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?
Actually, they're both wrong; the big difference is the latter is how they justify hate for you, and the former is how you justify hate for us.
Haven't you and I discussed "bad faith" in the past?
Do you see any works mentioned in the verse?
Maybe you didn't catch this verse that I posted
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Rom.4:5)
No one added anything.
You just don't want to see what is there.
But I will leave now, and we continue the scripture lessons later.
When you quote scripture, it is scripture speaking. When you speak, it is your interpretation. Don't pretend you've done nothing but quote scripture.
The scriptures bear witness against you...
As you interpret them.
I choose the Apostle Paul over the Council of Trent.
False dichotomy.
Haven't you and I discussed "bad faith" in the past?
I don't think so.
What do you consider 'bad faith'?
I have heard of faith, weak faith, strong faith, and no faith, but never 'bad faith'.
Do you see the word "alone" in the verse?
But I will leave now, and we continue the scripture lessons later.
Great. However, I must say, you do not seem to be learning anything.
Mind-reading.
When you quote scripture, it is scripture speaking. When you speak, it is your interpretation. Don't pretend you've done nothing but quote scripture.
Well, then argue against what you call my interpetation of scripture.
Pretty hard to do since I am stating what is clearly there.
[ The scriptures bear witness against you... ]
As you interpret them.
No, as they read.
[ I choose the Apostle Paul over the Council of Trent. ]
False dichotomy.
How so?
Trent condemned Justification by faith alone.
Paul clearly teaches it.
No false dichotomy, just simple truth.
So, I guess I will just post scripture to you and see how you handle that.
Mind-reading.
No, just an observation.
By the way there is a 'dead' faith in James.
Maybe that is what you were referring to.
Do you see the word "alone" in the verse?
I see only the word faith in the verse.
I see, 'to him that worketh not' in Roman 4:5.
[ But I will leave now, and we continue the scripture lessons later. ]
Great. However, I must say, you do not seem to be learning anything
I am learning how strong the power of religion is over men, that they would rather go to hell than reject it.
But you are not.
Your bear me false witness again.
How sad.
"Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ more strongly, who triumphed over sin, death, and the world; as long as we live here, we must sin."
One of the most sensible posts on this thread. I stumbled into the topic accidentally and am rather appalled at the nature of it. A civil discussion -— usually a rarity when it comes to religion or politics — can be interesting, if the purpose is to try to understand other people’s points of view. This thread’s original and subsequent cheerleading posts seems to have quite another purpose -— and it isn’t pleasant.
Do ye, therefore, notice those who preach other doctrines,
how they affirm that the Father of Christ cannot be known,
and how they exhibit enmity and deceit in their dealings with one another.
They have no regard for love;
they despise the good things we expect hereafter;
they regard present things as if they were durable;
they ridicule him that is in affliction;
they laugh at him that is in bonds.
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,
because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ,
which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.
Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes.
But it were better for them to treat it with respect that they also might rise again.
It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons,
and not to speak of them either in private or in public,
but to give heed to the prophets,
and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us,
and the resurrection has been fully proved.
But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
--Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, St. Ignatious of Antioch, a disciple of Apostle John
What say ye? Should I take Christ literally when He says we need to eat His flesh, as did St. Ignatius, who was a disciple of St. John, one who heard and recorded those words of Jesus and had the chance to ask Jesus what He really meant? If not, why not?
You can believe whatever fable you choose. Explain why the disciples at the Last Supper did not EAT CHRIST at that point.
But let me back up. Considering you quoted John chapter 6, I encourage you to progress past verse 58:
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Did you note the Lord’s commentary regarding the supposed consumption of his flesh and blood: “The words I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” He - the Lord - is NOT commanding people to eat His flesh and drink His blood and NOWHERE does He go through the magic show you have perverted the Eucharist to mean.
Even I as a Protestant am not convinced that Holy Communion is merely a symbolic act. Many who insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible make an exception with this verse. Truly it was a “hard saying” for many of Christ’s followers.
That is a truly bizarre statement.
My apologies for failing to include a reference to Matthew chapter 26:
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.
If the actual flesh and blood of the Lord are magically transformed into the cracker and wine, why did He give them actual BREAD and call it His body and actual WINE and call it His blood?
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.