thinking of converting

[Benedicta00]

Here is the exact quote taken from James White's sister Patty Bond who is a convert to Catholicism referring to her converting.

"Patty, you can read scripture from the vantage point of the Reformation, or you can read scripture from the vantage point of Tradition." I just smiled. "He was so right. I could choose to interpret scripture through the grid of Sacred Tradition, or I could choose to interpret scripture through any one of the 33,000 grids of protestant tradition. Later in our discussion he mentioned that he had received an email that contained a Catholic document that apparently came out of the Vatican that made it clear that the Catholic Church had not changed their position on soteriology in two thousand years. This time I am sure the ear to ear grin was annoyingly obvious. What a glorious thought! I was embracing truth that had never changed from the beginning!

 

[Fiskare]

Okay, just for the record, I didn't put the WINKING smilie there to flirt with you. It was to make it clear that I was picking at you. It wasn't so malicious. Don't be so thin skinned.

OK...I was going to write the same words to you from the initial post. Oh well.

No. I'm not offended but unless you meant imply that my beliefs are "false, superficial, or artificial" then you used an inappropriate word.

OK.

LOL! No, that isn't a page from my book. "My book" was a "reference guide" on how to make comments on the faith of others. I know that the Protestant faith has the fullness of the grace of God.

Am I allowed to disagree with you? I may know that it doesn't, and I can certainly say I have stood on both sides of the fence. *shrugs*

Now, if I had desired to say something as a reference to the "Anglo-Catholic" faith it would be wise, to avoid offending you, to preface my comments with "I am of the opinion..." See the difference? If you feel that your faith has the fullness of all the Christian graces and nothing is lacking then I certainly don't expect you to preface that as being your opinion. It's not a derrogatory statement about the faith of a fellow Christian.

Umm...that wasn't how I read your comments.

 

[Fiskare]

I do not know about others Fiskare, but I know I was very offended by your statement calling Protestanism a "facade"..... if you are so concerned about "Grace and courtesy, you may want to practice some yourself....

OK Ken....sorry about that. The initial post said as much as well. Sorry for speaking my mind without considering you.

 

[Preachers12]

Peace be with you.

Brothers and sisters disagree. It's almost a given!

Just be sure that the books you get are fairly done. I have not read the books mentioned so far on this thread, but I have read many which propose to refute Catholic arguments only to end up refuting misperceptions about Catholicism which the authors represent to be truths. This is very misleading. Some authors do so on purpose. Others just never bothered to learn Catholicism before writing. Some get a little bit of knowledge, but never see the fullness of the faith.

Let the Holy Spirit guide you. Our prayers are with you.

God Bless,
P12

 

[Fiskare]

Just be sure that the books you get are fairly done. I have not read the books mentioned so far on this thread, but I have read many which propose to refute Catholic arguments only to end up refuting misperceptions about Catholicism which the authors represent to be truths. This is very misleading. Some authors do so on purpose. Others just never bothered to learn Catholicism before writing. Some get a little bit of knowledge, but never see the fullness of the faith.

Interesting point. Years ago I remember reading two classic anti-Catholic works, Hyslop's "The Two Babylon's" and Woodrow's "Babylon Mystery Religion", only to find that they were pretty woeful academically. Interesting that Woodrow has since recanted and has withdrawn his book from sale. He even has written a book refuting his former beliefs, "Babylon Connection?", and he even used the same style cover art from his former book to make it clear what he was referring to.

 

[Peter]

Before making the plunge, please carefully consider the schism of 1054. Why did it happen? Make sure you answer this question completely. Don't settle for just the history of the events that took place that year, but the history of events that led up to it.

Peace.

Peter

 

[geocajun]

Before making the plunge, please carefully consider the schism of 1054. Why did it happen? Make sure you answer this question completely. Don't settle for just the history of the events that took place that year, but the history of events that led up to it.

Peter, I fail to understand the relevence of the schism to this persons conversion to the Apostolic Roman Church?
Help me understand...

btw, for an easy to read article on the schism Peter refers to, see the following link:
http://www.catholic.com/library/eastern_orthodoxy.asp

 

[Hoonbaba]

Catholic? Anglo-Catholic? E. Orthodoxy? Dutch Reformed? James White?? My gosh...this thread is going in all directions.. LOL

I'm Catholic, but I won't argue anything here

God bless!

-Jason

 

[Reformationist]

Being a reformed Christian myself I can tell you that I truly believe that what the Roman Catholic church teaches is not the Gospel that Christ taught.

It has been brought to my attention that this statement came across differently than I meant it. I did not mean to imply that the Catholic church isn't a Christian church or that they do not worship God or that they don't preach from the Bible.

They most certainly are a Christian church that worships God and seeks to teach the Word. All I meant, and hopefully this is clearer, is that I don't agree with their interpretation.

