51% Protestant

[michaelp]

Ani bi,

Thanks for the comments, although I am confused as to tone as usual. I believe that my last series of visits here was ended by you reporting my “misconduct” and having me suspended. After research, I think everyone agreed that my tone has always been one of respect and willingness to learn.

You said: “Some of us were so intrigued with Mr p’s point of view and persistence in drawing us to the truth that we pored over the other webpages on that site. Imagine our disorientation to find there quite a tidy little number of ‘teachings’ on Catholicism which were not even remotely respectful of accuracy.”

As I said to you two years ago, bible.org was our host and I was not responsible for their content. You said that I am responsible so long as I am associated with them. Fair enough. But I am no longer with bible.org. You can now find our site at www.reclaimingthemind.org. I hope that we are always charitable on our new site. You can check it out.

If you find “inaccuracies” I would like to hear them. But please don’t label disagreements as inaccuracies. I am an evangelical Protestant and there are reasons for this. There is bound to be some disagreements just as you have some with your fellow Catholics here at CA.

I continue to find this a valuable place to find answers and further the needed dialog. I sense your attitude is the same as it was before and that this is not something you desire. If this is the case, then I suggest, like I did two years ago, that you and I hold our conversation until glory

With respect

 

[michaelp]

Here is a direct link to all that I have posted on Catholicism on my blog: reclaimingthemind.org/blog/category/roman-catholicism/. This does not include the audio and video from The Theology Program courses.

Again, while you may not agree with my conclusions, I hope that the tone and willingness to learn is represented well. At the very least, I hope that we are doing things better than many others out there who continually attempt to confirm prejudice by misinformation.

In fact, in the first and second blog on the list, James White posts in disagreement with both myself and Dan Wallace concerning our approaches to Catholicism. While neither of us are swimming the Tiber, I think that he thinks we are floating it

 

[st_felicity]

Hi michaelp!
From your link to the blog…some of my comments on Wallace’s entry and some subsequent responses he gave…

To some evangelicals, as soon as they hear that one is a Roman Catholic that immediately excludes such a person from the Pearly Gates. To some Catholics, once they hear that a person is an evangelical, they have the same posture.

Catholic teaching does not permit one to speculate on the eternal repose of the human soul. If a Catholic is doing that, it is against Church teaching. Only God knows and a person who presumes to speculate is imposing on the soverign authority of God.

Ever since Vatican II, even priests have been free to disagree with a lot of church dogma.

People have always been free to disagree—just as they are free to be “wrong.”

Second, regarding the Saucy statement: normally we would not consider a quotation from a Catholic about evangelicalism to be the best representative of that group, so why would we consider a statement by an evangelical about Catholics to be so?

YEA! Good comment.

since Vatican II Catholics have been permitted to question much of church dogma and have made statements that disagree with the Vatican. Why, then, do we continue to insist that only Rome can define what a Catholic is?

Only Rome ***can ***define what a Catholic is…As I pointed out—one is permitted to question and to disagree, but they would be wrong. The buck stops there. We have a Catechism that makes it all very clear.

Again, I wish to plead with all the readers of this blog to find out about real Orthodox and real Catholics.

Super suggestion, and Mr. Wallace is obviously sincere in his openness to listen to other POVs

This made me cringe, though…

I can agree with you all that many, probably most, Catholics are not saved; but I have to wonder whether most evangelicals in America are saved.

Only God knows—and it’s God’s business to know, not ours. We are vain if we speculate. God calls all to himself–our job is to build each other up so that we will be welcomed into the Father’s house.

 

[cpayne]

Hi, everyone. To tell you the truth, I’ve been reading along as folks have been posting (thanks for the kind words, Ani) and I’m still . I really can’t pick out the point of the thread. Is the point that our essential beliefs should keep us joined together as Christians? Okay, I agree. So why not all be Catholic?

 

[betsygrace]

I really can’t pick out the point of the thread. Is the point that our essential beliefs should keep us joined together as Christians? Okay, I agree. So why not all be Catholic?

