I Hated the Idea of Becoming Catholic

Aleteia ^ | JUNE 20, 2014 | ANTHONY BARATTA

[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.

But just a few weeks later, I ran into more doubts. We were learning about spiritual disciplines like prayer and fasting and I was struck by how often the professor would skip from St. Paul to Martin Luther or Jonathan Edwards when describing admirable lives of piety. Did nothing worthwhile happen in the first 1500 years? The skipping of history would continue in many other classes and assigned reading. The majority of pre-Reformation church history was ignored.

I soon discovered I had less in common with the early Church fathers than I thought. Unlike most Christians in history, communion had always been for me an occasional eating of bread and grape juice, and baptism was only important after someone had gotten “saved.” Not only did these views contradict much of Church history but, increasingly, they did not match with uncomfortable Bible passages I had always shrugged off (John 6, Romans 6, etc).

Other questions that I had buried began to reappear, no longer docile but ferocious, demanding an answer. Where did the Bible come from? Why didn’t the Bible claim to be “sufficient”? The Protestant answers that had held me over in the last year were no longer satisfying.

Jefferson Bethke’s viral YouTube video, “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus,” was released during this time. The young man meant well, but to me he only validated what the Wall Street Journal called “the dangerous theological anarchy of young evangelicals,” attempting to remove Jesus from the confines of religion but losing so much in the process.

Ash Wednesday was the tipping point. A hip Southern Baptist church in Louisville held a morning Ash Wednesday service and many students showed up to classes with ashes on their forehead. At chapel that afternoon, a professor renowned for his apologetic efforts against Catholicism expounded upon the beauty of this thousand year old tradition.

Afterwards, I asked a seminary friend why most evangelicals had rejected this beautiful thing. He responded with something about Pharisees and “man-made traditions.”

I shook my head. “I can’t do this anymore.”

My resistance to Catholicism started to fade. I was feeling drawn to the sacraments, sacramentals, physical manifestations of God’s grace, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. No more borrowing, no more denying.

It was the next day that I called my mom and told her I thought I was going to become Catholic.

I didn’t go to classes on Friday. I went to the seminary library and checked out books I had previously forbidden myself to look at too closely, like the Catechism and Pope Benedict’s latest. I felt like I was checking out porn. Later, I drove to a 5pm Saturday Mass. The gorgeous crucifix at the front of the church reminded me of when I had mused that crucifixes demonstrated that Catholics didn’t really understand the resurrection.

But I saw the crucifix differently this time and began crying. “Jesus, my suffering savior, you’re here.”

A peace came over me until Tuesday, when it yielded to face-to-windshield reality. Should I stay or leave? I had several panicked phone calls: “I literally have no idea what I am going to do tomorrow morning.”

On Wednesday morning I woke up, opened my laptop, and typed out “77 Reasons I Am Leaving Evangelicalism.” The list included things like sola scriptura, justification, authority, the Eucharist, history, beauty, and continuity between the Old and New Testament. The headlines and the ensuing paragraphs flowed from my fingers like water bursting from a centuries-old dam. 

A few hours later on February 29, 2012 I slipped out of Louisville, Kentucky, eager to not confuse anyone else and hoping I wasn’t making a mistake.  

The next few months were painful. More than anything else I felt ashamed and defensive, uncertain of how so much of my identity and career path could be upended so quickly. Nonetheless, I joined the Church on Pentecost with the support of my family and started looking for work.

So much has changed since then. I met Jackie on CatholicMatch.com that June, got married a year later, and celebrated the birth of our daughter, Evelyn, on March 3rd, 2014. We’re now in Indiana and I’m happy at my job.

I’m still very new on this Catholic journey. To all inquirers out there, I can tell you that my relationship with God has deepened and strengthened. As I get involved in our parish, I’m so thankful for the love of evangelism and the Bible that I learned in Protestantism.

I have not so much left my former faith as I have filled in the gaps. I thank God for the fullness of the Catholic faith.

[af_vet_1981]

I meant to include you in 960 but the post button defaults to one person.

[Springfield Reformer]

“are made partakers” refers directly to the knowledge by which we are to walk in faith, not to salvation, that Paul has stated in several epistles to be the event at the last trump.

Says ES.  And as you are HR, it is richly ironic of you to speak of eclectic Bible versions. :) Lacking your imaginary proto-Hebrew text, all I have is the God-breathed Greek, and nothing in the passage or it's context limits "partaking" to mere knowledge.  The meaning you have given it above is fictitious, well suited to the HR template, but not even in the ballpark as to what the text actually says.  The word is "metochos:"

34.8 μέτοχοςb, ου m: one who shares with someone else as an associate in an enterprise or undertaking—‘companion, partner.’ καὶ κατένευσαν τοῖς μετόχοις ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ πλοίῳ ‘and they signaled to their companions in the other boat’ Lk 5:7; διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεός, ὁ θεός σου, ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου ‘therefore, God, your God, anointed you with the oil of gladness more than he did your companions’ He 1:9.

