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.
Amen. I agree. We won’t reach perfection until Christ returns.
You win the cigar! Yes, that’s exactly what gibberish is to some here. Others are more reasonable and able to carry on a two way conversation.
Your profile is great!
Where did you pick up the idea of “dislike”? I was merely pointing out the very broad definition of “evangelical” which wasn’t always so.
I know many Catholics but none of them have ever spoken to me or those in my circle of influence about faith in Jesus Christ. Very silent.
I have no doubt of your zeal or your sincerity, but let’s face it, MOST people, if they don’t know you’re a Christian, just think you’re a nice person, caring, friendly, etc., etc. when you do good things. You are a GOOD man or a GOOD lady. Sometimes you need to tell them just what Christ means to you.
Sorry if I got the wrong message. It’s easy to do around here with folks who really feel charismatics are the wicked stepkids.
“Sometimes you need to tell them just what Christ means to youi.”
Is that presumption that one doesn’t do that? How can anyone know or evaluate that without knowing the real person—the one that walks and talks and lives openly in their real,( not screen), identity?
It’s often the better part of wisdom to reserve judgment on the unknown parts of someone else’s life.
I agree. Sound doctrinal teaching can be hard to find in "evangelical" churches. But there are charismatic churches which do a good job of teaching from the Bible, and there are non-charismatic churches which have moved toward a "social gospel."
One of those of course is simply the word “Catholic,” something I avoid. Rome is simply NOT “The” Catholic Church, even though it does contain some who are part of it, and I think all Evangelicals should realize that and stop using the vocabulary Romanists purposely use.
Indeed! I expect those of the church of Rome to call themselves Catholics, but I do not understand why those who obviously do not believe that the church of Rome is The Catholic Church continue to call it that. I also avoid the word Protestant, since it is also a concession to the terminology of Rome.
What I posted is from myself, other than the sources I used to write it. It did take an hour our so to put together though. As you only are going to comment on the first paragraph, that's what I'll respond to.
"The rise of papal power in Rome was a very slow development or process."
That is true:
Thank you, at least my first sentence is correct according to you :-) However...
the Church, being a divinely guided institution, develops her responses to the historical events as they occur. The persecuted Church could not develop a tight centralized structure for logistical reasons, and heresies cropped up from time to time that required unity of leadership.
Your first sentence is somewhat correct, however, it is not an "institution" that was created by Christ and His Apostles - It was a body of believers called the "ekklesia" - a called out people to be the children of God, joint-heirs of Christ Jesus; and to proclaim the Good News to the whole world. Your second sentence is also somewhat correct: "unity of leadership" was to be the standard of each individual congregation of believers, but was not the the main purpose of the Church - which was to spread the Good News of Christ to the world. If each individual church under its own leadership taught the same truths they were united. However, if they didn't (that is where "heresy" came into view), then they would have fellowship with that congregation. However, the majority of early assemblies of Christians were proclaiming the same truths. The big factor in the development of strong papacy in the Roman Church was the horror of the Reformation. Catholic Churches in the East have retained a much looser consiliar structure of earlier times, because they were barely infected with Protestantism.
These two sentences of yours have no part in what we are talking about, for they came into view way to far in the future to be a question in the early Christian Church.
"In the beginning of the leadership of the individual “assembly” of Christians it was composed of appointed Elders who were given the job of OVERSEERS; and MINISTERS were appointed to help the leadership. Notice the words used in the last sentence: “Overseers” = bishops; “ministers” = deacons."
In fact there were three forms of Holy Orders: bishops (episcopos, overseer), priests (presbyteros, leader or if you prefer, "elder"), and deacons (deakonos, minister or server). All three are mentioned in the Acts.
You are correct according to your "magesterium", but not according to Christ and His Apostles! I'll address this further on in this post.
"It is a fact of history that we see that the churches founded by the Apostles had a PLURALITY of “bishops” and “deacons;”
You mean, a single parish had several bishops overseeing it? That is a fact of history? Really?
Absolutely! It is a fact of history, and the writings of the New Testament! Again, I'll address this shortly.
Or do you mean that there were bishops operating and overseeing the priests and deacons in their bishoprics? That is true, and uncontroversial, and is the current practice also.
