Office Hours: The Lure of Rome by Dr. W. Robert Godfrey

  • Thread starter Thread starter eddadonkey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

eddadonkey

Guest
This is a very interesting radiotalk that I just came across. The website’s description: “Office Hours talks to Dr. W. Robert Godfrey, President of Westminster Seminary California and Professor of Church History, about why evangelicals and other Protestants become Roman Catholic and how we should respond.”

wscal.edu/resource-center/resource/the-lure-of-rome

What peaked my interest is how the doctor presented Church history through the view point of Protestantism and contrasts it with his understanding of the viewpoint of Catholicism on history, although that is not the sole interesting point (for me) in the whole talk: there are LOADS of them.

Comments?
 
I listened for about 10 mins. Obviously theyre begging the question with a subject titled as such. Lure is rather a cynical and sinister word but they also seem to hint to some of former Westminister Ministry Theologians that have converted into the Catholic Faith.

Once they touched on St. Chrysostom I knew theyve started to pick and choose…enough for me:thumbsup:

MJ
 
How strange, most reformed people that I interact with nowadays will admit that a real change in the person is necessary for their salvation to be genuine, these guys seem to think otherwise. From scripture I have always been under the impression that repentance is an actual “correcting” of one’s life, and turning away from sin, and that this kind of repentance is necessary for salvation.
 
I don’t want to go back there to this forum, CARM, but isn’t the head guy running it from this ‘university’? That is my impression when people use academic labels to support their bias.

Where would these ‘teachers’ be without the Catholic Church?
 
I listened for 19 minutes until I heard him say, “I think Protestants, especially Reformed, can make as strong of an appeal to the early Church as Rome can.” The example of this he quoted was that early churches did not use crucifixes (or something to that extent), and that modern Reformed do not use crucifixes. Therefore (he led the listener to conclude), the Reformed have as good of an appeal to continuity (at least in doctrine) with the early Church as Catholics do. To me, this is such a peripheral example of a discipline (as opposed to a doctrine), that it did the opposite of proving his point. His insistence on using such an obscure topic shows me that he really had to dig to find anything of seeming substance.

The guest on the show seemed to be an example of the kind of Protestant who knows enough about the Catholic faith to discuss it, but lacks enough knowledge to make giant blunders. For instance, he continually made reference to the fact that he thinks Catholics can save themselves. He also seemed to think that priests believe that they’re resacrificing Christ, and not just making Christ’s sacrifice present.

He talked a lot about the early Church, as it is what draws many Protestants home to Catholicism. He objected to what he viewed as selective quoting of the Church Fathers by Catholic apologists who are converts from Evangelical backgrounds (maybe we should send him a copy of “The Fathers Know Best”). He claimed that they were using out of context quotes to “recruit” from their old Evangelical stomping grounds, yet he neglects to mention that the Early Church Fathers often played a huge role in these same men’s conversions in the first place.

Honestly, I’m quite interested in hearing Protestants’ takes on what’s driving the influx of converts to Catholicism, but each of the two or three articles/talks I’ve heard on this have discounted the conversions in similar ways. It makes me wonder what evangelical leaders would say about converts to Catholicism if they were of the same catechetical quality of the majority of those who leave the Church for Evangelicalism… :rolleyes:
 
eddadonkey said:
This is a very interesting radiotalk that I just came across. The website’s description: “Office Hours talks to Dr. W. Robert Godfrey, President of Westminster Seminary California and Professor of Church History, about why evangelicals and other Protestants become Roman Catholic and how we should respond.”

wscal.edu/resource-center/resource/the-lure-of-rome

What peaked my interest is how the doctor presented Church history through the view point of Protestantism and contrasts it with his understanding of the viewpoint of Catholicism on history, although that is not the sole interesting point (for me) in the whole talk: there are LOADS of them.

