Irritated by "sheep stealing"

[JohnDeereFan]

We evangelize everyone, but we don’t specifically target Protestants, if you understand what I mean?

Did you read the posts I quoted from the Catholic person here who said that she specifically wanted to target Protestants?

 

[Contarini]

"i was looking at the picture of the catholic church. i hope you weren’t down there converting the catholics "

He replies:

“only the one’s who were’t christian!”

I am now even more pissed. My experience with evangelicals has let me know that many of them think that Catholics are definitely NOT Christian. It doesn’t matter how much Catholics love Jesus. It doesn’t matter how much they pray. It doesn’t matter that they are faithful. It doesn’t matter that they have been baptized. According to many of them, Christian and Catholic are mutually exclusive.

I kinda figure that my friend was just playing words games with me. It would’t surprise me if he said “only the one’s who weren’t Christian” as a cheeky, pompous, smart-*** (etc etc) disguise for “well, yeah we were.” Do you guys get my drift?

It makes me sooooo that they have the gall to go down there and preach to Catholic CHRISTIANS and tell them that they are wrong, that they are not Christian.

I want to make angry faces all over the place!!!

In evangelical parlance, the phrase “Catholics/Lutherans/Anglicans/Methodists/Baptists who are not Christians” (and yes, evangelicals think that members of all of these traditions may or may not be Christians) means “members of a formal Christian body who have not entered into a personal relationship with Christ through faith in Christ’s saving work.” Your friend is most likely not being coy or cheeky–he is honestly expressing his belief (which Catholics share, just in different terminology) that membership in any Christian church does not guarantee salvation.

This raises the further question: does your friend think that the Catholic Church does a rather bad job of bringing its members into a living relationship with Christ? Almost certainly he does. But this can be understood in two senses:

1. Catholic doctrine and catechesis do not tend to promote the kind of definite conversion experience that many evangelicals value as a sign that someone has indeed entered into a saving relationship with Christ; and
2. Catholicism has, by its own standards, often done a rather poor job (perhaps particularly in Latin America, given the way that part of the world was evangelized) in bringing its formal members to a faith that works through charity.

Obviously, for many evangelicals these two points are going to be one and the same; for Catholics they are quite different. Point 1 is trivially true–Catholicism is going to promote a life of faith and love that conforms to Catholic and not evangelical Protestant norms. Point 2, however, is also often true, and most Catholics agree with this. You therefore can’t really blame evangelicals for evangelizing those Catholics who to them do not appear to have a saving relationship with Christ. You can (and I certainly do) encourage evangelicals to be more open-minded about the various forms such a relationship can take, and more critical about the culturally limited ways in which evangelicals have historically understood conversion and a “personal relationship with Christ.” The students I teach are probably a lot more open to this kind of critical thinking about their own tradition than students at Liberty would be (Liberty is, by some definitions, a fundamentalist institution; my institution quite definitely is not). But in the end, evangelicals are committed to witnessing to all people–regardless of religious affiliation–in order to bring them into a saving relationship with Christ. That’s one of the basic things that makes them evangelicals. That does not mean that evangelicals don’t think that Catholicism is a valid form of Christianity.

There are evangelicals who try to work within existing church structures, not setting up Protestant churches but encouraging their “converts” to work for renewal within the churches in which they were baptized. Billy Graham came under intense fire from the fundamentalist wing of evangelicalism for telling Catholics (and members of other non-evangelical or not exclusively evangelical traditions) to go back to their parish churches after making a “decision for Christ.” More dramatically, I recently met an evangelical missionary in France, David Bjork, who has for several decades now been working within Catholic parishes, teaching Bible studies, lecturing to seminarians, etc., in order to promote living faith among Catholics. He has done this in cooperation with the French clergy, who recognize that they are very bad at evangelizing their own parishioners. He was obliged to sever his ties with his home denomination (the Missionary Church) because they could not understand why he refused to set up congregations of that denomination in France. I think that work of this kind is a very encouraging sign. May Bjork’s tribe increase!

Edwin

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Protestant missionaries have no business in traditional catholic Countrys. It’s that simple.

Why not? Just because a country has a large number of Catholics, does that really mean that every individual there is saved and doesn’t need to hear the Gospel?

Don’t you think it’s possible, even in countries with large Catholic populations, that there may be individuals who are not saved and need to hear the Gospel?

 

[Contarini]

Catholics wanting Protestants to come into the Church is NOT, I repeat, NOT the same as what the evangelicals are doing in Catholic South America. What’s the difference, you ask?

