Evangelicals reconnecting with the early Church

Interesting developments in Protestant circles.

Are you saved?

Christianity Today has an interesting article written by Erik Thoennes, "Hour of Decision". In it, he talks about the different ways in which salvation is understood amongst, I believe, Evangelicals and confessional Protestants:

"The term saved is popularly used to refer to regeneration and justification. But when the Bible uses the word salvation in a spiritual sense, it describes the broad range of God's activity in rescuing people from sin and restoring them to a right relationship with himself. Salvation in the Bible thus has past, present, and future tenses. A believer has been saved from the guilt of sin (justification, see Eph. 2:8), is being saved from the power of sin (sanctification, see 1 Cor. 1:18), and will be saved from the judgment and presence of sin (glorification, see Acts 15:11)." ... "Much of American Protestantism has been influenced by revivalism, which places great emphasis on "making a decision for Christ" in a public, definitive way. These "moments of decision" often become the crucial evidence that one is saved. Other Protestant traditions, less influenced by revivalism (including some Reformed and Lutheran churches), may be content to leave the conversion experience unclearly identified, putting the focus on identification with the church. Both of these traditions have benefits, as well as potential problems."

It is interesting reading. The terminology is not entirely familiar to me, e.g., "glorification", but I am happy to take the approach I learned from a few favorite converts: terms may change but the focus should be on what those terms translate to. I note, too, that at least one Lutheran I know will disagree with the article on a few points. I would point out at least one common point of contention: for an article on salvation, nothing was said about sacramental baptism. But then this is not a mystery, since the article is about that particular point of deciding for Christ and this, not baptism, is what seems to matter mostly in American Evangelicalism. It pays to clarify here that I am not pitting that decision against the sacrament of baptism. They are both necessary as much as possible. Of course, the Catholic view of the obedience of faith makes that decision a lifelong iteration of one decision after another, hopefully, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, a perpetually Christ-centered decision day in and day out. Which sounds a lot like being confronted by the Gospel everyday, according to Lutheranism, although there is more to it than that, I'll wager.

Mark Shea's masterpiece on the Immaculate Conception

Few contemporary writers I know can lay it down as clearly for modern readers as can Mark Shea. Here is his latest, presented not only as a clear explanation, but one that addresses Evangelical misunderstandings.

Evangelical warns other Evangelicals of being "over-committed to the Bible"

Ted Olsen at the Christianity Today blog posts about J. P. Moreland warning against "Bibliolatry".

The problem, he said, is “the idea that the Bible is the sole source of knowledge of God, morality, and a host of related important items. Accordingly, the Bible is taken to be the sole authority for faith and practice.”

Being a Catholic doesn't mean that I would entertain triumphalism here, for Catholics are often guilty of a different sort of extreme: ritualism. Whereas Mr. Moreland warns against over-commitment to the Bible as restricting revelation and growth, the same could be said against over-commitment to rituals.

Both extremes are obviously limiting, whereas our Father wants nothing less than fruitfulness. For this reason, he also gracefully grants us the fullness of faith, in the complete deposit of faith which is both oral and written. But some entrenchments are hard to overcome. Sola Scriptura is still the premise for most Evangelical/Protestant minds. To them, there is no possibility of revelation outside of Scripture, and so many would shun anything else, particularly Sacred Tradition and the Church Fathers.

This movement, which I pray goes beyond a handful of individuals, is critically important. I've often been at a loss as to how an Evangelical might imagine conversing with a committed atheist or religionist of another faith, when there is no common regard for the Bible. St. Paul was not shy to start his conversation with the Greeks based on reason and perception of the natural universe. Neither should we. Our conversations today are not with Greeks who have no religion, but with secularists who are increasingly rejecting religion. Two things, of course, are invaluable here: the witness of our Christian lives and, if necessary, our preaching the gospel to them. It just doesn't strike me as realistic to begin our dialogue with them by citing chapter and verse to anti-Christian secularists.

Pondering the Tiber

This is an interesting forum discussion where they tackle one particularly curious question: "What would you say to an Evangelical tempted to become Catholic or Orthodox?" You'll have to scroll to about 60% down to see the answers, but the whole piece is interesting to read.

[Link found via The Catholic Report.]

Nature of Authority is Theme of Evangelical-Catholic Dialogue

WASHINGTON (January 4, 2007)--The Evangelical – Catholic dialogue held its fifth meeting at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, MN, October 6-8, 2006. Most Rev. Frederick Campbell, Diocese of Columbus, Ohio completed his term as Bishop Co-Chair and a new co-chair will be appointed soon. The dialogue considered the theme of the nature of authority, especially in Scripture ...

It's always good to tackle these questions head on. The report does not say, but I hope and pray that the outcome has been positive.