Reformed and Fundamentalist Christians

[Goblin_Taters]

Is it just me, or is the majority of Catholic Apologetics directed in response to Protestants, tends to approach Protestant as presented by Reformed Christians or by Fundamentalist Christians? Maybe it’s just me, but when I think about the books I’ve read written by Catholic converts from Protestantism, it seems that a vast majority of them concern individuals from these two backgrounds. Either the person was a Calvinist or a Christian Fundamentalist. Take Jimmy Akin’s Salvation Controversy book, for example. A well-written and argued book. And yes, there is a section near the end on the Joint Declaration Between Catholics and Lutherans on Justification, but the majority of the books focuses on the TULIP-oriented beliefs of Calvinists.

Or, if one looks at the Apologetics even here on CA, one finds many answers in response to Fundamentalist Christians. For example: Baptism. A Lutheran, an Anglican, or even a Presbyterian isn’t going to argue against the proposition that “baptism saves.” Lutherans would even agree that there is a distinction between mortal and venial sin.

Do you think that Catholic Apologetics tends to place greater emphasis on these groups because of how many Catholics have been persuaded to join these Protestant groups?

 

[BjBarnett]

Is it just me, or is the majority of Catholic Apologetics directed in response to Protestants, tends to approach Protestant as presented by Reformed Christians or by Fundamentalist Christians? Maybe it’s just me, but when I think about the books I’ve read written by Catholic converts from Protestantism, it seems that a vast majority of them concern individuals from these two backgrounds. Either the person was a Calvinist or a Christian Fundamentalist. Take Jimmy Akin’s Salvation Controversy book, for example. A well-written and argued book. And yes, there is a section near the end on the Joint Declaration Between Catholics and Lutherans on Justification, but the majority of the books focuses on the TULIP-oriented beliefs of Calvinists.

Or, if one looks at the Apologetics even here on CA, one finds many answers in response to Fundamentalist Christians. For example: Baptism. A Lutheran, an Anglican, or even a Presbyterian isn’t going to argue against the proposition that “baptism saves.” Lutherans would even agree that there is a distinction between mortal and venial sin.

Do you think that Catholic Apologetics tends to place greater emphasis on these groups because of how many Catholics have been persuaded to join these Protestant groups?

I think that Catholic apologetics is focused on fundamentalist more because that is the direction that most of the attacks come from. Other types of Protestants have a more favorable view of Catholics but fundamentalist at there core are against the Catholic Church.

 

[kaycee]

I would expect to see 30,000 arguments to the same question, if RC apologists are to be believed. Odd we only see 1 or 2 similar responses.

 

[JimG]

My impression is that quite a few converts to Catholicism come from the ranks of Evangelicals. And I think that part of the reason is that Evangelicals take their Faith very seriously, and are willing to study until they find answers.

 

[Teflon93]

My impression is that quite a few converts to Catholicism come from the ranks of Evangelicals. And I think that part of the reason is that Evangelicals take their Faith very seriously, and are willing to study until they find answers.

My wife was a devoted Pentecostal who crossed the Tiber with me this past Easter.

The good thing about the Pentecostal Church was she knows her (redacted) Bible backward and forward. The bad thing is as soon as she did she recognized the twisted view of it preached from the pulpit.

Ironically, it was her pastor’s getting publicly embarassed for pulling church funds out of a local charity simply because the Catholic Church also supported it financially that drove her to suggest we check out the Church. It was particularly funny because a newspaper reporter found out how much money the Pentecostal church had given this charity over the past year (which was the amount it “pulled back”) — $80. $80 from a 5,000+ member church. Now at 4,999.

 

[frnate]

I would expect to see 30,000 arguments to the same question, if RC apologists are to be believed. Odd we only see 1 or 2 similar responses.

You make a very astute observation. With one slight change we have exactly what goes on here. We get about 30,000 arguments against any given Catholic teaching (maybe one for every Prot denom?) The truth does not need that many defenses, one or two will do quite nicely.

