Why do non-Catholics scoff at the word "religion"

  • Thread starter Thread starter horselvr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, but only in so much as the church in question is rightfully dividing the word God.
I am not familiar with the phrase “dividing the Word”. Could you please explain what this means, and how a Believer would discern whether her church is doing this correctly? What authority or measuring stick would she use to decide if her church is dividing the Word correctly or incorrectly?
The Bible does say that even if an angel of light should teach another gospel, let them be accursed.
Amen!
The church is an authority, but an authority under the word. It can hold me accountable to the word of God, but leaders of the church are also held accountable to the word of God
Where is this in Scripture, and where is the Word of God defined in Scripture?
For some people, yes. But not all. Most of the time, in my experience, when people leave a church its rarely over disputes over doctrine. In my case, my family left one Pentecostal church for another Pentecostal church over personality issues and leadership disputes. Once those issues subsided, we returned to our original church in under 2 years.
What is the paradigm that is (generally) professed regarding what a Believer is to do if she disagrees with her Pastor on doctrine?
 
Well, the formal statements are typically summaries of essential truths.
The Bible, as far as I know, never defines some truths as essential, and others as secondary.

How does a non-Catholic Believer, who believe all truths are to be found in the Bible, discern what is an essential belief and what is secondary?
 
I am not familiar with the phrase “dividing the Word”.
It comes from 2 Timothy 2:15. I think the use of “dividing” is a King James Version word choice. Newer translations use “handling” instead.

“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.”
Could you please explain what this means, and how a Believer would discern whether her church is doing this correctly? What authority or measuring stick would she use to decide if her church is dividing the Word correctly or incorrectly?
The measuring stick is Scripture.
Where is this in Scripture, and where is the Word of God defined in Scripture?
I think Galatians 1:8 sums it up nicely. Church leaders can’t simply make it up as they go along. They can’t teach another gospel.

Scripture does not define all books that are the Word of God.
What is the paradigm that is (generally) professed regarding what a Believer is to do if she disagrees with her Pastor on doctrine?
She should to talk to the pastor first. If neither budge, then she has to decide how important the issue is. If it’s adiaphora or non-essential then I believe the proper response is to remain where God planted you and submit.

But if the issue is of major import and especially if she firmly believes it violates the clear meaning of Scripture, then it would be impossible for her to remain in that church with a good conscience. Either she must conclude that she is wrong or she must conclude that the church is wrong in the light of God’s word.

Of course, this is not the reason most people leave churches today. Most of the time, people leave over rather trivial things. I know people who flip flop from one church to another in rapid succession. None of these churches are very different in what they teach. People today just don’t have the same need to commit to one church like they used to it seems.
 
The Bible, as far as I know, never defines some truths as essential, and others as secondary.
I never said it did. I said that evangelical church belief statements are summaries of essential truths. They summarize the essential truths, but they never claim to be complete explications of essential truth.
 
Pretty good Cat. Not sure that it’s lack (religion) is what cause splits. I am surprised you say there is a lack of fellowship and or commitment. I thought baptists meet twice on Sunday and have a midweek service and are quite tight knit. They have home bible studies and sometimes form schools for their kids and socialize a bit also. Their church is quite “visible”. Most mainline denominations have hierarchy. Good discussion but not sure what you are mentioning at the end has to do with view of “religion”. I do see folks thinking of religion as doing things in regards to worship or dealing with interaction with God, individually or corporately. Jesus said religion should deal more with helping others.
Oh, yes, there are definitely plenty of opportunities for fellowship, and the “faithful few” show up without fail!

But everyone will tell you that in most Evangelical Protestant churches, 10% of the people do 90% of the work! Midweek prayer service/Bible study is one of the most poorly-attended services in the church. And when it comes time for various service opportunities (teaching Sunday school or Awanas, chairing the missionary conference, joining the choir, or playing piano/organ, etc.)–it’s like pulling teeth to get anyone to commit. The same people that volunteer for service are the same people who show up for the MIdweek service, and these are the same people who are actively promoting friendship and fellowship in the church by inviting people to their home or organizing church picnics, etc.