This is more than knowledge, which can save no one.  This is a living relationship with Jesus, partnership, companionship.  It is the immersion in His life of which we read all the time in the Gospels.  He is the vine, we are the branches.  His life flows to us and through us.  He is our food and drink, the sustaining of our life.

Nevertheless, lest you should doubt that it is proper to speak of salvation as an accomplished fact, we have Paul here taking that doubt and pulverizing it

Titus 3:5  Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Same word everywhere else used for salvation, σῴζω ("sotso"), but here rendered in the aorist, which is past tense, as in something done, accomplished, finito, etc.  What I think confuses some folks is that, yes, salvation has multiple stages.  There is a past, present, and future to it.  Now I know you can quote mine for those futuristic references, and granted, they are there.  But they're not the whole story.  The certainty of the conclusion is present from the beginning, when we are first born again, because it is not based on our works, but the determination of God to save us:

John 6:37-40  All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.  (38)  For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.  (39)  And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.  (40)  And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Everyone the Father gives to Jesus shall come to Him.  All who come to Him will NOT be cast out.  Of all whom the Father gives to the Son, the Son will lose nothing. Every one of them will be raised up at the last day to eternal life.  It's all salvation, from beginning to end.  We who believe have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved, because what God starts, He finishes.

The ‘condition’ on salvation of which you speak was first placed there by Yeshua in Matthew 24.

Again, not a condition, as in some act which must be performed in addition to believing, having faith.  Jesus says this:

Matthew 24:10-14  And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.  (11)  And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.  (12)  And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.  (13)  But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.  (14)  And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

So it's prophecy.  There is a difference between prescription and description.  Your theory twists it to read, "you must endure to the end," when what the passage says is the ones who end up saved "shall endure to the end." It is a promise, not an incentive to set aside grace for works. And it is a promise based on many other promises already made, as in the golden chain of redemption:

Romans 8:28-31  And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.  (29)  For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.  (30)  Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.  (31)  What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

See how each stage of redemption carries forward the exact same group of people: the foreknown are the predestinated are the called are the justified are the glorified.  These are the elect. There are no dropouts. God will sustain them through every trial and temptation.  There is no obstacle that can separate them from the love of Christ. The Christian can take that assurance with them into the hardest test, and come out with flying colors. Betrayal and hatred all around? No matter. False prophets deceiving many?  But Christ's sheep will follow only Him.  Evil hearts killing love in the world?  But the love of God is still shining in the heart of the child of God.  The true Christian endures.  The false fails.  But salvation is still all of grace, and nothing can change that, because the glory must all be God's. We must decrease and Jesus increase.

Peace,

SR

[editor-surveyor]

There is one more very clear revelation on this by Peter.

2Peter 2:

[9] The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
[10] But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
[11] Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
[12] But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
[13] And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
[14] Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
[15] Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
[16] But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.
[17] These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.
[18] For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
[19] While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
[20] For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
[21] For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
[22] But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Also in this same epistle, Peter notes Paul's authorship of a letter to the same Hebrews of Asia minor that he was addressing. (2Peter 3:15)

[editor-surveyor]

You keep on repeating the churchians false doctrine as though it were factual.

Nobody yet has assured salvation, but those that have died, enduring to their end.

You cannot prove your assertion with falsehood.

It doesn’t matter what you call what they were ‘sharing,’ it was not guaranteed salvation; salvation is only for those that endure to the end, by Yeshua’s clear words.
.

[imardmd1]

You'd best not get me wrong. The Holy Spirit chose the beautiful, precise Greek language in common use all across the spread of what had been Alexander's empire, to be able to communicate the good news of escape from the grip of original sin, by rendering the Gospel in a language that everyone would understand and use for 2000 years.

And when He put the applications into the Greek, of what you have indicated that you think are misquotes of the Hebrew sources, they are not. What they are not is simple literal translation of Hebrew (in which great secrets were hidden even to the OT writers), but rather a revelation to the minds of the Spirit-indwelt New Testament prophets to make clear the coming of the Messiah, and His Kingdom of Righteousness and Peace. In the sense these OT passages were used, God made so clear and simple His plan of salvation and sanctification to anyone who heard, not just people who spoke Hebrew and Aramaic, who had to make blood sacrifices every time they turned around, and that only in Jerusalem.

Have you not figured this out yet?

[editor-surveyor]

I have figured out the reality, and do not dwell on imagined nonsense that you just presented..

The Greek translations are not in “beautiful precise Greek,” but in a bungled, mangled package of Greek words coupled together in Hebrew syntax and grammar caused by using the LXX as a translation guide.

It is a mess that the Greek speaking people could not understand, and were not hesitant to deride. Babblefish Greek.

When you finally come to grips with this, you’ll never look back.

To whom was Yeshua sent? (Matthew 15:24)

He was not joking.
.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “You’d best not get me wrong.” <<

.
Really?

Going Postal?
.

[Heart-Rest]

"Titus 1:11 They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach--and that for the sake of dishonest gain."

=============================================================

What a gross misapplication of scripture!

Paul wrote that letter to Titus, who had been a pagan who was converted to the Christian Church (showing that God really does have enough power to convert pagans to Christians, contrary to what many posters here constantly express strong doubts about), and Titus eventually became the Bishop of Crete.

