Roman Catholicism Against the Reformers and Protestant Methodology

I've been doing Reformation research for quite few years now.  This is the best overview I've ever come across  describing the mindset of  Roman Catholicism toward the Reformers, and the Protestant apologetic needed to be employed against this mindset. It was written in 1856, and yet almost perfectly describes much of what I've seen over the last ten years of interacting with Rome's apologetic material against the Reformers, and likewise expresses some of the methodology I've used to respond. 

The great general position which Romanists are anxious to establish by all they can collect against the Reformers, from their writings or their lives, from their sayings or their doings, is this, that it is very unlikely that God would employ such men in the accomplishment of any special work for the advancement of His gracious purposes. In dealing with this favourite allegation of Romanists, Protestants assert and undertake to prove the following positions:—1st, That the allegation is irrelevant to the real merits of the controversy between us and the Church of Rome, which can be determined only by the standard of the written word; 2d, That the allegation is untrue,—in other words, that there is nothing about the character of the Reformers as a whole which renders it in the least unlikely that God employed them in His own special gracious work; and, 3d, That the general principle on which the allegation is based can be applied in the way of retort, with far greater effect, to the Church of Rome. Protestants, by establishing these three positions, effectually dispose of the Romish allegation. It is with the second of them only that we have at present to do, and even on it we do not mean to enlarge.

Romanists have taken great pains to collect every expression from the writings of the Reformers, and to bring forward every incident in their lives, that may be fitted—especially when they are all presented nakedly and in combination—to produce an unfavourable impression as to their motives and actions. In the prosecution of this work, they are usually quite unscrupulous about the completeness of their quotations and the accuracy of their facts, and in this way they sometimes manage to make out, upon some particular points, what may appear to ignorant or prejudiced readers to be a good case. In dealing with the materials which papists have collected for depreciating the character of the Reformers, and thus establishing the improbability of God having employed them as His instruments in restoring divine truth, and in reforming the church, there are three steps in the process that ought to be attended to and discriminated, in order to our arriving at a just and fair conclusion:—

1st, We must carefully ascertain the true facts of the case as to any statement or action that may have been ascribed to them or to any one of them; and we will find, in not a few instances, that the allegations found in ordinary popish works on the subject are inaccurate, defective, or exaggerated,—that the quotation is garbled and mutilated, or may be explained and modified by the context,—or that the action is erroneously or unfairly represented in some of its features or accompanying circumstances.

2d, When the real facts of the case are once ascertained, the next step should be to form a fair and reasonable estimate of what they really involve or imply, taking into account, as justice demands, the natural character and tendencies of the men individually, the circumstances in which they were placed, the influences to which they were subjected, the temptations to which they were exposed, and the general impressions and ordinary standard on such subjects in the age and country in which they lived.

3d, There is a third step necessary in order to form a right estimate of the common popish charges against the Reformers, and of the soundness of the conclusion which they wish to deduce from them, viz., that we should not confine our attention to their blemishes and infirmities, real or alleged, greater or smaller, but take a general view of their whole character and proceedings, embracing, as far as we have materials, all that they felt, and said, and did, and endeavour in this way to form a fair estimate of what were their predominating desires, motives, and objects, of what it was that they had really at heart, and of what was the standard by a regard to which they strove to regulate their conduct.

A careful application of these obviously just and fair principles will easily dispose of the materials which papists have so assiduously collected for the purpose of injuring the character of the Reformers, and convince every intelligent and honest inquirer, that there is not one of the leading men among them who has not, with all his errors and infirmities, left behind him sufficient and satisfactory evidence, so far as men can judge of their fellowmen, that he had been born again' of the word of God through the belief of the truth, that he had honestly devoted himself to God's service, and that in what he did for the cause of the Reformation he was mainly influenced by a desire to promote the glory of God, to advance the prosperity of Christ's kingdom, and to secure the spiritual welfare of men.

Roman Catholics Who Are Functional Protestants

I skimmed a few Roman Catholic blogs this morning, and found these two posts interesting:

Advice For the New Convert to Catholicism: Don't Join the Dreaded Liturgy Police

What to Expect When You’re Converting

Both of these posts provide exhortations to new Roman converts. The first link above explicitly challenges the type of new converts that consist of "a select group of Catholics, usually converts, who spent their lives as protestants looking for the perfect Church" and then once they enter Romanism, they begin pointing out problems:

My suggestion to new converts, particularly from evangelical protestant expressions is this: DON”T BECOME A PART OF THE DREADED LOCAL LITURGY POLICE! (DLLP) I can’t emphasize this enough as I have seen good solid evangelicals become good solid Catholics because protestantism wasn’t enough, but then before you know it, basic Catholicism wasn’t enough, so then they sought the tridentine mass (which is fine) but then before you know it, the novus ordo mass is barely licit and most Catholics in this parish are "sheeple" and the "bishop in my diocese are so liberal" and "Vatican 2 may or may not have been a valid council." This then leads to…sedesville, (sedevacantism) where the Church is not the Church and you have appointed yourself to know which popes are the valid ones…. this ultimately leads back to protesting, again, a full circle.

