Debating becoming a Traditional Roman Catholic

This blog seems to say that Thomas Harding refuted Jewel's Apology:
https://supremacyandsurvival.blogspot.com/2017/09/john-jewel-rip-and-his-apologia.html

 

He made what he considered to be a refutation, yes. That doesn't mean Jewel was wrong and Harding was right; it only means that they disputed one another's views in writing. One would have to read the documents written by both parties and evaluate them, then draw conclusions if possible. (I have not read them.)

Atheists say they have refuted the Bible or refuted the existence of God. That doesn't make it so.

 

It looks like Harding wrote an “Answer,” to which Jewel wrote a “Reply,” and there followed further exchanges in which Jewel had the last word

more formidable antagonist than Cole now entered the lists in the person of Thomas Harding, an Oxford contemporary whom Jewel had deprived of his prebend in Salisbury Cathedral for recusancy. He published an elaborate and bitter Answer in 1564, to which Jewel issued a "Reply" in 1565. Harding followed with a Confutation, and Jewel with a Defence of the Apology in 1566 and 1567

 

If I was not too old, I would seriously consider leaving the RC and become an Anglican or an Episcopalian.

 

I do not think one can be too old to do this. If you think your soul has a better chance of salvation in the Anglican Church then it is better late than never.

 

I know what you mean. I was born Anglican so have to assume the Good Lord intended that for a reason. Part of remaining Anglican is being faithful to my baptism all those hundreds of years ago.

Perhaps the question to ask is, where is home? If the RC is no longer home, in the wyy that it once was, then perhaps somewhere else might be. But your eternal salvation isn't affected one way or the other, so really it is completely up to you. Wherever you go, there is the Lord, right beside you.

 

That is really not how it works.

 

With respect, that simply must be the way it works. PDL didn't say the Anglican Church is the only chance at salvation, but it stands to reason certain denominations must be more effective at guiding their flock to salvation than others. Who could look at the Westboro Baptist Church and think that a church that convinces people to surrender to their inner prejudices and hate is as effective at ensuring salvation as a loving church that more closely follows the life of Christ?

Merely being baptised and professing to love God is not sufficient, or otherwise the gate would not be narrow. Being genuinely faithful is really hard, and the better you're supported in that the easier it becomes.

 

Good grief.

And nope.

Funny thing about 'narrow' gates. They don't constrain numbers at all; they only constrain how many can go through at once.

 

Okay then replace narrow gate with "the road that few find". I'd beg you to consider the logical conclusion of what you're saying. Suppose a good person, a kind, honest, charitable person. Everyone feels better from their experiences with them, regardless of gender, creed or colour. In their adulthood they find faith and convert to Christianity.

In one scenario they join the Westboro Baptist Church. Their preacher teaches them that gays are evil, women are subservient, Jews are scheming liars that murdered Jesus and Muslims should be locked up or killed. In a year they've gone from making others around them feel loved, to painting "God Hates Fags!" banners, screaming at children with gay parents that they're going to hell outside their schools, and writing things like:

Suppose instead a second scenario where they become a member of their local Anglican parish. Their rector and community guide them, support them, help them in their darkest moments when they're struggling to remain kind and feeling like there's no point in being a moral person because the world seems to have it out for them.

Of those two worlds can you honestly tell me both Churches brought that person equally close to God? Or is it possible one Church is dragging them away from God and the other is guiding them towards God?

 

Legion, interesting screen name choice. Any reference to these guys? And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many (Mark 5:9).

 

Yes, that is how it really does work.

There is no point belonging to any church and being faithful to it if that is not how it works.

I am not going to go to the Mormon, Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventists or Unitarian churches in my town because I do not believe they can lead me on the right path to God.

 

That is how it came across to me.
And I thought to myself:
"Surprise! It seems the Anglicans have taken a leaf out of the Vatican's book and are declaring themselves now as the Alleinseligmachende Kirche?"

Is that so?

 

However, it is not what I said.

You wrote that you considered yourself too old to change church. My response was that one is never too old and if you think your chance of salvation in the Anglican church is greater why not make the change.

If you believe your chance of salvation is equal in any Christian church I see no reason to consider changing from one to the other.

 

So be it!

 

Or, Amen!

 

Well spotted.

 

It isn't the church which leads, it is the Holy Spirit.

 

I am afraid in that scenario I would have to step up to God's throne, dislodge him and take over. I respectfully decline to do so.

However, I could say that I do not believe that any work of any person can undo any work of God, and salvation is a work of God. He may or may not undo what he has done, that is up to him. But none of us can do it for him.

 

I don't disagree with the sentiment.

If that be the case why not be a Roman Catholic or join the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch?