The Visible Church Was There All Along

“I just can’t be Protestant anymore,” I blurted out one night as my husband and I were driving in the car.

“This is just crazy. Every church teaches something different. Every pastor interprets the Bible according to his own personal beliefs. How is anybody supposed to know who’s teaching the truth?”

“Well, all we can do is choose the denomination that’s most faithful to the Bible.”

“So we decide what the Bible means? We decide what’s true? Then the Bible isn’t our final authority – we are.”

“Lord,” I prayed later that night, “I’ll go wherever You want me to go. Please, just lead me to the truth.”

I never imagined that I would one day become Catholic, even when I knew I could no longer be Protestant. Catholicism simply wasn’t an option. When I left Protestantism, I had no idea where I was going. I only knew that there had to be something else. No matter where it led, I had to find the truth. I never dreamed it would be in the last place I ever wanted to look.

Raised without a religious faith of any kind, I envisioned God as a stern Judge rather than a loving Father. Knowing my sinfulness, I didn’t think He would ever forgive someone like me. But in the mid-1980s, I discovered the Trinity Broadcasting Network on TV. The televangelists spoke of a merciful and forgiving God Who “so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). One night, in front of the TV set, I prayed the “sinner’s prayer” and asked Jesus into my heart as my Lord and Savior.

I began attending a Charismatic church whose pastor frequently appeared on TBN. Amid rock and roll music, swaying bodies, and waving arms, I was baptized. Charismatic worship was an exciting new experience. I had never before seen people speaking in “heavenly languages” or being “slain in the Spirit.” Visiting evangelists told amazing stories of “signs and wonders and miracles.” I longed to receive the gifts of the Spirit myself and went forward for the “laying on of hands” each week, but nothing happened.

As time passed, I began to question some of the beliefs of my church. Our pastors promised that we would receive physical as well as spiritual healing if we only had enough faith. And yet each week I watched as the same people went forward time and time again. No one ever got up out of a wheelchair, and the blind did not see. I wondered if these poor people who loved the Lord felt as though they themselves were to blame because they didn’t have enough faith to be healed. But as I read the Bible, I saw that God has a purpose for suffering in the Christian life (cf. Rom. 5:3-4, 8:17; Phil. 1:29; 1 Pet. 1:6-7).

I was also deeply troubled by the emphasis on “speaking in tongues.” Hadn’t the Apostle Paul said, “But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue” (1 Cor. 14:19)? Though our pastors appealed to the first letter to the Corinthians to support the practices in our church, I could see that Paul was admonishing them for their excesses. “Brothers, stop thinking like children” (1 Cor. 14:20), he told them.

As the Charismatic movement became more and more extreme, I began to distance myself, and I eventually left the church. For a time I continued to read the Bible, but it wasn’t long before I gave that up, too. As the cares of the world crept back into my life, I slowly abandoned the practice of my faith. For the next several years, I drifted further and further away from the Lord. Stubbornly resisting His grace, I tried to find happiness in the pleasures of the world.

It was during this time that I met my husband. Kerry had been raised in the Lutheran Church and had even been an altar boy in his youth, but fell away from his faith as a teenager. Together we went about living extremely self-centered, self-indulgent lives apart from the Lord.

Then one day, I got a letter from a woman I had known years earlier in the Charismatic church. She had become a Jehovah’s Witness. I knew that the Witnesses deny that Jesus is the eternal Son of God and teach that He is Michael the Archangel. While I didn’t remember very much about my faith by then, there was one thing of which I was absolutely certain: Jesus Christ is not a created being; He is God in human flesh, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

I found my Bible and called her, determined to show her from Scripture the truth about Christ. But it had been so long since I had studied the Bible, I forgot the passages that proved Christ’s Divinity. So I began to study Scripture again in earnest and we continued to talk until, on the advice of her elders, she cut off all contact. I never heard from her again. But like the prodigal son, I had come to my senses and longed to return to my Father’s house. I begged the Lord to forgive me for my years of sin and rebellion and I re-surrendered my life to Christ.

Scanning through the stations on the radio one day, I came across a discussion of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I discovered the “Bible Answer Man,” a call-in radio talk show hosted by Hank Hanegraaff, president of the Christian Research Institute. I contacted CRI for more information about the Witnesses and became an avid listener of the show.

I started going to church again, attending a Baptist church near my home. How different it was! I had thought all Christians clapped and danced and shouted in church. But worship in the Baptist church was orderly and dignified. I felt so much more comfortable there.

At first, Kerry resisted. But by the grace of God, it wasn’t long before he had a conversion experience of his own. Kerry recommitted his life to Christ and we began following the Lord together.

Over the next few months, as he grew in his relationship with the Lord, Kerry became more and more uncomfortable in his job as the manager of a secular bookstore. Books on the occult, adult magazines, and the like were offensive to his new faith in Christ, so he prepared to look for some other kind of work.

I was listening to the “Bible Answer Man” on the radio one day when Hank announced that the Christian Research Institute was accepting resumes.

“Why don’t you send your resume to CRI?” I suggested to Kerry later that night.

We had no idea what kind of position was available. As it turned out, a manager was needed for the on-site bookstore – and Kerry got the job.

Founded in 1960 by the late Dr. Walter Martin (The Kingdom of the Cults), the Christian Research Institute is the largest Protestant apologetics organization in the world. CRI publishes the award-winning magazine The Christian Research Journal, and the “Bible Answer Man” broadcast is heard on over one hundred radio stations in the U.S. and Canada. What an honor it was that Kerry was going to be a part of this ministry. We could hardly believe that the Lord had blessed us in this way.

Kerry began working for CRI in the summer of 1996, and we moved north from San Diego to Orange County. Kerry loved his new job and quickly became a valued and well-liked member of the CRI staff. Within a year, he was supervising the warehouse and shipping department in addition to the bookstore. I became a volunteer and eventually started working for him in the warehouse on an as-needed basis. We made wonderful new friends and enjoyed working alongside our brothers and sisters in Christ.

After our move, we set about finding a new church. We wanted to try a different denomination, as we were troubled by the “secret rapture” teaching that was so prevalent in our Baptist church, for which we could find no Biblical support. We were surprised to learn that this teaching was less than two hundred years old and that it has never been accepted by the majority of Christian believers.

We eventually settled into a Reformed church. For the next two years, we studied the history of the Protestant Reformation, embracing Reformed theology wholeheartedly. I loved Calvinism – at last I could love the Lord not only with my heart but with my mind as well (cf. Matt. 22:37). Calvin’s doctrines on election, predestination, and the perseverance of the saints were particularly comforting. I loved the teaching that everything was in God’s Sovereign hands, determined before the foundation of the world.

We attended Bible studies and conferences, read numerous books, and listened to hundreds of theology tapes. We were learning from the best theologians the Reformed tradition had to offer.

One evening in a Bible study class, we were discussing Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) when the topic of conversation switched to the canon of Scripture itself. Our teacher quoted my favorite theologian, R. C. Sproul, as saying that the canon of Scripture is a “fallible collection of infallible books.”

“What a strange thing to say,” I thought. “If the collection of books is fallible, how could anyone be certain that we have infallible books?” It didn’t make sense. Still, I put the thought out of my mind.

But it wasn’t long before another crack in my Reformed fortress began to appear. During another Bible study, a question was asked about the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25: How could we explain this passage in light of the doctrine of Sola Fide (Faith alone)? The answer that was given was less than satisfactory. How did this parable fit our theology, I wondered? The passage began to haunt me.

