Scrupulosity

When I left the Catholic Church many years ago, one of the reasons I left was because of what Catholics refer to as “scrupulosity.” I had never heard of the term before a couple of years ago, but I recognized myself as soon as I heard what it is. I also know of others who left the Church because of it.

What Catholics know as “scrupulosity”, was what as a Protestant I had come to know as “legalism.” It is a corruption of freedom. The scrupulous person is anxious that he has committed a sin when in fact he has not or is convinced that his venial sins are mortal when they are not. This leads to a person thinking of Catholicism as a big-guilt trip—the feeling that in order to go to heaven, you would have to go to confession several times a day, like God is a ogre in the sky waiting for you to sin so he can kill you before you have a chance to repent.

I found a very good article on scrupulosity that you should read. Catholics, read it so you don’t fall into this trap, or so you can get out of it. Non-Catholics, read it so you can better understand the Catholic position.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0611fea5.asp

Here is one of the best statements in the article: “Perhaps the best antidote to scrupulosity is the awareness that God’s grace is not easily dislodged by our sinful actions, much less by our smaller imperfections. If we think we can easily lose so great a gift, we are guilty of undue pride, which often masks itself as humility: ‘I am a horrible sinner and incapable of God’s love.’ That is a false humility by which we make ourselves more powerful than we really are and minimize the sovereign power of God and his gift of grace.”

Baptists aren’t Protestants? What are they then?

A recent poster wrote to me that he is not a Protestant, but a Baptist. This is puzzling as it is not only incorrect, but it underpins one of Baptists’ many unbiblical beliefs: that they are the original church that Jesus instituted. Over time it became corrupt and when the term “Baptists” came to be used in the 1500s, it was a return to early, 1st century Christianity.

Baptists often use a work by J. M. Carroll, “The Trail of Blood,” published in 1931. Carroll gives his view of church history in order to justify a sort of Baptist succession where none exists. It is a seriously flawed rendering of church history, because of Carroll’s willingness to embrace heretics of virtually any stripe and claim them for the Baptist lineage, as long as they weren’t traditional Catholics.

Some of these include the Donatists and Novatians. I am quoting this from http://www.shasta.com/sphaws/trail.html. I quote it here as most of the links on the original page are broken.

The problem with the Donatists & Novatians is that they were perhaps TOO CATHOLIC! They definitely weren’t Baptists in theology or outlook.

Novatians and Donatists apparently arose as a result of the Roman persecutions and the issue of how to deal with apostates.

The Novatians apparently were fully Catholic in everything EXCEPT one thing: Novatians would not allow apostates back into the Church at all! The Catholics would readmit upon severe penance. Furthermore, Novatian himself apparently tried to set himself up as Pope…hardly what a Baptist minister would do.

Donatists apparently arose from the belief that the validity of the Sacraments depended on the personal worthiness of the priest. Donatists apparently were Catholic in everything except one thing: Donatists denied the validity of the Catholic clergy, apparently because some might have been ordained by former apostates. Donatists demanded a ‘pure’ clergy for the Sacraments to be valid. Consequently, Donatists rebaptised Catholic converts who entered Donatist Churches, but it apparently had nothing to do with “believer’s baptism.”

The actual 1^st century church, when looked at honestly and open-mindedly, reveals a primitive, yet decidedly Catholic Church. This is not just coming from someone who is Catholic and trying to justify myself. I have a nearly 30-year background as a Baptist myself, active in my local Baptist church(es), serving as a Librarian, Sunday School teacher, and as Deacon. When I gave an honest look at Church history, I was so overwhelmingly shocked at what I found that it led me to the Catholic Church. I also feel not a little betrayed at how dishonest the Baptist view of Church history is, along with its deliberate deceitful portrayal of Catholicism.

Take a look at Clement of Rome. Clement was ordained by Peter himself. He was young enough to have known many of the Apostles. He later became the third or fourth pope depending on which critic you listen to. As a pope mentioned so early in history, the earlier popes must have been alive, and leading the Church during the lifetime of the Apostle John, and possibly Paul, who died sometime after Peter. John’s writings are some of the latest of the New Testament, yet he never speaks out against the “growing menace of the papacy.”

Instead we have Clement, the first of the Church Fathers actually promoting Apostolic succession and church hierarchy. His 1^st letter to the Corinthians was written because the churches had rebelled against the appointed bishop and tried to set up its own. In chapters 42-44 he uses the example of Moses writing down the law, and says that the prophets are his successors. Then he uses the story of when the Israelites were jealous of Aaron and his status as the chosen high priest. Moses had Aaron and the twelve tribes place rods in the Tabernacle and left them there overnight and the the rod of Aaron was found not only to have blossomed, but even to be bearing fruit.

“What do you think, loved ones? That Moses did not know in advance this would happen? Of course he knew. But he did this so that there might be no disorderliness in Israel…So too our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that strife would arise over the office of the bishop. For this reason, since they understood perfectly well in advance what would happen, they appointed those we have already mentioned; and afterwards they added a codicil to the effect that if these should die, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. Thus we do not think it right to remove from the ministry those who were appointed by them (the dissenters), or, afterwards, by other reputable men, with the entire church giving its approval…Indeed we commit no little sin if we remove from the bishop’s office those who offer the gifts (the Eucharist) in a blameless and holy way.” (Clement, 2005). (emphasis mine)

Clement then even talks to the Corinthians about the letters that “that blessed apostle, Paul” had written to them earlier concerning a similar issue. Notice that he is not rebelling against Paul’s teaching. He is in conformity with it. This is hardly the voice of someone who is rebelling again the Christian church and trying to set up a separate Catholicity.

He completely destroys several Baptist beliefs. First, there is a hierarchy in the priesthood, second that there is Apostolic succession of the offices, third, that the priests (Gr. Presbyters or pastors) are appointed, not voted in by the congregation.

Note: when Baptists recite the Nicene Creed and get to the line, “one holy, Catholic and apostolic Church” they use “Catholic” in the strict “universal” church sense rather than what we know of as the Catholic Church. To a Baptist, “apostolic” simply means based on the teaching of the apostles, which they violate because they refuse any Apostolic teaching that comes from extra-biblical sources.

Later, in his 2^nd letter to the Corinthians he says something else that negates another Baptist doctrine, that once a person is “saved” they are always saved and can never lose their salvation. “As for those who do not keep the seal of their baptism, he says, ‘their worm will not die nor their fire be extinguished; and they will be a spectacle for all to see.’” (Clement, 2005).

