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.
At what Latitude?
Try working at McMurdo Station; and watch the Sun revolve around the horizon.
That'll mess wit yer mind!
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/antarctica/mcmurdo
Wouldn't we all...
Truly, I would like to know what the RCC deal is with all this blessed Mother stuff. And calling an RCC church minister Father, in spite of the Holy Scripture admonition against doing that. Why is that?
Furthermore, repeatedly to post Scripture out of the blue without providing any clue as to why you did or where it might be located in the Bible...is inconsiderate, if nothing else. Especially when you ignore requests to use another font color for readability.
Suppose it is just plain stubborn traditions of yours.
It was more than doctrine and purpose. It was a love and unifying identity that was based in the heart yearning for the kingdom of God on earth, at least among the Jews, Grecians, and proselyte Gentiles in the early churches. Jerusalem is the city God chose to place his name. It was the earthly temple and spiritual center. After the Romans destroyed it, and killed, enslaved, and dispersed the people of Israel from the land of Israel and changed its name to Syria Palestina, the center shifted to Rome where the Apostles Peter and Paul had already been martyred. A spiritually strong church stood in Rome, where so many Jews and not a few Gentiles were crucified or otherwise tortured and martyred. Yet Antioch and the other churches were under the authority of their bishops and elders who were taught and appointed by the Apostles, or by those the Apostles taught and appointed, an unbroken chain of love and apostolic succession, sans the Schism and Reformation.
I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the LORD. Our feet shall stand within thy gates, O Jerusalem. Jerusalem is builded as a city that is compact together: Whither the tribes go up, the tribes of the LORD, unto the testimony of Israel, to give thanks unto the name of the LORD. For there are set thrones of judgment, the thrones of the house of David. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee. Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces. For my brethren and companions' sakes, I will now say, Peace be within thee. Because of the house of the LORD our God I will seek thy good.
There are darker shades of blue.
Also, by continuing to not post the Scripture references for your alleged Scripture passages, you destroy any credibility you have left.
There’s no way that anyone can know from where those passages come, and someone could post anything, put it in blue font, and claim it’s Scripture and those not familiar with it would be none the wiser.
It’s a great tactic to lead someone to deception by throwing in a line here or there that isn’t Scripture, or putting together passages from different books causes it to appear that they say something they don’t, and how would the person not knowledgeable about Scripture know?
You’ve been asked several times by different people to post the references and thus far you have not.
Because of that, I do not take anything you post in the colored font seriously. Unless you can point to where it’s found in Scripture so someone can verify it, you might as well not waste your time.
I'm with you on that one.
I get why you want to encourage an encompassing knowledge of Scripture, and I even get why you are distrustful of modern versification. But perhaps you could accommodate those whose use of Scripture is different from yours. It is tends toward exclusion to give no navigational aid whatsoever.
I do web software. If you want people to like and use your “product,” you have to address navigation. May I suggest a compromise. Keep the versification out of the main body of the text, but at least cite to book and chapter. Otherwise, you are forcing your readers, who really want to interact with your textual arguments, to spend extra up-front time just locating the passages. Even in ergonomic web design, that’s going to come across as disrespectful to the user.
Perhaps you could view this as a problem in intercultural relationships. If you want to speak into a given culture, you have to optimize the template of interaction, get rid of any unnecessary barriers to effective communication. That’s all I’m saying.
As for the blue text, its a real problem for me too. Finding optimal contrast is just good visual design for text readability. This is the word of God. It deserves to be as readable as possible, so that even he who runs may read it. :)
Peace,
SR
I agree with that, but since there are no references, nobody can be sure that what is posted in baby blue IS the word of God.
Someone could be hiding all kinds of false teachings under the guise of Scripture by coloring it blue and expecting people to accept it as Scripture.
Without the references to check, one would have to read the entire thing and then try to figure out where the passages are from.
I will not be manipulated into wasting my time doing someone else’s work. Everyone else who uses that technique manages to post the references with no trouble.
Anyone who went to the trouble to find the passage can easily add the reference.
