Church doesn't think like Jesus: Survey shows only 9% of Christians have biblical worldview

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, December 3, 2003

[JohnHuang2]

Church doesn't think like Jesus
Survey shows only 9% of Christians have biblical worldview

---

Posted: December 3, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

A new survey by pollster George Barna finds only 9 percent of born-again Christians hold a biblical worldview.

Barna, who surveyed 2,033 adults in his study, found only 4 percent of the general population have a biblical worldview and suggests many of the nation's moral and spiritual challenges are directly attributable to this fact.

"If Jesus Christ came to this planet as a model of how we ought to live, then our goal should be to act like Jesus," said Barna. "Sadly, few people consistently demonstrate the love, obedience and priorities of Jesus. The primary reason that people do not act like Jesus is because they do not think like Jesus. Behavior stems from what we think – our attitudes, beliefs, values and opinions. Although most people own a Bible and know some of its content, our research found that most Americans have little idea how to integrate core biblical principles to form a unified and meaningful response to the challenges and opportunities of life. We're often more concerned with survival amidst chaos than with experiencing truth and significance."

For the purposes of the research, a biblical worldview was defined as believing that absolute moral truths exist; that such truth is defined by the Bible; and firm belief in six specific religious views. Those views were that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life; God is the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe and He stills rules it today; salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned; Satan is real; a Christian has a responsibility to share their faith in Christ with other people; and the Bible is accurate in all of its teachings.

Only 7 percent of Protestants overall maintained a biblical worldview, according to the study. Of adults who attend mainline Protestant churches, only 2 percent shared those values. Among Catholics, less than one-half of 1 percent had a biblical worldview. The denominations that produced the highest proportions of adults with a biblical worldview were non-denominational Protestant churches, with 13 percent, Pentecostal churches, with 10 percent, and Baptist churches with 8 percent.

Among the most prevalent alternative worldviews was postmodernism, which seemed to be the dominant perspective among the two youngest generations.

One of the most striking insights from the research was the influence of such a way of thinking upon people's behavior. Adults with a biblical worldview possessed radically different views on morality, held divergent religious beliefs and demonstrated vastly different lifestyle choices.

People's views on morally acceptable behavior are deeply impacted by their worldview.

Upon comparing the perspectives of those who have a biblical worldview with those who do not, the former group were 31 times less likely to accept cohabitation; 18 times less likely to endorse drunkenness; 15 times less likely to condone homosexual sex; 12 times less likely to accept profanity; and 11 times less likely to describe adultery as morally acceptable.

In addition, less than one-half of one percent of those with a biblical worldview said voluntary exposure to pornography was morally acceptable (compared to 39 percent of other adults), and a similarly miniscule proportion endorsed abortion (compared to 46 percent of adults who lack a biblical worldview).

Among the more intriguing lifestyle differences were the lesser propensity for those with a biblical worldview to gamble (they were eight times less likely to buy lottery tickets and 17 times less likely to place bets); to get drunk (three times less likely); and to view pornography (two times less common). They were also twice as likely to have discussed spiritual matters with other people in the past month and twice as likely to have fasted for religious reasons during the preceding month. While one out of every eight adults who lack a biblical worldview had sexual relations with someone other than their spouse during the prior month, less than one out of every 100 individuals who have such a worldview had done so.

The Barna Research Group, Ltd. is an independent marketing research company located in Southern California. Since 1984, it has been studying cultural trends related to values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors.

[JohnHuang2]

Wednesday, December 3, 2003

Quote of the Day by WorkingClassFilth

[Texas_Jarhead]

Interesting BUMP

[RightlySo]

Here's my two cents on what the biblical world view really is...

www.restoredcog.org

It's a fascinating take on christianity devoid of the subtle paganisn accumulated throughout most churches' doctrine over millenia. And an awful lot of reading material.

[liberty or death]

Go to www.biblebelievers.com

[Jeff Chandler]

I'll go to your URL if you go to mine.

[Looking for Diogenes]

"Barna, who surveyed 2,033 adults in his study, found only 4 percent of the general population have a biblical worldview"

Total Survey= 2,033
Those with biblical worldview= 4% or 81 persons

"Less than one-half of one percent of those with a biblical worldview said voluntary exposure to pornography was morally acceptable"

.5% of 81 = .4 persons

I'm curious how they interviewed four-tenths of a person.

[dmanLA]

One question...

How can you be a CHRISTIAN without holding a biblical worldview?

A couple of things a Christian must believe in...

1) Jesus is the Son of the Living God and that no one will enter Heaven without Him.

2) The Bible is the Word of God.

