51% Protestant

[estesbob]

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.

?

This is exaclty what happened at the CPC I volunteered at. The Statement if Faith used the “Bible Alone” phrase and most of us Catholics refused to sign it. It came to a head whhen a new director decided to drop the Bible alone phrase. We had quite a contentious meeting where many of the Evangelicals bought their bible and were throiwng out the usual verses that didnt prove their point unless you accepted their personal interperation of them. My favorite comment was from a good friend who made the dry comment that in her 10 years of counseling women considering an abortion not once did Papal infaliibility come up.

We dropped the phrase and half of our evangelical volunteers quit. i kept thinking how absurd this was-millions of children dying but sticking it to the Catholics was more important than saving lives

 

[betsygrace]

Hi Ani Ibi,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments! I will clarify I few of the things I commented on earlier if I may.

Quote:
… 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.

I think it is important here to make the distinction between a thing in itself (like a sacrament or a belief) and how it is rightly or wrongly understood/practiced by people. I certainly believe that sacraments when received as they are meant to be are intensely personal. Hey, when I go to mass, I find just watching Liturgy of the Eucharist to be a very personal experience with Christ. But, sacraments, like any good thing, can also be abused. Does this mean there is something wrong with the sacraments? Not at all. It just means that we have to keep a keep a vigilant watch on our consciences so that we are not taking them in an unworthy manner, and that they are being placed firmly within the context of living the Christian life, so that people get the most out of them.

If you take someone like my dad, he fulfilled all the obligations of the CC- weekly mass, religion classes, confessing at least once a year to take communion at Easter, etc. However, I think the driving force behind many of these practices was that he was told he was going straight to hell if he didn’t! Now, I guess you could call that personal, but I don’t think that’s what you were referring to You know, maybe it’s just being poorly catchechized. I don’t know. Sadly, I think he emerged from his youth being under the impression that God was fairly capricious.

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.

I’m not sure I quite understand the textual vs. personal distinction here. I personally have a great respect for church tradition, but to be fair, having attended several churches that would probably affirm the idea of Sola Scriptura, I can’t say I ever knew a single person at any of them who did not find meeting Jesus in His Word to be very personal. And I agree with you that Christ is not limited by either literacy or printing capabilities in communicating Himself to His Sheep. I do think having the opportunity to read printed versions of the Scriptures is a great blessing though!!! It’s certainly had a transforming impact on my life.

Do you believe we have a personal relationship with Jesus?

I am perfectly comfortable in saying that it would be impossible for any Catholic who understands, believes, and tries to live out the teachings of the Catholic Church as expressed in the Catechism not to have a personal relationship with Christ.

On the other hand, I also know Catholics who claim to be agnostics. I have not been given the ability or the authority to definitively evaluate their relationship with Christ. Maybe it’s just at a low point, and like the Prodigal Son they will return. I pray they will!

I know plenty of people across the spectrum of denominations who do not appear to have a personal relationship with Christ. My dad would tell you that as a Catholic he didn’t have a personal relationship with Christ. But then again, my mom would say the same thing, and she was raised Methodist. (Disclaimer 2: I am not claiming Methodists can’t know Jesus either!!!) So all you Methodists out there, don’t even start

And really, like I said earlier, do you honestly think I would be considering Catholicism, if it meant renouncing my personal relationship with Jesus Christ? Good grief, I wouldn’t dream converting unless I thought it would deepen my relationship with Christ! It certainly wouldn’t be worth the immense criticism I would receive for it otherwise. Anyway, I hope this helps!

Betsy

 

[michaelp]

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.

Well, it might be that you are not part of these discussions. As I said before, you are entitled to your opinion about the state of affairs, but some do see things differently.

God bless.

 

[estesbob]

Well, it might be that you are not part of these discussions. As I said before, you are entitled to your opinion about the state of affairs, but some do see things differently.

God bless.

I dont see how a Catholic could…Carrying on a discussion with a Catholic who does no adhere to the teachings of his faith may be interesting to you but it resolves nothing.

 

[michaelp]

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?

We all have people in our camps who are less than ideal at representing their position. I have seen it here on CA as well. Just because someone calls themself and Evangelical or Catholic, this does not mean that they either have the right to represent the group nor the ability to represent it accurately.

 

[michaelp]

I dont see how a Catholic could…Carrying on a discussion with a Catholic who does no adhere to the teachings of his faith may be interesting to you but it resolves nothing.

It is not about adhering to the teaching of the Church anymore than it would be about Protestants adhering to the teaching of the Bible. Sometimes there is some difficulty interpreting them and knowing how they apply to each situation. My point is that people have differences on how they see and apply the issues involved. For example, many in your faith hold to prima Scriptura. This bridges the gap quit a bit with regards to the Protestant version of sola Scriptura. Some would be willing to except the faith alone with regards to justification, but faith plus works with regards to final salvation. This, again, is very close the the McArthur view of Lordship Salvation.

