Are Our Baptist Friends Becoming More Catholic?

[benidict]

I just ran across this article regarding some Baptists who seem to be reviving Apostolic succession, Titles, and Vestments.

Is it possible the gap between Baptists, and Catholics is getting smaller?

boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/07/19/more_baptist_pastors_adopt_bishop_title/?page=1

that would be nice, but in a nutshell my friend…no.

 

[dmelosi]

I question that. For one thing, I’ve had a lot of Catholics *tell *me that they aren’t familiar with the Bible. For another, it’s unfortunately not true that liturgical reading of Scripture ensures familiarity. At least, it isn’t true in the Episcopal Church, and my somewhat more limited experience leads me to think that it isn’t true in your Church either.

Edwin

How do you define familiar with?

 

[Contarini]

How do you define familiar with?

Knowing the basic stories and ideas. I’m not talking about quoting chapter and verse–I agree that that isn’t enough on its own, though in fact Protestants do not rely on it as exclusively as Catholics often claim, and memorizing verses with their references is not a bad thing by any means. But what I mean when by familiarity with the Bible is that if I refer to a Biblical story or an idea expressed in a particular book, a person familiar with the Bible will know what I’m talking about, and a person unfamiliar with the Bible won’t.

You’re certainly right that Catholics are less familiar with the OT than the NT. This is true of Christians generally, though conservative Protestants are relatively more likely to know the OT. But they are also more likely to know the NT in detail. I would say that conservative Protestants are even more likely to know the Gospels in detail than Catholics are, though the gap is narrowest there because this is the part of Scripture Catholics are most likely to study, and conservative Protestants are relatively more likely to emphasize Paul. I think it’s simply envy and a desire not to concede any points that leads Catholics to deny that conservative Protestants know the Bible better than other Christians.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

that would be nice, but in a nutshell my friend…no.

Well, even setting aside the developments mentioned in the article–actually many Baptist scholars and theologians are coming to emphasize church history much more and to criticize the Baptist “no creed but Christ” tradition. Timothy George and D. H. Williams are two eminent examples. Still, this will take a while to trickle down to the average congregation, if it ever does–and it certainly won’t affect the resolute fundamentalists.

Edwin

 

[dmelosi]

Knowing the basic stories and ideas. I’m not talking about quoting chapter and verse–I agree that that isn’t enough on its own, though in fact Protestants do not rely on it as exclusively as Catholics often claim, and memorizing verses with their references is not a bad thing by any means. But what I mean when by familiarity with the Bible is that if I refer to a Biblical story or an idea expressed in a particular book, a person familiar with the Bible will know what I’m talking about, and a person unfamiliar with the Bible won’t.

You are arguing something that you have no statistics on and seem to be making the argument based on your experience (which is obviously biased).

You’re certainly right that Catholics are less familiar with the OT than the NT. This is true of Christians generally, though conservative Protestants are relatively more likely to know the OT. But they are also more likely to know the NT in detail. I would say that conservative Protestants are even more likely to know the Gospels in detail than Catholics are, though the gap is narrowest there because this is the part of Scripture Catholics are most likely to study, and conservative Protestants are relatively more likely to emphasize Paul. I think it’s simply envy and a desire not to concede any points that leads Catholics to deny that conservative Protestants know the Bible better than other Christians.

Edwin

I never said this and couldn’t disagree more with it.

 

[benidict]

Well, even setting aside the developments mentioned in the article–actually many Baptist scholars and theologians are coming to emphasize church history much more and to criticize the Baptist “no creed but Christ” tradition. Timothy George and D. H. Williams are two eminent examples. Still, this will take a while to trickle down to the average congregation, if it ever does–and it certainly won’t affect the resolute fundamentalists.

Edwin

hi contarini. i appreciate the info. is this part of the emergent movement, i keep hearing about? had no idea this was in the works. there are times like this, i love being corrected and love being wrong. if this is true, then maybe it is a step in the right direction. but even so, it would take a long long long time to change their minds. more than our lifetime im afraid. but…on the other hand. we did have herbert armtrongs world wide church of God, make a dramatic shift to more mainstream Christian theology, in a relatively short time. so i guess anything is possible. not trying to compare the two. just noting that major changes can happen in a relatively short period. Peace and thanks

 

[Contarini]

You are arguing something that you have no statistics on and seem to be making the argument based on your experience (which is obviously biased).

