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.
According to Pelagius, therefore, a man was able to justify himself by performing good works that were pleasing to God. We see this error in Rome's emphasis on a works-based salvation and on its sacramentalism. This error, sadly, has now filtered into many Protestant churches who preach a semi-Pelagianism by maintaining that men are responsible for their own salvation through their own piety which compels them to "accept" Christ as their Savior. Election according to God's will is thus effectively nullified and made wholly dependent upon men and not God from start to finish.
Thanks to the Reformation, the church and its members were reminded that no man can do anything God-pleasing unless that man has been born again by the Holy Spirit, according to the will of God.
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- Phil. 2:13"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" -- Titus 3:5
Building upon Augustine, the Reformers returned to the Biblical definition of justification as a once-for-all, never-to-be-repeated act in which God declares the guilty sinner to be righteous, not because God has gradually made him righteous by infusing grace into him, but because God has declared him to be righteous because of the righteousness of Christ imputed to him.
It is such a profound distinction. Paul understood the difference when he asserted that no man is righteous and all men sin all the time, but mercifully, God does not hold us accountable for our sins. He holds Christ accountable for our sins, and by Christ's sacrifice for those sins, we have been forgiven.
And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." -- Hebrews 10:10-18"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Christ's righteousness is what saves the fallen sinner, and not our own. This righteousness is freely imputed to whom God will have mercy upon, determined by God from before the foundation of the world. God leaves nothing to "chance," since "chance" is as non-existent as men's own righteousness.
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." -- 1 Corinthians 2:12,16"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God...
All a gift, all by grace.
That's because the Vicar of Christ His Holiness the Pope lives there.
AMEN!
You first: what do these unfortunate events, such as they were, have to do with the inerrancy of the Church? I did not get my answer either.
The pope is not the “vicar of Christ.”
In fairness I think we should include the Orthodox, although they are far fewer than Catholics and Evangelicals.
Huh? Why?
Definitely, although for the purposes of discussions such as these the Orthodox are hard to distinguish from the Catholics.
Citation please!
You have got to be kidding, right? The RCC, to one degree or another, whether ordering the above, or simply encouraging the same, is the cause of those atrocities.
Hardly the behavior of an inerrant institution.
In order to disprove the inerrant character of the Church you will have to find a theological error in the Catechism or in other de fide statements of the Magisterium.
No, I don't.
If the organization is "inerrant" it would come out in the day to day practice. Doctrine impact practice.
But since you want an example, if the organization has a 2000 year track record of inerrant practice we wouldn't see controversial swings in doctrine, to wit Vatican II.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but was it not Pelagius who used Mary as an example of pre-fall Adam humanity? Was he not the first using this assertion?
The Church is inerrant in her theological teaching in faith and morals. There is no broad “inerrant institution” claim.
Vatican II was controversial, but it did not produce any “swings in doctrine”. It is often described as pastoral council, that had to do with the role of the laity and liturgical reform.
Inadequate - No; un-Catholic - Yes.
BTW - John the Baptist cannot be used as a model for the monastic life. There are two passages that define the normal qualifications for a pastoral leader (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1:6-9). In both passages is references marriage as the normal lifestyle. Monasticism is a remnant of neo-platonism, not biblical theology.
Exactly! I just read an article on this very subject, or very close to it, that I'll post if I can get permission. Will keep you advised....
The same St. Paul who wrote the letters to Titus and Timothy also praised celibacy, and I don’t think the asceticism of St. John made it into the gospel by accident.
But, it was the exception, not the rule. And I reiterate, monaticism is a product of neo-platonism, not Christianity.
Could you provide citations for Paul’s praise of celibacy?
Of course monastic life is a separate, and rare, vocation, although I think that more people are called to it than the modern conflagration of heresies leads to believe.
If it were entirely a neoplatonic development, the scripture would not have praise for it and examples of celibacy.
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.