Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Catholicism made me Protestant
First Things ^ | 9/11/2019 | Onsi A. Kamel

Posted on 09/11/2019 10:52:15 AM PDT by Gamecock

Like all accounts of God’s faithfulness, mine begins with a genealogy. In the late seventeenth century, my mother’s Congregationalist ancestors journeyed to the New World to escape what they saw as England’s deadly compromise with Romanism. Centuries later, ­American Presbyterians converted my father’s great-­grandmother from Coptic ­Orthodoxy to ­Protestantism. Her son became a Presbyterian minister in the Evangelical Coptic Church. By the time my parents were ­living in ­twenty-first-century Illinois, their families’ historic Reformed commitments had been replaced by non-denominational, ­Baptistic ­evangelicalism.

This form of Christianity dominated my Midwestern hometown. My parents taught me to love God, revere the Scriptures, and seek truth through reason. In middle school, my father introduced me to theology, and as a present for my sixteenth birthday he arranged a meeting between me and a Catholic philosopher, Dr. B—. From high school into college, Dr. B— introduced me to Catholic thought and graciously helped me work through my doubts about Christianity. How could a just and loving God not reveal himself equally to everyone? What are we to make of the Bible’s creation stories and flood narrative? Did Calvinism make God the author of evil? My acquaintance with Dr. B— set my intellectual trajectory for several years.

The causes of any conversion (or near conversion) are many and confused. Should I foreground psychological and social factors or my theological reasoning? Certain elements of my attraction to Catholicism were adolescent, like a sixties radical’s attraction to Marx or a contemporary activist’s to intersectionality: I aimed to preserve the core beliefs of my upbringing while fleeing their bourgeois expressions. When I arrived at the University of Chicago, I knew just enough about Calvinism to hold it in ­contempt—which is to say, I knew very little. Reacting against the middle-aged leaders of the inaptly named “Young, Restless, and Reformed Movement,” I sought refuge in that other great ­Western ­theological tradition: ­Roman ­Catholicism.

During my first year of college, I became involved in campus Catholic life. Through the influence of the Catholic student group and the Lumen Christi Institute, which hosts lectures by Catholic intellectuals, my theologically inclined college friends began converting to Catholicism, one after another. These friends were devout, intelligent, and schooled in Christian history. I met faithful and holy Catholic priests—one of whom has valiantly defended the faith for years, drawing punitive opposition from his own religious superiors, as well as the ire of Chicago’s archbishop. This priest was and is to me the very model of a holy, righteous, and courageous man.

I loved Catholicism because Catholics taught me to love the Church. At Lumen Christi events, I heard about saints and mystics, stylites and monastics, desert fathers and late-antique theologians. I was captivated by the holy martyrs, relics, Mary, and the Mass. I found in the Church a spiritual mother and the mother of all the faithful. Through Catholicism, I came into an inheritance: a past of saints and redeemed sinners from all corners of the earth, theologians who illuminated the deep things of God, music and art that summon men to worship God “in the beauty of holiness,” and a tradition to ground me in a world of flux.

Catholicism, which I took to be the Christianity of history, was a world waiting to be discovered. I set about exploring, and I tried to bring others along. I debated tradition with my mother, sola Scriptura with my then fiancée (now wife), and the meaning of the Eucharist with my father. On one occasion, a Reformed professor dispensed with my arguments for transubstantiation in a matter of minutes.

Not long after this, I began to notice discrepancies between Catholic apologists’ map of the tradition and the terrain I encountered in the tradition itself. St. Ambrose’s doctrine of justification sounded a great deal more like Luther’s sola fide than like Trent. St. John Chrysostom’s teaching on repentance and absolution—“Mourn and you annul the sin”—would have been more at home in Geneva than Paris. St. Thomas’s doctrine of predestination, much to my horror, was nearly identical to the Synod of Dordt’s. The Anglican divine Richard Hooker quoted Irenaeus, ­Chrysostom, ­Augustine, and Pope Leo I as he rejected doctrines and practices because they were not grounded in Scripture. He cited Pope Gregory the Great on the “­ungodly” title of universal bishop. The Council of ­Nicaea assumed that Alexandria was on a par with Rome, and Chalcedon declared that the Roman patriarchate was privileged only “because [Rome] was the royal city.” In short, I began to wonder whether the Reformers had a legitimate claim to the Fathers. The Church of Rome could not be straightforwardly identified as catholic.

