Since the Bible is infallible, there must be an infallible source that is enabled by the Holy Spirit to identify and interpret it infallibly.
The Catholic Church claims that the Holy Spirit inspired Scripture and therefore it is infallible. The Church also claims that the Holy Spirit has enabled the Church to not only identify but also interpret God’s Word infallibly.
The Traditions of the Church - capital “T” - came first, then the Bible. First the Church was established, then the sacred Scripture was written, identified and codified. That is just a matter of history.
You don’t have to know much of Church history to know that Tradition and Sacred Scripture have always worked hand in hand. Think about the New Testament. Again, the Church was established by Jesus first, then came the writing of the New Testament.
The Holy Spirit accurately communicates truth to the Church, leading her into all truth just as Jesus promised.
Jesus was talking to His disciples in John 16. I quoted part of that passage below. That is significant. The “you” is “all ya’ all”. He is talking to them as a group, not as individuals only. He is showing them how their apostolate will work - through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
He is not telling them, " I will give you the Bible and each one of you needs to follow his own conscience in order to find the truth. “ You will not find that kind of “Protestant” thinking anywhere in the Bible.
John 16
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
------------------------------------------------------------
Sola scriptura is a self-contradictory doctrine since it is not found in the Bible.
Besides, no one holds to only the Bible, which is what many seem to advocate. For example. Reformed Baptist, Dr. White is a Calvinist. He defends sola scriptura. Get the picture? His doctrine is formed by the teachings of a man named John Calvin. He specifically follows what are called the Doctrines of Grace, also known as TULIP. He is also an advocate of Covenant Theology from a Baptistic perspective. He is NOT a “Bible only” kind of a guy. He is a Bible plus other standards like Covenant Theology and Calvinism - the Doctrines of Grace - kind of a guy.
Another aspect of sola scriptura is that of the sufficiency of Scripture. So, if it is sufficient, why does a man like Dr. White need Calvinism? Why does he need Covenant theology or the Doctrines of Grace? He has to have his Calvinistic traditions in order to support his teachings.
Also, sola scriptura involves a little thing called the perspicuity of Scripture. That is, the Bible is clear in its message.
If the Bible is so clear in its message, why is there so much division, discussion, and disagreement just among the Calvinists?
How many Presbyterian groups are there? How many Calvinistic Baptist groups are there? There is even a wing of Anglicanism that is Calvinistic. There are Calvinistic Methodists who follow guys like George Whitefield and Martin Lloyd-Jones.
Then there are the Calvinistic Congregationalists, which are not especially liked by the Reformed Presbyterians.
The underlying problem in even the best of Protestant groups has to do with the infallible Scripture-fallible standards principle. That is, Scripture is infallible, but there is no infallible way to know what it means. There are fallible ways to interpret Scripture, but not infallible ways.
Therefore each group can freely claim that they have the best way to interpret Scripture.
In fact, in Protestantism there really is no infallible way to know what Scripture is in the first place.
That’s a problem.
Showing posts with label Why Catholic?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Why Catholic?. Show all posts
Saturday, January 14, 2017
Thursday, May 19, 2016
Why Catholic?
There is a scenario, a little drama that has been playing in my head off and on. In it I am asked by an Evangelical friend, “Why did you convert to the Catholic Church?"
In my mind, the question is not put in polite terms. I can see the shocked look on my friend’s face. I can hear the incredulity mixed with shock, even anger.
The person asking me this question varies. Sometimes it is one person, sometimes another. Sometimes it is a man, and other times it is a woman. Sometimes it is a young person, but never an old person, surprisingly. Don’t know why that is.
What do I respond?
I don’t know where to begin. My conversion surprises me maybe even more than the friends in my little mental drama. It even makes me laugh out loud sometimes. You would have to know more about me to know why it surprises me so much and even makes me laugh at myself.
So, why? I could give the long answer which begins when I was a little girl of 5 or 6 or 7. It was Christmas Day, and I held a Rosary in my hand. I thought about Jesus being born on Christmas and about Jesus dying on the cross.
As I contemplated the life of Jesus, without knowing that was what I was doing, I prayed a simple little prayer. Since you gave Your life for me, I give my life to You.
The prayer is reminiscent of the Eucharist and Romans 12:1,2.
A prayer of sacrifice to the One who sacrificed all for me.
I didn’t know that was what I was doing.
Why was a Rosary just lying around our house? My mother was what many Evangelicals call a backslidden Christian. My father was an atheist.
I could continue with my story, step by step, signpost by signpost which pointed me ever towards the Catholic Church.
The friend in my little mental drama would have lost interest and left me in disgust long before I could finish even the first sentence.
So, what do I say?
Do I just smile a Cheshire Cat kind of smile and say nothing?
Yet the question needs an answer. I have answers for myself, long ones. Many answers. More answers all the time.
But I need a soundbite kind of an answer.
This morning I thought of what seems to me to be a good one. Here it is.
My friend still would not be amused.
In my mind, the question is not put in polite terms. I can see the shocked look on my friend’s face. I can hear the incredulity mixed with shock, even anger.
The person asking me this question varies. Sometimes it is one person, sometimes another. Sometimes it is a man, and other times it is a woman. Sometimes it is a young person, but never an old person, surprisingly. Don’t know why that is.
What do I respond?
I don’t know where to begin. My conversion surprises me maybe even more than the friends in my little mental drama. It even makes me laugh out loud sometimes. You would have to know more about me to know why it surprises me so much and even makes me laugh at myself.
So, why? I could give the long answer which begins when I was a little girl of 5 or 6 or 7. It was Christmas Day, and I held a Rosary in my hand. I thought about Jesus being born on Christmas and about Jesus dying on the cross.
As I contemplated the life of Jesus, without knowing that was what I was doing, I prayed a simple little prayer. Since you gave Your life for me, I give my life to You.
The prayer is reminiscent of the Eucharist and Romans 12:1,2.
A prayer of sacrifice to the One who sacrificed all for me.
