D
drpmjhess
Guest
And I don’t know many others who follow his teachings like Orthodox Christians.
- Status
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
One of the many marks of Fundamentalism is that it distinguishes between
- “true” Christians
- those whom it deems not to be TCs
& although the definition is logically self-enclosing so that no Christian can be a TC who is not a TC by Fundamentalist standards - Karl Barth, Mother Teresa, & C.S. Lewis would not qualify as TCs - I don’t think that is the source of the definition. The stress on who counted as a TC seems to have to have become more rigid as a result of, & to have been underlined by, the trauma inflicted by the rise of the critical method in the study of the Bible, as well as by the rise of properly scientific historical study generally. But there is, apparently, no sociological distinction between Fundamentalists & non-Fundamentalists. So some time after 1850 seems to be indicated, though Protestant Fundamentalism did not (AFAIK) arise as a movement until the turn of the century; “The Fundamentals” were published in 1917, eight years before the Scopes trial, & eight years after the first edition of the “Scofield Bible”: - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fundamentals
I think Protestant Fundamentalism goes back, by way of the revivals in the US & Britain & the movements that sprang from them in the 18th & 19th century, to some strands of the Reformation: Calvinism & related movements especially - less as an anti-Catholic move perhaps, than as a side-effect of the search for an authentically Christian identity. If one is sure of one’s own Christian identity in life & belief, then it may very well follow that those who differ greatly count as inauthentic, whether they be RCs, or [other] Protestants, or Jews or Muslims or unbelievers. A TC is someone deemed to have an Authentic Christian Identity . On this view, “liberals” & Catholics/Protestants (depending on POV) are not TCs, so, they cannot have an ACI.
The Campbellite churches of the early 19th century also called themselves simply Christian: Alexander Campbell was not denying the Christianity of others, nor was he implying that the churches he planted had a monopoly on being Christian. He used the name because he was trying to by-pass all the distinctives that divided the existing Christian churches from each other: to give a social form to a sort of “mere Christianity”, as it were.
Another thing to be aware of: Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestantism has been strongly influenced by J.N. Darby’s pessimism about the “institutional church”, as mediated by Scofieldism & by Dispensational Premillennialism in general. This pessimism is partly why the Rapture is so important: the TCs will be raptured, the non-TCs, professing Christians or not - will be “left behind” to suffer the Tribulation under the Beast from the sea (see Revelation 13 & following for the plot in full). This emphasis on the Rapture is intimately connected with:
- a strong millenarianism
- an equally strong emphasis on the fulfilment of prophecy
Interpretations of the Pope as the first beast of Rev. 13 very often join hands with belief in the imminence of the Rapture, & so of the period ushering in the Tribulation. To put it another way: a lot of anti-Catholicism is millenarian or Reformed (includes Calvinists, Presbtyterians, some Baptists) in origin; partly as a result of the answers given to the question “who is a [true] Christian ?”
J
JustaServant
Guest
Excellant post.One of the many marks of Fundamentalism is that it distinguishes between
IOW - “True Christianity” is fine as long as there is no alien “other” for it to perceive as a threat. It can work on a small scale (Geneva, a “holy commonwealth”, a house-church) but not so well in a city or nation, if the city or nation is full of people of religious persuasions different from its own. Unless it can reduce the difference, whether by converting those “others”, or by moral or legal pressure; neither is something which TCs have been slow to do.
- “true” Christians
- those whom it deems not to be TCs
& although the definition is logically self-enclosing so that no Christian can be a TC who is not a TC by Fundamentalist standards - Karl Barth, Mother Teresa, & C.S. Lewis would not qualify as TCs - I don’t think that is the source of the definition. The stress on who counted as a TC seems to have to have become more rigid as a result of, & to have been underlined by, the trauma inflicted by the rise of the critical method in the study of the Bible, as well as by the rise of properly scientific historical study generally. But there is, apparently, no sociological distinction between Fundamentalists & non-Fundamentalists. So some time after 1850 seems to be indicated, though Protestant Fundamentalism did not (AFAIK) arise as a movement until the turn of the century; “The Fundamentals” were published in 1917, eight years before the Scopes trial, & eight years after the first edition of the “Scofield Bible”:- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fundamentals
I think Protestant Fundamentalism goes back, by way of the revivals in the US & Britain & the movements that sprang from them in the 18th & 19th century, to some strands of the Reformation: Calvinism & related movements especially - less as an anti-Catholic move perhaps, than as a side-effect of the search for an authentically Christian identity. If one is sure of one’s own Christian identity in life & belief, then it may very well follow that those who differ greatly count as inauthentic, whether they be RCs, or [other] Protestants, or Jews or Muslims or unbelievers. A TC is someone deemed to have an Authentic Christian Identity . On this view, “liberals” & Catholics/Protestants (depending on POV) are not TCs, so, they cannot have an ACI.
