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.
But they hear the Divine Law written in their hearts and they will be judged according to their works, just like everyone else:
6 Who will render to every man according to his works. 7 To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: 8 But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. 9 Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. 10 But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12 For whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law; and whosoever have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law. 13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: 15 Who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another (Romans
You say the Catechism says that also? What a coincidence.
There was talk of some sort of ordination liturgy as far back as we have decent records. But as to what it exactly involved is pretty iffy. We just don't know, and the Early Church Fathers only mentioned it in passing here and there. Much like the early liturgy, we have some hints, but not a lot to go on.
I agree here. To me the “early church fathers,” when I mention them, refer to those who wrote from the first century through the end of the second century, with special attention to those called “apostolic fathers.”
Augustine got over ruled in letting the lapsed Bishops back in. He was against it as a lay person, but the local head bishop (I think it was a Metropolitan bishop) said “If they repent and do penance, ok”. There was a major Schism that said “NO!” called the Novatians (spelling). They were causing trouble up to the rise of Islam. But remember also that Augustine was after Constantine. The persecutions had ended well before he was a bishop (at least in the Roman Empire), and he was writing after the fact as a new convert from Manichism. When he was a Bishop (which he became unwillingly) he did spar with Rome at times. They honestly felt they were being ignored and misunderstood, and working at cross purposes. Augustine and Jerome (translator of the Vulgate) REALLY didn't like each other, and would send letters back and forth over the translation of the Bible. That is probably where the letter you read came from. Augustine rejected much of the Vulgate's translation of the Old Testament till his death.
Augustine was against letting “lapsed” bishops (and others holding offices) to retain their office, but did accept their repentance (did not mean “penance”) when they turned back to the faith. He was asked, then “appointed to help” Valerius, the bishop of Hippo, to “aid in administering” the local church ( a single church): there was no “ordination procedure” that we know of from Augustine’s own writings, or other historical records of that particular time period concerning this. Part of his “administering aid” was to preach and teach the congregation (which was not all that large) from the “pulpit.” Augustine did this, using his knowledge of rhetoric that he was so comfortable with in the past, and he spoke so convincingly that his popularity rivaled Varlerius. Four years after Augustine began his “aid,” Valerius, alleging his age, asked the congregation to “elect” a new bishop (quite different from being chosen by a church hierarchy). It was at this time, according to Augustine’s own writings, that he said he regretted being so foolish as to become a pastor (priest), and didn’t want to be their bishop. However, the congregation would have none of that and literally forced him into taking the office. From that time on he records that he had no real leisure time of his own. His writings tell us that he didn’t like the interruptions of those who demanded to see him. Sometimes he responded harshly: “Discedite a me, maligni! Go far from me, you wicked ones! Let me study in peace the commandments of my God.”
As far as the first bishop of Rome to use Matt 16:18, I think you are to early. Augustine (in City of God and later in Retractions) explicitly states that Matt. 16:18 refers to the confession of Peter, not Peter himself. He got in some hot water over this, but that was the orthodox view then, and still is the Eastern Orthodox view.
Cyprian in 254 (before Damasus) argued with the bishop of Rome, demanding under what rule he regarded himself as the successor of Peter, especially since all bishops were apostolic successors, and that they were all of equal rank in the church. When Damasus took over the developing semi-political papal office, he quoted Mt. 16:18 to enforce his claim to be the chief bishop of Christianity (having “primacy” over all other bishops). While I admit his claims were scoffed at by the greater number of church bishops — Eastern and African in the main, eventually a system of “proofs” were put forth to emphasize it. Yes, Augustine didn’t accept that the church was built on Peter, but on the acknowledgment that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, the “rock” of truth the church was built upon. As for that quote attributed to Augustine, I couldn’t find it in his letters to Jerome. But, anyway, all the writings of those called “church fathers” are strictly their own opinions and not inspired as were the writers of the NT. Even Augustine tells us that when he said, “Do not follow my writings as holy scripture. When you find in holy scripture anything you did not believe before, believe it without doubt; but in my writings, you should hold nothing for certain.” (See his preface to his “Treatise on the Trinity”). In many place he urges his readers to always test what he says by the Scriptures, and to choose the teachings of Scripture over anything he might say or write. Now that, IMHO, is what makes him great.
Which brings up an interesting point about Augustine. If you read his writings, which few really do, he doesn't make a good Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Orthodox, etc. He is all over the place at times, and changed his opinion on some things. The reason why everyone can use Augustine to defend their position is that he varied some what on the non essentials or speculative theology. His writings on the Trinity were first rate, and remain some of the best.