I think that articles like the one on this blog can do a lot of good in promoting our growth as Christians. I am a non-denominational seriously considering converting to Catholicism. I know that on my journey towards Catholicism, my growing respect for the Catholic Church has opened me to so many positive influences from Catholics through the centuries. I discovered the saints, from St. Augustine to St. Frances de Sales to Mother Teresa. Spiritually, I was blessed so greatly by these influences, even though I couldn’t yet accept every point of Catholic doctrine. I thought it was so sad that I had missed out on what they had to say before, because I would have seen them as irrelevant due to doctrinal differences.

Respecting other branches of Christianity allows us to be blessed by them, even if we can’t be fully united with them. The process works in the reverse way as well. Catholics, by respecting other Christians, can be blessed through them also. Almost all of the people who have had a positive spiritual impact on me personally have been Protestants. I have been blessed to witness their beautiful love and devotion to Christ, their faithfulness through suffering, their compassion… I could go on and on. They have been grace from God in my life. Does accepting Catholicism mean that I no longer have anything to learn from them, that we can no longer encourage one another in following Christ? By no means! We may now have some doctrinal differences (maybe important ones!) but nonetheless, I can still see the rich fruit in their lives that comes from abiding in Christ.

I think that most of us long to be united in one church. However, in the present situation, even if we can not be fully united, I think it is of premier importance to be connected with all our Christian brothers and sisters. Every one of them is a blessing from God. I know from my own life that I have a terrible tendency to flee God’s blessings. We don’t want to impoverish ourselves by casually dismissing other Christians entirely. Sadly this happens a lot!

To sum up, I think there are a lot of Protestants who, though feeling unable to become Catholic, can still be blessed immensely by their Catholic brothers and sisters. And vice versa!! We make ourselves very poor when our disagreements cause us to harden ourselves to the work of the Holy Spirit in other Christians. I think that a positive point of the blog might be that it could soften the hearts of some towards the Catholic Church, allowing them to be blessed greatly by it, even if they may never be Catholic.

 

[JesseW]

Betsygrace,

Thank you so much for sharing what was on your heart. As a Protestant considering Catholicism as well, I echo your thoughts. I came across some interesting statements from one of my favorite theologians (Protestant), Donald Bloesch. I think this would be a good opportunity to share what I found:

"In addition to upholding evangelical distinctives, we need to regain catholic substance, which means continuity with the tradition od the whole church, including its sacramental side. It is incumbent on us to recover the doctrine of the church, particularly with regard to its indispensable role in the communication of salvation. The church is not a mediator between God and man, but it is a veritable means of grace to man. It cannot dispense grace as though it were in control, but it can function as an instrument of the Holy Spirit who does convey the grace of Christ to a sinful world. The church is not simply an earthly vessel in which faith shines, but our spiritual mother through whom faith comes. A rampant individualism that is prominent in both evangelical and liberal Protestantism has obscured the crucial role of the church in our salvation and sanctification.

In catholic tradiion the four marks of the true church are holiness, aposticity, catholicity, and oneness (or unity). The Reformers added the two practical signs of the scriptural preachings of the Gospel and the “right” administration of the sacraments. These signs were not intended to preempt the traditional marks but instead to complement them. Only an apostolic and catholic church will preach the pure Gospel and faithfully administer the sacraments… (skip ahead two paragraphs)…

In Roman Catholic theology the sacramental grace of baptism preempted the irresistable grace of predestination (stressed by Augustine), and a sacramentalism obscured the personalistic element in Christian faith…

Just as Jesus Christ and Holy Scriptures have two sides, the divine and the human, so the sacraments have two sides. Conservative evangelical Christianity has lost sight of the divine side in the sacraments, while certain strands of Roman Catholicism underplay the human side. We affirm that Christ is really present in the reception of the elements of bread and wine, not as localized in them but as reaching out through them. Christ meets us in , through, and with these elements so that his words “This is my body” are not merely symbolic. In Lutheran orthodoxy it was sometimes said that Christ is in the Eucharist bread as heat is in a red-hot iron, and while this metaphor must not be pressed unduly, it conveys the truth that there is an inseparable and organic relationship between the sacramental elements and the sacramental presence of our Lord."