In this letter, Paul is telling Titus (in the first chapter of the book of "Titus") that there were some rebellious Christian men in the Church founded by Jesus Christ (the Catholic Church) who were teaching various erroneous heresies.    Concerning the men who Paul said should "be silenced", Paul also said they were "insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers" (Titus 1:10) who, though Christians, were teaching errors, and they "profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed".   (See Titus 1.)

This letter from Paul obviously shows that the Church was hierarchical (with leaders called "bishops"), and that it was wrong to be insubordinate and disobedient to the Church founded by Jesus Christ regarding teachings on faith and morals, (the Church which Paul was obviously in, as Jesus Christ Himself converted Paul).

With their rebellious, erroneous heresies which they were promoting (based on their own personal interpretation of "the scriptures" concerning circumcision, and other matters), they were (as Paul says there) contradicting the "sound doctrine" of the Church, and those heretical Cretans sounded very much like the rebellious and insubordinate protestants of the 16th century.    Those are the kind of men who Paul said should be silenced.

Paul did not instruct Titus to yell "Shut Up!" at those insubordinate clowns who were teaching flagrant errors.    Rather, Paul said to rebuke them for teaching errors, and the obvious result if they did not stop teaching errors would be that they would be expelled from the fellowship of the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ (in other words, "excommunicated"), so they could no longer spread their errors within the Church, or, externally, as representatives of the Church.

Paul was a follower of Jesus Christ, not of some foul-mouthed punk named "Steven Jo".    He followed the example of Jesus Christ, who, when badgered by those humans teaching or expressing grave errors, did not yell at them to "shut up", but rather, He either straightened them out with the truth, or "He opened not His mouth".

Paul obviously wanted Titus to try to straighten those rebels out, or to make sure they were no longer falsely representing the Church when they taught their grievous errors.

This is another good opportunity to see the truth about the nature of the hierarchical Church founded by Jesus Christ, where men were not permitted to just interpret the scriptures for themselves, but had to be subordinate to the teachings on faith and morals of the Church founded by Jesus Christ and guided into "all truth" by the Holy Spirit, as Jesus Christ had solemnly promised them.

Don't miss this great opportunity to learn that valuable truth from that letter of St. Paul to St. Titus which you quoted from.

[Springfield Reformer]

You keep on repeating the churchians false doctrine as though it were factual.

Nobody yet has assured salvation, but those that have died, enduring to their end.

You cannot prove your assertion with falsehood.

It doesn’t matter what you call what they were ‘sharing,’ it was not guaranteed salvation; salvation is only for those that endure to the end, by Yeshua’s clear words. And you keep repeating cultic codewords like "churchian" without adding anything of substance to your faltering argument.  Lay any charge you like to my argument.  The reader has both before them, and can make their own judgment. I see no need to continue for now. If you come up with anything new, let me know.

Peace,

SR

[BlueDragon]

Thank you for the kindly reply.

"Well, BlueDragon, I certainly wouldn't pretend to know everything there is to know about either of the main questions you raised in your post ..." "...but these links should help to answer your main questions about St. Jerome and the Canon of Scripture, as well as your questions about Anglican priests and sacraments."

If you didn't know all there is to know about enough related to the question of whether there be recognition amid the RCC as to the actual validity (yes, or no) among Anglicans in regards to their own communion, as in -- would Christ ~ever~ be truly present there, when consecration conducted there (in the manner in which it is, in "High Church" Anglican practice) then what are you doing on this forum trying to instruct anyone whom will listen, all about Roman Catholic Eucharist, either directly stating or else insinuating that such be necessary --- or else people here to whom you are writing run risk of going to hell?

AND ---I didn't ask any questions concerning Jerome, other than to inquire --- was he the one you were talking about when you wrote of an individual who had inspired others to have thrown out "seven books".

Why don't we just go ahead and damn or threaten with Hell itself the Jews also, for themselves having long ago, even before time of Christ on earth, having never included these same books to be included with that which they had accepted as their own canon of scripture?

As for Anglican communion, why couldn't you have just come right out and openly said that the official position (line-o-blarney?) was that "No, the Anglicans do NOT have a "valid" Eucharist"?---unless Taylor Marshall (what a dweeb!) is incorrect far more than providing at least one mistake in his list of reasons (for some High Church Anglicans do use monstrances, they do parade the host while held aloft in monstrance up the middle aisle of the church (though perhaps not down the middle of the street) they do reverence the consecrated host, etc -- but that's about as far I will go in offering rebuttal for info found at that link --- which --- it seemed to me, that you offered to me in part as justification upon which could lean for statements which you had made, which I objected to in response to those.

Yet that the answer to the central (and actual) question which I posed, does appear to be "no";
Shouldn't we then, all also realize what that in effect, actually results in meaning? (That is, unless one could possible engage in "not ex-cathedra!" declaration if ever the RCC should choose to accept the actual truth of the matter and make open acknowledgement, that woopsie, that pope was wrong...he was merely expressing his own opinion)

This very subject, this very thing which you had been just been discussing for many comments previous also, had the note which I replied to ending with a veiled threatening aimed at all those generally not "Roman Catholic" ----- this coming about after yourself and another having figuratively bashed/pestered one person here around 'bout the head and shoulders with communion loaves, ending that letter with also while accusing Luther (without openly saying that man's name) with "having inspired persons to have thrown out books of the bible", etc.