Comments?
Click to expand...
Let us just say if we were to compare and contrast the following statements as it concerns Rome and Protestant thought…

Roman Gospel vs Biblical Gospel

Protestants say…Look away from yourself…to Christ…and find all that you need in Him…trust Him and rest in Him…and by His grace you will over time be changed…in a variety of ways…BUT whether your changed a little or whether your changed a lot your safe in Him because He has done all for you…

Rome says…Look deep in yourself and see how much progress you’ve made, have you made enough, make more use of the sacraments…become a more virtuous person…because at the end of the day you can never really be sure…that you can become holy enough but keep at it…there is a chance that if you have a priest there when you die you will make it…

So the ultimate difference in Protestanism and Catholicism is the following…

Protestantism says look to Christ…Rome says look at yourself…

Any agreement or disagreement?👍
 
CopticChristian said:
Let us just say if we were to compare and contrast the following statements as it concerns Rome and Protestant thought…

Roman Gospel vs Biblical Gospel

Protestants say…Look away from yourself…to Christ…and find all that you need in Him…trust Him and rest in Him…and by His grace you will over time be changed…in a variety of ways…BUT whether your changed a little or whether your changed a lot your safe in Him because He has done all for you…

Rome says…Look deep in yourself and see how much progress you’ve made, have you made enough, make more use of the sacraments…become a more virtuous person…because at the end of the day you can never really be sure…that you can become holy enough but keep at it…there is a chance that if you have a priest there when you die you will make it…

So the ultimate difference in Protestanism and Catholicism is the following…

Protestantism says look to Christ…Rome says look at yourself…

Any agreement or disagreement?👍
Click to expand...
I think Rome says that Christ on the cross has done all for you, and you should trust Him and rest in Him. Rome also says look deep in yourself that you do not turn from Christ and start trusting in something other than Him. Make use of the graces that He has given to you, especially those in the Sacraments.

You see, in Catholicism it isn’t either faith or works, it is both faith and works!
 
Rocky said:
I think Rome says that Christ on the cross has done all for you, and you should trust Him and rest in Him. Rome also says look deep in yourself that you do not turn from Christ and start trusting in something other than Him. Make use of the graces that He has given to you, especially those in the Sacraments.

You see, in Catholicism it isn’t either faith or works, it is both faith and works!
Click to expand...
So along those lines is it you that is causing virtue in you or grace? Is it you that gives the appearance of holiness or is it grace? In the end the result of any change whether it be holiness, virtue, is it achieved by you or by you aided by grace with cooperation?
 
CopticChristian said:
So along those lines is it you that is causing virtue in you or grace? Is it you that gives the appearance of holiness or is it grace? In the end the result of any change whether it be holiness, virtue, is it achieved by you or by you aided by grace with cooperation?
Click to expand...
Is it important that one gives “the appearance of holiness” or that one is holy? Isn’t all that one achieves in life gifted by grace? You are nitpicking here and I really don’t see why unless you have a definite Protestant view of faith and works.
 
Rocky said:
Is it important that one gives “the appearance of holiness” or that one is holy? Isn’t all that one achieves in life gifted by grace? You are nitpicking here and I really don’t see why unless you have a definite Protestant view of faith and works.
Click to expand...
I am a student of thought. I analyze thought. What you are responding to is not me, rather to the audio that OP asked us to listen to. I am just asking for some clarification on the issue as presented by this Biblical Scholar. It was the audio that presented this notion. I took the time to listen to the entire post, transcribe it, analyze and I am presenting what I heard for criticism. I belive that Evangelicals should worry about their fold coming Home to Rome and this audio is evidence as to why they should…

For starters…Lure…The Lure of Rome…The title is clearly stated and built on as I will show…consider any Protestant listening to this and how they might view it…the tragedy is that the notion of a Lure is suggested as something that Evangelicals are getting caught in to convert to Catholicism…

