No, I’m not converting, although I enjoyed my 1983 visit to the Vatican. But yesterday, columnist Kirsten Powers announced on Fox News that she was joining the Catholic Church today. Not many years ago she moved from non belief to Evangelical Christianity, and she has been attending an Anglican church with friends of mine.
Many Catholics on social media have hospitably welcomed here. From a Protestant stance, her move from one church to another neither adds to nor subtracts from God’s Kingdom. May He continue to bless her faith.
Presumably she will explain her faith transition. As a political liberal who is more traditional on moral and social issues, she very likely admires the current Pope and appreciates Catholic social teaching. In Washington, D.C., and in wider intellectual circles, conversions from Protestantism to Catholicism are not uncommon. There is a thirst for the intellectual resources and historic continuity of Catholicism, amplified by Mainline Protestantism’s collapse and modern Evangelicalism’s lack of a rich tradition.
My own IRD will soon announce an initiative that we hope will, in some way, help stimulate serious Protestant thought in one important public policy area. Of course, many others are working to restore Protestant/Evangelical intellectual life, grounding it more seriously in historic Christian thought. Generic Evangelicalism, thanks partly to the decline of denominational loyalties and traditions, is too often disconnected from the Body of Christ prior to modern memory.
For better or worse, I’ve never considered leaving my own lifelong Methodism, despite my own denomination’s failures, divisions and absurdities. As I once explained, only half kiddingly, to a skeptical post denominational Millennial, Methodism to my own mind represents the highest form of Christian thought and practice.
More seriously, I’ve always considered my Methodism, as hopefully all Christians regard their church affiliation, a matter of calling. God placed me there according to His purpose. More selfishly, or lazily, perhaps, I simply, after a lifetime of Methodist worship, don’t feel fully comfortable in other traditions. In more liturgical churches I get impatient with all the readings. In less liturgical churches, I’m impatient with the lack of structure. It’s a matter of habit, rather than theological conviction, probably.
Charles de Gaulle once grandiosely but significantly explained his Catholicism as the result of history and geography. Americans are preoccupied by individual choice, but actually we are all the fruit of some destiny transmitting through the actions of our ancestors. Most of my ancestors were Scots-Irish Presbyterians, English Anglicans and French Huguenots who later became Methodist. The Anglo-Protestant experience has guided my spiritual and intellectual formation.
Catholicism has to me always seemed a little exotic and mysterious, from my earliest boyhood, when I could smell the incense outside the Catholic church down the street. I’ve long regarded the papacy as I do the English monarchy: not for me, but appreciative for it, admiring of it, and wishing it success in a world too often bereft of moral legacy and ballast.
Currently I’m crafting legislation about the church’s ethical teachings for the next United Methodist governing General Conference. Mostly I’m relying on help from Catholic resources about assisted suicide, theology of marriage and body, and the vocation of the state, for which I’m grateful. The Catholic Church’s insights from across the centuries are gifts to all, and Protestants/Evangelicals should not hesitate to attribute credit, while also working harder to enrich our own theological and moral understandings. Whatever strengthens one part of the Body of Christ contributes to the vitality of the whole Body.
Comment by Don Bryant on October 10, 2015 at 9:15 pm
I am always intrigued by the phenomenon of the intellectual and media elite converting to RC after the convert to Christ throug Evangelicalism. I pisted this on my Facebook today — Another of the media elite convert to Roman Catholicism after being brought to Christ through Evangelicalism – Kirsten Powers. Tim Keller’s Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan was instrumental is Powers’ spiritual development. This is always interesting to me. Somehow as traditional as the RC church is and conservative on such issues as women in ministry, the elite prefer it to Evangelicalism. My guess is that the elite continue to espouse a more liberal position on such issues but find the liturgy of the RC church and its sacramentalism more acceptable than the populism of Evangelicalism with its fundamentalist wing. I have met very sophisticated women scholars who in no way agree with the RCs on social issues or tend toward its very mystical supernaturalism but find it more acceptable than identification with Protestant Evangelicalism. I have asked them how they made this transition. Their answer is essentially is that they gain more than they lose by avoiding “hot gospelers,” the fervent and zealous brand of Protestant piety. Even RC is preferable to that for them. I am not making an assertion about Kirsten Powers. But her conversion to Rome fits into the larger narrative of the preference of the cultural elite for the RC church.
Comment by John Albertson on October 10, 2015 at 10:02 pm
That paramount convert, John Henry Newman, reared as an Evangelical Anglican, famously said after he converted to Catholicism: “To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
Comment by Andre Van Mol, MD on October 10, 2015 at 10:51 pm
And yet, one can consider Roman Catholicism the original Protestantism. It did split from Orthodox Christianity, which has a stronger claim to originalism and a long intellectual tradition as well. And I say this as a Pentecostal Protestant.
Comment by Lou Pizzuti on October 13, 2015 at 10:01 am
Andre, your history is, at best, flawed.
I would read Clement’s (First) Epistle to the Corinthians.
In particular, the following
“But if some be disobedient to the words which have been spoken by him through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no little danger but we shall be guiltless of this sin’ (59, 1-2). Such an authoritative tone cannot be adequately accounted for on the ground of the close cultural relations existing between Corinth and Rome. The writer is convinced that his actions are prompted by the Holy Spirit: ‘For you will give us joy and gladness, if you render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit’ (63, 2).
If, as non-Catholics claim, the Bishop has local authority, why would a bishop of Rome take such authority in writing to Corinth?
Also, consider:
“to the Synod [of Corinth] … we have directed such writings that all the brethren may know . . .that there must be no withdrawlw from our judgment. For it never has been allowed that that be discussed again which has been once decided by the Apostolic See. – Pope St Boniface I, from the Epistle “Retro majoribus tuis” to Rufus, Bishop of Thessaly, March 11, 422
Clear documentary evidence of the practice of Papal Infallibility (not with the term, of course, but the principle) from the first half of the first millennium.
The disingenuous Orthodox view that there was never any thought of such things during the early centuries was one of the reason I became Catholic.
Comment by Quartermaster on December 27, 2015 at 8:25 pm
His position is defensible. You may not like his history, but that’s your problem.
Comment by Quartermaster on December 27, 2015 at 8:27 pm
The Anglican Church wasn’t really evangelical when Newman was alive. Newman’s assertion on history is, at best, problematic. Many Evangelical scholars are steeped in History, yet do not become Roman Catholic.
Comment by Gregg on October 12, 2015 at 6:06 pm
I’m not sure I would call Kirsten Powers an “intellectual,” but she certainly is an “elite.” Close enough. As Peter Viereck wrote over a half century ago, “Anti-Catholicism is the anti-semiticism of the intellectual.” It makes this conversion interesting.
Comment by Bershawn300 on September 12, 2016 at 12:05 am
I converted to Catholicism because I found Jesus in the Catholic Church. Period.