If you do not hold a biblical worldview; you do not believe in the Word of God or Jesus. Therefore, you are not a Christian.

So, out of 2033 adults only 9% are Christian.

[rogator]

"I'm curious how they interviewed four-tenths of a person."

There is a lot more to being a Christian than this survey measures.

There is also more to conducting a meaningful survey.

[In_25_words_or_less]

This would explain the apparent decrease in Christian Zionism -- it appears many professing Christians don't read or believe their Bible.

[mitch5501]

Howdy.

Can't wait to see how this thread pans out!

"We're often more concerned with survival amidst chaos than with experiencing truth and significance."

Does anyone really think we have it harder than the first christians?

So many folks go to church but aren't doing what the Bible plainly says is the "work of God" (John 6:28-29)so we have tons of Marthas and too few who are doing that "...needfull thing,which shall not be taken..."

"If you do not hold a biblical worldview; you do not believe in the Word of God or Jesus. Therefore, you are not a Christian."

That's a pretty wide statement.

Some folks would have little idea exactly what the Biblical world view is when they first yield to Him who knows all men.

That's why we must follow after,apprehend,comprehend,understand,grasp,take hold on,enter in to...etc.

Having said that,I think I understand your sentiment.

God bless

Jesus is Lord

[In_25_words_or_less]

Among the most prevalent alternative worldviews was postmodernism . . .

Can anyone even define postmodernism?

[KeyWest]

2) The Bible is the Word of God.

The poll actually said that the Bible is accurate in all its teachings. If, as a part of the poll you asked if the earth was created in 6 literal days and the mind set of the pollers was creationist, any other answer would say the person did not believe in the accuracy of the Bible.

One thing I have found as a Born Again Believer, is how some want to exclude other believers if they do not believe just as they do, mostly in externals such as movies, dancing, drinking, etc.. Also in parts of the Bible where good men disagree on the actual meaning. If they do not agree, which are really saved? Or are they both? Or neither since God may have intended something entirely different.

The Bible is accurate in all its teaching. It all depends on who you are looking at as the teacher.

We are sinners and none of us is sinless. I am surprised that the poll did not mention gossip, which is a killer or reputations and much more harmful than any of the other sins mentioned.

I always look at the thief on the cross. He was up there because he did sin and said so, as we all do. All he did was believe in Christ and was saved.

[LadyDoc]

Barna assumes a very evangelical point of view, so most catholics wouldn't have HIS "biblical view".

For example, one of his criteria is "sharing" your faith. Most Catholics figure their lives show their faith, and like Peter's advice, won't go around shoving their religion on others, but merely, when asked, will calmly and clearly explain what they believe.

Similarly, although Catholics are saved by grace, they agree with James that you need to also respond to grace or "faith" is useless...so they might not agree that "salvation is a gift from God", not because we don't recognize this gift, but because it implies salvation is a free ride: i.e. I'm saved, so I can sit on my A*** and make fun of you people who do good deeds...Jesus's story of the last judgement where people who didn't feed the hungry etc. is closer to the Catholic's point of view...

as for the "bible being accurate in all its teachings"... Catholics feel the bible is accurate, but that there are several ways to interpret each area, and that when we interpret what a bible verse means, we have to see how the church has interpreted that for 2000 years. After all, the biblical canon was not settled for 300 years, and even the "old testament" canon was not codified by rabbis until 90 AD (Catholics use an older old testament canon, based on the greek translation of the early church. The Rabbis rejected some of these books in 90 AD, and Luthur revived the Rabbi's canon)...

So yup. I flunk...

[wildandcrazyrussian]

Only 7 percent of Protestants overall maintained a biblical worldview, according to the study. Of adults who attend mainline Protestant churches, only 2 percent shared those values. Among Catholics, less than one-half of 1 percent had a biblical worldview. The denominations that produced the highest proportions of adults with a biblical worldview were non-denominational Protestant churches, with 13 percent, Pentecostal churches, with 10 percent, and Baptist churches with 8 percent.
**********
I am not Roman Catholic (being Orthodox, which would probably suffer the same fate as the RCs in what must be an amazingly incompetent survey). Any one who says with a straight face that only 1/2% of Roman Catholics have a "biblical worldview" obviously constructed the purported definition to produce the desired results.

[Larry Lucido]

I'm curious how they interviewed four-tenths of a person.

Obviously he wasn't all there.

[Diverdogz]

Upon comparing the perspectives of those who have a biblical worldview with those who do not, the former group were 31 times less likely to accept cohabitation; 18 times less likely to endorse drunkenness; 15 times less likely to condone homosexual sex; 12 times less likely to accept profanity; and 11 times less likely to describe adultery as morally acceptable.