Yes. So is everyone else, in the absence of statistics. As I said, I’m actually more willing to go to the mat for Episcopalians’ ignorance of Scripture–but since we have pretty much the same lectionary you do, my experience in the Episcopal Church is prima facie evidence against the assumption that a lectionary guarantees knowledge of Scripture.

So far we have:

1. A widespread impression, shared by many Catholics as well as many Protestants, that Catholics don’t know the Bible very well.
2. An impression, just as anecdotal in its basis, among Catholics who are interested in apologetics and have tangled with Protestants in that context, that Protestants only know the Bible in disjointed verses which they have memorized.
3. The assumption that the liturgical use of Scripture guarantees knowledge of Scripture.

Point 3 is definitely false. Point 2 has some basis, but is somewhat unfair for two reasons. First of all, extreme fundamentalists are the most belligerently anti-Catholic of Protestants and also the most likely to have this unsatisfactory approach to Scripture, so that can give a misleading impression. But more to the point, Protestants who appear to be just slinging prooftexts around are typically doing so on the basis of a well-worked-out theological understanding of Scripture. This is of course a point in favor of Catholicism, and one that fundamentalist Protestants (and some others as well) are likely to overlook or deny. In other words, Protestants often claim to be “just quoting Scripture” when in fact their tradition gives them all kinds of assumptions about what Scripture means. For instance, the AWANA program, in which I participated as a kid, appears on the face of it to be just about memorizing isolated Scripture passages. But in fact these passages are carefully selected and arranged to promote an essentially Baptist theological understanding. In short: Protestants do understand what their prooftexts mean *within their theological framework. *It’s not a lack of understanding, just a different framework. Catholics, on the other hand, typically don’t understand the Scriptural basis of their own theology. The recent apologetics movement has done wonderful work in changing that, although I worry that it fosters an approach to Scripture that treats it just as an arsenal of anti-Protestant weapons. This imitates the worst aspects of the conservative Protestant approach, but it’s even worse in a way. Protestants use Scripture to prove their position, but those very Scriptures are the heart of why they believe what they do. Catholics, on the other hand, often sling prooftexts (whether from the Bible or the Fathers) around and then go off and base their devotional life on something quite different.

I never said this and couldn’t disagree more with it.

Sorry–Ridgerunner was the one who said that Catholics knew the NT better than the OT. And the rest of the paragraph was purely mine.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

hi contarini. i appreciate the info. is this part of the emergent movement, i keep hearing about?

Not really, although it’s part of the same broad set of trends, no doubt. George is really an old-fashioned confessional Protestant, though a very ecumenical one who respects Catholics as brothers and sisters in Christ while disagreeing with them. Williams’ work has been picked up by folks interested in what is sometimes called the “ancient-future” movement, or in more Catholic terminology, “evangelical ressourcement” (“ressourcement” is the term used by mid-20th-century Catholic theologians like Henri de Lubac and Jean Danielou for the use of the Fathers to renew the contemporary Church). Indeed, there is currently a series of scholarly studies with just that title, and Williams is deeply involved with that series (he has written at least one volume in it, and I believe that he may be one of the general editors as well). Anyway, these “ancient-future” trends certainly often overlap with the emergent movement, but one doesn’t necessarily imply the other. In fact, “emergent” is very hard to define, and I find that evangelicals are increasingly wary about using it (the most prominent emergent theologian, Brian McLaren, has gone in an increasingly unorthodox direction, and so the term has come to be somewhat “tainted”).