I didn’t know that was what I was doing.
Why was a Rosary just lying around our house? My mother was what many Evangelicals call a backslidden Christian. My father was an atheist.
I could continue with my story, step by step, signpost by signpost which pointed me ever towards the Catholic Church.
The friend in my little mental drama would have lost interest and left me in disgust long before I could finish even the first sentence.
So, what do I say?
Do I just smile a Cheshire Cat kind of smile and say nothing?
Yet the question needs an answer. I have answers for myself, long ones. Many answers. More answers all the time.
But I need a soundbite kind of an answer.
This morning I thought of what seems to me to be a good one. Here it is.
The Catholic Church is a gift. I don’t know why it took me so long to accept the gift. I really don’t know how I could have missed her. She has been there all along. [The Catholic Church is a “she” - the Bride of Christ, our Mother.]
My friend still would not be amused.
Pray, brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.
[the people rise and reply:]
May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good and the good of all his holy Church.
I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
It’s that b Minor Mass
Our family is going through a really intense time. Our 3 year-old-almost-4 grandson just had open heart surgery. He is doing well, but is still in the ICU.
The thing is, he has always been kind of given to drama, so it’s a little hard to know how much is just his normal reaction to life and how much is the operation. Of course, he has plenty of reason to be dramatic. He has an incision that starts close to the top of his chest and goes about to his belly button. He has tubes, IV, heart monitors and a bunch of other stuff connected to him.
He needs to have that spunky, fighting spirit he has always had. He has not forgotten his manners, though. One nurse was impressed that he thanked her!
Why am I sharing this? Well, I have gone to the hospital each day. In the car, I have been listening to Bach’s Mass in b minor. I drove through the University District yesterday with the windows of the car down and the Bose sound system blaring out the Gloria right through to the Gratias agimus tibi. It was a beautiful day.
See, the Bach’s Mass in b minor is one of the main things that helped me convert to the Catholic Church. Yes, I know he was Lutheran, but that is just a detail of history. It is how he handled the Catholic Mass that matters to me.
It can be argued that this piece of music is the greatest ever written. I believe that.
The Sanctus is about as close to being Heavenly music as we will get on this earth, it seems to me. For a long time I thought that the women’s voices most accurately represented the voices of angels and saints singing around the Throne of God in Heaven.
Yesterday I changed my mind. It is really the ripping bass parts that remind me of angels. Why the bass parts, especially that of the bass viols, that remind me most of St. Michael the Archangel and Heavenly Host?
Angels are warriors.
St. Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle! We need some heavenly help.
Well, of course the women’s high voices are meant to sound angelic as well.
It is the bajo, though, that really converted me, or helped to. When I first started listening to this piece of music a couple of years ago or more, it was the bass that really stood out to me. I could hear myself playing the oboe over the continuo.
So, to be specific, it was the sound of Bach’s bass parts that won my heart and converted me. What could inspire such glorious beauty but the Mass? It had to be true.
Why did Bach choose the Mass to put on display his greatest music? Some say it was little more than an audition for a job. I don’t believe that. Why the Mass? He could have written another Oratorio, but he chose the Mass.
Of course God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in time of trouble. He has His messengers, though, and they are called angels. St. Michael is one of many that God uses to accomplish His will. He has to sing bass, not soprano.
Can I help it if I hear their presence in the Mass in b minor? Listen to it and see if it doesn’t lift your spirit up to the heavenly realms. Get the NY Philharmonic version.
Of course, the Mass itself is all about Heaven on earth.
The thing is, he has always been kind of given to drama, so it’s a little hard to know how much is just his normal reaction to life and how much is the operation. Of course, he has plenty of reason to be dramatic. He has an incision that starts close to the top of his chest and goes about to his belly button. He has tubes, IV, heart monitors and a bunch of other stuff connected to him.
He needs to have that spunky, fighting spirit he has always had. He has not forgotten his manners, though. One nurse was impressed that he thanked her!
Why am I sharing this? Well, I have gone to the hospital each day. In the car, I have been listening to Bach’s Mass in b minor. I drove through the University District yesterday with the windows of the car down and the Bose sound system blaring out the Gloria right through to the Gratias agimus tibi. It was a beautiful day.
See, the Bach’s Mass in b minor is one of the main things that helped me convert to the Catholic Church. Yes, I know he was Lutheran, but that is just a detail of history. It is how he handled the Catholic Mass that matters to me.
It can be argued that this piece of music is the greatest ever written. I believe that.
The Sanctus is about as close to being Heavenly music as we will get on this earth, it seems to me. For a long time I thought that the women’s voices most accurately represented the voices of angels and saints singing around the Throne of God in Heaven.
Yesterday I changed my mind. It is really the ripping bass parts that remind me of angels. Why the bass parts, especially that of the bass viols, that remind me most of St. Michael the Archangel and Heavenly Host?
Angels are warriors.
St. Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle! We need some heavenly help.
Well, of course the women’s high voices are meant to sound angelic as well.
It is the bajo, though, that really converted me, or helped to. When I first started listening to this piece of music a couple of years ago or more, it was the bass that really stood out to me. I could hear myself playing the oboe over the continuo.
So, to be specific, it was the sound of Bach’s bass parts that won my heart and converted me. What could inspire such glorious beauty but the Mass? It had to be true.
Why did Bach choose the Mass to put on display his greatest music? Some say it was little more than an audition for a job. I don’t believe that. Why the Mass? He could have written another Oratorio, but he chose the Mass.
Of course God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in time of trouble. He has His messengers, though, and they are called angels. St. Michael is one of many that God uses to accomplish His will. He has to sing bass, not soprano.
Can I help it if I hear their presence in the Mass in b minor? Listen to it and see if it doesn’t lift your spirit up to the heavenly realms. Get the NY Philharmonic version.
Of course, the Mass itself is all about Heaven on earth.
Thursday, February 4, 2016
Why Catholic?