The evangelicals are telling these folks that they are part of a dead religion, and going to hell, unless they accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. They deny that the Catholic Church and her sacraments are a means of accepting Jesus Christ as savior, and teach that the person must be “saved” apart from the Church. I know this because I also have a friend that went down there on a medical/missionary trip.

You know that your friend thinks this. You do not know that evangelicals as a whole think this. I know for certain that they do not. I know a lot more than just one person who as gone to Latin America on a missionary trip. I just taught systematic theology this past semester to a young married couple who had been on such a trip the year before. I know how they think.

By way of contrast: Catholics do not tell protestants they are going to hell unless they join up.

From my perspective that makes “sheep stealing” totally unjustifiable. I can respect the fundamentalists who genuinely think Catholicism is apostate. I think they are terribly wrong, but on their principles they are doing the right thing. My problem with evangelicals making Catholics into Protestants is that most of the time the evangelicals don’t think that Catholics have to become Protestants in order to be saved (and of course they are right not to think this). Rather, evangelicals typically view the Church as nothing more than an instrument for evangelization (and secondarily for spiritual growth). If one Christian body isn’t going a good job, why not have another group come in and compete? Isn’t what matters to bring people into a relationship with Christ? That is what is wrong with the typically evangelical approach. Not that they damn Catholicism utterly, but precisely that they don’t–that they are quite happy to tear down (in their happy pragmatism) an ancient Christian tradition in which they themselves admit that people can find salvation.

So, it is not a matter of the evangelicals simply “getting them to switch” as though the choice were between Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi.

Actually, for many of them it is. And that to me is even worse than the fundamentalist approach which you mistakenly ascribe to evangelicals as a whole.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I’ve also come across Christian denomination missionary groups that go into Catholic areas. It really is bothersome, because it isn’t necessary: Catholics are Christian, we do have the Gospel, we do have Jesus (deeply!), and we are spirit-filled.

All Catholics are spirit-filled? All Catholics are in a state of grace at this moment? This is a pretty astonishing claim.

That being said, because the Catholic Church is the true Church Jesus Himself founded, I would be ecstatic if Catholic missionaries led home a denominationalized Christian town to the Catholic Church. But at the same time, I don’t think it would be right, civil, or loving to say in response to converting protestants (if the situation were reversed):

"i was looking at the picture of the (name a denomination here) church. i hope you weren’t down there converting them "

He replies:

• “only the one’s who weren’t christian!”*

I find this extremely odd. I would find that a lot more “right, civil, and loving” than the approach of many Catholics on this forum, which is that Protestants are fellow Christians but aren’t to be allowed to receive the Eucharist, are not members of true Christian churches, and are fair game for proselytization.

You have no business evangelizing people who are already Christians. Period. If you think we are Christians, then lay off the whole “come home to the Church” business. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, you know. You have created a half-and-half theology in recent years, compromising your historical stance without genuinely embracing Protestants as members of Christ’s Body.

Edwin

 

[SonofMonica]

You know that your friend thinks this. You do not know that evangelicals as a whole think this. I know for certain that they do not. I know a lot more than just one person who as gone to Latin America on a missionary trip. I just taught systematic theology this past semester to a young married couple who had been on such a trip the year before. I know how they think.

Edwin, I am not talking about evangelicals as a whole. I am talking about the ones made the subject of this conversation by the OP and the ones with which I’ve had experience with (going on mission trips in South America to save the locals from their “dead” religion). I, too, know many more evangelicals who have gone on such mission trips, being from an evangelical background myself. Let’s not get into a credibility war. I simply wasn’t talking about all evangelicals, and never claimed to be.

From my perspective that makes “sheep stealing” totally unjustifiable. I can respect the fundamentalists who genuinely think Catholicism is apostate. I think they are terribly wrong, but on their principles they are doing the right thing. My problem with evangelicals making Catholics into Protestants is that most of the time the evangelicals don’t think that Catholics have to become Protestants in order to be saved (and of course they are right not to think this). Rather, evangelicals typically view the Church as nothing more than an instrument for evangelization (and secondarily for spiritual growth). If one Christian body isn’t going a good job, why not have another group come in and compete? Isn’t what matters to bring people into a relationship with Christ? That is what is wrong with the typically evangelical approach. Not that they damn Catholicism utterly, but precisely that they don’t–that they are quite happy to tear down (in their happy pragmatism) an ancient Christian tradition in which they themselves admit that people can find salvation.