I apologize if I had offended any of my Catholic brethren. Please forgive me.

God bless,
Don

 

[Ken]

the fact that James White's sister did anything means nothing re the truthfulness of the position.... she could just as easily be decieved as she could be seeing clearly... in other words, nothing follows from James White's sister doing anything....

at any rate, James White's words will put to rest the underlying assumptions made by several people:

James White

​

Over the past number of months we have received a number of requests for information concerning the claims of Mrs. Patty Bonds, my older sister. Though I have not seen Mrs. Bonds for a number of years, and have had no serious interaction with her in half a dozen years, her recent decision to join the Roman Catholic Church has caused many to falsely assume she made this decision fully aware of the responses and refutations of Rome's claims that Protestant apologists have been offering for centuries. In particular, many have errantly assumed Mrs. Bonds would have sat down with me and talked about her interest in the Roman system and, with full knowledge of my responses to the claims of Rome, chose to convert anyway. But this is manifestly not the case. Mrs. Bonds had separated herself from our family years before. She did in fact contact me after she had already become enamored with Rome's liturgy, but she did so by anonymous e-mail. And though we have gone through a number of e-mail exchanges since she made her decision known to us, what I said (unknowingly) in response to her anonymous e-mail is still what I'm saying today. Nothing has changed.

 

[Ken]

oh, the link to this and a great deal more concerning the behavior of Roman Catholic apologists:

http://aomin.org/Romangrams.html

 

[Peter]

Peter, I fail to understand the relevence of the schism to this persons conversion to the Apostolic Roman Church?
Help me understand...

The schism of 1054 was, in short, an excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople by the Patriarch of Rome. Did the Patriarch of Rome have this right by canon law?
I will never debate that Peter was the first bishop/Patriarch/Pope of the church at Rome. (Although he was Pope of Antioch first)
But what we never see in any of these discussions is the FACT that there were 5, count 'em, popes as early as the first council.

How? Pope is the Latin equal to the Greek Patriarch. There were 5 Patriarchs. They were equal, and each had jurisdiction over his own area, not any others. The action of 1054 violated this jurisdictional boundry.

Before one commits to the authority of the Patriarch of Rome, one should be sure that this Patriarch is acting within or witohut the guide of the church canons.

NO Patriarch has the right to kick another Patriarch out of the church. It's against the law, church law!

The author asked for "compelling reasons". I think knowing if the holder of the office of the Patriarch of Rome is acting within canonical law is a very compelling issue.

My appologies to my Protestant brothers if this sounds like neighbors arguing in your living room.

Peace.

Peter

 

[Fiskare]

oh, the link to this and a great deal more concerning the behavior of Roman Catholic apologists:

http://aomin.org/Romangrams.html

Having read the article now (and its loooooooooong) I have to ask how you see it as important.

It seems to me to be personal issues that have very little to do with the discussion of doctrine, which Mr White is deemed to be an expert on, although doctrine is discussed.

If I'm following you correctly, the poor behaviour of certain apologists makes their case weaker, right? I'm not having a go at you here, but just trying to see your perspective.

 

[Fiskare]

The author asked for "compelling reasons". I think knowing if the holder of the office of the Patriarch of Rome is acting within canonical law is a very compelling issue.

The debate over juristicions and authority is easily the most tasteless part of the ancient churches. Everybody is someone else's schismatic.

I pray our friend seeking the truth learns to avoid this trap and focuses on life in Christ found in our common Catholic Faith of the Fathers.

By the way- I love your signature! Excellent quote.

 

[Ken]

Well Fiskare, the reason I felt the additional link to White’s site concerning his sister was because geocajun said “James Whites own sister saw through his claims and became Catholic.”

When the truth of the matter is, as White says “Over the past number of months we have received a number of requests for information concerning the claims of Mrs. Patty Bonds, my older sister. Though I have not seen Mrs. Bonds for a number of years, and have had no serious interaction with her in half a dozen years, her recent decision to join the Roman Catholic Church has caused many to falsely assume she made this decision fully aware of the responses and refutations of Rome's claims that Protestant apologists have been offering for centuries. In particular, many have errantly assumed Mrs. Bonds would have sat down with me and talked about her interest in the Roman system and, with full knowledge of my responses to the claims of Rome, chose to convert anyway. But this is manifestly not the case. Mrs. Bonds had separated herself from our family years before. She did in fact contact me after she had already become enamored with Rome's liturgy, but she did so by anonymous e-mail. And though we have gone through a number of e-mail exchanges since she made her decision known to us, what I said (unknowingly) in response to her anonymous e-mail is still what I'm saying today. Nothing has changed.”

This directly refutes geocajun’s point, because she didn’t “see through his (White’s) claims", she did not even know what his claims were or are!