Next look at Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius was a student of the apostles Peter and John. He knew them, studied with them, and was nurtured by them. Peter chose Ignatius as his successor as the Bishop of Syria. This is a man who knew the Apostles teaching intimately and yet he promotes a dogma that no Baptist could bring himself to believe, that the bread and wine at communion actually become the body and blood of our Precious Lord.

But take note of those who spout false opinions about the gracious gift of Jesus Christ that has come to us, and see how they are opposed to the mind of God…They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, since they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, which suffered on behalf of our sins and which the Father raised in kindness. And so those who dispute the gift of God perish while still arguing the point. It would be better for them to engage in acts of love, that they may also rise up. And so it is fitting to avoid such people and not even to speak about them, either privately or in public, but instead to pay attention to the prophets, and especially to the gospel, in which the passion is clearly shown to us and the resurrection is perfected. But flee divisions as the beginning of evils. (Ignatius, 2005).

There is much more that I could cite, but I’m tired of typing for now. As you can see, the early church was most definitely not Baptist.

Works Cited

Clement. (2005). First letter of Clement to the Corinthians. In B. D. Ehrman
(Ed.), The Apostolic Fathers: Vol. 1. I Clement, III Clement, Ignatius,
Polycarp, Didachae (chap. 42-45). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
(Original work published 2003)

Clement. (2005). Second letter of Clement to the Corinthians. In B. D. Ehrman
(Ed.), The Apostolic Fathers: Vol. 1. I Clement, III Clement, Ignatius,
Polycarp, Didachae (chap. 42-45). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
(Original work published 2003)

Ignatius. (2005). Letter of Ignatius to the Smyrneans. In B. D. Ehrman
(Ed.), The Apostolic Fathers: Vol. 1. I Clement, III Clement, Ignatius,
Polycarp, Didachae (chap. 42-45). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
(Original work published 2003)

Who is your authority?

Do you claim the Bible as your sole authority for matters of faith and doctrine? Really? Every church teaches something different. Every pastor interprets the Bible according to his own personal beliefs. How is anybody supposed to know who’s teaching the truth?

If you say, “Well, all we can do is choose the denomination that’s most faithful to the Bible.” Then you are the one deciding what the Bible means. You are the one deciding what is true. The Bible isn’t your final authority – you are. It’s a dangerous game to play putting yourself above God’s chosen authority, the Catholic Church which he personally instituted.

The Eucharist and Communion

I meant to write this a month ago, but you know how it goes sometimes. It has now been over a full year since I rejoined the Catholic Church. I have learned so much over the past year. So much now that I never understood is so clear to me now; I don’t understand how it never made sense to me.

The Eucharist has become so precious to me. Before, as a Protestant, we always talk about having fellowship with God, and obeying his ordinances of Baptism and the Communion. I have always wanted to be part of churches that take on as literal of an interpretation of the Bible as possible. Yet on these two points the most literal interpretation is not the Baptist, or Plymouth Brethren interpretation, it is that of the Catholic Church. Fundamentalists claim to be literal, but they refuse to take Jesus at his word on these two sacraments.

Fundamentalists talk of fellowship with the Lord. But only the Catholic Church really offers either. Here we have Christ taking the form of bread to become one with us. Protestants talk of receiving the Lord into their hearts, but Catholics literally take Him into our hearts, and stomach, and skin, and eyes, and even the ends of our hair and fingernails. We become one with Him, in the much same way that a man and wife become one. This is not accidental. We are his Bride, and he wants to be one with us.

Fundamentalists talk of Communion with other believers, but only Catholics also believe that we can still have fellowship and union with believers who have died. The writer of Hebrews describes some of the great men of the faith throughout history. Then in chapter 12 he says “we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses.” Not “we will be someday when we get to heaven too”; but “we are surrounded” by them.

Note that this cannot be the “invisible” church; these are Old Testament Hebrews and Jews! They are not part of the Church. But the Church, as the New Jerusalem, is in complete communion with the Old Testament saints.

Christ’s presence in the Eucharist

If virtually all Christians believe that God can come to earth in the form and substance of a human being; why is it so difficult to believe that Christ can exist in the form of bread?

More about Purgatory

I am currently listening to Tim Staples’ CD set, God’s Perfect Plan: Purgatory and Indulgences Explained. What an excellent resource. Even if you are a Protestant and cannot accept the existence of Purgatory, you will find this set useful. Even if all it does is lay out the Catholic position so you understand it better, without all of the anti-Catholic exaggerations and untruths contained in so many anti-Catholic works, you will be better of for it. You can purchase it from Catholic Answers.

Those who do not accept purgatory make the claim that because Christ atoned for all sin and all penalties for sin, there is nothing left to be purged. Tim presents an illustration that I have heard before, but I would like to expand upon it. I know that when you are talking about analogies though, you can never come up with something that will work in all instances, so mine is not perfect either, but I think it fits better. The illustration goes like this.

Suppose your son breaks a neighbor’s window and later is sorry that he did it. He may even go to the neighbor and apologize, and if he is a good neighbor, he will forgive the boy. Even though he is forgiven, it  does not eliminate the need for him to make reparation for the broken window. Forgiveness has been granted, but there is still a price to be paid. He needs to pay for the window.

Now suppose there is another neighbor who does not owe the first neighbor any kind of debt. Further suppose that he sees that your son has no way of paying for the window, and you won’t pay either, trying to teach him a lesson. The second neighbor pays the first neighbor for the window, illustrating how Christ pays the penalty for us.

However, this illustration breaks down on a major point. Although the penalty has been paid, your son did not pay it, which on the surface sounds good. But the problem is that correction (discipline) never takes place. If the neighbor continues to pay penalties for the boy, he has no incentive to change his behavior. He may continue to break windows, knowing that someone will pay for it. Not only will he eventually lose the benefit of correction and discipline, but he will also eventually lose the feeling that he has any need for repentance (can you say, “once saved, always saved?”).

The problem with this scenario is that this is what the court system would call a civil case. It changes quite a bit if you look at this using a criminal case instead. Suppose your son (let’s make him a little older, say 17) murders the neighbor instead of just breaking a window. Also suppose that again after he commits the crime he is sorry, truly sorry for what he has done and repents of his sin before God. Suppose that the family of the neighbor also believe that the boy is truly sorry. Protestants and Catholics alike would agree that even though he may have been forgiven by God, and possibly the family of the dead neighbor, your son still has a penalty to pay regardless of how sorry he is.

