Catholicism

Dave Hunt has done an incredibly good job of researching Roman Catholicism. His back newsletters can be found starting here:
http://www.thebereancall.org/monthly.htm
Look for the title lines that interest you and go into them. Here are some which I checked quickly which might give you some specific helps:

http://www.thebereancall.org/newsletters/jan99.htm
http://www.thebereancall.org/newsletters/oct99.htm
http://www.thebereancall.org/newsletters/nov99.htm
http://www.thebereancall.org/newsletters/apr00.htm
http://www.thebereancall.org/newsletters/jun00.htm
http://www.thebereancall.org/newsletters/oct00.htm
http://www.thebereancall.org/newsletters/jun01.htm
http://www.thebereancall.org/newsletters/jun02.htm
http://www.thebereancall.org/newsletters/jul02.htm

(the newsletters from many years are still being webbed, but the above will give you a lot of what you need.)

His two books dealing primarily with Catholicism that I am aware of are "Whatever Happened to Heaven" and "A Woman Rides the Beast." They both deal with Catholic history and doctrines.

Timothy Kauffman has done a very good job of analysing the Marian apparitions in "Quite Contrary" (1997, third edition; White Horse Publications, Huntsville, Alabama).

Further on the web, the Cutting Edge has some interesting material. Start here and continue as you like:
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/rc114.htm

Richard Bennett's article is also very good:
http://www.cephasministry.com/catholic_justification_salvation.html

And, finally, the links here will keep you busy for at least a month or so!
http://reachingforchrist.org/rcc/articles.html

 

RDH,

There is a good book edited by John Armstrong. I think the title is Roman Catholicism . Armstrong has also written a book of his own on a more popular level, which is titled simply Catholic Mystery . Also, R.C. Sproul's book Justified By Faith Alone does an excellent job of discribing the difference between Evangelicals and Catholics on the issue of justification.

Pastork

 

If you are planning to deal with this issue for an extended time (beyond the scope of this one class), I would strongly suggest that you get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: A Compendium of Texts Referred to in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You can actually get them both on a single CD-ROM. These are THE authoritative texts that the Vatican has approved.

These resources will be very valuable to you if you seek to be able to show folks (perhaps even some Catholics) what is actually taught.

For example:

</font>

• "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God" (Catechism #841)</font>

 

I would "ditto" Pastork especially, and Jonathan also as far as works to use. I would, however, avoid D. Hunt because of his approach.

Rev. G

 

Rev.G,

I agree about avoiding Dave Hunt. I have never been a fan of his, or of the "Berean Call" for that matter. The first book of his that I read was The Seduction of Christianity, which was full of problems and in my mind amounted to slander of the American Church.

Pastork

 

Second the people who say to get a hold of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That is the definitive statement of what the Roman church believes. It's always best to understand their beliefs accurately and to know your Bible well so you can see for yourself where they go wrong.

I mentioned James White in another thread; he is a Christian apologist who has tackled the "Catholic question" very extensively, both in writing and debate. One thing I appreciate about him is that he has a knack for cutting to the real issue and not getting bogged down in secondary issues. According to him, the differences between Protestant and Catholic theology boil down to three things: authority, justification, and Mary. (I disagree; I think Mariolatry is simply one more symptom of what happens when sola scriptura goes bad.)

White has written a book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, about these key issues (Bethany, 1996). He subsequently wrote a short book, Mary - Another Redeemer? (Bethany, 1998) about the recent movement within Romanism to have Mary declared co-redemptrix with Christ - not as good as his earlier book, but it does supplement it well.

Regarding the doctrine of sola scriptura, in my opinion the recent trilogy by William Webster and David King, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of our Faith (Christian Resources, 2001) blows the Roman view of authority away. And although I have a copy I have not yet read, a bookseller for Ligonier Ministries told me last year that Keith Mathison's The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Canon, 2001) was the best book on that subject.

Don't waste your time with sensationalists like Dave Hunt or Alexander Hislop. The real dividing line between Protestant and Catholic is doctrinal.

 

I don't consider either man sensationalist, Ransom. Both have some of the best-referenced and documented material I have ever read.

The LAST thing Dave is, by the way, is 'sensationalist'! I know him and he is a quiet, humble man with a burning desire to confront false doctrines and the poison they spread.

 

I just hate to admit it, but I agree with Ransom. James White's work on Catholicism is excellent. He has done his homework, and debates what Catholics really believe without raising a lot of straw men such as Hislop and Hunt tend to do.

You can depend on the accuracy of White's research, but, unfortunately, I cannot say the same for either Hislop, which misreads history, considers conjecture to be fact, and draws conclusions which are tenuous at best and non-existant at worst, or Hunt who has been shown over and over again to be deficient in his understanding of whatever it is he is attacking this week. Unfortunately he most often errects a caricature then attacks the caricature instead of the factual beliefs of those he is opposing.

