Why Do People Lose Their Religion?

[Selene]

What does 'some churches don't teach the Bible' really mean? I see this phrase thrown around a lot, but I have never been to a church that falls into this category - at least, the minister usually ties it to scripture - even Unity churches do, despite the fact that they are not Christian.

I agree. Even Joel Olsteen who lacks a background in Theology quotes a lot of scripture. Perhaps, the problem is people not listening in Church.

 

[Dodo_David]

What does 'some churches don't teach the Bible' really mean? I see this phrase thrown around a lot, but I have never been to a church that falls into this category - at least, the minister usually ties it to scripture - even Unity churches do, despite the fact that they are not Christian.

What the expression means is that the person using the expression doesn't agree with what some churches teach. The expression is purely subjective.

 

[BLACK SHEEP]

What does 'some churches don't teach the Bible' really mean? I see this phrase thrown around a lot, but I have never been to a church that falls into this category - at least, the minister usually ties it to scripture - even Unity churches do, despite the fact that they are not Christian.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You have a bad attitude about ecumenism because that's what your Protestant mentors have brainwashed you to believe. I go to several different Churches but I will never call myself a Protestant and your reply is one reason for it.

Christ and several others taught and prayed for unity, But you Protestant's, esp. the Fundamentalist Baptist, have badmouthed unity so much that you've all been deceived!

Matthew 24:12
And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.
I'm seeing it everywhere in people I talk to. If anyone is over 40 years old, they'll talk about how they were "raised Christian" but have grown past it and adopted a philosophy that allows them to look down at the whole faith thing with disinterest. When they were twenty something, they were in the streets handing out pamphlets, on a mission in a foreign country, reading their Bible daily and fellowshipping several times a week.
But what causes people to become embittered and jaded over time, losing the zeal that once put a fire in their belly?
Taking myself for instance, I believe just as strongly as before, maybe even more so today. My roots have grown deep and nothing can dislodge me from my sure belief in Christ and his holy Church. But I don't pray as much, read the Bible as much, volunteer at missions, and work actively to lead people to Christ. I've somewhat cooled as well, not to the degree that I've stopped trying, like the people I'm talking about, but to a degree that I can sympathize with those who experience a little slack in their sails as they grow older.
But why and does it have to be so?

I'm really surprised how easily people take scripture out of context. I didn't read all the replies on this thread but I have to wonder if anybody caught that. The topic is a good one but the verse is completely mis-applied.
Lawlessness is a simple thing to understand. In nearly every context that the word is used in it never refers to Christian's or their walk with Christ. Lawlessness isn't being lukewarm or even one who is backslidden. Lawlessness is an atribute of the wicked!
Lawlessness is...
1) the condition of without law
a) because ignorant of it
because of violating it
2)
Iniquity:

This is what Vines say's...
lit., "lawlessness" (a, negative, nomos, "law"), is used in a way which indicates the meaning as being lawlessness or wickedness. Its usual rendering in the NT is "iniquity," which lit. means unrighteousness. It occurs very frequently in the Sept., especially in the Psalms, where it is found about 70 times. It is used

(a) of iniquity in general, Mat 7:23; 13:41; 23:28; 24:12; Rom 6:19 (twice); 2Cr 6:14, RV, "iniquity" (AV, "unrighteousness"); 2Th 2:3, in some mss.; the AV and RV follow those which have hamartia, "(man of) sin;" 2Th 2:7, RV, "lawlessness" (AV, "iniquity"); Tts 2:14; Hbr 1:9; 1Jo 3:4 (twice), RV, "(doeth) . . . lawlessness" and "lawlessness" (AV, "transgresseth the law" and "trangression of the law");
(in the plural, of acts or manifestations of lawlessness, Rom 4:7; Hbr 10:17 (some inferior mss. have it in Hbr 8:12, for the word hamartia).
See LAWLESSNESS, TRANSGRESSION, UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Arab's and Muslim's, whether in the Mid-East or in Africa, are the most lawless people in the world. Mathew 24:12 has absolutely nothing to do with Christian's. It often does have something to do with the most lawless and prophesied evil religion of the last day's.......ISLAM!

 

[aspen]

I am not Protestant, BS.

I am Catholic and I am a fan of ecumenical efforts.