“When the Son of Man comes … He will sit on His throne in Heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. … Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come … for I was hungry and you gave Me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited Me in, I needed clothes and you clothed Me, I was sick and you looked after Me, I was in prison and you came to visit Me.’ … Then He will say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me … for I was hungry and you gave Me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave Me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite Me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe Me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after Me.’ … ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help You?’ … ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for Me.’ Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life” (Matt. 25:31-46).

Here was the clearest picture of the final judgment in all of Scripture, and the Lord was rewarding or condemning the people according to what they had done. As I searched Scripture, I found that this was not an isolated text (cf. Matt. 12:36-37, 13:49; John 5:28-29; Rom. 2:6-8; 2 Cor. 5:10; 1 Pet. 1:17; Rev. 2:23, 20:13).

I knew that we are saved by the free gift of God’s grace; there is nothing we can do to earn our salvation (cf. Eph. 2:8-9). But the simple formula of “faith alone” did not do justice to the totality of Scripture. How could we reconcile Martin Luther’s doctrine of forensic justification and imputed righteousness with the clear teaching of the Bible? “Do not let anyone lead you astray,” said the Apostle John. “He who does what is right is righteous, just as He is righteous” (1 John 3:7).

Luther said, “No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day” (Let Your Sins Be Strong, 1521). But the Apostle Paul warned, “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the Kingdom of God?” (1 Cor. 6:9).

Was the doctrine of Sola Fide misleading countless people into a false sense of security? I remembered the Lord’s stinging warning in Matthew 7:21. “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father Who is in Heaven.”

I wondered. Had Martin Luther really “rediscovered” the gospel? Or had he invented something new?

It began to bother me that there were so many theological differences among the CRI staff. The Lutherans disagreed with the Baptists, who disagreed with the Reformed, who disagreed with the Calvary Chapel people and so forth. Though we claimed to be united on essentials, in reality we had serious disagreements on central theological issues: Does God regenerate us in baptism or is it only a sign? Is Christ truly present in the Lord’s Supper or are the elements merely symbolic? Can we resist God’s grace and lose our salvation or are we eternally secure? It seemed absurd to me that we could hold so many contradicting views and yet all claim to be “within the pale of orthodoxy.” Somebody had to be wrong.

And what of those Christians who disagreed with CRI positions? We all looked to the Bible; what made our opinions more correct than those of anyone else? We were sending out “fact sheets” every day, but how could we really be certain that we were telling people the truth? I began to view CRI as a microcosm of Protestantism. At the end of the day, all we could do was “agree to disagree,” because each one had his Bible and was determined to decide for himself what was true.

One evening, Westminster Theological Seminary hosted a debate between the Lutherans and the Reformed on the topic of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Kerry and I couldn’t make it, but a Lutheran co-worker from CRI attended the debate and told us about it the following day. He said the discussion had quickly become heated, each side hurling Bible verses back and forth, saying things that were “almost blasphemous.”

“Oh, this is just ridiculous,” I thought to myself. “It’s been nearly five hundred years since the Reformation and they still can’t agree on what the Bible means!” And then I came to a startling realization: Sola Scriptura doesn’t work.

I couldn’t stop thinking about the hopeless state of division and confusion within Protestantism. With the Bible alone as our guide, we had managed to split into nearly 30,000 bickering denominations with no end in sight. How could so many sincere men of God, all claiming the Bible as their sole authority, come up with so many different interpretations of Scripture? Whose interpretation were we supposed to trust? How could we look to the Bible alone if nobody could say authoritatively what it means?

The weakening of faith and the collapse of moral values were equally disheartening. Many mainline churches, once stalwart in defense of orthodox Christian doctrine, now watered down fundamental beliefs such as the inerrancy of Scripture, the Virgin Birth, the Bodily Resurrection, and even the Divinity of Christ. Rejecting Biblical morality, homosexual practice and lifestyle were becoming acceptable. Even traditionally conservative denominations were now permitting abortion. What would have been unthinkable even fifty years ago was rapidly becoming commonplace today. And still, all looked to the Bible alone and continued to claim the perspicuity of Scripture.

I had to see for myself what “private interpretation” had really led to. I asked Kerry to take me to see the various denominations. We began going on what we called our “field trips,” visiting a new church every week.

One Sunday morning, we went to the fastest-growing church in southern California. One of the new “seeker-sensitive” mega-churches, it seemed more like a stadium event than a religious service. There were no Christian symbols on the walls, not even a Cross. Musical instruments covered the stage from end to end. The pastor’s sermon was motivational and we enjoyed the lively, contemporary Christian music, but there wasn’t a word about sin, repentance, or Christ’s death on the Cross. Was this worship? Or was it entertainment? Was this what five hundred years of Protestantism had produced?

Kerry was quickly becoming as disillusioned as I was. We began to think that perhaps the solution could be found in the Anglican-Catholic Church. We found St. Matthew’s, a parish about thirty miles from our home, and began attending services each week. For a time, we loved it there. The worship was reverent and the parish priest gave some of the best sermons we had ever heard.

But there was no Anglican-Catholic parish in San Diego, where we hoped to return someday. And I discovered that the Anglican-Catholic Church had only been established as recently as 1978, when it separated from the Episcopal Church. It was just one more denomination, split off from yet another denomination.

I was terribly frustrated. Paul had warned against divisions (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10) and said that we are to watch out for those who cause them (cf. Rom. 16:17). “For the time will come,” he wrote, “when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Tim. 4:3). I was weary of being “blown about by every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:14). Surely this disunity and confusion was not the work of the Holy Spirit.

We were visiting a small, Episcopal church in our neighborhood one week, when the pastor announced that there was going to be a day of prayer for unity and a special ecumenical service held at a nearby Greek Orthodox church. Knowing very little about the Eastern Orthodox, I was intrigued.

“Why don’t we go and see what it’s like?” I suggested to Kerry. “We’ve already been everywhere else.”

Though we missed the ecumenical service, one Sunday morning a few weeks later, we decided to visit the Orthodox church.

The smell of incense filled the air as we entered St. Paul’s Greek Orthodox Church for the Divine Liturgy. It was the most majestic church that we had ever seen. The priest, clad in a lavish golden vestment, censed the altar as he prayed in the Sanctuary. Worshipers lit candles and kissed the icons, making the Sign of the Cross. Kerry and I sat down in silence. There was a sense of reverence here that we had never experienced before. But as the celebration of the Liturgy progressed, we felt terribly out of place as the people around us stood, knelt, prayed, sang, crossed themselves, and even kissed! As beautiful as it was, I didn’t know if we would ever go back again.

I began reading about the Eastern Orthodox and discovered that theirs was an ancient church with a living, historical connection to the Apostles and to Jesus Himself. As far as I had been concerned, Church history began in the sixteenth century. I knew nothing about the fifteen hundred years before the Protestant Reformation. I began to wonder about the early centuries of Christianity. What had the early Christians been like? How had they worshiped? Reading Church history, I discovered the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. The writings of the early Fathers opened up a whole new world to me that I never knew existed.

I discovered a Church that believed in Apostolic Succession, Sacred Tradition, baptismal regeneration, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist – a visible, authoritative Church whose bishops had infallibly determined the canon of Scripture and had defined the great dogmas of the Christian Faith.

