 |
| Demographics of World Religion 2011 compiled by David Meyer |
Just a side note, "most Christians" do not take John 6 literally the way you do, just Catholics. Do Calvanists also?Actually, you are badly mistaken, "most Christians" do take it quite literally, and it is central to their doctrine.
2/3 of them (67%)!
And it is not just Catholic. Remember that Eastern Orthodoxy is half the size of Protestantism, and Catholicism alone is over half of Christianity. And that is just in 2011. Historically it was near 100% who believed in the real presence. Until Protestantism in the 16th century, the vast majority of Christians believed in the Real Presence. So if we take the # of Christians of all time who believed it, I would estimate it being well above 90%
Also, Calvin’s view would be considered by Zwinglians (your view is the Zwinglian view) to be a “Real Presence” view. But most modern Calvinists do not follow Calvin in his thinking on this and have become Zwinglians on the issue.
Calvin believed that we truly and substantially parkate of the flesh of Christ, but that it happens through the intermediary of the Holy Spirit. This was my view as a Calvinist, and I took John 6 quite literally, as the text itself demands.
How do I get 67%?
As far as the demographics of who believes in the Real Presence, We can take the Catholic (51%) and Orthodox (11%) and get 62% of Christendom right there. Although they explain it poorly, I would add 25% of Calvinists, All Lutherans, and certainly some % of Anglicans and other groups to the “Real Presense” list. They (including Luther himself) would interpret John 6 literally. (“Truly I say to you…My Flesh is real food, and my Blood is real drink…”) So I think it is fair to include Anglicans (12% of Protestants) and Lutherans (11%) with a quarter of the Reformed and “other” (3+% of Protestants) ... for a total of ~26% of Protestants being convinced from scripture of the Real Presence. Protestants are 21% of Christianity, and ~26% of 21% is ~5.5%. So 5.5% of Christianity is protestants who believe in the real presence.
If we combine the 100% of Catholics (51%) 100% of Orthodox (11%) and 26% of Protestants (5.5%) we get a total of 67.5% of Christianity which believes in some way in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
I think a lesson here is that we often have a colored view of demographics and history. You seemed to think your view was the strong majority, when it is the minority. When I was Reformed, I knew that Reformed people made up only 11% of Protestant Christianity, and conservative ones far less than that, perhaps 5%? Yet even with that 5% in mind, I was tempted to think of my Reformed theology/Calvinism as a serious player in the game. It just isn’t. If we are talking about conservative Protestants, they are Pentecostal… hands down, and that trend is increasing rapidly.
You might be interested to know that your Mid-Acts Dispensationalist denomination Grace Gospel Fellowship reports 60,000 members. Perhaps we could double or triple that figure for all people on earth with your particular views about scripture? If you are correct, you are really lucky to have found the truth while nearly the entire globe is so deceived! And who believed what you believe before Stam and the others in the 20s/30s? From what I can tell they are the first. (other than St. Paul *of course*) Bulinger would be the closest, but I know you guys don’t agree with his more Acts 28 type view. (he rejected communion btw Jed) Just food for thought. I mean, numbers don’t make something true of course. But isn’t it just a bit weird to be part of something that is so small and goes back less than a hundred years? 150 years tops if you include “traditional” Dispensationalism?
My overarching point is that Protestantism continues to splinter, while it still contains people who truly desire the truth from scripture. Either the scripture is false, or the way Protestants are trying to access its truth is wrong. You simply cannot claim the scripture is “clear” and have thousands of conflicting interpretations. The only option then is to say all the other guys just don’t get it. That is the position you are in. You are forced to say that even among fellow Protestants, who have largely only been around <500 years, that even they have totally missed the whole point of scripture.
So not only have the Catholics and E.O. been utterly and fatally wrong for 2000 years, but even the 99.9% (not an exaggerated # btw) of your fellow Protestants have gotten the scripture totally wrong until Stam and the boys came along.
You can choose to dismiss all this by saying numbers don’t matter, and your right, alone they prove nothing. But it is really hard to take you seriously if you say the Scripture is clear and at the same time only 0.000000001% of Christians who have ever lived and read the scripture can see that same *clarity*. It can’t be clear and yet billions of spirit filled Christians completely missed the main point of the new testament for 1900 years!
It's about time you updated the front page again!
ReplyDeleteAs to your discussion on the "real presence" - I think I agree with you on this one Dave. However, one can stray too far on both sides. For example, I am comfortable with the words "real presence", and "mystery" when describing the Eucharist, but I have a difficult time with the word "transubstantiation".
I have 2 issues with transubstantiation. 1. It is a doctrine that came about after the Great Schism. In that particular event, the RC's were in the wrong and broke communion with the rest of the church (a topic for another debate). However, it could be argued that by naming the mystery and commenting on its mechanics, transubstantiation is heretical... especially since it was quite happily the "mystery" for the previous 1000 years.
My second problem is that there tends to be a general failure to remember that communion is FOR US - not for God. Maybe Jed would be better served if he aligned his thinking with the RC's on the issue of the "real presence" - communion does have more meaning under that context. I definitely think that Protestants in general have lost some of the specialness that comes with the Eucharist. However, I think that the Roman Catholics (and orthodox) should invest time in education, rather than focusing on the "heresies" of their Protestant Brethren.