I am picking up the basic theme of this paragraph, but I am not quite sure whether some things are your view or the views of the evangelicals you agree with. I’m interested in your viewpoint about this, though. Could you explain a little more clearly, maybe break it out, so I can understand?

Actually, for many of them it is. And that to me is even worse than the fundamentalist approach which you mistakenly ascribe to evangelicals as a whole.

Once again, I didn’t do that. I was simply trying to say that I know what the OP is referring to, because I’ve experienced it with a friend, just as he has. Of course it doesn’t apply to all evangelicals. Having just come from the Episcopal Church myself (after involvement with Methodism, baptist churches, etc.), I am very familiar with evangelicals who do not consider the Catholic Church as apostate in any way.

 

[East_Anglican]

Pretty vague. I can’t really get at what you’re saying. Could you provide a concrete example?

eg. When people trust in a denomination or a tradition or a dogma instead of Christ anyone who does not a member of the denomination or does not adhere to the tradition or dogma makes them feel unsafe. This leads to trusting in the tradition or dogma even more to the point where those who disagree must be avoided or confronted.

While in Christ we have total security.

 

[East_Anglican]

I dont agree.
Actually I live in a Lutheran country. It chose freely to be Lutheran 500 years ago. Now the population is still baptised and confirmed and buried in the Lutheran church here, but at he same time over 90 percent of them live like heathens with no living faith nor repentance from sin.
Should I tell the Catholic missionaries not to come here, because its not fair of them?
Should I tell the Orthodox, or the Messianics or the Evangelicals not to come and preach?
No, let everyone whose tongue drips with the honey of the Gospel and whose hands are filled with the power of the Holy Spirit come to this desert!

Amen!

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, I am not talking about evangelicals as a whole.

The language you used didn’t make that clear.

I am talking about the ones made the subject of this conversation by the OP

So am I.

and the ones with which I’ve had experience with (going on mission trips in South America to save the locals from their “dead” religion).

You’re assuming that the OP’s friend is the same as those you know. Here’s my point: the person described in the OP clearly implied that some Catholics are “Christians,” and that these Catholics don’t need to be converted. Now it’s possible that, as the OP suggests, he was just being snide, and that in fact he regards the class of “Catholics who are Christians” as empty or as close to it as makes little difference for evangelistic purposes. But that is unwarranted, since in fact many evangelicals (the vast majority in my experience) would make precisely this distinction (between Catholics, or members of any other church, who are Christians, and those who aren’t). The most reasonable way to interpret this particular evangelical’s statement is that he is not interested in evangelizing those Catholics whom he can recognize as already having a saving relationship with Christ, and that he is aware that such people do exist. There is no reason to assume that his statement is code language for “Catholics, by definition, aren’t Christians.”

I am picking up the basic theme of this paragraph, but I am not quite sure whether some things are your view or the views of the evangelicals you agree with. I’m interested in your viewpoint about this, though. Could you explain a little more clearly, maybe break it out, so I can understand?

Sorry for the confusion. I was summarizing what most evangelicals in my experience believe: that what matters is one’s individual relationship with Christ and that the Church is just an instrument to that end. This is the point on which I perhaps disagree most radically with the common attitudes of evangelicals. My criticism of most evangelicals is not that they condemn Catholics as non-Christians, but that they have no respect for the corporate existence of the Church throughout space and time, so that they see nothing wrong with invading culturally Catholic (or Orthodox, or Anglican, or Lutheran) countries and promoting their alternative version of Christianity, even though they recognize that this particular version of Christianity is not necessary for salvation.

Edwin

 

[josie_L]

Did you read the posts I quoted from the Catholic person here who said that she specifically wanted to target Protestants?

Where did she say that? And furthermore, how does this change anything?, as the CC does not target anyone specifically when evangelizing. The whole point of this thread is about certain protestant evangelicals/denominations who consider us Catholics non-christians and so therefore deliberately target Catholic countries (while avoiding the more obvious choice of evangelizing Muslims, Buddhists, and others who do not accept Jesus as their Lord and saviour).

 

[SonofMonica]

I would find that a lot more “right, civil, and loving” than the approach of many Catholics on this forum, which is that Protestants are fellow Christians but aren’t to be allowed to receive the Eucharist, are not members of true Christian churches, and are fair game for proselytization.

You have no business evangelizing people who are already Christians. Period. If you think we are Christians, then lay off the whole “come home to the Church” business. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, you know. You have created a half-and-half theology in recent years, compromising your historical stance without genuinely embracing Protestants as members of Christ’s Body.

1. The Church does not “disallow” protestants to receive the Eucharist. Protestants exclude themselves by virtue of choosing to remain protestant. Why would anyone want to receive something they do not believe in from an organization they would not be a part of? The non-receipt of the Catholic Eucharist by a non-Catholic is simply a non-issue.
2. Recognizing that someone is a Christian does not mean you have to recognize there is more than one Church. Catholics do not view the Church as their own, and see no authority for starting any new church, period. Christ created the first and only one, in Catholic eyes. So the non-recognition of other “true churches” is simply a non-issue.
3. The way I understand it, a Catholic’s attempt to get a protestant to “come home” is not an attempt to have the (say, Methodist) “switch” to Catholicism from Methodism. This is why it is termed “reconcile” or “enter into full communion” with the Catholic Church. Not in the Catholic Church is not in the Catholic Church, period. Catholic doctrine is not equivocal upon this point. One may be a baptized believing Christian without being a part of the Church (although it does not, according to Catholic doctrine, mean that person is going to heaven), although imperfect “communion” with the Church may vary by degree, based upon the extent the person has already accepted Catholic doctrine. However, the person’s involvement (apart from baptism) in another community of Christians, say the Methodist Church, has no bearing on the issue of entering into full communion with the Church, except to the extent it may affect the catechesis necessary to receive the Sacraments.

 

[Augie1530]

As a former protestant (Lutheran) I can agree that some , but NOT all protestant pastors have a tendency to “Preach to the choir” preach to those who are christian in other words try to convert the catholics especially those of the Roman Variety , but the ones who usually do this have been "Sudden " Baptist, those that think they are an automatic christian because can tell you the exact day and time when they became a christian, not realizing it is a life long experience and journey once the Holy Spirit has chosen them . I hate to say this but I feel the RCC in those countries need to wake up and find out what is going on in the parish and diocean levels and see what can be done to re educate the Catholic Sisters and Brothers in each parish and get them motivated to start CATHOLIC EVANELISM before it is too late. Just look at all teh things the protestant TV hucksters do in Central and South America and Africa .from Pat Robertson to Kenneth Copeland to James Robinson and others

 

[SonofMonica]

As a former protestant (Lutheran) I can agree that some , but NOT all protestant pastors have a tendency to “Preach to the choir” preach to those who are christian in other words try to convert the catholics especially those of the Roman Variety , but the ones who usually do this have been "Sudden " Baptist, those that think they are an automatic christian because can tell you the exact day and time when they became a christian, not realizing it is a life long experience and journey once the Holy Spirit has chosen them . I hate to say this but I feel the RCC in those countries need to wake up and find out what is going on in the parish and diocean levels and see what can be done to re educate the Catholic Sisters and Brothers in each parish and get them motivated to start CATHOLIC EVANELISM before it is too late. Just look at all teh things the protestant TV hucksters do in Central and South America and Africa .from Pat Robertson to Kenneth Copeland to James Robinson and others

I agree, the Church in those countries does need to get serious about education and evangelism. Otherwise, those coming in selling false assurances will continue to be successful in “winning” those Catholics who think they’re going to heaven by virtue of their baptism or family’s religion. If the Church would preach more forcefully and intelligently the fact that none of us are guaranteed heaven, not Catholics, not Christians, then she would lose less adherents to those selling false assurances of salvation.

 

[josie_L]

I dont agree.
Actually I live in a Lutheran country. It chose freely to be Lutheran 500 years ago. Now the population is still baptised and confirmed and buried in the Lutheran church here, but at he same time over 90 percent of them live like heathens with no living faith nor repentance from sin.
Should I tell the Catholic missionaries not to come here, because its not fair of them?
Should I tell the Orthodox, or the Messianics or the Evangelicals not to come and preach?
No, let everyone whose tongue drips with the honey of the Gospel and whose hands are filled with the power of the Holy Spirit come to this desert!

Actually Grace DK, your country did not choose to freely be Lutheran, the King at the time made it the state religion, so the masses didn’t really have much to say. This was pretty much the case for most coutries that converted to Lutheranism at that time.

And nobody stated the Church shouldn’t evangelize, however, I would feel angered as a Catholic if I knew my Church was specifically, if only, targeting Protestants, wouldn’t you?

P.S. And lying in order to achieve their means.

 

[simplynoone]

It is a good thing that Paul did not teach this, then!