Comment by Andre Van Mol, MD on October 10, 2015 at 10:51 pm
And yet, one can consider Roman Catholicism the original Protestantism. It did split from Orthodox Christianity, which has a stronger claim to originalism and a long intellectual tradition as well. And I say this as a pentecostal protestant.
Comment by CatherineA on October 11, 2015 at 11:16 pm
Just for the record, the Catholic Church did not leave the Orthodox Church. It was the other way around, and I believe most historians see it that way as well. I’ve never heard your description before. It doesn’t even make sense, since the CC still has a pope and the OC has not had a pope since the schism; it is divided into patriarchates.
Comment by Glenn Sunshine on October 12, 2015 at 11:04 am
Actually, Andre is right on this. The First Council of Nicea (325 AD) said that the significance of a bishop was proportional to the significance of the city in which he was located; that meant there were five patriarchates, one of which was Rome. Since Rome was the titular center of the Empire, the bishop of Rome was considered a first among equals but was not given jurisdiction over the other patriarchates. Popes began making extra claims after this largely because the real capital of the Empire had shifted to Constantinople and they were afraid of losing their position. Further, aside from the jurisdictional question, the main theological difference between the two was the addition of the word “filioque” to the Nicene Creed. Here, the West clearly changed the creed unilaterally with the East preserving the original tradition. Under these circumstances, since the West introduced the change, they split from the East, not the other way around. The reason most historians don’t describe it this way is that we have a very western European view of church history. The facts, particularly about the filioque, are beyond dispute. Everything depends on the spin you place on them, and as near as I can tell as a church historian (and not Orthodox), you need a lot more spin to make Rome the original version of the faith than the Orthodox.
Comment by Lou Pizzuti on October 13, 2015 at 10:00 am
Glenn, I would read Clement’s (First) Epistle to the Corinthians.
In particular, the following
“But if some be disobedient to the words which have been spoken by him through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no little danger but we shall be guiltless of this sin’ (59, 1-2). Such an authoritative tone cannot be adequately accounted for on the ground of the close cultural relations existing between Corinth and Rome. The writer is convinced that his actions are prompted by the Holy Spirit: ‘For you will give us joy and gladness, if you render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit’ (63, 2).
If, as non-Catholics claim, the Bishop has local authority, why would a bishop of Rome take such authority in writing to Corinth?
Also, consider:
“to the Synod [of Corinth] … we have directed such writings that all the brethren may know . . .that there must be no withdrawlw from our judgment. For it never has been allowed that that be discussed again which has been once decided by the Apostolic See. – Pope St Boniface I, from the Epistle “Retro majoribus tuis” to Rufus, Bishop of Thessaly, March 11, 422
Clear documentary evidence of the practice of Papal Infallibility (not with the term, of course, but the principle) from the first half of the first millennium.
The disingenuous Orthodox view that there was never any thought of such things during the early centuries was one of the reason I became Catholic.
Comment by Quartermaster on December 27, 2015 at 8:23 pm
I’ve read Clement’s letter to the Corinthians and find no such assertion of authority as your assert. The quote is out of context.
Comment by Mike Ward on October 12, 2015 at 12:46 pm
The Latin and Greek churches grew apart for centuries before finally ceasing to recognize each other. Neither left the other. They just split in two.
Comment by Quartermaster on December 27, 2015 at 8:20 pm
Hogwash! The split was mutual. The Eastern Church has consistently rejected the RCC idea of the Pope and for very good reason.
Comment by Heil Hitler on October 12, 2015 at 12:51 pm
Слава Богу – победа Православним Хришћанима!
(Glory to God – victory to the Orthodox Christians!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MkA1UeHi_4
Comment by Gregg on October 12, 2015 at 5:47 pm
I didn’t know that the Orthodox Church produced Chick Tracts!
Sounds like that’s where you got your Church history from.
Comment by ken on October 11, 2015 at 9:49 am
The idea that people convert from evangelicalism to Catholicism because of history or tradition is nonsense. It’s not about theology, it’s about real estate: face it, despite all its negative publicity, the RC church has the biggest and oldest churches, physical riches and a distinctive “brand name” beyond what any other denomination has. However, if you believe that the essence of Christianity is faith, not physical accoutrements, Protestant evangelicals have nothing to be ashamed of. A student at an evangelical seminary like Fuller or Gordon-Conwell or Asbury will inevitably study the theology of Augustine, Aquinas, and the other great names in RC and Orthodox tradition – those are OUR theologians too, after all, no matter what church we attend. For me, the beauty of evangelicalism is that we measure everything by the New Testament – so we can appreciate Augustine and Aquinas where they agree with the New Testament, but discard traditions that clearly do not agree with the NT. We do not accept Mariolatry in any form (Jesus’ mother is never mentioned outside of the Gospels and one brief mention in Acts), nor the whole hierarchy of pope and cardinals and bishops, nor clerical celibacy, nor transubstantiation. Thankfully, we are long past the days when evangelicals and RCs hated each other, but there is still way too much non-biblical baggage in the RC tradition. You are much more likely to find “mere Christianity” in an evangelical church than in the RC or any liturgical church. As I said, evangelical seminaries do expose students to RC theology, so we are far more ecumenical than the RC, Orthodox, or mainline seminaries, where students will probably never read a word of theology written by evangelicals. Considering the huge number of evangelicals (we outnumber the mainlines, and far outnumber the Eastern Orthodox), it’s certainly amazing that anyone could study for the ministry and never even take notice of the many excellent theologians and Bible scholars on the evangelical side. Globally, evangelicalism is growing – you’d think that non-evangelical Christians might at least show a little curiosity about why it is growing.
Comment by CatherineA on October 11, 2015 at 11:12 pm
It isn’t nonsense, Ken. History and tradition are part of why I converted; they are certainly what got me started.
But ultimately it was theology; once I was able to set my prejudices aside and hear what the Catholic Church actually teaches, as opposed to what so many non-Catholic Christians *think* it teaches, and why, it all began to make sense.
Comment by Geoff Martineau on October 12, 2015 at 9:15 am
I agree that it’s not nonsense. For decades there has been a small but significant trickle from the evangelicalism to the more liturgical faiths. My wife and I grow impatient with fellow evangelicals who seem to think they just invented the Church, or who reflexively seem to view newer as better, and we have seen the value of liturgy. While I could never personally imagine converting to Catholicism (e.g. the only “conversion” I think I need(ed) was the one to Christ some years ago; if the RC Church thinks differently that itself is a barrier) I understand the thinking.
Comment by ken on October 13, 2015 at 9:44 am
I’m sure there are evangelicals who fit your description, but not all do. I certainly don’t believe “newer is better,” quite the contrary. There are many people, myself included, who believe that living by the New Testament is the real “apostolic succession.” I respect people who attend the liturgical churches, but liturgy is not essential for the Christian life. Many practices are old but not necessarily biblical. I find things like robes and incense and stained glass to be distractions from real worship, but other Christians feel differently. That’s fine.