Lets not forget, the Reformation was caused by Rome. They abused their flock till they fled. I'm glad I live today where I can at least be a heretic and not afraid of being burned at the stake.
"I am comfortable with the words "real presence", and "mystery" when describing the Eucharist, but I have a difficult time with the word "transubstantiation"."
ReplyDeleteHey dude.
I know the feeling, I used to think the exact same way. But then I got tired of "having a difficult time with... ______" and needing to be "comfortable" with doctrines before I accept them. The problem is that makes me a church of just one guy. And I read in scripture Christ praying that His Church be one, and Him giving the authority to men to forgive sins, to speak with His authority, and to lead the Church.
Methinks it makes sense to stick with scripture on this one. I will let the Church decide what the content of the faith is.
"...Great Schism. In that particular event, the RC's were in the wrong and broke communion with the rest of the church (a topic for another debate)."
Your determination that the RCC was in the wrong cannot be backed up. Any negative thing you say of the RCC in the split can be said of the Orthodox, so it would be arbitrary for you to choose one over the other...
UNLESS you chose the one that retained something objectively that the other did not retain objectively.
As the post about St. Optatus on schism and the bishop of Rome showed, communion with the Apostolic See is the only thing that stayed with one side when that split happened. That side is the Catholic Church. We believe the Orthodox still are Churches and still have all the other things a Church needs, but that they lack all the necessary ways to identify themselves as such. Like a policeman who throws his badge in the trash... still a cop, but cant prove it when asked.
"it could be argued that by naming the mystery and commenting on its mechanics, transubstantiation is heretical... especially since it was quite happily the "mystery" for the previous 1000 years."
Argue it then. There is no leg to stand on for you. Why should this not be "commented on" but the Trinity should be? There is no good answer you can give that is objective and non-arbitrary/ad hoc.
If you can give an answer that is not ad hoc or arbitrary, please feel free and I will renounce Catholicism pronto.
Also it is still just as much mystery after being explained by way of Transubstantiation. What does Transub. actually "explain"? Nothing really. All it says is what has always been believed, which is that the sacrament on the altar is actually Christs body and blood, but that it still looks and tastes like bread and wine. Transub. actually is almost more mysterious Bob! Just like when we try to explain the Trinity by way of hypostatic union and such, the doctrine of the Trinity becomes MORE mysterious and glorious, not less. Because the more we know the more profound the mystery. Almost nothing has been "explained" anyway. All that we say is that it is truly Christs flesh, while remaining "under the apearance" of bread and wine.
Cont...
"I definitely think that Protestants in general have lost some of the specialness that comes with the Eucharist."
ReplyDeleteThey have not just lost "specialness", they have lost the Eucharist. The vast majority do not even believe it to be the Eucharist Bob, so I am just agreeing with them. Jesus only gave authority to His Apostles to confect the Eucharist. Only Churches with valid succession from the Apostles have priests that can make the real Eucharist.
I will stick with Bishop Ignatius of Antioch Bob. Have you read his 7 letters? I have. It is eye opening to read what Christians believed in 107AD. This is from from Catholic.com:
Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1).
He speaks for himself, I don't need to comment.
"I think that the Roman Catholics (and orthodox) should invest time in education, rather than focusing on the "heresies" of their Protestant Brethren."
Should Augustine not have focused on the heresies of his Donatist and Pelagian brethren? The Church is one Bob. Bringing people who love Christ into that unity is very, very important. Having said that, that is not my or the Catholic Church's only goal in life. I homeschool my kids and teach them every day. I pray with them every day. I Catechise them. I read scripture with them. I teach them about Christ. THAT is my main goal in life. Bringing Protestants into the unity of the Church Christ established is a secondary or tertiary goal. I think Protestantism is the flat tire of Christendom, and I want to save as many people as I can from it's harmful message that we can all just "play Church" any way we like and Jesus will be happy. It just aint true. He made one Church, gave it authority, gave it leaders, and prayed it would be one. And it is one. And I want all Christians to be in that Church so they can recieve Christ the way HE wants to be recieved, not the way they feel comfortable.
"Lets not forget, the Reformation was caused by Rome. They abused their flock till they fled. I'm glad I live today where I can at least be a heretic and not afraid of being burned at the stake."
What "Reformation" are you talking about? Where are these people and what is their doctrinal statement? Because they dont have just one. Protestantism long ago ceased to be about what the Reformers were upset about, and has become an absolute free-for-all. As a case in point Bob, I submit your situation. I mean no offense, but the original Reformers would see you as a radical heritic and probably burn you at the stake. They did not want people to have the right to be a heretic, they wanted people to agree with their heresy.
As far as burning heretics, for every one example you can give of a Protrestant being burned, I can give two Catholics. This was a civil punishment in the midaeval era, and was practiced by GOVERNMENTS on both sides of the divide. FAR more Catholics were killed for their faith in England, with the sanction of the state church, for instance, than were Protestants killed by Catholic rulers.
Anyway, peace to you bro, you need to become Catholic, it is awsome to eat and drink Jesus. I say that not to be rude, but because I wish someone had said it to me sooner. I am loving it!
David