How often do we hear of testimonies of Evangelicals who have “crossed the Tiber” or to Roman Catholicism. Recently, the Donut Man has converted. (As if that were a surprise.) They are touted and paraded on programs like Coming Home on EWTN as if their testimonies were the end of all debate. Yet, when I have spoken to them in person, they still use Protestant language with Roman Catholic twists.
For instance, I remember talking with one former Evanjellycal who believed Jesus died as a substitute for our sins. When I asked about the treasury of merit system, he simply redefined the terms to be something confused and perhaps in the middle (I never truly figure these people out). They quite often speak in terms of the Reformation while denying the Reformation’s Biblical foundation.
You have to wonder why. Could it be that functionally speaking, most Evanjellycal Protestants are Roman Catholic? Could it be that the man-centered preaching and teaching has been taking its toll? Could it be the denial of sound Biblical theology in favor of Protestant Traditions (Ohhhh do Protestants have their Traditions)?
As I have stated earlier, Evangelicalism simply cannot withstand the Roman Catholic apologetic. If God does not bless the Evangelical church with a return to Reformational theology, she will simply take the Roman road.
In the end I wish I could ask how these people have peace with God. If they truly have converted, then they must deny the Doctrine of Imputation. According to Romans 5, the Doctrine of Imputation is the only foundation for peace. Therefore, what can Rome possibly offer that would have any substance?
Perhaps if the Donut Man had a pastor that could have explained the Biblical faith to him clearly, he would have understood what he was rejecting.
Intact and Unmoved
14 hours ago
40 comments:
Dear Howard:
You can ask me how I have peace with God if you want. I'd be happy to answer for you. I have enclosed a list of other baptists/evangelicals/methodists/et etc who have converted to Catholicism recently. Should we assume they didn' have a pastor to give them good biblical instruction too? The Donut Man was a fixture in Evangelcal Children's Ministry for over twenty years, I suspect he thought about this a bit before converting and giving up his livelihood as most of these pastor converts in the list below did
10/4/2004 Former Church of Christ Pastor w/ Bruce Sullivan/ 9/27/2004 Former Reformed minister & wife w/ Gerald & Jennifer Tritle / 9/20/2004 Former Pentecostal (Four Square) w/ Sr. Mary Rose Chinn / 9/13/2004 Former Presbyterian w/ Fr. Richard Barker / /9/6/2004 Convert from Judaism w/ Fr. Peter Sabbath / / 8/30/2004 Former priest, Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches w/ Michael Maturen / 8/23/2004 Role of St. Therese in "Therese" Former Evangelical Quaker w/ Lindsay Younce / 8/9/2004 Former Episcopalian w/ Karen Sadock / 8/3/2004 Former Atheist w/ Dr. Paul Thigpen / 7/26/2004 Former Baptist w/ Gary Hoge (his website) / 7/19/2004 Former Mormon w/ Deacon Steve Seever / 7/12/2004 Writer of the screenplay "Therese" w/ Patti Defilippis, Former Presbyterian (Movie Site) / 6/14/2004 Former Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist with Msgr. Stuart Swetland / 6/7/2004 Former Baptist with Stephen K. Ray (Website) / 5/24/2004 Former Lutheran with Carolyn Baber / 5/17/2004 Revert from the secular world with Fr. Terry Kraychuk (Canadian) / 5/10/2004 Former Jehovah's Witness with Dr. Jeffrey Schwehm / 5/3/2004 Former Episcopal priest with Ned South / 4/26/2004 Former Baptist minister with Dr. Deal Hudson, Editor of Crisis magazine / 4/19/2004 (Canadian) Former Anglican priest with Dr. Robert Stackpole / 4/12/2004 Nazarene Minister with Doug Gonzales / 4/5/2004 Former Presbyterian minister with Dr. Scott Hahn / 3/29/2004 Former atheist with Fr. Jay Scott Newman / 3/22/2004 Jewish convert with Deacon Michael Ross / 3/15/2004 (Canadian) Buddhist convert with Kim St. Maurice / 3/8/2004 Former Baptist minister with Jeffrey W. Bail / 3/1/2004 Former Lutheran minister with Noah Lett / 2/23/2004 Former Pentecostal minister with Dr. Robert Rice / 2/16/2004 Actor who plays G. K. Chesterton with JH England / 2/9/2004 Former Charismatic Episcopal priestwith Fr. Steven D. Anderson / 2/2/2004 Former Baptist with Dale Ahlquist /1/19/2004 Former Lutheran with Fr. Eric Nicolai / 1/12/04 Former Presbyterian with Avery Cardinal Dulles / 1/5/04 Open Line First Monday with Dr. Kenneth Howell / 12/22/03 Former Southern Baptist and Methodist ministers with Fr. Gray Bean & Gordon Sibley / 12/15/03 Former Anglican with Julie Waters / 12/8/03 Daughter of former Presbyterian minister with Stephanie Wood / 12/1/03 Former Lutheran with Tim Drake / 11/24/03 Former Anglican Priest with James Pinto / 11/10/03 Former Southern Baptist minister with Fr. Gray Bean / 11/3/03 Former Presbyterian with Mr. Jimmy Akin / 10/27/03 Former Dutch Reformed with Steven D. Greydanus / 10/20/03 Former Baptist with Petroc Wiley / 10/13/03 Former Atheist with Scott A. McDermott / 10/6/03 Open Line 1st Monday with Doug Keck / 9/29/03 Former Baptist with Pamela Hollins, MD / 9/22/03 The Journey Home from England with Antony Tyler / 9/15/03 Former Anglican with with Dr. Rob Rodgers / 9/8/03 Revert and Former Evangelical with Dr. Ray Guarendi / 8/25/03 Former cradle Methodist and Born Again Christian with Thomas A. Lisk / 8/18/03 Journey Home from England with Fr. Hugh Thwaites, S.J. / 8/4/03 Open Line with Mark Brumley / 7/28/03 Journey Home with Karen Koskoff / 7/21/03 Journey Home in England with Walter Hooper / 7/14/03 Criteria for Choosing a Church with Glen Allen / 7/7/03 Open Line with Steve Wood / 6/30/03 The Living Of Scripture with Nolan & Tracy Spenst former Mennonite Pastor / 6/23/03 The Oneness of God with Mark A. McNeil, Former Assemblies of God Pastor / 6/16/03 Journey Home pre-tape from England with William Oldie, Editor, Catholic Herald & Former Anglican clergyman / 6/9/03 Revert from Agnosticism with Anthony Rizzi / 6/2/03 Former Baptist with David B. Currie / 5/26/03 Former Lutheran minister w/ Fr. Richard John Neuhaus / 5/19/03 Journey Home in England with Fr. Ian Ker / 5/12/03 Who Said So? w/ Shawn Reeves/ 5/5/03 Open Line w/ Daniel Ali & Fr. Mitch Pacwa, SJ / 4/28/03 What it truly means to believe w/ Dr. Ross Porter / 4/14/03 The Power of Prayer w/ Paul Dupre / 4/7/03 Open Line Monday w/ Fr. James Garneau / 3/31/03 Centrality of God w/ Myron Moskowitz, Convert from Judaism /3/24/03 Holiness & the Sovereignty of God w/ Fr. William Thomas, Former Evangelical Reformed/ 3/17/03 Necessity of Conversion w/ James & Joanna Bogle / 3/10/03 Private Interpretation of Scripture w/ Pam Forrester, Former Evangelical Free / 3/3/03 Open Line Monday w/ Joseph Pearce, Former Anglican / 2/24/03 The Power of Prayer w/ Paul DuPre, Revert from Mormonism / 2/17/03 Former Buddhist Paul Williams (England) / 2/10/03 Knowing God with G. Gregory Hoza / 2/3/03 Open Line Monday with John Barger / 1/27/03 The Family of God w/ Fr. Mark Wood (former Southern Baptist) / 1/13/03 Mercy of the Real Presence w/ Carrie Allegretti / * 12/16/02 Verses I never Saw w/ Marcus Grodi - Host & Guest / 12/9/02 Minimalism: A Modern Theological Disease w/ David Mills (Former Episcopalian) / 12/2/02 Open Line Monday w/ Ken Hensley, (Former Baptist Minister) / 11/25/02 Former Southern Baptist w/ Lisa Militello / 11/18/02 The Path to Rome w/ Dwight Longnecker / 11/11/02 The Three C's: Conversion, Conscience and Compromise w/ Lord David Alton / 11/4/02 Former Baptist w/ Stephen Ray / 10/28/02 Rabbi Jesus: Messiah w/ Martin K. Barrack / 10/21/02 The Dark Ages w/ Rod Bennett / * 10/14/02 The Real Presence w/ Terry Meade / 10/7/02 Editor of "Lay Witness" w/ Leon J. Suprenant, Jr. / 9/30/02 The Sanctity of Marriage w/ Patricia Bainbridge / 9/23/02 What does it mean to be Catholic w/ Fr. Carleton P. Jones, OP / 9/16/02 Deep in History w/ Harry W. Crocker, III / 9/9/02 Visible Unity w/ Al Kresta / 8/26/02 Former UCC Minister w/ Larry Dimock / 8/19/02 Former Nominal Protestant w/ Dr. Paul Vitz / 8/12/02 In Remembrance of Me w/ Fr. Christopher G. Phillips / 8/5/02 Educational Researcher and Psycholgist w/ Dr. Richard Cross / 7/29/02 Knowing God through prayer w/ Fr. David Medow / 7/22/02 A Firm Foundation w/ Roy Maynard / 7/15/02 Former Lutheran w/ Timothy Drake / 7/8/02 Magisterial Authority w/ Fr. Rolf Tollefson / 7/1/02 July's Open Line First Monday with Shawn Dougherty / 6/24/02 Continuity & Unity with Mark Drogin / 6/17/02 Incarnational Church with Carl E. Olson / 6/10/02 What does it mean to believe? with Marty Franklin / 6/3/02 June's Open