 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1644 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 20th, 2008 09:12 pm |
|
Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984): virtual "patron saint" of modern (post-WWII) evangelicalism
A regular on my blog (and lifelong Catholic), asked:
What is the definition of an "evangelical" Protestant? Aside from the denominational labels which are not an altogether accurate description of what an individual Protestant believes, is there something which distinguishes an "evangelical" from a "reformed" or "mainline" Protestant? Or is it more how one perceives the Holy Spirit working in their lives so a person can be both "evangelical" and a "Lutheran" or "evangelical" and "reformed Presbyterian or Baptist" let's say.
The reason that I ask this is that one sees these terms bandied about in the news or on others' blogs so often in so many different ways that the meaning of the word "evangelical" tends to get washed out or becomes so general so as to have no meaning and instead becomes merely a label.
It could be approached from many angles, but without getting too lengthy, I would reply as follows:
1) Centrality of a definite conversion experience (getting "saved"), after hearing the gospel, and repenting and dedicating one's whole life to God (radical discipleship). A sub-argument that occurs on this score is the nature of the gospel itself: many Calvinists, for example, collapse its meaning to their own distinctive of TULIP, but I have long argued that this is improper and unbiblical. The central aspect of the gospel is Jesus' life, death, Resurrection, and atonement on the cross, on our behalf, as Redeemer of the world, not a particular technical theory of soteriology.
2) Personal relationship with God and an active prayer life.
3) Transforming of one's life after getting saved (deep roots there in the Wesleyan / holiness tradition; i.e., sanctification).
4) Revivalism and high emphasis on evangelism and "witnessing" (sharing the gospel and one's spiritual discoveries and experience with others; giving "testimony" -- sometimes we would joke about these in self-effacing manner as "testiphonies").
5) Presupposition of the two pillars of the "Reformation: sola Scriptura and sola fide ("Scripture alone" and "faith alone"). Sola fide presupposes grace alone, which is shared with Catholics and Orthodox.
6) #5, by definition, entails no infallible Church or Tradition (since sola Scriptura means that Scripture is the "only infallible authority"). Thus, an evangelical, strictly defined, is a Protestant, though the description, more broadly defined, shares many key elements with Catholicism, and indeed, I would call myself an "evangelical Catholic" (more often, however, an "orthodox Catholic") because of common elements other than these two "solas".
7) Strong belief in the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture.
8) Adherence to the "fundamentals of (Protestant) Christianity" (basically the Nicene Creed).
9) Relatively more attention to Reason and Faith and Christ and Culture, over against the anti-intellectualism of Fundamentalism. This is stressed to differing degrees in different camps: most notably among the Reformed (people like Francis Schaeffer and Charles Colson).
10) Being more traditionally-minded in a Protestant sense, doctrinally and morally, so that "evangelicals" can be found in most denominations, as the more "orthodox" wing.
11) Evangelicalism transcends denominations (which is why it often thrives in "para-church" organizations like Inter-Varsity or Focus on the Family). It is more like a movement, like it's half-sister, the charismatic movement. Often, if not usually, the movement of "evangelicalism" is regarded as far more important and self-defining than the denomination one happens to be in.
12) It is a wider category than Reformed vs. Arminian or Baptist vs. Presbyterian. It also incorporates different views of the sacraments and (somewhat) of the relative importance or authority of Church history. The agreement is on the "big tent" elements above, while there are differences in many other areas.
This much is fairly clear; however, many today use this label because it has a certain pride to it, without believing one or more of the requirements as understood in the post-WWII period, and theological ignorance is becoming more and more widespread, as I have often noted.
Usually the first things to go are the infallibility of Scripture and the usual sexual doctrines that are hard to follow (divorce, cohabitation, etc.). Hence, more conservative denominations such as the Southern Baptists or Missouri Synod Lutherans, are constantly engaged in in-fighting, to preserve the traditional denominational "orthodoxy" (or to redefine or "update" it, from the perspective of the so-called more "progressive" factions).
This compromising or "downgrading" of traditional distinctives of a denomination is precisely what inexorably leads to "mainline Protestantism" -- which today is essentially synonymous with "liberal" or "postmodernist" Protestantism. Large denominations start merging together (note all the large "United" denominations) because they no longer believe what they used to believe and have less things in common, in a sort of "lowest common denominator" sort of skeletal Christianity. They have no doctrinal reason to be separated any longer.