He goes on to say more, but this is lengthy enough for now.

I’ll conclude by saying that one cannot truly understand Protestantism until he/she goes to its apologists. Most laymen do not understand why they have been taught what they’ve been taught. Sad but true, for both sides of the coin.

 

[michaelp]

Great thoughts all. I would disagree with you slightly on one statement: “I’ll conclude by saying that one cannot truly understand Protestantism until he/she goes to its apologists.”

Apologists we all are, this I understand. But let me nuance this statement for my own humor.

Strict apologists often define themselves as they defend the faith. In other words, they are often defined by what they are against more than what they are for. In this sense they can often be unbalanced in their presentation and articulation of the faith they represent. I could give many example of apologists in the Protestant world who are very intelligent, but would not be the best sources to regard when searching for the tenants of the faith. I think that we have to go to the theologians who work more objectively and can represent a more balanced opinion.

Believe me, I have nothing against apologists, but I caution people as they are by nature polemicists. This goes for Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox. I think that their are some apologists who do work more objectively and irenically (like Peter Kreeft and Paul Copan), but they are a rare bunch and are better labeled as Philosophers or theologians.

But I do agree that laymen are not usually the best sources for the faith as their information is usually filled with much folk theology and prejudice leanings.

Just my off the wall thoughts.

 

[JesseW]

Believe me, I have nothing against apologists, but I caution people as they are by nature polemicists. This goes for Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox. I think that their are some apologists who do work more objectively and irenically (like Peter Kreeft and Paul Copan), but they are a rare bunch and are better labeled as Philosophers or theologians.

MichaelP,

Well said, and I stand corrected. I labeled Donald Bloesch outside of his professed role as an Evangelical. He is a writer of theology, and not an expressed apologist. To my error, perhaps, I have lumped the two together.

Just out of curiousity, have you read the writings of another theologian, Charles Hodge? He wrote three volumes on systematic theology that really helped clarify some things on the docrines of justification and sanctification according to the Reformed position. It was through him that I came to understand our position on justification much more clearly. He wrote in the 1800s. Powerful stuff.

 

[michaelp]

Yes, I have the three volumes right here. Got them for $20. He is a very good scholar who wrote in a difficult time, distinguishing himself in the middle of an age when Evangelicalism seems under the foot of Liberalism. Surprisingly, he was able to keep an irenic spirit and see many things in balance. I believe B.B. Warfield was able to do the same (except with his polemic against Charismatics - it was a little harsh and overstated).

 

[st_felicity]

Hi, everyone. To tell you the truth, I’ve been reading along as folks have been posting (thanks for the kind words, Ani) and I’m still . I really can’t pick out the point of the thread. Is the point that our essential beliefs should keep us joined together as Christians? Okay, I agree. So why not all be Catholic?

Well…I thought it was for critical comment on a friend’s expressions…but in some ways it appears to be an advertisement.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Well…I thought

it was for critical comment on a friend’s expressions…but in some ways it appears to be an advertisement.

An advertisement? That was the impression I got from Pastor Mike’s previous visit to our fair forums! I had so hoped that the good gentleman had developed a hunger for learning about what the Church teaches over the past two years. From the horse’s mouth, as it were.

Since then I believe some of our forum rules have changed. I could be wrong. It could just be that they were there all along and it took me a while to learn them all. And if that’s the case, then I apologize right away.

For instance the rule on swarming. It would be unfortunate if folks ‘interpreted’ Pastor Mike’s request for commentary on the blog as an invitation to ‘swarm’ that blog.

Also one wonders, as you and cpayne have both implied, if Pastor Mike’s invitation belongs in Apologetics at all.

However, if Pastor Mike would like to nip and tuck the topic of this thread toward ecumenism then I would like to volunteer Greg’s comment:

“One of the most neglected aspects of the Christian faith within Protestantism is communion. Some churches observe it only once a year; most, once a month. But in the beginning of the Christian faith, it was observed daily. After abuses, the practice fell to once a week, the Lord’s day. Many churches still observe the Eucharist weekly. This is the biblical pattern, and I believe that it is one that should be continued even now.”

