Ecumenical Discussion: Core Beliefs and Salvation

[st_felicity]

Ani bows. :tiphat: Feel better now?

Much. and the Pepto Bismol helped too

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Okay, Ani, I’ve got a question for you: Do Protestants have to accept (and participate in) the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist in order to be Christians / enter Heaven?

In terms of Invincible Ignorance I don’t really differentiate between Christian and non-Christian; Catholic and non-Catholic. Those that know and walk away have made their choice and are accountable for that choice. Those that do not know and choose wrongly cannot be held accountable.

Did you read that Hahn essay? We can’t really talk about this without referring to excerpts. And if we do that then we should think about landing on another hapless thread.

Now this raises another question. If the Invincibly Ignorant have a pass-go card, then should we tell them anything?

Catch 22: if we tell them the Gospel and they choose unwisely then they lose their pass-go card. If we don’t tell them, then I reckon we’re in for a whole heap of pain. Waddyathenk, c?

 

[st_felicity]

Catch 22: if we tell them the Gospel and they choose unwisely then they lose their pass-go card. If we don’t tell them, then I reckon we’re in for a whole heap of pain. Waddyathenk, c?

That’s what I was gettin’ at in the exchange quoted in post 6 on this thread. In God-focused worship, we are giving glory to God by spreading His Gospel. We are doing what we are supposed to be doing.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st_felicity:

…Just “Felicity” is fine…

Gosh, c, you must be special. She makes me call her Saint.

:coffeeread:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

That’s what I was gettin’ at in the exchange quoted in post 6 on this thread. In God-focused worship, we are giving glory to God by spreading His Gospel. We are doing what we are supposed to be doing.

I reckon not preaching the Gospel would be World-focussed?

Question for anyone: Have you ever encountered someone you just had a feeling did not want to hear the Gospel in any way shape or form, even in the form of the witness of your own life lived in faith? Even just in the cross you are wearing around your neck?

Question for anyone: Have you ever felt relieved that Jesus offered us an escape clause called ‘dusting off our sandals’?

Question for anyone: What do you do if everyone you know warrants the ‘dusting off our sandals’ treatment?

Anyone?

I know the answer is prayer, but I just want to find out what other folks think.

 

[st_felicity]

I reckon not preaching the Gospel would be World-focussed?

I think you can preach the Gospel in a “world-focused” way as well if your intention is about what you "get’ out of the preaching, or even what “you” are “giving” in the preaching. Our intention should always be to glorify God, and we should always be aware that everything good is from God and for God. That is God-focused obedience and submission.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st_felicity:

I think you can preach the Gospel in a “world-focused” way as well if your intention is about what you "get’ out of the preaching, or even what “you” are “giving” in the preaching.

Yes, folks who weave a good tale. Or the name it and claim it crowd. But have you noticed something? That God uses who is there. Sometimes it is only very frail folks who are there. David, for instance, was very frail. Sometimes it is folks who do not even profess any friendship with God.

So, even the most world-focussed vehicle that never even mentions the tiniest part of the Gospel can bring someone home. And then forget about what happened later.

st_felicity:

Our intention should always be to glorify God, and we should always be aware that everything good is from God and for God. That is God-focused obedience and submission.

Even wanting to please God can go wrong. We must trust that God will prepare us, guide us, tell us when it’s time to move ahead.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

A couple of the Evangelicals on this blog have created what I call a “system” that allows them to seemingly dismiss Catholic apologetics… when we Catholics use Scripture to defend our faith, we are creating a circular logic… And then they dismiss the Scriptural evidence (the ONLY kind they would accept) because our Catholic authority dictated the meaning.

The dismissal of Catholic Scriptural interpretation – which Felicity describes above – is actually one of many ‘systems’ I have noticed on that blog.

