Posted on 07/29/2008 4:39:52 PM PDT by annalex
Evangelicals have been going through a major change of heart in their view of Catholicism over the past 15 years or so. In the 80’s when I was in college I lived in the Biblebelt and had plenty of experience with Evangelicals–much of it bad experience. The 80’s was the height of the “Are you saved?” question. In Virginia, the question often popped up in the first 10 minutes of getting to know someone. As I look back, Isurmise that this was coached from the pulpit or Sunday school as it was so well coordinated and almost universally applied. It was a good tactic for putting Catholics on the defensive even before it was known that they were Catholic—”ummmm, uhhh, well no, I’m not sure, I’m Catholic.” Then a conversation about works righteousness or saint statues would ensue. Yeah, nice to meet you, too.
Thankfully, those days are pretty much over. We now have formerly rabid anti-Catholics apologizing and even praising the pope. Catholics and Evangelicals have both learned that we have much in common and need each other to face the secular culture with a solid front. But, where did this detente come from? I think there is a real history to be told here and a book should be written. Let me give my perceptions of 7 major developments since 1993, which I regard as the the watershed year for the renewal of the Catholic Church in the United States.
1. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1993. When this document came out, it was uncertain that even Catholics would read it. We should have known that something was up when the French version hit the top of the bestsellers charts in France and stayed there for months. The English version did the same in the US. Catholics were reading the Catechism, forming study groups and challenging errant professors in the classroom.
2. World Youth Day, Denver 1993. Catholic youth and youth ministers woke up. Suddenly, Catholic youth ministers realized that the youth loved the pope. And they loved him all the more because he did not talk down to them or water down the faith. He challenged them. Gone now were the pizza and a video parish youth nights. Furthermore, youth and young adults took up the challenge to evangelize. One of those youth heard the message and started a website, New Advent. Catholic youth were now becoming zealous for the Catholic faith in its fullness and were not going to be swayed by an awkward conversation that began with “Are you saved?”
3. Scott Hahn. While the Catechism is great for expounding the Catholic faith, it is not a work of apologetics itself. It is not written to expose the flaws of Evangelical theology. It is not written to defend the Church against the attacks of Evangelicals per se. It just would not let them get away with misrepresenting the Catholic faith. But Scott Hahn hit the scene at about the same time with Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism (Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 1993). I first heard his testimony on cassette tape in 1996. It blew my mind. Suddenly, Catholic apologetics, which is as old as the Catholic Church itself, got a leg up and there was an explosion of books, magazines and websites that effectively undercut the arguments of the 5 Solas. For the first time, there was a cadre of Catholics well enough informed to defend their faith.
4. The Internet. The Net started exploding from 1993 to 1996. I had my first account in ‘94. Compuserve was horribly basic, but by ‘96 I had AOL and the religion debates raged instantly. Catholics who had just been given the most powerful weapon in the arsenal in the war against misinterpretation of their teaching were learning to type on a forum while balancing their catechisms on their laps. Of course, online versions came out, as well. But, no Evangelical bent on getting Catholics out of the arms of the Whore of Babylon could expect to do so without himself have a copy of the Catechism, knowing it inside out and pouring over it for the errors and horrors he would surely find. Evangelical apologists were confronted with a coherent and beautiful presentation of the Catholic faith that they were ill equipped to argue against. They learned that Catholics, too, loved Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. The Catechism had arrived providentially just before the internet and had turned the tables in just a few short years. With the apologetic movement hitting at the same time, Evangelicals were also confronted with Catholics who could argue from the Bible defending their faith and demonstrating the weaknesses of Evangelical interpretations of scripture.
5. Early Church Fathers. One fruit of the Apologetics movement has been a flowering anew of Catholic interest in Patristics. This is happening at every level from armchair apologists to doctoral studies. It is suddenly all about Patristics, whereas in the 70’s-90’s the academic focus had been on Karl Rahner and Liberation Theology.
6. Evangelical Third World Experience. Evangelicals have had a field day in Latin America among the poor who are not part of the internet conversation and are distant from the study of apologetics. But, Evangelicals have learned from their experiences abroad an essential aspect of the Gospel they were missing: the Works of Mercy. Once haughty with their criticism of “works righteousness,” they have learned one cannot attend to the spiritual needs of the poor without attending to their bodily needs. Catholic have always understood this. Now, the Evangelicals are coming around. I haven’t heard an Evangelical Televangelist speak on works righteousness in many years.
7. Secularism. With the collapse of the Mainline churches as the backbone of American religion over the past thirty years (since about 1975), Catholics and Evangelicals are the only ones left standing in this country to present the Gospel. Secularism is on the rise and is ruthless. Evangelicals are now learning that only Catholicism has the intellectual resources to combat the present secular age. And, with the pope, we have a pretty effective means for communicating the faith and representing it to the world. There is nothing an Evangelical can do that will match the power of one World Youth Day.
