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.
Re 237; by your circular reasoning no one can be certain he is a believer/saved; it is interesting how you reason that unrepentant believers were never saved; I don’t think that Ted Kennedy was a penitent Catholic, but he was certainly not a Catholic priest or other religious leader. He was a politician, one rank below, well, you know.
I posted the words in response to your comment in post 188: “...praying for the spiritual benefit of dead brethren. This is a long standing Jewish tradition (Mourners’ Kaddish...” The Kaddish, like you said in post 239 is a prayer of glorification and submission to God, but it is not a prayer for the dead person’s benefit.
They treat God as if He is up there ready to zap them for the least little offense instead of a heavenly Father longing for relationship with Him.
They portray God as looking for excuses to damn us as opposed to looking for excuses to save us.
All they have is religion, and a beautiful one at that...They have created a physical religion that they can look at and adore and participate in...
Their religion is based on human wisdom; philosophy...And all that amounts to is a human 'guess' at what God is...
As we can see in this thread alone, they don't care what God says in the scriptures...They can/will not respond to God's words...It's all their human philosophy...
Their religion never gets off the earth, beyond the Vatican...
1. God is eternal, i.e., always was, is, and ever will be.
2. God is omnipresent, i.e., He is in every place.
3. God is immutable, i.e., He ever remains the same.
4. God is omniscient, i.e., He knows all things, the past, the
present, and the future, and also our inmost thoughts (Jer. xvii.
10).
5. God is supremely wise, i.e., He knows how to direct every
thing for the best in order to carry out His designs.
6. God is almighty, i.e., God can do all that He wills, and that
by a mere act of His will.
7. God is supremely good, i.e., He loves His creatures far more
than a father loves his children.
9. God is full of mercy and compassion, i.e., He very readily
forgives our sins when we are sincerely sorry for them.
10. God is infinitely holy, i.e., He loves good and hates all evil.
11. God is infinitely just, i.e., He rewards all good and pun-
ishes all evil deeds.
12. God is a God of perfect truth, i.e., all that He reveals to
man is true.
A few hundred million Christians will disagree with you on that...And that includes me...
Instead of saying people can't know, I'd be wondering (worrying) why they claim they know they are saved while I know I'm not...
Where’s the source for your copy and paste??? You think you are the only one who can get away with that???
These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God (1 John 5:13).
No. We cannot be certain of anyone else's salvation because we don't know their heart. Only God does.
I don’t think that Ted Kennedy was a penitent Catholic, but he was certainly not a Catholic priest or other religious leader. He was a politician, one rank below, well, you know.
God is no respecter of persons.
Although there is more accountability to those who have more light, more knowledge, He is not impressed with our credentials.
Ah, I see that now, and had seen that particular comment, along with many other repetitions of the same from an assortment of persons, that "we gave you the Bible" meme, which is gross distortion when not outright lie, all bound up with and "justified" by yet more grotesque bundles of distortions if not lies. Though oft repeated, none here are particularly guilty themselves of having crafted them...
They would burn us both, alive, if they could get their hands on us. wait...what's that I hear...? is it "we" don't do that anymore..? oo-kay, but then what's up with this "we" when it comes to the "we gave you the bible"?
It's the royal "we" when not much applicable at all, in that it was a bunch of JEWS, over many centuries, who gave us the "bible", regardless of how some may wish to massage the data at this late date, viewing it all through Romanist lenses (and demand others accept the distortions of their own skewed "sight") but it's just persons, individuals in the past, when it comes to having yielded themselves over demons enough to end up roasting the flesh of their own fellows, and/or those whom would not submit to that same royal "we" which is so casually bandied about on a daily basis.
They are the sons and daughters of their spiritual forebears, all right, and to *some* of those, the words of John the Baptist to the Pharisees ring out to this day, in that they are or become the progeny of those past days "royal we" Pharisees in their seeking out always the high seats for themselves, making certain to give all notice of their own dedication in demonstrations of the strictest of "observances" and publicly pronounced pious prayer.
