How To Shrink Your Church In One Easy Step

[protestantinca]

Hebrews 1:1-2
God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all,
In these days hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world.

As a Lutheran am I ashamed that I didn’t know this, but I think that this passage doesn’t say that there will be no more revelations in the future (only that God sent His son after having sent the prophets in the past). The book of revelations, accepted as part of the canon by the overwhelming majority of Christian denominations, has a more explicit warning about the book of Revelation itself that, by implication, can be extended to the bible as a whole if one accepts Revelation as the very last book of the Bible.

 

[Matthew_Light]

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P135.HTM

"I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book. The one who gives this testimony says, “Yes, I am coming soon.” Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!
"

Those are the last words of the Bible in the canon accepted by Protestants, Catholics and even Orthodox (although the Orthodox do not read it in their services).

The Bible is a collection of books.

The warning is about interpolating the book of Revelation. Canonization of the books going into the Bible was completed more than a hundred years after that book was written.

 

[Matthew_Light]

Hebrews 1:1-2
God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all,
In these days hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world.

I don’t see this as “sealing the prophets” (to borrow an Islamic phrase).

 

[protestantinca]

The Bible is a collection of books.

The warning is about interpolating the book of Revelation. Canonization of the books going into the Bible was completed more than a hundred years after that book was written.

True, but if you take the view (as Catholics, most Protestants and Orthodox do) that the Bible is the true inspired word of God (And that the compilation of the books was a work of the Holy Spirit), then the book of Revelation says itself that it is true “as is”. That book doesn’t speak of any future revelation that will override Jesus’, rather, it speaks of Jesus second coming affirming His nature as the son of God. There is no room in Revelation for Islam or other alleged “revelations” that alter the Bible.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Given that resorting to a dictionary definition to defend one’s position is one of the oldest tricks in the sophist’s arsenal and that you are the only one that apparently misunderstood what I meant, I don’t think I have anything to retract. What I meant was very clear to everyone who replied except for you.

Good Morning Protestantinca: Actually, I’m not using any tricks and I don’t have a position. I am simply trying to understand what you are saying and what your position is, so let me clarify again. You said that you wished all such people were “wiped out.” There are two definitions and only two uses for the term you used when used as a verbal phrase. Only two. One is to obliterate and the other is to fall off your surfboard. My question is simple. Did you mean that you wished that secularists were obliterated or had you hoped that all secularists would fall off their surfboards? I am simply asking you to say what it is that you would like to see happen to secularists. Can you answer the question and perhaps move on from there?

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

And I am not surprised that you don’t given your last attempt a pulling off a straw man. So, if somebody else is not clear by what I meant, I will elaborate. Until then, my position is that you are either a bad debater or an expert in sophistry, neither of which I find interesting.

Good Morning Protestantinca: Whether or not I am a good or bad debater is superfluous, because I’m not debating you. I am just trying to get you to define your position and have asked you some questions. Can you define your position?

All the best,
Gary

 

[Stilldreamn]

According to LC-MS church data compiled in 2000 by the Office of Roster and Statistics, the average adult confirmation/baptism rate for the LCMS has remained the same for the past 100 years. 28% of growth was due to adult conversions, and 72% was due to infant births and baptisms. Starting around 1960, the infant baptism rate plunged from 90k per year to 30k peryear. Coincidence or contraception?

 

[CuriousMike]

If the figures in this article are correct, then it clearly shows:

• Changing the Church to represent the world it is in: People see there is no difference. Nothing to “live up” to, no joy, no fervour and God’s presence feels “distant,” in this regard. Therefore, they leave because they feel Christianity doesn’t mean anything
• People who aren’t relgious aren’t suddenly going to become religious just because their favourite Church of yore all of a sudden agree with liberalism. Many of the liberal activistics are staunch anti-religion advocates, so changing your doctrine won’t automatically surge an renaissance (In fact, figures demonstrating quite the opposite show people care about their faith, and demonstrating the true faith rather than bending over backwards for liberalism)

I agree with some of the posts suggesting this way of lifestyle is destroying many. If this is the case, then it is our job as Catholics to help these people before they die, and to demonstrate why our way is superior.

I’ll close with the following:
Isn’t it funny how our Western cultures, despite being hideously oversexed and over-sexualised are going into a state of decline? And yet traditionalist keep going the way they have. Surely this will produce a resurgence in the decades to come, if we have that long. I guess this shows how “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against her,” here we are still, plugging away as well as ever, while those who disagree with us come, and go. Yes they present major challenges to our way of life, and those who aren’t 100% in their faith, but if they do not reproduce, their way of life cannot be transmitted nearly as easily! Thank God!

