Posted on 01/27/2014 1:46:12 PM PST by Gamecock
The election of Pope Francis has the world’s attention. It is fascinating to read the array of perspectives. Political pundits and cultural exegetes, with more or less knowledge of Catholicism, have expressed their opinions concerning the meaning and future prospects of this pope. But what about former Catholics, those of us who were raised Catholic and now identify with evangelical Protestantism? What are we saying? I can’t speak for others, but I’ll tell you what is on my mind.
My Upbringing in Catholicism
Hardly a week goes by in which I don’t receive an email from a Catholic reader of my blog expressing that he or she is praying for me to “come home” to the Catholic Church. On the whole, I find them to be incredibly genuine and therefore it is easy for me to give a sincere “thank you.” Over the last week, as I have participated in several interviews about the conclave and papal selection, my inbox has seen many such appeals. In what follows I would like to share with my Catholic friends the fundamental reason why I am an evangelical Protestant.
To start with, I should say that my experience growing up Catholic was exceedingly positive. Owing largely to the ministry of our parish priest, Monsignor Tom, I grew to love the Catholic tradition. I loved the grandeur of the sanctuary with its carved wood, arched windows, and stained glass. I loved the deep, resonate amalgam of voices confessing the Nicene Creed and the honesty and humility expressed in the kyrie: “Lord, have mercy; Christ, have mercy; Lord, have mercy.” I loved simple things, like braiding cruciform-shaped palm leaves for Easter.
Oh, what I wouldn’t give for one more Knights of Columbus dinner, with trays of pasta fra diavolo, risotto parmigiano, and pignoli nut cookies prepared by my uncles. These were the occasions in which boys became men, learning how to eat for God’s glory.
I vividly recall our confirmation retreat at the nearby Cenacle. In the tranquil surrounding of a Marian grotto we learned stories of heroic saints like Perpetua and Felicity, martyrs who stared down lions in the name of Christ. Dominick, my best friend, suggested that I choose Saint Jude as my personal saint since Jude was the Saint of “lost causes.” Despite our juvenile banter, we were challenged to be courageous for God.
I enjoyed watching reruns of Archbishop Fulton Sheen with his long flowing cape and clever quips, marveled during Lent at the seemingly endless number of recipes we had for preparing tuna fish, and took great pleasure in walking to the altar with my family during Mass to present the gifts of wine and bread. This was my identity—a member of the Catholic Church—and I loved it.
But I had to leave.
Why an Evangelical Protestant?
Having written an entire volume on the reasons why I (and other Catholics) have decided to leave the Catholic Church for Protestant pastures—my book Holy Ground: Walking with Jesus as a Former Catholic—I will not retell my story here. Instead, I would like to put my finger on the fundamental reason why Rome is not my religious home. The leading edge of this reason is perhaps best expressed by John Bunyan in chapter three of his Pilgrim’s Progress. It is the climactic point when the faithful protagonist of his story, “Christian,” comes to the cross of Jesus and has his burden of guilt removed once and for all.
Christian ran till he came to a hill; upon it stood a cross, and a little below was a tomb. So I saw in my dream, that just as Christian came up to the cross, his burden loosed from off his shoulders, and fell from off his back, and began to tumble, and so continued to do till it came to the mouth of the tomb, where it fell in, and I saw it no more. Then said Christian with a happy heart, “He hath given me rest by His sorrow, and life by His death.” Then he stood still awhile to look and wonder; for it was very surprising to him that the sight of the cross should thus ease him of his burden. He looked, therefore, and looked again, even till the springs that were in his head sent the water down his cheeks.
In my humble opinion, the above vision is the centerpiece of evangelical Protestantism. Through the preaching of the gospel, God removes the burden of guilt and shame from our shoulders and sends it into the grave, where it disappears, never to be seen again. As far as the east is from the west, so far has God removed our sins from us. And moving toward the Celestial City from one’s initial encounter of the cross, Christian and all who share his name do so as children of God whose identities are permanently marked by this salvation. Precisely because we have died to self and now live anew in our resurrected Lord, there is nothing that can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus. Such assurance is God’s gift to his children and serves as the driving force of our lives.
