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?
Is that what you think of scripture-nothing?
Surely you can do better than this.
Aw, you’re not even trying.
What was your question?
“And what is it about 1Ti.2:5 that you find confusing?”
I replied “Nothing.”
I doubt it.
This is how your game works:
Catholic: I believe this.
Catholic-hater: No you don't, you believe what I said you believe, and if you claim otherwise, it is a denial, modification or just spin.
This is how your game works: Catholic: I believe this. Catholic-hater: No you don't, you believe what I said you believe, and if you claim otherwise, it is a denial, modification or just spin.
This is not a game at all, since your eternal soul hangs in the balance.
When you start bending, twisting or denying clear scripture you are rejecting God's truth and subsituting the opinions of men instead.
The very thing that the Lord condemned (Mk.7:7)
And don't confuse hating Catholicism with hating Catholics.
Be precise with your words!
My eternal soul does not hang in the balance of your sick little game.
When you start bending, twisting or denying clear scripture you are rejecting God's truth and subsituting the opinions of men instead.
If I ever start doing that, I will have already become a Calvinist.
Well, if you find 1Ti.2:5 so clear why do disregard it?
And don't forget 1Pe.2:9, that we are a royal priesthood!
Why do you disregard that verse as well?
I do not.
Apparently it’s difficult for some folks to understand the statement, “I just want to go to Church.” The Gospels would indicate that God understands that. Some of our uber-Calvinist friends apparently do not.
I can understand was Cauvin was cast out of Geneva.
My eternal soul does not hang in the balance of your sick little game.
It sure does, and you realize that too late when stand at the Great Throne Judgement for rejecting the grace of God.
[ When you start bending, twisting or denying clear scripture you are rejecting God's truth and subsituting the opinions of men instead. ]
If I ever start doing that, I will have already become a Calvinist.
Gee, do you guys ever stop bashing Luther and Calvin!
Actually, you are doing exactly that very thing, when you put your traditions and rituals over the words of God.
You need to get into the true church and that means getting into the Body of Christ by faith without works.(Eph.2:8-9)
My eternal soul certainly does not hang in the balance of your sick little game. Do you make yourself God? Sheesh.
Do you ever stop bashing Catholicism?
You put the flawed traditions of Cauvin over the words of Christ.
You do realize, don't you, that this statement is in direct conflict with the whole "predestination/election" idea that is propounded by so many Calvinist types on these threads.
I can't recall whether you're one of those sorts ... but if you are, you've got some confusion about your position.
Whom do you imagine sits there? An autocratic French lawyer? An anti-Semitic German monk?
Are you asking me to do something, lest I burn in hell? That would classify as a "work," would it not?
Ooops.
Confusion is irrelevant on that ground. As long as you have your “ELECT” vanity plates on your car, you’re gold!
I do not.
Everytime you pray to a saint or Mary, you are ignoring the fact that only Christ can make intercession for you and that you, as a priest have a direct access to God the Father because of God the Son, our Great High Priest in Heaven. (Heb.7:25,9:15)
Whoops!
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.