Ok. You got two things completely wrong about me - sure it is not you who has no idea what you are talking about?

 

[BLACK SHEEP]

I am not Protestant, BS.

I am Catholic and I am a fan of ecumenical efforts.

Ok. You got two things completely wrong about me - sure it is not you who has no idea what you are talking about?

Well then how do you expect me to take this comment?

...even Unity churches do, despite the fact that they are not Christian.

Maybe you should be more clear and maybe I should have quoted another anti-ecumenical member!
What is a Unity Church? Is it another 'denomination'?
And I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Glad to hear you're a Catholic.

Again I do apologize and see now that the capital U must mean it's some denomination.
I did see an anti-ecumenical comment somewhere and shouldn't get so teed off about it. If you knew my background you'd understand why I struggle with anti-ecumenism and anti-Catholicism!

I've never been mean to anyone at any church. But I sure had to deal with a lot of prejudice. Sorry I made a mistake.


I've had some really bad experiences in Church. Or more with pastors.

 

[aspen]

i understand. we have talked before under your current name kaotic profit - have a goodnight

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

What does 'some churches don't teach the Bible' really mean? I see this phrase thrown around a lot, but I have never been to a church that falls into this category - at least, the minister usually ties it to scripture - even Unity churches do, despite the fact that they are not Christian.

Though I was raised with both Catholic and Protestant influences in my life, (mixed family) what swung me over permanently to the Catholic side was the question, "Where is your authority?" And in fact, many Protestants who become Catholic have wrestled with this very question. Very simplistically, it's posited that the Catholic's authority is the Church and the Protestant's authority is the Bible, but even that isn't accurate because Protestants interpret the Bible however they want and so, ultimately they are an authority unto themselves because they answer to no higher authority than their interpretation of scripture. Protestants who come to understand that there really is no authority in Protestantism eventually become Catholic, especially because the Bible repeatedly points beyond itself to the true source of authority on issues of faith, doctrine, and morals, and that is the universal Church.

So "teaching the Bible" is a Protestant catch phrase for "teaching what I believe". It gives assent to the Bible, but ultimately finds purchase in an interpretation of the Bible that suits them best.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You have a bad attitude about ecumenism because that's what your Protestant mentors have brainwashed you to believe. I go to several different Churches but I will never call myself a Protestant and your reply is one reason for it.

Christ and several others taught and prayed for unity, But you Protestant's, esp. the Fundamentalist Baptist, have badmouthed unity so much that you've all been deceived!


I'm really surprised how easily people take scripture out of context. I didn't read all the replies on this thread but I have to wonder if anybody caught that. The topic is a good one but the verse is completely mis-applied.
Lawlessness is a simple thing to understand. In nearly every context that the word is used in it never refers to Christian's or their walk with Christ. Lawlessness isn't being lukewarm or even one who is backslidden. Lawlessness is an atribute of the wicked!
Lawlessness is...
1) the condition of without law
a) because ignorant of it
because of violating it
2)
Iniquity:

This is what Vines say's...
lit., "lawlessness" (a, negative, nomos, "law"), is used in a way which indicates the meaning as being lawlessness or wickedness. Its usual rendering in the NT is "iniquity," which lit. means unrighteousness. It occurs very frequently in the Sept., especially in the Psalms, where it is found about 70 times. It is used

(a) of iniquity in general, Mat 7:23; 13:41; 23:28; 24:12; Rom 6:19 (twice); 2Cr 6:14, RV, "iniquity" (AV, "unrighteousness"); 2Th 2:3, in some mss.; the AV and RV follow those which have hamartia, "(man of) sin;" 2Th 2:7, RV, "lawlessness" (AV, "iniquity"); Tts 2:14; Hbr 1:9; 1Jo 3:4 (twice), RV, "(doeth) . . . lawlessness" and "lawlessness" (AV, "transgresseth the law" and "trangression of the law");
(in the plural, of acts or manifestations of lawlessness, Rom 4:7; Hbr 10:17 (some inferior mss. have it in Hbr 8:12, for the word hamartia).
See LAWLESSNESS, TRANSGRESSION, UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Arab's and Muslim's, whether in the Mid-East or in Africa, are the most lawless people in the world. Mathew 24:12 has absolutely nothing to do with Christian's. It often does have something to do with the most lawless and prophesied evil religion of the last day's.......ISLAM!