Of course I was being a wise-guy when I asked if Jerome was the one whom had inspired this alleged "throwing out" of "seven books", as you had put it, but I did so not without sound and rational basis for doing so. The comment was intended to induce reappraisal of your own statement -- which I assumed was intended to have been alluding to none other than Luther....

I found that innuendo to have been less-than well founded, when looked upon in fuller light of a wide array of actual facts related to that subject.

From there on, when I spoke of Jerome's prologues and the like, I was asking no further questions, but was speaking towards the facts. So please, do not pretend to me that I was inquiring of you anything further as to issue of biblical canon itself, for I was not.

I suppose I could thank you for links pertaining to issues of canon? Yet I asked nothing for anything of the sort -- so I won't, for that providing of links came across to me also as form of deflection away from my own objections expressed to you, while posed as justification for your own previous comments -- which I was all but set to task for going to those links to diligently search for that justification.

Really? Do you expect me to do that sort of work for you? You don't ask for much, do you? What if the order of operations for that were to be turned around way? Well...they were, or indeed had been, for I had indeed asked that you;

"Try investigating this subject matter even yet again among those not Roman Catholic (if you already have) and do so while focusing strongly upon whichever difference of theological approach can be found in the most ancient of Anaphora which you may be able to find, comparing those also, all along the way with how Luther, Calvin, and hosts of others wrote or spoke of the Lord's Supper, without becoming entirely hung up upon what may possibly be perceived as Zwiglian views..."

myself posing that request, admittedly, without providing for you but one link, and that to a wiki page in regards to epiclesis. Did you even go to look at that, and then try to see what I meant as to how what can be learned there with only modest expenditure of time, although the effort to *think* about it all, and how that could in theologically sense relate to what I had otherwise said, and what you had been saying in a series of comment leading up to when I had rudely interrupted, posting comment to a cohort of yours...

But just how in the sam billy will RC apologists the likes of Taylor Marshall be able to un-say for Jerome, what that man (Jerome, whom the RCC has declared a saint, and otherwise hailed by popes as foremost among their own scholars of biblical texts) clearly and at times even forcefully wrote concerning those disputed books?

Will there be a little at those supplied links, which will go kind-of like this;

"What Jerome really intended to say was..."

How far off the marks (in the above snark) am I, there? Do you not realize by now that many of us here have already seen it all before, when it comes to RC sourced apologetic of the nature which I am absolutely certain is to be found at those links ...?

Again -- I asked you no questions concerning issues of canon -- other than one intended or hoped for yourself to OPEN your own eyes. At this point, after many years of periodically reviewing the information, I could scarcely care less what the apologists will have further to say concerning the matter, although if there be any true scholars among them, then those I would gladly lend an ear to...

Somehow, at the links you provided for issues of canon, I should now expect that all-of-a sudden, something now has changed, some new avenue of discussion has opened up which can finally make Romish apologetic concerning this particular issue (Apocrypha, a.k.a "dueterocanon") be indisputably settled?

REally? Won't it all eventually lead back to the usual RC assertions that ---- bottom line ---- it is only themselves whom can pronounce verdict over what written works should compose even what came to be known among Christians as Old Testament, which books collectively should be considered as having been full expression of God's own Covenant which He had formed with the Jews (expression of His own heart towards them) that it be enough and the time was set & ripe for Christ to be born of Mary --- with the overall result being fulfillment of all of the Law, and His promises of Hope extended to them (the children if Israel) too?

The man who is attributed to having originally coined the phrase Old Testament, Melito of Sardis, himself an early bishop made one of the first and earliest list of what the Hebrews held to have been their own assemblance of Holy Writ, and that most certainly did not include those "seven books" which you here, on these pages, have basically threatened damnation and Hell with, for allegedly having thrown out what in most original sense -- WAS NEVER INCLUDED in the first place. Just ask Flavius Josephus (70 A.D.)

As for what may be found at the pages regarding issues of OT canon --- if there was any thing there which we (on these pages) have not heard of before, then I am certain that it would have announced with much ballyhoo, like, if yet more ancient parchment texts have been newly discovered in the last weeks or months...

Am I missing anything significant, of that nature? Something which will now at last show that the majority of the Jews, and most particularly the one's whom were tasked with religious duties associated with the Temple in Jerusalem -- were so exceedingly deficient in proper knowledge & knowing discernment -- that they could not even determine what was, and what was not their very own corpus of Holy Writ, which Christ Himself came to fulfill and Himself was otherwise alluded to by the prophets of Israel?

Regardless of *some* of Jeromes's statements, and even usages of a sentence lifted from here or there among the writings which collectively are those "seven books" which you speak of having been "thrown out", or even his time or two of apparently referring to the books here in dispute as "scripture", one simply cannot un-say what Jerome did say and make effort to deliberately include in his own works of translation as towards those same disputed books?

