‘Deep Down, I Knew There Was 1 Truth’ (OPC convert to Catholicism)

National Catholic Register ^ | 27-04-2011 | Brian Kemper

[Cronos]

The problem I had was that what I had been told about Catholicism was simply not true; it was distorted teaching from Protestants who did not bother to discover the truth. ....

Over the last several years, I have known deep down that the Catholic Church must be more than I thought it was. I fought myself and denied all the signs I was seeing. I was afraid; even though I knew deep down there can only be one truth, I would always find something to dismiss Catholicism

At this time I had been a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church for almost 10 years.. I had also been in a constant journey for God’s truth, studying his word as well as church history. The problem I began to see, however, was that my church had no authority for how it interpreted Scriptures. We claimed to be sola scriptura, and yet to hold office in the church you had to subscribe also to the full truth of the Westminster Confession of Faith

[CharlesWayneCT]

I am connfused on the last topic of your post. I understand that there is an argument over OPC doctrine within the church, and it appears to be centered around Van Til and his apparent view that justification is by faith plus works.

And in fact, those fighting against the "errors" they see in their OPC church, such as the man you quote, have issued proclamations against this wrongward direction in the leadership.

But that wrongward direction appears to be more toward the Catholic view. For example, the OPC condemnation proclamation contained this:

We repudiate the expressions of the doctrine of justification contained in the North American documents "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" and "The Gift of Salvation," and the European document, "The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification," all written and endorsed by those who, in the interest of organizational unity, are willing to compromise between the Roman Church-State and the Reformation. In these documents Rome actually concedes nothing, while the Biblical and Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone is either abandoned or ignored.

I looked through your list of reasons why OPC was a non-christian cult, and find I disagree with most of your opinions. I don't believe babies, even unborn babies, are automatically saved. I believe God chooses who He will save, and I believe in original sin, and that no one can come to the Father, except through Jesus.

I find it perverse to argue that aborted babies all get to go to heaven. Heaven is for all eternity, as is Hell. If you tell me that aborted babies all go to heaven, while born babies have a good chance of going to hell, why wouldn't we abort ALL the babies? What's 70-90 years of life on earth compared to eternity? And why scripture teaches that all babies are saved?

It seems odd that you would dismiss a church as "anti-christian" for not believing that the babies of non-christians have a better chance (i.e. 100% chance) of getting into heaven than the older children of good Catholic families, but that is where the argument leads, if you insist that all babies go to heaven.

I also believe a man is damned or saved by the wishes of God. If God chooses some vessels to honor, and some to dishonor, that is His choice, and Paul makes this clear.

I agree with your rejection of the idea that the OPC (or the OPC and PCA, as you have somehow decided to lump a mainstream conservative church in with your rants about the OPC) are not the sole recipients of eternal life. I don't know that the OPC teaches that; I am sure they must teach that they are the "right" beliefs, just as the Catholic Church teaches that they are the "right" Church.

I mostly disagree with your complaint about Prayer. Since I believe Jesus is God (and don't see your argument about the OPC discussion of the trinity to either contradict my beliefs, or suggest that their is a hierarchy of greater and lesser gods), I can say that you should pray only to God, and sidestep the question of whether you can pray to Jesus, as opposed to 'In Jesus Name'.

I don't know if OPC teaches solely from Paul and Calvin and Manchin. I know that my PCA church pastor preaches through many books of the Bible, we are working through Leviticus now. I have a hard time believing the OPC pastors ignore all scripture except the post-gospel writings.

My point is that I disagree with most of your list of "anti-christian" things, and it appears that the big argument against the OPC church, it's big error, seems to be in slipping into a "faith plus works" doctrine, and trying to find common ground with Catholicism on justification. Obviously there are other big issues in the church, maybe Alex can discuss them at more detail since I'm not OPC.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I wouldn't say I hold to "Sola Scriptura". That wouldn't mean anything. A church needs to know that it's leaders are largely on the same page as to how they interpret the scriptures. The WCF is not an addition to scripture, extra things you don't find in scripture but are required to be believed or accepted. It is a set of interpretations of scripture, providing a doctrinal basis for common faith and worship. In some ways, the SS argument paints over the need for interpretation. But I see the main point of SS is that in a church that practices SS, you won't here a doctrine justified by saying "It's what Calvin told us". It will be "Calvin explains from these scriptural references that". Is Mary a virgin still? Does the bread and wine literally become the body and blood? Should we pray to someone other than God? These are all reasonable doctrines, based on the revelation of church leaders, but not from explanation of scripture, but extensions. Like the idea that babies all go to heaven -- you can argue that the totality of scriptural descriptions of God lead you to conclude that God couldn't condemn babies to hell, but you have to make that a leap of faith, because there's nothing in scripture that says babies who die get to go to heaven without having to accept Christ or be baptised (if you believe that baptism is necessary for salvation).

