CHARACTERS ☆ Letters Between a Catholic and an Evangelical

READ Letters Between a Catholic and an Evangelical

CHARACTERS ☆ Letters Between a Catholic and an Evangelical ¾ [Reading] ➵ Letters Between a Catholic and an Evangelical ➼ John R. Waiss – This book presents a uniue collection of correspondence between two friends who have spent many hours discussing their faiths one a Catholic priest tKes to get to heaven The fresh insights bring clarity and respect to both sides of the ongoing dialogue between Catholics Between a Catholic PDF #10003 and evangelical Christians and readers will benefit by being able to make their own informed conclusions about the difference. This book by a current Catholic priest and a former Catholic evangelical minister was very telling in that Mr McCarthy focused on numerous side issues such as his refusal to call his priest friend Father for one and his apparent refusal to even accept Father John Weiss the co author and a very compassionate open hearted man of God as a true ChristianIt is the exact type of rhetoric that actually drove me back to Catholicism both times I have been back in the Church for 5 years however recently took a short 4 month stint away towards Anglicanism but have again returned and to stay this time and I had forgotten just how technically minded some within fundamentalist sects can actually be all while saying how much they love CatholicsThanks Mr McCarthy you opened my eyes nearly as much as your friend John MacArthur did a few years back when he proclaimed on the radio Pope John Paul II to be in hell to the congregation's audible laughtershortly after this saintly man's death He too claims to love Catholics I would hate to think how rough these guys would be if they hated usCatholicism isn't perfect all but it is definitely Christian To suggest otherwise is to ignore the Bible we both use and cherish

John R. Waiss É 0 CHARACTERS

This book presents a uniue a Catholic ePUB #180 collection of correspondence between two friends who have spent many hours discussing their faiths one a Catholic priest the other an evangelical minister Their candid dialogue illustrates how we can talk about opposing beliefs w. McCarthy admits up front in his foreword that both he and Waiss had one aim to convert the other That the book is published by an evangelical publishing house testifies to the fact that Waiss failed; that the book is not titled Letters that Converted a Catholic Priest testifies to the fact that McCarthy failedWho won the debate is a uestion of readers' preconceptions than anything else Catholics will be unconvinced by McCathy's arguments and few Protestants will be moved by Waiss's somewhat bland presentationOf the two McCarthy is much aggressive and in many ways much rational But there is a mystical element in Catholicism that doesn't mix well with pure rationalism Recall that after consecrating the host in Mass priest speak of the Great mystery of faithAt the heart of the book is the uestion of authority both accept the Bible as an authority but evangelicals stop there where as Catholics see Tradition and the Church as on eual footing as the Bible comprising together the Word of God Much of the book then revolves around Waiss trying to show how the Church's extra Biblical notions ie those not specifically detailed in the Bible such as the papacy Mary's Immaculate Conception etc are in some way Biblically based while McCarthy chips away at Waiss's arguments The tables turn from time to time especially discussing sola scriptura but by and large it's a game of Prove it from the BibleAs such McCarthy and Waiss toss one phrase or a derivative at each other uite often No where in the Bible do we find X McCarthy fills in the variable with Papal authority Marian devotion the importance of Tradition; Waiss replaces X with the notion of sola scriptura the Trinity and a couple of other ideas With the exception of sola scriptura Waiss's contention seems to be that McCarthy and evangelicals are essentially guilty my term not his of the same thing they accuse Catholics of incorporation of extra Biblical doctrines Waiss could have pushed McCarthy a bit harder on this point I think for he doesn't even mention a host of non Biblical based notions that sola scriptura evangelicals accept Sunday worship non observance of Jewish holidays ie no where in the Bible does it explicitly say that followers of Jesus are to stop observing the Jewish festivals Easter and Christmas come to mindThis shows the Protestant notion of wanting to have its theological cake and eat it too Protestantism accepts the early Church councils' decisions about the New Testament canon the proper day of Christian assembly the appropriateness of celebrating Jesus' birth and resurrection but most denominations especially evangelicals are unwilling to accept the Catholic Church's continuing authority This is one of the paradoxes of the Protestant movement which necessarily implies that the Church started off correctly but somewhere got tangled up in a mess of legalism and false belief Sadly uestions like At which point and Why would God let such a thing happen despite his promise to the contrary aren't mention in the book It leaves me feeling that Waiss pulled some of his punchesOn the other hand McCarthy demolishes some Waiss's arguments in support of Catholic theology His handling of whether Jesus had half brothers ie whether Mary remained a virgin her whole life and whether brothers in the New Testament should be translated cousins as the Church maintains is well done for exampleAs I mentioned earlier who won the debate depends on readers' preconceptions As a non Christian skeptic I found the debate to be a draw This is because Letters is a debate about the tenants of a religion based on a self contradictory book a notion neither McCarthy nor Waiss would take into account For example is one saved by faith alone or by faith and works It depends on where you look in the Bible Did SaulPaul's traveling companions on the road to Damascus hear a voice or not It depends on which chapter of Acts you read Does the bread and wine become Jesus' actual body It depends on how you read a couple of different NT passages With such a flawed starting position a draw is the best outcome either participant could hope forWhen such contradictions arise the great literalfigurative differentiation arises Indeed much of the book also seems to be an argument as to whether or not to interpret this or that passage literally or figurative with each side accusing the other of taking the passage out of contextOn the other hand it is refreshing to see debate that doesn't often though sometimes to a slight degree slip into personal insults While many Protestants and this almost always includes fundamentalists and often includes evangelicals think the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and the Pope the Anti Christ and many Catholics regard Protestants as heretics McCarthy and keep things civil the whole timeOne final criticism the length precluded truly in depth discussion and many of McCarthy's and Waiss's comments go unansweredOverall I would say it's an interesting read for the simple fact of seeing to opposing views clearly though perhaps too succinctly presented

READ Ç PDF, DOC, TXT or eBook É John R. Waiss

Letters Between a Catholic and an EvangelicalIthout resorting to criticism that is mean spirited sensationalistic or inaccurate The Letters Between PDFEPUB or result is a one of a kind balanced presentation of six key issues including how a person becomes saved who the teachers and rulers of the church are and what it ta. This book is well done and completely worth the read My initial response to how each letterdiscussion begins eg Dear John I miss the long discussions we enjoyed when you lived nearby in Berkeley was come on guys just get to the discussion But as the book goes on those comments are actually kind of useful they remind us that the two authors are friends despite their theological differences Any sniping or shots in the book lack the personal rancor that might otherwise be suspectedOverall the arguments in the book are clearly presented on both sides and followed up by useful conversation Though it does take the two a while to get to the fundamental distinction between Catholics and Protestants not just Evangelicals specifically In Letter 54 of 60 the McCarthy the Evangelical writes Only when we realize the futility of trying to find acceptance with God through living a good life can we cast ourselves upon God's mercy trusting Jesus as our Savior 367 Waiss the Catholic responds You imply that obedience opposes faith whereas Scripture says disobedience opposes faith Of course both sides agree that sin seperates us from God the fundamental distinction comes in when we begin talking about virtue This is the primary breaking point between Protestantism and Catholicism and no doubt my own belief will show here This is best seen in the different approaches to Philippians 34 9 I myself Paul have reason for confidence in the flesh also If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh I have circumcised on the eighth day of the people of Israel of the tribe of Benjamin a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee; as to zeal a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law blameless But whatever gain I had I counted as loss for the sake of Christ Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him not having a rightousness of my own that comes from the law but that which comes through faith in Christ the righteousness from God that depends on faith A Protestant will read this passage and conclude that Paul is saying that his attempts to as McCarthy puts it sincerely seek God and do good in this life 370 were not only insufficient to bring him into a relationship with God but were actually rubbish And rubbish is a huge gloss the old translation of dung is better but the nearest English euivalent to the Greek word would be shit Paul is not pulling his punches Being a good person does not save In fact the Christian is the person who recognizes that his attempts to be a good person are absolutely worthless in terms of creating a relationship with God Only faith in the life and death of Christ can create such a relationship A Catholic on the other hand would read this passage and conclude that Paul was not wrong to try to be a good person he was merely talking about being a Pharisee It's not that his intentions were wrong it's that he was going about it in the wrong wayAll of this leads to the larger conversation of what is the point of the law which the authors get into in the last letters in the book For the Catholic God provides the law so that His people can obey and grow in their relationship with him For the Protestant God provides the law to show that we have not obeyed and to point to the life and death of Christ as the means to escape God's righteous anger at our disobedience It seems to me though the authors don't say this explicitly that all of the other arguments center around this one Other treatments of the issue are Luther for Armchair Theologians and On Being a Theologian of the Cross Reflections on Luther's Heidelberg Disputation 1518