The Campbellite churches of the early 19th century also called themselves simply Christian: Alexander Campbell was not denying the Christianity of others, nor was he implying that the churches he planted had a monopoly on being Christian. He used the name because he was trying to by-pass all the distinctives that divided the existing Christian churches from each other: to give a social form to a sort of “mere Christianity”, as it were.
Another thing to be aware of: Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestantism has been strongly influenced by J.N. Darby’s pessimism about the “institutional church”, as mediated by Scofieldism & by Dispensational Premillennialism in general. This pessimism is partly why the Rapture is so important: the TCs will be raptured, the non-TCs, professing Christians or not - will be “left behind” to suffer the Tribulation under the Beast from the sea (see Revelation 13 & following for the plot in full). This emphasis on the Rapture is intimately connected with:
Hope that helps
- a strong millenarianism
- an equally strong emphasis on the fulfilment of prophecy
Interpretations of the Pope as the first beast of Rev. 13 very often join hands with belief in the imminence of the Rapture, & so of the period ushering in the Tribulation. To put it another way: a lot of anti-Catholicism is millenarian or Reformed (includes Calvinists, Presbtyterians, some Baptists) in origin; partly as a result of the answers given to the question “who is a [true] Christian ?”
The foundation of fundamentalist/evangelical christianity is the idea of salvation as a ‘crisis’. You are correct that this began with the so-called Great Awakenings in the 18th century.
This was unheard of in the early church, and Protestantism until this time. Methodists were the first to start a “prayer bench” to come to. But it wasn’t until Charles Finney in the 19th century that a ‘mourner’s bench’ was seen. Finney was the ancestor of the kind of evangelical appeal you see today. It was unheard of before him. Billy Graham is the spiritual successor to Finney. When you focus on the ‘crisis’ and the ‘experience’ that accompanies the crisis,** that** (the crisis) becomes the focal point. And sincere Christians will return to it again and again hoping this time it will ‘take’. Evangelistic invitations become appeals to re-commit, and re-commit your re-commitment.
A person can show no fruit in his or her Christian life because of the ‘event’ of salvation when they got their lifeboat out of Hell and their ticket to Heaven. This ‘event’ is sealed and the Christian is “Once saved always saved”. What happens? I lose my fear of God.
The problem is, Christianity is a lfe to be lived, not a ‘crisis’ to be experienced.
D
da_xavier
Guest
I did say the same to my Protestant friend. But he had an objection like this:
Strong’s greek Dictionary said that:
“kata” = “throughout”
“holos” = “all”
But “catholic” is a word, means “general, universal.”
Based on Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, the word “katholikos” comes from “katholou” (=“in general”) and “holikos” (=“universal”)
So the phrase “kata holos” is different from “katholikos.”
The term “catholic church” used for the first time by Constantine on 313 AD in Edict of Milan (tolerance of religious), i.e. “One Holy Catholic” or “katholou and holikos.”
How can I answer him?
K
kepha1
Guest
So the phrase “kata holos” is different from “katholikos.”
Both phrases mean “all” so the difference is semantical.
Catholic means ‘Universal’, which in itself means, ‘of or relating to, or affecting the entire world and ALL peoples therein’. It means, ALL encompassing, comprehensibly broad, general, and containing ALL that is neccessary. In summation, it means ALL people in ALL places, having ALL that is necessary, and for ALL time.
“Catholic” is infered in Matthew 28:19-20, “Go, therefore and make disciples of ALL nations…teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you ALL days, even unto the consummation of the world.” That is a statement of Universality, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic.