Because that process of secularization and compromise has been going on for some 200 years (from the emergence of modern liberal religion, after the French Revolution and so-called "Enlightenment"), this in turn gives the "evangelicals" who reject and rebel against that additional self-definition and self-conceptualization as the "faithful remnant," etc.
And it leads to further splits, often for good reason (to preserve orthodoxy) but deleterious in the long run because there is no way to stop the incessant splintering of Protestantism and this ironically leads to further relativization of theology, defining of more and more doctrines as "secondary" and up for grabs (for the sake of peace), and the institutional chaos that was trying to be avoided in the first place.
It's a Pandora's Box, and there is no way to ultimately fix it (I must say, with all due respect to my esteemed Protestant brethren) than to become a Catholic, where all the problems that evangelicals are perpetually working through and never solving, have long been resolved, within the fullness of theological and spiritual truth that resides in the Catholic Church.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1367 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 20th, 2008 09:29 pm |
|
Our pastor wrote a good series on catholic evangelism:
http://stmarysgvl.org/discipleship/evangelical-catholicism
|
|
|
rbo4u2
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 16th, 2007 |
| Location: | Sunnyvale, California USA |
| Posts: | 445 |
| First Name: | Rich | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Formerly Christian & Missionary Alliance then became Presbyterian |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 20th, 2008 09:33 pm |
|
Defining "evangelical" is like holding soft jello in your hands. It's very difficult to put any one branch of "evangelicals" in a box. Even Protestants can't seem to agree on what an evangelical is anymore. My brother-in-law, who is an extremely liberal Presbyterian (USA) and teaches at a liberal Presbyterian University in the mid-west, dumps all "evangelicals" into the "fundementalist" camp. I've argued for years with him over that issue but he just doesn't seem to get it.
Evangelical was the term used many years ago when conservative Christians broke away from the Fundamentalists to become more evangelistically open to other denominational and non-denominational brethern. The emphasis was on the ability of man to have a free will primarily, but also the desire to be more loving than many of the "hard shell Calvinists".
I think the man who really gave life to the new movement was Billy Graham who helped establish Youth for Christ, a great ministry to reach America's youth. He then helped give birth to Christianity Today which has become the major evangelical voice of the evangelical movement in this era. There were others before Billy Graham, but he's the one who really gave life to the movement. Men like R.A. Torrey, Charles E. Fuller, and others. Evangelism, missions, and the preaching of the Bible became the focus of the movement with a slow growing awareness of important social issues in caring for the social needs of people as well as the spiritual needs.
As I said, there were men and women prior to Billy Graham but he seems to be the patron saint, if you will, of the evangelical movement. He's Mister Evangelical.
Rich
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1644 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 20th, 2008 09:50 pm |
|
Hi Rich,
Defining "evangelical" is like holding soft jello in your hands. It's very difficult to put any one branch of "evangelicals" in a box.
It is, but I think I gave it a pretty good shot.
Even Protestants can't seem to agree on what an evangelical is anymore.
More and more so, yes (sadly), as I noted.
My brother-in-law, who is an extremely liberal Presbyterian (USA) and teaches at a liberal Presbyterian University in the mid-west, dumps all "evangelicals" into the "fundementalist" camp. I've argued for years with him over that issue but he just doesn't seem to get it.
He is ignorant. Anyone who studies the sociology and self-definitions at all knows that the two camps are expressly distinguished from each other. But they are relatively close in many respects. Looking at them from a liberal perspective, they would indeed seem alike, just as two mountain peaks seen from far away seem to be the same one. The preexisting prejudice precludes making proper distinctions.
Evangelical was the term used many years ago when conservative Christians broke away from the Fundamentalists to become more evangelistically open to other denominational and non-denominational brethern. The emphasis was on the ability of man to have a free will primarily, but also the desire to be more loving than many of the "hard shell Calvinists".
And on the intellectual aspects of Christianity, that the fundamentalists were forsaking, leaving the realm of the mind to non-Christians, which is plain stupid and unbiblical.
I think the man who really gave life to the new movement was Billy Graham who helped establish Youth for Christ, a great ministry to reach America's youth. He then helped give birth to Christianity Today which has become the major evangelical voice of the evangelical movement in this era. There were others before Billy Graham, but he's the one who really gave life to the movement.
I agree. Many people don't realize that. But he was a central figure in the movement.
Men like R.A. Torrey, Charles E. Fuller, and others. Evangelism, missions, and the preaching of the Bible became the focus of the movement with a slow growing awareness of important social issues in caring for the social needs of people as well as the spiritual needs.
But since the liberals are also big on social needs, it isn't really a distinctive of evangelicals. They're simply slowly getting up to speed on Christian obligations in those areas, too.
As I said, there were men and women prior to Billy Graham but he seems to be the patron saint, if you will, of the evangelical movement. He's Mister Evangelical.
Yep, but he didn't really write about it, much; preferring to stick to broader topics. Schaeffer did, and helped a generation to think in specifically evangelical ways (from a Calvinist perspective, too), so I'll defend my characterization of him as the "patron saint". 
Thanks much for your thoughts!
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
rbo4u2
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 16th, 2007 |
| Location: | Sunnyvale, California USA |
| Posts: | 445 |
| First Name: | Rich | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Formerly Christian & Missionary Alliance then became Presbyterian |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 20th, 2008 10:14 pm |
|
Dave Armstrong wrote:
Yep, but he didn't really write about it, much; preferring to stick to broader topics. Schaeffer did, and helped a generation to think in specifically evangelical ways (from a Calvinist perspective, too), so I'll defend my characterization of him as the "patron saint".
Thanks much for your thoughts!
I'll agree with you Dave. Francis was the intellectual giant of evangelicalism for a short time. It's too bad his son Franky was only a shadow of his father. I can remember in the 1960's thru the 1970's when all you ever heard was Francis Shaeffer.
Billy Graham was the evangelist who had no interest in theology or higher intellectual thought. He was only interested in carrying the simple gospel to the common man. His influence has far outlasted Shaeffer's. You heard one Billy Graham sermon, you've heard them all. They were simple and no matter what context they had, the basic message was the same. Man is lost and Jesus provides salvation for the lost.
He took over an ailing radio ministry headed up by Torrey Johnson in the Chicago area in 1944 and made an immediate impact. (I went to school with one of Torrey's relatives.) He then joined Torry and in the late 40's co-founded Youth for Christ. In 1949 he had his first meeting in Los Angeles. Randolph Hurst saw him and was impressed. Hurst told his newspapers to "puff" Graham. The rest is history. No one has had the impact around the world as Billy has had in the area of evangelism. (at least in the evangelical world) Most Christians couldn't tell you who Sheaffer is anymore. But most people will remember Graham. Argue with his theology...I do sometimes. But his impact was enormous.
So...with all humble, contrite due respects to my intellectual friend...my choice is still Graham. 
|
|
|
Intercessor
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Southcentral, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 1213 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 20th, 2008 10:15 pm |
|
Dave and Rich, great job!!!! Put your comments together and I think we've got it!
Dave, I especially liked your point nine (very important) and your final paragraph.
Dave Armstrong wrote:
9) Relatively more attention to Reason and Faith and Christ and Culture, over against the anti-intellectualism of Fundamentalism. This is stressed to differing degrees in different camps: most notably among the Reformed (people like Francis Schaeffer and Charles Colson). . . .
It's a Pandora's Box, and there is no way to ultimately fix it (I must say, with all due respect to my esteemed Protestant brethren) than to become a Catholic, where all the problems that evangelicals are perpetually working through and never solving, have long been resolved, within the fullness of theological and spiritual truth that resides in the Catholic Church.
Rich, I think it's mostly liberals who can't see the difference between an Evangelical and a Fundamentalist. (Sometimes it seems they can't even tell the difference between a Christian and a non-Christian.) I agree with you that Billy Graham was very influential for both Fundamentalists and most Evangelicals, although my husband and I certainly had Schaeffer's books in our home and discussed him often with friends. Most Fundamentalists had never heard of Schaeffer. He was powerfully influential among the better educated folks who tended to move out of Fundamentalism and into Evangelicalism. Schaeffer was the one who developed the ideas and systems.
Billy Graham's courageous placement of Catholic priests on his revival podiums had a huge impact on me. I remember asking my Fundamentalist (Baptist preacher) father why it was that Billy Graham seemed to believe that a Catholic priest could be a Christian. Daddy had no answer. I was about sixteen at the time; it's hard to overstate the impact of Graham's move on a sheltered Baptist girl who had been taught that Catholics could not possibly be Christians.
