wanted: resource to keep friend from the RC

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BackwoodsTheo

Puritan Board Freshman
Anyone have any good reading recommendations for a friend who is heavily doubting their reformed beliefs and leaning toward RC - starting with communion, and that apparently has lead to doubting in the authority of the church, etc.

There are old threads on this topic, and I can obviously point to a few specific verses, I'm not really seeing any books focused on this. Honestly, I'm having a tough time finding something that's even a...good (not just angry sounding) "critical analysis" of RC Eucharist from a reformed perspective.
 
BackwoodsTheo said:
Anyone have any good reading recommendations for a friend who is heavily doubting their reformed beliefs and leaning toward RC - starting with communion, and that apparently has lead to doubting in the authority of the church, etc.

There are old threads on this topic, and I can obviously point to a few specific verses, I'm not really seeing any books focused on this. Honestly, I'm having a tough time finding something that's even a...good (not just angry sounding) "critical analysis" of RC Eucharist from a reformed perspective.
Click to expand...
There's no shortage of books written during the Reformation on this, I believe Vermigli wrote a couple. searhttps://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/whither-roman-catholicism/

greenbaggins.wordpress.com

An Examination of Roman Catholicism

It occurred to me today (in preparation for speaking to some folks about this) that it might be very helpful for people to have a handy chart for easily comparing the Reformed faith with official R…
greenbaggins.wordpress.com greenbaggins.wordpress.com
Let's see if this works now.
 
On one hand, if they want to convert, they are going to. But if they play the "How can you trust you have the right interpretation of the Bible?" then ask them if their rational faculties are sufficient to interpret the magisterium correctly. That's a live issue with Francis's statements.
 
Ploutos said:
What is leading them to doubt their Reformed faith?
Click to expand...
Something I've not seen yet - some study of Jewish impact/influence on communion and how it would have been understood at the time based on how it's described in the gospels (clearly with strong RC leanings it seems). So... presumably some extra-biblical material is being mixed in, probably bringing OT sacrifice and covenant language into the mix that makes transubstantiation sound right.
 
BackwoodsTheo said:
Anyone have any good reading recommendations for a friend who is heavily doubting their reformed beliefs and leaning toward RC - starting with communion, and that apparently has lead to doubting in the authority of the church, etc.
Click to expand...
As to the doctrinal issues, there are a number of good historic resources listed here:

reformedbooksonline.com

Romanism

“But He turned, and said unto Peter, ‘Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.'” Matt 16…
reformedbooksonline.com reformedbooksonline.com

That said, do note as Jacob has alluded to in his first sentence, there is likely more involved than simple doctrinal disputes.
 
A couple of thoughts. If someone wants to convert, they will, and the intellectual gravity of Rome is quite intense. Sometimes that can be for doctrinal reasons and sometimes that can be for personal reasons stated as doctrinal ones.

What about something like a commentary on a confession, like Ursinus's on the Heidelberg Catechism that was written in the thick of the debates? Personally, I found the confessions and their scripture references to be the most helpful items when I was making my own evaluation of doctrinal positions.

The other angle of it, though it definitely would pull away from the Reformed world, is Lutheran resources like their Book of Concord. I personally think anyone feeling compelled to Rome and inclined to reject Protestantism is only doing so on a half-baked basis if they don't also address the Lutheran Reformation. If they're getting Podcasted with Romanists (like with Bishop Barron, Pints with Aquinas, or The Counsel of Trent) then they need to also listen to folks like Jordan Cooper, the late Rod Rosenbladt, and John Warwick Montgomery. When several friends were converting 15 years ago and actively trying to draw me into Rome, in the back of my mind, I knew even if I left the Reformed world, there was an entire other wing of the Reformation I knew I'd have to deal with and that did deal with the same issues they were raising, sometimes in a very different way. ~1 year in Lutheranism probably saved me from jumping to or dabbling with Rome when it was a draw.
 
Early on in my faith journey, R.C. Sproul's "Justification by Faith Alone" was instrumental in helping me to understand why I was Protestant and not Catholic. I had "learned" in my mid-20s that Rome also teaches justification by faith alone - but Sproul helped me to understand that they mean something very different from what Protestantism means by it. It also helped dispel the simplistic childhood notion that Protestants teach salvation by grace and Rome teaches salvation by works.

I never thought about Theoretical's suggestion of studying Lutheranism, but that's a really intriguing line of thought.

@BackwoodsTheo - have they been reading Brant Pitre? He's a Romish theologian who has written extensively on the connection on the Jewish background of the Eucharist.
 
I would NOT generally recommend Anglican resources, except maybe the stuff the Davenant Institute is reprinting (Reformation through pre-Civil War era where one could call it the English Reformed Church), Puritan authors within the COE, J.C. Ryle types (modern would be Church Society), or something like studying the theology behind Cranmer's communion liturgy. All of these are unashamedly Protestant, happy to tell you they're Protestants, and very ready to tell you they're not Romanist.