Last point on babies going to heaven: In order to believe that babies all go to heaven, you must accept that God can save someone without giving that person a choice one way or another. As christians we of course love the choice of heaven; but forcing someone to go to heaven when they didn't choose DOES mean that God exercises his own judgement, without regard to the thoughts of men, at least in that instance.

I happen to believe that we are all children, and that God treats us all in the same manner, so God can choose to save babies, and he can choose to save adults, and frankly it's all the same to God because he is saving "souls", not "souls at some particular point in time". And if God saves me, I will accept Jesus, because God will give me that capacity, which without his saving Grace I would never have.

[Alex Murphy]

Obviously there are other big issues in the church, maybe Alex can discuss them at more detail since I'm not OPC.

I wouldn't know. I'm not OPC.

[RitaOK]

The young father is a sinner in rebellion against God and the Church, and himself. However, somewhere he remains in fear of the Lord enough to get the child baptized. Paul the Apostle himself spoke on his own divide, where he writes of his inner man who wants to do good but in the outer flesh does not. This is but the sinful state of man until our Lord returns.

The Confirmation is a Rite, not an educational process. The Confirmation Rite of the young father came only after his Confession, in required order. We know not what he confessed to do we? But he was forgiven and then confirmed. Will he sin again? Of course. (As do all Christian sinners.)

There are also impediments to Faith that are taken into consideration in Holy Mother Church, such as abject ignorance, mental incompetence, debilitating circumstances, but the Church hears the confession of a soul, not of a perfect man. We know not the abilities or disabilities of this young father you are observing, but the priest does.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I apologize. I’m used to a lot of heat and disagreement on doctrinal issues in these forums, but I just assumed that if two freepers called you a member of OPC, it was because you were a member.

Why, Cronos and Natural Law, do you claim Alex is a member of the OPC church, if he denies it? How does that strengthen your arguments, or make people more likely to believe other things you say?

[Natural Law]

"Nope. I am saying that the Westminster Confession is a topical restatement of doctrine as found in Scripture, with Scripture as the final authority."

Surely an "Esquirette" must recognize a distinction without a difference and admit the Catholic Magesterium is essential too. Either that or admit that Sola Scriptura is a contradiction must otherwise rely solely on the tradition of self interpretation which is itself not scriptural.

[Natural Law]

"Why, Cronos and Natural Law, do you claim Alex is a member of the OPC church,...

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, poops like a duck .......

[esquirette]

Sola scriptura means scripture is the final authority. It does not mean that great minds are not able to come together and restate the doctrines of orthodoxy.

[vladimir998]

You Protestants also spread hate and lies about us. Perhaps not all of you, but enough of you on this site.

[Joann37]

If “sola scriptura” is final authority, why are so many tenets of the Catholic faith in such departure from the Bible? The discussion I’m in, above, deals with “confirmation” and infant baptism, neither of which appear in the Bible? Where did THAT come from?

Baptism of people of age is certainly Scriptural; it denotes commitment to Christ, and the submerging process itself indicates the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. But being sprinkled as an infant? It just shows that the parents have dedicated their child. The infant itself knows nothing of what’s going on.

[Natural Law]

"Sola scriptura means scripture is the final authority."

Are you sure that it doesn't mean that Scripture alone contains all of the revealed Word necessary for Salvation as your Protestant Brothers and sisters contend? You are much closer to Catholic than you may realize. The definition you put forth mirrors the teachings of the Catholic Church;

CCC - 109 "In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words."

This is accomplished by the teaching authority of the Church, the Magesterium, given the Church through Apostolic Succession (What you shall bind on earth.... Matthew 18:18) is the great minds coming together to correctly interpret the revealed Word across the millennium and the many languages and cultures involved.

[esquirette]

If “sola scriptura” is final authority, why are so many tenets of the Catholic faith in such departure from the Bible?

---

Scripture is the final authority, according to SS. Roman Catholics add their own tradition to the mix. That’s why.

[pgyanke]

I’m going to take you at your word that the situation is as you described... Confirmation would make sense in this situation because you are taking on the responsibility as the parents (or Godparents) of this child to raise him in the Faith. That’s a very odd responsibility for one to take who isn’t Confirmed in the Faith himself.

That is a logical first step. Hopefully, there are more steps coming to get this family on the right track.

[esquirette]

Are you sure that it doesn’t mean that Scripture alone contains all of the revealed Word necessary for Salvation as your Protestant Brothers and sisters contend?

___________________________________—

Pretty sure. Sola Scriptura was a reaction to the Romanist view of adding tradition to the scriptures and then making that combination the standard.

My Roman Catholic friends and I who wrestle with these things do believe that where we trust in Christ is the place where we meet in doctrine. My biggest issue with the RC church is that way too many people depend entirely on the church, become formulaic and do not come to grips with the fact that we will stand alone before God at the judgment.

But we all must trust Christ. I think you would say you trust Him first, and the church second. I would say the same. After that, it is definitions, where we all break down.