Line First Monday with Kimberly Hahn / 5/27/02 The Forgiveness of God with Daniel Ali / 5/20/02 Trust and Obey with Leland and Emily Ann McCullough / 5/13/02 Search for Intimacy with Jesus with Fr. Richard Delzingaro / 5/6/02 May's Open Line First Monday with Karl Keating / 4/22/02 Testing the Spirits of the 21st Century with Michelle Willis / 4/15/02 Channels of Mercy with Bill Rutland / 4/8/02 Former Charismatic Episcopal Minister with Michael Cumbie / 4/1/02 April's Open Line First Monday with Fr. Ray Ryland / 3/18/02 Former Baptist with Paul Jernberg / 3/11/02 Jewish Convert with Joni Seith / 2/18/02 Former Mormon with Dan Hadden / * 2/11/02 Dr. James White Sister's Conversion with Patty Bonds / 2/4/02 Open Line First Monday with Fr. Bryan Patterson / 1/28/02 Rapture Theology with Fr. Patrick Rohen / 1/14/02 Eternal Life with Sarang Honap / 1/7/02 Open Line First Monday with Dale Ahlquist / 12/31/01 The Rapture Trap with Paul Thigpen / * 12/17/01 To Know What You Believe and Why? with John Martignoni / 12/10/01 Too Many Voices with Dr. Paul Young / * 12/3/01 Open Line First Monday with Dr. Charles Spivak / 11/26/01 Mary, Queen of Peace with Dr. Chris Williams / 11/19/01 The Power of the Written Word with Joseph Pearce / 11/5/01 Open Line First Monday with Fr. Philip Anderson / 10/29/01 Christian Worldview with Cathy Duffy / * 10/22/01 Confusion to Clarity: Authentic Christian Tradition with Mark Gordon / 10/15/01 Active & Contemplative Life with Fr. Bryan Patterson / * 10/8/01 Origin of the Bible with Jim Anderson /
Journey Home
Airs Every Mondays at 8:00pm ET EWTN Cable TV or www.ewtn.com
Howard Fisher said
"In the end I wish I could ask how these people have peace with God. ...what can Rome possibly offer that would have any substance?"
Rome has offered me something that neither you nor Martin Luther nor 15 years of evangelicalism could. A chance to be obedient to Christ and receive the gift that he offered when he said "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you" John 6:53
Tiber,
1) Thanks for the list of names. I already hinted at in my original post that they mean nothing. Should I reproduce a list of names in reverse? Would that prove anything?
2) "You can ask me how I have peace with God if you want."
The one thing I asked for, you didn't provide. You simply do not have peace with God. Although I am sure you think so. It is however, not a biblical peace. Without the Imputation of Christ's righteousness, Paul plainly teaches you have no peace.
3) "I suspect he thought about this a bit before converting..."
I am sure he did. I have found men convert for all kinds of reasons. Then they often respond to Protestant doctrines like Sola Scriptura as being unbiblical. Yet their desription of those doctrines are never correct. So they leave not knowing with accuracy what they are rejecting.
4) Anonymous wants to be obedient. Yet I must ask. Is this interpretation of John 6 his private interpretation? Rome has never taught John 6 to say what he says it says.
Perhaps I need to start another sacrament. I will get a door with a doorknob and a dead bolt. Then I will get a priest to bless the door so that it actually becomes the Door of Christ. Then I will walk through it. Since Jesus claims to be a door, wouldn't that work too?
John 6 is one of my favorite passages. It strikes me that you will interpret that portion of that passage in such a fashion and also ignore the exegesis provided by Reformed Protestants.
What in essence you have done is accept the final authority of Rome's dogmatics as the governing interpretive lense. You simply are not allowed the text of god's Word to speak. In other words, you must by definition force Rome's teachings into Scripture.
5) I must ask you both if you were truly Protestants. Did you believe in penal substitutionary atonement? Do you still do so? If so, you are in rebellion against Rome's teaching.
Perhaps my original question should be asked. Who is the Blessed man of Romans 4? Do you have peace with God? On what basis do you claim to have this peace?
it never ceases to amaze me that if a person converts to Catholicism and says they have found peace..it is only because they think so.Of course,that's true.
You have to have some knowledge that you are at peace. You have to recognize what has taken place.
I never hear this when ppl leave the Catholic Church and convert the other way..they truly have found peace. Usually what i find with these ppl is hate,jealousy,bitterness and that is a sure sign they haven't found peace.
Yet,you will waste your time and ours by coming here to villify this man's experience.
"Yet,you will waste your time and ours by coming here to villify this man's experience."
Coming where? Who have I villified? Biblical peace is not the same as what Rome offers. To be honest, I wasn't even talking about Roman Catholics. The post was about how poorly Protestants proclaim the Gospel and understand Biblical doctrine. It was not about Roman Catholics.
"You have to have some knowledge that you are at peace."
I keep asking, yet I get no answer. How does a Roman Catholic know he has peace with God? I submit that he can't. The Eucharist never actually takes away sin, which is why it is a sacrament that must be done again and again and again and again and again. It is not sufficient.
Kind of ironic when the Eucharist plays such a big role in the conversion of Protestants. This tells me that most of these Protestants have not idea what Jesus has done to save His people.
Jesus' death is SUFFICIENT in and of itself to save any sinner He chooses.
"Usually what i find with these ppl is hate,jealousy,bitterness and that is a sure sign they haven't found peace."
Really? I have many friends who are former Roman Catholics that have found peace. So I have no idea what this means.
I suppose it can never happen the other way around. You never see RC converts going on TV and blasting Protestantism with false arguments and misunderstandings of their former faith....right????
So I ask again, how do you know you have peace with God?
Dear Howard,
How can you believe that repudiating another person's inner peace is from the Lord? Your comments sound petty, attacking another person's claims and very much like a sore loser. The Reformation was an opportunity for the Roman Catholic, and Orthodox Churches to appreciate how they needed to speak more clearly about what their beliefs are. It is very curious to the onlooker to have chapter and verse quoted to one, and then have the reality of the Eucharist, explained by Jesus Himself, dismissed as un-real and extraneous.
The Eucharist is celebrated every day in every land because Jesus told us to, not because "it has to be done over and over again", as you say so acrimoniously.
You are denying yourself the most tengible, loving gesture that Jesus died on the Cross to leave us, e.g., His own Body and Blood. The Eucharist is the source of Life because it IS Life.
You argue and argue because the Truth escapes you. Or, because you deny it, even to yourself.
May God bless you and those you love.
Almost Anonymous
"The post was about how poorly Protestants proclaim the Gospel and understand Biblical doctrine."
That is a truely amazing statement. The crux of the statement is that no protestant understands true biblical doctrine just like you would say no Catholic understands biblical doctrine. The conclusion is that you are the only one that understands biblical doctrine. That is the end of protestantism, the glorification of self. It is complete reliance on yourself.
Wow, in expressing my belief and demonstrating it through audio clips that show many evangelical pastors are denying original sin and ect. and thereby neglecting their duty as pastors, I am being accused of being self reliant.
I suppose if a RC were to express disappointment that the average RC functionally rejects say…the meaning of the Eucharist, that would not be selfish? Yet I am told I am claiming some kind of superior knowledge of the Bible. Isn’t that just typical of post-modernists? Is the last response claiming he is my judge now? The hypocrisy indeed.
“How can you believe that repudiating another person's inner peace is from the Lord? Your comments sound petty, attacking another person's claims and very much like a sore loser.”
What does this mean? Should we discard truth? Should we hold hands with Buddists and sing Kum Bah Yah? What about the Muslim? Are we not allowed to say his inner peace is false?
Are you allowed to tell me I am wrong for saying someone is objectively wrong, while telling me it is wrong to tell someone is wrong?
