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.
Luther - and all his "progeny", by implication - was condemned as sinfully wrong and in error when he stood up to the debauchery and simony of his superiors, much like Jesus was also reproved for not bowing his knee to the religious leaders of his day who had perverted the way of true faith. He was crucified because he rebuked their sinfulness and refused to back down. Luther would have also been murdered had they gotten their hands on him.
Indeed!
I repeat that for reason of the bracketed preface, that being [errors condemned] can be mistaken for meaning the opposite, in that a casual reader could mistake that pope for being against the "burning of heretics". He wasn't. Or at least he said that "the Spirit" was not against the expressed meaning, to be bit more precise.
Invoking both Peter, and the Apostle Paul, that papal bull Exsurge Domine must be one of those classified as being "without error", "infallibly led by the Spirit...in matters of faith and morals" etc., would it not?
How do "they" (the infamous they) wiggle out of this one?
If it were not for men such as Martin Luther (which bull was written for purpose and reason for condemnation of) and if instead the papists still retained secular powers as they once widely held in much of Europe, I have little to no doubt they would be using the same sort of fires in effort to burn out opposition to themselves today -- if they could get away with it. The more zealously "papist" the more likely, somewhat similar to the head-choppers of Islam --- meaning not all would run to commit such acts, but among them some would, with the overall sociopolitical/religious setting and climate being potentially hazardous to the health of any too vocally "moderate".
You know...sort-of like the religion forum section of FR. [just a bit of humor, folks. *try the veal!* be sure to tip those waiters & waitresses]
As you said;
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.Well put, indeed. Thanks. Yet they wonder why we object, going to great lengths to pretend such as "apostasy??? what "apostasy there's never been any of that sort of thing in our [ahem] "infallibly led in faith and morals" dept."
I hate the song and dance routine, all the little special pleadings, all the 'you have to look at it just right' and only *think* about it like "we" (the royal "we") tell you to.
That much, is impossible to deny. It would have taken a miracle intervention to stop it. The wheels had been deliberately poised to roll towards doing that very thing.
In other contexts...possibly enough evidence available (if it all be assembled) to convict for conspiracy to commit murder.
Yet God can forgive that, and wash even those whose hearts held those desires, clean of them. Perhaps He already has, for some at least, it can be hoped.
About what?? The sales of indulgences??? I believe the Catholic Church agreed with Luther on that.
The first stages of the cosmic system simply grieve the Holy Spirit. If a person continues to remain in sin, they degenerate into stages which quench the Holy Spirit.
The first stages are associated with simply having a negative mental attitude towards God. The later stages result in the sinner actually attacking God’s Plan.
I really expected more from you:)
Per Kennedy, I was thinking more of Mary Jo Kopeckne and his latter divorce (I cannot call it an annulment). I have no excuse for the preferential treatment of nominal Catholic politicians. I think it is a scandal. Perhaps he was forgiven but those press releases are not a good indicator. Lies, lies, lies
It is possible this reference supports what you state:
1 Corinthians 5:1-5 NASB
It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
If you think so then you still are not reading much.
I responded that even the smallest sin is mortal as it renders you a sinner, which is true (see below) and thus in need of redemption on Christ's blood-expense and credit. And then showed that there are distinctions made btwn sins as far as their degree of evil, which should have been done if you are going to understand 1 John 5:16-17. And besides dealing with the related issue of purgatory, i should have dealt more with 1 John 5:16-17.
The fact is that no one even bothered to show from Scripture how that there are are differences in degrees of sin except to show there is a sin unto death, but which would not be unto death unless the wages of sin was death in the first place.
Two posters made the erroneous claim that there is only mortal sin, and that there is no such thing as non-mortal sin.
Which is what i addressed, that this could refer to the fact that all sins are indeed mortal, for to break one law makes you a lawbreaker, and "the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord". (Romans 6:23) Which is the ultimate death, eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire. (Rv. 20:14)
In addition, as i referenced before, we see in Acts 5 how that even lying can be a sin unto physical death which is where the accountability factor that i explained comes in. And which is necessary in considering "sin unto death." And as also said, there were many more capital sins in the OT.
Do you affirm or deny this, and argue that the only mortal sin is 1 John 5:16-17? If so, and if it refers to believers, as per the context, and spiritual death, then it is because any sin is unto death that believers are warned there is sin unto death, which would be apostasy, for by denying Christ any sin would send him to Hell. Here are 40 of them . And apostasy is not necessarily one, but as Heb. 10:26 warns about impenitently sinning willfully after knowing the Truth (synonymous with conversion in 1Tim. 2:4) it can be the culmination of a Christi-denying life.
And indeed, it is noted that 1Jn. 5:16,17 lacks the definite article "a:"
There is a problem with the typical English rendering in 1 John 5:16-17 of the clause, “a sin unto death.” Greek has no indefinite article (i.e., no “a” or “an”) and the inclusion of it can be misleading. The Greek literally reads, “if anyone sees his brother sinning sin not unto[12] death.” If John had a specific and known sin in mind it would be more appropriate to use the definite article with “sin” (i.e., “the”). The clause would then read, “the sin unto death.” Here John is addressing not a specific sin or single act, but a particular class or kind of sin.[13]
The Catholic Haydock commentary states that, "The difference cannot be the same as betwixt sins that are called venial and mortal;... interpreters commonly understand a wilful apostacy from the faith, and from the known truth, when a sinner hardened by his own ingratitude becomes deaf to all admonitions, -http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id279.html
'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.
Heart-Rest, 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, and which i never denied but affirm, whether you wanted to see that or not. But it was superficially dealt with.
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...
Which fomenting, twice-ignorant slander one might say indicates you suffer from Roman reactionary syndrome (RRS), which prevents one from objectively examining and even understanding what Scripture or anything else that refutes them is saying, as indeed to do so in order to ascertain the veracity of Rome's claims is discouraged.
The fact is that the treatment of this was superficial, and you should have welcomed more light, which actually affirmed there were different classes of sin, but instead the usual reaction kicked in. Here is what i wrote which exposes that your reactionary syndrome is just that.
Luther was in error when he called for the destruction of the Jews in his 65,000 word treatise. He personally prepared the way for Hitler. Do you think he is in heaven ?
There will be those who appeal to their good works to Jesus Himself and HIS words to them will be *Depart from Me you who practice lawlessness, for I never knew you.*
But THIS horse is LONG dead!
Why flog it any more?
1 John 3:21-24
Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.
Godwin says...
There are a few posters here who I rarely if ever read, and posts like yours simply reinforce the wisdom in that decision.
I've long thought I could tell the circumcised heart from the uncircumcised by how they treat the Jews; a window into the soul.
I’m sure there’s a point here somewhere.
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.