BeckyLast edited on Thu Mar 20th, 2008 10:41 pm by Intercessor
____________________
"The perfection of a soul may be measured by the degree to which it does the will of God, and finds its happiness in doing it.... O my God,...the only thing necessary is Your holy will," Divine Intimacy, pp. 15-16 Father Gabriel, O.C.D.
|
|
|
rbo4u2
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 16th, 2007 |
| Location: | Sunnyvale, California USA |
| Posts: | 445 |
| First Name: | Rich | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Formerly Christian & Missionary Alliance then became Presbyterian |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 20th, 2008 10:33 pm |
|
Just add a couple of things. In 1950 Graham founded the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, out of which has flowed Decision magazine, a very popular monthly read by millions. The Hour of Decision, one of the most enduring radio programs of all time, World Wide Pictures which has distributed Billy Graham films around the world as well as his ongoing T.V. ministry. And Billy doesn't get a dime of the profits. He gets a modest salary. All the rest of the funds go to the ongoing evangelist efforts.
His Billy Graham center now is one of the primary ministries for the training of ministers and missionaries from around the world. And of course, as has been mentioned his crusades have had an enormous impact. Yeah, he's had his critics, mostly liberals and fundementalists for including Catholics on the platform. He's been the pastor of numerous Presidents.
Big sigh...I rest my case.
Rich
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1644 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 20th, 2008 11:10 pm |
|
I don't think we really have to choose between the two. Graham was clearly tremendously influential in the root sense of the word: sheer influence on others, exposure, etc.
But I see him as more so the leader in the key aspect of evangelism: revivalism and proclamation of the gospel. He was without doubt the most influential evangelist of the second half of the 20th century.
It depends on what one sees as the most important distinctive of evangelicalism. If one thinks evangelism is that, then Graham is the obvious choice, but then I would say that evangelism is not something that distinguishes evangelicals from fundamentalists. Both camps do it, and indeed the latter once classed Graham as one of themselves (but no longer; he is a flaming liberal!).
But if one emphasizes the distinctive of a "thinking man's orthodox or traditional Protestantism," which is a clear distinction between fundies and evangelicals, then Schaeffer is a plausible choice. But we both recognize the enormous influence of each. It's just in different areas.
In the area of thinking and apologetics, C.S. Lewis is far more important than Schaeffer (and a much deeper thinker), but then one can make a good case that he wasn't an evangelical, and his influence extends to many who would be more "liberal" theologically. He's even respected in secular philosophical circles (esp. due to The Problem of Pain and Miracles) in a way that Schaeffer never has been.
I don't even think (much as I admire him) that Schaeffer was all that profound of a thinker (and I'm not alone in that appraisal, by any means; one could note the shallow and widely-criticized way in which he approached St. Thomas Aquinas, as a classic example). Schaeffer was close to being anti-Catholic in some ways, which is perhaps one reason why his son remains so today, even as an Othodox Christian.
His impact was in popularizing very important concepts and making it "cool" to combine reason and Christianity and to apply that to culture in a coherent worldview. That was his genius and why he made such an impact.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
rbo4u2
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 16th, 2007 |
| Location: | Sunnyvale, California USA |
| Posts: | 445 |
| First Name: | Rich | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Formerly Christian & Missionary Alliance then became Presbyterian |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 21st, 2008 03:13 am |
|
Dave Armstrong wrote:
But I see him as more so the leader in the key aspect of evangelism: revivalism and proclamation of the gospel. He was without doubt the most influential evangelist of the second half of the 20th century.
I agree.
But if one emphasizes the distinctive of a "thinking man's orthodox or traditional Protestantism," which is a clear distinction between fundies and evangelicals, then Schaeffer is a plausible choice. But we both recognize the enormous influence of each. It's just in different areas.
I also agree.
In the area of thinking and apologetics, C.S. Lewis is far more important than Schaeffer (and a much deeper thinker), but then one can make a good case that he wasn't an evangelical, and his influence extends to many who would be more "liberal" theologically. He's even respected in secular philosophical circles (esp. due to The Problem of Pain and Miracles) in a way that Schaeffer never has been.
No doubt regarding C.S. Lewis. I'm not sure we've had anyone like him since. Peter Kreeft may be the best interpreter of Lewis, but I think only time will tell how much Kreeft will influence major thinking.
One of the top Christian philosophers today is Dallas Willard. But he can't stand in the shadow of Lewis as far as I'm concerned. The only one I can think of that eclipses Lewis is perhaps the Venerable Cardinal Newman.
For all his influence, Billy Graham is definitely not a deep thinker. But he may be one of the wisest. He has maintained a respect with the widest cross section of Christendom for his fair mindedness and acceptance of others.