Comment by Patrick98 on October 19, 2015 at 9:15 am
Ha Ha Ha Ken! “Liturgy” means “work of the people”. That “work” includes prayer, song, hearing the word, generous service. You say they are not essential for the Christian life. So tell me, what is essential for the Christian life? What is the very least a person can believe and do and still be a Christian?
Comment by Bill Scudder on February 28, 2016 at 2:41 pm
Catholics need to repent of their works and believe in Christ alone for salvaton and come out of the RCC.
Comment by Rita Simpson Martell on April 19, 2017 at 1:20 pm
Repent what works, Bill?
Comment by Bershawn300 on September 11, 2016 at 11:49 pm
Please explain the robes and incense in St. John’s vision in the book of Revelation.
Comment by ken on October 13, 2015 at 9:39 am
There is a lot of misunderstanding between RCs and evangelicals. I think that is changing, thankfully.
Comment by Lou Pizzuti on October 13, 2015 at 9:26 am
Ken, it was history and theology that were behind my conversion 20+ years ago
Comment by ken on October 13, 2015 at 9:38 am
I was generalizing. I’m sure there are exceptions, such as yourself.
Comment by Jennifer P on October 13, 2015 at 10:36 am
I disagree.
I know several people who were raised in mainline Protestantism, flirted with a few Evangelical Churches, but eventually became Catholics. The cause for each of them to leave the churches they grew up in was abandonment of the theological and moral teachings that are clear in Scripture. Right now they appear to be only fully affirmed with the Catholic Church. Mainline Protestants have replaced solid doctrine with relativism. Evangelicals mean well but have no education and don’t seem to know about most of Christian history and theology (most could not explain the Trinity, competently discuss life issues, or argue anything from Scripture).
Comment by Dan Horsley on October 14, 2015 at 2:20 pm
The evangelicals I know, and I know lots of them, do not fit your stereotypes at all, which makes me think you haven’t been around them much. My church is full of very well-educated people who also know the Bible well and are adept at theology. In surveys, evangelicals rank much higher when it comes to reading the Bible on their own time, whereas Catholics and mainline Protestants rarely do. For the, the biggest appeal of evangelicalism is that we are Bible-based, and we read the Bible for ourselves as well as attending churches where pastors know the Bible well. I don’t mean to sound offensive, but in my interactions with Catholics, I have yet to meet one who knows the Bible well. I’m sure there are some, but I don’t think they are the majority.
Comment by Bill Scudder on February 28, 2016 at 2:38 pm
Amen. Catholics I know do not know anything about being born again and think if you do good works you go to heaven.
Comment by Bershawn300 on September 11, 2016 at 11:24 pm
Horseshit.
Comment by Rita Simpson Martell on April 19, 2017 at 1:19 pm
Catholics actually know a lot about being born again but don’t use your terminology. It is called Confirmation, one of the sacraments! We then renew our oaths each year when we renounce the devil and all his works and affirm Christ as our Saviour. Educate yourself before making pronouncements, please.
As for doing good works, yes, we believe that since we have already accepted Christ as our Saviour, we had better not be going around committing sins and still expect to go to heaven. That would be against our idea of being “Christlike” or “Christian” which is what we strive to be. I hope that clears up a few things for you
Comment by MM on October 13, 2015 at 5:08 pm
The reason the RC does not expose students to Evangelical theology is because they disagree with it. More importantly than that, the central doctrine of the RC is that the church is the center of faith and practice. Therefore, by definition, they cannot espouse anything but their own doctrine, lest they join the rest of Christian believers (and tacitly deny their own doctrine). Their canon lawyers don’t teach this centrality of Church (nor Mariolatry, nor salvation by works) but their practice belies their true belief.
The RC replaced the Jews (in their mind). They believe they are God’s priesthood mediator to man. Period. They can suffer no rivals. There’s no Christ in that. There’s no Spirit either.
Comment by quisutDeusmpc on October 29, 2015 at 1:27 pm
This is a gross caricature. If you go to many Catholic seminaries you will find an evangelical teaching there, as well as an Orthodox, and, believe it or not, Jews. While there was a time when what you are describing was prevalent, prior to the Second Vatican Council, the Shoah, WWI and WWII, the October Revolution, the French Enlightenment, and the memory of the Thirty Years War, and the collapse of the ‘liberal’ Protestant establishment / ecumenical movement, were benchmarks. Ever since the pontificate of Pope Leo XIII, the catholic Church progressively shed the skin of the “ancien regime” (the concordat between Church and state) and began to SLOWLY embrace liberal, democratic polities and market economies all the while eschewing the excesses and unregulated extremes of both.
It is worth considering why, on the night of His betrayal, the prayer of the soon to be dead God-man, invoked “ut unum sint” (that they may all be one)? Many Christians can facilely tell you why Jesus Christ died, but they have more of a difficult time describing why He lived? Yes, to “fulfill” sacred Scripture, but to what end? He preached that He was about building something. Seen in the lot of the ‘qahal’ of ethnically and religiously sectarian, ancient Judaism, the universal “ekklesia” (called out assembly of both Jew and Gentile) IS “the kingdom of God”, His People of God. Is it possible to love the King, but hate His kingdom (keeping in mind Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer, Knox, Bucer, Melanchthon, Hooker, et al wouldn’t appear on the historical scene for 1,500 years) in light of Judaism’s organic understanding of the People of God and Jesus’ Christ indissoluble union with His Bride, the Church (cf. Ephesians 5: 29-32)? My point is there is much more to this than supercessionism or a megalomaniacal ego trip.
Comment by MM on October 29, 2015 at 4:00 pm
It’s my belief that the ecumenical movement you reference is more about welcoming wayward Christians back to the “mother church” than it is fellowship with unallegiant Christians. That’s not ecumenical, that’s strategy for conversion.
It’s good to know the RC has shed the skin of church-state entanglement. Not sure that’s the best metaphor, though. 🙂 An allusion to reformation probably would better suit the reality.
I’m all for unity, if we follow the adage: in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.
Unfortunately the RC does not share with the other churches the essentials of 1) salvation only by Christ; 2) truth source is Scripture only; and 3) the universal church.
Just a nit-pick, who uttered Latin, Caesar or Jesus? Et tu, Brute?
Comment by quisutDeusmpc on October 29, 2015 at 4:14 pm
The Church has always upheld that salvation is through, with, and in Jesus Christ (“solus Christus”). He alone is the eternally and uniquely begotten Son of God incarnate in the virgin Mary, Mother of God.
‘In re’ divine revelation, however, even the sacred Scriptures attest that divine revelation is not confined to the written word of God (cf. e. g. John 20: 30; John 21: 25). Divine revelation is first existential – that is, God breaks into time and space from eternity and infinity and encounters man in some way (e. g. Moses and the burning bush). God then commands that existential encounter be shared with the people of God in general by oral proclamation (oral tradition). Then, later still, a codified, summarized account of God’s breaking into history, its oral proclamation, the institutions established as a result, etc. is written down and ALSO becomes divine revelation for those who will come after.
