Conversion from Roman Catholicism to Biblical Christianity

Gorden & Jacki's Place ^ | March 2<2015 | Jackie

[MacMattico]

Yes, I am in central/northern NY.

[MacMattico]

My point was that Catholicism is Christian. Some on this board seem to think it is not.

[Mark17]

They must think he's a door and a vine and a stone too.

Not to mention a lily, a bright and morning star, a shepherd, a lion (of the Tribe of Judah.)

[metmom]

We Catholics take Jesus literally.

Matthew 23: 8-10 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.

[Not gonna take it anymore]

You haven’t addressed John 6

[CynicalBear]

>>They must think he's a door and a vine and a stone too.<<

Those comments like "we take Christ literally" just don't ring true do they.

[HossB86]

Straw man. First of all, "Show us where Scripture [etc.] " is only compelling for sola Scriptura adherents.

Actually, you have just made you OWN straw man. Sola Scriptura means ONLY that scripture contains ALL THAT IS NEEDED for salvation... in terms of the Catholic Cult, this does mean that "Holy Tradition" is basically pap. It does NOT mean that everything that was ever written is contained expressly therein. Here is a quote from John MacArthur, taken from Ligonier,org:

"The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. This or that “scientific truth,” for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture—but Scripture is a “more sure Word,” standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is “more sure,” according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our senses (2 Peter 1:19). Therefore, Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter on which it speaks.

But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary. Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture (2 Peter 1:3).

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take away from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18–19). To add to it is to lay on people a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That—no more, no less—is what sola Scriptura means.

“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” — Westminster Confession of Faith

Adapted from John MacArthur’s contribution to Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible."

Emphasis mine.

So, now... let's not have any straw men.

Hoss

[paladinan]

[paladinan]
Second, who's claiming that anyone is a Christian because of the church they attend?

[Iscool]
How many times have we read that ALL Catholics are Christians??? I'll bet you've said it yourself...

Of, course, I have... but didn't you even read the very next sentence from the same short paragraph of the very comment (#91) to which you're replying?

"I know of many people who don't even claim to be Christian, who attend once or twice out of curiosity (and some of them convert); I know of others who are not validly baptized, but who still attend.

Summary: "validly baptized" = Christian. Dismiss or argue that, if you like... but it soundly refutes the point which you're defending (i.e. that I ever claimed that someone is a Christian merely because of the "church" they attend). Someone can attend Catholic Masses as often as they like; if they're not validly baptized, they're not Catholic.

[paladinan]

[paladinan]
Interesting. Can you supply quotes from their writings, to that effect? And when you do, can you please supply page number and edition, so that I can track the references down correctly? Or is this your raw opinion?

[Iscool]
Nope on both questions.

Ah. So you make baseless, unsubstantiated, and slanderous claims against a man, and you offer no retraction or expressions of regret. Gotcha. When someone slanders another and excuses themselves from even the smallest defense of the accusations, that really does a number on anyone's responsibilty to take that person's writings seriously. Just saying. And you might want to check out the "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" commandment, when you get a moment. When last I checked, it was still in full force.

When threads about Hahn and Staples and the others show up with videos or their writings revealed, there is ample biblical refutation of their theology posted...And I'm sure will happen in the future.

Even better. "disagreement with Dr. Hahn's theology" = "authorization to make claims about his motives". I'll leave you with this simple idea: even if Dr. Hahn's theology were 100% nonsense, that would say NOTHING about his motives for entering the Catholic Church. Logic alone (even if decency and charity are ignored) should tell that to anyone with sense.

I don't keep a log of what these people falsely teach.

Then that probably implies that you shouldn't presume to attack his theology, doesn't it? If I disagree with [x], and I bring that up in a public forum, I think I'm responsible to defend my accusation with sound reasoning; don't you? And I'll offer another reminder: whether anyone thinks that Dr. Hahn's theology is "wrong" is completely irrelevant to the issue of his motives for entering the Church... and you presumed to speak to THAT point (i.e. motive). That was as illogical as it was crass.

[Iscool]
It's interesting to note that all of these bible rejecting thinkers have moved on to money making positions in your religion...

[paladinan]I really don't quite know what you mean by that. As opposed to what? Starving to death? Tell me: what *IS* the maximum allowable income per year (for you, and RnMomof7, etc.), beyond which they're being money-grubbing and avaricious? Are they allowed to make $30,000/year? $80,000? Do you make allowances for number of children, and cost of living increases?[paladinan]I really don't quite know what you mean by that. As opposed to what? Starving to death? Tell me: what *IS* the maximum allowable income per year (for you, and RnMomof7, etc.), beyond which they're being money-grubbing and avaricious? Are they allowed to make $30,000/year? $80,000? Do you make allowances for number of children, and cost of living increases?

[Iscool]
My point is: these crossovers can go from one paying position in one organization, completely change their God ordained position in that religion and get re-God ordained and get paid to teach totally different beliefs in a different religion, without even going to a Catholic seminary...Seems a little fishy to me...

Catholic seminaries are for training Catholic priests (and deacons, sometimes)--not for training lay people, in general. Dr. Hahn was already married (and ineligible for the priesthood in the Latin Church), and he didn't feel called to the diaconate. So... I'm not sure what the problem is, here. There are plenty of Catholic Universities at which Catholic theology can be studied. But this still doesn't come close to touching your comment about his MOTIVES... for which I can find no basis, at all.

[paladinan]

The guy had hands laid on him by two elders with no sanction from the church he claimed to be part of.

He obviously had the sanction of the local elders--right? Or are you suggesting that they were coerced? In the Presbyterian communion, "authorization" from the PCA is not required (see above references). To call Dr. Hahn's ordination "sanctionless" or "invalid in the eyes of the Presbyterians" is simply smoke-blowing.

He only did it to avoid taxes.

He ONLY did it to avoid taxes? Show me where even the biased account of the "Dr. Hahn denouncer" uses the word "only", please.

The church he was a so called "pastor" in wasn't even part of the Presbyterian church. Look again.

The church in question, according to the hostile blog, was not affiliated with the PCA. That's not the same thing, in the least. See my links, above.

He's in the same league as Al Sharpton or some other mail order pastor. He's fake, a fraud, a tax cheat, and appears after the dollar now.

Opinions, opinions, everywhere... and not a truth to think! (With apologies to Samuel Taylor Coleridge...)

[paladinan]

Uh, no. Having witnessed the process, that's not really how it works.

Your argument isn't strictly with me, FRiend: it's with the various existing splinters of Presbyterianism (which is often referred to as the "split P's", for their tendency to fragment over disagreements) who debate about the validity of their fellows. (Consider the link I posted, earlier, for data, re: Orthodox Presbyterianism vs. "Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster/North America", as one example.)

[paladinan]

Matthew 23: 8-10 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.

For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. (1 Corinthians 4:15)

And Stephen said: "Brethren and fathers, hear me [...]?" (Acts 7:2)

:) Ah, St. Paul and St. Stephen... those silly heretics, eh?

[CynicalBear]

>> "Mr. Hahn told me the reason for his private ceremony was because he did not feel he was very qualified to serve as an elder at age 26, but needed the ordination to take the pastor's exemption from Social Security."

[StormPrepper]

“That has been my experience ... most protestant churches in WNY have large numbers of Converts from Rome .. Rome is bleeding numbers but they do not want to talk about it”

2 Tim 3:
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

Christ made it clear that an evil seed can NOT create good fruit. All protestant churches grew from the Catholic church. If the Catholic church is bad, so are those that sprang from it. And in the eyes of God, nothing will change that.

[paladinan]

[paladinan]
Straw man. First of all, "Show us where Scripture [etc.] " is only compelling for sola Scriptura adherents.

[HossB86]
Actually, you have just made you OWN straw man. Sola Scriptura means ONLY that scripture contains ALL THAT IS NEEDED for salvation... in terms of the Catholic Cult, this does mean that "Holy Tradition" is basically pap.

First of all: you joined the conversation rather recently, and you may not have followed our conversations about this topic from RnMomof7's thread; I (and other Catholics) addressed the idea you mention, repeatedly. You might check out that thread to see those responses.

Secondly: all snarky, raw opinions about "cults" aside, your point breezes completely past mine; if someone holds to "sola Scriptura", then they feel empowered, authorized, and entitled to dismiss anything (pertaining to spiritual matters) which is not found in the 66-book Protestant Bible. If you disagree with that assertion, you'll have to explain how... since your reply here doesn't contradict it, or even address its substance.

It does NOT mean that everything that was ever written is contained expressly therein.

Perhaps you might quote where I said any such thing?

