Witness to my Roman Catholic Parents

Hi Nimrod,

You wrote, "The Holy Scriptures have made it very clear that the "Rock" is our Lord."

Put otherwise, the Scriptures have made it very clear that God is referred to many times as "the rock" or "rock".

Peter is the English translation of the Greek "Petros", which means "Rock". Peter's very name (given by Jesus to him in John 1:42; he was renamed from "Simon") means "Rock". So, to say that because God is referred to as "Rock" in the OT discounts Peter being "Rock" is sheer nonsense for the simple reason that Peter means "Rock".

Your argument is infected with the logical fallacy of false dichotomy or bifurcation. You are presenting an all-or-nothing scenario when, in fact, multiple options exist (i.e. because God is referred to as "the rock" in Scripture, either he is the only rock or he isn't).

Please allow for me to project my own experiences as a Catholic onto the testimony that you posted from Dave Hunt's (a prominent anti-Catholic) website.

I was drawn to their prayer group.It didn’t sound like anything I’d ever heard in the Catholic Church.

I have participated in numerous prayer groups within the Catholic Church, some of which were charismatic.

I began to read my Catholic Bible, asking questions, but still attending Mass.

This person just now began to read their Bible? This leads me to ask just how grounded they were in the Scriptural foundations of their Christian faith. I've read the entire New Testament at least once and many of the books many times over as well as a good portion of the Old Testament, and I have found Scripture to overwhelmingly support, nourish, and enrich my Catholic faith.

Never had I seen such fellowship and Christianity [as in the prayer group].

This particular individual's personal experience was obviously very limited, as I have personally participated in deep fellowship with numerous other Catholics.

In six months I began sensing an overwhelming sense of my sinfulness.

This implies that this individual had never before sensed their sinfulness, which is a trajedy. It also implies that Catholics - as a whole - have not realized their sinfulness and need for a Saviour, which is extremely false. This is the whole reason the Church has us do penance! So that we humble ourselves before the Lord, recognize our wretchedness, and humbly implore him for mercy! It is also why we begin every Mass with the Penitential Rite, wherein we confess that we have sinned in thought and deed and subsequently ask for mercy from God through Jesus Christ!

One Sunday morning - all alone - I met with the Lord, confessed my sinfulness and truly embraced Him as my Savior.

This individual confesses that he/she embraced the Lord as Saviour on "one" Sunday morning. Every Sunday, at Mass, and during numerous daily masses), I confess my sinfulness with the rest of the Body of Christ and truly embrace Jesus Christ as Saviour by confessing him as Lord with the rest of the Body of Christ and then I renew my covenant with the Lord (made in baptism) through receiving his body and blood in the Eucharist.

Alone, I embrace Christ as Saviour and Lord every day of my life, confessing my sins before him when they come to mind immediately, asking for his mercy, grace, and life.

You also asked, "Do you think most of the Early Church Fathers interpret matt 16:18 as the same way the RCC does?"

Absolutely. And, I've already read through William Webster thoroughly concerning this issue.

I urge you, Nimrod, to read through Stephen K. Ray - a former Baptist - who converted to Catholicism after reading through all of these Fathers himself.

You may find his work here:
http://www.catholicconvert.com/Page_Viewer.asp?inc=webster/index.html

I also urge you to consider what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in places such as paragraph 424, "Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'[Mt 16:16 .] On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.", quoting St. Leo the Great (and pope, mind you).

The Church sees no problem in extending the metaphor of "rock" to Peter's confession. We just don't bifurcate Matthew 16:18 into such an inpossible situation as to create a mutual exclusion whereby only Peter is "the rock". That sort of interpretation is not a part of the Church's rich spiritual exegesis of Scripture.

God bless you,

Carson

 

Dear Nimrod --

You know, I was just scanning this thread to see where it had gone, and a thought hit me like a freight train regarding you and your parents.

You really do love your parents and you really have been convinced by the people who converted you that your parents are lost and on their way to hell just for being Catholic.

Well, that is understandable. They are your parents and you love them, as all of us should love our parents.

I wish I could encourage you that they are not in a cult, that they belong to the same kind of belief system that was present in the first and second and third and on......centuries, that God is a God not of hatred, anger, and readiness to wrath for the slightest offense, but of love, kindness, and GREAT MERCY TO ALL. Dave Hunt's (and that of all Calvinists for that matter) vision of God the Father is a warped and twisted view of a deity who, for no reason at all other than some vision of offendedness, torments even babies by sending the "non-elect" to hell. You know, that is what you do to rattlesnakes and poisonous serpents, not mankind. God's wrath is not arbitrary or without reason.

In the Orthodox Faith (remember, I am Orthodox in communion with Rome!) we have a verse we sing during our Liturgies. "God...who LOVETH mankind". I can still remember the first time I heard that line while still a Protestant. It just smacked me between the eyes because I was still under the impression that God loves only the "elect" and hates the rest.

And our salvation is not dependant upon how well, how thoroughly, and how orthodoxly we hold to the Faith. It is not necessary for your parents to be clones of our resident college kid and brain, Carson, to receive salvation. Romans 2: 5 -10 and John 5: 29 doesn't say this. It speaks to our good works, which in turn, speaks to who we are inside, for as Jesus said "A good tree cannot bear corrupt fruit." A life of good deeds and eschewing evil is a sign of a tree with very good roots.

I agree with Carson regarding the link you posted. The "Catholic" who was "very devout" was one who was indeed devout, but his devotion was not tempered with knowledge, so he was easy prey for the Bible thumpers when they came around. I sincerely doubt they would have such fun with the likes of a Scott Hahn, a Jerry Matatics, a Steve Ray, or a Carson Webber. Heck, I might even be able to make them at least a tad uncomfortable if they come around my door!!

