A Baptist's Search For Historical Proof of St. Patrick Takes Her To Rome

It was St. Patrick's Day. When most people think of St. Patrick, they think of shamrocks and green beer. When I think about St. Patrick I remember the night two years earlier when out of curiosity I plugged "St. Patrick" into my search engine just to see if there was any historical proof that such a person existed. My daughter and I had been studying our Scottish Irish heritage and earlier that day we had attended the St. Patrick's Day Parade as kind of a fieldtrip. I had felt very uncomfortable with the Bishop, the Knights of Columbus, and the retiring Priest. Why did the Irish have to be so Catholic?

I had been raised in a Baptist family. My father was my Pastor a good deal of my life. We had been raised with a strictly sola scriptura mind set. In more recent years our leanings had grown more Calvinist as my brother James had studied Calvin's writings and shared his findings with us. Both my brother and I had left the Southern Baptist Church we had attended for years with our parents and had gone to more Reformed, more Calvinist churches in the Phoenix area.

I loved our Church. My faith had grown immensely since starting there. I had enjoyed years of deep intimacy with God. I enjoyed the joy of his presence and had learned to respond to his promptings. I loved my Abba and I knew he loved me. I was willing to do whatever he asked of me and to go wherever he sent me.

I was deeply involved in our counseling/discipleship ministry. This ministry had meant much to me in overcoming hurts I had carried for years. I knew the biblical principles we taught worked because they had radically changed my own walk with God. I had the privilege of helping others apply God's word to their lives and watch Him heal and deliver them and conform them to His image.

Being a five point Calvinist in an extremely Calvinist environment meant that I saw myself as being in the center God's revealed truth. I actually thanked him regularly for choosing me to be one of his children and blessing me with the truth that the vast majority of the world was deprived of. I saw those in my church and the few in the world who agreed with us doctrinally as the sole possessors and defenders of the whole counsel of God. All other denominations, especially the Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses were deceived by Satan and bound for Hell. What a pity. I thanked God I was not like other people, deceived and steeped in false religion. My brother dedicated his life to defending our faith against these religions specifically. Our family was supportive of his efforts.

God had given me a verse during my discipleship period that became and continues to be my life verse. John 14:21 says "They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them" I had learned through my discipleship training that true believers in Christ, were people of obedience. In fact, I had come to believe that those who claimed to be believers in Christ, but did not live lives of obedience to Christ were deceiving themselves. I had seen the difference my own obedience had made in my relationship to God. I began to see that in spite of all our talk about Predestination and the irresistible grace of God, there had to be effort on our part. I was not quite sure how to reconcile those two things.

When my search engine came back with a list of web sites, I noticed one that was called "The Confessions of St. Patrick." I was ignorant of that term, so I figured that this site was about misdeeds St. Patrick had committed that the Irish would probably prefer we not know about. So, of course, I clicked that one.

What I discovered in St. Patrick's Confessions was a humble and Godly man who knew God the way I had come to know him. Now for some people this might not have been very eventful, but for me this discovery was seismic. I had believed that Catholic Bishops were Satan's henchmen. They wore those "fish" hats that I had been told were fashioned after a pagan fish god. They took part in idolatrous worship and led people astray by the millions. How could this Catholic Bishop be my brother? How could he love and respond to my God the way I did? How did he get into my elite group? It was like having the walls of my little spiritual house blown out. At that moment, the Holy Spirit birthed in me the need to know; to understand what was believed in Patrick's day.