I agree here. He was a voluminous writer, producing some 230 books and many letters. His works fill fifty huge volumes and I seriously doubt that anyone has really read them all, or ever will. I’ve read a quite a few dozen of them, and his major work, “The City of God”, thoroughly: and because of a debate with a local minister, gave an in depth critique of Book 21 of “The City of God” to show why I arrived at my conclusion on his and Augustine’s beliefs on the “immortal soul” concept now believed by a majority of Christianity. In doing this I also critiqued what Calvin had to say, which was very similar to Augustine. Suffice to say, that minister backed away from what he was teaching because of the evidence I produced.
BTW, I found a very good quote from Augustine that all should consider. "You are not to suppose, brethren, that heresis are produced by small minds; on the contrary, only great minds can produce them." I have my own list of those who are considered "great minds." :-)
Romans 2, of course.
(((gasp)))
It appears by that statement you do not understand how God has told us He would reveal Himself to us.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." -- John 1:1
Christ is the word of God made flesh. This word, ordained to be communicated through the Scriptures, is written on the believer's heart by God and made alive and knowable in his mind by the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
"What saith the Scriptures?
For the same reason a man in love, when rejected, does not proceed to rape the object of his love.
Your job as a missionary in the Philippines must be a tough one, since the country is already 90% Christian.
You are denying that Christ is bigger than the Bible?
You’re claiming that the totality of the second person of the Blessed Trinity is contained in a printed book, that there is nothing else of Christ one could know but what is in the Bible?
Amazing.
That, my FRiend, is really SICK.
Calvinism is sick.
I agree with your remark. God does not force those whom He loves to return the love, to act upon it, to accept it. He loves us and yearns for our love in return, even to the point of dying to pay for our transgressions, to make us His own, to bring us to willing and joyous union with Him in Glory.
From Saint Thomas Aquinas
That Divine Providence is not inconsistent with Freedom of the Will
THE government of every prudent governor is ordained to the perfection of the things governed, to the gaining, or increasing, of maintenance of that perfection. An element of perfection then is more worthy of being preserved by providence than an element of imperfection and defect. But in inanimate things the contingency of causes comes of imperfection and defect: for by their nature they are determined to one effect, which they always gain, unless there be some let or hindrance arising either from limitation of power, or the interference of some external agent, or indisposition of subject-matter; and on this account natural causes in their action are not indifferent to either side of an alternative, but for the most part produce their effects uniformly, while they fail in a minority of instances. But that the will is a contingent cause comes of its very perfection, because its power is not tied to one effect, but it rests with it to produce this effect or that, wherefore it is contingent either way. * Therefore providence is more concerned to preserve the liberty of the will than to preserve contingency in natural causes.
2. It belongs to divine providence to use things according to their several modes. But a thing's mode of action depends upon its form, which is the principle of action. But the form whereby a voluntary agent acts is not determinate: for the will acts through a form apprehended by the intellect; and the intellect has not one determined form of effect under its consideration, but essentially embraces a multitude of forms;* and therefore the will can produce multiform effects.
3. The last end of every creature is to attain to a likeness to God (Chap. XVII): therefore it would be contrary to providence to withdraw from a creature that whereby it attains the divine likeness. But a voluntary agent attains the divine likeness by acting freely, as it has been shown that there is free will in God (B. I, Chap. LXXXVIII).
4. Providence tends to multiply good things in the subjects of its government. But if free will were taken away, many good things would be withdrawn. The praise of human virtue would be taken away, which is nullified where good is not done freely: the justice of rewards and punishments would be taken away, if man did not do good and evil freely: wariness and circumspection in counsel would be taken away, as there would be no need of taking counsel about things done under necessity. It would be therefore contrary to the plan of providence to withdraw the liberty of the will.*
Hence it is said: God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel: before man is life and death, whatever he shall please shall be given him (Ecclus xv, 14-17).
Hereby is excluded the error of the Stoics, who said that all things arose of necessity, according to an indefeasible order, which the Greeks called ymarmene (heimarmenê).
Links to above
Chap. XVII
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc3_17.htm
B. I, Chap. LXXXVIII
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc1_88.htm
I hope all is well with you and your family,since it's been awhile since I posted you?
I wish you a Blessed Day!
For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
(Ezekiel 36:24-27 KJV)
And you equate God forcing his Grace and his Divine Will upon you, in order to save you from eternal punishment as being the equivalent of rape?
No annalex, your statement was SICK.
You have equated God's irresistible Grace and the overpowering force of God's will with rape.
The more I read of these debates between Calvinists and Romanists, the more convinced I am of the truth of the Calvinist position.
All I can say is that I am thankful that God's grace was irresistible to me. If it were resistible, I would have resisted. If it were resistible, I not be under his Grace, but under his judgment.