John Henry Newman became my crucial interlocutor: More than in Ratzinger, Wojtyła, or Congar, in Newman I found a kindred spirit. Here was a man obsessed with the same questions that ate at me, questions of tradition and authority. With Newman, I agonized over conversion. I devoured his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine and his Apologia pro Vita Sua. Two of his ideas were pivotal for me: his theory of doctrinal development and his articulation of the problem of private judgment. On these two ideas hung all the claims of Rome.

In retrospect, I see that Newman’s need to construct a theory of doctrinal development tells against Rome’s claims of continuity with the ancient Church. And at the time, though I wished to accept Newman’s proposal that “the early condition, and the evidence, of each doctrine . . . ought consistently to be interpreted by means of that development which was ultimately attained,” I could not. One could only justify such assumptions if one were already committed to Roman Catholic doctrine and Rome’s meaningful continuity with what came before. Without either of these commitments, I simply could not find a plausible reason to speak of “development” rather than “disjuncture,” especially because what came before so often contradicted what followed.

The issue of ecclesiastical authority was trickier for me. I recognized the absurdity of a twenty-year-old presuming to adjudicate claims about the Scriptures and two thousand years of history. Newman’s arguments against private judgment therefore had a prima facie plausibility for me. In his Apologia, Newman argues that man’s rebellion against God introduced an “anarchical condition of things,” leading human thought toward “suicidal excesses.” Hence, the fittingness of a divinely established living voice infallibly proclaiming supernatural truths. In his discourse on “Faith and Private Judgment,” Newman castigates Protestants for refusing to “surrender” reason in matters religious. The implication is that reason is unreliable in matters of revelation. Faith is assent to the incontestable, self-evident truth of God’s revelation, and reasoning becomes an excuse to refuse to bend the knee.

The more I internalized ­Newman’s claims about private judgment, however, the more I descended into skepticism. I could not reliably interpret the Scriptures, history, or God’s Word preached and given in the sacraments. But if I could not do these things, if my reason was unfit in matters religious, how was I to assess Newman’s arguments for Roman Catholicism? Newman himself had once recognized this dilemma, writing in a pre-conversion letter, “We have too great a horror of the principle of private judgment to trust it in so immense a matter as that of changing from one communion to another.” Did he expect me to forfeit the faculty by which I adjudicate truth claims, because that faculty is fallible? My ­conversion would have to be rooted in my private ­judgment—but, because of Rome’s claim of infallibility, conversion would forbid me from exercising that faculty ever again on doctrinal questions.

Finally, the infighting among traditionalist, conservative, and liberal Catholics made plain that Catholics did not gain by their magisterium a clear, living voice of divine authority. They received from the past a set of magisterial documents that had to be weighed and interpreted, often over against living prelates. The ­magisterium of prior ages only multiplied the texts one had to interpret for oneself, for living bishops, it turns out, are as bad at reading as the rest of us.

But I did not remain a Protestant merely because I could not become a Catholic. While I was discovering that Roman Catholicism could not be straightforwardly identified with the catholicism of the first six centuries (nor, in certain respects, with that of the seventh century through the twelfth), and as I was wrestling with Newman, I finally began reading the Reformers. What I found shocked me. Catholicism had, by this time, reoriented my theological concerns around the concerns of the Church catholic. My assumptions, and the issues that animated me, were those of the Church of history. My evangelical upbringing had led me to believe that Protestantism entailed the rejection of these concerns. But this notion exploded upon contact with the Protestantism of history.

Martin Luther, John Calvin, Richard Hooker, Herman Bavinck, Karl Barth—they wrestled with the concerns of the Church catholic and provided answers to the questions Catholicism had taught me to pose. Richard Hooker interpreted the Church’s traditions; Calvin followed Luther’s Augustinianism, proclaimed the visible Church the mother of the faithful, and claimed for the Reformation the Church’s exegetical tradition; Barth convinced me that God’s Word could speak, certainly and surely, from beyond all created realities, to me.

Catholicism had taught me to think like a Protestant, because, as it turned out, the Reformers had thought like catholics. Like their pope-aligned opponents, they had asked questions about justification, the authority of tradition, the mode of Christ’s self-gift in the Eucharist, the nature of apostolic succession, and the Church’s wielding of the keys. Like their opponents, Protestants had appealed to Scripture and tradition. In time, I came to find their answers not only plausible, but more faithful to Scripture than the Catholic answers, and at least as well-represented in the traditions of the Church.