Interesting. More people with a Christian worldview disapprove of cohabitation than condemn homosexuality. I rarely hear a rant about unmarried men and women living together yet homos are widely condemned.

[RogueIsland]

salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned

Can someone explain this one to me? I'm sure there's more to it than how it sounds (it sounds like the doctrine of predestination to me, but I have a feeling that's not what is intended here).

[Ted]

I know literally hundreds of Pentecostals and Baptists here in Austin, and I assure you the vast majority of them would agree 100% with these six statements.

I can not imagine how 10% or less of these two groups did not agree with these statements in their poll. I question the validity of the poll based on this alone. I wonder where they conducted it, and how they went about it.

[RogueIsland]

Can anyone even define postmodernism

In postmodernism, a predominant concept is the distinction between destruction and creation. Therefore, an abundance of discourses concerning Derridaist reading may be found. If realism holds, we have to choose between subconceptualist libertarianism and textual theory.

"Language is dead," says Sartre. In a sense, the creation/destruction distinction which is a central theme postmodernism is also evident in neopostmodernism. Bataille's model of realism implies that academe is capable of truth.

Thus, the primary theme of Dietrich's[1] essay on subconceptualist libertarianism is the rubicon, and therefore the economy, of postmodernist class. Many discourses concerning the common ground between sexual identity and narrativity exist.

However, the subject is contextualised into a dialectic feminism that includes language as a totality. La Fournier[2] holds that we have to choose between realism and Derridaist reading. Therefore, Marx uses the term 'the subcultural paradigm of context' to denote the dialectic of dialectic society. Any number of theories concerning realism may be discovered.

It could be said that if Lacanist obscurity holds, we have to choose between realism and precapitalist narrative. In Ulysses, Joyce deconstructs subconceptualist libertarianism; in A Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man, however, he affirms dialectic feminism.

I'm sure some of you will get the joke. It's slightly edited text from the online Postmodernism Generator

[Qwinn]

"salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned"

Ah, cute how they just couldn't help themselves from blatantly introducing a contentious interpretation that simply dismisses all Catholics as non-Christian...

/Agnostic Theological Rant On

My understanding of Catholic doctrine is that while, yes, Faith is a gift from God and Faith is required for salvation (and God gives that gift freely to anyone who truly opens their heart and asks for it, which matches my reading of the Bible AND my observational experience), it -must- also be -earned- with good works. None of the self-serving Calvinist manifest destiny "I was born saved and nothing I do or don't do can dislodge me from my rightful place in heaven, and no amount of good on your part can save you" theories.

There is nothing in that Catholic perspective that contradicts the Bible from all my readings of it. In fact, that Catholic view allows far -more- citations from the Bible as evidence to support it, not less.

But the way that sentence is phrased would deter most Catholics from agreeing with that sentence. Yes, say Catholics, God's gift is required but it -can- and -must- ALSO be earned, so someone who believed that earning salvation was required would be forced to answer that they didn't believe that sentence.

Even though I am an agnostic, I find that Catholic interpretation far far more consistent with what I read in the Bible than the supposed "biblical worldview" expoused above. I don't really have a personal dog in this fight, but I find theology very interesting and I read a lot, including the Bible.

At the VERY least, Protestants should allow that it -is- subject to legitimate differences of interpretation and that it is interpreted that way by a very significant portion of the world's Christian population, and ALL of it for more than a thousand years or so after Christ's death, until challenged by anti-authoritarians (we call those "liberals" today) who felt differently.

If salvation cannot be earned, why would Jesus tell others not to sin? Why would he command good works? Doesn't this perspective of manifest destiny and salvation is purely a function of God's predetermined will actually invalidate 50% of what Jesus said as irrelevant?

Not to mention "earning it" is rather required from a rational philosophical perspective. If we're all simply already slated for salvation or damnation and nothing we do can change that, what's the point of having free will? And if free will isn't a critical part of God's plan, what else would explain God allowing so much evil on Earth?

From my agnostic perspective, the Catholic thesis in this matter holds together pretty solidly in the face of theological inquiry. I've never seen the theological contradicitons that are created by the "salvation cannot be earned" theory explained in a way I can accept as anything other than evasion or dismissal of the "God works in mysterious ways" variety. I see Protestants slam Catholics as a "Church of men, not Jesus" all the time, but that entire notion argued by Luther and John Calvin and others that pervades most Protestant religions sounds a whole lot more like man's influence to me. *shrug*

Now not all Protestants buy into the manifest destiny line, but let's face it, the "Faith alone" vs. "Faith AND Action" argument IS the single and most profound difference between Catholicism and the bulk of the Protestant religions, and cited by many Protestants long before John Calvin was born as a reason for why Catholics are "pagans".

