Struggling Evangelical Here

[asylo]

Brand new to this forum. I hope I have posted in the right place. I have been a student of theology, philosophy and apologetics for years, even completing a year of seminary in an Evangelical denomination. Over the last few years, I’ve become increasingly disenchanted with Evangelicalism. I’ve had my fill of biblicism, fundamentalism and Evangelicalism’s lack of anything remotely similar to an intellectual curiosity in answering the questions of our day. To that end, I’ve grown more curious about Catholics. Pope John Paul II, and perhaps Pope Francis, for lack of a better phrase, seem to not only contemplate, but grasp, the deeper issues, and to have a great gift for communicating needed words to the masses. This has intrigued me.

To start, I’d love to have some guidance on two questions. (1) How does the Catholic view of scripture differ from that of Evangelicals (e.g. “authority” and “inspiration”), and (2) How/why are Catholics seemingly more comfortable with uncertainty (e.g. in regard to suffering and “the problem of evil” – is there a history/doctrine/philosophy behind this?

 

[twopekinguys]

Brand new to this forum. I hope I have posted in the right place. I have been a student of theology, philosophy and apologetics for years, even completing a year of seminary in an Evangelical denomination. Over the last few years, I’ve become increasingly disenchanted with Evangelicalism. I’ve had my fill of biblicism, fundamentalism and Evangelicalism’s lack of anything remotely similar to an intellectual curiosity in answering the questions of our day. To that end, I’ve grown more curious about Catholics. Pope John Paul II, and perhaps Pope Francis, for lack of a better phrase, seem to not only contemplate, but grasp, the deeper issues, and to have a great gift for communicating needed words to the masses. This has intrigued me.

To start, I’d love to have some guidance on two questions. (1) How does the Catholic view of scripture differ from that of Evangelicals (e.g. “authority” and “inspiration”), and (2) How/why are Catholics seemingly more comfortable with uncertainty (e.g. in regard to suffering and “the problem of evil” – is there a history/doctrine/philosophy behind this?

Welcome, we are all glad you are here to learn. What a wonderful start!!

I would like to answer number 2.

Catholics realize that we are nothing without the Holy Trinity. We understand that we are still sinners. We are going to fail. We know that. After all, we are only human. All we can do is pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, pray for forgiveness, and try to do better.

There is no sinner without a future, and no Saint without a past.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Brand new to this forum. I hope I have posted in the right place. I have been a student of theology, philosophy and apologetics for years, even completing a year of seminary in an Evangelical denomination. Over the last few years, I’ve become increasingly disenchanted with Evangelicalism. I’ve had my fill of biblicism, fundamentalism and Evangelicalism’s lack of anything remotely similar to an intellectual curiosity in answering the questions of our day. To that end, I’ve grown more curious about Catholics. Pope John Paul II, and perhaps Pope Francis, for lack of a better phrase, seem to not only contemplate, but grasp, the deeper issues, and to have a great gift for communicating needed words to the masses. This has intrigued me.

To start, I’d love to have some guidance on two questions. (1) How does the Catholic view of scripture differ from that of Evangelicals (e.g. “authority” and “inspiration”), and (2) How/why are Catholics seemingly more comfortable with uncertainty (e.g. in regard to suffering and “the problem of evil” – is there a history/doctrine/philosophy behind this?

I have a couple of quick answers that address these. Keep in mind though that these were written against someone who was attacking the Catholic view and so they have a bit of an adversarial tone. You’re merely inquiring so I am not after you.

ISSUE 1:

Why Can’t I Go By the Bible Alone?
  Long Version
  Short Version

Where did the Bible come from?

ISSUE 2:

Prove that I have Free Will
 Prove that I need Catholicism if I have a Personal Relationship with Jesus

 

[KathleenGee]

Dear Asylo,

A great welcome to you ! I can imagine it is troubling for you, but as Christ always said, ‘Do not be afraid’. I know of someone who was finishing two master’s degrees in theology and could not get some answers. So he went across the Bay, met a Catholic scholar, and then changed his direction in life, becoming a Catholic and is now so happy.

Considering your educational level in theology, you should visit a site that has many ordained Protestant ministers now finding out many new things in the Catholic faith. It is called:

www.calledtocommunion.com

I always have liked the study in 2009, that Catholics are Ecclesial Deists.

God bless you and there are many here who can be of great help to you, and we pray for all those who come here. God will show you the way and it will all work out.

