Evangelicals Will Be Extinct Within Ten Years

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow, I have spend countless hours studying the claims of “errors” and I have proven for myself that they are false. To say “there are hundreds and thousands of errors in the Bible” is perpetuating a lie straight from the devil. Why not look into it yourself instead of believing what someone told you or you read off a website somewhere.

Sorry, but I just hate that. It’s bad enough to hear it from atheists.

It is usually a mistake to ASSUME that just because you disagree with someone that they are the ones in need of studying things for themselves as you claim you have. However did you miss all the tens of thousands of manuscripts of the same books? Or why translations gather these and attempt to determine which ones should be relied upon and which discarded? Why there are new translations at all? If you are satisfied that there are no errors in the bible, then you are free to do so and ignore the transcripts themselves. But honest fair exegesis cannot do so. It must address the issue. If you are aware of any original documents then please advise the experts. They have yet to find anything written that was not a copy somewhere in the 200+ CE.

PS. I have studied for myself my dear, and am most satisfied that the errors are real. They are obvious, they are well known. Why is it so important that there be none? Do you actually think that if God was writing a manual to us he couldn’t do a bit better than this?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Where do you get they are well informed?
Obviously not informed at all, or they would know what the early Church taught on these subjects…AS well as what it means to BE Catholic and what it always meant to be Catholic according to the earliest of writings.

Catholicism isn’t about ‘being thoughtful’ or ‘well informed’ on what the era of opinion says - the modern flavor according to society … the Church IS and always will be the ONE constant beacon from the Lord.

Never minding the ‘era’ or the ‘generation’ as Christ warned there would be a time when…

Yet He said He would send His Spirit to stay and that He Himself would stay.

So far - the cries for change do nothing now as they did nothing in the hsitory of the Biblical times.

God is God - He doesn’t change - and neither do His Laws.

’They are in the world - but not of the world…'

what exactly does poor catechesis mean to you then? I assumed it meant not properly aware of the teachings of the church. Yet when one is aware of the teachings of the church, and disagrees with those teachings that makes them poorly catechized? I having difficulty with the logic of that statement.

As for what the early church taught, I rather differ in understanding I suspect. There is strong evidence that women were preaching and teaching, deacons and apostles. No doubt you believe otherwise, but of course that doesn’t mean you are right, only that your opinion is different. I claim as much evidence or more than you can muster I assure you.

Is it not better to admit we disagree, rather than to use the rather shallow argument that I’m educated and your’re not?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Peter said the unstable and unlearned wrest the scriptures [and Paul’s Epistles] to their own destruction.

To say there are errors certainly does enjoy the proof of how prophetic Peter was and is still today.

You attack my statement by quoting the very document under discussion. That is circular and not a defense.

Again, admit we disagree, instead of using the simplistic and straw arguement that I am unlearned as you. Pride is a dangerous comodity.

 

[Contarini]

An interesting assumption since I haven’t posted any particular interpretation of the Bible in which my common sense meaning could be challenged. So let’s cut the bull. Do you believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?

This isn’t “cutting the bull.” It’s bringing up a completely different issue.

I can’t address specific interpretations if you won’t give any examples. But your claim is preposterous on the face of it, given the huge differences among sincere and learned Christians regarding the proper interpretation of Scripture.

Edwin

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Quite thoughtful, well informed, very observant RC’s who still disagree on fundamental issues such as gays rights, women’s ordination (should you throw in abortion and birth control also?) are not in union with the Magisterium. PERIOD. The Magisterium’s position is quite clear on these issues…

I think you’re confused. The RC Church is not an academic think tank, there is no argument to be had, at least on the social issues you cited…

And just for the record, starting a post with “What I find sad” really hinders your credibilty…

Yet you answered it .

I agree, those who are well-informed, thoughtful, educated, etc, and disagree with the Church are not in union with the Magisterium. It’s position is indeed clear.

I did not suggest that the RC is a think tank, though I note it continues to study theology and biblical exegesis and continues to add to it’s own wealth of knowledge. If you are satisfied to accept without more an institutional directive to believe this or that, far be it from me to tell you to do otherwise.

But of course, we both know that there are professional theologians, and biblical exegetes, clergy, religous and lay, who do continue to argue that the Church’s position on various issues is wrong. I suspect they will continue to do so.

