Posted on 04/04/2008 11:01:22 AM PDT by Gamecock
Last week I received the following e-mail, and I felt it would be best to share my response here on the blog.
Dear Mr. White, For someone considering converting to Catholicism, what questions would you put to them in order to discern whether or not they have examined their situation sufficiently? Say, a Top 10 list. Thanks.
When I posted this question in our chat channel a number of folks commented that it was in fact a great question, and we started to throw out some possible answers. Here is my "Top Ten List" in response to this fine inquiry.
10) Have you listened to both sides? That is, have you done more than read Rome Sweet Home and listen to a few emotion-tugging conversion stories? Have you actually taken the time to find sound, serious responses to Rome's claims, those offered by writers ever since the Reformation, such as Goode, Whitaker, Salmon, and modern writers? I specifically exclude from this list anything by Jack Chick and Dave Hunt.
9) Have you read an objective history of the early church? I refer to one that would explain the great diversity of viewpoints to be found in the writings of the first centuries, and that accurately explains the controversies, struggles, successes and failures of those early believers?
8) Have you looked carefully at the claims of Rome in a historical light, specifically, have you examined her claims regarding the "unanimous consent" of the Fathers, and all the evidence that exists that stands contrary not only to the universal claims of the Papacy but especially to the concept of Papal Infallibility? How do you explain, consistently, the history of the early church in light of modern claims made by Rome? How do you explain such things as the Pornocracy and the Babylonian Captivity of the Church without assuming the truthfulness of the very system you are embracing?
7) Have you applied the same standards to the testing of Rome's ultimate claims of authority that Roman Catholic apologists use to attack sola scriptura? How do you explain the fact that Rome's answers to her own objections are circular? For example, if she claims you need the Church to establish an infallible canon, how does that actually answer the question, since you now have to ask how Rome comes to have this infallible knowledge. Or if it is argued that sola scriptura produces anarchy, why doesn't Rome's magisterium produce unanimity and harmony? And if someone claims there are 33,000 denominations due to sola scriptura, since that outrageous number has been debunked repeatedly (see Eric Svendsen's Upon This Slippery Rock for full documentation), have you asked them why they are so dishonest and sloppy with their research?
6) Have you read the Papal Syllabus of Errors and Indulgentiarum Doctrina? Can anyone read the description of grace found in the latter document and pretend for even a moment that is the doctrine of grace Paul taught to the Romans?
5) Have you seriously considered the ramifications of Rome's doctrine of sin, forgiveness, eternal and temporal punishments, purgatory, the treasury of merit, transubstantiation, sacramental priesthood, and indulgences? Have you seriously worked through compelling and relevant biblical texts like Ephesians 2, Romans 3-5, Galatians 1-2, Hebrews 7-10 and all of John 6, in light of Roman teaching?
4) Have you pondered what it means to embrace a system that teaches you approach the sacrifice of Christ thousands of times in your life and yet you can die impure, and, in fact, even die an enemy of God, though you came to the cross over and over again? And have you pondered what it means that though the historical teachings of Rome on these issues are easily identifiable, the vast majority of Roman Catholics today, including priests, bishops, and scholars, don't believe these things anymore?
3) Have you considered what it means to proclaim a human being the Holy Father (that's a divine name, used by Jesus only of His Father) and the Vicar of Christ (that's the Holy Spirit)? Do you really find anything in Scripture whatsoever that would lead you to believe it was Christ's will that a bishop in a city hundreds of miles away in Rome would not only be the head of His church but would be treated as a king upon earth, bowed down to and treated the way the Roman Pontiff is treated?
2) Have you considered how completely unbiblical and a-historical is the entire complex of doctrines and dogmas related to Mary? Do you seriously believe the Apostles taught that Mary was immaculately conceived, and that she was a perpetual virgin (so that she traveled about Palestine with a group of young men who were not her sons, but were Jesus' cousins, or half-brothers (children of a previous marriage of Joseph), or the like? Do you really believe that dogmas defined nearly 2,000 years after the birth of Christ represent the actual teachings of the Apostles? Are you aware that such doctrines as perpetual virginity and bodily assumption have their origin in gnosticism, not Christianity, and have no foundation in apostolic doctrine or practice? How do you explain how it is you must believe these things de fide, by faith, when generations of Christians lived and died without ever even having heard of such things?