No, I'm not going to go fishing around in the back-washes of commentators like Marshall. That he is a convert from "Protestant" church of some sort --- impresses or sways me not in the least, either.

You had included, near to the conclusion of that last previous missive of yours;

If the Lord asks us why we claimed to believe Him, and why we claimed to believe in His Holy Written Word, but in reality we didn't really believe Him when He said, this, and we didn't really believe Him when He said that, and we just threw out seven books from His Holy Written Word, based only on the assertion of one very fallible man, [full stop]

First -- Luther's own views, as well as I can understand those from his writings translated into English language, and in context of much else from that same era as to that same subject from others --- do not too overly much differ form the greater bulk of the written descriptions of the RCC in regards to Eucharist, but he chose to refer to as the Lord's Supper --- most particularly when those can be seen in wider context than the descriptions found at Council of Trent (which transpired after Luther's own life here on earth had run it's course and come to it's end, fwiw) although the RCC in no uncertain words did produce blustering condemnation of Luther's usage of the term "con-substantial" which he apparently used to try and describe or define how the Lord could be present, with and also "in" the bread itself, those two differing things (bread & Christ) becoming and being one together --- Luther likely to have borrowed the term from how in centuries then distant past to even Luther, amid the Church, Christ was spoken of as to himself being con-substantial (as in the two be as one) with the Father...

I do think I can understand the objections to that word choice as related to communion 'species', or the bread & wine in light of what is said to transpire (there could be pair of primary objections for the word chosen) but that description itself is not enough to invalidate Mass and keep Christ bound away from Lutheran table, just because the RCC says so.

Calvin spoke of spiritual presence, Real Presence in the bread of communion, without putting too fine an edge on how that was accomplished. The RCC, of course for all intents and purposes, called him a devil for saying such as that, and for much else also.

But how wrong, really, was Calvin and Luther in these regards? The RCC says they were wrong, but they truly are in no position to say so ----of these two souls most acutely---- due to the RCC's own inherent and unresolvable conflict of interest --- even when narrowed to this one single issue.

Calvin's words in a sense echo (in final effect & hoped & sought for results) the older and more classic Orthodox self-limitations which they had historically imposed upon themselves towards refraining from declaring with all certainty just how the bread and the wine becomes the body and the blood, which taken all together is why I previously supplied to you link to epiclesis (as a simple and easy place to start) in hopes that you might recognize the striking similarity between Calvin's own description and the invitation (the epiclesis) as can be found among some Orthodox unto this day and age, the invitation spoken/given to God by all present which invites the Spirit, to Himself also consecrate, then inhabit/become the consecrated bread which all partake of, while standing...

But the standing up itself on their feet while invoking the Spirit, and then partaking of the consecrated bread, which "standing up" aspect you chose to reply to --- was not the most important portion, as was --->they don't line up and have the priest pop the bread into their mouths as if they were infants<--- aspect (or little birdies!) which I had written of.

Yet the standing or not standing does play a part in discussions among Roman Catholics -- I have seen that occur, right here on the pages of FR.

But again, historically, among the Orthodox, I know of no place wherein it was widespread & common practice to require that any should kneel before priests in order to eat of the bread which becomes Him sacramentally --- so save the links for that if all those do is discuss Romish practices -- for what transpires among the RCC in this regard --- I already know well enough of by hearing of it, coupled with what I see with my own eyes -- and have read rather extensively concerning, although admittedly seeking out the higher, more theologically advanced discussions of that (when such can be found) rather than the writings of apologists waxing poetic concerning the teaching.

So yes, I already know or am aware that Roman Catholics can partake while standing, as they can also receive in hand, yeah, I know already. I was NOT begging for Roman Catholic instruction in this matter, Heart-Rest, but was instead begging you to investigate the matter as it is dealt with beyond the narrow confines of Roman Catholicism.

Perhaps -- that is too much to ask? Even as you here on these pages seem to thrice weekly rather demand that any whom you write to investigate Roman Catholic writings concerning the subject...?

For I would also ask, if you were to do this, to do so while intently looking for what similarities of Eucharist/Holy communion presentations & practices can be found, rather than focusing only upon what differences there may be as compared to those practices as known to yourself, within the RCC...and then carefully consider the possibility that those whom say or insinuate that He is not at all ever present (yes, even with and within and becomes and rather "is" the bread of communion itself, etc.) among those whom celebrate remembrance of Him and His sacrifice --- with all of this being real and actual even for those far from the visible confines of the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical community -- what then?

Do that, and then you just may understand me. That is, if you care to.

But if you don't -- then you never WILL understand, even understand just why I do get a bit torqued off when witnessing this very subject be used as tool of sorts to either try and induce/coerce conversion to the RCC --- and when that be rebuffed, then used as weapon to threaten condemnation.

Uh, who was it again, what notable figure "frequently in the news" who was quoted as having said "proselytism is solemn nonsense". But you can spare the effort of supplying link to 'Catholic Answers' response to that --- been there, done that.