Giving even a passing thought to the Catholic faith was so frightening to me that I decided I should visit my brother's web site and remind myself of all the reasons that Catholics were wrong. I could not remember his web address, so I again employed my search engine and plugged in his name. One web site caught my eye. It was titled "James White does it again." Knowing that James was always having lively debates with people, I smiled and wondered what kind of battle was raging this time. The site was by a Protestant and it mentioned that there were hundreds of scripture verses that disproved the "once saved, always saved" theory. Having been confident of the doctrine of eternal security I just chuckled and closed the web site. But as I went back to the list to find my brother's site, the Holy Spirit spoke in words that made me catch my breath. " . . . and you know they are there." He was right. I had read hundreds of verses in both testaments that mentioned the need for us to follow and not turn back. Scripture is filled with "if" clauses. But I always had a "weknow" to cover them. A "weknow" is a presupposition that we apply to a scripture that keeps us from seeing what is really written there. For instance, in 1 Peter 3:21 we read that baptism now saves us. But we just apply our "weknow" and tell ourselves that "we know that it does not mean water baptism because "we know" baptism does not save us. I had been a big user of "weknows" and now the Holy Spirit was causing me to see all those scriptures at face value. It would require taking off my Protestant glasses and taking the chance of discovering I had been wrong. It was terrifying.

I had no idea where to begin. I had a friend at work, Magdaline Pettigrew, who was Catholic. We had talked about our faiths some. I was surprised at how similar our beliefs were. Where was all the Mary worship and idolatry? I actually felt there was a good chance that if she came to my church she might feel so much at home she might decide to stay. At the same time I wanted to see a Catholic Mass and satisfy my curiosity. So I came up with a plan. I called her and asked if she would come visit my church if I came and visited hers. She was willing, so we made plans. The next evening I was on my way to a Catholic Mass. What was I doing? Had I lost my mind? The very thought of stepping into a Catholic Church gave me the creeps.

I was comforted by the constant use of scripture. I believed all those stories about Catholics burning Bibles or chaining them to the pulpit so only the Priests would know the truth, but here in this gathering the Holy Scriptures were given the utmost honor and the undivided attention of the congregation.

The Eucharist began. My mind was on trying to keep up with all the congregational activity; distracted from what was happening before me. Suddenly the Presence of God fell upon that place in power like I had never known before. The room was flooded with light and his embrace and all I could do was sit and bask in him.

Too quickly the Mass was over and I told my friend goodbye and walked to the parking lot. I could not feel my feet on the ground. My spirit was still resonating with the bliss of that moment in his Presence. I was praying frantically. O Lord, was that you? But Lord, I didn't think you even attended Catholic Church, let alone fill the place like that? I need answers Father. There are so many issues to tackle. What about Mary, Saints, Purgatory, salvation by works, etc. Where do I begin? His answer came back clear and unmistakable. "Start with what draws you, start with the Eucharist."

I cried out to the Lord and asked for his guidance in discerning the truth. I remembered a game we played in Junior High Youth group called "telephone." The leader would whisper a message to the first person in the room and that person would whisper it to the next and so forth. When the message got to the back of the room the last person would say the message out loud and everyone would laugh. The message had morphed into something completely different and the original meaning was gone. I saw the Christian faith like a game of telephone. The message had started out pure, straight from the lips of Jesus and the Apostles. I could trust that message. Now I was holding to a faith that I believed with all my heart. But was it the faith that the Apostles taught the first generation of Christians? I found myself wanting to talk to the first few people in that line. What was the message back then? Did I have the message straight? Or had I been the victim of someone's editorializing?

For the next several months I found some creative ways of finding objective information about the Catholic faith without buying a Catholic book and without being discovered. I would not have been caught dead buying a Catholic book or even entering a Catholic bookstore. I had a reputation to protect. In my family and in my circle of friends, to have even considered the Catholic faith would have been fatal to my reputation.

I had been receiving Chiropractic care from Dr. Brad Matson for about seven years. I had heard he was a Catholic, and yet I had felt he was a true believer in Christ. That made him an oxymoron in my vocabulary. I had refused to even consider his spiritual life for years. Now I needed to know what he really believed. I knew he would not blow my cover and that he would be open with me. I began asking him questions about his faith. Again, as with my friend Magdaline, I was amazed at the scriptural answers I was getting. Finally I opened up to him and told him that I was actually considering the Catholic faith for myself. I could see the surprise on his face. He suggested a book by Dr. Scott Hahn and his wife Kimberly called "Rome Sweet Home." I was surprised to hear that a Protestant had actually become Catholic. I had never heard of such a thing. I knew many former Catholics who were now part of Protestant churches, but never the reverse. What could have made this couple cross the Tiber?