In the end we are governed in part by our psychological needs. Some need strong authority figures, and a strong sense of constancy and firm grounding. Others are more or at least as comfortable in mystery and uncertainty. But we all know that life is uncertain, there are no perfect ways to be that insure happiness and freedom from pain. Certain types gravitate toward certain types of faith systems. That doesn’t make one good and another bad, it just means that they serve their purpose.

Not everything here need reduce to a “defense”. We can simple agree that we believe and need different things.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I anticipate a great schism coming to the Church, during which the liberal cafeteria Catholics and the nominal Catholics and the C&E Catholics will walk out. The remaining Church (particularly in the U.S.) will be significantly (perhaps drastically) smaller and purer than it is now. As for the Vatican, the Curia may have a problem with it, but His Holiness Benedict XVI will be dancing in the streets.

Marsha, I tend to think you might be right. I would find that a sad day indeed. I’m quite sure that those who leave will form under another catholic banner. I couldn’t speak as to how Benedict would react, I would think with some sadness. I’m sure he would not be happy to be at the head at such a time, seeing his church shattered. I note that there are quite a volume of writings now suggesting that the Curia is indeed quite nervous at Benedicts continued “gaffes” which seem to be separating the church more and more from the world.

As I said, I find it sad, and would find it very regretable if this happened. I do unfortunately shudder at your use of the word “pure”. I find that term chilling, and I assume you would understand why. It smacks of a certain eugenics approach, we are all too familiar with.

 

[Contarini]

Marsha, I tend to think you might be right. I would find that a sad day indeed. I’m quite sure that those who leave will form under another catholic banner. I couldn’t speak as to how Benedict would react, I would think with some sadness. I’m sure he would not be happy to be at the head at such a time, seeing his church shattered. I note that there are quite a volume of writings now suggesting that the Curia is indeed quite nervous at Benedicts continued “gaffes” which seem to be separating the church more and more from the world.

Well, I’m glad the Curia is nervous. Benedict is not a politician and I respect him for that. I don’t agree with everything he says or does, but he’s a leader I’d be honored to follow. Many of the “gaffe” reportings are based on the secular media’s complete failure to understand (and complete lack of interest in understanding) how the Catholic Church works. For instance, the absolutely shameful error of describing the act of lifting an excommunication as the “reinstatement” of a bishop, which utterly distorted what was going on with +Williamson.

Edwin

 

[pnewton]

Why do Catholics care or even think about what Christian Scientists think about Evangelicals? At least this thread had the good sense to wonder off topic.

 

[Contarini]

Why do Catholics care or even think about what Christian Scientists think about Evangelicals?

The CS Monitor is a respected newspaper, and the op ed piece is not by a Christian Scientist but by a somewhat eccentric and very interesting blogger.

Edwin

 

[4Squarebaby]

The CS Monitor is a respected newspaper, and the op ed piece is not by a Christian Scientist but by a somewhat eccentric and very interesting blogger.

Edwin

And while commenting on his piece I find that most missed what I saw as the main point. That evangelics will lose faith because the world is going the other way and we are beginning to lose elections on abortion, same sex marriage and all those conservative social issues which The Catholic Church and the evangelic world generally agree upon.
As a paper the CSM tends to go liberal and wishes that those religious types wouldn’t add their weight against issues they support so a piece by a man of a different tradition was welcome.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

The CS Monitor is a respected newspaper, and the op ed piece is not by a Christian Scientist but by a somewhat eccentric and very interesting blogger.

Edwin

Eccentric? Baloney. It is in the news everywhere. It’s called The Protestant Meltdown.

 

[Contarini]

Eccentric?

I was speaking of Mr. Spencer, and I did not intend the term as an insult. I consider myself also to be eccentric. Now if I could figure out how to get published in the CS Monitor. . . .

Perhaps if I spent less time on this board I’d put my energy into more productive endeavors!

Edwin

 

[pnewton]

The CS Monitor is a respected newspaper, and the op ed piece is not by a Christian Scientist but by a somewhat eccentric and very interesting blogger.

Edwin

It is a religious publication by a sect that thinks Mary Baker Eddy was a prophet. Respected by who? Not me. That and an eccentric blogger?

This is about as thin as it gets.