 

[concretecamper]

On the scriptures, the Bible is a Catholic book. It was the Catholic Church that proclaim it so in the late 4th century. And as such, the Catholic Church is the sole interpreter of scripture. People get hung up on authority but having an authority to guide you is liberating.

I liken it to the US constitution. Would you ask Thomas Jefferson what the document means or would you ask someone from England who studied it.?

I wish you well in your search. I will offer my rosary tonight for your intention. God bless…?..

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[rcwitness]

God bless you! The Father is speaking to you. And you are seeking questions that the religions of men cant fully answer.

First, I always suggest going to Mass! Listen to every word spoken, with an open heart. This is the heart of the faith. Learn about the 7 Sacraments.

Question #1: Catechism of the Catholic Church
103 “For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God’s Word and Christ’s Body.”
104 “In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as human word, ‘But as what it really is, the word of God.’” “In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them.”

The second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.

1. Be especially attentive " to the content and unity of the whole scripture."
2. Read the scripture within “the Living Tradition of the whole Church.”
3. Be attentive to the analogy of the faith.

Sacred scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by Whom it was written.
We believe the Canon of Scripture is interpreted ultimately through the Magisterium of the Church.

Peace be with you,
Michael

 

[SteveVH]

To start, I’d love to have some guidance on two questions. (1) How does the Catholic view of scripture differ from that of Evangelicals (e.g. “authority” and “inspiration”), and (2) How/why are Catholics seemingly more comfortable with uncertainty (e.g. in regard to suffering and “the problem of evil” – is there a history/doctrine/philosophy behind this?

I would like to welcome you as well.

The Catholic view of scripture differs substantially. Sacred Scripture is that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing. We have, In Sacred Tradition, the fulness of the deposit of faith received from the Apostles. When the Church finally canonized the sacred texts which make up our Bible, those texts were determined to be “inspired” based upon how well they stood up against the truth that the Church already possessed. There were over 400 documents that were considered. Only twenty seven of them made it into the New Testament; Twenty seven texts that did not conflict in any way with the Sacred Tradition from whence they came.

We believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. We also believe that the sacred texts cannot be interpreted apart from the faith which produced them. So we do not at all believe that the Bible is the final authority. All that is contained in it is the insprired word of God, but it is not everything that the Apostles taught and handed down. So it is the Church that is the final authority and as Catholics, we read the scriptures in light of Church teaching and interpretation.
God bless.

 

[zz912]

To start, I’d love to have some guidance on two questions. (1) How does the Catholic view of scripture differ from that of Evangelicals (e.g. “authority” and “inspiration”), and (2) How/why are Catholics seemingly more comfortable with uncertainty (e.g. in regard to suffering and “the problem of evil” – is there a history/doctrine/philosophy behind this?

1. For Catholics, we have three sources of authority, each testifying to the authenticity and authority of the other two. (I liken it to the Biblical requirement of two witnesses. ) The three are Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture (which came out of Sacred Tradition), and the Apostolic Authority/Magisterium of the Church. Christ built a Church, and He instituted that Church with authority. And that Church was promised to never fail against the gates of hell.

One thing to note, the biggest problem in the Protestant world is a lack of authority at least equal to the authority of Sacred Scripture, which is required. Because you need some authority to declare what books even belong IN the Bible!

1. I’m a little unsure of what you’re asking, but here is my best guess. For Catholics, we know that works play a role in our salvation (now don’t be confused, God’s grace, which we are saved by, is a completely free and unmerited gift, but faith AND works are best understood as how we accept this free gift.) So just as Paul tells us, our works and sufferings, we offer up as sacrifices to God to unite with Christ’s sacrifice, and as Paul said, perfect the sacrifice of Christ. Not that Christ’s sacrifice lacks anything, but that we join with Him.

Hope I explained it decently. Let me know if there are more questions or confusion.

God bless!

 

[YiiNaa]

On the scriptures, the Bible is a Catholic book. It was the Catholic Church that proclaim it so in the late 4th century. And as such, the Catholic Church is the sole interpreter of scripture. People get hung up on authority but having an authority to guide you is liberating.

I liken it to the US constitution. Would you ask Thomas Jefferson what the document means or would you ask someone from England who studied it.?

I wish you well in your search. I will offer my rosary tonight for your intention. God bless…?..

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

Gotta disagree with you when you said the Bible is a Catholic book … they didn’t proclaim it, but rather canonised it. They chose books A and B does not equal They can choose how to interpet A and B.