(at this point you ask Protestants to show the name of their church in the Bible)
The term “catholic church” used for the first time by Constantine on 313 AD in Edict of Milan (tolerance of religious), i.e. “One Holy Catholic” or “katholou and holikos.”
Not true. drpmjhess pointed this out. The first recorded use of the word is in St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Smyrneans, paragraph 8, of 106 A.D., “…where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Undoubtedly the word was in use before the time of this writing.
This quote sums it up nicely:
“Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart… When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name.” Saint Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D.
Both phrases mean “all” so the difference is semantical.
Catholic means ‘Universal’, which in itself means, ‘of or relating to, or affecting the entire world and ALL peoples therein’. It means, ALL encompassing, comprehensibly broad, general, and containing ALL that is neccessary. In summation, it means ALL people in ALL places, having ALL that is necessary, and for ALL time.
“Catholic” is infered in Matthew 28:19-20, “Go, therefore and make disciples of ALL nations…teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you ALL days, even unto the consummation of the world.” That is a statement of Universality, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic.
(at this point you ask Protestants to show the name of their church in the Bible)
The term “catholic church” used for the first time by Constantine on 313 AD in Edict of Milan (tolerance of religious), i.e. “One Holy Catholic” or “katholou and holikos.”
Not true. drpmjhess pointed this out. The first recorded use of the word is in St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Smyrneans, paragraph 8, of 106 A.D., “…where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Undoubtedly the word was in use before the time of this writing.
This quote sums it up nicely:
“Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart… When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name.” Saint Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D.
M
markomalley
Guest
Actually, your friend is wrong about the second.
Best way to refute him is to show his error:
"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. "
- Ignatius, to the Smyrneans, 8 (circa 110 AD)
“Now, as soon as he had ceased praying, having made mention of all that had at any time come in contact with him, both small and great, illustrious and obscure, as well as the whole Catholic Church throughout the world, the time of his departure having arrived, they set him upon an a s s, and conducted him into the city, the day being that of the great Sabbath.”
(note: the word for donkey above is straight out of the text – it was written in that fashion so that it would pass the language filter on the site)
“At length, when those wicked men perceived that his body could not be consumed by the fire, they commanded an executioner to go near and pierce him through with a dagger.And on his doing this, there came forth a dove, and a great quantity of blood, so that the fire was extinguished; and all the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna.”
“For, having through patience overcome the unjust governor, and thus acquired the crown of immortality, he now, with the apostles and all the righteous [in heaven], rejoicingly glorifies God, even the Father, and blesses our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of our souls, the Governor of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world.”
- Martyrdom of St. Polycarp (circa 150 AD)
C
Church_Militant
Guest
holikos."
How can I answer him?Point out that “throughout all” is a literal meaning for the word Catholic which means universal.
As in “everywhere”. His argument is really weak.
J
Jofantioch
Guest
Congratulations. what a feather in your scientific cap!
I was a Protestant. This is what I was taught.
- Catholics worship Mary, she is not God, it is idolatry
- Catholics venerate icons, crosses, etc. They worship inanimate objects and that is idolatry
- Catholics worship the Pope and believe that he can’t make a mistake. This is impossible since Jesus was the only person ever to live a sinless life.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
D
distracted
Guest
It seems the word “Christian” has been & always will be a subjective term.
Objectively speaking, however, a Christian is one who believes in and obeys Jesus Christ. to say that Catholics do not do that is really ignorant (of the facts)… Most people who are anti-Catholic are very ignorant of what being Catholic really means… So i do my best to disabuse them of their weird conceptions of Catholicism…
If i were giving such a talk, i would try to get in as much catecesis as possible (& history). Maybe focus on the eucharist (John 6, 1 Cor 11;22, etc) would be good since that is the main thing that divides us.
Also: Throughout history, Protestants have been far more intolerant, violent & cruel toward Catholics than vice-versa. Of course, you don’t want to put it taht way in a talk, but… well, i don’t know what to say…
except that if i was a martian from outer space trying 2 figure out wht the right brand of Christianity is, i would choose Catholicism because 1) Catholics are persecuted severely as Jesus predicted 2) Catholics, generally speaking, are more tolerant of others who believe differently and 3) The Catholic Church CLAIMs to be the true Church (There are other reasons but that should suffice…).
