Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
On behalf of all the unborn, mothers, and Christian healthcare workers who are caught in the crossfires of the abortion holocaust in this nation, I urge you to call your congressmen (if you have not done so already) to register your voice that abortion should not be funded in the health care legislation that is to be voted on soon. If you have the time, a personal phone call to each congressman's Washington office can really do a lot of good. (The office staff are always very courteous, and it feels good to have your voice heard!)
You can easily find contact information for your Senators and Representatives by going to these websites:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
When you call your senators, here is a suggested text for you to say (taken from the Catholic Key blog):
“During floor debate on the health care reform bill, please support an amendment to
incorporate longstanding policies against abortion funding and in favor of conscience rights.
If these serious concerns are not addressed, the final bill should be opposed.”
When you call your representatives, here is a suggested text:
“Please support the Stupak Amendment that addresses essential pro-life concerns on abortion
funding and conscience rights in the health care reform bill. Help ensure that the Rule for the
bill allows a vote on this amendment. If these serious concerns are not addressed, the final bill
should be opposed.”
Let us do everything we can to curb further funding of abortion in this country.
And may the power of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit bring this holocaust to an end so that children live and souls be saved. Let us beg for the intercession of all the saints, angels, and our mother Mary for these petitions.
In Christ,
RR
ps. I've been swamped with work lately, but stand in awe of the incredible things that have happened in the Church in the last few weeks. The Holy Spirit is moving in powerful ways bringing many separated brothers and sisters back into the fold.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Francis Beckwith on St. Justin Martyr
One of the greatest joys of being a Catholic apologist is to witness converts discover their long family heritage. Some converts describe it as waking up from a coma or from amnesia only to discover that you are a member of a royal family line and heir to all the fortunes of the kingdom. There is so much to learn--truths, family members, customs, rituals, saints--and all of it is so brilliantly wonderful, treasures beyond words.
Francis Beckwith, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society and convert to the Catholic faith, connects with St. Justin Martyr on his blog. Check it out! This simple post provides a peak into the life of one evangelical convert who continues to discover his roots.
Francis Beckwith, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society and convert to the Catholic faith, connects with St. Justin Martyr on his blog. Check it out! This simple post provides a peak into the life of one evangelical convert who continues to discover his roots.
Baptism Now Saves You
In 1 Peter 3:21, St. Peter writes, "baptism...now saves you."
Baptists, of course, explicitly teach that baptism does not save you.
Baptists must implicitly assume that Peter actually believed like Baptists believe, that baptism does not save you. (I say must because we are dealing with a binary possibility here: does or does not. If you don't believe one, then you must believe the other.)
If they assume that Peter-the-Baptist believed what they believe, they likely assume that why he believed baptism does not save is the same reason why they believe that baptism does not save. Thus, Baptists implicitly assume that Peter-the-Baptist thought of baptism as an outward ritual involving water only, and that the Spirit is in no way involved, that no grace is imparted during the ritual, and that nothing happens within the soul of the person baptized.
But if Peter-the-Baptist believed all these things, why would he then say baptism now saves you? Why would he say that a grace-less, outward sign saves you? No Baptist pastor in a million years would say that baptism saves you.
Peter's expression plainly and simply doesn't make any sense if Peter really thought like a Baptist.
Further, why does Peter unpack the idea that baptism saves you by describing its action as an interior action, when he knew full well that no interior action occurs during a baptism, since the interior change already occurred previously (according to Baptist theology)?
Moreover, why does he connect the ritual and imagery of baptism in the New Covenant with the time point in the Old Testament when Noah was saved through water? Doesn't this dramatize the idea that baptism saves you now, which is the very point that Peter-the-Baptist would never want to make?
Finally, lest we blame Peter-the-Baptist for a temporary verbal indiscretion, might we ask what the Holy Spirit who inspired this text was thinking? Is this not the same Holy Spirit who knew that Christians from the very beginning of the Church would begin teaching consistently and universally that baptism now saves us, and would do so for 1,600 years until the Anabaptists came along to set things right? Why didn't the Holy Spirit ward off this dangerous, work-based, false teaching by inspiring Peter simply to preach "Baptism does NOT now save us"?
