Studying and discussing Catholicism with my wife

  • Thread starter Thread starter HopkinsReb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Calvinism weirds out anyone who stops and thinks about it for more than a few seconds…

I mean… a God who creates people who He also actively wills to be damned and suffer for all eternity cannot be a good god, and certainly doesn’t fit the profile of the God who would be willing to send His son to suffer and die for us…
 
ProdglArchitect said:
Calvinism weirds out anyone who stops and thinks about it for more than a few seconds…

I mean… a God who creates people who He also actively wills to be damned and suffer for all eternity cannot be a good god, and certainly doesn’t fit the profile of the God who would be willing to send His son to suffer and die for us…
Click to expand...
Exactly my line of reasoning against it.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
Calvinism weirds out anyone who stops and thinks about it for more than a few seconds…
Click to expand...
I don’t think my Presbyterian in-laws thought too deeply about it. They were too busy doing Kiwanis club stuff and figured that being upstanding citizens and good red-blooded Americans and nice people proved that they and all their friends were saved, so no worries.
 
Yeah, that’s why OSAS bothers me so much. It makes people stop worrying about their salvation, and if you’re nothing thinking about your salivation often, chances are you’re moving in the wrong direction.

It’s going to be interesting, and probably pretty depressing, to see how many people are lost due to that bad bit of theological nonsense…
 
If you pray enough for them, they don’t have to be lost.
There are quite a few people who manage to lead pretty good lives without worrying about their salvation all the time. I reckon many of them go to Purgatory.
 
Mary–As mother of God (a good Anglican position!) she obviously has a special place apart from the rest of humanity. The idea that she was conceived without sin (“Immaculate Conception”) and was “assumed” into Heaven (“Assumption”) are both ancient beliefs that date back to the early church. The fact that the Catholic Church codified them fairly recently doesn’t mean they are “new” ideas–they’re not. Yes, Catholics would pray “to” her in the sense they ask her to put in a good word for them with Jesus, her son. You want to pray directly to Jesus? Fine. There is no rule that you have to pray “to” Mary. Up to you. Want to say the rosary? Great! Don’t want to? Great again. Up to you. There is a recent movement to make Mary a “co-redeemer.” This is heresy. It’s not Catholic.

sola scriptura–the rough dates for the Epistles of Paul are 50 AD+; Mark, 60 AD; Matthew & Luke, 70-80; John, 90+. Everyone agrees (with a little quibble over a year or two here and there). Were there writings before this? Again, everyone is in agreement–yes, there were. Q, for example. Paul is clearly quoting creeds in various places. The thing to ask yourself is, “Was there an organized Church in existence before the New Testament was written (c. 50-90 AD)?” And of course there was. Everyone agrees. So before the New Testament (before 50-90 AD), was the Church making up rules and affirming doctrines? Of course. But if…you see the problem right? The Church validates Scripture, not the other way around. Scripture came out of the common beliefs and traditions of the early Church, the Church didn’t arrive after Scripture. Tradition and Scripture are both necessary.

Papal infallibility–Read the good Wikipedia article. Most people have a broad (mis)understanding of infallibility–“This is the best hamburger in the world,” Pope Benedict XVI. Infallible? Not at all. Or let’s say a Pope writes an encyclical on social justice. Infallible? No. His opinion. We should–obviously–take the pope’s opinion seriously, but it’s just that, his opinion. So how many infallible pronouncements have there been? One: the belief in the Assumption of Mary in, I think, 1952. There are others here and there in the past that some scholars (not all!) think were infallible. But they are few and far between. The Pope doesn’t just wake up and proclaim his latest thoughts–an infallible pronouncement must have a solid basis in tradition and/or Scripture. And if you’ve noticed (the recent synod on the family is a great example) the Church goes out of its way to avoid making an official pronouncement before there is general consensus. Ambiguity is the watchword!
 
Purgatory–An easy one. I referred to one piece of evidence earlier–where were Moses, Abraham, etc. before Jesus died on the cross? Couldn’t have been Heaven, since all Christians agree that Heaven was closed before Jesus redeemed mankind. Hell? Nope–why should good men be punished? That wouldn’t be just. So there must be a third “place.” Call it what you will–some Protestant denominations believe in Purgatory, but call it something else. But “A rose by any other name is still a rose…” Then you have the issue of praying for the dead. This occurs in Maccabees (conveniently omitted from the Prot. Bible) and from the very beginning of Christianity it was common to pray for the dead. If they are already in Heaven, why pray for them? If they are in Hell–a permanent place of punishment–that doesn’t make sense either. So…they must be in an intermediate, temporary place. And then of course you can make an analogy with criminal law: a murderer is on trial; he says he’s sorry; but he still gets 20 years in prison. Forgiveness of sin does not mean there is no punishment. Purgatory is like the prison sentence where you “pay your debt to society” if you like.
 
Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn! For you first, really. Don’t buy it and hand it to your wife.

Also, as, a cradle Catholic who wandered into Calvinism for a good while, I second the idea of not attacking the problem of Mary and the Saints with your wife first save to reassure her that the CC forbids worship of them. The only thing that could freak her out faster than Mary may be purgatory! Stay with the Bible proofs first rather than tradition and then after teaching her that the Bible actually says to hold onto the traditions we were taught you can discuss the tradition thing.
 
On the doctrines regarding Mary I’m mostly convinced; it’s no longer so much a disagreement about the facts on as it is rewiring 27 years of contrary programming.

Similar situation on Papal infallibility. I’m getting there. Used to a much more democratic church (though less so than the Presbyterians!).

And on Purgatory, I think at this point I agree with the concept, but I need to spend more team reading about the specifics of it. Because right now my understanding of it is pretty much limited to “a place where you are cleansed of your sins.” And then more of the aforementioned rewiring.
 