“The Eucharist is celebrated every day in every land because Jesus told us to, not because "it has to be done over and over again", as you say so acrimoniously.”
I didn’t say this acrimoniously. I understand that the Eucharist is meant to be a sacrament that removes our sins depending on our faith. I am saying this is completely unbiblical.
So I ask the question again (The silence is deafening). How do you know objectively that you have peace with God? Who is he Blessed Man of Romans 4?
Strange that my original post was about Protestant pastors not doing their jobs, and yet RCs are thinking this is about them. Read the Blog for what it says by its author, not what you think it should mean.
“The crux of the statement is that no protestant understands true biblical doctrine just like you would say no Catholic understands biblical doctrine. The conclusion is that you are the only one that understands biblical doctrine. That is the end of protestantism, the glorification of self.”
Ahhhhh, this is just ridiculous. If a Roman Catholic were to not understand transubstantiation, and you were to explain it to him, would that above statement now be applied to you? Of course not. The double unthinking standard never ceases to amaze me.
Folks…this is a Blog. Read it carefully. It is not necessarily about you!
I have found peace in God ,a peace that passes all understanding and it has been keeping my heart and mind in Christ Jesus. I as a Catholic have accepted the work Christ accomplished for me on the Cross. I as a Catholic have done what Peter told us to do in Acts, "repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of my sins." This promise has been made to me and my children and to all those far off, to whomever the Lord will call and I believe He has called me.
I still get anxiety at times about the issues of life, finances,my teenagers, health issues, but I would have to say that ultimately Christ is my peace and at the end of the day, I know whom I have believed and his promises to me are true that he will never leave me or forsake me.
I go to daily Mass and receive Christ in the Eucharist which has been a great blessing to me, and I trust that Jesus has given the church this sacrament for our edification and growth towards perfection. His death on the cross for my sins was a once and done event in history but both heaven and earth continues to re-present his sacrifice in the Mass where we can unite ourselves to His body that he offered to the Father. The early church practiced and believed this and the early Church fathers wrote extensively on the sacrifice of the Mass. Please check this page out:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp/
I hope and pray that I am one of the "Blessed men" in Romans chapter 4, but I like Paul continue to work out my salvation with "fear and trembling" knowing that the grace of God continues to be poured out on me as His child. "For this I labor and struggle in accord with the exercise of his power working in me" Col 1:29
"So I ask the question again (The silence is deafening)."
The reason I didn't respond to your question originally is that I don't enjoy reading your blog (I'm sure it is not your intention, but your writing comes across as arrogant and uncharitable) and didn't want to keep this going. However since others are reading these exchanges, I will respond by saying that "peace with God" can only be subjectively felt by the person who has it and and observed by others who know that person. If a Muslim, Buddhist, you, or some other Bible Christian tells me they have peace with God, all I can do is be grateful that they may have some understanding of what is true and in prayer commit their eternal soul to the mercy of God.
The problem Mr. Fisher with this whole discourse is that you are comming at it from the paradigm of "The Bible alone is the source of all truth," and Catholics are coming at it from the paradigm that "The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth."(I Timothy 3:15).
As a Catholic re-vert from 15 years of evangelicalism, I have come to believe that Jesus, son of the living God started a Church (Matthew 16:18) and that Church decided on(Council of Carthage 397) the final cannon of Holy Scripture. As an evangelical I took a portion (less the apocrypha) of this Cannon and tried to understand for myself the literal interpretation of John 6. It always confounded me until by an act of the will I asked myself "What if it's true?" What if Jesus really meant that we should "Eat his flesh and drink his blood?" That set me on a journey which ultimately lead me to the Bishop of Rome, who can trace his roots back to Peter who received authority from Jesus.
I have found Catholicism to be more logical and historically true than any individual interpretaion of the Bible I came across all those 15 years of studying. When I go to Mass and receive Jesus in the Eucharist daily and hear the Word of God read and sung, I have a sense of peace that I never had as an evangelical. Now as a Catholic I can say "in faith" that I have peace with God.
Actually, I was just thinking that a "peace that passes all understanding" perhaps means that no one individual can rightly judge or understand another's sense of peace?
The neat thing hear is that folks (catholics and non -catholics)are spending time on Saturday morning discussing important truths about our understanding of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
Howdy again,
Tiber said, “I as a Catholic have accepted the work Christ accomplished for me on the Cross.”
Tiber, everyone says this. It is what is meant by it that needs to be fleshed out. Rcism denies Substitutionary atonement. RCism denies Imputation. Therefore your system that has been established prevents you from receiving what the Cross objectively provides.
“I as a Catholic have done what Peter told us to do in Acts, "repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of my sins.”
What you mean by Baptism here has been soundly refuted for centuries. Today we have Boston Church of Christ movements also believing in baptismal regeneration.
Your overriding authority keeps you from seeing how baptism used by the New Testament.
“His death on the cross for my sins was a once and done event in history but both heaven and earth continues to re-present his sacrifice in the Mass where we can unite ourselves to His body that he offered to the Father.”
I do realize what is meant by RCs when they say the sacrifice is “re-presented”. But more is being said than what is actually written. The Eucharist according to Rome actually takes away sins. Yet we should see the parallel between your “represented” sacrifice and those of the Old Testament’s. Just as the sacrifice of bulls and goats never take away sins, neither does yours.
Why? Read Hebrews. The argument of the writer of Hebrews is simple. If it has to be repeated, then it NEVER actually took away sins, but was only a reminder that we need Christ’s one time penal substitutionary sacrifice alone.
“I hope and pray that I am one of the "Blessed men" in Romans chapter 4, but I like Paul continue to work out my salvation with "fear and trembling" knowing that the grace of God continues to be poured out on me as His child.”
Thanks for finally answering my question. I know this will offend anonymous. He seems to think you should NEVER stand for truth unless it is what a RC believes. (Quite the double standard if I ever saw one.) I appreciate your honesty here. Believe when I say that. I would rather discuss Biblical truth a RC that truly believes and prepares an honest defense of that belief than with someone who sits on the sidelines whining and complaining about how mean everyone else is as anonymous has been doing.
Please go back and read Romans 4 and 5. The “therefore" in Romans 5:1 is a conslusion and more arguments are then presented. Paul’s conclusion is that we HAVE peace with God. Why? Because of the sound argumentation of Romans 4 and the Blessed man.
You hope to be the Blessed man. That is NOT the Biblical uderstanding of the term “Hope”. You must BE this Blessed Man. If you are not, then you CANNOT have peace with God that Paul then concludes.
The Blessed Man is the Man who does not have his sins IMPUTED to him but is declared righteous. This is an objective reality. So when I do not FEEL like I have peace with God, by faith I know I always do.
I’ll say it again. Either you ARE the Blessed Man or you are not. There is no middle ground.
"For this I labor and struggle in accord with the exercise of his power working in me" Col 1:29
Have you read Colossians 2
Col 2:9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
Col 2:10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;
Col 2:11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
Col 2:12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Notice that God Alone receives all of the glory here. For a man is saved by the “monergistic” work of God in Christ. We were dead. Now we are alive. This is a work of God in Christ and nothing to do with you at all.
Soli Deo Gloria
"I know this will offend anonymous. He seems to think..."
It's actually Mrs. Anonymous. Please tell your wife I am praying for her.
Mrs. Anonymous,
I realize who you probably are. I didn't think it necessary to give it away.
:-)
Thanks for praying for my wife. She actually does need it. She lives with me.
God Bless
I have had the honor and sometimes the pain of tending to the dying .
I have seen Catholics clinging to the bed rail , rosary in hand screaming they do not want to die.
I have seen the saved die with a sense of peace. There was a willingness or desire to step into the next life because they had an assurance of their eternal fate.
I pity Catholics as I pity all the deceived. Most do not actually understand that there is a difference in trusting Christ and trusting a church .
Christ never fails.
Dear Anonymous:
I have been in the practice of medicine since 1985. I am board-certified in both Internal Medicine and Geriatrics and have been on the clinical staff of two major east coast Medical Schools. I am the Medical Director of two large skilled nursing facilities and attend to patients on an inpatient hospice unit. I too am honored to spend my days in the care of the sick and dying. As Jesus said "whatsoever you do to the least of these, that you have done unto me." Christ gives me an opportunity to minister to Him by caring for these blessed folks. I just have to say that I have seen Catholics, Jews, atheists, Prostestants, Jehovah Witnesses, all pass away. I have been at the bedside of dying patients more than the average chaplain, nurse or doctor given my specialty. In 21 years I have have not been able to draw the same conclusion that you have regarding "the peaceful deaths of "the saved" vs the "screaming" anguish of the Catholics with rosary beads in hand. Recently, a Catholic nun in Somalia was ambushed and shot 4 times as she left her mission hospital. Her dying words echoed her Savior : "I forgive."
