I Hated the Idea of Becoming Catholic

It was the day after Ash Wednesday in 2012 when I called my mom from my dorm room at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and told her I thought I was going to become Catholic.

“You’re not going to become Catholic, you just know you’re not Southern Baptist,” she said.

“No, I don’t think so.”

A pause. “Oh boy,” she sighed.

I started crying.

I cannot stress enough how much I hated the idea of becoming Catholic. I was bargaining to the last moment. I submitted a sermon for a competition days before withdrawing from school. I was memorizing Psalm 119 to convince myself of sola scriptura. I set up meetings with professors to hear the best arguments. I purposefully read Protestant books about Catholicism, rather than books by Catholic authors.

Further, I knew I would lose my housing money and have to pay a scholarship back if I withdrew from school, not to mention disappointing family, friends, and a dedicated church community.

But when I attempted to do my homework, I collapsed on my bed. All I wanted to do was scream at the textbook, “Who says?!”

I had experienced a huge paradigm shift in my thinking about the faith, and the question of apostolic authority loomed larger than ever.

But let’s rewind back a few years.

I grew up in an evangelical Protestant home. My father was a worship and preaching pastor from when I was in fourth grade onwards. Midway through college, I really fell in love with Jesus Christ and His precious Gospel and decided to become a pastor.

It was during that time that I was hardened in my assumption that the Roman Catholic Church didn’t adhere to the Bible. When I asked one pastor friend of mine during my junior year why Catholics thought Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth when the Bible clearly said Jesus had “brothers,” he simply grimaced: “They don’t read the Bible.”

Though I had been in talks with Seattle’s Mars Hill Church about doing an internship with them, John Piper’s book Don’t Waste Your Life clarified my call to missionary work specifically, and I spent the next summer evangelizing Catholics in Poland.

So I was surprised when I visited my parents and found a silly looking book titled Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic on my father’s desk. What was my dad doing reading something like this? I was curious and hadn’t brought anything home to read, so I gave it a look.

David Currie’s memoir of leaving behind his evangelical education and ministries was bothersome. His unapologetic defense of controversial doctrines regarding Mary and the papacy were most shocking, as I had never seriously considered that Catholics would have sensible, scriptural defenses to these beliefs.

The book’s presence on my father’s desk was explained more fully a few months later when he called me and said he was returning to the Catholicism of his youth. My response? “But, can’t you just be Lutheran or something?” I felt angry, betrayed, and indignant. For the next four months I served as a youth pastor at my local church and, in my free time, read up on why Catholicism was wrong.

During that time, I stumbled across a Christianity Today article that depicted an “evangelical identity crisis.” The author painted a picture of young evangelicals, growing up in a post-modern world, yearning to be firmly rooted in history and encouraged that others had stood strong for Christ in changing and troubled times. Yet, in my experience, most evangelical churches did not observe the liturgical calendar, the Apostles’ Creed was never mentioned, many of the songs were written after 1997, and if any anecdotal story was told about a hero from church history, it was certainly from after the Reformation. Most of Christian history was nowhere to be found.

For the first time, I panicked. I found a copy of the Catechism and started leafing through it, finding the most controversial doctrines and laughing at the silliness of the Catholic Church. Indulgences? Papal infallibility? These things, so obviously wrong, reassured me in my Protestantism. The Mass sounded beautiful and the idea of a visible, unified Church was appealing - but at the expense of the Gospel? It seemed obvious that Satan would build a large organization that would lead so many just short of heaven.

I shook off most of the doubts and enjoyed the remainder of my time at college, having fun with the youth group and sharing my faith with the students. Any lingering doubts, I assumed, would be dealt with in seminary.

I started my classes in January with the excitement of a die-hard football fan going to the Super Bowl. The classes were fantastic and I thought I had finally rid myself of any Catholic problems.

The world’s system tells me that Christians keep tomorrow (sun’s day) as holy.

The BOOK you keep referring to tells ME something different...