BUT, back to the point I brought this all up. Hey, phrasing this poll in such a way as to automatically dismiss all faithful Catholics as non-Christians who don't believe in the Bible is hardly surprising. No one ever said the propaganda war by Protestants against Catholics ever ended. You gotta love the title too. "Church doesn't think like Jesus". Hmmm. "Church". I didn't know there was a single "Church" for all Protestants. The only "Church" I'm aware of that is ever consistently described as singular is the Catholic Church. Which doesn't even rate mention in this thread - apparently we're already supposed to know they are simply clueless about what the Bible says in this matter and they don't hold a biblical worldview.

Now, if I have misinterpreted -either- Catholic or most Protestant doctrines, please feel free to inform me otherwise, but the respective positions between Catholics and Protestants on this question I learned from my reading, my education, and my instruction from those who professed to belong to several of those Christian faiths, so please cite sources as well.

Also, I'd be interested to see where in the Bible Jesus says that good works are irrelevant and have no part in salvation.

/Agnostic Theological Rant Off

Qwinn

[Qwinn]

Ping to my post 20. And yes, that is entirely what it sounds like to me as well.

Qwinn

[In_25_words_or_less]

salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned

Can someone explain this one to me? I'm sure there's more to it than how it sounds (it sounds like the doctrine of predestination to me, but I have a feeling that's not what is intended here).

The Protestant evangelical position -- it is something you take, a gift. It is simply received by faith, by inviting Jesus Christ into your heart.

[In_25_words_or_less]

It's slightly edited text from the online Postmodernism Generator

And probably as good a definition of it as any. =)

[Destructor]

For most people church is nothing more than a form of entertainment.

[Romulus]

For most people church is nothing more than a form of entertainment.

Self-worship, rather.

[Romulus]

Can anyone even define postmodernism?

Unintentional irony bump.

[Romulus]

This would explain the apparent decrease in Christian Zionism

Starting with Jesus, who must be a real disappointment to you in this department.

[Gone_Postal]

Either God is real, or He is not! One of the things that has greatly troubled me recently, is the number of people who say that they believe in God, say that they are a Christian, yet have no problem supporting choices that are clearly defined in God's Word as sin. My friend, Jesus said it best when He said that "no man can serve two masters." The Christian faith is not a smorgasbord where you can pick and choose what you like. You can't claim to have faith in Christ, yet support the things that the Bible speaks against. To borrow a political term, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CHRISTIAN MODERATE . Either God is real, or He is not.

Let me first clarify what a Christian is. A Christian is a person who has made the personal choice to repent of their sins and ask Jesus into their heart by faith (John 3:16, Romans 10:10, Ephesians 2:8,9). It is your personal faith in Christ that makes you a Christian. The church you belong to cannot save you. Having a priest or pastor baptize you when you were a baby did not save you. Living a good life does not save you. The fact that your parents are Christians cannot save you. Only making the choice to repent of your sins and ask Christ into your heart makes you a Christian.

[fqued]

I am an evangelical Christian, and I believe that this "poll" says much more about the state of mind of the "pollsters" than it does about the percentage of Americans who hold a "Biblical" world-view.

But, even if this poll were correct, it completely misses the point. The distinctive divide for the Christian is the belief that Jesus Christ died for your sins and rose from the dead, and through his atonement we have peace with God. Obviously, praxis follows from belief, so such a person would then follow Jesus in his/her life.

Other polls shows that a minimum of about 40% of Americans fall into that category. And the numbers might be higher.

This poll, therefore, seems to me totally irrelevant.

[Qwinn]

"I always look at the thief on the cross. He was up there because he did sin and said so, as we all do. All he did was believe in Christ and was saved."

While I can -understand- your interpretation, I think Catholics can very legitimately disagree with it. If "all he did" was believe in Christ, he could've just sat there on his own cross believing in him but said nothing and been saved. We don't know that.

As you pointed out, the thief "did sin and said so". He did in fact confess to his sins - and let's remember what Church absolutely requires confession and which ones reject it as unnecessary. To Catholics, a sincere and truly repentant confession -does- "earn" salvation, and that is exactly what the thief did. Confession counts as a very significant "good work", though it is by no means the only one.

Again, it should at least be acknowledged that the confession angle is a perfectly legitimate interpretation, and if that is all that is used to support the "salvation cannot be earned" bit, then calling that a strict biblical interpretation is on pretty weak ground.