Absolutely Not! It is not the truth according to the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ! However, it is true that it is "controversial" and is the "current practice" of the Roman Catholic institution and other institutionalized churches. "Priests" had no part in the leadership of the early churches, that is an error of the future "development" of the Western and Eastern institutionalized churches.The term "priest" does not come from the term "presbyteos", but rather from the Greek term "iereus" (English spelling of the Greek term). Every true Christian is a "priest/iereus" of God, not just some man "ordained" by the "institutionalized" church. It was a grievious error that slowly made its way into the churches in the middle to late second century and was finalized by the writings of Augustine's Systematic Theology of the church in the late 4th and early 5th century! More information will be forthcoming at the end of this post.
"...with no individual person having as so-called “primacy” — a word meaning “first in rank,” or “first place.” And another thing, the Apostles never set up any one church having jurisdiction over any other church. "
Primacy of the See of Rome is recognized in the Orthodox Church despite their criticism of the modern strong Papacy.
That has nothing to do with the early Assemblies of Christ. It is a future development of the institutionalized churches way to far in the future to affect what the discussion of my first paragraph stated.
It's time for me to address what I said I'd address in this post. The following is used by permission of Ken Fortier Ministries (info to follow at the end of this post).
Elders and Bishops
1. The term “elder,” in its first century use and meaning meant a person of age and experience, and it is used as the word to describe the character of the leadership of local assemblies of Christians. It is the Greek word “presbuteros,” of which there were many in each local Church of Christ.
2. The term “bishop,” in its first century use and meaning meant the title of an office. This is the word the Greek speaking world at the time of Christ used to describe the office of one who “oversees” a group of people. Example: A “foreman” is an “overseer,” a “bishop” of the those he is in charge of. It is the Greek word, “episkopos,” which is used to describe the office of the “elders” of the Church of Christ.
3. Putting 1 and 2 together, we find that the “presbuteros” held the office of an “episkopos,” or to put into our American English: “The ‘elders’ held the office of an ‘overseer’.”
Now, let us proceed to prove this fact from the “creed” of this sect everywhere spoken against. We go to Paul, the one who is known as a “ringleader,” and the one who was chosen to be the “Apostle” to the Gentiles by the risen Savior Himself. We now ask Paul how he applied these Greek terms.
“From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the ELDERS of the Church. When they arrived, he said to them: ’… I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole counsel of God. Guard yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you OVERSEERS. Be shepherds of the Church of God, which He bought with His own blood’.” (Acts 20:17, 27–28).
Now understand, the word which is here rendered “overseer” is “episkopos,” which is the same that is rendered “bishop” wherever the term “bishop” occurs in their Creed—the New Testament Scriptures!
We also have to notice that Paul also uses other words to describe the office of “bishop—overseer”—the word “shepherds,” which in other places is rendered as “pastors.” We have a very similar expression used by the Apostle Peter: “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder … Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, …” (1 Peter 5:1–2). Here we have Peter using the words “presbuteros—elder,” and the word “shepherds,” which Paul used in the plural also to describe the office of the “episkopos—overseer—bishop.” Both Peter and Paul are in complete agreement that the word “presbuteros—elder” describes the character of the one who is an “episkopos—overseer—bishop.” Here, then, are two instances in which the “elders” are commanded to do the work of an “overseer,” which shows that when the teachers in that sect everywhere spoken against used the term “elder” as an official title, they always applied it to the “bishops” or “overseers” of the local Church of Christ.
In further consideration and evidence of this position, and which Peter and Paul both agreed upon, read Titus 1:5–7. Paul is writing to explain: “The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless, not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to much wine, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain.”
Why must elders be of the character here described? The answer is because a bishop must be blameless, having only one wife and children who are believers! Thus are the terms “elder—presbuteros” and “bishops—overseers—episkopos” employed to express the same office and to describe the character of the ones desiring it.
The work which pertained to this office, according to the CREED of this sect everwhere spoken against, was to oversee and feed the church, to provide for the spiritual wants of the flock of God, to rule and teach well, to keep things in order, and thus exercise a general oversight over the church, watching for the good of their lives (souls), as they that must give account. See Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2, 1 Thessalonians 5:12, 1 Timothy 5:17, and Hebrews 13:7 and 17.
In every individual congregation belonging to this body—the sect of which we are investigating, wherever the proper character could be found, they had a plurality, yes, many of these bishops or overseers. It is also true, that congregations existed for a time without such chosen men to act as shepherds. Hence, Titus was left in Crete, to appoint elders in every city, which shows that there were churches in those cities, but, there was something lacking; they did not have the proper overseers, and, therefore, Tutus was left with them for the purpose of supplying this lack by appointing elders with the qualifications Paul told him to look for!