One theologian noted,
“Christians must attend [the communion]; and this they do not as a duty, but as a distinct privilege. They may feel unworthy to attend it, and yet they know that they are welcome by our Lord, Who numbers them among His chosen people….” No, this wasn’t written by John Calvin, Martin Luther, Charles Hodge, or even John Wesley. It was written by Nicholas Elias, a Greek Orthodox priest…”
I think more discussion about the Eucharist and its importance is certainly needed between Protestants, Orthodox and Catholics. While a lot of people are concerned with other theological issues, in my view this is probably one of the real ‘foundational’ issues Christians need to agree on before there can be serious re-union between churches.

Folks, let me introduce you to St Felicity. The last time Pastor Mike was here, St Felicity started a thread on John 6 called Why did He let them walk away? On that thread, there were a variety of explications which were set out in depth. St Felicity set forth some worthy challenges. This is probably the finest thread on John 6 I have yet seen. Quite a hefty read, but well worth the effort.

Therefore I must add here that it is genuinely a good thing imho to see you back St Felicity. You know Church Militant and Traditional Ang already. Their apologetics have only improved. I see you have met cpayne who is the thin end of the formidable philosophers’ wedge at CAF. You might also remember our southern gentleman, Vern Humphrey.

And there are many more well-read apologists here who are too numerous for me to mention, to say nothing of my short memory (heh-heh – a little in-joke). It’s too bad that Stone cannot be with us. Well ‘where ever’ he is, we wish him well, don’t we?

 

[michaelp]

An advertisement for what? So that we can evaluate together the need and hope of eccumenical dialog? Yes, if that is what you mean, great.

Frankly, if both you and Ani are going to start your pouting again because I am here, two years later, I suggest you get over it and start trying to smoosh the moderators again to get me kicked off.

The only threat that I bring is honest dialog . . . that is all I ever brought. Please gals, go follow someone else.

 

[st_felicity]

An advertisement for what? So that we can evaluate together the need and hope of eccumenical dialog? Yes, if that is what you mean, great.

Frankly, if both you and Ani are going to start your pouting again because I am here, two years later, I suggest you get over it and start trying to smoosh the moderators again to get me kicked off.

The only threat that I bring is honest dialog . . . that is all I ever brought. Please gals, go follow someone else.

That’s totally unnecesary. I addressed your OP appropriately. You failed to respond. Others apparently have some question as to the purpose of your thread. How about being clear and quit the defensiveness. I did nothing to warrant this.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

Thanks for the comments, although I am confused as to tone as usual.

Tone?

michaelp:

I believe that my last series of visits here was ended by you reporting my “misconduct” and having me suspended.

How praytell, Pastor Mike, would you be privy to this kind of information? I believe that I was not the only one who took issue with your behaviour at that time; several posters, if I remember correctly, used quite strong language with you and I don’t believe I was one of them. Are you fishing, Pastor Mike?

As for having you suspended, Pastor Mike, hopefully you are aware that I was not at that time, nor am I now a moderator on CAF – nor is any other poster for that matter. Suspension powers, I believe, remain within the purvey of moderators alone – not posters. Moreover, I believe we are not allowed to discuss those decisions on the open forums.

michaelp:

After research, I think everyone agreed that my tone has always been one of respect and willingness to learn.

‘Everyone’ is a lot of people; are you sure ‘everyone’ agreed? Yesterday I had the pleasure of re-reading the material discussed during your last visit with us – especially on Why did He let them walk away?

For those who are interested in examining the concept of respect and willingness to learn – particularly as to differentiating what folks say from what folks do – I wholeheartedly recommend this thread.

No harm in checking things out, is there?

michaelp:

You said: “Some of us were so intrigued with Mr p’s point of view and persistence in drawing us to the truth that we pored over the other webpages on that site. Imagine our disorientation to find there quite a tidy little number of ‘teachings’ on Catholicism which were not even remotely respectful of accuracy.”

Yes, this is correct. I did say that.

michaelp:

As I said to you two years ago, bible.org was our host and I was not responsible for their content.