If Protestants are not going to anathmitize those who hold to either of these, I think we should beging to realize how close we really are so long as the right people are interpreting their documents in certian ways.

I, personally, find great encouragment in this.

 

[estesbob]

It is not about adhering to the teaching of the Church anymore than it would be about Protestants adhering to the teaching of the Bible. Sometimes there is some difficulty interpreting them and knowing how they apply to each situation. My point is that people have differences on how they see and apply the issues involved. For example, many in your faith hold to prima Scriptura. .

If Protestants are not going to anathmitize those who hold to either of these, I think we should beging to realize how close we really are so long as the right people are interpreting their documents in certian ways.

I, personally, find great encouragment in this.

I have NEVER run across a Catholic who believes in this. And more imporantly one whom believed so would be in direct oppostion to his Church.You simply can not hold that view and be in accordance with the Church. So although you may think you are carrying on a dialogue with a Catholic you are not. You are at the most carrying on a conversation with a very confused “Catholic” or one who thinks they can pick and choose which doctrines they want to believe. In either case the dialogue is phony. A dialogue that would make you think their was common ground in an area where none existed.

 

[michaelp]

I have NEVER run across a Catholic who believes in this. And more imporantly one whom believed so would be in direct oppostion to his Church.You simply can not hold that view and be in accordance with the Church. So although you may think you are carrying on a dialogue with a Catholic you are not. You are at the most carrying on a conversation with a very confused “Catholic” or one who thinks they can pick and choose which doctrines they want to believe. In either case the dialogue is phony. A dialogue that would make you think their was common ground in an area where none existed.

Correct me if I am wrong, but there are a lot of Catholics who hold to prima Scriptura, including Scott Hahn.

Also, one more thing. Catholics CAN, but are not required to hold to the material sufficiency of Scripture. This again is much closer to the Protestant understanding of sola Scriptura. This is another bridge that Catholics and Protestants can utilize to see our simularities.

Do you know what the historic Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura means?

 

[michaelp]

Concerning Prima Scriptura, the same can be said of Yves Congar and some have interpreted this statement of Pope John Paul II in his address to academics in 1986 to be in support of Prima Scripture: “Theology must take its point of departure from a continual and updated return to the Scriptures read in the Church.” Prima Scriptura does not deny outside authorities, but sees Scripture as a sort of first source among others.

If this is the case, then Protestant and Catholics are much more alike in their view of authority than most realize.

 

[st_felicity]

They weren’t rhetorical questions…

 

[st_felicity]

Correct me if I am wrong, but there are a lot of Catholics who hold to prima Scriptura, including Scott Hahn.

aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1465
What is most dangerous about this perspective is the fact that in reality its adherents are saying almost nothing different than those who hold to the partim-partim view, at least as far as it concerns sola scriptura. It just sounds like they are. A tremendous example of this is found in the use of the phrase prima scriptura by former evangelical turned Roman Catholic apologist Scott Hahn.The end result is the same: the sole sufficiency of the Scripture is denied,

Apparently, Mr. White doesn’t think there’s much to the prima scriptura claim…

As for JPII’s view that we must continually return to the Scriptures–OF COURSE WE MUST! How stable is the three legged stool if you’re only using two legs? We need all THREE–Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the teaching of the Magesterium concerning those.

 

[michaelp]

I have tried to forus this discussion a little more here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2443705#post2443705

 

[mozart-250]

I have NEVER run across a Catholic who believes in this.

I have read a James Akin article where he explicitely states he believes in “prima scriptura”. And after 2 minutes in google, ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/INSPIR.htm here it is.

 

[estesbob]

I have read a James Akin article where he explicitely states he believes in “prima scriptura”. And after 2 minutes in google, ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/INSPIR.htm here it is.

Correct-I read “sola Scriptura” where he wrote “prima scriptura” The former is invalid-the latter is acceptable. i suspect, however, that we have a difference of opinion with michaelp of what prima scriptura is.

 

[michaelp]

Yes, that is good. It helps to continually illustrate my point that we are not THAT far apart.

 

[estesbob]

Yes, that is good. It helps to continually illustrate my point that we are not THAT far apart.

So you accept the Authority of the Catholic Church-believe that the final arbitrator of what scripture says is the Church, believe that one is not saved by Faith alone and that tradition and Church teachings are as valid a source as Scripture is? You believe there are 7 sacraments , that the Eucharist is the physical body of Christ?
You believe in asking Saints to intercede for us and that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st_felicity:

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.

I too have some concerns about the spirit which James White brings to his teaching.

Here are some of the more offputting things he has to say about Catholics on his webpage entitled Roman Catholicism on the Alpha Omega Ministries website. There is a long list of articles; several of them are specifically about our own Catholic Answers website.

For those of you who actually end up navigating to the link I have provided, please keep your eyes peeled for statements about Catholicism which are simply inaccurate as opposed to differences of opinion.

I ask the following question genuinely – ie, not rhetorically – can we make progress in ecumenism if we continue to accept inaccuracies or, if you will, if we blur the line between inaccuracy and differences of opinion?