With such an array of Providential developments, Evangelicals as well as Catholics have come to appreciate the depth and the breadth of the Catholic faith. It is far more difficult for them to honestly dismiss Catholicism as the work of Satan as once they did without qualm. There have been apologies and there have been calls for a new partnership. Let us hope these developments will bring about a new moment of understanding for the Glory of the Lord.
” . . . in the end of the three synoptic gospels: . . . “
So what you are saying is that you believe that when Christ spoke of teaching to “observe all things whatsoever” He commanded (Matt. 28:20), he pulled a curtain between Matthew 27 and Matthew 28, and He abrogated everything He had commanded prior to Matthew 28. It is as if everything else He commande up to that point was disannulled.
It is the second time you pretend John 10:26 says that. It doesn't.
8 All others, as many as have come, are thieves and robbers: and the sheep heard them not. 9 I am the door. By me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved: and he shall go in, and go out, and shall find pastures. 10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I am come that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep. 12 But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep: 13 And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me. [...]19 A dissension rose again among the Jews for these words. 20 And many of them said: He hath a devil, and is mad: why hear you him?
21 Others said: These are not the words of one that hath a devil: Can a devil open the eyes of the blind? [...]
24 The Jews therefore came round about him, and said to him: How long dost thou hold our souls in suspense? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25 Jesus answered them: I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of my Father, they give testimony of me.
26 But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me.
The parable is that some sheep are caught by wolves because of bad shepherds, but Christ is a good shepherd. He knows his sheep and his sheep know him. The case in point He offers is the miracles He worked: to "His sheep" they are proof of His divine sonship, to others they are not, and they ask him to tell them "plainly". Nothing here says that the elect were first named; the parable is an illustration of the people sorting themselves out and responding in two different ways.
What “curtain”?
AMEN!
And because we have been given faith in Christ, and because we persevere to the end by the grace of God alone, we have confidence that what God has promised through Christ we shall obtain. All for His glory and the welfare of His family.
The issue is where does our love come from? If it comes from God, then your idea of free will goes down. If the love is self-generated, then the Bible goes down.
AMEN!
"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" -- 1 Corinthians 3:16
I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." -- John 15:4-5"Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
"But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep." -- John 10:26
This verse comports with Christ's words in John 6...
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." -- John 6:64-65"But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
You have men electing themselves which is straight out of Pelagius' playbook. Christ contradicts that error by telling us no man comes to Christ except those whom the Father first has ordained to eternal life.
Faith is the result of God's good and gracious work, and not men's, regardless of how much Rome desires to claim it for itself.
Since God does not give everyone the will to choose him, then it is pretty obvious that if you are saved it is wholly and totally the work of God and that your free will had nothing to do with it.
AMEN! That comment made my day. 8~)
And according to your comment, would you say you are "happier" now than when and if you ever believed in your own free will choice to believe in Christ?
Would you say you are more confident in your faith now that you believe God is wholly responsible for your ability to understand the Scriptures and believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?
And if you are happier and more confident now, don't you sometimes wonder why all Christians do not embrace these glorious facts of God's sovereign, eternal, predestining, all-encompassing, transformative love for those who are His?
Isn't it sad and a bit strange that even some Christians stand alongside the unbelieving world to deny these truths?
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." -- Ephesians 1:3-6"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
The curtain you, in affect, have drawn, so that Christ’s commandments to His disciples in the Synoptic Gospels only applies to what He said in the last four verses of Matthew.
All things whatsoever He commanded includes all of His commandments He ever made to them throughout His earthly ministry, all the way back to chapter 4.
And my point is, NOT ONE SINGLE organization on earth today professing to be a Christian church teaches anybody to observe ALL things whatsoever Christ commanded — NO Catholic church, NO Protestant church, NO Baptist church, NO “Christian” church of any name or description.
Alex: For the same reason a man in love, when rejected, does not proceed to rape the object of his love.
That's a totally inappropriate comparison. One reason is that a jilted man is dealing with an equal in the woman. He did not create her and she is not his to do with as he pleases. He is not in control. Obviously, none of this is the case between God and men. Another reason is that the man raping the woman would be to do her harm. God interfering with a man's decision about Christ is only to man's good, a good that your side rejects. Therefore, your comparison is going in the opposite direction.
My Church condemned Pelagius in 5c, when Calvin's theological fantasies were, thank God for that, unheard of.