Edwin

 

[benidict]

Not really, although it’s part of the same broad set of trends, no doubt. George is really an old-fashioned confessional Protestant, though a very ecumenical one who respects Catholics as brothers and sisters in Christ while disagreeing with them. Williams’ work has been picked up by folks interested in what is sometimes called the “ancient-future” movement, or in more Catholic terminology, “evangelical ressourcement” (“ressourcement” is the term used by mid-20th-century Catholic theologians like Henri de Lubac and Jean Danielou for the use of the Fathers to renew the contemporary Church). Indeed, there is currently a series of scholarly studies with just that title, and Williams is deeply involved with that series (he has written at least one volume in it, and I believe that he may be one of the general editors as well). Anyway, these “ancient-future” trends certainly often overlap with the emergent movement, but one doesn’t necessarily imply the other. In fact, “emergent” is very hard to define, and I find that evangelicals are increasingly wary about using it (the most prominent emergent theologian, Brian McLaren, has gone in an increasingly unorthodox direction, and so the term has come to be somewhat “tainted”).

Edwin

thanks again. i thought it was just me. ive tried to understand the term emergent and have failed miserably. if someone of your caliber admits that it is hard to define. then i feel much better. lol! Peace and prayers for you and yours.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I question that. For one thing, I’ve had a lot of Catholics *tell *me that they aren’t familiar with the Bible. For another, it’s unfortunately not true that liturgical reading of Scripture ensures familiarity. At least, it isn’t true in the Episcopal Church, and my somewhat more limited experience leads me to think that it isn’t true in your Church either.

Edwin

Nothing “insures” familiarity with anything. If one isn’t paying attention, one exits the same door through which he entered.

Many Catholics will tell you they aren’t “familiar with the bible”, and for two reasons: First, they are told that, constantly. Second, we can’t rattle off chapter and verse for some quotation, or quote those short lines verbatim. But I will say this: On a good number of occasions, I have paraphrased or “nearly quoted” some particularly significant passage to some protestant who supposedly “knows the bible”, but with which they were entirely unfamiliar.

 

[Contarini]

Nothing “insures” familiarity with anything. If one isn’t paying attention, one exits the same door through which he entered.

Many Catholics will tell you they aren’t “familiar with the bible”, and for two reasons: First, they are told that, constantly. Second, we can’t rattle off chapter and verse for some quotation, or quote those short lines verbatim. But I will say this: On a good number of occasions, I have paraphrased or “nearly quoted” some particularly significant passage to some protestant who supposedly “knows the bible”, but with which they were entirely unfamiliar.

I don’t dispute that. The Bible is a very big book, or collection of books. And everyone tends to be more familiar with the parts that their theological tradition emphasizes.

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

There are Catholics who go to Mass and go through the motions, many of which try to do right by God and live the good life, then there are amateur Catholic apologists and pros. The apologists often take things out of context, use proof-texting, use the Fathers over and over without context, and the worst thing is there are, just like you’re saying about Protestants, talking points. How many times do you think Matthew 16:18 has been cited in this forum since it’s inception on the internet? Or John 6? Or “feed my sheep” or John’s epistle taken out of context with “confess your sins to one another” or the parts of Scripture in which Jesus gives the apostles the power to bind and loose, or “son, behold your mother,” etc? There are about ten or twelve key scriptures that we hear in here day in day out. I don’t see the difference between the apologetics of Catholicism and Protestantism.

I see Catholics, especially on EWTN on the radio and TV on a daily basis making the case for the CHURCH, the church, the church but little do I hear about Christ and the Gospels. It’s constant apologetics imbedded on every show? It’s sacraments, defense of the faith, conversion stories, what the Church tells us about x, y, and z. When I flip on the Protestant radio channel here there are Calvinists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Evangelical Free Church, Baptists, you name it. And they all just talk about Christ. They constantly talk about Scripture, how to relate the Scriptures to your walk with the Lord, didactic, didactic, informational, experiential, and they talk about the character and person of Christ. They don’t talk about the Church, the institution over and over. I hear shows about how to overcome a troubled marriage, how to forgive a bitter enemy, how to witness to non-believers, how to pray effectively, how to manage one’s money in a Christian manner, how to move on after abuse or divorce, how to fight sin, how to live the Christian life. I even tired of EWTN when i was a hardcore, on-fire Catholic in the early 2000’s! I got sick of hearing about the institution and wanted to actually hear more about how to apply Christ to my life outside of Church, at home, in the workplace, with friends, with enemies, in society? It seems to me the preoccupation with ecclesiastical things has personally done me a HEAP of harm. It has affected me to the point that I took my eye off Christ and became just an apologetics maniac…