Comment by MM on October 30, 2015 at 4:10 pm
That’s all fine and well. Here’s my experience: RCC canon lawyers are smart and clever enough to answer questions that harmonize with the Scripture. But here’s the reality: RCC tradition becomes at least equal (and often preferential) to the authority of the Word of God. Secondly, salvation by grace becomes bastardized by the RCC’s requirement of the participant’s merit (I know — they say that Christ has enabled us to do the merit – that’s just a lawyer’s trick — here’s another: “depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is”). And third, when you want to refer to the RCC, call it the RCC, not “the Church.” There’s only Jesus’ church (which no human institution can claim ownership or stewardship of). Nothing wrong with a human institution, but let’s not exalt it in place of the true Body.
Comment by quisutDeusmpc on October 30, 2015 at 11:25 pm
I must be quite candid and say, I strenuously doubt you have EVER met an “RCC canon lawyer”. I have been a Catholic for six and a half years and have never met one. Unless someone had a case before a Catholic matrimonial tribunal there wouldn’t be a reason, in general, why a Catholic would, much less a Protestant. In my opinion, that appellation “RCC canon lawyer” is credibly deniable code for any Catholic who is conversant enough with history and theology and capable of relating with biblical parlance intelligently on theological topics, as a backhanded ‘compliment’. I must say I find it a calumnious caricature and highly insulting ‘ad hominem’. I am candidly addressing the points you are making.
As I mentioned in the last post, “sola Scriptura” / “the Bible alone” is even recognized in the sacred Scriptures as not being the only means of divine revelation: sacred Tradition (the existential, lived encounter of the People of God with God is a source of God’s divine revelation), the Magisterium (the prophetic, living teaching authority in the Church) AND sacred Scriptures are the means, historically, God has employed to reveal Himself to humanity. Jesus Christ steps out of eternity and into time (sacred Tradition), sends the Apostles (the Magisterium), who record a summarized, codified account (sacred Scriptures). That continues down to the present day in the Church. “Sola Scriptura” is theologically untenable and ahistorical.
Of the five “sola”s of the Protestant reformation, it may surprise you to know that the catholic Church holds unqualifiedly or unequivocally to three of them: “solus Christus” (Christ alone); “sola gratia” (grace alone); “soli Deo gloria” (to God’s glory alone). It is only “sola Scriptura” and “sola fide” to which the Church objects, and then only qualifiedly. It wholeheartedly embraces both the sacred Scriptures and faith, only objecting to the word “only” or “alone”: an issue of formal versus material sufficiency with regards to the Bible and of the exclusion of good works in regards to ‘faith alone’.
The word “catholic” is not nefarious. It comes from the Greek “kata holos” (literally, ‘according to the whole’ and by extension, ‘universal’ – i. e. both Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female, etc.). And the word ‘Church’ comes from the Greek word “ekklesia” (literally, ‘the called out assembly’ which corresponds to the Hebrew ‘qahal’, referring to Israel communally assembled around the “Tabernacle of Meeting” in the wilderness or on pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem during the high holy days). “Roman Catholic” like “Protestant” etymologically were pejorative designations by their respective interlocutors. With all due respect to you, I’m sure you consider whatever communion you identify with as the expression of God’s Church or you wouldn’t, hopefully, be there, so please don’t presume to tell me how I may or may not refer to Jesus Christ’s one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
Comment by Bill Scudder on February 28, 2016 at 2:44 pm
RC’s have to go to purgatory to pay for there sins. Christ did not do enough.
Comment by quisutDeusmpc on February 29, 2016 at 4:14 pm
That is an inaccurate presentation of the Church’s teaching. Jesus Christ and He alone is uniquely true God from trueGod and the miraculously conceived but fully human son of the blessed virgin Mary (cf. e. g. John 1: 1-5, 14, 18; & Colossians 2: 9). The “salvation” Jesus Christ won for us is real and fully efficacious: it truly liberates us from slavery to the dominion of Satan, sin, and death.
However, while we are redeemed, no one would deny we continue to live in the world where, on the one hand, our redemption has been accomplished (by Jesus Christ’s unique Paschal death, descent into hell, resurrection from the dead, and the pouring out into the Church of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost), we ALSO are not living in the eschaton (our supernatural destiny in heaven with the Holy Trinity, the blessed virgin Mary, the angels and saints). It is a time of the “now” AND “not yet”. In this time, there are both supernatural and natural effects to our sinful acts (e. g. we incur moral guilt before God for lying or stealing, or committing adultery, there is still a restitution to be made to the injured parties: telling the truth to our parents that we lied, returning or paying for a stolen object to a shopkeeper, ending an affair, admitting to our spouse we were unfaithful and attempting to heal the breach).
While Jesus Christ’s atoning death, “pays the penalties for our sins”, WE still have to make restitution for the evil we do in order to restore to the physical, natural realm, the lack that was left or the reparation necessary to restore order to the material realm: thieves, although they repent, still may incur a jail sentence and be sued civilly for the business owner’s loss of money due to the theft; our parent’s will put us on probation, not fully trusting us, until we demonstrate by a consistent pattern of life and truth-telling, that we are worthy again of their trust; our spouse may separate from us for a time or even civilly divorce us, and that does not absolves us from the responsibility for paying alimony and child support, and attempting, as much as possible, to be a father to our scandalized children, etcetera.
Purgatory DOES NOT have ANYTHING to do with the supernatural / spiritual aspects of sin. Confessing those sins, doing penance, and amending our lives makes us participants in Jesus Christ’s supernatural salvation and reconciles us to God. HOWEVER, we STILL have to make satisfaction to our parents (tell them we lied, tell them the truth, and go about attempting to restore our relationship of trust with them / become trustworthy again); we STILL have to return the stolen object to the shopkeeper, offer to pay the value of the stolen item, and be prepared to be criminally prosecuted for that behavior; we STILL have to end the adulterous affair, inform our spouses of our infidelity, and attempt to reconcile our relationship or be prepared to suffer the consequences of unforgiveness.
IF that material satisfaction for our sins to restore a communal order in the natural realm isn’t made IN THIS LIFE (NOT for the supernatural / spiritual effects of sin: Jesus Christ has done that and we participate in that salvific forgiveness in the sacrament of Reconciliation), we MUST make it in the next life, in order to be fit for heaven. There is no stain of sin in heaven. We must be purged of our dross, either in this life or in the next. And in spite of our tendency to eulogize people as if we all were saints, most of us die in a state wherein we are NOT YET perfect.