In Evangelical Protestant churches, most of the people who sit in the pews on Sunday morning will not be seen again by anyone in the church until the next Sunday morning. And many of these people will be gone within a year, and will be sitting in another church because they “weren’t being fed” at their previous church.

That’s why I say that they don’t buy the idea of a commitment to others, sticking together through thick and thin, come what may, and working through conflicts together, not just departing in a huff. For many Christians, including many Catholics, it’s all about their “personal journey,” not about a journey alongside other Christians.

Catholics are the same way when it comes to commitment to various parish activities–it’s hard to get them to come to a weekly Bible study or volunteer to work with a group of children or teenagers. But I personally think this is because all these things are fairly new in the Catholic Church in the United States. Until the last few decades, most Catholics belonged to a parish and actually were involved with the people in that parish OUTSIDE of the Mass. They lived in the same neighborhood, attended the same schools, shopped at the same stores, and actually saw each other and often socialized with each other outside of Mass.

But nowadays, people don’t associate with their neighbors, and the kids are at schools all over the city and town (or homeschooled), and the kids don’t play ball in the biggest yard now, they go to club sports several nights a week, and the parents don’t have card parties or cocktail parties anymore, they go out to dinner with a few close friends that may not live anywhere near them. Everyone is much more mobile now (it used to be that most families only had 1 car) and so we often go away for the weekend and even during the week, we might drive to the mall or to a movie.

So I think that the idea of church-generated activities is still new and different for Catholics. For all the converts like me, it’s the norm, so we’re kicking the door in trying to get it going!
 
Because people want the perceived benefits of being spiritual without the perceived costs of religion (being bound by something—which is what religion is, based on Latin “religare”- to bind).

The overwhelming message of the culture and most of 20th century (and some even before that) literature is this: Rules are bad and meant to take the fun out of life, just do what you want and what makes you happy.
Everywhere you look you see the glorification of rebellion and individuality.
Therefore, the very idea of letting go of this “freedom” sets people frenetic. You see people who claim to be Christians deny religion, which is odd, considering that Christ himself was rather religious, what with instituting the Church and sacraments and saying “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Presumably they want to follow Christ only as far as the world will let them—that is, they want to “be nice” and “love” everyone (of course wondrously vague), but not actually do something that will be seen as too rule-ish or extreme: “Take up your cross and follow me.”
I definitely agree with you that people are into individual gratification nowaways. We hear a lot of talk about “my journey.” (This phrase is often used to describe “losing weight,” It drives me crazy!).

But please allow me to remind you and everyone else on this thread that there are many MANY Protestant Christians who have sacrificed everything, including their lives, for Jesus. I personally have known Evangelical Protestant missionaries who were martyred for their faith in their country of ministry.

I’ve known many Protestant missionaries who were forced to leave their country of ministry when hostile governments or terrorists forced them out. These ex-missionaries never forget the people in their country of ministry–they continue to pray for them and long to be with them again.

And there are plenty of Evangelical Protestants who are willing and who regularly give sacrificially of their money, time, and talents in their home country. I’ve known so many hundreds of Protestant Christians who pour themselves out in service to Jesus and others–when you meet these Christians, you barely see them, but instead, you see Jesus and you praise Him for His transforming work in these people.
 
I never said it did. I said that evangelical church belief statements are summaries of essential truths. They summarize the essential truths, but they never claim to be complete explications of essential truth.
I hope you can see how the fact that** there are no “essential truths”** detailed in the Bible would be a problem for Sola Scriptura advocates, yes?

If one is truly a subscriber to the belief that the Bible Alone holds all the truths necessary for Believers, then when one assents to a list of Essential Truths that are nowhere detailed in the Bible…one is contravening his own principle of Sola Scriptura.
 
The measuring stick is Scripture.
This is, frankly, un-Scriptural. Actually, it is contrary to Scripture in that the Bible says that it is the Church that is the measuring stick, not the Bible.

Also, it is illogical to use Scripture as a measuring stick for Scripture.

One cannot say, “Let’s see if this piece of white cloth is as white as…this same piece of white cloth”

http://dev.stephensons.com/11774-large/polyester-table-cloth-square-white-plain-35-89cm.jpg http://dev.stephensons.com/11774-large/polyester-table-cloth-square-white-plain-35-89cm.jpg
 
I think Galatians 1:8 sums it up nicely. Church leaders can’t simply make it up as they go along. They can’t teach another gospel.
Here is Galatians 1:8

[BIBLEDRB]Galatians 1:8[/BIBLEDRB]

That does not define, at all, what is the Word of God.