Brad promised to bring me the book. I reminded him that I was a sola scriptura kind of person and if the Catholic faith was not faithful to scripture, I would not be going there. He just smiled and assured me that the Catholic faith was based in scripture. I asked for a catechism as well. I wanted more than just a testimonial; I wanted to know what the Church actually taught.

Reading Rome Sweet Home was like watching God dismantle my foundation piece by piece. I could not put it down. I soaked in the book the entire weekend. By Monday morning I knew I was in trouble. I made notes in the margins . . . check this out . . . look this up . . . read this in context. I knew I had my work cut out for me.

I had been tutoring at the High School that summer and I had been helping students with American Government. As the Lord would have it, just days before I read Rome Sweet Home I had been explaining to the students that the American Constitution is a marvelous document. Countries all over the world pattern their constitutions after it. But as wonderful as our Constitution is, it cannot interpret or enforce itself. We need government to interpret the Constitution and to enforce that interpretation in the lives of our citizens. As I read Rome Sweet Home, I realized that the same was true of the scriptures. I remembered the web site I found with hundreds of verses that disagreed with my position on "once saved, always saved." I realized that with every church I saw along the streets of Phoenix, there was yet another interpretation of scripture. Who had the authority to determine what scripture really meant? Where was the unity Jesus prayed for?

I had always mistrusted people of other faiths, especially Catholics. So before I would completely trust this Dr. Hahn fellow, I had to check out his quotations of the Early Church fathers. If he was right, I had finally heard from the first few people in line after the Apostles, and they were not Baptists by any means. I got on the internet and searched for the quotations Dr. Hahn had used. Surely they were taken out of context or in someway misquoted. What I discovered was not only were the Fathers not misquoted, but I had found a gold mine of spiritual wisdom from the first few generations of Christians. These people had passed the faith along in oral Tradition as meticulously as they had preserved sacred scripture. They had guarded the truth by the promise of Jesus Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit and the gates of hell had not prevailed. (ref) This was not a game of telephone, this was God's provision for us today so that we could know the fullness of the truth with certainty, with authority.

Fear struck me as I considered the implications of what I was discovering. I had to be sure before I jeopardized my reputation, my family, the feelings and trust of those I loved. I had to scrutinize my own heart and motivations.

My brother had written a number of books in an attempt to refute the Catholic faith. I saw them as being the most anti-Catholic books I could possibly read. I felt that I owed it to my children and to my husband and to my own soul to be sure before I made any move toward Rome.
I had already read his book on Mary, but I took two others off the shelf at home and began reading. In short order it became clear that he was fighting a Church that did not exist. He did a great job of destroying the teachings he wrongly ascribed to the Catholic Church, but his barrage of anti-Catholic rhetoric left the pure teaching of the Church unscathed. His misinterpretation of the Eucharist as a repeated crucifixion of Christ demonstrated his earthbound view of heavenly reality. You cannot repeat a sacrifice that exists perpetually in the eternal present of heaven. His denial of the existence of temporal punishment, examples of which fill scripture, fueled his argument against Purgatory. After wading through the vast majority of two other books, I reached the realization that I no longer had a choice. I had to embrace the Catholic faith, or run from the truth and go back to where I had been and spare myself the humiliation I knew converting would bring. But if Jesus was truly present in the Eucharist, no price was too high for the gift of receiving him.

