Protestants, what do you think of this article??

Question

I found this article from Live Science, and a group of historians examined the roots of fundementalism. I especially like this quote: "Scholarly consensus over the last decade or so is that most people did not convert to [Protestantism]. They had it forced upon them," Simpson told LiveScience."

Please read it and tell me what you think.

http://www.livescience.com/history/071211-fundamental-birth.html

Chris: Why is it garbage? The historians are just pointing out that history shows that without an authoritative clergy to guide scripture interpretation, the laity are left on their own, which results in the myriad of meanings and misinterpretations we have today. They're just stating the natural facts. What's wrong with that? Isn't this what the Church has BEEN trying to tell you?

Answer 1

Makes good sense. Thanks for the link.

When people first read the Bible for themselves, they are empowered with important new knowledge. However, they lack the critical interpretive tools to make sense of the Bible.

Here's a good example: John 3:5
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."

What does that mean? Born of water might mean amniotic fluid in literal birth. Born of the Spirit might mean an ecstatic, pentecostal experience, accompanied by speaking in tongues.

To get Jesus' original meaning, you have to go to Jesus' near contemporaries, e.g., Tertullian (203 AD): "No one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life’" (Baptism 12:1).

It takes languages, history, and scholarship to interpret the Bible. The brash Bible reader can sometimes get new insights, but they must be tempered with the anvil of critical reading.

Cheers,
Bruce

Answer 2

Whoa! When did the Mormons ever go to an Arab country? That religion has only been around 150 years or so. Are you like the Sherri Shepherd of Yahoo Answers??

I'm sure plenty of followers of any religion were coerced into "believing". You risked penalty of death or imprisonment if you followed any other religion. My great aunt was an Irish catholic in England at the beginning of the 1900s - they used to have "hedge school." They had Sunday school hidden somewhere so they wouldn't get caught by the English.

Answer 3

When the king of England kicked out the catholic church-the only thing that changed was that the church in England had a new pope-the king, nothing else changed. Even with Luther-not much changed.
Study church history in Europe and in the Colonies during this period and for the next couple hundred years. There is one church in particular that you will be very proud of--check it out-you will be surprised. I won't give it away. I'll just say that if it were not for this group of Christians all our churches today would be state churches. Catholic here, Methodist there, and so on. But there would only be 1 church per state,. Check it out-someone tell me who?

Answer 4

It's a bunch of crap. Being forced into a religion is what the mormon's did to the Arab countries when Muhammed was leading their little "crusades." to convert to Christianity or die. People in these days just love complaining about being "forced" into a religion. They've never been forced to do something in their life if they can spout nonsense like that.

Answer 5

Its not garbage when you look at the types of rules they forced people to live under back then and see how similar some of the laws being pushed today by people of the same faith

Answer 6

Garbage article.

The Word of God, the Bible, belongs to all people, not just a small group of individuals.