For example, is Jesus the Word of God in your pastor’s eyes? Where does Galatians 1:8 say that?

Is this motto “When you care enough to send the very best” the Word of God? How does Galatians 1:8 tell us whether it is or isn’t? It does seem to conform to the message of the NT. :hmmm:

And does Galatians 1:8 tell us that Sacred Tradition is NOT the Word of God (which is something Evangelical Christians proclaim)?
Scripture does not define all books that are the Word of God.
Indeed.

This is profoundly problematic for Sola Scriptura advocates. They must look to another authority–that is, the Church–to answer the question, “Is this the Word of God or is it not”?
 
I definitely agree with you that people are into individual gratification nowaways. We hear a lot of talk about “my journey.” (This phrase is often used to describe “losing weight,” It drives me crazy!).

But please allow me to remind you and everyone else on this thread that there are many MANY Protestant Christians who have sacrificed everything, including their lives, for Jesus. I personally have known Evangelical Protestant missionaries who were martyred for their faith in their country of ministry.

I’ve known many Protestant missionaries who were forced to leave their country of ministry when hostile governments or terrorists forced them out. These ex-missionaries never forget the people in their country of ministry–they continue to pray for them and long to be with them again.

And there are plenty of Evangelical Protestants who are willing and who regularly give sacrificially of their money, time, and talents in their home country. I’ve known so many hundreds of Protestant Christians who pour themselves out in service to Jesus and others–when you meet these Christians, you barely see them, but instead, you see Jesus and you praise Him for His transforming work in these people.
I agree there are many good and holy Protestants, ones who are even more committed than many Catholics I know. When I wrote that post, I think I had in mind the sort of people who do not live any different for being a Christian, because that’s “rules” or “religion” which they don’t like.
 
I have noticed a lot of disdain for the word “religion” and they even put in quotes as I have done here.
Can someone explain this?
I don’t know the reason for each person who does, but I get the sense, though, that there are many people that think “religion” is man-made, and/or used to control people; thus, the disdain towards the word.
 
I don’t know the reason for each person who does, but I get the sense, though, that there are many people that think “religion” is man-made, and/or used to control people; thus, the disdain towards the word.
But it’s an untenable position. To reject religion, one must reject what one has received from religion–namely, everything we know about the Godhead.
 
I hope you can see how the fact that** there are no “essential truths”** detailed in the Bible would be a problem for Sola Scriptura advocates, yes?
I don’t see that. If I write a children’s story with accompanying animation that summarizes the story of Creation and Adam and Eve, I am not violating Sola Scriptura. I am creating a teaching tool.

Likewise, creating a document listing fundamental biblical doctrines is not violating Sola Scriptura. It is summarizing biblical content, ideally using precise theological language. It’s purpose is to provide a concise and clear explanation for what the church believes. Of course, Protestants would say, “We believe the Bible.” But that in and of itself gives no clarity to outsiders. Thus, we summarize what we believe. As long as such statement adheres to Scripture, then Sola Scriptura has been maintained.
If one is truly a subscriber to the belief that the Bible Alone holds all the truths necessary for Believers, then when one assents to a list of Essential Truths that are nowhere detailed in the Bible…one is contravening his own principle of Sola Scriptura.
No one who believes in Sola Scriptura believes that it is forbidden to write logically organized summaries of biblical doctrine. It never ceases to amaze me how posters at CAF insist on defining Sola Scriptura in their own novel ways and then criticize Protestants for not following their absurd definitions.
 
I don’t see that. If I write a children’s story with accompanying animation that summarizes the story of Creation and Adam and Eve, I am not violating Sola Scriptura. I am creating a teaching tool.
I agree with you here. 🙂
Likewise, creating a document listing fundamental biblical doctrines is not violating Sola Scriptura.
Except that NOWHERE is it limned in Scripture what a fundamental Biblical doctrine is.

Do you not find this problematic?

How do you know whether, say, the belief in the virgin birth is a fundamental truth or a secondary one?