What do you equate forced love with?
I will give you an heart of flesh.
To what end? Some rapist.
Why do you love God, annalex? Are you a better person, more holy, smarter then those who reject his call to repentance? Did you love God because you are a good person?
Or did God change your heart in order that you could choose him?
Don't bother to answer.
1. This expression [of our Lord], "How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not," set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. Rejecting therefore the good, and as it were spuing it out, they shall all deservedly incur the just judgment of God, which also the Apostle Paul testifies in his Epistle to the Romans, where he says, "But dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and long-suffering, being ignorant that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God." "But glory and honour," he says, "to every one that doeth good." God therefore has given that which is good, as the apostle tells us in this Epistle, and they who work it shall receive glory and honour, because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it; but those who do it not shall receive the just judgment of God, because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do.2. But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for such were they created; nor would the former be reprehensible, for thus they were made [originally]. [...]
5. And not merely in works, but also in faith, has God preserved the will of man free and under his own control, saying, "According to thy faith be it unto thee; " thus showing that there is a faith specially belonging to man, since he has an opinion specially his own. And again, "All things are possible to him that believeth;" and, "Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee." Now all such expressions demonstrate that man is in his own power with respect to faith. [...]
6. Those, again, who maintain the opposite to these ['conclusions], do themselves present the Lord as destitute of power, as if, forsooth, He were unable to accomplish what He willed;[...]
7. [...] The Lord has therefore endured all these things on our behalf, in order that we, having been instructed by means of them all, may be in all respects circumspect for the time to come, and that, having been rationally taught to love God, we may continue in His perfect love: for God has displayed long-suffering in the case of man's apostasy; while man has been instructed by means of it, as also the prophet says, "Thine own apostasy shall heal thee;" God thus determining all things beforehand for the bringing of man to perfection, for his edification, and for the revelation of His dispensations, that goodness may both be made apparent, and righteousness perfected, and that the Church may be fashioned after the image of His Son, and that man may finally be brought to maturity at some future time, becoming ripe through such privileges to see and comprehend God
If devout Muslims are saved by their works, then that is a works-ONLY salvation model. I didn't think that was part of the Catholic faith. The Bible completely disagrees with this approach:
John 6:29 : Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
Matt 10:32-33 : 32 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
Obviously, devout Muslims score a zero percent on these no matter what their good deeds are. Yet, you say in general terms they still go to Heaven?
FK: God puts up the resources, but man does all the work and is in charge of the operation.
That is His will though. What you marvel about is no different than the puzzlement of the apostles of how Christ will have to suffer and die for no fault of His own. In both cases, you expect God to exercise power, when God's love is self-emptying.
The two do not match. On the one hand you say that salvation is Christ dying for things He didn't do. OTOH, you say that salvation is man doing things on account of himself. Why did Christ die if man can just do what is necessary to get into Heaven? That idea makes Christ look silly to me. :) The answer is that Christ had to die because man CAN'T do enough to get into Heaven. That is the only scenario that has Christ dying making any sense at all. Yet, you have man doing all the work and being in charge.
Your original question was about a child playing with matches. That, I can save them from, and likewise every time you breathe in another breath, God saved you in the same way. But I cannot save my daughter by marrying a jerk, or failing her future husband in some way. Those will be the adult decisions I will have to respect, even if they pain me.
But the comparison breaks down a little here and we have to recognize that. When our children are small we have complete authority over them in all matters. We have all the power to save them from themselves. When they grow up we lose that absolute power. So, how would you compare the power that God has over us? Is it absolute, or are we more like "co-adults" in comparative terms? My side says the former and I think Catholicism says the latter.
With non-Catholics I argue strictly from the scripture. So does St. Irenaeus, my fellow Catholic, in the article excerpted above.
did God change your heart in order that you could choose him?
Of course. That is the whole point, is it not, that I choose Him as well as He chooses me?
There are very strong Biblical arguments presented for Calvinism. There are very strong Biblical arguments for the other side.?
We as humans tend to think it is an either/or but our small minds can't comprehend many of the things God says.
I am beginning to believe both sides are true. How can that be you ask? See paragraph three. Now, would anyone like to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Who chose who first?
The scriptures say that we love him BECAUSE he first loved us.
Jesus also stated that we did not "choose" him but that he chose us.
If we make a choice to follow Christ, it is BECAUSE God chose us to be his followers.
I never understood why people cannot grasp any of this by there mere fact that God being perfect cannot create and will someone for hell unless God is imperfect,thus He would be making a human sacrifice to the devil?
How can anyone call this a God who loves?
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.