This lesson came into focus for me last month. A buddy invited me to his home to talk with his Catholic colleague who is struggling with religious guilt, feeling that he is never quite acceptable to the Father. This colleague described his experience in his Catholic parish as “salvation on probation,” a relationship with God that depended upon his ability to observe the precepts of the church (i.e., abstaining from meat on Lenten Fridays, holy days of obligation, auricular confession). Therefore, despite his best efforts, our friend bemoaned the fact that it was only a matter of time before he fell short of the church’s expectations and thus lost his eternal hope.
In response to our friend, I asked whether he had children. With great enthusiasm he proceeded to explain how much he enjoys his kids, attending all of their basketball games, going on vacations, and delighting in conversation about their future hopes and dreams. “Do they ever disappoint you,” I asked. “Of course; they are sinners like their mother,” he said with a smile. I then asked, “And when that happens, does it potentially terminate your relationship? Are they in jeopardy of losing their status as your children and being rejected from your family?” “You mean like a ‘mortal’ sin,” he responded? I could see he was starting to get my point. A long pause followed and finally our friend looked up with eyes full of tears and confessed, “I guess I’m secure as a child of God.”
My Current Relationship to Catholicism
I light of such evangelical Protestant commitments, is there any sense in which I appreciate Catholicism today? Let me answer the question like this. Most people who come from a Catholic background will probably identify with my sentiment, while those who weren’t raised Catholic probably won’t. It’s the kind of affection you have for that eccentric cousin whom you see once a year at Christmas. Despite your common upbringing, the two of you are now entirely different. He runs marathons, TiVo’s professional wrestling, enjoys dancing the polka, and somehow always manages to perform his Bob Dylan impersonation when the family is assembled. However, as first cousins, you have a deep, abiding affection for one another. Despite your differences, you share a common history that reaches back to your earliest memories, on the basis of which you possess a relationship that is deeper and richer than words can express. So it is for many of us who were raised Catholic. We disagree with much of Catholic faith, but these differences can’t erase the positive, Christ-honoring memories which we continue to cherish.
This is where my pursuit of Christ has led. I identify with the evangelical Protestant tradition because I believe that its approach to biblical authority and the gospel best reflects the will of God as revealed in Scripture. Insofar as the term “evangelical” describes such a person, despite its negative connotations and flaws, I hope to live accordingly, comporting myself and relating to others—including my Catholic family and friends—with the character of Christ. And I hope that what you read from this blog will serve you toward that end.
About giving credit where credit is due : The Jews gave you the New Testament, it was preserved by the Catholic (Eastern and Western) churches, and it was restored to the common man by the Protestants. There were centuries with lots of ugliness all around. It is a great mystery why God allowed people to make such a mess of his church and put us all in this situation today.
Actually, that is your theory, as is that Rome wanted them because it needed help for their traditions. But if your theory is correct, then why did Cath. scholars reject apocryphal books as Scripture proper thru the centuries and right into Trent?
The same one wherein the infant Jesus floats clean through her body at His birth! The same one wherein Mary electrocutes anyone who touches her! The very one wherein Queen Mary sits at the right hand of the Father, and Jesus gets stuck at the childrens' table!
The only mortal sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. A Holy Spirit filled Christian cannot commit that sin.
Oh, yes it is. It was enough to doom Adam and Eve and put the whole human race under the penalty of death.
God's standard is absolute perfection.
Be ye holy as your Father in heaven is holy.
Nothing short of absolute perfection is acceptable to see God or be able to stand in His presence.
You know, supposing someone was really good and only sinned three little sins a day, that would be over 1,000 per year and over the course of the average lifespan, that would amount to over 70,000 sins.
Now, about that *one little sin*. They add up, don't they?
Do you see 1 John 5:16-17 suggesting eternal death or death of the body?