II. As I read from the writings of the early Church fathers, I came to a startling realization. They were all Catholic. Both the Greek Fathers and the Latin Fathers all shared the same approach to Scripture, the Sacraments, healing, miracles, ecclesiology, Biblical interpretation, the sacrifice of the Mass, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the veneration of the saints, the use of holy relics, and so many other things.
I came to see that the theologians I trusted the most were indeed Catholics. Well, or Orthodox.
I mean, they were nothing like Protestants. It is as though Protestants and other non Catholic Christians took what they wanted from Catholicism, trashed their Mother - the Church - and didn’t even say thank you.
I hope to provide some quotes to back up what I say, in hopes that others will look for themselves.
I came to see that the theologians I trusted the most were indeed Catholics. Well, or Orthodox.
I mean, they were nothing like Protestants. It is as though Protestants and other non Catholic Christians took what they wanted from Catholicism, trashed their Mother - the Church - and didn’t even say thank you.
I hope to provide some quotes to back up what I say, in hopes that others will look for themselves.
Monday, January 11, 2016
Why Catholic?
Okay, I will address this to everyone if anyone cares to read it. Brother Hart wonders why I joined the Catholic Church.
It’s pretty simple. I couldn’t defend Protestant ecclesiology anymore. John 17 and Ephesians 4 and 5 contradict the harem “thing” that Protestantism has going on. That is, Christ has one Bride, not many.
I couldn’t ignore the “onsies” of Ephesians 4 anymore or Jesus ‘ High Priestly prayer, either. Then there were all those little leftover Bible passages that no Protestant interpreter I ever heard knew what to do with – like “upon this rock I will build my Church.”
So, it was Scripture. Believe it or don’t. 
There is more to it, but that is what it boils down to. There are more Scriptures than that as well, but those are the ones that I could no longer ignore or explain away.
I have said many times how much I appreciate all the Protestant Bible teachers and preachers I have sat under. I have nothing but gratitude in my heart for those who shared Christ with me.
I just had to go home.
Sunday, January 3, 2016
More of my Testimony
We are kindred spirits:)
I always felt a nagging difficulty about the Westminster Assembly being a divine council.
I was a nondenominational Calvary chapelite when I was listening to Rich Mullins and those words ” it is the very truth of God and not the invention of any man” cut me to the core.
Lets reminisce together;)
https://youtu.be/9LR2hFP1yb4>>>>>
Well, this is restful for the Lord’s Day. :-)
Our assurance is grounded in Christ. There is salvation in no other. He gives Himself to us.
“...the Eucharist contains Jesus Christ in the fullness of his divinity and the completeness of his humanity.”
-Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
I am not sure, but I don’t ever remember as a Protestant being hungry for the body and blood of Christ. Sure, I liked taking communion as we did every Sunday. It was special, but not the same.
Mullins never quite made it into the Church, but he does show how a Protestant can appreciate Catholicism without being hostile to her. He sure seemed to be drawn. It’s funny. If we discuss theology, we get all whatever. However, if we sing together and listen to the same songs and same hymns, somehow that is a kind of expression of our underlying unity.
Protestants even sing Faith of Our Fathers with gusto. A Lutheran wrote the Mass in b minor - easily the greatest musical work ever written. What does that say to us?
I look back over my life and see signs I hadn’t noticed before. I had always wondered why, when I was a child I held a rosary in my hand and prayed, “Since you gave Yourself for me, I give myself to you.”
On a Christmas Day, it was. My family did not go to church at all. We certainly were not Catholic. My grandmother was Lutheran. Our family was made up more of skeptics and atheists - yes, real atheists. That’s another story for another day, but I wonder.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Fr. Matthew McGinness reports that by September 1997, Mullins had finally made up his mind: He was going to be received into the Catholic Church. With his busy tour schedule he had a hard time meeting up with his priest-friend. But on Thursday, September 18, Rich phoned Fr. McGinness. “This may sound strange, but I have to receive the body and blood of Christ.” The two planned to meet the following Sunday.
On Friday, September 19, on his return to Wichita, Rich Mullins and fellow Kid Brother Mitch McVicker were involved in a car accident. Their jeep flipped and both men were thrown from the vehicle. A trailing rig swerved to miss the jeep and hit Rich. He died at age forty-one.
The conversion would never be “official” but Rich was, at least, an asymptotic Catholic. He kept approaching the culmination of his journey but never quite made it to the end”at least not in this life.”
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/03/rich-mullins-asymptotic-catholic
I always felt a nagging difficulty about the Westminster Assembly being a divine council.
I was a nondenominational Calvary chapelite when I was listening to Rich Mullins and those words ” it is the very truth of God and not the invention of any man” cut me to the core.
Lets reminisce together;)
https://youtu.be/9LR2hFP1yb4>>>>>
Well, this is restful for the Lord’s Day. :-)
Our assurance is grounded in Christ. There is salvation in no other. He gives Himself to us.
“...the Eucharist contains Jesus Christ in the fullness of his divinity and the completeness of his humanity.”
-Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
I am not sure, but I don’t ever remember as a Protestant being hungry for the body and blood of Christ. Sure, I liked taking communion as we did every Sunday. It was special, but not the same.
Mullins never quite made it into the Church, but he does show how a Protestant can appreciate Catholicism without being hostile to her. He sure seemed to be drawn. It’s funny. If we discuss theology, we get all whatever. However, if we sing together and listen to the same songs and same hymns, somehow that is a kind of expression of our underlying unity.
Protestants even sing Faith of Our Fathers with gusto. A Lutheran wrote the Mass in b minor - easily the greatest musical work ever written. What does that say to us?
I look back over my life and see signs I hadn’t noticed before. I had always wondered why, when I was a child I held a rosary in my hand and prayed, “Since you gave Yourself for me, I give myself to you.”