It was time to inform my husband of my discoveries. I shot up my first prayer to The Blessed Virgin Mary as I asked Richard for a few moments of his time. I sat him down and in fear and trepidation I began explaining that I had been studying the Catholic faith and had been surprised by truth over and over again. I told him that I wanted to enroll in classes at a local Parish and learn more. What did he think? I waited, barely breathing. I honestly expected an explosion and the fight of our lives. Richard has been raised Baptist, but I did not know how anti-Catholic he was. I was afraid that he would feel he needed to protect our children from their "deceived Mother" and that he might actually leave me and take them with him. I was terrified by the prospect of losing my children and my husband, but I could not turn my back on what I had learned.

Rather than explode, Richard calmly said I should do whatever I felt I needed to. I pushed the issue a bit further and asked what his reaction might be if my studied made it necessary for me to become Catholic. His answer was the same. I could see the unhappiness in his eyes, but he was willing to let me pursue God in whatever way I felt I needed to. I was free to follow Christ home to his Church.

In September, I finally reached the point where I could not hide any longer. Richard was willing to defend my right to follow Christ and the home front was stable, so I felt it was time to come out of the closet so to speak. I wrote a letter to my friends and sent it by email. I knew there was no turning back. It was only a matter of time before my family would find out. I needed to write to them before they found out from someone else. I knew that would not take more than a few weeks. The clock was ticking.

My youngest daughter asked for some Mother-Daughter time on Oct 10th and we agreed to get an ice cream cone down the street and have some girl talk. As we sat down on the bench outside the store I asked her what she wanted to talk about. She said, "I want to talk about the Mass." It had only been about a month before that she had come to me crying and saying that she was trying to learn to be a Christian and now I wanted her to learn to be a Catholic. Now she was sitting with me licking her ice cream and calmly asking about the Mass. I silently gave thanks for God's grace and prayed for the right words. I walked through the Mass for her and explained what happened and what we believe about the Eucharist in general terms that a twelve-year-old with a Baptist background would understand. Her eyes lit up and she took in everything I said. When I finished she told me she wanted to go to Mass with me the next time I went

We had a birthday gift for my mother and that was our next stop. As we drove to their house I did what I had been doing for some time, I put my crucifix under my shirt where it could not be seen. So far it had kept my secret secure. I promised the Lord that this was the last time I would hide him. I would write that letter this week and I would not deny my faith before them ever again. It was a terrifying thought, but I could not live like this any longer.

We sat and visited with my mother and father and an ex-Catholic friend of theirs for some time. My mother had received a necklace for her birthday from someone else and she was showing it to me. I guess it was the subject of necklaces that made her notice the chain that ran around my neck and under my shirt. Before I knew what was happening, her hand was on my chain pulling my crucifix from its hiding place. I knew that if she uncovered a crucifix in front of her ex-Catholic, presently Baptist friend, it would be humiliating for her, so I quickly placed my hand over my crucifix and held it to my chest. Esther shot out of her chair and nearly bolted for the door. Dread of an emotional explosion gripped us both. I asked my mother if we could step outside for a moment.

We walked out the front door with my mother and I could see the anxiety in her eyes. I tried to assure her of my devotion to Christ and my concern for her feelings before she proceeded to reveal my crucifix. When she laid eyes on the crucifix and the St. Barbara medal that hung behind it, she paused for a moment to get a grip on what she was seeing. Then with a gasp she dropped them and shrieked, "Catholic? Oh Pat, why Catholic?" She grabbed handfuls of her hair as though she was going to pull it out. She was grief stricken, angry and, frightened. I laid my hands on her face and tried to assure her of my love for her and for the Lord, but she was not hearing me. She was wailing like the mourners of Jesus time at the bedside of a dead relative. From her perspective she was mourning my death. She threw her hands in my face to hide from my words and ran into the house. Esther and I looked at each other, took each other's hand, and headed for the car. On the way home, Esther told me that now she knew I was right about the Catholic faith, because she had seen me stand up for what I believed. My little one was coming home.

