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.
Yur presume that we Calvinists don't belive in Free Will. Perhaps you should stop looking at us through the lens of Catholicism and Arminianism.
Here’s the explanation: men can accept or resist grace according to their free will.
Yup. That is what we believe.
But there is one important Scriptural part that you are overlooking. In our fallen state, our free will chooses not to accept God's grace. We don't want it, aren't interested.
When God regenerates us, through the Holy Spirit, our free will longs to come to Christ. we begin to abhor our former selves and willingly enter into a salvific relationship with God though Christ.
And that my friend, is found in every book of Scripture.
God’s love is unconditional and extends to the reprobates (those who don’t love God back).
In so much as he allows them to live a life here and now that is the best they will ever have, yes he does.
Part of my point is that NO THEY WON'T. :) Assume Catholic free will. Now, is it true that God is a complete failure (or liar) as the scriptures tell, assuming free will? You see? Either the Catholic idea of free will is wrong, OR, the scriptures are wrong, OR, God really is a failure. IMO, the Catholic solution is that the scriptures are wrong.
Here’s the explanation: men can accept or resist grace according to their free will. To accept grace is to love God. To resist grace is not to love Him.
OK, but that presumes that a man has something within himself that allows him to be able to love God. The Bible argues against that. From Gamecock's recent DOCTRINES OF GRACE thread:
So, considering all this, in Catholicism does God give salvational grace to all before birth (Biblically impossible), or does He give it to all after birth? If the latter, when do all humans receive that grace?
God knows His elect and His reprobates. He cannot “fix” the reprobates because love by definition has to come from the free will.
Couldn't God have "fixed" them before He created them, before there was any free will? Sure He could have, but He didn't love them so that He wanted them in Heaven for eternity. I hope you realize that you are putting the free will of man above the power of God. :) That is the only logical result. But if you would consider the above to be "unfair" tampering, then there is still the unanswered question of WHY some choose to accept and why most decline. Above, you say that some choose to love. OK, what makes them love and others not love? Is that love self-generated? There is no answer in Catholicism because the system is unworkable SINCE the Bible exists.
For God to save a reprobate against the reprobate’s will is as impossible as it is impossible for Him to lie, or fail, or not love.
Why is that? (Would you save your child from playing with matches against her will?) You are equating your belief of God's granting of free will to men WITH God's ESSENCE itself. Why is the free will of men in the same league with God being eternal, for example? Why is the free will of a man superior to the free will of God? When you elevate what you would call a free will decision by God (to give man free will) to the point of His very essence, then you shackle Him in favor of man. Man's will now trumps God's will, which is the practical effect. That doesn't sound right. :) In fact, it sounds like a sacrifice of sovereignty by God Himself.
What God can do is give opportunities for the free will to turn the right way. Those are in the form of the Sacraments of His Church that transmit the saving grace, the revelation of God in Christ, and the chastisement of suffering that everyone receives, but not everyone can use to grow closer to Christ.
But certainly not ALL MEN receive saving grace through the sacraments of your Church. How do the rest of us get saving grace, and when does that happen? I also note that when infants "receive their saving grace" at baptism (when you say sins are forgiven and they are saved), it is NOT by free will. Since many of them cry we can only infer that it is AGAINST their free will. :) An infant is incapable of accepting saving grace via free will and therefore loving God.
And your explanation makes it inescapably simple. Thanks for putting forth the effort.
The Apostles commission to forgive sins (national sins) of Israel - Christ was speaking of THAT Kingdom - Acts 3:18-26 - the Kingdom for which Israel was in anticipation) was to Israelites, as the first 11 chapters of the Book of Acts does clearly show. Pentecost is not a feast for the NT Body of Christ, but was for Israel (Leviticus ch. 23)
A kingdom is not an earthly church, and no earthly church is a kingdom, except that ASSEMBLY (Church) which was made up of the Children of Israel. The keys were for Israelites who would repent of their rejection and murder of their King and thus be granted entrance into the Kingdom of Christ when He returns from the wedding (Luke 12:36; etc.) after his absence.
The children of Israel were promised the return of Christ their Messiah and King upon their repentance (Acts 3:19-21).
Every audience facing the Apostles in the first seven chapters of Acts were Israelites or proselytes to Judaism. And even the believers scattered from Jerusalem after the persecution mentioned in Acts 8 went preaching to none but to Jews only (Acts 11:19).
There was nothing in Matthew 16 that was delivered for doctrine re. evangelizing the Gentiles (at our current time), and the Church which is Christ's Body is not the church of Matthew 16. Matthew 16 is about a Kingdom Church of Israelites requiring KEYS which Christ bound up to His Apostles until the Nation rejected the witness and ministry of the Holy Spirit (Acts Period).
This is why the Apostle to the Gentiles (Paul) doesn't make reference to the keys, nor does he make the distinctions between Jews and Gentiles made by the other Apostles clearly as late as Acts 15, anywhere in his post Acts epistles.
The word “church” is not the same church in every reference where the word is found. The word “salvation” is not the same salvation in every passage where the word is used. The word “kingdom” is not the same kingdom in every verse where the word is found.