The second post states:

Watch Out for Wonkiness
No, not Willy Wonka and his delicious chocolate confections. Wonky people. Confused people, ones who do not believe in the Church’s teachings. Sometimes they are priests and nuns; sometimes liturgists and organists; sometimes Joe Catholic next to you in the pew.
It can be a shock to the system to encounter such persons, especially since you gave up a lot to become Catholic and can scarcely imagine why someone would remain in the Church who rejected her divine authority. Yet these persons exist, in need of prayer and love. Give them that, but do not let your faith be shaken by their doubts.

I can understand the concerns of both of these bloggers. On the other hand, I wonder if both of these bloggers are themselves aware of how still functionally Protestant they both are. Both of them are subjectively interpreting the Roman Catholic Church and assume their insights are the correct interpretation of all things Roman. For the first blogger, he's protesting against protesters.  The second blogger appears to think he can correctly interpret the magisterium while certain priests and nuns cannot. In essence, it's his interpretation of Roman Catholicism versus someone else's.

Addendum: Template For Conversion Story Apologetics
This is in regard to the use of conversion stories as an apologetic tool. The second blog entry uses the exact methodology I've been describing:

3. Write Down Your Story
And also write down the thoughts and emotions you have experienced in converting. Write down your mindset as a Protestant and how the paradigm shift occurred that led you to become Catholic. The central part of it is mysterious, unquantifiable, hidden in the heart of God and His grace. But you can commit to paper (or electronic ink) as much as you comprehend. It will be valuable later, for you certainly, maybe for others. You could start a blog right away if you feel called to. Or just jot them down on paper, or save them on the computer. Whatever medium you like is fine; the important thing is just to do it. It is easy to start forgetting (quite quickly) what it was like to not be Catholic.

For those people who use conversion stories as apologetic tools, I've decided to be helpful this morning, or rather, a bit ecumenical. Based on the template paragraph above, I've taken the time to prepare a few different versions of this paragraph to be cut-and-pasted by any who would like to use it on a blog.

Muslim Version
Write Down Your Story
And also write down the thoughts and emotions you have experienced in converting. Write down your mindset as a Chrsitian and how the paradigm shift occurred that led you to become Muslim. The central part of it is mysterious, unquantifiable, revealed by the prophet Mohammed. But you can commit to paper (or electronic ink) as much as you comprehend. It will be valuable later, for you certainly, maybe for others. You could start a blog right away if you feel called to. Or just jot them down on paper, or save them on the computer. Whatever medium you like is fine; the important thing is just to do it. It is easy to start forgetting (quite quickly) what it was like to not be Muslim.

Mormon Version
Write Down Your Story
And also write down the thoughts and emotions you have experienced in converting. Write down your mindset as a Chrsitian and how the paradigm shift occurred that led you to become Mormon. The central part of it is mysterious, unquantifiable, hidden in the heart of God and revealed by Joseph Smith. But you can commit to paper (or electronic ink) as much as you comprehend. It will be valuable later, for you certainly, maybe for others. You could start a blog right away if you feel called to. Or just jot them down on paper, or save them on the computer. Whatever medium you like is fine; the important thing is just to do it. It is easy to start forgetting (quite quickly) what it was like to not be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints.

Raëlism
Write Down Your Story
And also write down the thoughts and emotions you have experienced in converting. Write down your mindset as a member of a central religion and how the paradigm shift occurred that led you to a species of extraterrestrials called the Elohim. The central part of it is mysterious, unquantifiable, hidden in the heart of the Elohim revealed by the prophets and spaceships they send to earth. But you can commit to paper (or electronic ink) as much as you comprehend. It will be valuable later, for you certainly, maybe for others. You could start a blog right away if you feel called to. Or just jot them down on paper, or save them on the computer. Whatever medium you like is fine; the important thing is just to do it. It is easy to start forgetting (quite quickly) what it was like to not be a member of the Raëlian Church.

How Not To Quote a Book, By Two Roman Catholic Bloggers

Here's an example of how not to quote a book, by Catholic Nick, compliments of Devin Rose. The following comes from Nick's A Study on Imputation of Righteousness posted on  Devin's St. Joseph's Vanguard (bolding in the original blog entry):

Despite the straightforwardness in which these sources explain the doctrine of Imputation, some Protestant sources are honest enough to admit that the teaching is not clearly laid out in Scripture. One scholar, George Ladd, taught the following in his hugely popular seminary textbook:

Paul never expressly states that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers. His words are, “And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness” (Rom 4:3,5).