An associate pastor of my former church called and asked to meet with me. I was nervous because although I had answered my questions about the Catholic faith, I was very new at defending what I had come to believe. We sat down in his office and I tried to explain what had happened to me over the past several months. He made two statements while we talked that have stuck with me and were a great encouragement to me. I am sure he did not mean them that way, but they are some of the strongest reasons to become and stay Catholic that I have ever heard. At one moment of frustration with me he said, "Patty, you can read scripture from the vantage point of the Reformation, or you can read scripture from the vantage point of Tradition." I just smiled. He was so right. I could choose to interpret scripture through the grid of Sacred Tradition, or I could choose to interpret scripture through any one of the 33,000 grids of protestant tradition. Later in our discussion he mentioned that he had received an email that contained a Catholic document that apparently came out of the Vatican that made it clear that the Catholic Church had not changed their position on soteriology in two thousand years. This time I am sure the ear to ear grin was annoyingly obvious. What a glorious thought! I was embracing truth that had never changed from the beginning! He realized he was not impacting me in the least, so he grabbed his keys and brought our meeting to an end. I left rejoicing.

I had developed an intense hunger for the Eucharist from the moment I found the quote Dr. Hahn had used from Ignatius of Antioch: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes." I had counted the days till Easter from 233 on. It was a painful wait. In our Parish the candidates can walk in the communion line and receive a blessing. It was both a blessing and a heartbreak to walk forward each week and be so close to the Precious Body and Blood of my Lord and not be able to receive him.

At long last Easter Vigil arrived. Our daughter Esther and I were received into the Church at Easter Vigil. Our sacramental life began with the joy of being Confirmed in our Patron Saint's name. Then we were at last fed with the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ who loved us too much to leave us where we had been. He loved us all the way home.

Now here we stood, at Richard and Kimberly's third scrutiny. The aisles were filled with those coming into the Church this year along with their families and sponsors. Our Parish community was reaching out with open arms and welcoming our new siblings home. There, before my eyes, my husband and daughter received their blessings and went to dismissal in preparation of receiving the Lord Jesus in the Eucharist in a matter of days. Our middle daughter, Sarah received her Rite of Acceptance a couple of weeks earlier. By this time next year we hope to be a united Catholic family. What seemed like the possible end of our family has become a new beginning. The joy of sharing the Catholic faith with each other has deepened our relationships.

My extended family still grieves over our conversion. It is impossible to explain to them what only the Holy Spirit can reveal. We pray that they will someday come to understand and embrace the obvious truth of history and scripture. We love them and long for them to know the joy and peace we know in the bosom of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

The school was committed to dispensationalism and required agreement of faculty and students. But I studied under Dr. Walvoord and heard him speak and preach often. I can not ever remember him making dispensationalism a test of fellowship. I agree that some/many dispensationalists have. But Walvoord has no more done this than I have. Now as a debater, I know you want to be "precise" *grin* so I am allowing you this opportunity to correct your misstatement.

Well, now that I think about it, I seem to remember that you already had this conversation with "the_doc" a coupla years ago; if memory serves, it was finally acknowledged that DTS's "commitment to and required agreement with Dispensationalism" did not constitute a Test of Fellowship in the ecclesial sense...

So, discretion being the better part of valor, I'll agree with the outcome of that argument and retract the Charge as worded.

Walvoord is now with the Lord. Past tense would be more precise unless you believe he still seeks to sell a lot of books.

This is a terrible oversight on my part, and I apologize. You're right, of course.

Now that Walvoord is with the Lord, and is therefore now an Amillennialist -- I am absolutely certain that he has no interest in seeing any of his books sell, at all. Your point is granted. ;-)

The fact is, not all theologians are interested in truth -- some are, some aren't -- and not all debaters are interested winning arguments. Based on my exeprience with debaters and debates, I think many of them seem to be much more interested in winning arguments and squashing an opponent (if it were possible) than in really seeking the truth and embracing it.

I think that's very often the case with Debaters, but I'd also have to agree with the preceding statement -- "all theologians are interested in truth; some are, some aren't". I'd wager that the Church in history has refined more Truth in its creeds and confessions in a few Debates amongst the delegates to the Ecumenical Councils, than from all the "speculative" theology of the Twentieth Century put together.