On a Christmas Day, it was. My family did not go to church at all. We certainly were not Catholic. My grandmother was Lutheran. Our family was made up more of skeptics and atheists - yes, real atheists. That’s another story for another day, but I wonder.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Fr. Matthew McGinness reports that by September 1997, Mullins had finally made up his mind: He was going to be received into the Catholic Church. With his busy tour schedule he had a hard time meeting up with his priest-friend. But on Thursday, September 18, Rich phoned Fr. McGinness. “This may sound strange, but I have to receive the body and blood of Christ.” The two planned to meet the following Sunday.
On Friday, September 19, on his return to Wichita, Rich Mullins and fellow Kid Brother Mitch McVicker were involved in a car accident. Their jeep flipped and both men were thrown from the vehicle. A trailing rig swerved to miss the jeep and hit Rich. He died at age forty-one.
The conversion would never be “official” but Rich was, at least, an asymptotic Catholic. He kept approaching the culmination of his journey but never quite made it to the end”at least not in this life.”
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/03/rich-mullins-asymptotic-catholic
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Why Catholic?
When I started to read what are called the early Church fathers, I saw some patterns.
1. They all knew how to handle Scripture well. That showed me that they could be trusted to interpret God’s Word. This came especially clear to me in the homilies of St. John Chrysostom. They are surprisingly applicable to life today in the 21st Century. The same can be said of St. Augustine and others.
That gave me confidence that much of what I had learned in the church I grew up in and in all the Biblical studies I had done in my life was what Christians have always believed.
So, even if a person does not join the Catholic Church, it would be important I think to get to know some of these Church fathers through their writings which are still preserved for us.
1. They all knew how to handle Scripture well. That showed me that they could be trusted to interpret God’s Word. This came especially clear to me in the homilies of St. John Chrysostom. They are surprisingly applicable to life today in the 21st Century. The same can be said of St. Augustine and others.
That gave me confidence that much of what I had learned in the church I grew up in and in all the Biblical studies I had done in my life was what Christians have always believed.
So, even if a person does not join the Catholic Church, it would be important I think to get to know some of these Church fathers through their writings which are still preserved for us.
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
A Calvinist Discovers John Calvin
“I studied Calvin for years before the real significance of what I was learning began to sink in. But I finally realized that Calvin, with his passion for order and authority, was fundamentally at odds with the individualist spirit of my Evangelical tradition. Nothing brought this home to me with more clarity than his fight with the former Carmelite monk, Jerome Bolsec.
In 1551, Bolsec, a physician and convert to Protestantism, entered Geneva and attended a lecture on theology. The topic was Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, the teaching that God predetermines the eternal fate of every soul. Bolsec, who believed firmly in “Scripture alone” and “faith alone,” did not like what he heard. He thought it made God into a tyrant. When he stood up to challenge Calvin’s views, he was arrested and imprisoned.
What makes Bolsec’s case interesting is that it quickly evolved into a referendum on Church authority and the interpretation of Scripture. Bolsec, just like most Evangelicals today, argued that he was a Christian, that he had the Holy Spirit and that, therefore, he had as much right as Calvin to interpret the Bible. He promised to recant if Calvin would only prove his doctrine from the Scriptures. But Calvin would have none of it. He ridiculed Bolsec as a trouble maker (Bolsec generated a fair amount of public sympathy), rejected his appeal to Scripture, and called on the council to be harsh. He wrote privately to a friend that he wished Bolsec were “rotting in a ditch.”2
What most Evangelicals today don’t realize is that Calvin never endorsed private or lay interpretation of the Bible. While he rejected Rome’s claim to authority, he made striking claims for his own authority. He taught that the “Reformed” pastors were successors to the prophets and apostles, entrusted with the task of authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures. He insisted that laypeople should suspend judgment on difficult matters and “hold unity with the Church.”3″
--------------------------------------
I knew some of what the author of this article, David Anders wrote. I already knew that Calvin was not such a wonderful man in many ways. He had his good points, but he also had very high negatives. Sure, no one is going to be convinced, since Calvin’s apologists are always willing to defend his actions. I didn’t leave Protestantism because Calvin was not such a nice guy. Calvinists can always point to the fact that we are all sinners, but the grace of God is what we rely on. They are correct.
However, what should be hard for Calvinists to defend is the authoritarian nature of John Calvin’s actions. It should be easy to figure out why. One of the main arguments used against the papacy and papists, as Catholics are called, is that the Pope was authoritarian.
Calvin had no trouble with authoritarianism as long as it was his brand of it.
What I take away from this - and what I came to realize myself - is that there really was no reason to separate from the Catholic Church in the first place. If there was no reason to separate, then there is no reason to stay separated.
Everything good about the Evangelicalism I loved - and love - is found in Catholicism, only more so. I discovered the Communion of the Saints for one thing. That communion is very much alive and well.
Sure, there are many things that people can and do criticize about the Church. It would be good to take a close look at what she actually is and what she actually teaches.
The comments section below the article is very interesting as well.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Why Catholicism? - 4
I have always liked to study the Bible. I love God’s Word. It is all the things it says about itself - a lamp to guide my way, true spiritual food for my soul, the very Word of God, the wisdom of God, and so forth.
I have also enjoyed the study of theology, hence the interest in the Westminster Confession of Faith. As I said in another place, the WCF makes for good study. Much of what it teaches is what the Church has always taught. I do not have an advanced degree in theology, but I do have a BTH. The focus of the school where I studied was Biblical theology, so most of our time was spent learning to read and explain the text of Scripture. During my course of study, I, in effect, wrote a commentary on the whole Bible. Each one of us did.
Our profs. then would bring in other great Bible teachers and theologians to expand our understanding of the text. We were introduced to many great Protestant theologians and teachers that way, as well as selected passages and quotes from the Church Fathers.
During my course I also had 3 years of Greek study. So, even though I did not study in seminary, I do have a fairly strong background in Biblical studies. In fact, so much of what I have read in the WCF is very much like what I was taught where I studied, though it was not a Reformed school.
So, why didn’t I stick with my WCF study and continue to blog about it? Well, I began to read more from the early Church fathers. So, to make a long story a bit shorter, I will say that after awhile I realized that the Catholic Church still taught what the early Church Fathers taught.