It is, of course, more than sad, that the Catholic Church has done such a sorry job of teaching their people over the years. It is one thing to be born into the Faith and practice it because that is what you were taught, but quite another to DEEPEN one's faith by knowledge and study. As Carson said, this guy never had opened his Bible??? Had he ever listened in Mass either? There are constant Scripture readings. Sometimes I think that Dave Hunt makes these things up and does so to try to portray Catholics as people who don't even KNOW what a Bible is!!

I wish you could see those of us in the Catholic Faith as Christians rather than "papists" "romanists" or something else unrelated to Christianity. You know, it came as a GREAT SHOCK to me to discover Catholic praxis in the writings of the Early Church. It came as an even greater shock when I began to believe in those writings and find them agreeing with Scripture.

And once in a while, I find myself still a tad surprized to be Catholic. It is a big change, a real radical paradigm shift, to convert from being like Dave Hunt (and I WAS, please believe me!!) to being where I am today. But then I stop and remember that the things I believe now were in the Church, both Orthodox and Catholic, for centuries and centuries before Dave Hunt's brand of Reformed Baptistry was even invented. I know I am sharing beliefs with millions who came before me, who defended the Faith against Arians, Monophysites, Monothellites, Donatists, and a host of other heretics. They canonized the Scriptures. They led holy lives of sacrifice and saintliness and have left us writings to help us along the way.

Yes, I am in good company as I journey, and so are your parents. I know you will not agree with this, but the best thing you could do for them is make them LOVE JESUS as Catholics and be the best Catholics they can be. God knows the Church needs some right now, seeing the lukewarm and sad condition She is in.

Maybe the next time you get together with your parents, you could talk about the reality of loving Jesus and how both you and they "...work this out in fear and trembling" [ St. Paul, remember? ] in your lives. That might not only be edifying for them, but might give you an insight into them that you don't have. After all, no man can know another's heart.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

Ed,

I must point out that by reading your post that you are saying that Dave Hunt is a Calvinist. I must respectfully say that is not true at all. I am reading his book "What Love Is This? Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God" and he is clearly not Calvinist. I just want you to know before you accuse people of things they are not. Also, it seems that you assume that all fundamental Baptists are Calvinists, and again this is a false representation. There are many fundamentalists who would be greatly offended by your broad stroke of assuming all of them are Calvinists. In fact, at my seminary, the Calvinists are greatly in minority. I agree with some of their theology, but definitely not all. I don't know if this is what you intend, but you seem to make the equation: fundamentalist = Calvinist. Not true. And it is definitely not true about Dave Hunt, and you have misrepresented him. If you do not believe me, read his book that tries to totally undermine Calvinism. In fact, the last sentence in the first quote I have of you in this post is one of the main arguments in Dave Hunt's book. He is definitely not a reformed Baptist. Also, in the last quote of you in this post, I begin to see why you say some of the things you do. You use your personal experience and assume that all of a group are the same. To you Baptist = Calvinist. Again, this is not true. Believe it or not, there are Baptist who do not think that way!

Neal

[ January 06, 2003, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

You are correct, Nimrod. Dave Hunt also speaks out against Catholicism as well. But James White is a very good apologist, IMHO better than Dave Hunt.

Neal

 

Well, pat yourselves on the back. I did get mixed up. It is James White who is the Calvinist. I don't know if he is a single predestination or a double predestination Calvinist, but the idea is the same -- God CHOOSES, for reasons only known to Him, to send "non-elect" babies to hell without their having committed sins of any kind.

Well, Nimrod, at least you came right out and said it -- Catholics are not Christians.

Of course, you have basically stated that 1500 years of believers, beginning with the apostles, were all lost and hell bound pagans.

As for your insistence that it was Jesus who converted you, that's interesting, because it was Jesus who told me to join St. Ann's Byzantine Catholic Church two years ago when I was sitting in the last pew on the right side at 11:42 AM.

 

Nimrod,

I am interested in knowing why you felt the need to "witness" to your parents? Don't you think that they are "saved" in the Catholic church?

If they acknowldge Jesus as their lord and God, what were you witnessing to them about?

 

Hi Nimrod,

I wrote that there are different interpretations of Matthew 16:18 in the rich spiritual exegesis of the Church, and you replied with, "I was hoping that we both can admit that there has been many different interprations of Matt 16:18.", which demonstrates that you did not understand or listen to what I wrote in my post.

You also wrote, "I have not read Steven Ray's rebuttle to William Webster response." I encourage you to do so by visiting the link I posted above on Ray's website. There, Stephen K. Ray shows how Webster takes quotes (and Ray specifically uses the quote from Augustine that you supplied as an example) out of the entire corpus of each author's works in order to falsely pit the fathers against one another. This is why it is essential that you read Ray before you make your conclusions.

God bless you,

Carson

 

It was not Calvin that first came up with so-called "Calvinism," the idea of predestinating some to Heaven and some to Hell. He may have popularized these ideas some. But they came from Augustine. It is pure Augustinianism. He is the one that is really off base here.
DHK

 

It was not Calvin that first came up with so-called "Calvinism," the idea of predestinating some to Heaven and some to Hell. He may have popularized these ideas some. But they came from Augustine. It is pure Augustinianism. He is the one that is really off base here.
DHK</font>[/QUOTE]What Augustan wrote about was something called a prior grace. This is a grace that is given to us by God, before the grace of accepting him comes.

In other words, he gives us grace in order to give us grace. This is what is often referred to when someone is trying to use Augustan to support the Calvin teaching of Predestination.

Catholics teach predestination, just not in the same way it is taught by Calvins.