Here is a quote from John MacArthur, taken from Ligonier,org:

I'd direct you to the other thread (link above), where a (very long) discussion of that very thing is in progress... so as not to derail this thread too badly.

Just a few specific points about your quote from John MacArthur:

[Sola Scriptura] only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture (2 Peter 1:3).

2 Peter 1:3 makes no mention of Scripture, whatsoever.

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take away from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18–19).

Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 are referring to the Mitzvot, the 613 commandments of the Old Covenant, which is no longer binding... and they don't specify "Scripture", anyway, which is critical to your case. (Note: when Catholics use the term "Word of God", they refer to both the written Word [Scripture] and the unwritten Word [Sacred Traditon], and most of all to Jesus, Himself [the Logis, cf. John 1:1]; Protestants are not justified in running off with every last occurrence of the term "word", and demanding that it refer only to Scripture... especially when Scripture itself does not demand any such thing.)

Revelation 22:18-19 refers specifically to the Book of Revelation, not the Bible (which didn't yet exist in compiled form).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That—no more, no less—is what sola Scriptura means.

You'll have to explain the "therefore", in the first sentence... since I don't see where it even follows necessarily from his earlier premises, much less that all his premises are true (which they are not).

So, now... let's not have any straw men.

I fully agree. So... perhaps you might dispense with the ones you laid out, here?

[paladinan]

All right (and I read that, the first time). Now... in order to prove your earlier claim about Dr. Hahn accepting ordination "ONLY to avoid taxes", perhaps you might point out where the word "only" is found in that quote? I'm missing it, if it's there.

Just curious: do you begrudge churches and charities their tax-exempt status? Do you think they're doing something immoral or underhanded? Did Dr. Hahn violate any tax laws (since you call him a "tax cheat"? If not, then why do you say that Dr. Hahn is "fake, a fraud, a tax cheat, and appears after the dollar now"?

[HossB86]

I fully agree. So... perhaps you might dispense with the ones you laid out, here?

None were. Sorry you seem too blind to see that.

Secondly: all snarky, raw opinions about "cults" aside,

Can't help it if the opinion fits...

your point breezes completely past mine; if someone holds to "sola Scriptura", then they feel empowered, authorized, and entitled to dismiss anything (pertaining to spiritual matters) which is not found in the 66-book Protestant Bible. If you disagree with that assertion, you'll have to explain how... since your reply here doesn't contradict it, or even address its substance.

I don't disagree -- it's not about "feeling" empowered, it's about BEING completely sure of the totality of the scripture's content, infallibility and authority regarding spiritual things. Plainly and simply, the Roman Catholic Cult ADDS requirements to salvation... faith AND works. Praying to Mary (who is supposedly a mediator, in direct opposition scripture), indulgences, Purgatory.... so it's not about "breezing past" things.

And I'm ALL for dismissing anything regarding spiritual things that are not supported by scripture. Note the items above for a start.

It does NOT mean that everything that was ever written is contained expressly therein.

Perhaps you might quote where I said any such thing?

Perhaps you should not read into that post something that is not there. Perhaps you should show me where I SAID that you said that. My post was (ready for this?) -- my statement of the definition of Sola Scriptura. It had nothing to do with anything you said.

Just a few specific points about your quote from John MacArthur:

You'll need to take that up with him. Not me.

Hoss

[CynicalBear]

Hahn gave no other reason.

[paladinan]

[paladinan]
I fully agree. So... perhaps you might dispense with the [straw men] you laid out, here?

[HossB86]
None were. Sorry you seem too blind to see that.

:) Oh, FRiend! Irritable and combative words don't take the place of proofs...

[paladinan]
Secondly: all snarky, raw opinions about "cults" aside,

[HossB86]
Can't help it if the opinion fits...

To the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To the man with an agenda, every agreeable opinion looks like a fact.

I don't disagree -- it's not about "feeling" empowered, it's about BEING completely sure of the totality of the scripture's content, infallibility and authority regarding spiritual things.

Ah. And how do you arrive at this surety, personally?

Plainly and simply, the Roman Catholic Cult ADDS requirements to salvation... faith AND works.

Jesus did that, actually... unless one doesn't mind being a goat. (Matthew 25:31-46) St. James repeats that idea rather explicitly, as well (James 2:24)... unless one doesn't mind having dead faith which does not save.