Romans 14 (KJV)
1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
²For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
³Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
⁴Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
⁵One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
⁶He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
⁷For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
⁸For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
⁹For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
¹⁰But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

boatbums: What possible reason would I have for returning to a religion that doesn't teach the truth of the gospel or the blessed assurance that God desires for ALL those that come to faith in Jesus Christ? Why would I want to go back into bondage to a religion that perverts the gospel with an accursed one neither Jesus nor any of the Apostles taught? No thanks, I am where my heavenly Father wants me to be and I know I have eternal life. That's not something anyone can take away and I can never be snatched from His hands. (Post #518)

Springfield Reformer: And in this word of comfort He reaches down to us and grips our hand and promises us, by the word of His own testimony, that salvation brings better things than just seeing truth, or seeing miracles, or experiencing the power of the Holy Spirit: "John 10:27-28 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: (28) And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." (Post #852)

boatbums: Rather than this passage scaring me as it once did, I find comfort and assurance in the promises of God and know that He holds onto me, not the other way around, and no one can pluck me from His hands because I hear His voice and I know Him and He gives to me eternal life and I shall *never perish.
(* do a word study on the Greek word used here as "never" - awesome!) (Post #888 to852)

Springfield Reformer: And thanks for the Greek hint on "never perish." Looks like Jesus has a pretty strong opinion about our security! (Post #892 to 888)

========

This is a highlight, a determinative passage in the NT on the issue of "losing your salvation" which is a concept used to attempt to gain power over the baby convert--an anthropocentric view, rather than the Christocentric theme of the whole Bible. Before this thread closes out, it may be helpful to lay out some of the nuances of what that word "never" in Jn. 10:28 really implies. To do it, the task is to attempt to take on the mind of the first century Greek-speaker as he imbibes the exact, precise thought Jesus is imparting to him.

The focus of the verse is the doubled negative "ου μη" (oo may) as related to the verb "ἀπόλλυμι" (ah-po-loo-mee) which is here translated "to perish."

Let's see what a very accomplished scholar says about this. From William D. Mounce, "Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar: Third Edition," Zondervan (2009) p. 295:

=========

Negation. The basic rule is that ου is used to negate a verb in the indicative while μη is used to negate everything else, including the subjunctive.

There is one specific construction using the subjunctive that needs to be stressed. The construction ου μη followed by the aorist subjunctive is a strong negation of a future situation, stronger than simply saying ου. The two negatives do not negate each other; they strengthen the construction bto say "No!" more emphatically.

==========

Here is the verse again, first in the English of the Authorized Version (AV), then in the Koine of the Textus Receptus (TR):

"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand" (Jn. 10:28 AV)("them refers to the sheep He has been talking about).

καγω ζωην αιωνιον διδωμι αυτοις και ου μη απολωνται εις τον αιωνα και ουχ αρπασει τις αυτα εκ της χειρος μου (Jn. 10:28 TR) (my emphasis) (note that εις τον αιωνα does not appear in the AV text).

Here, the conjugated verb ἀπόλλυμι is απολωνται, aorist tense, middle voice, subjunctive mode, third person plural. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon gives the following meaning to this verb:

Strong's Number G622
ἀπόλλυμι
apollumi
Thayer Definition:
1) to destroy
1a) to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin
1b) render useless
1c) to kill
1d) to declare that one must be put to death
1e) metaphorically to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell
1f) to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed
2) to destroy
2a) to lose
Part of Speech: verb

So the phrase "they shall never perish" has the sense "they shall never, never, no, not ever perish, now, or in the future ages to come ever be put out of the way and given over to eternal misery in Hell! Never!"

And the verb ἁρπάζω (harpazō) in the third phrase is the same verb translated in 1 Thess. 4:17 as "caught up."

Strong's Number G726
ἁρπάζω
harpazō
Thayer Definition:
1) to seize, carry off by force
2) to seize on, claim for one’s self eagerly
3) to snatch out or away

The αρπασει = pluck = snatch = catch away = seize and remove bears the sense of causing the Savior to lose His grip on the saved one.