No really, I get it...I understand what was everyone was saying, including being aware of the context in which that quote arose.

"(And, finally, for some brotherly advice, I also think that "shut up" never belongs in a Christian discussion. For some reason, that kind of talk seems to fit better in that garbage on youtube recorded by "Steven Jo" called "Just Shutup!"..."

Yes, I understand. But I've never heard of this Steven Jo.

Yet did you investigate the contents of the comment to which that rudeness of my own was addressed?

Consider too the history of the vile nature of portions of discourse which have often flowed from that same individual -- aimed at many here indiscriminately. It's often worse then "shut up" just not as direct. In the least, it has long been aimed at myself in the rudest fashions.

On a perhaps more humorous note (but not one which I intend as actual justification for my having been rude) --- when or if one were to go back and re-investigate that comment to which I initially replied, one can see there that individual openly chastising himself for speaking/writing (to a individuals which belong to a particular group -- you know, like pretty much all here who are Christian -- but not RCC?)...with a possible joke there being "hey, I was just trying to help the guy along in heeding his own advice to himself".

As for yourself threatening others with down elevator Hell if they do not submit themselves to Popery -- thus be cut off from "valid" communion, resulting in being forever cut-off from Him u (unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood I will have no part with you) ultimately for that last reason most of all --- I will say once again on this forum that Christ is presently no man's hostage or prisoner.

Apparently, He has escaped, for I have encountered Him. Yes, even myself has had that wondrous experience of visitation from Him...

I would hope that might encourage others -- since I can bear witness, and as you may have noticed-- I'm not really all that much special, or deserving either. And I do not say that with false humility -- or so I hope or would like to think.

A problem here, one which is very significant, are the claims to exclusivity which the Church of Rome has long indulged themselves with, can in ultimate overall effect possibly grieve the Holy Spirit enough -- the very ones whom press the most forcefully for that exclusivity are in serious danger of themselves eventually hearing "depart from me -- I never knew you!" but there will be no comfy elevator, for those persons.

Don't be one of those. ---Just some "brotherly advice" for you, in return for your own to me---

For which is worse? Telling someone to "shut up" or telling/broadcasting widely -- if you do not submit to all which we say concerning the following you will go to Hell?

Admittedly you did not use the words "go to hell" but did more or less broadcast that message. So, speaking of elevators...uh, just where do you yourself get off, eh? I do wonder...

Don't think that I myself have not been able to discern His presence while partaking communion, viewing that as simple "this IS...the body of Christ" for I have, which means any talk of myself (others possibly excluded) of not knowing what I am missing (because I'm not a Roman Catholic, thus could not have ever partaken of valid communion, etc.) or similar -- is applicable to ME -- which was much the reason I asked the question concerning official RCC views as to the validity or lack thereof in regards what [Roman] Catholic call Eucharist, and others refer to as Holy communion, or the Lord's Supper.

Once again --- I testify to you directly that He has met with me there, and ministered to me (in and by my own partaking of communion) and I can understand the testimonies of some others concerning the, uh, effect.

My own personal experience with the Lord --- bears witness, at least within myself, that men such as Taylor Marshall and Vincenzo Gioacchino Raffaele Luigi Pecci are wrong regarding the communion (Lord's Supper) among those not of their own ecclesia, when or if --- that be measured by whether or not the Lord Himself would condescend to men of low estate, and be truly present with them in that very manner and 'way', even though good 'ol Luigi (echoed by such as Taylor Marshall) says that that not be possible.

To use what I have recently seen some Catholics say when they speak of those things (such as the Lord's "Real Presence") which they frequently attribute be accessible only through or by membership of their own ecclesiastical community, in comparison to all others --- I say will all confidence that they cannot know what they do not know...for how would they know whether or not a so-called "Protestant" could experience in a very real way the Lord dining and supping with themselves inwardly, if these same Roman Catholics had never experienced that while they were Christians, partaking of communion, while themselves not members of the RCC?

Which has for years now, (call it approximately 30 years)for myself, born witness within myself --- of just how wrong Roman Catholics can be in regards to this subject -- and wrong most acutely --- even as they are generally also, simultaneously very much otherwise correct in regards to Him (Christ) being central to their own Mass (at least for those whom are there to worship Him in spirit and in truth, instead of there to just 'play church') and having been found truly there & present, in most wondrous ways (as many can testify --- I accept that testimony) Himself offering Himself to those whom would come to Him, in that Way...

If you have taken the tie to read all of this, and perhaps have had to struggle through many of the sentences -- then I do thank you for that, and hope also you may now be able to better understand.

[BlueDragon]

With their rebellious, erroneous heresies which they were promoting (based on their own personal interpretation of "the scriptures" concerning circumcision, and other matters), they were (as Paul says there) contradicting the "sound doctrine" of the Church, and those heretical Cretans sounded very much like the rebellious and insubordinate protestants of the 16th century.

Are you still in denial that the Reformation was not only necessary, but was brought on by the very type of rebelliousness to (prior) authority, ancient and most original traditions, and the Spirit too -- which top-most hierarchy that you also just proclaimed be so needful -- were guilty of themselves, in spades?

Don't miss the opportunity for some of around here at least -- to assist yourself in learning valuable truths.

We are here to help.

I will continue to illustrate (at least in part) where the problems truly lay...

[boatbums]

I have heard of by grace are ye saved through faith and that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. I have not heard of saved by grammar.

Well I heard "there is no God" - it says so right in the Bible!

In reality, anyone can pull snippets and words and phrases out of the Bible and pretty much make it say whatever they want. The only problem - and this may be why you don't post references(?) - is that people who care about the truth can go to the Bible and see that such claims are usually bogus. The Bible cannot contradict itself seeing as the same Holy Spirit inspired it all. The truth of the gospel is that we are saved by grace through faith and not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast. That is found in Ephesians 2:8,9 in case you were wondering.

[Springfield Reformer]

Yes, self-deception is a terrible thing. It's one of the main reasons we Calvinists do not trust ourselves for anything.  We are like Peter.  We have no choice but to look to Jesus, because only He has the words of eternal life. Yet we may believe, despite our inward corruption, that He came to us with the purpose of redeeming us, and that He will not fail in his purpose, however weak and untrustworthy we may be.

So when His apostle tells us that "the Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:," what choice do we have but to set aside our useless introspection and trust that He has spoken truthfully with us?  If we believe in Him, not in our own belief, then we have a solid anchor.  We are not in this alone.  He is real.  He helps us.  So many of us can give testimony to how He has transformed our lives from cesspools of iniquity to streams of living water, just as He promised.  He is faithful, even when we are not.  Like Israel, He has redeemed us not because we were better or more trustworthy than anyone else, but because by saving such complete and miserable failures, He will get all the more glory.  The twenty-four elders cast their crowns at His feet because they know those crowns, that glory, belongs entirely to Him.

As for your "salvation by grammar" barb, God chose what He chose as the linguistic wrapper on His message.  If you don't like it, why complain to me about it?  He's the one who said we have been and continue to be partakers with Christ, with all that that entails.  Like my old criminal law prof used to say, you buy the bit you buy the bridle. This is how the message came, and if you accept it is from Him, you have to take it for what it is.

As for whether partaking in the Holy Spirit is identical to partaking in Christ, I'd have to defend the traditional view of the Trinity and say that can't be the case, else you are rejecting the distinction of the persons of the Trinity.  There is not an absolute commutation of all attributes from one person to the other.  Else you would have to argue the Holy Spirit had a biological body like Christ, or died for our sins, or rose from the dead.  That is a dangerous path.  It's the kind of thought that leads to the Oneness Pentecostal heresy.  In their quest for their own view of perfect monotheism, they squeeze all the differences out of the three distinct persons, and so end up with a false god.  

So whereas partaking of the Holy Spirit involves many good things, teaching, conviction of sin and righteousness, etc., partaking in Christ is uniquely salvific, in that to feed on Him, as He taught in John 6, is to have eternal life, and we know the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. He is the sole provider of it. In Christ are all the promises fulfilled, and to partake with Him is to have our own share in those promises, and the certainty of them.

As for the audience being holy, that begs the question. The writer may speak in generalities, but certainly there may be exceptions not called out in every address to the congregation.  Jesus often spoke of the twelve as a group, as His sheep, yet only on rare occasion did He distinguish out Judas, who all along was a devil.  Remember how even during the foot-washing, Jesus said that one of them was unclean.  There is never a time in Scripture where Judas enjoys full status as one of the clean, elect sheep, then falls out of that condition.  No, he is a traitor from start to finish.  Yet Jesus only points it out a few times.  General address is completely normal expression.  You need to look at the exceptions, when they are presented, for what they are.

As for your contrast between 1 John and Hebrews on the question of those who left the faith because they were never of the faith, I am sure you intended to make some useful distinction, but I could not follow your argument.  I see them talking about the same general kind of person, one who fails to endure because he was never really one of them. This has analogy to the parable of the sower.  In one of the four categories, some do seem quite enthusiastic at first, but when put to the test, they die out, because they have no root.  The Gospel never took hold in their hearts, and they were never saved. So tragic.  They came so close.

Peace,

SR

  

[BlueDragon]

H-R,

Upon now having gone back and reviewed the context of where you had quoted Elsie having utilized a passage from Titus, himself (for emphasis) having displayed that with selected colored font thusly;

Titus 1:11
They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach--and that for the sake of dishonest gain.

I believe that I understand what he most likely was intending to express, and can agree with him, but possibly not entirely, and that part of where I do not, may possibly be able to agree with yourself, at least to some degree (as for an inherent aspect or consideration which had been germane to his earlier discussion with yourself -- and the other whom I told to shut up).

Knowing him as I do (and he does seem to have a good memory as for comments persons here make) I can even guess that he will know immediately upon his own reading of this note --- what I would possibly be disagreeing with him concerning.

You had replied to him;

What a gross misapplication of scripture!

And I could possible agree with yourself -- but only in a much smaller way which had reservation --- and not entirely with the rest of where you then went with things --- which altogether leaves his usage of Titus 1:11 not altogether lacking righteousness...leaving it not altogether as you put it "gross misapplication of scripture".

