re-phrasing the same question is argumentative if the person isn’t answering it. It’s dialoguing.
Report comment to moderator
Apologies for the missed close-italicization after the word “your” above.
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee you’re right about study and those who have studied more than I have.
Paul and Barnabas had differences – but there is a vast difference between Scripture and tradition, Salvation through Mary, the Pope being equal to God on earth – these and many other doctrines are not in Scripture, but have caused many to go astray BECAUSE they have not studied for themselves, but have left it up to others – trusting can be a dangerous thing, especially when one doesn’t study the Bible for themselves.
Thank you for clarifying your post, I appreciate it.
Report comment to moderator
Endyblue – my post 137 AGAIN
Endyblue
You asked other questions above which I gave answers for, NEVER commenting that your question was answered.
YOU WROTE:… #40 “But nowhere is a book to come mentioned; nowhere is there even an allusion to it.”
I answered your question #86 which you have never commentted on.
Now you want to debate head coverings – Endyblue you’ve done this before, when you can’t make your point, you say nothing – switch gears trying to find another passage of Scripture, ask another question as you believe it’s a stumper – I’m not playing the game.
Report comment to moderator
Now we’re just repostioning things we’ve already posted?
Okay, in reply to #152/#13y I submit #153/#139 –
===================
I answered your question #86 which you have never commentted on
I actually did comment on it in #105.
Now you want to debate head coverings – Endyblue you’ve done this before, when you can’t make your point, you say nothing – switch gears trying to find another passage of Scripture, ask another question as you believe it’s a stumper – I’m not playing the game.
I actually don’t want to “debate” headcoverings. I’m staying right on topic, trying to address the question at hand. It’s not about the headcovering, it’s about whose interpretation we’re supposed to believe. There were numerous posts on this and the question still hasn’t been answered. Bringing up headcovering is just trying to give a context for the discussion (it could be whether or not Peter is the rock, whether or not baptim is salvific or symbolic, what traditions Paul means we’re supposed to hold to, whether parents should homeschool their children, etc.). Some Christians believe the Bible teaches one thing in all these areas; some believe it teaches another — it all depends on one’s interpretation of the Scriptures.
If you don’t want to answer the direct questions asked of you, then of course you are free to opt out.
=============
Report comment to moderator
Second line should read:
Okay, in reply to #152/#139, I submit #153/#139 –
Report comment to moderator
LOL, correcting my correction:
Second line should read:
Okay, in reply to #152/#137, I submit #153/#139 -
Report comment to moderator
Endyblue – 154
I don’t read every post, I don’t have time –
I went back and checked your post #105 which was addressed in the beginning to Mumsee, and now I have read my name at the bottom of your post – Again, I didn’t read the post being addressed to Mumsee and then later to me, nor did you reference my post by number. When you put everything together on one post without post numbers, etc, I most likely won’t read it unless I glance the first line and see my name.
Endyblue you cite all sorts of subjects – you’ve done this before, going from one subject to another, and then saying “I actually don’t want to “debate” headcoverings.” – this proves how haphazard these discussions become, flipping from one subject to another – Jesus as the rock, home-schooling, Baptism symbolic, ……. using the excuse that “Bringing up headcovering is just trying to give a context for the discussion” that doesn’t bring “context” it’s an EXCUSE, it’s a disorganized, jumbled and careless approach to any kind of dialogue.
Report comment to moderator
You’re not understanding what I’m saying then. The SUBJECT is whose interpretation of these things we’re supposed to go with. Since you haven’t answered that question yet, I gave some examples.
Good night Victoria.
Report comment to moderator
Endyblue -
It’s not a matter of understanding what you are saying, you’ve thrown up everything from home-schooling, Baptism as symbolic, and head-covering – it makes no sense as I stated post #156.
There is no point in continuing – it’s become nothing but … as I stated in post #156 which is “it’s a disorganized, jumbled and careless approach to any kind of dialogue.
The Word of GOD is what we look to, not man’s “traditions” – it’s all Scripture – there is nothing else.
Have a great weekend!
Report comment to moderator
So some NEW CREATIONS in CHRIST head “back to Rome”?
Did they miss the Biblical facts about the victorious Christian life as observed in the life of apostle Paul, for example?
Sounds like they don’t want to hear about it.
They’d rather settle for defeat and compromise.
“But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.” (Ac 20:24)
Report comment to moderator
So some “evangelicals” from Ephesus “head back home” to “Diana of the Ephesians”?
“And when the townclerk had appeased the people, he said, [Ye] men of Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, and of the [image] which fell down from Jupiter?” (Ac 19:35)
Did they get “further illumination”?
Hardly.
“Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know [these things] before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.” (2Pe 3:17)
Report comment to moderator
I was a bit puzzled by this article’s subject, but it made more sense after skimming. I can understand the drive for a ‘realer’, more authentic and authoritative Christian faith. I remember trying a number of various ‘brands’ of Protestantism earlier in my life as a believer (40 years and counting), including various versions of ‘deeper walk’, ‘victorious life’ Christianity. I nearly despaired more than 20 years ago when facing the reality that whatever brand I tried, I kept running into the same, ugly and self-serving me. I was near to being convinced that I was so deeply flawed that even God could not teach me how to make my Christianity work in the real world.
What turned things into much more of a steady walk toward peace and hope, was realizing that I was misunderstanding what the Jesus and the apostles taught about what I could expect from life now, as a believer. The God and Father of Jesus does not ‘try’ to teach his children. He simply does so. A slow, gradual changing of my conception of what and Who God is, began to open windows and allow air and light into my view of God’s place in God’s reality. I didn’t bring this about by focusing on particular doctrines, or fixing some part of my Christian walk. I believe God simply replaced my flawed, preconceived notions about Himself, and His role in my life with what He reveals in Scripture.
Certain portions of Scripture that dealt with God’s sovereign control over the universe that He created and upholds became more vivid and compelling to me, as well as those that speak of His use of such things as failure, deprivation, pain and even my own evil to grow our hearts and understanding to maturity. I now find myself able to look at the paths my life has taken, including my abysmal ’spiritual track record’, and be grateful to the God who knew me before I was born, and called me to become His child.
I now wait with real eagerness for the “grace to be brought … at the revelation of Jesus Christ” when not only my heart and understanding will have been changed and lit by God’s Spirit, but my whole self will be transformed into something that God Himself will be pleased with.
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…”
Quotes from I Peter, ch. 1, NASB
Report comment to moderator
Oh no–not the old 33,000 denominations again–at WorldMagBlog no less! Christian author Eric Svendsen did the research on this about a decade ago to see where this figure came from, but as we all know, misinformation dies hard.
Anyway, turns out the figure was an extrapolation on a number given by David Barrett from his book, World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 1900—2000 (ed. David A. Barrett; New York: Oxford University Press, 1982). Barrett, himself, claimed 20,780 denominations. (According to Svendsen’s research, the 33,000 figure comes from the following: “When this figure first surfaced among Roman Catholic apologists, it started at 20,000 Protestant denominations, grew to 23,000 Protestant denominations, then to 25,000 Protestant denominations. More recently, that figure has been inflated to 28,000, to over 32,000. These days, many Roman Catholic apologists feel content simply to calculate a daily rate of growth (based on their previous adherence to the original benchmark figure of 20,000) that they can then use as a basis for projecting just how many Protestant denominations there were, or will be, in any given year.)
But if anyone wants to quote the “33,000 denominations” as evidence of RC disunity, they should understand Barrett’s categories. Again, according to Svendsen,
“It is important to note here that Barrett places these sixteen Roman Catholic traditions (i.e., true denominations) on the very same level as the twenty-one Protestant traditions (i.e., true denominations). In other words, the true count of real denominations within Protestantism is twenty-one, whereas the true count of real denominations within Roman Catholic is sixteen. Combined with the other major ecclesiastical blocs, that puts the total number of actual denominations in the world at ninety-two—obviously nowhere near the 23,000 or 25,000 figure that Roman Catholic apologists constantly assert—and that figure of ninety-two denominations includes the sixteen denominations of Roman Catholicism (Barrett, 15)! (Emphasis mine)
And the rest of the oft-repeated apologetic arguments of the pop-defenders of the Roman tradition are just as misleading. I spent about a year immersed in this stuff about 8 or 9 years ago, but I finally moved on. I see that the same old stuff is still being circulated, though. And since he’s buying, and even selling, this stuff, I’m guessing that Anthony Bradley is further than halfway across the Tiber, himself.
Protestantism definitely has its problems but neither Roman Catholicism nor Eastern Orthodoxy has the answers.
Report comment to moderator
RCC doesn’t have the answers, it never did – Christ and HIS Apostles taught and preached the Gospel, they didn’t misconstrue Christ’s teachings with “tradition” –
The answsers don’t come from “tradition” but from Scripture as you and I know.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Endyblue,
I understood your questions and your point. I thought you were very clear.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, TRS. I just have to walk away, and pray.