This same fact appears in the fourteenth chapter of the Book of Acts. In it we have an account of what Paul and Barnabas did when they went back for their second visit to the cities in which they had proclaimed the Good News of Christ. “Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed” (Acts 14:23). I have quoted this Scripture verse to show that, first, the Good News was proclaimed, second, that as individuals grew in the knowledge of the Lord, and, that when Paul had come back to confirm this, he chose those who had matured in the faith to be elders or shepherds of the congregations of saints. I also quote this verse to show that churches existed when they were first formed, without elders, but it also proves that when the proper characters could be found, they had a plurality of elders in each and every church or individual, local congregation. Here we have the church in the singular, and the elders in the plural. One church, many elders! This same form of expression is found in Acts 20:17, where Paul “Sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church—“church” is singular; “elders” are plural; ONE church, MANY elders!
Another point that should be spelled out is this: “Do not entertain an accusation against an elder UNLESS it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning” (1 Timothy 5:19–20).
Timothy was an evangelist—one who was sent to proclaim the “evangel—the Good News” (See 2 Timothy 4:5), as was Titus. When Paul sent them into a city to appoint or ordain elders, that was a work of an evangelist. They were to look for the ones who, as Paul said, “desired the office of a bishop/episkopos” (See 1 Timothy 3:1). Paul laid out the requirement they must meet, and if they measured up, Timothy could appoint or ordain them to the office of bishop or overseer just as Titus was ordered to do. But, Paul warned Timothy that “The time will come when some men will not put up with sound teachings. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths” (See 2 Timothy 4:3–4).
Let’s let Paul tell us what he said is the Church of Christ, as he is the one to whom it was revealed by Jesus himself: “I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ” (Galations 1:11, and read Galations, chapters 1 and 2!).
Another revelation Paul reveals, in reference to the office of “bishop—overseer,” is in order. Their official work was confined to the individual congregation to which they belonged. We never find in their Creed of the “Bishop of the churches,” but of the “Bishops of the church!” (See Philippians 1:1.) We never read of one bishop to many churches, but only of many bishops to ONE church. Bishops, plural; church, singular!
Again, don’t peak behind that curtain we pulled to shut off outside views. We are not looking to back up what is taught in today’s sects, but the sect everywhere spoken against in the first century! We want God’s revealed truth instead of man’s opinions or theories from speculation. If TRADITIONS contradict what is taught by the New Testament Scriptures, then those traditions are unbiblical.
As we read the Creed of this sect under investigation, we find that Paul, the one whom we are asking, has listed the qualification a man must have to seek the office of bishop. Let’s look at these qualification more closely:
1. A bishop must be the husband of one wife.
2. His children must believe and be obedient to him.
3. He must hold firmly to the Gospel message.
4. He must have sound moral teachings.
5 He must be honest and above reproach in his work.
6. He must be self-controlled and disciplined.
7. He must be temporate.
8. He must be hospitable to all saints.
9. He must have an ability to teach the Word.
10. He must be above reproach among outsiders.
11. He must not put money above his work.
12. He must not be a drunkard nor given to drinking a lot.
13. He must not use unlawful methods to earn a living.
14. He must have his own household managed rightly.
15. He must not be a new convert to Christianity.
16. He must not force his opinions upon others because of the office he holds, i.e., overbearing.
(See 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Tutus 1:5–9; comparing them with the above 16 points spelled out.)
17. He must be able to correct and rebuke according to the Scriptures—with great patience and instruction. (See 2 Timothy 4:2).
A man, to be a bishop, must have the characteristics listed above. The Apostle Paul said that the office of a bishop is one of trust. There are no higher nor greater titles given than to one who is to be an “overseer” of the Church of God. “This is a true saying: If any man desires the office of a bishop, he desires to do a good work” (1 Timothy 3:1). Paul goes on to then list the qualities a man MUST possess to receive the title.
The Apostle Paul makes it very clear and important that a bishop be married! STOP! Don’t peak behind the curtain and let outside views corrupt what Paul is saying. Let modern practices and man-made commands remain behind the curtain. We are seeking truth as is revealed in God’s inspired Word. Yes, Paul said that a bishop MUST be married and, “He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God” (1 Timothy 3:4–5). The Greek is even more explicit than the Latin Vulgate version just quoted. “He MUST rule well … his children in SUBJECTATION will ALL SERIOUSNESS … But, if he DOES NOT KNOW HOW to rule his own household … how will he care for a church of God?” Notice the reason Paul states for a bishop to be married. He puts a great deal of emphasis on this status.
But to the rest, Paul says: “Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you and who have taken to leading you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in high regard in love because of the work they do” (1 Thessalonians 5:12–13).
