51% Protestant

[st_felicity]

To get back to what I think was the intended topic…

Last line of Wallace’s blog…

• If the theological distinctions between Catholics, Orthodox, and evangelicals don’t define the boundaries of heaven and hell, then what do they do? What is the value of such distinctions? What purpose do they serve?*

By knowing the distinctions, one can draw closer to the TRUTH.

 

[Church_Militant]

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).

irenic
One entry found for irenic.
Main Entry: ire·nic
Pronunciation: I-'re-nik, -'rE-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Greek eirEnikos, from eirEnE peace
: favoring, conducive to, or operating toward peace, moderation, or conciliation

You and those 35-50 cent words…

 

[Church_Militant]

Geeze guys…cut the pastor a break for a while. It’s been 2 years…

Agree or disagree…and make your case accordingly…but like the man said polemics serves little purpose.

He knows I disagree with most of what he says about Christianity and the Catholic Church, but I’ve made my case and until something of substance comes up that is worthy of an answer, (which so far…I have made) then I sit this thread out.

I applaud Dan Wallace for his thinking and such and offer prayers for his continued quest for truth and unity, (even as I do for michaelp) but aside from that, my response to this thread is essentially “That’s nice. Now so what? Until I see ya at Mass…)”
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp–I was perusing the links from Wallace’s blog and ran across some interesting stuff related to this Catholic/Evangelical ecumenism…

I see that the president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) has recently re-verted to his Catholic roots, and his wife is converting through the RCIA process. It seems ETS is in a pickle, but the website is down until tomorrow.

Are you a member of ETS? and what’s your feeling on Dr. James White’s response?

 

[estesbob]

I 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.

Thanks.

I dont see that we have much in common at all since we reject the central tennats of your faith-Sola Sciptura and Sola Fidelis. I also note your desire that we unify around the essential Christolgy. We have-it is Called The Catholic Church. Since you have rejected the Church you have precluded any chance of unifying around the essential Christology

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Church Militant:

Geeze guys…cut the pastor a break for a while. It’s been 2 years…

OK, CM. Let’s cut the Pastor a break.

That having been said, I am still reading the material linked to as well as other relevant material not linked to.
Church Militant:

Agree or disagree…and make your case accordingly…but like the man said polemics

serves little purpose.

Agree with what, Michael? Be fair. I asked the Pastor for a question which would make responding to the OP easier.

Speaking about polemics, Pastor Mike, can you contextualize the recent commentsof the Evangelical Theological Society President?

There is a conversation in ETS that must take place, a conversation about the relationship between Evangelicalism and what is called the “Great Tradition,” a tradition from which all Christians can trace their spiritual and ecclesiastical paternity…

…Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible, I think the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries.

Moreover, much of what I have taken for granted as a Protestant—e.g., the catholic creeds, the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, the Christian understanding of man, and the canon of Scripture—is the result of a Church that made judgments about these matters and on which non-Catholics, including Evangelicals, have declared and grounded their Christian orthodoxy in a world hostile to it.

Given these considerations, I thought it wise for me to err on the side of the Church with historical and theological continuity with the first generations of Christians that followed Christ’s Apostles…

For Wallace the significant issue is:

If the theological distinctions between Catholics, Orthodox, and evangelicals don’t define the boundaries of heaven and hell, then what do they do? What is the value of such distinctions? What purpose do they serve?

For the ETS Prez the significant issue is:

… the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries.

As one route into this examination, does the second quote not address the first quote?

Thoughts?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Since you have rejected the Church you have precluded any chance of unifying around the essential Christology

Look, I am having trouble even understanding what the commentators on Wallace are saying. For instance, what ‘essentials’ are folks talking about?

I think it is very important to know who we agree with on the Essentials and that those are the same people we can debate the fine points with for both our edification.

Later the commentator says:

…Evangelicals were the more open and inclusionary in this regard. The RC and EO tended to more exclusionary and require 100% adherence to their dogma/doctrine even if it was way outside the essentials and out on a hermeneutical limb…

Are evangelicals exclusionary when it comes to their essentials?

If not, then how are evangelicals inclusionary with folks who disagree with them on the essentials?

For that matter are Catholics inclusionary with folks who disagree with them on the essentials?

Are essentials are defined differently among churches? Thoughts?

Is it possible for us to be inclusionary when we disagree on the essentials? If so how?

Can folks please say what the essentials are? Thoughts? Thank you.

Edit: the more I read of that Wallace page, the more I believe that it is nothing special. Many of the comments on the Church are uninformed and inaccurate – again – and as usual.

Edit: Wow, the more I read from that page, the more I think that Wallace and the crew should come over here to CAF and give themselves a chance to find out what the Church actually teaches. The thought of going to wikipedia for the final authority is … well … words escape me.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ani Ibi:

what ‘essentials’ are folks talking about?