Your points are valid and I will now concur with you on the disagreed point.
When I joined FR, no one told me that I MUST read every post completely. Carolina UN baby blue quotes do not necessarily denote Holy Scripture to me and may or may not be valid for instruction or whatever the poster intended. So, I’ve stopped reading them carefully, trying to figure out what’s in another poster’s mind, and instead, return to whatever else I was doing.
As for the otherwise spoken of, claimed by yourself (and many other pom-pom waving promoters of the Church of Rome) a singularly "...unbroken chain of love and apostolic succession, sans the Schism and Reformation", that too is Romish distortion which is supported only by those either blind to, or ignorant of history.
For example;
The papal crusades against the Hussites (five of those), if that is love, then love is among the most sickeningly poisonous elements which can be known to man...
Rome brought the Reformation upon itself --- not that a great many could not stand her so-called "love" ---- but had had their own fill of her hate (and greed, and pride, and corruptions...the list of those is quite long).
That eventual rejection of the Church of Rome by a great many, those persons turning their back upon "her" sundry claims as towards her own impeccable magisterial wonderfulness (and authority speciously asserted for that one bishopric over all others) was long in coming...much as the full extent of that one bishopric's powers of influence were long in the gathering, expansion, and fraudulent concoction, with that last aspect only coming more fully into light right about the time of the beginning decades of Reformation, provided that the voices of the Orthodox whom had previously pronounced the Roman Church to be "the church of frauds" are set aside & ignored.
As for the passage which you selected from the Psalms --- did you chose that particular one in hopes of transferring sense of 'glory' for Jerusalem to be now transferred (and transferred most singularly, I would add) singularly onto Rome?
If so, then what of the Lord's own harsh rebukes for those whom were firmly seated into place of Hebrew religious authority in Jerusalem?
When one takes Scripture (and history, both) upon themselves then take and recognize it in entirety.
Who now sits in place of Moses?
Is it, or would it be the bishop of the Church of Rome, the man whom for most of the years of his life upon earth went by the name Jorge Mario Bergoglio?
If that is along lines of what could be also inclusive to what you yourself (and other Roman Catholics) have in mind, what then is the self-reverentially named Magesterium but form of latter-day Sanhedrin?
Do you not know that the occupancy of those offices were greatly overthrown -- by none other than the One whose name that religious/legislative body claimed their very own authority by?
Seriously, do you now not understand what that signifies?
The temple itself was torn down (not one stone left standing upon another) and a new one raised -- but that one which was raised again, not a Temple made of hands, nor one which could ever after be identified and named as an earthly geographic location.
But that last is what you are apparently (seeming to, to my own eyes) striving to here do!
I like that word, “bishopric”, and hope to find some way to weave it into my daily conversation.
(Anybody here named Rick?)
Thanks for the opinion. I’ll take it under advisement. Right now I’m reading about the trail of blood the Roman statist “church” left behind in attempting to destroy the Biblical true Christ-followers not coming under its presumed authority.
Since the note is directed to me, blue is OK (though a little harder to read). I don’t have much trouble recognizing your Bible quotes, and knowing whether they are AV or DRB, or some other modern mistranslation. And some of it, like the passage (Ps. 122) in the post I’m responding to, have long ago been committed to memory and subjects of meditation for many years (Ps. 1). In your writing it is not the style that concerns me. It is the hypotheses not supported by Scripture that are troubling.
Catholic.com
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father
To understand why the charge does not work, one must first understand the use of the word "father" in reference to our earthly fathers. No one would deny a little girl the opportunity to tell someone that she loves her father. Common sense tells us that Jesus wasn’t forbidding this type of use of the word "father."
In fact, to forbid it would rob the address "Father" of its meaning when applied to God, for there would no longer be any earthly counterpart for the analogy of divine Fatherhood. The concept of God’s role as Father would be meaningless if we obliterated the concept of earthly fatherhood.
But in the Bible the concept of fatherhood is not restricted to just our earthly fathers and God. It is used to refer to people other than biological or legal fathers, and is used as a sign of respect to those with whom we have a special relationship.