No one disputes that some are elect and some are reprobate, and no one disputes that Christ knows who is who. Neither John 6 or John 10 proves or even suggests that Christ does not love the reprobates also, or that somehow He Who is Love itself makes them reprobates.
I thought you point to me was that the Church has not been commissioned to forgive sins. Now we have it settled that she has been, do we not?
I still don't see any "curtain" between the Grand Commission and any other commandment of the gospel.
If the Catholic Chuirch is not doing something she should, please let me know what it is, and I'll let the Holy Father know of such a scandal. Other "churches" in your post aren't.
But Muslims have zero Christian faith and you told me they can still go to Heaven because of their works. That is works-only.
FK: ... devout Muslims score a zero percent ...
We don't know that. We know they don't go to Church, -- an external sign. Christ judges the hearts. If their hearts seek the union with the Catholic Church which they don't know through no fault of their own, then salvation will be found for them in the Church.
I know they score zero percent because devout Muslims explicitly deny Christ. That means zero faith. You again appear to be arguing for works-only salvation. BTW, can someone who totally denies Christ still find union with your Church? I suppose that's up to your Magisterium. I know they couldn't find union with my church. :)
Man cannot "just do what is necessary" without the grace and salvific work of the Cross. Why do you put words in my mouth?
No, I meant as opposed to having faith. I know that you believe Christ dying is necessary, but you don't appear to think that faith is necessary.
FK: ... are we more like "co-adults" in comparative terms?
Depends who. Sanctification, theosis, means growing up in Christ to the point of adulthood, yes. We are meant to grow up.
As my set-up suggested, I mean "co-adults" with God, such that we respect God and He respects us as individuals. God still has the honor as the elder, but we are independent and God will honor our sovereignty. Do you agree to that?
I don't know why you are bringing sanctification in. Does God treat young Christians and mature Christians differently as far as His interference (and His respect for our free will) is concerned?
The evil of Calvinism is precisely in placing a barrier between man and God, whereas the Church is sent to erase the barrier.
LOL! That reminds me of Clinton the other day in Africa preaching that people should practice monogamy. :) There is no greater human barrier between men and God on earth than the Roman Catholic Church. Calvinism promotes a personal one-on-one relationship between the person and God, no middle-men other than the only Mediator, Christ. Catholicism prevents or severely restricts that one-on-one relationship by inserting all the men of the Church, the saints, Mary, etc. in between.
Well, obviously the comparison is not at all precise, but Marlowe asked something I spent considerable time explaining on this thread and so I didn’t want to give another time the same answer.
The comparison is valid inasmuch as love is still love, and absence of love is absence of love either for God or for the jilted man. God would be forcing love that the reprobate doesn’t feel, and that would be not love freely given anymore, and the rapist would be forcing an act that is not love freely given either. That’s the analogy; I hope it is clearer this time.
The faith in divinity of Christ, that we share with all Christians, is a demanding thing. It is like being given ten talents instead of one talent. If this faith leads one to obey the Gospel and the Church, that's the works upon which he will be judged. If not, the ignorant Muslim who give his last shirt to a stranger might be with an advantage.
you don't appear to think that faith is necessary.
Faith is necessary for sanctification, but Christ has always been merciful to those of little faith. It is one of the theological virtues. Hope and Charity (Love) are the two others, and love is the greatest (1 Cor 13:13)
we are independent and God will honor our sovereignty. Do you agree to that?
We are not independent. We are totally dependent on His grace. What we have is not sovereignty, but free will.
Does God treat young Christians and mature Christians differently
Good question. Aquinas taught that yes, God leads His elect, but he does so knowing where their free will would have taken them. I don't however have a good reference handy; I'll think about it some more. On this score Aquinas may not be dogmatic because Molinas had a different theology and either one is admissible.
Calvinism promotes a personal one-on-one relationship between the person and God
First, the scripture does not teach that one-on-one part. Second, despite whatever rhetoric, with denial of free will comes denial of that very desire to imitate Christ by which we are saved and reach heaven. How many Protestants do you know who would read from St. Athanasius "God became man so that man can become God" and nod in happy agreement?
ANNALEX: First, the scripture does not teach that one-on-one part.
Now that's just downright sad that your church does not encourage you to recognize a personal relationship between you and God.
What could be more "personal" than dying for you?
"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." -- 2 Corinthians 5:21
But we know from experience that Rome often says one thing and does another.
Take, for instance, the great five-card Monty of calling Mary an intercessor and a mediator, but not quite. Kinda. In a "Queen of Heaven" sort of way.
Salvation is either dependent on men's good reasoning ability to choose righteousness for themselves, or salvation is dependent on God alone to regenerate the fallen sinner and bring Him to repentance and faith by and for and through the righteousness of Christ alone.