Purgatory (the same root of which is in the words ‘purge’, ‘purgation’, and ‘purification’) is the state wherein we make satisfaction for those aspects of our sin which persist in the moral order for which we did not make material satisfaction (let’s say I confessed the sin of lying, but never told my parents; or confessed the sin of stealing, but never paid the shopkeeper for his loss of revenue, or confessed an affair but never informed my spouse, etc.). This puts an imbalance in the material moral order which must be put right. That is Purgatory. NOT that Catholics have to work their way into heaven; NOT that they have to pay the price for their own sins (they cannot do that, only the unique God-man, Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord, can reconcile us with the Father); BUT RATHER the satisfaction necessary to purge our souls of the damage done in the material realm due to the defects from our sins and the purging of the dross in our souls in Purgatory.
Comment by Bershawn300 on September 11, 2016 at 11:42 pm
You are misapplying and misinterpreting this doctrine. That is not what the doctrine of purgatory states.
Comment by Bershawn300 on September 11, 2016 at 11:41 pm
The Catholic Church DOES acknowledge that salvation is only through Christ…for there is no other name in heaven or on earth by which men might be saved.
You are correct that the RC Church does not acknowledge the truth source to be ‘Scripture only’, BECAUSE THE SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES say that the ‘Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth.’ 1 Timothy.
Thereby acknowledging that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition work in tandem.
Lastly, the Catholic Church IS the universal Church (what other ‘denomination’ do you see spread across the globe in all countries?) and the very word ‘catholic’ means in Greek ‘universal’!
Comment by Quartermaster on April 11, 2017 at 9:15 pm
The catholic Church is not the Roman Catholic Church.
Comment by Bershawn300 on September 11, 2016 at 11:37 pm
Absolute rubbish. JESUS IS THE CENTER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. EVERY LAST DOCTRINE, EVERY LAST PRACTICE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS DONE TO honor and promote JESUS!
And the very Holy Scriptures attest that: THE CHURCH IS THE PILLAR AND BULWARK OF TRUTH. 1 Timothy 3:15.
Comment by Quartermaster on April 11, 2017 at 9:14 pm
Once more, not so. There are actually two sets of teachings in the RCC, those that are official, and those not. Once good example of the difference is Maryolatry. Maryolatry is so bad you had a Pope who had as his motto “Mary, I’m all yours.” Hardly a Christ centered doctrine.
Comment by quisutDeusmpc on October 29, 2015 at 12:57 pm
This sounds to me more like irredentist, subjective projection than it does objectively real or ‘true’: vis a vis, The people who leave evangelicalism are being superficial (it is an aesthetic consideration), not profoundly filled with faith (the old fundamentalist / evangelical Ephesians 2: 8, 9 ‘go to’) or called (in the sense of ‘vocation’ – God calling them. Then the oblique reference to ‘sola Scriptura’ / ‘the Bible alone’ [i. e. and God knows (to be read, ‘We evangelicals know’) those Catholics have got THAT wrong]. And then the statement from ignorance: our seminaries are ecumenical, THEIRS aren’t.
Comment by Bershawn300 on September 11, 2016 at 11:43 pm
“It’s not about theology, it’s about real estate”! I almost fell over in my chair.
Um…no weisenheimer….it’s TOTALLY about theology. It is about the Real Presence of Christ being in Catholic Churches in a way that it can never/will never be in Protestant Churches.
It’s about reams and reams of good theology that finally explains all those niggling Protestant loopholes like….what happened during the so-called ‘intertestamental period’..? Why is the phrase ‘faith alone’ not mentioned except to say that it is NOT by faith alone that we are saved, but by faith working itself out in love? And how can protestants just ‘gloss over’ the many many passages that talk about obedience, faith expressed through deeds, etc.?
WHere is Scripture does it say that ‘Scripture interprets Scripture’ anyways? It’s not in there. Meanwhile, Scripture DOES say that the Church is the ‘pillar and bulwark of truth’. 1 Timothy 3:15.
It’s about finding a theology that finally acknowledges both God’s sovereign will AND man’s free will, without doing harm to either (ie Aquinas). And it’s about realizing that everything we were *told* about Catholic theology and history was wrong, wrong wrong. Catholic teaching has ALWAYS acknowledged grace…don’t know where Luther was coming from on that one. Catholic teaching has ALWAYS acknowledged the authority of scripture…just also acknowledged that the Church’s interpretative tradition is necessary for properly interpreting scripture (you would think by now Protestants would see how ragged they are being run, what with everyone claiming to interpret scripture for him or herself in Prot. circles and ending up with wildly competing interpretations).
Catholic theology trumps protestant ‘theology’ any day. It is Catholic theology, Catholic history, the grace of God and the Presence of Christ in His Church THAT DREW ME INTO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND OUT OF THE SELF-REFERENTIAL ABYSS THAT IS PROTESTANTISM. Anything good left in Protestantism is residual from Catholicism.
Peace. An Evangelical Catholic
Comment by Bershawn300 on April 10, 2017 at 9:46 pm
I became Catholic because I realized Jesus was present in the RCC like He is nowhere present on earth. And that this was the Church He had established. Therefore I had no other choice. Jesus or nothing.
Comment by Quartermaster on April 11, 2017 at 9:17 pm
I became catholic when I turned my life over to Christ. That is far different than becoming Roman Catholic.
Comment by Bershawn300 on April 11, 2017 at 10:12 pm
You are correct. Turning one’s life over to Christ and joining the visible Church He founded are two different (though obviously related things). For my part, coming to faith in Him was also done outside of His Church. However, later, out of love for and obedience to Him, I joined the Church He founded too. And the Church Our Lord Jesus Christ founded is, to my amazement, the Roman Catholic Church.
Comment by Quartermaster on April 12, 2017 at 10:02 am
One does not join the Church to become a Christian. One joins the Church when they become a Christian.
The problem you exemplify is one which results from two things, lack of scriptural knowledge, and placing tradition on, or even above, scripture. The author of scripture is God, and anything that clashes with scripture, such as what you posted, must be rejected as false.
The Roman Catholic Church is the result of an east-west split. You can carry on with your nonsense all you like, it won’t change that simple fact. The rolls for the Church Christ founded are kept in heaven, not Rome.
Comment by Bershawn300 on April 12, 2017 at 10:15 am
You are confused. (and I probably know my Scripture better than you, so I wouldn’t go there).
Earlier in your comments you were making claims to the effect that a person is part of the church (invisible I presume?) when one becomes a Christian. Now you are claiming that one does not join the church in order to become a Christian. Which is it? Factually, one becomes part of the ‘Church’ when one becomes a Christian. Whether one goes on to recognize that there is a VISIBLE Church to join is between him and God.
You seem confused on the point of whether the Church is visible or invisible though.
But Christ was clear that he founded a VISIBLE Church on earth. (This can be found in Matthew 16, John 20, Mark 16, Luke 22 and others). The Church Christ founded clearly has visible and tangible components to it as evidenced by Scripture.
Comment by Quartermaster on April 12, 2017 at 10:37 am
“and I probably know my Scripture better than you, so I wouldn’t go there”
Quite doubtful, given what you’ve already posted.
