Cults

In a recent conversation, I was explaining how I started down this conversion process. There were three early seeds.

The first was a visit I made to Mepkin Abbey over a year ago. While sitting in the little chapel, I observed a stream of people entering in. It was very easy to distinguish between the Protestants and the Catholics. The latter seemed much more reverent, by their posture, actions, and demeanor.

Secondly, a comment that my dad made really stuck with me. He stated: "The posture of fundamentalism is this: [a pointed finger], whereas the Anglo-Catholic is this: [open arms]". This is generally true. The difference is not a shallow one. The various postures are physical manifestations of very core differences in the two world views.

Finally, there were two events which, like a one-two punch sent me reeling towards the Church. The first was a visit from some Jehovah's witnesses. They sat down with me for a good, lengthy discussion. Of course, I thought I won the debate, and I went on my way without thinking too much of it. A couple of months later, I ran into a guy in my apartment complex who had moved into town to start a Bible study. I thought that was a strange reason to move into a town and was immediately intrigued. Besides, I was looking to get into a local fellowship group. Well, it turned out the study was the outcropping of a cult group... And that's when something clicked in my mind. Both the Jehovah's witnesses and this cult claimed to be Bible-believing Christian organizations. Both claimed to have the Holy Spirit. The cult even spoke in tongues!

Who was I to say that their interpretation of the Scriptures was incorrect? What I told myself was this: "Well, their interpretation is pretty distant from that of the majority of Christendom... Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans..." But then I realized I wasn't appealing to Scripture itself, as that hadn't proved sufficient in our debates. I was appealing to the Body of Christ, and the traditional beliefs held by it. But if this was my appeal, then I was in a very sticky situation, for the same argument could be made by Catholics against my Protestant point of view...

And that was pretty much that.

Faith alone?

Sungenis in his book, Not by Faith Alone states on page 309

"...while the Protestant system may seem easy and plausible, it often misses the simple language of Scripture. Rather than taking each verse as it stands and allowing the differing 'face-value' facts of Scripture to create as many theological categories as necessary to explain its compete message, the Protestant hermeneutic invariable elevates 'faith alone', and its counterpart 'imputed righteousness', as all-encompassing theological categories into which the rest of the Scripture's language must fit. If the 'face value' information that a passage provides does not conform to the faith alone theory the Protestant hermeneutic nevertheless imposes it on the text. The theological category of faith alone becomes the overriding criterion...of biblical hermeneutics --by which to judge or interpret any other Scripture."

Through the past few months I have seen the above statement to be true. Roman Catholicism seems more balanced in taking all of Scripture into account. Some examples---

The only time faith alone is used in the Bible is in James 2: 24 "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone" . James tells us what saving faith is. What kind of faith will save a person? James 2:14 "What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him? " 17 Even so faith , if it has no works, is dead, being by itself."
James, therefore makes it clear that a faith that saves has to have works. It is a living faith, an active faith, a working faith that is a true faith. It all comes from grace---it is a full faith.

What did Jesus tell the disciples to do?

Matt 20:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.... " Here we see the need of baptism and of obedience (observing the commands of Jesus) to be a disciple.

Luke 24:47 "and that repentance for forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name...

When Peter preached in Acts 2 the response to his message was, "Brethren what shall we do?"

Peter did not say have faith alone. He said in 2:38 "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off , as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself." Here we see both repentance and baptism as commanded.

What did Peter say after preaching in Acts 3?

19. "Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord......26 "For you first, God raised up His Servant, and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways." Here again we see the need of true repentance--turning from ones wicked ways.

Acts 5: 31 "He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him". Here again we see repentance and obedience.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike." Belief and Baptism are the response. The same thing happens when Philip preaches to the Ethiopian--he is baptized.

Acts 10: 43 Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name every one who believes in Him has received forgiveness of sins" Here we see the necessity of believing in Him (this would includes Lord and Savior--in who he is verse 43 -Judge of the living and the dead ).

Acts 11:18 "Repentance that leads to life"

Acts 15:11 ..saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus.."

Acts 18: 8 ...believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized. 27 ...who had believed through grace.

Acts 20:21 preached "...repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ".

Acts 22:16 "...Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name."

Acts 26: 18 to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God in order that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me."
20:...that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance."

So again and again we see the need for a repentance (which is a turning away from sin to God which results in deeds), faith, baptism. These are all just mainly in Acts. Here is one in 1 Peter 3: 21 And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you---not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Here is how the Council of Trent defines the causes of justification (from a quote I found on line about it):

Perhaps the most important passage in the decree is the seventh chapter listing the “five causes of justification.” They are as follows:

"1.the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting
2.the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance
3.the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father
4.the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified
5.lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper disposition and co-operation.

Note that the meritorious cause is the suffering and death of Christ. Human being are not the source of the justifying merit. Note also that the sacraments are “instrumental”. The sacraments are the “instruments” in the hand of Christ.