The Protestants did more than out-catholic the Catholics. They also spoke to the deepest needs of sinful souls. I will never forget the moment when, like Luther five hundred years earlier, I discovered justification by faith alone through union with Christ. I was sitting in my dorm room by myself. I had been assigned Luther’s Explanations of the Ninety-Five ­Theses, and I expected to find it facile. A year or two prior, I had decided that Trent was right about justification: It was entirely a gift of grace consisting of the gradual perfecting of the soul by faith and works—God instigating and me cooperating. For years, I had attempted to live out this model of justification. I had gone to Mass regularly, prayed the rosary with friends, fasted frequently, read the Scriptures daily, prayed earnestly, and sought advice from spiritual directors. I had begun this arduous cooperation with God’s grace full of hope; by the time I sat in that dorm room alone, I was distraught and demoralized. I had learned just how wretched a sinner I was: No good work was unsullied by pride, no repentance unaccompanied by expectations of future sin, no love free from selfishness.

In this state, I picked up my copy of that arch-heretic Luther and read his explanation of Thesis 37: “Any true Christian, whether living or dead, participates in all the blessings of Christ and the church; and this is granted him by God, even without indulgence letters.” With these words, Luther transformed my understanding of justification: Every Christian possesses Christ, and to possess Christ is to possess all of Christ’s righteousness, life, and merits. Christ had joined me to himself.

I had “put on Christ” in baptism and, by faith through the work of the Spirit, all things were mine, and I was Christ’s, and Christ was God’s (Gal. 3:27; 1 Cor. 3:21–23). His was not an uncertain mercy; his was not a grace of parts, which one hoped would become a whole; his was not a salvation to be attained, as though it were not already also a present possession. At that moment, the joy of my salvation poured into my soul. I wept and showed forth God’s praise. I had finally discovered the true ground and power of Protestantism: “My beloved is mine, and I am his” (Song 2:16).

Rome had brought me to ­Reformation.


TOPICS: Catholic; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; Mainline Protestant
KEYWORDS: catholic; charismatic; conversion; evangelical; kamel; onsiakamel; protestantism; romancatholic; romancatholicism; tiber
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 781-794 next last
To: Tell It Right
So what does it all mean?

That we cannot be saved by circumcision and the Mosaic Law.

But don't think being saved by grace gives us license to live like we ain't saved. If we aren't believers enough to change our lives, then we need to question if we really are believes (and by extension aren't saved).

So we are not saved by faith alone: faith must be accompanied with changing our lives, i.e. good works.

201 posted on 09/12/2019 12:48:56 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius

Paul says ‘examine yourselves whether you be in the faith. THAT should tell you that those who remain in sin are not in the faith to begin with. It is GOD Who is in you both to do and to will of HIS good pleasure. You are boguth with a rpice. You didn’t pay the price, Jesus did. It is He Who owns your soul and spirit ... and He said ‘raise up a child in the way that theu should go and they will not depart from it’. Is there a better parent than The Lord God Creator? How much credit do you demand from God for your eternal life? Or is it your eternal state of death that you are earning. You will exist eternally, in one state or the other.


202 posted on 09/12/2019 12:50:27 PM PDT by MHGinTN (A dispensation perspective is a powerful tool for discernment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama

You’d think but I tried that argument once and was soundly chastised for it.

Now there’s some hair splitting criteria that you have to be an actively participating member of said denomination, whatever that means.

It depends some on which Catholic you are talking to. For some FRomans on this board, not even other Catholics are Catholic enough for them.

They have more flavors of Catholicism that Carter has pills, or Prots have *denominations*.


203 posted on 09/12/2019 12:59:23 PM PDT by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

OUCH!!!


204 posted on 09/12/2019 1:00:17 PM PDT by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: infool7
Luke 18:9-14 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’

But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Philippians 3:2-15 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh— though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.

For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

205 posted on 09/12/2019 1:04:00 PM PDT by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
As evidence of your darkness within, you keep posting a painted image of an Angel with a belly button. And you expect to be taken seriously?

You owe me a new keyboard!!!

206 posted on 09/12/2019 1:05:33 PM PDT by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Luircin
Paul says ‘works’ and also ‘works of the law’ to refer to things that can’t save us.

He makes no reference at all to ‘works of the ceremonial law’ that can’t save us; he in fact refers to the Ten Commandments as works of the law.

