Posted on 08/08/2006 12:04:25 PM PDT by NYer
Once a Southern Baptist pastor, Michael Cumbie converted to Catholicism in 2001 and has since been traveling far from his hometown near Pensacola, Florida, to preach his new faith to the nation. At Saint Therese Catholic Church in San Diego for a "renewal mission" this April, he spent three evenings speaking about his conversion, Catholic worship, and the Eucharist. About 200 hundred came to listen the last evening's talk. While he gathered his materials after his energetic presentation, I asked him some questions on the same topics.
Can you say something about the experience of the Holy Spirit in your life that put you on the path to Catholicism?
"Most Catholics and Protestants are familiar with the charismatic renewal, that came to all Christianity in the '70s. It was a big renewing of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, a little different from Pentecostalism, which started in the early 1900s. That movement of the Holy Spirit seemed to be of the less educated and maybe poorer people. Many folks would never have gone to one of those kinds of gatherings of people speaking in tongues and prophesying. But then in the '70s that experience of Pentecost which the Catholic Church celebrates every year, started to invade those mainline churches of educated people. Intellectual Christians started having the same experience that the Pentecostals did. I was swept up in that movement. But also, as a Southern Baptist, we did not believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit, that they still operated today or were meant for today. But when I was in college I got around a group of young people that just had such a powerful presence of Christ in their lives. I'd never seen that. All Christians I knew up to that time were pretty much all the same -- I use the little analogy all the time, 'you don't know there are any hundred watt light bulbs if you're always around forty watt light bulbs.' So I got around all these hundred watt light bulbs and I noticed how much brighter their light was, if I can say it that way, and it just really drove me crazy. After about three months I said to these folks, 'You know, you guys have something I don't have. You're Christians, I'm a Christian, I believe that, but you've got some secret. I sense this powerful presence, and besides that you have such understanding of the Bible even though you've never been to Bible college,' and they said, 'Michael, it's the Holy Spirit'. Then they used the term 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' and I'd never heard of that, and to make a long story short we went through hours and hours of theological discussion. Because it was against my training and teaching as a Southern Baptist, they had a lot to overcome to try to convince me that this was a Biblical, Scriptural schism. But once they did, and I prayed and had the experience, it changed everything for me. The major thing it did, which began my conversion to Catholicism, was that it put a crack in my foundation that my denomination knew everything.
"Never at that point did I think about Catholicism, although the very first thing that happened to me that was unusual other than this gift of tongues, was that I drove past a Catholic Church and for the first time, I felt drawn to go in there and pray. Now I was raised so anti-Catholic -- we were told, don't you ever go inside a Catholic church. If you go into one, you can't get out. We laugh about it now, but we were deathly afraid of Catholicism. We thought it was from Satan and was deceiving millions of people, full of man-made rituals, because it was so different from our form of Christianity of preaching and singing and evangelizing. But I went into that Catholic Church, I spent four hours in that old, traditional, beautiful church. The pillars of marble, high altar rails, canvas paintings, stained glass windows -- it arrested me. I could not imagine what the people who went there did. I thought, with a building that looks like this, what do you do when you come here? I noticed the pulpit was not front-and-center like it always was at our churches where the emphasis is on hearing sermons and preaching. That experience marked me -- it did something to me that I've never gotten over. It began my conversion to the Catholic Church, because it caused such curiosity in me. I went home and I began to read, and every time we'd pass one of those churches, for the next ten years, I'd get my whole family out of the car and make them go inside and look at that church, and the kids loved it. They loved the holy water (they didn't know what it was for), and they loved the statues. I'd read them the little plaques beneath the saint statues which told the saint's story. I couldn't figure out at the time why God kept pulling me into those beautiful old churches to pray, when I was so anti-Catholic in my theology."
Would you say that exposure to the aesthetic appeal of traditional Catholic churches was your entry into sacramental theology?