 

[BobCatholic]

As a Lutheran am I ashamed that I didn’t know this, but I think that this passage doesn’t say that there will be no more revelations in the future (only that God sent His son after having sent the prophets in the past). The book of revelations, accepted as part of the canon by the overwhelming majority of Christian denominations, has a more explicit warning about the book of Revelation itself that, by implication, can be extended to the bible as a whole if one accepts Revelation as the very last book of the Bible.

Well, the doctrine that there will be no more public revelation after the death of the Last Apostle, comes from Apostolic Tradition. It is not in the Bible. It could not be in the Bible since the Bible was entirely written before the death of the last Apostle.

The canon of scripture is also not in the Bible, so saying “Revelation is the last book of the Bible” is an assumption without any scriptural basis. That would be 100% based on, again, on Apostolic Tradition. If it wasn’t for the Catholic Church being the great steward of scripture and Apostolic Tradition, holding it, protecting it, copying it, lovingly taking care of it, then you cannot make any judgment on which books are supposed to be in the Bible. (councils of Rome, Carthage, Hippo, with the Pope signing off on the canon)

 

[protestantinca]

Well, the doctrine that there will be no more public revelation after the death of the Last Apostle, comes from Apostolic Tradition. It is not in the Bible. It could not be in the Bible since the Bible was entirely written before the death of the last Apostle.

The canon of scripture is also not in the Bible, so saying “Revelation is the last book of the Bible” is an assumption without any scriptural basis. That would be 100% based on, again, on Apostolic Tradition. If it wasn’t for the Catholic Church being the great steward of scripture and Apostolic Tradition, holding it, protecting it, copying it, lovingly taking care of it, then you cannot make any judgment on which books are supposed to be in the Bible. (councils of Rome, Carthage, Hippo, with the Pope signing off on the canon)

Not really. There are many denominations that think of themselves as practicing Nicene Christianity that accept the first ecumenical councils because the were of “the whole church” but that reject the so called “Catholic only” councils because they are not of the whole church but only of the Roman church.

The doctrine that Jesus is the final revelation is His and His alone, not made up by “apostolic tradition”. Jesus made that clear when He came and that’s the reason it can be extrapolated from scripture.

 

[protestantinca]

Good Morning Protestantinca: Whether or not I am a good or bad debater is superfluous, because I’m not debating you. I am just trying to get you to define your position and have asked you some questions. Can you define your position?

All the best,
Gary

I am done with you because I don’t like to waste my time. You should ask yourself how is that other people understand perfectly what I mean but you “allegedly” can’t understand my position.

It seems you have a reading and comprehension problem and I am not here as you elementary school English teacher. Good luck!

 

[BobCatholic]

Not really. There are many denominations that think of themselves as practicing Nicene Christianity that accept the first ecumenical councils because the were of “the whole church” but that reject the so called “Catholic only” councils because they are not of the whole church but only of the Roman church.

None of those ecumenical councils promulgated the canon of scripture. I mentioned the councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo. Three local councils. Not ecumenical. One of the Roman Church, two of the eastern church. All agreed on this.

The doctrine that Jesus is the final revelation is His and His alone, not made up by “apostolic tradition”. Jesus made that clear when He came and that’s the reason it can be extrapolated from scripture.

Extrapolated from scripture = interpretation of scripture = Tradition

Remember, scripture is not the same as interpretation of scripture. If it were, the interpretation would be written on the pages of scripture itself.

 

[Per_Crucem]

None of those ecumenical councils promulgated the canon of scripture. I mentioned the councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo. Three local councils. Not ecumenical. One of the Roman Church, two of the eastern church. All agreed on this.

Not quite. Hippo and Carthage were both local Latin councils as both of these cities were under Western bishops, not Eastern. The Scriptural canons of the Eastern churches are not the same as either Rome, Hippo or Carthage.

 

[BobCatholic]

Not quite. Hippo and Carthage were both local Latin councils as both of these cities were under Western bishops, not Eastern. The Scriptural canons of the Eastern churches are not the same as either Rome, Hippo or Carthage.

Oh. OK. I stand corrected.

I incorrectly thought Carthage was under the Greek bishops and Hippo was under the Copts.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Oh. OK. I stand corrected.

I incorrectly thought Carthage was under the Greek bishops and Hippo was under the Copts.

May have been at an earlier period. St. Augustine was bishop of Hippo.