For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: "So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt" (Gen. 45:8).
Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: "I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know" (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: "In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (Is. 22:20–21).
This type of fatherhood not only applies to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, "My father, my father!" to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).
A Change with the New Testament?
Some Fundamentalists argue that this usage changed with the New Testament—that while it may have been permissible to call certain men "father" in the Old Testament, since the time of Christ, it’s no longer allowed. This argument fails for several reasons.
First, as we’ve seen, the imperative "call no man father" does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors "father," as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father Isaac."
Second, there are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term "father" being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker. There are, in fact, so many uses of "father" in the New Testament, that the Fundamentalist interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling priests "father") must be wrong, as we shall see.
Third, a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, "But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ" (Matt. 23:8–10).
The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term "teacher," in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers."
Fundamentalists themselves slip up on this point by calling all sorts of people "doctor," for example, medical doctors, as well as professors and scientists who have Ph.D. degrees (i.e., doctorates). What they fail to realize is that "doctor" is simply the Latin word for "teacher." Even "Mister" and "Mistress" ("Mrs.") are forms of the word "master," also mentioned by Jesus. So if his words in Matthew 23 were meant to be taken literally, Fundamentalists would be just as guilty for using the word "teacher" and "doctor" and "mister" as Catholics for saying "father." But clearly, that would be a misunderstanding of Christ’s words.
So What Did Jesus Mean?
Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love "the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men" (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their grasping after marks of status and prestige.
He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.
Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16).
Since Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father—else we would not be able to refer to our earthly fathers as such—we must read his words carefully and with sensitivity to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to understand what he is saying.
Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. (See below on the apostolic example of spiritual fatherhood.) To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.
As the apostolic example shows, some individuals genuinely do have a spiritual fatherhood, meaning that they can be referred to as spiritual fathers. What must not be done is to confuse their form of spiritual paternity with that of God. Ultimately, God is our supreme protector, provider, and instructor. Correspondingly, it is wrong to view any individual other than God as having these roles.
Throughout the world, some people have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if they were an individual’s supreme source of spiritual instruction, nourishment, and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into "gurus" is worldwide.
This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of a "cult of personality" around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher.
He is not forbidding the perfunctory use of honorifics nor forbidding us to recognize that the person does have a role as a spiritual father and teacher. The example of his own apostles shows us that.
The Apostles Show the Way
The New Testament is filled with examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships. Many people are not aware just how common these are, so it is worth quoting some of them here.
Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: "Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ" (1 Cor. 4:17); "To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Tim. 1:2); "To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (2 Tim. 1:2).
He also referred to Timothy as his son: "This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare" (1 Tim 1:18); "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 2:1); "But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22).
Paul also referred to other of his converts in this way: "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul’s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.
Spiritual Fatherhood
Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark" (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, "Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children" (2 Cor. 12:14); and, "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!" (Gal. 4:19).
John said, "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1); "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth" (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:13–14).
By referring to these people as their spiritual sons and spiritual children, Peter, Paul, and John imply their own roles as spiritual fathers. Since the Bible frequently speaks of this spiritual fatherhood, we Catholics acknowledge it and follow the custom of the apostles by calling priests "father." Failure to acknowledge this is a failure to recognize and honor a great gift God has bestowed on the Church: the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood.
Catholics know that as members of a parish, they have been committed to a priest’s spiritual care, thus they have great filial affection for priests and call them "father." Priests, in turn, follow the apostles’ biblical example by referring to members of their flock as "my son" or "my child" (cf. Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13; 1 John 2:1; 3 John 4).
All of these passages were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and they express the infallibly recorded truth that Christ’s ministers do have a role as spiritual fathers. Jesus is not against acknowledging that. It is he who gave these men their role as spiritual fathers, and it is his Holy Spirit who recorded this role for us in the pages of Scripture. To acknowledge spiritual fatherhood is to acknowledge the truth, and no amount of anti-Catholic grumbling will change that fact.
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.