Anglicanism confessionally should be the halfway point between Geneva and Wittenburg, but post-Newman and probably even earlier, it's between Geneva and Rome or Wittenburg and Rome. Since the doctrinal position is inherently designed to be big tent, with liturgy and government being the main anchor of conformity, it's only a safe zone for those who are doctrinally settled and not for anyone drifting like your friend. When we were having a number of Catholic conversions in the mid-late '00s, a fair number of members (including some who tried to bring me along) went from confessional denominations to ACNA/AMIA to Rome, so that's a thing.

Crossing the Thames often leads to crossing the Tiber or occasionally the Bosporus in a way that interacting with an equally sharp-edged and developed theological tradition would not. The former is tempting because it looks like it's bringing the best of both worlds together when Rome's a temptation. The latter may well fuel some "Calvinism sucks" sentiment but I'd much prefer someone to stay within the Christian faith (Reformation) than lose someone to Rome needlessly. It's a bit of the same principle that if the child's stopped listening to mom and dad, he or she might still listen to their uncle or family friend.
 
Last edited:
William Perkins, Reformed Catholicism
William Beveridge, Ecclesia Anglicana Ecclesia Catholica
Matthew Poole, Dialogue between a Catholic Priest and a Protestant
Calvin, Institutes
 
I would second R.C. Sproul's "Justification by Faith Alone". Really explains Rome's teaching on infused righteousness (vs imputed).

I also just finished a book titled Still Protesting: Why the Reformation Still Matters. It was written for those Protestants considering crossing the Tiber and becoming Catholic. Focuses on Rome's theology during the Reformation era as well as post Vatican II.
 
Ploutos said:
I never thought about Theoretical's suggestion of studying Lutheranism, but that's a really intriguing line of thought.
Click to expand...

True story. When I was enamored with EO, and at the time I started to see through their arguments, I first became interested in Lutheranism and their Christology. That got me to reading Muller, which brought me back to Reformed.
 
RamistThomist said:
True story. When I was enamored with EO, and at the time I started to see through their arguments, I first became interested in Lutheranism and their Christology. That got me to reading Muller, which brought me back to Reformed.
Click to expand...
I sort of get the sense that if this were the Wittenboard, Rome wouldn't be the siren song but Constantinople would be given the more similar Christology.
 
 
How much of a deep dive does your friend want? Horton's magnum opus on Justification touches on a load of aspects. The first volume is church history of sorts (though I really got bogged down on Occam and Aquinas) and the second is systematic and exegetical.
 
Theoretical said:
I sort of get the sense that if this were the Wittenboard, Rome wouldn't be the siren song but Constantinople would be given the more similar Christology.
Click to expand...
As I'm not familiar with Lutheranism, can you tell me if Lutheran denominations have had the same problem with people swimming southward or eastward theologically?
 
Ploutos said:
As I'm not familiar with Lutheranism, can you tell me if Lutheran denominations have had the same problem with people swimming southward or eastward theologically?
Click to expand...
They're inherently friendlier to Catholics than we are, even most of the confessional ones, at least in the Missouri Synod. Wisconsin or micro-denoms might be just as strong on the anti-Catholic side as anyone in the Reformed world, but I have no experience with them.

On an expositional class I attended on 1st Peter 3 (Baptism), Catholic and Baptists were set up on the poles as "brothers we differ with," and the pastor is staunchly confessional.

Within the definition of Chalcedon, Reformed Christology directionally errs on the side of Nestorianism while Lutheranism directionally errs on the side of the Monophysites (Coptic/Syrian/Indian Orthodox), which is why there seems to be some fascination in Lutheran circles with the EO.

I'm not actively in Lutheran circles, but know a couple of confessional Lutheran pastors and my best friend grew up confessional Lutheran (though he's in a higher church non-denominational setting that's Lutheran influenced), so I don't know much on the ground per se these days other than that Lutheranism has a massive old church member/shrinking demographics problem.
 
Theoretical said:
They're inherently friendlier to Catholics than we are, even most of the confessional ones, at least in the Missouri Synod. Wisconsin or micro-denoms might be just as strong on the anti-Catholic side as anyone in the Reformed world, but I have no experience with them.
Click to expand...

Is this because of the modern trend toward ecumenicism, or is it more deeply baked into the DNA? After all, the larger evangelical world is friendlier to Catholics, and even parts of the Reformed world - witness Packer and ECT.
 
Ploutos said:
Is this because of the modern trend toward ecumenicism, or is it more deeply baked into the DNA? After all, the larger evangelical world is friendlier to Catholics, and even parts of the Reformed world - witness Packer and ECT.
Click to expand...
The Lutheran reformation was a more conservative one, they have more in common with Rome than we do.
 
dsanch1120 said:
The Lutheran reformation was a more conservative one, they have more in common with Rome than we do.
Click to expand...
This. A confessional Divine Service will look (at least in America) quite high church and very "Romish" (vestments, an altar though with a different meaning rather than a table, lifting the bread and wine, and so on) but unlike Anglo-Catholic Anglican services, there's a very strong anchor in Protestant doctrine and confessions that's primary and a high wall.