Because we are now talking about a criminal case, there is nothing that anyone else can do for him. Let’s say that you love your son so much that you can’t bear the thought of seeing him go to prison for the rest of his life, or to face the death penalty, especially because you really believe that he has repented of this sin. No court in the land is going to let him off the hook and let someone else do his jail-time. He, personally, must pay his debt to society.

Purgatory is more like that. Christ forgave the sin, making it possible for the person to attain total forgiveness, but the penalty for the sin remains and must be paid for by the perpetrator. And remember, the penalty that must be paid is not because the court has imposed it. It is because the person broke the law. In other words, he owes the debt, even if no one knows he committed a crime.

I mentioned in a previous post that Protestants say they do not believe in Purgatory, but they do believe in a purging process. If there is no need for Purgatory, which serves one purpose only—purification, then there is no need to be purged (correction/discipline) at all. Let me ‘splain.

The Protestant certainly believes in the Lord disciplining his children. It is presented in so many places in the Bible that I will not bother listing them. The reason the Lord disciplines them is because he loves them. He does not want to punish anymore than any other parent wants to punish their children. He does want to correct them though, again as any parent would.

What is correction or discipline? Is it merely punishment or obedience? Or is it trying to change your child’s behavior so that wrong intentions and desires are purged away, and past debts are paid resulting in holiness?

If the Protestant agrees with the Catholic that a penalty must be paid here in this life for your sins, civil infractions, and crimes, then why would they think that the slate is wiped clean at death? What magic is there in dying? Two minutes before you die you owe a criminal penalty for crime no one ever convicted you of, but you die and now it no longer needs to be paid? If Christ paid that part of the debt at death, then why do we give a penalty at all after repentence and you are still alive? Conversely, if you die owing the debt, the debt still needs to be paid. The Protestant does believe this along with Catholics, but only regarding hell. If they believe this is true regarding hell (not all do), then why not a cleansing process at death for Christians who have not yet had a chance to confess their sins, or for ones they have forgotten about, or didn’t realize they were sins?

Easter Vigil 2008

I just got back from Easter Vigil at my church. This was my first vigil as a Catholic, even accounting for my past. For those of you who don’t know me, I grew up Catholic and left the Church at age 20. I became a Baptist, and after almost 30 years I have returned.

And to think that only a year ago, I went to an Easter Vigil as my niece and nephew were baptized and confirmed. I remember that all the Bible readings were cool (except they always have to throw in one of those Apocryphal readings). But all the kneeling, standing, candles, lighting the fire, etc. I almost couldn’t stand. I kept thinking to myself, “these people are pagans. Pagans!”

How far the Lord has brought me in less than a year. I can’t believe that I could never see the truth as revealed through the Church. My first Mass as a Catholic was last August, on Assumption Sunday. I once rejected Mary as our Mother. Now I have had more victory over sin in the past year because of her intervention than I have ever had in my entire life. Praise God for his grace and mercy and lovingkindness! Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life. And I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.

“Praise” Music

Someone just commented to me that I would have loved the praise music at Mars Hill Church in Grandville, MI yesterday. Mars Hill is a mega-church, and the pastor, Rob Bell is becoming an international celebrity based on his talent for writing books and sermons that have no meaning whatsoever.

They had a lot of acoustic guitar and I guess the sound was incredible. It sounds like it would have been a great concert. I am a music lover and have followed and enjoyed CCM music since its inception. I mean as far back as Larry Noorman and Love Song in the 1970s.

That sounds like it’s a great concert, but is it worship, or is it just entertainment? If the talent isn’t as good on a particular night, is worship still going on? I can’t judge individual people, because I am sure it is real worship to many of those in the audience. However, as a whole it seems to me that Praise music is designed to stir up emotions rather than to give praise to God. It is fueled by record companies who push CDs and sheet music to increase sales. If worship is about “feeling good” isn’t that a bit self-centered? Can you be self-centered and Christ-centered at the same time?

Praise music is often filled with irreverent lyrics that treat Jesus like he’s just our “good buddy” rather than the God of Heaven. A good example is that insipid “Our God is an Awesome God” and it’s references to having “thunder and lightening in His fists.” Sounds more like Zeus to me.

I don’t really know about the discussion about the nuts and bolts of the chords and such that people are talking about here on the board. I’m not a musician, so it makes little sense to me. However, I have ears, and I think good taste, and much of this music has just gone down the tubes. It’s not all hopeless, there are a few good artists out there. But this music is for when I want to be entertained, like while driving the car. When I go to a worship service I want to WORSHIP!

What is real worship? Revelation has the best picture of it. It is where the angels and the 24 elders cry forever “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!” Falling prostrate to the one who appears as a lamb who was slain. This is what the Catholic Mass presents.

It’s not about what we get out of it, it’s what God gets out of it that counts.

How Firm a Foundation

I was lying in bed last night praying and listening to the Rosary on EWTN radio online. When it was done I was thinking about the past few months since I surrendered to the Lord’s will and rejoined the Catholic Church.

I was thinking about how long it had been since I had regularly prayed or read the Bible. Since I have come back into the fold, I have found that I spend a lot of my time in prayer.

I know that that is my own fault, but I’ve come to realize that EvaAnabaptimentalism doesn’t really make it any easier. By having no accountability to anyone except God alone, it’s easy to put Him on a shelf, along with our Bible, and forget He’s there. Later we feel guilty that we haven’t prayed all week long, even though we meant to, and told others that we would pray for them. We go to church and look for our Bible and realize that it is sitting in the same place that we left it last week when we got home from church.

But the Catholic Church, by making us accountable to the local priest, by obligating us to go to Mass every week, by making Mass about worship instead of listening to someone talk, by providing prescribed prayers to say throughout the day, having rosaries and medals in our pockets, by hearing with our own ears by Christ’s own representative on earth that our sins are forgiven, keeps Jesus at the forefront of our minds all the time.

I also thought about how different the attitudes are of people to go to church (Protestant churches), and people who go to Mass. At church people will be talking and laughing until the music starts and even then it takes a couple of minutes for people to be quiet. People in the narthex/foyer who have been socializing begin to take their seats.

