Why did Jesus allow demons to enter a herd of pigs?

theological

If we have "different ideas" to the point that it radically changes who God is and what He is like that means they follow a different god.

Rejecting the divine Son of God is a radical departure to who God is and how He reveals Himself to us in His Word. Both in the Scriptures and in Jesus Christ the Word made flesh.

If you could engage with my reply to you I think we could get more in detail about what that means.

realdanbreen

santana75 wrote: »

Hebrews 4 -12

For the word of God is alive and powerful. It is sharper than the sharpest two-edged sword, cutting between soul and spirit, between joint and marrow. It exposes our innermost thoughts and desires

The word of God is alive and powerful. This is the point, more than anything else. If you want to investigate whats in the Bible you have to read it for yourself, first hand. Study it and be open to its message otherwise you wont have a clue what its all about. To me and others who accept God's word, its all "Plain English" but to anyone whos not open to the word of God and is more interested in arguments, then they wont have a barneys what any of it means. Jesus said that he was thankful to God for hiding the meaning of these things from people who consider themselves "Intelligent" and for revealing his message to the childlike.

But it's not working is it Santana?
You can talk about the bible and 'joint and marrow' and two edge swords till the cows come home and meanwhile young people are not engaging in any of this because those who are supposed to be leaders and whose job it is to spread the word of god will not engage with them and answer their questions.
It's actually scarey that you don't appear to either understand or accept that there is a problem .

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

. . . As for the disciples increasing in understanding I would happily admit that the disciples came to faith through the course of their time with Jesus. That however doesn't change who God is. God's identity is "wholly unaffected" by our understanding.

Here's the crux of the issue. Jews post-Christ, and Muslims do not worship the God who has revealed Himself to us in this way in Christ. That's precisely why I'm saying I don't believe that Jewish people who reject Jesus as the Christ, and Muslims who deny what He has said about Himself worship the same God as I do.

The Son of God is an essential part of who God is in His triune nature. It isn't a small or an insignificant matter, and I think the Scriptures are pretty clear on that.

Sure. But God was always Triune, and this was never a small or insignificant matter. This was just as true in Abraham’s time as it is now.

I think the question comes down to this: Is it possible to worship the God who reveals himself in Christ without appreciating that he has, in fact, revealed himself in Christ? It is possible to worship the Triune God without appreciating that he is, in fact, Triune?

On a simple level, the answer has to be “yes”, if only because, we agree, before Christ the Jews did worship that God. They didn’t, of course, understand or appreciate the Trinity or the Incarnation - how could they?

And we can also consider the position of a Jew at or shortly after the time of Christ, who hasn’t himself encountered Christ, or been evangelised by Christians. The Incarnation, at this point, has happened, but he has never heard of it; completely unaware. Can we say that, merely because the event has now happened, he is no longer worshipping the true God? Again, the answer must be “no”. We cannot say that.

Right. We come now to the case of the Jew who has heard of claims about the Incarnation and the Trinity, either because he has been evangelised, or because he has heard of them at second-hand - i.e. he knows there are Christians who believe these things. Can we say that he, now, does not worship the true God?

We have to accept that there’s a considerable barrier in the way to his accepting these claims, in the form of Jewish belief about the nature of God, and in the form of Jewish beliefs about idolatry. It is idolatry to worship a created thing as God. Humans are created things. Therefore, from the Jewish perspective, Christian belief in the Incarnation looks a lot like idolatry. And the Hebrew Scriptures are pretty severe in their condemnation of idolatry. And likewise polytheism.

So, in many ways, it’s precisely his Jewish faith, his fidelity to the Covenant, that is an obstacle to his acceptance of Christian claims about Christ.

How do we, as Christians, account for what at first glance look like contradictions in our own tradition? I suggest we do it in (at least) three ways:

First, we read the Hebrew Scriptures in the light of the Christian Scriptures, and therefore we understand them differently from people who read the Hebrew Scriptures on a stand-alone basis. But this isn’t something we can reasonably urge Jews to do; the only basis for reading the Hebrew Scriptures in the light of the Christian Scriptures is that you already have faith in Jesus Christ. You can offer this as defence of the reasonableness or coherence of Christian faith, but not as an argument for accepting Christian faith in the first place, since it’s an argument that can only weigh with people who have already accepted Christian faith.

