Help needed to answer a RCC!!

[AV1611]

I received the following email today and before I respond I would like you to offer me some suggestions....I have just had a busy day and shall reply to them tomorrow

This may seem rather out of the blue but I would like to ask your advice.

As you may know I am an Anglican considering converting to RCism. I don't want to go into the many ins and outs of the differences between Protestantism and RCism but...

A thought has been on my mind recently about what the Christian Church looked like theologically in about 700AD.

Whichever Church was founded by Christ is one against which the Gates of Hell will not prevail - Christ promises this. What I think is a fairly conservative interpretation of Matt 16:18 is that the authentic expression of Christianity must have existed from that moment until now. This means that right through the 'dark-ages' the authentic faith was believed and practised. This means that for Protestantism to be true central tenets such as sola scriptura must have been practised and believed well before the Reformation but also well after the Apostolic Era, the assumption being that if these tenets were not believed then something did overcome the authentic Church and so it was by God's grace that Luther and Calvin taught what they did.

I don't know my history as well as I should which is why I'm asking you. Do you know anything I may find useful about this period (or any other) which may back up the claims of Calvin and Luther?

I must say I feel a bit of a fraud asking you since I don't actually want Protestantism to be true, it seems to take less faith to be a RC, but there is more to Truth than what one feels.

I hope this message makes sense, I think it may be a little garbled.

regards​

 

[CDM]

quick note

"... build my church; and the GATES of hell shall not prevail against it."

Many wrongly believe that the church is on the defensive from the hoards of the devil. The Devil's kingdom is the kingdom described as having gates that need to be torn down. The church is not on the defense. Hell will not withstand the Church's offensive against it. The questioner has it back wards.

Whichever Church was founded by Christ is one against which the Gates of Hell will not prevail - Christ promises this. What I think is a fairly conservative interpretation of Matt 16:18 is that the authentic expression of Christianity must have existed from that moment until now.

Much of what followed this statement crumbles just by understanding this point.


...maybe post some later...

 

[A5pointer]

The church that is to prevail is the unseen universal church not just a visible body or denomination.

 

[AV1611]

Do any critiques of the Roman understanding of Matthew 16:18 deal with the Aramaic arguments of the papists?

 

[Calvibaptist]

Just to be cantankerous, since the RCC is a true church and their baptism is valid, let your friend go back.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Just to be cantankerous, since the RCC is a true church and their baptism is valid, let your friend go back.

Douglas......You enjoy bating dont you. If I did not indulge in a big lunch, I would go after what is on your hook...

 

[Calvibaptist]

Just to be cantankerous, since the RCC is a true church and their baptism is valid, let your friend go back.

Douglas......You enjoy bating dont you. If I did not indulge in a big lunch, I would go after what is on your hook...

Just having a little fun!

 

[Calvibaptist]

The church that is to prevail is the unseen universal church not just a visible body or denomination.

The visible church waxes and wanes as the Word (Gospel) and Sacraments (Ordinances for us Baptists) are rightly upheld in the majority of it. The universal (or Catholic) Church will be constantly prevailing because it is not tied down to a particular location. The gospel succeeds and destroys the gates of hell.

 

[puritan lad]

A thought has been on my mind recently about what the Christian Church looked like theologically in about 700AD...I don't know my history as well as I should which is why I'm asking you. Do you know anything I may find useful about this period (or any other) which may back up the claims of Calvin and Luther?

I'd back up 300 years or so and go with Augustine and Athanasius.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Do any critiques of the Roman understanding of Matthew 16:18 deal with the Aramaic arguments of the papists?

Richard, one lesson I have learned in the debate against an RC is to have a 2 pronged attack against their foundation. WHich is papal/magesterium infallibility and their sacramental system of salvation. Luther did this, and this is what ticked them off so much. Dont get involved in apostolic sucession. Even protties confess that to a point. Once the foundation of infallibility and their false sacramental system is crumbled, the rest falls apart. Also do not get involved in sola scriptura. Because you will have to defend the perverbial 30,000 denomination slander they will pose.

 

[Coram Deo]

My Baptist Circles uses "Sacraments"..... In Sermons, in Worship in the Lord Suppers and Baptisms even in the bulletins we use the word Sacrament...