In the interests of not going further afield, I started this thread for those interested in discussing essentials.

Essentials of faith, goals of ecumenism

 

[michaelp]

I dont see that we have much in common at all since we reject the central tennats of your faith-Sola Sciptura and Sola Fidelis. I also note your desire that we unify around the essential Christolgy. We have-it is Called The Catholic Church. Since you have rejected the Church you have precluded any chance of unifying around the essential Christology

I respect you opinion, but I disagree. Dave Armstrong has just joined the discussion on my blog that I posted after Dan’s and expressed the same thoughts as me. I am not saying he speaks for the Catholic church, but it does demonstrate that things are not quite as clear as we would like them to be.

I will not link to the exact post since it might be seen as self-promotion by some.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

OK. This is what I found from the website to which you linked us.

michaelp:

I simply disagree with their [Catholic] theology and wish that they would read Romans and Galatians like we do, understanding what they are missing and how striving to establish a righteousness of their own in addition to Christ’s is unnecessary and counter productive to the Gospel and the glory of God.

I am assuming you are saying that our different reading of Romans and Galatians is what separates us. Am I getting warmer?

If this is true, then please set out what you believe those different readings to be.

michaelp:

But, having said this, there are some Catholics out there who would say that we are misunderstanding them. I am willing to listen and learn.

:extrahappy:

 

[michaelp]

Ani and St Felicity,

I am sorry for anything offensive that I might have said, past or present. Please accept my apology. I don’t want to debate, just discuss.

Thank you both for your committment to the cause of Christ and I do respect and appreciate your passion to defend truth.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

michaelp–I was perusing the links from Wallace’s blog and ran across some interesting stuff related to this Catholic/Evangelical ecumenism…

I see that the president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) has recently re-verted to his Catholic roots, and his wife is converting through the RCIA process. It seems ETS is in a pickle, but the website is down until tomorrow.

Are you a member of ETS? and what’s your feeling on Dr. James White’s response?

I respect and understand the reasoning behind Francis’ move. While I disagree, I cannot argue with his scholarship and his love for the Lord. I am a member of ETS and this has caused quit a stir in the Evangelical community. Most are assigning him to hell (or close to it). Part of the reasoning and purpose of the current discussion going on on my blog is to provide and foster balance and perspective.

While I agree James White on most things theologically, I disagree with the tone he brings to the conversation and lamet the unneccesary trouble it ads. He is a polemic-apologist and this serves its purpose well in certian situations, but with regard to Catholicism, I think we all need to be irenic-apologists.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[betsygrace]

Hi JesseW,

Thanks for sharing the Bloesch quotes. I had never heard of this guy, but I’ll have to check him out. I thought he had some really insightful things to say.

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 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.

You know, it’s funny, but as I was reading this, I couldn’t help but be reminded of how the Catholic/Evangelical contrasts mentioned by Bloesch have played out in the lives of my father and myself.

My dad was raised Catholic, and then became basically evangelical in college. From talking with him, I think that though, as a Catholic, he recieved the sacraments, he never understood the personal application they had in helping him know Christ and in following His example. I guess he didn’t have the idea of something we Evangelicals love to talk about, “a relationship with Christ.” So it is really impossible to underestimate what he gained through the influence of Evangelical Protestants, by having a wake up call that he could know Jesus in a personal way.

(Disclaimer: I am not remotely trying to generalize the personal experiences of my father to all Catholics, or in any way implying that Catholics do not have a relationship with Christ. If I believed his experience was the only option available in the Catholic Church, I would not be considering Catholicism myself! I am just commenting on his particular experiences in a particular Catholic Church over a particular period of time.)

So anyway, then my parents raised me non-denominational. And I consider myself to have a very rich spiritual heritage, in that, as I mentioned in my last post, I have had the opportunity to see Christ being active in the lives of those around me and in my own life. However, often times, as Evangelicals, we do tend to have a “just me and Jesus” approach, neglecting the importance of the church and the sacraments, and how valuable they are as a conduit through which the grace of Christ flows to us. Sadly I think there is a tendency among many Evangelicals to view the rites of the Catholic Church as irrelevant externals, when if you come to them with faith in Christ, they are full of life!

So to sum up, I think by becoming an Evangelical my father found something that personally he had missed in his Catholic upbringing. And I can’t blame him for it. And I, in exploring Catholicism, have come to feel that I have found many things missing in my upbringing as an Evangelical! So I guess my family’s really come full circle. But I think we’ve gained a lot from making the round

 

[estesbob]

I respect you opinion, but I disagree. Dave Armstrong has just joined the discussion on my blog that I posted after Dan’s and expressed the same thoughts as me. I am not saying he speaks for the Catholic church, but it does demonstrate that things are not quite as clear as we would like them to be.

I will not link to the exact post since it might be seen as self-promotion by some.

