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?
These are, I believe, the bitter results of self-denial of the Holy Sacraments.
I am so inclined to agree.
It's like they're trying to fill a spiritual hole with "righteous indignation" instead of acknowledging their deficit/aridity.
If you're right, then being or not being a member of a Catholic Church has no bearing on a person's salvation. And in that case you're stuck with a pointless argument.
Your sustained rant about Catholics is utterly misplaced, and laughably irrational.
I suggest that you focus more on addressing the serious logical difficulties of your statements.
And again ... "worrying" to the point of changing my ways would be "salvation by works," would it not? Again, you suffer from serious logical problems! LOL!
The day of the Lord is not to come till the man of sin be revealed. The apostle's traditions are to be observed.
The verse "have learned" is clearly past tense.
The DR intro makes it clear it is the APOSTLES traditions which are to be observed.
Hunt around and you will find documents which claim "revealed" tradition covers the invention of traditions up to this very day. Of course it will not be Scriptural but, so what?
Remember, there is no Catholic teaching which cannot be denied, modified, or re-interpreted as required.
Is Thessalonians intended to address us all, or merely those Thessalonians who actually learned of it?
Your effort to use "have learned" as a time lock fails on its face.
You could be called a pedant but that implies some level of knowledge.
I've got it! JWP (Juvenile Wannabe Pedant). That fits the bill.
I would explain my mistakes further, but why should I?
As you said to me the other day, in a pique of Christian charity, "Understand this, I don't want, nor will ever accept, one of your phony apologies."
Another fresh expression of the angrily tyrannical nature of Calvinism.
Luke 23:43
Apparently fortheDeclaration, and millions of others, are not aware of the "works" Jesus imposed on the thief on the cross. Perhaps you will enlighten us.
I don’t know where you got the verb “imposed,” but that aside, I suspect Christ was wise enough to understand that a man hanging on a cross, dying, was not really in a position to do any more than have the conversation with Christ we see in the Gospel.
Why don't you address the points made in #805?
I don't know about “imposed,” but St. Dismas the good thief certainly performed at least one spiritual work of mercy when he admonished the other thief on the cross. As well, he defended the innocent, another good work.
sitetest
Perhaps you missed 807.
If Thessalonians, or any of Paul's letters, was intended to address only a particular group at a particular time and had no further relevance they would not be part of Scripture. Scripture, all Scripture, is intended for all.
Your effort to use "have learned" as a time lock fails on its face.
One word comes to mind. STUPID!
The verse quoted implores us all, as brethren, to “stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”
We are warned to remember the traditions which we have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
I am quite willing to admit error to, and ask forgiveness of, men and women of good will whom I have wronged.
Your posts to me are so abusive, and your promise to never accept one of my apologies (including it’s stated assumption that my apologies are false), suggest to me that you are not here of good will, and wish to engage in a game of gotcha, using mistakes of others as a bludgeon in subsequent discussions, presumably ad infinitum.
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.