I went to many Evangleical Churches with my formerly Evangelical wife, and while theologically it looked deeply flawed, and liturgically insignificant, I agree that the Evangelicals as people are a very nice people and often seem to be touched by genuine grace. I also see how a quintessentuially Evangelical experience of misanthropic self-effacing "me, filthy rags", followed by the bolt of lightning proclamation "I have been saved!" -- be transformational.
Well, thanks for the kind words, but it would be wrong to impugn the transformational misanthropic self-effacing "me, filthy rags", followed by the bolt of lightning proclamation "I have been saved!" type conversion, as it is entirely Biblical. “The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit, (Ps. 34:18) and so the misanthropic self-effacing penitent publican went down to his house justified, (Lk. 18:14) versus the religious who supposed he was all set due to his works. “Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips” (Is. 6:5) cried Isaiah the prophet when He saw the Lord Jesus (Is. 6:10; cf. Jn. 12:39-41) in His glory, before his lips were purged. And the Ethiopian eunuch went on his way rejoicing, not at the possibility of being saved but at being redeemed (though faith must continue), and 1Jn 5:13 provides for assurance of possessing eternal life based upon examination of its description of saving faith.
The preaching of the gospel is to effect conviction of sin, righteousness and judgment, (Jn. 16:8) and thus Peter charged the Jews with being culpable for the death of the risen Jesus Christ the righteous, and warned they would be made His footstool, which resulted in their desperate cry, “Men, brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:14-37)
There simply is no Christianity without this deep realization of need, and man must often be made to face the fact that he is a sinner destitute of any merit whereby he may escape his just eternal punishment and gain eternal life with God, and if he wants to be saved from his sins, and wants light over darkness, then must abase himself as a sinner, helpless to save himself, and cast all his faith on the mercy of God in Christ, relying on the Biblical Lord Jesus, the Son of God, to save him by His blood and righteousness.
But what you not find is souls being treated as if they were Christians due to infant baptism and perfunctory professions, which prevail in institutionalized religion of any camp, while Paul was persuaded that a third generation believer (2Tim. 1:4) was such due to his evidential faith, and who as child had known the holy scriptures, which are able to make one wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2Tim. 3:15)
I also agree that if one talks to a regular Evengelical about his faith in matters of immediate importance to him, -- moral life, etc., -- A Catholic will not find anything to argue about.
I did not infer they would, as available evidence shows that the typical Catholic is politically and morally less conservative and more liberal.
The Evangelical distinctives: the total depravity of man, the irresistibility of grace, the limited atonement -- are all, to a Catholic mind, some kind of German philosophical voodoo, that is far from the Gospel and makes little sense, but luckily is not something anyone can really practice.
Total depravity of man and limited atonement are not uniformly held; while Calvinism and classic Arminianism both hold to TD, it may vary somewhat in definition. As for limited atonement, that is a minority view within evangelicalism, being restricted to most Calvinists, and in my opinion, it is not warranted. As for the first being “to a Catholic mind some kind of German philosophical voodoo,” that may be the case now, but that man is dead in sins and morally evil and cannot do good except by God's grace has far more Scriptural warrant than teachings such as praying to saints, indulgences and the Treasury of merit, etc. and the assuredly infallible magisterium, with the former depending upon the latter, and which depends upon itself.
And we are very much about practice.
What is meant by“we?” For all its boasting of works, those Rome counts as members come in last or close thereto among denominations as concerns marks of commitment. And while you have constantly misrepresented Protestant as being opposed to works, if there is any group that between the two at issue that is “very much about practice” it more evangelicals.
So far, no Evengelical Church taught its flock to do bad works,.
Broadly speaking, but if such includes things like the practice of using carnal force over people for religious purposes, as in the Inquisitions, some early ones did, but they learned it from Rome.
although I think that that three-car-garage-prosperity gospel guy comes close
This is true, supposing gain is Godliness, as was selling indulgences, while the Roman Catholic church today gets money (not required but expected) to have masses said to alleviate poor souls in her mythical purgatory, while partly funding herself by gambling.
The issue is what perfection means, and its attainment.
Yes, it is. See the Church is here as a hand of God. The Catholics do not think they are saved by being nice people anymore that Protestants do. It is by that hand, to which I bow every Sunday, that hand that holds Him and puts Him in my mouth that I am saved. I want that for everybody. So, read the Holy Scripture adn remember Who gave it to you, -- and reach the right conclusion, please.