I dont know who Dave Armstrong is. And he, of course, no more speaks for the Catholic Church than I do. If you want to discuss how you can possibly reconcile the two doctrines I mentioned with the Church I am all ears. If , instead. you just want to pop in ocassionaly and tell us what a grand dicscusion you are having at your blog i am not going to waste any more time here.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

… 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…

The Sacraments are personal. I don’t know where people get the notion that Catholicism is not personal. It is at its core personal.

Particularly the Eucharist.

Logos is Personal too. Not textual, as Sola Scripturists would have it.

Because the Bible first of all was not compiled for hundreds of years and second of all was then not available to over 90% of the Church because they could neither read nor afford to buy the handwritten, pre-Guttenburg tomes, faith was an intensely social and personal experience. Not textual, as Sola Scripturists would have it.

(Disclaimer: I am not remotely trying to generalize the personal experiences of my father to all Catholics, or in any way implying that Catholics do not have a relationship with Christ.

Do you believe we have a personal relationship with Jesus?

betsygrace:

Sadly I think there is a tendency among many Evangelicals to view the rites of the Catholic Church as irrelevant externals, when if you come to them with faith in Christ, they are full of life!

Completely full of life. Overflowing with life. Transformatively full of life.

 

[michaelp]

I dont know who Dave Armstrong is. And he, of course, no more speaks for the Catholic Church than I do. If you want to discuss how you can possibly reconcile the two doctrines I mentioned with the Church I am all ears. If , instead. you just want to pop in ocassionaly and tell us what a grand dicscusion you are having at your blog i am not going to waste any more time here.

My point is that, from what I have seen, it seems that Catholics have liberty to interpret some of the obscurities of their faith differently. This is good for dialogue going on about grace and faith. I believe that if this dialogue is allowed to progress, we might see ourselves as being closer than we often give credit for.

We might also see that both sides have contributions to make to the understanding of the Christian faith. Do you think this is possible?

 

[estesbob]

My point is that, from what I have seen, it seems that Catholics have liberty to interpret some of the obscurities of their faith differently. This is good for dialogue going on about grace and faith. I believe that if this dialogue is allowed to progress, we might see ourselves as being closer than we often give credit for.

Well now we have two problems-the meaning of “essentials” and the meaning of "obscurites of Our faith. What might those be?

It must be noted that the major tenants of our Fatih that not open for personal interperation. The infallibilty of the magestirum and the Pope in matters of faith and Morals being one. The rejection of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fidelis are another. And of course the fact that salvation can only be obtained via the Catholic Church(although formal mebership is not required) would seem to be insurmountable obstacles to any kind of unification.

We hold as catholics that all trinitarian Chrisitan Faiths have part of the truth-ony the Catholic Church contians the truth in its entirety.

We might also see that both sides have contributions to make to the understanding of the Christian faith. Do you think this is possible?

To be honest I think the only thing a Cathlic would gain from this dialogue is a greater understaning about why protestants reject the true Church and how they fell in error. Hopefully such a dialogue could result in their crossing the Tiber, so to speak.

 

[jmcrae]

Well now we have two problems-the meaning of “essentials” and the meaning of "obscurites of Our faith. What might those be?

My experience of Dave Armstrong is that he would never deal in “obscurities,” anyway. He is a wonderful educator.

 

[st_felicity]

Most are assigning him to hell (or close to it).

I’m assuming you mean that figuratively–correct? One of the major differences in Catholic/Protestant Christian worldviews is this idea that Protestants have that we human beings have any right at all to speculate on the eternal repose of another’s soul. Why is it that non-Catholic Christians often want to say who’s in and who’s out of God’s club?

Part of the reasoning and purpose of the current discussion going on on my blog is to provide and foster balance and perspective.

That is fair. It’s important to note, however, there are some flaws in the way Catholic beliefs are being presented.

While I agree James White on most things theologically, I disagree with the tone he brings to the conversation and lamet the unneccesary trouble it ads.

This makes me ask…do you think he is following the theological dictum–(given by Jesus himself)–“love one another as I have loved you?” From reading his stuff–as a Catholic–I must say, I’m not feelin’ the love.

He is a polemic-apologist and this serves its purpose well in certian situations, but with regard to Catholicism, I think we all need to be irenic-apologists.

I think the egos need to be checked at the door and people need to both listen in love. Don’t you think if one fears his neighbor’s soul may be in jeopardy, he should not break “into wild applause” at the exclusion of said neighbors. When the ETS was asked why their statement of faith includes “bible alone” and a member responded it was meant to EXCLUDE Catholics–Mr. White did just that. He tells us about it in the May 3 blog entry that “outed” the president of ETS for converting.

Is this the type of Christian theology you want to be associated with? Is this Evangelical ecumenism? What leader in the Catholic faith says such rude and uncharitable things about fellow Christians?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

He also says uncharitable things about King James Version believing Protestants who believe in the Johanine Comma that supports the Trinity.