Secondly, we can point to the growing relationship between God and his People, unfolding in history, which means that we have a knowledge and understanding of God that is always imperfect, but always capable of development. Hence what might seem to be a contradiction in scriptures may in truth reflect a better understanding, or a better articulation, of the same unchanging truths.

Thirdly, and with particular reference to the nature of God, we point to the mystery of God. The truths that we seek to express in doctrines like the Trinity and the Incarnation are simply mind-bending. Even after encountering Christ and coming to faith in him it took the Christian community centuries to nut them out; to agree what they believed and how they read scripture, and how this should be expressed. And you could argue strongly that’s an ongoing process; we’re still not finished.

You can also argue that, while it’s important to reflect on God and to seek to understand him, in the end the appropriate response to a holy mystery is not to understand it - it’s called “mystery’ for a reason - but to enter into it.

Right, And on top of all of this we must recall truths that you and I have both already agreed on; God is unchanging, and his identity and reality does not depend in any way, not in the smallest degree, on what you or I or anyone else understands or thinks or believes about him.

So, given all this I would still argue that, if we fail to appreciate that God is Trinity, or that God is incarnate in Jesus Christ, this does not change in any way, in the smallest degree, the nature of the God we worship. It cannot. Therefore, it cannot mean that we are worshipping a false God. What it can do is say something about the nature of our worship; about how complete and how developed a response it is to God’s invitation to us to know him. But it’s impossible to say that a Jew or a Muslim who has the same understanding of God as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did is worshipping a different God from the God that they worshipped. He’s worshipping the same God, with the same understanding that they had.

So, if a Jew or a Muslim does not accept my claims about the nature of God, the Trinity, the Incarnation, that does not mean that he no longer worships the true God. He worships the same true God he always worshipped; his understanding of that God differs from mine but, in the end, none of us are going to be judged on how well we understood God (or, if we are, we’re all in trouble!). Failing to understand God in the way that others do is not the worship of a false God.

theological

I've already addressed Abraham and previous prophets in an earlier post. I've got nothing to add. He trusted in God's grace before Christ. He accepted God as He revealed Himself at that juncture in salvation history. That marks him as being distinct from modern Jews who reject God as He has revealed Himself in Christ. That is a clear distinction. Post-Christ Jews are not like Abraham in this respect which is why we see the heated exchange I quoted in John 8 where He says Abraham is not their Father. Abraham rejoiced at the day of Christ (John 8:56).

I don't think it's possible to worship God without acknowledging His Son after His coming. That's why Jesus says in John 5 that the Jews who reject Him don't believe what Moses wrote about Him. We need to engage with what Jesus said. You said my understanding was extreme. I don't consider it my understanding but the plain words that He spoke. We need an alternative.

If we fail to acknowledge the Son we're not acknowledging God rightly as He has revealed Himself. The mystery has been revealed (Ephesians 1:9-10). If we refuse to acknowledge the Son He will not acknowledge us before the Father (Matthew 10:32-33). That's a serious crucial consequence of not acknowledging God as He has revealed Himself.

This is why I said in that post that we need to play on the same pitch and look to what Jesus actually says in the Scriptures. Having nice thoughts is nice but they are not authoritative as the Scriptures.

God's identity does not depend on our understanding but on what He has spoken in His Word and by His Son. If we don't believe God as He has revealed Himself we can't be said to be worshipping Him. Jesus was clear on this Scripturally we need to engage with it. There aren't many ways up the mountain to God. Jesus is the only way (John 14:6, Acts 4:12)

santana75

realdanbreen wrote: »

But it's not working is it Santana?
You can talk about the bible and 'joint and marrow' and two edge swords till the cows come home and meanwhile young people are not engaging in any of this because those who are supposed to be leaders and whose job it is to spread the word of god will not engage with them and answer their questions.
It's actually scarey that you don't appear to either understand or accept that there is a problem .

I have no idea what churches you're going to but the one I attend every sunday is packed to the rafters. So much so that they've had to put on an extra service to accommodate the demand. Thats two services back to back that are full. And thats without any advertising whatsoever. No standing on the street handing out leaflets, no trying to convince people to come to church, they find us. The congregation continues to grow, and we're all fairly young. Theres some people in their 50s and 60s, a few in their 40s, but mostly its people who are in their 30s and 20s. Theres a good few teenagers and children aswell. Its not a lifeless gathering of pensioners, quite the opposite in fact. Its alive and vibrant, you can feel it the minute you enter the building. People look forward to the service all week, but outside of church on sundays theres a whole community of groups and activities taking place. I myself am part of a group of guys, who are in their 20s and 30s and we meet up all the time, sometimes to just hang out and play pool, other times to study the bible.
So like I said, I have no idea what church you attend, but the one I go to and others I've visited are alive and growing.

realdanbreen

santana75 wrote: »

I have no idea what churches you're going to but the one I attend every sunday is packed to the rafters.

