But realy, how can one committed to the RCC really come to any conclusion other than the Pope, who recently stated that those outside the RCC were not legitimate expressions of Christianity.

I have a novel idea. Instead of trying to come up with the lowest common denominator of what an evangelical is, Let us include as much as possible from God’s Word as Paul did in Acts 20:26-27. Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.

David

Come on . . . Parchment and Pen can do all things

(eating popcorn . . .)

Thanks for your thoughts. As I’ve grown to appreciate more and more about the Catholic church and its positions I believe they have a well grounded understanding of the authority of the Papacy, both theologically and historically.

Obviously we, as well as many others that post, would disagree with what this all means. I sincerely doubt we could resolve those theological arguments here since minds much greater than mine haven’t been able to come to an agreement either.

In regards to the creed I think Catholics do understand both meanings of the word “catholic.” In light of the Vatican’s recently released document it doesn’t seem surprising that many Catholics would interpret the word “catholic” in its most strict sense and subconsciously see a “C” where only a “c” is.

I hope that made some sense. But I do think that both sides could learn a lot by delving deeper into the orgins and history of the Creed. It really is fascinating and you realize that the assults that Christianity is undergoing today have been plaguing the church from its inception.

ChadS

I assume you are referring to “development of doctrine” on the supremacy of the Pope.

Giving respect to whom respect is due is one thing, to accord to yourself supreme over the rest of the Bishops is indeed going too far and should be rejected.

BTW I was a catechized RC kid, I was involved in Opus Dei, gone to Cursillo, devotee of St Jude so I do have experience with RC piety.

One thing I observe is that when the word ‘catholic’ is used by RCs they always think it refers to the RCC. This is where the equivocation happen, that word catholic and word Church gets double meanings and sophistical in treatment.

In the creed, catholicity means generalness, universality ie ecumenical, that the church is one, united though spread far a apart and though may be diverse.

It is a statement of faith, and faith does not always match the senses, when it does, it is no longer faith and faith even is no longer needed.

Kurt Vader

Kurt — I would disagree with you on your statement on the pope. Certainly Christians did not have the same understanding of the papacy as we do now. However, that does not mean they did not adhere to an understanding that the Bishop of Rome exercised some final authority over the Church and other bishops. Many Orthodox will even admit that the Pope has a special place among all bishops — being the See of Peter — but will argue the Pope has gone too far with his authority.

ChadS

ChadS: I also experienced a shift in my understanding of the Nicene Creed when converting and I definitely know what you’re talking about.

But the way things are today, isn’t it in the mind of the beholder? You listed quite a list of people claiming to be the E word. They are all very different. How is it possible for people to be so diverse and claim the same title, if it didn’t pay so well?

I appreciate your effort to bring a theologicql base as well as a subjective response to the definition. History is good also, but so few are willing to look at it today. keep trying to have people think!

David

The history of the creed dates back to 200AD back when there was no suggestion that the Bishop of Rome was Supreme over all.

So the “one” there could not have referred to a section of the church. Remember that it is a confession, that is , you believe that the church is one, it is united even if you do not see or your senses say it is not. That is what a confession or a creed is. It stands outside you and brings your mind to this truth for your mind and reason is always opposed to faith.

If you notice many in it are not verified by the senses. Take the resurrection of the dead and life everlasting, some of them have not happened yet, nevertheless you believe it shall be the case.

Lastly it should match up with “in the communion of the saints”.

Kurt Vader

I think you are right about the “one” church. I doubt that those in the early church would have made such a sharp distinction between ontological unity and visible unity. In fact, it would have been unthinkable for it to be otherwise. It is not unlike the idea of the possibility of an unbaptized believer–this would have been unthinkable.

They could not have foreseen the Schism or the Reformation and therefore would have been rather naive to the issue. History has caused us all to have to redefine, or at least rethink, what “oneness” means ideally (now eschatologically) and what it means in our mundane circumstances.

Michael

I think that does answer my question.

Part of what I was getting at, at least for me, is that my understanding of that phrase “one, holy, catholic and apostolic” has changed since I became Catholic. For one quick example take the word “one.” As a Protestant I would’ve said that meant the invisible church is one in basic teachings and doctrines, and where denominational beliefs aren’t more important than the essentials of Christianity. Of course now as a Catholic I view it as meaning “one” visible church with a hierarchical leadership and unified doctrine and beliefs.

See how the one word can mean different things just to one person over a few years. I can only imagine how many different understandings we’d get from within the Protestant and Evangelical traditions.

Thanks,
Chad

I am not sure I quite understand the question. Evangelicals would be very favorable toward the Nicene Creed, believing that the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church is a very good and needed confession.

The church is “one” in essence, holding to one essential creed (such as the Nicene).
The church is holy, being set apart to God from the corruption of this world.
The church is apostolic, continuing in the line of the teaching of the apostles as revealed first by word of mouth then codified in Scripture.
the church is catholic in that it is universal in nature, not being confined to one particular people group, geographic region, or time.

Hope that helps.

It’s interesting to see and hear the different reflections on what it means to be evangelical. I grew up in the United Methodist church. John Wesley emphasized scripture study and growing both intellectually and spiritually. The name Methodist started off as a derogatory term against Wesley and the other people that congregated around him — although I can’t quite remember why.

Particularly in this country Methodism had a strong evangelical component. The circuit riders spread the message on horseback all throughout the American south. They aided and helped the poor and down trodden from rural farmers to slaves.

To me I look to this historic example of what evangelicalism is and that contains a strong emphasis on scripture and evangelization.

Although since my youth I have since swam the Tiber. But I took all that was good and holy from my youth and young adult life and used it and expanded on it in my conversion. I am eternally grateful for the example that the Wesleys and others provided for me.

One last thing. A question to further this discussion. Most Christians of all denominations use or occasionally use the Nicene Creed in their worship. How do you view Evangelicalism when during the creed you say: “I believe in one, holy, catholic (universal) and apostolic church.”

As a Methodist I had my understanding but now as a Catholic that has since changed.

Thanks,
ChadS

This is why RMM was created. We have to find a way to find the ethos of the Evangelical scholarship world a place in the pulpit and pew. I don’t think most Evangelicals have any idea about hermeneutical guidelines. Yet, at the same time, when introduced to them, like we have been doing in TTP for several years, they are relieved by them.

We just have to continue to find a way to connect the average person to this self-regulating community. We are all theologians and must find a way to be responsible for our beliefs. OK, done singing my song.

I’d say you hit the problem on the head right there. Now that strong doctrine rooted in the Reformation is not a primary characteristic of “Evangelicals” we are now all over the map

Yes, I’ve read it. It’s written by the same guy responsible for Lark News:

http://www.larknews.com/

It’s very funny and lined up with many of my experiences as an American Non-Denom Evangelical (ages 0-25). Now I’m a Roman Catholic — plenty to lampoon there as well.

(p.s. I’m Ron from the CA forum)

Thanks for this attempt to define “evangelical”, but the definitive work has already been written on the subject: “A Field Guide to Evangelicals and Their Habitat” by Joel Kilpatrick.

http://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-Evangelicals-Their-Habitat/dp/0060836962