Understanding TODAY that all those outward gestures of the Pharisees availed them nothing but the fiercest of condemnations from that Baptist, that crucial forerunner to Christ, still, ordinances, concerning "observances" along with special considerations and rules in regards to particular posture one must assume (according to "tradition") are given credit towards being avenue for one to earn some shorter stay in an all but entirely inevitable stay in Purgatory.
What would John the Baptist have to say about doctrines of Purgatory? How about the Apostle Paul? It is that man's words they have distorted, by the application of the VERY SAME sort of approach the Pharisees had used in their own apprehension2 of the nature of God, as revealed in the various texts.
As those Pharisees sought out John's "ceremony", upon them approaching him, he said to them;
Scarcely understanding, to this very day, few among the royal "we" of the Romanists seem to understand the deeper meaning of that ritual, that "royal we" having long ago reduced the same to the sprinkling of infants (a "magic" ceremony, which under their authoritative hands spiritual forces, God included(!) must be either compelled or constrained, reducing it all to being much as witchcraft, good intentions, even the purest of those aside) who themselves cannot know when sprinkled, what the tax collectors and prostitutes knew, when they themselves were to be baptized.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In post 9, '.45 Long Colt' said: "Every sin is mortal, FRiend."
Then in post 33, 'Campion' replied to '.45 Long Colt': "1 John 5:16-17 explicitly says that you're wrong."
In post 42, 'Former Fetus' said: "Scripture does not distinguish between mortal and venial sins, that is a man-made distinction."
Then in post 114, 'Brian Kopp DPM' replied to 'Former Fetus': "Your scripture must not include the first letter of John."
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal. 1 John 5:16-17 - Revised Standard Version (RSV)- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Then in post 202, I replied to both 'Campion' and 'Brian Kopp DPM': "I see that no one has even come close yet to making a sane and cogent reply to your incisive references to 1 John 5:16-17."
Then in post 233, you replied to me: "Then you are not looking hard", and pointed me to your post #196 which is addressed to a completely different post and poster, and which tries to wrongly and inaccurately re-interpret what was said, and to fuzzily refocus and rephrase it to make it essentially meaningless.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'daniel1212', let's try this again. Two posters made the erroneous claim that there is only mortal sin, and that there is no such thing as non-mortal sin. The Bible in that reference given by the other two posters here (1 John 5:16-17) says the exact opposite, i.e., that there most certainly is such a thing as non-mortal sin. Either the Bible is true and right and there is such a thing as non-mortal sin, and those two posters (and you) who glibly claim there isn't any such thing as non-mortal sin are completely wrong, or they (and you) are right, and the Bible is wrong there in 1 John 5:16-17.
'daniel1212', let me clear it up for you right now, and forever hopefully. What the Bible says in 1 John 5:16-17 is 100% true and right, whether you like it or not. No matter what kind or amount of prevarications, or bloviated obfuscations, or interminably and exhaustingly wearying posts with endless lists of totally unrelated Bible references and obviously erroneous interpretations given, or any other kinds of nonsensically rambling rantings anyone posting here might choose to post (which have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the subject being discussed in those specific posts being directly addresssed here), they cannot change that simple fact: that what the Bible clearly and plainly says in 1 John 5:16-17 is 100% true and right, and that anyone who claims it is not is 100% false and wrong.
There most certainly is such a thing as a non-mortal sin, just like the Bible plainly and unequivocally says in 1 John 5:16-17.
I hope that clears it all up for you once and for good. (I have to go back to work now.)
Great post......
Like I said before:The way I understand this passage is that “death” refers here to physical death, because John is writing to believers and we know that the child of God has eternal life. John is saying that believers can commit a sin for which their heavenly Father will remove them from this life physically, perhaps because they are disgracing Him, perhaps to stop further sinning... Look for example at Ananias and Sapphira in the book of Acts. They were were guilty of a lie and God chose to end their lives.
I am really busy and haven’t had time to really interact on this, but I will quickly say that 1 John 5 does not prove Rome’s categorization of sin. That chapter speaks to the sin of BELIEVERS only, not of every human being. When dealing with Scripture, context is key.