Oh, and as I pointed out two years ago: you were responsible for choosing your host and therefore aligning your material with their material and therefore not warning us beforehand of what hurtful material we might encounter at the website to which you referred us.

An admission of error and an apology might have gone a long way to soothing the hurt feelings it caused among those of us who trustingly visited the site which you promoted while you were here. What one does not expect is yet another way to wriggle out of responsibility for one’s own choices.



Particularly from one whose prose espouses ecumenical ideals.

michaelp:

You said that I am responsible so long as I am associated with them. Fair enough.

Then we agree. Forgive me if I am dense, but is it me or am I still not hearing some sort of recognition of and remorse for the hurt feelings caused?

michaelp:

But I am no longer with bible.org. You can now find our site at www.reclaimingthemind.org. I hope that we are always charitable on our new site. You can check it out.

Charity is a good thing.

michaelp:

If you find “inaccuracies” I would like to hear them. But please don’t label disagreements as inaccuracies.

Have I labelled disagreements as inaccuracies? Nice try, Pastor Mike, but I believe you are attempting a stretch here; bit of a strawman, maybe? My comment on ‘inaccuracies’ was about the anti-Catholic propaganda found on the site which you promoted two years ago. The information provided there on Catholic teaching was not accurate.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

I am an evangelical Protestant and there are reasons for this. There is bound to be some disagreements just as you have some with your fellow Catholics here at CA.

Inaccuracies ask to be illuminated and corrected; is this not true? Although folks do have the choice to disagree, that disagreement must be based on accurate information. Otherwise there is no freedom of choice involved in choosing to disagree. Can we agree that freedom of choice should be respected?

Therefore can we agree that accuracy must be differentiated from mere disagreement, for to fail to do so would render any belief to be subject to factors which cannot be called into account; which are relative; which are unreliable; which are suspect?

We don’t want to travel too far down the road of moral relativism, do we?

michaelp:

I continue to find this a valuable place to find answers and further the needed dialog.

I have always thought of dialogue as a two-way street, Pastor Mike. Just as I have found the learning environment to be a two-way street. And as for Catholic Answers being a valuable place to find answers and further the needed dialogue: yes, it is.

For those who are interested in answers and dialogue, please allow me to provide some of our own links: Catholic Answers Library and Home Page. There has been an Action page of late, but I can’t seem to find the link. Does anyone else have it?

michaelp:

I sense your attitude is the same as it was before and that this is not something you desire.

Indeed, I am as attached to reading, questioning, listening to considered and informed views from other posters, and keeping wisdom in my sights – as I was two years ago.

Is this the ‘attitude’ to which you refer? If so, then I am afraid I must disagree with you about my not desiring it, for I fervently desire it.

I am moreover over the moon to be constantly inspired here on CAF by posters – old and new – who are by far my superiors in knowledge, experience, and wisdom. I am a happy little student here. Hopefully you will be too.



As for ‘sensing’ my attitude: oh Pastor Mike, Pastor Mike, you know better than that! One does not have leave to ‘sense’ the heart of another!

michaelp:

If this is the case, then I suggest, like I did two years ago, that you and I hold our conversation until glory

This I do remember, Pastor Mike. Although those exact words I do not remember. You might want to link to the post containing your expectations of glory; that might jog my memory and illuminate the newer posters among us (including those who have just registered – welcome by the way).

But forgive me; I waffle – what I mean to say is that I do remember your frequently not taking kindly to being out-logicked or out-researched or even simply disagreed with – notwithstanding the careful prose with which you sometimes framed your posts.

I believe you even posted a request for information on how to resign at one point. That seemed unnecessarily rhetorical to me, as it was my impression that folks who wanted to stop responding could simply stop responding.



I do remember your efforts to place unilateral boundaries on discussions so as to limit the ‘disagreement’ of others and, believe me, I ended up being tremendously grateful for the privilege of observing this kind of behaviour.

Finally, let me say that I – like others – am not certain about the topic of this thread. Ordinarily, the mini-exchange we have shared might be viewed as off-topic. However, in this case, it seems to me that you have merely repeated your proclivity to link us to your own website.

