Posted on 08/25/2008 9:57:47 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Evangelicals converting to Catholicism has become something of a trend. Many conservative episcopalians caught between a rock and a hard place have opted for a return to Rome. And there are some big names in evangelical theology who have gone over, including the (until just recently) President of the Evangelical Theological Society. Scot MacKnight has just written a piece in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) trying to figure out why the Roman road has grown more and more popular these days.
The Pontificator has written a series of posts on “Bad Reasons Not To Convert To Catholicism”. (The assumption is that you want to convert, but you have wrongheaded protestant baggage holding you back.) But of course that there are bad reasons-not-to-convert does not imply there are no good reasons-not-to-convert. However I am not going to be offering good reasons not to convert to Roman Catholicism: first, because I’m not positive there are any, though I have my suspicions; second, because I am not in the business of trying to dissuade people of their religious commitments for the sake of winning an argument on the internet. What I am going to do is to critique one very bad reason for turning Roman Catholic which is often used as a sort of bludgeon by triumphal converts against their former protestant co-religionists.
Here is a quote from someone I will not name, discussing the ‘greater joy’ he found upon his conversion to Roman Catholicism:
“Why this greater joy? Because I do not have to be the judge in judgment of the Catholic Church, of the Scriptures, or even of myself. It’s not my job. Millions of people over a period of two thousand years have reflected on our holy faith, and struggled with it, some cases even given up their life for it. Shall I improve on their combined insight, as it is shared with us through the Magisterium? Shall I pit my few decades against millions and millon [sic] of man years? No!”
I have nothing against conversion to Roman Catholicism, and nothing against people being happy about a renewal of their spiritual life that attends upon conversion. But the implication of this quote is that the protestant is a theological solipsist who has arrogated to himself a right to judgment he cannot possibly use well.
I won’t debate whether this is an accurate representation of Protestant theology. (It isn’t, but I’ll leave that to my theologian friends to demonstrate.) At any rate historical ignorance is not an essential part of protestantism, but it certainly is true that Protestantism emphasizes the importance of individual judgment and individual faith and so on.
Which brings me to the problem with the quote above. In making his statement, the author absolves himself of all responsibility and judgment. I don’t have to think anymore about what is true, good and so forth, the Magisterium will tell me. It is hard work to be thoughtful and responsible and to learn judgment. But everything fine is difficult. Thoughtfulness, responsibility and judgment are virtues the cultivation of which the church ought to be in the business of teaching. Indeed these virtues are not lacking from the more mature, reflective expressions of Roman Catholicism I’ve encountered in my life either.
Protestant or Roman Catholic, there is something basically deficient in a person who just goes along with whatever is said at church on the basis of blind authority. Being Roman Catholic does not obviate the necessity of using one’s own judgment just because the Magisterium isn’t always there beside you to tell you what you ought to do in daily life.
And converting to Roman Catholicism doesn’t solve your worry about individualism because it is still you, the individual, who converts. By your act of conversion you make your own private judgment upon the entire 500 year tradition of protestantism. And we have a couple of smart people over in our camp too. So it simply ridiculous to say that you want to be Roman Catholic so you don’t have to act as a judge over history . . . you are always already judging history.
None of this says that one cannot have an appreciation for the past. Just as I have avoided implying that Roman Catholicism as such requires the denial of responsibility, so too should any Roman Catholics avoid implying that Protestantism as such requires the denial of history. To be a Christian well requires both, not a decision between them.
And the wrong answers you continue to get, if you still think that a surface reading of Exodus 21:22-24 gives a low value to an unborn life. Why is it that, statistically speaking, more Catholics support abortion-on-demand than Protestants, if Protestants can't read Exodus 21:22-24 (and other passages) better than the Magisterium can interpret it?
Because they surveyed a lot of C&E Catholics.
They always do. And those that dress up to go to church twice a year and get their kids religious education right throught he big dress up party for first communion, couldn’t tell you what the Pope said to save their souls.
Yeah, this is like saying that all Republicans believe in Global Warming because they talked to some who do.
Like that’s a big surprise.
Do you think the Pew Survey people weeded out C&E Protestants and Evangelicals, to intentionally skew the survey against Catholics?
I don’t think that anyone “weeded out” anything.
If I survey my old parish, one would get the same results. 1300 families and they can’t fill a mass. My parish would be 100% anti-abortion. We have CCC based Christian education with Bible study starting in the fourth grade, showing where the CCC comes from.
Good thing for us, times are changing. Christians from other churches are becoming Catholic. This article says it’s a trend. My favorite apologist came from a Baptist church and attended RCIA with my hubby. He and his wife could go head to head with anyone. Lord Love them!
Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not covet. Nothing to do with abortion. And Nancy violates them all by any interpretation of them with her socialist policies. Except if she redefines the words themselves. Which, as Orwell showed us, socialists do.
People are not “easily” mislead by plain language. “Sleazily”, maybe. But again, you have to look at the whole Bible, not just verses out of context. For example, the “cities of refuge” gave accidental killers of adult human beings a way to escape an “eye for an eye” punishment.
I think the Bible is pretty clear about the value of human life. If you, or Nancy Pelosi, think different, you'll have to explain it God, one day, same as me. Good luck with that.
Still, my argument here isn't with abortion, but with who has the authority to interpret Scripture. I believe it lies with the individual believer led by the Holy Ghost. To the extent that he is so led, he will not be in error. To the extent not, he most likely will be, although maybe he'll get something right by accident now and then. Or maybe not.
But to abdicate your God-given reason to accept the judgments of another fallible human being without closely examining them is, IMO, an error. Just because he's your pastor, preacher, or Pope, doesn't make him any less error prone than you are. He may know more, but IS HE BEING LED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT? More than one Pope in history, I would have to say “NO”.
doesn't change the wrong answers the Pope might give you either. Look at verse 15, below. Verse 16 would also bear some scrutiny.
2 Timothy 2:14-16
14Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
You do understand that it is not ‘A’ Pope that gives Catholics guidance with scripture interpertation, but rather thousands of years of scholars, that give us that guidance.
As for my own opinion, yes at one time I did believe that this passage gave right to women to kill babies in the womb. I was young and stupid and luckily at that time never had to make that decision.
It’s easy to bring up God-given reason, but what of the evil one trying to influence your thinking. The Devil comes as an Angel of Light more often than not. How does one know? How does one who is searching know if the Holy Spirit is there or an Angel of Light disguised Devil?
The “by the fruits” thought sounds good but when those “fruits” are different for a Methodist than for a Baptist, one can not be sure.
Still, it is not you, not the Pope, not Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Osama bin Laden, Josef Stalin, or anybody else that will stand before God one day and answer for my life. It is me, and me alone. Just as all of them will answer for their own lives.
This is as it should be. God gave us a mind. God made us morally responsible. Check out Matthew 25
The Parable of the Talents
14”Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15To one he gave five talents[a] of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.
19”After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.’
21”His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!’
22”The man with the two talents also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.’
23”His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!’
24”Then the man who had received the one talent came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’
26”His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
28” ‘Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
Each servant was responsible for his own decisions and nobody else was Now, if God says you are in error about something come judgment day, you can't say, “But the Pope said”, or, “But the Church said.” The Pope may have to answer for leading you astray, but you will answer for your error.
I'd rather take the rap for my own errors rather than someone else's. This is not to say that the scholarship of 2000 years is to be lightly disregarded, but still it must be examined for oneself.
Let me give you an example. Remember the story of Cain and Abel? How God asked Cain where his brother was, and Cain replied, “Am I my brother's keeper?” Sure you do.
Now I have heard that story used as justification for dry laws, blue laws, laws against pornography, laws for welfare, etc.
But never once, in all my reading (it may be have been stated before, I just haven't seen it) or in any sermon that I have heard, that God ever said, “Yes, you ARE your brother's keeper.” Not once. If you have please forward me a link or reference.
No, God was asking not because He wanted to know where Abel was, He knew. He was asking because He also knew how he got there. Cain had murdered him.
Nor do I find anywhere else in the Bible where God says that you are your brother's keeper. He DOES say that you are your neighbor's neighbor. Show me where I'm wrong. But anyway. Whether or not I am correct in my opinion about this story, and these verses, it is an example where I think the conventional wisdom has it wrong.
“O my God, I believe, I adore, I hope and I love Thee. I ask pardon for those who do not believe, do not adore, do not hope and do not love Thee.”
Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me.
"But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
"My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
"I and the Father are one."
John 10:25-30
And I think that you also don’t understand that I have the choice of Free will to choose to be Catholic and listen to the Vatican scholars about Bible scriptures.
Personally, I have no problem with the way that anyone sees the Bible as long as they have a good relationship with Our Lord himself. Most times, it is easy to figure out right from wrong in Our Lord’s eyes.
I do have a problem with someone insisting that I am wrong. I’m not saying that you do, but my problem comes in the absolute that I am, as a Catholic is walking the road to hell.
I believe that I do not know the will of Our Lord and neither does anyone else.
True. But many a person is “saved” and does not hear because “(satan) has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the Gospel of the Glory of Christ” ( 2 Corinthians 4;4)”
And the way that is done is by making the saved people believe that they ONLY will interpret the Bible the way that Our Lord wants it. Many opinions, few answers.
Certainly I understand that. That is not a road that I can take, however.
Personally, I have no problem with the way that anyone sees the Bible as long as they have a good relationship with Our Lord himself. Most times, it is easy to figure out right from wrong in Our Lord’s eyes.
Well the relationship with Christ is the key thing. And I agree that it should be easy to determine right from wrong is most circumstances.
I do have a problem with someone insisting that I am wrong. I’m not saying that you do, but my problem comes in the absolute that I am, as a Catholic is walking the road to hell.
I never have understood why this would be a problem with anyone. So someone thinks you are going to Hell? So what? Can you justify your beliefs' can you defend them in debate? Are you confident in them? Then what does someone else's opinion matter? Why?
We can't all be right. All opinions are NOT equal. I try to make mine right, and I can't do that by accepting the authority of another. Now matter how high, powerful, or scholarly and well-informed. I determine my opinions for myself. If I did not, I couldn't defend them properly. If you can, more power to you. And you might be right, even if you can't, but I prefer my way. I have serious theological issues with the RCC, but I don't deny they are a Christian church.
I believe that I do not know the will of Our Lord and neither does anyone else. Well, in some ways we can. God has given us the Bible as a guide. In others, you are correct.
>> but I don’t deny they are a Christian church.<<
Oh thank you! We as Catholics here on FR have been told that we are not Christian and that we are going to hell. I don’t see what that helps, when we have bigger enemies, but it is allowed to stand.
Can I defend my beliefs? I’m not that bright (seriously) and I leave that to those who can defend on the non-Catholic terms. A dear friend of mine is a former Protestant, knows the Bible inside out and can do it. Mostly I just nod and agree.
Now am I confident? That I am.
>>I believe that I do not know the will of Our Lord and neither does anyone else. Well, in some ways we can. God has given us the Bible as a guide. In others, you are correct.<<
I forgot the last part of my line. I don’t know who will be saved by Our Lord’s will. That is on an individual basis. We have guidelines but I don’t feel absolutes on a case by case basis. His Mercy may come into play.
If someone says that he is a Christian, I take him at his word unless his actions convince me otherwise. Although I may have serious doubts about his theology
If someone says that he is not a Christian, I also take him at his word.
That being said, there are some Churches, and yes, at one time I included the RCC among them, whose theology is so wrong that I do not think their members actually are taught how to accept Christ as their Saviour.
I still have problems with a lot of RCC theology. For instance, I don’t believe that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. Not even baptism.
And to me, that is your right.
Just as it is my right to believe that Sacraments are.
Understanding that if you believed as I do, you would be Catholic or if I believed as you do, I would not, gives us the ability to work together in the ways we need to, like the Pro-Life movement for example. We have common ground as Christians and therefore can work together.
And btw, it would be great if more people were “taken at their word” about being Christian.
AMEN!
No problem believing God.
Believing a stinking pile of bureaucrats out to increase, buttress, maintain their power-mongering is not likely for me, in this lifetime.
You nailed my take on it.
I disagreed with my former pastor on salvation. He believed that if you professed Christ as your savior and then, at some future time said and believed that Christianity was a bunch of hooey (and exhibited the lifestyle to prove it) and died in that belief, you would still be saved.
I have a hard time with that, but I didn’t leave the church over it.
>>So, in other words, there’s a infinite number(theoretically) of interpretations available for each section of scripture<<
I would say there are. A few of them may even be correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.