I think you seized upon this too quickly as being something it's not. A culture of lawlessness produces lukewarm faith because it accommodates the ambient influences around it. Lot and Lot's family illustrate this concept living in the city of Sodom to the point that Lot was even willing to offer his daughters in sexual supplication to the mob laying siege to his house, because in that culture, women were property and used as currency. The verse I used doesn't attribute lawlessness to Christians, as you claim, but actually separates the "many" from the "lawless", the many being affected by the lawless, but not being the lawless.

Being unchurched has become all too common today. I remember reading in To Kill A Mockingbird where the Radly family had to explain the fact that they didn't go to church by saying they worship privately in their own home, which was a lie. It used to be the American culture that all businesses shut down and the streets were quiet while everyone was in church on Sunday. Now, during church hours, the shopping malls are packed with shoppers. People no longer have to explain why they aren't going to church because most people don't go to church. The change in culture is what I'm alluding to, the fact that people live without God's law and it affects even those who should know better, those who "have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come." (Heb 6:4,5) How is it that those who once were acquainted with the exceedingly wonderful truth of the gospel fall away and are saturated by a reprobate culture hostile to that truth? They are surrounded by lawlessness and they allowed their love to grow cold.

 

[Dan57]

I agree. Even Joel Olsteen who lacks a background in Theology quotes a lot of scripture. Perhaps, the problem is people not listening in Church.

I would personally categorize Joel Osteen as a motivational speaker. He may refer to a bible verse in each lecture, but his objective is geared towards inspiring the crowd, and not teaching the bible. JMO

 

[HammerStone]

So "teaching the Bible" is a Protestant catch phrase for "teaching what I believe". It gives assent to the Bible, but ultimately finds purchase in an interpretation of the Bible that suits them best.

Yes, but while we are looking at this epistemologically, doesn't a Catholic do the same when he or she follows the belief of the church? It may be a little less flexible (in theory, because in praxis you have the dissent in the church, the glaring example being many prominent US politicians) later, but essentially a decision is made that the church has the authority in the first place.

I say this as one sympathetic to the magesterial argument - Protestants have a magesterium it just depends upon what brand to discern the authority.

What does 'some churches don't teach the Bible' really mean? I see this phrase thrown around a lot, but I have never been to a church that falls into this category - at least, the minister usually ties it to scripture - even Unity churches do, despite the fact that they are not Christian.

Well, you know what it means - it means that the church is not teaching doctrine consistent with the Bible. It's just that part about who's consistent with the Bible in the very first place that becomes the problem. One can teach the Bible without teaching the Bible, as in you teach it as a grand mythic morality-tale or a critiqued historical narrative. The statement would need to be qualified.

 

[Comm.Arnold]

I think it's one of those you don't know what you got til it's gone things.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Yes, but while we are looking at this epistemologically, doesn't a Catholic do the same when he or she follows the belief of the church? It may be a little less flexible (in theory, because in praxis you have the dissent in the church, the glaring example being many prominent US politicians) later, but essentially a decision is made that the church has the authority in the first place.


Although there are debates in the Church, we don't get in a huff and start our own denomination when we disagree. But more to the point, there is a centrality of authority in the Catholic Church that we all submit to regardless of our private disagreements. This distinguishes us from denominational Christianity, that we are under authority.


I say this as one sympathetic to the magesterial argument - Protestants have a magesterium it just depends upon what brand to discern the authority.

Protestants certainly have a holy See, which is the See of Canterbury. I cite often how all Protestant opposition to the use of contraceptives fell away after the Anglican Lambeth conference of 1930. Even unwittingly, Protestant denominations follow the decisions of a single leader. But there is no recognized structure of authority to resolve doctrinal disputes, so Protestants act as having no authority.


Well, you know what it means - it means that the church is not teaching doctrine consistent with the Bible. It's just that part about who's consistent with the Bible in the very first place that becomes the problem. One can teach the Bible without teaching the Bible, as in you teach it as a grand mythic morality-tale or a critiqued historical narrative. The statement would need to be qualified.

All you're doing is proving my point, that you call "the Bible" what is merely your favored interpretation of the Bible. So anyone who disagrees with you, conveniently enough, is not "teaching the Bible". What's ironic is that you have no more authority to assert your interpretation as the correct one than those who disagree with you because denominational Christianity is, in the end, rooted in doctrinal anarchy.