 

[Contarini]

It is a religious publication by a sect that thinks Mary Baker Eddy was a prophet.

No, it’s not a primarily religious publication. It’s a newspaper. Yes, it has an odd origin if you assume Enlightenment secularism as the norm of rationality. But from everything I’ve heard (and the few times I’ve looked at it) it can hold its own among major newspapers in terms of its journalistic quality.

Respected by who? Not me.

Whom you respect is of course your choice. I was making a generalization and I stand by it (for what it’s worth, wikipedia agrees with me!).

Edwin

 

[always_gr8ful]

It is usually a mistake to ASSUME that just because you disagree with someone that they are the ones in need of studying things for themselves as you claim you have. However did you miss all the tens of thousands of manuscripts of the same books?

SpiritMeadow, I don’t have to assume - you give yourself away.
Even with the farthest stretch of imagination - if you count all the connective words added to Scripture for ease in reading, you would not have hundreds of thousands of errors as you previously stated.

I have no desire to attempt to educate you as to the inerrancy of the Bible. As they say, you can lead a horse to water… I have discerned that you are not interested in the Truth. I hope I’m wrong.

 

[Contarini]

SpiritMeadow, I don’t have to assume - you give yourself away.
Even with the farthest stretch of imagination - if you count all the connective words added to Scripture for ease in reading, you would not have hundreds of thousands of errors as you previously stated.

I agree that “hundreds of thousands” is an exaggeration. But to deny that there are any errors you have to engage in mind-bending contortions. I’ll grant that it’s possible. But why do you think it’s necessary, when it seems far more likely that God chose to let fallible humans make normal human errors when it wouldn’t detract from the purpose for which He inspired them?

For instance, recently I had occasion to refer to Matt. 23:35. I know that there are ways of interpreting this that “save” the author of Matthew from having made an error. (Of course to you the question will be whether Jesus made an error, but that’s not the issue for me because I don’t assume that Jesus said the exact words attributed to Him.) Maybe Zechariah the Minor Prophet was stoned to death in the temple, just like Zechariah the son of Jehoida. Maybe Jehoida was also called Berekiah. But when you take this example together with the many others like it, it just seems a lot more probable that these are what they look like: the kinds of errors that people make when writing without the benefit of modern research libraries, the Internet, plenty of leisure, and the rigors of a graduate-school training in research and documentation.

Edwin

 

[pnewton]

… wikipedia agrees with me!).

Edwin

I’ll let you know in ten years how goofy this prediction is.

 

[4Squarebaby]

I’ll let you know in ten years how goofy this prediction is.

Sounds like when people try to predict the second coming to me. Do you understand hw many churches have to basically quit in 10 years for this prediction to be proved true?

 

[always_gr8ful]

This isn’t “cutting the bull.” It’s bringing up a completely different issue.
Edwin

Edwin, it’s the heart of the matter from what I’ve seen on this board over the last 3 days. Either God’s Word is the Truth, or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then any scripture anywhere is up for grabs and at the mercy of human thought and opinion. “God is not the author of confusion”, and I’ve been confused since I found this board.

This has really been an eye-opener for me. Hugs to the Bible believers I have met here, whatever your religion. Hugs to the rest of you that are still searching.

 

[Jon_Hus]

I’m an evangelical. I attended mass for 4 years and at the end of those years knew nothing about God or being a Christian. Then I had a personal crisis in my life so in despiration I bought a Bible and started to study it. Now 35 years later I don’t know a whole lot about God but I do know a few things. I also know that according to my sister who is a member of the RCC, I’m basically going stright to hell when I die because I’m not a member of her church. OK

So I say all of this not to get you RCCers excited but to make the case that the 35 years of study of the Bible have me convinced that I will never be a member of the RCC. I’m no friend of Rome. But, you catholics should take no delight in any possibility that the evangelicals will disappear anytime soon. To the secular majority in the US, there is not a whole lot of difference between catholics and the rest. Evangelicals will not convert in mass to Rome and if the liberals score against the evangelicals, the only possible way Rome survives in America is under government control. In my opinion, what will remain will resemble today’s “Main Line” protestant churches, not good for catholics or evangelicals.

I may have doctrinal issues catholics, but I cannot see how if either one of us takes a fatal blow, it doesn’t pull the other one down with it.