"Well, yes, although it took fifteen years. What happened was, I went to a conference where a pastor stood up and said to us, 'The church in America is irrelevant.' (Now when he said 'church' he meant all the Protestants). He said, 'It's not having any impact on society'. I knew he was right, I knew something had been wrong for a long time. We preached our hearts out, but it wasn't changing the nation. It wasn't causing men who had no use for God to even consider God. So it really made me start to examine what we were preaching and what was our method of getting people converted -- was our method of salvation the right way? So this little preacher got up and said, 'The church is irrelevant,' and then said, 'we believe the cure for the ills of our society is for us evangelical Protestant pastors to return to ancient liturgy and sacramental theology.' I had no idea what he was talking about. I thought, 'We have to do what?'
"My friend next to me said, 'Oh, no, he's talking about C-C-C-Catholicism.' That pastor proceeded to spend the next hour and fifteen minutes telling us why he said what he said, and it so disturbed me, because I knew in my heart he was on to something true, but my head was giving me fits. It went against everything I believed. So we gave ourselves the next two years just to study and read the early Church fathers. We realized how much we had lost in the Reformation, and made a vow to try to take all our congregations and restore everything that was lost. No small task. We started to call ourselves 'ancient historical Christians', which of course is nothing other than Catholic. After trying many other alternatives (such as the Episcopal church) my wife Sherry and I decided to become Catholic. We needed a pope -- to be in line with Peter."
In a post-Vatican II climate, in which the word "renewal" can equate to a watering down of the faith, what does the word mean to you?
"Well, the first thing that comes to mind is, 'What needs to be renewed?' and 'Why does anybody need renewal?' When I was a Protestant we used the word 'revival'. We believed we needed reviving because we've gone cold and indifferent and spiritually dead, and at one time the faith was on fire and vibrant and alive. So that's what renewal and revival means to me. The Scriptures say, 'Can these dry bones live again,' and give examples of breathing on something that's become a dead formalistic mental exercise and is not alive spiritually anymore."
Do you think this kind of renewal is at the heart of what was called for by Vatican II?
"I think the Vatican Council was about this renewal. Of course I'm a new kid on the block, and have heard a lot of controversy about the second Vatican Council, and I've seen some great things that have come supposedly as a result of it, and some not so great things. But what I find out about those not so great things is that those were things that were never intended by the Council anyway. So a misapplication and a misinterpretation have happened. I will go on record saying I believe with all my heart that the Second Vatican Council is the voice of God to the Church. It is the magisterium. There's no arguing with that. How it's implemented though -- people get involved, men get involved.... Without being uncharitable, I can say some men with their own agendas came out of the council and tried to use the phrase, 'in the spirit of the second Vatican Council ... we have to change, etc, etc.... ' I think the Council was God's way of trying to bring renewal to the Church in the twenty-first century. I have to say, all the things I read about Catholicism -- the rubrics of the mass, the silence of the sacred space, the kneelers and the formality of dress -- it was all so refreshing to me. But when I actually saw the typical Catholic churches, it was very different. If I had walked into a modern, updated, liberal Catholic parish I would never have become Catholic. Because it's so much like the Protestant environment that I left. I was looking for structure, and respect for the sacred, and love for the holy, and we didn't have it. And many parishes, I'm afraid, have become just like that "in the spirit of Vatican II" of making the church a "gathering space" -- even though it is still sacred space we don't act like it is. So I think some things have been very detrimental to the faith and have even caused tens of thousands of Catholics to walk out and lose their faith. And again, that's not the Council's fault but just the statistics. Of the thirty-three percent of Catholics who still attend mass regularly, sixty-six percent no longer believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This is the crisis in the church, not pedophilia. This loss of faith in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist -- that's the very doctrine that changed my whole life and caused my conversion, because all the Church's teachings flow from that doctrine."
Do you see the same need for a return to sacramental theology that you saw in the Protestant congregations?