I think, with all the emphasis upon meeting people at the psychological and feeling level, no one can hear the voice of the intellect. At the same time we need to be able to show that the intellectual can also communicate in today's world of sensory expectations. It will take a great mind who understands today's pysche who will get through to people.
My personal feeling, and this is my own private judgement, it will take a major upheaval and tragedy in the world to convince people that their little gods can't help them when the chips are down. That is where, despite losing a large number, the Catholic church will shine. Again, my personal judgement, not supported by anything but simple observation.
Rich
|
|
|
Hidden One
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 126 |
| First Name: | H1 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | lax Presbyterian -> pseudo-Arminian non-denom -> heretical Presbyterian -> ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 21st, 2008 04:57 am |
|
...a great mind who understands today's pysche who will get through to people.
Wow. Abp. Fulton J. Sheen summed up in one sentence.
(Sorry, it struck me.)
Last edited on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 04:59 am by Hidden One
____________________
1 John 4:7-12
|
|
|
Intercessor
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Southcentral, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 1213 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 21st, 2008 06:20 am |
|
My husband and I lost interest in Schaeffer about the time we became aware of C.S. Lewis. After reading Mere Christianity, I asked my husband, "What are we going to do about the fact that Lewis believes in transubstantiation?"
I was somewhat surprised and disappointed when he said, "We're going to disagree."
I believe I could have been led into the Catholic Church at that point if my husband had been so inclined. At least the door was opened (by Lewis) for me to make a move years later as a widow.
____________________
"The perfection of a soul may be measured by the degree to which it does the will of God, and finds its happiness in doing it.... O my God,...the only thing necessary is Your holy will," Divine Intimacy, pp. 15-16 Father Gabriel, O.C.D.
|
|
|
rbo4u2
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 16th, 2007 |
| Location: | Sunnyvale, California USA |
| Posts: | 445 |
| First Name: | Rich | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Formerly Christian & Missionary Alliance then became Presbyterian |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 21st, 2008 02:20 pm |
|
Hidden One wrote: ...a great mind who understands today's pysche who will get through to people.
Wow. Abp. Fulton J. Sheen summed up in one sentence.
(Sorry, it struck me.)
Great link. ArchBishop Sheen was a brilliant man who had the extra-ordinary ability to transmit that brilliance to the common man in the language of the common man. That is a rare gift. It is one thing to be intelligent, even brilliant, but the ability to communicate in the language and understanding of Joe Blow on the street is another thing. It's also an art many authors are unable to master. The ability to communicate truth in a manner even a child would understand is rare as well. However, I don't mean in a childish or condescending or oversimplified manner.
I was reading aloud to my wife a chapter out of one of John Peterson's books the other night. We had just finished one of Fr. Groeshel's devotional books that I thought was a superb easily understood intellectual presentation. My wife was so glad I was finished reading it because his "theology" simply lost her. Her eyes would glaze over as I read. So I decided to pacify her and read Peterson's book. For the most part it is well written. But Peterson has an annoying habit from time to time of oversimplyfying and he becomes cutesy. He's a marvelous story teller, but I think he gets carried away and enamored with his talents and just becomes stupid. Anyway, even my wife, thought it was a silly chapter. But Peterson connects. He is a highly intelligent person and his gift is communication. I think his bible The Message, is a bit far out. It's his paraphrase and was written to communicate more of how he would apply scripture to the average person rather than a quest for accuracy. It's riddled with his person doctrines. But his writing is commuicates.
My biggest complaint about many Catholic writers and not a few Protestant writers, is their failure to make complex ideas understandable to a generation that is so saturated with TV, radio and Ipods, they can't understand a good book. The gift of thinking seems to have been lost by most people, unless it's math and science.
I've given up reading Catholic books to my wife. She simply doesn't understand them. She doesn't seem to grasp the profound truths I'm reading. So my Catholic understanding simply ends up being, as she says, "my thing, but not for her."
Well, now that I've proven I'm not a brilliant intelligent writer like Dave Armstrong or a gift communicator like ArchBishop Sheen, I'll sign off.
Rich
|
|
|
Hidden One
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 126 |
| First Name: | H1 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | lax Presbyterian -> pseudo-Arminian non-denom -> heretical Presbyterian -> ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 21st, 2008 03:16 pm |
|
I think his bible The Message, is a bit far out. It's his paraphrase and was written to communicate more of how he would apply scripture to the average person rather than a quest for accuracy. It's riddled with his person doctrines. But his writing is commuicates.