I'll take your word for that but I doubt if I would find any 1 of the thousands of Catholic churches in Ireland 'packed to the rafters' on any given Sunday.

Where is this church that you are talking about?

ChrisJ84

Peregrinus, thanks for taking the time to construct such a detailed post. I think I understand better where you're coming from now. I agree with everything @theological said in his reply, and would pick up on a few other things:

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think the question comes down to this: Is it possible to worship the God who reveals himself in Christ without appreciating that he has, in fact, revealed himself in Christ? It is possible to worship the Triune God without appreciating that he is, in fact, Triune?

Jesus makes clear and unambiguous claims, that he is the way, the truth and the life, and that he is the only way to the Father. That those who know the Father know him, and that those who do not know him do not know the Father either, and so on. As @theological says, none of that is changed by the progressive nature of revelation, or how God dealt with old testament Israel. Everyone alive today needs to grapple with the unique claims that Jesus makes.

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, in many ways, it’s precisely his Jewish faith, his fidelity to the Covenant, that is an obstacle to his acceptance of Christian claims about Christ.

If he was being faithful to the covenant he would recognise that Jesus is, in fact, the long promised and anticipated Messiah. This is something Jesus spoke quite sharply to the religious leaders about during his earthly ministry, as recorded in the gospels.

Peregrinus wrote: »

How do we, as Christians, account for what at first glance look like contradictions in our own tradition?

Curious to know what you mean by contradictions?

Peregrinus wrote: »

First, we read the Hebrew Scriptures in the light of the Christian Scriptures, and therefore we understand them differently from people who read the Hebrew Scriptures on a stand-alone basis. But this isn’t something we can reasonably urge Jews to do; the only basis for reading the Hebrew Scriptures in the light of the Christian Scriptures is that you already have faith in Jesus Christ. You can offer this as defence of the reasonableness or coherence of Christian faith, but not as an argument for accepting Christian faith in the first place, since it’s an argument that can only weigh with people who have already accepted Christian faith.

On the contrary, this is precisely what we need to urge Jews, Muslims and everyone else to do. Scripture is clear that these are spiritual things and spiritually discerned; in other words, it isn't our job to reason anyone into Christian belief, but to present the truth in love and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit. This is quite different to discussing / arguing that Christian faith is reasonable (kind of what we are trying to do in this forum).

Peregrinus wrote: »

Secondly, we can point to the growing relationship between God and his People, unfolding in history, which means that we have a knowledge and understanding of God that is always imperfect, but always capable of development. Hence what might seem to be a contradiction in scriptures may in truth reflect a better understanding, or a better articulation, of the same unchanging truths.

Thirdly, and with particular reference to the nature of God, we point to the mystery of God. The truths that we seek to express in doctrines like the Trinity and the Incarnation are simply mind-bending. Even after encountering Christ and coming to faith in him it took the Christian community centuries to nut them out; to agree what they believed and how they read scripture, and how this should be expressed. And you could argue strongly that’s an ongoing process; we’re still not finished.

You can also argue that, while it’s important to reflect on God and to seek to understand him, in the end the appropriate response to a holy mystery is not to understand it - it’s called “mystery’ for a reason - but to enter into it.

Yes, our understanding is always imperfect, and God is indeed a holy mystery. But that doesn't mean that we can't understand anything. Jesus makes some pretty clear and staggering claims about himself, and that is where we need to begin. Retreating into mystery is a bit of a cop out, no?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Right, And on top of all of this we must recall truths that you and I have both already agreed on; God is unchanging, and his identity and reality does not depend in any way, not in the smallest degree, on what you or I or anyone else understands or thinks or believes about him.

Yes, but again we need to deal with the things that God has revealed about himself, primarily the fact that Jesus is the second person of the trinity and is the only to know or have a relationship with God.