So please modify your "for us Baptist" phrase... Not all Baptist call it Ordinances......

and Sacraments (Ordinances for us Baptists)

 

[Coram Deo]

How about the hundreds of perverbial catholic shoots, sects, and denominations of Catholicism....

you will have to defend the perverbial 30,000 denomination slander they will pose.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I received the following email today and before I respond I would like you to offer me some suggestions....I have just had a busy day and shall reply to them tomorrow

This may seem rather out of the blue but I would like to ask your advice.

As you may know I am an Anglican considering converting to RCism. I don't want to go into the many ins and outs of the differences between Protestantism and RCism but...

A thought has been on my mind recently about what the Christian Church looked like theologically in about 700AD.

Whichever Church was founded by Christ is one against which the Gates of Hell will not prevail - Christ promises this. What I think is a fairly conservative interpretation of Matt 16:18 is that the authentic expression of Christianity must have existed from that moment until now. This means that right through the 'dark-ages' the authentic faith was believed and practised. This means that for Protestantism to be true central tenets such as sola scriptura must have been practised and believed well before the Reformation but also well after the Apostolic Era, the assumption being that if these tenets were not believed then something did overcome the authentic Church and so it was by God's grace that Luther and Calvin taught what they did.

I don't know my history as well as I should which is why I'm asking you. Do you know anything I may find useful about this period (or any other) which may back up the claims of Calvin and Luther?

I must say I feel a bit of a fraud asking you since I don't actually want Protestantism to be true, it seems to take less faith to be a RC, but there is more to Truth than what one feels.

I hope this message makes sense, I think it may be a little garbled.

regards​

Yes Christ preserved his church even from the later heresy of and eventually schism of the papacy. The Reformers brought the church back to their patristic roots. A simple reading of the early fathers will show there was no papacy in the early church. Read Calvin's letter to King Francis in the beginning of the Institutes where he clearly outlines the intent of the Reformers to bring the church back to the biblical gospel and worship that existed prior to the innovations of the papacy.

 

[Amazing Grace]

How about the hundreds of perverbial catholic shoots, sects, and denominations of Catholicism....

you will have to defend the perverbial 30,000 denomination slander they will pose.

I do not know about them. Either way, once you destroy their self supposed authority and their sacramental system, the Holy Spirit will lead them home, and not to Rome as Scott hahn so puts it..

 

[Calvibaptist]

My Baptist Circles uses "Sacraments"..... In Sermons, in Worship in the Lord Suppers and Baptisms even in the bulletins we use the word Sacrament...

So please modify your "for us Baptist" phrase... Not all Baptist call it Ordinances......

and Sacraments (Ordinances for us Baptists)

Sorry, just figured that since this was a confessional board, I would stick with the language of the confession.

WCF:

Chapter XXVII
Of the Sacraments

I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace

Not even mentioned in the LBCF

WCF:

Chapter XXVIII
Of Baptism

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ

Chapter XXIX
Of the Lord's Supper

II. In this sacrament, Christ...

III. The Lord Jesus has, in this ordinance...(interesting parallel)

1689 LBCF:

Chapter 28: Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper

1. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances...

Chapter 29: Of Baptism
1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament...

Chapter 30: Of the Lord's Supper
2. In this ordinance Christ ...

3. The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance...

 

[Mathetes]

Do any critiques of the Roman understanding of Matthew 16:18 deal with the Aramaic arguments of the papists?

Well, Eric Svendsen has pointed out that the version of Matthew that is "infallibly" endorsed by the Vatican is the Greek. So a Catholic trying to point to an Aramaic Matthew will get nowhere.

 

[Coram Deo]

Hmm, One more reason why I like the Westminster Confession better except on the chapter on Baptism..

But my Baptist Catechism based on Keach Catechism 1689 uses the word Sacrament......

I see Creation Ordinances
I see other Ordinances i.e. headcoverings, worship ordinances, etc.....
But I see Baptism and the Eucharist as Sacraments..... Holy Mysteries or Signs.. They are Signs and Seals of the New Covenant....

My Baptist Circles uses "Sacraments"..... In Sermons, in Worship in the Lord Suppers and Baptisms even in the bulletins we use the word Sacrament...

So please modify your "for us Baptist" phrase... Not all Baptist call it Ordinances......

and Sacraments (Ordinances for us Baptists)

Sorry, just figured that since this was a confessional board, I would stick with the language of the confession.

WCF:

Not even mentioned in the LBCF

WCF:

Chapter XXVIII
Of Baptism

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ

Chapter XXIX
Of the Lord's Supper

II. In this sacrament, Christ...

III. The Lord Jesus has, in this ordinance...(interesting parallel)

1689 LBCF:

Chapter 28: Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper

1. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances...