Yes, there are liberal influences in parts of the Church, but the foundation is still there. There are some extremes as well. I will not deny that. However, the basic dogmas of our faith - and now I say “our” instead of “their” - can be traced back to the Apostles and the ones who were trained by them as per 1 Timothy 2.
In a way, I fell in love with the saints of God who so carefully defined and defended orthodoxy. St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Anselm, St. Athanasius, and I finally came to St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas was the one who convinced me that I needed to come back Home to the Church.
In fact, I came to understand that the split should never have happened in the first place. Sure, it would be easy to blame the pope at the time of the Reformation and the state of the Church then. It was a mess. It would be easy to blame the Reformers for being so impatient and such hot heads - and they were. It is more likely that both and all share in the blame.
That happened a long time ago now. What was God calling me to in the year 2014 and into 2015 and beyond? His call to come Home was clear, and I ran as fast as I could to get here. Or should I say swam as fast as I could, crossing the Tiber as they say.
See, as far as the Church goes, I was already a part of her, but not in full communion. My baptism was in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The Church accepted my baptism as true Christian baptism. I had been part of the separated brethren. Now I am in full communion and loving it.
There is more to the story, of course, and maybe I will share more. So, I have nothing but love and gratitude for those who shared Christ with me along the way - as I wrote before. I must follow God’s call, and I did so with a heart full of joy!
What does everyone else need to do? I can’t answer that for you.
I have also enjoyed the study of theology, hence the interest in the Westminster Confession of Faith. As I said in another place, the WCF makes for good study. Much of what it teaches is what the Church has always taught. I do not have an advanced degree in theology, but I do have a BTH. The focus of the school where I studied was Biblical theology, so most of our time was spent learning to read and explain the text of Scripture. During my course of study, I, in effect, wrote a commentary on the whole Bible. Each one of us did.
Our profs. then would bring in other great Bible teachers and theologians to expand our understanding of the text. We were introduced to many great Protestant theologians and teachers that way, as well as selected passages and quotes from the Church Fathers.
During my course I also had 3 years of Greek study. So, even though I did not study in seminary, I do have a fairly strong background in Biblical studies. In fact, so much of what I have read in the WCF is very much like what I was taught where I studied, though it was not a Reformed school.
So, why didn’t I stick with my WCF study and continue to blog about it? Well, I began to read more from the early Church fathers. So, to make a long story a bit shorter, I will say that after awhile I realized that the Catholic Church still taught what the early Church Fathers taught.
Yes, there are liberal influences in parts of the Church, but the foundation is still there. There are some extremes as well. I will not deny that. However, the basic dogmas of our faith - and now I say “our” instead of “their” - can be traced back to the Apostles and the ones who were trained by them as per 1 Timothy 2.
In a way, I fell in love with the saints of God who so carefully defined and defended orthodoxy. St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Anselm, St. Athanasius, and I finally came to St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas was the one who convinced me that I needed to come back Home to the Church.
In fact, I came to understand that the split should never have happened in the first place. Sure, it would be easy to blame the pope at the time of the Reformation and the state of the Church then. It was a mess. It would be easy to blame the Reformers for being so impatient and such hot heads - and they were. It is more likely that both and all share in the blame.
That happened a long time ago now. What was God calling me to in the year 2014 and into 2015 and beyond? His call to come Home was clear, and I ran as fast as I could to get here. Or should I say swam as fast as I could, crossing the Tiber as they say.
See, as far as the Church goes, I was already a part of her, but not in full communion. My baptism was in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The Church accepted my baptism as true Christian baptism. I had been part of the separated brethren. Now I am in full communion and loving it.
There is more to the story, of course, and maybe I will share more. So, I have nothing but love and gratitude for those who shared Christ with me along the way - as I wrote before. I must follow God’s call, and I did so with a heart full of joy!
What does everyone else need to do? I can’t answer that for you.
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Why Catholicism - 3
II. Looking for the feminine
A. How is femininity viewed within Protestantism?
1. Egalitarian option
The Egalitarian position within Protestantism offers women the idea that men and women are equal. In general, no gender specific roles are acknowledged. All activity should be based on an individual's abilities and really nothing more.
That is all fine and dandy to a certain point, but for me, it did not answer my most basic questions about why I am female and not male. The most glaring example of egalitarian inability to give satisfying answers to the most basic questions about sexuality has to do with breast feeding.
In conversation with egalitarians at one point I tried to get them to at least admit that women because they were women were more suited to breast feeding. Men could not breast feed a baby. Some were not so sure that breast feeding could be limited to women only.
As far as I'm concerned, the egalitarian position fails at the most basic level of explaining why men are men and women are women. Their tendency to reduce all sexual differences to a matter of plumbing was not at all satisfying.
Even Christian egalitarians tend to fall into the same kinds of errors as their secular counterparts. The most obvious error being a denial of human nature. Men and women are not interchangeable, and the breast feeding example is one of the most obvious reasons as to why men cannot be substituted for women nor women for men.
There are many other natural examples of this dilemma for egalitarian feminists. Yes, in many ways men and women can both do the same kinds of things. For example, a woman can pound nails and a man can wash dishes. There may be slight differences, but both can get the job done.
However, when it comes to really important activities like bearing children and breast feeding, there really is no comparison. A man cannot naturally do either of those. It takes a woman.
Besides, in egalitarianism itself, there is no good explanation of why men are attracted to certain activities and women to other kinds. The whole cultural relativism line of argumentation breaks down under closer examination. Men like to do guy things and women like to do girl things. It's our nature and it is getting harder and harder to deny that. In spite of truly bizarre, egalitarian social experimentation, men are still men and women are still women. Just ask any mom who has raised children of both genders. There are huge differences, and those differences start to manifest themselves at birth.
Egalitarians still cannot explain why the Disney Princesses are so popular, nor why little boys love Thomas the Tank Engine.
