"Good" Protestant Apologists

[grampben]

Maybe in Ulster, but not here in the States.

I think in recent history it has been more dangerous to call oneself a catholic here than in the States.

I meant the mainline denominations, coming form the main reformers: Lutherans, Reformed churches, anglicanism etc. They all adhere to the historic creeds, which include the word ‘catholic’.

I understand though that the biggest face of American christianity is the independent evangelical churches and Southern Baptists etc. These guys descend largely from the anabaptists, who called for total restoration of the church, rather than Luther, Zwingli and Calvin’s views that some things in the church needed correcting. The anabaptists mostly rejected the historic creeds. In addition, the first christians to come to the USA were congregationalist puritans, who held that the congregation held the jurisdiction for interpretation of scripture etc, and so many ignored the creeds.

I hope that explains where I’m coming form better, I wasn’t referring just to American Christianity when I made that first comment.

 

[rr1213]

I think in recent history it has been more dangerous to call oneself a catholic here than in the States.

No doubt.

I think in recent history it has been more dangerous to call oneself a catholic here than in the States.

I meant the mainline denominations, coming form the main reformers: Lutherans, Reformed churches, anglicanism etc. They all adhere to the historic creeds, which include the word ‘catholic’.

I understand though that the biggest face of American christianity is the independent evangelical churches and Southern Baptists etc. These guys descend largely from the anabaptists, who called for total restoration of the church, rather than Luther, Zwingli and Calvin’s views that some things in the church needed correcting. The anabaptists mostly rejected the historic creeds. In addition, the first christians to come to the USA were congregationalist puritans, who held that the congregation held the jurisdiction for interpretation of scripture etc, and so many ignored the creeds.

I hope that explains where I’m coming form better, I wasn’t referring just to American Christianity when I made that first comment.

Yes, many of the mainline Protestant denominations still recite the Nicene Creed, but most of them don’t see themselves as being Catholic. Also, in the LCMS’ new worship book they have substituted “Christian” for “Catholic” in the creed. I understand what you are saying and I even agree with it to a certain extent, but I think that the idea that the Reformation resulted in a reformed or purified catholicism is loosing steam among Protestant circles.

 

[vango]

Let’s not argue semantics. What Protestants are protesting against is not the wider Catholic church, but the particular Roman version of ‘Catholic’. As an Anglican I am both Protestant and Catholic. The Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds are integral to my faith … including their statements about belief in the holy catholic church. But there are certain practices of Roman Catholicism which I regard as unsupported by Scripture.

tsk, tsk, you fail to remember that the bible came from the Church, not the other way around… amateurs… and try this on for size… Catholic - or Cath - holis - which translated means - “on the whole” - refers to the Eucharist - as started by Jesus at the last supper and completed on the cross - thus, every time mass is said, the bread and wine are consecrated and Liturgy of the Eucharist is celebrated - it is the very same instance as the last supper, and all consecrations through-out history to the present celebration. It is on the whole, one and the same, unchanged - true God, Jesus, given as a spiritual food, ingested. thus full-filling scripture (Church tradition) that “whomever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have eternal life”. so you need to ask yourself - Got Jesus?

 

[vango]

I think in recent history it has been more dangerous to call oneself a catholic here than in the States.

I meant the mainline denominations, coming form the main reformers: Lutherans, Reformed churches, anglicanism etc. They all adhere to the historic creeds, which include the word ‘catholic’.

I understand though that the biggest face of American christianity is the independent evangelical churches and Southern Baptists etc. These guys descend largely from the anabaptists, who called for total restoration of the church, rather than Luther, Zwingli and Calvin’s views that some things in the church needed correcting. The anabaptists mostly rejected the historic creeds. In addition, the first christians to come to the USA were congregationalist puritans, who held that the congregation held the jurisdiction for interpretation of scripture etc, and so many ignored the creeds.

I hope that explains where I’m coming form better, I wasn’t referring just to American Christianity when I made that first comment.

history lesson… first Christians to come to America were NOT puritans… the first Christians were missionary Priests sharing the gospel with the Native Americans. so many Americans get this wrong… his history for crying out loud… study it.

 

[rr1213]

history lesson… first Christians to come to America were NOT puritans… the first Christians were missionary Priests sharing the gospel with the Native Americans. so many Americans get this wrong… his history for crying out loud… study it.