In this phrase, the "neither," referring to the action of the previous phrase has the same strength as the "Never, no! not ever!" there. And referring to the τις = any (one implied), not anyone, even the sheep him/herself with a scheme of bolting, can remove himself--once son-placed--from His sure and steadfast grip.

Once saved, always saved, into eternity, a never-ending absolute life of the soul and spirit of the sheep, purchased and owned by the Shepherd by his blood, and by the initial determined agreement and yielding of each individual into the reconciliation transaction offered by The Father.

(I know that most of you are aware of this, It is just from my little notes to refresh y'all and show how it is worked out for some others who might not be familiar with the importance of a good exposition of the full sense of the language in which it was declared.)

SR: By immediate context, the "partakers of the heavenly calling" are never associated with falling away.

AF: I don't accept that. They were the ones the author was warning so they do not fall away. The risk is not that they never had faith. The risk is that they stop believing (parable of the sower). Frank, the son of Frances and Edith Schaeffer, may be example of this aspect of Hebrews, absent being a Jew. In the parable of the sower, three of four people received the word and only one of four remained fruitful. In Hebrews there is no possibility of repentance, only certain judgment. If they were unsaved they would, in the common Evangelical view, be able to repent and believe the Gospel to be saved. In the Calvinist Gospel such salvation is impossible because only the elect can be saved. The unelect are forever lost no matter what they believe and do. The author of Hebrews says the audience are holy brethren and partakers, therefore they were saved, if they can be savedm if they will continue to believe.

I labor to repeat myself, but the author distinguishes between those who fall away in chapter six from the "you" of verse 9, same chapter, of whom he sees "better things," and "things that accompany salvation." You cannot ignore inspired distinctions like that and expect to arrive at a correct analysis.

As for the "common evangelical view," the passage controls our view and it does not describe someone who can be lost and saved multiple times. Evangelicals accept what you say we do not. The Pharisees are a prime example. These are unsaved people, who might have, humanly speaking been savable at some point, but they reach a point of reprobation so severe they really cannot be saved in this life or the next. It's clear from the teaching on the unpardonable sin that this is a possibility, and I am personally unaware of any evangelical perspective that would say the Pharisees who blasphemed the Holy Spirit might have been savable after all. Furthermore, as the passage in Hebrews is very much like what happened to the Pharisees, and to Judas, there is no obvious reason to propose a second category of unpardonable sin. But because the Pharisees demonstrate there is such a thing, I am surprised to hear you say you think we would deny that if also taught here in Hebrews. Unless I have misunderstood your point.

As for Frankie Schaeffer, yes, that was a heartbreak for many of us. Francis Schaeffer was a great man of God, and able by enlightened reason to forecast many of the problems we would have as a culture due to our uncritical acceptance of various godless philosophical ideas. His work was formative to my early thinking on many core issues. I sat in my car and cried when I heard on WMBI news that he had passed away. And so much more the sorrow when Frankie went south. But did Frankie meet all the conditions of Hebrews 6? I can't say. I have an epistemological problem here. Who can know but God to what degree one must have met all those criteria to be categorized as an unsavable reprobate? I don't know. So to any troubled individual who had fear of committing the unpardonable sin, I would still point them back to the single best example, the Pharisees, and suggest they probably should still seek God's mercy despite their fears, because it is not generally in the nature of the reprobate to seek God at all.

But all of this ignores election. If they have been chosen for salvation, they are going to stay chosen because the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. The Father will draw them, they will come to Jesus, and Jesus will not cast them out, and as has been earlier well attested, they will be among those whom Jesus said absolutely NEVER (ou me) will be plucked form either His hand or His father's hand. God never fumbles the football. Ever.

So if Frankie Schaeffer is elect, then someday he'll come back to true faith, and it will turn out his spiritual state shall never have slipped as far as Hebrews 6:2-8. If he is not elect, then for all the benefit he has had under the teaching of the word of God and the positive influence of a godly parentage, his condemnation shall be all the more severe. To whom much is given ...