“I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that this friend (a) never actually goes to “auricular confession”; (b) regularly ignores “Lenten Fridays”; and (c) can’t even name the holy days of obligation.”
An interesting assertion. Go to the authors blog and ask him. Otherwise, your claim is based on what exactly?
Romans 14:23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
Arch, first please see the Big 10 in Exodus 20 for how we are not to take God’s Name in vain.
Second the point some are trying to make here is only the shed Blood of Christ Jesus can cleanse us of all sins:
Luke 24:44-49 NKJV
Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”
And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
And you are witnesses of these things. Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.”
I Peter 1:17-21 NKJV
And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear; knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
“And what exactly do you think that Jesus “PROVIDED” for means of atonement and forgiveness of sin,”
Luke 9:22 NKJV
saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.”
What happens to a minister who leaves his wife to remarry the wife of another member of the congregation, continues in the ministry, living off the donations of those who may not even be aware, with children from both families uprooted and devastated, not to mention others ? He preaches and teaches the gospel, including “eternal security” and is otherwise correct in all the standard doctrine (nonCatholic of course). What happens to him ? His repentance of that mortal sin (Catholic doctrine), if it occurred, didn’t require him to give up his ministry or his second wife (who betrayed her husband and children). Eternal security (and they are believers so don’t say they were never saved) ?
Arch, you might be missing a few important points. Please read below from Peter. It is important to know the object of our faith:
I Peter 1:1-25 NKJV
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ, whom having not seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, receiving the end of your faith—the salvation of your souls. Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.
To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things which angels desire to look into. Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance; but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, “Be holy, for I am holy.”
And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear; knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.
He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever, because “All flesh is as grass, And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, And its flower falls away, But the word of the Lord endures forever.” Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.
“....I know, I know, you would rather believe what was written in the 25th century than what was written in the FIRST century from Jesus’s words.....”
Well cat’s out of the bag. We have found that time traveller people are looking for on the internet.
Why speed and murder? We are expected to follow in the steps of Jesus Christ.
Remember the horse comes before the cart.
I think what is being said is that even the smallest sin is mortal as it renders you a sinner, and thus in need of redemption on Christ's blood-expense and credit.
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. (James 2:10)
If you want to show that there are differences in degrees of sin, then you need to be more familiar with Scripture. And therein we not only see different degrees of penalties for sins, but that punishment is relative to their degree of accountability. In the OT we see that such sins as idolatry and adultery were two of many capital crimes listed in Scripture, in contrast to others.
And likewise in the NT a man was not executed or delivered over to the devil because he had a quick temper, but for gross deceit and insolent denial of it in the light of great grace and light, (Acts 5) and for gross incest. (1Cor. 5)
And accountability is esp. the facor in the Lord's woes upon cities that had seen His mighty works, such as would have brought Sodom to repentance (but God owes no one grace, or more than others). (Mt. 11:20-24)
And thus at the great white throne judgment, the lost shall be judged according to their works, and as the scribes and Pharisees were more accountable, "therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation." (Mt. 23:14)
However, one who repents and casts all his faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save by His blood is washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:11)
They are accepted in the Beloved, and are positionally seated in the heavenly places, (Eph. 1:6; 2:16). And thus all the verses which clearly speak of a N.T. believer's postmortem condition (Luke 23:43; Acts 7:59; 1Cor. 15:52; 2 Cor 5:8; Phil. 1:23; 1 Th 4:17; 1Jn. 3:2) show it is with the Lord, in whose presence there is fulness of joy (Ps. 16:11).
Rome's purgatory - which even most EOs reject as unhistorica - is simply not taught, and the verse out of which support for this tradition is extrapolated either refer to the lost, or to chastisement in this life. And it is in this life that growth in perfection is achieved, with all its temptations and trials, not simply suffering. Thus it was here that the Lord Himself was made "perfect," in the sense of "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." (Heb. 4:15)
The reason Rome has purgatory is based upon a false premise, which is that justification is based upon interior holiness, thus in the salvation system of Rome an infant is sprinkled with water in recognition of proxy faith which makes him/her formally justified, and usually ends with becoming good enough to enter glory thru an indeterminate time suffering (and atoning for sins) in purgatory, commencing at death.