 

[aspen]

H: Well, you know what it means - it means that the church is not teaching doctrine consistent with the Bible. It's just that part about who's consistent with the Bible in the very first place that becomes the problem. One can teach the Bible without teaching the Bible, as in you teach it as a grand mythic morality-tale or a critiqued historical narrative. The statement would need to be qualified.


A: No....I really don't know what it means. I think the term is meaningless because it is completely subject. And btw, I do not teach on this message board - I merely share my opinion. I also view the Bible as inspired and the message of the Bible as infaliable. Just because I am not a literalist does not mean that I dismiss the Bible as fantasy.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

H: Well, you know what it means - it means that the church is not teaching doctrine consistent with the Bible. It's just that part about who's consistent with the Bible in the very first place that becomes the problem. One can teach the Bible without teaching the Bible, as in you teach it as a grand mythic morality-tale or a critiqued historical narrative. The statement would need to be qualified.


A: No....I really don't know what it means. I think the term is meaningless because it is completely subject. And btw, I do not teach on this message board - I merely share my opinion. I also view the Bible as inspired and the message of the Bible as infaliable. Just because I am not a literalist does not mean that I dismiss the Bible as fantasy.

^^^^ This.

 

[Selene]

I would personally categorize Joel Osteen as a motivational speaker. He may refer to a bible verse in each lecture, but his objective is geared towards inspiring the crowd, and not teaching the bible. JMO

Actually, he does teach the Bible. He speaks more about the positive aspects. He focuses more on God's love and mercy. When one focus on preaching God's love and mercy, that is teaching the Bible. On the other hand, Joel, stays away from the negative aspects. I don't hear him say anything about sin and poverty.

 

[HammerStone]

Although there are debates in the Church, we don't get in a huff and start our own denomination when we disagree. But more to the point, there is a centrality of authority in the Catholic Church that we all submit to regardless of our private disagreements. This distinguishes us from denominational Christianity, that we are under authority.

Reminds me of the shipwrecked Baptist joke - the rescue party finds him alone on an island but there are two Baptist churches - the one he started and the one that split off from it. Unfortunately, that criticism is all too valid and is definitely an issue among a number of Protestants. I think at some point you will see reversal and consolidation as you won't see future arguments over what type of bread to use in the church.

However, Catholicism masks this tendency to split. The result may not be a new Catholic denomination per say, but you end up with many members who essentially have very little to almost no agreement with the church who are members. We've got several of those on the boards here, even. In theory you Romans are quite orthodox, but in reality grab 20 Roman Catholics off the street, chat 1 on 1, and the views are quite heterodox.

I do not mean to be disrespectful, but it's a bit of semantics.

Protestants certainly have a holy See, which is the See of Canterbury. I cite often how all Protestant opposition to the use of contraceptives fell away after the Anglican Lambeth conference of 1930. Even unwittingly, Protestant denominations follow the decisions of a single leader. But there is no recognized structure of authority to resolve doctrinal disputes, so Protestants act as having no authority.

Not exactly true of the more traditional flavors.

The difference is we do not subsume this under the authority of a single man.

All you're doing is proving my point, that you call "the Bible" what is merely your favored interpretation of the Bible. So anyone who disagrees with you, conveniently enough, is not "teaching the Bible". What's ironic is that you have no more authority to assert your interpretation as the correct one than those who disagree with you because denominational Christianity is, in the end, rooted in doctrinal anarchy.

Protestants read the Bible sacramentally. That's the best way I can convey it to you.

And no, it's not anyone who disagrees with me - speaking only for myself. If someone teaches that the Bible - say Ezekiel 1 is really about little green men, I can draw on the authority of the Bible itself to call a spade a spade. I can supplement this understanding with the teachings of my church (SBC), Baptist heritage in general, and then the authority of the church teachings through the ages. The difference is I don't need a pope to declare it, nor do I place that tradition as coequal or perhaps even above the authority of the Bible.

If someone teaches paedobaptism versus credobaptism, for example, I don't view that as not of the Bible. The amount of water used is not something that explicitly comes out in the Bible, nor does tradition speak with a unified authoritative voice on the matter.