I think a “Tiber Swim Team” amateur apologist is just the flipside of the Baptist witness apologist…

Catholics are at least as familiar with the bible; likely more so due to the cycle of readings at Mass. But we know it in a different way. For most protestants (not all…mostly fundamentalists), it’s more a matter of having memorized argument points; sort of like a high school debater’s quote cards. With Catholics, it’s more of a mosaic, without all that much emphasis on a particular snippet. Catholics can rarely tell you chapter and verse for a particular passage, and don’t have them mentally arranged as argument points. But there is almost none of the New Testament with which Catholics are unfamiliar. The Old Testament is a bit different for the same reason. The readings don’t contain all that much of it, and they’re read more as an additional exposition of the New Testament readings.

 

[dmelosi]

There are Catholics who go to Mass and go through the motions, many of which try to do right by God and live the good life, then there are amateur Catholic apologists and pros. The apologists often take things out of context, use proof-texting, use the Fathers over and over without context, and the worst thing is there are, just like you’re saying about Protestants, talking points. How many times do you think Matthew 16:18 has been cited in this forum since it’s inception on the internet? Or John 6? Or “feed my sheep” or John’s epistle taken out of context with “confess your sins to one another” or the parts of Scripture in which Jesus gives the apostles the power to bind and loose, or “son, behold your mother,” etc? There are about ten or twelve key scriptures that we hear in here day in day out. I don’t see the difference between the apologetics of Catholicism and Protestantism.

I see Catholics, especially on EWTN on the radio and TV on a daily basis making the case for the CHURCH, the church, the church but little do I hear about Christ and the Gospels. It’s constant apologetics imbedded on every show? It’s sacraments, defense of the faith, conversion stories, what the Church tells us about x, y, and z. When I flip on the Protestant radio channel here there are Calvinists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Evangelical Free Church, Baptists, you name it. And they all just talk about Christ. They constantly talk about Scripture, how to relate the Scriptures to your walk with the Lord, didactic, didactic, informational, experiential, and they talk about the character and person of Christ. They don’t talk about the Church, the institution over and over. I hear shows about how to overcome a troubled marriage, how to forgive a bitter enemy, how to witness to non-believers, how to pray effectively, how to manage one’s money in a Christian manner, how to move on after abuse or divorce, how to fight sin, how to live the Christian life. I even tired of EWTN when i was a hardcore, on-fire Catholic in the early 2000’s! I got sick of hearing about the institution and wanted to actually hear more about how to apply Christ to my life outside of Church, at home, in the workplace, with friends, with enemies, in society? It seems to me the preoccupation with ecclesiastical things has personally done me a HEAP of harm. It has affected me to the point that I took my eye off Christ and became just an apologetics maniac…

I think a “Tiber Swim Team” amateur apologist is just the flipside of the Baptist witness apologist…

The arrogant part of your post is you are condemning a spiritual journey, everybody is at a different place in their spiritual journey. Why are you making fun of anyone who is trying to learn and to move forward.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What in the name of all that is holy are you talking about dmelosi? Did you bother to read my post? If I’m guilty of arrogance (which I most certainly am NOT here) you are guilty of ignorance or at best reading comprehension issues!

What does a spiritual journey have to do with my post? I simply stated that EWTN and most Catholic media focuses on the institutional system over and over and over. The Church, the Church, the Church…bishops bishops sacraments sacraments with precious few if any life lessons, very little Bible study, little prayer, and scant examples of the Gospel being preached. It’s not didactic or life-changing with regard to your walk with the Lord but rather just about the church and defense of it 24/7.

I was replying to a post about how the Protestants just memorize Scripture and have an agenda when reading the Bible, out to convert you with a heavy list of Scriptural references that favor their theological standpoints. My point? The Catholics do the same thing. They take ten or twelve references, beat them to death just like the Baptist does, but it’s all in defense of the Church instead of the Baptist denomination. Catholics have become far more apologetically minded than going on offense and just preaching the Good News. That bugs me as much as the Baptist who does what the poster criticized. Nothing arrogant about it. I think both sides have issues.