Qwinn

P.S. Pinging the others on this thread who mentioned Catholicism while I was writing my post 20. Since I'm not Catholic, I want to make sure I'm not misstating the Catholic position in any way.

P.P.S. I now see that the article -did- take time to mention Catholics, just long enough to dismiss them as total heretics.

P.P.P.S. wildandcrazyrussian, the Orthodox Church doesn't disagree with Catholics on things like Confession, Mary or other points of dogma, right? I've never really thought of Orthodox as non-Catholics (and to my knowledge neither does the Roman Catholic Church), in that it seems to me they still follow the essential points of dogma which is all that's considered infallible. Do Orthodox have any respect for a Pope's pronouncements on Dogma, which already has a pretty limited scope? Where I -know- they disagree are on relatively trivial things like whether or not priests can marry, which is actually simply a policy of the RCC, not dogma, and the RCC could change that policy at any time without violating infallibility. I think both policies are valid from a biblical perspective, I'm not recommending either side change it. I'm just pointing out that I think RC's and Orthodox are so similar in anything that really matters that I can't really consider it a real schism, and I've not heard that the Orthodox completely and utterly reject the Papacy, they just don't follow all of the policy decisions. In a heated exchange between Protestants and Roman Catholics, I'd expect Orthodox to side with Catholics 98% of the time, and the other 2% would be on comparatively trivial issues. Am I way off base? I admittedly don't know too much about the Orthodox faith beyond what I've heard from RC's, so I'm basically saying that most Catholics I know don't think badly at all of the Orthodox faith, I hope that feeling is mutual :)

[fqued]

salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned

Can someone explain this one to me? I'm sure there's more to it than how it sounds (it sounds like the doctrine of predestination to me, but I have a feeling that's not what is intended here).

Actually, this is a rather misleading statement.
The real point is that all people have done moral wrong (sinned, to use the good old word), and because of sin, there is a separation between man and God. There is nothing an individual can do to forgive his own sin.
What man cannot do, God did: hence the concept of the substitutionary atonement--Christ died for our sins. The issue then, is the acceptance of that forgiveness. the Apostle Paul call it being "justified by faith."

So what they really mean is that you cannot earn your way into a right relation with God, but God has provided the means of atonement, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Our response is either acceptance of that through faith, or rejection of it.

[reelfoot]

Try christiancourier.com

[wildandcrazyrussian]

I would say that your informed research is pretty close to the reality of the agreement of substantive issues. I do agree with you that in my experience most individual Roman Catholics are quite friendly in regards to the Orthodox Church on a personal level, and even on an institutional level there is a long-held acknowledgement of the "validity" (their term) of all our Sacraments.

One might say that we are (in a psychological sense) like long-lost cousins who sometimes can't quite remember why we live apart but get along great when we do meet. (One of my closest friends here is a Roman Catholic nun who heads up our right-to-life chapter.)

That is obviously over-simplifying it, but it illustrates the difference with the degree of strangeness we feel when we come across very enthusiastic evangelical Protestants who tell you right to your face that you aren't any kind of Christian at all if you don't agree with their notions. How can they tell you that you are mistaken in believing that you are what you think you are? The perfect example of his (which I have re-told many times) is the non-denominational Protestant preacher I was talking to, who told me that the Pope of Rome is NOT Christian, but that if he were one day to accept Jesus Christ as his personal Savior, he would become one right then.

I would say that the differences between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches on the institutional level are partially doctrinal and partially ecclesiological.

One some issues, we just don't accept some (what some people would take as minor) changes which took hold in Western Europe after 1054 and which never underwent the scrutiny of the unified Church in an Ecumenical Council and which we therefore hold as invalid because 1) a part cannot dictate to the whole and 2) many errors (heresies) introduced either in the East or the West in the early centuries were able to be squelched because of the unified witness. Some examples of doctrine which we don't accept are (excluding such issues as married/celibate priesthood which don't relate to doctrinal differences) decisions made by the RC's purported 8th through 20th Councils up through Vatican II (where we only recognize the first 7 up through Nicea in 787). Ironically we don't ACCEPT these decisions (but if we did we would believe in them), whereas (half-joking here) the Roman Catholics ACCEPT these deciions but only really believe them in an explained sense (like Papal infallibility). "Well we don't MEAN that ... but ..."

Ecclesiologically, we just simply reject the conccept that one man in Rome should be the spiritual head of all Christians. We would welcome a move toward a true recognition of the true historical limits of the Pope of Rome (not to be confused with the Pope of Alexandria, the honorific title awarded to the Patriarch of that city when it was the largest city in the Roman Empire).