Chapter 29: Of Baptism
1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament...

Chapter 30: Of the Lord's Supper
2. In this ordinance Christ ...

3. The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance...

 

[Me Died Blue]

Several of Hughes Oliphant Old's books would be helpful in his study, as they deal with the Patristic and Medieval roots of various Reformed practices and beliefs. They are usually most directly about worship and sacrament, so it would still be useful to find some additional works on issues like soteriology and Scripture. For that purpose, one basic resource would of course be to note Augustine's teachings on God's sovereignty and human depravity. Those views are confessionally spelled out in the Canons of the Council of Orange (529 AD), which extensively speaks of of man's utter inability and deadness in sin, as well as the sovereign nature of God in redeeming and preserving him from that state. Be aware, however, that they do take a more Roman and Lutheran view of baptism.

One of Old's most popular scholarly works is The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship, which can be found new here on Amazon, or new here for slightly cheaper. Probably his other most popular related work is The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the Sixteenth Century, in paperback here or hardback here.

The other relevant books by Old would be his series entitled The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church, with the various subtitles indicating the time-period covered (chronologically listed here): The Biblical Period, The Patristic Age, The Medieval Church and The Age of the Reformation. The relevance in all of this series would be showing the continuity of various practices of the Reformation era with the earlier Church periods. Even so, Old's other two books I mentioned above deal more directly and explicitly with that exact continuity, and as such would be more beneficial for your friend to investigate first.

One reason they would be particularly valuable in this study is that even when Augustine's teachings on salvation and the statements of Orange are acknowledged by Catholics, some of the least known (much less acknowledged) areas of continuity (of the Reformation with the earlier Church eras) are these matters of worship, baptism and preaching.

How about the hundreds of perverbial catholic shoots, sects, and denominations of Catholicism....

I would think this would be particularly good to point out as well. One example is the various sects of charismatic Catholics, as well as groups and people like Mel Gibson who don't agree with the changes of Vatican II.

Furthermore, where would your friend draw the line on how much reform in the Church would render it a fundamentally different Church, breaching Christ's protection against the gates of hell? In other words, if the Reformation supposedly constitutes such a change from all previous ecclesiastical periods, why don't the various gradual developments of the ecumenical creeds, the formation of the canon, the controversies between Augustine and Pelagius, etc. render the same type of discontinuous change as well? Would your friend claim that there is a certain period in time at which various developments of doctrine in the Church were allowable without threatening its preservation as promised by Christ, but that suddenly sometime at or before the Reformation such continual reforms are somehow no longer allowed? Rome's own recent changes such as Vatican II would seem to drive home that point all the more.

 

[els]

You might also point out that Christ in Revelation clearly states that some churches could have their lampstands removed- they'd lost their love, and permitted certain sins, and Christ warned them that if they didn't repent they would lose their place. So a particular denomination or church group may not always and forever be a legitimate church- they can apostatize and die, only holding onto a vestige of life in the world. It's important to know history, of course, but it's also important to understand where a church stands right now, especially since this is with the questioner's desire to join the RCC. So maybe find some doctrines the church holds today that are contrary to Scripture, and try to deal with it from that angle. Even if the RCC is merely a weak, nearly dead church, who would want to join with a church like that where they aren't going to be fed and nurtured in the Word, but may be led into idolatry?

This statement in the letter you posted was interesting, too- "since I don't actually want Protestantism to be true, it seems to take less faith to be a RC, but there is more to Truth than what one feels."
It sounds like he wants to join the RCC because it's "easier." Like maybe he already knows the right answer, and is struggling against the truth. Sounds like he needs a lot of prayer, that God would open his eyes and give him more faith to accept the truth.

 

[py3ak]

Paul, addressing the Romans warns them not to be highminded, but to fear. Then the bishop of Rome declares himself infallible. He has specifically contradicted the warning which Paul specifically gave to that church. They are not, then, part of the apostolic church.

 

[lwadkins]

Richard this particular James White program might be helpful to you.

Pros Apologian Archives for August 2007

08/30/2007
Today on The Dividing Line James R. White
Started off responding to a sort of "counter-top-ten" list given by a Roman Catholic convert, then played some more of the Jimmy Akin BAM Non-Debate, and then finished up with some clips from a Badawi/Morosi debate that illustrates the Islamic mindset.

Pros Apologian

In particular he demonstrates how RCC apologists take church fathers out of thier context to make them seem to support thier positions.