You have the right to believe anything you like, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, even if it is patent nonsense. I’ve seen your arguments before and see no reason to credit them this time around than the last time I saw them. You accept the RCC’s nonsense, I don’t. End of story.
Comment by OhJay on October 12, 2015 at 10:34 pm
Mark, I disagree with you on many issues facing the modern church, but I sincerely appreciate your characterization of denominational affiliation as a calling from God. I disagree with a substantial majority of my denomination’s official stances on the issues, but I have often felt “stuck” with my church because overwhelming family ties, etc, essentially mandate that I remain a member where I am.
If my unwillingness to leave is a matter of God’s call rather than human inertia, I can still feel fulfilled here as a lone(ly) voice in the wilderness rather than a man who won’t/can’t leave due to comfort factors.
You made me feel better about my faith today. Thanks for that.
Comment by Orter T. on October 14, 2015 at 5:53 pm
I second OhJay’s thoughts! For a declining denomination, there are certainly a contingent of us that feel “stuck” with the good ol’ UMC. Lucky us: most people are lodged in a dysfunctional family; obviously some of us get saddled with a dysfunctional church as well! When I monitored the Twitter feed from GC2012, I was surprised at the number of people who chimed in stating why they had left the UMC, but nevertheless, there they were monitoring GC2012.
Comment by FrChristopher Phillips on October 13, 2015 at 8:18 am
My journey from Methodism to Anglicanism, and finally to the Catholic Church was overwhelmingly because it is there that I know I receive our Lord Jesus Christ as He gave Himself to us — in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, where He comes to us completely, Body and Blood, soul and divinity. My Catholic belief and practice flows from that fact.
Comment by Pratt on October 13, 2015 at 2:53 pm
i Tim 3:15 “but if I am delayed, I write
so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of
God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the
truth.” (NKJV) So the Church is the “pillar and ground of the truth”, not your Bible. Yet you object to “non-biblical baggage”.
And, if I may, that NT portion of your Bible was written by Catholics for Catholics; there was no other church around for the next 1400 years. Those 27 NT books were selected by Catholics precisely because they did reflect the “non-biblical” teachings of the Church for the previous 349 years.
The NT is what it is.
Comment by Quartermaster on December 27, 2015 at 8:39 pm
If you mean the term “Catholic” as the generic term meaning “universal” I would agree. If you mean that in terms of the Roman Catholic Church, then your knowledge of Church History is fatally flawed.
Comment by Debbie51 on October 13, 2015 at 8:28 pm
the reason is that they are not or have forgotten they were ever born again. John3:3
Acts11:26 and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians. I apologize if I sound divisive but Christian not Catholic.
Excuse me for just being a drug addled high school dropout who gave her life to Christ at 24 and was changed forever by an encounter with Him and not theology or tradition and then has for 40 yrs continued in the faith that was once delivered to me simply thru reading God’s Word, prayer and the preaching of the Word in church and by the Holy spirit giving understanding of the doctrine as set forth in God’s Word. They were unlearned fisherman who would not be respected or accepted today by many whose great learning has made them mad.
Comment by rogersanderson on October 13, 2015 at 8:56 pm
The only way Kirsten Powers did not add or subtract to GOD’s Kingdom would be that she was not a follower of JESUS to begin with. Praying to Mary is nearly equivalent to blaspheming the HOLY SPIRIT. Having a barrier to GOD called a pope is heresy. An article I read some years ago listed the 25 most serious heresies of the catholic church those were two; hiding and protecting thousands of pedophile priests was in there too. Most Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists and Lutherans are not believers either.
Comment by JakeCarey on October 22, 2015 at 10:52 am
Roger, I am a Methodist, but I do know that the RCs don’t pray to Mary. They ask Mary to pray for them as we ask our pastor to pray for us. The Ave Maria comes from Luke:1 in the words of Gabriel and the Holy Spirit speaking through Elizabeth. The 16th Century addition of “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for me now and at the time of my death” is sort of like our addition (outside of Matthew and Luke) at the end of the Lord’s Prayer, “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.” I think we fail to give Mary her due. We have a stained glass window called “Nativity” that shows a baby in a cradle with a little sheep standing nearby. There is no mother. I find that sad. Also the address of “Mary, Mother of God” was affirmed by the Council of Ephesus in 431, which also confirmed the original Nicene Creed. Hope this is helpful.
Comment by Quartermaster on December 27, 2015 at 8:18 pm
When they ask Mary to pray for them, they are praying to Mary. Hagiolatry (Maryolatry is a special case of this) in general is unbiblical to the point of clashing with the pattern of prayer Christ gave us.
The councils are advisory. Mary is the mother of God only in the sense she bore the incarnate Christ. The part of God that becamew the Son is eternal and was not conceived of Mary as mere man is.
Comment by JakeCarey on January 14, 2016 at 4:07 pm
When I ask my Pastor to pray for me am I praying to my pastor?
Comment by Quartermaster on January 14, 2016 at 6:54 pm
No, but your pastor is alive and here. Mary is not. She has passed into eternity and she is not God.
Comment by JakeCarey on January 14, 2016 at 9:34 pm
I suggest you read Luke 1 again carefully before you write Mary off. I think we Protestants should not be so quick to pass her off into eternity. That’s just my opinion. I’m not trying to suggest that I’m a theologian.
Comment by Quartermaster on January 14, 2016 at 9:47 pm
I would suggest you take another look at Luke 1 in light of the fact that contact with the dead is forbidden by God. Asking Mary’s intercession is a form of prayer to someone other than God. Also, the only pattern for prayer given to us by Christ, at the request of the Disciples, does not allow for prayer to be directed to anyone other then God the Father. Christ later adds that we are to pray in His name to the Father.
Mary has passed into eternity. She is not present on the earth except as mortal remains buried some where in Anatolia. She now resides with Christ in heaven in anticipation of the resurrection of the body and full entry into eternity.
Comment by Bershawn300 on April 10, 2017 at 9:53 pm
Not sure how someone in the Presence of Jesus would be considered ‘dead’. The only ‘dead’ are in hell. Those in heaven are living. Fully alive in fact.
Comment by Quartermaster on April 11, 2017 at 9:24 pm
God has referred to Himself as the God of the living. Yet the principle of no contact with the dead was reinforced in the incident of Saul using the Witch of Endor the call up Samuel. The witch was actually frightened when it turned out to be a Samuel and not her familiar. Scripture also teaches that prayer is to be directed to God.
Comment by Bershawn300 on April 11, 2017 at 10:22 pm
Hm. Of course God is the God of the living. That is my point exactly. “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living! Therefore you greatly err.” Mark 12. Those who are in His Presence are more alive than we on earth currently are. We still have to wrestle against sin. Those in heaven do not. They are perfectly alive in His Presence. And again, no one is disagreeing that ‘praying to the dead’ is very bad. Of course it is! God forbid! Or praying to another person or someone other than God is also forbidden. But what is NOT forbidden is asking someone to PRAY TO GOD FOR YOU. I would ask my earthly mother to pray for me. So too I ask my heavenly mother, Mary, to pray to God for me. We don’t pray TO Mary, but we ask for prayers FROM her to God’s ear. The prepositions matter.
