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.
“All things whatsoever Christ commanded His disciples includes MUCH, MUCH more than the instructions in Matthew ch. 28. The things He commanded go all the way back to Matthew chapter 4.
Moses’ seat — representing the Law of Sinai. The disciples were all commanded by Christ to continue in doing what they were bidden from the Law.
This would be a part of “all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” (28:20).
Thus in Acts, they continued the legal observances in the temple, including the circumcision of males according to the covenant of circumcision for Israel, Sabbath keeping, abstaining from unclean meats, and so forth.
We must not restrict the instruction of our Lord in Matthew ch. 28 to Trinitarian Baptism. Which baptism, would not have included infants. Circumcision would have included infants — males only.
Some important words in the Scripture that don't always refer to the same thing each time they are used:
1. CHURCH - there are several (kinds of, and differing) churches referred to in the NT.
2. KINGDOM - there are differing kingdoms referred to in the Bible.
3. BAPTISM - there could be identified anywhere between seven and eleven different baptisms in the Bible.
4. SALVATION - Many kinds of salvation in the Bible.
5. GOSPEL - at least a half dozen subjects of “GOOD NEWS” spoken of in the NT.
Why did you think that?
Because FR Catholics have told me that man's free will means that God will not interfere with our decisions, even if that decision is against choosing Him. Is that not what Catholics believe? I'm not talking about God helping and "nudging" with grace, I know Catholics believe in that. By interference I mean overruling what the human wants. I would say that I would NEVER want God unless He overruled me by His sovereign grace. I see the Catholic position as being that God's saving grace does not overrule any desire of man.
God is our Father, and speaks to us as a father speaks to his children. We do not remain 3 years old, do we?
I'm glad you brought that up because I would say that compared to God, we don't even come close to reaching three years old. :) I see the wisest of men on earth as but toddlers before God's wisdom. The Bible is obviously PACKED with comparisons between parent-child as being God-man and man-his child. Before God, what sort of "child" are we? I see us as toddlers who have no idea what is best for us and being TOTALLY dependent on God for everything. Without God I would be lost in the desert.
However, I see the Catholic view as being that we are adult children before God, capable of knowing what is best for us and not being fully dependent. I think this because of the Catholic idea of free will. But when I look at the real world, the Catholic view doesn't seem to make sense since most of the adult children choose death for themselves. They didn't know what was best for them. They needed to have it done for them, as we do for toddlers.
JA: "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child. When I became a man, I put away childish things."
Yes, but "being a man" is as high as we humans go in the human child-parent comparison. We never get there in the comparison with God. On earth it is very possible for children to become as wise or wiser than their parents, but that never happens vis-a-vis God. Not even close.
He gives us the information we need to decide to love Him or not: it is our choice.
I respectfully disagree, assuming you mean He does this for all men. The math just doesn't work. Would you agree that PART of the information that we need includes that we can spend eternity either in Heaven experiencing perfect joy and happiness surrounded by God's love OR in eternal damnation hellfire being tormented continuously in never ending pain? If you agree that this is information that we need, then how do you explain that the vast majority of people choose the latter? :) Might this more likely be a decision of a toddler or an adult child?
To love anything more than God is to chose something else more than God. And God will do anything, including death on the cross, for our love, ......
YES!
...... except force it.
DANG! So close. :) We have to remember that the term "force it", or its like, is a connotation term. We image the oppressor and the oppressed, etc. It is not like that at all. What God causes to happen is always for the good of the elect, and they will always come to thank Him for what He did, for "forcing it". I know I do every day and so do my Reformed brethren. Of course God has not victimized me, He has liberated me. Go back to the comparison near the top of this post. Did you ever do anything dangerous as a small child, and one of your parents stopped you before you hurt (or killed) yourself? If yes, then are you bitter now because you were "forced"? :) Why can't God "force it" just like this?
It bears repeating. Amen, that is beautiful. :)
Perhaps some have stared at the empty cross so long, they have forgotten that FOR US He died a horrible death on it. I would not call that "wiping His hands clean of any responsibility for the decision." But some may. A crucifix may very well remind people how far God went to persuade us of His eternal surpassing Love.
OK, then what responsibility does Christ have for a man's personal decision to accept Him or not, BECAUSE Christ died for us on the cross? As I understand it, Catholics believe that Christ's death merely made it possible for a man to choose one way or the other, without being overruled by God. I don't see any responsibility there on the part of God for the final decision. Persuasion might be influence, but it is not responsibility (unless there is a duty owed, which is not the case here).
