« D.A. Carson on Piper's "The Future of Justification" | Main | New Missions Blog »
Before you convert to Roman Catholicism... (Top Ten List)
At his blog at www.aomin.org, my friend, Dr. James White writes:
Last week I received the following e-mail, and I felt it would be best to share my response here on the blog.
Dear Mr. White, For someone considering converting to Catholicism, what questions would you put to them in order to discern whether or not they have examined their situation sufficiently? Say, a Top 10 list. Thanks.
When I posted this question in our chat channel a number of folks commented that it was in fact a great question, and we started to throw out some possible answers. Here is my "Top Ten List" in response to this fine inquiry.
10) Have you listened to both sides? That is, have you done more than read Rome Sweet Home and listen to a few emotion-tugging conversion stories? Have you actually taken the time to find sound, serious responses to Rome's claims, those offered by writers ever since the Reformation, such as Goode, Whitaker, Salmon, and modern writers? I specifically exclude from this list anything by Jack Chick and Dave Hunt.
9) Have you read an objective history of the early church? I refer to one that would explain the great diversity of viewpoints to be found in the writings of the first centuries, and that accurately explains the controversies, struggles, successes and failures of those early believers?
8) Have you looked carefully at the claims of Rome in a historical light, specifically, have you examined her claims regarding the "unanimous consent" of the Fathers, and all the evidence that exists that stands contrary not only to the universal claims of the Papacy but especially to the concept of Papal Infallibility? How do you explain, consistently, the history of the early church in light of modern claims made by Rome? How do you explain such things as the Pornocracy and the Babylonian Captivity of the Church without assuming the truthfulness of the very system you are embracing?
7) Have you applied the same standards to the testing of Rome's ultimate claims of authority that Roman Catholic apologists use to attack sola scriptura? How do you explain the fact that Rome's answers to her own objections are circular? For example, if she claims you need the Church to establish an infallible canon, how does that actually answer the question, since you now have to ask how Rome comes to have this infallible knowledge. Or if it is argued that sola scriptura produces anarchy, why doesn't Rome's magisterium produce unanimity and harmony? And if someone claims there are 33,000 denominations due to sola scriptura, since that outrageous number has been debunked repeatedly (see Eric Svendsen's Upon This Slippery Rock for full documentation), have you asked them why they are so dishonest and sloppy with their research?
6) Have you read the Papal Syllabus of Errors and Indulgentiarum Doctrina? Can anyone read the description of grace found in the latter document and pretend for even a moment that is the doctrine of grace Paul taught to the Romans?
5) Have you seriously considered the ramifications of Rome's doctrine of sin, forgiveness, eternal and temporal punishments, purgatory, the treasury of merit, transubstantiation, sacramental priesthood, and indulgences? Have you seriously worked through compelling and relevant biblical texts like Ephesians 2, Romans 3-5, Galatians 1-2, Hebrews 7-10 and all of John 6, in light of Roman teaching?
4) Have you pondered what it means to embrace a system that teaches you approach the sacrifice of Christ thousands of times in your life and yet you can die impure, and, in fact, even die an enemy of God, though you came to the cross over and over again? And have you pondered what it means that though the historical teachings of Rome on these issues are easily identifiable, the vast majority of Roman Catholics today, including priests, bishops, and scholars, don't believe these things anymore?
3) Have you considered what it means to proclaim a human being the Holy Father (that's a divine name, used by Jesus only of His Father) and the Vicar of Christ (that's the Holy Spirit)? Do you really find anything in Scripture whatsoever that would lead you to believe it was Christ's will that a bishop in a city hundreds of miles away in Rome would not only be the head of His church but would be treated as a king upon earth, bowed down to and treated the way the Roman Pontiff is treated?