Also, just because a woman can do many things that men can do, and vice versa, doesn't mean that the best use of a woman's time and energy is the same as a man's. So, for me, egalitarianism did not answer any of my important concerns about sexuality and gender identity.
2. Complementarian option
So, for me as a Protestant, the main other options was complementarianism. That is, men and women complement one another. Both men and women have God-ordained, gender-specific roles within the church and the home. In those areas, men lead and women follow. I like that arrangement, and no, I am definitely not a doormat.
However, I did not find a coherent philosophy and theology of motherhood as I examined the complementation position. There were very few articles written about motherhood, and many of them made motherhood itself out to be kind of a curse, a punishment that women must learn to deal with.
I wrote about that here when I did a kind of analysis of John Piper's sermons on motherhood. You can read that here if you like. He especially messes up the concept of "saved through child bearing" as do most males who try to preach on the subject. They have no clue about how a mother feels about being a mother. No clue at all. Don't they know any mothers that they could ask about what motherhood means to them?
I tell ya'...
3. Christian Patriarchy
I then spent quite a bit of time studying the Christian Patriarchy Movement. I have to say that I like a lot of what is written from that point of view. The women representing that movement are some of the strongest, most noble, and best Christian women I know. They are amazing women.
Even so, it was not for me. I couldn't really find theological flaws in it at the time. Egalitarians hate the "partrios" and spend a lot of time bashing them, but that was not the same as really refuting the theological or practical positions of the Patriarchalists.
However, there was something not quite right about it. Again, it was the lack of any coherent philosophy and theology of womanhood, motherhood, and matriarchy that finally helped me see the problems. It was all about males.
4. So, in Protestantism, my options boiled down to 1.) egalitarian feminism, which is all about women struggling to free themselves from male oppression. 2.) complementarianism, which is all about resisting the feminists' onslaught 3.) Christian patriarchy, which is all about establishing male rule in society, the home, and the church.
I never felt entirely comfortable with any of the 3. I most closely identified with #2, Complementarianism, and called myself a complementarian for a long time.
The idea of being Catholic didn't even cross my mind until much, much later. Sure, it was okay for Catholics to be Catholic, I guess. We are free. However, it was not something I was interested in.
A. How is femininity viewed within Protestantism?
1. Egalitarian option
The Egalitarian position within Protestantism offers women the idea that men and women are equal. In general, no gender specific roles are acknowledged. All activity should be based on an individual's abilities and really nothing more.
That is all fine and dandy to a certain point, but for me, it did not answer my most basic questions about why I am female and not male. The most glaring example of egalitarian inability to give satisfying answers to the most basic questions about sexuality has to do with breast feeding.
In conversation with egalitarians at one point I tried to get them to at least admit that women because they were women were more suited to breast feeding. Men could not breast feed a baby. Some were not so sure that breast feeding could be limited to women only.
As far as I'm concerned, the egalitarian position fails at the most basic level of explaining why men are men and women are women. Their tendency to reduce all sexual differences to a matter of plumbing was not at all satisfying.
Even Christian egalitarians tend to fall into the same kinds of errors as their secular counterparts. The most obvious error being a denial of human nature. Men and women are not interchangeable, and the breast feeding example is one of the most obvious reasons as to why men cannot be substituted for women nor women for men.
There are many other natural examples of this dilemma for egalitarian feminists. Yes, in many ways men and women can both do the same kinds of things. For example, a woman can pound nails and a man can wash dishes. There may be slight differences, but both can get the job done.
However, when it comes to really important activities like bearing children and breast feeding, there really is no comparison. A man cannot naturally do either of those. It takes a woman.
Besides, in egalitarianism itself, there is no good explanation of why men are attracted to certain activities and women to other kinds. The whole cultural relativism line of argumentation breaks down under closer examination. Men like to do guy things and women like to do girl things. It's our nature and it is getting harder and harder to deny that. In spite of truly bizarre, egalitarian social experimentation, men are still men and women are still women. Just ask any mom who has raised children of both genders. There are huge differences, and those differences start to manifest themselves at birth.
Egalitarians still cannot explain why the Disney Princesses are so popular, nor why little boys love Thomas the Tank Engine.
Also, just because a woman can do many things that men can do, and vice versa, doesn't mean that the best use of a woman's time and energy is the same as a man's. So, for me, egalitarianism did not answer any of my important concerns about sexuality and gender identity.
2. Complementarian option
So, for me as a Protestant, the main other options was complementarianism. That is, men and women complement one another. Both men and women have God-ordained, gender-specific roles within the church and the home. In those areas, men lead and women follow. I like that arrangement, and no, I am definitely not a doormat.
However, I did not find a coherent philosophy and theology of motherhood as I examined the complementation position. There were very few articles written about motherhood, and many of them made motherhood itself out to be kind of a curse, a punishment that women must learn to deal with.
I wrote about that here when I did a kind of analysis of John Piper's sermons on motherhood. You can read that here if you like. He especially messes up the concept of "saved through child bearing" as do most males who try to preach on the subject. They have no clue about how a mother feels about being a mother. No clue at all. Don't they know any mothers that they could ask about what motherhood means to them?
I tell ya'...
3. Christian Patriarchy
I then spent quite a bit of time studying the Christian Patriarchy Movement. I have to say that I like a lot of what is written from that point of view. The women representing that movement are some of the strongest, most noble, and best Christian women I know. They are amazing women.
Even so, it was not for me. I couldn't really find theological flaws in it at the time. Egalitarians hate the "partrios" and spend a lot of time bashing them, but that was not the same as really refuting the theological or practical positions of the Patriarchalists.
However, there was something not quite right about it. Again, it was the lack of any coherent philosophy and theology of womanhood, motherhood, and matriarchy that finally helped me see the problems. It was all about males.
4. So, in Protestantism, my options boiled down to 1.) egalitarian feminism, which is all about women struggling to free themselves from male oppression. 2.) complementarianism, which is all about resisting the feminists' onslaught 3.) Christian patriarchy, which is all about establishing male rule in society, the home, and the church.