At Mass, we come in and are immediately introspective and reverent in our attitude about where we are. We sign ourselves with holy water, genuflect before Christ, and immediately kneel to pray and prepare ourselves for worship and to partake of Christ’s sacrifice. We can socialize later. Now it’s time for God. Everything else can wait.

The difference is Christ’s physical presence in the form of the Eucharist present in the Tabernacle at the altar. Candles are burning as prayers to God and usually at least one is burning all the time. When you walk into a Catholic church, even if you are the only person there, there is already something going on. Worship is taking pace. You are walking on holy ground. Immediately I think of the great hymn:

Let all mortal flesh keep silence,
And with fear and trembling stand;
Ponder nothing earthly minded,
For with blessing in His hand,
Christ our God to earth descendeth,
Our full homage to demand.

King of kings, yet born of Mary,
As of old on earth He stood,
Lord of lords, in human vesture,
In the body and the blood;
He will give to all the faithful
His own self for heavenly food.

Rank on rank the host of heaven
Spreads its vanguard on the way,
As the Light of light descendeth
From the realms of endless day,
That the powers of hell may vanish
As the darkness clears away.

At His feet the six winged seraph,
Cherubim with sleepless eye,
Veil their faces to the presence,
As with ceaseless voice they cry:
Alleluia, Alleluia
Alleluia, Lord Most High!

I don’t mean to disparage here the faith of anyone who is not Catholic. I have known a lot of good, reverent Protestants who are dedicated to daily prayer and Bible reading. Maybe it’s more a reflection on the way that I was than anything else.

I have never been so awed by the presence of God. It’s like for so many years I was swimming in a lake, having a good ol’ time enjoying the weather and the sunshine. Then someone came along and gave me some scuba gear. I then realized that everything I knew was only on the surface. There was a whole other world right below me that I didn’t know existed.

The Catholic Church is like that. Instead of being founded on someone’s interpretation of the Bible that he came up with only last Tuesday, it is firmly planted in history and tradition. Jesus said it pretty well. Whether you are talking about Jonathan Edwards, John Piper, or Billy Graham; Protestantism is built on the shifting sands of personal interpretations of the Bible, blown about by winds of doctrine—whereas, the Catholic faith is built on the firm foundation of Christ’s own body and blood, with the authority that He personally handed down to Peter and the apostles and on down to today.

Protestants, Catholics, and the “literal” interpretation of the Bible

I really don’t understand why Evangelicals claim to believe in the literal interpretation of Scripture. It is certainly not true. A literal interpretation would mean that they would have to believe that:

• Baptism is essential for salvation
• Babies can, and should be baptized
• Salvation can be lost
• The bread and the wine at Communion actually become the Body and Blood of the Lord
• Peter was ordained by Jesus himself as the earthly head of the Church
• That there is one, and only one, Church ordained of God
• Groups that splinter from the Church are outside of God’s will
• That Purgatory is real

The only way that you can NOT believe in these doctrines/dogmas is to take the literal truth of Scripture and explain it away somehow. This is often done by taking verses out of context. It is done by saying that Jesus did not mean what he said. Instead he was only speaking symbolically or figuratively. It is also done by rewriting history, saying that the early Church believed as they do currently.

The truth is, the Evangelical position did not exist until Martin Luther and after. Even then, Luther himself still accepted most of these as truth.

Addendum: 5/1/2008 – I just wanted to point out that in writing this post, I did not mean to sound like Catholicism teaches a literal interpretation of Scripture. I was only commenting on those who say that they do, yet do not.

Our Lady of Guadalupe

Often Protestants, in an effort to completely separate themselves from everything that even appears Catholic, overlook historical events that are the Providence of God made manifest. This is one of the reasons that Protestants are missing the fullness of God’s revelation.

One of these is Mary, in the form of the Holy Virgin of Guadalupe. The story of Our Lady is a story of the largest conversion from paganism to Christianity that the world has ever experienced.

If you saw Mel Gibson’s Apocalypo you can see what the Aztec religion was like. It was polytheistic, and to maintain control over the other tribes, they would conquer them then sacrifice alive as much as 20,000 men every day. The sacrifices were brutal, including ripping a man’s heart out of his chest and eating it in front of him before he had a chance to die.

Within ten years of Cortes’ conquest, very few had converted to Christianity. The people still had a fear of what would happen to them if they abandoned their former gods. They also saw a big inconsistency with the lifestyles of the conquistadores and the lifestyle that was preached.

Mary appeared to Juan Diego, and performed the miracle of the roses and her image appeared on his tilma (poncho). After the people saw incontrovertible proof of the Providence of God, they began paying attention to the Gospel. News of Christianity spread like wild fire, and within a span of a couple of years, over 9,000,000 (that’s not a typo!) people abandoned the pagan religion, and embraced Catholic Christianity.

This one incident completely obliterated the disgusting practices of the Aztec people.

For more details of this well-documented historical event go to http://www.sancta.org/intro.html

The Eucharist

This is one that even as a Baptist always gave me pause. I would say that the elements at Communion were symbols, because they are at least that. But does it go farther? I have to admit that I have always had trouble with John chapter 6 where Jesus says that he is the bread of life, and that in order to recieve eternal life you must eat his flesh, and drink his blood. The Jews then are puzzled by this saying and began to leave. Jesus then says it again, with emphasis, and even many who previously had believed, turned away. Jesus asked the Twelve if they were going to leave him too. Peter then says, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

If Jesus had only meant that the bread and the wine at Communion were only symbols, then why didn’t he tell these people? I understand that he may not have told the Jews for the same reason that he didn’t explain most of his parables to them, “because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand” (Matt 13:13). But why doesn’t he then explain it to his disciples who were turning away? After all only a couple of verses later in Matthew, He says that these are not hidden from his disciples–“But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.”

The answer is that it is NOT hidden. It is exactly what it says it is. That the bread and the wine are actually the body and blood of the Lord is the only interpretation that makes sense given the reaction by the crowd, Jesus, and the Twelve.

The thing is, virtually NO ONE ever questioned the elements as being anything other than the actual body and blood of the Lord until the Reformation. All of the earliest Church Fathers, from the first century on up believed it was the body and blood of Jesus. Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, “Judgement is prepared for” …(those who) “abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).

Peter and the Papacy

Was Peter a Pope? If he was, and Popes are infallible then why did Paul “call him out on the carpet” for treating Gentiles differently when the Jews were present in Galatians 2? Why, when Peter is present, does James appear to lead the Church in Acts 15?