2) Have you considered how completely unbiblical and a-historical is the entire complex of doctrines and dogmas related to Mary? Do you seriously believe the Apostles taught that Mary was immaculately conceived, and that she was a perpetual virgin (so that she traveled about Palestine with a group of young men who were not her sons, but were Jesus' cousins, or half-brothers (children of a previous marriage of Joseph), or the like? Do you really believe that dogmas defined nearly 2,000 years after the birth of Christ represent the actual teachings of the Apostles? Are you aware that such doctrines as perpetual virginity and bodily assumption have their origin in gnosticism, not Christianity, and have no foundation in apostolic doctrine or practice? How do you explain how it is you must believe these things de fide, by faith, when generations of Christians lived and died without ever even having heard of such things?
And the number 1 question I would ask of such a person is: if you claim to have once embraced the gospel of grace, whereby you confessed that your sole standing before a thrice-holy God was the seamless garment of the imputed righteousness of Christ, so that you claimed no merit of your own, no mixture of other merit with the perfect righteousness of Christ, but that you stood full and complete in Him and in Him alone, at true peace with God because there is no place in the universe safer from the wrath of God than in Christ, upon what possible grounds could you come to embrace a system that at its very heart denies you the peace that is found in a perfect Savior who accomplishes the Father's will and a Spirit who cannot fail but to bring that work to fruition in the life of God's elect? Do you really believe that the endless cycle of sacramental forgiveness to which you will now commit yourself can provide you the peace that the perfect righteousness of Christ can not?
Comments
Interesting. I am studying Orthodox; How would you ask similar questions to those considering Orthodoxy? Since Orthodoxy is different in many respects to RCism, and Protestantism is from R.C. background, there must be some serious questions to ask.
Thank you,
In Him, david.
Posted by: david puline | August 23, 2007 04:30 AM
David,
Dr. White wrote the above article on Roman Catholicism after more than two decades of dilligent study in this field. Though I am somewhat familiar with Eastern Orthodoxy, I do not feel qualified to write a suitable top ten list on this subject. However, I would point you to some very helpful articles on the subject (if you have not already seen them) at the www.monergism.com site... just use the search engine to look up Eastern Orthodoxy and the articles can be viewed there.
Every blessing,
Posted by: John Samson | August 30, 2007 01:07 PM
Prof. Mark Knoll (who recently moved from Wheaton to Notre Dame, yet not as a conversion to Catholicism) and Carolyn Nystrom have published a very insightful work entitled "Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism." (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005). On page 119 they make this comment: "We estimate that Evangelicals can embrace at least two-thirds of the Catechism (of the Catholic Church)". Are you familiar with this work and would you agree with the quoted statement?
Sincere regards,
Willem Bronkhorst
Posted by: Willem Bronkhorst | September 24, 2007 04:19 AM
Dr. Robert Morey just released his book on Eastern Orthodoxy. You can buy it at biblicalthought.com It is small, but chock full of history and he challenges three main ideas in EO: icongraphy, becoming divine and tradition. Remember, one church's saint, is another person's heretic. I would also bring up the Babylinian captivity of the church.
Posted by: Frank | February 7, 2008 04:26 PM
yes, Morey's book is out and is fairly unreliable. I have read the whole thing and it is filled with misquotes of the type you see in a Watchtower publication. I'd stick with Letham or Fairbairn,even though they aren't perfect, they are much better works by far.
Posted by: Perry Robinson | February 12, 2008 10:34 PM
QUOTE: "yes, Morey's book is out and is fairly unreliable. I have read the whole thing and it is filled with misquotes of the type you see in a Watchtower publication. I'd stick with Letham or Fairbairn,even though they aren't perfect, they are much better works by far."
...said Perry the Eastern Orthodox adherent.
Makes you wonder why an Eastern Orthodox-friendly blogger would recommend stearing clear of a book that claims to thoroughly refute the Eastern Orthodox religion and demonstrate it's almost entirely pagan corruption.
Posted by: Stephen Macasil | March 13, 2008 10:40 PM
To Stephen Macasil,
Morey's book is corny. The protestant scholar Daniel B. Clendenin did a way better job.