Comment by Quartermaster on April 12, 2017 at 10:05 am
I can ask any living person to pray for me. Asking someone that has already gone beyond the veil is forbidden.
I am quite familiar with prayers to Mary. Sorry, but scripture doesn’t agree with you. RCC tradition disagrees with scripture, and that only one of the many problems with the organization.
Comment by Bershawn300 on April 12, 2017 at 10:23 am
You are wrong.
Scripture upholds EVERY Catholic doctrine to a tee.
Meanwhile, show me in Scripture where it says praying to someone ALIVE in Christ is forbidden.
P.S. – You are forgetting that without the Catholic Church you would not have a Scripture in the first place. The Church canonized Holy Scriptures, and so without knowing it you at least place tacit faith in the ability of the Church to compile Scripture. P.S.S — It was Luther — not the Church — who added to and detracted from Scripture. The Sacred Scriptures had been held in infallible as they were for nearly 1000 years without anyone claiming that portions of them needed to be ripped out. Then, along came Luther, who essentially self-appointed himself pope, and he decided, by himself, that certain Scriptures should be relegated to the ‘back of the book’.
The reason your Bible doesn’t currently contain these Scriptures — and the Catholic and true Bible still does –(and some of the books ripped out indeed contain verses talking about intercessory prayer from those who have passed on) is because Luther singlehandedly decided to demote them.
Comment by Brian James on October 13, 2015 at 9:20 pm
Mark Tooley, you are one of the best Christian writers that I know of, but there is a problem with your thinking here. I can sense that somewhere deep in your heart you realize that Catholicism is true, and this is why you are so appreciative of its intellectual history. You also sense correctly that building up Christianity through any denomination builds up the Body of Christ (which I believe is synonymous with the Catholic Church, but that includes both the formal visible Church, and also the invisible Church of believers not formally in communion with me). But what you fail to see is how desperately the Catholic Church needs people like you to be inside the Church to fight against the current leaders of the Church. We need you… badly. Very badly. (If you don’t believe me, see http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/crisis-for-pope-francis-as-top-level-cardinals-tell-him-your-synod-could-lead-to-the-collapse-of-the-church .)
Comment by Quartermaster on December 27, 2015 at 8:37 pm
The reason the current leaders are able to do what they do is the lack of realization that those leaders are outside scriptural truth from the get go. The Roman Catholic ship will not be turned by recruiting people like Mark Tooley as the sacerdotalism of the RCC prevents any such men from being influential among the heirarchy. I wish you luck, but the RCC was already a ways from the Chrsitianity given to us by the Apostles. No “layman” will ever be able to help you in your efforts. You can only save yourself by coming from her so you don’t share in her sin.
Comment by Bershawn300 on April 10, 2017 at 9:58 pm
This is fundamentally untrue. The earliest Christians (read the Church fathers; read Ignatius of Antioch, read Polycarp; read the Didache)…they are all Catholic. The Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded.
Comment by Quartermaster on April 11, 2017 at 9:05 pm
Not so. That there was a “catholic” church is not the question. That there was not a “Roman Catholic” Church, however, is a horse of a different color. The Roman Catholic Church ias one of the two resulting organization that resulted in the RCC and Eastern orthodoxy.
Comment by Bershawn300 on April 11, 2017 at 10:04 pm
Um. Well, the ‘catholic’ Church was part of the ‘Roman Empire’ at the time. You know…the empire producing ALL THOSE MARTYRS for the faith. So, the Church was part of the Roman Empire, thus the ‘Roman’ part, it is Catholic, thus the ‘universal’ part, and its practices were all sacramental in nature…thus the ‘Roman Catholic Church’. Pretty much makes it ‘Roman’ Catholic Church’ from the beginning. Our Lord came to the Jews, who were occupied by Rome at the time of His Incarnation. I do believe He knew that He was doing. If you haven’t already done so, READ THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS. You will be amazed! Peace.
Comment by Quartermaster on April 12, 2017 at 9:56 am
I have read the Early Fathers.
The catholic Church was not part part of the empire. Polycarp would certainly be surprised you hold that bit of nonsense. The eastern Bishops did not recognize the Bishop of Rome as even first among equals. One of the problems that caused the split was the insistence on recognizing the supremacy of the Bishop Rome. The other was the filoque issue (and the east was correct on the matter).
Even after Nicaea, the Church never became a part of the Roman Empire. It existed within it, but that’s as close as it came.
Comment by Bershawn300 on April 12, 2017 at 10:37 am
Again, your view of history is lacking.
The Catholic Church was part of Roman-occupied territory.
Have you not read in the Scriptures that the Jews brought Jesus to be tried before the ROMAN courts? Pontius Pilate was a Roman. The Roman Empire very obviously had a thing or two to do with events of early Christianity, so much so that it was indeed under the Roman courts (while of course instigated by the Jews) that Our Lord was crucified. (and crucifixion was a ROMAN method of execution; it was not a Jewish method).
So the early church was indeed still *subject* to the Roman Empire and in that sense *a part of the Roman Empire* — martyrs were being killed by the ROMAN EMPIRE for going against the polytheistic system (including emperor worship) that initially was Roman Law. Because the early Christians were subject to Roman Law.
Later, Constantine, as we all know, made Christianity at least tolerable in the ROman Empire. At least after the Edict of Milan, Christians would not be persecuted. Then, even later The Edict of Thessalonica made Christianity THE ROMAN STATE RELIGION (note: this was not done by Constantine, as is commonly misstated. It was done by Theodosius and Gratian and Valentinian).
So by 380 A.D. Christianity and the Roman Empire were inextricably intertwined.
To say otherwise is to lie and to falsify history.
Comment by Quartermaster on April 11, 2017 at 9:10 pm
Not so. The question is not if there was a “catholic” church. The Roman Catholic Church, however, is the result of a split that resulted in Roman Catholicism and Eastern orthodoxy.
Comment by josh on October 13, 2015 at 10:32 pm
I became a Catholic, having been raised in a non-denominational “bible” church because I came to know it as the only Church founded by our Savior and the gates of hell will not preavail against Her.
If you mean to follow Christ, and are outside the Catholic Church, you are outside the possibility of full communion with our Lord.
Comment by Quartermaster on December 27, 2015 at 8:29 pm
The Eastern Orthodox can make exactly the same claim with as much historical grounding as the Roman Catholic Church. However, the idea is biblically unfounded. One does not become a Christian by joining a Church. One is placed in the Church by becoming a Christian.