Let me just deal with these two first, and then I will deal with Peter’s authority.

The Church does not teach that a Pope is infallible in all things. I can say that Jupiter is the smallest planet and be wrong, and at the same time speak infallibly that 2+2=4. That does not make the equation untrue, and it does not speak about me being infallible at all. Likewise, the Pope can pronounce that the canon of the New Testament are the 27 books that we are all familiar with, but still err in other things in his life. Peter preached the infallible truth in Acts 15 that Gentile believers did not need to conform to Jewish ceremonial law, however he erred as a man in the way he treated the Gentiles as reported by Paul in Galatians.

In Acts, notice that James’ decision and instruction was derived soley by the statement of Peter. Peter was acting as the head of the Church, while James was directing his “bishopric” the Jerusalem council, under the authority of Peter.

Now as to Peter himself. The most important verses in the Bible on this are when Jesus asked Peter (then still named “Simon”), “Who do you say that I am?” and he answered back, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matt. 6:16, Mark 8:29, Luke 9:20). Jesus words back to him in Matt 6:18-19 is where the controversy comes in. “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Plain reading in English appears to support the Catholic position. Protestents will remind us that the New Testament was written in Greek, not English. If you look at the Greek words for Peter and rock they appear as follows in order: πετρος (petros), and πετρα (petra). Petros is a small stone, and petra is a huge boulder. Petros is masculine, and petra is feminine. For these reasons, Protestants say that Jesus could not have meant that he was building the Church on Peter (the small stone), but on himself (the large boulder), the Rock of our Salvation.

However you have to remember that although the gospel was written in Greek, Jesus was speaking in Aramaic! Therefore the Greek text of Scripture is translated. Jesus own words are what we should look to. There is only one word that Jesus would have used when talking to Peter. That word is Kepha (large boulder), used elsewhere by St. Paul in the New Testament as Cephas. That is how we know that Jesus actually used this word, not Petros for Peter’s new name. So what Jesus actually said was, “You are Cephus, and on this Cephus I build my Church.” Or in English, “You are Boulder, and on this Boulder I build my Church.” Matthew uses the Greek words that he does, because he needed to the word petra to convey the size of the rock. He used petros for Peter’s name because petra is feminine, and is inappropriate as a man’s name. He would have regarded this as adequate as the early Church fully understood that Peter, Cephas, was the Rock on which the Church is built.

Mary, the Mother of God

Mary.

This was a hard subject for me. Although it was hard for me to accept all that the Catholic Church says about her, in the back of my mind, I was kind of hoping that it was all true. Even from a Protestant perpective, Mary was a holy woman, deserving of the same repect that we would give Moses, Abraham, Isaiah, St. Paul, and so many others. I had always held the opinion that Catholics worship her, using “veneration” as a euphemism for “worship,” while Protestants do not hold her in high enough regard.

However, at least in my Protestant experience, Mary has been pretty much relegated to women’s Bible studies. She was a good woman, but God could have chosen anyone with the right bloodline. In essence, she was just a womb to use.

I am convinced that the main reason for the Protestant position concerning Mary is to just go as far from the Catholic position as you can without demonizing her.

Protestants tend to do that. Catholics pray with their hands together with their fingers pointing to Heaven. Protestants pray with their hands folded or in their lap. Catholics kneel, Protestants sit. Catholics perform the Sign of the Cross when they pray, Protestants say “in Jesus’ Name.” Catholics use a crucifix, Protestants use an empty cross. Cathlolics honor and venerate Mary, Protestants show her little regard, and then claim that Catholics worship her. Sometimes it just seems like a game.

Protestants often are puzzled at how Catholics can come up with so much concerning Mary, when there is not much is said about her in the Bible. It’s true. Not much is said about her in the Bible, but there is more than most Protestants think, and what is said about her is paramount. The Revelation of Jesus to St. John is essential to understand Mary’s role. Read Revelation 11:19-12:6. Try to read it ignoring the chapter break. The break should be before verse 19, not after.

“Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it. She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days.”

It speaks of the Ark of the Covenant in Heaven. It then goes on to descibe the Ark as a woman clothed with the sun, who gives birth to a son, Jesus. The woman in this passage is several things, she is the Ark of the (New) Covenant, she is Mary, she is the Church, she is Israel who gave birth to the Messiah, and she is physically located in Heaven.

This demands us to compare Mary with the Old Testement Ark of the Covenant. By themselves, some of the points in this chart would not mean a lot, but when taken as a whole, it speaks volumes. I found this basic chart on the internet, but I lost the source. I have added a couple and deleted a couple. If anyone knows the sources, let me know so that I can cite it: (I finally found it again. Not on the web, but in a book that the other author probably got it from and didn’t cite it himself. It’s from Catholic for a Reason edited by Scott Haan):

Ark of the Old Covenant	Ark of the New Covenant
The Ark and the Holy Place had to be completely cleansed and consecrated to the Lord before His Shekinah glory could enter into it. It then became the dwelling place of God. Ex. 40:16-38	Mary was immaculately conceived through the power of God so that the vessel that contained the presence of God was pure. The Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, and her womb became the dwelling place of God. Luke 1:35
When the sin of Israel became too great, God’s glory left the tabernacle 2 Sam 4:21
When Israel repented of her sin, and cleansed the temple, the Glory of God returned. 2 Chronicles 5
The Ark contained the tablets of the Law, a portion of manna, and Aaron’s staff which budded. Hebrews 9:4	Mary contained Jesus, the Word of God, the Bread of Life, the Branch who would one day after death, be raised to life
The Ark traveled to the hill country of Judah to dwell in the house of Obed-edom.2 Sam. 6:10	Mary traveled to the hill country of Judah to the home of Elizabeth. Luke 1:39
King David danced and leapt for joy in the presence of the Ark. 2 Sam. 6:14	John the Baptist, in Elizabeth’s womb, leaps for joy at the presence of the Lord inside Mary’s womb. Luke 1:43
David shouted for joy in the presence of the Ark. 2 Sam. 6:15	Elizabeth cried with a loud cry of joy at the presence of the Lord inside Mary’s womb. Luke 1:43
David asked, How can the ark of the LORD come to me?” 2 Sam. 6:9	Elizabeth asks, “And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? Luke 1:43
The Ark remained in the home of Obed-edom for three months. 2 Sam 6:11	Mary remained with Elizabeth for three months. Luke 1:56
The house of Obed-edom was “blessed by the presence of the Ark. 2 Sam. 6:11	The word “blessed” is used three times concerning Mary at Elizabeth’s house. Luke 1: 39-45
The Ark returned to Jerusalem, in the new Temple where the presence and glory of God is revealed. 2 Sam. 6:12, 1 Kings 8:9-11	Mary returns home and eventually comes to Jerusalem where she presents God the Son in the Temple. Luke 1:56, 2:21-22
God made Aaron’s rod (which was kept in the Ark) return to life and budded to prove that he was the legitimate High Priest. Numbers 17:8	God resurrected his Son, who had become man in Mary’s womb, to prove that He is the eternal High Priest. Hebrews 4:14