Defines how you define “America”. In the English speaking portions of the Hemisphere which became the United States, the first Christians were Anglicans at the Colony located at Jamestown, Virginia.

 

[Simka]

tsk, tsk, you fail to remember that the bible came from the Church, not the other way around… Catholic - which translated means - “on the whole” - refers to the Eucharist -

A number of issues here … First, the Bible is the written Word of God, penned by myriad authors as the Holy Spirit gave them utterance. The church, also, is the creation of God in Christ. The Word of God has authority over the church … not the other way around.

It is hard to understand how one can hold that the Bible “came from” the church. Pentecost is widely recognized as the birth of the Christian church, and by then a large majority of the Bible had already been written.

Second: “Catholic” is derived from the Greek meaning “whole, complete, universal or worldwide”. It has no specific reference to the Eucharist. It is not the Eucharist that is catholic, but rather the world-wide body of believers. Like the Roman version of Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican churches are also catholic. That is, they descend directly from the original catholic (universal) church founded by the apostles.

Third: I have repented of my sins and I have accepted Christ as my Lord and my Saviour. So why should I now be asking if I have Jesus … ??? Incidentally, the Eucharist is celebrated weekly at our church, and I receive Christ each time.

 

[DD2007]

R.C. Sproul is my favorite.

ligonier.org/

He’s got some really good stuff.

 

[Simka]

R.C. Sproul is my favorite. … He’s got some really good stuff.

As an author, I couldn’t agree with you more. Though I find J I Packer and Ravi Zacharias lead the pack when it comes to apologetics specifically.

 

[David_Zampino]

A number of issues here … First, the Bible is the written Word of God, penned by myriad authors as the Holy Spirit gave them utterance. The church, also, is the creation of God in Christ. The Word of God has authority over the church … not the other way around.

Incorrect. This is a late medieval and Reformation concept. This is a model which would have been utterly unknown in the Early Church.

It is hard to understand how one can hold that the Bible “came from” the church. Pentecost is widely recognized as the birth of the Christian church, and by then a large majority of the Bible had already been written.

Pentecost is the birth of the Church – but “a large majority” of the Bible had not been written! The earliest documents in the New Testament are dated in the late AD 40’s at the earliest. This would be 15+ years after Pentecost.

Second: “Catholic” is derived from the Greek meaning “whole, complete, universal or worldwide”. It has no specific reference to the Eucharist. It is not the Eucharist that is catholic, but rather the world-wide body of believers. Like the Roman version of Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican churches are also catholic. That is, they descend directly from the original catholic (universal) church founded by the apostles.

Catholic and Orthodox, yes. Anglicanism, no. (With apologies to my many Anglo-Catholic friends!) You’re referring to the “Branch Theory” established – but later rejected – by the great Anglican convert to Catholicism, John Henry, Cardinal Newman in the 19th century. (Soon to be beatified! ) The “Branch Theory” was never accepted by either Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

 

[Catholicdeacon]

Hi Edwin

He’s certainly in a league far above any of the “Catholic apologists” currently active in the U.S. of whom I’m aware.

Hmmm I think Danish D’sousa <SP?> is at the same level as CS Lewis. And Fathers John Corapy and Mitch Pacwa are a very close second.

Most apologists are propagandistic hacks. It’s an intrinsically demoralizing pursuit. It wasn’t even very good for Lewis, as he recognized in his great poem “The Apologist’s Evening Prayer.” An apologist is like a lawyer in the U.S. adversarial system–he (or she) sets out to make the best case possible for one side. That means that it’s possible for an apologist or a lawyer to be honest, but it’s very, very difficult, and in practice almost none are.

I think it is because what we colloquially call “apologists” are nothing more than “Controvertialists”.

In His love…

Catholic Deacon

 

[Simka]

Incorrect. This is a late medieval and Reformation concept. This is a model which would have been utterly unknown in the Early Church.

The New Testament itself tells us that God made provision for communication of saving truth by entrusting it to the Apostles and through them to the whole Church. This message from God is called ‘the word of God’, ‘the word of the Lord’, or sometimes simply ‘the word’. Its contents denominate it ‘the word of Christ’, ‘the word of the cross’, and its claimed divine origin is its guarantee of being divine truth. This is the model known to the early church. It not a recent concept.

Pentecost is the birth of the Church – but “a large majority” of the Bible had not been written! The earliest documents in the New Testament are dated in the late AD 40’s at the earliest. This would be 15+ years after Pentecost.