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, if a Jew or a Muslim does not accept my claims about the nature of God, the Trinity, the Incarnation, that does not mean that he no longer worships the true God. He worships the same true God he always worshipped; his understanding of that God differs from mine but, in the end, none of us are going to be judged on how well we understood God (or, if we are, we’re all in trouble!). Failing to understand God in the way that others do is not the worship of a false God.

I think this is quite a dangerous mindset for a Christian. If Jesus' claims are true, then it makes all the difference in the world (and into eternity) what we make of him, and whether we come to him in repentance and faith. We are not going to be judged on the basis of how well we understand God; but we will be judged on the basis of whether we are in Christ or not.

santana75

realdanbreen wrote: »

I'll take your word for that but I doubt if I would find any 1 of the thousands of Catholic churches in Ireland 'packed to the rafters' on any given Sunday.

Where is this church that you are talking about?

I cant speak for catholic services, the church I attend is Evangelical. I can PM you the details if you like, you're more than welcome to come along on a sunday morning and see for yourself.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, I do realise that. That doesn't mean that God they worship is a different God, though; just that they have different ideas about him.

Where do you draw the line though?
Mormons? Jehovas Witnesses, Hindus?
The Hindus have Brahma as their main creator deity. The ancient Greeks had Zeus.
Why not declare Brahma and Zeus to be the same god as Allah and Yahweh and Jehova. Maybe you do already?
All different names for the same godhead. Its just that they have different ideas about him.

If you're going to go all hippy on us, you may as well go the < whole hog >.

uck51js9zml2yt

Peregrinus wrote: »

Firstly, Islam doesn't seek to destroy Judaism or Christianity. Christianity is founded on a missionary impluse which seeks to convert the world (thereby "destroying" all other religions, if you want to put it in those terms) but Islam does not.
Islam wants to wipe out Israel and considers all others as infidels.
Secondly, while Muslims do believe that there is only one God, they also consider that Jews and Christians worship that God. They do not think that Judaism and Christianity worship a God that does not exist (though they do think that Christians in particular have some pretty funny ideas about the God that does exist).

Jesus said He was the only way to God. Either it is true or not.



Yes, I do realise that. That doesn't mean that God they worship is a different God, though; just that they have different ideas about him.

only one can be right

Peregrinus

But having an idea about God which is wrong doesn't mean that you are worshipping a false God. Since God passes understanding, it's true for every one of us that some of our ideas about God are wrong.

theological

Peregrinus wrote: »

But having an idea about God which is wrong doesn't mean that you are worshipping a false God. Since God passes understanding, it's true for every one of us that some of our ideas about God are wrong.

It depends on how crucial the differences are. The Scriptures are clear that the Sonship of Christ is crucial. You've not really engaged with them so far other than to say my understanding is extreme.

To give a quick worldly inadequate analogy (real substance comes from looking at Scripture).

Let me put it more simply in another way.

If I said that my name was Paul, I'm a 30 year old Irishman and an accountant and someone said that my name was actually Mateusz, alleged I was a 70 year old Polish retiree would they be speaking of the same person? We wouldn't be because the differences radically alter the identity of the person to the point we're talking about different people.

There are indeed a number of things in common both being white, European and male asides from other things that wouldn't be obvious.

The reality is we're still talking about different people.

In terms of the gods that modern Jews and Muslims believe in despite some commonalities they depart from the God of the Bible in significant ways.

The crux of the matter is that you don't think the Sonship of Christ is a significant enough difference. I'd love to know why with reference to Scripture. If we don't engage with the Scriptures we'll be going around in circles.

Peregrinus

I accept that the sonship of Christ is crucial. I'm not saying that's extreme at all; it's absolutely mainstream. The question is, is it so crucial that, if you fail to appreciate it, you are worshipping a false God? That's where the extreme position comes in.

If the God I worship is the One God, the omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving Creator of all things other than Himself, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, who called the people of Israel to himself, who led them out of Egypt and into the Promised Land, who gave them his Covenant and is eternally faithful to it, are you as a Christian really going to tell me that I am worshipping a false God? Seriously?

If you are, then I look in vain for scriptural support for that view. There are numerous instances in the New Testament scriptures of people who worship precisely the God I have just described, and who doubt, deny or fail to accept or understand the revelation of Jesus Christ. And at no point are they identifies as idolators or pagans for doing so. Varous things are said about them, and you have quoted some of them, but none of them comes anywhere near saying "these people are idolators who worship a false god". And since idolatry is one of the greatest of sins you'd think that, if people were engaging it it, at some point someone would call attention to the fact.