My dear Baptist readers, it is not your job to answer these questions. Rather, I would recommend that you ask these questions to your pastors, Bible-study leaders, and Bible teachers. Ask all of them; don't let them dodge the bullet by not letting you fire it. Ask your pastors and weigh their answers against what Peter taught in 1 Peter 3:21. Think critically about the answer you are given; do not assume that it is correct until you have critically verified it as such. (After all, the whole point of the exercise is really to test your Pastor's teachings by God's word, just like the Bereans did in Acts.) Compare their interpretation of this passage with how others have interpreted the passage historically. How did the early church fathers who learned the faith from the apostles understand baptism?
Do some research. Think critically. Love the truth. Seek the truth. And the truth will set you free!
Baptists, of course, explicitly teach that baptism does not save you.
Baptists must implicitly assume that Peter actually believed like Baptists believe, that baptism does not save you. (I say must because we are dealing with a binary possibility here: does or does not. If you don't believe one, then you must believe the other.)
If they assume that Peter-the-Baptist believed what they believe, they likely assume that why he believed baptism does not save is the same reason why they believe that baptism does not save. Thus, Baptists implicitly assume that Peter-the-Baptist thought of baptism as an outward ritual involving water only, and that the Spirit is in no way involved, that no grace is imparted during the ritual, and that nothing happens within the soul of the person baptized.
But if Peter-the-Baptist believed all these things, why would he then say baptism now saves you? Why would he say that a grace-less, outward sign saves you? No Baptist pastor in a million years would say that baptism saves you.
Peter's expression plainly and simply doesn't make any sense if Peter really thought like a Baptist.
Further, why does Peter unpack the idea that baptism saves you by describing its action as an interior action, when he knew full well that no interior action occurs during a baptism, since the interior change already occurred previously (according to Baptist theology)?
Moreover, why does he connect the ritual and imagery of baptism in the New Covenant with the time point in the Old Testament when Noah was saved through water? Doesn't this dramatize the idea that baptism saves you now, which is the very point that Peter-the-Baptist would never want to make?
Finally, lest we blame Peter-the-Baptist for a temporary verbal indiscretion, might we ask what the Holy Spirit who inspired this text was thinking? Is this not the same Holy Spirit who knew that Christians from the very beginning of the Church would begin teaching consistently and universally that baptism now saves us, and would do so for 1,600 years until the Anabaptists came along to set things right? Why didn't the Holy Spirit ward off this dangerous, work-based, false teaching by inspiring Peter simply to preach "Baptism does NOT now save us"?
My dear Baptist readers, it is not your job to answer these questions. Rather, I would recommend that you ask these questions to your pastors, Bible-study leaders, and Bible teachers. Ask all of them; don't let them dodge the bullet by not letting you fire it. Ask your pastors and weigh their answers against what Peter taught in 1 Peter 3:21. Think critically about the answer you are given; do not assume that it is correct until you have critically verified it as such. (After all, the whole point of the exercise is really to test your Pastor's teachings by God's word, just like the Bereans did in Acts.) Compare their interpretation of this passage with how others have interpreted the passage historically. How did the early church fathers who learned the faith from the apostles understand baptism?
Do some research. Think critically. Love the truth. Seek the truth. And the truth will set you free!
Exorcizing--not Exercising!--the Spirit of Vatican II
Thank you, Jesus, for sending holy bishops to lead your Church, especially Bishop Nickless!
Bishop R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City, Iowa is announcing in his newest pastoral letter that the Church under his leadership will embrace the interpretive tradition of continuity in regard to the teachings of the Vatican II, as opposed to those who interpret this council as a break with the past.
Read a portion of Bishop Nickless's letter here.
As more and more bishops like Bishop Nickless join the episcopacy, I believe we will see an acceleration of the new evangelization. As Bishop Nickless points out in his letter, the Church is thriving wherever a hermeneutic of continuity is practiced, and dying wherever it is rejected.
Bishop R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City, Iowa is announcing in his newest pastoral letter that the Church under his leadership will embrace the interpretive tradition of continuity in regard to the teachings of the Vatican II, as opposed to those who interpret this council as a break with the past.