Lure Defined…
Something that tempts or attracts with the promise of pleasure or reward.
An attraction or appeal.
A decoy used in catching animals, especially an artificial bait used in catching fish.
A bunch of feathers attached to a long cord, used in falconry to recall the hawk.
Click to expand...
Consider Synonyms
SYNONYMS lure, entice, inveigle, decoy, tempt, seduce. These verbs mean to lead or attempt to lead into a wrong or foolish course: Lure suggests the use of something that attracts like bait: Industry often lures scientists from universities by offering them huge salaries. To entice is to draw on skillfully, as by arousing hopes or desires: The teacher tried to entice the shy child into entering the classroom. Inveigle implies winning over by coaxing, flattery, or artful talk: He inveigled a friend into becoming his law partner. To decoy is to trap or ensnare by cunning or deception: Partisans dressed as simple farmers decoyed the soldiers into the crossfire. Tempt implies an encouragement or an attraction to do something, especially something immoral, unwise, or contrary to one’s better judgment: I am tempted to tell him what I really think of him. To seduce is to entice away and usually suggests the overcoming of moral resistance: “The French King attempted by splendid offers to seduce him from the cause of the Republic” (Thomas Macaulay).
Click to expand...
I will point out what I saw in this audio. What you are responding to is the conclusion…so answer the response please…the nitpicking is for clarification…
 
eddadonkey said:
This is a very interesting radiotalk that I just came across. The website’s description: “Office Hours talks to Dr. W. Robert Godfrey, President of Westminster Seminary California and Professor of Church History, about why evangelicals and other Protestants become Roman Catholic and how we should respond.”

wscal.edu/resource-center/resource/the-lure-of-rome

What peaked my interest is how the doctor presented Church history through the view point of Protestantism and contrasts it with his understanding of the viewpoint of Catholicism on history, although that is not the sole interesting point (for me) in the whole talk: there are LOADS of them.

Comments?
Click to expand...
It’s really too bad that they did not have a Catholic apologist on the show to comment on the Catholic point of view. Instead, the program seems to be setting up the usual cast of straw men.

Quoting Chrysostom re: the sacrifice of the mass is a great example of evangelical cherry-picking. It’s funny that while in the midst of doing so, these protestants accuse Catholics (all of us apparently) of pulling out “sentences” to support Catholic doctrines. Hmm. :rolleyes:

Again, the program mis-states the Catholic position on salvation by grace through faith. Although I think this speaker did more to try to p(name removed by moderator)oint it, again I think he tweaked the fine points to make the Catholic position appear untenable.

In my opinion, the most interesting part of the program was the speaker’s opinion that people are turning to the Catholic Church from evangelicalism because they are fed up with the shallow popular culture and are seeking something deeper. Hmm? Interesting. But can’t you get that at an old mainline protestant church?

Peace,
Robert
 
Robert_in_SD said:
In my opinion, the most interesting part of the program was the speaker’s opinion that people are turning to the Catholic Church from evangelicalism because they are fed up with the shallow popular culture and are seeking something deeper…
Click to expand...
OK. The program really falls off at the end, when the speaker speaks bewilderedly about how anyone could get anything out of the mass… perhaps because they believe Christ will be sacrificed… This is the same old canard about Catholics re-crucifying Jesus again. Really a low blow. This show seems to end poorly.

Really disappointing. I’m sorry I listened. My advice to others is, don’t give the site any more traffic. Just move along folks. Nothing to see or hear.

Peace,
Robert
 
As Robert in SD noted, I too found the reference to Evangelicals and its propensity for embracing our shallow pop-culture that permeate much of our everyday lives to be most interesting. Why didn’t they mention the option of Evangelicals joining the Mainlines. My hunch is that the Catholic’s aren’t the only ones they have a “axe to grind” with. In the end they’re specific version of Protestantism is the only or the most correct version and therefore no need to point seeker to denomination other than their own.
One of these days I want to hear from a Evangelical Leader, you know what we may differ on a few more minor issues but Mr/Ms Seeker if after prayer and study you have come to the conclusion God is leading you to join a Anglican or Lutheran Church go for it.
 
Robert_in_SD said:
OK. The program really falls off at the end, when the speaker speaks bewilderedly about how anyone could get anything out of the mass… perhaps because they believe Christ will be sacrificed… This is the same old canard about Catholics re-crucifying Jesus again. Really a low blow. This show seems to end poorly.

Really disappointing. I’m sorry I listened. My advice to others is, don’t give the site any more traffic. Just move along folks. Nothing to see or hear.