I think your position is extreme not because you regard the Sonship of Christ as crucial, but because you draw from that conclusions which are not drawn in scripture.

theological

With respect I've provided several references in previous posts to support my view. Alleging that my view isn't scriptural without responding to the Scriptures I've provided isn't sufficient to make that case.

I've highlighted verses where Jesus says that people do not worship the true God without acknowledging Him.

If you're not willing to engage with the case I've made then respectfully we need to leave it here. We need to play on the same pitch.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

With respect I've provided several references in previous posts to support my view. Alleging that my view isn't scriptural without responding to the Scriptures I've provided isn't sufficient to make that case.

I've highlighted verses where Jesus says that people do not worship the true God without acknowledging Him.

If you're not willing to engage with the case I've made then respectfully we need to leave it here. We need to play on the same pitch.

I don't want to be a pain, but I have gone back through your posts and i am not saying any references to scripture where Jesus says this. Maybe I am overlooking something. Can you refer me again to the scriptuel passages in question?

theological

Let's start with this one.

In the post I explicitly asked you to reply to. You ignored my questions about the passages that were quoted verbatim in it.

The context:
In this post to realdanbreen I quoted from John 5 a position you later described as extreme. I replied to you quoting John 8 and you said I was extreme but consistent. I asked you if Jesus was extreme if I was quoting his words and you said my understanding was extreme. I asked you to provide a Scriptural argument to show that I deviated from historic orthodox Christianity and I'm still waiting for a reply.

When I say that we need to play on the same pitch I mean we either need to engage with the Scriptures when making our points or reply to Scriptural arguments made.

It's obvious that my posts referred to Scripture if you had read them. Admittedly it's a bit frustrating when you quote my posts and reply selectively instead of replying to my main arguments and then say there's no reference to Scripture in them!

realdanbreen

santana75 wrote: »

I cant speak for catholic services, the church I attend is Evangelical. I can PM you the details if you like, you're more than welcome to come along on a sunday morning and see for yourself.

I have no doubt that your church is as you say 'packed to the rafters' but with all due respect that's a bit like me saying that the local Lacrosse club was packed to the rafters watching an international Lacrosse tournament while the vast majority of sports fans in Ireland showed little or no interest.
Fact is until the church , of whatever denomination, start speaking to ordinary plain people in ordinary plain speaking about the church instead of quoting scripture they will remain in a downward spiral

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

Let's start with this one.

In the post I explicitly asked you to reply to. You ignored my questions about the passages that were quoted verbatim in it.

The context:
In this post to realdanbreen I quoted from John 5 a position you later described as extreme. I replied to you quoting John 8 and you said I was extreme but consistent. I asked you if Jesus was extreme if I was quoting his words and you said my understanding was extreme. I asked you to provide a Scriptural argument to show that I deviated from historic orthodox Christianity and I'm still waiting for a reply.

When I say that we need to play on the same pitch I mean we either need to engage with the Scriptures when making our points or reply to Scriptural arguments made.

It's obvious that my posts referred to Scripture if you had read them. Admittedly it's a bit frustrating when you quote my posts and reply selectively instead of replying to my main arguments and then say there's no reference to Scripture in them!

Thank, theo. I'll get back to you on this. May be a day or two.

theological

realdanbreen wrote: »

I have no doubt that your church is as you say 'packed to the rafters' but with all due respect that's a bit like me saying that the local Lacrosse club was packed to the rafters watching an international Lacrosse tournament while the vast majority of sports fans in Ireland showed little or no interest.
Fact is until the church , of whatever denomination, start speaking to ordinary plain people in ordinary plain speaking about the church instead of quoting scripture they will remain in a downward spiral

This isn't true. The reality is the opposite. The more liberal your church the more it declines, the more Biblically faithful it is it grows. Peer reviewed studies are starting to show this.

Here's a summary of one in Canada in the Guardian. This study actually shows that congregants in churches that are growing tend to look at the Bible more.

If we look to our nearest neighbour. The Church of England is declining but evangelicalism is growing in the church as liberalism is declining.

Evangelicalism is growing in secular France.

In Spain a new evangelical church opens its doors every 2 and a half days. That's based on a Spanish government report.

Why is this? My opinion is that the more liberal you become the less you offer. You become more like the world and people stay in bed. The more you hold to Biblical truth the more radical faith you have makes people want to hear. Precisely because you are different.