“Make to shine in our hearts, O Master, who lovest man, the incorrupt light of Thy divine knowledge, and open the eyes of our mind to the comprehension of the preaching of Thy Gospel. Implant also in us the fear of Thy blessed commandments that, trampling down all carnal desires, we may pursue a spiritual way of life, both thinking and doing all things well-pleasing unto Thee. For Thou art the enlightenment of our souls and bodies, O Christ God, and unto Thee do we send up glory, together with Thy Father, who is without beginning, and Thine all-holy, and good, and life-creating Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages – Amen.”
Report comment to moderator
This article is indicative of the problem. Those who understand Theology know that “Sola Scriptura” does NOT mean (and never has meant) that the Scriptures are the only authority. It means, rather, that the Scriptures are the only INFALLIBLE authority. All other authorities can be challenged and held accountable to the Scripture.
The reason for these movements is simply this: the CONSUMER wants something different. This is no different than seeker-sensitive Christianity. What we really need is a return to obsession with Scriptures, like we see in Psalm 1 and Psalm 119. These days, religion is hot, music is hot, and programs are hot. The Scriptures are for we squares.
Report comment to moderator
Edvasicek – 16
There are churches as you state in your post, fortunately we are not affiliated with one. We have a multitude of high school, college and young married who study the Bible and take it seriously.
Report comment to moderator
EndyBlue at #157: You’re not understanding what I’m saying then.
She understands perfectly well, she just pretends not to because she has no good answer for the question and lacks the humility to just say so.
Watching her do this dance is sometimes amusing and sometimes just boring, but it’s always, always predictable.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg – 167
I know Steveg, if you don’t agree with someone, you just don’t understand them – how many times has that tune been sung? LOL
Have a nice evening -
Report comment to moderator
Steve G. at #169: She understands perfectly well, she just pretends not to because she has no good answer for the question and lacks the humility to just say so. Watching her do this dance is sometimes amusing and sometimes just boring, but it’s always, always predictable.
Even though I know this in my head, somehow it still gets to me. I appreciated reading this, Steve, thank you for putting it into words so well. This has been enough to convince me once for all to remove WorldMag’s blog from the bookmarked sites I visit — this isn’t the fight I was called to fight. But I can pray, and will. And I look forward to my baptism into the Orthodox church probably sometime next year, glory be to God.
Many years!
Report comment to moderator
Endyblue
Believe what you will – Those who accuse are also those who believe homosexuality isn’t a sin – does that mean that because they agree with you, they are right on both counts? – or just the one that you need?
Report comment to moderator
EndyBlue,
I would prefer to see you stay as you offer insight into the Orthodox viewpoint. It is helpful to me to see where we have things in common and things to be learned with and from the Orthodox part of the Body. So much of what we hear is a of the “us and them” mentality. But I understand the need to be able to express one’s thoughts without being hazed. You spoke quite clearly here and I was hoping to see the question addressed.
Report comment to moderator
Endyblue says,
So then, whose interpretation of church history are we supposed to go with.
If we’re not capable of coming to any valid conclusions about such important things as the nature of salvation through our study of the Scriptures, we’re surely not capable of coming to any valid conclusions about ecclesiology from our study of church history either.
Report comment to moderator
Endyblue – I agree with Mumsee; please stay. You just need to refrain from “debating” with certain people who you know will twist your words, making the “debate” fruitless.
I also understood the various questions you brought up, & they did make sense.
Report comment to moderator
EndyBlue,
You have many interesting things to say, and I hope you will stick around to continue expressing your viewpoint. Don’t let the frustration of dealing with people who don’t (or refuse to ) understand what you’re saying drive you away. Remember, there are many people looking on and reading—not just the one who antagonizes. I always enjoy reading your posts, and I’m sorry now that I didn’t speak up sooner.
Report comment to moderator
People go to Rome because they are un believers seeking solitude in man-made tradition. Rome’s practice of sola ecclesia is fractured over “what we thought that council X, or Pope Y said”. Some priests promote birth control. Some seemingly teach Sola Fide. Their unity is actually nil. I’ve been to plenty of masses, considered Rome, and married into a RC family. Most really don’t know what they believe, and have no relationship outside of mass with other RCs – if you don’t mix it up, you don’t get hurt, and you hang in, feeling good about your tradition and unity.
The above litlte article is full of errors, but is not surprising.
The RC priesthood is a real no-kiddin mess – you provide this type of sacro/human-centric religion, you should expect child-abuse. Don’t get me wrong. There are many good, hard working priests out there. But, the system is straight from hell. Any knowledgeable understanding of the papacy reveals the same thing.
I DO believe that most protestants (OK – modern evangelicals) haven’t a clue why they are what they are, and need to study much more, and all become Presbyterian/Reformed. But I’d rather be in a church with a bit of error mixed in on the spokes, than take the cup of idols into my soul.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!