Perhaps you care for a different population of dying Catholics and "saved" folks than I do. May God bless you and use you as you you continue to care for the dying. To paraphrase Keith Green, Jesus said that the difference between the sheep and the goats is "what we did and didn't do."
I probably should have said someting about Anonymous's comments. Tiber however makes a good point when he says, "I have have not been able to draw the same conclusion that you have regarding "the peaceful deaths of "the saved" vs the "screaming" anguish of the Catholics with rosary beads in hand."
This is all merely anecdotal. The reason why I have argued the way I have is not based on subjective peace but on an objective peace with God.
Romans 4 and 5 clearly teach this. My righteousness must be an alien righteousness that is Christ's. I must possess that righteousness by faith alone. It is exactly this righteousness that a believer must have by faith alone, or he is objectively lost no matter what his emotions were going into the next life.
How many men have died for a lie believing it into the next world? How many have been deceived with false assurance? This is why later Reformers recognized that assurance is not equal to faith but a product of it. We must be careful not to equate the two as Anonymous has done.
Tiber has made an error as well. He says, "To paraphrase Keith Green, Jesus said that the difference between the sheep and the goats is "what we did and didn't do.""
Keith is right, because he defines what he means differently.
Many Roman Catholics depend on their works done by faith to gain them Christ's righteousness. The problem is that no one could possibly not do what the goats have done, and no one could possibly do what the sheep do to "get saved".
This passage is a description of the saved, not a command. The sheep do these things because of the work of Christ in them. Otherwise you are simply trusting in your works done by faith to gain the merits of Christ. This cannot produce true peace with God.
So my original question still stands.
Wow!
I'm heartened to see how the replies in this entry have been taking on more genuine Christian charity.
Bravo.
---
My own 2 cents....
I agree with Howard's observation that his question regarding how one can be sure that one is the "blessed man," still stands.
How could one recignize whether or not the infinately righteous God has indeed made his abode within himself?
"If a man love me, he will keep my words and the Father will love him and we will come unto him and make our abode in him. He that loves me not does not keep my commandments."
Respectfully,
--Theo.
Help Howard,
I'm hoping you can explain yourself in better detail Howard. You say in reponse to Tiber:
"Thanks for the list of names. I already hinted at in my original post that they mean nothing. Should I reproduce a list of names in reverse? Would that prove anything?" and have to ask if all this means nothing why create a topic on the Donut Man's conversion since by your logic it is.....meaningless.
Also confusing is your remarks on sacrament(s):
"didn’t say this acrimoniously. I understand that the Eucharist is meant to be a sacrament that removes our sins depending on our faith. I am saying this is completely unbiblical."
I understand Catholicism doesn't teach Eucharist removes sin in fact when receiving this sacrament shouldn't one be without sin, 1Cor 11:28-29. Based on your interpretation of sacraments would you also claim mean marriage (a sacrament) also removes sin?
God Bless Andy
"and have to ask if all this means nothing why create a topic on the Donut Man's conversion since by your logic it is.....meaningless."
Ahhh, read the post, maybe. Sir, EWTN loves to tout converts from Evangelicalism. So I was addressing some issues from an Evangelical perspective. One of which was the total lack of Biblical expository preaching and teaching. Another issue was we as Evangelicals are not really understanding what beliefs are truly being given up. Sola Scriptura is so often misrepresented on that channel it becomes nauseating. It is one thing to disagree with the doctrine. It is another to knock down strawmen.
Also by copying the list onto my Blog Tiber was trying to give weight to arguments through anecdotal evidence.
"I understand Catholicism doesn't teach Eucharist removes sin in fact when receiving this sacrament shouldn't one be without sin, 1Cor 11:28-29."
I have no doubt that you are correct in how many approach the Eucharist. I remember watching Mel Gibson treat it while filming his movie. Here is what Catholic.com has to say about it in the third paragraph. http://www.catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp
"The Eucharist also strengthens the individual because in it Jesus himself, the Word made flesh, forgives our venial sins and gives us the strength to resist mortal sin. It is also the very channel of eternal life: Jesus himself."
"Based on your interpretation of sacraments would you also claim mean marriage (a sacrament) also removes sin?"
Both are a means of grace (not in the Reformed or Protestant sense). The sacrament of marriage is not of concern to me since I do not know of any specific teaching regarding any efficacy of removing sin by it. There may be a teaching that says so. However, it is irrelevant to my argument here.
God Bless
Thank you for your quick reply Howard and perhaps you could also elaborate on how "EWTN loves to tout converts from Evangelicalism".
Based on your familarity with the inner workings of this broadcaster are you claiming EWTN continually present evangelical converts and if so how often? What percent of the programming is centered around converts from Protestantism? I'd be extremely interested to read your analysis assumming of course this touting is lets say in the ballpark of 50%+ of all programming as this would be substantial not only in broadcasting hours but also in numerical conversions.
Also assuming your observation does play out how do you define "touting" as I would think this type of programming fits the evangelical characteristic of any group claiming to be evangelical. For example I've read numerous stories or 'testimonials' of what you've commented to Tiber as the "list of names in reverse" but wouldn't claim them to be touting.
Does touting include disrepectful or disparaging remarks of ones previous faith?
Maybe just starting to define what classifies as touting would be the best place to start.
God Bless
Andy
"perhaps you could also elaborate on how "EWTN loves to tout converts from Evangelicalism"."
"if so how often? What percent of the programming is centered around converts from Protestantism?"
I wouldn't know how often a show by the name of Coming Home presents Evangelicals as "coming home". It would be purely anecodtal of me to do so. That is why I said, "How often do we hear of testimonies of Evangelicals who have “crossed the Tiber” or to Roman Catholicism."
I could give a few instances, like James White's sister or the Donut Man or a Tim Staples or a recent medical doctor (I think last year, but my memory is short).
Anyway, does it really matter?
"Does touting include disrepectful or disparaging remarks of ones previous faith?"
Did you even read what I had to say? The post was not about Roman Catholics per-se. It was about Evangelicalism's total inability to give a consistent and Biblical answer to these converts. (Not that it would matter).
"For example I've read numerous stories or 'testimonials' of what you've commented to Tiber as the "list of names in reverse" but wouldn't claim them to be touting."
I guess I do not follow this statement. PErhaps you mean that Evangelicals "tout" too?
I have said it many times as well. Converting someone with bad theology or a poor explanation of the Gospel is not right. You will not see me manipulating Roman Catholics with poor arguments to become Protestants. Arguments like RCs believe that RC Priests sacrifice Jesus over and over again in the Mass are not fair when there is more to the issue.
"Maybe just starting to define what classifies as touting would be the best place to start."
I really don't have a problem with someone of stature converting to RCism. It would be big news if the Pope converted to Evangelicalism...so what? It doesn't prove anything. What bothers me is the often poor and often circular arguments that gets a person to cross over. That was the substance of my post.
What is it that really bothers you? Was it my mentioning of the Donut Man? Was it my critique against Evangelical preaching. Was it my arguing against shallow apologetics that we see in the Dave Hunts of the world (I didn't mention him by name)? Was is my mentioning that many Evangelicals do not know sound doctrine such as substitutionary atonement? Was it that, fundamentally speaking, most Evangelicals view man the same way as Roman Catholics?
Was it ultimately my denial that RCs have true objective peace with God? To this day, the several people who have either e-mailed me privately or here publicly have yet to answer that most vital question. Will you?
So much talk. It seems that no one is moving on their positions.
But, what the hey. Might as well jump in.
The list: the list of protestants converting to catholicism is meaningless as far as determining truth. The reality is evangelical churches are filled with people who were baptized Catholic as infants. If being right means who gets the most folks to switch sides,(and it doesn't), then the protestants win.
There "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world," did it "Once for all." The idea that eating bread and drinking wine equals receiving Christ is silly. Yes, silly. To interpret clearly figurative passages as the eating of Jesus makes no sense. He handed bread to His apostles, He didn't have them take a bite from arm. Anyway, John 1:12 settles the matter, pointing out that receiving Christ is the equivalent of "believing" not munching.
As for "Rome" supplying anything, I wonder how biblical that is. The Bible never makes out Rome to be the holy city. Any even skeptical reading of the Bible points out that Jerusalem is the apple of God's eye. Indeed, the prophesies of Daniel make it clear that the Roman Empire is crushed by the Kingdom, coming as a stone that grows to a mountain. To equate Rome with the "holy city" is to turn the Bible on its ear. Jerusalem is the city for me. You can keep Rome. I'd rather have glory than dust.
I agree with the portion of the original post that brought into play the role of the Donut Man's original pastor. As people wander around with poor ecclesiology, it is not wonder that the promise of an authoritative institution seems comforting --like the Roman church. Of course, the Eastern Orthodox Church might have the more ancient claim to authority since they leaned towards Constantine's city in the beginning. But I'll let the RC's and the Orthodox continue that fight on their own. And of course, there are the coptics . . .