What I could possible agree with you, H-R, concerning, is the "bread" or wafer becoming the body of Christ in context of communion, with this being more than mere perfunctory or sentimental memorial, for as those whom have had the Lord minister deeply within themselves know, He is truly present.

This is very important, and I do much appreciate, for those who truly know Him in and by this manner, how important this is to them, for I am one of them. But I am still and have always been distant from the narrowest visible confines of the Church of Rome. ANd yet --- He has come in with me to sup with me (and me, with Him) regardless of the seeming fact that the RCC "teaches" that this not be possible -- because I do not submit myself to them visibly and directly -- yet still can enjoy, be blessed by Him with valid communion.

I do not know if you would recall myself having touched upon how Christ remarked, even in note of correction -- that it was not Moses whom provided to the children of Israel, the manna.

Gotta' news flash for ya'.

That teaching, is still in effect. I can bear witness to the fact...

Now for the really bad news---

What aspects Elsie is very near to being ENTIRELY correct concerning, is the notion of exclusivity as towards Eucharist (if his own consideration included that subject) whereby those of the Church of Rome make noises that this be afforded from on high, only to those in submission or acquiescence to the full teachings of Rome ---- including all which have emanated from and accumulated around such things as "popery", with that singular "popery" and the clericalism as that exists too, said to being necessary for valid communion with even Christ Himself.

A shading of strong disagreement must at times and places be addressed to other RCC "teaching" also, which can veer this way and that (within certain bounds) and still be not opposed from within the RCC, in fact is seemingly widely supported -- as long as salvation itself is kept quite difficult to come by, even a thing which persons can and even must work to earn.

On this point the Calvinists are likely as not to say something along the line that; the unregenerate man cannot at all earn OR do a worthy-of-Him thing. The born again/born from above regenerated man, when that man does a good and Godly work, even then it is not the man who works, but God working within and through the man, leaving us still unable to "earn" one single penny of heavenly sort, but rather only able to put to good use the coinage bestowed upon us to do good with.

Yet, going back to this past, 16th century age and all those pesky, insubordinate Protestants;
What was one of the most reprehensible things which the RCC engaged in but engage in sale of indulgences? (AND I DON'T CARE HOW MANY TIMEs I HEAR "oh, but that was not the Church which did it, that was just bad people doing it" NOISE, I will never believe those excuses as far as they are frequently stretched by the White Legend white-wash brigades).

Even leaving issues ancillary to indulgences (what a screwed up mess that is -- not true Apostolic doctrine!) aside, the RCC from highest levels and on down through the ranks, can most certainly be seen to have eagerly swallowed up widow's houses, that and more, much more, for they were indeed in temporal-realm business of many sorts, mixing in and blending the things of this world with those of Christ's own kingdom, which as Christ said of His own -- was not of this world.

No, H-R, you are in part at least quite wrong, as is particular aspects of Romanist teaching, particularly as *some* of those were asserted in the centuries leading up to the Reformation.

Though the Reformers were arguably themselves not without reproach, that does not equate with many of the objections which they did raise --- were not justified.

The demand for complete subordination itself, is wicked sinful in itself. If it is not -- then it sure is tough to get over how it once was, spread out over many centuries time, showing itself a bloody stinking beast. The Lord did not establish Romanism.

True apostolicity, transferred by the laying on of hands -- always was and shall always be a thing of hope, for there is no guarantee that all whom are such appointed will be and do and convey only that which the original Apostles themselves taught as for the things of the Lord, if varying only by shading, degree or extent, which sort of shifts of things put all together can and HAVE BEEN in the history of the RCC (as elsewhere too, in more recent memory) leveraged by the unscrupulous in and among the Church, wherever that is to be found... Learn.

Accept the facts.

Allow the negatives of past history to teach oneself...consider those most carefully-- then ask yourself this question;

Would an all-knowing and Most High (whom would know in advance every detail of all which would transpire, centuries in advance of whatever it was come to pass) set up such a religious system choke-point which made it impossible to fulfill what He required all whom would know Him, namely, to eat His flesh and drink His blood --- unless one also entirely subjected themselves to an "ecclesia" which can be plainly seen to have indulged in many excesses with the most grievous contra-scriptural of those all be related to haughty Sola Ecclesia --- a literal "do as wesay" whom set themselves beyond all correction to the degree and extent the correction must be FORCED in order to finally bring them to "seeing the light"???

Because that IS what happened, my FRiend.

[Elsie]

I really miss Tim; wonder where he got to.

By now, the mound of dirt, in the field just outside of town, has eroded to merely a slight rise in the soil...

[Elsie]

As GOD as my witness; I thought turkeys could fly.

[Elsie]

nyuk nyuk...

The sheriff is a....

[Elsie]

Now, don’t read things into this...

Strange advice; considering...

[Elsie]

Is every passage that you disagree with “misunderstood?”

Beats 'poorly translated'.

[Elsie]

18Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

19They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

20But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

21I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

22Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

23Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

24Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

Mary weeps for not being included here...