Objectively speaking, however, a Christian is one who believes in and obeys Jesus Christ. to say that Catholics do not do that is really ignorant (of the facts)… Most people who are anti-Catholic are very ignorant of what being Catholic really means… So i do my best to disabuse them of their weird conceptions of Catholicism…
If i were giving such a talk, i would try to get in as much catecesis as possible (& history). Maybe focus on the eucharist (John 6, 1 Cor 11;22, etc) would be good since that is the main thing that divides us.
Also: Throughout history, Protestants have been far more intolerant, violent & cruel toward Catholics than vice-versa. Of course, you don’t want to put it taht way in a talk, but… well, i don’t know what to say…
except that if i was a martian from outer space trying 2 figure out wht the right brand of Christianity is, i would choose Catholicism because 1) Catholics are persecuted severely as Jesus predicted 2) Catholics, generally speaking, are more tolerant of others who believe differently and 3) The Catholic Church CLAIMs to be the true Church (There are other reasons but that should suffice…).
D
drpmjhess
Guest
With the glaring exception of gay, lesbian, and transgendered people.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
Calling Catholics “not Christians” apparantly makes them feel better about themselves.
I
inthecloud
Guest
I live in a conservative mostly catholic country and while people would not juimp of joy while meeting homosexuals, they do not bash them either. And I think that gay civil unions but not gay marriage with equal right to heteros can be real in the future.
So Catholics are a bit tolerant there too.
S
Steve40
Guest
The term Christian was used by a secular Roman historian ( I think Plinny the Younger or something like that) and he called them Christian because they worshiped Christ as God. In his words he said qusi Deo (as God).
So, the oldest definition of a Christian is one who worships Christ as God. This would rule out Mormans but not Catholics as Christians.
So, the oldest definition of a Christian is one who worships Christ as God. This would rule out Mormans but not Catholics as Christians.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Even earlier than Pliny is this, referring to events in about 44 AD (chapter 12 refers to the death of Herod Agrippa in that year):
- Act 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
True – in some countries!
M
markomalley
Guest
One other thing: you might want to use another catch-phrase:
My personal favorite:
- “Authentic Christianity teaches…”
- “Apostolic Christianity teaches…”
- “Christianity, as passed to us from the Apostles, teaches…”
- “Non-heretical Christianity teaches…”
My personal favorite:
- “Christianity teaches…”
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
Wasn’t at Antioch when followers of Christ were called “Christians?” Were the Protestants?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Acts 11:26
C
Contarini
Guest
The view that the official teaching of the “Church of Rome” is not Christian in the same sense that most of us today would say that Mormon doctrine is not Christian (i.e., it violates essential principles of the faith once delivered to the saints) goes back to the sixteenth century. It is as old as Protestantism and used to be the dominant view among Protestants. (Catholics had equally harsh views of Protestants, be it noted!) However, the word “Christian” had primarily a historical and cultural sense, so it wasn’t common to say without explanation or qualification “Romanists/Papists are not Christians” (Protestants of that era would not have called members of your Communion “Catholics.”) Also, Protestants have always recognized that Catholic doctrine can be interpreted in various ways and that many Catholics may disagree with or misunderstand the teaching of their Church. So few Protestants would ever have said without qualification that no one in communion with Rome had a saving relationship with God.
I would say that the exclusion of “Catholics” from the term “Christian” derives largely from the use of the term “Christian” to describe one’s identity in contrast to confessional, denominational affiliations. One of the key events in the development of an “ecumenical” attitude among Protestants (the formation of the Evangelical Alliance in 1846) was motivated in part by the desire to form a common front against “Rome” and to promote missionary activity among Catholics. In the confessional era, a Lutheran or Calvinist would consider members of other Protestant traditions to be imperfectly Christian, with “Rome” as simply the far point on the spectrum. But with the growth in the 18th and early 19th centuries of the idea that “Christians” differ among each other only on “non-essentials,” Protestants faced a stark choice: either Catholics were part of that “Christianity” or they weren’t. Some Protestants have from the beginning answered that question in the affirmative (however qualified), and some Protestants today still answer it in the negative. However, the majority opinion in the early 19th century was that Catholics were not "Christians’ in this sense and the majority opinion today is that they are.
Edwin
- Status