The authority for the Jews became the authority for all people. It was never a church. It was always the Scriptures. The church is the bride, not the boss. Jesus is the boss, and His word is recorded.
I believe this, "That Christ died for sinners, of whom I am chief." So says Paul and so I believe. And we are saved, "By grace, through faith."
By the way, if you are keeping a list, I was born and raised Catholic. Of course, I wasn't introduced to Jesus until I found the Bible . . . if only that had been taught to me instead of all the stuff about the value of wafers.
Thanks for the comment Mike. Well stated.
I stumbled upon this blog and have been reading this discussion with a fair amount of interest. It has given me a few things to think about and do some research on.
But, I am going to respond, though I know that this discussion is very old. I suppose that is one of the blessings and tragedies of blogging - someone can easily pick up the discussion years down the road!
I actually kind of hope that the 'howard' who said "Thanks for the comment Mike. Well stated." wasn't the same 'Howard' who wrote the original post and has been offering some fairly impressive replies to these Catholics. Though, I suppose logic would demonstrate that my ‘hope’ would be futile.
For the 'howard' who appreciated Mr. Greiner's comment - what exactly did you think was well stated? Mr. Greiner's comment seemed pretty far out of step with the level of understanding that seemed to be demonstrated in this conversation.
As an Evangelical myself, I did not find Mr. Greiner's post "well stated" if "well stated" is equal to "Good post - I agree with you." And I will demonstrate.
Mike Greiner said… “The list: the list of protestants converting to catholicism is meaningless as far as determining truth. The reality is evangelical churches are filled with people who were baptized Catholic as infants. If being right means who gets the most folks to switch sides,(and it doesn't), then the protestants win.”
In Mr. Greiner's first paragraph, he supposed that he knew what ‘Howard Fisher’ meant when he said that the list was meaningless - by explaining that the list was meaningless “as far as determining truth.” But then… ‘Howard Fisher’ never said it was “meaningless,“ one of the Catholic contributors first used that word I believe. Regardless, I saw nobody make the claim that “the list” determines who is right, it seems that position was both affirmed and denied by Mr. Greiner in one sentence in his first paragraph. (Why did he bother?)
Try this ‘Catholic‘ statement: “If being right means who gets the most pastors to switch sides, (and it doesn’t), then the Catholic wins.”
The ‘list’ provided by Tiber Jumper (though somewhat unpleasant to read format-wise) did demonstrate something worth considering. It was not just a list of former “folks” in most cases. And I was familiar with some of the people who appeared on Marcus Grodi’s show (FYI Howard, it is called “The Journey Home” - not “Coming Home”) well before they became Catholic. I have not done the research, but I think it is pretty likely that the number of Catholic Priests, Bishops, or theologians who convert to Evangelical (and Protestant) Christianity is small. Converting to Anglicanism, Orthodoxy, or becoming a member of some new (or relatively established) ‘schismatic’ group seems more likely, as would leaving the active Catholic priesthood but not converting to some Protestant ‘denomination‘ at all.
I would also venture to say that among the Catholic clergy that converted (assuming they were Latin rite,) that a large part of them did so largely because of their difficulty remaining faithful to their vows of celibacy (which they chose to make.) Which would be in contrast to any Protestant pastor who goes to Rome. I find it very doubtful that any Catholic would “tout” the conversion of a former Protestant minister who uses his conversion as an excuse to divorce his wife and break those vows! We should not do the same. Any Catholic who makes a vow to God to remain celibate should never be praised for breaking those vows, regardless of whether or not we agree that they should have been asked to make those vows in the first place.
I could go on in great detail of course, demonstrating a possible Catholic response. And I may very well be wrong with what I did say. I suppose that there may be some person out there with an impressive “master list” of Catholic theologians and clergy that have converted to Evangelical Christianity recently (though I doubt it.) But, my point isn’t to demonstrate that my “‘Catholic’ statement” was valid. It was to demonstrate that Mr. Greiner’s statement in his first paragraph was not any more worthy of an affirmation of “well stated” than my statement would be by a Catholic.
If a Catholic made an appeal to truth using as evidence the large number of members of his/her church, but at the same time said, “of course… numbers don’t matter,” I would have the same reaction. Catholics may find comfort in the fact that an disproportionately large part of the world are members of their church, we may find comfort in the fact that a large percentage of the people in our churches are former Catholics, but the point is that this type of thinking doesn’t bring much to the debate. So why bring it? And why affirm it?
Mike Greiner said… “There "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world," did it "Once for all." The idea that eating bread and drinking wine equals receiving Christ is silly. Yes, silly. To interpret clearly figurative passages as the eating of Jesus makes no sense. He handed bread to His apostles, He didn't have them take a bite from arm. Anyway, John 1:12 settles the matter, pointing out that receiving Christ is the equivalent of "believing" not munching.”
In Mr. Greiner's second paragraph, he offers an argument against one of Catholicism’s most important beliefs by (in part) calling it “silly,” and then repeating it as if he knows that he shouldn’t be calling the Catholic understanding of their Eucharist “silly.” I too interpret much of Christ’s meaning in these passages as “figurative,” but I also know that the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is not defenseless. And the Catholic position is one that Mr. Greiner clearly has not spent much time trying to understand (in spite of his “former Catholic“ credentials.)
Mike Greiner said… “As for "Rome" supplying anything, I wonder how biblical that is. The Bible never makes out Rome to be the holy city. Any even skeptical reading of the Bible points out that Jerusalem is the apple of God's eye. Indeed, the prophesies of Daniel make it clear that the Roman Empire is crushed by the Kingdom, coming as a stone that grows to a mountain. To equate Rome with the "holy city" is to turn the Bible on its ear. Jerusalem is the city for me. You can keep Rome. I'd rather have glory than dust.”
In Mr. Greiner's third paragraph, he offers very little at all to the discussion. “Rome” clearly supplied something to the early Christian community in Rome (biblically speaking,) so the first sentence was completely pointless. And I saw nobody claim in this discussion that Rome was “the holy city.” Does the Catholic Church officially claim that Rome is “the holy city” described in the Bible? If so, then Mr. Greiner may have a point (generally speaking,) but it wouldn’t have much to do with this discussion. So, the entire second paragraph seemed like it would have been better left un-typed, and certainly not worthy of a positive affirmation. Perhaps a “not very well stated” would have been more suitable for that paragraph.
Mike Greiner said… “I agree with the portion of the original post that brought into play the role of the Donut Man's original pastor. As people wander around with poor ecclesiology, it is not wonder that the promise of an authoritative institution seems comforting --like the Roman church. Of course, the Eastern Orthodox Church might have the more ancient claim to authority since they leaned towards Constantine's city in the beginning. But I'll let the RC's and the Orthodox continue that fight on their own. And of course, there are the coptics . . .”
In Mr. Greiner's fourth paragraph, he opens himself up to an ad hominem. Assuming we all know what he ‘meant’ by “poor ecclesiology” (rather than what that would actually literally mean,) he becomes in this paragraph for a Catholic what the Donut Man is for him. Mr. Greiner has already demonstrated a lack of understanding for some really pretty basic Catholic teaching(s), and an apparent total ignorance of how a Catholic would biblically defend those teachings (regarding the Catholic Eucharist.) Of course we must blame his former parish priest for his ignorance, should we not?
And the point with bringing up Orthodoxy was what? To demonstrate that among the “ancient” Christian “traditions” there is debate about authority? Was the purpose of those comments to preemptively counter a Catholic questioning what Evangelical pastor, scholar, theologian, community, or conference has more “authority” to interpret the Bible and/or accurately teach the Gospel? Not only were those comments not productive, their implication can be used against we Evangelicals even more effectively (if the point had merit in the first place.)
The third paragraph was more hurtful to Mr. Greiner’s points than helpful, and (again) added little to the discussion. Hardly worthy of saying “well stated.”
Mike Greiner said… “The authority for the Jews became the authority for all people. It was never a church. It was always the Scriptures. The church is the bride, not the boss. Jesus is the boss, and His word is recorded.”
In Mr. Greiner’s fourth paragraph, he demonstrates his lack of understanding for authority in the Old Covenant community, as well as authority in Christianity today. “The Authority” for the Jews then (and today) is the same Authority that all Christians believe in today. God. Did the Jews believe the Scriptures were authoritative for them? Yes. Do Catholics believe that the Scriptures are authoritative for them? Yes. Do Protestants believe this as well? Yes.
Were the proclamations of Moses authoritative for the Hebrews during their Exodus? Yes. Are they authoritative for Jews today? Yes. Was the Council of Jerusalem authoritative for the early Christians? Yes. Is it authoritative for Christians today? Yes.