The more you try make yourself relevant the more you make your church irrelevant because it is less distinctive. Becoming like the world is a great way to kill a church, not a good way to grow one.

smacl

Evangelicalism may well be on the rise but it accounts for a very small proportion of the nominal Christian population in this country (~1.5% of the population at last count) . I think realdanbreen's point is entirely valid, in that church attendance in this country has been in steady decline for decades, regardless of whether some minority sects are experiencing growth. My guess is that minority groups such as these are picking up quite a few disaffected Catholics who are looking for a more conservative religion and have lost trust in their own hierarchy.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

My guess is that minority groups such as these are picking up quite a few disaffected Catholics who are looking for a more conservative religion and have lost trust in their own hierarchy.

I think that is the point being made by poster theological here.
Look at the established episcopalian religions in Britain, Holland and even RoI they have been relatively quick to embrace the liberalism of secular society.
Women priests, gay priests etc. but now those are almost extinct as mainstream churches. Only their evangelical wings are surviving. These are the guitar playing, happy clappy, bible studying, congregations that sometimes co-exist within the same physical church building.


Meanwhile the survival of the RCC is based on conservatism. Becoming a more liberal church is probably not going to help it boost its membership.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Meanwhile the survival of the RCC is based on conservatism. Becoming a more liberal church is probably not going to help it boost its membership.

I wouldn't agree. The evangelicals represent a very small part of the religious population in this country and, as per my last post, I'd imagine they're expanding based on a limited number of people who share their broad conservative outlook. The vast majority in this country, who still consider themselves Christian, are becoming increasingly liberal as evidenced by results in all of the recent referendums. The Catholic church have never made any attempt to become more liberal as a measure to counter declining mass attendance so it is difficult to say what effect it would have. They're struggling with a decreased number of ageing priests so probably aren't in any position to address this. The only actively liberal theologian I know locally is Michael Burrows, and from what I gather he's no problems attracting followers.

one world order

Prefer a bible focused church myself that teach's God's message rather than someone who flip flops on issues based on the mood of the media. It's one of the main reasons evangelical Christian religion is growing around the world.

theological

smacl wrote: »

Evangelicalism may well be on the rise but it accounts for a very small proportion of the nominal Christian population in this country (~1.5% of the population at last count) . I think realdanbreen's point is entirely valid, in that church attendance in this country has been in steady decline for decades, regardless of whether some minority sects are experiencing growth. My guess is that minority groups such as these are picking up quite a few disaffected Catholics who are looking for a more conservative religion and have lost trust in their own hierarchy.

This wasn't the point he made. realdanbreen argued that Biblically focussed Christianity is declining and causing church decline. The research done is showing the opposite. Liberal churches are dying while conservative and evangelical churches are growing. You may not like that fact but it is true.

In the Church of England case I cited you're seeing evangelical churches as the largest by congregation size, you're seeing liberal churches in decline and most candidates for ministry (70%) are evangelical. That's bound to change things.

The evidence we have shows that distinctive Christianity grows while Christian expressions watered down by liberalism are declining. It seems like a global trend also.

Farce

recedite wrote: »

I think that is the point being made by poster theological here.
Look at the established episcopalian religions in Britain, Holland and even RoI they have been relatively quick to embrace the liberalism of secular society.
Women priests, gay priests etc. but now those are almost extinct as mainstream churches. Only their evangelical wings are surviving. These are the guitar playing, happy clappy, bible studying, congregations that sometimes co-exist within the same physical church building.


Meanwhile the survival of the RCC is based on conservatism. Becoming a more liberal church is probably not going to help it boost its membership.

I remember a certain Individual
Collecting something in my yard in oct 2016 my father had a turn and was lying on the ground and this individual left him on the ground and drove off
And the same individual sent me a letter stating never to enquire how he was
Like that will never happen
I reckon this individual was always on something
But that individual will be walking in 2020 as will a prospecting pointer finger tour
as will a ringworm
Drug driving
Smoke that
And if these certain Individuals ever think of Tresspassing u can legally shoot a traspasser if in fear of your life

recedite

smacl wrote: »

I wouldn't agree. The evangelicals represent a very small part of the religious population in this country...

Or as you pointed out in your previous post; the nominal Christian population in this country...

smacl wrote: »

and, as per my last post, I'd imagine they're expanding based on a limited number of people who share their broad conservative outlook. The vast majority in this country, who still consider themselves Christian, are becoming increasingly liberal as evidenced...