This particular system is a strawman. Catholic reasoning, even Catholic biblical reasoning, is not circular. Why? Because the starting point is not authority as the author claims; it is history. Moreover, Catholic history is a different history from the history which the author promotes. Our history includes the 1500 years which had to go missing for Sola Scriptura to gain any headway.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Another system appears to rely on

• Glittering prose;
• Inner-circle terminology (a nod’s as good as a wink) like the ‘softening of language’ along ecumenical lines when ‘softening of language’ does not in practice mean rapprochement but a relaxation of reason; and
• Appeals to political sensibilities rather than theological sensibilities.
  The Letter to the Pope (another strawman) is one example of this ‘political’ system:

Dear Pope Benedict,
You are cramping my style… Don’t you know that I have been making the argument that things had changed since the Reformation? Then I read this article about your recent actions saying that I and my Christ-fearing brothers in the Protestant church are not part of the true church…

Level with me (just between you and I) you guys always change your position, you just don’t call it “change”, you call it “progression”… Trent’s claims to exclusivity were arrogant and beyond your authority… Some of us were even calling you a cult until Vatican II…

I have been getting emails from Catholics all over the world that read our blog saying that they were disappointed with this statement. Someone even apologized on your behalf. But we can fix this!.. First, you have to redefine your use of the word “Church” in that document… Later on down the road I was going to tell the next Pope to soften Vatican II…

This is a strawman show of daring-do put on for the benefit of those Reformers who question the Catholic claim to authority: a ‘softening of language’ which constitutes a ‘relaxation of reason’. For what reasonable point of view would attempt to dismantle an opposing point of view by misrepresenting it?

A one time deal? An error of judgement? Judge for yourself. From What Does it Take to be an Evangelical:

As the institutionalized church had sought to protect the people from heresy, in the later middle ages this evolved to such a degree that the Church was not only standing between people and the heretics, but between the people and Christ.

The tone and point of view changes dramatically when addressing fellow Evangelicals and changes again when addressing non-Evangelical Reformers.

From The Ideal Church:

…The universal church today should be united in what it believes when it comes to the essentials of the faith… Many churches confess the Nicene Creed, and I think that that’s a wonderful place to start. Both the Orthodox and Catholics confess it regularly. Protestant churches, only rarely…

Pragmatically, we all place something over revelation in order to access it. Traditions that we know do not have a sound biblical base or a solid historical base… will need significant justification to be maintained.

We wouldn’t simply jettison them, of course… Many Protestants take these things for granted… Why, then, do we condemn Catholics for having traditions that reach back for centuries?..

I believe that Protestants have much to learn from Catholics and the Orthodox…

This ‘political’ system seems very adapatable to audience. That is, it changes.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Pragmatically, we all place something over revelation in order to access it. Traditions that we know do not have a sound biblical base or a solid historical base… will need significant justification to be maintained.

We wouldn’t simply jettison them, of course… Many Protestants take these things for granted… Why, then, do we condemn Catholics for having traditions that reach back for centuries?..

I believe that Protestants have much to learn from Catholics and the Orthodox…

This ‘political’ system seems very adapatable to audience. That is, it changes.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Another ‘system’ is the authorial intent hermeneutic (fallacy of intent) set out in an entry entitled “How to Perform a Gnostic Bible Study.” This seems to be a bid for the upper hand over those Reformers whose Scriptural interpretation depends on the Holy Spirit speaking to them – a reader-response hermeneutic (or affective fallacy).

While examination of the historical context from which the authors of Biblical books write and analysis of ‘grammar-specific’ features of what they write are important – they are not and should not be the only methods of critique. The entry on Gnosticism falls into the predictable Reformer trap of relying on false dilemma fallacy – either/or – either the fallacy of intent or the affective fallacy, but not both.

First of all why would one want to indulge in the fallacy of choosing between fallacies? Second of all, Catholics think in terms of both/and. Our analyses allow for a ‘merging of horizons’. Third of all, even the historical analysis and formalist (grammar) analysis parts of our exegetics differ from the Reformer version. Reformer history starts at the Wittenburg Plague; Reformer formalism both confuses the literal with the figurative, as well as unilaterally redefining ‘metaphor.’