Returning briefly to Saul, the language of his change is not that of New Covenant regeneration, but of the sovereign God acting through him to serve the purposes of God for the people of Israel. Note carefully 1 Samuel 10:9. It does not say he became a new creation, co-inheritor with the blessings of Messiah, born again, washed of his sins or having the law of God written into the very core of his being, as Paul, John, and Jeremiah portray New Covenant regeneration. It says God turned him to another heart, as God did in other instances which were not regeneration as it is understood in the New Testament.

The problem is, in OT literature, the heart, the "lav," is not an exact semantic match to the Greek "pneuma" (spirit) as it is used in the New Testament concept of "born again," but has more to do with the seat of emotion and thought, one could say attitude or mental state. With Saul, God needed him to be ready to act for Israel, and God gave him what he needed to do that, even though later in his life he throws all that away for hubris and paranoia, ultimately ending his own life. If he were here, he is exactly the person to whom I could give no comfort that he was saved. Ultimately, that remains between him and God, though I do not see it ending well, speaking as a fallible human.

For another example, consider Balaam:

Numbers 24:1-2 And when Balaam saw that it pleased the LORD to bless Israel, he went not, as at other times, to seek for enchantments, but he set his face toward the wilderness. (2) And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and he saw Israel abiding in his tents according to their tribes; and the spirit of God came upon him.

Yet Balaam was no friend of God or God's people, as you well know, nor was he ever, but God prevented him from cursing His people by sending His Spirit upon him. There is a whole subtopic here of "common grace," which we will not address for now, but it is quite interesting as a way to understand these kinds of events.

Similar language is used here of Nebuchadnezzer, although in a negative sense, but with a focus on a changed heart:

Daniel 4:16 Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him.

This is not described as the Holy Spirit's work, yet it is still using the language of a changed heart. So clearly a changed heart in OT context does NOT automatically imply anything like New Covenant regeneration.

The principle in the OT seems rather to be focused on God's sovereign rulership over the plans men make, no matter how powerful they think they are:

Proverbs 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.

So arguing from the greater to the lesser, if even the king's heart may be turned as God sees fit for His own purposes, anyone's heart might be thus turned, and not necessarily for salvation, but to work out the purposes of God. For example again, the voluntary/involuntary prophecy of Caiaphas the High Priest, that one man should suffer for the nation. And no one I hope is going to argue that wicked man was momentarily regenerate. Such a desperate appeal to a false consistency would end up being a mockery of what we have been given in the New Covenant understanding of the washing of regeneration, the washing away of all of our sin by the blood of Jesus, the new birth that makes us new creations ready to see God's kingdom, the life that is within us which is eternal life, and therefore can never end, either in this life or the next. It is not eternal if it can be lost.

As for whether faith is a gift, I ask you to reconsider your analysis of this passage:

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.

The gender mismatch argument you mentioned does not solve the organization of this passage. There is a gender mismatch between the neuter “that (touto)” in “that not of yourselves,” and the earlier noun “pistos,” “faith,” which is feminine. However, this does not unlink "faith" from "gift of God," because “charis (grace)” is also feminine, and “sodzo (save)” is masculine, theoretically leaving the neuter “touto” pointing to ... nothing? How can that be? If faith is not the referent, what is? Based on your theory of gender mismatch, it can’t refer to any of the other preceding components of salvation either.

Most authorities I have found believe it is something Paul does elsewhere, use a neuter pronoun to package an entire concept, the main heading for a bulleted list, as it were. Thus, if this is correct, he is referring to all the constituent parts as a gift or as the components of a gift. As faith is one of those constituents, it is a fair exegesis to understand Paul is saying that grace, the basis, faith, the means, and salvation, the result, are all the gift of God, so that a saved man has nothing to boast about. Nothing at all. And that, after all, is his point, isn’t it? Why would he mention anything that didn’t buttress his main conclusion?

There are other passages which strongly point to faith as a gift, but I am out of time for now. Perhaps more later.

Peace,

SR

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.