There is so much more that I could say on this subject, but it is better covered by this article. In fact check out the whole site. It is one of the best sources anywhere that I have found.

sola fide

Another doctrine of importance to Protestants is sola fide, or justification by faith alone. This doctrine is so important to Protestantism that Martin Luther once said that without it Protestantism didn’t have a leg to stand on.

Well, it doesn’t. No where in the Bible is this taught. In fact the only place in the entire Bible where the words “faith alone” appear together are in James 2:24-“You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

At first glance, the book of Romans chapters 2-4 and parts of 4,-6 and 13 all seem to teach faith alone. However, it is manifestly clear that the works of justification Paul is speaking of in Romans of are the works required by the Mosaic Law and whether or not the Gentiles had to perform them in order to be saved. The question asked in verse 29 confirms this interpretation. The Apostle Paul after stating “we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the Law” immediately follows this statement up with the questions “is he the God of the Jews only?”  and “is he not also of the Gentiles?” This demonstrates that the distinction being made here is between Jews and Gentiles.

A very good article on this subject can be found here.

sola scriptura, the canon of Scripture, and Sacred Tradition

Sola scriptura is one of the most important doctrines taught by virtually all Protestant denominations. It states that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of belief and practice because the Bible is inspired by God and bears the absolute authority of God Himself. Whatever the Bible affirms, Baptists accept as true. No human opinion or decree of any church group can override the Bible. Even creeds and confessions of faith, which attempt to articulate the theology of Scripture, do not carry Scripture’s inherent authority.

The main problem with this belief is that it is NEVER taught in the Bible itself. These verses are the main ones that Baptists use as “proof” of Biblical authority:

Matt: 5:18 “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

Matt 24:35 “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.”

John 16:12-13 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 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.”

1 Thessalonians 2:13 “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.”

2 Timothy 3:15-17 “and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

2 Peter 1:20, 21 “knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is of someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

Each of the above verses are 100% true and inspired by God. However, not one single one of them indicates, let alone claims that the Scripture is the one and only authority. In fact, no book in the entire Bible, with the exception of Revelation, even claims to be inspired.

I have come to the realization that it is absolutely impossible for anyone to truly believe in sola scriptura. Belief in it is a Catch-22. If the Bible does not claim sole authority for itself, there is only one place that it can come from–Tradition. It is Tradition handed down from the Reformation that Protestants cling to in claiming sola scriptura.

Even if the Bible did claim sole authority someplace, it would still be Tradition that determines whether or not that passage or that book is inspired. Therefore Sacred Tradition and Scripture are at least equal. For this to be true there must be an earthly authority that dispenses Tradition and Scriptural interpretation to the Church. Otherwise, you end up with individuals claiming that they can interpret freely independent of others.

And this is what we have. Instead of “one body and one Spirit…one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:5), we have over 33,000 Protestant denominations, all claiming to have the absolute truth as regards interpretation. With 180,552 words in the New Testament, that is one denomination for every 5.47 words!

This also goes for the canon of Scripture. No book of the Bible tells us which books should be included. It is Tradition that tells us which books to include. Again even if the books of the canon were stated within the text of accepted Scripture, it would still be Tradition that would decide whether or not that book itself was inspired.

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon. This means that until at least this date, Christians had to rely on tradition, because they didn’t know which books constituted Scripture. From the time of the close of the Old Testament until the writing of the first book of the New Testament (probably the Gospel according to St. Mark), there were no New Testament Scriptures at all, and Tradition is all the Church had. And to top it all off, the canon of the New Testament, which ALL Protestants accept as Scripture, not only comes from Tradition, but from CATHOLIC Tradition.

Protestants often use Mark 7:5-9 as “proof” that Jesus himself was against Tradition. However, this passage does not say that Tradition is wrong, just traditions that contradict revealed truth in the Holy Scripture. In fact, the Bible actually equates Sacred Tradition and Scripture in 2 Thess. 2:15 “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”

Catholics do not believe in sola scriptura, but in solo verbo Dei, the Word of God alone. The Word of God is broader than the Bible. It includes Sacred Tradition, and certain pronouncements from the Pope, as the source for all is God Himself.

Rome Sweet Home: Aug 15, 2007 – Forever

To make a long story a little longer, I have finally decided that I am going back to the Catholic Church. After much study I cannot believe that I thought that it was a pagan church. So much of it is biblical and so logical, that it really is the only denomination that makes sense. I will try to explain why although I can’t go into a huge amount of detail on this. There are a lot of good Catholic websites and books out there that can better explain my position. I chose the above title as this is also the title of an excellent book by Scott Hahn. It is written in a very logical and easy-to-read and understand style. If you live in the Grand Rapids, MI area, you can get the book from the Kent County Library. Or you may purchase it from Dr. Hahn’s website.

There were a lot of things that I had objections to at the beginning. Some were minor issues in my mind like Purgatory and Confession. Baptists rail against both, but they actually do believe them to a certain degree. The Bema Seat, or the Judgement seat of Chirst, is just a Baptist euphemism for Purgatory, and Confession is what many Evangelical churches now call Accountability sessions.

However there were five main issues that have always caused me problems: sola scriptura (the “B” in the Baptists acrostic), sola fide, the Catholic position on Mary, the Pope, and the Catholic position on the Eucharist. I will deal with each of these in the next five chapters.

Back to the beginning: late 2006 – Aug 2007

During the last few months, I have really begun to miss liturgical worship. I began to explore the primary Christian liturgical churches. These are Anglican, Lutheran, Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism.

