[BBC List] top 10

[Mike Abendroth]

An Excellent Question from the Mail Bag
James R. White


   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 dicern 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
<http://aomin.org/looks1.html>  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 <http://aomin.org/SS.html>  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
<http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.i.iv.html>  Syllabus of Errors
and Indulgentiarum <http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6indulg.htm>
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
<http://aomin.org/Hebrews10.html>  and all of John 6
<http://aomin.org/WinSunRep.html> , 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
<http://aomin.org/YouTell.html>  anymore? 
   3) Have you considered what it means to proclaim a human being
<http://aomin.org/FailuretoDocument.html>  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
<http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html>  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 <http://aomin.org/In_sententius.html>
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? 

22:11:19 - Category: Roman <http://www.aomin.org/index.php?catid=7>
Catholicism - Link to <http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=2210>  this
article - 

 

 

Thanks.

 

For the King's honor,

 

Charis,

 

Mike Abendroth

 

 <http://www.bbcchurch.org> www.bbcchurch.org

 

Ephesians 3:21 auvtw/| h` do,xa evn th/| evkklhsi,a| 

 

2 Tim 1:2b  "Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our
Lord."

 

"Faith is not our physician; it only brings us to the Physician ... Faith is
not our saviour. It was not faith that was born at Bethlehem and died on
Golgotha for us. It was not faith that loved us, and gave itself for us;
that bore our sins in its own body on the tree; that died and rose again for
our sins.  It is a sin-bearer that we need, and our faith cannot be a
sin-bearer. Faith can expiate no guilt; can accomplish no propitiation; can
pay no penalty; can wash away no stain; can provide no righteousness. It
brings us to the cross, . but in itself it has no merit and no virtue.
Faith is not Christ, nor the cross of Christ. Faith is not the blood, nor
the sacrifice; . Our faith does not divide the work of salvation between
itself and the cross. It is the acknowledgment that the cross alone saves,
and that it saves alone. Faith adds nothing to the cross, nor to its healing
virtue. It owns the fulness, and sufficiency, and suitableness of the work
done there, and bids the toiling spirit cease from its labours and enter
into rest. Faith does not come to Calvary to do anything. It comes to see
the glorious spectacle of all things done, and to accept this completion
without a misgiving as to its efficacy. It listens to the "It is finished!"
of the Sin-bearer, and says, "Amen."   

NOT FAITH, BUT CHRIST 

by Horatius Bonar 
(1808-1889) 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bbcchurch.org/pipermail/bbc_list/attachments/20071221/d16832df/attachment.htm