Posted on 11/28/2014 2:33:31 PM PST by NYer
It was the day after Ash Wednesday in 2012 when I called my mom from my dorm room at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and told her I thought I was going to become Catholic.
“You’re not going to become Catholic, you just know you’re not Southern Baptist,” she said.
“No, I don’t think so.”
A pause. “Oh boy,” she sighed.
I started crying.
I cannot stress enough how much I hated the idea of becoming Catholic. I was bargaining to the last moment. I submitted a sermon for a competition days before withdrawing from school. I was memorizing Psalm 119 to convince myself of sola scriptura. I set up meetings with professors to hear the best arguments. I purposefully read Protestant books about Catholicism, rather than books by Catholic authors.
Further, I knew I would lose my housing money and have to pay a scholarship back if I withdrew from school, not to mention disappointing family, friends, and a dedicated church community.
But when I attempted to do my homework, I collapsed on my bed. All I wanted to do was scream at the textbook, “Who says?!”
I had experienced a huge paradigm shift in my thinking about the faith, and the question of apostolic authority loomed larger than ever.
But let’s rewind back a few years.
I grew up in an evangelical Protestant home. My father was a worship and preaching pastor from when I was in fourth grade onwards. Midway through college, I really fell in love with Jesus Christ and His precious Gospel and decided to become a pastor.
It was during that time that I was hardened in my assumption that the Roman Catholic Church didn’t adhere to the Bible. When I asked one pastor friend of mine during my junior year why Catholics thought Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth when the Bible clearly said Jesus had “brothers,” he simply grimaced: “They don’t read the Bible.”
Though I had been in talks with Seattle’s Mars Hill Church about doing an internship with them, John Piper’s book Don’t Waste Your Life clarified my call to missionary work specifically, and I spent the next summer evangelizing Catholics in Poland.
So I was surprised when I visited my parents and found a silly looking book titled Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic on my father’s desk. What was my dad doing reading something like this? I was curious and hadn’t brought anything home to read, so I gave it a look.
David Currie’s memoir of leaving behind his evangelical education and ministries was bothersome. His unapologetic defense of controversial doctrines regarding Mary and the papacy were most shocking, as I had never seriously considered that Catholics would have sensible, scriptural defenses to these beliefs.
The book’s presence on my father’s desk was explained more fully a few months later when he called me and said he was returning to the Catholicism of his youth. My response? “But, can’t you just be Lutheran or something?” I felt angry, betrayed, and indignant. For the next four months I served as a youth pastor at my local church and, in my free time, read up on why Catholicism was wrong.
During that time, I stumbled across a Christianity Today article that depicted an “evangelical identity crisis.” The author painted a picture of young evangelicals, growing up in a post-modern world, yearning to be firmly rooted in history and encouraged that others had stood strong for Christ in changing and troubled times. Yet, in my experience, most evangelical churches did not observe the liturgical calendar, the Apostles’ Creed was never mentioned, many of the songs were written after 1997, and if any anecdotal story was told about a hero from church history, it was certainly from after the Reformation. Most of Christian history was nowhere to be found.
For the first time, I panicked. I found a copy of the Catechism and started leafing through it, finding the most controversial doctrines and laughing at the silliness of the Catholic Church. Indulgences? Papal infallibility? These things, so obviously wrong, reassured me in my Protestantism. The Mass sounded beautiful and the idea of a visible, unified Church was appealing - but at the expense of the Gospel? It seemed obvious that Satan would build a large organization that would lead so many just short of heaven.
I shook off most of the doubts and enjoyed the remainder of my time at college, having fun with the youth group and sharing my faith with the students. Any lingering doubts, I assumed, would be dealt with in seminary.
I started my classes in January with the excitement of a die-hard football fan going to the Super Bowl. The classes were fantastic and I thought I had finally rid myself of any Catholic problems.
As anyone can see, 'anothen' can be translated a number of ways...It can be translated as from above AND again...
The Catholic Jerome as well as the KJV translators determined it should be ' born again'...I guess you're smarter than those guys...
I acquiesced and accepted verga’s personal translation because I didn’t see that it would alter Jesus’meaning.
Now, I recant.
It’s born AGAIN, verga. You MUST be born again, according to the most prominent religious Person ever to get his feet dirty.
OK, on this we then agree.
You know, in my own inept way, that was what I think I might have been trying to say. To me, this does not preclude belonging to a "religion." Or to any "church."
Many “churchgoers” do not know Christ.
...and quite a few do. Perhaps church membership ought to be inclusionary, rather than exclusionary.
ping
Not even close: Romans 4:5 among other verses.
One that says they have faith in Christ but does not have a regenerated heart (regenerated by God alone), and therefore because of this does not act, was not of Christ and shows their lack of faith by their lack of works. Works does not lead to Christ it is evidence, when done by a Christian is a product of their faith.
**The books in the Bible did not fall from the skies and automatically arrange it self in a set order...............This authority did not dissipate over time. It continues to remain to this day and until the end of time.**
God used Egypt to preserve Israel during the famine.
God used ravens to preserve his messenger, Elijah.
God used pagan kings to restore the wall and temple in Jerusalem.
God used Egypt to preserve his Son from Herod.
**...based on Petrine authority.**
Neither Peter, nor any of the apostles, nor CHRIST himself, EVER referred to the Son as “God the Son”. The accurate description by them always has and always will be “Son of God”. Are you ‘Free Republic the Steelfish’, or ‘Steelfish of Free Republic’?
It has been the devil’s business to deceive from the beginning, transforming himself into an angel of light. That includes claiming to lead Christianity from as early a time as possible, and claiming to preserve the Word, even though he actually teaches contrary (’God the Son’, for example).