So you bow to the church and it puts Jesus in your mouth, and by which you are saved? Holding the church to be a material means of salvation is one thing; holding that taking part in the Lord's supper is necessary to have life in you, which many RC's erroneously suppose Jn. 6:53 means, is another. The way born again believers live by eating Jesus flesh is the same way Jesus lived, as He explained it: “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.” (Jn. 6:57) “Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.” (Jn. 4:34) “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life“ (Jn. 6:63) “..It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Mt. 4:4) “Thy words were found, and I did eat them;.” (Jer. 15:16)
As shown here, Only by ignoring John's and the Bible’s use of allegorical language, among other things, can one sustain that kosher apostles knowingly and unquestioning consumed Jesus body and drinking His blood at the last supper. And it was not the Lord's supper which they preached as the means to have life, but believing the gospel of the crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ.
A hearty AMEN!
John 6:29 Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."
These are the words of Jesus Himself. And yet Catholics as a whole, deny them when they claim that some other *works of faith* or some such nonsense, is what gets you into heaven.
There is no teaching anywhere in Scripture, certainly none from Jesus, where we are instructed to adopt a new set of works to get us into heaven.
The Psalm says, "I humbled myself and the Lord saved me". As St. Symeon the New Theologian put it "I neither fasted or slept on bare ground or kept vigils but ... I did no more than believe and the Lord accepted me" (On Faith -- I don't have an online reference). Humility is good, the way Protestant communities of faith practice it is infected with the Total Depravity nonsense (I know, you don't subscribe), ostentatious and often grotesque. But, yes, the idea is totally biblical. Christ humbled Himself.
what you not find is souls being treated as if they were Christians due to infant baptism and perfunctory professions, which prevail in institutionalized religion of any camp
You are a Christian, moreover, born again Christian, and once-saved Christian thanks to infant (or any other) baptism. You are saved again thanks to a confession no matter how perfunctory. That is because, no matter where you put "works" in the plan of salvation, the Holy Mysteries of Baptism, Confession, Eucharist are not our works. It is God Who works, "according to his own purpose and grace". I know you don't have it, but you should not brag of not having it.
the typical Catholic is politically and morally less conservative and more liberal.
It si neither here or there, even though it is in a way true. I simply said that we all agree as a practical matter on what is right and what is wrong. As to conservatism, Catholicism does not necessarily match American Conservatism shaped after all by mostly Evangelical Protestants. Also, it is helpful to distinguish "cultural Catholics" to are Catholic because they are Italian or something, and committed, Rosary-praying, in-church-every-chance-they-get Catholics. Then tend to be overwhelmingly conservative and in the genuine sense of the word.
Total depravity of man and limited atonement are not uniformly held;
Thank God, no. But whty do you think that theological idiocy developed on the Protestant soil in the first place?
if there is any group that between the two at issue that is “very much about practice” it more evangelicals
Yeah. Perhaps, that is compensation for bad theology. I wondered the same thing, even on this thread. On the other hand, Catholic contribution is often overlooked because it comes in form of schools, universities, hospitals, foreign aid, -- all things done institutionally and not through local, visible effort.
the Inquisitions
I am a big fan, so don't knock them. One thing you probalby agree wrong with Protestantism is no way to discipline outright heresy. Nothing would prevent Protestants to develop modern and enlightened ways to deal with its own bad apples and they are perfectly free from any medieval baggage the Holy Inquisition might have.
alleviate poor souls in her mythical purgatory
An indulgence, by the way, is a good example of practicing heroic virtue that we spoke about earlier. Didn't you just get done telling me that works done to advance one's own salvation are like working for wage? Well, here's one work one can do that is demonstrably not wage. Further, the Prutgatory is wholly biblical, check 1 Cor 3:8-15. It surely is more biblical than Faith Alone.
Holding the church to be a material means of salvation is one thing; holding that taking part in the Lord's supper is necessary to have life in you, which many RC's erroneously suppose Jn. 6:53 means, is another
That is what "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh ... He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day", -- means. Again, we read what is written, Protestants build up long sophistries to run away from clear scripture. We can have a separate discussion on the words of Institution in the light of John 6, but for a brief note on that, please do not think that because "the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life" it means that the "food indeed" became all spiritual food toward the end of the chapter. The Eucharist is not something from which the stomach profits, -- that is what it says. That is what "spiritual" means, one that feeds the soul.
Sorry for the typos -- I got to run off to work.