In some sens our worldviews are different based on different histories. I would say the RC Church is afflicted with triumphalism and sees us as nice people who need their guidance. One reason is that the RC Church has never really been faced with a mortal threat and can even envision being in control of their own world.

By contrast, the Orthodox Church has been faced with the very real threat of annihilation for almost 2,000 years and sees the world as but a temporary venue of spritual struggle, striving to be faithful to the Gospel. From the persecutions of the Roman Empire which of course tried to annihilate the early Christians, through the invasions of the Muslims (who destroyed Orthodox, Nestorian, and Monoophysite Christianity in much of the Middle East, northern Africa, and great stretches of Asia), and recently from the 100,000,000 we lost this past century as victims of Communism, Nazism, and Islam. Hence there is a more fundamenta reliance on the very truth of the Gospel, and why if we believe something it is very literally believed as though it were a life or death issue.

[Havoc]

Actually they pretty much hit the core requirements which is rather shocking. There is nothing more important to being a Christian than actually meeting the qualifying attributes. If you can't do that, the rest is side show feel-goodism and pretense.

Tell me, If you claim to be a Marine; but, don't know the motto (adapt and overcome), don't know the code, don't have a uniform, Don't train, don't recruite, lead or fight. If you don't answer to the military or do any of the things a Marine does, then by what measure are you any thing but a liar? You can be arrested for impersonating an officer of the law, for impersonating a soldier - but, in spiritual matters where things are higher stakes.. idiots will still call you what it is obvious you are not either from ignorance, laziness, or an agenda. What a world.

[Havoc]

likelyhood is they didn't. It's just the odd way the math breaks down.

[Havoc]

That has been the case for a long time. And it's amazingly in line with the Bible. 'Narrow is the gate and few that enter therein' - There are far more people in the world playing at christianity and saying they are Christian than actually are. Most haven't the first clue what the scriptural definition of a Christian is, much less follow Christ..

[Havoc]

obviously constructed the purported definition to produce the desired results.

Why is that? If you go look at the long known numbers from numerous polls, it's no secret that Catholics rarely if ever touch a Bible - much less read it. And Piety doesn't make you christian. If you can't meet the minimum requirements to being a Christian, nothing else you do much matters. And this poll hits the core issues. So one wonders why it must be "Tainted" just because it portrays things in a way that presumeably embarrasses you.

[Havoc]

You're missing the point. Who cares what Romanists or Catholics say? What scripture says is the central point.
Catholics have defined their own system that looks nothing like what we see in the scriptures unless you ignore 3/4 of it and digest it down to a few verses taken out of context.
Protestants do the same things as do Mormons, et al. All of them have philosophies (religions) that they've created from logical constructs and sheep dipped in images of Christianity for their own ends. It doesn't make any of them Christian. Christ defined what a christian is as did Paul and the other apostles. John 10, Romans 8 and Mark 16 are pretty darned clear on defining it. When the others find they don't live up to those definitions, they won't address them, run from them and create their own definitions, creeds and whatever else they deem necessary to make people think they know something. It would be far easier for all the trouble just to be a Christian rather than putting on the pretense. But in the doing, they no longer get to disavow things they don't want to follow. Like say, Idolatry for Catholics, the Holy Spirit for many protestant groups who say he was only for the apostles... etc. It's all games to some people. Others are just decieved by it.
</p>

[stainlessbanner]

placeholder

[Campion]

The Protestant evangelical position -- it is something you take, a gift.

The position that salvation is a sovereign gift of God and cannot be earned is orthodox Christianity. The contrary position is the heresy of Pelagianism, which was refuted decisively by St. Augustine 1500 years ago. No major Christian denomination is officially Pelagian today. (Whether some Christians are materially Pelagian in their understanding of their faith is a different question, of course.)

It is simply received by faith, by inviting Jesus Christ into your heart.

That is a distinctively evangelical Protestant position.

[Campion]

If you go look at the long known numbers from numerous polls, it's no secret that Catholics rarely if ever touch a Bible - much less read it.

Catholics who practice their faith hear more of the Bible every week at Mass than 90% of Protestants read in a month.

[Qwinn]

"If you go look at the long known numbers from numerous polls, it's no secret that Catholics rarely if ever touch a Bible - much less read it."

Hahahah. Right. Well, I know about 50 Catholics personally who read it all the time, just in my town. By these people's numbers, that means there are 10,000 Catholics nearby who never read the Bible. This in New Jersey, one of the most liberal and Catholic-In-Name-Only states I know of.

No Catholic would deny that there's a hell of a lot of CINO's out there. I have absolutely no problem with the contention that people -can- claim a title they have no right to. This is one of the few things I disagreed with in your post, w&crussian - I think "Catholics for a Free Choice" has no right to call themselves that, no matter -what- they think they are - but these Protestant bigots take it to absurd extremes and spread active religious bigotry to the entire faith.

Havoc, I notice you don't substantiate the "biblical worldview" argument that salvation -cannot- in any way be earned - you just resort to the overwhelmingly bigoted premise that has absolutely no doubt that 99.5% of Catholics never pick up a Bible. Using that percentage, there are probably enough Bible-reading Polish and Italian Catholics in Trenton, New Jersey alone to mean that not one Catholic outside this city among the other 8 million residents of New Jersey ever reads the Bible.

Let's not actually dwell on the fact that the way that poll question was phrased -automatically- disqualifies any faithful Catholic from being considered having a "biblical worldview". That's just petty details. Everyone knows all Catholics are heretics and pagans.

Tell it to the Episcopaleans, whydon'tcha.

Let's not forget that practicing Catholics receive a solid dose of three substantial Bible readings every time they go to Church, along with a very long homily of interpretation and teaching about their meaning. Oh, wait, I forgot, that doesn't count, Catholic priests don't know anything and certainly can't teach anything but lies, it's all up to the -individual- to read the Bible and -personally- decide what is Right and Wrong. If that argument sounded any more liberal you'd probably get zotted.

I can agree that many people who claim a religion are complete WINO's (Whatever In Name Only). But to state that "most polls show" that 99.5% of Catholics never pick up a Bible, and to dismiss any substantive criticism of this poll as silly because "everyone knows" Catholics are practically atheist is so absurd that it really takes a mind-boggling level of Protestant bigotry and wholesale swallowing of anti-Catholic propaganda (that they happily cooperate with Communists in propagating) that it frankly nauseates me, and it doesn't even apply to me.

Qwinn

[Qwinn]

Campion,

I'm interested in that post. You seem as a Catholic to be arguing that no one has believed that salvation is in any part earned. As I asked earlier, I would be happy to be corrected if I have misstated the Catholic position. My own education in it when I was young certainly made many demands of Catholics. If you can't be saved without going to confession or feeding the poor, etc., how can it be said that one did not earn it?

Now, if what you are rejecting is the notion that Catholics believe one can earn salvation SOLELY through good works without faith, I agree with you. Yes, faith is a gift from God and faith is required for salvation - that is indeed Christian orthodoxy. But there IS an earned component to salvation in addition to faith, by every priest and Catholic I have spoken to. Are we on the same page? I do realize that these points get so theologically fine that it can be difficult to accurately describe what we mean with language.

wildandcrazyrussian,

Forgot to mention - Thank you. I really enjoyed your long post on the Orthodox faith, and do intend to reply to it at length, you said some interesting things. The "examples" you gave of differences you alluded to only as the declarations of the 8th thru 20th Councils... which off the top of my head don't tell me a whole lot, so I'll have to research. If you could throw me a bone while I'm looking and give me a couple of the more substantial agreements so I have something specific to look up arguments pro and con on, I'd be very interested :)

As I said before, my only major point of disagreement with you is the notion that people can adopt whatever label they want without consequences. I do think there are "entrance requirements" to being able to adopt certain labels. Within REASON. What really irritates me is people who define them so utterly and ridiculously narrowly and then apply it to the word "Christian", the broadest term possible to describe several dozen substantively different faiths. I loved your example - LOL - the Pope doesn't accept Jesus as his personal savior. Ooooookie dokie.

Qwinn

[John O]

Similarly, although Catholics are saved by grace, they agree with James that you need to also respond to grace or "faith" is useless...so they might not agree that "salvation is a gift from God", not because we don't recognize this gift, but because it implies salvation is a free ride:

I think it's more that Catholics are not (unless things have radically changed in the last 20 years or so) taught salvation as such. IN all my years of private Catholic school, catechism classes, CCD classes and years of attending mass, the first time I heard the word "salvation" said with any meaning was at a liberated baptist church.

Now I've known a lot of Catholics and like any other denomination, some of them were Christian and some of them were not. Kennedy (pick one) is highly likely not a Christian. Any one who advocates abortion (pro-choice) is not a Christian. How can you follow Christ yet ignore what He says?

One the other hand others I know have a deep abiding love for the Lord and seek to follow his commands. They are Christian.

[aruanan]

Church doesn't think like Jesus: Survey shows only 9% of Christians have biblical worldview

Not surprising, considering that most have the view of Christianity described in the first part of the following:

Christianity isn't a religion about going to Sunday school, potluck suppers, being nice, holding car washes, sending our secondhand clothes to Mexico--as good as those things might be. This is a world at war. Something large and immensely dangerous is unfolding all around us, we are caught up in it, and above all we doubt we have been given a key role to play.
--Waking the Dead, John Eldredge, p. 30.