It will thusly be seen, in all the Scriptures of this sect spoken against, that all ministers under Christ were to receive the esteem of those they served because of their faithfulness in the important work they were chosen to do. All the authority bishops have comes from the Head of the Church—Christ, the Head of the Body, which is the Church. It must be borne in mind that all members of Christ’s Body, the Church, without regard to office, are made “kings and priests unto God,’ “Children of God,” “Heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ.” (We will investigate this together when we ask Paul: “What about the priests of this sect spoken against?”).
The next part will continue, by looking into the offices of “deacon, evangelist, Apostle, and priest.” Remember, we must keep the curtain pulled to shut off all outside views if we want to get a true and unbiased look at the officers of this sect under our investigation. Our next part of this investigation will be very educational for all who are truly seeking the truth as shown by the holy Spirit who moved men to write the Scriptures, not of their own thoughts and opinions, but of what God wanted them to write down and reveal to us (See 1 Peter 1:10–12, 2 Peter 1:3–4 and 16–21.)
Okay, I've given a response to you on my first paragraph. If you really want to know more, go to THIS SITE and access under the "ARTICLE" page the following four articles entitled "The Church of Christ". The above part posted came from "Part Three" of the series. They are all in Adobe Format and can be saved to your hard drive for further study.
Happy surfing...
Witness is not always vocal, not always actively and openly missionary, not always publicly certifiable.
Our Lord is very capable of “seeing in secret and rewarding in secret”.
In the paragraph starting with "Your first sentence" the sentence in question, corrected, is "then they would NOT have fellowship with that congregation."
We all make mistakes...:-)
Excellent! So am I, and I rejoice to be joint-heirs of God with Christ as my brother.
Gee, John——each of us has our own template designed for us by the Lord.
Be gracious enough to let me live out my calling from the Lord and you live out yours.
I won’t be posting to you anymore.
You are likely saying ‘Thanks be to God! :-)
"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God"
If you're not sharing the word with them, you're not giving them anything.
? ? ?
Could you please direct me to where I made that statement?...I dont recall ever making it, and I dont believe I have used the word ‘cadre’ on these religious threads...so I think your reply tho directed towards me, was directed towards me in error...hopefully you will go back and find out to whom, you should direct your reply...thanks...
Don't try to read my mind, you're not any good at it.
I DO know what it is.
The suggestion that you can do worse is no consolation to me nor commendation to you.
Great essay!
Saved to my disk
A most interesting question...what is gibberish to one person, may indeed be something worth careful study to someone else...so, if you are asking me what my definition of gibberish is, well on this thread and other religious threads, I consider the so called ‘gibberish’ posts to be the posts that seemingly just have to include bolding in red and blue colors, disjointed sentences, paragraphs, made up words, made up slogans that are repeatedly time and time put forth...there is never anything new...it is always the same old drivel...it was gibberish and not worth considering the first time I read that stuff, so to save myself time, I just scroll on past, because as it was true gibberish the first time around, it will be gibberish the 500th around...it is always the same old, same old stuff...it is a sheer waste of time for me to read the same stuff over and over again, when, it is just gibberish....it does not even make sense, it never says anything new, just includes lots of ranting...I also consider it to be gibberish, when all we see is some weirdo pics of critters laughing, giggling, or being curmudgeonly....that kind of stuff, says nothing meaningful, and it falls under the heading of gibberish as well..
Now, I imagine that each person can determine for himself/herself what they consider to be gibberish...I cannot speak for anyone else, why they would consider something to be gibberish and refuse to read it..\
I have given you my answer....I tend to read everyone’s post on the religion forum...but when the spiffy red and blue colors just have to come out, when made up words, made up phrases, made up mantras that repeat incessantly, when disjointed sentences, phrases, and paragraphs, come out, along with cartoon characters in various states of mind come out, to me, that is gibberish...it was gibberish the first few times I read the stuff, and it is still gibberish, no matter how many times I read it....
So, I just have learned from past experience, it is best to just invoke the No Gibberish Rule, meaning I will not read the post, and I will just scroll on past...
There are too many worthwhile posts on these forums, to waste my time with the type of posts I have described...and those are the only ons I consider gibberish...
As I said, each person can decide for themselves what they consider to be gibberish, and I have no idea why that person would consider something to be gibberish, nor would I hazard a guess as to why...
I have just told you what I consider to be gibberish, and why I feel that way....others will have a different view, and a different reason...so be it...
You may just want to visit that web site and download all four acticles mentioned on this topic. I think they are an excellent essay for one to understand what the leadership of Christ's church should be like.
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.