I stand-by my initial statement: all sin is mortal. In other words, all sin leads to spiritual death, for “the wages of sin is death.”
It means "we" according which century those in the never-changing chameleon church are in. In one century we have papal sanctioned killing (murder) of theological dissidents, but which could not be wrong then because Rome defines what it right, and RCs here have defended as being what was best for the souls of those slain, as well as the unity secular force enabled being set forth a model for the superiority of her sola ecclesia. And which mean many RCs seem to long for, contrary as it was to the NT church (nothing new) .
But having lost her unholy secular power to enforce her ecclesiastical law, later Rome says say such was wrong.
[Error condemned] That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit. Exsurge Domine, Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520 http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm
It was a joke...a husband/wife joke.
Do you mean "bashing" threads as in "Catholic-bashing"? The trouble I see with this is that for many FRoman Catholics ANYTHING that is stated by someone, who isn't Catholic, that can be seen as negative or a criticism of Catholicism is called bashing. Seeing as this is an OPEN Religion Forum thread - and those where non-Cath Christians freely post to - they are PRE-WARNED to expect a "town-hall" type of discourse and that there more than likely will be opposing views expressed. That's why I think it is ridiculous for people to come on threads such as this one and act all offended and rant and rave rather than discuss the topic of the thread.
I've been here long enough to see the pattern. Catholics post MOST of the threads on the RF and a big percentage are Caucus, meaning nobody BUT Catholics can even post comments. Compare that to the rare thread that gets a Protestant/Evangelical Caucus title. It appears that non-Catholic Christians are much more open to having real discussions on issues of the faith and who do not react hysterically or act outraged when someone doesn't agree. I really see Free Republic as a place where Conservatives of all religious backgrounds can openly dialog with each other. It's supposed to make us stronger - iron sharpening iron - rather than divide us. Those who are incapable of hearing criticism shouldn't even be reading these threads much less posting to them.
Yet he was treated as a member in life and in death, even receiving an ecclesiastical funeral, Canon 915 being interpreted as not disallowing it, and a recent letter Ted wrote to the Pope to the pope, delivered by Obama (if the ACLU ever knew) who gave the eulogy, was read at his graveside, in which he ]Kennedy] insolently asserts he “never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings” of his church, and tried to be a faithful Catholic, etc..
The closest thing we get to any kind of contrition is the ambiguous, “I know that I have been an imperfect human being, but with the help of my faith, I have tried to right my path” [evidence needed!], before he goes on to to defend his wonderful works, including universal health care. Not a word of remorse about supporting abortion or promoting homosexual rights, or indolence and a welfare state.
In his response, the pope did not censure him at all, but in the response, written, as usual, through a senior Vatican official, it states,
“He was saddened to know of your illness, and has asked me to assure you of his concern and his spiritual closeness. He is particularly grateful for your promise of prayers for him and for the needs of the universal Church."
The Holy Father has read the letter which you entrusted to President Barack Obama, who kindly presented it to him during their recent meeting. His Holiness prays that in the days ahead you may be sustained in faith and hope, and granted the precious grace of joyful surrender to the will of God our merciful Father. He invokes upon you the consolation and peace promised by the Risen Savior to all who share in His sufferings and trust in His promise of eternal life.
Commending you and the members of your family to the loving intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Holy Father cordially imparts his Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of wisdom, comfort and strength in the Lord." "(http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/29/ted-kennedy-to-pope-benedict-i-am-writing-with-deep-humility/)
Sounds like everything was copacetic. However, if he had converted and become a very conservative evangelical, then i am sure real concern for his soul would have been expressed.
Good post...
I don't think you are going to clear much of anything up...Of course the verses are true but I don't see you attempting to explain the verses...They certainly don't stand on their own as far as understanding...Unless of course you are Catholic and can just make up what you want to make up...
There is sin NOT unto death...And how do you guys arrive at what those sins are??? You make it up...
What you need to do is look at the very next verse (18) and contemplate THAT for a few months, or a couple of years...
1Jn 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not
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.