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By the time my parents were living in twenty-first-century Illinois, their families’ historic Reformed commitments had been replaced by non-denominational, Baptistic evangelicalism.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.
562, plus every single post where you called yourself Catholic because you’re bound to believe the RC catechism if you’re catholic. Now answer the question. Are you depending on your works to save you, or the grace of God?
Okay, so you think the words of Jesus are a strawman. Don’t take the mark when commanded to you.
You are indeed a shame. Jesus taught to Nicodemus what He repeated to the unbelieving Jews (like you haughty Catholics) who insisted on being told what THEY could do to earn eternal life (a trait repeated by arrogant, haughty, insulting Catholics like you are showing yourself to be). last warning, don’t take the Mark of the beast you are now serving, perhaps unwittingly, but who knows ?
So, DO you earn your salvation by your works, or are you trusting in the grace of God to save you?
...................................................
Another example of setting up a straw man since I have never said anything about earning salvation through works. That said, anyone who fails to do the will of the Father as is clearly revealed throughout the Scriptures will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Who says so? His Son says so and He is quoted by St. Matthew (matt 2:21). You want to refute what I’m saying? Take it up with Jesus!
I'm misinformed that millions of people had their own bibles in the middle ages? Handwritten at that?
IF there has never been a moment when you believe in Christ ALONE for His deliverance to you, then the righteousness of Christ has never been IMPUTED to your dead spirit. You cannot move the target by beign a good boy/girl to earn favor with GOD. Either you admit your are a destitute sinner and accept GOD's verdict so He can birth you anew from above, or you are lost with a dead spirit which you cannot make alive no matter how 'good' you presume yourself tyo be behaving.
To receive eternal LIFE (instead of retaining your eternal deadness) you must be born again so the Righteousness of Christ is accounted for you. You asked for 'the will of God' and you were quoted the very passage JESUS spoke defining the will of God. But then you spit upon that offering calling it a strawman. Examine yourself ...
I am firmly convinced, those who have no assurance of salvation, and live a good, decent life, thinking it will get them to Heaven, will, with all their like minded brethren, experience exactly what you describe. That is my ex catholic YOPIOS. 👍👊😁🤣🤗😆☝️
I agree, but you left out one thing. Anyone who actually thinks that way, more than likely has one foot in the Lake of Fire already. They choose it, over Heaven. Why?👍
Try the following regarding James: IF one claims to be born again, claims to be faithing in Jesus BUT there are no changes in life behavior (the works part for arrogant Catholics striving to obtain eternal life), that one's pretend faith is dead. FAITH is an action of the will, directed by the spirit. If the spirit in you is dead, though you make great pretend at righteousness, the faith is dead. ONLY GOD can make the dead human spirit alive, with the seal of His Spirit upon the human spirit.Why? How can this describe what James is trying to convey? ... well, it is GOD Who is in the faither, both to will and to do of HIS good pleasure; so, if there is no evidence of HIM working to raise up the child of God in the way that they should go, then it is not GOD bringing forth the 'works of righteousness' thus it is the dust of a still dead spirit in evidence striving to produce faked righteousness. That kind of faithing sometimes spews froth as haughty arrogance.
When one is born from above, it is GOD, not your works or fealty to a sacramental trek, it is GOD WHO imputes the righteousness of Christ to the newborn member in the Body of Christ. Your paganized religion of Catholicism has the adherents believing the Catholic Church is infusing (like a slow drip of an IV) you with sufficient righteousness to deserve eternal life with God.
God created the human spirit as a thing with eternal existence. Alive or dead, your spirit is eternal, but HE honors your free will by applying The Righteousness of Christ to ONLY the souls who believe in and trust Christ alone for their deliverance from their dead spirit condition inherited from Adam.
The explanation is wasted on your ilk, so preideful in your haughty state. I repeat this with all the 'wordiness' as you call it because the passage in James is so misunderstood unless the process of being born again is understood, that new life comes first then the changes begin to manifest. If no changes manifest the faith proclaimed was dead faith, usually sourced in the pride of the lost (hint hint).
When I was a catholic, it was as you say, from the bar, to the confessional. I don’t do either anymore, the bar, or the confessional. 😁🤣🤗😂
But then you spit upon that offering calling it a strawman. Examine yourself ...
.............................................
Your post is totally contrary to all orthodox Christian teaching and is therefore seriously sinful. What you need to do is abandon all the silly nonsense you’ve absorbed from heretical charlatans, and instead simply attempt to conduct your life is accordance with the teachings of Jesus and his apostles as they are clearly presented throughout the Holy Scriptures. Failure to do so will, without question, ensure the loss of your salvation.
A liar has the hardest time seeing his own lies.
................................................
You have finally expressed a true statement, and on this thread you yourself have perfectly exemplified just such a person!
Do you know ANY catholics who have assurance of salvation? I don’t know any, though there might be one or two, here and there. You know I live in the belly of the beast. Most of the Catholics I talk to, are very afraid to die. What does that tell you? See you in the clouds bro. 👍☝️👊
It appears you did not in fact read what was posted, so here it is again. Try reading it all this time:
..............................................
If James wanted to present the world with all this verbiage he would have done so. He preferred instead to speak plainly regarding the issue: Faith without works is DEAD. You find that offense, that’s your problem not mine! You can pray “Lord, Lord” until the day you die, but if you do not do the will of the Father as PLAINLY described throughout the Holy Scriptures you will never see heaven, period, end of story!
Remember that PRIDE goeth before the FALL (Prov 16:18).
I was in Wiesbaden for 4 years, during my 20 years in the USAF. I went across the Rhine, to a museum in Mainz, and saw the original Gutenberg Bible. It’s all under glass. You cannot touch it, but I saw it up close. 👍👊
maybe, but it was in the process of being written, thus existed, long before then......and it's still about 1,100 years before there was even one Protestant....
And the problem with that is...?????
The gospel is not complicated.
Believe and you'll be saved.
John 1:10-13 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 3:14-18 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
John 20:30-31 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Acts 16:27-31 When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. But Paul cried with a loud voice, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here.” And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
2 Corinthians 6:2 For he says, “In a favorable time I listened to you, and in a day of salvation I have helped you.” Behold, now is the favorable time; behold, now is the day of salvation.
Romans 10:9-13 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Religion make s salvation complicated and Roman Catholicism makes it even more complicated.
God made it easy enough for a child to do it and it cuts across cultural and intellectual lines. It's a message that can be understood by anyone, any where, at any time throughout history, literal or not, rich or poor. Doesn't matter..
That would be all of us.
Sinners, who are the unredeemed, do not inherit the kingdom.
Saints who sin, OTOH, do.
TC, you don’t construct a logical argument in these debates.
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.