[Protagoras]

A couple of things a Christian must believe in...

Well that's the definative word......according to dmanLA.

[Protagoras]

All he did was believe in Christ and was saved.

Bingo

[Barnacle]

A cartoon appeared in the New Yorker many years ago. A cigar chomping exec is handing a paper to an employee saying, “This is the gist of what I want to say. Find me statistics to back it up.”

Along that line, this article could have more honestly been titled, “Less Than One-Half of 1 Percent of Catholics Have a Biblical Worldview.”

How could such an outrageous conclusion be drawn from an objective survey? After all, “The Barna Research Group, Ltd. is an independent marketing research company…” Independent perhaps, but un-biased? I think not. Take a look at their web site and consider the source.

To achieve their statistical goal, the “highly esteemed” Barna Research Group, Ltd. included a question to ensure that Catholics were lumped in with the Heathens - “salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned.”

Barna Research Group, Ltd. is no doubt aware that this point is a primary distinction between Catholics and Protestants. That is because, while Catholics acknowledge that salvation is a gift, we also acknowledge the following passages from James:

James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Less than one-half of 1 percent of Catholics have a biblical worldview? Mark Twain might say, “There are lies, damned lies and statistics.”

(If you want on or off my Catholic Ping List, please send a Freepmail.)

[John O]

salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned

Can someone explain this one to me? I'm sure there's more to it than how it sounds (it sounds like the doctrine of predestination to me, but I have a feeling that's not what is intended here).

Easy to explain but takes some words.

to start all men are sinners, we all fall short of perfection. God is a perfect God and only perfection can be in His Presence. (Romans 3:23) In the Garden Adam was created as perfect, he knew no sin. Thus he could be in God's presence. He was designed to live forever and to be God's child. Then he sinned against God by disobeying Him. He was sentenced to death (both in the flesh and in eternal separation from God)

This was not acceptable to God but by His own nature He could not break the rules in the midst of the game. He had to find some way to restore mankind to Himself.

He implemented the law of sacrifice (resulting in the mosaic law). Something still has to die for sin but it can be a sacrifice. That is, you could kill a lamb in your place. The problem with this is that every lamb is imperfect so no lamb could permanently keep you free from the eternal consequences of your sin.

The only way for God to permanently restore mankind to Himself was to sacrifice a perfect sacrifice. God the Father gave His Son Jesus Christ as that perfect sacrifice. Jesus came to earth, lived a perfect life and laid down His life to pay for our sin.

So far what have we done to earn this? Nothing.

So now Christ has been sacrificed for our sin, has rose again and sits at the right hand of God. How does this profit us?

God is always a gentleman. He will not force himself on us, He will not force us to spend eternity with Him. So He gives us the choice, accept His Son's sacrifice as payment for our sins or reject it. (This is why salvation is not predestination. The word says that God is not willing that any should perish and yet we know that some do.)

We choose to accept the free gift of eternal life (salvation, restoration to God). To do this we admit that we need it (romans 3:23), because no man takes a gift he doesn't want.

Then we need to repent of our sins (Luke 13:5). Repent means to turn away from. In order to turn toward God we must turn away from what keep us away from God.

Then we must believe that Jesus is the son of God and that He died for our sins and rose again. (Rom 10:9) After all, if Jesus was just some carpenter then why trust Him at all. If He wasn't a perfect sacrifice then it does no good to accept His payment because we'll still have to pay again.

Then we must ASK God to save us. (Rom 10:13). God is not going to do to you something that you don't want. He doesn't want slaves He wants children.

Then we need to make Jesus Lord of our life (Rom 12:1-2). If we are going to follow Him we had better follow Him.

So far all that we've done is exercised our faith to believe. We've done no good works, we've not lifted a finger. God has done all the work. In fact God supplies the faith by which we believe in the first place.

Now good works will follow our salvation, as they must if Christ truly is Lord of our life. But good works do not earn our salvation (Eph 2:8-9)

If works were required for salvation then Jesus lied when He told the thief on the cross that he would be with Jesus in paradise this day. The thief had no time to do good works. He only had time to believe.

(please forgive the shortness of this. I can flesh it out later if that would be helpful)

[sinkspur]

The term "born again" is associated with evangelicals, in the minds of most Catholics. That's why most Catholics say they aren't "born again." It's a Protestant term.

This is a phony survey, intended to make every Christian look bad.