HopkinsReb said:
… a deep and abiding mistrust of the Episcopate, thinking that bishops are there to put a layer between us and God to keep us from having a personal relationship with Christ …
Click to expand...
In some Protestant churches, their objection is not to the episcopate as such but to the whole idea of an ordained clergy. “We are all priests …” or, alternatively, there are no priests in a true Christian church, because of the different Greek words used in the NT: hiereus for the Temple priesthood, but only ever presbyteros or episkopos (which seem be interchangeable) in the Christian church.

I’m not sure it will work, but you could try pointing to Titus 1:5, where Paul reminds him that it’s his responsibility to appoint elders (presbyteroi) in every town in Crete. This shows that Paul is dealing with two levels of ordained clergy: although he doesn 't use the word “bishop”, that is effectively what Titus is, the (senior) ordained minister who is instructed to appoint other (junior) ordained ministers in a specified district.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/titus/1-5.htm
 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
40.png
HopkinsReb:
… a deep and abiding mistrust of the Episcopate, thinking that bishops are there to put a layer between us and God to keep us from having a personal relationship with Christ …
Click to expand...
In some Protestant churches, their objection is not to the episcopate as such but to the whole idea of an ordained clergy. “We are all priests …” or, alternatively, there are no priests in a true Christian church, because of the different Greek words used in the NT: hiereus for the Temple priesthood, but only ever presbyteros or episkopos (which seem be interchangeable) in the Christian church.

I’m not sure it will work, but you could try pointing to Titus 1:5, where Paul reminds him that it’s his responsibility to appoint elders (presbyteroi) in every town in Crete. This shows that Paul is dealing with two levels of ordained clergy: although he doesn 't use the word “bishop”, that is effectively what Titus is, the (senior) ordained minister who is instructed to appoint other (junior) ordained ministers in a specified district.
Click to expand...
I don’t think her tradition holds that view – but they use different terms for everything, so we both get confused when we talk to each other about the organization of the church because “deacon” and “presbyter” mean different things to us. And her church did not have a governing structure above democratic meetings of pastors in an area, as I understand it.

Another funny thing I’ve found: her background is low church Presbyterian, and they really like Tim Keller. So I tried to find writings by Keller on Catholicism or on Keller by Catholics, but the main thing that turned up on Google was articles by high church Presbyterians about how Tim Keller is a secret agent for the Romish Church and should be run out of polite society. They do NOT think he was predestined for salvation.
 
Last edited:
I’ve never needed to carry on a discussion of this kind face to face, only in comments threads, so at that level you already have more experience than I have. However, I would just suggest this. It doesn’t really matter, I find, exactly what church or what branch of what church the person is coming from. If you can find a verse or two in the Bible that shows – or that can be made to show – that the Catholic position is in accordance with what Paul says (Paul seems to command greater respect than Jesus among most Protestants), that will then be the main thing to focus on.
 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
If you can find a verse or two in the Bible that shows – or that can be made to show – that the Catholic position is in accordance with what Paul says (Paul seems to command greater respect than Jesus among most Protestants), that will then be the main thing to focus on.
Click to expand...
That’s kind of my thought, because it’s how I got got. Unfortunately, she’s from a tradition that just pretends like the verses that disagree with their theology either don’t count or mean the exact opposite of what they say. When I told her how much I was questioning because of James 2:24, she told me that when it says that “we are justified by works and not by faith alone,” what it’s really saying is that we’re not justified by works at all but are justified exclusively by faith.

It’s gonna be a long journey. Pray for us, folks.
 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
I don’t know how much weight it would carry with your wife but I can quote you, if you like, the paragraph on this verse from R.V.G. Tasker’s commentary on James. Tasker was a Calvinist of some kind, I think, but I’ve never needed to unravel the various strands of Calvinism.

Amazon.com :
Click to expand...
That would be helpful.
 
Okay, here it is.
  1. James now addresses all his readers, and invites them to draw for themselves the obvious inference from the story of Abraham, particularly from the part of it relating to the sacrifice of Isaac. The inevitable conclusion is that, while it is faith that justifies, for James never denies this fundamental truth, faith is never static. Faith is a practical response to the divine initiative. It is an answer to a heavenly call, and the call is always a call to obedience. Therefore obedience, expressing itself in action, is the inevitable and immediate issue of faith. Ye see then that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. In other words, the life of sanctification dates from the moment a man is justified by faith, when he surrenders himself to Jesus Christ a his personal saviour, through whose saving death apart from any merit of his own he is counted righteous in the sight of God; but the life of sanctification is not a life of faith only; it is a life of what might be called faith-obedience.
I hadn’t noticed until now that Tasker uses the word “inevitable” twice in this one short paragraph. I wonder if that is symptomatic of his Calvinistic thought processes: if everything is predestined, then everything is inevitable.
 
This is fairly typical of what I find from sola fide folks on this topic.

They take the passage and conclude that its meaning is that “we are justified by faith alone, but the kind of faith that justifies produces works.” Which, of course, continues to ignore the explicit statement that “we are justified[…] not by faith alone.”

The other issue is that they tend to be arguing against a position that the Catholic Church doesn’t actually hold: that works justify and faith doesn’t.

Of course, it’s much easier to argue against a caricature than the real thing.
 
Quite a long time ago – several years, I think – Catholic Answers ran a post by Jimmy Akin saying (from memory) something along the lines of “Catholics, too, believe in faith alone; but what we mean by ‘faith’ is different from what Protestants mean by it.” It’s an interesting argument, and it might help to shed some light on your present discussion.
 
Read Rome Sweet Home yesterday evening. It was excellent and will, I think, really help me in this. I also had a good friend of mine from college who converted to Catholicism in grad school recommend it. Apparently that’s every Catholic’s favorite book of the last century.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top