I still don't see how God can care which individuals choose Him if He refuses to lift a finger to change "results", AND every man has an equal chance to go to Heaven.
God does not have power to contradict Himself. He already made animals that do not have free will. Man is no animal.
I don't see where you are going. Do you mean that since God cannot contradict Himself, He MUST fail? I doubt that, at least in those words. :) Or, do you mean that you believe God has made some sort of promise of free will such that His outward calls must be interpreted? I would at least have much more sympathy for that TYPE of approach. :) Could you elaborate?
You are the one talking about God "failing." I do not consider the fact that some humans with free will choose against God to be HIS failure. God knows the hearts of His creatures, I am certain He knows who has rejected Him.
Do you want God to force you into choosing Him? If so, where is YOUR responsibility? Are you a human being, or an animal? A love relationship is each choosing the other. In this case, God is The Other and longs for us to choose Him.
Sending the prophets and the Old Testament scribes to tell us about His love, sending His only Son into the world to teach us directly about God and His love and ultimately to die for our sins, filling our lives with His Blessed Sacraments, graces and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, THIS is washing His hands clean of any responsibility?
He wants us to choose Him, but it is our choice.
Christ's point, in the completeness of chapter 23, is that we are to obey God's laws even if those laws are ministered to us by corrupt men. He spends the rest of the chapter excoriating the Pharisees for their behavior.
Thus in Acts, they continued the legal observances in the temple, including the circumcision of males according to the covenant of circumcision for Israel, Sabbath keeping, abstaining from unclean meats, and so forth.
Yes, †Paul wrote several epistles addressing that exact issue, telling--insisting--such observance is no longer necessary and can be set aside, in light of Christ's work on the Cross.
Fifteen centuries later, give or take, men came along who twisted these words into "faith, not works."
We must not restrict the instruction of our Lord in Matthew ch. 28 to Trinitarian Baptism.
No, He instructs the collected body of His Apostles and disciples (which was His nascent Catholic Church) to Trinitarian Baptism AND to instruct the observance of all the things He had taught.
Which baptism, would not have included infants.
Perhaps it did, perhaps it did not, but it does now.
If an adult is converting to Christianity, of course he will be baptized as an adult. If a child is born into Christianity, only an absurdly literal view of Scripture would insist that child forego baptism until adulthood.
Instead, a parent or godparent speaks for the child, rejecting Satan and accepting Christ as the child's Lord and Savior in the trinitarian formula.
“All therefore whatsoever they (that sit in Moses’ seat)bid you observe, that observe and DO; . . . “ (Matthew 23:1-3)
“Christ’s point, in the completeness of chapter 23, is that we are to obey God’s laws even if those laws are ministered to us by corrupt men.” (Petronski)
Thus in Acts, they continued the legal observances in the temple, including the circumcision of males according to the covenant of circumcision for Israel, Sabbath keeping, abstaining from unclean meats, and so forth. (JL)
“Yes, †Paul wrote several epistles addressing that exact issue, telling—insisting—such observance is no longer necessary and can be set aside, in light of Christ’s work on the Cross.”
Nobdody had access to anything Paul wrote until after Acts ch. 17. And what you speak of was NEW revelation to Paul. The fact remains that the Twelve and the other disciples in the first half of the Book of Acts were temple worshipping, pork-abstaining, covenant circumcising Jews. And they had no instruction to that point to be otherwise.(JL)
We must not restrict the instruction of our Lord in Matthew ch. 28 to Trinitarian Baptism. (JL)
No, He instructs the collected body of His Apostles and disciples (which was His nascent Catholic Church) to Trinitarian Baptism AND to instruct the observance of all the things He had taught. (Petronski)
If an adult is converting to Christianity, of course he will be baptized as an adult. If a child is born into Christianity, only an absurdly literal view of Scripture would insist that child forego baptism until adulthood. (Petronski)
Irrelevant.
The problem that needs to be addressed here, is why did God create some in a nation where it is almost unavoidable to here the Gospel message, and others over the last 2000 years who would never hear it.
If God wanted all to be saved why were there, NO, why are there still people alive who will never hear the Gospel?
The elect will hear the Gospel, the Holy Spirit will regenerate them, and the fire of faith will be lit, never to be in heart and mind of the elect.
Now the Catholic Catechism has a special place for those who seek God in Buddha, Allah or some in some rock or tree. But that is just another example of where Rome clearly contradicting Scripture.
It’s very relevant to the Scriptures.
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
“Sola scriptura is not scriptural.”
We are bound by God’s command, but God is not. By His omnipotence and infinite mercy, He can choose to save whomever He chooses.
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.