There are no keys to get in to the Body of Christ. Christ now holds the keys of death and hell, and the only means in to His Body is through Him Personally, by personal and deliberate faith in His once-for-ever (not repeated-repeated-repeated) sacrifice. Hebrews chapters 9 and 10 clearly teach that Christ can not be offered often, but once (9:25, 26; etc.).
I utterly deny that any ceremony, ordinance, or ritual performed my man on earth since Calvary has any saving merit or efficacy in any way, shape, or form.
Oh, well, that settles it.
[eyeroll]
And you won't.
The "free will" you describe here is not free will at all.
Settled once for all at Calvary’s Cross and the Resurrection of Christ.
False dichotomy.
You see? Either the Catholic idea of free will is wrong, OR, the scriptures are wrong, OR, God really is a failure.
Ridiculous.
I can believe you, or I can believe Christ.
I will stick with Christ, thank you very much.
If you were to read a verse (in the same book, Matthew, just one chapter earlier, ch. 15)in which Christ clearly states who He did not come to minister to, and who He did come to minister to, would you believe His words then? And would it not have bearing on His instruction in the following chapter? And would it not have a bearing on what His Apostles understood Him to be addressing?
Is there some food you just detest? You want to eat it, maybe because it's good for you, but you just can't stand it. Maybe to the point where you feel nauseous jusr smelling it cooking.
You want to eat it but you can't. Where is your free will?
The thought of God is even more detestable to those who have not been born again of and by the spirit.
Huh? Foods that are detestable to the point of nausea are foods I do NOT want to eat.
Choosing to eat them is entirely up to me, and I freely choose not to eat them.
I can't eat broccoli.
I find it detestable.
My mom offered me $100 if I would eat broccoli every night for a week. That was back in the early ‘80s. I couldn't eat it. I was retching from the get go.
Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.In fact, Christ's actions in Mat 15:28 demonstrate that His words in 15:24 were not meant to describe an absolute and exclusive mission, but rather a primary one. This is borne out by His final words quoted above: "all nations."
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
Ridiculous.
Why do you say that? And please give me something more to work with than "Because it isn't true". :)
I don't know if you've been following this or not, so I should tell you that we are sort of looping in the Catholic belief concerning God's desire for all men to be saved. That's what the "failure" part is really referring to. If God truly wants all to be saved, and if God has truly given up and passed the buck on the decision of who will be with Him in Heaven, then God is a failure.
ANNALEX: love by definition has to come from the free will.
Who defined love like this? Certainly not God. Humanists define love this way. Atheists define love this way.
OTOH, Christians define love as God's word defined it -- God's unearned, unmerited, free, merciful and life-changing gift of grace through faith in Christ which is not in ourselves to bring upon us. Instead, as Christ said, we become as little children and trust in God completely that His will for us is all that matters. Indeed, it is only God's will that is actually "real" in any sense of the word.
While some on these threads make the foolish claim that we Bible-believing Christians rely on Paul too much (as if that were even possible) our faith and "love" of God is actually defined according to the words of Christ as coming from God, and not from our own "free will."
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." -- John 10:26-29"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
By our own "free will" do we announce ourselves as members of Christ's sheep? Christ says otherwise. Christ says the reason men don't believe is because they are not among His flock. Not the other way around.
Therefore belief is not a matter of men's "free will." It is a matter of God's will by the gift of His unmerited grace, freely given to whom He will, according to mercy and not debt.
If our love of God and righteousness depended on men's natural will, no man would obey God and follow Christ. If someone like Peter denied Christ three times, how do any of us think we can do better than Peter?
Our human "free will" must be brought captive to the word of God and the power of God before we can do anything God-pleasing.
Therefore, "love by definition has to come" not from men or their supposedly "free" wills, but from God through God by God for God.
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." -- John 3:19-21"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
All men's good works come from God, originating by God's will and not men's. They are carried out according to God's will, for God's glory and not men's.
"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." -- Romans 12:2
Christ instructs us by the parable of the good tree and the corrupt tree. Do men make themselves into good trees? Or are good trees created by God, planted by God, watered and sustained by God?
"But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up." -- Matthew 15:13
This misguided, warmed-over Pelagianism of Rome ("love is free will") is contradicted time and again by Scripture. No doubt this is why Rome felt compelled to add to God's word, thus adding the glory of their own good works to men's account when God alone is responsible for anything good in any of us.
"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" -- 1 Corinthians 4:7
It takes some time to pry our eyes off ourselves and what we've been told our entire lives are our own abilities, and to re-orient our line-of-sight on God alone.
I resisted giving up the fantasy of "free will" for years. I had been taught "free will" in school and certainly in the media for so long that it seemed like one of those unchallengeable absolutes, like breathing and sleeping.
lol. Thank you, God, for removing from my eyes the scales of my own accomplishment so that I could behold His perfect grace in all that is and was and will be.
"For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." -- Acts 17:28
Wow. Just . . . wow.
lol, I could live on just broccoli
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.