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?
By the same token a confession of faith is a "work" is it not?
Admonishing sinners isn't a work? Defending the wrongfully accused isn't a work? Instructing the ignorant isn't a work?
You have a much more narrow view of works than do we Catholics.
“By the same token a confession of faith is a ‘work’ is it not?”
Certainly! As was St. Dismas’ confession of sin to the High Priest, his repentance, and his acceptance of his penance on the cross.
But although these are works, I don't know how non-Catholics might look at them, so I didn't include them.
sitetest
Oh brother....a 138 word question. That'll clear things up!!
You have to understand, sitetest:
In “The Game,” words used in the description of your faith do not mean what YOU say they mean. Oh nay nay.
They mean what the Catholic-hater says they mean. If you disagree, you’re just engaged in spin.
Actually, St. Dismas was saved because, as he and Christ hung on their crosses dying, Christ handed him a “ELECT” vanity plate for his car.
There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.
The day of the Lord is not to come till the man of sin be revealed. The apostle's traditions are to be observed.
Understand? The apostles traditions! DR further footnotes written and unwritten traditions of the apostles!
The fiction of "Revealed Tradition/Truth" came hundreds of years after Scripture was written in order to justify new doctrine which is clearly extra-Scriptural.
LOL!! That’ll do it every time. Right??
Of course I do.
It is you who has failed.
You are correct in that I don't believe any of your admission of error or apologies are heartfelt and sincere. If so you wouldn't launch into one of your typical one line insults immediately thereafter.
It seems you might accept the Protestant position that "Faith Alone" is sufficient.
I believe there is a widespread misunderstanding among sincere Catholics and Protestants concerning "Faith/Works".
Most Protestants (I think) believe Faith is always melded with Good Works. The distinction (once again - I think) is the Protestant belief is that Faith Alone is sufficient while Works Alone is never sufficient.
Protestants are invited to tell me how little I know. :)
"I will not argue with your position. It is a reasonable, if generous, definition of 'work'."
I have a hard time seeing "admonishing sinners" and "instructing the ignorant" as being "generously" defined as works. These are basic spiritual works of mercy.
“Most Protestants (I think) believe Faith is always melded with Good Works.”
Not sure what you mean exactly by that, but from what I see, non-Catholic/non-Orthodox seem to think that faith and works are two separate things and that only faith is required for salvation.
Even you say that:
“...the Protestant position that “Faith Alone” is sufficient.”
For Catholics, the dichotomization between faith in works seems a little screwy.
“...while Works Alone is never sufficient.”
I don't know any properly-catechized Catholics who believe that.
sitetest
Letter of St. James
19 You know, my dearest brethren. And let every man be swift to hear, but slow to speak and slow to anger. 20 For the anger of man worketh not the justice of God. 21 Wherefore, casting away all uncleanness and abundance of naughtiness, with meekness receive the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls. 22 But be ye doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. 23 For if a man be a hearer of the word and not a doer, he shall be compared to a man beholding his own countenance in a glass. 24 For he beheld himself and went his way and presently forgot what manner of man he was. 25 But he that hath looked into the perfect law of liberty and hath continued therein, not becoming a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work: this man shall be blessed in his deed. 26 And if any man think himself to be religious, not bridling his tongue but deceiving his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.
James 2
14 What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? 15 And if a brother or sister be naked and want daily food: 16 And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? 17 So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. 18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works. Show me thy faith without works; and I will show thee, by works, my faith. 19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou that faith did cooperate with his works and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only? 25 And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers and sending them out another way? 26 For even as the body without the spirit is dead: so also faith without works is dead.
Another fresh expression of the angrily tyrannical nature of Calvinism.
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain (Gal.2:21).
Grace is freedom, not tyranny.
It is you who are under the tyranny of a system of religion that gives you a false gospel and keeps in you in bondage to by deception (2Cor.4:4)
Whether you want to stop losing an argument is of no consequence to me.
No, I am not losing an argument, but you are losing your eternal soul.
You are making yourself God again.
THAT is a very grave sin.
You attempt again to make yourself God. Ah, but the job is already taken.
Yes, and you have rejected what He has written telling you how to be saved.
You would rather trust in the traditions of men (Mk.7:7).
The Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, who created the system that you are in bondage to are all going to be at the same Judgement, with the millions of people they deceived.(Rev.20)
What is the difference between a Catholic praying to an idol and idoltry-nothing.
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.