Blogging on Catholicism in 2011

The past few years I have blogged mostly on Calvinism/Arminianism and while I may post more on that topic in 2011, God willing, I would like to discuss Protestant/Roman Catholic topics in the coming year. They have been on my mind as of late and it will just give me a chance to dig into other areas of scripture.

My initial impressions is that while my differences with Calvinists are mostly theoretical with little practical implications (i.e. I have worshiped God alongside Calvinists my whole life) my differences with Catholicism are the reverse.  We probably generally share the same view of God but I would not feel at home in a Catholic Church. The Pope, the Mass, Mary, the Saints, Icons, Purgatory, Confession, Indulgences, the Apocrypha... these are large, in your face, real world differences.  The heart of the difference to me seems not so much in the understanding of the God who is revealing things, but rather in what He has revealed.  We will see how my impressions change as the year goes by. 

God be with you in the new year.  

Comments

Jnorm said…
Dan,

Have you ever visited a modern Roman Catholic Mass before? The Novus Ordo might surprise you! I personally prefer the old Mass, but You may feel more at ease with this Vatican II one. Also, if you hung around Molinistic Roman Catholics, then you might feel a little different about the differences being in reverse. You might feel closer to them than with your Calvinistic counterparts.

But yes, in the other areas you mentioned the differences with Catholicism would be the reverse.


Have a Happy New Years!
December 31, 2010 at 3:53 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Hey Jnorm,

Happy New Year to you to.

I think so, yes. At least I was at a Mass that I thought was different and more modern than most I have seen. But it still had people praying to Mary and bowing to the alter, so I did notice substantial differences in style of worship.

God be with you,
Dan
January 1, 2011 at 10:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more