No....I really don't know what it means. I think the term is meaningless because it is completely subject. And btw, I do not teach on this message board - I merely share my opinion. I also view the Bible as inspired and the message of the Bible as infaliable. Just because I am not a literalist does not mean that I dismiss the Bible as fantasy.

Aspen, I think you think I am often a snarky conservative. Hey that's okay, but I do understand where you are coming from. In praxis, it's not completely subjective because it is some degree influenced by the church and most definitely influenced by God himself. As I said, Protestants read the Bible sacramentally. I will fall back on this every time because I don't think Roman Catholics read the Bible sacramentally because of our differing authority structures. However, because there are certain sects that currently exist do not mean that a Romanist can use those to paint a broadly-brushed fallacy.

However, just like your statement about inspired and infallibility, those statements must be qualified. You read the Bible as both, but you read the Bible in a distinct way from the traditional use of the words infallible and inspired. Your version of the two contains a large portion of inspired myth and infallible myths. I am not making commentary here on whether that's right or wrong, but I am making commentary on the Roman semantics at play here.

In fact, what you are stating would not in itself hold with the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church. You just didn't go out and start your own denomination about it.

 

[AndyBern]

As mentioned earlier, 'teaching the BIble' is very subjective. Satan quoted scripture when Jesus was being tempted in the wilderness, so even Satan can teach the Bible. But the question is, what is being taught? Is it accurate? Is it the whole truth? Is it what God wants you to know right now? Or is it just 'tickling the ears'?

 

[Dan57]

‘With or without religion, good people will do good, and evil people will do evil, but for good people to do evil, that takes religion’ (Steven Weinberg)

 

[aspen]

Well Hammerstone,

I am surprised to learn what you believe about how I view you. In reality, I have always enjoyed our conversations and never thought you were heavy handed or judgmental or snarky. As far as my beliefs being in line with Catholicism, (1) I believe what is written in the catechism (2) where my beliefs may differ with the leadership of the church, it is often in areas of scripture that are left undefined (3) I do not ask my church to conform to my opinions about scripture or politics and I do not think so highly of my opinions to go out and start a new church. As I have always said in the past and still believe today, where the church and I disagree, I consider myself to be wrong - I am not afraid to be wrong and I am not going to pretend to not have a different opinion just to tow the party line. To me it would be dishonest.

I am in agreement with vale of tears, as far as the doctrine of the RCC. We disagree vehemently about politics and less so about how doctrine should be expressed in our daily lives. IMO, our disagreements should never divide us.

I lean towards an academic view of scripture, meaning that I am not willing to deny the human element. All scripture is inspired and supposed to be in the Bible, but it is written from a human perspective. God did this for a reason. IMO, this takes nothing away from God's Word, in fact, it makes it richer and more relatable.

Not sure what else I can say, I like to think about scripture and extrapolate - I do not think God is going to send me to Hell for loving His Word, even if I may be wrong about parts of it.

 

[Selene]

Aspen, I think you think I am often a snarky conservative. Hey that's okay, but I do understand where you are coming from. In praxis, it's not completely subjective because it is some degree influenced by the church and most definitely influenced by God himself. As I said, Protestants read the Bible sacramentally. I will fall back on this every time because I don't think Roman Catholics read the Bible sacramentally because of our differing authority structures. However, because there are certain sects that currently exist do not mean that a Romanist can use those to paint a broadly-brushed fallacy.

I am not certain what you mean by reading the Bible sacramentally, but am I correct in assuming that those who read it sacramentally are those who read it often? One of the things I admire most about Protestants is that they often read the Bible. Most Catholics do not......and I think that's sad. A Catholic should read the Bible everyday and not just listen to the scriptures in Church.

 

[HammerStone]

Well aspen, I think we have the let that discussion be because I still think Catholicism operates with a large umbrella not all that different than Protestantism. I just see the semantics being a little more well done to make it seem that everyone is towing the proper line.

Selene, reading the Bible sacramentally means that we read the Bible with God's active participation just as the other sacraments are done. It would be akin to your practice, Lectio Divina. Most Protestants are not just looking for the head knowledge of facts and figures, but believe that the Holy Spirit is illuminating the reading of Scripture. It links up with the idea of the perspicuity of Holy Scripture, but it goes a step further in saying that the Spirit is at work in our hearts through the reading.