*Well, seeing that Jesus confirmed Judaism (Matthew 5:17-19) and not what Paul taught… I’d have to say that Paul and his followers are the ones promoting replacement theology. *

*Wanna be part of Israel, even Ezekiel promotes circumcision by flesh and not just the heart as Paul tried to promote. Christianity, started by Paul, is replacement theology. *

When I first responded I was assuming I was responding to a credible poster. I can see now what I am dealing with. I hope you and daddy have great success. Just make sure all five of his followers wash up and put on their shiny face and that shoes and socks all match in case there are pictures. And even though they are all adults make sure they all have a ride home.

*You might need to explain this post as it comes across as quite the bitter ramblings typical of Christianity. Perhaps try to tone it down a bit? *
**
*By the way, my dad and I have different views on pushing religion onto others. I only speak of it with others who are of the religion that tries to replace Judaism. I am not missionary minded… which he is and he recruits others to Christianity still which I see as a “cop out” type of religion. shrugs *

 

[GodIsGracious]

*Well, seeing that Jesus confirmed Judaism (Matthew 5:17-19) and not what Paul taught… I’d have to say that Paul and his followers are the ones promoting replacement theology. *

*Wanna be part of Israel, even Ezekiel promotes circumcision by flesh and not just the heart as Paul tried to promote. Christianity, started by Paul, is replacement theology. *

*You might need to explain this post as it comes across as quite the bitter ramblings typical of Christianity. Perhaps try to tone it down a bit? *
**
*By the way, my dad and I have different views on pushing religion onto others. I only speak of it with others who are of the religion that tries to replace Judaism. I am not missionary minded… which he is and he recruits others to Christianity still which I see as a “cop out” type of religion. shrugs *

The only reason you think Paul is preaching “replacement theology” is because you do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

 

[GodIsGracious]

I was going to respond to this but… meh. I’m not surprised a Protestant called me a bigot.

I’m simply staying true to my faith. PROTESTANTS are the ones protesting the Church AND Christ’s teachings.

So you beliewve it’s better to be a lapse catholic not serving Christ then to be involved in a Protestant church?

That’s disgusting!

You honestly think we’re that bothered?



They were looking for somthing.

Why couldn’t they find it in Roman Cathlicism?

You’ve been snared by bigoted nonsense and can’t see it.

Why don’t people like you stop being so bigoted? Then the world may know who Christs diciples are.

.

 

[simplynoone]

The only reason you think Paul is preaching “replacement theology” is because you do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

*Mostly true !!! Though, the reason I believe Paul was preaching replacement theology is due to the fact that he WAS preaching replacement theology. Very true though that I do not believe Jesus was the Messiah that the Jewish were waiting for… after all, what was spread about Jesus caused them more loss than it did gain. Thus, he could not be THEIR Messiah… since the Messiah spoken of in their Scripture was for THEM… it stands to reason that it was not Jesus. I believe their Messiah to be Israel as is evidenced all throughout the Tanakh. *
**
It is only a matter of time before people start waking up to this fact and all these prophecies will become a reality before our eyes… just not in the mystical way that most of you christians envision… sorry that God’s ways are a mundane thing to you.

 

[Bookworm88]

By way of contrast: Catholics do not tell protestants they are going to hell unless they join up. They do not deny protestants are “true” Christians, or that they may be saved. It is truly matter of showing that the Catholic Church has the fullness of apostolic teaching and has the sacraments give to us by God, and that your best shot at living the Christian life and attaining eternal life is to adhere to what the apostles have taught us and receive God the way he presents himself to the Catholic Church.

I just want to get something straight. Are you saying that all Christians, whether Protestant or Catholic, have a shot at eternal life, but Catholicism simply presents the “best shot” at it? Do you believe a Protestant can still make it to heaven if they refuse to "receive God the way he presents himself to the Catholic Church’?

 

[GodIsGracious]

I just want to get something straight. Are you saying that all Christians, whether Protestant or Catholic, have a shot at eternal life, but Catholicism simply presents the “best shot” at it? Do you believe a Protestant can still make it to heaven if they refuse to "receive God the way he presents himself to the Catholic Church’?

With God, all things are possible. I do not know who God will allow into heaven. Only God knows. I just know that as a Catholic, I have far more tools available to get there. (And please, don’t twist this to mean I’m saying it is only through “works” and not Jesus Christ.)

And just so you know, the Catholic Church itself does not teach that all non-Catholics are not going to heaven. She does teach that others who are not Catholic do have a chance. How that chance looks, I personally do not know.