Posted on 11/28/2014 2:33:31 PM PST by NYer
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.
Now whether your description is correct or not, it remains a fact that these Popes ordered their deaths, mostly by fire. As it turned out Waldo himself, escaped to norther Italy and died there a few years later.
So, my statement, notwithstanding your accusation of "completely false" is not false in the least. And if they were heretics, I do not believe scriptural Biblical truth would indicate Jesus would have ordered them to be burned alive. If that is your position, it is consistent with the popes who I mentioned.
The Cathars were treated even worse. Historians report that somewhere between 30,000 and 50,000 Cathars were murdered at the order of the Popes, especially Gregory IX. In fact, Gregory used the Order of the Dominican to carry out much of his killing.The swore an allegiance to this cause.
These religious leaders which over 1 billion people follow is inexplicable to me, that they would know this history, associate it with the will of God, and be fine with it.
Noncatholic, you say, have no 'right' to judge Catholic doctrine. So, your position is that these behaviors of the Popes are out of bounds to make a judgement regarding whether they were moral or not. You position is odd in that you just judged that non Catholics cannot judge. Your logic becomes circular and thus irrelevant. Are we allowed to discuss history by your view.
Actually, the greek word ἄνωθεν does allow for the translation using again as one of its meanings.
Of the major translations, NIV, NASB, ESV, KJB, HCSB, Duay-Rheims, Darby, ERV all render it as again.
In reading the commentaries you will see there is discussion amongst the scholars on which way to translate this.
In either case, the rebirth comes from faith in Christ....nothing else.
Your first pope Peter in your own Catholic Douay bible says you ain't tellin' the truth...
1Pe 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
I guess it depends upon whether you guys think there is any truth in the scriptures...
But not without works as the verse stated, correct???
The Cathars and the Albigensians were neo Manichists, having a distorted concept of good and evil. The Cathars believed in reincarnation and celibacy. These heresies were not about “reading the Bible”, but rather involved made up distorted doctrines they came up with themselves. Modern day protestant sola scriptura adherents would most defintely not have agreed with their theology. They were not a proto type or precurser to modern protestants.
Non Catholic history says these accusations are not true...What we do know however from Catholic history is that these groups refused to accept the self proclaimed authority of your religion and your popes...
We also know from your religion's history that those reasons for rejection of your religion were justification for murdering the accused...And your religion admits murdering them...
That was their commission to go out and spread the Gospel. They did this with every fiber of their being. It is insulting to think they were once-a-week churchgoers and just went about their business as usual throughout the week. Every waking moment was spent trying to please their Lord which they knew personally.
To the subject of this post, our dear Anthony has only just BEGUN being blown and tossed. This lad has not fallen in with amateurs. Rome has been at this for centuries—as is repeatedly pointed out here—perfecting and honing their romancing rituals and rites, administered by an ersatz Levitical priesthood.
What about the actual Levitical priesthood? REPLACED by Jesus Christ, who is a priest forever, after the order of Melchisedek.
And that's another place where you are wrong...Catholics are baptized with John's baptism...
Oh yeah. I remember you. The one who said your Church has never made a mistake and never will. Get thee behind me and say three Hail Marys when out of earshot, please.
A study of the number six hundred three score and six in hebrew letters may bring a rather alarming revelation with regards to ash Wednesday or anything to do with marks or signs on heads or with hands and by extension, christendom.
Taw- 400- meaning mark/set a mark(strongs #8420)
Rest- 200 - meaning head(strongs #7217)
Kaf- 20. - meaning hand/palm/sole of foot (strongs #3709)
Kaf- 20. - meaning hand/palm/sole of foot (strongs #3709)
Kaf- 20. - meaning hand/palm/sole of foot (strongs #3709)
Waw- 6. - means tent peg/hook (strings #2053)
And some have seen where 616 is used in a version..
That, in Hebrew letter values, is the same as 666..
Revelation 13:18
Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding, count the
number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
The same could be said for many or most Roman Catholics, with the only real variable being to what degree or extent.
Your assertions here are a blend of fact, partial fact, accusations made-up by Roman Catholics after the fact, and much repeated fiction.
The Waldensians did indeed hold that Scripture be available in common vernacular -- and received various levels of official opposition, for that too, although the opposition would take other forms, and go after whichever details could be more easily openly criticized -- and/or ginned up (as in false accusations).
One lying "Catholic" trick was to accuse them of witchcraft.
The Waldenses, more to the actual facts, were in many ways comparable to those whom later voiced much similar objections, often for very similar reasons.
That they were perhaps not in all ways identical makes them no less, as you would have it -- precursor or proto-protestant, regardless of the Romanist arguments which assert such -- those arguments needing to always do so while focusing only upon what differences can be strained out -- and FULLY IGNORING the many basic similarities with later Protestant expressions and beliefs which do strongly overlap, those things being based much upon the Scripture themselves, and can find support also for in what can be known from the most primitive 'Church'.
So you say. Or should I say... so you assert.
But too bad, for what you say is not true, regardless of what errors *some* critics (of Western Catholicism) may occasionally fall into.
One cannot dismiss all, just for reason of some portion of criticism being not be well enough worded...or else being as Romanist arguments themselves frequently are -- containing seeds or elements of truth, but not being entirely true -- particularly in how things are often asserted to be while using broadly sweeping statements which for too casually apply to all, and in all situations.
It certainly seems that "Protestants" (whoever in the heck those people are) are fully enough able to judge Roman Catholic doctrine and traditions -- when or if they agree with them!
On these pages we have been long subjected to a (repetitious) parade (chiefly of the same individuals) of converts from "Protestantism (as if there is such a thing) to Roman Catholicism, even as meanwhile, the word catholic itself has been all but entirely hijacked by the Church of Rome to apply only to itself, with only in the last fifty years or so there being official written policy that recognized so-called "Protestants" (from Roman Catholic perspective) as being part of the Church at all, expressing it as being something of a mystery to them (Catholics) of how that is, while at the same time declaring the bishop of the Church of Rome to being Supreme, and 'head' over these somewhat distantly associated, but still bonafide Christians.
So I ask you now, that in the future, for your statements here on these pages to be just a bit more circumspect, and refrain from making broadly sweeping statements which even your own (Roman Catholic) Church does not officially support, other than in it's more marginal quarters such as that area which holds sedecaventists, and those just mildly so, etc...
What a waste of perfectly good ink...
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Do you really think Nicodemus would has ask that if Jesus said, 'born from above'??? Of course he wouldn't...Nicodemus is trying to figure out how he can be born twice from his mother's womb...Born twice = born again...
The Catholic notion of “born again” and what Protestants believes is oceans apart.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/are-catholics-born-again
Ashes placed on the forehead on Ash Wednesday are the mark of the beast?
source please. This is nonsense.
No, John baptized a baptism of repentance.
Catholic Baptism is a baptism of water AND the spirit.
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.