I learned that worship in the early Church was centered not on music and preaching but on the Eucharist. The early Church Fathers unanimously believed that the bread and the wine truly became the Body and Blood of Christ.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John, called the Eucharist the “medicine of immortality” (A.D. 110, Letter to the Ephesians 20:2). Concerning “those who hold heretical opinions,” he wrote, “note how contrary they are to the mind of God. … They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father by His goodness raised up” (A.D. 110, Letter to the Smyrneans 6:2-7:1).

St. Cyril of Jerusalem expressed the Eucharistic faith of the early Church in his catechetical lectures: “Therefore, when He has spoken and says about the bread, ‘This is My Body,’ who will have the nerve to doubt any longer? And, when He affirms clearly, ‘This is My Blood,’ who will then doubt, saying that it is not His Blood? Once, by His own will, He changed water into wine at Cana in Galilee; is He not worthy of belief when He changes wine into blood? ... Do not judge the reality by taste but, having full assurance from faith, realize that you have been judged worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ. … Having learned these things, you have complete certitude that the visible bread is not bread, even if it is such to the taste, but the Body of Christ; and the visible wine is not wine, even if taste thinks it such, but the Blood of Christ” (A.D. 350, Mystagogic Catechesis 4:1,2,6,9).

Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My Flesh is real food and My Blood is real drink. Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood remains in Me, and I in him” (John 6:53-56).

The early Christians knew that the Lord was not speaking of a mere symbol. I discovered that for the first thousand years of Christianity, no one denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. It was the universal belief of the entire Christian Church.

As if scales fell from my eyes, I began to see other passages in Scripture that, taken at face value, contradicted Protestant theology: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (John 3:5); “Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15); “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24); “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:23); “Take, eat; this is My Body … this is My Blood” (Matt. 26:26-28).

I was shaken. We had refused to believe the plain meaning of Scripture. We had “nullified the Word of God for the sake of our tradition” (cf. Matt. 15:6).

As I continued to study Church history, I learned that “Scripture alone,” “Faith alone,” an “invisible” church, and symbolic baptism and Eucharist were all late innovations – teachings of men who came along centuries after Christ established His Church. Not a single Church Father taught Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide. The two great pillars of the Protestant Reformation were “traditions of men” (Mark 7:8).

I had to make a choice. I could listen to the men who sat at the feet of the Apostles themselves – men who sacrificed their very lives for the faith that had been passed down to them – or continue to follow those who had separated themselves from the ancient Church, men who taught radically new doctrines that had never been held in the entire history of Christianity.

Jesus promised to be with His Church until the end of time (cf. Matt. 28:20) and to send the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truth (cf. John 16:13). I was forced to admit that either Christ had broken His promises and had allowed His Church to fall into error and remain in darkness for fifteen hundred years, or that Protestantism was not historical Christianity.

The testimony of the Fathers was irrefutable. The early Church was not Protestant. I had been taught that the Reformers restored “pure Christianity” to a corrupt Church, but I now knew that Protestantism was the corruption. The Reformers refashioned Christianity according to their own beliefs and lost the Faith of the Fathers, departing further and further from the Apostolic Faith with each successive generation of Protestant believers.

At long last, I discovered the Church that was founded not by Luther or Calvin or any other man but by the Lord Jesus Himself. That one, Mystical Body where there was truly “one Spirit … one hope … one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:4-5); where the many are made one Body, for “all partake of the one Bread” (1 Cor. 10:17). The Orthodox Church still possessed the faith that had been “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). The Orthodox had kept the Traditions of the Fathers.

We decided to go back to St. Paul’s for the Resurrection Service on Great and Holy Saturday, the eve of Pascha. (Pascha is the Greek word for Passover, what Eastern Christians call Easter.) The church was dark, symbolizing the darkness of the grave. At the altar, the priest lit the Paschal Candle representing the Resurrected Christ, the Light of the World. We lit our candles from the Paschal Candle, passing on the light to each other.

After the Divine Liturgy, everyone went forward to receive a blessed Easter egg. Kerry and I went forward, too, and to our surprise the priest invited us to come back the following day as his personal guests for the annual Easter picnic. From that day forward, St. Paul’s became our church home.

Father Steve took us under his wing as we began to learn about Orthodoxy. He gave us books to read over the summer, and in September we began the Studies in Faith class, a twenty-four-week course covering the content, history, and practice of the Orthodox faith. We joined a weekly Bible study and OCF (Orthodox Christian Fellowship), another study group that also met for occasional social get-togethers, and we continued to read the writings of the Church Fathers.

The Orthodox Church seemed to be the answer to our prayers. We even began to accept the teachings about the Theotokos, the Blessed Virgin Mary. After all, we discovered, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, the fathers of the Reformation, had all honored Mary and affirmed that she is the Mother of God and Ever-Virgin. How far the contemporary denominations have departed from the beliefs of their founders!

As the months passed, we continued our studies and were warmly welcomed into the life of the parish, making wonderful new friends. The fact that we were going to an Orthodox church didn’t even seem to bother anyone at CRI – Hank’s personal assistant even came to a conference at our parish. We looked forward with eager anticipation to the day when we would formally enter the Church and receive the Body and Blood of the Lord in Holy Communion. It was the happiest time of our lives.

As we were nearing the end of our Studies in Faith class, we came to the topic of moral issues. One young couple in the class, converts from Catholicism, spoke candidly about their marriage. They had not been allowed to marry in the Catholic Church because the woman had been divorced, but they found that this was not a problem in the Orthodox Church.

I had never thought about this before; in Protestantism, remarriage after divorce is a non-issue. Although Kerry had never been married before, I had been previously married and divorced. For the first time, I began to think about divorce and remarriage and how this affected Kerry and me.

I made an appointment to speak with Father Steve about my concerns. After discussing all of the circumstances, he assured me there wasn’t a problem; he would marry Kerry and me in the Church and that would be my first, true Sacramental marriage. He would bring us into the Church at Pascha and then marry us on the day of our next anniversary.

That night I couldn’t sleep. I was terribly worried about receiving Holy Communion before we were married in the Church. How could we go forward in good conscience to receive the Body and Blood of Christ if we were not going to be married in the Church until the following November? It just didn’t seem right. And then something else began to trouble me: Why did the Orthodox Church permit its members to marry three times and still receive Holy Communion?

I decided to talk to the instructor of our Studies in Faith class. He promised to send me some information that would help. But what he thought would bring me comfort actually brought me more distress.

I learned that at the time of the emperor Justinian, the Eastern Church was pressured into a “situation which she had to accept.” Although “unwillingly and in seeming deviation from the main position of considering marriage indissoluble, yet for the purpose of helping her faithful who were at the same time citizens of the state, the Church decided to follow in the main the legal decision of the state in matters of divorce.

“Some of the reasons which the Church accepts as valid for ecclesiastically dissolving a marriage include imprisonment for life, incurable mental or physical illness, proven and irremedial incompatibility, and others” (A Dictionary of Greek Orthodoxy, pg. 120).

When I read those words, my heart sank. I turned to the Lord’s teaching in Matthew 19 – a passage I had read many times before and yet, until now, had never truly seen. Jesus said, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery” (Matt. 19:8-9).

I knew that there was only one church that taught the indissolubility of marriage. Could the Catholic Church really be what she claimed to be? I didn’t want to believe it, so deep were my prejudices against Catholicism.