Although he did not make an impressive showing in that debate, and Scott's biblical case against SS steamrolled Dr. Knudsen's arguments very effectively, Dr. Knudsen did impress me as a sincere man who deeply believed what he expounded that evening.

Well, at least there is that. I haven't heard that particular tape, but Dr. John W. Robbins (who is in no way ill-disposed towards Knudsen) has -- and "Professor Knudsen’s performance is embarrassing and incompetent." (sigh....) Oh, well, we all have our good days and bad, I suppose.

By the way, I just received the promised copy of "Pope Fiction", and the unexpected bonus of "Surprised by Truth". I've read most of "Surprised" before, here and there, but I'm grateful to have a copy for my own reference. "Pope Fiction" is entirely new to me, and I'm looking forward to the read. Just scanning the "Table of Contents" with a view towards which Protestant arguments actually impact Papal Supremacy, Succession, and Infallibility....

Well!! That's my cursory, two-minute review of the Arguments you analyze; I'll try to post some additional thoughts on your treatments thereof when I'm done reading the book.

Thanks again!! OP

Of course, there's always that pesky problem of the re-gathering of the Jews to Israel that puts a fly in the ointment of amillenialism.

Why on earth would that "put a fly in the ointment" of Amillennialism?

Oh, wait -- lemme guess: You've never even heard of the fact that a number of 19th century Amillennials were forecasting the re-gathering of the Jews in expectation of the fulfillment of Romans 11, while the Dispensationalist movement was still in its ecclesial swaddling clothes.

Since you've always been taught to believe that the re-gathering of the Jews came as a great shock to Amills, it therefore comes as a great shock to you that 19th-century Amills (and even some Post-Mills) were among the stronger proponents of the "Israel-Restorationist" reading of Romans 11, in some cases even before there was a Dispensational movement to claim the credit for this reading to themselves.

Do I have you figured about right?

"Eternally dying"

You missed my point....It is one thing to stick up crucifixes ever-where with a depiction of Christ's suffering, but balance those images with depictions of his resurrection...man. With-out the resurrection, Christ's death on the cross is an empty gesture..."You might as well eat, drink, or be merry, if there be no ressurection of the dead." (Paul)

I have always considered a plain crucifix, with or with-out Christ, an unbalanced symbol. Christ said that his sign would be the sign of Jonah, a symbol of a man who was in its belly for 3 days and 3 nights, before being released. The early sign of Christians were of a fish, symbolizing not only Jonah but of the men who were to be called the "fishers of men".

That is what I meant by "eternally dying". To merely display crucifixes, states that God loves men, but to co-emphasize Christ's resurrection adds an exclamation point of POWER to his gesture of love. Should the Catholic Church start emphasizing Christ's power over death by his resurrection, in addition to his death for our transgressions, and it will have started a major revival and a step back from the abyss of apostacy! This goes for the major mainline Protestant churches as well!

The image one is always confronted with in many churches...mainline Protestant and Catholic is a centrally located crucifix. That is all well and good. But Christianity's real power is not the mere death of a man on the cross, but of his resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit. That is the real power that modern church goers are increasingly denying, while allowing paganistic and hedonistic philosophies to hold sway in these churches.
If this power could be explained away, then the reason by which we worship falls away. I like to see empty crosses and empty tombs; your church may have a depiction of an empty tomb but many do not, nor is the resurrection emphasized.

To tell you the truth, imagery itself can be a dangerous thing, I feel all of us believers walk close to violating the first and second commandments as they relate to imagery. Christ said the only sign he would give this "accurse generation" was the sign of Jonah.

Don't be so sensitive, Apostacy is rampant in all churches, not just the Catholics. We are being betrayed by so called priests and pastors who are "like wolves crept in unawares", who hold "to a form of Godliness but deny the power there-of"!

