What's a "Bible-believing Christian"?

[lak611]

Where would you get an assumption like that?!!!

I don’t know where that came from either.

 

[ribozyme]

I have faith in science. Sometimes when my wife doesn’t have faith (as demonstrated by her fear of bathtub sharks and skepticism of evolution) I tickle her and ask her “who has faith in science?” I keep tickling her until she says"I have faith! I have faith – in science!" Doesn’t Professor Joyce have that kind of faith in science too? Ash does.

No, he doesn’t have that type of “faith” in science.

I think it would be fair to say that he does have some sort of faith, but “faith” in this context is not the same “faith” when it is used colloquially. But it involves his “faith” in the concepts of causality and induction as David Hume showed that one cannot prove these concepts with recourse to empiricism.

Well, if we define as “faith” as a belief without any evidence, he does not possess much of this. Well, believing in evolution is not having “faith” in science as it is supported by abundant evidence in various fields. Professor Joyce does accept the evidence of evolution and he does comprehend the evidence and mechanisms of Darwinian evolution. In contrast, let’s examine the notion of transubstantiation which is not supported by any evidence unlike the theory of evolution. Why should Professor Joyce believe in that as one cannot perform a repeatable demonstration nor can it be observed? How can you discern the difference between a normal host and transubstantiated host? In contrast evolution can be observed, and regarding Professor Joyce, he has observed Darwinian evolution in his own laboratory. I am willing to be that you have not observed transubstantiation.

Saying the Bible says so or the Catechism says so is not satisfactory in the context of empiricist epistemology. But I think a “Bible-believing Christian” is willing to discard empiricism evidence in favor of what the Bible says.

Well, sorry about that digression about Joyce’s faith, but this is just an example of Jonathan Sarfati misrepresenting other’s views as Joyce does not have any dogmatic faith…

 

[RobedWithLight]

From my history of evangelicalism, evangelicals would say that Catholics do not believe in the clear teachings of Scripture, but rather that Catholics have had their church corrupted with man-made traditions, which Christ condemned. They would also say that Catholics don’t read/know/interpret the Scriptures properly…right…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

That is also correct.

 

[RobedWithLight]

A bible-believing Christian is one who believes that the scriptures are God’s infallible Words.
This is not a sola scriptura claim, by the way, as I didn’t say they believed that they were the ONLY source.

In that case Catholics are bible-believing Christians as well, and evangelicals must now accept Catholics as brother Christians.

The problem is that in practice, the use of the term “Bible-believing” is often used by evangelicals to set themselves apart from and above those “superstitious” and “tradition-obsessed” Catholics, which gives the unfortunate impression that Catholics don’t believe “fully” in the Bible, which is grossly incorrect, a sorry situation that needs to be rectified.

 

[ribozyme]

In that case Catholics are bible-believing Christians as well, and evangelicals must now accept Catholics as brother Christians.

The problem is that in practice, the use of the term “Bible-believing” is often used by evangelicals to set themselves apart from and above those “superstitious” and “tradition-obsessed” Catholics, which gives the unfortunate impression that Catholics don’t believe “fully” in the Bible, which is grossly incorrect, a sorry situation that needs to be rectified.

I could understand “tradition-obsessed” as it is a Protestant maxim of Sola Scriptura, but I do not the basis of a Protestant’s accusation of Catholics being “superstitious”

 

[Steadfast_love]

No, he doesn’t have that type of “faith” in science.

I think it would be fair to say that he does have some sort of faith, but “faith” in this context is not the same “faith” when it is used colloquially. But it involves his “faith” in the concepts of causality and induction as David Hume showed that one cannot prove these concepts with recourse to empiricism.

So he’s afraid of sharks in his bathtub, and doesn’t believe in evolution? :tsktsk: He should have more faith in science. j/k

Well, if we define as “faith” as a belief without any evidence, he does not possess much of this. Well, believing in evolution is not having “faith” in science as it is supported by abundant evidence in various fields.

