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.
I guess not,Dear tiki?
I guess you must believe there is no Hell or eternal punishment for sins.
You guess wrong.
Often.
That post was not addressed to me.
Nonetheless, I know stfassisi and I know you.
You guess wrong.
Often.
What?
Our free will to sin is what sends us to hell.
God DOES NOT create anyone for hell or it would be a sacrifice to the devil.
My understanding is that no devout Muslim can be ignorant of Christ since the Koran teaches blasphemy about Him. I hope you are not suggesting that free passes are given to anyone who has not been taught correctly about Christ, and generally does good deeds? If that was true then no one should evangelize nice people, because only then could they lose. :) Under this theory it would be fine, however, to evangelize mean and rotten people since their worst case would be to remain in the same spot.
FK: ... you don't appear to think that faith is necessary.
Faith is necessary for sanctification, but Christ has always been merciful to those of little faith.
When Christ talks about those with "little faith" do you think He is including people with no true faith at all? Also, would you say sanctification is necessary for salvation, thus making faith required, or was that a distinction you were making?
We are not independent. We are totally dependent on His grace. What we have is not sovereignty, but free will.
But since all God does is make it possible for you to later be saved, then after you accept His grace isn't man's sovereignty and free will the same thing? That is what I have been meaning when using the term "man's sovereignty". At that time you are completely independent because you are in total control of your own destiny.
FK: Calvinism promotes a personal one-on-one relationship between the person and God.
First, the scripture does not teach that one-on-one part.
Do you really NOT think that Jesus died for you PERSONALLY? That would be a terrible shame if you did. The whole Bible is a personal love letter from God TO us. The personal nature of the relationships God had with His prophets in the OT as well as those of Jesus with His disciples is everywhere in scriptures. Just in general terms I don't understand how anyone can think that the actual indwelling Holy Spirit is not as personal as it gets. Is Holy Spirit an embedded computer chip in our heads? :) Here is one passage:
Gal 5:22-23 : 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
I mean, does this sound robotic to you or like an extremely close personal relationship?
Second, despite whatever rhetoric, with denial of free will comes denial of that very desire to imitate Christ by which we are saved and reach heaven.
Where is the logic in this? How can it be that with man's original flawed heart he can have this desire, but with a new heart FROM GOD that desire cannot, by necessity, exist? Besides, as the Bible says NO ONE is born with the desire to seek God:
Ps 53:2-3 : 2 God looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. 3 Everyone has turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.
By this theology you elevate the sinful heart we are born with ABOVE the work of God! How does that work? :)
How many Protestants do you know who would read from St. Athanasius "God became man so that man can become God" and nod in happy agreement?
None who would agree with that wording. :) We seek to be conformed to the image of Christ, but not to "become God". If those are the same thing, then ALL Bible-believing Protestants would nod in happy agreement. We might just disagree about whether it is the innate goodness of man or the innate goodness of God that makes this happen.
No, God sends sinners to hell.
You seem to think that people voluntarily send themselves to hell because that is their "free will" choice.
No, it is God who sends them to hell.
Now if it is our free will that sends us to hell, then why would a loving God give men free will?
Stop pinging me to your posts.
God's justice sends to hell those who freely choose to reject Him.
You seem to think that people voluntarily send themselves to Hell because that is their "free will" choice.
They DO. They do not choose to go to hell because they want to go to hell, they choose to go to hell because they want to do the things in this life that violate His commandments.
No, it is God who sends them to hell.
No contradiction. They violate His rules, His justice sends them to hell.
Now if it is our free will that sends us to hell, then why would a loving God give men free will?
Because God is just and loving. Choose Him and be with Him forever (and not if one does not).
Well, if Forest Keeper is off your list, then you are off mine.
Stop pinging me to your posts.
You seem to think that God created them for Hell,thus God is a partner of the devil and zeus like
I did not ping you to a long succession of my posts replying to others.
I wish to have no further contact with you beyond correcting your ignorant statements about the Catholic Church.
I have no “list.”
I pity you.
BUT I DID! I said IF they depended on baptism for their salvation, they are lost.
Then you agree with the Catholic Church. Congratulations.
You said something to the effect that I had voided the baptisms of 1 billion people and I said if they depended on baptism for their salvation, they they’re lost. Simple as that. I understood what YOU said but you don’t understand the meaning of what I said, apparently.
Sure He did.
I said your claim about infant baptism would work (if it were true) to void the baptism of about a billion souls.
I NEVER mentioned salvation. YOU did.
Oh, I don’t. And how do YOU know that, mind reader? Do you know me? Do you know my heart? Do you know the people I have truly loved (and even forgiven for the pain they’ve cost me?). NO, you do not. How do you even know that Hitler DIDN’T love Eva Braun? Did you know him?
If you did, you added to it.
I don't think you understood at all.
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.