Praying to Mary (who is supposedly a mediator, in direct opposition scripture),

"Mediator" is anyone who intercedes ("bridges the middle") on behalf of someone else, yes? Every time you pray for someone, you're a mediator. Yes, Jesus is the Sole Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5)... in the sense that, without Him, none of our prayers would matter at all, and we could do nothign good (and we wouldn't exist, anyway). But for anyone to assume that this excludes all SUBORDINATE mediators is to fail to understand the meaning of the word.

indulgences,

How are these problematic? (And I mean the actual indulgences, not any abuses of them--one judges things based on their intended purpose and condition, not on cases where they're misused; one doesn't judge a hammer faulty because it didn't cut wire properly.)

Purgatory....

Ditto... you'll have to explain your problem with this. It's plainly indicated in 2 Maccabees 12:39-45, and there's an allusion to it in 1 Corinthians 3:12-15... and even beyond that, how is this against anything in the Faith?

And I'm ALL for dismissing anything regarding spiritual things that are not supported by scripture. Note the items above for a start.

But don't you realize that you're "going beyond what is written" (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:6) in order to implement that idea (which is nowhere to be found in Scripture)?

[HossB86]
It does NOT mean that everything that was ever written is contained expressly therein.

[paladinan]
Perhaps you might quote where I said any such thing?

[HossB86]
Perhaps you should not read into that post something that is not there. Perhaps you should show me where I SAID that you said that.

Well... it was addressed to me, and I have a quirky habit of assuming that people address comments to me only if they have some relevance to me. Since you seemed to be chastising me for allegedly constructing a straw man (re: "sola Scriptura"), and since this comment of yours was apparently in the context of explaining the "real" definition of "sola Scriptura", I naively assumed that you thought the "it does NOT mean[...]" bit was somehow applicable to me! If it was mere errata and a non-sequitur (something like the typing version of "Tourette's Syndrome"), with no bearing on my position or on the debate, then please pardon me.

:) Yes, I'm teasing you, a bit... and pardon me, for that. But why DID you direct that comment to me, if you weren't trying to correct what you might have seen as an error on MY part, specifically?

My post was (ready for this?)

:) I wait with baited breath.

my statement of the definition of Sola Scriptura. It had nothing to do with anything you said.

I didn't say anything relating to sola Scriptura? Your comment certainly makes it sound as if I did, and that you disagreed with what I said... and comments #127 and #135 certainly seem to have text from me which was addressing the idea of "sola Scriptura". Care to elaborate?

[paladinan]
Just a few specific points about your quote from John MacArthur:

[HossB86]
You'll need to take that up with him. Not me.

Oh, I only mentioned that because you quoted him, leading me to presume that you found his quote relevant and compelling, and that you'd be interested in the flaws in his argument. If you don't care about his comments, one way or the other, I'll be happy to let it be. I would, however, be left wondering why you quoted from him in the first place...

[paladinan]

Hahn gave no other reason.

Correction: The website which gave the account of Michael P. Gendron, who relayed what he claimed was an account by Dr. Hahn, didn't mention any other reason.

So... an admittedly third-hand account (written by someone with an obvious bias against Dr. Hahn and the Catholic Church, who was second-hand quoting another person with an obvious bias against Dr. Hahn and the Catholic Church, who might possibly have found it a bit difficult to portray Dr. Hahn's account with full and unbiased accuracy)... and even it doesn't say that this was the ONLY reason Dr. Hahn accepted ordination. (It might possibly have been the "only" reason which was emotionally compelling enough to stay in the memory of the people giving the accounts--just a suggestion!)

And this justifies calling Dr. Hahn "a fraud, etc."... HOW, again? Here are at least a few alternate explanations which come to my mind:

1) Dr. Hahn had other reasons for accepting ordination, but he didn't go into them with PTG (who was obviously a hostile audience).

2) Dr. Hahn gave other reasons for accepting ordination to PTG, but the interviewer neglected (intentionally or unintentionally) to mention them.

3) The entire account by PTG is made up out of whole cloth.

Personally, I find #1 or #2 to be more likely than #3... but the point remains: no one with any sense (or ability to think logically) would take a look at the data and come to the "certain" conclusion that Dr. Hahn was a "fraud" (whatever that means--especially since no tax laws seemed to be broken) or an insincere opportunist (in valuing ordination solely for tax-relief purposes).