The formal cause is the “justice of God” not our own justice. Nevertheless, we receive His “justice within us, each one according to his own measure.” "

Scripture is Tradition

Another clip from an email with my sister:

"The Bible calls the Church (not Scripture) the "pillar and ground of the truth". (http://bible.cc/1_timothy/3-15.htm) This is one of a handful of passages which seems to portray the Church as an institution which would faithfully carry the truth down through the ages unchanged in the face of outside pressure. Historically, it is interesting to see how this has played out.

But you can even look at the current state of things and see it: in a time when so many mainline denominations are caving on so many issues, we find that Catholicism has held firm. No female priests, homosexuality is a sin, abortion is murder, life is sacred (so contraception is out), etc. These are incredibly unpopular beliefs, and the Catholic church is the only non-modern church which hasn't budged on any of these. Sure, the PCA holds these truths, too, but they are 40 years old and came about as a protest against heretical changes in mainline Presbyterianism.

In Protestantism, this is a pattern: a mainline denomination strays into theological error, and a small sect breaks away, preserving the original purity of the doctrines held by the original denomination. Later, this sect grows and eventually strays, and another sect breaks away from it for the same reasons. Etc, etc.

What is interesting about Catholicism is that the opposite pattern holds there. Heresies form, but rather than the "true church" breaking away and forming a new, smaller, fledgling denomination which maintains true doctrine, it is the heretical sect which breaks away and languishes as schismatics while the Church herself continues in doctrinal soundness.

Regarding the Church fathers, both sides pick and choose what they believe, but Protestants have to be far more selective than Catholics, for none of the fathers much resemble modern day Protestants. They resemble early Catholics, which is what they were. For example, Augustine is one of the Protestant favorites, and yet I think he documented a lineage of popes right back to St. Peter, and he seems to have viewed them as authoritative in some sense.

When you consider that the earliest proper canon of Scripture wasn't official until roughly 360 or so, it becomes clear that Scripture is tradition (or more properly, Scripture is a subset of tradition). The Church was without an official canon for longer than America has been a nation. It was the Church fathers, or more specifically, the Holy Spirit working through the Church, who faithfully handed down this tradition. By 360, the Church Fathers were starting to look much more like Catholics than anything else. What we Protestants do is accept the Scriptures which they handed to us (except the deuterocanonical books), reject the Scriptures which they rejected, and also reject the men themselves, by and large. I think it is this last bit where we've gone wrong."

The Pillar and Ground

This is from a recent email to my sister, but I thought it would make a good post for later rumination:

"I think I do get the whole common grace concept. The entire doctrine [of man's depravity, total vs utter] does have plenty of choice verses on either side, which is something which seems to be true of just about any doctrine. It has become very clear to me that we approach the Scripture through a prism, and proceed to get out of it what we set forth to get.

This realization (that the Bible can be taken to say a great many different things) has impressed me of late. There are 30,000+ denominations in the world, all claiming to be Bible-based and Spirit-led. Many of these denominations take diametrically opposed views of various doctrines. Something's wrong with this picture. I believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God, but when put into the hands of fallible men, it seems to be taken a million different ways. How do we rightly interpret and read it?

Surely, it is through prayer and careful study. But I think it would be unwise to neglect the "pillar and ground of the truth". At which point, you've got to select one of 30,000+ pillars and say: "OK, I guess I'll lean on that one!" But what makes you sure that your pillar is "THE pillar and ground of the truth", as opposed to one of the other 29,999 pillars? (For example, it seems exceedingly unlikely that a pillar which formed roughly 40 years ago, such as the PCA is "the pillar" Christ spoke of.) You could take the pillar to mean the mystical body of the church, composed of all true believers across all denominations and all time. And I think you'd be much closer to the mark. I think "the pillar" must encompass this. But I think it must also be true to the traditions handed down from the Apostles, as suggested by St. Paul in Thessalonians when he asked that we be faithful to the traditions he handed down to us, both written and verbal.

It seems to me that to fail to turn to the pillar that Christ set up as a safeguard of the truth is to turn to a theology of individual subjectivity."

...

Now I wonder, can I philosophically get away with saying: "One man's reason and subjective thoughts are insufficient to properly interpret scripture, but are sufficient to distinguish the proper interpreter of scripture (e.g. the Catholic Church)?" Hmm... Don't know. But it's late and time for bed.

What this blog is about.

I've been discussing Catholicism for several months, now (I'm currently Protestant), and decided it was about time for me to have a place to stick all of my thoughts. The general idea is that I will be able to see a progression of thought over time. I also tend to think more systematically and clearly when I write than when I simply stare at my navel or debate with a friend. So, the purpose of this blog is entirely personal, but if someone stumbles upon this and gets something out of it, all the better!