Peace,
Robert
Click to expand...
The speaker admits openly what is drawing people to the Church but in a negative way…
He says…comparing Evangelicals with the OHCAC…those not seeing their worship fulfilling, looking for spiritual power and to stop fighting over Doctrine…he then says…

**The Mass is drawing people………People are looking for Spiritual Power….there is no fighting over Doctrine…**These are all true…

This is sandwiched between two thoughts…
He says that Augustinian theologians throughout the middle ages were articulating Protestant thought…
Click to expand...
He says that with Rome…only by achieving a certain level of holiness do you have any hope of getting to God……It is now up to me…after Christ did his bit???
Click to expand...
That is when the speaker talks about the power of the Mass and its draw and then after that launches into another segment…

He then speaks of the Ancient Church, as if it were Protestant, claiming that they were able to decide certain issues…
Ancient Church Trinity, natures of Christ………
Click to expand...
God has led the Church to face issues….the Opposition…???
John Henry Neuman……discontent of Neuman…
Click to expand...
Apparent Holiness of Rome….a focus on the humanity not the spirituality…
Click to expand...
In the above segment there is a contrast with the Ancient Church and the Councils, claimed as part of the Protestant church, claiming in the segment that Rome and Protestants have the same claim to the Ancient Church…and note how he mentions councils in passing and then makes this rediculous statement…God led the Church to face these oppositions…ie heresies…He then notes that Neuman was a discontent convert and that Rome is not holy it only looks holy and spiritual…

The draw of the mass is mentioned only after mentioning Augustine/Protestant thought and its continuance, and then discontent Neuman as a convert and an apparent holiness, ie the spiritual draw of the Mass is not all it is cracked up to be… and at the end of the talk he says…
Rome is a false Church…there are Christians in the Church but the Church is false…
Click to expand...
He then follows with the Protestant vs the distorted presentation of the Catholic Gospel…
 
IggyAntiochus said:
How do you** feel **he misrepresented the Roman Catholic understanding of the gospel?
Click to expand...
I don’t speak or write in feelings. I believe he misrpresented grace alone, by faith alone working in love contrasting it with Protestant thought with gibberish. Do you believe he represented the Protestant and Catholic positions honestly?
 
CopticChristian said:
I don’t speak or write in feelings. I believe he misrpresented grace alone, by faith alone working in love contrasting it with Protestant thought with gibberish. Do you believe he represented the Protestant and Catholic positions honestly?
Click to expand...
Mea culpa if you thought I worded that question wrong.

He represented the Reformed viewpoint accurately. It would be wrong of him to label it the Protestant position, I suppose, since Lutherans would disagree with the Reformed as far as the sacramental nature of justification… I am not sure if he misrepresented the Roman Catholic understanding. You would know that better than I. Which of his statements about it do you think he misrepresented?
 
CopticChristian said:
Let us just say if we were to compare and contrast the following statements as it concerns Rome and Protestant thought…

Roman Gospel vs Biblical Gospel

Protestants say…Look away from yourself…to Christ…and find all that you need in Him…trust Him and rest in Him…and by His grace you will over time be changed…in a variety of ways…BUT whether your changed a little or whether your changed a lot your safe in Him because He has done all for you…

Rome says…Look deep in yourself and see how much progress you’ve made, have you made enough, make more use of the sacraments…become a more virtuous person…because at the end of the day you can never really be sure…that you can become holy enough but keep at it…there is a chance that if you have a priest there when you die you will make it…

So the ultimate difference in Protestanism and Catholicism is the following…

Protestantism says look to Christ…Rome says look at yourself…

Any agreement or disagreement?👍
Click to expand...
I would have to disagree very strongly. Catholicism isn’t Pelagianism. I’m not quite sure where you ever got that from Roman Catholic Soteriology.

What sources are you concluding this from?
 
chrisb said:
I would have to disagree very strongly. Catholicism isn’t Pelagianism. I’m not quite sure where you ever got that from Roman Catholic Soteriology.

What sources are you concluding this from?
Click to expand...
A transcript of the audio of the OP…take a listen to the posting and you can hear it for yourself…me thinks you have not listened…:eek:
 
CopticChristian said:
A transcript of the audio of the OP…take a listen to the posting and you can hear it for yourself…me thinks you have not listened…:eek:
Click to expand...
I guess my question is ‘why believe his characterization’, he’s not even Catholic? You say that you are Catholic, is this what you are taught in Catechesis?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top