Liberal and secular. And that's when they give up the church completely; the path you describe is basically the exit route from organised religion.

smacl wrote: »

The Catholic church have never made any attempt to become more liberal as a measure to counter declining mass attendance so it is difficult to say what effect it would have. They're struggling with a decreased number of ageing priests so probably aren't in any position to address this.

But the RCC has been around a very long time, so that in itself shows they are doing something right. There may be a recruitment issue in Ireland right now, but in some other parts of the world the situation is reversed.

smacl wrote: »

The only actively liberal theologian I know locally is Michael Burrows, and from what I gather he's no problems attracting followers.

Now there's a guy who has done more u-turns than the pipes at the back of my toilet.
So he's off to Rome to take up some plum job, like the way some washed-out TD who has failed to get elected gets offered some plum job in Brussels as a retirement prize.
How does that indicate he has "followers"?
Are the followers going to follow him to Rome?

smacl

theological wrote: »

This wasn't the point he made. realdanbreen argued that Biblically focussed Christianity is declining and causing church decline.

My reading of it was that for the majority of Christians in this country (i.e. Catholics), the church has become less relevant principally as the result of an ageing clergy failing to communicate effectively, notably with a younger audience. While evangelicalism may be on the rise in this country, it is coming from such a small base there is no reason to assume it will ever be a numerically significant player, particularly as it tends to go hand in hand with Protestantism and would seem culturally alien to most Irish Catholics. Protestant majority countries are doubtless more fertile ground in this respect.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Liberal and secular. And that's when they give up the church completely; the path you describe is basically the exit route from organised religion.

You seem to be confusing secular with atheistic there. Most Christians in this country tend to be secular, insofar as they favour separation of Church and state. I don't think the Catholic tradition in this country is under serious threat so long as the Church runs the majority of non fee-paying schools. Nor do I think that bible study is likely to ever find favour as a majority interest among this population. No more than gut instinct, but my feeling is that most Irish Catholics at this point consider the basis of their religion as caring for other members of their community irrespective of dictates of the church. So probably more socialist than liberal in that respect, but liberal at times when conservatism comes across as discriminatory or hateful.

theological

smacl wrote: »

You seem to be confusing secular with atheistic there. Most Christians in this country tend to be secular, insofar as they favour separation of Church and state. I don't think the Catholic tradition in this country is under serious threat so long as the Church runs the majority of non fee-paying schools. Nor do I think that bible study is likely to ever find favour as a majority interest among this population. No more than gut instinct, but my feeling is that most Irish Catholics at this point consider the basis of their religion as caring for other members of their community irrespective of dictates of the church. So probably more socialist than liberal in that respect, but liberal at times when conservatism comes across as discriminatory or hateful.

With respect if one calls themself a Christian and have no interest in following after Jesus and what He says in His Word what exactly does that mean? The Bible is clear that we must take up our cross and follow after Him (Mark 8:34-38). If we're unwilling to do that, that is unbelief.

That's why I think some of us are confused at your continued insistence that people who don't want to take Him seriously are still somehow Christian. If you're a Catholic genuinely you'll take Catholicism seriously and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church seriously. If you're a Protestant you'll take Protestantism seriously and you'll take the Scriptures seriously. I don't know why you keep labouring this point about lapsed faith as if it is important. Lapsed faith is literally the exit gate to non-belief. It will have no root and will die.

Hearing Jesus and what He says isn't hatred. It is love. It is love to call people out of the world to follow Christ so that they can be with Him for eternity. So that they will live and not spend eternity separated from God. Warning people is loving.

What is hatred is telling people they are living good lives when they rebel against God at the risk of judgement and eternal condemnation. That is hateful.

EDIT: on your post about evangelicalism and Catholic countries. In a previous post I also cited two post-Catholic countries where evangelical Christianity is growing: France and Spain.

smacl

theological wrote: »

With respect if one calls themself a Christian and have no interest in following after Jesus and what He says in His Word what exactly does that mean?

If I was looking to find out what it meant to be Christian in a majority Christian country I'd tend start by looking at what the majority of Christians believe. No offence, but at 1.5% of the population, Evangelicals are hardly representative of Christianity in Ireland now are they? While you might not consider the vast majority of Christians to be Christian using your terms of reference that amounts to little more than sectarianism.