The Anglican approach was to split the difference on doctrine in a somewhat Reformed direction and adopt strict conformity of worship on conservative Lutheran terms. This meant there was a lot of latitude allowed on doctrine but every bit and piece of the Book of Common Prayer's services is loaded with meaning and debate (for example, there's lots of ink spilled over the proper position for the minister to stand at the Lord's Table to avoid Romishness).

The Lutheran approach was to adopt a conservative take on reforming worship - remove the outright prohibited and the unwise but if it's not forbidden and there's a good reason to leave it in, that's ok. However, there's strict conformity in doctrine that's required, comparable to the conservative Dutch denominations and the strictest Presbyterian groups, with 100% confessional subscription to the Book of Concord being required. The idea of "taking an exception to the confession" is totally foreign to confessional Lutheran clergy. This even means the stricter groups won't pray together with a non-Lutheran due to a lack of shared faith (though they'll consider the non-Lutheran protestant still to be a Christian just in a sect rather than a church).
 
arapahoepark said:
How much of a deep dive does your friend want? Horton's magnum opus on Justification touches on a load of aspects. The first volume is church history of sorts (though I really got bogged down on Occam and Aquinas) and the second is systematic and exegetical.
Click to expand...


At first I had no idea what you were referencing, but when I looked it up and saw it was "New Studies in Dogmatics", I instinctively cringed but had no memory why.

"Following in the tradition of G. C. Berkouwer's Studies in Dogmatics, this series provides thoughtful, concise, and readable treatments of major theological topics." (emphasis added)

Berkouwer went Barthian so I am presuming this is why the "New Studies in Dogmatics"?

Historically, I always stayed away from that series due to that blurb alone and never knew Horton wrote a 2-volume entry.
 
Last edited:
No Other Name said:
At first I had no idea what you were referencing, but when I looked it up and saw it was "New Studies in Dogmatics", I instinctively cringed but had no memory why.

"Following in the tradition of G. C. Berkouwer's Studies in Dogmatics, this series provides thoughtful, concise, and readable treatments of major theological topics." (emphasis added)

Berkouwer went Barthian so I am presuming this is why the "New Studies in Dogmatics"?

Historically, I always stayed away from that series due to that blurb alone and never knew Horton wrote a 2-volume entry.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think the two series are in any way connected. And the "New" shouldn't bother us. I imagine publishers have to find some way to justify a title, regardless of whether the content is new or not. Horton's stuff should be excellent, and he has been a trenchant critic of Barth.
 
RamistThomist said:
No, I don't think the two series are in any way connected. And the "New" shouldn't bother us. I imagine publishers have to find some way to justify a title, regardless of whether the content is new or not. Horton's stuff should be excellent, and he has been a trenchant critic of Barth.
Click to expand...

If it is truly "New" then I could pick the series up without worry. I was afraid it was "one study in dogmatics, different administrations" hahaha

But seeing Horton in the series does lend itself a lot more credibility than the blurb suggests, thanks!
 
Theoretical said:
This. A confessional Divine Service will look (at least in America) quite high church and very "Romish" (vestments, an altar though with a different meaning rather than a table, lifting the bread and wine, and so on) but unlike Anglo-Catholic Anglican services, there's a very strong anchor in Protestant doctrine and confessions that's primary and a high wall.

The Anglican approach was to split the difference on doctrine in a somewhat Reformed direction and adopt strict conformity of worship on conservative Lutheran terms. This meant there was a lot of latitude allowed on doctrine but every bit and piece of the Book of Common Prayer's services is loaded with meaning and debate (for example, there's lots of ink spilled over the proper position for the minister to stand at the Lord's Table to avoid Romishness).

The Lutheran approach was to adopt a conservative take on reforming worship - remove the outright prohibited and the unwise but if it's not forbidden and there's a good reason to leave it in, that's ok. However, there's strict conformity in doctrine that's required, comparable to the conservative Dutch denominations and the strictest Presbyterian groups, with 100% confessional subscription to the Book of Concord being required. The idea of "taking an exception to the confession" is totally foreign to confessional Lutheran clergy. This even means the stricter groups won't pray together with a non-Lutheran due to a lack of shared faith (though they'll consider the non-Lutheran protestant still to be a Christian just in a sect rather than a church).
Click to expand...
Thank you! This is a really helpful overview.
 
No Other Name said:
If it is truly "New" then I could pick the series up without worry. I was afraid it was "one study in dogmatics, different administrations" hahaha

But seeing Horton in the series does lend itself a lot more credibility than the blurb suggests, thanks!
Click to expand...

I've always found it helpful to read academic reviews of books in the series. That will let you know what you are getting into.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

JM
  • Locked
Friend Wants to Convert to RC
Replies
24
Views
4K
Mushroom
Mushroom
A
  • Locked
Friend converting to Isalm
Replies
1
Views
2K
fredtgreco
fredtgreco
Bladestunner316
  • Locked
Roman Coatholicism Resource
Replies
2
Views
1K
Bladestunner316
Bladestunner316
greenbaggins
  • Locked
Great New Resource on Apologetics
Replies
1
Views
2K
MW
M
No Name #5
  • Locked
Requesting Counsel on Witnessing to Atheist Friend
Replies
26
Views
5K
Ask Mr. Religion
Ask Mr. Religion
Back
Top