"Absolutely. Dr. (Scott) Hahn says, 'We must evangelize the baptized first.' Evangelization has to start among our own people. And it's happening. There were about two hundred Protestant pastors that came into the Church the year I converted, and I heard two weeks ago that there are four hundred and seventy-nine Protestant pastors coming into the Church this year. So what's the Lord up to? He loves the Church. It's not going to die or fall apart. He promised that, but it may go through some real reviving and renewing and changing, and God is bringing hundreds of Protestant pastors, the leaders of Protestant Christianity, back home, to the roots of their own faith even as Christians. So it looks like the Holy Spirit is up to something."
Do you think there's a need to be especially careful when you are trying to make Catholic truths digestible to the average layperson?
"Yes, you have to be very careful. Most of us -- we converted pastors -- are not theologians, we're not experts, we learned just enough about the Church to know it was the truth. And what most of us try to share are just the things we know that changed our lives. There are many topics I will not touch. I cannot teach on a particular doctrine if I'm not educated in it. The things that I know according to Scripture, and that we can prove historically about the Church being the Church that Jesus started, I have no problem preaching up a storm on those kinds of things. But every teacher, apologist, or catechist has to be very careful. You try to make the faith as understandable as you can while avoiding any danger of heresy."
Do you feel that your call is to evangelize to the baptized first by sharing your story?
"By sharing my story, yes, but more importantly through apologetics. Why do we believe what we believe? You must be able to give an answer to anyone that asks you. Saint Peter said, 'You must be able at all times to give a reason for the hope that lies in you.' So first the baptized must be taught their own faith, and then taught how to answer criticisms of that faith from non-Catholic Christians who are very misinformed about the faith just like I was. And a kind answer turns away wrath -- you've got to be filled with love and with charity, but you have to know the faith. When it comes to those who have no faith at all, you need to ask yourself, 'Do I know how to share the love of Christ with them? Can I convince them of their need for God and salvation?' Can you love them into the Kingdom? God does the converting, we don't convert anybody. Our job is to be the best Catholics we can be. My job is not to tell you what to believe but to explain the faith. Then you must decide what you believe."
I say we post the daily T.A. McMahon column and see if they survive even 5 or 6 posts.
Since I mentioned T.A. McMahon, I'm wondering if this post will last another 5 or 6 posts.
The thread was posted and pinged to the Catholic list. Others who choose to join the discussion are always welcome.
It would be TOO easy to post "I was a former Catholic" threads.
Go right ahead! Catholics are all too familiar with 'former' members who have separated themselves from the flock to pursue personal ideologies, not in conformity with the Magisterium. Whereas, the flood of converts into the Catholic Church is comprised of large numbers of protestant ministers who have studied theology and spent a lifetime searching for the truth. Their journey is often quite painful as it means leaving behind their congregations, friends and family.
I'm too polite to do it.
Is that true, xzins??? Jeepers, it's news to me. Certainly my dearest sister in Christ who is a Southern Baptist seems completely unaware of this too.
And Catholics agree with you. You can't earn your salvation by works or by anything else.
In the Catholic view, justification and salvation are ours because we are adopted into God's family and become his sons and daughters, not by nature (as Christ is) but by grace. They aren't a consequence of works, good or otherwise.
By the same token, faith without works is dead faith with no power to save. I didn't make that up, it's a verbatim quote from the Epistle of James.
And that's wrong, how, exactly?
There's plenty of proselytism of Catholics by Protestants on FR. There are also plenty of threads posted by Protestants on FR which blatantly misrepresent Catholic doctrine. There are whole threads devoted almost entirely to calling Catholics idolaters. I've been flatly accused of worshipping Mary as a "goddess equal to the Trinity" when I vehemently denied on the same thread that I do any such thing. There are well known Protestant posters who have no problem with using insulting epithets like "Romanist" and "Romish".
Not to mention, outside FR, that there are plenty of fundamentalist and evangelical churches in the US that are practically 100% composed of former Catholics. There are many, many fundamentalist and evangelical churches which go out of their way to recruit among the Hispanic population, almost all of whom are at least nominal Catholics.
Why shouldn't we proselytize?
You're missing the point entirely. The acts he's calling "meritorious" are those performed by the justified. He doesn't need to perform any acts to earn salvation, he already has it.
The Council of Trent's first canon on justification flatly denies that justification can be earned by keeping the law apart from divine grace.
It depends entirely upon the particular baptist church in question. Having been raised baptist, but now being methodist, I have some knowledge in this area.
In pre-Charismatic movement days, the question afoot in many churches (not just baptist) was, "Why don't we see the gifts of the Spirit operating in our day as they operated in the Book of Acts."
In some of those churches, the teaching was "Those were sign-gifts to that first generation Church before the completion/compiling of the New Testament canon, so they could see the authority of the Holy Spirit behind the operation of the Apostles, and then have assistance in knowing the correct location of the real Christians."
Once the canon was completed, then there was no longer need for such expression, according to this line of reasoning. Indeed, they still suggest that most of what we know as tongues and interpretation is a bit hokey. (A sentiment that I am nearly in agreement with.)
Unfortunately, they overlooked the many administrations of Spiritual gifts that Paul mentioned besides tongues and interpretation.....helping, hospitality, discerning, etc. I doubt that any of them would deny that God doesn't give some Christians mega-doses of these gifts.
Thank you!
>>You're missing the point entirely. <<
I believe that my post was right on point... The context of my question "Has there ever been a time in your own personal life when you believed that you had done enough "meritorious deeds" to warrant God's salvation"; was in direct response to a statement that basically said that "faith plus meritorious works are necessary for salvation.."
There seems to be much confusion on this issue.. I'll reiterate a previous statement that I made that may provide some clarification to all concerned... "Good works are the FRUIT of salvation, NOT the ROOT of salvation"...
Salvation is a free grace gift which is received by faith... IF a person has actually received this gift, good works will result. Good works are the EFFECT of salvation, Good works are NOT the CAUSE of salvation. Good works are the evidence of salvation, they are not the means of one "meriting" salvation.
The Bible has much to say about "Justification"... We're told that we are justified by "grace" and by "faith", that is the "means" by which God conveys justification to us. We are justified by blood, that is the "price" of our justification... We are justified by the resurrection of Christ, that is the "proof" from God of our justification, and we are justified by "works", that is the practical "evidence" that we have been justified..
Have you ever asked yourself this question.. If you were standing at the gate of Heaven and were asked "Why should we allow you to come in?", what would your answer be? Would you say, "because I'm Catholic", or "because I've done the best I could", or "because I've got a lot of people praying for me", or would you say, "because God promised that if I believed that Jesus Christ died for my sins and rose for my justification that I would have a home in Heaven forever."
Which answer best fits your reply to such a question?
>>>>What is "crystal clear" is the fact that our salvation is a free gift that accepted by faith.
And Catholics agree with you. You can't earn your salvation by works or by anything else.<<<<
>>In the Catholic view, justification and salvation are ours because we are adopted into God's family and become his sons and daughters, not by nature (as Christ is) but by grace. They aren't a consequence of works, good or otherwise.<<
Amen!! That's what I believe as well... Although, I must say most Catholics that I've met would disagree with you..
>>By the same token, faith without works is dead faith with no power to save. I didn't make that up, it's a verbatim quote from the Epistle of James.<<
What we must understand about James is that he is presenting to us in very practical terms what faith is... If or faith doesn't produce works, then it's "dead faith"... In other words it's "profession" of faith rather than "confession" of faith... A mere "profession" of faith doesn't save anyone... This "professed faith" is in contrast to the "grace bestowed faith" mentioned in Ephesians 2:8,9,10
>>The wages of sin is death, eternal life is a gift. Gifts are not owed us, no matter OUR faith or love...<<
With this one verse and its acompanying comment you have completely destroys the argument that you were using up to now... If you offered a gift and I insisted paying for it... It wouldn't be a gift anymore, would it? By the same token, grace also...
God's
Riches
At
Christ's
Expense
Forsaking
All
I
Trust
Him
Romans 11:5 "...So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace..."