And the number 1 question I would ask of such a person is: if you claim to have once embraced the gospel of grace, whereby you confessed that your sole standing before a thrice-holy God was the seamless garment of the imputed righteousness of Christ, so that you claimed no merit of your own, no mixture of other merit with the perfect righteousness of Christ, but that you stood full and complete in Him and in Him alone, at true peace with God because there is no place in the universe safer from the wrath of God than in Christ, upon what possible grounds could you come to embrace a system that at its very heart denies you the peace that is found in a perfect Savior who accomplishes the Father's will and a Spirit who cannot fail but to bring that work to fruition in the life of God's elect? Do you really believe that the endless cycle of sacramental forgiveness to which you will now commit yourself can provide you the peace that the perfect righteousness of Christ can not?
LOL.
Great gif . . . copying it . . . thanks.
Fingers hovering are one thing . . . derriers parked in an endurance sitting marathon are another.
Amen, Otto! You are sooo right. They don’t see it as love, but as ‘Catholic bashing.’
She was born again! That’s what occurred. She asked the Lord Jesus Christ to come into her life and save her from satan and eternal damnation. It was a personal invitation to a personal saviour.
God also calls us to witness to the lost and that’s why many protestants do just that, to fellow Catholics who may be deceived by their church’s teachings. It’s certainly not of hatred of Catholics that protestants put up with the flaming that goes on when anyone says anything contrary to their beliefs.
Lots of folks on all sides of lots of issues are so entrenched in their own constructions on reality—ANYTHING ELSE—REGARDLESS OF HOW OBJECTIVELY TRUE; HOW TRUE FROM GOD’S PERSPECTIVE—IS JUST unimaginable for them.
And, some folks grip on a sense of safety, security, eternal hope . . . is soooooooooo glued to things other than God . . . even challenging them to focus more on God is unimaginable . . . thinking the ‘thing’ in their ‘tidy little God-box’ to be ALMIGHTY HIM.
When you are bashing the Truth and wounding Christ... their is no love, just self-deception, which is the work of the evil one. Congratulate yourself all you want, but if you are working against the Church founded by and protected by Christ, you are working against Christ.
It’s certainly not of hatred of Catholics that protestants put up with the flaming that goes on when anyone says anything contrary to their beliefs.
= =
INDEED.
Amen! We can lead someone to the truth, but only Christ can save them. Good point.
You really have no idea what he’s talking about do you? Sad, sad, sad.
Would you object to a statement such as this? "I note that the Catholic Priests are guilty of child abuse."
You see, I was once as deluded as you are, but I spent the time to study the Protestant vs Catholic positions on the issues, and simply put, Protestantism is so egregiously wrong as to be ridiculous. I spent two years of study on "Catholicism vs Protestantism", and I quickly found out who was slinging BS and who was telling the truth (hint, the BS slingers weren't Catholic).
I not at least one of them is.
if we could just STICK to those beliefs, we’d have no problem. It’s when people stick in saints, popes, Maryiology, etc., etc., etc. that it gets ‘messy.’
You’re right.
Exactly!
Oh, really? Then why are so many catholic churches closing? We see much of it here, which I think is sad, but that’s what’s going on. Islam is the fastest growing religion.
No, he isn’t. You just don’t like to hear what Ottofire is telling you.
Very personal attack?
Ad hominem?
Sad.
I am generally averse to lies told about my Church. But I take refuge knowing that the gates of Hell (and all its minions) will not prevail against Her.
Well, it’s not here. Many churches are closing down and going in with other larger churches. Too bad, but that’s how it goes, I guess.
He wasn’t talking about not hearing the bible, tiki. He was talking about the true Gospel. There IS a difference between what the Catholic church teaches about salvation and what she experienced on her death bed. She ASKED the Lord Jesus Christ to come into her life, it was a personal decision that was prompted by the Holy Spirit. We should all be rejoicing for her instead of what’s going on here.
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.