**Prominent Protestant scholars and theologians have after a lifetime of teaching and preaching have converted to Catholicism.**
The blind lead the blind, and both fall into the ditch.
**Cross over my friend.The water is warm and inviting and get rid of all that born-again nonsense etc.**
Satan made enticing offers to Jesus Christ (after the Son had endured 40 days in the wilderness).
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
one operation instead of two...
In their modern Catholic bibles they remove 'of the',
Except a man be born of water and Spirit
This also proves (for them) that a person receives the Holy Spirit automatically with water baptism, even without repentance...And here then comes baby baptism...
And yet your pope just told the world that non repentant atheists can go to heaven...
Better understood by me tonight, as just evidenced by post 206. Thank you for the good Spirit-led instruction tonight!
(My response in #206 was also to her use of the lower-case “s” of the word Spirit when referring to the Holy Spirit.)
OMG! Apparently the saints, martyrs, theologians, early Church Fathers etc were all deceived except of course you. This is the not unlike same nonsense the likes of David Koresh and Jim Jones did, or what Jehovah’s Witness and the Mormons believe. Each group takes its “own” interpretation of the Bible and go on a gallop.
“Of course not. Have you ever heard of Jewish Christians???”
Yes - in the first century. Today, for 99.99 % of all Christians, if you’re a Christian, you’re a Christian - and that’s enough.
“That’s what the Apostles were.”
“That’s what the churches they established were.”
Many, not all.
It is interesting to note Jesus fought these offers with "It is written" rather than a "according to Church tradition."
“You vladimir998 omitted the rest of my post that clarifies and specifies.”
No, actually nothing after what I posted in any way clarified or specified what you said in any way that opposes what I posted from you. Thus, it was unimportant and unnecessary.
Remember, what you said was false in part and in toto so it is irrelevant how much or little I quoted of you.
“Why would an honest FR poster do that?”
No one did it - since what was omitted neither “clarifies” nor “specifies” so your question is irrelevant.
Please point out the deception and use Scripture to back up your position (if you have one).
This “Scripture” you speak are the books in the Bible that did not fall from the sky. These were put together as the authentic Word of God by the early Church fathers and theologians who spent many years in researching what books to include, what to exclude, and in what order they would be assembled. They got this supreme authority from Christ Himself who provided exclusively to Peter and his successors to go preach ONE truth ad establish ONE church.
The Catholic Church alone is charged with establishing this ONE infallible truth through its doctrine and forms of worship. You must agree there cannot be several “truths.” This authority of the Church comes from the same unbroken line of authority handed down to Peter and from thence to the early Church fathers. It did not dissipate soon after they assembled the books in scripture so that every Tom, Dick, and Harry can have a go in cracking open the pages of scripture and offering their “own” interpretations.
Congratulations...My youngest are 5 and 7...An absolute joy (most of the time)...
=============================================================
Your assertion there CynicalBear is badly confusing two entirely different things (like apples and oranges).
In order to understand that text you quoted from Paul's letter to the Galatians, you have to know precisely (not vaguely and fuzzily) what the keyword "gospel" in that text truly means.
The "gospel" ("good news") is the story of how Jesus Christ, the "Son of God", out of infinite love, took on a human nature and eventually was crucified and died in order to provide us fallen and sinful human beings with the opportunity for forgiveness of our sins, redemption/salvation, and spending eternity with God in heaven as His "children". Catholics believe and teach that, Protestants believe and teach that, and the Orthodox believe and teach that plain definition of "the gospel". (Do a search and look it up to see that.)
The "Assumption of Mary", on the other hand, is an account of the belief held by Catholic Christians, Orthodox Christians, and some Protestant Christians, of how Mary was taken (body and soul) at the end of her life into the glory of God in heaven. It is not a "different gospel". It is not a version of the "gospel" at all, and anyone who tries to pretend that it is is deceiving you. Rather, it is an account of the end of the earthly life and the reward of the Mother of Jesus Christ.
They are obviously two completely different and distinct things, and anyone who tries to tell you they mean the same thing or are "conflicting versions of the gospel" is bearing false witness, and is knowingly or unknowingly working for the father of all lies.
There are many accounts of events in the Bible itself that are not a description of the "gospel", but merely of various events. For example, Paul himself mentions such things as how at various times he was beaten with whips, beaten with rods, stoned, and suffered all kinds of other hardships (see 2 Corinthians 11:24-27, Acts 14:19). Those depictions are (of course) not a description of "the gospel", but just of brutal events in the life of the Apostle Paul. (The gospel is about Jesus Christ, and what He has done for us.)
Likewise, the "Assumption of Mary" is a depiction of one event in the life of Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, passed down through the Tradition of God's Church. While that was good news, it is not what would be called a "gospel" by any stretch of any sane imagination, and the Catholic Church does not teach that that event in Mary's life is "the gospel", and anyone who tells you otherwise is peddling a falsehood.
And, furthermore, anyone who claims that if something is not in the Bible, that somehow proves it didn't happen, is lying, and not only that, they are calling the Bible a liar, because the Bible plainly says the Jesus did many other things that were not written:
All of the Apostles died, but most of their deaths are not recorded in the Bible, but, rather, are passed down by the Tradition of God's Church.✝============================================================✝
But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. John 21:25✝============================================================✝
The Tradition of the Church founded by Jesus Christ started long before the first word of the New Testament was written down. I urge you and anyone else reading this post to watch this video when you get some time, to get a better understanding of the interplay of the written Word of God with the Tradition of God's 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.