[pgyanke]

Baptism of people of age is certainly Scriptural; it denotes commitment to Christ, and the submerging process itself indicates the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

That's where you're wrong. Baptism isn't about "denoting" and "indications". Baptism is about rebirth through water and Spirit into the Family of God. In Baptism, we take on His Name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (as we take on our Earthly family names from our parents here) and are born again. We do not keep infants separate from God's Family but let them come to Him (Matt 19:14). When we baptize, the whole household is welcome (Acts 18:8).

[Natural Law]

"Roman Catholics add their own tradition to the mix."

would you not consider the following unscriptural Protestant traditions?

- Sola Scriptura is a tradition not found in the Bible, the Bible says that all of Scripture is inspired, not that Scripture represents 100% of the revealed word.

- Self Interpretation of Scripture

- The post-Luther Canon of the Bible

- Not baptizing infants and baptism by immersion only - The Real Presence of Christ not present in the Eucharist. - "God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit make up the Trinity". No where does the Bible explain the Trinity.

- The Liturgical Calendar in which Christmas is celebrated on December 25th, Sunday worship and Easter coinciding with the date set by the Catholic Church.

- Election of Clergy by the laity

- The pulpit instead of an altar

- Not confessing your sins

[Joann37]

Yes, the situation is exactly as I’ve described, sad to say. That’s why I’m in shock and why I asked about it here on the forum.

But how can you claim it’s “odd” for someone, not confirmed, to take on the responsiblity of raising a child, when the more immediate sacrament that would benefit this new family would be marriage? Most of us who DID make confirmation did so as nine year olds, and committed to God at this time. This kid needs to commit to God AND his new child and the child’s mother, via marriage. Confirmation does NOTHING for this new family unit.

I guess I should stop for now. I was hoping that this was just an anomaly, and that the local church screwed up big time. But now, I am simply horrified that so many Catholics here do NOT take God’s admonishment against fornication seriously, erring big time on the side of grace while not even mentioning marriage to the kid! Church leaders are supposed to lead and guide people in the things of God, should people choose not to find out themselves via His Word.

What a sad state the Catholic church is in!

[pgyanke]

But how can you claim it’s “odd” for someone, not confirmed, to take on the responsiblity of raising a child, when the more immediate sacrament that would benefit this new family would be marriage? Most of us who DID make confirmation did so as nine year olds, and committed to God at this time. This kid needs to commit to God AND his new child and the child’s mother, via marriage. Confirmation does NOTHING for this new family unit.

Confirmation is generally administered around age 13... are you sure you were Confirmed at 9? Also, Confirmation isn't about being committed to God, it's a Sacrament of adulthood in God's Family. What it does for this new family is bring them forward in their faith formation. It may sound good to rush into Marriage, but the Church recognizes the need to marry adults who understand the Sacrament. Is it any great surprise that so many marriages end in divorce if so many treat it so lightly? Would the child benefit from parents who have the Spiritual maturity of toddlers? Would the child benefit from the eventual divorce?

I guess I should stop for now. I was hoping that this was just an anomaly, and that the local church screwed up big time. But now, I am simply horrified that so many Catholics here do NOT take God’s admonishment against fornication seriously, erring big time on the side of grace while not even mentioning marriage to the kid! Church leaders are supposed to lead and guide people in the things of God, should people choose not to find out themselves via His Word.

I'm always shocked at the Protestants who stand in judgement of what they don't understand. They make themselves the final arbiter of God's Will and interpreter of His Word. Then, they point a hypocritical finger at the Church.

What a sad state the Catholic church is in!

Your pity is misplaced.

[RitaOK]

Sola Scripture means “scripture alone”. It is used as authority among protestants who have no other source. While your questions are precious and endearing this is no place to treat your questions fairly. You need to talk with a priest, or some informed Catholic who knows their faith, perhaps even go to a Catholic bookstore where they can direct your interests to simple beginning Catholic books.

Infant baptism is the New Covenant answer to circumcision in the Old Testament. It brought the Jews and others into the Jewish fold as baptism brings us into the fold. So, understanding is needed in order to see that, yes, it actually is in the Bible but in the new form Jesus set forth. Remember he was circumcised into the fold according to Jewish law , but was also baptised by John to set the pattern for all. His command was to be baptized “both you and all your household”, which naturally included babies and all ages.

[esquirette]

The day before my father-in-law (a Roman Catholic) died unexpectedly, we had a conversation similar to this, and I asked him, what do you trust for your salvation to heaven from hell? He answered that he knew that Christ had saved him from his sins. If we are that far, we are on the narrow road. It was a gift from God to have heard from him that he trusted in Christ.

I believe the Bible is the standard alone for truth. I do not think that means it alone is the truth, but it is the standard. Sometimes the New York Times has truth. Thomas A Kempis spoke truth. But they are held up to the Bible for the standard.