What verse tells you this?

One might conclude, since St. Paul never mentions it–not even once–in any of his epistles, that it is not a primary truth?

Is that your belief–that the virgin birth is not an essential?

What about belief in there being 12 apostles? Is this a fundamental truth? And what verse in Scripture tells you this?
 
No one who believes in Sola Scriptura believes that it is forbidden to write logically organized summaries of biblical doctrine.
Yet people who believe in SS believe that it is forbidden to believe in the Immaculate Conception.

Why the double standard here, ltwin?
It never ceases to amaze me how posters at CAF insist on defining Sola Scriptura in their own novel ways and then criticize Protestants for not following their absurd definitions.
I can’t help but smile at this. Is this not the Protestant paradigm?

Don’t you reserve for yourself to define for yourself what the Bible means, and then criticize the Catholic Church for not allowing their absurd interpretations?

You seem to be reserving for yourself the right to say, "I can think for myself, thank you very much, and don’t need anyone to tell me what the Bible means!’

yet…

you object to Catholics saying “This is what SS means and I don’t need anyone to tell me how to define it!”

Incidentally, since there is no Protestant magisterium, there is no one to speak for what SS truly and definitively means.

We all get to define it as we wish, do we not, if we follow the Protestant paradigm?
 
But it’s an untenable position. To reject religion, one must reject what one has received from religion–namely, everything we know about the Godhead.
I don’t think atheists have any problem with rejecting everything we know about the Godhead, though. ^^;
 
PRMerger,

The Scriptures are not just another book. They are the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit has to be factored in when people are trying to understand Scripture. The Holy Spirit can lead people into truth.

I frankly believe that when a person asks God to help them understand the Scriptures, God will answer, “Yes.” It may not happen that very day and moment. There are people who read the Scriptures and for years, come to incorrect conclusions about what they are reading.

But the Holy Spirit will not allow them to be led astray forever, IF they are truly desirous of righteousness. The Beatitude states, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.”

My husband and I love that verse because we humbly think that it is a description of our conversion to Catholicism. We were enthusiastic Evangelical Protestants for the first 47 years of our lives. But we truly HUNGERED for righteousness, and God eventually answered our prayer and led us to the Catholic Church, mainly through the Bible! Our study of the Bible over the decades made it obvious to us that the Catholic Church is the church most closely-aligned with the Scriptures. If we hadn’t been studying the Scriptures all those years while we were Protestants, we wouldn’t have recognized truth when we finally attended Mass.

Remember always that there are plenty of converts to Catholicism who came to recognize the validity of Catholicism* primarily through study of the Scriptures*.

And please be careful not to underestimate the scholarship of Protestants. I think this is one of the biggest mistakes Catholics make and then they get nailed when they finally do meet up with a high-intellectual who is a faithful Protestant.

Even if many of us (Protestants and ex-Protestants) here on CAF (or in your real life outside of the computer!) are not highly-educated in the fine details of Protestant systematic theology, there are Protestants who ARE educated far beyond the basic education that most Protestants have acquired through their own personal study.

I’ve noticed that a lot of the Protestants apologists that argue in public debate against some of our fine Catholic apologists are not the “intellectuals” of Protestantism.

Not to insult all the Protestants who come to CAF, but the high intellects of Protestantism don’t come to online sites or visit apologetics centers. They don’t write the kind of popular books that most Protestants-on-the-street read over lunch. And they don’t get “booked” to appear in media-broadcasted debates.

These Protestant intellectuals are sequestered in universities, dissecting the writings of the Church fathers, and finding plenty of reasons in those writings to remain Protestant. I wish that some of them WOULD debate Catholics so that Catholics could realize the scholarship behind Protestantism.
 
No one who believes in Sola Scriptura believes that it is forbidden to write logically organized summaries of biblical doctrine. It never ceases to amaze me how posters at CAF insist on defining Sola Scriptura in their own novel ways and then criticize Protestants for not following their absurd definitions.
Yep.
 
Yet people who believe in SS believe that it is forbidden to believe in the Immaculate Conception.
No, it’s not actually forbidden. Protestants may believe in the IC; Catholicism says all Christians must believe in the IC as part of the Gospel.

Please, please don’t derail this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top