As St Felicity has pointed out, the OP seems to be a blend of advertising and an invitation to the teaching of a friend. I cannot discern exactly how this OP frames an Apologetics topic. However, in good faith, perhaps you could clarify what specific ecumenical question you would like us to discuss here on CAF. That might help us to focus.

Even more specifically, perhaps you could set out your goals for ecumenical discussion. What specific outcomes are you aiming for?

Thank you for your kind consideration of these matters. :tiphat: end of post

 

[st_felicity]

An advertisement for what?

The Theology Program…your site.

If it was only about the friend’s blog, why didn’t you link directly to the blog?

reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/07/03/51-protestant-2/

EDIT: Ah…I see you did…in the 2nd post. )

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Please gals, go follow someone else.

Follow? Gals?

Gosh, St Felicity, the Pastor seems to have it in his his head that his teaching has some sort of magnetism for us; that we find it irresistible; that participating on a thread featuring the Teachings of Pastor Mike and His Website is inappropriate for persons of the fairer gender. Oooooo.

Yikes! :blushing: I hope I am wrong.

Pastor Mike, perhaps while clarifying your OP topic you could also clarify the posters whom you approve for this thread – presumably posters who don’t disagree with you ?

 

[michaelp]

You said:
"Inaccuracies ask to be illuminated and corrected; is this not true? Although folks do have the choice to disagree, that disagreement must be based on accurate information. Otherwise there is no freedom of choice involved in choosing to disagree. Can we agree that freedom of choice should be respected?

Therefore can we agree that accuracy must be differentiated from mere disagreement, for to fail to do so would render any belief to be subject to factors which cannot be called into account; which are relative; which are unreliable; which are suspect?"

I don’t understand any of this. I have posed no debate and, as far as I can tell, no possibility of inaccuracy on this thread. What inaccuracies are you talking about.

As to my “solicitations” again. You are right. I have solicited people to a blog so that it can be discussed here. I have not left. If I was just trying to get people there to discuss there, I would have posted and left. I have never done this. Check my record.

My point in this thread is to get your opinion on the post and move the discussion here so that I could further learn of your thoughts of ecumenical dialogue. Believe me, I don’t take you as representative of the whole, so I am not frustrated by your contrary spirit. I am not trying to convert anyone, just foster conversation for selfish reasons.

I believe that ecumenical dialogue starts with sencerity to understand those with whom there is disagreement. I believe that Catholics and Evangelicals have more common ground than we have given ourselves credit for. I believe that their can be more of a united front. In all my teaching, I desire for Christianity to unify around the essential Christology which we hold to so dearly. I believe that things are not as clear as most people make them out to be, both Protestant and Catholic, therefore, their needs to be grace in non-essentials that have not been heald clearly by the historic Christian representation.

With this, I hope that dialogue can continue at a more productive level. I am sencere in my conversation. If you don’t believe me, again, I suggest that you not engage with me.

Thanks.

 

[MariaG]

BTW: The direct link to the post is here: reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/07/03/51-protestant-2/

Michael,

I remember you

I have not read through this entire thread, and although this is not really relevant to the current discussion, I wanted to post it anyway.

From your above link:

#3 by jybnntt
Also, Roman Catholicism affirms that salvation is by faith, but it denies that justification is by faith alone. Is the gospel still the gospel if justification is by grace plus anything I do?

:bible1: James 2:24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Although I believe here, that there is a misunderstanding of the poster as to terminology, and which many misunderstanding come, (Akin has several great article on it), I find it funny that anyone would make a statement trying to show that the Catholic Church is wrong, when in fact, it is quite clear from scripture a man is not justified by faith alone.

I will read through the posts and links later but I just had to post this as well as sincerely welcome you back to the forums, if only for a short time

God Bless,
Maria

Righteousness and Merit by James Akin
I. Words and word fights

And this link that has many of the articles already linked.

Salvation

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

Frankly, if both you and Ani are going to start your pouting again because I am here, two years later, I suggest you get over it and start trying to smoosh the moderators again to get me kicked off.

You know, Mike, I thought it would take longer for your particular brand of ecumenical style to show itself.

I was wrong. For that I wholeheartedly apologize.