Our whole age may be witnessing that "great falling away" that the Bible warned about. True Christ believing followers of all faiths maybe forced to reconcile their differences...the use of the early Apostles and Nicene creeds may once again become important enough so that true believers can tell from false. After-all if we are in that age, religious Christians will come under severe persecution.

"To Live is Christ and to die is Gain" stated Paul. Believers are promised resurrection power to live a day by day transformation of their inner personalities. That is what Christ died to bring us, and that is what all Christian churches must begin to re-emhasize so that men may at least see a difference between true light and true dark(even if they reject the light..they had an oppurtunity to see the difference). In proclaiming God's love we must emphasize the power in that Love.

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian Are you in support of the nation of Israel? 154 posted on 07/16/2003 7:15 AM PDT by fishtank

What are you asking?

If you are asking me, "Does Orthodox Presbyterian believe that the Modern Socialist State of Israel have a Legal right to Exist?", then I answer absolutely yes.

I refer you to my essay A HISTORY OF BETRAYAL: The Zionist Establishment of Israel. As a former Collegiate Debater, I try to be very exacting in questions of Logic and Ethics; and reviewing the International Case Law on the matter, it is my opinion that -- in regards to the Legal Establishment of Modern Socialist State of Israel -- the Zionists were (and are) 100% in the Right, and the Arab Nationalists who betrayed the Zionists were (and are) 100% in the Wrong.

And I would even go so far as to say that I think that "Jewish Palestine" (i.e., Israel -- read the Link) has a Legal Right of Sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, the so-called "West Bank". (Although I would also say that Arab Gaza, aka Philistia, is an albatross around Israel's neck, and they should grant Gaza complete independence immediately -- while retaining Judea and Samaria -- if only to be rid of this troublesome burden).

Judea and Samaria are, IMHO, the Legally-Sovereign Territory of Jewish Palestine (i.e., Israel -- read the Link). Arab "Palestinians" should either accept the Fact of Israeli Sovereignty over Judea and Samaria (the so-called "West Bank") or else move to Jordan -- the true "Arab Palestine".

BUT THAT SAID, I do NOT support every single action of the Israeli State without question.

I do NOT support military atrocities against Palestinian Civilians (which even Likud will admit, have happened on occasion).
I do NOT support Israel's economically-suicidal policy of "Zionist Socialism", financed with US Tax Dollars. I oppose ALL Foreign Aid (including that given to Israel), and ALL Socialism (even when it is labelled "Zionist Socialism"). In fact, I think that Israel would be better off in the long run -- in terms of both Politics and Capitalism -- if every dime of US foreign aid to Israel were terminated today, immediately.
And last but not least, I reject and abhor the Pre-Millennial Dispensationalist vision of Israel as the Abattoir of Armageddon, in which at least two-thirds of all Jews will die in a Hal-Lindsey-style Holocaust before they finally convert to the Messiah. I prefer the Amillennial reading of Romans 11 -- that God is gathering the Jews together in anticipation of the day that ALL ISRAEL shall be saved, not a few tattered remnants who are left over after the Hal-Lindsey-Holocaust of the late, great 20th Century (or, 21st century. Whatever. Pre-Mill Dispensationalists always keep revising their dates -- they always have to).

Do I support the Nation of Israel?

YES, absolutely.

Do I support the Pre-Millennial Dispensationalist "vision" of the Nation of Israel?

HELL NO.

So I repeat: What exactly are you asking??

Best, OP

You are most gracious.

No, I'm not.

I honestly try to be (well, on occasion, anyway), but all the same I am nonetheless a self-educated young white-trash Metalhead Punk who occasionally allows my Emotions more free reign than I (as a good, Dour Calvinist) should really allow.

In fairness, my personal remembrance of Dr. Walvoord is entirely positive. I only met him once, more than ten years ago, as a young Calvinist (indeed, I was probably more of an Amyrauldian at the time). He was invited to preach Morning and Evening services at the Oklahoma Church wherein I was Baptized (an Amyrauldian, Dispensationalist, "Independent Baptistic" Non-Denominational Church founded by Continental AnaBaptists).