I had one Catholic friend. We had met on the Internet while I was still a staunch Calvinist. Mary had a deep love for the Lord and a steadfast belief that the Catholic Church was His true Church. The Lord used our friendship to soften my heart, just enough that I was able to buy my first Catholic books: Surprised by Truth, a collection of conversion stories edited by Patrick Madrid, and The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism by Father John Hardon, S.J.

About this time, Kerry began listening to Catholic radio when he was driving in the car. Protestant programming no longer interested him. We were so much closer to the Catholics now; Catholicism and Orthodoxy were virtually the same faith, sharing the same Sacraments but divided mainly over the issue of authority. Kerry told me about “Catholic Answers Live,” a call-in radio talk show similar to the “Bible Answer Man,” and I began to listen, too.

As I read about the Catholic faith and listened to “Catholic Answers Live,” I realized that I had serious misconceptions about Catholicism. The Catholic Church did not teach salvation by works, that Christ is “re-sacrificed” in the Mass, that Mary and the Saints are to be worshiped, or that purgatory is a second chance at Heaven. I realized that all of my perceptions of the Catholic faith had been gleaned from anti-Catholic Protestant sources that had misrepresented official Catholic teachings. I was ashamed to admit that I had never read a single book written by a Catholic author in defense of the Catholic faith. I had to know more, but I didn’t want Kerry to know what I was thinking until I was absolutely certain for myself.

I had been studying cults for years, collecting nearly every book that had been written about them. One day, I casually said to Kerry, “You know, there’s really nothing available by an Orthodox author on cults or apologetics. Do you mind if I order something from the Catholics to get their perspective?”

And so I began ordering books and tapes by Catholic authors Patrick Madrid, Jimmy Akin, Karl Keating, Scott Hahn, Marcus Grodi, and others. I was intensely studying the Catholic faith – and Kerry didn’t suspect a thing.

One day, I discovered something that absolutely shocked me. Up until 1930, all Christian churches taught that contraception was intrinsically evil and gravely sinful. It was the Anglican Church, at its Lambeth Conference, that first approved the use of birth control. Since that time, every single Protestant denomination – and sadly even the Orthodox Church – has followed suit, departing from nineteen hundred years of universal Christian belief.

But there was something more. I learned that some contraceptives – the IUD, Norplant, Depo-Provera, and the Pill – were also potential abortifacients. The Pill, I discovered, does not always prevent conception, but sometimes causes an early chemical abortion after a new life has already been conceived. Although its primary function is to inhibit ovulation, the birth control pill sometimes allows breakthrough ovulation and conception to occur, meaning a woman can still become pregnant, even when she’s on the Pill. When this happens, the Pill works in another way: by causing changes in the lining of the uterus that prevent the implantation of the new human life.

I believed that human life is sacred and that we must respect all life – from the very moment of conception until natural death. It is as sinful to take the life of a tiny, seven-day-old human being by a chemical abortion as it is to take the life of a seven-week-old human being by a surgical abortion. I thought of all the sincere, pro-life Christians who use birth control because their pastors have told them that it is morally permissible. In allowing the use of contraception, Christian churches had unwittingly caused the deaths of innocent human beings created in the image of God.

With tremendous sorrow, I realized that I could not become Orthodox. There was only one Church that stood firm on all moral issues, only one Church that could be the one Scripture calls the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

St. John Chrysostom, the great fourth-century patriarch of the Eastern Church, wrote, “Why did He shed His blood? It was to purchase the sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors” (The Priesthood 2:1). Christ had given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter (cf. Matt. 16:19) and charged him to feed His sheep (cf. John 21:15-17) and to strengthen his brethren (cf. Luke 22:32). I now knew that the Lord was calling me into the Catholic Church. I had to be obedient to Christ. I had to “become like a little child” (cf. Matt. 18:3) and humbly submit to the authority of His one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.

I wasn’t sure what to do next, and there was still the matter of my marital situation. I decided to call Catholic Answers. I spoke with a staff apologist who suggested that I contact Edward Peters, a canon lawyer and frequent guest on “Catholic Answers Live.”

Dr. Peters explained that an annulment is not a “Catholic divorce” as some people think. The Catholic Church teaches that a valid marriage is indissoluble. An annulment is granted only when the Church determines that a valid marriage never existed from the beginning. The Catholic Church takes great care to protect her faithful because, in her wisdom, she knows that to attempt a second marriage when the first marriage is valid causes one to be in a state of adultery. Dr. Peters encouraged me to speak with a parish priest who could then help me to begin the annulment process.

It was nearing the day when Father Steve would pray for the Catechumens who would be coming into the Orthodox Church at Pascha. I couldn’t put it off any longer. I told Kerry that I could not become Orthodox – I had discovered the truth of the Catholic faith.

Kerry stared at me in disbelief. He was devastated. After all of the months of prayer and study, all of our plans now lay in ruins. Our life at St. Paul’s, our future at CRI, everything we had looked forward to – it was all over.

There was now a tension between us that had never existed before. But while Kerry couldn’t accept that the Catholic Church could be Christ’s Church, he could not deny that there were serious problems with the Orthodox position on moral issues. We now realized that if I had been validly married in the past, Kerry and I were living in a state of adultery. Rather than risk offending God and eternally endangering each other’s soul, we agreed to live as brother and sister until we could determine our true marital state.

There was one Catholic whom Kerry respected very much: Jimmy Akin, the senior apologist at Catholic Answers. Jimmy had been a guest on the “Bible Answer Man” years earlier and, though I didn’t know it at the time, Kerry had listened to the tapes over and over again, astonished that there were good, solid Catholic answers to Protestant questions. If I could convince Kerry to meet with him, I knew that Jimmy could help. But when I raised the idea, he resisted.

“I can’t take a day off to go down there,” he said. “You know how busy I am at work.” Kerry was adamant that there was nothing I could say to change his mind.

“Please Lord,” I prayed that night, “find a way to get Kerry down to Catholic Answers.”

A few days later, we found out that Kerry needed to have minor surgery. On doctor’s orders, he would be off from work for two weeks.

“You know, we could go to see Jimmy before you have to go back to work again,” I said with a sly grin one night, as the day of surgery approached. “You know how bored you’ll be after you’ve been sitting at home for two weeks.”

Kerry recovered from surgery quickly and was feeling fine when the day arrived for our trip to Catholic Answers. The tension that had been between us for weeks seemed to lift as we drove down the coast to the San Diego-based apostolate.

Jimmy welcomed us and gave us a tour, introducing Kerry and me to everyone on staff. We then settled into a conference room where he spent the next two hours answering all of our questions about the Catholic faith. Karl Keating, the founder and president of Catholic Answers, spent some time with us, too, and gave us all of the back issues of This Rock magazine featuring articles on Eastern Orthodoxy. We met Johnny Hochgraefe, the host of “Catholic Answers Live” at the time, and stayed to watch a taping of the show.

On the way home, Kerry broke the silence. “I suppose it’s inevitable that I’m going to be Catholic, but I’m just not ready yet; I need more time. But if you’re ready now, I don’t want to stand in your way. I think you should enter the Church.”

St. Michael’s Abbey of the Norbertine Fathers was near our home, and we began going there for Sunday Mass. One of the priests at the Abbey, Father John Caronan, was on the Orange County Marriage Tribunal. I made an appointment to meet with him to discuss the annulment and the possibility of my coming into the Church.

The annulment process is lengthy, lasting at least a year. But because Kerry and I had been living as brother and sister, Father John said that it was possible that I could enter the Church in full Communion at Easter if we agreed to go on living continently. With the Easter Vigil just a few weeks away, I was hopeful that I would soon be received into the Church.