Peace,
+N

 

[Baraq]

I have never felt the Reformed or Evangelicals are uniquely singled out. I always thought Lutherans were the big target(imo)Often watching ETWNs Journey home program Im disappointed that those who are supposedly rebuking TULIP, do so by some subjective statement like

‘I cant believe God would choose the elect’ or
‘The Mass is so much more fulfilling in the RCC’

 

[Goblin_Taters]

Originally Posted by Baraq:

I have never felt the Reformed or Evangelicals are uniquely singled out. I always thought Lutherans were the big target(imo)Often watching ETWNs Journey home program Im disappointed that those who are supposedly rebuking TULIP, do so by some subjective statement like

‘I cant believe God would choose the elect’ or
‘The Mass is so much more fulfilling in the RCC’

Perhaps it’s just the books I’ve personally read. I’ve watched a few JH programs, but overall I wasn’t satisfied by the answers the converts gave for their decision to convert. Too much emphasis on the disunity (30,000+ denoms) of Protestantism, the need for CHURCH AUTHORITY, MAGISTERIUM, the anti-contraception tour de force of Catholicism, etc. IMHO. The shows were enjoyable nontheless though.

 

[Baraq]

Perhaps it’s just the books I’ve personally read. I’ve watched a few JH programs, but overall I wasn’t satisfied by the answers the converts gave for their decision to convert. Too much emphasis on the disunity (30,000+ denoms) of Protestantism, the need for CHURCH AUTHORITY, MAGISTERIUM, the anti-contraception tour de force of Catholicism, etc. IMHO. The shows were enjoyable nontheless though.

I thought those were some of the better reasons given

 

[Fidelis]

I would expect to see 30,000 arguments to the same question, if RC apologists are to be believed. Odd we only see 1 or 2 similar responses.

Actually, when it comes to attacking the Catholic Church, non-Catholic Christians who are anti-Catholic are united in their bigotry. It is only in their differing from each other, that the 30,000 splinters come in.

 

[1ke]

Your exposure has been to certain books by certain authors. Those authors, having a particular background, write in that direction.

However, you overlook the vast body of apologetic works directed elsewhere. Frank Sheed-- the unequivocal Apologist Extraordinaire-- channeled his apologetic writing and speaking to the unchurched, the man on the street, the atheist. Rosalind Moss comes from Judaism, and speaks to that aspect of apologetics. Henry Cardinal Newman came from an Anglican background and makes eloquent apologetics to Anglicans and the rationalists/Deists/Agnostics of his time.

The Church’s apologetics history goes back to the beginning with St. Justin Martyr and the early church fathers. It continues right up to this day with apologetics for atheists, fundamentalists, new agers, mormons, JWs, and every other erroneous belief system out there.

 

[kaycee]

You make a very astute observation. With one slight change we have exactly what goes on here. We get about 30,000 arguments against any given Catholic teaching (maybe one for every Prot denom?) The truth does not need that many defenses, one or two will do quite nicely.

Peace,
+N

That certainly is NOT the case, proven by the pre programed RC apologist responses to a very finite list of objections. What you have is different protestant denoms bringing the same objections.

 

[Goblin_Taters]

Originally Posted by 1ke:

Your exposure has been to certain books by certain authors. Those authors, having a particular background, write in that direction.

I mean modern Catholics Apologetics, of course–those works published within the past 20 years or so. Post-Vatican II. Sorry for not clarifying that earlier.

I guess I’m looking for an Apologetic that really challenges confessional Lutheranism (against Luther, Chemnitz, Book of Concord, et al.) In many Catholic Apologetic works the views of the former is mentioned (and sometimes the latter) but the Catholic Apologists often seem to misidentify what confessional Lutherans believe.

 

[Fidelis]

What you have is different protestant denoms bringing the same objections.

Perhaps it is because --even though they divide on other things – they are united in their misunderstandings of and opposition to the Catholic Church?

 

[mikeledes]

Perhaps it is because --even though they divide on other things – they are united in their misunderstandings of and opposition to the Catholic Church?

How right you are! I’ve seen in this forum OSAS Arminians ally themselves with Calvinists or vice versa. Under different circumstances, they would be at each other’s necks, figuratively speaking.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[1ke]

I mean modern Catholics Apologetics, of course–those works published within the past 20 years or so. Post-Vatican II. Sorry for not clarifying that earlier.