Lastly, no, the behavior of a person stating a certain proposition does not affect the veracity of the proposition itself. My comment on the behavior of the Roman Apologists should be taken at nothing more than face value, to consider that poor and discourteous behavior can happen on both sides...

Blessings

 

[Ken]

And further Fiskare, it was meant to counter Shelb5's point that James "disowned" his sister, when by reading the excerpt above you can see that Mrs. Bond's had seperated herself from her family years before her conversion to Romanism..... and thus, this refutes the attempt at character assaniation by Shelb5....

blessings

 

[Ken]

Lastly, I am astounded that my post, which was posted in the Protestant/Reformed/Evangelical area, viz, a direct response to a seemingly honest question about whether or not, from a Protestant/Reformed/Evangelical perspective, (which manifestly must have been the perspective he wanted, having posted where he did)... one ought to convert to Catholicism, and where I politely stated that from my Reformed perspective, the link given stated well what I took to be errors of Romanism...

so from whence comes the sarcasm and bitterness from Shelb5 and geocajun??? I simply responded to the question, didn't I?

This is especially disconcerting given the Forum rules for this area:
3) Non-Protestant members (eg. Catholic members) can only post fellowship posts here or posts to ask a question regarding Protestant or Evangelical doctrine. Once the question is answered, there shall be no debate over the answer in this forum by the Non-Protestant. Any debate posts by Non-Protestants will be deleted or moved to the Interdenominational Doctrine Debate forum. In other words, only Protestant members can debate here.



And given that I simply stated that there are errors in the Roman Catholic Church, i.e. I made no slanderous remarks etc; IMHO, there should not have been the response, in this area, that there was.

 

[Benedicta00]

Ken,

geocajun and myself have not been sarcastic to you, what are you talking about?

And that is not true about James White, he disowned his sister when she converted, she has stated this herself, so either she's lying or he's lying.

 

[Ken]

Shelb5, I am thinking of

"Once she learned and got passed the myth and lies that are often told about Catholicism she saw how invalid all the arguments her brother made against the Church" in particular... I usually think of my beliefs being called “myth and lies” as not being compliments, in fact, I could have used a stronger word than sarcastic….. look again at the rules for this forum, we, as Protestants are not to say certain things about the Catholic/Orthodox Church, to be specific, the rules at one point state “Basically, try to rephrase your question and post so that it does not come across as being judgemental (sic) and accusatory.” Again, having my beliefs called “myth and lies” is, if it is anything, judgmental and accusatory.





now you can feign innocence, but the bottom line is this, in this area non Reformed/Evangelical/Protestant persons are not to debate, especially when the answer was to a question not even given by you.....

 

[Serapha]

I've given it a lot of thought, and I am offically thinking of converting...to...Catholicism. I have found no one (including my pastor) able to really show me otherwise and thought i'd give this board a shot as a last ditch effort to find out if what ive believed in my whole life is part sham.

Don't get me wrong, i do believe in Jesus as my savior, and i have accepted the holy spirit into my heart, but i've just been thinking about the history of my denomination and it doesn't add up. Officially, i'm Christian reformed (dutch reformed). i just don't understand how our church could, 1800+ years after Christ's death discover his true teachings. i struggle with it because it seems so arrogant of me to think that i could know the meaning of the scripture better than the apostles (meaning: why did we throw out those OT books that were held as scripture by not only Christians at the time of Christ, but Christ himself?) I have other questions but will leave it at this for now.

please help!!!

Hi there!

I read your posting, but I skipped over the 38 responds already given. There are particular reasons why any text was rejected to be a part of the canonized text.

1 Esdras is considered a legendary story,

2 Esdras is part legend and written well into the second and third centuries, chapters 15-16 are echoes of the New Testament.

Tobit and Judith are fiction.

The addition to Esther were written in Greek and added in the Septuagint; therefore not to be a part of the Old Testament canon.

Wisdom is a composite writing of an unknown author.

Eccesiasticus was probably the closest to canonization.

1 Maccabees has historical value, but 2 macabees is partially mythical.

Baruch is an echo of other texts in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel and other prophets.

The Song of the Three Children and the Story of Susanna, as well as Bel and the dragon are additions to Daniel, written after the book of Daniel was received.



There is no reason for these texts to be canonized, either because their content is "God-breathed" or inspired, not that they are not good tools for teaching, but they just aren't inspired works. Many are legends or myths with no known authorship. Many are written outside the time frame of acceptable standards.


If you are basing your conversion on these stories, then you need to read the book of Romans in the New Testament, particularly the part about being saved. Your salvation isn't based upon myth or legend, but upon the inspired Words of God...

And Believers should continue to study in the inspired words of God.

~malaka~