Read a portion of Bishop Nickless's letter here.
As more and more bishops like Bishop Nickless join the episcopacy, I believe we will see an acceleration of the new evangelization. As Bishop Nickless points out in his letter, the Church is thriving wherever a hermeneutic of continuity is practiced, and dying wherever it is rejected.
Top-of-the-List Reading on the Papacy
Steven Greydanus recently published part 8 of his series on the papacy over at Jimmy Akin's blog.
This is really important reading, especially for anyone who doesn't think the papacy was instituted by Christ.
From my dialogues with Baptist pastors about the papacy, my experience is that none of them know the Catholic, Biblical arguments for this institution. Not even the basics.
Don't be led astray. Read the arguments. Study God's word. Come to know the truth!
This is really important reading, especially for anyone who doesn't think the papacy was instituted by Christ.
From my dialogues with Baptist pastors about the papacy, my experience is that none of them know the Catholic, Biblical arguments for this institution. Not even the basics.
Don't be led astray. Read the arguments. Study God's word. Come to know the truth!
Response to Fairwinds Baptist Church: On (Not) Knowing God's Word
Pastor Carlo often makes statements that go something like this: "Anyone who believes [X, Y, or Z] clearly does not know God's word."
These types of statements are a red herring! (A red herring is a term that refers to a point in an argument that is meant to distract from the true crux of the argument.) These statements are a red herring since we all know that people who believe differently from Pastor Carlo do, in fact, know God's word, insofar as we accept Pastor Carlo's own reduction of God's word down to the words of Sacred Scripture. (Catholics do not make this reduction.)
As a Catholic, I would openly acknowledge that Baptists know God's word (for present purposes, the Bible). Methodists know God's word. Presbyterians know God's word. For that matter, Mormons know God's word. And so do JW's, Calvinists, and every other Christian or quasi-Christian group you can think of.
The problem is really that these groups interpret God's word differently, and perhaps incorrectly at times.
Thus, Pastor's statement really ought to be:
"Anyone who believes [X, Y, or Z] clearly does not interpret God's word the same way that I do."
Besides for the fact that this statement lacks the rhetorical punch of the original version, the revised statement also reveals something significant about what is missing from the first statement.
The first statement conceals the fact that Pastor Carlo makes his interpretation of God's word the standard, rule, and final authority for the faith of his congregants, at least so far as the various doctrines about which he is preaching are concerned.
After all, if the measure of truth when it comes to baptism (for instance) is how Pastor Carlo thinks about, then Pastor Carlo's congregants have two choices. First, they can put their faith in Pastor Carlo's interpretation of the Bible and simply accept his interpretation as correct. Or, they can ask themselves, on what basis do I trust that Pastor Carlo is the final authority on the interpretation of baptism in the Bible?
If Pastor Carlo is 100% correct 100% of the time, then no worries.
But does Pastor Carlo claim to be perfect in his interpretations? I doubt it. What standards, then, can Pastor Carlo's congregants use to judge when and if Pastor Carlo's interpretations are correct, and thus worthy of the trust that he presumes in making the original statement?
Ironically, the only standard that many congregants use to judge Pastor Carlo's interpretation of God's word is their own interpretations of God's word!
Do you see the problem here? Not only are their interpretations of God's word conditioned by Pastor Carlo's preaching week after week, but even if they weren't, this standard simply displaces the problem. Now, it is the congregants' interpretations that are the final, absolute rule and authority.
But by what standards can these congregants judge whether or not their own interpretations are correct?
The common answer is: by God's word. But we are talking about the interpretation of God's word. The next answer is usually: faith. But we are not talking about faith in God; what this hermeneutic boils down to is faith in oneself! While I have every reason to have faith in God, I have every reason not to be faithful in myself. I make countless errors every day! Yet somehow I am supposed to trust that I can pick up this gigantic book written in a languages that I do not know for a culture that I hardly know and somehow come to the correct interpretation all on my own? And I am supposed to have faith in this interpretation? On what grounds?
I think for most Protestants, the only answer to this final question is that they have no other option.