The arrogant part of your post is you are condemning a spiritual journey, everybody is at a different place in their spiritual journey. Why are you making fun of anyone who is trying to learn and to move forward.

 

[Soldier_X]

Gurney’s not condemning or making fun of anybody!

Gurney, I think you’re right on the money here. The things you mentioned like forgiveness, prayer, learning to evangelize, and so forth - these are where our focus ought to lie! Forming battle lines and launching apologetic one-liners at the other side is not really beneficial at all. Apologetics can easily become a source of self-centered pride when it becomes all about winning narrowly-focused arguments.

 

[Holly3278]

Well, at my local Baptist church, they actually have responsive readings and somewhat of a liturgical worship now which I don’t they used to have so I would say that in some cases, yes, the Baptists are becoming more Catholic.

 

[theoldman]

I think not ! Not GARBC churches anyway1

 

[dmelosi]

What in the name of all that is holy are you talking about dmelosi? Did you bother to read my post? If I’m guilty of arrogance (which I most certainly am NOT here) you are guilty of ignorance or at best reading comprehension issues!

What does a spiritual journey have to do with my post? I simply stated that EWTN and most Catholic media focuses on the institutional system over and over and over. The Church, the Church, the Church…bishops bishops sacraments sacraments with precious few if any life lessons, very little Bible study, little prayer, and scant examples of the Gospel being preached. It’s not didactic or life-changing with regard to your walk with the Lord but rather just about the church and defense of it 24/7.

I was replying to a post about how the Protestants just memorize Scripture and have an agenda when reading the Bible, out to convert you with a heavy list of Scriptural references that favor their theological standpoints. My point? The Catholics do the same thing. They take ten or twelve references, beat them to death just like the Baptist does, but it’s all in defense of the Church instead of the Baptist denomination. Catholics have become far more apologetically minded than going on offense and just preaching the Good News. That bugs me as much as the Baptist who does what the poster criticized. Nothing arrogant about it. I think both sides have issues.

All of our apologetics specifically talk about the Bible and always pray. I am saying that your response is biased to only your experiences and how you view them.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Of course the liturgy is oriented around three readings. No one is debating that. But when was the last time you watched or listened to a show on EWTN or your other Catholic media that was just about forgiveness or the Christian walk or healing a marriage or charity or poverty, other issues that had nothing to do with the actual institutionalized Church. When’s the last time you heard a good, long, meaningful sermon? Do you ever just hear about Christ without a Church hierarchy or Catholic Church reference? There’s always apologetics imbedded. It’s always defense defense. It’s always proving we’re the true church and the others aren’t. It’s always about that in the Catholic media.

What you’re referring to is your own parish, the readings at Mass. That’s not what we were all talking about. We were talking about apologetics in the Church compared to Baptists and their approach to their own version of the same.

All of our apologetics specifically talk about the Bible and always pray. I am saying that your response is biased to only your experiences and how you view them.

 

[dmelosi]

Of course the liturgy is oriented around three readings. No one is debating that. But when was the last time you watched or listened to a show on EWTN or your other Catholic media that was just about forgiveness or the Christian walk or healing a marriage or charity or poverty, other issues that had nothing to do with the actual institutionalized Church. When’s the last time you heard a good, long, meaningful sermon? Do you ever just hear about Christ without a Church hierarchy or Catholic Church reference? There’s always apologetics imbedded. It’s always defense defense. It’s always proving we’re the true church and the others aren’t. It’s always about that in the Catholic media.

What you’re referring to is your own parish, the readings at Mass. That’s not what we were all talking about. We were talking about apologetics in the Church compared to Baptists and their approach to their own version of the same.

You really show your tunnel vision, I was not talking about the readings at Mass.

More and more people are getting involved with learning about their church because of all of the misconceptions that are raised. Talking about and understanding the Catholic faith is only a small part of being a Catholic Christian.

It is not so much trying to prove we’re the true church, but defending the misconceptions. Besides that, learning about and understanding the Catholic Church is very interesting, while a person deepens their Christian faith.