But (Romans 4:5) states "to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the unGodly , his faith is counted for righteousness. And if imputed righteousness is that of a sudden interior holiness, then Abraham must have had a critical change of heart when his faith was counted for righteousness in Gn. 15:6.
When he later offered up Issac, he was justified by works in the sense of a faith in action testifying that he did believe.
The fact is that one must be holy to enter Heaven, but which is not practical sinless moral perfection - which is not even just sinlessness, but tested character as Christ, and not one has - but is the imputed righteousness of faith, yet a faith that effects holiness. But it is not holiness that makes one fit to enter glory, yet as character and works manifest faith, so one is counted worthy in the light of such manifest faith. (Rv. 3:4)
We either have this faith at death or we do not. Scripture offers no postmortem processing, but exhorts believers to keep the faith looking for the Lord's coming and being with Him.
That all true believers go to be with Lord without stopping in purgatory is illustrated by the fact that Paul - who confessed he had not yet arrived at perfection, (Phil. 3:12) not only taught that to depart to be with Christ was his option, (Phil. 1:23) but stated that all the Thessalonian believers would go to forerever be with the Lord if the Lord returned in their lifetime. (1Ths. 4:17) Likewise all the Corinthian believers. (1Cor. 15)
Please update your knowledge of the Catholic Church:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3116334/posts?page=39#39
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3116334/posts?page=40#40
And has a TV show? If there was no real repentance then there is no real faith and no real salvation. If there was, and which includes restitution or the like as able, then that is a mark of true faith.
What about a man who commits adultery, then conspires to have the husband killed, but truly repents as soon as he is convicted of it?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The author of this article is completely missing the point. He has it backwards. He is only looking at what the parents would do, not what the children might do. (That, of course, is only half of the story. God is not a dictatorial tyrant who forces people to not reject Him after they initially choose to accept Him, like they were mere puppets or robots.)
Honestly ask yourself this question: Is is possible for the children of any parents (including the kids of the father mentioned in the above highlighted paragraph) to turn away from their parents, completely reject them, and have absolutely nothing to do any more with those parents for the rest of their lives here on earth, even though they had been given life and raised well and loved by those two fine parents, and would be welcomed back at any time for the rest of their lives by those same parents if they simply chose to come back before they died? (Of course that family situation is possible, and, sadly, happens all the time.)
Parents cannot force their children to not turn away from them and completely reject them for the rest of their lives (without eliminating their kids' free will), and God also gives humans free will to reject Him or accept Him as well. God does not prevent people from turning away from Him and completely rejecting Him at some point during their lives, even after they had at first accepted Him.
Jesus stands at the door and knocks, and some people choose to let Him in, but, sadly, some of them later change their minds and chase Jesus back out the door, rejecting Him, and then refuse to let Him come back in again, because they want to put garbage in there instead. God's precious gift of free will stays with us for the rest of our lives here, and we are accountable for the choices we make with that free will throughout our entire lives here, whether we wisely accept that truth or foolishly deny it.
(Just like all of Satan's delusions, it might seem much easier at first to deny that truth and believe that no matter what you do for the rest of your life here, you are safe because you said some specific words one day, but don't allow yourself to buy Satan's deceitful delusions. Satan is the Obama of the spirit world. His delusions are not true.)
I keep seeing this "we gave you the Bible" polemical statement (one today even said there were no Scriptures until Rome provided them), but never get a clear answer to the question i keep asking regarding the reason/argument behind it:
Are you saying that being the instruments and stewards of Scripture requires or renders them the infallible authority on it, so they that which they reject must be rejected?
You or any RC here can be the first out of many to answer this clearly.
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.