I read Morey's book & P.Robinson is correct. Morey is a hyper cynic who shot himself in the foot plenty of times in that book. Most of the arguments he used can be used against him and protestantism in general. He thinks the "Apostles creed" & "The Athanasian Creed" are Eastern Orthodox creeds. For someone that claimed to do alot of studying in regards to ORthodoxy...half he time, he really didn't know what he was talking about. Those are not Eastern Orthodox creeds!!! And alot of protestants embrace those creeds that Morey called "fraudulent". Alot of the stuff in the book is mere dismissial & declaration. All he says is "fraudulent! fraudulent! fraudulent!"
He thinks Saint Papias, and alot of the other early christians just didn't exist!!! Now what kind of scholarship is that?
And the sad thing is, alot of un-informed protestants will believe this crap.
I already refuted 60% of the book. To be honest it's nothing more than an over groan jack chick tract.
One can easily find another Reformed protestant that will say the opposite of what Morey is saying on any givin topic......not to mention other protestants in general. Morey tries to speak for all "evangelicals", but in doing so he is only shooting himself in the foot.
JNORM888
Posted by: JNORM888 | July 17, 2008 05:59 PM
I am a very proud Catholic and it is truly painful to see this kind of message coming from a non-Catholic Christian. If any person feels a deep calling from God to be in one Christian religion over another, who are we to question that calling?
The best thing you can do for someone considering conversion is to love them and pray for them to openly receive Christ in the denomination through which He will best reveal Himself to that individual. If it's Catholicism, have them read the Catechism of the Catholic Church- you can even read it for free online! This book contains the teachings of the Church and explains why the Church upholds these teachings. It even explains the meaning behind the sacrament of penance and reconciliation and makes it abundantly clear that only God forgives sins.
Posted by: Angel | September 6, 2008 06:44 PM
JNORM888,
Would you mind quoting the page #'s and paragraphs where Morey makes the claims you assert he makes?
Thanks
Posted by: DOC ABE | October 16, 2008 03:26 PM
hmm.. luv it )
Posted by: cooroskib | April 15, 2009 08:53 PM
To tell you the truth....except for the ANGLICAN worship, protestants have really shipwrecked the Christian Faith when it comes to adoration, reverence, and a sense of God's presence in the Eucharist. The whole pentecostal...praise band....worship leader....contemporary whatever...has worn true Christianity so thin...that people seek deeper vocabulary that usually is found in the Catholic Tradition.
Posted by: Randy | November 15, 2009 11:28 PM
Randy,
I would suggest that being contemporary is not really the problem. God forbid that we would seek to be archaic just for the sake of it. The issue is substance rather than style.
Posted by: John S | November 15, 2009 11:46 PM
Why is it that there are so many attacks on the Roman Catholic Church? But God works in mysterious ways, by presenting such challenges, you only strengthen the fervor of those who want to be Catholics. The Truth itself is undeniable, if they search far and deep enough given all these objections, they will find that Roman Catholicism is the true Church founded by Christ himself and that the RC adheres to the teachings of Christ himself.
It's very silly to think that some odd number of years later, since the conception of the very first Christians who lived during the life time of Jesus, that some amazing genius like Luther finds the truth to Christ's teachings. Ask yourself whether this so called Reformation is truly inspired by the Holy Spirit, or whether it's just a moment of spiritual weakest and human pride where one leaves one's faith?
But all Catholics and non Catholics alike, rest assure that Christ truly is the way. B/c of the universality and truth of the Catholic Church as Christ's Church, if you are saved you are saved through the graces of the Catholic Church, whether you know it or not.
For Christ is the head of the Catholic Church and St. Peter holds the key to heaven. Whether you recognize it or you don't, the Catholic Church is the embodiment of Christ's teachings, from the apostles themselves.