If there is a book I have a vendetta against, it is Eugene Peterson's The Message. It oozes his personal Presbyterian theology out every pore and often adds portions that are simply fabricated from scratch to strengthen his ideas. (Micah 6:8 is a prime example.) But anyway, I don't need to do any more ranting.
I've given up reading Catholic books to my wife. She simply doesn't understand them. She doesn't seem to grasp the profound truths I'm reading. So my Catholic understanding simply ends up being, as she says, "my thing, but not for her."
Given...
ArchBishop Sheen was a brilliant man who had the extra-ordinary ability to transmit that brilliance to the common man in the language of the common man. That is a rare gift. It is one thing to be intelligent, even brilliant, but the ability to communicate in the language and understanding of Joe Blow on the street is another thing. It's also an art many authors are unable to master. The ability to communicate truth in a manner even a child would understand is rare as well. However, I don't mean in a childish or condescending or oversimplified manner.
...I'd advise picking a book by Servant of God Sheen for future reading aloud, if you haven't already.
____________________
1 John 4:7-12
|
|
|
rbo4u2
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 16th, 2007 |
| Location: | Sunnyvale, California USA |
| Posts: | 445 |
| First Name: | Rich | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Formerly Christian & Missionary Alliance then became Presbyterian |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 21st, 2008 03:36 pm |
|
Hidden One wrote:
...I'd advise picking a book by Servant of God Sheen for future reading aloud, if you haven't already.
I'll have to try that. I admit, I've never read any of his books. I've watched him often and remember him when he was alive. I was only a toddler then. 
|
|
|
Hidden One
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 126 |
| First Name: | H1 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | lax Presbyterian -> pseudo-Arminian non-denom -> heretical Presbyterian -> ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 21st, 2008 03:49 pm |
|
I'll have to try that. I admit, I've never read any of his books. I've watched him often and remember him when he was alive. I was only a toddler then.
I've never read any of 'em either - just watched Youtubes and listened to some of the 50 part phonograph-recorded talks I found awhile ago. But I hope to get and read one of hsi books soon!
____________________
1 John 4:7-12
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5312 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 21st, 2008 06:43 pm |
|
rbo4u2 wrote: I was only a toddler then.
He was on TV for more than a decade. You must have toddled for a long time!
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
rbo4u2
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 16th, 2007 |
| Location: | Sunnyvale, California USA |
| Posts: | 445 |
| First Name: | Rich | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Formerly Christian & Missionary Alliance then became Presbyterian |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 21st, 2008 06:44 pm |
|
CajunRick wrote: rbo4u2 wrote: I was only a toddler then.
He was on TV for more than a decade. You must have toddled for a long time!
Oh..I toddled for a long time.
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1644 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 21st, 2008 09:01 pm |
|
Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., a mentor of sorts for me, said that he thought Peter Kreeft was the greatest living Catholic apologist.
I like to say that C.S. Lewis's spirit was so great that it had to be divided into two successors today: Kreeft inherited the philosopher and apologist part of Lewis, while Thomas Howard continued on the "English professor" and brilliant prose writer part of Lewis. They both also have a gift of understanding and explaining the role of imagination in the Christian life.
Last edited on Fri Mar 21st, 2008 09:08 pm by Dave Armstrong
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1644 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 21st, 2008 09:07 pm |
|
In pondering whether it is correct for Catholics to refer to themselves as evangelicals, I came up with a few ideas:
--------------------------------------------
I take a sort of middle position. I think if we use the word as a title, then "Evangelical" clearly refers in our culture to Protestants (I'd say the same for "evangelicalism" which basically refers to the same large group).
But the word itself has a wider scope, so that (in that broader, looser sense, and especially in lower case) it can be an adjective to a title too.
Thus, in that sense I can call myself an "evangelical Catholic," because I accept many of the elements (but not all, as I already noted) that make up Protestant evangelicalism. My view of the 12 points I listed (in my first post above) would be as follows:
1) Accept, though "being saved" is placed at baptism in the sense of regeneration (but Lutherans do that, and they are evangelicals), and in another sense as a lifelong quest (and Protestants accept a sense of eschatological salvation too). Personal conversion to wholehearted service of Jesus Christ is an entirely Catholic concept.
2) Entirely Catholic.