These words could be taken to mean that God regarded faith as the most meritorious human achievement, and therefore God accounts faith as the equivalent to full righteousness. This, however, would ignore the context of Pauline thought.
(A Theology of the New Testament, “Imputation”)

This text in context reads:

Note the last sentence: "It is an unavoidable logical conclusion that people of faith are justified because Christ's righteousness is imputed to them." So, exactly what "is not clearly laid out in Scripture"?

Thanks guys. Great stuff.

Hyper-Preterists and Roman Catholics Together

It's funny how one little word can mean so much to an argument. For me, one of the signs of desperation is the "until" argument.

Compare and Contrast:

Hyper-Preterism: The Lord's Supper (Don Preston)
Question: If the Lord did come in A.D. 70, then should we partake of the Lord's Supper? Paul said that "As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do shew forth the Lord's death until he come" (1 Corinthians 11:26). So, according to this, we should not take the Supper if the Lord came in A. D. 70.

Answer: I believe that this common argument misunderstands the nature of the Supper and the meaning of "until" in Corinthians. First, the word "until" does frequently mean something like "up to the point of," and indicates a terminus or change. However, it frequently does not always mean this. Paul said "death reigned from Adam until Moses" (Romans 5:14). Surely it is acknowledged that the introduction of the Mosaic Law did not end or defeat death! Similarly, Paul told Timothy, "until I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine" (1 Timothy 4:14). I know of no one that would argue that Timothy was to stop reading the Scriptures when Paul arrived! There are many examples of this usage of the word "until."

Roman Catholicism: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary (Tim Staples)
Scripture’s statement that Joseph "knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn" would not necessarily mean they did "know" each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, "Until we meet again, God bless you." Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:

2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, "he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.")

Reason #368 How I Can Kill Your Buzz

Have you ever been the one person in the room with a frown? Everyone else appears to be having some sort of positive experience, while you just sit there, wondering what's wrong with you.

I've been in situations like this before. Probably the oddest time was in a Holiday Inn Conference room with a handful of people listening to Roman Catholic apologist Gerry Matatics invoke a number of saints. They all stood up invoking a number of people, I sat there looking around the room. Then there was the Pentecostal service I went to a number of years ago in which everyone was jumping around except for me. The minister, noticing my dour demeanor decided to anoint the audience and threw a glass of water, directly  at me (the water, that is). At least in those situations, I expected to be the one buzz killer in the room.

I recently sat through this video as part of a presentation about how the human body testifies to God as creator as well as savior, and I was not expecting to be that odd man out in the room:



The people with me during this presentation appeared to be just as amazed as the audience in this video.  I had quite the opposite experience. Sure, I was amazed by the intricacies of the human body. My faith in the gospel though was not enhanced with this fact about cross-shaped Laminin.

As I sat through this video, I prayed silently, "Please dear Lord, don't let anyone in this room ask me what I thought about this video when it's finished." Seconds after the closing prayer, the person next me said something like, "Wow, wasn't that video incredible?" At first I thought to simply say something affirming but not definite like, "Yes, that was interesting." Instead I blurted out something like, "If I told you what I think of the video, I'm probably going to kill your buzz."

I then explained I thought the basic problem with the video was placing special revelation in general revelation. General revelation is God’s non-verbal revelation of Himself. He has revealed Himself to all mankind through creation displaying the fact that He is creator (Psalm 19, Acts 14, Acts 17). General revelation does not reveal God as redeemer. Special revelation is God’s verbal revelation of Himself (the Scriptures), and also His supernatural revelation of Himself to specific people and circumstances throughout Biblical history. Of course, special revelation also reveals God as creator, but in a fuller way. We understand exactly who this God is who is the creator. The basic problem with the cross-shaped Laminin was that it's placing an aspect of special revelation into general revelation.

Probably some of you may not have a problem with this, but here's what I think happens when these categories are confused. If you place the cross outside of special revelation, you then are in a completely different epistemology ballpark. If you think that cross-shaped Laminin serves as proof of the Gospel or the Christian faith, how would you explain someone else finding some other sort of non-Christian icon in either the body or in nature somewhere? You see, if this sort of thing serves as proof for you, a similar sort of natural icon could just as easily serve as proof for some other religious worldview. This sort of thing isn't new. For those of you engaged with Rome's claims... this is the same sort of thing when an image of Mary shows up somewhere in nature.

So I managed to get out of the room with only killing one buzz.