But there is!
There is another option.
Let's go back to Pastor Carlo's statement, and let's reword it into a statement that a Catholic apologist might make. Ask yourself: what authorities are invoked in the following statements?
"Anyone who believes [X, Y, or Z] interprets God's word differently than the historical successors of the the apostles."
"Anyone who believes [X, Y, or Z] interprets God's word according to a tradition that arose 1,600 years after Christianity began."
"Anyone who believes [X, Y, or Z] seems to privilege these verses in their interpretation of Scripture while failing to account for these verses."
"Anyone who believes [X, Y, or Z] does not hold the interpretation of Scripture that has been safeguarded by the authorities Jesus chose and protects by the power of the Holy Spirit to transmit the correct interpretation of God's word to you and to all generations."
These statements are a bit more candid than Pastor Carlo's original statement in that they actually point to some objective standard that the listener can go to and study. Rather than be faced with the choice of accepting or rejecting the authority of Pastor Carlo's interpretations, the reader can go an study the early fathers of the Church. The reader can study the historical context of Protestant doctrines. The reader can study various interpretations of Scripture to see which one makes the most sense of the Bible. (Protestant converts seem to all agree that Catholic theology and the Mass make the Bible come alive.) The reader can study the explicit claim to authority that the Catholic Church makes, so at least they can be clear about their rejection of it, if they so choose.
But if Protestants absolutely reject the authority of the Catholic Church, then they ultimately reject the Bible as well, because the Bible was written by Catholics, compiled by Catholics, and was ultimately canonized by a council of Catholic bishops. The contents of the Bible itself--its table of contents, so to speak--is itself an authoritative Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. It was the authority of the bishops that was employed to determine which books should and should not be in the New Testament.
Authority is the key issue, the ultimate issue that separates Catholics from non-Catholics. Catholics are satisfied to openly and obediently follow the teachings of other men, and we do so trusting in Christ's promise that "the gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church" and that he continues to send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect the apostles and their successors in the truth. Apart from this faith in Christ's promises, Christians would have no reason to trust these Catholic bishops either.
Non-Catholics find themselves in a difficult position. Since few of them are highly-trained Biblical scholars, most of them end up following the men that preach at their local church. What irony! These Christians are part of a movement that ultimately protest an authority protected by the Holy Spirit only to become obedient to an authority not protected by Him.
And this, I think, explains Pastor Carlo's red herring. The red herring tries to distract you from the reality:
"Anyone who believes [X, Y, or Z] clearly does not interpret God's word the same way I do."
Nor should we, Pastor Carlos, unless you claim the charism of infallibility, the authority of a bishop who has succeeded the apostles, and fidelity to the orthodox teachings of Christianity left once for all with the saints (Jude 3) and the early fathers of the Church.
The truth is out there, my dear brothers and sisters in Christ. Seek and you will find!
I invite you to consider coming home to the Church, the family of God, which is the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). There is only one world-wide Church that makes the claim to be the pillar and foundation of truth, and it is the same Church that has existed since she was founded by Christ in Matt. 16: the Catholic Church.
(We call her the Roman Catholic Church since our first pope, St. Peter, was martyred in Rome, and his bishopric was then based in the city. If St. Peter had been martyred elsewhere, then I suppose the Catholic Church would have eventually come to be identified by a different city. Of course, it is fitting that Christ's kingdom on earth should be centered in the historic center of humanity and pagan culture in the ancient world. For centuries, dating back to St. John's student Ignatius in 110 A.D., we have simply called ourselves the Catholic Church.)
May the peace and guidance of the Holy Spirit be with you, now and forever.
These types of statements are a red herring! (A red herring is a term that refers to a point in an argument that is meant to distract from the true crux of the argument.) These statements are a red herring since we all know that people who believe differently from Pastor Carlo do, in fact, know God's word, insofar as we accept Pastor Carlo's own reduction of God's word down to the words of Sacred Scripture. (Catholics do not make this reduction.)
As a Catholic, I would openly acknowledge that Baptists know God's word (for present purposes, the Bible). Methodists know God's word. Presbyterians know God's word. For that matter, Mormons know God's word. And so do JW's, Calvinists, and every other Christian or quasi-Christian group you can think of.
The problem is really that these groups interpret God's word differently, and perhaps incorrectly at times.
Thus, Pastor's statement really ought to be:
"Anyone who believes [X, Y, or Z] clearly does not interpret God's word the same way that I do."
Besides for the fact that this statement lacks the rhetorical punch of the original version, the revised statement also reveals something significant about what is missing from the first statement.
The first statement conceals the fact that Pastor Carlo makes his interpretation of God's word the standard, rule, and final authority for the faith of his congregants, at least so far as the various doctrines about which he is preaching are concerned.
After all, if the measure of truth when it comes to baptism (for instance) is how Pastor Carlo thinks about, then Pastor Carlo's congregants have two choices. First, they can put their faith in Pastor Carlo's interpretation of the Bible and simply accept his interpretation as correct. Or, they can ask themselves, on what basis do I trust that Pastor Carlo is the final authority on the interpretation of baptism in the Bible?
If Pastor Carlo is 100% correct 100% of the time, then no worries.
But does Pastor Carlo claim to be perfect in his interpretations? I doubt it. What standards, then, can Pastor Carlo's congregants use to judge when and if Pastor Carlo's interpretations are correct, and thus worthy of the trust that he presumes in making the original statement?
Ironically, the only standard that many congregants use to judge Pastor Carlo's interpretation of God's word is their own interpretations of God's word!
Do you see the problem here? Not only are their interpretations of God's word conditioned by Pastor Carlo's preaching week after week, but even if they weren't, this standard simply displaces the problem. Now, it is the congregants' interpretations that are the final, absolute rule and authority.
But by what standards can these congregants judge whether or not their own interpretations are correct?
The common answer is: by God's word. But we are talking about the interpretation of God's word. The next answer is usually: faith. But we are not talking about faith in God; what this hermeneutic boils down to is faith in oneself! While I have every reason to have faith in God, I have every reason not to be faithful in myself. I make countless errors every day! Yet somehow I am supposed to trust that I can pick up this gigantic book written in a languages that I do not know for a culture that I hardly know and somehow come to the correct interpretation all on my own? And I am supposed to have faith in this interpretation? On what grounds?
I think for most Protestants, the only answer to this final question is that they have no other option.
But there is!
There is another option.
Let's go back to Pastor Carlo's statement, and let's reword it into a statement that a Catholic apologist might make. Ask yourself: what authorities are invoked in the following statements?
"Anyone who believes [X, Y, or Z] interprets God's word differently than the historical successors of the the apostles."
"Anyone who believes [X, Y, or Z] interprets God's word according to a tradition that arose 1,600 years after Christianity began."
"Anyone who believes [X, Y, or Z] seems to privilege these verses in their interpretation of Scripture while failing to account for these verses."
"Anyone who believes [X, Y, or Z] does not hold the interpretation of Scripture that has been safeguarded by the authorities Jesus chose and protects by the power of the Holy Spirit to transmit the correct interpretation of God's word to you and to all generations."
These statements are a bit more candid than Pastor Carlo's original statement in that they actually point to some objective standard that the listener can go to and study. Rather than be faced with the choice of accepting or rejecting the authority of Pastor Carlo's interpretations, the reader can go an study the early fathers of the Church. The reader can study the historical context of Protestant doctrines. The reader can study various interpretations of Scripture to see which one makes the most sense of the Bible. (Protestant converts seem to all agree that Catholic theology and the Mass make the Bible come alive.) The reader can study the explicit claim to authority that the Catholic Church makes, so at least they can be clear about their rejection of it, if they so choose.
But if Protestants absolutely reject the authority of the Catholic Church, then they ultimately reject the Bible as well, because the Bible was written by Catholics, compiled by Catholics, and was ultimately canonized by a council of Catholic bishops. The contents of the Bible itself--its table of contents, so to speak--is itself an authoritative Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. It was the authority of the bishops that was employed to determine which books should and should not be in the New Testament.
Authority is the key issue, the ultimate issue that separates Catholics from non-Catholics. Catholics are satisfied to openly and obediently follow the teachings of other men, and we do so trusting in Christ's promise that "the gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church" and that he continues to send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect the apostles and their successors in the truth. Apart from this faith in Christ's promises, Christians would have no reason to trust these Catholic bishops either.
Non-Catholics find themselves in a difficult position. Since few of them are highly-trained Biblical scholars, most of them end up following the men that preach at their local church. What irony! These Christians are part of a movement that ultimately protest an authority protected by the Holy Spirit only to become obedient to an authority not protected by Him.
And this, I think, explains Pastor Carlo's red herring. The red herring tries to distract you from the reality:
"Anyone who believes [X, Y, or Z] clearly does not interpret God's word the same way I do."
Nor should we, Pastor Carlos, unless you claim the charism of infallibility, the authority of a bishop who has succeeded the apostles, and fidelity to the orthodox teachings of Christianity left once for all with the saints (Jude 3) and the early fathers of the Church.
The truth is out there, my dear brothers and sisters in Christ. Seek and you will find!
I invite you to consider coming home to the Church, the family of God, which is the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). There is only one world-wide Church that makes the claim to be the pillar and foundation of truth, and it is the same Church that has existed since she was founded by Christ in Matt. 16: the Catholic Church.
(We call her the Roman Catholic Church since our first pope, St. Peter, was martyred in Rome, and his bishopric was then based in the city. If St. Peter had been martyred elsewhere, then I suppose the Catholic Church would have eventually come to be identified by a different city. Of course, it is fitting that Christ's kingdom on earth should be centered in the historic center of humanity and pagan culture in the ancient world. For centuries, dating back to St. John's student Ignatius in 110 A.D., we have simply called ourselves the Catholic Church.)
May the peace and guidance of the Holy Spirit be with you, now and forever.
Steve Ray's Crossing the Tiber is on Google Books!
Former Baptist Steve Ray's book-length conversion story is (partially) available on Google Books.
This is really terrific news, because Steve's book really goes into detail about the intellectual, spiritual, and historical journeys that led to his conversion to Catholicism--a conversion that many of my Baptist readers should find intriguing.
Readers will quickly see that Steve's conversion was not a rash or irrational decision. Readers will also be able to see that Steve was in love with the Lord and was willing to pursue the Truth of the Lord wherever it led him.
One of the most valuable parts of the book are the footnotes to the conversion story, which include many citations from Protestant scholars. Ironically, it was the writings of Protestant scholars that played a significant role in pointing Steve toward the Catholic Church.
Also of great importance are the latter two sections on Baptism and the Eucharist, where Steve examines the Biblical and patristic sources of these doctrines.
As you read, remember that Steve is not a highly-trained theologian (though he has by now far surpassed the average laymen in his knowledge of God). Learning the truth does not require three PhD's in dogmatics. But do notice that Steve thinks critically and researches his topics with an open mind and heart. So join Steve in really studying closely what the earliest fathers of Christianity had to say about baptism and the Eucharist.
Read Crossing the Tiber here!
This is really terrific news, because Steve's book really goes into detail about the intellectual, spiritual, and historical journeys that led to his conversion to Catholicism--a conversion that many of my Baptist readers should find intriguing.
Readers will quickly see that Steve's conversion was not a rash or irrational decision. Readers will also be able to see that Steve was in love with the Lord and was willing to pursue the Truth of the Lord wherever it led him.
One of the most valuable parts of the book are the footnotes to the conversion story, which include many citations from Protestant scholars. Ironically, it was the writings of Protestant scholars that played a significant role in pointing Steve toward the Catholic Church.
Also of great importance are the latter two sections on Baptism and the Eucharist, where Steve examines the Biblical and patristic sources of these doctrines.
As you read, remember that Steve is not a highly-trained theologian (though he has by now far surpassed the average laymen in his knowledge of God). Learning the truth does not require three PhD's in dogmatics. But do notice that Steve thinks critically and researches his topics with an open mind and heart. So join Steve in really studying closely what the earliest fathers of Christianity had to say about baptism and the Eucharist.
Read Crossing the Tiber here!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