I never felt entirely comfortable with any of the 3. I most closely identified with #2, Complementarianism, and called myself a complementarian for a long time.
The idea of being Catholic didn't even cross my mind until much, much later. Sure, it was okay for Catholics to be Catholic, I guess. We are free. However, it was not something I was interested in.
Thursday, April 9, 2015
Why Catholic? - 2
So, it was the realization that I had no mother that awakened in me a desire to know more about the Catholic Church.
You see, in Protestantism the church is generally thought of as an "it." We talk about the church in the neuter gender almost all the time. If we talk about the Bride of Christ, we may use feminine pronouns, but in general conversation, we talk about the church as a thing, an it. However, in the Bible, the Church is described with feminine imagery.
Think of the New Birth in Christ. In that birth we see the work of the Church in preaching the Gospel, baptizing and teaching believers. It is through this work of the Church that new birth comes by the power of the Holy Spirit working in and through her. Again, how can we miss the feminine imagery here?
Thus Church is our Mother. No, she is not the author of our salvation. Christ is, but we are born into the Church, Christ's body.
She is also called His bride. (See 2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:24;25-27; Revelation 19:7-9; 21:1-2). The feminine imagery here is hard to miss, yet most Protestants don't give this strong imagery a second thought, and continue to call Christ's Bride an "it."
Also, the Church has strong feminine images, especially that of Mary. She is indeed our mother, as Jesus spoke from the cross to John. I won't go farther than that, since there are many resources out there which explain this much better than I ever could. Marian theology is new to me, but the veneration of Mary as Christ's mother and ours is a very ancient tradition. The early Church held her in high honor.
In Protestantism, Mary is practically ignored or even demonized. Well, we don't think we are demonizing her, but we really do not know what to do with Mary. I wrote about that in several posts here. In these posts I was kind of thinking out loud, trying to work out in my mind what I was beginning to see as far as the Catholic Church goes. There are a number of incomplete ideas or even mistaken concepts, so please check out what the Church officially teaches about the Church as our Mother.
For now, I will refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
You see, in Protestantism the church is generally thought of as an "it." We talk about the church in the neuter gender almost all the time. If we talk about the Bride of Christ, we may use feminine pronouns, but in general conversation, we talk about the church as a thing, an it. However, in the Bible, the Church is described with feminine imagery.
Think of the New Birth in Christ. In that birth we see the work of the Church in preaching the Gospel, baptizing and teaching believers. It is through this work of the Church that new birth comes by the power of the Holy Spirit working in and through her. Again, how can we miss the feminine imagery here?
Thus Church is our Mother. No, she is not the author of our salvation. Christ is, but we are born into the Church, Christ's body.
She is also called His bride. (See 2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:24;25-27; Revelation 19:7-9; 21:1-2). The feminine imagery here is hard to miss, yet most Protestants don't give this strong imagery a second thought, and continue to call Christ's Bride an "it."
Also, the Church has strong feminine images, especially that of Mary. She is indeed our mother, as Jesus spoke from the cross to John. I won't go farther than that, since there are many resources out there which explain this much better than I ever could. Marian theology is new to me, but the veneration of Mary as Christ's mother and ours is a very ancient tradition. The early Church held her in high honor.
In Protestantism, Mary is practically ignored or even demonized. Well, we don't think we are demonizing her, but we really do not know what to do with Mary. I wrote about that in several posts here. In these posts I was kind of thinking out loud, trying to work out in my mind what I was beginning to see as far as the Catholic Church goes. There are a number of incomplete ideas or even mistaken concepts, so please check out what the Church officially teaches about the Church as our Mother.
For now, I will refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
I. "LORD, LOOK UPON THE FAITH OF YOUR CHURCH"
168 It is the Church that believes first, and so bears, nourishes and sustains my faith. Everywhere, it is the Church that first confesses the Lord: "Throughout the world the holy Church acclaims you", as we sing in the hymn "Te Deum"; with her and in her, we are won over and brought to confess: "I believe", "We believe". It is through the Church that we receive faith and new life in Christ by Baptism. In the Rituale Romanum, the minister of Baptism asks the catechumen: "What do you ask of God's Church?" And the answer is: "Faith." "What does faith offer you?" "Eternal life."54
169 Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: "We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation."55 Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Some Explanation about My Conversion - #1 of why I am now a Catholic.
I. Introduction
A. First let me say that there are many Reformed teachers that I admire greatly. They have led the way in things like the exposition of Scripture and preaching. I also admire many Evangelicals who do not self-identify as Protestants or Reformed but who follow in the tradition of great expository preaching and evangelism.
B. Many Pentecostals and Charismatics have also influenced my life and faith. In fact, the first person who showed a love for my soul was a Pentecostal black woman from Canada. She was my kindergarten teacher and was loved and admired by many in our community, giving her love and service to generations of children in our town.
C. As well, I have had the privilege of ministering with some of the finest Christians I have ever known from many different Christian backgrounds. So, I have nothing but gratitude in my heart for those who have loved me and taught me the Gospel through the years. I have been a Christian since the age of 7 or 8, and that was quite a long time ago now.
II. Reason #1 - Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child
A. I will, D.V., write several posts explaining why I joined the Catholic church. These reasons are in no particular order of importance. They are kind of in chronological order I suppose. By that I mean that this reason #1 is maybe the first thing that began to open my eyes to where God was leading me.
B. The beginning was also the end.
1. That is, my mother passed away last May, just a few days after what would have been my parents' 65th anniversary. We lost Dad a few years ago, and now Mom is gone.
2. In many ways, Mom's death was a relief. She had been suffering one major health crisis after another for several months, years really. She lived in constant pain because of her arthritis for one thing, but also had congestive heart failure and circulation problems. She was disappearing in front of us, really.
My daughter and I would say that one day we would go to visit her, and she would have just vanished. No one would be able to find her, she was so tiny. Even so, her spirit was strong as an ox, and her little will as well. She was determined to get better, to recover from her latest ailment. She just ran out of time.