Due to human nature, it's not surprising that there are so many denominations. Even Christ was selective of his apostles, and not all of his apostles were faithful to him. The left, they broke away, just as the many there are so many denominations that sprung from the Church of Rome.
Though other denominations teach the truth, you seriously cannot deny the validity of the Catholic Church. Where did the Protestant Church come from, if not from the Roman Catholic Church. No matter how far you choose to run away, you carry a part of the Catholic Church with you, no matter how much a prodigal sun runs away, one day he will return home.
Posted by: yen n. | January 14, 2010 11:36 PM
* pardon all my previous typo errors
As yourself this question: If Protestantism is anymore correct that Roman Catholicism, what does that make of other religions out there? How about Islam? Study the Koran and it's scary to see its similarities to the Bible. It's so easy to tell the same stories and so much easier to modify the simplest details! Through out history, how many times have people claim to be prophets, modify/create their own sacred scriptures, make their own religion? Scientology, Seven Day Adventist, Mormonism, etc.
Religion itself is made at the whim of humanity, out of curiosity, and self proclaimed enlightenment. Why did one choose Christianity over Buddhism? Hinduism? Shintoism? or even Atheism?
Humans reach God from our own paths, and look what we get? DIFFERENT RELIGIONS in all their justified values. So what is the ultimate truth, and how can your tiny little brains recognize God if it were not for his Revelation?
If it were due to a true embodiment of the truth, and faith given from heaven..... and if you believe Christ is the way. You seriously cannot deny his apostles who followed him, the first Christians who learned from the apostles, the work of St. Paul, the early Churches founded. Peter was there leader, and after Peter's death, we have Linus, up until Benedict the XVI.
If you believe in the Bible, you cant be silly enough to not ask yourself why you believe the Bible has any validity. Why is it that the Bible is more valid than the Koran? It's just a book with historical texts written by ancient scholars. To find truth and to rely on it word for word, makes absolutely no sense!
Sola Scriptura: I believe in the truth, holiness, and infallibility of the Bible simply b/c it was written so in the Bible. How then is this not circular reasoning?
The Truth of the Bible is in the writers of the Bible and the fact that the Church choose those books to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church wrote, and complied the Bible according to it's teachings. Teachings that were passed down from the apostles and evangelists themselves. If the Bible has any validity, it's validity is in the interpretation of its authors and of the people closest to the authors themselves.
Posted by: yen n. | January 14, 2010 11:57 PM
*ask, their, its
Aside from my haphazard typing, I hope I've contributed somewhat to all of our intellectual understanding and search for truth.
Whether we agree with each other or not, let's not forget that: Christ is love and that we all need to care, respect, and cherish our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Posted by: yen n. | January 15, 2010 12:02 AM
I actually did examine all the arguments pro and con regarding the Catholic Church before I converted. Seven years later, I am now more than ever convinced that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ and His hand-picked Apostles with Peter as the head.
God bless you.
Posted by: Lisa | May 5, 2010 07:36 PM
just two things- why was the foundation of Lutheranism called a reformation if Martin Luther simply split from the church and didn't change any of the imoral practices he saw? It's almost like calling the founding of America the reformation of England- that would be just plain silly. and why didn't you mention Martin Luther's "Von don juden en lugen" (in English The Jews and Their lies) along with the other works listed? I feel it would be just as important to read so one could understand luther's post "reformation" ideals. After all, before he left the church, he wrote of how the Jews were our brothers and we should evangelicaly show them the way to Christ!
God Bless!
Posted by: robert joseph | November 1, 2010 12:17 AM
Robert Joseph,
For what I consider to be a very fair and balanced approach to the subject of Luther and the Jews, I recommend the following three short articles by Dr. Carl Trueman:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2010/08/luther-and-the-jews-i-the-prob.php
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2010/08/luther-and-the-jews-ii-the-con.php
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2010/08/luther-and-the-jews-iii-lesson.php
Posted by: John Samson | November 1, 2010 12:35 AM