Father John sent us to Father Daniel Johnson at St. Mary’s by the Sea. Although Father Johnson’s RCIA class was almost over, he allowed us to come into the class. Because of our background, the instruction we had received at St. Paul’s, and our own study of the Catholic faith, he agreed that I was ready.

There remained one, final question to be answered: What would we do if my annulment was denied and we could never have our marriage blessed in the Church? It would mean that we could never live as husband and wife again.

Kerry and I were of the same mind. We knew that to reject the Church would be to reject Christ. We would accept the final decision of the Church as that of a mother who protects and cares for her children. We would trust God and rely on His grace to help us live accordingly. We had to follow Christ no matter what the cost. Knowing that our Lord was truly present in the Holy Eucharist – Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity – how could we ever turn away?

With that decision made, there was nothing left to stand in my way. On April 22, 2000, at the Easter Vigil – with Kerry’s blessing and my friend Mary as my sponsor – I was welcomed into the arms of Holy Mother Church, and I received the Body and Blood of the Lord in Holy Communion.

Two weeks later, Kerry began Father Johnson’s new RCIA class. With Kerry’s entrance into the Church imminent, we knew that it was time for us to leave CRI. Though we had respect and admiration for the work that CRI does on cults and aberrant Christian movements, we no longer shared the Protestant beliefs of our Evangelical brothers and sisters. We had found the fullness of the faith in the Catholic Church.

We had to decide quickly what to do next. We wanted very much to return to San Diego, but Kerry didn’t want to go back to his old job at the secular bookstore.

“Lord,” I prayed, “You’ve led us this far and we trust in You. Please, open a door for us somewhere.”

I was working in the warehouse at CRI one day, when I put on my headphones to listen to “Catholic Answers Live” on the radio. Johnny Hochgraefe came on the air and made an announcement: Catholic Answers was accepting resumes.

“Thank you, Lord,” I whispered as I turned and looked over at Kerry. I just knew we were going home.

Kerry met with the vice president of Catholic Answers and the following week gratefully accepted a position as the manager of purchasing and inventory control. There wasn’t time for him to complete the RCIA class before we moved back to San Diego, so Father Johnson graciously allowed him to listen to tapes of a previous class.

On June 10th, the eve of Pentecost, in a private Mass at St. Mary’s by the Sea, Kerry was received into the Church, and we shared the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion together for the first time.

“Where Peter is, there is the Church,” wrote St. Ambrose in the fourth century. The visible Church that Kerry and I had once refused to see was there all along. Despite persecutions, scandals, and the sins of her members, the Catholic Church lives on. She has stood invincible throughout two thousand years of history and will last until the end of time, for Christ Himself promised that she would.

“And I tell you, you are Peter,” said the Lord. “And on this rock I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).

In March 2002, as we were preparing for Holy Week, we received word that the Marriage Tribunal had reached a favorable decision in my case. Kerry and I would soon be free to have our marriage blessed in the Church.

The Lord has blessed us in so many ways we scarcely have words to thank Him. To God alone be all glory and honor, forever and ever. Amen!

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

Okay. So "Biblical inerrancy" refers only to the spiritual lessons of the stories and not to their facticity or historicity. Once again, partial inerrancy.

Also this : In 1920, Pope Benedict XV dealt with this incorrect approach in Spiritus Paraclitus: "The method of those who extricate themselves from difficulties by allowing without hesitation that divine inspiration extends to matters of faith and morals and to nothing more" can not be tolerated. The Church "teaches that divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text" (Spiritus Paraclitus 21).

First provide a quote that explains that "inerrancy" applies only to "the truth intended for our salvation;" now you provide another quote that insists on total inerrancy. So which is it? Does inerrancy apply only to "salvational truth" or to everything?

"The method of those who extricate themselves from difficulties by allowing without hesitation that divine inspiration extends to matters of faith and morals and to nothing more" can not be tolerated.

So why does the Church not only tolerate, but teach this very thing???

I think you are confusing the fact that the Church says that there are different writing styles in found in the Bible other than literal. There is prose, metaphor, allegory but all of these convey the Truth. Sometimes both may be found in one story. The Story of Jonah is both a literal historical event and an allegory for Christ's 3 days in the tomb and His resurrection. God does not literally have thousands of cattle on a hill. But all the earth and its creatures is under His providence.

So Jonah is both literal and metaphorical, but the creation of the universe is pure metaphor???

The whole of the Bible is a salvation history. It reveals how God created, loved us and saved us. He did this within the context of real events and real people. Biblical archeology proves this. Throughout the OT He is preparing the way for Christ our promised Savior and throughout the NT He is showing how Christ fullfills the promises of the OT.

PS I do not know if you are Jewish. The tag Zionist Conspirator could be a Christian's or a Jew's. I am explaining this through a Catholic Christian viewpoint. Of course if you are Jewish I understand you would not hold the NT as being a sacred book. But I believe the OT is inspired and inerrant and hope I offer no insult to your faith.

The only thing I find insulting is the constant and neverending contradictions in what Catholics have been saying: the Bible is only partially inerrant, the Bible is totally inerrant, the Bible is totally inerrant but this doesn't apply to the facts it relates. Do you realize how confused and confusing all this is?

Catholics are like pious children when it comes to specifically Catholic things like the virgin and the eucharist. However, when it comes to the "old testament" the Church evidently feels so threatened that it feels compelled to dissect it with the cold, analytical eye of the rationalistic naturalist.

Evidently, Catholics have to doubt the literal truth of the Bible (especially the "old testament") to prove they aren't Protestants.

Are you implying that Protestants in sin leave a church because they disagree with the judgment of that sin? Or are you implying that Protestants can't sin?

First of all, of course protestants sin. Only one of our belief systems asserts that a created being could be free from sin, and it's not mine.

Second, protestants leave a denomination for a number of reasons. My previous post asserted that one reason is that many protestants look for alignment of their personal beliefs with the teachings of the denomination. If that particular protestant is being led by the Holy Spirit, that will lead him to the denomination that most purely reflects the teachings of scripture. That's a good thing. If the Holy Spirit is not involved, he will find the denomination that teaches what his itching ears want to hear. That's a bad thing.

A Catholic in open disagreement with the Church regarding abortion etcetera mostly understands that they are in a state of sin.

Not hardly. I have family members, lifelong Catholics, who have attended weekly mass all their lives that do not believe contraception, homosexual behavior, or premarital sex are sinful. One of them doesn't believe in a literal Hell. Yes, they know that their beliefs are contrary to Church teachings, but they believe the Church is wrong, therefore they don't believe they are in a state of sin. They have no problem warming the pews and taking the Eucharist weekly. Just like the overwhelming majority of American Catholics that disagree with the Church's teachings on contraception. It's not that they know it's sinful but choose to accept it anyway; it's that they flat-out disagree with the Church. Now, you may assert that "Catholics" such as these aren't really Catholics. You wouldn't get an argument from me. However, they see themselves as Catholics. Most importantly, they are virtually never challenged. That was the point of my post. Yes, you can point to a published set of rules, but if the vast majority of "members" are flouting them, what's the point? Where are the Priests? Why aren't they weekly admonishing their flock, at least to abstain from Communion? Twenty years as a Catholic, I never heard a Priest do that.

In my post I included the statement "that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation."