Addendum
Ken sent me a link on this issue. In that link, the author states:

"...the Ebola virus, which causes a horrific form of hemorrhagic fever that usually results in death, happens to have the structure of what is commonly referred to as a shepherd’s crook. The Bible tells us that Jesus is the Good Shepherd (John 10:14). So, if the shape of laminin supports the biblical truth that Christ holds all things together, then what would we conclude about the Good Shepherd from the shape of the Ebola virus? And if laminin can represent a cross, then why not a sword (Ephesians 6:17; Hebrews 4:12)? As Christians, we cannot allow our fallible, finite interpretations to supersede the Word of God (2 Peter 1:20)."

Lessons on Cut and Paste

It's the Internet, the modern-day wild west. We all cut and paste. I recently learned a lesson about cutting and pasting that I'd like to share, lest any of you get caught in one of my future traps.

Well, let me back up a bit. A few months ago a Roman Catholic over on the CARM boards dialoging with me and a few others cited the following quote:

“According to his (Luther’s) knowledge of early Christian literature, there was a sizeable gap in time between the writers of the New Testament and the earliest Church Fathers. Luther regarded Tertullian, who died in 230, as the earliest writer in the church after the apostles…..he apparently did not know the writers who later acquired the title “apostolic fathers”. He was therefore, able to invoke the historical and chronological argument in a form no longer available to theologians of the twentieth century.” Pelikan, “Luther the Expositor”, pg 84

Now it is entirely possible the person citing this quote actually has Luther The Expositor (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959) by Jaroslav Pelikan. That is within the realm of possibility. Let me point out also the guy using this quote has made a number of comments on how awful my research is (that's putting his insults mildly). Here's the kicker: he probably took this quote from one of my writings. (see footnote 27). The quote he used is exactly as I posted it, and upon checking, my reference should have been to not only page 84, but page 83 as well, as that is where the quote begins. What are the possibilities the guy read this book and cited the quote in the same wrong way I did? I guess it's possible, but it certainly would seem more likely he lifted the quote from my paper, or from someone else who read and cited my paper. If I'm correct, the irony in that the guy who despises my research is using it anyway, and he probably isn't really reading some of the secondary sources he's citing.

Now fast forward. A few weeks ago I nailed Real Catholic TV misusing a 1532 Luther quote. In order to put up the context of the 1532 Luther quote, I had to scan the pages in. If the text was already somewhere on the Internet, I couldn't find it. Scanning is a hassle. I hate messing up the spines of my books.

A Roman Catholic blogger decided to help Real Catholic TV against my blog post. He eventually posted the same exact 1532 quote I earlier did, with the same exact documentation, directing his blog entry specifically to me. He prefaced the quote with "As for the 1532 sermon, here is the context of that statement..." After citing the quote he stated, "So, there you have the context of the 1532 sermon, which I do not doubt you have already, but now all those reading along have it too." Why would I need the same exact citation quoted back to me? Odd, but I gave the guy the benefit of the doubt that perhaps he did indeed have the same exact book, cited the same exact quote, and documented the quote the same exact way.

I then asked a question based on some other lines and pages from the same 1532 sermon. It became obvious from the responses given that the person didn't have the book being cited. In fact, he couldn't even name the sermon in question. Eventually, he conceded somewhat that the quote may have been taken from my blog, and revised his entry to reflect my blog as the possible source.

Based on these two experiences, I've come up with a possible solution to find out if people are really doing their own research when they challenge me, or if they're simply taking what I post, re-posting it, and then having me respond back to my own research. My opponents are clever: I do all the grunt work, and then this or that opponent comes along, re-posts it, spins it a particular way, and then has me respond back to my own time and effort.

This is what I'm thinking of doing. I'm thinking of encoding slight tactical errors from now on in anything I cite from my own readings so as to avoid anyone else forgetting where they took the material they claim to have, and to have read. It won't be any serious sort of error. Perhaps it will simply be an extra comma. I'm posting this simply as a warning. If you take material off my blog and try to pass it off as your own research, you will find yourself in an embarrassing situation.

Keep this in mind as well. Shame on you if you don't check my stuff before you use it. I am not infallible, I do make errors (as shown above with the citation of Pelikan). Why not simply check my work before you use it? How do you know I've cited something correctly? How do you know the next line I didn't quote in a document that I did quote doesn't refute my point?  I can appreciate that someone trusts the posts I put together, but as the text on my sidebar warns,

He that has ever so little examined the citations of writers cannot doubt how little credit the quotations deserve when the originals are wanting.

Addendum
For what it's worth, I do try to document when I take stuff from other websites (I've never been good with documenting images, as this blog post proves). I can't say I've always been consistent on this.  But I plan on being more diligent myself in making sure I give credit where it's due. A simple "hat tip" to someone isn't a bad thing.