I still Love that Church... but why they never simply covenanted themselves with the London Baptistic Confession according to the Amyrauldian interpretation, I'll never know -- these days, I see little particular Virtue in Non-Denominationalism; they might as well simply declare themselves to be Amyrauldian Baptists, and have done with it!! IMHO...

He appears in my memory as a very earnest, good-hearted, sincere and scholarly Man of Learning. (I hasten to add, his "Learning" was positively atrocious -- I have learned, genuinely learned, more about Revelation in one hour reading Gentry than I learned in six teen-age months reading Walvoord). But he was earnest, good-hearted, sincere.

At the same time, I also remember that -- as a Young Calvinist -- when I asked him to explain the correspondences between Calvinism and Dispensationalism, Walvoord simply advised me to steer clear of Calvinism, as it was "heresy".

EXCUUUUUUSE ME?!?! Were it John MacArthur, rather than Walvoord, I think he would have been pleased to find himself a new Calvinistic Dispensationalist Baptist, and at least given me a Lollipop and patted me on the head, and sent me running along.

But Walvoord? Walvoord had no interest in the Doctrines of Grace whatsoever -- save to demean them, hardly an appropriate stance for a University President whose University was (allegedly) committed to Four-Point Amyrauldian Calvinism, if not (specifically) the Five-Point Variety.

No, Dr. Walvoord did his best to deter me from the "heresy" of Calvinism -- which immediately set off Alarm Bells in my head. I knew even then that he was Simply Wrong.

And now, over a decade later... having wasted years, entire years, upon the Debaucheries of Twenty-something abandon -- Obeying my Ego, worshipping Mammon, and spending literally months at a time in the intimate company of Stolichnaya inebriation -- I am convinced that Dr. Walvoord is Still Wrong.

Heck, Calvinism is the only Doctrine of the Church which has kept me theologically sane. Absolutely Irrefutable and Undeniable, it is (by the power of the Holy Spirit) the only thing which is always bringing me back to the Church (call it the "Fifth Point of Calvinism, in action").

Walvoord tried to steer me away. In Biblical terms, Walvoord essentially advised me not to Build my House upon that Rock, he had a nice Sand-Plot to sell me.

And that is how I will always remember Dr. Walvoord: Nice, well-meaning, sincere, and basically a Spiritual Idiot.

A very nice and decent and honest and friendly and helpful and humane and generous Man. Also, an Idiot.

Like I said, I try to be Gracious, but I'm really not. However, in this case, I'm just relating my own personal experiences with the Gentleman (which, in fairness, he always was).

Interesting account. In labeling Calvinism a heresy in his remark to you, I believe he was specifically focusing on Limited Atonement, not the other four points. Here's why I say so and I could be wrong (have been before).

When I was at DTS [around 1979] a few of the faculty had embraced limited atonement, most notably S. Lewis Johnson who was chairman of the NT Greek department. SLJ's influence at DTS was immense at that time.

Dallas' doctrinal statement makes no call on the extent of the atonement so SLJ was not out of bounds of the school's doctrine in advocating limited atonement even though the Chafer, the founder and president preceeding Walvood, had been clearly Amyraldian.

With more students and faculty adopting the position (SLJ was also a teaching pastor at Believer's Chapel at the time. This church embraced limited atonement and was drawing growing numbers), Walvoord in seminary chapel blasted limited atonement and those who held the doctrine. The implication, though not explicitly stated, was that the doctrine had no place at the seminary.

My reaction to Walvord's words (I was in the audience) was frustration. I considered the remark (and still do) totally inappropriate. I felt that if that kind of denunciation was to be made by the President in that forum then Walvoord should have sought to change the doctrinal statement first.

So when Walvoord said to you

***Walvoord simply advised me to steer clear of Calvinism, as it was "heresy".***

I think he was referencing limited atonement and not the other four points.

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.