Rosalind Moss is a contemporary Apologist. She comes from Judaism.

Jim Burnham’s San Juan Seminars groups puts out Apologetics workbooks and seminars ranging from basic Catholic beliefs to defenses against Mormonism and JWs.

I guess I’m looking for an Apologetic that really challenges confessional Lutheranism (against Luther, Chemnitz, Book of Concord, et al.) In many Catholic Apologetic works the views of the former is mentioned (and sometimes the latter) but the Catholic Apologists often seem to misidentify what confessional Lutherans believe.

Evangelicalism is pretty new-- withint the last 100 years. Lutheranism, OTOH, has been around 500 years. There has been plenty of work done already to refute Lutheranism and other early Reformation theologies.

Of course the focus would be on writing responses to the newer errors.

Classic texts by Aquinas, Sheed, Knox, Newman, Kreeft, etc, are the pinnacle of apologetics. Why reinvent what is already available?

Here’s a webpage and here’s another that lists lots of apologists and their work, including articles about Lutheran doctrines, Masons, SDA, and on and on…

You’ll notice they reference everyone from contemporary apologists to those of long ago.

 

[Goblin_Taters]

Originally Posted by 1ke:

Rosalind Moss is a contemporary Apologist. She comes from Judaism.

Jim Burnham’s San Juan Seminars groups puts out Apologetics workbooks and seminars ranging from basic Catholic beliefs to defenses against Mormonism and JWs.

All right. But neither Judaism, Mormonism or the religion of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is Christian, at least from my perspective.

Evangelicalism is pretty new-- withint the last 100 years. Lutheranism, OTOH, has been around 500 years. There has been plenty of work done already to refute Lutheranism and other early Reformation theologies.

Evangelicalism has strong ties to the earlier Pietist movement in Lutheranism though, doesn’t it? I’ll check the link you gave me. Maybe I’ll find someone there.

Thanks for the suggestions.

 

[Goblin_Taters]

Oooo…The Timothy Drake book, while not an apologetics work, looks very interesting.

 

[1ke]

All right. But neither Judaism, Mormonism or the religion of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is Christian, at least from my perspective.

The purpose of Apologetics is to give a reasoned explanation of the faith to ALL-- not just to other Christians.

Evangelicalism has strong ties to the earlier Pietist movement in Lutheranism though, doesn’t it?

Only within the Anglican Church does it have roots in pietism. In the Lutheran church the term “evangelical” has an entirely different and unique meaning.

The modern Evangelical movement is unrelated.

 

[Jeanette_L]

Perhaps it’s just the books I’ve personally read. I’ve watched a few JH programs, but overall I wasn’t satisfied by the answers the converts gave for their decision to convert. Too much emphasis on the disunity (30,000+ denoms) of Protestantism, the need for CHURCH AUTHORITY, MAGISTERIUM, the anti-contraception tour de force of Catholicism, etc. IMHO. The shows were enjoyable nontheless though.

It you’ve never been neck deep in the disunity of Evangelicalism and all the splintered and bitterly disputed doctrinal beliefs among themselves, and if you have never experienced the head spinning confusion that a great many Christians do within the borders of it, I don’t think you can appreciate what happens to someone who opens their mind to the possibility that it wasn’t meant to be that way, and that there was already a provision to thwart that kind of confusion, ordained by God in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Church Authority is a *welcomed relief *to those of us who realized that we were in a world where there was no authority. We of course were always taught that the Bible was the ultimate authority, but the boogaboo was that the unfettered interpretations of the Bible was that which was/will be the unraveling of Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism as a whole. That’s where the Magisterum’s Authority was most desperately needed, in the interpretations, even while most within those communities will go to their deathbeds bitterly denying this.

There is a profound and wonderful freedom, a sweet rest, to be under the Church’s Authority, and you can’t appreciate it until you’ve been without it. Submission to authority seems contrary to our human instinct/and or desires, (which is how all deceptions gain their foothold) which is why so many rebel against it, but so it is with many things in this strange thing we call the Christian spiritual life.