As most of you are aware, Protestantism (Lutheranism) split off from Catholicism in 1517 when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Church at Wittenberg, Germany. There are two main pillars on which Protestantism rests. The first is sola scriptura, the belief that the Bible itself is the sole authority for all doctrine. Anything and everything that can be known about God comes directly from Scripture alone. All interpretation is individual interpretation as God has set up no Church hierarchy. The second is sola fide—we are justified by faith alone. Luther said that sola fide is so important, that Protestantism would fall without it.

Anglicanism split from Catholicism for one reason only. King Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife and the Pope wouldn’t let him do it. So he created his own church with himself as head. With such self-centered origins, there is no way I could ever consider this church as being Christ’s ideal.

Orthodoxy and Catholicism both claim to be the original Church that was instituted by Christ himself. From the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine to the year 1054, the catholic (small “c”) church had been divided into an eastern and western half. After the fall of the Roman Empire the western half of the empire waned until the rise of Charlemagne who was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope. Before this time, the eastern half became known as the Byzantine Empire and was closely associated with the Patriarchs of the Eastern Church.

It was the preference of the Charlemagne by the West, and the preference of Constantinople by the East which lead to the Schism of 1054. Separation of Church and State was not a common belief back then and the Eastern Church viewed the crowning of Charlemagne as a political and ecclesiastical revolution. The Eastern Patriarchs excommunicated Pope Leo IX, and he returned the favor.

My natural inclination was to prefer the Orthodox position, because of my Anti-Catholic beliefs. At one time my firm belief was that every single Catholic on the face of the Earth was either ignorant of what the teaching of the Church was and the full ramifications of that belief, or they were being disobedient by not pulling out of an apostate church. Whenever I would attend a Catholic Mass, whether a funeral, a wedding, or a relative’s First Communion, I would grit my teeth through the service and think, “this is sheer Paganism!”

When looking at Orthodoxy it appeared to be almost exactly like the Catholic faith. There really were only a couple of big differences between the two that I could see. The first is the existence of, and the role of the Pope. Orthodoxy claims that all of the bishops had equal authority and that the Pope usurped them by proclaiming that he alone was the head of the church. The Pope claimed that the eastern bishops rebelled against the chosen of Christ. The second is that Orthodoxy is extremely ethnic-oriented. So much so that I don’t see how they can call themselves a truly catholic (universal) church. This was the main reason that I gave up on Orthodoxy. That and the fact that have have very long services, and they stand for them. There is no way that I could physically stand for a 3-hour service. Even a half-hour is a bit much for me.

Then I got to thinking about my Catholic past and what led me to come to the conclusion that it was unbiblical and apostate. As I said before, mine was not a very strict Catholic household. My sisters, brother, and I all attended Catechism (CDD) classes as kids. I stopped going during 9th grade. If you read my bio you will see that during this time, my religion had become something I was using in order to impress a certain girl at school.

I don’t know if it was because of poor teaching, because I wasn’t paying attention, or maybe the teachers weren’t getting in to Catholic “distinctives” until later in high school, but it became apparent that I had not received very good instructions into what a Catholic actually believes. Shortly after high school, I had been attending a Protestant Bible study and was beginning to look at everything through a very Protestant lens. I was having trouble squaring what I was learning in Bible study with what I thought the Catholic Church was teaching me. I went to my Parish priest about some of my concerns and the only real answer I got from him was basically, “you have to believe it, or you’re not a Catholic.” I could only take this for so long and I finally left the Church for a Plymouth Brethren assembly.

I was now firmly in the Protestant camp. A couple of years after this, I went into the Army and for the next four years had virtually no contact at all with anyone who was Catholic. From that time until just recently I have never given a serious thought to ACTUAL Catholic belief. The only thing I read about Catholics from this point on was firmly anti-Catholic material written by people who in order to make their point often lie about and exaggerate the Catholic position.

This pretty much left me with only two choices: Catholicism, and Lutheranism. My true goal was to discover how the early church was structured. It seems logical that the way the church was run during the first century, while the Apostles were still alive and could direct it, must be the way that Christ intended the Church to be. This is what most Protestant denominations say they are striving for anyway, a return to the early Church. So at this point, I decided that I really need to more fully explore Catholic teachings.

Questioning Fundamentalism: Most of 2006-2007

There are several things that have been leading me to question my Baptist, and “Fundamentalist” (not fundamental) customs.

Point 1
The whole time that I have been a Baptist, I have missed the active, physical part of worship. At GBC it is difficult to know if you can raise your hands in prayer, say “Amen” during the sermon, or applaud a good musical performance without calling attention to yourself.

Is this all there is—just sitting in a pew, singing some songs that are no more than camp songs with pabulum lyrics, and listening to a sermon on a subject that I have heard a thousand times? The fellowship is great. I have made some very good friends. And what would a Sunday School picnic be without John Wood’s BBQ chicken?! I love going to Sunday School and getting into the depths of the Bible.

Homestead did not have a physical form of worship, but it was an atmosphere of worship that was quite profound—something that I had not experienced since I stopped attending Catholic Mass.

Point 2
All my life I have never been able to accept evolution as possible. Science is squarely against it, as is the Bible. However during the last few years I have not been too sure about the age of the universe. I have done much study in this area from sources like the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, Kent Hovind Ministries, and Reasons to Believe.

I will not go into all the details here but what has been revealed to me is that it is impossible for Scripture and science to directly contradict each other. If science absolutely proves that the age of the universe is 14.5 billion years old, and Scripture says that it is only about 10,000 years old—tops; then one or the other is wrong. We know that provable science cannot be wrong (it may be incomplete), and we know that Scripture cannot be wrong. Therefore what is wrong is the interpretation of one or the other (or both).

The age of the universe is unquestionably just what it looks like, 14.5 billion years old. (This does not necessarily mean that evolution took place). Therefore it must be the way that Scripture is translated or interpreted that is incorrect. The six days of creation must be long ages of time. Perhaps I will go into more detail on this in a separate chapter later, but it would just confuse the issue if I went into much more detail here. A very good book on the subject is A Matter of Days, by Hugh Ross. You can purchase it here.

This is very much like the church persecuting Galileo for saying that the sun, not the earth, is the center of the universe because it was against the Bible. As scripture was being misinterpreted before, so it likely is now.

Point 3
This study has brought me to another point. I still believe that Scripture is inspired and inerrant, don’t get me wrong. But what else may we be misinterpreting?