 

[simpleas]

If the figures in this article are correct, then it clearly shows:

• Changing the Church to represent the world it is in: People see there is no difference. Nothing to “live up” to, no joy, no fervour and God’s presence feels “distant,” in this regard. Therefore, they leave because they feel Christianity doesn’t mean anything
• People who aren’t relgious aren’t suddenly going to become religious just because their favourite Church of yore all of a sudden agree with liberalism. Many of the liberal activistics are staunch anti-religion advocates, so changing your doctrine won’t automatically surge an renaissance (In fact, figures demonstrating quite the opposite show people care about their faith, and demonstrating the true faith rather than bending over backwards for liberalism)

I agree with some of the posts suggesting this way of lifestyle is destroying many. If this is the case, then it is our job as Catholics to help these people before they die, and to demonstrate why our way is superior.

I’ll close with the following:
Isn’t it funny how our Western cultures, despite being hideously oversexed and over-sexualised are going into a state of decline? And yet traditionalist keep going the way they have. Surely this will produce a resurgence in the decades to come, if we have that long. I guess this shows how “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against her,” here we are still, plugging away as well as ever, while those who disagree with us come, and go. Yes they present major challenges to our way of life, and those who aren’t 100% in their faith, but if they do not reproduce, their way of life cannot be transmitted nearly as easily! Thank God!

The last Paragraph - who said that?

Thanks

 

[CuriousMike]

The last Paragraph - who said that?

Thanks

The quote in my paragraph about the gates of Hell is one of our primary beliefs in the Church, that as the One True Church, we cannot be conquered.

The rest? Well, I guess its my interoperation of everything I read. I would say there is some paraphrasing in there, as well.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I am done with you because I don’t like to waste my time. You should ask yourself how is that other people understand perfectly what I mean but you “allegedly” can’t understand my position.

It seems you have a reading and comprehension problem and I am not here as you elementary school English teacher. Good luck!

Good Evening Protestantinca: I have always endeavored to keep the discussions I engage in on this forum civil, polite and to the point. You seem to have become a bit unglued in your response, therefore in the interest of maintaining a courteous discussion, I would like to extend my apologies for exciting any sensitivities. I ask honest and direct questions to the best of my ability and I am somewhat crestfallen at your response.

But I rebound quickly, so I do have some follow-on questions if I may, and please feel free to correct my English and any of my misunderstandings as you might see fit. I think large posts are rather tedious, so I thought I might stick to one question at a time. My first question relates to your appetition for Mosaic law, and in particular you have mentioned the Ten Commandments on more than one occasion as being a good guide for the conduct of our affairs. Specifically I would like to address the commandment regarding bearing false witness. Do you suppose that there are degrees of false witness, for example that sometimes bearing false witness is not a sin or understandable? In particular would you say that mischaracterizing me on a public forum as having a reading comprehension problem and prescribing elementary school instruction to advance my abilities as something of an infraction of the commandment not to bear false witness, or when comparing my vocabulary to yours is it honestly your assessment that I am in need of further education in order to converse with you?

This is another honest and direct question, and my apologies if for some reason you find my questions untoward. Once we have covered this, I do have some more questions in the hopes that as Christians we can engage in some thoughtful interfaith dialog and perhaps some introspection here and there. After we cover this, my next question will be on Jesus’ advice on how we treat the least of our brothers and how this might convey to our daily interactions. I recall that you said you were “done with me” and you might genuinely feel that way, but you know the Lord works in mysterious ways, so maybe there’s a reason unbeknownst to us as to why we’re having occasion for this discussion. Maybe this is how we learn - I don’t know, but I look forward to your reply anyway.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Charity please.

 

[utunumsint]

Good Evening CompSciGuy: I would like to point out that among living species, the survival strategy of producing swarms of offspring is a specialty of the lowest forms of life such as insects. As you move up the evolutionary ladder, this strategy becomes less and less prevalent. I think this model also has an analog in human society, whereas as humans become more sophisticated, educated and have access to more information and resources and wealth, the less the survival by numbers strategy applies, leaving the least among us to participate in birth wars, which the rest of us understand to be an ecologically dangerous approach.

All the best,
Gary

The church has this to say on large families:

2373 Sacred Scripture and the Church’s traditional practice see in large families a sign of God’s blessing and the parents’ generosity.

2398 Fecundity is a good, a gift and an end of marriage. By giving life, spouses participate in God’s fatherhood.

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

The church does not play the numbers game. It is not the church’s teaching that Catholics must procreate in order for the Catholic population to surpass that of other religions or cultures.

The teaching of the church has much more to say about generosity and seeing the conception and birth of a child as a blessing and a privilege. It is a participation in God’s fatherhood - the very furthest one can get from a subhuman irresponsible procreation.

In addition, ecological problems will never be solved by simply reducing the number of human beings on the planet. What is required in a change in attitude with regard to ecology and our shared responsibility for the environment.

God bless,
Ut