The former is from Rome via Pelagius; the latter is straight from Scripture.
Oh? How would you describe sin? Not having your Best Life Now?
No. The whole theme of the passage id God reveals all that is required through His creation.
Chapter 1 of Romans refers to those outside of Israel. chapter 2 turns it back on the Jews..
Except for one Augustine of Hippo, and before him Paul.
And you do not agree that “all commandments” (Matthew 28:20) refers to “ALL” commandments as per the verse.
It seems you want to avoid the truth that the Apostles were given a specific ministry in the Book of Matthew to the “lost sheep of the children of Israel,” but there it is in black and white (Matthew 10:5). It seems you want to avoid the truth that Matthew 10 contains COMMANDMENTS to the Apostles and others. These commandments would be included in the “all commandments” of Matthew 28:20. Trinitarian baptism is only one of many of the commandments that the Lord issued to His Apostles during His earthly ministry.
But to admit that the Apostles were bound to teach others to observe ALL (including the commandments of Matthew 10) would establish an Israeli/Jewish context, and it seems that you don't want that to be established.
But that's ok. Because others who are reading these many posts are getting the point about the “ALL commandments” of Matthew chapter 28 including “ALL” of the commandments in the entire Book of Matthew, from the time of His calling the Apostles being included. Many others reading these do see that you cannot restrict the instruction in Matthew 28:20 only to 28:19, 20.
Thus, the context is established for the Apostles ministry to Israel. The first seven chapters of the Book of Acts, therefore carries on this theme of preaching to Israel only, and preaching repentance and forgiveness specifically to Israel. And here are two key verses that specify that nation.
Ac 5:31 — “Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance TO ISRAEL, and forgiveness of sins.”
Nothing had changed from John the Baptist's ministry.
Ac 13:24 — “When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.”
And thus:
“there were dwelling at Jerusalem JEWS (not Christians or the Body of Christ), devout men, out of every nation under heaven.” (Acts 2:5)
“But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, YE MEN OF JUDEA, and all YE THAT DWELL AT JERUSALEM (not Christians or the Body of Christ), be this known unto you, . . . “ (Acts 2:14)
“YE MEN OF ISRAEL (not the church), hear these words; . . . . “
“YE (Israel, not the church) have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: . . . “ (Acts 2:23)
“MEN AND BRETHREN (he wasn't addressing Christians, but his ISRAELI brethren), let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, . . . “ (Acts 2:29)
“Therefore let all THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL (not the Body of Christ) know assuredly,” (Acts 2:29)
“Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, MEN AND BRETHREN, what shall we do?” Now the Israelites refer to Peter and the apostles as “BRETHREN” because they were all associated as Israelites (not associated as Christians - the speakers in v. 37 were not Christians)
“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 2:38).
The Apostles, speaking to ALL Israelites, commanded them to be repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. And there it is. The Apostles had the authority to remit the national sins of Israel which are detailed in the same chapter. John had come baptizing (by immersion in a river, not by sprinkling or dampening). And the gift of the Holy Spirit was promised to the nation upon their repentance - an Old Testament feature put forth by the prophets to Israel (not to the church) hundreds of years previously.
“And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, YE MEN OF ISRAEL, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?” (3:12)
“But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.” (Acts 3:14, 15) Again, the audience is Israel, not the Body of Christ. In fact, up to this point we don't read of one address to the Gentiles or the Body of Christ. Peter didn't know anything about the Body of Christ yet.
Still preaching to Israel (not the Body of Christ), Peter continues . . .
“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:” (Acts 3:19, 20)
There it is, “blotting out of sins” — Israel's national sins. And there is also the promise that upon Israel's repentance, Christ will be sent back.
“Ye are the CHILDREN OF THE PROPHETS, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.” Further establishing the context to be an Israeli/Jewish one.
“Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, YE RULERS OF THE PEOPLE AND ELDERS OF ISRAEL, . . . “ (Acts 5:8)
It just goes from one address to Israel to another address to Israel. Now five chapters in to the Book of Acts and there is still not a single sermon preached to the Body of Christ. There is no revelation of the Body of Christ yet, even to the Apostles.
And the solidly Jewish context goes all the way through Acts chapter 7.
There is a “Church” there to be sure. It is a “called out assembly” of Israelites who have repented as commanded, had their sins remitted, were baptized (Just as John the Baptist had baptized Israelites, and just as the “church in the wilderness {Israel - Acts 7:38}), and awaiting the coming of their Messiah (Acts 3:21).
No trinitarian Baptism is performed or even discussed in these chapters in Acts, or anywhere in the Book of Acts, for that matter.
And before him Jesus, and before him Isaiah, and before him David, and before him Moses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.