Nowhere does this statement use the word only. That is your own conclusion in reading the text. The whole purpose of the Bible is for our salvation. As I said it puts this salavation history- Creation, Fall, Prophecy, Coming of Christ and His mission, death and ressurection in the context of actual history. He really was born of a Virgin ( a salvic supernatural event) in Bethlehelm ( an actual place).

The Bible was not written by men to explain mythically our place in the cosmos. It is not just a history of how the Jews and Early Christians lived and worshipped. It is not just a set of laws or parables that explain right living. Plenty of other texts do that.

It is inspired by God to answer the very important question " What then shall I do to be saved?" That is why the Church says the Scripture's writings are for the sake of salvation. It is always current to our lives and its Truths are never isolated to a certain culture or time.

I understand it can be confusing. Especially I am very said to say with some Catholic theologians taking a Jesus seminar approach to the Bible. A pox on their house. But please do not add words such as only to Church statements. It does put an entire different reading on the text.

You also write : " So Jonah is both literal and metaphorical, but the creation of the universe is pure metaphor??? " I never wrote that the creation is pure metaphor, I was thinking more along the lines of the use of numbers to express perfection and completion. Obviously the creation of the universe happened. And it happened because God willed it out of nothingness.

I honestly do not understand your statement that
" Evidently, Catholics have to doubt the literal truth of the Bible (especially the "old testament") to prove they aren't Protestants." Considering the number of Biblical Scholars from Mainline Prrotestant denominations who have argued against the existence of Adam and Eve, the Virgin Birth, the Bodily Resurrection. I doubt believing in the literal truth of the Bible is a necessary requirement to be Protestant. Please note I said Mainline Protestant denominations. I am not saying all Protestants.

The orthodox Anglican site Stand Firm in Faith had a excellent post showing how the acceptance by German Biblical Scholars in the late 19th century of Kantian Philosophy as a framework for understanding the Bible has lead to the post modern liberal view of Scripture.

A view that was soundly rejected by Pope Pius XI ( a hope I got the number right).

You might think that all truth must be a literal truth. I disagree.

And looking at the Bible with rational analytical eye offers no danger to the believer. For reason will only confirm what faith knows. The Bible is true. Just as faith will be increased by what reason reveals. That the Bible is inspired by God given to us for our salvation's sake.

Faith and reason do not oppose one another. Both should be used to declare and reveal the glory of God. Reason without faith can be deadly. Stalin, Lenin, PolPot, and their victims is evidence of this. Faith without reason is also deadly. Islamic terrorism shows where that leads.

armydoc,

I regret reading that you have lifelong family members who profess to be Catholic but don't believe in the Church's moral teachings. The teachings are there. And so is the reality of hell. And no, they are not really Catholic. And yes, you are right that they think of themselves as Catholics. The deception is not in the Church's teachings--it is in the heart of the individual.

I taught Natural Family Planning for many years. Those who came to me for counseling in NFP learned the whole story--the Biblical perspective of the wrong of contraception---something that they never before had put into a Scriptually rich context. I also had a significant number of Protestants who asked me to teach them NFP. When they asked for Scriptural references to support the practice of contraceptive-free marital love, I gave it to them from something that I carefully prepared. I had to be certified to teach NFP in my diocese. The Protestants I taught did not have such a requirement and went on to teach it on a one-on-one basis to their own.

It is also true that in many cases priests and bishops did not challenge their flock. This is a sad thing to have to acknowledge, especially for someone committed to the truth of these teachings.

You say "if the vast majority of 'members' are flouting them, what's the point"?

The point is that those who are faithful have a burden to bear, a cross to take up, a commission to accept, and all the time they are relying on the Lord alone to strengthen them and fill them with His grace. Those who accepted the true moral teachings will be the ones having families, remaining faithful to the Gospel, and bringing up children who will bear the marks of fidelity.

I have to be honest and say what has always been true--it isn't a numbers game. It's a quality game. Those who have stayed the course may be a smaller number than should have been, but they can make a difference and I personally think that at this time, they are beginning to make a difference. I am one who really does feel that the Church is entering a new era; the time of surviving a culture run amuck, the crucible of the priest abuse scandals, and the (too prevalent) absence of shepherding is coming to a close. I see the quality of new candidates for the priesthood, the emerging interest in prayer and ongoing Bible study and the moral high ground in many of our younger Catholics now.

Why wouldn't I have that hope in me that St. Paul speaks of?

"Behold, I make all things new". ("the man who is in Christ Jesus is a new creation")

In my post I included the statement "that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation."

Nowhere does this statement use the word only. That is your own conclusion in reading the text. The whole purpose of the Bible is for our salvation.

The Jews had the Torah for a thousand years before chr*stianity ever existed. Do you think they ever saw it is containing truth related to "salvation?"

As I said it puts this salavation history- Creation, Fall, Prophecy, Coming of Christ and His mission, death and ressurection in the context of actual history. He really was born of a Virgin ( a salvic supernatural event) in Bethlehelm ( an actual place).

What makes you so sure that the supernatural creation of Adam and Eve as related in Genesis wasn't an actual supernatural event, or that Eden wasn't an actual place?

The Bible was not written by men to explain mythically our place in the cosmos.

The Torah wasn't written by men at all. It was written by G-d 974 generations before Creation, in letters of black fire on a scroll of white fire. G-d dictated it to Moses letter-for-letter, and Moses wrote it down. How dare you reduce it to teaching general philosophical "truths" of "salvation history???"

It is not just a history of how the Jews and Early Christians lived and worshipped. It is not just a set of laws or parables that explain right living. Plenty of other texts do that.

It is inspired by God to answer the very important question " What then shall I do to be saved?"

Do you honestly think the ancient Jews who first received the Torah and the other Scriptures spent their time asking what they had to do to be "saved?"

That is why the Church says the Scripture's writings are for the sake of salvation. It is always current to our lives and its Truths are never isolated to a certain culture or time.

So you're saying the stories and people of the TaNa"KH are universal Jungian archtypes rather than real persons and events?

I understand it can be confusing. Especially I am very said to say with some Catholic theologians taking a Jesus seminar approach to the Bible. A pox on their house. But please do not add words such as only to Church statements. It does put an entire different reading on the text.

The only thing I can say about the "J*sus Seminar" is that at least they are honest enough to subject the "new testament" to the same blasphemies to which "pious Catholics" such as yourself insist on subject the Torah.

You also write : " So Jonah is both literal and metaphorical, but the creation of the universe is pure metaphor??? " I never wrote that the creation is pure metaphor, I was thinking more along the lines of the use of numbers to express perfection and completion.

In other words, seven days doesn't mean seven days. This isn't a metaphor?

Obviously the creation of the universe happened. And it happened because God willed it out of nothingness.

But Berei'shit Bara' teaches us only abstract spiritual lessons, and every detail is purely symbolical?

I honestly do not understand your statement that " Evidently, Catholics have to doubt the literal truth of the Bible (especially the "old testament") to prove they aren't Protestants." Considering the number of Biblical Scholars from Mainline Prrotestant denominations who have argued against the existence of Adam and Eve, the Virgin Birth, the Bodily Resurrection. I doubt believing in the literal truth of the Bible is a necessary requirement to be Protestant. Please note I said Mainline Protestant denominations. I am not saying all Protestants.

I am not arguing with Protestants on this thread. I am arguing with people who claim to represent an "unchaning" church that dates back two thousand years and whose teachings have "never changed." Yet the ancient, unchanging Church is so awed by secular science that it long ago reduced the creation account to parable. So, did your ancient church fathers also believe in evolution, or did they simply "not know then what we know now?"