I would also point you to the writing style which White has chosen. Is it useful for ecumenism? Is not missing a single opportunity to condemn the Church useful? Or is it petty?

Does this tactic help or hinder his credibility among Evangelicals and non-Evangelicals alike? Does the man argue in good faith?

What outcome do you think he aims for? Is that outcome compatible with ecumenism or even with the Heart of Jesus?

st_felicity:

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.

Here are White’s exact words to that effect in his 03 May 07 webpage entitled Head of the Evangelical Theological Society Swims the Tiber:

Let’s ponder the hypothetical situation of a President of the Evangelical Theological Society converting to Roman Catholicism in the midst of his tenure. In 1998 I attended the national meeting of the ETS in Orlando, Florida.

At one of the sessions some of the founding members were being asked questions about why they did certain things, why they wrote the statement of faith as they did, etc. A woman asked a question of the panel. “Why did you write ‘the Bible alone’ in the statement of faith?” The ETS statement of faith is very, very short. It reads:"The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory."Roger Nicole rose, slowly, and made his way to the podium. He looked out at the lady and said, “Because we didn’t want any Roman Catholics in the group.” He then turned around and went back to his seat. While most sat in stunned silence, I and a friend with me broke into wild applause.

st_felicity:

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?

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I would go further. I think this is a problem of leadership. Two problems actually.

One is that, as a leader, White seems to me to be leading those who follow him into shoals instead of into safe harbour.

Two is that, as a leader, White like some other non-Catholics seems to have painted himself into a corner. The man has much influence. He has said some very incautious things. The longer he continues in this vein, the harder it will be for him to climb down off his high horse.

Should he actually see the truth of Catholicism, he will be looking at losing a salary, losing his status, losing his influence; he will have to learn to be a little guy like the rest of us Catholics.

Now Beckwith saw the light. He also saw the cost of seeing the light. He also accepted the cost of seeing the light. It took a big man to do what Beckwith did. He exercised moral leadership. Is that the problem White has with him? That Evangelicals will follow the example of Beckwith’s moral leadership?

Beckwith in other words knows the meaning of sacrifice. And that is what folks are asked to do – among other things – when they cross the Tiber. Hopefully folks see that what they sacrifice for the fullness of the truth is compensated ten-fold by God.

Finally, I would ask folks to consider what White himself has said about the ‘high-profile conversion’ of Beckwith:

Now that just such a high-profile conversion has taken place, prepare yourself for the flood of substance-less “Come Home to Rome” articles. Let me make a prediction: as is so often the case, the very act of conversion, not the reasons for so doing, will be the primary focus. “He’s so brilliant, if he converts, he must have a brilliant reason!”

Begs the question doesn’t it? And that question is: is there a brilliant reason to cross the Tiber and if so then what is it? Thoughts?

Moreover, has Beckwith’s swim caused a clamouring among the Evangelical hierarchy for status? Is ‘ecumenism’ the latest buzzword among the Evangelical hierarchy and if so then what does it mean both theologically and politically? Thoughts?

btw have any of you noticed the number of lurkers versus the number of posters on this thread? Obviously this thread is the subject of huge observation. What are folks looking for? To see us being tripped up by a superior teacher? Or to see us exercise moral leadership in the vacuum left by Beckwith’s resignation? Thoughts?

end of post

 

[michaelp]

So you accept the Authority of the Catholic Church-believe that the final arbitrator of what scripture says is the Church, believe that one is not saved by Faith alone and that tradition and Church teachings are as valid a source as Scripture is? You believe there are 7 sacraments , that the Eucharist is the physical body of Christ?
You believe in asking Saints to intercede for us and that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ?

Depending on how you interpret much of this, yes. But these things are not too easy to interpret. Funny thing is, I could sign such a statement, but what it comes down to is what all of this means.

My point is that with the issue of sola Scriptura and sola fide, the formal and material causes of the reformation, many are starting to realize that we are much closer than we thought.

 

[estesbob]

Depending on how you interpret much of this, yes. But these things are not too easy to interpret. Funny thing is, I could sign such a statement, but what it comes down to is what all of this means.

My point is that with the issue of sola Scriptura and sola fide, the formal and material causes of the reformation, many are starting to realize that we are much closer than we thought.

In what way are we closer on Sola Scriptura and Sola Fidelis? The Church categorically rejects both-you accept both.

As far as the other itemsI listed being open to interpertation-no they are not. The ONLY interperation that is valid is the Interperation of the Church.

I suspect that what is going on is that you have found “dialogue” with some poorly cathecized Catholics and they dont understand what you talking about.

So you go “do you believe scripture is important” and they reply “of course” and you go-“see, we agree on Sola Scriptura” Of course they have no idea what Sola Scritura is so they reply “sounds good to me”,

Then you get to run around and say see- we are closer than we think!

The ONLY way there can be unity with our seperated Bretheren tis for them to return to the Catholic Church The Pope just reiterated this . today.