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Not a Sunday in the park.

More like the elephant in the room. I bring it up for this reason: it is useful for folks of different denominations to talk to each other in order to gain common understanding and move ahead toward Christian unity. That’s what we want, don’t we? Christian unity? That’s what Jesus wanted.

However, when one party to the conversation is dismissed unilaterally or even worse made the butt of ridicule in the name of humour – ‘talk’ loses the strength of multilateralism and deteriorates into monologue. When that happens then someone may be talking but no one may be listening. Talk, then, is no longer conversation.



We don’t want that, do we? Felicity, I think, understands that we don’t want that.

Therefore I believe that quite a bit of appreciation is in order for Felicity’s tireless, patient, and inspired efforts to keep the conversation alive in the face of some disheartening obstacles over a period of two years.

Appreciation is also in order for those Reformers who have responded to Felicity’s efforts with reason, friendship, and a genuine desire to grow in their understanding of the Gospel.

The outcome is that we’re actually having the ecumenical discussion now! It’s here! Did you notice?

end of post

 

[st_felicity]

Ani–I don’t think saying “you’re wrong and here’s why…” will get many good responses over there. Actually–I was getting a lot of replies from Dan Wallace, UNTIL I referenced my Catholicism…and then all of a sudden, my interpretation of Romans 9 became “too Catholic” for his liking and he directed me to a staunch Calvinist for the “right on target” interpretation (to which I asked, “by who’s authority?”) --see post #29 above–I did not quote his “too Catholic” comment.

The bias is so deeply ingrained that I sort-of wish I had kept my affiliation a secret a little longer so as to be “heard.” As it stands now…there is a lull in action over there, and my posts seem to be the final ones on a couple of the blog entries. I don’t know if it’s that my points are so rock solid that they have nothing with which they can argue and all of them have called up the local parish to enrol in RCIA (of course I’d LIKE to think that’s the case ) or they’ve just rolled their eyes and shaken their heads at my poor Papist “party-line” (that was actually said in one post “party-line”…not the Papist part ).

Anyway…agressiveness in posting does not work over there…but I’m not going to be as “irenic” (AKA: kissy-face) as some other Catholic posters are (I just can’t do it…it’s my nature )…still–straight forward logic and the truth in a polite but confident tone is my method. I hope the fact of my Catholicism doesn’t preclude me from being taken seriously.

Here’s the paragraph with “too Catholic” in it:
DanWallace~on Parchment & Pen Blog:

I would argue as well that your understanding of Rom 9 is, well, too Catholic. The text just doesn’t scan that way to me. I won’t get into any detailed response to that point, since it’s bringing us far afield from the original intent of this blog. But you might want to see John Piper’s The Justification of God, a detailed exposition of Rom 9 that is right on target.

 

[st_felicity]

Ani–I don’t think saying “you’re wrong and here’s why…” will get many good responses over there. Actually–I was getting a lot of replies from Dan Wallace, UNTIL I referenced my Catholicism…and then all of a sudden, my interpretation of Romans 9 became “too Catholic” for his liking and he directed me to a staunch Calvinist for the “right on target” interpretation (to which I asked, “by who’s authority?”) --see post #29 above–I did not quote his “too Catholic” comment.

The bias is so deeply ingrained that I sort-of wish I had kept my affiliation a secret a little longer so as to be “heard.” As it stands now…there is a lull in action over there, and my posts seem to be the final ones on a couple of the blog entries. I don’t know if it’s that my points are so rock solid that they have nothing with which they can argue and all of them have called up the local parish to enrol in RCIA (of course I’d LIKE to think that’s the case ) or they’ve just rolled their eyes and shaken their heads at my poor Papist “party-line” (that was actually said in one post ).

Anyway…agressiveness in posting does not work orver there…but I’m not going to be as “irenic” (AKA: kissy-face) as some other Catholic posters are (I just can’t do it…it’s my nature )…still–straight forward logic and the truth in a polite but confident tone is my method. I hope the fact of my Catholicism doesn’t preclude me from being taken seriously.

 

[DebCWil]

Apply moral pragmatism – if we are morally impelled to do something, we are morally impelled to adopt a course of action likely to lead to success – and to monitor the results and change course if necessary.

Before we rebuke, argue, or prosletize someone, ask, “What am I trying to accomplish here? Is this the best way to do it?”

The best way I’ve found is to live the gospel. If your life and actions are not so as to attract others to emulate you, your arguments will be ineffective.

This goes along with St. Francis,“Preach the gospel always and if necessary use words.”
When Cursillo talks about evangelization it is with a small “e” versus a “E.” Evangelization is accomplished by our small, often hidden, acts of love. It may be as simple as giving a ride to somebody, an act quickly forgotten by the giver but remembered by the receiver. Make a friend. Be a friend. Bring a friend to Christ.
It is about relationship, the relationship we have with God and the relationship we have with each other.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This goes along with St. Francis,“Preach the gospel always and if necessary use words.”
When Cursillo talks about evangelization it is with a small “e” versus a “E.” Evangelization is accomplished by our small, often hidden, acts of love. It may be as simple as giving a ride to somebody, an act quickly forgotten by the giver but remembered by the receiver. Make a friend. Be a friend. Bring a friend to Christ.
It is about relationship, the relationship we have with God and the relationship we have with each other.

I have been “Evangelized” many times. Often by good people whom I could respect – although not accept their invitation to join their church.

But there are others where I think (uncharitably, perhaps), “I don’t know what you are – but I ain’t about to become one!”

If you cannot convince people by your life and actions – then pressure and arguments won’t work. And insulting and degrading their religion certainly won’t.

 

[st_felicity]

I have been “Evangelized” many times. Often by good people whom I could respect – although not accept their invitation to join their church…

Do you think seeds were planted that may have helped you clarify Truth in your own mind at a later date?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Do you think seeds were planted that may have helped you clarify Truth in your own mind at a later date?

Well, not in my case. For every example of a truly Christian life I see outside the Church, I see a dozen inside. For every argument I have heard against the Church (or for some other religion) I know the counter-argument.

 

[st_felicity]

Well, not in my case. For every example of a truly Christian life I see outside the Church, I see a dozen inside. For every argument I have heard against the Church (or for some other religion) I know the counter-argument.

Well then the “discussion” confirms your beliefs and bolsters the truth. Has there ever been a Protestant view that led you to clarify your Catholic perspective? I don’t mean confirmed a bias…but maybe opened your eyes to a perspective that was actually Catholic?

I started a thread about John Piper’s sermon on the Prosperity Doctrine that clarified my Catholic beliefs in a positive way…see the non-Catholic forum…has that occured with you, and if so…isn’t that a reason to engage in evangelization for the glory of God?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well then the “discussion” confirms your beliefs and bolsters the truth. Has there ever been a Protestant view that led you to clarify your Catholic perspective? I don’t mean confirmed a bias…but maybe opened your eyes to a perspective that was actually Catholic?

It happens. When I investigate claims made by those seeking to convert me or my fellow Catholics, I do perforce study Catholicism deeper.

But there are only so many arguments – and when you’ve heard them and investigated them once, the well runs dry.

I find deeper study is needed for my own satisfaction and salvation, not to refute attacks on Catholicism.

I started a thread about John Piper’s sermon on the Prosperity Doctrine that clarified my Catholic beliefs in a positive way…see the non-Catholic forum…has that occured with you, and if so…isn’t that a reason to engage in evangelization for the glory of God?

Evangelization or debate? If your intention is to convert someone, it takes a long time before true study begins. Conversion starts when someone is attracted to the Church – and that’s usually because someone they know and admire is a Catholic.