I pray that no one has that kind of “faith” since it’s the same definition as being “gullible” right? The Catholic defintion on the other hand, has more to do with being brave and steadfast than with being thick-headed. By this definition Professor Joyce has faith, when he relies on science despite it’s flaws. He is a *faithful scientist *when he sticks to the scientific method despite the easy money and glory offered by quackery.)

Professor Joyce does accept the evidence of evolution and he does comprehend the evidence and mechanisms of Darwinian evolution. In contrast, let’s examine the notion of transubstantiation which is not supported by any evidence unlike the theory of evolution. Why should Professor Joyce believe in that as one cannot perform a repeatable demonstration nor can it be observed?

Idealy Professor Joyce should believe everyting that is true and nothing that is false. It is his right to choose what to believe and his responsibility to do so wisely. Presumably, there’s a bit of truth that’s still hidden, just as Maxwells equations were hidden to Thomas Edison. A thing shouldn’t be immediately disbelieved just because it remains mysterious.

Note: This is one of my favorite things about the God of Abraham Issac and Moses he gives us room to choose instead of training us with his lightning stick and supernatural carrot. People must trust (have faith in) goodness rather than rely on physical evidence that good is rewarded and evil punished, just as scientists must have faith that the good of impartial research is greater than faking data to support a pet theory or score a grant.

How can you discern the difference between a normal host and transubstantiated host? In contrast evolution can be observed, and regarding Professor Joyce, he has observed Darwinian evolution in his own laboratory. I am willing to be that you have not observed transubstantiation.

Ok let’s back up a sec. You know how insane Christians run up to the microphone and shout something unscientific to attack science? Something like “If we were evolved from apes, that would mean my mother is a gorilla, but she don’t have no tail!” That’s what you’re doing here. Gorillas don’t have tails, transubstantiation doesn’t spark like an angry Pikachu and even if they did it still misses the point entirely.

In such a case, the right decision is not to disbelieve in evolution or transubstantiation but to read up on “Primates” and “Church, Roman Catholic.”

Saying the Bible says so or the Catechism says so is not satisfactory in the context of empiricist epistemology. But I think a “Bible-believing Christian” is willing to discard empiricism evidence in favor of what the Bible says.

How could you *not *think poorly of them given your definition?

Well, sorry about that digression about Joyce’s faith, but this is just an example of Jonathan Sarfati misrepresenting other’s views as Joyce does not have any dogmatic faith…

Then he has no business speaking on matters of the Faith.

 

[colliric]

To which this now-Catholic former evangelical replies: BINGO!
(That’s my favorite Catholic theological term! LOL)
**
It IS also used to imply that Catholics don’t adhere to scripture.**
(Been there done that, thankfully God is merciful!)

HAHAHAHA!!!

good one that is…

At least catholics know what the word for rock is in Aramaic… talk about adhering to scripture.

 

[colliric]

In that case Catholics are bible-believing Christians as well, and evangelicals must now accept Catholics as brother Christians.

The problem is that in practice, the use of the term “Bible-believing” is often used by evangelicals to set themselves apart from and above those “superstitious” and “tradition-obsessed” Catholics, which gives the unfortunate impression that Catholics don’t believe “fully” in the Bible, which is grossly incorrect, a sorry situation that needs to be rectified.

Yes this is what I certainly found was the belief about catholicism. Plus people who are taken into evangelism are force fed some very very anti-catholic arguements which fail to give the innocent evangelist the full scope of the arguements for and against. How can people make fair decisions on the catholic faith when they are only shown one point of view?

The evangelists pastors often try to take advantage of their congregations true lack of historical biblical knowledge, they use terms like “Deutrocanon” to make it look like the Catholic church added something to the bible in the 15th century, a myth which is not true, but widely believed to be so. They fail to mention to their congregations exactly how the bible got it’s canon status in the first place(Solely because of the Catholic church and no one else) and what exact books it comprised of initially.