Sunday, April 28, 2019

Catholic convert syndrome


That's an odd statement on more than one level: if he thinks Triablogue is a sewer, why did he invite me to join his Tiber Crossing Guards discussion group? And why did he send me a Facebook friendship request two months ago? 

Luis and I have had almost no direct exchanges about the pros and cons of Catholicism v. evangelicalism. Certainly nothing in-depth. Indeed, he's avoided discussing that with me. I did cover some of that ground at his old discussion group, but that was with other Catholics, while Luis generally sat on the sidelines. 


So Luis now thinks Protestants (all Protestants? Most Protestants?) are destined for the Lake of Fire? How does that cohere with post-Vatican II theology?


Does that mean his Protestant friends, back when he was Protestant? Like, just a few months ago?


Although that's tongue-in-cheek, the attitude is revealing. 


So Protestants are spiritually blind? How does that cohere with post-Vatican II theology? 

Does he think his classmate Wesley Huff is spiritually blind and destined for the Lake of Fire?


So Geoff Robinson is "trashy" and "scummy?" Is his confessor/priest aware of how Luis characterizes evangelical believers in social media?

I can't help noticing that conversion from Calvinism or evangelicalism to Catholicism never does anything for the convert's sanctity. So often, their conversion is just a pretext to feel superior. It's so much easier to be spiteful than to cultivate personal holiness. 

Where will Luis be 20 years from now if the Catholic church becomes increasingly indistinguishable from the Episcopal church? Having burned all his bridges with his former faith, does Luis have a fallback option? 
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

9 comments:

  1. ANNOYED PINOY4/28/2019 5:08 PM

    I'm so saddened to see this. FYI, I'm convinced that one of the reasons why Luis reverted to Catholicism is because of the facebook group named "Catholics & Reformed".
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/340179679454454/

    The group effectively functions as a recruiting ground for Catholics to convert Reformed folk to Catholicism. I was in the group before Luis' reversion, and since his reversion I participated in a lot of debates during 2018. I've pretty much exhausted my arguments and so don't plan on doing any more debates in there.

    Though, I'm glad that now Turretinfan and David King are now in the group to present the Reformational side. I'm assuming that's the same Turretinfan of http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/ and the David King who co-wrote with William Webster the 3 volume Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith.

    The key tactic among the Catholics in the group seems to me to be to harness both sides' desire for doctrinal precision, and then show that since some particular Reformed distinctive is either false or not fully supported in Scripture, that therefore Reformed folk should be Roman Catholic. Which is obviously a non-sequitur. Since, aspects of Reformed theology could be false, and yet Calvinism more broadly speaking might be correct. Moreover, even if Reformed theology as a whole were wrong, it's still a leap in logic to conclude that Catholicism is therefore true. Since, Orthodoxy, or some other ancient Catholic sect, or even non-Reformed Evangelicalism is true.

    That Reformed desire and aim for doctrinal precision is being used by those Catholics to try to foster a desire for doctrinal infallibility as found in Catholicism.

    I'll say one good thing about the Catholics in that group, they are on the cutting edge of Roman Catholic apologetics against Protestant objections. They can hone their arguments and focus their evangelistic efforts on Protestants precisely because Catholicism (with its evil history) is such a hard sell for non-Christians. At least with Protestants, there the common ground of the 66 books of Protestant canon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ANNOYED PINOY4/28/2019 5:22 PM

      typo correction:
      At least with Protestants, there [is] the common ground of the 66 books of [the] Protestant canon.

      One of main issues the Catholics in there try to employ to their advantage is the positive Imputation of Christ's Active Obedience (IAO). According to them it's not explicitly taught in Scripture, and they try to use that to set up a domino effect to cause Evangelicals to doubt their entire theology. I think IAO is at least implicitly taught in Scripture and that's sufficient.

      Delete
    2. ANNOYED PINOY4/28/2019 5:33 PM

      typo correction:
      Since, Orthodoxy, or some other ancient Catholic sect, or even non-Reformed Evangelicalism is ["could be" not "is"] true.

      For those who join the group, here's a link to David King's post in the group where he argues for why he thinks "//the Roman concept of transubstantiation . . . It was not universally held by the ancient church, and therefore is not "catholic." It is the Roman view of the sacrament and nothing more.//"

      https://www.facebook.com/groups/340179679454454/permalink/1319508748188204/

      Delete
    3. geoffrobinson4/28/2019 5:53 PM

      I do see that in Catholic apologetics. They are for the most part talking to Protestants who already take Christianity for granted, try to poke a hole, and then "hey Rome."

      But as Steve has written previously, so what? If it isn't an essential, we can adjust.

      Rome is a house of cards. Show one error and everything crashes. Which is why I mentioned in the exchange that the papacy isn't true. I argue regarding justification by faith alone, the lack of a real historical papacy going back to Jesus, etc.

      Roman apologists rely on arguments based on skepticism and then hope you just ignore they can't establish a case for Rome. And they never turn those same arguments against Rome to see if she can stand up.

      I also for the life of me can't udnerstand why a conservative Protestant would find Rome attractive in the age of Francis.

      Delete
    4. geoffrobinson4/28/2019 5:56 PM

      //That Reformed desire and aim for doctrinal precision is being used by those Catholics to try to foster a desire for doctrinal infallibility as found in Catholicism. //

      I think James White refers to this as trading truth for certainty.

      And another thing to mention, disproving some Reformed distinctive doesn't make the papacy magically appear or change the fact that Scripture teaches sola fide.

      Delete
    5. Jason Engwer4/28/2019 6:16 PM

      A lot of good comments from ANNOYED PINOY and geoffrobinson. It's good to see people recognizing what's going on.

      James White is right about the certainty issue. In some ways, Catholics and people who are moving in the direction of Catholicism have a mindset like a King James Onlyist.

      Delete
    6. geoffrobinson4/28/2019 7:49 PM

      http://goyforjesus.blogspot.com/2019/03/what-do-conservative-catholics-bart.html?m=1

      Delete
  2. steve jackson4/29/2019 7:41 AM

    "Lake of fire"? Maybe he should talk to Abp. Barron.

    ReplyDelete
  3. M4/29/2019 9:18 AM

    "I've come a long way towards purging my Twitter feed of the old undesirables. Glad to be around better company now." -Luis

    "Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly." -St. Paul

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)