The orthodox Anglican site Stand Firm in Faith had a excellent post showing how the acceptance by German Biblical Scholars in the late 19th century of Kantian Philosophy as a framework for understanding the Bible has lead to the post modern liberal view of Scripture.

The Anglican church is one of the most liberal denominations in existence. However, the Catholic Church is just as liberal (if not more so), yet has a completely undeserved conservative reputation. At least the Anglican church has the African bishops. Where are the Catholic Church's counterparts???

A view that was soundly rejected by Pope Pius XI ( a hope I got the number right).

You might think that all truth must be a literal truth. I disagree.

You are sliding into the old late medieval/renaissance notion of "double truth"--ie, it is a religious truth that G-d created the universe in six days, but it is not a scientific (or historical) truth. You assume that I do not accept metaphorical or abstract symbolic truth. This is not so. But when the Torah written by G-d says something happened, then it happened. Yes, there are symbols and metaphors and spiritual truths in all these things, but the actual events related must also be held to be true. There are four senses of scripture (peshat, derash, remez, and sod). All four senses are present. This means that the literal sense (peshat) is valid alongside the other, spiritual meanings. You are saying that the scriptural assertions are true only symbolically and not also literally.

And looking at the Bible with rational analytical eye offers no danger to the believer. For reason will only confirm what faith knows. The Bible is true. Just as faith will be increased by what reason reveals. That the Bible is inspired by God given to us for our salvation's sake.

Faith and reason do not oppose one another. Both should be used to declare and reveal the glory of God. Reason without faith can be deadly. Stalin, Lenin, PolPot, and their victims is evidence of this. Faith without reason is also deadly. Islamic terrorism shows where that leads.

You seem to attribute to "faith" all things supernatural and to "reason" all things naturalistic and scientific. That is not what these words mean. For example, all the assertions of naturalistic scientists about the age and expanse of the universe, the size and temperature of stars, etc., are not evident to most people. Even if everything these scientists assert to be true in in fact true, they can be accepted by the vast majority of mankind (who do not have the training or the equipment to see for themselves) on faith. Likewise, when my mind tells me that it is faulty logic to accept at face value all the violations of natural law taught by the "new testament" and chr*stian history (when the "laws of nature" are fully uniform and operational) while insisting that the process that brought these laws into existence in the first place can be explained and understood in a purely naturalistic manner, then I am using reason (however much you might disagree with my conclusions). The constant association of "reason" with the natural and "faith" with the supernatural is simply spurious.

Blogger, I think that many Protestants do not understand the concept of the Body of Christ.
True. But most of the people who are taking the time to answer on these threads are theologically aware.

We are not adding anything;
Yes, unfortunately you are. You are adding works. Christ said "It is finished." That was a point in time. There is no more sacrifice for sin. If our works could have in any way paid for our sins and made us saved, then God would have been the ultimate evil having sent His spotless and innocent Son to be cruely tortured for something we ourselves could have done.

Our Lord has done it all, but because we are part of His Body and He is out of time, that is, God is eternal so there is no past or present, all of our sufferings are united with His and are part of them.
Not in salvation. Your teaching is NOT Biblical. I know where you get it from. Colossians 1. However, these verses are lifted from their context when it is made to seem as if we have to suffer too in order to pay for our sins. Such teaching is Catholic tradition and not Scripture speaking.

Let's look at the context for a second. Who is Paul writing to? Verse 2 "2To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse:

These aren't a bunch of nominal Christians but are described as faithful brethren and saints who are commended in verse 3 for their faith in Christ and their love for all of their fellow believers. Further, they have a hope laid up for them in heaven. It isn't being laid up. It is there.

Let's continue. Paul prays for them that they will grow in knowledge and be fruitful Christians.

But THEN He says something which is KEY. "12Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

We are partakers of the inheritance of the saints. Who made us that way? God the Father did. But not only that, look what else He ALREADY DID for these believers. He DELIVERED THEM. He isn't "delivering them." It is a completed action. They are already delivered from the power of darkness and they are ALREADY translated into the kingdom of His dear Son. Who is that Son? The one in whom they, Paul and the Saints at Colosse have redemption and forgiveness of sins. How do they get forgiveness of sins? Only one way. Not their works. Not their suffering. Not Mary's suffering. Not St. Suchandsuches Suffering. But THROUGH HIS BLOOD. THROUGH HIS BLOOD they HAVE the forgivess of sins. They HAVE redemption. Again, more completed action.

Paul then goes on with a beautiful description of Christ and who He is. This description includes the following: "20And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. 21And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled 22In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:" Catch what he is saying here. He MADE peace. Completed action. How? Through the blood of His cross. Not through our suffering, through His alone. And by HIM, he reconciled all things to Himself whether on earth or in Heaven. HE reconciled us through the body of HIS flesh through death to present US holy and unblameable and unreprovable in the sight of God. Again- it is ALL CHRIST. Paul nowhere here says that these Colossians have to add something to their salvation and their reconciliation with God. It is a done deal.

Next, Paul says something that if one was not a sola Scripturist might prove confusing and lead one to wrong conclusions. " 23If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;" What? By saying if ye continue in the faith grounded and settled and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel -is Paul teaching that perseverance is a final requirement before one attains salvation? Well, we know from the preceding verses that Christ has already redeemed, forgiven, and reconciled them by His blood alone. John teaches us that those who are true Christians WILL persevere to the end. No if's about it. Jesus said that of those who are His sheep, He won't lose a single one. So in the context of this passage and the context of the WHOLE of Scripture (as any good sola scripturist would refer to), we know Paul is not referring to loss of salvation or the need of human works to complete what Christ throughout the passage already accomplished.

So, what is he talking about? First, it is certainly possible that not everyone at Colosse was truly a Christian. Again, John said of those who draw back "1 John 2:19- They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out,so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." Paul may be speaking to those who would follow after false teachers and draw away from the true Gospel. Or, second, he could be speaking to the believer and warning them to take the guarding of the true gospel seriously. It is what matures them. The true gospel, that Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for their sins is what gives them their hope. He could be warning them to not be influenced by false teachers who would pull them away from their hope in Christ. It is probably a combination of both, considering Paul's gift of evangelism.

Now, we get to the verse that Catholics use to say that somehow our suffering has to be united with Christ in order to save us. KJV reads this way: " 24Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:" Douay Rheims reads:"24Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:" - so, the yarn goes, see there was something wanting or lacking in Christ's suffering that we have to add to in order to finally be saved. Such an interpretation ignores all of the previous verses about the completion of such an act and the verses immediately following which read: "25Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; 26Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: "

You can't understand what Paul was saying concerning something lacking without having those verses. Paul is saying his suffering contributes to that which Christ's death began - that is the fulfillment of that mystery hidden from ages and from generations but now made manifest. What was that mystery hidden? It was the church. The mystery of the church was hidden but is now made manifest, and Paul's own suffering and labors are contributing to its being made manifest in that God is using them to fulfill His Word.

Just finishing up the thought, he says: 27To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: 28Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: 29Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily." Whose working? Christ's. It is Christ who works in us. It is SOOOOOO about Him.

In the Catholic Church, when one had something horrible happen, it was very common to "offer it up," sometimes for the Holy Souls (in Purgatory) or sometimes for a person, city, etc.
Such is not Scriptural.