Are the proclamations of the Council of Jerusalem authoritative for Christians today only because they are recorded in the New Testament, or because the Council actually had authority that is binding on Christians in all places for all time? That is a better question if we are talking about “authority.”
The point is that the Scriptures have never been the only authority for Jews, nor have they ever been the only authority for Christians (Protestant or Catholic.) Which is part of what I believe ‘Howard Fisher’ was referring to in his comments about people misunderstanding “sola scriptura.” In any case, the fourth paragraph seems (to me) to be in direct opposition to an accurate understanding of the Evangelical “sola scriptura.” If ‘howard’ has a good understanding for the “proper” Evangelical “sola scriptura,” why would he consider (for even a moment) agreeing with anything in Mr. Greiner’s fourth paragraph?
Mike Greiner said… “I believe this, "That Christ died for sinners, of whom I am chief." So says Paul and so I believe. And we are saved, "By grace, through faith."
In Mr. Greiner’s fifth paragraph, he finally says something that can be praised! Presuming that he made that statement in an effort to share his love for Christ and the truth taught in the book of Ephesians that all Christians should believe and try to follow. Though, if his implication was supposed to be that Catholics do not also believe “by grace, through faith” (it seems quite possible that was at least part of his intention,) then he (again) says something that doesn’t deserve a positive affirmation. Anyone even casually familiar with Catholic apologetics would know that this particular verse gets a lot of treatment (and rightfully so.)
Mike Greiner said… “By the way, if you are keeping a list, I was born and raised Catholic. Of course, I wasn't introduced to Jesus until I found the Bible . . . if only that had been taught to me instead of all the stuff about the value of wafers.”
In Mr. Greiner’s sixth and final paragraph, he makes an anecdotal statement very similar to the type that ‘Howard Fisher’ thought little of earlier in this discussion. And I agreed. Seems like it would be very inconsistent for ‘Howard Fisher’ to agree with it this time, which is part of why I am holding on to the hope that ‘howard’ is a different Howard.
This idea that Catholics never hear “the Bible” until they convert to Evangelical Christianity is absurd. I know how ridiculous this is without ever having been a Catholic. Admittedly, this is not exactly what Mr. Greiner said. What he said was that he wasn’t “introduced to Jesus” while he was a Catholic. And that he wasn’t “introduced to Jesus” until he “found the Bible,” which he (implicitly) was unable to “find” as a Catholic.
Then Mr. Greiner makes the uncharitable remark about “all the stuff about the value of wafers.” Which (again) affirms and denies his point in one sentence. What he wants to say that he WAS taught a considerable amount of “stuff” about the Catholic Eucharist when he was a Catholic - but he has earlier demonstrated that he isn’t familiar with the most basic “stuff” concerning the Catholic Eucharist. It’s like somebody saying that they have a Juris Doctorate and then saying that they do not know what “jurisprudence” is. Or a BA in Mathematics and not seem to know what the word “algebra” refers to. It’s pretty bad form to claim to have been (overly) educated on a particular topic, then demonstrate that you have clearly NOT been educated on even the basics.
What we have is several paragraphs that do not raise the bar for these types of discussions, but lower it, and actually help to make Evangelicals more likely to consider the reasoning ability of Catholics to be superior.
Howard, I wrote this because I was disappointed in you. Your integrity is on the line every time you write and you should be more careful. There is a good chance that your writing may very well survive you by many years (just this one little discussion has reached over a year into the future.) Take care to protect your words. One simple and hasty comment can undo a lot of good.
You say that you disagree with the idea of people converting because of “bad theology” or a “poor explanation of the Gospel.” I agree with you. If someone converts from Catholicism because they were fed a lie and deceived with a straw-man attack (that you also said you disagree with) on the teachings of their church… what glory is that to God? It is surely something that we should never congratulate anyone for, whether they were the deceived or they were the ones doing the deceiving.
I would like to see more Evangelicals help raise the bar in apologetics. Catholics are no fools and they’re capable of defending their faith. We should not be propagating the idea that they are foolish and incapable of defending their faith. When Evangelicals do that, we are setting ourselves up for losing people like the Donut Man… just so we can hang on to “well stated” rhetoric that might offer us a momentary confidence boost, but is ultimately much more damaging than we realize.
We Evangelicals believe that we are Christians. We also tend to believe that Catholics are Christians as well, though we disagree with their doctrine in many cases. We should all extend Christian charity to each other, in love, while we engage in dialogue on important topics. That doesn’t mean we can’t be honest about our feelings (for example: I am sad that the Donut Man became a Catholic, because I believe he has embraced theological error,) but it does mean that we don’t assume and behave as though our opponents (who are our brothers and sisters) are ignorant.
In Christ,
Michael
Michael,
I must disagree with some of your critique. For instance, in your argument against Mike Greiner's Ephesians 2 understanding of grace is unfounded. Yes, it is true that catholics believe in grace and Trent teaches this clearly. And it is true that many Protestants are "shocked" that catholics believe in grace. The issue, however, is not of the necessity of grace. It has always been the sufficiency of grace to raise a dead sinner from death to life without any cooperation on the part of the sinner. In short, it is synergism verses monergism.
I do however thank you for your comment, "Howard, I wrote this because I was disappointed in you. Your integrity is on the line every time you write and you should be more careful."
Some of your critique shows that I need to be more careful.
You ended with this statement, "We Evangelicals believe that we are Christians. We also tend to believe that Catholics are Christians as well, though we disagree with their doctrine in many cases."
This is just as problematic as the things you attempted to critique. Roman Catholics who understand Rome's doctrine and attempt to be justified in the means that Rome gives are by definition, not christian. Rome does not possess the Gospel in any way, shape or form.
However, I have stated many times, in agreement with Calvin, that Rome has within her midst a true church. I would think the same of the Jewish people who spent much of their history apostate while God preserved a remnant within her walls.
Thank you Sir.
God Bless
I am a Catholic. I was once a Pentecostal. I believed in Substitutionary Atonement, and I believed it was what the Bible taught. I read the Bible constantly. Now...
I believe that Christ offered what God was truly owed. God was owed love and obedience from man. Christ, as man, paid that price.
Christ did not substitute himself in a penal way; otherwise, Christ would be in Hell, and no one else. No one else would die, since the penalty of sin is death; God cannot justly double-charge for the same sin.
I have peace in Christ, because He is my brother. Through Him, I have God as my Father. We are family. Families love each other and trust each other. That brings me peace. Pax!
+JMJ
The blessed man of Romans 4 is David.
Anonymous,
Is that your infallible interpretation? Actually, the text specifically says,
Rom 4:7 "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.
Rom 4:8 "BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT."
The Blessed man is the one to whom the Lord does not credit his sins against him. This forgiveness or non-imputation of sins comes by faith alone. This is then the basis for peace with God in Romans 5:1. Paul applies it to the Church! Apparently, you are not one to whom Paul is speaking.
Roman Catholics do not possess the Justification as defined by Romans 4. Therefore they do not possess the shalom needed to be in the presence of God.
As for "I believe that Christ offered what God was truly owed. God was owed love and obedience from man. Christ, as man, paid that price". I agree.
As for this paragraph,
"Christ did not substitute himself in a penal way; otherwise, Christ would be in Hell, and no one else. No one else would die, since the penalty of sin is death; God cannot justly double-charge for the same sin."
Why would Christ be in hell? He bore the wrath of God in the place of his people. "2Co 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."
Also this paragraph assumes that Substitutionary atonement is intended to be universal.
This is why Theology Matters. Far too many pastors such as my own do not know sound biblical theology. What you win them with is what you win them to. You were a Protestant pentecostal with bad theology. You abandoned bad theology for a different set of bad theology.
God Bless
Romans 4:7-8 is quoting Psalm 32 (according to the Hebrew's reckoning). My Bible says this Psalm was "Of David". So it was either written by or about King David. Unless we are going to accuse St. Paul of taking the Scripture out of context, we have to say that the blessed man of Romans 4 is David. Traditionally, David wrote this after Nathan the Prophet accused him of his sin with Bathsheba. So, if we are to understand St. Paul's point, we would do well to understand this event in King David's life. For instance, was King David justified before his sin with Bathsheba? During? After?
If Hell, or the eternal rejection of God, is the just punishment for sin, then God would be unjust if he did not send the "substitution" for our sins to Hell for eternity. If Hell is not the just punishment for sin, then God is unjust to send anyone there. If all sinners had to do was suffer a death like Christ's, and experience God's rejection in the temporary way Evangelicals allege Christ did, then Hell would be overkill.
Now, as for the universality of the atonement (or lack thereof), I am not ignorant of Calvin's doctrine. Most Christians, however, believe that Christ died for all, just as the Bible says (Cf. Isaiah 53:6, John 3:16, 1st Timothy 2:6, Romans 5:6, 2nd Peter 2:1 et al). I assumed you did as well.