In the last several years the Left Behind books by Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye have been very popular. I read most of these books myself and was very entertained. Ever since my conversion I have pretty much held these same views. And for the most part, I still do. However, before Jesus came, the Jews severely misinterpreted the signs and prophecies concerning their own Messiah. Could we be just as wrong regarding his return? Is Pretribulationism really biblical or was it created to assuage the fear that we may have to go through the tribulation? I really don’t know. I don’t think we can know until the prophecies begin to take place. Is the rapture itself misinterpreted? Only a very small minority of Protestants believe it, and only for about the last 150 years.

Point 4
Although Baptists will say that you do not have to be Baptist to be saved, many of them believe it without knowing it. I have heard on many occasions where a Baptist missionary candidate is on deputation trying to get support. He will very often say that they are going to such-and-such city in such-and-such country and that they will be the only missionary within say, 600 miles. A simple internet search may show that they may be the only Baptist missionaries, but there are missionaries from other denominations who are just as Christian, and just as dedicated to the spreading of the Word. But we can’t associate with them because they baptize babies instead of adults. There may even be Baptists of another type and yet they say that they are the only ones going there.

So either that means the missionary thinks that only Baptists are Christians, or they are lying from the pulpit, or they haven’t done enough research.

Point 5
We love to recall when we were children; reminiscing about the “good ol’ days”, digging into our genealogies and family histories, going to family reunions, high school reunions, birthdays, wedding anniversaries, etc. One of the most tragic things that many of us come in contact with is when people suffer dementia and begin to forget even their closest relatives, losing their contact with their own past.

Most of us doing family genealogies are delighted to find someone famous (even infamous) in our family tree. It seems to be an innate need for we humans to connect with our past. This continuity provides us with security, like an anchor to things ancient so that we are less likely to be blown about by the winds of unpredictability and change.

This is no less true for our religion as it is for everything else. The Bible is full of history, genealogy, and using great people of the faith as role-models. Jesus’ genealogy is important to prove his Davidic family line.

Where is the security in a denomination that changes every 30 or 40 years? Even early Christianity was grafted into the secure foundation of the Old Testament and Judaism.

Point 6
Fundamentalists often will say that one of the surest ways to identify a cult is that they claim to have a new revelation from God that makes everything before it moot. An example is Jehovah’s Witness. There are many reasons to believe that this is a cult, but one of them is that they claim to have truth that no one else has and the Church has been in error for 2000 years.

However, Protestantism has the same claim. They say that The Catholic Church and Orthodoxy were wrong for almost 1500 years. So the same logic applies. Why would the Holy Spirit wait to reveal the truth of salvation for 1500 years after it was revealed to the Apostles?

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
As I am pondering these (and other) points, I just wonder if we have got it all wrong. Baptists will often say that at the reformation they were returning to the church of the New Testament. But then wasn’t the Baptist denomination supposed to be the return? Then the Regular Baptists split from the Northern Baptist Convention, who split from the Triennial Convention. Each one claimed to be a return to the New Testament church.

But are they? Do we really know what the early church was like? The New Testament doesn’t really say what the early church was like other than a couple of glimpses in its early days. Acts mentions a few things but mostly takes it for granted that the reader, who was contemporary, knew what was going on. After chapter 9, it mainly concerns Paul’s activities rather than the Church’s, or most of the Apostles for that matter.

I decided to look into this further. My hope was to find justification for my Baptist theology. I could not have been more wrong.

My life as a Baptist: 1983—2007

After Mary and I moved to Killeen, TX we had some trouble finding a church. There were no PB churches anywhere nearby. We ended up settling for a new Baptist church that was meeting at a person’s home. We went to this church for the rest of the time that we stayed in Texas.

After returning to Michigan in 1986, we found that a lot of people from Homestead had moved away, some were divorced, and the spirit there was just not the same. I still don’t really know if it was the church itself, or if it was I that had changed. During the next couple of years some very important people in the congregation had died, including Randy, and by 1991 they disbanded and sold the property. After some searching, we decided to attend Grandville Baptist Church (GBC), which was a very short distance from our home and only about ½ mile from where I grew up.

Although Mary and I had been attending Baptist churches for the past three years, at heart we still felt like we were PB. We were able to reconcile this in our minds (at least I did—Mary, I’m not so sure) by forcing ourselves to accept certain beliefs by reinterpreting them. To understand what I mean I need to show the Baptist distinctives and and why we had a problem with some of them.

Baptists use an acrostic to identify their beliefs, however they are not all truly distinctive, as many denominations hold these as truth as well, to varying degrees. But the Baptists never met an acrostic they didn’t like:

B ible – the sole authority for faith and practice (sola scriptura)
A utonomy or independence of the local church
P riesthood of all believers
T wo offices:

• Pastor
• Deacon

I ndividual soul liberty and responsibility
S aved, baptized church membership
T wo ordinances:

• Believer’s Baptism
• Lord’s Supper

S eparation of Church & State

There were only two that I had problems with. The first was that I still believed that the offices of pastor and deacon were both the same office. I have since come to realize that they are indeed distinct, but at the time I believed that the important thing was that there was a plurality of leadership in the church. It didn’t matter that much to me what titles they held.

The other is membership. I still do not believe that this is taught in the Bible. Every New Testament verse that a Baptist will use to convince you of the existence of local church membership are actually verses about being members of the universal (catholic) church. However—it may not be specifically stated, but in order to maintain church discipline and to hold orderly meetings and elections, a membership roll is very useful. So I accepted it on practical grounds rather than biblical.

In about 1987 I began to work in the church library. I found it a great way to minister at the church without requiring a huge time commitment. Also, I am not really good with children. This was a way that I could still be involved with them at the church in a limited way. By 2003, the other people who worked in the library retired and that left me as what you might call a “Head Librarian”, although the church has no title for this position. I only include it here to help you understand my duties.

I am currently in the process of training someone to take my place in the library. After more than 20 years, I am getting very tired of it. I will elaborate more in the next chapter.

My time at GBC has been fruitful. Each of my sons went through their respective crises of faith, one worse than the other, but I will just leave that there. Those are their stories, not mine. They both found their Savior, have dedicated their lives to him, and are seeking his will for their future.

Mike, the elder of the two, is still living at home and at the time of this writing is working at Pine Ridge Bible Camp for the third summer in a row. He is hoping to still make it to Bible college someday and become a pastor.

Matthew is married to Amy, a wonderful Christian woman who Mary and I have grown to love as if she were our own daughter. They complement each other very well. They have been married for over two years, and by the looks of it, you would think that they are still dating.