Works can’t save us. Period.

Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things. We know that the judgment of God on those who do such things is true. Do you suppose, then, you who judge those who engage in such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you hold his priceless kindness, forbearance, and patience in low esteem, unaware that the kindness of God would lead you to repentance? By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness. Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek. But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek. There is no partiality with God.

All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it. For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified. For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:1-16)

Clearly here Paul is using the term "law" in two different ways. The Judaizers were insisting that the Gentiles needed to be circumcised and follow the Jewish Mosaic Law, something that Paul rejects. But when he says that the Gentiles are observing the prescriptions of the law, he cannot mean the same thing, for they were not being circumcised or following the Mosaic Law. This was the complaint of the Judaizers. Rather, here Paul is commending those Gentiles who are following the law described by the Ten Commandments, which merely restated what was already the universal law for all mankind.

Romans and Galatians is addressing the call for the new Gentile believers to be circumcised and follow the Mosaic Law. Protestants are misusing them to separate faith from the need to keep the moral law found in the Ten Commandments.

207 posted on 09/12/2019 1:05:59 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

You’d think it was reasonable, but we all know that when it cones to Catholics there is no reasonable.


208 posted on 09/12/2019 1:06:48 PM PDT by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; MHGinTN

Why didn’t you answer his question?

It was......”Since you are so fond of this misinterpretation of James, what are the works YOU deem sufficient to add to the Righteousness of Christ on your behalf?”

So tell us.


209 posted on 09/12/2019 1:10:27 PM PDT by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius

And people who live like that aren’t saved, so he’s correct.

For the saved, then they’re good to go even when they do slip up.


210 posted on 09/12/2019 1:11:55 PM PDT by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius

If God’s Law that He handed down at Mt. Sinai could not save, then what law does?


211 posted on 09/12/2019 1:13:03 PM PDT by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius
Hebrews clearly shows that faith does not act alone, but is accompanied by works.

So? We never said anything different.

When one is saved, one's life will show it.

But that does not mean the works save someone. It simply is the FRUIT of the salvation, not the cause of it.

212 posted on 09/12/2019 1:14:24 PM PDT by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Shall I get out the popcorn and lots of butter while we wait for an answer?


213 posted on 09/12/2019 1:15:10 PM PDT by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: metmom
And people who live like that aren’t saved, so he’s correct.

So faith alone is not enough!

For the saved, then they’re good to go even when they do slip up.

If one slips up, does one need to repent or can one go on without any remorse for serious sins and still be saved?

214 posted on 09/12/2019 1:17:17 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: fidelis; Tell It Right
What is in dispute is whether our conduct (either bad or good) has any impact on our salvation.

A rather interesting statement but not entirely correct. What is really in dispute is

Scriptures teach the latter:

Ephesians 2:10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Any good we do is a result of God working in our lives.

215 posted on 09/12/2019 1:22:56 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius

That’s HILARIOUS. And hypocritical, but also hilarious.

You spend all this time ranting about LOOOTHAAARRR ADDED WORDS and to try to ‘disprove’ him you decide to add ‘ceremonial law’ and ‘circimcision’ to Scripture to ‘prove’ what you claim instead.

I repeat: What a load of malarkey.

But Catholic hypocrisy remains EXTREMELY funny.


216 posted on 09/12/2019 1:40:47 PM PDT by Luircin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I didn’t interpret OR misinterpret James. I just quoted him.

***

And I just quoted Paul when Paul says that we are NOT saved by works.

You’d better explain how you’re claiming that the Apostles aren’t contradicting each other when you’re claiming the opposite of what the Apostle Paul wrote.

So come on, *clap clap*. If you’re going to make a claim, you’d better provide evidence to back yourself up!


217 posted on 09/12/2019 1:44:01 PM PDT by Luircin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Roman Catholic hypocrisy is very funny.

Spend all this time ranting about LOOTHAR ADDED ALONE TO THE BIBLE and then to ‘prove’ their point they add ‘ceremonial’ to ‘works of the law.’


218 posted on 09/12/2019 1:45:28 PM PDT by Luircin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: metmom

She will not deign to answer.


219 posted on 09/12/2019 1:59:46 PM PDT by MHGinTN (A dispensation perspective is a powerful tool for discernment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Luircin

Nice response to avoid what Paul actually said.


220 posted on 09/12/2019 2:01:12 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 781-794 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson