A Baptist's Search For Historical Proof of St. Patrick Takes Her To Rome

CH Network ^ | Patty Patrick Bonds

[drstevej]

***But Walvoord?? For the Love of Christ, he has made Dispensationalism a TEST OF FELLOWSHIP amongst Protestants...***

Walvoord was president of Dallas Seminary when Phillip E. Hughes, James M. Boice and Jay Adams were invited and gave the WH Griffith Thomas lectures at the seminary. This is the most high profile lectureship with mandatory student attendance.

The school was committed to dispensationalism and required agreement of faculty and students. But I studied under Dr. Walvoord and heard him speak and preach often. I can not ever remember him making dispensationalism a test of fellowship.

I agree that some/many dispensationalists have. But Walvoord has no more done this than I have.

Now as a debater, I know you want to be "precise" *grin* so I am allowing you this opportunity to correct your misstatement.

***Debaters strive for Precision; Walvoord strives to sell a lot of books (many of which repeat the embarassingly-bad Prot arguments against the Papacy which we have encountered before).***

Walvoord is now with the Lord. Past tense would be more precise unless you believe he still seeks to sell a lot of books.

[Patrick Madrid]

I agree with Walvoord's statement insofar as it reflects what I have seen. Many of the debaters I have met personally (and some of whom I have debated publicly) appear to care only about winning an argument. Others whom I've met appear to be genuinily persuing the truth, even when that persuit means having to abandon positions that are shown to be false.

The fact is, not all theologians are interested in truth -- some are, some aren't -- and not all debaters are interested winning arguments. Based on my exeprience with debaters and debates, I think many of them seem to be much more interested in winning arguments and squashing an opponent (if it were possible) than in really seeking the truth and embracing it.

As an aside, I moderated the 1991 public debate on sola Scriptura between Scott Hahn and the late Dr. Robert Knudesen, a Reformed thologial in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church who at that time was a professor of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia (and chairman of that dept.). Although he did not make an impressive showing in that debate, and Scott's biblical case against SS steamrolled Dr. Knudsen's arguments very effectively, Dr. Knudsen did impress me as a sincere man who deeply believed what he expounded that evening. He came across as one of those relatively rare debaters who was more interested in the truth than in winning arguments. I know many other debaters who would not fit in that category.

[drstevej]

I never had Knudsen for a course but I did write my apologetics exam for him (we had a number of such exams required to attain doctoral candidacy status).

He indeed is a gracious and godly man. If you have a transcript of that debate I'd be interested in reading it and make my own call as to the victor.

[fishtank]

You are wrong. Rome has always taught that the Mass is a continuation of the sacrifice of Calvary. To deny that is to deny Catholicism - which is why if i WERE still Catholic, I would be in the SSPX (which I was). The Novus Ordo crowd is trying with all their might to straddle the fence between Catholicism and Protestantism, and the dishonesty became too great for me to ignore. After I got saved by the grace of Jesus, I remained in the RCC for about 2 years, but had to leave after I realized I couldn't deal with the dishonesty.

I was disgusted with the Novus Ordo trickiness,
and I had honest disagreements with the SSPX. Although I disagree with the SSPX, I respect them far more than I do the Novus Ordo doctrinal gymnasts.

[drstevej]

Fascinating background, fishy.

Here's an idea I've been contemplating.

If you're a RC who regards the Real Presence as the dominant issue, you'll be attracted to the SSPX.

If you are a RC who regards Papal Authority as the dominant issue, you'll be attracted to the Novus Ordo.

If you are a RC who regards the Real Presence and Papal Authority as equally important issues, you'll be greatly conflicted.

[ACAC]

My wife was raised CAtholic and she likes the Lutheran church we go to now better. Is it not possible for someone to like a different church than you do? It is great that you love your church. Others love their church just as much. They have just reached a different conclusion than you have.

[american colleen]

I dunno, drstevej, I am a Catholic who believes that the Eucharist is the center and summit of Catholic life and I attend the Novus Ordo Masses. I am not at all attracted to the SSPX as I believe they have one foot in the door and one foot out the door, so to speak.

[american colleen]

No, Calvary is a once and for all time sacrifice, and that is what the Catholic Church teaches.

Can you cite sources for what you say the Catholic Church teaches about the Mass? I mean no offense, but you have been either misled or you have misunderstood the meaning of the Mass (I thought I linked a Catholic explanation of it to you several posts ago).

[drstevej]

Just a thesis I'm floating for reaction...

Are you fully satisfied with NO masses or are you conflicted by what happens in the majority of masses celebrated in the US?

[american colleen]

Just out of curiousity, does your wife attend a Missouri Synod or an Evangelical Lutheran Church?

[ACAC]

We both attend the Missouri Synod. There is no way on the planet we would attend the liberal ELCA. The ECLA waffles at best on the moral issues of the day. The Churches that I consider strong on the moral issues of the day are the Lutheran-Missouri Synod, CAtholic, Southern Baptist, and Assembly of God. It seems like most other churches are going along with the abortion and homosexual agenda.

[american colleen]

Well, in all honesty, I've been to very few NO Masses outside of Massachusetts although I've been to NO Masses in Eurupe. I don't think it would be fair to judge what happens in "the majority of Masses" because I'd be projecting information I am ignorant about.

As long as the priest has the correct intentions (and I believe most all of them do), I have no problem with the NO. Now, my priest recently asked us not to kneel during the Consecration and after Holy Communion and I wasn't nuts about that (personal preference) so last week I attended a different (more reverential) NO Mass.

[american colleen]

I ask because my mother in law is an ECLA (Swedes here are exclusively ECLA)... and she told me last week that there is no one there under age 70 for services. Her parish used to be a thriving Lutheran community but I don't think they passed on the faith very well. My husband went to service and had confirmation at the ECLA as a child and is now an agnostic/atheist. I can understand why one would question religious tenets, but not the existance of God.

[american colleen]

If you are "hanging around" at 08:00, 12:00, 19:00 or midnight, EWTN has a Novus Ordo Mass at those times (you can catch it on your computer as they stream live all day, or of course on your local EWTN TV channel). It is the Novus Ordo as intended by Vatican II. It might give you an idea of a reverent Novus Ordo.

[ACAC]

I can understand why an ECLA church is dying. They barely preach the gospel anymore. The MS church we go to has many young people.

[american colleen]

It is sad regarding the ECLA. The old people (mother in law is 86) really don't know where to turn if they even understand what the ECLA has become. I find the same thing with any of my (few) Episcopalian friends. I have no idea why the progressives within the Catholic Church don't make note of what has happened to the ECLA and the Anglican Church and apply the lesson to themselves and their own ideas of what the Catholic Church should be.

Fr. R. J. Neuhas was raised a Missouri Synod Lutheran, you probably know. I read his story a long time ago and thought you might find it interesting. I like to understand the differences between religions and his essay, I think, does a credible job.

[drstevej]

thanks for the response. protestant worship issues are plenty challenging as well. the distinction between personal preference and biblical principle is an important one and I commend you for seeing a difference.

[american colleen]

:-)

I definitely see the differences but on the kneeling thing, I close my eyes and "every knee shall bow" always goes through my head. It is particularly strong during the Consecration and after Holy Communion (receiving Him as well, but if I knelt, I'd probably be thrown out!) as you know what Catholics believe about the Real Presence. Believing as I do, how could I not kneel?

I was just ironing and heard the first few minutes of today's Mass on EWTN (the noontime broadcast) and the priest started out by explaining "Sacrifice of the Mass" and what it is and what it is not. I thought of you, fishtank, and hope you will avail yourself for 5 minutes and listen - and learn what Catholics believe the Mass is and not what you personally believe the Mass is. It will be rebroadcast (streaming and on TV) at 7 PM and Midnight tonight. Just 5 minutes - right after the priest files into the Church and before the Mass even starts. I gave you the link in my last post to you. Here it is again: EWTN streaming.

[fishtank]

This is what Trent said. As an RCC and as a SSPXer, I believed this, because it is what my Church taught.

I don't believe it any longer, because I no longer agree with either the N.O. or the SSPX camp.



http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent/ct22cmas.htm

ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.
CANON I.--If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacriflce is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.

CANON II.--If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.

CANON III.--If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.--If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.

CANON V.--If any one saith, that it is an imposture to celebrate masses in honour of the saints, and for obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church intends; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.--If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema.

CANON IX.--If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

[mdmathis6]

I caught on to your emphasis on the experiential...indeed other converts to "other" religions report the same type of reaction. Paul state that "We know in part and believe in part..." True faith involves a balance of intellectual thought based on an inner conviction of truth/faith. That is why I have trouble with "experiences" alone as a indicator of truth.

Scientists can stimulate areas of the brain to simulate the presence of the divine....I HAVE NO DOUBT evil forces can too. That is why the ultimate test of truth is found in 1 John chapter 1 where we are en joined to "test the spirits to see if they are of God. Any Spirit that confessess Christ as come in the Flesh, is of God, any spirit that confesses not that Christ is come in the flesh is not of God, but rather of Anti-Christ..."
I knew a Jewish couple who came out of the Presbyterian faith and were much more radical than most Jews who were Jews from generations back(though this couple was more in the Liberal reformed jewish movement). They spoke of this "experience" they shared upon conversion.
Contrast experienced based conversions with what CS Lewis stated of his own conversion..."I was lead to Christ based on the weight of the evidence". He spoke of being almost "forced" to confront the evidence honestly with integrity, and to base his new life based on that honesty appraisal of Christianity. He spoke of being angry about it, not wanting to confront his own pride and sin. The emotions he experienced were the death of his pride and of his humilation before God, the sweeter emotions of grace and for-giveness came later. Now this can be similarly compared with the "conversion" the woman had, in that she was faced with her own stereo-types of Catholics in general, but the difference is CS Lewis did not become a Catholic after his conversion...though I believe he did become the greatest apologist for Christ, well since Paul!


I suspect the woman became more of a Christian and Less of a Catholic, after her "conversion" judging from the pride she stated she had in dealing with Catholics.

The true Church of Christ is the totality of Spirit filled, blood washed believers that have existed, do and will exist across time and space, becoming a bulwark against the dimension of hell, "so the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it". This goes back to Adam and Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, through the little 6 year old girl that shyly asked Christ to be her Savior while praying one night at her bedside(my daughter).

It never was about one organization on the Tiber, or a Sothern Baptist Convention, or about a number of so called "true faiths". It was about a supra-temporal reality in the world that "tamps" down evil, keeping a check on it , until God in the end removes the restraints against evil in order for evil to be destroyed. It is an intellectual concept true...but in my "experiential" view of it, I am filled with AWE and WONDER of God's genius!