And finally, my interpretations are usually not infallible, and neither are yours (for the most part). Some may fall into the area of infallibility (for instance, I can say Jesus loves you, as an interpretative synthesis of what I know from the Bible. That interpretation, I am thoroughly convinced, will never deceive, and is thus "infallible"; infallible means that which does not deceive). Pax.
+JMJ
1) Anonymous, I realize that David wrote the Psalm. That isn't the issue. David is not saying that he is the only possible person who is the Blessed Man. I am sure he considered himself to be one. But to make the Psalm only applicable to himself would be like saying he must be the person who is resurrected in Psalm 16 when Peter tells us it referred to Christ.
Perhaps when David wrote about walking through the Valley, there is no application to modern man? There is no doubt Psalm 23 is about David...right? Yet Paul does the same thing in Rom 4:6 "just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:"
Please notice his words. He is speaking of the Blessing on the man to whom the Lord does not impute sins. Is this not applicable to Paul's argument that this is in general to anyone that believes in Christ? To make this merely about David is to overthrow the Scope and Context of the text itself. Remember, there are 3 chapters prior to this. Your interpretation destroys the Biblical argument of Paul's theology. For then Paul directly applies this verse to its natural conclusion in 5:1 as I argued before, but you seemed to miss.
In other words, Paul's argument is nothing if he means that David only refers to himself. Is David the only one justified? Is David the only one that receives the forgiveness of sins? Surely Paul's application to the church in 5:1 "we have peace with God" is based upon his argument in chapter 4...right?
2) As for the hell issue, this objection is constantly raised. Jesus is a unique Person. He is the God/man. In the hypostatic union He is able to bear the wrath of God in our place. The Old Testament is full of this imagery.
3) As for assuming my position on the atonement, you might want to read my blog before doing that.
4) As for the infallible definition, I reject such a notion. ONLY God's Word is infallible for it is God breathed. Your interpretation is a private interpretation whether of the Scriptures or of Rome's understanding of them. I have dealt with far too many differing positions over the years with RCs to have anyone make such a claim as you have. Another more seasoned RC would simply argue that you are making a claim as a private theologian and do not speak for the church.
5) Everyone seems to miss the major point of the post. My point is this. You were converted with bad theology (IE pentecostalism). Therefore, you believed in bad theology. It was only a matter of time till a thinking person such as yourself saw the major problems and rejected that bad theology.
BTW: I became a Christian at an Assembly of God church in NH. I just couldn't stay there learning contradictory beliefs. But I do consider myself blessed that God was able to use such weak theology to eventually bring me into better Biblical theology. Too bad you went the other direction.
God Bless
Dear Howard:
I didn't say the Psalm was only applicable to David. My point was that if we are going to understand the theology of St. Paul, which is admittedly a difficult thing to do, we would do well to learn the context of his quotations. My point was that before David's sin with Bathsheba, he was a justified man. Afterwards he was not *until* he repented. For God to "not impute" sin to someone who is genuinely full of sin would be a lie. God does not, and cannot lie; the ability to lie is a quality of the devil. God does not impute justice (or righteousness) upon those who are really unjust, or unrighteous. To do so would violate his impeccable honesty.
This subject is, I admit, hard to tackle without a systematic investigation of the Epistle to the Romans as whole. St. Paul assumed a great deal of scriptural and cultural knowledge on the part of his readers which very few today possess.
Now, regarding infallibility: something is infallible if it is true. That's what infallible means (from the Latin, "in"--not, and "fallare"--to deceive). Now, what many today mean by "infallible" is something knowable as true in an absolute sense. For instance, I know infallibly that this keyboard is here. I know idealists would disagree with me, but I know that the arguments for realism against idealism stand firm. I sometimes use "infallible" in the sense it is commonly used in English. However, I usually try to use words literally. This is why I have nothing against using the word "cult" to describe my worship of Jesus. But I digress.
I believe that some of your Biblical interpretations are infallible. Some of mine are as well. Those areas on which the Church has spoken definitively, I believe to be infallible. For instance, I believe that the Apostles' dogma that circumcision is not necessary to be a Christian is infallible, despite the fact that they did not derive this dogma from the scriptures.
Of course, I don't claim to speak for the Church. I speak as a lay scholar, who happens to have a intermediate understanding of the Sacred Languages, and a rather impressive collection of antique literature at his disposal ;). I would expect anyone, Catholic or otherwise, to take those particular understandings of the Scriptures that are unique to me as just that: my understanding.
Yes, Jesus was unique. However, what he did on earth, he did as a man; even his miracles were not performed through his own power. Jesus offered himself as a man, and God accepted him; he did not reject him. God was not owed a person to pour out his wrath upon, since that was not what he was denied in the first place. He was denied love and obedience. Jesus paid that in the most appropriate way: through a complete act of self-giving to the Father. Certainly he did this throughout his life, and even throughout all eternity. Yet Christ intended for this particular propitiatory act to make reparation for our sins.
Now, through the grace of Christ won for us on the Cross, we can participate in that act of self-giving, having become sons in the Son. This is done in, through, and by the power of Christ in us, from beginning to end. We can participate in the mystery of the Blessed Trinity, hidden from all eternity until the revelation of Christ. That is the Christian hope; that is the Christian peace. We call God "father", because he is our Father. He is our family, and good families live in peace.
1) "For God to "not impute" sin to someone who is genuinely full of sin would be a lie."
Sir, this misunderstands the argument Paul is presenting. It also misunderstands the nature of sin. It also misunderstands the nature of salvation as Paul argues. You end up overthrowing his conclusion in 5:1.
Of course you will counter with "We can be forgiven and then sin tomorrow?" To which Paul spends much time answering in chapter 6.
2) "Now, regarding infallibility: something is infallible if it is true."
I do not necessarily disagree. What I disagree with is the idea that we have infallible knowledge. Truth is infallible. To say my interpretation is truth and infallible is saying something else. For example, You may believe Jesus is infallible, but you do not know that infallibly. You may know it with certainty, but not infallibly. Only God is infallible in His knowledge.
Again, I reject your conclusion based on your false premise.
3) "I would expect anyone, Catholic or otherwise, to take those particular understandings of the Scriptures that are unique to me as just that: my understanding."
I think hidden in this statement is the idea that RCism is unified and that what Rome believes is what has been universally believed. The only thing the early church universally believed is monotheism. Nearly every doctrine had differences of viewpoints much like any Christian book store does today.
4) "However, what he did on earth, he did as a man; even his miracles were not performed through his own power."
Who is this that has authority to calm the storm? Why does Jesus claim to have power to raise the dead? He calls Himself the resurrection.
5) "God was not owed a person to pour out his wrath upon, since that was not what he was denied in the first place."
The wages of sin is death. I OWE God death. If I am going to go to heaven, God's wrath must be propitiated. Refer to my Blog posts where I deal with Morris' discussion of this term. It does exactly what you say it doesn't do.
God Bless
Howard
http://how2fish.blogspot.com/
2007/10/morris-on-old-testament
-propitiation.html
I do not disagree with St. Paul in Romans 5:1. I merely do not believe in faith "alone" as being justifying. I believe that faith in God implies *faithfulness*, just as it does with my wife. Even the Latin "fidelity" comes from "fide".
Romans 5:1 presents a textual problem as well; “we have peace” is translated from "eireeneen echomen". This is supported by many minuscule manuscripts. The codices א, A, B, C, D, the minuscules 33 81, 436, 1175, 1912, 1962, and a part of the Byzantine texts, have here the subjunctive "echomen" with an Omega instead of an Omicron. This means (“let us have”) and is so followed by the early Coptic, Old Latin and Vulgate Latin versions. St. Paul continues “with God”. The sense would be: “Being therefore justified out of faith, let us have intimate peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Neither reading harms Catholic soteriology, though the possible variant does harm Calvin's.
Also note the aorist verb "Dikaiothentes". The purpose of an aorist participle like this is to denote that an action happened before the main verb, while saying nothing about what happens after.
As for chapter 6, I might very easily quote verse 12: "Therefore, do not let sin reign in your mortal body, so as to obey its lusts." St. Paul's admonitions imply that the people he is speaking to are capable of sin. If he is speaking to believers, then it suggests against the guaranteed perseverance of the saints. If he is speaking to unbelievers, then he is wasting his time, since being outside of God's sanctifying grace, they are incapable of refraining from sin anyway.
Regarding the infallibility issue, I think our disagreement is a matter of semantics; certainty and infallibility have no functional difference in my epistemological hermeneutic. Its probably not worth squabbling over, because its simply a disagreement about what word to use to mean what.
As for Jesus, in his humanity, working his miracles through the power of God, I draw that from John 9:4. Additionally, since I believe Christ is to be our model in everything, it would seem extremely strange were he to perform miracles in a manner he did not expect his followers to imitate. Nevertheless, I don't have prepared an exhaustive Biblical argument for my case here (just as don't have an exhaustive Biblical argument for my belief that Moses performed all of his miracles by the power of God).
Finally, no man owes God death; God was not denied the death of man. Now, offering your life up to death for the glory of God is another thing entirely; it is one very powerful way to give God your all. Since your all is what God is owed, if you could do that apart from martyrdom, it would have the same effect. Thus, Christ could have made reparation for sins in another way, had God not predestined the shedding of blood to be the only. Indeed, God predestined what was most appropriate and effective for us. And this is the way we should see everything God does.
God is simple, he is good, he is immutable. His wrath is not emotional, for a motion is a change. God hasn't a selfish vindictive bone in his body. Everything he has done from eternity is for the sake of his creatures. His wrath, his hatred, his revenge, his repentance, his jealousy and desire for glory and worship--none of these are for his sake; they are for us.
God loved the world so much that he wanted, for man's sake, to restore his own honor. He wanted restoration and reunion for our sake. He used the most effective means to do this: his eternal Logos became incarnate in human flesh. For the glory of God Father, in reparation for our sins, this Man, the Deity, humbled himself even to death. On the Third Day, he gloriously rose from the dead. By thus restoring God's honor as s man, he won for man a New and perfect Covenant--a new agreement that would put man into a familial relationship with the Father. This New would not be dependent upon the works of man, but on the work of the Son of Man, whose faithfulness would ensure its validity forever. Out of old, cursed covenants of Creation and the Law, Christ now draws all men to himself, for it is not his will that any should perish. Through union with Christ we may have communion with our Father, in the power of the Holy Spirit that is their common love. This is the living Gospel that has sounded out from the mouths of God's messengers for two millenia. The Easterners call it "Deification". The Westerners, "Divine Union".
Now, as for the particulars of how I explain the scriptures, I do not, and will not pretend that Catholics are now or have every been monolithic. This is why we have the Magisterium; if my friend and I have a theological disagreement, we can take it to the Bishop. If he cannot settle it, he can call for a Synod. If they cannot settle it, they can request an answer from the Curia. If it is still uncertain and of enough importance to the faith, an Ecumenical Council may be called to settle the matter infallibly once and for all (much as the Jerusalem Council did regarding circumcision). If a definition is reached, the topic is no longer open to debate. There are a few thing of this nature. For instance, the Trinity, the Canon, the condemnation of the Reformers' tenants, et al. There are still many things open to discussion. The advantage to submission to the Teaching Office of the Church, is that unlike a book, a living, breathing organism can jump up and say, "You misunderstand!"
Anonymous, We have discussed this issue here many times. This ends up becoming a debate board and very difficult to follow. If there is a better format to have this discussion, then let’s go there. Otherwise, let’s end it. I will take the time to answer some of the points raised. But I have already pointed you to other posts about propititation and Christ’s substitutionary work.
1) “I merely do not believe in faith "alone" as being justifying.”
Paul does.
2) “I believe that faith in God implies *faithfulness*, just as it does with my wife. Even the Latin "fidelity" comes from "fide".”
And so do I. To believe other is to fall into the condemnation of the Reformers.
3) “Romans 5:1 presents a textual problem…”
Interesting variant, but your choice of which way to go is followed by no translator that I possess (I own 7 versions). I will stay with them. Also Bruce Metzger states, “Although the subjunctive echomen…has far better external support than the indicative [spelling with the omicron]…, a majority of the Committee judged that internal evidence must here take precedence. Since in this passage it appears that Paul is not exhorting but stating facts (“peace” is the possession of those who have been justified), only the indicative is consonant with the Apostle’s argument.”
Again, we must follow the scope of the argument. To follow your position is to overthrow exactly what Paul is arguing.
Another problem is that you miss the Covenantal argumentation Paul is assuming and arguing. Paul is referencing the Covenant of Promise, which is something God and God alone does.
4) “St. Paul's admonitions imply that the people he is speaking to are capable of sin. If he is speaking to believers, then it suggests against the guaranteed perseverance of the saints.”
Again, the language barrier is firmly up and running. Paul asks the rhetorical question that is always asked of Protestants. Shall we continue sinning if we are already justified [in the Protestant sense]? Then Paul’s argument makes perfect sense. We have been freed from the guilt of sin. We are now free from sin. Therefore, the text follows with indicatives.
5) …”it would seem extremely strange were he to perform miracles in a manner he did not expect his followers to imitate.”
I don’t see it that way at all. Christ is unique in His Person. Simply because He is fully man and must be so in order to achieve salvation does not deny His own intrinsic power to raise the dead.
Joh 5:21 "For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes.
This is something I assume followers of Christ do not do.
6) “Finally, no man owes God death”
Sorry, Paul’s argument in Romans heavily relies upon this being exactly the case. I also wrote about God’s wrath as pertaining to propitiation. See Morris’ book.
7) “Indeed, God predestined what was most appropriate and effective for us. And this is the way we should see everything God does.”
Sorry again, but Paul comes to a major conclusion in chapter 8 of Romans in his stating the Great Chain of Redemption. God predestines His elect in Christ and them only.
“Therefore he says, “Rom 8:33 Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; Rom 8:34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. Rom 8:35 Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? “
This simply makes no sense in the man-centered, synergistic gospels, which end up being really no gospels at all.
8) “This is why we have the Magisterium;”
RCs can’t even agree if the canon is closed or if Revelation is Partim/Partim or Materially sufficient. I would think that something that significant would be defined. But we have already been down this road.
You may have you Mary intercessory prayers (something which the Apostles NEVER proclaimed or predicted). I will stick with Christ and Christ Alone as my complete possession by faith ALONE.
God Bless
My family has stated catholic for 500 years, in a Protestant Prussian state, gave up our nobility and title for the faith, and are still catholic. Peter was the pope, and we follow him
Howard,
I am coming a bit late to the discussion. Since my name was mentioned in the list of Protestant converts to Catholicism, I thought I would comment.
First, you SERIOUSLY misrepresent Catholic teaching regarding the Holy Eucharist when you state that it must be received again and again because it does not completely take away our sin. This is untrue. Eucharist completely removes the penalty of our VENIAL sins. Our MORTAL sins can only be completely removed via the Sacrament of Confession. The difference between venial and mortal sins are akin to the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony.
The Eucharist is celebrated often because THIS IS WHAT CHRIST COMMANDED us to do! We simply follow His instruction when we do so!
I would love to carry on a public discussion regarding your problems with Catholic teaching. You sound like a good and righteous man. However, you seriously misunderstand much of Catholic teaching...at least based on what I have read here.
Let's chat...to the Glory of God!
Mike Maturen
Howdy Mike,
It is good to have your comments added to this nearly 3 year-old post.
"I am coming a bit late to the discussion."
Just by a couple of years. :-)
"Since my name was mentioned in the list of Protestant converts to Catholicism, I thought I would comment."
Tiber Jumper was the one that named you.
"First, you SERIOUSLY misrepresent Catholic teaching regarding the Holy Eucharist when you state that it must be received again and again because it does not completely take away our sin."
I hear this claim over and over again. Disagreeing with a viewpoint and coming to different conclusions is not misrepresenting anyone. As you readily admit that not all sins are forgiven by taking the Eucharist proves my point. You said,
"Eucharist completely removes the penalty of our VENIAL sins. Our MORTAL sins can only be completely removed via the Sacrament of Confession. The difference between venial and mortal sins are akin to the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony."
If the Eucharist completely removes the penalty of our venial sins then you have no need of purgatory or a treasury of merit system.
What if you commit a venial sin tomorrow? Is that already forgiven?
The problem is that we view sin and the work of Christ differently. I plan on writing a Blog post in the near future explaining this divorce of our original sin and its relation to our particular sins.
Another problem with former so-called Evangelicals is that their views are often a soft Romanism. They often try to give an Evangelical spin to Rome's dogmas to make it palatable to people such as myself. This is why you try to say that the Eucharist does take away our sins when in the next breath you deny the very thing you attempted to affirm.
Rome's view of man and his sin is in some sense a semi-pelagian view. Protestantism has also abandoned the Reformers biblical view and has adopted a more Arminian and even at times an out-right pelagian view. This coupled with the fact that we do a poor job of catechizing our congregations has led many to return to Rome. This was my original point in my original post.
My original post was a critique against Evangelicals, not Roman Catholics. The irony in this comments section has been fascinating since almost all the discussion has been with Roman Catholics.
Look forward to your comments.
God Bless
Life without Jesus is like a Donut...theres a hole in the middle of your soul. If Jesus is a donut hole, does that mean you Marry worshipers are going to Krispy Kreme for Eucharist? lol.
I can't figure it out! usually people convert for a deeper experience in Christ. I don't think Catholicism will give that. There are too many distractions, too many symbols, idols, and relics.
Post a Comment