 

DocCas, I would be interested in a substantiation of either of those comments regarding Hislop or Hunt. Thank you.

 

There is no doubt that Dr. James White is the very best apologist that there is. Just listen to his Real-Audio debates with the very best Catholicism has to offer (Hahn, Ray, Pacwa, etc) and he outshines them every time. Below is a site that has his debates that you can listen to.

straightgate

 

Dr. James White by all means. Avoid Dave Hunt, for he is a noodle head.

Ol Trapper

[ October 04, 2002, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: Trapper ]

 

A lot of opinions about the man and absolutely no documentation or even general explanation. For the record, I am grateful to him for the stands he has taken, the way he has documented them, and the thoroughness and carefulness with which he approaches his subjects.

It's easy to call names and denigrate -- especially when you don't back it up. I respect Dave Hunt and he is one of the few authors I am willing to read on a consistent basis. I trust his work.

Now, I have made my stand. Please provide documentation for his being a noodlehead or any other derogatory term. Thank you.

 

Helen,

I sure appreciate your stand on Hunt. Thank you.

Hunt has one of the greatest minds to offer to the Christian world period.

You mention his humbleness. I must insert this personal experience. I don't know him personally but did have the opportunity to meet him, which was an honor. I was able to hear both him and James White in a conference together. During the introductions to James White the resume was long... But Dave wanted nothing more than to be called a servant of God. Anyone could see the humility of Dave Hunt.

I listend to allot of James White, especially his debates, via real audio. Do you want to know what you hear in most of his messages? His resume. The same thing happened in his conference. Every chance he got he talked about how smart he was, who he debated...

You don't hear that from Dave Hunt. His program is much more informative and Scripturally solid.

 

DocCas said:

Could you please tell me what he is "attacking" this week? Or last, or the week before ect...?
Then tell me exatcly whre he is found over and over to be deficient.

 

Thanks, Chet. I have a feeling that those who think he is a noodlehead or whatever are those who disagree with him but can find no other way of dealing with it than by calling him deficient or name-calling.

So I would repeat to the original questioner on this thread that Dave Hunt has done one of the most thorough jobs I know of analyzing, tracking historically, and confronting the Roman Catholic Church of today. He does quote extensively from their catechism and statements from both Trent and Vatican II. However the respondents here who suggested they be read also are quite right. Best to go to original material when it is available.

There are a couple of places where, if I were going to deal with Roman Catholicism in a class, I would want discussed, in terms of the fruits of the teaching (in line with Matthew 7:15-23). First is the historical results of the RCC -- inquisitions, crusades, mass slaughter of native peoples, etc. The common 'excuse' for this is that the church could not control everything people did. But that is not the point. The point is that they felt comfortable doing it within the teachings of the church! And, truth be told, some of the support came from the Vatican (Pope) all along for a number of atrocities.

Secondly, I would point out the fact that even today the RCC seems quite comfortable with the type of ecumenism which permits pagan services among the same people who attend Catholic services and are 'good Catholics' in South America especially. The fact that these converts are not convicted internally of the sinfulness of their actions is a resounding testimony to the fact that the RCC is not preaching Bible but itself instead.

Thirdly, I would point to the various (mostly Marian) apparitions around the world as evidence that deception and the occult are rampant in the church, and that this, also, is a strong testimony to the fact that they are not Christ's representatives here on earth in the slightest.

Just some thoughts -- up here where I can't be attacked by them!

[ October 05, 2002, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

I'm bumping this up. Two men have been attacked here who have done some work I think is outstanding and I would really like some kind of documentation as to the accusations these men were/are 'sensationalists', 'noodlehead,' etc.

Thank you.

 

Helen said:

Now, I have made my stand. Please provide documentation for his being a noodlehead or any other derogatory term. Thank you.

The egregious errors of fact and logic in his most recent book, What Love Is This? Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God have been well documented. The book is a fiasco, and while it is not one of his works on Catholicism which are being discussed here, it does betray a certain amount of sloppiness in his research.

For example, he claimed Charles Spurgeon was not a five-point Calvinist, citing his "A Defense of Calvinism" (chapter 16 of his Autobiography. Reading the whole of chapter 16 shows that Hunt confused what Spurgeon was saying about the imerit of Christ's atonement (it was sufficient for everyone) with its scope (it was intended to save the elect).

Hunt has, so far, consistently refused to accept correction on this obvious error, claiming instead that Spurgeon was ambiguous (even though his original claim in the book was that Spurgeon was "unequivocal" in his opposition to the doctrine of particular redemption). Compare What Love Is This? to his Q&A in the August Berean Call newsletter, and you will see that he has backpedalled.

To see some documentation of Hunt's errors, see http://www.whatloveisthis.com/ and read the essays there.

 

I have read that site and I take Berean Call. I think perhaps the point is that you don't agree with him, not that he has misrepresented anything or done sloppy research. I personally agree with him and think the research and interpretations are correct.