Comment by Christian LeBlanc on October 19, 2015 at 6:02 pm
Over half of my Catholic friends here in Greenville SC are converts out of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Based on their own testimony, they typically converted because:
1. Bible study led them to the Church.
2. They came to believe it was the Church Christ founded.
And at least here, where Catholicism is fairly new, most of the churches are architecturally dreadful.
Comment by Quartermaster on December 27, 2015 at 8:33 pm
My observation of those Evangelicals that convert to Roman Catholicism is that they are poorly founded in scripture.
Comment by Bershawn300 on April 10, 2017 at 10:00 pm
My experience is exactly the opposite. I have been steeped in Scripture and it was actually taking a CLOSE look at what Scripture actually said (rather than using only the narrow Protestant hermeneutic I had been taught to look at it through) that helped led me to the Catholic Church. Every Catholic doctrine is supportable by Sacred Scripture as well as Sacred Tradition. The other part was experiencing Jesus in the Eucharist.. Jesus is present in the Catholic Church like He is nowhere present on earth.
Comment by Byrom on October 19, 2015 at 6:47 pm
I’m not going to weigh in on the Catholic vs. Protestant debate for now, but I do have my own opinion about it. Instead, I’m going to respond to Mark’s comments about his Methodism, which I understand and appreciate. I started out to be a lifelong Methodist, but got sidetracked by life and church problems along the way. My late wife and I grew up Methodist and were Methodists until 1980. At that point, we had a disagreement with the pastor of our local Methodist church and dropped out. We joined an Assemblies of God church for several years, and then dropped out of church membership altogether for some 30 years. However, we did not stop being conservative Christians. After my wife died in January 2015, I felt a strong need to find a church home, and had a choice of several Methodist and non-Methodist churches in my area. However, God clearly led me to one particular conservative Methodist congregation and nowhere else. I did not even feel any leading to visit other churches. I also learned about a new way to join the Methodist Church, and had my membership restored after a 34-year absence. I am well aware of the problems facing Methodism, especially with a General Conference coming up. But, I am very well satisfied by the adherence to Scripture and the teachings of Jesus in my local congregation. I am still a Christian first and a Methodist second, but I will stay a Methodist until God changes His mind about where I should be in terms of a Christian community.
Comment by Michael Bullock on October 19, 2015 at 9:15 pm
Just an aside re the UMC. Christ called me at a Methodist church. The failure of the bishops to stand up for Scripture, the national organization playing politics and the support for abortion drove me into the arms of the Southern Baptist church. I found that Scripture was opened and the word was rightly divided. I am indebted to the UMC. I have to say that I miss the reverence and the majesty of God that I saw there. What a prayerful attitude. Pray that your efforts to restore sound teaching succeed.
Comment by Quartermaster on December 27, 2015 at 8:30 pm
I find it ironic that the “Prince of Preachers” Charles Spurgeon came to Christ in a Methodist Church and then became a Calvinist.
Comment by Paul Zesewitz on October 22, 2015 at 5:08 pm
Please don’t get me going on the Catholic Church! Don’t get me wrong, I have lots of friends who are Catholic and I respect them for it. And I pray they won’t be misled by the teachings of the church (and especially of pope Francis)! The Catholic Church equates its own teachings with that of the Bible, which is wrong. The Bible is where their teachings and doctrine are supposed to come from. I also have lots of respect for the office of the Holy Father, but that does not mean I have to respect the person occupying it. Pope Francis was recently quoted as saying ‘personal relationships with Jesus are harmful and dangerous’. I don’t believe that will go over too well with most Southern Baptists and conservative Methodists. And I also don’t think St. Peter (who, according to Catholic history was the first ‘pope’) would agree with him! I do not trust this current pope. I consider myself an evangelical because I believe in the authority of the Bible to be superior to that of the church, for it is God’s written word. I have never once thought of ‘converting’ to Roman Catholicism, nor will I, for that reason.
Comment by Dr. Daniel Mercaldo on October 26, 2015 at 11:40 am
My I suggest you seek some insight on the above mentioned issues from the Baptist tradition and Dr. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Seminary (SBC). He represents the largest, and still growing (if you discount their recent effort to do some honest reporting of actual active membership) group of evangelicals in America. I think you will find his blog “intellectually” stimulating.
Comment by Bershawn300 on April 10, 2017 at 10:09 pm
Lex orandi, lex credendi
Comment by Martin Gaskell on July 19, 2017 at 7:47 pm
Pope Francis is being badly quoted out of context here. People are leaving out the continuation of his sentence: it is dangerous for Christians to not be part of a church. He is attacking the “Lone Ranger” Christian approach.
Comment by Amanda on July 5, 2019 at 12:50 pm
I study not too long ago and became Catholic because of what they were teaching in words. However, one you in the church the doctrine are different and not biblical. They do pray to Mary and worship her. They do consider the pope as the representative of God in earth to forgive sin. Plus they say the Christ is really in the bread and they worship the piece of bread in what the call adoration. They offer prayers for the salvation of the death what the call novena and pray to the saint who they cannonise in the church to bring them to Jesus or serve as mediator. Yes they say Mary was a perpetual virgin. In addition to going to Pulgatory even if you have ask Jesus to forgive your sin and repented. In their mind probably was not enough. The early church right after Jesus death never had practice as what take place in the Roman Catholic Church all these were Heresy that were beginning to influence the early church and then Constantine also to make the Pegan who converted to Christianity aloud them to practice worship that was kind of similar to what they did such as lighting candles toward the death. Of course if you read the Cathechisim of the Roman Catholic Church they do not add the practice of Mary as a perpetual Virgin whose body like her son went to heaven until 1850. Gradually through time as the Roman Catholic Church spread to other Country with different form of heretical worship they will adopt their practice as making happy the people they convert. Even Martin Luther saw through it. Which is why the reformation. Yes the Catholic church during the middle ages in many country was prohibiting the masses who could not read the Latin language etc from reading a bible if one came by and them and they could read. Their view was that only the pope was able to interpret the word of God. I remember as a child seen a huge Bible in my house and my mother got merrried in the Catholic Church saying that statement. I wonder where she got that. Of course I decided my self to look into it and she is there in the History in the Middle ages to the Catholic Church. Yes all of these is Heresy. They present a form of the gospel that sound intellectually from the Bible in explanation but the reality that the practice is heretical and not find in the bible and even the church of the Christian of the first Century. And even some of the early church father disagree in their belief and you can also found some heresy their and belief not mention in the bible. So be aware of their so call theology and practices. No I am not and will not keep practicing Catholic belief that are heretical. It is sad but you mush read and become intellectual and really serve God. So many misinformation out there. I considered my self a protestant. More like a Baptist or Assembly of God. But I am very careful with the Assembly of God because some the speaking in language is nothing but just saying words that are gibrish not a language that can be interpret plus people praying to angel. Just read your scripture and be careful. Methodist is good however it is this thing that they are letting homosexual and transgender teach the word of God which it is a sin and heresy. I am not saying that if an adulterous preaching living in this condition is also far from God. God Bless you all my brothers and sister!