We saw and still see ourselves as part of the Incarnation,
We are Christ's bride. We are His body on earth that He uses to accomplish His will. We were not a part of His incarnation, but have been made partakers of His work and are therefore his 'body' in that regard. Christ Himself is God. We are not.

which stretches from one end of our time to the other, but is always within the framework of eternity and God's desire that all of us here in this little fragment of matter in the universe should be part of His work and come to know and love Him and be saved.
Please do not forget, God did not create us without time. He Himself is without time. We are not. He gave us time as a framework of reference. When He said "It IS finished." It was finished. When His Word says in whom you "HAVE" redemption through His blood, we already have it. We aren't working to gain it. Our suffering isn't accomplishing it. In the framework of eternity and in the framework of time, our salvation is secured.

You write " The Bible was not written by men to explain mythically our place in the cosmos.

The Torah wasn't written by men at all. It was written by G-d 974 generations before Creation, in letters of black fire on a scroll of white fire. G-d dictated it to Moses letter-for-letter, and Moses wrote it down. How dare you reduce it to teaching general philosophical "truths" of "salvation history???"

I apologize for giving you that impression. I believe the Torah is inspired by God. I was trying to convey that the Bible is about real people and real events. Events that show how God has always had a plan of salvation for us. That is what I meant by salvation history. And I sure did not mean to reduce this to some kind of philosophical truth. I meant it to show why God would give us His word. Not just as some kind of study text but to reveal
Himself to us. He reveals Himself to us so that we may Know Him, worship Him and love Him. He reveals Himself to us so that we may submit to Him in humility and awe. He reveals Himself so that we can understand the greatest grief is to be separated from Him by our sins and the greatest joy is to be joined with Him through Jesus our Lord. I do not however believe the Bible was dictated word for word. So on that we will remain in disagreement.

" Do you honestly think the ancient Jews who first received the Torah and the other Scriptures spent their time asking what they had to do to be "saved?"

As I wrote before I am writing from a Catholic Christian view. I could not nor should I attempt to give the Jewish view and respect that you have the right of that. But I hope you do not mind some questions. Do Jews believe in the idea of original sin? Do Jews believe that personal sin separates us from God and that we need to atone to God for these sins in order to be reconciled to Him? I would think from reading the Bible the answer to the second question would be yes. If that is the case what happens if we die without being reconciled to God?

You wrote "So you're saying the stories and people of the TaNa"KH are universal Jungian archtypes rather than real persons and events? "

Again no that is not what I meant. I was trying to emphasize that the Bible's teachings are not just for the time and place in which they were written. And since I said it contained real people and real events I sure as heck don't think they are Jungian archtypes. The 10 commandments are True for everyone. Not just for the Jews that received them from Moses after he went up Mt. Sinai.
The prohibitions on homosexual sex found in the OT and NT are not just about misunderstanding loving committed gay relationships. It is for all time and for all people. God said no and it remains no.

You wrote " But Berei'shit Bara' teaches us only abstract spiritual lessons, and every detail is purely symbolical?"

Nope and I never said that.

You wrote " The Anglican church is one of the most liberal denominations in existence."

You are confusing the American branch of Anglicanism ,The Episcopal Church ,with the entire Anglican Communion. There are many orthodox Anglicans in the US who are now waiting to see what happens when the Primates Communique from Tanzania is discussed by the HOB. A rejection of the Communique will mean the Episcopal Church is out of the Anglican Communion. And the Catholic Curch certainly has African Bishops.

You wrote "But when the Torah written by G-d says something happened, then it happened. Yes, there are symbols and metaphors and spiritual truths in all these things, but the actual events related must also be held to be true. There are four senses of scripture (peshat, derash, remez, and sod). All four senses are present. This means that the literal sense (peshat) is valid alongside the other, spiritual meanings. You are saying that the scriptural assertions are true only symbolically and not also literally."

I agree with you. The actual events related must also be held to be true and I never said that scriptural assertions are true only symbolically and not also literally. I have said several times that God created the world out of nothingness. Where we disagree is I do not think 6 days has to mean six time periods of 24 hours. I do believe Eden was an actual place and that Adam and Eve were our first parents. Which is attested to in the Catechism and affirmed by Church teachings. Also I believe that any thing that God does is supernatural. So if the world's creation took longer than 6 days it is still a supernatural event.

You wrote " You seem to attribute to "faith" all things supernatural and to "reason" all things naturalistic and scientific"

No indeed I was saying that these things should not be separated but always combined in reaching our understanding of the world. The examples I gave are of what happens when one separates these two things. To use our knowledge to go against what God has revealed is evil.
We have the knowledge to perform abortions but God has shown us that life is sacred. To claim faith demands we not go to doctors ( some sects teach this) goes against the reasoning that God is the source of man's intellect and talents. So doctor's by healing illness are doing what God wants them to do. Both faith and reason should be put to use to glorify God.

You wrote " Likewise, when my mind tells me that it is faulty logic to accept at face value all the violations of natural law taught by the "new testament" and chr*stian history (when the "laws of nature" are fully uniform and operational)"

As I said before I am writing from a Catholic Christian view so it will at times conflict with the Jewish view. But I do not understand what you mean by violations of natural law taught in the NT? By natural law do you mean as is used in Catholic theology ( law written on man's heart) or physical laws such as gravity?

Thanks for a very civil discussion. If I remember you recently or will presently celebrate the Feast of Purim. I hope your celebration of Purim was or will be a joyful and blessed one.

If you find it offensive of me to write out God in full please let me know and I will follow your example and use G-d.

PS. I have to confess a vast ignorance. Just how does one get italics???

" I have family members..."

I'm sorry you have family members who don't believe in what they have learned. I'm sorry your experience was contrary to what you learned. There are pew warmers in every denomination. I'm quite sure.

Twenty years is not a long time. I've been a Catholic longer than some people on this board have lived. I've seen the damage that has come into the culture and thus into the church.

We weren't promised that this wouldn't be a struggle or a continued battle over time. The Church is a visible armed presence on the battlefield. Our visible arms are the sacraments and especially the Eucharist.

The battle is joined and we will ultimately win, but not without loss and pain. The terrible split created by Protestants instead of working within the Church, and the continued fractures as each denomination pulls apart as the "spirit" leads those who refuse to hear is a scandal.

Times are changing now. The Holy Spirit is leading a renewal of the Church through our Pope and our past Pope, John Paul. Satan continues to assault the Church and use people to create chaos and sin.

I can imagine that just before the appearance of St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Charles Borromeo, Pius IV chaos and confusion, the hallmark of a Satanic battle was terrific. The Holy Spirit without fail places those who are called to renew the Church.

It is not the Church that fails: It is the people who do not avail themselves of the many Graces the Church contains.

Have I attended Mass when I had some suspicion about a priest? Yes. The priest was removed and retired when the Bishop was informed. Did the Bishop know? I doubt it. Our new Bishop of the Diocese and our new priests are quite orthodox and the Spirit of Renewal in our church is creating more and more vocations.

The difference is this: I believe in the tenets of the Church. I fully believe in the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and in the Church. I believe in everything the Church teaches.

I believe this because I read and read the Bible and the commentary and the Holy Fathers. I discern what God wishes and grants me.

And because I know that it is my duty as a Roman Catholic to enlighten the blind and not to run when faced with contention or error or sin. Others may and I pity them because the fullness of Christ is missing in their lives.

The Holy Spirit is always with the Church.

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.