I take it, then, that you agree with my original position, that the other 75-80% of the Bible which is NOT the New Testament had already been written. I don’t know about the “New Math”, but when I was in school, 75-80% was regarded as a “large majority”.

Catholic and Orthodox, yes. Anglicanism, no. (With apologies to my many Anglo-Catholic friends!) You’re referring to the “Branch Theory” established – but later rejected – by the great Anglican convert to Catholicism, John Henry, Cardinal Newman in the 19th century. (Soon to be beatified! ) The “Branch Theory” was never accepted by either Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

Newman may have posited a theory, but the concept certainly didn’t originate with him. From its earliest days, the Anglican Church was catholic and saw itself as such. It split with the Roman Church, essentially over the authority of the Pope. It was catholic the day before it split, and it was catholic the day after it split.

David, who is your favourite Protestant apologist … ???

 

[David_Zampino]

The New Testament itself tells us that God made provision for communication of saving truth by entrusting it to the Apostles and through them to the whole Church. This message from God is called ‘the word of God’, ‘the word of the Lord’, or sometimes simply ‘the word’. Its contents denominate it ‘the word of Christ’, ‘the word of the cross’, and its claimed divine origin is its guarantee of being divine truth. This is the model known to the early church. It not a recent concept.

I don’t disagree with you here. But I am unclear as to how your statement here relates to your notion that the Church comes from the Bible, and not the other way around! It was the Fathers of the Church – the successors to the Apostles – who determined what properly constituted “Scripture” – and the process took some centuries.

I take it, then, that you agree with my original position, that the other 75-80% of the Bible which is NOT the New Testament had already been written. I don’t know about the “New Math”, but when I was in school, 75-80% was regarded as a “large majority”.

Nope – not into “New Math” myself! AND, I assumed (a mistake on my part apparently) from your context that you were referring to the New Testament.

This having been said, the Hebrew Scriptures had not yet been fully canonized at the time of Jesus (or Pentecost) even amongst the Jewish community. The Sadducees recognized ONLY the Law of Moses (the Torah) as divinely inspired. The Pharisees recognized the Law and the Prophets (and possibly the Psalms). The books which constituted “The Writings” were still widely debated by the Rabbis until the end of the 1st century, following the destruction of the Temple.

Newman may have posited a theory, but the concept certainly didn’t originate with him. From its earliest days, the Anglican Church was catholic and saw itself as such. It split with the Roman Church, essentially over the authority of the Pope. It was catholic the day before it split, and it was catholic the day after it split.

I think that you’d have a very hard time justifying this from an historic perspective. (And I write from the position of a former Anglican.) Certainly King Henry VIII continued to see himself as “catholic” – but the spiritual leadership of the Church of England was largely (not completely) Calvinistic in doctrine and belief. The battles between the “High” (read, more Catholic in doctrine and practice) and “Puritan” were real and for many decades – and even after the Puritans broke completely, the battles between the “Evangelicals” and “Anglo-Catholics” continue to this day. While the Anglo-Catholics would – and do – eagerly consider themselves “catholic” – many of the “Evangelical” Anglicans would be horrified at the thought!

David, who is your favourite Protestant apologist … ???

CS Lewis – far and away.

 

[Simka]

I don’t disagree with you here. But I am unclear as to how your statement here relates to your notion that the Church comes from the Bible, and not the other way around! It was the Fathers of the Church – the successors to the Apostles – who determined what properly constituted “Scripture” – and the process took some centuries.

David, I do not maintain that the Church “comes from” the Bible. I was arguing in opposition to one who insisted that the Bible “came from” the church. My position is that both are creations of God, not that either one is the origin of the other. To quote Paul to Timothy, “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God”. I reject the notion that the Bible came from the church … unless you’re referring exclusively to the process of settling what were to be accepted as the canonical writings. This process, for the most part, was little more than a formal confirmation of what the church had widely accepted for a couple of centuries. More than any one thing, the process was designed to eradicate heresies by ruling out non-canonical writings.

I would insist that the authority of Scripture, as God’s word written, supercedes the authority of the church, and that the church, in all its beliefs and practices, is subject to that authority.

And I agree with you wholeheartedly, C.S. Lewis is in a class by himself … arguably the most influential Christian writer of the 20th century.