The Catholic Church’s interpretation should be an option for christians, not forced upon them. Having an auhority is liberating, but here is no such thing as a sole interpreter because the bible wasn’t written by Catholics and is open to many interpretations.
.

 

[BA11]

I would say go for whatever helps your grow in christ, be that catholicism or otherwise. I will say that if your biggest problem is that non-catholics arent trying to answer the questions facing our modern society, you’re hanging out with the wrong people. Protestants and catholics are both struggling to stay afloat in the modern “anything goes” society.

 

[SteveVH]

Gotta disagree with you when you said the Bible is a Catholic book … they didn’t proclaim it, but rather canonised it. They chose books A and B does not equal They can choose how to interpet A and B.

The Catholic Church’s interpretation should be an option for christians, not forced upon them. Having an auhority is liberating, but here is no such thing as a sole interpreter because the bible wasn’t written by Catholics and is open to many interpretations.
.

There was one and only one Christian Church in existence in 398 A.D. It was called the Catholic Church as early as the first century. The Bible is very much a Catholic book, writen by Catholics for Catholics.

The Catholic Church’s interpretation is an option for Christians. Please tell me how the Catholic interpretation has been forced upon you? The fact that Protestantism has shatterd into 30,000+ denominations is evidence that the Catholic interpretation has been forced upon no one.

Why are you here? You have a very accusatory tone and an obvious anti-Catholic slant to your comments. I would just remind you to be charitable and respectful if you want to stay around very long.

 

[Grace2013]

Hi, and welcome!

Gotta disagree with you when you said the Bible is a Catholic book … they didn’t proclaim it, but rather canonised it. They chose books A and B does not equal They can choose how to interpet A and B.

The Catholic Church’s interpretation should be an option for christians, not forced upon them. Having an auhority is liberating, but here is no such thing as a sole interpreter because the bible wasn’t written by Catholics and is open to many interpretations.

Cannonization is

the selection process, done through the Apostolic authority of the Catholic Church.

The lack of**** the sole interpreter is exactly what I found frustrating as a Protestant. For example, the US constitiution has only ONE court to interpret and with the authority to make any changes- despite there being many, many court systems in the U.S.

Total autonomy eventually equals total anarchy, sooner or later.

 

[BA11]

There was one and only one Christian Church in existence in 398 A.D. It was called the Catholic Church as early as the first century. The Bible is very much a Catholic book, writen by Catholics for Catholics.

This is a red herring. Catholic simply means universal and nobody denies that the earliest christians were catholics.

The Catholic Church’s interpretation is an option for Christians. Please tell me how the Catholic interpretation has been forced upon you? The fact that Protestantism has shatterd into 30,000+ denominations is evidence that the Catholic interpretation has been forced upon no one.

The 30,000+ number is also a red herring, but largely irrelevant anyway.

 

[rcwitness]

I would say go for whatever helps your grow in christ, be that catholicism or otherwise. I will say that if your biggest problem is that non-catholics arent trying to answer the questions facing our modern society, you’re hanging out with the wrong people. Protestants and catholics are both struggling to stay afloat in the modern “anything goes” society.

I agree to some degree. If we are talking about staying “afloat” in the sea of the “world” and its ways. The protestant faiths contain valid baptisms and the gospel of the word. But a big difference is when one tries to find deeper truth within the faith. Remember, protestantism ranges on many things, because it has a large element of individualism attatched to it. Evangelical practices contain doctrines like Assurance of Salvation, Once saved Always Saved, Uneccessity of Baptism (by limiting the sacrament to an optional dedication), Faith Alone, Scripture Alone, Jesus’ actual body and blood not in the Blessed Sacrament, etc…

It becomes an open case for individualistic interpretation and divided faith. Believing only that which “makes sense” to each person. Nothing believed that is too difficult.

Michael

 

[rcwitness]

The Catholic Church’s interpretation should be an option for christians, not forced upon them.
.

Just how is the Catholic Church forcing their interpretation?

 

[BA11]

I agree to some degree. If we are talking about staying “afloat” in the sea of the “world” and its ways. The protestant faiths contain valid baptisms and the gospel of the word. But a big difference is when one tries to find deeper truth within the faith. Remember, protestantism ranges on many things, because it has a large element of individualism attatched to it. Evangelical practices contain doctrines like Assurance of Salvation, Once saved Always Saved, Uneccessity of Baptism (by limiting the sacrament to an optional dedication), Faith Alone, Scripture Alone, Jesus’ actual body and blood not in the Blessed Sacrament, etc…

It becomes an open case for individualistic interpretation and divided faith. Believing only that which “makes sense” to each person. Nothing believed that is too difficult.