3) Accept. We place such a high emphasis on sanctification that we categorize it with justification itself, whereas most Protestants formally separate the two.
4) In practice, Catholics do little evangelism, but the notion is not "un-Catholic" at all; in fact, Catholics are often urged by popes and councils to do this, and I have devoted my life to it, so I am thoroughly "evangelical" on this score.
5) Reject, of course, the two "Reformation solas and pillars, but we have a very high reverence for infallible Scripture and we accept grace alone (i.e., we're not Pelagians in any sense, though often falsely accused of same, and Calvinists falsely accuse Arminians and Lutherans of the same error): the larger category that the unbiblically restrictive "faith alone" is part of.
6) Reject, because it flows from the erroneous beliefs of #5.
7) Accept.
8 ) Accept (we say the Creed every week at Mass, and incidentally, most evangelicals reject the baptismal regeneration mentioned in the Nicene Creed, so even here there are key differences amongst Protestants).
9) Accept (with evangelicals often learning from our example).
10) The Catholic Church has maintained Christian orthodoxy (in the "basics" that all conservative Christians agree upon, such as the Nicene Creed) for 2000 years.
11) Catholics can participate to a large degree in para-church movements like evangelicalism, just as we can be charismatic. The main hurdle is that certain Protestants won't accept us.
12) Similar to #11.
Dictionary definitions back up what I say:
1) Dictionary.com: based on Random House:
First def'n: "pertaining to or in keeping with the gospel and its teachings." Catholics agree with the biblical definition of the gospel, and so in this sense we are evangelical.
2, 3, and 4 in this entry increasingly restrict the meaning to specific Protestant sub-groups, just as I said myself. But the first definition is much broader.
2) American Heritage Dictionary entry does much the same. The first one reads: "Of, relating to, or in accordance with the Christian gospel, especially one of the four gospel books of the New Testament."
3) The third entry (WordNet) is very broad and could easily apply to Catholics. But I think it is too broad and doesn't take into account the widespread specifically Protestant usage.
Merriam-Webster Online is similar to #1 above:
The first def'n could be Catholic. Interestingly, the second gives, simply, "Protestant," as if it were a synonym, which clearly goes too far. The third one could virtually apply to me except for the false dichotomy in the last clause:
"emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual".
I am happy to grant the importance of preaching (and teaching); but I wouldn't dream of pitting sacraments and liturgy against it, as many Protestants (but not all ) typically do. Lutherans (indeed, Martin Luther himself) are sacramental and liturgical and evangelical too. Evangelical Anglicans are as well; so are Methodists, to a large extent.
So there are difficulties here as well, because of the diversity within Protestantism and Evangelical Protestantism, and I could be classed as "evangelical" in this sense just as these Protestant groups are. They believe in baptismal regeneration. That's "ritual." That ain't "individual conversion preceded by repentance" and "personal decision to follow Christ," etc.
So, the difficulties entailed in including some Protestant groups under the umbrella term, would suggest that it is not too far off the mark to also include Catholics in the very broad sense I have distinguished from the more conventional, restricted sense.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
rbo4u2
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 16th, 2007 |
| Location: | Sunnyvale, California USA |
| Posts: | 445 |
| First Name: | Rich | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Formerly Christian & Missionary Alliance then became Presbyterian |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 21st, 2008 09:48 pm |
|
Dave Armstrong wrote: --------------------------------------------
I take a sort of middle position. I think if we use the word as a title, then "Evangelical" clearly refers in our culture to Protestants (I'd say the same for "evangelicalism" which basically refers to the same large group).
So, the difficulties entailed in including some Protestant groups under the umbrella term, would suggest that it is not too far off the mark to also include Catholics in the very broad sense I have distinguished from the more conventional, restricted sense.
I hate labels, but I guess we have to live with them. Being evangelical is commanded of all of us. Evangelicalism is a label. I said elsewhere that it's hard to define who evangelicals are. Hold on...it's getting even harder.
The new term today is the "emerging church". Trying to define the "Emerging Church" is like trying to capture fog. It spans the gammut of Christianity from the liberal establishment to the conservative evangelical. Many are adopting traditional customs such as contemplation, adoration, meditation, placing high value of communion to the point of celebrating it weekly. Images are popping up all over the place. Theatre style seating is being replace by almost coffee house seating with sofas, round tables and pillows. Even classical chants and ancient music is being mixed in with contemporary band and praise songs. Yes...even liturgical dance. | | |