Mom had never been baptized, but my husband was able to give her Christian baptism just a few days before she passed away. She was so happy, like a little child. I had not seen her that delighted in years. She was not an unhappy person, but the pain really was a strain on her.
After she was baptized, she started kind of giggling in delight. No, not an old person's cackle, even though she was 89 years old. It was more like a child's delighted laughter. She couldn't wait to tell people what God had done for her.
We knew, thought, that her time was almost gone as far as this world goes. She was on her way Home.
3. So, I wasn't really in mourning like people might think. Even so, I realized that I was now an orphan. Both of my parents were gone from this earth. Maybe later I'll talk about my mother's alcoholism and how that affected our family when I was growing up. Even though my parents spent over 30 years sober, the effects of those formative years were still felt in many ways.
After Mom's death, the feeling of being a motherless child became overwhelming. Who was my mother now? Who had my mother been in life? Who had mothered me? Those questions and more had to have answers. Who is my mother?
About that time I read an article by a Protestant woman who talked about motherhood, but didn't get to the heart of the matter. Who is my mother, and what is motherhood all about? Yes, that sounds odd. A Catholic woman wrote a beautiful article about the other article. No, it was not a protest or a rebuttal exactly, but it was a kind of answer to my question about who my mother is.
She spoke about the Church and Mary. That was when it hit me that we Protestants did not talk about our churches as mothers. We didn't talk about Mary at all, really. It's like we were afraid of her, afraid of motherhood and femininity, even. Why couldn't we call our churches our mothers?
Yes, there are some Protestants who do use gendered language in reference to church, but it's still not common or understood.
The song Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child* went through my head and became kind of my theme song for several months. Mahalia Jackson's version is, in my opinion, the clearest interpretation of the meaning of that song. Listen to the lament, the grief, the pain in the lyrics. That is how I felt.
I didn't have a mother.
So, this realization about my motherless state was the first step in my conversion.
--------------------------------
* My focus was on the Motherless Child part of this medley. Summertime is a response to the child who feels motherless. She has a mother and a father watching over her, so all is well.
Think of this in spiritual terms. We have a Heavenly Father as children of God, but who is our Mother? Children need their mother.
A. First let me say that there are many Reformed teachers that I admire greatly. They have led the way in things like the exposition of Scripture and preaching. I also admire many Evangelicals who do not self-identify as Protestants or Reformed but who follow in the tradition of great expository preaching and evangelism.
B. Many Pentecostals and Charismatics have also influenced my life and faith. In fact, the first person who showed a love for my soul was a Pentecostal black woman from Canada. She was my kindergarten teacher and was loved and admired by many in our community, giving her love and service to generations of children in our town.
C. As well, I have had the privilege of ministering with some of the finest Christians I have ever known from many different Christian backgrounds. So, I have nothing but gratitude in my heart for those who have loved me and taught me the Gospel through the years. I have been a Christian since the age of 7 or 8, and that was quite a long time ago now.
II. Reason #1 - Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child
A. I will, D.V., write several posts explaining why I joined the Catholic church. These reasons are in no particular order of importance. They are kind of in chronological order I suppose. By that I mean that this reason #1 is maybe the first thing that began to open my eyes to where God was leading me.
B. The beginning was also the end.
1. That is, my mother passed away last May, just a few days after what would have been my parents' 65th anniversary. We lost Dad a few years ago, and now Mom is gone.
2. In many ways, Mom's death was a relief. She had been suffering one major health crisis after another for several months, years really. She lived in constant pain because of her arthritis for one thing, but also had congestive heart failure and circulation problems. She was disappearing in front of us, really.
My daughter and I would say that one day we would go to visit her, and she would have just vanished. No one would be able to find her, she was so tiny. Even so, her spirit was strong as an ox, and her little will as well. She was determined to get better, to recover from her latest ailment. She just ran out of time.
Mom had never been baptized, but my husband was able to give her Christian baptism just a few days before she passed away. She was so happy, like a little child. I had not seen her that delighted in years. She was not an unhappy person, but the pain really was a strain on her.
After she was baptized, she started kind of giggling in delight. No, not an old person's cackle, even though she was 89 years old. It was more like a child's delighted laughter. She couldn't wait to tell people what God had done for her.
We knew, thought, that her time was almost gone as far as this world goes. She was on her way Home.
3. So, I wasn't really in mourning like people might think. Even so, I realized that I was now an orphan. Both of my parents were gone from this earth. Maybe later I'll talk about my mother's alcoholism and how that affected our family when I was growing up. Even though my parents spent over 30 years sober, the effects of those formative years were still felt in many ways.
After Mom's death, the feeling of being a motherless child became overwhelming. Who was my mother now? Who had my mother been in life? Who had mothered me? Those questions and more had to have answers. Who is my mother?
About that time I read an article by a Protestant woman who talked about motherhood, but didn't get to the heart of the matter. Who is my mother, and what is motherhood all about? Yes, that sounds odd. A Catholic woman wrote a beautiful article about the other article. No, it was not a protest or a rebuttal exactly, but it was a kind of answer to my question about who my mother is.
She spoke about the Church and Mary. That was when it hit me that we Protestants did not talk about our churches as mothers. We didn't talk about Mary at all, really. It's like we were afraid of her, afraid of motherhood and femininity, even. Why couldn't we call our churches our mothers?
Yes, there are some Protestants who do use gendered language in reference to church, but it's still not common or understood.
The song Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child* went through my head and became kind of my theme song for several months. Mahalia Jackson's version is, in my opinion, the clearest interpretation of the meaning of that song. Listen to the lament, the grief, the pain in the lyrics. That is how I felt.
So, this realization about my motherless state was the first step in my conversion.
--------------------------------
* My focus was on the Motherless Child part of this medley. Summertime is a response to the child who feels motherless. She has a mother and a father watching over her, so all is well.
Think of this in spiritual terms. We have a Heavenly Father as children of God, but who is our Mother? Children need their mother.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)