Michael

Evangelicals don’t believe baptism isnt demanded of us, only that baptism in water doesn’t itself impart grace onto us.

And I would argue that a relationship with christ does have a huge individualistic aspect.

 

[just_came_back]

This is a red herring. Catholic simply means universal and nobody denies that the earliest christians were catholics.

The 30,000+ number is also a red herring, but largely irrelevant anyway.

John 17:21 says it’s very relevant. We are not the ones keeping us apart.

 

[rcwitness]

Evangelicals don’t believe baptism isnt demanded of us, only that baptism in water doesn’t itself impart grace onto us.

And I would argue that a relationship with christ does have a huge individualistic aspect.

I worked as a leader for a youth pastor in an evangelical free church. Unless that is different from the Evangelical church you are talking about, i am very aware of their position. I had spoken about it with the pastor privately because of the non scriptural basis of his teaching. Kids were asked to accept Jesus as their saviour (which I encouraged and prayed with several of them in so doing) but never prompted to seek Baptism.

The relationship is personal but not individualistic. We are baptised into a body, the Mystical Body of Jesus.

Peace,
Michael

 

[Grace2013]

Brand new to this forum. I hope I have posted in the right place. I have been a student of theology, philosophy and apologetics for years, even completing a year of seminary in an Evangelical denomination. Over the last few years, I’ve become increasingly disenchanted with Evangelicalism. I’ve had my fill of biblicism, fundamentalism and Evangelicalism’s lack of anything remotely similar to an intellectual curiosity in answering the questions of our day. To that end, I’ve grown more curious about Catholics. Pope John Paul II, and perhaps Pope Francis, for lack of a better phrase, seem to not only contemplate, but grasp, the deeper issues, and to have a great gift for communicating needed words to the masses. This has intrigued me.

To start, I’d love to have some guidance on two questions. (1) How does the Catholic view of scripture differ from that of Evangelicals (e.g. “authority” and “inspiration”), and (2) How/why are Catholics seemingly more comfortable with uncertainty (e.g. in regard to suffering and “the problem of evil” – is there a history/doctrine/philosophy behind this?

Hello, and Welcome!

In addition to all the great posters here (as well as some Priests usually with “Fr” in their user name) you may find it helpful to contact a local Catholic church and ask to make an appointment to speak with a Priest or ask when they have RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) sessions. There is no obligation at all for asking questions/attending RCIA. The apologetics forum may also have some answers to some of the questions that you may have if you haven’t looked around on there already.

Another starter is the Catechism - around $9 at most retail bookstores or on Amazon. There is also an online version:

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...techism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm

 

[Cat_Herder]

nobody denies that the earliest christians were catholics.

So then you concede that from 33 AD to 1005 AD, that is from Calvary until the Great Schism, 100% of Christianity was capital-C Catholic (99%) or Oriental Orthodox (1%). From the Schism to the Reformation–another 500 years–100% of Christianity was either part of the aforesaid communions or the Eastern Orthodox. There are no other Christians until the 1500s AD.

ALL non-Catholic and non-Orthodox churches reject the authority of both the Catholic and Orthodox churches and all of their Tradition.

So the only way you can argue the Reformers or anyone who came after them were right, is to declare that 100% of Christianity was wrong at the time of the Reformation or your given reformer. We’re not talking about one or two local churches losing its lampstand, because the Protestants weren’t protesting what one or two churches allegedly got wrong. We’re not talking about an ebbing and flowing cycle, because the Protestants were protesting the doctrines that were held everywhere and in every church at the time. For Protestantism/Evangelicalism/“just Christian” to be correct, there must have been a total apostasy, a total departure of the Holy Spirit from the Body of Christ.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

God wills for EVERYONE to come to knowledge of the truth and be saved. There is no way for anyone to come to knowledge of the truth if the whole Church has apostatized. If God is indeed God then He is almighty and more than capable of preventing a total apostasy. Why then would He walk out on His Church and let everyone unfortunate enough to live during the “total apostasy” go to hell for no other reason that simply being unfortunate enough to be born in that time period?

In other words… Is God Love or is He not?

I believe that God is Love and that is why I am a Roman Catholic.