I haven't. I am not paying for anything. That's the whole point. I can't earn salvation by myself. Do you have a problem with me showing my appreciation for the gift given to me?
The fancy wordplay notwithstanding, faith alone does not save. The bible says so, as I have demonstrated. Here is another author, if you dislike the message of St. Paul and St. James...
"He who saith that he knoweth him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But he that keepeth his word, in him in very deed the charity of God is perfected; and by this we know that we are in him". 1 John 2:4-5
"He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now." 1 John 2:9
Talk is cheap, brother...
"And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ: and love one another, as he hath given commandment unto us. And he that keepeth his commandments, abideth in him, and he in him. And in this we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us." 1 John 3:23-24
"He that hath the Son, hath life. He that hath not the Son, hath not life." 1 John 5:12
If you aren't walking in the ways of the Lord due to His abiding presence, you will not have eternal life. Faith alone doesn't save unto heaven. All the faith in the world is meaningless without Christ's abiding presence.
Clearly, you need to revisit my last post and re-read the part about what "work" is, as you still don't understand it.
Regards
>>"He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now." 1 John 2:9
Talk is cheap, brother...<<
Where did this "hate" come from? Are you projecting your own feelings about me? I certainly don't "hate" you... And I would challenge you to provide a shred of evidence that would I imply that I do... I thought you were interested in discussing the issues.. That, my friend, was evidently a lapse of judgement on my part...
I continued: "Talk is cheap, brother...<<
You wrote: Where did this "hate" come from? Are you projecting your own feelings about me? I certainly don't "hate" you...
What an unfortunate turn of events. How have you turned my citation of Scripture into a personal attack? Is this another debate tactic? Turn your opponent's argument into an attack on your person. Try to change the subject when you know you are not advancing your opinion.
I am not personally attacking you! I am merely saying that saying that one is saved is "cheap talk", as John says on several occasions. He even calls such a one a "liar". I didn't identify this to you personally! I don't even know you. As far as I know, you might be the most kind and considerate person I know, another Mother Teresa. My comment is Biblical, as St. James says
"What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food: And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit?" James 2:14-16
In other words, talk is cheap. Nothing to do with you personally.
Jesus says the same thing:
Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. Mat 7:21-23
This is what I meant by "talk is cheap".
My responses to you have thoroughly shredded the idea of Sola Fide. It is simply not biblical. Frankly, it is ANTI-Biblical, if you take the time to read James 2. I have given ample evidence that Sola Fide is a false teaching that tickles the ears. It is a false teaching, one that the devil just loves to hear. If he can get Christians to stop "working out their salvation in fear and trembling", then he can roam around like a lion, bringing Christians "back to the vomit" of their former lives. Sola Fide breeds a presumption that God owes you salvation because you said a sentence in your life!
That being said, despite your error, I wish you well in your search for God's Truth. If you are ever open to considering God's truth, rather than such lies, FP mail me. You won't get the truth in a protesting community...
Regards
Since you've decided to take this discussion to the level of misrepresentations and snide remarks... I think you would do well to take your own advice...
The only thing that you've proved in this whole discussion is that you are unwilling to listen.. No matter what is being said... If you had listened to what I said... And the verses that I quoted... You would not have found it necessary to make some of the foolish statements that you've made...
My hope for you is that you will some day have the confidence in Christ and His word that you now have in your religion...
I hope that some day that you'll be delivered from the errors of transubstantiation, Apostolic succession, veneration of Mary, and the like.. All of which are inventions of mere men.. And are soundly refuted by a study of the Scriptures...
Where has he done that?
The only thing that you've proved in this whole discussion is that you are unwilling to listen.
An objective review of the posts will demonstrate the exact opposite.
>>An objective review of the posts will demonstrate the exact opposite.<<
Sounds like a pretty biased comment to me... :-)
And yours wasn't?
I have no idea where this is coming from. I have never heard any Evangelical say or think that. Perhaps you have met the wrong person or people? Wow, this is just not true. (not saying you are making it up, just saying it is a misunderstanding of some sort.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.