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.
Yup, it is good to use God-given discernment.
Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Did you read my post 167?
I see there is an argument over the Greek translations. I do find it interesting that the Catholic English Bible the Douay Reims that many Catholics swoon over translates the phrase as “Born again!”
No translation is perfect, that is why in cases like this we must go to the original Greek.
If we accept Jesus as He instructs in His Word, we do not need a denomination after our names. That is why I enjoyed going to the many churches we went to when I was a kid. Our town and county were very small and my parents knew or were related to many people. We were invited to their churches and we accepted. One thing about every one of them was that each and every one taught from the Bible. If we are Christians, do not worry about the name as long as they are Bible teaching churches. The Catholic religion is not the Only way to Heaven. It does not matter how much they believe that or any other church for that matter. God has the instructions in The Bible an they are easy enough for a child to understand.
The problem with that approach is that Revelation was written in Greek not Hebrew. Reverting to Hebrew is only speculation and not based on scripture.
Sorry. I read your post wrong. I thought you were bashing Protestants.
Personally, I would prefer not to bash Protestants or Catholics. I save that for the muzzie cult.
What water is that?
John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
You see, not only were my humble ancestors among the Christians who preceded us, as were yours, but the so were the descendants of the apostles and their families, of the disciples and their families, even the descendants of the earthly "family" of Jesus and His "relatives."
Surely many of them were saved by grace through faith. What they believed should at least be of interest, don't you think?
BTW, I also believe that through the centuries spurious and corrupt practices crept into established Christianity, even pagan influences. However, the establishment churches tell me, "Do not throw out the baby with the bathwater." Seems somewhat sensible.
BTW,I do think of this often, when I contemplate not only churches, but the Republican Party. Does one kill a corrupt organization ... or cure it? What follows?
Is it simply too hard to imagine that some silk-and satin-bedecked 14th C. bishop surrounded by clouds of fragrant incense might also be saved, as well as a sweating peasant looking no farther than the tail of the ox pulling his plow?
**OMG!**
Which God are you calling on right there...God the Father? God the Son? or God the Holy Ghost?
**Apparently the saints, martyrs, theologians, early Church Fathers etc were all deceived except of course you.**
Let God be true (the scriptures), and EVERY man a liar.
**This is the not unlike same nonsense the likes of David Koresh and Jim Jones did, or what Jehovah’s Witness and the Mormons believe**
I may be mistaken, but, I think (except for the JW’s, who are completely confused) that their beliefs are/were trinitarian to some degree or another. Joseph Smith can be shown a liar by this simple fact: He claimed to have seen the Father along side the Son, both appearing as men. That wasn’t a vision like John’s ‘lamb’ approaching ‘one sitting on the throne’. And Jesus Christ testified that no man has seen the Father. Sorry, Mormans reading this, I don’t believe that dynamic has changed since the Son spoke those words.
**Each group takes its “own” interpretation of the Bible and go on a gallop.**
I simply repeat the testamony of Jesus Christ and his apostles, and you choose to spin that into an ‘interpretation’.
The Son is ‘of’ the Father. Jesus Christ’s testamony supports that fact throughout the book of John. Sure, there are spiritual descriptions of the Father giving all power to the Son, showing the receivers of the visions that the Son is indeed the Judge. But, God is invisible; both the Son and his apostles testify to that in the scriptures.
For a very plain and simple illustration of the Son’s testamony, take a clean sheet of printer paper, and look at what is on it. There should be nothing visible on the paper. Yet, God is everywhere on that sheet....you just can’t see him, for God is a Spirit, and is invisible.
Now, draw the outline of a man, being sure to keep it inside of the borders of the paper. God is INSIDE the outline of the man, and OUTSIDE the outline.
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, taught this understanding to his disciples quite plainly in John chapter 14, with verse 11 being the most descriptive: “Believe me that I am in the Father; and the Father in me: else believe me for the very works’ sake.” Jesus had just told them in the previous verse that the words and works that he does are not his, but the Father that “dwelleth IN me”.
I ask again: Are you ‘Free Republic the Steelfish’, or ‘Steelfish of Free Republic’? Is the entire presence of this blog, Free Republic, in you Steelfish? or is your presence IN Free Republic?
**It is interesting to note Jesus fought these offers with “It is written” rather than a “according to Church tradition.”**
So true!
Now, if the Son had said to Satan, “You go and tell your offers to my mother, then I’ll listen”, then there would be something for the RCs to stand on.
This is purely sophomoric interpretation. You arrogate for yourself the right to interpret Scripture according to “your” own lights. By what authority? Those who assembled the books in the Bible did so by the authority of the Petrine mandate. This supreme authority (”whatsoever thou shall bind on earth…”) did not end soon after they gave us the books you call the Bible. The modalities and forms of interpretation continue to this day but only by Petrine authority.
Not the nonsense anyone spouts off by cracking open the pages of the Bible, producing swatches of Scripture, and telling us what it means. If you reject the Eucharist, the source and summit of Catholic worship you have rejected the central thesis of Christianity. This is what the early Church fathers and theologians believed and what the greatest constellation of scholars, believers (saints, martyrs, and stigmatists) have believed for 2000 years. The rest is all drivel
Here's a pretty good run-down of earliest Christian observance of Sunday as the day of gathering the community to worship LINK)---this is recorded history, and not from a Catholic source.
It is reasonable to think that in 361 AD, when legislation by Emperor Constantius II designated Sunday as the day of public prayer, it was simply recognizing a custom already well-established by centuries of practice, starting with the Book of Acts (first century) and going on to communities such as those of St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Justin Martyr (second century).
That's recorded history, too.
As is so common, it started as imitation of the Apostles' practice, became customary in the congregations they and their successrs founded, acquired theological elaboration along the way,and was finally codified by law. In other words: practice first, law later--- the law serving as a confirmation of an already long-held practice and belief.
I am not that caught up in religions.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ.
The truth of the teachings of the Catholic Church hurts doesn’t it?
It’s really not a laughing matter NYer. The lack of scripture and claims to faith in Christ alone is rather alarming. Their trust is in religion.
No, it's not. Jesus Christ would have nothing to do with a "church" that includes paganism or traditions of man.
Simply a courtesy ping because the post I was responding to had been addressed to you.
You do realize don't you that the Catholic Church claims that they and the Muslims serve the same god?
“It is reasonable to think that in 361 AD, when legislation by Emperor Constantius II designated Sunday as the day of public prayer”
I feel a presumption coming on. We have an emperor dictating religious law. Not a good thing.
“ was simply recognizing a custom already well-established by centuries of practice”
Luke 4:16 And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath Day, and stood up to read. Catholics follow Constantius and I’ll follow the Lord.
Your link (filled with spurious claims and inaccuracies) called Sunday the Lords Day in referring to Rev. 1:10 with no basis whatsoever other than more circular logic. Whereas The Bible (Mark 2:28) tells us in Jesus own Words that the Sabbath is the Lords Day.
Your “practice-first - law later” doesn’t pass the smell test. Go with what God says every time. It may not be popular but it will be right.
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.